REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU) 2015/652

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
28/5/2021
SEC(2021) 657
REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD OPINION
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and
Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the
promotion of energy from renewable sources, and repealing Council Directive (EU)
2015/652
{COM(2021) 557}
{SWD(2021) 620-622}
Europaudvalget 2021
KOM (2021) 0557 - SEK-dokument
Offentligt
________________________________
This opinion concerns a draft impact assessment which may differ from the final version.
Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles - Belgium. Office: BERL 08/010. E-mail: regulatory-scrutiny-board@ec.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Revision of the Directive on renewable energy sources
Overall 2nd
opinion: POSITIVE WITH RESERVATIONS
(A) Policy context
To achieve climate neutrality by 2050, the Commission has proposed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990. This impact assessment analyses
how a revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED) can contribute to this objective.
The Directive currently aims to increase the share of renewable energy in final energy
consumption to at least 32% by 2030. It establishes a common set of rules to facilitate the
increase of renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport. It also
includes sustainability criteria for bioenergy.
According to the analysis supporting the 2020 climate target plan (CTP), the increased
climate ambitions would require to increase the share of renewable energy to at least 38% -
40%. This impact assessment considers options to do this in a cost-effective manner. The
revision of the RED is part of a package of initiatives revising other, interrelated climate,
energy and transport legislation contributing to the achievement of the European Green
Deal objectives.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the clarifications in the revised report on the context and scope.
However, the report still contains significant shortcomings, in particular as regards
subsidiarity and proportionality. The Board gives a positive opinion with reservations
because it expects the DG to rectify the following aspects::
(1) The report does not sufficiently demonstrate the rationale for a number of the
measures, such as electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
(2) The report does not consider systematically and adequately the subsidiarity and
proportionality of the measures, such as (district) heating and cooling.
(3) The analysis and comparison of options is not comprehensive enough to justify
the set of preferred measures. In particular, this regards the options related to
bioenergy. Impacts on Member States are not presented.
(4) The report does not sufficiently report on different stakeholder groups’ views.
2
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should present a more thorough justification for proposing some of the
measures. It should better explain which problem drivers cannot be addressed by market-
based instruments (e.g. the possible extension of the emissions trading system to transport
and buildings and the energy taxation Directive) and require specific regulatory measures
on renewable energy at EU level. It is not clear what problems the ‘flanking and enabling
measures’ address. The problem description should be completed to cover the issues that
these measures aim to tackle.
(2) The report should better justify why it is necessary to introduce lists of measures on
heating and cooling and on district heating and cooling, which are inherently national or
even local responsibilities. It should justify why it proposes to make it compulsory for each
Member State to introduce two of the measures for heating and cooling. The report should
clarify the status of the list of measures for district heating and cooling.
(3) The report does not sufficiently justify the addition of new options on electric vehicle
charging infrastructure. It should specify the problem these options aim to address and
explain why they cannot be tackled under parallel Fit for 55 initiatives, notably the
revisions of the alternative fuel infrastructure Directive and the energy performance of
buildings Directive. The assessment on this point needs to be reinforced to better support
the choice of preferred option.
(4) The report does not sufficiently substantiate the lack of sustainability of bioenergy. It
should better use available evidence to demonstrate why the current sustainability criteria
are insufficient and possibly incoherent with the Biodiversity Strategy and the Land Use,
Land-Use Change and Forestry Regulation (LULUCF). The current argument that the
National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) do not sufficiently assess the impacts on
LULUCF sinks and biodiversity is not convincing, as the modelling results show a
substantial increase in demand for bioenergy only after 2030 (period not covered by the
NECPs).
(5) The report should strengthen the analysis of impacts of the proposed measures on air
pollution, in particular those regarding the renewables target for transport and the use of
bioenergy. When analysing the environmental impact of the increased use of bioenergy,
the report should not only make the comparison with the current situation, but also with
other possible renewable energy sources. While the initiative focusses on 2030 targets, the
report needs to discuss the coherence of the various measures with the decarbonisation
goal for 2050 and other long-term policies (e.g. zero pollution action plan).
