FEAD position: Renewable energy legal framework

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, representing the private waste management industries in Europe, welcomes the possibility to respond to this valuable initiative promoted by the European Commission on shaping the renewable energy legal framework. FEAD puts forward a few important recommendations to streamline the contributions from the waste management sector and advocates for such changes to be introduced as soon as possible within the framework of an energy omnibus and not only in view of a post-2030 framework.

The waste management sector is a crucial contributor to Europe’s energy transition, supplying reliable, domestic renewable energy through biogas biomethane and biofuels from biowaste, biobased liquid wastes, refuse-derived fuel (RDF) as well as other energy recovery pathways from non-recyclable waste streams containing biomass fraction. These pathways not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also strengthen energy security, support industrial competitiveness, and advance circular economy objectives.

Given the growing vulnerability of the energy sector and enduring reliance on energy imports from outside the European Union, these contributions are becoming increasingly important for safeguarding Europe’s energy security.

FEAD’s recommendations for the EU renewable energy framework

FEAD strongly supports the urgent need to streamline the overall framework and regulatory and administrative procedures. We therefore call for speedy simplifications of the current system by taking into account the following recommendations:

1. Define a broad de-facto compliance for waste eligible under RED:

• Recognise eligible waste streams under RED as meeting Article 29 sustainability and GHG savings criteria by default, without the need of certification.
• This de-facto compliance should broadly cover RED-eligible hazardous and non-hazardous industrial, commercial and municipal waste.
• Waste streams directly coming from agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry industries should not be covered by this de-facto compliance presumption and remain subject to the regular RED framework.

Rationale: waste value chains are often long and involve numerous small actors, facing administrative and financial barriers to participation, while their primarily purpose is not the production of energy but the safe and sustainable collection and treatment of waste. The RED framework was not conceived for the waste sector and indeed, full RED certification is challenging for it. Some supply chains achieve only 0–70% compliance, which represents a direct barrier to the valorisation of biowastes and non-recyclable wastes. Moreover, in some cases only a specific fraction of the waste is eligible under RED (corresponding biodegradable, biobased fraction). This may represent a minor share of the renewable energy output but is still subject to the full administrative burden linked to RED certification (e.g. hazardous waste). This simplified approach would support the valorisation of biowaste as well as the biodegradable or biobased fraction embedded in non-recyclable waste streams, including waste-derived fuels, where such pathways contribute to landfill diversion, energy resilience and the safe treatment of non-recyclable waste.

2. Define a binding and dedicated production target for biomethane from waste

• The current aspirational goal of 35 billion cubic meters (bcm) of biomethane by 2030 outlined in the REPowerEU Plan, must be converted into a binding production target.
• In addition, a dedicated sub-target must be defined for biomethane from waste to ensure long-term demand visibility for the waste management and industrial sectors.
• Such dedicated sub-target is necessary because currently only the existing incentive schemes make biomethane from waste competitive with fossil natural gas. However, once these incentives expire, the production of biomethane from waste generally becomes economically unviable compared to natural gas. While this outcome is partly influenced by the market price of natural gas, under normal market conditions biomethane from waste is not competitive on its own.
• Although producers of waste-derived biomethane may benefit from additional revenue streams, such as Guarantees of Origin, only dedicated sub-targets will keep their market value high enough to ensure the competitiveness of the activity. Without such dedicated sub-targets for waste-derived biomethane, the value of Guarantees of Origin will be entirely market-driven and subject to competition with other advanced biofuels. In this context, pricing power will largely rest with obligated companies, which are increasingly expected to self-produce the biofuels and advanced biofuels required to meet their obligations, thereby further limiting market access and revenues for independent producers of biomethane from waste.

Experience clearly shows that the current market value of Guarantees of Origin is extremely low and insufficient to cover production costs for biomethane from waste. Without continued and adequate support mechanisms, there is a tangible risk that existing plants will cease production once incentive schemes come to an end.

