kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2024
KOM (2024) 0550
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 11.9.2024

SWD(2024) 200 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

on the Review of the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate

Action

{COM(2024) 550 final}

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 3

2.1

Background and intervention logic ................................................................................. 3

2.2 Point(s) of comparison and expected outcome ................................................................. 9

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........... 9

3.1

3.2

Implementation by Member States and the Commission ............................................... 9

Policy and other developments...................................................................................... 12

EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 18

4.1

To what extent was the Governance Regulation successful and why? ......................... 18

Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................... 18

4.1.1 Contribution to better energy and climate policy planning

........................................... 18

4.1.2 Contribution to the implementation of climate and energy policies

.............................. 19

4.1.3 Contribution to raising the quality of reported information

.......................................... 25

4.1.4 Contribution to increased public accessibility of reported information

........................ 27

4.1.5 Timeliness of plans and reported information.

.............................................................. 28

4.1.6 Compliance mechanisms

................................................................................................ 32

4.1.7 Impact on stimulating energy and climate spending and investment

............................. 33

4.1.8 Ensuring regional cooperation.

..................................................................................... 34

4.1.9 Public consultation and multi-level and multi-stakeholder dialogue

............................ 35

Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 38

4.1.10 Streamlining of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations and cost savings in

terms of policy coherence and administrative burden

............................................................ 38

4.1.11 Contribution to efficiency gains through increased digitalisation

............................... 40

Coherence................................................................................................................................ 41

4.1.12 Internal coherence

....................................................................................................... 41

4.1.13 External coherence

....................................................................................................... 43

4.2 EU added value: how did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?............. 45

4.2.1. Coordination and consistency of Member States’ energy and climate policies

............ 45

4.3 Is the Governance Regulation still relevant as it stands? .................................................. 48

4.3.1 Relevance in view of legislative and policy developments at EU and international level

4.3.2 Relevance in view of socio-economic, environmental, and geopolitical changes and

risks

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................... 52

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION.............................................................................. 54

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ..................................... 55

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................... 58

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION

AND BURDEN REDUCTION] ........................................................................................... 71

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ................................. 78

ANNEX VI. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ..................................................................................... 99

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Glossary

Term or acronym

BRP / BRPs

BTR

CAP

CBAM

CCS

CfE

COM

COP

Better Regulation

Building Renovation Plan(s)

Biennial Transparency Report

Common agricultural policy

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism

Carbon capture and storage

Call for evidence

European Commission

Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change

Common agricultural policy strategic plan(s)

Directorate-General(s)

Directorate-General for Climate Action

Directorate-General for Energy

Do No Significant Harm

European Commission

Energy efficiency

European Environment Agency

Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive 2023/1791)

Energy Efficiency First

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (Directive

2010/31/EU)

Evaluation Question(s)

Effort Sharing Decision (Decision No 406/2009/EC)

Effort Sharing Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/857)

Eurostat

Emissions Trading System

Meaning or definition

CSP / CSPs

DG / DGs

DG CLIMA

DG ENER

DNSH

EEA

EED

EEF

EPBD

EQ / EQs

ESD

ESR

ESTAT

ETS

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

EUR

FTE

GHG

IPCC

JTF

LTRS / LTRSs

LULUCF

MCED / MCEDs

MLG

MMR

European Union

Euro

Full-time equivalent

Greenhouse gas

Governance Regulation

Impact Assessment

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Information technology

Just Transition Fund

Long-term renovation strategy / strategies

Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

Multi-level Climate and Energy Dialogue(s)

Multi-level governance

Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (Regulation (EU) No

525/2013)

Monitoring, reporting and verification

Member State(s)

National Authority / Authorities

National Competent Authority / Authorities

Nationally determined contributions

National energy and climate plan

National Energy and Climate Progress Report(s)

National energy efficiency action plan(s)

Non-governmental organisation(s)

National long-term strategy / strategies

Net-Zero Industry Act

Paris Agreement

Policy / policies and measure(s)

Primary Energy Consumption

MRV

NA / NAs

NCA / NCAs

NDC

NECP

NECPR / NECPRs

NEEAP / NEEAPs

NGO / NGOs

NLTS / NLTSs

NZIA

PaM / PaMs

PEC

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

R&I

RED

REFM

RES

RRF

RRP / RRPs

SCM

SEA

SDGs

SWD

TFEU

Third sector

Quality assurance

Quality control

Research and Innovation

Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2023/2413)

Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism

Renewable Energy Sources

Recovery and Resilience Facility

Recovery and Resilience Plan(s)

Standard Cost Model

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Sustainable Development Goals

Specific objective

Staff working document

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

All other stakeholders apart from industry and national

authorities, where this includes NGOs, think tanks, individual

experts, research institutes, civil society organisations, academia,

etc.

Transmission System Operator(s)

United Nations

United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change

‘With additional measures’ scenario

‘With existing measures’ scenario

‘Without measures’ scenario

TSO / TSOs

UNFCCC

WAM

WEM

WOM

EU Member States

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czechia

Germany

Denmark

Estonia

Spain

Greece

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NTRODUCTION

Purpose of the evaluation

The Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action

(‘the

Regulation’) creates a cooperative governance process to ensure the collective

achievement, by Member States, of the EU’s Energy Union and climate action objectives.

It also seeks to minimise the administrative burden and contribute to greater regulatory and

investor certainty. In line with Article 45 of the Regulation, the Commission must report

to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of this Regulation within six

months of each ‘global stocktake’ under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement

The report should assess how the Regulation has functioned, how it has contributed to the

governance of the Energy Union, to the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement, to progress

on the 2030 climate and energy targets and the EU’s climate-neutrality objective and

additional Energy Union objectives. It should also assess to what extent the planning,

reporting, and monitoring provisions laid down in the Regulation are coherent with other

EU law or decisions relating to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

This Commission staff working document presents an evaluation of the Regulation in line

with the Commission’s policy on better regulation

, together with the above-mentioned

report

Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the

Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action.

The first global stock take was concluded at COP28 in Dubai in December 2023, see:

EU at COP28

Climate Change Conference - European Commission (europa.eu)).

Better regulation - European Commission (europa.eu)

COM(2024) 550

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation covers the Regulation (including amendments

and delegated and

implementing acts

) and its implementation in all EU Member States from its entry into

force in December 2018

until the end of 2023

The Regulation is evaluated against the five criteria set out in the Commission’s better

regulation guidelines

•

Effectiveness:

looking into the extent to which actions under the Regulation have

been implemented and whether this has resulted in achieving its objectives.

Efficiency:

assessing whether the obligations arising from implementation of the

Regulation have been implemented in a cost-effective way.

Coherence:

assessing the coherence of the Regulation, both between its own

provisions (internal coherence) and with wider EU and international policy

objectives and legislation (external coherence).

EU added value:

comparing impacts that are due to the Regulation to what

Member States could have achieved without the Regulation.

Relevance:

assessing whether the objectives and the regulatory tools of the

Regulation match current needs in view of the wider EU policy objectives, notably

on climate neutrality, climate resilience, energy security and resilience, energy

affordability and competitiveness.

•

Methodology, robustness, and limitations

The evaluation is partly based on an external evaluation carried out by consultants

complemented with internal analysis.

The methodology for the study

included consulting the public via a call for evidence

comprehensive desk research, a mapping of planning, reporting, and monitoring

obligations stemming from the Regulation, online surveys of national authorities, industry

The latest consolidated version is available at:

EUR-Lex - 02018R1999-20231120 - EN - EUR-Lex

(europa.eu).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1208 of 7 August 2020 on structure, format,

submission processes and review of information reported by Member States, Implementing Regulation

(EU) 2022/2299 laying down rules as regards the structure, format, technical details and process for the

integrated national energy and climate progress reports, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/1044 with

regard to values for global warming potentials and the inventory guidelines and with regard to the Union

inventory system, and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1294 of 15 September 2020 on the Union

renewable energy financing mechanism.

The evaluation also assesses the process of preparing the draft integrated national energy and climate

plans which were due by 31 December 2018 (Article 9(1) of the Regulation) and thus started prior to

the entry into force of the Regulation.

While for the most part the cut-off for the evaluation is the end of 2023, it also draws on input and

publications from 2024 where relevant.

The evaluation framework with detailed evaluation questions per criteria is included in Annex III.

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union

and Climate Action – final report (forthcoming)

A detailed description of the methodological approach and its limitations can be found in Annex II.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13799-Energy-Union-and-

climate-action-Review-report-on-the-Governance-Regulation_en

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

representatives and third-sector organisations

, interviews, a stakeholder event in

Brussels

and country case studies.

Several difficulties have complicated the assessment. The response rate to the various

strands of consultation was lower than expected, resulting in a somewhat limited range of

viewpoints. Consequently, the evaluation’s findings may in places lack the robustness that

a broader participation would have provided, notably in terms of quantifying costs and

benefits.

Related literature and data were primarily sourced in English, but targeted searches in other

EU languages were also made to close information gaps, particularly for the country case

studies.

Since the Regulation is an ‘umbrella’ piece of legislation, it was not always possible to

establish whether it had a clear causal effect on specific aspects, such as how it has

contributed to the implementation of more ambitious climate and energy measures.

Despite these limitations, the triangulation of data sources and extensive discussions with

national authorities and other stakeholders resulted in robust conclusions for most

evaluation questions.

Structure of the staff working document

This document is organised as follows:

•

Section 2 describes the expected outcome of the Regulation;

Section 3 outlines how the situation evolved over the evaluation period;

Section 4 reports on the evaluation findings;

Section 5 summarises the main conclusions, policy considerations and open

questions;

the annexes provide complementary information on procedures (Annex I),

methodology (Annex II), the evaluation matrix (Annex III), costs and benefits

(Annex IV), stakeholder consultation (Annex V) and additional evidence (Annex

VI).

HAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION

2.1 Background and intervention logic

Background

The Regulation, adopted in December 2018

, aimed to create a robust governance

mechanism and coordinated action at EU level to achieve the EU’s energy and climate

Third sector refers to all stakeholders other than national authorities and from industry including NGOs,

think-tanks, individual experts, research institutes, civil society organisations, academia, etc.

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/events/workshop-evaluation-governance-energy-union-and-climate-action-

regulation-2024-01-11_en.

It was published in the Official Journal on 21 December 2018 and entered into force three days later.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

objectives. It sought to promote more integrated national energy and climate plans

and to streamline, merge and simplify a partly overlapping set of reporting and

monitoring requirements under EU energy and climate legislation

. The Commission

proposed the Regulation in November 2016 as part of the ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans’

package, in the context of the Energy Union strategy

, the Paris Agreement and the EU’s

climate policy.

The Energy Union

, launched in 2015 as a key priority of the Commission, covers

five dimensions:

energy security, the internal energy market, energy efficiency,

decarbonisation as well as research, innovation, and competitiveness. With ambitious

energy and climate policies at its core, its goal is to give households and businesses secure,

sustainable, competitive, and affordable energy and to attract investments and foster

research and innovation. This requires a fundamental transformation of Europe's energy

system, particularly by promoting energy efficiency and energy savings and by developing

new and renewable forms of energy. The central idea behind the Energy Union is that this

goal can only be achieved through coordinated action, combining both legislative and non-

legislative acts at EU, regional, national, and local level.

Alongside the launch of the Energy Union,

2015 also saw the adoption by the Parties to

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of the

Paris Agreement

, emphasising the need for the EU to deepen and accelerate climate

action and enhance coordination and consistency of planning and reporting activities.

Aiming to keep the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-

industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C, the Agreement requires

countries to prepare, communicate and maintain successive ‘nationally determined

contributions’ (NDCs). Each successive NDC should represent a progression since the

previous NDC and reflect its highest possible ambition. The EU and its Member States

submitted their ‘intended’ NDC to the UNFCCC already in March 2015; this was formally

confirmed when the EU ratified the Agreement in October 2016. Since then, the EU’s NDC

has been updated twice: first in December 2020 when it raised its overall target from 'at

least 40%' to 'at least 55%' and second to reflect the EU’s Fit-for-55 package

, in October

2023

. Parties to the Paris Agreement were also expected to communicate their mid-

century, long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies by 2020, which

Such as, on the climate side, 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 (MMR

Regulation).

COM/2015/080 final A Framework Strategy for a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking

Climate Change Policy.

See:

Energy union (europa.eu) https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-strategy/energy-union_en;

The

Strategy is linked to Sustainable Development Goals 7 (‘affordable and clean energy’) and 13 (‘climate

action’).

The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC

Communication,

Fit for 55: Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the way to climate neutrality,

COM 2021/550 final.

See:

https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2023-10/ES-2023-10-

17%20EU%20submission%20NDC%20update.pdf

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

the EU and its Member States did in March 2020. The Agreement also included new

reporting requirements.

Several pieces of legislation were adopted in the context of the ‘Clean Energy for all

Europeans’ package,

including a recast of the Renewable Energy Directive

and an

amendment of the Energy Efficiency Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/2002)

. Key pieces

of climate legislation were also adopted in 2018 including revisions of the Emission

Trading System Directive (Directive (EU) 2018/410), the Effort Sharing Regulation

(Regulation (EU) 2018/842) as well as the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry

Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2018/841).

Against this overall backdrop, the Governance Regulation has aimed to support the

implementation of the Energy Union while increasing coherence between EU and national

energy and climate policies, improving and streamlining planning and reporting, and

aligning with the requirements and timelines under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

Intervention logic

As set out in the impact assessment (and the fitness check preceding it) that underpinned

the Commission’s 2016 legislative proposal

the Regulation aimed to tackle two key

problems:

1. Planning, reporting, and monitoring obligations not in line with the principles of better

regulation

The shortcomings identified under this heading concerned:

•

lack of suitability of those obligations to meet the EU’s 2030 climate and energy

targets and Energy Union objectives;

lack of policy coherence among scattered obligations across energy policy;

lack of consistency between energy and climate policy fields;

unnecessary administrative costs and inefficient framework for these obligations.

2. Inadequacy of the policy framework between Member States and the Commission to

achieve the Energy Union objectives and implement the Paris Agreement

Under this heading, two issues were highlighted:

•

current policy framework inadequate to attain the EU's collective energy targets for

2030, requiring a more coordinated and integrated framework;

planning and reporting obligations not in line with the Paris Agreement.

This introduced a new and binding EU-wide renewable energy target for 2030 of at least 32%, including

a provision for a review to increase the EU-level target by 2023.

This raised the EU-wide target for improvements in energy efficiency in 2030 to at least 32.5 % relative

to the 2007 reference scenario and included a provision for a review to increase the target by 2023.

SWD (2016) 394 final.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

To tackle these two problems, the

Regulation’s overall objective

was to 'set out the

necessary legislative foundation for reliable, inclusive, cost-efficient, transparent and

predictable governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action (governance mechanism),

which ensures the achievement of the 2030 and long-term objectives and targets of the

Energy Union in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement (...), through complementary,

coherent and ambitious efforts by the Union and its Member States, while limiting

administrative complexity'

In line with this, the

specific objectives

of the governance mechanism created by the

Regulation were to

•

implement

strategies and measures

designed to meet the objectives and targets of the

Energy Union and the EU's long-term greenhouse gas emissions commitments

consistent with the Paris Agreement, and, specifically for the first ten-year period from

2021 to 2030, to meet the EU's 2030 targets for energy and climate;

stimulate

cooperation between Member States,

including, where appropriate, at

regional level, designed to achieve the objectives and targets of the Energy Union;

ensure the timeliness, transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability, and

completeness of

reporting by the EU and its Member States to the UNFCCC

Secretariat;

contribute to

greater regulatory and investor certainty

and help optimise the

opportunities for economic development, investment, job creation and social cohesion.

•

To achieve these objectives, the Regulation is structured around the following

key

planning, reporting, and monitoring ‘activities’:

•

Member States are to draw up integrated national energy and climate plans

(NECPs -

Chapter 2

of the Regulation)

and

national long-term strategies

(LTSs -

Chapter 3).

Chapter 2 also requires Member States to ensure public consultation on

NECPs and LTSs, to engage in multi-level climate and energy dialogue at national level

and to ensure regional cooperation among Member States when preparing and

implementing NECPs. These mid- and long-term planning instruments, crucial to meet

the EU’s energy and climate objectives and targets, are some of the main changes

brought in by the Regulation.

Member States are to report on their progress to the Commission and to the

UNFCCC Secretariat (Chapter 4), through biennial and annual reports.

Biennial

reporting obligations to the Commission encompass integrated national energy and

climate progress reports (NECPRs), integrated reports on GHG policies and measures

and on GHG projections, as well as reports on national climate adaptation action. On

the international side, the Regulation required Member States to submit

biennial reports

Recital 1 of the Regulation

Article 1 of the Regulation

In the NECPs, Member States lay out how they will meet their obligations and targets under the Effort

Sharing Regulation and the Land Use and Land Use Change Regulation and how they will contribute to

the EU-wide renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.

•

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol (it does not yet provide a legal basis for submitting

biennial transparency reports under the Paris Agreement however

Annual

reporting

obligations concern the submission by Member States of GHG inventories, both to the

Commission and the UNFCCC Secretariat (with the Commission submitting a GHG

inventory report for the EU, thus tracking progress towards implementing the EU's

NDC). Member States also report annually

on the use of auctioning revenues and

financial and technology support provided to developing countries.

•

The Commission is to monitor progress towards meeting agreed objectives and

targets,

both at EU and Member State level (Chapter

5).

This includes Commission

assessments of and country-specific recommendations on draft NECPs; annual state of

the energy union reports and climate action progress reports (CAPR); as well as a

mechanism to respond if the NECPs show insufficient ambition and insufficient

progress is made on the EU's energy and climate objectives and targets.

In addition, the Regulation requires:

•

The Commission and Member States to establish GHG inventory systems and

systems for GHG projections and policies and measures,

with national inventory

data being subject to a comprehensive review by the Commission and

the EEA,

including for the purposes of data submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat (Chapter

6).

Inventory systems are the foundation for tracking progress both towards national

targets and the EU’s NDCs under the Paris Agreement. The Regulation also specifies

quality standards for inventories

Member States to cooperate with each other and the EU

in relation to obligations

under the Regulation and the Paris Agreement. To foster these exchanges among the

Member States and to support the Commission, the Regulation established the Climate

Change Committee and the Energy Union Committee. The Regulation also states that

the European Environment Agency (EEA) must assist the Commission in its work on

the Regulation’s decarbonisation and energy efficiency dimensions (Chapter

7).

•

As of 2024, Parties to the Paris Agreement submit ‘biennial transparency reports’, replacing the earlier

‘biennial reports’ under the UNFCCC. The Regulation has yet to be updated to formally incorporate the

new reporting obligations under the Paris Agreement and the Enhanced Transparency Framework.

As an example, following the revision of the LULUCF Regulation, Member States are encouraged to

move towards higher reporting standards (tier 2 and tier 3). In this regard, the Commission is developing

a methodology to estimate the climate change mitigation potential of planned interventions under the

CAP strategic plan.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Figure 1: Intervention logic for the Regulation

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

2.2 Point(s) of comparison and expected outcome

As noted above and explained in more detail in the baseline description contained in Annex

9 of the support study conducted by consultants

, the Regulation aimed to merge and

simplify a partly overlapping set of planning, reporting, and monitoring requirements

under EU energy and climate legislation in place before 2018.

This evaluation assesses the extent to which the Regulation has achieved its general and

specific objectives as well as its expected outcomes and impacts as identified in the

intervention logic (see Section 2.1 above). The evaluation describes how the Regulation

functioned and was implemented in the period since it entered into force

3.1

OW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD

Implementation by Member States and the Commission

The table below gives an overview of the key planning, reporting, and monitoring activities

(as identified in the intervention logic in Section 2.1) that have taken place since the

Regulation entered into force at the end of 2018. The upper part (in blue) summarises

legislative activities with a direct effect on the Regulation, the lower part (in orange)

summarises planning activities, the green part reporting and the yellow part monitoring.

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union

and Climate Action – final report (forthcoming)

While for the most part the cut-off for the evaluation is the end of 2023, it also draws on input and

publications from 2024 where relevant.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Table 1.. Key elements of the Governance Regulation

Blue: legislation, orange: planning, green: reporting, yellow: monitoring.

Note: for legibility, all annual obligations are presented on 1 fixed date, while in reality they have different submission dates.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

The table shows that:

•

In terms of

legislation,

six targeted amendments were made to the Regulation (see also

Section 3.2). In addition, one delegated and two implementing acts primarily related to

reporting were adopted, and one implementing act was adopted in relation to the

establishment and functioning of the renewable energy financing mechanism (REFM).

planning,

an EU long-term strategy on climate action was adopted in 2018 and an

EU methane strategy in 2020. Member States communicated drafts of their first NECPs

at the end of 2018/in early 2019. Following an assessment by the Commission

they

submitted final plans for the period 2021-2030 by the end of that year

. The five-yearly

process of

updating

NECPs stipulated by the Regulation was launched in mid-2023

and is expected to conclude by mid-2024. By March 2024, all Member States, except

Poland, have submitted their national LTSs.

reporting,

since 2021 Member States have fulfilled several biennial and annual

reporting obligations under the Regulation and the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol, for

instance reporting on national policies and measures, GHG projections and climate

change adaptation planning and strategies. Since 2023, this is complemented by (and

for some parts streamlined in) integrated national energy and climate progress reports

(NECPRs).

monitoring,

the Commission assessed the first draft and final NECPs for the period

2021-2030 in 2019 and 2020 and draft

updated

NECPs submitted by Member States

in 2023

. It published a first assessment of national LTSs in October 2021

(and

updates in subsequent editions of the annual climate action progress reports). It also

prepared a yearly comprehensive assessment package as part of the State of the Energy

Union

In terms of

GHG inventory systems,

the EU and Member States have put in place

robust institutional arrangements and processes for estimating GHG emissions by

sources and removal by sinks, including procedures to assess uncertainties and ensure

quality assurance and quality control. This is key to ensure proper reporting of GHG

inventories to the EU/EEA and the UNFCCC Secretariat.

•

Commission Communication assessing the 28 draft NECPs (COM/2019/285), together with specific

recommendations and a detailed staff working document for each Member State.

All submitted plans can be found here:

National energy and climate plans (europa.eu)

(https://commission.europa.eu/energy-climate-change-environment/implementation-eu-

countries/energy-and-climate-governance-and-reporting/national-energy-and-climate-plans_en).

In the first half of 2024, it assessed the draft updates of five remaining Member States whose submissions

were significantly late.

SWD (2021) 298 final.

All State of the Energy Union reports can be found here:

Energy union (europa.eu)

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-strategy/energy-union_en.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

•

Similarly, the EU and Member States are operating the Union and national system

respectively, for reporting on policies and measures and on projections of emissions

and removals to the EU and the UNFCCC Secretariat. As of 2024 the submission of

GHG inventories to the UNFCCC will be governed by the enhanced transparency

framework

replacing the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system.

Finally, in terms of

cooperation,

it is worth highlighting that for the first round of

NECPs (in 2019) the Commission provided extensive guidance to Member States,

alongside the opportunity to exchange best practices through a technical working

group. Similarly, to prepare the NECP update process (in 2023) and Member States’

reporting obligations, particularly in relation to the first round of NECPRs (also in

2023), the Commission again made substantial guidance available

. The Commission

also supported exchanges through various working groups set up under the Energy

Union and Climate Change Committees, both in the form of bilateral technical

discussions with Member States and regional fora such as high-level groups

Policy and other developments

•

3.2

As summarised in the figure below, the European and international energy and climate

policy landscape has undergone a significant transformation since the Regulation was

adopted in 2018. This was both as a result of

major EU policy developments during the

current Commission (2019-2024),

including the European Green Deal, the European

Climate Law and the ‘Fit-for-55’ package, and

unprecedented crises

caused by the

COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian weaponization of energy supply related to the

unprovoked and unjustified Russian aggression against Ukraine.

This was adopted at COP 24 in 2018 and finalised at COP26 in 2021. The enhanced transparency

framework is an accountability mechanism aimed at ensuring transparent reporting on the

implementation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and the flow of support for climate

action.

Commission Notice on the Guidance to Member States for the update of the 2021-2030 national energy

and climate plans (2022/C 495/02).

The European Commission set up four high level groups to provide strategic steering and policy

guidance on regulatory and infrastructure development and to monitor progress of projects of common

interest in priority regions. They are: the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC), Interconnections for

South-West Europe, Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) and the Central and

Southeastern Europe energy connectivity (CESEC).

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

EU policy developments and major crises since the Regulation’s adoption

Policy developments

The Governance Regulation was adopted as part of the EU’s 2018 legislative

framework to meet the EU’s (then) climate and energy targets for 2030.

Prior to

subsequent more ambitious revisions, these targets included a 40% reduction in GHG

emissions from 1990 levels, a 32% share for renewable energy in final energy consumption

and a 32.5% improvement in energy efficiency.

One year later, in December 2019, the European Green Deal laid the foundation for

the European Climate Law

(adopted in 2021) that enshrined into EU law the more

ambitious climate objectives for 2030 (reducing net GHG emissions by at least 55% by

2030 compared to 1990 levels) and 2050 (climate neutrality). This was followed by the

adoption of the Fit-for-55 package (2023

) that consisted of a set of inter-connected

legislation that operationalise the 2030 target with a balance between pricing mechanisms

(notably strengthening and extension of the EU ETS and the new CBAM), targets (ESR,

LULUCF, RED and EE), rules, and funding (Social Climate Fund and increased funding

under the Modernisation Fund and Innovation Fund). The Green Deal also contained

commitments to boost the EU's adaptive capacity and resilience and aimed to further

promote policy coherence, notably between energy, climate, and environmental policies

(biodiversity, pollution, circular economy, water), including through the 'do no harm'

principle.

At the time of writing this report, an agreement has not yet been found on the revision of the Energy

Taxation Directive, see

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12227-

EU-Green-Deal-Revision-of-the-Energy-Taxation-Directive_en.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

The continued importance of addressing socio-economic impacts of the green

transition

led to the creation of the Just Transition Fund

and the Social Climate Fund

Action was also taken on climate resilience,

notably in the form of the 2021 EU climate

adaptation strategy

under the Climate Law, and the Commission’s 2024 Communication

on Managing Climate Risks

. This Communication emphasises, among other points, that

climate risk planning needs strengthening in the energy sector too.

In February 2024, Council and Parliament reached an agreement on an EU carbon

removal certification framework

to scale up carbon removal activities and fight

greenwashing. In the same month, the Commission issued a Communication

recommending that by 2040, the EU’s net GHG emissions should be reduced by 90%

relative to 1990 levels

The EU has also adopted key energy strategies,

notably on energy system integration

hydrogen

, offshore

, solar energy

, wind

, digitalisation of the energy system

and

grids

Other related policy developments that have taken place at EU level over the past

years

include the Net-Zero Industry Act, the Hydrogen Bank, the European Critical Raw

Materials Act as well as a series of environmental initiatives (e.g., the zero pollution action

plan, the circular economy action plan, the biodiversity strategy and the forest strategy)

and the sustainable and smart mobility strategy.

