ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

5.55 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

This Bill will amend the Environmental Pollution Control Act (EPCA) for the National Environment Agency (NEA) to:

Column: 797

(1) establish a mandatory labelling scheme for the purposes of energy conservation; and

(2) increase the maximum allowable composition sum for offences under the Act.

Impetus for a mandatory energy labelling scheme

Sir, as I had announced in March this year, the NEA will be the lead agency for energy conservation and efficiency. Improving energy efficiency is an important aspect of sustainable development for Singapore. Singapore is reliant on imported fossil fuels for much of its energy needs at present, and energy efficiency can help to reduce the amount of energy we need. At the national level, this will reduce the environmental impact of our energy use, bring down our energy cost, and even improve our energy security.

For a consumer, using more energy-efficient equipment and appliances is a way to reduce energy consumption and save significantly on the electricity bill in the long term. For example, a consumer that uses an air-conditioner that is rated at 3-ticks instead of 1-tick under the energy labelling scheme saves about $500 a year in energy costs. This is significant, compared to the upfront cost of an air-conditioner of about $2,000. This would also reduce carbon emissions by about 1,400 kilogrammes a year.

Because of the upfront cost differentials, consumers do not always choose the appliances that will save them the most in the long run. The cost savings from energy efficiency are not immediately obvious to the consumer, and thus, consumers only focus on the upfront price tag.

Column: 798

To address this market failure, the Government can help to bridge the information gap, by ensuring that consumers are provided with information on the energy consumption of appliances. NEA, therefore, introduced the voluntary energy labelling scheme

for household air-conditioners and refrigerators in 2002. However, as of April this year, only less than 25% of the available models were labelled, limiting the effectiveness of the scheme.

A mandatory energy labelling scheme will ensure that consumers can compare energy consumption across all models of all appliances on the market. Similar schemes in the US, the EU and Australia, have helped to lower energy use in these countries. The experience with a voluntary scheme shows that the cost impact of energy labelling on manufacturers and importers is unlikely to be significant.

Sir, this Bill will insert a new Part on energy conservation into the EPCA for NEA to establish a mandatory energy labelling scheme (MELS) for registrable goods. The necessary subsidiary legislation to establish MELS for household air-conditioners and refrigerators will be gazetted by 1st July this year. The industry will be given a six-month grace period to clear their existing stock and to comply with MELS.

Under the proposed amendments, manufacturers and importers will be required to register with NEA if they intend to supply registrable goods locally. They will also be required to register the models they wish to sell with NEA, as well as ensure that energy labels are properly attached to their appliances. As part of the registration of models, manufacturers and importers will need to submit documentation identifying the energy performance of the models according to the prescribed test

Column: 799

standards. This will serve to ensure that the energy information provided on the labels is accurate and comparable across the various models.

Renaming the Environmental Pollution Control Act

Sir, with the inclusion of the new Part on energy conservation, the existing title of the Act will not entirely reflect the new mandate of the Act, which goes beyond pollution control. The Environmental Pollution Act will therefore be renamed the Environmental Protection and Management Act.

Amendment to the formulation for composition sums

Sir, this Bill would also amend the EPCA to increase the maximum allowable composition sum for offences under the Act. This is necessary to ensure that the penalties for pollution offences remain an effective deterrent. In particular, Sir, this amendment will allow the composition sums of construction noise offences to be raised to a more adequate level, to complement the recent tightening of construction noise limits gazetted earlier in March 2007.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

6.02 pm

Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill as I believe that it is a giant step that we can take to help lessen the impact of our construction activities on the environment.

Already, as stated by recent findings from a variety of sources like the inter-governmental panel for climate change, our climate is not faring very well and our future does not look very bright if we are

Column: 800

to continue on our current path without reinforcing measures to help maintain the environment.

However, I feel that we must temper our need to help the environment with a sense of pragmatism. I have no doubt as to the long term benefits that will be brought about by the implementation of the proposed changes in the Bill. But how will it affect our economic and social stability? For one, the NEA has proposed amendments to introduce stricter noise limits for construction sites at night and on weekends and public holidays.

While it is understandable that site works will cause inconvenience to those living in the area, we must consider the impact that such amendments will have on the construction industry. Our local construction industry was in the woods until recent months when it began to see some growth. But even this was unfortunately marred by the double impact of both the sand ban and stoppage of granite exports by Indonesia.

