Energy performance contracting in the EU : 2020-2021.
Date: 2023-07-28
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU energy policy, EU financial instrument, EU policy, balance sheet, building, clean technology, community resilience, directive (EU), economic recovery, energy efficiency, energy market, environmental law, investment, renewable energy, report

ISSN 1831-9424 

JRC SCIENCE FOR POLICY REPORT 

Energy Performance Contracting in the EU 
– 2020-2021 

Moles-Grueso, S., Bertoldi, P., Boza-Kiss, B. 

2023 

 EUR 31609 EN 

 
  
 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The contents of this publication do 
not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting 
on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might  be made of this publication. For information on the methodology 
and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users 
should  contact  the  referenced  source.  The  designations  employed  and  the  presentation  of  material  on  the  maps  do  not  imply  the 
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or 
area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Paolo Bertoldi 
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 450, 21027 Ispra (VA), Italy  
Email: paolo.bertoldi@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +39 0332 78 9299 

EU Science Hub 
https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu 

JRC133984 

EUR 31609 EN 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-68-05750-6  

ISSN 1831-9424  

doi:10.2760/751957    KJ-NA-31-609-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023  

© European Union, 2023  

The  reuse  policy  of  the  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  by  the  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12  December 
2011  on  the  reuse  of  Commission  documents  (OJ  L  330,  14.12.2011,  p.  39).  Unless  otherwise  noted,  the  reuse  of  this  document  is 
authorised under  the  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0  International  (CC  BY  4.0)  licence  (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned by the European Union permission must be sought directly from 
the copyright holders.  

How  to  cite  this  report:  Moles-Grueso,  S.,  Bertoldi,  P.  and  Boza-Kiss,  B.,  Energy  Performance  Contracting  in  the  EU  –  2020-2021, 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2023, doi:10.2760/751957, JRC133984.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents  

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

2  Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 

3  The context ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

3.1  EU policy framework ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 

3.1.1 

Renovation wave .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 

3.1.2 

Next Generation EU .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 

3.1.3 

Energy Efficiency Directive ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 

3.1.4 

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive .................................................................................................................................. 17 

3.1.5 

Renewable energy directive ......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

3.1.6 

Final reflections ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

3.2  EU financial and technical support .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 

3.2.1 

Research and innovation funds ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 

3.2.2 

LIFE Clean Energy Transition sub-programme .......................................................................................................................... 19 

3.2.3 

European Investment Bank funding schemes ............................................................................................................................ 20 

3.2.4 

ELENA ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 

3.2.5 

Cohesion Policy Funds and the European Structural and Investment Funds ............................................... 21 

3.2.6  Modernisation fund .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 

3.3 

Implementation by MSs ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 

3.3.1 

Energy services (EED Art. 18, 2012, 2018) ................................................................................................................................... 22 

3.3.2 

Barriers to energy efficiency (EED Art. 19, 2012) .................................................................................................................. 23 

3.3.3 

Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes (EED Art 7a -2018, Art 7 - 2012) ...................................................... 23 

3.3.4 

Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings (EED Art. 5 – 2012)................................................................................ 24 

3.3.5 

Long-Term Renovation Strategies (LTRS) (EPBD Art 2a - 2018) ............................................................................. 24 

3.3.6 

Purchasing by public bodies (EED Art. 6 – 2012) .................................................................................................................... 25 

3.3.7 

Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) ................................................................................................................................................... 25 

3.4  Structural factors: costs of energy and financing .................................................................................................................................... 29 

4  Market size ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 

4.1  Current status .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 

4.2  Evolution and perspective ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 

5  Status of business environment: actors and contracts ..................................................................................................................................... 41 

5.1  Actors providing, facilitating and financing EnPC ...................................................................................................................................... 41 

5.2  Understanding and willingness of clients and financiers .................................................................................................................. 45 

5.3  Contract modalities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 

6  Project characteristics ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 

i 

 
6.1  Size, duration, payback and savings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 54 

6.2 

Intervention areas .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

6.3  Types of interventions in buildings.......................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

6.4  Trends: types of projects and areas of intervention ............................................................................................................................... 61 

7  Barriers and drivers ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 63 

7.1  Barriers ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 

7.2  Drivers ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 66 

8  Regulatory framework ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69 

9  Balance-sheet treatment of EnPC investments ....................................................................................................................................................... 72 

10 EU support .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 

11 Experts’ recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 

11.1 Expert recommendations at the MS level ......................................................................................................................................................... 79 

11.2 Expert recommendations at the EU level .......................................................................................................................................................... 83 

12 Report conclusions about the EnPC markets of the EU .................................................................................................................................... 85 

12.1 Market monitoring and trends ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 

12.2 Project characteristics .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87 

12.3 Barriers and drivers ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 88 

12.4 Balance treatment of EnPC in clients' accounts ......................................................................................................................................... 89 

13 Recommendations for MSs........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 

14 Recommendations for the European Institutions.................................................................................................................................................... 93 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95 

List of abbreviations and definitions ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 97 

List of boxes...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 

List of figures .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 102 

List of tables ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 

Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 119 

Annex 1. Review of policy implementation and support ........................................................................................................................................ 120 

EnPC in NECPs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 120 

EnPC in LTRS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 123 

EnPC and related investment in the RRPs ................................................................................................................................................................... 131 

EnPC in H2020 projects active during 2020-2021 ............................................................................................................................................ 135 

Annex 2. JRC report on EnPC markets 2022. Country summaries ............................................................................................................... 145 

1  Austria ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 146 

2  Belgium ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 152 

3  Bulgaria ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 161 

4  Croatia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167 

5  Cyprus ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 173 

6  Czech Republic ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 179 

7  Denmark ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 185 

ii 

 
8  Estonia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 192 

9  Finland ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 195 

10 France............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 202 

11 Germany ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 208 

12 Greece ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 217 

13 Hungary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 223 

14 Ireland ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 231 

15 Italy................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 238 

16 Latvia .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 246 

17 Lithuania ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 253 

18 The Netherlands ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 259 

19 Poland ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 266 

20 Portugal ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 274 

21 Romania ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 280 

22 Slovakia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 288 

23 Slovenia ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 294 

24 Spain................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 302 

25 Sweden.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 310 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

Energy Performance Contracting (EnPC) constitues an opportunity to bridge the investment gaps faced by the 
EU to meet its targets of energy efficiency, energy performance of buildings and decarbonisation. In addition 
to mobilizing private sector financing and technical capacities, EnPCs provide  energy saving guarantees and 
can  potentially  take  away  financing  risks  from  clients  and  providers.  The  European  Commission’s  Joint 
Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  been  regularly  reviewing  the  status  and  development  of  the  energy  service 
markets of the EU since 2005. The present report uses the same methodology to study the EnPC markets of 
the  EU  during  2020-21.  Ultimately,  the  report  provides  a  set  of  recommendations  of  relevance  for  policy-
making both at MS and EU levels. The report findings indicate a continued potential for the public and private 
sectors  to  engage  with  EnPCs.  Interventions  in  public  buildings  and  public  lighting,  followed  by  private 
buildings  are  the  most  frequent  types  of  projects.  There  is  a  trend  towards  incorporating  renewables  – 
constrained  by  Eurostat  rules  on  the  treatment  of  EnPC  investments  –  district  heating,  system  automation 
and  interventions  in  the  industry.  In  general,  MS  policymaking  would  benefit  from  fully  implement  EU 
directives  –  especially  EED  Arts.  18,  5  and  6  –  to  overcome  market  barriers.  There  is  a  need  of  market 
intelligence, technical assistance and sectoral qualification, whilst diverting public funds towards long return 
projects  (e.g.  on  building  envelopes)  and  leveraging  private  financing.  The  EU  strategic  and  regulatory 
developments alongside technical assistance have been key market drivers. The EU institutions would benefit 
the  market  by  continuing  to  guide  MS-level  efforts  and  providing  platforms  for  compiling  and  exchanging 
knowledge. 

1 

 
Acknowledgements  

We  would  like  to  express  our deepest  appreciation  to  Margot  Pinault  from  DG  ENER,  Daniela  Bachner  from 
CINEA,  Robert  Pernetta  and  Dinis  Rodriges  from  the  EIB,  and  Kostas  Dimopoulos  from  the  EBRD  for  their 
feedback on a preliminary draft of this report. We would also like to extend our deepest gratitude to the to 
the 48 experts that provided feedback on the MS summaries, and to the 49 experts and practitioners (listed 
below) who provided data for this report, either through the EU JRC survey or through interviews. 

Authors 

Name 

Klemens Leutgöb 
Charles-Henri Bourgois 
Johan Coolen 
Antoon Soete 
Marko Markov 
Kiril Raytchev 
Anonymous 
Vedran Uran 
Venizelos Efthymiou 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Miroslav Marada 

Lars Nielsen 
Timo Vihavainen 
Nader Ben Maad 
Pascal Lebreton 
Tobias Dworschak 

Rüdiger Lohse 
Anonymous 
Jonathan Flesch 
Anonymous 
Denes Bulkai 
Joe Hayden 
Louise Campion 
Cormac Healy 
Roberto Olivieri 
Ettore Piantoni 

Anonymous 
Nicholas Stancioff 

Normunds Randars 
Anonymous 
Anonymous 
Matthew Halstead 

Marek Tobiacelli 
Jorge Rodrigues de 
Almeida 
Carmen Pavel 
Damir Staničić 
Anonymous 

Organisation 

e7 
Factor4 
Factor4 
Wattson 
Econoler S.A. 
Alliance for Energy Efficiency  
University of Zagreb 
Energetske usluge  
FOSS University of Cyprus 
MECI 
MCIT 
Association of Energy Services Providers of the Czech 
Republic and ENESA 
Siemens A/S 
Energy Authority Finland 
FEDENE 
Cerema 
VEDEC - Verband für Energiedienstleistungen, 
Effizienz & Contracting e.V. 
DENEFF EDL_HUB 
n/a 
Dena - German energy agency 
MVM ESCO Zrt. 
ARCHENERG CLUSTER 
Codema 
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland 
Dublin City Council 
Tera 
Comat Servizi Energetici S.p.A. - CEN CENELEC JTC 14 
Chair 
Funding For Future 
Funding For Future 

Ministry of Economy 
n/a 
Netherlands Enterprise Agency 
TNO and SEFA 

The Polish National Energy Conservation Agency S.A. 
RdA Climate Solutions 

Market of 
expertise 
Austria 
Belgium 
Belgium  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Cyprus 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 

Denmark 
Finland 
France 
France 
Germany 

Germany 
Germany 
Germany 
Hungary 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Ireland 
Ireland 
Italy 
Italy 

Latvia 
Latvia, Estonia, 
Bulgaria, Poland 
Latvia, Riga 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 
EU and The 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 

ESCOROM Association 
Jožef Stefan Institute, Energy Efficiency Centre 
RESALTA d.o.o 

Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovenia 

2 

 
Anonymous 
Carlos Ballesteros 
Hugo Magalhaes 
Patricia Serrano 
Peter Sweatman 
Javier Sigüenza 

Anonymous 
Amandine Gal 
Robert Pernetta 
Anonymous 
Svetlana Adamek 
Evangelos Alepochoritis 

n/a 
ANESE 
ANESE 
ANESE 
Climate Strategy & Partners 
AMI - Asociación de empresas de mantenimiento y 
servicios energéticos 
Länsstyrelsen Dalarna, Sweden 
Econoler 
EIB 
Johnson Controls 
adamek & adamek consulting GmbH 
Honeywell 

Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 

Sweden 
Switzerland 
EU 
EU 
EU 
EU 

3 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary  

This  report  reviews  the  status  and  future  development  of  the  EU  Energy  Performance  Contracting  (EnPC) 
markets. Fundamentally, EnPC  constitutes an opportunity  to bridge the investment gaps faced by the EU to 
meet its energy efficiency targets, energy performance of buildings and decarbonisation. This is important in 
the context of revised commitments of the EU to climate neutrality, energy independence and advancing the 
green  economy,  which  are  laid  out  in  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Climate  Target  Plan  2030,  the  Next 
Generation EU, the Renovation Wave communication, and the RePowerEU.  

Energy  services,  overall,  create  an  incentive  for  the  client  to  engage  in  energy  efficiency  projects,  allowing 
them  to  recover  investment,  transaction,  and  service  costs.  Depending  on  the  contract,  the  client  can  free 
economic resources since investments can be provided by or through the provider. EnPC is an energy service 
contract whereby the providers’ remuneration is linked to  the  successful delivery of the contracted savings. 
Two  major  modalities  of  EnPC  exist,  i.e.  a)  guaranteed  savings,  whereby  the  client  takes  the  financing  risk 
(financing  is  therefore  on  the  clients’  balance  sheet),  and  b)  shared  savings,  whereby  the  provider  brings 
about the financing means. In the latter case, the project can result in an off-balance sheet arrangement for 
the client. EnPC has been promoted via public policies in the EU and its MSs as a part of a toolset to foster 
projects  involving  investment  in  energy  efficiency,  renewables,  and  other  technological  improvements 
resulting  in  energy  and  cost-savings  during  the  service  lifetime  of  technologies,  buildings,  systems,  and 
infrastructures. 

The  European  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  been  regularly  reviewing  the  status  and 
development  of  the  energy  service  markets  of  the  European  Union  (EU)  Member  States  (MS)  since  2005. 
Previous JRC reports reviewed the public sector EnPC markets (2017 and 2021) and the ESCO markets in the 
EU (2005, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2019). The present report builds on the previous knowledge developed in 
previous  JRC  reports.  It  uses  the  same  methodology  (based  on  a  consultation  with  national  experts  and  a 
documental review) to investigate the status, trends, barriers, and driving factors of EnPC markets. It provides 
recommendations for further EU support and policymaking.  

Since 2018, the  revision of energy efficiency and climate targets  –  underlying the adoption of EnPCs  –  has 
been  speeding  up.  The  Energy  Efficiency  Directive established  a  32.5%  efficiency  improvement  target  for 
2030 compared to baseline energy consumption. The European Green Deal, the Climate Target Plan 2030 and 
the  Fit  for  55  have  revised  energy  efficiency  and  decarbonisation  targets  and  fostered  the  revision  of  the 
EPBD  and  the  EED.  Recognising  that  buildings  are  key  to  achieving  these  EU  goals,  the  Renovation  Wave 
initiative  and  the  ongoing  revision  of  the  EPBD  aim  at  exploring  the  potential  of  renovating  the  European 
building  stock  and  include  provisions  for  building  sector  decarbonisation  and  deep  renovation.  The  Next 
Generation  EU  and  RePowerEU  plans  have  added  EU  funding  for  attaining  energy  and  energy  performance 
targets and developing the green economy. 

The major report findings are summarised below: 

1)  Status of the public and private sectors as clients of EnPC. The EnPC model continues to offer energy 
efficiency and performance improvement solutions, thus benefiting end-users, Members States’ 
economies and providers alike. However, there is a general lack of national data and databases on key 
indicators, including the number of market players capable of conducting EnPC provision and facilitation 
and financing, ESCOs and EnPC providers, and the concluded contracts. There is continued potential for 
the public sector to lead market development.1 The private sector’s activity as an EnPC client is sizeable, 
and in some MSs, the private sector leads the market.  

2)  Trends (2017-21 and 2020-21). There has been general growth in the EnPC market. Exceptions are 

Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, Latvia and Lithuania. Policy developments in smaller markets 
(Cyprus) also indicate a consolidation of the EnPC model. Moreover, A) The private sector EnPC markets of 
the EU generally grew. Activity increased in 9 MSs, i.e.  Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, 
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The markets remained stable in 6 MSs, i.e. Austria, Denmark, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. On the other hand, EnPCs failed to take off in 6 MSs, namely in 

1 The public market could be twice to four times the size of the private market in terms of annual investment (€1.9-4b in contracts, and 

€1-1.1b, respectively, signed in the public and private sectors in 2020-21). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Portugal, the Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania, Sweden and Bulgaria; and markets contracted in Croatia 
and Latvia. B)  The public sector EnPC markets have grown globally since 2020. They expanded in 
particular in 8 MSs, i.e. Belgium, Czech Republic and Slovenia, Austria, France, Greece, Germany and 
maybe Hungary. The market was stable and low (or did not take off) in 10 MSs, i.e. Bulgaria, Denmark, 
Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Cyprus, Malta and Romania. The market contracted in 7 MSs 
markets assessed as developed or having a good perspective for development in previous JRC reviews, 
i.e. Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden. 

3)  Perspective for 2022-2024. Further growth is expected between 2022 and 2024, especially for private 
markets. There is a risk of the public sector losing momentum after leading the market's development. 
This is an issue because trends in the public and private sectors of MSs are generally aligned. There are 
minor differences between both sectors’ perspectives in the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovenia. The 
clearest positive trends were forecast for 8 MSs, i.e. Belgium, Czech Republic (especially in the public 
sector), France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovenian (especially in the private sector), and Spain. 
Expectations for take-off were reported for 3 MSs, i.e. Romania, Sweden and Cyprus. Market contraction 
was only projected for Croatia (both public and private sectors). Market uncertainty was reported in 
several MSs as related to policy and strategic development, including the implementation of the Recovery 
and Resilience Plans (RRPs).  

4)  Business environment. The sufficient availability and quality of providers, facilitators and financing actors 

appear highly related to market developments in MS. Discrepancies between the availability and quality 
of the services provided by these actors often reflect limited capacity and willingness to operate within 
the EnPC framework. There are limitations of training and certification, official lists of providers, training 
and certification of facilitators, knowledge of financing actors and exploiting the potential of one-stop-
shops. 

5)  Contract modalities. Contracts with guaranteed savings are, although marginally, the most common in the 

public sector. These are most widespread in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, 
Finland, Greece, and Poland. In the Czech Republic, a widespread model combines guaranteed and 
premium shared savings. Shared and guaranteed savings are of similar relevance in the private market of 
EnPC at the EU level.  Two major contracting modalities compete with EnPC, i.e. simpler energy service 
contracting models with lesser guarantees and b) conventional contracts of works, often with the support 
of EU grants (Croatia, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, France, Germany and Spain).  

6)  Project sizes. The largest project sizes were reported in France, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia, and 
the Portuguese private sector (contracts above €3m), driven by requirements of scale in ELENA and 
providers. In public lighting, smaller contracts around €1m continue to be common (e.g. Croatia). There 
are several MSs where contracts in the private sector are gaining the same or larger scale than the ones 
in the public sector (Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, and Portugal). Project duration varies across 
markets depending on the depth of intervention, availability of financing and subventions for long-
payback interventions, and energy prices. Long paybacks above 12 years are common in the public 
sectors of Denmark, Poland, Slovenia, Czech Republic, German, Netherlands, Latvia, and Lithuania.  

7)  Types of projects. The savings achieved largely depend upon the type of interventions. The largest savings 
are reported in public lighting– 85% in Croatia and 70% in Spain and Portugal. Most interventions in 
buildings achieve 25-30% of savings over the baseline. Larger savings are attained in deep renovations 
(40-50% savings) – common in Lithuania and Latvia – but these market options are less successful and 
require specific support from public funding. Public buildings, followed by public lighting, are the most 
frequent type of project in the EU. The third most common area of intervention is private buildings, 
followed by interventions in the industry and bundling of different types of interventions (e.g. public 
buildings and lighting), district heating, and smart grids. The most common types of interventions in 
buildings continue to be the replacement of specific technical elements. On-site renewable generation is 
gaining momentum, especially in private buildings. Deep renovations are relevant only in a few MSs 
because these interventions require integrating client or public support funds to address the interventions 
with long paybacks (envelope); maintenance tends to be also an element of EnPCs. There is a trend 
towards incorporating new technologies (renewables, demand flexibility and storage, building 
management systems).  

8)  Barriers and drivers. Comparison between the 2019-21 and the 2022-24 periods shows a marginal 

reduction in the presence of several barriers besides grant competition and an important increase in the 
number of drivers. A) The most important barriers reported for different MSs are limited knowledge and 
expertise of clients and financing actors; model complexity and trust issues; debt treatment, lack of 

5 

 
affordable financing for providers, and the integration of decarbonisation. Regarding policy-making, there 
is a slow policy implementation and update (e.g. regarding Art. 18 of the EED), including the competition 
of grants and subsidies and issues of compatibility with EnPC,  development of contracts and guidelines, 
technical support and information instruments, procurement and tendering rules, and use of EnPC by 
public bodies, as well as issues of policy commitment, legal and procurement barriers and burden, and 
policy uncertainty often related to the implementation of the RRPs. Some structural barriers are 
important in some MSs. These barriers involve subsidised energy prices, slow recovery of activity after the 
Covid pandemic, market size (including considerations to administrative and regulatory division in federal 
MSs), and early implementation of projects addressing low-lying fruits are also key in some MSs. B) EnPC 
is driven in MS markets by the EU strategic and regulatory developments and sectoral capacities (mainly 
driven by technical assistance and providers). The European Green Deal, the recast of the EED, the EPBD, 
the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities 
create adequate conditions and are expected to have a further positive impact. EU energy saving and 
decarbonisation targets and increasing energy prices since 2021 are key drivers for EnPC. They are also 
drivers for simpler contracts operating as an alternative to EnPC.  

9)  Balance treatment of EnPC in clients' accounts. In 2019-20 the development of off-balance contracts has 
brought attention towards EnPC in several MSs. However, the Covid pandemic largely contributed to 
slowing down or halting the development of off-balance model contracts. Nowadays, there is a reported 
existence of off-balance contracts in 17 MSs. However, several existing model contracts need to be 
adapted, the number of off-balance contracts signed in the EU is relatively low, and only a few projects 
have been reported and officially approved by Eurostat. Demands for contract adaptation and update 
largely refer to the need for simpler, flexible models to address decarbonisation needs. However, this is 
not easy within the compliance framework with off-balance contracting set by Eurostat, which limits the 
use of renewables in off-balance EnPC contracts.  There is also a pressing need for revising the treatment 
of EnPC at the sub-national level in several MSs. The private sector is increasingly interested in off-
balance EnPC models (meeting IRFS standards).  

The national-level recommendations of the report involve the following:  

1)  Public sector markets. Continue or initiate public sector activity to lead the market, especially when 

alternative contracting modalities without verified and guaranteed savings could be gaining momentum. 
There is a need to mainstream the Energy Efficiency First principle and to take action to meet energy 
efficiency and climate targets. In application of Art. 18 of the EED, there is a need for policy 
harmonisation and clarification in the regulatory, financing and administrative domains for these not to 
act as barriers to EnPC in public sector markets, including addressing financing compatibilities between 
grants and EnPC, eligibility of energy service providers for grants, the use of third-party financing in the 
public sector, and restrictions on using EnPC in the public sector or its buildings. In addition, public sector 
regulators should consider the advantages of introducing requirements for assessing project EnPC-ability 
and developing long-term strategic programming. 

2)  Financing. MSs need to refrain from using high grant rates that deter the participation of private 
investment, hence reducing the leverage of public funds. The use of public funding can be better 
allocated by incentivising EnPC, e.g. audit support, support to eligibility studies, conditional eligibility for 
grants, subsidies and tax reliefs; supporting with grants only investments complementary to EnPC, i.e. 
with long return periods or addressed to vulnerable households; and developing guarantee and energy 
efficiency funds to support access of providers to financing and refinancing. 

3)  Development of model contracts for the public sector. For these to be adapted to the national context, 
and hence simpler, adapted to sectoral potentials, and exploiting the need to integrate decarbonisation, 
life cycle benefits. There is also a need to clarify the role of maintenance, renewables and interventions in 
the envelope in collaboration with national stakeholders and financing authorities. The latter is needed to 
integrate EnPC into national strategic roadmaps. 

4)  Monitoring and supporting the business environment. Developing and updating EnPC guidelines, contract 

enforcement, quality control, and monitoring and verification (M&V) standards, e.g., following the 
International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), continue to have potential in 
several MSs. As in the case of contract development, this requires considering the needs and expertise of 
various stakeholders. There is a potential for most MSs to monitor the market and support its capacity 
development whilst increasing transparency and trust in the EnPC model. Most MSs would benefit from 
creating a national registry of EnPC projects, listing specialised service providers and facilitators, 
introducing certification mechanisms for service providers and providing training for facilitators, and 

6 

 
engaging the financing sector—a potential lies in developing national and regional offices and one-stop-
shops. 

5)  Governments’ promotion and exemplarity. There is a continued need for tailored information to address 

both clients and financing actors for these to understand better the benefits and risks of EnPC, 
understood as a beyond-financing mechanism. MS governments and public sectors must send clear 
signals to the financing sector about their commitment to EnPC and its role in meeting energy efficiency 
and decarbonisation targets. Central governments and, potentially, regional and local authorities can 
contribute to normalising EnPC by using this mechanism as a part of the implementation of Art. 5 of the 
EED on the exemplary role of public bodies' buildings and the likely introduction in the EED recast of 
provisions for the public sector to lead on energy efficiency. 

6)  Strategic and regulatory development. Strategic alignment with the targets and requirements set by the 
EC in current and upcoming policy developments and financing support would benefit from prioritising 
EnPC as a mechanism that provides performance guarantees, enables a multiplier effect of public funds, 
and addresses the Energy Efficiency First principle. Efforts in improving regulatory consistency, clarity and 
–  in the case of MSs with a high degree of decentralisation – harmonisation are widely necessary to 
reduce policy uncertainty, project preparation, and administration cost.  

7)  Technical assistance. Acknowledging the success of EU-level technical assistance, there is an unexplored 

potential for developing national and regional technical assistance capacities, e.g. through one-stop shops 
and technical assistance facilities. These capacities support project drafting, contract development, 
project bundling and aggregation, and training for public and private clients and financing bodies. 

The EU institutions, especially through the various programs of the EC and the EIB, continue to play a key role 
in  setting  the  scene  and  supporting  MSs  to  develop  and  upgrade  their  markets  for  these  to  exploit  the 
potential in EnPC. Whilst EnPC markets are tied to the  MS level. Hence, MSs must commit to establishing an 
adequate national context; there is a series of domains where EU-level support continues to have potential, 
especially in guiding MS-level efforts:  

1)  Continue collaborating with MSs in communicating the scope of EnPCs, as focused on energy efficiency 
investments with short-to mid-term return periods and their integration with renewables. The Eurostat 
and EIB guidance on the public debt treatment of EnPC created expectations for boosting EnPC market 
development. The current interest in renewables has resulted in a lower interest of clients for efficiency 
and frustration related to the complexity and limitations introduced concerning including renewable 
generation in EnPC projects. The EU-level guidance could serve as a model for some central governments 
to reconsider their budgetary constraints on regional and local authorities. 

2)  Continue and strengthen strategic support from the InvestEU Advisory Hub to MSs on developing 

contracts whilst assessing the suitability of EnPC and other models to tackle the potential for deep 
renovations of buildings and pursue energy-saving and decarbonisation targets. These efforts should 
explore and bring together the multiple experiences developed with the support of Horizon 2020/ Horizon 
Europe programs which have worked on developing a wide array of contracting and financing models 
within and beyond the boundaries of EnPC and off-balance contracting. 

3)  Provide technical support for market monitoring, establishing lists of EnPC providers, training and 

certifying providers and facilitators and adopting M&V standards, such as IPMVP. Moreover, market 
monitoring at the MS level would gain leverage with increased efforts on communicating the EnPC 
experiences and potential through EEEFIG, DEEP, CAEED, CAEPBD, and SEI Forum. This could set the 
grounds for creating a centre of excellence on EnPC for disseminating good practices, exchanging 
experiences, and creating a repository of projects.   

4)  Guide the national allocation of Structural and Investment Funds (2014-20), Cohesion Policy Funds 

(2021-27) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility funds to avoid competing or being incompatible with 
EnPC and complementing the investments made through the latter model. This is important to achieve a 
multiplier effect of EU funds, contributing to achieving pressing targets of energy saving and building 
decarbonisation. Moreover, it would be advisable to introduce and strengthen EC guidelines on using EU 
grants, allocation criteria on the achievement and demonstration of savings (like those in ELENA), and 
dissemination of financing instruments as alternatives to the direct allocation of subsidies with high grant 
rates. There remains a potential for the EU institutions to support MSs in setting guarantee mechanisms 
and refinancing capacities that could help MSs allocate funds to attain a multiplier effect of public 
funding whilst increasing the capacity of EnPC providers and reducing risk perception. 

7 

 
 
5)  Continue the EC and the EIB's efforts of disseminating the EnPC model whilst emphasising the benefits of 
EnPC beyond financing. Otherwise, persistent understanding of EnPC as a financing mechanism results in 
frustration when clients with insufficient technical means face a more complex than expected instrument.  

6)  Provide more information and clarification of the available EU support, both technical and financial, to 
clients, providers and financing actors. Collaboration in this domain would help MSs to fully implement 
the requirements of the EED Article 18, with a focus on EnPC and expected developments in this domain 
as put forth in the upcoming recast of the EED. 

7)  Relying on the success and demand for Technical assistance and Project development assistance, and 

without prejudice to point 7 in national-level recommendations, there is a potential for the EC to continue 
and strengthen these and introduce simpler and more flexible application mechanisms in the areas of 
project aggregation, setting technical assistance facilities at the MS level that replicate the success of 
ELENA at the national level.  

8 

 
 
 
1 

Introduction  

Energy  Performance  Contracting  (EnPC)  is  a  mechanism  that  has  been  promoted  via  public  policies  in  the 
European  Union  (EU)  and  its  Member  States  (MS)  as  a  part  of  a  toolset  to  increase  the  implementation  of 
energy efficiency projects. The EC has committed policy efforts to EnPC since the Energy Efficiency Directive 
(EED)  in  2012  to  foster  active  markets  in  most  MSs.  Energy  performance  projects  involve  investment  in 
energy  efficiency,  renewables,  and  other  technological  improvements,  resulting  in  energy  and  cost-savings 
during  the  service  lifetime  of  technologies,  buildings,  systems,  and  infrastructures.  EnPC  can  mobilize  the 
technical and financial capacities of third parties, typically specialized ESCO providers (commonly referred to 
as “ESCOs”), to cost-efficiently attain energy or economic savings through performance improvements at the 
premises  of  the  client  (see  Box  1  for  clarification).  Contracting  Energy  Services  creates  a  financial  and 
technical  incentive  for  the  client  to  engage  in  the  contract,  allowing  parties  to  recover  their  investment, 
transaction,  and  service  costs.  Moreover,  the  EnPC  contractor,  referred  to  as  the  provider  in  this  report, 
guarantees  a  certain  level  of  energy  savings  (or  related  economic  savings)  during  the  contract  period  and 
links its own remuneration to the delivery success rate. The EED (2012) defines EnPC as:2 

”Energy performance contracting means a contractual arrangement between the beneficiary and the 
provider  of  an  energy  efficiency  improvement  measure,  verified  and  monitored  during  the  whole 
term  of  the  contract,  where  investments  (work,  supply  or  service)  in  that  measure  are  paid  for  in 
relation  to  a  contractually  agreed  level  of  energy  efficiency  improvement  or  other  agreed  energy 
performance criterion, such as financial savings.” 

Box 1. Clarification on the use of “energy efficiency” and “energy performance” in this report. 

To align with the conceptual focus of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD), in 
this  report,  we  use  the  term  “energy  performance”.  In  a  strict  sense,  “energy  efficiency”  refers  to  those 
solutions, technologies, systems, materials, and designs that require less energy input than those they replace 
to  generate  similar  or  improved  services.  Improving  energy  performance  involves  saving  energy  and/or 
improving the service through energy efficiency improvements. It allows for integrating renewable generation 
solutions  to  lead  to  financial  savings  or  other  benefits  in  addition  to  those  generated  by  energy  efficiency 
improvement,  e.g.,  additional  revenue  streams  from  RES-related  support  schemes  and  decarbonisation  of 
energy  consumption.  The  Eurostat  guidelines  and  further  clarification  drafted  in  collaboration  with  the  EIB 
(2017, 2018)  clarified  that  it  is possible  to  incorporate  renewable  generation  as contributing  to  contractual 
performance improvement.  

Despite  the  decades-long  efforts  to  tap  into  the  energy  efficiency  potentials,  the  “energy  efficiency  gap” 
(Jaffe  and  Stavins  1994)  and,  more  recently,  the  “energy  performance  gap”  (Sovacool  et  al.  2015;  Galvin 
2014)  are  well-recognized  in  all  demand  sectors.  Energy  Services  and,  especially,  EnPC  contract  models 
addressed  to  overcome  the  investment  gap  are  complex,  and  clients  have  actual  or  perceived  reservations. 
Even  more,  the  guarantees  structures  and  complex  financial  solutions  require  the  client  and  contractor  to 
develop trust beyond the written contracts. Despite efforts by the European Commission, Member States, and 
ESCO  associations  to  develop  universal  and  easy-to-understand  energy  services  terms,  the  EnPC  market  is 
hampered  by  definitional  confusion  (Panev  et  al.  2014;  Boza-Kiss  et  al.  2017;  Boza-Kiss  et  al.  2019). 
Standardizing qualified services and contracts and developing monitoring and verification (M&V) systems are 
considered  to  help  reduce  transaction  costs  and  make  the  services  provided  transparent.  Yet,  there  is  an 
evident need for tailoring due to the variety of clients and project types and the required services.  

EnPCs fall into two major modalities: contracts with guaranteed and shared savings (Box 2). These differ in 
the  distribution  of  risks  between  the  client  and  the  provider.  In  both  cases,  the  remuneration  of  the  EnPC 
provider  depends  on  fulfilling  an  agreed  energy  performance  improvement,  shielding  the  client  from 
performance risks.  

2 A proposal for the recast of the EED currently includes a change in the definition to refer to “where work, supply or service” instead of 

“where investments (work, supply or service).” 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Box 2. Comparison of Guaranteed and Shared saving models of EnPC. 

Guaranteed Savings 
The provider guarantees a certain level of energy 
savings and, in this way, shields the client from any 
performance risk 

1.  Performance related to the level of energy 

Shared savings 
The cost savings are split for a pre-determined time 
and under a pre-arranged percentage. These 
depend on the cost of the project, the length of the 
contract and the share of risks 
1.  Performance related to the cost of energy 

saved 

saved 

2.  Value of energy saved guaranteed to meet 

2.  The value of payments to the provider is linked 

debt service obligations down to a floor price 
3.  The provider carries performance risk/ the client 

carries credit risk 

4.  If the client borrows, it is on-balance sheet 
5.  Requires creditworthy clients 
6.  Extensive M&V 
7.  Providers do not get highly leveraged 
8.  Used for more comprehensive projects 

to energy price (added risk) 

3.  The provider carries performance and credit risk  
4.  Usually, it is off-balance sheet  
5.  Can serve clients with no access to financing 
6.  Equipment may be leased 
7.  Favours large providers  
8.  Favours projects with short payback  

Source: JRC based on European Energy Efficiency Platform (E3P) (2020).3 

The  European  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  published  reports  mapping  the  energy  service 
markets  across  the  European  Union  (EU)  and  its  Member  States  (MSs)  since  2003.  Key  publications  in  this 
series date from 2005, 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2021. The JRC reports of 2017 and 2021 (Boza-
Kiss  et  al.  2017;  Moles-Grueso  et  al.  2021)  constitute  the  most  comprehensive  and  updated  review  of  the 
status  of  EnPC  in  the  public  markets  of  the  EU  in  the  periods  of  2016-17  and  2018-19,  respectively. 
Methodologically, these reports rely on expert input gathered through surveys, interviews and feedback, and 
reviewing  the  policy  and  scholarly  literature.  The  present  report  uses  the  same  methodology  to  assess  the 
policy and market developments in 2020-21 in the EU and its MSs. Reproducing the structure of previous JRC 
reports, we review the barriers, driving factors, best practices identified at the MS level, and the impact of EU 
supporting  mechanisms.  Ultimately,  the  report  provides  recommendations  relevant  to  MS  and  EU-level 
policymakers.  

A series of policy development in recent years has been adopted in light of the EU’s commitment towards full 
decarbonization  of  the  economy  in  a  few  decades.  The  role  of  the  public  sector  has  been  repeatedly 
emphasized: in terms of its contribution to the expected energy savings, its exemplary role (especially through 
central  government  but  also  other  public  buildings),  its  potential  to  create  and  form  the  energy  efficiency 
market,  and  its  sizable  public  procurement.  The  EU  and  MSs  recognize  the  need  to  leverage  private 
investment  to  achieve  the  necessary  energy  system  transformation  and  untap  energy  performance's 
potential. The JRC report of 2021 (Moles-Grueso, et al. 2021) assessed the impacts of a broad range of policy 
and decision changes: the 2018 amendments on the Energy Efficiency (EED) and the Energy  Performance of 
Buildings (EPBD) Directives, the Eurostat Guidance Note of 2017 and the Eurostat and EIB Guide of 2018;  4 

3 Cites Dreessen 2003, Hansen 2003 and 2004, Poole and Stoner 2003.  
4  These  clarified the  conditions  for  the  off-balance  treatment  of  EnPC  investment in  the  public  sector  in  government accounts and as 

reviewed in previous JRC communications have boosted the development of standard contracts. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
the  Smart  Financing  for  Smart  Buildings  initiative  (SFSB)  framing  ELENA,  Project  Development  Assistance 
(PDA), Horizon 2020, the De-risking Energy Efficiency Platform (DEEP), and the EEFIG Underwriting Toolkit; the 
adoption  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  its  Renovation  Wave  communication.  The  JRC  2021  report  also 
looked at the impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on the public sector EnPC markets of the EU. 

The evolution of energy efficiency and climate targets - underlying the adoption of EnPCs - has been speeding 
up  since  2018,  when  the  amendment  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive established  a  32.5%  efficiency 
improvement target for 2030 compared to baseline energy consumption. The  European Green Deal and the 
Climate Target Plan 2030 have strengthened the Commission’s commitment to attaining carbon neutrality in 
the  EU  by  2050,  largely  relying  on  the  EU's  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  policy.  The  Fit  for  55 
policy  package  aiming  to  deliver  a  greenhouse  gas  emissions  net  reduction  of  55%  below  1990  levels 
involves  revising  the  EPBD  and  the  EED.  The  buildings  sector  is  key  to  achieving  these  goals.  The  current 
proposal  for  a  recast  of  the  EPBD5  includes  provisions  for  building  sector  decarbonisation,  deep  renovation, 
new Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) and a Zero Emission Building standard. More ambitious 
and detailed building renovation plans should replace current LTRS, and fossil fuels need to be phased out in 
buildings  by  2040.  The  Renovation  Wave  communication  aims  at  exploring  the  efficiency  and  economic 
potential of renovating the European building stock, the Next Generation EU for green recovery after the Covid 
pandemic, and the RePowerEU plan – responding to energy shortages caused by the Russian war on Ukraine – 
have, altogether, furthered climate and energy commitments of the EU.  

The  report  is  built  up  as  follows.  After  Section  2  presents  the  methodology  used  in  this  report,  Section  3 
reviews the implications of the policy developments described above. Sections 4-11 summarize the findings 
about the MSs’ EnPC markets based on the EU Survey 2022 and additional information collected in the MS 
summaries (Annex 1) on the Market size, Status of the business environment (actors and contracts), Project 
characteristics, Barriers and drivers, Regulatory framework, Balance sheet treatment of EnPC investments, EU 
support, and Recommendations at MS and EU level. The final 2 Sections provide a set of Conclusions about 
the EnPC market of the EU; and Recommendations for the European Commission. 

5 COM (2021) 802 final. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
2  Methodology 

This  report  reviews  the  EnPC  markets  of  MSs  in  2020-2021  based  on  qualitative,  semi-quantitative,  and 
quantitative data collected during 2022 from experts and documents. A total of 49 MS- and EU-level experts 
provided direct input to the EU Survey 2022, either through the survey itself or through interviews. Moreover, 
national experts provided 69 pieces of feedback on the MS summaries. 

Expert input often involved several experts filling out the survey or participating in the interview. It received 
about the EU market and MSs or national sub-markets of regions and cities. Experts did not provide input for 
Luxemburg  and  Malta.  These  expert  insights  were  often  the  only  way  to  obtain  key  data,  which  was  then 
contrasted and complemented with a review of the policy literature and other documents. Expert’s inputs are 
anonymized in the report, and their participation is only acknowledged with their permission. This report refers 
to their input as contributing to the EU Survey 2022. 

Qualitative data served to assess barriers, driving factors, best practices, opportunities, and recommendations. 
The collected quantitative data included typical contract size, average contract duration, average contracted 
savings,  the  overall  number  of  contracts  and  economic  market  size,  and  the  number  of  energy  service 
providers,  facilitators,  one-stop-shops,  and  financing  actors  involved  in  the  market.  The  semi-quantitative 
evaluation  relied  on  experts’  assessments  of  market  trends,  the  impact  of  policy  instruments  (Eurostat 
guidelines,  EEFIG,  DEEP,  PDA),  the  commitment  and  understanding  of  different  actors,  the  sufficiency  of 
services their use to fulfil exemplary obligations (Art. 5 of the EED).  

The  JRC's expertise  on  the  topic  and  drafting  previous  reports  were  key  for appraising  data  validity  and its 
eventual  consolidation  and  interpretation.  A  selected  group  of  experts  provided  feedback  on  national 
summary  reports  (Annex  1)  during October 2022 and January 2023.  A total of 69  pieces of feedback were 
received.  

The  methodological  limitations  involve  definitional  diversity, experts’  subjectivity  in  analysing  their  markets, 
and  reticence  to  make  estimates  in  contexts  where  official  market  monitoring  is  missing  and  sometimes 
largely disaggregated, e.g. between regions and states.6 Expert participation in the survey and interviews was 
smaller  than  in  previous  reports  (e.g.  74  respondents  provided  input  for  the  JRC  2021).  This  reduction  in 
participation could be due to respondent fatigue, increased in the post-Covid situation where online input has 
been increasingly demanded from experts, the increased scope of the study (now including the private sector), 
which  could  dissuade  experts  with  expertise  only  on  some  sectors,  e.g.  the  public  sector.  Whilst  the  survey 
takes some 20-25 minutes to fill whilst relying on data with which the experts are acquainted, assessing the 
broad  set  of  indicators  required  to  understand  EnPC  markets  could  take  much  longer  for  those  needing  to 
gather data from different sources. It could also relate to a degree of stagnation in some markets or failure 
to fulfil expectations for take-off (Malta and Luxemburg). However, the overall expert input obtained through 
the survey was more complete than on previous occasions in addressing most questions.  

This report's data, findings, and recommendations need not be considered official statements from Member 
States  or  the  European  Commission.  They  are  based  on  experts'  opinions,  available  documents  and  the 
authors'  analysis  and  intend  to  highlight  the  market  perceptions,  concerns,  and  forecasts  put  forth  by 
practitioners. 

6 Due to the data collection taking place in 2022, it is possible that recent developments –  e.g. increase in prices and financing costs 
resulting from the Russian war on Ukraine – gain relevance as opposed to others which were key during the reported period (2020-
21), e.g. developments related to the adoption of off-balance contract models. 

12 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
3  The context 

The EU needs to speed up the progress towards its energy efficiency targets. A 2021 review of the status of 
building  renovation  in  the  EU  points  out  that  the  decrease  in  the  final  energy  consumption  of  the  building 
sector is slow, with a total of 5% between 2005 and 2018 (Zangheri, Economidou, and Labanca, 2019). Most 
(85%)  of  Europe’s  buildings  were  built  before  2001  (European  Commission,  2020).  Energy  renovation  is 
critical to meeting sustainability goals. In the building sector alone, “an additional EUR 275 billion per year is 
necessary for 2021-2030 to reach EU energy and climate objectives in 2030” (European Commission, 2022). 

According to the EEFIG, “investment in energy efficiency in buildings and industry needs to increase to over 
two to three times the current level to achieve the EU targets. Many think these multiples are even higher”. In 
the EU industry, investment in energy efficiency has been constant since 2018 at around €5b per year, and 
investment should be almost three times this amount (€14b) to reach the targets as of 2022 (EEFIG, 2021).7 

Reflecting on the role of ESCOs, EEFIG is confident that “rapid progress can be achieved in the industry, due to 
the size of the gap and the availability of finance, and the driver effect of the upcoming introduction of ESG 
criteria. In addition to being one possible source of financing, ESCOs can be relevant to industry and SMEs to 
supply  for  advice”  (EEFIG,  2021.)  Despite  support  programs  and  funds,  progress  in  buildings  is  inadequate, 
and  there  is  an  unexplored  potential  to  speed  up  building  renovation  through  energy  service  contracting 
(European Commission, 2022). 

Another  barrier to  energy  efficiency  interventions  in  buildings  is that  almost  four  times more  public  money 
goes into renewables than energy efficiency (Economidou, et al., 2019). According to the EC, this preference 
for renewables results from the capacity of “renewable generation [to] provide predictable, stable cash flows 
that  offer  attractive  returns  to  investors  in  a  low-interest  rate  environment”.  As  a  result,  the  EC  continues, 
“Progress in contract and risk assessment standardisation for energy efficiency projects offers the possibility 
of  energy  efficiency  portfolios  delivering  similar  risk-adjusted  yielding  returns  in  the  future”  (European 
Commission, 2022, p.44) and compensate for the slower returns of efficiency renovations. Whilst the previous 
JRC  report  on  EnPC  markets  (Moles-Grueso,  et  al.  2021)  identified  an  untapped  potential  in  combining 
revenue streams from on-site renewables and energy efficiency interventions in buildings to strengthen the 
viability  of  the  EnPC  model,  there  is  a  need  of  continued  efforts  to  exploit  the  potential  for  standardizing 
contracts and tailoring them to national needs. Following the EU’s efficiency first principle, the latter would 
equalize  risks  between  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  portfolios.  Otherwise,  there  is  a  risk  of  efficiency 
interventions receiving insufficient attention hence locking in a savings potential. Clarifications in the Eurostat 
and EIB guidelines on the treatment of EnPC in government accounts and clarifying the limits on the use of 
renewables  as  a  part  of  off-balance  EnPC  contracts  (Eurostat,  2017;  Eurostat  and  EIB,  2018)  and  signals 
about the phasing out of fossil fuel generation in buildings in the current proposal for a recast of the EPBD 
(European Commission, 2021) are key in this domain. 

There  is  a  fundamental  need  to  streamline  private  financing  into  energy  efficiency  projects  to  improve  the 
overall energy performance of the EU buildings sector through building renovation  (Economidou, et al, 2019; 
JRC,  2021),  energy  efficiency,  and  climate  targets  (JRC,  2021;  EC,  2021).  Following  up  on  the  2018  Action 
Plan  on  Sustainable  Finance,  the  Commission’s  Strategy  for  Financing  the  Transition  to  a  Sustainable 
Economy (European Commission, 2021) calls for an increased alignment of public, private, international and 
multilateral capital to attain environmental, social and climate targets. Accelerating energy efficiency action in 
the building and other sectors calls for a more dynamic role of private financing instruments and the finance 
sector. The EEFIG (European Commission. Directorate General for Energy. et al., 2022) claims that “Achieving 
the EU’s targets for energy efficiency and emissions reduction … will require mobilizing significant amounts of 
private capital through a variety of appropriate financing instruments.”  

Slow improvement of the energy performance of the Union’s buildings involves a potential for EnPC and other 
intervention  mechanisms,  yet  it  also  implies  limitations  in  assessing  these  potentials  and  standardizing 
projects. For instance:   

7 Cites EIB 2019, and Energy Lending Policy 2019. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
“The  share of energy-certified  buildings across Member States is still  very low. Only about 10% of 
the  existing  buildings  have  an  Energy  Performance  Certificate…Even  though  the  use  of  EPCs 
generally improved after the EPBD recast, it is clear that further changes are needed to make EPCs a 
reliable  information  source…The  report  reveals  that  currently  25  Member  States  have  in  force  a 
complete  Nearly  Zero  Energy  Building  definition.  NZEB  requirements  are  currently  70%  lower  than 
the  national  minimum  energy  performance  requirements  in  2006,  showing  a  consistent  trend  in 
increasing building energy efficiency.”  (JRC, 2021) 

EnPC  addresses  two  major  areas  of  relevance  for  the  EU  to  attain  its  targets,  savings  guarantees  and 
engagement of private investment. Guaranteed savings constitute a step towards overcoming uncertainties in 
a changing economic (e.g. energy prices) and technological context. Policy support to EnPC includes financing 
and  non-financing  mechanisms.  Financing  and  economic  support  are  key  to  boosting  efficiency  investment 
and promoting EnPC for its capacity to engage private investment and provide performance guarantees. Non-
financing instruments to support EnPC are also needed to foster energy efficiency investment and reduce the 
transaction  costs  and  risks  associated  with  EnPC.  For  instance,  these  instruments  foster the  aggregation  of 
small projects by establishing one-stop-shops and technical assistance; overcome performance uncertainties 
through project standardization; and recognize non-energy benefits (Economidou, et al., 2019). 

A  complex  and  evolving  ecosystem  of  EU  policy  and  support,  different  degrees  and  pathways  of 
implementation by MSs and structural determinants shape the context for the development of EnPC markets, 
and  make  necessary  a  relatively  extensive  review.  The  following  four  sections  address  the  EU  policy 
framework  shaping  the  targets,  regulations  and  funding  available;  the  EU  mechanims  of  support;  the 
implementation  by  MSs  of  the    EED  and  the  EPBD  and  the  RRF;  and  the  structural  factors  of  energy  and 
financing costs. 

3.1  EU policy framework 

The EU is implementing two strategies in the domains of climate, energy efficiency and building performance, 
i.e. the Clean Energy Package and the European Green Deal.  The Clean Energy Package pursues to contribute 
to  a  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas emissions  of  55%  by  2030  and  climate  neutrality  of  the  EU  by  2050,  as 
stated in the Climate Target Plan 2030 (European Commission, 2020). It involves a revision of the EED, the 
EPBD,  and  the  RED  (agreed  upon  in  2018).  The  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Climate  Target  Plan  2030 
strengthened the Commission’s commitment to the EU attaining carbon neutrality by 2050, largely relying on 
the  EU's  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  policy.  The  buildings  sector  is also  key  to  achieving  these 
goals.  The  Fit  for  55  package  (2021),  meant  for  “Delivering  the  Green  Deal”(European  Commission,  2020), 
involves a recast of the EED with plans to revise the 2030 targets for energy efficiency, a recast of the EPBD, 
and the Renovation Wave communication (European Commission, 2020).   

3.1.1  Renovation wave 

The Renovation Wave communication (14 October 2020) of the European Green Deal recognizes the need to 
bridge the financing gap in building renovation, estimated at €275b annually, to reduce buildings’ greenhouse 
gas emissions by 60% to meet the Climate Target Plan 2030 to cut net greenhouse gas emissions in the EU 
by  at  least  55%  by  2030  and  help  overcome  the  Covid-19  crisis  (European  Commission,  2020).8  It  also 
intends  to  double  the  annual  energy  renovation  rate  of  residential  and  non-residential  buildings  by  2030. 
Renewed  relevance  has  been  granted  to  the  “Energy  efficiency  first”  (EE1st)  principle.  This  principle  is  an 
essential part of the Clean Energy Package. The Fit for 55-package of July 2021 calls for its inclusion as a 
legal provision in the Energy Efficiency Directive, followed by the EED-recast proposal, including the principle 
in  Article  3.  Amongst  others,  the  Renovation  Wave  plans  for  the  Commission  and  the  EIB  to  foster  the 
replication  of  the  ELENA  model  at  the  national  level  through  Cohesion  Funds,  InvestEU,  and  Recovery  and 

8 As the Renovation Wave acknowledges:  “Today, only 11% of the EU existing building stock undergoes some level of renovation each 
year. However, very rarely, renovation works address energy performance of buildings. The weighted annual energy renovation rate 
is low at some 1%. Across the EU, deep renovations that reduce energy consumption by at least 60% 5 are carried out only in 0.2% 
of  the  building  stock  per  year  and  in  some  regions,  energy  renovation  rates  are  virtually  absent.  At  this  pace,  cutting  carbon 
emissions from the building sector to net-zero would require centuries. It is time to act” (European Commission, 2020). 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Resilience Facility; development of a network of one-stop-shops; and investment schemes based on EnPC to 
target public buildings and social housing (European Commission, 2020). 

The Renovation Wave communication focuses on increasing energy renovation rates, which should be doubled 
from  1%  to  2%,  especially  deep  renovations.  The  latter  type  of  renovation  involves  reducing  energy 
consumption  by  at  least  60%.  To  respond  to  this  challenge,  it  prioritizes  a  series  of  areas  of  intervention 
whichare able to foster EnPC development and shaping the type of projects: 

Strengthening information, legal certainty, and incentives for renovation, 
Reinforced, accessible, and more targeted funding, along with setting up re-financing vehicles, 
Increasing capacity and technical assistance, 

 
 
 
  Creating green jobs, upskilling workers, and attracting new talent,  
 
 

Sustainable building environment, 
Placing an integrated participatory approach and neighbourhood-based approach at the heart of the 
renovation,  

  Addressing energy-poor households and worst-performing buildings, 
 
  Decarbonizing heating and cooling. 

Public buildings and social infrastructure showing the way (exemplarity), 

3.1.2  Next Generation EU  

In  addition  to  specific  packages  for  energy  efficiency  and  buildings  performance,  the  EU  has  deployed  the 
Next Generation EU to help MSs recover from the Covid pandemic by investing in sustainability, resilience and 
digitalization  (European  Commission,  2020).  The  Next  Generation  EU  includes  the  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility (RRF), with funding of €723.8 billion in grants and loans to Member States’ investments taking place 
between  2020  and the  end  of  2026  but  with  a  focus on  the  2021-23  period.  Additional  funds of  the  Next 
Generation EU support the Horizon 2020 and InvestEU programmes, amongst others. Further contributing to 
the  RRF,  the  REPowerEU  responds  to  the  energy  cost  and  security  issues  brought  about  in  2023  by  the 
Russian  invasion  of  Ukraine  by  increasing  the  binding  EU  energy  efficiency  target  proposed  by  the 
Commission to 39% for final energy, to 41.5% for primary energy and 45% for renewable energy (respect to 
the 2007 Reference Scenario projections for 2030). The REPowerEU made available additional funding as a 
part  of  the  RRF  (€225b  in  the  forms  of  loans  and  €75b  in  grants–  an  additional  €25.4b  could  be  made 
available),  rising  RES  targets  to  45%  in  the  RED  (supported  with  €86b)  (EC  -  European  Commission,  2022). 
One of its flagships is building renovation. This way, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 
(€ 1.211 trillion) adds to the € 806.9b from the Next Generation EU (Figure 1, Box 3). 

Figure 1. Overview of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-27 concerning the Next Generation EU and the 
Recovery and Resilience Facility. 

Source: BPIE, 2021. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Box  3.  The  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  (RRF)  of  the  Next  Generation  EU  and  the  National  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Plans (RRP) 

The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), established in February of 2021, is the largest funding instrument 
of  the  Next  Generation  EU  strategy  to  counter  the  socio-economic  impact  of  the  COVID  pandemic  whilst 
fostering sustainability, resilience, and green and digital transitions.  The facility made available €723.8 billion 
in grants and loans to Member States’ investments taking place between 2020 and the end of 2026. The RRF 
funds  are  allocated  based  on  the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  (RRP)  presented  to  the  EC  by  the  Member 
States,  according  to  their  alignment  with  the  country-specific  recommendations  of  the  European  Semester, 
the  NECPs,  and  six  pillars  (FIG):  (a)  green  transition;  (b)  digital  transformation;  (c)  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive growth, including economic cohesion, jobs, productivity, competitiveness, research, development and 
innovation,  and  a  well-functioning  internal  market  with  strong  SMEs;  (d)  social  and  territorial  cohesion;  (e) 
health,  and  economic,  social  and  institutional  resilience,  with  the  aim  of,  among  other,  increasing  crisis 
preparedness  and  crisis  response  capacity;  and  (f)  policies  for  the  next  generation,  children  and  the  youth, 
such as education and  skills. Additionally, there are eleven criteria for evaluating the  national RRPs.  The  six 
pillars and the eleven  criteria do not directly reference the  promotion of EnPC, ESCOs, or reducing financial 
and technical risks in projects addressed to improve energy efficiency or building performance. At least 37% 
of the funds requested in RRPs need to address climate-related investment and policy.  

Since the announcement of the Next Generation EU, there have been growing expectations regarding the use 
of  the  RRF  and  the  InvestEU  mechanism  to  support  EnPC  development.  Member  States  could  earmark  RRP 
money for EnPC-qualified ESCOs, and use InvestEU funds to provide guarantees for ESCOs, hence de-risking 
projects  and  leveraging  private  finance  (European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Energy,  2022). 
According to the EC, there is a potential for the RRF to support areas (2020) which appear to be relevant for 
EnPC market development:  
a. 
b. 
c. 

investment schemes associated with EnPCs in public buildings and social housing;   
the deployment of a network of one-stop shops for building renovation at the national level;  
the replication of the ELENA model for project development assistance at the national level 
to prepare a strong and aggregated pipeline of investment projects; and  
financing schemes with a high potential of scaling up building renovation and the innovative 
deployment of EE financing products by commercial banks, on-bill and on-tax financing.  

d. 

The expectation generated by this unprecedented availability of public funding could have resulted in effects 
on the EnPC market already in 2020, especially in a context of limited activity caused by the Covid pandemic.9 

3.1.3  Energy Efficiency Directive  

A  set  of  key  areas  of  the  EED  (2012/27/EU)  as  amended  in  2018  (2018/2002/EU)  are  under  revision  and 
relevant  for  EnPC  developments.  As  regards  the  general  framework  for  energy  efficiency  investments,  the 
EED  recast  provides  a  legal  basis  for  the  Energy  efficiency  first  principle  (Art.  3)  to  be  applied  to 
legislative,  investment  and  planning  decisions  and  hence  the  development  of  approval  and  monitoring 
mechanisms.  These  can  be  key  for  data  availability  to  support  EnPC  market  development  based  on  its 
capacity to deliver guaranteed savings.  

The recast also provides for a minor adjustment in the definition of EnPC in its Art 2 (29): 

‘Energy performance contracting’ means a contractual arrangement between the beneficiary and the 
provider  of  an  energy  efficiency  improvement  measure,  verified  and  monitored  during  the  whole 
term  of  the  contract,  where investments (work,  supply  or  service) in  that  measure  are  paid  for  in 
relation  to  a  contractually  agreed  level  of  energy  efficiency  improvement  or  other  agreed  energy 
performance criterion, such as financial savings. 

9  Regardless  that  the  adoption  of  the  Next  Generation  EU  took  place  at  the  end  of  2020  and  that  of  the  RRF  in  February  2021,  and 
decisions on fund allocation to MSs took place throughout 2021 and 2022, the expectations were already  reported for public EnPC 
markets in Moles-Grueso, et al. 2021.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

 

An important article supporting the development of the EnPC market is the new Article 27 on Energy Services, 
which replaces Article 18 in EED. The current provisions gain strength through these requirements on MSs: 
To encourage public bodies to use energy EnPC for renovations of large buildings and to combine 
EnPC with demand response and storage. 
To assess the feasibility of using EnPC renovations of large non-residential buildings (above 1000 
m2), always assess the feasibility of using an EnPC.  
Increased attention on the role of advisory bodies, independent market intermediaries, and one-stop 
shops.  
To develop quality labels and make the list of energy services providers and qualified professionals 
publicly available.  
To develop and publicize model contracts, tendering guidelines, best practices for using EnPC in the 
public sector, and a database of implemented or ongoing EnPC projects.  

 

 

 

Other areas under revision which are of relevance for the uptake of EnPC are:  

  Article 5 on the Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings, which currently requires the renovation of 
3% of the building area heated or cooled and owned or occupied by central government bodies 
becomes Article 6 and , is being reviewed for its requirements to be made extensive to all buildings 
owned by public bodies. 

  Article 6 on Purchasing by public bodies becomes Article 7 on Public procurement and extends the 

obligation to take into account the energy efficiency requirements by all public administration levels, 
removes conditionalities with regard to cost-effectiveness, technical and economic feasibility 
(application of the energy efficiency first principle in public contracting), and requires MSs to provide 
technical support to public bodies and to encourage aggregated procurement.10 

  Article 7 on Energy savings obligations becomes Article 8 and increases the annual obligation to 

1.5% for all MSs whilst prioritizing actions in vulnerable dwellings.11  

  Article 21 invites MSs to establish mechanisms for handling complaints and for the out-of-court 

settlement of any dispute arising. 

3.1.4  Energy Performance of Buildings Directive   

The  EPBD  Directive  (2018/844/EU)  –  transposed  in  March  2020  –  introduced  new  targets  to  accelerate  the 
cost-effective  renovation  of  existing  buildings  through  national  long-term  renovation  strategies  (LTRSs).  In 
these LTRS, Member States had to state the financial measures to be put in place to meet 2030, 2040 and 
2050  targets  and  to  stimulate  cost-effective  and  holistic  deep  renovation.  The  directive  also  introduces  a 
mandate  regarding  integrating  electromobility  infrastructure  and  new  provisions  for  integrating  smart 
technologies and building systems. The directive also required Member States to improve the transparency of 
the national building performance certification systems, further fostering efforts of  comparing  performance 
through  the  EU  Building  Stock  Observatory  (BSU),12  launched  in  2016  as  part  of  the Clean  Energy  for  All 
Europeans  package.  The  Directive  also  announced  the  launching  of  the  Smart  Finance  for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative to unlock €10 billion of new public and private funds.13 

The  Fit  for  55  communication  includes  provisions  for  the  recast  of  the  EPBD.    The  current  proposal  for  a 
recast  of  the  EPBD  emphasizes areas of  direct  relevance  for  the  future  of  the  EnPC  market.  It  emphasizes 
that  “Member  States  shall  promote  the  roll-out  of  enabling  funding  and  financial  tools,  such  as  …  energy 
performance  contracting”  and  guide  investments  towards  the  use  of  Eurostat-compliant  EnPC  in  the  public 
sector(Art 15 (4); continues to recognize that the use of EnPC frees systems from inspection obligations (Art. 
20); requires MSs to establish “technical assistance facilities, including through one-stop-shops, targeting all 

10 The proposal makes reference in its appendix VI to the need to abide by Union green public procurement criteria in domains including  
data  centres,  server  rooms  and  cloud  services,  road  lighting  and  traffic  signals,  computers,  monitors  tablets  and  smartphones 
(COM/2021/558 final). 

11 See also Article 7a on Energy efficiency obligations schemes which becomes article 9. 
12 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/eu-bso_en 
13 The data available in the EU BSO can be useful for assessing progress overall, but not to assess the potential in public and  private 
sectors, and the adoption of sector specific tools such as EnPC. The information on the sector’s (residential and non-residential) status of 
renovation, potentials is not available. (Reviewed DEEP, Building Stock observatory, and JRC EPBD progress report 2021). The  DEEP and 
BSO  databases  do  not  disaggregate  public  vs  private.  Different  types  of  buildings  and  renovations  need  to  be  taken  into  account  to 
assess their potential EnPC-ability.  

17 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
actors  involved  in  building  renovations,  including  home  owners  and  administrative,  financial  and  economic 
actors” (Art. 15); and to maintain regularly  updated lists  of qualified  or certified service providers” (Art. 22). 
Art. 3 on National building renovation plans (substituting Art. 2 on long term renovation strategies) leaves the 
option for MSs when reporting on their “capacities in the construction, energy efficiency and renewable energy 
sectors” to indicate the “number of energy service  companies”.  Also, it is optional to report on “Policies and 
measures with regard to … the promotion of the energy services market” as a part of the implemented and 
planned policies and measures (Annex II).  

More generally, the proposal includes additional provisions on energy performance but also for expanding its 
scope  into  building  decarbonisation  (e.g.  through  the  inclusion  of  life-cycle  emissions  into  building 
certificates);  defining  deep  renovation;  and  setting  new  Minimum  Energy  Performance  Standards  (MEPS) 
especially targeting worst-performing buildings as well as a Zero Emission Building standard (for new public 
buildings  to  meet  by  2027,  and  all  new  buildings  by  2030).14  Moreover,  the  recast  EPBD  requires  more 
ambitious  and  detailed  building  renovation  plans,  including  multi-annual  financial  programming,  to  replace 
current LTRS; and the phasing out of fossil fuels in buildings by 2040. A combination of strengthened energy 
requirements,  a  climate  approach  in  building  performance  and  disclosure,  and  more  detailed  planning, 
including  financing  provisions  and  stricter  standards,  are  potential  drivers  for  MSs  to  engage  with 
implementation mechanisms that outsource the achievement of  savings and can potentially provide private 
financing,  whilst  calling  for  the  replacement  of  energy  generation  systems  and  the  incorporation  of 
renewables. The recast proposal also includes provisions for more comprehensive, harmonised, reliable, visible 
and digital Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), as well as more trigger points for these to be issued and 
publicized, e.g. through a publicly available database (Articles 14, 16, 17, 19 and Annex V).15  

Regarding  the  role  of  the  EC,  Article  26  substitutes  Article  20  to  state  the  role  of  the  EC  in  providing 
information, amongst others, “about available financial instruments, as well as best practice examples at the 
national, regional and local levels. In the context of the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion 
Fund  and  the  Just  Transition  Fund, the  Commission  shall  continue  and  further  intensify  its  information 
services  to  facilitate  the  use  of  available  funds  by  providing  assistance  and  information  to  interested 
stakeholders, including national, regional and local authorities, on funding possibilities, take into account the 
latest changes in the regulatory framework.” 

3.1.5  Renewable energy directive  

The  RED  II  of  2018  pays attention  to  the  use  of  EnPC  and highlights  its  potential  for  decarbonising  district 
heating through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment (indicated in the Commission's 
heating and cooling strategy) (recital 75), the need to reinforce investor certainty  (European Parliament and 
the Council, 2018)  The currently proposed recast of the Directive involves increased recognition of the need 
of stepping up efforts to deploy renewables in buildings and the establishment of targets for this (recital 11) 
(European Parliament and the Council, 2021).  

3.1.6  Final reflections 

Whilst the availability of new funds and EU commitment towards energy efficiency and energy performance 
of buildings is generally positive for EnPC markets, a renewed challenge for the energy system – and one that 
can  affect  the  market  interest  for  EnPC  –  is  the  financial  and  political  preference  for  renewables  and 
generation  systems  over  energy  efficiency.  The  latter  must  gain  priority  according  to  the  Energy  Efficiency 
First  (EE1st)  Principle.  New  targets  for  renewable  generation  (45%  under  Fit  for  55)  require  increased 
attention to the type of renovation. Renovations should be categorized as “envelope only”, “heating only”, and  
“combination of envelope and heating renovation”  (European Commission Joint Research Centre,  2021). The 
three types of interventions are necessary to speed up the urgent replacement of low-carbon heating to meet 
climate  targets.  Moreover,  it  appears  necessary  to  understand  the  potential  and  development  of  EnPC 
projects. Increased interest in on-site renewable generation can compete with EnPC projects. Eurostat and EIB 

14 COM (2021)802 final. 
15 The publication of such databases is key to support consumers in their decision-making while buying or renting, and the financial sector 
in developing tailored financial instruments. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
argue that for EnPC projects to be considered off-balance in the accounts of national governments, revenues 
generated from the export of surplus on-site energy generation need to count towards less than 50% of the 
guaranteed  savings  (Eurostat  and  EIB,  2018).  Accordingly,  interest  in  renewables  may  deter  public  projects 
and national strategies pursuing off-balance treatment (i.e., Maastricht neutrality) from engaging with EnPC. 
On the other hand, equal treatment of renewables and efficiency provides an opportunity for making projects 
attractive, hence increasing the interest for EnPC. 

Another risk for EnPC originates from the RRF’s limited focus on engaging private investment and the cost-
effectiveness of investments in efficiency. There is the  risk that its unchecked use for achieving a multiplier 
effect and engaging private financing contributes to the frustration of financing institutions in their attempts 
to engage with energy renovation of buildings  (European Commission. Directorate General for Energy. et al., 
2022).  Moreover,  the  Resilience  and  Recovery  guidelines  encourage  public  investment  that  attracts  private 
investment and avoids crowding it out. There is no conditionality in this domain or assessing the impact of the 
new funds, and they are potentially contrary to fiscal commitments beyond 2026 (Funcas, 2020). Off-balance 
contracts must extend for at least eight years. Another aspect potentially contrary to EnPC playing a key role 
in national RRPs is the relevance granted in the guidelines to renewable generation, i.e. the building and sector 
integration  of  almost  40%  of  the  renewable  power  generation  needed  by  2030,  which  may  call  off  the 
interest  of  governments  engaged  in  the  development  of  off-balance  EnPC  models.  Moreover,  the  tight 
deadlines may have fostered a focus of MSs on accelerating, not transforming, existing NECPs, and including 
favourite projects (Funcas, 2020). The incentives to rely on EnPCs are their capacity to contribute to doubling 
the  renovation  rate  by  2025  and  fostering  deep  renovation.  In  very  few  cases,  the  EC  review  of  the  RRPs 
resulted  in  recommendations  of  engaging  private  investment  and  mentioning  EnPC  as  one  possible  means. 
Arguably,  a  role  granted  to  EnPC  could  be  assessed  through  indicators  assessing  the  lasting  impact  of  the 
measures, establishing monitoring mechanisms, and improving public governance. 

3.2  EU financial and technical support   

The  European  Union  institutions  provide  a  wide  range  of  technical  and  financial  assistance  for  energy 
efficiency improvement projects, particularly for improving buildings' energy performance.  

3.2.1  Research and innovation funds  

Horizon  research  and  innovation  funding  programmes  (Horizon  2020  in  2014-2020  and  Horizon  Europe  in 
2021-2027)  support  Europe's  global  competitiveness  and  innovation,  focus  on  addressing  climate  change, 
and  foster  100  Climate-Neutral  Cities  by  2030.  Horizon  Europe  has  increased  the  budget  from  the  €80b 
available in Horizon 2020 to €95.5b and supports innovation by reducing investment risks of green projects, 
creating new markets and leveraging private finance through public seed funding. Developing EnPC or other 
service business models is risky, so these funds are key for EnPC  (European Commission, nd, a; b). In 2014-
2020, Horizon  2020  supported  at  least  25  projects  involving  EnPC  through  Project  Development  Assistance 
(PDA) and other mechanisms. A selection of these projects is summarized in Annex 2. 

3.2.2  LIFE Clean Energy Transition sub-programme 

The  Clean  Energy  Transition  part  of  the  LIFE  programme  builds  on  the  success  of  the  Intelligent  Energy 
Europe (2003-2013) and  Horizon 2020 (2014-2020) programmes. It operates with a budget of nearly €1b 
for the period 2021-27 to support the uptake of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions through a 
series of initiatives, i.e., the European Sustainable Energy Week (EUSEW), the Covenant of Mayors Investment 
Forum,  the  Energy  Efficiency  Finance  Market  Place,  the  Sustainable  Energy  Investment  Forum,  BUILD  UP, 
ManagEnergy, and the European Cities Facility. It includes a specific focus on a series of EnPC-related market 
uptake activities: energy efficiency market development, supporting innovative financing and business models, 
including  performance-based,  building  capacity  of  public  authorities  to  fulfil  their  exemplary  role  in  energy 
efficiency, helping  MSs to enhance skills and qualifications for energy efficiency related professions,  raising 
awareness and helping to address energy poverty through energy efficiency improvements. The co-financed 
projects  engage  sectoral  stakeholders  and  local  and  regional  authorities  in  five  areas  of  intervention:  a) 
Building a national, regional and local policy framework; b) Accelerating technology roll-out, digitalisation, new 
services and business models and enhancement of the related professional skills on the market; c) Attracting 

19 

 
 
 
 
private finance; d) Supporting the development of local and regional investment projects; and e) Involving and 
empowering citizens. 

3.2.3  European Investment Bank funding schemes  

The  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  increasingly  supports  energy  efficiency  interventions,  usually  through 
financing intermediaries but also to service providers (e.g. the EnPC provider Resalta), large energy efficiency 
projects,  and  debt  funds  which  financial  service  providers  (e.g.  Solas  Sustainable  Energy  Fund)  (EIB, 
2023).16 As a result of this mediated support to the energy efficiency and energy services market, the size of 
investment in EnPC is uncertain but, as shown in Figure 2, important, especially for buildings and DHC. 

Figure 2. EIB lending to energy efficiency per sector (2012-21) 

Source: Rodrigues, 2022. 

The EIB also provides technical support at national and sub-national levels to develop the technical capacity 
to  engage  with  EnPC.  This  technical  support  includes  the  review  of  the  Slovak  and  Latvian  EnPC  model 
contracts  for  these  to  meet  Eurostat  requirements  for  off-balance  sheet  treatment;  supporting  the  Latvian 
public real estate manager in developing an EnPC-based scheme for building renovation; financial analysis of 
a public lighting project in Vilnius; technical support in the development of a forfaiting guarantee scheme in 
the  Czech  Republic.  It  also  includes  project  development  assistance  in  the  framework  of  ELENA, as the  one 
provided for Ljubljana, Bratislava, and Flanders. 

3.2.4  ELENA  

A  key  Horizon  program  for  EnPC  development  is  the  European  Local  Energy  Assistance  (ELENA),  a  joint 
initiative of the European Commission and the EIB, managed by the latter, which provides project finance and 
technical assistance (TA) to projects in the energy domain. Under Horizon 2020, ELENA allocated €228 million 
(10-15m allocated annually) to engage an estimated investment volume of €7.5 billion. ELENA  continues in 
Horizon Europe with a budget of €130m (€30-40m allocated annually) (EIB, 2023). 

ELENA support comprises 57 projects in 17 MSs, including ESCO/EnPC (35 projects completed and 22 ongoing 
projects) with an expected Technical Assistance (TA) of 96.4m and an overall investment of €2.9b (leverage 
factor  of  34.1)  (out  of  142  projects,  implemented  in  all  MSs  except  Malta,  Cyprus  and  Bulgaria,  supported 
with €248m and a leverage ratio of 33). It increasingly allocates funds to interventions in public buildings due 
to the challenging nature of using EnPC in these interventions. These data show that EnPCs have received a 
substantial  part  of  ELENA’s  support  due  to  the  need  for  technical  capacity  and  multiple  public  bodies' 
capabilities to engage with it. 

16 EIB-backed Solas Sustainable Energy Fund reaches final close with €220 million of institutional investor commitments; RESALTA (EGFF) 

(eib.org) 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Of the completed ELENA projects involving EnPC, 26 included buildings and 19 included public lighting, whilst 
current  projects  –  the  earliest  started  in  2018-  20  include  public  buildings,  and  7  include  public  lighting, 
showing a decrease in the  need for support to the latter type of intervention. Examples of  completed EnPC 
projects  on  buildings  involve  ELENA  support  for  Milano,  Ljubljana,  Baden-Württemberg,  and  Extremadura. 
Several  public  lighting  projects  have  been  in  Italy,  Spain,  and  Croatia  (Zagreb  and  neighbouring  counties).  
Also,  renewable  generation  was  included  in  14  completed  projects  and  6  current  projects  (the  latter  are  in 
Denmark, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy and Spain). Reflecting the state of  development in the EnPC 
sector,  only  2  completed  and  3  ongoing  projects  involve  residential  interventions  (all  in  the  Netherlands, 
France and Italy).  

According  to  information  available  from  the  EIB,  during  2020-21  there  were  ongoing  ELENA  projects  in  10 
MSs,  i.e.  Belgium  (Belfius  Energy  Project  development  unit),  Czech  Republic  (Energy,  Business  and  Advisory 
Platform CMZRB, Prague Energy), Germany (Efficiency for Berlin Properties), Spain (Boosting Regional ENergy 
TransitiOn  through  EEand  ReneWABlEs  in  public  buildings  -  RENOWABE),  France  (Transition  Energétique  du 
Patrimoine Public d'iparralde -TEPPI- and Bordeaux, première métropole à énergie positive : mobiliser tous les 
acteurs), Greece (INTegrated sustainable enERgy ACTions and projects in Crete - INTERACT in Crete), Italy (Top 
Condomini);  Latvia  (Energy  Efficiency  for  Lithuanian  Public  Buildings  and  Street  Lighting  -  LITGOVEN),  The 
Netherlands  (Tilburg  Sustainable  Real  Estate  -TSRE-  and  Sustainable  Homes  and  Sustainable  Heat  in  Zuid-
Holland), Slovenia (Sustainable Energy East Slovenia - SE-ES) and Slovakia (Energy Region Kosice - ENREKO). 
17 

Some  projects  do  not  directly  address  the  capacities  to  develop  a  specific  project  but  the  capacities  of  an 
agency to implement EnPC. For instance, ELENA supports the Vlaams EnergieBedrift (VEB) between January 
2019  and  December  2022  to  prepare  public  procurement,  including  EnPC  contracts  for  authorities  (Vlaams 
EnergieBedrift, 2022). With an investment of 3.17 million over 3 years, the project intends to mobilize a total 
of €99m.  The general rules for ELENA eligibility are (Rodrigues, 2022): 

The grant covers up to 90% of eligible project development costs, 

  A minimum investment of €30m, alongside support for project aggregation, 
 
  A minimum level of maturity (preparatory studies carried out and demonstrated commitment), 
 
Leverage factor required: 20 for sustainable energy projects, 10 for residential buildings and 
transport,18 
The obligation of implementation and to attain the minimum leverage (otherwise, ELENA could claim 
back the grant) 

 

  A timeframe implementation of 3- 4 years. 

