Energy Renovation to Tackle Energy Poverty and Protect Affordability: Insights from the Practitioners’ Event and Lunch Talk

In autumn 2025, the Energy Poverty Advisory Hub convened two complementary conversations on a central question: how to make energy renovation work for households facing energy poverty without undermining affordability. On 30 September, around 70 practitioners, policymakers, researchers and community leaders with experience across Central and Eastern Europe met for the 2nd EPAH Practitioners’ Event, “How Energy Renovation is Improving Housing in Central and Eastern Europe Region”. Eight days later, on 8 October, 74 participants from across Europe joined the 20th EPAH Lunch Talk, “Tackling Energy Poverty through Energy Renovation and Affordable Housing in Europe”, to connect field insights with the evolving EU policy framework and delivery models.

Practitioners’ Event

Marta Garcia (Associació Ecoserveis, EPAH) opened the session by framing the dual task: accelerate renovation and address energy poverty in ways that fit CEE realities. The event, coordinated by Miljenka Kuhar (DOOR, EPAH antenna Croatia), examined a region where much of the housing stock consists of multi-apartment buildings from the 1950s to 1970s, later privatised and now largely co-owned or privately held. With little social housing, household incomes below the EU average and complex ownership arrangements, renovation rates sit close to 1% per year, well short of what many countries say will be needed by 2030.

Zita Kakalejcikova (Habitat for Humanity EME) set out the multidimensional nature of energy poverty in the region, driven by income, prices, building efficiency, climate, housing quality, mobility and wider socio-economic factors. She pointed to EPAH’s indicator dashboard as a valuable tool for identifying needs on the ground. Because so many CEE buildings are highly inefficient multi-family apartment buildings  in low-income areas, she argued for neighbourhood-level targeting and disaggregated data to reach people often missed by welfare systems, including women and single-parent households. She presented the LIFE ComActivate district approach and called for faster renovations focused on disadvantaged groups and anchored in strong cooperation with local authorities.

From Slovenia, Mojca Vendramin (Eco Fund) described a national model built around free on-site energy consulting delivered through a network of 59 one-stop-shop (OSS) offices, grants for energy efficiency and renewables (including in multi-apartment buildings), and coordinators who guide applicants through public calls and monitor project execution. The programme is framed by a 2022 decree defining criteria to identify energy-poor households and an Action Plan 2024–2028. A continuing bottleneck is the slow journey from application to completed works.

Dr. Gerald Kössl (Austrian Federation of Limited-Profit Housing Associations) noted that one in six Austrian households rents from limited-profit providers. Most dwellings in the sector have already received thermal upgrades, but decarbonising heating systems remains a key challenge. He highlighted where energy-poverty risks concentrate (low income, lower education, single-person households) and the rebound effect, where some households heat more after renovation, which dilutes expected savings and underlines the need for tenant engagement and clear communication.

From Romania, Diana Valentina Vîscan (AE3R Ploiești-Prahova) described low renovation rates and the prevalence of superficial measures such as façade insulation and window replacement, with deep renovations and heating upgrades still rare. Barriers include high upfront costs, limited access to credit, partial grants and low public awareness. She pointed to opportunities in EU and national funding and noted the roll-out of one-stop shops that provide reliable information and help households access funding and complete paperwork; 42 are now operating, an important step toward reaching vulnerable households, though more are still needed.

From Bulgaria, Milena Agopyan (Energy Agency Plovdiv) reported that 95% of dwellings are individually owned and 91% of non-renovated buildings sit in energy classes E–G, while 30.3% of the population is at risk of social exclusion. Despite national programmes, fewer than 3,000 buildings have been renovated with public funds, far short of what is needed. She cautioned that 100% grant schemes can blunt impact by stretching budgets thin and failing to prioritise the most vulnerable, which slows overall progress.

A participatory segment closed the event. Discussions surfaced governance hurdles in multi-apartment buildings, especially where multigenerational households share ownership; the need for approaches that prevent rent increases after subsidised renovation works; and the difficulty of reaching energy-poor households not captured by welfare systems. Information gaps and limited administrative capacity were cited as reasons good projects stall, while local coordination and hands-on assistance emerged as the factors that move projects from intention to delivery.