According to a recent Straits Times' report, the price of sand rose to about $60 a tonne, up from about $20 before the ban, while granite was going for $70 a tonne, up from $25. Furthermore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore has warned that future new developments could be slow or delayed if sand and concrete become more difficult to obtain. This could translate to an additional cost in development. As such, the construction industry, with a bright sky, has suddenly turned hazy because of this unexpected turn of events.

By implementing noise limits that are too stringent for the industry, we will be imposing yet another constraint on the construction companies. Deadlines and meeting schedules are always the bugbear for this industry. With fewer hours to work, they will find themselves like a tight

Column: 801

rope walker trying to cross the thin steel wire on a very windy day. There are so many unforeseen elements that a contractor has to contend with, such as material supply, manhours lost and weather, not to mention, the proposed shorter working hours.

At a time when our economy is picking up, we need to get many projects to be built on a fast track. Working round the clock and on public holidays is the industry's way of making up for any time lost. Hence, I feel that we consider how to balance the needs of the public and the requirements of the construction industry. We must, in a sense, put a collar around the neck but not tighten it such that it becomes a noose that can suffocate the entire industry.

In fact, there are certain works, such as electrical cabling and water-pipes, which should be given a special waiver from the restrictions. Activities like launching of pre-cast beams for bridges and continuous 24-hour concrete casting for rough foundations, ball piles and damper walls should be considered for this waiver as well as this is a technical requirement. I am sure the Minister understands what I am saying because he himself is a civil engineer by training. Any inconvenience rendered by such works should be seen in the context of the larger picture. If these public works are not completed on time, a much larger inconvenience will result and it will invariably be the people who will lose out. Perhaps, a taskforce consisting of industry players and Government agencies should be formed to work out the waiver list.

Another area I am concerned with is how long a company's record of offences will exist in the records. Are there any plans for a reward system that can offset a company's record of offences after a

Column: 802

certain period of time, perhaps maybe 12 months, if no offences are committed during that period? This system is already in place in the form of the police's Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS) which it uses to discipline errant drivers. I feel that such a system reaps a good amount of benefits when applied in any context. We should not only always use a stick and forget to offer a carrot.

If we do not provide companies with the opportunity to start anew on a clean slate, they will be penalised unnecessarily in a matter of time. The truly recalcitrant offenders will always be there to face the music but it is the accidental offenders whom I think we should offer help. Also, the Minister should consider whether increasing fines is the only way to try and solve a problem. I would like to urge the Ministry to seriously review this.

Sir, I support the Bill.

6.09 pm

Mdm Ho Geok Choo: Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. With increasing worldwide concern over climate change and the environment, this Bill is certainly most timely. Although Singapore is a small country, this Bill will help us play our part in conserving energy, and in creating a better living environment for Singaporeans.

Mandatory energy labelling

Sir, a voluntary Energy Labelling Scheme has been in operation since 2002. To date, less than 25% of refrigerator and air-conditioner models in the market have been labelled.

Manufacturers and retailers have obviously not shown much enthusiasm to this scheme, and for obvious reasons. Fridges and air-conditioners are energy guzzlers, and energy labelling will no doubt highlight this fact.

Column: 803

With the passing of the amendments to this Bill, energy labelling will become mandatory. This Bill will create a leveller, enabling consumers to choose products which are more energy-efficient.

What timeline are we looking at to reach a higher percentage for energy labelling of refrigerators and air-conditioners in the market? How else will the Ministry engage in an awareness programme to promote a switch to energy-saving products?

To encourage importers and manufacturers to register with NEA, would NEA be giving any form of grants or incentives to expedite a swifter change to energy-saving goods? Suppliers are given a grace period of six months to clear their existing stocks. Would the NEA consider some form of rebates to help expedite this process?

Sir, this Bill will subject offenders who fail to label their goods or mislead with information to fine and both fine and imprisonment respectively. How will NEA be tracking for compliance and would there be any recourse for the supplier who may have failed to comply because of extenuating circumstances?

Whilst the intent of the Bill is noble as it seeks to protect and manage, it is just as important that there is a proper process to manage the suppliers. The Bill must not just come on, on the suppliers from a punitive approach. That must be the last resort. At all times, the process to convert suppliers to comply must convey education, persuasion and seriousness that leads to meting out fines and imprisonment. The latter should be the last resort.