3.2.5  Cohesion Policy Funds and the European Structural and Investment Funds 

The  cohesion  policy  supports  job  creation,  business  competitiveness,  economic  growth,  sustainable 
development  and  improving  citizens'  quality  of  life.  The  Cohesion  Policy  Funds  in  2021-2027  amount  to 
€392b, allocated through a  set of specific funds, i.e. the European Regional  Development Fund (ERDF). They 
support  the  social  and  economic  development  of  all  EU  regions  and  cities,  including  low-carbon  economy 
projects in developed regions. The European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) fosters the creation of jobs and a fair and 
socially  inclusive  society  in  EU  countries.19  The  Just  Transition  Fund  (JTF)  is  addressed  to  the  regions  most 
affected by the transition towards climate neutrality, and the Cohesion Fund (CF) provides investment to MSs 
with a gross national income per capita below 90% of the EU-27 average to strengthen the economic, social 
and territorial cohesion of the EU. 20  

17 ELENA – European Local ENergy Assistance (eib.org). 
18 This means that investment is required from the final beneficiary (applicant) and others. 
19 ERDF and ESF+ are allocated prioritizing less developed and in transition regions but not excluding more developed regions. For more 
information, see: 2021-2027: Cohesion policy EU budget Allocations | Data | European Structural and Investment Funds (europa.eu) 
20 For the 2014-2020 period, the Cohesion Fund concerned Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Cohesion Fund allocated a total of € 63.4b during this period, 
and  around  €17b  of  these  funds  were  dedicated  to  building  renovation  (European  Commission  2020d).      RW  For  the  2021-2027 
period,  the  Cohesion  Fund  concerns  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Greece,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Malta, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia.  37%  of  the  overall  financial  allocation  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  are  expected  to 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
In  2014-2020  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  encompassed  the  ERDF,  CF,  ESF,  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund.21During the 
period  2016-2020,  the  Smart  Finance  for  Smart  Buildings  initiative  (SFSB),  launched  by  the  European 
Commission  in  2016  in  collaboration  with  the  EIB  as  part  of  the  European  Buildings  Initiative,  with  the 
intention  of  building  on  the  success  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  (EFSI)  “to  further 
accelerate the renovation of buildings and support the transition to a clean energy building stock”  (European 
Commission,  2016).  Through  upscaled  financing,  the  fund  was  intended  to  develop  sustainable  energy 
financing  models  based  on  national  investment  platforms,  making  financing  options  more  attractive  to 
beneficiaries. Through its Pillar I, the SFBS initiative pursued more effective use of public funds by channelling 
and coordinating public funds to speed up the deployment of financial instruments, emphasising risk sharing. 
Following  this  package,  the  scope  of  Cohesion  Funds  was  broadened  to  address  improving  efficiency  and 
renewable use (Moles-Grueso, et al. 2021). 

3.2.6  Modernisation fund 

The Fund supports investments in the generation and use of electricity from renewable sources; improvement 
of  energy  efficiency  (including  in  transport,  buildings,  agriculture,  waste,  and  except  in  energy  efficiency 
related  to  energy  generation  using  solid  fossil  fuels);  energy  storage;  modernisation  of  energy  networks 
(including  district  heating pipelines, grids for electricity transmission, an increase of interconnections among 
Member States) in Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and 
Slovakia.  The  Polish  implementation  explicitly  refers  to  the  use  of  EnPC  for  building  renovation  (to  be 
supported with €1.3m). 

3.3 

Implementation by MSs 

This section shows that a series of MSs refer to EnPC in their NECPs and LTRSs. Few NECPs and LTRSs refer to 
EnPC in fulfilment of Art. 5 of the EED. EnPC and ESCO are included as implementation mechanisms of the 
RRPs only in 6 MSs and in Belgian Wallonia. The review of the national NECPs, LTRSs and RRPs is available in 
Annex 2. 

3.3.1  Energy services (EED Art. 18, 2012, 2018) 

In its Art. 18, the EED (2012) provided the policy framework for developing energy services by addressing the 
need for national EnPC model contracts, best practices, lists of qualified energy service providers, facilitation, 
and addressing specific barriers. The EED required MSs to promote the energy services market by: 

a)  Disseminating clear and easily accessible information on available energy service contracts that 

guarantee energy savings (e.g., EnPC) and available financial instruments, incentives, grants and loans 
to support ESCO projects;  

b)  Encouraging the development of quality labels;  
c)  Publicizing and regularly update to lists of qualified energy service providers who are qualified and 

certified;22  

d)  Supporting the public sector in taking up energy service contracts, particularly for building 

refurbishment, by providing model contracts for EnPC (the EED amendment of 2018 lists in its Annex 
XIII the elements that need to be included in these model contracts) and information on best practices 
for EnPC. 

Moreover, the EED required MSs to support the proper functioning of the energy services market by: 

a)  Publicizing information points for final customers;  
b)  Removing regulatory and non-regulatory barriers to energy services and EnPC;  

contribute to climate objectives. For detailed data please see: Inforegio - Cohesion Fund (europa.eu) Inforegio - Cohesion Fund 2014-
2020 (europa.eu). 

21 The allocation by countries and themes is summarized in  the page Open Data Portal for the European Structural Investment Funds  - 

European Commission | Data | European Structural and Investment Funds (europa.eu). 

22 Service providers can be certified in accordance with Article 16 of the EED. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
c)  Enabling mechanisms to speed up the handling of complaints and the settlement of disputes;  
d)  Enabling the role of independent market intermediaries (facilitators in this report).  

In  2018,  the  article's  implementation  success  was  “extremely  patchy”,  with  the  most  successful  provision 
being  the  information  provision  and  several  provisions  not  being  adopted  (Boza-Kiss  et  al.  2019). 
Fundamentally,  in  the  2018  report,  model  EnPC  contracts  were  available  in  at  least  14  Member  States 
(Szomolányiová and Keegan, 2018). However, models were considered successful only in seven MSs (Austria, 
Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, and Spain). Moreover, the public sector's leading adoption 
of model contracts has not resulted in the widespread use of the model (Boza-Kiss et al. 2019). As reported in 
2021, the Eurostat  guidelines for the off-balance treatment of EnPC in  government accounts contributed to 
increased  interest  in  contract  standardization.  However,  regulatory  and  procurement  incompatibilities 
continued to  be common, and the  availability of updated lists of EnPC providers was  uncommon. The report 
identified  an  apparent  need  for  efforts  to  develop  sectoral  capacities  and  provide  information,  promote 
facilitation, and develop One-stop-shops capable of fostering EnPC projects (Moles-Grueso, et al. 2021). 

3.3.2  Barriers to energy efficiency (EED Art. 19, 2012) 

Art.  19  refers to  the  obligation  of  MSs to  remove  barriers  to  energy  efficiency,  particularly  concerning  legal 
and regulatory provisions and administrative practices involved in public purchasing and annual budgeting and 
accounting to avoid public bodies being deterred from, amongst others, using EnPC.  

3.3.3  Energy Efficiency Obligation Schemes (EED Art 7a -2018, Art 7 - 2012) 

The  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EED)  established  in  2012  under  Article  7  requires  MSs  to  set  up  Energy 
Efficiency  Obligation  schemes  (EEOs)  to  ensure  that  energy  distributors  and  retail  energy  sales  companies 
achieve a cumulative end-use energy savings target. The EED, as amended in 2018, introduced under Art. 7a  
Energy Savings Obligations on MSs (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2012; 2018).  

In  2020,  372  national  policies  and  measures  contributed  to  the  EEOs  of  MSs  (European  Commission,  Joint 
Research Centre, 2020). This indicates the importance of Article 7 and the opportunity it brings about saving 
energy  at  the  national  level.  Currently,  there  are  expectations  for  increasing  the  reported  energy  savings' 
reliability in the ongoing EED recast (CAN, 2021). 

A series of country measures of direct or potential relevance directly for the development of EnPC markets, as 
highlighted  for  a  series  of  MSs,  include  (Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Spain,  Greece, 
France, Hungary, Croatia, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia - European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
2020): 

  Austria. Targets for 2014-2020 in Federal Government buildings are to be achieved through ESCO or 

EnPC, and efforts are to be stepped up for 2021-2030; promotion of ESCO and EnPC through 
information provision.23 

  Belgium. Updated EnPC contract model for the public sector. 
  Cyprus. Pursued uptake of EnPC public sector and information provision. 
  Czech Republic. Promotion and facilitation of EnPC through training in public procurement and 

tendering and promoting ESCO models through energy providers and regional offices. Support to 
information centres and regional offices focusing on energy services.  

  Germany. It relies on ESCO support, creating a platform for cooperation between government 

administrations on EnPC and the demonstration of EnPC.24 The NECP also lists a comprehensive set 
of measures addressing building renovation, including subsidies, grants and newly introduced tax 
incentives, and information (The impact of the measures is not quantified.)  

23  Promotion  of  ESCO  and  EnPC  models  through  information  provision  was  notified  by  Austria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany  and 
Slovakia. 
24 “Measures to be implemented include annual plenary meetings and workshops, as well as a mentoring programme and exchanges of 
best practices. Within this framework, funding is also available for the concrete implementation of around 10-15 ambitious energy 
saving model contracting projects in prestigious properties in municipalities and at federal state level, with a view to exemplifying 
the potential of contracting and encouraging the establishment of a functioning energy saving contracting market in Germany.” 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

Spain. Reliance on leveraging the effect of the National Fund for Energy Efficiency and other public 
funds, along with information and training, especially for financial actors. Not directly linked to the 
use of ESCO and EnPC models. 

  Greece. EnPCs are part of measures introduced for the energy performance of buildings alongside 

measures addressing financial mechanisms, tendering procedures, and energy audits. There is a new 
intention to promote EnPC in the public sector and create a database for buildings and related 
energy-saving projects. Alternative measures under Article 7 include energy management and 
reliance on ESCO models. 
France. Creation of an open database on Government building specifications, which is optional for 
local authorities and autonomous actors, e.g., hospitals.  

 

  Hungary. New, stricter measures aimed at the public sector buildings, the engagement of energy 
auditors and government officials, and the promotion of ESCO solutions. However, there is no 
indication of specific policies to support ESCO and EnPC models. 

 

 

  Croatia. Promote ESCO models, introduce energy management information systems (EMISs) in all 
public sector buildings, and develop systems for verifying real savings after building renovations. 
Latvia. The NECP recognizes the need to attract investments and avoid shortcomings in the ESCO 
market to continue building renovation efforts. 
Poland. Support for companies operating in the energy efficiency and RES sectors, especially to 
ESCOs. (No impacts quantified.) 
Slovakia. Supporting the development of EnPC with sample contracts, technical assistance, and 
enabling the combination of subsidy schemes with EnPCs. Other instruments that can support EnPC 
but are not specified as related to the model are information provision, deployment of energy 
management systems, and energy audits for public administrations and municipalities. 
Slovenia. Plans to continue promoting “energy contracting” (sic)  in the public sector through the 
design of project preparation and evaluation materials, training and technical assistance. 

 

 

3.3.4  Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings (EED Art. 5 – 2012) 

The public sector has led the adoption of ESCO, especially of EnPC models, through its use in public buildings 
and  public  lighting  (Boza-Kiss  et  al.,  2017;  Boza-Kiss,  et  al.,  2019;  Moles-Grueso,  et  al.  2021).  In  their 
implementation of Art. 5 of the EED on the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings, a series of MSs have 
prioritized  the  use  of  ESCO  and  EnPC:  Austria,  Cyprus,  and  Czech  Republic  (the  three  chose  the  Alternative 
method),  Germany,  and  Slovakia  (both  defined  their  approach  unclearly)  (European  Commission,  Joint 
Research Centre, 2020). The use of EnPC as a part of exemplary actions following the default mechanism of 
renovating 3% of the central government buildings is therefore missing in the nationally reported strategies. 

3.3.5  Long-Term Renovation Strategies (LTRS) (EPBD Art 2a - 2018) 

Article  2a  of  the  EPBD  recast  of  2018  (formerly,  Article  4  of  the  EED)  requires  Member  States  to  develop 
long-term  renovation  strategies  (LTRSs)  to  mobilise  energy  efficiency  investments  that  decarbonise  the 
existing building stock by 2050 whilst setting milestones for 2030 and 2040. In general, the LTRSs provide a 
good overview of the building stock and present a sufficiently high level of ambition to foster deep renovation 
and  the  renovation  of  worst-performing  and  public  buildings  but  often  lack  the  support  of  “comprehensive 
policies”.25  The  most  comprehensive  approaches  reported  are  those  of  Spain,  Finland  and  Luxemburg 
(European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2021).26  

A review of the LTRSs conducted by the EC highlighted that the “Renovation Wave Communication proposes to 
expand  the  use  of  ESCOs  and  energy  performance  contracts,  which  proved  to  work  well  in  some  Member 
States to make renovation affordable for all households, including those with a limited ability to cover costs 
upfront.”  The  report  also  acknowledges  that  “Barriers  still  remain,  and  the  ESCO  markets  still  have  a  great 

25 Reflecting on the level of ambition of the strategies, the JRC report claims that “the majority of the strategies present a high level of 
ambition,  but  this  is  not  always  supported  by  a  comprehensive  set  of  measures  that  justify  the  challenging  2030  and  2050 
renovation targets set (i.e., EE, NL, RO). …only few strategies have a low or moderate level of ambitions, i.e., CY and CZ.” 

26 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/default/files/swd_commission_preliminary_analysis_of_member_state_ltrss.pdf  

24 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
potential.”. 27 A widely reported barrier identified in the review of the LTRSs is the shortage of well-qualified 
technical  personnel.  The  programs  mentioned  to  address  this  barrier  “remain  largely  targeted  to  specific 
training areas and are not mainstreamed along the entire construction sector value chain.” Accordingly, the EC 
review  recommends  for  innovation  in  the  construction  industry:  “more  structural  arrangements  among 
knowledge  institutions,  education  and  training,  government,  contracting  authorities  and  contractors  [and 
r]egular  training  to  develop  professional  skills  for  energy  auditors,  designers  and  architects,  installers  of 
heating,  cooling  and  other  technical  building  systems,  energy  service  companies,  building  firms,  project 
supervisors and other experts.” Of note, the EC review does not address whether Member States consider the 
financing and economic instruments available compatible with or meant to support ESCO or EnPCs projects.  

3.3.6  Purchasing by public bodies (EED Art. 6 – 2012) 

The  EED  requirements  on  public  bodies  of  MSs  to  prefer  high  energy-efficiency  performance  services, 
products and buildings, introduced in 2012, were not modified in the amendment to the directive in 2018. Of 
key  relevance  for  the  development  of  EnPC  markets,  “Member  States  shall  encourage  public  bodies,  when 
tendering service contracts with significant energy content, to assess the possibility of concluding long-term 
energy performance contracts that provide long-term energy savings.” An assessment of the implementation 
of Art. 6 EED (Luyckx and Ortega 2020) indicates a series of barriers, which furthermore are magnified in the 
processes associated with the adoption of EnPC  

Implementation requires capacity building and is time-consuming for public servants;  

a) 
b)  Budgetary, legal and institutional barriers are still relevant;  
c)  Further involvement of small and medium-sized suppliers is needed;  
d)  Local and regional authorities need support to shift procurement habits, and networks are a powerful 

dissemination instrument; 

e)  Around 55% of public procurement procedures continue to use purchasing cost as the only award 

criteria;  

f)  There is a potential for simplification alongside the development of e-procurement. 

3.3.7  Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRP) 

This  section  covers  three  areas,  the  allocation  of  Recovery  and  Resilience  Funds  (RRF)  to  MSs  and  the 
Renovate and PowerUp domains; the extent to which EnPCs are included in national Recovery and Resilience 
Plans (RRP); and the planned use of financial and fiscal instruments by type of building.  

Figure  3  shows  the  RRF  allocation  to  MSs  and  the  RRPs’  allocation  to  PowerUP  (renewables  and  clean 
technologies)  and  to  Renovate  (energy  efficiency  of  buildings).    The  Figure  shows  that  for  the  EU 
overall, more than 11 per cent and 10 per cent of funds  requested in June 2022 are allocated to 
the  dimensions  of  renewables  and  clean  technologies  (Power  Up)  and  energy  efficiency  of 
buildings (Renovate), respectively. Three major groups of MS can be drawn: 

  MSs with above-average fund allocation to both dimensions, i.e. Czech Republic, Denmark, and 

Finland; 

  MSs with above-average fund allocation on PowerUp and lesser focus on Renovate, i.e. Austria, 
Bulgaria, Estonia, Romania, Cyprus, Malta, and Poland (the latter three do not allocate funds to 
Renovate);  

  MSs with above-average fund allocation to Renovate, which prevails over PowerUp, i.e. Belgium, 
France, Greece, and Luxemburg (Luxemburg allocates 25.7% of funds for Renovate, and 0% to 
PowerUp). 

Of  note,  fund  allocation  to  building  renovation  can  originate  from  funds  identified  as  PowerUp  and  other 
domains. The latter is the case of Poland, where the ‘Clean air’ is meant partially to target targeting energy 
efficiency improvements in residential buildings. 

27 swd-on-national-long-term-renovation-strategies.pdf (europa.eu) 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Figure 3. Absolute and relative allocation of RRFs in RRPs to clean technologies and renewables and to the energy 
efficiency of buildings (€billion and %) (as of June 2022). 

Source. The authors, based on Source: Bruegel, 2022. The colour scale compares the percentages allocated to both dimensions and 
ranges from the highest values (in green) to nil allocation (in red). 

The  EC  assessment  of  the  recovery  plans  evaluated  most  criteria  with  high  rates.  One  exception  is  cost 
justification,  where  all  MSs  remained  short  of  fully  justifying  the  costs  (Bruegel,  2022).  Little  detail  in  the 
description of the allocation mechanisms poses difficulty in assessing the impact of fund allocation through 
RRPs on EnPC markets.  

As shown in Table 1, the inclusion of EnPC in RRPs is fundamentally less frequent in the RRPs than in the 
NECPs (17 MSs) and LTRSs (18 MSs). Only 6 MSs and one federal region reported plans to use ESCO or EnPC 
models in their RRPs, i.e. Austria, Belgian Wallonia, Croatia, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. In response to the 
need  to  further  explore  the  potential  use  of  ESCO  and  EnPCs,  the  EC  has  recommended  these  models  in 
several MSs, including Denmark, Greece, and Ireland, and the  use of ESCO  models in  Austria, Cyprus, Czech 

26 

Country1. Power up (Clean Technologies and renewables)1. Power up (Clean Technologies and renewables)2. Renovate (Energy efficiency of buildings)2. Renovate (Energy efficiency of buildings)Grand TotalAustria0.7416.53%0.296.53%4.5Belgium0.6110.26%1.0718.12%5.93Bulgaria1.4622.12%0.9314.01%6.61Croatia0.528.14%0.7611.89%6.4Cyprus0.3628.89%00.00%1.23Czechia1.8125.64%1.3218.67%7.07Denmark0.319.14%0.2515.86%1.56Estonia0.1414.36%0.054.79%0.98Finland0.3818.11%0.2712.64%2.1France3.688.97%7.3217.89%40.95Germany3.3211.86%2.529.02%27.95Greece1.8310.06%2.8215.52%18.19Hungary0.7910.91%0.192.63%7.2Ireland0.055.54%0.110.08%0.99Italy15.077.87%19.4210.14%191.5Latvia0.084.38%0.2312.66%1.83Lithuania0.2611.62%0.229.79%2.22Luxembourg00.00%0.0125.71%Malta0.0822.59%00.00%0.34Poland13.4937.50%00.00%35.97Portugal1.237.39%1.37.81%16.64Romania4.5315.41%2.418.18%29.39Slovakia0.7511.50%0.7411.32%6.55Slovenia0.259.98%0.093.47%2.48Spain4.726.79%6.829.81%69.53Sweden00.00%0.412.05%3.3Grand Total56.4411.48%49.5410.08%491.51 
 
 
 
Republic (the three chose the Alternative method), Germany, and Slovakia as a way to have a multiplier effect 
on the investment and to meet the challenges pursued in the RRP (Table 1). 

Table 1. Presence of EnPC in the NECPs, LTRSs, and RRPs of MSs 

NECP 

LTRS 

RRP 

MS 

Reference to EnPC  Mention to EnPC 

Support ESCO or 
EnPC (planned) 

Exemplary role 

Use of ESCO or 
EnPC 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech R. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland  

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Total YES 

YES: Saving 
contracting 
YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

ESCO 

vague 

YES  

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES: “PESCO” and 
“EE contract”  

Efficiency 
contracts, energy 
services 
NO (to be 
discussed) 
ESCO  

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES  (EPO) 

YES 

Energy services 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

ESCO 

YES 

Vague 

NO 

ESCO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

(YES- ESCO) 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

(YES) 

(YES) 

YES 

YES 

YES 

ESCO 

(YES- ESCO) 

ESCO 

(YES- ESCO) 

NO (assessed no 
potential) 

Vague 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO (except 
Wallonia) 

vague 

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO (advised by 
EC) 
NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO (advised by 
EC) 
NO 

NO (advised by 
EC) 
vague 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

17 

18 

19 

5 

6 and Wallonia 

Source: National reports and EC reviews (Annex 2). 

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the allocation to efficient renovations in MSs as a percentage of the RRP budget 
and in million euros. The figures show that the percentage of allocation to efficiency measures is: 

 
 
 
 
 

close to 40%, in the case of Finland,  
between 15 and 25% in Cyprus, Luxemburg, Malta, Belgium, and Denmark  
in the 10-15% range in Croatia and Sweden  
below the 10% of investment in energy efficiency in all other MSs. 
 The EU average is also between 5 and 10%.  

The absolute figures show that Italy, Spain and France are expected to  be the major  investors in efficiency 
measures.  Germany,  Greece,  Poland  and  Romania  constitute  the  second  group  of  MSs  expected  to  make 
major RRF allocations to energy efficiency. 

27 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Energy-efficient renovation spending as a percentage of the RRPs budget (%) 

Source: Housing Europe, 2021. 

Figure 5. Allocation of the RRF to energy efficient renovations by country, in m€. 

Source: Housing Europe, 2021. 

The presence of investment grants and subsidies is key to understanding the market potential for EnPCs. For 
instance,  in  2019,  grants and  subsidies were  the  main  sources  of  public  financing  and  funding  indicated  in 
NECPs.  Soft  loans  based  on  state  guarantees  and  revolving  funds  were  available  for  investments  in  the 
energy performance of buildings in half of the EU countries, and several MSs offered tax incentives (Figure 
6). Grants and subsidies were most widespread in the residential sector (all MSs except Estonia and France), 
where  EnPC  is  not  yet  well  suited.  However,  public  funding  was  also  available  for  commercial  and  public 
buildings  in  15  MSs.  Reliance  on  grants  and  subsidies  can  hamper  the  development  of  EnPC 
markets.28Private  financing  can  be  boosted  with  seed  funding  from  public  sources.  However,  grants, 
subsidies,  and  other  public  instruments  often  compete  with  or  exclude  the  use  of  private  EnPC. 

28 The UK is not included in these figures. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Understanding  these  interactions  is  critical  in  establishing  a  healthy  combination  of  investment  support, 
national regulations and administrative rules. (The existence and relevance of these barriers are reviewed in 
this report (Section 8). 

Figure 6. Financial and fiscal instruments by type of building (Residential, Commercial, Public) across the EU. 

Source: JRC, 2020. RES stands for Residential buildings, COM for Commercial buildings, and PUB for Public buildings. The acronyms of MSs 
refer to the ISO 3166-1 Alpha code. 

3.4  Structural factors: costs of energy and financing  

During 2020-21 there was an overall increase in energy prices for non-household consumers. Energy prices 
also increased during 2021 for household consumers (Figure 7). Major price differences between MSs are a 
key  factor  for  clients  to  be  interested  in  EnPC  models  (JRC  2021).  For  instance,  non-residential  electricity 
prices  with  taxes  were  above  0.15€/kWh  in  the  second  semester  of  2021  in  Greece,  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Bulgaria, and Estonia and were below 0.10€/kWh in Slovenia, Sweden, Luxemburg, Czech Republic and Finland 
(Figure  8).  Prices  for  residential  electricity  were  higher  than  0.25€/kWh  in  Denmark,  Germany,  Belgium, 
Ireland,  Spain,  and  Sweden  and  below  0.5€/kWh  in  the  Netherlands,  Malta,  Croatia,  Bulgaria  and  Hungary. 
Major pricing differences for household and non-household uses are remarkable in countries such as Bulgaria 
or  Greece  and  could  be  major  drivers  for  the  commercial  and  industrial  sectors  to  engage  with  EnPC.  The 
same figure also shows that prices in the EU are generally higher than in neighbouring countries and should 
accordingly incentivise investment in energy saving. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Development of electricity prices for household consumers (above) and non-household consumers (below) in 
the EU 2008-2021 (€/kWh) 

Source: Eurostat 2022. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Electricity prices for household consumers (above) and non-household consumers in the EU during the second 
half of 2021 (€/kWh) 

Source: Eurostat 2022. 

Another structural factor is the cost of financing. Financing was relatively affordable during the years 2019 to 
2021. At the beginning of 2022, financing costs increased (Figure 9), especially after the start of the Russian 
attacks on Ukraine. This situation does not affect the reported period (2020-21) but may have influenced the 
perception  of  participant  experts,  who  provided  their  input  to  this  report  in  2022  and  2023.  There  are  also 
major  differences  between  MSs.  The  highest  financial  costs  are  generally  available  in  Hungary  and  Poland, 
and the lowest is in Lithuania. Arguably, an increase in the cost of financing is generally adverse to long-term 
investments and EnPC, but its impact is highly context-specific. It depends, for instance, on the availability of 
grants or soft loans for investments in energy saving, differences in access to financing between government 
bodies  and  EnPC  providers,  and  the  sensitivity  of  the  financing  actors  to  investments  in  energy  saving  or, 
more particularly, to EnPC.  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Long-term interest rate in the EU 1970-2020 

Source. European Central Bank 2022. 

32 

 
 
 
 
4  Market size 

4.1  Current status 

This  section  assesses  the  market  size  of  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  MSs  in  terms  of  the  number  of 
contracts and million euros, both in absolute terms and related to the size of the economy. Figure 10 shows 
that  in  2020-21  the  most  active  markets  in  absolute  values  were  Spain,  Germany  (both  MS  have  a  large 
number  of  contracts)  and  France  (whose  number  of  contracts  is  moderate,  but  these  contracts  are  large). 
Experts  also  point  to  a  sizeable  market  having  developed  in  Belgium.  Also,  the  figure  shows  that  highly 
variable data was obtained in several MSs (most fundamentally in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, 
Poland  and  Spain,  in  bold.  Also,  insufficient  data  was  collected  to  provide  an  estimate  in  Luxemburg  and 
private markets of Hungary and France, and there are major differences between the sum of MS markets and 
the  estimates  received  at  the  EU  level.  National  databases  and  reports  collecting  the  number  of  ESCOs, 
especially EnPCs, are missing for most MSs, besides Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands. However, 
these databases have limitations in capturing the size of EnPC markets.29  

The study of the EU-level and MS-level estimates shows that the public market could be twice to four times 
the size of the private market in terms of annual investment (€1.9-4b in contracts signed in the period 2020-
21). EU-level and MS-level estimates coincide in claiming that private contracts in the period amount to €1-
1.1b. 

29 Additional data limitations relate to the limited availability of expert responses, in MSs where only one expert response was obtained to 
assess the market size (Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal) and to the existence of databases of 
the  government  and  ESCO  associations  that  may  include  other  contract  modalities  (e.g.  energy  contracting  in  Germany  and 
chauffage in France), risk overestimating the market activity of less active providers (may be the case of Spain), or fail to assess 
the latter (the Netherlands -latest market review conducted in 2019). 

33 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
Figure 10. Market size of EnPC in MSs and the EU during 2020-21, in number of contracts and million euros 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia  
Cyprus 
Czech R. 
Denmark 

Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 

Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 

Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 

Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 

Sweden 

Number of contracts 
Public 

Private 

Overall 

Overall size (m€) 
Public 

Private  Overall 

40 

50 

8 
15 
0 
11 
8 

0 
4 
88 
200 

27 
nd 

5 
50 

0 
6 
nd 

0 
6 

15 
5 
0 

30 
12 
175 

0 

60 

30 

0 
5 
3 
2 
7 

0 
14 
nd 
300 

13 
nd 

7 
20 

1 
0 
nd 

0 
74 

25 
0 
0 

5 
1 
525 

0 

100 

36.0 

80 

150.0 

8 
20 
3 
13 
15 

2.5 
10.0 
0.0 
27.0 
25.0 

30.0 

85.0 

0.0 
2.5 
1.0 
1.2 
10.0 

66.0 

235.0 

2.5 
12.5 
1.0 
28.2 
35.0 

0.0 
0 
18 
2.0 
88  1100.0 
400.0 

500 

0.0 
8.0 
nd 
240.0 

0.0 
10.0 
1100.0 
640.0 

40 
30 

12 
70 

1 
6 
nd 

0 
82 

40 
5 
0 

13.0 
nd 

22.0 
50.0 

0.0 
4.2 
nd 

0.0 
5.0 

15.0 
50.0 
0.0 

8.5 
nd 

10.0 
2.0 

0.3 
0.0 
nd 

0.0 
60.0 

6.3 
0.0 
0.0 

21.5 
15.0 

32.0 
52.0 

0.3 
4.2 
nd 

0.0 
65.0 
50.0 

50.0 
0.0 

35 
13 
700 

0 

15.0 
36.0 
190.0 

5.0 
0.5 
570.0 

20.0 
36.5 
760.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2000 
755 

EU estimates 
EU Sum 

2700  4000.0  1000.0 
1879  2152.7  1040.3 
Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2022. Size of the MS economies according to the World Bank (2022).30 Values in bold indicate large 
variability between estimates. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest magnitudes in red, ranked for 
each magnitude. “nd” indicates Insufficient data to estimate the market size. 

2502.5 
3236.7 

700 
1092 

Looking into the ratios of the market size in terms of the number of contracts and the economic size of the 
EnPC market with respect to the economies of MSs (Figure 11) provides a more representative picture of the 
relevance of EnPC markets in the respective MSs.  The overall (public and private) markets were categorized 
into largest, mid-sized, small to mid-sized and smallest: 

 

The largest EnPC markets, in descending order of the number of contracts, are Spain, Slovakia, 
Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria. Economically, Slovenia, Spain, Belgium, and France are the largest 
markets, followed by far from Portugal (ratios above 200, and marked in darkest shadows of green 
in the Figure). The difference between both ratios shows that contracts in Slovenia, Belgium and 
France are relatively large. 

30 GDP (current US$) - European Union | Data (worldbank.org) 

34 

 
  
 
                                                        
 
 

 

 

 

Regarding the number of contracts only, some claims situate Greece, Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria and 
Cyprus as mid-sized markets (ratios between 100 and 199, marked in light shadows of green). The 
presence of these MSs in the mid-size category needs to be regarded with caution, especially in the 
cases of Hungary and Cyprus. There are large discrepancies amongst respondents about Hungary's 
activity, including claims about this market not having taken off. Hence, in addition to insufficiently 
consolidated information, there may be some definitional confusion about what computes as EnPC. 
Claims for Belgium were also largely divergent, and this market is difficult to assess due to the 
existence of four federal areas. Due to the country's small economy, Cyprus appears as a mid-sized 
market because a single, relatively small contract took place. 
Regarding the economic relevance of the EnPC market, mid-sized markets are Croatia, Slovakia, 
Germany, and Austria. This ratio provides a more reasonable picture of the size of these markets, 
where EnPC has a long tradition. The German market may be even larger. However, the divided 
nature of the market in one such federal state and the availability of official data combining 
different contracting modalities makes it difficult to assess the market’s reality.  
The mid-sized to small markets in terms of the number of contracts are, in descending size, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Finland, and Poland. Regarding economic relevance, the mid-sized 
markets are Greece, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, and the Netherlands (ratios 
between 50 and 99, marked in shades of yellow). Differences between the countries listed according 
to both ratios indicate the relatively large number of contracts in Ireland, Denmark and the 
developing Greek market (projects aggregated with ELENA support) and the moderate size of Finnish 
contracts. 
The smallest markets regarding the number of contracts are Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, France, 
Latvia, Ireland, and Portugal. In economic terms, the smallest markets are Cyprus, Bulgaria, Finland, 
Italy, and Latvia (ratios between 1 and 49, marked in shades of orange). This group of countries 
encompasses some large economies such as Italy and France. Results for Italy need to be used with 
caution. They reflect a lack of national-level information and highly divergent responses of experts as 
well as the impact of grants on the interest of clients for EnPCs and may also be the result of the 
Covid pandemic, whose effects were most dramatic in this MS. Evidence suggests that the market 
has largely contracted during the reviewed period. In France, Portugal, and Czech Republic, the 
market size is not well represented by the number of contracts because these tend to be large. In 
Latvia, the development of the public residential sector stopped in the post-Covid period. 

  A reported lack of activity refers to  Sweden, Malta, Romania, and Estonia.31 The absence of expert 

responses to the EU Survey 2021 and to previous consultations conducted as a part of previous JRC 
reports could also indicate the absence of an active EnPC market in Luxemburg. 

Regarding the activity in public (public  buildings and lighting) and private sectors (commercial buildings and 
industry), a series of MS typologies can be differentiated based on the highest of their ratio pairs (number of 
contracts or economic value of the EnPC market as related to the size of the MS economy):  

 

Large activity, especially in the public sector, in 6 MSs (at least one ratio, number of contracts or 
economic value of the EnPC market above 200), i.e., Belgium, Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia 
and probably France (where no data was found available for the private sector). 

  Mid-sized activity and small to mid-sized activity in the public sector and smaller activity in the 
private sector in 5 MSs (at least one ratio, number of contracts or economic value of the EnPC 
market between 100 and 199 and 50 to 99), i.e. Bulgaria and Greece (mid-sized public sector), 
followed by Czech Republic, Lithuania, Denmark (small to mid-sized public sector).32 

  Mid-sized markets in both the public and private sectors in 2 MSs (at least one ratio, number of 

contracts or economic value of the EnPC market between 100 and 199 and 50 to 99), i.e. Belgium 
and Germany.  
Leading private sector activity in 5 MSs, i.e. Spain, the Netherlands, Finland, and to an extent in 
Cyprus, Latvia. 33 (This applies to Austria and Poland based on the ratio for the number of contracts.) 

 

31 There are also claims about an absence of activity in Hungary which contrast with claims of experts working in different sectors. 
32 This category is also applicable to Germany and Austria but only in regard to the ratios for economic size and number of contracts, 

respectively. 

33 In Spain, the private market is in the largest range (at least one ratio above 200). In Austria and Cyprus, the private market is in the 
mid-sized range (at least one ratio, between 100 and 199). In Finland, the private sector is in the small-size range but well above 
the public sector (ratios between 0 and 49). 

35 

 
 
                                                        
 
 

Limited or nil activity in the public and private sectors in 7 MSs, i.e. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, 
Poland, Romania, Sweden, Malta, and Estonia (ratios EnPC/ national economy below 40 for the 
sectors). (The very variable data for Italy indicates that activity dramatically slowed in 2020-21.) 
  Data limitations make difficult the comparison of public and private sector sizes in three MSs, i.e. 

Luxemburg (likely inactive market), Hungary and France. 

Based  on  this  assessment,  it  can  be  argued  that  although  the  public  sector  has  greater  activity  than  the 
private  sector,  the  initiative  in  the  latter  is  notable,  and  in  some  MSs  leads  the  market.    Whilst  there  is  a 
majority of MSs where the public sector leads the activity of EnPC markets (11 MSs), there is a sizeable group 
of MSs with a similar level of activity in both sectors (5 MS). In 9 MS, there is limited to nil activity (7 MS), and 
there  could  be  a  potential  for  the  public  sector  to  lead  the  development  of  EnPC  markets.  Data  is  needed, 
especially in Luxemburg and Hungary, as well as the French private sector.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Ratio between the market size of EnPC – in number of contracts and million euro – and the size of the national 
economy – in trillion euro – during 2020-21 

Ratio number of contracts to 
MS economy (trln€) 
Public 
84 
83 

126 
50 

210 
133 

Overall 

Private 

Ratio EnPC (m€) to size of 
the economy (trln€) 
Public 
75 
250 

63 
142 

Private 

Overall 

138 
392 

100 

221 
0 
39 
20 
0 
13 
30 
47 

125 
nd 

10 
24 

0 
92 
nd 
0 
6 
22 

20 
0 

261 
195 
123 

0 
117 
44.2 

0 

74 
108 
7 
18 
0 
47 

nd 
71 

60 
nd 

14 
10 

26 
0 
nd 
0 
73 
37 

0 
0 

44 
16 
368 

0 
41 
63.9 

100 

295 
108 
46 
38 
0 
60 
30 
118 

185 
165 

24 
33 

26 
92 
nd 
0 
81 
59 

20 
0 

305 
211 
491 

0 
158 
110.0 

31 

147 
0 
96 
63 
0 
7 
374 
95 

60 
nd 

44 
24 

0 
64 
nd 
0 
5 
22 

200 
0 

131 
585 
133 

0 
234 
126.0 

0 

37 
36 
4 
25 
0 
27 

nd 
57 

39 
nd 

20 
1 

8 
0 
nd 
0 
59 
9 

0 
0 

44 
8 
400 

0 
59 
63.9 

31 

184 
36 
100 
88 
0 
33 
374 
152 

99 
82 

64 
25 

8 
64 
nd 
0 
64 
74 

200 
0 

174 
593 
533 

0 
146 
63.9 

MS 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 

Croatia  
Cyprus 
Czech R. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 

France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 

Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 
Spain 

Sweden 
EU estimates 
EU Sum 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2022. Size of the MS economies according to the World Bank (2022).34 Values in bold indicate large 
variability between estimates. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest magnitudes in red, ranked for 
each magnitude. “nd” indicates Insufficient data to estimate the market size. 

34 GDP (current US$) - European Union | Data (worldbank.org) 

37 

 
  
 
                                                        
 
4.2  Evolution and perspective 

ESCO markets are on a growing trend in the EU and other economies (Figure 12). In the EU, the ESCO market 
has continued  to  grow  after  a  small  fallback in  2018  and  2019  related  to  uncertainty  about  the  statistical 
treatment of investments in government accounts. 

Figure 12. Evolution of ESCO investment in Europe, the United States and China (2015-2021) 

Source: IEA 2022.35 

In this study, the assessment of the EnPC market evolution in 2020-21 was estimated using two metrics, the 
number of contracts per MS compared to the values found in previous JRC reports and expert estimates on 
the market trends. The latter metric was also used to assess the perspective for 2022-23 (Figure 13). The 
number of contracts and the expert assessment indicates that at the EU level, there has been a growth of the 
EnPC market in the period 2020-21 with respect to the overall EnPC market assessed in 2015-16. The public 
EnPC market has also grown since 2018-19. Data is supporting a reduction in the markets of Croatia, Estonia, 
Italy, Latvia,  and  Portugal.  Some  data  also  supports  a  reduction  in  market  size  in  Czech  Republic,  Slovenia, 
Sweden and Slovakia: 

  As supported by the trends identified by experts, a market size reduction has occurred in the public 
and private EnPC sectors of 6 MSs Croatia, Estonia, the public sector of Denmark, Italy, Latvia, and 
Portugal.  

  As supported by the number of contracts, a reduction of activity has occurred in the public markets 

of 7MSs Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden concerning 2018-19. The same applies 
to the overall market of Portugal and Slovakia. 

Major dissonances between the data on the number of contracts and expert estimates on trends occur in the 
cases  of  Croatian  and  Dutch  public  markets  and  both  the  public  and  private  markets  of  Slovenia  and 
Germany. In Slovenia, a slight reduction in the overall market was identified with respect to the period 2015-
16 and the public market with respect to 2018-19. However, the consulted experts considered that in 2020-
21  the  public  market  grew.  This  situation  appears  to  reflect  a  new  take-off  after  disruption  related  to  the 
publication  of  Eurostat  guidelines  on  treating  EnPC  in  public  accounts  in  2017  and  2018  and  the  Covid 
pandemic.  In  Germany  and  the  Netherlands,  overall  (between  2015-16  and  2020-21),  public  sector  market 
developments (between 2018-19 and 2020-21) are not reflected by expert estimates, potentially indicating 
that national databases from public agencies and ESCO associations may be overestimating the situation, or 
that the latter was underestimated in the past. 

35 IEA (2022). World Energy Investment 202, cited in Schenk, 2022. 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Regarding  public  sector  trends  between  2018-19  and  2020-21,  market  size  estimates  and  expert  claims 
about trends are generally aligned and show a general development of public markets of the EU in the period 
2020-21: 

  Activity has been significantly large in the public markets of 7 MSs, i.e., Austria, Belgium, France, 

Germany, Greece, Slovakia, and Spain. Expert estimates were less optimistic and indicated a stable 
market for Germany and Spain. 

  Activity has been stable in the public markets of 9 MSs, i.e. Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, 

Lithuania, Netherlands, and Poland. 

  Activity has contracted in the public markets of 6 MSs, which, moreover, had good perspective in 
previous JRC reviews, i.e. Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, and Slovenia (according to the 
number of contracts reported, but in contrast with expert estimates, which indicate a fast-growing 
market), Portugal, Latvia and Sweden (the latter two public markets have come to a halt). 
The public markets of Cyprus, Malta and Romania have failed to take off.36  

 

The private sector dynamics are the most difficult to assess, partly due to the lack of recently published data. 
Expert assessment of the trends shows that during 2020-21, EU private markets grew in the EU but failed to 
take off or contracted in several MSs where activity had been expected: 

  Activity increased or took off in 9 MSs, i.e. Belgium, Cyprus (1-3 small projects), Finland, France, 
Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Romania (reflecting market optimism regardless of the absence of 
contracts), and Slovenia (in contrast with the reported reduction in the number of contracts); 
  Activity remained stable in 7MSs, i.e. Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia and 

Spain; 

  Activity failed to take off in 6 MSs, i.e. Portugal, Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania, Sweden and 

Bulgaria (maybe also in Hungary and Luxemburg); 

  Activity contracted in 3 MSs, i.e. Croatia, Estonia and Latvia. 

Regarding future trends, expert estimates indicate: 

 

There are expectations for growth, especially in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain and 
the public markets of Czech Republic and Spain, but also in Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, and the private sectors of 
Czech Republic and Slovenia. 

  Market contraction is forecasted only in Croatia (for both public and private markets).  
 
 

There are no expectations for markets to take off in 3 MSs, i.e. Romania, Sweden and Malta.  
Slightly greater growth is expected for private markets than for public markets.  

Several  national  experts  reported  that  the  perspectives  largely  depend  on  the  implementation  of  the  RRPs, 
which,  as  reported  in  Section  3,  have  been  only  found  to  support  EnPC  in  Austria,  Wallonia,  Croatia,  Czech 
Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (and may be incorporated in Greece, Ireland and Denmark if the MSs 
follow  the  advice  of  the  EC).  Other  factors  creating  uncertainty  about  the  perspective  of  EnPC  include  its 
adoption in the industry, EU decarbonization targets, and factors including energy price increases, affordability 
of  renewable  technologies  and  systems’  electrification.  These  factors  may  result  in  new  opportunities  for 
EnPC  or integration  with  other contract  modalities (Section  6).  A  review  of  previous  JRC  reports  shows  that 
expert perspectives must be taken cautiously, as these tend to be overly optimistic.  

36 Such is probably the case of Luxemburg and Malta. In the latter case, authorities have reported no longer pursuing the development of 

EnPC markets due to structural reasons. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
Figure 13. Market trends based on the assessed number of contracts and expert estimates. 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2022, JRC 2021, JRC 2019, and JRC 2017. Values in bold indicate large variability between responses. 
The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes of the period pairs in green and the smallest magnitudes in red. The arrows indicate in 
green “upward”, in yellow diagonal “taking off”, in yellow horizontal “stable”, and in red “downward”. *Expert estimates for Spain in 2015-
16 ranged from 200 to 3000 contracts. 

40 

PrivatePublic PrivatePublicMS2015-162020-212018-192020-212019-212019-212022-242022-24Austria531001140Belgium10801150Bulgaria58108Croatia 7205015Cyprus0300Czech Republic45132511Denmark111598Estonia"few"020Finland81854France40885088Germany3050058200Greece540827Hungary23020Ireland-1245Italy507023050Latvia0160Lithuania4666Luxemburg1nd0ndMalta0000Netherlands2782-6Poland15401315Portugal155135Romania0000Slovakia45352530Slovenia15134412Spain200*70059175Sweden6010EU Estimates27002000EU Sum5941909 617755PublicOverall 
 
 
5  Status of business environment: actors and contracts 

5.1  Actors providing, facilitating and financing EnPC 

Figure  14  represents  the  expert  assessment  of  the  availability  and  quality  of  services  of  provision, 
facilitation, one-stop-shops and financing at EU and MS levels. 

The EU-level averages for sufficiency show that services of provision (availability of EnPC providers) are rated 
as  1.7  out  of  3  (MS  Total  in  Figure  14),  and  that  of  facilitation  is  1.4  out  of  3.  The  best-appreciated 
availability is that f the financing actors willing to support EnPC, rated 1.6 out of 3. One-stop shops are the 
actors rated as less sufficiently available, with 0.6 out of 3.37 

EnPC providers 
EnPC  providers  are  energy  service  companies or other operators  acting  as  contractors in  EnPC  agreements. 
These  actors  implement  energy  efficiency  or  energy  saving  measures  in  the  premises  of  a  client  repaying 
from the cost savings during the operation phase, which can provide financial guarantees about the savings 
being enough to cover the upfront costs, to offer compensations agreed in the EnPC contract in case of failure 
to meet the agreed savings. Figure 14 allows identifying the largest markets: 

 

 

 

The MSs with the highest provision reported are Belgium, Czech Republic, Romania and Spain (rated 
above 2.5 out of 3). Moreover, as assessed by experts, the MSs with the best quality providers are 
Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Romania, Spain and Germany (all rated above 2.5). 
The MSs with the lowest provision reported are Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, 
and Poland.  
The need for improved quality of services was highlighted as a barrier in several MSs, including Italy, 
Poland, and Lithuania.38  

Although in abidance  by  Art.  18 of the EED, there are lists of ESCOs in  most MSs, the information  was not 
always available for the authors, largely for being in national languages.  However, the gathered input from 
experts  points  at  the  available  lists  of  providers  not  differentiating  those  willing  and  qualified  to  conduct 
EnPCs from other energy service contractors. (This differentiation is not required in Art. 18 of the EED). A lack 
of databases specific to EnPC providers is evidenced in cases such as Italy, where many reported providers do 
not  reflect  the  market  reality.  As  a  result,  there  appears  to  be  a  widespread  potential  in  creating  lists  of 
providers  available  for  EnPC,  as  well  as  for  and  for  MSs  “encouraging  the  development  of  quality  labels, 
among  other  things,  by  trade  associations”  and  “making  publicly  available  and  regularly  updating  a  list  of 
available  energy  service  providers  who  are  qualified  and/or  certified  and  their  qualifications  and/or 
certifications”. 39 

EnPC facilitators  
Contracting facilitators refers to in this report as the “independent market intermediaries [which are meant] to 
play a role in stimulating market development on the demand and supply sides” referred to in Article 18 of 
the EED since 2012. By mediating between EnPC providers and clients, facilitators play a key role in fostering 
trust  in  the  model.  The  sufficiency  and  quality  of  these  services,  as  assessed  by  national  experts,  are 
represented in Figure 14: 

 

The MSs with the highest availability of facilitators are Croatia, Portugal, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech 
Republic and Finland (all rated above 2/3). This is supported by the quality of facilitation services in 
all of these MSs, except in Italy, where many facilitators could be related to providers (as “sales 

37 The average of MS expert ratings is comparable to the one obtained at EU-level. The former, however, is preferred in this discussion for 

enabling to relate to national assessments. 

38 Further attention to this situation in a wider diversity of MSs would require the engagement of more stakeholders, e.g., clients. 
39  A  review  of  the  quality  assurance  and  certification  of  services  in  the  EU  and  recommendations  on  the  matter  were  formulated  by 
QualitEE  Project  (2020)  with  a  focus  on  EnPC  amongst  other    The  Art.  18  refers  to  Art.  16  of  the  EED  which  requires  MSs  that 
“Where a Member State considers that the national level of technical competence, objectivity and reliability is insufficient, it shall 
ensure that,  by  31  December  2014,  certification and/or accreditation  schemes and/or equivalent  qualification  schemes,  including, 
where necessary, suitable training programmes, become or are available for providers of energy services,” …in ways that “ provide 
transparency to consumers, are reliable and contribute to national energy efficiency objectives.” 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

 

agents”) and hence cannot play the independent role expected from them. Concerns about the 
specialization of facilitators were also raised in Bulgaria and Romania. 
The greatest concerns about the sufficiency of facilitation were reported in Sweden and France (both 
rated 0/3), followed by Slovenia, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
(all rated below 1.1/3). 
There are also cases, such as Spain, where above-average ratings for sufficiency (1.7/3) contrast 
with the quality of services, which is well below the average of 1.9/3 (1.3/3). Ireland and Italy follow 
this pattern. 

To  address  sufficiency  and  quality  issues,  training  and  certification  of  facilitators  took  place  in  Ireland  in 
2022.  Regardless  of  low  availability,  high  quality  of  facilitation  was  reported  in  Slovenia  as  having  been 
enabled by the support of ELENA projects. Training facilitators appear to have a sizeable potential in several 
MSs to boost the availability of their services and the capacity of practising facilitators to support contracting 
processes  effectively.  There  is  also  the  potential  to  create  lists  of  EnPC  facilitators  based  on  training  and 
certification processes. 

One-stop-shops 
The EPBD refers to one-stop-shops as accessible and transparent advisory tools and assistance instruments 
for relevant energy efficiency renovations and financing instruments (Recital 16 and Art. 2a, 2018). In Article 
18 on Energy Services, the EED also requires MSs to publicize information points for final customers. The one-
stop-shop model is largely diverse, encompassing different degrees of provision and facilitation services (See 
Boza-Kiss and Bertoldi, 2018 for an overview of one-stop-shops in the EU market). It is possible, therefore, 
that  this  diverse  understanding  of  the  model  makes  it  difficult  for  experts  and  reviewers  to  assess  the 
existence and quality of these services to fulfil the EnPC market needs. This report refers specifically to those 
one-stop-shops that  can  provide  information  and technical  support  about  the  usability  of  EnPC  in  the  legal 
and financial context of a geographic and sectoral scope of work. The expert assessment collected in Figure 
14 can be summarized as follows: 

 

The expert participants in the EU Survey assessed most positively the availability of one-stop-shops 
in Finland, Germany and Italy (all rated 1.5/3).40  

  One-stop-shops are reported as most insufficiently deployed in Bulgaria, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and to an extent, Croatia (all rated 0 out of 3, except for Croatia, rated 
0.5/3). The development of some of these markets with limited support of one-stop-shops indicates 
that the latter are not indispensable for EnPC markets to take off and thrive. However, in an 
increasingly complex legal and financing framework, sectoral actors consider deploying one-stop-
shops to have the potential to exploit the market potential for EnPC.  
The quality of services provided by one-stop-shops is generally appreciated in those MSs where they 
are most available and others where they are considered insufficient (Spain and Sweden), indicating 
that these services fulfil a much-demanded role in the market. There are sectoral expectations in the 
newly-established one-stop-shop in Latvia and RRP-related plans to establish one in Bulgaria. An 
exception is Croatia, where the experts speak both of limited availability and capacity to support 
EnPC (both rated 0.5/3). 

 

  Overall, there is higher demand than the availability of one-stop-shops. Although there are cases 
where their quality is highly appreciated, in some cases, there may be a need to ensure that one-
stop-shops can support EnPC development. 

Financing actors willing to support EnPC 
Against expectations based on sectoral claims about the insufficiency of financing for providers recollected in 
the JRC report of 2021 (Moles-Grueso, et al. 2021), the sufficient availability of financing actors working with 
EnPC is the highest (1.6/3 at EU level) after providers (1.7/3). This situation reflects the lower cost of financing 
depicted  in  Section  3.4  and  can  reflect  the  availability  of  public  funding  being  made  available  to  banks  for 
green investments.  However, the data  processed  does not provide sufficient insight into this matter. On the 
contrary, the services' quality is generally rated below those of provision and facilitation and is only rated as 
better than those of one-stop-shops. As in the case of the JRC report of 2021, multiple experts referred to the 

40  In  the  Netherlands,  where there  are  province-level  one-stop-shops,  the  quality and  sufficiency  of  their  service  was  not assessed  by 
national experts. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
lack of expertise amongst financiers to deal with EnPC, resulting in a magnified risk perception on the part of 
these  financing  actors  (indicated  by  experts  in  Italy,  Ireland,  and  Romania).  Some  experts  clarified  when 
stating  the  number  of  financing  actors  that  this  figure  refers  only  to  those  actors  willing  to  provide 
refinancing. At MS level: 

  The availability of actors willing to provide financing support to EnPC was assessed by national 

experts as highest in Czech Republic and Finland (3/3), followed by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Spain, and Sweden (all rated 2/3).  

  The most wanting supply and quality of financing actors were identified in Italy, Poland and Hungary 

(all below 0.5), followed by Portugal and Slovenia (1/ 3).  

The reviewed evidence points to limitations in training amongst facilitators and financing bodies and the need 
for  increased  transparency  about  the  qualification  of  EnPC  providers  for  their  specific  roles  in  the  energy 
service  provision  domain.  In  general,  the  development  of  one-stop-shop  network  continues  to  have  an 
unexplored potential. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Availability, sufficiency and quality of EnPC provision, facilitation, one-stop-shops and financing 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2022. The values presented are averages of expert ratings. Values in bold indicate large variability between responses. The colour rating indicates the largest magnitudes in green 
and the smallest magnitudes in red, ranked for the values under each type of actor. 

44 

MSNumberSufficiency (0-3)Quality (0-3)NumberSufficiency (0-3)Quality (0-3)CommentaryNumberSufficiency (0-3)Quality (0-3)CommentaryNumberSufficiency (0-3)Quality (0-3)CommentaryAustria151.03.0191.02.0No impact identified2.02.0Belgium102.52.5102.52.531.02.052.01.5Bulgaria9.52.02.032.02.0Mostly energy auditors00.00.022.02.0BEEREFCroatia 101.02.0303.02.000.50.551.52.0Cyprus41.02.000.000.000.0Czechia103.03.0112.03.0---33.03.0Denmark21.03.031.02.0Financing availableFinland242.02.012.03.012.03.0103.02.0France92.03.000.0Germany451.62.6>1001.11.521.51.7121.32.0Actors doing refinancingGreece11.03.001.00.0Hungary21.52.511.01.001.01.010.50.5Ireland91.52.531.71.5Training  in 202200.00.042.01.5Financing available, limiated capacityItaly1002.01.51002.01.0Many are sales agents751.51.0Local agencies50.00.5Lack expertise, risk perceptionLatvia41.02.011.02.011.02.0Newly established42.02.0Lithuania21.01.051.01.012.02.0Netherlands4010012Province-based3Poland500.0101.02.020.01.050.01.0Portugal302.02.053.02.001.02.0Romania3.53.03.000.00.0Mostly energy auditors.00.00.011.01.0Willingness stated, but limited capacitySlovakia82.03.052.03.02--Facilitators. Expected  regional offices2.02.0"several"Slovenia81.52.5100.52.05 ELENA's00.00.041.01.0Spain302.72.7201.71.3100.01.5152.02.3Banks and fundsSweden52.02.000.010.02.0102.02.0EU estimates4002.01.520002.01.0-1.01.05002.52.0MS Total4301.72.43381.31.91090.61.1901.51.6EnPC FacilitatorsEnPC providersOne-stop-shops (able to support EnPC)Financing actors willing to support EnPC 
 
5.2  Understanding and willingness of clients and financiers 

The MS-level expert assessment of the capacity to engage with EnPC of clients from the public and private 
sectors  and  financiers  indicates  a  potential  problem.  These  three  actors  were  rated  by  sectoral  experts 
between  1  and  1.5  out  of  3  in  their  understanding  and  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC,  reflecting  the 
model's complexity and a market reality where economic and technical potentials are not exploited (Figure 
15). Contrary to the assessment of the quality-of-service provision reviewed in Section 5.1, financing actors 
are  (marginally)  better  rated  than  clients  for  their  understanding  and  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC 
business. Reflecting the reality of the market, the willingness of the public sector is slightly above that of the 
private  sector.  However,  there  are  claims  such  as  those  of  participant  EU-level  experts  which  invoke  the 
awareness of the private sector about energy costs, the importance of ESG, the value of the building stock of 
corporations,  and  interest  in  outsourcing  activities  outside  the  companies’  expertise  to  explain  the  private 
commercial  sector’s  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC.  These  aspects  appear  to  be  gaining  relevance  in 
determining the development of the private market. 

The assessment of the public, private sector and financing actors' understanding of the MSs indicates that: 

 

 

 

Public sector understanding is most appreciated in Austria,41 Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, 
Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (rating above 1.9/3)42 and worst valued in Lithuania, Portugal, 
Romania and Hungary (rating below 0.5/3). Moreover, there are 11 MSs where the public sector’s 
understanding scores as moderate (rating below 1/3). 
Private sector understanding is most appreciated in Netherlands and Poland (above 2/3) and is worst 
valued in Lithuania, Hungary and Bulgaria (rating below 0.5/3).43 There are 12 more MSs where the 
private sector scores moderate in terms of understanding. 
Financing sector understanding scores best in Czech Republic, Denmark, and the Netherlands (rated 
3/3), followed by (Belgium, Finland, Lithuania, and Romania (rated 2/3) and is worst rated in Italy, 
Sweden, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Ireland (all of them rated below 0.7/3).44 

Even  in  developed  markets  with  lots  of  experience  in  the  use  of  EnPC,  such  as  Germany,  information  is 
considered  to  continue  to  be  necessary  for  clients  to  become  familiar  and  willing  to  engage  with  EnPC. 
Experts’ opinions indicate a  potential for information and training throughout these three sectors to exploit 
the potential of EnPC. 

There  is  some  correlation  between  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC  and  understanding  of  the  model. 
However, there are interesting differences between both indicators: 

 

 

 

Public sector willingness to engage with EnPC is highest in Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, Slovakia 
and Slovenia (above 2/3). Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Belgium also score high in understanding 
the model. In Germany, the willingness of the public sector is highly variable, with the Federal Real 
Estate company being committed to EnPC for energy management of buildings but not for deep 
renovations and diverse approaches being chosen by federal states. There are cases where the 
public sector is not interested in EnPC due to dependency and availability of grants. There are also 
cases of different levels of willingness related to different types of projects. In Spain, the willingness 
to engage with EnPC to renovate public buildings is much lower than for street lighting ( The latter 
also counts with better support from the financing sector.) 
The worst level of public sector willingness was assessed in Lithuania and Romania (rated 0/3), 
which also score badly in the understanding of the model; moreover, there are 11 MSs more where 
the public sector’s willingness to engage with EnPC is rated as moderate (ratings below 1/3). 
Private sector willingness is most appreciated in Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain 
(above 2/3). The Polish private sector also scores high in understanding, reflecting an interest in the 
industry. 

41 The Federal Real estate company is committed to EnPC for energy management of buildings but not for retrofits. Diverse approaches 

in federal states. 

42 However, this often refers to local governments whose interest is not matched by that of central governments (e.g., Poland). 
43 In Bulgaria, lack of clients’ willingness is related to grant-dependency 
44 In Italy, the financing sector is still highly aware of risks associated to EnPC, in part due to need for clarity of the model. 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

 

Private sector willingness is worst valued in Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Bulgaria (ratings below 
0.5/3). The latter two also score badly in understanding. There are 12 more MSs where the private 
sector’s willingness to operate with EnPC was rated moderate. 
The willingness to support EnPC in the financing sector largely correlates with the level of 
understanding. In the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden, major differences between both indicators 
potentially indicate the need for information and training in the former two and adverse market 
conditions in the latter. In Italy, the financing sector is still highly aware of the risks associated with 
EnPC. This has been attributed to the continued lack of clarity in the model. 

The  overall  correlation  between  willingness  and  understanding  calls  for  efforts  of  awareness  raising, 
information  and  training.  Differences  between  willingness  and  understanding  potentially  indicate  the 
existence of other barriers besides knowledge and technical capacity in several MSs. Such is the case of grant 
dependency  in  Bulgaria.  Lack  of  willingness  is  related  in  the  Netherlands  and  Germany  to  the  need  for 
information  but  most  fundamentally  to  providers’  efforts  to  adapt  their  services  to  clients’  needs.  Also, 
willingness  can  be  very  diverse  depending  on  the  type  of  intervention.  For  instance,  willingness  related  to 
buildings  is  much  lower  than  for  street  lighting  in  Spain's  public  and  financing  sectors.  Calls  for  attention 
towards awareness and information include concerns raised at the EU level that EnPC is often understood as 
a financing mechanism and not a way to achieve energy savings over the project's lifetime, especially in the 
public  sector.  This  motivation,  the  expert  continued,  results  in  frustration  about  the  administrative  and 
technical burden leading towards the contract agreement. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 15. Understanding of EnPC and willingness to operate with EnPC of clients (public and private) and financing 
actors. 

Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Response of experts to: “Please rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC and the 
willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the public and private sectors and of potential financiers. Use the following scale:0 (absent), 
1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).” The colour code indicates “absent” in red and “very good” in dark green, ranked for each 
indicator, i.e., understanding and willingness.  

47 

MSPublicPrivateFinancingPublicPrivateFinancingAustria2.51.01.01.51.01.0Belgium2.01.52.02.52.03.0Bulgaria1.50.50.51.00.50.5Croatia 1.01.01.01.01.01.5Cyprus1.01.01.02.01.01.0Czechia2.01.03.01.00.03.0Denmark1.01.03.01.02.03.0EstoniaFinland1.01.02.01.01.02.0France1.01.01.02.01.01.0Germany1.91.51.61.61.31.5Greece1.01.00.01.02.00.0Hungary0.50.50.51.51.51.5Ireland1.01.00.71.01.31.3Italy1.01.50.02.01.00.0Latvia1.01.01.51.01.01.5Lithuania0.00.02.00.00.02.0LuxemburgMaltaNetherlands1.02.03.01.01.02.0Poland2.02.01.02.02.01.0Portugal0.01.01.01.01.01.0Romania0.01.02.00.01.02.0Slovakia2.02.02.01.0Slovenia2.01.50.52.51.51.5Spain1.31.41.51.02.01.7Sweden1.01.00.01.01.01.0EU estimates1.31.71.30.71.71.3MS avg1.21.11.31.31.21.5UnderstandingWillingness 
 
 
 
5.3  Contract modalities 

This section covers the types of EnPC contracts used and the alternative contracts used in the MSs. The EU 
Survey 2022 asked participants to rate the relevance in their markets of expertise of EnPC with guaranteed 
savings and with shared savings alongside other contract modalities from “not in use” (0) to “very common” 
(3).45  Figure  16  summarizes  the  ratings  obtained  for  guaranteed  and  shared  savings  in  the  public  and 
private sectors of MSs and the EU. The survey also asked participants to indicate whether any of the contract 
modalities indicated compete with EnPC (Table 2).  

Generally,  the  guaranteed  savings  model  is  favourable  to  the  client  when  it  can  get  more  favourable 
financing on its own or fees are paid from public funds, e.g. in France. On the contrary, it is beneficial for the 
client to get financing through the EnPC provider (shared savings model) in cases such as Bulgaria, Portugal, 
Spain,  and  Italy.  Shared  savings  and  the  combination  of  guaranteed  and  shared  saving  options,  as  in  the 
cases  of  Ireland  and  Czech  Republic,  is  interesting  to  incentivise  the  achievement  of  energy  savings  by 
avoiding overly conservative estimates and fostering efforts of both parties during the contract duration, e.g. 
in maintenance.  

Analysis  of  Figure  16  shows  the  extent  to  which  these  two  EnPC  modalities  are  –  according  to  consulted 
experts – common in the public and private sectors of the MSs and the EU (as opposed to other contracting 
options for energy efficiency projects). EnPC with guaranteed savings is relatively more common in the public 
sector markets of the EU than in private markets. Shared savings are equally relevant (relatively uncommon) 
in  both  sectors.  In  the  private  market,  shared  and  guaranteed  savings  are  of  similar  relevance  (relatively 
uncommon)  

  Guaranteed savings is the favoured EnPC modality in the public and private sectors of Belgium, 

Finland, Greece, and Poland. Also, it is equally important in both sectors in Italy and Spain. In these 
two MSs, however, shared savings is reviewed as relatively more common than guaranteed savings.  

  Guaranteed savings is most common in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, and 
Slovakia (in Slovakia, shared savings is also common in the public sector). Guaranteed savings is 
also relatively more common in the public than the private sectors of Croatia and Ireland. 
Guaranteed savings is the model used in the developed Croatian market for public lighting. In Czech 
Republic and Ireland, a model combining guaranteed and premium shared savings is the most 
common contracting model in the public sector.  

  Guaranteed savings is relatively common in the private sector of Portugal and Sweden, where the 

model is not in use and uncommon – respectively – in the public sector. 
Shared savings is preferred over guaranteed savings in both the public and private sectors of Italy, 
Portugal and Spain and shares the market with guaranteed savings in Slovakia. It is also the 
favoured model by the public sector in Portugal.  
Shared savings is the preferred EnPC model in Bulgaria's public sector and France's private sector. 

 

 

As for the public sector: 

 

The public sectors of 11 MSs favour guaranteed savings over shared savings, i.e., Austria, Belgium, 
Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.  

  Both modalities are relatively common in 2 MSs, the public sectors, i.e., Czech Republic and Ireland, 

 

where both models are combined.  
Shared savings prevail in the public sectors of 3 MSs, i.e., Bulgaria, Italy, and Spain. In the latter two, 
the difference between both models could be considered marginal. 

Regarding the private sector: 

 

The private sectors of 4 MSs favour shared savings over guaranteed savings, i.e., Bulgaria, France, 
and to an extent. Italy and Spain.   

45 The characteristics of both EnPC modalities are summarized in Box 2 (Introduction). 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

 

The private sectors of 4Mss favour guaranteed savings over shared savings, i.e., Belgium, Finland, 
Greece, Latvia, and Poland. 
The private sectors of 2 MSs favour both modalities, i.e., Portugal and Sweden (combination of 
models). In various MSs’ private sectors, both modalities are equally uncommon (Austria, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland). Moreover, shared savings is uncommon in Hungary, Cyprus, and 
Slovakia, whilst guaranteed savings are not in use. 

49 

 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Relevance of EnPC with guaranteed savings and with shared savings in the market. 

Guaranteed 
savings 

Shared savings  

c

i
l

b
u
P

e
t
a
v
i
r

P

l
l

a
r
e
v
O

c

i
l

b
u
P

e
t
a
v
i
r

P

l
l

a
r
e
v
O

3.0 

1.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.5 

Commentary 
The public sector must be financed via the 
provider 

0.0 

0.5 

0.0 

2.5 

1.5 

1.0  Clients expect the ESCO to provide financing 

1.5 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia  

Cyprus 

Czech R. 

3.0* 

1.0 

2.0  3.0* 

1.0 

2.0  Guaranteed savings and shared "extra savings"  

Denmark 

3.0 

1.0 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

0.0 

1.0  0.0* 

3.0 

1.5 

*Third-party financing recently possible 

Germany 

1.7 

1.0 

1.5 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0  Guaranteed savings in municipalities and industry 

Greece 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.5 

Hungary 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.5 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

1.5* 

1.0 

1.3  1.5* 

1.0 

1.3  Blend of guaranteed and shared savings models 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

0.0 

0.5 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Lithuania 

1.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Luxemburg 

nd 

nd 

nd 

 nd 

 nd 

 nd 

Malta 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Netherlands 

nd 

nd 

1.0 

nd 

nd 

1.0 

Poland 

Portugal 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0  Facilitators promote a shared savings model 

0.0 

2.0 

1.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

Romania 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Slovakia 

3.0 

0.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

2.0 

Some shared savings contracts in private 
commercial buildings 

Slovenia 

2.5 

1.0 

1.8 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

Spain 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.3 

2.3 

2.3  Guaranteed savings is common in residential 

Sweden 

1.0 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

2.0 

1.5 

EU Estimates 

1.5 

1.0 

1.7 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

MS Average 

1.4 

1.0 

1.3 

1.0 

1.1 

1.0 

Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Responses to “Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in 
use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common)”. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in 
red, ranked for the overall set of values. Nd stands for no data available. 

50 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
An overview of the competing contract modalities in the MSs (Table 2) shows that EnPC still competes with 
“simpler  models”  with  lesser  guarantees,  i.e.,  with  technical  guarantees  but  without  M&V  of  savings,  as 
reported  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Netherlands.46  There  are  also 
cases  where  the  reason  for  less  complex  models  responds  to  clients'  will  to  keep  control  of  the  building 
management, in the case of Sweden, and where facility management is considered too risky for the provider 
in Czech Republic. In the former case, it results in limited adoption of EnPC, and in the latter case, it results in 
a peculiar model. Facility management is also a widespread contract and can be a barrier to adopting EnPC in 
buildings  where  the  established  contracting  model  and  relationship  with  providers  make  it  difficult  to 
transition to a new model.  

One risk of simpler contract modalities is that these also tend to focus on a specific technology. They attain 
simplicity by focusing on partial interventions. This is often the  case of public interventions that opt out of 
using EnPC in the  Netherlands. In  particular, there is a rising interest in contracts of  Energy efficiency as a 
Service (EEaaS) in the private sector because this model is less complex than EnPC and can be off-balance in 
IFRS rules. On the contrary, consideration of leasing models as on-balance is an advantage for private actors 
to prefer EnPC. The advantage of EEaaS is its simplicity, for relying on technical guarantees (Figure 17). A 
noticeable increase in the interest for on-site renewable generation can also be considered a barrier for EnPC 
for  its  suitability  for  contracts  with  technical  guarantees  and  when  renewables  are  included  in  contracts 
pursuing  EnPC  compliant  with  Eurostat  guidelines  –  where  the  percentage  of  savings  from  renewables  is 
limited.  

However,  the  arrangement  that  most  compete  with  EnPC  –  and  which  can  be  disadvantageous  for  not 
involving  ESCO  expertise  and  any  guarantees  –  is  direct  implementation  with  the  support  of  grants,  often 
originated  from Cohesion  Funds  or the  Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility, as in  the  cases of  Croatia, Cyprus, 
Bulgaria,  Poland,  Romania.  Direct  contracting  of  works,  BOOT,  and  Energy  management  are  most  common 
and compete with EnPC in Czech Republic, France, Germany and Spain. 

On  the  other  end  of  the  trends,  there  is  also  a  drive  for  addressing  life-cycle  costs  and  impacts  of  the 
building and integrating a decarbonisation perspective, as noted in Belgium, Sweden, and Germany, alongside 
interest  for  renewable  integration  in  interventions,  e.g.,  Bulgaria,  France,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Greece,  Italy,  and 
Spain.  Given  the  limitations  of  the  EnPC  in  addressing  deep  renovations  of  buildings,  developments  are 
expected,  either  by  incorporating  more  benefits  than  savings,  hence  making  models  more  complex  but 
reducing  return  periods.  Alternatively,  there  is  a  need  for  a  clear  separation  of  the  EnPC  intervention  from 
other interventions in buildings, e.g. supported largely by subsidies or other financing instruments. Especially 
in  the  latter  case,  the  prevalence  of  EnPC  concerning  contracts  with  technical  guarantees  needs  to  be 
reassured to clients and financiers. 

46  These  alternative  contracting  modalities  include  LaaS,  Technical  consultancy  and  guarantees,  variants  of  ESCO  contracts  without 

guarantees, Installation of renewables with technical guarantees, Energy efficiency contracts 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Figure 17. Energy as a Service contracting as an alternative to EnPC. 

Source: Alexandra Hedesiu. Energy-as-a-Service Contract: key differences and Benefits. In EaaS vs EPC: How contract modelling can 
impact your sales strategy, 19 May 2021. Launch. 

52 

 
 
Table 2. Models competing with EnPC in the MS. 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia  

Cyprus 

Czech R. 

Competing models 

Several alternative contract modalities in private clients, ESCO without guarantees 

Innovative models of Building Performance Contracting for deeper renovation 

Grants which are not blended with EnPC; Installation of renewables with technical guarantees 

Grants are the main competitor 

Direct contracting, supported by grants 

BOOT and Facility management... 

Denmark 

Technical consultancy and guarantees 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Lighting as a Service 

Contract energy management in the real estate market and facility management in the industrial 
sector. 
Building works contracts and Contracts Energy Management  

Germany 

Direct contracting, BOOT, Energy Management 

Greece 

Grants 

Hungary 

BOOT and Energy efficiency contracts 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

No 

No 

Lighting as a Service 

Lithuania 

EnPC, Energy efficiency improvement contracts, PPPs (Public) 

Luxemburg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Simpler contracts, partial solutions 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

EnPC and PPP are complementary options. Grants, direct implementation 

EnPC in the private sector tend to be hybrid 

Grants, direct implementation 

Public sector: BOOT and Chauffage;  

Sweden 

Major differences in the capacity of decision-making of building users 

EU 
Investment grants that cannot be combined with any third-party investment; rising EEaS  
Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Response to the question: “Would you say that any of these mechanisms compete directly with 
EnPC for certain markets? Please specify which ones. 

53 

 
  
  
  
  
6  Project characteristics  

This section reviews the project typologies according to a) a series of metrics, i.e. size, duration, payback, and 
percentage of baseline energy savings; b) the areas of project intervention, mainly buildings (whether in the 
public  or  private  sector),  lighting  of  public  space  (public  lighting),  industry,  and  DHC),  and  c)  the  types  of 
interventions  in  buildings  (deep  renovation,  replacement  of  specific  technologies,    installation  of  on-site 
renewables, installation of building or plan control and demand flexibility or energy storage). 

6.1  Size, duration, payback and savings 

The  summary  of  the  project  metrics,  presented  in  Figure  18,  shows  that  the  largest  project  sizes  were 
reported in France, Denmark, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia, and the Portuguese private sector, all of which report 
typical projects above €3m. These are largely related to large buildings, e.g., hospitals or project aggregates. 
As a Belgian expert indicated, promoters promote increasing project thresholds for contracts and tendering to 
be  profitable.  In  public  lighting,  smaller  contracts  continue  to  be  common,  as  in  the  case  of  Croatia,  where 
public lighting contracts round €1m. Accordingly, large contract sizes can indicate a competitive market with 
high transaction costs. 

As in the case of the JRC report 2021, in several MSs,  there is a gap between the size of public and private 
projects. Such is the case of projects in buildings in Austria, Czech Republic, Italy, Poland, and Slovenia.  Also, 
public lighting projects in Croatia are larger than contracts in the private sector (buildings). There are several 
MSs  where  contracts  in  the  private  sector  are  achieving  the  same  scale  as  the  public  sector  or  even 
surpassing it. The former involves Belgium and Finland, and the latter involves Denmark, Ireland, and Portugal. 
In Portugal's  case, this  comparison involves private commercial buildings and industry as opposed to public 
lighting projects. 

Project  duration  depends  both  on  the  type  of  intervention  and  the  financing  availability.  For  instance,  the 
limited availability of long-term financing can be a barrier to addressing deep renovations, which have long 
return periods, through EnPC. Another major factor is energy prices. Their recent general increase contributes 
to reducing the  payback of EnPC.   Similarly, MSs with lower energy prices have longer paybacks and  hence 
more  difficulties  in  financing  EnPCs,  especially  those  involving  deep  interventions.  The  longest  paybacks, 
above 12 years, are common, especially in the public buildings of 8 MSs, i.e.   Denmark (20 years), Slovakia 
(20 years), Poland (17 years), Slovenia (16 years), Czech Republic (16 years, when subventions are available), 
Germany  (12  years  or  15  years  when  envelope  is  included),  the  Netherlands  (12  years)  and  Lithuania  (20 
years). These are largely the result of the combined effect of deep interventions with supporting subventions. 
Long-term  renovations  are,  at  times,  tied  to  the  residential  function.  The  latter  is  the  case  of  private 
residential  buildings  in  Latvia  (12  years)  and  public  residential  buildings  in  Lithuania  (25  years),  where 
residents are allowed slow repayment, and the condition of the buildings require deep interventions. Moreover, 
low energy prices work against quick investment returns, most fundamentally in Lithuania. 

 

Different savings over the baseline consumption are closely related to the type and area of intervention.  
Interventions in buildings typically result in savings of around 25-30% of the baseline and higher 
values are achieved when the EnPC is combined with additional funding. Examples of the former 
situation are the building renovations in Belgium, Austria, and Ireland and renovations of public 
buildings in Italy. A case of higher savings is Poland, where public sector interventions are reported to 
attain 50% of savings with a payback of 17 years, hinting at the existence of deep renovations, 
which, however, were not reported.47  
Public sector contracts involving interventions on public lighting achieve the largest savings (reported 
as 85% in Croatia and 70% in Spain and Portugal).  
Reportedly, a high potential in the industrial sector (e.g. Poland with 80% savings) needs to be 
regarded with caution because contracts tend to focus on replacing or adjusting productive elements, 
replacing lighting, and installing renewables.   

 

 

47  This  is  probably  due  to  the  availability  of  data  on  the  overall  savings  achieved  in  building  renovations  whilst  acknowledging  that 

interventions in the envelope are addressed through other contracting modalities. 

54 

 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                        
 
Regarding building renovations, the focus of EnPC on shallow renovations, which attain around 25 to 30% of 
savings, is due to the avoidance of long paybacks. Achieving further savings in buildings is a challenge for the 
EnPC  model  in  a  context  shaped  by  to  pressing  targets  of  decarbonization,  energy  efficiency  and  building 
energy  performance.  For  instance,  in  France,  where  EnPC  in  public  buildings  is  achieving  30%,  commercial 
building interventions are planned to pursue 40% savings soon.  

A  final  remark  refers  to  data  availability.  The  data  obtained  for  achieved  savings  of  EnPC  projects  is  more 
variable  than  other  metrics.  There  is  a  need  to  consolidate  databases  of  interventions  with  real  savings  to 
understand  market  developments  and  inform  the  introduction  of  mechanisms  that  guarantee  EnPC  or 
complement its interventions. 

55 

 
 
Figure 18. Typical size, duration, payback and percentage of baseline consumption in MSs. 

