Pushing
the Energy Efficiency Envelope
through Appliance Standards
Around the World
John Millhone
Board member, CLASP
May 2011
Over 75 countries with more than 80 percent of the
world's population have energy standards & labeling
EFICIENCIA ENERGÉTICA
Relación de Eficiencia Energética (REE)
determinada como se establece en la
NOM-021-ENER/SCFI/ECOL-2000
REE=
Efecto neto de enfriamiento (W)
Potencia eléctrica (W)
Marca: SUPER-IRIS
Modelo: TGV024R200B
Potencia eléctrica: 860 W
Efecto neto de enfriamiento: 17 000 W
REE establecida en la norma en ( W/W )
2,49
REE de este aparato en ( W/W )
Ahorro de energía de este aparato
5%
0%
10%
15%
20%
25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Mayor
Ahorro
Menor
Ahorro
El ahorro de energía efectivo dependerá de los hábitos
de uso y localización del aparato
IMPORTANTE
Este aparato cumple con los requisitos de
seguridad al usuario y no daña la capa de ozono
La etiqueta no debe retirarse del aparato
hasta que haya sido adquirido por el consumidor final
CLASP: Global Expertise on
Energy Efficiency Standards & Labeling
The Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program’s (CLASP) primary
objective is to identify and respond to the assistance needs of S&L practitioners around
the world while making the highest quality technical information on S&L best practice
available globally.
• Established in 1999 by the Alliance to Save Energy, International Institute for Energy
Conservation, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
• Became a ClimateWorks Foundation Best Practice Network (BPN) in March of 2009.
• Became the operating agent for the Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance
Deployment SEAD Initiative in 2011.
• Formerly a small, distributed network of international experts, CLASP has expanded
and matured with over 24 team members in Beijing, China; Brussels, Belgium;
Washington, DC; and New Delhi, India.
CLASP’s Funders
CLASP Core Services
For maximum impacts, CLASP:
•
Provides technical assistance and expertise to national governments and other
stakeholders including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Product Specific Technical Analysis
Market Impacts Studies
Label design research
S&L Impacts Assessment
Product Prioritization Studies
Program Evaluation
•
Assembles and overseas project teams from diverse and highly-qualified
organizations
•
Disseminates best practice information and training
•
•
•
Guidebooks on Best Practice S&L and Compliance
Studies on Harmonization and Product Benchmarking
Regulatory Agenda Tracking
CLASP Tools
 Tools for implementers
PAMS – Policy Analysis Modeling System is one of the most promising
energy efficiency policy instruments in countries where they have been
introduced with care.
CLASP - Standards & Labeling Guidebook for Appliances, Equipment, and
Lighting
 S&L Database
The most comprehensive database on standards and labels that offers the
possibility to search current programs by product or by country. A new
version with enhanced functionalities is under development, to be
launched by October.
Current & Former Country Scope
CLASP has provided S&L technical assistance in over 50 countries on 6
continents, including Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Korea, Poland,
South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Vietnam.
Under support from the ClimateWorks Foundation, CLASP currently
provides technical support in:
• China
• European Union
• India
• Mexico
• United States
• Global Research Projects
CLASP works in additional countries and regions pending funding and
opportunity, and taking into account the global potential and country
priorities.
