OUTLINE

1.Overview of S&L activities

2.Background of Brunei

3. The model and the resuts

4. Other factors

5. Summary

RATIONAL FOR STANDARDS &LABELLING

IEA: EE efficiency measures account for half of the cumulative CO2 abatement (2010-2035)

Most energy efficiency measures will have a negative abetment cost

Individually, consumers will likely to benefit from lifecycle cost savings

However, price gasps between EE appliances and their lower EE alternative may discourage the purchase them due to at lest two reasons: lack of purchase power; not informed on benefits.

1. 4

STANDARDS AND LABELS WORK TOGETHER TO PUSH AND PULL

THE MARKET TOWARD GREATER ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

MARKET Transformation （Pull and Push）

Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289

ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

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 “PUSH” the market towards greater energy efficiency by removing inefficient products from the market.

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

Savings Potential

Determined by available technology and cost-effectiveness

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

Major Stakeholders

Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups.

MEPS: first introduced in Poland during 1962

STANDARDS AND LABELING IN THE WORLD

EFICIENCIA ENERG蒚 ICARelaci髇 de Eficiencia Energ閠ica (REE)

determinada como se establece en la

NOM-021-ENER/SCFI/ECOL-2000

REE establecida en la norma en ( W/W )

REE de este aparato en ( W/W )

Ahorro de energ韆 de este aparato

IMPORTANTE

Marca: SUPER-IRIS TGV024R200B

860 W

Modelo:

Potencia el閏 trica: 17 000 WEfecto neto de enfriamiento:

2,49

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

MenorAhorro

MayorAhorro

El ahorro de energ韆 efectivo depender? de los h醔 itosde uso y localizaci髇 del aparato

Este aparato cumple con los requisitos de seguridad al usuario y no da馻 la capa de ozono

La etiqueta no debe retirarse del aparatohasta que haya sido adquirido por el consumidor final

REE=Efecto neto de enfriamiento (W)

Potencia el閏 trica (W)

Source: John Millhone, 2011. Pushing the Energy Efficiency Envelope through Appliance Standards Around the World. May 2011

Over 75 countries with more than 80 percent of the world's population have energy standards & labeling

MYS

PER/L

PNG

BRN

CHL

RUS/L

S&L in the APEC Economies

9

PRODUCT S&L IN THE APEC ECONOMIES (1)

Product

AU

S

BR

U

CD

N

CH

L

CH

N

HK

G

IDN

JP

N

MY

S

ME

X

NZ

L

PN

G

PE

R

KO

R

RU

S

SG

P

TW

N

TH

A

PH

L

US

A

VN

M

Air Conditioners – Room M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 15

ACs – Central M M M M M M M M 8

Refrigerators/Freezers -

Household

M M M M M M M M M M U M M M M M

15

Commercial

Refrigeration

M M M U M M M M U M

8

CFLs M M M M M M M V M M 9

Ballasts M M M M M M M 7

Fluorescent Lamps M M M M M M M M V M M 10

Incandescent Lamps M M M M M M 6

HID Lamps M M 2

Ceiling Fan Lighting Kits M M 2

Torchieres M M 2

Televisions M M M U M U U U 4

Clothes Washers M M M M M U U M 6

Clothes Dryer M U U M 2

Water Heaters - Electric M M M U U M M M M U M 8

Water Heaters - Gas U M M M M M M M 7

Water Heaters - Oil M M M M 4

Source: APEC 2011 10 16 2 11 2 4 9 9 7 4 9 2 11 2 5 13 1 1. 1

0

Summary of Mandatory Standard

Source: (APEC 2011)

PRODUCT S&L IN THE APEC ECONOMIES (2)

