Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment.

5.30 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary) (for the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment): Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment, I move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill seeks to introduce Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and the Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) to Regulated Goods that are imported by end users for their own use.

Sir, Singapore remains committed to meet our 2050 net zero target to secure long-term competitiveness and climate resilience. We were among just 13 countries to submit our 2035 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on time in February 2025, where we pledged to reduce our emissions to between 45 and 50 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035.

Today, about 40% of our greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to electricity consumption. Through long-term planning, Singapore has built up a resilient and diversified energy supply through our "four switches" approach to facilitate our net zero and energy transitions – solar energy, regional power grids, low-carbon alternatives and natural gas – whilst decarbonising our energy mix.

We are accelerating our energy transition and have achieved two gigawatt-peak of installed solar capacity in 2025. We have raised our 2030 solar deployment target to three gigawatt-peak, as announced at Budget 2026. To date, we have also awarded around 8.4 gigawatts of conditional approvals for low-carbon electricity imports.

Even as we pursue low-carbon alternatives, natural gas will remain Singapore's primary energy source for the foreseeable future. We will deploy advanced combined cycle gas turbine facilities to improve generation efficiency, lower our carbon footprint and support energy resilience.

Energy efficiency continues to be a key enabler of our energy transition and an important way to strengthen energy security and cost competitiveness. As a small and alternative-energy disadvantaged country, Singapore imports nearly all our energy supply and we must make every joule of energy count.

We are making good progress. According to the International Energy Agency, Singapore's energy intensity, which is the ratio of energy consumption to economic output, improved by 39% between 2000 and 2023.

The Middle East conflict has further reinforced the critical importance of energy resilience amid economic uncertainty, trade frictions and geopolitical conflicts. As Deputy Prime Minister Gan highlighted in his Ministerial Statement on the Middle East Conflict earlier today, this crisis has exposed vulnerabilities in global energy supply chains and underscored the importance of a diversified and resilient power supply for our economy and our society.

With rising energy demands and disrupted energy supplies, we must seize opportunities to decarbonise, reduce energy usage and conserve electricity by adopting more energy efficient practices and equipment. This allows households, businesses and industries to reap cost savings and to do more with less.

The MEPS, the performance standards, and MELS, the energy labelling, under the Energy Conservation Act are key regulatory tools to enhance the energy efficiency of common, energy-intensive equipment, such as refrigerators, air-conditioners, motors and commercial storage refrigerators. These regulations were introduced in 2009 to regulate the local supply of such regulated goods.

The MEPS aim to raise the average energy efficiency of regulated goods in Singapore by removing the least energy efficient models. Under the MELS, local suppliers are required to affix energy labels on regulated goods, which enable customers to compare energy efficiencies and savings across models and make more informed purchasing decisions. These two go together. One is a set of performance standards for the equipment, the other is a mandatory labelling scheme to make sure consumers are informed about the performance standards of the equipment.

To enhance energy efficiencies across sectors, regulatory coverage has progressively expanded from three types of regulated goods in 2009 to eight today. Commercial storage refrigerators and water heaters were the most recent additions in April 2025.

This approach has significantly increased the market share of more energy-efficient appliances. For example, the average energy efficiency of air-conditioners and refrigerators has improved by 61% and 45% respectively since 2009. This translates to annual energy savings of more than $560 million.

The Energy Conservation Act currently regulates importers, manufacturers and suppliers that provide the local sale and supply of regulated goods, with non-compliance carrying fines of up to $10,000. However, similar goods that are directly imported by end users, such as businesses and households, for their own use are not covered under the Energy Conservation Act today.

The current volume of such imports may be small, but this could increase over time as online marketplaces have made it increasingly easy for consumers to import such goods. Some businesses are already directly importing commercial storage refrigerators for their own use.

This regulatory gap raises two concerns.

First, this leads to the uneven application of MEPS and MELS regulations on regulated goods. Currently, only regulated goods from local suppliers face compliance requirements while those imported for own use are not covered.

Second, the purchase of imported regulated goods that are energy inefficient and do not comply with MEPS and MELS could lock businesses and households into higher life-cycle energy costs. Energy efficient appliances might have a higher upfront cost but typically offer lower life-cycle costs through energy savings. For example, the life-cycle costs of MEPS-compliant commercial storage refrigerators are on average 30% lower than non-compliant models. The adoption of energy inefficient equipment reduces cost savings for consumers and leads to lower abatement outcomes.

We have already taken some administrative steps to address this regulatory gap. Since 2023, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has collaborated with online platforms, like Lazada and Shopee, to voluntarily remove listings of non-compliant regulated goods. Nonetheless, given growing trends of importing regulated goods for one's own use, regulatory levers are needed to ensure such goods comply with MEPS and MELS requirements.

Sir, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill aims to ensure a level application of MEPS and MELS requirements for all regulated goods in Singapore and further improve energy efficiency. Specifically, regulated goods imported for own use will be subjected to similar MEPS and MELS compliance requirements as those intended for supply in Singapore. End users would be required to ensure that regulated goods brought into Singapore for own use are registered with NEA, meet MEPS in accordance with prescribed international test standards and test conditions, and are labelled with the required energy labels under MELS.

The proposed regulations exclude second-hand or used regulated goods where it is impractical to assess MEPS compliance.

These compliance requirements are not expected to be onerous for end users. While local suppliers pay a one-time registration fee of approximately $70 per model of regulated good, this will be waived for end users who typically cannot spread registration costs across multiple units. To demonstrate MEPS and MELS compliance, end users can rely on test reports from overseas suppliers and manufacturers. This would achieve a comparable cost of compliance between end users and local suppliers at approximately $1 per unit of regulated good.

The compliance requirements will extend to all regulated goods imported for own use, except regulated lamps. We will prioritise regulating the import of more energy intensive goods, such as commercial storage refrigerators for own use, compared to less energy intensive goods, such as lamps.

We intend to effect the enforcement regime from 1 July 2026 to deter end users from importing non-compliant regulated goods for own use and ensure compliance to the new requirements.

End users who import regulated goods that do not comply with MEPS and MELS requirements will face penalties of up to $10,000 in fines per import. This is consistent with existing penalties in the Energy Conservation Act for the local supply of non-compliant regulated goods and the import of non-compliant greenhouse gas goods for own use in the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999.

The proposed amendments to the Energy Conservation Act will also empower the Minister to make regulations to compel online platforms in Singapore or with a business establishment in Singapore to remove non-compliant listings. This will ensure that non-compliant products are not offered to end users in Singapore.

NEA will conduct systematic monitoring of online platforms and spot checks for non-compliance as needed. NEA will also conduct investigations in response to whistle-blowing reports or complaints and leverage existing powers in the Energy Conservation Act to enforce compliance with the new regulations.

To adjust to these regulatory changes, businesses and households can continue to leverage existing Government schemes to offset higher upfront costs of energy efficient regulated goods and realise energy savings.

For example, small and medium-sized enterprises in the food services and manufacturing sectors that meet prescribed criteria, such as the 30% local shareholding, can tap Enterprise Singapore's Energy Efficiency Grant, which has been expanded to all sectors and extended for one more year to 31 March 2028, as announced by the Senior Minister of State for Finance. This Grant covers up to 70% of costs for pre-approved energy efficient regulated goods, such as three-tick refrigerators and five-tick air-conditioning units to help businesses improve energy efficiency outcomes.

Singaporean and Permanent Resident Housing and Development Board (HDB) Households as well as Singapore Citizen households living in private residential properties can use $400 of Climate Vouchers under the enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme to purchase eligible energy efficient regulated goods.

Sir, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill will ensure that energy efficiency remains a cornerstone of our net zero and energy transition, create a level playing field for regulated goods in Singapore and improve energy efficiency for our industries, businesses and households. With that, Sir, I seek to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

5.43 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Mr Deputy Speaker, this Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill could not have been more timely. The Iran War is affecting our energy supply and our daily lives – rising petrol and diesel prices and higher electricity prices. In fact, if the war prolongs, the supply of fuel and electricity may have to be rationed too, which is already happening in our neighbouring countries. We must be prepared for the worst.

This is a stark reminder that we must conserve energy to the best we can and use energy-efficient equipment and appliances in our industries, in our factories and in our homes.

Sir, this is not a new effort. The MEPS and MELS for local supply of regulated goods were first introduced back in 2012. However, there was a gap as the Act did not cover regulated goods imported by end users for own use.

Over the years, as business practices evolved and consumers import equipment and appliances direct from foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or wholesalers, there is a growing volume of imported electrical appliances being used by end users in businesses and in households which may be non-energy efficient.

These direct imports are usually significantly cheaper than regulated goods sold by local suppliers, because of the removal of a layer of middleman cost. Most end users buy these imported goods to save money upfront – they may not care about energy efficiency or longer-term higher electricity prices.

A local catering business owner told me that he imports refrigerators, chillers and freezers directly from OEMs because of the lower prices, which can be 60% to 70% cheaper than similar models sold by local suppliers. But there is a trade-off. These appliances typically last only around 1.5 to two years, while reputable brands with higher energy efficiency from local supplies may last longer, around two to 2.5 years.

Despite the poorer efficiency and lifespan, many food business owners would still rather take advantage of the substantial upfront cost savings by importing these electrical appliances directly from the OEMs and wholesalers.

The amendment Bill will address this. It will place the onus on end users, to register the imported regulated goods with NEA and demonstrate evidence of compliance with the MEPS and MELS. NEA will also be empowered to take enforcement action against businesses and households that import non-compliant regulated goods for own use.

Overall, we will see more efficient appliances on the market soon – not because of this amendment Bill but because of the global energy crisis. OEMs will be motivated to produce energy efficient models because end users will care about both upfront capital expenses and recurring electricity costs.

The outcome of this amendment is that end users will have more choices of energy-efficient models as well as savings both in capital expenses and recurring electricity costs.

Singaporean households can use the $400 Climate Vouchers for purchases of energy-efficient models from local suppliers as well as importing energy-efficient electrical appliances directly from foreign suppliers.

I do have two questions for the Minister.

The amendment Bill would empower NEA to take action against businesses and households which import non-compliant regulated goods. In the food and beverage (F&B) sector alone, there were 6,355 registered restaurants as of 2023. This figure would be a lot higher if we include the broader F&B sector, such as cafes, bars, food courts, hawker stalls and other specialised food services. Also, there is a high churn in this industry. In 2024, close to 3,000 restaurants closed down while nearly 3,800 new food and restaurant businesses opened.

