EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
CLIMATE ACTION
Directorate B – Carbon Markets & Clean Mobility
Unit B.2 – ETS (II): Implementation, Policy Support & ETS Registry

Guidance Document
Biomass issues in the EU ETS

MRR Guidance document No. 3,

Updated Version, 17 October 2022

This document is part of a series of documents provided by the Commission ser-

vices for supporting the implementation of the “Monitoring and Reporting Regu-
lation (the “MRR”) for the EU ETS (the European Union Emission Trading Sys-
tem). A new version of the MRR was adopted for the use in the 4th phase of the
EU ETS, i.e. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066 of 19 De-
cember 2018 in its current version at the time of updating this guidance1.
The guidance represents the views of the Commission services at the time of
publication. It is not legally binding.
This guidance document takes into account the discussions within meetings of
the informal Technical Working Group on MRVA (Monitoring, Reporting, Verifica-
tion and Accreditation) under the WG III of the Climate Change Committee
(CCC), as well as written comments received from stakeholders and experts from
Member States. This guidance document was endorsed by the representatives
of the Member States at the Climate Change Committee by written procedure
ending on 14 October 2022.
All guidance documents and templates can be downloaded from the Commis-
sion’s website at the following address:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-
ets/monitoring-reporting-and-verification-eu-ets-emissions_en

1
Updated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2085 of 14 December 2020 amend-
ing and correcting Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066 on the monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council; the consolidated MRR can be found here:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/2066/2022-08-28

1
 Version History
Date Version status Remarks
17 October published Endorsed by CCC on 17 October 2012
2012
27 November re-published Revised version: Chapter relevant for Aircraft
2017 operators moved to Guidance Document No. 2;
Further minor updates taking into account gen-
eral updates of the MRVA suite of guidance
materials.
Hyperlinks updated.
17 October re-published Major revision:
2022
 Move from MRR 2012 to MRR 2018, includ-
ing its revisions in 2020 and 2022, i.e.
revision for use in the 4th phase of the EU
ETS.
 Take into account new requirements by
RED II (recast of the Renewable Energies
Directive).
 Description of RED II certification schemes
based on implementing act (Art. 30(8)
RED II), including examples
 Guidance on biogas in grids extended
 Further FAQs added

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 5
1.1 About this document ............................................................................5
1.2 How to use this document ...................................................................5
1.3 Where to find further information ........................................................6

2 OVERVIEW ................................................................................ 9

3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZERO-RATING OF BIOMASS ... 10

3.1 Alignment of EU ETS and RED II .......................................................10
3.1.1 Transition period ...................................................................................10
3.2 Definitions ............................................................................................11
3.3 Implications of the RED II criteria ......................................................12
3.4 Practical approach for RED II criteria ...............................................14
3.4.1 General responsibilities .........................................................................15
3.4.2 Which criteria apply? .............................................................................15
3.4.3 National systems ...................................................................................19
3.4.4 Voluntary schemes ................................................................................20
3.4.5 How do RED II certification schemes work? .........................................21
3.4.6 How to provide evidence for RED II criteria ..........................................26
3.4.7 Examples...............................................................................................35

4 DETERMINING THE BIOMASS FRACTION ............................ 39

4.1 General approach ................................................................................39
4.2 Laboratory analyses for biomass fraction .......................................41
4.3 Estimation methods ............................................................................43
4.3.1 General approach .................................................................................43
4.3.2 Using RED II proofs of sustainability expressed as energy content .....43

5 OTHER SPECIFIC MRR RULES ON BIOMASS ...................... 45

5.1 Simplifications by Article 38 ..............................................................45
5.2 Biomass and CEMS ............................................................................46
5.3 Biogas in natural gas grids ................................................................47
5.3.1 Member States’ approaches and biogas registries ...............................47
5.3.2 What are purchase records ...................................................................48
5.3.3 Meaning of “the same grid” ...................................................................48
5.3.4 Avoiding double counting ......................................................................49
5.3.5 Biogas trading across MS borders ........................................................49

6 AVIATION SPECIFIC ASPECTS ............................................. 51

6.1 Sustainability and GHG savings criteria ...........................................51
6.2 Biofuel determination based on purchase records .........................51

7 ANNEX I ................................................................................... 52

3
 7.1 List of biomass materials ...................................................................52
7.1.1 Clarification for some non-biomass materials .......................................52
7.1.2 Biomass materials .................................................................................52
7.2 List of default values for calculation factors for some biomass
materials ...............................................................................................54
7.2.1 Preliminary emission factors .................................................................54
7.2.2 Mixed materials .....................................................................................55

8 ANNEX II – ACRONYMS AND LEGISLATION ........................ 56

8.1 Acronyms .............................................................................................56
8.2 Legislative texts ..................................................................................56

9 ANNEX III: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS .................... 58

9.1 What is the “preliminary” emission factor and how is it
determined? .........................................................................................58
9.2 Biomass fraction for waste tyres.......................................................59
9.3 What are suitable estimation methods to determine the biomass
fraction? ...............................................................................................59
9.4 How to report emissions from mixed (fossil-biomass) materials? 61
9.5 Waste-related FAQs ............................................................................63
9.5.1 Is municipal sewage sludge a municipal solid waste? ..........................63
9.5.2 Which RED II criteria apply to landfill gas? ...........................................63
9.5.3 Which RED II criteria apply to sewage sludge and biogas produced
from it? ..................................................................................................64
9.5.4 Which RED II criteria apply to fuels produced from municipal solid
waste? ...................................................................................................64
9.5.5 Which RED II criteria apply to waste tyres? ..........................................64
9.5.6 Which criteria apply to impregnated sawdust? .....................................64
9.5.7 Which criteria apply to agricultural products becoming wastes due to a
contamination? ......................................................................................65
9.5.8 Can the European waste catalogue help in classifying materials? .......65
9.5.9 How to classify agricultural wastes? .....................................................65
9.6 Oxidation and conversion factors of mixed materials ....................66
9.7 How to decide if a material is solid or liquid? ..................................66
9.8 Examples for biomass not satisfying RED II criteria .......................67

4
 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 About this document

This document has been written to support the implementation of the EU ETS
Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR), by explaining its requirements in a
non-legislative language. It focusses on biomass issues only. For more general
guidance, see GD 1 (General guidance for installations) and GD 2 (General guid-
ance for aircraft operators). This guidance does not add to the mandatory require-
ments of the MRR, but it is aimed at assisting in more correct interpretation and
facilitated implementation.
This document interprets the Regulation regarding requirements for biomass (fo-
cus on stationary installations). It takes into account the valuable input from the
task force on monitoring and reporting established under the EU ETS Compliance
Forum, and from the informal Technical Working Group on Monitoring, Reporting,
Verification and Accreditation (TWG MRVA) of Member State experts established
under Working Group 3 (WG III) of the Climate Change Committee.
This guidance document represents the views of the Commission services at the
time of publication. It is not legally binding.

1.2 How to use this document

Where article numbers are given in this document without further specification,
they always refer to the MRR 2018 in its current version2. Where “MRR” is spec-
ified without publication year, the MRR 2018 is meant.
This document explains the biomass-related provisions of the MRR 2018. While
the MRR 2018 applies in general to emissions from 2021 onwards, several bio-
mass-related provisions of the MRR 2018 will apply in full only from 2023.3 A
“New!” symbol (such as the one in the margin here) indicates where changes to
requirements compared to the MRR 20124 have taken place.

This symbol points to important hints for operators and competent authorities.

This indicator is used where significant simplifications to the general requirements

of the MRR are promoted.

The light bulb is used where best practices or useful hints are presented.

The tools tell the reader that other documents, templates or electronic tools are
available from other sources.

The book points to examples given for the topics discussed in the surrounding
text.

2
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2066; The consolidated MRR valid at the time of updating this
guidance can be found here: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/2066/2022-08-28
3
For details on timing, see section 3.1.1.
4
MRR 2012: Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, with several amendments.

5
 1.3 Where to find further information

All guidance documents and templates provided by the Commission on the basis
of the Monitoring and Reporting Regulation (MRR) and the Accreditation and Ver-
ification Regulation (AVR) can be downloaded from the Commission’s website at
the following address:

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-
ets/monitoring-reporting-and-verification-eu-ets-emissions_en

The following guidance documents are provided5:

 “Quick guides” as introduction to the guidance documents below. Separate
documents are available for each audience:
 Operators of stationary installations;
 Aircraft operators;
 Competent Authorities;
 Verifiers;
 National Accreditation Bodies.
 Guidance document No. 1: “The Monitoring and Reporting Regulation – Gen-
eral guidance for installations”. This document outlines the principles and mon-
itoring approaches of the MRR relevant for stationary installations.
 Guidance document No. 2: “The Monitoring and Reporting Regulation – Gen-
eral guidance for aircraft operators”. This document outlines the principles and
monitoring approaches of the MRR relevant for the aviation sector. It also in-
cludes guidance on the treatment of biomass in the aviation sector, making it
a stand-alone guidance document for aircraft operators.
 Guidance document No. 3: “Biomass issues in the EU ETS”: This document.
It discusses the application of sustainability criteria for biomass, as well as the
requirements of Articles 38 and 39 of the MRR. It is relevant for operators of
installations and useful as background information for aircraft operators.
 Guidance document No. 4: “Guidance on Uncertainty Assessment”. This doc-
ument for installations gives information on assessing the uncertainty associ-
ated with the measurement equipment used, and thus helps the operator to
determine whether he can comply with specific tier requirements.
 Guidance document No. 4a: “Exemplar Uncertainty Assessment”. This doc-
ument contains further guidance and provides examples for carrying out un-
certainty assessments and how to demonstrate compliance with tier require-
ments.
 Guidance document No. 5: “Guidance on Sampling and Analysis” (only for in-
stallations). This document deals with the criteria for the use of non-accredited
laboratories, development of a sampling plan, and various other related issues
concerning the monitoring of emissions in the EU ETS.

5
This list reflects the status at the time of writing this updated guidance. Further documents may be
added later.

6
  Guidance document No. 5a: “Exemplar Sampling Plan”. This document pro-
vides an example sampling plan for a stationary installation.
 Guidance document No. 6: “Data flow and control system”. This document dis-
cusses possibilities to describe data flow activities for monitoring in the EU
ETS, the risk assessment as part of the control system, and examples of con-
trol activities.
 Guidance document No. 6a: “Risk Assessment and control activities – ex-
amples”. This document gives further guidance and an example for a risk
assessment.
 Guidance document No. 7: “Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems
(CEMS)”. For stationary installations, this document gives information on the
application of measurement-based approaches where GHG emissions are
measured directly in the stack, and thus helps the operator to determine which
type of equipment has to be used and whether he can comply with specific tier
requirements.
 Guidance document No. 8: “EU ETS Inspections”: Targeted at competent au-
thorities, this document outlines the role of the CA’s inspections for strength-
ening the MRVA system of the EU ETS.

The Commission furthermore provides the following electronic templates:

 Template No. 1: Monitoring plan for the emissions of stationary installations
 Template No. 2: Monitoring plan for the emissions of aircraft operators
 Template No. 3: Monitoring plan for the tonne-kilometre data of aircraft opera-
tors
 Template No. 4: Annual emissions report of stationary installations
 Template No. 5: Annual emissions report of aircraft operators
 Template No. 6: Tonne-kilometre data report of aircraft operators
 Template No. 7: Improvement report of stationary installations
 Template No. 8: Improvement report of aircraft operators

There are furthermore the following tools available for operators:

 Unreasonable costs determination tool;
 Tool for the assessment of uncertainties;
 Frequency of Analysis Tool;
 Tool for operator risk assessment.

The following MRR training material is available for operators:

 Roadmap through M&R Guidance
 Uncertainty assessment
 Unreasonable costs
 Sampling plans
 Data gaps
 Round Robin Test

7
 Besides these documents dedicated to the MRR, a separate set of guidance
documents on the AVR is available under the same address. Furthermore, the
Commission has provided guidance on the scope of the EU ETS which should
be consulted to decide whether an installation or part thereof should be included
in the EU ETS. That guidance is available under
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/system/files/2016-11/guidance_interpreta-
tion_en.pdf

Monitoring for free allocation purposes:

For phase 4 of the EU ETS, the rules for determining the amount of allowances
allocated for free pursuant to Article 10a of the EU ETS Directive also require the
monitoring and reporting of installation data. Those rules build to some extent on
the MRR, but other data sets are involved (sub-installation level activity data and
“attributed emissions”), and the monitoring and reporting is dealt with separately 6.
Relevant guidance documents and templates are presented on the Commission’s
website:
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/allowances_en#tab-0-1
In terms of monitoring, “Guidance on Monitoring and Reporting in Relation to the
Free Allocation Rules (GD5)” is the most relevant, and “Verification of FAR Base-
line Data Reports and validation of Monitoring Methodology Plans (GD4)” for ver-
ification of the relevant reports.

All EU legislation is found on EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

The most important legislation is furthermore listed in the Annex II of this docu-
ment.

Also competent authorities in the Member States may provide useful guidance
on their own websites. Operators of installations and aircraft operators should in
particular check if the competent authority provides workshops, FAQs, helpdesks
etc.

6
In addition to the monitoring plan under the MRR, a so-called MMP (Monitoring Methodology Plan)
is required. Several other types of reports are relevant: A “Baseline Data Report” (BDR) every 5
years for the calculation of the free allocation, an annual “ALC” (Allocation Level Change) Report,
and in case of new entrants, a “New Entrant Data report” – all of them are to be verified in accord-
ance with the AVR.

8
 2 OVERVIEW
Whenever an operator or aircraft operator intends to use biomass within his in-
stallation or for his aviation activities, the following issues are relevant in addition
to the generic monitoring methodology7:
 In principle, the emission factor of biomass is considered zero8. Thus, no al-
lowances for emissions stemming from biomass have to be surrendered, and
the associated costs are avoided. However, the MRR 2018 allows such “zero-
rating” of biomass emissions only, where the sustainability and greenhouse
gas savings criteria of the Renewable Energy Directive9 (“RED II”) are met, in
order not to incentivise environmentally undesirable use of biomass:
 Sustainability and GHG savings criteria (the RED II criteria) have to be ap-
plied, where appropriate. This is discussed in section 3 of this document.
For aircraft operators, a copy of this text is provided in Guidance Document
No. 2, Annex I.
 Where materials or fuels contain both, fossil and biomass fractions, the bio-
mass fraction (a “calculation factor”) has to be determined (see chapters 4.3,
6.2 and 6.3 of GD 1). The MRR provides for special requirements for deter-
mining the biomass fraction in Article 39, as dealt with in section 4 of this
document.
 Biomass often consists of rather heterogeneous materials. Monitoring may be
difficult. The MRR (Article 38) allows some pragmatic approaches, which are
described in section 5 of this document. That chapter furthermore discusses
biomass in the context of measurement based methodologies and the use of
estimation methodologies.
 Information focussing on aircraft operators is given briefly in section 6, and in
more detail in guidance document 2.
 Annex I of this guidance contains a list of biomass materials, and Annex II
gives a list of acronyms and legislative texts.
 FAQs have been included as Annex III to this guidance document.

7
The “generic methodology” in this context refers to all monitoring and reporting activities required
under the MRR for purely fossil materials. Details can be found in the guidance document No. 1
for installations, and GD 2 for aircraft operators.
8
EU ETS Directive, Annex IV.
9
Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on
the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (recast).

9
 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ZERO-RATING OF
BIOMASS

3.1 Alignment of EU ETS and RED II

An important element of the MRR for phase 4 of the EU ETS is the alignment of
requirements for biomass with those of the Renewable Energy Directive 9 (RED
II), which is subject of chapter 3.

The most important change from RED I 10 to RED II is that sustainability

and GHG savings criteria are relevant not only for liquid, but also for solid
and gaseous biomass.

The relevant provisions for applying sustainability and GHG savings criteria
(together, this document refers to them as the “RED II criteria”) are found in Ar-
ticle 38(5) of the MRR. That Article requires that the RED II criteria have to be
met in order to apply an emission factor of zero to biomass (This is referred to as
“zero-rating” the biomass in this document). Article 38(5) clarifies that if those
criteria are not met, the material must be treated like a fossil fuel, i.e. the
preliminary emission factor has to be considered the final emission factor.

3.1.1 Transition period

The requirement to meet RED II criteria (Article 38(5) of the MRR) has been
deferred due to delays in the availability of required implementing legislation.
While the MRR requires in principle that Article 38(5) is applied from 1 January
2022, another amendment11 allows Member States or their competent author-
ities to deviate from this requirement as follows:
Article 38(6): “By way of derogation from paragraph 5, first subparagraph,
Member States, or competent authorities as appropriate, may consider as ful-
filled the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria referred
to in that paragraph for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels used for com-
bustion from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022.”
This MRR amendment means that effectively in many (or even all) Member
States the RED II criteria have to be applied by operators only from 1 Jan-
uary 2023.

However, Member States which have already implemented all other required
measures under the RED II, may nevertheless require operators in their territory
to provide evidence for meeting RED II criteria as required by Article 38(5) already
from 1 January 2022, and as discussed in section 3.4 below.
Therefore, operators should get confirmation from the competent authority
(e.g. from their website) which approach has been chosen.

