Pushing the Energy Efficiency Envelope through Appliance Standards Around the World

John Millhone Board member, CLASP May 2011

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

Relación de Eficiencia Energética (REE) determinada como se establece en la

NOM-021-ENER/SCFI/ECOL-2000 REE= Efecto neto de enfriamiento (W) Potencia eléctrica (W)

Marca:

SUPER-IRIS

Potencia eléctrica:

860 W

Modelo:

TGV024R200B

Efecto neto de enfriamiento:

17 000 W REE establecida en la norma en ( W/W ) 2,49 REE de este aparato en ( W/W ) Ahorro de energía de este aparato 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Menor Ahorro Mayor Ahorro

El ahorro de energía efectivo dependerá de los hábitos de uso y localización del aparato

IMPORTANTE

Este aparato cumple con los requisitos de seguridad al usuario y no daña la capa de ozono La etiqueta no debe retirarse del aparato hasta que haya sido adquirido por el consumidor final

CLASP: Global Expertise on Energy Efficiency Standards & Labeling

The Collaborative Labeling and Appliance Standards Program

’ s (CLASP) primary objective is to identify and respond to the assistance needs of S&L practitioners around the world while making the highest quality technical information on S&L best practice available globally. • Established in 1999 by the Alliance to Save Energy, International Institute for Energy Conservation, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

• Became a ClimateWorks Foundation Best Practice Network (BPN) in March of 2009.

• Became the operating agent for the Super-efficient Equipment and Appliance Deployment SEAD Initiative in 2011.

• Formerly a small, distributed network of international experts, CLASP has expanded and matured with over 24 team members in Beijing, China; Brussels, Belgium; Washington, DC; and New Delhi, India.

CLASP

’

s Funders

CLASP Core Services

For maximum impacts, CLASP: • Provides technical assistance and expertise to national governments and other stakeholders including: • Product Specific Technical Analysis • • Market Impacts Studies Label design research • S&L Impacts Assessment • • Product Prioritization Studies Program Evaluation • Assembles and overseas project teams from diverse and highly-qualified organizations • Disseminates best practice information and training • Guidebooks on Best Practice S&L and Compliance • • Studies on Harmonization and Product Benchmarking Regulatory Agenda Tracking

 Tools for implementers

CLASP Tools

PAMS – Policy Analysis Modeling System is one of the most promising energy efficiency policy instruments in countries where they have been introduced with care.

CLASP - Standards & Labeling Guidebook for Appliances, Equipment, and Lighting

 S&L Database The most comprehensive database on standards and labels that offers the possibility to search current programs by product or by country. A new version with enhanced functionalities is under development, to be launched by October.

Current & Former Country Scope

CLASP has provided S&L technical assistance in over 50 countries on 6 continents, including Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Korea, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, Uruguay, and Vietnam.

Under support from the ClimateWorks Foundation, CLASP currently provides technical support in: • China • European Union • • India Mexico • • United States Global Research Projects CLASP works in additional countries and regions pending funding and opportunity, and taking into account the global potential and country priorities.

China

• Support Monitoring, Enforcement, and Compliance of national S&L program in China • Round Robin Testing for room air conditioners • Check-testing for 8 different products • Air Conditioner Metering Campaign • To continue through 2010 • S&L Program Evaluation • Consumer awareness survey of information label launched in January 2010 • S&L for Computers & Servers • Technical support and coordination from CLASP, CSEP, LBNL, and CNIS

Europe

• Technical Analysis on Standards • “Study to Assess Barriers to Improving Energy Efficiency in Heating Appliances/Systems for New and Existing Buildings in EU and EEA Member Countries and Propose Cost-Effective Solutions to Removing Them ” • Technical Analysis for Air Conditioners forthcoming; working to identify additional products for analysis, per the EC ’ s calendar • Analysis on Compliance and Monitoring in the EU and Member States • “ Study to Assess the Monitoring, Verification and Evaluation (MV&E) Capabilities and Practices for the Implementation of the Ecodesign and Labelling Directives in each EU Member State and EEA Country ” • Technical Analysis on Labeling • Developing revised strategy to address issues concerning implementation of new label, including preparing for its scheduled revision in 2014, and monitoring of its impact on market uptake of energy efficient products