Sir, Singaporeans are a pragmatic lot, and I am confident that their consumer instincts will prevail in selecting the most energy-efficient products. Their pragmatism will guide them not only in the prices

Column: 804

of these products, but also their potential to save consumers on their electricity bills.

Construction noise control

Sir, in past sessions in this House, I have highlighted the problem of noise pollution caused by construction activities near to or in the housing estates. As a highly urbanised country, we can accept the inevitability of construction activities so close to our homes. With tight deadlines, building contractors are often forced to extend their activities into the night and even Sundays and public holidays.

However, as I have highlighted in the past, the noise from these construction activities tend to affect residents adversely. I am therefore glad to support the amendments to this Bill as they relate to the penalties for noise pollution. The higher penalties of fines and compositions will no doubt motivate contractors to look into more effective ways to control noise pollution from their activities. However, to cushion the pressure of cost and time constraint, as raised by hon. Member Lee Bee Wah, I urge NEA to consider partaking in subsidising the measures to control noise pollution.

But we must not just be looking at the inconveniences faced by the contracts because of such measures. At the same time, I think we must also consider the plight of residents having to live through the day and night and even on weekends with the noise.

Sir, besides depending on complaints to track recalcitrant contractors, what other measures are being taken to educate contractors on noise pollution? Where the construction activities coincide with school examination periods, especially during the PSLE, 'O' and 'A' levels and university examinations, would

Column: 805

the Ministry consider barring construction activities from being carried out during the night and on weekends as well as public holidays?

Contractors will find that it makes business sense, in terms of dollars and cents, to keep the noise level down. This will also create a more favourable image, understanding and acceptance of the other inconveniences that residents may have to put up with as a result of their construction activities, such as dust, detours and others.

On this note, Sir, I support the Environmental Pollution Control (Amendment) Bill.

6.15 pm

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the light of the rising concerns on global warming and our efforts to promote energy-efficient buildings, this move to introduce mandatory energy labelling for household appliances is indeed timely, and I support the Bill. The Government has been pushing hard for building owners to use energy-efficient equipment as well as adopt energy-efficient designs to cut down on their consumption of electricity. This has gradually got the desired effects, as we see more buildings, including industrial buildings, getting the Green Mark.

While not everyone may appreciate the issue of global warming, I am sure when this is translated in terms of monthly electricity bills, it will get the required attention. Household energy consumption, which accounts for 18% of the total electricity consumed in 2005, when seen in the context of a growing population in Singapore, the final figure will add up to a lot.

Column: 806

Today, there are many options for households to cut down on their monthly bills. Many electronic devices draw power whenever they are plugged into an outlet, even when they are turned off or are fully charged, such as adapters that come with rechargeable battery-powered cordless phones, cell phones and digital cameras. Leaving electronics on standby, such as TVs, cable boxes and computer monitors, also waste energy. So we have to monitor how we use these electronics and appliances to cut down on our consumption of electricity.

Now, with the introduction of energy labelling on appliances, households will have yet another option to cut waste. To help the consumers, the National Environment Agency must ensure that the energy-efficient labels attached to the products or their packaging convey easy to understand information.

I would even go a step further and ask NEA, instead of just stating that the product is energy-efficient, they should also indicate how much energy it consumes. The label must have the energy consumption figure to show the units of electricity use in kilowatt hour (kWh) to allow comparisons between models.

This way, a consumer can make an informed decision and decide whether he needs to buy the product that consumes 80 watts per hour or he can make do with one that uses just 50 watts per hour, or even after looking at the monthly energy cost, decide not to buy. This is an informed choice for a buyer.

Next, I will also ask NEA to look into extending the mandatory labelling to more appliances, such as washing machines and hot water dispenser appliances. These are the essentials at homes. NEA should also give information on how much water they consume. This will again help consumers to make an informed decision

Column: 807

on which model or brand is most suitable for their needs.

We need to educate our population on the consumption characteristics of these appliances, so that they will begin to ask themselves the questions: Do I really need this huge refrigerator? Or can I make do with just a smaller sized unit? For washing machines, I understand that in view of the different technologies used, the front-loading and the top-loading machines use very different quantity of water. Many of the consumers do not know this fact, as many go for top-loading machines as these are at least 50% cheaper in terms of the purchase price. For longer life, frequently used, high energy consuming products, the savings in energy cost over the product lifetime can be especially significant.

