EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.11.2016 SWD(2016) 397 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT FITNESS CHECK



Reporting, Planning and Monitoring Obligations in the EU Energy acquis Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the Governance of the Energy Union,



amending Directive 94/22/EC, Directive 98/70/EC, Directive 2009/31/EC, Regulation (EC) No 663/2009, Regulation (EC) No 715/2009, Directive 2009/73/EC, Council Directive 2009/119/EC, Directive 2010/31/EU, Directive 2012/27/EU, Directive 2013/30/EU and Council Directive (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 {COM(2016) 759 final}

{SWD(2016) 396 final}



Contents 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation & Reasons for a REFIT exercise 1.2. Scope of the evaluation 2. Background to the initiative 2.1. Intervention Logic 3. Evaluation Questions 4. Method 4.1. Information and data gathering 4.2. Costs and benefits of planning and reporting obligations 4.3. Limitations – robustness of findings 5. State of play and Results of the evaluation 5.1. Infringements 5.2. Evaluation of the different planning and reporting obligations 6. Answers to the evaluation questions 6.1. Effectiveness 6.2. Efficiency 6.3. Coherence 6.4. Relevance

6.5. EU Added Value 7. Conclusions 8. Annexes 8.1. Annex I: Intervention Logics of all the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations stemming from the EU energy acquis and falling within the scope of the Fitness Check 8.2. Annex II: Intervention Logics of the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations stemming from the climate acquis covered by the Fitness Check 8.3. Annex III: Procedural information 8.4. Annex IV: Stakeholder consultation 8.5. Annex V: Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the Fitness Check



1.Introduction As part of the Smart Regulation policy the Commission has initiated a programme for Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT). This is a continuous process, affecting the whole policy cycle – from the design of a piece of legislation to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and, where justified, revision or repeal. Under the first stages of this programme, the Commission is reviewing the entire stock of EU legislation and decided on follow-up actions, one of which is a Fitness Check involving a comprehensive policy evaluation aimed at assessing whether the regulatory framework for a particular policy sector or a specific part of the acquis is "fit for purpose". In this context, Fitness Checks provide an evidence-based critical analysis of whether EU actions are proportionate to their objectives and delivering as expected. A Fitness Check pays particular attention to identifying any unexploited synergies (e.g. improved performance, simplification potential, lower costs, reduced burden, more efficient application, etc.) or inefficiencies (e.g. excessive burdens not proportionate to the benefits provided, overlaps, gaps, inconsistencies and/or obsolete measures) within the group of measures in the selected policy sector or part of the acquis, which might have appeared over time. A Fitness Check helps identifying the cumulative impact of the EU actions in question, covering both costs and benefits. When agreeing on the EU 2030 Framework on Climate and Energy, the European Council concluded in October 2014 that "a reliable and transparent governance system without any unnecessary administrative burden will be developed to help ensure that the EU meets its energy policy goals". In this context the Council also concluded that this governance system will "build on the existing building blocks, such as national climate programmes, national plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency" and that "[s]eparate planning and reporting strands will be streamlined and brought together". The Commission underlined in its Energy Union Strategy in February 2015 the need for "an integrated governance and monitoring process, to make sure that energy-related actions at European, regional, national and local level all contribute to the Energy Union's objectives" and to "bring together energy and climate actions […] leading to more and longer-term policy coherence". Furthermore it announced that one of the purposes of the governance process of the Energy Union will be to "streamline current planning and reporting requirements, avoiding unnecessary administrative burden". The Commission Work Programme 2016 included in its Annex II on REFIT initiatives as item 10 the Fitness Check of current planning and reporting requirements. An assessment of the consistency of existing obligations and the administrative burden related to them is one of the deliverables for 2016. The first Communication on the State of the Energy Union of November 2015 stressed that the "Commission foresees in 2016 a proposal on streamlining planning and reporting requirements related to climate and energy actions for Member States and the Commission to reduce as soon as possible unnecessary administrative burden in line with the better regulation agenda and to align planning and reporting requirements with the Energy Union Framework Strategy". This proposal shall be "[b]ased on inter alia a fitness check of current reporting obligations". Moreover the TTE (Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council) of 26 November 2015 called upon the Commission to prepare "as a matter of urgency, an inventory of existing planning and reporting obligations and proposals for streamlining these obligations in order to reduce administrative burden and ensure coherence, simplification and consistency". This inventory and the respective conclusions are presented in the final chapter of the Fitness Check.

The mandate for the Fitness Check on "Streamlining reporting and planning obligations in the EU energy acquis [REFIT]" was approved on 8 December 2015. 1.1.Purpose of the evaluation & Reasons for a REFIT exercise The purpose of this Fitness Check is to ascertain whether there is a potential for simplification and reduction of administrative burden within the EU energy acquis and to assess the extent to which the current obligations are in line with the Better Regulation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. The present Fitness Check focuses on planning, reporting and monitoring obligations within the EU energy acquis and interlinkages with climate legislation, but does not cover interlinkages with other fields of the EU acquis for example in the field of transportation. Reporting, planning and monitoring obligations are an essential element of the EU policy monitoring system and provide the Commission with the data needed to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of EU legislation. Furthermore these obligations aim at providing the necessary information to the European Parliament, Council and the European general public on the results achieved by EU legislation and its influence on policy reforms at national and at European level. However, the current EU energy acquis includes a large number of reporting and planning obligations for Member States (MS) and planning and monitoring obligations for the Commission that all might entail high administrative burden and costs. Moreover, these obligations have not been set up in a coherent way via a dedicated act, but developed over time for different sectors of EU energy law. Even though each obligation provides valuable and useful information on specific aspects, interactions with other aspects might not always have been taken into account, thereby not making best use of existing synergy potentials. Therefore, this Fitness Check measures in a comprehensive way the overall administrative burden of the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis, both for the MS and for the European Commission. Furthermore, it assesses the degree of coordination among these obligations, identifies any possible information gaps and elaborates as well on the interaction between reporting, planning and monitoring obligations in the energy acquis and in the EU climate legislation. The results of this Fitness Check are used as a basis for the Impact Assessment on Energy Union Governance, which will in turn form the basis for the legislative proposal on Energy Union Governance. In particular, the results of the Fitness Check helps to determine which reporting, planning and monitoring obligations are suitable for being streamlined and merged, kept separate in sectorial legislation, or even repealed from the energy or climate acquis. More specifically, for each of the existing planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy acquis and the MMR, the Fitness Check assesses whether the obligation is suitable for: being integrated in National Plans, Progress Reports and integrated Commission monitoring (and at the same time be amended in or repealed from current sectorial legislation); or remaining a separate obligation in sectorial legislation, which will however be reflected in the National Plans, Progress Reports and integrated Commission monitoring; or remaining an entirely separate obligation in sectorial legislation (with possible amendments) without reflection in the National Plans and/or Progress Reports; or remaining a separate obligation from National Plans, Progress Reports and integrated Commission monitoring but, given its relation to obligations to be incorporated in the National Plans, Progress Reports and integrated Commission monitoring, linked to those obligations and to follow the legal destination of those obligations; or being fully repealed from current sectorial legislation and thus removed from the EU energy and climate acquis. The current planning, reporting and monitoring obligations are classified accordingly (see the overview tables in chapter 8) based on the results of this evaluation. Building on these conclusions of the Fitness Check on the set of assessed obligations, the Impact Assessment evaluates policy options on legal approaches to streamline the existing planning, reporting and monitoring obligations. As stated in the REFIT Scoreboard 2015 "the Commission intends to evaluate the options for streamlining planning and reporting obligations in the post-2020 period", which is done in the above mentioned Impact Assessment for which this Fitness Check serves as a basis and departure point. This decision followed the Commission's Communication on a policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030 of 22 January 2014. The European Council approved on 24 October 2014 the 2030 Climate and Energy Framework with three targets and one infrastructure objective to be met by 2030 with the energy efficiency target to be reviewed by 2020 having in mind 30% of energy savings. The European Council also agreed and confirmed on 19 March 2015 the development of a reliable and transparent governance system without additional administrative burden in order to help ensure that the EU meets its energy policy goals. In order to deliver on the announced action in the REFIT Scoreboard 2015, this Fitness Check was included as a REFIT exercise in annex II of the Commission Work Programme 2016. Furthermore, the identified shortcomings of the existing planning, reporting and monitoring obligation system can only be addressed in a coherent and holistic way by the tool of a REFIT exercise that takes into account the interlinkages between the different obligations. 1.2.Scope of the evaluation The scope of this Fitness Check is the EU energy acquis and in particular the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations of the EU MS and of the European Commission contained in the various legal instruments. Accordingly, reporting, planning or notification obligations from the private sector are beyond the scope of this Fitness Check for practical reasons and as the large majority of the existing reporting, planning and monitoring obligations concern the public sector with only a minority of the obligations concerning the private sector. This point was confirmed by the survey conducted in the framework of the Fitness Check and by the public consultation done by the Commission, where a majority of stakeholders agreed that the scope of the foreseen future integrated national energy and climate plan should be limited to obligations addressing the EU institutions and MS. However, MS depend for some obligations to a significant extent on the information and reports submitted to them by private entities as proven by the results of the survey and desk research. Consequently, reducing the administrative burden on the public administration of the MS is also likely to reduce the burdens put on private companies and businesses by the respective legislation. Planning, reporting and monitoring obligations for Transmission System Operators (TSOs), National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) are considered to be within the scope of this exercise as these obligations are linked to the EU regulatory framework for the energy sector and, inter alia, serve to ensure investment planning, market transparency and compliance.