India

• Support BEE in Developing S&L for New Products • Draft Policy brief forthcoming • Baseline and S&L Thresholds for Consumer Electronics • Baseline and S&L Thresholds for Additional Products • Impact Assessment and Monitoring • Phase 1 of Impact Assessment for Refrigerators and Air Conditioners S&L Program complete; Second Phase initiated • Impact Assessment for additional products forthcoming: ceiling fans, televisions, storage water heaters (geysers), and fluorescent tube lights • Providing staff support to BEE • Support Shakti in Promotion and Outreach activities • Harmonization of Test Procedures for Computers & Servers • Report on Market Transformation Strategies forthcoming (3 Products)

Latin America

• Support to CONUEE of Mexico • Focusing on MEPS for high energy savings potential • Perspective to align with US and Canadian standards • Support to Fundacion Chile/CNE-PPEE • Technical Assistance on complementary policies and evaluation of certification system • Technical Assistance on EE standards and MEPS for gas appliances • Support to ENARGAS of Argentina • Technical Assistance on EE standards and MEPS for gas appliances • Collaboration with OLADE (Latin America Energy Organization; Quito, Ecuador) • For regional trainings on S&L Building Blocks

United States

• Initiated work on a snapshot study of US compliance • For EnergyGuide, Energy Star, and Federal Energy Efficiency Standards • Coordinate US Labeling Working Group • Collaborating with ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, Alliance to Save Energy(ASE) • Provide ASAP working groups with product-specific expertise and technical analysis for standards development

Cross-Cutting/Global Research

• Opportunities for Success and CO₂ Savings from Appliance Energy Efficiency Harmonization (Paul Waide) • The objective of this study is to document the products and regions wherein Standards and Labeling harmonization has succeeded or is likely to succeed or where there is alignment potential; • The resources required for that success; the energy and CO 2 attributable to that success; savings likely • Estimates of the overall cost savings resulting from reduced transaction costs as a result of a harmonized standard versus varying standards by country.

• Monitoring, Verification, and Enforcement (Mark Ellis) • The objective of the study is to survey and then develop a better understanding of best practices for establishing effective frameworks and sets of MV&E activities.

Cross-Cutting/ Global Research

• Product Benchmarking & Scorecard of S&L Programs • Study to Provide International Comparison of Energy Efficiency Performance and Policy Measures for Air-conditioners Used in Residential and Commercial Sectors • Additional products forthcoming: lighting, televisions, motors, and domestic refrigeration • Convening Experts: International Workshop on Computers & Servers • Latin America Regional Training with OLADE

Current support for the SEAD initiative

As operating agent, CLASP provides technical and administrative support to the working groups under the SEAD initiative.

An initiative of the Clean Energy Ministerial and a task within the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, SEAD seeks to engage governments and the private sector to transform the global market for energy-efficiency equipment and appliances.

As of April 2011, SEAD's member governments are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Commission, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Current support for the SEAD initiative

WG1- Technical Analysis working group is undertaking a range of efforts to support SEAD activities – from the Superefficient.org portal, to product specific efficiency opportunity assessments, to development of a common analytical platform for assessing energy savings. WG2 – Awards working group has unveiled plans for the first international competition to recognize the most efficient appliances in the world. The first round will focus on televisions.

WG3 – Incentives working groups is exploring opportunities to support the development or refinement of incentives programs for efficient appliances in selected countries.

Current support for the SEAD initiative

WG4 – Standards and labels: subgroups of SEAD partners are launching collaborations focused on six product categories and one power use mode: Commercial refrigeration Computers Distribution transformers Solid-state lighting Motors Televisions Network standby as voluntary exchanges of technical information between teams of government regulators and supporting experts from different countries WG5– Procurement working group seeks to leverage the purchasing power of public and private sector buyers to draw high efficiency equipment and appliances into the market.

SUPEREFFICIENT.ORG

Introduction to Standards and Labels

Market Transformation

Standards and labels work together to push and pull the market toward greater energy efficiency.

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

Standards and Labeling Programs Impact the Environment

Reducing the energy consumption of a product On aggregate, reduces overall energy consumption Therefore, reducing green house gas emissions and other pollutants Which, reduces power demand Which, reduces the need for the production of electricity And, increasing the feasibility of renewable

Reasons for Implementing Standards and Labeling Programs

Countries adopt standards and labeling policies for a number of reasons 1. Reduce capital investment in the energy supply infrastructure a) b) Less expensive than energy production Makes renewable energy more affordable by reducing the need for energy production 2. Avert urban/regional pollution 3. Promote competitiveness of domestic manufacturers by avoiding non-tariff trade barriers 4. Secure energy independence 5. Meet climate change goals Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289

Buildings Technology Efficiency is Most Cost Effective

Source: American Physical Society, September, 2008 http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/report/aps-energyreport.pdf

Energy Efficiency Standards

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

• 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 (Minimum Energy Performance Standards)

1.