Given the large number of F&B businesses, coupled with the short average lifespan of two to three years for refrigerators, chillers and freezers, does NEA have an estimate of the total number of electrical appliances and equipment that may be procured annually, as well as the total annual energy consumption? With the amendment Bill, what is the projected reduction in energy consumption, should all F&B businesses deploy MEPS- and MELS-compliant appliances and equipment?

Secondly, given the large number of end users, how does NEA intend to police and enforce this new requirement? I hope the process and requirements will not be too onerous both for the NEA enforcement team and on the part of end users. We should not want to conserve energy in one form, only to expend it in another form. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few points in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Deputy Speaker, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill requires end users who import regulated electrical products for personal or commercial use to register these appliances with the National Environment Agency (NEA) and demonstrate compliance with Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS), thereby closing the regulatory gap where such imports were previously unregulated. NEA will be granted enforcement powers to take action against non-compliance.

The global energy crisis will drive manufacturers to produce more energy-efficient models, thereby benefiting end users who can save on both initial costs and ongoing electricity expenses.

Singapore households can achieve dual savings by combining Government-provided climate vouchers with the direct import of efficient appliances from overseas suppliers, whilst business operators, particularly those in the food and beverage industry who need to purchase multiple appliances, can also avoid excessive energy costs by using energy-efficient models. This amendment aims to strike a balance between cost savings and environmental responsibility.

However, the key to achieving energy conservation lies in implementing these new regulations in an efficient and effective manner. Otherwise, we would merely be conserving energy in one form whilst consuming more human resources in another.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important that we do what is right for the environment, especially at this time of threatened energy supplies. I support the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

5.52 pm

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the intents of this Bill. Climate change is an existential threat to our island nation. As I argued during the Budget debate in February, our transition to net zero must be backed by rigorous effective action that is both technically sound and socially just. We must ensure that our green ambitions do not inevitably place an unfair burden on our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and lower-income citizens.

Addressing the digital removal of SME listings. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would first like to turn to the new provisions regarding the digital removal of non-compliant products from online platforms. While we must prevent the entry of energy-guzzling appliances into our market, we must consider the SME squeeze in the e-commerce space.

Unlike large multinational corporations with dedicated compliance departments, our local SME retailers often lack the resources to navigate complex technical test reports for every niche product they list. If a listing is flagged and digitally removed due to a documentation error or a delay in NEA registration, the loss of sales momentum and search algorithm ranking can be devastating for a small business.

How will the Ministry ensure that these digital enforcement powers do not unfairly penalise local SMEs, who may inevitably fall victim to automated take-down algorithms? Will there be a grace period or a simplified verification pathway for local micro-enterprises to ensure they are not crowded out of the digital marketplace by larger players with deeper pockets for compliance?

Next, ambiguity in the circumvention threshold for consumers. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would also like to raise a concern regarding the new section 78, which targets the circumvention of registration requirements. This Bill expends the act to cover goods imported for own use. While this certainly closes a loophole for traders, it creates a grey area for individual consumers.

Many Singaporeans often sell items on online platforms, like Carousell, that are almost brand new, perhaps a gift they cannot use, or a high-end appliance bought for a renovation that was later aborted. Under this Bill, if a resident imports a non-compliant appliance for own use, but later decides to sell it because they have a change of mind, will they suddenly become an unregistered supplier subject to prosecution?

I have three specific clarifications for the Senior Minister of State.

First, the scope of marketplaces. Are all listings on peer-to-peer sites, like Carousell, now subject to these digital removal laws? If so, how will the NEA distinguish between a genuine second-hand sale by a resident and a commercial trader masquerading as individual to offload non-compliant stock?

Second, the evidentiary threshold. What criteria will NEA officers use to prove deliberate evasion versus a genuine change of mind? Without clear guidelines, we risk a situation where an innocent individual selling a gift is caught under the same heavy penalty framework as a rogue trader.

Third, protecting the gift economy. How does the Bill apply to those who receive an imported appliance as a gift and wish to sell it? We must ensure that our drive for energy efficiency does not inevitably criminalise the legitimate second-hand gift economy.

Addressing the software defined energy gap. Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill focuses heavily on regulated goods as physical hardware, we must acknowledge that in 2026, energy efficiency is increasingly governed by software. We are certifying the physical engine but ignoring the digital driver. I am concerned that the Bill remains silent on software-driven energy degradation. There is a growing risk that a product's registered efficiency, the very basis of its NEA approval, can be remotely altered post-purchase.

This may happen in three ways. First, firmware throttling. Manufacturers can push over-the-air updates that cap performance to protect hardware longevity at the expense of efficiency. In a Tesla battery litigation in the United States, linked to the 2019 Hong Kong incident, Rasmussen against Tesla 2021 and the 2024 Norwegian Court of Appeal case, we saw disputes over allegations that over-the-air updates throttled capacity and charging speeds to manage hardware longevity post-sale.

If an industrial battery or EV charger is registered at a certain efficiency, but a firmware update throttles it six months later, the original registration becomes a moot point.

Second, the SaaS trap-enforced dilemmitry. Companies, like ABB, now offer an energy optimisation as a service. These AI-driven systems predict load demands for industrial motors. However, how do we prevent the possible scenario that the hardware may revert to a high consumption baseline mode if a local SME stop paying the subscription, even though the physical hardware is perfectly capable of running efficiently? We must ensure that energy efficiency is not held hostage by software subscriptions.

Third software bloatware. The US Department of Energy found that heating ventilation and air conditioning systems often prioritise warranty protection over energy savings. If a chiller software detects a minor sensor error, it may default to a mechanical safety mode that consumes 30% to 40% more energy without alerting the owner. This silent degradation means a building's energy audit may look good on paper, but the software is secretly wasting power.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: one, does the definition of regulated goods under the act extend to the firmware and software that control energy consumption? Two, how does the NEA intend to monitor and regulate software driven energy degradation once an item has been registered and cleared for use? Three, will the Government consider a software integrity requirement where manufacturers must declare if their hardware requires a paid subscription to maintain its registered MEPS rating?

Next, quantitative, transparency and impact accountability. The proposed amendment in this Bill seeks to encompass own use, imports and digital advertising within the regulatory framework. However, the absence of specific projections regarding expected energy savings or carbon abatement from these suggested additions prevent Parliament and Singaporeans from being able to value the efficacy of these measures or account for their performance.

Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity regarding whether the administrative burdens and cost placed upon the public and SMEs are truly proportionate to the actual carbon reductions achieved. While the Bill closes existing regulatory gaps, could the Senior Minister of State provide the specific annual energy conservation targets the Government expects to meet through these new own-use and advertising measures? Specifically, how will these regulations contribute to our national target of peaking emissions at 60,000 kilotonnes of CO₂ equivalent by 2030? And what methodology will the NEA employ to track and report these savings to the public?

Next, impact on lower-income families. Mr Deputy Speaker. I am also concerned that the Bill's restrictions on own use e-commerce imports may inadvertently raise the entry price for essential appliances. While high efficiency models offer long-term savings, the upfront green premium may potentially create a financial barrier for lower-income households. We must ensure that these regulations do not unfairly burden those who are currently relying on budget-friendly direct imports. Will the Ministry consider top-ups to the Climate Friendly Households Programme or other social equity measures to ensure lower-income families are not priced out of the appliance market by these stricter import controls?

Next, technical and financial barriers of SME compliance. Mr Deputy Speaker, for an SME importing a single piece of specialised industrial equipment for own use, the administrative process of mapping foreign laboratory data to NEA specific registrations can be a significant hurdle.

Unlike large retailers who spread these costs over thousands of units, small enterprises face a "compliance tax" that creates a literal barrier to modernisation as such. Without a simplified registration pathway, the potentially high cost and complexity of compliance may pervert the Bill's intent. Local firms may find it cheaper to keep older, less efficient machinery in operation longer, rather than navigating the new regulatory hurdles to import updated high efficiency technology.

While the NEA recognises test report for Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA)-accredited labs, the actual data submission for single unit imports remains administratively heavy for SMEs. In the spirit of Singapore-Australia Green Economy Agreement, and our Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) commitments, will the Minister consider a fast track or deemed compliant registration pathway for own use imports? Such a move would ensure that compliance costs do not inevitably discourage our local enterprises from adopting the latest energy-saving technologies.

Next, addressing the exclusion of high frequency goods like lighting. While the Ministry has prioritised larger appliances like refrigerators and chillers for the own-use import regime, it has specifically excluded lighting for the time being. However, the cumulative energy footprint of inefficient lighting imported via direct e-commerce remains significant. A phased approach that leaves out these high frequency items may allow a continued influx of sub-standard bulbs and tubes, which may undermine our overarching goal of reducing aggregate household demand. What is the specific data driven justification for excluding lighting from own-use import regulations at this stage?

Furthermore, can the Senior Minister of State provide a definitive timeline or road map for when these and other low consumption but high frequency goods will be included to prevent a prolonged regulatory vacuum?

Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, while this Bill closes necessary retail loopholes, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Since 2013, our most energy-intensive facilities have been tracking data under this Act, yet for a number of years, the needle on actual efficiency may not have moved much.

At the debate for the second reading of the 2017 amendments for the Energy Conservation Act, the then-Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Masagos Zulkifli, noted that while Energy Conservation Act companies saw efficiency gains of 0.4% and 0.6% in 2014 and 2015 respectively, meeting our climate pledge requires doubling or tripling these rates to 1% to 2% annually, in order to match then-leaders like Belgium and the Netherlands.

While the 2017 amendments introduced mandatory management systems and audits, they seem to have stopped short of requiring companies to actually implement these energy saving opportunities they identified, provided they met the MEPS for their equipment. The 2024 amendments mandated the MEPS, which are more prescriptive regarding actual performance levels.

So, can I ask the Senior Minister of State to provide an update, for facilities under this regime for over the last decade, what is the actual aggregate energy reduction achieved to date? And is the Ministry confident that the incremental system-by-system mandates will hit our 2030 targets in time? Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Deputy Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the intent of this Bill. Climate change is an existential threat to Singapore, but in pursuing net-zero goals, we must also balance policy fairness and transparency.

Firstly, I am concerned about the burden on small and medium enterprises. I worry that the new "digital deletion" requirements and complex registration procedures will be a "compliance tax" for small businesses with limited resources. The Government should provide a "fast track" or simplified procedures and not let cumbersome paperwork hinder businesses from adopting energy-efficient technology.

Secondly, the grey areas in the second-hand market. Many residents sell unused appliances or gifts on websites like Carousell. If the legal definitions are unclear, might ordinary citizens become "illegal suppliers" for selling a "non-compliant" gift? We must protect the legitimate second-hand economy.

Thirdly, energy wastage caused by software. Many appliances today have their efficiency controlled by software. If manufacturers reduce energy-saving effectiveness through remote updates after selling products or revert devices to high-energy consumption mode because users have not paid software subscription fees, then the original energy-saving registration becomes meaningless. The Government must regulate this "hidden" energy wastage.