Type of product

AU

S

BR

U

CD

N

CH

L

CH

N

HK

G

IDN

JP

N

MY

S

ME

X

NZ

L

PN

G

PE

R

KO

R

RU

S

SG

P

TW

N

TH

A

PH

L

US

A

VN

M

#m

Air Conditioners – Room M MV M MV MV V MV V MV MV MV M MV MV M MV V 14

Air Conditioners – Central MV V MV MV MV MV MV 6

Refrigerators/Freezers -

Household M MV M MV MV V MV V MV MV M M UV M M MV M MV V 15

Commercial Refrigeration V U MV M MV 3

CFLS V M MV MV MV V V M V UV V MV MV V 7

Fluorescent Lamps MV M V MV V V M MV UV V MV MV V 7

Incandescent Lamps MV M M MV V 4

HID Lamps MV V V M MV V 3

Ballasts V V V V MV V MV V 2

Computers V V V MV V MV V 2

Monitors UV MV V V V MV V V V 2

Televisions M U MV V V V V V MV V V MV 4

Clothes Washers M M MV MV V V M V MV 6

Clothes Dryer M M V M V 3

Water Heaters - Electric V MV V U V V M M V MV V 4

Water Heaters - Gas U MV MV V MV MV V MV 5

Water Heaters - Oil-Fired MV MV V 2

Source: (APEC 2011) 6 0 8 5 10 4 0 8 0 4 3 0 3 12 0 3 2 2 7 15 0 1. 1

1

Summary of Labeling Programs

Rank Product Main Category GHG

Abatement

Potential

Market

Implementability

Score

present analysis criterion weight = 75% 25%

1 Air Conditioners Home Appliances & Equipments 92.8 1.0

2 CTVs Consumer Electronics & External Power

Supply Equipment

51.1 1.0

3 Ceiling fans Home Appliances & Equipments 26.9 0.9

4 Refrigerators Home Appliances & Equipments 15.3 1.0

5 Washing Machines Home Appliances & Equipments 2.3 1.0

6 Set top boxes Consumer Electronics & External Power

Supply Equipment

9.5 0.8

7 Uninterruptable

Power Supply

Consumer Electronics & External Power

Supply Equipment

13.1 0.7

8 Geysers Home Appliances & Equipments 3.0 0.9

9 Table

Fans/Pedestal/Wall

Mounted

Home Appliances & Equipments 5.6 0.7

10 Microwave Ovens Home Appliances & Equipments 0.8 0.8

Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study

RANKING BASED ON GHG ABATEMENT AND

MARKET IMPLEMENTABILITY - APPLIANCES

Per capita GDP at current price in 2012 is US$ 41127, ranked as the 19th in the world

Exporting about 17 Mtoe of oil and gas in 2012, while total primary supply was only 3.4 Mtoe in 2012.

Per capita primary consumption of primary energy supply was 9.4 tons in 2010 and electricity consumption per capita was around 8,507 kWh in 2011, ranked 15th in the World

Average household electricity consumption was at 23,849kWh/year or 1,987kWh/month: almost triple that of Singapore (784 KWh/month) {APERC, 2013 #1165}.

Ranks fourth in the world for CO2 emission on per capita basis according in 2010 data

Brunei has an energy intensity of 367 toe per US$ Mil GDP in 2011. Brunei is the highest in ASEAN.

Brunei is 100% dependent on fossil fuel. Electricity, gasoline and diesel are the dominant energy sources in Brunei. Almost all electricity is produced from natural gas.

OVERVIEW BRUNEI

Draft Energy Efficiency Standards and Labeling Order

i. Background: Objective: To restrict or halt the importation and sales of the

inefficient electrical appliances & products into the country and

concurrently to educate and encourage people to choose a more

energy-efficient electrical appliances & products.

ii. Status:

With Attorney General Chambers for further review and enactment

process.

iii. Key Mechanisms: Restricting import/manufacture of the “registrable goods”

Registration scheme (verification, certification)

Restriction of personal import

Mandatory data report

Exemptions: less than 50 and $5000; special permission

Serve punishments, including jail term

Compoundable offense .

END USE ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Cumulative energy savings potential (BAU in 2035): industrial (10%), commercial (41% or 44%), residential (36%), and transportation (13%)

SCOPE OF ACS AND TEST STANDARDS

Products: single split, windows (casement)

Up to <=7.1 kW

Follow the ASEAN harmonization efforts,

adopt directly the international ISO 5151:2010

standard as the testing method for air

conditioners.

