Energy efficiency requirements for household electric refrigerators, freezers and combinations

In response to the rapporteur, Mr MACARTNEY (ARE), who had spoken in favour of the specific measures in his report on energy efficiency and energy-saving with a view to reducing CO₂ emissions by the year 2000, Commissioner PAPOUTSIS outlined the Commission’s position on Parliament’s amendments. The Commission could take over Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 as they strengthened the justification for the measures proposed. However, Amendment No 1, which deleted Recital 5, could not be taken over. The Commission supported Amendment No 10, which brought forward the deadline for application of the Directive, setting it at two years after its adoption, and it also agreed with the principles on which Amendments Nos 9 and 11 were based. As regards the latter, which called for a 20% energy efficiency improvement though stricter parameters from the first phase, the Commissioner felt that a 15% improvement would be sufficient to balance adequately the different objectives of reducing CO₂ emissions and protecting the interests of industries, employment and consumers. The Commission supported the proposal’s dynamic approach, which provided for a second phase, in line with the approach in Amendment No 9, but it felt that it was too difficult at this stage to determine the levels to be attained. As a result, it could not take over Amendment No 12 before establishing in detail the content of the second phase through more in-depth studies. Finally, the Commission rejected Amendments Nos 5, 6, 7, 8, 13 and 14 as they imposed excessive requirements on industry while the measures proposed by the Commission were sufficient to achieve the declared goals.