10
Directive 2009/28/EC
11
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/388 of 8 March 2022 amending Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2018/2066 on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant
to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Download:
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/388/oj

10
 3.2 Definitions

Article 3 of the MRR copies the biomass-related definitions12 from the RED II as
follows:
'(21) ‘biomass’ means the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and res-
idues from biological origin from agriculture, including vegetal and animal
substances, from forestry and related industries, including fisheries and aq-
uaculture, as well as the biodegradable fraction of waste, including industrial
and municipal waste of biological origin;
(21a) ‘biomass fuels’ means gaseous and solid fuels produced from bio-
mass;
(21b) ‘biogas’ means gaseous fuels produced from biomass;
(21c) ‘waste’ means waste as defined in point (1) of Article 3 of Directive
2008/98/EC, excluding substances that have been intentionally modified or
contaminated in order to meet this definition;
(21d) ‘residue’ means a substance that is not the end product(s) that a pro-
duction process directly seeks to produce; it is not a primary aim of the pro-
duction process and the process has not been deliberately modified to pro-
duce it;
(21e) ‘agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues’ means resi-
dues that are directly generated by agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and
forestry and that do not include residues from related industries or pro-
cessing;
(22) ‘bioliquids’ means liquid fuel for energy purposes other than for
transport, including electricity and heating and cooling, produced from bio-
mass;
(23) ‘biofuels’ means liquid fuels for transport produced from biomass;
From these definitions, the following can be concluded:
 In the context of installations:
 Gaseous biomass is referred to as biogas, but it is also included in the
term biomass fuel is used;
 Liquid biomass is referred to as bioliquid. The term “biofuel” is relevant
only for transport purposes (in the EU ETS this is important for aviation).
 Solid biomass is included in the term biomass fuel.
 In the context of aircraft operators:
 Only liquid fuels are currently used for aviation. Liquid biomass is re-
ferred to as “biofuel”, as it is relevant for transport purposes.
For better readability of this document, the term “biomass” is used in
this document where more exactly it would have to refer to “biofuels,
bioliquids or biomass fuels, or biogenic fractions of mixed fuels that fall
into these categories”.

12
Definitions here are not mutually exclusive. For example, wastes and residues can be at the same
time biomass fuels or bioliquids, if they are used as fuels without further processing.

11
 It is furthermore to be borne in mind that the Renewable Energy Directive – in
accordance with its name – only regulates energetic use of biomass. Conse-
quently, the RED II criteria apply, as worded in Article 29 of that Directive to pro-
duction of electricity, heating and cooling from biofuels, bioliquids or biomass
fuels. For the purpose of the EU ETS, “heating” should be interpreted in a wide
manner, including all types of heat production (measurable and non-measurable
heat). Consequently, where biomass is used as process input in installations
(e.g. where a biomass material is used for chemical syntheses), and where no
energy purpose can be identified, this biomass does not fall within the scope of
the RED II, and consequently neither sustainability criteria nor GHG savings cri-
teria apply. Such material may be zero-rated under the EU ETS if it complies with
the definition of “biomass” without further restriction.
The above-mentioned link to energetic use is reflected in Article 38(5) of the MRR
by restricting the RED II criteria to combustion of biofuels, bioliquids and biomass
fuels. Competent authorities should ensure13 that only those biomass quantities
not used for combustion are exempted from the sustainability criteria.
Annex I of this guidance (section 7.1) contains an informative list of materials
which can be considered as biomass (without prejudice to application of sustain-
ability or GHG savings criteria).

3.3 Implications of the RED II criteria

A source stream14 can be either fossil, biomass or a mixture of both. The appli-
cation of RED II criteria leads to the need to distinguish furthermore the following
types of source streams (some may appear as theoretical cases):
1. Fossil source streams;
2. Biomass where sustainability and/or GHG savings criteria apply:
(a) Criteria are satisfied: Biomass is zero-rated;
(b) Criteria are not satisfied: Biomass is treated like a fossil source stream, i.e.
allowances have to be surrendered for these emissions. In the Commis-
sion’s annual emissions report template, emissions from fossil fractions and
from “non-sustainable biomass” are reported separately.
3. Biomass where RED II criteria do not apply: Always zero-rated.
4. Mixed source streams:
(a) Fossil / biomass mix, where either RED II criteria do not apply, or where
they apply and are satisfied: The emission factor is the preliminary emission
factor15 multiplied by the fossil fraction.
(b) Fossil / biomass mix, where RED II criteria apply and are not satisfied: The
whole source stream is treated as fossil.

13
Point 8 of MRR Annex I, section 1, requires that the operator has in its monitoring plan “a descrip-
tion of the procedure used to assess if biomass source streams comply with Article 38(5)”. Com-
petent authorities will assess this when they approve the monitoring plan of installations or aircraft
operators.
14
Source stream means either fuel or process material leading to emissions. For details see Guid-
ance document No. 1 (general guidance for installations).
15
Article 3(36) of the MRR defines: ‘preliminary emission factor’ means the assumed total emission
factor of a fuel or material based on the carbon content of its biomass fraction and its fossil fraction
before multiplying it by the fossil fraction to produce the emission factor.

12
 (c) Biomass mix or fossil / biomass mix, where RED II criteria apply and only
a part of the biomass satisfies the applicable RED II criteria: These source
streams are to be treated like those under point 4(a), with the non-sustain-
able part considered as part of the fossil fraction.

Examples:
 Point (a): This could be fibre wood panels, where biomass (wood, for which
the RED II criteria are satisfied by certification under a voluntary scheme
(see section 3.4)) is mixed with resins which are usually made from fossil
raw materials.
 Point (b): This could be a liquid fuel where the supplier claims that x% biofuel
has been added, but does not provide evidence for meeting the RED II cri-
teria in accordance with section 3.4 of this guidance for that amount.
 Point (c): An example would be rape seed methyl ester (“biodiesel”), where
the rape seed oil satisfies the sustainability criteria and respective evidence
is provided, while the methanol is either stemming from fossil sources, or
where it is claimed to be biomass, but no evidence for meeting the RED II
criteria is available.

Note that the above classification assumes that the whole source stream has the
same composition, or is analysed using the same methodology where calculation
factors are not based on default values 16. However, the situation may occur that
a certain biofuel, bioliquid or biomass fuel is used, where some batches delivered
do satisfy the relevant RED II criteria, while other batches do not. In such a case
the operator may in its monitoring plan and emissions report either consider this
material as one source stream with different biomass fraction values, or as two
distinct source streams, one being biomass without meeting RED II criteria, and
one biomass with RED II criteria met. The same approaches apply to mixed
source streams where the biomass fraction only sometimes complies with the
relevant sustainability criteria. Note, however, that the selection of either ap-
proach has implications on the selection of appropriate tiers. If separate source
streams are chosen, the sustainable biomass source stream is always a de-min-
imis source stream, while a source stream with fossil or non-sustainable biomass
fractions may have to comply with higher tiers, depending on its associated emis-
sions (see section 5.2 of GD 1).
The above considerations lead to practical consequences when setting up the
monitoring plan in relation to biomass: The simplest way forward would be to
establish a written procedure17 which requires the operator to attribute each batch
of biomass used in the installation to either a “RED II compliant biomass” source
stream18 or to a “non-RED II complaint biomass” source stream, depending on
whether a proof is available for meeting the applicable sustainability and/or GHG
savings criteria or not. The ways of obtaining such proof are discussed in section
3.4 below.

16
Similar to e.g. different batches of coal which are analysed separately, but all reported under the
same source stream “coal”.
17
See guidance document no. 1 on the topic of “written procedures” as supplement to the monitoring
plan.
18
Note that the MP and AER templates use also the simpler terminology “sustainable biomass” and
“non-sustainable biomass”, where “RED II compliant / non compliant” is more precise.

13
 3.4 Practical approach for RED II criteria

The Commission’s website dedicated to renewable energy is:

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/renewable-energy.
Information on voluntary schemes for certification of biofuels and biomass fuels
can be found at https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-energy/biofu-
els/voluntary-schemes_en
These websites should be useful for looking for guidance on all issues regarding
the assessment of RED II criteria which is not covered by guidance on the EU
ETS websites.
According to the RED II, there are three ways in which economic operators can
demonstrate compliance with the sustainability and GHG savings criteria for bio-
fuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels:
 by means of a ‘national scheme’;
 by using a ‘voluntary national or international scheme’ that the Member State
accepts. If the Commission has formally recognised the scheme, the certifi-
cates and proofs of sustainability of the scheme must be accepted by all Mem-
ber States. Therefore, using a recognised scheme gives legal certainty to op-
erators, ensures harmonised implementation of the RED II requirements and
reduces the need for additional documentation;
 by providing all relevant evidence and GHG calculations themselves, having
the information appropriately audited19 (if this approach is accepted by national
authorities in the Member State).
For zero-rating biomass under the EU ETS MRV rules, the burden of proof
concerning a biofuel, bioliquid or biomass fuel meeting the requisite sus-
tainability and/or GHG savings criteria remains with the EU ETS operator or
aircraft operator. Possible proof can be provided from applicable documentation
ensuring compliance with a national system or the availability of certificates con-
taining evidence of sustainability issued under a voluntary scheme recognised by
the Commission or the installation’s (or aircraft operator’s administering) Member
State under the RED II (see sections 3.4.3 to 3.4.4). The evidence provided
should furthermore indicate the amount of delivered biomass and identify the
batch to which they relate. If the biomass has not already been certified (or where
the certification does not cover all steps in the supply chain), the operators or
aircraft operators would have to perform the necessary assessment themselves
and have it audited accordingly by an auditor accepted by the Member State’s
legislation. Note, however, that the national legislation of the Member State may
contain other provisions. Some Member States may e.g. accept only biomass
that has been certified by a scheme recognised by the Commission.

19
Such audit is mandatory according to Article 30(3) of the RED II: “[…] Member States shall require
economic operators to arrange for an adequate standard of independent auditing of the information
submitted, and to provide evidence that this has been done. […]”. This audit can be performed by
an EU ETS verifier only if the latter has the proven competence (i.e. accreditation) for that task
(see section 3.4.6.5).

14
Where compliance with the applicable RED II criteria cannot be confirmed
to the satisfaction of the competent authority 20, the biofuel, bioliquid or bi-
omass fuel will have to be treated like a fossil source stream and not zero-
rated.

3.4.1 General responsibilities

The Member State where the installation is situated, or the administering Member
State in case of aircraft operators, is responsible for defining the rules under
which compliance with the RED II criteria must be demonstrated for the biofuels,
bioliquids and biomass fuels used within the Member State. Biomass certification
schemes under the RED II can cover different parts of the supply chain, and “eco-
nomic operators” are often certified for only part of the supply chain. For the pur-
pose of the EU ETS the burden of proof for compliance with the RED II criteria is
on the user of the biomass, i.e. the operator of the installation or the aircraft op-
erator, as these are the persons who have the obligation of reporting emissions.
However, for practical reasons, the operator or aircraft operator will often have to
rely on data and information21 provided by third parties, i.e. either the supplier or
producer of the biomass.

3.4.2 Which criteria apply?

Note: This section is a copy of section 6.3.6 of Guidance Document No. 1 (Gen-
eral guidance for installations). Because the Commission’s guidance may be up-
dated from time to time, operators should regularly check whether new versions
of either GD 1 or this document are available. In case of contradictions, the more
recently published document should be consulted.

In most cases where “biomass” is mentioned in the MRR, it is added that “Article
38(5) applies”22. That article23 clarifies the relationship between the MRR require-
ments and the RED II, and in particular how the sustainability and GHG saving

20
Not only the competent authority, but also the verifier during verification will assess if the evidence
for meeting the sustainability criteria is sufficient.
21
See section 3.4.5 on the functioning of RED II certification schemes.
22
An exception is Article 18(2) on unreasonable costs. In that context, Article 38(5) applies only “pro-
vided that the relevant information … is available to the operator”. This condition is relevant be-
cause at the point in time when unreasonable costs are determined, it is often not clear yet whether
the biomass intended to be used will comply with Article 38(5) or not. In practice this means that
the operator has to apply Article 18(2) assuming that the biomass complies with the applicable
RED II criteria, if more information is not available.
23
Article 38(5) of the MRR:
„Where reference is made to this paragraph, biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels used for com-
bustion shall fulfil the sustainability and the greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria laid down in
paragraphs 2 to 7 and 10 of Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001.
However, biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from waste and residues, other than
agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues are required to fulfil only the criteria laid
down in Article 29(10) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. This subparagraph shall also apply to waste
and residues that are first processed into a product before being further processed into biofuels,
bioliquids and biomass fuels.
Electricity, heating and cooling produced from municipal solid waste shall not be subject to the
criteria laid down in Article 29(10) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001.
The criteria laid down in paragraphs 2 to 7 and 10 of Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 shall
apply irrespective of the geographical origin of the biomass.

15
 criteria of the RED II are to be applied in order to allow the emissions from bio-
mass to be zero-rated. The following points are worth noting:
 As the RED II applies to renewable energy, the RED II criteria apply only to
energy uses of biomass in the EU ETS, i.e. to combustion emissions within the
meaning of the MRR24. This is clarified in the MRR itself, as Article 38(5) states
“… biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels used for combustion shall fulfil the
sustainability and the greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria…”
 As the RED II itself does not contain a definition of the term “installation”, the
MRR clarifies that the definition of “installation” of the EU ETS Directive ap-
plies25.
 Not all the criteria given in Article 29 of the RED II apply. In particular:
 The “land related” sustainability criteria of Article 29(2) to (7) of the RED II
apply;
 The GHG saving criteria of Article 29(10) of the RED II apply;
 The additional efficiency criteria for electricity production (Article 29(11) of
the RED II) do not apply;
 Some provisions contained in Article 29(1) of the RED II are copied into the
MRR in order to clarify their applicability. In particular, this includes the sim-
plification that for municipal solid waste the GHG saving criteria do not apply.
Furthermore the RED II criteria apply irrespective of the geographical origin
of the biomass.

Figure 1 presents a “decision tree” to which an operator may adhere in order to

determine which written procedures have to be included in the monitoring plan,
and to determine the emission factor of biomass. The numbered steps in this
picture mean the following:
1. The first step is to determine if the source stream consists exclusively of bio-
mass, or whether it is mixed with a fossil fraction. In the latter case, the rele-
vant analyses of the biomass fraction or the application of a reasonable de-
fault value is necessary (see section 4). The possibility to apply an emission
factor of zero applies only to the biomass fraction of the source stream.
If the biomass fraction should be determined based on proofs of sustainability
from a certification scheme, please see section 4.3.2.

Article 29(10) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 shall apply to an installation as defined in Article 3(e) of
Directive 2003/87/EC.
The compliance with the criteria laid down in paragraphs 2 to 7 and 10 of Article 29 of Directive
(EU) 2018/2001 shall be assessed in accordance with Articles 30 and 31(1) of that Directive.
Where the biomass used for combustion does not comply with this paragraph, its carbon content
shall be considered as fossil carbon.”
24
Some borderline cases exist where it may not be clear if a material is a fuel or a process input,
such as pore-forming agents in the ceramic industry. In this case, may be used as guidance:
“Where the CO2 emissions stem from a process which has a primary purpose other than the gen-
eration of heat, the competent authority may agree that the source stream is not acting as a fuel.
Hence, such source streams serve non-energetic purposes and the sustainability criteria do there-
fore not apply.” (see also section 3.5 of GD2 on free allocation rules).
25
Article 3(e) of the EU ETS Directive: ‘installation’ means a stationary technical unit where one or
more activities listed in Annex I are carried out and any other directly associated activities which
have a technical connection with the activities carried out on that site and which could have an
effect on emissions and pollution;

16
 Start for Mixed Need to analyse
biomass source Is X a mixed material fossil / biomass
stream X or only biomass? fraction
1
Biomass

Is X used for No
energy purpose?
2
Yes

Yes
Is X Solid Municipal
Waste?
3
No

Yes Agricultural or
forestry biomass?
4

No
Assess sustainability
criteria
5 Evidence under national or
voluntary scheme available?
If no, make own assessment

Assessed Yes Yes

Solid or gaseous
Criteria complied
(biomass fuel)?
with?
6 7

No Liquid
No
Installation started
after 2020?
8
Yes

Assess GHG savings

9 Evidence under national or

voluntary scheme available?
If no, make own assessment

Treat as fossil No Yes Assume EF = 0

GHG saving
fuel (use For the biomass
criteria met?
preliminary EF) fraction
10

Picture by

Figure 1: Decision tree for applying sustainability and GHG saving criteria of the
RED II to the monitoring of EU ETS source streams.

17
 If only a part of the source stream is biomass, the following steps apply only
to that biomass fraction. However, if the necessary evidence for meeting the
RED II criteria is available only for a part of that biomass fraction, the case
mentioned in section 3.3 applies, where there are three fractions (one fossil,
one biomass part that is treated like being fossil, and a biomass part which is
zero-rated because it fulfils the RED II criteria).
2. Determine if the source stream is used for energy purposes. Only if this is the
case, the following steps are needed.
3. If the source stream is municipal solid waste, no further criteria need to be
taken into account. The biomass fraction may be zero-rated.
4. Determine if the source stream is any type of forest or agricultural biomass,
or (produced from) “residues from agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries or for-
estry”, as for such source streams the “land-related” sustainability criteria (Ar-
ticle 29(2) to (7) of RED II) apply26. For other residues or waste (including all
kinds of industrial wastes, if containing biomass), only GHG savings criteria
need to be complied with. For further discussion of the definition of “waste”,
please see section 3.4.6.4.
Note, however, that for biomass stemming from residues from animals, aq-
uaculture and fisheries, Article 29 of the RED II does not list specific land-
related sustainability criteria. There are also no default values found in An-
nexes V and VI of the RED II. Therefore, for such materials operators will
have to determine only GHG savings based in the calculation methodologies
outlined in those Annexes. Therefore, go to step 7.
5. Depending on step 4, the (land-related) sustainability criteria for the produc-
tion of biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuel are to be assessed. In short, the
operator can rely on the certification of the used material/fuel under a national
system or an (international) voluntary scheme recognised by the Commission
or the installation’s (or aircraft operator’s administering) Member State.
Competent authorities may require the operator to use a recognised scheme,
where one is available. If no proof of sustainability under a certification
scheme is available to the operator, the operator would have to perform the
assessment of the relevant criteria himself, and get the verifier’s27 confirma-
tion, provided the national legislation and the competent authority allow this
in the Member State where the biomass is used (in case of aircraft operators,
the administering Member State). More details on steps 4 and 5 are given in
sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6.
6. If the previous step shows that the relevant sustainability criteria are not com-
plied with, then the operator has to treat the material as if it were fossil, i.e.
the preliminary emission factor becomes the emission factor.
7. If the source stream is liquid, the assessment of GHG savings is mandatory
(i.e. the situation is like in the third phase of the EU ETS). Go to step 9.

