Search

This document (Deliverable 6.2 - 4 capacity development and transfer workshops report) has been prepared under WP6 of the COME RES project in the frame of Task 6.2 (Capacity development and training for public authorities and/or community stakeholders in the “learning regions”) and constitutes a general framework for capacity building and a useful support to the transfer experiments that will be part of Task 6.3 (Best practice transfer roadmaps). The COME RES learning regions are intended in the general definition set up by OECD 2 and adopted by the EU3, as not necessarily regions lagging behind but rather as territories that aim for continuous learning as the main pathway towards innovation and progress. This report provides information on the transfer visits and training workshops undertaken by the transfer teams of the five learning regions set up in Task 6.1, to the country of origin of the 5 good/best practices chosen by each transfer team, from the COME RES good practice portfolio (Deliverable 5.2). These have beenendorsed by the COME RES country desks, as those offering the best potential for transfer and adaptation to the specific legal, economic, governance and cultural contexts of the adopting regions. Task 6.2 builds on the five transfer management plans, pre-assessed by the transfer teams of the learning regions as part of Task 6.1, which represent the general framework for the transfer roadmaps development to be conducted within Task 6.3. Task 6.2 supports the preparation, deployment, and post- event assessment of COME RES capacity development and training activities that will serve for the elaboration of transfer roadmaps envisaged within Task 6.3. The transfer roadmaps on the operational levels will contain proposals on how concepts/measures extracted from the chosen good/best practices will find adaptation in the adopting/learning regions.

With the Clean Energy for all Europeans legislative package, the European Union (EU) aimed to put consumers “at the heart” of EU energy policy. The recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) acknowledged the importance of energy communities for the energy transition and introduced new provisions for renewable energy communities (RECs), empowering them to participate in the energy market. This article analyses the progress of transposing and implementing key provisions of the RED II that apply to RECs in nine European countries and focuses on timeliness and completeness of transposition. It comprises both a qualitative and quantitative assessment covering (1) the definition, rights, and market activities of RECs; (2) key elements of enabling frameworks; and (3) consideration of REC specificities in support schemes for renewable energy. The analysis shows considerable variation in transposition performance between the analysed countries. The authors investigate the reasons for this variation and relate them to findings of European implementation and compliance research. Key factors identified include actor-related and capacity-related factors, institutional fit, and characteristics of the RED II itself. Future research in this field needs multi-faceted avenues and should pay particular attention to the influence of national governments and incumbents, not only in the transposition process, but already in upstream policy formulation at the European level.

This documents contains Deliverable 6.3 of the H2020 Project titled 'COME-RES'. In COME-RES’ broader objective of supporting the development of renewable energy communities (RECs) in nine European countries, one activity is the facilitation of so-called ‘transfer activities’ where teams from mentoring regions are coupled to learning regions to share experiences and knowledge. The following pairs have been composed: Thuringia (Germany) / North Brabant (the Netherlands), Apulia (Italy) / Flanders (Belgium), Latvia / Piedmont (Italy), Canary Islands (Spain) / Comunidad Valenciana (Spain). In the activities of COME-RES prior to this report, stakeholders from learning regions have visited the mentoring regions with the purpose of studying a single best practice for community energy. This report describes the activities in the context of a return visit of practitioners of the mentoring region to the learning region. The key purpose of this return activity was to draw up a roadmap which describes tangible steps towards implementing (aspects of) the best practice in the learning region. After an introduction, this report starts with describing the so-called ‘Dynamic learning lab methodology’ which acted as a basis for the transfer teams to compile a roadmap. The results section describes the activities undertaken in the return visits and the resulting roadmaps. A final conclusion section takes stock of more generic lessons learnt from the four transfer workshops. One main lesson is under which conditions a transfer of concepts is possible and how it demands a great amount of ‘translation’ between different national contexts. Another finding is how difficult it is to demand and achieve a deeper type of reflection as asked for within the ‘Dynamic learning lab methodology’. In this light, this report recommends to keep methodologies for roadmaps more adaptable to the specific situation at hand.

This Deliverable 3.4 aims to elicit stakeholders’ experience and perspectives concerning renewable energy communities (RECs), to identify solutions to improve legal and policy frameworks and provide enabling conditions for RECs development, and opportunities and limitations for cross-country knowledge transfer. Building on the in-depth and qualitative study on how relevant actors perceive drivers and barriers to establish and successfully run RECs in Deliverable 2.3 - Synthesis Report on case-studies of drivers and barriers in five selected target regions (Standal et al. 2022), this Deliverable explores national and target region stakeholders’ views on attitudes, motivations, relevant technologies and legal forms, promising sectors for RECs, main barriers for developing RECs. Furthermore, the stakeholders’ familiarity with REDII and REC as a concept is explored, as well as national and local policies and support mechanisms that are seen as relevant for cross-country/region transfer.