The Weighted COP in Singapore is adopted:

= 0.6×COPpartial load ＋ 0.4×COPfull load. The basis for this is not

Boundary: 4.5, 7/7.1, 10

EE Indicator

Type of Air-Conditioners Cooling

Capacity 1 Minimum COP

Singapore (Up to 2013)

EER (w/w)

Casement and Windows Up to 8.8 kW 2.5

Single Split Inverter < 7 kW 2.96 2 ≥ 7 kW 2.64 2

Single Split Non-inverter < 7 kW 2.96

≥ 7 kW 2. 50

Singapore (Current)

EER (w/w)

Casement and Windows Up to 8.8 kW 2.9

Single Split Inverter <10 kW

WCOP 3.34 and COP 3.06

≥ 10 kW WCOP 2.78

Single Split Non-inverter < 10 kW 3.34

≥ 10 kW 2.78

Thailand EER (w/w) Wall Type/ Split Type <=8 kW 2.82

≥8 to 12 kW 2.53

Malaysia EER(BTU/wh

)

Single split wall mounted; capacity up to 25,000

But/h

<4.5kW 9.56-10.36

(2.80)

≥ 4.5 to < 7.1 kW

8.03-8.93 (2.35)

China

EER (w/w)

Non-Split - 2.9 (2.3)

Split-Noninverter (number in () was up to 2010)

< =4.5 kW 3.2 (2.6)

4.5 <CC <= 7.1 kW 3.1 (2.5)

7.1<CC <= 14 kW 3 (2.4)

SEER (w.h/w.h)

Split-Inverter (cooling only) (number in

() was up to 2013)

< =4.5 kW 4.3(3.0)

4.5 <CC <= 7.1 kW 3.9(2.9)

7.1<CC <= 14 kW 3.5(2.8)

INTRODUCTION TO MODELING TOOL

PAMS – Policy Analysis Modeling System is one of the most promising energy efficiency policy instruments developed by CLASP/LNBL

The model calculates the costs and benefits of efficiency

standards from two distinct but related perspectives:

1. The Consumer Perspective : Life-Cycle Cost (LCC).

LCC = P + 𝑂𝑡(1 + 𝑟)𝑡

𝑁

𝑡=1= P +

(𝑈𝐸𝐶 × 𝑃)𝑡(1 + 𝑟)𝑡

𝑁

𝑡=1

2. The National Perspective projects the total national costs and benefits including both financial benefits, energy savings and environmental benefits. The national perspective calculations are called the National Energy Savings (NES) and the Net Present Value (NPV) calculations.

OUTPUT: SUMMARY

PRODUCT ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS THE RESULT OF A SERIES OF INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS TO FEATURES, TECHNOLOGY, AND DESIGN.

EFFICIENCY VS. CONSUMER PRICES

China Data BN 3.5 BN5.3

Coeff Std Err Coeff Std Err Coeff Std Err

Dependent variable: ln(market price)

Efficiency （ln(COP)) 2.35*** 0.11 2.1*** 0.18 1.34*** 0.43

Constant 3.86*** 0.15 3.79*** 0.2 4.95*** 0.48

Number of observations 24 16 11

R2 0.96 0.9 0.52

Note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

DATA AND

ESTIMATION

66.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3lnCOP

lncosts Fitted values

5.8

66.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4lnCOP

lncosts Fitted values

66.5

77.5

1 1.2 1.4 1.6lnCOP

lncosts Fitted values

Left: China Data Bottom: Left: BN3.5 Right: BN5.3

PTIMAL MEPS NEEDS TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN INCREASED COSTS OF MANUFACTURING AND ENERGY SAVINGS.

EFFICIENCY VS. CONSUMER PRICES

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.14 1.17 1.26 1.31 1.49 1.70

Relat

ive

Price

Relative Energy Efficiency

China Data Brunei 3.5Kw Brunei 5.3Kw Average

UNIT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Cooling

capacity

COP (Rated )

Electric

Power

Operation Load

Factor

Annual

Electricit

y

Consumptio

n

hours/da

y

Days/yea

r

4.55 ２.５4 １.79 10 365 0.7 ４573

OTHER INPUTS

Input Value Remark (Source of information)

CO2 emission factors for electricity production

0.798 kg per kW 2010 data, (IEA, 2012)

Electricity price US$.064 (BD$ 0.08)

DES

Consumer discount rate 10% UN HDI

National discount rate 7% USDOE; Australia

Transmission loss 4.86% 2011 data (WDI, 2013)

Electrification rate 99.7% 2010 data (WDI, 2013)

Life time 12 (Cardoso et al., 2012)