26
Second subparagraph of Art. 38(5) MRR: “However, biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels pro-
duced from waste and residues, other than agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues
are required to fulfil only the criteria laid down in Article 29(10) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001. This
subparagraph shall also apply to waste and residues that are first processed into a product before
being further processed into biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels.”
27
See section 3.4.6.5 for more details.

18
8. As the additional requirement for “biomass fuels”, i.e. solid or gaseous bio-
mass, applies only to installations starting operation28 from 1 January 2021,
older installations (more exactly: installations which used biomass already
before 2021) do not have to carry out further assessment 29.
9. According to Article 29(10) of the RED II, required GHG savings have to be
calculated in accordance with Article 31(1) of the RED II). For details, please
see section 3.4.6.2.
10. If the GHG savings are above the applicable threshold, the biomass can be
zero-rated, otherwise it has to be treated as if it were fossil. With this step,
the assessment is finished.
Note that when this “decision tree” results in no need to provide evidence with
sustainability or GHG savings criteria, some Member States will still require a
confirmation of the source stream’s nature providing of the fact that no RED II
criteria apply. Member States may require such evidence to be issued by a certi-
fication scheme recognised by the Commission or the installation’s (or aircraft
operator’s) Member State. Other Member States may require e.g. a formal dec-
laration by the operator confirming the material type and that no RED II criteria
apply to it.

3.4.3 National systems

Member States’ implementations of the RED II are currently partly still under de-
velopment. They use diverse approaches. There is no complete overview avail-
able of Member States’ national systems on providing evidence of biomass sus-
tainability and GHG savings. Operators and aircraft operators should obtain in-
formation on national systems from the relevant competent authority.
The RED II does not explicitly require a Member State to publish dedicated infor-
mation. However, it is considered best practice to provide transparent information
to operators. For the purpose of the EU ETS, Member States are therefore en-
couraged to consider practical ways of making information available to the public
regarding the sustainability of biomass (by producer, brand, generic type or other
suitable grouping), suppliers or producers thereof, or similar information, which
allow the user of these biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuels (and any EU ETS
verifier) to gather assurance that a material complies with the applicable sustain-
ability criteria.
Under the RED II, Member States may use the possibility of Article 30(6) to notify
a national scheme to the Commission for recognition. If such recognition is
granted, the relevant information will be published on the Commission website 30,
and all other Member States are required to accept the resulting certificates, like
it is the case of voluntary international schemes recognised by the Commission.
However, the use of international voluntary systems may be desirable in many
cases where the biofuel, bioliquid or biomass fuel is not used in the Member State
where it is produced (e.g. in the aviation sector).

28
Article 29(10) of the RED is to be applied: "An installation shall be considered to be in operation
once the physical production of biofuels, biogas consumed in the transport sector and bioliquids,
and the physical production of heating and cooling and electricity from biomass fuels has started."
29
See section 3.4.6.2 for further information on the starting date.
30
See footnote 31.

19
 3.4.4 Voluntary schemes
Details on all voluntary schemes recognised by the Commission can be found on
the Commission’s website31. Regarding schemes not [yet] recognised by the
Commission, Member States may accept those schemes, if they come to their
own conclusion that the scheme ensures compliance of the biomass with RED II
criteria. Under the same conditions, the Member States may continue the ac-
ceptance of certificates issued by schemes approved under the RED I. However,
Member States may have also other specific provisions in their legislation, e.g.
allowing only schemes that have been recognised by the Commission. Hence,
except when using schemes recognised by the Commission, operators will al-
ways have to check with their competent authority or national legislation how to
provide evidence that the biomass used complies with the RED II criteria.
The most important aspect of the schemes recognised by the Commission is their
applicability across the EU in a harmonised manner. This means that a biofuel,
bioliquid or biomass fuel certified under such a recognised scheme will have to
be recognised as sustainable in all Member States.
An operator who purchases a biofuel, bioliquid or biomass fuel which has re-
ceived a proof of sustainability from a recognised voluntary scheme (i.e. a certif-
icate of compliance with that scheme’s rules), may in any case assume that it can
be considered sustainable under the RED II, and can be used with an emission
factor of zero in the EU ETS32. However, there are important limitations:
 The operator has to be aware that some voluntary schemes are approved only
for some fuels types, some of the required criteria (e.g. only the sustainability
criteria or only the GHG savings criteria), or only regarding some steps of the
value chain (e.g. only collecting and trading, or only the actual biofuel produc-
tion or processing stage, etc.). If applicable, another proof must be obtained
for the remaining criteria or missing parts of the value chain.
 In particular the GHG savings criteria are highly dependent on the distance of
transport to the EU ETS installation (see default values in Annex VI of RED II).
Hence, if the economic operator under the certification scheme does not carry
out the verification of the GHG savings criterion specifically for each site where
the biomass is used, the operator will have to provide his own evidence for this
purpose and ensure appropriate verification, or request an economic operator
under the certification scheme to provide the missing certification. The latter
may often be preferred by operators due to its simplicity, and may be required
by the installation’s Member State.
 Some sustainability schemes cover a wider scope than just RED II criteria.
Many have an international background. Some have set up a specific version
of the same overarching scheme for the purpose of demonstrating RED II com-
pliance. Only the latter is recognised by the Commission. Operators, verifiers
and competent authorities should be aware of these differences (where appli-
cable), and use only certificates which explicitly refer to those “RED II compli-
ant versions” of the voluntary schemes as eligible for zero-rating in the EU
ETS.

31
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/voluntary-schemes_en .
Approvals are valid for 5 years. It is therefore necessary to check the validity period of the approval
in the relevant Commission Decision.
32
In case of mixed materials or fuels, obviously the zero-rating applies only to the biomass fraction.

20
 Some schemes are recognised with limited geographical scope (e.g. if auditing
services are available only in specific countries).
 The Commission’s recognition of voluntary schemes are usually valid for five
years. Furthermore, economic operators’ certification can be suspended by the
certification scheme. Only biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuels covered by a
valid recognition are eligible for zero-rating in the EU ETS.
Since all voluntary schemes are required to publish their rules, their certification
bodies and the certificates issued on their website, operators of EU ETS installa-
tions can obtain all the required information. In case of doubt, direct contact to
the certification scheme operator should be sought.

3.4.5 How do RED II certification schemes work?

Note: This section may apply to both, national or international schemes, which
may be voluntary or required by Member States. Therefore the general term “cer-
tification scheme” is used. The description follows what is required for recognition
of a scheme by the Commission There may be some deviations in schemes not
recognised.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the governance structure of certification
schemes including the recognition by the Commission. First, certification scheme
operators set up their certification scheme’s rules (e.g. which scope they cover,
which competence criteria they apply for their certification bodies and their audi-
tors, which templates economic operators have to use, etc.). These rules have to
be published by the certification scheme and must comply with the Implementing
Regulation33 pursuant to Article 30(8) of the RED II. That Regulation is also the
basis against which the Commission checks the scheme before recognising it.
Once a certification scheme is recognised by the Commission, the certificates
issued to economic operators under the certification scheme have to be accepted
in all Member States, as well as by all other recognised schemes (e.g. for parts
of value chains). Recognition by the Commission is valid for a maximum of five
years.

33
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 of 14 June 2022 on rules to verify sustaina-
bility and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria and low indirect land-use change-risk criteria,
available from http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/996/oj

21
 RED II
Low-ILUC criteria
Art. 26(2)
MS

Forestry biomass Supervises

criteria Art. 29(8) Basis for Certification
approval scheme Logo
Verification rules
Art. 30(8)

Scheme Certification
Recognises, rules scheme operator
supervises
Trains, NAB
accepts,
Accredits
supervises

Certification bodies
Issues (Auditors)
certification
Carries out
audits

Economic operator

Issues Proof of
sustainability to user

Use for EU ETS

Biomass Emissions report

Points of Origin (Farms /

Plantations) Mass
balance
First gathering points (Collection
points)
Certificate covers
one or more of Processing unit(s)
these steps
Transport

Storage / Traders

Picture by

Figure 2: Overview of the functioning of voluntary schemes recognised by the

Commission under the RED II.

The term “economic operator”34 used in the context of the RED II covers several
different cases, and the scope of their certification can vary accordingly. As
shown in Figure 2, the biomass value chain can be complex, starting from the
farm or forest (point of origin) over a “first gathering point”35 (e.g. a trader’s ware-
house or a train loading station), various transport and storage stages, and the

34
Defined by Article 2(11) of the implementing act: “‘economic operator’ means a producer of raw
material, a collector of waste and residues, an operator of installations processing raw material into
final fuels or intermediate products, an operator of installations producing energy (electricity, heat-
ing or cooling) or any other operator, including of storage facilities or traders that are in physical
possession of raw material or fuels, provided that they process information on the sustainability
and greenhouse gas emissions saving characteristics of those raw materials or fuels;”
35
Defined by Article 2(12) of the implementing act: “‘first gathering point’ means a storage or pro-
cessing facility managed directly by an economic operator or other counterpart under contractual

22
processing into biofuels. All these steps must be covered by the mass balance
system under Article 30(1) for ensuring that there are neither data gaps nor dou-
ble counting of biomass quantities. Biomass certification schemes usually offer
different scopes of certification, so that economic operators can get certificates
for the steps of the value chain which the operators cover. If e.g. an economic
operator only carries out the “first gathering point” activity, or only production of
biofuels from certain raw materials, the certificate will be issued only for these
operations.
Furthermore, some certification schemes do not cover all the elements of the
RED II. For example, it is not a given that all certification schemes also cover
assessing the mass balances, some do not cover forest materials. Also the spe-
cific certification as “low-ILUC36 biomass” is not always offered by certification
schemes (not relevant in EU ETS context).
The consequence for the operator of an EU ETS installation or for an aircraft
operator is:
 First, the operator has to determine which RED II criteria (sustainability and/or
GHG savings) are relevant for the biomass used – this is discussed in section
3.4.2 of this document (“decision tree”).
 When using a certain type of biomass, the operator has to determine if the
complete value chain from the point of origin to the combustion in the EU ETS
installation is covered by proofs of sustainability, or whether additional proof is
needed.
 The operator should determine whether it wants or has to act as an “economic
operator” on its own, which obtains certification from a recognised scheme.
This might e.g. be useful if the installation uses its own (waste) materials or
has to cover only the last part of the value chain. Using a certification scheme
gives a good level of legal certainty that compliance with the sustainability and
GHG savings criteria can be proven.
The alternative is to completely rely on another economic operator certified by
an applicable certification scheme.
 When biomass has been processed, confirmation is needed that the infor-
mation from the relevant37 mass balance is complete, and proof that the bio-
mass is marked38 as “removed from the mass balance” when the biomass is
consumed (e.g. if it is combusted in the installation).

agreement that is sourcing raw material directly from producers of agricultural biomass, forest bio-
mass, wastes and residues […]”.
36
ILUC = Indirect land-use change; Art. 2(37) RED II: “‘low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels,
bioliquids and biomass fuels’ means biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels, the feedstock of which
was produced within schemes which avoid displacement effects of food and feed-crop based bio-
fuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels through improved agricultural practices as well as through the
cultivation of crops on areas which were previously not used for cultivation of crops, and which
were produced in accordance with the sustainability criteria for biofuels, bioliquids and biomass
fuels laid down in Article 29“.
37
Depending on the situation, this will usually be the operator’s own mass balance. In specific cases
it might be a mass balance operated by an economic operator elsewhere in the value chain, pro-
vided that all necessary data are collected there and can be audited.
38
How such marking can be done in practice depends strongly on how the mass balance is set up,
in particular what IT system is used for it. If there is a sophisticated registry system which tracks
each tonne or TJ of biomass with an individual certificate, the “removed from the mass balance”
will be done by cancellation of the certificates associated with this amount of biomass. If a simple
system (such as an Excel spreadsheet) is used, there may be a row stating “x tonnes removed”.

23
 An important part of the certification scheme’s rules is the framework for audit-
ing39. The implementing act pursuant to Article 30(8) requires:
 The certification body acting on behalf of the certification scheme shall be ac-
credited40 to ISO 17065 (“Conformity assessment – Requirements for bodies
certifying products, processes and services”).
 Audits of economic operators are to be carried out using ISO 19011 (“Guide-
lines for auditing management systems”).
 If the certification scheme performs audits on actual GHG values, it shall be
accredited to ISO 14065 (“General principles and requirements for bodies val-
idating and verifying environmental information”).
 Voluntary schemes shall set up training courses for their auditors covering the
schemes’ specific rules, and shall carry out supervision on them.
For EU ETS operators, this means that certification bodies carrying out audits
regarding RED II criteria do not have the same requirements as EU ETS verifiers.
If their verifiers have the relevant competence and accreditation, and if they are
working under a biomass certification scheme which the operator of the EU ETS
installation intends to use, it may be possible to combine some audit activities
(e.g. during the same site visit) and make use of synergies accordingly. However,
formally, auditing under a RED II scheme and verification under the EU ETS are
separate activities. For example, formally there will be a need for two separate
verification/audit reports.

RED II “Certificate” vs. “Proof of Sustainability”

A certificate41 is what certifies that an economic operator complies with the

rules of the certification scheme. The Proof of Sustainability42 is issued by the
economic operator for confirming that a certain consignment of biomass mate-
rial, biofuel, biogas or biomass fuel fulfils the sustainability or GHG savings
criteria.

39
In order to clarify the difference from EU ETS verification, this document uses here the term “cer-
tification body” for the (accredited) legal person / company, and “auditor” for the person doing the
audits.
40
Article 11(1) of the implementing act allows a deviation from accreditation as follows: “Certification
bodies shall also be accredited by a national accreditation body and in accordance with Regulation
(EC) 765/2008 [the general framework Regulation on accreditation], or recognised by a competent
authority to cover the scope of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 [the RED II] or the specific scope of the
voluntary scheme. Where no use of such accreditation or recognition is made, Member States may
allow voluntary schemes to use a system of independent oversight that covers the scope of Di-
rective (EU) 2018/2001 or the specific scope of the voluntary scheme, for the territory of that Mem-
ber State. The Commission shall review the effectiveness of the systems described in this para-
graph with regard to their suitability to ensure adequate surveillance and issue guidance if appro-
priate.” This means that Member States may deviate from accreditation only for their own Member
State, except in cases covered by Regulation (EC) 765/2008.
41
Article 2(4) of the implementing act defines “‘certificate’ means a conformity statement by a certifi-
cation body within the framework of a voluntary scheme, certifying that an economic operator com-
plies with the requirements of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 [the RED II]”;
42
Article 2(23) of the implementing act defines “‘proof of sustainability’ means a declaration by an
economic operator, made on the basis of a certificate issued by a certification body within the
framework of a voluntary scheme certifying the compliance of a specific quantity of feedstock or
fuels with the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings criteria set out in Articles 25(2)
and 29 of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 [the RED II]”.

24
The role of a certification body is therefore different from the EU ETS verifier in
that not specific environmental data are verified, but the certification means that
the economic operator is certified as being capable of managing the sustain-
ability information, GHG savings data or the relevant mass balance system, de-
pending on the certification scope. Depending on the certification scheme’s rules,
such certificate is valid for one year from the certification 43 (i.e. forward-looking,
while EU ETS verification confirms data from the past). This does not mean that
the auditor will not check data from specific consignments (batches) of biomass,
but still the certificate proves that the economic operator is capable of issuing
“proofs of sustainability” for the biomass material, biofuel, biogas or biomass fuel.
For the EU ETS operators, this means that the evidence required is the “proof
of sustainability” for each of the consignments (batches) of biomass used so
that emissions from biomass can be zero-rated in the annual emissions report.
The evidence can be obtained by one of the following methods:
 The supplier of the biomass provides a proof of sustainability for the biomass
delivered to the installation. The operator (and EU ETS verifier) would only
have to check if the full value chain 44 and all required RED II criteria are cov-
ered. For the GHG savings criteria, emissions from transport to the installation
need to be included.
 If the operator of the EU ETS installation has obtained a certificate from a cer-
tification scheme, the operator can apply the processes it has established for
obtaining the certification, and issue proofs of sustainability for the biomass in
question, and manage its own mass balance system for this purpose.
 Alternatively, and if applicable, the operator can apply other processes or cer-
tification rules, e.g. rules provided by a national scheme or directly by the Mem-
ber State’s legislation, taking into account any specific rules for auditing pro-
vided by the Member State.

Note on the mass balance (Article 30(1) of the RED II):

The certified economic operators must operate their mass balance systems and
carry out the relevant determination of GHG emissions / savings as relevant. De-
pending on their activities’ scope of certification, they issue proofs of sustainabil-
ity, or pass the information on to the next user in the value chain of the fuel or
material under consideration.
The different steps in the value chain do not necessarily have to be assessed
under the same certification scheme. Articles 8 and 9 of the implementing act 45
requires that each scheme recognised by the Commission must also itself recog-
nise certificates and proofs of sustainability from other recognised voluntary or
national schemes.

43
The certificate has to give the validity period.
44
“Full value chain” means from cultivation/first gathering point to the gate of the installation, including
applicable processing steps (e.g. production of a biofuel). The steps covered should be indicated
on the proofs of sustainability provided by the fuel supplier in this case.
45
See footnote 33.