(6) The report should present how measures have different impacts across Member States.
(7) While the comparison of options from the effectiveness angle has improved in the
revised report, the comparative assessment of efficiency, coherence and proportionality is
not presented in a straightforward way. The report should present all criteria in a synthetic,
tabular form that would allow a better comparison of the options against the baseline. The
comparison should be more specific and go beyond the aggregated modelling results and
beyond general statements on coherence or the level of administrative burden.
(8) The report should transparently report on all stakeholder groups’ views (including
diverging ones) on critical issues (for example on sustainability criteria). It should clearly
explain how concerns have been taken into account.
(9) The narrative on subsidiarity is not sufficiently nuanced in the report. The subsidiarity
principle indicates that the EU may only intervene if it is able to act more effectively than
3
EU countries at their respective national or local levels. Therefore, measures should be
assessed from the point of view of being in conformity with the principle rather than
whether the subsidiarity is impacted or not.
(10)The report is far too long and should be shortened in a manner that ensures effective
information for policy makers.
The Board notes the estimated costs and benefits of the preferred option(s) in this
initiative, as summarised in the attached quantification tables.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings before
launching the interservice consultation.
Full title Revision of the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
Reference number PLAN/2020/7536
Submitted to RSB on 30 April 2021
Date of RSB meeting Written procedure
4
ANNEX: Quantification tables extracted from the draft impact assessment report
The following tables contain information on the costs and benefits of the initiative on
which the Board has given its opinion, as presented above.
If the draft report has been revised in line with the Board’s recommendations, the content
of these tables may be different from those in the final version of the impact assessment
report, as published by the Commission.
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS – based on modelling
Benefits Costs
Scenarios
MIX vs
MIX-LD Interpretation
MIX vs
MIX-CP Interpretation
2030 EU27
results unless
otherwise
stated metric MIX
MIX-
CP
MIX-
LD
Difference
MIX vs MIX-
LD
illustrates
impact of
drivers
representing
revision of
RED working
together
with other
"Fit for 55"
proposals
RED revision
brings:
Difference
MIX vs MIX-
CP
illustrates
impact of
achieving
necessary
2030 RES
ambition by
drivers
representing
revision of
RED rather
than very
high carbon
pricing
RED revision
compared to
very high carbon
price brings:
GHG reductions
(incl intra EU
aviation and
maritime, excl
LULUCF) wrt
1990
% change
from
1990 53,1% 53,0% 52,1% 1,0
1 p.p. of
necessary GHG
reduction
compared to
1990 0,1
difference is
negligible all core
scenarios were
designed to
achieve GHG 55%
target
Overall RES
share % 38,0% 37,6% 36,3% 1,7
1.7 p.p. bigger
share of total
RES in final
energy
consumption in
2030 0,3
Small difference
showing that high
level of carbon
pricing can be as
effective as
renewables
policies in
achieving
necessary RES
shares
RES-E share % 62,6% 63,0% 60,2% 2,4
2.4 p.p. bigger
share of RES in
electricity in
2030 -0,4
Small difference
showing that high
level of carbon
pricing can be as
effective as
renewables
policies in
achieving
necessary RES
shares in
electricity
5
RES-H&C share % 38,9% 37,8% 36,9% 2,0
2 p.p. bigger
share of RES in
H&C in 2030 1,1
Small difference
showing that
ambitious
regulatory
measures are
more effective in
achieving
necessary RES
shares in H&C
than even very
high level of
carbon price
(€65/t)
RES-T share % 26,4% 26,1% 25,9% 0,6
0.6 p.p. bigger
share of RES in
transport in 2030 0,4
Small difference
stemming from
the fact that level
of RES-T ambition
is established by
ambitious NECPs
and initiatives on
aviation and
maritime fuels
PEC energy
savings
% change
from
2007