As a result of legislative developments after 2018, the Governance Regulation has

been subject to several targeted amendments

(see also Section 3.1 above). In 2021, in

line with the European Climate Law, it was updated to reflect the EU’s climate-neutrality

objective. It also mandates the Commission to include in the implementing acts the

structure, format, technical details, and process for NECPRs, as well as a methodology to

report on the phasing out of energy subsidies, particularly for fossil fuels. The Regulation

was also aligned to the Fit-for-55 amendments to the Effort Sharing Regulation

, the Land

Regulation (EU) 2021/1056.

Regulation (EU) 2023/955.

COM/2021/82 final.

COM/2024/91 final.

COM/2024/63 final.

Powering a climate-neutral economy: an EU Strategy for Energy System Integration, COM (2020) 2999

final.

A hydrogen Strategy for a climate-neutral Europe, COM (2020) 301 final.

An EU strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy for a climate-neutral future, COM

(2020) 741 final.

An EU Solar Energy Strategy, COM (2022) 221 final.

European Wind Power Action Plan, COM(2023) 669 final

Digitalising the energy system – EU Action plan, COM (2022) 552 final.

Grids, the missing link - An EU Action Plan for Grids, COM/2023/757 final.

Regulation (EU) 2023/857.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Use, Land Use Change and Forestry Regulation

, to the Renewable Energy Directive

and to the recast Energy Efficiency Directive

Although raising the ambition in energy and climate mitigation policies does not directly

require changes to the planning, reporting, and monitoring processes under the Governance

Regulation, it does imply that Member States need to revise their NECPs to meet the EU’s

more ambitious objectives and targets. On climate change adaptation policy, actions are

needed to improve the governance of climate risks across policy sectors.

Major policy developments at

international

level include decisions and commitments

under the Paris Agreement,

for instance on the enhanced transparency framework, rules

related to market mechanisms and non-market approaches

and climate finance for

developing countries

. At COP28, Parties undertook the first Global Stocktake

under the

Paris Agreement and committed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems

to triple global renewable energy capacity and to double the global average annual rate of

energy efficiency improvements by 2030

. Also, at COP28, Parties recognised that

limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires reducing global GHG emissions by 43% by

2030 and 60% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels and reaching net-zero carbon dioxide

emissions by 2050. They also agreed on a 'Global Goal on Adaptation' covering broad

global adaptation goals and key areas for action.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine

The COVID-19 pandemic that broke out in 2020 led the EU to a establish the

Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), the €800 billion reform and investment tool

at the heart of

NextGenerationEU.

It aimed to support Member States’ economic

recovery and use it as a crucial opportunity to build back better, including by supporting

the green transition. Member States must dedicate at least 37% of the total allocation under

their national recovery and resilience plan to measures contributing to climate objectives.

Article 4 of the Regulation establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (Regulation

Regulation (EU) 2023/839.

Directive EU/2023/2413.

Directive EU/2023/1791.

Also, the decision under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement implies that each participating Party must

have, or have access to, a registry for the purpose of tracking and must ensure that such registry records,

including through unique identifiers, as applicable: authorization, first transfer, transfer, acquisition and

shall have accounts as necessary (such provisions existed in the MMR for the Kyoto registry and

activities).

This includes financial support for climate mitigation and adaptation as well as for 'loss and damage'.

The global stocktake confirmed the urgent need to redouble efforts to achieve the three key objectives

of the Paris Agreement: climate mitigation, climate adaptation and the corresponding alignment of all

financial flows.

Parties agreed to 'transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable

manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the

science'. They also agreed to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

The Global Renewables and Energy Pledge sets global targets to triple the global installed capacity of

renewable energy and double the global rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030 -

COP28:

Global Renewables And Energy Efficiency Pledge.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

(EU) 2021/241) stipulates that the Facility is designed to contribute to the achievement of

the EU’s 2030 climate targets and its objective to achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

Article 17 provides that Member States’ RRPs must be consistent with the information

included in the NECPs drawn up under the Governance Regulation.

Accordingly, NECPs played an important guiding role in identifying the areas where

measures and additional funding for investments is needed.

The reverse is also true:

the financial boost to Member States’ energy and climate measures had a significant impact

on their GHG and energy trajectories, investment assumptions and planned policies and

measures compared to what was outlined in the 2019 NECPs. The new RRF-funded

support measures must be reported as part of the biennial reporting of policies and

measures under the Governance Regulation and be reflected in the updated NECPs to be

submitted by the end of June 2024.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine launched in 2022 led to disruptions in the

supply of Russian gas and contributed to a significant rise in energy prices across the

EU.

In response, the Commission proposed to end the EU’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels

well before 2030 and launched the

REPowerEU

plan,

a set of actions to diversify the EU’s

energy supplies, save energy, and further promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The RRF Regulation

, adopted in 2021, was amended in 2022 to address the objectives of

REPowerEU. Member States could revise their recovery and resilience plans to add

REPowerEU chapters and access additional funding to achieve the REPowerEU

objectives. The Commission’s guidance to Member States on updating their NECPs

included recommendations on how REPowerEU measures should be reflected in these

plans

. Progress on achieving the objectives of the REPowerEU Plan will be reported,

among others, in the Commission’s State of the Energy Union reports and its climate

action progress reports.

In launching the

REPowerEU

plan, the Commission also proposed to raise the ambition of

the new renewable energy target under the Renewable Energy Directive and the new

energy efficiency target under the Energy Efficiency Directive, eventually resulting in

binding collective EU targets of 42.5% for renewable energy (with the collective

endeavour to reach 45%) and 11.7%

for energy efficiency

The energy crisis triggered by the war against Ukraine impacted the objectives of the

Governance Regulation in several ways, including:

•

how energy data is monitored and reported by Member States and shared at EU

level (e.g., need-to-know changes in gas storage and consumption with the shortest

time lag possible);

Regulation - 2021/241 - EN - rrf - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

Commission Notice on the Guidance to Member States for the update of the 2021-2030 national energy

and climate plans (2022/C 495/02).

Compared to the projections of the EU's 2020 reference scenario

So that the EU’s final energy consumption amounts to no more than 763 Mtoe.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

•

the need for stronger coordination and cooperation among Member States about

gas supply (e.g., demand aggregation);

the adoption of action plans to save gas in the short-term that may complement or

interfere with the longer-term planning under the Regulation.

new provisions to accelerate permitting for renewable energy in renewable

acceleration areas, emphasising the importance of good strategic planning;

the realisation that planning and building new types and capacity of infrastructure

in the energy sector require better planning from the perspective of climate risks.

Energy prices (which peaked in August 2022) led to a significant increase in the cost of

living for citizens and reduced the global competitiveness of EU industry. Coordinated

action by the EU and Member States, including the REPowerEU plan and emergency

legislative initiatives first adopted in 2022, mitigated the effects of the energy crisis for

households and industry in a coordinated manner, avoiding fragmentation of the single

energy market. However, energy prices remain higher than they were before the energy

crisis. The temporary spike in energy prices highlighted the need for an effective and

coordinated crisis response, to diversify supply across the energy sector, to promote energy

savings and to fast-forward the green transition. It emphasised the relevance of the

Regulation as the cornerstone for coordinated energy and climate action at EU level

through the NECP and LTS process.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

VALUATION FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter assesses the impact of the Governance Regulation against the criteria of

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, EU added value and relevance. The assessment will

be guided by 17 specific evaluation questions (see Annex III for the evaluation matrix and

answers to the evaluation questions), which in turn are presented under three headings:

1. To what extent was the Regulation successful and why? (effectiveness, efficiency and

coherence)

2. How did the EU intervention make a difference? (EU added value)

3. Is the Regulation still relevant as it stands? (relevance)

Given we are still at a relatively early stage of the Regulation’s lifecycle, this assessment

can only be partial.

4.1 To what extent was the Governance Regulation successful and why?

The success of legislation is measured largely by assessing if and how it meets its

objectives. Accordingly, this section seeks to identify:

•

the factors driving or impeding the Regulation’s progress in achieving its objectives

(effectiveness);

the extent to which the Regulation’s objectives are met in the most cost-effective

way and with the least possible burden (efficiency); and

whether the Regulation is internally coherent and functions well in conjunction

with other related EU legislation and international obligations (internal and

external coherence).

Effectiveness

4.1.1 Contribution to better energy and climate policy planning

The Regulation strengthened integrated energy and climate policy planning and has

created synergies by taking an innovative approach.

It brings together previously

scattered planning (and reporting) obligations across energy, climate, and other Energy

Union-related policy areas under one coherent Regulation and requires Member States to

develop integrated NECPs and LTSs. There was a degree of agreement among national

authorities that the Regulation has indeed helped integrate different but related planning

obligations and has improved the quality and accuracy of planning at national level.

Stakeholders generally recognise the benefit of replacing different sectoral national action

plans with a single, coherent NECP that provides clear medium-term targets.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

The Regulation has also improved planning by increasing cooperation within

Member States.

Consulted national authorities noted that integrated planning and

reporting improved cooperation and coordination between and within different national

ministries and governmental agencies. However, there is scope to further improve this

cooperation and coordination, bearing in mind that increased coordination might require

additional resources.

At the same time, there are significant differences in the impact that NECPs have had

on national planning processes (and vice versa).

Some Member States already had well-

established national planning mechanisms for climate and energy policies before the

Regulation was adopted. This may also have contributed to limited political buy-in into

the Regulation’s planning processes in some countries. In such cases, some national

authorities argued that the Regulation has served more as a reporting than as a planning

tool, with limited effectiveness in improving planning. They note, however, that even in

those cases, merging multiple obligations into one framework still improved the planning

processes.

Despite the set template for NECPs (Annex I to the Regulation) and LTSs (Annex

IV), there are large differences in Member States’ plans and strategies.

The scope,

content, detail, quality and/or length vary greatly, including with respect to aspects such as

the just transition, climate adaptation, the role of land use and removals, and measures to

tackle agricultural emissions. On the LTSs specifically, 18 Member States expressed a

clear objective to achieve climate (or carbon) neutrality by 2050 or before; others aim to

largely

climate neutral or to achieve reductions of 80-95% by that date

While the flexibility of the NECP template made it difficult to aggregate certain

indicators at EU level, some national authorities do not consider the template to be

flexible enough to reflect a country’s specific national situation.

On the LTSs, Article

15(4) and the short ‘general framework’ in Annex IV provide relatively limited guidance

on their expected content, leaving considerable discretion to Member States. Stakeholders

also highlighted that national LTSs are not always effective in improving energy and

climate planning (see Section 4.1.12).

4.1.2 Contribution to the implementation of climate and energy policies

There are indications that the Regulation has had a positive impact on the

implementation of climate and energy policy policies.

24 out of 29 national authorities

that responded to a survey indicated that the Regulation played a role in Member States

adopting and implementing policies and measures (PaMs) to meet national energy and

climate contributions to a very large (5), large (8) or some (11) extent.

Note that the deadline for submission of the national LTS (1 January 2020) was before the adoption of

the Climate Law, which established the Union-wide climate neutrality objective.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Figure 3

Number of policies and measures (PaMs) reported per year.

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

1382

1849

3205

2052

1513

500

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

Source: ICF elaboration based on EEA reports

Although it is difficult to measure the Regulation’s direct impact on implementation,

many new PaMs were reported after it was adopted.

There has been a steady increase

over time in the number of PaMs reported as part of each reporting cycle (see Figure 3).

The marked increase in reported PaMs since 2021 can be explained by the extension of

reporting beyond GHG-related PaMs to PaMs covering all five dimensions in the

Regulation, by further implementing the NECPs and, more generally, by additional action

taken by Member States to meet their 2030 climate and energy targets.

As reported in the Commission’s 2023 progress assessment of the first NECPRs

and as

illustrated in Figure 4 below, there was a large increase in

new

PaMs following the

adoption of the 2019-2020 NECPs (879 new PaMs, around 29% of the total). This indicates

that many Member States put in place and will continue to implement new policies and

measures to meet their 2030 climate and energy objectives and targets. Of these new PaMs,

286 (33%) are planned, 219 (25%) are adopted and 359 (41%) are implemented.

SWD (2023) 646 final.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Figure 4 Number of policies and measures reported by EU Member States per start year.

Most reported national PaMs are implemented in response to one or more EU

policies,

with the most mentioned measures shown in Figure 5 below. Member States also

report PaMs in response to EU policies that were adopted in subsequent years such as the

RRF Regulation (32 PaMs) or the European Climate Law (19 PaMs). As shown in the

figure, while several are reported to be implemented in direct response to the Regulation,

many others are more indirectly linked to it, reflecting the Regulation’s ‘framework nature’

which integrates planning, reporting, and monitoring obligations from across EU energy

and climate legislation, including the EED, RED, EPBD, ESR and the LULUCF.

Figure 5. Share of policies and measures reported by Member States in their NECPR

linked to EU policies and legislation

Note: New policies and measures are those put in place since the original NECPs. Source: Assessment of

progress towards the objectives of the Energy Union and Climate Action, SWD (2023) 646 final.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Overall, Member States have made progress towards meeting the climate mitigation

objectives, although there is a risk of an implementation gap.

Member State abatement

projections (WAM

) have improved over time

, but the draft updated NECPs that (most)

Member States submitted in 2023 still fell short by about 4 pp

. of the EU’s 2030 target

to reduce net emissions by at least 55% compared to 1990 levels. The trajectory identified

in the draft updated NECPs

fell short of reaching climate neutrality by 2050

. Based on

Member State GHG projections for 2023, the 2023 CAPR

estimates a need for additional

emission reductions of around 1 600 million tonnes of CO

equivalent (or 34 pp.) to

achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

Member States have increased their emission reductions under the Effort Sharing

Regulation (ESR), but further efforts are needed by 2030.

Projected emission

reductions, including additional measures, for sectors covered by the ESR improved

between the 2019 draft NECPs and 2020 final NECPs, from about 28%

in 2019’s draft

plans to 32% in the 2020 final plans. The projected reductions improved further to 33.8%

in the 2023 draft updated NECPs. Although this is positive, the projected impact still falls

short of the EU’s -40% 2030 ESR target

Despite recent progress, the EU is currently not on track to meet its 2030 LULUCF

target.

LULUCF (WAM) projections from the draft updated NECPs indicate that Member

States will need to remove an additional 40 to 50 net Mt CO

eq. to reach the EU’s 2030

target of -310 Mt CO₂ equivalent

. The Commission assessment therefore concluded that

the draft NECPs lacked sufficient ambition or action in the sector, with only a few Member

States demonstrating clear pathways to meet their national 2030 removal targets.

On the contribution the Regulation made to implementation of climate change

adaptation

policies, progress is limited.

The scope of information reported by Member

States is limited, which impedes domestic adaptation planning, including through NECPs.

These limitations notwithstanding, the coverage of adaptation policies and measures did

somewhat increase in the draft updated NECPs compared to the 2019/2020 plans. The

With additional measures.

The assessment of the 2019-2020 final NECPs shows that for the economy-wide greenhouse gas

emissions reductions, including those covered by the EU ETS, emissions decrease by 41% v. 1990 levels

under the WAM scenario, exceeding the EU’s previous 40% reduction target. This represented an

improvement of about 1.5 pp compared to the draft NECPs.

Net total GHG emissions, including LULUCF and excluding international transport.

resource.html (europa.eu)

This assessment might evolve following the submission of final updated NECPs to be submitted by

Member States by 30 June 2024.

Climate Action Progress Report 2023 - European Commission (europa.eu)

Compared to 2005.

Under the fit-for-55 package, the EU increased its ESR 2030 target from -29% to -40% with the 2023

ESR revision. Read more here:

Effort sharing 2021-2030: targets and flexibilities - European

Commission (europa.eu).

The revised LULUCF regulation has a separate land-based net carbon removals target of 310 million

tonnes of CO

equivalent by 2030. When available, WAM projections provided in the draft updated

NECPs were used. If WAM projections were missing, WEM projections were used instead.

resource.html (europa.eu)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

recently published first European Climate Risk Assessment

offers a basis to strengthen

and further develop this dimension of the plans.

Member States have also made progress on energy efficiency and renewables’

objectives, particularly over the last few years.

Some of the EU’s 2020 energy targets

were binding for each Member State, notably the renewable energy target of 20%

. With

the transition to more ambitious collective, EU-wide energy efficiency and renewables

targets for 2030, the Regulation became the primary framework to ensure effective and

coordinated implementation. Although it is difficult to measure the impact of the

Regulation, Figure 6 and Figure 7 below show that there has been some progress in

implementing the 2030 targets, particularly over the last few years.

Figure 6. Progress on implementing EU-wide 2030 energy efficiency targets, 2013-2022

Source: Eurostat

See:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment

COM (2010) 639 final.

Directive 2009/28/EC, Art. 3.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Figure 7 Progress on implementing 2030 EU-wide renewable energy targets, 2013-2022

Source: Eurostat

However, implementation of energy objectives will need to be stepped up by 2030.

The 2023 EU-wide assessment of the draft updated NECPs

found that, based on current

national ambitions, the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption could reach

between 38.6% and 39.3% in 2030 at EU level. While this is significantly higher than the

previous target of 32% set in REDII, it is lower than the revised binding target of 42.5%.

Similarly, the assessment found that only a handful of Member States propose a sufficient

level of ambition on either primary energy consumption, final energy consumption or both

to achieve the revised 2030 target.

Some factors may have affected the Regulation’s contribution to implementation of

energy and climate policies.

The lack of strong compliance mechanisms (see Section

4.1.6) was identified as a factor hindering implementation of the NECPs, as are the varying

levels of detail and lack of comprehensive and consistent overviews of public and private

investment needs in the plans (see Section 4.1.7). The current NECP cycle (and level of

ambition in the 2023 draft updated plans) was affected by the short time between finalising

interinstitutional negotiations on the Fit-for-55 package and the deadline for submitting

draft updated NECPs.

COM (2023) 796 final. This assessment might evolve following the submission of final updated NECPs

to be submitted by Member States by 30 June 2024.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

4.1.3 Contribution to raising the quality of reported information

The Regulation has improved the quality of reported information to some extent. At

the same time, gaps and inconsistencies in the information reported in plans and

reports remain.

Member States report information via the e-platform. The Commission,

supported by the EEA and its European Topic Centres, carries out quality assurance and

quality control procedures

for several reporting obligations. These tools and procedures

help standardise and raise the quality of the reported information over time.

The quality of data on PaMs (Article 18, since 2023 streamlined in the NECPR PaMs

reporting) has increased over the reporting period, but not since the entry into force

of the Regulation.

The completeness of data reported in the e-platform dataflow increased

between 2017 and 2019.

However in 2021

and 2023

, although there was a large

increase in reported PaMs (see Section 4.1.2.) the completeness did not improve.

The issues with completeness notably concern data on emission reductions

(achieved

and expected), renewable energy production (achieved and expected), energy reductions

(achieved and expected), and on the costs and benefits and financing of PaMs. With respect

to emission reductions specifically, there is not yet a clear match between projections,

WEM and WAM, and ex-ante emission savings from the PaMs reporting. On progress

towards financing specifically, some Member States did not report information on

financing the PaMs (Article 17), and others often reported incomplete or inconsistent

information.

Compared to 2021, the quality of PAMs deteriorated in 2023

This could partly be

expected as the 2023 PaM reporting cycle brought in several new requirements, for

instance it extended reporting to all dimensions of the Energy Union in an integrated

matter

. As PaMs reporting has evolved over the last decades, it has been observed that

stable, predictable reporting requirements foster substantive improvements in data quality,

whereas shifts in reporting requirements lead to temporarily reduced quality. This

evaluation only takes account of one single reporting cycle for the new PaMs reporting

requirements and, as such, does not capture the longer-term trend in data quality

Following the UNFCCC’s TACCC principles: Transparency, Accuracy, Completeness, Comparability,

and Consistency.

Dauwe, T., Mandl, N., Young, K., and Jozwicka, M. 2019. “Overview of reported national policies and

measures

climate

change

mitigation

Europe

2019.

ETC/CME.

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cme/products/etc-cme-reports/etc-cme-report-5-2019-overview-

of-reported-national-policies-and-measures-on-climate-change-mitigation-in-europe-in-2019

(accessed

on 12 February 2024).

Dauwe, T. 2021. “Overview of reported national greenhouse gas policies and measures in Europe in

2021”. ETC/CME.

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cme/products/etc-cme-reports/etc-cme-

report-5-2021-overview-of-reported-national-greenhouse-gas-policies-and-measures-in-europe-in-

2021

(accessed on 12 February 2024).

Dauwe, T., Vella, A., Sammut, J., Gu, Y., Gleeson, L., Young, K., Perl, D. (2023). Overview of reported

integrated national climate and energy policies and measures in Europe in 2023. EEA.

ETC CM report

2023/06: Overview of reported integrated national climate and energy policies and measures in Europe

in 2023 — Eionet Portal (europa.eu)

ETC CM report 2023/06: Overview of reported integrated national climate and energy policies and

measures in Europe in 2023 — Eionet Portal (europa.eu)

Previously only GHG emissions and removals were covered.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

improvements that can be expected with subsequent rounds of reporting. Data quality

issues complicate a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of existing policies across the

EU.

By contrast, the quality of GHG projections reporting has increased (Article 18) over

time, building on the work on data quality improvements starting already under the

MMR.

All Member States now provide complete information on their mandatory WEM

scenarios, with a comprehensive split by sector and GHG. The number of Member States

reporting on 2050 projections

increased from 7 (2021) to 26 out of 27 (2023). There has

also been a small increase in reporting on indicators (from 18 in 2021 to 21 in 2023) and

sensitivity scenarios (21 in 2023 v 19 in 2021). Since the entry into force of the Regulation,

Member States are required to submit LULUCF projections, and full compliance was

achieved in both 2021 and 2023. However, between 2021 and 2023, completeness on the

voluntary ‘With Additional Measures’ (WAM) scenario decreased slightly (18 in 2023 v

22 in 2021), and on the fact sheets on the models used (26 in 2023 and 27 in 2021) and

number of parameters reported (156 unique parameters in 2023 and 389 in 2021)

In terms of the quality of reported information on climate change adaptation actions

(Article 19 (1)), the results are mixed.

The Regulation streamlined and reduced

fragmentation of reporting on adaptation measures. However, the Commission’s

assessment of Member States' adaptation policies would have benefited from more

extensive and better information on domestic adaptation action.

The coverage and

granularity of reported information on the financial support provided to developing

countries (Article 19.3) has improved over the years.

The Regulation has increased the quality of GHG inventory data by establishing

clearer roles and responsibilities for the Commission (with a key supporting role of

the EEA) and Member States in the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)

process.

The EU and its Member States are parties to the Paris agreement and the

UNFCCC. Therefore, when drawing up their inventory, they must first comply with the

common rule book of the UNFCCC and IPCC guidelines. The initial checks and its QA/QC

are mandatory provisions from the UNFCCC

, which are transposed in domestic

legislation.

The Regulation puts in place internal institutional arrangements for the EU and Member

States to prepare the timely, efficient, and coherent submission of the EU’s inventory,

which is the sum of Member States inventories, to the UNFCCC Secretariat. In addition,

the Regulation provides a structured framework for the Commission to assess, report on,

and follow up on the findings of inventory QA/QC, including by issuing recommendations

for improvements (Article 38). It requires Member States to participate in the process. As

This was only mandatory to report in 2023, and not in 2021.

Martin Ortega, J., Akkermans, S., Lopez, P., Chornet, J., Szanto, C., Kampel E., Pinterits, M. “Analysis

of Member States’ 2023 GHG projections” ETC-CM.

https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-

cm/products/etc-cm-report-2023-08

(accessed on 12 April).

Modalities, procedures, and guidelines (MPGs), Annex to decision 18/CMA.1.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

a result, data reported through Article 26 (Annual Reporting) is less prone to errors than

under the MMR.

The NECPR process (Article 17) has increased the completeness of information.

A lot

of new information was digitally reported in NECPRs on progress towards the objectives

in all five dimensions of the Energy Union (notably on Member States national ‘economy-

wide’ greenhouse gas emission reduction targets (18 Member States reported at least one

national target for either 2030, 2040 or 2050) and climate-neutrality targets (16 Member

States)) and policies and measures to achieve those objectives. Using an e-platform for

reporting based on templates specified in an implementing regulation, and with additional

reporting guidelines for Member States, improved the completeness and comparability of

the data reported.

4.1.4 Contribution to increased public accessibility of reported information

Stakeholders generally agree that the Regulation has resulted in more publicly

accessible climate and energy information.

A large majority (44 out of 65) of surveyed

stakeholders found that the Regulation helped improve public data accessibility, but

opinions varied by stakeholder group. 23 out of 30 surveyed national authorities found that

the Regulation has made the data in their national plans and reports more accessible to the

public at least to some extent, while just over half of the surveyed industry representatives

and third-sector stakeholders shared this view.

Stakeholders pointed out that better public access to information resulted from the

requirements for Member States to collect and report data in new areas and to

publish and consolidate that data in one place.

A major added value from the Regulation

is also that it provided access to more information from

other

Member States, with almost

all surveyed national authorities agreeing. During the interviews, stakeholders noted that

the State of the Energy Union report is particularly beneficial and that NECPs from other

countries can be useful to learn about best practices. They also noted, however, that it can

be difficult to make comparisons between countries as they draw up their NECPs in

different ways.

Public access to energy and climate information is governed by specific requirements

in the Regulation.

Articles 3(4), 17(7), 18(4) and 19(4), for instance, require Member

States to publish NECPs, NECPRs, national GHG projections, and reported information

on national adaptation actions, financial and technology support for developing countries

and auctioning revenues. Article 28(3) requires the Commission to facilitate public online

access to the reports covered by Chapter 4 of the Regulation, the final integrated NECPs

and their updates as well as the LTSs, and to publish these reports on the e-platform

The e-platform is an online platform (comprised of two systems:

Reportnet

managed by the European

Environmental Agency and

ReportENER

managed by DG ENER) to facilitate communication between

the Commission and Member States, to promote cooperation among Member States and to facilitate

public access to information. The e-platform supports all Member State reporting under this Regulation.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

In practice, most plans and information prepared by Member States are indeed publicly

available, albeit sometimes with delays (e.g., in 2023 many NECPs and NECPRs arrived

late). The NECPRs were sometimes published without certain specific elements due to

restrictions by individual Member States (see

Table 2

Annex VI

for more details).

Stakeholders underlined that delays in providing information affects its usefulness and

their ability to contribute to policy making (see Section 4.1.5 below).