Fourthly, caring for low-income families. Restricting online purchases of cheap electrical appliances may increase living costs. The Government should increase subsidies under the Climate Friendly Households Programme (CFHP) to ensure vulnerable groups are not excluded because they cannot afford expensive energy-efficient appliances.

Deputy Speaker, whilst I have the above concerns, I still support this Bill.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, the Workers' Party believes in a green transition defined by transparency and accountability. We must implement changes in this Bill with operational integrity and adjust transition protections that our people and our SMEs deserve. Notwithstanding the clarifications that I have sought, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Ng Shi Xuan.

6.07 pm

Mr Ng Shi Xuan (Sembawang): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill. This amendment comes at a time of volatility in global energy markets and where energy efficiency remains one of our first lines of defence against rising fuel costs.

I support the Bill because it closes a gap in our energy efficiency framework. While regulating local supply has been effective, global procurement channels now allow individuals and SMEs to access non-compliant goods directly.

To ensure this amendment works in practice, there are three areas that we must get right. First, ensuring clarity on who bears responsibility and how the requisite standards can be met. In practice, end-users, such as SMEs, often operate through layered procurement arrangements and may not realise they are legally treated as the importer, even when they did not control the purchase. Second, ensuring adequate support for SMEs to transition. Compliance can be costly for SMEs, given that upfront costs for non-compliance are often lower. And third, taking a calibrated approach to enforcement and compliance.

Sir, this Bill addresses the gap in the current landscape by extending the MEPS framework to goods imported for personal use. This Bill will affect both individuals and businesses importing regulated goods for their own use, including SME owners purchasing equipment for shops, offices, clinics, enrichment centres or F&B outlets.

In many cases, household purchases are occasional and more straightforward, as consumers often turn to trusted local suppliers who have already registered these appliances and ensured that they meet prevailing standards. The compliance risks are likely to be more acute for businesses, in particular SMEs. Unlike larger corporations, many SMEs do not have dedicated procurement, legal or compliance teams to check whether the goods they are bringing in meet Singapore's regulatory requirements. Their decisions are often driven by cost, speed and availability, and are frequently made through contractors, franchisors, fit-out firms or overseas suppliers.

There are at least three scenarios where an SME may inadvertently fall foul of the rules.

First, an SME setting up a new outlet may engage a contractor to source the necessary appliances. In trying to keep costs low and meet timelines, the contractor may purchase these goods from an overseas online platform without checking whether they comply with Singapore's MEPS and MELS requirements.

Second, a franchisee may purchase equipment specified by the brand owner, in order to maintain consistency with the wider franchise network or may have a contractual obligation to purchase such equipment. A franchisee may assume that because the equipment is approved or offered by the franchisor, it is also compliant with Singapore's regulatory standards.

Third, many SMEs rely on interior designers or contractors to deliver a unit on a turnkey basis. Appliances, such as refrigeration units, water heaters or air-conditioning systems may be imported as part of the fit-out package, and the SME owner may not even realise that they are also, in legal terms, treated as the importer responsible for compliance.

In each of these scenarios, the SMEs may not have controlled the procurement decision, but may still bear the responsibility as the importer. Unlike larger corporations, the SMEs may not have the bargaining power to either transfer compliance obligations or enforce standards on third-party vendors.

For that reason, while this Bill affects both individuals and businesses, it has greater practical impact on local businesses, and I would like to focus my remarks mainly on SMEs and on how importer liability will be determined in practice.

It is perhaps helpful to start by understanding the scale of the problem that the new laws seek to address. In particular, it would be useful to understand how significant this gap has become and why it is important to address it at this point in time.

Could the Senior Minister of State share the Government's assessment of the percentage of regulated goods currently entering Singapore, through direct imports or other channels, that may previously have fallen outside of the MEPS and MELS frameworks? And what factors drove the need for the amendment at this point in time?

It is also helpful to understand the feedback that went into shaping the proposed new laws. Sir, my second question relates to the public consultation, where NEA received feedback from 15 respondents, most of which were from local suppliers of regulated goods. Could the Ministry clarify whether SMEs, platform operators and other intermediaries in the procurement chain were also consulted, and how their views were taken into account?

This brings me to my concerns about compliance and enforcement – that is, whether and how SMEs will comply with the Act, and whether and how NEA will actively enforce this new offence.

In principle, I appreciate that businesses operating in Singapore should know that they must comply with Singapore laws. In an ideal world, all consumers and businesses would check before purchasing and importing regulated goods. However, as explained earlier, that is not how many SMEs actually buy equipment.

Take the example of a franchisee in the F&B sector who is told to purchase a standard set of equipment from the franchisor. Where the franchisee chooses to move ahead with the purchase, it could be a case of reasonably assuming or relying on third-party assurances that the equipment is compliant; not having enough bargaining power to convince the franchisor to switch; or making an informed, commercial decision that this may fall foul of the regulations. If it makes more commercial sense for SMEs to risk non-compliance with the Act, then the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effect.

First, there are the cost-savings of imported versus non-imported goods. Importing an approved single-phase air-conditioning costs about $3,299 online, while it costs $3,999 when bought locally. That is a substantial difference for a single unit, and even more so for bulk purchases. In many cases, the headline cost of regulated goods from overseas sources or parallel imports can be significantly lower.

Second, there are also further indirect costs which may accompany compliance. Where a company or person intends to import a regulated good for their own use, they must still produce test reports to demonstrate that the goods are compliant with the relevant standards. However, where the brand is less known or where the manufacturer's in-house laboratory testing is not to the required standards, the business owner would bear the responsibility of sourcing private lab testing, which can be very costly, both in terms of time and costs.

A simple search on NEA's website shows that for new registrants to be a supplier of regulated goods, the application takes seven working days, and for a Variable Refrigerant Flow air-conditioner a new registration fee costs $85 with renewal fees of $55 yearly. Lab tests lead time and costs could potentially result in commercial delays of months, and cost businesses thousands of dollars.

Whether one is a contractor, fit-out firm or end-user, there is often little immediate incentive to choose the more expensive piece of equipment. Yet, these appliances also have long operating lives, which means that once a non-compliant equipment enters the market, it may remain in use for many years. This makes the NEA's task of education and enforcement significantly more challenging.

One may argue that the long-term energy savings from more efficient equipment should make commercial sense. But that is not always immediately apparent to SMEs that are managing day-to-day operational pressures, cashflow constraints and tight set-up budgets.

While larger firms may be able to absorb these compliance costs, SMEs may instead treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their start-up considerations. In that case, the amendment may not achieve its intended deterrent effects.

So, I would ask the Ministry whether NEA has assessed the average lead time and total compliance cost for SMEs importing regulated goods for their own use. More importantly, has NEA considered how these factors may shape business behaviour, including whether some SMEs may treat the risk of non-compliance as part of their set-up considerations?

In addition, will the NEA consider publishing a public list of commonly used equipment that are compliant, their cost relative to non-compliant equipment and the estimated lifetime energy cost savings? This serves two purposes: empowering and educating the public to make informed decisions and incentivising upstream suppliers to ensure that their equipment are compliant.

Moving on from compliance, I would like to ask about NEA's plans for enforcement.

The issue of who bears responsibility as the importer is particularly important when we consider how enforcement will operate in practice. If penalties are to shape behaviour, they must be understood in practice and calibrated relative to the upfront savings from non-compliant equipment. Enforcement should follow a clear sequence – closing the information gap, supporting compliance and then applying firm penalties.

Sir, I understand that clause 17 of the Bill empowers the Minister to make further transitional regulations that are necessary and expedient. I also note that the current saving and transitional provisions do not appear to provide any relief for SMEs which are facing new registration costs. Therefore, I would like to ask the Ministry to consider a transition period with fee support or waivers, especially for SMEs, consumers and first-time applicants.

Given that much of the current risk appears to arise from information gaps and layered procurement arrangements, I hope the Government will consider a stronger transition approach. This could include broader consultation and outreach, a temporary transition or regularisation window, and where appropriate, expedited support for SMEs that are willing to switch to compliant and more energy-efficient equipment.

In this regard, schemes, such as the Energy Efficiency Grant play an important role in supporting SMEs in this transition. In practice, an SME's decision may change when the support quantum and scope are taken into account, particularly if audit and reimbursement processes do not place pressure on immediate cash flows.

I would therefore suggest that such schemes can be further streamlined or enhanced to support affected SMEs. I note that Senior Minister of State, Finance, has already expanded this Energy Efficiency Grant to all sectors today. I would encourage the Ministry to consider further expanding Energy Efficiency Grant's scope to cover all regulated goods.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill serves Singapore’s goals of meeting our climate targets and paves our path for sustainable growth.

Energy efficiency is a quiet but important part of energy policy. It goes beyond regulating appliances. It is about managing Singapore’s electricity demand and strengthening our resilience to external energy shocks. Amidst ongoing geopolitical uncertainties and volatility in global energy markets, improving energy efficiency becomes even more important. Every unit of electricity we save reduces exposure to external energy shocks and builds towards our energy resilience.

However, I believe that this must also be balanced against the impact of regulations on the people. It is not sufficient for us to rely on regulations and expect the people to meet our energy efficiency goals. The Government and the people must work hand-in-hand in order to ensure that not only our climate targets and energy goals are met, but our economy continues to grow on a model of sustainable energy.

With this in mind, I support the Bill and look forward to the Senior Minister of State's clarifications, particularly on how we can ensure that SMEs are supported to comply, even as we strengthen our energy resilience.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik.

6.21 pm

Mr Abdul Muhaimin Abdul Malik (Sengkang): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the objectives of this Bill. Extending our energy efficiency framework to cover goods imported for personal use is a logical and necessary step. This Bill will align all imported electronic goods with the energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements that already applied to goods supplied commercially in Singapore, ensuring a level playing field and giving consumers a consistent basis for informed purchasing decisions.

However, I wish to seek several clarifications from the Senior Minister of State on the enforcement architecture, the scope of Director-General's new powers and the question of interagency coordination, particularly between the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE), which oversees the industry and household sectors under this Act and the Ministry of Transport (MOT), which oversees the transport sector.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Bill creates a new prohibition on importing non-compliant regulated goods for personal use, but it is entirely silent on how this prohibition will be enforced at the border. This is not a minor operational detail. It goes to the heart of whether these amendments will have practical effect.

For commercial shipments, our existing regulatory infrastructure is well established. TradeNet declarations, licensed warehouses and customs checkpoints provide natural interception points, but the own use imports targeted by this Bill arrive through very different channels.