In fact, in Europe, the EU Energy Label is a compulsory notice that is applied to all white goods, ie, beyond the home appliances sold within the EU. They include office equipment, such as printers, copiers, fax machines, computers, scanners and so forth.

NEA should launch a public education campaign to create awareness, especially with the widespread use of computers in the homes. I am sure many would be interested which make of computer is more energy-efficient, or is a notebook more energy-efficient than a desktop? One report I read comparing the 30-watt for a powerful notebook, including LCD screen, with the 120-watt desktop PC plus the 80 watt CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) screen, savings could really be up to 80%. And even in the notebooks intended as "desktop replacement", with a larger screen, up to 16-17 inches, and less aggressive power management settings, the savings are still well above 50%. I am sure many parents will be keen to know about this, because our teenagers are putting on their appliances three at one time.

Column: 808

The last concern I have is that NEA should help our suppliers with this energy labelling, to cut down as much as possible the cost, and not to add additional cost to our suppliers.

Sir, with energy labelling, Singaporeans will find that they now can buy smart, save on electricity bills, get the most out of their appliances and, at the same time, save the earth. Buying more energy-efficient appliances means less heat, longer product life, lower air-conditioning cost and might even save valuable space at home. And I like this. The high product energy efficiency is both an indication of high quality and also advanced product technologies too.

Sir, I hope the Minister will do more education campaigns on this.

6.22 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am pleased that there is a change in the name of the Environmental Pollution Control Act to the Environmental Protection and Management Act, and I rise in support of the Bill.

The name change is timely and it will reflect the enlarged scope of the law which will extend beyond just controlling pollution to encompassing protection and management of the environment. It puts the Government on a more proactive mode when it comes to issues relating to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.

I am entirely in agreement with the proposal to mandate energy labelling of appliances, especially refrigerators and air-conditioners. After all, they account for the highest energy consumption in the domestic sector. In fact, in today's modern homes, air-conditioners and refrigerators are becoming standard fixtures. We can all clearly see where

Column: 809

Singapore is heading in the near future with our Government aggressively pushing towards realisation of a new global city that we aspire to be. The demand for electrical appliances will be tremendous; so will be the usage of electricity.

Sir, my main concern on this Bill is how this is going to affect the ordinary man-in-the-street. I am referring, in particular, to the mandatory labelling of electrical appliances and its impact on households, especially for those in the lower-income bracket. What is the cost of this mandatory labelling of electrical appliances for the suppliers and distributors? Will the amendments result in cost increase for the consumers? Does the Ministry have in place a mechanism for keeping labelling cost to the minimum for suppliers, so that the suppliers cannot find an excuse to raise prices of appliances that carry the energy- saving label? In fact, if the cost of labelling is marginal, I am surprised that there was reluctance by major appliance suppliers to voluntarily offer their products to the labelling scheme. Was cost a factor that restrained them from coming forward? Being a commercially-oriented enterprise, I am sure there is a marketing advantage for these suppliers if they got their products labelled promptly and to exploit the certification to their advantage.

The next point I would like to raise is whether there is a duration of lifespan for this label. For example, an air-conditioning unit condenser which is 8-10 years old will not be as energy-efficient as when it was first bought. I believe appliances, like human beings, also go through mid-life crisis and they do need some form of reconfiguration. Therefore, should this label be subjected to automatic expiry date?

My point is that there are many shops which buy and sell old appliances, and we

Column: 810

should make it explicit to consumers that buying such appliances with labels does not imply the energy consumption as efficient as it was just as it came off the manufacturing line. Will the second-hand air-conditioner and refrigerator retailers be subjected to this Bill? If they are included, how is the Ministry going to mandate this group?

Lastly, I would like to boldly propose that the Ministry take one more step further, which means why not go ahead to enforce only appliances with certain energy efficiency level to be allowed into our market. We need to bear in mind that as the population increases, as we propel our economy to the next level of growth, our energy consumption is definitely going to see an exponential increase. We need to do more to cap on our energy usage.

It will perhaps be more appropriate at this moment for the Ministry to increase its efforts on publicity programmes now to create greater public awareness on choosing the energy-efficient label. This campaign should also educate the public on how to decide whether it is cheaper to repair an old appliance or just replace it completely with a new and more energy-efficient model.

The Government should also promote renewable source of energy, such as solar energy for households as well as look into its wider application in public housing estates.

Column: 810

---