25
 Further notes on Figure 2:
Although the voluntary schemes are recognised by the Commission, it is still the
responsibility of Member States to supervise the certification bodies active in the
Member State, or active for certification schemes that are used by economic op-
erators (including EU ETS installations) in the Member State. Therefore, certifi-
cation bodies, even if accredited in another Member State, must make infor-
mation on their audits available to any concerned Member State (i.e. to a compe-
tent authority which is not necessarily the same as for the EU ETS) 46. If the com-
petent authority finds non-compliance or other justified reasons, it shall inform the
certification system operator and the Commission thereof.
In principle, Figure 2 also applies to national schemes. Therefore, a dashed arrow
indicates that the MS can have a direct influence on a certification scheme. Fur-
thermore, the arrow indicating audits on the proofs of sustainability is dashed
because that audit may apply only limited assurance, while the audit of the eco-
nomic operator’s systems has to be done with reasonable assurance (at least for
the initial audit). Later audits may choose an appropriate level of assurance based
on a risk assessment.
Finally, the question may arise whether an installation using its own waste mate-
rials would be required to establish a mass balance system, despite the simple
assumption of “everything in, everything out”. Article 30(1) of the RED II seems
clear in that regard that a mass balance is always required, since it is the main
instrument for demonstrating that the applicable RED II criteria are applied to
specifically those biomass consignments that are reported for emissions. This
would be needed as evidence that, for example, no biomass from other sources
(or even fossil materials) is added. However, for simple cases, also simple means
will be sufficient, such as a simple spreadsheet or other documentation which
lists inputs and outputs on a regular (daily, weekly, etc.) basis, as found propor-
tionate to the situation. Some more information is given in section 3.4.6.3.

3.4.6 How to provide evidence for RED II criteria

This section explains how compliance against RED II criteria is checked. While
these checks are usually performed under a certification scheme, the same con-
siderations are relevant for operators who want to demonstrate compliance with
RED II criteria without use of a certification scheme, if the Member State allows
such approach.
Depending on the needs identified using the “decision tree” (section 3.4.2), either
sustainability criteria, GHG savings criteria, or both or none of these apply. It is
therefore possible to discuss sustainability criteria (section 3.4.6.1) and GHG sav-
ings criteria (section 3.4.6.2) separately. Furthermore the operator will have to

46
Article 30(9) 2nd subparagraph: „Competent authorities of the Member States shall supervise the
operation of certification bodies that are conducting independent auditing under a voluntary
scheme. Certification bodies shall submit, upon the request of competent authorities, all relevant
information necessary to supervise the operation, including the exact date, time and location of
audits. Where Member States find issues of non-conformity, they shall inform the voluntary scheme
without delay.”

26
ensure completeness of information by using a mass balance as required by Ar-
ticle 30(1) of the RED II, as discussed in section 3.4.6.3. Guidance on specific
issues is given thereafter:
 Application of RED II criteria to waste (section 3.4.6.4);
 Verification / RED II audit topics (section 3.4.6.5);
 Whether guarantees of origin can be used instead of proofs of sustainability is
discussed in section 3.4.6.6.
For more details, please refer to the legal text of the RED II. The aim of the
following sections is meant only as a short overview for orientation in the RED II.
Furthermore, an implementing act on “rules to verify sustainability and green-
house gas emissions saving criteria and low indirect land-use change-risk crite-
ria” gives detailed guidance47. This implementing act also gives the framework
with which voluntary certification schemes have to comply.

3.4.6.1 Sustainability criteria

The sustainability criteria are defined in Articles 29(2) to (7) of RED II. They can
be summarised as follows:
 Biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from residues48 derived from
agricultural land (not from forestry) must comply with the conditions laid down
in Article 29(2) of the RED II:
“Operators or national authorities [must] have monitoring or management
plans in place in order to address the impacts on soil quality and soil carbon.”
 Biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from agricultural biomass
(this includes the main product of that land, as well as residues) must comply
with all of the following paragraphs of Article 29 of the RED II:
 Article 29(3) excludes raw material obtained from land with a high biodiver-
sity value, namely land that had a specified status in or after January 2008,
whether or not the land continues to have that status. Relevant statuses
listed are (a) primary forest and similar, (b) highly biodiverse forest and sim-
ilar, (c) areas that are nature protected, and (d) highly biodiverse grassland.
For Point (d), further criteria are given in an implementing act49.
 Article 29(4) prevents the use of land which was converted from land with
high carbon stocks, namely land that had a specified status in or after Jan-
uary 2008 and no longer has that status, in particular wetland and continu-
ously forested areas.
 Article 29(5) excludes biomass from former peatland, except if evidence is
provided that no drainage of previously undrained soil is involved.
 Biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from forest biomass (includ-
ing residues from forestry) must meet certain criteria to minimise the risk of
using forest biomass derived from unsustainable production (RED II Article

47
See footnote 33.
48
Note that Article 30(3) of the RED II requires that materials are “not intentionally modified or dis-
carded so that the consignment or part thereof could become a waste or residue”.
49
Commission Regulation (EU) No 1307/2014 of 8 December 2014 on defining the criteria and ge-
ographic ranges of highly biodiverse grassland has been adopted under the RED I but still applies.
See http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/1307/oj

27
 29(6)), and must meet specified land-use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF) criteria given by Article 29(7).
An implementing act50 provides further guidance.
 For other biomass (e.g. animal waste or by-products; products, wastes or
residues from aquaculture and fisheries; biomass from microorganisms, e.g.
from industrial fermentation, etc.), no sustainability criteria are defined in the
RED II. Therefore, no further assessments for these types of biomass are rel-
evant. However, it will be useful for an operator to have evidence available that
the source stream under discussion indeed falls within this category, i.e. it is a
waste and not a material intentionally modified or contaminated in order to be-
come waste51. Some certification schemes might provide the classification as
part of their services, but this should only be necessary for borderline cases.

3.4.6.2 GHG savings

When the RED II requires GHG savings to be demonstrated, it means that the
energy produced from biomass must lead to lower life cycle emissions than the
use of comparable fossil fuels. The methodology for calculating GHG savings
from biofuels and bioliquids is given in section C of Annex V to the RED II. For
biomass fuels (biogas and solid biomass), the methodology is given in section B
of Annex VI to the RED II. A short summary of the methodology is given here:
First, the emissions from the biomass use is calculated using the formula:

E = eec + el + ep + etd + eu – esca – eccs – eccr

Where
eec = emissions from the extraction or cultivation of raw materials 52;
el = annualised emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use
change;
ep = emissions from processing;
etd = emissions from transport and distribution;
eu = emissions from the fuel in use53;
esca = emission savings from soil carbon accumulation via improved agricultural
management;

50
At the time of writing this guidance, the finalised text (pending publication in the official journal of
the EU) is available at https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/comitology-register/core/api/inte-
gration/ers/294191/083454/2/attachment
51
In line with the RED II definition of waste (Article 3(23) of RED II): “‘waste’ means waste as defined
in point (1) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/98/EC, excluding substances that have been intentionally
modified or contaminated in order to meet this definition;”
52
Default emission factors at regional (NUTS2) level are available from the Commission’s website
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/biofuels/biofuels_en and https://en-
ergy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2018-07/pre-iluc_directive_nuts2_report_val-
ues_mj_kg_july_2018_0.pdf
53
Annexes V and VI of the RED II clarify: “Emissions of the fuel in use, eu, shall be taken to be zero
for biofuels and bioliquids. Emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (N2O and CH4) of the fuel
in use shall be included in the eu factor for bioliquids.
Emissions of CO2 from fuel in use, eu, shall be taken to be zero for biomass fuels. Emissions of
non-CO2 greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) from the fuel in use shall be included in the eu factor.”

28
eccs = emission savings from CO2 capture and geological storage;
eccr = emission savings from CO2 capture and replacement.
For eec, ep and etd, Annexes V and VI provide typical and default values for many
feedstock types and processes for biofuel and biomass fuel production. In the
case of solid biomass, transport emissions are given dependent of transport dis-
tance.
EU ETS installations often consume several types of waste materials or residues
for which no default values can be found in the RED II. As a simplifying assump-
tion, life cycle emissions of waste at the place and time when the material starts
to comply with the definition of waste54 may be considered zero, if the emissions
of sourcing (cultivation, transport to upstream processing, and that processing
itself) can be reasonably attributed to the main products instead of the waste.
Therefore, for such wastes, only the transport emissions up to the EU ETS instal-
lation (if any) as well as potential emissions from processing before combustion
(if any) in the EU ETS installation would have to be taken into account for deter-
mining their life cycle emissions. Section 3.4.6.4 gives more details on treating
waste regarding RED II criteria.
For eu the methodology in the RED II also gives instructions how the production
of heat and electricity is to be handled if produced separately or by CHP55. Note
that the approach to taking into account CHP is different from the approach used
by the FAR (Free Allocation Rules for the EU ETS)56.
esca may only be taken into account if solid and verifiable evidence is provided.
eccs and eccr are only relevant if CCS/CCU are applied.
Greenhouse gases to be taken into account and their GWP57 values are CO2, N2O
(GWP=298), CH4 (GWP=25).

Where a proof of sustainability from a certification scheme is available (section

3.4.5) at least for some parts of the value chain, the relevant e values for the
formula above should be available from that proof. Also the GHG savings as cal-
culated below should be given.

As a second step, the GHG savings are calculated as follows:

For the use of (transport) biofuels:
SAVING = (EF(t) – EB(t))/EF(t)

Where:

EB = total emissions from the biofuel;

EF = total emissions from the fossil fuel comparator

54
For more guidance see section 3.4.6.4.
55
Combined Heat and Power (Cogeneration)
56
The FAR (Regulation (EU) 2019/331) use the method provided by the Energy Efficiency Directive
(2012/27/EU) and its reference values (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2402), while
the RED II uses a method based on the Carnot efficiency.
57
GWP means the Global Warming Potential. Unfortunately, the GWP values given in the RED II
have not yet been updated to those of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, which are used by the
MRR. However, an update of these values by the Commission at a later stage is possible.

29
 For the production of heating (and cooling) and electricity:
SAVING = (ECF(h&c,el) – ECB(h&c,el))/ECF(h&c,el)

Where:

ECB(h&c,el) = total emissions from the biomass fuel or bioliquid;

ECF(h&c,el) = total emissions from the fossil fuel comparator for heating, cooling or elec-
tricity, as applicable

The generation efficiency η for heating, cooling or electricity has to be taken into ac-
count as follows:

EC = E / η

The following fossil fuel comparators apply58:

Purpose Value of the fossil fuel comparator

Transport fuels (liquid): EF(t) 94 g CO2eq/MJ
Production of electricity: ECF(el) 183 g CO2eq/MJ (59)
Production of useful heat, and heating 80 g CO2eq/MJ (60)
and/or cooling: ECF(h&c)

In EU ETS installations, “useful heat” can mean both, measurable and non-measura-
ble heat (as defined by the “FAR”61). When measurable heat is generated, an effi-
ciency for heat generation from the fuel is known (or can be at least determined in
principle). The fossil fuel comparator takes such efficiency into account. For non-
measurable heat, however, a fictitious heat generation efficiency of η = 90% needs to
be applied for making the amount of fuel used compatible with the comparator.

Secondly, if both, heat and electricity are produced in the installation, the respective
fuel quantities have to be checked against the respective fossil fuel comparators sep-
arately. If a certification scheme is used, the economic operator (which may be the
EU ETS operator) doing the calculation must take the information on the efficiency of
heat and electricity generation into account appropriately.

Finally, the GHG savings must be compared to the criteria given in Article 29(10)
of the RED II:
 For biofuels, biogas consumed in the transport sector and bioliquids,
savings must be at least 50% if produced62 in installations in operation before
5 October 2015, at least 60% for installations starting operation until 31 De-

58
For liquid transport fuels, the comparator refers to the energy content of the fuel (NCV), while for
the production of heat and electricity, the comparator refers to the amount of heat / electricity pro-
duced (taking into account the CHP calculation, where relevant).
59
For outermost regions, the comparator for biomass fuels is 212 g CO2eq/MJ.
60
For biomass fuels used for the production of useful heat, in which a direct physical substitution of
coal can be demonstrated, the comparator is 124 g CO2eq/MJ.
61
Free Allocation Rules, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/331.
62
This criterion is relevant if the EU ETS installation produces these fuels and delivers them to other
users who have to provide proof for RED II compliance, but also if the installation consumes these
fuels itself. Regarding biogas, the “for transport” purpose would then not be given. Instead, the
criterion for biomass fuels in the next bullet point would apply.

30
 cember 2020, and at least 65% for installations starting operation from 1 Jan-
uary 2021. However, this calculation is usually performed by the producer of
the biofuel, not by installations (or aircraft operators) in the EU ETS consuming
such bioliquid or biogas. However, if an EU ETS installation also uses diverse
liquid biomass wastes or biogas62, it may consider itself to be the producer of
the bioliquid or biogas. In such case, the GHG savings calculation may have
to be performed by the operator of the EU ETS installation, or by a certification
scheme on his behalf.
 For biomass fuels (i.e. solid and gaseous biomass) consumed in EU ETS
installations, GHG savings must be
 at least 70% in installations starting operation from 1 January 2021 until 31
December 2025,
 80% for installations starting operation from 1 January 2026.
For the purpose of the above, the starting date definition of RED II Article 29(10)
applies: “An installation shall be considered to be in operation once the physical
production of biofuels, biogas consumed in the transport sector and bioliquids,
and the physical production of heating and cooling and electricity from biomass
fuels has started.” In line with Article 38(5) of the MRR, for the purpose of the EU
ETS the ‘installation’ means the whole EU ETS installation 63.
For a practical approach to define “start of operation” of an EU ETS installation,
it appears appropriate to use the first day of operation when at least one biofuel,
bioliquid or biomass fuel has been used for regular operation, i.e. when there
were permanent physical means to use such biomass for production of heating,
cooling or electricity. “Parts of installations used for research, development and
testing of new products and processes” (point 1 of Annex I EU ETS Directive)
would not be taken into account.
In case of installations previously excluded from the EU ETS (Article 27 and 27a
of the Directive), or installations exceeding the threshold (e.g. 20 MW thermal
rated input) for inclusion in the EU ETS for the first time, it seems appropriate to
apply the above-mentioned criterion of first use of biomass irrespective of the
date of inclusion in the EU ETS.
Note: A potentially useful tool which supports the calculation of GHG savings has
been published by a European project: https://www.biograce.net/bi-
ograce2/content/ghgcalculationtool_electricityheatingcooling/overview.
However, there is no obligation to use such tool.

3.4.6.3 Setting up a mass balance

The mass balance in accordance with Article 30(1) of the RED II is basically a
database tracking quantities (physical consignments) over time. Each addition or
withdrawal of a quantity must be entered, where processing and mixing steps
may be treated as withdrawal from one consignment and adding it to another one.
For each consignment the information on already proven sustainability needs to
be stored, as well as lifecycle GHG emissions already caused by that biomass. If

63
However, outside the EU ETS, for other purposes of the RED II, e.g. for granting financial support
for electricity production from biomass, other definitions of ‘installation’ may apply, e.g. individual
boilers or power plant blocks. Furthermore, Art. 29(11) with further criteria for electricity production
may apply as well.

31
 a quantity is withdrawn and passed on to another economic operator, the infor-
mation on sustainability and GHG emissions is passed on, too.
When setting up such a mass balance, operators have to keep in mind that it
must be complete and transparent (auditable), and that data is protected against
unintended change or loss. Hence, a simple spreadsheet will only be sufficient in
very simple cases.

Co-processing
Co-processing means the use of fossil and biomass materials in the same pro-
cess, e.g. where fuels are produced in a refinery from a feedstock mixed of crude
(mineral) oil and vegetable oil. In such cases, a measurement of 14C in the prod-
uct could obtain the percentage of biomass (i.e. the biomass fraction in EU ETS
terminology). However, when just using a mass balance approach, it is an open
question how the biomass fraction in the final products should be determined and
which share of the emissions from the refining process should be attributed to
biomass. In the example, it would be theoretically possible to consider the whole
biomass being emitted during the refining process. Alternatively, the biomass
could be equally assigned as percentage to all refinery products, or only to one
specific product, e.g. kerosene.
At the time of writing this document, the Commission is preparing a delegated act
under Article 28(5) of the RED II which will provide rules on treatment of co-pro-
cessing64. Based on that draft delegated act, operators of EU ETS installations
should ensure that any calculation approach for the production or consumption
of mixed fuels should be as close as possible to the physical/chemical reality
(“trace the atom” approach). The draft act allows several methods for providing
evidence on the biomass fraction contained in the products (mass balance, en-
ergy balance, yield method and 14C analyses). However, all methods are to be
calibrated against 14C analyses.

3.4.6.4 Application of RED II criteria to waste

Specific provisions apply for waste with respect to the sustainability and GHG
savings criteria (see also section 3.4.2):
 In line with the methodology given in the Annexes65 of the RED II, “no emis-
sions shall be allocated to wastes and residues” [at the first point of collection]
when calculating life cycle emissions and GHG savings. This means effectively
that for waste of biological origin which is generated directly at the EU ETS
installation, the GHG savings criteria will usually be fulfilled, and this will be
easily demonstrated.
 For “biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from waste and residues,
other than agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues”, no com-
pliance with sustainability criteria has to be demonstrated.

64
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12711-Renewable-
energy-method-for-calculating-the-share-of-renewables-in-the-case-of-co-processing_en
65
Point 18 of section C of Annex V regarding biofuels and bioliquids, and point 18 of section B of
Annex VI regarding biomass fuels (biogas and solid biomass).