With the ‘Clean Energy for all Europeans’ package the European Commission intended to put consumers ‘at the heart’ of EU energy policies. The recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II) acknowledged the importance of energy communities for the energy transition. It includes new provisions for renewable energy communities (RECs) empowering them to participate in the energy market. By 30 June 2021, Member States were requested to transpose the definition of RECs, their rights and duties and develop enabling frameworks. Furthermore, Member States shall take into account the specificities of RECs when designing support schemes in order to allow them to compete for support on an equal footing with other market participants. This document, Deliverable 7.1 of the Horizon 2020 project COME RES, analyses the progress in transposing and implementing the provisions contained in RED II that apply to RECs in the nine COME RES countries, namely Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Spain. The aim of the report is to provide an updated and detailed review of the enabling frameworks for RECs as specified in Art. 22(4) of RED II and to scrutinise the extent to which the analysed countries consider the specificities of RECs when designing support schemes for renewable energy sources, pursuant to Art. 22(7) of RED II. In addition to the qualitative assessment, the COME RES partners carried out a quantitative assessment of the transposition performance. This covers three sections: (1) definition, rights and market activities of RECs, (2) key elements of enabling frameworks pursuant to RED II Art. 22(4) and (3) the consideration of REC specificities in support scheme designs and other economic incentives. The individual country reports and the calibration table can be found in the annex of this report. Methodologically, the individual country policy assessments are mainly based on desk research, particularly analysis of legal documents, including the integrated National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs), and secondary literature. They also integrate observations and interim findings of the country desk events in the COME RES partner countries. This report takes into account the policy developments until 15 July 2022. Progress and performance of transposition varies considerably among the analysed countries. Thus, Belgium (Flanders) and Italy have made the most progress in transposing the definitions, rights, obligations and market activities of RECs. Portugal and Spain have also made good progress, but there are still several key provisions which are not transposed or specified yet. In Latvia, amendments to relevant laws containing key provisions of RECs and citizen energy communities (CECs) have been adopted in July 2022. These amendments provide a general framework; many details have to be worked out by subsequent governmental regulations. Although in Germany ownership of renewable energy installations by individuals or communities has a long tradition, the previous Federal government failed to timely and properly transpose the RED II and its provisions for RECs. Under the new government, the transposition process and the creation of an enabling framework gained momentum, but important transposition gaps still remain (e.g., energy sharing). In the Netherlands, only a draft legislation exists and merges RECs and CECs into one concept. Most criteria of the RED II definition of RECs are covered in the draft legislation. In Poland, transposition is lagging behind compared to other COME RES countries. In Norway, the EU Directives do not automatically apply, but rather depend on negotiations between the EU and the EEA/European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Currently, RED II is still under review by the EEA/EFTA. In spite of some positive developments in the field of collective self-consumption at the building/block level, much work is still necessary to transpose the requirements of RED II. Formal compliance with the provisions of RED II and literal transposition of the key principles and criteria (“copy and paste” approach) is by far not sufficient to effectively promote and facilitate the development of RECs. The RED II contains many indefinite legal concepts that have to be ‘filled with life and elaborated on what they mean at the national level. These affect membership and governance aspects, spatial and system-related boundaries, but also technical parameters, activities and integration into energy markets. Depending on how governments interpret and specify those indefinite legal terms, the national provisions for RECs might turn out as a barrier or enabler for RECs. Besides definitions and acknowledgements of specific market activities, the creation of an effective enabling framework requires fine-tuning of the existing energy governance and physical infrastructure to accommodate RECs, especially in relation to incentives, subsidies, and access to energy markets. So far, none of the countries under scrutiny has developed an enabling framework to promote and facilitate the development of RECs that would fully or largely comply with the minimum requirements listed in RED II. In most countries, enabling frameworks are still underdeveloped or fragmentary. However, the implementation of enabling frameworks is progressing in almost all countries, albeit with different commitment, pace, and support. Among the countries analysed, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain appear to be the most advanced countries in this respect.