Source : JRC based on EU Survey 2022. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in red. The colour code is based on a comparative analysis conducted for each category (i.e., 
public, private and overall) within each metric (i.e. project size, duration, payback and % of baseline) to compare MSs. Values in bold indicate highly variable estimates. The overall estimate was only requested from 
respondents whenever they could not provide data specific to the sectors. 

56 

PublicPrivateOverallPublicPrivateOverallPublicPrivateOverallCommentaryPublicPrivateOverallCommentaryAustria0.90.61061062535Belgium2.22.210101010 Size of €1.5-3m depending on client financing3030Data on interventions without envelopeBulgaria0.478730Croatia 1.00.41071010785Public projects are lightingCyprus0.3No projects in the public sectorCzech Republic1.80.610599Projects up to  €10m and 14-18 years3030Denmark7.01.5522082025Estonia1.00.05Effect4buildings projects (H2020) 0Finland0.50.61581051015France10.010.010108830Tertiary required to reach 40% Germany2.00.813710125Existence of deep renovations in the public sector (>15years)4755Public: 28-65%, Overall 50-60Greece3.60.69Duration variable in public sector (6-25 years)6Hungary0.41096723Efficiency and renewables, public lightingIreland2.51.09584Public contracts of €0.5m or €5-10m3525Italy1.00.210885301525Latvia0.00.32012Residential48ResidentialLithuania0.71725Duration related to low energy prices, and condition of residential buildings35LuxemburgProbably no projectsMaltaNo projectsNetherlands1.21.212121212No data availablePoland1.00.3125175080Private data: RES and industrialPortugal5.03.0116747030Public data  refers to lightingRomaniaUnknown, no projectsSlovakia0.5nd 1020No recent data reported. Rough estimates20Slovenia3.00.515814168Easy Repayment Period (up to 20 years)434035Spain1.51.0129757037Public data refers lightingSweden0.53717EU2.01.075854Prior to energy price rises203025EU avg2.21.31189127373627Project size (m€)Duration (Years)Payback (Years)% of baseline consumptionMS 
 
6.2 

Intervention areas 

An analysis of the relevance of the different project areas as assessed by national experts (Figure 19) shows 
that public buildings, followed by public lighting (rated 1.8/3 and 1.5/3, respectively) continue to be the most 
frequent  type  of  projects  in  the  EU,  followed  by  privately  owned,  mainly  commercial,  buildings,  and  closely 
followed by interventions in the industry (rated 1.2/3).  

 

 

 

 

Public sector interventions largely prioritize buildings over lighting in Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Public sector interventions focus on public lighting in 
Croatia and Portugal. Public lighting is also more important than interventions in public buildings in  
Spain, Greece and Italy. This is the path expected to be followed by Cyprus. 
Interventions in private buildings, mainly commercial buildings, are most relevant in Belgium, Finland, 
France, and Poland (all rated above 2/3), generally following public buildings closely. 
Interventions in residential buildings are of relative importance in Spain, Sweden, Germany, and 
France, and the main type of intervention in Lithuania and Latvia. In France, the private buildings 
renovated using EnPC include an important portion of the social housing sector. Other MSs where 
interventions in private buildings include residential buildings are Spain, Sweden, Germany, and 
Latvia. Social housing is fundamental in the Lithuanian market. 
EnPC interventions in the industry are mostly dissociated from productive processes involving 
photovoltaic generation, lighting, and cogeneration. Interventions in the industry are most relevant in 
Croatia, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, and Slovenia. In Cyprus, the only 
contract found as EnPC involves the installation of renewables in industrial premises. 

  District heating and smart grids are relatively low in relevance at the EU level (rated 0.6/3 and 0.3/3, 

respectively) but relevant in some national markets. District heating is relevant for EnPC in Austria, 
the Netherlands (rated 2/3), Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia, and Sweden (rated above 
0.8/3). Smart grids have been reported to be of relative relevance in the Netherlands, Denmark, 
Hungary (all rated 1/3), Croatia and Slovenia (both rated 0.5/3).48 

Project aggregations, pools and bundles refer to contracts that address interventions in different areas. These 
belong to the same client in the case of pools or bundles and to different (public sector) clients in the case of 
aggregations.  These  processes  may  also  involve  different  interventions,  e.g.  public  sector  lighting  and 
buildings or a  relatively  homogeneous set  of  project  areas (e.g.  schools).  Bundles or project  pools are  most 
reported as common intervention areas in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain 
(all  rated  above  2/3).  In  Italy,  project  bundling  has  been  related  to  requirements  of  national  subventions 
(Superbonus), but the effects of this policy on the use of EnPC are uncertain.49 District heating and e-mobility 
are potentially rising elements of these bundles, as reported in Finland and Slovenia.  

6.3  Types of interventions in buildings 

A  review  of  the  most  common  types  of  interventions  in  buildings  (Figure  20)  shows  that  replacement  of 
specific elements is by large the most common intervention both in public and private buildings (the average 
ratings  of  MS  experts  indicate,  respectively,  a  rating  of  1.9  and  2.0  out  of  3)  and  that  on-site  renewable 
generation is gaining momentum, especially in private buildings (1.6 and 2.0 out of 3 for public and private 
buildings, respectively).50 

48 in Hungary, it is uncertain to what extent the consulted experts referred to expected or actual relevance of the type of intervention. 

Documental sources indicate absence of EnPC activity. 

49  The  relevance  of  project  pools  or  bundles  is  probably  higher  than  reported  because  it  seems  some  respondents  consider  only  the 
combination of different types of projects e.g., buildings and district heating or public buildings of diverse uses, whilst others accept 
as bundling the combination of relatively homogeneous interventions. 

50  This  difference  between  public  and  private  interest  in  renewables  as  a  part  of  EnPC  could  result  from  restrictions  in  the  weight  of 

generation allowed for off-balance EnPC contracts. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Maintenance  is  also  an  element  of  EnPCs  (fundamental  in  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland, 
Romania  and  Spain),  as  it  is  becoming  the  integration  of  building  management  systems  (Belgium,  Czech 
Republic, Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain).  

Deep  renovations  are  of  the  most  relevance  relative  to  other  interventions  in  6  MSs,  i.e.  Bulgaria  (public 
buildings), Czech Republic (public buildings), Italy (more in private than public buildings), the Netherlands (both 
public  and  private),  Romania  (market  expectations  for  the  private  sector  based  on  the  use  of  alternative 
model contracts), Slovenia (public buildings).  Overall, this type of intervention scores as “common” in either 
public or private sectors of 13 MSs (rated as 2 out of 3).  

EnPC interventions of demand flexibility and storage have been reported to have some relevance in several 
MS,  especially  in  Ireland  and  Italy  (ratings  of  3/3  in  the  private  and  public  sectors,  respectively)  and,  to  an 
extent, in Lithuania (2/3 in the public sector). Expectations for developments in this area were expressed for 
Denmark  and  Bulgaria,  and  it  is  expected  to  gain  relevance  for  the  large  industry  of  the  EU.

58 

 
 
 
Figure 19. Project areas prioritized in each MS 

Source. JRC based on EU Survey 2022. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in red. The magnitudes are based on the averages of ratings granted by experts based on their 
responses to the question: Please rate the sites (areas) of interventions as 3= most common, 2= common, 1= less common, or 0= not addressed through EnPC.The colour grading was assigned on a country basis 
to compare the relative relevance of different areas of intervention between MSs visually. 

59 

MSPublicly owned buildings Privately owned buildings Public lighting (street and traffic) District heating/coolingSmart gridsProject pools/ BundlesIndustryAustria2.01.02.02.01.02.01.0Belgium3.0Local authorities2.01.01.00.02.00.0EE aversionBulgaria3.01.0HoteLs, offices2.50.00.00.01.0Lighting; cooling, energy use controlCroatia 0.50.52.51.00.50.02.0PhotovoltaicCyprus0.00.01.0Expected0.00.00.01.0PhotovoltaicCzechia3.0Education, health, culture1.0Rarely, offices1.00.00.03.01.0Denmark2.0Municipalities, education, health1.0Shopping Centers0.00.01.00.01.0Food industry, PharmaEstonia1.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Finland2.02.0Probably BOOT0.01.00.01.0Buildings &DH2.0Mainly Consultancy and technical France3.02.0Social housing2.50.50.02.0Public1.0Generation, not for processesGermany2.3Non-residential1.3Residential1.8Highly subsidized  0.80.52.01.3CogenerationGreece2.01.03.0Hungary2.01.52.00.01.00.00.0Ireland2.7Local, hospitals1.0Warehouses0.01.0Dublin0.00.52.0PharmaItaly2.51.03.01.01.02.5Superbonus 110% requirements2.0Cogeneration, lighting, photovoltaicLatvia0.02.0Multi-family0.00.00.00.00.0Lithuania2.0Social housing0.02.00.00.00.00.0LuxemburgMalta0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0Netherlands1.01.00.02.0Storage1.00.00.0Poland2.0Schools, hospitals,2.0Includes industrial2.0Medium size cities0.50.0Planned1.02.0Generation, enginesPortugal0.01.02.00.00.00.02.0Romania0.00.00.00.00.00.0Slovakia2.01.02.0Slovenia3.0Education, health, sport0.02.51.0ESC+EE0.51.0E-mobility1.5Some are ESCSpain1.81.8Includes residential2.50.8Private 0.3Uncertain2.01.8Sweden1.01.0Includes residential1.01.00.00.02.0EU est.1.0Education, health, sport0.7Mostly commercial2.00.7ESC+EE1.00.31.0Single measuresMS avg1.71.01.40.60.30.81.1 
 
Figure 20. Types of Interventions in buildings 

Source. JRC based on EU Survey 2022. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in red. The magnitudes are based on the averages of ratings granted by experts based on their 
responses to the question: Please rate the sites (areas) of interventions as 3= most common, 2= common, 1= less common, or 0= not addressed through EnPC.The colour grading was assigned on a country basis 
to compare the relative relevance of the areas of intervention between MSs visually. 

60 

 
6.4  Trends: types of projects and areas of intervention 

A  review  of  the  expert  commentary  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  on  the  types  of  EnPC  projects,  summarized  in  
Table 3, indicates a trend in developed markets towards integrating renewables (reported in Austria, Croatia 
– in combination with public lighting-, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia) and more deep renovations, largely driven 
by  EU  and  national  regulatory  framework  but  also  by  the  ESG  commitments  of  clients  (Czech  Republic, 
Germany, France, Ireland, Italy).  

A set of new possibilities are open by heat pumps, storage and flexibility, DHC, building management systems, 
an increased number of private projects, the inclusion of other public buildings than municipal ones, and the 
need to combine subsidies with EnPC financing, as discussed by a diversity of MS experts.  

Insights about the future of  EnPC refer to the need  for  contracts to adapt to  clients' needs related to  deep 
renovations. This is a difficult area for development because, at the same time, standardized model contracts 
are needed to reduce transaction costs and enable project aggregation.  Ensuring alignment with the Energy 
First  Principle,  decarbonisation  targets,  and  social  drive  appears  to  be  challenging  in  times  of  technological 
opportunities that create new low-lying fruits, e.g., integrating renewables and building management systems. 
Because  EnPC  models  are  meant  to  be  profitable  for  providers  and  clients,  it  is  key  to  ensure  that  public 
support  and  other  policy  instruments  (e.g.  valuing  and  incentivising  deep  decarbonisation)  foster  energy 
efficiency interventions, including those on the envelope to avoid locking in their potential.  

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3. Trends for the period 2022-24 regarding types and areas of intervention 

MS 

Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia  
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 

Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Trends 
Integration of renewables and deep renovations in buildings 
Model expansion beyond municipalities to other public buildings and energy communities 
Market development is expected as far as subsidies get aligned, especially for public buildings 
Combination of renewables with public lighting (new contract model) 
Public lighting expected to take off, some projects in the private sector, with renewables 
Renovation requirements on depth and integration of renewables 

More private projects, more flexibility, and more storage 
No data 
More heat pumps and renewable integration in public and private buildings 
More integral renovations (energy and carbon performance) in the public sector and social housing 
More attention being paid to user needs, involving deep renovations 
More renewables in public building projects 
More private, industrial, and DHC projects (public sector to take off) 
More renewables, deep retrofit, and increased relevance of decarbonisation in public and private 
buildings 
More renewables, more integral renovations, at least in the public sector 
More renewables (mainly in target market of private residential buildings) 
Uncertain 
No data 
No expectations for take-off 
Storage in new buildings, heat pumps, both in public and private buildings. 
Financing uncertainties may bring in shorter contracts; strategic development of the residential sector 
Building management systems (private sector only as far the the public sector regulatiory barriers are 
not lifted) 
No expectations for change (take off) 
More public buildings (lower grant ratios) 
Residential (on-bill, grants) 
More municipal buildings 
Uncertain 
Integral renovation, renewables, focus on decarbonisation (contracting) 

Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
EU 
Source. JRC based on EU Survey 2022. 

62 

 
 
7  Barriers and drivers 

The sectoral stakeholders consulted in the EU Survey 2022 listed the barriers and drivers for 2019-21 and as 
foreseen for 2022-24. Figure 21 and Figure 22 collect the most important barriers and drivers, focusing on 
those  relevant to  EnPC  markets.  However, structural factors  determining the activity in energy performance 
have  also  been  included,  based  on  the  importance  indicated  by  the  experts  participating  in  the  EU  Survey 
2022 and expert revision by JRC experts and anonymous reviewers of the data presented.  

The barriers and drivers mentioned for each MS and period are of limited comparability with those highlighted 
in  previous  years  and  between  MSs.  They  largely  depend  on  the  subjectivity  of  experts  and  these  factors 
addressing  different  analytical  levels.  To  enable  market  comparison,  further  research  should  rely  on  the 
consolidated  factors  identified  in  this  report  –  which,  for  the  first  time,  bring  together  public  and  private 
sectors as well as all the end uses addressed by EnPC – to ask participants to select the most relevant ones 
and rank them in order of relevance.  

Comparison  between  the  2019-21  and  the  2022-24  period  shows  a  marginal  reduction  in  the  number  of 
barriers and a singular increase in that of drivers.  

7.1  Barriers 

The barriers presented in Figure 21 are organized in the dimensions of a) Awareness, information, training, 
and  technical  assistance;  b)  Finance;  c)  Policy;  d)  Subsidies;  and  e)  Structural.  The  amount  of  barriers 
highlighted in the EU Survey 2022 for each category is generally smaller for 2022-24 than for 2019-21. This 
can be partially due to experts preferring to comment on the previous situation and the lower insight of the 
authors on the forthcoming period. Moreover, structural barriers are less relevant in 2022-24 than in 2019-
21 because Covid had relevance only in the previous period. However, the context of inflation and uncertainty 
in  2022  may  have  influenced  expert  estimates and is  highlighted  in  4  MSs:  Croatia,  Germany,  Netherlands, 
and Poland. It is also worth noting that renovation and energy subsidies are considered a barrier in 16 MSs 
(two  sets  of  MSs)  for  both  periods.51  The  availability  of  high  rates  of  subsidized  public  support  to  building 
renovation  and  energy  efficiency,  and  building  performance  compete  with  EnPC  by  providing  the  financial 
means  of  projects  that  are  then  completed  through  simpler  and  cheaper  contracting  modalities  than  EnPC. 
Energy subsidies and low energy prices counter the cost-effectiveness of interventions and extend repayment 
periods,  making  EnPC  less  financially  suitable  (reported  for  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  France,  Germany,  Lithuania, 
Poland, and Slovenia). 

The  barriers  that  are  relevant  in  more  MSs  in  the  domain  of  awareness,  information  and  training  are 
knowledge and expertise of clients, trust in the model, and complexity of the model  (mentioned in at least 9 
MSs each and highlighted at EU level by experts providing input at this scale in the EU Survey 2022). 

 

  Knowledge and expertise of clients (mentioned in 10 MSs for both periods), which often appears in 
combination with a preference for short-payback periods (e.g., Denmark, Spain), preference for 
simpler models (e.g. France) 
Trust in the EnPC model could improve since it was mentioned in 10 MSs in 2019-21 and 6 MSs in 
2022-24. The barrier could be losing relevance in Austria, Belgium, Cyprus and Germany.  
The model's complexity is considered relevant (in either period) for 9 MSs. In two of these, the barrier 
is specifically relevant to the public sector, i.e. Sweden and Germany. 

 

In  the  finance  domain,  the  most  widespread  barriers  are  debt  treatment,  lack  of  affordable  financing  for 
providers, and integration of decarbonisation (mentioned in at least 7 MSs each). 

 

Treatment of EnPC as a debt of clients was mentioned in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, 
Poland, Slovakia, and Spain and is a matter that deserves consideration in several more MSs for the 
development of the model – as such, was highlighted by EU-level experts participating in the EU 
Survey 2022; 

51 Considering expert responses for the two periods being assessed and both the subsidies to enegy efficiency and building performance 
interventions had or are expected to have a negative effect in the public or private sectors’ markets of Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain). 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

The limitations of the financing environment for EnPC to deal with deep renovation – due to limited 
financial backing for long-term return and the integration of renewables –  and integral renovations, 
incorporating renewable generation – restricted by the Eurostat and EIB guidelines for the off-
balance treatment of EnPC projects. – altogether referred in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, 
Ireland, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden;52 

  Adding to the above, the limited availability of competitive financing for providers was highlighted as 

a barrier for the markets of Cyprus, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia, 
and Sweden.  

The  most  frequent  policy  issues  are  Policy  commitment,  Administrative  burden,  Legal  and  procurement 
barriers, and Policy uncertainty. 

 

 

 

 

 

Policy commitment on the part of national authorities is considered insufficient in Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, especially 
in the period 2019-21 (11 MSs). There are expectations for change in this domain, e.g. in Latvia and 
Czech Republic; 
Legal and procurement barriers were identified as a barrier in 14 MSs for 2019-21 and in 9 MSs for 
2022-24, overall in Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France (expected to be overcome with 
a new procurement law), Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. 
Sometimes, the legal framework is unclear about using EnPC (e.g. Italy and Hungary), or there are 
legal enforcement issues (Cyprus). 
The administrative burden can put off clients' interest and raise costs and was highlighted in Belgium 
(where different state requirements add to the administrative costs of providers), Bulgaria, Estonia, 
France, Germany, Portugal and Spain. 
Policy uncertainty related to the contents and implementation of RRPs is considered a barrier in 
several MSs by experts looking retrospectively at their expectations in 2020 and 2021. This barrier 
was mentioned in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. 
It was mentioned as a key issue at the EU level by expert participants reflecting on the overall EU. 
Adding to this uncertainty, slow programming (Slovenia) or annual programming (Hungary) limits the 
capacity of the market to forecast and adjust to public demand. 
Some issues of mixed regulatory and financing nature are the possibility or difficulty of combining 
grants with EnPC (e.g. Croatia, Poland, Portugal) or its off-balance options (e.g. Slovakia). 

Subsidy  allocation  could  be  considered  an  aspect  of  policy,  financing,  and  structural  nature  in  some  MSs. 
Because of this and its  relevance in MSs, it is presented  separately.  Investment subsidies are considered to 
compete with EnPC at least in 14 MSs, i.e. Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. In some MSs, after a period of uncertainty, there is increasing 
concern  that  the  RRP  increases  the  availability  of  grants  which  compete  with  EnPC  (Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Romania,  Spain).  In  Belgium,  where  grant  deployment  was  not  considered  an  issue  for  past  EnPC 
development, the RRP is expected to have a negative impact due to using investment grants and subsidized 
energy prices (the latter is also the case in France). This topic is reviewed separately in Section 10. 

From the  structural  barriers,  the  administrative  and  regulatory  division  of  markets  (e.g.  in  federal  states)  is 
one with potential to support EnPC development even in some developed markets. Market size as related to 
the MS’  size or its administrative division were reported  as issues in Belgium (especially the public market), 
Cyprus,  Estonia,  France,  Germany  and  Slovenia.  For  instance,  in  Germany,  there  is  a  need  to  standardize 
models across states. Also, in some MSs, early interventions in low-hanging fruits (Finland and Sweden) have 
made the potential for EnPC more difficult to exploit without engaging long and life cycle benefits of EnPC. 

There are also concerns that the decarbonisation drive may have an unexpected effect, e.g. in markets such 
as  Portugal,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  and  Latvia,  where  renewables  and 
simpler  interventions  may  take  away  the  interest  in  efficiency  and  for  EnPC,  especially  in  its  off-balance 
modalities for the public sector. 

52  For  instance,  in  Austria  and  Belgium,  the  public  sector  approaches  to  retrofit  and  decarbonisation  above  the  typical  Energy  savings 

achieved with EnPC in buildings of 30%. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Figure 21. Most relevant barriers identified at the MS level for 2019-21 (in white) and 2022-24 (in green) 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2002. Responses to: “What are in your understanding the major drivers and barriers explaining previous (2019-2021) and current trends (2022-2025)?”. Data in bold are the most 
relevant barriers. “A” Indicates “Overall market, public and private sectors”, “B” “Private sector”, and “P” Public sector” as clients of EnPC.

65 

AustriaPAAAAPBelgiumPAPAABBPPBulgariaAPPAAAAAACroatia AAAAAAAACyprusPPAAAAPAAAPAAACzech RepublicPABBBPDenmarkBBPPEstoniaAAAAAAAAAAFinlandPAAPAFranceAAPPAABPBBBPGermanyPPPAAAPPPAAPPBPPPAGreeceAAAAAAHungaryAAAAAAAAIrelandAAAAPPPAPBBAAABBItalyAAAAPPBBLatviaAAPAAPLithuaniaAAAAAALuxemburgMaltaAANetherlandsAAAAAAPAAPolandPPBPPBPPPBPortugalAAPPPAAAAPARomaniaPPAAAPPPAAPPSlovakiaPPPSloveniaAAAAAPBAAPBBAAASpainAAPBPAAAAAAPPASwedenAAPPAAPPPPEU inputPPAAAAPAAATotal MS32101096429532207302774297115547414958121244668035Public32109954285222061006611861155364139469732557023Private22766531641110120244427643224396159933443024Awareness clientsKnowledge-expertise clients Trust on modelInformation, demonstrationDebt treatment- cash flowCovidInflation, supplies, warComplexity of EnPC Decarbonisation, deep renovationLegal barriersPolicy commitmentCore businessStructuralPolicyMSAwareness, information, training, TAFinance SubsidiesAtomized marketReturn periodsPolicy uncertaintyOther focus (RES, district.)Administrative burdenFacilitationGrants, subsidies, loansNo/expensivefinancing for EnPCEnergy subsidies/ pricesScale- Aggregation capacity 
 
7.2  Drivers 

The drivers presented in  Figure 22 are organized in the dimensions of a) Awareness, information, training, 
and technical assistance; b) Finance; c) Policy; and d) Structural. The category of subsidies was not included as 
drivers. The amount of drivers identified through the EU Survey 2022 and additional literature review for each 
category  is  generally  larger  for  2022-24  than  for  2019-21,  even  though,  as  argued  for  Barriers,  expert 
respondents appear to be more comfortable in describing the past than the forthcoming situation and hence 
is considered most reliable source when no specific changes may have been critical. 

In  the  domain  of  awareness,  information,  training  and  technical  assistance,  the  drivers  that  are  relevant  in 
more  MSs  are  established  trust  and  interest  in  the  model  (7  and  9  MSs  in  2019-21  and  2022-24, 
respectively), the availability of provision (6 MSs in 2019-21), and technical assistance received in the past (7 
MSs in 2019-21). Technical assistance (especially ELENA, Horizon 2020/ Horizon Europe /LIFE), moreover, was 
widely appreciated as the most impactful EU supporting mechanism in most MSs (Further reviewed in Section 
11) 

In the finance domain, the most widespread drivers are national and EU support (8 and 13 MSs in 2019-21 
and  2022-24,  respectively),  and  the  role  of  EnPC  in  the  cash  flow  and  indebtment  of  clients,  mainly 
municipalities but also private actors (e.g. Belgium) (9 MSs in both periods). There are increased expectations 
for  public  support  in  Austria  (support  of  a  guarantee  fund),  Belgium,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  and  Germany,  even 
though  in  some  of  these  MSs,  RRP  grants  are  expected  to  compete  with  the  model.  In  Belgium,  whilst  the 
Federal Government is expected to allocate €1b for building renovation, the Walloon government plans to use 
grants to support EnPC renovations of buildings. In Croatia and Latvia, grants may act as a driver (although 
generally competing with EnPC). On the contrary, a major driver in some other MSs is the combination of EU 
funds and private financing, along with the standardization of the EnPC model. As for the treatment of EnPC 
in the accounting balance of private actors,  there is renewed interest for EnPC and EEaaS after leasing has 
been  categorized  as  on-balance  in  the  IFRS  rules.  Well-established  private  financing  mechanisms  are  also 
relevant  in  Czech  Republic,  where  forfaiting  is  well  established,  creating  an  adequate  environment  for  off-
balance contracting. 

In the regulatory domain, there are increased expectations for the EU regulatory framework and strategies to 
improve the situation of the EnPC market in terms of driving investment towards buildings (6 MSs in 2022-
24) and decarbonisation (9 MSs in 2022-24); the use of Energy Efficiency Obligations and White Certificates 
(9 MSs in 2022-24). The  decarbonisation drive, however,  may have an  unexpected effect. In some markets, 
such as Portugal, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Latvia, renewables may take 
away  the  interest  in  efficiency  and  EnPC,  especially  in  its  off-balance  modalities  for  the  public  sector.  The 
European  Green  Deal  and  the  recast  of  the  EED  and  the  EPBD  directives  were  also  mentioned  in  4  MSs  in 
2022-24. The perspective of Carbon taxation is relevant for experts in 7 MSs in 2022-24.  

At the national level, the legal framework and the national push are considered to drive the market in 11 MSs 
(Austria  –  energy  efficiency  law  -,  Cyprus,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  Lithuania,  the 
Netherlands,  Slovakia,  and  Spain  –in  the  latter  with  some  degree  of  uncertainty).  For  instance,  in  Finland, 
there  is  an  expectation  for  a  regulatory  push  involving  incentives  and  funding  priority  for  EnPC  and  the 
development  of  model  contracts.  In  France,  there  are  high  expectations  for  the  approval  of  third-party 
financing for EnPCs in the public sector. In Slovakia, there are expectations on a requirement for projects to be 
tested for their EnPC-ability. The government's interest was also identified in Romania, even though the RRP 
makes  little  reference  to  EnPC,  is  restricted  to  the  industry,  and  is  uncertain  whether  positive  steps  are 
expected to be taken in the  next two years. A  similar position would  be desirable in  other MSs with limited 
borrowing capacity in their public sectors, such as Hungary. However, signals from the government to clarify 
the role of and regulations on EnPC have not been identified. 

From  the  structural  barriers,  energy  prices  gained  relevance.  In  10  MSs,  these  were  mentioned  as  already 
driving  demand  in  EnPC  during  2021.  Energy  prices  were  mentioned  as a  market  driver for  2022-24  in  19 
MSs. Structural drivers relevant to specific MSs are the building stock condition, e.g. in Latvia and Lithuania. 

Finally, EnPC appears to be driven by the EU strategic and regulatory developments, sectoral capacities (e.g. 
stabilised  trust  and  increased  interest),  which  have  largely  developed  through  technical  assistance  and 
providers’ activity, and a combination of EU and national support to the model.  

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
There are also concerns that the decarbonisation drive may have an unexpected effect, e.g. in markets such 
as  Portugal,  Cyprus,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  the  Netherlands,  and  Latvia,  where  renewables  and 
simpler  interventions  may  take  away  the  interest  in  efficiency  and  for  EnPC,  especially  in  its  off-balance 
modalities for the public sector.  

67 

 
 
Figure 22. Most relevant drivers identified at MS level for 2019-21 (in white) and 2022-24 (in green)

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2002. Responses to: “What are in your understanding the major drivers and barriers explaining previous (2019-2021) and current trends (2022-2025)?” Data in bold are the most 
relevant drivers. “A” Indicates “Overall market, public and private sectors”, “B” “Private sector”, and “P” Public sector” as clients of EnPC.

68 

AustriaAAAPABelgiumAAAAAAPPPPPPAABBBulgaria?ACroatia APPAAAAACyprusPPAAPPPPBAPACzech RepublicAAAAAAAADenmarkBBAAAABEstoniaAAPAAFinlandAAAAAAAAFrancePPAPPPPAPGermanyPAPPAPAPPAAAAGreecePPPAAAHungaryAPAAAIrelandAAAAAAPPAABAAAAABPPAABItalyAAPPPAABBLatviaAABBPP AAAAAAAALithuaniaPAPPPPAALuxemburgMaltaNetherlandsPPPPAAAPAPolandAAPPAAAAPortugalAAPPRomaniaPPPPSlovakiaAPPPASloveniaAAABBAAPPBBSpainABBAAAAAAAABSwedenAAAAEU inputAAAAAAAPAPPPBBFinance RegulationStablished, trust, interestFacilitation, One-stop-shopsProvisionTechnical assistanceGuidanceNational and EU supportCash flow-debt treatmentDemonstrationMSRRPLegal frameworkESG, real estate valueAwareness, information, training, Technical a.StructureNational pushEnergy prices, shortagesPrivate financingEU drive biuildingsObligations, White CertificatesCO2 cost, carbon tax, ETSDecarbonisation driveEGD, EED, EPBDModel contract 
 
 
8  Regulatory framework 

The  implementation  of  key  regulatory  aspects  for  developing  EnPC  markets  was  assessed  by  experts 
participating  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  These  were  asked  to  rate  on  a  scale  ranging  from absent  (0)  to  very 
good (3) the implementation and adequacy of the a) Definitions; Guidelines (EED Art. 18); c) Model contracts 
(EED  Art.  18)  for  the  public  and  private  sectors;  d)  Lists  of  qualified  operators  (EED  Art.  18);  e)  One-stop-
shops (EPBD  Art.  20; EED  Art.  18);  f)  Information    (EPBD  Art.  20;  EED  Art  18);  g)  Demonstration,  h)  Energy 
Efficiency Obligations  (EED Art. 7.) (and if relevant White Certificates); i) Energy Audits (EED Art. 8); j) EnPC to 
fulfil Exemplary role of public buildings (EED Art. 5); and k) Procurement, contracting and tendering (EED Art. 
18). The values obtained were critically reviewed and when needed, average values were calculated (Figure 
23).  This  form  of  assessment  is  largely  subjective.  However,  it  provides  a  quick  picture  of  the  regulatory 
framework and overcomes language limitations in accessing national regulatory frameworks and publications 
(e.g. lists of EnPC providers). 

A review of the EU averages and EU-level estimates in Figure 23 indicates that: 

 

 

The best-appraised instruments as implemented by MSs are audits (rated as “good”) followed by 
definitions, guidelines, model contracts for the public sector, and demonstration (rated as between 
“barely acceptable” and “good”).  
The rating of lists of qualified operators largely differs between EU averages and EU-level 
estimates. It likely indicates that lists of service providers are mostly available for energy services 
(as required by Art. 18) and not specifically addressed to EnPC providers. These issues are important 
because EnPC providers need specific capacities to provide technical and financial guarantees.53  
  Besides considerations on the lists of providers, the lowest ratings refer to rules of procurement, 

contracting and tendering (EED Art. 18), Obligations/White Certificates (EED Art. 7), information 
provision (EPBD Art. 20; EED Art 18), One-stop-shops (EPBD Art. 20; EED Art. 18) 
especially, the  Exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings (EED Art. 5) as mechanisms to support 
EnPC. These instruments were rated in the ballpark of barely acceptable. The use of EnPC in fulfilling 
exemplary obligations was rated as “absent” in EU-level estimates. 

 and, 

Figure 23 also shows the existence of major regulatory issues, as appraised by national experts, in a wide 
array of MSs.  

 

 

Those MSs where regulatory aspects are rated below “good”, especially those below “barely 
acceptable”, tend to have a limited EnPC market or difficulties taking off. The former cases include 
Hungary, Denmark, Poland, Portugal, and Romania; the latter includes Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatian 
public buildings, Greece, Ireland, and Latvia.  
In some MSs, the rating of regulatory implementation is below expectations according to market 
development status. Such is the case of Italy and Spain, whose frameworks scored between “good” 
and “barely acceptable” (1.3 and 1.5, respectively). Although both MSs have a well-developed 
market, the responses of national experts largely vary, indicating the need for market monitoring, 
starting with lists of EnPC providers and project databases.54   

  Best-rated implementation frameworks (“good” and better) also correspond with well-developed 

EnPC markets, i.e., Belgium, Czech Republic, and Slovenia. One exception is Finland, which, having a 
well-rated framework, has a less active market. France and Germany have relatively well-developed 
markets and ratings of their framework (1.7 and 1.8, respectively). France exemplifies the limited 
attention paid to official lists of EnPC providers, even in developed markets. Germany exemplifies 
the limited attention paid to the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings as a mechanism to 
further the development of EnPC markets. These two domains, official lists and exemplary role of 
public buildings, are discussed below. 

53 The fact that most participating experts in the EU Survey 2022 are active in the services market could have an influence in national-
level  ratings  of  this  instrument.  Due  to  language  barriers,  a  thorough  check  of  the  availability  and  quality  of  lists  was  not 
conducted. 

54 The relatively low values obtained for Spain and Italy respect to their status of market development in both MSs to the high variability 
of  input  received  in  Italy  and  the  lack  of  consolidated  information  on  their  fragmented  markets,  where  activity  takes  place  at 
regional and local level. In Spain, information, the development of a White Certificates market, limited use of EnPC in the central 
government buildings, and the provision of information are the areas identified as needing most attention improvement. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

  Developing specific lists of EnPC providers, ideally supported with certification, is not part of the 
requirements in Article 18 of the EED, which is focused on energy service providers. However, 
publishing specific lists of EnPC providers could improve trust in the model. Such is the case of 
France, Croatia, Netherlands, Poland, and Romania, among others.  
The use of EnPC as a means to fulfil the exemplary role of public buildings has been reviewed as 
being in the ballpark of barely acceptable in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Finland, Germany, Greece,  Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Slovenia and Spain; as absent or almost absent in 
Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Slovakia. Only the 
Netherlands and Sweden were rated as good in the domain of exemplarity. The procurement rules 
rate significantly below average national implementation of the regulatory framework in 6 MSs and 
below good in 7 other MSs (respectively Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Greece, and Romania; 
and France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, and Spain).  They are rated as good only in 
Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and Slovenia (very good). Revision of EnPC as 
an element contributing to the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings – alongside development of 
procurement rules e.g. in terms of improving consistency – is expected to need revision in most MSs 
willing to exploit the potential of EnPC. These considerations are expected to gain relevance with the 
introduction of the recast of the EED.   

A revision of the status of implementation of the EU regulatory framework shows that in most MSs, there is 
room for improvement. Considerations about the status and quality of implementation of this framework are 
needed in those MSs willing to rely on EnPCs to exploit their energy-saving potential. 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 23. Expert appraisal of MSs’ implementation of the EU regulatory framework 

r
o
t
c
e
s

c
i
l

b
u
p

s
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
c

)
8
1

l

.
t
r
A
e
d
D
o
E
M
E
(
2.5 
3.0 
2.0 
2.0 
0.0 
3.0 
0.0 

s
r
o
t
a
r
e
p
o

d
e
i
f
i
l

a
u
q

f
o

s
t
s
i
L

)
8
1

.
t
r
A
D
E
E
(
1.5 
2.0 
1.5 
0.5 
2.0 
3.0 
1.0 

e
t
a
v
i
r
p

s
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
c

l

)
8
1

.
t
r
A
D
E
E
(

r
o
t
c
e
s

e
d
o
M
2.0 
3.0 
2.5 
0.5 

3.0 
0.0 

;

0
2

.
t
r
A
D
B
P
E
(

s
p
o
h
s
-
p
o
t
s
-
e
n
O

)
8
1

.
t
r
A
D
E
E

2.0 
0.5 
0.5 
0.0 

2.0 

;

0
2

.
t
r
A
D
B
P
E
(

n
)
8
o
1
i
t
a
t
r
m
A
r
D
o
f
E
n
E
I
1.0 
0.5 
0.5 
1.0 
0.0 
2.0 
1.0 

n
o
i
t
a
r
t
s
n
o
m
e
D
2.5 
2.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
3.0 
2.0 

s
e
t
a
c
i
f
i
t
r
e
C

e
t
i
h
W

/

i
l

)
.
7

s
n
o
i
t
a
g

.
t
r
A
D
E
b
E
O
(
1.0 
0.5 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
1.0 

)
8

.
t
r
A
D
E
E
(

s
t
i
d
u
A
y
g
r
e
n
E
1.0 
2.5 
1.0 
2.0 

1.0 
2.0 

)
8
1

.
t
r
A
D
E
E
(

s
e
n

i
l

i

e
d
u
G
2.5 
3.0 
1.5 
1.0 
0.0 
2.0 
0.0 

s
n
o
i
t
i
n
i
f
e
D
2.5 
3.0 
2.0 
2.0 

2.0 
1.0 

l

e
o
r

l

y
r
a
p
m
e
x
E

d
n
a

g
n
i
t
c
a
r
t
n
o
c

l
i
f
l
u
f

)
5

.
t
o
r
A
t
C
D
P
E
n
E
E
(
1.0 
1.5 
1.0 
0.5 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 

e
g
a
r
e
v
A
S
M

)
8
1

.
t
r
A
D
E
E
(

g
n
i
r
e
d
n
e
t

,
t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
P
1.0  1.7 
2.0  2.1 
1.0  1.3 
0.5  1.0 
0.3 
2.0  2.0 
2.0  1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

2.0 

2.0 
2.0 
1.5 
1.0 
0.5 
2.3 

3.0 
0.0 
1.7 
1.0 
0.0 
0.3 

2.0 
1.5 
2.3 
1.0 
0.5 
2.3 

2.0  2.3 
3.0 
2.0 
1.5  1.7 
2.0  1.0 
1.0  1.8 
2.0 
2.0 
1.7 
1.0  1.3 
1.0 
1.0 
2.0 
0.5  0.5 
0.0 
1.0 
0.5 
1.3 
1.7  1.4 
1.0 
1.7 
0.5  1.5  1.5  1.5  2.0  0.5  0.0  0.0  2.0  2.5  1.0  2.0  1.3 
1.5  1.5 
1.0 
1.5 
0.0 

3.0 
2.0 
2.3 
1.0 
0.0 
1.5 

1.0 
2.0 
1.7 
2.0 
0.5 
1.5 

3.0 
3.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
2.0 

1.0 
1.5 
1.0 
1.0 
0.5 
0.7 

0.0 
0.5 

1.5 
0.0 

1.0 
0.0 

2.0 

1.5 

1.0 

1.0 

1.5 

2.5 

1.5 

2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
1.0 
2.0 
2.5 
2.7 
1.0 
1.5 
1.8 

1.0 
1.0 
1.0 
1.0 
2.0 
3.0 
1.7 
2.0 
1.5 
1.5 

1.0 
2.0 
0.0 
1.0 
3.0 
3.0 
2.7 
2.0 
1.5 
1.7 

2.0 
1.0 
1.0 
0.0 

1.5 
2.0 
2.0 
1.0 
1.6 

1.0 
0.0 
2.0 
1.0 
2.0 
2.0 
1.7 
1.0 
0.0 
1.4 

2.0 
0.0 
0.0 

1.0 
1.0 
1.5 
1.0 

1.1 

- 

1.0 
1.0 
0.0 

2.0 
1.0 

1.0 
0.9 

1.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 

3.0 
2.0 
2.0 
1.5 
1.5 

- 

- 

2.0 
0.0 
0.0 

2.5 
0.0 
2.0 
1.0 
1.1 

1.0 
2.0 
3.0 

2.5 
2.0 
3.0 
2.0 
2.1 

2.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
1.0 
1.0 
2.0 
0.0 
0.8 

2.0  1.6 
1.0  1.0 
1.0  0.8 
0.0  0.6 
1.7 
3.0  2.4 
1.3  1.5 
1.8 
1.0  1.2 
1.3  1.5 

MS 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech R. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland  
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
EU estimate 
EU average 

Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. The magnitudes are based on the average ratings granted by experts in their responses to the 
question: “Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the table. 
Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good).” The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in 
green and the smallest in red, ranked for the overall set of values. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
9  Balance-sheet treatment of EnPC investments 

The  balance-sheet  treatment  of  EnPC  in  clients’  accounts  is  an  important  consideration  for  the  latter's 
creditworthiness. It is in the interest of Member States with high levels of debt to maintain EnPC investment 
in the public sector outside the scope of public debt, also known as pursuing Maastrich-neutrality. In addition, 
MS-level rules can apply to public bodies, e.g., regional and local authorities. For private clients, IFRS rules and 
the Consumer Credit Directive are the relevant references to assess the balance status of EnPC investments 
funded through the EnPC provider.55  

Efforts of MSs to adapt public model contracts to maintain investment off-balance sheet was an important 
driver  of  EnPC  standardization  after  the  publication  of  a  set  of  ESA  rules  in  2010  and  until  the  Covid 
pandemic. A series of conditions need to be met for EnPC projects to be accounted as off-balance, in which 
case,  only  the  regular  payments  to  the  ESCO  are  accounted  as  debt.  The  Eurostat  Guidance  Note  of 
September  2017  and  the  Eurostat  and  EIB  Guide  to  the  Statistical  Treatment  of  Energy  Performance 
Contracts of May 2018, off-balance treatment in EnPC involves a series of requirements: 

a) the provider makes the investment;  
b) the provider bears the majority of risks;  
c) contracts have a minimum duration of 8 years;  
d) there is a limit to 50% of the investment for on-site energy generation;  
e) the provider takes responsibility for the maintenance of the installed technology;  
f) the guaranteed economic savings are larger than operational payments;  
g) savings can be offset between aggregated projects in a bundled projects contract.  

Regarding  financing  sources,  financing  from  the  EU,  the  EIB  and  other  international  bodies  is  allowed. 
Forfaiting  can  also  be  part  of  off-balance  contracts  (Fi-Compass  2020).  Forfaiting  is  a  key  instrument  to 
remove  the  credit  burden  on  EnPC  contracts,  enabling  providers  to  take  on  more  contracts,  particularly 
contracts with guaranteed savings where the provider takes the financial risk.56 If these conditions are met, 
the public sector can write off EnPC expenditure from its accounting books, and only regular payments are to 
be  recorded  (“Maastricht  neutral  contract”),  virtually  leaving  untouched  public  sector  capacity  to  sign  more 
contracts and save more energy.  

The experts participating in the EU Survey 2022 were asked to a) assess the impact of the updated statistical 
treatment of EnPC in government accounts (Eurostat Guidance note of September 2017 and the Guide to the 
Statistical  Treatment  of  Energy  Performance  Contracts  of  May  2018);  b)  estimate  the  percentage  of  off-
balance contracts in the EnPC sector of their MSs; c) to indicate the existence of off-balance contracts in the 
public sector and to comment on the situation; and d) to indicate other budgeting rules acting as barriers to 
the adoption of EnPC for its impact on the balance of public clients  (Figure 24). 

As reported by the JRC in 2021, the debate around off-balance contracting caused some market stagnation 
ins  some  public  markets  between  2010  and  2018  previous  years.  In  2019-20  the  development  of  off-
balance  contracts  brought  attention  back  to  EnPC.  As  reviewed  in  JRC  2021,  a  series  of  MSs  started  to 
develop  off-balance  sheet  model  contracts  for  the  public  sector.  The  report  collected  developments  in 
Finland, Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia, Austria, Belgium, Croatia (public lighting), Denmark, Portugal, and Spain. The 
statistical treatment was of little relevance due to favourable financing conditions in Austria, Germany, Czech 
Republic, the Netherlands, and Sweden. However, there was renewed interest in off-balance contracting in the 
public sectors of Germany and the Netherlands. Also, off-balance contracting models and experiences have 
been  reported  in  Hungary  (contract  in  use  by  providers,  not  backed  by  the  government),  Ireland,  Lithuania, 
Poland, Romania (contract not yet accepted by the sector), Latvia (approved as PPP by Eurostat).  Nowadays, 
there is reported the existence of off-balance contracts in 17 MSs (i.e. Austria, Belgium, Croatia – for lighting-
,  Finland,  Greece,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania  –  without  activity  yet-,  Netherlands, 
Poland, Portugal –public lighting –, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.57 Activity with this modality was 

55  Refers to  COM  (2021)  347  final,  Proposal  for  a  Directive  on  consumer  credits,  and  Directive  2008/48/EC  on  credit  agreements  for 

consumers, and IFRS rules on leasing of 2019. 

on consumer credits 
56  This  condition  does  not  apply  to  forms  of  refinancing  which  take  place  within  time  boundaries  and  physical  implementation  of  an 

EnPC. 

57 The situation is uncertain in Luxemburg, and Malta, about which no specific input was received. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
not  reported  in  Romania  and  Lithuania  and  was  limited  in  Latvia.  Data  on  the  percentage  of  off-balance 
contracts was not obtained for the Netherlands and Slovakia.  

However, the number of off-balance contracts signed in the EU is estimated to be relatively low, at around 
8%,  well  beyond  the  average  of  national  estimates.  Only  a  few  projects  have  been  reported  and  officially 
approved by Eurostat in Greece, Spain, and Slovakia. The EnPC model (as a PPP) has also been approved for 
Latvia, but no project using this model has yet been reported. Moreover, several of these model contracts for 
the public sector were assessed by responding experts as needing adaptation. Such input was received from 
Austria, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Slovenia and Spain.  

Demands  for  adaptation  and  update  largely  refer to  the  need  for  simpler and  more  flexible  models.  Some 
experts understand that addressing this implies that EnPCs focus on their energy-saving purpose and are free 
from the complexity of the PPP background. Expert recommendations for EnPC development largely focus on 
deep  renovation  and  longer-term  contracts  to  decarbonise  buildings.  However,  this  is  not  easy  within 
Eurostat-compliant contracts and calls for using EnPC in parallel with direct contracting, funded by the client 
or public funding and financing sources. The same applies to integrating renewable generation beyond 50% 
of  the  intervention  cost  and  including  maintenance  contracts  as  a  part  of  EnPCs.  The  latter  is  reported  as 
particularly  problematic  in  Slovakia,  where  there  is  an  interest  in  integrating  pre-existing  maintenance 
contracts  in  EnPCs.    Fundamentally,  it  has  been  recommended  that  “Contracts  should  be  standardised  to 
facilitate aggregation, but flexible enough to facilitate multi-technology and deep retrofit solutions…Many of 
the  contracts  are  too  strict  and  too  close  to  the  Eurostat  guide.”  One  option  is  to  separate  EnPC  contracts 
from the overall building renovation to simplify the EnPC, ease its off-balance treatment, and address longer-
term investments, renewables and maintenance through other funding forms, including subsidies. 

Besides the national development of Eurostat-compliant models, at the subnational level, national budgetary 
rules  impose  debt  liabilities  to  regional  and  local  authorities  and  limitations  to  engage  in  public-private 
partnerships in at least 5 MSs, as reported in Bulgaria, Denmark,  Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, and some German 
states.58  Moreover,  there  are  regulatory  restrictions  for  public  authorities to  engage  with  EnPC  financing  in 
France and interventions in public buildings in Portugal. 59 

Aligning with the  review of barriers in Section  7, in the public sector of  MSs, there is  a continued need  for 
closer  monitoring  of  the  EnPC  market  and  support  for  contract  development,  guarantees  and  forfaiting 
capacities for EnPCs not to be accounted as debt in the balances of MSs and public bodies, and for EnPC to 
contribute to the EU strategic goals of saving energy and decarbonising buildings.  

In  addition  to  the  considerations  above  on  the  public  sector,  the  private  sector  appears  to  be  increasingly 
interested in off-balance treatment. This dynamic was reported as existing and having increasing relevance in 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Ireland,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  The  IFRS  Foundation  set  the  worldwide  standard,  which  in 
2019  updated  its  rules  on  the  balance  treatment  of  leasing  (IFRS,  2019),  potentially  favouring  EnPC  and 
Energy Efficiency as a Service (EEaaS) instead of leasing modalities. Regulatory developments at the EU level 
about consumer credits and credit agreements for consumers need to align with market needs and strategic 
pathways to consider the particularities of EnPC contracts.60  

Figure 24. Impact of the updated statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts, percentage of off-balance 
contracts, the existence of off-balance models in MSs, and remaining budget allowance limits for subnational public 
bodies. 

Austria 
Belgium 

0.0 
0.5 

Impact  %  

 Yes 
/No 
0  No 
7  Yes 

Commentary 

Other budget allowance limits 

Not needed 
Local projects and private sector 

58 A similar situation was reported in Moles-Grueso, Bertoldi, and Boza-Kiss (2021) for Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands but was not 
identified in the EU Survey 2022. In Lithuania, EnPC is subject to PPP law, which restricts the adaptation of the model to market 
needs. 

59 The French law was modified onthe  30th of March 2023, making possible for public clients to pay the investments with the savings 
without using an  public-private-partnership  but  the  law  requires  conditions  considered  by  sectoral experts  as  difficult to  respect 
(LOI n° 2023-222 du 30 mars 2023 visant à ouvrir le tiers financement à l'Etat, à ses établissements publics et aux collectivités 
territoriales pour favoriser les travaux de rénovation énergétique (1) - Légifrance (legifrance.gouv.fr)) 

60 During the drafting of this report, ssues on the interpretation of the Consumer Credit Directive were reported only in the Netherlands. 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                        
 
0  No 
0.0 
1.5  100  Yes 

Lighting only 

0.0 
-2.0 

0  No 
0  No 

0.0 

0  No 

Issues with maintenance, 
forfaiting 
Incompatible with Danish 
subsidies 

0.0 
0.0 
0.7 

0.0 
0.0 

30  Yes  Need adaptation 
No 

0  No 
60  Yes 

25  Yes 

Local authorities, Eurostat 
approved 
Local governments 

50  Yes 
20  Yes  Yes, satisfactorily 

2.0  100  Yes  Need adaptation 
0.0 
-1.0 

1  Yes  Eurostat approved under PPP 
0  Yes 

under PPP; no activity 

Municipal liabilities  
Need a contract model for public 
buildings 

Municipal liabilities 

Third-party financing difficult 
Part of the budget allowance in 
some states 

Part of the budget allowance of 
local authorities 

Municipal liabilities 
Municipal liabilities 

Not possible for buildings 

Bulgaria 
Croatia  

Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Denmark 

Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 
Ireland 

Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 

20  Yes 

Yes  Need adaptation 

0.0 
1.0 
0.0  100  Yes  Need adaptation 
2.0 
2.0 
1.5 

Yes  Eurostat approved 

20  Yes 

0  Yes  Not agreed by the sector 

Spain 

1.7 

67  Yes 

Sweden 
EU estimates 

0.0 
0.0 

0  No 
8 

Local authorities and private 
sector 
Local authorities, Eurostat 
approved 
Not needed 
Need adaptation; only 3 projects 
verified 

27 

0.4 

MS Average 
Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Response to the questions: “Please explain whether and how the approach of the public sector to 
EnPC has changed as the result of the updated statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts…”, “Have off-balance contract 
models been produced?” and “Other barriers in budgeting rules”. The colour code indicates the largest magnitudes in green and the 
smallest in red, ranked for the overall set of values. 

74 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
10  EU support 

The  expert  review  collected  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  grants  assessed  the  relevance  of  EnPC  markets 
development in the MS using a scale from  -2 (very negative impact) to +2 (very positive impact), where  0 
depicts a neutral impact. The EU support categories assessed were:  a) Technical Assistance (ELENA, Horizon 
2020/  Horizon  Europe  and  PDA);  b)  Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart  Finance  for  Smart  Buildings  initiative 
(2018-2020);61  c)  De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform  (DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting  Toolkit  Figure  25);62  c) 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (2014-20)  Cohesion  Policy  Funds  (2021-27);  e)  Recovery  and  Resilience 
Facility  (RRF);  and  f)  the  package  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  Fit  for  55  strategy  (Figure  26,  for  the 
latter three). 

An overview of Figure 25 and Figure 26 shows that technical assistance is the most positively appraised EU 
supporting  mechanism  for  the  EnPC  public  markets  and,  to  an  extent,  financing  actors.  The  major  barriers 
found concerning technical assistance are its time-consuming and costly application  and administration for 
applicants  (indicated  in  Czech  Republic,  Slovenia,  Ireland,  and  Hungary)  and  the  investment  thresholds 
(Austria,  Bulgaria,  and  Portugal).  The  latter  barrier  is  particularly  relevant  wherever  the  capacity  to  pool 
projects  is  not  developed  and  is  a  barrier  for  countries  with  fragmented  markets,  e.g.  Austria,  due  to  its 
federal system. Technical assistance also receives the most expert commentary on EU support to highlight its 
good practices. These include recognition that H2020 PDA has gained in flexibility over ELENA and a set of 
H2020  projects  in  Bulgaria,  the  implementation  of  InEECo  (2015-18)  in  Baden-Württenberg,  with  50  m€ 
investment, the DeliveREE project (H2020 PDA project) with a pipeline €20m in Ireland, the 5 ELENAs which 
provided  pipeline  projects  in  Slovenia,  and  the  EnPC  projects  in  Spain  under  H2020  HousEEnvest,  F-PI, 
EnerInvest.63  

The  Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart  Finance  for  Smart  Buildings  initiative  (2018-2020)  was  perceived  in 
multiple MSs as having limited to nil impact. Exceptional MSs are Belgium (financing sector), Greece, Latvia, 
and  Lithuania  (all  four  reviewed  as  having  a  “very  positive  impact”),  and  to  an  extent  Ireland,  Finland, 
Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain (where the impact was assessed as “positive” at least for one sector). 
A  similar  assessment  was  received  for  the  InvestEU  mechanisms.  The  cases  of  Hungary  and  Belgium  are 
different (in the former, the InvestEU was assessed as having a “positive” impact, and in the latter “, positive” 
impact  was  not  referred  to).  A  similar  lack  of  positive  assessment  applies  to  the  De-Risking  Efficiency 
Platform  (DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting  Toolkit,  which  only  received  “positive”  reviews  in  Austria,  Ireland, 
Italy,  Lithuania,  Slovenia,  and  Spain.  Low  to  nil  values  can  probably  be  due  to  most  participant  experts' 
technical profiles. Even if such is the case, low ratings would indicate that the Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance  for  Smart  Buildings  initiative,  InvestEU  and  the  De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform  (DEEP)  and  EEFIG 
Underwriting  Toolkit  have  been  little  known  to  the  sector.  Their  actual  impact  on  the  financing  actors  to 
engage  with  the  financing  of  EnPC  providers  or  their  projects  is  uncertain  based  on  the  data  collected. 
Increased communication to the overall sector and not only to financing institutions has been advocated by 
some  experts  consulted,  according  to  whom  it  would  be  important  for  providers  to  know  what  tools  are 
available for financing actors to argue the financial interest of EnPC. Moreover, there is a need for a specific 
assessment of the outreach and use of these tools to support EnPC or other strategically suited mechanisms, 
e.g. to have a multiplier effect on investment. 

The expert assessment of the Structural and Investment Funds (2014-20), the Cohesion Policy Funds (2021-
27) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) indicates that both have positive and negative impacts on 
different EnPC markets. There are also differences in the relationship of both types of funding with EnPC for 
the different MSs.  

  A positive effect of the RRF in MSs where the use of structural funds is not considered an issue or 
did not have a major negative effect on EnPC markets was described in 11 MSs, i.e. Belgium 

61 Smart finance for smart buildings: investing in energy efficiency in buildings (europa.eu) 
62  Resources  |  EEFIG  Underwriting  Toolkit.  “Energy  efficiency  underwriting  is  the  process  of  appraising  the  value  and  risks  of  an 
investment  or  a  loan  in  order  to  make  a  decision  to  finance  the  project  in  question.  Typically,  value  will  be  appraised  using  a 
financial model and then the risk factors and their potential effects will be identified and assessed. The inputs to the underwriting 
process  are  technical,  economic  and  financial  –  a  result  of  due  diligence.  The  output  of  underwriting  is  a  decision  to  invest.” 
Toolkit_Brochure_0.pdf (europa.eu)  

63 See references in Annex 2.  

75 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
(especially in Wallonia), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Italy (expected use of lower grant 
rates), Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 

 

  Both funds are reported to have a markedly negative impact on the EnPC markets of 3 MSs, Bulgaria 
(grants compete with EnPC, and the deployment of the RRP is regarded with deep concern), Portugal 
(EU funding is not allowed for EnPC), and Romania (the legal framework has countered the use EnPC 
in combination with grants, and there is a high degree of uncertainty about the implementation of 
the RRP).64 
There are no reports of RRPs negatively affecting the EnPC markets of countries where structural 
funds are not a barrier. Such is the case of Spain and Slovenia, where some initial uncertainties have 
been overcome.  However, the effect of these uncertainties was reported as sizeable at times of 
post-Covid market recovery. 
The impact of RRF was assessed as nil or unknown in 11 MSs, Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, 
France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden. 

 

The  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Fit  for  55  package  are  generally  appraised  positively.  They  were  only 
reviewed negatively in Bulgaria, reflecting concern about the lack of mechanisms to limit grant competition 
with EnPC and uncertainty created by negotiations about the taxonomy of green sources. From a review of 
experts’ ratings and opinions, it appears that the European Green Deal has created positive conditions for the 
EnPC  market  by  revising  and  consolidating  energy-saving  and  decarbonisation  targets  and  providing  clear 
policy  signals  to  clients  and  financing  actors.  The  recast  of  the  EED,  the  EPBD,  the  Sustainable  Finance 
Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), and the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities were highlighted as particularly 
positive.  Also,  as  shown  in  Section  7,  there  are  expectations  related  to  either  the  overall  decarbonisation 
drive, the introduction of CO2 taxes, and the ETS for buildings (referred for Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain). However, there are concerns about 
their implementation which are reported as slow (e.g. Ireland, Germany) and impact uncertainties, e.g. about 
the impact of the EU ETS on buildings (France) and the energy sources that deserve strategic attention (e.g. 
Bulgaria). State funding and efforts to attain targets and new obligations are also key for the success of the 
European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 package. 

64 The negative effect of structural funds appears to have been resolved in the RRP of Croatia, where structural funds were not used for 
EnPC and providers cannot be beneficiary of EU funds, and the effect of the RRP is perceived as neutral. Barriers to combination of EU 
funds with EnPC where identified in Croatia (ESCO company cannot be beneficiary of EU funds), in Germany (f an SME is client of a non-
SME contractor, the worse conditions for the Contractor apply, Ireland (State Aid rules make Irish grant processes not suitable for EnPC 
contracts  -  being  revised)  and  Lithuania  (applying  to  EU  funds  is  found  bureaucratically  demanding).  In  Spain  EU  Funds  are  not 
incompatible  with  EnPCs,  but  the  use  of  grants  and  EU  funds  cause  project  delays,  and  some  argue  that  RRF  money  is  difficult  to 
combine with EnPC because the investment must compute as an expense in the balance sheet 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Figure 25. Expert assessment of EU supporting mechanisms Technical Assistance, Guarantee Facility of the SFBI, 
InvestEU, and DEEP and EEFIG Underwriting Toolkit. 

 Technical 
Assistance 

Guarantee Facility 
of the SFBI 

InvestEU 

DEEP and EEFIG 
Underwriting 
Toolkit 

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
0 
0 
0 
0 

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
0 
0 
0 
0 

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
1 
0 
0 
0 

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0 

e
t
a
v
i
r

c

i
l

b
u
P

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

e
t
a
v
i
r

c

i
l

b
u
P

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

e
t
a
v
i
r

c

i
l

b
u
P

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

e
t
a
v
i
r

c

i
l

b
u
P

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

i

i

i

i

P

P

P

P

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

1 
0 

2 
1 

2 
2 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

2 
1 

1 
1 

1 
2 

1 
2 

2 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

2 
0 
1 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

1 
2 
2 

2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

0 
2 
0 
1 
1 
2 

2 
1 
2 
1 
2 
1 
1 

MS 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech R 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland  
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
EU 
estimate 
MS average 
Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Expert responses to: “Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the relevance of these 
EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing 
sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - +2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral impact”. The colour code indicates 
the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in red, ranked for the overall set of values. 

1 
2 
2 
2 
2 
0 
1 

0 
2 
0 
1 
1 
2 

0 
-1 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
1 
0 
0 

1 
1 
0 
0 

1 
1 
0 
0 

0 
1 
0 
1 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
1 
0 
0 

1 
1 
0 
0 

0 
1 
2 
2 

0 
1 
0 
2 

1 
0 
1 

1 
0 
0 

1 
0 
0 

1 
1 
0 

2 
0 
2 

-1 
0 

-1 
0 

0 
0 

0 
2 

0 
0 

0 
0 

0 
0 

1 
1 

1 
2 

0 
0 

1 
2 

2 
2 

1 
1 

0 
2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

77 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 26. Expert assessment of EU supporting mechanisms Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF, 2014-20) Cohesion 
Policy Funds (CPF, 2021-27); e) Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); and f) the package of the European Green Deal and 
Fit for 55. 

ESIF (2014-20) CPF 
(2021-27) 

RRF 

 Green Deal, Fit 
for 55 

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

c

i
l

b
u
P

e
t
a
v
i
r

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
0.0 

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F

e
t
a
v
i
r

c

i
l

b
u
P

l
l

a
r
e
v
O
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
-1.0 

e
t
a
v
i
r

i

g
n
c
n
a
n
F
0.0 
2.0 
1.0 
1.0 
0.0 
2.0 
0.0 

c

i
l

b
u
P
0.0 
1.0 
1.0 
0.5 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

i

i

i

P

P

0.0 

2.0 

2.0 

2.0 

0.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0.0 

1.0 

1.0 

2.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
2.0 

2.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
1.5 

2.0 
0.0 

1.0 
2.0 

1.0 
1.0 

1.0 
0.0 

0.0 
1.0 

-1.0 
-2.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
-1.0 
0.0 

-1.0 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 

1.0 
-1.0 
0.0 
1.0 
2.0 
0.0 
0.0 

P
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 

MS 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech R 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland  
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
EU estimate 
MS average 
Source: JRC based on EU Survey 2022. Expert responses to: “Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the relevance of these 
EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing 
sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - +2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral impact”. The colour code indicates 
the largest magnitudes in green and the smallest in red, ranked for the overall set of values. 

-1.0 
-2.0 
2.0 
2.0 
0.0 
0.0 
1.0 
0.2 

0.0 
0.0 
-1.0 
-2.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 

2.0 
0.0 
1.3 
0.0 
1.0 
0.5 
0.5 
1.0 
1.0 

2.0 
2.0 
1.0 
0.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.5 
1.5 
1.0 

1.0 
1.0 
1.8 
1.0 
0.0 
1.5 
1.0 
1.5 
1.0 

1.0 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.5 

0.0 
-1.0 
-2.0 
2.0 

1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.6 

1.5 
0.0 
-1.0 
1.0 

1.5 
1.0 
-1.0 
1.0 

1.5 
1.0 
-1.0 
1.0 

0.0 
1.0 
2.0 
2.0 

0.0 
1.0 
1.0 
2.0 

1.5 
1.0 
0.7 
0.0 

1.5 
1.3 
2.0 

0.0 
3.0 
2.0 

0.0 
0.7 
0.0 

-1.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.8 

1.0 
1.0 

2.0 
2.0 

0.0 
1.0 

0.5 
1.0 

0.0 
1.3 

2.0 
2.0 

0.0 

0.5 

0.7 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.3 

0.4 

0.1 

0.4 

0.6 

0.9 

0.0 

0.6 

0.0 

0.5 

0.9 

78 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
11  Experts’ recommendations 

The  national  summaries  collected  a  set  of  general  recommendations  for  developing  national  markets  and 
specific recommendations on the financing domains (Annex 1).  

11.1  Expert recommendations at the MS level 

The  national-level  recommendations  are  organized  in  Figure  27  into  a)  Promotion  and  exemplarity,  b) 
Strategy  and  commitment,  c)  Technical  assistance,  d)  Service  provision  and  facilitation,  e)  Contract 
development and enforcement, f) Regulation and procurement, and g) Financing measures. 

Financing  measures  were  the  most  frequently  cited  dimension  (20  MSs),  mainly  avoiding  competition  with 
EnPC, supporting projects and providing technical support.  

 

 

  Avoiding high grant rates and using financing instruments instead was cited in 15 MSs (Austria, 
Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain).  
The need to establish or scale up guarantee funds and energy efficiency funds to lower the cost of 
financing was mentioned in 6 MSs, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic (to support 
refinancing further), Poland, and Romania).  
The introduction of incentives for EnPC was recommended in6 MSs, including Denmark, Finland, 
Hungary (where EnPC eligibility for tax reliefs is unclear), and Spain. In Belgium, France and 
Germany, recommendations involved grant support to audits for projects’ EnPC-ability and to cover 
provider costs. 
The use of EEOs, WhCs and CO2 taxation were also mentioned as opportunities in 4 MSs (Cyprus, 
Germany, Italy, and Spain).  
Technical support for setting refinancing mechanisms was also recommended in Romania and 
Portugal (and could be of interest to other MSs such as France), where refinancing would serve to 
overcome rules against the use of either EU or private funding. 

 

 

Issues of contract development and enforcement were cited in 17 MSs.  

  Most fundamentally, respondents asked for simpler, better-adapted contracts to the needs of clients 

and to address decarbonisation in 12 MSs, i.e. Austria, Croatia (buildings), Czech Republic (off-
balance contracting), Finland (encompassing life-cycle savings), Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Spain, Slovakia, and Sweden. For instance, there is a potential for developing contracts 
without maintenance (Slovakia and Czech Republic) and incorporating life cycle benefits to reduce 
return periods of contracts (Germany and Finland).  
There are issues of contract development for the public sector, guidelines and contract enforcement 
specific to MSs. 

 

  Quality control receives the most attention in the domain of contracts’ implementation. It was 
reported to require l development in 7 MSs (Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Romania and 
Spain). Establishing adequate monitoring and verification (M&V) standards and their implementation 
is very important because, without adequate them, EnPC loses its essence.  
The use of collaborative processes for contract and guideline development was recommended based 
on the experience in Germany and expectations in Sweden. Concerns about contract development 
support this argument without granting sufficient voice to the sector in other MSs. 

 

The  dimensions  of  Regulation  and  procurement,  Service  provision  and  facilitation,  Technical  assistance  and 
Promotion and exemplarity were highlighted in 13 MSs. Regarding Regulation and procurement, the consulted 
experts identified the following recommendations:  

 

To overcome regulatory barriers in at least 7 MSs, i.e. Denmark, where off-balance contracting is not 
compatible with grants, France (third-party financing remains unclear in the public sector), Greece 
(procedures are unclear for EnPC), Hungary (eligibility of ESCOs for grants is unclear), Latvia (need of 
policy consistency), Poland (need of adequate transposition of the EED regarding article 18, and a 
potential to use EnPC in the application of Art. 5), and Portugal (where regulations do not permit the 
use of EnPC in public buildings).  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

To improve the public administration and application procedures in at least 5 MSs, i.e. Belgium, 
Finland, Slovenia, Spain, and Lithuania. E.g. in Lithuania, there is a need to simplify the EnPC 
procedures in the PPP rules.  
To require the assessment of the EnPC-ability of projects and a need for long-term programming, 
recommended in 3 and 4 MSs, respectively.  

Recommendations in the domain of service provision and facilitation were identified in 13 MSs. These involve: 
  Market monitoring and the creation of a national registry of projects (11 MSs, i.e. Austria, Belgium, 

Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania – also including the monitoring of energy consumption –, 
the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Spain)  
The certification of services (5 MSs, i.e. France, Hungary, Italy – especially facilitation –, Slovenia and 
Sweden – both facilitation and provision).  

 

  Addressing basic needs for the functioning of the market, including creating national ESCO 
associations (Croatia and Portugal) and creating lists of providers (Hungary and Poland). 

Promotion  and  exemplarity  encompass  recommendations  of  information  (7  MSs),  demonstration  projects, 
and  the  implementation  of  Art.  5  of  the  EED  through  EnPCs  (6  MSs).  In  particular,  the  recommendations 
involve the following: 

 
 

 

To reach out to financing actors,  
To exploit the potential of demonstrating the EnPC in deep renovations, especially in central 
government buildings (Slovenia, Spain 
To increase the informational focus on the benefits of EnPC beyond financing and energy saving 
(Ireland). 

Strategic and regulatory development: 

 
 

To incorporate and clarify the role of EnPC deep renovation and decarbonisation,  
To strategically address the inclusion of new subsectors (e.g. central and other government 
buildings, public lighting, social housing, and DHC) in alignment with new EU targets and policy 
developments. Opportunities were identified for developments in buildings in Cyprus, central 
government buildings in Czech Republic, Slovenia and Spain, private sector in Denmark, commercial 
buildings (along with non-residential energy prices) in Lithuania, public buildings in Portugal, and 
residential and central government buildings in Slovenia. 

Recommendations  on  developing  technical  assistance  at  the  MS  level  were  also  highlighted  in  13  MSs,  i.e. 
Austria  (to  overcome  federal  administration  barriers),  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Netherlands,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  and  Sweden.  These  recommendations  include  creating  or 
upscaling national technical assistance facilities (and EGD facility), fostering collaboration between regional 
or  federal  authorities  to  meet  energy-saving  obligations  (e.g.  Austria,  Spain),  fostering  aggregation, 
facilitation  and  one-stop-shops,  and  increasing  the  technical  capacity  of  regions  and  municipalities.

80 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 27. Recommendations at MS-level 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2021. Green circles indicate the recommendation is relevant in the MS. The colour scale indicates the recommendation dimensions from less (red) to more (green) frequency. 
Columns highlighted include additional information than the adjacent columns (on the right, inside the same solid box). 

81 

MSPromotion and ExemplarityPromotion, national levelDemonstration, exemplaryStrategy/ commitmentRegulation/ strategy for deep  renovation/ decarbonisationCommitment to energy efficiencydevelop new subsectorsTechnical assistanceNational TA / Collaboration subnational authoritiesAggregationFcilitation and one-stop-shopsTechical capacity of municipalitiesService provision and facilitationNational ESCO associationList of povidersCertified serviceMarket monitoring/ national registry of projectsContract development and enforcementSimpler, adapted contracts, decarbonisationImplementation contract, guidelines…Contract enforcementQuality control, m&vMentoring and dialoguing processesRegulation and procurementRegulatoryReduce administrative burdenEnPC-ability test/ funding conditionalLong term programmingFinancing measuresRemoval high grant rates- use of financing instrumentsGuarantee fund- Energy efficiency fundIncentives/ tax reliefsEEOs-WhCs, CO2 taxRefinancingAustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzechiaDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIreland ItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxemburgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenSum137613122613544313225111712427213753420156752 
  
11.2  Expert recommendations at the EU level 

The  recommendations  for  EU  policy-making  and  action  are  organized  in  Figure  28  Into  a)  technical 
assistance,  b)  strategic  guidance;  c)  allocation  and  use  of  grants;  d)  promotion  of  the  model;  and  e) 
information on the availability of funds and support.  

The  table  shows  that  technical  assistance,  the  allocation  and  use  of  grants,  and  promotion  are  the  areas 
where recommendations were collected in most MSs (each was referred to in 13 MSs).  

According to the information collected, several MSs would benefit from technical assistance, especially in the 
areas of project aggregation (8 MSs, i.e. Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Greece, Netherlands, Slovenia and 
Spain),  and  there  are  also  calls  for  simpler  and  flexible  application  mechanisms  from  MSs  with  diverse 
contexts  (Austria,  Hungary,  Slovenia)  and  specifically  for  setting  facilitation  and  one-stop-shop  capacities 
(France,  Cyprus).  This  demand  for  technical  assistance  aligns  with  the  appreciation  towards  the  impact  of 
these mechanisms presented in Section 11 (EU support).  

A  major interest  in  the  allocation  and use  of  grants occurs  especially  in  MSs where  grants are  allocated  to 
cover  most  of  the  investment  (i.e.  “high  grant  rate”)  or  are  mutually  exclusive  with  EnPC,  off-balance 
contracting,  or established  mechanisms such  as  forfaiting.  As a  part  of  this support,  there  is a  demand  for 
further disseminating materials and knowledge on the national design and allocation of financing instruments 
as  alternatives  to  grants  (See,  for  instance,  FI-Compass,  2020).  In  some  MSs,  support  towards  specific 
instruments  was  recommended,  i.e.  refinancing  in  Austria  and  Czech  Republic,  or  guarantees,  i.e.  Belgium. 
Moreover,  compulsory  participation  of  private  capital  and  studies  of  the  suitability  of  the  project  for  EnPC 
contracting  were  demanded  in  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Germany,  Romania  and  Slovenia).  These  reflections  often 
referred  to  the  allocation  of  Cohesion  and  NextGeneration  Funds,  which  did  not  apply  criteria  about  the 
multiplier effect of EU funds. There is an important demand from national experts, especially in MSs where 
the  availability  of  financing  limits  clients’  interest  in  EnPC  (Sweden,  Netherlands).  EU-level  experts  also 
identified the need to emphasize the benefits of EnPC beyond financing to include the technical quality and 
guarantees provided by the model. 

Promoting  the  EnPC  model  at  the  EU  level  was  often  considered  particularly  necessary  for  financing  actors 
(Greece, Ireland, Poland). These actors are understood in a wide array of MSs to be insufficiently familiar with 
EnPC and willing to support it (Section 5.2. Understanding and willingness of clients and financiers). As a part 
of  this  support  dimension,  the  creation  of  a  centre  of  excellence  for  the  dissemination  of  good  practices, 
exchange of experiences, and repository of projects was highlighted in 8 MSs, often recognizing the need  to 
continue the efforts conducted in the framework of DEEP, EEFIG, CAEED, CAEPBD, and SEI Forum. There is also 
a  need  for  Support  on  the  certification  and dissemination  of  providers’  and  facilitators’  credentials (France, 
Slovenia).  

Strategic support from the InvestEU Advisory Hub on the application of the model (9 MSs), which in the table 
includes the improvement and development of contracts (8 MSs) and the need of (re)defining EnPC (1 MS, i.e. 
Italy)  refers  to  the  need  of  assessing  the  role  of  EnPC  in  the  strategic  pursuit  of  long  paybacks  and 
decarbonisation  targets.  Multiple  calls  for  simpler,  more  flexible  contracting  options  adapted  to  the  clients' 
needs and the drive for decarbonisation were common amongst the consulted experts. 

Increased efforts of information and clarification of the available EU support were also highlighted in 6 MSs 
(Belgium, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland), often emphasising the need to make this information 
available both for providers and financing bodies, e.g. for the promotion or of allocation and use of grants and 
financial instruments supporting EnPC. 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 28. EU-level recommendations identified based on national experiences. 

Source: JRC, based on EU Survey 2021. Green circles indicate the recommendation is relevant in the MS. The colour scale indicates the 
recommendation dimensions from less (red) to more (green) frequency. The highlighted columns summarize recommendations for one 
dimension and can include recommendations in addition to those in the columns on their right, which highlight specific recommendations 
in the dimension. (1) Refers to strategic support from the European Investment/ InvestEU Advisory Hub  / Strategic guidance on the 
application of the model, use of financing instruments, pursuing long paybacks and decarbonisation. (2) Refers to creating a centre of 
excellence/dissemination best practices (DEEP, EEFIG)/ repository/ exchange CAEED, CAEPBD and SEI forum. 

84 

MSTA more PDAsimpler, flexibleTA aggregationTA facilitation/ one-stop-shopsStrategic guidance (1)Simpler,flexible- adapted contracts: decarbonisationFinancing instruments vs grants…….guarantees towards decarbonisation...refinancing…private capital compuloryEnPC-ability test compulsory/ priority for supportPromotion of the model…Centre of excellence, exchange of experience (2) …certified servicesInformation on available support and funds AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCyprusCzechiaDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIreland ItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxemburgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenSum133829813123213836 
 
 
 
12  Report conclusions about the EnPC markets of the EU 

Continuing  the  decades-long  developments,  EnPCs  offer  energy  efficiency  and  performance  improvements 
solutions, thus benefiting end-users,  Members States’ economies and providers alike. This report thoroughly 
reviews  the  status  and  future  development  of  EnPC  markets  in  the  EU.  Previous  JRC  reports  reviewed  the 
public  sector  EnPC  markets  (2017  and  2021)  and  the  ESCO  markets  in  the  EU  (2005,  2007,  2010,  2014, 
2017, 2019). The current report continues the past assessments using the same methodology, which includes 
extensive surveying and data collection and direct interviewing of experts, who were requested to review draft 
versions of the report for the highest consistency and reconcile conflicting views by different market players.  

12.1  Market monitoring and trends 

A general lack of national data and databases on ESCO indicators (such as numbers of market players, ESCOs 
and  EnPC  providers)  was  identified.  Some  exceptions  are  France,  Germany  and  Spain.  In  France,  the  public 
sector  EnPC  contracts  are  monitored  and  reported  by  ADEME.  In  Germany,  DENA  reviews  the  market 
penetration of energy contracting modalities and can capture the EnPC reality of the federal states. MS-level 
organisations in the Netherlands, Spain and Germany collect market data based on responses from ESCOs. It 
is a challenge to extrapolate these responses to the whole market, considering the lack of information on the 
non-respondents.  National  reports  on  energy  services  are  unclear  about  the  relevance  of  EnPC  within  the 
wider energy services markets (Germany, the Netherlands and Spain). Whilst the best source of data available 
for  this  report  series  continues  to  be  expert  estimates,  a  registry  of  contracts  is  needed  to  make  market 
monitoring reliable. 

The public market could be twice to four times the size of the private market in terms of annual investment 
(€1.9-4b in contracts, and €1-1.1b, respectively, signed in the public and private sectors in 2020-21). There is 
continued potential for the public sector to lead market development. The private sector’s activity as an EnPC 
client is still sizeable, and in some MSs, the private sector leads the market. There is a sizeable group of MSs 
where  the  public  sector  could  lead  the  market  to  take  off  when  alternative  contracting  modalities  without 
verified and guaranteed savings could be gaining momentum in energy saving and decarbonisation markets. 
The  public  sector  could  lead  by  developing  and  publishing  contracting  and  intervention  models  that  they 
successfully use. Public clients could also provide the right signals to mainstream the Energy Efficiency First 
principle and the commitment to EU targets of saving energy and decarbonisation. 

