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
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: adaptation to climate change, energy cooperation, energy diversification, energy efficiency, energy research, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, single market

EN 

   EN 

   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 ......................................................................................................................... 3 

1.1.  Purpose of the evaluation & Reasons for a REFIT exercise ....................................... 4 

1.2.  Scope of the evaluation ................................................................................................ 6 

2.  Background to the initiative .............................................................................................. 11 

2.1. 

Intervention Logic ..................................................................................................... 11 

3.  Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................ 16 

4.  Method .............................................................................................................................. 17 

4.1. 

Information and data gathering .................................................................................. 17 

4.2.  Costs and benefits of planning and reporting obligations ......................................... 18 

4.3.  Limitations – robustness of findings ......................................................................... 19 

5.  State of play and Results of the evaluation ....................................................................... 21 

5.1. 

Infringements ............................................................................................................. 22 

5.2.  Evaluation of the different planning and reporting obligations ................................. 23 

6.  Answers to the evaluation questions ................................................................................. 46 

6.1.  Effectiveness .............................................................................................................. 46 

6.2.  Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 47 

6.3.  Coherence .................................................................................................................. 48 

6.4.  Relevance ................................................................................................................... 50 

6.5.  EU Added Value ........................................................................................................ 50 

7.  Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 52 

8.  Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 86 

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  ................................................................................................................................... 86 

8.2.  Annex II: Intervention Logics of the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations 
stemming from the climate acquis covered by the Fitness Check ....................................... 97 

8.3.  Annex III: Procedural information ............................................................................. 99 

8.4.  Annex IV: Stakeholder consultation ......................................................................... 101 

8.5.  Annex V: Methods and Analytical models used in preparing the Fitness Check .... 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

As  part  of  the  Smart  Regulation1  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"2. 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"3  and  that  "[s]eparate  planning  and 
reporting strands will be streamlined and brought together"4. 

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"5 
and  to  "bring  together  energy  and  climate  actions  […]  leading  to  more  and  longer-term 
policy  coherence"6.  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"7.  

1 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions;  Smart  Regulation  in  the  European  Union; 
COM(2010)543final; Brussels; 8 October 2010. 
2 European Council Conclusions; EUCO 169/14; Brussels; 24 October 2014.  
3 Ibid.  
4 Ibid.  
5 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee, the Committee of  the Regions and the European Investment Bank; A Framework Strategy 
for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy; COM(2015) 80 final; Brussels; 
25 February 2015. 
6 Ibid.  
7 Ibid.  

Page 3 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  Work  Programme  20168  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"9. This proposal shall be "[b]ased on inter alia a fitness check of current 
reporting obligations"10.     

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"11. 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]"12 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  monitoring13  obligations  within  the  EU  energy  acquis  and 
interlinkages  with  climate  legislation14,  but  does  not  cover  interlinkages  with  other  fields  of 
the EU acquis for example in the field of transportation.  

8 Communication from the Commission  to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions;  Commission  Work  Programme  2016  –  No  time  for 
business as usual; COM(2015) 610final; Brussels; 27 October 2015.  
9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank; State of the Energy Union 
2015; COM(2015) 572 final; Brussels; 18 November 2015. 
10 Ibid. 
11 Council conclusions on the governance system of the Energy Union; 869/15; Brussels; 26 November 2015.   
12 Op.cit.: Fitness Check Roadmap. 
13 For this Fitness Check planning and reporting obligation are understood as those obligations foreseen for MS 
in the various legal acts within the scope. Monitoring refers to the obligations for the Commission to monitor 
and  to  report  to  the  European  Council  and/or  European  Parliament  and/or  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions and/or other institutions as well as to the general public and the 
MS. 
14  Concerning  the  specific  coverage  of  the  climate  legislation,  provisions  in  the  Monitoring  Mechanism 
Regulation  (MMR)  are  covered.  The  MMR  establishes  a  single  mechanism  for  monitoring  and  reporting 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  for  reporting  other  information  at  national  and  Union  level  relevant  to  climate 

Page 4 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
 
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 

 

 

change and already represents the result of a previous streamlining exercise. It includes provisions that interact 
with planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy acquis. 

Page 5 of 138 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
National  Plans,  Progress  Reports  and  integrated  Commission  monitoring,  linked  to 
those obligations and to follow the legal destination of those obligations15; 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"16, 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 201417. The 
European Council approved on 24 October 201418 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  201519  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 201620. 
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 

15  For  example,  because  the  obligation  supports  the  collection  of  data  for  the  National  Plans  or  because  it 
improves the accuracy of such data. This category is only relevant for some obligations of the current MMR and 
was not applied for the obligations under the energy acquis. 
16  Commission  Staff  Working  Document;  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT):  State  of 
Play and Outlook; SWD(2015) 110 final; Strasbourg: 19 May 2015.  
17 Communication form the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; A policy framework for climate and energy in the period 
from 2020 to 2030; COM(2014) 15 final; Brussels, 22 January 2014.  
18 Op.cit.: EUCO 169/14. 
19 European Council Conclusions; EUCO 11/15; Brussels; 20 March 2015. 
20 Op.cit.: COM(2015) 610final. 

Page 6 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
private sector. This  point  was confirmed by the survey21 conducted in the framework of the 
Fitness Check22 and by the public consultation23 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 
research24. 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)25  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 Check26: 

  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 

21 The results of the survey are available in the study commissioned by DG Energy.  
22 According to the survey, public authorities bear 53 percent of the burdens resulting from the obligations, while 
large  companies  experience  21  percent  of  the  burden  and  Small  and  Medium  Sized  Enterprises  (SMEs) 
experience 11 percent of the burden. Furthermore, the study also found that SMEs are not subject to any impact 
or burden resulting from reporting obligations.  
23 The results of the public consultation are available in annex IV of the Staff Working Document. 
24 A detailed list of the literature consulted in the framework of this analysis is available in the annexes of both 
studies providing input to this Fitness Check.  
25 A more detailed analysis of the respective role of each of these bodies can be found in the study supporting the 
Fitness Check commissioned by DG Energy.  
26 See chapter 3 for a list of the obligations that were excluded from the scope of the Fitness Check based on 
these criteria.  

Page 7 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
and  on 

radioactive  waste  management 
management 
(2005/510/Euratom)  as  these  would  require  an  amendment  of  the  international 
instruments. 

safety  of 

the 

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 Regulation27 
-  Connecting Europe Facility Regulation28 
-  Crude Oil Imports Regulation29 
-  Electricity Directive30 
-  Energy Efficiency Directive31 
-  Energy Labelling Directive32 
-  Energy Performance of Buildings Directive33  
-  Energy Statistics Regulation34 
-  Euratom Supply Agency Statues Council Decision35 
-  Financial Assistance in the Field of Energy Regulation36 
-  Gas Directive37 
-  Hydrocarbons Directive38 
- 

Infrastructure Regulation39  

27  Regulation  (EC)  713/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  establishing  an 
Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators.  
28 Regulation (EU) 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing 
the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) 680/2007 
and (EC) 67/2010. 
29  Council  Regulation  (EC)  2964/95  of  20  December  1995  introducing  registration  for  crude  oil  imports  and 
deliveries in the Community.  
30  Directive  2009/72/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  concerning  common 
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC.   
31  Directive  2012/27/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  on  energy 
efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.  
32  Directive 2010/30/EU  of  the  European Parliament  and of  the  Council of  19  May 2010  on  the  indication by 
labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related 
products.  
33 Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 2010 on the energy performance 
of buildings.  
34  Regulation  (EC)  1099/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2008  on  energy 
statistics.  
35  Council  Decision  2008/114/Euratom  of  12  February  2008  establishing  Statues  for  the  Euratom  Supply 
Agency. 
36  Regulation  (EC)  663/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  establishing  a 
programme  to  aid  economic  recovery  by  granting  Community  financial  assistance  to  projects  in  the  field  of 
energy  (as  amended  by  Regulation  (EU)  1233/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15 
December 2010).  
37  Directive  2009/73/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  concerning  common 
rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.  
38  Directive  94/22/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  an  of  the  Council  of  30  May  1994  on  the  conditions  for 
granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons.  

Page 8 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Intergovernmental Agreements Decision40 

- 
-  Network Access for Cross-Border Electricity Exchanges Regulation41 
-  Network Access for Natural Gas Transmission Regulation42 
-  Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Bulgaria and Slovakia Regulation43 
-  Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation44 
-  Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC)45 
-  Nuclear Safety Directive46 
-  Offshore Safety Directive47 
-  Oil Stocks Directive48  
-  Petrol Products Consumer Prices and Crude Oil Supply Costs Council Decision49 and 

the related Commission Implementing Regulation50 

-  Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive51 
-  Renewable Energy Directive52 
-  Security of Electricity Supply Directive53  

39 Regulation (EU) 256/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 concerning the 
notification  to  the  Commission  of  investment  projects  in  energy  infrastructure  within  the  European  Union, 
replacing Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 617/2010 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 736/96.  
40  Decision  994/2012/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  establishing  an 
information  exchange  mechanism  with  regard  to  intergovernmental  agreements  between  Member  States  and 
third countries in the field of energy.  
41 Regulation (EC) 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for 
access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) 1228/2003. 
42 Regulation (EC) 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for 
access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) 1775/2005. 
43  Council  Regulation  (EURATOM)  1368/2013  of  13  December  2013  on  Union  support  for  the  nuclear 
decommissioning  assistance  programmes  in  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia,  and  repealing  Regulations  (Euratom) 
549/2007 and (Euratom) 647/2010. 
44 Council Regulation (EU) 1369/2013 of 13 December 2013on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning 
assistance programme in Lithuania and repealing Regulation (EC) 1990/2006. 
45 The legal basis for the PINC is article 40 of the Euratom treaty: "In order to stimulate action by persons and 
undertakings and to facilitate coordinated development of their investment in the nuclear field, the Commission 
shall periodically publish illustrative programmes indicating in particular nuclear energy production targets and 
all types of investment required for their attainment. The Commission shall obtain the opinion of the Economic 
and Social Committee on such programmes before their publication".   
46 Council Directive 2009/71/EURATOM of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the nuclear 
safety of nuclear installations (as amended by: Council Directive 2014/87/EURATOM of 8 July 2014).  
47 Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on safety of offshore oil 
and gas operations and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. 
48  Council  Directive  2009/119/EC  of  September  2009  imposing  an  obligation  on  Member  States  to  maintain 
minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products. 
49  Council  Decision  1999/280  of  22  April  1999  regarding  a  Community  procedure  for  information  and 
consultation on crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products.  
50 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 1348/2014 of 17 December 2014 on data reporting implementing 
Article 8(2) and Article 8(6) of Regulation (EU) 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
wholesale energy market integrity and transparency.  
51  Council  Directive  2011/70/EURATOM  of  19  July  2011  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
52 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the 
use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Directives  2001/77/EC  and 
2003/30/EC  (as  amended  by  Directive  (EU)  2015/1513  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9 
September  2015  amending  Directive  94/70/EC  relating  to  the  quality  of  petrol  and  diesel  fuels  and  amending 
Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources).  
53 Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures 
to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment.  

Page 9 of 138 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
-  Security of Gas Supply Regulation54 
-  Shipments of Radioactive Waste Directive 55 
-  Trans-European Energy Infrastructure (TEN-E) Regulation56 
-  Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive57 
-  Wholesale Energy Markets Regulation58 

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 well59 in this evaluation. Therefore, the Fitness Check also assessed interactions 
between  the  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation  (MMR)60  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.  

54  Regulation  (EU)  994/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  European  Council  of  20  October  2010 
concerning measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC. 
55 Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel.  
56 Regulation (EU) 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for 
trans-European  energy  infrastructure  and  repealing  Decision  1364/2006/EC  and  amending  Regulations  (EC) 
713/2009, (EC) 714/2009 and (EC) 715/2009. 
57  Directive  2008/92/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2008  concerning  a 
Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users 
(recast).  
58 Regulation (EU) 1227/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale 
energy market integrity and transparency.  
59 Op.cit.: Fitness Check Roadmap. 
60  Regulation  525/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  May  2013  on  a  mechanism  for 
monitoring  and  reporting  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  for  reporting  other  information  at  national  and  Union 
level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision 280/2004/EC. 

Page 10 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 purposes61.  

A  graphic  representation  of  the  general  intervention  logic  for  reporting  and  monitoring 
obligations in the EU energy acquis is presented below:  

61 The numbers do not add up to 100% as one obligation may serve several intervention logic objectives and was 
therefore counted for each of the objectives it serves.  

Page 11 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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: 

Page 12 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Ad-hoc 
and 
obligations 

One-Off 
Reports  on 
implement
ation 
legal act 

of 

Relating  to 
internation
al 
obligations 
or other 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Art. 27 

Delegated Regulation 
2012/244/EU62 

Art.  5  and 
6 

ILUC Directive63 

Art.3 

Art. 4 

Ecodesign Directive64 

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 

Energy Star Program 
Regulation65 

Financial Assistance in the 
Field of Energy Regulation 

Hydrocarbons Directive 

Art. 10(5) 

Art. 19 

Art. 13 

Art.11  and 
27 

Art. 3(3) 

Art. 8(1) 

62  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  244/2012  of  16  January  2012  supplementing  Directive 
2010/31/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  energy  performance  of  buildings  by 
establishing  a  comparative  methodology  framework  for  calculating  cost-optimal  levels  of  minimum  energy 
performance requirements for buildings and building elements. 
63  Directive  2015/1513/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  September  2015  amending 
Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the 
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. 
64  Directive  2009/125/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  October  1999  establishing  a 
Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-related Products. 
65  Regulation  106/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  January  2008  on  a  Community 
energy-efficiency  labelling  programme  for  office  equipment  as  amended  by  Regulation  174/2013  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 5 February 2013. 

Page 13 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Infrastructure Regulation 

Art. 11 

Intergovernmental 
Agreements Decision 

Art. 3 

International Convention on Nuclear safety 
& Commission Decision 
1999/819/Euratom66 

Ionising Radiation Council 
Directive67 

101 

Art. 
and 103 

Art. 76 and 
79 

Joint Convention68 

Network Access for Cross-Border 
Electricity Exchange Regulation 

Network Access for Natural 
Gas Transmission Regulation 

Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance 
in Bulgaria and Slovakia Regulation 

Art. 4 

Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance 
in Lithuania Regulation 

Art.4 

Art.5 

Art. 32 

Art. 24 

Art. 20 

Art. 29 

Art. 25 

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 Directive69 

Radioactive Waste and Spent 
Fuel Directive 

Renewable Energy Directive 

Annex II.1 

4(4) 

Art. 
and 13 

Art. 
18(2), 
17(9), 
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) 

66  Commission  Decision  1999/819/Euratom  of  16  November  1999  concerning  the  accession  to  the  1994 
Convention on Nuclear Safety by the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). 
67 Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection 
against  the  dangers  arising  from  exposure  to  ionising  radiation,  and  repealing  Directives  89/618/Euratom, 
90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43 Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. 
68  Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste 
Management  &  Commission  Decision  2005/510/Euratom  of  14  June  2005  concerning  the  accession  of  the 
European Atomic Energy community to the 'Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on 
the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management'.  
69 Council Directive 2013/51/EURATOM of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the 
health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption.  

Page 14 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Security of Gas Supply 
Regulation 

Art. 13(6a) 

Smart Grids and Smart Meters 
Recommendation70 

Art.  V.15 
and V.16 

Smart Meters Roll-Out 
Preparations 
Recommendation71 
TEN-E Regulation 

Art. 44 

Art.  9  and 
17 

Art. 8 

Transparency of Gas and 
Electricity Prices Directive 

Tyres Labelling Regulation72 

Art. 14 

Wholesale Energy Markets 
Regulation 

Art. 9 

Art. 13(6b) 

5(1) 

Art. 
and 5(4) 

Art. 2(2) 

Art. 8 

70 Commission Recommendation 2014/724/EU of 10 October 2014 on the Data Protection Impact Assessment 
Template for Smart Grid and Smart Metering Systems. 
71  Commission  Recommendation  2012/148/EU  of  9  March  2012  on  Preparations  for  the  Roll-Out  of  Smart 
Metering Systems. 
72  Regulation  (EC)  1222/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  November  2009  on  the 
labelling of tyres with respect to fuel efficiency and other essential parameters.  

Page 15 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
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 Check73.  

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.  

73 
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_ener_024_cwp_refit_reporting_planning_obligations_en.pdf. 

See 

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-

Page 16 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  consultation74  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 studies75. 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 

74 A summary of the results of the public consultation can be found in annex II of this Staff Working Document. 
75 The first study being a "1) Preparatory study for the Commission's Fitness Check Evaluation of Planning and 
Reporting  Obligations  in  the  EU  energy  acquis;  2)  Support  for  an  Impact  Assessment  in  view  of  legislative 
proposals  on  streamlining  of  Planning,  Reporting  and  Monitoring  for  the  Energy  Union  (Energy  Union 
Governance)"  commissioned  by  DG  ENER  and  the  second  study  on  "Possible  Streamlining  of  Climate  and 
Energy  Reporting  Requirements  in  Areas  with  Interlinkages"  commissioned  by  DG  CLIMA  (i.e.  the 
Interlinkages Study).  

Page 17 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 
Toolbox76 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 
Toolbox77 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 Commission78.  

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 

76 See: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_en.pdf.  
77 Ibid.  
78 This includes obligations for Commission Agencies such as ACER or entities such as ENTSO-G and ENTSO-
E, but also MS agencies such as TSOs and NRAs.  

Page 18 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 respondents79 in the MS and a total of 110 replies providing 247 obligation specific 
responses80  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)81.  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.   

79 For 43 of these potential respondents, the emails bounced back but several potential respondents forwarded the 
link  to  the  surveys  to  colleagues  involved  thereby  increasing  the  total  number  of  potential  respondents  by 
approximately 50 to 60 people.   
80 This is due to the fact that one respondent can be responsible for several obligations and therefore also can 
provide several datasets.  
81  Most  contributions  were  received  by  Industry  Associations  and  private  companies  with  46%  of  replies, 
national  public  authorities  (national,  regional  or  local  government)  with  18%  and  Non-Governmental 
Organisations with 14%. 

Page 19 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 obligations82, 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.  

82  This  concerns  basically  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.  

Page 20 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
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  195783  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  MS84.    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 

83 The obligation for the Commission to produce the PINC is contained in the Euratom Treaty signed 25 March 
1957.  The  next  oldest  obligation  still  in  force  and  within  the  scope  of  the  Fitness  Check  is  the  Hydrocarbons 
Directive which came into force on 30 May 1994. 
84 Defaa, Walter & Lowe, Philip, Streamlining Reporting Requirements; Report of Working Group 14 – Screen 
internal and external reporting requirements and propose way forward, Brussels, 10 June 2013. 

Page 21 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 limited85. 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  place86.  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, 15587,88 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  2001/77EC89  on  the  biannual  renewables  progress  reports. 
Furthermore,  53  infringement  cases  were  launched  in  relation  to  article  4(1)  of  directive 
2003/30/EC90 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).  

85  The  reporting frequency  in  article  9  of  the  Nuclear  Safety Directive  was  changed,  the  Regulation 617/2010 
was replaced in 2014 with the new infrastructure regulation, but which did not change the original obligations 
contained  in  regulation  617/2010  and  in  2013  three  Council  regulations  (549/2007,  1990/2006  and  647/2010) 
were  merged  into  two  new  regulations  (the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  in  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia 
Regulation and the Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation).  
86 A more detailed analysis of the follow-ups and measures taken to the 2013 streamlining report is available in 
the  study  "1)  Preparatory  study  for  the  Commission's  Fitness  Check  Evaluation  of  Planning  and  Reporting 
Obligations in the EU Energy Acquis; 2) Support for an Impact Assessment in view of the legislative proposals 
on streamlining of Planning, Reporting and Monitoring for the Energy Union (Energy Union Governance)".  
87 Data from the Infringement Database of the European Commission NIF/MNE. 
88  Nine  of  these  cases  related  to  the  notification  obligation  in  article  15(4)  of  the  Radioactive  Waste  Council 
Directive  and  one  relates  to  obligations  contained  in  the  predeceasing  legal  acts  to  the  Ionising  Radiation 
Council  Directive,  which  is  also  outside  the  scope  of  the  Fitness  Check.  Additional  three  infringement  cases 
were by accident encoded twice in the infringement database. 
89 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion 
of  electricity  produced  from  renewable  energy  sources  in  the  internal  electricity  market  [N.B.:  repealed  and 
replaced by the Renewables Directive on 23 April 2009]. 
90 Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the 
use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport [N.B.: repealed and replaced by the Renewables Directive 
on 23 April 2009]. 

Page 22 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  Directive91.  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 procedures92 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  procedures93,  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  with  60 
pilot  procedures94,  the  Security  of  Gas  Supply  Regulation  with  32  pilot  procedures,  the 
Renewable Energy Directive with 15 pilot procedures95 and the Radioactive Waste and Spent 
Fuel Directive with 13 pilot procedures96. 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 

91  Directive  2006/32/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  April  2006  on  energy  end-use 
efficiency and energy services and repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC [N.B. repealed and replaced by the 
Energy Efficiency Directive on 25 October 2012]. 
92 An "EU Pilot" is a Commission initiative which aims to find solutions to problems in the application of EU 
law. It is supported by an online database and communication tool. Through the dialogue in EU Pilot, problems 
can  be  often  solved  more  quickly  ensuring  compliance  with  the  obligations  of  EU  law,  to  the  benefit  of  the 
public and businesses. 
93 Twelve of these lead to the subsequent launch of infringement procedures.  
94 One of these pilot procedures lead to an infringement procedure. 
95 One of these pilot procedures lead to an infringement procedure. 
96 Nine of these pilot procedures lead to infringement cases.  

Page 23 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  high97  costs  to  the 
agency98 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 numbers99, 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  25,000100  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 

97 The definition for the classification of costs as low, medium or high in the study is as follows:  
-  Low:  cost  (of  a  median  country)  is  below  or  equal  to  the  first  quartile  of  the  distribution  of  costs  of  all 
obligations;  
- Medium: cost is between the first and last quartiles; 
- High: cost is higher or equal than the last quartile. 
98 As outlined in chapter 5, quantitative cost data for the Commission and its agencies such as ACER could not 
be  established  via  the  survey.  This  means  that  this  data  could  not  be  quantified,  but  relies  on  qualitative  data 
obtained in the interviews conducted, which is also the reason, why no precise numbers were produced by the 
study but a general assessment was made instead. 
99 This is also due to the fact that so far only one evaluation of ACER took place in 2014 which makes it difficult 
to provide detailed median annual cost figures. 
100 The number has to be interpreted with some caution, as it relies on a limited number of replies (three) with 
one MS reporting high outsourcing costs.  

Page 24 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
used  by  the  Commission101.  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  software102. 
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 obligation103. 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  software104  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  indicators105  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)106  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 

101 The Commission is already, independently of this Fitness Check, addressing the issue and an interpretative 
note on this effect is foreseen for later this year.  
102 However, these costs are based on two countries with one of them reporting significant costs for equipment 
and software.  
103 It has to be noted however that these numbers rely on one single respondent to the survey (presumably the 
official at EU level dealing with the obligation). 
104 However, these numbers might be inflated by two MS reporting such high costs. 
105 This concerns notable the energy supply (electricity), the supply/demand balance of electricity and the energy 
(electricity) demand.  
106 However it needs to be stressed that the obligation contained in article 37(1) is not directed towards MS as 
such, but towards the NRAs, while article 4 is directed to MS with the opportunity to delegate the obligation to 
the respective NRA. 

Page 25 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  data107,  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)108 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 indicators109 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.  

107 The obligation was added only with a delay to the scope of the study and could therefore not be integrated in 
the  survey  resulting  in  only  a  non-quantified  costs  and  benefits  assessment  based  on  interviews  and  desk 
research. 
108 However, these numbers might be inflated by two MS reporting such high costs. 
109  Notably  concerning:  the  wholesale  electricity  price,  the  volumes  of  electricity  sold  on  the  market,  the 
domestic  electricity  consumption,  the  electricity  import  and  export  as  well  as  the  electricity  supply/demand 
balance.  

Page 26 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  policymakers110.  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  numbers111,  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 

110 In particular the obligation was found to be more useful than a similar obligation contained in article 10(2) of 
the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.  
111 This is mainly due to the fact, that the obligation is basically a one-off planning obligation which should in 
principle have been outside the scope of the study. Furthermore, as the deadline for this obligation was already in 
December 2013 it would have been quite difficult to establish detailed cost figures two and a half years later. 
Due to the importance of the obligation itself, it was however included in the Fitness Check exercise.  

Page 27 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  Eurostat112. 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  Eurostat113.  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 obligation114. 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 

112  This  mainly  concerns  indicators  on  the  final  energy  consumption  by  sector,  the  total  final  energy 
consumption,  the  primary  energy  consumption,  the  fuel  input  for  thermal  power  generation,  the  electricity 
generation  from  combined  heat  and  power  as  well  as  the  electricity  and  heat  generation  from  thermal  power 
generation.  
113 This mainly concerns district heating production.  
114 It has to be noted however that these numbers rely on one single respondent to the survey (presumably the 
official dealing with the obligation). 

Page 28 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 Regulation115. 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 

115  Regulation  765/2008  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  council  of  9  July  2008  setting  out  the 
requirements  for  accreditation  and  market  surveillance  relating  to  the  marketing  of  products  and  repealing 
Regulation (EEC) No 339/93. 

Page 29 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 

Page 30 of 138 

 
 
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 within116 and beyond117 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  obligation118  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 

116 Respondents in the MS survey referred to the Crude Oil Imports Regulation, the Energy Efficiency Directive 
and the Renewable Energy Directive.  
117 Respondents referred to the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive (Directive 2014/94/EU of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure) and to 
Directive  2015/652  (Council  Directive  2015/652  of  20  April  2015  laying  down  calculation  methods  and 
reporting requirements pursuant to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to 
the quality of petrol and diesel fuels). 
118 The fact that the obligation is put on the DG of the Euratom Supply Agency is the likely reason for this.  

Page 31 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Commission  on  the  European  Energy  Programme  for  Recovery119  concluded  that  while  the 
programme  has  delivered  good  results,  "[t]he  majority  of  projects  have  been  completed"120 
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)121 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  Eurostat122  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)123. 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 indicators124 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. 

119  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament;  On  the  implementation  of  the 
European Energy Programme for Recovery and the European Energy Efficiency Fund; COM(2015) 484 final; 
Brussels, 8. October 2015. 
120 Ibid. 
121 However, these numbers might be inflated by two MS reporting such high costs. 
122  This  concerns  indicators  on  energy  (gas)  supply,  the  supply-demand  balance  of  gas  and  the  energy  (gas) 
demand.  
123 However, these numbers might be inflated by two MS reporting such high costs. 
124 Namely the following indicators were identified as overlapping: the wholesale gas prices, the percentage of 
natural  gas  in  primary  national  energy  consumption  and  in  final  energy  consumption,  the  net  consumption  of 
gas, the gas storage sites capacities and the quantity of liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports.  

Page 32 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
The  TSOs'  planning  obligation  under  article  22  was  assessed  by  the  study  to  result  in 
comparatively  high  costs125  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 

125 The obligation was added only with a delay to the scope of the study and could therefore not be integrated in 
the  survey  resulting  in  only  a  non-quantified  costs  and  benefits  assessment  based  on  interviews  and  desk 
research. 

Page 33 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  institutions126  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 
the  energy  field. 
transparency  on 
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  Intergovernmental  Agreements  concluded 

in 

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 

126 The provider of global energy and commodities information PLATTS was mentioned in the interviews.  

Page 34 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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. 

Page 35 of 138 

 
 
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  coherence127.  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 
Convention128  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).  

127 One reason for this limited data on the obligation is that it was only identified as being within the scope of the 
Fitness Check after the study was already launched. Therefore, it could no longer be included in the survey and 
interviews and also the remaining time for desk research was shorter.  
128 Convention on Nuclear Safety of the IAEA adopted in Vienna on 17 June 1994 and in force since 24 October 
1996.  

Page 36 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 equipment129 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/EURATOM130. 

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 needed131. 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  obligation132.  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 regulation133 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.  

129  It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  cost  numbers  for  this  obligation  were  largely  inflated  by  one  MS  stakeholder 
reporting comparatively high costs for equipment and software.  
130 Council Directive 2014/87/EURATOM of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom  establishing a 
Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations.  
131 It has to be noted however that these numbers rely on one single respondent to the survey (presumably the 
official dealing with the obligation).  
132 Only one country provided costs figures for this obligation and as a consequence, results for this obligation 
should be carefully interpreted.  
133  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  1112/2014  of  13  October  2014  determining  a  common  format  for 
sharing  of  information  on  major  hazard  indicators  by  the  operators  and  owners  of  offshore  oil  and  gas 
installations  and  a  common  format  for  the  publication  of  the  information  on  major  hazard  indicators  by  the 
Member States.  

Page 37 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 Directive134 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 stocks135 
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 

134  Study  in  support  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  functioning  and  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
2009/119/EC (Oil Stocks) by Trinomics of 20 May 2016; not yet published.  
135 These were so far only submitted by three MS (France, Denmark and Lithuania) that hold specific stocks, but 
France  decided  to  no  longer  hold  these  stocks  after  1  January  2016.  MS  not  holding  specific  stocks  have  to 
provide the report under article 9(5).  

Page 38 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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  needed136  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-days137. 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.  

136 Idem. 
137 Idem. 

Page 39 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
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 Management138. 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  obligation139  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  Better  regulation  criteria,  but  the  study  also  found  a 
potential  for  further  improving  the  coherence  and  reducing  the  administrative  burden 
associated with the obligation, which was confirmed by the internal interviews conducted by 
the  Commission.  The  public  consultation  confirmed  the  importance  of  the  obligation  as 
stakeholders  identified  the  obligation  as  one  of  the  key  provision  within  the  NREAPs  that 
should  be  maintained  in  content  while  at  the  same  time  stressing  an  existing  potential  to 
increase the coherence of the obligation with other obligations via streamlining.   

Concerning the reporting obligation for MS contained in article 22 the study found the median 
annual costs to be at a medium level with EUR 4,407 mostly resulting from labour costs of 40 
man-days  needed  to  fulfil  the  obligation.  The  study  found  the  obligation  to  provide  high 
benefits  also  with  high  values  for  all  five  criteria  despite  some  incoherence  identified  with 
reporting obligations to Eurostat especially concerning indicators140. The report was found by 
the study to be of high value as without it, the data resulting from it would not be available 
limiting significantly the understanding of the measures taken by MS and the results achieved. 
The study also found the template developed by the Commission for this obligation to have 
facilitated the reporting and having already reduced the resulting burden by streamlining. The 
obligation  was  furthermore  classified  by  stakeholders  in  the  public  consultation  as 
indispensable and the internal interviews done by the Commission confirmed the high value of 

138  Joint  convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste 
Management adopted on 29 September 1997 and entering into force on 18 June 2001.  
139 It has to be noted however that these numbers rely on one single respondent to the survey (presumably the 
official dealing with the obligation). 
140  This  notably  concerns  the  indicators  on  the  actual  consumption  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  in  the 
preceding two years and the sectorial and overall shares of renewable sources.  

