COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Solar Energy Strategy
Date: 2022-05-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU energy policy, EU strategy, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy cooperation, energy efficiency, energy production, energy saving, heating, solar energy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.5.2022  SWD(2022) 148 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT    Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Solar Energy Strategy {COM(2022) 221 final}  
 
 
PUBLIC CONSULTATION SYNOPSIS REPORT 

EU SOLAR ENERGY STRATEGY 

The European Commission first announced its intention to adopt a  Communication setting 
out a strategy for solar energy in the EU in the 2022 Commission Work Programme. In the 
preparation  of  this  initiative,  the  main  stakeholder  consultation  activities  consisted  of  an 
online “call for evidence” and a public consultation, which were published on 18 January 
on  the  Commission’s  consultation  website  ‘Have  your  say’  and  remained  available  for 
feedback  for  12  weeks.  In  addition  to  the  online  consultation  activities,  the  Commission 
also  organized  a  high-level  virtual  stakeholder  conference  on  the  EU  Solar  Strategy,  as 
well as three workshops at technical level. 

The aim of the consultation was to gather feedback from the Member States, stakeholders 
and  citizens  on  the  proposed  scope  and  content  of  the  strategy,  as  well  as  on  additional 
elements the strategy should cover. The main stakeholders targeted were public authorities, 
solar energy companies such as product manufacturers, project developers or undertakings 
related to the integration of solar installations, such as aggregators or providers of digital 
solutions, 
including  SMEs;  energy  communities,  consumer  associations;  non-
governmental  organisations;  research  and  innovation  organisations  and  individuals  that 
produce or consume solar energy or are simply interested in it. 

This  document  should  be  regarded  solely  as  a  summary  of  the  contributions  made  by 
stakeholders through this consultation process. It cannot in any circumstances be regarded 
as the official position of the Commission or its services and thus it is not binding for the 
Commission.  Responses  to  the  consultation  activities  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
representative sample of the views of the EU population. 

Range of participating stakeholders 

Input  from  the  main  stakeholders  targeted  was  received  via  responses  to  the  public 
consultation,  comments  to  the  “call  for  evidence”  and  through  participation  in  the 
stakeholder  events.  There  was  high  participation  of  solar  energy  companies  at  all  levels 
(from micro to large companies) and representing various solar energy  technology sectors 
(concentrated  solar  power,  solar  photovoltaic,  solar  thermal,  etc.)  as  well  as  renewable 
communities  and  citizens  involved  and/or  interested  in  solar  energy.  Several  consumer 
associations,  non-governmental  organisations  and  research  and  innovation  organisations 
also  provided  comments  or  feedback.  There  was  limited  participation  from  public 
authorities, whether at national or at local level.  

Tools and methodology 

A  quantitative  and  qualitative  analysis  of  the  replies  to  the  public  consultation  and  the 
comments  received  to  the  ‘call  for  evidence’,  including  the  attached  position  papers  was 
carried  out.  The  replies  to  the  multiple-choice  questions  in  the  public  consultation  were 
processed  using  the  quantitative  data  analysis  tools  in  EU  Survey.  The  qualitative  replies 
(the free text replies to the questions as well as the attached position papers) were gathered and 
screened separately from the quantitative data. The comments to the ‘call for evidence’ were 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
classified according to the claims made and quantified. 

Call for evidence 

Regarding  the  “call  for  evidence”,  447  persons  or  entities  commented  upon  it. 
Nevertheless,  92  were  repetitions  and  44  did  not  addressed  the  topic  at  stake.  Therefore, 
the actual number of substantial contributions was 311. 

The  great  majority  of  comments  came  from  citizens  (266,  including  4  from  non-EU 
citizens)  and  company/business  organisations  (58)  non-governmental  organisations  (12), 
academic/research  institutions  (5),  research  agencies  (1),  trade  unions  (3),  public 
authorities (3) and others (7).  

Public consultation questionnaire 

The public consultation  questionnaire  attracted a total of 190 participants, the majority of 
which  were  company/business  organisations  (55)  and  EU  citizens  (52).  The  remaining 
respondents  represented  academic/research  institutions  (23),  business  associations  (21), 
public  authorities  (13),  non-governmental  organisations  (8),  consumer  organisations  (3), 
non-EU citizens (2), trade unions (1) and others (12). In addition, 12 respondents declared 
that they represented an energy community and 49 stated they represented an owner(s) of 
distributed, small-scale solar energy production. 