The study of market size evolution and trends observed (Figure 29) indicates that: 

 

 

 

 

There has been general growth in the EnPC market since 2016, with some MS exceptions.  Exceptions 
are Slovenia and Slovakia (after uncertainty on the treatment of EnPC in public accounts was back to 
growing in the period 2020-21), Finland, Sweden (in both Finland and Sweden, there is limited public 
sector interest), Latvia and Lithuania (the latter two markets are having difficulties to take off). 
Developments and take-off in smaller markets in some MSs also indicate a consolidation of the EnPC 
model, e.g. in Cyprus.  
The expert assessment of the trend during 2020-21 indicates that EU private markets grew but 
failed to take off or contracted in several MSs. Activity increased in 9 MSs, i.e.  Belgium, Cyprus (1-3 
small projects), Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The 
markets remained stable in 6 MSs: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. On the 
other hand, EnPCs failed to take off in 6 MSs, namely in Portugal, the Czech Republic, Greece, 
Lithuania, Sweden and Bulgaria; and markets contracted in Croatia and Latvia.  
EnPC markets in the public sector have generally grown across Europe. They expanded in particular in 
7 MSs: Belgium, Czech Republic and Slovenia, Austria, France, Greece, and Germany. According to 
some experts, the Hungarian public market is taking off.  
The market was stable and low (or did not take off) in 10 MSs, i.e. Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, 
Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland, Cyprus, Malta and Romania (the latter three failed to take off). In 
Malta, the government decided to reduce its support for developing ESCOs to reflect the lack of 
uptake previously. This shows that ESCOs might not be compatible with all policy systems. Of note, 
the market contracted in 7 MSs markets assessed as developed or having a good perspective for 
development in previous JRC reviews, i.e. Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Slovenia, and 
Sweden. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 29. Market trends based on expert survey for 2019 - 2021 and 2022-2024. 

Source. JRC, based on EU Survey 2022, JRC 2021, JRC 2019, and JRC 2017. The arrows indicate n green “upward”, in yellow diagonal 
“taking off” or “growing”, in yellow horizontal “stable”, and in red “downward”. 

Further  growth  is  expected  for  future  trends  between  2022  and  2024,  especially  for  private 
markets (Error! Reference source not found.). This can be driven by growing energy prices, reputational 
gains  in  taking  climate  mitigation  action,  and  specialisation  in  private  actors'  core  business  activities.  Also, 
there is a risk of the public sector losing momentum after leading the market's development and the adoption 
of  EnPCs  on  the  side  of  the  private  sector.  Trends  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  MSs  are  generally 
aligned, and there are minor differences in Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovenia. Some of these trends are 
further analysed:  

 

The clearest positive trends were forecast for 8 MSs Belgium, Czech Republic (public market 
especially), France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovenian (private market especially), and Spain.  

  Expectations for take-off were reported for 3 MSs, i.e. Romania, Sweden and Cyprus.  
  Market contraction was only reported for Croatia (both public and private sectors). 

Market uncertainty was reported in several MSs as related to policy and strategic development. 
Several national market perspectives largely depend on the implementation of the Resilience and 
Recovery  Plans  (RRPs).  These  support  EnPC  in  Austria,  the  Wallonian  part  of  Belgium,  Croatia,  Czech 
Republic,  Poland,  Slovakia  and  Slovenia.  Additionally,  RRPs  may  become  more  closely  related  to  EnPCs  in 
some MSs for which the European Commission has recommended using the EnPC model (reported for Greece, 
Ireland and Denmark). Uncertainty about the perspectives of EnPC remains due to the commitment of MSs to 
achieving EU decarbonisation targets, energy price dynamics, developments in the industry and the adoption 

86 

PrivatePublic PrivatePublicMS2019-212019-212022-242022-24AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatia CyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxemburgMaltaNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenEU EstimatesEU Sum 
 
 
 
 
of renewable technologies and the system's electrification.65 These factors may result in new opportunities for 
EnPC or a preference for other contract modalities (e.g. EEaaS). 

The sufficient availability and quality of providers,  facilitators and financing actors appear highly  related to 
market developments in MS. In particular, 

 

 

There remains a constant need for quality assurance, both for providers and facilitators, through 
training and certification, official lists of providers (e.g. Italy), and training and certification of 
facilitation services (Italy, Spain, and Ireland).  
There appear to be positive developments in the availability of financing. To an uncertain extent, this 
can be related to the availability of public financing instruments providing liquidity for green 
financing. However, the availability of private financing actors and other actors willing to work with 
EnPC also depends on the availability of grants competing with EnPC.  

  Awareness raising and information specifically addressed to financing actors continue to have a 

 

potential (Italy, Poland, Hungary, Portugal and Slovenia). 
 To overcome capacity and information barriers, there is continued widespread potential for 
developing one-stop shops with the capacity to support EnPC markets. These services are particularly 
appraised positively in Finland, Germany and Italy. 

The  review  of  market  modalities shows that  EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings  is slightly  most  common  in  the 
public sector. It is most widespread in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Greece, 
and  Poland.  In  Czech  Republic,  a  widespread  model  combines  guaranteed  and  premium  shared  savings. 
Shared and guaranteed savings are of similar relevance in the private market of EnPC at the EU level. Shared 
savings is the preferred EnPC model in the public sector of Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, and it shares 
the market with guaranteed savings in Slovakia. In addition to expectations generated by regulatory and EU-
funding developments, which may have slowed down during the period, affordable financing, guarantees, and 
refinancing guarantees are key for developing off-balance possibilities. 

Two major contracting modalities compete with EnPC: 

a)  Simpler energy service contracting models with lesser guarantees, such as EEaaS, which are 

advantageous for their simplicity, can be off-balance in private clients' accounts and can integrate 
on-site renewable generation without the restrictions of Eurostat guidelines (maximum 50% savings 
from renewables).66 

b)  Conventional contracts of works, often with the support of EU grants, are common in Croatia, Cyprus, 

Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, France, Germany and Spain.  

Future developments may involve widening or narrowing the sectoral scope of EnPC contracts. In both cases, 
clarification and communication of the advantages of EnPC are needed.67  

12.2  Project characteristics 

The  largest  project  sizes  were  reported  in  France,  Denmark,  Belgium,  Greece,  Slovenia,  and  the  Portuguese 
private  sector  (contracts  above  €3m),  driven  by  requirements  of  scale  in  ELENA  and  providers.  In  public 
lighting,  smaller  contracts  around  €1m  continue  to  be  common  (e.g.  Croatia).  There  are  several  MSs  where 
contracts  in  the  private  sector  are  gaining  the  same  or  larger  scale  than  the  ones  in  the  public  sector 
(Belgium, Finland,  Denmark, Ireland, and Portugal).  Project duration varies across markets depending on the 
depth  of  intervention,  availability  of  financing  and  subventions  for  long-payback  interventions,  and  energy 

65  Regarding  renewables,  the  previous  JRC  report  on  EnPC  markets  (Moles-Grueso,  et  al.  2021)  identified  an  untapped  potential  in 
combining revenue streams from on-site renewables and energy efficiency interventions in buildings to strengthen the viability of 
the  EnPC  model,  continued  efforts  to  exploit  the  potential  in  standardisation  to  equalize  risks  between  energy  efficiency  and 
renewable  portfolios  are  needed.  Regulatory,  financing  and  strategic  developments  will  determine  the  extent  renewables  are 
introduced as part of integral interventions using EnPC or are introduced using other contract modalities. 

66 In combination, this restriction and the increasing market interest in renewables are barriers to EnPC. It must be highlighted that these 
restrictions are important to ensure that the Energy Efficiency First principle is considered by clients pursuing off-balance settings 
and allocating public funds. 

67  Refers  to  building  performance  contracting  models  which  incorporate  user  benefits  –  e.g.  real  estate  value  –,  life-cycle  and  carbon 
savings as proposed by providers in Belgium, Sweden, and Germany – and contracts which separate energy performance works with 
short paybacks but verified savings from deep renovations, with longer payback. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
prices. Long paybacks above 12 years are common in the public sectors of Denmark, Poland, Slovenia, Czech 
Republic, German, Netherlands, Latvia, and Lithuania. Different percentages of baseline consumption continue 
to be related to the type of interventions. Most interventions in buildings attain 25-30% of savings over the 
baseline. Larger savings are attained in deep renovations (40-50% savings) – common in Lithuania and Latvia 
– but these  market options  are less successful and require specific support from public funding. Savings in 
public  lighting  attain  the  largest  savings  –    85%  in  Croatia  and 70%  in  Spain  and Portugal.  The  contracted 
savings  in  buildings  are  challenging  for  the  EnPC  model  due  to  pressing  decarbonisation  targets,  as  in  the 
case of France, where interventions in the private commercial sector are expected to be required to achieve 
40%  savings  (above  current  savings  of  30%)  and  ESG  commitments.  Expert  estimates  in  the  domain  of 
private  buildings  are  most  diverse  and  indicate  a  potential  for  monitoring,  both  to  policymakers  and  for 
financing actors and providers to assess risks. 

Public buildings, followed by public lighting, continue to be the most frequent type of project  in the EU. The 
third  most  common  type  of  interventions  are  private  buildings  (mainly  commercial,  but  residential  is  of 
relevance  in  some  MSs,  e.g.  Latvia),  and  then  interventions  in  the  industry.  Follow,  in  decreasing  order  of 
relevance,  projects  bundling  different  types  of  interventions  (public  buildings  and  lighting),  district  heating, 
and smart grids, which alongside e-mobility, have interest in some MSs and are expected to gain relevance. 
Project aggregation is key for projects to develop in several MSs, especially when public authorities of small 
size  lack  the  scale  to  engage  with  EnPC  and  hence  need  technical  assistance,  mostly  provided  by  the  EU 
(ELENA). 

The  most  common  types  of  interventions  in  buildings  continue  to  be  the  replacement  of  specific  elements, 
and on-site renewable generation is gaining momentum, especially in private buildings. Moreover,  
  Building management systems and Demand flexibility and storage are gaining relevance.  
  Deep renovations are relevant only in a few MSs because these interventions require integrating 

client or public support funds to address the interventions with long paybacks (envelope). Deep 
renovations are of the utmost relevance in a few MSs, but these are not always reflected in high 
savings rates (exceptions are Latvia and Lithuania). 

 

  Maintenance tends to be also an element of EnPCs, as it is becoming the integration of building 
management systems (highlighted Belgium, Czech Republic, Ireland, Slovenia, and Spain). 
 EnPC interventions of demand flexibility and storage are gaining relevance. These were reported as 
relevant in Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania, and there are expectations in Denmark and Bulgaria and the 
large industry of the EU.  
There is a trend towards integrating new technologies and exploiting sectors not developed in the 
past in MS-specific contexts (private buildings, public buildings, central government buildings, 
industry).  

 

Fundamentally, exploiting new technological and sectoral potentials needs not to disregard the need for deep 
interventions in buildings and integration of district efficiency and generation capacity) to align with EU and 
MS strategic goals of saving energy and decarbonising consumption, largely to avoid locking in the potential 
for deeper interventions. 

12.3  Barriers and drivers 

Comparison between the 2019-21 and the 2022-24 periods shows a marginal reduction in the presence of 
several  barriers  besides  grant  competition  and  a  singular  increase  in  the  number  of  drivers.  Concerning 
barriers, 

  Competition with investment subsidies is widespread and increasing with the allocation of funds in 
the RRPs. Several MSs have limitations or difficulties in combining grants with EnPC (e.g. Croatia, 
Poland, Portugal) or its off-balance options (e.g. Slovakia).  

  Other barriers highlighted in most MSs are knowledge and expertise of clients (10 MSs), trust in the 
model (6 MSs), and complexity of the model (9 MSs); debt treatment (7 MSs), lack or affordable 
financing for providers (8 MSs), integration of decarbonisation (8 MSs), policy commitment (11 MSs), 
Legal and procurement (14 MSs for 2019-21 and in 9 MSs for 2022-24); administrative burden (6 
MSs), and policy uncertainty, often related to the implementation of the RRPs (11 MSs).  
Structural barriers of subsidised energy prices, market size and administrative division, and an earlier 
collection of low-lying fruits are also key in a series of MSs.  

 

88 

 
 
 
  
 
  Besides increasing energy prices since 2021, EnPC appears to be driven by the EU strategic and 

regulatory developments, sectoral capacities (e.g. stabilised trust and increased interest), which have 
largely developed through technical assistance and providers' activity, and a combination of EU and 
national support to the model. Technical assistance (especially ELENA and Horizon 2020/ Horizon 
Europe) was widely appreciated as the most impactful EU supporting mechanism in most MSs.  
There are increasing expectations for the EU regulatory framework and strategies to improve the 
situation of the EnPC market for driving investment towards buildings by fostering decarbonisation, 
using Energy Efficiency Obligations and White Certificates, and increasing national and EU support.  

 

The  EU  energy  saving  and  decarbonisation  targets  are  key  drivers  and  foster  the  development  of  simpler 
contracts  and  an  alternative  to  EnPC  (such  as EEaaS).  There  is a  risk that  deep  interventions  and EnPC  will 
lose momentum. Some causes are the slow progress at the national level regarding regulatory updates, the 
development of contracts and guidelines, the introduction of technical support and information instruments, 
procurement and tendering rules, and the use of EnPC by public bodies. Other causes are the Covid pandemic 
and a  wait-and-see  stance  taken  by  some  MSs  related  to  the  ongoing  transformation  of  the  EU  regulatory 
and  financing  framework  during  the  years  2020-2021.,  aligning  with  expected  developments  in  the  EED 
recast whilst stepping up efforts in central government buildings and as a part of their exemplary role.  

In compliance with Art. 18 of the EED (2018), adequate market monitoring, support and removal of regulatory 
barriers continue to fall short of expectations in multiple MSs.  It is necessary to foster the EnPC market and 
assess  its  multiplicative  factor  of  EnPC  to  achieve  savings  and  engage  the  private  sources  of  financing. 
Developing technical assistance  mechanisms and one-stop-shops continues to rely on EU technical support, 
which  sectoral  experts  highly  appreciate.  These  are  key  in  an  increasingly  complex  legal  and  financing 
framework to overcome the complexity, financing, scale and trust issues surrounding EnPC contracting. Hence, 
further  national  commitment  and  developing  national  capacities  in  these  domains  were  expected  in  the 
reported period but did not occur to the extent expected. 68 

12.4  Balance treatment of EnPC in clients' accounts 

Uncertainties  about  the  Eurostat  treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  caused  market  stagnation  in 
previous years. In 2019-21 the development of off-balance contracts has brought attention towards EnPC in 
several  MSs.  Nowadays,  there  is  a  reported  existence  of  off-balance  contracts  in  17  MSs.  However,  the 
number of off-balance contracts signed in the EU is estimated to be relatively low, at around 8%, well beyond 
the  average  of  national  estimates.  Only  a  few  projects  have  been  reported  and  officially  approved  by 
Eurostat. The Covid pandemic largely contributed to slowing down or halting the development of off-balance 
model contracts. Several existing model contracts have been reviewed as needing adaptation to the changing 
context. Demands for adaptation and update largely refer to the need for simpler, flexible models to address 
decarbonisation  needs.  However,  this  is  not  easy  within  the  compliance  framework  with  off-balance 
contracting set by Eurostat.  

In  addition  to  the  national  development  of  Eurostat-compliant  models,  at  the  subnational  level,  national 
budgetary  rules  impose  debt  liabilities  to  regional  and  local  authorities  in  at  least  4  MSs.  Also,  the  private 
sector is increasingly interested in off-balance treatment  according to the IRFS  standards.  Aligning  with the 
recommendations collected (section 11), there is a need for closer monitoring of the EnPC market and support 
for contracts to align with debt concerns and EU strategic goals of saving energy and decarbonising buildings.  

Fundamentally,  revisions  to  EnPC  contracting  models  and  support  from  public  institutions  are  made  in  the 
sight of the priority that needs to be granted to energy efficiency as a guiding principle. 

68 For instance, one-stop-shops are considered to be most insufficiently deployed in Bulgaria, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, 

Sweden, and to an extent Croatia. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
13  Recommendations for MSs   

The national-level recommendations are organised along the topics of a) Financing, b) Development of model 
contracts  for  the  public  sector;  c)  Public  procurement  regulations  and  administration;  d)  Contract 
implementation and evaluation; e) Promotion and exemplarity; f) Strategic and regulatory development, and 
g) Technical assistance. 

a)  Financing  

Fundamentally, MSs need to  avoid using high  grant rates that deter the  participation of private investment, 
e.g.  through  EnPC,  in  energy  efficiency  projects,  reducing  the  leverage  of  public  funds.  The  use  of  public 
funding can be better allocated through: 

 

 

 

 

Incentivising EnPC, e.g. audit support, support to eligibility studies, conditional eligibility for grants, 
subsidies and tax reliefs. 
Supporting only investments with long return periods (e.g. interventions on the envelope) 
complementary to the EnPC model. 
Establishing or scaling up guarantee and energy efficiency funds to support access of providers to 
financing and refinancing – this is key for the development of the market and, in particular of off-
balance projects, which can be particularly attractive to a diversity of clients, and could benefit from 
funds from the RPPs, EEOs, WhCs and CO2 taxation. 
Setting up refinancing mechanisms. 

b)  Development of model contracts for the public sector  

In the public sector, there is a continued need to develop and adapt models to the national context as a part 
of efforts to make contracts simpler through stakeholder involvement.  

  Continued contract adaptation to sectoral characteristics (public buildings and lighting) and consider 
the potential for integrating decarbonisation, life cycle benefits and country-specific needs (e.g. 
aspects about including maintenance and renewables).  

  Unilateral adoption of contract modalities on the central government's side needs to be avoided 

because it risks jeopardising the development of EnPC markets. 

  Development of EnPC models in coordination with public financing authorities and alongside strategic 
policy development. This is important to clarify the scope of EnPC interventions and the support 
expected from public and private sources on complementary interventions (e.g. envelope renovations 
– which benefit from public support due to long return periods – the installation of renewables – 
attractive to private financing for their short return periods). Long-term strategic programming for 
investments in the public sector and support to the private sector is needed for providers and clients 
to have the capacity to draft EnPC projects and contracts.  

c)  Public procurement regulations and administration 

In application of Art. 18 of the EED, there is a need for policy improvements for consistency and clarity in the 
regulatory,  financing  and  administrative  domains  for  these  not  to  act  as  barriers  to  EnPC.  Action  in  this 
domain may involve different MSs to address financing compatibilities between grants and EnPC, eligibility of 
energy service providers for grants, the  use of third-party financing in the  public  sector, and  restrictions on 
using  EnPC  in  the  public  sector  or  its  buildings.  In  addition,  public  sector  regulators  should  consider  the 
advantages of: 

 

 

Introducing requirements for assessing project EnPC-ability at the preliminary stages of the 
procurement process. 
Long-term strategic programming is needed for both providers and public sector managers to plan 
for the use of the EnPC model; otherwise, rushed allocation of funds results in a preference for 
contract modalities that are less complex but fail to provide the advantages of EnPC in terms of 
financing and guarantees. 

  Aligning with the revision of Article 6 on Purchasing by public bodies in the proposal for a recast of 
the EED, to rely on initiate development of green procurement guidelines and technical support (see 
point on technical assistance) for integrating the energy efficiency first principle in public 
procurement and taking especial stock on the potential encouraging aggregated procurement. 

d)  Monitoring and supporting the business environment 

The development and update of EnPC guidelines, contract enforcement, quality control, and M&V continue to 
have potential in several MSs. As in the case of contract development, this requires considering the needs and 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
expertise  of  various  stakeholders.  There  is  a  potential  for  most  MSs  to  monitor the  market  and  support  its 
capacity development whilst increasing transparency and trust in the EnPC model: 

  A few MSs need the creation of ESCO associations and a list of ESCO providers (in fulfilment of Art. 

18) 

  Most MSs would benefit from a national registry of EnPC projects and a listing of service providers 

and facilitators specialised in the provision of EnPC. 

  MSs could either directly or through professional (ESCO) associations introduce certification 
mechanisms for service providers and provide training for facilitators – this would ease the 
consolidation of the lists of qualified operators indicated. 

  MSs could collaborate with the financing sector to develop the latter's capacity in green financing, 
particularly EnPC – this could be achieved through collaboration in EU projects, the development of 
one-stop shops and activities of knowledge exchange between the EnPC sector and the financing 
sector. 
In alignment with Article 21 of the proposal for a recast of the EED, there is an opportunity for  MSs 
to establish mechanisms for handling complaints and for the out-of-court settlement of any dispute 
arising. 

 

e)  Promotion and exemplarity  

There is a continued need for  tailored information to address both clients and financing actors for these to 
understand  better  the  benefits  and  risks  of  EnPC, in  particular,  to  understand  that  the  advantages  of  EnPC 
reach beyond financing and that it is a mechanism intended for energy efficiency improvements of short to 
mid-term return periods. (Hence clarifying that investment in renewables is a possible but not a core part of 
EnPC  -  but  a  match  as  accepted  in  the  EIB  and  Eurostat  guidelines  for  the  off-balance  treatment  of  EnPC 
investment  in  public  accounts  –  and  that  envelope  interventions  need  specific  financing  sources.)  Increased 
attention to this domain holds a potential for the development of EnPC in sight of the proposal for a recast of 
the  EED,  which  involves  the  extension  of  exemplary  requirements  to  all  public  bodies’  buildings.  Moreover, 
public  bodies  can  can  contribute  to  normalising  EnPC  by  using  this  mechanism  in  implementation  of 
provisions  proposed  in  the  EED  recast  for  the  public  sector  to  apply  the  Union’s  green  public  procurement 
criteria  in  the  domains  of  data  centres  and  public  lighting  amongst  others.  Through  these  means,  it  is 
fundamental  that  MS  governments  and  public  bodies  engage  and  send  clear  signs  to  the  financing  sector 
about  their  commitment  to  EnPC  and  its  role  of  EnPC  in  meeting  energy  efficiency  and  decarbonisation 
targets.  

f)  Strategic and regulatory development 

Strategic  alignment  with  the  targets  and  requirements  set  by  the  EC  in  current  and  upcoming  policy 
developments  and  financing  support  (in  the  domains  of  deep  renovation,  decarbonisation  and  energy 
efficiency)  would  benefit  from  prioritising  EnPC  as  a  mechanism  that  provides  performance  guarantees, 
enables  a  multiplier  effect  of  public  funds,  and  addresses  the  Energy  Efficiency  First  principle.  This  is 
important to avoid the risks of picking the low-lying fruits provided by renewable technologies and locking in 
the energy efficiency potential. It holds a potential for fulfilling Energy savings obligations, which the proposal 
for the recast of the EED increases to an annual obligation of 1.5% for all MSs whilst prioritizing actions in 
vulnerable  dwellings.  Moreover,  strategic  development  should  consider  the  exploitation  in  sectors  with  an 
unexplored  potential  that  is  not  being  developed,  e.g.  in  MSs  with  the  sectoral  capacity  to  work  with  EnPC, 
such  as  Portugal  and  Croatia,  where  public  buildings  continue  to  have  a  potential  for  EnPC  development. 
Following up on this strategic development, addressing regulatory consistency and clarity aspects is necessary 
to reduce policy uncertainty, project preparation, and administration costs.  

g)  Technical assistance 

EU-level technical assistance continues to be a most appreciated instrument of EU support for developing EU 
markets. There is an unexplored potential for the creation of national and regional capacities, one-stop shops, 
and technical assistance facilities for assisting with project drafting, contract development and aggregation of 
projects, and training to public and private clients, as well as to financing bodies, potentially in coordination 
with  technical  assistance  facilities  of  the  EU  which  reflects  on  the  demands  of  national  experts  and  the 
relevance granted to these instruments in the proposed recast of the EED. One-stop-shops and other technical 
assistance facilities should create a network to collaborate in project preparation, exchange experiences and 
contribute  to  regulatory  consistency  and  harmonisation  amongst  national  authorities  –  the  latter  is 
particularly  necessary  in  federal  MSs and others with  devolved  attributions  to  regions and local  authorities. 
The  development  of  these  national  capacities,  alongside  financing  guarantees,  is  key  for  exploiting  the 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
potential of sectors which, having potential, are not consolidated depending on MS-specific contexts, including 
social housing and aggregated projects of private residential buildings, whose relevance is being furthered in 
EED  and  EPBD  recasts.  Improving  the  technical  support  to  public  bodies  would  be  in  alignment  with  the 
requirements on MSs included in the proposal for revision of Art. 5 on public purchasing in the recast of the 
EED and which holds a major potential for aggregating projects to be handled as EnPCs. 

92 

 
 
 
14  Recommendations for the European Institutions 

There is a major potential for EU institutions to continue collaborating with MSs in communicating the scope 
of  EnPCs,  as  focused  on  energy  efficiency  investments  with  short-to  mid-term  return  periods.  The  Eurostat 
Guidance on public debt treatment of EnPC created expectations for boosting EnPC market development. The 
Covid  pandemic  contributed  to  halting  a  dialogue  on  the  necessary  adjustments  to  attain  off-balance 
treatment and allocating efforts to develop model contracts. The current interest in renewables has resulted 
in a lower interest of clients for efficiency and frustration related to the complexity and limitations introduced 
concerning including renewable generation in EnPC projects. Hence, communication on the scope of EnPC and 
the options available to combine it with other interventions is key to avoid frustrating inaccurate expectations 
on EnPC. Eventually, concerns about the treatment of EnPC as public debt are more problematic at the intra-
national  level  and  should  be  clarified.  The  EU-level  guidance  could  serve  as  a  model  for  some  central 
governments to reconsider their budgetary limitations on regional and local authorities. 

Members states would benefit from support and publicity to efforts of market monitoring, establishment of 
lists of EnPC providers, and training and certifying providers and facilitators. It would support the success in 
these  domains,  the  creation  of  national  associations  in  several  MSs,  and  the  EU-level  efforts  towards 
adopting M&V standards such as the IMVP.  

Moreover,  market  monitoring at the MS level would gain  leverage with increased efforts on communicating 
the EnPC experiences and potential through EEEFIG, DEEP, CAEED, CAEPBD, and SEI Forum. This would serve 
providers and financing actors to assess risks and the most suitable intervention typologies. This could set the 
grounds for creating a centre of excellence on EnPC for disseminating good practices, exchanging experiences, 
and creating a repository of projects.   

There is a need for continued and strengthened strategic support from the InvestEU Advisory Hub to MSs on 
the development of contracts whilst assessing the suitability of EnPC and other models to tackle the potential 
for deep renovations of buildings and pursue energy saving and decarbonisation targets. These efforts should 
explore  and  bring  together  the  multiple  experiences  developed  with  the  support  of  Horizon  2020/  Horizon 
Europe programs which have worked on developing a wide array of contracting and financing models within 
and beyond the boundaries of EnPC and off-balance contracting. 

Guiding the national allocation of Structural and Investment Funds (2014-20), Cohesion Policy Funds (2021-
27) and the Recovery and Resilience Facility funds to avoid these competing or being incompatible with EnPC 
and  complement  the  investments  made  through  the  latter  model.  This  is  important  to  achieve  a  multiplier 
effect of EU funds, contributing to achieving pressing targets of energy saving and building decarbonisation. 
In particular, it would be advisable: 

 

The introduction and strengthening of EC guidelines on the use of EU grants (e.g. for these to focus 
on investments with long return periods, complementary to those addressed by EnPC), the 
introduction of allocation criteria on the achievement and demonstration of savings (like those in 
ELENA), and dissemination of financing instruments as alternatives to direct allocation of subsidies – 
especially with high grant rates – are advisable. 

  A focus on support to MSs in setting guarantee mechanisms and refinancing capacities could help 
MSs allocate funds in ways that attain a multiplier effect of public funding whilst increasing the 
capacity of EnPC providers and reducing risk perception. 

The EC and the EIB's efforts of disseminating the EnPC model need to continue to emphasise the benefits of 
EnPC  beyond  financing  to  include  the  technical  quality  and  guarantees  provided  by  the  model.  Otherwise, 
persistent  understanding  of  EnPC  as  a  financing  mechanism  results  in  frustration  when  clients  with 
insufficient technical means face a more complex than expected instrument. In the domain of information, it 
is also fundamental that more information and clarification of the available EU support is made available to 
providers  and  financing  actors.  Collaboration  in  this  domain  would  help  MSs  to  fully  implement  the 
requirements of the EED Article 18, with a focus on EnPC and expected developments in this domain as put 
forth in the upcoming recast of the EED. 

Relying on the success and demand for Technical assistance and Project development assistance,  there is a 
potential  for the  EC  to  continue  and  strengthen  these  in  the  areas of  project  aggregation,  setting  technical 
assistance facilities at the MS level that replicate the success of ELENA at the national level, setting regional 
and national coordination offices, setting up one-stop-shops, and training of facilitators. Support for individual 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
projects would benefit from simpler and more flexible application mechanisms  to reduce the costs for some 
applicants. 

There is a continued need to address financing actors and authorities by promoting the model and engaging 
them in the processes mentioned in these recommendations (e.g. market monitoring, exchange of 
experiences, and contract development). 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
References 

Boza-Kiss, B., and P. Bertoldi, One-Stop-Shops for Energy Renovations of Buildings, JRC European Commission, 
2018. 

Boza-Kiss,  B.,  A.  Toleikyté,  and  P.  Bertoldi,  Energy  Service  Market  in  the  EU  -  Status  Review  and 
Recommendations  2019,  Vol.  EUR  29979  EN  of  Scientific  and  Technical  Report.  European  ESCO  Market 
Reports Series, European Commission, Luxembourg, 2019. 

Boza-Kiss, B., P. Zangheri, P. Bertoldi, and M. Economidou, Practices and Opportunities for Energy Performance 
Contracting in the Public Sector in EU Member States., 2017. 

BPIE, Deep  Renovation: Shifting from Exception to Standard Practice in EU Policy, 2021. 

Bruegel, European Union Countries’ Recovery and Resilience Plans, December 14, 2022. 

CAN, Position Paper on the Energy Efficiency Directive Recast, November 23, 2021. 

EC - European Commission,  Directive (EU) 2018/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December 2018 Amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency, 2018. 

———,  REPowerEU  Plan.  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  European 
Council, the Council, COM/2022/230 Final, 2022. 

Economidou,  M.,  V.  Todeschi,  and  P.  Bertoldi,  Accelerating  Energy  Renovation  Investments  in  Buildings: 
Financial and Fiscal Instruments across the EU., 2019. 

EEFIG, Report EEFIG, 2021. 

EIB, ‘EIB Projects’, 2023. https://www.eib.org/. 

European Commission, ANNEX Accelerating Clean Energy in Buildings, 30.11.2016. 

———, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  A  Renovation  Wave  for  Europe  -  Greening  Our 
Buildings, Creating Jobs, Improving Lives, 14.10.2020. 

———, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic 
and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Stepping  up  Europe’s  2030  Climate  Ambition. 
Investing in a Climate-Neutral Future for the Benefit of Our People, 17.9.2020. 

———,  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT,  THE  COUNCIL,  THE 
EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Strategy for Financing 
the Transition to a Sustainable Economy, COM/2021/390 Final, 2021. 

———, Europe’s Moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation, 27.5.2020. 

———, Horizon Europe, nd. 

———,  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  Energy  Performance  of 
Buildings (Recast), COM(2021) 802 Final, 15.12.2021. 

———, Questions and Answers on the Renovation Wave, Brussels, October 14, 2020. 

———, 
it.org/12090/20220124080607/https:/ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/what-horizon-2020. 

Horizon 

2020?’, 

‘What 

nd. 

Is 

https://wayback.archive-

European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Energy.,  Report  on  the  Evolution  of  Financing  Practices  for 
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, SME’s and in Industry: Final Report., Publications Office, LU, 2022. 

European  Commission.  Directorate  General  for  Energy.,  COWI.,  Climate  Strategy.,  d  fine.,  EEIP.,  EnergyPro., 
Fraunhofer ISI., ICCS NTUA., and Viegand Maagøe., Report on the Evolution of Financing Practices for Energy 
Efficiency in Buildings, SME’s and in Industry: Final Report., Publications Office, LU, 2022. 

European  Commission.  Joint  Research  Centre.,  EU  Challenges  of  Reducing  Fossil  Fuel  Use  in  Buildings., 
Publications Office, LU, 2021. 

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, National Energy and Climate Plans for 2021-2030 under the EU 
Energy Union: Assessment of the Energy Efficiency Dimension., Publications Office, LU, 2020. 

95 

 
 
European  Commission.  Joint  Research  Centre.,  Progress  of  the  Member  States  in  Implementing  the  Energy 
Performance of Building Directive., Publications Office, LU, 2021. 

European 
https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/articles/energy-performance-contracting#toc-1. 

Efficiency 

Platform 

‘Energy 

Energy 

(E3P), 

Performance 

Contracting’, 

2020. 

European  Parliament  and  Council  of  the  European  Union,  Directive  2012/27/EU  of  the  25  October  2012  on 
Energy Efficiency, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. L 315/1, Vol. L 315/1, 14.11.2012. 

———,  Directive  (EU)  2018/844  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2018  Amending 
Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency 
(Text with EEA Relevance), 156, Vol. OJ L, Vol. OJ L, 19.6.2018. 

European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  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), 
21.12.2018. 

———, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Amending Directive 
(EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  and  Directive  98/70/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as 
Regards  the  Promotion  of  Energy  from Renewable  Sources,  and  Repealing  Council  Directive  (EU)  2015/652, 
14.7.2021. 

Eurostat, Eurostat Guidance Note - The Recording of Energy Performance Contracts in Government Accounts, 
19.9.2017. 

Eurostat and EIB, A Guide to the Statistical Treatment of Energy Performance Contracts, 2018. 

Fi-Compass, European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), EIB, 
European Commission, 2020. 

FI-Compass, The Potential for Investment in Energy Efficiency through Financial Instruments in the European 
Union, 2020. 

Funcas, An Analysis of the European Commission’s Guidelines on the Recovery Fund, October 2020. 

Housing  Europe,  Impact  of  the  Recovery  Plans  on  the  Social  and  Affordable  Housing  Sector,  November  24, 
2021. 

IFRS, IFRS - IFRS 16 Leases, January 1, 2019. 

Launch Project, D4.6 Report on SEAD Business  Models and End-Customer  Segmentation, November 6, 2020. 

Moles-Grueso, S., P. Bertoldi, and B. Boza-Kiss, Energy Performance Contracting in the Public Sector of the EU: 
2020., Publications Office, LU, 2021. 

Pernetta,  R.,  and  L.  Bender,  ‘EIB  Update  on  EPC  Models  and  EPC  Financing  for  Comprehensive  Renovation’, 
presented at the CA EED webinar - EPC as a catalyst for renovation of public sector buildings, Online, April 28, 
2020. 

QualitEE Project, Guidelines for European Technical Quality Criteria for Energy Efficiency Services, 2020. 

Rodrigues, D., ‘EIB Support to the ESCOs/EPCs Market’, presented at the ESCO Conference, Frankfurt, October 
5, 2022. 

Schenk, C., ‘Energy Efficiency in Emerging Economies’, presented at the European ESCO Conference, Frankfurt, 
October 5, 2022. 

Vlaams EnergieBedrift, ‘VEB ELENA’, 2022. https://www.veb.be/elena. 

Zangheri,  P.,  M.  Economidou,  and  N.  Labanca,  ‘Progress  in  the  Implementation  of  the  EU  Energy  Efficiency 
Directive through the Lens of the National Annual Reports’, Energies, Vol. 12, No. 6, March 21, 2019, p. 1107. 

96 

 
 
 
List of abbreviations and definitions  

b  

DHC 

BOOT 

CAPEX 

EC 

EE  

billion 

District Heating and Cooling 

Build-own-operate-transfer 

Capital expenditure69 

European Commission 

energy efficiency 

EED  

Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (Directive  2012/27/EU  as  amended  by  Directive 

EEO 

EPBD 

EnPC 

ES  

ESC 

2018/2002/EU) 

Energy Efficiency Obligation 

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (Directive 2010/31/EU as amended by 

Directive 2018/844) 

Energy Performance Contract(ing)70 

Energy services 

Energy Service Contracting (also used elsewhere for Energy Supply Contracting) 

ESCO 

Energy Service Company 

IEC 

JRC  

JRC 2017 

Integrated Energy Contracting 

Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 

Boza-Kiss,  B.,  A.  Toleikyté,  and  P.  Bertoldi,  Energy  Service  Market  in  the  EU  - 
Status  Review  and  Recommendations  2019,  Vol.  EUR  29979  EN  of 
Scientific and Technical Report. European ESCO Market Reports Series, 
European Commission, Luxembourg, 2019 

JRC 2021 

Moles-Grueso, S., P. Bertoldi, and B. Boza-Kiss, Energy Performance Contracting in 
the  Public  Sector  of  the  EU:  2020.,  Publications  Office,  Luxemburg, 
2021 

GHG 

LTRS 

NECP 

m  

Greenhouse gas 

Long-Term Renovation Strategy 

National Energy and Climate Plan 

million 

69  Payments  made to  acquire  or  to  improve existing assets  over  a  period  of  more  than  one  year.  Capex  is  recorded as  liabilities  on a 

balance sheet gradually over the course of an asset's useful life. 

70  In  this report  we  abbreviate  Energy  Performance  Contracting  by using EnPC  (and  not  EPC as  widely used  in  the  past)  following  the 
practice used in Boza-Kiss et al. (2019); this is important to differentiate Energy Performance Contracting from Energy Performance 
Certificates, commonly abbreviated as EPC. 

97 

 
 
                                                        
 
MS(s) 

M&V  

n/a 

NEEF  

RRF 

RRP 

TA 

trln. 

Member State(s) 

Measurement and Verification 

No information or no data 

national energy efficiency fund 

EU Recovery and Resilience Facility 

Recovery and Resilience Plan (national) 

Technical Assistance 

Trillion 

BOOT  –  Build-own-operate-transfer.  This  model  resembles  a  special-purpose 
enterprise  created  for  a  project.  Clients  enter  long-term  supply 
contracts with the BOOT operator and are charged accordingly for the 
service  delivered;  the  service  charge  includes  capital  and  operating 
cost  recovery  and  project  profit.  BOOT  schemes  are  becoming  an 
increasingly  popular  means  of  financing  combined  heat  and  power 
projects in Europe. 

Chauffage  –  Contract  energy  management.  An  ESCO  takes  over  complete 
responsibility  for  providing  the  client  with  an  agreed  set  of  energy 
services  (e.g.  space  heat,  lighting,  motive  power).  In  a  chauffage 
arrangement, the ESCO takes over full responsibility for fuel/electricity 
purchasing  where  the  energy  supply  market  is  competitive.  The  fee 
paid by the client under a chauffage arrangement is calculated based 
on  its  existing  energy  bill  minus  a  percentage  saving.  Such  contracts 
may  have  shared  savings  and  guaranteed  savings  elements  to 
incentivise  the  customer.  Chauffage  contracts  are  very  useful  when 
customers want to outsource facility services and investments. 

Energy  Performance Contracting (EnPC), as defined in Article 2 of the EED, 
means  a  contractual  arrangement  between  the  beneficiary  and  the 
provider  of  an  energy  efficiency  improvement  measure,  verified  and 
monitored 
contract, 
where investments (work, supply or service) in that measures are paid 
for  in  relation  to  a  contractually  agreed  level  of  energy  efficiency 
improvement  or  other  agreed  energy  performance  criterion,  such  as 
financial savings. 

the  whole 

during 

term 

the 

of 

EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings/guarantee  savings  modality.  EnPC  with 
guaranteed  savings  –  contractor  guarantees  energy  savings,  and 
clients  take  the  financial  risk.  The  customers  are  financed  directly  by 
banks or a financing agency; this is an advantage over shared savings 
because finance institutions are better equipped to assess and handle 
customer credit risk than service providers. 

EnPC with shared savings modality / shared savings modality. EnPC with 
shared  savings  –  both  parties  share  the  savings,  and  the  contractor 
takes  finance  risk.  Under  shared  savings,  the  client  takes  over  some 
performance  risk.  Hence  it  tries  to  avoid  assuming  any  credit  risk.  A 
shared  savings  contract  is  likely  to  be  linked  with  financing  from  the 
client and the service provider, whereby the latter repays the loan and 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
takes over the credit risk. 

Energy  Service  Companies  (ESCOs)  provide  turnkey  services  covering  a  full 
range  of  activities:  energy  audit,  design  engineering,  construction 
management, 
financing, 
commissioning,  operations  and  maintenance,  savings  monitoring  and 
verification. Their distinct feature is associated with their remuneration 
structure, particularly their performance-based projects (i.e. EnPC). 

arrangement 

long-term 

project 

of 

Energy  Service  Contract 

(ESC),  Energy-as-a-Service 

(EaaS),  and 
Lighting-as-a-Service (LaaS) are contracts in which the focus is on 
the efficient supply of useful physical outputs (e.g., lumen-as-a-service 
or  centigrade-as-a-service)  instead  of  the  implementation  of  energy 
savings measures. The payment is typically linked to a defined service 
rate or tariff based on agreed service levels. There can be energy and 
non-energy  physical  output  performance  criteria  in  the  predefined 
service  levels,  but  performance  is typically  not  directly  tied  to  energy 
savings or energy efficiency. 

EnPC providers or providers are suppliers or energy services that implement 
energy  efficiency  or  energy  saving  measures  in  the  premises  of  a 
client  repaying  from  the  cost  savings  during  the  operation  phase 
(general  ESCO),  that  also  provide  a  financial  guarantee  that  the 
savings  will  be  enough  to  cover  the  upfront  costs  and  offer 
reimbursement  should  this  prove  wrong.  In  this  meaning,  a  savings 
guarantee  links  the  ESCO/EnPC  provider’s  remuneration  to  achieving 
the contractually set savings target. 

Public  sector  (markets,  projects)  refers  in  this  research  to  current  and 
potential  EnPC  projects  addressed  to  public  assets  and,  therefore, 
whose  clients  are  public  bodies  and  public  companies  whose 
decision  processes  and  rules  of  procurement  and  finance  depend  on 
public bodies. 

Public lighting. Lighting for streets, traffic and other outdoor public space. 

Private sector (clients, markets, projects) refers in this research to current 
and potential EnPC projects addressed to private assets and, therefore, 
whose clients are private actors. 

Third-party financing typologies 

Debt  financing.  The  situation  in  which  investors  lend  a  certain  amount  of 
money  on  credit  in  exchange  for  repayment  plus  interest.  The  most 
common EE financial product is a loan directly to the client (owner of 
the premises) or to the ESCO – i.e., third-party financing. 

Guarantee (finance, fund or insurance). A risk-reducing tool which may help 
to  attract  financing.  These  are  convenient  for  reducing  the  risk  of 
default for the finance intermediary (technical and  performance risk). 
For the client or provider, this may result in lower interest rates, longer 
maturities and lower collateral requirements. 

Equity  financing.  The  situation  in  which  investors  lend  a  given  amount  of 
money  in  exchange  for  a  stake  in  a  project.  The  most  common 
example  of  equity  financing  is  private  equity.  Concerning  energy 
efficiency businesses, equity investment can take the form of an ESCO 
issuing additional shares in the company's common ownership. 

Mezzanine  Financing.  Mezzanine  financing  is  a  hybrid  form  of  financing  that 
combines debt and equity financing. In most cases, debt is ranked as a 
preferred  equity  share.  Mezzanine  debt  financing  is  thus  riskier  than 
traditional  debt  financing  but  more  rewarding;  it  is  associated  with  a 

99 

 
 
higher yield. Mezzanine financing also allows a lender to convert debt 
capital into ownership or equity interest in the company if the loan is 
not paid back on time and in full. 

Project  Financing.  It  is  off-balance-sheet  financing.  In  contrast  to  balance 
sheet  financing  (loans,  debt  and  equity),  its  collateral  is  based  on  a 
project’s  cash  flow  expectations,  not  on  individuals'  or  institutions’ 
creditworthiness. Typical project financing is divided between debt and 
equity financing. 

Leasing. Leasing is the energy market’s common way of dealing with initial cost 
barriers.  It  is  a  way  of  obtaining  the  right  to  use  an  asset.  Finance 
leasing  can  be  used  for  energy-efficient  equipment,  even  when  the 
equipment  lacks  collateral  value.  Leasing  companies,  often  bank 
subsidiaries, have experience with vendor finance programs and other 
equipment  finance  forms.  Leasing  is  the  most  common  form  of 
equipment  manufacturers'  vendor financing,  which  is often  applied  in 
the case of CHP equipment. Leasing is often done as part of an SPV. 

Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)/Special Purpose Entity (SPE). A firm or other 
legal  entity  established  to  perform  some  narrowly-defined  or 
temporary  purpose,  facilitating  off-balance  sheet  project  financing.  A 
standard  approach  is  to  form  an  SPV/SPE  and  place  assets  and 
liabilities  on  its  balance  sheet.  The  investors  accomplish  the  purpose 
for which an SPV /SPE has been set up – for example, implementing a 
large EE project – without carrying any associated assets or liabilities 
on their balance sheet. 

Grants. Public money can be addressed through investment grants to incentivise 

energy performance, specifically EnPC. 

Forfaiting.  A mechanism  that  allows  an  agent  to  secure  financing  by  selling 
receivables  (i.e.  the  future  cost-savings  or  fees  charged  by  the 
provider) to a finance intermediary (the forfaiting provider); this allows 
the  EnPC  provider  to  lower  its  debt  after  commissioning  the  project 
and  to  undertake  new  projects,  and  allows  the  financial  intermediary 
to access a long-term, low-risk payment stream. 

Sources: Boza-Kiss et al., 2017; Economidou, et al., 2019; Launch Project, 2020; 
Fi-Compass,  2020;  Pernetta  and  Bender,  2020;  European  Energy  Efficiency 
Platform (E3P), 2020). 

100 

 
 
 
 
List of boxes  

Box 1. Clarification on the use of “energy efficiency” and “energy performance” in this report. ...................................9 

Box 2. Comparison of Guaranteed and Shared saving models of EnPC. .................................................................................... 10 

Box 3. The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) of the Next Generation EU and the National Recovery and 
Resilience Plans (RRP) .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 

101 

 
 
 
List of figures  

Figure 1. Overview of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-27 concerning the Next Generation EU and 
the Recovery and Resilience Facility. .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 

Figure 2. EIB lending to energy efficiency per sector (2012-21) ................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 3. Absolute and relative allocation of RRFs in RRPs to clean technologies and renewables and to the 
energy efficiency of buildings (€billion and %) (as of June 2022). ................................................................................................ 26 

Figure 4. Energy-efficient renovation spending as a percentage of the RRPs budget (%) ............................................ 28 

Figure 5. Allocation of the RRF to energy efficient renovations by country, in m€. ........................................................... 28 

Figure 6. Financial and fiscal instruments by type of building (Residential, Commercial, Public) across the EU.
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 

Figure 7. Development of electricity prices for household consumers (above) and non-household consumers 
(below) in the EU 2008-2021 (€/kWh) .............................................................................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 8. Electricity prices for household consumers (above) and non-household consumers in the EU during 
the second half of 2021 (€/kWh).......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 9. Long-term interest rate in the EU 1970-2020 ..................................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 10. Market size of EnPC in MSs and the EU during 2020-21, in number of contracts and million euros
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 

Figure 11. Ratio between the market size of EnPC – in number of contracts and million euro – and the size of 
the national economy – in trillion euro – during 2020-21 ................................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 12. Evolution of ESCO investment in Europe, the United States and China (2015-2021) ............................. 38 

Figure 13. Market trends based on the assessed number of contracts and expert estimates................................... 40 

Figure 14. Availability, sufficiency and quality of EnPC provision, facilitation, one-stop-shops and financing 44 

Figure 15. Understanding of EnPC and willingness to operate with EnPC of clients (public and private) and 
financing actors. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 16. Relevance of EnPC with guaranteed savings and with shared savings in the market. ............................ 50 

Figure 17. Energy as a Service contracting as an alternative to EnPC. ...................................................................................... 52 

Figure 18. Typical size, duration, payback and percentage of baseline consumption in MSs. ..................................... 56 

Figure 19. Project areas prioritized in each MS ......................................................................................................................................... 59 

Figure 20. Types of Interventions in buildings ........................................................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 21. Most relevant barriers identified at the MS level for 2019-21 (in white) and 2022-24 (in green) 65 

Figure 22. Most relevant drivers identified at MS level for 2019-21 (in white) and 2022-24 (in green) ........... 68 

Figure 23. Expert appraisal of MSs’ implementation of the EU regulatory framework ................................................... 71 

Figure 24. Impact of the updated statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts, percentage of off-
balance contracts, the existence of off-balance models in MSs, and remaining budget allowance limits for 
subnational public bodies. ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 

Figure 25. Expert assessment of EU supporting mechanisms Technical Assistance, Guarantee Facility of the 
SFBI, InvestEU, and DEEP and EEFIG Underwriting Toolkit. .................................................................................................................. 77 

Figure 26. Expert assessment of EU supporting mechanisms Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF, 2014-
20) Cohesion Policy Funds (CPF, 2021-27); e) Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF); and f) the package of the 
European Green Deal and Fit for 55. .................................................................................................................................................................. 78 

Figure 27. Recommendations at MS-level .................................................................................................................................................... 81 

Figure 28. EU-level recommendations identified based on national experiences. ............................................................. 84 

102 

 
 
Figure 29. Market trends based on expert survey for 2019 - 2021 and 2022-2024. .................................................... 86 

103 

 
 
 
List of tables  

Table 1. Presence of EnPC in the NECPs, LTRSs, and RRPs of MSs ............................................................................................... 27 

Table 2. Models competing with EnPC in the MS. ..................................................................................................................................... 53 

Table 3. Trends for the period 2022-24 regarding types and areas of intervention ........................................................ 62 

Table A 1. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate). ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 146 

Table A 2. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 147 

Table A 3. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Please indicate the number of different 
operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below needs), 1 (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). ......................................................................................................................................................... 147 

Table A 4. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please rate 
the understanding of the workings of EnPC and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the public 
and private sectors and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 
3 (very good). .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 147 

Table A 5. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 148 

Table A 6. Perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the table. 
Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good 
practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. .................................................................. 148 

Table A 7. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent 
different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors (find 
below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 149 

Table A 8. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 150 

Table A 9. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate). ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 153 

Table A 10. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 153 

Table A 11. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 154 

Table A 12. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 

104 

 
 
 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 154 

Table A 13. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 155 

Table A 14. Perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the table. 
Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good 
practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. .................................................................. 156 

Table A 15. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 157 

Table A 16. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 159 

Table A 17. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 161 

Table A 18. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 162 

Table A 19. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 162 

Table A 20. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 162 

Table A 21. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 163 

Table A 22. Experts' perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 164 

Table A 23. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate).. ................................................................................................................................................................. 165 

Table A 24. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please 
rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. 

105 

 
 
When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - +2 (very 
positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers 
found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. .......................................................................................................... 166 

Table A 25. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 168 

Table A 26. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 168 

Table A 27. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 168 

Table A 28. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 169 

Table A 29. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 169 

Table A 30. Experts' perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 170 

Table A 31. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 171 

Table A 32. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 172 

Table A 33. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 174 

Table A 34. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 174 

Table A 35. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 174 

Table A 36. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 174 

Table A 37. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 

106 

 
 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 175 

Table A 38. Experts' perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 176 

Table A 39. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Projects reviewed and Experts’ responses to: Please 
rank from 0 to 3 the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public 
and private sectors (find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = 
not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated 
to overall markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack 
grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate). ........................................................................................................................................ 177 

Table A 40. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 180 

Table A 41. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 180 

Table A 42. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 180 

Table A 43. Understanding of the willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 181 

Table A 44. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 181 

Table A 45. Experts' perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 182 

Table A 46. Financing sources for the EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 183 

Table A 47. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 184 

Table A 48. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 186 

Table A 49. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 186 

107 

 
 
Table A 50. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 186 

Table A 51. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 187 

Table A 52. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 187 

Table A 53. Experts' perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 188 

Table A 54. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 189 

Table A 55. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 190 

Table A 56. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 195 

Table A 57. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 196 

Table A 58. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 196 

Table A 59. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 196 

Table A 60. Relevance of different contarct models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 197 

Table A 61. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. ..... 198 

Table A 62. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the infomation is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 199 

108 

 
 
Table A 63. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 200 

Table A 64. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 203 

Table A 65. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. EU Survey 2022 and Observatoire CPE. Experts’ 
response to the questions: Could you please identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And 
for the period 2022-2024? .................................................................................................................................................................................... 203 

Table A 66. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 203 

Table A 67. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 204 

Table A 68. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 204 

Table A 69. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 205 

Table A 70. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 205 

Table A 71. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Source: EU Survey 2022 and BfEE 2020. 
Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the 
column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, 
or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate. ............................................................................................................... 209 

Table A 72. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 209 

Table A 73. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 210 

Table A 74. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 210 

Table A 75. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 211 

Table A 76. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 

109 

 
 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 212 

Table A 77. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 212 

Table A 78. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 214 

Table A 79. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 218 

Table A 80. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. ................................................................................................................... 218 

Table A 81. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 218 

Table A 82. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale:0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 219 

Table A 83. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 219 

Table A 84. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 220 

Table A 85. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 220 

Table A 86. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 222 

Table A 87. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 224 

Table A 88. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 224 

110 

 
 
Table A 89. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 224 

Table A 90. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 224 

Table A 91. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 225 

Table A 92. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based 
on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in 
the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify 
good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ..................................................... 226 

Table A 93. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 227 

Table A 94. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 229 

Table A 95. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 232 

Table A 96. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 232 

Table A 97. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 233 

Table A 98. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 233 

Table A 99. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 233 

Table A 100. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 234 

Table A 101. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 

111 

 
 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 235 

Table A 102. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 237 

Table A 103. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 239 

Table A 104. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 239 

Table A 105. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 240 

Table A 106. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 240 

Table A 107. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 241 

Table A 108. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 242 

Table A 109. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 243 

Table A 110. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 244 

Table A 111. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 247 

Table A 112. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 247 

Table A 113. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 247 

112 

 
 
Table A 114. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 247 

Table A 115. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 248 

Table A 116. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 249 

Table A 117. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 250 

Table A 118. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 251 

Table A 119. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 253 

Table A 120. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 253 

Table A 121. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 254 

Table A 122. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 254 

Table A 123. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 255 

Table A 124. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 256 

Table A 125. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 

113 

 
 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 257 

Table A 126. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 259 

Table A 127. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 260 

Table A 128. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 260 

Table A 129. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 260 

Table A 130. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 261 

Table A 131. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework.  
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 262 

Table A 132. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 264 

Table A 133. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 267 

Table A 134. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 267 

Table A 135. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 268 

Table A 136. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 268 

Table A 137. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 268 

Table A 138. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 270 

114 

 
 
Table A 139. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 271 

Table A 140. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 272 

Table A 141. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 274 

Table A 142. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 275 

Table A 143. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 275 

Table A 144. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 275 

Table A 145. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 276 

Table A 146. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. . 277 

Table A 147. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 278 

Table A 148. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 279 

Table A 149. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 281 

Table A 150. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 281 

Table A 151. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 282 

115 

 
 
Table A 152. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 282 

Table A 153. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 283 

Table A 154. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 284 

Table A 155. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 285 

Table A 156. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 286 

Table A 157. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. ......................................................................................... 289 

Table A 158. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 289 

Table A 159. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 290 

Table A 160. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 290 

Table A 161. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 291 

Table A 162. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 291 

Table A 163. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 293 

Table A 164. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 295 

116 

 
 
Table A 165. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 295 

Table A 166. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 296 

Table A 167. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 296 

Table A 168. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 297 

Table A 169. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 298 

Table A 170. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 299 

Table A 171. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 301 

Table A 172. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 302 

Table A 173. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 303 

Table A 174. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 303 

Table A 175. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 303 

Table A 176. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 304 

Table A 177. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 305 

117 

 
 
Table A 178. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 305 

Table A 179. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms.  Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 308 

Table A 180. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the 
best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets 
whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate. .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 310 

Table A 181. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please 
identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?.................................... 311 

Table A 182. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the 
number of different operators. Then rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below 
needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good). .................................................................................................................. 311 

Table A 183. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please 
rate the understanding of the workings of EnPC, and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the 
public and private sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 
(good), and 3 (very good). ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 311 

Table A 184. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. 
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common). (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 312 

Table A 185. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. 
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies 
listed in the table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please 
specify good practices and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. ................................... 312 

Table A 186. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 3 
the extent different financing sources and schemes are used to support EnPC in the public and private sectors 
(find below some explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 
=uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall 
markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to 
provide a disaggregated estimate). .................................................................................................................................................................. 313 

Table A 187. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, 
please rate the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC 
market. When relevant, also rate the impact on the financing sector. Use the scale -2 (very negative impact) - 
+2 (very positive impact), where 0 depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices 
and barriers found in the implementation of these support mechanisms. ............................................................................. 314 

118 

 
 
 
Annexes  

119 

 
 
Annex 1. Review of policy implementation and support 

EnPC in NECPs 

Refers to 
EnPC 

“Saving 
contracting” 
YES 

EnPC is 
Mainly 
available in 
the public 
sector, and 
will to 
widen EnPC 
to the 
private 
sector  

ESCO and 
EnPC are 
underdevelo
ped in BE, 
despite 
successful 
experiences 

AT 

BE 
Fl 

BE 
Wa 

BE 
Br 

BE 
Fed 

BG 

EnPC 

CY 

EnPC 

Drivers direct / (indirect) 

Savings obligation on Federal buildings (Act 2014) 
Successful “saving contracting”  
“EnPC (including EPC extension with increase + reduction in the 
threshold by the energy plan declared at 0.1 PJ) 
“Environmental incentive + mini-EPC” 
Government buildings strategies to include mechanisms (EnPC), 
each body to conduct self-scan 
Support to facilitation contracting and subsidy (10% of 
facilitation costs up to € 8,000) in the health sector 
Information to Schools since 2018 (5 EnPCs underway) 6.3.7 
VEB model EnPC for large consumers in the public  sector  (VEB 
to further develop EnPCs and funding options) 
Annual reduction of the energy budget 
easier recourse to EnPC (demonstrability Art. 7)  
Make easier to use intended for exemplary function 
Priority to EnPC (and to EU funds) (¿combined?) 
To develop ‘UREBA exceptionnel’ to attract investment to EnPC in 
the tertiary 
Regulatory framework to be assessed (2020) 

Recognised potential for funding based on performance – EnPC – 
and clustering 

PPPs, EnPCs and green bonds are envisaged for major 
renovations 
The defence must renovate through EnPC 
Reliance on the EU Code of Conduct for EnPC, developed by 
Transparense 
ESCO expectations for housing 
Possible ESCO contract for the industry 
Information and promotion EnPC 
Supply (19 ESCOs registered), legal framework 
Existing technical support, ongoing preparation of template 
contract EnPC for public sector 

CZ 

EPC method  Continued support to EnPC, particularly in the public sector (goal 

to maximise efficient use of funds) 
Planned education on procurement and support to information 
centres which help with the preparation and documentation of 
EnPC projects 
Implemented M&V system  
Funding of EnPC consulting for municipalities and NGOs 
Dialogue on EnPC between federal and land governments 
EnPC (as PPP) is promoted in public buildings for construction, 
renovation, and maintenance. 
Information on EnPC for municipal and regional authorities 
Cooperative development of ESCO models (2019) 

Municipalities are due to explore financing solutions (e.g. PPP, EPC 
and ESCO) as a part of voluntary agreements 
Highlights financial instruments in which investment costs are 

DE 

EnPC 

DK 

EnPC 

EE 

ESCO 

FI 

Barely 
mentioned 

120 

Indicated barriers to 
EnPC /(possible barriers 
to EnPC 

(aggregation) 

lack of trust on the 
client's side,  
lack of technical 
expertise for tendering 

(Use of PPP to foster 
EE and RES) 

(Financing to housing 
associations - KredEx) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
paid by generating energy cost savings and state-guaranteed 
loans - for the energy poor 
Compatibility issues between Heat Fund grants and EnPC could 
disincentivise EnPC? 

ELEKTRA program for financing public buildings, also through 
EnPC 
Building stock renovation through PPP> EnPC (public and private 
tertiary) 
Special financing to be set for EnPC in the industrial sector 
Framework to be adapted for finance, administration 
Planned establishment of Energy Efficiency Fund (no mention 
EnPC) for  refinancing and blended financing 
Regulated EnPC in the public sector (OG No. 11/15)), and 
liberalised in the private sector 

Introduced EEO, open to ESs 
“Encouraged ESCO-type financing” 
Exemplary role of public buildings, demonstration, energy 
management, Monitoring and Reporting System (does not 
mention EnPC) 
New guidelines on EnPC for buildings (Legislative Decree No 
50/2016)  
Conto Termico for tertiary buildings supports EnPC 
Improving contracts 
Quality control 
Simplified authorisation processes 
In the process of deciding requirement to have an energy 
manager (cantier ambiente) 
The Public Investment Development Agency promotes ESs in the 
public sector.  
The Energy Efficiency Fund (€79.65m) provides advice to building 
managers and loans or guarantees to ESCOs working with public 
buildings and lighting  
Barriers to EnPC (not specified) addressed 

Possibilities for EnPC “Being discussed” amongst administrations 

Public bodies can conclude PESCOs 
Allowing private financing (ESCO) of multiapartment buildings  
Planned to develop a fiscally neutral model contracts 
Possible implementation of EE through ESCOs or long-term 
financing 

Heat Fund Grants (not 
possible when EnPC is 
planned) 
Difficulty of financing 
through EnPC 

Need a combination of 
ESIF with PPP and 
ESCO 
Need clear regulation 
of EnPC 
Need examples EnPC 

Regulatory uncertainly 
EnPC (through PPP and 
procurement) 

EnPCs account towards 
debt when not 
observing Eurostat 
Lack of experience and 
guidelines 
Need long-term 
financing and 
repurchasing of cash 
flow 
(Low energy intensity)  
(Long payback periods)  
(Availability of 
alternative sources of 
finance) 

FR 

EnPC (CPE) 

GR 

EnPC and 
PPP for 
public 
buildings 

HR  

EnPC 

HU 

ESCO-type 

IE  

NO71 

IT 

EnPC 

Energy 
Efficiency 
Contracts, 
energy 
services in 
the public 
sector 
No mention 
of EnPC or 
ESCo 
“PESCO” 
and “EE 
contract” 
used for 
EnPC 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

ESCO ( has 
not taken 
off) 

Consultation conducted in 2017 
Considering SPVs for off-balance EnPC 

EnPC 
(Growing 
but not 
widespread) 
. 

Good examples from the Central government;  
Guidelines for the Procurement of EnPC 
Facilitator pool trained by GuarantEE project 
Collaboration with the sector.  
Tax deductions for ESCO are being considered  

71 ESCO and EnPC not mentioned in NECP nor in Public sector report 2021. Public-Sector-Annual-Report-2021.pdf (seai.ie) 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
PL 

No mention 
of EnPC. EE 
contracts.  

PT 

NO 

RO 

EnPC in the 
public 
sector 
(lighting) 

Measures to be taken in 2021-2030 to support SMEs ESCOs 
EnPC in public sector units is allowed 

Promoting EE in public buildings, lighting and other sectors, with 
emphasis on electrification and RES. 
Training for the EE sector (incl management, M&V) 2020-30 
Working group about barriers to EnPC in the public sector 
Priority to public lighting to develop experience and apply it to 
public buildings 

SI 

SK 

“Energy 
contracting 
(EPO)” 

EnPC in 
public 
buildings 
and lighting 

Design financial products for EnPC 
Provide assistance to EnPC (Training, quality assurance, tools for 
evaluation) 
Extend EnPC from the public to other sectors (housing) 
Promote the emergence of SME ESCOs 
Defined ESCO and EnPC (guaranteed ESs, GES), and EnPC for the 
public sector as of 2014, list of providers,  
Annual data collected overall and public sector (reported in NECP 
2014-2017) 
EnPC model compliant with Eurostat rules (2019) 
Technical assistance is under preparation to identify projects in 
public buildings and lighting 

ES 

EnPC 

SE 

Energy 
services 

Pioneering role of autonomous regions – conduct own EE plans 
for public buildings –in EnPC and PPP 
Promotion of ESs 
New contracts for the public sector (Eurostat-compliant) and for 
the private sector (RES and EE) 
Expected aid and promotion to ESCOs 
Swedish Energy Agency connects customers and suppliers, 
promotes ESs amongst SMEs 
Developed Model contract (EnPC?) for housing associations 

The ESCO market is not 
yet mature, regardless 
of transposition. ESCOs 
struggle 

Legislative framework 
and procurement rules 
Energy prices 
Funding 
Risk perception 
Mistrust and absence 
of standardisation (e.g. 
M&V 

Need for ESCOs to be 
able to apply for 
support. Need non-
repayable EU fin 
assistance.  
Guaranteed energy 
services, slowed by 
Eurostat, then 
recovered? 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EnPC in LTRS 

Attention 
to EnPC 
YES 

AT 

YES 

BE 
Fl 

YES 

BE 
Wa 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

Renewed contracting plan for refurbishing 
federal buildings (2021-2030) 
Public sector voluntary agreement to 
reduce CO2, largely through building 
renovation 
Consultant program for federal and other 
public authorities 
ES contracting platform. Planned database 
on energy-saving measures – not 
implemented  
Public sector need of EnPC for the 
financing of thermal refurbishment plans 
of Carinthia and Styria, renewables and EE 
in buildings and facilities of Upper 
Austria,72 
EnPC platform for SMEs  
EnPC eco-label for service providers (first 
in EU), DECA association of EnPC providers 
(2005) 
(Estimated energy-saving potential for 
Public Buildings (84.7GWh 2021-30)) 
(Upper Austrian market)73 
Existing (2017) premium for the collective 
renovation of dwellings (at least 10) – 
Demonstrations in Antwerp and Mechelen  
Envisioned role for EnPC in education 
(maintenance and EnPC) and health 
buildings. 
Free Energy performance diagnoses, 
subsidies to EnPC (10% of the cost of 
facilitation) and 60% of costs in climate 
investment75 
VEB facilitates OEnPC (maintenance and 
EnPC)76 
 Establish a framework for EnPC and 
promote it in the public sector 
Facilitation of EnPC and PPPs 
EnPC (and PPP) role in fostering the 
exemplary role of public buildings through 
One-stop shops, project aggregation 
(Pooling of 96 projects for EnPC )77, de-

Shifting attention “beyond” EnPC74  
Limited uptake amongst SMEs 
(Focus on PV) 
(Dependence on long-term funding 
coordination between the federal and regional 
governments) 

The Flanders authorities find problematic the 
Eurostat approach to off-balance treatment as 
one that incentivises ‘picking low-hanging 
fruits’ only, without working towards structural 
measures in the building envelope 

Perceived (banking) risk 
Promotion of PPP (communication to local 
authorities on existing solutions, standard 
documents, and innovation partnerships) 
Assumed limitations in depth of renovation 
with EnPC 
(loan guarantees for the disadvantaged 

72 “To date, over 240 energy performance contracting projects have been financed in Upper Austria, with energy investments worth over 
€70  million.  Typical energy  performance  contracting  measures that are  often implemented in  both enterprises  and  municipalities 
include switching to efficient interior lighting, optimising heating control and regulation, eco-heating systems (in particular biomass 
heating systems), utilising waste heat, energy recovery, thermal insulation measures and street lighting refurbishments.” 

73 “The contractor offers a package of services that can be adapted to individual needs within the municipality or business in question. 
The term is usually between 5 and 15 years. Upper Austria was the first Austrian province and one of the first European regions to 
introduce direct funding for energy performance contracting. Energy performance contracting is a financing and operating model for 
energy efficiency and renewable energy. To date, over 240 energy performance contracting projects have been financed in Upper 
Austria, 
see: 
https://http://www.energiesparverband.at/fileadmin/esv/Broschueren/Energie-Contracting.pdf” 

investments 

examples, 

million. 

energy 

please 

worth 

over 

with 

€70 

For 

74 EnPC platform for SMEs may be shifting efforts towards guarantee models, conventional contracting(2006 data?); Eco-label shifting 
attention to operational management contracting, energy consultations and implementation of an energy management system 

75 Flemish Government Decree of 30 March 2018 
76  Under  the  Horizon  2020  project  ‘CitizEE’  the  VEB  devised  a  solution  in  combining  EIB  ot  EUInvest  with  ESCO  financing  and  citizen 

participation (similar to Austria Co-OP) 

77Promotion  of  project  aggregation  through  investment  platforms  or  groups,  and  consortia  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises, 
establishing  a  de-risking  platform  and  training  for  the  banking  sector,  guarantee  of  loans  for  the  disadvantaged  groups,  etc.). 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

YES 

BE 
Br 

BG 

YES (EEPC 
or ESPC) 

risking platform, training for the banking 
sector, EnPC standardisation, support to 
small ESCOs, market monitoring EnPC, 
review management procedures and 
regulations, and maintenance agreements 
for these to enable the integration of 
EnPCs in public contracts. 
Continuation of RenoWatt (100 contracting 
authorities), IGRETEC (inter-municipal 
consulting firm and ESCO) 
Previous pilot (€38m awarded in EnPC in 
Liége for hospital and public housing) 
Public housing renovation (~ 5 000 
dwellings/year) with a focus on leveraging 
the effect of public funding to possibly 
make an EnPC pilot 
(Strengthening the role of energy 
managers) 
Foreseen establishment of a market and 
project facilitator service (fostering 
aggregation )78, a one-stop-shop for 
professionals 
easyCOPRO is a project to encourage the 
energy renovation of a jointly owned 
building through EnPC and other models 
Promote the concept of ESCO and EnPC 
Development of EnPC models and specific 
legal vehicles and support for EnPC  
Regional fund for ESCO, and partially 
revolving fund usable for ESCo 
development, and promotion of EnPC with 
public funding to aim at deeper 
renovations (Study potential for re-
injecting cost savings) 
Developed ESCO capacity and small 
market. Furthering guaranteed savings 
for the public sector () 
Linking financing to targets or 
achievements in building renovation 
Provision of “contracts with guaranteed 
score” and examples; introducing criteria 
and register for ESCOs; updating the Code 
of conduct 
(Development of a National 
Decarbonisation Fund for all types of 
buildings (JTF, InvestEU, EEOs and other 
funding), possibly linked to ESCO 
mechanism.) 
(Experience with revolving funds, 
guarantee funds and special credit lines) 
Possibility for a superESCo and specialist 
funds to buy receivables (alike LaBEEF) 

groups) 

Well-developed know-how and experience, but 
volumes are small 
Regulatory and legal: Not possible to conduct 
audits for EnPC; financing is restricted (ESPCs 
can only be funded by the ESCO or a third-
party financier); required twelve-month for 
savings verification; legal uncertainty for 
ESCOs; limited possibilities for the sale of 
receivables; no possibility for off-balance 
treatment of ESPCs, and guaranteed savings 
are not recognised as a source of loan 
repayment 
Lack of experience with Green Mortgages, On-
bill financing, and EnPC 
(Public buildings:79 Implementation of EMS 
(20 public buildings by 2030), Training for local 
authorities, Online platform to aggregate 
public building projects, List of verified 
contractors, Green bonds) 
(Funding through credit lines, guarantees and 
technical assistance (National mechanism for 

Support  to  Energy  Performance  Contracting  projects  and  third  party  financing  is  explored,  including  the  development  and 
standardization of tools and documents, training in the banking sector, facilitating access to capital for smaller ESCOs, developing 
pilot projects, monitoring of the market, etc.” 
78 Recognizes costly nature of Project Preparation. 
79 (2021-2030 budget of BGN 7 800 million) 

124 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

HR 

YES 

CY 

ESCO 

CZ 

YES 

DK  Only in 
annex 
documents 

EE  NO 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

Strategy indicated in the form of a 
proposal for policy-makers:  
Need to develop financial instruments to 
support ESCOs, to aid the development of 
ES and PPP market, e.g. co-financing model 
to allow for financial aid to be granted 
directly to the ESCO 
Need revolving fund with ESI funds,  
guarantee instruments,  subsidised interest 
rates, public demand,  standardised 
contracts with measurement and 
verification (for confidence) 
There are 55 auditors and 12 ESPs 
authorised in the buildings sector, but there 
is very low activity.  
Underway measures: development of a 
methodology and software for the control 
of audits;  online registration of services, 
preparation of standard public tender 
documents and guidelines 
Municipal and regional strategy for 
renovating public buildings supports EnPC  
EnPC is well developed in the private 
sector-  
Public building renovation: technical 
assistance (e.g. tendering) for EnPC in 
public and commercial buildings (EFEKT), 
free energy consultation centres (EKIS), 
subsidised documental preparation of EnPC 
projects 
(Subsidised energy management systems 
for local authorities and businesses) 
Will to diversify financing 
ESCO contracts tend not to include 
financing since Kommunekredit is more 
advantageous (Examples: Frederiksberg 
with Schneider E. and Zealand with 
Siemens.)  
Circular on energy efficiency in the State 
Green bonds for Kommunekredit 
Aggregation through municipality 
partnerships and PPP (Gate21 in CPH 
region) 
(Grants from a fund for energy savings in 
buildings and business (DKK 500m/yr) are 
awarded to the greatest documented 
savings).  
(Advisory services of BetterHomes scheme, 
SparEnergi dk, Danish Knowledge Centre 
for Energy Savings in Buildings) 
Facilitation of lending for energy 
renovation of buildings, and “high energy 
performance, public-private partnerships”, 
“reduction of possible investment risks, 

financing energy efficiency – NMFEE) ) 
 Low creditworthiness of EE and ESCOs for 
national banks, lack of guarantees and high 
capital costs 
VAT and statistical treatment 

Lack of user confidence, lack of experience 
from ESCOs 
Possible barrier or driver: ( Loan scheme 
(2020) for EE and renewables for households, 
SMEs and local authorities (Mutual Funds Fund, 
supported by CF, ERDF, national budget and 
loan guaranteed by the EIB– €40 + 40 million)) 

Public buildings are bound by budgetary and 
accounting restrictions (the Eurostat rules did 
not help) 
Inv. Grants (public and private buildings)80 

(Potentially competing financing: Municipal 
Mortgage Credit (Kommunekredit) provides 
loans and leasing to municipalities; National 
Building Fund (Landsbyggefonden) supports 
renovation of social housing; heat pumps on 
subscription) 

National tax, ERDF, CF and, to a lesser extent, 
H2020 to support loans, guarantees (e.g. for 
multi-dwelling renovation, mortgage 
guarantee) and grants (available)81  

80  The  Czech  LTRS  refers to  investment  allocation  from  Planned  Funding  for  public  sector  from  ERDF  and  CF  (CZK  14000m),  Planned 
Revenues  from  GHG emission  trading  (Green  Savings  Program)  (For  2020,  an  allocation  of  CZK  1,350m) to  subsidize EE  in  residential 
buildings, Planned Modernisation Fund (EIB) for the renovation of State buildings (CZK 15000m for 2021-2030), and PANEL programme 
(soft loans for EE measures in residential multi-apartment buildings): CZK 15 000 million for 2020-2030.  
81 KredEx building SA (the State credit foundation) recommendations do not include EnPC.   

125 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

financial support and creation of a revenue 
base needed for financing the measures.” 
High targets (full renovation of all buildings 
built up previous to 2000 into NZEB) 
Funding needed and hence potential for 
ESCO financing (EC review) 
(Developing information and awareness 
measures) 
(Improving data availability and monitoring 
process.) 
ESCO projects receive an ESCO subsidy 
(25%) over 20% conventional subsidy 
(2017-2025) 
New (sectoral) contract forms 2017-2019 
(?) 
Non-residential renovations opt for 
Business Finland investment subsidy for 
“ESCO projects (requires guaranteed 
energy savings)" (unrestricted duration) 
Arrangements with ESCOs to provide 
information to clients and providers 
Standardised technical sheet for EnPC (CPE 
services) (2018) and premium (2019?)  to 
encourage) execution and installation 
works in Multiowner buildings 
Support to local and regional authorities 
(Big Investment Plan): equity investment 
from CDC in Energy EPC (€1b total in 
grants and subsidies, of which 0.5 is for 
EnPC and “Intracting”.82 
FAIRE (ADEME, ANAH and ANILO) One-stop-
shop and sectoral network for the 
household renovation  
National renovation observatory  
(Creation of a guarantee fund for low-
income renovation) 
ADEME’s shared energy consultancy 
scheme and CEE programmes. 
contracting support “contracting check” 
(non-resid municipal buildings, non-profit  
and SMEs), “Contracting: Build the Future” 
(public properties), and consultation audits 
on (EBK and KfW) on commercial municipal 
and non-profit buildings, and urban 
redevelopment EnPCs 
blueprint ESCO/EPC contracts and 
guidelines esp. for the public sector in BEEf 
federal- state dialogues on the use of 
ESCO/contracting  
The BAFA promotes ES markets and 
addresses barriers to ESCO and EPC.  
Upcoming demonstration of 10-15 forms 
of ESCO contracts used in ‘model’ projects 
at local and land-level  
Barriers are addressed, and an integral 
approach is ongoing 
Strategy open to diverse contracting 
options 
(Upcoming)Electra programme provides 

FI 

ESCO 

FR 

YES 

DE 

YES 

HE 

YES 

PPPs mentioned but not EnPCs  
Loans, loan guarantees (home buy, renovation 
and multi-dwelling renovation) and grants 

Obligations in the public sector have been met 
on a voluntary basis 

Fragmentation (general barrier to public 
tertiary renovation) needs intercommunal 
pooling 
(Competing financing; Soft loans from the CDC 
(€2b), “The Energy Saving Certificate (CEE) 
schemes, the ERDF and the ADEME Heat Fund 
serve to fund operations)  

Annual market monitoring by the BfEE 
More consultations are desirable. 
EU State aid law “imposes significant hurdles 
on energy-efficient building support” 

(Competitiveness of renewables  and required 

82 “Innovative funding scheme that serves to create a virtuous circle of funding derived from energy savings to finance renovation works.” 