Page 40 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
the obligation, but also showed that further improvements especially concerning coherence are 
possible. This was confirmed by the comments made by MS stakeholders during the survey 
and  interviews  conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  study,  who  identified  overlaps  of  the 
obligations under the Renewable Energy Directive with the SHARES data from Eurostat, the 
Energy Efficiency Directive and the Energy Statistics Regulation.  

For the Commission's monitoring obligation to produce progress reports under articles 17(7) 
and 23(3) the study assessed the costs of the obligation to be at a high level, but without being 
able  to  provide  quantified  data  on  this.  The  benefits  were  considered  to  be  high  as  well  but 
with medium values for efficiency and EU added value, mainly because of the data used for 
the  report  from  Eurostat  is  often  only  available  with  a  delay  of  two  years.  The  obligations 
were also recommended by the 2013 streamlining exercise to be merged. For article 17(7) on 
the sustainability of biofuels, the study found the obligation to be redundant and obsolete as it 
no longer corresponds to the current trends observed in the biofuels industry and therefore an 
adaptation  might  be  needed.  Also  overlaps  with  the  Alternative  Fuels  Infrastructure 
Directive141 were identified by the study. The internal interviews by the Commission showed 
an improvement potential concerning the coherence of the reports.  

Regarding the Commission's monitoring obligation in article 19(5) the study found the related 
costs to be at a high level but was unable to provide quantified numbers for this obligation. 
The benefits could not be assessed but correlations to the Fuel Quality Directive142 as well as 
to the ILUC Directive were found.  

Concerning the obligation for the Commission in article 24, the study found the costs of the 
obligation to be at a low level, however without being able to provide quantified figures and 
only  providing  moderate  benefits,  while  scoring  high  for  all  five  Better  Regulation  criteria. 
While  the  study  concluded  that  the  publication  of  the  available  reports  increases  the 
transparency  in  principle,  it  also  concluded  that  there  is  no  need  for  a  separate  platform  to 
achieve this goal. The internal interviews of the Commission also showed that this obligation 
might not be the right vehicle for doing so since a dedicated transparency platform just for the 
renewables directive might not make use of possibilities for reducing costs by streamlining.  

For the MS' obligation in article 7(1-4) of the Security of Electricity Supply Directive  the 
study found the annual median costs to be medium with EUR 2,834 mainly resulting from 10 
man-days  needed  to  fulfil  the  obligation.  The  benefits  were  assessed  as  high  with  medium 
values  for coherence and low for EU added  value. This is mainly  due to  identified overlaps 
with reporting obligations to ACER and articles 4 and 37 of the Electricity Directive. These 
overlaps  were  also  confirmed  by  the  opinions  expressed  by  stakeholders  in  the  public 
consultation,  who  in  addition  mentioned  overlaps  with  the  ten-year  network  development 
plans.  The  internal  interviews  within  the  Commission  confirmed  the  overlaps  identified  as 
well  as  the  low  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  this  obligation,  which  represents  an 
unnecessary administrative burden.  

141 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment 
of alternative fuels infrastructure.  
142 Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 
98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and 
reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  amending  Council  Directive  1999/32/EC  as  regards  the  specification  of 
fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC. 

Page 41 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Concerning the Commission's monitoring obligation in article 7(5) the study found the median 
annual costs to be comparatively low, but without being able to provide quantified data. The 
benefits were also assessed as being only low mainly due to the redundancy of the obligation, 
as the reporting from the Commission to MS, competent authorities and ACER is based on the 
obligations  in  article  7(1-4)  and  all  recipients  of  the  report  already  receive  the  information 
contained  within  it  under  other  obligations.  The  study  also  assessed  the  effectiveness, 
coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  obligation  as  low  and  the  efficiency  as  medium  with 
only relevance being given a higher score. In addition, the obligation was already suggested 
for  repeal  by  the  2013  streamlining  exercise  and  the  internal  interviews  done  by  the 
Commission  as  well  as  the  replies  submitted  by  stakeholders  in  the  public  consultation  also 
showed the limited added value of this obligation. 

Relating  to  the  MS'  planning  obligation  in  article  9  concerning  risk  assessments  of  the 
Security of Gas Supply Regulation the study found the associated median annual costs to be 
comparatively  high  with  EUR  57,956  with  the  main  part  of  the  costs  coming  from  EUR 
40,500 for equipment and software143. The benefits were assessed as high, but with medium 
results for efficiency, coherence and EU added value.  

Concerning the planning obligation for MS in articles 4 and 5 the study found the related costs 
as high with median yearly costs of EUR 40,956 mostly resulting from high outsourcing and 
subcontracting costs of EUR 36,000. The benefits resulting from the obligation were assessed 
as  high  with  medium  results  for  efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  The  study 
identified streamlining potential concerning the timing periods and the scope of reporting, but 
also rated the relevance of the preventive action plans and emergency plans resulting from the 
obligation  as  very  high.  While  the  envisaged  exchange  of  the  national  plans  should  have 
increased the awareness and coherence overall, the coordination of reporting between MS was 
assessed  as  poor  by  the  Commission's  Report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Security  of  Gas 
Supply Regulation144 as this exchange did not materialise. The public consultation confirmed 
the essential nature of the obligations as planning instruments, but also underlined the limited 
streamlining potential due to their specific nature.  

For  the  Commission's  monitoring  obligation  in  article  14  the  study  evaluated  the  costs  as 
medium  but  without  providing  quantified  data  but  stressing that  the  administrative  costs are 
significant.  The  benefits  generally  assessed  as  high  but  with  a  low  result  for  relevance,  EU 
added  value  and  coherence  resulting  from  the  fact  that  scope  and  approaches  from  MS 
reporting  have  not  been  well  aligned.  Furthermore,  the  obligation  was  recommended  by  the 
2013 streamlining exercise for a merger and also the public consultation identified overlaps of 
the obligation with the obligations under article 5 of the Gas Directive. The new proposal for 
the  revision  of  the  Security  of  Gas  Supply  Regulation  does  propose  to  not  continue  the 
obligation145.  

143 However this figure is based on two countries reporting, with one mentioning quite high costs for equipment 
and software which might not be the case for all MS.   
144  European  Commission  (2014);  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EU)  994/2010  and  its 
contribution to solidarity and preparedness for gas disruptions in the EU; SWD(2014) 325. 
145 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard 
the  security  of  gas  supply  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  994/2010;  COM(2016)  52  final;  Brussels  16. 
February 2016. 

Page 42 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Regarding  the  MS'  reporting  obligation  in  article  16(1c)  in  the  Shipments  of  Radioactive 
Waste Directive the study found the annual median costs to be low with EUR 1,293 and 16 
man-days  needed  per  year  and  MS  to  fulfil  the  obligation.  The  benefits  were  assessed  as 
moderate  with  higher  results  for  efficiency  and  effectiveness,  but  the  study  also  identified 
overlaps with IAEA obligations namely with the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint 
Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management.  Some  respondents  to  the  survey  reported  overlaps  with  the  obligation  under 
article 14(2) of the Radioactive Waste Council Directive146.  

The obligation for MS in article 20(1) was found by the study to result in low annual median 
costs  of  EUR  656  and  providing  moderate  benefits  with  higher  results  for  efficiency  and 
effectiveness, but a low result for EU added value. Furthermore, the study identified overlaps 
with  IAEA  obligations,  namely  with  the  Convention  on  Nuclear  Safety  and  the  Joint 
Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management,  which  were  also  confirmed  by  the  replies  received  in  the  public  consultation.  
Survey  participants  also  found  overlaps  with  the  obligation  under  article  14(2)  of  the 
Radioactive Waste Council Directive147.  

Regarding the Commission's monitoring obligation under article 20(2) the study assessed the 
related yearly median costs for the Commission as high with EUR 106,557 due to the largest 
part to outsourcing and subcontracting (EUR 100,000)148 while the benefits were found to be 
moderate with a lower value for coherence. This is mainly due to the fact that partial overlaps 
with  the  Commission  monitoring  for  the  Radioactive  Waste  Council  Directive  and  IAEA 
obligations, namely with the Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention  on the 
Safety of Spent Fuel management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, were 
identified  in  the  interviews  for  the  study.  Furthermore,  the  interviews  with  MS  in  the 
framework of the study also showed, that the Commission report is not considered by them as 
very relevant or having high value, which is contrary to the findings of the internal interviews 
done by the Commission, where the report was assessed to be of high value despite the high 
costs to the Commission. 

For the reporting obligation of ACER under article 5(5) of the TEN-E Regulation the study 
was not able to produce quantitative data on the costs or benefits. However the study was able 
to identify, that the obligations under the regulation are generally seen by the Commission as 
very  useful  and  providing  data  that  would  otherwise  not  be  available  especially  in  order  to 
monitor  the  implementation  of  Projects  of  Common  Interest  (PCIs).  A  structured  online 
survey has been developed by ACER, the Commission and the competent national authorities 
in  order  to  facilitate  reporting  and  improve  coherence,  efficiency  and  effectiveness.  The 
replies  to  the  public  consultation  also  stressed  the  importance  of  the  obligation  but  also 
identified a potential for improving its coherence especially in relation to similar provisions on 
the notification of investments in the Infrastructure Regulation.   

146  While  the  respondents  did  not  exactly  mention  which  articles  are  overlapping,  an  analysis  of  the  content 
showed that these two are the most likely match referred to by the survey participants.  
147 Idem.  
148 It has to be noted however that these numbers rely on one single respondent to the survey (presumably the 
official dealing with the obligation). 

Page 43 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Concerning the MS reporting obligation in articles 1, 2(1), 3 and in annex I on gas prices of 
the Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive the study found the related annual 
medium costs to be at a low level with EUR 1,506 and 20 man-days needed for the fulfilment 
of the obligation.  The benefits were evaluated as  moderate with  higher results for relevance 
and  EU  added  value.  For  the  obligation  in  articles  1,  2(1),  3  and  in  annex  II  on  electricity 
prices the study came to similar results with median annual costs of EUR 1,312 and 6 man-
days  needed.  Also  the  benefits  were  assessed  as  moderate.  Some  problems  for  these  two 
obligations were identified concerning the coherence, as respondents to the survey identified 
overlaps with reporting obligations to Eurostat as well as to ACER. The internal interviews of 
the Commission confirmed this and the study also showed that the current proposal to repeal 
the directive and the new proposal which will cover the collection of data on natural gas and 
electricity  prices  for  household  and  non-household  sectors  in  one  legal  act  is  already 
addressing the issue.  

For  the  Commission's  monitoring  obligation  in  article  8,  the  study  evaluated  the  associated 
costs to be at a medium level, but without being able to provide quantified data for this, while 
the  benefits  were  assessed  as  high.  However,  the  study  also  confirmed  that  the  information 
contained  in  the  report  is  already  reported  in  the  ACER  report  and  in  addition,  the  prices 
reported  to  Eurostat  are  publicly  available.  This  view  was  also  confirmed  by  the  2013 
streamlining exercise that suggested this obligation for repeal. Consequently, the new proposal 
of the Commission for the repeal of the Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive 
does not foresee the continuation of this obligation.  

For  the  obligation  for  ACER  in  article  7(2  and  3)  of  the  Wholesale  Energy  Markets 
Regulation  the  study  assessed  the  resulting  annual  costs  as  medium  but  was  not  able  to 
provide quantified data. Concerning the benefits the study found these to generally high but 
with only medium results for efficiency, relevance and EU added value. The report resulting 
from the obligation is seen as useful and beneficial, but the coherence of the obligation was 
found  to  be  only  low,  mainly  because  of  identified  overlaps  with  the  Transparency 
Regulation149,  which  creates  a  double  burden  to  market  participants  for  providing  data  in 
different times and templates. Furthermore, the study found that while the regulation suggests 
that  the  report  under  this  regulation  can  be  combined  with  the  report  of  article  11(2)  of  the 
ACER Regulation, this opportunity has not been used thus far which decreases the result for 
coherence  and  provides  a  possibility  for  improvement,  which  was  also  confirmed  by  the 
responses of stakeholders in the public consultation.  

Interlinkages between energy and climate fields 

Concerning further interlinkages between obligations in the energy and climate fields, ex-post 
evaluation  of  climate  policies  shows  that  the  progress  in  terms  of  energy  efficiency  and 
renewable energy are among the main drivers behind the emission reductions observed in the 
recent  years.  Accordingly,  the  reporting  of  information  and  data  in  the  energy  and  climate 
fields are closely interrelated.  

149  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  543/2013  of  14  June  2013  on  submission  and  publication  of  data  in 
electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council.  

Page 44 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
A full overview of the MMR obligations and the way they are interlinked with the planning, 
reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy field is included in the conclusions chapter 
of this Fitness Check (table 3). 

In  particular,  there  are  interactions  and  subsequently  possibilities  for  streamlining  the 
reporting obligations in the Renewable Energy Directive, the Energy Efficiency Directive and 
the  Energy  Performance  of  Building  Directive  with  the  MMR,  as  shown  in  table  4  in  the 
conclusions  chapter  which  provides  a  more  detailed  general  overview  of  streamlining 
possibilities.  

Page 45 of 138 

 
 
 
 
6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The following chapter concludes by providing the key answers concerning the findings of the 
five central evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added 
value presented in chapter 4 and which guide the Fitness Check. A more detailed analysis of 
these  five  criteria  can  be  found  in  the  respective  chapters  of  the  underlying  studies150 
supporting the Commission's conclusions. 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

Overall  the  Commission's  Fitness  Check  found  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring 
obligations within the EU energy acquis have a positive contribution to the vast majority of 
objectives  of  these  obligations.  Their  contribution  was  assessed  to  be  especially  positive  in 
terms  of  tracking  and  monitoring  compliance  with  as  well  as  the  implementation  of  the 
legislation,  in  order  to  use  the  data  collected  and  to  provide  synthesised  information  on  the 
issues at hand which could not have been produced otherwise.  

Furthermore  the  evaluation  supported  by  the  studies  showed  that  MS  regard  planning  and 
reporting obligation as relevant to national energy policy making in particular setting up plans 
monitoring  their  progress.  However,  the  Fitness  Check  and  supporting  studies  also  found  a 
difference  in  this  aspect  between  "old"  and  "new"  MS  (meaning  those  that  joined  after  the 
2004 enlargement).  "Old" MS often already have similar obligations in their national policy 
framework  which  limits  the  effectiveness  of  EU  policies  and  the  respective  planning  and 
reporting obligations on national energy policy as EU policies no longer can act as an impetus 
for  change.  On  the  other  hand,  the  study  also  found  that  particularly  central  European 
countries  often  had  the  opposite  experience  with  EU  planning  and  reporting  obligation 
inducing  changes  in  national  energy  policies.  These  assessments  were  confirmed  by  the 
survey conducted by the consultant, where 65% of MS respondents had a positive opinion on 
the  role  of  reporting  and  planning  obligations  on  policy  development  with  a  slightly  higher 
result  for  renewable  energy  and  for  energy  markets.  Likewise,  it  was  established  that  the 
maturity of the corresponding policy in question in the respective MS influences the extent to 
which  the  planning  and  reporting  obligations  are  able  to  shape  and  make  an  active 
contribution  to  the  national  energy  policy  in  the  area.  In  general,  the  influence  of  the  EU 
obligations is having a less important contribution in that MS that developed policy in the area 
in advance of EU level action.  

Concerning the Commission, the information collected from MS was assessed by the study to 
be overall useful in gaining valuable information on how the MSs are progressing with respect 
to energy legislation and that the large majority of this data would not be available from other 
sources. In addition, the study also found evidence that this data is used to adjust policy at the 
EU level thereby helping to shape EU energy policies.  

150  The  Study  conducted  by  DG  Energy  on  the  "1)  Preparatory  study  for  the  Commission's  Fitness  Check 
Evaluation of Planning and Reporting Obligations in the EU energy acquis; 2) Support for an Impact Assessment 
in  view  of  legislative  proposals  on  streamlining  of  Planning,  Reporting  and  Monitoring  for  the  Energy  Union 
(Energy Union Governance)" pp. 55-89 and the Interlinkages Study conducted by DG CLIMA. 

Page 46 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
6.2.  Efficiency  

Regarding  efficiency,  the  Fitness  Check  assessed  the  extent  to  which  the  costs  and/or 
resources  used  for  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  are  justified  by  the 
benefits and/or changes resulting from these obligations. While the study was able to quantify 
the  costs  related  to  planning  and  reporting  obligations  occurred  by  the  28  MS  to  be  around 
EUR 20 million per year, the assessment of the benefits was much more difficult to quantify. 
This especially concerns the difficulty of assessing what extent of the benefits resulting from 
each obligation can be attributed to the respective planning, reporting or monitoring obligation 
in  the  concerned  piece  of  legislation.  However,  there  is  clear  theoretical  evidence  that  such 
obligations  are  an  important  part  of  policy  compliance  and  therefore  make  an  important 
contribution to  the achievement of the policy objectives. The increased compliance with the 
various  provisions  in  the  legal  acts  resulting  from  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring 
obligations can also be expected to have a  large positive impact on the environment and the 
global  climate  as  the  objectives  of  EU  energy  policy  are  more  likely  to  be  met,  which  is 
especially  true  to  those  legal  acts  relating  to  the  2020  framework  and  climate  change 
mitigation.  Compared  to  the  huge  benefits  resulting  from  successful  climate  change 
mitigation,  the  costs  associated  with  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  can  be 
seen  as  marginal,  which  does  not  mean  that  there  would  not  be  further  potential  for 
improvements and cost reductions.  

The link between the obligations and overall compliance with legal acts was confirmed by the 
survey  and  interviews  conducted  in  the  framework  of  the  Fitness  Check  and  the  underlying 
study, where a majority of stakeholders was of the opinion that the administrative burden and 
costs associated with the respective planning, reporting and monitoring obligations is mostly 
justified151 given the achieved benefits and policy changes with of course different results for 
different obligations152. Furthermore, the  majority of the stakeholders surveyed were  also  of 
the opinion that the EU obligations contribute considerably (39% of respondents) or at least 
moderately (32% of respondents) to improved compliance, transposition checking, monitoring 
of the implementation as well as enforcement and performance of EU law, which underlies the 
overall  efficiency  of  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  in  the  EU  energy 
acquis.  

The evaluation also concluded that the main actors concerned by the planning, reporting and 
monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis are public authorities at the national and EU 
level, including regulatory authorities and EU agencies. While some large companies are also 
affected  to  a  certain  extant  (namely  in  providing  specific  energy  data  to  the  national  public 
authorities) no evidence of a reporting impact and burden on SMEs was found.  

As  regards  interlinkages  with  climate  reporting  some  reporting  obligations  of  the  MMR 
overlap  to  some  extent  with  the  obligations  of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive,  the  Energy 

151 Recommendations for those obligations that were deemed to represent an unjustified burden by stakeholders 
included the integration of these obligations with other, sometimes overlapping obligations, or the repeal of the 
concerned obligation. 
152  Overall,  obligations  in  the  field  of  decarbonisation,  renewable  energy  and  the  internal  energy  market  were 
assessed even more positively. While obligations relating to energy efficiency were assessed by more than half 
of  the  respondents  as  having  made  a  moderate  or  even  considerable  contribution,  benefits  are  not  always 
perceived as considerable in the field of nuclear energy.  

Page 47 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
efficiency Directive and the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, as further explained 
in section 7.3 'Coherence', these overlaps entail inefficiencies.  

6.3.  Coherence  

Concerning coherence this Fitness Check found a number of inconsistencies and overlapping 
obligations  within  the  energy  acquis  itself  as  well  as  between  the  energy  acquis  and  the 
climate acquis. Interlinkages and possibilities to streamline have not always been used in the 
past, even if they were known as is shown by the limited follow-up to the 2013 streamlining 
exercise  done  by  DG  Energy.  Within  the  climate  field,  streamlining  took  place  in  the 
framework of the adoption of the MMR in 2013. 

Furthermore the evaluation and underlying studies found that the current obligations represent 
some overlaps with MS reporting the same or similar information to several entities or under 
different legal bases and different entities sometimes producing separate reports on the same 
or very similar topic. The Fitness Check as well as the underlying studies also found that these 
duplications  are  stemming  mainly  from  the  inclusion  of  some  general  aspects  in  various 
reporting  obligations  in  the  energy  and  climate  acquis,  the  overlap  of  specific  pieces  of 
legislation  and  provision  in  the  EU  energy  and  climate  legislation  as  well  as  provision  that 
oblige  MS  to  collect  and  report  statistical  data,  which  is  in  principle  already  dealt  with  by 
Eurostat. These overlaps were also confirmed by the results of the survey, where 41% of MS 
respondents indicated that they have to report the same data under more than one obligation.  

There are also inconsistencies concerning the timing and periodicity of the different planning, 
reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy field that range from weekly obligations to 
obligations that have to be fulfilled once every ten years. While the chosen periodicity makes 
mostly  sense  when  looking  at  the  single  obligations,  often  interactions  with  other  existing 
obligations are underutilized and a better alignment of the timing and periodicity of reporting 
obligations  could  help  avoiding  overlaps  and  reduce  administrative  burden.  In  addition,  the 
improvement  of  the  coherence  of  these  obligations  in  terms  of  frequency  could  reduce  the 
administrative burden for the concerned stakeholders and limit that present risk that the source 
data  may  have  evolved  in  the  time  between  two  different  obligations  leading  to  different 
results and conclusions, even though the report concerns similar aspects.  

As regards the interlinkages between energy and climate planning and reporting obligations, 
in  terms  of  periodicity  of  the  reporting,  there  are  discrepancies  between  the  climate  and 
energy reporting obligations. In the climate field, MS report to the Commission policies and 
measures (PaMs) and greenhouse gas emission projections every two years. They also report 
PaMs  in  the  biennial  Project  Reports.  Renewable  energy  PaMs  and  projections  are  also 
reported in the NREAPs which is due 'in case of deviation from the indicative trajectory'. In 
the energy efficiency sector, PaMs are reported in the NEEAP which is due every three years. 
Due to  these  differences in  terms of periodicity, the information  and data cannot be used  in 
several  reports  thus  creating  additional  administrative  burden  for  the  Member  States  and 
contributes to the lack of comparability of data as illustrated above. 

In  terms  of  timing  of  the  reporting,  the  periodic  reporting  of  greenhouse  gas  data  (i.e.  the 
inventory)  under  the  MMR  is  due  in  March.  Under  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive,  this 
information is due in April. According to the Renewable Energy Directive, this information is 
submitted  in  December.  As  observed  in  several  Member  States,  the  information  which  is 
common  to  the  three  reports  is  most  of  the  time  updated  between  March  and  December. 

Page 48 of 138 

 
 
Hence,  the  periodic  information  reported  under  energy  and  climate  lacks  comparability  and 
the  coherence  could  be  improved.  In  this  context,  it  must  be  stressed  that  the  timing  and 
periodicity of the climate reporting is constrained by the obligations of the EU and its Member 
States  towards  the  UNFCCC.  For  instance,  the  reporting  deadlines  for  Member  States 
provision of their annual GHG inventories to the EU are aligned in such a way as to enable the 
timely  preparation  and  submission  of  the  annual  EU  GHG  inventory  to  the  UNFCCC. 
However,  as  seen  below,  the  existence  of  several  and  uncoordinated  reporting  and  planning 
obligations  in  the  MMR,  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive,  the  Energy  efficiency  Directive, 
the Energy  Performance of  Buildings Directive  and other  legal acts within  the scope of this 
Fitness  Check  entail  inefficiencies  as  confirmed  by  the  analysis  of  the  reports  of  a  large 
sample of 15 MS done in the framework of the interlinkages study.  

Regarding the lack of data comparability, data reported under energy and climate legislation 
are often not directly comparable. In particular, the account rules pursuant to the Renewable 
Energy  Directive  on  the  use  of  compliant  biofuels  and  bioliquids  (Article  17)  make  it  very 
difficult to impossible to compare the data under this Directive with the data reported in the 
inventories  pursuant  to  the  MMR.  The  review  of  the  reporting  from  the  Member  States 
confirms that these discrepancies are large.  

Moreover  and  concerning  the  duplication  of  reporting,  one  of  the  consequences  of  the 
existence  of  different  reporting  obligations  in  energy  and  climate  is  that  the  Commission  or 
the  Member  State  report  several  time  similar  pieces  of  information153.  In  addition  to  the 
duplication  of  efforts154,  there  is  a  lack  of  quality  and  consistency  between  these  two 
categories of reporting. The analysis of the reports of the MS indeed shows that the number of 
energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  PaMs  reported  by  MS  pursuant  the  MMR  differ 
significantly from the number of policies reported pursuant the relevant energy legislation155. 
Similarly,  climate  and  renewable  energy  projections  may  differ  significantly  as  observed  in 
the  Interlinkages  Study  by  analysing  the  reports  of  the  selected  15  MS.  Furthermore  the 
interlinkages study also found a considerable overlap of reporting of annual energy indicators 
reporting  under  article  7(1f)  of  the  MMR  with  the  Eurostat  database  that  represents  and 
unnecessary  administrative  burden.  The  lack  of  coherence  between  energy  and  climate 
reporting and planning obligation can be summarised as followed:  

Consequently and on the basis of the above, it is safe to conclude that some of the planning, 
reporting and monitoring requirements under the energy and under the climate acquis are not 
entirely consistent and further efforts to increase the coherence of the obligations within the 
EU energy acquis as well as concerning the interlinkages with the climate acquis are needed.. 
The  lack  of  integration  of  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  also  means  that 
existing synergies between different obligations within the energy field but also between the 
energy and climate fields cannot be realised. This increases the risk of fragmentation and may 
lead  to  increased  and  continued  incoherence, inconsistencies  and  duplications  of  obligations 
and  means  that  the  existing  and  proven  benefits  of  integrated  planning,  reporting  and 

153  For  example  renewable  and  energy  efficiency  policies  are  reported  in  the  NREAPs  (Article  22  Renewable 
Energy Directive) or in the NEEAP (Article 24 Energy Efficiency Directive and Article 10 Energy Performance 
of Buildings Directive). These policies are in principle also reported separately in the PaM database under the 
MMR as they contribute to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (Article 13 MMR). 
154  This  also  concerns  efforts  that  would  duplicate  the  PaM  database  like  the  RES-Legal  database  aiming  at 
reporting PaMs in the renewable sector. However, it has not been updated for the last two years.  
155 See chapter 5 of the Interlinkages Study for more information on this. 

Page 49 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
monitoring  are  not  fully  taken  advantage  off,  which  creates  unnecessary  burdens  and  costs 
while  reducing  the  overall  benefits  achieved.  These  identified  incoherencies  within  the  EU 
energy  acquis  and  concerning  interlinkages  with  the  climate  acquis  as  well  as  the  identified 
unnecessary burdens and costs on stakeholders will be addressed by the recommended actions 
for each of the obligations contained in the conclusions chapter of the Fitness Check. 

6.4.  Relevance  

As far as relevance is concerned, the results of the Fitness Check are mixed and quite different 
regarding  the  various  reporting,  planning  and  monitoring  obligations  assessed.  While  the 
majority  of  the  obligations  is  still  evaluated  to  be  of  relevance,  the  Fitness  Check  also 
identified several obligations that are deemed to be irrelevant or no longer of use and should 
be brought up to date (see chapter 8 for more details on which obligations are concerned and 
will be recommended inter alia for a repeal by the Fitness Check). 

In  general  however  the  survey  also  showed  that  MS  consider  on  many  accounts  that  the 
content  of  the  current  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  is  still  relevant  since 
many of these obligations address issues of relevance to national policy making and help MS 
in  benchmarking  themselves  against  other  MS  and  enabling  mutual  learning.  As  far  as  the 
climate  field  is  concerned,  monitoring  and  reporting  obligations  have  been  streamlined 
recently with the adoption of the MMR. 

Concerning the extent to which technological developments in the field of analytical tools for 
big  data  were  adapted  relating  to  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  in  the  EU 
energy  acquis,  the  study  found  that  electronic  reporting  systems  are  used  for  some  of  the 
obligations analysed at the EU level and also at the national level. While these are generally 
seen as useful, not all obligations might lend themselves easily to electronic tools. Concerning 
the  feasibility  of  big  data  analysis,  the  study  concluded  that  big  data  analysis  is  not  really 
possible  with  the  existing  data  requests,  since  the  data  is  not  collected  systematically  at  the 
necessary  detail  and  resolution  for  this  purpose.  In  cases  where  big  data  analysis  would 
provide an advantage, it should be ensured that the necessary data is available at the needed 
detail and resolution. 

6.5.  EU Added Value 

In  both  the  energy  and  climate  field,  the  data  reported  by  MS  is  paramount  to  support  the 
Commission's  task  to  monitor  the  correct  implementation  of  EU  law.  Especially,  this  data 
enables  the  Commission  to  track  progress  towards  EU  level  objectives.  Concerning  the 
climate acquis, the EU needs to collect and aggregate information from the Member States in 
order to comply with its reporting obligations as a party to the UNFCCC.    

Concerning the EU added value of the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations of the 
EU energy acquis, the study had some limitations in assessing it, since while the fact that the 
collection of EU level data as well as information on policies and measures does enable MS to 
compare  and  learn  from  each  other  –  a  fact  that  was  also  confirmed  by  the  results  of  the 
survey – the study was not able to prove the causality in the design of individual MS policies.  

However and concerning transparency, the Fitness Check and the underlying studies  proved 
that  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  in  most  legislative  acts  of  the  EU 
energy acquis contributed to the transparency of energy policy to a large extend with a little 

Page 50 of 138 

 
 
lower  result  for  the  transparency  of  public  and  private  energy  investments  and  spending, 
which  is  also  due  to  the  fact  that  relatively  little  data  is  collected  on  direct  industry 
expenditure.  

Regarding the contribution to the integration of national energy systems, the results are rather 
mixed  with  EU  planning  and  reporting  obligations  not  necessarily  supporting  integration  or 
improved cooperation with responsibilities being scattered between different ministries. It can 
be  expected  that  the  integration  of  planning  and  reporting  obligations  in  the  new  integrated 
national  energy  and  climate  plans  as  well  as  respective  progress  reports  will  increase  this 
integration  impetus.  On  the  other  hand  there  are  cases  of  cooperation  between  different 
ministries  in  MS  where  the  reporting  requirements  successfully  improved  the  integration 
between these ministries but only with limited benefits.  

In  addition,  the  Fitness  Check  also  found  that  most  of  the  data  reported  by  MS  to  the 
Commission  is  generally  not  available  from  other  sources  and  allows  the  Commission  to 
monitor progress as well as the implementation of the respective legal acts. Furthermore, no 
other body than the Commission is currently collecting and collating EU energy information 
from  each  MS  in  a  structured  way  that  would  allow  to  track  progress  towards  EU  level 
objectives and would produce data in an easily comparable format.  