While publicly available, certain aspects of reported energy and climate information

are not always sufficiently understandable to the wider public.

For instance,

stakeholders reported that data can be difficult to understand for non-experts as they are

compiled of numerous Excel tables without much context. Some stakeholders also noted

that some plans and reports lacked detail, limiting the transparency and predictability of

Member States’ policies.

Some stakeholders suggested that the e-platform could be enhanced, for instance to

give better control over the data submitted

by improving the means to access, reuse and

forward the data, or providing better visual tools so that authorities can present information

on the NECPs in an accessible way (see also Section 4.1.11). The European Commission

and the EEA already provide a range of tools such as EEA climate and energy platform

Datahub

and Climate-ADAPT

through which the public can access some of the data

reported under the Governance Regulation, including in the form of assessment,

visualisations, and databases. The use of and information on the availability of these tools

should be improved.

Extending and upgrading the e-platform has been identified as a key action within the

Commission-wide initiative to streamline reporting obligations.

Substantial work is

ongoing to integrate more reporting obligations (e.g., from integrated progress reporting by

Energy Community parties, obligations stemming from the revised energy efficiency

directive and methane legislation) in the e-platform and to increase its functionality to

further improve data reuse and user-friendliness (see Section 4.1.11).

4.1.5 Timeliness of plans and reported information.

Most Member States submit required plans and strategies too late.

Only 8 out of 27

draft updated NECPs were notified by the deadline of 30 June 2023. At the time of writing

this report, Austria has still not yet submitted a draft updated NECP. In 2024, 4 Member

States submitted their final updated NECP by the deadline of 30 June. Only 9 Member

States submitted their LTS on time, with Poland not yet having submitted its LTS, over

four years after the deadline. Table 1 in Annex VI summarises the main information on the

timeliness of the Regulation’s key plans and reports.

Member States also frequently miss deadlines for reporting obligations

(see Table 2).

Only 8 Member States submitted their NECPRs (Article 17) on time, and only 11 their

For example, see

https://climate-energy.eea.europa.eu.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/datahub,

which provides access to more detailed datasets.

Climate-ADAPT (europa.eu)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

integrated reporting on greenhouse gas policies and measures and on projections (Article

18). By contrast, Member States are increasingly meeting their deadlines for GHG

inventory data (Article 26) and Adaptation (Article 19). Some Member States noted that

certain deadlines were too close to each other, such as when in 2023 the draft updated

NECPs were due only 3.5 months after the NECPRs. This led to delays as both processes

(reporting and planning) required the same national administrative resources.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Table 2. Timeliness of submissions (all reporting obligations under the Governance

Regulation)

Number of Member States

meeting/missing

the deadline

2017

2019

2021

GHG inventory (15 January*)

Deadline met

23 (85%)

24 (89%)

26 (96%)

Deadline missed

4 (15%)

3 (11%)

1 (4%)

Policies and measures (PaMs) (15 March)

Deadline met

9 (32%)

15 (56%)

Deadline missed

19 (68%)

12 (44%)

GHG projections (15 March)

Deadline met

13 (48%)

16 (59%)

12 (44%)

Deadline missed

14 (52%)

11 (41%)

15 (56%)

Approximate GHG inventory (31 July)

Deadline met

26 (96%)

27 (100%)

20 (74%)

Deadline missed

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

7 (26%)

NECPR (15 March)

Deadline met

n/a

Deadline missed

n/a

Adaptation (Article 19) (15 March)

Deadline met

n/a

16 (59%)

17 (65%)

Deadline missed

n/a

11 (41%)

9 (34%)

Use of EU ETS auctioning revenues (31 July)

Deadline met

20 (74%)

23 (85%)

18 (67%)

Deadline missed

7 (26%)

4 (15%)

9 (33%)

Support to developing countries (30 September)

Deadline met

16 (59%)

24 (89%)

16 (59%)

Deadline missed

11 (41%)

3 (11%)

11 (41%)

Source: EEA

* Note: the preliminary deadline for the reporting under the GHG inventory is 15 January, annually.

However, the final deadline is 15 March, annually. This table takes into account only the preliminary

deadline.

2023

27 (100%)

0 (0%)

11 (41%)

16 (59%)

15 (56%)

12 (44%)

24 (89%)

3 (11%)

8 (30%)

19 (70%)

22 (81%)

5 (19%)

20 (74%)

7 (26%)

16 (59%)

11 (41%)

Late submission of reports was already recognised as an issue in the fitness check and

impact assessment underpinning the proposal for the Regulation.

It is not possible to

make a comprehensive comparison of how the Regulation has affected the timeliness of

reported information as the reports to be submitted have changed and deadlines were not

consistently tracked for all obligations before the Regulation entered into force. The

available evidence does however suggest that the timeliness of reported information and

The deadline is provided next to each reporting obligation in brackets. Reporting in 2017 and 2019

reflect reporting under the MMR and from 2021 reflect reporting under the Governance Regulation.

Timeliness for GHG inventories is taken from the EU’s inventory annual reports and does not factor in

earlier submission for preliminary deadlines (only final data used for the report). The NECPR was

reported the first time in 2023. Under the MMR adaptation, reporting was only every four years,

therefore 2017 was not a mandatory reporting cycle. NECPR timeliness is based on the last submission

made by a country for all relevant reporting elements.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

plans remains an issue. The only exception is the GHG inventory, which rarely has late

submissions for its preliminary deadline of 15 January and in the period of 2017 - 2023

had no late submissions for its final deadline of 15 March. This is likely linked to the long

consistency of the reporting templates and systems, and the clearly defined period of

quality assurance built into the legislation (preliminary and final deadline).

In most cases, delays did not prevent the Commission from performing its assessment

or from monitoring progress, but they pose a risk to the Commission’s task of

ensuring a comprehensive and timely overview to steer ambition and progress

towards energy and climate objectives.

Several reporting deadlines were only missed by

a few days or weeks, with some related to quality assurance. However, in certain cases,

delays were substantially longer (such as for NECPs, NECPRs, PaMs, and GHG

projections). As regards the submission of LTSs, the national 2020 energy efficiency target

reports and the 2023 draft NECP updates specifically, the scope of Commission

assessments had to be adjusted to account for late or missing submissions.

At international level, 11 Member States did not deliver their Fifth Biennial Report

(BR) on time.

One Member State has still not delivered the report to this date. These delays

have had negative consequences on the drafting of the UNFCCC synthesis reports

as they

led to incomplete data integration, potentially skewing global understanding and policy

responses to climate change.

Stakeholders have different opinions on whether the Regulation has helped Member

States meet their planning and reporting obligations in a timelier manner.

Most

Member States are of the view that the Regulation has helped them, at least to some extent,

to complete their planning and reporting on time. Some argue that their national or regional

processes and planning cycles make it difficult to meet the Regulation’s deadlines. Others

noted the short deadlines between some of the Regulation’s deliverables. Only a few of the

consulted third-sector and industry stakeholders found that the Regulation has had a

substantial impact on improved timeliness. Across all stakeholder groups, the most

common response was that the Regulation has helped Member States complete their

obligations and provide information on time ‘only to a small extent’ (18 out of 64 total

responses); few found however that the Regulation had not improved timeliness at all

Compilation and synthesis of fifth biennial reports of Parties included in Annex I to the Convention.

Report by the secretariat. Addendum | UNFCCC

The question asked to third-sector stakeholders focused on these organisations being able to access data

on time (when they would need this information), whereas public authorities and industry stakeholders

were just asked about their Member States meeting reporting and planning obligations on time.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

4.1.6 Compliance mechanisms

One significant limitation of the Regulation’s mechanisms to ensure compliance is its

reliance on recommendations. While Member States must take them into account,

they are not legally binding.

Particularly third sector stakeholders recalled that Member

States failed to address a substantial part of the recommendations that the Commission

made on the 2019 draft NECPs in their final NECPs: an external review

concluded that

the majority (66% or 378) of recommendations were either only partially addressed (53%

or 304) or not at all (13% or 74). These stakeholders also argued that infringement

procedures are at best initiated in response to Member States’ non-compliance with

procedural obligations (e.g., late submission of LTSs and NECPs

), but not for a failure

to address Commission recommendations or, should such cases occur, to achieve targets

set in sectoral legislation.

As it is still early in the implementation period, the Regulation’s main legal

instruments to close any gaps in ambition or delivery (Articles 31 and 32) have seen

little use.

Some stakeholders questioned the Commission’s capacity to act if Member

States fall short on ambition or delivery. However, the Commission’s EU-wide assessment

of the final NECPs during the 2019-2020 cycle did identify an ambition gap for energy

efficiency. To bridge this gap, the Energy Efficiency Directive

and the Energy

Performance of Building Directive (EPBD)

100

were revised as part of the Fit for 55

package. Should the Commission’s assessment of final updated NECPs confirm a new

ambition gap at EU level and, in particular, in the context of renewable energy or energy

efficiency, the

‘gap-filling’

mechanism would again require the Commission to propose

measures and exercise its powers at EU level. With regard to delivery, due to the time

needed to consolidate energy and climate data, any substantial gaps will only become

apparent in progress assessments further in the implementation period.

Due to its nature as an ‘umbrella’ policy framework to achieve key EU energy and

climate objectives, the Regulation’s contribution to implementation should be

assessed in conjunction with related EU legislation and funding.

Several pieces of EU

energy and climate legislation include mechanisms to respond to insufficient

implementation of climate and energy measures. For instance, the EU ETS is based on a

‘cap and trade’ model; the cap is reduced annually in line with the EU’s climate target,

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union

and Climate Action – final report (forthcoming)

In September 2022, the Commission launched an infringement procedure against four Member States

for failure to notify a long-term strategy. Three infringement procedures were since closed following the

submission of long-term strategies for those Member States. In December 2023, the Commission opened

an infringement procedure against three Member States for failing to submit a draft updated NECP by

30 June 2023. Two infringement procedures were since closed following the submission of the draft

updated NECPs for those Member States.

Directive (EU) 2023/1791 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2023 on energy

efficiency

and

amending

Regulation

(EU)

2023/955

(recast),

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ%3AJOL_2023_231_R_0001.

Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the energy

performance of buildings (recast),

Directive - EU - 2024/1275 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

100

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

ensuring that over time, emissions fall. The Effort Sharing (ESR) and LULUCF

Regulations require Member States to submit a corrective action plan in case of insufficient

progress towards meeting the national targets set under these regulations.

Access to funding under the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion

Fund is conditional upon on submission of an NECP

101

. However, there is no condition

tied to the non-submission of an

updated

NECP or to the submission of LTS or NECPRs.

4.1.7 Impact on stimulating energy and climate spending and investment

There is limited and mixed evidence of the Regulation’s impact on stimulating

targeted spending and investments.

Public authorities tended to have more positive

views on the impact of the Regulation on stimulating investment than representatives from

industry and the third sector. Most stakeholders, including from industry, were unable to

link targeted spending and investment to the Regulation, though in interviews some did

acknowledge the Regulation’s role in creating a more predictable environment for

investors.

Stakeholder feedback suggests that several factors may have limited the Regulation’s

potential to create a more predictable investment environment and provide a basis

for more informed policy analysis.

One obstacle stems from information gaps on investment needs and funding sources

in NECPs and NECPRs.

The Commission’s EU-wide assessments of draft (2019), final

(2020) and draft updated NECPs (2023) all note the need for NECPs to provide more

detailed information and analysis on short- and long-term investment needs and funding

sources. NECPRs (2023) also lacked sufficient information on these aspects

102

. Major data

gaps were on the actual investments made, investment needs, and financing sources

(national or European, public or private). Different investment assumptions also make it

difficult to make a comparison of Member State submissions. This lack of systematically

reported data on investment needs and financing sources reduces predictability for

investors and stands in the way of informed policy analysis. Several stakeholders suggested

that these data deficiencies stem from a lack of capacity in Member States to effectively

map this type of information.

Another identified obstacle is the lack of information with a truly long-term

perspective.

Some stakeholders deemed the timeframe of the current NECP cycle (2021-

2030) to be too short, with some noting that LTSs may be more relevant as they cover at

least 30 years.

Lastly, NECPs provide information for policy experts that is not necessarily suited to

the needs of investors.

Industry stakeholders stressed the importance of public authorities

101

102

OJ L 231, 30.6.2021, p. 159–706.

Paci D., Tsemekidi-Tzeiranaki, S., Clementi, E. L. (2023), Assessment of the 2023 NECP Reports:

Monitoring Member States’ progress in their energy and climate plans – Summary Report, JRC

Technical Report, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023 (under publication)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

fully understanding what investors need in terms of the type and granularity of data

contained in NECPs (e.g., regional and local level data).

4.1.8 Ensuring regional cooperation.

The Regulation has stimulated regional cooperation between Member States to some

extent.

The Commission’s EU-wide assessments of draft (2019), final (2020) and draft

updated NECPs (2023)

103

generally found that Member States properly described the need

for regional cooperation, with some making use of existing regional fora, such as the high-

level groups set up by the Commission

104

. The Commission’s 2023 assessment of progress

towards the objectives of the Energy Union and Climate Action

105

concluded that most

Member States reported on progress made on regional cooperation. Most reported projects

that relate to more than one dimension of the Energy Union, with the majority focusing on

energy security, the internal energy market and decarbonisation. The Member States

around the North Sea included a joint chapter in their NECPs reflecting their regional

cooperation in the North Seas Energy Cooperation high-level group.

Although there were examples of Member State cooperation on several dimensions

of the Energy Union, there is scope to tap this potential further.

The NECP assessments

mentioned above highlighted an uneven use of regional consultation fora in preparing

NECPs and varying levels of detail on the measures that Member States have or plan to

implement together with other Member States. An external review of the Commission’s

assessments of final NECPs in 2020 concluded that while 29 (out of 51) recommendations

related to regional cooperation had either been fully (17) or largely (12) addressed by

Member States; 22 were only partially (18) or not at all (4) addressed

106

Few of the stakeholders interviewed expressed an opinion on regional cooperation. Those

who did tended to agree that the Regulation has had a positive impact on this front. Some

identified challenges such as short timelines to consult other Member States on NECPs

and limited comparability of or access to data from other countries (see also Section 4.1.4).

Cross-border collaboration in the form of joint investment projects has improved

with the introduction of the Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism (REFM)

created under Article 33 of the Regulation. The REFM organised a first successful tender

in 2023, allowing 282 MW of new solar PV projects in Finland to be eligible for

103

104

105

106

2019 Commission EU-wide assessment of 2019 draft NECPs

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1565713062913&uri=CELEX:52019DC0285

2020 Commission EU-wide assessment of the 2020 final NECPs

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?qid=1600339518571&uri=COM%3A2020%3A564%3AFIN

2023 Commission EU-wide assessment of the 2023 draft updated NECPs

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2023%3A796%3AFIN.

The Commission set up four high-level groups to provide strategic steering and policy guidance on

regulatory and infrastructure development and to monitor progress of projects of common interest in

priority regions: the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC), Interconnections for South-West Europe,

the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP), and Central and Southeastern Europe Energy

Connectivity (CESEC).

SWD (2023) 646 final.

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union

and Climate Action – final report (forthcoming)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

EUR 40 million in investment support financed by Luxembourg. A second tender is

planned for Q3 2024 which will be open to more renewable energy generation technologies

in several host countries, increasing the scale of the mechanism.

The REFM remains mostly dependent on voluntary contributions from Member States,

however. Luxembourg is the only contributor to date although the legal basis provides for

other sources of funding (EU funds or private contributions). The Financial Regulation

107

now allows countries to commit a financial contribution to the mechanism over a multi-

year period instead of the previous year-by-year approach, which provides greater

budgetary flexibility for contributors. Potential host countries may also be dissuaded by

the need to transfer 80% of the national renewable energy statistics from projects in their

country to another country. A potential way to strengthen the mechanism is to use it as

‘top-up mechanism’ as an incentive for Member States to meet the aspirational RES

target

108

4.1.9 Public consultation and multi-level and multi-stakeholder dialogue

The Regulation aims to promote more effective public consultation and multi-level

governance of energy and climate policy with legal requirements covering both

aspects (Articles 10 and 11).

In practice, however, implementation of these provisions

varied widely. Several Member States failed to set up public consultation processes or

multi-level stakeholder dialogues of sufficient quality or in a timely fashion. While such

implementation challenges appear to be at least partially linked to issues at national level

(e.g., lack of national experience, problems linked to administrative structures), it has also

been argued that the Regulation’s provisions are not sufficiently precise or prescriptive to

ensure timely and productive consultations of stakeholders and sub-national bodies.

Article 10 of the Regulation requires Member States to ensure that the public is given

early and effective opportunities to participate in the preparation of draft NECPs and

LTSs.

This provision is aligned with Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention

109

to which both

the EU and its Member States are parties. It represents a significant improvement compared

to the situation before the Regulation, when the requirement did not exist or was very

limited (for instance in relation to the preparation of national renewable action plans that

were replaced by NECPs).

Nonetheless, while most Member States organised consultations on draft updated

NECPs, few met all requirements on early and inclusive public participation in line

with Article 10.

Many of the draft updated NECPs that Member States submitted in 2023

lacked details on the communication channels used to reach the public and reasonable

timeframes to enable the public to express their views

110

. Also, under the Fit-for-Future

107

108

109

110

Art. 22(2)(a) of Regulation 2018/1046 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the

Union (recast).

Article 19ac of the revised Electricity Market Directive invites the European Commission to assess if

EU-wide auctions could be organised under the REFM for this purpose.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information,

Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

COM (2023) 796 final.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Platform

111

, practitioners and experts were not given the possibility to make a meaningful

contribution to the design of LTSs. Many of the draft NECPs lacked information on the

public’s views or on how they were taken into account. Similarly, respondents to the call

for evidence for this evaluation complained about weak levels of compliance with the

public participation requirements in terms of reasonable timeframes to reply to

consultations, limited choice of options and availability of information underpinning the

draft NECPs.

Some stakeholders argued that the Article 10 public consultation requirements are

not precise enough.

In 2021, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC)

took a critical position on the Regulation’s public consultation provisions on NECPs

112

. In

response, the Commission prepared an action plan with concrete measures to implement

the ACCC's recommendations, such as providing assistance to Member States or assessing

progress on public participation in preparing the NECPs

113

. The Commission guidance

published in 2022 to prepare the NECP update cycle also included recommendations on

public participation

114

Article 11 of the Regulation requires Member States to set up a multi-level climate

and energy dialogue

aimed at actively engaging local authorities, stakeholders, and the

general public in discussions on energy and climate policies. Member States must report

biennially on progress in engaging in such dialogues in their NECPRs.

Article 11 dialogues have not completely achieved their objective and the quality of

dialogues varies significantly across the Member States.

According to the

Commission’s 2023 assessment of NECPRs

115

, most Member States reported activities

relating to the establishment of multi-level dialogues. However, the level of maturity of

such dialogues varied widely and several Member States did not describe them in much

detail

116

. According to stakeholders, this is linked to two problems.

First,

the Regulation’s requirements for setting up the dialogues are not deemed

precise or prescriptive enough

117

. Although most stakeholders agree on the merit of the

Regulation having created an innovative mechanism in EU legislation, few consider the

provisions to be properly implemented by Member States. They link this issue to the

requirements in the Regulation being too vague, to insufficient guidance on which

stakeholders to involve and how to operationalise dialogues (structure, share of

responsibilities amongst participants, meeting frequency etc.). On the other hand, a more

generally worded provision arguably allows Member States to adapt the dialogues to their

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Opinion from the Fit for Future Platform on the Regulation on the Governance of Energy Union and

Climate Action (2022):

https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2c74cf68-6d44-441c-9183-

759bfc1267d9_en?filename=final_opinion_2022_sbgr1_03_governance_of_energy_and_climate_fup.

pdf.

Decision VII/8f concerning compliance by the European Union with its obligations under the Aarhus

Convention.

Circabc (europa.eu)

2022/C 495/02.

SWD (2023) 646 final and COM (2023) 796 final.

COM (2023) 796 final.

For instance, EEB, NECP Reporting,

The missing voice of the public.

Full report available

here.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

specific circumstances, in line with the subsidiarity principle. In 2022, ahead of the NECP

update cycle, the Commission did provide additional guidance on multi-level dialogues

118

Second,

some stakeholders mentioned lack of national experience and political will

and problems linked to administrative structures.

Not all Member States have put in

place structured and continuous processes to develop and implement long-term plans and

strategies or to review national systems for reporting. Some national authorities do not

consider NECPs a political priority, preventing them from engaging in robust multi-level

dialogues. It is also argued that in certain Member States, competences and obligations are

shared between different administrative levels, presenting coordination challenges.

118

2022/C 495/02.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Efficiency

4.1.10 Streamlining of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations and cost savings in

terms of policy coherence and administrative burden

By streamlining, merging, and simplifying energy and climate policy obligations, the

Regulation represents an important step towards reducing costs and improving

policy coherence.

Streamlining took the form of integrated plans (NECPs), strategies

(LTSs) and progress reports (NECPRs), the merging of related EU and international

obligations into one Regulation

119

and the outright deletion of others. In the impact

assessment underpinning the Commission’s initial legislative proposal, this policy

streamlining was estimated to result in a 5% annual reduction in direct reporting costs

under all pieces of EU energy legislation compared to the baseline

120

At the same time, merging a wide range of planning and reporting obligations into

one regulation also concentrates costs from across other pieces of legislation.

Based

on information collected by the Commission and national authorities for the support

study

121

, the one-off costs resulting from these obligations are estimated at between

EUR 7.8 million and 10.5 million for the 27 Member States combined, and EUR 1.1

million for the EU (Commission and European Environment Agency (EEA)). The annual

recurring costs are estimated between EUR 13.9 million and EUR 19.5 million for the 27

Member States combined and EUR 3.8 million for the EU. A substantial part of these costs

relate to obligations that existed before the Regulation, and that were either streamlined in

the NECPs and NECPRs or taken over directly in the Regulation.

It is difficult to compare the cost figures from this evaluation with the costs in the

2016 impact assessment that underpinned the Commission’s initial proposal.

The

figures are based on a limited number of strongly varying inputs that are also impacted by

inflation. The scope of the obligations is not exactly the same due to the amendments made

to the Commission's original proposal. For example, during interinstitutional negotiations,

obligations were added for the Commission to issue reports on competitiveness and energy

subsidies. While it is not possible to give a quantitative estimate of the direct savings

achieved by the Regulation, estimates in the study appear comparable with the 5%

estimated savings from streamlining provided in the original impact assessment.

The Regulation also produces efficiency benefits that cannot be quantified.

Feedback

from survey respondents suggests that merging multiple strategic planning documents into

a single NECP with a streamlined process and prescribed templates reduced administrative

burden. The unified approach to NECPR reporting has also improved the links between

individuals involved in reporting and monitoring, leading to greater data consistency,

119

120

121

This did not directly reduce the administrative burden of these (largely unchanged) reporting obligations

but reduced the legislative complexity by bringing the obligations under one instrument.

Commission staff working document, impact assessment accompanying the proposal for a regulation of

the European Parliament and the Council on the Governance of the Energy Union. See

https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2016:394:FIN.

See Section 4.1.10 and Annexes II and IV to the staff working document.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

enhancing both the efficiency and quality of the reporting process. Examples include the

use of digital tables instead of PDFs, which simplify data management and analysis, as

well as the advantage of a unified reporting platform. These advantages, although

intangible, hold substantial value, particularly to the extent that better data and more

coherent planning support policy making in the long run.

On balance, the more streamlined and integrated reporting provided by the

Regulation appears to have had a positive impact on proportionality.

This is based on

an estimated modest reduction in the administrative burden described above combined

with added advantages such as increased transparency and predictability, better

coordination and cooperation among different national authorities involved in the reporting

process, higher coherence of planning and reporting timelines and procedures, and better-

established processes, policies, and procedures.

At the same time, more can be done to reduce the administrative burden associated

with energy and climate policy obligations.

Despite the efficiency benefits mentioned

above, many consulted national authorities considered that implementing the Regulation

required more financial and human resources. Beyond increased needs for cross-service

coordination and data compilation this is also due to the fact that national policy planning

is not always fully aligned with the Regulation, resulting in parallel planning processes.

Based on the evidence collected, preparing the NECPs is the most complex and resource-

intensive obligation, involving large numbers of staff from different national authorities.

At the same time, stakeholders (especially national authorities) acknowledged that there is

a ‘learning curve.’ Although they perceived the initial planning and reporting cycles under

the Regulation as complex, there is an expectation that the process will become less

burdensome over time as experience with the obligations is accrued and output

expectations, tools and templates are fine-tuned.

Certain factors may influence the perceived impacts of the Regulation on

administrative costs.

Not all consulted national experts are likely to have directly

experienced the situation before the Regulation entered into force in 2018

122

. In addition,

energy and climate policies have increased both in terms of scope, ambition, and political

salience since the adoption of the Regulation (see Section 3) with knock-on effects on

planning and reporting requirements. Several of these policy developments are already

included in the current NECP/R cycle, either by way of legal amendments or guidance

123

This means that although the overall administrative burden of energy and climate policy

may have increased, the Regulation is already mitigating this impact by merging some of

these developments into a single framework.

Stakeholders recognised that streamlining is a continuous process and particularly

some national authorities underlined the need to refocus the Regulation’s obligations

122

123

In total, the Commission’s proposal for the Regulation integrates, streamlines or repeals more than 50

existing individual planning, reporting, and monitoring obligations under energy and climate law

(integrating 31 and deleting 23). COM (2016) 759 final/2 2016/0375(COD).

Commission Notice on the Guidance to Member States for the update of the 2021-2030 national energy

and climate plans (2022/C 495/02).

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

on those that are essential to achieve the EU’s energy and climate objectives and

international reporting requirements.

In other words, they recommended exploring how

to find a better balance between the number and granularity of planning, reporting, and

monitoring obligations on the one hand, and the essential information needed for the EU

to meet its target on the other.

The Commission is already looking into further potential to reduce the administrative

burden.

In parallel to this evaluation and as part of the Commission’s commitment to

reduce the administrative burden from reporting obligations by 25%, it has prepared

targeted rationalisation plans based on a screening of the reporting obligations in climate

and energy legislation. The rationalisation plan for this Regulation includes the planned

removal of the reporting on oil stocks

124

and the expansion and improved functionality of

the e-platform. The findings of this evaluation combined with the screening identified

scope for further streamlining the reporting obligations and processes under the

Regulation, for instance improving the sequencing and timing of different obligations,

streamline overlaps in requirements, and reuse of common components across planning

and reporting, which are currently under assessment.

4.1.11 Contribution to efficiency gains through increased digitalisation

The Regulation has made energy and climate reporting more efficient by increasing

digitalisation.