Consider the practical scenarios: a person orders a portable air-conditioning unit from an overseas e-commerce platform, and it arrives via international parcel post. A business owner drives across the Causeway with a piece of industrial equipment in the back of a van; a traveller returns from a trip with a new kitchen appliance in checked baggage. In none of these cases is there an obvious regulatory checkpoint at which compliance can be verified.

I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to address the following.

First, rather than building a new declaration regime from scratch, will the Ministry consider leveraging the trade information certificate framework under the regulation of Imports and Exports Act? That framework already provides the certifying matters relating to the import of goods and includes a provision allowing the Minister to prescribe additional certifiable methods. Energy efficiency compliance could be prescribed as one such matter, allowing importers of regulated goods to declare compliance through an existing system that Singapore Customs and traders are already familiar with.

Second, for goods arriving by post or courier, will the Ministry be working with Singapore Customs and Singapore Post to establish screening protocols. Will parcel manifest or trade description be used to flag potential non-compliant imports?

Third, for goods brought in by land through the checkpoints, what role will the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) play? Is it realistic to expect ICA officers, whose primary focus is immigration and security, to also screen for energy efficiency compliance?

Fourth, will enforcement be proactive through inspections and spot checks or reactive, relying on complaints and tip-offs. If the latter, the Bill's deterrent effect may be significantly limited. Without a credible enforcement framework, we risk creating a prohibition that exists on paper but is widely disregarded in practice. That outcome would undermine public confidence in the regulatory regime and create unfairness within compliant importers who bear the cost of registration and those who simply do not bother.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill significantly expands the discretionary powers of the Director-General of Environmental Protection. Under the new sections 13(2A) and 15(5), the Director-General may, at any time after registration or renewal, impose new conditions on or modify or revoke existing conditions of a registration. The Bill also grants the Director-General broad discretion under section 31B to grant or refuse waivers, based on whether there are good reasons to do so.

I acknowledge that the Bill includes procedural safeguards. The Director-General must give written notice of proposed conditions or modifications and allow registration holder to make written representations before a decision is made. There is also an appeal mechanism to the Minister under section 17. However, I wish to raise several points on the adequacy of these safeguards.

First, the powers to impose or modify conditions at any time is very broad. There is no requirement that conditions be related to the original purpose of the registration, no cap on the frequency of modifications and no requirement that conditions be proportionate.

Second, the Bill does not specify any timeframe within which the registration holder must be given to make representations. This is left entirely to the Director-General's discretion. In other legislation, the Healthcare Services Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, and the Workplace Safety and Health Act, to name three, Parliament has seen fit to prescribe a minimum period, typically 14 days within which affected person may make representations or appeal. This Bill, by contrast, sets no such minimum.

Third, on a waiver mechanism under section 31B. The criterion of good reason is inherently subjective. I will ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Ministry intends to publish guidelines, setting out the circumstances in which waivers will typically be considered, so that applicants have reasonably certainty and the regime is applied consistently across cases.

Fourth, will decisions of the Director-General, particularly refusals of waivers and impositions of conditions, be published or reported in any aggregated form. Transparency in decision making is essential to maintaining public and industry confidence in the regulatory regime.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my final point concerns the practical coordination required to make this Bill work.

The Energy Conservation Act is jointly administered by MSE, which oversees the industry and household sectors, and MOT, which oversees the transport sector. The Act is primarily enforced by NEA. This Bill's expansion to cover own use imports will necessarily engage many more Government agencies beyond this existing arrangement.

Enforcement at the border will require the active cooperation of Singapore Customs for commercial and postal shipments, the ICA for goods brought in at the land and air checkpoints and potentially, the Info-communications Media Development Authority for enforcement against online platforms and digital advertisements. For the industrial sector, there will also be a need for coordination with the Economic Development Board, which promotes industrial investment and the Energy Market Authority, which oversees broader energy sector.

Where a regulated good falls under both the household and transport sectors, for example, an electric vehicle charger imported for personal use, it is not immediately clear whether the importers' obligations fall under MSE's or MOT's purview, or both. The Bill does not address this. The Bill itself does not address inter-agency coordination. This is not unusual. Such matters are typically handled through administrative arrangements.

But given the breadth of the new regime, I would ask the Senior Minister of State to assure this Chamber that, first, there is a clear interagency coordination framework between MSE and MOT, as well as between NEA and other enforcement agencies with defined roles and responsibilities for each agency involved.

Second, that NEA will have adequate resources, both in terms of manpower and technical capabilities to administer the new registration, inspection and waiver processes for personal imports, which will be a significant expansion of its current workload. I note, however, that the Bill's closing statement declares that it will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure. That is difficult to comprehend with the substantial new administrative functions these amendments introduce.

Third, there will be a single point of contact on one stop service for importers, so that individuals and businesses are not shuttled between MSE, MOT, NEA, Singapore Customs and ICA, when trying to comply with the new requirements.

Fourth, for goods that may fall within the jurisdiction of both MSE and MOT, such as transport-related equipment imported for personal use, the Ministry will clarify which regime applies to avoid regulatory ambiguity or duplication.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, closing the regulatory gap for personal imports is the right thing to do for our energy conservation goals and for fair competition. My concerns are not with the Bill's objectives but with the practical details that will determine whether these amendments work on the ground, how we enforce at the border and how we safeguard against unchecked discretionary powers and how we coordinate across the many agencies involved.

I look forward to the Senior Minister of State's response to these points. Notwithstanding my queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr David Hoe.

6.30 pm

Mr David Hoe (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking in support of the amendment to the Energy Conservation Bill.

Strengthening energy efficiency remains an important pillar in Singapore's energy transition. This is not new, because since 2012, our approach rested on two sensible ideas. First, to set minimum standards for energy performance; and second, to help consumers, like you and I, with clearer information through energy labelling so that households and businesses can make better purchasing decisions.

This Bill now takes the next step in this journey. It closes an increasingly important gap by extending the regime to regulated goods imported by end users for their own use, and it also gives the Government stronger tools to deal with non-compliant advertisement of regulated goods that are accessible in Singapore, including the online space. Hence, I support that direction. However, I would like to raise four broad concerns.

First, the ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer when they purchase goods from overseas to Singapore. Second, the current user journey to register makes it difficult for those who are not confident in English. Third, I wonder whether if it is time to review the volume of information on the energy label. Lastly, the challenges in online platform implementation.

My first point is about how we secure support and buy-in of individual customers or consumers. Under this Bill, a person who imports certain regulated goods for his or her own use will have to grapple with the framework that was previously once used for commercial supply lines into Singapore's market. I note that during a public consultation, one suggestion was to require end users, which is consumers, like myself, to buy goods only from local suppliers since local suppliers may be better place to handle compliance requirements.

The Government did not take that route, and I think that is sensible. We should preserve consumer choice so long as compliance framework applies consistently. In the same vein, my remarks pertain mainly to ensure that reporting and compliance regime is workable and understandable for the ordinary consumer. Let me explain why.

The ordinary layperson does not think of himself or herself as an importer, in any formal sense. To many, they are simply just thinking they are making a purchase. This is especially so because some Singaporeans do cross over the Causeway to buy household appliances because of lower prices. Some might even organise trips with their friends across the causeway to shop for items for their Build-To-Order flats. In such cases, such consumers are unlikely to perceive themselves as importing a regulated goods, subjecting to registration or compliance requirement in the first instance.

So, in this regard, I would like to ask how the Ministry intends to communicate these requirements to the public. In responding to how, I am keen to understand how various personas have been considered. As a matter of fact, not every Singapore resident will be following this view, or even looking at this response that I am making, and many might not even realise that if they make purchase of certain regulated goods from overseas for their own use, there might be a need for registration or compliance requirement that applies to them. So, public education matters a great deal.

Related to this, it might be helpful if the Ministry can also publicly clarify upfront the compliance cost implication, for instance, the waiving of cost for end users and $80 cost per model of regulated goods applied to local suppliers. I note that the Bill also extends waiver mechanism to persons who intends to import for his or her own use and is unable to comply with a requirement in a particular case, which is reflected in a proposed amendment to section 31B. But again, such mechanism only helps if a person knows that it exists, understands what it may be applied to and knows how to register.

This brings me to my second point, which is the accessibility of user journey. I know this may sound operational, but operational details matter because they shape whether people comply easily or give up along the way. If the registration journey is mainly online, then we should think carefully about who are likely the users. When I tried to visit the registration page, my experience is one that the information on that registration page today, it is mainly in English.

While some might be comfortable using their smartphones, not all will be fully comfortable navigating an English-only or English-heavy website. There are those who are not deterred by the policy itself, but because of the number of steps they have to go through, they give up halfway. And I am sure most of us at some point in our life would have experienced this because you have to fin so many steps or do many things. Halfway, you decide you do not want to continue that journey of application.

In short, what I am really trying to say is that have we designed this portal with various personas in mind? I would like to ask whether the Ministry can review the user journey through that lens that I mentioned earlier, and with the understanding that what was once primarily business-centric is now something expected to impact certain individual consumers, households, to some extent?

So, questions worth asking: can the process be made simpler? Can there be clearer step-by-step guidance? Can more language support be provided? Can there be automatic reminders or notification if renewal is required for certain registration? Furthermore, some of our residents who are not digitally savvy, might purchase non-bulky instantaneous water heater or mini refrigerator from overseas as part of their shopping. Would there be a possibility that they can register in person simply because they are not digitally confident? If so, could MSE or NEA share what would the process look like? This will go a long way in enabling businesses and individuals to comply with more robust reporting more seamlessly.

You see, in policy design, reducing friction is not a soft issue. It is part of what makes policy workable. If we want wider compliance, then the process must be intuitive and low friction as possible.

My third point is on the mandatory energy labelling scheme or easily known as the sticker that you see on the fridge that you need to buy from Best Denki. When you buy the fridge from Best Denki, that sticker that you see. This familiar tick has served important purpose by making energy efficiency more visible to consumers. But I think it is also fair to ask whether the current presentation remains useful and usable as it should be, and whether there should be further improvement moving forward. I understand in my observation of various stickers, there are at least 10 sets of information in practice and what consumers first notice are the ticks.

Other information might be valuable, for example, annual energy consumption or estimated cost. But I also wonder for those that have very small font size, whether these information are equally important in influencing purchasing decision?

So, against this backdrop, I would like to ask the Ministry whether it has reviewed how consumers actually interpret such labelling and perhaps consider a more robust means of understanding what people focus on when they look at the label.