However  and  as  shown  by  the  above  analysis  the  evaluation  also  showed  that  these 
assumptions are not true for all obligations within the scope of this Fitness Check as several 
obligations  were  found  not  to  provide  EU  added  value  and  will  therefore  be  suggested  for 
repeal in the table in the conclusions chapter.  

Page 51 of 138 

 
 
 
 
7.  CONCLUSIONS 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  results  and  findings  of  the  Fitness  Check 
evaluation  carried  out  by  the  European  Commission  on  the  planning,  reporting  and 
monitoring obligations within the EU energy acquis and the interlinkages with the EU climate 
acquis. Based on the results of this evaluation presented in the previous chapters, this chapter 
provides the general conclusions of the Fitness Check with regard to effectiveness, efficiency, 
coherence,  relevance  and  EU  added  value  of  current  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring 
requirements. On this basis, the chapter also gives recommendations for each of the reporting 
and planning obligations within the scope of this Fitness Check.  

Overall,  the  current  regulatory  framework  relating  to  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring 
obligations within the EU energy acquis delivers mostly good results, while at the same time 
enticing a series of shortcomings.  

The majority of current obligations are considered effective and make a positive contribution 
towards achieving their objectives. The conclusions are less positive with regard to efficiency, 
were a high administrative burden of some obligations are disproportionate, although overall 
efficiency is considered acceptable to good. The relevance of current obligations is generally 
considered good (if EU-added value is not considered), with only a relatively small number of 
obligations found to be irrelevant or not providing information that is actually used156.  

No overall quantification of EU added value has been possible, but it varies between different 
policy areas. Most of the information collected or produced through current obligations would 
not  be available  from  other  sources and  gives  to  MS  and the  Commission  the  possibility to 
measure progress at EU and national level and benefit from best practice examples.  

There is still potential for improving the planning, reporting and monitoring obligations with 
regards to coherence in particular. Inconsistencies and incoherence have been identified both 
within the energy acquis as well as concerning the interlinkages with the climate acquis. The 
analysis  strongly  suggests  that  a  systematic  integration  of  Member  States'  planning  and 
reporting  as  well  as  of  the  Commission's  monitoring  will  be  necessary  to  ensure  coherence 
and  enable  Member  States  as  well  as  the  Commission  to  make  full  use  of  synergies  and 
ensure consistency between various planning and reporting strands. 

On  this  basis,  it  can  be  concluded  that  there  is  potential  for  significant  improvement  of  the 
current EU energy acquis as regards planning reporting and monitoring, as well as with regard 
to interlinkages with the EU climate acquis. The way forward for each of the obligations with 
the scope of the analysis based on this Fitness Check is provided in the following tables.  

This overview is without prejudice to the forthcoming Commission's legislative proposal on 
the  Governance  of  the  Energy  Union  (preparations  still  ongoing  by  the  time  this  Fitness 
Check was finalised). 

156 These obligations are suggested in the below table for a repeal.  

Page 52 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Recommendations for planning, reporting and monitoring obligations within the energy acquis 

Name of obligation 

Legal basis 

Art. 

Description of obligation 

Type (planning 
/ reporting / 
evaluation) 

Frequency 

Entity 
targeted by 
the 
obligation 

Recommendation* 

Short Reasoning based on 
evaluation in chapter 6 

ACER Regulation 

Regulation (EC) 713/2009 

11 

ACER Annual Report internal 
markets in electricity and 
natural gas (market monitoring 
report) 

Reporting 

Annual 

ACER 

Keep separate 

ACER Regulation 

Regulation (EC) 713/2009 

13 (12) 

Annual ACER activity report 

Reporting 

Annual 

ACER 

Keep separate 

ACER Regulation 

Regulation (EC) 713/2009 

34 

Evaluation report on ACER   

Monitoring 

Every 4 years 

EC 

Keep separate 

Connecting Europe 
Facility Regulation 

Regulation (EU) No 
1316/2013 

22 

Report on progress and 
investments made in projects of 
common interest 

Reporting 

Annual 

MS 

Repeal  

Crude Oil Imports 
Regulation 

Regulation 2964/95/EC 

8 

COM to analyse information 
and communicate it to MS 

Monitoring 

Monthly 

EC 

Keep separate 

Seen as a key report and done 
individually by ACER so no 
link to MS or COM reports 
possible 

Important report for 
transparency, but is an ACER 
obligation on its activities and 
no direct link to the Energy 
Union 

As specific reporting on ACER 
concerning the evaluation of 
ACER's work and not linked to 
Energy Union 

As data is not further used by 
EC 

As it is a monthly obligation, 
not suitable for integration, but 
the obligation provides high 
benefits; integration with 
Eurostat reporting obligations 
could be an option  

 
 
Crude Oil Imports 
Regulation 

Regulation 2964/95/EC 

2, 7 

Electricity Directive  

Directive 2009/72/EC 

4 

Electricity Directive  

Directive 2009/72/EC 

22 

Report at regular intervals on 
the conditions under which the 
oil imports or deliveries have 
taken place 

 Monitoring of security of 
supply by MS, with possibility 
to delegate to NRA 

Submit a national ten-year 
network development plan 
based on existing and forecast 
supply and demand, containing 
efficient measures in order to 
guarantee the adequacy of the 
system and the security of 
supply 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Reporting 

Every 2 years, 
by 31 July 

MS 

Repeal  

Planning 

Annual 

TSOs 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Electricity Directive  

Directive 2009/72/EC 

37(1) ( e 
) 

National Regulatory Authority 
annual report 

Reporting 

Annual 

NRA 

Keep separate 

Electricity Directive  

Directive 2009/72/EC 

47 

Overall progress report on 
internal market of electricity; 
should include MS measures 
for improving competition +/- 
recommendations   

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Integrate 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

3 

Member State shall set an 
indicative national energy 
efficiency target 

Planning 

Every 3 years 

MS 

Integrate 

As it is a monthly obligation, 
not suitable for integration, but 
the obligation provides high 
benefits; integration with 
Eurostat reporting obligations 
could be an option  

As the obligation was found 
neither cost-efficient nor 
providing added value 

As a TSO obligation it should 
stay separate, but MS would 
need to reflect relevant parts in 
national integrated energy and 
climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

It is an obligation on NRAs  
and should continue to be 
produced by the NRAs so it is 
not easily integrated in a report 
that should be done by the MS 
as such 

Little added value in self-
standing report; integration 
will allow to tackle identified 
overlaps 

Integration will improve 
coherence and efficiency of the 
obligation, furthermore, this 
represents a cornerstone of the 
future  Energy Union 
governance system 

Page 54 of 138 

 
 
Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(2), 
Annex 
XIV 
Part 2 

NEEAPs                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Planning 

Every 3 years 

MS 

Integrate 

Integration will improve 
coherence and efficiency of the 
obligation, furthermore, this 
obligation represents a 
cornerstone of the future  
Energy Union governance 
system 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

4 

Long-term strategy for 
mobilising investment in the 
renovation of the national 
building stock 

Planning 

Every 3 years 

MS 

Integrate 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

7(9) 

one-off notification of planned 
alternative measures to energy 
efficiency obligation schemes  

Planning 

one-off 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

14(1) 

Comprehensive assessment of 
the potential of cogeneration 
and district heating and cooling 

Planning 

Every 5 years 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

useful obligation for 
policymakers, but coherence 
with other obligations can be 
improved by integration 

Since a one-off planning 
obligation little added value in 
integration, but it should be 
reflected in the integrated plans 

useful obligation providing 
needed data, but due to 
technical nature not suitable for 
complete integration but 
should be reflected in the 
integrated plans 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

Annex 
VIII 

Potential of cogeneration and 
district heating and cooling 

Planning 

Every 5 years 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Relates to obligation under 
article 7(9), therefore same 
procedure recommended 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(1), 
Annex 
XIV 
Part 1 

Progress report 

Reporting 

Annual 

MS 

Integrate 

Progress reports are a useful 
tool; integration in integrated 
national energy and climate 
progress reports will allow to 
address the identified overlaps 
and improve coherence 
regarding timing 

Page 55 of 138 

 
 
                                                                                                             
Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(3) 

Evaluation of annual reports 
and NEEAPs 

Monitoring 

Other 

EC 

Integrate 

integration will improve the 
coherence of the obligation and 
since the current NEEAPs will 
be integrated in the new 
climate and energy plans, it 
makes sense to also integrate 
the obligation related to the 
evaluation of these 

Monitoring 

Other 

EC 

Repeal  

burdensome  obligation with 
little to no added value 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(4) 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(5) 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(6) 

Monitor impact of 
implementing the EED on the 
ETS Directive, the RES 
Directive, the EPBD Directive, 
the Effort-sharing Decision and 
industry sectors (carbon 
leakage sectors) 

review of continued need for 
exemptions set out in Article 
14(6) 

Statistics on production from 
high and low efficiency 
cogeneration, capacities and 
fuels for cogeneration, and on 
district heating and cooling in 
relation to total heat and 
electricity production and 
capacities 

Monitoring 

Other 

EC 

Keep separate 

reporting 

Annually 

MS 

Keep separate 

Energy Efficiency 
Directive 

Directive 2012/27/EU 

24(11) 

publication of reports referred 
to in Article 24(1) and (2) 

Monitoring 

As in para 1 
and 2 
(annually and 
every three 
years 
respectively) 

EC 

Repeal  

Energy Labelling 
Directive 

Directive 2010/30/EU 

3(3) 

Enforcement activities and 
level of compliance 

Reporting 

Every 4 years 

MS 

Repeal 

Page 56 of 138 

Quite technical review 
obligation with little possibility 
for integration; also the study 
did not provide enough 
information for a sound 
different recommendation 

Purely statistical obligation 
therefore possible to integrated 
in the future in reporting under 
the Eurostat Regulation as this 
would improve on the 
identified overlaps with 
Eurostat reporting 

Although the obligation was 
found useful, repeal is 
suggested due to the fact that 
the reports to which the 
obligation refers will be 
integrated. However a similar 
publication obligation should 
be included in the governance 
proposal for transparency 
reasons 

little added value and benefits 
could be identified in the 
Fitness Check but the 
obligation largely overlaps 
with the Market Surveillance 
Regulation 

 
 
Energy Labelling 
Directive 

Directive 2010/30/EU 

3(4) 

Synthetic report of MS 4 years 
reporting   

Monitoring 

Every 4 years 

EC 

Repeal 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

5.2 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

5(4) 

Report all input data and 
assumptions used for cost-
optimal calculations and their 
results 

Report on the progress of the 
Member States in reaching 
cost-optimal levels of minimum 
energy performance 
requirements. 

Reporting 

Every 5 years 

MS 

Integrate 

Monitoring 

EC 

Keep separate 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

9.1 

Planning requirement on 
minimum energy performance 
requirements (plans NZEB) 

Planning 

Every 5 years 

MS 

Integrate 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

9.5 

Report on progress of MS in 
increasing the number of nearly 
zero energy buildings 

Monitoring 

Every 3 years 

EC 

Integrate 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

10.2 

List of existing measures and 
instruments, including financial 

Reporting  

Every 3 years 

MS 

Integrate 

Energy Performance of 
Buildings Directive 

Directive 2010/31/EU 

10.3 

Examination (monitoring) of 
the effectiveness of the 
measures and instruments, 
including financial, listed by 
MS pursuant to Art.10.2 

Monitoring 

Not specified 

EC 

Integrate 

Page 57 of 138 

little added value and benefits 
could be identified in the 
Fitness Check but the 
obligation largely overlaps 
with the Market Surveillance 
Regulation 

Important obligation, but with 
an identified potential to 
increase coherence which can 
be best achieved by integration 

Fitness Check did not produce 
enough evidence for a different 
recommendation 

Obligation assessed as 
providing good results, but 
significant overlap with 
NEEAPs which can be  best 
addressed by integration  

Obligation identified as 
beneficial but also with a need 
to improve coherence and 
reduce the resulting 
administrative burden 

Obligation not considered very 
useful, but merger with 
integrated plans and reports 
will be able to keep the useful 
parts of the obligation while 
avoiding unnecessary burdens 

Similar assessment as for 
article 10(2); integration 
should be able to address the 
identified shortcomings of the 
obligation 

 
 
  
Energy Statistics 
Regulation 

REGULATION (EC) No 
1099/2008 

4.1(a) 

Transmit national statistics 
(annual) 

Reporting 

Annual 

MS 

Keep separate 

Energy Statistics 
Regulation 

REGULATION (EC) No 
1099/2008 

4.1(b) 

Transmit national statistics 
(monthly) 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Energy Statistics 
Regulation 

REGULATION (EC) No 
1099/2008 

4.1(c) 

Transmit national statistics 
(short-term monthly) 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Energy Statistics 
Regulation 

REGULATION (EC) No 
1099/2008 

5(5) 

Energy Statistics 
Regulation 

REGULATION (EC) No 
1099/2008 

6.4 

The Commission (Eurostat) 
shall disseminate yearly energy 
statistics by 31 January of the 
second year following the 
reported period. 

Every five years, Member States 
shall provide the Commission 
(Eurostat) with a report on the 
quality of the data transmitted as 
well as on any methodological 
changes that have been made. 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Keep separate 

Reporting 

Every 5 years 

MS 

Keep separate 

Euratom Supply 
Agency Statues Council 
Decision 

Council Decision 
2008/114/Euratom 

3 

Report on the activities of the 
Agency in the previous year 
and a work programme for the 
next year 

Reporting 

Annual 

ESA 

Keep separate 

Obligation concerning 
statistical data with quite some 
overlaps with Eurostat 
obligations; measures to 
improve the coherence with 
Eurostat reporting should be 
considered to address 
identified shortcomings  
Obligation concerning 
statistical data with quite some 
overlaps with Eurostat 
obligations; measures to 
improve the coherence with 
Eurostat reporting should be 
considered to address 
identified shortcomings  
Obligation concerning 
statistical data with quite some 
overlaps with Eurostat 
obligations; measures to 
improve the coherence with 
Eurostat reporting should be 
considered to address 
identified shortcomings  

Highly beneficial statistical 
report 

Obligation overall useful to ensure 
quality of the statistical data; 
integration with Eurostat reporting 
obligations should be considered to 
improve coherence and address 
identified shortcomings  

ESA reporting obligation to 
EC with no integration 
potential 

Page 58 of 138 

 
 
Financial Assistance in 
the Field of Energy 
Regulation 

Regulation No 663/2009, 
as amended by regulation 
1233/2010 

28 

Report on implementation of 
financial assistance to projects 
in the field of energy 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Repeal  

Gas Directive  

Directive 2009/73/EC 

5 

Gas Directive  

Directive 2009/73/EC 

22 

Monitoring of security of gas 
supply by MS, with possibility 
to delegate to NRA  

Submit a national ten-year 
network development plan 
based on existing and forecast 
supply and demand, containing 
efficient measures in order to 
guarantee the adequacy of the 
system and the security of 
supply 

Reporting 

Annual, by 31 
July 

MS 

Repeal  

Planning 

Annual 

TSOs 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Gas Directive  

Directive 2009/73/EC 

 41(1) e 

 NRA annual report 

Reporting 

Annual 

NRA 

Keep separate 

Gas Directive  

Directive 2009/73/EC 

52 

Hydrocarbons Directive   Directive 94/22/EC 

8(2) 

Overall progress report on 
internal market of gas; should 
include MS measures for 
improving competition +/- 
recommendations   

Report on the conditions for 
granting and using 
authorization for the 
prospection, exploration and 
production of hydrocarbons - 
on the situation of entities in 
third countries and on the state 
of any negotiations undertaken 
with those countries or in the 
framework of international 
organizations 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Integrate 

Monitoring 

Other 

EC 

Repeal  

Page 59 of 138 

As the entire Regulation was 
found to be outdated 

Significant overlaps of the 
obligation found with article 
41(1e) of the same directive as 
well as with obligation to  
Eurostat and the Security of 
Gas Supply Regulation 

As is a TSO obligation should 
stay separate, but MS would 
need to integrate relevant parts 
in national integrated energy 
and climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

It is an obligation on NRAs  
and should continue to be 
produced by the NRAs so it is 
not easily integrated in a report 
that should be done by the MS 
as such 

Little added value in self-
standing report; integration 
will allow to tackle identified 
overlaps 

Monitoring report was issued 
once in 1994 and never 
afterwards; never requested by 
stakeholders 

 
 
Hydrocarbons Directive   Directive 94/22/EC 

9 

Annual report on prospecting, 
exploration and production 

Reporting 

Annual 

MS 

Repeal  

Infrastructure 
Regulation 

Regulation No 256/2014 

3 and 5 

Reporting on investment 
projects in energy infrastructure 
within the European Union 

Reporting 

Every 2 years 

MS 

Repeal  

Infrastructure 
Regulation 

Regulation No 256/2014 

10 

Intergovernmental 
Agreements Decision 

Decision 994/2012/EU 

8 

Network Access for 
Cross-Border Electricity 
Exchanges Regulation 

Regulation 714/2009 

8 

Cross-sector analysis of the 
structural evolution and 
perspectives of the Union’s 
energy system 

Report on information 
exchange mechanism with 
regard to intergovernmental 
agreements (IGA) between 
Member States and third 
countries in the field of Energy 

Adopt a non-binding 
Community-wide ten-year 
network development plan, 
(Community-wide network 
development plan), including  
the modelling of the integrated 
network, scenario development, 
a European generation 
adequacy outlook and an 
assessment of the resilience of 
the system 

Monitoring 

Every 2 years 

EC 

Repeal  

Monitoring 

Every 3 years 

EC 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Planning 

Every two year 

ENTSO-E 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Network Access for 
Cross-Border Electricity 
Exchanges Regulation 

Regulation 714/2009 

12(1) 

publish a regional investment 
plan 

Planning 

Every two year 

TSOs 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Page 60 of 138 

as the information provided 
largely duplicated the 
information in the notified 
tenders and therefore presents 
an unnecessary administrative 
burden 

Significant overlaps of the 
obligation identified (notably 
for reporting obligations to 
ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G) 
with little to no added value 
provided by the obligation 
under this regulation 
Significant overlaps of the 
obligation identified (notably 
for reporting obligations to 
ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G) 
with little to no added value 
provided by the obligation 
under this regulation 
New Commission proposal for 
a revised Intergovernmental 
Agreements Decisions foresees 
the introduction of an 
electronic database to increase 
the transparency on the issue; 
the publications in this 
database can be reflected in 
State of the Energy Union 

As it is an ENTSO-E 
obligation it should stay 
separate, but MS would need 
to reflect relevant parts in 
national integrated energy and 
climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

As a TSO obligation it should 
stay separate, but MS would 
need to reflect relevant parts in 
national integrated energy and 
climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

 
 
Network Access for 
Cross-Border Electricity 
Exchanges Regulation 

Regulation 714/2009 

24 

Network Access for 
Natural Gas 
Transmission 
Regulation  

Regulation 715/2009 

8 

Regulation implementation 
monitoring and reporting by 
COM, including preparation of 
the  report "Progress towards 
completing the Internal Energy 
Market" 

Adopt a non-binding 
Community-wide ten-year 
network development plan, 
(Community-wide network 
development plan), including  
the modelling of the integrated 
network, scenario development, 
a European generation 
adequacy outlook and an 
assessment of the resilience of 
the system 

Monitoring 

EC 

Repeal  

Planning 

Every two year 

ENTSO-G 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Network Access for 
Natural Gas 
Transmission 
Regulation 

Network Access for 
Natural Gas 
Transmission 
Regulation 

Nuclear 
Decommissioning 
Assistance in Bulgaria 
and Slovakia Regulation 
and Nuclear 
Decommissioning 
Assistance in Lithuania 
Regulation 

Regulation  715/2009 

12(1) 

publish a regional investment 
plan 

Planning 

Every two year 

TSOs 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Regulation 715/2009 

29 

Regulation implementation 
monitoring and reporting by 
COM, including preparation of 
the  report "Progress towards 
completing the Internal Energy 
Market" 

Monitoring 

EC 

Repeal  

Council Regulation 
1368/2013 & Council 
Regulation 1369/2013 

6(1) and 
6(2) 

Annual work programme 

Planning 

Annual 

EC 

Keep separate 

The Fitness Check showed that 
the reporting obligation can be 
considered fulfilled 

As it is an ENTSO-G 
obligation it should stay 
separate, but MS would need 
to reflect relevant parts in 
national integrated energy and 
climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

As a TSO obligation it should 
stay separate, but MS would 
need to reflect relevant parts in 
national integrated energy and 
climate plan to ensure 
coherence 

The Fitness Check showed that 
the reporting obligation can be 
considered fulfilled 

Keep separate as very technical 
obligation (dealing with the 
nuclear decommissioning 
programme in 3 MS) 

Page 61 of 138 

 
 
  
  
Nuclear 
Decommissioning 
Assistance in Bulgaria 
and Slovakia Regulation 
and Nuclear 
Decommissioning 
Assistance in Lithuania 
Regulation 

Nuclear Safety 
Directive  

Nuclear Safety 
Directive  

Nuclear Safety 
Directive  

Nuclear Safety 
Directive  

Council Regulation 
1368/2013 & Council 
Regulation 1369/2013 

Council Directive 
2009/71/Euratom, as 
amended by Council 
Directive 
2014/87/Euratom 

Council Directive 
2009/71/Euratom, as 
amended by Council 
Directive 
2014/87/Euratom 

Council Directive 
2009/71/Euratom, as 
amended by Council 
Directive 
2014/87/Euratom 

Council Directive 
2009/71/Euratom, as 
amended by Council 
Directive 
2014/87/Euratom 

6(2) 

Progress report 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Keep separate 

8e(1) 

Self-assessment and 
international peer review 

Reporting 

8e(2&3)  Topical peer review 

Reporting 

Ad hoc but at 
least every 10 
years 

Ad hoc but at 
least every 6 
years 

MS 

Keep separate 

MS 

Keep separate 

9(1) 

Report on progress made with 
the implementation of this 
Directive 

9(2) 

Report on progress made with 
the implementation of this 
Directive 

Reporting 

Every 6 years 

MS 

Keep separate 

Monitoring 

Every 6 years 

EC 

Keep separate  

Offshore Safety 
Directive 

Directive 2013/30/EU 

25(1), 
Annex 
IX point 
3 

Annual report on oil and gas 
installations and their safety 

Reporting 

Annual 
(starting end of 
2017) 

MS 

Keep separate 

Keep separate as very technical 
obligation (dealing with the 
nuclear decommissioning 
programme in 3 MS) 

Keep separate as IAEA 
obligation and in practice not 
regularly (no clear date) so 
basically ad hoc but at least 
once every 10 years 

Keep separate as IAEA 
obligation and in practice not 
regularly (no clear date) so 
basically ad hoc but at least 
once every 10 years 

It is a two-off obligation on the 
implementation of the directive 
which provides little 
integration potential as there is 
no clear link to Energy Union 
objectives 

Main objective of the 
obligation is compliance 
checking and the obligation 
will not be continued post 2020 
so there is little integration 
potential 

Technical report, well working 
and no overlaps identified in 
the Fitness Check 

Page 62 of 138 

 
 
Offshore Safety 
Directive 

Directive 2013/30/EU 

25(3) 

Annual report based on the 
information reported by MS to 
the EC 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Integrate 

Oil Stocks Directive 

Directive 2009/119/EC 

6(2) 

Annual summary copy of the 
stock register 

Reporting 

Annual 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Oil Stocks Directive 

Directive 2009/119/EC 

9(4) and 
9(5) 

 Annual summary copy of the 
stock register 

Reporting 

Annual (9(5)) 

MS 

Keep separate (9(4)) 
and reflect (9(5)) 

Oil Stocks Directive 

Directive 2009/119/EC 

12 

Monthly statistical summaries 
of emergency stocks 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Oil Stocks Directive 

Directive 2009/119/EC 

13 

Monthly statistical summaries 
of specific stocks 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

The Fitness Check identified a 
potential to increase the 
coherence of this overall useful 
obligation with other energy 
reporting obligations, which 
can be best achieved by 
integration 
Coherence of the obligation 
could be improved but for legal 
reasons, the obligation needs to 
be kept at an annual frequency, 
which makes reflection the 
most efficient way to increase 
coherence 
Art 9 (4) provides that there 
should be notification in 
specific circumstances and 
therefore needs to be kept 
separate. Article 9(5)  can be 
annexed to the MS integrated 
report; the identified incentive 
for MS to not hold specific 
stocks resulting from the 
obligations should be 
addressed in the ongoing 
evaluation of the oil stocks 
directive 
As it is a monthly obligation, 
not suitable for integration, but 
the obligation provides  
benefits; the completed 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations under the 
MOS questionnaire should 
achieve this 

As it is a monthly obligation, 
not suitable for integration, but 
the obligation provides  
benefits; integration with 
Eurostat reporting obligations 
should be considered 

Page 63 of 138 

 
 
Oil Stocks Directive 

Directive 2009/119/EC 

14 

Monthly statistical summaries 
of commercial stocks 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Petrol Products 
Consumer Prices and 
Crude Oil Supply Costs 
Council Decision  

Council Decision 
1999/280 (and its 
implementing acts 
provided in Commission 
Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1348/2014) 

Petrol Products 
Consumer Prices and 
Crude Oil Supply Costs 
Council Decision  

Council Decision 
1999/280 (and its 
implementing acts 
provided in Commission 
Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1348/2014) 

Petrol Products 
Consumer Prices and 
Crude Oil Supply Costs 
Council Decision  

Council Decision 
1999/280 (and its 
implementing acts 
provided in Commission 
Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1348/2014) 

3.1 

3.2 

4 

MS shall communicate to the 
COM: 
a) crude oil supply cost cif,  
b) the  consumer  prices  of  
petroleum  products  net  of 
duties and taxes and inclusive 
of all taxes in force 

MS shall communicate to the 
COM: 
Consumer prices of petroleum 
products 
net of duties and taxes in force  

COM to publish crude oil 
supply cost cif (and the 
consumer prices of petroleum 
products net of duties and taxes 
and inclusive of duties and 
taxes charged) 

Reporting 

Monthly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Reporting 

Weekly 

MS 

Keep separate 

Monitoring 

Monthly 

EC 

Keep separate 

As it is a monthly obligation, 
not suitable for integration, but 
the obligation provides  
benefits; the completed 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations under the 
MOS questionnaire should 
achieve this 

 Obligation on pure data 
collection and very statistical; 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations should be 
considered to address 
identified overlaps 

 Obligation on pure data 
collection and very statistical; 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations should be 
considered 

Obligation on pure data 
collection and very statistical; 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations could be 
considered 

Page 64 of 138 

 
 
Petrol Products 
Consumer Prices and 
Crude Oil Supply Costs 
Council Decision  

Council Decision 
1999/280 (and its 
implementing acts 
provided in Commission 
Implementing Regulation 
(EU) No 1348/2014) 

4 

COM to publish consumer 
prices of petroleum products 
net of duties and taxes charged 
(weekly Oil Bulletin) 

Monitoring 

Weekly 

EC 

Keep separate 

PINC 

Euratom treaty 

40 

EC to publish periodically 
illustrative programmes 
indication in particular nuclear 
energy production targets and 
all types of investment required 
for their attainment 

Monitoring 

Irregular 

EC  

Integrate 

Radioactive Waste and 
Spent Fuel Directive 

Council Directive 
2011/70/Euratom 

14(1) 

Report on the measures it has 
taken to implement the 
obligations of the Convention 

Reporting 

Every 3 years 

MS 

Keep separate 

Radioactive Waste and 
Spent Fuel Directive 

Council Directive 
2011/70/Euratom 

14(2) 

Report on progress 
(implementation) + summary 
report to EP, C and EESC + 
inventory of radioactive waste 
and spent fuel and future 
prospects 

Monitoring 

Every 3 years 

EC 

Keep separate 

Page 65 of 138 

Obligation on pure data 
collection and very statistical; 
integration with Eurostat 
reporting obligations should be 
considered 

The PINC has as a relevant 
link to planned integrated 
national climate and energy 
plans: 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 to track aggregate 
progress made based on MS 
progress reports and compare 
with PINC projections.  
Technical obligation not 
directly linked to the Energy 
Union objectives, but the study 
identified a streamlining 
potential by aligning dates with 
art. 20(1) of 2006/117 thereby 
increasing the coherence of the 
obligation 
Technical obligation not 
directly linked to the Energy 
Union objectives, but the study 
identified a streamlining 
potential by aligning dates with 
art. 20(1) of 2006/117 thereby 
increasing the coherence of the 
obligation 

 
 
Radioactive Waste and 
Spent Fuel Directive 

Council Directive 
2011/70/Euratom 

14(3) 

Self-assessments and 
international peer reviews 

Reporting 

ad hoc, but at 
least every 10 
years 

MS 

Keep separate 

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

Directive 2009/28/EC as 
amended by Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 

4 + 
Annex 
VI 

National Renewable Energy 
Action Plan (NREAP) 

Planning 

once 

MS 

Integrate 

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

Directive 2009/28/EC as 
amended by Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 

22 

MS Progress Report on 
NREAPs 

Reporting 

Every 2 years 

MS 

Integrate  

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

Directive 2009/28/EC as 
amended by Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 

17(7) + 
23(3) 

Progress report 

Monitoring  

Every 2 years 

EC 

Integrate 

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

Directive 2009/28/EC as 
amended by Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 

19(5) 

Report on typical and default 
values of biofuels and 
bioliquids emissions  

Monitoring 

Every 2 years 

EC 

Keep separate  

Renewable Energy 
Directive 

Directive 2009/28/EC as 
amended by Directive 
(EU) 2015/1513 

24 

Making relevant information 
public on the transparency 
platform 

Monitoring 

Irregular 

EC 

Integrate  

Page 66 of 138 

as in practice not regularly (no 
clear date) so basically ad hoc 
but at least once every 10 
years; therefore no potential for 
integration 

Since obligation was 
considered to provide high 
benefits overall but with a 
potential to increase coherence 
and reduce administrative 
burden, integration seems the 
best way to achieve this; 
furthermore, this obligation 
represents a cornerstone of the 
future  Energy Union 
governance system 

obligation provides high 
benefits, but also overlaps were 
identified with inter alia  
MMR and Energy Efficiency 
Directive; coherence can be 
best improved by integration 

Monitoring reports are seen as 
useful and beneficial, but 
coherence can be improved by 
integration; the identified 
redundancy and partial 
outdatedness of art. 17(7) can 
thereby also be resolved 

Very technical report; 
potentially to be reviewed in 
the context of the new 
Renewable Energy Directive 

While publication of the 
available reports is positive, 
the need for a separate 
platform to achieve this goal is 
not evident; can be more 
efficiently achieved via 
integration 

 
 
Security of Electricity 
Supply Directive 

Directive 2005/89/EC 

7 (1-4) 

Report on overall adequacy of 
the electricity system to supply 
current and projected demands 
for electricity 

Reporting 

Every 2 years 

MS 

Repeal  

Fitness Check showed various 
overlaps of the obligation with 
other obligations to ACER and 
under the Electricity Directive 
and obligation does not 
provide much added value 

Security of Electricity 
Supply Directive 

Directive 2005/89/EC 

7 (5) 

Report on investments planned 
and their contribution to the 
objectives  

Monitoring 

EC 

Repeal 

Obligation was found to 
provide no added value 

Security of Gas Supply 
Regulation 

Regulation 994/2010 

4 and 5 

Preventive Action Plans and 
Emergency Plans 

Planning 

every 2 years 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Security of Gas Supply 
Regulation 

Regulation 994/2010 

9 

Risk assessment 

Planning 

Every 2 years 

MS 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Security of Gas Supply 
Regulation 

Regulation 994/2010 

14 

Shipments of 
Radioactive Waste 
Directive 

Council Directive 
2006/117/Euratom 

16(1c) 

Report on the security of gas 
supply to be included in annual 
reporting in Directive 
2009/73/EC 

Inform the Commission and the 
Advisory Committee on a 
yearly basis on shipments of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel 
to third countries that, in the 
opinion of the competent 
authorities of the MS of origin, 
meet the exports requirements 

Monitoring 

Every 2 years 

EC 

Keep separate and 
reflect 

Reporting 

Ad hoc 

MS 

Keep separate 

ad hoc reporting and therefore 
not suitable for integration 

Evaluation identified limited 
integration potential due to the 
specific nature of the plans; 
their key elements should be 
reflected in MS integrated 
report. 