Article 28 of the Regulation recognises this potential, requiring an e-

platform to be set up (representing a EUR 5 million investment by the EU). The use of

digital templates instead of text-based reports and non-harmonised spreadsheets used for

many previous reporting periods made a strong contribution to improving the

comparability of reported data and the ease of reuse. The e-platform is also progressively

being used to integrate environment, energy, and other obligations from outside the

Regulation, generating substantial costs savings and synergies. The e-platform has also

significantly reduced the burden for the Commission in managing reporting, analysing

reported data, and making data available for reuse. Digital templates are not yet used for

NECPs or LTSs.

More broadly, the platform helps identify what information and data should be

collected and submitted by the Member States,

including through automated quality

checks. National authorities also noted that it enables access to reported information by

several users at the same time, who can check and validate information, thus minimising

the risk of errors when reporting data.

Though this is an improvement on the previous situation, the platform could still be

made more user-friendly.

Some national authorities consider parts of the design complex

and unintuitive, complicating data import, review and data visualisation when exporting

(see also Section 4.1.4). Differences in the design of different parts of the platform on the

one hand and the tables in the templates of the Regulation on the other sometimes required

national authorities to reformulate information before submission, increasing reporting

124

Article 26(1)c of the Regulation.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

time. The co-existence of two different reporting platforms (ReportNET3 and

ReportENER) was criticised by some national authorities and other stakeholders. At the

same time, technical assistance and tutorials on how to use the platforms by the European

Commission and the EEA were deemed particularly useful. As noted in Section 4.1.10,

national authorities also recognised the importance of learning by doing.

Finally, there is scope to improve the technical functionalities of reporting tools,

for

instance by enabling Member States to pre-load data on policies and measures and

information on adaptation action into the biennial transparency report (BTR) format of the

UNFCCC

125

. This would ease the reporting burden of Member States, who could mutualise

the reporting effort under the Governance Regulation to meet their reporting obligations

under the Paris Agreement.

Coherence

When assessing coherence, a distinction can be made between internal and external

coherence.

Internal coherence refers to coherence among the different

planning/reporting/monitoring processes and the related timeframes set in the Governance

Regulation. External coherence is about how well the Regulation functions in conjunction

with other parts of EU energy and climate law, other related EU legislation and with

international obligations, in particular the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement.

In practice, the Regulation and its related implementing regulations and guidance have

been ‘living documents’ able to support an iterative process and learning by doing. None

of the stakeholders consulted criticised the Regulation’s general objective to improve

coherence in energy and climate policy. However, most acknowledge the challenge of

achieving coherence within a broad and complex framework and made suggestions to

correct possible flaws or finetune practical aspects such as misaligned timeframes.

4.1.12 Internal coherence

A significant majority of the stakeholders consulted found that the Regulation has

improved coherence between previous EU energy and climate-related planning and

reporting obligations.

In total, the original proposal for the Regulation merged,

streamlined, or repealed over 50 individual planning, reporting and monitoring obligations

under energy and climate legislation

126

. On climate policy, it took a more holistic approach

than its ‘predecessor’ (the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation) including by embedding

reporting on greenhouse gas policies and measures within the broader framework of the

Energy Union’s objectives. On energy policy, an example is that it replaced separate

national renewable energy and energy efficiency action plans by integrated NECPs. The

Regulation also covers, to some extent, several key cross-cutting issues and policies (e.g.,

125

126

Functionality is currently under development alongside the UNFCCC launch of a new international reporting

platform. It is expected to be available within the coming year.

In total, the Commission’s proposal for the Regulation merged, streamlined or repealed over 50 individual planning,

reporting and monitoring obligations under the EU's energy and climate acquis (integrating 31 and deleting 23) -

see COM(2016) 759 final/2 2016/0375(COD), see:

EUR-Lex - 52016PC0759R(01) - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

the energy efficiency first principle, energy poverty, the just transition and climate change

adaptation).

The remaining inconsistencies are largely due to the complexity of merging numerous

obligations in a single framework.

Although this can create synergies and effectiveness

gains, it also creates certain challenges such as:

•

greater complexity, for instance in the data to be reported under several articles

(such as adaptation under Article 17 and 19, and policies and measures under

Articles 17 to 25) or the use of several data collection processes;

the difficulty of keeping an umbrella framework connected to many pieces of

legislation up to date, e.g., with the Fit-for-55 package, where each legal proposal

had its own timeline and specific interlinkages with the Regulation;

sector-specific aspects and needs may not be sufficiently reflected to trigger the

necessary action.

•

The Regulation’s iterative planning and reporting regime is conducive to learning by

doing, which should partly alleviate such challenges over time.

Some of the work

covered by the Regulation (notably planning and reporting in areas such as climate

mitigation, renewable energy, and energy efficiency) build on a longer tradition than

others. The learning-by-doing approach is supported by implementing regulations setting

out the structure, format, technical details and process of reporting, Commission guidance

issued to prepare the NECP update process

127

as well as expert meetings. The

improvements in quality and coverage (for instance as regards energy poverty, skills and

just transition) of NECPs between the first 2019-2020 cycle to their updates in 2023 is

testimony to the effect of this learning-by-doing approach. Another example is provided

by Economidou et al. (2022)

128

who analysed the experience gained and improvements

made in the planning, reporting, and monitoring of energy efficiency policies from the first

national energy efficiency action plans (NEEAPs) in 2007-2008 to 2020 under the

Governance Regulation.

One specific area where stakeholders have raised consistency issues is the relation

between national LTSs and NECPs.

According to Article 15(6) of the Regulation,

NECPs should be consistent with LTSs. Stakeholders noted that there is an apparent

misalignment in the sequencing of NECPs and LTSs: the first LTSs had to be submitted

after

the first NECPs and the Regulation does not contain a legal obligation for Member

States to revise them until 1 January 2029, in parallel with NECPs.

129

Stakeholders also

noted that there are fewer substantive and process requirements for LTSs than for NECPs,

for instance in terms of a mandatory template (several LTSs did not cover all the mandatory

127

128

129

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/publications/guidance-ms-updated-necps-2021-2030_en

Economidou, M., Ringel, M., Valentova, M., Castellazzi, L., Zancanella, P., Zangheri, P., Serrenho, T.,

Paci, D., & Bertoldi, P. (2022). Strategic energy and climate policy planning: Lessons learned from

European

energy

efficiency

policies.

Energy

Policy,

171,

113225.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113225.

Members are only requested to update their LTSs by 1 January 2025 ‘where necessary’.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

content

130

under Article 15(4) of the Regulation), mandatory updates after their adoption

and monitoring. Also, unlike for the NECPs, LTSs are not subject to an iterative process

with Member States first submitting a draft strategy. Overall, these differences make LTSs

more likely to be outdated and less useful as tools to inform energy and policy planning,

especially in the context of recent increases to energy and climate ambitions.

4.1.13 External coherence

The Regulation has improved coherence with other parts of EU energy and climate

law, as well as with other related EU legislation and international obligations, in

particular under the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement.

It has integrated energy and

climate-related planning and reporting obligations that were previously scattered across

different pieces of legislation. To some extent, the Regulation also covers other policy

areas including environment, transport, and agriculture. It has helped align EU climate

planning and reporting with processes under the Paris Agreement. As with internal

coherence, national authorities expressed overall positive views of the impact of the

Regulation on external coherence. Third-sector organisations were also positive overall on

this, but to a lesser extent.

Nonetheless, there are several areas where external coherence can be improved. The

Regulation, for instance, is not yet fully coherent with new or updated EU energy

legislation.

Notably, it does not yet fully reflect related new or revised reporting

obligations resulting from the Fit-for-55 package. For instance, it has yet to integrate the

process established under Article 4(5) of the EED recast to set the national contribution for

energy efficiency, the related iterative gap-filling mechanism under Article 4(6) and the

flexibility objectives under the electricity market design reform.

The Regulation currently does not provide for a mechanism for Member States to report

on their bilateral and plurilateral initiatives. With an increasing number of energy transition

initiatives in the context of UNFCCC and relevant bilateral processes linked to the EU

policy agenda, such as on hydrogen, critical raw materials, and methane abatement, there

is an increasing risk of incoherent or inefficient EU level energy diplomacy.

There is also scope for further alignment with EU climate legislation. For instance,

the Regulation’s climate progress assessments can be aligned with those carried out

for the Effort Sharing and LULUCF Regulations.

NECP assessments partly overlap

with the Article 29(5)(b) assessments carried out for ESR and LULUCF

131

. In addition,

there is some inconsistency between Article 17

132

and Articles 18 and 29(5)(b), to which

130

131

132

For instance, several LTS did not provide enough or clear information on the exact scope of projected

GHG emission reductions at sectoral level, including for LULUCF. For background, see:

cc21a745-

d691-4028-bb0f-7527d115587c_en (europa.eu).

While the draft and final NECPs should be reflected by 31 October in the annual progress assessment

performed under Article 29(5)(b) for ESR and LULUCF, the NECPs 30 June deadline is in practice too

late to be able to carry out a complete assessment.

Reporting under Article 18 (Integrated reporting on greenhouse gas policies and measures and on

projections) of the Regulation is necessary to assess annual progress towards the EU’s economy-wide

2030 and 2050 targets, and for the national and EU-wide ESR and LULUCF targets, which are assessed

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

both the ESR and LULUCF Regulations cross reference. The Regulation also includes an

inconsistency in LULUCF assessments

133

. These overlaps and inconsistencies create

unnecessary burden and complexities.

Coherence can also be improved between the climate assessments carried out under

the Regulation and those under the European Climate Law.

The substance and follow-

up of the assessments partly overlap

134

. The timelines of upcoming assessments can also

be better aligned

135

In terms of coherence between the Regulation and other policy areas, the

Commission’s assessment of draft updated NECPs found that Member States have

only partially described and exploited synergies

136

For instance, biodiversity, nature

restoration and nature-based solutions can still be better integrated in plans to enhance

carbon sinks. The majority of draft updated NECPs also lack sufficient ambition and action

on land use and few Member States refer to CAP strategic plans (CSPs). Over half of the

draft plans do not include the required information on the impact of policies on projected

emissions of the main air pollutants regulated under the National Emissions Reduction

Commitments Directive

137

nor on the alignment of National Air Pollution Control

Programme (NAPCP) with energy and climate programmes. Similarly, most plans could

take more account of water, zero pollution and circular economy policies, both in view of

their contribution to climate mitigation and adaptation and to foster strategic autonomy.

133

134

135

136

137

on a biennial basis under Article 29(5)(b). Based on this assessment, both the ESR and LULUCF

Regulations provide for corrective action if a Member State makes insufficient progress towards its

national targets. However, although both Articles 17 (Integrated national energy and climate progress

reports) and 18 require biennial reporting as of 15 March 2023, only the latter requires substantial

changes to be reported in years where there is no Article 17 reporting. As a result, only Article 18 ensures

that the annual assessment under Article 29(5)(b) draws on annual data from the Member States.

While Article 30 specifically requires Member States to include in their NECPs LULUCF PaMs to show

progress under the LULUCF Regulation should they intend to use the Article 7 ESR flexibility, Member

States already need to report under the LULUCF Regulation on progress in their NECPs (irrespective

of whether they intend to use the Article 7 ESR flexibility). This in addition to the overlap between

NECPR and Article 29(5)(b) assessments.

In 2023 the Commission published in the CAPR its five-yearly assessment of Union progress and

measures (Article 6 ECL) and national measures (Article 7 ECL). Based on its assessment, which is

closely linked in substance to assessments carried out under the Regulation, the Commission issued

recommendations to Member States in December 2023 under the ECL. At the same time, Member States

also received recommendations on their draft updated NECPs. The recommendations under the ECL

focused on the consistency of their measures with the EU’s climate-neutrality objective, and with

ensuring progress on adaptation (Article 7 ECL). The follow-up on the recommendations under Article

7 ECL has one additional step compared to the follow up of Article 34 (Commission recommendations

to Member States) of the Regulation.

The ECL’s five-yearly assessment (done in September) is both linked to the timing of the yearly

assessment of progress under the Regulation and to the global stocktake (occurring at the end of 2023

and every 5 years thereafter). During the next assessment cycle there is a risk that certain information

will not be available in time to inform planning processes under the Regulation as draft and final NECPs

for the 2031-2040 period are due by 1 January 2028 and 1 January 2029, but assessments under Articles

6 and 7 of the ECL are already due by 30 September 2028.

The Commission’s Guidance for the update of the NECPs encouraged Member States to identify and

create synergies between energy and climate planning and with relevant policy areas, see:

Guidance to

MS for updated NECPs 2021-2030 - European Commission (europa.eu).

Directive 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

In a similar vein, stakeholders argued that the Regulation could better reflect transport and

industrial policy (e.g., as regards recharging infrastructure and the Net-Zero Industry Act)

as well as the EU’s economic governance framework. Clarifying the link between national

commitments to phase out fossil fuels including coal and regional commitments in

territorial just transition plans

138

would also be useful. Stakeholders also mentioned that

time periods and deadlines set in different EU plans (e.g., NECPs, REPowerEU chapters

and national Social Climate Plans) are not aligned.

Most stakeholders expressed positive views on the Regulation’s coherence with

international legislation and obligations.

The common rules for planning, reporting, and

monitoring facilitate work to meet international obligations such as those stemming from

the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It also ensures that Member States report on

adaptation to climate change and on the provision of financial, technological, and capacity-

building support to developing countries.

Nonetheless, coherence with the EU’s international obligations can still be improved.

The Regulation’s NECPR reporting cycle occurs in odd years (on 15 March) but the

UNFCCC reporting cycle takes place in even years (31 December). In practice this means

that the EU’s BTRs will not include the latest figures

139

. In addition, Article 17 will need

to be updated since the biennial reports have been replaced with biennial transparency

reports.

Finally, there may be scope to strengthen coherence with national and regional

planning cycles.

Several stakeholders pointed out inconsistencies with national, regional,

and local planning cycles. Some Member States prepare national climate and/or energy

plans that are not fully aligned with their NECP, either because they are prepared at a

different time or because they have a different scope. Another example are the local heating

and cooling plans required by the new EED (Article 25(6)), how the plans should be

coordinated with the national comprehensive heating and cooling assessments, and then

reflected in NECPs.

4.2 EU added value: how did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

Building on Section 4.1, this section assesses the EU added value of the Regulation, i.e.,

the extent to which it has produced results beyond what would have been achieved by

Member States acting alone.

4.2.1. Coordination and consistency of Member States’ energy and climate policies

On the whole, stakeholders tended to agree that there has been an improvement in

the coordination and consistency of national energy and climate policies.

Most

surveyed national authorities (18 of 25) indicated that the Regulation has contributed to

more coordinated and consistent national energy and climate policies to a very large, large

138

139

Prepared within the context of the Just Transition Fund Regulation (2021/1056).

Data from NECPs can also not be included in the EU’s BTR, as the June 30 deadlines come too late.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

or some extent. Third-sector representatives found the Regulation to have had a smaller

EU added value, with industry stakeholders providing mixed replies.

By promoting more coordinated and consistent action, the Regulation’s common

framework and mechanisms provide EU added value and contribute to the

achievement of the EU’s energy and climate objectives for 2030 and beyond.

While

some of the 2020 energy targets were binding on individual Member States (notably the

renewable energy target of 20%)

140

, the energy targets for 2030 must be achieved by

Member States collectively. Without the Regulation it would have been difficult for

Member States to coordinate the necessary national contributions to EU-wide energy

targets. Data reported and plans submitted under the Regulation provide information on

national ambition levels and implementation. It's helpful in assessing progress, identifying

synergies, promoting policy coherence and fostering transparency among Member States.

This is confirmed by some of the stakeholders consulted who highlighted the added value

of uniform and structured reporting systems to assess progress against targets in a

consistent way. Stakeholders, including some national authorities, also commented that

access to other countries’ NECPs in similar and comparable formats is helpful to

cooperation, sharing best practices and learning.

4.2.2 Provision of information at EU or national level that would not otherwise be

available.

While the Regulation has supported Member State planning and reporting, its added

value partly depends on the national processes in place before its adoption.

Around

half (14 out of 27) of the national authorities participating in the survey indicated that

without the Regulation the same level of planning and reporting would

not

have been

achieved. Just over a third (10 out of 27) said that they

would

have achieved the same level

of planning and reporting in absence of the Regulation.

The replies from survey respondents representing the third sector were more consistent,

with a clear majority (10 out of 14) indicating that in the absence of the Regulation the

planning and reporting in their Member State(s) would not have been at the same level.

Feedback from targeted interviews also indicates that the Regulation provides added

value to planning and reporting processes.

All nine interviewees who commented on

this question felt that planning and reporting processes are better than they would have

been in the absence of the Regulation (see also Section 4.1). Interviewees highlighted the

EU added value of having mandatory templates to ensure comparable and consistent

reporting and the obligation to tie national level planning to EU targets. The Regulation’s

added value depended in part on the national planning and reporting requirements that

Member States had in place before adoption of the Regulation (with higher added value in

Member States that lacked comparable planning requirements in national law).

140

Directive 2009/28/EC, Art. 3.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

4.2.3 Transparency and predictability of Member States’ energy and climate policies

Stakeholders indicated that the Regulation has increased data availability and

improved transparency and predictability of Member States’ energy and climate

policies.

A majority (13 of 25) of national authorities that responded to the survey agreed

to a very large or large extent that the Regulation contributed to more transparent and

predictable national energy and climate policies. An additional seven believed that it did

so to some extent.

Stakeholders see the Regulation’s added value especially in terms of the publication

of NECPs and EU-wide datasets on the new e-platform.

Some also argued that the

transparency and predictability resulting from a stable governance framework in general

and NECPs in particular can support decision-making by both policy makers and investors.

In addition to planning, they noted that standardised reporting processes and timelines,

coordination mechanisms and public access to information are also positive features.

However, stakeholders noted delays in data availability and the fact that data is

sometimes incomplete and not always understandable.

They identified some areas for

improvement in terms of both transparency and re-usability of information, and as regards

public access to information (see Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 for further details).

4.2.4 Added value in ensuring accountability and access to justice

141

Stakeholders expressed differing views on the Regulation’s added value in ensuring

accountability and access to justice, primarily due to uneven national implementation.

Access to justice is fundamental to ensure that acts and administrative decisions comply

with EU environmental legislation and promote accountability of public authorities, both

Member States and EU

142

The Aarhus Convention and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

143

are

relevant for access to justice on EU environmental legislation. The Regulation refers to the

applicability of provisions in both the Convention and the Directive.

Stakeholders identified some areas where the Regulation has provided EU added

value in terms of accountability.

They include EU checks on the quality of Member State

data and the level of ambition of planning, the ability to request improvements in both

respects, the extension of planning and reporting to new areas and better monitoring of

Member States’ achievement of climate and energy targets. Increased public information

141

142

143

This evaluation assesses aspects related to access to justice as stated by the European Commission on

the occasion of the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2023/857 and Regulation (EU) 2023/839.

Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, to which both the EU and Member States are parties, enshrines the

right to effective remedy against acts or omissions contravening environmental law, subject to certain

conditions. In this context, the Union and Member States must provide members of the public, including

environmental associations, with enough possibilities through administrative or judicial review to legally

challenge acts for violations of environmental law.

Directive - 2001/42 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

on progress and future planning makes it easier to track Member States’ progress towards

objectives and therefore supports public accountability.

Nonetheless, the majority of third-sector respondents did not believe that access to

justice and accountability had improved with the Regulation.

In their view, the

Regulation lacks sufficient mechanisms to hold Member States and the EU accountable for

their obligations under the Regulation and the Aarhus Convention, to which both EU and

Member States are parties. As regards access to justice, some noted the lack of a specific

and direct right of access to justice provision in the Regulation to challenge NECPs or LTSs

before national courts across the EU, which leads to inconsistent application of the access

to justice right among Member States

144

. Some studies indicate that challenges to NECPs

and LTS on the grounds of the Regulation are limited to unfulfilled procedural or content

requirements, and consequently, policies and measures in the NECPs can only be

challenged indirectly if they are against European or domestic law, which is not satisfactory

to fulfil Aarhus Convention requirements, according to third-sector stakeholders

145

The Regulation refers to the applicability of provisions in both the Aarhus Convention and

the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. However, some stakeholders argued

that further clarity on its applicability to NECPs could ensure access to justice rights in all

Member States.

Stakeholders suggested that including a horizontal access to justice provision in the

Regulation could be useful, for instance where Member States breach the Regulation's

provisions on public participation, e.g., in relation to NECPs or any substantive

requirements of European environmental law.

Most of the surveyed national authorities, however, considered that the Regulation has

improved both accountability and access to justice.

4.3 Is the Governance Regulation still relevant as it stands?

The Regulation’s core objective of providing an integrated governance structure that

both enables and pushes Member States to commit to and meet ambitious energy and

climate targets is still fully relevant.

The Regulation may however require updates in

light of several important developments and events that have taken place since 2018 (see

also Section 3.2).

4.3.1 Relevance in view of legislative and policy developments at EU and international

level

Despite the evolving regulatory and policy framework both at EU and international

level, the Regulation has provided a stable and useful framework for planning and

reporting.

This is partly because related EU legislation adopted after 2018 has given rise

to targeted amendments to the Regulation. However, regulatory and policy developments

144

145

See for example: EEB (2024) A revised and responsive Governance Regulation.

Juliette Robert, (2023) The EU´s climate and Energy framework in light of the Aarhus Convention,

Brussels School of Governance.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

do not necessarily require updates to the Regulation to be taken into account by Member

States in their plans and reports. The guidelines issued by the Commission on the process

to update their NECPs contain several recommendations to this effect. For example, they

cover the contribution of the circular economy to the climate transition and application of

the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle when drawing up policies and measures.

Several stakeholders notably from the third sector suggested that this does not always occur

in practice, however.

In course of the consultation, most national authorities gave positive feedback on how

up to date the Regulation is, however other stakeholders argued that certain aspects

are not sufficiently covered in the current Regulation.

They mentioned economic

aspects (investment needs, sources for financing and macroeconomic impacts as having a

limited space in NECPs), the availability of labour resources needed to implement the

technological transition, indicators tracking energy sufficiency, grid deployment,

electrification, and climate adaptation. As regards investment needs, the NECPs have

played certain role in identifying investment needs and new RRF-funded support measures

must be reported as part of the biennial reporting of policies and measures under the

Regulation and reflected in the updated NECPs to be submitted by 30 June 2024. However,

a consolidated assessment of investment needs and the sources of financing for the policies

and measures planned to achieve the objectives and targets can be better reflected in the

NECPs.

Another issue raised is whether the plans produced by Member States and the

Commission are updated with sufficient frequency.

For instance, several third sector

stakeholders argued that the Commission’s 2018 LTS, adopted under Article 15(2) of the

Regulation, is outdated and no longer in line with the current policy landscape (see also

Section 4.1).

The Regulation’s role in ensuring proper reporting by the EU and its Member States

under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement remains fully relevant.

At the same time,

specific provisions may require updating in the light of recent developments such as

decisions, arrangements, procedures and guidelines under enhanced transparency

framework, the agreement at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems

and the Global Goal on Adaptation. This also concerns the reporting obligations stemming

from Article 6 of the Paris Agreement which may be reported in conjunction with the

Biennial Transparency Reports.

4.3.2 Relevance in view of socio-economic, environmental, and geopolitical changes and

risks

The Regulation’s core objectives have gained in relevance given the increasing

urgency to tackle climate change and the increasingly complex needs that energy and

climate policies must address.

The IPCC's 2023 Sixth Assessment Report predicts higher climate-related risks than the

previous assessment report published in 2014. In Europe, the first ever European Climate

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Risk Assessment

146

forecasts that in the best-case scenario where global warming is limited

to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, Europe – which is heating at twice the global

rate – will be 3 degrees warmer and consequently impacted by more heatwaves and other

weather extremes.

In this context, mainstreaming resilience and climate adaptation considerations in climate

mitigation and energy policy has become prominent areas of action for the Regulation.

Climate change increases the risks for energy security, in particular electricity disruption

due to heat, wildfires, droughts, and floods affecting peak demand and impacting

production, storage, transport, and distribution.

The recent geopolitical and other crises have also confirmed the relevance of the

Regulation and have brought to the forefront critical issues such as energy security,

industrial competitiveness and social issues that could be better integrated into the

Regulation.

The energy supply crisis following the Russian aggression against Ukraine

and the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted several aspects of EU energy policy and made

European policymakers acutely aware of the risks associated with large and undiversified

reliance on energy supplies from third countries. These crises heightened the relevance of

the Energy Union’s objectives and accelerating the need for a clean energy transition. They

also triggered a recalibration of immediate policy priorities and highlighted transition

challenges, leading to the adoption of the REPowerEU plan. As pointed out in other

sections, the energy crisis impacted the Regulation’s objectives by, for example,

emphasising the need for stronger coordination and cooperation among Member States on

gas supply (e.g., joint purchasing).

Survey results indicate that national competent authorities and civil society are

divided on whether the Regulation’s governance mechanism has responded

adequately to these events.

National authorities tended to take a neutral or positive stance,

but third-sector respondents overwhelmingly found the Regulation’s governance

mechanism to be inadequate.

146

EEA (2024), European Climate Risk Assessment, ISSN 1977-8449,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Stakeholders suggested that the Regulation does not adequately cover socio-economic

issues such as energy poverty, labour shortages and wider sustainable development goals.

They argued that this is exacerbated by the lack of robust economic macroeconomic

assessments of the policies and measures included in the NECPs. In line with these

observations, the Commission, in its assessment of the draft updated NECPs found that

most NECPs still lack structural policies and measures to alleviate energy poverty

147

Stakeholders also suggested that NECPs do not sufficiently link to economic governance

and should include more information on lowering dependence on fossil fuels and taking a

binding path to a carbon-negative economy within planetary boundaries.

147

Commission Communication of 18 December 2023,

EU-wide assessment of the draft updated National

Energy and Climate Plans - An important step towards the more ambitious 2030 energy and climate

objectives under the European Green Deal and RePowerEU,

COM (2023) 796 final.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

ONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED

The Governance Regulation, which entered into force in December 2018, provides a

first-of-a-kind framework that combines strategic, long and mid-term energy and

climate planning with robust reporting and monitoring mechanisms to ensure

delivery on the ground.

The Regulation thus plays an important role in meeting the EU’s energy and climate

objectives and targets and promoting the long-term investments needed for the climate and

energy transition. Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, the Regulation

has proved a valuable tool despite some concerns over a lack of sufficient mechanisms to

tackle ambition and implementation gaps. The Regulation's core objective of providing a

governance structure that both enables and pushes Member States to commit to and meet

ambitious energy and climate objectives and targets remains more relevant than ever given

the growing urgency of climate mitigation and adaptation action and the increasingly

complex needs that Member States' energy and climate policies must address.

The Regulation has strengthened integrated energy and climate policy planning,

streamlined reporting, increased the coherence of timelines and procedures, and

improved transparency and predictability.