126 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

Solar thermal in new buildings) 

Barriers to development of  ESCO markets: low 
energy prices and long paybacks, high volume 
of EU non-refundable funds, high costs of 
refurbishment in public buildings (Paybacks 
longer than 10 years, with maximum 
acceptable without client financing being 15 
years, which increases national endebtment. 

ESCo market in preliminary stage (besides 
Dublin!?) 

Public consultation participants called for EnPC 
and PPP linked to bonuses and greater 
standardisation of EnPC and PPP contracts. 
NEEF guarantees efficiency loans but needs 
standardisation, and measurement for risk 
assessment, green mortgages and EnPC, 
especially in multi-family buildings 
Fund for building renovation and purchase 

HU   YES 

IE 

YES 

IT 

YES 

investment loans for EnPC renovation of 
public buildings (expected  4Ktoe/yr) 
(Upcoming) collaborative design of 
Innovative blended/hybrid finance 
programmes to include EnPC along with 
blended concessional loans, lease-
financing, risk-sharing instruments such as 
blended insurance, and guarantee 
instruments (as well as aggregating) for 
tertiary, domestic and industrial sectors  
Envisioned introduction of Eurostat-
compliant EnPC contracts(2023-27) 
Planned development of model contracts 
and incorporation of Eurostat guidance into 
Law 
Planning to address confidence issues 
through measured-based accounting, 
settlement of energy price changes, and 
shared savings 
Planned monitoring of the EnPC market 
Renovation of health buildings with ESCO 
(2020-2022) 
Securitisation, green bonds 
Possible establishment of a green bank to 
provide guarantees. Introduction of green 
interest rebate (MNB) 
Recommended ESRI: guidelines, template 
contracts, grants, fuel tax) for ESCO 
development 
development of a new energy services 
framework, public sector analysis 
underway  in 2020 (SRSS funds) 
SEAI support to EnPCs through training (e.g. 
managers) and expertise for public and 
private sectors 
Planning a de-risking instrument to help 
bundle projects for EnPCs) double-check 
Large scale EnPC project recently delivered 
in a hospital 
Financial measures include EnPC  
Continuation of Conto Termico, simplifying 
access and promotion of ESCO and EnPC 
models, and focusing on tertiary 
Region of Liguria, as part of the Enershift 
project, concluded the first call for tenders 
for large-scale energy retrofitting using 
Energy Performance Contracts in public 
social housing (investment € 15m) 
Municipality of Marsala, 80 social housing 
renovated through Public-Private 
Partnership in Finance Projects(Legislative 
Decree 50/16) 
Aggregation and de-risking tools, 
guarantee funds etc. 
Eco- Super- (efficiency and RES) and 
Sismabonus tax rebates for seism-
proofing, with RRF 
White Certificates incentive for buildings 
and district heating 
NEFF (national budget) to guarantee 
financing operations (30%) and subsidised 
loans (70%) 
Green bonds (increasing market value) 

127 

 
 
 
Attention 
to EnPC 
YES 

LV 

LT 

ESCO 

LU 

ESCO 

MT 

YES – not 
supported 

NL 

Vague 

PL 

YES 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

Limited ESCO  experience and 
creditworthiness, unknown to businesses and 
FIs, besides ALTUM (finances building 
renovation) 
 Need loan portfolio (refinancing). Use of EU 
funds for refinancing not accepted84 
EnPC investment accounted as debt (PPAs 
already possible but complex) 
Lack of model “contracts for the industry”?, for 
municipal sector (limited contracts now at 
5years)(Expecting approval)85 
Payback for EE in public buildings 20 years 

Low energy prices (need price and tax 
measures to reduce payback period) 
Market to take off, no legal framework for 
ESCOs, no list of ESCOs nor criteria for ESCO 
classification (cites JRC 2019) 
Need aggregation 
(Potential trans-sectoral transfer of multi-
apartment renovation financing through 
subsidies, preferential loans and interest 
fixing) 
Lack of coordination national level, 
Development of EnPC would need a 
complementary approach to avoid competition 
between tools 

EWA consultation concluded there is little 
potential take up for Malta (long payback 
periods, need to include maintenance contract) 

General barriers stated include administrative 
and initial costs, risk awareness, and split 
incentives.86 

LABEEF refinances EnPCs in (private) multi-
apartment buildings (EBRD and private 
investment) 
Loans to purchase cash flow of ESCOs 
(max €2m, below 45% of the financing, 
and max 20 years loan) 
PPP, ESCO and cooperation with credit 
institutions are pointed as key. 
ALTUM Green bond guarantees energy 
efficiency improvements (backed by the 
EIB and PF4EE facility by the LIFE 
programme)83 
LTRS call for increased effectiveness of 
limited resources  
New repayable grant of up to 80% and a 
loan of up to 20% of the investment for 
ESCO projects of state building renovation 
(March 2020) 
(Setting up of one-stop-shop -not 
mentioned as related to EnPC) 

Developing de-risking instrument 
(investment bundling platform) to bundle 
projects for EnPCs and mobilise SMEs in 
cooperation with EIB (2020) 
PRIMe House national funding scheme 
(deep renovations) may  allow access of 
ESCOs to grants 
Building construction company to review 
the saving and EnPCability of the public 
building stock 
(Mandatory public building energy 
managers (2023) and EMSs (2025)) 
Sustainable Housing Platform supports 
EnPC with Green Lease in private 
commercial  rental 
Existing risk-sharing mechanism through a 
collaboration of Heating Fund and National 
Energy Savings Fund with private partners  
(mortgage guarantee)  
(Centralised database creation, building 
digitisation, and data standardisation) 
(National roadmap for public buildings) 
(Existing sustainability investment fee for 
rental premises) 
Promotion of ESCos and EnPC through a 

83 EUR 20 million, with funding up to EUR 2 850 000 per project, with only 15% of the company’s own participation. 
84 Based on EIAH opinion of 18 May 2019, plans for a Cabinet Regulation on the use of EU funds to co-finance ESCO investment was 

dropped. 

85 EIB Jaspers order supported the developmetn of off-balance contracts. 
86  The  LTRS  specifies  “high  initial  investment  costs,  a  frequent  lack  of  awareness  of  the  potential  savings  and  difficulty  in  accessing 
incentives…  administrative  or  preliminary  costs,  to  make  carrying  out  the  measure  accessible  and  appealing;    difficulties  in  obtaining 
loans  from  credit  institutions, including  via  ESCos,  due  to  lending  procedures that  are  still  highly  conservative  and uncertainties about 
projects  based  on  cash  flow  or  where  innovative  incentive  schemes  are  involved;    risk  of  payment  default  for  measures  financed  by 
ESCos; perceived high risk, high interest rates and lack of subsidised funding; asymmetry of information: barriers to the implementation 
of energy efficiency measures due to a lack of awareness of the potential benefits of savings and difficulty in accessing incentives;  split 
incentives: impediments due to the fact that the economic benefits of efficiency measures are often not experienced by those who have 
to pay the investment costs.” 

128 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

platform and knowledge centre on ESCos 
like an existing one on PPP 
Procedures for aggregation of EnPC 
Strengthened provisions on EnPC in 2021 
revision of Act of May 2016 
Adequate intensity of support in private 
buildings (30-70% of eligible costs) to 
enable EnPC, PPP, ESCO 
(Popularisation of comprehensive investor 
services (One-stop-shops)) 
EnPC to channel investment IFE2020 (EIB 
supported) in public buildings (as an 
alternative to 95% of investment subsidy 
including reimbursable subsidy – 70% of 
savings return)(unclear amount of 
resources available in LTRS) 
Off-balance EnPC and EE management 
contracts (incorporating EE and RES) 
Municipal and regional one-stop-shops for 
advice and finance 
(Strengthening the inter-ministerial 
network to renovate public buildings) 
(Requalifying Local Energy Managers) 
The National Energy Regulatory Authority 
(ANRE) coordinates a Working Group to 
develop a framework for ESCO 
ENERFUND instrument of financial 
decision-making for deep renovation 
(H2020 Episcope and Enermap) 
Planned assessment of PPP and EnPC as 
models for public building renovation 
during harmonisation with Eurostat 
guidance.  
(Planning mass refurbishment of public 
buildings through technical assistance for 
local authorities, schools, aggregation and 
standard tenders (with performance 
indicators)) 
/Introducing performance criteria in public 
procurement) 
(Creation of NEEF (private and SFs – 
maybe national budget)) 
(BUILD UP Skills Romania and ‘BUS 
Qualishell’ provided training for renovation, 
RES, and NZEB) 
By 2023 design financial products and 
quality support to EnPC providers, extend 
the program to the private sector (esp. 
housing), encourage the emergence of 
SMEs ESCOs 
By 2022 Ecofund (private funds?) for 
ESCOs in the housing sector 
Cohesion funds for the public sector and 
ESCOs 
By 2021, One-stop-shop for multi-family 
buildings (Project Office) (names ESCOs) 
Possible creation of a guarantee facility 
and maybe a guarantee fund, providing 
amongst other EnPC guarantees)  
(Proposed debt-purchasing scheme for 
EnPC providers 
Blending repayable and non-refundable EU 
Structural Funds with guaranteed energy 

129 

PT 

YES 

RO 

YES 

SI 

YES  

SK 

YES  

Lacks regulatory framework for ESCOs; EnPCs 
are rarely used for energy renovation of 
buildings (but for energy supply systems)-> 
potential in DH? 
Incentives are needed for EnPC or PPP in public 
buildings. 
Calls for district heating renovation with EnPC. 
DH is requirement for residential funding. 
Price subsidies for heating 
Funding options: Grant (100%), Loan and 
grant, partly repayable grant (20-60%) for all 
type of buildings 

Unclear success of renovation in non-
residential buildings through EnPC (absence of 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Attention 
to EnPC 

EnPC policies / indirect drivers) 

Stated Barriers / (Possible barriers) 

ES 

YES 

services (EnPC) (Private sector ESI Funds 
2021-27) 
Private non-residential building renovation 
financed by FIs, equity, EU SFs guarantees, 
and provider financing?? 
Off-balance EnPC with public bodies Feb 
2018 (Act No 321/2014) 
Technical assistance for public bodies’ 
projects drafting (Slovak Innovation and 
Energy Agency). 
Public Sector Contracts Act (2017)87allows 
ES tenders without duration limit, with 
price variations  
Regional authorities are urged to promote 
off-balance EnPC models (NECP); Contracts 
available: IDAE, Extremadura and 
Catalonia. 
Promotion of Central Government buildings 
self-consumption, renewables and ESs 
(NECP= 
Standard for ES providers’ (UNE 216701) 
(2018)88 
Upcoming regulation of energy 
communities (residential and commercial) 
to incorporate ESs  
Turnkey solutions promoted in criteria for 
public investment in renovation projects for 
Homeowners’ Associations (Turnkey, also in 
NECP) 
Already offset regulatory and trust-related 
barriers to ESs in  the public and private 
sectors 

SE  NO 

Efficient public procurement requirements 
(Ordinance 2014:480) (Supported loans, 
equity, guarantees andTechnical assistance 
(EU support)) 
(Offentliga fastigheter exchange and 
collaboration forum93) 

other support). No progress in private 
commercial 
Need a combination of EnPC with grant 
funding to avoid lock-in.  

Rules on the de-indexation of prices89 
Limited promotion of new rules on ESs in 
public sector  
Need incentives or instructions for EE in public 
buildings90  
Need promotion of EnPC in renovation of 
thermal installations 
Private sector pursues short-time returns 
(equipment and lighting 
(Loans and grants to efficiency and 
renewables measures (solar and geothermal) 
(PAREER II retrofitting programme 2017, with 
strong performance requirements,91 covering 
all costs (ICO line), ERDF support to EE, and 
fiscal reform ) 
(Large scale projects mentioned in LTRS refer 
only to ESCO, yet involve combination of public 
and private financing92) 
Need to step up efforts (EC RecommendatIons) 
A)  development of ‘Limited Guarantee Fund’ 
supporting loans from banks 
B) One-stop-shops network (regional and 
municipal scopem C) ESCOs to add work on the 
building envelopes to their supply and 
maintenance contracts 
Kommuninvest i Sverige AB (Kommuninvest) 
owned by municipalities and regions offers 
loans and advice  

Source: Long-term renovation strategies (europa.eu)2020 ( last consulted 9  June 2022); swd-on-national-long-term-renovation-
strategies.pdf (europa.eu) 

87  Law  9/2017  includes  the  Contract  for  Services  with  Investment,  the  Service  Concession  Contract  and  the  Mixed  Supply  and  Service 

Contract 

88 Referred in LTRS as responding to criticism on quality of services. 
89 LTRS: “According to the ESCO sector itself, the main obstacle would be the current price review rules relating to public contracts, which, 
on account of the law on the de-indexation of the economy, would make it difficult to publish review formulas and also to put in place 
long-term contracts.” 
90 LTRS suggests to reintroduce measures in Plan AGE-330 and Plan 2000-ESEs. 
91 Measures include: (i) improving the energy efficiency of thermal and lighting installations; (ii) conventional solar energy substitution; (iii) 
replacement of conventional energy by geothermal energy; and (iv) improving the energy efficiency of the thermal envelope. The aid 
can be in the form of repayable loan or grant. 

92 The ESCO model is used in the integral renovation of a district in Valladolid, with a mix of public and private investment (European FP7 

CityFied Project). 

93  Additional  source  Ekelin  et al  (2019),  Kartläggning  av  möjligheter  för grön  finansiering  av energieffektiviseringsåtgärder  –  Förstudie 
[Ekelin et al (2019), Review of opportunities for green financing of energy efficiency improvement measures – Preliminary study]. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
EnPC and related investment in the RRPs 

MS 
AT 

BE 

RRP 05/22 
RRP not available, 
website in German 
94  
Service 
contracts:“Dienstleist
ungsvert” 
RRP: €4.5b 
RRP does not make 
reference to ESCos 
nor EnPC 
RRP: € 5.9b96 

BG 

RRP in BG, €6.9b 

HR 

CY 

CZ 

RRP in Croatian 
makes references to 
EnPC and ESCo, €6.3 
billion102 

RPP: No refs to 
ESCOs and EnPC, 
€1.0b 

Plan not found. No 
references to ESCO 
nor contracting.105 
RRP: €7b 

DE 

Plan in DE.113 No 

Key investments and measures (multiple sources) 
Website: Service contracts are used in the processing of EU subsidies 
Thermal renovation and EE of residential buildings (€209 million) involves private 
support – (€504m, incl. e-mobility), district and renewable heating (€159m) (Comp.1) 
RES, EE and adaptation in cultural and municipal buildings and town centres (€65m) 
(Comp. 4)  
Renewable Heating Law.95 

Renovation of public and private buildings (flagship)  (€1012m, 17.1% of the RPP)97  
Mass renovation of public buildings though contracting and financing (RenoWatt – 
ELENA), aggregated municipal procurement (in-house ren. -?), and UREBA subsidies 
(heavy ren.)98 
Simplification of administrative procedures – recognised as obstacles to EE measures)99 
Energy Renovations of buildings, street lighting and renewables for households (€924m 
2022-25, <30% savings, Primary savings 1.1TWh/year)100  
Grants (commercial and public sectors) can be combined with financial instruments or 
ESCO services (only €129m private finance planned) (NECP, Renovate) 
National Decarbonisation Fund (NECP) to enable grants and cost savings to back 
financial instruments (2023 the earliest) (Renovate)101 
ESCos to be involved in the deployment of PV, renovation in public buildings, a pilot 
project for energy management in public buildings (incl. residential), the development of 
a new financing model, involving ESCOs 
Building renovation (incl. thermal efficiency, and earthquake and fire resistance) 
encourages the ESCO model (60% ESCO fin., 40% RRF grants) 
Legal changes needed for continuation of ESCO renovation model103  
EE in SMEs, municipalities, and the overall public sector (€40m, 8.9 %); upgrading 
hospitals (62%),104 and SMEs. May involve EnPCs 
Possible opportunities: energy audits, smart solutions (parking, lighting, and waste 
collection management) for municipalities 
Recognition that inefficiencies in contract enforcement  
Large scale EE renovation of residential and public buildings (€1.6b), renewables for 
businesses and households (€480m)106 (Also district heating, replacement of coal-fired 
boilers in households107, boosting ongoing renovation programs in households (green 
roofs, shading) and schools) 108 
Upcoming EnPC model contract (1st RRF inst.) 109  
Bonus for savings from EnPC or Performance Design & Build method (Renovate 
highlights) 110 
Possible opportunities: speeding administration; green procurement criteria, training to 
contractors (Comp. 4.1); financial support to SMEs(?)111112 
Funding for EE renovations (30% savings) (Mission 1, 22.1 % of 11.3b Mission 1, 9.2 % 

94 The EU Reconstruction Plan - Federal Chancellery of Austria (bundeskanzleramt.gv.at); Bundesministerium Finanzen.  Österreichischer 
Aufbau- und Resilienzplan 2020-2026. Wien, 30. April 2021. Only key word found: “Dienstleistungsvert” 
95 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0160&qid=1624626088799 
96 be_rrp_summary.pdf (europa.eu) 
97 Belgium's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
98 FR - Plan national pour la reprise et la résilience.pdf (belgium.be) 
99 FR - Plan national pour la reprise et la résilience.pdf (belgium.be) 
100 Residential buildings (€608.18b), public buildings (€193.13b), manufacturing and commercial buildings (€122.67b) renewable energy 

for households (€71.58b), energy-efficient street lighting systems /€76.32b) swd_2022_106_4_en.pdf (europa.eu) 

101 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
102 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0197&from=EN  
103Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf  (renovate-europe.eu)  “the  ESCO  renovation  model  of  public  buildings  which  mobilised  private 
capital and  which  was  very successful  between  2016-2020  is no  longer  applicable and needs  some legal modifications  and  this 
process is very slow and uncertain [Yet] The plan foresees further development of the ESCO market.” 

104 Cyprus's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
105 Zprava-o-realizaci-NPR-2019.pdf (vlada.cz) 
106 com-2021-419-czechia_factsheet_en.pdf (europa.eu) 
107 Czechia's National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu) 
108 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
109 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
110 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
111 Czechia's National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu) 
112 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0211 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

131 

 
 
                                                        
 
MS 

DK 

EE 

ES 

RRP 05/22 
mention to ESCo or 
EnPC in docs 
reviewed. RRF= 
€25.6b 

No ref to ESCo or 
EnPC in EC analysis, 
RRP: €1.5b 

RRP in EE. No 
mentions to EnPC 
found. €969.3m 
Plan in Spanish. No 
mention to “ESCO”, 
EEF, guarantees. RRF: 
€69.5b 

EL 

Plan in GR. RRF= 
€31.2b 

FI 

FR 

HU 

IE 

RRP does not mention 
ESCos nor EnPC,121 
€2.1b  
No mention to ESCOs 
nor EnPC in RRP,123 
RRF= €39.4b 
RPP in HU, docs 
reviewed do not 
mention “ESCo”.124  
No mention ESCos, 
services, EnPCs; RRF 
€0.99b 

Key investments and measures (multiple sources) 
of overall RRF) 
Modernising public administration, reducing barriers to investment (Mission 6, 3.6b, 
12.6% of RRF)114 
Urban transition pilots with integrated energy solutions (1.3.2) gy supply in urban 
neighbourhoods through pilot projects 
Carbon pricing 
Possible opportunities. EC: Doubling of the share of RESs in heating from 14.6% in 2019 
to 27% by 2030 will require further measures (incl. financial and advisory) 115 
EE in buildings and SMEs (€ 235m). EC analysis calls for increased public and private 
investment in EE116  
Speeding the conversion from oil and gas to electric heating, district heating and energy 
renovations (private and public buildings), subsidies for private households117 
Sustainable energy and EE (C4): RES, smart grids, storage, and household efficiency 
(€92.1m, 9 % of RRF).118 
Green Fund to support innovative green technologies (€100 million) 
Funds allocated to the construction sector without indication of EE earmarking (€69.5b). 
EE renovations and construction of buildings (€6,8 billion, additional €1b for public 
buildings, €150 million to upgrade sports facilities, 6.8b, 9.8% of RFF for housing 
rehabilitation and urban renewal plan). Allocation of €3.6b specific for renovation, with 
minimum PE savings of 30%. 
RES relevant (powerup).   
Renewable energy integration (also in buildings) (3.2m, 4.6% of RFF).119 
Poss. Opportunities: public administration modernisation and digitalisation.  
Renovation wave (€2.71b) including residential buildings (€1.2b). Renovation of public 
buildings (c.a. €300b): with the involvement of ESCOs; upgrade of street lighting 
(€0.2b);120 new framework for EnPC  
“Amendment of the legal framework for the attraction of strategic investment. 
Construction of new energy efficient buildings” (€40b) 
Analysis: Guarantee system to de-risk RES-CHP and RES 
Promoting private-sector investments through the RRF Loan Facility (€ 12.7b, 37% to be 
allocated to EE, climate and demonstration) 
Administration procedures (contract enforcing, credit granting, permits, legal stability) 
Phase out fossil oil heating in public buildings by 2024 and overall by 2030 (Comp. 
P1C3)(€110m, 5.3% of RRF) 
Low carbon solutions for communities and transport (€40m)122 
Renovation of public buildings (65%), social buildings (9%) and private buildings (24%) 
of the €5.83b allocated to Comp. 1 (RRF is €39.4b) 

Improvement of public procurement and tendering, not explicitly related to EnPC 

De-risking a low-cost residential retrofit loan scheme (€40M, 4% - C1I1), Accelerate 
decarbonisation of the enterprise sector (€55M, 5.5 % - C1I2), A public-sector retrofit 
pathfinder project - Beggar’s Bush (€60M, 6 % - C1I3)125  

113 Federal Ministry of Finance - German Development and Resilience Plan (DARP) (bundesfinanzministerium.de) 
114 Germany's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
115 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0163R(01) - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
116  Denmark's  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (europa.eu);  Denmark’s  recovery  and  resilience  plan  |  European  Commission 

(europa.eu) 

117  Denmark's  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (europa.eu);  Denmark’s  recovery  and  resilience  plan  |  European  Commission 

(europa.eu) 

118 Estonia's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
119  Spain's  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan:  Latest  state  of  play  |  Think  Tank  |  European  Parliament  (europa.eu),  https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021SC0147&from=EN  

120 Bruegel. Also points at “mprove Greece’s ranking in international indicators, in particular the World Bank’s Doing Business;  (b) reduce 
procedures,  time  and  the  cost  of  enforcing  contracts,  getting  credit,  getting  electricity,  registering  property,  and  getting  a 
construction permit; and (c) ensure a stable and predictable legislative framework.” 

121 Finland’s recovery and resilience plan | European Commission (europa.eu) 
122 Finland's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu); swd-2021-284_en.pdf (europa.eu) 
123Search terms: “entreprises de services énergétiques”, “contrat de performance énergétique”, “marchés de services énergétiques”. PNRR 

Francais.pdf (economie.gouv.fr); France's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 

124 Recovery and Resilience Tool (RRF) | Széchenyi Plan Plus (gov.hu); Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) | Széchenyi Plan Plus (gov.hu) 
125 Ireland's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 

132 

 
 
  
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
MS 

RRP 05/22 

IT 

RPP in Italian. RRF € 
68.9b grants + 
€122.6b loans  

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

Plan in LT 
€2.2b 
Plan in FR, does not 
indicate ESCO132 
€93m 

Plan not in EN 
(20/8/2022), ESCO 
not found in LV 
version. RRF €1.8b 

RRP does not mention 
ESCos nor EnPCs;136 
RRF €344.9m  

Not submitted by 
May 5 2022 
RPP in PL. ESCO and 
EnPC (“umowy o 
poprawę 
efektywności 
energetycznej”) 
mentioned once. No 
analysis or briefing 
available from EC or 
Parl. 
Plan in PT. RRF: 
€16.6b (13.9b in 
grants) 

Key investments and measures (multiple sources) 
EC analysis praised Plan for supporting private investment126  
Building EE renovation including Ecobonus and Sismabonus schemes (€15.4b, 8.0%), 
renewables (Mission 2) 
Upgrade of school buildings, making them safe: (Mission €4m 12.6% of €30.88b) 127 
Best practice:  extension of SuperEcobonus (covers up to 110% of renovation costs, 
building owners need to pay for renovation up front) banks and ESCO are eligible128 
Public procurement simplification and prioritisation of competition,129 acceleration of 
procedures for EE, training for ESCOs (Reform 1.1) 
Building renovation (26% of C-2 823m, 37% of RRF) 130  
Education and health also include building renovation and RES131 
No budget for building efficiency? 
EC recommends a greater focus on the green and digital transitions, the energy 
renovation of buildings (only relevant in the housing), and RES. Need financing for 
private building renovation133 
EE in multi-apartment, central government, historical and municipal, and business 
buildings (34% of €676m for climate measures - total of €1826m)  
Improving the register of public procurement contracts, competition, and modernisation 
of the administration (C-6)134 
The EC calls for “a strategy for ensuring long-term sustainable financing” and the use of 
EnPC in public and tertiary buildings135 
Energy efficiency renovations and the greening of buildings is the largest project 
(60m)137  
Long-term renovation strategy in the building and construction industry.  
RES to be integrated in public spaces and roads.138 (shift from public lighting 
investment?) 
No reference to ESCo or EnPC found in national plan nor EC review139 

“Amendment to the act on EE. The proposed act will clarify in which situations EE 
improvement contracts (EPC contracts) do not have the effect of increasing the level of 
public debt.  
Possibility of “settling the obligation to save energy by obligated entities under the so-
called subsidy programs. These programs will also be open to authorised entities (e.g. 
ESCOs) providing energy services to the obliged entities.” Google Translated140 

New EE buildings and the renovation of buildings (climate contribution €211m, 1.3% of 
RFF); (300m to residential buildings, 240m to public buildings, and 70m to services 
sector buildings) (Building renovation horizontalised in social and health, Renewables 
and hydrogen (370m, 2.2% of RFF)141 

126 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0205 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
127 Italy's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
128 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
129 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0165 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
130 Lithuania's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 
131 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0187 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
132 Recovery and resilience plan for Luxembourg | European Commission (europa.eu) 
133 Luxembourg's National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu); EUR-Lex - 

52021SC0187 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

134 Latvia's National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu) 
135  “opportunities  of  undertaking  necessary  reforms  and  enabling  conditions  to  attract  private  investment  for  renovations  and  use  of 
ESCOs  (energy  performance  contracting  especially  in  public  and  tertiary  buildings)  are  not  explored.  Moreover,  …sustainable 
innovation 
plan.” 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com-2021-340_swd_en.pdf  

(business  models, 

services), 

products 

outside 

green 

skills, 

been 

have 

and 

left 

the 

136 Malta's Recovery Resiliance Plan - July 2021.pdf (gov.mt) 
137 Public buildings (9.6m) and private buildings (19.3m), and combined EE and RES in schools and hospitals (30m).  
138  Malta's  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan:  Latest  state  of  play  |  Think  Tank  |  European  Parliament  (europa.eu);  EUR-Lex  - 

52021SC0269 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

139https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2022/10/10/definitief-nederlands-herstel-en-veerkrachtplan; 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/system/files/com_2022_469_1_en_0.pdf 

140 KPO sent to the European Commission - National Recovery Plan - Portal Gov.pl (www.gov.pl) in Polish 
141 No explicit references to escos in EC analysis. Yet there is this note: “The establishment, capitalisation and mission expansion of Banco 
Português  de  Fomento,  are expected  to  result  in a  lasting  structural  change  for  investment.  The  proposed  increase  of  the  bank’s 

133 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
MS 

RRP 05/22 

RO 

Plan in RO. RRF: 
€29.2b (half grants) 

SI 

Plan in Sloven. 
“ESCO” not included. 
RRF: €1.8b 

SK 

Plan not in EN. RRF: 
€6.3b 

SE 

Plan ins Swedish. 
Does not mention 
“ESCO”. 
RRF: €3.3b, 44% 
contribute to climate 
objectives 

Key investments and measures (multiple sources) 
Possible opportunities: Quality and Sustainability of Public Finances, Economic Justice 
and Business Environment, Digital Public Administration 142 
EC analysis: Renovation is not picking up due to public procurement rules and lack of 
demand (private). 
EC acknowledges the Plan’s focus on the renovation of buildings. Renovation Wave fund 
for renovation of public buildings (€575m), and private and public buildings (€2.15b); 
Efficient CHP (€300m) 
Poss. Opportunities: E-procurement and streamlining of norms 143 
Renovate recommendations “leverage private finance and develop more market-based 
mechanisms (incl. EnPC)”, training, One-stop-shops144 
Building renovation (€86.05m of 1064.75m RFF, 2.5% of Climate contribution) includes 
renewables and EE, the introduction of BIM strategy, and a revolving fund for 
renovations in the public sector to be self-financed with savings (fund support not 
specified) reported as an opportunity for ESCO financing for capital-intensive 
refurbishments with smaller savings)145 
Sust mobility: €311.9m (street lighting or other eligible EnPC investment?) 
Poss. Opportunities: Legal reform for renewables and EE. Digital transformation of the 
public sector and public administration, and strengthening of competences for the green 
transition 
High-efficiency renewables district heating, installing new renewables capacity and 
upgrading the electricity-distribution network (€146 – found challenging by EC) 146 
LTRS lays out renovation investment needs of €13.5bn until 2030. RRP funding is 
€776m (mostly grants). EnPC is possible for public bbs147  
EC Analysis:148 Structural reforms needed, Regional Sustainable Energy Centres (RSEC) 
and EnPC.  

Analysis: Green recovery component (1552m) includes smart energy systems, district 
heating efficiency, measures in other sectors, and aid for EE in multi-dwelling buildings 
(59.8m, of which 23.9m are considered climate contribution, i.e. 0,7% of the EEF).149 

capital to more robust levels is expected to support the bank in the process of becoming InvestEU implementing partner and, thus, 
to  facilitate  access  to  finance,  particularly  for  SMEs  affected  by  the  crisis.  In  addition,  the  creation  of  a  special  purpose  vehicle, 
which is expected to invest in viable Portuguese firms in the form of equity and quasi-equity, should address the structural problem 
of  firms’  undercapitalisation.  Both  measures  are  expected  to  boost  private  investment,  productivity  growth  and  job  creation 
potential on a long-term basis.” 

142 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0146 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
143 swd2021_276_en.pdf (europa.eu) 
144 as well as “Developing a long-term financing strategy highlighting the planned use of different public financing sources and how they 
would be combined to accelerate the rate of deep renovations in line with LTRS targets.” And “ ensure programmes are taken up at 
scale  by  financing  and  supporting  technical  assistance  to  end  users  across  the  public  and  private  sectors  (e.g.  support  for 
municipalities, one-stop-shops, public education about energy and support policies, digitalisation), as well as supporting training and 
skilling a sufficient workforce. Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 

145  Country Specific Recommendations  and Recovery and  Resilience  Plans  -  Thematic  overview  on  climate  and  green  transition  related 

issues (europa.eu) 

146 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0184 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
147 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 
148 com-2021-339_swd_en_0.pdf (europa.eu) 
149 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0102&from=EN  

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                             
 
EnPC in H2020 projects active during 2020-2021 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 

SUNShINE provides a standardised, long-term energy performance contract for deep renovation 
Riga Technical University in Latvia 
Cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649689; sharex.lv  

Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 

Outcomes 

Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 

Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 

1 March 2015- 29 February 2020 
€ 1 555 991,25 (EU contribution € 1 555 991,25) 
Latvia, Netherlands 
Residential and public building renovation 

EPC with renovators to guarantee energy savings and/or the same energy service at a lower cost. 
Banks are hesitant to support ESCOs in Latvia, hence refinancing is enabled by sales of future cash 
flows or receivables to  the Latvian Building Energy Efficiency Facility (LABEEF) in a forfaiting 
transaction 
15-20 years 

€30m of energy-related investments 
202020m2 of public and multi-family buildings deeply renovated renovated 
30-60% Secured savings 
26 GWh/year reduced total energy consumption 
guaranteed savings over 
City of Riga committed to including energy efficiency guarantees in future renovations and new 
construction 
Need “mandatory inclusion of energy efficiency guarantees or EPC for the renovation of public 
infrastructure” for the development of the ESCO market. 

Accelerate SUNShINE (Save your bUildiNg by SavINg Energy) 
Riga Technical University in Latvia 
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/435517-reducing-the-risk-and-capitalassociated- 
with-deep-energy-efficiency-renovations; https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754080 
1 April 2017- 31 March 2021 
€ 1 577 140 (EU contribution € 1 577 140) 
Latvia 
Residential deep renovation 

standardised, long-term energy performance contract for deep renovation. standardised project 
process and guidelines, bundling of EnPC projects. 
SUNShINE set up the Latvian Building Energy Efficiency Facility (LABEEF) with the aim of forfeiting 
receivables from EPCs and therefore reducing the debts on ESCOs’ balance sheets. 

Achievement 
Outcomes 

31 projects; EUR 25.5m guaranteed savings, 27 million of investments (planned), 27GWh/year 
LABEEF 

Demonstrated scalability of forfeiting + EEF model 

E-FIX  
ConPlusUltra in Austria 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/785081 
1 March 2018-30 June 2021 
€ 2 005 075 (EU contribution € 2 005 075) 
Austria, Armenia, Georgia, Croatia, Czechia, Poland 
Financing,  

Pilots of EnPC, leasing and crowdfunding to foster private financing. Training provision on EnPC and 
project finance.  
EnPC replacement of heating devices in the Pokrzywnica municipality in Poland 

Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Achievement 

78 projects, €31m investment, 54.09 GWh/year energy savings 

Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 

Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 

Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 

Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 

Enabler role: new policies, investment in energy savings and renewables 

Priority to energy-saving goal. Flexible and context. Situated choice of EnPC and other financing and 
implementation mechanisms – considered instrumental 

ENERINVEST Spanish Sustainable Energy financing Platform 
DELOITTE ADVISORY SL 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/695822  
February 2016- March 2019 
€ 1 926 958,75 
Spain 
creating a consulting platform which will provide financial, technical and legal solutions to 
sustainable energy, facilitating the dialogue among the different stakeholders involved 
Potentially useful for EnPC financing 

Guide to financing for sustainable energy projects, database of projects ( SEP e-Platform), and 
financial assessment tool (SEP financial assessment Tool) , National Roadmap for Poiitical Leaders 
Exchange of information and improved knowledge of the financing context 

Alike EnPC, SMI approach departs from acknowledging that SMEs need to focus on their core 
business, and to avoid other risks 

ESI Europe – Driving Investment in Energy Efficiency through Energy Savings Insurance in Europe 
(GoSafe with ESI) 
Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy (BASE) 
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/785061, esi-europe.org , gosafe-esi.com, Reduced risk for SMEs 
contemplating energy efficiency 
February 2018- January 2020 

Italy, Portugal and Spain 
turnkey solution for SMEs wary of the risk of investing in energy efficiency. 

Engagement of insurance companies (6) and FIs (5) 
Exchange of information 

Alike EnPC, SMI approach departs from acknowledging that SMEs need to focus on their core 
business, and to avoid other risks 

Energy Efficiency Investments in multi-family houses (HousEEnvest) 
Agencia Extremeña de Energía 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/846085 
March 2018- May 2022 

€ 1 798 733,75 
Spain 
Creation of a one-stop-shop with a financing facility for full energy renovation of multi-family 
houses in Extremadura 
Availability of technical and financing support, along with standardised project solutions 

€35m in investment 
Expectation of €113 being invested in the region through increased awareness and use of the 
model 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 

Period 
Budget 
Countries 

Measures and 
location 

Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 

Outcomes 
claimed 

Financing Energy Efficiency using Private Investments (F-PI) 
DELOITTE ADVISORY SL 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/784986 
May 2019- April 2022 
€ 1 443 437,50 
Spain 
Provision of technical assistance to private funds to boost their capital in energy efficiency, and 
promotion of project bundling 
Improved information of financing actors 

Engaging €30m in private investment 
Reduced transactional costs through on the promotion of energy efficiency projects 

Financing scheme for Energy Efficiency and Renewable energy Guaranteed in Deep renovations of 
building stock (FinEERGo-Dom) 
Krajowa Agencja Poszanowania Energii Spolka Akcyjna 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847059; https://fineergodom.eu/the-first-call-for-applications-for-
the-priority-programme-renovation-with-guaranteed-savings-epc-energy-performance-contract-
plus-has-been-launched-in-poland/  
June 2019-May 2023 
€ 1 654 338,75 
Poland (and expertise from The Netherlands, Latvia, Bulgaria, Austria, Slovakia, Romania, and 
Bulgaria) 
Refining and implemeting guaranteed financing schemes for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy in deep renovations of buildings in five EU countries, using as a model the Latvian Energy 
Efficiency Facility (LABEEF) for supporting energy efficiency and renewable energy in deep 
renovations of public and private buildings successfully implemented in Latvia. 
Estimulation of the ESCO and EnPC model through national funds (NFOSiGW, in Poland form multi-
family private and municipal buildings, public buildings, individual residential buildings, housing 
communities, and cooperatives 
20+ years in Poland 

Development of a roadmap for renovation of residential buildigns in Poland 

LAUNCH – Sustainable energy assets as tradable securities 
Joule Assets Europe Group in Italy 
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847048 ; launch2020.eu 
May 2019-October 2021 

SMEs 

Production of standardised materials, included EnPC contracts and risk assessment protocols 

€150 million pipeline of project investments, including  €2.1 million in deals closed during the 
project, and €31 million of investments being processed for finance at the end of the project 
Establishment of a Sustainable Energy Financing Association (SEFA) 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 

Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 

Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 

Difficult financing for SMEs and small projects 

QualitEE (Quality certification frameworks for Energy Efficiency services to scale up responsible 
investment in the building sector)) 
e7 energy innovation and engineering in Austria 
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754017; qualitee.eu, https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/422273-quality-
assurance-forsuccessful- 
energy-efficiency-services 
1 June 2017- 30 June 2020 (relies on outputs from previous projects 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019) 
€ 1 603 718,75 
Austria, Belgium, UK, Slovenia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain, Bulgaria,  

Toolkit for standardisation, quality assessment, procurement, and financial assessment of projects; 
Database on Energy Efficiency Services markets of 15 Member States. 

stimulate EnPC markets growth by driving improvements in trust, information and standardisation. 

EPC markets are growing, that the EPC concept was generally perceived as too complex, and that 
pressure to cut energy costs drives the entire market. 

SMARTER – SMARTER Finance for Families – Improving Citizens’ Health, Comfort and Financial Well-
Being by Supporting Banks, Residential Investors and Solution Providers with Green Homes and 
Green Mortgage programs 
Romania Green Building Council 
cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847141, c2e2.unepdtu.org/smarter 
15 May 2019- 14 November 2021 

Residential  

Green mortgages for EnPC. Tool for holistic green certifications for banks to assess projects as 
beneficiaries of green mortgages. 

helped investors and developers understand energy performance criteria and demonstrate this 
performance to homebuyers 
Developed two platforms: Green Home Investment Platform150 and the Green Homes Solution 
Providers ecosystem 
“banks should demand very ambitious energy performance and other environmental criteria to 
qualify their green financial projects” Borncamp 

Smart EPC- NEXT GENERATION OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING 
REGIONALNA ENERGETSKA AGENCIJA SJEVEROZAPADNE 
HRVATSKE 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101031639 
1 February 2022 – 31 January 2025 
€ 1 998 396,25 
Croatia, Spain, Poland, France; Belgium 
modernisation of public lighting in European cities 

Development of an advanced Smart EPC concept and standardised documentation for integration 
of energy and non-energy services in Energy Performance Contracting 

150  “The  platform  includes  timely  research  on  how  ‘green’  affects  financial  risk  and  performance,  key  developments  of  interest  to  the 

banking and investment communities, and even information on ongoing residential projects,” Borncamp. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 

Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 

Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 

TRUST-EPC-SOUTH - Building TRUST in Energy Performance Contracting for tertiary sector energy 
efficiency and sustainable energy projects in Southern European Countries 
CREARA CONSULTORES SL 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649772 
1 March 2015 - 30 June 2018 
€ 1 936 975 
Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Croatia and Greece 
Sustainable energy in tertiary buildings 

Scale-up investments on Energy Efficiency (EE) and other Sustainable Energy (SE) in the tertiary 
sector of southern European countries, with particular focus on Energy Performance Contracts (EPC)  

Untapped potential in the tertiary sector of Southern European countries 

GuarantEE- Energy Efficiency with Performance Guarantees in Private and Public Sector 
BERLINER ENERGIEAGENTUR GESELLSCHAFT MIT 
BESCHRANKTER HAFTUNG 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696040 
1 April 2016 - 31 March 2019 
€ 1 586 558,20 
Germany, Austria, Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Czechia, Slovenia, 
Netherlands, Italy, France 
Public buildings renovation 

Addressing split incentives and rigidity of contracts by developing new model contracts, market 
development in emerging markets through guidance and examples to municipal clients 

33 pilot projects in buildings that are privately and publicly owned; 78 GWh PE; 18000 tCO2/year 
savings;  
>€11m investment triggered 

PRODESA- ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FOR SOUTH ATTICA 
DIMOS ALIMOU-MUNICIPALITY OF ALIMOS 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754171 
1 May 2017 – 31 January 2022 
€ 1 058 760 
Greece 
Energy efficiency improvements in municipal buildings and public lighting 

Bundling EnPCs enabling its take-off in Greece 
Financing from the National Revolving Fund for Energy Efficiency, the Utility ESCO Fund and the 
European Crowdfunding Network  

Interventions in 116 municipal buildings, 
3.2 MW of photovoltaics  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 
Outcomes 
claimed 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 
claimed 
Learnings/ 
supported 
argument 

Name 

Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 

45.6 GWh/y energy savings 
4.8 GWh/y renewables production 
€20.24m cost of intervention 

TIGER- Triggered Investments in Grouping of buildings for Energy Renovation 
REGIONE ABRUZZO 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101018403 
1 June 2021 - 31 May 2024 
€ 1 087 075,75 
Italy 
Social Housing renovation 

Investment through EnPC 

Payback of 4 years 

€16m, 126 buildings, 58 municipalities, 8.8GWh/h PE savings, 1760tCO2/y 

EnerSHIFT- Energy Social Housing Innovative 
Financing Tender 
Regione Liguria 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/694816 
1 February 2016 - 31 January 2020 
€ 967 687,50 
Italy 
Social housing (rental) 

implementation of investments without or with limited public capital funding through EnPCs 

The main concept underpinning the project is that economic shortages and public spending review 
do not currently make it possible to find budget for design and for investment. 

AmBIENCe (Active managed Buildings with Energy 
performaNce Contracting) 
VLAAMSE INSTELLING VOOR TECHNOLOGISCH ONDERZOEK 
N.V (Belgium) 

1 June 2019-31 May 2022 
€ 1 999 875 (EU contribution € 1 999 875) 
Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal 
Smart technologies 

extending the concept of Energy Performance 
Contracting to Active Buildings and making it available and attractive to a wider range of building 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Outcomes 

Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 

Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 
Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 

Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

to extend the concept of energy performance contracting to active buildings and make it available 
and attractive to a 
wider range of buildings. 
Potential for combining savings from energy efficiency measures with additional savings and 
earnings from the active control of assets, leveraging, for instance, price-based incentive contracts. 

SENSEI (Smart Energy Services Integrating the Multiple Benefits from Improving the Energy 
Efficiency of the European 
Building Stock) 
INSTITUTE FOR EUROPEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY 
STICHTING 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847066 
1 September 2019-31 August 2022 
€ 1 968 006,25 (EU contribution € 1 968 006) 
Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, Italy 

develop concepts and business models for pay for performance (P4P) retrofits 

Promote appearance of first P4P pilots in EU 

NOVICE New Buildings Energy Renovation Business Models incorporating dual energy services 
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF 
IRELAND, CORK 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/745594 
1 June 2017-31 May 2020 
€ 2 041 206,25 (EU contribution € 2 041 206,25) 
Ireland, Spain, UK, Greece, Austria, Finland, Germany 
Building renovation 

develop an improved EPC model for building renovation to better monetise energy efficiency, 
involving EE; RES, and DR 
10 years, reduced to 7,5 with DR 

Expected 20.8 m EUR of investments in building renovation,  
25.2 GWh/year primary energy savings  

BAPAURA Building energy retrofitting Assistance by Public authorities in AUvergne-Rhône- Alpes 
ADEME 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/891839 
September 2020- 31 August 2023 
€ 1 475 593,85 
France 
Renovation of public buildings in small and medium-sized municipalities 

Renovation, WhCs, OSS, Grants 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 

Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 

Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 
Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 

Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 

115 municipality buildings, 23,627,000 € of total energy efficiency investments (leverage factor of 
16), 7.8 GWh/year of primary energy savings, 1,437 t CO2 e/ year 

small and medium-sized municipalities lack technical and legal expertise, hindering the use of 
advanced contracting schemes and “scattered grants” 

SPEEDIER SME Program for Energy Efficiency through Delivery and Implementation of EneRgy 
Audits 
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF 
IRELAND, CORK 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847034 
1 June 2019-30 November 2021 
€ 2 165 126,25 
Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Romania 
Implement energy saving measures outcoming from energy audits, in SMEs 

Aggregated SMEs, shared savings  

BuildUP 
POWER PARITY SA. 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/785091 
1 May 2018 -30 April 2021 
€ 999 437,50 
Portugal 

Address scale and public procurement barriers to EnPC, and to include renewables self-
consumption. Bundle projects according to specific characteristics (investment size, technology, 
geography) using the currently available 
framework and consolidated procurement procedures to provide projects with scale, improve 
bankability, investor-trust and result in a faster time-to-market 

58 sustainable energy projects  
€ 49,9m total investment 
155 GWh/year of primary energy savings  
3,1 GWh/year of renewable energy generated 

DeliveREE - DELIVEr Renewable Energy and Energy efficiency projects in Dublin 
CITY OF DUBLIN ENERGY MANAGEMENT AGENCY LIMITED 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101032833 
1 June 2021 - 31 May 2025 
€ 1 174 661,25 
Ireland 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 

Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 

Coordinator 

Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 

Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 
Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 
Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 

Achievement 
Outcomes 
Learnings/ key 
claims 

Name 

Coordinator 
Information 
Period 
Budget 
Countries 

Energy Supply and Energy Performance Contracts, with performance guarantees 

€20.4m investments, 140 sustainable energy 
Projects, 3,977 tCO2-eq year 

SmartSPIN- Smart energy services to solve the Split INcentive problem in the commercial rented 
sector 
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF 
IRELAND, CORK 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101033744 
1 September 2021 – 31 August 2024 
€ 1 996 787,50 
Ireland, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, 
Smart Energy Services (SES) deployed via performance-based contracting in the commercial rented 
sector. 

Energy Efficiency-as-a-Service (EEaaS) concept that couples the contractual agreements between 
tenants, building owners and energy efficiency providers with technologies for energy monitoring, 
management and measurement and verification (M&V), increasing transparency, credibility and 
persistence of savings. 

Tested business model in 3 pilot regions (Spain, Greece and Ireland) 

NEON – Next-Generation Integrated Energy Services fOr Citizen Energy CommuNities 
ENGIE 

September 2021 - February 2024 
€ 1 999 812,50 
France, Italy, Spain, Cyprus, Switzerland, Serbia 
building energy efficiency, renewable energy generation and storage, and demand flexibility for 
Citizen Energy Communities 

Integration of EnPC and P4P schemes and establishing innovative M&V methodology 

REFINE- Mainstreaming of refinancing schemes as enhancer for the implementation of energy 
efficiency service projects 
E7 

September 2021 - February 2024 
€ 1 745 697,50 
Austria, Italy, Croatia, Czechia, Greece, Latvia, Slovenia, and Spain (alongside the non-EU countries 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Type of 
measures and 
location 
Engagement of 
EnPC 
Contracts 
duration 
Achievement 
Outcomes 

of the UK and Ukraine) 
Developing refinancing capacities for ESCOs 

Market assessment of refinancing.2021 indicates that this is available in Austria, Czechia, and 
Latvia, in development in Spain and Italy, and not available in Slovenia, Croatia and Greece. 

Learnings/ key 
claims 
Source: European Commission : CORDIS : Search : Results page (europa.eu) 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. JRC report on EnPC markets 2022. Country summaries 

145 

 
 
1 

Austria 

Comparison previous status 
In the JRC report of 2021, the Austrian public sector was considered a developed market characterized by a 
well-developed ESCO market, with adequate provision and facilitation services, model contracts, and relatively 
lengthy  and  large  contracts  (10  years  and  longer,  and  above  €1m).  However,  the  public  EnPC  sector  had 
turned  to  alternative  contract  models,  e.g.  technical  guarantees,  and was  considered  static.  Negative  trends 
were expected to be reversed in the period 2020-23. Advantageous financing conditions for public authorities, 
relatively  low  savings  being  achieved  through  existing  EnPC  models  in  building  renovations,  the  interest  in 
climate  neutrality  and  renewables,  national  rules  on  public  debt,  complex  administration,  and  lack  of 
requirements  for  saving  guarantees and  private  finance  involvement  (or long-term targets  for  regional  and 
local bodies) were considered as the major causes of this stagnation of the public EnPC market.151 

Current Status highlights 
During  the  2020-21  period,  activity  has  been  low.  The  market  has  been  described  as  stagnant  in  research 
conducted by project RefinEE.152 According to responses to the EU Survey 2022, whether it may have slowly 
picked  up  in  the  public  sector  is  uncertain.  The  main  intervention  sites  in  the  public  sector  involve  public 
buildings (education), lighting, district heating and project pools (indicated as 2 in a range from 0 to 3). Some 
activity was identified for transport and industry (1 out of 3). Some reviewers also  highlighted tourism and 
hospitality  buildings.  Public  sector  contracts  involve  mostly  the  replacement  of  specific  elements  (3/3). 
Maintenance, energy management and installation of control systems are also relevant (2/2), whilst integral 
renovation and installation of renewable generation are rare (1/1). Energy audits, monitoring, and verification 
are relatively well-established parts of EnPC projects (2/2).  

Table A 1. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is 
common to both public and private markets or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 

Public 
40 
36 

Private 
60 
36 

Typical* size m€ 

0.3 – 1.5 

0.2 – 1.0 

3 - 8 

3 - 8 
30 - 40 

10 

10 
20 - 30 

Typical* duration 
(yrs) 
Typical* payback 
Typical* % of 
baseline 
Typical savings* 
MWh/year 
Typical savings* 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022). 

Comment 
Low activity 
No estimates 
available 

Overall 
100 
72 

0.1-1 

<10 

<7 
15-30 

151 Statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts is of limited relevance in Austria. Off-balance contracts were already available 

according to the JRC report of 2021 but budgetary limitations apply to local and regional authorities. 

152 Refine EE. 2021. D2.4 Refinancing Market Assessment Report. 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 2. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Slow take-off  

Private sector 
Stable  

Perspective 2022-
2024 

Slow take-off  

Slow take-off / Rapid take-
off 

Comments 
The public sector is waiting 
for the new energy 
efficiency law. The private 
sector is running  
Due to the context of energy 
prices and shortages in 
supply (2022), upcoming 
efficiency law for the public 
sector, and well-developed 
private sector 

Source: EU Survey 2022 

Status of the business environment  
The major highlights of service availability are 15 providers and 10 facilitators, as indicated in the EU Survey 
2022.  These  actors  provide  high-quality  services,  especially  the  providers  (rated  3/3),  but  are  considered 
insufficient  to  satisfy  the  market  (both  rated  1/3).  Understanding  and  willingness  to  operate  with  the  EnPC 
model was rated as barely acceptable for private clients and the financing sector (all values 1/3) and good for 
the public sector.   

Table A 3. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Please indicate the number of different operators. Then 
rate the sufficiency of their availability and their quality as 0 (below needs), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good),  or 3 (very 
good).  

Number 
15 
10 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 
1 

Quality (0-3) 
3 
2 

Comment 

2 

2 

No impact identified 
Banks are risk-aware 
but willing to support 
ESCO projects 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing actors 
willing to support 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Table A 4. Understanding of and willingness to operate with EnPC. Response of experts to: Please rate the 
understanding of the workings of EnPC and the willingness to use EnPC of potential clients in the public and private 
sectors and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Public clients 
3 federal, 2 local 
2 federal, 1 local  

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
1 
1 

Comment 
The Federal Real 
estate company is 
committed to EnPC 
for energy 
management of 
buildings but not for 
retrofits. Diverse 
approaches in 
federal states 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
EnPC operates manly with guaranteed savings. The establishment of a facility management contract, and to 
an  extent  of  Consultancy  and  technical  guarantee  and  Energy  efficiency  improvement  contracts  may  be 
relevant  to  understand  the  lower  penetration  of  EnPC,  mainly  in  the  private  market  but  also  in  the  public 
sector (See table below). Currently, there is a diverse offer of ESCO services without guarantee.  

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 5. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS. Experts response 
to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, 
and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

3 

1 

2 

The public sector must be financed via the supplier 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

ESCO projects without guarantee 

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, the contractor 
takes the financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
The implementation of the EU regulatory framework is perceived as good in terms of definitions, guidelines, 
model contracts for the public sector, lists of qualified operators and use of EnPC in demonstration projects. 
As barely acceptable were reported model contracts for the private sector, information instruments, the use 
of  EEOs  and  WhCs,  Energy  audits,  the  use  of  EnPC  in  fulfilment  of  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’ 
buildings and the adoption of adequate public rules and practices of procurement, contracting and tendering. 

Table A 6. Perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your experience 
and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the table. Use the following 
scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of relevance 
for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

Instrument 

EnPC Definitions: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Guidelines: Rating (0-3) 
EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance sheet): Rating 
(0-3) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector: Rating (0-3) 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators: Rating (0-3) 

One-stop-shops: Rating (0-3) 

Other information instruments: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC demonstration projects: Rating (0-3) 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates: Rating (0-3) 

Energy Audits: Rating (0-3) 
Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public bodies' buildings): 
Rating (0-3) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and tendering: 
Rating (0-3) 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 

Comment 

2.5 

2.5 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

- 

1 

2.5 

1 

1 

1 

1 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financing  
The  most  used  financing  sources  identified  by  respondents  to  the  EU  Survey  2022  are  provider  funds  and 
debt  financing.  Since  retrofits  are  uncommon  to  non-existing  in  Austria,  provider  funds  usually  suffice  to 
finance interventions on building elements and systems.  Refinancing through forfaiting mechanisms existed 
and  attained  a  certain  degree  of  maturity  in  the  past  but  was  reported  as  not  currently  in  use  after  a 
slowdown of the EnPC market in 2018.153 (Table). 

Table  A  7.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the  column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Client funds 

Public (0-3) 
0 

Private (0-3) 

Overall (0-3) 
1 

Comment 
Public sector projects 
must be financed via 
supplier 

Provider funds 
Public funds 
Third-party Private 
funds 
Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party Public 
funds 
Third-party Private 
funds 
Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 

Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

3 
1 
1 

3 

1 

1 
1 

Preferred over 
forfaiting in the 
private sector 

Not in use  

Barriers 
The major barrier identified by consulted experts is the overall scepticism towards EnPC as an instrument for 
building  retrofits.  There  is  competition  with  ESCO  models  without  guarantee  (along  with  establishing  other 
models  such  as  facility  management,  consultancy  with  technical  guarantee  and  efficiency  improvement 
contracts) and a lack of qualified workers to conduct renovations. In the upcoming 2022-2023, the complexity 
of the model and the lack of integrated approaches of deep renovation and decarbonisation  – in alignment 
with most advanced models – are also expected to weight down the uptake of the model.  

153 REFINE-D2.4-Refinancing-Market-Assessment-Report.pdf (refineproject.eu) 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
The impact of the updated treatment of EnPC in government finance is considered nil, and plans to develop a 
model  in  alignment  with  Eurostat  requirements  for  off-balance  treatment  have  been  dropped.  Debt 
considerations are addressed at the regional level.  

Drivers 
Sectoral drivers were not indicated by experts participating in the EU Survey 2022 from 2019 to 2021, and no 
specific  drivers  of  the  EnPC  market  have  been  identified.  Increasing  energy  prices,  expected  shortages  in 
2022,  and  interest  in  the  public  and  private  sector  targets  for  climate  neutrality  are  key  drivers  for  EnPC 
development in the upcoming 2022-2024 period. Currently, there are sectoral expectations on the upcoming 
deployment of a €50m revolving guarantee fund for ESCO models with guarantees (energy supply contracting 
and EnPC). 

EU support 
Expert review grants little relevance to EU support in fostering the development of EnPC in Austria. There are 
no expectations put on EU funding. The most appreciated instruments are the DEEP and EEFIG Underwriting 
toolkit,  EGD  package,  and  PDA  (investment  portfolio  above  €7.5m).  However,  the  latter  is  considered  too 
demanding  for  most  projects  to  opt  for  it.  Alike  ELENA,  PDA  is  of  difficult  implementation  due  to  the 
insufficient scale of bundle projects at the federal-state level.   

Table A 8. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the 
relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

Fragmented 
market 

Technical Assistance i.e. ELENA, 
LIFE Clean Energy Transition 
(Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance for Smart Buildings 
initiative 
Structural and Investment Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking Efficiency Platform 
(DEEP) and EEFIG Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

0 

0 

0 
0 
1 

1 

Perspective 
According  to  consulted  experts  (EU  Survey  2022)  a  slow  take-off  is  expected  in  the  period  2022-2025  is 
expected. Such a take-off would relate best to context factors and overall climate neutrality targets than to 
specific  EnPC  policy  and  market  developments.  There  are  expectations  for  a  shift  towards  integrating 
renewables and deep renovation in EnPC projects. 

Recommendations 
Possible ways to foster the EnPC market in Austria raised by expert participants in the EU Survey 2022 are: 

 

Simplifying whilst adapting contracts to trends about incorporating wider benefits of EnPC, including 
off-balance treatment, deeper renovation, climate neutrality, comfort improvement, and RES.  

  Creation of a public quality control system or mechanism and Market monitoring. 
 

Public sector strategies and funding rules require guarantee mechanisms and the engagement of 
private financing to achieve building renovation and carbon neutrality targets.  

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Federal-level institution of capacity is needed to execute the Green Deal. This could also facilitate 
ELENA aggregation at the federal level (e.g. coordinated by Klima- und Energiefonds and Austrian 
Energy Agency). 

  Monitoring the benefits of guarantee funds to potentially support its upscaling/ Increasing the 

volume of subsidies (providers also ask for inclusion of all operating costs). 

At  the  EU  level,  greater  accessibility  to  PDA  is  demanded  by  experts  participating  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  
National recommendations on public funding rules that require guarantee mechanisms and the engagement 
of private financing to achieve building renovation and carbon neutrality targets could be made extensive to 
the EU rules for fund allocation. In general, there is a challenge both for Austria and the EU to create simple 
business models to attract clients and private funds.  

151 

 
 
 
 
2 

Belgium 

Comparison previous status 
Belgium was described in the JRC 2021 as a sizeable public EnPC market but still in the development phase, 
particularly  mature  in  Wallonia  (e.e.  Project  RenoWatt).  Innovative  mechanisms  and  quality  improvements 
fostered market uptake, and growth was expected to be sustained. The public sector market was amongst the 
best  supplied  in  terms  of  EnPC  provision  and  facilitation,  and  facilitation  was  reported  to  be  a  driver  for 
market development. Off-balance contract models were already in use in the public sector. Contract lengths 
and  size  were  among  the  EU's  largest  (up  to  15  years,  and  often  above  €2m).  A  trend  towards  increased 
quality, depth and comprehensiveness, and climate neutrality were also reported.  However, there was  some 
concern  about  the  efforts  of  the  Federal  Government  for  having  achieve  its  building  renovation  targets. 
Moreover, remaining issues of trust, awareness and understanding were still a problem reported in 2021.  The 
expertise of ESCOs and the limited budgets of clients have gained relevance throughout the years as drivers 
of the EnPC market. (Geers 2022).154  

Current Status highlights 
Compared  to  JRC  2021,  the  EU  Survey  2022  shows  that  the  major intervention  sites  have  continued  to  be 
public buildings, typically encompassing the overall portfolio of local authorities (rated 3/3). Bundles of local 
authority  buildings  are  relatively  common  (1.5/3).  District  heating  is  the  second  most  common  intervention 
site  (1.5/3),  followed  by  public  lighting  (1/3).  In  some  newly  built  districts,  homeowner  associations  are 
created  and  sign  EPCs  with  ESCOs  for  maintenance  and  sometimes  including  technology  supply.  Energy 
performance of privately owned buildings, transportation infrastructure, smart grids and industry – considered 
by survey-participant experts to be the most energy-efficiency-avert sector – are the sites where EnPCs are 
most rarely used (0.5/3). Transportation and smart grid projects are marginal but reported as existent.  

The  most  common  interventions  involve  maintenance,  replacement  of  specific  elements,  installation  of 
renewables  and  installation  of  building  control  systems  in  both  public  and  private  sectors  (3/3).  These 
interventions  involve,  especially  in  the  public  sector,  monitoring  and  verification  (3/3),  energy  management, 
and audits (both 2/3). Integral renovations and interventions in the envelope, as well as demand flexibility and 
energy  storage,  are  considered  rare  but  exist  in  both  sectors  (1/3).  As  expected  in  the  EC  JRC  2021, 
renewables  have  gained  relevance.  Photovoltaic  and  in  some  cases  geothermal  are  often  combined  in 
interventions of replacing specific elements. 

Aligning with the previous situation, the EU Survey 2022 continues to indicate that the Belgian public market 
mainly relies on guaranteed savings. Shared savings were not reported as relevant in the public sector but are 
of relative relevance in the private sector market.  
Contract  duration  is  reported  to  be  10  years,  and  there  are  large  contracts  with  terms  of  15  years  e.g. 
including interventions in the building envelope. Also, new contract  variants have been developed to further 
the depth of interventions within this timeframe.155  

Major data discrepancies among respondents point, according to national expert reviews, to the need for an 
official registration of EnPC projects as a means to track developments in one such fragmented market. 

154 Alex Geers. 2022. EnPCs: Key for delivering on Europe's climate targets. Frankfurt. 
155 New information points at estimates of 15-year contract duration in the EC JRC 2021 as being overly optimistic, since these project 

durations are difficult to accept in financial terms. 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 9. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Number of contracts 
2020-21 

Overall size m€ 
2020-21 

Public 
50 

150 

Private 
30 

Overall 
80 

85 

235 

Typical* size m€ 

1.5-3 

1.5-3 

1.5-3 

Typical* duration 

10(15) 

10(15) 

10(15) 

10(15) 

30 

10(15) 

30 

Typical* payback 
(yrs) 
Typical* % of 
baseline 

10(15) 

30 

Typical savings* 
MWh/year 
Typical savings* 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022). 

Comment 
The activity in the 
public sector is most 
relevant in Wallonia  
There are new 
projects in large 
Federal Buildings 
(EnPC and EnPP) 
started in January 
2022 (over €1b M€).  
When finance is 
provided by clients, 
the size can be 
smaller (around 
1.5m) otherwise it is 
not feasible for 
ESCOs to operate 
below €3m 
15 years when 
including envelope 
(difficult financing) 
Large projects of 15 
years 
Refers to 
interventions without 
including envelop 

The market trends, as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022, are represented in the following table.  

Table A 10. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Upward 

Upward 

Trend 2019-2021 

Perspective 2022-
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Private sector 
Upward 

Upward 

Comments 

Status of the business environment 
The status of business development, as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022, for the availability of services and 
engagement of market actors is represented in the following tables.  

New developments in the domain of one-stop-shops involve the establishment of a strategy in the Brussels-
Capital  Region  supported  by  the  creation  of  a  market  facilitator  promoting  ESCOs  and  EnPC  to  enable  the 
emergence of the services market in the region.   

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  11.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 
Facilitators 

Number 
10  
10 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2.5 
2.5 

Quality (0-3) 
2.5 
2.5 

One-stop-shops 
Financing actors 
willing to support 
EnPC 

3 
5  

1 
2 

2 
2.5 

Comment 

100% of public 
contracts count with 
facilitation. Private 
companies do not 
rely on facilitators. 
Arbitration is the 
most common. 

Five of the major 
banks are considered 
available for 
financing and 
refinancing ESCOs, 
and some have 
specific products for 
this market. Banks 
have a preference 
for renewable assets 
and for public 
projects. 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Table  A  12.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Public clients 
2 
2.5 

Private clients 
1.5 
2 

Financing sector 
2 
3 

Comment 

Especially high in 
Flanders and 
Wallonia 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  major  EnPC  contracting  modality  is  guaranteed  savings.  Facility  management  (in  the  forms  of  Energy 
efficient  facility  management  and  Conventional  facility  management,  intervention,  and  investment 
programmes in buildings), as well as direct procurement of equipment, e.g. through leasing, are considered to 
be the two major competing arrangements with EnPC. 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  13.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, the contractor 
takes financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

3 

3 

3 

0 

1 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

3 

1.5 

3 

2.5 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

3 

2.5 

2 

2.5 

Barrier 

Building Performance Contracting (BPC) pursues deep 
renovations in shorter-term contracts by incorporating 
the life-cycle benefits of building renovation 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development  of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets,  most  instruments  were  reviewed  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  good  or  very  good.  Some 
exceptions are one-stop shops, information instruments, the use of EEOs and WhCs, and the use of EnPC in 
fulfilment of the exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 14. Perception of the MS's implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your experience 
and  judgement,  please  rate  the  implementation  and  adequacy  of  the  EU  policies  listed  in  the  table.  Use  the  following 
scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of relevance 
for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2.5 

2.5 

Good practices 

Well-established 
standard EnPC 
model 
Well-established 
standard EnPC 
guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

2.5 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC-qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 

3 

2 

1.5 

1 

2 

0.5 

2.5 

1.5 

Off-balance 
treatment for local 
authorities 
(Wallonia and 
Flanders) but not at 
regional and federal 
levels. 
Yes, from each 
ESCO 

The public sector 
has its internal 
mechanisms to 
communicate and 
adopt EnPC  
There are public 
projects getting 
realised 

public EE facilitators 
have developed 
audit standards 
Walloon and 
Federal 
governments use 
RRP to renovate 
public buildings 
through EnPC. 
Slow process in  

Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 

2 

Best in Wallonia 

Remaining 
barriers 
- 

Remaining 
complexity, 
especially with 
increasing 
performance 
goals 
Remaining 
complexity, 
especially with 
increasing 
performance 
goals 

The government 
does not inform 
sufficiently the 
private sector 

Need 
communication 
and storytelling 
EEO schemes, 
rely on deemed 
savings 
Disconnect 
between audits 
and investment 
The federal 
government 
(launching 3 
pilots in 2023 
estimated to 
amount €50m, 
as an 
intermediate step 
to implement a 
€1b program) 
Federal, Brussels 
and Flemish 
systems have 
limitations, e.g. 
aggregating 
projects 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Financing  
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  there  is  a  wide  array  of  financing  possibilities.  Of  note,  there  are  no 
limitations to supporting EnPC projects with grants. As in the previously reported period (2019-20), developed 
mechanisms such as SPVs and forfaiting are available. A major opportunity reported for improving financing 
conditions  is  project  aggregation  in  Flanders,  Brussels  and  the  Federal  Government.  Facilitation,  most 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
developed in the public sector, could also help develop projects  in the private sector for these to gain scale 
and depth. 

Table  A  15.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate). 

Private (0-3) 

2 

1.5 

1 

1 
1 
1 

2 
2 

2 
1 

Public (0-3) 
3 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
0 

0 
1 
2 
0 
3 

1 
1.5 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party Public 
funds 
Third party Private 
funds 
Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Comment 

Overall (0-3) 
1.5 

1.5 
1 

1 

1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 

1 

Opportunities for 
deeper renovation 
through refinancing 
Pursuit of models for 
deeper renovation 
and shortening 
projects (e.g. BPC 
model) 

Barriers 
For the period 2019-2021, the major barriers identified in the EU Survey 2022 were the lack of trust from the 
public  sector  and  the  insufficient  relevance  granted  to  saving  energy  in  the  private  sector,  along  with  the 
administrative  costs  of  EnPC.  As  for  the  period  2022-2025,  a  new  barrier  was  highlighted  for  the  public 
sector:  the  pursuit  of  savings  higher  than  the  typical  30%  of  EnPCs.  This  is  only  possible  with  structural 
measures with a payback time higher than the contract duration (typically 10 years), such as energy-efficient 
windows, building envelop insulation etc.  

The mild climate, interest in renewables and financing actors’ preference for short projects financing limit the 
introduction of higher savings. Newly introduced subsidies for housing renovation in Flanders and for energy 
prices  at  Federal  Government  (estimated  at  €1.5b)  are  problematic  for  EnPC,  both  and  energy  saving,  the 
latter.  

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
According to the EU Survey 2022, the Eurostat guidelines on the treatment of EnPC had a limited impact on 
the sector. The impact is considered to be mildly positive (0.5 on a scale from  -2 to +2). Different estimates 
point at off-balance contracts having low (10-15% of the projects in the public sector) or no relevance in the 
market  during  2020-21.  Confusion  on  the  relevance  existence  of  off-balance  contracting  and  its  meaning 
relates  to  different  treatments  being  granted  to  local  projects,  which  are  considered  off-balance  at  the 
regional level in Wallonia and Flanders but on-balance at the national level. 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified in the EU Survey 2022 as relevant for the period 2019-2021 were the activity of 
public  EnPC  Facilitators  in  the  public  sector  and  the  introduction  of  obligations  on  sustainable  energy/CO2-
reduction, where EnPC is playing a role after having become an accepted contracting procedure, in the private 
sector. The introduction of new ESG obligations, and concerns about energy prices and real estate value are 
also drivers in the private sector. 

As  for  2022-2025,  the  major  drivers  are  the  increasing  familiarity  of  the  public  sector,  especially 
municipalities, with the model. In the private sector, the drivers existing in the previous period (rising energy 
prices, ESG, and increased concern about real estate value) are expected to gain relevance. 

Previously reported barriers related to lack of political vision and overachievement of EED Art. 5 (JRC 2021) 
could have been overcome and were not reported in the EU Survey 2022. An improved political commitment 
could  related  to  a  pursuit  of  higher  project  savings,  and  to  a  diverse  array  of  actions  taken  at  federal  and 
region levels including consideration given to EnPC in federal and defence renovations, and the strategies for 
public    buildings  in  Wallonia  and  Flanders,  the  availability  of  subsidies  to  facilitation  in  Flanders,  the 
development of facilitation and One-stop-shops capacities in Wallonia, and the creation of a revolving  fund 
for ESCO development and promotion of EnPC in the Brussels Capital Region (NECP, LTRS, Ambience 2021).156  

Although the RRP of Belgium did not emphasize support to EnPC as much as the NECPs and LTRSs. The RPP is 
perceived as a driver in the EU Survey 2022, largely for its use in Wallonia, in combination with ELENA. Plans 
for renovating the Federal buildings (€1b) are not specific about the involvement of EnPC. Efforts reported for 
simplifying administrative procedures may be a relief for complex contractual modalities such as EnPC.)  

The  regulatory  and  market  context  (expertise  of  ESCOs,  existence  of  facilitation  and  one  stop-shops, 
development of trust, interest of clients, availability of standard contracts and M&V procedures, existence of 
aggregation  procedures)  provides  grounds  to  expect  more  challenging  projects  to  take  place.157  However, 
according  to  the  EU  Survey  2022  long-term  financing  is  not  available  for  projects  with  increased  targets, 
duration and risks.  

EU support 
The most valued EU support mechanism is technical assistance. PDA is considered to be still problematic  for 
projects  to  access  adequate  support.  The  use  of  EU  support  for  financing  is  largely  unknown  to  EnPC 
providers. It is understood that financial support is available to financing actors, and  some of the  providers 
receive de-risking support (EU Survey 2022). 

156 https://ambience-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/AmBIENCe-Factsheet-Belgium.pdf: 
157 AmBIENCe-Factsheet-Belgium.pdf (ambience-project.eu)2020 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 16. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical Assistance i.e. ELENA, 
LIFE Clean Energy Transition 
Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance for Smart Buildings 
initiative 
Structural and Investment Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking Efficiency Platform 
(DEEP) and EEFIG Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

0 

1 
0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Financing 
actors 
2 

Barriers 

Need to adapt 
PDA to 
market needs 

Good 
practices 

2 

2 

Perspective 
The  municipalities,  responding  to  municipal  targets  of  CO2  reduction,  have  played  and  are  expected  to 
continue  playing  an  exemplary  role  for  other  public  building  owners  to  follow  pace.  The  private  sector  is 
increasingly  motivated.  Consideration  towards  the  need  of  pay  for  performance  measures  or  EE-FIT,  and 
trading  of  metered  savings  were  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  These  may  be  of  particular  relevance  to 
pursue energy saving rates in building renovation aligned with EU targets. 
Recommendations 
According to the EU Survey 2022, there is a need to reduce administrative burden, especially problematic in 
one such fragmented market, and for the experience of the public sector  being shared with the private and 
financing  sectors.  Pay  for  performance  measures,  EE-FIT,  and  trading  of  metered  savings  have  been 
recommended  to  engage  the  private  sector.  The  market  has  been  described  as  having  the  potential  to 
integrate mandatory requirements for  public buildings, and enforcement of ESG rules, as well as to engage 
with higher targets as far as adequate policy and financing support is put in place (EU Survey 2022, Belesco 
position paper).158 Enabling long term financing guarantees, is of interest to sustain deeper renovations in a 
country  with  mild  climates  and  where  business  as  usual  is  not  leading  to  meeting  the  depth  of  renovation 
required  to  meet  EU  targets.  There  are  also  calls for  the  registration  of  EnPC  projects,  either by  Belesco  or 
national agencies because otherwise data on Belgium is scattered and, often, discrepant. 
At  EU  level,  recommendations  were  collected  for  the  development  of  an  EU  centre  of  excellence,  for  the 
dissemination of best practices and addressing the risk and return differences between countries should be 
considered, e.g. relying on the experience of DEEP and EEFIG. Moreover, the EU should better communicate the 
availability  of  financing  resources  available  to  to  both  the  financing  and  ESCO  actors.  Fundamentally,  the 
market  needs  to  be  steered  towards  achieving  savings  aligned  with  EU  targets  through  information  and 
development of guaranteed mechanisms. 

Good practice 
New contracting approaches are addressing project duration limitations, e.g. Building Performance Contracting 
(‘BPC’). The BPC-contract still has a contract duration of 10 years but it incentivises at the same time ESCO’s 
realising  structural  investments  with  a  lifespan  of  20,  30  up  to  40  years.  Indeed,  the  contract  rewards  the 
‘residual value’ at the end of the contract, which is typically high for structural investments. As a consequence, 
ESCO’s are motivated realising these investments even if their payback period is longer than 10 years. The 
approach was demonstrated successfully in 2021 at an EnPC project at the city of Sint-Niklaas in 9 municipal 

158 See Belesco 2022 for a full set of recommendations (https://www.belesco.be/about-belesco/position-paper) 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
buildings. 159 The guaranteed energy saving (39%) in this project was more than 50% higher than the average 
energy guaranteed saving in in other Belgian EnPC projects (25%). This contract modality includes  improved 
performance guarantees on maintenance and comfort, and enables circular investments. 

159 https://factor4.eu/nl/stad-sint-niklaas-bespaart/ 

160 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
3 

Bulgaria 

Comparison previous status 
Activity in Bulgaria is reported to have slightly reduced in comparison to 2019. In 2018-2019, were reported 
10  contracts  with  a  volume  of  3  million,  and  in  2020-2021  the  estimates  are  situated  between  5  and  8 
contracts with a volume of 2.5 million, all of them taking place in the public sector. (There is also an estimate 
increase in the number of providers, from above 5 to around 10.) The trend during this period was reported as 
uncertain, with some respondents to the EU Survey 2022 claiming a downward trend and others speaking of 
a slow take off, both in the public and the private sector. However, information on the contracts taking place 
in the private sector was not reported.  

Current Status highlights 
As reported in the EU Survey 2022, the major  sites of intervention are public  buildings (rated 3/3),  with an 
emphasis  on  educational  infrastructure,  administrative  buildings,  and  healthcare  buildings.  Interventions  in 
private buildings are less common (1/3), and take place mainly in hotels and office buildings.  

Public lighting interventions are a common target of EnPC (2.5/3) and involve both introduction of LED lighting 
and control systems. Interventions in industry are marginal (1/3) and mainly involve retrofits of lighting and 
cooling  systems.  Marginal  relevance  is  attributed  to  Smart  grids,  and  interventions  in  the  transportation 
infrastructure. EnPC contracts in buildings tend to include integral renovation, especially in the public sector 
(2.5/3),  the  replacement  of  specific  elements,  heating  and  lighting  retrofit  (2/2),  as  well  as  energy 
management systems (rated 1.5/3 in the public, and 2/3 in the private sectors). Some marginal relevance is 
attributed to facility management (1/3) and installation of building control systems (1/3), and Installation of 
renewables in the public sector (1/3). In the private sector, renewables (PV) have greater relevance, and are 
installed with a model similar to EnPC (3/3). Storage and flexibility capacity are reported as marginal, and in 
the public sector only where some hydrogen storage projects have taken place (0.5). Audits, monitoring and 
verification are relatively important part of the EnPC and depending on existence of funds and requirements. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 17. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Comment 
Existence of 
contracts in the 
private sector 
focused on RES, 
similar to EnPC 

Number of contracts 

Public 
5-8 

Private 
No info available 

Overall 
5-8 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

Typical* payback 
(yrs) 
Typical* % of 
baseline 
Typical savings* 
MWh/year 
Typical savings* 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

2.5 
0.3-0.5 
7-8 

6-8 

30-35 

No info available 
No info available 
No info available 

2.5 
0.3-0.5 
7-8 

No info available 

6-8 

No info available 

0.06 

No info available 

0.06 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 18. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 2022-
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Public sector 
Downward/ Slow take-off   Downward/ Slow take-off 
Slow take-off/ Upward 

Slow take-off/ Upward 

Private sector 

Depending on implementation of 
RRP 

Status of the business environment 
The  status  of  business  development,  as  reviewed  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  for  availability  of  services  and 
engagement of market actors is represented in the following tables.  