Deliverable 4.2 (D 4.2) addresses various model financing instruments, with a focus on the framework conditions and the context. D 4.2 provides an analysis of the financing instruments and of their instrumental adequacy to promote RECs. The D 4.2 report will also consider established financial incentives to promote RECs under “grid-supporting” conditions. This implies an overview on different tariffs (energy and grid) as well as the corresponding legal framework conditions for the economic viability of RECs in future energy markets. The report shortly analyses the regulatory framework conditions with regard to grid tariffs for active and passive market participants. Furthermore, the project report D4.2 will – following the tradition of hands-on approaches under COME RES in the target regions - give an overview of the financing instruments that already exist in the COME RES countries, including e.g. tax incentives, renewable energy certificates or specific local bond mechanisms. Throughout this task they will be analysed regarding their benefits and deficits, based on input received from the COME RES countries. This analysis can then be used to determine appropriate business models and financing instruments, which work best under certain local specific conditions. Preliminary results of this Deliverable were fed into project tasks 5.2 and 5.3 which identify and assess good and best practice cases of RECs. &nbsp

One of the emergent trends in the sustainable energy transition is the development of distributed power generation. In Europe, it is estimated that up half of citizens of the European Union (EU) could be energy self-sufficient, potentially supplying 45% of Europe’s final energy demand by 2050 (Kampman, et al., 2016). While there are many challenges with a move towards more distributed, citizen-led energy projects, they are nevertheless supported and promoted by the EU in the RED II (EU Renewable Energy Directive as part of the 2016 “Clean Energy of all Europeans” initiative, directive 2018/2001/EU), which secures the right for citizens and communities to produce, store, consume and sell renewable energy, and other rights such as consumer’s protection or access to all energy markets directly or through third parties. Socially, this often takes the form of community energy projects in the form of collective action initiatives (CAI). CAIs, which include energy cooperatives, prosumer networks, and other citizen-led energy projects, are examples of social innovation (Gregg, et al., 2020) in how they organize and gain power through a social movement mechanism. Social innovation is the development of activities and services to meet a social need, and social innovations are primarily social in both their ends and their means. Among other things, energy CAIs are typically characterized by a focus on the community, open and voluntary participation, democratic governance, and autonomy and independence (ICA, 2021). The social benefits of energy CAIs include: developing local economies, addressing energy poverty, raising awareness about sustainable energy, promoting energy justice, giving a voice to the community, developing local skills and promoting social cohesion. Current research on CAIs explores how they are defined and the different ownership structures (Gorroño-Albizu, 2019), and how they mobilize and attain power (Gregg et al., 2020). Other research traces the history of their development within specific contexts or geographical areas, and how they influence or are influenced by national energy policies (Wierling et al., 2018). Still other research uses the lens of organizational and institutional theory to understand the historical development of energy CAIs (Mey and Diesendorf, 2018).

While we can rely on markets to match producer supply with consumer demand for most goods and services, markets fail to yield the socially optimal outcome in the case of pollution so that government interventions are desirable. However, determining the "right" level of environmental protection is a question that holds both a social and a political component. Policy makers are not only concerned with the net social benefit of environmental measures, but also with the consequences for those who have to bear the costs. We describe a normative approach to integrate affordability criteria in the implementation of environmental policies. We focus on the affordability of abatement measures for the industrial sector. Subsequently, we illustrate our approach and suggested cut-off points by means of some case studies. The cases show that affordability criteria can support policy makers in their assessment of candidate "Best Available Techniques" under the European Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control as well as in the assessment of alternative programmes of measures to achieve good water status under the European Water Framework Directive. The criteria presented are a tool for objectifying the discussion between industry and policymakers about the affordability of environmental measures. xpert judgement and negotiation remain essential in defining and implementing environmental policy.

In 2019, Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) were formally defined in the European regulatory framework within RED II. As Lowitzsch et al. (2020) state, RECs are regarded as a valid option for an inclusive energy transition in Europe. RED II defines that the motives for a REC shall not be purely economic but mostly driven by ecological aims and social benefits. As a REC still represents a business that has to be economically viable, a focus on successful business models is necessary in order to assist the various COME RES regions and beyond to get a good element for their individual toolboxes to promote/engage in RECs. In the context of COME RES transfer activities, workshops have been carried out in Germany, Italy, Latvia and Poland scrutinizing best practice cases from the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Poland. During these workshops, a good practice business model from a concrete REC (or energy cooperative/cluster) from an EU member state has been discussed in a so-called learning region. The transferability of the business model to the learning region was assessed and necessary adaptations due to national legal frameworks and market conditions have been discussed. Methodologically, the Business Model Canvas by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2013) was applied to structure the focus of the transferred business models and to evaluate how a tailor-made business model could look like in the learning regions. Some similarities were noticeable over all transfer cases: Local municipalities are regarded as key partners of a well-functioning REC business model, as those are key actors in any local context, and can provide suitable areas for the installation of RES plants (e.g. rooftops) and also stand as an enabler of the project in general. Funding is regarded as a key resource, alongside knowledge and members of a REC. The cost structure is similar as well and revolves around the initial cost that relates to the setup of the RES infrastructure and tariffs or fees that have to be considered for the use of public distribution grids. In conclusion, the transfer of business models from other contexts is possible, if those are translated and adjusted and not only copied to another context. To facilitate the business possibilities of a REC, the proper transposition of RED II, especially regarding enabling conditions for Energy Sharing should be implemented.