So, questions to ask ourselves would be these: what information do they notice? What do they understand? What influence their choice? More broadly, what is the behavioural objective of the label today? Is it to mainly to help the uncle and auntie who is wondering around Best Denki or Gain City, to nudge them towards a higher efficiency option within that compliant range? If so, do we really need at least 10 sets of information on that sticker? This matters because the label is only effective, it is not only just rich in information, but it should be useful in helping to shape decision.

My last point is about online advertising provision. I understand the need for stronger powers in this space as purchaser shifts online, it will make little sense to just only tighten offline while leaving major loopholes in the digital market space.

This is why I also appreciate that NEA has started its clarification with some of the online platforms on the implementation concerns, but there are additional pointers that I would like to raise.

First, will there be a transition period for platforms to review and update their listing? Second, what type of platforms would likely be covered? Will the framework focus mainly on largely e-commerce operators or could it also extend to peer-to-peer market spaces, like Carousell, where individual users upload listings directly. Third, in the case where a platform holds large volumes of listing, what level of what levels of monitoring and due diligence will be expected of them, and what guidance or support might be provided for them so that they would comply easily?

These question matters because the line between platform responsibility, seller's responsibility and practical enforceability can be complex. We should want a regime that is effective, but also clear and proportionate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to conclude, I support this Bill both as a member of the MSE Government Parliamentary Committee and also as a regular consumer, because it strengthens an important part of Singapore's energy efficiency framework. But if we want this framework to work well, we must pay attention to the last mile.

We should not only set sound legal rules, but also make compliance straightforward and simple for ordinary users. We should not only raise standards, but we should also make it easy for people to understand and what is expected of them. We should not only regulate for digital age, but also must ensure that implementation is practical for consumers, businesses and platforms alike.

If we get this balance right, we will make it easier for people to support Singapore's energy transition.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Leader of the House.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Valerie Lee.

6.42 pm

Ms Valerie Lee (Pasir Ris-Changi): Mr Deputy Speaker, recent global developments remind us of a simple truth: energy is not just an economic input, it is matter of national resilience and survival. Conflicts, such as the Iran War, shows how quickly supply and prices can be disrupted.

For Singapore, with no natural resources and heavy reliance on energy imports, that risk is real and immediate. I also speak from experience working in an energy generation firm. Every day, we push to produce energy more efficiently and in ways that are cleaner and more cost effective. But supply is only half the equation. Demand matters just as much.

Previously in this House, I raised concerns about water loss, because every drop counts. The same applies here: every electron counts. Energy efficiency is not a technical detail. It is a national imperative.

Against this backdrop, this Bill is timely and necessary. It strengthens one of the most practical levers we have – using less energy and using it more efficiently.

Sir, I will highlight three strengths of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.

First, clause 5. This is a significant shift. Instead of focusing only on traditional suppliers, the Bill targets the party making the prohibited supply and this matters.

Today, purchasing patterns are changing. More goods are being imported directly by end users, especially through e-commerce. If left unaddressed, this creates a loophole where suppliers are regulated, but end users are not. This is not sustainable. Clause 5 closes the gap. It ensures that rules apply across the board. It prevents regulatory arbitrage and it creates a fairer, more level playing field while achieving the end goal.

Second, clause 7. This strengthens the regulatory regime by giving the Director-General powers to impose or modify conditions. In a fast-moving technological landscape, this flexibility is important. Standards must evolve and new evidence must be acted upon. A rigid system quickly becomes outdated. A flexible one stays relevant. This is a practical and forward-looking move.

Third, clause 16 on advertisements. Rules shape behaviour, but so does information. If advertisements mislead, consumers cannot make informed choices. If they are accurate, they reinforce the policy intent. Clear and consistent messaging matters. This provision helps align consumer behaviour with our energy goals.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as such, I support the direction of the Bill, but I have several clarifications.

First, on business impact. Compliance is not cost-free. Firms, especially SMEs, may need to upgrade equipment or change processes. While I appreciate that the overall life-cycle cost is potentially lower, there are real, upfront costs. Can the Ministry elaborate on whether there will be more targeted support, transitional assistance, or differentiated timelines beyond the current scheme for smaller firms? We should avoid a situation where the burden falls disproportionately on those least able to bear it, especially in this business climate.

Second, on cost pass-through. Higher compliance costs may be passed on to consumers, and this is a real risk. At a time of cost pressures, households will feel this. Has the Ministry sized this impact? And if substantial, how does the Ministry intend to mitigate this and ensure that the transition remains fair and inclusive?

Third, on regulatory certainty. Yes, clause 7 gives flexibility, but flexibility can also create uncertainty. Businesses need clarity to plan investments. Can the Ministry provide greater clarity as to when will conditions be modified, and will there be notice periods or consultation? Greater predictability will give businesses the confidence to invest and comply.

Fourth, on import trends. The Bill addresses direct imports, currently estimated at less than 10%. But if we do nothing, what does that number become? And what would that mean for our overall energy efficiency outcomes? Understanding this trajectory will help us assess the scale and urgency of the problem.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is a necessary step forward. It closes gaps. It strengthens enforcement and it reinforces the importance of efficiency. But the transition will not be costless. We must manage the short-term impact on businesses. We must cushion households. And we must provide clarity to those affected. If we get this balance right, we will do more than just improve efficiency. We will build trust. And we will move forward together towards a more sustainable future where everyone plays a part because in the end, this is not just about regulation. It is about resilience. It is about using what we have wisely, efficiently and responsibly. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Lee Hong Chuang.

6.48 pm

Mr Lee Hong Chuang (Jurong East-Bukit Batok): Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): I support the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2026.

Recently, I spoke with a SME owner in the logistics industry about the impact of recent energy price fluctuations on business operations. He told me that whilst rising fuel prices do indeed increase costs, he was more concerned about something else – if energy supply becomes unstable, businesses might not even be able to obtain the energy needed for basic operations.

In other words, in an era full of geopolitical uncertainty, the greatest risk businesses face is often not merely price increases, but the possibility that operations could be forced to halt once supply is disrupted.

This reminds us that, for Singapore, energy issues are not merely about pricing but are fundamentally related to national resilience, stable business operations and long-term economic competitiveness.

As an old saying goes: "Prepare for rainy days to ensure steady progress." In today's constantly changing global energy landscape, improving energy efficiency is itself an important way to strengthen national resilience.

Energy efficiency remains one of Singapore's most pragmatic and cost-effective approaches to strengthening energy security and fulfilling climate commitments. As a highly urbanised country with limited land and resources, Singapore depends on imports for over 95% of its energy. At the same time, energy-related activities are also the main source of our nation's carbon emissions.

This means that every unit of energy we save not only reduces emissions, but also reduces dependence on imported energy, thereby enhancing overall national resilience.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the focus of this Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is to further refine our existing energy efficiency regulatory framework, particularly in the regulation of regulated goods. Simply put, the core purpose of this Bill is to ensure that all relevant equipment, whether for sale or imported by businesses for their own use, must comply with energy efficiency standards.

First, closing regulatory gaps to ensure consistent rules.

Previously, if businesses sell equipment, they have to comply with energy efficiency standards but if they directly import equipment for their own use, in certain circumstances, they might not necessarily be fully covered by the original regulatory system. This is like a competition where some people enter through the main gate whilst others slip in through a side entrance. Ultimately, those who follow the rules end up at a disadvantage and the system loses credibility.

Through this amendment, regardless of whether equipment is for sale or own use, as long as it falls under regulated products, it must comply with the same energy efficiency standards. This helps ensure all companies compete under the same rules and maintains market fairness.

Second, strengthening registration and compliance mechanisms.

This Bill further refines the registration system for regulated products. Importers or manufacturers must complete registration procedures when supplying or importing relevant equipment and ensure products meet energy efficiency requirements.

If we compare the energy efficiency system to traffic rules, then the registration system is like vehicle registration. Only by clearly knowing what equipment is in use and who introduced it to the market can regulatory authorities ensure rules are implemented. Otherwise, even the best standards would be difficult to enforce without clear registration and regulatory mechanisms.

Third, driving businesses to continuously improve energy efficiency.

Energy technology is developing rapidly. Equipment considered efficient 10 years ago may no longer be the best choice today. For example, some older air conditioning systems or industrial equipment can often significantly reduce energy consumption whilst lowering operating costs through technological updates or operational optimisation.

From a business point of view, this is quite easy to understand. For the same type of equipment, some operate more efficiently whilst others are clearly more power-hungry. Over time, the difference becomes not just a technical issue but a real cost difference. By strengthening the regulatory framework, this Bill encourages businesses to regularly review equipment and systems and gradually adopt more efficient technologies.

Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency is not merely an environmental responsibility but also an economic opportunity.

For businesses, energy is often one of the important operating costs. Improving energy efficiency can reduce costs, enhance productivity and reduce enterprise risk when facing international energy price fluctuations.

With the world gradually moving towards a low-carbon economy, energy efficiency will also become an important factor in companies’ international competitiveness. Therefore, improving energy efficiency both aligns with sustainable development goals and helps strengthen economic competitiveness.

Deputy Speaker, whilst I support the direction of this Bill, I would also like to raise three questions and suggestions for the government's consideration.

First, regarding implementation and regulatory mechanisms.

The effectiveness of regulations depends on implementation. Since this Bill expands the regulatory scope of regulated products, may I ask the Minister how the Government will ensure enterprises truly comply with these requirements when importing and using relevant equipment?

For example, if two companies use similar equipment, one completes registration according to regulations and ensures compliance with energy efficiency standards whilst another imports equipment through different channels without truly being covered by regulation, then the rule-abiding company actually bears higher compliance costs. In the long run, this not only undermines system credibility but also affects market fairness.

Therefore, I suggest the Government consider strengthening spot checks and independent assessment mechanisms to ensure energy efficiency standards can be implemented in real operations.

Second, regarding assistance to enterprises, particularly SMEs, in equipment upgrades.

Many energy-saving measures require companies to make upfront investments in equipment updates or system optimisation. Large enterprises usually have the resources to carry out these upgrades, but SMEs may face financial and technical constraints. For example, even if a SME knows that old equipment consumes more energy, it may not be able to replace it immediately. The reason is not that it is unwilling to improve efficiency but that equipment updates often involve one-time investment.

Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether the Government plans to further strengthen support programmes or financing mechanisms to assist businesses in adopting more efficient equipment?

Third, regarding cultivating energy management professional capabilities.

As energy systems become increasingly complex, energy management is gradually becoming a field requiring professional skills, including capabilities in data analysis, system optimisation and industrial process management. In other words, even if businesses purchase efficient equipment, without professional personnel to analyse energy consumption data and optimise operating methods, the equipment's efficiency may not be fully realised.

Therefore, I suggest the Government strengthen cooperation between industry and higher education institutions to develop more professional courses in energy efficiency and energy management, to ensure businesses can obtain the talent they need.

Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency may not be as eye-catching as new energy technologies, but it remains one of our most direct and cost-effective solutions. Every unit of energy we save means reduced imports, reduced power generation demand, lower costs and reduced carbon emissions. This not only enhances national resilience but also improves overall economic efficiency.

Therefore, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is pragmatic and necessary progress. It refines the regulatory framework, strengthens system implementation, and drives businesses to continuously improve energy efficiency. For these reasons, I support this Bill.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill strengthens Singapore's energy efficiency framework by closing regulatory gaps and ensuring that regulated goods, whether supplied in the market or imported for own use, meet the required energy efficiency standards.

By enhancing product registration, strengthening compliance mechanisms and encouraging continuous improvements in energy systems, the Bill helps ensure that energy efficiency standards are applied more consistently across industries.

Energy efficiency remains one of the most practical and cost-effective ways for Singapore to enhance energy security, reduce emissions and strengthen long-term economic competitiveness. For these reasons, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That was a very strong and passionate speech in Chinese. Mr Edward Chia.

6.59 pm

Mr Edward Chia Bing Hui (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill.

This amendment is both timely and necessary. Around 40% of Singapore's greenhouse gas emissions are linked to electricity consumption. With the ongoing Middle East conflict driving volatility in global energy supply and prices, energy efficiency is not just about sustainability. It is a critical pillar of Singapore's energy resilience. If we are serious about our net-zero ambitions and resilience, then energy efficiency must remain a foundational pillar of our strategy.

This Bill strengthens the Energy Conservation Act by closing an important gap. Today, MEPS and labelling requirements apply mainly to goods supplied locally. The amendment now extends these requirements to goods imported for a person's own use.

I support the intent of the Bill but would like to raise several implementation considerations.

First, on enforcement. A key question is how enforcement will work in practice, particularly for small-scale imports. Increasingly, individuals and small businesses procure equipment through e-commerce platforms and parcel shipments. While each import may be small, the cumulative impact could be significant. Given the scale and speed of online commerce, could the Minister clarify whether NEA has sufficient enforcement capacity, and how it intends to prioritise and operationalise these expanded responsibilities?

Could the Senior Minister of State clarify how enforcement will be carried out for imports intended for a person's own use, particularly through online marketplaces or small parcel deliveries? Will there be thresholds below which enforcement becomes impractical and, if so, how do we ensure that this does not create loopholes?

Related to this, there may be scope to integrate enforcement across agencies. For example, in sectors, such as F&B, where businesses import equipment directly, could existing inspection regimes, such as Singapore Food Agency's inspections for licensing, also incorporate checks on energy efficiency compliance and registration? This would reduce duplication of enforcement resources and strengthen on-the-ground compliance.

Second, on regulatory burden and impact on businesses. Under the proposed framework, each importer is required to register regulated goods, even if the same product has already been registered by another importer. Could this create unnecessary duplication and administrative burden, particularly for SMEs importing small quantities? Would the Ministry consider a shared product registry that allows for product-level registration, while still maintaining accountability at the importer level?

More broadly, many SMEs import specialised equipment for their own operations. Will there be a simplified compliance pathway for low-volume importers or SMEs, so that compliance costs remain proportionate and do not become a barrier to business operations?

Third, on consumer awareness and the digital marketplace. As more consumers purchase appliances online, they may unknowingly buy non-compliant products. Will the Government consider strengthening consumer education and requiring clear visibility of energy efficiency labelling on online marketplaces, for example, by mandating the display of Singapore energy labels in listings?

Fourth, on waivers and safeguards. The Bill allows for waivers where compliance with requirements may not be possible in specific cases. Could the Minister clarify the criteria and safeguards for granting such waivers, and how consistency will be ensured? It would be important to avoid unintended circumvention or uneven application across businesses.

Finally, on transition and unintended behaviours. I note that there will be a transition period before full implementation. Could the Senior Minister of State share how the Government intends to mitigate any potential surge in imports of non-compliant equipment ahead of the enforcement date? Without appropriate safeguards, there may be a risk of front-loading less efficient equipment into the system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this amendment is a necessary step to strengthen the integrity of our energy efficiency framework. It closes an emerging gap, reinforces fairness and supports our broader energy transition. With the right attention to implementation, enforcement and business impact, I believe it will achieve its intended outcomes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim.

7.05 pm

Ms Hazlina Abdul Halim (East Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, energy efficiency remains a cornerstone of Singapore's sustainability and energy security strategy. As a resource-constrained nation that imports almost all of its energy, we must continue to treat efficiency not as an option, but as a necessity, both to manage costs and to meet our climate commitments.

Earlier, Members also touched on MEPS and MELS. In this regard, both MEPS and MELS are effective policy tools. MEPS play a critical role in removing less efficient products from the market. It sets the minimum level of energy efficiency that appliances must meet before they can even be sold in Singapore. In other words, if it wastes too much energy, it does not make the cut. As for MELS, as earlier mentioned by another Member, Best Denki was his choice, it is that that familiar "tick label" we see on our appliances. The more ticks, the more energy-efficient the product and the more we save on electricity bill. It helps us make smarter and more energy-efficient purchasing decisions.

Together, both MEPS and MELS have shaped market behaviour and raised overall energy performance standards.

The proposed extension of these frameworks to end-user imports is a logical and a necessary step. By ensuring that even goods imported for own use meet baseline efficiency standards, we strengthen the integrity of our regulatory regime and promote more responsible energy consumption across the board.

Sir, while I support the intent of these amendments, I am seeking clarification on several aspects relating to implementation and enforcement.

First, on the compliance framework and its practical implications. Under the proposed amendments, regulated goods imported for own use must be registered with NEA, meet MEPS requirements based on prescribed tests and, where applicable, be affixed with an energy label.

These are reasonable safeguards. However, they will inevitably introduce additional compliance steps for businesses and individuals. It is therefore important that implementation remains practical and proportionate. In particular, I would like to ask whether simplified or streamlined processes will be made available for SMEs as well as for individuals or businesses importing goods in small volumes.

Additionally, I urge the Government to consider creating a priority processing lane perhaps for SMEs that register products with energy ratings exceeding the current MEPS. By fast-tracking high-efficiency products, the Government would provide SMEs with a competitive edge over larger competitors. Without such accommodations, we risk placing a disproportionate burden on smaller players.

I would also appreciate clarification on how the Government intends to ensure compliance in respect of online marketplaces, where many such transactions increasingly take place.

This brings me to my second point: the role of online platforms and enforcement. Given the significant presence of e-commerce in our daily lives, enforcement cannot rely solely on downstream checks. I urge the Government to consider placing clear obligations on platform operators to prevent the listing of non-compliant products in the first place. In addition, stronger communication mechanisms between regulators and platform providers will be necessary to ensure that non-compliant listings are swiftly identified and removed. Without such upstream measures, enforcement risks becoming reactive rather than preventive.

Third, on balancing sustainability with cost considerations. For these measures to gain broad-based support, we must recognise that higher-efficiency products often come with higher upfront costs. While such products typically deliver long-term savings through reduced energy consumption, the initial price difference will still pose a barrier, particularly for households and SMEs. To address this, the Government could consider targeted support measures, increase targeted support measures, such as rebates, grants or co-funding schemes to help defray upfront costs and make energy-efficient appliances more accessible.

In addition, bulk procurement programmes and partnerships with retailers could help lower prices and encourage wider adoption, especially among SMEs. At the same time, public education remains key. Continued efforts to raise awareness of the long-term cost savings and environmental benefits of energy efficiency will help shift mindsets and strengthen public support. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): I fully support this amendment which is important for the long term and the current situation we are experiencing clearly demonstrates its importance.

However, to ensure that these measures receive broad support, the Government must acknowledge that energy-saving products that are highly efficient typically come with higher upfront costs. While such products will result in long-term savings through lower energy consumption, the initial price difference can still be a barrier and obstacle, especially for the low-income as well as small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Therefore, to address this matter, the Government should consider support measures, such as rebates, grants or co-financing schemes, to help reduce upfront costs, which are essentially efforts to ensure energy-efficient equipment is more accessible to Singaporeans and businesses.

Additionally, collaboration with businesses can also help lower prices and encourage wider adoption, particularly among SMEs.

At the same time, public education is also very important. Continuous efforts to increase awareness and understanding about long-term cost savings and environmental benefits as well as prioritising energy efficiency will help change mindsets and strengthen community support.

Therefore, it is important for the Government to expand its awareness campaigns by partnering with schools, social media as well as community organisations in various languages, to educate consumers from the young ones to senior citizens. Training for businesses can also play a role in providing clear explanations and instil confidence in consumers, and this should be conducted more frequently and thoroughly. With a more comprehensive and consistent approach, the level of public awareness can be enhanced.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the intention behind this Bill is sound and forward-looking. It reinforces Singapore's commitment to sustainability while safeguarding our energy security. Notwithstanding the clarifications, I support the Bill.

7.12 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary, would you like to adjourn the debate?

Resumption of Debate on Question [7 April 2026],

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time." – [Minister for Sustainability and the Environment].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

1.34 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, today, as we debate the Bill, the world is being reminded how fragile energy security is. With the escalating war in the Middle East threatening the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for nearly one-fifth of global oil, volatile markets and rising prices are not distant news. They are our immediate reality.

We cannot control global supply, but we can control our dependence on it. As Chair of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Government Parliamentary Committee, I see energy security as inseparable from national security. Conservation is no longer just climate policy. It is essential cost-of-living and economic policy. Every watt we save is a watt we do not have to import for.

I support this Bill because it closes a critical gap. Today, our Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and Mandatory Energy Labelling Scheme (MELS) apply only to local suppliers, leaving goods imported directly for one's own use unregulated. A gap in policy becomes a liability in a crisis. It allows inefficient equipment to be locked into our system and lets those who bypass the rules undercut compliant businesses. Even if direct imports are less than 10% today, we must close this gap before it grows.

What we allow into our system today determines the bills we pay tomorrow. The principles of this Bill are sound, but its success depends on implementation. To ensure it works fairly and affordably on the ground, I have four areas of clarification.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, affordability. We know that energy efficient products are cheaper over time. A commercial refrigerator can have lifecycle costs about 30% lower than a non-compliant one. However, most energy efficient products come with a premium. Households and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) do not live in lifecycle calculations. They live with immediate budgets and cash flow constraints.

Are we doing enough to help households and businesses bridge the gap between higher upfront costs and lower long-term savings? Are existing schemes such as the Climate Friendly Household Programme, the Energy Efficiency Grant and the Resource Efficiency Grant sufficient for those most affected?