National energy and climate policies have

become more consistent, though impacts varied across Member States partly depending on

national processes that preceded the Regulation.

Importantly, the Regulation has enabled the EU and Member States to comply with

the UNFCCC reporting requirements

and report on their progress to address climate

change and reach their objectives and targets under the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol. Updates

in the reporting regime under the Paris Agreement are yet to be incorporated.

Despite having integrated, streamlined, or repealed multiple individual planning,

reporting, and monitoring obligations of energy and climate legislation, many

national administrations do not yet perceive a reduction in administrative burden.

This may at least be partly explained by the fact that more integrated processes require

more policy coordination, and that the learning curve for new reporting cycles has not yet

reached its peak.

The Regulation has improved cooperation among different ministries and authorities

at national level. To some extent, it has also stimulated regional cooperation between

Member States in developing their plans.

While the Regulation is perceived as a step

forward in terms of stakeholder consultation and multi-level dialogue, concerns have been

expressed over its provisions being too unspecific to ensure a sufficient and comparable

level of consultation across Member States. Coordination with local and regional level

bodies may also merit more attention.

The Regulation has improved the quality of information in plans and reporting, but

significant information gaps remain,

particularly in terms of the actual effects of policies

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

and measures.

More detailed information is also needed on investment needs, funding

sources and macro-economic impacts.

The Regulation has improved the management of energy and climate data, promoting

a clearer and more open mechanism for sharing information and making decisions.

The digitalisation of reporting through online platforms and the use of common templates

has significantly simplified the submission, assessment, and accessibility of data, however

several stakeholders have remarked that accessibility still should be further improved,

notably for the public and non-expert users. Importantly, this process has identified scope

to further align the timing and content of different obligations inside and outside of the

Regulation.

The Regulation has improved accountability to some extent, nevertheless, some

stakeholders argued that access to justice is not applied consistently across the EU and

called on more clear, harmonised, and effective access to justice rights as regards NECPs

and LTS in line with the Aarhus Convention.

The Regulation is not yet fully in sync with the significant transformation that the

European and international energy and climate policy landscape has undergone in

recent years,

both as result of the European Green Deal and the unprecedented crises

caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.

Moving forward, the Regulation needs to help the EU meet a set of widening and

increasingly ambitious energy and climate objectives beyond achieving its 2030

targets.

It should provide a basis to shape and implement future EU policy in these areas,

particularly the ambitions for 2040 and 2050. Its governance mechanism must help

accelerate the transition to climate neutrality. It must also factor in competitiveness, energy

security and energy resilience, tackle challenges across the supply chain for clean and net

zero technologies, provide certainty for investments in industrial decarbonisation,

incentivise the phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies, tackle energy poverty and

just transition concerns, factor in skills and jobs aspects, and put a greater emphasis on

climate adaptation considerations taking into account the recent European Climate Risk

Assessment

148

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

I: P

ROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Lead DG and Decide reference

The evaluation was led by the European Commission’s Directorates-General for Energy and Climate

Action.

Decide entry: PLAN/2023/658.

Organisation and timing

The call for evidence

149

was published for feedback for a four-week period from 6 July to

3 August 2023.

An Interservice Steering Group (ISG) was set up compromising the following services: SG, SG-

RECOVER, LS, AGRI, BUDG, CNECT, ECFIN, EMPL, ENV, ESTAT, FISMA, GROW, INTPA,

JRC, JUST, MOVE, NEAR, REFORM, REGIO, RTD, TAXUD, TRADE, as well as the European

External Action Service and the European Environmental Agency. Five meetings of the ISG were

held on 26 April, 5 September, 26 October 2023, 11 January, and 18 June 2024.

Evidence and sources

The European Commission, Directorates-General for Energy and Climate Action contracted a

consortium led by ICF to carry out a support study

150

for this evaluation from July 2023 to May 2024.

The methodology

151

for the study included: a call for evidence, comprehensive desk research,

including the key deliverables (long-term strategies, NECPs and progress reports) under the

Governance Regulation, a legal mapping of planning, reporting and monitoring obligations stemming

from the Governance Regulation, an online survey of national authorities, industry representatives

and third-sector organisations, telephone interviews, country case studies and a stakeholder event in

Brussels.

149

150

151

Energy Union and climate action – Review report on the Governance Regulation (europa.eu)

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate

Action – final report (forthcoming)

A detailed description of the methodological approach and its limitations can be found in Annex II.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

II. M

ETHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED

This Annex describes the methods and sources used during this evaluation, including the limitations

encountered.

The evaluation was underpinned by a study undertaken by a consortium led by ICF. The contractor

conducted the consultation activities mentioned below, analysed the results, and provided replies to

the evaluation questions. It also prepared technical annexes.

The support study provided a good basis for the Commission evaluation. However, since its

conclusions drew mainly on the consultation activities, they required further desk research from

Commission departments to improve their robustness.

Central to the methodology were the evaluation (sub)questions (See Annex III) developed based on

the five evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value. The

analytical approach used to evaluate the Regulation was based on the analysis of consultation

findings, a triangulation of stakeholder views, qualification and quantification of costs and benefits

estimates.

To gather information to conduct the evaluation, the Commission carried out a range of activities

with the support of the contractor. The summary below summarises the used sources of information:

Literature review.

A comprehensive literature review to identify relevant secondary sources

of information and data. It drew on relevant literature and data from a variety of sources

including the European Commission, the Member States and peer-reviewed literature. The

review included mapping obligations, which included a comprehensive set of legislative,

implementing, and delegated acts, as well as other non-legislative documents related to EU

climate and energy legislation. The review of literature also provided important information

on the costs and benefits of the Regulation to feed into the baseline and assessment of the

Regulation’s efficiency.

Call for evidence.

Between 6 July 2023 and 3 August 2023, the Commission conducted a call

for evidence on the 'Have your say' portal.

152

The objective was to provide stakeholders and

the public with an opportunity to share their views on the functioning of the Regulation. The

target audience included organisations, social partners, the scientific community, the general

public, Member State authorities and other public authorities. 53 respondents, covering eight

respondent groups, replied to the call for evidence (see also Annex V). The most represented

stakeholder group were non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (34%, 18 in number),

followed by public authorities (15%, 8) and business associations (13%, 7). Other respondents

included EU citizens (9%, 5), companies/businesses (9%, 5), environmental organisations

(9%, 5) and academic or research institutions (6%, 3). The responses came from 16 EU

Member States and two third countries (the United Kingdom and Australia). Most of the

stakeholders provided a position paper accompanying their submission, or less structured

views on the Regulation and/or on the EU’s overall climate and energy policy framework.

152

Energy Union and climate action – Review report on the Governance Regulation (europa.eu)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Many of the submissions covered forward-looking aspects of governance that would be

relevant to a possible impact assessment.

Targeted surveys.

The evaluation included input from a set of targeted surveys from national

authorities, industry organisations and third-sector stakeholders. The surveys covered

questions of relevance to the evaluation and some scoping questions on the problem

definition. The surveys elicited a total of 70 responses. This included 33 responses from

national authorities, 20 responses from third-sector stakeholders and 17 responses from

industry organisations.

Interviews.

10 scoping interviews and 35 key informant interviews were conducted as part of

the evaluation, and a further 35 targeted interviews were conducted as the basis for the case

studies. Despite taking several mitigating measures to boost the participation rate for

interviews, the contractor did not manage to conduct the 60 interviews initially hoped for.

Consequently, the answers to the evaluation questions are based on less first-hand information

and narrower feedback than initially envisaged, which may have prevented or hindered robust

conclusions from being drawn.

Stakeholder event.

A stakeholder event was organised by DG ENER and DG CLIMA on

11 January 2024, involving approximately 120 representatives from Member States’ national

authorities, industry organisations as well as civil society stakeholders. The study team

presented some of the preliminary findings of the evaluation at this event. The main points

emerging from the discussion have been integrated into the findings of the evaluation.

Case studies.

During the evaluation, seven country-focused case studies (Belgium, Denmark,

France, Germany, Malta, Romania, and Poland) were conducted to explore, in-depth, the

procedures and processes used in the Member States to comply with the reporting obligations

set by the Governance Regulation and the related costs (including administrative burden) and

benefits. The case studies also explored three main topics: i) public consultation and multi-

level climate and energy dialogues, ii) regional cooperation, and iii) compliance. The case

studies draw on the general programme of stakeholder consultation, as well as more targeted

desk research and stakeholder interviews in the seven case study Member States.

Efficiency analysis.

An in-depth screening of the reporting and planning obligations under

energy and climate law, and links between reporting in the energy/climate sectors with

sustainability reporting obligations in other policy areas, was carried out and assisted by AI.

In total, over 900 reporting obligations were screened, 39 of which under the Regulation. The

same tool was used to collect data on the costs and benefits of the related obligations for both

Member States and for the Commission. The analysis focused on quantifying and monetising

the key direct cost and benefits for which information was available. The remaining costs and

benefits were assessed qualitatively. The costs are assessed against a baseline representing the

situation before the Governance Regulation entered into force. The costs were estimated in

euro, in current prices (2023 prices). More details can be found in Annex X of the support

study.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Limitations and data robustness

Literature and data were primarily sourced in English, but targeted searches in other EU languages

were conducted to bridge the information gaps, particularly for the country case studies. However, it

is acknowledged that some pertinent non-English information may have been overlooked.

The response rate to the various strands of consultation was lower than expected. Efforts were made

to increase participation by contacting stakeholders directly via email and occasionally via telephone

and LinkedIn, and by sending reminder emails. The timeline for the consultation was also extended

to the maximum extent. Despite these efforts, participation levels remained below expectations,

resulting in a narrower range of viewpoints. Consequently, the evaluation’s findings may in places

lack the robustness that a broader participation could have provided.

Given the Regulation is an ‘umbrella’ piece of legislation it was not always possible to establish a

clear causal effect of the Regulation on specific aspects, such as how it has contributed to the

implementation of more ambitious climate and energy measures.

For the efficiency analysis, evidence collected from the Member States provided limited and

fragmented information on the current costs and benefits of implementing the Regulation. This was

due to the low response rate, but also because the responsibility for reporting obligations were often

split among different administrations, and several respondents had limited knowledge of the costs of

previous rounds of reporting and the situation before the Regulation entered into force. The analysis

therefore is based on a set of assumptions and simplifications and needs to be taken with some caution.

Despite these limitations, by triangulating data sources and holding extensive discussions with

national authorities and stakeholders, the Commission obtained robust conclusions for most of the

evaluation questions.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

III. E

VALUATION MATRIX AND

WHERE RELEVANT

DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS

(

BY CRITERION

)

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

See Section 5.111

EFFECTIVENESS

To what extent has the Regulation effectively achieved its key objectives, across the five dimensions of the Energy Union

EQ1

– To what extent has the Regulation led to increased

■

The information is made available in

Quantitative indicators

■

quality, increased timeliness and increased (public)

an accurate, complete, and timely

■

Number of documents / reports submitted on time

■

accessibility

of the reported information across the

manner.

to the Commission.

Energy Union’s five dimensions and on all aspects related

■

Member States fulfilled their current

■

Number of views / downloads of the publicly

to the Regulation’s objectives, notably in terms of

planning and reporting obligations

available documents / reports.

national energy and climate plans (NECPs), Long-Term

correctly in terms of timeliness,

Strategies, and annual and biennial reports?

completeness, consistency,

Qualitative indicators

comparability, coherence,

■

Quality / degree of completeness of planning

■

EQ1.1

– To what extent did the Regulation contribute

transparency, and accuracy.

documents and data/ reports provided.

to improved plans, reports, and monitoring, including

■

Indicators used in the reports

■

Public availability of complete planning

through more integrated and streamlined processes?

effectively and comparably tracked

documents and data/ reports.

■

EQ1.2

– To what extent do Member States fulfil their

progress across all dimensions. There

■

Stakeholders’ degree of satisfaction with current

■

current planning and reporting obligations in a

are no information gaps, no areas

coverage of information

■

complete and timely manner?

where increased coverage would

■

Extent to which the EC guidance was adhered to

■

EQ1.3

– Are the indicators used in the reports

yield benefits (without resulting in

effective in tracking progress across all dimensions?

and facilitated the planning / reporting processes.

■

EQ1.4

– What are the main reasons for any

disproportionate costs for concerned

■

Extent to which dedicated technical support

limitations / deficiencies of the plans and reports?

entities).

funded by the Commission facilitated the process

■

EQ1.5

-To what extent have the guidance documents

■

The Regulation led to increased

(take up statistics, views on its usefulness).

produced by the EC been appropriate and up to date?

transparency and public accessibility

■

Main limitations or deficiencies in the plans and

To what extent have the Member States followed the

of reported information.

reports submitted by the MS, as identified by key

guidance documents provided by the

stakeholders.

Commission? What problems have been observed and

■

why?

EQ1.6

– To what extent has the dedicated technical

support funded by the Commission facilitated the

planning and reporting process?

EQ1.7

– To what extent has the Regulation led to

increased transparency and public accessibility of

reported information?

Legal mapping.

Desk research, including desk review

of EC assessments of draft / final

NECPs, and of wider stakeholder

assessments (reports from ECA,

academics or think tanks) on potential

scope for better coverage.

Mapping of information requirements

along the five dimensions vs

information available.

EU-level interviews.

Interviews with MS authorities.

Targeted surveys with MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

■

Further information requirements

Reasons put forward by some MS for not

submitting documents / reports (e.g., LTS), or not

on time, and consequences for the EU /

international level and wider stakeholders.

Any further room for improvement / support tool

that could be implemented.

Suggestions made by stakeholders for improving

or expanding coverage / timeliness / transparency

/ accessibility and feasibility of addressing these

needs.

Answer

The Regulation has led to increased quality of information across the Energy Union’s five dimensions and on all aspects related to the Regulation’s objectives.

Quality of reported information

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

While the Regulation enhanced the quality of reported information in

NECPs

to a sufficient extent, some gaps and issues with the completeness of reported data remain. There are indications that individual Member States have taken

differing approaches to this, potentially influencing the nature of the collected information. The Regulation has effectively contributed to an improved accuracy of the available data around the five dimensions to be covered under

Article 15(4) of the Regulation in

LTSs.

However, the evaluation found that differing national planning traditions negatively impacted the completeness of the LTSs, with Member States sometimes not reporting all the mandatory

content under Article 15(4) or doing so not coherently with their NECPs. On the quality of reported information for the

biennial progress reports and their follow-up,

the evaluation finds that enforcement of Articles 17 to 25

proved effective only to some extent, with significant data gaps remaining. Concerning

integrated planning and reporting on GHG policies and measures and on projections

(Article 18), the evaluation finds that, although the

number of PaMs has increased over time, the completeness of reported information (particularly quantitative information) has not improved to the same extent. The quality of information on projections of anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks increased from 2017 to 2021.

Timeliness of reported information

The draft

NECPs

were not always submitted on time. It is unclear whether this problem is directly linked to the Regulation or whether it results from practices and/or procedural bottlenecks occurring at a Member State level. There

were also significant delays in the submission of

LTSs,

with this resulting in delays and inefficiencies in the process of producing an EU-wide assessment of the LTSs by the Commission. There are indications that the lack of

timeliness in the submission of LTSs derives from both an insufficient administrative capacity at national level to fulfil the reporting obligations under the Regulation and the sequencing of the planning and reporting obligations (e.g.,

NECPs deadline before the LTS deadline). Nonetheless, there is no evidence that the Regulation as such was ineffective in ensuring that LTSs were submitted on time. Enforcement and administrative burden seem to have caused the

delay. The

biennial progress reports and their follow-up (NECPRs and reporting obligations stemming from Article 17 of the Regulation)

were either submitted on time or with a small delay, not affecting the effectiveness of

the Regulation.

The timeliness of information on

PaMs

remained stable between 2017 and 2019, improved in 2021, and then deteriorated in 2023. The information reported on

projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources

and removals by sinks

improved in 2019 compared to 2017 and then deteriorated in 2021. Notwithstanding this, the evaluation does not find a lack of effectiveness that can be attributed to the Regulation.

(Public) accessibility of reported information

The Regulation has increased (public) accessibility of reported information at least to some extent. Stakeholders have partly divergent views and have highlighted areas in which the public accessibility of reported information

proved limited. However, it remains unclear whether these issues are linked to the Regulation as such or to implementation issues and/or different national traditions across the EU.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

EQ2

– What difference has the Regulation made in terms of

promoting

better planning processes and effective

implementation of plans and reports?

■

EQ2.1

– What qualitative or quantitative evidence is

there that Member States make proper use of the

information contained in NECPs, LTSs and annual

and biennial reports for policy (energy and climate-

related reforms and investments, energy poverty and

just transition strategies etc.) and communication

purposes?

EQ2.2

– What evidence is there that the Commission

makes effective use of that information to develop or

adapt EU energy and climate policies?

EQ2.3

– Is there qualitative or quantitative evidence

that the Regulation has increased the effectiveness of

Member States’ national planning and has resulted in

more substantial implementation of climate, energy

policies and other relevant policies (reforms and

investments) and faster progress towards national

energy and climate objectives, targets, and

contributions?

EQ2.4

– Is there any qualitative or quantitative

evidence of any barriers in implementing NECPs and

fulfilling reporting requirements?

■

There is evidence of information

provided in the context of the

■

Regulation being used at Member

State and EU level.

There is ownership of Regulation

tools at the national level.

■

There has been progress towards the

national objectives, targets, and

contributions along the five

dimensions of the Energy Union, at

■

MS level and collectively at EU

level.

The role and contribution of the

■

Regulation can be identified.

There is evidence of progress with

measures (reforms and investment).

There is evidence to suggest that the

Regulation accelerated, consolidated,

■

or promoted measures (reforms and

investment) in certain areas.

Barriers to the implementation of

NECPs are adequately monitored and

■

actions are planned / taken to correct

them as appropriate.

■

Qualitative indicators

■

Extent to which MS authorities agree that MS

make proper use of the information contained in

NECPs, LTSs and annual and biennial reports for

policy and communication purposes.

Specific examples of where the information

contained in NECPs, LTSs and annual and

■

biennial reports has been used by MS for policy

■

and communication purposes.

■

Specific examples of where information from

■

NECPs, LTSs and annual and biennial reports has

■

not been adequately used by the MS.

■

Extent to which EU stakeholders agree that the

■

Commission makes adequate use of the

■

information contained in NECPs, LTSs and

■

annual and biennial reports for policy and

■

communication purposes.

Specific examples of where the information

contained in NECPs, LTSs and annual and

biennial reports has been used for policy and

communication purposes by the Commission.

Specific examples of where information from

NECPs, LTSs and annual and biennial reports has

not been adequately used by the Commission.

Quantitative indicators

Number of non-compliance cases identified at EU

level or internationally (UNFCCC/ Paris

Agreement).

Distance to targets i.e., extent to which latest

climate and energy data is in line with i) NECPs

targets and trajectories; ii) EU targets and iii)

international commitments.

Overall implementation status of planned

measures as per the integrated national energy and

climate progress reports e.g., share of measures

that are on track.

Qualitative indicators

Extent to which inter-ministerial teams are set up

and work consistently to implement, update and

monitor national energy and climate policy.

Qualitative assessment of overall progress made

with relevant policies and measures.

Stakeholders’ and experts’ views on the specific

contribution of the Regulation to progress made.

Further information requirements

Literature review of actual progress on See Section 5.1.1.2

the national objectives, targets, and

contributions vs plans / expectations

(e.g., National GHG PaMs in Europe –

European Environment Agency

(europa.eu)).

EU-level interviews.

International-level interviews.

Interviews with MS authorities.

Targeted surveys with MS authorities.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

EU-level interviews.

International-level interviews.

Interviews with MS authorities.

Targeted surveys with MS authorities.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

■

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

■

Any factors constraining the implementation of

NECPs (identifying any barriers to the

deployment of some measures) and planned

corrective / mitigating measures.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

Answer

The Regulation has been effective in promoting better planning processes and effective implementation of plans and reports. For instance, the Regulation helped streamline the planning processes across the energy and

climate domains, increasing cooperation among different ministries/authorities at national level. Nevertheless, in several Member States, NECPs are seen as less important for national planning processes and are mainly

drawn up to meet an EU obligation. Similarly, LTSs are partly outdated and do not necessarily serve as the basis for drawing up the NECPs.

EQ3

– How effective has the Regulation been in

responding

to any ambition or implementation deficit

(enforcement)?

■

EQ3.1

– To what extent did the review-and-

recommendations system (Chapter 5 of the

Regulation) prove to be sufficient?

EQ3.2

– What were the consequences if Member

States did not report on time and adequately?

EQ3.3

– Have the ambition gap-filling mechanisms

under Articles 31 and 32 of the Regulation been used

effectively?

■

The EU has tools to deploy if it

detects ambition gaps or

■

implementation deficits.

These tools are effectively deployed

when needed.

These tools are effective when

■

deployed.

The ambition gap-filling mechanisms

■

are fit for purpose, they prompt MS

to act to cover the gap (when

needed).

The need to explain how the gap will

■

be covered in a progress report is a

powerful incentive.

Potential gap-filling measures work

as planned.

The RES financing mechanism is fit

for its gap-filling purpose.

Quantitative indicators

■

Number of times the gap-filling mechanism has

been used (e.g., number of EU or national

measures taken number / size of voluntary

financial contributions made).

Number / share of Commission recommendations

taken into account by MS in their final NECPs.

Number of additional measures taken by MS to

cover the gap, where appropriate.

■

Further information requirements

■

Stakeholders’ and experts’ view on (anticipated)

■

effectiveness of the tools and potential scope for

■

improvement.

■

Legal mapping of the available tools

and desk review of their use including

statistics / mapping on the use of the

EU-level measures, gap-filling

mechanisms for RES, EE and GHG

goals, mapping of Commission

recommendations to MS and follow up

to EC recommendations.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Targeted surveys with MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section

5.1.1.3

Answer

Evidence shows that the main factor when it comes to implementation deficits is the fact that the enforcement mechanism is mainly based on recommendations, which are not legally binding.

EQ4

– What difference has the Regulation made in terms of

stimulating spending and investment?

■

EQ4.1

– Is there qualitative or quantitative evidence

that NECPs created a more stable and predictable

regulatory framework to create investment certainty

and stimulate public and private energy and climate

spending and investments?

EQ4.2

– To what extent has the Regulation helped MS

take full advantage of opportunities for economic

development, investment stimulation, job creation and

social cohesion?

EQ4.3

– Which elements of the framework (still)

hindered such investor certainty?

EQ4.4 -To

what extent has the Regulation resulted in

reliable information on investment needs and sources

of private and public finance? What bottlenecks can be

identified in this regard?

■

There has been increased investment

in sustainable technologies.

■

The role and contribution of the

NECPs can be identified.

■

Quantitative indicators

■

Investment needs at Energy Union priority level

■

or sector level in NECPs for 2021-2030.

Source of public/private financing at EU and

national level in NECPs for 2021-2030.

■

Investment levels in sustainable technologies in

Member States and at EU level (trends before /

after the Regulation).

■

Funds incl. EU funds deployed to support the

ambition of the NECPs.

■

Awareness levels of the investor community /

industry about NECPs in survey results.

Share of respondents assessing the contribution of

NECPs to investment levels as essential /

anecdotal.

Qualitative indicators

Stakeholder views on contribution of NECPs to

investment levels (qualitative).

Further information requirements

See Section 5.1.1.4

Desk research.

EU-level interviews (with

representatives of the investor

community / industry).

MS-level interviews (with

representatives of the investor

community / industry).

Targeted survey of energy industry and

of energy-intensive industries

Case studies.

■

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

■

Indicators and information

requirements

Examples / instances where NECPs were used as

a capital-raising plan.

Any factors still hindering investor certainty.

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

■

Answer

There was limited feedback on the Regulation’s impact on stimulating targeted spending and investments and on creating increased predictability for investors. The Commission’s assessments reveal that NECPs lacked detail on

investment needs and funding sources. This was confirmed by the industry stakeholders consulted during the data collection process. Overall, the stakeholders interviewed were not always knowledgeable about all the objectives,

obligations, and outputs stemming from the Regulation, with many mainly providing feedback on the NECPs and NLTSs. Additionally, the stakeholders consulted were not always aware of the situation before the entry into

force of the Regulation or could not link specific trends (e.g., on investments) to the entry into force of the Regulation.

EQ5

– How successful has the Regulation been in ensuring

regional cooperation?

■

EQ5.1

– How successful has the Regulation been in

stimulating regional cooperation between Member

States? Can any barriers be identified in this respect?

■

MS have cooperated with each other

in the preparation of their NECP.

■

MS have had sufficient opportunity

to comment on other MS draft

NECPs.

The Commission has facilitated

cooperation between the MS on

■

preparing their NECPs.

■

Quantitative indicators

■

Number of times MS have cooperated bilaterally

or multilaterally with other MS in preparing their

NECPs.

Qualitative indicators

Level of regional cooperation in drawing up the

plan, as reported by MSs in their NECPs.

Steps taken on regional cooperation in

transnational regions when preparing /

implementing the plan.

Extent to which MS authorities believe the

Commission has adequately supported

cooperation between the MS.

Further information requirements

Any factors facilitating / constraining regional

cooperation.

■

Desk research including review of

regional cooperation activities

undertaken as summarised in NECPs,

review of the outcomes of the

NECPlatform project.

EU-level interviews.

Targeted surveys of MS authorities.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section 5.1.1.5

■

Answer

The stakeholders consulted were not always aware of the situation before the entry into force of the Regulation or could not link specific trends (e.g., on investments, on regional cooperation) to the entry into force of the

Regulation. It is important to note that, while a lot of reports are published by external stakeholders / NGOs on the public consultation/multi-level dialogues, research on the NECPs and NLTS / other reporting obligations is more

limited and hence a lot is based on the European Commission reports and assessments.

EQ6.

How successful has the Regulation been in ensuring

adequate multi-level and multi-stakeholder dialogue

and consultation?

■

EQ6.1

– How successful has the Regulation been in

ensuring Member States set up adequate multi-level

climate and energy dialogues involving sub-national

authorities and other relevant actors in national energy

and climate policymaking?

EQ6.2

– How successful has the Regulation been in

involving the public in designing NECPs? Was the

public feedback considered in drafting and updating of

NECPs?

EQ6.3

– Can any barriers to the effective consultation

of stakeholders be identified?

■

Appropriate multi-level climate and

energy dialogues were set up.

■

Regional cooperation activities were

conducted.

Appropriate public consultations

were conducted.

■

Quantitative indicators

■

Existence of a permanent structure acting as

multi-level climate and energy dialogue, with

participation of sub-national authorities and other

stakeholders.

■

Extent to which the platform is used consistently

■

throughout implementation of the NECPs,

■

including mandatory reporting.

