EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2016 SWD(2016) 416 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT REFIT evaluation of the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast) {COM(2016) 767 final}

{SWD(2016) 417 final}



Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I.INTRODUCTION 1.1.Purpose of the REFIT evaluation 1.2.Scope of the REFIT evaluation 2.BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 2.1.Description of the initiative and its intervention logic 2.2.Baseline 3.EVALUATION LOGIC AND QUESTIONS 3.1.Effectiveness 3.2.Efficiency 3.3.Relevance 3.4.Coherence 3.5.Added value 4.METHODOLOGY / PROCESS FOLLOWED 5.IMPLEMENTATION, STATE OF PLAY AND RESULTS 5.1.Progress towards 20% renewable energy EU target and national targets 5.2.Progress towards 10% target for the 2020 share of renewable energy in the transport

5.3.Main quantitative impacts associated with the Renewable Energy Directive 6.ANSWERS TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS 6. 1.Effectiveness 6.1.1.Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding EU renewable energy target of 20% by 2020, and the Member State national binding renewable energy targets for 2020? Do implementation and enforcement challenges and failures exist? If yes, where and why? 6.1.2.Has the RES Directive effectively led to better planning and streamlining of the approval and licensing procedures for RES producers at national and local level? 6.1.3.Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding 10% renewable energy target in transport by 2020? 6.1.4.Has the RES Directive triggered sufficient progress in RES deployment in the heating and cooling sector, which was previously not covered by renewable energy targets? 6.1.5.What effects (impacts) has the implementation of the RES Directive had at EU and individual Member State’s level? 6.1.6.Which factors have hindered the achievement of objectives of the RES Directive? 6.2.Efficiency 6.2.1.To what extent has the RES Directive, and the binding targets included therein, been efficient means of developing the European renewable energy sector? Could the use of other policy instruments, or mechanisms, have provided better efficiency? 6.2.2.Have the RES Directive and its national implementation measures, including support schemes, been cost-efficient means of achieving the RES targets at the EU and national level? Have the expected results been obtained at a reasonable cost? Are results proportionate to the benefits? Could the same results have been achieved with less funding/lower cost? 6.2.3.Has the RES Directive effectively improved grid access conditions for renewable electricity producers? Has it done so in a cost-efficient manner? 6.2.4.Has the RES Directive added administrative burden to Member States' public authorities and economic operators? Or, on the contrary, has such burden been reduced [e.g. compared to previous EU legislation in the area of renewable energy Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2003/30/EC]? Have Member States reporting obligation requirements become more efficient, or, on the contrary, has the reporting burden increased? 6.2.5.Has the establishment of the sustainability scheme for biofuels and bioliquids led to the creation of a cost-efficient framework? Has it achieved its aim in a cost-efficient manner? What impact has such sustainability system had on the Member States administrations and the private sector? 6.3.Relevance 6.3.1.To what extent were the objectives of the RES Directive relevant to the needs of the EU Energy and Climate Change policy? To what extent does the RES Directive remain relevant for the Energy Union priorities, the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework and COP 21 global climate commitments? 6.3.2.To what extent is the RES Directive complementary to other EU initiatives in the field and has synergies with them? 6.4.Coherence 6.4.1.Is the RES Directive coherent with other EU policies in the area of energy and climate change?

6.5.Added value 6.5.1.What is the EU added value of the RES Directive (can the objectives be better achieved by action at the EU level)? 6.5.2.Why could the RES Directive objectives be better achieved by EU action? 6.5.3.Would it be possible to achieve the same results in the absence of the RES Directive? 7.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Annex 1: Table on Member States' performance towards their renewable energy targets (%) Annex 2: Procedural information Annex 3: Synopsis report of stakeholder consultation in the context of the Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Renewable Energy Directive (RES Directive), with its nationally binding energy renewable targets for 2020, is a core element of the 2009 EU climate and energy package, although the EU legal framework on renewable energy promotion, previously based on indicative targets, dates back to 2001. The renewable energy targets are also part of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth, in particular of its flagship initiative for a resource-efficient Europe, given their contribution to innovation, growth, jobs and security of energy supply. Furthermore, the Directive is the central EU level instrument to "promote the development of new and renewable forms of energy", an aim set out in Art 194(1)(c) TFEU. Renewable energy is currently the only decarbonisation option in the power sector which is being deployed at a rate that is close to what is required under long-term scenarios of the International Energy Agency (IEA) to attain the 2◦C target. The 2009 RES Directive has effectively ensured that all Member State but one are currently on track to achieve their 2020 targets, thus improving the pre-existing situation were only few Member States had achieved their 2010 indicative targets for renewable electricity and transport. The share of renewable energy (RES) in the EU increased by 6 percentage points between 2007 and 2015 (from 10.4% to 17%). As anticipated in the 2007 Renewable Energy Road Map outlining the proposed EU renewable energy framework based on binding EU and national renewable energy targets, the Directive has triggered the development of comprehensive policies in all Member States in the electricity, heating and cooling and transport sectors. In parallel with additional national RES policies, the 2009 RES Directive has also spurred European-led global investment and technology cost reductions that were still unimaginable a few years ago. For instance, from 2010-2015, average costs for new onshore wind plants fell by 30% and average costs for new utility scale solar PV installations declined by two-thirds, the latter also influenced by production growth in China. This fall in prices has confirmed the volume-dependent technology learning curve. RES investments have been surpassing conventional energy investments for the first time in 2014. While production volume and scale were probably the most successful elements triggered in 2009 , the future framework for RES development will need to emphasise more market integration. As technologies mature and markets evolve, this will be the most cost-efficient way of deploying and integrating RES technologies. Market based schemes also increase investor certainty since support mechanisms are more transparent and predictable and less exposed to unilateral government decisions (e.g. modification of support conditions for existing installations). Results of the public consultation highlighted that the RES Directive is considered successful in helping the EU reach its energy and climate objectives by 72% of respondents . In particular, the evaluation study published in April 2015, on which the present REFIT evaluation is based, found that its national binding targets were the most important driver for renewable energy policies and investments in many Member States, and its reporting, planning and monitoring obligations were rated as highly effective in the Fitness Check Evaluation on energy planning and reporting for enabling quantitative analysis and transparency on RES planning and deployment in Member States and the EU as a whole. The Directive has so far delivered more impact in the electricity sector than in the heating and cooling sector, which can be partly explained by late transposition deadlines (31 December 2014) for the heating and cooling and building related provisions, in addition to the fact that the Directive contains more electricity market related measures. The biofuels sustainability scheme included in the Directive in 2009 failed to anticipate and address the risk of indirect land use change, and this gap was only addressed with the adoption of the ILUC Directive in 2015 and the amended EU biofuel sustainability criteria. The long and technically complex inter-institutional negotiations that led to the adoption of the ILUC Directive, together with the complexity of some provisions under the sustainability schemes, gave rise to some initial challenges for its implementation in several Member States. The transport sub-target has successfully resulted in the implementation of blending mandates in the vast majority of the Member States. With regard to efficiency, this evaluation found that the methodology underpinning the effort sharing for the 20% EU target struck the right balance between cost effectiveness and political acceptance. However, the flexibility and cooperation mechanisms included in the RES Directive (joint support schemes, joint projects, statistical transfers, or even third country cooperation, set out in Articles 6 to 11), which were intended to help Member States achieve their national targets and the EU overall target by making use of cost effective RES development in other Member States and third countries, have hardly been used by Member States. The Guarantees of Origin scheme (Article 15), which provides a mechanism for consumer disclosure of the sources of renewable electricity, has not yet delivered sufficient transparency with regard to the suppliers fuel mix. The unreaped cost-effectiveness of cooperation measures was nevertheless countered by the large decrease in technology costs, thus improving the overall production cost picture. Furthermore, the Directive did not prescribe support schemes as obligatory, nor did it set out details as regards their design and management. However, most Member States have relied on support measures to incentivise RES deployment. Not all national support schemes were found to be equally efficient and responsive to market signals, which mattered even more when adjustments were not done fast enough in line with the (rather unexpected) rapid technological cost decreases. Many Member States have introduced support schemes which were not related to market signals, resulting in distortions of the electricity market and leading in some cases to high support costs. In some cases, adjustments were also made too abruptly, or even retroactively, resulting in market uncertainty and ultimately increasing the overall impact on investors. To address these issues, the Commission issued guidance on RES support schemes design and their reform in 2013. The move towards more market based support mechanisms was then further complemented by the 2014 Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy. The national character of current support schemes finally also prevents exploring the full benefits of European market integration. However, as this evaluation could also demonstrate, political considerations (preference to keep investments in the own Member State) may prevail in such decisions, even if they were to result in less cost-effectiveness. Also, the experience of the only joint support scheme implemented so far has showed that the original expectations of cost-effectiveness have not fully materialised due to national regulatory differences that go beyond the support scheme itself. Nevertheless, it is expected that, with the increasingly ambitious trajectories post-2015, and based on currently promising signals for further joint mechanisms, these instruments will gain in importance in the second half of the decade. Solid evidence shows the relevance of the Renewable Energy Directive for reaching the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, as well as for the delivery of Article 194(1c) of the Treaty. Although the renewable energy targets are expressed in relative terms (i.e. as a share of future levels of energy consumption), progressing towards them effectively displaces fossil fuels and complements the EU GHG reduction. The increase in the use of renewable energy resulted in approximately 380 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level in 2014. As energy efficiency improves – another key dimension of the EU's decarbonisation efforts –, the growing share of renewables results in a progressively larger displacement of non-renewable energy sources. Moreover, the benefits of renewables go well beyond GHG reduction and include greater security of supply and more innovation, jobs and growth. For example, avoided imported fuel costs due to increasing use of renewable energy amount to around €20 billion a year for the EU as a whole. This makes renewable energy a key delivery tool for several dimensions of the Energy Union Strategy and for EU commitments in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement on climate change. In addition, since 2014, the EU's ambition to lead the world in renewable energy has been declared as one of the key policy priorities of the Juncker Commission. With regard to coherence with other policies, the link with Internal Energy market provisions and the Emissions Trading System (ETS) are probably the most important, but not the only ones, as further elaborated in the evaluation.