If direct imports are currently less than 10%, what is the projected cost impact on households and SMEs when these amendments take effect? Will compliant models remain competitively priced, or will a persistent green premium emerge? How will the Ministry ensure that grants and subsidies remain responsive to market price fluctuations, so that no household or SME is left behind? The right choice must also be the affordable choice.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, consumer protection in the digital marketplace. The Bill empowers the Government to regulate online advertisements, require energy efficiency information and take down non-compliant listings. Will enforcement be proactive rather than reactive? Will platforms be required to screen listings before they appear, rather than only remove them after a breach is reported? Will consumers have a simple and accessible way to verify whether a product is compliant before making a purchase? If a non-compliant listing is removed after payment has been made, what protections will consumers have? Will marketplace operators be required to facilitate refunds or stop deliveries? How will responsibility be allocated among marketplace operators, sellers and importers? Consumer protection must begin before check-out, not after complaints.

Third, Mr Speaker, Sir, implementation and transition. The transition timeline is short. Three months may not be sufficient for households amid renovation, SMEs amid procurement, or businesses with goods already in transit. With the new requirements, importers must register goods, maintain records and potentially provide samples for testing. How onerous will these compliance requirements be, particularly for individuals and SMEs importing for their own use? If compliance is too complex, compliance will fail.

Fourth, Mr Speaker, Sir, transparency and proportionality. The Bill grants the Director-General the power to impose, modify, or revoke conditions even after registration. What principles will guide the exercise of these powers and will they be clearly communicated to businesses? Why do such decisions take effect immediately even when an appeal is filed? As new offences are introduced, including cases where goods are later used in ways that would have made the original import non-compliant, how will the Government distinguish between deliberate circumvention and genuine misunderstanding? Will the Ministry provide regular reporting to Parliament on waivers granted, appeals outcomes and enforcement trends? Strong powers must come with strong accountability.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is necessary but insufficient. Because energy conservation does not begin and end with regulation. The International Energy Agency has outlined practical measures to reduce demand quickly, including working from home, reducing unnecessary travel, improving driving efficiency and encouraging public transport use. The cheapest energy is the energy we do not use.

So, we must go further. Will the public sector lead the way by institutionalising air-conditioning temperature standards across Government buildings? Are we promoting operational efficiency across our fleets and industries, such as incentivising eco-driving certifications for commercial fleets? Does the Ministry have a playbook for temporary, targeted conservation measures, such as remote work arrangements or speed limit adjustments, should supply disruptions worsen? Because energy security is built not just by policy, but by behaviour, incentives and collective discipline.

We began this speech with a world in crisis, where conflict far beyond our shores can disrupt something as fundamental as energy. We cannot control that conflict. We cannot control global prices. We cannot control supply shocks. But we can control how we respond.

Today, I have asked four things. Whether this Bill will remain affordable. Whether consumers will be protected in the digital marketplace. Whether implementation will be fair during transition. And whether enforcement powers will be exercised transparently. I have also suggested that beyond regulation, we must act decisively to reduce demand and strengthen efficiency. Because if we get this right, energy conservation will not feel like a burden. It will feel like relief. Relief from rising costs, uncertainty and vulnerability.

And let us be reminded that this is not just an energy policy. It is a test of how we prepare Singapore for an uncertain world. Because in a world that we cannot control, the strength of Singapore will depend on what we choose to control, what we choose to conserve and what we choose to secure. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Mr Foo Cexiang.

1.41 pm

Mr Foo Cexiang (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, in today's world, the case for energy conservation could not be stronger. Many of us are familiar with MEPS as well as MELS. They facilitate choices towards more energy efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, televisions and air-conditioners. This Bill seeks to extend the METS and MELS requirements to importers of regulated goods, such as the appliances I mentioned earlier, including for those for own usage. This will ensure consistent application of the requirements, while also not overly restricting consumer choices.

I would like to raise a few points and seek clarifications from the Senior Minister of State.

First, I would like to highlight two clauses in the Bill.

Clause 7 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act to require an importer of regulated goods for their own use to register the regulated good(s), “even if another importer has already so registered such regulated good(s)”.

Can the Senior Minister of State clarify why this is required? Is the intent to keep track of the identity and number of importers of the specific regulated goods, even if it has already been registered by an importer? Regardless, would the agency consider a more streamlined approach for subsequent importers of already registered regulated goods.

For example, can the agency update the specific model/type of regulated good(s) in its Database of Registered Goods for general awareness that it has been registered, and waive certain requirements for subsequent importers, such as the requirement to provide test reports, ISO certifications and so on, which would already have been provided by the original importer. This would reduce the regulatory burden for subsequent importers.

Next, clause 12 of the Bill amends the Energy Conservation Act such that the Director-General may require an individual importer of regulated goods for their own use to provide free of charge samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing or analysis, and any other document that the Director-General requires.

It is quite likely that for importers who are importing for their own use to only import one piece of the good, so it could perhaps, be challenging for them to provide “free of charge” samples to the Director-General for the purpose of testing and analysis. So, I seek a clarification again on the need for this.

Next, I would also like to highlight two points in relation to the implementation of the amendments in the Bill.

First, the extension of the MEPS and MELS requirements to importers will likely rely on existing processes for the registration of the regulated goods. However, the existing processes, as I understand, are designed for suppliers, retailers, importers and manufacturers that supply or sell regulated goods. These are typically companies or businesses.

It is important therefore that the registration processes be modified or streamlined to be relevant for individual importers, including individuals or households that do the same. For example, the current Energy Labelling Scheme (ELS) Portal for registration relies on Corppass, which are for businesses and companies. It may also need to be adapted to allow for the use of Singpass by individual importers.

Second, the application for the registration of regulated goods involves fees that are chargeable between $70 and $85, depending on the type of regulated goods. I urge the agency to consider whether these charges for individual importers can be waived or whether there can be a tiered registration system. Mr Speaker, notwithstanding my clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil.

1.45 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Sustainability and the Environment (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, I would like to thank Members for their support, their questions and their comments on the Bill. All the Members who have spoken had indicated their support for the Bill and its intent to extend MEPS and MELS to regulated goods imported by end users for own use.

In answering their questions and comments, I would like to begin by clarifying that only certain common appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators are covered under the Energy Conservation Act and this Bill. As mentioned in my opening speech, equipment, such as electric vehicles chargers, are not currently covered under the Energy Conservation Act and National Environment Agency's (NEA's) website has a list of regulated goods.

The volume of regulated goods imported for own use is small for now especially when we consider appliances, such as air-conditioners and refrigerators. The concern is that this could increase over time given the proliferation of online marketplaces, making it easier for consumers to import such regulated goods for their use. We have also noticed that some businesses are also directly importing regulated goods, such as commercial storage refrigerators, for their own use. And so, that is part of the need to introduce the Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill to ensure a level playing field for both users and suppliers of regulated goods in Singapore, many of which are SMEs, and which are already complying with the Energy Conservation Act and for us to also improve our overall energy efficiency in Singapore.

Several Members have asked about the Government's plans to reduce compliance burden for end users arising from the proposed amendments and have made suggestions to streamline the registration process and user journey, such as waiving test report requirements for regulated goods if these Goods had been demonstrated to be MEPS-compliant by prior importers.

Sir, the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment and NEA have conducted public consultations regarding the proposed amendments. The stakeholders we have consulted, which range from local suppliers of regulated goods, businesses and technical experts from our institutes of higher learning have all been broadly supportive of the proposed amendments. They have also provided feedback to reduce the compliance requirements and ensure practicality for end users and we have incorporated their feedback into this Bill.

For example, we have excluded lights from the Bill because regulating them will impose a disproportionate compliance burden on end users, such as households that occasionally import a few lights. Lights are less energy intensive compared to other regulated goods and typically consumer 10 times less energy than appliances, such as refrigerators, and constitute less than 6% of household energy consumption. We will continue to monitor the import of lights for own use and if needed, explore the extension of regulations to cover such imports.

Sir, the new compliance requirements are not expected to be onerous.

Currently, local suppliers are subject to a registration fee of about $70 per model to register their models for local supply with NEA. We have taken in the feedback to reduce the compliance burden on end users who are importing regulated goods for their own use, and they typically cannot spread the registration costs across multiple units. So, therefore, the registration and renewal fees on end users who import regulated goods for their own use will be waived.

Similar to local suppliers, all end users importing the regulated goods for own use will be required to register them with NEA to demonstrate the MEPS and MELS compliance, regardless of whether another importer or manufacturer has registered such goods. The reason for this is, there needs to then be an assignment of responsibility for the act of importing this particular good and that this particular report matches the good as declared. And so, it is the person who is conducting the import for own use who has to take on that responsibility. NEA can accept test reports provided by equipment manufacturers for registration of regulated goods. Suppliers and end users are not required to obtain additional independent test reports beyond those provided by the equipment manufacturers for registration.

To avoid incurring unnecessary import costs, end users are also encouraged to register their regulated good prior to import to ensure that the good is MEPS- and MELS-compliant. As I have previously explained, to do so prior to import incurs no cost for the end user importing for their own use. We will continue to review and streamline the registration process as needed.

NEA will upgrade the ELS Portal for a better user experience for those applying to register their appliance. End users will be able to use Singpass, similar to how businesses currently use Corppass to access the ELS Portal and register. NEA will provide more information in due course.

Mr Foo Cexiang highlighted challenges for individuals and households in providing free samples of the regulated goods imported for own use, which the Director-General may require under clause 12 of the Bill for the purpose of testing or analysis. The Act does provide levers for NEA to obtain samples to, such as in the case of a business that may bulk import regulated goods for their own use. But I would like to assure Mr Foo and Members of the House that testing analysis is only conducted on regulated goods on a needs-basis and only where it is feasible to do so.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Muhaimin Malik asked about the Government's approach to allow the Director-General to exercise powers to impose, modify or revoke conditions after registration and the approach for appeals. I would like to assure Members that the Government would only invoke these powers only on a needs-basis and a reasonable time period will be accorded for the review, allow for rectifications and to process the appeals.

There will be instances where the Government would require swift rectifications to prevent the further circulation or further sale of non-compliant regulated goods. As set out in clause 7 of the Bill, the Director-General must, before imposing or modifying any condition for registration, give written notice to the holder of the registration stating the proposed condition or modification, and provide time for the holder of the registration to make written representations with regard to the proposed modifications. The Act also expressly allows any importer or manufacturer aggrieved by the decision to file an appeal to the Minister.

Mr Dennis Tan asked how the Government would ensure regulated goods would remain MEPS-compliant after import, particularly those controlled by the manufacturers or third parties through software embedded within the regulated goods.