32
The first tricky point here is to determine if a material is indeed waste, or
whether it is a product, by-product66 or residue from a production process. How-
ever, this is not the task for an EU ETS guidance document. It is considered more
reliable to consult guidance documents which the Commission has provided in
the context of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD67). The WFD defines “‘waste’
means any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required
to discard” and the RED II definition adds (see also section 3.2) that the waste
excludes “substances that have been intentionally modified or contaminated in
order to meet this definition”. The Commission guidance on the interpretation of
key provisions of the Waste Directive 68 clarifies that a case-by-case assessment
by the competent authority may be required. It says for example that the mere
fact that a substance fits into a category of the European waste catalogue69 is not
sufficient for making a material a waste. Furthermore, some RED II certification
schemes may give support by providing confirmation if a material is to be consid-
ered waste.
With respect to whether a material is considered “agricultural, aquaculture, fish-
eries and forestry residues”, the RED II and MRR help by providing the definitions
 ‘residue’ means a substance that is not the end product(s) that a production
process directly seeks to produce; it is not a primary aim of the production
process and the process has not been deliberately modified to produce it;
 ‘agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residues’ means residues that
are directly generated by agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry and
that do not include residues from related industries or processing.
However, again it will require a case-by-case decision by the competent authority
if a material meets those definitions in the concrete context of the EU ETS instal-
lation.
If an installation uses biomass for combustion and the biomass is a waste (or
residue other than agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residue) gen-
erated by the installation itself, the operator only has to perform the task of clas-
sifying the material. If it is found that the category waste (or residue other than
agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry residue) applies, no further RED
II criteria apply. However, whether in this case the proof of sustainability from a
certification scheme is required or not depends on the Member State’s way of
transposing the RED II into national legislation. The operator of such installation
will have to take the national legislation into account when setting up its monitor-
ing plan. If a certification scheme recognised by the Commission is used (in par-
ticular if required by the Member State), Article 21 of the Implementing Act on

66
Unlike waste, a by-product is a material that has some commercial value. Article 5(1) of the Waste
Framework Directive lists conditions for something being a by-product:
“(a) further use of the substance or object is certain;
(b) the substance or object can be used directly without any further processing other than normal
industrial practice;
(c) the substance or object is produced as an integral part of a production process; and
(d) further use is lawful, i.e. the substance or object fulfils all relevant product, environmental and
health protection requirements for the specific use and will not lead to overall adverse environmen-
tal or human health impacts.”
67
Directive 2008/98/EC
68
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/waste/framework/guidance_doc.pdf
69
Commission Decision (2000/532/EC). For guidance, see Commission notice on technical guidance
on the classification of waste (C/2018/1447): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2018.124.01.0001.01.ENG

33
 certification schemes33 applies. It requires that the certification scheme ensures
(by inclusion in the auditing activities) that only materials are considered wastes
or residues if they are not deliberately modified to fall into these categories.
FAQ No. 5 in the Annex of this document (section 9.5) deals with some specific
waste-related questions.

3.4.6.5 Verification / audits

In section 3.4.5 it was discussed that operators of EU ETS installations or aircraft
operators can provide evidence on complying with RED II criteria by one of the
following approaches:
 All evidence (i.e. the “proof of sustainability”) is provided by means of voluntary
or national schemes by economic operators other than the EU ETS installation
which consumes the biomass;
 The operator becomes an “economic operator” certified by a recognised vol-
untary or a national scheme; or
 The operator assesses the applicable sustainability and/or GHG savings crite-
ria itself, if the (administering) Member State’s legislation allows this approach.
For the last two options, RED II Article 30(3) – which is relevant pursuant to the
6th subparagraph of MRR Article 38(5) – requires that economic operators have
to “arrange for an adequate standard of independent auditing of the information
submitted, and to provide evidence [to the competent authority] that this has been
done.“ The auditors engaged in this step are not necessarily the EU ETS verifiers.
However, if the EU ETS verifier has the relevant competence and accreditation,
the EU ETS verifier could carry out the relevant audit. In any case, the result of
RED II audits should be made available to the EU ETS verifier.
Under the second option, the implementing act 70 pursuant to Article 30(8) of the
RED II requires the operator to use a certification body which is trained and ac-
cepted by the relevant voluntary or national scheme recognised by the Commis-
sion. This will ensure that the auditors of the certification body have the relevant
competence71. For the third option, however, the operator has to take into account
any applicable national legislation for determining which certification bodies can
carry out the required verification.

3.4.6.6 Can Guarantees of Origin be used for demonstrating RED II cri-

teria?
Article 19 of the RED II regulates Guarantees of Origin (GoO). GoO “means an
electronic document which has the sole function of providing evidence to a final
customer that a given share or quantity of energy was produced from renewable
sources” (Article 2(12 of the RED II). GoO are exclusively used for the sake of
information to final consumers of electricity, heating or cooling, or gases (biogas
or hydrogen) on the source of supply. They are issued at the request of producers
of renewable energy and are traded on the market, whereby they can provide an
additional revenue stream to supplement other means of financial support to the

70
See footnote 33.
71
See section 3.4.5, How do RED II certification schemes work?

34
production of renewable energy. They can neither be used by Member States as
proof for meeting their renewable targets, nor for demonstrating that sustainability
or GHG savings criteria are met. GoO do not contain sufficient information to
certify sustainability72.
Because GoO can be traded independently from physical quantities of biomass,
they do not ensure by themselves that double counting is prevented. RED II Arti-
cle 19(2) requires MS to ensure that double counting is avoided 73. Section 0 dis-
cusses the special case of GoO in the context of biogas being added to natural
gas grids.

3.4.7 Examples
Annex I of the MRR requires the operator, if applicable, to include in the monitor-
ing plan a description of a written procedure to assess whether biomass source
streams comply with the requirements of MRR Article 38(5), i.e. whether the RED
II criteria are complied with. Such written procedure will be highly dependent of
several factors, in particular if the operator has identified a recognised certifica-
tion scheme which provides proof of sustainability for the biomass under consid-
eration, and on national legislation in the MS, as has been discussed in sections
3.4.1 to 3.4.6 above.

Example 1:
An installation started operation in May 2021 and combusts elephant grass
(Miscanthus × giganteus) for the production of district heating and electricity in
a CHP plant. Using the decision tree in section 3.4.2, the operator identifies
the following relevant RED II criteria:
 The land-related sustainability criteria are relevant, since the elephant grass
is no waste or residue, but the main product of the agricultural activity;
 The biomass is solid, but the installation started its operation after the be-
ginning of 2021. Therefore, GHG savings criteria need to be complied with.
After discussion with a consultant familiar with RED biomass certifications,
the operator concludes that the following information is required:
 Emissions from cultivation and harvesting (eec);
 Emissions from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change (ej);
 (There are no emissions from processing);
 Emissions from transport (including from first collection point to a ware-
house operator, and then from the warehouse to the EU ETS installation)
(etd);
 Emissions from use (for this purpose, operational data from the CHP plant
are needed) (eu).
 The calculated emissions have to be compared against the fossil com-
parators for heat and electricity production (see section 3.4.6.2).

72
GoOs have to comply with EN 16325. That (draft) standard allows to include optional information
on e.g. CO2 emissions, but not sufficient to certify the sustainability requirements.
73
“Member States shall ensure that the same unit of energy from renewable sources is taken into
account only once.” (Red II Article 19(2) 2nd sub-paragraph).

35
 The operator wants to cover the operation in full by a certification scheme. The
operator carries out some research. Basically, this requires checking the sys-
tem description on the websites of schemes recognised by the Commission
whether they cover all steps of the required value chain. The operator selects
the (fictitious) UBACert system, which has received the Commission’s recog-
nition in early 2022.
Under UBACert, the warehouse as economic operator is certified by the ficti-
tious certification body HFverif Ltd. HFverif agrees with the warehouse opera-
tor that the warehouse may issue proofs of sustainability that provide evidence
of compliance with all relevant sustainability and GHG savings criteria. In par-
ticular, this also includes in the scope the transport and use emissions infor-
mation, provided that the transport mode (train or truck) is always confirmed
on the delivery notes, and that the EU ETS operator provides operational data
on the CHP plant. HFverif’s auditor carries out a site visit at the EU ETS instal-
lation and at the warehouse for the initial audit. Based on a risk assessment74,
HFverif requires further audits every two years.
Procedure:
1. The shift personnel at the entrance gate is instructed to report every
delivery of a batch of elephant grass to the RSM (ETS Responsible Shift
Manager)75.
2. RSM collects delivery notes, which in particular contain the mass of the
delivery, the mode of transportation and a unique consignment reference
number which allows checking the warehouse’s mass balance.
3. Every 2nd working day of a month, department ENV requests the proofs of
sustainability (PoS) from the warehouse. Upon receipt, the PoS are
checked for completeness against the unique consignment reference
numbers. In case of missing proofs, the mass of that consignment is noted
as “non RED II compliant”, and its emissions are reported in the annual
emissions report as fossil (using the default emission factor stated in the
monitoring plan).
4. Each year, three weeks before the end of the validity of the warehouse’s
certificate under UBACert, ENV department contacts the warehouse
requesting a copy of the latest/new certificate. A reminder is set for the
next such event in ENV’s calendar.
5. Each year, six months before the end of the validity of the warehouse’s
certificate under UBACert, ENV department contacts the warehouse
asking for the planning of the next audit, i.e. whether it will be again HFverif
to carry out the audit, and if and when a site visit at the EU ETS installation
is planned. Reminders are set in ENV’s calendar accordingly.
6. Each year in November, the ENV department contacts UBACert, checking
whether the Commission’s recognition is still valid. If this is not the case,
ENV will contact the competent EU ETS authority asking if it would still
consider UBACert’s certificates. If not, ENV will report to CEO asking for a
mandate to look for a new certification scheme.

74
Based on the implementing act referred to in footnote 33.
75
Note that not the name of responsible staff, but the name of the post is to be used, in order to avoid
necessary updates whenever staff changes.

36
 7. Each year during the second week of January, ENV department compiles
information on all steps above and prepares to hand the information over
to the EU ETS verifier who verifies the annual emission report. ENV
department stores all related information for a minimum period of 10
years76.

Example 2:
An EU ETS installation burns glycerol which is a by-product from various bio-
diesel production sites. The result of the combustion process is medium pres-
sure steam (i.e. heat). The glycerol comes by train from (currently) 5 different
plants at a distance of up to 300 km. The operator wants to save the costs for
getting certification as economic operator by a certification system. National
legislation allows that the operator provides the relevant evidence to a compe-
tent authority without using a voluntary scheme, and that accredited EU ETS
verifiers, after a dedicated 5-day training on the Member State’s national
RED II legislation, can obtain an additional accreditation scope for this pur-
pose.
Using the decision tree in section 3.4.2, the operator identifies the following
relevant RED II criteria:
 The land-related sustainability criteria are NOT relevant, since the glycerol
is a residue77 from biodiesel production;
 The GHG savings criteria apply. The following information is required:
 Because glycerol is a residue of a process in which the emissions are
attributed to the main product (biodiesel), emissions from cultivation and
collection (eec), from carbon stock changes caused by land-use change
(ej) as well as from processing (ep) are zero;
 Emissions from transport from the biodiesel plants to the EU ETS instal-
lation are relevant (etd);
 Emissions from use are relevant (i.e. the emissions from glycerol com-
bustion in the EU ETS installation (eu) – This means total greenhouse gas
emissions from combustion. The CO2 emissions of biomass are zero, but
emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) from the fuel
use shall be included in eu for bioliquids and biomass fuels 78;
 The calculated emissions have to be compared against the fossil com-
parator for heat production (see section 3.4.6.2).
In principle, the above points result in one calculation for each of the plants
from which the glycerol is sourced. If there are no variables changing over time
(e.g. change of transport mode), the operator has to carry out the calculations
only once instead of annually, and have it verified only once (if this is in line
with the Member State’s legislation and/or accepted by the competent author-
ity).

76
Requirement of Article 67 MRR.
77
Glycerol is used as input in chemical and other industries, i.e. it has – at least if sufficiently pure –
a market value. It will therefore usually not qualify as waste.
78
RED II, Annex VI contains default values for “non-CO2 emissions from the fuel in use” for some
biomass fuels.

37
 The quantity of glycerol delivered by each of the five glycerol providers needs
to be monitored throughout the year. The operator collects the delivery notes
and/or invoices which provide evidence that no glycerol from other plants than
the initial five is delivered. Should a new source of glycerol be used, the calcu-
lation will have to be carried out for the new source.
In case that at least one of the source plants is so far away from the EU ETS
installation that the transport emissions cause the GHG savings criterion not
to be fulfilled, the procedure must furthermore ensure that any quantity of glyc-
erol sourced from that plant is treated as if it were from a fossil source.
The annual verification under the EU ETS would focus on the operator’s data
on attributing the glycerol to the correct source plant. If new sources are added,
verification of the RED II criteria by a verifier satisfying the Member State’s
RED II competence criteria would be required.

38
 4 DETERMINING THE BIOMASS FRACTION
This chapter is applicable only for stationary installations.

4.1 General approach

As discussed in more detail in guidance document No. 1 (General guidance for

installations79), the EU ETS Directive allows that the emission factor of biomass
is set to zero if RED II criteria are complied with (see section 3.4). This applies
for accounting purposes only, while physically, still CO 2 is emitted from the instal-
lation. Therefore, and for transparency purposes, where biomass is involved, the
emission factor must be determined from the preliminary emission factor and the
biomass fraction of the fuel:
EF  EFpre  (1  BF )

Where:
EF ....... Emission factor;
EFpre .... Preliminary emission factor (i.e. according to Article 3(36), the “assumed
total emission factor of a fuel or material based on the carbon content of its bio-
mass fraction and its fossil fraction before multiplying it by the fossil fraction to
produce the emission factor”);
BF ....... biomass fraction that complies with the RED II criteria [dimensionless].
Note: This equation is valid because the emission factor of biomass (if it
complies with the “RED II criteria”) is zero. For a mixed material this formula
requires that the EFpre is the weighted average value for the whole mixture. In
that case, “determining the biomass fraction” means “determining the fraction of
carbon in the mixture which is from biomass that complies with the RED II crite-
ria”. The part of biomass which does not comply with those criteria has to be
reported separately, but for emission calculation the above formula is correct. For
reporting purposes, FF + BFnon-REDII + BF = 1, where FF is the fossil fraction,
BFnon-REDII the fraction of biomass carbon which is not complying with the RED II
criteria, and BF the biomass fraction of carbon which is zero-rated. Section 10.17
of GD 1 contains an FAQ on how to report emissions from mixed fuels.

As GD 1 furthermore explains, for the purpose of emission monitoring using a

calculation method, calculation factors can be determined either by using default
values, or by laboratory analyses. The determination of the biomass or fossil80
fraction of mixed fuels or materials is different from the determination of other
calculation factors in three ways:

79
For reference see section 1.3.
80
Because Biomass fraction = 1 – fossil fraction, it is not important which fraction is determined by
analysis. The operator can choose the simpler and more reliable methodology.

39
 1. The biomass/fossil fraction is to be determined only if a source stream is not
purely biomass or purely fossil81. In case of doubt or very small biomass frac-
tions, the operator may apply a conservative approach and set the fossil frac-
tion to 100% without further analysis (MRR Article 39(1)).
2. There is no list of default values in Annex VI of the MRR.
3. Laboratory analyses may be difficult due to sampling issues for heterogene-
ous materials, or may lack reliability due to technical issues of available ana-
lytical methods.
Despite these differences, the MRR 2018 introduced tier definitions for the deter-
mination of the biomass fraction in Annex II, section 2.4, as follows:
Tier 1: Values published by the competent authority or the Commission, or values
in accordance with Article 31(1), i.e. “Type I and Type II default values”82.
Tier 2: Estimation method approved by the competent authority83.
Tier 3: Laboratory analyses84.
Beyond these tier definitions, the MRR contains some special rules for determin-
ing the biomass fraction:
 The highest tier requirement is bespoke analyses as is the case for other cal-
culation factors. However, a specific requirement is added here that the com-
petent authority must explicitly approve the determination methodology, which
must be based on relevant standards. See section 4.2 below.
 Where the highest tier is technically not feasible or would incur unreasonable
costs (see GD 1, section 4.6), the operator shall use one of the following:
 Use an estimation method published by the Commission, if available (at the
time of writing this guidance, the Commission has not published any estima-
tion methods), or
 Propose an estimation method for the approval by the competent authority.
In particular such estimation method may be a suitable mass balance where
the material is originating from a known production process (such as e.g.
wood-based panel wastes, where the amount of (fossil) resins added is a
known process parameter). A mass balance as used under Article 30(1) of
the RED II will also serve this purpose. Such mass balance information
should be available from the supplier of the biomass together with evidence
on sustainability and GHG savings criteria (see section 3.4). If the mass
balance expresses biomass quantities in terms of energy instead of mass,
section 4.3.2 should be consulted.
 The lowest tier (tier 1) is as usual the use of default values.
 However, it is always possible to use the conservative assumption that the
fossil fraction is 100%, for which no tier applies (select “n.a.” in annual emis-
sions report).

81
New subparagraph in MRR Article 30(2): “The operator shall be required to determine the biomass
fraction only for mixed fuels or materials. For other fuels or materials the default value of 0% for
the biomass fraction of fossil fuels or materials shall be used, and a default value of 100% biomass
fraction for biomass fuels or materials consisting exclusively of biomass.”
82
See section 6.2.1 of Guidance document 1.
83
In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 39(2).
84
In accordance with the first sub-paragraph of Article 39(2), and in accordance with Articles 32 to 35.

40
More details on estimation methods are given in section 4.3.

4.2 Laboratory analyses for biomass fraction

For general requirements for laboratory analyses, please see Guidance docu-
ment No. 5 (Guidance on Sampling and Analysis)85.
For the determination of the fossil and biomass carbon fraction in materials and
fuels, Article 39(2) requires in particular: “Where subject to the tier level required,
the operator has to carry out analyses to determine the biomass fraction, it shall
do so on the basis of a relevant standard and the analytical methods therein,
provided that the use of that standard and analytical method are approved by the
competent authority.” This special highlighting of the competent authority’s ap-
proval will be discussed here.
For solid materials (usually waste), the relevant standard86 according to the MRR
is EN 15440 (“Solid recovered fuels – Methods for the determination of biomass
content”). Where more specific national or international standards are available,
they may be applied as well.
EN 15440 offers three methods for determining the biomass fraction of a mixed
material:
1. The selective dissolution method;
2. The manual sorting method;
3. The 14C method.
The informative Annex D of that standard shows that method 1 gives inappropri-
ate and wrong results for several materials (i.e. fossil materials appearing to be
biomass, or biomass identified as fossil). Method 2 is only applicable where opti-
cally and physically distinguishable fractions can be separated and quantified.
The standard states that particle size should be >10mm. Under the standard,
method 3 is applicable to all material types.
Therefore, the standard clarifies in section 6.3, that for determining biomass for
the purpose of emission trading, “the 14C method or the selective dissolution may
be used.” The dissolution method must not be applied, if materials listed in Table
1 are contained at levels above 5% (for rubber residues the threshold is 10%).
EN 15440 acknowledges that the manual sorting and selective dissolution meth-
ods will usually be less expensive and simpler to apply than the 14C method.
Therefore the standard proposes that for routine checks for RES Directive pur-
poses the two simpler methods may be applied (if materials listed in Table 1 are
present below the mentioned thresholds only), with the 14C method as reference
method. The standard also points out that the sample preparation for the 14C
method should be simple enough for application in a reasonably equipped labor-
atory with normal skilled laboratory staff.