While RES support schemes contributed to the expansion of RES electricity production and technology cost reductions, their impact on electricity wholesale market functioning also increased significantly. In the absence of clear principles for the market-compatibility of support schemes in the RES Directive, non-market-based support schemes were introduced in many Member States. Such support schemes added a regulated layer to the electricity price that did not respond to market-signals, thereby reducing the ability of the wholesale electricity price to steer trade and investment decisions effectively. The 2009 RES Directive established priority access and dispatch for renewable energy to compensate for electricity market rules not providing renewable producers the opportunity to fully participate in the market. With the parallel ongoing initiative for a new market design improving the conditions for RES suppliers, the need for continuing preferential treatment will need to be re-assessed and the role of the RES Directive in a reformed electricity market design to be re-defined. The deployment of renewables induced by the Directive contributed to a slight reduction in demand for EU ETS allowances. However, the overall surplus of allowances implies that the price-dampening effect of new renewable energy was in fact rather limited. The general deployment of renewables induced by the Directive has worked in synergy with the EU ETS by ensuring that regulatory, administrative and energy operating systems adapt to a low carbon energy future and allow the ETS price signal to feed through to suppliers. There was an EU-added value in the form of a clear joint ambition underpinned by national planning that allowed investors to become active across the EU under similar framework conditions.The EU wide roll-out also resulted in significantly higher effects of scale and consecutively more pronounced technology cost reductions for new on-shore wind and solar photovoltaic capacity (since 2015 also for off-shore wind). This has made deployment cheaper for all the Member States involved, as it would not have otherwise been. It emerged that a minimum degree of coordination in the area of RES is necessary to avoid negative effects on other Member States stemming e.g. from insufficient grid development (loop flows) or retroactive changes. It is important to note that recent stakeholder feedback (e.g. Florence Electricity Forum, June 2016) called for common rules on support schemes and for more regionalised and market based approaches. EU added value was delivered by the Concerted Action for Renewables, which is a structured, confidential dialogue enabled by the Commission among national authorities tasked with the implementation of this Directive. This initiative has delivered particular benefits as Member States started with very different levels of experience, offering wide knowledge sharing opportunities for Member States which were less advanced in implementation. By excluding the production of biofuels in areas of high biodiversity and carbon value and by laying down a set of common biofuel sustainability criteria and methodology, the RES Directive established common EU sustainability criteria, preventing market fragmentation and potential trade barriers that could have arisen if national sustainability rules had diverged. The RES Directive (and energy efficiency legislation) serve as a reference for Member States' low carbon investments funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds, and for the EIB group lending, including in the framework of the European Fund for Structural Investments (EFSI). These priorities remain valid, as the EU prepares itself for achieving the 2030 energy and climate targets in line with its COP21 commitments and renewed commitment to foster sustainable and green investments. Finally, the RES Directive (together with other parts of 2009 climate and energy package) and the EU global leadership role in renewable energy contributed to the spread of renewable energy policies around the world. By 2015, at least 173 countries had adopted renewable energy targets (not considering the intended nationally determined contributions prior to COP21), and an estimated 146 countries had renewable energy support policies in place. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1.Purpose of the REFIT evaluation As part of the Commission's Better Regulation agenda, the Renewable Energy Directive was included in the Commission's 2013 REFIT programme in order to provide a comprehensive policy and regulatory fitness evaluation of the 2009 RES Directive. Building on the conclusions drawn from the present REFIT evaluation, the Commission intends to revise the regulatory framework on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources by the end of 2016. The present evaluation informs the Impact Assessment for this revision. 1.2.Scope of the REFIT evaluation The evaluation covers all aspects of the RES Directive, but it should be noted that there is a parallel on-going Fitness Check evaluation on the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations in the EU energy legislation, including those set out in the RES Directive (Articles 22 and 23). Those are therefore fully assessed in the referred parallel evaluation exercise. The RES REFIT evaluation covers 28 Member States and the period from 2010 (i.e. the legal implementation date of the Directive) to 2015 (i.e. date of latest statistical and other data evidence available), except where specified otherwise. 2. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 2.1.Description of the initiative and its intervention logic The RES Directive forms part of the EU Energy and Climate policy package mandated by the European Council in 2006 and 2007 and was adopted in 2009,. The RES Directive lays down the principles according to which Member States need to ensure that the share of renewable energy in the EU final energy consumption reaches at least 20% by 2020. It establishes non-uniform national mandatory targets for the share of renewables in final energy consumption for each Member State (as opposed to pure indicative national targets of the previous legislation). The RES Directive also includes biennial indicative target trajectories. The effort sharing amongst Member States for achieving the overall EU level 20% target was based on a flat-rate increase in each Member State weighted by gross domestic product (GDP) and modulated to take account of earlier development of renewable energy resources in that Member State. Three sectors were covered, electricity, heating and cooling and transport, but the split of the share between the sectors was left to the discretion of the Member States. However, a separate mandatory 10% target for the 2020 share of renewable energy in transport was provided. The following list summarises key EU and national measures, resulting from the 2009 RES Directive:

In view of reducing the overall cost of renewable energy target achievement, the RES Directive created the legal framework for Member States' cooperation in the form of statistical transfers, agreements on joint support schemes and joint projects, with other Member States, or third countries (Art. 6-11); Given the binding nature of the target, Member States were left with more flexibility as regards the measures needed to reach the targets. Accordingly, the Directive does not prescribe, but only suggests Member States to use, inter alia, support schemes and cooperation measures (Art. 3 a) and b)); The Directive also required, for the first time, all Member States to prepare National Renewable Energy Action Plans (Art. 4) based on a binding template and included provisions on national authorisation, certification and licensing procedures, and permit granting for RES projects (Art. 13(1)); Provisions requiring Member State action to increase the use of RES in buildings and district heating and cooling were laid down in Art. 13 (3-6), Art. 16(9) and Art. 16(11); In order to guarantee their sustainable production and use, the Directive also required that biofuels and bioliquids counting towards the RES targets, or receiving public support, reach at least a minimum level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission savings and do not lead to unintended biodiversity impacts (Art. 17-19); solid and gaseous biomass sustainability issues were left to Member States' discretion in line with national competence over forestry management. The RES Directive was amended in 2015by the ILUC Directive , which introduced a cap for food based biofuels and further incentives for advanced renewable fuels with a view to reduce the risk of indirect land use change (ILUC) and to prepare the transition towards the deployment of advanced renewable fuels. The general objectives of the RES Directive as stipulated in the 2006 and 2008 Impact Assessments are to: Reduce CO2 from energy use, Limit the global average temperature increase to not more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level; Make the EU economy more energy secure; Make the EU the most competitive economy in the world, in particular with respect to new energy technologies such as low carbon energy production technologies. The specific objective of the RES Directive is to achieve a 20% share of renewable energy in EU final energy consumption and a 10% share of energy from renewable sources in the transport sector by 2020. The intervention logic, setting out the rationale and approach for the Renewable Energy Directive is given in Figure 1. Figure 1: Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC): intervention logic and impact Intended main quantitative impacts The 2006 Impact Assessment for the Renewable Energy Road Map summed up the estimated 2020 impacts of reaching a 20% renewable energy target, as follows: The additional renewable energy deployment needed to achieve the 20% target by 2020 will lead to an annual GHG saving in the range of 600-900 Mt CO2 in 2020; Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources will contribute to a reduction of polluting emissions, especially from the electricity sector; Avoided EU fossil fuel consumption was estimated in the range of 234-300 Mtoe/year from 2020 onwards, including 200 Mtoe per year of imported fuels; in monetary terms, increased capacity for RES production in the period 2005-2020 was expected to account for around 50-57 bn EUR/year;