Extent to which activities were in line with the

Aarhus Convention (e.g., broad consultations,

■

open for sufficiently long periods with real scope

■

to provide input).

■

Number of MS where a public consultation on the

draft NECP was conducted.

See Section 5.1.1.6

Desk research including review of

consultation activities undertaken as

summarised in NECPs, review of the

outcomes of the NECPlatform project.

EU-level interviews.

Targeted surveys of MS authorities.

MS-level interviews including

interviews of sub-national authorities

and stakeholders.

Targeted interviews.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

■

Indicators and information

requirements

Extent to which national stakeholders feel they

were adequately consulted on MS draft NECPs.

Further information requirements

Any factors facilitating / constraining regional

cooperation.

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

■

Answer

The available evidence shows that although the introduction of Articles 10 and 11 of the Regulation is perceived as a significant step forward, the Regulation has not been particularly successful in ensuring adequate multi-level

and multi-stakeholder dialogue and consultation, as several Member States failed to set up public consultation or multi-level and multi-stakeholder dialogue of an acceptable quality.

EFFICIENCY

To what extent has the Regulation achieved its key objectives in an efficient manner?

■

Streamlining the energy and climate

Quantitative indicators

■

planning, reporting, and monitoring

■

Enforcement and compliance costs (incl. admin

obligations have led to cost savings /

burden) for Member States and the Commission

reduced administrative burden at both

as reported in the baseline scenario /in the 2016

■

EU and MS level.

fitness check.

■

Costs and administrative burden are

■

Enforcement and compliance costs (incl. admin

■

assessed to be and seen as

burden) resulting from the implementation of the

■

proportionate.

Regulation, as reported by Member States, the

Commission, and the European Environmental

■

The rationalised administrative

burden for integrated planning and

Agency.

reporting process is justified given

■

Administrative and financial benefits resulting

the benefits (in terms of improved

from implementation of the Regulation, as

■

policy coherence, regional

reported by Member States, the Commission, and

cooperation, impact assessment, etc.).

the European Environmental Agency.

■

Number / share of respondents reporting

favourable changes in costs since the entry into

force of the Regulation, and comparison of results

■

with expectations when adopting the Regulation.

■

Number / share of respondents agreeing that the

actual benefits (until now) are higher than the

costs / agreeing that the actual and expected

benefits (e.g., by 2030) are expected to be higher

than the costs.

■

Number / share of reporting and planning teams

who deem the allocated time to be sufficient to

perform their duties adequately.

■

Qualitative indicators

Extent to which the expected benefits are already

tangible now (e.g., ease of reporting process) or

are expected to materialise in the medium to long

term (e.g., benefits coming with stability /

predictability of regulatory framework, impact on

investor confidence).

EQ7

– To what extent have the integrated and streamlined

planning and reporting processes

led to cost savings

(in

terms of policy coherence and administrative burden) and

can costs and administrative burden be considered as

proportionate?

■

EQ7.1

– Has the harmonised, integrated, and

predictable nature of the Regulation resulted in the

expected cost savings at MS and EU level in terms of

administrative burden and policy coherence (both in

terms of energy and climate policies and across other

policy areas such as environmental protection)?

EQ7.2

– Is the (already rationalised) administrative

burden of Member States' planning and reporting

obligations proportionate to the need for a harmonised

and integrated planning and reporting process across

the five dimensions of the Energy Union?

EQ7.3

– Do the benefits of this harmonised and

integrated process (in terms of improved policy

coherence, regional cooperation, impact assessment,

etc.) justify the higher complexity compared to

individual processes?

EQ7.4

– What factors most influence the costs and

administrative burden of Member States' planning and

reporting obligations? Is there qualitative or

quantitative evidence making it possible to weigh the

impact of each factor on costs?

■

Desk research, including data on

Section 5.1.2.1

enforcement and compliance costs

from the 2016 fitness check.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

SCM for costs and administrative

burden for Member States and

Commission (including European

Environmental Agency), including

from the use of the e-platform.

Cost benefit assessment or cost-

effectiveness assessment of obligations

(in terms of administrative and

implementation costs as well as

administrative benefits).

Targeted survey of MS authorities.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

■

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

■

Indicators and information

requirements

Extent to which the costs / benefits are balanced

across the five dimensions.

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

Answer

The efficiency analysis produced mixed results. The regulation has streamlined some aspects of energy policy planning and reporting, but several Member States also note a rise in administrative burden, while others seem to have

noticed actual savings in time and/or resources. However, it is difficult to disentangle the workload created by the Regulation from aspects more related to the organisational aspects of the national administrations concerned

(including limited coordination between those involved in the reporting obligations, changes to the legislative framework and the additional workload imposed by the Regulation – if any – compared to reporting obligations that

would be in place anyway). Recognised advantages brought by the Regulation include greater transparency and predictability, better coordination and cooperation among different national authorities involved in the reporting

process, greater coherence of planning and reporting timelines and procedures, and better-established processes, policies, and procedures.

The benefits of the Regulation also include its role in providing a stable framework for clean energy businesses, which is crucial for long-term investment and development in the sector. Even if this is not yet fully materialised,

many stakeholders (especially within national authorities) considered that the Regulation is pushing national administrations to work more closely and establish coordination procedures when they did not exist before.

Stakeholders also acknowledged that there is a ‘learning curve’ component (especially national authorities): while the initial reporting cycles are more complex and burdensome, they acknowledged that the whole process will

become simpler (and thus less burdensome) over time, the more reporting are files and assessed, the more clarity is provided on the expected content, and the more the tools and templates are fine-tuned.

EQ8.

What is the role played by the

electronic reporting

platform and/or common templates

as well as

digital

technologies?

■

EQ8.1

– Regarding progress reporting, to what extent

does the availability of an electronic reporting

platform and/or common templates decrease the

administrative burden and costs of Member States

and/or make it easier for the Commission to evaluate

and use the information and data provided?

EQ8.2

– Are the current Member States' and

Commission's planning and reporting obligations

designed in such a way that they make efficient use of

developments in the fields of digital technologies and

processes of collecting, organising, and analysing

large sets of data (big data analytics, machine-to-

machine reporting)?

■

Development and use of the reporting

electronic platform led to decreased

■

administrative burden and costs for

the Member States.

Quantitative indicators

■

Administrative and financial benefits for Member

■

States and the Commission resulting from

■

reporting via an electronic platform instead of text

■

format.

Further information requirements

Stakeholder views on main cost drivers –

distinguishing between one-off implementation

costs (cost for developing or adapting the IT

infrastructure, bringing in organisational changes /

establishing processes, cost of organising the

consultation on draft NECP) and regular costs

(cost of ongoing coordination between different

entities compiling or providing data, cost of

preparing/ submitting progress reports).

Desk research.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

Targeted survey of MS authorities.

See Section 5.1.2.2

■

Answer

The evidence suggests that the Regulation has partially streamlined the planning, reporting, and monitoring processes by introducing digital tools. Yet it falls short of achieving complete harmonisation and timely alignment with

EU and international obligations, as indicated by the mixed stakeholder feedback and survey responses. Among the difficulties, stakeholders mentioned the alignment of timetables for various tasks, such as preparing the NECPs

and NECPRs, resulting in a lack of adequate incorporation of lessons learned from previous cycles, and the overlapping of draft NECP update and NECPR in 2023. Among other EU obligations, the main difficulties included the

synchronisation with obligations like Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants, and National Air Pollution Control Programmes under the NEC Directive, leading to

challenges in achieving coherence in implementation efforts. Concerning international obligations, both the NECPR and the UNFCCC Biennial Transparency Report include biennial reporting obligations, but each in different

year (even years for UNFCCC/BTR -, and odd years for NECPR) (more details are provided in Section 5.1.3).

EQ9

– To what extent has the Regulation contributed to

streamlined planning, reporting, and monitoring including

through further digitalisation or consolidation?

■

EQ9.1

– To what extent are the timing and periodicity

of the different planning and reporting obligations,

both within the Regulation and outside, consistent?

■

The current set up is suitable (to

facilitate communication, to facilitate

■

public access to information) and

reflects latest digital developments.

There is consistency between

different planning, reporting, and

monitoring obligations in different

Qualitative indicators

■

Extent to which the e-platform fulfils all its

functions repository for plans, reports and

■

strategies tracker function (making it possible to

■

follow live the latest developments in the

implementation of the NECPs) access to data and

underlying assumptions in a user-friendly manner

Mapping the functions of the e-

platform.

Legal mapping.

EU-level interviews and international

level interviews (feedback from those

receiving the information).

See Section 5.1.2.3

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

■

EQ9.2

– Is there evidence of red tape due to overlaps

with other EU or national planning and reporting

procedures?

EQ9.3

– To what extent have the planning and

reporting processes taken into consideration other

reporting and planning obligations (e.g., JTM, RRF,

etc.) to avoid potential peak reporting and planning

periods?

Judgement criteria

fields that is directly related to the

energy and climate (in terms of

timing / periodicity / scope) –

including synchronicity with the

■

Paris Agreement / other international

obligations.

There is no scope to further

consolidate obligations on

■

governance between the Regulation

and other related EU law.

■

Indicators and information

requirements

(e.g., those underpinning impact assessment of

planned policies and measures) interactivity

(allowing multi-level, cross-national dialogue).

Extent to which e-platform / common templates

match users / needs.

Further information requirements

Room for improvement, any best practice

example at MS (solutions for streamlining and

digital processing).

Main factors / obligations, within or beyond the

scope of the Regulation, adding to administrative

burden and/or undermining policy coherence

(e.g., new initiatives adopted since the entry into

force of the Regulation, international obligations,

domestic planning, and reporting procedures)

Potential to further streamline obligations (e.g.,

better alignment of the periodicity of planning,

reporting, and monitoring obligations with

obligations at international level, potential to

streamline parallel domestic planning and

reporting procedures).

■

Data sources

MS-level interviews (feedback from

those producing the information).

Targeted survey of MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

Analysis cross

reference

■

Answer

Mixed views were also reported on the benefits of using common templates and platforms. The same number of national authorities reported that savings in time and/or resources – thanks to the use of IT tools – led to more efficient

planning and reporting in their Member States, as those reporting the opposite view. Although the majority of national authorities reported that entering data on EU electronic platforms led to cost increases, the number of those who

said that the costs remained the same or decreased is almost the same. Among the reasons for costs increases, stakeholders referred to the need to reformulate data and information before uploading it to the platforms. They also

emphasised the lack of an easily sharable tool for compiling a comprehensive answer from different contributing authorities in the same reporting country, as well as the lack of strong links between the platforms.

The reasons behind the reported reduction in costs / and burden included the fact that the platforms enable users to know what information and data should be collected and submitted, help avoid developing national tools for

submissions and enable access to the reported information by several users at the same time, who can check and validate information, thus minimising the risk of errors. Having two separated platforms has garnered some criticism

from many stakeholders, in particular due to poor links between the two, including the formats. However, some stakeholders appreciated having two platforms, for instance due to their role in standardising reporting and systematising

data collection, hence facilitating availability and comparability of information.

COHERENCE

To what extent has the Regulation achieved its key objectives in a coherent manner?

EQ10

– To what extent does the harmonised and integrated

■

Domestic, EU and international

Quantitative indicators

nature of planning, reporting, and monitoring lead to improved

objectives are reconciled, the NECP

■

Number / share of stakeholders agreeing that

coherence of MS and EU climate and energy policy within the

process with drafts and revisions has

governance framework / coordination processes

remit of the Regulation? (Internal

coherence)

resulted in MS increasing national

are adequate in terms of whole-of-government

targets to reach the overall EU target.

coordination, coordination with sub-national

■

EQ10.1

– To what extent are the different planning,

■

National governance framework is in

levels of government as appropriate,

ex ante

and

reporting, and monitoring obligations under the

ex post

impact assessment practices consistently

place in MS.

Regulation coherent with one another?

■

Cross-national dimensions of MS

measuring climate / energy / environmental

energy policies are better

impacts of policies across areas.

coordinated, MS taking up cross-

■

Review of targets, plans and policies to See Section 5.1.3.1

check alignment and consistencies.

Review of the information at

international level (UNFCCC/ Paris

Agreement) by the EU and EU MS.

Review of EU assessments and

international (UNFCCC/ Paris

Agreement) reviews.

Review of the national climate

governance framework in place in MS.

International-level interviews.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

■

Judgement criteria

border considerations in their revised

NECPs.

Synergies, potential trade-offs and

■

spillovers across climate and energy

policy areas are better addressed.

■

Indicators and information

requirements

■

Qualitative indicators

■

Extent to which EU-level reports are consistent

■

with those submitted by EU Member States.

■

Extent to which the information in the plans and

reports are assessed to be consistent including no

mismatch between targets, consistency of

definitions, consistency between targets / planned

measures, alignment between measures planned /

measures financed and timely alignment of the

different obligations.

Extent to which adequate processes are in place

for consulting / coordinating with other MS on

national planning activities with a regional scope.

Further information requirements

Any best practice examples illustrating increased

policy coherence at national / transnational level

and remaining challenges.

Data sources

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

Analysis cross

reference

■

Answer

Overall, evidence shows that the Regulation streamlined previously existing planning and reporting obligations from various pieces of legislation across energy, climate, and other Energy Union related policy areas. Evidence

suggests though that some inconsistencies affect both the internal and external coherence of the Regulation. Issues on internal coherence are mostly due to the complexity of integrating many obligations in a single framework and

to the many changes occurred since the adoption of the Regulation in December 2018.

EQ11

– To what extent is the Regulation coherent with other

EU and international obligations (external

coherence)?

■

EQ11.1

– To what extent is the Regulation coherent

notably with:

Obligations from other EU energy and climate

legislation, such as those stemming from the

European Climate Law, and other relevant parts

of the European Green Deal, Fit-For-55?

International obligations, including from the

Paris Agreement and its enhanced transparency

framework, the Sustainable Development Goals,

the Aarhus Convention, and other relevant

international conventions and for a (e.g., G7,

G20)?

Other relevant EU policy fields?

EQ11.2

– To what extent has the Regulation helped

MS identify and address trade-offs and synergies with

environmental policies, including as regards

biodiversity, in the NECPs and LTSs?

■

Objectives from the Regulation are

well aligned (in terms of ambition

■

/content / substance) with other

pieces of legislation / funding

instruments.

Synergies, potential trade-offs, and

■

spillovers with other policy areas are

better addressed.

Quantitative indicators

■

Number of MS covering particular trade-offs and

synergies in their draft, final and revised NECPs.

Qualitative indicators

Extent to which potential incoherences are

minimised.

■

Legal mapping including review of the See Section 5.1.3.2

different provisions stemming from the

different legal bases and the areas of

potential incoherence.

Desk research.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

■

Answer

Issues on external coherence are mostly related to the fact that several EU-level instruments have been created and/or updated after 2018, notably policies developed under the European Green Deal and several reporting

timelines that are different from the UNFCCC reporting cycle, and the timing of different reporting/planning obligations are not always aligned. For instance, the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) recast includes many new

elements to strengthen governance that are not currently incorporated nor streamlined into the Regulation. Similarly, with the revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED), new elements were brought in, which are not reflected

in the Regulation.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

EQ12

– To what extent could the improved consistency of

■

Member States national energy and climate policies and

coordination of energy and climate policies at EU level also

have been achieved without the current Regulation’s planning,

reporting, and monitoring obligations?

EU ADDED VALUE

How did the Regulation make a difference and to whom?

The improved consistency of

Qualitative indicators

Member States national energy and

■

Extent to which MS would be able to plan their

climate policies and the coordination

policies and measures in the energy and climate

of energy and climate policies at EU

fields to achieve the Energy Union objectives

level could not have been achieved

across its five dimensions in the absence of the

without the Regulation.

formal consultation / coordination process with

the EU / other MS stemming from the current

Regulation.

■

Extent to which the Commission could assess

whether MS are collectively on track to achieve

the Energy Union objectives / could intervene in

the case of insufficient progress made in the

absence of the current Regulation.

■

Desk research.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section 5.2.1.1

Answer

The EU added value of the Regulation stems from a

notable improvement in terms of enhanced consistency in national energy and climate policies,

though such impact varied across Member States and depended on national

processes that preceded the Regulation. The Regulation contributed to

enhance coordination in national energy and climate policies.

While stakeholders agreed that it contributed to enhanced cooperation, they also noted that

coordination with sub-national actors could be further strengthened.

EQ13

– To what extent do the current planning and reporting

obligations provide

information at EU or national level that

would not otherwise be available?

■

The current planning, reporting, and

monitoring obligations provide

■

benefits in terms of useful

information at EU or national level

that would not otherwise be

■

available.

Qualitative indicators

■

Extent of the usefulness of the information

provided by the current obligations as assessed by

■

stakeholders.

■

Extent to which the Regulation makes additional

■

information accessible or available, provides

■

information that would not be available from

■

other sources by other regulations, as assessed by

■

stakeholders.

Legal mapping of obligations and their See Section 5.2.1.2

rationale.

Desk research.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Survey of MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

Answer

The planning and reporting obligations set out in the Regulation provided additional information at EU and national level. The Regulation increased information availability by publishing reports and data for Member States who

may not have done so themselves and by requesting data on indicators that certain Member States may not have reported on or collected before. Stakeholders highlighted the information they can access from other Member States

as an element that brings added value stemming from the Regulation, both by being able to access other Member States’ plans and by assessing and reporting by the European Commission. Importantly, the Regulation has improved

the management of energy and climate data in the EU, promoting a clearer and more open setting for sharing information and making decisions.

EQ14

– What is the added value of the Regulation for the

transparency and predictability

of Member States’ energy

and climate policies?

■

The transparency and predictability

of Member States’ energy and

■

climate policies increased according

to a wider set of stakeholders.

Qualitative indicators

Extent to which the Regulation is seen as

providing added value for the transparency and

predictability of Member States’ energy and

climate policies.

■

Desk research.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews including wider

stakeholders’ views (e.g., views from

representatives from private sector /

civil society / academia).

MS-level interviews including survey

of views from wider stakeholders of

MS authorities.

Case studies.

See Section 5.2.1.3

■

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

■

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

Answer

While the Regulation improved the reporting, availability and predictability of data, stakeholders highlighted

issues

related to the timely submission, quality (in terms of completeness), accessibility and transparency of reported data.

EQ15

– What is the added value of the Regulation in terms of

ensuring

accountability

and

access to justice?

■

EQ15.1

– To what extent has the Regulation enabled

public and private actors to hold MS and the EU

accountable for their obligations under the

Regulation?

EQ15.2

– Is the Regulation fit for purpose in terms of

safeguarding the rights of public and private actors to

have access to justice?

■

The Regulation provides adequate

mechanisms to hold the MS and EU

■

accountable for their obligations

under the Regulation.

The Regulation supports access to

justice.

■

Qualitative indicators

■

Extent to which the Regulation is seen as

■

providing added value in terms of enabling

■

accountability in relation to energy and climate

policies.

Extent to which the Regulation is seen as

providing added value in terms of access to justice

■

issues in relation energy and climate policies.

Extent to which the obligations under the

■

Regulation are enforceable by the public.

■

Further information requirements

Examples of when information produced within

the framework of the Regulation was used e.g., by

CSOs to hold MS / EU accountable (e.g., climate

litigation cases)

Desk research.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews including wider

stakeholders’ views (e.g., views from

representatives of the private sector /

civil society.

MS-level interviews, including wider

stakeholders’ views.

Survey of MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section

5.2.1.4

Answer

There were contrasting views on the added value of the Regulation in terms of ensuring accountability and access to justice, with some stakeholders highlighting that the Regulation enabled better accountability and access to justice

across several key domains, and others highlighting that significant improvements should be made to enhance accountability and access to justice.

RELEVANCE

Is the Regulation still relevant?

Existing planning, reporting, and

Qualitative indicators

■

monitoring obligations remain

■

Extent of the completeness of the template for

■

relevant.

NECPs.

Existing planning, reporting, and

■

Extent of completeness of the template for

■

monitoring obligations continue to be

progress reports.

■

sufficient, there are no missing

■

Assessment of coverage of final / revised NECPs.

■

elements that ought to be covered

■

Extent to which the updated NECPs covered the

■

given the new legislation adopted

missing elements (e.g., to detail how EU funding

■

after the entry into force of the

e.g., from the Recovery and Resilience Facility

■

Regulation.

will support the deployment of the Facility).

■

Extent of completeness of the template for

national adaptation reporting.

■

Extent to which stakeholders agree that the

planning, reporting, and monitoring obligations of

EQ16

– Are the Member States’ and Commission’s planning,

■

reporting, and monitoring obligations under the Regulation still

relevant in view of

legislative developments

153

■

EQ16.1

– Are there planning, reporting, and

monitoring obligations missing from the Regulation in

view of recent legislative developments?

EQ16.2

– Are there planning, reporting, and

monitoring obligations under the Regulation that have

become obsolete?

Legal mapping.

Desk research including mapping of

final / revised NECPs.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews.

Survey of MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section 5.3.1.1

153

(The European Green Deal) and related follow-up legislation, the European Climate Law, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and REPowerEU, the Green Deal Industrial Plan, the

(planned) Net-Zero Industry Act and the Critical Raw Materials Act, international developments under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, the enhanced international dimension

of energy and climate policy, and any other energy and climate legislation adopted after the entry into force of the Regulation)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Evaluation questions &

sub-questions

Judgement criteria

Indicators and information

requirements

the Regulation are still relevant in view of recent

legislative developments.

Data sources

Analysis cross

reference

Answer

The evaluation found that Regulation's core objective of providing a governance structure that both enables and pushes Member States to commit to and deliver on ambitious climate targets has not lost its relevance. On the contrary,

it has become more relevant given the growing urgency of climate action and the increasingly complex needs that Member States' energy and climate policies must address. As the outlook for climate change and its associated impacts

is both worsening and becoming more clear-cut, the core objective of the Regulation – to enable and support climate action – is more relevant than ever.

Since the adoption of the Regulation in 2018, EU energy and climate law has undergone major changes, notably in the 'Fit-for-55' package. As a primarily procedural framework that does not itself set specific targets, this has not

rendered the Regulation obsolete as an instrument. However, certain issues reflected in recent legislation need to be better addressed in the 'products' adopted under the Regulation, such as the NECPs.

EQ17 –

How well has the governance mechanism set out by

the Regulation responded to

socio-economic, environmental,

and geopolitical changes & risks?

■

EQ17.1

– To what extent is the information it

provides relevant, complete, and timely in the context

of the current geopolitical context, in context of the

accelerated energy transition (including increasing

macroeconomic impact of energy and climate policy)

and in view of scientific/technological progress and

innovation?

■

There are mechanisms in place to

ensure information produced under

■

the Regulation reflects new priorities

(e.g., accelerated timetable for energy

■

transition in view of scientific /

technological progress).

■

The Regulation is fit for purpose to

make the required information

readily available at times of crisis.

■

Qualitative indicators

Extent to which reporting / review processes are

seen as frequent enough.

Extent to which final / revised NECPs reflect

emerging priorities.

Frequency of update of the Commission guidance

and extent to which templates factor in new

priorities.

Extent to which the required information was

available during the recent energy crisis.

■

Legal mapping of reporting / review

processes.

Desk research including mapping of

final / revised NECPs.

International-level interviews.

EU-level interviews.

MS-level interviews

Survey of MS authorities.

Case studies.

Workshop on draft evaluation results.

See Section 5.3.1.2

Answer

The governance mechanisms of the Regulation do not adequately address some of the issues that have come to the forefront of energy policy due to more recent geopolitical and legislative developments. These include climate

adaptation and energy sufficiency. This may negatively impact the ability of the Regulation framework to fully respond to emerging needs in European energy and climate policy. The Russian aggression against Ukraine disrupted

EU energy policy across several dimensions. Although this heightened the relevance of the Directive to the Energy Union’s objectives and the need to accelerate the clean energy transition it also required a recalibration of immediate

policy priorities and highlighted transition challenges.

The energy supply crisis following the Russian aggression and the COVID-19 pandemic both highlighted the social and economic challenges that need to be overcome to meet the EU's climate change and just transition goals in the

long term. Feedback from stakeholders suggest that socio-economic issues such as energy poverty and labour shortages are not adequately covered by the governance mechanisms of the Regulation. This inadequacy is exacerbated

by the lack of robust macroeconomic assessments of the measures included in the NECPs.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

IV. O

VERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS AND TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION

]

Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation

Citizens/consumers

Quantitative

Comment

Businesses

Quantitative

Costs

N/A

Citizens/consumer N/A

s are not subject to

any obligations

related to the

implementation of

the Regulation

Businesses are not

subject to any

obligations related

to the

implementation of

the Regulation

Total costs:

NECP: EUR

2.9 million to

EUR 3.7

million (2023

prices)

NECPR: EUR

1.5 to EUR 1.9

million (2023

prices)

Direct compliance costs

administrative costs

One-off

costs

National

LTSs: EUR

2.1 million to

EUR 2.9

million (2023

prices)

GHG reporting

and

projections:

EUR 0.6

million to

EUR 0.8 (2023

prices)

Figures based on

estimates derived

from previous

studies

accompanying

the Governance

Regulation

Reporting on

2020 targets is a

one-off

obligation

Costs related

to reporting

exercises:

EUR 1.1

million

IT costs: EUR

5 million for

design and

implementatio

n of e-

platform

Costs based on

self-assessment

from EU

institutions

Comment

Administrations

Quantitative

Comment

European Commission

Quantitative

Comment

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Reporting on

2020 targets:

EUR 0.8

million to

EUR 1.3

million (2023

prices)

N/A

Citizens/consumer N/A

s are not subject to

any obligations

related to the

implementation of

the Regulation

Businesses are not

subject to any

obligations related

to the

implementation of

the Regulation

Total costs of

reporting and

planning: EUR

13.9 million to

EUR 19.5

million

The largest

costs items are

(per year in

2023 prices):

NECP: EUR

2.9 million to

EUR 3.7

million

Direct compliance costs

administrative costs

Recurrent

costs (per

year)

NECPR: EUR

3.7 million to

EUR 4.7

million

National long-

term

strategies:

EUR 1.1

million to

EUR 1.4

million

Integrated

reporting on

greenhouse

gas policies

and measures

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

and on

projections:

EUR 1.4

million to

EUR 1.9

million

NAP/NAS

EUR 1.9

million to

EUR 3.2

million

Annual

reporting

(cumulative):

EUR 2.9

million to

EUR 4.5

million (2023

prices)

Benefits

N/A

Increased

transparency and

predictability of

climate policies.

N/A

Contribution to

N/A

creating a stable

framework for

clean energy

businesses, which

is crucial for long-

term investment

and development in

the sector.

Increased

transparency and

predictability.

Better

coordination and

cooperation

among different

national

authorities.

Greater

coherence of

planning and

reporting

timelines and

procedures.