85
Please see section 1.3 for where to find other guidance documents.
86
That standard has been replaced by EN ISO 21644:2021 (“Solid recovered fuels – Methods for the
determination of biomass content”). However, this guidance document refers still to the old stand-
ard because it is explicitly mentioned in the MRR.

41
 Table 1: Materials for which the selective dissolution method is considered
inappropriate according to EN 15440:2011.

Solid fuels like hard coal, coke, brown coal, lignite and peat
Charcoal
Biodegradable plastics of fossil origin
Non-biodegradable plastics of biogenic origin
Oil or fat present as a constituent of biomass
Natural and/or synthetic rubber residues
Wool
Viscose
Nylon, polyurethane or other polymers containing molecular amino groups
Silicon rubber

Taking into account both the standard’s requirements and Article 39(2) of the
MRR, the following approach is proposed:
 Operators should strive for using the 14C
method, at least for validation of the
other methods used. The best cost/benefit balance may be found if the opera-
tor ensures correct sampling and sample preparation, which allows sending
the sample to an accredited laboratory for the purpose of the 14C analyses.
 If the operator can show to the satisfaction of the competent authority that 14C

analyses lead to unreasonable costs or are technically not feasible, the oper-
ator may use one of the two other methods of EN 15440, and provides evi-
dence to the competent authority that
 based on several representative samples the selected method has been
validated using the 14C method, and
 materials listed in Table 1 are found at levels below 5% (10% for rubber
residues)..
 If such validation is not possible, but the 14C
method would lead to unreason-
able costs, the operator may use one of the lower tier approaches as discussed
in section 4.1.

Note that due to the usual heterogeneous character of solid wastes, special care
must be taken for sampling and sample preparation. Several standards of the EN
15000 series are referenced for this purpose in EN 15440, and therefore must be
applied as appropriate.
For liquid fuels and materials, currently no European standard is available. How-
ever, it seems that the 14C method as given in EN 15440 should be applicable
without great difficulties. Furthermore EN 16640 (“Bio-based products – Bio-
based carbon content – Determination of the bio-based carbon content using the
radiocarbon method”) may be useful.
Furthermore, it should be noted that sampling of CO2 from the flue gas for the
purpose of a 14C analysis can be a useful approach. In this case the biomass
fraction determined would represent an average for the whole fuel mix. This ap-
proach would be in particular beneficial where highly heterogeneous materials

42
such as municipal waste are combusted. The MRR 2018 explicitly allows sam-
pling based on EN ISO 13833 (Stationary source emissions — Determination of
the ratio of biomass (biogenic) and fossil-derived carbon dioxide — Radiocarbon
sampling and determination) in combination with Continuous Emission Measure-
ment Systems (CEMS, see section 5.2).

4.3 Estimation methods

4.3.1 General approach

Regarding estimation methods which an operator may propose as tier 2 for the
biomass fraction, there is a high degree of flexibility. In addition to estimating the
biomass fraction as a separate factor for a single source stream, estimation meth-
ods for the overall biomass load of an emission source or source stream should
be explored, such as the “balance method” 87. However, where the reliability of
the method is not certain, the operator should also provide for a method for cor-
roborating the results.
FAQ No. 3 (see Annex III, section 9.3) gives some examples of estimation meth-
ods allowable pursuant to Article 39 MRR. Further methods may be approved by
competent authorities, if they are based on scientifically proven methods. Prefer-
ence should be given to methods at least partly referring to EN, ISO or national
standards as well as to peer-reviewed publications.

4.3.2 Using RED II proofs of sustainability expressed as energy

content
Under the EU ETS MRV rules, the activity data / quantity of materials is usually
expressed in terms of mass, or for gases in volumes. However, the proof of sus-
tainability by a certification scheme may be expressed in terms of energy content,
in particular where it is linked to guarantees of origin, which are always issued in
units of MWh. Where it relates to homogenous materials or fuels, this is no prob-
lem for the EU ETS operator. The linking element is the net calorific value (NCV,
also known as lower heating value) which allows conversion from one unit to an-
other88:
Mass = Energy / NCV
Furthermore, under the EU ETS, the biomass fraction of a mixed material relates
to the fraction of carbon atoms in the material being from biomass. If a proof of
sustainability expressed based on the energy content gives a certain “biomass
fraction”, this is not directly usable under the EU ETS. Since the chemical bonds
of the atoms in a substance have different bond energies, an exact treatment
would give different values for the biomass fraction if it is calculated as energy
content fraction instead of carbon mass fraction.

87
The balance method is based on five mass balances and one energy balance. Each balance de-
scribes a certain waste characteristic (e.g. content of organic carbon, heating value). The waste
characteristics are derived from routinely measured operating data at the co-incineration plant.
88
NCV values will usually be based on dry mass. However, the operator will have to ensure con-
sistency of the state how data is given, and the state of a material in actual use.

43
 There is no simple solution to this problem, unless the operator obtains sufficient
information on the biomass material from the certification process. The mass bal-
ance approach under Article 30(1) of the RED II should keep track both of the
mass as well as the energy content of the materials under consideration. How-
ever, where this is not possible, the operator would have to agree with the com-
petent authority on another estimation method (using the information from the
certification scheme), as allowed by Article 39(2) of the MRR.
In cases where the biomass and the fossil materials in a mixture have the same
chemical composition (e.g. in a mixture of natural gas and biogas, where both are
mainly composed of methane, or mixed liquid transport fuels consisting of a sim-
ilar mixture of hydrocarbons from fossil and biomass sources), it is justified to use
energy fraction values to determine the biomass fraction for the EU ETS.

44
 5 OTHER SPECIFIC MRR RULES ON BIOMASS
This chapter is applicable only for stationary installations.

5.1 Simplifications by Article 38

Note: “Biomass” in this chapter means “biomass for which compliance with sus-
tainability and/or GHG savings criteria (the “RED II criteria”, see chapter 3) has
been demonstrated, as relevant”, since in accordance with Article 38(5) of the
MRR, other biomass must be treated as if it were fossil.
In principle all source streams in an installation have to be monitored using the
same system of tiers which are defined for the calculation based methodology.
However, where biomass is contained in a source stream, the emissions stem-
ming from this biomass are reported as zero, no matter how big the total emis-
sions are. Adherence to reporting activity data and calculation factors to high ac-
curacy in such cases could be counter to cost effectiveness.
The MRR therefore allows in Article 38 several simplifications:
 Where the whole source stream consists exclusively of biomass (i.e. 100%
biomass and an absence of fossil contamination can be ensured, if applicable
taking into account sustainability criteria), the operator may
 take the biomass fraction to be 100% without carrying out further analyses
(or estimation methods); and
 determine the activity data without using tiers. This means that again an
estimation method is allowed, similar to de-minimis source streams89. Alt-
hough it is not explicitly mentioned in the MRR, the NCV and oxidation factor
may also be determined using lower tiers or no-tier approaches.
However, it is clear that the operator has to provide some evidence about the
biomass nature of the source stream to the competent authority when submit-
ting the monitoring plan. Furthermore, the evidence for meeting any applicable
RED II criteria (see chapter 3) has to be provided. If at the time of submitting
the monitoring plan not all relevant information is available on the biomass or
the sustainability scheme to be used, the operator will agree with the compe-
tent authority an appropriate way forward (such as updating the monitoring
plan as soon as more information (e.g. after first delivery of the material) is
available, or by using written procedures which can be updated with less effort
than the monitoring plan. See GD 1 for more guidance on how to best set up
monitoring plans).
 Where the fossil fraction of the emissions allows the source stream to qualify
as a de-minimis source stream90, or where 97% or more of the carbon stems

89
As the emissions of such a source stream are zero, the biomass source stream qualifies automat-
ically as de-minimis source stream.
90
The operator may select as de-minimis source streams: source streams which jointly correspond
to less than 1 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year or to less than 2% of the “total of all monitored
items”, up to a total maximum contribution of 20 000 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year, whichever is
the highest in terms of absolute value. The “total of all monitored items” means the sum of source
stream emissions including where outputs of mass balances are taken into account, absolute val-
ues, plus any emissions determined by CEMS. For more details see GD 1 (General guidance for
installations). Note that the MRR 2018 requires that biomass must comply with the applicable RED
II criteria to be zero-rated when classifying source streams.

45
 from biomass (taking into account RED II criteria, where applicable), the same
approach regarding use of no-tier methodologies including estimations may be
applied. However, evidence must be provided regarding the fossil fraction in
this case (see section 4 of this document).
The energy balance method is explicitly mentioned in the MRR as a possible no-
tier estimation method, but other methods may be proposed by operators as well.

5.2 Biomass and CEMS

The MRR 2012 assumed that it is not possible to continuously measure the bio-
mass fraction of the emitted CO2 with sufficient reliability. Therefore the MRR
2012 required as default approach that emissions from biomass should be deter-
mined by a calculation based approach, for subtracting them from the total emis-
sions determined by measurement. However, Article 43(4) of the MRR 2018 al-
lows not only calculation based approaches, but also
 Methods that use radiocarbon analyses of samples taken from the flue gas by
continuous sampling. Note that formally this is a calculation based approach
in MRR terminology, as it does not rely on continuous measurement. For this
purpose, EN ISO 13833 “Stationary source emissions – Determination of the
ratio of biomass (biogenic) and fossil-derived carbon dioxide – Radiocarbon
sampling and determination” is to be applied;
 The “balance method”, which is an estimation method in MRR terminology
(based on ISO 18466 “Stationary source emissions – Determination of the bi-
ogenic fraction in CO2 in stack gas using the balance method”).
 Other estimation methods published by the Commission 91.
Note that Article 43 clarifies that for the biomass monitored by such methods,
Article 38(5) also applies. In other words, the RED II criteria (if applicable, see
section 3.4.2) have to be met for allowing the zero-rating of the relevant biomass
emissions. This may appear relatively burdensome at first sight. However, as long
as all used biomass meets the RED II criteria, no quantification of individual
source streams will be required (except for the corroborating calculation that must
be done anyway). Where waste (in particular municipal solid waste) is used in an
EU ETS installation, the demonstration of compliance with the relevant RED II
criteria is relatively simple, as has been discussed in section 3.4.2. Therefore,
only where a source stream is identified as not complying with the applicable RED
II criteria, the use of a calculation based approach for determining the zero-rated
amounts of biomass emissions will have to be indispensable.

91
At the time of updating this guidance, no such methods have been published.

46
 5.3 Biogas in natural gas grids

When biogas (biomethane) is fed into a natural gas grid, it is physically mixed
with and diluted by the natural gas and transported across the grid. It is uncertain,
at which point of the grid it will be delivered to a consumer. However, specific EU
ETS installations may want to make use of such biogas, which they may have
purchased from a specified biogas producer or from a gas supplier. For handling
this situation, the MRR provides a solution in Article 39(3) and (4):
 In principle, a monitoring approach using purchase records is allowed. How-
ever, in order to avoid double counting, it is not allowed to determine by labor-
atory analyses whether any biogas is physically delivered via the gas grid to
the EU ETS installation.
 For the purchase based approach, Article 39(4) requires that the following con-
ditions are met:
 there is no double counting of the same biogas quantity, in particular that
the biogas purchased is not claimed to be used by anyone else, including
through a disclosure of a guarantee of origin as defined in Article 2(12) of
Directive (EU) 2018/2001;
 the operator and the producer of the biogas are connected to the same gas
grid.
It goes without saying that the applicable sustainability and GHG savings criteria
have to be fulfilled for the biogas in question.
The MRR furthermore states that for demonstrating compliance with these crite-
ria, the operator may use the data recorded in a database set up by one or more
Member States which enables tracing of transfers of biogas, which means a “bi-
ogas registry” which ensures that every consignment of biogas is used only once.
Theoretically, such databases could be made sufficiently compatible so that data
exchange between Member States could ensure that biogas can be traded
across country borders. Currently there is no single information system at the EU
level for this purpose. However, the Union database being developed under the
mandate of Article 28 of RED II will take the role of mass-balancing of liquid and
gaseous fuels once fully operational.
In the following sub-sections, the most important aspects of the MRR’s provisions
are discussed.

5.3.1 Member States’ approaches and biogas registries

The first thing to observe on biogas (biomethane) is that Member States have
chosen different approaches to regulate its use. Because Member States are re-
sponsible for ensuring compliance with the RED II, operators of EU ETS installa-
tions who want to use biogas in line with Article 39(4) must ensure they have
knowledge of the Member State’s approach and legislation. Knowledge to be ob-
tained includes:
 Is there a biogas registry which can ensure that biogas is not double counted?
If not, which other measures can be taken to track the use of biogas?

47
  Does the Member State allow the accounting of biogas produced in another
Member State92?
 Does the Member State or its Registry issue biogas certificates which include
information on sustainability, or guarantees of origin, or does it apply both sys-
tems?
 If there is a biogas registry, does it act like a mass balance system under Article
30(1) of the RED II, or does it issue certificates or GoOs that are traded inde-
pendently from the physical gas quantities?

5.3.2 What are purchase records

For the purpose of Article 39(4), it is necessary that actual quantities of biogas
can be traded between parties (producers, traders, consumers), and not only
GoOs. Where the biogas registry acts as a mass balance within the meaning of
the RED II, a certificate in the registry can be considered a purchase record. The
proof of sustainability of a (recognised) certification scheme should be included
in such certificate, or traded inseparably from the mass balance certificate.
In the absence of such a biogas registry, the operator of an EU ETS installation
will have to use a supply contract for providing evidence of the purchase. In order
to prove the quantity of purchased biogas, invoices will have to be demonstrated
to the verifier, and upon request, to the competent authority. Furthermore the
operator will have to receive the necessary evidence on sustainability and GHG
savings from the supplier of the biogas, taking into account the full supply chain
of biogas production.

5.3.3 Meaning of “the same grid”

The major part of the EU Member States’ natural gas grids are connected, and
can therefore be considered to be under one single mass balance for the purpose
of the RED II. However, when Article 39(4) is to be applied, it must be ensured
that the purchase is actually reflected in the mass balance (as represented by
biogas registries): Every MWh biogas purchased and claimed as used (either by
an EU ETS installation or by any other consumer) must be removed/cancelled
immediately from the mass balance, and for every MWh biogas produced, only
one certificate must be generated.
For smaller natural gas grids which are not connected to the overall EU grid, it is
still possible to use Article 39(4) of the MRR, but only if both the biogas producer
and the biogas consumer are connected to the same grid, and if one mass bal-
ance is operated for this grid.
A special situation occurs where natural gas is transported by means other than
pipelines (e.g. as liquefied gas) from the EU grid to a smaller, isolated grid. As
long as that gas quantity can still be traced using a mass balance (e.g. by using
a biogas registry), the condition of connection to the same grid may still be con-

92
That a Member State does not allow the accounting can happen e.g. if there is insufficient evidence
that the biogas production is safeguarded against double counting, or if there is no system for
statistical transfer in place, etc.

48
sidered fulfilled. Note, however, that emissions from the additional energy con-
sumption (liquefaction and transport of the gas) will have to be takin into account
in calculation of the GHG savings.

5.3.4 Avoiding double counting

As mentioned in section 3.4.6.6, guarantees of origin can be traded inde-
pendently from physical gas quantities. Therefore, if GoOs were accepted inde-
pendently of purchase records, there is a risk that the same physical quantity of
biogas could be claimed twice: once through GoOs and a second time through
purchase records. For being sure that no such double counting can happen, one
of the following approaches can be chosen:
 The Member State in which the biogas is produced, does not issue any GoO
for biogas at all.
 The Member State requires immediate cancellation of GoOs at the time the
biogas is sold to the end user, i.e. the EU ETS installation.
 The Member State that allows the use of MRR Article 39(4) requires the oper-
ator of an EU ETS installation to always cancel without undue delay biogas
GoOs of the same quantity and consignment that the actual purchase record
of biogas relate to.
These approaches are mutually exclusive, as otherwise more GoOs would be
cancelled than biogas used. If the biogas producer and consumer are situated in
the same Member State, this will likely not occur.
For the special case of an EU ETS installation consuming biogas that was pro-
duced in the same installation, double counting can be avoided by not generating
any certificates or GoOs at all. However, if the Member State allows their gener-
ation, the Member State must also ensure that they are immediately cancelled
again, as in all other cases of biogas use 93.

5.3.5 Biogas trading across MS borders

If cross-border biogas transfers should happen, it is important that all participating
Member States agree to the same approach regarding certificates in their regis-
tries (see previous sub-section). Furthermore, the biogas registries of all partici-
pating Member States must be technically compatible (otherwise the transfers
would require human intervention, which is intrinsically prone to error). All partic-
ipating registries must ensure that the certificate for biogas transferred out of the
Member State is immediately cancelled, and that for each imported biogas quan-
tity, the correct number of new certificates is generated. The information on the
certificates (such as biogas producer, raw materials, proofs of sustainability, etc.)
must be passed on to the next registry without modification.

93
RED II Article 19(2): “To that end, Member States shall ensure that a guarantee of origin is issued
in response to a request from a producer of energy from renewable sources, unless Member States
decide, for the purposes of accounting for the market value of the guarantee of origin, not to issue
such a guarantee of origin to a producer that receives financial support from a support scheme.
[…]
In order to take into account the market value of the guarantee of origin, Member States may, inter
alia, decide to issue a guarantee of origin to the producer and immediately cancel it.”