To balance the regulatory burden and energy efficiency outcomes, we have adopted a practical approach to apply MEPS and MELS requirements at the point of import only for own use, similar to the current regulations that apply requirements at the point of local supply. And I would emphasise this point that this is the regime that is in place currently for local suppliers, and the opportunities and hypotheticals that Mr Dennis Tan had provided within the speech potentially exist today, but they do not appear to be a material problem at this point. Nevertheless, we will continue to monitor the situation and if NEA has information that approved regulated goods have low energy efficiencies during actual operation, we will investigate, conduct additional tests and audits and follow-up as necessary.

SMEs may import regulated goods for own use through intermediaries, such as contractors or interior designers. In such cases, it is the intermediary importing the regulated goods for subsequent supply to the SME that would be responsible for compliance.

Like all other end users directly import regulated goods for their own use, franchisees must ensure that the regulated goods that they import for their own use comply with the MEPS and MELS requirements.

NEA will issue press releases and circulars to inform end users and businesses about the new regulations and will also engage key stakeholders, including the food and beverage businesses through industry associations, such as the Restaurant Association of Singapore, to ensure that businesses and industries understand the new regulations and their responsibilities. NEA will also conduct checks on business establishments as needed, and conduct enforcement in response to whistle-blowing reports.

We have assessed that there is no need to introduce controls at the point of import at this time. So, the questions around Singapore Customs, and the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority, we have assessed that there is no need for these types of controls at this point. The number of regulated goods imported for own use is expected to be small. And if there were such controls as some Members have asked, they would apply to all regulated goods imported for local supply or own use. This potentially increases the administrative burden, friction and compliance costs for the importers significantly. And today, the vast majority of regulated goods brought into Singapore meant for local supply are already MEPS- and MELS-compliant. What we are trying to do is close the loophole for a small number of goods.

The proposed amendments will empower the Minister to make regulations to compel online platforms in Singapore to remove or rectify listings of non-compliant listings of regulated goods. This ensures that the non-compliant regulated goods, such as those that do not carry the MELS labels, are not offered to end users in Singapore. The actual operationalisation of removal of these listings will be done by the platform. It is NEA providing an enforcement instruction and it is the platform then will have to comply about how these are taken down. Consumers can verify compliance by checking for accompanying MELS labels when purchasing regulated goods through online platforms.

The new regulations will only apply to new regulated goods imported into Singapore, for the purposes of own use. The new regulations also exclude second-hand or used regulated goods, whether it is online or in the physical marketspace. Notwithstanding this, second-hand regulated goods imported into Singapore for resale as brand-new will be subject to the MEPS and MELS requirements. NEA will conduct surveillance and investigations to enforce compliance as required.

We intend to effect the new regulations from 1 July 2026 to give platform operators time to adjust to the new regulations. Since 2023, NEA has also been engaging online platforms, such as Shopee and Lazada, to remove advertisements of non-compliant goods. The online platforms engaged have also cooperated with NEA's instructions and have taken down the non-complaint listings accordingly.

Moving forward, we will continue to work closely with online platforms to enhance surveillance of the online space and to encourage the proactive removal of listings of non-compliant regulated goods. The platforms may implement manual or algorithmic systems at their discretion to proactively remove these listings. If NEA discovers online listings that are non-compliant, we will work with the platforms to manually remove such listings. We hope this will minimise the purchase of non-compliant regulated goods, unintended or otherwise, by individuals and households.

We have assessed the accompanying penalty framework to be a sufficient deterrent. Penalties will be imposed on a per-import basis, with fines of up to $10,000 per import of non-compliant goods for own use. The MEPS-compliant equipment delivers life-cycle energy savings compared to energy inefficient equipment and this actually already intrinsically incentivises end users to import compliant equipment. So, the risk of reputational damage from the legal proceedings also discourages businesses from importing non-compliant goods. Put all of that together, we think this is likely to be quite effective.

A penalty framework on a per-import basis is also consistent with penalty regimes in similar legislation, including the Environmental Protection and Management Act 1999, which imposes a fine not exceeding $10,000 for each contravening supply or import of non-compliant greenhouse gas goods, such as commercial chillers.

Members had asked how the Government would provide support to businesses and households to adopt more energy-efficient equipment and to build energy management capabilities. We have a suite of measures that businesses and households can tap on to strengthen their energy resilience. Companies can tap on the Energy Efficiency Grant to co-fund investments in energy-efficient equipment. The Energy Efficiency Grant already covers a wide range of regulated goods, including air-conditioners, refrigerators, clothes dryers, motors and water heaters today.

As announced by the Senior Minister of State for Finance, the Energy Efficiency Grant base tier has been expanded to all sectors and support will be extended for another year, to 31 March 2028. This is a part of the measures to support more businesses in purchasing energy efficient equipment through the increasingly uncertain global climate. I encourage businesses to use the Energy Efficiency Grant to adopt more energy efficient equipment.

For households, the Government has provided eligible households with $400 of Climate Vouchers in total over the last two Budgets, under the enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme. This helps to offset the initial cost of purchase of more resource-efficient household appliances and fittings, which are expected to yield recurring energy and water savings over their lifespan. Households that have yet to use their $400 Climate Vouchers can do so up to 31 December 2027.

More recently, we expanded the list of products under the enhanced Climate Friendly Households Programme to include induction stoves and five-tick clothes dryers. From 15 April 2026, households can tap on Climate Vouchers to access a wider range of resource-efficient products and achieve greater resource efficiency.

We do also want to invest in the development of a pipeline of energy management professionals to support energy efficiency initiatives. Mr Lee Hong Chuang suggested that the Government strengthen cooperation between industry and higher education institutions to develop more professional courses in energy efficiency and energy management. The Member would be pleased to hear that this is already happening and that the Government has programmes in place to help businesses build a pipeline of energy management professionals to support our resource efficiency initiatives.

For example, in February 2026, NEA, the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Energy Efficiency Training Centre launched the new Energy Efficiency Training Facility. This supports the delivery of programmes, such as the Energy Efficiency Upskilling Programme and Singapore Certified Energy Manager Programme, to develop a pipeline of local energy management talent and to build local energy efficiency capabilities.

Members made several suggestions to strengthen public education and incentivise the adoption of compliant goods and were concerned about the cost impact to end users when the amendments take effect.

NEA maintains an online database of compliant regulated goods with product information, including estimated annual energy consumption and energy costs. Energy efficient appliances typically offer lower life-cycle costs through energy savings, even if they may have higher upfront capital costs. For example, life-cycle costs of MEPS-compliant commercial storage refrigerators are on average 30% lower than non-compliant models.

Mr Speaker, Sir, energy efficiency is an economic imperative that strengthens our energy resilience, that delivers cost savings for consumers and businesses and contributes to our national climate targets. The Energy Conservation (Amendment) Bill is a necessary step to ensure that all regulated goods in Singapore are held to the same MEPS and MELS requirements and deliver greater energy efficiency outcomes for end users.

I thank all Members who have spoken for their support on the Bill and with this, Mr Speaker, I seek to move.

Mr Speaker: Clarifications for Senior Minister of State Dr Janil? Ms Poh.

2.03 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang West): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Senior Minister of State Janil. I believe my questions in my speech were not addressed in the Senior Minister of State's reply. I asked at the end of my speech, regarding the food and beverage sector alone, with the large numbers of restaurants and food and beverage establishments in the high churn, there must be a lot of freezers, chillers, refrigerators; and what would be the estimated annual consumption, and with this transition to all MEPS-compliant equipment, what will be the reduction like, in terms of the energy savings?

And secondly, with these large numbers of end users and end equipment, what is the process that is needed to actually enforce this new requirement? And I hope that this process and the requirements will not be too onerous. Otherwise, it will just end up conserving energy on one part and expending more energy in terms of human resources to carry out the enforcement.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her question. The answer to the first part is, we do not yet know because the extension of the Energy Conservation Act is to goods that are currently not regulated. So, we have engagements with the sector, with the restaurant association, we have information that the behaviour is happening. But until we regulate these goods, we will not have a handle on exactly how many there are coming into the space. So, at a future time, we should be in a better position then to think about what is the total estimated annual consumption to include what, today, would have regulated and unregulated goods.

And so, the reduction in energy savings, we can make an estimate, and we have estimated that there is about a 30% reduction in costs and over a life-cycle of the compliant good compared to a non-compliant good. So, is that overall energy reduction in the sector? I think we cannot draw a straight line because it is not the only consumption of energy within the sector. But the short answer is, the current issue is that we do not regulate the goods that we are going to regulate, and so we do not know exactly how many there are on the market.

The second part of the question that this involves a large number; actually, this is not the case. Today, most of the businesses involved are already engaged with MEPS- and MELS-compliant suppliers and are already involved with purchasing from the suppliers. The suppliers are already MEPS- and MELS-compliant. So, it is a not a huge number that will have to then come on to the scheme.

We have engaged with those that we can find and we have worked with them to then shape the operations of the scheme to ensure that it is not too onerous, as I described in my speech.

Mr Speaker: Mr Dennis Tan.

Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just one clarification for the Senior Minister of State. I thank the Government for acknowledging the gap regarding the software-driven energy degradation and for the commitment to monitor and test when necessary. However, if a software update is found to significantly degrade the energy performance of hardware already in use, what specific enforcement action will NEA take? Specifically, would the registration of those regulated goods be retrospectively revoked and would this result in a mandate for the user to cease usage or for the manufacturer to force a software roll-back?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Sir, this is a hypothetical situation that we have not encountered yet. The Act provides for the Director-General and NEA to exercise a range of measures should they come across a good, which is non-compliant or which was declared to be compliant and is now subsequently non-compliant. And that can arise for a number of reasons. Software modification is one, but physical hardware modification is also another.

The assessment would have to be made as to whether the problem was rectifiable. This goes to an earlier question about the time that was given and the actions that are taken, and if the problem was rectifiable, then a reasonable period of notice, together with instructions to rectify. Failing which, warnings and fines, all are possible.

Whether the action would be taken against the person who imported or the manufacturer, the answer is potentially both, because now that you know that this business or this person may have deliberately done it, we would have a higher level of scrutiny. If we are aware that a particular model or particular manufacturer may engage in such practices, when further models from that manufacturer are submitted for review and registration, certainly, we would have to take this into account. And so, we would have a range of possible responses to such behaviour.

But I would encourage businesses and end users, please do not engage in such behaviour. The intent of these regulations is to improve our energy efficiency and by doing so, we will end up lowering the costs for all the businesses and the households that are involved, and that is the important outcome that we want to achieve.

2.09 pm

Mr Speaker: Looks like there are no further clarifications.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Dr Janil Puthucheary].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.