Concerning  the  country  of  origin  declared  by  the  participants,  44  declared  Spain,  38 
Germany,  18  France,  14  Belgium  and  Italy,  8  the  Netherlands,  7  Sweden,  5  Austria, 
Portugal  and  Poland,  4  Greece,  2  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Hungary 
and  Malta  and  1  Bulgaria,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Romania  and  Slovenia.  Regarding 
respondents from outside the  EU, 3  declared  Norway  as country of origin, 2  Switzerland 
and Turkey, 1 Brazil, China, Israel and United Kingdom. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
When asked about which technologies they worked with (respondents could choose more 
than  one  option),  the  most  selected  technology  was  solar  photovoltaic,  either  distributed 
(87)  or  utility-scale  (78),  followed  by  solar  thermal,  either  for  domestic  use  (40),  for 
industrial or agricultural use (39) or district heating (29), while Concentrated Solar Power 
(CSP) was selected by 59 respondents. 

Results of the public consultation 

Call for evidence 

The vast majority of respondents, 290, was in favor of an accelerated deployment of solar 
energy,  while  21  respondents  were  against,  out  of  311  substantial  respondents.  Most  of 
them  recommended  major  deployment  of  solar  energy  in  buildings,  simplification  of 
legislation  and  greater  economic  support.  Some  expressed  concerns  about  land-use 
competition with agriculture, environmental concerns and security in the supply chain. 

The administrative burden (77) was pointed by the participants as the main bottleneck for 
the  development  of  solar  projects,  highlighting  the  need  for  shorter  and  simpler 
administrative  procedures.  Some  participants  also  pointed  to  the  need  for  more  support 
(60) in form of funding, loans or tax reductions. 

Some  respondents  mentioned  that  buildings  should  produce  renewable  energy  and  be 
highly  energy  efficient,  which  in  turn  would  reduce  energy  costs  for  households.  To 
accomplish so, they urged to accelerate the  integration of solar energy on roofs, balconies, 
façades, walls or other parts of new construction projects, as well as during renovations of 
public  or  private  buildings  (85).  Others  linked  the  development  of  solar  energy  in 
buildings  with  the  integration  of  e-mobility,  proposing  to  accelerate  the  deployment  of 
parking/charging  stations  for  electric  vehicles,  including  along  motorways.  Other 
participants  supported  energy  communities  and  self-consumption  as  tools  to  promote 
decentralised solar energy production (28) and to inform the general public on the benefits 
and viability of solar energy (9). 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Several  respondents  indicated  storage  systems  as  the  best  solution  to  allow  greater 
flexibility in the management of the renewable energy production and to provide energy at 
night (40). Some participants mentioned the need to boost  other solar technologies such as 
CSP (10)  and solar thermal (15), not just  photovoltaic  panels.  One of the key challenges 
identified  was  the  development  of  a  workforce  that  possesses  the  knowledge,  skills  and 
competences needed (7). 

As  concerns  the  environmental  aspects,  various  participants  demanded  reinforced 
sustainability  standards  and  research  in  resource-efficient  production  and  recycling  (30). 
As  regards  dual  use  of  space,  many  advocated  the  promotion  of  agri-PV  (34).  A  few 
number  of  respondents  supported  the  EU  manufacturing  of  solar  panels  ("made  in 
Europe")  (18)  as  a  way  of  ensuring  that  PV  products  installed  in  the  EU  apply  high 
environmental standards,  are not produced by  forced labour  and  reinforcing  supply chain 
resilience. 

Public consultation questionnaire 

The  public  consultation  questionnaire  contained  26  questions  in  total,  most  of  them 
multiple-choice  questions,  though  some  of  them  were  open  questions.  The  questions 
covered  three  main  topics:  (1)  accelerating  the  deployment  of  solar  energy  projects,  (2) 
facilitating  the  system  integration  of  solar  energy  production  and  (3)  enhancing 
sustainability,  resilience,  competitiveness,  innovation  and  transparency  along  the  solar 
energy  value  chain.    It  is  worth  noting  that  most  of  the  190  respondents  did  not  fully 
answer all the questions. 