Evaluation identified limited 
integration potential due to the 
specific nature of the plans; 
their key elements should be 
reflected in MS integrated 
report. 

Obligation s it is not taken over 
in the new SoS Regulation; key 
elements of this should be 
reflected in EC integrated 
report. 

Page 67 of 138 

 
 
  
Shipments of 
Radioactive Waste 
Directive 

Council Directive 
2006/117/Euratom 

20(1) 

Report on implementation of 
the directive 

Reporting 

Every 3 years 

MS 

Keep separate 

Shipments of 
Radioactive Waste 
Directive 

Council Directive 
2006/117/Euratom 

20(2) 

TEN-E Directive 

Regulation (EU) No 
347/2013 

5(5) 

Summary report on the 
implementation of the Directive 
with particular attention for art. 
4 

Consolidated Report: 
Evaluation of progress 
achieved, recommendations, 
evaluation of consistent 
implementation of the Union-
wide consistent implementation 
of the Union-wide network 
development plans with regard 
to the energy infrastructure 
priority corridors and areas 

Monitoring 

Every 3 years 

EC 

Keep separate 

Reporting 

Annual 

ACER 

Keep separate 

Transparency of Gas 
and Electricity Prices 
Directive  

Directive 2008/92/EC 

1,  
Annex I 

Annex I: Gas prices reports 

Reporting 

Other 

MS 

Repeal 

Transparency of Gas 
and Electricity Prices 
Directive  

Transparency of Gas 
and Electricity Prices 
Directive  

Directive 2008/92/EC 

1,  
Annex II 

Annex II: Electricity prices 
report                         

Reporting 

Other 

MS 

Repeal 

Directive 2008/92/EC 

8 

Report on the transparency of 
gas and electricity prices 
charged to industrial end-users 

Monitoring 

Annual 

EC 

Repeal 

Page 68 of 138 

Technical obligation not 
directly linked to the Energy 
Union objectives, but the study 
identified a streamlining 
potential  by aligning dates 
with art.14(1) of 2011/70  
thereby increasing the 
coherence of the obligation  

Very technical report but the 
identified overlaps should be 
addressed  

As it is an ACER obligation, 
but the coherence with other 
obligations should be 
addressed 

Already to be repealed by 
virtue of a future Regulation on 
electricity prices which 
proposal is before the Council 
(COM(2015) 496 of 
18.11.2015) 

Already to be repealed by 
virtue of a future Regulation on 
electricity prices which 
proposal is before the Council 
(COM(2015) 496 of 
18.11.2015) 

Already to be repealed by 
virtue of a future Regulation on 
electricity prices which 
proposal is before the Council 
(COM(2015) 496 of 
18.11.2015) 

 
 
Wholesale Energy 
Market Regulation 

Regulation No 1227/2011 

7(2) 
and(3) 

Market Monitoring  
Report and recommendations 
from Agency to COM.  
National regulatory authorities 
shall cooperate at regional level 
and with the Agency in 
carrying out the monitoring of 
wholesale energy market 

Reporting 

Annual 

ACER 

Keep separate 

As it is an ACER obligation, 
but the coherence with other 
obligations should be 
addressed 

* Legend: Integrate means the obligation is incorporated in integrated national energy and climate plans, integrated national energy  and climate progress 
reports  and  integrated  Commission  monitoring;  Keep  separate  means  the  obligation  remains  an  entirely  separate  obligation  in  sectorial  legislation  (with 
possible  amendments);  or  Keep  separate  and  reflect  means  the  obligation  remains  a  separate  obligation  in  sectorial  legislation,  which  will  however  be 
reflected in the integrated national energy and climate plans, progress reports and integrated Commission monitoring; Repeal means            the obligation is 
fully repealed from current sectorial legislation and thus removed from the EU energy and climate acquis. 

Page 69 of 138 

 
 
 
 
Table 3: Overview of classification of obligations in the MMR including recommendations 

Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

4 

updates 
every 
years 

2 

Obligation 
to 
prepare  a  LCDS, 
to report on the 
status 
of 
implementation 
and  to  make  it 
available  to  the 
public 

Planning / 
Reporting 

MS and EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

The  Article  is  relevant  for  planning  in  the  climate 
field with a long term perspective. While the national 
plans  are  focussed  on  the  Energy  Union's  objectives 
for  2030,  the  LCDS  cover  a  longer  time  frame. 
Consistency  of  the  national  plans  should  be  ensured 
low-carbon  development  strategies  or 
with  the 
similar  future  strategic  planning  obligations  of  the 
EU,  e.g.  mid-century  strategies  under  the  Paris 
Agreement.  However  given  the  different  time 
perspective and objectives of the two documents,  it 
is not possible to be fully streamlined. The Article is 
suitable  to  be  integrated  in  the  new  legislative 
initiative on governance. There are linkages to plans, 
targets and measures reported in NEEAPs and NREAPS 
under energy legislation. The Article is to be revised 
to reflect the new text in the Paris Agreement.  

Page 70 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

The  obligations  regarding  national  inventory  systems 
are  part  of  the  'environment'  of  the  integrated 
national energy and climate plans as they support the 
implementation of the EU objectives by enabling the 
collection  of  data  at  Member  State  level  in  an 
integrated  way.  There  are 
linkages  to  energy 
legislation related to responsibilities for the reporting 
of energy data and information in particular to access 
to  data  reported  under  the  Energy  Statistics 
Regulation. The Article is also important for ensuring 
compliance with international obligations. The Article 
includes 
Statistics 
Regulation.  Closely  linked  with  Article  7  MMR  and  to 
follow  that  Article.    This  article  would  need  to  be 
integrated 
initiative  on 
governance 

in  the  new 

the  Energy 

references 

legislative 

to 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

5 

updates 
every 
years 

2 

Requirements 
for 
Member 
States'  national 
inventory 
systems  

Other/rep
orting 

MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 71 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

As the Article establishes the Union inventory system, 
it is linked to the Union inventory of GHG emissions, 
which  includes  the  data  on  the  EU's  GHG  emissions 
and  shows  where  the  EU  -  overall-  stands.  Though  it 
does  not  contain  a  planning  or  reporting  obligation 
for  Member  States,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
integrated  in  Member  States'  plans  or  progress 
reports,  the  Article  is  important  as  it  supports  the 
implementation  of  EU  objectives  as  it  ensures  the 
transparency,  accuracy,  consistency, 
timeliness, 
comparability 
national 
inventories  and  the  Union  inventory.  In  this  way,  it 
contributes  to  enabling  the  assessment  of  progress 
towards 
international  climate  action 
commitments,  which  are  linked  to  the  EU's  domestic 
targets to reduce GHG emissions and is therefore also 
important  for  the  Energy  Union.  The  Article  is  also 
important for ensuring compliance with international 
obligations.  Closely  linked  to  Article  7  MMR  and  to 
follow  that  Article.  Consequently,  this  article  would 
need to be integrated in the new legislative initiative 
on governance 

completeness 

the  EU's 

and 

of 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

6 

N/A 

Union  inventory 
system 

Other/rep
orting 

EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 72 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

7 

annual 

Reporting 
obligations 
on 
Member  States' 
greenhouse  gas 
inventories  and 
obligation 
for 
the  Commission 
to  compile  the 
Union 
greenhouse  gas 
inventory 

Reporting 

MS and EC 

Integrate 
National 
and 
Reports) 

(in 
Plans 
Progress 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 73 of 138 

The  Article  is  important  for  providing  data  to  assess 
compliance  with  the  ESD  targets  and  for  ensuring 
compliance with international obligations. It is linked 
to  integrated  national  energy  and  climate  plans  and 
reporting on progress on the delivery of the plans and 
suitable  to  be  integrated  in  the  legislative  initiative 
on  governance.    It  supports  the  implementation  of 
the EU objectives as it enables the collection of data 
at  Member  State  level  in  an  integrated  way.  There 
are  linkages  with  Energy  Statistics  Regulation  and 
data  reported  under  that  Regulation  to  Eurostat  and 
inconsistencies between inventory data and the data 
reported  under  the  Energy  Statistics  Regulation  that 
derive  from  differences  in  definitions  applied  and 
timelines  for  reporting  and  updating  data.  Also 
linkages  with  indicators  used  in  the  energy  sector 
reporting. To be streamlined taking into account the 
work  on  indicators  done  in  the  framework  of  the 
Energy  Union.  Annex  I  to  the  MMR,  which  includes  a 
list  of  GHG  Member  States  have  to  report  in  their 
GHG  inventories,    is  to  follow  Article  7.The  list  of 
indicators  in  Annex  III  to  the  MMR,  is  to  be  updated 
and  streamlined  taking  into  consideration  the  work 
on  indicators  done  in  the  framework  of  the  Energy 
Union and to follow Article 7 MMR. This article needs 
to  be  integrated  in  the  plans  and  progress  report 
after  possible  revision  to  streamline  it  with  the 
energy 
Statistics 
Regulation). 

(especially 

Energy 

acquis 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

8 

annual 

Requires 
Member  States 
report 
to 
approximated 
greenhouse  gas 
inventories 

Reporting 

MS 

Integrate 
National 
and 
Reports) 

(in 
Plans 
Progress 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Article  important  for  tracking  annual  progress  with 
GHG  emissions  targets,  as  it  provides  approximated 
data for the year x-1 as compared to the inventories 
which  contain  data  on  GHG  emission  with  two  years 
lag (relating to the year x-2). Relevant for the Energy 
Union  as  it  provides  data  to  track  progress  to  ESD 
targets  and  -linked-  international  targets.  Therefore 
also  linked  to  the  integrated  national  energy  and 
climate  plans  and  the  reporting  on  progress  towards 
the  targets,  objectives  and  trajectories  laid  down  in 
these  plans.  To  follow  Article  7  MMR.  This  article 
needs  to  be  integrated  in  the  plans  and  progress 
reports. 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

9 

N/A 

for 

Procedures 
completing 
emission 
to 
estimates 
compile 
the 
Union  inventory 
(gap filling) 

Other 

MS and EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 74 of 138 

It 

international  obligations. 

important  for  ensuring  compliance  with 
Article 
internal  and 
sets 
modalities  and  procedures  in  case  Member  States  do 
not report their  GHG inventories within the required 
deadlines.  It    is  important  for  tracking  progress 
towards  ESD  GHG  emission  reduction  targets,  as  it 
allows  the  Commission  to  fill  in  the  missing  GHG 
emissions  data  in  case  Member  States  do  not  submit 
it.  Therefore  it  is  also  important  in  the  context  of 
assessing the direction the EU is going with regard to 
its 2030 climate target. To follow Article 7 MMR. This 
article  would  need  to  be  integrated  in  the  new 
legislative initiative on governance. 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

10 

N/A 

Establishment 
and operation of 
registries 
(for 
Kyoto  Protocol 
units) 

Other 

MS and EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Article 
important  for  ensuring  compliance  with 
international  obligations  (UNFCCC)  and  the  ESD 
targets.  The  Union  Registry  enables  the  use  of 
flexibilities under the ESD. The information contained 
in  the  registry  will  be  paramount  for  an  accurate 
tracking  of  progress  with  the  ESD  targets.  To  be 
revised in light of the outcome of negotiations on the 
further detailed rules for implementation of the Paris 
Agreement. Establishment and operation of registries 
is  a  precondition  for  the  retirement  of  units  (Article 
11  MMR)  and  reports  on  the  additional  period  for 
fulfilling  commitments  under  the  Kyoto  Protocol 
(Article  22  MMR).This  article  needs  to  be  integrated 
in  the  new  legislative  initiative  on  governance  after 
revision  to  take  in  consideration  the  developments 
under  the  Paris  agreement  and  to  delete  the  parts 
relating to the Kyoto Protocol. 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

11 

N/A 

Retirement 
of 
units  under  the 
Kyoto Protocol 

Other 

MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 75 of 138 

Article 
important  for  ensuring  compliance  with 
international obligations (UNFCCC). Though the Kyoto 
Protocol  second  commitment  period  runs  until  the 
end of 2020, retirement of units needs to take place 
after 
fulfilling 
commitments, in 2023. This Article needs be included 
in  the  new  legislative  initiative  on  governance  after 
first 
deletion  of 
commitment  period  of  the  Kyoto  Protocol.  Linked  to 
Article 11 and Article 22 MMR. 

the  parts 

additional 

referring 

period 

the 

the 

for 

to 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

12 

 updates 
every  two 
years 

National 
systems 
policies 
measures 
projections 

of 
and 
and 

Other/rep
orting 

MS and EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

13 

every  two 
years 

Reporting 
obligations 
for 
Member  States 
to 
related 
on 
reporting 
policies 
and 
measures 
relevant 
climate action 

for 

Reporting 

MS 

Integrate 
National 
and 
Reports) 

(in 
Plans 
Progress 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Article  important  for  reporting  on  progress  with  the 
national  plans.  It  supports  the  implementation  of  EU 
objectives  as  it  ensures  systems  for  reporting  are  in 
place  and  continuously  improved,  and  it  ensures  the 
timeliness, 
transparency,  accuracy,  consistency, 
comparability  and  completeness  of  the  information 
reported.  The  scope  of  the  national  systems  should 
be  broadened  to  include  integration  between  energy 
and  climate  enabling  the  compilation  of  coordinated 
progress  reports.  This  Article  needs  to  be  integrated 
in  the  new  legislative  initiative  on  governance  after 
streamlining with ENER acquis. 

important  with  regard  to  policies  and 
Article 
measures  in  the  context  of  the  integrated  national 
energy  and  climate  plans.  Linkages  with  energy 
legislation  (reporting  of  policies  and  measures  under 
EED,  RED),  where  streamlining  could  take  place  to 
avoid  double  reporting  of  policies  and  measures. 
Suitable  to  be 
integrated  to  reduce  overlaps, 
incoherence  and  inconsistencies.  Also  important  for 
ensuring  compliance  with  international  obligations. 
This  Article  needs  to  be  integrated  in  the  plans  and 
progress reports after streamlining with ENER acquis. 

Page 76 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

14 

every  two 
years 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

15 

every 
years 

4 

Reporting 
obligations 
for 
Member  States 
to 
related 
projections 
of 
greenhouse  gas 
emissions 

Member  States' 
reporting 
of 
information  on 
national 
adaptation 
planning 
strategies 

and 

Reporting 

MS 

Integrate 
National 
and 
Reports) 

(in 
Plans 
Progress 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Reporting 

MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Article  important  with  regard  to  projections  in  the 
context of the integrated national energy and climate 
plans.  Linkages  with  energy  legislation  where  also 
reporting  on  projected  information  takes  place. 
Suitable to be streamlined to come to a single set of 
integrated  climate  and  energy  projections.  Also 
important for ensuring compliance with international 
obligations. This Article needs to be integrated in the 
plans  and  progress  reports  after  streamlining  with 
ENER acquis. 

Indirect link with the integrated national energy and 
climate  plans,  as  information  on  adaptation  is  also 
included  in  the  integrated  national  energy  and 
climate  plans  which  are  to  be  coherent  and 
consistent with the national adaptation actions plans. 
It  is  suitable  to  be  integrated  in  the  legislative 
initiative  on  governance.  Relates  to  UNFCCC.  This 
Article  needs  to  be  included  in  the  new  legislative 
initiative on governance  after revision in light of the 
Paris Agreement. 

Page 77 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

16 

annual 

to 
and 

Member  States' 
reporting 
related 
financial 
technology 
support 
provided 
developing 
countries 

to 

in  order 

implementation, 

In  the  context  of  the  UNFCCC  and  Paris  Agreement, 
the  EU  and  its  Member  States  are  committed  to 
scaling  up  the  mobilisation  of  climate  finance  in  the 
context  of  meaningful  mitigation  actions  and 
transparency  of 
to 
contribute  their  share  of  the  developed  countries' 
goal  to  jointly  mobilise  USD  100  billion  per  year  by 
2020 from a wide variety of sources. The EU needs to 
support finance commitments with concrete data and 
information. 
this 
information in the legislative initiative on governance 
is important in order to ensure that all the reporting 
obligations  relating  to  the  implementation  of  the 
UNFCCC are included in a single legal act. This Article 
needs to be included in the new legislative initiative 
on  governance  after  revision  in  light  of  the  Paris 
Agreement. 

Integration  of 

reporting  of 

Reporting 

MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 78 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

these 

that  parts  of 

Reporting on the use of revenues from the auctioning 
of  emission  allowances  under  the  EU  emissions 
trading  system  suitable  to  be  integrated  as  it  is 
expected 
sums  will  be 
underpinning  the  financing  component  of  the  plans 
since  MS  are  expected  to  use  50%  of  these  revenues 
for  climate  purposes.  Article  also  important  for 
implementation of the ESD as it relates to the use of 
flexible  mechanisms  under  this  decision.  Suitable  to 
be  integrated  as  it  will  be  an  integral  part  of  the 
analysis under the decarbonisation component of the 
integrated  national  energy  and  climate  plans.  This 
article  needs  to  be  included  partly  in  the  plans, 
partly in the reporting on progress with the plans. 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

17 

annual 

on 
from 
auctioning 
emission 

Reporting 
revenues 
the 
of 
allowances 
under 
emissions 
trading 
system 
and  on  the  use 
of 
project 
credits  from  the 
ESD 

the  EU 

Reporting 

MS 

Integrate 
National 
and 
Reports) 

(in 
Plans 
Progress 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 79 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

18 

every  four 
years 

Union 
and 
Member  States' 
of 
submission 
National 
Communications 
and 
Biennial 
Reports  to  the 
and 
UNFCCC 
copies 
the 
to 
Commission 

Reporting 

MS and EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
No 
(EU) 
525/2013 

19 

annual 

Review  of  GHG 
for 
inventories 
ESD purposes 

Other 

EC 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 80 of 138 

to 

reporting 

international 

the  UNFCCC;  4 

Relates 
yearly  national 
communications  (international  requirement)  require 
reporting  on  a  country's  national  circumstances, 
actual  emissions,  policies  and  measures,  projected 
emissions,  financial  and  technology  support  provided 
to  developing  countries,  adaptation,  research  and 
systematic  observation  and  education.  The  MMR 
includes  all  reporting  requirements  related  to  this. 
Keeping 
national 
communications  and  biennial  reports  together  with 
reporting  obligations  linked  to  international  reports 
(e.g.  projected  emissions,  policies  and  measures) 
enables  easier  access  to  data,  and  leads  to  more 
consistency  and  higher  credibility  of  information 
reported  to  the  Commission  and  internationally.  No 
direct link with the national plans, but the reporting 
under the national plans needs to be consistent with 
the  reporting  of  National  Communications  and 
Biennial Reports. Suitable to be integrated in the new 
legislative  initiative  on  governance  in  light  of  the 
Paris Agreement. 

of 

in  the 

important  for  ESD 

implementation.  This 
Article 
Article  should  be 
legislative 
integrated 
initiative  on  governance  as  the  provision  on  the  ESD 
review  forms  part  of  the  "environment"  of  the  plans 
and supports the implementation of the EU objectives 
by  making  the  information  more  accurate.  Needs 
redrafting to apply to the new ESD. This Article needs 
to  be  included  in  the  new  legislative  initiative  on 
governance  after  revision  in  light  of  the  Effort 
Sharing Regulation proposal of the Commission. 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

20 

N/A 

the 
Addressing 
effects 
of 
recalculations in 
the ESD 

Other 

EC 

Repeal 

Governance 
to 
repeal 
obligation 

act 
the 

The  provision  on  addressing 
the  effect  of 
recalculations in the ESD is not needed for the Effort 
Sharing Decision post 2020 and can be deleted. Annex 
II  to  the  MMR  (Formula  to  calculate  the  sum  of  the 
effects  of  the  recalculated  GHG  emissions  for  each 
MS) is to follow Article 20(1) of the MMR. 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

21 

annual 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

22 

in 2023 

on 

Commission 
reporting 
progress 
towards 
international 
and ESD targets 

Union 
and 
Member  States 
to submit report 
to  the  UNFCCC 
on 
the 
additional 
period 
fulfilling 
commitments 
under  the  Kyoto 
Protocol 

for 

Reporting 

EC 

Integrate  (in  the 
Commission's 
monitoring 
Report) 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Reporting 

EC and MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Commission  report  on  progress  towards  EU  targets 
and international  commitments. Report submitted to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  and  also 
used  internationally  to  demonstrate  at  the  annual 
Climate Conferences, what action the EU is taking in 
the  climate  field  and  to  show  progress  towards  its 
international commitments. Suitable to be integrated 
with  the  Commission's  report  in  the  context  of  the 
governance of the Energy Union. 

Relates to the UNFCCC/ Kyoto Protocol. Relevant for 
the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol 
after  expiry  at  the  end  of  2020,  as  it  deals  with 
reports  that  are  to  be  drawn  up  after  the  expiration 
of  the  second  commitment  period.  No  direct  link  to 
the national climate and energy plans. However, this 
Article  should  be  integrated  in  the  new  legislative 
initiative on governance after revision. 

Page 81 of 138 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

23 

N/A 

Cooperation 
between 
Member  States 
and the Union 

Other 

EC and MS 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

24 

N/A 

the 

Role 
of 
European 
Environment 
Agency 

Other 

EEA 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

Page 82 of 138 

Full  cooperation  and  coordination  between  the 
Member States and the Commission is paramount, for 
example  in  the  context  of  inventory  reviews.  Full 
cooperation  and  coordination  will  also  be  important 
in the context of the governance of the Energy Union. 
Article  linked  to  Article  7  MMR.  Needs  to  follow 
Article  7  of  the  MMR.  This  Article  needs  to  be 
initiative  on 
integrated 
governance. 

in  the  new 

legislative 

The EEA assists the Commission in its work to comply 
with various Articles of the MMR , including tasks that 
are very relevant in the context of the Energy Union, 
such  as  compiling  the  information  reported  by 
Member  States  on  policies  and  measures  and 
projections, performing quality assurance and quality 
control  procedures  on  the  information  reported  by 
Member  States  on  projections  and  policies  and 
measures,  preparing  estimates 
for  data  on 
projections  not  reported  by  the  Member  States  (gap 
filling) and compiling data as required for the annual 
report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
prepared by the Commission (Climate Action Progress 
Report).As  there  are  streamlining  opportunities  as 
regards  projections  and  policies  and  measures,  this 
streamlining also entails consequences as to the role 
of  the  EEA.  To  be  included  in  the  new  legislative 
initiative on governance, 

 
 
Name 
of 
obligation 

Legal 
basis 

Article  Frequency 

Description 
of 
obligation 

Type 
(planning / 
reporting / 
evaluation) 

Entity 
targeted 
by the 
obligation 

Recommendation 
to 
in 
relation 
National 
Plans, 
Progress  Reports, 
Commission 
Monitoring 

Recommendation 
in 
to 
relation 
legislative 
initiative 

Short Reasoning 

Monitoring 
Mechanism 
Regulation 

Regulation 
(EU) 
No 
525/2013 

25 

N/A 

Climate  Change 
to 
Committee 
assist 
the 
Commission 

Other 

N.a. 

Linked 

Integrate 
governance act 

in 

in 

The Climate Change Committee is relevant for all the 
climate acquis (EU ETS, ESD, transport) and has a role 
as  committee 
the  meaning  of  Regulation 
(EU)182/2011.  For  the  purposes  of  the  Energy  Union 
the role of the Committee may have to be updated in 
the context of future implementing powers under the 
legislative initiative on governance. To be integrated 
in the new legislative initiative on governance. 

*  Legend  for  the  column  "Recommendation  in  relation  to  National  Plans,  Progress  Reports,  Commission  Monitoring":  Integrate  means  the  obligation  is 
integrated  in  National  Plans,  Progress  Reports  and  integrated  Commission  monitoring  (and  at  the  same  time  being  amended  in  or  repealed  from  current 
sectorial  legislation);  Linked  means  the  obligation  is  remaining  a  separate  obligation  from  National  Plans,  Progress  Reports  and  integrated  Commission 
monitoring but, given its relation to obligations to be integrated in National Plans, Progress Reports and integrated Commission monitoring, linked to those 
obligations and to follow the legal destination of those obligations; Repeal means the obligation is fully repealed from current sectorial legislation and thus 
removed from the EU energy and climate acquis. 

Page 83 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4: In depth overview of streamlining possibilities between energy and climate planning, reporting and monitoring obligations 

Interlinkage between energy 
and climate planning and 
reporting obligations 

Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 
2009/28/EC, Directives (EU) 2015/1513 & 
Commisssion Decision 2009/548/EC 
(Template for NREAP)) 

MMR Art. 4(2) Status of 
implementation of low-carbon 
development strategy (LCDS) 
and MMR Art. 13(1)(b) 
Report on updates to the 
LCDS and progress in 
implementation 

LCDS should be expected to be consistent 
with NREAP and refer to renewable 
targets as they are presenting an 
important contribution to the low-carbon 
development.  

Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive 
2012/27/EU and 2009/125/EC, 
Commission Staff Working Document 
SWD(2013)180 final (Template for 
NEEAPs) 
LCDS should be expected to be 
consistent to NEEAP and refer to energy 
efficiency targets as they are presenting 
an important contribution to the low-
carbon development.  

Directive on the Energy 
Performance of Buildings 
(EPB) (Directive 
2010/31/EU) 

LCDS should be expected be 
consistent to National plans 
for nearly zero-energy 
buildings and EPB-related 
measures and instruments 

Regulation on Energy 
Statistics 

Biofuels and 
bioliquids reporting 
requirements in the 
MRR under the ETS 

- 

- 

Streamlining would be recommended 

Streamlining would be recommended 

MMR 7(1) Greenhouse gas 
inventories 

Biomass use in TJ; CO2 emissions from 
biomass/biofuel/bioliquids + Gross final 
consumption to be consistent with total 
consumption used in GHG inventories.  

Reporting on GHG reduction + 
Reporting on energy consumption, 
GVA, GDP and certain activities (Annex 
XIV).  

- 

Conclusion: Under the RED 
sustainability criteria for biofuel and 
bioliquids are defined more precisely than 
for GHG inventory reporting. 

Conclusion: Primary energy 
consumption used for the calculation of 
ex-post savings on primary energy 
consumption should match to 
consumption considered in GHG 
inventories 

Calculation of 
emissions from 
biomass/bioliquids/bio
fuels.  

Conclusion: 
Definition of biomass 
under the EU ETS is 
consistent with RES 
Directive 

Annual reporting of 
energy consumption.  

Conclusion: Energy 
consumption reported 
under the Energy 
Statistics Regulation 
should match to 
reporting in inventory. 
Fact addressed by 
MMR 7 (m). 
Comparison in Annex 
VI of Implementing 
Regulation 749/2014 

Page 84 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MMR Art. 13 Information on 
national policies and measures 

MMR Art. 14 Reporting on 
projections 

Conclusion: Under the RED relevant 
PaMs are also reported at a more 
disaggregate level; some elements of 
reporting are the same (type of measure, 
status of measure) as under MMR but 
notation is different.   
Reporting intervals between RED and 
MMR differ. Calculation of emissions 
savings follows harmonized methodology 
under RED which is different from MMR 
approach. 

Streamlining would be recommended 

Conclusion: Under the EED relevant 
PAMS are reported. The focus here is on 
other aspects than under the MMR and 
the reporting is much more detailed 
under EED. Streamlining the way 
information is reported may be helpful 
in order to facilitate less reporting effort 
and comparability of information 
between reporting streams. 

Reporting intervals between EED and 
MMR differ - EED NEEAPs triannual 
April 30; MMR biennial March 15  

 Streamlining would be recommended 

Conclusion: Expected trajectories in 
NREAPs were relevant for GHG 
projections, but currently outdated and 
only reported once, expected information 
in progress reports has more character of 
road map or policy targets than a 
projection. Due to accounting rules, 
energy data under MMR and data in RES 
reports is not directly comparable. 
Calculation of GHG impacts not 
comparable between RED and MMR. 

Conclusion: Expected energy efficiency 
targets in principle comparable to the 
projection parameters under MMR. 
However actually they do not seem to be 
incorporated into with measures or with 
additional measures scenarios under 
MMR, information in NEEAPs should 
be reflected in MMR scenarios but 
usually MMR projections are higher  

Streamlining would be recommended 

- 

- 

Conclusion: Under EPBD 
policies and measures also 
relevant under MMR may 
be reported.  It is 
encouraged to integrate this 
reporting under the 
NEEAPs.  

Streamlining would be 
recommended 

- 

not relevant in this 
context 

not relevant in this 
context 

Page 85 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  

The  reporting  obligations  for  the  Commission  contained  in  article  34  of  the  ACER 
Regulation to be performed at least every four years aim at evaluating the results achieved, 
working methods, mandate and tasks of the agency by the Commission and reporting on the 
results  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  The  main  objective  of  this  article  is 
therefore to evaluate the work of the agency and to provide for transparency of its activities.  

The agency itself has annual reporting obligations contained in articles 11 and 13(12). Article 
11  aims  at  the  monitoring  of  the  internal  electricity  and  natural  gas  markets  and  the 
publication  of  an  annual  report  by  the  agency  on  this  to  the  general  public.  The  annual 
reporting obligations contained in article 13(12) aim at the publication of an annual report on 
the  activities  of  the  agency  with  the  aim  of  monitoring  the  agency's  work  and  informing 
European institutions and the public.  

The Connecting Europe Facility Regulation contains an obligation for MS in article 22 to 
report to the Commission on the progress made in implementing projects of common interest 
and  the  investments  made  with  the  aim  ensuring  the  timely  delivery  of  the  EU  co-funded 
projects as well as informing the public about the state of play of these.  