One of the objectives of COME RES is to initiate, engage and feedback with major stakeholders and market actors. In all participating countries, these have been actively involved in regular solution- oriented stakeholder dialogues to co-create solutions to overcome existing barriers for the growth of community energy and setting up an enabling framework. Throughout the project lifetime, the country desks ensured wide engagement of market actors and stakeholders and created new or reinforced existing networks. Dialogues with major stakeholders in thematic workshops, policy labs and dedicated stakeholder consultations helped to address critical barriers and drivers for RECs in each target region, to identify and select good/best practices and to derive policy recommendations. The stakeholders involved in the desks accompanied all work phases and tasks, provided advice, and supported the dissemination of the results. Although there are stakeholder groups that are present in each country, there are some stakeholder groups that are more influential in one country than in another or that are specific to a country (e.g. ethnic minorities). Moreover, the activities of the country desks varied from country to country according to the regional needs while being inspired by the same specific objectives. The engagement of local stakeholders in the so-called target regions represented a valuable resource especially when identifying and discussing major hurdles and the possibilities to co-create solutions in order to overcome existing barriers. They acknowledged the benefits for growth of community energy in their regions by learning from the experience of other COME RES countries and by discussing the chance of implementing best-practices initiated elsewhere. The final consolidated report of the country desk activities comprises the activities performed within the framework of Work Package 3 “Country Desks and stakeholder dialogues” and summarises and documents all events and accomplishments of the eight COME RES country desks between September 2020 and December 2022. The report is composed by four main sections and is structured as follows: A brief introduction, with the background and purpose of the report. An overview of the activities undertaken by all the country desks, providing an aggregated review of the major activities and respective outputs. The desks have been successful in engaging a wide set of stakeholders and market actors, covering all the major stakeholder groups identified in D3.1. The current progress is compliant with the project ́s expected outputs, fully aligned with the description of the Grant Agreement. A more detailed description of the activities held by each of the country desks, with the identification of the main topics, participants and outputs. The breakdown of the participants per stakeholder group is also available for the different events, showing the diversity of stakeholders participating in the different activities. A final section with the main conclusions of the report and reflections on future steps. Overall, the report shows the compliance with the KPIs, both in terms of the number of events organised as well as in terms of stakeholders’ engagement. Some KPIs have even been outperformed. Moreover, the report also highlights the relevance of the desk activities in the respective country/regional context, and how they gave impetus to both other project activities and the national and regional policy formulations in fostering enabling frameworks for renewable energy communities. At the end of the project, there are positive signals that the infrastructure, set up with the establishment of the country desks, could continue after the end of the project and that ways for further cooperations could be found. The core stakeholders in almost all country desks pledged that they would seize all the opportunities to ensure the continuation of the networks. Actions plans have been sketched for Italy, Latvia, Spain and Portugal. These activities received the input and endorsement from key players and market actors of the target regions. The signature of three Memoranda of Understanding between the Canary Island and Comptem (see the Spanish section) and between Magliano Alpi (Italy) and Latvian major stakeholders (see the Latvian and Italian sessions) as well as Thuringian main stakeholders and Dutch initiators of two large energy gardens (see the German Section) demonstrate the sustainability of the actions beyond lifetime of COME RES.

Deliverable 5.3 includes the presentation of the methodological process for best practice development and comparative analysis on drivers and success factors of the different best practice cases. All best practice case studies are synthesised and showcased. In order to conduct a first comparative analysis, a Truth Table has been developed that allows to compare the different relevant factors between cases and identify cross-case patterns in order to infer general conclusions. Based on this, the findings on common drivers and success factors are presented and analysed, both collectively and individually. As a result of this analysis, a series of lessons have been learnt and a list of recommendations for policymakers and REC developers are provided. Finally, some general remarks for the transfer of best practice cases to the COME RES target regions and beyond are elaborated.

Deliverable 5.2 includes the categorisation and characterisation of all 21 good practice cases and the selection and justification of the best practice cases. The case studies are analysed according to the methodology and template elaborated in Deliverable 5.1 and describe and examine the activities, purposes and benefits of each good practice; between 1-3 for each COME RES participating country.