Cumulative investment needs for renewable energy in the period 2005-2020 were estimated in the range of EUR 600-670 billion (in 2005 prices); Cumulative additional production costs in the period 2005-2020 were estimated in the range of EUR 210-290 billion (with 48$/bbl oil price); the average yearly additional production costs were projected to be in the range of 13-18 billion EUR/year in the period 2005-2020; As regards GDP growth and employment, it was expected that by 2020 the EU GDP would be 0.5% higher than under a business as usual scenario, and employment would grow by around 0.3%, resulting in about 650 000 additional jobs by 2020. The biodiversity impact was expected to be overall positive, even if some negative effects could emerge in the case of wind parks, if these were located in areas of high biodiversity value, or biofuel production, if this would occur on land with high biodiversity value. The 2006 Impact Assessment calculated the total estimated average cost on the basis of dynamic and varied values of technology costs, assuming an average wind energy production cost of 65 EUR/MWh, 650 EUR/MWh for photovoltaic electricity and a range between 20 EUR/MWh and 180 EUR/MWh for biomass. In terms of administrative costs linked to reporting and planning, the 2008 Impact Assessment estimated additional cost to national authorities of ca. EUR 19 500 per Member State, and for the EU as a whole, of ca. EUR 0.5 million every two years. The intended and unintended direct impacts of the RES Directive and other external factors, such as those related to technology developments, unanticipated indirect land use change risk and impacts of 2007-2010 economic crisis, are reviewed and assessed against these anticipated quantitative impacts in Section 6. 2.2.Baseline For the purpose of the present evaluation, the 2006 Impact Assessment for the Renewable Energy Road Map and the 2008 Impact Assessments for the 2020 Energy and Climate Package are used to establish the baseline for describing the situation prior to the adoption of Renewable Energy Directive in December 2008. The overall 2020 target framework and its main anticipated quantitative impacts were assessed in the 2006 Impact Assessment, while the 2008 Impact Assessment assessed the effort sharing among Member States in view of 20% RES target achievement and other crucial provisions of the Directive such as those on Guarantees of Origin, administrative and grid barriers, national plans or biofuel sustainability criteria. No new additional modelling approaches were developed for the purposes of this evaluation. It must be noted, however, that the 2006 and 2008 Impact Assessments used 2005 and 2007 as baseline year respectively, whereas the RES Directive entered into force in 2010. The effects of this Directive will be analysed from 2010 onwards. Differences in the (modelling) methodology used in the 2006 and 2008 Impacts Assessments make the comparison of some key impacts challenging. Furthermore, in the 2008 Impact Assessment supporting the 2020 Climate and Energy Package, some renewable energy policy aspects were analysed together with expected impacts from GHG emission reduction measures. This approach makes the distinction and comparison of certain impacts even more difficult. Nevertheless, a fair degree of comparison has been possible, by drawing on a limited number of baseline indicators included in the 2006 and 2008 Impact Assessments, such as GHG saving, fossil fuel displacement, employment and technology cost reduction impacts. For other indicators, the quantification of results of the mid-term evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive should be read with due caution. The 2008 Impact Assessment noted that the majority of Member States were promoting the increase in renewable energy production either by green certificate regimes (4 Member States), or by feed-in-tariff system (17 Member States). The 2008 Impact Assessment also assumed that an open market for Guarantees of Origin, combined with a continuation of national support schemes, would make the 2020 renewable energy target achievement cheaper. However, the option of Guarantees of origin being used as a form of cooperation mechanism for cost-effective target achievement was finally not retained in the adopted 2009 RES Directive. It has to be noted that the Directive provides quantified and measurable overall and national renewable energy targets that make it relatively easy to measure progress, but does not contain any other measurable objectives. The effectiveness of the other provisions in the Directive needs to be assessed against qualitative improvements. 3. EVALUATION LOGIC AND QUESTIONS 3.1.Effectiveness Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding EU renewable energy target of 20% by 2020, and the Member State national binding renewable energy targets for 2020? Do implementation and enforcement challenges and failures exist? If yes, where and why? Has the RES Directive effectively led to better planning and streamlining of the approval and licensing procedures for RES producers at national and local level? Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding 10% renewable energy target in transport by 2020? Has the RES Directive triggered sufficient progress in RES deployment in the heating and cooling sector, which was previously not covered by renewable energy targets? What effects (impacts) has the implementation of the RES Directive had at EU and individual Member State’s level? Which factors have hindered the achievement of objectives of the RES Directive?

3.2.Efficiency To what extent has the RES Directive, and the binding targets included therein, been efficient means of developing the European renewable energy sector? Could the use of other policy instruments, or mechanisms, have provided better efficiency? Have the RES Directive and its national implementation measures, including support schemes, been cost-efficient means of achieving the RES targets at the EU and national level? Have the expected results been obtained at a reasonable cost? Are results proportionate to the administrative cost and burden on Member State administrations and businesses? Could the same results have been achieved with less funding/lower cost? Has the Directive effectively improved grid access conditions for renewable electricity producers? Has it done so in a cost-efficient manner? Has the RES Directive added administrative burden to Member States' public authorities and economic operators? Or, on the contrary, has such burden been reduced [e.g. compared to previous EU legislation in the area of renewable energy Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2003/30/EC]? Have Member States reporting obligation requirements become more efficient, or, on the contrary, has the reporting burden increased? Has the establishment of the sustainability scheme for biofuels and bioliquids led to the creation of a cost-efficient framework? Has it achieved its aim in a cost-efficient manner? What impact has such sustainability system had on the Member States administrations and the private sector? 3.3.Relevance To what extent were the objectives of the RES Directive relevant to the needs of the EU Energy and Climate Change policy? To what extent does the RES Directive remain relevant for the Energy Union priorities, the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework and the COP 21 Global Climate commitments? To what extent is the RES Directive complementary to other EU initiatives in the field and has synergies with them? 3.4.Coherence Is the RES Directive coherent with other EU policies in the area of energy and climate change? 3.5.Added value What is the EU added value of the RES Directive (can the objectives be better achieved by action at the EU level)? Why could the Renewable Energy Directive objectives be better achieved through EU action? Would it be possible to achieve the same results in the absence of the RES Directive? 4. METHODOLOGY / PROCESS FOLLOWED A supporting mid-term REFIT evaluation study of the RES Directive was launched in May 2014 and conducted until April 2015. The study was carried out by a consortium of experts led by CE Delft and Ecologic Institute, Ricardo-AEA and REKK, drawing on available literature, data and stakeholder interviews with national authorities, renewable energy industry associations, non-renewable energy industry associations, consumers' associations, NGOs, etc.. Six case studies for countries representing various degrees of progress, potential and deployment (Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Poland, Spain and Sweden) were part of the supporting study. Furthermore, the 12 week public online consultation (18th November 2015 – 10th February 2016) that took place in the context of the present evaluation and Impact Assessment for the revised Directive, included the following questions relevant for this evaluation: To what extent has the RES Directive been successful in helping to achieve the EU energy and climate change objectives?  To what extent has the RES Directive been successful in addressing the following EU transport policy objectives? Please name the most important barriers hampering the development of sustainable renewable fuels and renewable electricity use in transport?

The use of cooperation mechanisms has been limited to date. Which of the below factors do you consider important in explaining the limited recourse by Member States to cooperation mechanisms so far? To what extent has the current GO system been successful in providing consumers with information on the sources of electricity that they consume? Please identify precise challenges with regard to grid regulation and infrastructure barriers in EU Member States that you are aware of. How would you rate the importance of the following barriers for consumers to produce and self-consume their own renewable energy? Please rate the importance of the following barriers in hampering the deployment of renewable heating and cooling in the EU. Has the RES Directive been effective and efficient in helping exploiting the renewable energy potential at local level? How would you rate the importance of the following barriers that may be specifically hampering the further deployment of renewable energy projects at the local level (municipalities and energy cooperatives)? How would you rate the administrative burden and cost of compliance with the RES Directive RED for national, regional and local authorities? Please identify precise challenges with regard to grid regulation and infrastructure barriers in EU Member States that you are aware of. In addition to several dedicated meetings, a Stakeholder Conference was held on 5th February 2016 to gather opinions on the current EU renewable energy policy framework and the post-2020 perspective, and to complement the public consultation with focus on three themes: renewable energy target achievement, role of consumers and communities, and renewable energy financing. A complete description of the stakeholder consultation outcome, including this and other relevant meetings in the context of the present REFIT evaluation, is provided in Annex I. Limitations-robustness of the findings The REFIT evaluation of the Renewable Energy Directive occurs 5 years ahead of the target year (2020), while the heating and cooling and building provisions (Art. 13 (4-6)) have only been applicable since 2015. In addition so far, only very limited experience with flexibility and cooperation mechanisms (Art. 6-11) has been gained. Differences in the modelling methodology used in the 2006 and 2008 Impact Assessments preceding the adoption of the RES Directive, as well as differences in the studies and modelling tools used to assess the mid-term evaluation and impacts of the 2009 RES Directive, turn the comparison of some key impacts into a challenging task. Furthermore, in the 2008 Impact Assessment, supporting the 2020 Climate and Energy Package, some renewable energy policy aspects were analysed together with expected impacts from GHG emission reduction measures. This makes the distinction and comparison of certain impacts also more demanding. Nevertheless, a fair degree of comparison has been possible, by drawing on a limited number of baseline indicators included in the 2006 and 2008 Impact Assessments. For other indicators and quantification of results, additional research was undertaken, relying on independent studies, own research, work carried out for the European Commission and data from relevant international bodies (e.g. IEA/OECD, IRENA etc.). 5. IMPLEMENTATION, STATE OF PLAY AND RESULTS From a legal perspective, the RES Directive appears to have raised some difficulty for Member States' transposition and application process, as 47 infringement cases were opened and 4 Member States were referred to the Court. Presently, 44 cases are closed and 3 cases are still pending. Most of the infringement cases that reached the most advanced stage were related to the biofuels and bioliquids sustainability criteria, as these provisions were a novelty for most Member States and required more complex measures of implementation. So far, only one EU pilot case has been opened against a Member State that did not meet is 2013/2014 interim target, triggering the obligation to resubmit an amended National Renewable Energy Action Plan. A significant number of complaints, petitions and parliamentary questions were addressed to the Commission in relation to retrospective and other changes in national support schemes occurring in various Member States, and/or discriminatory measures against renewable energy operators, claiming alleged violations of the RES Directive (due to insufficient action by Member States to achieve their national binding targets) and of general principles of EU law. In most cases there was no sufficient grounds to initiate legal action against Member States based on these allegations, as the Directive does not prescribe the use of support schemes to achieve the national renewable energy targets, nor does it give details on the design and management of such schemes. The following section summarises the current situation in implementing the RES Directive in relation to the specific objectives set out in the intervention logic (see Figure 1). It also summarises the current status of progress towards the binding 2020 EU and national renewable energy targets based on the latest available data. 5.1.Progress towards 20% renewable energy EU target and national targets