The  Crude  Oil  Imports  Regulation  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  articles  2  and  7  to 
provide  each  other  and  the  Commission  with  information  on  the  import  of  crude  oil.  The 
Commission is obliged in article 8 to analyse the information received and communicate it to 
the MS with the aim of increasing transparency and providing information in order to stabilise 
the  Community  market  and  ensure  that  abnormal  world  market  fluctuations  do  not  have  an 
unfavourable impact on the community market.  

The  Electricity  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article  4  to  monitor  security  of 
supply issues and publish every two years a report outlining their findings resulting from this 
monitoring as well as on any measures taken or envisaged by the respective MS. The report 
has  to  be  provided  to  the  Commission  and  aims  at  enabling  the  Commission  to  monitor  the 
security of energy supply at MS and EU levels.  

Article 22 foresees and obligation for Transmission System Operators (TSOs) to submit every 
year  a  ten-year  network  development  plan  to  the  respective  National  Regulatory  Authority 
(NRA) based on existing and forecasted supply and demand containing efficient measures in 
order to guarantee the adequacy of the system and security of supply.  

Article 37(1e) foresees and obligation for NRAs to report annually on their activities and the 
fulfilment of their duties to the relevant national authorities, the Agency for the Cooperation 
of  Energy  Regulators  (ACER)  and  to  the  Commission  with  the  aim  of  enabling  these  to 
monitor  the  implementation  of  activities  and  obligations  contained  in  the  directive  by  the 
NRAs.  

The Commission is due according to article 47 to monitor the application of the directive and 
report  annually  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  overall  progress  on  the 
internal  market  of  electricity  including  MS  measures  for  improving  competition  on  the 

 
 
market.  Where  appropriate,  the  Commission  may  issue  recommendations.  The  main  aim  of 
this  obligation  is  to  monitor  and  demonstrate  the  progress  in  the  completion  of  the  internal 
energy market for electricity.  

The  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  contains  a  total  of  seven  planning  and  seven  regular 
reporting or monitoring obligations:  

Articles  3,  24(2)  and  annex  XIV  (part  2)  provide  the  legal  basis  for  the  National  Energy 
Efficiency  Plans  (NEEAPs).  Article  3  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  to  set  an  indicative 
national  energy  efficiency  target,  which  should  take  into  account  inter  alia  the  overall  EU 
wide reduction in primary energy consumption. Article 24 foresees the obligation for MS to 
submit  their  NEEAPs  to  the  Commission.  These  plans  cover  significant  energy  efficiency 
improvements measures such as expected and/or achieved energy savings in view of realizing 
the  national  energy  efficiency  targets  including  updated  estimates  of  the  overall  primary 
energy  consumption  in  2020.  These  obligations  aim  at  encouraging  MS  to  set  up  clear  and 
comprehensive plans and to be able to check if the proposed measures and policy changes are 
sufficient  to  reach  the  2020  targets.  Furthermore,  the  plans  should  be  used  in  a  round  of 
modelling with different macroeconomic models to verify and complement the results.  

Article 4 of the directive foresees the obligation for MS to establish long-term strategies for 
mobilising  investments  in  the  renovation  of  the  national  building  stocks  and  communicate 
them  to  the  Commission  as  part  of  the  NEEAPs.  The  main  aims  of  this  obligation  are  to 
ensure that a long-term strategy is developed, that an overview of the respective MS's national 
building  stock  is  provided,  that  key  policies  foreseen  to  be  used  by  the  MS  to  stimulate 
renovations are identified and that an estimate of the expected energy savings resulting from 
these renovations is provided.  

Article  7(9)  provides  the  basis  for  MS's  planning  obligation  to  notify  alternative  policy 
measures to energy efficiency obligation schemes and annex V point 4 provides the obligation 
for  MS  to  notify  their  detailed  proposed  methodology  for  the  operation  of  the  energy 
efficiency obligation schemes to the Commission.  

The planning obligation for MS under article 14(1) and annex VIII on the assessment of the 
potential of cogeneration as well as district heating and cooling with the aim of setting up a 
framework to trigger investments in efficient district heating and cooling and to facilitate the 
identification  of  the  most  resource  and  cost  effective  solutions  to  meeting  the  respective 
heating and cooling needs.  

Article 24(1) as well as annex XIV (part 1) provide the basis for the MS obligation to produce 
annual  progress  reports  for  the  Commission.  The  aim  of  these  obligations  is  to  provide  the 
basis for the Commission's monitoring of progress towards the 2020 targets and that each MS 
achieves cumulative end-use energy savings by 31 December 2020 as set out in the directive. 
Furthermore,  this  obligation  allows  identifying  best-performers  as  well  as  those  MS  with  a 
need for strengthening their performance.  

The  Commission  is  due  under  article  24(3)  to  assess  and  evaluate  the  plans  and  reports 
submitted by the MS with the aim of determining the extent to which MS have made progress 
towards the achievement of the respective targets and on the implementation of the directive. 
The result of this evaluation has to be reported to the European Parliament and the Council. 

Page 87 of 138 

 
 
Furthermore article 24(11) foresees the obligation for the Commission to make the reports and 
plans produced by MS under articles 24(1) and 24(2) publicly available.  

Article  24(4)  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  monitor  the  impact  of  the 
implementation of the Energy Efficiency Directive on the ETS Directive157, on the Renewable 
Energy  Directive,  on  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  and  on  the  Effort 
Sharing Decision158 as well as on industrial sectors particularly exposed to a significant risk of 
carbon  leakage  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  consistency  and  coherence  among  these  Union 
policies and directives.  

Article 24(5) foresees the obligation for the Commission to report to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the continued need of possible exemptions set out in article 14(6) for cost-
benefits  analysis  for  cogeneration  and  efficient  district  heating  and  cooling  with  the  aim  of 
assessing whether the criteria for these exemptions can still be justified taking into account the 
availability of heat load and the real operating conditions of the exempted installation.  

The annual reporting obligation for MS to the Commission contained in article 24(6) on the 
submission of energy statistics related to inter alia electricity and heat production from high 
and  low  efficiency  cogeneration,  cogeneration  capacities  for  heat  and  electricity  and  on 
district heating and cooling capacities aims at providing the Commission with the necessary 
data to assess the progress made by the MS towards the achievement of the 2020 targets for 
energy efficiency.  

The Energy Labelling Directive foresees the obligation for MS in article 3(3) to report to the 
Commission every four years on the enforcement activities for the directive and the level of 
compliance in the respective MS with the aim of allowing the Commission to verify whether 
compliance rates are increasing as a result of market surveillance enhanced and with a special 
regard to the responsibilities of suppliers and dealers.  

Based  on  these  MS  reports,  the  Commission  is  due  according  to  article  3(4)  to  regularly 
provide  a  synthesis  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  with  the  aim  of 
informing them as well as the general European public and increasing overall transparency. 

The  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article 
9(1) to draw up national plans for increasing the number of nearly zero-energy buildings with 
the  aim  of  ensuring  reaching  the  target  of  all  new  buildings  as  of  31  December  2020  being 
nearly zero-energy buildings and that all new government occupied or owned buildings being 
nearly zero-energy buildings by the end of 2018. The obligation enables the Commission to 
check  whether  the  national  plans  submitted  including  the  proposed  measures  and  policy 
changes are sufficient for target achievement. To this end and in virtue of article 9(5) of that 
directive,  the  Commission  shall  report  on  a regular  basis and  develop an  action  plan  and,  if 
necessary,  propose  measures  to  increase  the  number  of  those  buildings  and  encourage  best 

157  Directive  2003/87/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  October  2003  establishing  a 
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 
96/61/EC. 
158 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of 
Member  States  to  reduce  their  greenhouse  gas  emissions  to  meet  the  Community's  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
reduction commitments up to 2020. 

Page 88 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
practices  as  regards  the  cost-effective  transformation  of  existing  buildings  into  nearly  zero-
energy buildings.  

Article 10(2) requires MS to provide a list of existing and proposed measures and instruments 
including financial ones promoting the objective of the directive but not stemming from it to 
the Commission and update this list every three years. Furthermore, article 10(3) requires that 
the  Commission  assesses  the  effectiveness  of  these  measures  and  provides  advice  and 
recommendations where needed.  

Article 5(2) foresees the obligation for MS to calculate and submit to the Commission a report 
on the cost-optimal levels of minimum energy performance requirements for buildings in line 
with  Delegated  Regulation  2012/244/EU.  The  aim  of  this  obligation  is  to  improve  the 
ambition levels of Member States towards cost-optimal energy performance requirements. 

The Commission is obliged in virtue of article 5(4) to publish a report on this progress made 
by MS in this respect.  

The Energy Statistics Regulation foresees the obligations for MS in article 4(1a, b & c) and 
in article 5 to provide the Commission (Eurostat) with statistical energy data on an annual (a), 
monthly (b) and short-term monthly (c) basis. The aim of these obligations is to ensure that 
precise  and  timely  data  on  energy  quantities,  their  forms,  sources,  generation,  supply, 
transformation  and  consumption  is  available  and  can  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  monitoring 
the impact and consequences of the policy work on energy.  

Article  5(5)  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  (Eurostat)  to  disseminate  yearly 
energy statistics based on the above-mentioned reports from MS with the aims of transparency 
and providing data and information to the general public.  

Furthermore, article 6(4) foresees an obligation for MS to provide the Commission (Eurostat) 
every  five  years  with  a  report  on  the  quality  of  the  data  transmitted  to  the  Commission 
(Eurostat) as well as any methodological changes made by the MS if applicable. The aim of 
this obligation is to ensure the quality of the data provided to the Commission (Eurostat) by 
the MS.  

The  Euratom  Supply Agency Statues Council Decision in  Article 3 of the annex foresees 
the obligation for the Commission in the form of the Director-General of the Euratom Supply 
Agency  to  submit  a  yearly  report  on  the  activities  of  the  agency  in  the  previous  year  and  a 
work  programme  for  the  coming  year  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the 
Commission. The aim of this obligation is to enable the Commission to supervise the activities 
of the agency and be able to observe developments in the nuclear fuel market in the context of 
supply security.  

The  Financial  Assistance  in  the  Field  of  Energy  Regulation  foresees  in  article  28  an 
obligation for the Commission to report yearly on the implementation of the European Energy 
Programme  for  Recovery  established  by  the  regulation  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council. The aim of this obligation is to help identifying serious risks in the implementation 
of  the  priority  projects  as  well  as  to  recommend  measures  to  offset  those  risks  and,  where 
appropriate and consistent with the Recovery plan, make additional project proposals.  

Page 89 of 138 

 
 
The  Gas  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article  5  to  monitor  gas  security  of 
supply  issues  and  publish  every  year  a  report  outlining  their  findings  resulting  from  this 
monitoring as well as on any measures taken or envisaged to address them. The report has to 
be provided to the Commission and aims at enabling the Commission to monitor the security 
of energy supply at MS and EU levels.  

Article  22  foresees  an  obligation  for  TSOs  to  submit  every  year  a  ten-year  network 
development  plan  to  the  respective  National  Regulatory  Authority  (NRA)  based  on  existing 
and  forecast  supply  and  demand  containing  efficient  measures  in  order  to  guarantee  the 
adequacy of the system and security of supply.  

Furthermore,  article  41(1e)  foresees  and  obligation  for  NRAs  to  report  annually  on  their 
activities and the fulfilment of their duties to the relevant national authorities, ACER and to 
the  Commission  with  the  aim  of  enabling  these  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  activities 
and obligations contained in the directive by the NRAs.  

The Commission is obliged in Article 52 to monitor the application of the directive and report 
annually to the European Parliament and the Council on the overall progress on the internal 
gas  market  including  MS's  measures  for  improving  competition  on  the  market.  Where 
appropriate, the Commission may issue recommendations. The main aim of this obligation is 
to monitor and demonstrate the progress in the completion of the internal energy market for 
natural gas.  

The Hydrocarbons Directive foresees the obligation for MS in article 9 to report annually to 
the Commission on the geographical areas opened to prospection, exploration and exploitation 
as well as on the granted authorisations, the beneficiaries of these and the estimated reserves 
on the respective MS's territory. The aim of this obligation is to ensure a non-discriminatory 
access  to  and  pursuit  of  activities  related  to  the  prospection,  exploration  and  exploitation  of 
hydrocarbons  under  conditions  which  encourage  greater  competition  in  the  sector  thereby 
favouring best performers and reinforcing the integration of the internal energy market.  

Furthermore,  article  8(2)  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  periodically 
without setting a specific timeline to the Council on the situation of entities in third countries 
and on the state of any negotiations undertaken with those countries or in the framework of 
international  organisations  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  that  MS's  entities  enjoy  a  treatment  in 
third countries comparable to that enjoyed by third countries' entities within the EU.  

The Infrastructure Regulation foresees the obligation for MS in article 3 to notify data and 
information  on investment projects in the sectors of oil, gas, electricity, biofuels and carbon 
dioxide  transport  and  storage  to  the  Commission  every  two  years.  The  details  of  what  data 
needs to be reported are being spelled out in article 5. The aim of this obligation is to provide 
a  consistent  view  of  the  future  developments  of  the  Union's  energy  system  as  a  whole  and 
provide  a  harmonised  reporting  framework  for  investment  projects  which  should  allow 
anticipating problems, promoting best practices and establishing greater transparency.  

Based on the data received from the MS, the Commission is obliged in article 10 to produce 
every  two  years  a  cross-sector  analysis  of  the  structural  evolution  and  perspectives  of  the 
Union's energy system. The aim of this obligation is to identify potential future gaps between 
the demand and supply of energy that are of significance for the Union's energy policy with an 
emphasis  on  potential  future  deficiency  and  flaws  in  the  production  and  transmission 

Page 90 of 138 

 
 
infrastructure,  to  identify  investment  obstacles  and  promoting  best  practices  in  addressing 
them  and  to  increase  the  transparency  for  market  participants  as  well  as  potential  market 
entrants.  

The Intergovernmental Agreements Decision159 foresees the obligation for the Commission 
in  article  8  to  report  every  three  years  on  the  information  exchange  mechanism  concerning 
Intergovernmental  Agreements  between  MS  and  third  countries  in  the  field  of  energy.  The 
aims of this obligation are to ensure transparency and coordinated action to ensure that such 
agreements effectively secure energy supply and allow for a closer intra-Union cooperation in 
the field of external energy relations.  

The  Network  Access  for  Cross-Border  Electricity  Exchanges  Regulation  in  article  8 
foresees  the  obligation  for  the  European  Network  of  Transmission  Operators  for  Electricity 
(ENTSO-E)  to  adopt  every  two  years  a  non-binding  Community-wide  ten-year  network 
development  plan  including  a  European  generation  adequacy  outlook  with  the  aim  of 
modelling the integrated network, develop scenarios and assess the resilience of the electricity 
system.  

Article 12(1) foresees the obligation for the TSOs to contribute to the activities of ENTSO-E 
under  article  8  and  to  publish  a  regional  investment  plan  every  two  years  with  the  aim  of 
taking investment decisions based on this plan.  

The  Network  Access  for  Natural  Gas  Transmission  Regulation  in  article  8  foresees  the 
obligation for the European Network of Transmission Operators for Gas (ENTSO-G) to adopt 
every  two  years  a  non-binding  Community-wide  ten-year  network  development  plan 
including  a  European  supply  adequacy  outlook  with  the  aim  of  modelling  the  integrated 
network, develop scenarios and assess the resilience of the gas system.  

Article 12(1) foresees the obligation for the TSOs to contribute to the activities of ENTSO-G 
under  article  8  and  to  publish  a  regional  investment  plan  every  two  years  with  the  aim  of 
taking investment decisions based on this plan.  

The  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  in  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia  Regulation  foresees 
the  obligation  for  the  Commission  in  article  6(1)  to  produce  each  year  a  work  programme 
specifying  the  objectives,  expected  results,  related  performance  indicators  and  timeline  with 
the  aim  of  justifying  the  use  of  funds  and  as  an  input  for  the  examination  procedure. 
Furthermore,  article  6(2)  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  produce  an  annual 
progress report on the implementation of the work carried out in the past years. Another aim 
of this report is to serve as a basis for the annual work programme of the following year.  

The Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance in Lithuania Regulation foresees the obligation 
for  the  Commission  in  article  6(1)  to  produce  each  year  a  work  programme  specifying  the 
objectives,  expected  results,  related  performance  indicators  and  timeline  with  the  aim  of 

159 A proposal for the repeal and replacement of the decision was presented by the Commission in February 2016 
(Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing an information exchange 
mechanism with regard to intergovernmental agreements and non-binding instruments between Member States 
and  third  countries  in  the  field  of  energy  and  repealing  Decision  No  994/2012/EU;  COM(2016)  53  final; 
Brussels; 16 February 2016). However, as the Intergovernmental Agreements Decision of 2012 is still in force, it 
is considered in the Fitness Check.  

Page 91 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
justifying the use of funds and as an input for the examination procedure. Furthermore, article 
6(2) foresees the obligation for the Commission to produce an annual progress report on the 
implementation of the work carried out in the past years. Another aim of this report is to serve 
as a basis for the annual work programme of the following year.  

The Nuclear Indicative Programme (PINC) is a requirement under article 40 of the Euratom 
treaty160  which  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  periodically  publish  nuclear 
energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment.  

The  Nuclear  Safety  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article  8e(1)  to  conduct 
periodic  (at  least  once  every  ten  years)  self-assessments  of  their  national  framework  and 
competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer review with the outcomes of 
these to be reported to other MS and the Commission. The aim of this obligation is to ensure 
continuous improvement of nuclear safety.  

Furthermore, article 8e(2&3) foresees the obligation for MS to ensure a national assessment of 
a specific topic related to nuclear safety of the relevant nuclear installations in their territory 
and the arrangement of topical peer reviews on this assessment at least every six years. The 
relevant reports resulting from this process must be published with the aim of this obligation 
being to share knowledge on the process and technical findings of the peer reviews in order to 
increase nuclear safety.  

Article  9(1)  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  directive 
twice (in 2014 and in 2020), while article 9(2) foresees the obligation for the Commission to 
report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  progress  made  in  the 
implementation of the directive based on the reports submitted by MS with the aim of these 
two obligations being to ensure the implementation of the directive.  

The Offshore Safety Directive foresees the obligation for MS in article 25(1) and annex IX 
(point  3)  to  report  annually  to  the  Commission  on  offshore  oil  and  gas  installations,  their 
safety  and  any  changes  in  the  respective  national  regulatory  framework,  while  the 
Commission is obliged in article  25(3) to publish an annual report based on the information 
received.  The  aim  of  these  two  obligations  is  to  allow  the  Commission  to  monitor  and 
evaluate  the  progress  made  towards  meeting  the  objectives  as  well  as  to  compare  progress 
between different MS, which should also help increasing the public acceptance of offshore oil 
and gas activities by increased transparency. Furthermore, it should allow the Commission to 
monitor  the  development  of  offshore  safety  in  Europe,  encourage  the  transfer  of  knowledge 
and  the  sharing  of  lessons  learned  as  well  as  promoting  continuous  improvement  in  the 
prevention of major incidents.  

The  Oil  Stocks  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article  6  to  keep  a  continually 
updated and detailed register of all emergency stocks held and to report annually on the stock 
register to the Commission with the aim of providing the Commission with an overview of the 
quantities and nature of the emergency stocks included in the register.  

Articles 9(4) and 9(5) oblige MS to either maintain a certain level of specific stocks and notify 
them to  the Commission  (obligation in  article 9(4)) or,  if the MS in  question  decides  not  to 

160 Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, 25 March 1957, Rome. 

Page 92 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
hold  specific  stocks,  to  report  annually  to  the  Commission  (obligation  in  article  9(5))  on 
measures  taken  to  ensure  and  verify  the  availability  and  physical  accessibility  of  its 
emergency stocks.   

Furthermore,  the  Directive  foresees  an  obligation  for  MS  to  provide  the  Commission  with 
monthly statistical summaries of emergency stocks (article 12), of specific stocks (article 13) 
and  of  commercial  stocks  (article  14)  with  the  aim  of  ensuring  an  up-to-date  overview  of 
emergency  stock  levels,  specific  stock  levels  and  commercial  stock  levels.  In  addition,  the 
commercial  stock  level  also  provides  an  indication  of  the  tightness  of  the  market  and  its 
influence on crude prices.  

The Petrol Products Consumer Prices and Crude Oil Supply Costs Council Decision and 
the related Commission Implementing Regulation foresees the obligation for MS in article 
3(1) to report monthly to the Commission on the crude oil supply costs and on the consumer 
prices of petroleum products net of duties and taxes and including all taxes and in article 3(2) 
to report weekly on the consumer prices for petroleum products net of duties and taxes. The 
aim  of  these  obligations  is  to  enable  the  Commission  to  monitor  oil  costs  and  petroleum 
product prices.  

Based  on  this  information  from  MS,  the  Commission  is  obliged  in  article  4  to  publish  each 
month the crude oil supply costs and the consumer prices of petroleum products net of duties 
and  taxes  and  inclusive  of  duties  and  taxes  as  well  as  weekly  the  consumer  prices  of 
petroleum  products  net  of  duets  and  taxes  with  the  aim  of  increasing  transparency  and 
informing the public on oil costs and petroleum product prices161.  

The Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Directive foresees the obligation for MS in article 
14(1)  to  report  every  three  years  on  the  implementation  of  the  directive  and  it  foresees  the 
obligation for the Commission in article 14(2) to report on the basis of the MS' reports to the 
European Parliament and the Council with the aim of providing information on the progress 
made in the implementation, as well as on the inventories of radioactive waste and spent fuel 
present in the Union's territory.  

Furthermore, article 14(3) foresees the obligation for MS to arrange for a self-assessment of 
their  national  framework,  competent  regulatory  authority,  national  programme  and  its 
implementation at least every ten years and invite an international peer review. The outcomes 
of these peer review need to be reported to the Commission and made publicly available with 
the aim of ensuring that high safety standards are achieved in the safe management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste.  

The  Renewable  Energy  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article  4  and  linked  to 
annex VI to adopt a National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) with the aim of setting 
out  MS's  national  targets  for  the  share  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  in  transport,  in 
electricity as well as in heating and cooling for 2020. Furthermore, the plans should take into 
account  the  effects  of  other  policy  measures  relating  to  energy  efficiency  and  the  adequate 
measures  taken  to  achieve  those  national  overall  targets,  including  inter  alia  cooperation 

161  In  article  4  of  the  "Commission  Decision  1999/566/EC  of  26  July  1999  implementing  Council  Decision 
1999/280/EC regarding a Community procedure for information and consultation on crude oil supply costs and 
the consumer prices of petroleum products" this weekly and  monthly publication was named "Oil Bulletin".  

Page 93 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
between local, regional and national authorities. The submission of these NREAPs should also 
enable the Commission to evaluate the plans, notably the adequacy of the measures envisaged 
by MS and if needed issue recommendations to the respective MS.  

Article 22 foresees the obligation for MS to report every two years to the Commission on the 
progress made in the promotion and the use of energy from renewable sources. The aim of this 
obligation is to enable the MS and the Commission to monitor the progress made towards the 
targets and trajectories set in Annex I of the Directive and in the NREAPs. Furthermore, the 
reports  provide  the  ability  to  compare  the  performance  across  the  EU  and  sets  out  the 
measures taken or planned at the national level in order to promote the growth of energy from 
renewable sources.  

The Commission is obliged in articles 17(7) and 23(3) to report every two years MS reports 
and own monitoring and analysis to the European Parliament and the Council on the progress 
in  renewable  energy  development  in  the  EU  and  on  the  origin  of  biofuels  and  bioliquids  as 
well as the impact of their production on social sustainability in the community and in third 
countries resulting from the increased demand for biofuels. The aim of this obligation is inter 
alia  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of  raw  materials  used  for  biofuels  consumed  within  the 
community.  

Furthermore,  article  19(5)  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  Commission  to  report  every  two 
years  on  typical  and  default  values  of  biofuels  and  bioliquids  emissions  with  the  aim  of 
evaluating  these  values  and  in  the  case  of  a  need  for  adjustment  providing  the  Commission 
with the obligation to produce a respective legislative proposal adjusting these values.  

The  Commission is  obliged  in  article  24  to  establish  an  online  public  transparency platform 
with  the  aim  of  increasing  transparency  as  well  as  facilitating  and  promoting  cooperation 
between MS.  

The Security of Electricity Supply Directive foresees the obligation for MS in article 7(1-4) 
to  ensure  that  reports  under  article  4  of  the  Internal  Electricity  Market  Directive  cover  the 
overall  adequacy  of  the  electricity  system  to  supply  current  and  projected  demands  for 
electricity.  The  aim  of  this  obligation  is  to  ensure  the  achievements  of  the  objectives  of  the 
directive, specifically to safeguard a high level of security of electricity supply.  

The Commission is obliged in article 7(5) to report on the basis of the information received to 
MS, competent authorities and the European Regulators Group on Electricity and Gas on the 
investments  planned  and  their  contribution  to  the  objectives  of  the  directive.  This  reporting 
obligation can be fulfilled as part of the obligation under article 47 of the Electricity Directive.  

The  Security  of  Gas  Supply  Regulation162  foresees  the  obligation  for  the  competent 
authorities in each MS in article 9 to make a full assessment of the risks affecting the security 
of  gas  supply  and  to  update  these  assessments  every  two  years  with  the  aim  of  analysing 

162 A proposal for the repeal and replacement of the regulation was presented by the Commission in February 
2016 (Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to safeguard 
the  security  of  gas  supply  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  994/2010;  COM(2016)  52  final;  Brussels;  16 
February 2016). However, as the Security of Gas Supply Regulation from 2010 is still in force, it is considered 
in the Fitness Check. 

Page 94 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
exceptionally high gas demand and supply disruption scenarios and to categorize the threats 
and hazards into high- medium- and low-risk while taking into account national specificities.  

Based on these  risk assessments, the regulation requires the competent authorities in each MS 
in article 4 and 5 to establish preventive action plans and emergency plans with details being 
spelt  out  in  article  10  containing  the  measures  needed  to  remove  or  mitigate  the  risks 
identified as well as the measures to be taken to remove or mitigate the impact of a gas supply 
disruption. These plans need to be updated every two years. The aim of this obligation is to 
increase the security of gas supply and to help to avoid or a t least reduce toe probability or 
impact of the various risks identified.  

The Commission is obliged in article 14 to report annually as part of its reporting obligations 
under  the  Gas  Directive  on  the  security  of  gas  supply  measures  with  the  aim  of  drawing 
conclusions as to possible means to enhance the security of gas supply at the Union level and 
report on the progress made on market interconnectivity.  

The  Shipments  of  Radioactive  Waste  Directive  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  in  article 
16(1c) to report to the Commission and the Advisory Committee set up under the directive on 
a yearly basis information on the prohibition of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel 
to third countries that, in the opinion of the competent authorities of the MS does not meet the 
export requirements with the aim of sharing this information among MS on countries that are 
not considered suitable for receiving radioactive waste.  

Furthermore,  article  20(1)  foresees  the  obligation  for  MS  to  report  every  three  years  to  the 
Commission on the implementation of the directive while article 20(2) foresees the obligation 
for the Commission to establish a summary report on the basis of MS's reports and submit it to 
the European Parliament, Council and the European Economic and Social Committee with the 
aim of providing insight and transparency on the implementation of the Directive.  

The  Trans-European  Energy  Infrastructure  (TEN-E)  Regulation  foresees  in  article  5(5) 
the obligation for ACER to report annually to the regional groups set up by the regulation on 
the  projects  of  common  interest  evaluating  the  progress  achieved  and  make,  where 
appropriate,  recommendations  on  how  to  overcome  delays  and  difficulties  encountered  with 
the  aim  of  ensuring  the  consistent  implementation  of  the  Union-wide  network  development 
plans with regard to the energy infrastructure priority corridors and areas.   

The Transparency of Gas and Electricity Prices Directive163 foresees the obligation for MS 
in  article  1,  2(1)  and  3  as  well  as  in  annexes  I  and  II  to  ensure  that  suppliers  report  to  the 
Commission  (Eurostat)  twice  per  year  data  on  the  prices  and  terms  of  the  sale  of  gas  and 
electricity to industrial end-users and on the price systems in use as well as every two years on 
the  breakdown  of  consumers  and  the  corresponding  volumes  of  consumption.  The  aim  of 
these  obligations  is  to  ensure  transparency  of  electricity  and  gas  prices  for  industrial  end-
users.  

163  It  has  to  be  noted,  that  the  directive  is  already  foreseen  for  a  repeal  by  the  Commission's  Proposal  for  a 
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European statistics on natural gas and electricity 
prices  and  repealing  Directive  2008/92/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  concerning  a 
Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users. 
Nevertheless,  it  was  decided  to  still  include  the  directive  into  the  Fitness  Check  as  it  is  still  in  force  until  the 
Commission's proposal is adopted.  

Page 95 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  is  obliged  in  article  8  to  report  annually  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the operation of the directive 
with the aim of ensuring transparency.  

The Wholesale Energy Markets Regulation foresees the obligation for the ACER in article 
7(2 and 3) to report annually to the Commission on its activities under the regulation and to 
assess  the  operation  and  transparency  of  different  categories  of  market  places  and  ways  of 
trading  including,  where  appropriate,  recommendations.  Furthermore,  national  regulatory 
authorities are encouraged to cooperate at regional level with the Agency in order to carry out 
the monitoring of the wholesale energy market.  

Page 96 of 138 

 
 
 
 
8.2.  Annex  II:  Intervention  Logics  of  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring 

obligations stemming from the climate acquis covered by the Fitness Check 

The  Climate  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation  (MMR)  is  a  single  instrument  which 
streamlines  most  of  the  reporting,  planning  and  monitoring  obligations  in  the  climate  field. 
The MMR focusses on planning, reporting and monitoring obligations for Member States and 
the Commission. It is a single instrument through which domestic and international reporting 
requirements  are  implemented  and  which  sets  the  EU's  own  internal  reporting  rules  on  the 
basis  of  internationally  agreed  obligations.  The  MMR  implements  reporting  and  review 
requirements  related  to  the  Effort  Sharing  Decision  (ESD)164,  reporting  related  to  the  EU 
Emissions Trading System (ETS) Directive165 and requirements stemming from international 
climate  action  agreements166.  The  Fitness  Check  assesses  for  the  planning,  reporting  and 
monitoring  obligations  in  the  MMR  whether  and  how  they  are  interlinked  with  energy 
planning, reporting and monitoring obligations. A full overview of the MMR obligations and 
the way they are interlinked with planning, reporting and monitoring obligations in the energy 
field is included in the conclusions of this Fitness Check (table 3). An in depth overview of 
streamlining possibilities is also included in the conclusions of this Fitness Check (table 4).  