Table  A  19.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
9-10 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 

Quality (0-3) 
2 

1-5 
0 

2 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 

Financing actors 
willing to support 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 
0 

2 

2 
0 

2 

Comment 
Usually companies 
able to implement 
EnPC as a part of 
their business 

Not working with 
EnPC160 
BEREEF. 

Table  A  20.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Public clients 

Private clients 

Financing sector 

Understanding 

Willingness 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

1.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

Comment 
Prevalence of basic 
models 
Grants attract most 
of the interest from 
clients 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  predominant  EnPC  is  with  shared  savings  –  largely  because  clients  expect  ESCO  financing.  EnPC 
potentially  competes  with  Facility  management  and  Consultancy  with  technical  guarantee  and  Energy 
Efficiency contracts, especially in the private sector. PPPs are also of relative importance. In the private sector, 
there are RES installation contracts which resemble EnPC.  

160  Rodoshop,  operating  in  Rodhope  region  reports  marginal  EnPC  activity.  One-stop-shops  development  from  the  RRP  is  dedicated  to 

residential settings, supported with grants, 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  21.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, contractor take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

0 

0.5 

In general clients expect the ESCO to provide 
financing 

2.5 

1.5 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1.5 

1.5 

Predominantly in the private sector 

2 (1-3)  1.5 

Depends on availability of subsidies 

1 

1 (0-2) 

Grants and subsidies, which are not blended with 
EnPC; Installation of renewables with technical 
guarantees 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets, the most favourably reviewed instruments are model contracts for the private sector, followed 
by contracts in the public sector, EnPC definitions, demonstration projects, and energy audits which fall in the 
range  of  “good”  practices  appraised  by  experts  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  Guidelines,  lists  of  operators,  and 
EEOs/ WHCs are slightly above the “barely acceptable”, and use of EnPC to fulfil the exemplary role of public 
bodies’ buildings and the government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and tendering are rated 
as “barely acceptable”. The worst rated instruments are information and the use of one-stop-shops. 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  22.  Experts'  perception  of  the  MS's  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of  the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

1.5 

0.5 

0.5 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

Sustainable Energy 
Development 
Agency (SEDA) 
Ordinance of the 
sector 
Developed by SEDA 

Public sector 

Well-regulated for 
grant programs 

More detailed 
guidelines 
needed 
Ordinance to be 
expanded 
Could be further 
developed 
More detailed list 
needed 

EEOS not allowed 
for EnPC 
Low quality, lack 
of trained 
auditors 
Focus on grants 

Some cases of 
complex contracts 

Preference for 
simple contracts 

Financing  
The Bulgarian Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (BEEREF) plays a major role, e.g. by supporting 
refinancing.  There  are  no  restrictions  on  grant  combination  with  EnPC  in  the  Public  Procurement  Law  but  is 
infrequent,  largely  due  to  the  sufficiency  of  grants  to  cover  planned  investment  and  due  to  complexity  of 
adding  guarantee  clauses  in  public  procurement  contracts.  BEEREF  support  has  been  commented  as  not 
always favourable for municipalities due to the debt ratio requirements. 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  23.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).. 

Public (0-3) 
2 

Private (0-3) 
2 

Overall (0-3) 
2 

1 
3 

1 

1 

3 
3 
1 

0 

0 
1 

0 
1 

1 

2 

1 
2 

1 

1 

2 
2 
1 

0 

0 
1 

0 
1 

1 

1 

1.5 
2 

1 

1 

2 
3 
2 

1 
0 
0 
1 

2 
1 

1 

1 

Client funds 

Provider funds 
Third-party Public 
funds 
Third party Private 
funds 

Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 

Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 

Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 

Forfaiting 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Comment 
Usually equity from 
the client 

Mainly from Public 
BEEREF and NTEF  
Banks and private FIs 
rarely engage in 
EnPC financing 

Only for large 
infrastructure 
projects which is 
rarely the case for 
ESCOs 

Compatibility or 
EnPC was overcome, 
but grants compete 
with EnPC 
BEEREF, 
enforceability is 
problematic 

Barriers 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  grants  and  subsidies  are  not  blended  with  EnPC  and  compete  for  the 
market in the public sector. Municipalities are concerned about debt and there is uncertainty about possibility 
to  treat  EnPC  as  off-balance  debt.  Moreover,  municipalities are  concerned  about  administrative  burden  and 
hence  opt  for  simpler  financing  and  contracts,  which  are  furthermore  perceived  as  less  risky.  Too  this 
contributes the lack of experience with EnPC and the limited development of the ESCO market in Bulgaria.  

Expected barriers for the period 2022-2025 are energy subsidies,  possibly the  competition with  grants and 
subsidies, and remaining barriers of awareness about the model benefits. There is uncertainty on whether the 
blended use of RRF alongside EnPC will be permitted, these funds will most likely continue to compete with 
EnPC if no new measures are introduced about grant allocation (see Recomnendations). 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
There has been no apparent development in response to the Eurostat guidelines for the treatment of EnPC in 
public  sector  accounts  and  the  impact  is  considered  nil.  The  Ministry  of  Finance  defined  EnPC  as  not 
worsening the creditworthiness of municipalities.  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Drivers 
The major drivers for the upcoming 2022-2025 period were reported in the EU Survey 2022 to be the rapid 
increase in energy prices and, if materializes, support from RRP. 

EU support 
Major concern about the use of ESIF and RRF for enabling direct investment which competes with EnPC. 

Table  A  24.  Expert  assessment  of EU  support  mechanisms.  Based  on  your  experience  and  judgement,  please  rate  the 
relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or  overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical Assistance i.e. ELENA, 
LIFE Clean Energy Transition 
(Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance for Smart Buildings 
initiative 
Structural and Investment Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 

InvestEU 
RRF 

De-Risking Efficiency Platform 
(DEEP) and EEFIG Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

0 

-1 

0 
-1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 
-1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

Financing 
actors 
0 

Barriers 

ELENA 
requirements 
for CAPEX 

Good 
practices 
H2020 
projects 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Preference for 
grants, no 
combination 
in practice 

RRF may be 
deadly for the  
EnPC model 

Not 
expected 

Perspective 
There is fear that the RRF will go against the development of EnPC and end with prospective development in 
the future. Moreover, it is argued that direct allocation of RRP funds through grants is a missed opportunity to 
adapt the building stock to current challenges: “Without co-financing as currently allocated, the grants of the 
RRF  will  have  a  limited  impact  on  Bulgaria’s  inefficient  building  stock”  (Stoykov,  Rakovska  and  Todorov, 
2022).161 

Recommendations 
The  consulted  experts  as  a  part  of  the  EC  JRC  Survey  2022  consider  that  high  grant  rates  (e.g.  100%  for 
housing renovation based on RRP) should be replaced with financial instrument, including investment grants, 
that can be implemented via EnPC.  

161  Stoykov,  Rakovska  and  Todorov,  2022,  A  step  in  the  right  direction:  Bulgaria’s  recovery  plan  improved  after  lengthy  negotiations. 

Bankwatch. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
4 

Croatia 

Comparison previous status 
Croatia was reported to be a quite mature and developing market in the period 2018-2019, with most activity 
taking  in  public  lighting  (and  hence  led  by  the  public  sector)  and  where  energy  renovation  and  especially 
integral refurbishment of buildings tends to be perceived as uneconomic, even though the status of  building 
conservation and the continental climate in large parts of the country advice for deep renovations.  There has 
been  a  continued  development  of  EnPC  projects  in  public  lighting,  and  on-site  renewable  generation  has 
become more important but, countering expectations in JRC 2021, the market has shrunk from 50 contracts 
in 2018-2019, in the public sector only, to around 15 contracts, overall, in 2020-2021. This has been largely 
attributed to the availability of EU grants available to consumers in the public and private sectors. However, 
as  consulted  experts  acknowledge,  in  the  absence  of  a  national  ESCO  association,  it  is  difficult  to  collect 
reliable information on the ESCO market development, especially in the private sector. 

The NECP and LTRS already recognized the limitations to combine ESIF with PPPs and ESCO models, the need 
of clear regulation of EnPC and of examples, and the low creditworthiness of ESCOs. LTRS proposed the need 
of a revolving fund created with ESIF, and the need of standardized contracts for the public sector. However, 
the RRF pays attention more generally to ESCO models, and recognizes their interest in the deployment of PV, 
as  well  as  to  the  combination  of  ESCO  financing  with  RRF  grants,  leaving  uncertain  the  role  of  EnPC.  The 
creation of a National Decarbonisation Fund (NECP) planned in the RRP for 2023 at the earliest can serve to 
support  EnPC  financing  as  proposed  in  the  LTRS  but  this  is  not  explicit  in  the  plan,  and  it  is  possible  that 
regulatory restrictions will not be overcome to support EnPC through the Fund.162 

Current Status highlights 
The  major  sites  of  intervention  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  for  Croatia  are  public  lighting  (2.5/3),  and 
photovoltaic generation in the private sector (there appears to be newly reported interest in the industry (2/3), 
where rooftop PV installation has gained relevance. In buildings, replacement of specific elements (2/3) and 
installation of PV (2.5/3) are the most common interventions (as opposed to integral renovations rated 0.5/3), 
and often include audit and monitoring and verification actions (both 2.5/3). There are expectations for public 
lighting to remain important, but EU Grants are a major barrier for public and private sectors to pursue EnPC. 
According to the EU Survey 2022, there are no projects taking place in public buildings. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

162 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 25. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
10-20 

Private 
5  

Overall 
20 

2.5 
0.4 
7 

7 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

Typical* payback 
(yrs) 
Typical* % of 
baseline 

10 
1 
10 

10 

85 

Typical savings* 
MWh/year 
Typical savings* 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Comment 
Estimates are very 
variable for the 
private sector. Need 
an ESCO association. 

Refers to public 
lighting (there are no 
projects in public 
buildings) 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 26.  Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Downward  
Downward 

Private sector 
Downward  
Downward  

Comments 

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 2022-
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Status of the business environment 
As shown in the table below, the number of facilitators (30) is considered sufficient (3/3) but the number of 
providers  (10)  is  considered  limiting  (1/3).  There  is  no  One-stop-shops,  which  can  be  explained  by  the 
sufficiency of facilitation services. The availability of financing actors willing to work with EnPC could be also 
improved  (1.5/3).  The  quality  of  services  available  from  providers,  facilitators  and  financing  actors  was 
assessed as high but with potential for improvement (2/3). 

Table  A  27.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
10 
30 
0 
5 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing actors 
willing to support 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 
3 

Quality (0-3) 
2 
2 

Comment 

1.5 

2 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  28.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
1 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
1 
1.5 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  predominant  EnPC  is with  guaranteed  savings in  the  public  sector.  Both  shared  and  guaranteed  saving 
modalities  are  equally  uncommon  in  the  private  sector.  Energy  efficiency  improvement  contracts  compete 
with EnPC. See table below. 

Table  A  29.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1.5 

1 

1 

There was a pilot in a public hospital including 
photovoltaic plants 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1  

1 

1 

0 

1 

1  

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, contractor take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets, the most favourably reviewed instrument is the development of model contracts for the public 
sector, and the implementation of audits (both 2), followed by the use of EnPC in fulfilment of the exemplary 
role of the public sector (1.5/3). Developments in setting new obligation schemes have been diversely valued 
by respondents to EU Survey 2022 (See table below). 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  30.  Experts'  perception  of  the  MS's  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

1 

2 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

1 

1(0-2) 

1 (0-2) 

2 

0.5 

0.5 

Good 
practices 

Remaining barriers 

Limited use in 
public buildings 

Financing  
A remarkable financing barrier are limitations for ESCO companies to be beneficiaries of EU funds (only direct 
financing is supported by EU funds), and complications to implement projects with 2 sources of financing and 
procurement rules for multi-residential buildings. Possible opportunities include the use of commercial loans 
at low interest rates. There is also some development in the use of a public fund for energy efficiency to co-
finance  public  lighting.  Croatia  is amongst  the  countries  where  forfaiting  is not  being  used  to  finance  EnPC 
projects.  

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  31.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
1.5(0-3) 
2.5 

Private (0-3) 
1.5(0-3) 
0.5 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

ESCOs finance public 
lighting 

Client funds 
Provider funds 

Third-party Public 
funds 
Third party Private 
funds 
Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 

2 (1-3) 

1.5 (0-3) 

2 

2 (1-3) 
2.5 
2 

Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 
0 
0.5 
0.5 
1.5 (0-3) 

0 
0 

2 (1-3) 

1 (0-2) 

0.5 

0.5 
2.5 
0 

0 
0 
2 (1-3) 
0.5 
0.5 

0 
0 

Public Fund for 
energy efficiency co-
financed ESCO 
projects in public 
buildings 

Barriers 
According to the EU Survey  2022, there is a need  for total energy renovation of buildings, especially public 
ones, but the long payback periods of these projects is confronted with a limitation to combine EU funds with 
the ESCO model. There is also a major competition of low interest loans and EU grants, which are available 
for  energy  consumers and  have  limited  the  availability  of  public  tenders  in  the  period  2020-2021, and  the 
take-off of private markets.  

In the period 2022-2024, limitations to combine EnPC with EU funds along with availability of EU grants for 
EE  and  RES  measures  in  buildings  and  industry  are  expected  to  continue  being  the    major  barriers  for  the 
EnPC market of Croatia, even though there are expectations for a lower availabi 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  introduction  of  Eurostat  Guidance  note  of  September  2017  and  the 
Guide  to  the  Statistical  Treatment  of  Energy  Performance  Contracts  of  May  2018  have  positively  impacted 
the public sector use of EnPC (impact rated 1.5/3). The adoption of a model for public lighting is highlighted 
as an example of this. However, the contract model needs to be updated for public buildings. This is important 
because the Government is interested in deep renovation and, according to national experts, addressing low-
lying fruits would lock in the potential to achieve decarbonisation targets in public buildings. 

Drivers 
According to the EU Survey 2022, a key element of the projects in the period 2020-2021 was the installation 
of renewables, fostered by the Renewable Energy Directive as of 2018 and reduced price of PV systems. The 
know-how of ESCOs has been highlighted as a driver. At the same time, Article 7. of the EED has increased 
pressure on utilities, and an off-balance model contract for public lighting was adopted in 2018. 

A  major  driver  in  the  period  2022-2024  is  expected  to  be  the  increased  energy  prices  and  expected  lower 
availability of grants and subsidized loans in both the public and private sectors.  

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EU support 
The package of the European Green Deal, Fit for 55, and NextGenerationEU is perceived as having a neutral to 
positive effect (see table below). With the rise of energy prices in 2022, the EU Green Deal is appreciated for 
its effects in the current and upcoming years. The use of technical support and of ESIF is more controversial, 
with some experts claiming that these mechanisms have a negative effect. 

During  the  reported  period,  Croatia  received  support  from  the  H2020  project  E-FIX  (2018-2021)  which 
fostered  the  development  of  EnPC  pilots,  leasing  and  crowdfunding,  and  training  provision  on  EnPC  and 
project  finance.  Project  Smart-EPC  (2022-2025)  is  supporting  the  development  of  Smart  EPC  concept  and 
contracting.  EnPC  experiences  provided  by  E-FIX,  but  outside  the  reported  period  include  the  PV  plant  in 
General Hospital Zabok.163 

Table A 32. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Barriers 

Only applied 
in public 
buildings 

Good 
practices 

0 

1 

0 

Technical Assistance i.e. ELENA, 
LIFE Clean Energy Transition 
(Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency, 
PDA H2020) 
Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance for Smart Buildings 
initiative 
Structural and Investment Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 

InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking Efficiency Platform 
(DEEP) and EEFIG Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

0 

-2 

0 
0 
0 

0.5 

0 

0 

1 

0 
0 
0 

1 

Grants did not 
support ESCO 
in the public 
sector. Some 
grants could 
be used in the 
private sector. 

-1 

1.5 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

1 

Perspective 
The perspective as recollected in the EU Survey 2022 is uncertain, largely in relation to the availability of EU 
grants, and their continued competition with EnPC in a context of lack of compatibility between this source of 
funding and EnPC, and increasing energy prices. 

Recommendations 
The major recommendations for the Croatian market as collected in the EU Survey 2022 are a) combination 
of  EU  support  with  ESCO  financing  and  development  of  a  guarantee  fund  (especially  for  the  industry);  b) 
developing  an  off-balance  contract  for  buildings  (focus  on  integral  renovation  and exploiting  the  renewable 
generation  potential);  C)  creating  a  national  ESCO  association  (amongst  the  advantages  would  be  market 
monitoring).  

Regarding  the  EU,  there  are  calls  from  national  experts  for  EU  grants  to  be  allocated  through  financing 
instruments which enable the use of EnPC, e.g., through an EU instruction on the use of EU grants and ESCO 
models.  

163 PowerPoint Presentation (energyfinancing.eu) 

172 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
5 

Cyprus 

Comparison with previous status 
The  EnPC  market  in  the  public  sector  of  Cyprus  was  reported  as  non-existent  in  the  period  2017-2019. 
Expectations  on  Cypriot  markets  for  a  possible  take  off  seem  to  have  partially  materialized  in  the  private 
sector. On the  contrary, expected  development of  public  projects, especially in the domain of  public lighting 
have not yet taken place in 2020-2021. 

Current Status highlights 
Investment in energy sustainability in Cyprus tends to focus on PV. This can be explained by potential of solar 
generation and mild winters.  

The national registry counted with 10 ESCO providers in June 2022. These are requested to report the EnPC 
projects conducted.164 The EU Survey 2022 indicates that currently, less than 5 providers are able to involve in 
EnPC. There are no facilitators, one-stop-shops nor financing actors willing to support EnPC. 

In  the  private  sector  there  are  currently  three  (3)  ESCO  contracts  being  implemented  during  2022  in  the 
private sector, and it is unclear whether these projects can be categorized as EnPC. The three projects involve 
photovoltaics  along  with  smart  meters,  and  one  of  them  also  includes  upgrades  of  electromechanical 
equipment.  Information  on  the  first  EnPC  concluded  in  Cyprus  involved  the  installation  of  photovoltaic 
capacity (300KWh) for a food processing country as a client and an ESCO, as well as private financing from a 
third-party  investor  with  private  funds.  The  guaranteed  performance  is  480MWh  annually.  The  economic 
benefits over grid supply are 10% and imply a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions CO2 of 364tons per year 
is also achieved.”165  
In  the  public  sector  there  is  a  preference  for  simpler  contracting  mechanisms  (conventional  tendering) 
financed  through  national  and  EU  resources  (mainly  grants  and  loans).166  Furthering  this  situation,  the  RRF 
provides 100% financing, sending counter messages about the need of engaging private financing to multiply 
the effect of  public  funds. Proof of this is the fact that EnPC and ESCOs are not mentioned in Cyprus’ RRP 
(EnPC was mentioned in the NECP, and ESCO was mentioned in the LTRS). Regardless of the acquaintance of 
public authorities with EnPC,167 projects involving municipalities and supported by H2020 have not taken off. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

164 ΜΗΤΡΩΟ ΠΑΡΟΧΩΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΚΩΝ ΥΠΗΡΕΣΙΩΝ (11 ΙOYN. 2022).pdf (energy.gov.cy) 
165  2018-10-17  FIRST  ENERGY  PERFORMANCE  CONTRACTING  E&B  (ENERGY  &  BEYOND)  -  PARADISIOTIS  -  Green  Energy  Group 

(geg.com.cy) 

166  Subsidies  to  energy  efficiency  have  been  in  place  since  2003  and  have  served  to  support  30%  of  insulation  (23000  grantees).  A 
current scheme has been supporting 20% of the cost of residential PVs. The scheme is now arriving to tertiary sector. Paybacks of 3-4 
years are expected for PVs. 
167  The  public  sector  was  supported through  Technical Assistance  but limited experience  in the  sector  was  reported  in  JRC  2020  to  be 

problematic. 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 33. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Public 
0 
0 

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

Typical* payback 
(yrs) 
Typical* % of 
baseline 
Typical savings* 
MWh/year 
Typical savings* 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Private 
3 
1 
0.3 

500 

0.25 

Overall 
3 
0 

Comment 

10% over grid prices 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 34. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Did not take off  
Did not take off  

Private sector 
Slow take off 
Slow take off 

Comments 

Opportunity in communities 

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 2022-
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Status of the business environment 
The  tables  below  show  that  there  is  a  limited  sufficiency  of  providers  but  these  are  able  to  supply  good 
quality services, and that there is willingness of the public sector clients to engage with EnPC. All other market 
conditions  indicated  regarding  facilitation  services,  one-stop-shops,  private  clients  and  financing  actors  are 
perceived as having limited capacity to enable the development of the market. 

Table  A  35.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
4 
0 
0 
0 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing actors 
willing to support 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Quality (0-3) 
2 

Comment 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 
0 
0 
0 

Table  A  36.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
2 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
1 
1 

Comment 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contract modalities and alternatives 
The predominant EnPC  model is with  shared  savings (See table below).  Both  shared and guaranteed  saving 
modalities  are  equally  uncommon  in  the  private  sector.  There  are  no  alternative  contracts  reported  which 
compete with EnPC. 

Table  A  37.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, contractor take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

There have been attempts to incorporate EnPC in public 
lighting. Three private projects identified 

Direct contracting is the most common mechanism 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets, limited insight was received through the EU Survey 2022. The most appreciated measure is the 
publication  of  a  list  of  ESCOs,  which  furthermore  report  annually  on  the  EnPCs  signed.  Guidelines,  model 
contracts,  demonstration,  and  fulfilment  of  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’  buildings  are  areas  that 
require development (See table below). 

175 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  38.  Experts'  perception  of  the  MS's  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

Rating 
(0-3) 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Impact of EnPC in public sector performance 

Impact of EnPC of public sector on private sector adoption of 
EnPC 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Barriers 
Market  development  of  energy  performance  solutions  is  largely  determined  by  geographic  specificities  of 
scale, mild climate (i.e. small heating bills) and seasonal use of cooling systems (two - threemonths a year, 
summer  hospitality).  The  photovoltaic  potential  as  compared  to  energy  efficiency  improvements,  together 
with availability of targeted grants has taken away a large portion of the potential for EnPC which is not the 
favoured option due to its higher transaction costs. Adding to this low potential in buildings, solar thermal was 
largely mainstreamed in the past (solar water heating in 96% of residential, and around 60% of hotels). 

The public sector, furthermore, is a largely fragmented market, and municipalities have limited administrative, 
technical and financial capacities. Municipalities tend to formulate tenders for services and pay these with the 
support  of  favourable  loans  from  the  Government.  Further  adding  complexity  to  EnPC  as  compared  to  its 
alternatives, maintenance contracts in the public sector buildings continue – as in 2019- to be a barrier, hence 
adding  an  advantage  to  PVs  developments  (as  opposed  to  efficiency,  renewable  generation  can  be 
administered  without  involving  changes  in  maintenance  of  buildings).  According  to  the  “Integrated  National 
Energy and Climate Plan”168 the major barriers have  been: lack of appropriate forms of  finance, the lack of 
standardization,  the  inexperience  of  actors,  the  mistrust  from  the  (potential)  clients,  the  perceived  business 
and technical  risk, the small  size of the  projects and the  high  transaction  costs, as well as need to  remove 
procurement hurdles for energy efficiency services in the public sector. The  fulfilment of the exemplary role 
of  government  buildings  is  achieved  through  conventional  tendering.  Moreover,  the  drafting  of  model 
contracts and tendering guidelines has been postponed due to Covid  (to be drafted in 2023) and there is an 
inefficient contract enforcement – as stated in the national RRP. 

Developments in public lighting  could be jeopardized by its management being dependent on the Electricity 
Authority  of  Cyprus,  which  owns  75%  of  the  lamp  poles  and  operates  public  lighting  for  municipalities 
(provision  of  lighting  services).  169  There  is  a  risk  for  a  missed  opportunity  in  the  domain  of  public  lighting. 

168 “Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan” . 
169 Cyprus Energy Agency. 2013. Energy Performance Contracts. Street Lighting Pilot Project in Cyprus. Microsoft PowerPoint - 2013 - 05 - 
16 _ Street Lighting Cyprus_medeea (cyprusconferences.org) 

176 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Driven by the EU phase out of incandescent bulbs and rising energy prices, projects for the renewal of street 
lighting  in  major  municipalities  are  being  tendered,  e.g.  in  Nicosia,  Athienou  –  with  support  of  an  EIB  loan- 
with no reference to EnPC.170 This is also the problem with the Sustainable Energy Action Plans drafted by 16 
major municipalities in participating in the Covenant of Mayors or the Pact of Islands. 

Financing  
The  major  sources of  financing  on  which  market  development  is expected  to  rely  is client  funds  and  public 
financing  for  the  public  sector  and  private  (third-party)  financing  for  the  private  sector.  There  are  also 
expectation for the combined use of grants and soft loans in combination with EnPC. 

Table A 39. Financing sources for EnPC projects. Projects reviewed and Experts’ responses to: Please rank from 0 to 
3  the extent  different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find 
below  some  explanatory  notes  on  the  types  of  schemes).  Use  the  following  scale  0  =  not  in  use,  1  =uncommon,  2  = 
common,  and  3  =  very  common.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
1 

Private (0-3) 

Overall (0-3) 
0 

1 

1 

Client funds 

Provider funds 
Third-party Public 
funds 
Third party Private 
funds 
Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 

Debt financing 
Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 

Comment 
Attempted projects 
and expectations 

Based on only case 
description found 

There is a potential 
for the use of grants 
and soft loans to 
support EnPC 

There is a potential 
for the use of grants 
and soft loans to 
support EnPC 

0 
0 

0.5 

0 

0.5 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022 and review of reports of existing projects. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Changes  and  clarifications  on  the  Eurostat  treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  are  of  little 
relevance for a market with preference for the installation of renewables.  
Drivers 

For  years  central  government  bodies,  the  national  electricity  company  and  municipalities  have  shown 
commitment towards EnPC. Yet, to date the drive of authorities has been insufficient to overcome a largely 
adverse context and joint projects have failed to overcome financial costs in the past. With an electricity price 
around  the  EU  average  for  household  consumers  and  well  above  the  EU  average  for  non-household 
consumers (second  highest prices in the  EU), Cypriot  decision makers may become  motivated to implement 

170170  street  lighting  |  (cyprus-mail.com);  Nicosia  is  changing  100%  of  street  lighting  with  LED  |  ManagEnergy;  Energy  efficient  street 

lightning in Nicosia’s villages | Interreg Europe - Sharing solutions for better policy 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
performance  improvements.171  Current  response  to  price  fluctuations  during  2022  has  not  been  reported. 
Mutual  Funds  Fund  from  CF,  ERDF,  EIB  and  national  budget  can  be  used  for  supporting  ESCO  and  EnPC 
projects and auditing. Without additional driving efforts may support conventional contracting.172  

Efforts  of  demonstration  and  guidance  have  been  postponed  and  are  now  planned  for  2023.  New  support 
schemes in the form of subsidies and grants available for 2022 and 2023 will support households and SMEs 
to invest in renewables and efficiency. Based on information available ESCOs may be involved in the project 
implementation,  e.g.  in  the  audit  process.173  A  new  support  scheme  will  aim  at  deep  energy  renovation  of 
residential  buildings.  The  integration  of  EnPC  could  be  an  opportunity.  MECI  is  currently  preparing  template 
procurement documents for EnPC in the public sector. These documents will be communicated to public and 
wider  public  authorities  in  order  to  facilitate  them,  accompanied  with  a  brief  step  by  step  guide  for  each 
tendering procedure.  

EU support 
Technical development and research projects supported by the EU are of interest for the potential the EnPC 
model to potentially take off. The H2020-supported PEDIA project (2020-2025), which intends to renovate 25 
schools to NZEB standards through was reported to aim at including experiences with EnPC.174 However recent 
information on the project do not refer to EnPC.  The H2020 project NEON (September 2021  - 29 February 
2024) counts with participation of the University of Nicosia intends to develop innovative contracting models 
for the integration of EnPC and P4P schemes and establish innovative  M&V  methodology. The  relevance of 
the  project  for  Cyprus’  market  development  is  uncertain  in  available  information  about  the  project.175 
However, the overall impact of EU support has not yet resulted in contracts nor the use of investment grants 
that crowd the market. 

Perspective 
The  development  of  model  contracts  for  the  public  sector  and  previous  experiences  may  result  in  EnPC 
contracts to take off in the public sector and efforts to continue to develop in the small private sector market. 
Structural  issues  of  climate  and  reliance  on  grants  and  loans  difficult  however  the  development  of  these 
markets. 

Recommendations 
There is a fundamental need for resolving contract models, guidelines and contract enforcement issues, along 
with  regulatory  or  economically  incentivised  preference  for  guaranteed  savings  appear necessary  to  exploit 
the benefits of EnPC. Regulatory signals could include requirements for public sector to work with guaranteed 
savings in implementation of EED Art. 5. Furthermore, ongoing efforts in fostering EnPC would benefit from 
enabling technical (facilitation) as a means to address issues of trust and technical capacities. 

A  series  of  good  practices  highlighted  in  the  EC  review  of  the  LTRSs  can  be  of  relevance  to  foster  future 
developments  of  EnPC:  the  creation  of  an  energy  efficiency  obligation  scheme,  which  is  expected  to  attain 
41%  of  Article  7  commitments  through  improvements  in  energy  efficiency  in  residential,  commercial, 
industrial  and  transport  sectors,  the  combination  of  structural  (seismic)  and  energy  upgrade,  a  green  tax 
reform  which  will  include  carbon  pricing,  and  incentives  for  energy  upgrades  in  building  renovations. 
Fundamentally the use of grants and loans should be channelled through EnPC for its markets to take off. 

There is a continued potential for EU technical support for project development and the development of one-
stop-shops or facilitation. 

171 Data consulted for the second half of 2021 Electricity price statistics - Statistics Explained (europa.eu) 
172 The use of EU Schemes for the tertiary sector alongside EnPC is possible. However, this option may not be the most attractive for 
clients  which  once  have  secured the  funds  may  not  be  interested  in  additional  contracting  efforts,  especially  given  the  limited  saving 
potential in the country, hence reducing the interest of additional and guaranteed savings, e.g. through EnPC. Street lighting interventions 
with grants and loans has enabled the replacement of more than 150,0000 lamps in around 300 communities. 
173Funding Programmes, Ministry of Energy, Commerce and Industry (meci.gov.cy) 
174  Promoting Energy efficiency & Developing Innovative Approaches in schools | PEDIA Project | Fact Sheet | H2020 | CORDIS | European 

Commission (europa.eu); swd_commission_preliminary_analysis_of_member_state_ltrss.pdf (europa.eu) 

175 Next-Generation Integrated Energy Services for Citizen Energy Communities | NEON Project | Fact Sheet | H2020 | CORDIS | European 

Commission (europa.eu). 

178 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
6 

Czech Republic 

Comparison previous status 
A public sector market reported as mature and developing in the JRC report of 2021, during the period 2020-
2021, the public EnPC market of the Czech Republic dramatically increased regardless that engaging EnPC is 
not allowed for central government entities. This marked development was largely enabled by EU and State 
programs  which  require  an  EnPC  test  for  the  allocation  of  Cohesion  Funds  (Operational  Program 
Environment).176 The private sector market has remained stable. Whilst the market size contracted with Covid, 
the availability of business infrastructure in terms of providers, facilitators and financing, largely supported by 
forfaiting, shows an optimistic situation. 

Current Status highlights 
The Czech government has largely recognized the relevance of EnPC to maximise the efficient use of funds, 
and has a will to diversify financing, as stated in the LTRS. References to EnPC are relevant in the NECP and 
LTRS. The Government has allocated efforts to training on tendering EnPC for public and commercial buildings 
(EFEKT), supports free consultation centres that assist in the preparation and documentation of EnPC projects 
(EKIS), the documental preparation of projects is subsidized, and there is a government-organized organized 
M&V system (NECP; LTRS).  

The  Country’s  RRP  is  amongst  the  few  making  explicit  reference  to  EnPC.  Relying  on  experience  in  the 
allocation  of  Cohesion  Funds,  the  national  RRP  includes  support  to  the  new  EnPC  model  from  the  first  RRF 
instalment and a bonus for savings from EnPC or Performance Design & Build method. Indirect measures that 
may support the development of EnPC markets is RRF investment in in speeding administration, development 
of green procurement criteria, training to contractors and financial support to SMEs. These investments are of 
relevance because the need of stronger TA, and speeding decisions had been identified as key barriers in the 
previous reporting period (2017-2019).  

The typical intervention sites in Czechia are  public  schools,  hospitals and theatres. Currently, private offices 
are, although rare, the most common private intervention site alongside industrial interventions. Municipal and 
regional projects take place in the form of project pools. Public lighting projects are included in these pools. 
Interventions in district HVAC, smart grids and transportation are now considered irrelevant in the market.177 
Private office buildings and district heating appear to have lost relevance.   

Main  intervention  typologies  are  the  replacement  of  specific  building  elements  (boilers,  HVAC,  lighting,  and 
overall systems), the installation of integral control systems, and integral renovations, both in the public and 
private  sectors.  Whenever  it  is  economically  repayable,  projects  also  support  the  installation  of  on-site 
renewable  generation,  and  storage  capacity.  Maintenance  is  contracted  only  as  a  part  of  the  warranty 
obligations,  and  maintenance  and  replacement  of  equipment  is  not  covered  by  providers.  Integral 
renovations, integral control systems, generation and storage seem to have gained relevance respect to the 
previous  reporting  period  (2017-2019).    Integral  renovations  and  envelope  interventions  have  become 
possible since 2019, when subsidies became available. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes. 

176 Microsoft PowerPoint - Seminar EPC_Praha_150527_6_Vrbicky_pravidla PO5 (svn.cz) 
177 These values are similar to those obtained in 2020. 

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 40. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical size m€ 
Typical duration 

Public 
11  
27  
1.8  
10  

Typical payback 

8.5   

savings 

Typical % of baseline  30 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings 

0.21 

Private 
2 
1.2 
0.6 
5 

8.5  

30 

0.07 

Overall 
13 
28.2 
1.6 
- 

8.5 

30 

Comment 

0.2-10 

Longer  projects  of 
14-18 
are 
implemented.  with 
subsidy support 

years 

0.19 

0.02 -1 

Table A 41. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Rocketing  

Private sector 
Stable  

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Upward 

Slow take-off 

Comments 
Rocketing trend in the public 
sector  was  caused  by  new 
state & EU subsidies 
Slower effect of subsidies 

Status of business environment 
As shown in the tables below the provision of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market is 
not problematic, with the exception of the private sector clients. The level of understanding from the central 
administration has to an extent improved, and there indications of attempts to test off-balance approaches in 
central  government  buildings.  This  could  potentially  lead  to  the  lifting  of  the  veto  of  the  MoF  on  EnPC. 
Because of the latter, the current and previous use of EnPC to fulfil the exemplary role of the public sector 
(Art  5  EED)  is  limited,  which  is  problematic  in  a  context  shaped  by  lack  of  trust  in  the  model. 178  However, 
forfaiting  has  consolidated  during  the  reported  period,  enabling  long  term  financing  for  EnPC  (EU  Survey 
2022). 

Table  A  42.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

Number 
10  
11  
- 
3 

Sufficiency 
3 
2 
- 
3 

Quality 
3 
3 
- 
3 

Comment 

- 

- 

- 

178  Energy  service  providers  interviewed  rated  the  impact  of  public  sector  adoption  of  EnPC  adoption  in  the  public  sector  is  rated  2 

(between 0 and 3), and on the private sector as 0 (between 0 and 3). 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  43.  Understanding  of  the  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Public clients 
2 
1 

Private clients 
1 
0 

Financing sector 
3 
3 

Comment 

Renewed 
from 
the 
government 
implement 
balance contracts 

interest 
central 
to 
off-

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
A combination of guaranteed and shared savings modalities whereby the first rank of savings is guaranteed 
and extra  savings are shared is widespread in the  public sector. EnPC is less common in the private sector. 
Boot and Facility management are considered to compete with EnPC for the market (See table below). 

Table  A  44.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Comment 

take 

clients 

parties 

EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings 
(contractor  guarantees  energy 
savings, 
the 
financial risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both 
take 
savings, 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract  energy  management 
(chauffage) 
Facility management 

contractor 

share 

and 

technical 

Consultancy 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency improvement 
contracts 
PPPs 

3 

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

Typical  EnPC  contract  is  guaranteed  energy  savings  and 
shared "extrasavings".  

Typical  EnPC  contract  is  guaranteed  energy  savings  and 
shared "extrasavings".  

Competes with EnPC 

Competes with EnPC 

Besides EnPC 

Not yet in use for energy efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets,  most  instruments  were  rated  as  “very  good”  or  “good”  with  the  exception  of  energy  audits, 
obligation  schemes  and  the  use  of  EnPC  in  fulfilment  of  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’  buildings, 
apparently  because  most  interventions  are  not  implemented  in  obligated  buildings,  i.e.  from  the  central 
government  and  of  a  sufficient  size.179  Good  practices  identified  are  the  EnPC  definitions  (rated  2/3), 
guidelines  (rated  2/3),  model  contracts (rated  3/3),  demonstration  (2/3),  as  well  as  guidelines (2/3)  and  the 
government  rules  and  practices  of  procurement,  contracting  and  tendering  (2/3).    About  10  projects  are 
considered  to  be  especially  attractive  for  having  a  demonstrative  value.    According  to  national  service 
providers, all of these practices have received adequate support from communication and pilot projects. This 

179 One-stop shops were not rated by respondents 

181 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
is remarkable  because the insufficiency of government communication had been  highlighted as a barrier in 
the previous reporting period (2017-2019).(See table below.) 

Table  A  45.  Experts'  perception  of  the  MS's  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

1 

1 

2 

Promotion activities 

Pilot projects 

Financing 
Financing originates mainly from client funds in the private sector and either from client funds or from other 
public  funds  in  the  public  sector.  Public  financing  is  also  widely  used  in  the  private  sector.  Forfaiting  is  a 
widespread mechanism, especially in public contracts. 

182 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  46.  Financing  sources  for  the  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Public funds 
Private funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

and 

Public 
1 
0 
3 
0 
0 

3 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
3 

Private 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 

3 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

Overall 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 

3 
0 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Comment 

Short-term financing 

Long-term financing 

Barriers 
According to the EU Survey 2022, the major barrier identified by services providers is Eurostat categorization 
of  receivables  as  public  debt,  which  remains  an  obstacle  for  government  bodies.  The  major  barriers  in  the 
private  sector  are  long  payback  periods,  and  the  categorization  of  receivables as CAPEX.  The  impact  of  the 
Eurostat  changes  in  accounting  rules  had  a  large  negative  impact  (-2  in  the  range  from  -2  to  +2).  Major 
delays  in  the  choice  of  a  model  result  from  the  pursuit  of  an  adequate  balance  between  the  interests  of 
clients and contractors, largely because providers are not interested in taking over maintenance risk, which is 
needed for the contract to be accepted as off-balance within Eurostat rules.180  

The  most  relevant  barriers  for  the  period  2022-2025  are  the  low  motivation  of  civil  servants  in  the  public 
sector, and the veto on central government buildings. In the private sector, the major barriers continue to be 
long payback periods, and the inclusion of receivables into CAPEX. 

Drivers 
The  key  drivers in the  public sector for the  period 2019-2021  have been energy  costs, the decarbonisation 
drive  and  the  introduction  of  subsidies  to  support  EnPC  projects,  enabling  deep  renovations  whilst  keeping 
contracts within a 10-year duration, along with the use of forfaiting. The same drivers are expected to drive 
market activity in the period 2022-2025 (EU Survey 2022).  Moreover, in the period 2022-2025, it is expected 
that  integral  renovation  projects  gain  relevance  as  the  result  of  requirements  for  Performance  Design  and 
Build project. 

EU support 
A review of the Czech implementation of the EU regulatory framework (EU Survey 2022) shows that previous 
barriers towards the combination of EU funds and EnPC have been overcome. Currently there are two ELENA 
projects,  one  in  Central  Bohemia  and  one  with  the  National  Development  Bank.  Furthermore,  there  are 
expectations  for  EIB  Support  for  market  assessment  and  development  of  a  forfaiting  guarantee  scheme  in 
the Czech Republic, which could drive the further development of the EnPC model in Czech Republic. 
(See table below). 

180 The existence of investment grants which compete with for buildings was also highlighted as a barrier in the LTRS. This barrier has 
been largely overcome through combined use of Cohesion Funds with EnPC and the continued development of forfaiting, which enables 
long term financing. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 47. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
for  Smart  Buildings 
Finance 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55* 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

0 

2 

0 
2 
0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

1 

0 
0 
0 

1 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Barriers 

Administratio
n 

Good 
practices 
- 

Since 
2020 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

Perspective 
For the period 2022-2025, an upward trend is expected in the public sector (the  market size has increased 
compared to the previous period) alongside a slow take-off (i.e. from a temporarily halted market) 
the private sector. A major reason for reduced growth in the public sector is the reduced effect of subsidies 
amidst  RRP  implementation.  However,  integral  renovation  projects  are  expected  to  gain  relevance  as  the 
result of requirements for “Performance Design and Build”. 

in 

Recommendations 
A set of key recommendations have been gathered from national experts and reviewers of Czech market: 

 

Removal of the veto on central government investment would be a key regulatory signal. This  could 
serve to use EnPC to fulfil central government’s obligations in implementation of EED Art. 5, based 
on the experience of other public bodies. 

  Continuation of project preparation support from ELENA would serve to increase the amount of EnPC 

projects procured.  

  Continuation  of  the  combined  use  of  EnPC  with  EU  subsidies  and  requirement  of  EnPC-testing  of 

projects. 

  Development of contract models that do not account receivables as CAPEX for the client (e.g. EEaS 

 

model) would help develop the private market. 
Extension  of  the  forfaiting  model  to  clients  with  lower  credit  ratings,  through  a  public  guarantee, 
would serve to increase the eligible pool of projects. 

Even  in  a  most  developed  market  such  as  Czechia,  continued  EU  support  through  ELENA,  the  allocation  of 
funds  though  mechanisms  that  support  deep  EnPC  renovations  such  as  guarantee  funds,  and  technical 
support of the EIB to develop  refinancing mechanisms would be favourable to the EnPC market and to the 
achievement of energy saving and decarbonization targets. 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7  Denmark 

Comparison previous status 
The  public  market  was  consistently  growing  from  2008  to  2019  before  slowing  down.  A  small  but  stable 
private  sector  market  was  driven  by  a  focus  on  payback  periods  and  positive  business  plans.  The  NECP 
emphasized  EnPC,  and  efforts  on  informing  municipal  and  regional  authorities  on  the  advantages  of  the 
model. However, as mentioned in the LTRS, EnPC is of limited relevance in the public sector due to access to 
advantageous financing from Kommunekredit. Indicating a potential for developing EnPC, the LTRS mentions 
the  availability  of  mechanisms  for  aggregation,  e.g.  Gate  21  in  the  Copenhagen  region,  advisory  services 
(BetterHomes,  SparEnergidk,  and  Danish  knowledge  Centre  for  Energy  Savings  in  Buildings,  and  grant 
allocation which incentivises the greatest documented savings, hence potentially incentivising EnPC (Fund for 
Energy Savings in Buildings and Fund for Energy Savings in Business). However, the Danish RRP did not refer 
to EnPC nor ESCO models, and was reviewed by the EC as potentially needing increased investment on EE.181 
There  are  no  binding  savings  goals  for  public  bodies  and  the  most  common  approach  to  saving  energy 
interventions is to implement small interventions through in-house capacity.  

Current Status highlights 
The market has contracted in the public sector and remained stable in the private sector, where little activity 
takes place. There are expectations for take-off in both sectors as the result of renewed building renovation, 
energy saving and climate-related targets. 

The most common contracting model reported in the EU Survey 2022 for Denmark in EnPC with guaranteed 
savings  (3/3)  in  the  public  sector.  The  use  of  the  model  is limited  in  the  private  sector (1/3)  where  EnPC  is 
considered to  be a novel mechanism. Other  model  contracts  used are consultancy with technical  guarantee 
and  energy  efficiency  improvement  contracts  (both  rated  3/3  for  both  public  and  private  sectors),  which 
compete with EnPC. Facility management is also common in large private companies (2/3) and to an extent in 
the public sector (1/3). 

The most common intervention sites are public buildings (rated as 2/3), mainly universities, municipalities and 
hospitals (2/3). Smart grids, industry (pharma, and food and beverage), and private buildings (shopping malls, 
especially) are of relative relevance (the three of them rated 1/3). The most common types of EnPC contracts 
involve maintenance, installation of building and plan control, energy management, renewable generation and 
Monitoring  and  evaluation  (all  of  these  rated  2/3).  Integral  renovation  is  relatively  less  frequent  (1/3).  And 
storage is expected to gain relevance in the near future. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes. 

181  Denmark's  National  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan  (europa.eu);  Denmark’s  recovery  and  resilience  plan  |  European  Commission 

(europa.eu) 

185 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 48. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Overall 
15 
35 

Comment 

Public 
8 
25 
7 
5 

20 

20 

Private 
7 
10 
1.5 
2 

8 

25 

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

% 

of 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

savings* 

Table A 49. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could  you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 
2024 

2022-

Public sector 
Downward  
Slow take-off 

Private sector 
Stable  
Slow take-off 

Comments 
The  public  sector  has  no 
for  energy 
binding  goal 
The 
efficiency. 
private 
marked 
focusing  on 
electrification  and  energy 
efficiency 
not 
but 
familiar with EnPC 

are 

is 

Source: EU Survey 2022 

Status of the business environment 
The  sufficiency  of  provision  and  facilitation  was  rated  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  limited  (both  1/3).  The 
financing  sector  the  latter  shows  to  have  sufficient  capacity  to  engage  with  EnPC,  and  has  greater 
understanding and willingness to work with EnPC than private and public clients. Facilitation services are also 
of good quality but, the same as providers, insufficient for the market development (especially in the private 
sector, where actors appear to be relatively willing to engage EnPC). 

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table  A  50.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
2 
3 
- 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 
1 
- 
3 

Quality (0-3) 

Comment 

2 
- 
2 

Public  financing  has 
some limitations 

186 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  51.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Public clients 
1 
1 

Private clients 
1 
2 

Financing sector 
3 
3 

Comment 
“The  public  sector 
EnPC 
knows 
the 
is  not 
model  but 
used 
often 
so 
anymore. It is new to 
the private marked” 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  main  contracting  modality  for  EnPC  is  guaranteed  savings,  mainly  in  the  public  sector.  Facility 
management,  and  especially  consultancy  with  technical  guarantee,  and  energy  efficiency  contracts  are 
widespread. These compete with EnPC because clients are more familiar with these models than with EnPC. 
(See table below). 

Table  A  52.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate). 

Public 

Private 

Comment 

take 

clients 

parties 

EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings 
(contractor  guarantees  energy 
the 
savings, 
financial risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both 
take 
savings, 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract  energy  management 
(chauffage) 
Facility management 

contractor 

share 

and 

technical 

Consultancy 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency improvement 
contracts 
PPPs 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

3 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

0 

Widespread amongst biggest private companies 

Single measures without guaranteed savings 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets, the most favourably reviewed instruments were government rules of procurement, contracting 
and tendering, energy audits, and demonstration projects, which are publicized in the webpage of the Danish 
Energy Agency. Although off-balance contracting is not so relevant for the public sector, off-balance models 
could be of interest for the private sector. 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  53.  Experts'  perception  of  the  MS's  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use  the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

There  is  a  public 
incentive  for  the 
private  market, 
not 
does 
but 
support 
off-
balance financing 

New  working  group 
created  guidelines 
for  municipalities  in 
2022.182 
Off- 
balance 
treatment  is  not  so 
important  for  public 
sector 

The  Danish  Energy 
Agency  has  a  ESCO 
site 
Two  private  ESCOs 
were 
referred  as 
One-stop-shops  by 
some respondents 
Database  of  energy 
management 
, 
information  about 
ESCO 
on 
SparEnergi.dk 
 ESCO  site  of  the 
Danish 
Energy 
Agency refers to 20 
municipalities, 
2 
universities  and  12 
where 
hospitals 
EnPC 
was 
implemented 
Obligation-based 
fund  no  longer  in 
use 

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

Rating 
(0-3) 
1 

0 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

0 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil  Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Impact of EnPC in public sector performance 

Impact  of  EnPC  of  public  sector  on  private  sector  adoption  of 
EnPC 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

0 

2 

1 

1 

Financing  
As show in the table below, EnPC financing is advantageous for municipalities, whose financing limitations set 
by  the  government  can  be  overridden  in  case  of  EnPC  financing.  Most  financing  for  public  projects  comes 
from public funds (rated 3/3), as in the case of Kommunekredit for municipalities, often times in the form of 

182 hvad-skal-kommunen-overveje-foer-et-esco-samarbejde.pdf (kl.dk) 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
leasing  (2/3).  Private  projects  are  mostly  financed  through  private  banks  and  client  funds  (both  rated  2/3). 
There is a public incentive for the private market, but does support off-balance financing, and is incompatible 
with some private financing instruments.  

Table  A  54.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 

Public 

Public (0-3) 
1 
0 
3 

Private (0-3) 
2 
1 
0 

Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 

financing 

and 

Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 

Leasing 

Purpose 

Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

0 

3 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

0 

0 
0 

2 

2 

0 

0 
0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

Kommunekredit 
could  support  EnPC 
but  is  preferred  over 
EnPC 
Banks for private 

are 

There 
incentives 
private 
engage with EnPC 

for 
sector 

public 
the 
to 

Some 
are 
actors 
offering  off-balance 
financing 
(incompatible  with 
public incentives) 
Kommune  kredit  for 
public sector 

Barriers 
Aligning with previously reported situation (JRC 2021), the major barriers in the public sector reported in the 
EU Survey 2022 for the period 2019-2020 include competition of public financing and direct implementation. 
Also, were identified as barriers a lack of binding EE goals already problematic in the past, and a preference 
for PV. In the private  marked an increased focus on electrification and energy efficiency is not  matched by 
familiarity  with  the  EnPC  model,  and  furthermore  there  are  concerns  about  long  return  periods.  In  the 
upcoming period 2022-2024, government interest for PVs and continued concern amongst private investors 
about  payback  periods  are  expected  to  continue  limiting  market  development.  Off-balance  financing  is 
attractive  for  the  private  sector  and  can  be  an  opportunity  for  the  adoption  of  EnPC,  however  it  has  been 
reported as largely incompatible with public incentives. 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Off-balance  contracting  is  not  relevant  for  the  public  sector  (EU  Survey  2022).  EnPC  financing  does  not 
account  towards  the  debt  of  local  authorities.    It  is  more  interesting  for  the  private  sector,  mainly  in  the 
industry. However, off-balance models are incompatible with government subsidies. 

Drivers 
According to the EU Survey 2022, the major drivers for an expectedly slow take-off of EnPC in both public and 
private markets are renewed preoccupation for climate change, increasing costs of CO2 emissions and energy 
costs (especially  of  gas,  i.e.  electrification  drive).  For  instance,  private  companies are  signing  up  to  science-
based  targets.  The  EU  focus  on  EE  is  expected  to  partially  compensate  for  government  focus  on  wind 
generation and district heating. Public incentives for the private sector is expected to enable the acceptation 
of longer payback periods. There is going to be a greater focus on electrification due  to CO2 reduction and 
gas  crises  and  energy  efficiency  due  to  energy  prices  and  CO2.  Public  incentives  in  place  are  expected  to 
extend the payback period of private projects.  

EU support 
EU  Support  mechanisms,  with  the  exception  of  technical  support  to  the  public  sector  (rated  1  in  a  -2,  +2  
scale)  are  considered  by  consulted  experts  to  have  nil  effect  on  the  EnPC  market  of  Finland.  The  only 
identified  capacity  development  H2020  project  implemented  during  the  researched  period  include  SENSEI 
(2019-2022), which has worked on developing concepts and business models for pay for performance (P4P) 
retrofits. (See table below.) 

Table A 55. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Financing 
actors 
0 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

0 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
for  Smart  Buildings 
Finance 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

Perspective 
There are expectations for EnPC development in the near future. Flexibility and storage capacity is expected to 
further gain relevance, as also PV is developing.  

Recommendations 
Experts participating in the EC JRC Survey 2022 have recommended the establishment and active promotion 
of targets by the government and energy agency. For sectoral actors, there is a need of government support 
to  the  EnPC  and  other  ESCO  models  as  a  means  to  speed  up  investment  and  to  achieve  targets  in  energy 
efficiency  and  carbon  neutrality.  A  suggested  mechanism  was  subsidies,  e.g.  for  audits,  that  incentivise  the 
choice of EnPC. The private sector would benefit of financing instruments that substitute subsidies to enable 
off-balance treatment of EnPCs. 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
At EU level, the promotion of EnPC as a mechanism with more advantages than financing is key for markets 
with sufficient access to financing to develop. 

191 

 
 
8 

Estonia 

Comparison previous status 
In  previous  and  current  gathering  of  expert  insight,  it  has  been  difficult  to  engage  the  Estonian  sector  to 
provide expert input. Expert input on the period 2020-2021 covered in this report was not available. Previous 
reporting  indicated  that  guidance  for  the  preparation  of  “energy  efficiency  contracts”  was  available  (2019) 
and a first project was concluded.  

A key area of interest for EnPC in Estonia are multiapartment buildings. In 2015, it was assessed that almost 
71% of the Estonian population lives in multifamily buildings built between 1961 and 1990. These buildings 
have  precarious  energy  performance  and  indoor  comfort  conditions,  and  they  need  structural  repairs. 
Although these  buildings have a technical energy savings potential of 3.74 TW h/a in  terms of final energy 
use, the necessary investments have a return period of 20 years. Moreover, residential owner-dwellers have 
limited investment capacity, and are reticent to renovate and engage with EnPC. 183 In 2018, a renovation to 
NZEB standard which addressed full renovation of multifamily buildings in Estonia, found a 34% gap between 
the designed and measured primary energy consumption (i.e. between 95kWh/m2year and 147kWh/m2year, 
respectively) 184, showing the importance of contractual guarantees. 

The  NECP  and  LTRS  have  showed  interest  for  ESCO,  but  not  to  EnPC.  The  NECPs  pays  attention  to  ESCO 
models.  According to the NECP there is 6 companies providing Energy services in Estonia (F Adven, Fortum, 
MTÜ Eesti Energiasäästu Assotsiatsioon, Soletek, AU Energiateenus OÜ, Eesti Energia). In 2019, a collaborative 
development of ESCO contracts took place. A landmark of the NECP is the government plans to make support 
housing  associations  though  KredEx  Fund185  Although  the  fund  does  not  appear  to  exclude  ESCOs  from 
implementing the projects, the effect of this policy in the ESCO and EnPC market is uncertain.   

Further  support  to  financing  of  energy  renovation  of  buildings  was  mentioned  in  the  LTRS,  alongside  PPP. 
Financing  instruments  included  support  to  lending  for  energy  renovation  of  buildings,  and  measures 
addressed  to  the  “reduction  of  possible  investment  risks,  financial  support  and  creation  of  a  revenue  base 
needed  for  financing  the  measures”  This  measure  appears  to  have  materialized  in  funding  from  the  State 
Shared Service Centre, which provided financing to local authorities between 30 and 70%  of the investment, 
and a capped investment (€700/m2) for central government entities to building renovations and construction 
of  NZEB  buildings  during  half  a  year,  by  the  beginning  of  2019.186  Whilst  there  is  a  need  of  further 
information on the extent the government succeeded to create a revenue base for financing efficiency and to 
mitigate investment risks of relevance for EnPC, there is no information on any EnPC having taken place in the 
country. Most recently, the RRP has paid no explicit attention to EnPC common.  

Current Status highlights 
Based on the available literature and the lack of interest of stakeholders to provide input to this report, it is 
arguable  that  unclear  commitment  of  decision-makers  and  lack  of  capacities  have  resulted  in  insufficient 
grounds  for  the  market  to  take  off.  There  are  reports  of  two  municipalities  actively  using  EnPC  but  their 
contracts seem to have taken place before the research period (2020-21).187 The main experience with EnPC 
found  in  the  country  relates  to  the  H2020  project  EFFECT4  (2017-2020),  which  assessed  the  country 
potentials  for  energy  efficiency  renovation  of  buildings,  and  supported  pilots  involving  BMS  and  energy 
monitoring in public buildings during 2018 and 2019.188 The project provided a toolbox for EnPC development, 
including a template contract for EnPC and EnPCM.189 Two cases were implemented covering 10,000 m2 and 
with an investment of €2m. The average savings guarantee was 30%, and the achieved savings of 30%, over 

183 Pikas et al 2015 found that: “ a non-energy efficiency related investment of 31€ /m2 would lead to the same cost as an integrated 

renovation at 160€ /m2”. 

184  Green  Home  Energy  Efficiency  for  Homeowner  Associations.  Nd.  Good  Practice  Factsheet.  Akadeemia  5ª.  Serial  refurbishment  of  a 

dormitory. Tallinn. Estonia. 

185 The fund was available from 2018 up until the exhaustion of funds. The programme “Subsidising energy efficiency solutions” planned 
to support projects involving buildings with at least “C” energy certification and the installation of photovoltaic systems.  Funding - 
Effect4buildings.  
186 Funding - Effect4buildings 
187 Source: Technical Assistance study on evaluating the EED (2020). 
188 2-Experiences-and-procurement-of-technological-solutions-1.pdf (effect4buildings.se) 
189 Energy Performance Contracting - Effect4buildings 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
a project of 5 years.190 The country’s Real Estate company (Riigi Kinnisvara, RKAS) which participated actively 
in Effect4Buildings has not been involved in more contracts. 

Status of the business environment 
The NECP indicates that there are 6 ESCOs active in Estonia. The central government is known to be familiar 
with the EnPC model. However, the model is largely unknown to other potential clients.  
Contract modalities and alternatives 
It is believed amongst sectoral stakeholders that the Central government, the MoF and are more interested in 
the use of Lighting as a Service (LaaS).   

Financing 
The projects implemented by Effect4Buildings were funded with client funds. 

EU support 
Experience  with  EU  Support  was  only  reported  in  relation  to  the  project  Effect4Buildings  in  public  buildings 
(H2020). 

Barriers 
Most  recently,  the  RRP  has  paid  no  explicit  attention  to  EnPC  common.  The  country’s  RRP  focus  includes 
household efficiency and smart  grids, which could  benefit from EnPC  support. For instance, the  Green Fund 
(€100m)  to  be  created  with  RRF  support  for  innovative  technologies  could  be  helpful  for  developing  EnPC 
markets and pursue larger impact. Moreover, a review of the national operational plan shows a funding gap 
for  energy  renovation  to  meet  the  country’s  ambitious  targets  of  renovating  22%  of  the  building  stock  by 
2030.191  
Key barriers indicated about the energy renovation of buildings which may be of relevance for EnPC markets 
are administrative barriers and size of projects. The limited size of projects then finds limited motivation  in 
municipalities  to  collaborate  or  initiate  intracting  processes,  which  could  overcome  these  barriers,  because 
decisions are mostly taken at central government level.192 According to responses to the EU Survey 2022, the 
Ministry  of  Finance  and  Kredex  have  greater  interest  for  LaaS  than  EnPC.  Limited  familiarity  of  potential 
clients besides the central government and the availability of non-refundable grants and aid for investments 
in  energy  efficiency  in  municipalities  are  two  market  features  reported  by  project  Effect4buildings193which 
could be particularly adverse to the uptake of EnPC. 

Drivers 
Opportunities  for  EnPC  development  may  be  found  in  the  government  plans,  set  in  the  LTRS  to  developing 
information and awareness measures and to improve data availability and monitoring processes.194 However, 
the  attention  paid  to  EnPC  is  unclear,  e.g.  in  the  RRP.  It  is  also  uncertain  whether  subsidies  identified  as 
funding opportunities by Effect4Buildings project (from State Shared Service Centre in 2018 and 2019 and 
the Kredex Foundation – starting in 2018 until exhaustion of funds)195 have been made available for EnPC. 

According  to  responses  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  a  major  driver  for  market  development  in  Estonia  is  the 
financial and technical support, and the existence of well-informed politicians. Kredex and ministry of finance 
have interest in EnPC, and look closely at developments in the sector. Also, there is a potential for uptake of 
EnPC  in  multifamily  buildings  based  on  the  existence  of  housing  associations  were  developed  through 
requirements  of  government  and  financial  institutions  (e.g.  SvedBank).  The  implementation  of  the 
Effect4Buidlings project from 2017 to 2020 with the support from the Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme 

190 2-EPC-Presentation-and-Training-material.pptx (live.com) 
191 Bankwatch Network. 2022. Briefing: Assessment of the Estonian operational programme. pp 8.: ““Energy efficiency Estonia’s target is 
to renovate 22 per cent of the total building stock by 2030, requiring a total investment of around EUR 5 billion. The National Audit Office 
has concluded that the building renovation rate needs to increase almost fivefold (from 100 to 466 apartment buildings a year) in order 
to reach the target for 2030 and that this target will not be met with the current policies”  
192 Lars Holstenkamp Moritz Ehrtmann, Heinrich Degenhart, Tim‐Oliver Kray Report on Future Investments in Participating Municipalities – 

Feasibility Study for Elva, Estonia Microsoft Word - actnow_O3-4_feasibility-study_elva(final) (actnow-baltic.eu) 

193 EFFECT4buildings-combined-guide_web_9-oct.pdf 
194 2022-03-02-op-assessment-ee-final.pdf (euagenda.eu) 
195 1-Funding-Possibilities-in-Denmark-Norway-Latvia-Estonia-Finland-and-Sweden.pdf (effect4buildings.se) 

193 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
(H2020)  provided  guidelines  for  EnPC  in  Estonia  and  other  Baltic  countries  and  promoted  two  pilots  which 
resulted in the investment of €2m.196  

Perspective 
Given  the  interest  and  capacity  of  Kredex,  the  experience  of  RKAS  with  EnPC,  the  availability  of  a  toolbox 
developed by EFFEC4Buidldings project, and national experience with LaaS there could be a potential for the 
development  of  EnPC.  The  existence  of  housing  associations  and  facilitation  capacity  also  contribute  to  a 
potential for housing and municipality projects. 

Recommendations 
There is a fundamental need of government commitment for EnPC to gain relevance in Estonia. More specific 
recommendations involve the provision of training for technical consultants, making available free audits and 
technical-administrative  advise  for  apartment  associations  and  private  households.197  There  is  also  an 
apparent need of facilitation for municipalities to aggregate projects and to engage with deep renovation. 198  
There is a precedent reported in the EU survey 2022 on the introduction of conditional requirements for the 
creation  of  housing  associations  for  dwellers  to  receive  energy  subsidies.  Following  up  on  this  precedent, 
building renovations relying on EnPC, could be a possible way ahead for renovating multi-family buildings. In 
general,  conditional  allocation  of  public  support,  alongside  continued  technical  assistance,  appear  to  be  a 
possible way ahead for the introduction of contract modalities with saving guarantees. 

196  Guide-Energy-Performance-Contracting_web.pdf  (effect4buildings.se);  Energy  Performance  Contracting  -  Effect4buildings,  1-
2-EPC-Presentation-and-Training-material.pptx 
Guideline-for-EPC-Customers-How-to-Start-an-EPC-Project.pdf 
(live.com) 
197 2022-03-02-op-assessment-ee-final.pdf (euagenda.eu) 
198 Lars Holstenkamp Moritz Ehrtmann, Heinrich Degenhart, Tim‐Oliver Kray Report on Future Investments in Participating Municipalities – 

(effect4buildings.se); 

Feasibility Study for Elva, Estonia Microsoft Word - actnow_O3-4_feasibility-study_elva(final) (actnow-baltic.eu) 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
9 

Finland 

Comparison previous status 
The JRC report of 2021 indicated that the public sector market had been stable at around 4-5 projects signed 
biannually,  with  an  approximate  total  value  of  €3.5,  and  3  providers  active  in  the  market.  EnPC  receives 
limited attention in the  NECP, only as a possible financing option for municipalities signatories of voluntary 
agreements and as a way to support energy renovation for vulnerable households. The LTRS is more explicit 
and  indicate  the  availability  of  bonus  subsidies  for  ESCO  projects  (25%  over  20%  conventional  subsidy) 
planned  for  2017-2025;  the  development  of  contracts;  investment  subsidy  from  Business  Finland  for 
renovations of non-residential buildings using EnPC; collaboration with  providers to  disseminate information 
on  ESCO  models.  The  LTRS  also  indicates  a  likely  barrier  to  the  development  of  EnPC:  energy  saving 
obligations on the public sector have been met in voluntary basis. Reflecting this situation the RRP does not 
mention  ESCOs  nor  EnPC  and  focuses  on  early  phase  out  of  fossil  oil  heating  in  buildings  (2024  in  public 
buildings and 2030 in private buildings) 

Current Status highlights 
The EU Survey 2022 depicts a public market that has remained small in size but stable, and a private sector 
which  has  slowly  taken  off.  EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings  is  relatively  common  option  in  the  public  and 
private  sector  buildings  (rated  2/3).  In  private  sector  buildings  BOOT  is  preferred  (3/3).  In  the  industry, 
consultancy  with  technical  guarantees  are  the  prevailing  option  (2/3).    Interventions  tend  to  include 
maintenance,  replacement  of  specific  elements  –  largely  ventilation  and  lighting,  installation  of  building 
control  systems, energy management and renewable generation (2/3 in  both the  public and private  sector). 
Less  common are DHC, which involve  bundled  projects in buildings both from the public and private sector, 
demand flexibility and storage capacity, and integral building renovations (1/3 in both the public and private 
sectors).  Monitoring  and  verification  and  audits  are  part  of  all  projects  (3/3).  There  has  been  an  increased 
demand  for  heat  pumps and  in  the  period  2022-23,  it  is  expected  that  installation  of  renewables  will  gain 
relevance. 

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market and contract sizes, and the trends for the period 
2019-2021 and 2022-2024. 

Table A 56. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate. 

Comment 
Data  available  for 
the  private  sector 
unclear 
makes 
differentiation 
between  EnPC  and 
other  energy  saving 
contracts 

Rough estimates 

Number of contracts 

Public 
4 

Private 
14 

Overall 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

% 

of 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022.  

savings* 

savings* 

2 
0.5 
15 

10 

10 

550 

0.03 

8 
0.6 
8 

5 

15 

1900 

0.15 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 57. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

2022-

Public sector 
Stable 
Slow take-off 

Private sector 
Slow take-off 
Slow take-off 

Comments 

Driven  by  energy  and  CO2 
prices in ETS 

Status of the business environment 
The sufficiency of and quality of services of  provision and facilitation, as well as one stop shops, and active 
financing  is  reviewed  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  satisfactory  (2/3)  or  highly  satisfactory  (3/3)  for  both 
indicators.  On  the  contrary,  the  understanding  and  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC  of  public  and  private 
clients is relatively low (1/3 for both indicators). The financing sector is reported to be more willing and able 
to engage with EnPC (2/3 for both indicators). 

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table  A  58.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
24 
1 
1 
10 

Sufficiency (0-3)  Quality (0-3) 
2 
2 
2 
3 

2 
3 
3 
2 

Comment 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing  actors 
willing 
to 
support EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Table  A  59.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
1 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
2 
2 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
As shown in the table below, the main contracting modality for EnPC is guaranteed savings, in both the public 
and private sectors. Shared savings is also in use. There is a diversity of contract alternatives of  relevance in 
Finland, either in the public or private sectors.  

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  60.  Relevance  of  different  contarct  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public  Private  Overall  Comment 
2 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets, most instruments receive a positive evaluation in the EU Survey 2022, especially definitions, 
availability of a list of operators, demonstration projects, the deployment of one-stop-shops and the use of 
audits.  The  use  of  Obligation  schemes,  and  the  use  of  EnPC  to  fulfil  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’ 
buildings are the regulatory options to which less attention has been paid. The government rules and practices 
of  procurement,  contracting  and tendering  are  considered  to  be  stringent  for the  public  sector  engagement 
with EnPC in its energy-saving efforts. 

197 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 61. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework.  
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the 
table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices 
and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 

Rating 
(0-3) 
3 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

1 

3 

1 

Online 

government 

The 
company Motiva  

There  is  a  website 
for  successful  EnPC 
projects 

and 
of 

Tradition 
expertise 
auditing 
Preference 
for 
regular  contracting 
to  expertise 
(due 
and 
stringent 
procurement 
legislation) 

Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

It  is  stringent  for 
EnPC 

Financing  
There is a diversity of financing options (See table below). In general, financing conditions are favourable for 
energy  saving  projects.  In  public  projects,  client  funds  are  most  often  involved  (rated  3/3  in  terms  of 
frequency the EU Survey 2022), whilst in private sector provider funds are more important (rated 2/3). Public 
and  private  financing  are  available  in  a  diversity  of  ways,  which  constitutes  an  opportunity  for  the  market 
development.  The  former  is  more  frequent  (3/3)  than  the  latter  (2/3).  Public  financing  through  Business 
Finland and grants are  highlighted (both rated 3/3). Guarantee funds are of  relative relevance, especially in 
the public sector (2/3). No barriers have been identified about the combination of EU funds and EnPC.  

198 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  62.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You  only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the infomation is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 

financing 

and 

Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

Public (0-3) 
3 
1 
2 

Private (0-3) 
1 
2 
1 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

1 

2 

3 

2 
2 

0 
1 
1 
2 
0 

3 
0 

2 

2 

3 

1 
1 

0 
1 
1 
2 
1 

2 
0 

1 

Business 
Finland 
grants  are  available 
for EnPC 

Barriers 
Based  on  the  information  collected  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  in  the  central  government  there  is  a  continued 
preference  for  regular  contracting  due  to  expertise  available  and  stringent  procurement  legislation.  The 
established use of contract energy management constitutes a barrier to the development of EnPC in the real 
estate market and facility management has a similar effect on the industrial sector. In the period 2022-23 
there is concern about the rising interest rates for financing EnPC projects. On the contrary, the EnPC model 
continues  to  be  insufficiently  known  by  potential  clients.  In  previous  years,  the  relevance  granted  by  the 
government to EnPCs, e.g. in the NECP was limited. The development of the sector up to 2021 may have been 
limited due to the early progress in the achievement of obligations which, as reported in the LTRS, had been 
met  based  on  Voluntary  Energy  Efficiency  Agreements  drawn  up  between  the  Government  and  industrial/ 
municipal associations.199 A focus on renewables in the RRP (over efficiency) may result in the development of 
other types of contracts. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Changes and clarifications on the  Eurostat treatment of EnPC in government accounts have not been of 
impactful  in  the  use  of  EnPC  in  Finland  (rated  0  in  a  scale  of  -2,+2  in  the  EU  Survey  2022).  Off-balance 
contract models have been produced and are used in 30% of public projects, but are reported to need further 
adaptation to the context. No other budgeting rules are reported as problematic. 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified in the EU Survey 2022 for both the 2020-21 and 2022-23 periods are increasing 
energy prices. An increase in the ETS market for CO2, along with pursuit of energy security may also drive the 
market in the upcoming period. Targets for the phase out of fossil fuel heating in buildings (public buildings in 
2024, and private buildings in 2030) reported in the RRP may be also a key driver in the period 2022-23 and 

199  The  NECP  reported  that  municipalities  and  companies  signing  to  voluntary  agreements  with  the  government  have  to  commit  to 
explore  financing  solutions  including  EnPC  to  overcome  financing  barriers  to  invest  in  energy  efficiency.  The  continuation  of  these 
agreements during the reported period (2020-21) supported the use of EnPC along with other contracting options. 

199 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
up to 2030.  In addition to these drivers, the  LTRS  highlights the availability of incentives for ESCO projects 
(25%  as  opposed  to  the  conventional  subsidy)  for  the  period  2017-25.  ESCO  projects  in  tertiary  building 
renovations opt to Business Finland subsidies provided there are energy savings are guaranteed. Collaboration 
between the government and ESCOs was also planned in the LTRS.  

EU support 
The expert assessment of EU Support in the EU Survey  2022 indicates a  generally positive appraisal of EU 
mechanisms,  except  for DEEP  and EEFIG,  whose  impact  is depicted  as neutral.  The  RRF  is appraised  as the 
most positive mechanism and its impact is rated 2 in a scale from -2 to +2 for both clients and the financing 
sector.  To  increase  the  impact  of  most  EU  Support  mechanisms,  additional  communication  to  make  theme 
better  known  at  MS  level  are  called  for.  The  European  Green  Deal,  Fit  for  55  package  is  considered  to  be 
particularly  positive  for  the  engagement  of  the  private  and  financial  sector  (Both  rated  as  2  in  the  -2,  +2 
scale). 

Horizon  support  was  received  for  NOVICE  (New  Buildings  Energy  Renovation  Business  Models  incorporating 
dual  energy  services),  which  lasted  from  June  2017  to  May  2020  and  was  tasked  with  developing  an 
improved  EnPC  model  for  that  improves  the  monetization  of  building  renovation  with  the  combined  use  of 
efficient,  renewable  and  demand  response  technologies  which  aims  at  contract  periods  of  10  years,  to  be 
reduced to 7.5 years with the use of demand response. 

Table A 63. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 
2 
0 

Financing 
actors 
0 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

1 

1 

1 
2 
0 

2 

Perspective 
There are expectations for the public sector to take off, and the private sector to continue its ongoing take off, 
largely due to energy prices and new targets (EU Survey 2022). However, in a context of available financing 
and funding to which contributes the RRF, focused on renewables and new green technology investments, it is 
uncertain to what extent the EnPC will be engaged in a significant portion of new projects. 

Recommendations 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  communication  and  promotion  of  EnPC  and  EU  support  mechanisms 
appears to be the missing element in previous actions. It is also advisable the continued use of incentives and 
special  subsidies to  EnPC  projects.  Adjustments  to  the  stringent  procurement  rules  could  be  also  beneficial, 
e.g.  with  support  of  Motiva’s  experience  in  advising  EnPC  clients.  Continuation  of  the  NOVICE  experience  to 
improve  the  monetary  benefits  of  EnPC.  At  EU  level  there  is  a  potential  for  the  collection  of  standardized 
information of EnPC projects of Finland, and for the exchange of experiences. 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Good practices 
Remarkable  practices  are  the  existence  of  incentives  to  EnPC  and  specific  allocation  of  subsidies  through 
Business  Finland,  as  well  as  the  existence  of  a  government  website  where  successful  EnPC  projects  are 
published. 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
10  France 

Comparison previous status 
According to the JRC report of 2021, France was in the period 2018-2019 a static market (€70m contracted 
in the period), due to legal issues involving the use of savings to repay investment in  EnPC, and appraisal of 
the model as complex, meaning that other energy services were preferred.  The market was not expected to 
take off in the period 2020-2023. Also, the LTRS highlighted that the EnPC market had become stabilised and 
need  further roll  out.  Support  to  EnPC  was  granted  through  a  standardised  technical  sheet  for  multi-owner 
buildings (2018), and equity financing for local and regional authorities (€1b total in grants and subsidies, of 
which  0.5  is  for  EnPC  and  “Intracting”-  which  operates  as  an  internal  EnPC  mechanism).200  The  use  of  tax 
incentives  has  been  highlighted  as  a  good  practice  for  its  alignment  with  the  Renovation  Wave  initiative.  

Current Status highlights 
The  market  sustained  the  impacts  of  the  Covid  pandemic  with  an  increase  in  the  market  size  and  a 
stabilization of the number of projects.201 The RRP did not mention energy services nor EnPC202. It is unclear to 
what extent the funds allocated to building renovation (€5.83b) can be used by EnPC. However, intracting is 
receiving a budgetary allocation from the RRP, and this may be used to finance EnPC. 203 

The current market size has been reported to be in the ballpark of 60 to 110 contracts, amounting to €1.1b 
only  in  the  public  sector  (contracts  signed  in  2020-21).  This  is  well  above  the  situation  in  2019,  and  as 
claimed by participants in the EU Survey 2022, does not reflect the complete reality by missing a multitude of 
small projects. Contract durations in France typically last 8 or more than 10 years, and are of relatively large 
size  (an  average  size  of  €10m  was  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  well  above  the  size  reported  in  JRC 
2021).  Longer  durations  are  associated  to  interventions  in  the  envelope.  There  is  a  sizeable  amount  of 
contracts of shorter duration, mainly in retail and industry,.204 Relatively low savings of 25-30% continue to 
call for regulatory intervention in making these contracts more ambitious, as reported in JRC 2021. This has 
been  related  by  responding  experts  to  the  availability  of  grants  and  bonuses  from  EEOs.  These  support 
mechanisms pay less attention to small projects, which have a large potential in highly fragmented public and 
private sectors of France. 

