Talk:Minimum energy performance standard

Here is what the CLASP website provides as a definition of standards including MEPS: StandardsEnergy-efficiency standards are procedures and regulations that prescribe the energy performance of manufactured products, sometimes prohibiting the sale of products that are less efficient than a minimum level. The term "standards" commonly encompasses two possible meanings: 1) well-defined protocols (or laboratory test procedures) by which to obtain a sufficiently accurate estimate of the energy performance of a product in the way it is typically used, or at least a relative ranking of its energy performance compared to that of other models; and 2) target limits on energy performance (usually maximum use or minimum efficiency) based on a specified test protocol. The term "norm" is sometimes used instead of "standard" in Europe and Latin America to refer to the target limit. In this guidebook, we use the term "test protocol" for specifications regarding testing and "standards" for target limits on energy performance that are formally established by a government.

There are three types of energy-efficiency standards:


 * prescriptive standards
 * minimum energy performance standards (MEPS)
 * class-average standards
 * Prescriptive standards require that a particular feature or device be installed in all new products. Performance standards prescribe minimum efficiencies (or maximum energy consumption) that manufacturers must achieve in each and every product, specifying the energy performance but not the technology or design details of the product. Class-average standards specify 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.

I am not sure that MEPS should necessarily be associated with non-energy parameters, although I agree that the two are often combined. I generally associate this with the test procedure, and MEPS more with minimum efficiency levels. The question of mandatory vs. voluntary is tricky. I don’t think it’s part of the definition, but it’s such an important part of that type of regulation, that maybe it should be. I think this is how it’s viewed in some parts. For instance, I remember someone in Mexico stating categorically that “there are no voluntary MEPS (normas)”. To me, the difference between a voluntary MEPS and an endorsement label is pretty fuzzy. With regard to Japan, Top Runner could be categorized as a ‘negotiated agreement’, though I’m not sure how much input the manufacturers actually have. But, besides, this is a fleet average requirement. To me, the one definite feature of MEPS is that it sets an absolute floor for all products. I would personally prefer to associate MEPS with removal from the market, but I can see the point of those who would quibble with such a narrow definition.

This is proving to be an interesting conversation! However, it does seem that everyone is at least on the same side, and the issues are more those of language.

About "I am not sure that MEPS should necessarily be associated with non-energy parameters, although I agree that the two are often combined." I agree, but thyen my definition does cover those (few) cases where there are no associated non-energy performance requirements. I proposed "a specification containing a number of performance requirements . . . ". In some cases, such as for external power supplies, the number of requirements is one, and that one is the energy performance requirement. But in other cases, the energy performance requirements is just one of several.

Mandatory versus voluntary is a tricky point. Those with good memories may recall my definition of a "Standard" (with a capital S) given to the conference in Bangkok in 2001, namely "a document written with the aim of achieving consistency". But then I was brought up in the British sphere of influence, where the British Standards Institution, the Standards Association of New Zealand (as it used to be) and similar organizations produce all manner of Standards. So the word "Standard" cannot have its meaning restricted to be only an energy performance requirement. For this meaning, it needs the qualifying phrase "Minumum Energy Performance" added.

Then what one does with a (MEP)Standard is up to other organizations. It may be made mandatory by a regulation, incorporated directly into legislation, used on a voluntary basis, or even totally ignored. And it is possible for a (MEP) Standard to be both mandatory and voluntary; the Australian and New Zealand MEPS for induction motors includes a minimum efficiency, and another, higher minimum efficiency to be achieved if the manufacturer wishes to describe it as "high efficiency". The former is mandatory and the latter voluntary.

Above it is provided the meanings ascribed to the word "Standards" as used by CLASP. This is fine; remember that in a "Standard" (a document . . . . . .) it is the usual practice to include definitions of words when the document uses those words in a particular of specialised way and not the most common meaning of the word. So when CLASP uses the word "Standards" we know that what is really meant is MEPSs. And "Labeling" means energy performance labelling, and not tying a piece of cardboard with a destination address onto a piece of luggage being entrusted to an airline.

Another point is to consider MEPS to be an absolute minimum, not a fleet average. I am not so sure about that. In New Zealand the requirement for appliances is that all individual units must comply with the Standard (although the "odd rogue" is allowed for), in some other economies the requirement is on the average performance of a model. From that to a fleet average (or the sales-weighted average performance of all models from the one manufacturer) is but an extra step. In any case, how the "Standard" is applied is often set by the legislative regime, and not by the "Standard" itself. This can be a hidden trap. For example, when comparing requirements for induction motor efficiency, Australia and New Zealand have requirements that look similar to several other countries', but they are actually more stringent as all samples have to meet the minimum efficiency level, not just the average sample.

As for "removal from the market" of poor-performing models, I agree that this is a frequent intention of MEPSs, but I think it is a feature of the associated legislative regime and not of the "Standard" (the document) itself. And a voluntary MEPS as noted above does not force models to be removed from the market.

The overall effect of the recent contributions indicate that the definition I provided is correct, but that a few "generally's" and "commonly's" are needed to indicate the various types and applications of MEPS.