The reporting under the MMR covers emissions of seven greenhouse gases  from all sectors 
including  energy,  industrial  processes,  land  use,  land  use  change  &  forestry  (LULUCF), 
waste, agriculture (greenhouse gas inventory, Article 7 MMR and proxy inventory, Article 8 
MMR).  It  also  covers  greenhouse  gas  emission  projections  (Article  14  MMR),  policies  and 
measures  (PaMs)  to  cut  greenhouse  emissions  (Article  13),  national  measures  to  adapt  to 
climate  change  (Article  15),  low-carbon  development  strategies  (Articles  4  and  13(1)(b)), 
financial  and  technology  support  for  developing  countries  (Article  16),  and  national 
governments' use of revenues from the auctioning of allowances in the EU emissions trading 
system (Article 17).  

According to Article 21 of the MMR, the Commission assesses annually the progress made by 
the Union and its Member States to meet their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. The 
objective  of  the  climate  action  progress  report  is  to  provide  on  an  annual  basis  a 
comprehensive overview of all climate policies and progress to targets.   

As  the  MMR  is  a  result  of  a  recent  (2013)  streamlining  exercise  in  the  climate  field  it 
constitutes  a  coherent  and  largely  up-to-date  set  of  obligations  enabling  the  EU  and  its 
Member States to fulfil their domestic obligations and their obligations vis à vis the UNFCCC. 
Many of its obligations fulfil both purposes and many are linked to each other. For example, 
the greenhouse gas inventory need to be submitted to the UNFCCC, but it also provides the 
Commission with information on Member States' greenhouse gas emissions needed to assess 

164 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of 
Member  States  to  reduce  their  greenhouse  gas  emissions  to  meet  the  Community’s  greenhouse  gas  emission 
reduction  commitments  up  to  2020.  The  MMR  establishes  a  review  and  compliance  cycle  under  the  ESD;  it 
ensures that solid information is available to allow annual determination of compliance with the ESD. 
165  Directive  2003/87/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  October  2003  establishing  a 
scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 
96/61/EC. In 2015 the Commission presented a legislative proposal to amend the ETS for the period after 2020. 
The  MMR  incorporates  the  reporting  requirements  for  the  use  of  revenues  from  the  auctioning  of  emission 
allowances to see for which purposes they are used. 
166 In the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

Page 97 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
progress towards Member States' targets under the Effort Sharing Decision. The ESD review 
(Article 19 MMR) is not a reporting, planning or monitoring obligation itself but is makes the 
information more accurate, thereby supporting the implementation of EU objectives. Member 
States'  reporting  on  PaMs  and  projections  provides  the  Commission  with  information 
regarding what climate action Member States are taking and how Member States' greenhouse 
gas emissions are expected to develop, and also serves as an input for the biennial report and 
National Communications (Article 18) which shall be provided every two years or four years 
by the Commission and the Member States to the UNFCCC. Articles on national systems for 
inventories (Article 5 MMR) or on national systems for policies and measures and projections 
(Article 12 MMR) enable the collection of data at Member State level in an integrated way. 
The  Paris  Climate  Agreement  revised  only  a  limited  number  of  international  obligations 
covered by the current MMR such as on adaptation. It also established a work programme to 
develop further international transparency rules, but these will only be adopted later on. 

Page 98 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
8.3.  Annex III: Procedural information 

Lead DG and internal references  

The  Fitness  Check  on  "Streamlining  reporting  and  planning  obligations  in  the  EU  energy 
acquis  [REFIT]"  was  led  by  DG  Energy.  It  was  included  as  item  2016/ENER/024  in  the 
Agenda  Planning  and  as  Commission's  REFIT  Initiative  item  10  in  the  Commission  Work 
Programme of 2016167.  DG Climate Action contributed to the work of the Fitness Check and 
especially to the analysis of the interlinkages between the energy and climate acquis (tables 3 
and 4). 

Organisation and timing 

An inter-service  steering group  (ISG) was set up in  October 2015 with representatives from 
the  Directorate  Generals  for  Energy;  Climate  Action;  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development; 
Competition;  Economics  and  Financial  Affairs;  Environment;  Eurostat;  Internal  Market, 
Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs;  Justice  and  Consumers;  Mobility  and  Transport; 
Regional  and  urban  Policy;  Research  and  Innovation,  the  Legal  Service  and  the  Secretariat 
General. In addition, representatives from the European Environmental Agency were invited 
to some meetings as experts.  

Table I.1 ISG meeting dates and topics of discussion as well as other consultations 

Date 

11.11.2015 

03.05.2016 

Topics of discussion 

Fitness  Check  Mandate  (Roadmap),  Terms  of  References  for  the  study  by 
the  external  consultant;  Consultation  Strategy  and  Questionnaire  for  the 
Public Consultation 

Presentation  of  the  Intermediate  Report  from  the  consultant  and  discussion 
of  the  report;  Presentation  by  DG  CLIMA  on  the  study  on  interlinkages 
between  the  energy  and  climate  acquis;  Presentation  and  discussion  on  the 
envisaged structure of the Fitness Check Staff Working Document;  

22.06.2016 

Final supporting study send to ISG Members by email for comments until 27 
June 

15.07.2016 

Final  Meeting  of  the  ISG  (in  the  Framework  of  the  Meeting  of  the 
Governance  ISG168  meeting  in  order  to  make  use  of  existing  synergies); 
Presentation of the Final supporting studies and the draft Fitness Check Staff 
working Document; 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

167 Op.cit.: COM(2015) 610final.  
168 Interservice Group on Energy Union Governance and the 2016 State of the Energy Union under the lead of 
the Secretariat-General.  

Page 99 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB)  issued  a  positive  opinion  on  this  Staff  Working 
Document in its meeting of 14 September. The RSB refrained from providing any comments 
on how the Fitness Check could be further improved.  

External Expertise 

The analysis underpinning this Fitness Check was undertaken by two independent but closely 
interlinked studies commissioned by DG ENER and DG CLIMA respectively. 

The  study  commissioned  by  DG  ENER  with  the  title  "1)  Preparatory  study  for  the 
Commission's  Fitness  Check  Evaluation  of  Planning  and  Reporting  Obligations  in  the  EU 
energy  acquis;  2)  Support  for  an  Impact  Assessment  in  view  of  legislative  proposals  on 
streamlining  of  Planning,  Reporting  and  Monitoring  for  the  Energy  Union  (Energy  Union 
Governance)" was undertaken by a consortia under the leadership of Trinomics and with the 
participation  of  Technopolis  Group  and  Ludwig  Bölkow  Systemtechnik  from  31  December 
2015 until 30 June 2016.  

The study commissioned by DG CLIMA with the title "Possible Streamlining of Climate and 
Energy Reporting Requirements in Areas with Interlinkages" was undertaken by a consortia 
under  the  leadership  of  Amec  Foster  Wheeler  in  association  with  Öko-Institut  and  Bio  by 
Deloitte from 31 December 2015 until 30 June 2016.  

Page 100 of 138 

 
 
 
 
8.4.  Annex IV: Stakeholder consultation 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background and approach: 

This  public  consultation  was  launched  on  11  January  2016  to  collect  views  and  input  from 
stakeholders and citizens ahead of the forthcoming proposal on the Governance system of the 
Energy  Union.  The  consultation  period  lasted  over  12  weeks  and  closed  on  22  April  2016. 
The consultation focused on: i) how current planning and reporting obligations in the energy 
and  climate  field  could  be  better  streamlined  to  better  serve  the  objectives  of  the  Energy 
Union; ii) how to best proceed to develop integrated planning, reporting and monitoring tools 
and; iii) how to set up a Governance process conducive to the attainment of the objectives of 
the  Energy  Union.  The  responses  to  this  public  consultation  fed  into  the  Commission's 
evaluation and fitness check of existing planning and reporting obligations as well as into the 
Impact  Assessment  for  the  Commission's  legislative  proposal  on  the  Governance  of  the 
Energy Union. 

A summary of the main views related to the specific sections of the consultation is provided 
below: 

I) Streamlining of existing planning and reporting obligations 

While  the  vast  majority  of  respondents  recognise  the  importance  of  existing  planning  and 
reporting obligations, a broad consensus emerges on the need to better streamline, align and 
integrate  existing  planning  and  reporting  obligations  to  avoid  gaps,  duplications  and 
inconsistencies.  The  responses  acknowledge  the  need  to  focus  on  all  dimensions  of  the 
Energy  Union,  but  suggest  that  this  effort  should  primarily  focus  on  the  obligations  more 
closely related to the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework. 

A general consensus also emerges that the Energy Union Governance presents an opportunity 
to address the inconsistencies between planning towards the Energy Union’s five dimensions. 
Some energy planning obligations at EU level are considered as misaligned with medium and 
long-term EU climate objectives while synergies between energy and climate plans could be 
better  exploited.  Detailed  and  standardised  planning  and  reporting  tools  (such  as  templates) 
are  considered  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  as  important  elements  to  facilitate  the 
monitoring  of  Member  States'  actions  and  to  increase  accountability  and  transparency. 
According to replies received, reporting obligations play a very important role under several 
aspects. An adequate level of reporting obligation should be maintained to monitor both the 
implementation of policies as well as to assess the progress made towards the fulfilment of the 
Energy  Union  targets,  notably  for  those  defined  in  the  context  of  the  2030  Energy  and 
Climate Framework. 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  agree  on  the  necessity  to  focus  the  streamlining  efforts  on  the 
existing  planning  obligations  more  closely  related  to  the  objectives  and  by  the  2030 
Framework  (notably  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  the  non-ETS  sectors,  renewables,  energy 
efficiency) to avoid policy overlaps and inefficiencies while providing a clearer picture of the 
overall savings efforts. Several stakeholders point towards the necessity to better integrate the 
National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs), the National Energy Efficiency Action 

Page 101 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plans (NEEAPs), and climate planning requirements. A couple of respondents raised the Low 
Carbon Development Strategies (LCDS) in  this context.  While  highlighting the necessity of 
streamlining  and  reducing  overall  planning  obligations,  all  respondents  agree  that  all  five 
dimensions should be adequately reflected in future planning instruments. 

II) Forthcoming initiative on Governance 

Concerning the nature of the initiative, a vast majority of respondents consider that a single 
legislative  act  should  be  the  Commission  preferred  option  for  streamlining  planning  and 
reporting  obligations  in  the  energy  and  climate  field  post  2020.  A  high  number  of 
stakeholders also advocate for the inclusion of binding templates in the legal proposal. While 
several Member States also openly support the legally binding option, some Member States 
would rather give preference to non-legislative approaches (non-binding guidance).  

On  the  structure  of  the  Plans,  respondents  are  generally  of  the  opinion  that  the  Integrated 
National Energy and Climate Plans ("the Plans"), while reflecting the five dimensions of the 
Energy Union, should be produced on the basis of a detailed template and focus on the areas 
with  quantified  EU  targets,  eventually  replacing  existing  planning  tools.  From  a  different 
perspective,  a  limited  number  of  stakeholders  –  which  includes  several  Member  States  – 
proposes alternative approaches, notably suggesting short strategic planning documents with a 
high level of aggregation. Several stakeholders, including a majority of Member States, insist 
on  the  necessity  of  avoiding  new  administrative  burden  or  additional  costs.  All  respondents 
equally advise on the necessity of standardised reporting templates mirroring the structure of 
the new planning instruments. 

Regarding reporting on renewables and energy efficiency, several stakeholders are also asking 
for the introduction of benchmarks, trajectories or "corridors". Several stakeholders also voice 
the necessity, for the new planning instruments, to factor in a long term vision until 2050 and 
to refer to the key indicators agreed upon at the European level.  

On  the  political  process  governing  the  finalisation  and  review  of  the  Plans,  a  vast  share  of 
respondent  advocates  for  a  transparent  and  participatory  planning  process  conducive  to 
investor confidence and public acceptance.  

According  to  the  majority  of  respondents,  national  administrations  as  well  as  national 
stakeholders  and  national  Parliaments  will  have  a  key  role  to  play  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Plans.  It  is  also  held  by  a  number  of  respondents  that  the  Commission  should  also  play  an 
important  role  to  i)  provide  templates  and  technical  support  to  Member  States  in  the 
preparation phase of the Plans; ii) to assess the Plans and review the progress made (notably 
via  the  State  of  the  Energy  Union)  and  iii)  to  introduce  additional  measures  in  view  of 
ensuring delivery of the EU-level objectives.  

Concerning the revision of the Plans, Member States are generally focusing on the necessity 
to find a right balance between on the one hand the principle of investment certainty and on 
the  other  the  possibility  to  adapt  the  Plans  to  changing  circumstances.  It  is  also  widely 
recognised  that  obsolete  Plans  could  undermine  the  reliability  and  transparency  of  future 
planning for investors and other stakeholders. 

Page 102 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, there is widespread consensus that the new Governance system should facilitate the 
coordination  of  national  energy  policies  and  foster  regional  cooperation.  Stakeholders  also 
agree  that  the  Commission  should  play  an  important  role  in  guiding  Member  States  and 
setting  up  process  defining  regional  cooperation.  There  is  also  widespread  belief  in  the 
principle  that  Member  States'  consultations  and  mutual  reviews  could  play  a  role  in  the 
political process leading to the definition of the new Plans.  

Page 103 of 138 

 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH 

This  consultation  is  enshrined  in  the  preparatory  work  of  the  legislative  initiative  on  the 
Governance  of  the  Energy  Union.  This  follows  the  adoption  of  the  Energy  Union  on  25 
February  2015,  the  Commission's  guidance  to  Member  States  on  national  Plans  on  18 
November  2015  and  the  Council's  Conclusions  on  Energy  Union  Governance  on  26 
November 2015. The public consultation was launched on 11 January 2016 to collect views 
and input from stakeholders, citizens and Member States on the forthcoming proposal on the 
Governance  system  of  the  Energy  Union  and  how  current  planning  and  reporting 
arrangements  in  the  energy  field  could  be  improved  to  meet  the  objectives  of  the  Energy 
Union and to reduce administrative burden.  

The  Commission's  State  of  the  Energy  Union  presented  on  18  November  2015  states 
that"[i]ntegrated  national  energy  and  climate  Plans,  addressing  all  five  dimensions  of  the 
Energy Union, are necessary tools to have more strategic planning", and that "[i]n order to 
track  progress,  a  transparent  monitoring  system  needs  to  be  put  in  place  based  on  key 
indicators as well as on Member States' biannual reports concerning progress made on their 
national  Plans".  This  builds  further  on  the  Commission's  Communication  on  the  Energy 
Union of February  2015, which explained that a purpose of the Governance process for the 
Energy  Union  is  to  "streamline  current  planning  and  reporting  requirements,  avoiding 
unnecessary administrative burden". 

In  line  with  the  European  Commission's  Better  Regulation  package,  the  online-based 
consultation period lasted over twelve weeks, closing on 22 April 2016. Responses submitted 
late169  were  accepted  for  over  a  week  after  this  deadline.  The  questions  of  the  consultation 
were formulated so as to respect the Commission's new 'better regulation' requirements and to 
feed  into  two  parallel  processes.  In  the  first  instance,  this  consultation  contributes  to  assess 
whether  existing  requirements  are  effective,  efficient,  and  coherent  within  the  broader  EU 
legislative framework thus contributing to the Commission's evaluation and fitness check of 
existing  planning  and  reporting  obligations  (a  REFIT  initiative  in  the  Commission's  2015 
Work Programme). In the second instance, this contribution supports the identification of the 
most  appropriate  policy  options  to  be  considered  by  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the 
Commission's  proposal(s)  for  streamlining  of  planning  and  reporting  in  the  energy  and 
climate field foreseen for late 2016, as announced by the State of the Energy Union. 

The survey was divided into four general sections. The first two sections focused respectively 
on  the  assessment  of  existing  planning  and  reporting  obligations.  In  these  sections,  an 
overview of existing obligations in the energy sector concerning the Member States as well as 
the  Commission  was  made  available  to  stakeholders.  The  third  section  focused  on  possible 
options for streamlining planning and reporting obligations, notably assessing the advantages 
and disadvantages linked to the creation of an Integrated National Energy and  Climate Plan 
(from  hereafter  'the  Plans')  as  well  as  integrated  reporting  and  monitoring  tools.  The  fourth 
and final section sought stakeholders' views on how to structure the process underpinning the 
Governance system of the Energy Union. 

Participants  were  invited  to  answer  all  questions  deemed  relevant.  The  functional  email 
address  ENER-ENERGY-UNION-GOVERNANCE@ec.europa.eu  was  set  up  so  as  to 
provide  additional  guidance  for  participants,  if  required.  To  ensure  transparency,  single 

169 Via the functional email address. 

Page 104 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
contributions  were  made  publicly  available  on  the  DG  ENER  website170.  Statistical 
information contained in the contributions was evaluated via a customised spreadsheet model, 
while  the  qualitative  submissions  were  methodologically assessed  with  the  help  of  a  cluster 
analysis.  All  quantitative  figures  are  derived  from  a  dataset  that  was  retrieved  from  the 
consultation website on 25 April 2016. 

PARTICIPANTS 

The online survey received a total of 103 submissions171. The functional email inbox received 
an additional 35 documents, either in complement to or in lieu of online submissions. Most 
contributions were submitted by Industry Associations and private companies (46%), National 
Public Authorities (either central or local government) (18%) and NGOs (14%).  

The  Commission  received  contributions  from  national  public  authorities  from  15  Member 
States:  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Hungary, 
Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  The  Netherlands,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Sweden.  Norway  also 
replied to the consultation.  

Of  all  the  organisations  that  submitted  contributions,  the  majority  stated  to  be  active  in 
Belgium (19%), which may be explained by the fact that most European-wide organisations 
are  based  in  the  Brussels  area  and  are  officially  registered  with  the  Belgian  authorities. 
Organisations then reported to be most active in Germany (9%), followed by United Kingdom 
(6%), Spain (6%) and France (5%).  

170https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-streamlining-planning-and-reporting-obligations-
part-energy-union  
171  The  tables  and  charts  included  in  this  document  are  solely  based  on  the  replies  received  via  the  online 
platform. Other responses are analysed as well but not included in the tables and charts.  

Page 105 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
RESPONSES 

Part I – Evaluation of planning obligations 

Question 1) on the importance and relevance of existing planning obligations at 

EU level 

This  section  of  the  consultation  asked  stakeholders  to  express  their  views  on  the  role  and 
relevance  of  existing  planning  obligations  as  well  as  on  the  possible  parts  of  the  existing 
planning obligations that could be streamlined, repealed or maintained separate.  

From  a  general  perspective,  based  on 
the  elements  provided,  stakeholders  are 
acknowledging  as  "very  important"  the  role  played  by  existing  planning  obligations, 
particularly  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  the  EU  energy  and  climate  objectives  (61%);  to 
increase certainty for investors (59%); and for effective and efficient implementation of EU 
legislation  (58%).  Planning  obligations  are  perceived  by  a  majority  of  stakeholders  as 
"important" or "very important" tools also to ensure full coherence between national Plans of 
all  EU Member States, the fulfilment of international commitments  as  well as to enable the 
Commission to provide substantial and useful advice. 

When  looking  at  specific  groups  of  stakeholders,  a  vast  majority  of  the  national  public 
authorities agree on the "important" or even "very important" role played by those planning 
obligations for all the six aspects detailed in the consultation172. Private companies, industry 
associations  and  NGOs  consider  existing  planning  obligations  even  more  important  (in 
particular,  all  the  six  aspects  below  are  indicated  as  "very  important"  by  at  least  74%  of 
NGOs). 

In the same vein, the assessment of the written contributions confirms that effective planning 
(as  well  as  reporting173)  is  widely  considered  as  a  strong  tool  helping  the  EU  achieve  its 
energy and climate goals, ensuring that policies are coherent and mutually reinforcing. 
Furthermore,  according  to  a  large  share  of  stakeholders,  existing  templates  enshrined  in 
sectorial  legislation  are  important  in  view  of  assuring  sound  monitoring,  accountability, 
consistency and comparability of Member State progress towards the agreed targets. Planning 
instruments  are  considered  equally  important  to  promote  exchange  of  information  and 
knowledge sharing.  

172 For a full overview of the aspects assessed in the public consultation, refer to the Graph relating to Question 1 
173 For a more detailed assessment on reporting obligation, please refer to the Section II of this report.  

Page 106 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Question  2)  and  3)  on  existing  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  among  the  existing 
planning  obligations  and  on  the  obligations  to  be  streamlined,  repealed 
or maintained separate. 

Replies received to this consultation point to several existing overlaps between climate and 
energy  planning  instruments.  Stakeholders  notably  point  to  existing  overlaps  between  the 
Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation  (MMR)  (Regulation  (EU)  No  525/2013)174, 
the 
Renewable  Energy  Directive  (RED)175  and  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  ('EED)176, 
especially regarding the planning of policies and measures.  

From  the  consultation  a  general  consensus  emerges  that  the  Energy  Union  Governance 
presents  an opportunity to  address  the  inconsistencies that might exist  between different 
planning  obligations,  to  increase  transparency  and  reduce  the  administrative  burden.  This 
view is notably shared by all 15 Member States having replied to the public consultation. 

According  to  many,  an  integrated  planning  instrument  would  reduce  duplication,  loss  of 
information and increase the efficiency of the overall planning process. Several stakeholders 
also  highlight  that  energy  planning  obligations  at  EU  level  could  be  better  aligned  with 
medium and long-term EU energy and climate objectives. Likewise, several stakeholders 
are stressing that planning provisions could also be better aligned in terms of timing and 
better  harmonized  via  the  use  of  the  same  data,  assumptions,  projections  and  scenarios 
across  policy  areas.  Finally,  according  to  many,  potential  synergies  between  energy  and 
climate Plans could be better exploited.  

A  majority  of stakeholders  agree on the necessity to  focus the  streamlining efforts on the 
existing  planning  obligations  more  closely  related  to  the  objectives  set  by  the  2030 
Framework  (notably  greenhouse  gas emissions in  the non-ETS sectors, renewables, energy 

174  Regulation  (EU)  No  525/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  May  2013  on  a 
mechanism  for  monitoring  and  reporting  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  for  reporting  other  information  at 
national and Union level relevant to climate change and repealing Decision No 280/2004/EC. 
175 -Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of 
the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 
2003/30/EC. 
176  Directive  2012/27/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  on  energy 
efficiency,  amending  Directives  2009/125/EC  and  2010/30/EU  and  repealing  Directives  2004/8/EC  and 
2006/32/EC. 

Page 107 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
efficiency)  to  avoid  policy  overlaps  and  inefficiencies,  and  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  the 
overall  efforts  related  to  the  quantified  EU  level  target  that  were  agreed  by  the  European 
Council back in October 2014. 

In more concrete terms, a majority of stakeholders see the necessity to better integrate into 
one  consolidated  national  Plan  both  the  planning  obligations  of  the  National  Energy 
Efficiency  Action  Plans  (NEEAPs)  and  the  National  Renewable  Energy  Action  Plans 
(NREAPs). Those are considered by several respondents as partially overlapping and offering 
scope for better alignment (notably on scenarios, future energy use projections, interaction of 
described policies and measures). There is nonetheless a minority of respondents advocating 
for keeping these obligation separate, within binding templates for NREAPS and NEEAPs to 
be  enshrined  in  the  revised  Renewable  Energy  Directive  and  Energy  Efficiency  Directive 
respectively. 

Concerning energy efficiency, the need for better coordination is often mentioned regarding 
planning obligations contained respectively in the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) and in 
the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EBPB)177. Serval stakeholders are asking to 
incorporate  provisions  related  to  energy  savings  (reported  annually  under  EED  Articles  3, 
24.1 and Annex XIV, Articles 4 and 7) into overarching Plan as part of the energy efficiency 
dimension.  EED  Articles  5  &  14  and  EPBD  Articles  5  &  9 are  also  mentioned as  potential 
elements for an integrated planning (or reporting) tool. 

According to several stakeholders, also climate planning obligations, should be streamlined. 
Several  stakeholders  are  of  the  opinion  that  Low  Carbon  Development  Strategies  (LCDS) 
under  the  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation178,  should  be  streamlined  into  one  integrated 
plan.  Only  very  few  mention  the  Corrective  Action  Plan  under  Art.  7  of  the  Effort  Sharing 
Decision  (ESD)179  and  the  Information  on  current  and  future  LULUCF  actions  under  the 
LULUCF  Decision180  (Art  10(2)(d)  and  Annex  IV)  as  candidates  for  streamlining.  Other 
stakeholders think that full streamlining is not possible but that consistency should be ensured 
between LCDS and the integrated plan. Planning of policies and measures is also mentioned 
as  an  area  where  streamlining  could  take  place.  Some  stakeholders  are  pointing  out  that 
consistency  with  international  obligations  regarding  planning  in  the  climate  field  should  be 
ensured.  

From a different perspective some stakeholders are pointing out that streamlining should not 
interfere with international obligations in the climate planning.  

On the planning obligation to be kept separate, stakeholders express divergent views. Some 
are  advocating  for  the  full  integration  of  planning  obligations  that  are  relevant  for  the 
achievement of the Energy Union. Others are of the opinion that planning obligations loosely 

177  Directive  2010/31/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  May  2010  on  the  energy 
performance of buildings.  
178  Regulation  (EU)  No  525/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21  May  2013  on  a 
mechanism  for  monitoring  and  reporting  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  for  reporting  other  information  at 
national  and  Union  level  relevant  to  climate  change  and  repealing  Decision  No  280/2004/EC,  OJ  L  165, 
18.6.2013. 
179 Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of 
Member  States  to  reduce  their  greenhouse  gas  emissions  to  meet  the  Community’s  greenhouse  gas  emission 
reduction commitments up to 2020. 
180  Decision  No 529/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  21 May  2013  on  accounting 
rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change 
and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities. 

Page 108 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
connected  with  the  priorities  of  the  Energy  Union,  too  detailed  or  not  addressing  Member 
States  should remain separate. Most frequently mentioned examples of  planning  obligations 
that  should  remain  separate  concern  the  planning  requirements  under  Regulation  (EU) 
994/2010 on Security of Gas Supply181. 

Very  few  stakeholders  highlighted  specific  planning  obligations  that  could  be  repealed. 
Some  respondent  nonetheless  notably  highlighted  that  planning  and  reporting  obligations  in 
the NREAPs and the NEEAPs contains statistics and data already available through Eurostat. 
Some also argue that the level of detail in the planning and reporting obligations according to 
the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  (RED)  could  also  be  reduced.  Art  9  of  the  Energy 
Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  (EPBD)  on  national  Plans  for  nearly  zero-energy 
buildings was also mentioned by some respondents as carrying high administrative burden. 

The  following  sections  will  offer  a  more  comprehensive  assessment  of  existing  planning 
obligations in the different areas of the energy and climate acquis, as emerged in the context 
of this public consultation.  

Question  4)  on  specific  elements/articles  of  the  current  planning  obligations  in 

the field of renewable energy considered indispensable  

In the field of renewable energy, a wide consensus emerges on the fact that the key provision 
of the NREAPs’, namely overall and sectoral renewable energy shares by 2030, indicative 
trajectories  and  a  binding  and  detailed  template  (Article  4  and  Annex  VI),  should  be 
retained in a way or in another. Several respondents would nonetheless be supportive of the 
integration of these provisions in a wider, integrated, plan.  

According  to  the  majority  of  stakeholders,  new  renewables  planning  instruments  should 
notably detail Member States' level of ambition building further on the existing 2020 national 
targets.  In  this  perspective,  indicative  trajectories  are  considered  by  the  most  as  a  crucial 
element  of  new  planning  tools.  These  should,  according  to  several  stakeholders,  allow  the 
Commission  to  monitor  adequately  progress  towards  the  EU-wide  renewables  target  set  for 
2030.  Several  stakeholders  are  also  advocating  for  the  definition  of  renewables  share  or 
trajectories  per  sector  (power,  heating  and  cooling  as  well  as  transport)  and  technology-
speciﬁc  deployment  volumes  in  order  to  provide  investors  with  visibility  over  market 
developments.  

According  to  several  respondents,  future  planning  requirement  should  also  detail  national 
policies  and  measures  to  incentivise  higher  uptakes  of  renewables  including  support 
mechanisms,  planned  reinforcements  of  transmission  and  distribution  infrastructures, 
streamlining  of  administrative  procedures,  as  well  as  specific  policies  and  measures  for  the 
heating and cooling sectors.  

Question  5)  on  specific  elements/articles  of  the  current  planning  obligations  in 

the field of energy efficiency considered indispensable  

In  a  similar  fashion,  a  majority  of  respondents  are  stressing  that  existing  EED  and  EBPD 
planning  requirements  should  be  kept  and  continue  in  the  new  planning  tools.  In 

181 Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning 
measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC. 

Page 109 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
particular, Article 3 of the EED obliging Member States to define indicative national energy 
efficiency  targets  is  considered  by  a  majority  of  respondents  as  a  central  element  to  be 
retained or reflected in the new planning instruments of the Energy Union dedicated to energy 
efficiency  policies.  Stakeholders  also  emphasize  the  importance  of  Articles  4  (long-term 
strategy  for  mobilising  investment  in  the  renovation  of  the  national  stock  of  residential  and 
commercial  buildings)  and  Article  7  (on  energy  efficiency  obligations  schemes)  as  central 
elements of existing acquis to be preserved. Article 5 (on alternatives approach for achieving 
annual saving in public buildings) and Article 14 (national strategy for realizing the national 
heating  and cooling  potential)  are  also  mentioned  by  many  stakeholders  as  centrals.  Finally 
other  articles  that,  according  to  many,  should  be  merged  or  at  least  reflected  in  the  new 
integrated  Plans  are:  Article  24.2  and  Annex  XIV  (on  National  Energy  Efficiency  Action 
Plans).  

Concerning  the  EPBD,  the  following  elements  are  considered  by  the  respondents  as 
particularly  relevant  in  view  of  new  planning  requirements:  Article  9  on  national  Plans  for 
increasing  the  number  of  nearly  zero-energy  buildings  and  Article  10  on  existing  and 
proposed  measures  and  instruments  including  financial  incentives.  Some  stakeholders 
nonetheless highlights that Article 4 of the EED (building efficiency strategy as part of the 
NEEAPs) and the same Article 9 of the EPBD could be streamlined and better integrated 
into new integrated plan. 

Question  6)  on  specific  elements/articles  of  the  current  planning  in  the  field  of 

low-carbon development strategies considered indispensable  

In the context of this consultation, respondents have identified several elements of the current 
planning in the field of low-carbon development strategies that are considered indispensable. 
With  regard  to  Low-Carbon  Development  Strategies  (LCDS),  Article  4  of  the  Monitoring 
Mechanism  Regulation  (MMR),  as  well  as  concerning  Article  15  of  the  MMR  on  the 
National  adaption  planning  and  strategies,  many  respondents  see  the  Paris  Agreement  as  a 
push factor for ensuring regular reporting on the development and review of LCDS, and for 
strengthening  the  requirements  related  to  planning.  On  the  other  side,  other  respondents 
mention that EU legislation should not spell out detailed content of LCDS but rather focus on 
harmonised  reporting  of  LCDS,  as  the  current  obligations  do.  Links  between  LCDS  and 
planning in the energy field (for  example NREAPs), international reporting requirements of 
the  UNFCCC,  as  well  as  linking  with  the  new  integrated  plans  are  also  mentioned  as  an 
important  element.  Some  stakeholders  also  indicate  that  reporting  on  policies  and  measures 
under Article 13 of the MMR is important in this regard.  