Annual studies from the Observatoire National des Contrats de Performance Energétique are most useful to 
assess  market  status  and  needs.  The  last  edition  dates  from  November  2022.  Councils,  regions  and 
departments  are  the  main  clients.205  As  reported  by  experts  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  main  type  of 
interventions  takes  place  in  publicly  owned  buildings  (schools,  public  offices,  sports  facilities,  military 
equipment)  (frequency  rated  as  3/3),  street  lighting  (2.5/3),  and  social  housing  (2/3).  Project  pools  are  of 
relative relevance (2/3), but mainly involve projects from a single public owner. The presence in the  industry 
(1/3) is limited to utilities, and marginal in addressing processes. (A relative relevance of DHC reported in JRC 
2021  does not  seem to  have  resulted  in  developments  of  size  comparable  to  those  in  buildings and  public 
lighting.)  Regarding  the  types  of  interventions  In  buildings,  these  mainly  encompass  maintenance  (3/3), 
replacement of specific elements (Boilers, lighting, windows) (2/3). There is a diversity of opinions regarding 
the  relevance  of  integral  renovations,  with  some  experts  claiming  its  “very  common  among  public  buyers” 
(3/3).  Renewables  and  energy  management  are  also  common  elements  of  interventions  (both  3/3).  These 
have  gained  relevance  since  the  previous  JRC  report  (2021).  Monitoring  and  verification  is  also  part  of 
projects  (3/3).  Audits  tend  to  be  part  of  separate  contracts  and  are  acknowledged  as  important  for  the 
eventual adoption of EnPC. A trend has been identified towards energy and carbon performance contracting. 
The tables below summarize the data gathered on market and contract sizes, and the trends for the period 
2019-2021 and 2022-2024. 

200  Intracting is referred  in  the  LTRS as  an  “Innovative  funding  scheme  that  serves to  create a  virtuous  circle  of  funding  derived  from 

energy savings to finance renovation works.” 

201 Chiffres clés de l’Observatoire National des CPE – Novembre 2022 
202Search terms: “entreprises de services énergétiques”, “contrat de performance énergétique”, “marchés de services énergétiques”. PNRR 

Francais.pdf (economie.gouv.fr); France's National Recovery and Resilience Plan (europa.eu) 

203 DOC_ONCPE_07_Etude-de-Cas_Intracting-UCA.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 
204 DOC_ONCPE_05_Chiffres_cles_3_nov2021.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 
205 DOC_ONCPE_07_Etude-de-Cas_Intracting-UCA.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 64. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate. 

Number of contracts 

Public 
64-112 

Private 
? 

Overall 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

1100 
10 
8 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 

payback 

8 

% 

of 

30 

? 
10 
8 

8 

25 

savings* 

Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey and Observatoire CPE.207 

savings* 

Comment 
is 
There 
statistical 
information 
private markets 

lack  of 

on 

Shorter  contracts  in 
retail and industry 

Savings are expected 
to  increase  beyond 
40% 
tertiary 
buildings  due  to  the 
regulatory push206 

in 

Table A 65. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. EU Survey 2022 and Observatoire CPE. Experts’ response to the 
questions: Could you please identify or estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Slow take-off 

Private sector 
Slow take-off 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Rapid take-off  

Rapid take-off 

Comments 
The previously ongoing take-
off  was  slowed  during  the 
COVID crisis 

Status of the business environment 
The  same  as  for  the  size  of  the  market,  estimates  on  the  number  of  providers  and  facilitators  diverge 
between consulted experts in the EU Survey 2022.Whilst the number of providers seems to relatively suffice 
to supply the market (2/3), the number of facilitators is referred as insufficient (0/3). The limited availability 
of facilitation is a problem that had been reported by the JRC in 2021. 
The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table  A  66.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
2-15 
0 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 
0 

Quality (0-3) 
3 

Comment 

Reported issue in JRC 
2021 

Providers 
Facilitators 

actors 
to  support 

One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

206 Décret n° 2019-771 du 23 juillet 2019 relatif aux obligations d'actions de réduction de la consommation d'énergie finale dans des 

bâtiments à usage tertiaire 

207 DOC_ONCPE_03_Chiffres_cles_2_juin2019.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
The  public  sector  has  the  highest  degree  of  willingness  to  engage  with  EnPC  (2/3).  Besides,  the  degree  of 
understanding and willingness amongst public and private clients as well as the financial sector is low (1/3 for 
all three categories).  

Table  A  67.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
2 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
1 
1 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
As  shown  in  the  table  below,  the  main  contracting  modality  for  EnPC  is  guaranteed  savings  in  the  public 
sector, and shared savings in the private sector. Shared savings models are less frequent in the public sector 
due to legal limitations for the use of private financing. Besides, there is a diversity of contract alternatives of 
relevance in France, mainly Boot, Chauffage, facility management, and Consultancy with technical guarantee 
(building  works  contracts  without  guarantees  of  energy  saving),  which  compete  with  EnPC  for  the  energy 
efficiency  market.  In  the  private,  sector  there  are  contract  modalities  focused  on  the  deployment  of 
renewables and carbon neutrality.  

Table  A  68.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

2 

0 

0 

0.5 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

0 

2 

There are regulatory limitations for private financing.208 
Expected to change with the next climate law 

Direct competition with EnPC 

Building  works  with  calculated  energy  improvement  but 
without any guaranty of energy savings 
Building  works  with  calculated  energy  improvement  but 
without any guaranty of energy savings 

Integration  of renewables  and  focus  on  reducing  carbon 
footprint 

Regulatory framework 
Expert  review  of  the  French  implementation  of  the  regulatory  framework  of  the  EU  of  relevance  for  the 
development  of  ESCo  and  EnPC  markets,  shows  that  there  have  been  deficiencies  in  the  domain  of  model 
contracts in the public sector and most fundamentally in the absence of a list of qualified operators. Large 
operators however exist, posing a competitive barrier to the development of SMEs in the EnPC sector. During 
the reported period, there was room for inclusion of EnPC in rules and practices of procurement, contracting 

208 DOC_ONCPE_05_Chiffres_cles_3_nov2021.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
and tendering. Addressing this could be an opportunity for further exploration of EnPC in fulfilment of Art. 5 of 
the EED. New models and guidance developed in 2022 may address these opportunities. Audits are the best 
valued  instrument,  followed  by  the  use  of  EEOs  to  provide  bonuses  for  commitments  under  EnPCs  and 
demonstration  projects  –  new  efforts  in  the  latter  domain  appear  to  have  been  deployed  respect  to  the 
situation  in  2018-20.  No  information  was  gathered  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  about  the  use  of  information 
instruments and the  existence  of  one  stop  shops, potentially  reflecting  their insufficiency  in  the  country,  as 
reported in JRC 2021. 

Table  A  69.  Experts’  perception  of  the  MS’s  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC  Model  contracts  public  sector  (whether 
off- or on-balance sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2(1-3) 

1(0-2) 

1.5 

2 

0 

2 

2 

3 

Use  of  EnPC  to  fulfil  Art.5  of  the  EED 
(Exemplary role of public bodies' buildings) 

1.5 

rules 

Government 
procurement, contracting and tendering 
Impact of EnPC in public sector performance 

practices 

and 

of 

Impact  of  EnPC  of  public  sector  on  private 
sector adoption of EnPC 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

3 

2 

Good practices 

Remaining barriers 

find 

expert 

Some 
the 
definition  of  EnPC  lacking  in 
French law 
Multiple sources 

Off-balance 
progress209 

contracts 

in 

a  standardised  technical 
sheet 
for  EnPC  was 
created in  2018  
Models 
2022.  
Fedene 
model in 2021210 

developed 

developed 

in 

a 

FAIRE  network  run  by 
ADEME,  ANAH  and  ANIL 
comprises 1000 experts 

Bonus  for  savings  under 
an EnPC 

transparency  on 

More 
performance achieved 
requirement 
Lack  of 
savings to be measured 

the 

for 

greater 

Need 
on 
achievements than on type of 
works211 

focus 

Financing  
Changes  and  clarifications  on  the  statistical  treatment  of  EnPC  in  public  accounts  have  not  influenced  the 
dynamics in the public sector, especially since public buyers are traditionally reluctant to use private financing 
in large public projects.212 There is also a reported difficulty to finance small EnPCs. 

Table  A  70.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 

209 A toolkit including new model contracts and guidance for public contracts has been developed and published during 2022  “Mettre en 
place un Contrat de Performance Energétique – Le clausier CPE”  Base de ressources – ACTEE (programme-cee-actee.fr). 
210 [#PUBLICATION] Le SNEC publie un modèle de contrat de performance énergétique – Fedene 
211 France addresses Art. 5 of the EED through alternative mechanisms.  
212 The public entity can use private financing in the MPPE (Marché de Partenariat de Performance Energétique) framework, as opposed to 
the MPGP  (Marché public de Performance Energétique). However, there is reluctancy to use private financing due to its financial 
costs. Hence, the interest in intracting. A proposal of law is expected to review the interest of third-party financing for EnPC in public 
sector. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party  Public 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 

and 

financing 

financing 

Private 
inst. 
Public 
inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine 
financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

Public (0-3) 
3 
0 
1.5 

0 

3 

3 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2 
0 

1 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

Difficult  in  public 
sector. New offers 
available  for  the 
private sector 

1 

Barriers 
The French legislation make it difficult the use of third-party financing for EnPCs in public property. The latter 
is furthermore fragmented, with multiple public buyers lacking scale (also reported in the LTRS as a barrier for 
renovation of public tertiary buildings). In the residential sector, financial support is costly, and split incentives 
weight down initiatives. Moreover, in the period 2022-23, there is a concern about the removal of the bonus 
brought about by White certificates to interventions in the industry.  

As  also  reported  in  the  JRC  report  of  2021,  contracts  for  building  works  with  technical  guarantee  (often 
without  guarantee  of  performance)  and  energy  management  (chauffage  or  heating  contracts  with  profit 
sharing  –“Contrats  d’exploitation-maintenance  avec  clause  d’intéressement”)  compete  with  EnPC  and  are 
preferred  over  the  latter  on  the  grounds  of  their  lower  complexity  even  though  they  are  less  ambitious  in 
terms of saving energy. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Off-balance contracts in the public sector have not yet been developed. The development and adoption of off-
balance  contracts  depends  upon  regulatory  developments  on  the  use  of  private  financing  in  EnPCs  in  the 
public sector.  

Drivers 
France  implements  the  Art.  7  of  the  EED  fully  through  EEOs.  The  major  drivers  indicated  in  the  EU  Survey 
2022  are  White  certificates  and  the  public  procurement  law,  which  allows  for  integral  contracts  (CREMs  - 
Design-Implementation-Operation and Maintenance – or MGP – Marché Global de Performance since 2016). 
As  for  the  period  2022-23,  there  are  expectations  on  the  removal  of  barriers  for  third-party  financing  in 
2023. The rise of energy prices is also a driver, especially in the public sector. The “Tertiary decree” is pushing 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
for  higher  renovation  targets  in  tertiary  buildings,  for  these  to  achieve  40%  savings  compared  to  2010  by 
2030.213 

EU support 
Limited expert insight was obtained in this domain. In the EU Survey 2022, it was recommended that public 
funds are allocated to measurable and achieved savings to ensure an effective use. Expert assessment only 
referred to the effects of the Green  Deal, Fit for 55 and NextGenerationEU packages, which are  considered 
most relevant for the financing actors (rated 2 in a scale from -2 to +2) and public sector (rated 1). 

There are several H2020 projects active, and recent experiences in France that address some of the barriers 
reported:  
 

The  Project  BAPAURA  (Building  energy  retrofitting  Assistance  by  Public  authorities  in  AUvergne-
Rhône- Alpes) coordinated by ADEME is working on developing models for renovating public buildings 
in  small  and  medium-sized  municipalities,  whose  limited  capacities  hinder  their  use  of  advancing 
contracting schemes and fragmented grants. The project addresses the use of WhCs, grants and the 
potential of one stop shops. 
The  project  NEON  (Next-Generation  Integrated  Energy  Services  fOr  Citizen  Energy  CommuNities) 
pursues the integration of EnPC and P4P schemes to support efforts of energy communities.  

 

  GuarantEE  (Energy  Efficiency  with  Performance  Guarantees  in  Private  and  Public  Sector)  (2016-
2019)  worked  on  the  renovation  of  public  buildings  with  a  focus  on  contracts  that  address  split 
incentives and are more flexible, and providing guidance and examples to municipal clients.  

Perspective 
Expectations for speeding up of the markets take off, for both the public and private sectors, are associated 
to the rise in energy prices, especially in public procurement processes, as well as an expected regulatory push 
(targets) and enablers of ESCO financing in the climate law. The type of projects is expected to increasingly 
involve integral renovation and carbon neutrality targets. 

Recommendations 
Expert  recommendations  include  calls  for  engaging  small  public  bodies  and  small  private  projects  in 
collaboration with SME operators and  private  financing. There is also a potential for building  up on positive 
experiences (use of WhCs) of a bonus for EnPC in state aids, which should prioritise real and measured energy 
savings.  For  this,  increased  transparency  of  EnPC  achievements  through  M&V  needs  to  be  pursued.  These 
developments should take place alongside ongoing development of Eurostat compliant off-balance contracts 
for the public sector.  

Based on the analysis of the French case, the development of technical capacities through facilitation and one 
stop  shops  would  be  key  for  small  public  bodies  and  SMEs  to  access  technical  expertise  and  to  aggregate 
projects.  Technical  assistance  and  exchange  of  experiences  coordinated  with  DEEP  and  EEFIG  could  help 
develop these capacities. Continued promotion of certified services could help overcome limited transparency 
of savings and hence enable eligibility of EnPC for bonus systems. 

Good practice 

 

 

The  EnPC  Observatory  (Observatoire  CPE)  monitors  the  market.  Even  though  not  all  contracts  are 
reported, the Observatory’s reports are an invaluable tool to understand the French market.  
There are positive experiences with the use of intracting – which is receiving a budgetary allocation 
from the RPP – for financing EnPC. 214 

There is a trend towards Energy and performance contracts, in alignment with the Carbon Neutrality Strategy 
of  France  for  2050  and  EU  strategic  approach.215  It  has  been  estimated  that  44%  of  of  EnPCs  include 
greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments.216  

213 Décret n° 2019-771 du 23 juillet 2019 relatif aux obligations d'actions de réduction de la consommation d'énergie finale dans des 

bâtiments à usage tertiaire. 

214 DOC_ONCPE_07_Etude-de-Cas_Intracting-UCA.pdf (observatoirecpe.fr) 
215Observatoire National des Contrats de Performance Energétique Chiffres clés – Novembre 2022 
216 Plainemaison 2022, citing FEDENE 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                        
 
11  Germany 

Comparison previous status 
In the previous JRC report on EnPC in public markets (2021) the German market was depicted as mature. The 
German  market  was  previously  characterized  by  being  in  the  group  of  those  with  contracts  longer than  10 
years.  This  was  considered  to  be  a  result  from  attention  being  paid  to  the  depth,  quality  and 
comprehensiveness  of  renovations.  The  market,  however,  was  stagnant,  largely  due  to  investment  having 
turned towards other contracting models. The situation was expected to reverse during the currently reported 
period (JRC 2021).   

Current Status highlights 
Recent progress in the political agenda have brought to the fore new challenges associated to the pursuit of 
decarbonisation  targets  and  energy  independence,  in  a  context  of  delayed  modernisation  of  buildings  and 
where local action continues to be a challenge.217 In addition to climate and energy targets, there is a need of 
addressing  user  comfort  and  health  issues  (Rombach  2022).218  EnPC  as  well  as  a  diversity  of  contracting 
options  receives  attention  in  the  German  NECP  and  LTRS.  These  documents  highlight  technical  support  for 
municipalities,  consultation  and  dialogue  between  administrations  (Bund-Länder  Dialog  Contracting), 
demonstration  projects,  facilitation  for  local  governments  and  reducing  bureaucracy  associated  to  public 
support  to  investing  in  buildings’  energy  efficiency  (including  subsidies,  grants  and  newly  introduced  tax 
incentives). The mentoring program to foster energy services, with a focus on EnPC in the energy agencies of 
federal states has been active in providing expertise to local authorities. A good practice highlighted in the EC 
review of the German LTRS was the use of tax incentives to foster building renovation in the private sector. 219  
Although  the  RRP  did  not  mention  EnPC  nor  ESCO,  it  strengthens  funding  for  energy  efficiency  renovations 
(€2.5b), addresses barriers to investment in the public administration, carbon pricing and increases efforts to 
deploy RES. The participants in the EU Survey 2022 characterized the market for the period of 2020-21 as 
having remained stable compared to the previous situation. The reported size of the market is stable around 
€670m per year (BfEE 2021).220  

Based  on  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  most  common  intervention  sites  are  public  buildings  (2.3/3)  and  with  a 
focus on schools and other service infrastructure. Public lighting is also a relevant sector (1.8/3). In buildings, 
there is increased focus on savings in public buildings, the efficiency of gas-powered heating systems (largely 
in SMEs and public buildings). Most interventions involve replacement of specific elements in the public sector 
(2.5)  and  the  private  sector  (2/3).  Maintenance  and  building  control  systems  and  renewable  generation  are 
also common, especially in the public sector (2.5/, 2/3, and 1.8/3, respectively), following previously reported 
trends. Project bundling is common (2/3) and interventions in the industry are of certain relevance, compared 
to other markets (1.3/3). Limited relevance  of DHC has been reported, largely due to the use of other ESCO 
models  in  this  type  of  projects.  There  is  a  trend  towards  more  user  centric  renovations,  such  as  full 
renovations  in  schools,  e.g.  to  include  accessibility  measures  and  fire  counter  measures,  as  well  interior 
renovation. This trend calls for attention towards measures which are often paid upfront by the customer, or 
public funding, and not from energy savings.   

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market size, contract sizes, and market trends. 

217 In the public sector, only 14% of buildings meet climate targets, and 50% need to be modernised urgently (Lohse 2022; Rombach 

2022). 

218 Rombach. Lorenz 2022. The German mentoring program to foster energy services in the public sector  – Methodology, experiences 

and best practices. Berliner Energieagentur GmbH Frankfurt am Main, 05.10.2022 

219 EC’s Staff Working Document of March 2021 
220 The current market report presentation for the energy service market in Germany shows a total potential for energy services of at 
least  40  bn  €  from  which  8-10  bn  €  are  currently  been  exploited  BfEE  2022  –  Empirische  Untersuchung  des  Marktes  für 
Energiedienstleistungen,  Energieaudits  und  andere  Energieeffizienzmaßnahmen  im  Jahr  2021  (PDF,  10MB,  Datei  ist  nicht 
barrierefrei)https://www.bfee-
online.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/BfEE/DE/Energiedienstleistungen/edl22_endbericht_2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 .  

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  71.  Market  size  and  EnPC  contract  characteristics.  Source:  EU  Survey  2022  and  BfEE  2020.  Expert 
responses to: Please respond to the best of your knowledge or estimate. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to 
overall markets whenever the information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a 
disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Overall size m€ 
Typical size m€ 
Typical duration 

Public 
200 

400 
1.5-2.5 
12-15 

Typical payback (yrs) 

12, >15 

Private 
300 

240 
<1 
5-10 

2-8 

savings 

Typical % of baseline  28-65 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

savings 

0.1-0.7 

Overall 
500 

640 
0.4-1.8 
10 

50-60 
2.5 

Comment 
Market estimates are 
highly  variable  (data 
on “contracting”) 

Public 
involving 
renovation 
upfront payments 

contracts 
envelope 
require 

The trend estimates are highly variable. The values adopted to assess the value of the market is significantly 
higher than in the previous period. However, most expert estimates for the trends 2019-21 speak of a stable 
situation. 

Table A 72. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Stable  /  Rapid  take  off  in 
some states 
Upward 

Private sector 
Stable 

Rapid take off 

Comments 

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Status of the business environment 
Contrary  to  the  previously  reported  situation  for  the  public  sector  (JRC  2021),  the  state  of  provision  and, 
especially of  facilitation, does not seem to fulfil the  market needs. Aligning  with the  previous situation, the 
quality  of  provision  is  highly  appreciated  (2.6/3)  and  there  is  still  room  for  improvement  in  the  quality  of 
facilitation. The same can be argued for the level of understanding and willingness to engage with EnPC in the 
public, private and financial sectors.   

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  73.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
45 
>100 
2 
12 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One Stop Shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1.6 
1.1 
1.5 
1.3 

Quality (0-3) 
2.6 
1.5 
1.7 
2 

Comment 

10-15 actors  able  to 
refinance ESCOs 

Table  A  74.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1.9 
1.6 

Private clients 
1.5 
1.3 

Financing sector 
1.6 
1.5 

Comment 
Increasing  

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  main  contracting  modality  of  EnPC  in  the  public  sector  is  guaranteed  savings  (See  table  below).  To  an 
extent, shared savings is also implemented in both the public and private sector. There is also a modality of 
EnPC  which  combines  guaranteed  and  shared  savings  modalities  (parties  share  only  those  savings  that 
exceed  what  was  initially  agreed,  and  the  contractor  keeps  30%  of  the  financial  risk).  The  EnPC  model 
competes with less complex  models, such as BOOT  which are not necessarily saving energy, and in  general 
models that do not require the involvement of an ESCO. (Such a problematic competition with less complex 
models  was  also  reported  also  in  JRC  2021.)  In  response  to  this  there  is  a  tendency  to  simplify  EnPC 
contracts. 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 75. Relevance of different contract models in the public and private sectors of the MS.  
Experts response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 
2  =  common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate). 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other* 

Source: EU Survey 2022 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1.7 

1 

1 

1 

1.5 

2 

2 

1 

1.3 

1 

2 

1.3 

1.7 

2.7 

1 

1.3 

1.3 

2 

Often preferred over EnPC for its simplicity, even though 
no energy savings are deemed 

Energy  Management  contracts  which  compared  to  EnPC 
they  involve  a  small  investment  and  less  intense  M&V. 
The remuneration is related to savings too. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets,  the  most  favourably  reviewed  instruments  are  demonstration  projects,  information,  the 
development of model contracts and the use of audits (average assessment at or above 2/3). To an extent it 
appears  that  more  demonstration  is  taking  place  than  in  the  previous  period  (2018-2020),  but  EnPC  may 
have lost relevance in the exemplary role of the public sector.  

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  76.  Experts’  perception  of  the  MS’s  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies’ buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
1.7 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

2 

2.3 

1.5 

1.7 

2 

2 

2.3 

1.7 

2 

1 

1 

Cases  have  been 
promoted 
in 
states.221 

Still  not  mandatory 
for public bodies 

Federal  agencies 
only 

Financing  
Financing  is  available  from  a  variety  of  sources  and  in  diverse  modalities.  Provider  funds  prevail  (rated 
frequency  of  3/3  for  public  and  private  projects).  Client  funds  are  also  a  key  element,  especially  in  private 
projects (1.5/3 in public projects and 2/3 in private projects). In public projects grants and public financing are 
used to finance investments with long recovery or not involving energy savings. Private financing is common 
for private bodies (2/3 in both cases). Equity financing, grants and forfaiting are common elements of EnPC 
financing (all three rated 2/3). Forfaiting continues to be a key option in the public sector, where it supports 
close to 50 projects per year. Loan financing is also gaining relevance to support short return investments.  

Financing  barriers  about  the  combination  of  funding  options  have  not  been  highlighted.  However,  there  are 
claims that current grant system is not able to face the degree of efficiency and decarbonisation pursued in 
national targets. The availability of low interest rates for public bodies continues to be disadvantageous for 
ESCOs. The combination of capital borrowed by the public body and provider funds has gained relevance in a 
context  where  deep,  complex  renovations  are  increasingly  demanded  due,  amongst  other,  to  regulatory 
pressure. 

Table  A  77.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
1.5 
3 
0.5 

0.5 

Public 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 

financing  1 

Comment 

Private (0-3) 
2 
3 
1 

1 

2 

Overall (0-3) 
1.7 
2 
1.3 

0.7 

2 

221 In Baden-Württenberg only there is a list of more than 50 examples. 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
and 

inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 

Purpose 

2 
1 
1 

2 

1 
1 
1 

2 

Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2.5 

1 
1 
1 

2 

1 
1 
1 

2 

2 

1 
1 

2 

1 

Grants  are  used  to 
cover 
investments 
that  are  not  quickly 
repaid from savings 

Barriers 
Previously reported barriers of low energy prices and uncertainty about the implementation of carbon taxation 
(JRC 2021) appear to have been overcome. The Covid involved a significant halt on public markets. Remaining 
barriers  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  are  the  existence  of  complex  and  bureaucratic  processes, 
discriminative  regulations  for  ESCO  (access  to  subsidies  for  analysis  of  potential,  legal  framework)  which 
furthermore  are  diverse  in  the  national  states.  Long-term  EnPC  projects  also  come  into  conflict  with  the 
financing of the municipalities (so-called budget protection of financially weak municipalities). The complexity 
of the model is also problematic for clients, especially in the public sector, where expertise to deal with these 
contracts  is  often  not  available,  resulting  in  complex  tenders,  and  additional  costs  to  the  providers.  Tender 
guidelines  are  often  complex  and  need  standardization.222  Previous  experience  with  less  transparent  PPP 
models  have  been  negative,  leading  to  preference  for  simpler  options  such  as  consulting  and  energy 
procurement options. However, there is a slow evolution of the legislative framework to overcome limitations 
in the treatment of ESCOs. The availability of private financing for energy efficiency investments is limited. 223 
Finally,  long-term  EnPC  projects  continue  to  conflict  with  the  financing  of  municipalities  (known  as  budget 
protection  mechanism  for  financially  weak  municipalities),  except  those  where  savings  and  spendings  are 
equal (pay-as-you-save). In the private sector, the WärmeLV law for commercial heating supply is problematic 
for investment to address efficiency systems. More recently, there has been a limited number of applications 
to  the  BMWK  funds  that  support  EnPC,  and  the  expansion  of  renewables  which  dominates  the  public 
discussion seems to be limiting interest on EnPC.  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Off-balance contracts are available for the public sector.  Respondents to the EU Survey 2022  consider that 
the Eurostat and EIB publications on the matter have increased the attention to debt and EnPC. Off-balance 
contracting has also relative relevance in states, for instance in the region of Baden Württenberg some 40% 
of contracts take  place  using this model. These are of less relevance  for  municipalities, e.g. Berlin  does not 
have an off-balance model contract. The treatment of EnPC in the states continues to be problematic because 
modalities  with  investment  made  by  the  contractor  are  treated  as  debt  and  are  deducted  from  the  cities’ 
debit limit, hence requiring planning and negotiation to take place before the actual costs of the project are 
determined, in collaboration with the ESCO. 

222  Emphasis has  been  put  in the  literature  on  the  highly  complex administration  and a  lack  of  tailored contract  models  (Lohse  2022; 
Rombach  2022),  regardless  that  updated  model  contracts  are  available  free  of  charge  from  the  German  Energy  Agency  (DENA) 
(https://www.kompetenzzentrum-contracting.de/umsetzungshilfen/dena-publikationen/)  

223  Rüdiger  Lohse.  EDL_HUB.  User  Centric  Energy  Service  Models,  Challenges  and  Best  Practices.  Frankfurt  EU  ESCO  Conference  |  5. 

October 2022. 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Drivers 
Development of the legal framework of the Energiewende (Building Energy Act – GEG-, Federal Promotion of 
Efficient Buildings- BEG-, Kommunalrichtlinie Municipal guideline  - KLR- funding  program for  municipalities) 
which in slowly being adopted as needed for EnPC market needs. The introduction of new energy efficiency 
obligations for the public and energy efficiency requirements for the private sector have created new pressure 
on the market, reversing the situation observed in JRC 2021. Major drivers for the period 2022-23, identified 
in the EU Survey 2022 are the technical support program of DENA’s Energy Solutions Initiative (BMWK) which 
intends  to  support  100  EnPC  projects  in  municipalities,  energy  prices,  and  the  increased  national  and 
European targets, along with its renewed focus on decarbonisation, a carbon tax, and subsidies improved both 
in quantity and structure of allocation. In 2023, the New Energy Efficiency Act (2023) and new EnPC contracts 
for  the  public  sector  are  expected.  As  of  2024  a  new  obligation  of  using  65%  renewable  energy  for  new 
heating systems will be in place. 

EU support 
Feedback on EU Support instruments in the EU Survey 2022 was scattered, with few participants responding 
to these questions, and few cases where responses can be compared for a single question. Limited familiarity 
of  experts  with  EU  support  has  been  attributed  by  reviewers  to  greater  familiarity  with  national  support 
mechanisms, and the need of coordination at Federal and State level.  

The most appreciated instrument is technical assistance, especially for the public sector (rated 2 in the scale 
of -2 to +2 for the public sector and as 1 for its impact on the private sector). Key projects taking place in 
Germany have been the QualitEE project (2017-20) on the standardization and development of procurement 
and financing mechanisms; Guarantee (2016-20) on the renovation of public buildings, NOVICE (2017-20), on 
the development of new contracting models 

The  Green  Deal,  Fit  for  55  and  NextGenerationEU  package  receives  a  similar  degree  of  appreciation. 
(Reflections of the EGD and related processes and instruments are ambiguous and often contradictory about 
the certainty generated and expected effects.) The RRF and the DEEP and EEFIG tools were rated as having nil 
effect.224  

Table A 78. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Barriers 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Good 
practices 
* 

Not 
sufficiently 
known 

2 

1 

1 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. *Implementation of InEECo 2015-2018 with 50 m€ investment in Baden-Württemberg.  

1 
0 
0 

1.3 

1.8 

1 

1 

224 This situation contrasts with German projects having a strong presence in the DEEP database, and their cost-savings being available 
for different types of fuels, potentially indicating a need for further promotion of the tool as way to understand the potential of 
projects. 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Perspective 
To an extent, the trend forecasted in JRC 2021 towards more guarantees and shorter modalities seems to be 
materializing  in  the  inclusion  of  investments  paid  by  the  client  (and  as  recommended  by  some  EU  Survey 
2022 responded, to be separated in contractual options from energy-saving interventions). This option does 
not necessarily imply lower  depth of intervention but the separation of EnPC as one  element of the overall 
project. Increased demand for EnPC is expected, especially in the public sector. The role of energy efficiency is 
expected  to 
in 
decarbonization  and  renewable  generation.  Public  sector,  housing  companies  and  SMEs  are  increasing  their 
demand from EnPC.225 Client demands are tending towards for longer partnerships (i.e. not necessarily longer 
contracts), simplification of coordination processes, e.g. through reliance on facilitation and One-Stop-Shops, 
and simplification of solutions in a context of highly regulated building and industry sectors (Lohse 2022).226 
At  the  end  of  2022,  Germany  moved  forth  an  energy  efficiency  act  which  is  expected  to  provide  a  “level 
playing” legal framework and subsidy access.  That  will open new opportunities for EnPC in the housing and 
industry sector. 

increase  with  regulations  on  building  energy  efficiency  standards,  developments 

 

 
 

Recommendations 
The recommendations for national policy-makers identified in the EU Survey 2022 and the literature include: 
Inclusion of contractor costs (e.g. preparation of feasibility studies) as eligible for subsidies;  
Further simplification of models through adaptation to the needs of clients, and particularly of local 
governments, e.g.  subdivision  of  contracts according  to  investment  areas  depending  on  duration  of 
paybacks/ strategic standards regarding achievement of climate and energy targets;227  
Standardization of tender guidelines which can be overly complex due to lack of expertise, and are 
diverse across states, and furthering of the two-step tendering model; 
Incentives for EnPC projects on buildings’ envelope, based on achievements and guarantees aligned 
with  climate  targets,  are  needed  for  an  energy  efficiency  first  approach  to  be  implemented  along 
with  the  electrification  of  heating  systems  (in  response  to  German  Building  Act  requiring  65% 
renewable energy in heating from 2024), and in combination with energy supply contracts; 
Increased  evaluation  efforts  in  the  domains  of  market  potential,  and  the  effects  of  audits  and 
consultancy program; 
Implementation of obligations on energy providers; 

 
  Mandatory checks on the applicability of EnPC in the public sector; 
 

Expansion of mentoring and dialoguing mechanisms between sectoral actors.228 

 

 

Regarding EU support, the consulted experts expressed a demand for coordination efforts to be  more closely 
connected with national and state-level decision-making. This would serve to better address client needs (e.g. 
for  deep  renovation  and  addressing  building  use),  and  to  promote  the  model  and  support  mechanisms.  EU 
strategic  guidance  should  foster the  definition  of  strategies,  standards  and  financing  models  that  focus  on 
the  achievement  of  climate  neutrality  targets,  well  beyond  the  current  achievements  of  EnPC  projects.  To 
contribute to the achievement of these targets, EU funding could address long term investments whose pay-
back is mostly not expected within the duration of contracts 

Good practice 
The following practices have been highlighted in the literature reviewed (Rombach 2022, Lohse 2022) and in 
expert input to the EU Survey 2022: 

Local administrations adoption of two-step tender invitation; 
Existence of requisites to consider EnPC and justify not opting for it in state policies; 
Freely available model contracts at the site of the German Energy Agency; 

 
 
 
  Mentoring and dialogue to foster capacities in local administrations; 

225 There are expectations for ESCOs to provide consulting services in the decarbonization of heating grids (Micro and District Heating), 
which is being backed up by a €3b subsidy program of the Federal Government.  These processes may serve to rethink the ESCO 
and EnPC models. 

226  Rüdiger  Lohse.  EDL_HUB.  User  Centric  Energy  Service  Models,  Challenges  and  Best  Practices.  Frankfurt  EU  ESCO  Conference  |  5. 

October 2022. 

227 Ringel (2021) also reviews the transaction costs associated with this contractual and buraeucratic complexity. 
228 Also found by Ringel (2021). 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
  Collaboration processes, e.g. workshops, for adapting projects and contracts to client needs (Figure). 

216 

 
 
12  Greece 

Comparison previous status 
In 2021, the JRC reported the existence 12 providers of  EnPC and 8  contracts  having  taken place in 2018-
2019  with  a  total  volume  around  €100m  for  the  public  sector,  showing  market  growth  compared  to  the  3 
providers and 2-3 contracts reported in JRC 2019, also for the public sector. There was however uncertainty 
about  the  extent  these  public  contracts could  be  considered  EnPC  or were  best  relatable  to  the  PPP  model, 
due to the nature of the guarantees provided. At that time, there were expectations for the market to develop 
from pilots in public lighting and to incorporate projects in the domains of lighting, HVAC, rooftop insulation, 
renewables, and maintenance. The report also echoed expert recommendations for information measures to 
publicize successful cases, as well as the development of model contracts and of institutional capacities to 
monitor EnPC as key efforts needed to kick start a market which had been only active in the public sector but 
vaguely relating to EnPC. Competing contractual modalities reported in JRC 2021 for the public sector in the 
period  2018-19  were  facility  management,  consultancy  &  technical  guarantee, and  efficiency  improvement 
contracts. Moreover, a combination of PPPs and structural funds was reported to compete with genuine EnPC. 
It  was  uncertain  whether this model  could  lead  to  the  development  of  EnPC  markets  or  constitute  a  major 
barrier for this to happen. 

Current Status highlights 
Policy developments as reported by national authorities could have led to a development of EnPC during the 
reported period (2020-21). In particular the NECP and LTRS mentioned plans for financing EnPC renovation of 
public buildings through the ELEKTRA program. The program, eventually announced at the end of 2022, has a 
budget of €640m to encourage the development of an energy services market for the energy renovation of 
public  buildings  and  infrastructure.  Additionally,  the  NECP  and  LTRS  reported  promotion  of  PPP  (including 
EnPC)  and  hybrid  financing  models  with  risk  sharing  and  insurance  mechanisms  for  building  renovation  – 
currently ongoing – as well as the development of financing mechanisms for EnPC in the industrial sector. The 
planned establishment of an Energy Efficiency Fund and government interest for renewables may have been 
supportive for EnPCs too. The materials related to the RRP in English do not refer to ESCO nor EnPC. However, 
planned  improvement  of  contract  enforcement  mechanisms  included  in  the  RRP  (EC  Analysis)229  may  be  of 
relevance  for  the  upcoming  development  of  EnPC,  especially  since,  as  recognized  in  the  NECP,  financing 
through  EnPC  is  problematic.  The  project  Prodesa  (Horizon  2020)  developed  bundled  projects  on  public 
buildings in seven municipalities of the Attica region combining efficiency and renewable interventions (40% 
savings due to efficiency, and 50% savings on remaining load through PV).230  

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market size, contract sizes, and market trends. 

229 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0155 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
230 Short Description - Prodesa | Energy efficiency project development for South Attica 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 79. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
27  (2  for  buildings 
and  25  for  street 
lighting) 

Private 
13 

Overall size m€ 

Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

21 (13m in buildings, 
8m street lighting) 
2.3-5.2 
10 

8.5 

0.6 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 

payback 

8.6 (6-25)  

% 

of 

65-70 

Overall 
40 

29.5 

Comment 
bundled 
Prodesa 
public  projects  of 
buildings 
(96) 
buildings,  and  public 
lighting 

in  buildings 
65% 
(efficiency 
and 
renewables),  70%  in 
public lighting 

Typical 
MWh/year 

savings* 

1000 
in 
bundles,  13000 
street 
municipality) in PES 

building 
in 
(per 

lighting 

savings* 

Typical 
m€/year 
Source: Prodesa 2020231  and EU Survey 2022. 

Table A 80. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24.  

Public sector 
Slow take off 
Slow take off 

Trend 2019-2021 
Perspective 
2024 
Source: Prodesa 2020 and QualiteEE 2018; Ambience 2020.232 

2022-

Private sector 
Preliminary 
Slow take off 

Comments 

Elektra program 

Status of the business environment 
The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table  A  81.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 

Sufficiency (0-3) 

Quality (0-3) 

Comment 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 

actors 
to  support 

1 

0 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

1 

3 

0 

CRES 

technical 
Lack  of 
knowledge  for 
the 
evaluation  of  EnPC 
projects  

231 d7-9-2-summary-of-final-publishable-report_en-2.pdf; d7-9-2-summary-of-final-publishable-report_en-2.pdf 
232 d7-9-2-summary-of-final-publishable-report_en-2.pdf; QualitEE_2-04_CountryReport_EL_2018.pdf 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  82.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale:0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Source: Prodesa 2020.233 

Public clients 
1 

Private clients 
1 

Financing sector 
0 

Comment 

1 

2 

0 

Municipalities 
reluctant to EnPC 

are 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The expert responses to the EU Survey and reviewed literature (e.g. IEA, nd)234 indicate that the shared savings 
modality  and  a  combination  of  shared  and  guaranteed  savings  have  been  traditionally  preferred.  However, 
the  projects identified  in  the  study  period  as furthered  by  Project  Prodesa  in  the  public  sector operate  with 
guaranteed  savings.  Most common collaboration of the public sector  with service providers is PPPs to build 
public  buildings  where  private  partners  take  ownership  and  responsibility  for  energy  costs  for  30  years 
through energy management contracts.  

Table  A  83.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1 

2 

The  projects  identified  in  the  public  sector  operate  with 
Guaranteed  savings,  with  most 
investment  being 
provided  through  the  ESCO,  and  public  grant  support;  in 
the private sector 9 guaranteed contracts were identified 

0 

1 

In the private sector, 4 projects were identified 

2 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022; Prodesa 2020, QualitEE 2018; IEA, nd.235 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets shows that best rated instruments are definitions and audits (2/3) and that most other policy 
implementation domains have limited impact. 

233 d7-9-2-summary-of-final-publishable-report_en-2.pdf 
234 ESCO contracts – Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) – Analysis - IEA 
235 d7-9-2-summary-of-final-publishable-report_en-2.pdf; QualitEE_2-04_CountryReport_EL_2018.pdf; ESCO contracts – Energy Service 

Companies (ESCOs) – Analysis - IEA 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  84.  Experts’  perception  of  the  MS’s  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Impact of EnPC in public sector performance 

Impact  of  EnPC  of  public  sector  on  private  sector  adoption  of 
EnPC 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Financing  

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

In  2015  there  were 
10  signatories  of 
the  European  code 
of conduct 

No  national  esco 
association,  No 
official list found 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Table  A  85.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

and 

Public (0-3) 
0 
0 
0 

Private (0-3) 
1 
2 
0 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 
0 

2 

2 

1 

1 

0 
0 
1 

1 
0 
1 
1 
0 

1 
1 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Barriers 
A difficulty to finance through EnPC was claimed in the NECP. National experts also highlighted as barriers to 
the engagement of private financing, which is considered the greatest problem for EnPC development: 

 
 
 

Lack of technical knowledge for the evaluation of EnPC projects 
Lack of confidence regarding the quality of ESCOs services 
The complexity of EnPC 

Moreover, the key barriers identified and addressed by project Prodesa were:236 

Lack of financing for Project Development 

 
  Non-developed ESCO market and lack of examples 
 

Reluctance of municipalities towards new contract modalities and tendering procedures. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Not reported by experts nor country reports found. Project Transparence, reported some preparedness to work 
off-balance  in  2015  and  that  about  one  quarter  of  respondents  reported  having  used  off-balance  sheet 
financing through models such as project financing and leasing applied to EnPC.237 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified have been presented as a part of  Current Status highlights. Expectations on 
the  implementation  of  ELEKTRA  (RRF  supported),  the  development  of  financing  mechanisms  for  building 
renovation, and the integration of renewables in building renovation. Also, it appears that joint development of 
public  lighting  projects  and  municipality  building  renovations  is  resulting  in  adoption  where  promoted.  New 
funds  from  InvestEU  may  have  an  effect  on  EnPC,  but  seems  to  have  a  greater  focus  on  generation  and 
distribution. 

EU support 
The input received to the EU Survey 2022 indicates limited recognition towards the benefits of EU support on 
the Greek EnPC market besides the positive impact of technical assistance and ESIF on the private sector, and 
of the EGD, Fit for 55 and  Next Generation EU package on the public sector. Greece has received extensive 
support through H2020 projects, including QualitEE on the development of standardization, and procurement 
capacities  (2017-20),  Trust-EPC  promoting  models  in  tertiary  buildings  (2015-18),  Prodesa  focused  on 
bundling EnPCs in the South-Attica region of Greece, and with support from the financing a National Revolving 
Fund  for  Energy  Efficiency  (2017-20),  Refine  on  the  development  of  refinancing  capability  in  the  energy 
services sector (2020-23), and NOVICE on developing contractual models (2017-20). 

236 PowerPoint Presentation (europa.eu) 
237 Transparense.eu :: Database :: Off-balance sheet finance 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 86. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

0 

2 

2 

Barriers 

Financing 
actors 
0 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 

Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 

RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Good 
practices 
Vari, 
Voula, 
Vouliagm
eni 
supported 
by 
PDA 
H2020); 
Newly 
signed 
ELENA for 
governme
nt 
capacity 

Large 
expectati
ons 
Elektra 

Perspective 
A potential development of EnPC specialized in EnPC has been described in the academic literature. 238 There 
are examples of large EnPC  projects specifically focused  on the establishment of photovoltaic capacity.239 
There are large expectations on Elektra project, as well as on InvestEU, with investment expected to start in 
2023 (€50b, including renewables,  production and distribution networks. 

Recommendations 
The  Prodesa  project  has  showed  the  potential  for  EnPC  with  public  funding  support,  technical  assistance, 
bundling efforts and combination of Energy efficiency in public buildings and street lighting.  The former also 
benefit  from  the  potential  to  implement  photovoltaic  generation  in  buildings.  An  appropriate  regulatory 
framework should be created in order to attract investments. Mechanisms to be considered for enhancing this 
framework could include security for first losses from loans, an increase in scale, especially for small projects, 
by  means  of  aggregation,  the  standardisation  of  processes  and  methodologies  to  reduce  the  risk  of  the 
parties. 

238 Renewable energy performance contracting in the tertiary sector Standardization to overcome barriers in Greece - ScienceDirect 
239 Greek utility launches EPC tender for 550 MW of solar at former coal mine – pv magazine International (pv-magazine.com) 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
13  Hungary 

Comparison previous status 
A review of the JRC reports of 2021 and 2019 show that there is uncertainty about the status of the market. 
The number of contracts was situated around 20 in the JRC report of 2019 and between 10 and 50 in the JRC 
report  of  2021.  The  latter report  estimated  that  the  market  size  was  some  €2.8m for the  period  2018-19. 
There  was  an  apparent  loss  of  interest  in  the  market  on  the  side  of  providers  due  to  lack  of  business  and 
political uncertainty. As a result, in 2019 there were some 4 operators actively providing EnPC to the public 
sector. To date there is no official registry nor official requirements of reporting for ESCOs. 

Current Status highlights 
In  the  LTRS,  the  Hungarian  government  expected  EnPCs  to  take  off  on  the  basis  of  measures  to  address 
confidence  issues  through  changes  in  accounting  to  incorporate  aspects  of  price-change  settlement,  and 
shared savings. (The introduction of off-balance contract models was planned for 2023-27). There were also 
plans to renovate  health buildings  using ESCOs in the  period 2020-22,  however no reference to the  use of 
EnPC or the realisation of these renovations has been reported. Additional development of the EnPC market 
could have derived from potential measures indicated in the LTRS including green bonds, establishment of a 
guarantee bank, and green interest rebates. The introduction of EEOs, described in the NECP, appears to have 
helped  EnPC  markets  to  develop,  as  highlighted  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  The  impact  of  the  RRF  in  EnPC 
markets is unclear since limited references to energy efficiency investment are made  in the RRP (the  focus 
relies instead on the deployment of renewables and the electrification of heating). No national expert opinion 
about it was received in the EU Survey 2022.  

The  EU  Survey  2022  indicates  that  during  the  period  2020-21  there  was  a  some  take  off  in  the  market, 
especially in the private sector. A total number of approximately 30 contracts with an overall volume of €15m 
were  reported.    There  are  however  uncertainties  about  the  understanding  of  EnPC  by  respondents.  Iit  is 
difficult  to  assess  the  size  of  the  market  and  hybrid  models  operated  by  energy  efficiency  contractors  are 
often confused with ESCO and EnPC models.  

The EU Survey 2022 indicates that most activity takes place in public lighting (rated frequency 2/3), and there 
are claims about the existence of some activity in smart grids and public buildings (both 1/3). (Some expert 
participants in the EU Survey claim a larger relevance of public and private buildings by rating them both as 
3/3;  whilst  other  sources  which  indicate  an  absence  of  implemented  projects  in  the  renovation  of  public 
buildings  (“no  public  building  has  been  renovated  by  this  way  yet”  -  EnergiaKlub  2021).  Studies  for 
municipalities  to  engage  with  EnPC  have  been  conducted  but  there  is  no  information  on  these  having 
materialized.240  Project  pools  are  uncommon.  Most  projects  involve  maintenance,  replacement  of  elements 
(modernisation  of  heating  systems,  indoor  lighting)  or  integral  renovations,  installation  of  renewables, 
monitoring and verification, audits (all of them had their frequency rated as 3/3). Design and planning is also 
relatively relevant part of EnPCs (2/3). ESCOs are also reported to be active in industrial and district heating 
modernisation, but EnPC experiences were not identified.  

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

240 3._donteskero_inditvany_secap_elfogadasa.pdf (miskolc.hu) 

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 87. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Public 

Private 

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

of 

% 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

savings* 

Comment 

Overall 
10-50 
1-30 
0.1-0.6 
10 

9 

22.5 

0.06 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 88. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Public sector 
Stable/Slow take-off  

Slow  take  off/  Rapid  take-
off  

Private sector 
Slow take-off  

Rapid take-off 

Comments 
EEOs  being 
since 2020 

implemented 

Status of the business environment 
The sufficiency of and quality of services of provision and facilitation is reviewed in the following tables. 

Table  A  89.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
2 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1.5 

Quality (0-3) 
2.5 

Comment 
There are at least 11 
ESCO providers 

1 
0 
1 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

1 
0 
0.5 

1 
0 
0.5 

Table  A  90.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
0.5 
1.5 

Private clients 
0.5 
1.5 

Financing sector 
0.5 
1.5 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
A  review  of  the  contract  modalities  in  place  (see  table  below)  shows  that  only  shared  savings  has  some 
presence in the country, especially in the private sector (the highest frequency  rating was granted to shared 
savings  models in the  private sector rated 1/3), and that all other  service contract  modalities considered in 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the EU Survey 2022 are more prevalent. In particular, BOOT and Energy efficiency contracts are considered to 
compete directly with EnPC. 

Table  A  91.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

2 

2.5 

2.5 

3 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

Compete with EnPC 

Compete with EnPC 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
According  to  consulted  experts  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  there  is  no  official  list  of  ESCO  providers  nor  a 
standard reporting practice, it is not clear what can/should be considered as an EnPC contract, and there are 
no  good  practices, guidelines,  and examples in  Hungary.  This has implications  for  the  reliability  of  the  data 
collected since it appears that the different experts have diverse understandings of EnPC and their estimates 
seem not to rely on complete information either. 

In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC markets is generally poor, and only the implementation of Energy Audits attains a rating of 2 out of 3. 
Of note, the Ministry of Energy and domestic development has since 2022 shown signs of interest in EnPC as 
a mechanism to renovate public buildings, included municipalities (TOP Plus financing instrument). 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  92.  Experts’  perception  of  the  MS’s  implementation  of  the  EU  regulatory  framework.  Based  on  your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

Rating (0-3) 

Good practices 

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether  off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

1 

0.5 

0.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

Remaining 
barriers 
Inexact 
definition 

Unclear 
settlement 
mechanism 
client- 
provider 

official 

No 
list 

Financing  
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  budgetary  limitations  in  the  public  sector  result  in  restrictive  annual 
financing  planning,  and  control  on  municipality  budgets.  No  barriers  have  been  identified  about  the 
combination of EU funds and EnPC. However, responses to the EU Survey 2022 indicate that grants have no 
role in the financing of EnPC in Hungary, largely because these do not have performance requirements, and 
hence  the  beneficiaries  proceed  to  conventional  contracting  of  works.  High  interest  rates  in  the  reported 
period have been also against the use of EnPC. Identified opportunities for financing EnPC are hybrid grants 
and market-based financing, mainly from commercial banks. 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  93.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
0 
3 
2 

Private (0-3) 
0 
3 
1 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 
0 
3 
0 

1 

0 
0 

0 

2 

2 
0 
0 

0 
0 
3 
0 

2 

0 
0 

allowed 

Not 
Hungary 

in 

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 

and 

Purpose 

Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Barriers 
Based on the EU Survey 2022, the major barriers to the development of EnPC markets in 2020-21 refer to a 
context  where  energy  efficiency  has  not  been  promoted  and  energy  prices  have  been  kept  low,  and  where 
grants  and  subsidized  loans  have  encouraged  project  financing  and  direct  contracting.  According  to  the 
Interreg E-Central project report, “As a result of lack of incentives and practical knowledge on these innovative 
forms of financing, municipalities tend to use more traditional financing methods for renovating its buildings” 
(EnergiaKlub 2021).241  

In the public sector, there are problematic procurement and tendering rules for ESCos to offer their services. 
In the overall market, there are regulatory barriers and uncertainties, as well as a lack of information and best 
practices of financing and implementing EnPC. On top of this, negative experiences in the implementation of 
PPPs in the past, which resulted in disadvantageous conditions for the public sector, continue to burden the 
perception  of  ESCO  models  and  keep  decision-makers  away  from  ESCOs.  Continued  issues  of  regulatory, 
financing  and  procurement  nature  are  expected  to  limit  market  development  in  2022-23  were  identified  in 
the EU Survey 2022.242  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  changes  and  clarifications  on  the  Eurostat  treatment  of  EnPC  in 
government accounts have not been of impactful in the use of EnPC (rated as 0 in a scale of -2,+2). The off-
balance option is largely unknown in the public sector. For these contracts to be adopted, there is a need of 

241 Experiences with energy performance contracting in Hungary - Interreg (interreg-central.eu) 
242  Similarly  to  the  input  gathered  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  Interreg  Project  E-central  also  identified  as  barriers  the  unbalanced 
expertise between ESCO providers and clients, particularly municipalities, which results in uncertainty and lack of trust on the part of the 
latter; absence  of  legal  regulation  and  institutional  background  for  renovating  with  EPC;  shortage  of  state-level  incentives  for  building 
renovation, and the existence of messages and energy pricing policies that hinder investment in energy efficiency and expand  payback 
times  beyond  the  acceptable  terms  for  ESCOs  (Experiences  with  energy  performance  contracting  in  Hungary  -  Interreg  (interreg-
central.eu)). 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
changes in the legal framework of procurement and enabling longer commitment periods. However, there is a 
reported presence of off-balance treatment for contracts in local governments. 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified in the EU Survey 2022 for 2020-21 are the establishment of EEOs, the limited 
borrowing  capacity  of  the  public  sector,  and  the  limited  in-house  expertise  in  the  private  sector.  Limited 
borrowing capacity in the public sector and, overall, increasing energy prices and implementation of EEOs as 
of 2020 are expected to drive increased demand for ESCO and EnPC models in the 2022-23. 

EU support 
The expert assessment of EU Support in the EU Survey 2022 shows especial appreciation towards technical 
assistance through ELENA (rated 2 in a range from -2 to +2), and InvestEU, found particularly interesting for 
financing  actors  (rated  2).  However,  the  funds  to  support  preparation  of  ELENA  applications  are  found 
insufficient. InvestEU is insufficiently known. The selection criteria for both mechanisms and the risks involved 
for applicants are also found problematic. Accordingly, there are sectoral calls for EU mechanisms to facilitate 
proposal preparation and submission. No expert input was obtained on the potential impact of the RRF. 

Feasibility  studies  conducted  in  2021  as  a  part  of  a  pilot  project  supported  by  Interreg’s  eCentral  project 
(Energy Efficient Public Building in Central Europe) developed a “best practice for nZEB target achievement” in 
a pool of buildings consisting of a kindergarten and two swimming pools. The studies and process conducted 
so far are reported as innovative in a context where ESCO financing is uncommon and absence of experience 
in the EnPC renovation of public buildings (EnergiaKlub 2021).243  

243  Most  updated  information  on  the  project  from  2021  does  not  refer  to  the  implementation  phase  as  having  been  initiated  Pilot-2-
Bokay-Budapest.pdf (interreg-central.eu) 

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 94. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 

2 

2 

Financing 
actors 
2 

Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 

1 

1 

RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

1 

2 

1 

Good 
practices 

Barriers 

Insufficient 
support 
for 
preparation of 
ELENA 
applications, 
tight 
criteria 
and  risks  for 
applicants 

widely 
tight 
and 
for 

Not 
known; 
criteria 
risks 
applicants 

Perspective 
There are expert expectations, reported in the EU Survey 2022, for privately own buildings, industry and DMS 
to develop, contributing to a rapid growth of the market 

Recommendations 
The  series  of  recommendations  identified  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  and  the  consulted  literature  indicate  the 
need  of  integral  support,  starting  with  the  adequate  implementation  of  the  EED  as  related  to  support  to 
energy services:244 

  National  financing  of  EnPC  through  state-backed  energy  efficiency/green  funds,  or  dedicated  loans 

with preferential interest rates for ESCOs; 

  Clear  narrative,  price  messages  and  policies  to  enable  investment  in  energy  efficiency,  especially 

when this involves contractual commitments extended over years; 

  National development of standard contract templates with stipulations for performance; 
 

Establishment and maintenance of a list of ESCO companies, requirement of providers to report the 
contracts concluded, creation of an accreditation system; 
Initiation of pilot projects in the public sector; 
Establishment of out of court complaints settlement mechanism specifically for ESCO projects; 

 
 
  Development and dissemination of off-balance models for public bodies; 
 

Eligibility  of  ESCOs  needs  to  be  clarified  in  calls  for  tenders,  in  the  energy  efficiency  obligation 
system,  (Act  LVII  of  2015  on  Energy  Efficiency)  and  tax  reliefs  on  energy  efficiency  investments 
(which discriminate ESCos – Act LXXXI of 1996 on corporate Tax and Dividend Tax). 

244 MultiContact Consulting Kft. 2020. Executive Summary. Hungary: Modernisation of Public and Residential Buildings -Identification and 
Elaboration of Support Programme. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. https://www.ebrd.com/documents/comms-
and-bis/energy-efficiency-hungary.pdf 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
At the EU level there is a need of simpler technical assistance support application process, or specific support 
to facilitate preparation and submission of applications for technical assistance. 

Good practice 
The  Interreg  E-Central  project  assessed  the  situation  for  renovating  a  pool  of  three  municipal  buildings  to 
NZeB standard has been presented as a  good  practice245 and could serve as a  model for new  public  sector 
initiatives  to  take  off  in  a  context  of  higher  energy  prices,  especially  if  regulatory  and  policy  uncertainty  is 
overcome. 

245 Experiences with energy performance contracting in Hungary - Interreg (interreg-central.eu) 

230 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
14 

Ireland 

Comparison previous status 
The  Irish  market  has  continued  its  slow  take  off,  reported  for  the  public  sector  in  the  previous  JRC  report 
(2021), achieving maturity in Dublin and further developing in the public sector where a long-expected change 
of  government  attitude  towards  EnPC  as  reported  in  JRC  2021  appears  to  have  taken  place.  Based  on  the 
data available, experts are uncertain about the level of activity in the private sector market, and whether this 
has slowly taken off or not.  

The LTRS indicated that the ESCO market was preliminary in the Country, outside Dublin, and that SEAI (the 
Sustainable  Energy  Agency  of  Ireland)  is  supporting  EnPCs  through  training  and  expertise  for  public  and 
private sectors. EnPC is mentioned in the Irish Climate Action Plan. SEAI has proceeded with  plans to deliver 
facilitation planning, which is expected to further develop in 2023. Direct support to ESCOs and EnPC was not 
mentioned  in  the  RRP.  The  projects  GuarantEE  (2016-2019),  NOVICE  (2017-2020),  SPEEDIER  SME  (2019-
2021),  DeliverEE  (2021-2024)  and  SMARSPIN  (2021-2024)  have  been  or  are  active  in  developing  and 
supporting mechanisms potentially relevant for the adoption of EnPC models.  

Current Status highlights 
The  most  common  intervention  sites,  according  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  are  public  buildings  (2.7/3),  mainly 
hospitals  and  municipal  buildings.  Private  buildings,  mainly  in  the  warehouse  and  distribution  industry,  and 
district  heating and cooling  are less  common both  (1/3)  and public lighting interventions were not reported. 
Some interventions take place in the pharma industry (2/3). 

The  main  implementation  of  the  EnPC  model  involves  a  combination  of  shared  and  guaranteed  savings 
models (frequency of use was rated 1.5 and 1 out of three respectively for public and private markets), and 
there  is  a  model  of  energy  efficiency  improvement  contracts  with  limited  guarantees  (EnPC  lite)  which  is 
relatively common in the public sector (1/3). The public sector is characterized by sizeable projects, especially 
in the  public  health sector and relatively long of  8-10 year-long contracts. Yet, integral renovations are not 
the  norm,  leading  to  expert  concerns  about  low  hanging  fruits  being  picked.  Interventions  tend  to  involve 
maintenance,  replacement  of  specific  elements  (HVAC,  lighting),  monitoring  and  evaluation,  (all  three  rated 
3/3),  installation  of  building  and  plan  control  or  renewables  (both  rated  2.5/3),  and  to  an  extent  integral 
renovations (1.5/3). Flexibility and storage systems are gaining relevance, especially in the private sector (3/3). 

An  increase  in  the  relevance  of  renewable  generation  has been  observed  in  the  period  2020-2021.  For the 
period 2022-2024 it is expected that public projects engage with deeper renovation. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 95. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 

Public 
5  
22 

Private 
7 
10 

1 

5 

3-5 

25 

Typical* size m€ 

0.5 or 5-10 

Typical* duration 

9 

Typical* 
(yrs) 

payback 

8 

35  

of 

% 

savings* 

Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

0.05-0.5  

0.2 

Overall 

Comment 

hospitals 
Two 
+  One 
(~€15m) 
District 
Heating 
project  (ESC,  ~€8m), 
public 
two 
and 
buildings ~€1.5m 
Public  contracts  are 
either  small  (€0.5m) 
or large (€5-10m) 

Public 
sector 
payback  of  6  years 
than  10 
or  more 
years 
i.e.  30-40%  and  20-
30% 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 96. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Slow take-off  

Private sector 
Slow  take-off  /  Did  not  take 
off 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Upward 

 Upward/ Slow take-off 

Comments 
Relatively  stable  markets, 
with  slow  uptake  of  EnPC, 
the  public 
in 
especially 
sector.  
N/A 

Status of the business environment 
Based on the EU Survey 2022, the number of providers, facilitators is stable as compared with the JRC report 
of  2021.  A  barrier,  also  reported  in  the  JRC  report  of  2021,  is  the  limited  (and  apparently  diverse) 
understanding of and willingness to engage with EnPC to engage of clients and financing actors. 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  97.  Availability,  sufficiency  and  quality  of  services.  Experts’  response  to:  Please  indicate  the  number  of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
3-15 

2-5 
0 
4 (2-5) 

Providers 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 

actors 
to  support 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1.5 

Quality (0-3) 
2.5 

1.7 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

Comment 
provider 
1 
Only 
works 
  with  small 
projects (<€1m) 
Ongoing training 

Private  financing  is 
need 
available, 
awareness 
and 
understanding  

Table  A  98.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
1 

Private clients 
1 
1.3 

Financing sector 
1 
1.3 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
A review of the contract modalities in place (see table below) shows that the national use of the model blends 
guaranteed and shared savings. This model is more used in the public sector than in the private sector but it 
is  relatively  uncommon.  Several  other  contracting  modalities,  mainly  PPPs,  Facility  management  and 
Consultancy with technical guarantee are widely used. None was described as directly competing with EnPC. 

Table  A  99.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

1 

1.5 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2  

1 

2.5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0 

1 

The  national  use  of  the  model  blends  guaranteed  and 
shared savings, as the contractor also invests own capital 

These have some performance guarantees “EnPC lite” 

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regulatory framework 
The  regulatory  framework  has  limitations  and  although  the  mechanisms  required  in  the  EED  are  in  place, 
there  remains  definition  confusion,  and  unclear  listing  of  operators.  The  most  appreciated  mechanisms  are 
the  development  of  model  contracts  (2.3/3  in  the  case  of  public  sector  contracts),  the  implementation  of 
audits (2/3), the government rules of procurement (1.7/3), and the publication of guidelines (1.7/3), with new 
publications upcoming.  

The EnPC model is considered to have a relative relevance in the public sector performance (1.3/3), and whilst 
some actors  have claimed that the “public  sector had a piloting role”, experts consider the impact of public 
sector adoption of EnPC on the private sector to be limited (0.3/3). 

Table A 100. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
1.3 

Good practices 

SEAI work246 

Remaining 
barriers 
Different 
understandings 

SEAI work 

SEAI work  

DeliveREE 
developments 

project 

Diverse 
appreciation 
amongst experts 

1.7 

2.3 

2.3  

0.3 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

2 

0.7 

1.7 

Financing  
The financing sources are well distributed between client funds, provider funds (mostly from private financing 
institutions) and public financing. There has been incompatibility of  EXEED grants with EnPC for the  private 
sector-  This  has  been  remediated  in  new  calls  for  applications.  These  include  a  model  contract  to  support 
ESCos and include preparatory studies as eligible costs.  However, the experts’ input to the EU Survey 2022 
indicates public funding and grants to be of little relevance during the reported period (2020-21). The most 
common practice is to blend client, ESCo (from private finance providers) and grant funding.  

246 https://www.seai.ie/business-and-public-sector/business-grants-and-supports/energy-contracting/ 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  101.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
2 
1 
2 

Private (0-3) 
1 
2 
0 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

2 

1 

2 
1 
0.5 

2 
0 
0 
0 
1 

2 

2 

2 

0 
1 
0 

1 
1 
1 
2 
1 

1 

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

and 

Barriers 
The major barriers identified in the EU Survey 2022 for 2019-2021 are limited understanding of the model 
(with different interpretations available, mainly without incorporating service and maintenance) and a llack of 
suppliers,  especially  to  conduct  small  projects,  and  capable  facilitators.247  Specifically,  in  the  public  sector, 
there has been a lack of Government sanction, efforts towards adopting off-balance treatment, and a focus 
on low hanging fruits. In the private sector, access to grant funding through an EnPC route and incentives to 
retrofit were not available during the reported period. The same barriers were indicated as problematic for the 
period  2022-2024,  with  the  exception  of  new  expectations  on  the  eligibility  of  ESCO  projects  for  EXEED 
grants. 

Although the participants in the EU Survey 2022 claimed that no contract alternative competes directly with 
EnPC, a diversity of contract modalities are well rooted in both the public and private sector and may hinder 
demand for EnPC. These include Facility management (reported as a  barrier in JRC 2021), Consultancy and 
technical guarantees, and PPPs in the public sector; as well as Facility management, BOOT, and Chauffage in 
the private sector. Major growth has been identified in local energy supply contracts and energy performance 
guarantees associated to renewable generation in the private sector.  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
The Eurostat treatment of EnPC respect to financial balances of the public sector has no effect in Ireland. Off-
balance contracts were produced but not sufficiently updated, and have not been sent for review of Eurostat. 
Although  according  to  the  consulted  experts,  EnPCs  in  Dublin  and  about  20%  of  them  nationwide  do  not 
compute as debt for the implementing bodies, public sector budgetary constraints and public sector spending 
code  requirements  remain  a  major  concern.248  The  National  Development  Finance  Agency  (NDFA)  has  been 

247 To this barrier has contributed the underutilisation of the national technical assistance scheme for EnPC, which has been developed 

alongside the training of facilitators. 

248 Off-balance contracting has been identified to refer to buildings which, having a public service are privately owned, such as hospitals, 
and which account EnPC as off-balance in accordance with IRFS. The mechanism used in Dublin and other municipalities to keep 
off-balance EnPC investment deserves further review. 

235 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
tasked with developing Ireland’s approach to off-balance contracting. There is a large potential for recognizing 
the guarantees agreed in EnPC contracts and to remove budgetary limitations on public bodies. 

Drivers 
According to the EU Survey 2022, EnPC development has been driven and is expected to continue to be driven 
by interest in the public sector and a number of projects, some of which are in planning for 2022-2024. In 
addition to capital limitations and the recast EED and EPBD has had a positive effect. The use of EnPC in the 
public sector has had a piloting effect. Policy developments with a positive impact on the markets include the 
Irish Climate Action Plan commitment to deliver €1b in EnPC projects by 2030 (initial investigations are still 
underway); training of EPC Facilitators delivered during 2022.  

For  the  period  2022-2024  there  are  expert  expectations  on  the  establishment  of  a  register  of  qualified 
facilitators; the relaunch since 2022 of a technical support scheme for EnPC, and the ongoing realignment of 
grant  schemes  with  EPC  models.  Moreover,  SEAI's  Pathfinder  Programme  is  testing  technical,  financial  and 
governance solutions and encourages EnPC in pursuit of public sector targets for energy efficiency by 2030, 
the H2020 DeliverEE project is expected to improve understanding and competency amongst local authorities, 
and there are plans for aggregating public projects. In the private sector, increased drive for reducing energy 
costs,  stronger  net  zero  goals  and  increased  carbon  tax  and  ETS  prices  are  expected  to  drive  demand  for 
EnPC.  Assessment  by  the  National  Development  Finance  of  the  treatment  of  EnPC  in  national  and  local 
accounts could enable the expansion of the model. 

EU support 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  with  the  exception  of  RRF  and  ESIF,  EU  support  mechanisms  receive  a 
positive evaluation between 1 and 2. The European Green Deal, the Recasting of EED/EPBD, the task force on 
financial  disclosures,  the  new  taxonomy  and  the  availability  of  EnPC  finance  were  reviewed  as  having 
strengthened impetus at a national level, and increased confidence in the EnPC model.  

The  projects  GuarantEE  (2016-2019),  NOVICE  (2017-2020),  SPEEDIER  SME  (2019-2021),  DeliverEE  (2021-
2024)  and  SMARSPIN  (2021-2024)  have  been  or  are  active  in  developing  and  supporting  mechanisms 
potentially relevant for the adoption of EnPC models. 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 102. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 

1.7 

Barriers 

Financing 
actors 
0 

and 

Good 
practices 
H2020 
PDA 
(DeliveRE
E) 
ELENA 
are 
appreciat
ed 
supportin
g 
facilitatio
n 

for 

Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

1 

0 
1 

1 

0.5 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0 

Perspective 
The current context of increased energy prices and improved support points at a growth of the EnPC market, 
especially in the public sector during the period 2022-24. 

Recommendations 
Besides successful adoption of upcoming mechanisms (largely in relation to the implementation of the Irish 
Climate Action Plan), participant experts in the EU Survey 2022 believe that a key for the market development 
is  the  development  of  mechanisms  for  the  aggregation  and  scaling  up.  These  are  considered  necessary  to 
deal with limitations of project size and for these to be interesting to providers. Greater focus on guarantee 
mechanisms  was  also  considered  important  –  same  as  in  JRC  2021.  Recognition  of  the  contractual 
guarantees  in  EnPC  should  serve  the  National  Development  Finance  Agency  to  reconsider  the  treatment  of 
these contracts in the accounts of public bodies, and for RRP allocation through financial instruments able to 
create guaranteed savings and to engage private financing. 

Expert recommendations addressing EU support involve: 
  Greater flexibility and focus on target achievements, for contracts to focus less on the financial benefits 
of EnPC and more on the service and guarantees which are important for clients, for these to be better 
informed and to bear less financial risk (currently financing actors are considered to be the best informed 
actors in the market). 
Increased  support  for  raising  awareness and  provision  of  consolidated  information  (e.g.  a  repository  of 
case studies, best practice examples, further development of networks and fora, included CAEED, CAEPBD 
and the SEI forum, for the exchange of EnPC knowledge, continued access to relevant expertise e.g. of the 
EIB Advisory HUB, and enhanced financial advisory support. 

 

  Communication  on  the  potential  for  off-balance  treatment  of  EnPC  in  the  accounts  of  public  bodies 

provided contract standards and legal enforcement are in place.  

237 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
15 

Italy 

Comparison previous status 
The  JRC  report  of  2021  described  the  public  sector  market  in  Italy  to  be  a  sizeable  and  fast-growing 
market.249 The market was found to be the largest in Europe, with 230 projects reported for 2018-19, and a 
size  of  €250m.  The  market  was  also  described  as well  supplied  in  terms of  providers  and  facilitators.  Off-
balance  contracts  were  already  available  in  the  period,  and  there  are  capacities  to  bundle  projects,  largely 
developed through Technical Assistance support. Contract duration was counted amongst the longest, in the 
group of countries where contracts are longer than 8years. High energy savings in projects were attributable 
to  a  high  proportion  of  public  lighting  projects,  along  with  public  buildings  and  some  interventions  in  DHC. 
Expert insight gathered for the JRC report of 2021 predicted a continued growth of the market. 

The NECP (2019) and the LTRS (2020) paid dedicated attention to EnPC. The NECP referred to the availability 
of EnPC guidelines (from Enea), the use of Conto Termico (grants for public building measures tied to energy 
services from  GSE),250  contract  development,  quality  control  mechanisms,  simplified  administration,  and the 
possible introduction of energy managers. The NECP also emphasized barriers in the use of EnPC and PPP as 
linked to bonuses and the NEEF and a need of  greater standardisation and assessment of risks of EnPC, in 
part to gain support of green mortgages for multifamily buildings. The LTRS further addressed EnPC through 
financial measures involving simplification and promotion of EnPC in combination with the Conto Termico. It 
also  highlights  projects  in  social  housing  retrofit  using  EnPC,  and  indicates  the  use  of  de-risking  tools, 
guarantee  funds,  and  tax  relief  bonuses  (Eco-,  Super-  and  Sisma-bonus  for  private  buildings  and  social 
housing), WhCs addressed to incentivise investment in building renovation and DHC, and the development of 
green bonds. Emphasis on simplification and competition in administrative processes is also made in the RRP.  
251  According to the EU Survey 2022, although banks and ESCOs are eligible for the SuperEcoBonus, which 
covers  110%  of  renovation  costs,252  the  impact  of  the  bonus  mechanisms  on  EnPC  markets  is  considered 
negligible.  There  is  even  the  risk  of  the  SuperEcoBonus  having  hindered  the  market.  The  impact  of  WhC  is 
limited to the public lighting domain. 

Current Status highlights 
According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  most  common  intervention  sites  are  public  lighting  (frequency  rated 
3/3),  and  public  buildings  (frequency  rated  as  2.5/3).  However,  the  savings  over  the  baseline  reported  are 
relatively low and to indicate a high proportion of public lighting projects. Project bundles are common (2.5/3), 
and related to  requirements  of financial incentives (Superbonus). Industrial co-generation and DHC are also 
active  in  the  use  of  EnPC  (2/3  and  3/3  respectively).  The  main  type  of  interventions  in  buildings  involve 
renewables,  demand  flexibility  and  storage  (both  rated  3/3),  integral  renovations  /2/3)  and  installation  of 
building control  systems (2/3).  Monitoring and evaluation, and audits are of less relevance (both rated 1/3). 
This seems to indicate a lax understanding of EnPC in some cases. Also, there has been an increased attention 
to  renewables,  and  integral  renovations  in  the  residential  sector.    There  are  concerns  about  audit 
requirements in the use of WhCs related to a lower support to EnPC in public lighting and industry. During the 
period 2020-21 there has been increased utilization of EnPC (and PPP overall) for renovating public buildings 
as the result of increased confidence in public markets, and awareness about their potential amongst public 
bodies. 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

249 JRC 2017 had found the Italian EnPC market to be at initial stages. 
250 https://www.gse.it/en/what-we-do/energy-efficiency. 
251 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0165 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
252  The  SuperEcoBonus  has  been  highlighted  as  a  best  practice  in  the  review  of  the  Commission  (Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf 

(renovate-europe.eu) 

238 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 103. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Comment 
Major 
variability 
Major 
variability 

estimate 

estimate 

Number of contracts 

Public 
50 

Private 
50 (industry only) 

Overall 

Overall size m€ 

Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

of 

% 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

savings* 

50 

1 
10 

8 

30 

15 (industry only) 

0.2 
5-10 

3-6 

10-20 

20-25 

0.07 

0.7 
8 

6 

25 

The level of expertise amongst clients and, especially, of financing actors is considered limited (ratings around 
1 out of 3) and relates to a lack of information, independent facilitators and quality one-stop-shops. On the 
other hand, there is relatively high degree of willingness in the public sector (rated 2/3). The market trends as 
reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 104. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Uncertain: 
Upward 
Upward 

Downward 

/ 

Private sector 
Uncertain: 
Rocketing  
Upward 

Downward 

/ 

Comments 
Highly 
estimates 

variable 

expert 

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

Status of the business environment 
The sufficiency of providers was assessed (see table below) as good, and the experts assessed variably the 
number and sufficiency of facilitators as well as of One-stop-shops.253 Diverse estimates, in general, show a 
high degree of fragmentation in the market and lack of consolidated data. 

253 This may be due, as explained u one expert, to some facilitators operating as sale agents of providers and not actual independent 

advisors. 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 105. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services.  Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
10 -1000 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 

Quality (0-3) 
1.5 

Facilitators 

<100-1000 

1-3 

One-stop-shops 

30-125 

0-10 

actors 
to  support 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

0 

1 

1 

0.5 

Comment 
10  major 
There 
operators  and  about 
1000  small  certified 
ESCOs  which  largely 
operate 
like 
facilitators 
There 
are  many 
facilitators  operating 
as sales agents 
Public  bodies,  not 
always experienced 
Risk  awareness,  lack 
of expertise 

Table  A  106.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Public clients 

Private clients 

Financing sector 

Understanding 

Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 
2 

1.5 
1 

0 
0 

Comment 
Need 
and 
facilitation 

information 
independent 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
A review of the contract modalities in place (see table below) shows that both EnPC with guaranteed savings 
and  with  shared  savings  are  widely  used  in  both  the  public  and  private  sectors  (all  of  these  options  were 
categorized  as  “common”),  and  being  used  to  similar  extent  to  other  contracting  options.  Chauffage  and 
Facility management are the two contract modalities that are reviewed as slightly more common than EnPC. 
No contract modality is considered to compete with EnPC. 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  107.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

2 

2 

2 

2.5 

2.5 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2.5 

2 

2 

0 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for  the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets  (See  table  below), EnPC  definitions,  the  use  of  One-stop-shops,  information  instruments, and 
use  of  EnPC  in  fulfilment  of  the  exemplary  role  of  public  bodies’  buildings  were  rated  as  either  absent  or 
barely acceptable. Model contracts, lists of qualified operators, guidelines, audits and government rules were 
rated in the ballpark of “good”. Highly diverse ratings were estimated by participants. 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 108. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-
balance sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of 
public bodies' buildings) 
Government 
contracting and tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

rules  and  practices  of  procurement, 

Rating 
(0-3) 
0-1 

1-2 

1-2 

2 

0-1 

0 

0 

1-3 

2.5 

1 

1-3 

Good practices 

Assoesco proposals 

Adaptation to new European 
standard (2022) expected in 
2023254  
Several  projects  available, 
needing reference standard 
See255 

for  non-SMEs 
intensive 

energy 

Mandatory 
and 
organizations 
Used 

Consip  centralizes  public 
procurement mechanisms 

Remaining 
barriers 
Definition 
ESD (2006) 
Lack  of  political 
attention 

from 

Certification 
requirements 
may need update 
Lack  of  adequate 
and 
expertise 
relation 
with 
private 

Reported 
uncertainty in last 
6 years  
Need 
control  

more 

Not 
communicated 
Limited 
information 

Financing  
Although it is possible to combine EU funds and EnPC, the process has been described by experts participating 
in  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  complex.  Major  opportunities  identified  are  facilitation  support  and  the  use  of 
standardized  model  contracts to convince  financiers. There are expectations towards the implementation of 
sustainability taxonomy implementation in finance for their potential awareness effect. 

254  CEN  CENELEC  is  announcing  the  final  text  approval  (2022-11-23)  of  the  European  standard  EN  17669:2023  Energy  Performance 

Contracts - Minimum requirements. The completion of all national publication is expected by 2023-05-31. 