The government sets a limit on the total amount of energy a product can use annually ≤ 400 kWh/a 2.

The manufacturer designs the product to use less energy then the limit 3.

The manufacturer tests the product using a designated test procedure to certify it uses less energy than the limit 4.

The manufacturer then submits these results to the government or self-certifies them 5.

The product can be sold on the market

Percentage of Models

Energy Efficiency Standards Shift Markets

Clothes Washer Energy Factors in the U.S. before and after the 1994 standard 1994 Standard

Energy Factor (ft 3 /kWh) Source: CLASP, Feb 2005, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.resource.php?sbo=289

Comparative Label

Comparative energy efficiency labeling “ PULLS ” the market towards greater energy efficiency by allowing consumers to compare the energy efficiency of products while making a purchasing decision, thus motivating manufactures to build products that that are more efficient then their competitors.

Categorical Label (Dial) Continuous Label Categorical Label (Bars)

Comparative Labels (Categorical)

1.

The government sets discreet categories based on specific ranges of energy use allowing comparison between products

Category

A B

Energy Range

<400 kWh/a 400 – 499 kWh/a 2.

The manufacture builds the product and test its energy use using a designated testing procedure in order to determine the proper category 3.

The manufacture submits the results to the government or self certifies 4.

The manufacturer labels their product with the correct category

Endorsement Label

Endorsement energy efficiency labeling “ PULLS ” the market toward greater energy efficiency by identifying for consumers the most energy efficient products, thus providing an incentive (market advantage) for manufacturers to build highly efficient product.

United States European Union Korea

Endorsement Labels

1.

The government sets a minimum energy use threshold for entry into a program which recognizes highly energy efficient products ≤ 100 kWh/a 2.

The manufacturer designs the product to use less energy than the threshold so the product can receive this recognition 3.

The manufacturer tests the product using a designated test procedure to certify it uses less energy than the threshold 4.

The manufacturer then submits these results to the government that reviews and approves it 5.

Once it has been approved, the product ’ s packaging can be labeled with the endorsement label, the manufacture can advertise the product ’ s endorsement, and usually the product will be listed on a government website

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

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

Savings Potential

 Determined by available technology and cost-effectiveness

Major Stakeholders

 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups

Comparative Labels

Advantages of Comparative Labels

 Efficiency less compulsory - gives manufacturers the option of a wide range of     efficiencies Provides strong market incentive for efficiency Market evolves over time at accelerated pace Low per unit transaction costs Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit

Disadvantages of Comparative Labels

 Impact of program less predictable  May be difficult to change labeling scheme  May or may not maximize consumer benefits

Savings Potential

 Determined by market demand for higher efficiency products

Major Stakeholders

 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups

Endorsement Labels

Advantages of Endorsement Labels

 Usually voluntary - manufacturers can opt in or out    Provides market association between efficiency and quality Can have large impact if endorsement level becomes de facto standard Low per unit transaction costs  Technology costs borne by consumer who also receives savings benefit

Disadvantages of Comparative Labels

 Impact of program difficult to predict  May or may not maximize consumer benefits

Savings Potential

 Determined by market demand for highest efficiency products

Major Stakeholders

 Manufacturers, environmental groups, consumer groups

Test Procedure

Test procedures are the foundation of any standards and labeling program as they are used to determine the energy use of a product.

• • • Test procedures should: Reflect typical usage Yield repeatable and accurate results Be relatively inexpensive to perform Test procedures can be developed either in country or adopted from an international body.

Testing should be conducted in an accredited laboratory to ensure that tests are being conducted properly.

Chinese Air Conditioner Testing Facility

Manufacturing Cost vs. Energy Savings

Product energy efficiency is the result of a series of incremental modifications to features, technology, and design.

The goal of standards and labeling setting is to strike a balance between increased costs of manufacturing and energy savings.

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

Updating Standards and Labels

Standards and labels must be continually reviewed and revised (3-5 years) to increase stringency and drive continued energy savings.

 As new energy saving technologies are developed and become more cost effective it is important to continually update the stringency of standards.

 Once the market has become oversaturated with high energy efficient products it is necessary to increase the stringency of label requirements in order to keep labels meaningful to consumers.