In the first section of the questionnaire, permitting procedures were identified as the most 
important  barrier  to  photovoltaic  projects  by  the  largest  number  of  participants  (45), 
followed by grid connection issues (43) and the  regulatory  framework (42).  On the other 
hand,  the  lack  of  public  acceptance  was  identified  as  the  least  important  barrier  by  the 
largest  number  of  participants  (32).  As  regards  CSP  projects,  the  regulatory  framework 
was identified as the most important barrier by the largest number of participants (51). 

As  concerns  the  factors  that  negatively  affect  the  business  case  of  new  utility-scale  solar 
PV  projects,  the  largest  number  of  participants  (44)  pointed  to  the  uncertainty  regarding 
the  future  regulatory  framework  as  the  most  important  barrier,  followed  by  uncertainty 
regarding future support schemes (40) and lack of incentives for behind-the-meter storage 
combined  with  solar  project  (38).  To  the  same  question  for  large-scale  CSP  projects,  the 
largest number of participants (49) pointed to auction-based systems that are inadequate to 
ensure  a  level  playing  field,  followed  by  uncertainty  regarding  the  future  regulatory 
framework (46). 

Participants  also  weighed  the  importance  of  the  factors  that  hamper  the  deployment  of 
small  solar  installations  in  single-unit  buildings.  The  largest  number  of  participants  (41) 
pointed  to  the  absence  of  (or  low  remuneration  for)  sales  of  excess  electricity  produced. 
For  installations  in  multiple-unit  buildings,  the  largest  number  of  participants  (41)  chose 
the  regulatory  and  public  support  framework  as  the  most  important  negative  factor, 
followed  by  the  legal  framework  for  decision-making  in  joint-ownership  buildings  with 
commonly owned rooftops and facades (38). Around 40 respondents did not fully answer 
these  two  questions.  In  addition,  most  respondents  agreed  that  in  the  absence  of  net-
metering/net-billing  schemes,  there  would  be  a  lack  of  incentives  for  small  installations 
and  the  largest  number  of  respondents  (32  out  of  approximately  100  participants  who 
answered  this  question)  pointed  to  applicable  network  charges  and  levies  as  the  most 
important negative factor. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As regards the  factors preventing energy communities from fully playing their role in the 
generation,  sharing  and  sale  of  solar  energy,  many  respondents  did  not  fully  answer 
(around 90). Among those who did,  the largest number of respondents (40) identified the 
rigid  and  time-consuming  tender  procedures  for  subsidies  as  the  main  factor  and  the 
permitting procedures to set up energy communities (also 40). 

Respondents  also  assessed  the  factors  that  prevent  solar  installations  in  industrial 
areas/facilities.  The  largest  number  (37),  taking  into  account  that  around  70  respondents 
did not answer this question, chose the impact of the regulatory and support framework on 
the  business  case,  followed  by  the  lack  of  long-term  visibility  needed  to  make  large 
investment  decisions,  the  lack  of  incentives  to  use  more  renewable  energy  and  grid 
connection  issues  (33  each).  On  the  other  hand,  the  low  potential  for  electrification  of 
operations was not seen as an obstacle, since the largest number of respondents (54) rated 
it as the least important negative factor. 

Regarding solar thermal  installations, the largest number  of  respondents  (32), taking into 
account  that  around  100  respondents  did  not  fully  answer  this  question,  pointed  to  the 
regulatory  and  public  support  framework,  followed  by  those  who  signaled  the 
unfavourable conditions for renewable sources connecting to the heating system (30).  

In order to encourage public authorities to install solar energy in the buildings or land they 
own  or  lease,  the  largest  number  of  respondents  (83)  chose  setting  targets  for  renewable 
installations in public buildings as the most appropriate instrument, followed by those who 
favoured legal mandates (69). Around 60 respondents did not fully answer this question. 

Primary  agricultural  producers  including  farmers  and  agriculture  associations  were  asked 
whether they had invested or were planning to invest in solar energy in their farm. Out of 
22 respondents, 10 responded positively and most of them (6) signaled it was part of a net -
billing/net-metering scheme. The majority of those who  had not invested and/or were not 
planning to invest (12 in total), mentioned the lack of financing as the main reason behind 
their decision (6). 