With a 17% estimated share in 2015 in the gross final energy consumption, the EU and all but one Member State are currently advancing well towards 2020 renewable energy targets. The sectorial shares of renewable energy, although not legally stipulated in the Directive, but forming part of National Renewable Energy Action plans, also offer a positive picture on renewables' deployment in the EU: the share in the heating and cooling sector was 17.7% in 2014 and was estimated to reach 18.5% in 2015, while 27.5% and 30% of the EU's electricity was generated from renewables in 2014 and 2015 respectively and the share on renewable energy in the transport sector was 5.9% in 2014 and an estimated 6.2% in 2015. About 11% of the total EU electricity is sourced from variable renewable electricity (such as wind and solar). Figure 2: EU and Member State progress towards 2020 renewable energy targets (2015) Source: “Renewable Energy Progress Report”, Öko Institute [to be published] In 2015, twelve Member States had already achieved their 2020 targets (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Romania and Sweden). All Member States were above their indicative trajectory in 2013/2014 except for the Netherlands, and majority of the Member States, as well as the EU, is well on track to 2015/2016 interim targets. 5.2.Progress towards 10% target for the 2020 share of renewable energy in the transport With a share of 5.9% renewable energy in transport in 2014 and 6.2% estimated share in 2015, the EU is moving towards 10% RES share in transport by 2020, although at a slower rate (in percentage points) than towards the overall RES target. This rate needs to be increased if the EU is to meet its 10% renewable target in transport in 2020. In addition, the EU as a whole was 0.8 percentage points below its NREAP trajectory for transport in 2014. However, it must be taken into account that this trajectory, if met, would lead to a 11.2% renewable energy share in transport in 2020, higher thus than the 10% target. Regarding Member States' individual progress, Sweden and Finland, with 19% and 22% RES share in transport in 2014 respectively, were the only Member States that have already achieved the 10% RES transport target, whereas a large majority of other Member States (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Finland, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden) have achieved at least 5% or a higher share of renewable energy in transport. When comparing Member States' performance against their indicative trajectory, as set out in their national renewable energy action plans (NREAP), only eight Member States are estimated to have met or exceeded their trajectory in 2015 (compared to six Member States in 2014). 5.3.Main quantitative impacts associated with the Renewable Energy Directive GHG: the European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates that the large deployment of renewable energy sources resulted in approx. 380 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level in 2014,. Commission's Joint Research Centre, based on a different methodology, has evaluated substantially higher CO2 emission reductions: 767 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level in 2014. More than 65% (512.5 Mt CO2 eq) of net GHG emission savings were attributed to renewable electricity and the rest was coming from renewable heat/cold (29%) and transport (4%). The use of renewable energy in transport resulted in 137 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level from 2011 to 2014. Most of these savings result from the use of biofuels, while only a small fraction stemmed from the use of renewable electricity in transport, especially in the rail sector,. Fossil fuel displacement: renewables' production allowed the EU to cut its demand for fossil fuels by 114 Mtoe in 2014 (approximately 10 % of total fossil fuel consumption) , thus bringing a solid contribution to the security of energy supply. Avoided imported fuel costs: they amounted to around €20bn in 2014, due to increasing use of renewable energy. GDP growth and employment: the influence of RES-policies on GDP growth is difficult to isolate and to compare with the results of the expected impacts in the 2008 Impact Assessment, especially due to the fact that the effects of the 2007-2010 economic crisis have not been initially factored in. A first rough approximation, based on the volume of investments and the avoided imports, confirms that the direct influence of RES policies on GDP remains below 0.5% in 2014. Employment in the RES sector has grown in the EU despite the economic crisis. The EU renewable energy industry currently employs 1.11 million workers, clearly surpassing the original anticipated estimates. The EU is one of the key global players with regard to net employment creation in the renewable energy sector. In 2014, it had the second highest per-capita employment in the area of renewable energy sector, behind Brazil. In the same year, the RES industry had a combined turnover of 144 billion EUR. Innovation and global technology leadership: in the 2010-2015 period, renewable energy investment in Europe amounted to USD 486.1 billion (compared to USD 404.4 billion in China and USD 240 billion in the United States). However, it must be noted that investments have been decreasing in Europe since 2011, whereas they are continuously increasing in China. In 2013, European companies held 30% of all patents for renewable technologies. Level of RES subsidies versus fossil fuel subsidies: independent analysis carried out in 2014 estimated that total public support to coal and natural gas amounted to EUR 16 billion in 2012 in the EU, against EUR 11 billion for solar and wind energies combined. The public support to renewable energy has been increasingly integrated in the market, especially in the light of the Commission's Guidance for the design of renewables support schemes, as well as the Guidelines on State Aid for Environmental Protection and Energy 2014-2020 (2014 EEAG). A recent EEA report identified that, in the European Economic Area countries (28-EU Member States, 4 EFTA (European Free Trade Association) countries and Turkey), fossil fuels continue to receive 53.3% of public support, whereas renewable energy (including biofuels) obtains 40.5% of the public support. Accordingly, the EEA report indicated that the support aimed at renewable energy did not alter the competitive position between renewables and fossil fuels. 6. ANSWERS TO EVALUATION QUESTIONS This section summarises the main findings in relation to the analysis of each of the evaluation questions. Most questions are dealt with individually, although a few have been combined, where there are significant overlaps in the information and evidence provided.