China
• Support Monitoring, Enforcement, and Compliance of national S&L
program in China
•
•
Round Robin Testing for room air conditioners
Check-testing for 8 different products
• Air Conditioner Metering Campaign
• To continue through 2010
• S&L Program Evaluation
•
Consumer awareness survey of information label launched in January 2010
• S&L for Computers & Servers
• Technical support and coordination from CLASP, CSEP, LBNL, and CNIS
Europe
• Technical Analysis on Standards
• “Study to Assess Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Heating
Appliances/Systems for New and Existing Buildings in EU and EEA Member
Countries and Propose Cost-Effective Solutions to Removing Them”
• Technical Analysis for Air Conditioners forthcoming; working to identify
additional products for analysis, per the EC’s calendar
• Analysis on Compliance and Monitoring in the EU and Member States
• “Study to Assess the Monitoring, Verification and Evaluation (MV&E)
Capabilities and Practices for the Implementation of the Ecodesign and
Labelling Directives in each EU Member State and EEA Country”
• Technical Analysis on Labeling
• Developing revised strategy to address issues concerning implementation of
new label, including preparing for its scheduled revision in 2014, and
monitoring of its impact on market uptake of energy efficient products
India
• Support BEE in Developing S&L for New Products
• Draft Policy brief forthcoming
• Baseline and S&L Thresholds for Consumer Electronics
• Baseline and S&L Thresholds for Additional Products
• Impact Assessment and Monitoring
• Phase 1 of Impact Assessment for Refrigerators and Air Conditioners S&L
Program complete; Second Phase initiated
• Impact Assessment for additional products forthcoming: ceiling fans,
televisions, storage water heaters (geysers), and fluorescent tube lights
• Providing staff support to BEE
• Support Shakti in Promotion and Outreach activities
• Harmonization of Test Procedures for Computers & Servers
• Report on Market Transformation Strategies forthcoming (3 Products)
Latin America
• Support to CONUEE of Mexico
• Focusing on MEPS for high energy savings potential
• Perspective to align with US and Canadian standards
• Support to Fundacion Chile/CNE-PPEE
• Technical Assistance on complementary policies and evaluation of certification
system
• Technical Assistance on EE standards and MEPS for gas appliances
• Support to ENARGAS of Argentina
• Technical Assistance on EE standards and MEPS for gas appliances
• Collaboration with OLADE (Latin America Energy Organization; Quito,
Ecuador)
• For regional trainings on S&L Building Blocks
United States
• Initiated work on a snapshot study of US compliance
• For EnergyGuide, Energy Star, and Federal Energy Efficiency Standards
• Coordinate US Labeling Working Group
• Collaborating with ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, Alliance to Save Energy(ASE)
• Provide ASAP working groups with product-specific expertise and technical
analysis for standards development
Cross-Cutting/Global Research
• Opportunities for Success and CO₂ Savings from Appliance Energy Efficiency
Harmonization (Paul Waide)
• The objective of this study is to document the products and regions wherein
Standards and Labeling harmonization has succeeded or is likely to succeed or
where there is alignment potential;
• The resources required for that success; the energy and CO2 savings likely
attributable to that success;
• Estimates of the overall cost savings resulting from reduced transaction costs
as a result of a harmonized standard versus varying standards by country.
• Monitoring, Verification, and Enforcement (Mark Ellis)
• The objective of the study is to survey and then develop a better
understanding of best practices for establishing effective frameworks and sets
of MV&E activities.
Cross-Cutting/ Global Research
• Product Benchmarking & Scorecard of S&L Programs
• Study to Provide International Comparison of Energy Efficiency Performance
and Policy Measures for Air-conditioners Used in Residential and Commercial
Sectors
• Additional products forthcoming: lighting, televisions, motors, and domestic
refrigeration
• Convening Experts: International Workshop on Computers & Servers
• Latin America Regional Training with OLADE
Current support for the SEAD initiative
As operating agent, CLASP provides technical and administrative support
to the working groups under the SEAD initiative.
An initiative of the Clean Energy Ministerial and a task within the
International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, SEAD seeks
to engage governments and the private sector to transform the global
market for energy-efficiency equipment and appliances.
As of April 2011, SEAD's member governments are: Australia, Brazil, Canada,
the European Commission, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico,
Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United
Kingdom, and the United States.
Current support for the SEAD initiative
WG1- Technical Analysis working group is undertaking a range of efforts to
support SEAD activities – from the Superefficient.org portal, to productspecific efficiency opportunity assessments, to development of a common
analytical platform for assessing energy savings.
WG2 – Awards working group has unveiled plans for the first international
competition to recognize the most efficient appliances in the world. The
first round will focus on televisions.
WG3 – Incentives working groups is exploring opportunities to support the
development or refinement of incentives programs for efficient appliances
in selected countries.