The Fitness Check focuses on planning, reporting and monitoring obligations that have to be submitted on a regular basis by MS and/or the Commission and that include information that can be used to assess progress with respect to the EU energy policy goals. For these reasons, the following types of obligations are excluded from the Fitness Check: Reports that are not submitted on a regular basis (required only once or only submitted upon request by the Commission or another institution) as these obligations do not require Member State to set up permanent structures and procedures to collect and analyse data. In addition, many such reporting requirements were already performed in the past and therefore do not require further action; Plans or reports that are not related to the achievement of EU energy policy goals such as reports to the European Parliament on the use of delegated powers, which concern only inter-institutional relationships; Notification obligations of MS related to the transposition and application of EU law meaning the communication by Member States of transposition measures and explanatory documents for the implementation of EU directives (MNE/NIF databases) are not considered as a reporting obligations; Plans and reports resulting from amendments of EU legislation implementing international obligations (such as the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste management (2005/510/Euratom) as these would require an amendment of the international instruments. Following these criteria and in close cooperation with the respective units of the different Commission services concerned that are responsible for the reporting, planning and/or monitoring obligations in question, a detailed list of the legal acts in the scope of the Fitness Check was drawn up. The reporting, monitoring and planning related articles of the following pieces of EU legislation included in the scope of this Fitness Check are (in alphabetical order): -ACER Regulation -Connecting Europe Facility Regulation -Crude Oil Imports Regulation -Electricity Directive -Energy Efficiency Directive -Energy Labelling Directive -Energy Performance of Buildings Directive -Energy Statistics Regulation -Euratom Supply Agency Statues Council Decision -Financial Assistance in the Field of Energy Regulation -Gas Directive -Hydrocarbons Directive -Infrastructure Regulation -Intergovernmental Agreements Decision

-Network Access for Cross-Border Electricity Exchanges Regulation -Network Access for Natural Gas Transmission Regulation -Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Bulgaria and Slovakia Regulation -Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation -Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC) -Nuclear Safety Directive -Offshore Safety Directive -Oil Stocks Directive -Petrol Products Consumer Prices and Crude Oil Supply Costs Council Decision and the related Commission Implementing Regulation -Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive -Renewable Energy Directive -Security of Electricity Supply Directive -Security of Gas Supply Regulation -Shipments of Radioactive Waste Directive -Trans-European Energy Infrastructure (TEN-E) Regulation -Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive -Wholesale Energy Markets Regulation In addition and as specified in the mandate for the Fitness Check, the "interaction between the reporting and planning obligations in the energy acquis and in the EU climate legislation were considered as well in this evaluation. Therefore, the Fitness Check also assessed interactions between the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (MMR) and those reporting obligations within the energy acquis which were found to contain such interactions, notably the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the Energy Statistics Regulation.



2.Background to the initiative

2.1.Intervention Logic As the core of this Fitness Check are those provisions of the different legal acts in the entire EU energy acquis that focus on planning, reporting and monitoring as well as eventual interlinkages and overlaps with the EU climate legislation, the assessment of the intervention logics of the different pieces of legislation focuses on identifying the role that the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations in each respective legislation were intended to play. Hence, the intervention logics presented below only refer to the planning, monitoring or reporting requirements contained in different articles of the respective legal acts and do by no means refer to the overall objectives of these pieces of legislation. The intended role of these reporting, planning and monitoring requirements is then compared to the role actually performed by these obligations in a later stage in order to assess the respective obligation according to the evaluation criteria (see chapter 6). As an overview, the intervention logic behind most of the planning, monitoring and reporting obligations analysed in the framework of this Fitness Check are mainly aimed at: -monitoring compliance with the legislation and/or diverse legal requirements; -monitoring progress with target achievement (e.g. renewable energy and energy efficiency targets); -sharing knowledge and best practices with MS and other institutions; -informing the general public and adding to the transparency of the energy markets; -reporting trends, developments and insights in order to increase market transparency and collecting data and information for other uses (for example for the Eurostat database). Monitoring compliance is the most widespread intervention logic objective with 52% of the obligations within the scope of this evaluation. 34% of the obligations contribute to the monitoring of progress towards target achievement and 35% of the obligations include the aim of knowledge sharing. In addition 28% of the obligations are identified to be contributing to market transparency and distribution information to the general public while 18 % of the obligations serve data collection purposes. A graphic representation of the general intervention logic for reporting and monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis is presented below: Figure 1: Intervention logic for reporting and monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis While nearly all of the directives within the scope of this Fitness Check also include articles on reporting obligations concerning the transposition and implementation of the respective directive, those are, as stated before, outside the scope of this evaluation.

A detailed overview of the intervention logics of all obligations falling within the scope of this Fitness Check can be found in annex I and annex II. Following the definition of the scope of the Fitness Check as outlined in the respective chapter in section two, the following obligations are considered to be out of scope as they are one-off evaluations, reports on the implementations of the respective legal act, relate solely to international obligations, only have to be provided ad-hoc or after a specific request. Hence, the following provisions are not considered in the Fitness Check:



Table 1: Obligations outside the scope of the Fitness Check Legal Act Reasoning for being out of scope One-off reporting, planning or monitoring obligation Notification One-Off Reviews of legal act and report One-Off Reports on implementation of legal act Ad-hoc and obligations Relating to international obligations or other Connecting Europe Facility Art. 27 Delegated Regulation 2012/244/EU Art. 5 and 6 ILUC Directive Art.3 Art. 4 Ecodesign Directive Art. 16 Art. 12 Energy Efficiency Directive Art. 24(10) Art. 5, Art. 19(2) and annex V.4 Art. 24(8) Art. 24(9) Energy Labelling Directive Art.14 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive Art. 10(5) Art. 19 Energy Star Program Regulation Art. 13 Financial Assistance in the Field of Energy Regulation Art.11 and 27 Hydrocarbons Directive Art. 3(3) Art. 8(1) Infrastructure Regulation Art. 11 Intergovernmental Agreements Decision Art. 3 International Convention on Nuclear safety & Commission Decision 1999/819/Euratom Art.5 Ionising Radiation Council Directive Art. 101 and 103 Art. 76 and 79 Joint Convention Art. 32 Network Access for Cross-Border Electricity Exchange Regulation Art. 24 Art. 20 Network Access for Natural Gas Transmission Regulation Art. 29 Art. 25 Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Bulgaria and Slovakia Regulation Art. 4 Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation Art.4 Oil Stocks Directive Art. 22 Art. 10 Offshore Safety Directive Art. 27(4), 39(1), 39(2) and 39(3) Art. 27(5) Art. 40 Radioactive Substances in Water Council Directive Annex II.1 Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive Art. 4(4) and 13 Renewable Energy Directive Art. 17(9), 18(2), 18(9), 19(2), 19(4), 19(6), 23(7), 23(8) and 23(9) Art. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Art. 23(10) Security of Gas Supply Regulation Art. 13(6a) Art. 13(6b) Smart Grids and Smart Meters Recommendation Art. V.15 and V.16 Smart Meters Roll-Out Preparations Recommendation Art. 44 TEN-E Regulation Art. 9 and 17 Art. 8 Art. 5(1) and 5(4) Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive Art. 2(2) Tyres Labelling Regulation Art. 14 Wholesale Energy Markets Regulation Art. 9 Art. 8



3.Evaluation Questions This Fitness Check is carried out according to the Better Regulation guidelines and assesses the fitness of the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations within its mandate according to the five Better Regulation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU-added value. Thus, these evaluation criteria were also explicitly included in the mandate for the Fitness Check. Regarding effectiveness, the Fitness Check identifies the extent to which the current MS' and Commission's reporting, planning and monitoring obligations provide information on the impact of EU policies and what are the quantitative and qualitative effects of these obligations. Furthermore, the Fitness Check assesses whether there is quantitative or qualitative evidence proving that such information is actually used in order to shape EU energy policies. Concerning efficiency, the Fitness Check assesses the extent to which the costs involved are justified given the changes and effects achieved as well as whether the costs are proportionate to the benefits achieved. Furthermore, the overall administrative burden of EU energy reporting, planning and monitoring obligations for MS, the Commission and other stakeholders is assessed. With regards to relevance, the Fitness Check evaluates whether the current planning, reporting and monitoring obligations are well-suited for the objectives of EU energy policy and whether the obligations in each sector is useful for the Energy Union strategy. Furthermore, it assesses whether the existing reporting, planning and monitoring obligations do adapt to technological developments in the field of analytical tools for big data. As far as coherence is concerned, the Fitness Check identifies to what extent the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations for each sector of the EU energy acquis are coherent among themselves and whether interactions among different reporting, planning and monitoring obligations inside and outside the energy field, including the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations contained in the climate legislation, have been taken into account. With respect to EU-added value, the Fitness Check evaluates the extent to which the current reporting, planning and monitoring obligations contribute to the coordination of energy policies at EU level and whether they contribute to the integration of national energy systems.



