Energy Labelling and lifts

ELCA considers that energy labelling should be forbidden for lifts under the lifts directive as well as lifting equipment under the Machinery directive, since there are main issues with false assertions spread by some in Europe, including by official authorities’ publications such as the AMEV advisory documents produced by the Ministry of construction in Germany, or even some ISO documents. Hydraulic lifts have been unfairly presented over more than a decade, as consuming too much energy, while their life cycle analysis puts them ahead of traction lifts for small buildings. This should be put straight before there is any question of applying the Energy Efficiency Labelling Directive 2010/30/EU to lifts, elevators and other hoists.
Moreover a Member State should not compel any lift installer to put any kind of energy labelling on the lift, because the Energy Labelling Directive does not include lifts in its scope.
A member of the European parliament, Mr Dario Tamburrano has obtained that the text specifies the exemption of lifts in the Directive: “since the energy consumption of means of transport for persons or goods is directly or indirectly regulated by other Union law and policies, it is appropriate to continue to exclude them from the scope of this Regulation. That exclusion includes means of transport the motor of which remains in the same location during operation, such as elevators, escalators and conveyor belts”.
This still needs now to be confirmed by the member state Permanent Representatives (Coreper) and then passed on to the European Parliament for adoption at its plenary session.

The limits of Standardisation
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have to struggle with the increasing dominance and cost of standards that are ruling the lift industry, often without any possibility for SMEs owners and managers to intervene in the process of conceiving them, which is heavier than ever. The standardisation process is only in the hands of the experts from the major global companies of the sector, which have totally different interests from those of European SMEs.
The cost of standards and of their regularly revised versions is much too high and identical for all users in most countries. Europe has to find a way to reduce this cost, which is an unfair disadvantage for SME’s in the sector. The European Commission and CEN also have the very bad habit of modifying numbering, order of chapters, Annex numbered references, etc… on norms, directives, regulations, at each revision. The last revision of the Lifts directive included a complete change of all references, without even touching on any of the problems identified over the years in the text itself, byt the lift industry. It was a pure internal legal “necessity” invented by the Legal department of the European Commission. This causes high and useless adaptation and translation costs to revise and reprint instructions for use, assembly and maintenance documents in all languages, by lift manufacturers.
But the main lingering barrier remains the relative lack of representativity of the CEN / TC10 management. Despite the commitment of the SME associations, CEN is still managed by very few stakeholders. SMEs don’t have the resources to designate experts that devote all their time to the standardisation process. SMEs are largely underrepresented in terms of number of delegates in the Technical Committees in CEN, but also in the national committees. The advantage to the large multinational conglomerates companies is very real. Four companies are the true political decision makers in CEN.
It is the same issue for the Notified Bodies, in charge of verifying the respect of the norms defined by CEN. They often lack the resources to fully participate to the normalization process.
The involvement of SMEs in the standardisation process must be improved by reserving expert seats in all technical committees as well as chairmanship positions of said committees, by the European Union. The cost of the CEN TC10 standardisation process should be integrated in the functioning of the European Commission, and the travel costs implied for SMEs should be taken care of by the Commission. Access to the standards should be free.
Europe badly needs a shift in its industrial policies: globalisation can only take place between equals, between economies that apply the same social and environmental rules. With the blessing of the European Union, large conglomerates have delocalized their production to Asian countries, where the cost of labour is a fraction of what it is in Europe and where strictly no environmental rule is being applied. This cannot continue.
The re—industrialization of Europe rests on the shoulders of the SMEs. They are creating the jobs of the future, and they pay taxes, which is not always the case of the large conglomerates making the rules. 85% of the jobs created in Europe in the past five years have been created by micro-enterprises and small and medium-size companies
The European Union should consider SMEs as fundamental to ensuring economic growth, innovation, job creation, and social integration in the EU. ELCA will relentlessly repeat it to the European and national deciders.

And come to see us at INTERLIFT
in Augsburg
from October 17 to October 20
The ELCA booth will be in Hall 2