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

Seven Steps in S&L Development

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

S&L Programs Require Resources

Legal and Authoritative Resources

 Clear mandates and lines of responsibility from framework legislation and/or implementing regulation

Financial

 A regular and consistent source of operational budgets; annual allocations? Fees from testing and/or labeling?

Human

 Qualified staff to manage implementation as well as conduct market analysis; some outsourcing possible but base management requires dedicated staff

Physical/Facilities

 Central offices, field facilities for monitoring/enforcement and/or laboratories for testing?

Institutional

 All of the above should culminate in a managing institution with program responsibility

Standards and Labeling: Common Challenging Aspects

Common Challenges in the Test Lab and Testing Arena

    Finding the financial resources for a bricks and mortar (versus policy) project Getting the order right—need the test lab and procedure before you can regulate Defining the Business Model • Limited amount of mandatory testing to support business model • How to leverage private R&D testing to support the business model Test Standards and Test Methods • Lack details required to perform tests in the same way across multiple laboratories • Do not address innovation and emerging technologies • Test Procedure development not synced well in advance of regulations • Test Procedures “ Slow to Change ” • Allow “ Gaming ” during the test process that influence results • Correlation between laboratories • Uncertainty and Repeatability of test results • Difference in Field Data Results vs. Lab Data Results • Cost of testing

Need a Model to Prioritize

ANALYSIS 1: Based on GHG Abatement Potential GHG abatement Potential = Surviving stock X Annual energy consumption X Energy saving potential of the appliance X



The model compares GHG Abatement Possible in year 2030 due to application of S&L to the considered products



The products sold on or after 2014 and surviving till year 2030 have been considered - Normal distribution considered for products’ useful life



Calculated based on Hourly Energy Consumption (daily hours of use) days of use per year



Decided based on maximum theoretical improvement possible, depending upon present performance and specific areas of improvement e.g. in stand by and operating condition Electricity/fuel emission factor



To facilitate comparison for different fuel types, emission factors have been used to quantify environmental impact on basis of tonnes equivalent of CO 2 abated

Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study

Multiple Scenarios Can Be Analyzed

ANALYSIS 2: Based on GHG Abatement Potential and Market Implementability Both NEED BASIS Calculation of Market Implementability index



The product may have high overall GHG abatement potential but the actual implementation of effective labeling program may be difficult due to a host of market and management factors

• Therefore, we need to include these as well to ensure a more realistic analysis   

A normalized score for GHG abatement potential is calculated.

We also calculate the score for ‘market implementability’ (market implementability index) A weighted score for both the parameters gives the ranking for products



Market Implementability index is calculated based on following parameters:

• • Test Procedures / Standards Number of stakeholders (manufacturers) • • % organized sector Implementing association/ partner The Products are given a score on a scale of 0-4 (0=worst, 4= best) for all these parameters and final scores calculated based on parameter weight and score Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study

Overall Ranking Based on GHG Abatement and Market Implementability - Only Appliances Rank

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Product

Air Conditioners CTVs Ceiling fans Refrigerators

Washing Machines

Set top boxes

Uninterruptable Power Supply

Geysers

Table Fans/Pedestal/Wall Mounted Microwave Ovens Main Category

present analysis criterion weight =

Home Appliances & Equipments Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments

GHG Abatement Potential Market Implementability Score 75% 25%

92.8

51.1

1.0

1.0

26.9

15.3

2.3

9.5

13.1

3.0

5.6

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.8

Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study

Rank

1 2

Ranking based only on GHG Abatement potential – only appliances Product

Air Conditioners CTVs

GHG Abatement Potential

92.8

51.1

Main Category

Home Appliances & Equipments Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment 3 4 5 Ceiling fans Refrigerators

Uninterruptable Power Supply

26.9

15.3

13.1

Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment 6 7 Desert Coolers Set top boxes 11.1

9.5

5.6

Home Appliances & Equipments Consumer Electronics & External Power Supply Equipment Home Appliances & Equipments 8 9 10

Table Fans/Pedestal/Wall Mounted Exhaust Fans (ventilation fans)

Geysers 3.4

3.0

Home Appliances & Equipments Home Appliances & Equipments Source: CLASP&EDS, 2010, Product Prioritization Study

Good Label Design Requires Market Research with Stakeholders—Particularly Consumers

    Even though the Ghana program was one of our smallest (~$110,00 per year) CLASP provided T.A. for market research for Ghana label design Small sample of consumer focus groups Categorical design based on stars was most influential Colors and star design reminiscent of Ghana flag to identify labeling as a national program

Compliance & the MV&E Regime

All S&L programs have ‘rules’

• Mandatory and voluntary programs • Contained in legislation or administrative guidelines • • Compliance means adherence to these sets of rules Obligations may apply to different stakeholders: suppliers, importers, retailers, wholesalers, on-line suppliers, etc

Rules adopted by different programs vary according to many factors

• Existing legislation, political ambition, national governance issues, resources (in-house and external), stakeholder attitudes, etc.

