The Renewable Energy Directive’s main provisions: a Union-wide target for 2030, cooperation mechanisms and the rules on financial support
The Directive’s aim is that of providing a common framework “for the promotion of energy from renewable sources” [2]. It furthermore contains rules on financial support for electricity from renewable energy sources, on self-consumption of renewable energy electricity, on the uptake of such energy in the heating and cooling sector, as well as in the transport sectors [2]. Lastly, it sets out sustainability and greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions criteria for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels (see Article 2 of RED II for definitions of these terms) [2].
To ensure the uptake of renewables, Article 3(1) sets a binding Union-wide target by 2030 of ‘at least 32%’ of the EU’s gross final consumption to come from renewable energy sources [3]. Acknowledging the diversity among Member States, the Directive encourages cooperation mechanisms between Member States and between Member States and non-EU countries in the form of bilateral or multilateral arrangements [4]. This could take the form of statistical transfers (Article 8), joint projects and joint support schemes, but also exchanges of information and best practices [5]. Pursuant to Article 4(1), Member States may decide to apply support schemes to reach the Union and national targets. Such support must be granted in “an open, transparent, competitive, non-discriminatory and cost-effective manner” [6]. Lastly, pursuant to Article 2(1), biomass is considered ‘renewable energy’. Article 29(1)(c) further provides that energy for consumption from biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels is eligible for financial support if certain sustainability and GHG emissions criteria are met. The classification of biomass as a renewable energy source has however not been free from criticism. The European Academies’ Science Advisory Council, for example, strongly advised against considering biomass as a renewable energy source, “unless the replacement of fossil fuels by biomass leads to real reductions in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 within a decade or so” [7]. In EU Biomass Plaintiffs v. European Union, applicants from six countries challenged such classification by arguing that inter alia this would accelerate forest devastation and deforestation and that, by not counting the emissions produced by burning wood fuels, the classification would lead to an overall significant increase in GHG emissions [8]. Their case however was dismissed.
The ‘Fit for 55 Package’
As part of the ‘Fit for 55 Package’, the European Commission (‘EC’) introduced a revision to RED [9]. The amendment is regarded as a necessary precondition for the EU to reach climate neutrality by 2050 [9, 10].
The EC revision included increasing the overall EU-target from ‘at least 32%’ of renewable energy sources in the energy mix to ‘at least 42,5%’ by 2030 [9]. It furthermore laid out an extensive framework for the employment of renewable energy sources across all sectors of the economy. In particular, it set out to strengthen the measures for those sectors (such as transport, buildings and industry) where integration of renewables proved to be much more difficult [10]. Furthermore, in those sectors where renewable-based electrification is currently seen as impractical, the EC allows for the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels, in particular hydrogen [9, 10]. Lastly, the criteria for forest biomass are also tightened to ensure consistency with the EU’s biodiversity objectives [10].
It is worth noting that when the revision was first introduced it faced criticism based on different viewpoints. On the one hand, those who believe in the potential of bioenergy in the run-up to climate neutrality accused the revised version of being ‘poorly designed’ and of failing to ‘meet expectations’ [11]. On the other hand, NGOs fiercely protested against the revised version. They accused the EC of being influenced by months of lobbying, leading it to ultimately ignore the existing scientific knowledge on the matter and continuing to allow the destruction of forests [12]. They thus urged the EC to exclude biomass as a renewable energy source from the proposal [13]. Others such as the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) also claim that the potential of both hydrogen and biomass have been overestimated as “as if they were a magic wand that could decarbonise all sectors” [14].
Despite the controversy, there is no denying that REDIII has certain merits, especially with regards setting a more ambitious emission reduction targets, improving traceability and compliance with biofuel production standards, as well as greater alignment with other EU regulations, such as CBAM, EUDR and ETS.
This article was updated in February 2026 based on the following sources:
– Renewable Energy Directive, European Commission, https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-directive_en, accessed on 19.02.2026
– EU Biomass Plaintiffs v. European Union, Columbia Law School, https://www.climatecasechart.com/document/eu-biomass-plaintiffs-v-european-union_e50a, accessed on 19.02.2026
– Your guide to the RED III Directive: What this means for biofuels, Circularisehttps://www.circularise.com/blogs/red-iii-directive, accessed on 19.02.2026