Baseline 38,5% 38,0% 37,9% 0,6
0.6 p.p. bigger
primary energy
savings in 2030 0,5
Small difference
illustrating that
higher RES-E
shares have
positive impact
on PEC
FEC energy
savings
% change
from
2007
Baseline 35,8% 34,9% 35,3% 0,5
0.5 p.p. bigger
final energy
savings in 2030 0,8
Small difference
illustrating that
higher RES-H&C
shares have
positive impact
on FEC
Investment
expenditures
(excl transport)
av annual (2021-
30)
bn
€'15/year 410 393 396 13
Average annual
investment
needs higher by
€ 13bn 17
Average annual
investment needs
higher by € 17 bn
compared to case
with high carbon
price as main
driver
Energy system
costs excl
carbon pricing
and disutilities
av annual (2021-
30)
bn
€'15/year 1543 1535 1539 4
Average annual
system costs
higher by € 4bn 8
Average annual
system costs
higher by € 4bn
compared to case
with high carbon
price as main
driver
ETS price in
current sectors
(and maritime) €/tCO2 46 51 46 0
no significant
change - level of
carbon price was
frozen between
MIX and MIX-LD -5
Carbon price can
by lower by 5€/t
in the current ETS
sectors
ETS price in new
sectors
(buildings and
road transport) €/tCO3 46 68 46 0
no significant
change - level of
carbon price was
frozen between
MIX and MIX-LD -23
Carbon price can
by lower by 23€/t
in the new ETS
sectors
6
Average Price of
Electricity €/MWh 166 167 165 1
no significant
change -1
no significant
change
Import
dependency % 53% 53% 53% 0
no significant
change 0
no significant
change
Fossil fuels
imports bill
savings
compared to
BSL for the
period 2021-30) bn €'15 91 79 75 16
Savings on fossil
fuels import bill
are higher by 16
bn 12
Savings on fossil
fuels import bill
are higher by 12
bn
Energy-related
expenditures
(excl transport)
of households
as % of
households
income % 7,8% 7,7% 7,7% 0,1
no significant
change 0,1
no significant
change
7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Brussels,
RSB
Opinion
Title: Impact assessment / Revision of the Directive on renewable energy sources
Overall opinion: NEGATIVE
(A) Policy context
To achieve climate neutrality by 2050, the Commission has proposed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 compared to 1990. This impact assessment analyses
how a revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED) can contribute to this objective.
The Directive currently aims to increase the share of renewable energy in final energy
consumption to at least 32% by 2030. It establishes a common set of rules to facilitate the
increase of renewable energy in electricity, heating and cooling and transport. It also
includes sustainability criteria for bioenergy.
According to the analysis supporting the 2020 climate target plan (CTP), the increased
climate ambitions would require to increase the share of renewable energy to at least 38% -
40%. This impact assessment considers options to do this in a cost-effective manner. The
revision of the RED is part of a package of initiatives revising other, interrelated climate,
energy and transport legislation contributing to the achievement of the European Green
Deal objectives.
(B) Summary of findings
The Board notes the additional information provided in advance of the meeting and
commitment to make changes to the report. It also notes the significant efforts to
coordinate and ensure coherence across the ‘Fit for 55’ initiatives.
However, the Board gives a negative opinion, because the report contains the
following significant shortcomings:
(1) The report does not sufficiently demonstrate the rationale, EU added value and
proportionality of a number of the proposed measures. It is not clear which
measures are crucial and which are less important to achieve the objectives of the
initiative.
(2) Modelling results for the different levels of ambition are not sufficiently
complemented by an analysis of impacts (qualitative or quantitative) of the
specific measures.
(3) The presentation of the analysis and comparison of the options is often confusing
or incomplete. In particular, this regards the options related to bioenergy and
8
impacts on Member States.
(4) The report does not clearly explain who will be affected and how by the initiative.