49
 At the time of writing this guidance, not all Member States have registries that
fulfil these requirements. However, there are two initiatives which may help EU
ETS operators to make use of biogas:
 The European Renewable Gas Registry (ERGaR94) is working on the promo-
tion of standards which serve the purpose of transferring biogas mass balance
certificates and GoOs between connected Member States’ biogas registries.
ERGaR applied for recognition by the Commission as a voluntary scheme (with
the scope focussed on the transfer between registries only). As recognised
schemes have to accept certificates and proof of sustainability on other parts
of the value chain from other recognised schemes, this would complement
other voluntary schemes in this one missing link in the supply chain.
 Pursuant to Article 28(2), the Commission is to set up a Union database for
tracing liquid and gaseous transport fuels. This is currently under development,
and little is known yet on its functioning. Furthermore, it would currently not
cover the trade of biogas with an EU ETS installation as consumer, since it is
meant only for transport fuels. However, according to the “Fit for 55” proposal
by the Commission for revision of the RED II, this database would be extended
to cover all biogas fed to the natural gas grid.
Note: The above considerations relate to the trade of biogas between companies.
If trade is done across Member State borders, this will mean that EU ETS emis-
sions are reduced in the Member State of the consuming installations compared
to if natural gas were used, and the physical consumption of the biogas in the
producing Member State will not lead to the intended emission reduction. On the
other hand, if this trade is not reflected in energy statistics, the biogas could still
count towards the renewable energy target of the producing Member State.
Therefore, a “statistical transfer” pursuant to Article 8 of the RED II would have to
be made between Member States. This could use information created by the bi-
ogas registries. However, it will not happen automatically95. However, as it is not
an EU ETS issue, this is outside the scope of this guidance document.

94
https://www.ergar.org/
95
Based on current knowledge at the time of writing this document.

50
 6 AVIATION SPECIFIC ASPECTS
This chapter has now been transferred to Guidance document No. 2 (“General
guidance for Aircraft Operators”96). It applied only to aircraft operators’ activities
covered by the EU ETS.
In the context of aviation and the EU ETS, two issues are of relevance:
1. How to apply sustainability and GHG savings criteria? (see section 6.1)
2. How to account for biofuel purchases in a pragmatic way? (see section 6.2)

6.1 Sustainability and GHG savings criteria

Regarding the sustainability criteria, in principle everything discussed in section

3.4 is applicable. Because of the international character of the aviation sector,
aircraft operators should in particular strive for receiving evidence based on vol-
untary schemes recognised by the Commission. Section 3.4 is now contained in
GD 2 as an annex.

6.2 Biofuel determination based on purchase records

Article 54(3) of the MRR allows that aircraft operators determine the quantity of
biofuels used based on purchase records, provided the aircraft operator provides
evidence to the competent authority that there is no double counting of those
biofuels. For that purpose, the aircraft operator may make use of the Union data-
base set up in accordance with Article 28(2) of the RED II. More information is
provided in Guidance Document No. 2.

96
For where to find this document on the Commission’s website please see section 1.3.

51
 7 ANNEX I

7.1 List of biomass materials

This informative Annex has been added as guidance for interpretation of the
MRR’s definition of biomass. The lists below are non-exhaustive. Thus, if a ma-
terial or fuel is not found on the list, the individual case must be assessed based
on the definitions of the MRR (see section 3.2).

7.1.1 Clarification for some non-biomass materials

Peat, xylite97 and fossil fractions or contaminations of the materials below are not
biomass (see Article 38(3)).

7.1.2 Biomass materials

Note: For all materials listed below it must be taken into account if sus-
tainability criteria and GHG savings criteria of the RED II are applicable.
(see section3.4.2).
If RED II criteria apply, the material only qualifies as biomass within the mean-
ing of the MRR (i.e. with an emission factor of zero) if evidence for meeting the
applicable sustainability and GHG savings criteria is provided.

Note: If the materials listed contain fossil materials (such as in the case of waste
wood containing varnishes, colours, resins, etc), these materials have to be
treated as mixed materials.

Group 1: Plants and parts of plants:

 straw;
 hay and grass;
 leaves, wood, roots, stumps, bark;
 crops, e.g. maize and triticale.
Group 2: Biomass wastes, products and residues:
 industrial waste wood (waste wood from woodworking and wood processing
operations and waste wood from operations in the wood materials industry);
 used wood (used products made from wood, wood materials) and products
and by-products from wood processing operations;
 wood-based waste from the pulp and paper industries, e.g. black liquor (with
only biomass carbon);
 crude tall oil, tall oil and pitch oil from the production of pulp;
 forestry residues;
 lignin from the processing of plants containing ligno-cellulose;

97
This is a by-product of lignite coal production.

52
 animal, fish and food meal, fat, oil and tallow;
 primary residues from the food and beverage production;
 plant oils and fats;
 manure;
 agricultural plant residues;
 sewage sludge;
 biogas produced by digestion, fermentation or gasification of biomass;
 harbour sludge and other waterbody sludges and sediments;
 landfill gas;
 charcoal;
 natural rubber or latex.
Group 3: Biomass fractions of mixed materials:
 the biomass fraction of flotsam from waterbody management;
 the biomass fraction of mixed residues from food and beverage production;
 the biomass fraction of composites containing wood;
 the biomass fraction of textile wastes;
 the biomass fraction of paper, cardboard, pasteboard;
 the biomass fraction of municipal and industrial waste;
 the biomass fraction of black liquor containing fossil carbon;
 the biomass fraction of processed municipal and industrial wastes;
 the biomass fraction of ethyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (ETBE);
 the biomass fraction of butanol;
 the biomass fraction of waste tyres resulting from natural rubber and fibres.
Group 4: Fuels whose components and intermediate products have all been
produced from biomass98:
 bioethanol;
 biodiesel;
 etherised bioethanol;
 biomethanol;
 biodimethylether;
 bio-oil (a pyrolysis oil fuel) and bio-gas;
 hydro-treated vegetable oil (HVO).

98
Where a fraction of the carbon contained in these substances stems from fossil sources, such as
e.g. when biodiesel is produced using methanol produced from fossil sources, these substances
must be treated as mixed materials.

53
 7.2 List of default values for calculation factors for some
biomass materials

7.2.1 Preliminary emission factors

Article 38(2) of the MRR makes reference to the use of the preliminary emission
factor99 for mixed materials and fuels. However, the MRR does not contain default
values for the preliminary emission factors. Therefore, operators may find it diffi-
cult to report these values 100. Furthermore such default values might be needed
for biomass materials where evidence for meeting sustainability criteria (if appli-
cable) cannot be provided. The following values taken from the IPCC 2006 guide-
lines (lowest tier approach) may be useful for this purpose101. However, the IPCC
guidelines also give ranges for those values which may be broad in particular for
biomass. Competent authorities should therefore request operators to validate
the appropriateness of default values by laboratory analyses, taking into account
the total amount of emissions from this source stream such that unreasonable
costs are avoided. For higher tiers, there may be better values available from the
relevant competent authority.
Note that for the application of the preliminary emission factor a FAQ is pro-
vided102. The Commission’s template for the Annual Emission Report further clar-
ifies the issue.

Biomass material Preliminary EF NCV [GJ/t]

[t CO2 / TJ]
Wood / Wood waste (air dry103) 112 15.6
Sulphite lyes (black liquor) 95.3 11.8
Other primary solid biomass 100 11.6
Charcoal 112 29.5
Biogasoline 70.8 27.0

99
According to Article 3(36) of the MRR, the preliminary emission factor is “the assumed total emis-
sion factor of a fuel or material based on the carbon content of its biomass fraction and its fossil
fraction before multiplying it by the fossil fraction to produce the emission factor”. This is to be
distinguished from the [final] emission factor, which by definition is zero for biomass. For further
details see section 4.3.1 of Guidance Document No. 1, and the FAQ No.1 in this document (section
9.1).
100
According to point 8(b) of Annex X of the MRR, operators are required to report CO 2 emissions
from biomass as memo item where a measurement based methodology is used to determine emis-
sions. This is achieved in a simple way if the preliminary emission factor is reported together with
the biomass fraction (the latter being a reporting requirement given by point 6(f) of the same An-
nex).
Note: This approach of reporting is inter alia necessary for supporting the accurate determination
of biomass emissions in the national GHG inventory.
101
The full guidelines, including inter alia definitions for these fuels, can be found at
http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html
102
See FAQ 1 in section 9.1.
103
The given emission factor assumes around 15% water content of the wood. Fresh wood can have
water content of up to 50%. For determining the NCV of completely dry wood, the following equa-
tion should be used:
𝑁𝐶𝑉 = 𝑁𝐶𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑦 ∙ (1 − 𝑤) − ∆𝐻𝑣 ∙ 𝑤

Where NCVdry is the NCV of the absolute dry material, w is the water content (mass fraction) and
∆𝐻𝑣 = 2.4𝐺𝐽/𝑡 𝐻2 𝑂 is the evaporation enthalpy of water. Using the same equation, the NCV for a
given water content can be back-calculated from the dry NCV.

54
 Biomass material Preliminary EF NCV [GJ/t]
[t CO2 / TJ]
Biodiesels104 70.8 37.0
Other liquid biofuels 79.6 27.4
105
Landfill gas 54.6 50.4
Sludge gas105 54.6 50.4
105
Other biogas 54.6 50.4
106
Municipal waste (biomass fraction) 100 11.6

7.2.2 Mixed materials

An information exchange between Member States and the Commission has not
yet resulted in a further need to provide default values for specific mixed materi-
als. As an exception, default values for waste tyres are discussed in FAQ No. 2
(see section 9.2).

104
The NCV value is taken from Annex III of the RED II.
105
For landfill gas, sludge gas and other biogas: Standard values refer to pure Biomethane. For arriv-
ing at the correct default values, a correction is required for the methane content of the gas.
106
The IPCC guidelines also give values for the fossil fraction of municipal waste:
EF = 91.7 t CO2/TJ; NCV = 10 GJ/t

55
 8 ANNEX II – ACRONYMS AND LEGISLATION

8.1 Acronyms

AER ............ Annual Emissions Report

AVR ............ Accreditation and Verification Regulation
CA .............. Competent Authority
CEMS ......... Continuous Emission Measurement System
EU ETS ....... EU Emission Trading System
MP .............. Monitoring Plan
MPE ............ Maximum Permissible Error (term usually used in national legal met-
rological control)
MRR ............ Monitoring and Reporting Regulation
MRV ............ Monitoring, Reporting and Verification
MRVA ......... Monitoring, Reporting, Verification and Accreditation
Permit ......... GHG emissions permit
RED I .......... (first) RES Directive (2009/28/EC)
RED II ......... Recast RES Directive: Directive (EU) 2018/2001
If RED without number is mentioned, this document usually refers to
RED II
RES ............ Renewable Energy Sources (Directive)

8.2 Legislative texts

EU ETS Directive: Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emission
allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive
96/61/EC, amended several times. Download of the consolidated version:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/87/2020-01-01

MRR: Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/2066 of 19 December 2018

on the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to
Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and
amending Commission Regulation (EU) No. 601/2012. Download the
consolidated version under https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/2066

AVR: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2067 of 19 December

2018 on the verification of data and the accreditation of verifiers pursuant to Di-
rective 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Download of
consolidated version:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2018/2067/2021-01-01

56
RES Directive (RED I): Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and
2003/30/EC.
Download: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/28/ (Repealed)

RED II: Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable
sources (recast). Download under:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj

Implementing acts under RED II:

 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/996 of 14 June 2022 on rules
to verify sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria and low
indirect land-use change-risk criteria,
http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2022/996/oj
 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) …/... of XXX on establishing oper-
ational guidance on the evidence for demonstrating compliance with the sus-
tainability criteria for forest biomass laid down in Article 29 of Directive (EU)
2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
At the time of writing this guidance, the finalised text (pending publication in
the official journal of the EU) is available at https://ec.europa.eu/transpar-
ency/comitology-register/core/api/integration/ers/294191/083454/2/at-
tachment

57
 9 ANNEX III: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

9.1 What is the “preliminary” emission factor and how is it

determined?

Article 3(36) of the MRR defines: ‘preliminary emission factor’ means the as-
sumed total emission factor of a fuel or material based on the carbon content of
its biomass fraction and fossil fraction before multiplying it by the fossil fraction to
produce the emission factor.
This means that the preliminary emission factor is the factor, expressed as
t CO2 / TJ or t CO2 / t, which reflects the total CO2 released into the atmosphere
by the combustion of the fuel or conversion of the material, regardless of whether
the CO2 is stemming from fossil or biomass carbon. Where the preliminary emis-
sion factor is determined by analyses in accordance with Articles 32 to 35 (tier 3),
this emission factor is determined the same way as for purely fossil fuels or ma-
terials by determining the total carbon content. Where default values are used for
the determination of the preliminary emission factor, relevant sources are inter
alia MRR Annex VI (tier 1), section 7.2.1 of this document or other values used
in the IPCC Guidelines or in the National Inventory (tier 2a).
Example:
An installation is burning wood-based panels waste. The carbon content of the
waste wood panels is analysed: Carbon Content (CC) = 0.5 t C/t waste. 95% of
the carbon contained in this source stream is stemming from biomass (the fossil
carbon is contained in the resins used for gluing the wood fibres). The net calorific
value (NCV) is determined to be 15 GJ/t waste.
To determine the preliminary emission factor (EFpre) expressed as t CO2/TJ, the
following equation is used (see section 6.3.1 of Guidance Document 1):
EFpre  CCtotal  f / NCV

With factor f being 3.664 t CO2/t C, the preliminary emission factor (EFpre) is
122 t CO2/TJ. It corresponds to the total CO2 emitted from this source stream
regardless whether it is stemming from fossil or biomass sources.
The EU ETS reportable emissions are calculated by (for detailed description see
section 4.3.1 of Guidance Document 1):
Em  FQ  NCV  EFpre  (1  BF )  OF
The fact that 95% of this CO2 is stemming from biomass is taken into account by
the term “1 minus biomass fraction” (1-BF). The biomass fraction is defined as
the ratio of carbon stemming from biomass to the total carbon content of a fuel or
material. Hence, this is also the ratio of CO 2 emitted stemming from biomass to
the total CO2 emitted.
Note that sustainability and GHG savings criteria apply (see section 3.4). If those
criteria are not satisfied, the biomass fraction shall be assumed to be zero, i.e. all
carbon is treated as if it were fossil. In that case, BF=0 and the preliminary emis-
sion factor is equal to the final emission factor.

58
9.2 Biomass fraction for waste tyres

Tyres are composed in principle of:

1. Steel carcasses,
2. Textiles (often viscose filament fibres, i.e. biomass),
3. Natural latex,
4. Synthetic latex,
5. Carbon black,
6. Other filler materials (often inorganic).
Only point 3 and (part of) point 2 qualify as biomass. However, composition of
tyres varies widely across manufacturers and tyre type (car, truck, tractor). Man-
ufacturers are keeping composition data strictly confidential, and analyses are
very demanding due to the virtual impossibility of representative sampling.
Thus, it is advisable to develop default values at the national level, or even EU
level, if sufficient data can be collected from Member States. Typical values in-
formally reported are in the range of
 Carbon content = [60...75]%
 NCV = [25...35] GJ/t
 Preliminary emission factor = [80...90] t CO2/TJ
 Biomass fraction = [20...30]%

[Note: More data is required for substantiating any proposal for default val-
ues or at least for narrowing the intervals]

In the absence of more reliable data, the most conservative values have to be
used, i.e. high preliminary EF and low biomass fraction, unless evidence for more
representative values can be provided by the operator. It is recalled that Article
24(1) requires the corresponding NCV to be consistent with this EF 107.

9.3 What are suitable estimation methods to determine the

biomass fraction?

According to Article 39 an estimation method may be proposed to the competent

authority for approval, if:
 Analysing the biomass fraction by using appropriate standards 108 is technically
not feasible or would incur unreasonable costs, provided that tier 3 for the bio-
mass fraction is required for the specific source stream by the MRR, and

107
Please note that Annex VI(1) is providing a default value for the preliminary emission factor of
waste tyres (85.0 t CO2/TJ). This means that if an operator wants to use this EF he has to provide
evidence that the proposed default value for the NCV for waste tyres is consistent with this EF. For
details on this consistency criterion see guidance document No.1 section 6.2.
108
The MRR does not mention specific standards. Appropriate standards may be EN 15440, EN
16640, EN ISO 13833, etc.