6. 1.Effectiveness With regard to effectiveness, there is a straightforward measurable indicator included in the 2009 RES Directive against which progress can be measured: the national binding targets. A maximum effort will be made to try to determine which elements of the Directive have probably made the largest contributions to this indicator. The Directive, however, does not include other measurable objectives with regard to more specific provisions in the Directive. Therefore, the success of other provisions such as infrastructure development (Art 16), Guarantees of Origin (Art. 15), cooperation mechanisms (Art. 6-11) is evaluated more qualitatively, drawing on studies and complemented by stakeholder feedback. 6.1.1.Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding EU renewable energy target of 20% by 2020, and the Member State national binding renewable energy targets for 2020? Do implementation and enforcement challenges and failures exist? If yes, where and why? As a key pillar of European decarbonisation policies, the RES Directive as a whole has been effective in ensuring that the EU and its Member States are on track towards their 2020 binding renewable energy targets. With a 17% estimated RES share in 2015, the EU is expected to reach its 20% in 2020. Only one Member State failed against its 2013/2014 interim target. This is a considerable improvement when compared to the situation prior to the adoption of the 2009 RES Directive, when only two Member States were in a position for reaching both their indicative RES targets for electricity and for transport. The renewable energy deployment in the EU and in the individual Member States has been considerable: the cumulative growth in the EU RES share between 2010 (when the Directive came into force) and 2015 has been almost 7%. Effectiveness has been relatively higher in Member States with historically low starting points and low initial ambition levels (one could observe 50 % increases e.g. in Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands, and more than doubling in the United Kingdom). On the other hand, in countries like Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, where RES historically had already played an important role in the energy mix, their absolute growth was more pronounced. The fact that, so far, an overwhelming majority of Member States is on the right trajectory does not mean that target achievement by 2020 is certain and secure as e.g. the trajectories become steeper after 2015 and RES investments in the EU have slowed recently. It is important to note as well that Eurostat official data is published with a two-year delay. As Member State progress assessment is based on Eurostat data, anticipating judgments based on data projections should be done with due caution. The above trend clearly shows that the 2009 RES Directive has strengthened national action and efforts in renewable energy promotion across all Member States, in contrast to the previous EU legal framework (Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2003/30/EC), that was relying on indicative targets which triggered development of renewables in some Member States, whilst not preventing Member States with lower ambition to lag behind, thus also hindering target achievement at EU level. National Renewable Energy Action Plans and progress reports The National Renewable Energy Action Plans and the biennial monitoring exercise were considered effective in increasing transparency and clarity, and allowed effective monitoring of progress towards the 2020 targets set in the RES Directive by the Commission. As of today, all Member States have national renewable energy planning policies in place, as opposed to the limited number of dedicated national level RES strategies in Member States back in 2007, when the outline for the new legally binding EU renewable energy framework was laid out in the Renewable Energy Roadmap. The standard templates for planning and reporting minimised administrative burden for national reporting authorities, ensured maximum comparability and were considered best practice by half of the NGOs and almost a third of cooperatives participating in the public consultation on the revision of the RES Directive, in addition to the vast majority of stakeholders taking part in the public consultation on streamlining of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations as part of the Energy Union Governance initiative (for more details see REFIT on energy reporting). However, some NGOs pointed out that national plans would have been more effective if they had taken environmental sustainability and impacts into consideration, have had a spatial dimension and have had to be periodically updated. Indeed, by 2015, the National Renewable Energy Action Plans became outdated as policies, market circumstances and other variables had changed over time. However, this limitation has been largely mitigated by the biennial Member State renewable energy progress reports that provided regular updates on Member State regulatory and support policies in the field of renewable energy and which are essentially based on the same template as the National Renewable Energy Action Plans. Use of cooperation mechanisms Flexibility and cooperation mechanisms (Art. 6-11) as means to facilitate cost effective RES target achievement have so far only partially been used. An early attempt by the UK and Ireland to conclude an agreement on an ambitious wind energy joint project was shelved in 2013 amid uncertainty on its financial support. The Swedish and Norwegian joint green certificate scheme (not based on Guarantees of Origin), in place since 2012, has constituted the only renewable energy cooperation mechanism (as set out in the RES Directive) in use so far. In July 2016, Denmark and Germany signed an agreement on the mutual opening of auctions for PV installations . In addition, at least two other Member States are considering partial opening of their support schemes, and at least four Member States are currently in cooperation agreement negotiations for statistical transfers, with a view of concluding such agreements in 2016 and 2017. Such delay in the use of cooperation mechanisms is partly due to the fact that 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2015/2016 interim targets were set at relatively low levels and, for that reason, there was no need for Member States to make use of those tools yet. However, as the trajectory grows steeper after 2015, this is very likely to change shortly. Many of the Member States interviewed for a study on cooperation mechanisms in 2013 indicated that they might consider applying cooperation mechanisms in the future. Public consultation results reveal reluctance to see taxpayers or consumers' money used for investments abroad and/or uncertain benefits for individual Member States as main reasons for the limited use of cooperation mechanisms. Indeed, the majority of respondents within two thirds of the stakeholder groups, including RES industry, support such view, arguing that benefits in the form of employment, economic and industry growth, tax income and security of supply are thus not created within own country. Finally, amongst the factors that hindered their uptake, stakeholders cited the fact that RES cooperation mechanisms were government, not market driven process. Current barriers may be overcome by providing Member States with further information on long-term cost-efficiency benefits of cooperation and better guidance on design options and cost-benefits measurements methods. Stronger incentives for regional cooperation, such as financial ones, or the establishment of an obligation to partially use these mechanisms would likely be more effective. The role of the Guarantees of Origin (GOs) The system of Guarantees of Origin provides a means of guaranteeing the origin of electricity produced from renewable sources, as a means of proving to final consumers the share of renewable energy in a suppliers mix. The system as adopted in the 2009 Directive was not intended as a support scheme to promote the uptake of renewable electricity, nor to serve as an optional tool for Member States to enable renewable electricity capacity in another Member State to be counted for target compliance, both of which were the original intention set out in the Commission's proposal. Guarantees of Origin are used in some Member States as a transferable scheme to meet the legal requirements of the Electricity Market Directive (Directive 2009/72/EC) for disclosure that require electricity suppliers to inform their customers about their energy mix. However, there is no obligation for Member States to make use of GOs mandatory for disclosure purposes, effectively resulting in a non-harmonised situation in the EU. GOs are traded separately from the physical flows of renewable energy. At the EU level, the GOs systems exist for electricity produced from renewable sources under the Renewable Energy Directive and from high efficiency combined heat and power (CHP) under the Energy Efficiency Directive, but do not cover other energy sources. Some Member States, notably Austria and Sweden, have gone further than EU law to implement a GO system that covers all sources of electricity generation. It is important to note that not all renewable electricity (RES-E) production comes with GOs since guarantees of origin were not issued for electricity covered by support mechanisms in order to avoid double compensation. To address this, Italy has developed a system of auctioning the GOs associated with supported production. The EU GO system also applies to the EEA-EFTA countries. GOs have helped to bring about limited product-based innovation in the EU power market. Today one can usually see two types of offers across the EU: conventional production contracts and the so called "green offers". The latter are normally backed up by suppliers purchasing GOs on top of the separate purchase of electricity (of any source). While the guarantee of origin market is still developing in countries such as Portugal and the United Kingdom, where it approximately represents only 0.5% of the retail market, in Belgium it already covers 13.36% of electricity contracts and in Austria and The Netherlands nearly all supply contracts to households are GO based. The fact that GOs are disconnected from the physical flow of electricity allows suppliers to offer "green" contracts by purchasing guarantee of origin anywhere in the EU, even if the local electricity generation mix is not renewable. This could be perceived as creating a discrepancy between the product bought by the customer and the information provided on the production mix of the electricity supplier if they own and operate generation assets. Such perception is confirmed by stakeholders in the public consultation who highlighted low consumer awareness of the guarantee of origin system, pointing to the need for more transparency and accuracy (quoted in 36% of stakeholder replies). This can be regarded as an issue that the Renewable Energy Directive did not resolve. A full mandatory disclosure system coupled with a requirement for suppliers to purchase an equal amount of guarantees of origin to match their supplied electricity could help to reinforce the guarantee of origin system and the attributes given to the various energy sources, thereby making the system more meaningful. Whilst 40% of public consultation respondents supported the idea of issuing GOs to all electricity sources, including non-renewable sources, 42% of respondents – notably think tanks and the RES industry – supported the idea of extending the GO system to other energy carriers such as green gas and green district heating. Around 24% of respondents were of the opinion that information on CO2 emissions should be added in the GO system to create more awareness of the impacts of electricity consumption.

The 2009 RES Directive helped to standardise the GO systems for electricity throughout the EU and clarified their rules, reducing risk of fraud and inaccuracies. It is required that each and every Member State recognises Guarantees of Origin issued by another Member State. A common hub, the Association of Issuing Bodies, has been developed by Member States to enable such recognition and transfers. The role of the Association of Issuing Bodies (AIB) and the use of a system compliant with the European Energy Certificate System (EECS) are important in underpinning the integrity of GOs as internationally traded commodities. However, not all Member States are yet connected to the AIB hub or apply the EECS system. Although significant progress has been made since 2009 RES Directive came into force, there are still varying levels of implementation across Member States in terms of system coverage, system features and the extent to which Guarantees of Origin are issued and traded. Prior to the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive, some Member States used GOs for disclosure purposes, while others simply recommended such practice, or still used them to qualify for support schemes. Despite the strengthened requirements in the RES Directive, large variations in the interface between the issuance of GOs and Member State national support schemes still remain across the EU. Self-consumption Policies in several Member States have provided incentives for energy consumers to generate their own electricity. Although no official statistics on self-consumption in the EU and Member States is currently available, it is estimated that photovoltaic systems installed in the residential sector represented about 18% of the total PV electricity production in 2014. The lack of specific provisions on self-consumption in the RES Directive gave Member States wide discretion to deal with this emerging development. This resulted in a broad range of different policies across Member States and fragmentation of the market. Respondents to the public consultation on the RES Directive considered that the most important barriers to self-consumption were the following: surplus electricity that is not self-consumed onsite is not valued fairly ; complex and/or lengthy administrative procedures, particularly penalising small self-consumption systems ; and the design of electricity tariffs . National grid charges for self-consumption applied in Member States do not often find an appropriate balance between the costs for the use of the grid and the benefits of self-consumption. The revised RES Directive will have to assess the need for framework principles on self-consumption at the EU level. 6.1.2.Has the RES Directive effectively led to better planning and streamlining of the approval and licensing procedures for RES producers at national and local level? Long waiting times ranging from a minimum of one to a maximum of twelve years for planning, licensing and permitting procedures, also in relation to grid connections, were already noted as a clear obstacle to renewable energy investments in the 2008 Impact Assessment. Therefore the 2009 RES Directive required, in its Art. 13(1), that regulatory procedures are "proportionate and necessary", but without further detailing how to accomplish/assess conformity. Member States are also required to ensure that national and local authorities in charge of permit-granting coordinate their work and ensure timely and transparent treatment of permit requests. Simplified and less burdensome approaches are encouraged for smaller projects and decentralised RES devices (conditional to national regulations allowing such simplified procedures). The REFIT evaluation study indicated that, despite the reinforcement of provisions related to administrative simplification, compared to those that were already in place as a result of the previous Renewable Electricity Directive (Directive 2001/77/EC), these provisions were only partially effective in reducing the length of authorisation procedures for RES projects, and an important number of administrative steps had been taken by promoters to have their projects approved. Despite existing awareness of clear benefits stemming from a one-stop authorisation point at national level, the RES Directive did not include this measure as a mandatory requirement, leaving its establishment in the hands of Member States. The Directive (Art. 22) only required Member States to report in their first 2011 biennial renewable energy progress reports on their intentions to establish a "one-stop authorisation agency" for renewable energy project approvals. In 2013 and 2015 reporting cycles, the majority of Member States noted continuous improvements with respect to simplification of administrative procedures. However, and despite visible improvements, these measures are still perceived as inadequate to the majority of RES industry and project developers. Only ten Member States in 2014 had "one-stop shop" for RES projects approvals in place. The REFIT evaluation study confirmed that despite continuous improvements in the majority of Member States, lengthy administrative procedures still act as barriers to investment. This is mainly occurring due to complex licensing procedures, unclear administrative responsibilities, multiple bodies involved, municipalities involved without clear rules set for their responsibilities at national level and lack of one-stop shops . With rapidly decreasing technology costs, the costs stemming from administrative procedures are proportionally gaining weight and can, in some cases, represent up to 15% of the overall development costs of projects like the wind sector. Administrative barriers can also create distortions in the allocation of investments within the EU, and therefore hamper the building up of a unified market for renewable energy and reaching cost-optimal RES deployment. Despite the existing best practice sharing among Member States in the Concerted Action for the RES Directive, only practices like online application and maximum time-limits (and, to a lesser extent, automatic permission after deadline passed) have seen substantial progress between 2010 and 2014. In the meantime, as shown in the graph below, other relevant barriers still remain. As a result, lead times for renewable energy project development differ significantly across Europe. For major technologies, like onshore wind, permitting processes can last from less than 5 weeks in Denmark, to 3-7 months in Germany and up to a maximum of 7 years in some southern European Member States. This creates significant barriers to internal market and investments. The Commission has received a number of complaints on Art.13 (1), citing unclear allocation of competences between national and local levels and arbitrary permit granting practice in some Member States. However, due to the large discretion margin given in Art. 13 (1) and the lack of more detailed requirements, these cases have not resulted in legal action against any Member State. Source: “Renewable Energy Progress Report”, Öko Institute [to be published] The "one-stop-shop" approach, including clear provisions on single administrative decision and clear rules on "single entry point", is applied since 2013 to energy projects of common interest and has been noted as best practice. The Commission has committed to exploring the possibility of designing a single EU authorisation framework for large investment projects, while also clearly noting a need for further action to tackle investment bottlenecks, such as regulatory and administrative barriers and cumbersome and lengthy approval procedures, at national level. Similar to administrative barriers, concerns arise when it comes to grid access procedures for renewables (Art.16). Figure 4: Overview of barriers for grid integration in 2010 and 2014 (% of Member States)