4.Method The Fitness Check has quantitatively and qualitatively assessed the impact, administrative burden and costs as well as the benefits resulting from the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations enshrined in the EU energy acquis and the interaction with reporting, planning and monitoring obligations in the EU climate legislation. The selected legislative obligations considered in the Fitness Check were identified in an internal screening exercise of the whole EU energy acquis by the European Commission undertaken in 2015 and updated where necessary throughout 2016. As a general rule, the analysis in this report is retrospective assessing the obligations in force as well as the costs and benefits of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations as performed up to the beginning of 2016. The Fitness Check evaluation was launched in the beginning of January 2016 after the respective roadmap had been approved in December 2015 and undertaken for the first three quarters of 2016. The analysis basically took place on the basis of information and data gathering and on the assessment of the costs and benefits of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations: First, the gathering of data on the existing reporting, planning and monitoring obligations was conducted and a theoretical assessment of these provisions in order to review the intervention logics of each of the obligations was undertaken. Further, their expected role and impacts were clarified including a general literature review. Second, an assessment of the costs and benefits of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations was undertaken and third, the existing obligations were evaluated along the five Better Regulation evaluation criteria and based on the information gathered in the first two steps. 4.1.Information and data gathering

The Commission launched a dedicated public consultation to underpin the Fitness Check and collected the views, ideas and expertise of the various stakeholders (MS, local and regional administrations, industry and business associations, individual companies and SMEs, research institutions, think tanks and NGOs as well as interested citizens). In addition, the Commission received data and input for this Fitness Check from two interlinked and mutually reinforcing Commission studies. And finally the Commission undertook in-house qualitative and quantitative research and interviews in order to validate the findings and gather additional information. Regarding the Commission evaluation study, a screening via the means of desk research of the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations being identified as within the scope of the Fitness Check was conducted at the beginning. In this phase reports on already carried out evaluations of the legal acts in question and, where available, existing Impact Assessments conducted for each of the legal acts were collected and screened for already conducted evaluations of the planning, reporting and monitoring provisions contained in each of the legal acts. Furthermore, the intervention logic of each planning, reporting and monitoring obligation lying within the scope of this Fitness Check were developed and used to identify the role that these obligations have or were intended to play in each piece of legislation (see chapter 3). As regards the Interlinkages Study, the analysis took place in two steps. First, a theoretical review of the existing legislative framework in energy and climate was conducted. It identified the areas where energy and climate reporting obligations interlink, overlap and lack consistency. This theoretical analysis was complemented by a review of reports and data in 15 Member States and an identification of possible inconsistencies in information actually reported. 4.2.Costs and benefits of planning and reporting obligations To assess the costs associated with each of the obligations in the scope of the Fitness Check, the methodology of the Standard Cost Model as described in tool 53 of the Better Regulation Toolbox was followed. The assessment of the benefits followed a similar approach building in particular on the typology of costs and benefits provided in tool 51 of the Better Regulation Toolbox and included both, direct and indirect regulatory benefits. The information and data necessary for this model and for the calculation of the man-days needed in order fulfil each obligation as well as for the assessment of benefits resulting from planning, reporting and monitoring obligations were collected from various sources including databases like Eurostat, information collected during the theoretical screening part of the study and a dedicated survey of public servants at EU and MS level as well as information obtained in interviews at MS and EU level. Additional information and data was collected through a dedicated public consultation published on the Your-voice-in-Europe-website (see annex IV for more information). When assessing the data concerning costs and benefits resulting from the obligations within the scope of the Fitness Check, special attention was paid to ensure that the necessary robust quantification mechanisms were used for aggregating the collected data on costs and benefits. It needs to be highlighted that the Fitness Check did not attempt to perform an exhaustive evaluation or a comprehensive costs and benefits analysis of all the legal acts within its scope, but focused its analysis on those provisions of the acts that relate to planning, reporting and/or monitoring obligations for MS and the European Commission. As mentioned, a survey of policy officers in all MS was conducted in the framework of one of the studies contribution to this Fitness Check. The survey was sent out to responsible policy officers for the various reporting and planning obligations in all 28 MS, but no replies were received from four MS (Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden). The MS selected for subsequent interviews were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom. The MS selected for the interview part of the study reflect a range of different criteria such as geographical mix, size, labour costs and productivity, sector relevance, time of being an EU MS and differences in the implementation and enforcement practices of energy and climate policies. In order to ensure coherence, a similar set of MS (same list as above, but excluding Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal) was analysed by the second study on interlinkages of the energy acquis with the climate field. The online survey targeted public servants at MS and EU level that are directly involved with the various planning, reporting and monitoring strands. The survey was open from 22 February to 24 March for MS and from 28 February to 8 April for the European Institutions. The survey was sent to a total 803 potential respondents in the MS and a total of 110 replies providing 247 obligation specific responses were received. Unfortunately, only a very limited number of officials at the European level provided a reply to the survey (only five replies received in total), which means that no quantification of costs and benefits at the EU level was possible. However, in-depth interviews with 17 MS representatives and 19 Commission officials (including one from Eurostat and one from ACER) to further deepen the understanding and gather additional data were conducted by the consultant. These also enabled the establishment of qualitative estimates for the costs and benefits of the various monitoring obligations at EU level. The involvement of other stakeholders in the Fitness Check on planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis was ensured at different stages of the evaluation and by a variety of different fora. A Public consultation was launched by the Commission on 11 January 2016 and open until 22 April 2016. The public consultation, which was answered by 103 stakeholders via the electronic template and by an additional 35 stakeholders submitting their replies via the functional mailbox of the consultation, provided valuable input to the Fitness Check exercise (for more information on the outcome of the public consultation see annex IV). In addition, the Commission organised comprehensive and dedicated in-house meetings involving the policy officers directly involved in the assessment of the different MS' reports and plans as well as the monitoring at EU level in March and April in order to complement and cross-reference the data and information obtained in the study. Therefore, the involvement of the Commission officials as important stakeholders was fully ensured. In addition and to ensure the full involvement of MS, a dedicated Technical Working Group on National Energy and Climate Plans was set up and so far four meetings with MS representatives were organised in Brussels on 6 October 2015, 15 December 2015, 5 April 2016 and on 21 June 2015 to discuss inter alia the Fitness Check and the related streamlining exercise. 4.3.Limitations – robustness of findings The additional consultations conducted by the Commission itself, notably discussions inside the Commission with the policy officers in charge of the respective obligations and in the meetings of the Technical Working Group, served as a cross-check of the data obtained through the studies conducted by external consultants. No major discrepancies between the two sets of information were identified. While the collection of data on the costs and benefits resulting from the various reporting and planning obligations for the MS could be achieved via the survey, similar quantified cost and benefit figures could not be established for the costs and benefits resulting from the various planning and monitoring obligations entrusted to the European Commission and its Agencies through this quantitative method. Consequently, the assessment of the costs, administrative burden on the Commission as well as of the resulting benefits had to be done by relying on qualitative data obtained in interviews with the respective staff working on these obligations. Due to the smaller number of involved staff in comparison to the national administrations of all 28 MS, this different approach and non-quantification of cost related data at the European level does not compromise the quality and robustness of the findings of this evaluation. Despite the high number of replies to the survey on the assessment of costs and benefits of reporting, planning and monitoring obligations, for some obligations only a limited number of replies provided quantitative data, which could limit the robustness of the findings of the Fitness Check for certain obligations. This limitation was taken into account when analysing the concerned obligations and this limitation is clearly stated in the analysis in following chapters. This also explains the fact that for a very little number of obligations, not enough evidence could be collected to allow for an assessment of the costs and benefits of these obligations or for an evaluation along the five Better Regulation criteria. Consequently, the Fitness Check did not provide any conclusions or recommendation for the integration of these obligations (article 5(4) of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, article 24(5) of the Energy Efficiency Directive and article 19(5) of the Renewable Energy Directive), as also not enough information on these obligations could be gathered during the internal Commission interviews to allow for a sound recommendation. The findings and recommendations for the other obligations are however firmly based on an extensive analysis conducted in chapter 6 of the Fitness Check and can therefore be considered to be robust and sound.