59
  There are neither suitable default values for emission factor and biomass frac-
tion for mixed fuels and materials nor estimation methods published by the
Commission.
Allowed estimation methods must be based on scientifically proven methods.
Therefore, a literature research should be carried out giving preference to meth-
ods at least partly referring to EN, ISO or national standards as well as to peer-
reviewed publications.
A peer-reviewed paper providing a suitable estimation method for determining
the biomass fraction has been published for waste-to-energy processes109,110.
This so-called “balance method” is based on a mass balance (distinguishing be-
tween biogenic, fossil, inert fractions and moisture content), including an ash and
carbon balance and an energy balance. Furthermore, the O2 consumption as well
as the difference between O2 consumption and CO2 emission is relevant. Where
different fossil sources are used, determining the correct difference between O 2
consumption and CO2 emission needs to be adjusted by the correct stoichio-
metric relations, since this methods focuses on wastes and assumes that poly-
ethylene is the main fossil source. The advantage of the described method is that
it is based on parameters which need monitoring for process control reasons an-
yway, even if the installation is not covered by the EU ETS.
For fuels or materials originating from a production process with defined and
traceable input streams, e.g. waste wood panels or biodiesel, Article 39(2) allows
the operator to base such estimation on a mass balance of fossil and biomass
carbon entering and leaving the process111,112,113.
Please note that the abovementioned estimation method is different from the “en-
ergy balance method” which Article 38(4) allows for estimating emissions for
mixed fuels or materials with a biomass content equal to or higher than 97%.
Article 3(39) defines the “energy balance method means a method to estimate
the amount of energy used as fuel in a boiler, calculated as sum of utilisable heat
and all relevant losses of energy by radiation, transmission and via the flue gas.”
This method in principle is based on a complete energy balance of a boiler allow-
ing emissions to be related directly to individual input materials. A suitable basis
for such an approach is EN 12952-15 “Water-tube boilers and auxiliary installa-
tions – Part 15: Acceptance tests.” This standard describes principles for calcu-
lating the boiler efficiency as well as formulae for calculating relevant flue gas
parameters. This “energy balance method” gives the mass and heat flow of the
fuel consumed as the result, allowing the determination of emissions from analy-
sis of the fuel. It is only suitable for estimating emissions for mixed fuels or mate-
rials with a biomass content equal to or higher than 97%. It is not applicable for

109
Fellner J, Cencic O, Rechberger H. “A new method to determine the ratio of electricity production
from fossil and biogenic sources in waste-to-Energy plants.” Environ Sci Technol. 2007; 41(7); p.
2579-2586.
110
Obermoser M, Fellner J, Rechberger H. “Determination of reliable CO2 emission factors for
waste-to-energy plants.” Waste Manag Res. 2009; 27(9); p. 907-913.
111
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/renewables-obligation-template-
methodology-measuring-fossil-derived-contamination-within-waste-wood
112
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/renewables-obligation-fuel-measure-
ment-and-sampling-guidance-may-2013
113
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/publications-and-updates/renewables-obligation-biodiesel-and-
fossil-derived-bioliquids-guidance-may-2013

60
mixed fuels with a biomass content lower than 97% or for determination of the
biomass fraction of such a fuel.
Furthermore there have been attempts to use 14C analyses on samples continu-
ously collected from exhaust stacks. Such sampling and related analyses can be
performed based on EN ISO 13833 (“Stationary source emissions – Determina-
tion of the ratio of biomass (biogenic) and fossil-derived carbon dioxide – Radio-
carbon sampling and determination”). If a competent authority considers approval
of such methodology under Article 39 MRR, it must take into account that such
approach is difficult (it requires e.g. sampling proportional to the gas flow) and will
therefore require a laboratory experienced and accredited for this specific ap-
proach. Furthermore it must not be confused with CEMS, since there are few data
points generated over a longer period of time. Finally, due to the difficulty of this
approach, a reliable method for determining biomass and fossil emissions must
be available as backup for avoiding data gaps.

9.4 How to report emissions from mixed (fossil-biomass)

materials?

How should the fossil and biomass-related emissions of the following (hypothet-
ical) mixed fuel be determined and reported? An installation produces mixed pel-
lets before using them in a boiler that was formerly fired by coal.
The Installation uses the following raw materials for producing the pellets:
 Plastic waste (mostly polyethylene) – 25% of the total input by weight, fossil.
 Imported forest residues (small cut branches from hard wood) – 40% of input
by weight. The operator receives these residues from a source in a third
country without evidence whether the land-related sustainability criteria are
met. Therefore the operator has to consider them as non-sustainable biomass.
 Residues (bark) of locally harvested wood – 35% of input by weight; certified
by a voluntary scheme, therefore counted as sustainable biomass and zero-
rated.
The input materials have the following properties:
Raw material Fossil or Input to Mix Moisture C content NCV
biomass? (water con- in t C / t dry in GJ / t dry
tent) in t fuel fuel
H2O/t fuel
Polyethylene Fossil 25% 0% 86% 40.2
Hard wood non-sust. 40% 30% 50% 18
residues biomass
Wood wastes sustainable 35% 45% 46% 17
(bark) biomass

During processing to pellets, the mixture is partly dried such that the wood com-
ponents contain only 8% water in the end (the polyethylene is assumed to remain
completely dry). The operator calculates the properties of the components in the
final pellets as follows:

61
 Pellet Mixture Content in Moisture C content in NCV (prelim.)
mix (water con- t C / t fuel GJ / t fuel EF
tent in t CO2 / TJ
t H2O/t com-
ponent)
Polyethylene 32.7% 0% 86.0% 40.2 78.4
Hard wood 39.9% 8% 46.0% 16.4 102.8
residues
Wood wastes 27.4% 8% 42.3% 15.4 100.6
(bark)

Note: For this calculation it is taken into account that the total mass decreases
due to the drying. Therefore the relative quantities of the materials in the mix
change. For calculating the NCV based on the moisture content, the following
equation is used:
𝑁𝐶𝑉 = 𝑁𝐶𝑉𝑑𝑟𝑦 ∙ (1 − 𝑤) − ∆𝐻𝑣 ∙ 𝑤
Where NCVdry is the NCV of the absolute dry material, w is the water content
(mass fraction) and ∆𝐻𝑣 = 2.4𝐺𝐽/𝑡 𝐻2 𝑂 is the evaporation enthalpy of water.
Using the above individual components, the operator can calculate the emissions
and energy input from combusting 1000 t of these pellets. The percentage in the
total emissions can be used to calculate the carbon content percentage attributed
to each component:
Pellet mixture Fossil or bio- Emissions Energy % of emissions =
(1000 t) mass? in t CO2 in TJ % of C content
Polyethylene fossil 1030.4 13.1 48.4%
Hard wood non-sustaina- 672.5 6.5 31.6%
residues ble Biomass
Wood wastes Sustainable 424.7 4.2 20.0%
(bark) Biomass
Total 2127.6 23.8 100%

In the annual emission report, the operator may choose to report these three
components separately, which has the advantage of transparency and avoiding
the need to calculate with different moisture contents. With the latter approach,
the operator may use directly emission factor and NCV of the moist (as received)
biomass.
Alternatively, there is also the possibility to calculate weighted carbon content /
preliminary emission factor and NCV from the final pellets (in particular useful if
e.g. the operator also sells part of the pellets and wants to inform the customers
of their properties).
From the above, the operator may calculate (using f = 3.664 t CO 2/t C):
 The weighted NCV = 23.8 GJ/t pellets
 Carbon content: CC = 2127.6 t / 1000 t / f = 58.1%
 Weighted (preliminary) emission factor EF = CC × f / NCV = 89.39 t CO2 / TJ

62
 Using these calculation factors and the percentages of the fossil and biomass
fractions given in the previous table, the operator can fill the annual emissions
report using one single source stream:
1 F1. Solid - Other solid fuels; Mixed plastic/Wood pellets Combustion CO2 fossil: 1.702,0 t CO2e
Combustion: Solid fuels CO2 bio: 425,5 t CO2e

Tier tier description Unit Value error

iii. AD: 3 ± 2,5% t 1.000,00
iv. (prelim) EF: 2a Type II default values tCO2/TJ 89,39
v. NCV: 2a Type II default values GJ/t 23,8
vi. OxF: 1 Default value OF=1 - 100,00%
vii. ConvF:
viii. CarbC:
ix. BioC: 2 Type II biomass fraction - 20,00%
x. non-sust. BioC: 2 Type II biomass fraction - 31,60%

9.5 Waste-related FAQs

9.5.1 Is municipal sewage sludge a municipal solid waste?

The answer is no: The Waste Framework Directive114 Article 3(2b) explicitly ex-
cludes sewage sludge in the definition of municipal waste:
‘municipal waste’ means:
(a) mixed waste and separately collected waste from households, includ-
ing paper and cardboard, glass, metals, plastics, biowaste, wood, tex-
tiles, packaging, waste electrical and electronic equipment, waste batter-
ies and accumulators, and bulky waste, including mattresses and furni-
ture;
(b) mixed waste and separately collected waste from other sources,
where such waste is similar in nature and composition to waste from
households;
Municipal waste does not include waste from production, agriculture,
forestry, fishing, septic tanks and sewage network and treatment, includ-
ing sewage sludge, end-of-life vehicles or construction and demolition
waste.
Note: Sewage sludge is not necessarily biomass. Where the carbon content of
the waste water stems from fossil sources, also the sewage sludge will contain a
fraction that can be identified as fossil when using 14C analyses.

9.5.2 Which RED II criteria apply to landfill gas?

Like sewage sludge, landfill gas is not necessarily 100% biomass (see previous
question). As the origin of landfill gas is clearly the anaerobic decomposition of
waste, the general rule for waste applies that only GHG savings are to be demon-
strated. As the gas is sourced from waste (life cycle emissions are zero) at the
same site (the landfill, transport emissions to that point are zero), it is only a for-
mality to demonstrate that the GHG savings for the biomass fraction of the landfill
gas are fulfilled. However, if the waste is not generated at the same site as the
landfill, the emissions from transport from the collection point to the landfill would
have to be taken into account. Whether a certification system has to be used in
such cases depends on national requirements.

114
Directive 2008/98/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/851.

63
 9.5.3 Which RED II criteria apply to sewage sludge and biogas
produced from it?
As has been stated under 9.5.1, sewage sludge is only biomass if the carbon
content in the waste water stems from biomass. This may e.g. be the case in food
industries (slaughterhouses, breweries, etc.), but even there it is not excluded
that chemicals based on fossil sources. A mass balance of all materials used at
the industrial site would provide insight, where analyses are not technically fea-
sible or lead to unreasonable costs.
Regarding RED II criteria applied to the gas from sewage sludge digestion, the
situation will be similar as for landfill gas (see 9.5.2), i.e. no land-related sustain-
ability criteria apply, and GHG savings can be easily demonstrated (except if the
sewage sludge is transported over long distances from the collection point to the
installation for anaerobic digestion). Whether a certification system has to be
used in such cases depends on national requirements.

9.5.4 Which RED II criteria apply to fuels produced from munici-

pal solid waste?
According to MRR Article 38(5), “electricity, heating and cooling produced from
municipal solid waste shall not be subject to the criteria” of the RED II. However,
if municipal solid waste is used to produce biofuels, bioliquids or biomass fuels,
the rule applies that only GHG savings criteria have to be fulfilled (in the case of
solid or gaseous biomass fuels, this applies only if used in installations starting
after 2020).
For the production of such fuels, life cycle emissions of the municipal solid waste
itself are considered as zero. Only emissions from processing into the fuel, from
transport from the collection point to the point of use, and emissions from its use
need to be taken into account in the calculation as described in section 3.4.6.2.
Notably, it needs to be taken into account that this applies only to the biomass
fraction of the municipal waste.

9.5.5 Which RED II criteria apply to waste tyres?

Where waste tyres contain a biomass fraction, the RED II criteria in principle ap-
ply. As waste tyres are neither agricultural nor forestry biomass, only GHG saving
criteria apply (only if the installation started operations after 1 January 2021,
meaning that biomass was first used after that year, see section 3.4.6.2). Life
cycle emissions of the waste tyres need to be calculated as described in section
3.4.6.2. The emissions up to the point of collection of the waste tyres are consid-
ered as zero. Only emissions from potential processing into the fuel (e.g. shred-
ding), from transport from the collection point to the point of use, and emissions
from their use need to be taken into account in the calculation.

9.5.6 Which criteria apply to impregnated sawdust?

According to the definitions of the RED II (see section 3.2) and what has been
discussed in section 3.4.6.4, a case-by-case decision may be required for
whether saw dust is a residue or waste from forest-related industries. If a sawdust

64
does not comply with the definition of “residues from agriculture, aquaculture,
fisheries or forestry” because it stems from an industrial activity, the land-related
sustainability criteria do not have to be demonstrated. GHG savings are to be
assessed as described in section 3.4.6.2).
Regarding the impregnation, it needs to be decided, if the impregnating sub-
stances have been added intentionally in order to make the material a waste. If
that is the case, the impregnated sawdust would not qualify as waste under the
MRR. If on the other hand the “impregnation” stems from fossil oil because the
saw dust was used to absorb the oil for removing it from surfaces, the purpose of
that oil is not to intentionally making the sawdust a waste.
If the material used for impregnation is of fossil origin, the biomass fraction must
be determined in line with section 4.

9.5.7 Which criteria apply to agricultural products becoming

wastes due to a contamination?
A case-by-case decision by the competent authority may be required. If the con-
tamination was done intentionally in order to make the material a waste, the same
criteria apply as if the agricultural material without contamination were under as-
sessment, since in this case it does not qualify as waste under the MRR (see
definitions in section 3.2). However, if the contamination has happened uninten-
tionally, only GHG savings have to be assessed.
If the contaminating material is of fossil origin, the biomass fraction of the mixture
must be determined in line with section 4.

9.5.8 Can the European waste catalogue help in classifying ma-

terials?
The Commission’s guidance on the Waste Framework Directive (see section
3.4.6.4) states that the fact that a material can be classified using the European
waste catalogue is not sufficient to establish if the material is actually waste. Sim-
ilarly, knowing that a material is waste is not sufficient for classifying it using the
waste catalogue, as the source of the waste has to be known. It must furthermore
be noted that there are waste categories which are from agriculture or forestry,
but are not even biomass (e.g. pesticide wastes).
Therefore, the answer is: No, the waste catalogue is not a sufficient tool to identify
certain wastes from forestry or agriculture.

9.5.9 How to classify agricultural wastes?

Example: Biomass coming from olive pits and other olive waste.
Question 1: Does such material qualify as “agricultural, aquaculture, fisheries and
forestry residues”? Answer: No. Olives are processed in (industrial) installations,
i.e. the residues do not comply with the definition of article 3(21e) of the MRR
(see section 3.2).
Question 2: Is such material a waste or a residue? Guidance on this question is
given in section 3.4.6.4. A residue is usually something that still has some eco-
nomic value, while for being waste, the criterion is that the holder discards or

65
 intends or is required to discard it. Furthermore the RED II prohibits that a waste
is generated by intentionally modifying a material for becoming waste.
In case of doubt the competent authority has to decide based on national legisla-
tion. Another option is that a RED certification scheme recognised by the Com-
mission provides a proof of sustainability which confirms the material’s status un-
der RED II rules.

9.6 Oxidation and conversion factors of mixed materials

Question: In a (combustion) process using several biomass fuels and fossil fuels,
or where mixed fuels are used, some carbon remains in ashes, slags, or e.g. in
the cement clinker produced, this is usually taken into account by an oxidation
factor (or in the case of cement clinker, by a conversion factor) of lower than
100%. How should this factor be determined considering that some of the not
emitted carbon may stem from biomass?
Answer: MRR Article 37(2) reads:
“Where several fuels are used within an installation and tier 3 is to be used for
the specific oxidation factor, the operator may ask for the approval of the compe-
tent authority for one or both of the following:
(a) the determination of one aggregate oxidation factor for the whole com-
bustion process and to apply it to all fuels;
(b) the attribution of the incomplete oxidation to one major source stream
and use of a value of 1 for the oxidation factor of the other source streams.
Where biomass or mixed fuels are used, the operator shall provide evidence that
application of points (a) or (b) of the first subparagraph does not lead to an under-
estimation of emissions.”
The last sub-paragraph makes clear that in any case the emissions reported must
be conservative, i.e. not under-estimated. This means that – in the absence of a
better methodology – the biomass fraction of the non-emitted carbon must be at
least as high as the weighted average biomass fraction of the fuels used.
Note that if not all the biomass used as fuel complies with the RED II, “conserva-
tive” in this context means that the above-mentioned “weighted average biomass
fraction” takes into account non RED II compliant fuels like fossil fuels.

9.7 How to decide if a material is solid or liquid?

When looking into the decision tree for RED II criteria (see section 3.4.2), it does
make a difference whether a biomass material is liquid or solid. There are, how-
ever, cases where it is not clear if a substance is solid or liquid, unless further
guidance is given:

66
 The Commission advocated a broad definition of bioliquids under RED I, and
therefore suggested including in particular viscous liquids such as waste cook-
ing oil, animal fats, palm oil, crude tall oil and tall oil pitch 115 as being liquid. It
seems consistent to continue this approach under the RED II.
 In general, the state of a source stream when being used in a process should
be considered, not the state in storage. E.g. if an oil is highly viscous or con-
sidered solid at the storage tank, but heated for becoming liquid before being
combusted, it should be considered liquid for the purpose of applying the RED
II criteria.
 Black liquor from the pulp and paper industry is generally considered solid bi-
omass. This is confirmed e.g. in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU)
2015/2402 on harmonised efficiency reference values for CHP.
 Sewage sludge encompasses a wide range of states, from being clearly a liq-
uid of only ca. 5% solids content, over de-watered stages (viscous liquid, ca.
50% solid content, to (almost) completely dry and solid stages (solid content
90% or more). Hence, it will need a case-by-case decision by the competent
authority if the sewage sludge in question should be considered solid or liquid.
As in the original state it is usually liquid, there will be more cases where it
should be considered liquid, even if thereafter it is processed to become in-
creasingly solid.

9.8 Examples for biomass not satisfying RED II criteria

The following fuels or materials are examples for biomass which does not satisfy
the applicable RED II criteria, i.e. their emissions must be treated as if they were
fossil fuels:
 Biofuels produced from agricultural biomass obtained from land that was con-
verted from primary forest to agricultural land after January 2008;
 Wood harvested from an area designated by competent authorities for nature
protection purposes (e.g. Natura 2000 areas);
 Several biofuels listed in Annex V part A of the RED II, where typical values for
GHG savings are listed to be lower than the required thresholds (see section
3.4.6.2). Exceptions are possible where the economic operator can demon-
strate that actual life-cycle emissions of the biofuel are lower than the typical
value in the Annex, e.g. because there was less fertilization, more efficient
production of the biofuel or shorter transport than typical.
Examples where the RED II typical values suggest that the requirements are
usually not met:
 Installations that started biofuel production between 2016 and 2020 (60%
savings required): corn (maize) ethanol (natural gas as process fuel in con-
ventional boiler); rape seed, sunflower or soybean biodiesel, etc.
 Installations that started biofuel production from 2021 onwards (65% sav-
ings required): pure vegetable oil from soybean; pure vegetable oil from
palm oil, etc.

115
See Commission Communication 2010/C160/02.

67