Lunch Talk

The 20th Lunch Talk, moderated by Marina Varvesi (AISFOR, EPAH), returned to these themes with two focused contributions. Drawing on the Practicioners’ Event, Miljenka Kuhar (DOOR) recapped the CEE picture: grants rarely cover full costs, low-income households struggle to access loans, procedures are slow and complex, technical assistance is scarce, and co-ownership complicates decisions. She added that summer comfort is emerging alongside winter heating needs.

Kuhar shared results from CEESEN-BENDER, which surveyed roughly 400 households per country in Croatia, Estonia, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Compared with unrenovated homes, renovated apartments reported fewer problems such as mold and draughts and better winter comfort, though defects still appear to some extent. Saving behaviours changed only slightly, and reported summer comfort shifted little. She explained that thermal renovations do not always translate into proportional bill reductions: in energy-poor households that under-heated before renovation, energy use can rise afterwards due to rebound effects. Changing heating systems does not automatically lower bills. Her conclusion was to address energy poverty through integrated social, technical and climate lenses, with income and affordability as starting points and neighbourhood or community delivery to both lift renovation rates and reach those most in need.

Emily Bankert (Buildings Performance Institute Europe) then set out the EU policy context under the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). Member States are preparing National Building Renovation Plans using a common template with mandatory indicators, including attention to neighbourhood approaches. Drafts are due by the end of 2025, with final plans expected around New Year 2026 following Commission assessment. To support authorities, she also shared BPIE’s Guide to EPBD Implementation (2025), a practical handbook for national, regional and local administrations. She underlined the stronger emphasis on advice and financing for vulnerable households and links to the social-housing sector, and stressed the need to contain rent increases after renovation. She described one-stop shops as hubs that pair independent technical advice with financing solutions and outreach, especially valuable where municipal capacity is limited.

Turning to practice, Bankert presented delivery models from the ComActivate project and beyond: municipal OSS in Kaišiadorys, Lithuania developed with the Consumer Alliance; Lithuanian measures that combine heat-cost reimbursements, full coverage for certain social-benefit recipients, state-taken loans, guarantee schemes to cut borrowing costs, and strong application assistance; One-stop shops working with homeowner associations in Józsefváros, Budapest in neighbourhoods with low-quality housing; and Vilnius’ AMIESTAS model, which offers end-to-end support from resident engagement and funding applications through procurement and supervision.

During the open discussion participants raised gender and disability issues in renovation decisions. Men often take final decisions in homeowner meetings even where women manage household energy use; people with disabilities can have higher energy needs for medical or lighting equipment that policies often overlook. On delivery and affordability, examples showed OSS are mostly publicly funded and municipally integrated, while conditional subsidies and leveraging the social-housing sector were recommended to prevent rent hikes after subsidised works and to scale renovation.

EPAH’s integrated knowledge-sharing approach

Together, the Practitioners’ Event and the Lunch Talk illustrate EPAH’s multi-layered knowledge-sharing strategy:

• The Practitioners’ Event offers a deep-dive, expert space for exchange, peer learning and co-creation of solutions around a specific topic.
• The Lunch Talks provide an accessible, regular platform for municipalities, practitioners, and interested stakeholders across Europe to discuss experiences and learn from emerging research and local initiatives.
  Both formats prioritise interaction, mutual learning, and practical application, contributing to a growing community of practice on energy poverty in Europe.

Presentations from the two events

• Zita Kakalejcikova, Senior Project Manager, Habitat for Humanity EME;
• Diana Valentina Vîscan, AE3R Ploieşti-Prahova (Romania);
• Mojca Vendramin, Eco Fund, Slovenian Environmental Public Fund;
• Dr. Gerald Kössl, Austrian Federation of Limited-Profit Housing Associations;
• Milena Agopyan, Energy Agency Plovdiv (Bulgaria);
• Miljenka Kuhar, Senior Expert, DOOR – Society for Sustainable Development Design;
• Emily Bankert, Research & Policy Advocacy, BPIE – Buildings Performance Institute Europe.