5.State of play and Results of the evaluation In this section we review how the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the different legal acts within the energy acquis have performed regarding the costs, administrative burden they represent. In addition the benefits produced by each obligation are assessed and their performance is evaluated with regards to their objectives as identified in their intervention logics. This chapter does not only relate to the obligations contained in the energy legislation but will also asses the interlinkages with the climate field, notably with the reporting, planning and monitoring obligations contained in the MMR. Furthermore, we aim to assess the extent to which the existing reporting, planning and monitoring obligations are in line with the objectives of the Energy Union and its governance system. An underling shortcoming of the existing system of planning, reporting and monitoring within the energy acquis is the fact that the different obligations were not always designed keeping in mind the obligations contained in other legal acts. This situation is mainly due to the fact that the reporting, planning and monitoring system was not designed at the same moment in time but gradually developed over several years with the oldest obligations being part of this Fitness Check dating from 1957 and several additional obligations being added over different times during the past 60 years. This however does not mean that no coordination or efforts to simplify and modernise the reporting, planning and monitoring system were made, but up until today, no complete evaluation of all these obligations within the EU energy acquis was undertaken. As the study has shown, the Commission in the past did its utmost when suggesting new legislation to ensure that only data, reports and plans needed for this obligation are requested and that the requested information is inter alia coherent with the obligations contained in other pieces of legislation in order to avoid overlaps and duplications. Furthermore, over the past years several attempts were made when updating existing legislation to ensure continued efforts of improving the reporting, planning and monitoring contained in these legislative acts, for example the study showed continued efforts undertaken in the past to streamline the obligations contained in the Renewables Directive among other by the introduction of a template. However, despite these efforts the current Fitness Check still identified further streamlining potential concerning the Renewables Directive (see chapters 6 and 8) which underlines the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the current exercise. Furthermore, in 2013 a limited streamlining exercise was launched by DG Energy and DG Regional and Urban Policy in the form of a report on the screening of existing reporting and planning obligations of the Commission and the MS. The report identified 65 different reporting obligations and suggested the merger of 43 of these obligations into 14, the unchanged maintenance of 17 reports and the abolishment of five reports. However, only a small number of the obligations analysed in the 2013 report are within the scope of the current Fitness Check because they fall within the exclusion criteria defined in chapter 2. Of the 24 obligations from the 2013 exercise that fall within the current Fitness Check, 16 were suggested for merger, five to be maintained unchanged and three were suggested to be repealed. Unfortunately, the immediate follow up to this 2013 report was rather limited. For example none of the obligations recommended for abolishment was repealed so far and only a limited number of the recommended changes and mergers took place. In order to address this shortcoming, the current Fitness Check also suggests for those obligations that were already evaluated in the 2013 exercise to follow up on the then made recommendations. 5.1.Infringements Another problem identified in the research connected to the existing planning, reporting and monitoring framework contained in the EU energy acquis, is related to the implementation of the various directives and the timely submission of reports and plans by MS. Quite often, the Commission has to contact MS and remind them to submit their reports or plans, which can consequently, if reports or plans are only submitted with a delay, lead to a late fulfilment of the respective and linked monitoring obligations by the Commission. The main reasons identified for these difficulties by MS in submitting reports or plans in time are the time-consuming nature of some obligations and the need to trace back and collect data from national as well as European sources. To this extent, 155, infringement procedures linked to reporting obligations within the energy acquis have been launched by the European Commission over the past twelve years.

The large majority of these infringement cases were linked to obligations in the renewables sectors and here mainly to the two directives that were streamlined in the framework of the Renewable Energy Directive. 38 infringement cases were related to reports required under article 3(3) of directive 2001/77EC on the biannual renewables progress reports. Furthermore, 53 infringement cases were launched in relation to article 4(1) of directive 2003/30/EC on the annual progress reports and eight infringement cases in relation to article 3(1) of the same directive on the minimum proportion of biofuels. Under the new Renewable Energy Directive, nine infringement procedures were launched in relation to articles 4(1) and 4(2) which provide the legal basis for the NREAPs and another six procedures were launched concerning article 4(3). The second largest field of infringement procedures within the energy acquis was energy efficiency with a total of 26 infringement cases. 19 of these cases related to the establishment of NEEAPs under article 14(2) of the Old Energy End-Use Efficiency Directive. Another three cases were related to article 4 of the Energy Efficiency Directive and four infringement cases concerned article 14(1). One infringement case was launched in relation to article 5(2) of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive another one was launched concerning article 3(3) of the Energy Labelling Directive. Since the introduction of the EU Pilot procedures the number of infringements for MS's non-compliance with reporting obligations has steadily decreased due to the increased use of the EU Pilot procedures. In this respect, the Commission has started over 200 EU Pilot Procedures in the past seven years with the view to ensure that MS fulfil timely their reporting obligations. The majority of these pilot procedures related to the Energy Efficiency Directive with a total of 102 pilot procedures, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive with 60 pilot procedures, the Security of Gas Supply Regulation with 32 pilot procedures, the Renewable Energy Directive with 15 pilot procedures and the Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive with 13 pilot procedures. In the climate field, a total of 12 pilot procedures were opened in 2014 and 2015 related to the MMR. For each case, the Member State concerned complied voluntarily with EU Law and there was no need to open an infringement case. 5.2.Evaluation of the different planning and reporting obligations The following section contains a detailed analysis of current costs and benefits of each of the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations within the scope of this Fitness Check following the methodology described in more detail in chapter 5. This analysis does not only include the quantified costs and benefits but also the evaluation of each obligation along the five Better Regulation criteria to the extent possible given the above mentioned limitations concerning the quantification of costs and benefits at the level of the European Institutions. As regards the climate sector and in line with the mandate for the Fitness Check of a REFIT evaluation of the energy acquis, the Fitness Check did not assess the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the entire climate sector along the five Better Regulation criteria. Regarding the benefits of the different planning, reporting and monitoring obligations assessed in the Fitness Check, it should also be stressed that a significant part of these benefits concerns climate change mitigation, which – if successful – would entail enormous benefits which however are very difficult to quantify. Therefore, no such quantification of this kind of benefits was undertaken in the evaluation, but they should be kept in mind when reading the following section. The ACER Regulation's reporting obligation in article 11 aimed at issuing the annual report by ACER was assessed by the supporting study to produce relatively high costs to the agency itself. While the production of this report is considered by ACER to be burdensome, especially concerning data collection, the report is seen by stakeholders as one of the key EU reports on the trends and developments in the electricity and gas markets. As it concerns the five Better Regulation criteria, the report therefore scores high concerning relevance, EU added value and effectiveness. Due to the high burden for ACER in assembling the report, the efficiency was only rated medium. Concerning the internal reporting tool based on article 13(12) the study assessed the costs of the obligation to be high but without being able to provide quantified data on the obligation. The benefits were assessed as low, with medium values for efficiency and EU added value. Nevertheless, the study also found that despite the burden represented by the obligation, the report is seen as needed by ACER as it addresses regulatory activities of ACER including financial and administrative matters. The Fitness Check assesses the report therefore to be important nevertheless for ensuring transparency and accountability towards EU citizens. For the obligation in article 34 on the evaluation of the programme and operational activities of ACER the study assessed the resulting costs as medium but without being able to provide detailed cost