Reduced burden

in monitoring

resulting from

streamlined and

digitalised

reporting.

N/A

Benefits:

Direct benefits

Recurrent

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Better-

established

processes,

policies, and

procedures.

Effects on

administrative

burden are

uncertain.

‘Learning curve’

component

acknowledged

by national

authorities thus it

is expected that

the burden will

fall over time.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Simplification and burden reduction

Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)

Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings

achieved already

by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison where available (e.g., REFIT savings predicted in the IA

or other sources).

Citizens / consumers / workers

Quantitative

Comment

Businesses

Quantitative

Comment

Administrations

Quantitative

Comment

Commission

Quantitative

Comment

Not applicable

Type: Recurrent

Citizens / consumers are Not applicable

not subject to any

obligations related to

the implementation of

the Regulation.

Businesses are not

subject to any

obligations related

to the

implementation of

the Regulation.

N/A

The Regulation

has streamlined

energy policy

planning and

reporting. The

impact

assessment

estimates a

reduction of

direct reporting

costs of around

5% per year

compared to the

baseline.

However, some

Member States

note a rise in

administrative

burden, while

others report

actual savings in

time and/or

resources.

It is difficult to

disentangle the

workload created

by the

Governance

Regulation from

aspects of the

N/A

Reduced

burden in

monitoring

resulting from

streamlined

and digitalised

reporting.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

national

administrations

(including

limited

coordination

between those

involved in the

reporting

obligations, and

the additional

workload

imposed by the

Regulation – if

any – compared

to reporting

obligations

already in the

baseline.)

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings)

Identify further potential simplification and savings

that could be achieved

with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives

154

Citizens/Consumers/Workers

Quantitative

Description:

Type: Recurrent

Not applicable

Citizens / consumers are

not subject to any

obligations related to the

implementation of the

Regulation

Not applicable

Businesses are not

subject to any

obligations related to

the implementation

of the Regulation

Costs for

annual

reporting

(cumulative)

represent

about 22% of

the recurrent

costs incurred

by Member

States to

comply with

the

Governance

Streamlining of

the NECPs and

LTSs

Alignment with

obligations under

Directive (EU)

2016/2284 on the

reduction of

national

emissions of

certain

atmospheric

N/A

Expansion

and improved

functionality

of the e-

platform, for

instance to

allow for

effective

reuse of

information.

Comment

Quantitative

Businesses

Comment

Administrations

Quantitative

Comment

Quantitative

All

Comment

154

This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future impact assessment.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Regulation

on a yearly

basis.

Reducing the

frequency of

this

obligation

(e.g., every

two years

instead of

every year)

would reduce

by half the

costs of the

obligation,

and by 12%

the annual

costs for

Member

States.

pollutants, and

National Air

Pollution Control

Programmes

under the NEC

Directive

Alignment of

frameworks on

GHG emissions

with UN

obligations: both

include biennial

reporting

obligations, but

each in different

year (even years

for

UNFCCC/BTR –

Biennial

Transparency

Report, and odd

years for

NECPR.

Removal of the

reporting on oil

stocks.

Expansion and

improved

functionality of

the e-platform,

for instance to

allow for more

effective reuse of

information.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

V. S

TAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

–

SYNOPSIS REPORT

Introduction

This

synopsis report

summarises the consultation outreach and stakeholder feedback

received during the study

155

. Section 1 presents the approach to the consultation, while

Section 2 summarises stakeholder feedback.

Approach to the consultation

The stakeholder consultation comprised a call for evidence, scoping interviews, a main

interview programme, and three online surveys that were tailored to different stakeholder

groups. A hybrid (in-person and online) validation workshop was also organised by DG

ENER and DG CLIMA after submission of the evaluation’s second intermediate report

providing an opportunity for participants to discuss the preliminary study findings.

Overview of the consultation strategy

Before launching the stakeholder consultation, a comprehensive consultation strategy was

developed detailing the stakeholder groups to be approached, the consultation methods to

be used for each group, and the lines of enquiry and specific questions to be covered. Table

1 below shows the number of stakeholders contacted and consulted.

Overview of consultation strategy and results

Stakeholder group

EU entities

Consultation

method

Stakeholders Feedback

contacted

received

5 interviews

European

Commission Semi-structured

(including DG ENER, DG online interviews

CLIMA, as well as other

DGs)

European Environment Semi-structured

Agency (EEA)

online interviews

European Committee of Semi-structured

the Regions

online interviews

Joint Research

(JRC)

Centre Semi-structured

online interviews

2 interviews

1 interview

2 interviews

155

Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 on the Governance of the Energy Union

and Climate Action – final report (forthcoming)

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Member State national authorities

Authorities responsible Semi-structured

for planning / reporting online interviews

obligations

Online survey of

national authorities

Other national authorities Semi-structured

and agencies

online interviews

Online survey of

national authorities

Industry stakeholders

EU-level and national Semi-structured

industry associations and online interviews

organisations

Online survey of

industry stakeholders

Third-sector stakeholders

Civil

society

organisations and non-

governmental

organisations (NGOs)

Consumer organisations

Semi-structured

online interviews

Online survey of

third-sector

stakeholders

Semi-structured

online interviews

Online survey of

third-sector

stakeholders

Semi-structured

online interviews

Online survey of

third-sector

stakeholders

16 interviews

(15 organisations)

12 survey responses

295

4 interviews

17 survey responses

7 interviews

(13 national

authorities)

156

31 survey responses

2 interviews

(3 national

authorities)

2 survey responses

140

Individual experts

1 interview

Academic institutions and Semi-structured

research organisations

online interviews

Online survey of

third-sector

stakeholders

Trade unions

Semi-structured

online interviews

Online survey of

third-sector

stakeholders

3 interviews

6 survey responses

1 survey response

156

Some interviews had more than one authority from the same Member State taking part at the same time.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Other stakeholder groups

International

organisations

Semi-structured

online interviews

Results per consultation method

The following sub-sections summarise the number of stakeholders reached by each

consultation method.

Online interviews

44 semi-structured online interviews were conducted during the evaluation, including 10

scoping interviews during the inception stage (between July and August 2023), and 32 key

informant interviews with stakeholders between September and December 2023.

In total, invitations were sent to 699 individual contacts, including 219 contacts within

national authorities (representing 85 national authorities), 299 industry contacts

(representing 210 industry organisations) and 160 third-sector stakeholders (representing

115 organisations and 17 individual experts).

An additional 36 interviews were conducted for the case studies between January and

March 2024. These included 22 interviews with national authorities, 13 interviews with

third-sector stakeholders and one interview with an industry organisation.

Overview of interviews conducted for the case studies

Case study

BELGIUM

Interviews conducted

National authorities: 5 interviews

Third-sector stakeholders: 1 interview

DENMARK

FRANCE

National authorities: 1 interview

National authorities: 3 interviews

Third-sector stakeholders: 4 interviews

National authorities: 4 interviews

GERMANY

Third-sector stakeholders: 3 interviews

National authorities: 4 interviews

MALTA

Third-sector stakeholders: 3 interviews

POLAND

National authorities: 2 interviews

National authorities: 3 interviews

ROMANIA

Third-sector stakeholders: 2 interviews

Industry organisations: 1 interview

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

TOTAL INTERVIEWS

CONDUCTED

The number of scoping interviews conducted met the target for the evaluation. However,

only around half the planned key informant interviews could be conducted. This was

despite the strategies adopted by the support study team to try and increase the participation

rate, which included contacting additional stakeholders, asking stakeholders for references

and to share the invitation to their own contacts, sending reminders and using alternative

contact methods (e.g., phoning) or channels where relevant. Nearly all stakeholders that

declined to be interviewed did not specify a reason, though a small minority indicated

either not being available or not feeling capable to comment on the Regulation.

Online surveys

Three targeted online surveys were carried out during the evaluation:

One survey for national authorities. The survey was sent to 219 contacts

(representing 85 national authorities) and received 20 responses.

One survey for industry stakeholders. The survey was sent to 289 contacts

(representing 210 different industry organisations) and received 17 responses.

One survey for third-sector stakeholders. The survey was sent to 146 stakeholders

(representing 115 different organisations and 17 individual experts) and received

19 responses.

The surveys were launched in English on 4 October 2023 and remained open for seven

weeks, until 27 November 2023. The surveys were kept open two weeks longer than

initially planned in an attempt to boost the response rates. Although the surveys generated

considerable interest, the final number of usable responses was around half the level

initially anticipated. No responses to the online surveys appeared to have been submitted

as part of a coordinated campaign. Several largely incomplete responses were discarded

during the data cleaning and analysis process to ensure the integrity of the final dataset.

Call for evidence

The call for evidence hosted on the European Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ website

157

ran between July and August 2023, eliciting 53 responses from the public. The majority of

respondents answered on behalf of an NGO (34%), an environmental organisation (9%) or

an academic / research institution (6%). Public authorities accounted for 15% of responses,

while around one in five respondents represented either a business association (13%) or a

company (9%). 9% of responses were submitted by EU citizens in their personal capacity.

Responses came from 16 EU Member States and two third countries (Australia and the

United Kingdom), with the most represented countries being Belgium (18 responses) and

157

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13799-Energy-Union-and-

climate-action-Review-report-on-the-Governance-Regulation_en

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Germany (9 responses). Around half the responses from stakeholders in Belgium were

from EU interest organisations.

Stakeholder event

The European Commission also organised a hybrid stakeholder event on 11 January

2024

158

. The event included around 120 representatives from Member States’ national

authorities, industry organisations, as well as civil society stakeholders. A total of 460

online connections

159

were registered during the event, with a peak online viewership

160

174.

After introductory remarks by the European Commission, ICF

161

presented the emerging

findings of the evaluation. Participants were then invited to discuss, question, validate or

refute the data and emerging findings. The event was organised in three thematic sessions

covering (1) target achievement, (2) integrated planning and streamlining, and (3)

cooperation and consultation. The discussion included an online interactive polling session

where participants were invited to score and express their views on a series of questions

and statements about the Governance Regulation.

Summarised stakeholder feedback

Relevance of the Regulation

Most of the stakeholders consulted agreed that the Governance Regulation remains a

relevant piece of legislation to govern EU climate action and energy policy goals. The

stakeholders interviewed generally indicated that it remains a relevant instrument

162

although several asked for it to be updated to reflect recent EU and international legislative

and policy initiatives

163

Relevance vis-à-vis the EU legislative framework

The national authorities and third-sector stakeholders that responded to the online surveys

had noticeably different views about the continued and future relevance of the Governance

Regulation. Around half (13/25) of the responding national authorities agreed that the

Governance Regulation’s provisions and obligations remain relevant and up-to-date in

light of EU legislative developments. Only about a third (4/14) of responding third-sector

stakeholders agreed. Half the third-sector stakeholders that participated in the survey

disagreed (2/14) or strongly disagreed (5/14) that the provisions and obligations of the

Governance Regulation remain relevant and up-to-date, as did the seven national

158

159

160

161

162

163

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/events/workshop-evaluation-governance-energy-union-and-climate-action-

regulation-2024-01-11_en

A viewer can generate more than one connection during the live event, e.g., close and reopen the

streaming page later, this counts as double connection.

Maximum simultaneous unique viewers at a specific moment in time.

The external contractor leading the support study.

Key informant interviews with two EU bodies, one national authority, one individual expert and five

civil society organisations.

Key informant interviews with one EU body, two national authorities, one individual expert, two

research organisations and seven civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

authorities that indicated that the Governance Regulation is no longer relevant or aligned

with EU developments.

Respondents to the call for evidence highlighted that legislative changes made after 2018

had significantly reduced the relevance of the Governance Regulation

164

. These changes

include the adoption of the European Green Deal, the Fit-for-55 package, the REPowerEU

plan, the European Climate Law, and the collective commitment to a long-term climate-

neutrality objective. For instance, seven stakeholders highlighted elements brought in by

the new Renewable Energy Directive and the Energy Efficiency Directive that are not

aligned with the Governance Regulation.

Three stakeholders also explained that the EU has not updated its 2018 long-term strategy

(‘Clean Planet for all Europeans’), which made it outdated and not in line with the new EU

legislative and policy landscape on energy and climate

165

. Four respondents underlined

that the Governance Regulation does not capture nor define the important concept of

energy sufficiency

166

Participants in the stakeholder event generally found that the Governance Regulation, its

planning and reporting tools have helped achieve national or EU energy and climate

objectives

167

Relevance vis-à-vis the international framework

The survey results were similar in relation to developments in the international framework:

most national authorities (14/21) thought the Governance Regulation remains relevant,

while half of responding third-sector stakeholders disagreed (3/14) or strongly disagreed

(4/14).

In terms of gaps, although national energy and climate plans (NECPs) and national long-

term strategies (LTSs) are subject to the access to information and access to justice

obligations of the Aarhus Convention, six respondents to the call for evidence underlined

that the Governance Regulation lacks any reference or specific provisions on access to

justice

168

Fitness for the future

The Governance Regulation's fitness for the future came under scrutiny, especially by

third-sector respondents. A majority expressed disagreement (7/14) or strong disagreement

(5/14) that the Regulation is fit for the future beyond 2030 in its present form. National

authorities voiced more varied views: 10 out of 25 agreed that the Governance Regulation

is fit for the future, while seven disagreed. A notable portion (8/25) gave a neutral response.

164

165

166

167

168

NGOs (8), business associations (2), environmental organisations (3), EU citizens (1), public authorities

(2), other (1), academia (1).

NGOs (1), environmental organisations (1), academia (1).

NGOs (2), environmental organisations (1), academia (1).

A majority responded that this was the case to some (38/94) or to a large extent (37/94).

NGOs (3), environmental organisations (2), academia (1).

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Readiness to respond to changes and crises

Most of the third-sector respondents surveyed (10/13) indicated that the Governance

Regulation has not provided an effective framework to respond to socio-economic,

environmental, and geopolitical changes and crises.

In the call for evidence, stakeholders underlined that recent geopolitical events, including

the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, make an update

of the Governance Regulation imperative to ensure it remains relevant and fit for

purpose

169

Three national authorities that responded to the survey considered that biennial reporting

on adaptation measures was too short a timeframe and could prove challenging for

authorities to accurately complete, as these measures were updated less frequently due to

longer planning cycles. An additional national authority discussed the challenges they

experienced in reporting on how their Member State could reach adaptation targets. They

found it difficult to identify new measures that could realistically be designed and adopted

at national level. Two of the civil society organisations interviewed indicated that climate

adaptation needs to be better covered by the Regulation, with one arguing that climate

adaptation needs to be mainstreamed into the NECPs. This resonated with one national

authority that explained during an interview that it was unclear whether adaptation

measures should have been integrated in their NECP. The stakeholder emphasised that

practices differed across Member States on this aspect.

Effectiveness of the Regulation

This section summarises how effective stakeholders believe the Governance Regulation

has been in achieving its objectives.

Effect of the Regulation on Member States adopting national measures

The stakeholders surveyed reported that the Governance Regulation has at least to some

extent contributed to their Member State adopting or implementing measures to meet

national energy and climate contributions and the EU’s 2030 targets for energy and

climate

170

. A majority also indicated that implementation of the Governance Regulation

has at least to some extent contributed to their Member State adopting or implementing

policies or measures to meet greenhouse gas emission commitments in line with the Paris

Agreement

171

169

170

171

NGOs (4), business associations (2), environmental organisations (2), EU citizens (1), public authorities

(1).

Respondents who answered ‘to some extent’ or more, including 24 out of 28 national authorities and 12

out of 17 third-sector stakeholders.

Over half the third-sector stakeholders (10 out of 17) and most national authorities (23 out of 27)

indicated that implementing the Governance Regulation has at least to some extent contributed to their

Member State adopting or implementing policies and measures to meet greenhouse gas emissions

commitments in line with the Paris Agreement. One national authority and five third-sector

organisations indicated that the Governance Regulation has not contributed at all to this objective.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Some respondents to the call for evidence raised concerns about the lack of obligations to

ensure coherence between NECPs and national LTSs, and whether the NECPs thus put the

Member States (and the EU) on the pathway to decarbonisation, in line with the countries’

LTSs and the EU’s climate-neutrality goal

172

. This point was also emphasised by two civil

society organisations that participated in the stakeholder event.

Information contained in national plans and reports

When asked about the impact of the Regulation on the completeness, reliability and

accessibility of data contained in national plans and reports, the stakeholders surveyed

tended to indicate that the Governance Regulation has contributed to some extent.

173

National authorities represented the large majority of respondents who considered the

Regulation to have contributed to better information at least ‘to a large extent’. The

stakeholders surveyed generally found the indicators included in national reports, in

accordance with the Regulation, to be helpful at least to some extent in tracking Member

States’ progress across the five dimensions of the Energy Union

174

172

173

174

NGOs (4), environmental organisations (2), academia (1).

More than half (55%) of all respondent groups replied with ‘to some extent’.

Three quarters of respondents (49/64) answered with ‘to some extent’ or more, with responses not

varying significantly between stakeholder groups.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Completeness, reliability, and accessibility of reported information

Source:

ICF online surveys, Evaluation of the Governance Regulation

Survey respondents provided slightly positive views regarding the public accessibility of

data contained in national plans and reports

175

. Most national authorities reported that the

Regulation has had a positive impact in this regard

176

. About a third of respondents (19/65)

across all stakeholder groups reported that the Regulation has contributed to greater public

accessibility ‘only to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’.

All stakeholder groups were critical of the extent to which the Regulation had contributed

to Member States meeting their obligations on time and making information accessible in

a timely manner. National authorities were evenly divided, with one third (10 out of 30)

finding the Regulation had a rather positive impact, while another third (9 out of 30) felt it

had not significantly improved timeliness or had done so only marginally. Two of the latter

group specified that elements beyond the Regulation’s reach played a greater role (namely

political priorities and pre-existing national frameworks), but two also thought that the

additional reporting obligations had put a strain on (notably smaller) public

administrations. Just under half of industry and third-sector stakeholders indicated that the

Regulation had helped with timeliness ‘only to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’

177

Three national authorities that participated in the stakeholder event also emphasised

obstacles impeding the timely submission of reports and data, such as the large amount of

data to be collected, analysed, and reported, and the need to regularly update submitted

data for progress reports.

Some of the stakeholders interviewed remarked that the introduction of the Governance

Regulation and accompanying plans and reports had noticeably improved the availability

of information in their Member State

178

. Several pointed out the differing levels of

175

176

177

178

More than a third of respondents (24/65) thought the Regulation had contributed to greater accessibility

for the public ‘to some extent’, an additional 16 'to a large extent' and 4 'to a very large extent'.

Three quarters (23/30) reported the Regulation had contributed to greater accessibility at least ‘to some

extent’.

6 of 15 industry stakeholders and 8 out of 19 third-sector respondents chose one of these answers.

Interviews with two national authorities, one research organisation, seven civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

information and completeness of reports between Member States, however, highlighting

that certain reports do not contain the expected data

179

. Several interviewed national

authorities emphasised issues with timeliness and timeframes of reporting and updates

180

Some also remarked that certain data required by the European Commission were

unavailable in their Member State

181

. By contrast, several of the stakeholders interviewed

recognised improvements since the first NECPs were published

182

Usefulness of national plans and reports

The national authorities surveyed indicated that information contained in NECPs, national

LTSs and Member States’ progress reports had been used for decision-making at a national

level

183

. The opinions voiced by respondents from the third sector and industry were more

varied, with close to half of industry representatives (8/17) considering that such data was

only marginally used for decision-making, if at all.

Some respondents to the call for evidence indicated that the preparation of NECPs was

sometimes viewed as a bureaucratic tool/check-boxing exercise, rather than a political

priority

184

. One stakeholder added that NECPs often comprised 'a compilation of existing

plans', rather than a standalone plan with new information. Moreover, this had

consequences for the obligations provided in Article 10 of the Governance Regulation on

public participation: when the NECP is based on existing plans, 'there is no new content to

consult the public on'

185

According to eight respondents to the call for evidence, LTSs were not given enough

prominence in the Governance Regulation, nor by Member States, with some Member

States submitting their LTS with substantial delay

186

. The absence of a binding template

for the LTSs was also mentioned as contributing to this issue. One stakeholder also

explained that the five-year timeframe might be insufficient to include updated

information

187

Interviews with national authorities revealed that while some Member States viewed the

NECPs and LTSs as strategic and policy-setting documents, others tended to perceive them

as a compendium of existing data and current or planned measures, with varying levels of

usefulness depending on whether similar documents were already drawn up nationally

188

Several third-sector stakeholders highlighted shortcomings in internal coherence and

usefulness resulting from the fact that the first NECPs were submitted before LTSs,

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

Interviews with three EU bodies, one industry association, three research organisations, three civil

society organisations.

Interviews with three national authorities.

Interviews with two national authorities.

Interviews with one research organisation, two civil society organisations.

More than two thirds (19/27) answered with ‘to some extent’ or more.

NGOs (1), environmental organisation (1), academia (1).

Public authority (1).

NGOs (6), environmental organisations (1), academia (1).

Public authority (1).

Interviews with five national authorities, two civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

meaning that they lack the long-term political vision and impetus which would govern

policy and goal attainment

189

Streamlining

Six respondents to the call for evidence highlighted that the Governance Regulation is a

key pillar of the EU's energy and climate legislative framework, as it streamlined the

different climate and energy planning and reporting requirements, particularly through the

introduction of NECPs

190

Some respondents to the call for evidence found the design of NECPs to be ineffective or

insufficient to bridge the gap between measures and objectives

191

. Specifically, according

to eight respondents, the NECP template provided in Annex I to the Governance

Regulation no longer reflects the latest scientific progress or developments in EU climate

and energy policies

192

Some of the stakeholders interviewed agreed that the Governance Regulation has helped

integrate and streamline previously scattered obligations

193

. By contrast, several

interviewees argued that the Governance Regulation had also made their Member State’s

planning and reporting processes more complex

194

. Some stakeholders highlighted

turnover challenges encountered by national authorities, leading to a loss of institutional

memory and in-house expertise, thereby affecting their ability to fulfil obligations

effectively and efficiently (as they often have to rely on consultancies to complete tasks)

and on time

195

. Changing political priorities was also highlighted as a barrier for medium

and long-term consistency

196

Several interviewed national authorities mentioned that the guidance shared by the

European Commission had proved relevant and useful

197

Effective enforcement

The stakeholders surveyed held differing views on whether the Regulation’s enforcement

mechanisms (to tackle insufficient national contributions or implementation of EU energy

and climate objectives) are sufficient and fit for purpose. Just over half the responding

national authorities (14/26) thought the enforcement mechanisms are sufficient and fit for

purpose, while a clear majority of third-sector respondents (14/16) disagreed or strongly

disagreed. Most national authorities (15/26) also reported that the Regulation’s

enforcement mechanisms were effectively deployed when needed, whereas third-sector

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

Interviews with one individual expert, two research organisations, three civil society organisations.

NGOs (2), business associations (2), academia (1), other (1).

NGOs (1), business associations (1), environmental organisations (2).

NGOs (3), business associations (4), environmental organisation (1).

Interview with one EU body, three national authorities, two research organisations, two civil society

organisations.

Interview with two national authorities.

Interview with one national authority, one individual expert, two research organisations, one civil society

organisation.

Interview with one national authority, two research organisations.

Interviews with three national authorities.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

respondents were evenly divided between those that agreed and those that disagreed (5/16

for each answer).

Respondents to the call for evidence indicated that Articles 29 to 34 of the Governance

Regulation had not been effective in ensuing a strong enforcement framework for climate

and energy targets

198

. They highlighted that the current rules are insufficient to ensure that

Member States meet their targets. Specifically, they considered that the current delivery

gap mechanism (Article 32) does not function effectively, and that there is a need for

quicker intervention and greater transparency in discussions between the European

Commission and Member States on the measures taken.

Several of the stakeholders interviewed underlined that Member State compliance with the

Regulation’s obligations was sometimes limited. However, limited compliance did not

always pertain to the Regulation itself but to political considerations and the need to

acquire buy-in from Member States in light of growing obligations and administrative

burden

199

. Nonetheless, several third-sector stakeholders considered that the Regulation’s

enforcement procedure could be made more transparent and that the enforcement

mechanism should be strengthened to more effectively tackle non-compliance

200

Effective contribution to greater predictability and certainty

Survey participants were asked whether the Governance Regulation has created more

predictability and certainty for public and private investors. While national authorities had

mixed views, industry and third-sector stakeholders tended to indicate that the Governance

Regulation has only marginally contributed to improving the predictability and certainty

for investors, if at all

201

During the stakeholder event, one industry participant highlighted the importance of the

Governance Regulation as a common reference point for Member States to set ambitions

and investment levels. They mentioned that, in this respect, the Governance Regulation

helps provide regulatory certainty, which stakeholders should make greater use of. They

also highlighted how uncertainty can be detrimental to investment levels and markets,

especially in sectors vulnerable to external crises (e.g., political and geopolitical). By

providing regulatory certainty, the Governance Regulation may have helped stimulate

investment and ensure market stability.

Although several stakeholders thought that the Regulation’s plans and reports should

contribute to greater predictability and certainty for public and private investors

202

, they

found it generally unclear whether this had materialised in higher levels of investment.

One national authority highlighted that the timeline of NECPs and of their update was not

198

199

200

201

202

NGOs (10), business associations (1), environmental organisations (3), academia (2).

Interviews with two EU bodies, one national authority, one research organisation, two civil society

organisations.

Interview with one individual expert, one research organisation, seven civil society organisations.

Half of third-sector respondents (9/18) and just under half of industry respondents (7/16) answered with

‘only to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’.

Interviews with two EU bodies, three national authorities, two civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

set up to inform the EU budget, with no way of reprogramming funds before 2027 (e.g.,

structural funds, the Just Transition Fund or common agricultural policy) to support the

implementation of the NECPs. Four industry representatives thought that national plans

and reports had not played a major role in private investors’ decision-making. Several

third-sector interviewees thought that national plans and reports had not offered sufficient

clarity or tangible projections to guide public or private investment

203

Regional cooperation

A majority of surveyed national authorities thought that the Governance Regulation has

led Member States to increase or take more advantage of mutual cooperation

204

Nevertheless, most participants responding to the live poll during the stakeholder event

thought that the Governance Regulation has only promoted regional cooperation to a

limited extent (19/49) or to some extent (15/49).

Several interviewed national authorities reported fruitful examples of regional cooperation

for the purpose of implementing the Governance Regulation

205

, although one indicated that

such cooperation would probably have taken place even without the Governance

Regulation. One EU official interviewed considered that regional cooperation remains

underutilised at EU level.