Concerning  the  regulatory  changes  that  would  be  beneficial  to  create  a  more  supportive 
framework  for  additional  distributed  photovoltaic  capacity  in  locations  other  than 
buildings,  around  60  participants  exposed  their  ideas.  The  responses  were  quite 
heterogeneous,  but  some  topics  were  shared  by  few  participants,  such  as  fostering  the 
deployment  of  agri-PV  through  developing  a  specific  framework  for  it,  increasing 
financial  aids  (support  schemes,  tax  reductions,  etc),  or  making  permitting  procedures 
shorter and lighter. 

The  great  majority  of  respondents  (145)  considered  that  compatibility/interoperability 
issues  between  components  of  solar  photovoltaic  installations,  or  solar  production  and 
storage system limit customer choice in equipment to a particular supplier, manufacturer or 
incompatible 
product 
communication protocol/standard. 

line.  Among  78  respondents,  45  signaled  as  reason 

the 

As  regards  measures  to  facilitate  the  system  integration  of  solar  energy  production, 
approximately  60  respondents  did  not  fully  answer  this  question.  The  largest  number  of 
respondents (101) considered that small solar producers should be allowed to sell on both 
wholesale and retail markets.  

A majority of respondents signaled they were not providing flexibility services to the local 
electricity  system  operator  (74  out  of  122  who  answered).  As  regards  barriers  to  the 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provision  of  flexibility  services  (e.g.  through  demand  response)  to  the  local  electricity 
system  operator,  the  largest  number  of  respondents  (51)  identified  the  absence  of  local 
markets or peer-to-peer trading possibilities as the most important barrier, followed by the 
domination of the market by large utilities (38).  

The  majority  of  respondents  (102  out  of  a  total  of  117  answers)  agreed  that  small-scale 
solar producers should be allowed to sell on both wholesale and retail markets. The largest 
number of respondents (51) pointed to the absence of local  markets, peer-to-peer trading 
possibilities,  etc.  as  main  barrier  preventing  such  market  participation.  However,  around 
100 participants did not rate all the barriers. 

There were more respondents that had not installed a battery for their domestic or business 
needs than respondents who had done it (79 vs 51). The main reason for installing it was to 
better align consumption with solar production (37) and to  decrease dependence from the 
grid (36); the majority of those who had not done it considered that it was too expensive 
for the added value (39). Concerning grid communication of distributed solar photovoltaic 
system, most of the participants who responded considered that a common format for data 
was  needed  (87  out  of  106  answers)  and,  regarding  that  data  production,  most  of  the 
respondents  who  answered  thought  it  should  be  close  to  the  time  intervals  of  electricity 
markets or closer to real time (78 out of 99 answers). 

sustainability 

With  reference  to  the  questions  related  to  the  value  chain,  the  majority  of  respondents 
(between  121  and  150)  considered  that  it  would  be  relevant  to  apply  measures  requiring 
increased  transparency  and  placing  quantitative  requirements  (on  carbon  footprint, 
environmental 
energy 
employment 
products/systems sold in the EU. A great majority of respondents (151) considered that the 
EU’s  reliance  on  imported  products/materials  in  the  solar  energy  sector  creates 
vulnerabilities  or  risks  for  accelerating  the  deployment  of  solar  energy  and  many 
participants  (142)  considered  it  probable  that  supply  chain  challenges  would  have  a 
substantial  impact  on  the  availability  of  cost-effective  solar  energy  solutions  in  the  EU 
market in the medium-long term. 

conditions) 

solar 

and 

for 

When  asked  to  select  the  main  factors  that  hamper  EU’s  capacity  for  generating 
intellectual  property  and  innovation  in  relation  to  the  solar  energy  value  chain,  limited 
large-scale  manufacturing  in  the  EU  was  selected  most  frequently  (99).  Concerning  the 
sectors of the  PV supply chain with most potential to increase the competitiveness of  the 
EU  industry,  respondents  pointed  mostly  to  novel  technologies,  such  as  heterojunction, 
perovskite or tandem cells (66), but also to the production of modules  (56) and cells (55), 
and  to  equipment  manufacturing  (54).  On  measures  that  would  contribute  to  the 
sustainability,  competitiveness  and  resilience  of  the  EU  solar  energy  value  chain,  the 
largest number of respondents (76) chose access to favourable financing conditions  as the 
measure  with  the  highest  potential,  followed  by  the  launch  of  a  process  of  Important 
Projects of Common European Interest in the solar energy sector (69) and by support to the 
development of large-scale production facilities, including through  accelerated permitting 
(64).  