numbers, while the benefits were evaluated as being high with high results for all five Better Regulation criteria. This good result was confirmed by the internal screening of the Commission, which found the obligation to be useful and of comparatively small costs. It delivers on its aims of increasing transparency and informing on the activities of ACER. The obligation for MS in article 22 of the Connecting Europe Facility Regulation was found by the supportive study to produce comparable high costs with the median costs for the fulfilment of this obligation amounting to EUR 26,355 per year of which 25,000 were identified as costs for the outsourcing or subcontracting of related work. The median person-days/year needed for each MS in order to fulfil the obligation amount to 20 days/year. While the survey conducted with MS showed that the reporting obligation is assessed as providing some benefits and the study assessed the overall benefits as high, the interviews within the Commission itself as well as the study showed that the data received via this obligation is not used by the Commission. The study as well as the internal interviews therefore show a rather low result concerning efficiency as the obligation puts comparatively high costs on MS while the data produced that is not further used by the Commission. This means that the obligation represents an unjustified administrative burden for MS. For the Crude Oil Imports Regulation the MS reporting obligation in articles 2 and 7 the study found that the associated costs are relatively high with median total costs of EUR 27,128, which are to a large part (EUR 26,000) due to costs for equipment and software. The benefits overall of the obligation were assessed as moderate. The reporting for this obligation is currently done mainly via the electronic system EMOS recently implemented. The system itself was identified in the study as being very user-friendly and welcomed by MS. However, the study also showed that at least one indicator collected overlaps with indicators reported by MS to Eurostat and is therefore reported. Based on the information obtained in the study and the internal interviews it can be concluded that despite the high costs the obligation can be seen as efficient with room for improvement concerning coherence. Article 8 of the regulation obliges the Commission to report monthly on the data received by the MS, an obligation that was found by the study to result in medium annual median costs of EUR 14,481 due to 100 man-days per MS needed for fulfilling the obligation. The resulting report was also shown to be of great value not just for European Institutions but also to a variety of external stakeholders such as petroleum companies, business associations or private entrepreneurs. The internal interviews by the Commission also revealed that the obligation is done annually by the Commission in agreement with the MS (publishing all 12 monthly reports at the same time) and that the data reported and collected is of purely statistical nature. In conclusion, the obligation provides high benefits at reasonable costs while being mainly about statistics. The Electricity Directive's obligation in article 4 was assessed by the study to produce comparatively moderate median costs of EUR 13,279 with the largest part (EUR 10,000) foreseen for equipment and software and requiring on average 15 man days per year per MS. The study furthermore found the benefits to be moderate with medium results for efficiency and effectiveness, mainly due to the fact that the costs are relatively high while some of the indicators reported under the obligation overlap with Eurostat indicators and generally the obligation was identified to be a duplication of the obligation contained in article 37(1e) of the same directive, which put the assessment of the EU added value for this obligation very low. Furthermore, during the interviews conducted within the study, stakeholders identified additional overlap with the obligations contained in article 7(1-4) of the Security of Electricity Supply Directive, which was confirmed by similar findings of the public consultation. In addition the public consultation found the coherence of the obligation with the ten-year network development plans to be worthy of improvements. Based on these findings, the obligation proved overall to be neither cost-efficient nor providing additional value. For the planning obligation for TSOs in article 22 the study assessed the related costs to be comparatively high but without being able to provide quantified data, therefore only resulting in a medium assessment of the efficiency of the obligation. Overall the benefits were evaluated as moderate with high scores being identified for relevance and the EU added value and a little lower for effectiveness and efficiency. The coherence was only rated as low, which shows that the consistency of the plans which are produced by the TSOs with overall energy policy needs to be improved. The internal interviews done within the Commission showed that the obligation provides valuable information that is not easily available from other sources, which was confirmed by the public consultation that stressed the importance of the obligation. Following from these assessments, the obligation itself proves to be well established and adds value, but the coherence of the measure needs to be further improved. The reporting obligation for NRAs contained in article 37(1) was found by the study to result in comparatively high median costs of EUR 48,953 with the largest cost component being equipment and software (EUR 45,045) and resulting in median 38 man-days per year per MS. As stated above a partial overlap with the obligation in article 4 was identified and also several indicators were found to be overlapping with indicators reported to Eurostat, but the overall benefits were nevertheless evaluated as high. The study further identified the obligation to provide high added values for effectiveness, coherence and relevance and a lower one for efficiency and EU added value mainly due to the comparatively high costs. Furthermore, the need to ensure coherence with reporting under article 11 of the ACER Directive was identified and the public consultation also showed some overlaps with the obligations in article 7 of the Security of Electricity Supply Directive and a general possibility to increase coherence. In addition, the internal interviews of the Commission showed that the obligation is one of the main reports providing information on the internal energy market for electricity and the data obtained is widely used, which proves the high value of the obligation. The monitoring obligation for the Commission in article 47 was assessed by the study to result in medium costs for the Commission, but without being able to provide quantified data, while at the same time providing only a mediocre benefits with all five Better Regulation criteria assessed as only being of medium added value. Furthermore the study identified the content of the report to be similar to the ACER annual report on the internal markets in electricity and natural gas (article 11 of the ACER regulation) with the latter being more detailed. Furthermore, the obligation under article 47 was already suggested for merger by the 2013 streamlining exercise. For these reasons, the obligation in the form of a self-standing report seems to provide only little added value. For the planning obligations under the Energy Efficiency Directive under articles 3, 24(2) and annex XIV (part 2) which provide the legal basis for the NEEAPs the study found that these obligation result in quite high median yearly costs of EUR 59,680 with the majority of these resulting from the outsourcing or subcontracting of the work on this obligation (EUR 50,000 of median costs). The median yearly man-days for each MS required for the fulfilment of this obligation were assessed as 49. Concerning benefits, these were assessed as high by the study with the exception of efficiency (mainly due to the high costs) and relevance, which is due to the fact, that the plans were generally qualified as being not easily comparable, quite long and specific, which might limit their impact. The internal interviews done by the Commission confirmed the overall high added value of the obligation, but also the need to improve the efficiency of the obligation. The public consultation furthermore showed that while stakeholders think that the planning obligation is useful and important, the coherence of the obligation with other obligations in the field of energy efficiency would need further improvement and the streamlining of the obligation was favoured by many stakeholders. The planning obligation for MS contained in article 4 to establish a long term strategy for mobilising investment in the renovation of the national building stock was identified by the study to result in relatively elevated median costs of EUR 29,096 per year mainly resulting from outsourcing and subcontracting (EUR 20,000). The median yearly man-days needed for complying with the obligation are also quite high with 77 days. The benefits of the obligation were assessed as moderate with relevance being identified as comparatively low, while the obligation provided mediocre results concerning efficiency, coherence and EU added value and higher results as concerns the effectiveness. Despite this evaluation, the study also found the obligation to be useful to policymakers. The public consultation also confirmed the usefulness and importance of the obligation, but also identified potential for improving the coherence of the obligation. For the planning obligation for MS in article 7(9) the study did not provide detailed costs or benefits numbers, but the internal interviews conducted by the Commission showed that obligation has proven relevant in order to that the Commission and other stakeholders are adequately informed about the alternative policy measures taken by MS in order to achieve the energy efficiency targets among final consumers. The public consultation also showed that while the obligation is considered to be useful and an important element, improvements concerning coherence are possible.