Question  7)  and  8)  on  specific  elements/articles  of  the  current  planning 
obligations  in  the  field  of  internal  market,  infrastructure  development, 
research, innovation and competitiveness.  

On the other dimensions of the Energy Union, several stakeholders are of the opinion that it 
might be too complicated to streamline in an integrated plan, planning obligation related 
to  directives  and  regulations  of  the  third  energy  package  as  well  as  the  infrastructure 
regulations.  Some  stakeholders  see  nonetheless  some  room  for  further  simplification  of 
existing planning requirements also in those fields. 

While there is no clear agreement between stakeholders to what extent planning requirement 
in the field of infrastructure and internal energy market should be included or reflected in new 
planning  tools  of  the  Energy  Union,  several  planning  requirement  have  been  nonetheless 
Page 110 of 138 

 
 
 
identified,  by  the  respondents  of  this  consultation,  as  of  particular  relevance.  These  notably 
includes  Article  22  of  the  Internal  Electricity  Market  Directive182  and  Article  22  of  the 
Internal Gas Market Directive183 (Transmission System Operators should submit annually 
to National Regulatory Authorities a national ten-year network development Plans based on 
existing and forecast supply and demand).  

According  to  some  stakeholders,  also  particular  obligations  from  the  Regulation  on 
conditions  for  access  to  the  natural  gas  transmission  networks184  and  from  the 
Regulation  on  conditions  for  access  to  the  network  for  cross-border  exchanges  in 
electricity185  (namely  respective  Articles  8  on  the  obligation  to  produce  non-binding 
Community-wide  ten-year  network  development  plan  every  two  years  and  Articles  12  on 
obligation for Transmission system operators to publish a regional investment plan every two 
years) would have a relevance for the new planning tools. 

Furthermore,  according  to  most  respondents,  the  Preventive  Action  Plans  and  Emergency 
Plans under Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation on Security of gas supply186, currently under 
revision, represent essential  planning instruments related to security of supply. Nonetheless, 
according to many respondents, given their specific nature, those should be kept separate from 
the envisaged integrated Plans. 

Despite  diverging  vision  on  the  opportunity  to  streamline  or  integrate  above  mentioned 
obligations into integrated Plans, a majority of stakeholders tend to agree that the scope of the 
integrated Plans should be limited to the obligations addressing the EU institutions and 
the  Member  States  competences.  In  the  same  line,  some  argue  that  planning  and 
investments  in  energy  infrastructure  should  remain  the  sole  responsibility  of  market 
participants.  In  this  vein,  existing  planning  obligations  falling  under  the  competences  of 
ENTSO-E,  ENTSO-G,  ACER  and  of  the  National  Regulatory  Authorities  (NRAs),  should 
remain separate.  

As far as the fifth dimension of the energy Union is concerned, several stakeholders stressed 
the role of the Energy Union indicators in monitoring progress made in the areas of research, 
innovation and competitiveness. Several stakeholders are also against the introduction of new 
planning  requirement  related  to  those  specific  areas  since  this  might  create  additional 
administrative burden for national administrations. 

8.4.1.  Question  9)  on 

the 
administrative burden on Member States and other stakeholders resulting 
from planning obligations at EU level 

the  qualitative  or  quantitative  evidence  on 

From  the  replies  received  it  could  be  concluded  that  it  is  very  difficult  for  individual 
stakeholders  to  properly  assess  and  quantify  the  administrative  burden  on  Member 

182 Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common 
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC. 
183 Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common 
rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC. 
184 -Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions 
for access to the natural gas transmission networks and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1775/2005. 
185 Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions 
for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003. 
186 Regulation (EU) No 994/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 concerning 
measures to safeguard security of gas supply and repealing Council Directive 2004/67/EC. 

Page 111 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
States  and  other  entities  resulting  from  current  planning  obligations  at  EU  level.  More 
specifically,  stakeholders  and  Member  States  find  particularly  difficult  to  draw  a  clear  line 
between  burdens  caused  by  the  planning  obligations  at  the national level  or  stemming  from 
international  commitments  (such  as  the  UNFCCC)  with  the  ones  caused  solely  by  the  EU 
legislation.  

However, in general  term,  respondents do not consider the  compliance with the  existing 
planning obligations on energy legislation to be excessive or unnecessary. This holds true, 
in particular for the planning obligations in the areas of renewables and energy efficiency. In 
parallel,  as  already  acknowledged,  several  stakeholders  and  Member  States  are  highlighting 
that existing administrative burden can be further reduced via better aligned reporting 
requirements  and via  the  definition of  detailed or binding templates. In  this vein, some 
stakeholders also recall that the value of harmonised templates was also clearly underlined in 
the Commission’s Renewable energy progress report187. 

8.4.2.  Question 10) on the level of importance of future planning obligations in 

the different areas of the Energy Union Strategy 

While  highlighting  the  necessity  of  streamlining  and  reducing  overall  planning  obligations 
focusing on the areas  of the 2030 Energy  and Climate Framework,  most of the respondents 
agree  that  all  five  dimensions  should  be  fully  represented  in  future  planning  instrument.  In 
fact, all areas on which stakeholders were asked to comment were indicated as "important" or 
even "very important". More particularly, around 60% of national public authorities as well 
as  around  70%  of  private  companies  and  industry  associations  consider  future  planning 
obligations relating to the first four dimensions of the Energy Union as "important" or "very 
important".  Moreover,  between  80  to  90%  of  NGOs  consider  future  planning  obligations 
relating  same  dimensions  as  "very  important".  Only  future  planning  obligations  relating  to 
innovation,  research  and  competitiveness  received  a  relative  lower  support.  Those  are 
nonetheless still considered as "very important" by 15% of national public authorities, 20% 
of  NGOs  and  27%  of  private  companies  and  industry  association.  This  outcome  reinforces 
the  principle  that  future  integrated  planning  should  be  holistic  and  cover  all  five 
dimensions of the Energy Union.  

In  their open submissions,  several  stakeholders put  further emphasis on various  aspects  and 
principles, such as the need to better integrate in the planning obligations the internal market 
dimension (with not only a focus on infrastructure planning but also on increase competition, 
market  integration  and  market  coupling)  or  to  prioritize  energy  efficiency  actions  ("Energy 
Efficiency  First"  principle).  At  the  same  time  several  stakeholders  highlight  that  planning 
requirement  should  correspond  to  concrete  need,  in  order  to  reduce  the  risk  of  creating 
new administrative burden.  

187 COM(2015) 293 final 

Page 112 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
Page 113 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
Part II - Evaluation of reporting obligations  

Question  11)  on  the  importance  and  relevance  of  existing  reporting  obligations 

at EU level 

In the energy and climate field there are a number reporting obligations for the Member States 
and  for  the  Commission.  In  order  to  contribute  to  the  evaluation  of  existing  energy  and 
climate  acquis,  this  section  of  the consultation  asked  stakeholders to  express  their views  on 
the role and relevance of existing reporting obligations.  

Based  on  the  replies  received,  it  can  be  concluded  that  reporting  obligations  play  a  very 
important role under several aspects. These are considered as essential tools to monitor the 
performance  and  trends  (57%  of  overall  stakeholders  rate  this  as  "very  important", 
including 37% of public authorities, 58% of private companies and industry associations and 
87%  of  NGOs)  as  well  as  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  EU  legislation  in  the 
energy  and  climate  field  (60%  rate  this  as  "very  important",  including  47%  of  public 
authorities,  62%  of  private  companies  and  industry  associations  and  87%  of  NGOs),  thus 
being  important  to  foster  investment  certainty,  competitiveness  and  growth  in  the  EU  (56% 
rate this as "very important", including 37% of public authorities, 61% of private companies 
and industry associations and 87% of NGOs).  

More  specifically,  written  inputs  received  confirm  that  reporting  obligations  are  widely 
considered crucial to timely assess progress towards defined energy and climate targets, 
to  keep  Member  States  better  informed  and  eventually  to  take  corrective  action  in  an 
informed  way.  Reporting  is  also  seen  as  important  in  order  to  assess  progress  in 
implementation of international obligations and commitments. 

In  order  to  be  able  to  play  these  crucial  roles,  stakeholders  agree  that  the  coherence  of 
reporting  formats  is  of  central  importance  (53%  of  the  respondents  rate  this  as  a  "very 
important"  aspect,  including  37%  of  public  authorities,  50%  of  private  companies  and 
industry  associations  and  87%  of  NGOs).  According  to  several  respondents,  reporting 
requirements should ensure that there is a uniform basis to aggregate data in order to be able 
to correctly monitor target attainment. According to a vast majority of respondents, consistent 
reporting  enables  the  legislator  to  identify  and  address  barriers  and  deficiencies  in  a  timely 
way. A wide range of stakeholders also favours mandatory reporting templates as well as 
the public disclosure of the information contained in the reports. Likewise, according to most 
stakeholders,  detailed  and  standardized  reporting  could  also  increase  accountability  and 
transparency  for  investors.  Several  respondents  are  also  asking  a  more  systematic  use  of 
innovative IT and/or online reporting tools. 

On  the  opportunity  to  streamline  existing  obligations,  a  majority  of  respondents  to  the 
consultation agree that overlapping obligations should be removed. This objective should 
be nonetheless achieved without reducing the ability of current instrument to adequately 
monitor  both  the  implementation  of  policies  and  measures  and  progress  towards  the 
fulfilment of the Energy Union targets. Likewise, most stakeholders tend to agree that the 
reporting system should continue to monitor the fulfilment of at least the three headline 
targets of the 2030 Energy and Climate Framework. Reporting on the implementation of 
international  climate  change  obligations  and  on infrastructure  is  considered  equally relevant 
by a wide share of stakeholders.  

Page 114 of 138 

 
 
 
 
Question  12)  on  overlaps  or  inconsistencies  among  the  existing  reporting 

obligations in the same or different areas of the energy acquis. 

In  line  with  the  conclusions  drown  on  planning  obligations,  from  the  public  consultation  a 
wide  consensus  emerges  on  the  importance  of  avoiding  overlapping  reporting  obligations. 
Member States in particular are asking that double reporting should be avoided.  

In the same vein, responders stress that there are several areas of EU acquis in the energy and 
climate field where the timing of reporting could be improved, and most notably between 
the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  (RED),  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EED)  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  Effort-Sharing  Decision  (ESD)  and  the  Monitoring  Mechanism  Regulation 
(MMR)  on  the  other  side.  Some  stakeholders  are  also  pointing  out  that  energy  data  is 
generally  reported  to  EUROSTAT  and  that  double  reporting  could  be  avoided  by  better 
exploiting  data  submitted  in  the  context  of  the  Regulation  (EC)  No  1099/2008  on  energy 
statistics188. 

Concerning  the  elements  more  closely  related  to  the  2030  Energy  and  Climate  Framework, 
several stakeholders highlight that reporting under the RED and EED overlaps with certain 
planning and reporting obligations contained in the MMR, such as Article 22 of the RED 
that requires Member States to report on estimated net greenhouse gas emission saving due to 
the use of energy from renewable sources. RED reporting obligations would also overlap with 
some  elements  of  the  Electricity  Directive  (Directive  2009/72/EC)189  notably  on  elements 
illustrating renewable electricity integration in the market and connection to the grid.  

Stakeholders  are  also  stressing  that,  for  buildings  policies  in  particular,  reporting 
requirements are spread across several sectorial legislations: EPBD, EED, RED, ESD and 
the MMR. Also the reporting obligation regarding district heating and cooling under the EED 
and the RED are considered by some stakeholders as inconsistent or redundant.  

Concerning  the  infrastructure  and  security  of  supply  dimensions,  some  stakeholders  see 
potential  for  further  alignment  between  obligations  under  the  Directive  2005/89  on 

188 Regulation (EC) No 1099/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on energy 
statistics. 
189 Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common 
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC. 

Page 115 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Security of Electricity Supply and infrastructure investment190 and Directive 2009/72 on 
Common rules for the internal market in electricity191, more particularly between Article 7 
of  the  Directive  2005/89  and  between  Article  4,  37(1)(e)  of  the  Directive  2009/72.  Some 
stakeholders also suggest revising obligations under Article 13.6(b) of the  Regulation (EU) 
994/2010 on Security of Gas Supply to  avoid  duplication of the reporting obligations under 
Regulation  (EU)  1227/2011  on  Wholesale  Energy  Market  Integrity  and  Transparency 
(REMIT)192. According to some stakeholders same information could also be found in reports 
to  be  prepared  under  Articles  13  (on  information  exchange)  and  14  (on  monitoring  by  the 
Commission)  of  Security  of  Gas  Supply  Regulation  and  under  Article  5  of  Internal  Gas 
Market Directive (on Monitoring of security of supply). Stakeholders also point to possible 
overlaps between the reporting obligations Regulation (EU) 347/2013 on Guidelines for trans-
European energy infrastructure193 in relation with the high level groups (e.g. CESEC).  

Moreover,  potential  overlaps  are  identified  in  relation  to  the  network  code  implementation 
monitoring in electricity and gas: (Regulation (EU) 714/2009 and Regulation (EU) 715/2009). 
Obligations  for  the  TYNDP  or  annual  report  on  natural  gas  markets  under  the  EU  Gas 
Regulation  (EC)  715/2009  are  also  reported  as  redundant  with  obligations  from  Regulation 
(EC) 256/2014 on Notification of Investments in the field of Energy. 

Finally,  stakeholders  highlight  concrete  overlaps  in  the  field  of  nuclear  energy,  notably 
between the reporting obligation to the IAEA (Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel 
Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management194)  and  the  Council 
Directive  2006/117/Euratom  regarding  shipments  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel195  and 
the Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom196. In this vein, some respondents are also suggesting 
to use existing international reports to comply with EU reporting obligations. 

Question 13) on current reporting obligations that could be streamlined into one 

integrated report 

Based  on  the  replies  received,  a  general  consent  emerges  around  the  principle  that 
streamlined reporting instruments should mirror as closely as possible the streamlined 
planning  obligations,  and  eventually  the  template  of  the  integrated  Plan.  While  some 
respondents would seize the opportunity linked to this initiative to streamline most of current 
reporting obligations into an integrated report, others see some limits to this approach. While 
most would confine the streamlining exercise to the areas that are considered most relevant, 

190  Directive  2005/89/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  January  2006  concerning 
measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment. 
191 Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common 
rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC. 
192  Regulation  (EU)  No  1227/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2011  on 
wholesale energy market integrity and transparency. 
193 Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines 
for  trans-European  energy  infrastructure  and  repealing  Decision  No  1364/2006/EC  and  amending  Regulations 
(EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009. 
194https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/infcircs/joint-convention-safety-spent-fuel-management-and-
safety-radioactive-waste-management  
195  Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of shipments of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
196 Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible 
and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

Page 116 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
other  go  as  far  as  suggesting  creating  sector-specific  reports  following  the  structure  of  the 
five dimensions of the Energy Union.  

In the same vein, respondents tend also to agree that reporting obligations that are not or 
are  very  loosely  connected  with  particular  dimension  of  the  Energy  Union  should  be 
kept  separate  form  an  integrated  report.  This  should  allow  the  possibility  to  keep  a 
different  frequency  for  some  technical  reports.  Examples  made  by  stakeholders  include 
notably obligations in the field of nuclear energy (such as Article. 8e of the Council Directive 
on Safety of Nuclear Installations197). 

Moreover,  according  to  several  stakeholders,  report  obligations  not  falling  directly  on 
Member  States  should  also  remain  separate.  An  example  of  such  type  of  reporting 
obligations  frequently  mentioned  are  the  annual  reports  on  security  of  gas  and  electricity 
supply  by  National  Regulatory  Authorities’  (NRAs)  (Article  41(1)e  of  the  Internal  Gas 
Market Directive198).  

There  are  nonetheless  two  particular  dimensions  that  are  frequently  mentioned  as  the 
ones offering the biggest potential to rationalize existing reporting obligations. Those are 
the  reporting  requirements  linked  to  the  dimensions  of  decarbonization  and  of  the  internal 
energy market/ security of energy supply.  

Under  the  decarbonisation  dimension,  several  stakeholders  suggest  to  streamline  the 
reporting  obligations  for  example  related  to  policies  and  measures  and  to  ensure  coherence 
and consistency with reporting requirements that stem from the UNFCCC. Some respondents 
indicate  that  not  all  reporting  obligations  should  be  included  into  a  single  document  as  this 
would  lead  to  overcomplexity,  notably  the  full  transferral  of  UNFCCC  requirements  in  the 
integrated  plans  may  overburden  the  plans.  Some  stress  that  there  should  be  no  double 
reporting of information (internationally and within the EU context). 

Some  stakeholders  finally  believe  that  reporting  on  the  engine  fuels  and  quality  of  engine 
fuels could be streamlined (notably on crude import reporting, under the Council Regulation 
(EC)  No  2964/95199  and  on  volumes  and  quality  of  engines  fuels  under  the  Fuel  Quality 
Directive (FQD)200).  

On  the  internal  market  dimension,  some  stakeholders  advocate  for  the  development  of  an 
industry-wide standardized template for regulatory reporting obligations arising from the 
European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR)201 and from the regulation on Wholesale 
Energy Market Integrity and Transparency (REMIT). In the same vein, others are suggesting 
to  combine  several  reporting  requirement  related  to  the  market  dimension  in  a  joint 
report. Such an integrated market report could notably include Article 11 on ACER Annual 

197  Council  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  of  25  June  2009  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the  nuclear 
safety of nuclear installations. 
198 Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common 
rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC. 
199 Council Regulation (EC) No 2964/95 of 20 December 1995 introducing registration for crude oil imports and 
deliveries in the Community. 
200 Directive 2009/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 
98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and 
reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  amending  Council  Directive  1999/32/EC  as  regards  the  specification  of 
fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC. 
201  Regulation  (EU)  No  648/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  4  July  2012  on  OTC 
derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories. 

Page 117 of 138 

 
 
                                                 
Report  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  713/2009;  Article  7(3)  Regulation  (EU)  No  1227/2011; 
reporting obligations under the Directive 2008/92/EC202; Article 4 and 37(1) of the Internal 
Electricity Market Directive (2009/72/EC); Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 on 
provision  of  information  and  confidentiality;  and  the  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1113/2014)203.  Some  stakeholders  are  also  asking  for  a  better  coordination  of  ten-year 
network  development  Plans  with  current  or  future  planning  and  reporting  obligations 
on  monitoring  of  security  of  electricity  supply  (for  instance,  Art.  22  of  the  Directive 
2009/72;  Art.  4  of  the  Directive  2009/72  and  Art.  7  of  the  Directive  2005/89).  In  the  same 
vein some stakeholders are also asking to simplify current reporting obligations in the area of 
energy  infrastructure  i.e.  by  streamlining  provisions  in  the  Regulation  (EU)  256/2014204  on 
Notification  of  Investments  in  the  field  of  Energy  and  Regulation  (EU)  No  347/2013  on 
guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure.  

Concerning  the  other  dimensions,  less  reporting  overlaps  have  been  identified.  As  far 
renewable energy are concerned, some respondents point to existing overlaps between some 
reporting  requirements,  notably  concerning  reporting  on  final  energy  consumption,  on 
electricity  infrastructure  development  and  network  operation  and  GHG  reduction 
related to renewable energy.  

On energy efficiency, the principal feedback received suggests that that it would make sense 
to include all reporting obligations related to buildings a single reporting tool. According to 
stakeholders,  further  improvements  can  be  made  to  better  align  EED  and  EPBD  reporting 
obligations. 

Few  respondents  mention  specific  reporting  obligation  that  could  be  repealed.  The 
following  examples are  notably  cited by some  stakeholders and Member States: the already 
mentioned  Regulation  on  notification  of  investment  projects  in  energy  infrastructure 
(Regulation  (EU)  No  256/2014);  Article  22(1)  (g)  and  Article  22(1)  (k)  of  the  Renewable 
Energy  Directive;  as  well  as  Annex  III  on  indicators  of  the  MMR  (Regulation  (EU)  No 
525/2013).  

The following sections further explore and offer a more comprehensive assessment of existing 
reporting obligations in the different areas of the energy and climate acquis, as emerged in the 
context of this public consultation.  

Question 14) on the elements/articles of the current reporting obligations in the 

field of renewable energy considered indispensable  

Through  the  consultation  many  respondents  underline  the  importance  of  solid  reporting 
obligations,  especially  in  the  absence  of  legally  binding  targets  at  Member  States  level.  In 

202  Directive  2008/92/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2008  concerning  a 
Community procedure to improve the transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to industrial end-users 
(recast). 
203  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1113/2014  of  16  October  2014  establishing  the  form  and 
technical  details  of  the  notification  referred  to  in  Articles  3  and  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  256/2014  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  repealing  Commission  Regulations  (EC)  No  2386/96  and  (EU, 
Euratom) No 833/2010. 
204  Regulation  (EU)  No  256/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  February  2014 
concerning  the  notification  to  the  Commission  of  investment  projects  in  energy  infrastructure  within  the 
European Union, replacing Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 617/2010 and repealing Council Regulation 
(EC) No 736/96. 

Page 118 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
this  vein,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  highlights  the  importance  of  maintaining  provisions 
related to reporting of the current RED, and notably Article 21 and 22 on Member States 
reporting  on  national  renewable  energy  shares,  support  schemes,  simplified  administrative 
procedures, and transmission and distribution reinforcements. These provisions are considered 
by  most  respondents  as  important  to  ensure  accountability  and  to  provide  the  scope  for 
corrective actions. According to many, the content of the progress reports should be reduced 
to  most  vital  information  focusing  on  the  targets  and  sub-targets  in  various  sectors  such  as 
electricity, heat and transport. According to several, also the use of biofuels (Articles 19 and 
23) should also continue to be closely monitored.  

Stakeholders also took the opportunity to comment on the possible timing for the reporting 
obligations.  While  several  stakeholders  are  advocating  for  maintaining  biennial  reporting 
some  other  asked  to  reduce  the  frequency  of  the  progress  reports  in  the  field  of  renewable 
energy to align it with the timing of the reporting of the EED, under Article 24 (1 in 3 years). 
According  to  those  stakeholders,  current  frequency  would  be  too  burdensome  for  some 
national administrations.  

Furthermore, according to some stakeholders indispensable elements of reporting should also 
detail the use of cooperation mechanism, statistical transfers or joint projects (Article 4, 6 
and 7).   

Finally, several stakeholders are also asking to retain the main provisions on the European 
Commission’s monitoring and reporting obligations as per Article 23. 

Question 15) on the elements/articles of the current reporting obligations in the 

field of energy efficiency considered indispensable  

As  in  the  case  of  renewables,  existing  reporting  obligations  of  the  EED  and  EPBD  are 
considered by many stakeholders are crucial elements to be maintained in the new reporting 
instruments.  Concerning  the  EED  in  particular,  many  respondents  ask  to  preserve  the 
obligations requiring Member States to report on their progress towards their national 
energy  efficiency  targets  (Article  24(1))  and  the  Commission  to  analyse  and  report  on 
progress  and  issue  timely  recommendations  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council 
(Article  24(3)).  Key  elements  contained  in  the  National  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plans 
(Article 24.2 and Annex XIV part 1 and 2), which include reporting requirements for several 
articles  in  the  directive  should,  in  the  view  of  many,  also  be  maintain  in  future  reporting 
instrument.  Other  key  provisions  of  the  EED  that  are  generally  mentioned  as  important  are 
Article 4; 5, 6, 7(9) (on the planning and reporting requirement for measures to fulfil article 
7;) and Articles 14, 15 and 19(2). 

In  parallel,  also  in  the  field  of  energy  efficiency,  several  stakeholders  are  asking  to  the 
European  Commission  to  provide  a  mandatory,  standardised  template  for  reporting 
obligations.  

Concerning the EPBD, most stakeholders agree that the key articles should be preserved, and 
notably Articles 5 and 9(5), the latter detailing Commission reporting obligations linked to 
the number of nearly zero-energy buildings. 

Page 119 of 138 

 
 
 
 
Question  16)  on  elements/articles  of  the  current  reporting  in  the  field  of  low-

carbon development strategies considered indispensable 

Several  respondents  highlight  the  importance  of  existing  obligation  to  report  on  the 
implementation  low-carbon  development  strategies  (LCDS)  and  on  other  requirements. 
Some consider the existing reporting obligations on LCDS to be sufficient, while others think 
these should be strengthened. Under the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation, Articles 4, 5, 
7, 8, 13-18, 21 and 22 are considered as particularly important. For example, Article 13, on 
reporting  policies  and  measures,  is  considered  particularly  relevant  to  ensure  adequate 
monitoring.  Ensuring  coherence  and  consistency  of  these  requirements  with  international 
obligations is also mentioned as indispensable 

Question 17) and 18) on elements/articles of the current reporting obligations in 
the  field  of  infrastructure  development  and  internal  energy  market 
considered as indispensable 

There is a general consent that reporting obligations linked to the development of Project 
of Common Interests are important also in the context of the development of integrated 
reporting. In particular, Article 5 and 17 of the Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 on guidelines 
for  trans-European  energy  infrastructure  (respectively  on  ACER  and  Commission's  reports) 
are  seen  by  many  stakeholders  as  important  pillars  in  their  specific  domain.  Reporting 
obligations  for  project  promoters  to  submit  annual  reports  are  seen  as  important  tools  to 
identify problems with the development of the project in a timely manner. The annual reports 
also  enable  the  European  Commission  to  identify  and  address  any  common  challenges 
experienced by the projects.  

There are nonetheless divergent views as far as the reporting obligations on monitoring 
of  security  of  supply  are  concerned.  According  to  several  stakeholders,  Art.  7(5)  of  the 
Security  of  Electricity  Supply  Directive205  (Commission  obligation  to  report  on  Electricity 
and Gas on the investments planned and their contribution to the objectives of the directive) is 
an  element  that  should  be  preserved.  In  parallel,  observers  result  divided  on  the 
opportunity  to  introduce  a  regional  dimension  to  the  existing  monitoring  obligations 
linked to security of supply.   

Stakeholders'  contributions  highlight  the  importance  of  the  completion  of  the  Internal 
Energy Market, unanimously considered as a key tool to promote the EU energy policy. 
According  to  many,  the  Energy  Union  Governance  should  therefore  ensure  regular 
monitoring and reporting obligations, including on the impacts of energy costs and prices on 
competitiveness in the composition of energy costs and prices. Stakeholders also emphasize 
the  role  of  progress  report  on  internal  market  of  electricity  and  gas  under  the  Internal 
Electricity  Market  Directive  and  the  Internal  Gas  Market  Directive.  Some  stakeholders  are 
finally  mentioning  as  important  to  include  Articles  10  and  13  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
543/2013206    dedicated  respectively  to  information  relating  to  the  unavailability  of 
transmission infrastructure and to congestion management measures. 

205 Directive 2005/89/EC. 
206  Commission  Regulation  (EU)  No  543/2013  of  14  June  2013  on  submission  and  publication  of  data  in 
electricity markets and amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council Text with EEA relevance. 

Page 120 of 138 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Question  19)  on  reporting  obligations  in  the  field  of  energy  research  and 

innovation considered indispensable  

A  majority  of  stakeholders  agrees  that  research  and  innovation  represent  key  drivers  to 
achieve  the  objectives  of  the  Energy  Union.  In  this  vein,  some  are  suggesting  to  enhance 
reporting  requirements  related  to  the  share  of  public  support  allocated  to  research, 
development and innovation in the field of energy as well as related to ongoing or completed 
research  projects  within  the  EU.  In  a  different  register,  other  stakeholders  point  out  that 
requesting new information might create additional administrative burden for national 
administrations.  Some  also  highlight  that  reporting  on  research  and  innovation  funding  is 
done  on  an  annual  basis  to  the  International  Energy  Agency  (IEA).  Several  stakeholders 
finally rely on the strengthened reporting system under the new Strategic Energy Technology 
(SET) Plan207 and on the new indicators to be defined in the context of the Energy Union208. 

Some stakeholders also stress that the Commission should also improve the tracking of the 
spending of ETS revenues as well as well as spending under the European Structural and 
Investment Funds (ESIF) to ensure that Energy Union spending is appropriately targeted. 

Question  20)  on  the  administrative  burden  imposed  by  existing  reporting 

obligations on both Member States and other stakeholders  

In line with the opinions expressed for the planning obligations, several respondent highlight 
that  it  is  particularly  difficult  to  quantify,  at  national  level,  the  administrative  burden 
directly  linked  to  existing  EU  reporting  obligations.  There  is  nonetheless  a  general 
agreement that, while reporting obligation in the climate and energy field has increased 
over time, standardised reports and mandatory templates could play a role in reducing 
the overall administrative costs. Those are notably perceived as particularly beneficial to i) 
reduce  the  time  that  national  administrations  spend  reporting  via  economies  of  scales  and 
learning  effects;  and  ii)  facilitate  the  analysis  of  aggregated  data  by  the  Commission,  thus 
accelerating the compilation of monitoring reports. 

In  general,  stakeholders  note  a  higher  level  of  administrative  burden  in  the  reporting 
associated  to  the  areas  of  the  internal  energy  market,  energy  efficiency  and  climate 
dimension.  

Question  21)  on  the  importance  of  future  reporting  obligations  for  Member 

States in the key areas of the Energy Union Strategy 

As for planning obligations, there is a general tendency to consider important to maintain 
an adequate level of reporting obligations along all five dimensions of the Energy Union. 
According to many, a holistic reporting system is necessary to be able to mirror adequately 

207  Communication  from  the  Commission:  Towards  an  Integrated  Strategic  Energy  Technology  (SET)  Plan: 
Accelerating  the  European  Energy  System  Transformation  (C/2015/6317).  This  Communication  foresees  to 
improve the reporting from Member States on national research  and innovation priorities and investments Key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs) will be monitored. In parallel, the Commission will further strengthen the existing 
SET  Plan  Information  System  (SETIS)  to  ensure  a  more  diligent  and  intelligent  use  of  available  information, 
data and reporting practices by stakeholders and the Member States. 
208 SWD/2015/0243 final: Monitoring progress towards the Energy Union objectives - Concept and first analysis 
of key indicators Accompanying the Communication on the first State of the Energy Union. 

Page 121 of 138 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
planning  obligation  and  to  be  able  to  quickly  react  to  possible  deviations  from  the 
intended goals set by the Energy Union.  

At  the  same  time,  as  for  planning  elements,  several  insist  on  the  primary  importance  of 
reporting  in  the  areas  were  EU-level  targets  have  been  agreed.  This  is  why  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  reduction,  renewables  and  energy  efficiency  are  indicated  as  the  domains  where 
reporting should be prioritized (those are indicated as "very important" by respectively 59%, 
54% and 54% of the overall respondents to the online questionnaire).  