Current support for the SEAD initiative
WG4 – Standards and labels: subgroups of SEAD partners are launching
collaborations focused on six product categories and one power use mode:
Commercial refrigeration
Computers
Distribution transformers
Solid-state lighting
Motors
Televisions
Network standby
as voluntary exchanges of technical information between teams of
government regulators and supporting experts from different countries
WG5– Procurement working group seeks to leverage the purchasing power of
public and private sector buyers to draw high efficiency equipment and
appliances into the market.
SUPEREFFICIENT.ORG
Introduction to Standards and Labels
Market Transformation
Standards and labels work together to push and pull
the market toward greater energy efficiency.
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
Standards and Labeling Programs
Impact the Environment
Reducing the energy
consumption of a product
On aggregate, reduces overall
energy consumption
Which, reduces power
demand
Which, reduces the need
for the production of
electricity
Therefore, reducing
green house gas
emissions and other
pollutants
And, increasing the
feasibility of renewable
Reasons for Implementing Standards
and Labeling Programs
Countries adopt standards and labeling policies for a number of reasons
1. Reduce capital investment in the
energy supply infrastructure
a)
b)
Less expensive than energy production
Makes renewable energy more affordable by
reducing the need for energy production
2. Avert urban/regional pollution
3. Promote competitiveness of
domestic manufacturers by
avoiding non-tariff trade barriers
4. Secure energy independence
5. Meet climate change goals
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
Buildings Technology Efficiency is
Most Cost Effective
Source: American Physical Society, September, 2008 http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/report/aps-energyreport.pdf
Energy Efficiency Standards
Energy efficiency standards “PUSH” the market towards greater energy efficiency by
removing inefficient products from the market.
•
Prescriptive Standards require that a particular feature
or device be installed in all new products.
•
Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS)
require that a manufacturer achieve in each and every
product a minimum efficiency (or maximum energy
consumption); but does not require a specific
technology or design.
•
Class-average Standards specifies the average efficiency
of a manufactured product, allowing each manufacturer
to select the level of efficiency for each model so that
the overall average is achieved.
Energy Efficiency Standards
(Minimum Energy Performance Standards)
1.
The government sets a limit on the total
amount of energy a product can use
annually
≤ 400 kWh/a
2.
The manufacturer designs the product to
use less energy then the limit
3.
The manufacturer tests the product using a
designated test procedure to certify it uses
less energy than the limit
4.
The manufacturer then submits these
results to the government or self-certifies
them
5.
The product can be sold on the market
Energy Efficiency Standards Shift Markets
Clothes Washer Energy Factors in the U.S. before and after the 1994 standard
1994 Standard
Percentage
of Models
Energy Factor (ft3/kWh)
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
Comparative Label
Comparative energy efficiency labeling “PULLS” the market towards greater energy
efficiency by allowing consumers to compare the energy efficiency of products while
making a purchasing decision, thus motivating manufactures to build products that
that are more efficient then their competitors.
Categorical Label (Dial)
Continuous Label
Categorical Label (Bars)
Comparative Labels (Categorical)
1.
The government sets discreet categories based on specific ranges of energy use
allowing comparison between products
Category
Energy Range
A
<400 kWh/a
B
400 – 499 kWh/a
2.
The manufacture builds the product and test its energy use using a designated
testing procedure in order to determine the proper category
3.
The manufacture submits the results to the government or self certifies
4.
The manufacturer labels their product with the correct category
Endorsement Label
Endorsement energy efficiency labeling “PULLS” the market toward greater
energy efficiency by identifying for consumers the most energy efficient products,
thus providing an incentive (market advantage) for manufacturers to build highly
efficient product.
Korea
United States
European Union
Endorsement Labels
1.
The government sets a minimum energy use threshold for entry into a program
which recognizes highly energy efficient products
≤ 100 kWh/a
2.
The manufacturer designs the product to use less energy than the threshold so
the product can receive this recognition
3.
The manufacturer tests the product using a designated test procedure to certify it
uses less energy than the threshold
4.
The manufacturer then submits these results to the government that reviews and
approves it
5.