Source: “Renewable Energy Progress Report”, Öko Institute [to be published] It can be seen that the number of States with the barriers "Lack of stakeholder communication" and "Long lead times" increased between 2010 and 2012, while the other barriers remained on a similar level. However, in 2014, a smaller number of severe barriers can be observed. "Long lead times" and the "Lack of grid capacity" were present in a smaller number of States compared to previous years. Also, an obligation to connect was introduced in five Member States. The REFIT evaluation study identified ‘lengthy procedures or delays, lack of grid capacity, complex procedures and a weak legal position of plant operators’ as the main barriers for RES integration in the electricity grids. Stakeholder interviews carried within this study equally noted concerns about the duration and complexity of the process and requirements from network operators for new RES producers and lack of grid capacity. Regarding grid access, it was indicated that there were inter alia no priority access, which leads to curtailment and even discrimination against RES. Most of the Member States identified a need for investment both in distribution and transmission grids. 6.1.3.Has the RES Directive been effective in achieving the binding 10% renewable energy target in transport by 2020? The Directive established a separate RES target for transport at the same 10% level for all Member States, thus reflecting the shared need to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the transport sector and presuming that, in the absence of a separate RES transport target, the market alone would fail to develop the sector. This required significant renewable energy deployment efforts in the transport sector in all the Member States. The Directive was successful in its encouragement of blending mandates in the vast majority of the Member States. Nevertheless, it is too soon to assess if the RES Directive has been effective in achieving the uniform 10% renewable energy target in transport. This target must be met by 2020 and there is no binding trajectory against which Member States' current performance can be compared. Even if there are national indicative trajectories set out by Member States in their NREAPS, they cannot be used either to assess progress towards the 10% target since these trajectories, if respected, would lead to a higher share of renewable energy in transport. As noted in Section 5, with a 6.2% estimated share of renewable energy in transport in 2015 (compared to 4.9% in 2010), it can be argued that the EU is moving towards the 10% target. However, this target will not be met unless the EU progress rate towards the 10% target is increased. The main reason for this slow progress has been, on the one hand, the regulatory uncertainty caused by several factors, such as the long political discussion on ILUC, the late adoption of the amendments on ILUC to the RES Directive and the lack of a post-2020 policy for transport, and, on the other hand, the lack of commercial availability of alternative fuels and advanced biofuels at the needed scale and pace. By excluding the production of biofuels on areas of high biodiversity and carbon value, the EU biofuels criteria avoided some risks of direct environmental impacts of biofuel production – impacts that can be measured and managed directly at project/farmers level. The sustainability criteria also contributed to improving the GHG performance of biofuels (e.g. from the field to the tank) through the setting of minimum GHG saving targets (e.g. 35% savings compared to fossil fuels). As of today, biofuels achieve often more than 60% of direct GHG emission savings. However, in some cases, sustainability criteria may have been misused by Member States for protectionist measures (e.g. favouring certain feedstocks to the disadvantage of imported ones). This led to complaints and legal proceedings at national and European level against some Member States. While the Renewable Energy Directive initially anticipated potential indirect effects from increased biofuel production related to indirect land-use (ILUC) and included additional incentives to address this issue, it did not introduce measures that would sufficiently address the ILUC effects, which could limit the GHG reduction benefits of food-based biofuels. This regulatory failure was addressed with the adoption of the 2015 ILUC amendments. Trying to address such indirect risks by including quantitative ILUC factors in the EU GHG methodology is widely considered too uncertain (mainly because ILUC is not exactly measurable since it is unobservable) and complex (e.g. factors could change depending on modelling assumptions), and would possibly cause further investors uncertainty. This was the reason behind the 7% cap on food-based biofuels introduced through the ILUC amendments to the RES Directive. Furthermore, as foreseen in the Directive, the GHG performance of biofuel production can be further improved by raising the GHG saving threshold for new installations, while protecting those installations already in operation on 1 July 2014. The long and technically complex inter-institutional discussion on ILUC amendments ultimately created a considerable degree of uncertainty in the market, preventing investments in both food-based biofuels, as well as in advanced biofuels. The impact of the indicative sub-target for advanced biofuels which was introduced with the ILUC amendments will only become visible in the coming years. The biennial monitoring and reporting requirements of the Member States and the Commission, as well as the voluntary certification schemes recognised by the Commission have overall effectively helped to address additional environmental, economic and social sustainability issues related to the production of biofuels and bioliquids that cannot easily be linked to individual consignments, nor be addressed in isolation from other policies and legislation. Specific requirements on the impacts on water, air and soil protection, as well as social issues, including human rights and land use rights or food security, have increased the awareness, information and data availability in the EU Member States. This has played in favour of greater cooperation at the national and EU levels with third countries on sustainability issues. Most of the voluntary certification schemes recognised by the Commission and active in third countries address environmental and social issues, thus contributing significantly to the improvement of a global sustainability framework for the production of biofuels and bioliquids. The sustainability certification has been established as a new norm in the industry globally. Sustainability criteria for biofuels have evolved at world level mainly through voluntary certification schemes compliant with legislation adopted in major markets, including in the European Union, and principally due to the RES Directive. The 2009 RES Directive did not include harmonised EU level sustainability rules for biomass used for generating power or heating. In absence of clear rules at the EU level, Member States introduced such sustainability requirements at national level. In 2010, the Commission issued non-binding recommendations to Member States on sustainability criteria for solid and gaseous biomass. Stakeholders have raised two types of concerns in view of the fact that no harmonisation of sustainability criteria exists at the EU level for solid and gaseous biomass. First, the increased use of biomass, particularly for power generation, may lead to negative sustainability impacts both in the EU but especially in third countries producing biomass feedstock for the EU. Second, the lack of sustainability rules may result in the fragmentation of the internal market. In 2014, the Commission published a report reviewing the state of play of sustainability of solid and gaseous biomass . The Commission decided not to introduce EU binding sustainability criteria given that the vast majority of the biomass used in the EU for heat and power was considered to provide significant GHG savings. However, the report acknowledged that further research was needed on a number of biomass pathways which could lead to negligible or negative GHG savings or other sustainability impacts. The report also found that there was limited risk of barriers to trade of biomass in and to the EU, although existing EU legislation could for the time being prevent such barriers stemming from diverging national sustainability standards. However it did not exclude the possibility of such barriers developing in the future as a result of increasing trade in biomass. Furthermore, it should be noted that under the RES directive, the same feedstock (e.g. maize or wood) is subject to EU sustainability criteria if it is used for biofuel production while it is exempted from compliance with such criteria if it is used for heat and power generation. A number of stakeholders have highlighted this issue and called for coherent land use criteria to apply to the same feedstocks, regardless of their final energy use (e.g. heating/cooling, electricity and biofuels for transports). Finally, the regulatory uncertainty over sustainability rules for biomass for heat and power created a risk for the energy industry in sourcing fuel supplies and a potential financing risk for bioenergy project developers. 6.1.4.Has the RES Directive triggered sufficient progress in RES deployment in the heating and cooling sector, which was previously not covered by renewable energy targets? It has only been since 2009 that the RES Directive has regulated the use of renewable energy in heating and cooling sector and buildings, unlike electricity and transport promotion measures, which were already in the scope of the preceding EU legislation. The RES Directive required Member States, through the adoption of National Renewable Energy Action Plans, to lay down sectorial targets for each of the three relevant sub-sectors, including heating and cooling. In addition, Articles 13 (4-6) and 16 (9) and 16 (11) required Member States to effectively promote the use of renewables in new and renovated buildings, in heating systems, and in local energy infrastructure, including district heating. The use of renewable energy in the heating and cooling systems and buildings is further (indirectly) promoted by the Energy Performance for Buildings Directive and Energy Efficiency Directive.