Looking  at  specific  stakeholders  group,  between  32  and  48%  of  the  national  public 
authorities indicate as ""very important" all areas subject to consultation, with the exception 
of  reporting  obligations  relating  to  research,  innovation  and  competitiveness  (considered 
"very important" only by 16% of national public authorities having replied). Figures relating 
to  replies  from  private companies  and  industry  association  are  even  higher,  ranging  from  a 
28%  of  "very  important"  for  research,  innovation  and  competitiveness  to  a  63%  of  "very 
important"  for  GHG  emissions  reduction).  Finally  NGOs  put  particular  emphasis  on  the 
energy  efficiency,  renewable  energy  and  GHG  emissions  reduction  areas  (all  considered  as 
"very  important"  for  more  than  80%  of  respondents  from  this  group)  whereas  the  internal 
energy market, energy infrastructure, research, innovation and competitiveness and security of 
supply are considered by a majority of them only as "important".  

Page 122 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Part III – Options for streamlining planning and reporting obligations (Questions 22 to 
29) 

This section of the consultation seeks stakeholders' views on the options for the design of the 
new Governance initiative. The main learning from this section of the consultation constituted 
the basis on which where formulated the options described in the Impact Assessment related 
to this initiative.  

Based on the replies received to questionnaire, stakeholders perceive a new legislative act 
covering  both  planning  and  reporting  obligations  as  a  viable  option  to  ensure 
consistency  between  planning  and  reporting  obligations  while  reducing  unnecessary 
administrative  burden.  In  fact,  an  absolute  majority  of  stakeholders  having  replied  to  the 
online  consultation  (51%)  see  several  benefits  deriving  from  the  use  of  a  legislative 
instrument.  A  comprehensive  legislative  act  can,  in  view  of  many,  attain  both  consistency 
between the various objectives under the five dimensions of the Energy Union and reduction 
of the administrative burden. According to the same stakeholders this approach would reduce 
overlaps and inconsistencies, while enhancing comparability between Member States. While 
several  Member  states  are  also  openly  supporting  this  policy  option  some  stress  that  the 
process should not add new administrative burden or entail additional costs. 

Moreover, in their written comments, most respondent agree that such legislation should not 
only regulate the streamlining of planning and reporting requirements  but also provide 
the  basis  for  the  Integrated  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plans  as  well  as  detail  the 
political process of the Governance of the Energy Union. 

Question  23  was  inviting  stakeholders  to  assess  the  options  to  streamline  and  improve 
planning, reporting and monitoring obligations on the basis of comprehensive soft (i.e. legally 
non-binding)  Commission  guidance.  If  adopted,  this  soft  guidance  would  complement  the 
existing  Guidance  to  Member  States  on  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plans  as  part  of  the 
Energy  Union  Governance  presented  as  an  Annex  to  the  Commission's  State  of  the  Energy 

Page 123 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
Union209.  A vast majority of respondent to the on-line consultation (61%) do not consider this 
option as adequate to ensure efficient and effective streamlining of existing obligations while 
fostering investment certainty. It has nonetheless to be acknowledged that the non-legislative 
approach remains the favourite option for some Members States. Those are notably insisting 
on  the  principle  that  choices  impacting  the  energy  mix  should  remain  solely  of  national 
competence. In this vein, national public authorities having replied to the consultation remain 
somewhat  more  divided  on  the  potential  consequences  of  non-legislative  approaches  (23% 
would  see  benefits,  whereas  47%  don't  consider  this  approach  as  effective  and  efficient). 
From  a  different  perspective,  an  overwhelming  majority  of  private  companies  and  industry 
associations and NGOs (respectively 57% and 94% of replies) don't consider a non-legislative 
approach as a viable option.  

Questions 24 to 26 ask stakeholders to express their views on the potential impacts linked to 
different  options  for  the  Governance  of  the  Energy  Union.  Stakeholders  were  invited  to 
express  their  view  around  the  options  of  i)  a  non-legislative  guidance;  ii)  the  revision  of 
sectorial legislation or iii) a new single legislative act.  

From feedbacks received to question 24 dedicated to the estimated impact of a non-binding 
guidance,  it  can  be  evinced  that  stakeholders  consider  that,  compared  to  the  current 
situation, this option would: i) negatively affect the possibility to properly implement EU 
legislation  (37%  of  stakeholders  anticipate  a  "significant  deterioration",  including  11%  of 
public authorities, 34% of private companies and industry associations and 80% of NGOs) ii) 
reduce  the  possibility  to  attain  EU  energy  and  climate  targets  (37%  of  stakeholders 
anticipate  a  "significant  deterioration",  including  11%  of  public  authorities,  34%  of  private 
companies  and  industry  associations  and  80%  of  NGOs)  and  iii)  reduce  the  possibility  to 
adequately  monitor  progress  and  trends  (according  to  36%  this  option  would  bring  a 
"significant deterioration" including 11% of public authorities, 31% of private companies and 
industry associations and 80% of NGOs). As a consequence, this option is also considered by 
a  vast  majority  of  respondents  as  entailing  direct  negative  impacts  on  investment 

209 COM(2015) 80 

Page 124 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
certainty.(here  again,  38%  of  stakeholders  anticipate  a  "significant  deterioration"  including 
16% of public authorities, 34% of private companies and industry associations and 80% of 
NGOs).  

Question  25  was  asking  respondents  views  on  possible  impact  that  would  derive  form 
streamlining of the current planning and reporting obligations through revisions of the 
existing  sectorial  legislation.  With  this  option,  it  is  envisaged  to  amend  directly  existing 
sectorial  legislation  in  order  to  incorporate  and  align  existing  planning,  reporting  and 
monitoring  obligations  in  integrated  national  energy  and  climate  Plans  and  reporting  tools, 
amending or repealing non relevant or redundant obligations from current legislation. Based 
on  received  replies;  this  option  is  perceived  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  as  a  better 
option than soft  guidance.  It has  nonetheless to  be noted that  according to  the  majority of 
respondent  this  solution  would  not  bring  particular  improvements  compared  to  the 
present situation, notably in terms of comparability, coherence and predictability.  

More specifically, whereas about 40 % of public authorities, private companies and industry 
associations  don't  expect  particular  changes  should  this  option  be  retain,  it  is  interesting  to 
note that about 50% of the NGOs would expect a slight improvement from current situation.  

The  third  option  contemplated  in  question  26  revolved  around  a  single  legislative  act  to 
streamline  current  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  in  the  energy  and 
Page 125 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
climate  field  post  2020.  With  this  option,  legislative  provisions  would  be  proposed  and 
amended in a single and harmonised legal instrument. In line with view expressed to previous 
questions,  responders  reiterated  a  clear  preference  for  a  new  comprehensive  initiative 
having a legislative nature. According to replies received, an all areas analysed, such option 
is  considered  by  a  vast  majority  of  responders  as  an  improvement  from  the  current 
situation.  This  option  would  notably  i)  increase  the  coherence  of  planning  instruments 
("improvement"  or  "considerable  improvement'  for  52%  of  overall  respondents,  including 
68% of public authorities, 44% of private companies and industry associations and 73% of 
NGOs);  ii)  improve  the  monitoring  phase  ("improvement"  or  "considerable  improvement' 
for  47%  of  overall  respondents,  including  58%  of  public  authorities,  38%  of  private 
companies and industry associations and 73% of NGOs); facilitate the achievement of the 
Energy  Union  targets  ("improvement"  or  "considerable  improvement'  for  44  %  of  overall 
respondents,  including  58%  of  public  authorities,  31%  of  private  companies  and  industry 
associations  and  73%  of  NGOs)  while  ensuring  iv)  the  effective  implementation  of  the 
legislation  ("improvement"  or  "considerable improvement'  for  43  %  of  overall  respondents, 
including 58% of public authorities, 31% of private companies and industry associations and 
73% of NGOs).  

In  line  to  replies  received  in  question  22  to  26,  question  27  confirms  stakeholders'  clear 
preference  of  a  comprehensive  legislative  initiative  over  other  type  of  initiatives 
proposed. As already illustrated in the sections dedicated to questions 10 and 21, according to 
most  stakeholders,  the  legislative  initiative  should  cover  both  planning  and  reporting 
obligations across the five dimensions of the Energy Union. This option is supported by 31% 
of overall respondents, including 42% of national public authorities and in particular 7 out of 
15  Member  States  having  replied  to  the  consultation.  Moreover  also  33%  of  private 
companies and industry associations as well as 33% of NGOs also support this option. 

The option of streamlining obligations by sectorial legislation received support form 21% of 
stakeholders. If 10% of national public authorities210 point towards this option, not a single 
Member State expresses explicit preference for this way forward. Finally only 27% of private 
companies and industry associations and 20% of NGOs favour this option. 

210 This category regroups government institutions both at central and local level. 

Page 126 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
To  conclude,  the  non-binding  guidance  option  receives  support  from  only  15%  of 
stakeholders  but  including  21%  of  national  public  authorities  and  in  particular  5  Member 
States.  Only  23%  private  companies  and  industry  associations  and  0%  of  NGOs  express 
preference for this option. 

Page 127 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Part IV - Options for the Governance system of the Energy Union and its process 

This section of the consultation looks into respondents preferred options for the content of the 
integrated national Plans that will be developed in the context of the new Governance of the 
Energy Union as well as into the process on the development and revision of these Plans. 

Questions 29) to 31) on the scope and nature of the Integrated National Energy 

and Climate Plans  

 Building further on the replies to the sections devoted to the scope of existing planning and 
reporting obligations that will have  to be subject to  streamline (questions 1-21) respondents 
reiterated the need to ensure that the resulting integrated Plans are holistic enough to capture 
the five dimensions of the Energy Union while offering a sufficient level of detail. This view 
is  notably  supported  by  6  Member  States  out  of  15  having  replied  to  the  consultation.  
According  to  an  absolute  majority  of  stakeholders,  including  6  Member  States,  the  Plans 
should nonetheless give more prominence to the areas covered by the 2030 energy and 
climate framework and notably greenhouse gas emission reductions (element considered by 
53% of the overall respondents as "very important", including 52% of public authorities, 54% 
of private companies and industry associations and 94% of NGOs), energy efficiency (53% 
of  overall  respondents  consider  it  as  "very  important",  including  47%  of  public  authorities, 
38%  of  private  companies  and  industry  associations  and  94%  of  NGOs)  and  renewable 
energy ("very important" to the eyes of 50% of overall stakeholders, including 52% of public 
authorities, 46% of private companies and industry associations and 87% of NGOs).  

When  looking  at  the  views  expressed  by  the  national  public  authorities,  it  can  be  conclude 
that a lot of emphasis is also dedicated to security of supply, energy infrastructure and internal 
energy  market  (very  important  elements  of  the  future  plans  respectively  for  42%,  37%  and 
37% of respondents belonging to this group of stakeholders).  

On the exact structure of the Integrated National Energy and Climate Plans, respondents, 
and in particular Member States, propose alternative options. Notably 4 Member States out of 
15  having  replied  suggest  the  introduction  of  short  strategic  planning  documents  with  high 
level  of  aggregation  focussing  on  the  long  term  policy  objectives  reflecting  the  quantified 

Page 128 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
targets  agreed  at  the  EU  level,  and  in  particular  the  2030  Framework  targets.  Concise 
planning documents would have a higher probability to remain updated over time.  

According  to  some  of  the  stakeholders  that  are  suggesting  to  adopt  high  level  plans,  those 
documents could eventually be accompanied by streamlined reporting instruments detailing a 
wider range of policies and measures The retention of sectorial or more detail reporting would 
nonetheless  reduce  the  benefits  stemming  from  the  streamlining  efforts,  notably  in  terms  of 
reduction of existing administrative burden. 6 Member States warn of the risk of introducing 
new obligations via the adoption of detailed plans.  

An  absolute  majority  (52%)  of  stakeholders  having  replied  to  the  consultation,  including  3 
Member States, are nonetheless suggesting maintaining  an adequate level of detail in  future 
planning  instruments  in  order  not  to  lose  important  information.  According  to  this  line  of 
thought,  the  integrated  Plans  should  cover  all  main  elements  identified  as  important  in 
previous  sections  of  this  consultation  in  order  to  ensure  a  holistic  approach  and  a  better 
coverage  of  the  five  dimensions  of  the  Energy  Union.  According  to  most  stakeholders,  the 
new  Plans  should  also  detail  policies  and  measures  to  achieve  the  indicated  overall 
objectives. It has to be noted that, especially in the areas of renewables and energy efficiency, 
38%  of  stakeholders,  including  6  Member  States,  are  asking  for  the  introduction  of 
benchmark, trajectories or "corridors", notably for renewables and energy efficiency in order 
to track each single Member States’ progress against the overall EU targets. (refer to question 
4 for more detailed assessment).  

Several  stakeholders  (34  %  of  respondents,  including  2  Member  States)  also  voice  the 
necessity, for the new planning instruments, to factor in a long term vision until 2050. Several 
stakeholders  are  finally  asking  to  introduce  direct  reference  between  the  elements  to  be 
detailed in the Plans and the key indicators agreed upon at the European level. 

Despite  the absence  of  dedicated  question,  about  one  third  of  stakeholders  (32%, of  overall 
replies,  including  3  Member  States)  advocate  for  the  inclusion  of  standardized  or  binding 
templates.  Those  respondents  equally  advise  on  the  necessity  of  standardised  reporting 
templates mirroring the structure of the new planning instruments.  

Question  31)  on  the  political  process  to  ensure  the  stability  of  the  Integrated 

National Energy and Climate Plans  

Several  respondents  (41%  of  overall  replies)  share  the  view  that  a  transparent  and 
participatory  planning  process  is  essential  in  order  to  foster  investment  certainty  and 
public acceptance. In turn, those aspects would both contribute to the stability and credibility 
of the integrated Plans. According to most contributions received, the preparation of the Plans 
should  be  also  transparent  and  involve  stakeholders  at  both  the  European  and  the  national 
level. Likewise, a majority of stakeholders value the transparency of reporting.  

While  some  Member  States  pointed  out  that  the  type  of  political  process  necessary  for 
developing  national  Plans  should  be  determined  at  national  level  based  on  the  subsidiarity 
principle, there is a general agreement that the solidity of the  Plans could be strengthened 
by  a  validation  process  involving  national  governments,  cross  party  political  approval 
and/or the involvement of national parliaments. Several stakeholders are also asking the 
approval of the new Plans via the use of national legislative acts.  

Page 129 of 138 

 
 
 
There  is  also  a  general  consent  on  the  necessity  to  agree  on  a  detailed  timeline  for  the 
finalisation  of  the  Plans  as  well  as  to  foresee  regular  update  of  Plans,  also  taking  into 
account the reporting cycles under the Paris Agreement. A minority of stakeholders are also 
suggesting that national contributions detailed in the Plans should become binding  once 
the iterative process has been completed. 

According to several stakeholders, Member States should report to the Commission on the 
implementation  of  the  Plans  while  the  Commission  should  ensure  the  enforcement  of  the 
integrated Plans. In this vein, several stakeholders are notably suggesting the introduction of 
milestones or benchmarks against which the national Plans are assessed and/or the use of 
legal  mechanisms  to  ensure  accountability.  It  is  also  generally  agreed  that  the  Commission 
should  also  hold  Member  States  accountable  for  the  delivery  of  their  national  Plans, 
ensure that the national Plans at least achieve agreed 2030 EU level targets and incentivise 
regional cooperation in the preparation of the Plans.  

According  to  many,  the  Commission  should  have  the  ability  to  issue  country-specific 
recommendations and play a stronger role in facilitating cooperation between Member States 
and in ensuring convergence between member states national energy policies.  

Finally,  several  respondents  are  asking  for  the  definition  of  specific  legal  provisions  that 
would  allow  the  introduction  of  further  measures  in  case  a  gap  is  identified  towards 
achieving  the  2030  EU-level  targets.  Most  stakeholders  are  of  the  opinion  that  these 
additional measures should be foreseen in the context of the revision of relevant sectorial 
legislation (notably the Renewables Energy Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive). 

Question 32) on the main factors justifying an update of the Integrated National 

Energy and Climate Plans in the period from 2021 to 2030  

From received replies, notably by 5 Member States, clearly emerges the need to find a right 
balance  between  the  importance  to  strengthen,  via  the  Plans,  long  term  regulatory 
certainty  and  policy  clarity  with  the  need  to  ensure  the  possibility  to  adapt  planning 
instruments  to  changing  circumstances.  The  stability  of  the  Plans  is  considered  by  a  vast 
majority of  respondents as particularly important in order to minimize regulatory uncertainty, 
lower  investment  risk,  reduce  cost  of  capital,  push  forward  technical  developments  and 
minimise costs.  

In  parallel,  it  is  widely  recognized  that  the  Plans  should  be  periodically  updated,  taking 
into  account  all  changes  that  are  hard  to  predict  well  in  advance,  among  others, 
technological progress, major changes in national energy and climate policies and measures, 
changes in costs of proposed measures, economic and fiscal development.  

Based  on  the  reflections  above,  according  to  some  respondents,  Member  States  should 
therefore maintain the right to amend and update the Plans as needed and as often as needed 
based  on  changes  of  the  legislative,  economic  or  political  environment.  According  to  those 
respondents, the evaluation of the need for amending or updating the Plans should be carried 
out on an ongoing basis.  

From  a  different  perspective,  other  stakeholders  are  proposing  to  restrict  the  updating 
possibility to a limited number of sections of the Plans or only in case of significant change of 
policy goals and/or projections. 

Page 130 of 138 

 
 
 
 
Questions  33)  to  35)  on  the  role  of  different  Institutions  in  the  Governance 
process (definition and monitoring of the Integrated National Energy and 
Climate Plans) 

Via those three questions, stakeholders  were  asked to  identify which Institutions could play 
the most relevant role in the definition, revision and assessment of the implementation of the 
integrated Plans.  

Question 33 was focusing on the importance of various institutions in the definition phase of 
the Plans. From the replies received, a clear agreement emerges on the centrality of national 
administrations in the definition of the Plans (those are considered "very relevant" for 70% 
of  the  respondents,  including  68%  of  public  authorities,  67%  of  private  companies  and 
industry associations and 87% of NGOs).  

Replies received also put a strong emphasis on the role that could be played by the national 
stakeholders  and  national  parliaments  in  the  process  leading  to  the  establishment  of  the 
integrated  Plans.  More  particularly,  national  stakeholders  are  considered  as  having  a  "very 
relevant"  role  in  this  process  by  55%  of  overall  stakeholders,  including  21%  of  public 
authorities, 58% of private companies and industry associations and 87% of NGOs, whereas 
national  parliaments  are  considered  "very  relevant"  by  43%  of  the  overall  respondents, 
including 16% of public authorities, 40% of private companies and industry associations and 
80% of NGOs).  

The consensus around the role of national parliaments clearly demonstrates a clear preference 
of the respondents for a democratic and participatory process as well as their willingness to 
engage with national governments on the definition of national long-term energy and climate 
priorities.  In  the  same  vein,  some  suggests  the  creation  of  stakeholders  consultation 
mechanisms, both at national level, to assess the draft Plans, and at EU level, for commenting 
Commission's  evaluation.  32%  of  overall  respondents  see  the  European  Parliament's  role  as 
"very important" in this phase, including 5% of public authorities, 31% of private companies 
and industry associations and 67% of NGOs. 

From a different perspective, the role of the Commission in the development of the Plans is 
considered  as  "very  relevant"  for  47%  of  the  overall  respondents,  including  31%  of  public 
authorities,  48%  of  private  companies  and  industry  associations  and  80%  of  NGOs.  The 
strong role to be played by the Commission is also fully acknowledged by 12 Member States 
out  of  15  having  replied  to  this  consultation.  According  to  a  majority  of  stakeholders,  the 
Commission  should  support  Member  States  in  the  development  of  the  integrated  Plans, 
promote best practices, knowledge-sharing and regional cooperation.  

While  few  respondents  highlight  the  importance  of  regional  fora  or  the  necessity  to 
involve  neighbouring  Member  States  in  the  phase  of  definition  of  the  Plans,  there  is 
nonetheless a widespread consensus on the fact that regional cooperation should be a key 
element of the Governance process. 

Page 131 of 138 

 
 
 
Question 34 focuses on the role of various institutions in the subsequent monitoring phase of 
the adopted Plans. In this subsequent phase of monitoring, even more emphasis is given to 
the role of the Commission in assessing progress made by Member States. In this phase, 
the Commission is seen as "very relevant" by 61% of overall stakeholders, including 42% of 
public authorities, 63% of private companies and industry associations and 93% of NGOs 

In this vein, the Commission's State of the Energy Union is seen as a central element of the 
new  political  process  to  be  set  by  the  Governance  of  the  Energy  Union.  In  their  written 
replies,  stakeholders  however  express  somewhat  divergent  views  on  the  opportunity  of 
introducing a  formal  approval  procedure  by the  Commission  on  the  Plans  as  well as  on  the 
legal  nature  of  policies  recommendations  that  could  be  issued  by  the  Commission  on  the 
implementation of the Plans. 

Also in this phase, the role and involvement of national administration is seen as crucial by 
67% of respondents with again a small role for the European Parliament (seen as less relevant 
than national stakeholders and indicated as "very relevant" only by 33% of the stakeholders).  

Replies received to question 35 on the role of the Commission the whole governance process 
confirm the assessments made in the two previous sections. Respondent confirm the crucial 
role  that  the  Commission  will  have  to  play  notably  i)  by  providing  templates  and 
technical  support  to  Member  States  during  the  preparations  phase  of  the  Plans  (activity 

Page 132 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
perceived  as  "very  relevant"  by  66%  of  overall  stakeholders,  including  47%  of  public 
authorities, 72% of private companies and industry associations and 86% of NGOs); ii) by 
reviewing Plans submitted by Member States and engage in an iterative dialogue that should 
be  conducive  to  higher  level  of  ambition(activity  perceived  as  "very  relevant"  by  54%  of 
overall  stakeholders,  including  27%  of  public  authorities,  58%  of  private  companies  and 
industry  associations  and  93%  of  NGOs);  and  iii)  by  introducing  EU  level  measures 
supporting Member  States  in  the  attainment  of  the  objectives  of  the  Energy  Union  (activity 
perceived  as  "very  relevant"  by  52%  of  overall  stakeholders,  including  37%  of  public 
authorities, 48% of private companies and industry associations and 93% of NGOs);. 

Finally,  according  to  a  majority  of  stakeholders  the  Commission  should  also  play  an 
important  role  by  issuing  policy  recommendations  on  the  Plans  (aspect  considered  as  "very 
relevant" by 45% of overall stakeholders, including 32% of public authorities, 40% of private 
companies and industry associations and 93% of NGOs). 

Questions 36) and 37) on the role of regional cooperation and mutual reviews of 

Integrated National Energy and Climate Plans 

In accordance with the conclusions of October 2014 and March 2015 European Councils, the 
new  Governance  system  should  facilitate  the  coordination  of  national  energy  policies  and 
foster regional cooperation. Within this consultation, 61% of overall stakeholders, including 5 
Member  States,  agree  that  strengthening  regional  integration  and  cooperation  in  the  Energy 
Union  domains  is  an  "important"  or  "very  important"  objective.  There  is  also  widespread 
consensus on the principle that Member States' consultations could play a role in the political 
process  leading  to  the  definition  of  the  new  Plans.  More  concretely,  58%  of  overall 
stakeholders consider consultations of other Member States in the preparation of the plans as 
"important"  or  "very  important"  In  the  same  vein,  42%  of  overall  respondents  agree  that 
national Plans should adequately illustrate how the principles of regional integration and 
cooperation were taken into account in the preparation of the Plans.  

Stakeholders  also  agree  that  the  Commission  should  play  an  important  role  in  guiding 
Member States and setting up process defining regional cooperation. As a consequence, 
50% of stakeholders consider the definition of Commission guidance on regional cooperation 
as "important" or "very important". While some stakeholders also propose the negotiation of 
regional targets, there no widespread support around this policy option.  

Page 133 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
Concerning consultations and mutual reviews of the Integrated National Energy and Climate 
Plan, there is a rising agreement that these mutual reviews could play a role in the process 
of  definition  of  the  plan.  Respondents  are  more  divided  on  the  importance  of  mutual 
review  on  the  definition  and  evaluation  of  the  progress  report  related  to  the 
implementations of the Plans. Respondents are also somewhat sceptical on the necessity for 
the  Commission  to  create  binding  system  requiring  mutual  reviews  between  Member 
States on the Plans.  

Page 134 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex I: List of online survey participants  

This  list  captures  all  participants  who  submitted  contributions  to  the  online  survey  as  of  25 
April  2016,  and  who  consented  to  their  submission  being  published  under  their  provided 
name. The list therefore excludes all participants who explicitly stated that their contribution 
should  not  be  published  at  all  and  only  be  subject  to  internal  analysis  within  the  European 
Commission. The list also excludes participants who only submitted non-online survey based 
responses. All names are presented as submitted by the participants themselves.  

All  online-based  submissions  by  the  below  listed  participants  may  be  retrieved  as  an  Excel 
file from the consultation website. 

Organisation 
ACCIONA 

Sector 
Private company/ Industry association 

Country  
Spain 

AGFW  |  Der  Energieeffizienzverband  für  Wärme, 
Kälte und KWK e.V. 
AIGET 

Portuguese  Renewable  Energy 

Ålands landskapsregering 
ANIGAS 
APREN 
- 
Association 
BDEW Bundesverband der deutschen Energie- und 
Wasserwirtschaft e.V. 
BEUC,The European Consumer Organisation 

Bruxelles  Environnement-  Région  de  Bruxelles-
Capitale. 

(European  Centre  of  Employers  and 

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie 
Carbon Capture and Storage Association 
CEEP 
Enterprises providing Public Services) 
Central Europe Energy Partners (CEEP) 
ČEZ, a.s. 
ClientEarth 
Climate Action Network Europe 
Climate Alliance 
COGEN Europe 
Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic 

Danish Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate 
Deutscher Naturschutzring 
DONG Energy 
E3G 
EDF S.A. 

Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC) 
Enagás S.A. 
Enel 

Energie-Control Austria 
Energy Cities 
Energy Norway 
ENGIE SA 

Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Private company/ Industry association 

Germany 
Italy 

Finland 
Italy 

Private company/ Industry association 

Portugal 

Private company/ Industry association 
NGO 

National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Private company/ Industry association 

Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
NGO 
NGO 
Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
NGO 
Private company/ Industry association 
Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 

Germany 
Belgium 

Belgium 

Germany 
United Kingdom 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
United Kingdom 
Belgium 
Germany 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 

Denmark 
Germany 
DK, DE, NL, UK 
Belgium 
France 

Cyprus 
Spain 
Italy 

Austria 
Belgium 
Norway 
France 

Page 135 of 138 

 
 
 
EURELECTRIC 
EuroACE  (European  Alliance  of  Companies  for 
Energy Efficiency in Buildings) 
European Biogas Association (EBA) 
European Biomass Association (AEBIOM) 
European Federation of Energy Traders (EFET) 
European Geothermal Energy Council 
European  Insulation  Manufacturers  Association 
(Eurima) 
European Solar Thermal Industry Federation 
European Trade Union Confederation 
Fachverband Biogas / German Biogas association 
Gas Infrastructure Europe 
German  Renewable  Energy 
Bundesverband Erneuerbare Energie e.V. 
Green Budget Europe AISBL 
Greenpeace European Unit 
Groupe Avril 
Ibec 
IBERDROLA S.A. 
Inter-Environnement Wallonie 
IOGP  -  International  Associations  of  Oil  and  Gas 
Producers 

Federation 

/ 

Ministry of Economic Affairs 

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications 
Ministry  of  Energy  Ministry  of  Environment 
Ministry  of  Foreign  affairs  National  Commission 
for Energy Control and Prices (NRA) 
Ministry  of  Industry  and  Trade  of  the  Czech 
Republic 
Nature Code 
NORWEA - Norwegian Wind Energy Association 
Ocean Energy Europe 
ORGALIME aisbl 
Polish Electricity Association (PKEE) 
Polish Wind Energy Association 
Regasificadora del Noroeste S.A. 
Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES) 
Réseau Action Climat France 
ROCKWOOL International A/S 
RSPB 

Slovak Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing 
Smart Energy Demand Coalition 
SolarPower Europe 
Som Energia sccl 
Statkraft AS 

Swedish government offices 
The Coalition for Energy Savings 
The  European  Federation  of  Intelligent  Energy 
Efficiency Services (EFIEES) 
UPEI: Union of European Petroleum Independents 
WindEurope 

Private company/ Industry association 

Belgium 

Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association  
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 

Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Workers' organisation/trade union 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 

Private company/ Industry association 
NGO 
NGO 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Other interest group organisation/association 

Belgium 
EU 
Belgium 
Netherlands 
Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Germany 
Belgium 

Germany 
Belgium 
Belgium 
France 
Ireland 
Spain 
Belgium 

Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 

United Kingdom 

Latvia 

Estonia 

National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
NGO 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
NGO 
Private company/ Industry association  
NGO 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
Other interest group organisation/association 

Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 

Lithuania 

Czech Republic 
Austria 
Norway 
Belgium 
Belgium 
Poland 
Poland 
Spain 
United Kingdom 
France 
Denmark 
United Kingdom 

Slovakia 
Belgium 
EU 
Spain 
DE, SE, UK 

Sweden 
Belgium 

Belgium 
Belgium 
Belgium 

Page 136 of 138 

 
 
-  Zentralverband  Elektrotechnik-  und 

WWF European Policy Office 
ZERO - Associação Sistema Terrestre Sustentável 
ZVEI 
Elektronikindustrie e. V. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 

Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous. 
Anonymous 

NGO 
NGO 

Private company/ Industry association 
Individual citizen 
Individual citizen 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
National  public  authority  (central  or  local 
government) 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
NGO 
Other interest group organisation/association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Private company/ Industry association 
Research organisation/university 
Private company/ Industry association 

Belgium 
Portugal 

Germany 
Spain 
France 

Slovakia 

Slovakia 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Poland 

Hungary 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Portugal 
France 
Finland 
Austria;Bulgaria 
Belgium 
Germany 
Spain 

Page 137 of 138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
8.5.  Annex  V:  Methods  and  Analytical  models  used  in  preparing  the  Fitness 

Check 

The  Fitness  Check  on  the  planning,  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  within  the  EU 
energy acquis was based on a sound methodology. First, the legislative obligations within the 
scope of the Fitness Check were identified by an internal screening exercise throughout 2015 
and  updated  where  necessary  in  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 was 
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. 

In  this  undertaking,  the  Commission  was  supported  by  the  results  of  a  public  consultation 
launched in January 2016 and lasting until April 2016. Additional information was gathered 
through  two  independent  but  interlinked  studies  commissioned  by  DG  Energy  and  DG 
Climate  Action  (see  annex  III  for  more  information  on  these  studies)  as  well  as  through 
internal interviews conducted by the Commission.  

Due  to  the  horizontal  and  specific  nature  of  this  Fitness  Check  on  planning,  reporting  and 
monitoring obligations in the EU energy acquis, no modelling was done in the framework of 
this Fitness Check. Therefore, also no baseline scenario was developed.  

Page 138 of 138