The planning obligation for MS contained in article 14(1) and annex VIII on the potential for cogeneration and district heating and cooling was proven by the study to result in the highest median costs per year of all obligations within the Energy Efficiency Directive of EUR 73,666 which are mostly due high outsourcing costs of EUR 60,000 while the median man-days needed per MS to fulfil the obligation were identified as being 44. The overall benefits of the obligation were assessed as low and the study also showed that the overall efficiency, effectiveness and coherence were also rather low, mainly due to some overlaps with Eurostat reporting. However, at the same time the study collected evidence that the data provided by MS under this obligation is very useful for the Commission and also the public consultation showed that stakeholders see the obligation as a central element of the Energy Efficiency Directive. These results show that while the obligation provides needed data, there is room for improvement in order to make it more efficient, effective and coherent. The obligation for MS in article 24(1) and annex XIV (part 1) providing the legal basis for the annual progress reports was shown by the study to result only in medium yearly median costs of EUR 4,124 and resulting in 24 median man-days needed per year for the fulfilment of the obligation for each MS. The benefits were overall assessed as high but the study also found that some of the indicators reported under the progress report overlap with indicators already reported by MS to Eurostat. The study found that the effectiveness and relevance for this obligation are high while efficiency, coherence and EU added value were identified as scoring only medium, which is mainly due to the overlaps with Eurostat reporting and the fact that the annual frequency of the reports was deemed by many stakeholders to be too frequent, providing too little added value for the extra work involved. Stakeholders in the public consultation stressed the importance of the obligation and as well the need for this obligation to be more coherent with other energy efficiency related obligations. The above mentioned points therefore show that while the progress reports are generally considered useful, there is room for improvement concerning the timing as well as in tackling the identified overlaps and increase thereby the overall coherence. The obligation for MS in article 24(6) on energy statistics was proven by the study to result in comparatively low yearly median costs of EUR 655 and 9 man-days per MS, which is mainly due to the fact that the obligation concerns statistical data. Nevertheless, the obligation was identified by the study as only providing low overall benefits with low results for efficiency, relevance and EU added value, which are also due to identified overlaps with indicators already reported by MS to Eurostat. Overall, the obligation provides benefits at very low costs to MS, but there is improvement potential concerning the overlaps with Eurostat. The monitoring obligation for the Commission on the evaluation of NEEAPs contained in article 24(3) was identified by the study of representing mediocre costs for the Commission of EUR 13,115 and 40 man-days needed for the fulfilment of the obligation. The benefits are assessed by the study as high overall, which was confirmed by the stakeholder's replies in the public consultation that found the obligation indispensable. But the study also found that the goals set out in the intervention logic are not entirely achieved by the reports produced under this obligation. This shows that a further improvement potential for the working of this obligation is present. The obligation in article 24(11) was not assessed by the study as it does not represent a genuine reporting obligation, but only the obligation for the Commission to publish the reports and plans received by MS. As this only requires minimal resources from the Commission but results in significant benefits in terms of transparency and providing information to the general public, the obligation can be considered successful. The monitoring obligation for the Commission contained in article 24(4) was identified by the internal interviews as being comparatively burdensome for the Commission while providing only very little additional benefits especially in the light of Better Regulation, which foresees the consistency and coherence among Union policies and directives as a general goal. For the monitoring obligation for the Commission under article 24(5) the study was unable to provide quantified data for the costs or benefits of the obligation, but assessed that there might be a potential to increase the coherence of the obligation and reduce the related administrative burden. Overall the interviews conducted in the framework of the study also mentioned overlaps between the Energy Efficiency Directive and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive as well as the Energy Statistics Regulation. The obligation for MS contained in article 3(3) of the Energy Labelling Directive was assessed by the study result in moderate yearly median costs of EUR 6,846 which are mainly due to outsourcing and subcontracting (EUR 5,011) and needs on average 10 man-days per MS per year to fulfil the obligation. The benefits were overall assessed as high and while the study proved that the reporting obligations under the directive lead to an overall better compliance with the directive, the overall assessment for the five Better Regulation Criteria was only medium for effectiveness, coherence and EU added value and even only low for coherence. This is mainly due to the fact that a significant overlap was identified with obligations under the Market Surveillance Regulation. This negative view on the obligation was also confirmed by the internal interviews conducted by the Commission. The monitoring obligation under article 3(4) of the directive was assessed by the study to rather low as it only concerns a synthesis report of the MS's contributions, but without providing quantified data. However, the fact that the report is only a synthesis, also means that the added value of the report is very limited further amplified by the significant overlap that was detected concerning the Market Surveillance Regulation, which leaves compliance checking as the only identified benefit of the reporting obligation and the overall benefits only been assessed as moderate. As the Commission has more effective tools such as EU pilots or infringements to check the compliance of MS, the added value and benefits resulting from this obligation seem questionable. The MS' planning obligation contained in article 9(1) of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive was identified by the study to result in comparatively mediocre median costs of EUR 2,131 per year which are entirely due to labour costs of on average 18 man-days for each MS per year needed. The study assessed the benefits as moderate with higher results for effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and relevance. Furthermore, several respondents from the MS identified a potential for this obligation to be integrated in the NEEAPs. The internal interviews by the Commission confirmed the benefits identified in association with this obligation but also assessed that the coherence especially with the NEEAPs could be further enhanced. In the public consultation stakeholders considered the administrative burden resulting from the obligation to be rather high while also identifying a potential to increase the coherence of the obligation. The obligation for MS defined in article 10(2) on the list of existing and proposed measures and instruments was proven by the study to result only in low administrative costs and burdens to the MS of median EUR 1,270 or 15 man-days per year per MS. While the study identified the benefits over all as moderate, it evaluated the efficiency, effectiveness and coherence of the obligation as high but much lower scores were achieved concerning relevance and EU added value. Overall the obligation was not considered useful as a self-standing report neither by the interviews with MS officials who suggested merging the obligation with the NEEAPS, nor by the Commission officials, who considered the information on this subject collected under article 4 of the Energy Efficiency Directive to be much more useful and complete. These results of the study were confirmed by the internal interviews of the Commission. Concerning the reporting obligation in article 5(2) the study identified the median costs resulting from this obligation to be comparatively high with EUR 36,098 with the largest costs coming from expenses for equipment and software (EUR 20,000) and resulting in 50 man-days per year per MS on average needed to fulfil the obligation. The benefits were assessed as high overall, but the high costs resulted in the efficiency of the obligation being rated as only medium, while the other four criteria were identified in the study as high. Also the interviews with MS officials confirmed the high benefits identified, with most participants expressing their satisfaction with the obligation. Nevertheless, the study also found that the high costs related to the obligation might be reduced by further improving coherence and streamlining the obligation. In the public consultation stakeholders underlined the importance of the obligation but also stressed the potential to increase the coherence of the obligation via streamlining. The monitoring obligation for the Commission contained in article 9(5) the study was unable to provide an assessment or detailed quantified numbers for costs and benefits, but also identified potentials for improving the coherence of the obligation with other obligations and reducing the resulting administrative burden. Respondents in the public consultation assessed the obligation as providing notable benefits. The monitoring obligation contained in article 10(3) is closely linked to the above analysed obligation in article 10(2) and as the assessment of this obligation was rather negative, the obligation in article 10(3) was not identified to be much more positive or provide added value or benefits and the internal interviews showed, that the coherence of the obligation should be improved. Concerning the monitoring obligation contained in article 5(4) the study was unable to provide any quantitative or qualitative data on the costs and benefits related to the obligation. For the obligation for MS contained in articles 4(1a, b & c) and 5 of the Energy Statistics Regulation to submit energy statistics to Eurostat the study found the costs to be medium but without being able to provide quantified data for these obligations. Regarding benefits, these were assessed as moderate with a higher value for efficiency. However, the study identified the obligations as providing only statistical data to Eurostat, which was identified for similar obligations to only result in comparatively low costs. Furthermore, the survey identified that reporting obligations under this regulation are duplicated by obligations in several other legal acts within and beyond the scope of this Fitness Check. Therefore, the coherence of this obligation with other obligations could be improved. The reporting obligation for MS in article 6(4) was identified by the study as resulting in comparatively low yearly median costs of EUR 1,495 all resulting from the labour costs of the 15 man-days needed for fulfilling the obligation. The study further assessed the benefits as moderated and provided a mixed evaluation of the obligation along the five Better Regulation criteria with high scores on coherence, low scores on efficiency despite the low costs and medium scores for effectiveness, relevance and EU added value. This shows that the obligation while being useful in order to ensure the quality of the data could benefit from improvements. The obligation for the Commission to disseminate yearly energy statistics in article 5(5) the study assessed the costs resulting from the obligation to be low but without being able to provide quantified numbers, but stating that since the main aim of the obligation is to disseminate already collected data, the costs should be rather low. The benefits were evaluated as high since the obligation provides the data to the general public and thereby also ensures transparency. As concerns the obligation for the Commission contained in article 3 of the Euratom Supply Agency Statues Council Decision, the study was not able to provide an estimate of the median costs of the obligation but provided results on the benefits resulting from the obligation, which were assessed as moderate. A higher result was found for effectiveness of the regulation and a low result for efficiency, mainly due to the fact, that the reports include a significant amount of additional information not required by the obligation. Furthermore the study did not find the necessity for yearly reports and work programmes convincing. While there might be some potential for improvements, the potential for streamlining with other Commission obligations seems non-existent given the nature and the aims and direction (from the Agency to the Commission) of this reporting obligation of the Agency. This is confirmed by the result of the 2013 streamlining exercise, where this obligation was recommended to be maintained unchanged.