Once it has been approved, the product’s packaging can be labeled with the
endorsement label, the manufacture can advertise the product’s endorsement,
and usually the product will be listed on a government website
Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards (MEPS)
Advantages of MEPS





Provides predictable effects of eliminating low-efficiency products
Easy to ratchet levels periodically
Can be designed to maximize consumer benefits
Very low per unit transaction costs
Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit
Disadvantages of MEPS
 Usually a mandatory program – requires consensus/cooperation among multiple
stakeholders
 Can incur some up-front costs for consumers
 Requires good enforcement policy
Savings Potential
 Determined by available technology and cost-effectiveness
Major Stakeholders
 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups
Comparative Labels
Advantages of Comparative Labels
 Efficiency less compulsory - gives manufacturers the option of a wide range of
efficiencies
 Provides strong market incentive for efficiency
 Market evolves over time at accelerated pace
 Low per unit transaction costs
 Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit
Disadvantages of Comparative Labels
 Impact of program less predictable
 May be difficult to change labeling scheme
 May or may not maximize consumer benefits
Savings Potential
 Determined by market demand for higher efficiency products
Major Stakeholders
 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups
Endorsement Labels
Advantages of Endorsement Labels





Usually voluntary - manufacturers can opt in or out
Provides market association between efficiency and quality
Can have large impact if endorsement level becomes de facto standard
Low per unit transaction costs
Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit
Disadvantages of Comparative Labels
 Impact of program difficult to predict
 May or may not maximize consumer benefits
Savings Potential
 Determined by market demand for highest efficiency products
Major Stakeholders
 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups
Test Procedure
Test procedures are the foundation of any standards and labeling program as they are
used to determine the energy use of a product.
Test procedures should:
• Reflect typical usage
• Yield repeatable and accurate results
• Be relatively inexpensive to perform
Test procedures can be developed either
in country or adopted from an
international body.
Testing should be conducted in an
accredited laboratory to ensure that tests
are being conducted properly.
Chinese Air Conditioner Testing Facility
Manufacturing Cost vs. Energy Savings
Product energy efficiency is the result of a series of incremental modifications to
features, technology, and design.
The goal of standards and labeling setting is to strike a balance between increased
costs of manufacturing and energy savings.
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
Updating Standards and Labels
Standards and labels must be continually reviewed and revised (3-5 years)
to increase stringency and drive continued energy savings.
 As new energy saving
technologies are developed and
become more cost effective it is
important to continually update
the stringency of standards.
 Once the market has become
oversaturated with high energy
efficient products it is necessary
to increase the stringency of label
requirements in order to keep
labels meaningful to consumers.
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
Seven Steps in S&L Development
Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289
S&L Programs Require Resources
Legal and Authoritative Resources
 Clear mandates and lines of responsibility from framework legislation and/or
implementing regulation
Financial
 A regular and consistent source of operational budgets; annual allocations?
Fees from testing and/or labeling?
Human
 Qualified staff to manage implementation as well as conduct market analysis;
some outsourcing possible but base management requires dedicated staff
Physical/Facilities
 Central offices, field facilities for monitoring/enforcement and/or laboratories
for testing?
Institutional
 All of the above should culminate in a managing institution with program
responsibility
Standards and Labeling:
Common Challenging Aspects
Common Challenges
in the Test Lab and Testing Arena



Finding the financial resources for a bricks and mortar (versus policy)
project
Getting the order right—need the test lab and procedure before you
can regulate
Defining the Business Model
• Limited amount of mandatory testing to support business model
• How to leverage private R&D testing to support the business model

Test Standards and Test Methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack details required to perform tests in the same way across multiple laboratories
Do not address innovation and emerging technologies
Test Procedure development not synced well in advance of regulations
Test Procedures “Slow to Change”
Allow “Gaming” during the test process that influence results
Correlation between laboratories
Uncertainty and Repeatability of test results
Difference in Field Data Results vs. Lab Data Results
Cost of testing
Need a Model to Prioritize
ANALYSIS 1: Based on GHG Abatement Potential
GHG abatement
Potential

The model compares GHG Abatement Possible in year 2030 due to
application of S&L to the considered products
=
Surviving stock
X
Annual energy
consumption
 The products sold on or after 2014 and surviving till year 2030 have
been considered
- Normal distribution considered for products’ useful life
 Calculated based on Hourly Energy Consumption (daily hours of use)
days of use per year
X
Energy saving potential
of the appliance
X
Electricity/fuel emission
factor
 Decided based on maximum theoretical improvement possible,
depending upon present performance and specific areas of
improvement e.g. in stand by and operating condition
 To facilitate comparison for different fuel types, emission factors have
been used to quantify environmental impact on basis of tonnes
equivalent of CO2 abated
Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study
Multiple Scenarios Can Be Analyzed
ANALYSIS 2: Based on GHG Abatement Potential and Market
Implementability Both

NEED
BASIS
Calculation of Market
Implementability index
The product may have high overall GHG abatement potential but
the actual implementation of effective labeling program may be
difficult due to a host of market and management factors
• Therefore, we need to include these as well to ensure a more
realistic analysis
 A normalized score for GHG abatement potential is calculated.