3. Review and extend existing incentive schemes for biogas and biomethane production from waste:

• Ensure operational continuity for waste-derived biogas and biomethane production plants which risk being unable to continue operating without incentives. It is fundamental to ensure that producers have stable and adequate revenues to cover production costs beyond the initial investments period and to strengthen demand for waste-derived biogas and biomethane and, at the same time, guarantee producers certain and sufficient revenues to cover production costs, even in the post-incentive phase.
• Renewable energy supporting schemes should additionally encourage the repowering, revamping, and hybridization of existing generation assets to increase their efficiency.
• Dedicated incentives and extended support are needed to safeguard existing capacity and prevent a loss of biogas and biomethane supply, which would run counter to the objectives of decarbonisation, circular economy and waste-based renewable energy.

Additional recommendations would consider:

• Legal definitions and fiscal treatment: Hard-law provisions should clarify that heat cogenerated through renewable gases is considered renewable energy. Additionally, electrification and efficient district heating should receive favourable fiscal treatment compared to fossil fuels to reduce primary energy demand.
• Flexible rules for RFNBOs: A pragmatic revision of the rules for Renewable Fuels of Non-Biological Origin (RFNBOs) is needed, including the permanent waiver of additionality requirements for plants entering operation before 2035 and allowing monthly temporal matching indefinitely to unlock hydrogen production.

It is, therefore, considered appropriate that the future regulatory framework acknowledges the strategic role of both anaerobic digestion and waste-to-energy plants as fundamental elements of integrated waste management and energy production system. Anaerobic digestion plants enable the efficient production of biomethane from organic waste. Likewise, waste-to-energy facilities ensure the safe treatment of non-recyclable waste, contributing to the reduction of landfilling while simultaneously providing reliable and local energy. Supporting these infrastructures is essential for strengthening Europe’s energy resilience and reducing dependence on external energy sources.

Beyond FEAD’s recommendations, some challenges in the implementation of RED III still remain for the waste management operators.

Key challenges in the implementation of RED III

• Delay in implementation: although competent authorities have some flexibility to grant derogations – allowing more time for value chain actors to meet certification requirements, as is the case in France – implementation delays continue to persist.

The European Commission sent reasoned opinions to some EU Member States (Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Sweden) for not having transposed into national law EU rules accelerating permitting procedures for renewable energy projects. Some others (Greece, France, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Poland and Portugal) have been recalled for failing to fully transpose the provisions of the RED III into national law. These delays underline a broader challenge: implementation and infrastructure maturity remain very uneven across Member States, in particular as regards separate biowaste collection rates, anaerobic digestion capacity, and the availability of alternative treatment for non-recyclable municipal waste. Particular attention must be given to those Member States where infrastructure gaps remain significant and investment needs are highest.

• Administrative capacity for permitting: Accelerating permitting procedures for renewable energy and grid infrastructure, including waste management infrastructure, requires a significant increase in the technical and administrative capacity of local and national authorities. The European Commission should provide these authorities with dedicated technical assistance and financial support.
• Complexity of certification: Waste value chains are often long and involve numerous small actors. Full RED certification is challenging, with some supply chains achieving only 0–70% compliance. Small operators face administrative and financial barriers to participation.
• Duplication of traceability requirements and administrative and financial burdens: RED introduces parallel traceability systems (IT, staff, multiple declarations, audit systems, keep up-to-date mass balance) on top of EU waste legislation, increasing compliance costs and creating potential inconsistencies. In markets where tariff or cost-recovery regulation remains weak or delayed, these additional obligations may discourage investment rather than facilitate the development of waste-based renewable energy projects.
• Divergent interpretation by voluntary schemes: Voluntary schemes interpret RED requirements differently, leading to uncertainty and repeated audits when operators switch schemes. Divergent views between auditors and Member States add extra uncertainty layers to the whole process. Moreover, requiring self-declarations from every waste owner places an administrative burden that not all actors are able to meet.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Transitional arrangements under RED III, interactions with EU ETS rules, and grandfathering clauses create temporary uncertainty for economic operators and investors.

A harmonised, proportionate approach will advance the 2040 climate target, enhance EU industrial competitiveness, and maintain high sustainability standards, while simplifying the legal framework and facilitating its implementation. FEAD remains committed to further dialogues to contribute shaping the renewable energy legal framework in the next decade.

FEAD, the European Waste Management Association, represents the entire waste management value chain, from collection and sorting to recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. It brings together the private waste and resource management industry across Europe through its 21 national member associations and associate members, which collectively represent over 3,000 companies. Together, the sector provides more than 500,000 local jobs and fuels €5 billion in investments into the economy every year. For more information, please contact: info@fead.be