The monitoring obligation in article 28 of the Financial Assistance in the Field of Energy Regulation was found by the study to only cause low annual costs, but without being able to provide quantitative data. The benefits were assessed by the study as low with a higher value for efficiency and a lower value for relevance. The internal interviews done by the Commission confirmed the low benefits of the obligations and also identified the entire regulation as being considered to be outdated and also the latest report done by the Commission on the European Energy Programme for Recovery concluded that while the programme has delivered good results, "[t]he majority of projects have been completed" with a similar successful assessment being made for the European Energy Efficiency Fund. The study also found the obligation to become obsolete soon. The obligation in article 5 of the Gas Directive to monitor the security of gas supply was assessed by the study to result in mediocre median annual costs for MS of EUR 16,503, which are mainly due to costs for equipment and software (EUR 15,000) and on median 10 man-days per year are needed for the fulfilment of the obligation. The benefits were evaluated as high but he study also identified overlaps of the indicators reported for this obligation with MS' reporting obligations to Eurostat as well as overlaps with the reporting obligation contained in article 41(1e) of the directive. Nevertheless and due to the comparatively lower costs and high benefits of the obligation reported, the study assessed a high score for all Better Regulation criteria but EU added value with a medium result. The internal interviews by the Commission did not entirely support these good results concerning benefits but confirmed the significant overlaps with the reports provided under article 41(1e) of the directive as well as with the obligations under the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. Furthermore, the public consultation also identified overlaps of the obligation with the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. The obligation for NRAs under article 41(1e) was identified by the study to produce comparatively high annual median costs of EUR 49,351 with the overwhelming part of the costs being attributed to equipment and software expenses (EUR 45,000). The fulfilment of the obligation also needs a median of 60 man-days per year per MS and the obligation was assessed as providing high benefits. The study identified overlaps of the indicators reported under this obligation with the Eurostat indicators which resulted in a medium assessment of the coherence. Overall the study also proved the importance of these reports and their usefulness for policy making. While the data provided is seen as useful not only by the Commission but also by ACER who makes use of the date for producing EU level analysis, it does not provide the desired transparency, which together with the high costs involved lead to an only medium assessment of the efficiency of the obligation. The other criteria, with the exception of EU added value were rated as high by the study. The internal interviews of the Commission showed that the obligation is one of the main reports providing information on the internal energy market for gas and the data obtained is widely used, which is proves the high value of the obligation, while some potential for improvements remain. The TSOs' planning obligation under article 22 was assessed by the study to result in comparatively high costs and moderate benefits, therefore only resulting in a medium assessment of the efficiency while identifying high scores for relevance and EU added value. The study also showed that the coherence of the plans produced by the TSOs needs further improvement as this category was only rated as producing low benefits while overall the obligation is seen as providing important benefits in the form of clear planning relevant to policy decisions on infrastructure investments such as Projects of Common Interest (PCIs). The internal interviews done within the Commission showed that the obligation overall provides valuable information that is not easily available from other sources and the public consultation also showed that most stakeholders see the obligation as being of particular relevance. Following from these assessments, the obligation itself proves to be well established and adds value, but the coherence of the measure needs to be further improved. The monitoring obligation for the Commission contained in article 52 was assessed by the study to result in comparatively medium yearly costs, but also identified as only delivering moderate benefits with medium results in the areas of efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and relevance. In addition, the study identified the content of the report to be similar to ACER's annual report on the internal markets in electricity and natural gas resulting from article 11 of the ACER Regulation with the latter being identified as more detailed and therefore providing more added value. Furthermore, the obligation under article 52 was already identified by the 2013 streamlining exercise as a candidate for merger. For these reasons, the obligation in the form of a self-standing report does not provide much added value. The reporting obligation in article 9 of the Hydrocarbons Directive was assessed by the study to result in low yearly median costs to MS of EUR 1,689 completely due to 31 man-days needed per year to fulfil the obligation leading to a high evaluation concerning the efficiency of the directive. Overall the benefits were assessed as high, but on the other hand the obligation was identified by the study to have nearly no relevance at all given the fact that the aim of the MS reports is to provide input to the Commissions summary report under article 8(2). However no such report has been issued by the Commission since 1994, a fact that was confirmed by the internal interviews in the Commission, which also showed that the information to be submitted by MS under this obligation can also easily be acquired via the notified tenders. Therefore, this obligation clearly represents an unnecessary administrative burden for MS. For the Commission's monitoring obligation under article 8(2) no data could be collected on the costs and benefits of the obligation due to the fact that no such monitoring report has been produced since 1994. The internal interviews also revealed that such a report was never requested by the concerned stakeholders and can therefore be considered not to be seen as providing any potential benefits. Furthermore, the obligation was already suggested for repeal by the 2013 streamlining exercise. The obligations for MS contained in articles 3 and 5 of the Infrastructure Regulation were assessed to only cause low yearly median costs of EUR 407 and resulting in only three man-days needed to fulfil the obligation. The study assessed the benefits from the obligation as moderate and also found that notable overlaps in the reporting needs exist for these obligations with other reporting obligations notably to ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G which results in lower values assessed for the effectiveness, relevance and added value of these obligations. This view was confirmed by the internal interviews conducted by the Commission and by the public consultation that identified the obligations to be redundant with those concerning the ten-year network development plans under the Network Access for Cross-Border Electricity Exchanges Regulation and under the Network Access for Natural Gas Transmission Regulation. In addition, the public consultation identified duplications of the obligation with similar obligations contained in the TEN-E Regulation and overall several stakeholders also suggested the repeal of the obligation. For the linked monitoring obligation for the Commission contained in article 10 of the regulation the study was unable to provide quantified data on the costs of the obligation, but assessed effectiveness and relevance as medium with a higher score for efficiency, coherence and EU added value. However, overall the study found the obligation to provide only limited added value, since the data required to be submitted under this regulation is also submitted by MS to ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G as well as gathered through other institutions and in a better and more up-to-date quality. Another shortcoming identified by the study, is the fact, that the projects listed in the MS reports and then taken up in the Commission report might not have been implemented by the project promoters in the end, which significantly diminishes the value of the report and leads to the fact that it is not used to a large extent. For the monitoring obligation under article 8 of the Intergovernmental Agreements Decision the study assessed the costs resulting from it as low, but without being able to produce quantified data, while the benefits were evaluated to be high with high values for efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value. However the provided evaluation has to be seen with the limitation that so far only one report under this obligation was produced in February 2016. The obligation was assessed in the internal interviews of the Commission as useful and providing added value in informing the public and ensuring transparency on the Intergovernmental Agreements concluded in the energy field. Furthermore, the 2013 streamlining exercise also suggested to maintain the obligation and the new proposal by the Commission for a revised Intergovernmental Agreements Decision even improved on the transparency by replacing the reporting obligations due every three years with a continuously updated electronic database. The planning obligation for ENTSO-E under article 8 of the Network Access for Cross-Border Electricity Exchanges Regulation was identified by the study to result in comparatively medium yearly costs but without providing quantified data. As concerns the added value of the obligation, the study assessed the benefits as high. On the one hand, the ten-year network development plans are seen as highly needed and relevant for energy infrastructure planning and having an impact on the national level and improving investment decision making, which all resulted in high scores for efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and relevance, the plans only scored low concerning coherence. This is mainly due to an identified redundancy and overlapping with PCI reporting, which is – in difference to the ten-year network development plans – legally binding. The internal interviews conducted by the Commission confirmed the findings of the study and also stressed the need for improvements in the area of coherence with national planning obligations in the energy field, while the public consultation also confirmed the relevance of the obligation and the need for increased coherence. The planning obligations for TSOs under article 12(1) was identified by the study to result in mediocre yearly costs but without being able to produce quantified numbers while providing high benefits concerning all five Better Regulation criteria. This is mainly due to the fact, that the regional TSO plans are seen as an important and well justified building block in the context of cross-country energy networks. The interviews in the Commission underlined these assumptions but it was also stressed that the coherence of the regional plans could be further improved. Stakeholders also confirmed the usefulness of the obligation in the public consultation but underlined also the potential for improving the coherence of the plans with overall planning. The monitoring obligation for the Commission under article 24 was identified by the internal interviews conducted as fulfilled, since the obligation only concerned the monitoring of the implementation of the regulation, but since the reporting on this was to be included in the regular reports under the Electricity Directive, the obligation was wrongly considered to be a regular reporting obligation in the initial screening exercise and added to the scope of the Fitness Check. The planning obligation for ENTSO-G under article 8 of the Network Access for Natural Gas Transmission Regulation was assessed by the study as resulting in medium median annual costs but without providing quantified results. Concerning the benefits, these were assessed as high with the study high results for efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and EU added value. The ten-year network development plans resulting from the obligation were identified as being one of the key bases for the development of energy networks across the EU providing a high value to the Commission and stakeholders, which was confirmed by the public consultation. On the other hand, the study found the coherence of the obligation to be only low, mainly due to the fact of identified overlaps and redundancy with reporting on PCIs. The internal interviews conducted by the Commission as well as the public consultation also identified a need to further improve the coherence of the obligation. The planning obligation for TSOs under article 12(1) was assessed by the study to result in mediocre yearly costs, but without providing quantified numbers. Furthermore the study found the benefits resulting from the obligation high with the regional plans as being important and well justified elements in the context of cross-country energy networks, especially due to them addressing specific needs and local circumstances. These high benefits justify according to the study the rather effort intensive preparation of the plans and consequently the obligation was assessed as receiving high marks concerning efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance and EU added value. Stakeholders also confirmed the usefulness of the obligation in the public consultation but underlined also the potential for improving the coherence of the plans with overall planning. Concerning the monitoring obligation for the Commission contained in article 29 of the regulation, the internal interviews showed that this obligation can be considered to have been fulfilled, as the obligation only concerned the monitoring of the implementation of the regulation. However, as this monitoring had to be done in the framework of a regular reporting obligation under the Gas Directive, this obligation was wrongly considered in the initial screening to be a regular obligation within the scope of the Fitness Check. The planning and reporting obligations for the Commission contained in articles 6(1) and 6(2) of the Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Bulgaria and Slovakia Regulation and of the Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation were assessed as one by the study, due to the fact that the two regulations are nearly identical. For articles 6(1) the study found the median costs to be mediocre of EUR 32,787 entirely due to labour costs of 100 man-days per year. The study assessed the benefits resulting from these obligations as high with high results for the efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value of the regulations, while being unable to assess the relevance. The internal interviews of the Commission confirmed the technical nature of the obligation, which was assessed as being very relevant related to the nuclear decommissioning of outdated nuclear reactors in the concerned MS. The reporting obligation for the Commission in articles 6(2) of the regulations was assessed by the study to result in exactly the same median costs as the planning obligation of EUR 32,787 resulting from 100 man-days and was also assessed as providing high benefits regarding efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value. For the obligation for the Commission in article 40 of the Euratom Treaty on the obligation to produce a Nuclear Indicative Programme (PINC) the study was unable to provide any indication regarding the costs of the obligation but assessed that it provides moderate benefits, with higher scores for coherence. The internal interviews conducted by the Commission however showed that the obligation is considered of high benefit and also that nuclear energy investments presented in MS national plans could serve as an input for the next PINC (and replace the respective existing MS obligations for the PINC) and national progress reports could feature progress on these investments. The State of the Energy Union would allow tracking aggregate progress made based on MS progress reports and compare with PINC projections. The obligation for MS to conduct international peer reviews contained in article 8(e1) of the Nuclear Safety Directive was assessed by the study to result in median annual costs of EUR 2,900 for each MS mainly due to 30 man-days per MS needed to fulfil the obligation. The study assessed the benefits of the obligation overall as moderate with higher scores for efficiency, effectiveness and relevance. However, the study also identified overlaps with obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), especially with the Safety Convention and suggested to increase the coherence respectively – a suggestion that has already been implemented by the Commission in the form of an agreement with the IAEA in order to ensure coordination. The internal interviews by the Commission also showed that the obligation is not an entirely regular reporting obligation, since the article does not provide for a date when reports would be due, but only stipulates, that they have to be done at least once every ten years starting from the date of the entry into force of the directive. This applies equally to the obligation in article 8 (e2&3).