It does not sufficiently report on different stakeholder groups’ views.
(C) What to improve
(1) The report should clearly define the scope of the initiative. It should specify how it
aligns with the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the Climate Law, and how it follows or
differs from the CTP modelling scenarios. On this basis, the report should make clear what
are the open policy choices that this impact assessment aims to inform. The report should
explain how the other ‘Fit for 55’ initiatives may affect the scope, choices or impacts of
this initiative.
(2) The report should present a much more thorough justification for proposing some of
the measures. In the absence of an evaluation, the report should provide evidence
supporting the identified problems, in particular as regards the insufficient energy system
integration and bioenergy sustainability criteria. The report should better explain which
problem drivers cannot be addressed by market based instruments (the extension of the
emissions trading system to transport and buildings and the Energy Taxation Directive) and
require further regulatory intervention at EU level.
(3) The report should clarify which measures are crucial to achieve the policy objectives
and which are only ‘nice to have’. Given that parallel initiatives also contain measures
regulating industry, transport and buildings, the report should better substantiate the
rationale for proposing additional measures and demonstrate that they are needed to reach
the objectives.
(4) The value added of some of the measures, specifically from the EU perspective, needs
to be better justified in the report. In particular, for measures relating to heating and cooling
that are by their nature deployed at a local level, subsidiarity considerations need to be
clarified. The report should also justify the need for proposing menus of measures that are
to be implemented by Member States.
(5) The impact analysis for measures regulating bioenergy seems too narrow. The report
should analyse the effects on the bioenergy sector resulting from the increasing demand for
renewable energy sources and clarify assumptions, uncertainties and potential risks. In
particular, this relates to sectors that are difficult to electrify (e.g. aviation and maritime
transport). It should analyse to what extent the increased demand for renewable energy
could be satisfied from within the EU. The report should clarify whether the proposed
sustainability criteria for biomass and the increased use of bioenergy (especially after 2030)
are aligned to the Green Deal’s ‘do no harm’ principle, in particular for air pollution. It
could be clearer on potential trade-offs with the revised LULUCF, the EU’s biodiversity
strategy and the bioenergy sector, and how different interests are balanced.
(6) The report should complete the analysis of impacts. Modelling results should be
complemented by a more thorough (qualitative or quantitative) assessment of the
considered individual measures, drawing on other available evidence. The report should
clarify who is affected and how. In particular, it should show how effects are distributed
across Member State. It should revise the presentation of the comparison of options. It
should always compare options against the baseline and adjust the scoring accordingly.
Options should be systematically compared to all assessment criteria, based on the impact
analysis.
9
(7) Views of stakeholders, in particular the dissenting and minority views should be better
reflected throughout the report, including on the problem definition, construction of options
and the choice of the preferred option(s).
(8) The report should improve the presentation of the estimated costs and benefits of the
preferred option(s) and include a more comprehensive overview in Annex 3. As far as
possible, the report should quantify the expected increase in administrative burden.
(9) The methodological section (in the annex), including methods, key assumptions, and
baseline, should be harmonised as much as possible across all ‘Fit for 55’ initiatives. Key
methodological elements and assumptions should be included concisely in the main report
under the baseline section and the introduction to the options. The report should refer
explicitly to uncertainties linked to the modelling. Where relevant, the methodological
presentation should be adapted to this specific initiative. In particular, the report should
clarify that the modelling results show the impact of the assumed overall ambition level of
measures, instead of the effect of the specifically proposed measures.
Some more technical comments have been sent directly to the author DG.
(D) Conclusion
The DG must revise the report in accordance with the Board’s findings and resubmit
it for a final RSB opinion.
Full title Revision of the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources
Reference number PLAN/2020/7536
Submitted to RSB on 11 March 2021
Date of RSB meeting 14 April 2021
Electronically signed on 28/05/2021 13:14 (UTC+02) in accordance with article 11 of Commission Decision C(2020) 4482