Positions papers 

The  European  Commission  received  35  documents  providing  summaries  or  positions  on 
solar  energy  from  a  range  of  organisations,  including  public  administrations,  companies, 
distribution and transmission system operators, private sector and citizen associations, etc. 
To a large extent, the messages sent through this channel repeated those received through 
the  questionnaire.  Thus,  this  section  summarises  the  demands  put  forward  in  these 
documents that are not reflected in the summary above. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
An aspect for which this channel provided new perspectives was the social implications of 
solar  energy  deployment,  in  terms  of  fighting  energy  poverty,  supporting  collective  self -
consumption,  addressing  the  difficulties  tenants  face  to  access  renewable  energy,  etc. 
Stakeholders  proposed  support  schemes  targeting  low-income  households  that  cannot 
afford  the  initial  investment  required  for  the  installation  of  solar  energy  or  the 
establishment  of  mechanisms  that  provide  incentives  for  both  landlords  and  tenants.  In 
order to facilitate the installation of solar energy in multi-unit buildings, they proposed to 
revise decision-making rules in these buildings to allow decisions to be taken in a quicker 
and  simpler  manner,  for  instance,  on  a  simple  majority  basis.  In  order  to  promote  self-
consumption, stakeholders proposed to ensure that prosumers can change supplier, which 
will improve competition in the remuneration of the electricity they feed into the grid; in 
addition, some requested this remuneration  to be at least as high as the electricity market 
price.  The  need  for  small  installation  to  be  fully  involved  in  electricity  markets  was  also 
seen  as  necessary  to  promote  decentralised  deployment.  Other  stakeholders  pointed  out 
that  in  some  cases,  rooftop  deployment  is  blocked  by  local  regulations  on  the  external 
aspect  of  buildings  and  asked  for  simplification  and  shortening  for  permitting  in  such 
installations. The elimination of certain taxes in the case of self-consumption and sharing 
of  electricity  was  also  requested,  as  well  as  the  revision  of  network  tariffs  to  encourage 
decentralised solar deployment. The need to fully implement the existing EU legislation on 
Renewable Energy Communities was also underlined. 

At  the  same  time,  many  stakeholders  proposed  solutions  to  favour  the  deployment  of 
large-scale  installations,  such  as  a  national-level  mechanism  to  identify  suitable  areas,  or 
flexibility  in  implementing  environmental  legislation,  using  existing  derogations  on  the 
basis  of  public  interest.  In  parallel,  a  large  number  of  stakeholders  proposed  to  address 
obstacles related to the dual use of space or surfaces holistically, covering regulations  for 
various  sectors  i.e.  energy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  construction,  agriculture,  infrastructure, 
etc, on the other. 

Some  national  governments  and  utilities  also  underlined  that  the  European  Union  should 
respect  the  Member  States’  right  to  decide  on  their  energy  policy  and  refrain  from 
proposing additional legislation in this sector. Meanwhile, local administrations underlined 
that  the  EU’s  outermost  regions  rely  on  isolated  energy  systems,  while  Art.  349  TFEU 
protects their energy sovereignty. This translates into the need to develop both renewable 
energy  installations  and  storage  solutions.  The  existing  obstacles  to  storage  deployment 
was also underlined by other stakeholders. 

Some  industrial  sectors  used  this  channel  to  put  forward  their  demands.  Solar  heat  was 
presented being in need of further support, for instance in order to be more widely applied 
to decarbonise some industrial processes, where the potential is big but progress slow. The 
Concentrated  Solar  Power  sector  was  particularly  active,  asking  for  specific  support  to 
renewable sources that provide grid stability, including CSP. 