Concerning the obligation to conduct topical peer reviews in article 8(e2&3) the study assessed the costs to MS to amount to median annual costs per MS of EUR 25,779 with the largest part of the costs being due to software and equipment and a need of 30 man-days for fulfilling the obligation. The benefits of the obligation were identified by the study as moderate with a higher assessment for efficiency and effectiveness, but also with a need to improve coherence especially concerning overlaps with the Safety Convention of the IAEA. The two-off obligation in article 9(1) for MS to report on progress made with the implementation of the directive was assessed by the study to produce comparatively medium median costs of EUR 3,810 per year and 15 man-days annually while providing moderate benefits with a higher result for efficiency. The obligation was suggested in the 2013 streamlining exercise to be maintained but with a changed reporting cycle from every three years to every six years. This recommendation was already implemented by the Council Directive 2014/87/EURATOM. For the Commission monitoring obligation in article 9(2) the study identified the annual costs for this obligation to be EUR 26,230 resulting from 80 man-days needed. The study found the obligation to provide moderate benefits with a higher score for efficiency but low results for effectiveness and relevance. Furthermore, results from the survey show that the Commission assesses the obligation as delivering substantially on the goal of compliance checking. The obligation contained in article 25(1) and annex IX (point 3) of the Offshore Safety Directive was assessed by the study to result in medium median costs of EUR 9,344 resulting from 180 man-days needed to fulfil the obligation. The benefits resulting from the obligation were assessed by the study to be high and the obligation is overall considered as being very effective with the study finding that the risk of accidents having decreased as a result of the directive. The internal Commission interviews further showed that the reporting format for the obligation prescribed in an implementing regulation is well working with no overlaps identified by the study. For the monitoring obligation of the Commission in article 25(3) the study was unable to produce precise cost numbers but assessed that the obligations provides high results for coherence, relevance and EU added value based on the high appreciation of the reports from the MS resulting from article 25(1) that form the basis for these reports. The obligation itself was however suggested by the 2013 streamlining exercise to be merged with other obligations, which points to some potential for improving the coherence of the obligation, which was confirmed by the internal interviews conducted by the Commission. Concerning the obligation contained in article 6(2) of the Oil Stocks Directive the study identified the annual media costs as medium with EUR 2,410 and 10 man-days needed to comply with the obligation, as MS have established a lean processes for the collection of the needed data. Overall the benefits of the obligation are assessed as moderate by the study with higher values for effectiveness and relevance. Identified possible improvements concern coherence, especially concerning coordination with the collection of various indicators and regarding EU added value, concerns on the transparency and accuracy of the reported stocks was voiced. The study also showed that the main aim of the obligations under this directive is to ensure compliance with the requirements of the directive, which the study found to be accomplished. Furthermore some overlaps with obligations in articles 12 and 13 of the directive (which have a monthly reporting cycle) and international obligations to the International Energy Agency (IEA) were identified, which resulted in a lower coherence score. Concerning the obligations in articles 9(4) and 9(5) on specific stocks the study assessed the median annual costs to be low but without being able to provide quantified data. The benefits were evaluated to be low as well with a low result for effectiveness and a medium result in coherence. The low benefits are mainly due to the fact that the obligation was assessed to be redundant with the majority of the information to be reported under these two articles already provided by the obligation in article 6. Furthermore, the study supporting the ongoing evaluation of the Oil Stocks Directive showed that the requirement is not seen as useful by several MS, while the burden was assessed as considerate but manageable. The study also found that the higher indirect costs of choosing the obligation in article 9(4) over the one in article 9(5) actually disincentivizes MS to hold specific stocks at all. For the obligation contained in article 12 on monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks, the study found the annual median costs to be medium with EUR 2,595 and 12 man-days, while the benefits are high as the obligation allows following emergency stock dynamics within the EU, especially since similar reporting obligations towards the IEA do not differentiate between emergency stocks and commercial stocks. Concerning the obligation in article 13 on monthly statistical summaries of specific stocks these are reported by the study to result in high median yearly costs of EUR 50,490 mainly due to high software and equipment costs of EUR 50,000, while the actual reporting burden was assessed as quite low by the study supporting the ongoing evaluation of the Oil Stocks Directive and is only 8 man-days. The directive provides for moderate benefits with a higher assessment for coherence and EU added value. The study found the efficiency, relevance and effectiveness to be only medium mainly due to the perceived too high frequency of the obligation. For the obligation in article 14 on monthly statistical summaries of commercial stocks the study assessed the median costs as medium with EUR 3,311 and 11 man-days needed while the benefits are found to be high with medium values for relevance and EU added value. For all the monthly reporting obligations, the study also found that streamlining of these with Eurostat reporting obligations has already taken place, which explains the more or less good results for coherence. For the MS reporting obligation contained in article 3(1) of the Petrol Products Consumer Prices and Crude Oil Supply Costs Council Decision found the median annual costs to be at a medium level with EUR 3,163 and 8 man-days needed to fulfil the obligation while the benefits were assessed as high with a low value for coherence. This is mainly due to the fact that the same data is reported under Crude Oil Imports Regulation and to Eurostat but in various periods with diverging criteria, leaving room to improve the coherence of the obligation. The obligation under article 3(2) was evaluated by the study as bearing median annual costs at a medium level of EUR 2,483 and 10 man-days while providing moderate benefits, with a lower value for relevance although the study also assesses this obligation as providing the basic statistical data necessary for the oil bulletin publication (resulting from the Commission obligation in article 4), which is seen by many stakeholders as a very useful and valuable tool. For the two obligation for the Commission resulting from article 4 (publication of crude oils supply costs monthly and the weekly oil bulletin) the study found the monthly obligation to result in low level costs of EUR 7,240 from 50 man-days needed to fulfil the obligation. The benefits were assessed as high with high values for all five criteria. For the weekly obligation, the study found the median annual costs to be medium with EUR 28,962 resulting from 200 man-days. The benefits were measured to be high with the resulting publication (the weekly oil bulletin) being assessed by the study and the internal interviews by the Commission as extremely important and valuable not just to the Commission but to a wide range of stakeholders from MS, the European Central Bank, industry and business associations, consultants, researches as well as press officers. For the obligations under the Petrol Products Consumer Prices and Crude Oil Supply Costs Council Decision currently negotiations are ongoing in order to transfer the transmission of the statistical data reported under the decision from DG Energy to Eurostat which would allow to further increase coherence in data collection while allowing DG Energy to focus on the analysis of data. Concerning the MS reporting obligation in article 14(1) of the Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive the study found the annual median costs for MS related to the fulfilment of the obligation to be low with EUR 1,310 per MS and on median 15 man-days per year needed. The benefits are assessed as moderate with higher values for efficiency and effectiveness, but a low result for EU added value and only a medium result for coherence. The lower values for coherence and EU added value can be attributed to identified overlaps with reporting obligations in the Shipments of Radioactive Waste Council Directive under article 20(1). The need to improve the coherence of the obligation was confirmed by the internal interviews of the Commission. For the MS obligation to arrange for self-assessments under article 14(3) the study found the related median annual costs to be medium with EUR 5,755 per MS and 30 man-days per year required. The benefits were assessed as moderate with low values for coherence and EU added value. These are mainly due to identified overlaps with reporting obligations with IAEA obligations mainly with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. These overlaps with IAEA obligations were also notified by stakeholders during the public consultation. Concerning the Commissions obligation in article 14(2) the study found the median annual costs to be EUR 32,787 and 100 man-days needed for fulfilling the obligation while the benefits were assessed as moderate with a high result for efficiency but lower values for effectiveness and coherence, mainly due to overlaps found by the study with the Shipments of Radioactive Waste Council Directive and IAEA reporting obligations, namely the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. While the study also found problems in delivering on the intervention logic goals of the obligation namely compliance checking, the internal interviews of the Commission came to a higher evaluation of the obligation which was found to be effectively working and efficiently delivering on its objectives. For the MS' planning obligation contained in article 4 and annex VI of the Renewable Energy Directive the study evaluated the resulting median annual costs to be at a medium level with EUR 10,309 with the cost resulting to nearly half-half form outsourcing and 90 man-days needed to fulfil the obligation. The benefits overall were rated high for the obligation with high scores for all five