 We also calculate the score for ‘market implementability’ (market
implementability index)
 A weighted score for both the parameters gives the ranking for
products
 Market Implementability index is
calculated based on following
parameters:
• Test Procedures / Standards
• Number of stakeholders
(manufacturers)
• % organized sector
• Implementing association/
partner
Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study
The Products are given a
score on a scale of 0-4
(0=worst, 4= best) for
all these parameters
and final scores
calculated based on
parameter weight and
score
Overall Ranking Based on GHG Abatement and Market Implementability - Only Appliances
Rank
Product
1
2
Air Conditioners
CTVs
3
4
5
6
Ceiling fans
Refrigerators
Washing Machines
Set top boxes
7
8
9
Uninterruptable
Power Supply
Geysers
Table
Fans/Pedestal/Wall
Mounted
10
Microwave Ovens
Main Category
GHG
Abatement
Potential
Market
Implementability
Score
present analysis criterion weight =
75%
25%
Home Appliances & Equipments
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
Home Appliances & Equipments
Home Appliances & Equipments
Home Appliances & Equipments
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
Home Appliances & Equipments
Home Appliances & Equipments
92.8
51.1
1.0
1.0
26.9
15.3
2.3
9.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
13.1
0.7
3.0
5.6
0.9
0.7
Home Appliances & Equipments
0.8
0.8
Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study
Ranking based only on GHG Abatement potential – only appliances
Rank
Product
GHG Abatement
Potential
92.8
Main Category
1
Air Conditioners
2
CTVs
51.1
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
3
Ceiling fans
26.9
Home Appliances & Equipments
4
Refrigerators
15.3
Home Appliances & Equipments
5
Uninterruptable Power Supply
13.1
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
6
Desert Coolers
11.1
Home Appliances & Equipments
7
Set top boxes
9.5
Consumer Electronics & External Power
Supply Equipment
8
5.6
Home Appliances & Equipments
9
Table Fans/Pedestal/Wall
Mounted
Exhaust Fans (ventilation fans)
3.4
Home Appliances & Equipments
10
Geysers
3.0
Home Appliances & Equipments
Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study
Home Appliances & Equipments
Good Label Design Requires Market Research with
Stakeholders—Particularly Consumers
 Even though the Ghana
program was one of our
smallest (~$110,00 per year)
CLASP provided T.A. for market
research for Ghana label
design
 Small sample of consumer
focus groups
 Categorical design based on
stars was most influential
 Colors and star design
reminiscent of Ghana flag to
identify labeling as a national
program
Compliance & the MV&E Regime
All S&L programs have ‘rules’
•
•
•
•
Mandatory and voluntary programs
Contained in legislation or administrative guidelines
Compliance means adherence to these sets of rules
Obligations may apply to different stakeholders: suppliers, importers, retailers,
wholesalers, on-line suppliers, etc
Rules adopted by different programs vary according to many factors
• Existing legislation, political ambition, national governance issues,
resources (in-house and external), stakeholder attitudes, etc.