Multi-level dialogues and public consultation

Most national authorities that responded to the online survey indicated that their Member

State had conducted multi-level climate and energy dialogues involving local authorities,

civil society organisations and other relevant stakeholders

206

. They also tended to think

that their country had involved the public and taken due account of public feedback when

drafting and updating national plans, at least to some extent

207

. Third-sector stakeholders

were more critical: more than half believed that Member States had not set up sufficient

multi-level dialogue enabling stakeholders to discuss policy scenarios and review

progress

208

, and half also thought that Member States had not provided the public with

effective and timely opportunities to comment and engage in the NECP and LTS

process

209

For several respondents to the call for evidence, Article 10 (public consultation) of the

Regulation was not effective in ensuring public consultation in the preparation of

NECPs

210

. They indicated that public participation had varied significantly across Member

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

Interview with three research organisations, seven civil society organisations.

According to 15 out of 24 respondents, most of whom (11) believed this had been done by their Member

State ‘to some extent’. A third of respondents (8/24) answered that this has been the case ‘only to a small

extent’.

Interview with four national authorities.

A majority (16/24) considered this was done ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to a very large extent’.

A majority (13/25) selected either ‘to a large extent’ or ‘to a very large extent’ while the rest (11/25)

answered with ‘To some extent’.

Most (9/17) said this had been done ‘only to a small extent’, if ‘not at all’.

Half (7/14) said Member States did so ‘only to a small extent’ or ‘not at all’.

NGOs (8), business associations (1), environmental organisations (3), Academia (1).

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

States and had frequently not been very meaningful. Some respondents also mentioned that

Article 11 (multi-level climate and energy dialogue) of the Regulation had not been

effective in ensuring that Member States implement multi-level governance processes

when designing, implementing, and monitoring national energy and climate policy

211

They found that setting up and holding regular meetings of multi-level climate and energy

dialogues had not happened in a structured or systematic way, and that the feedback

periods were too short to assess proposals and suggest potential amendments.

Several of the stakeholders interviewed underlined that multi-level dialogues and public

consultations had been insufficiently conducted by Member States

212

. Several interviewees

welcomed the addition of Articles 10 and 11 in the Governance Regulation, noting that the

language left large leeway for Member States to take action

213

. Nevertheless, some third-

sector interviewees found that, when conducted, multi-level dialogues and public

consultations had not always been substantial or influential enough to feed into planning

and reporting

214

. One civil society organisation indicated that they had conducted their own

research on application of Article 11 and found that the language in the Regulation lacked

clarity and that implementation was not sufficiently transparent.

Interviewees highlighted significant variations between Member States in implementing

Articles 10 and 11. Some national authorities argued that such consultations were complex

and often suffered from a lack of time to prepare and conduct them meaningfully

215

. Three

national authorities remarked on the positive results that multi-level dialogue and / or

public consultations had yielded in their Member States. However, two national authorities

noted that similar dialogues and consultations were already in place before adoption of the

Governance Regulation.

Participants responding to the live poll during the stakeholder event generally agreed

(35/58) that a combination of insufficient provisions within and implementation of the

Governance Regulation had led to varying levels of public participation across Member

States. Seven third-sector organisations highlighted the need for public consultations to be

better implemented and stakeholder feedback more valued.

Cost-effectiveness

Overall impacts on costs, time, and administrative burden

Compared to the situation before the Governance Regulation was adopted, a number of

surveyed national authorities reported that:

the Regulation had had a negative impact on costs linked to energy and climate

planning and reporting (11/29);

211

212

213

214

215

NGOs (8), business associations (1), environmental organisations (1), Other (1).

Interview with one EU body, two industry organisations, six civil society organisations.

Interview with one individual expert, two research organisations, two civil society organisations.

Interview with one research organisation, five civil society organisations.

Interviews with three national authorities.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

the Regulation had had a negative impact on time allocated to energy and climate

planning and reporting (15/29);

the Regulation had had a negative impact on the administrative burden linked to

energy and climate planning and reporting (14/29).

Some respondents to the call for evidence noted the administrative burden created by the

Governance Regulation, with its multiple planning and reporting processes and

requirements

216

. One public authority added that the Governance Regulation had not

replaced reporting obligations in other areas, but had instead added a new layer of

reporting, increasing the administrative burden.

Just over half the participants in the stakeholder event (42/80) considered that the

Governance Regulation generally strikes the right balance between the need for granular

information in national plans and reports on the one hand and keeping the administrative

burden proportional on the other.

Most of the national authorities interviewed indicated that the time and administrative

burden linked to their planning and reporting had increased since the Governance

Regulation entered into force, although one indicated that it had led to cost savings in their

Member State

217

Costs

National authorities generally observed that costs had risen for most of the cost items

presented, with only a few exceptions where respondents noted that costs remained

unchanged since the Governance Regulation was implemented. In most cases, respondents

indicated that the Regulation had not generated any cost savings for their authority and

only a small minority identified any cost saving at all. The highest number of respondents

indicated an increase in costs associated with implementing the Regulation in the following

areas:

Human resources needed to fulfil obligations (according to 16 out of 18 national

authorities providing an answer, with 16 replying that this item had led to cost

increases and two replying that associated costs had remained the same). Overall

costs of preparing and submitting reports (14 out of 17 reported that this item had

led to cost increases, with a further two respondents reporting that associated costs

had remained the same and one noting a decrease in costs).

Preparation and cross-service coordination for national plans and reports

(according to 13 out of 16 respondents, with another three reporting that associated

costs had remained the same).

216

217

NGOs (1), public authority (2).

Interviews with four national authorities.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Running costs for coordination and data compilation (13 out of 16 reporting cost

increases, with a further two respondents reporting that costs had remained the

same and one reporting a decrease in costs).

External costs such as consulting and support (13 out of 16 respondents, with a

further three reporting that associated costs had remained the same).

One difficulty was the limited human resources available in national administrations to

meet reporting and planning obligations, linked to a considerable level of turnover –

meaning that national authorities lost expertise and institutional memory. Some therefore

had to rely on external contractors to support this work

218

Efficiencies and cost savings

At the same time, the national authorities surveyed generally found that the Regulation had

led to some cost savings and more efficient planning and reporting in certain aspects, such

as:

Greater coherence of planning and reporting timelines and procedures (according

to 15 out of 21 national authorities providing an answer on this item, with 15

considering that this item led to cost savings and more efficient planning, while

three respondents disagreed).

Greater coordination of different competent authorities (according to 14 out of 21

respondents. A further three respondents disagreed with that statement).

Better-established processes, policies, and procedures (according to 13 out of 21

respondents, with another three disagreeing).

Better quality and timeliness of information produced (according to 12 out of 21

respondents, while a further five national authorities disagreed).

Reporting via the EU electronic platform(s)

Overall, the national authorities surveyed had mixed views on the impacts that electronic

reporting to the e-platform had on their services’ costs, time, and administrative burden.

Although several respondents agreed than (12/28) that the e-platform had made their

reporting to the Commission easier, most disagreed or strongly disagreed (15/28) that

having a common reporting platform had saved their Member State the cost of having to

create or maintain a similar reporting platform at national level. Several national authorities

found (12/28) that submitting information via the e-platform had led to more costly,

complex, and time-consuming reporting in their Member State than would otherwise have

been the case.

218

Interviews with two national authorities, one individual expert.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Timing of planning and reporting obligations

The national authorities surveyed had mixed views on whether the timing of obligations

under the Governance Regulation are internally consistent and reasonable

219

, and whether

they are consistent with the timing of national obligations

220

and other EU obligations

221

A majority of respondents (13/24) thought that the timing of planning and reporting

obligations under the Governance Regulation align well with international obligations,

although a third (8/24) disagreed.

Two public authorities that responded to the call for evidence argued that the reporting

platforms used for Member States’ submissions were not efficient

222

. One stakeholder

explained that having to use two different platforms was suboptimal and hindered the

efficient transfer of the necessary information. Another indicated that EU and international

reporting tools should be interoperable in order to support Member States and reduce the

reporting burden.

Several interviewed national authorities considered that the two reporting platforms are

quite burdensome to use. Some national authorities highlighted issues with uploading data

and some remarked that data was not transparent, easily accessible, or readable once

uploaded

223

. Several stakeholders were confused about the existence of two different e-

reporting platforms

224

. Third-sector interviewees generally had more positive views and

experiences with these platforms and their usefulness, as well as of the data they include

225

Some still highlighted issues with user-friendliness and readability

226

Coherence

Internal coherence

The national authorities surveyed generally thought that the obligations contained in the

Governance Regulation are coherent (16/29). Although answers were not always clear-cut,

the most common view was that the obligations of the Regulation do not overlap or

duplicate each other (13/28) and are not internally contradictory (12/28). Of the surveyed

national authorities noting the obligations are not internally coherent (6/29), overlap (9/28)

or are contradictory (6/28), respondents pointed to possible inconsistencies between:

reporting on greenhouse gas policies and measures (Article 18a) and provisions

related to national energy and climate progress reports (NECPRs), notably Article

17(3) on greenhouse policies and measures (three surveyed national authorities);

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

Eleven out of 25 respondents disagreed (6/25) or strongly disagreed (5/25) with that statement, against

nine who agreed.

Twelve out of 26 respondents disagreed (8/26) or strongly disagreed (4) with that statement, against ten

who agreed.

Ten out of 26 respondents agreed with that statement, against nine who disagreed.

Public authority (2).

Interviews with four national authorities.

Interviews with three national authorities, one research organisation.

Interviews with one individual expert, one research organisation, three civil society organisations.

Interviews with two research organisations, three civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

overlaps in the elements included in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 under each dimension

of the NECP template, as included in Annex I to the Regulation (one surveyed

national authority).

Eight respondents to the call for evidence reported a lack of consistency between the

different planning instruments set out in the Governance Regulation

227

. Some argued that

the sequencing of NECPs and LTSs was not coherent, as the first LTSs are submitted after

the NECPs, although the former should inform the latter

228

. Since there is no mandatory

revision of LTSs in the Governance Regulation, one respondent found this resulted in a

situation in which the LTSs, although manifestly outdated, were not being reviewed,

resulting in the long-term direction remaining unclear and misaligned with the short-term

action expressed in the updated NECPs

229

Some third-sector interviewees similarly highlighted that not having a direct alignment

between the NECPs and longer-term objectives and policy strategies of the LTSs

undermined the internal coherence of the Governance Regulation

230

. This issue was also

raised by two third-sector respondents to the online surveys, who believed the Governance

Regulation lacks a provision requiring Member States to guarantee coherence between

their NECPs and LTSs. Alignment between the two documents is perceived as too weak

to ensure the Member States adopt national measures to reach climate neutrality by 2050.

Coherence with other EU and international instruments

Depending on their stated expertise, national authorities and third-sector stakeholders were

asked targeted questions about the coherence of the Governance Regulation with external

EU and international instruments in the climate and energy domains. The most common

view was that the Regulation is coherent with the legislation underlying the Fit-for-55

package

231

and the European Climate Law

232

. Views were slightly more divided on EU

initiatives with climate and energy implications, such as REPowerEU, the Recovery and

Resilience Facility and the European Semester

233

. Most national authorities thought the

Regulation is coherent with the United Nations Framework Agreement on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement

234

, with only one respondent disagreeing.

Half the responding national authorities (12/23) thought the Governance Regulation is at

least somewhat coherent with the Aarhus Convention

235

, although a large minority said

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

NGOs (5), environmental organisations (2), academia (1).

NGOs (1), academia (1).

NGOs (1).

Interviews with two research organisations, four civil society organisations.

Twenty out of 24 national authorities and nine out of ten third-sector respondents answered ‘to some

extent’ or more.

Twenty out of 23 national authorities and seven out of ten third-sector respondents answered ‘to some

extent’ or more.

A majority of national authorities found them coherent at least to some extent (14/24) but a third also

answered with ‘do not know / not applicable’ (8/24).

Thirteen out of 24 responded ‘to a large extent’ or more, and seven responded ‘to some extent’.

UNECE Convention on Access to information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to

Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), available at:

https://unece.org/environment-

policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/text

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

they did not know or found the statement not applicable (11/23). In contrast, most third-

sector stakeholders thought the Regulation is not coherent with the Aarhus Convention

(5/7). For example, one third-sector stakeholder argued that the Governance Regulation

does not guarantee access to information and to justice under the Aarhus Convention.

Some respondents to the call for evidence identified inconsistencies between timings in

the Governance Regulation and other related EU pieces of legislation, such as between the

planning process of the NECPs on the one hand, and REPowerEU chapters and the social

climate plans on the other

236

. It was also argued that the sequencing and timing of the main

governance processes under the Governance Regulation and the EU Climate Law are not

coherent because information (e.g., from assessments under Articles 6 and 7 of the EU

Climate Law) was not available in time to feed into the planning processes under the

Governance Regulation – and vice versa

237

Respondents to the call for evidence argued that the Governance Regulation lacks

coherence with newer pieces of EU legislation. They mentioned in particular the new EU

targets for renewable energy and energy efficiency

238

Several of the stakeholders interviewed noted that the Governance Regulation needs to be

updated to be coherent with newly adopted EU legislation

239

. By contrast, some

interviewees found the Regulation coherent with the overarching EU framework and

should not seek to be too prescriptive, lest it falls behind future initiatives

240

. Some timing

inconsistencies between other EU or international obligations were identified as limiting

coherence and creating additional burden

241

As regards coherence with international processes, six respondents to the call for evidence

indicated that the alignment between the five-year common timeframe of the EU climate

policy cycle and the UNFCCC should be strengthened

242

Three national authorities responding to the survey reported issues linked to the separate

reporting timelines for NECPRs (due during odd years) and Biennial Transparency Reports

(due during even years) carried out under the UNFCCC, highlighting that this cycle forced

Member States to collect and report data annually, rather than every two years. One

interviewed national authority identified the same issue in the context of reporting on

greenhouse gas projections and adaptation. Another national authority mentioned different

timelines on greenhouse gas inventories, which are reported under the Governance

Regulation up to 15 March, and up to 15 April under the UNFCCC.

One national authority commented that interoperability between EU and UNFCCC

reporting tools would help ease the administrative burden.

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

NGOs (1).

Academia (1).

NGOs (2), business associations (2), public authority (1), company / business (1), other (1).

Interviews with one EU body, two research organisations, five civil society organisations.

Interviews with one EU body, one national authority.

Interviews with one EU body, two national authorities, two civil society organisations.

NGOs (3), environmental organisations (2), public authority (1).

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

EU added value

Scenario without the Regulation

A slight majority of the national authorities surveyed (14/27) thought their Member State

would not have achieved the same level of planning and reporting without the Governance

Regulation (although a large minority (10/27) argued otherwise). Similarly, most third-

sector respondents (10/14) concurred that the same level of planning and reporting would

not have occurred in the absence of the Governance Regulation. Half of the responding

national authorities (14/28) and most third-sector respondents (8/14) agreed that the

Governance Regulation had made available information that would not otherwise have

been accessible to the public in their Member State.

Several interviewees commented that the Governance Regulation had enabled a degree of

data availability, accessibility and comparability at EU level that would not have been

achieved by Member States on their own

243

. Several stakeholders thought that the

Governance Regulation had improved the consistency of national energy and climate

strategies across EU Member States

244

, and enhanced streamlining and coordination of

national planning and reporting processes

245

. However, some interviewees noted that there

remains scope to improve the consistency of adopted policies, and the comparability of

reports and data

246

. All interviewees, even those from Member States with stronger pre-

existing frameworks, reported that the Governance Regulation provides added value.

Harmonisation and predictability of national policies

Survey respondents had mixed views on whether the Governance Regulation has

contributed to EU Member States adopting more coordinated and consistent national

energy and climate policies. Just under half the responding national authorities (11/25)

thought the Governance Regulation has contributed to more coordinated and consistent

national energy and climate policies across the EU, while half the third-sector respondents

(7/14) disagreed. Industry respondents were evenly split between those that agreed and

those that disagreed. National authorities and third-sector stakeholders generally agreed

that the Governance Regulation has contributed to national energy and climate policies

becoming more transparent and predictable

247

. Industry respondents were evenly split

between those that agreed and those that disagreed.

The stakeholders interviewed provided mixed views on whether the Governance

Regulation has enhanced transparency and predictability

248

. Some reported that it has only

243

244

245

246

247

248

Interviews with two EU bodies, two national authorities, one research organisation, four civil society

organisations.

Interview with one EU body, one national authority, two civil society organisations.

Interviews with one EU body, one national authority, two civil society organisations.

Interviews with two EU bodies, one national authority, one research organisation, three civil society

organisations.

Thirteen out of 25 national authorities agreed or strongly agreed, and seven out of 14 third-sector

respondents agreed or strongly agreed.

Interviews with one EU body, two national authorities, one research organisation, four civil society

organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

had a limited effect and that much remains to be done to improve in this regard

249

. Overall,

interviewees tended to have reservations, show uncertainty or scepticism on this point, not

least due to the large effort required to substantially review national reports across the EU

(interviewees usually acknowledged only having consulted one or a few national reports).

Reflecting on the technicality and amount of data contained in national plans and reports,

several interviewees doubted whether most EU citizens or organisations would have the

time and skills needed to digest the information

250

Access to justice and accountability

Survey respondents had mixed views on the effects of the Governance Regulation on

enhancing access to justice and on enabling public and private-sector bodies to hold

Member States and the EU accountable for their obligations. Most (17/25) responding

national authorities thought this had been achieved at least ‘to some extent’, but third-

sector (7/14) and industry stakeholders (6/14) tended to think that this had happened ‘only

to small extent’ or ‘not at all’. A majority of third-sector respondents (11/14) reported that

the Governance Regulation lacks sufficient mechanisms to hold Member States and the

EU accountable for their obligations. A majority (8/14) also indicated that the Regulation

does not support access to justice for public and private stakeholders. They expressed

mixed views when asked whether private and public bodies in their Member State are able

to access justice and hold governments accountable for their obligations under the

Governance Regulation

251

While two national authorities thought the framework of the Governance Regulation

allows access to justice in their Member State, several third-sector interviewees contended

that this aspect of the Regulation is lacking and emphasised that, in practice, access to

justice and holding Member States accountable for their obligations is not always

ensured

252

. They notably referred to the lack of clarity in the procedures for ensuring access

to justice and limited enforcement mechanisms to make plans and reports binding. They

also considered that the provisions of the Governance Regulation on access to justice are

not strong enough.

249

250

251

252

Interviews with one national authority, one industry organisation, two civil society organisations.

Interviews with two industry organisations, one research organisation, two civil society organisations.

Out of 17 respondents, six disagreed and three agreed. The majority of respondents did not choose either

option or said they did not know.

Interview with two research organisations and four civil society organisations.

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

NNEX

VI. A

DDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Table 3: Overview of planning and reporting obligations in the Governance Regulation

Planning and

obligations

reporting Related

articles

3, 9, 14

NECP

MS LTS

EU LTS

EU methane strategy

Does the obligation Notes

pre-date

the

Governance

Regulation?

No, but many elements Both original & updates, draft and final

from

planning obligations

Yes

Under Article 4 MMR, Member States had to prepare low-carbon development

strategies. Those strategies did not have the same structure as LTSs.

Yes

Article 4 (1) MMR: Commission on behalf of the Union to prepare a low-carbon

development strategy. Obligation not in Commission proposal, added in co-

decision

No, but many elements

from

reporting obligations

Yes

There are new provisions under the Paris Agreement for the Biennial Report. Under

decision 18/CMA.1 and 5/CMA.3, the EU and its Member States must submit a

Biennial Transparency Report starting in 2024. National Communications continue

to be submitted as before (decision 2/CP.17). (Article 18 MMR, biennial reports,

and national communications).

Yes

Reporting of GHG projections and PaMs is established under UNFCCC and was to

be one under the MMR, Articles 13, 14.

Partial

Under the MMR, reporting took place every 4 years (article 15) as established in

the UNFCCC.

17-25

NECPR

UNFCCC reporting (Biennial

report

and

National

Communication)

Integrated

reporting

on 18

greenhouse gas policies and

measures and projections

National climate change 19(1)

adaptation planning and

strategies

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Reporting use of ETS

revenues

Support

developing

countries

Oil stocks

Offshore safety

Article 26 CLIMA

Reporting on 2020 targets

SOEUR

NECPR assessment report

Carbon market report

Bioenergy

sustainability

report

Voluntary schemes report

Gas internal market report

Electricity internal market

report

EEOS report

Renovation report

NZEB report

Internal market report

Fuel quality report

Competitiveness report

Subsidies report

CCS report

CAPR

E-platform

Union and national inventory

systems, inventory review

Union and national systems

for policies and measures and

projections

19(2)

19(3)

Yes

Reporting on ETS revenues – Article 19(2)- is established in Directive 2009/29/EC.

MMR Article 17 (Reporting on the use of auctioning revenues)

Under MMR obligations (Article 16)

Articles 7-9 MMR

Yes

Obligation not in Commission proposal, added in co-decision

Article 38 under CCS is repealed with Governance

Under MMR, Article 21

Art. 5 and 6 MMR, Art. 9 MMR, Art. 19 MMR

Art. 12 MMR

37, 38

Yes

100

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Establishment and operation 40

of registries

Yes

Art. 10 MMR predecessor (updated in view of international developments)

101

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Table 4. Information on timeliness of major planning and reporting obligations

Article

NECPs

LTS

NECPRs

So far, there have been significant delays in the submissions of (updated) NECPs each time a plan had to be

submitted. For the draft NECPs (due 31-12-2018), 24 were notified before or shortly after the deadline. For

the final NECPs (due 31-12-2019), 18 were notified before or shortly after the deadline. For the draft NECP

updates (due 30-6-2023) 13 were notified before or shortly after the deadline. 6 infringements have been

opened for late submission of the draft NECP updates. Late submission resulted in inefficiencies in the

process of producing an EU-wide assessment of the draft NECP updates by the Commission.

It is unclear to

what extent this problem is directly linked to the Regulation or whether it results from practices and/or procedural

bottlenecks occurring at Member State level. According to some stakeholders, one factor that may have hampered

the timely submission of NECPs was the lack of alignment between the Regulation timeframe and other national-

level cycles for adopting local/national plans. Some national authorities underlined problems with the short

timeframe between the progress reports and the draft update NECPs, and constraints in terms of administrative

capacity, which also makes it challenging to incorporate lessons learned between rounds of reporting.

Most LTSs were submitted late (only 9 out of 27 LTS were submitted on time), resulting in delays and

inefficiencies in the process of producing an EU-wide assessment of the LTSs by the Commission.

There are

indications that the lack of timeliness in the submission of LTSs derives both from insufficient administrative

capacity at national level to fulfil all the reporting obligations under the Regulation and the sequencing of the

planning and reporting obligations (e.g., NECP deadline before the LTS deadline). A lack of strong enforcement

and administrative burden at Member State level seem to have mainly caused the late submission of LTSs.

Notwithstanding this, there is only limited evidence that the Regulation, as such, was ineffective in ensuring that

LTSs were submitted in a timely manner.

The biennial integrated progress reports were submitted either on time (8 MS) or with a small delay,

with

minor implications on the Commission assessment. At a stakeholder event in early 2024, two national authorities

mentioned that a large volume of information must be provided to fulfil the requirements of Article 17, which can

impose a significant administrative burden on national authorities.

102

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Integrated reporting on greenhouse

The timeliness of submissions of Policies and Measures (PaMs) substantially improved from 2019

(9 out of

gas policies and measures and on 28 MS met the deadline)

to 2021

(15 out of 27 MS met the deadline),

before deteriorating in 2023

(11 out of 27

projections

MS met the deadline).

Information reported on

projections of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by

sinks

improved in 2019 (16 out of 28 MS met the deadline) compared to 2017 (13 out 28), while it deteriorated in

2021.

Notwithstanding these late submissions, the evaluation does not find a lack of effectiveness that can be attributed

to the Regulation.

Integrated reporting on national

The timeliness of this reporting substantially improved from 2019

(16 out of 27 MS met the deadline)

to 2021

adaptation action

(17 out of 27 MS met the deadline)

to 2023

(22 out of 27 MS met the deadline).

Integrated reporting on financial

The timeliness of this reporting improved substantially from 2017

(16 out of 27 MS met the deadline)

to 2019

and technology support provided to (24 out of 27 MS met the deadline), but then deteriorated in

2021 and 2023

(16 out of 27 MS met the deadline).

developing countries

Integrated reporting on auctioning

The timeliness of this report varied, in 2017

(20 out of 27 MS met the deadline)

in 2019

(23 out of 27 MS met

revenue

the deadline),

in 2021

(18 out of 27 MS met the deadline),

in 2023

(20 out of 27 MS met the deadline).

Reporting on offshore safety

Reporting on oil stocks

Reporting on the 2020 targets

The reports were submitted either on time or with a small delay,

with minor implications on the Commission's

assessment.

The reports were submitted either on time or with a small delay,

with minor implications on the Commission's

assessment.

Of the reports on the achievement of the 2020 renewable energy and energy efficiency targets (due

30 April 2022), 21 were submitted before or shortly after the deadline. 3 infringements were opened for late

submission. Late submissions had minor impacts on the Commission's assessment of the target achievement.

103

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

Table 5: Information on public accessibility of plans and reports under the Governance Regulation

required

under

article

3, 9, 14

Accessible at

Notes

NECP (2018, 2019, 2023)

National energy and climate plans (europa.eu)

LTS

NECPR (2023), including

integrated policies and

measures

National long-term strategies (europa.eu)

Reportnet 3 (europa.eu)

All submitted

iterations of the

NECPs and all

Commission

assessments publicly

accessible.

All 26 submitted LTS

publicly accessible.

163 out of 189

dataflows made

publicly available by

MS.

All submitted

dataflows publicly

accessible.

All publicly

accessible.

Adaptation action:

All publicly available

Support:

All accessible

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/da8e36ea-9d6e-47fd-bc85-a485cf354922

Projections (2023)

Integrated reporting on national

adaptation action, financial and

technology support provided to

developing countries and

auctioning revenue (2023)

Reportnet 3 (europa.eu)

104

kom (2024) 0550 - Ingen titel

ETS auctioning

revenue:

24 out of 27 submitted

publicly available.

20 out of 25 submitted

publicly available.

Not publicly available

as it contains sensitive

data for MS.

Commission report

based on national

submissions.

All submitted reports

publicly accessible.

All published reports

are publicly

accessible.

GHG inventories (2023)

Oil stocks

Reportnet 3 (europa.eu)

Offshore safety

Safety of offshore oil and gas operations (europa.eu)

2020 target reports

State of the Energy Union,

including its accompanying

reports

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/da8e36ea-9d6e-47fd-bc85-a485cf354922

Energy union (europa.eu)

The State of the Energy Union is accompanied by a series of reports covering

different aspects of energy and climate policy, including the annual Climate

Action Progress Report. The latest (2023) version of this report can be

accessed here: 60a04592-cf1f-4e31-865b-2b5b51b9d09f_en (europa.eu)

105