Income growth 2% yearly Average growth rate

LCC UNIT LEVEL IMPACT, BY MEPS OPTIONS

Source of Data* MEPS Options MPES2.8 MEPS2.9 MEPS2.96 MEPS3.2 MEPS3.34

China

Additional cost 532.4 606.6 728.4 805.4 1063.5

Payback Year 4.12 5.18 7.54 6.5 9.28

LCC savings 71 58 -29 19 -174

Cost-Benefit Ratio 13.3% 9.6% -4.0% 2.4% -16.4%

Average

Additional cost 492 547 636 690 869

Payback Year 3.1 3.9 5.6 4.8 6.7

LCC savings 98 103 50 120 6

Cost-Benefit Ratio 19.8% 18.9% 7.8% 17.4% 0.7%

NATIONAL BENEFITS OF FAVORABLE MEPS OPTIONS

Model results Annualized results

MEPS options 2.8 2.9 3.2 2.8 2.9 3.2

NPB (Mn $) from reduced of electricity bill 29.8 33.6 43.7 1.9 2.1 2.7

Site energy

saving

in 2030 (GWh) 146 196 325 - - -

through 2030 (GWh) 1300 1738 2888 81.3 108.6 180.5

Source energy

saving through

2030

Mtoe 0.39 0.52 0.86 0.02 0.03 0.05

Mn US$ (1 mn Btus=8$) 123.2 164.8 273.5 7.7 10.3 17.1

CO2 emissions

mitigation

through 2030

MT 1.09 1.46 2.42 0.07 0.09 0.15

Mn $ (EU avearge price) 14.8 19.8 32.9 0.9 1.2 2.1

Mn $ (US social cost) 44.8 60.0 99.5 2.8 3.8 6.2

Legend: 3

5

• Quantity capped in 2013 is calculated from the annual average

production and consumption in 2009 and 2010. 1 2

4

COORDINATION WITH MONTREAL PROTOCOL

NON-COMPLIANT MODELS AND VOLUME WITH

VARIOUS PROPOSED MEPS

MEPS options mean

Non-compliant models (unit)

Non-compliant models (%)

Non-compliant volume (%)

sum2012 24666 92 - -

MEPS27 7897 16 17.4% 32.0%

MEPS287 9099 20 21.7% 36.9%

MEPS28 10232 29 31.5% 41.5%

MEPS29 13894 38 41.3% 56.3% MEPS296 17886 46 50.0% 72.5%

MEPS320 20495 57 62.0% 83.1% MEPS334 21978 73 79.3% 89.1%

IMPACT ON HOUSEHOLD

MEPS options

Estimated price gap based on data of

Highest % of household annual expenditure

China BN 3.5 kW

BN 5.3 kW

Average Bottom （10%）

2.7 73.1 47.9 47.2 0.26% 0.60%

2.8 116.6 76.1 73.8 0.42% 0.96%

2.9 190.8 123.6 117.2 0.69% 1.57%

2.96 312.6 200.2 183.7 1.12% 2.57%

3.2 389.6 247.9 223.3 1.40% 3.21%

3.34 647.8 404.6 345.5 2.33% 5.33%

IMPACT ON CONSUMERS 50

010

0015

0020

0025

00

Mar

ketP

rice

2 3 4 5 6 7CapacityKw

COP<2.8 COP:2.8-2.9

COP:2.9-2.96 COP:2.96-3.20

COP>3.20

5. SUMMARY (1)

EEC initiatives are cost effective in saving

energy and reducing environmental impact.

Standards and labeling (S&L) have been widely

used in the world. But its roles could be

discouraged by abundance of energy and

subsidized energy prices

Brunei lagged behind the region in

implementing EE initiatives despite its high

income level. Reasons could be a lack of

awareness in the public due to its energy

exporting status and low energy prices.

5. SUMMARY (2)

This study try to find out the best MEPS among a few possible options through a life cycle analysis on individuals. Despite low electricity price, MEPS could lead to significant LCC savings.

The LCC analysis on unit product level suggest both 2.8, 2.9 and 3.2 are desirable MEPS level with 2.9 be more robust

Further analyses on Montreal Protocol, impact on consumers, and vendors position demonstrates that both options are acceptable.

Considering the robustness, phase out of R22, and the unit level of impact on market, 2.9 is recommended to be the initial MEPS level. The rank of MEPS options are: 2.9, 2.8 and 3.2.

Since government will benefit more than customers and government is more aware LCCA savings, government should lead by example. Government is also advised to provide financial support to expedite the market transformation.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Dr. Xunpeng SHI

Chief Researcher-Energy Efficiency and Conservation

Brunei National Energy Research Institute

Xunpeng.shi@bneri.org.bn

Tel: +673 2461336

Address: Science and technology building, UBD, Tunku Link, BSB, Brunei Darussalam

38