But all programs have processes and systems to check compliance – the “compliance regime” This regime (should) comprise several distinct but interrelated elements

Key Elements

        Designing for, and facilitating, compliance Market surveillance (monitoring) Verification testing Enforcement Communication Legal and administrative framework Budget Evaluation 

All elements have to be included for the system to work and the required outcomes achieved.

Why worry about compliance?

 Safeguard the investment made by governments in building up the credibility of their voluntary and mandatory energy labels;  Risk that failure to address non-compliance can lead to serious long-term consequences through the erosion of consumer confidence;  Will require a considerable effort to re-establish credibility;  Consumers pay for performance that they do not receive;  Safeguard the investment made by compliant industry participants in order to manufacture and supply energy efficient products;  Without adequate enforcement, the compliant industry participant is penalised through a loss of economic returns and competitive advantage leading to a disincentive to invest in innovation.

The Circle of Compliance

= more support for S&L program

Efforts to improve compliance rates Low attention to compliance

=reduced support for S&L program =greater energy savings =consumer confidence & more purchases =consumers, press, NGOs, become skeptical Sales = more industry investment in energy efficiency Source: CLASP, Sep 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3 =no level playing field – reduced industry investment & participation =reduced energy savings

How Good are We at Ensuring Compliance?

CLASP Research

 CLASP surveyed S&L programs in G20 countries (+Tunisia & Chile) and found 30 programs spanning 14 countries  Comparison with surveys of EU Member States  To assess the strengths and weaknesses of the compliance infrastructure and capacity  To provide a greater level of evidence to support efforts to tackle compliance Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3

Resources

Country AU CA JP IN MX KR UK Program

M&L M&L TR & VL ML & VL M&L M&L, VL M&L

USD (000

’

s)

950 500-750 2,180 n/a 184 642 600-1500

Person/yr

n/a 0.2 10 >4 n/a 5.3 Key: M = MEPS M&L = MEPS and Labelling VL = Voluntary Labelling ML = Mandatory Labelling TR = Top Runner n/a = not available

50% programs can say how much is spent on compliance per annum

 In these, the amounts vary  Few have defined budget allocations and forward plans for MV&E activities n/a

Fewer programs gave staff numbers. MV&E often forms part of staff

’

s functions

 Need to ensure activities are coordinated and recorded; and clear lines of responsibility established Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3

MV&E Activities 80% programs undertake product testing

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Are product samples tested to ensure compliance with program requirements?

0% YES NO NOT KNOWN OTHER

50% could give figures

Country AU CN IN Program 2006

M&L M&L 58 54 L&VL 0

2007 2008

113 88 73 124 7 n/a

JP MX

0 132 24 108

KR UK US

TR 0 M&L 91 M 180 ML 84 VL M 160 0 ML VL 13 75 VL 36 228 88 135 100 18 0 142 93 82 0 300 82 11 n/a Key: M = MEPS M&L = MEPS and Labelling VL = Voluntary Labelling ML = Mandatory Labelling Source: CLASP, Sep 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3 TR = Top Runner n/a = not available

MV&E Activities Very few were able to provide figures for enforcement actions



Labeling and similar offences found in market surveillance

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The number of each type of enforcement actions taken in 2006-2008 DATA SUPPLIED NO NOT KNOWN 

Performance verification tests

0% 20% 40% The number of each type of enforcement actions taken in 2006-2008 60% 80% 100% DATA SUPPLIED NONE RECORDED NOT AVAILABLE NOT KNOWN Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3

MV&E Activities Public disclosure

Do you make publically available information about the number of tests conducted, including pass / failure rates?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% YES NO NOT KNOWN OTHER Do you publically identify individual products that have failed verification testing?

Compliance assessment

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Do you assess overall compliance rates for this program?

YES NO NOT KNOWN OTHER Are overall compliance rates increasing or decreasing?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% INCREASING DECREASING NOT KNOWN OTHER Source: CLASP, Jun 2010, http://clasponline.org/clasp.online.whatnew.php?no=746&type=3