Given that heating and cooling represents nearly half of the EU final energy use , it is not surprising that the highest deployment in renewable energy from 2004 to 2014 comes from the heating and cooling sector. Figure 5: EU renewable energy deployment by sector 2004-2015 (Mtoe) Source: “Renewable Energy Progress Report”, Öko Institute [to be published] However, this growth should be considered in relation to the remaining fossil fuel use in the heating and cooling sector, which still stands at nearly 75%. Only about 18% of the current EU fuel consumption in the heating and cooling comes from renewable energy, of which 86 % from bioenergy alone. Most of this bioenergy is, as of 2015, sourced within the EU, with bioenergy imports accounting for less than 5% of the total EU biomass use for energy. Since 2010, the RES share in the heating and cooling has increased by 4% points passing from 14.8% in 2010 to 18.5% in 2015. The current linear growth of RES in the EU heating and cooling is largely due to the historical presence of large biomass use in Central, Eastern and Baltic Member States, and to dedicated policies in RES uptake in the district heating grids in Northern and Baltic Member States. It is also linked to building requirements and supportive policies at building level for RES uptake in new and renovated buildings (mainly, heat pumps) in a limited number of other Member States, notably Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The legal transposition deadline of Article 13(4) on minimum use of RES in buildings has only been applied in Member States since 2015, and the legal provisions on nearly-zero energy standards in buildings will only become applicable as of 2020. For these reasons, it is still too early to conclude on the relevance and impact of these requirements on the RES deployment in buildings. However, it is also important to note that these provisions are aimed at RES promotion in new buildings, while most of the energy efficiency and decarbonisation potential lies in existing buildings, where two thirds of the energy needs are sourced from fossil fuels. Neither the RES Directive nor the energy efficiency legislation (2010 Energy Performance for Buildings Directive, 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive) have yet fully captured this potential at the current building renovation rate. 6.1.5.What effects (impacts) has the implementation of the RES Directive had at EU and individual Member State’s level? The strong EU policy framework, established by the RES Directive, alongside the mixture of high levels of investment in research and development coupled with favourable incentives and abundance of renewable energy potential in the EU, has provided enabling conditions to stimulate the growth of the EU as a major global renewable energy player. Furthermore, it has directly contributed to enhance the EU competitiveness and to Lisbon goals, through the creation of high quality jobs in Europe and in maintaining Europe's technological leadership. The initial EU leadership in promoting renewable energy eventually triggered a global move towards clean energy technologies: 173 currently have renewable energy targets in place, compared to 44 in 2004. The EU leading role has contributed to higher participation of renewable energy in the world's energy mix. According to 2016 renewable capacity statistics by the International Renewable Energy Agency, at the end of 2015 global renewable generation capacity amounted to 1,985 GW (compared to 1,348 GW in 2010), after growing 8.3% in 2015, the highest rate ever recorded. Overall, RES capacity has increased by about one-third from 2011 to 2015. The International Energy Agency has projected that renewable energy will become the world's number one source of electricity generation in 2035. Competitiveness of the EU renewable energy industry The EU has developed strong value chains and retains considerable competitive advantage across several renewable energy production sectors. The European renewable energy industry is leading in key sectors: Wind turbine manufacture, with 4 European manufacturers among the top 6 of largest market shares in 2015 ; Offshore wind, with 91% of all offshore wind installations located in the waters off the coast of ten EU Member States; Ocean energy, with Europe concentrating most of the new projects on tidal stream and wave energy in open waters launched around the world in 2015 ; Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), with one Member States (Spain) being the global leader in existing CSP capacity, with 2.3 GW (almost half of the world capacity) in 2015 ; Lignocellulosic biofuels, at innovation and demonstration stage, though not yet at market deployment level. In some areas, such as solar PV and onshore wind, the EU is being overtaken by Asian and US markets in recent years. The dynamic RES growth in these two markets influences the location of RES production chains: the requirement to locate key parts of the value chain, and the transport costs, encourage the localisation of manufacture closer to the deployment market. The EU still retains its global leadership when it comes to RES installed capacity per capita, with Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Spain and Portugal being the champions of installed renewable power capacity per capita and Austria, Cyprus and Greece being the champions for solar water heating collector installed per capita. As regards annual investment (except the United Kingdom currently ranking n°3 globally) and total installed capacity, the EU has been overtaken in recent years by China and the US. RES technology cost-reductions According to IRENA's report on "Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014", renewables have benefited from a cycle of falling costs spurred on by accelerated deployment. The EU's renewable energy targets for 2020 are considered to have played a vital role in this fast deployment since they have created a steady demand for cost-effective renewable energy and led to an unprecedented development of renewables in Member States, hence being instrumental in lowering renewable energy costs globally. The Renewable Energy Directive has initiated a virtuous cycle in which support policies stimulate increased deployment, which in turn results in technological improvements, as well as continual cost reductions. From 2010-2015, the average cost for new onshore wind plants fell by 30% and average costs for new utility scale solar PV installations decreased by 75%. Utility scale solar PV projects are now competitive against peaking gas generation (Figure 7). Figure 6: Levelised cost of electricity using various technologies, 2015

Source: OECD calculations, based on IEA (2015) Other impacts GHG: the deployment of renewables resulted in around 380 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level in 2014. Commission's Joint Research Centre, based on a different methodology, has evaluated substantially higher CO2 emission reductions - 767 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level in 2014. More than 65% (512.5 Mt CO2 eq) of net GHG emission savings were attributed to renewable electricity and the rest was coming from renewable heat/cold (29%) and transport (4%). The use of renewable energy in transport resulted in 137 Mt of gross avoided CO2 emissions at EU level from 2011 to 2014. Most of these savings in the transport sector stemmed from the use of biofuels, while only a small fraction stemmed from the use of renewable electricity in transport, especially in the rail sector,. Fossil fuel displacement and avoided fuel import costs: renewables' production allowed the EU to cut its demand for fossil fuels by 110 Mtoe in 2013, and by an estimated 114 Mtoe in 2014, respectively (i.e. representing approximately 10 % of total fossil fuel consumption) , thus bringing a solid contribution to the goal of security of energy supply. Avoided imported fuel costs due to increasing use of renewable energy are estimated to be around €20bn in 2014,. Employment and GDP: The influence of RES policies on GDP growth is difficult to isolate and to compare with the results of the expected impacts in 2008 impact assessment, principally due to the fact that the effects of the 2009-2010 economic crisis have not been initially factored in. However, the impacts of RES policies on GDP are deemed to have been relatively limited. A first rough estimation, based on the volume of investment and the avoided imports, confirms that the influence of RES policies on GDP remained below 0.5% in 2014. Employment in the RES sector has grown in the EU despite the economic crisis, with almost half a million additional jobs in the EU-27 between 2008 and 2014. Renewable energy industry employed 1.11 million workers in 2014. The largest sectors in terms of employment creation have been the wind (314 000 jobs) and biomass (306 000 jobs) sectors. These sectors were also the ones with the largest employment gains in absolute terms. The EU is one of the key global players with regard to employment in the renewable energy sector. In 2014, it had the second highest per-capita employment in the area of renewable energy behind Brazil. 6.1.6.Which factors have hindered the achievement of objectives of the RES Directive? In some Member States, favourable remuneration schemes led to high investments, sometimes reaching levels rather unexpected by Member States. A combination of high investor appetite and generous schemes in these cases led to budget concerns, pushing Member States towards unexpected policy changes, sometimes with retrospective impacts. Such action in a number of Member States caused a great deal of uncertainty amongst investors, including building owners investing in on-site renewables, and RES technology suppliers. Investments and national RES support schemes Total investments in renewable energy in Europe strongly increased from 2004 to 2011, and sharply declined in 2012 and 2013 mainly due to undermined investor confidence. Investments rose again slightly in 2014. This increase in 2014 was mainly caused by large offshore wind projects in Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom and does therefore not necessarily point to a reverting trend across the whole of the EU. Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance Despite initial investment boom in 2009 and 2010, following the adoption of EU Energy and Climate Package, including the RES Directive, with the binding 20% EU level RES target and binding national RES targets for 2020, investments in renewable energy in Europe were influenced by a number of external factors, leading to eventual investment decline after 2011: Abrupt policy changes and reduction in RES support: major changes to the support schemes for renewable energy also created investment uncertainty and altered the investment landscape. A number of Member States (e.g. Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Italy, Spain) adopted unexpected changes to the financial incentives for existing renewable energy projects and suspended support for new projects, sometimes with retrospective effects. In addition, most Member States reduced the feed-in tariff for solar PV or decided to move into feed-in premium (e.g. the United Kingdom) in order to adapt support to the reduction in technology costs and make schemes more market-based. The economic and financial crisis had a double impact on the renewable energy sector. Firstly, investors became more reluctant to invest in RES projects, causing the investment level to drop. A second impact of the financial crisis originates prior to the economic crisis in 2008, when the total installed power capacity (also fossil fuel-based) in Europe expanded, based on optimistic economic forecasts including e.g. a 2.5% growth rate in PRIMES 2007. During the crisis (2007-2009), power demand in Europe dropped by 5%, causing an overcapacity of power production and lower electricity prices for all fuels. These lower electricity prices impacted on the viability of renewable energy projects, undermining previous business cases and resulted in lower investments in RES projects . The decreasing renewable energy technology costs, especially for solar PV, also caused lower investment levels in monetary terms, while not necessarily reducing investment volumes in the EU, as a whole. Oversupply of ETS allowances and limited pricing of other externalities such as air polution. The EU ETS places a price on emissions of greenhouse gases in the power and industrial sectors. The anticipated impact of ETS as an instrument that would trigger low carbon investments did not deliver as planned (2015 ETS prices are around 7.7 €/t and 2020 prices are currently expected to reach only 15 €/t, substantially below the expected prices for 2020 according the projection made in 2008). The current imbalance between supply and demand in the ETS has limited the ETS impact to incentivize investments in less carbon intensive technologies such as renewables. 6.2.Efficiency 6.2.1.To what extent has the RES Directive, and the binding targets included therein, been efficient means of developing the European renewable energy sector? Could the use of other policy instruments, or mechanisms, have provided better efficiency?