But all programs have processes and systems to check compliance –
the “compliance regime”
This regime (should) comprise several distinct but interrelated
elements
Key Elements








Designing for, and facilitating, compliance
Market surveillance (monitoring)
Verification testing
Enforcement
Communication
Legal and administrative framework
Budget
Evaluation
 All elements have to be included for the system to
work and the required outcomes achieved.
Why worry about compliance?
 Safeguard the investment made by governments in building up the
credibility of their voluntary and mandatory energy labels;
 Risk that failure to address non-compliance can lead to serious long-term
consequences through the erosion of consumer confidence;
 Will require a considerable effort to re-establish credibility;
 Consumers pay for performance that they do not receive;
 Safeguard the investment made by compliant industry participants in
order to manufacture and supply energy efficient products;
 Without adequate enforcement, the compliant industry participant is
penalised through a loss of economic returns and competitive advantage leading to a disincentive to invest in innovation.
The Circle of Compliance
Efforts to
improve
compliance
rates
= more
support for
S&L program
=consumer
confidence &
more
purchases
=greater
energy
savings
=reduced
support for
S&L program
Low attention
to compliance
=consumers,
press, NGOs,
become
skeptical
Sales = more
industry
investment in
energy
efficiency
Source: CLASP, Sep 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
=reduced
energy
savings
=no level
playing field –
reduced
industry
investment &
participation
How Good are We at Ensuring Compliance?
CLASP Research
 CLASP surveyed S&L programs in G20
countries (+Tunisia & Chile) and found 30
programs spanning 14 countries
 Comparison with surveys of EU Member
States
 To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the
compliance infrastructure and capacity
 To provide a greater level of evidence to
support efforts to tackle compliance
Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
Resources
Country
AU
CA
JP
IN
MX
KR
UK
Program
M&L
M&L
TR & VL
ML & VL
M&L
M&L, VL
M&L
USD
(000’s)
950
500-750
2,180
n/a
184
642
600-1500
Person/yr
n/a
0.2
10
>4
n/a
5.3
n/a
Key:
M = MEPS
VL = Voluntary Labelling
M&L = MEPS and Labelling
ML = Mandatory Labelling
TR = Top Runner
n/a = not available
50% programs can say how much is spent on compliance per annum

In these, the amounts vary

Few have defined budget allocations and forward plans for MV&E activities
Fewer programs gave staff numbers. MV&E often forms part of staff’s functions

Need to ensure activities are coordinated and recorded; and clear lines of responsibility
established
Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
MV&E Activities
80% programs undertake product testing
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
YES
NO
Are product samples tested to
ensure compliance with program
requirements?
NOT KNOWN
OTHER
50% could give figures
Country
AU
CN
IN
Program
M&L
M&L
L&VL
TR
M&L
M
ML
VL
M
ML
VL
VL
2006
58
54
0
0
91
180
84
160
0
13
75
36
2007
113
73
7
0
132
228
88
135
100
18
0
11
2008
88
124
n/a
24
108
142
93
82
0
300
82
n/a
Key:
M = MEPS
VL = Voluntary Labelling
JP
MX
KR
UK
M&L = MEPS and Labelling
ML = Mandatory Labelling
Source: CLASP, Sep 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
US
TR = Top Runner
n/a = not available
MV&E Activities
Very few were able to provide figures for enforcement actions
 Labeling and similar offences found in market surveillance
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DATA SUPPLIED
NO
The number of each type of enforcement
actions taken in 2006-2008
NOT KNOWN
 Performance verification tests
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
The number of each type of enforcement
actions taken in 2006-2008
100%
DATA SUPPLIED
NONE RECORDED
NOT AVAILABLE
NOT KNOWN
Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
MV&E Activities
Public disclosure
0%
20%
40%
60%
Do you make publically available information about the
number of tests conducted, including pass / failure rates?
80%
100%
YES
NO
NOT KNOWN
OTHER
Do you publically identify individual products that have
failed verification testing?
Compliance assessment
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
YES
Do you assess overall
compliance rates for this
program?
NO
NOT KNOWN
INCREASING
Are overall
compliance rates
increasing or
decreasing?
OTHER
Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3
DECREASING
NOT KNOWN
OTHER