Finally,  the  solar  manufacturing  sector  presented  a  range  of  demands.  These  included 
recognizing  the  industry  as  a  strategic  sector  for  the  EU,  providing  access  to  financing 
(including  through  an  Important  Project  of  Common  European  Interest),  setting  an  EU-
level  target  for  manufacturing  capacity,  ending  current  anti-dumping  duties  on  certain 
components needed for the manufacturing of PV products,  

Outreach events 

In  addition  to  the  above  mentioned  activities,  the  Commission  organised  a  high-level 
virtual  stakeholder  conference  on  the  EU  Solar  Strategy  on  29th  March,  which  gathered 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
around  250  participants.  The  speakers  included  high-level  representatives  from  the  EU 
institutions and actors of the EU’s solar and thermal sector: industry, citizen organisations, 
regulators,  analysts,  researchers  and  civil  society.  There  was  unanimous  support  to 
accelerating  and  facilitating  the  deployment  of  solar  installations,  while  keeping 
environmental  and  social  standards  at  a  high  level.  The  importance  of  dual  use  of  space 
was underlined by most participants. Strengthening of Europe’s supply chain was stressed 
as  important  too,  although  there  was  no  consensus  on  what  EU-level  measures  could  be 
adopted to propitiate it.  Decentralised deployment led by  citizens  was discussed  as a key 
future component, based for instance on energy communities.  

The  Commission  also  participated  to  three  technical  workshops  on  specific  topics  with 
researchers and industry stakeholders: 

 

 

 

In  the  first,  on  Building-integrated  PV  (BIPV),  stakeholders  underlined  that  BIPV 
products have to go through a double certification procedure, as construction products 
and  as  electricity  products,  and  that  there  was  no  homogenous  product  certification 
procedures across the EU.  

In  the  second,  on  opportunities  and  barriers  for  the  solar  PV  manufacturing  industry, 
stakeholders pointed out that, while innovation remains a key advantage of the EU, the 
lack  of  manufacturing  makes  the  innovation  environment  less  competitive.  Access  to 
financing  was  presented as the  key  need  for  expanding  manufacturing because of the 
competition  by  imported  products,  which,  in  their  view,  is  the  result  of  an  un-level 
playing field at international level.  

In  the  third,  with  representatives  of  the  Concentrated  Solar  sector  (both  power  and 
thermal  sectors),  stakeholders  put  forward  their  view  that  CSP  should  not  have  to 
compete with solar PV on the basis of costs as it brings additional system value in the 
form of thermal storage and can e.g. deliver electricity over the night, replacing. Thus, 
they called for auction designs that recognise the advantages of dispatchable renewable 
energy.  

Conclusions 

The results of the open public consultation are largely aligned with the main intentions of 
the  initiative.  They  showed  overwhelming  support  for  accelerated  deployment  of  solar 
energy in the EU and for a larger role of the EU solar industry in this process. 

It  is  important  to  underline  that  some  of  the  requests  conveyed  through  this  consultation 
process  will  be  addressed  through  other  ongoing  initiatives  or  planned  by  the  European 
Commission. In particular, the parallel initiative on faster permitting for renewable energy 
projects,  since  this  was  largely  identified  as  the  main  barrier  to  accelerated  deployment. 
Other  issues  are  linked  to  the  full  implementation  of  existing  EU  legislation  and  to  the 
proposals  put  forward  in  2021  through  the  Fit  for  55  package,  including  the  proposed 
revision of the Renewable Energy Directive. 

A core tenant of this initiative is that all forms of deployment are needed to achieve the EU 
renewable  energy  targets,  an  approach  that  is  clearly  reinforced  by  the  results  of  the 
consultation  process.  Large-scale  deployment  is  necessary  and  must  be  compatible  with 
other  uses  of  land  and  with  strict  environmental  standards;  innovative  forms  of 
deployment,  in  combination  with  agriculture  or  transport  infrastructure,  must  also  be 
promoted;  finally,  in  order  to  support  decentralised  deployment  led  by  citizens  and 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
communities, a set of incentives needs to be put in place while unnecessary barriers  must 
be lifted. 

Finally,  the  consultation  confirmed  a  very  large  support  among  stakeholders  for  a  larger 
role of the EU solar industry,  either based on the economic benefits it would bring  or on 
the  wish to  reduce the current  dependence on imports.  There is a  panoply of instruments 
the  EU  can  use  to  propitiate  this  process.  In  addition,  the  consultation  reflected  a  clear 
demand for solar energy products that respect high sustainability standards. 

9