The question of how to achieve the 20% EU renewable energy target in the most cost-effective way, while ensuring even growth of renewables across the EU and fair approach to effort sharing amongst the Member States, was thoroughly considered in the 2008 Impact Assessment. A political choice had to be made between an effort sharing set on the basis of Member States national resource potential (considered as more cost-effective option at the EU level), and an effort sharing set on the basis of a flat-rate increase in the share of renewable energy in each Member State weighted by GDP and modulated to account for earlier development of RES. At the time of the adoption of the 2009 RES Directive, based on previous experience with indicative targets and softer policy measures, the option of voluntary industry agreements and continuation of previous approach with indicative targets was discarded as it was considered a less effective means for achieving the ambitious 2020 climate and energy policy objectives. Instead, the political choice was made in favour of binding EU level and national renewable energy targets and assuming that the higher costs of the flat rate/GDP method would be mitigated through effective and efficient transferable mechanisms trade in renewable energy. When assessing the current renewables' share at Member State level, the REFIT Evaluation study found that some Member States which had relatively low starting points for their 2020 target and targets above their potential are those currently the furthest from reaching their target. The opposite is also true, where Member States with high historical starting points and high assessed potential, but lower targets, are often over-achieving, or close to achieving their 2020 national targets. However, when assessing the gap between Member States projected achievements by 2020 and initial potentials as estimated back in 2008, higher discrepancies are evident than when comparing projected achievement with GDP-based targets (Figure 10). It can therefore be deducted from the analysis that the GDP-based breakdown was the approach which has been the closest to the actual potential at Member State level. Figure 8: Gap between 2020 projections, targets and potentials Source: based on PRIMES ref2015 and 2008 climate package impact assessment In the above graph, the red bars represent the gap between projected 2020 RES-shares and potentials as assessed in the 2008 Impact Assessment. The blue bars represent the gap between projected 2020 RES-shares and GDP-based targets as assessed in the 2008 Impact Assessment. Red bars below zero mean that the expected achievement by 2020 is lower than the potential assessed in 2008. This demonstrates the difficulty that several Member States would face to reach their target if this target had been defined taking into account only the potential, and excluding the GDP-based modulation. 6.2.2.Have the RES Directive and its national implementation measures, including support schemes, been cost-efficient means of achieving the RES targets at the EU and national level? Have the expected results been obtained at a reasonable cost? Are results proportionate to the benefits? Could the same results have been achieved with less funding/lower cost? As already mentioned, the initially intended legal provisions permitting Guarantees of Origin as a transferable means for facilitating the RES target achievement, did not find their place in the RES Directive as a result of political resistance. Instead, alternative provisions on the use of cooperation mechanisms were included in the Directive as means to facilitate renewable energy trade between Member States. However, as also already explained in the previous sections, these tools have as of 2016 not yet been used to any significant extent, thus placing higher effort level on those Member States with high GDP and low RES potential as a starting point before 2010. Cooperation mechanisms Despite the apparent benefits deriving from engaging in cooperation in order to achieve the renewable energy targets jointly and in a more cost-efficient manner, the use of RES cooperation mechanisms remains limited. The only existing joint mechanisms currently in place is a support scheme based on green certificates between Norway and Sweden (in operation since January 2012). Statistical transfers and joint projects have, so far not been used. This means that the benefits in terms of cost effective deployment (only presented qualitatively, not quantified) in the 2008 Impact Assessment, have not yet materialised. Consequently, there is not a significant base of evidence to evaluate if the original estimations were indeed appropriate. A full cost-benefit analysis of the mechanisms is therefore not feasible. First of all there is the question on why these mechanisms were not triggered as originally anticipated. The 2016 Public Consultation reveals that the main reasons for the limited use of cooperation mechanisms to date, according to stakeholders, have been Member States' reluctance to see their taxpayers, or consumers' money, being used for investments outside their country, together with the lack of cost-effectiveness or uncertain benefit for individual Member States. The 2015 mid-term REFIT Evaluation study indicated that, although the ultimate rationale to use cooperation mechanisms is to exploit renewable energy sources in the most cost-efficient way, the vast majority of Member States considered their use primarily as an alternative instrument for target achievement and substitute for national effort. The referred study also indicates possible reasons for their limited use, adding to the ones above mentioned the uncertainty about the scope and shape of the EU framework beyond 2020 and the insufficient interconnection capacities between Member States. The recurrent thought among network operators, professional organisations and RES industries is that the governance system of the 2030 framework needs to be clarified to enable an improved understanding of whether cooperation mechanisms will remain relevant beyond 2020. The 2013 Commission's Guidance on Cooperation Mechanisms aimed to provide additional orientation to Member States, by clarifying the criteria to choose one cooperation mechanism over the others and providing with a checklist for each type. Moreover, a dedicated study was commissioned to help Member States willing to engage in such cooperation agreements. This study presented quantitative and qualitative analysis to assist Member States in cooperation mechanism design, cost-benefit allocation and the cost savings potential of cooperation. Furthermore, this study identified three types of barriers for using cooperation mechanisms: firstly political barriers, including public acceptance for cooperation mechanisms, the determination of governments to engage in cooperation on RES target achievement and uncertainty on the continuity of the RES framework beyond 2020; secondly technical barriers, such as high degree of uncertainty on quantifiable costs and benefits, design options of cooperation mechanisms, difficulties for Member States to forecast their own RES target fulfilments and lacking transmission infrastructure and market integration; and thirdly legal barriers, such as potential incompatibility of cooperation mechanisms with national and EU legislation. The second major question is whether, based on the experience of the currently operational joint support scheme between Sweden and Norway, the original expectations were duly justified. The anticipated benefits of such schemes include : 1) better functioning of the green certificate market, 2) increased cost efficiency and 3) increased long term stability. Referring to the first benefit, the increase in the number of parties trading green certificates was assumed to reduce the volatility of the market. It was also understood that a joint and larger market would increase liquidity. As regards the second, access to a larger production base would increase cost efficiency as the market would have more opportunities to determine where the electricity production capacity would be built. Finally, on the third, the joint support scheme was assumed to provide a politically stable system that can only be substantially changed with the agreement of both countries, which was expected to improve long term predictability to investors.

After 5 years of being operational, the initial efficiency assessment of the joint scheme has led the Norwegian government to announce its intention to phase-out the joint green certificate system after 2021. It is understood that cost-effectiveness assumptions have only partially materialised due to differences in tax regimes and depreciation that resulted in a different than expected investment pattern, with RES investments mainly going to Sweden. This experience shows that having a harmonised support scheme can help exploring better the RES potential where it is most cost effective and, therefore, increase flexibilities for Member States. However a joint support scheme does not imply that the entirety of the criteria relevant for an investment decision is uniform. And those differences can matter, even between two States such as Sweden and Norway that are relatively similar in terms of investment conditions. Administrative procedures that were already discussed can be an influencing factor, as can be Member States specific weighted average cost of capital (WACC), network costs, or even other non-cost barriers, notably in the area of taxation and depreciation. Estimations based only on a national technology cost and technology resource efficiency in a given Member State that do not factor in these non-cost national circumstances tend to overestimate the benefits to be reaped and the cost-effectiveness of EU-wide "optimal" resource exploitation (which implies use of cooperation mechanisms). National measures, including RES support schemes Pursuant to Article 3(3) of Directive 2009/28/EC, support schemes are but one instrument - amongst others - that can be chosen by Member States to achieve the binding national targets established by the Directive. Effectively though, the majority of the Member States use them as part of their RES policies. In 2009, the majority of Member States were promoting renewable energy production either by green certificate regimes or quotas (23 Member States), or by feed-in-tariff system (21 Member States). Premiums were used in 7 Member States and tendering was not common practice at the time. As already mentioned, Member States retained full discretion over their use of support schemes, including their design, structure and the level of support. Th