255 https://www.accredia.it/banche-dati/certificazioni/prodotti-e-servizi-certificati/esco-energy-service-company-certificate/ 

242 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  109.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the  column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
2 
2 
2 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2 
0.5 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

1 

1 

2 
0 
2 

1 
0 
2 
1 

1 

2 
1 

2.5 

2.5 

0.5 
2.5 
1 

1 
0 
0.5 
2.5 

3 

2 
1 

Relevant  in  lighting 
co-
projects 
generation 

and 

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 

and 

Purpose 

Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Barriers 
The major barriers referred in the EU Survey 2022 for the period 2020-21 refer to the lack of clarity in the 
PPP framework, inadequacy and complexity of incentives in a context of lack of trained staff in municipalities, 
and  lack  of  information  and  support.  The  latter  relates  to  the  allocation  of  public  funds  to  municipalities 
(Consip) and which can be a barrier for municipalities lacking the capacity to demonstrate EnPC as more cost 
effective  than  tendering.  For  some  experts,  the  use  of  WhC,  considered  of  relevance  in  public  lighting  and 
industry, has gained complexity with the introduction of requirements to assess ex-ante the energy savings. In 
public  lighting,  it  is  often  difficult  to  meet  this  requirement  due  to  lack  of  monitoring  to  enable  these 
assessments. The same barriers have been described for the period 2022-23. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Changes  and  clarifications  on  the  Eurostat  treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  have  been  of 
impactful in the use of EnPC and rated as 2 in a scale from  -2 to +2 in the EU Survey 2022. The totality of 
contracts  the  public  sector  are  considered  by  national  experts  to  be  off-balance.  However,  the  off-balance 
models  developed  are  considered  insufficiently  adapted  to  the  context,  and  would  need  to  be  clearer,  and 
define a baseline based on actual savings, through implementation of a M&V protocol. 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified in the EU Survey 2022 for the 2020-21 period are regulatory developments on 
PPP,  ESG  goals,  financial  incentives  and  increased  interest  for  cost  saving.  Of  note,  financial  incentives 
(Superbonus 110%) have pushed the bundling of projects in social housing (although costs have increased as 
a  result).  For  the  period  2022-23  the  major  drivers  are  the  RRP  (in  the  public  sector),  high  energy  prices, 
financial incentives, and concern about energy prices that motivates cost savings and concerns about future 
asset value. 

EU support 
The  expert  assessment  of  EU  Support  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  is  not  overly  optimistic  about  impact  of  EU 
Support mechanisms. Technical assistance the public sector receives the most appreciation (1.5 in a scale of -
2 to +2). The Guarantee Facility of the SFSB initiative, the ESIF, InvestEU, and the European Green Deal, Fit for 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
55 and Next Generation EU packages receive ratings around 1 in the same scale, mainly for their impact on 
the public and financing sectors. 

A  diversity of EU projects have or are being implemented in Italy. The  H2020 project  LAUNCH– Sustainable 
energy assets as tradable securities (2019-21) worked on the production of standardized EnPC contracts and 
risk  assessment  protocols;  EnerShift  (2016-20)  worked  on  the  EnPC  renovation  of  rented  social  housing. 
Currently, TIGER- Triggered Investments in Grouping of buildings for Energy Renovation (2021 -24) is working 
on  the  use  of  EnPC  for  social  housing  renovation;  AmBIENCe  (Active  managed  Buildings  with  Energy 
performaNce Contracting) 
(2019-22)  is  working  on  the  use  of  smart  technologies  to  support  efficiency  improvements  through  the 
combination  of  active  technologies  and  EnPC;  and  NEON  –  Next-Generation  Integrated  Energy  Services  fOr 
Citizen  Energy  CommuNities  (2021-2024)  is  developing  a  model  for  integration  of  EnPC  and  P4P  schemes 
and innovative M&V methodology.  (Previously Trust-EPC-South and GuarantEE had also worked on ways to 
scale  up  EnPC  in  Italy).  Technical  Assistance  projects  have  also  taken  place.  ELENA  supported  the  EEEF  to 
implement EnPC projects in public buildings, and streetlighting through Project Accelerate Powered (2017-21) 
(EIB 2021).256 

Table A 110. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms. 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 

Source: EU Survey 2022 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

1.5 

0.5 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

1 

1 

1 
1 
0.5 

1 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

0.5 

0.5 

1 

1 
1 
1 

0.5 

Increase 
awarenes
s 

Perspective 
The effects of fiscal incentives are uncertain. The impact of Supebonus 110% on EnPCs has been described 
as very low to negligeable and to even have a negative effect. There is also uncertainty about whether energy 
prices  and  interest  for  renewables  may  attract  clients  to  EnPC.  It  is  expected  that  the  RRP  will  increase 
attention towards EnPC, in the framework of more PPPs in public buildings, and the integration of renewables. 
Further  integration  of  efficiency  measures  in  the  residential  sector  is  expected,  along  with  growth  in  this 
segment of the market. 

Recommendations 
The experts consulted as a part of the EU Survey 2022 called for improvement of the off-balance models for 
these to rely on a common standard and to be developed to define a baseline based on actual  savings and 
require  the  implementation  of  a  M&V  protocol.  There  are  expert  demands  for  the  WhC  mechanisms  to  be 

256 56-project-factsheet-eeef.pdf (eib.org) 

244 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
realigned  with  EnPC  projects  in  industry  and  public  lighting,  and  for  the  avoidance  of  grant  support  being 
allocated with high grant ratios (Superbonus 110%). 

Moreover,  there  is  a  potential  for  developing  independent  of  facilitation  capacity,  through  training  and 
certification,  as  well  as  the  development  of  regional  one-stop-shops,  and  for  the  consolidation  of  national 
data  through  registry  of  projects  alongside  improvements  of  the  EnPC  definition  improvement  of  M&V 
implementation. 

EU  support  mechanisms  should,  according  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  be  supported  with  more  and  clearer 
information, awareness building and support to standardize the definition of EnPC. There is also a potential 
for  a  registry  of  EU  projects  to  align  with  and  support  national  efforts  of  communication  and  collection  of 
good practices, as well as to improve the capacity to assess the advantages of opting for EnPC in different 
types of interventions. 

Good practice 
There  are  multiple  successful  experiences  of  energy  efficiency  projects  in  municipalities  which  involve 
bundling of buildings and relatively short projects and relatively high energy saving achievements. In Comune 
di Prato, for instance, a project involving 115 municipal buildings and a 7-year contract, finished in 2022 has 
led to a reduction in energy consumption of 35% and €150,000 savings per year.257 

257 Comune di Prato - Azioni del PAES 

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
16  Latvia 

Comparison previous status 
Multi-storey residential dwellings, built during 1945-1990, most of which are privately-owned by dwellers are 
largely inefficient and need deep renovations are the only of intervention in which EnPC has been involved. At 
the end of the socialist era, these buildings were handed over private owners in bad condition of maintenance. 
Investment has been lacking ever since. These buildings constitute the major final energy use in Latvia and 
have  a  large  energy  saving  potential.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  deep  retrofits  in  these  buildings  can 
attain savings of between 45 and 65% for more than 10 years after contract finalisation, further improving 
comfort and extending the lifespan of buildings in 30 years.258  

The  EnPC  market  as  reported  in  LTRS  and  NECP  continued  to  be  active  mainly  in  private  multi-apartment 
buildings. Due to regulatory barriers, there is no use of ESCO models in public buildings. Public bodies are not 
allowed to sign off-balance contracts that last more than 5 years.  

Current Status highlights 
Compared to the period 2017-2019, the Latvian EnPC market had a downward trend in 2019-2021. The type 
of projects has largely remained the same. In residential there were 1 contract signed in 2020 and 3 are in 
process to be delivered in 2023. But there were no projects in the period reported. Besides lack of activity in 
the residential sector, efforts in the public sector have not yet produced contracts. Some municipalities may 
conclude  contracts  in  the  near  future.  It  has  been    that  a  new  ambitious  contracting  modality  involves  30 
years guarantee for newly built residential buildings, aiming at NZEB, and incorporating a full LCA perspective. 
Developments 

The  main  intervention  typologies  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  are  the  replacement  of  specific  building 
elements  (boilers,  piping  systems,  HVAC,  lighting,  and  overall  systems),  the  installation  of  integral  control 
systems,  and  integral  renovations,  both  in  the  public  and  private  sectors.  Whenever  it  is  economically 
repayable, projects also involve the installation of on-site renewable generation, and storage capacity, which 
are gaining momentum with increased concerns about energy security. Maintenance is contracted only as a 
part of the warranty obligations. Integral renovations, integral control systems, generation and storage seem 
to  have  gained  interest  respect  to  the  previous  reporting  period  (2017-2019).    Integral  renovations  and 
envelope  interventions  have  been  enabled  since  2021  by  subsidies  of  up  to  50%  for  multi-family  building 
renovations (currently provided by the State financial institute, ALTUM).  

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market size, contract sizes, and market trends. 

258 EBRD 2015. Latvian Baltic Energy Efficiency Facility (‘LABEEF’). London. pp.145. 

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 111. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
0 

Private 
1 

Overall 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 

0 

Typical* duration 

Typical* payback 

0.32 
0.32 

20 

12 

% 

of 

48% 

savings* 

Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 and projects reported by Efffect4Buildings. 

savings* 

190 

- 

Comment 
Some  LaaS  in  the 
public 
sector 
(technical 
guarantees) 

Refers  to  residential 
buildings 
Refers  to  residential 
buildings 
Refers  to  residential 
buildings 
Refers  to  residential 
buildings 
Refers  to  residential 
buildings 

Table A 112. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Downward  

Private sector 
Downward  

Upward/slow take-off 

Upward/slow take-off 

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

are 

new 

Comments 
There 
interested  
Driven  by  energy  security 
and new actors 

actors 

Status of the business environment 
Participant respondents of the EU Survey 2022 best appreciated the level of understanding and willingness to 
participate in EnPC  markets  of the financing sector. There are  divergent opinions  regarding these attributes 
for the public sector, likely due to the need of a more coherent regulatory and communication regime. 

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table A 113. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
4 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 

Quality (0-3) 
2 

1 
1 

2-5 

1 
1 

2 

2 
2 

2 

Comment 
Only  one  actively 
contracting 
Small market share 
Ongoing 
developments in Riga 
and Vidzeme Region 
Multiple 
financing 
actors  

Providers 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 

actors 
to  support 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Table  A  114.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Public clients 

Private clients 

Financing sector 

Comment 

247 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 
1 

1 
1 

1.5 
1.5 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
EnPC operates with guaranteed savings. The only type of contract which is reported to compete with EnPC is 
Lighting as a Service (LaaS) without guarantees. 

Table  A  115.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

0 

1 

Four  EnPC  operators  have  signed  contracts  with  ALTUM 
to  finance  projects  using  EnPC,  but  only  1  delivers  real 
projects 259 

0 

0 

0 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

0 

0 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

Lighting as a service (LaaS) with technical guarantees  

Regulatory framework 
There  is  a  large  discrepancy  in  the  responses  obtained  from  experts  working  in  the  provision  and  public 
sectors regarding the implementation of supporting policy instruments. Average values are presented in the 
Table. The best appreciated practices are the implementation of energy audits (ratings of 2 and 3 out of 3) 
and existing EnPC guidelines, followed by model contracts for both the public and private sectors, the role of 
EEOs,  and  government  procurement  rules  and  practices  (combined  ratings  of  1  and  2  out  of  3).  EnPC 
definitions,  guidelines,  demonstration,  and  lists  of  qualified  operators  are  less  positively  perceived  by  both 
type of actors.   

259 https://www.altum.lv/pakalpojumi/iedzivotajiem/daudzdzivoklu-maju-energoefektivitate/granta-pieteikums/ 

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 116. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Guidelines: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance sheet): Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector: Rating (0-3) 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators: Rating (0-3) 

One-stop-shops: Rating (0-3) 

Other information instruments: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC demonstration projects: Rating (0-3) 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates: Rating (0-3) 

Energy Audits: Rating (0-3) 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public bodies' buildings): Rating (0-3) 

Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and tendering: Rating (0-3) 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1.5 

2 

1.5 

1.5 

1 

1.5 

1 

1 

1.5 

2.5 

0 

1.5 

Barriers 
General barriers in both the public and private sector are a lack of market experience, trust and the limited 
lateral of ESCOs. Financially, both the LTRS and consulted experts acknowledge the need of private financing. 
The LTRS acknowledges that there is a need of "more active involvement by investors and commercial banks, 
ensure the availability of attractive loans, development of appropriate financial instruments, development of 
ESCO services". There is also a need of long-term financing mechanisms, e.g. refinancing. Continued interest 
for low-hanging fruits along with strict legislation on EnPC are further deterrents for the market to take off. 
Changing this situation would require a strong commitment on the part of the central government. 

In the private sector, decision-making processes in multi-family buildings is highly problematic. In the public 
sector, the LTRS reported as major barriers to the use of EnPC in public buildings the lack of certainty on the 
statistical  treatment  of  EnPC  in  public  investment.  There  is  an  off-balance  contract  model  accepted  by 
Eurostat,  but  the  government  does  not  seem  to  move  towards  its  use  in  public  buildings  and  services. 
Moreover, the maximum contract length for EnPC (or LaaS) is 5 years. Longer contracts would require the use 
of PPP. There are no indications about the combination of RRF with EnPC being legally possible. 

Financing 
The  availability  of  financing  takes  multiple  forms.  Most  projects  depend  on  the  availability  of  public  funds. 
Capital  grants  are  allocated  to  building  owners,  which  then  pay  the  providers.  Public  financing  (3/3)  and 
project financing (3/3) are the most typical form of EnPC project financing. Forfaiting and guarantee funds are 
of  relative  relevance  compared  to  most  other  options  (Both  are  rated  as  1/3).  There  are  no  barriers  to  the 
combination  of  EU  grants  and  EnPC  in  the  private  sector.  Investment  grants  are  allocated  to  clients,  which 
then pay the EnPC providers (this applies to ESIF for 2014-2020 and to the RRF). In the public sector these 
mechanisms are not in place. 

249 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  117.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

and 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Public funds 
Private funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

Public (0-3) 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2 
3 
2 
2 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

3 
2 
1 

2 
0 
3 
2 
0 

2 
1 
- 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
The Statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts was a major barrier reported in the NECP and LTRS. 
The lack of off-balance sheet contracts has been a major deterrent of the Latvian market during the reported 
period (2019-2021). However, an off-balance model contract has been developed and accepted by Eurostat. 
It’s  impact  on  the  market  is  uncertain  given  its  limited  activity  and  apparent  lack  of  commitment  of  the 
government to adopt it. 

Drivers 
The major drivers highlighted by Survey participants are of structural nature, concerning energy security, the 
EU  regulatory  and  support  framework  for  retrofits  and  the  situation  of  the  housing  stock.  There  are  also 
expectations towards government actions to encourage EnPC.  However, the RRP of Latvia 260 granted limited 
to  no  relevance  to  EnPCs.  The  EC,  in  its  review  of  the  RRP,  called  for  a  strategy  for  ensuring  long-term 
sustainable financing, and for the use of EnPC in public and tertiary buildings, as well as for developing the 
capacities  necessary  to  foster  innovative  business  models.261  The  actual  implementation  of  the  RRP  is 
expected to determine the future of EnPC. 

The major drivers according to sectoral experts are the status of conservation of the housing stock and the 
EU-regulation  and  support  to  residential  retrofitting.  The  national  regulatory  and  institutional  framework 
described  in  the  LTRS  appears  to  pursue  EnPC  development  and  there  is  legislation  for  ALTUM  to  support 
EnPC e.g. by mediating and ensuring best contracting processes.262 However, according to participant experts 
in the EU Survey 2022, these drivers are insufficient to overcome the market and regulatory barriers.  

260 The country RPP could not be consulted in English (last consultation 19 August 2022) ATJAUNOŠANAS UN NOTURĪBAS MEHĀNISMA 
PLĀNS (esfondi.lv). These notes rely on on automated translation and information available on the EC website, included the review 
of the Commission Latvia's recovery and resilience plan | European Commission (europa.eu) 

261 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/com-2021-340_swd_en.pdf  
262 There is a legal framework allowing public bodies and multiapartment buildings to engage EnPC and government reports (LTRS, NECP), 
which show interest on the ESCO and collaboration with private financing institutions key to achieve energy saving goals and to maximise 
the  effectiveness  of  available  resources.  In  these  documents  EnPC  appears  mentioned  as  “energy  performance  contracts”,  “energy 
efficiency  contracts”,  and  “energy  efficiency  service  contracts”.  According  to  the  LTRS  the  MoE,  MoF  and  ALTUM,  the  state-owned 
development  finance  institution  have  worked  on  overcoming  regulatory  barriers.    ALTUM  plays  an  active  role  in  supporting  ESCO  and 
EnPC markets (LTRS) 

250 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
There  are  expectations  for recent  developments to  support  EnPC  in  the  future.  These  developments include 
efforts  of  ALTUM  to  direct  green  bond  guarantees towards energy  efficiency  improvements  (backed  by  the 
EIB,  and  PF4EE  facility  by  the  LIFE  programme),  recent  developments  enabling  refinancing  to  be  backed  by 
loans, and loans made available to purchase cash flow of ESCOs (max €2m, below 45% of the financing, and 
max 20 years loans). There  are expectations for these developments to support the  development of EnPCs. 
Moreover, EEOs can achieved through ESCO implementation and through contributions to the NEEF. LABEEF, 
the  Latvian  Baltic  Energy  Efficiency  Facility  refinances  EnPCs for  the  renovation  of  private  multi-apartment 
buildings to high EE standards.263 

EU support 
There are no reported barriers to the use of EU funding in EnPC projects. Based on expert responses to the EU 
Survey 2022, both Technical Assistance and ESIF can be considered to have relatively improved the capacities 
of the financing actors. There is consensus among experts about the positive role of the Guarantee Facility of 
the SFBi on the public, private and financing sectors (2/2). The role of RRF is unclear, since government and 
private  sector  respondents  disagree  on  its  impact,  with  the  former  considering  that  RRF  will  have  a  large 
positive impact (2/2) and the latter considering this impact negligible. Expert respondents agree on the need 
of  improved  information  on  the  available  EU  funds  for  EnPC  program  support.  The  EGD  appears  to  play  a 
limited role in the EnPC, because it does not “coherently” pursue to facilitate EnPC.264 

Experience with H2020 projects Sunshine (march 2015-February 2015), Accelerate (April 2017-March 2021) 
and  QualitEE  (June  2017-June  2020)  has  contributed  to  the  sector  capacity,  and  to  the  development  of  a 
procurement  manual  and  quality  assurance  mechanisms.  LABEEF  has  also  received  support  from  H2020 
REFINE  (June  2020-May  2023)  which  furthers the  experience  with  the  development  of  forfeiting  capacities 
already supported by Sunshine and Accelerate and intends to assess and showcase the feasibility of state-
backed refinancing. 

Table A 118. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

1 

2 

1 
1 
0 

1 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

2 

1 
1 
0 

1 

Not  coherent, 
actionable 
mechanism 

EGD 
creates 
motivatio
n 

263  LABEEF  works  with  support  of  EBRD  and  private  investment,  and  uses  its  own  quality  and  documentation  standards,  and  contract 

models (EPC, EPC+ and EPC++) and has been a key player in H2020 projects. 

264  As  described  by  one  respondent  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  “EGD  creates  a  motivation  for  action  but  does  not  work  as  a  coherent 

mechanism for the facilitation of such actions”. 

251 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Perspective 
Upcoming development of the market (characterized as slow take-off / upward by Survey respondents) will be 
shaped by the implementation of the RRP. The latter represents an opportunity for its intend to improve the 
register  of  public  procurement  contracts,  competition,  and  modernisation  of  the  administration.  The  actual 
implementation  of  the  RRP  alongside  developments  in  the  incorporation  of  renewal  generation  and  energy 
security concerns will determine the future development of the EnPC market.  

Recommendations 
Based on expert input to the EU Survey 2022, a series of recommendations for the Latvian government were 
listed: 
 

In  public  buildings,  there  is,  foremost  a  need  of  government  commitment,  and  to  overcome 
regulatory barriers in the public sector (limitation of 5 years contracts), which would enable the use 
of  EnPC  to  fulfil  Art.5  of  the  EED  (Exemplary  role  of  public  bodies'  buildings);  a  potential  exists  to 
implement  the  off-balance  contract,  accepted  by  the  national  statistical  office  and  Eurostat  in  the 
implementation of the RRP; 
Improving communication and harmonisation of the applicable legislation to deal with a complexity 
of operational and financial schemes is needed to deal with the complexity of market options, and to 
enable  long-  term  business  models  for  investment  to  align  with  user  needs  (attention  to  building 
structures,    comfort)  and  country  targets  of  building  renovation  (continuation  with  experience  in 
multi-family buildings and development of commercial buildings’ market); 

 

  Development of clearer guidelines and procedures, to address return uncertainty and reduce the cost 
of  funding  for  providers,  especially  SMEs  (whose  current  cost  was  reported  as  close  to  the  cost  of 
venture  capital)  (two  key  areas  underdeveloped  are  SME  providers,  which  face  difficult  finance 
conditions, and the provision of services for commercial buildings) 

At  EU  level,  the  EU  Survey  2022  collected  demands  for  the  EU  to  further  communicate  the  availability  of 
support mechanisms, and in particular of Technical Assistance for the deployment of off-balance contracts in 
the public sector, and the harmonization of national legislation. There is a potential for the EU level continued 
support for the use of grants to support owners’ investment through EnPC for these to be used towards deep 
renovation of buildings. To overcome the focus on low-lying fruits, there is a need of action on the side of the 
EC  in  promoting  the  need  of  deep  renovations  to  meet  national  and  EU  targets  of  energy  saving  and 
decarbonisation. 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
17  Lithuania  

Comparison previous status 
Already for the period 2018-2019, the JRC report of 2021 pointed at growth expectations for EnPC markets 
in  Lithuania  not  having  materialized.  Around  3  projects  were  contracted  in  the  period,  with  most  interest 
involving  public  buildings  and  lighting,  and  district  heating  and  cooling.  Major  barriers  reported  were  the 
regulatory  framework  of  PPPs,  under  which  EnPC  are  treated,  low  energy  prices,  quality  and  sufficiency  of 
provision,  preference  for  conventional  procurement,  well  established  facility  management  contracts  in  the 
public  sector,  delayed  adoption  of  off-balance  contract  models,  negative  perception  of  EnPC  models  along 
with mistrust towards providers, providers’ interest for other models, and failure to incorporate them to the 
implementation of Art. 5 of the EED (exemplary role of public bodies’ buildings). 

Current Status highlights 
Activity in Lithuania appears to be focused in the  public sector, where EnPC operates under the  guaranteed 
savings modality.  Attempts to develop the private sector market are reported to have failed, resulting in loss 
of  interest  from  service  providers.  According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022  and  expert  feedback,  Lithuania’s  EnPC 
market is shared in similar proportion by interventions in residential public buildings and lighting (both 2/3).  

Interventions  take  place  in  public-residential  buildings  and  public  lighting,  promoted  by  VIPA.  Building 
interventions involve to similar extent integral renovations,  replacement of specific elements, installation of 
building control systems, on site renewable generation, storage and flexibility, and actions on monitoring and 
verification,  and  audits  (2/3).    Sometimes,  facility  management  is  integrated  in  EnPC  (1/3).  The  type  of 
interventions is referred as not having changed in recent  years, and expected to remain stable.   Due to the 
need for investment, energy poverty, and formerly low energy prices, the payback period in public residential 
buildings is more than 25 years. 

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market size, contract sizes, and market trends. 

Table A 119. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

Public 
4-8 
3-6 
0.5-1 
14-20 

Private 
No info 
No info 
No info 
No info 

Overall 

Comment 

% 

of 

25+ 
30-40 

No info 
No info 

Typical* payback 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 and projects reported by Efffect4Buildings. 

savings* 

savings* 

No info 

No info 

Table A 120. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Did not take off 

Private sector 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Slow take-off 

- 

Comments 
due to low energy prices it is 
difficult 
  meet  off-
to 
balance sheet criteria 
Increase in energy prices 

253 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Status of the business environment 
Aligning with the situation reported in JRC 2021, the number of providers (2) and facilitators (5) operating in 
Lithuania  was  described  by  experts  responding  to  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  insufficient  and  having  limited 
qualification to support the market development (all rated as 1/3). 

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

Table A 121. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
2 
5 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1 
1 

Quality (0-3) 
1 
1 

Comment 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

According  to  the  EU  Survey  2022,  there  is  a  low  level  of  understanding  and  willingness  to  conduct  EnPC 
amongst clients from both the public and private sector (0/3).265  

Table  A  122.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
0 
0 

Private clients 
0 
0 

Financing sector 
2 
2 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The main contracting models in the public sector are facility management, and energy efficiency improvement 
contracts  (3/3).  The  latter  is  considered  to  be  in  direct  competition  with  EnPC  and  is  possible  that  Facility 
management also acts as a well-established contract model that deters the adoption of EnPC (as such was 
reported in JRC 2021).  

265  The  financing  sector  rates  better  in  these  two  domains  (2/3)  but  was  only  rated  by  survey  respondent  representing  a  financing 

institution. 

254 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  123.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1 

No info 

0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

No info 

No info 

No info 

No info 

No info 

No info 

No info 

Competes with EnPC (reported in JRC 2021) 

Competes with EnPC 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
The EU Survey 2022 did not gather information on the implementation of the  Regulatory framework. Major 
concerns refer to the treatment of EnPC as PPP in the national regulatory framework. 

Financing  
According to the EU Survey 2022 most financing originates from public funds (2/3) and provider funds (1/3). 
Public funds, through public financing institutions (debt financing) and grants are the most common financing 
mechanisms (all of them rated as 2/3). There are no reported incompatibilities between grant schemes and 
EnPC.  

255 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  124.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
0 
1 
2 
1 
1 

Private (0-3) 
No info 
No info 
No info 
No info 
No info 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

2 
2 
0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

2 
0 

No info 
No info 
No info 

No info 
No info 
No info 
No info 
No info 

No info 
No info 

and 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Public funds 
Private funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

Barriers 
A  characteristic  of  Lithuanian  projects  is  the  long  payback  period,  shaped  by  the  low  energy  prices  and 
deficiency  of  investment.  Aligning  with  previously  reported  barriers,  there  is  a  reliance  on  subsidy  and 
construction contracts, and a reluctance to adopt alternative models even though government subsidies are 
reported  to  be  compatible  with  EnPC.266  There  are  also  high  costs  associated  to  meeting  regulatory  and 
bureaucratic requirements in the PPP framework which EnPC have to meet to be off-balance, and to receive 
grant support. In the upcoming 2022-2025 period, the lack of data on energy consumption is expected to add 
to these barriers and to limit the driving potential of increased energy prices.  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
According to the EU Survey 2022, off-balance contracts have not taken off (0% of the market), largely due to 
low  energy  prices  which,  overall,  disincentives  investment  and  counter  the  financial  advantages  of  EnPC 
models.  The  impact  of  the  Eurostat  update  on  statistical  treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  is 
perceived negatively (-1 in a scale from -2 to +2). Treatment of EnPCs as PPPs counters the adoption of EnPC. 
For  EnPCs  in  the  public  sector  to  be  treated  off-balance  they  need  to  meet  rigid  regulatory  framework 
applicable  to  PPPs,  which  is  furthermore  difficult  in  a  context  of  low  energy  prices,  especially  for  non-
residential uses.  A way proposed for simplifying EnPC models and administrative procedures is to focus on 
their energy-saving scope and to contract other works through alternative mechanisms. 

Drivers 
The  major  driver  highlighted  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  for  the  period  2020-2021  was  the  availability  of 
investment grants. For the period 2022-2025 the main drivers are expected to be the increased energy prices 
(Lithuania  had traditionally low prices and this barrier has been  stated for the periods 2020-21 and 2018-
2019),  along  with  an  improvement  of  the  policy  framework  and  the  existence  of  project  examples.  No 
information was provided on the commitment of the public sector, especially at regional and local levels, to 
the EnPC. The role of VIPA as a facilitator which in the past had been indicated as relevant (Hayden and Eoin 
2019) was not highlighted by respondents to the EU Survey 2022. 

266  The  National  Promotion  Institution,  VIPA,  has  a  variety  of  financial  support  instrument  specific  to  different  project  typologies 
(municipalities, central buildings, lighting, multi-apartment buildings, renewable generation, amongst others).  

256 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
EU support 
Although in general EU support receives a significantly positive appraisal from experts (2/3 for all the support 
instruments besides the European Green Deal, Fit for 55 and NextGenerationEU package) participating in the 
EU Survey 2022, greater diffusion of EU initiatives and communication in Lithuanian, would be necessary. It is 
expected that the context of energy supply insecurity is more impactful than the EU Support and initiatives. 
The  Green Deal  received lower rating than other instruments (1/3), and a remark on  its limited impact in a 
context of increasing energy prices was highlighted. 

Table A 125. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 
2 

2 

Financing 
actors 
2 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

2 

2 

2 
2 
2 

1 

Perspective 
A  characteristic  of  Lithuanian  projects  is  the  long  payback  period,  shaped  by  the  low  energy  prices  and 
deficiency of investment. The situation may change in the upcoming period with the appearance of funding 
supported by the RRF,267 and the increasing energy prices, contributing to what surveyed experts defined as a 
slow take off of the public sector market. 

Recommendations 
To address the complexity and associated costs of applying to subsidy mechanisms a respondent to the EU 
Survey  2022  called  for  a  greater  focus  on  specific  goals  (savings)  of  support  and  information.. 268  The 
respondents  also  indicated  a  need  of  energy  consumption  data  to  be  gathered  and  analysed  to  establish 
national priorities and support to mechanisms such as EnPC to ensure the attainment of energy efficiency and 
decarbonisation  targets.  These  data  and  mechanisms  need  communication  in  Lithuanian  for  the  clients, 
providers and financing actors to engage the market.  

Based on the analysis of the information available it appears that the current development of examples and 
of  the  regulatory  framework  need  to  be  accompanied  with  contractual  and  administrative  developments  in 
the treatment of EnPC as a type off PPP arrangements, and in grant application. A revision of energy pricing in 
non-residential  uses,  and  the  introduction  of  incentives  to  renovation  (substituting  investment  grants  by 
financing instruments) are needed for the investment in energy renovations to be cost-effective.  

The following recommendations for EU institutions follow from the analysis presented: 

267 VIPA energy efficiency fund. New Funding Opportunities for Sustainable Energy Projects - Viešųjų investicijų plėtros agentura (vipa.lt) 
268  The  respondent  considers  that  the  multitude  of  requirements  on  the  type  of  renovation  and  whether  maintenance  is  included 

contributes to high costs of EnPC preparation. This recommendation was also gathered for the period 2018-19 (JRC 2021). 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 

Improved  communication  on  the  support  mechanisms  available,  and  continued  promotion  of 
financing instruments as opposed to investment grants; 

  Continued technical support for the development of simpler regulations and models for EnPC; 

Continued efforts to incentivise energy efficiency and decarbonisation e.g. carbon taxes. 

258 

 
 
 
18  The Netherlands 

Comparison previous status 
The  JRC  report  of  2021  indicated  that  the  Dutch  public  sector  market  was  one  of  certain  matureness  but 
static or with slow development outside a few active municipalities. A major reason for limited activity was 
reported  to  be  a  preference  for  a  diversity  of  alternative  intervention  models.  However,  the  JRC  2021 
reflected  expectation  on  the  development  of  national  renovation  strategies  to  overcome  the  reticence  of 
decision-maker  towards  deep  renovations  and  long  contractual  engagements.  The  supply  of  provision  and 
facilitation services was reported as sufficient and of high quality. 

The  NECP  paid  attention  to  EnPC  and highlighted  that  the  adoption  of  the  model  was  growing  but  was not 
widespread, the availability of examples from the central government; procurement guidelines, the facilitator 
pool trained by the GuarantEE project (H2020) and the collaboration of the government with the sector. The 
Plan  also  referred  to  a  potential  introduction  of  tax  deductions  for  ESCOs.269  Subsidies  were  introduced 
through Kansen voor West and SDD++ but these did not specifically address ESCOs. The latter scheme, with a 
budget of €13b for 2022, has an emphasis on renewable energy and CO2 reduction.270 

The  LTRS  only  mentioned  the  availability  of  Green  Lease  for  EnPC  in  private  commercial  rental  to  address 
split incentives. Risk-sharing mechanisms based on support of the National Heating Fund and National Energy 
Savings  Fund  are  not  tailored  for  EnPC  and  are  not  relevant  to  large  companies.  The  Dutch  LTRS 
demonstrates  an  overarching  capacity  to  support  energy  performance  projects,  whether  EnPC  or  other 
models, through intended development of centralized databases and data standardization, the formulation of 
a  national  roadmap  for  public  buildings  with  a  public  function  (e.g.  object  of  Art.  5  of  the  EED),  and  the 
valuation  of  the  sustainability  credentials  for  rental  premises.  These  advances  have  been  positively 
appreciated in responses to the EU Survey 2022. However, these measures do not prioritise EnPC, and their 
impact on the adoption of the model is uncertain. Moreover, the government conducted a thorough review of 
national EnPC markets in 2020 (Van Kempen 2020, Hoevenagel 2020).   

The RRP of the Netherlands and the Commission’s review do not refer to EnPC.271 According to the EU Survey 
2022,  most  of  the  funds  are  being  allocated  to  support  residential  renovations,  and  to  support  the 
electrification, which was ongoing prior to the 2022 crisis, as well as to help face increased costs of energy. 

Current Status highlights 
The market has remained stable in both the public and private sector. However, some providers have stopped 
offering EnPC services whilst no newcomers have been identified. Users of EnPC including the municipalities 
of  Enschede,  ‘s  Hertogenbosch  and  Breda  have  started  to  use  alternative  model,  and  newcomers  do  not 
compensate for this loss (EU Survey 2022) 

The most common types of projects involve DHC (2/3), and interventions in public buildings (1/3), smart grids 
(1/). Interventions in buildings involve energy management and integral renovations (both rated 2/3 for both 
the public and private sectors). Are also of relative relevance maintenance, replacement of specific elements, 
installation of building control systems, on site renewable generation, storage capacity, M&V, and audits (all 
1/3, in  both the  public and private sectors).   Developments in the construction of new  buildings and stricter 
regulations  have  contributed  to  an  increase  in  heat  cold  storage  as  a  solution.    Service  contracts  including 
maintenance are becoming popular.  

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 126. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

269 There is no information on whether these deducations were implemented and their impact on the EnPC market. 
270 Stimulation of sustainable energy production and climate transition (SDE++) | RVO.nl 
271https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2022/10/10/definitief-nederlands-herstel-en-veerkrachtplan; 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/staff-working-document-accompanying-proposal-council-implementing-decision-0_en; 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/system/files/com_2022_469_1_en_0.pdf  

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Number of contracts 

6 

Overall size m€ 

5 

1.2 
10-15 

10-15 

Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

% 

of 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

savings* 

savings* 

74 

60 

1.2 
10-15 

10-15 

82 

65 

1.2 
10-15 

10-15 

estimates 
Own 
based  on  data  from 
2019272 
Expert 
estimates 
based on 2019 data 

No data available 

No data available 

No data available 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 127. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Stable 

Slow take-off  

Private sector 
Stable  

Slow take-off  

Comments 

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Status of the business environment 
Few  estimates  on  the  availability  and  quality  of  services  were  obtained  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  These  are 
indicated in the tables below. 

Table A 128. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the  number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
40 

Sufficiency (0-3) 

Quality (0-3) 

Facilitators 

100 

One-stop-shops 

12 
(one 
province) 

in  every 

3 

actors 
to  support 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Comment 
No 
data 
recent 
available.  Value  for 
the  public  sector  in 
JRC 2021 
Dramatic 
increase 
respect to JRC 2021 
Municipal  one-stop-
shop  created  had  no 
observable results 
Banks 
investment 
companies 

and 

Table  A  129.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 

Public clients 
1 

Private clients 
2 

Financing sector 
3 

Comment 
Limited 

capacity 

272 (Hoevenagel 2020) 

260 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

1 

2 

limits the market 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
Based on the information collected in the EU Survey 2022, the use of EnPC with guaranteed savings and with 
shared  savings  are  of  limited  relevance  (rated  1/3)  and  similar  to  contract  energy  management,  facility 
management,  PPPs  and  ESCO-like  support  of  municipalities  (all  rated  1/3).  Energy  efficiency  improvement 
contracts  are  of  relatively  higher  relevance  (2/3).  None  of  these  alternative  models  nor  new  models  being 
developed  were  reported  as  competing  with  EnPC.  As  of  2023  energy  companies  will  be  able  to  sign  off-
balance contracts with customers. These contracts are expected to gain a significant share of the market. It is 
still uncertain whether EnPC will have a role in this arrangement. 

Table  A  130.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent  different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

1 

Local governments often provide financing and technical 
support to private owners 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets  has  been  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  requiring  improvement,  especially  in  the 
development of guidelines, and the update of lists of operators, and demonstration projects (all of these rated 
1/3).  The  use  of  EnPC  in  efforts  to  fulfil  Art.  5  of  the  EED,  the  use  of  one-stop-shops,  the  availability  of 
definitions and the availability of models for the private sector are better valued (2/3)  

261 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 131. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework.  Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 

2 

Central  Government 
Real  Estate  Agency 
gives example. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

Good practices 

Impuls EPC project 

Remaining 
barriers 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

Dutch 
Agency’s 
contract 

Enterprise 
model 

Available 

In every province 

Projects 
before 2022 

from 

to  use 
own 

Organizations 
prefer 
their 
contracts 
Financing  can  be 
problematic 
Rarely checked 

lack  of  qualified 
personnel 

of 
to 

Lack 
continuation 
demonstration 
projects 

The  example  of 
the 
Central 
Government  Real 
Agency 
Estate 
may 
be 
not 
reproducible  by 
public 
smaller 
bodies 
(Scale, 
expertise) 

Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

Financing  
No  barriers  have  been  identified  about  the  combination  of  EU  funds  and  EnPC.  An  opportunity  in  the 
Netherlands is the interest of banks to support EnPC projects. Some municipalities provide loans, mortgages 
and tax breaks to clients willing to improve the performance of their buildings.273 In principle these measures 
do not compete with EnPC but may result in lesser interest given that the financing aspect of the project is 
resolved. 

Barriers 
Municipalities are largely responsible for meeting the goals of the climate agreement but, according to the EU 
Survey  2022,  they  are  understaffed.  Municipalities  and  EnPC  providers  tend  to  lack  qualified  personnel. 
Moreover,  the  reception  of  supplies  and  administrative  processes  are  slow.  This  is  a  problem  for  the 
development  of  EnPC  markets  an  in  general  for  the  energy  transition  of  the  Netherlands.274  Limitations  of 
technical  capacity  and  risk  avoidance  are  key  barriers  in  the  overall  market,  regardless  of  an  increase  in 
demand  for  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  generation.  Due  to  availability  of  capital,  and  to  reduce  risks, 
clients tend to prefer better-known contracting modalities and to maintain ownership of the project (as also 
reported in JRC 2021). Moreover, preference for renewable generation and thermal storage observed in JRC 
2021  and  fostered  by  Government  strategies  seems  to  have  resulted  in  priority  being  granted  to  other 
contract  modalities  and  approaches  to  saving  energy  and  climate  neutrality.  This  is  problematic  because 

273 See for instance: https://www.arnhemaan.nl/mogelijkheden/financiele-regelingen-woningeigenaren/ 
274 Record tightness in the labour market puts energy transition in jeopardy - ABN AMRO Bank 

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
tenders  tend  to  preclude  an  integral  approach  which  EnPC  providers  could  supply.  As  of  2023  energy 
companies will be able to sign off-balance contracts with customers. These contracts are expected to gain a 
significant share of the market and will probably compete, not engage, with EnPC.  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Changes  and  clarifications  on  the  Eurostat  treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  did  not  impact  the 
EnPC market of the Netherlands (rated as 0 in scale -2,2). Besides limited relevance granted to the statistical 
treatment  of  these  investments,  the  off-balance  model  contracts  developed  are  considered  to  be 
insufficiently  adapted  to  the  context,  and  lack  (by  design)  flexibility  to  address  clients’  needs  (EU  Survey 
2022). 

Drivers 
The major driver identified in the EU Survey 2022 is the  climate agreement for  both  the public and private 
sectors. CO2 prices are considered to be a major driver for a potential slow take off. In the period 2022-23, 
the  price  of  gas  is  also  a  driver  for  the  private  sector.  Moreover,  there  are  new  programs  targeted  to  help 
municipalities to meet the goals of the climate agreement, and which might contribute to their engagement 
with EnPC. Real estate owners (private and business) can qualify for the Investment subsidy for sustainable 
energy  and  energy  saving  (ISDE)  which  is  a  National  support  mechanism  for  which  are  eligible  solar  panel 
projects,  (hybrid)  heat  pumps,  solar  boilers,  connection  to  heating  networks,  electric  cooking  facilities  and 
certain  insulation  measures.  The  impact  of  this  measure,  as  in  the  case  of  other  public  support 
(municipalities),  on  EnPC  is  uncertain.  With  a  grant  investment  rate  of  around  20%  the  mechanism  can  be 
supportive to EnPC. This impact, however, has not been reported. The availability of regional one-stop-shops is 
also  of  relevance,  but  is  unable  to  overcome  overall  demand  for  technical  capacity  of  municipalities  and 
shortage of qualified personnel to conduct specialized works for service suppliers.275 Collaborative initiatives 
have a potential for engaging actors in the model. The Impuls EnPC initiative (since 2019) has been developed 
in collaboration between Invest NL, BNG, RVO and PIANoo to provide guidelines to municipalities. However, it 
lacks follow up. Support from a one-stop-shop (Ontzorgingsprogramma) that works with small public building 
portfolios and small municipalities is having difficulties to create projects with sufficient scale.  

EU support 
The  expert  assessment  of  EU  Support  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  provides  limited  insight  on  EU  support 
mechanisms, The impact of the European Green Deal, Fit for 55, and NextGenerationEU package is supported 
by  recognition  that  the  decarbonisation  drive  promoted  from  EU  institutions  are  a  potential  driver  for  the 
market. 

Although  Dutch  research  bodies  are  often  involved  in  H2020  projects  overseas,  a  lower  number  of  these 
projects  is  directly  tested  or  implemented  in  the  Netherlands.  One  case  of  the  latter  type  of  project  is 
GuarantEE-  Energy  Efficiency  with  Performance  Guarantees in  Private  and  Public  Sector (1  April  2016  -  31 
March  2019), which addressed split incentives  and  rigidity of  contracts by developing new  model contracts, 
market development in emerging markets through guidance and examples to municipal clients. 

275 Previous coordinated efforts of Invest NL, BNG, RVO and PIANoo during 2017-19 drafted guidelines for municipalities but there was 
limited  follow  up,  and  a  one-stop-shop  (Ontzorgingsprogramma)  for  small  public  building  portfolios  and  small  municipalities  but 
these continue to face barriers of scale. 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 132. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

1.5 

Perspective 
The  market  seems  to  continue  a  slow  trend,  shaped  by  risk  awareness,  as  depicted  in  2020  (Van  Kempen 
2020). There are expectations for a  small take off resulting from demand for energy  conservation projects 
and  limitations  in  the  supply  side.  As  of  2026,  heat  pumps  may  become  mandatory  which  may  be  an 
opportunity for EnPC, amongst other models. New standards (MEPS) resulting from the implementation of the 
Renovation  Wave  are  expected  increase  the  depth  of  renovations  but  for  the  time  being  is  creating 
uncertainty.  

Recommendations 
To  overcome  the  slowing  of  the  market  and  foster  its  take  off,  technical  capacity  development  in 
municipalities,  along  with  regulatory  connexions  between  energy  saving,  climate  targets  and  the  use  of 
guarantees for integreal interventions appear to be the most pressing actions to be taken for municipalities to 
engage  with  EnPC.276  Currently,  there  is  a  potential  for  adapting  the  current  off-balance  contract  model  to 
engage with client’s needs and decarbonisation goals.  

National  reporting  on  the  adoption  of  energy  services  are  interesting  to  support  policy-decisions.  However, 
these reports show the lack of a database of EnPC projects which would serve to exchange experiences, and 
which could be key to overcome remaining barriers of trust and preference for simpler models. This sort of 
database  could  feed  into  an  EU-level  database,  also  recommended  for  other  MS.  A  continuation  of  Impuls 
EnPC and efforts to aggregate projects may benefit of technical support or exchange of experiences in other 
MS where small projects have been successfully aggregated. This sort of support needs to be tailored to the 
needs of municipalities, some of which have stopped using the model. The existence of a network of regional 
one-stop-shops,  Impuls  EnPC  and  Ontzorgingsprogramma  are  an  opportunity  for  Technical  support  to  be 
impactful.  Technical  support  could  also  serve  to  develop  contracts  able  to  address  more  integrally  clients’ 
needs and decarbonisation goals. 

Good practices 
A  good  practice  highlighted  throughout  the  Whitepaper  of  RVO  on  best  practices  for  ESCO  projects  is  the 
importance of collaborative engagement between the actors, their long partnerships and the development of 

276 Previous expectations in the JRC 2021 for the development of national renovation strategies (Art. 2a) to help overcome the reticence 

of decision-makers, and increased emphasis on deep renovations and life cycle considerations are still valid in the current context. 

264 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
trust  based  on  contractual  agreements  that  can  be  adjusted,  and  which  focus  on  achievements  (and 
deadlines), not so much the technological improvements.277 

277 1598877102whitepaper 4 - best practices and inspiration on esco projects in the netherlands.pdf (rvo.nl) 

265 

 
 
 
                                                        
 
19  Poland 

Comparison previous status 
The JRC reported in 2021 that about 13 projects had taken place in the period 2018-2019, with a volume of 
€39m  in  the  public  sector  only.  Considering  the  market  potential,  Poland  was  categorized  as  a  “small, 
emerging” EnPC market.  

Current Status highlights 
The public sector has remained stable, and the private sector has a marked upward trend, largely driven by 
RES developments.278 During the 2019-21 period a total of 40 projects were reported, 15 of which were in the 
public sector, with a total volume of some €100m.  

There  is  a  prevalence  of  EnPC  with  guaranteed  savings  over  shared  savings  driven  by  client  preferences. 
Projects in the public sector can be treated under the PPP and the Energy Efficiency Act of 2021. The former 
benefit of simplified rules of the PPP law, and are expected to function as reference projects.279  

According to experts participating in the EU Survey 2022, the most common intervention sites are commercial 
buildings both in the public (schools, hospitals) and private sector, public lighting  – which has started to gain 
relevance, especially in medium sized cities – , and industrial installations (energy sources, electrical engines, 
compressors) and renewable installations in the private sector (all rated 2/3) have a large potential in Poland. 
Projects  for  smart  grids  are  being  planned.  A  DHC  project  has  been  reported  in  Warsaw  to  have  been 
implemented in 2020, as having attained 12% savings for 1000 apartments.280 Project bundles are relatively 
rare  (1/3).  In  public  buildings,  the  main  types  of  interventions  covered  are  energy  management  and 
installation of control mechanisms (2/3).  

Wall and window interventions are often part of public sector projects, resulting in these being costlier than 
private sector projects. These projects tend to last more than 10 years, have a payback of 15-20 years and 
typical savings of 50%. However, a financing model to support these integral seems not to have consolidated, 
due  to  difficulty  to  combine  grants  with  EnPC  financing  (e.g.  through  forfaiting,  or  private  financing 
institutions),  and  the  interest  of  municipalities  for  off-balance  solutions.  In  private  buildings,  the  main 
interventions  highlighted  are  renewable  installations  (2/3),  which  have  gained  relevance  in  the  last  years. 
Interventions  in  industrial  sites,  on  processes  and  renewable  generation,  are  also  important  in  the  private 
sector.  

The tables below summarize the data gathered on market size, contract sizes, and market trends. 

278 The volume is similar to the one reported for the public sector in 2018-2019, and well above the one reported in 2016-2017 for the 

overall market (JRC 2021, 2017). 

279 These projects are supported and registered by the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy - Central Unit for Private-Public Partnership 

(https://www.ppp.gov.pl/about-the-ministry-in-ppp/). 

280 Valérie Plainemaison, EFIEES. Harnessing the potential of energy management and district heating in REPowerEU. Frankfurt 2022 

266 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 133. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate. 

Number of contracts 

Public 
15 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 

1 

Private 
25 

0.25 

Overall 
40 

100 

Typical* duration 

10+ 

5 

Typical* payback 
Typical* 
baseline 

% 

15-20 
50 

of 

80+ 

Comment 
The Covid resulted in 
less contracts 

public  projects  are 
bigger  because  they 
include  wall 
often 
insulation 
and 
windows 
rates  can 
Interest 
the  contract 
push 
period  to  3-10  years 
instead of 5-15 

Projects 
in  private 
refer 
buildings 
mainly to renewables 

savings* 

Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 and projects reported by Efffect4Buildings. 

savings* 

Table A 134. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Stable  (the  market  size  has 
remained  similar 
the 
previous period) 

to 

Private sector 
Upward (the market size has 
increased  compared  to  the 
previous period) 

Perspective 
2024 

2022-

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Upward (the market size has 
increased  compared  to  the 
previous period) 

Upward (the market size has 
increased  compared  to  the 
previous period) 

Comments 
Private  (industry)  influenced 
by rising energy prices,  
Public  sector  affected  by 
Covid 
Customers  concerned  about 
high  prices, 
in 
saving energy 

interested 

Status of the business environment 
Expert  review  of  the  market  actors  indicates  insufficient  services  of  provision,  facilitation  and  financing,  as 
well as a potential for development of One-stop shops. The public sector appears to be the best acquainted 
and willing to work with EnPC (2/3). The knowledge and willingness to operate with EnPC of the private sector 
is limited, with the exception of industry. The financing sector is also considered limited in terms of knowledge 
and willingness to support EnPC. The interest of the public and private sector, however, is influenced by the 
distribution  of  project  development  costs.  These  are  borne  by  the  provider  in  public  ESCO  projects,  even  in 
cases when the project is not implemented – as is often the case. As a result, public projects tend to develop 
when providers promote them. On the contrary, the private sector is more thoughtful when commissioning a 
project preparation because the client bears these costs. As a result, providers also prioritize private projects. 

The tables below summarize the availability of services and the willingness of actors to engage the market. 

267 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 135. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
50 

10 
2 
5 

Providers 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
0 

Quality (0-3) 

Comment 
Number based on list 
of the MoD 

1 
0 
0 

2 
1 
1 

Table  A  136.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 

Willingness 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
2 for local 
governments (0 for 
central government) 
2 for local 
governmnents (0 for 
central government) 

Private clients 
2 

Financing sector 
1 

Comment 

2 

1 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The main EnPC modality is guaranteed savings – driven by client preferences – but shared savings modalities 
are currently being promoted by the sector as a way to attract providers.  

The  major  models  coexisting  with  EnPC  are  facility  management  and  energy  efficiency  improvement 
contracts. These may compete with EnPC. On the other hand, PPP operates as a type of EnPC or it has relative 
relevance  in  public  buildings.  There  is  also  a  development  of  financing  models,  promoted  from  private 
financing  institutions,  with  support  of  public  funds,  and  which  may  compete  with  EnPC  in  the  residential 
sector. 

Table  A  137.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

EnPC with guaranteed 
savings (contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients take the financial 
risk) 
EnPC with shared savings 
(both parties share the 
savings, contractor take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract energy 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

Consultancy and technical 
guarantee 
Energy efficiency 
improvement contracts 

Public 

Private  Overall  Comment 

2 

2 

Preferred by customers 

1 

1 

Facilitators are proposing this model 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

0 

2 

2 

268 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PPPs 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

Not competing, it is the legal framework for EnPC in 
public sector. Simpler solutions expected 

Regulatory framework 
The  implementation  of  the  regulatory  framework  of  the  EU  of  relevance  for  the  development  of  ESCo  and 
EnPC  markets,  received  a  relative  approval  from  experts  consulted  in  the  EU  Survey  2022.  The  maximum 
grade granted was 2/3 for definitions, model contracts for the public sector, obligation schemes and energy 
audits. There is still a need for a list of qualified EnPC operators, One-stop-shops (expected in development), 
and a large potential for the use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public bodies' buildings) 
(all of them graded 0/3). Amongst the best practices indicated is the use of PPP models, under which multiple 
EnPC projects are being contracted in the public sector. 
From 22 May 2021, the provisions of the Act of 20 April 2021 amending the Energy Efficiency Act and other 
acts which implement Directive (EU) 2018/2002 entered into force. The aim of the act is to adapt Polish law 
to the solutions provided for in the directive amended in 2018, for Poland to meet its targets.  The proposed 
act  specifies  in  which  situations  EPC  agreements  will  not  have  an  impact  on  increasing  the  level  of  public 
debt,  thus  the  draft  law  implements  Eurostat  guidelines  in  this  respect.  This  will  remove  one  of  the  main 
barriers to the use of energy efficiency contracts in Poland.281 

281 https://www.gov.pl/web/klimat/efektywnosc-energetyczna 

269 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 138. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Ratin
g (0-
3) 
2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

Energy Efficiency 
Act 
EnPC guidelines 
expected beginning 
of 2023 
Refers to the PPP 
model (off-balance). 
A non-PPP model is 
in plans 
Adaptation of 
previous contracts 

Private banks are 
getting involved 

Good experiences 
with housing 
cooperatives and 
industry 
Often requested in 
contracts 
periodical for 
industry and 
buildings 

Need additional 
communication of 
demonstrative 
function 

Variable quality, 
not used for EnPC 

PPP Act, Energy 
Efficiency Act 

Guidance is 
needed 

Financing 
Although, as reviewed, the interest and knowledge of financing bodies is considered limited by consulted 
experts (EU Survey 2022), there is a wide variety of financing options from client and provider funds, as well 
as from private and public financing sources. However, financing cost are high and, as argued in JRC 2021, 
grants are of limited relevance (1/3), in part due to difficulties to combine ERDF grants with public financial 
instruments. Forfaiting is of sizeable relevance (2/3) but its presence in public projects results in the EnPC 
being treated as on-balance. A pilot support scheme for combining grants and forfaiting in multi-apartment 
buildings (EPC+) has not yet achieve the expected impact and may require simplification and adjustment of 
the grant ratio to engage the market complex, grant rate is lower than for traditional procurement.282  

282 The first call for applications for the Priority Programme has been launched in Poland - FinEERGo Dom; PL-MF-AnnualReport-2021.pdf 

(modernisationfund.eu) 

270 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  139.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
2 
1 
2 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2 
1 

2 

2 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

3 

3 
1 
0 

0 
0 
1 
1 
1 

1 

2 

There is progress, 
expected results by  
mid-2023  

Difficult to combine 
ERDF grants with 
government 
instruments 
Problematic for off-
balance treatment  

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party Public 
funds 
Third party Private 
funds 
Private financing 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees and 
guarantee funds 

Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special Purpose 
Vehicles 
Grants 

Forfaiting 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Barriers 
In general, contained growth in the period 2020-21 was driven by moderate energy prices and an increase in 
service prices. The main barriers reported by experts for the public sector are the Covid pandemic and issues 
of combining public and private financing whilst recognizing providers’ profit margins (EU Survey 2022).283 
This  is  problematic  in  a  context  where  EnPC,  especially  in  multi-apartment  buildings,  has  difficulties  to 
compete  with  grant-funded  retrofits.  The  latter  is  expected  to  stay  and  limit,  alongside  uncertainties  about 
material and financing costs, the growth of EnPC the public sector. In the private sector, the major barriers in 
2020-21 were the uncertainties created by regulations on gas cogeneration, and delayed implementation of 
EU regulations, e.g. on energy obligations. There is a risk that in 2022-2024, private clients may focus on their 
core activities more than on saving energy. EnPC providers are concerned that their economic profit needs to 
be recognized in EnPC contract models. 

Drivers 
In the period 2022-24 the expected growth driven by rising energy prices. A possible adoption of renewable 
projects  in  the  public  sector  may  be  also  a  driver  for  EnPC  or  result  in  the  use  of  other  models.  Providers’ 
promotion  of  services  through  free  consultancy  is  a  driver  for  the  development  of  local  projects  but  may 
come  at  the  cost  of  adequate  tendering  processes.    Demand  for  off-balance  sheet  options  from 
municipalities,  which  have  limited  access  to  financing,  is  expected  to  continue  growing.  Both  the  regulatory 
and  financing  context  is  also  expected  to  push  the  market.  The  National  Infrastructure,  Climate  and 
Environment  Programme  is  required  to  support  the  ESCO  market  and  EnPC.  New  engagement  from  the 
banking sector is foreseen to nurture the market. 

283 It has been argued that more transparent tendering processes and tendering of preliminary studies would help level play competition, 

enabling an increased supply and interest for EnPC at local level. 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
According  to  experts  consulted  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  Eurostat  Guidance  had  a  limited  impact  on  the 
approach  of  the  public  sector  to  EnPC  (1/3).  Whilst  off-balance  model  contracts  have  been  produced 
satisfactorily, yet their use is moderate (20% of public sector contracts). Municipalities are very much in need 
of  such  off-balance  treatment.  The  combination  of  forfaiting  and  of  grants  with  these  models  remains 
problematic. 

EU support 
The  only  positively  appraised  EU  support  instruments  are  technical  support  and  th  e  driving  effect  of  the 
European  Green  Deal,  Fit  for  55  and  NextGenerationEU.    Issues  of  size  and  difficulty  to  pool  projects  is 
reported as a barrier for the use of technical assistance. Importantly, the are no incompatibilities between EU 
funding and EnPC financing but combining them has been unsuccessful. Moreover, grants compete with EnPC 
making it less attractive, especially in multi-family buildings.  

Table A 140. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

Minimum size 
and need of 
pooling 
projects 

Technical Assistance i.e. ELENA, 
LIFE Clean Energy Transition 
(Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee Facility of the Smart 
Finance for Smart Buildings 
initiative 
Structural and Investment Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking Efficiency Platform 
(DEEP) and EEFIG Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

1 

Perspective 
Growing  markets  are  expected  in  both  the  public  and  private  sector,  largely  driven  by  energy  prices  and 
recovery  of  activity  in  the  public  sector  after COVID.  The  experts consulted  foresee  a  potential  in  a  greater 
(policy  and  sectoral)  focus  on  EnPC  projects  and  for  some  companies  including  efficiency  and  renewable 
installers,  and  constructors  to  start  activity  in  EnPC.  There  are  expectations  on  contract  models  to  be 
simplified  and  shortened  and,  and  instruments  for  price  valorisation  be  included  after  the  adoption  of  new 
EnPC guidelines in 2023. Development of residential contracts is expected: With the support of FinEErGoDom, 
EnPC+  is  being  promoted,  and  there  are  currently  residential  projects  under  negotiation  as  a  part  of  a 
prorgram that prioritizes EnPC in the residential sector.284 From 2023, the NFOŚiGW EPC+ Programme will be 
developed in public buildings both of national bodies and municipalities. 

Recommendations 
Experts  identified  a  potential  for  EU  support  mechanisms  addressed  to  building  competences  in  financing 
institutions. Polish financial institutions receive support under the Green Gateway (EIB and InvestEU) but not 
specifically  on  EnPC  or  ESCOs.285  Efforts  to  lower  the  cost  of  financing  would  serve  to  reduce  payback 
periods (in JRC 2021, a demand for cohesion fund support to guarantee funds was identified), alongside rising 

284 The first call for applications for the Priority Programme has been launched in Poland - FinEERGo Dom. 
285 Green Gateway – Greening Financial Systems Technical Assistance Programme (eib.org) 

272 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
energy prices. This would be important to foster deeper renovations. The full development of Art. 18 and Art.5 
of the EED would largely further the potential for the EnPC the model. In particular, implementation of Art. 18 
should ensure that M&V is adequately integrated in projects and that there are mechanisms for bearing the 
costs  of  project  development  in  the  public  sector,  the  provision  of  guidance  about  the  application  of  the  
Energy Efficiency and the PPP acts, as well as on the combination of ERDF with public financial instruments. 
These  developments  could  take  place  as  a  part  of  the  National  Infrastructure,  Climate  and  Environment 
Programme is required to support the ESCO market and EnPC. 

Good practices 
The  Polish  market  seems  to  be  collecting  the  fruits  of  previous  projects  that  showed  the  possibility  for 
bundling and large-scale operation involving the modernisation of buildings and increased comfort. Projects in 
DHC  may  be  taking  off  and  are  a  source  of  expectation  for  the  achievement  of  energy  saving  and  carbon 
neutrality targets.286 The potential in the industry has been also highlighted by market players. However, the 
potential of buildings needs not to be left aside, as it is mostly unexplored. 

286 Alex Geers 2022, EFIEES. EnPCs: Key for delivering on Europe's climate targets. Frankfurt 2022; Valérie Plainemaison, 2022. EFIEES. 
Harnessing the potential of energy management and district heating in REPowerEU. Frankfurt 2022 

273 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
20  Portugal 

Comparison previous status 
Previous JRC reports found difficulties to estimate the size of the Portuguese EnPC markets. The JRC report of 
2021 found a sizeable public market leading the use of EnPC, and was estimated around €50m for 2019-20, 
with  most  activity  in  public  lighting.  The  market  had  rapidly  grown  compared  to  previous  data  (JRC  2017, 
2019; Lanhenke 2018) projected to suffer some degree of stagnation. In 2021, relatively large projects were 
common  (€5.3m),  largely  driven  by  project  aggregation  supported  through  Technical  Assistance  Elena. 
Renewables were expected to increasingly be included in these project pools. 

Whilst  the  NECP  did  not  refer  to  EnPC,  the  LTRS  planned  a  series  of  actions  to  promote  EnPC  in  public 
buildings, including the development of off-balance EnPC, municipal and regional one-stop-shops for advice 
and  finance.287  Strengthening  of  inter-ministerial  collaboration,  and  training  of  local  energy  managers  were 
also potential opportunities for EnPC in the LTRS.  However, the RRP does not  mention EnPC nor ESCOs, and 
the EC review highlighted procurement rules as problematic for public buildings’ renovation.288 

Current Status highlights 
Based  on  the  EU  Survey  2022,  a  downward  trend  and  a  stable  market  have  been  identified  for  the  period 
2020-21 in the public sector and the private sector, respectively. There is however limited data to estimate 
the market size and the availability of services. Public projects are restricted to public lighting, have budgets 
around  €5m  and  last  10  to  12  years.289    Private  projects  are  more  variable,  between  €1m  and  €5m  and 
reported to last around  6 years. However, there is reported  uncertainty on the extent these projects  can  be 
categorized as EnPC. These projects are not collected in any public database.  

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 141. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate. 

Public 
5 
50 
5 

10-12 
6-8 

70 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1-5 

6 
4 

30 

Public projects refer t 
street lighting 

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 

Typical* duration 

of 

% 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

savings* 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

287 There was also a plan – never implemented – to channel EIB-supported investment (IFE 2020) as an alternative to subsidies 
288 EUR-Lex - 52021SC0146 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 
289 These project sizes are smaller than in the past, when large lighting projects aggregated multiple municipalities. 

274 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 142. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Downward  

Private sector 
Stable 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Slow take-off  

Slow take-off  

Comments 
Covid impact and changes in 
the ESCO contract for  public 
entities 
is 
missing regulation) 

(ECO.AP  2030 

As  in  the  previous  report  (JRC  2021),  the  most  common  types  of  interventions  are  street  lighting  (2/3), 
industry (2/3) and renovations in private buildings (1/3). Building projects – in the private sector only – involve 
installation of renewables, audits (both 3/3), replacement of specific elements, maintenance (2/3), installation 
of  control  systems,  monitoring  and  verification,  and  energy  management  (all  of  them  rated  1/3).  Public 
lighting projects tend to include maintenance.  

Status of the business environment 
The  availability  of  services could  not  be  assessed  due  to  data  limitations.  The  sufficiency  of  and  quality  of 
services  of  provision  and  facilitation)  reported  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  indicates  a  relatively  sufficient 
availability  of  services  (2/3  for  provision,  and  3/3  for  facilitation)  and  quality  (2/2  for  providers  and 
facilitators). There are no reported one stop shop services. And the availability of financing actors willing to 
support  EnPC  is limited  (1/3)  but  when  available  of  relatively  high  quality  (2/3).  More  understanding  of  the 
model and willingness to engage with it would be desirable for clients and financiers (all 1/3, except for the 
public clients’ understanding, rated 0/3). 

Table A 143. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
30 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 

Quality (0-3) 
2 

5 

0 

3 

0 
1 

2 

0 
2 

Comment 
Qualification  system 
for  EnPC  and  official 
list available 
Energy 
agencies 
have  a  facilitation 
function  but  limited 
in capacity 

Providers 

Facilitators 

actors 
to  support 

One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Table  A  144.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
0 
1 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
1 
1 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  EU  Survey  2022  indicates  that  the  EnPC  models  is  of  relative  relevance  in  the  public  (shared  savings 
models  rated  as  2/2)  and  private  sectors  (both  shared  and  guaranteed  savings  models  are  rated  as  2/2). 
Private contracts tend to be hybrid in including EnPC principles and aspects of other models. Regulatory issues 
are considered more problematic barriers than competition with alternative contracting modalities. 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  145.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate). 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

1 

3 

1 

1 

0 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
The  implementation  of  the  regulatory  framework  of  the  EU  of  relevance  for  the  development  of  ESCo  and 
EnPC markets is reported in the EU Survey 2022 as deficient in the domain of model contracts, especially in 
the  public  sector  (which  are  not  included  in  the  new  Resource  Efficiency  Program  in  Public  Administration 
(ECO.  AP  2030),  and  the  availability  of  demonstration  projects.  EnPCs  are  not  supported  through  the 
implementation of Art. 5 of the EED on the exemplary role of the public sector, nor through EEOs/ WhCs.290 

290  Previous expectations  (JRC  2021)  for  the use  of  EnPC  as  required in the  Portuguese  implementation  of  Art.  5  of  the  EED have  not 

materialized. 

276 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 146. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework.  
Based on your experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU policies listed in the 
table. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices 
and barriers of relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Rating 
(0-3) 
2 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

for 
Contract 
buildings  published 
in 2022291 

Public lighting 

Several  barriers 
for buildings292 

Financing  
In the public sector, clients funds (1/3) and other public funds (3/3) (does this refer to national grants?) are 
the  financing  sources  used.  Grants  cannot  be  used  for  EnPC  but  are  used  for other  types of  contracts,  and 
hence constitute a barrier to EnPC. In the private sector, client funds and provider funds are often used, most 
commonly receiving private funding (all of them 2/3), and occasionally public funding (1/3).  

291 Ordinance 671/2022, from 9 September Portaria n.º 671/2022, de 9 de setembro | DRE. 
292 Regulatory Barriers for Energy Service Companies. Perspectives Based on Feedback from National ESCO Associations  - Copenhagen 

Centre on Energy Efficiency (unepccc.org) 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  147.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 

Purpose 

and 

Public (0-3) 
1 
3 
0 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2 
1 

3 

2 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

Grants  are  used  for 
non-EnPC contracts 

1 

and 
Tested 
replicated 
in  EEEF 
projects  of  public 
lighting 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Barriers 
Based  on  the  information  collected  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  the  public  sector  markets  have  been  largely 
affected  by  Covid  and  changes  in  the  ESCO  contract  for  public  entities.  Contracting  with  the  public  sector 
involves too high risks and costs for providers. The legislative framework has also been an obstacle for the 
private  sector  to  develop  to  its  potential,  and  as  a  result  has  remained  stable  in  the  period  2020-21. 
Moreover, combining EU Funds with EnPC is not possible. Legislative barriers are expected to continue to be 
problematic in the public buildings and in the private sector. 293 Moreover, the model is insufficiently known for 
buildings, which tend to have low energy intensity in Portugal and hence are not attractive for investment in 
performance.    A  new  law  for  contracting  interventions  in  public  buildings  has  been  passed  in  2022.  The 
response of the market is still uncertain. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
In the past a sizeable impact of uncertainly about the statistical treatment of EnPC in government accounts 
were  reported  as  significant  (Liviu  et  al  2015,  JRC  2021)  changes  and  clarifications  on  the  Eurostat 
treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  has  not  been  reported  (rated  impact  0  in  a  scale  of  -2,  2). 
Although  the  model  contract  used  during  the  report  period  is  considered  to  be  off-balance  by  respondents 
(100% of use) the national statistic authority has not recognized it as such. Contract updates are demanded 
by the sector for providers to be interested in pursuing contracts with the public sector (EU Survey 2022). 

Drivers 
The major drivers identified in the EU Survey 2022 for the 2020-21 have been the interest of clients in ESCo 
financing and the use of EnPC financing without effect on the debt status of infra-national public authorities. 
These drivers are expected to continue to be of relevance in the period 2022-23. 

293 Regulatory Barriers for Energy Service Companies. Perspectives Based on Feedback from National ESCO Associations - Copenhagen 

Centre on Energy Efficiency (unepccc.org) 

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
EU support 
The expert assessment of EU Support in the EU Survey 2022 recognizes some value to technical assistance in 
the public sector (rated 1 in a scale of -2,2).294 It describes the rest of mechanisms as irrelevant or having a 
negative effect. The most fundamental problem highlighted is that funding mechanisms cannot be combined 
with  EnPC.  Homogenisation  in  this  domain  is  demanded  by  sectoral  experts.  In  the  current  situation  the  EU 
mechanisms of the Green Deal, Fit for 55 and NextGenerationEU are counterproductive for EnPC (rated  -1 in 
the scale of -2,2 for clients and financing actors).  

Table A 148. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 

RRF 

1 

0 

-1 

-1 

-1 

0 

0 

-1 

-1 

-1 

Financing 
actors 
0 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

1 

be 

be 

be 

Cannot 
combined 
with EnPC 
Cannot 
combined 
with EnPC 
Cannot 
combined 
with EnPC 

De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

-1 

-1 

-1 

Perspective 
Increased introduction of Artificial intelligence and Building Management Systems, and overall, a slow take off 
of public and private sectors is expected in the period 2022-23 (EU Survey 2022). 

Recommendations 
There  is  a  need  of  regulatory  update,  particularly  to  develop  EnPC  markets  in  public  buildings,  and  to 
development of a framework that enables the combination of EU support (included those from the RRP) and 
EnPC. The existence of financing capacity for refinancing in public lighting could be of use to enable long term 
financing for the renovation of (public) buildings. Continued support through ELENA is advisable to expand the 
scope of public projects to buildings and lead the development of a private market. 

Good practice 
There  are  positive  experiences  with  the  aggregation  of  public  lighting  projects  with  use  of  forfaiting, 
developed  with  support  of  the  EEEF  in  2018.  The  use  this  forfaiting  mechanism  has  been  replicated  in 
projects developed in 2021.295  

294 A few Horizon projects have been supportive in the development of insurance mechanisms and turn key mechanisms for SMEs (ESI 
Europe, 2018-22), dissemination of the EnPC modedl (AmBIENCe, 2019-22). BuildUP (2018-21) worked on public procurement barriers to 
ENPC, the inclusion of RES, bundling projects and developing trust. 
295 The European Energy Efficiency Fund European ESCO Conference 2022 Presenter: Rahul Pratap Singh Date: 
05 Oct 2022.  

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
21  Romania 

Comparison previous status 
The JRC reports of 2021 and 2017 indicated that there was absence of activity in the public sector markets 
and the overall market, respectively. However, there have been a number of providers able to work on EnPC, 
as reported in JRC 2017 (less than 10) and JRC 2021 (around 4).296  

Based on government reports and the EU Survey 2022 there has been a government intend to develop and 
regulate  the  EnPC  market.  The  NECP  mentioned  the  creation  of  a  working  group  on  the  barriers  to  EnPC  in 
public  sector  and  a  focus  on  public  lighting  first,  previous  to  implementing  projects  in  public  buildings.  The 
NECP and the LTRS reported the existence of a problematic legislative framework and procurement rules, low 
energy  prices,  limitations  of  funding  (competing  grants),  high  perception  of  risk  and  high  mistrust  in  the 
market related to the absence of standardisation, and M&V mechanisms. The LTRS planned an assessment of 
PPP  and  EnPC  models  for  public  building  renovation,  as  a  part  of  harmonization  efforts  with  Eurostat 
guidance. The LTRS included calls for the use of EnPC in district heating renovation  – which is a requirement 
for  residential  funding  –  the  use  of  incentives  in  public  buildings,  along  with  changes  in  the  regulatory 
framework. However, regulatory changes and proposals have been perceived as largely inadequate by ESCOs. 
The  availability  of  grants  and  loan  and  grant  combinations  for  renovation  of  all  type  of  buildings,  also 
highlighted  in  the  LTRS,  appears  to  be  another  key  barrier  that  disactivates  initiatives  to  develop  the  EnPC 
model. This assessment coincides with that of the WB in 2022.297 

The RRP does not mention ESCo models nor EnPC in particular. Recommendations for the implementation of 
the  RRP  include  to  “leverage  private  finance  and  develop  more  market-based  mechanisms  (incl.  EnPC)”, 
alongside  development  of  a  long-term  financing  strategy,  training  efforts,  technical  assistance  to 
municipalities  and  one-stop-shops  (Renovate  2022).298  Independent  reviewers  are  also  harsh  on  the 
Romanian  RRP  for  the  limited  engagement  of  EnPC  and  limited  commitment  to  achieving  decarbonisation 
goals.299 The most appreciated mechanism is the creation of a loan portfolio guarantee and a fund of funds 
for energy renovation.300 

Current Status highlights 
The expert input gathered in the EU Survey 2022 shows that there were no EnPC projects during the reported 
period  2020-21.  However,  EnPC  in  its  modality  of  guaranteed  savings  has  a  potential  in  the  private  sector 
(rated  3/3),  and  there  is  an  ongoing  take  off  in  this  market  which  has  not  yet  resulted  in  consolidated 
contracts. Public sector and  guaranteed savings models were assessed to  be irrelevant (both were rated as 
0/3).  For the  period  of  2022-23, the  market  is expected  to  remain  stable, i.e.  with  no  projects  in  the  public 
sector and a small market in the private sector. Maintenance, replacement of specific  elements and integral 
renovations (design and works contracts) are the most common projects in the private sector. In general, there 
is  an  absence  of  data  about  EnPC  contracts  having  been  signed  in  the  study  period.  According  to  the  EU 
Survey 2022, there may be projects being concluded in the private sector, but it is uncertain whether these 
involve energy performance guarantees and correspond to the EnPC model.301  

296 According to the EU Survey 2022, the latter value is current. 
297 “After a temporary rise in the market triggered by the adopted new strategic policies for the ESCO sector, donor and IFI support, the 
market  went  down  due  to  ample  grant  financing  for  public  sector  EE  projects,  limited  legal  incentives,  and  ambiguities  in  the 
legislative framework, combined with the limitations of the banking system, which hampered the ESCO development.” (WB and EC 
2022.  Diagnostic Assessment Report: Romania. Technical Assistance Facility to Support the Renovation Wave in EU Member States. 

298.Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu)  
299 See for instance: 2021-04-26_Romania-RRF-assessment_final.pdf (bankwatch.org) 
300 epg-green-recovery-policy-brief-24-nov-1.pdf (europeanclimate.org) 
301 The most active project typologies are facility management in the private sector but without inclusion of  energy efficiency targets. 
There is activity in DHC and public lighting with the participation of ESCOs but these contracts do not seem to involve EnPC or fail to 
take  off  (Elsaco  refers  some  examples  of  ESCO  activity  in  DHC  https://en.elsaco.com/projects/completed-projects/case-studies/). 
There is also the work of major energy supply players in the domain of smart grids, and there is energy efficiency investment in 
industry, but these projects are not reported to involve EnPC.  

280 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 149. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
0 

Private 
0  

Overall 
0 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

0 

Comment 
Lack  of  certainty  in 
the public sector due 
regulatory 
to 
barriers. 
Private 
sector  data  does  not 
prove  existence  of 
EnPC 

of 

% 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

savings* 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 150. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Did not take off  

Private sector 
Did not take off 

Perspective 
2024 

2022-

Stable  

Slow take off  

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

a 

to 

Comments 
Some experts refer to a take 
off in the private sector. This 
could 
lax 
refer 
EnPC 
understanding 
without  upfront  payments 
and guarantees 
No expectations because the 
national RRP lacks provisions 
for  EnPC.  Uncertainty  about 
new EnPC rules 

of 

Status of the business environment 
The  sufficiency  of  and  quality  of  services  of  provision  is  high  but  countered  by  a  financial  and  legal 
framework  that  impedes  these  actors  to  conduct  EnPCs,  and  unclear  understanding  of  what  this  model 
involves.  There  is  no  facilitation  services  in  place,  nor  One  stop  shops  working  with  energy  efficiency.  Only 
private clients have some degree of willingness and understanding of operating with EnPC (both rated as 1/3) 
The  financing  sector  states  its  interest  seem  to  be  quite  acquainted  with  the  model  (rated  as  2/3)  but  is 
currently incapable of integrating energy performance in its activities.  

281 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 151. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
3-4 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
3 

Quality (0-3) 
3 

0 

0 

1 

Facilitators 

One-stop-shops 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 

actors 
to  support 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

1 

private 
may 
facilitation 

Comment 
There are actors able 
to  conduct  EnPC  but 
demand, 
lack 
of 
and 
financing 
legislation 
impedes 
these contracts 
Some 
initiative 
develop 
capacity 
Taking 
in 
buildings  but  not 
focused  on  energy 
consumption  
Stated  willingness  is 
not  matched  with 
capacity to overcome 
sectoral 
and 
regulatory barriers 

off 

Table  A  152.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 

Public clients 
0 

Private clients 
1 

Financing sector 
2 

Willingness 

0 

1 

2 

Comment 
There 
is 
uncertainty  about 
the  understanding 
and 
interest  of 
banks  in  accepting 
energy  savings  as 
collateral 
Stated  willingness 
is  not  matched 
with  the  capacity 
overcome 
to 
sectoral 
and 
regulatory barriers 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
Many contract models are available based on the information collected in the EU Survey 2022. Of these, the 
most  relevant  ones  are  Contract  Energy  management,  Consultancy  and  technical  guarantee  and  energy 
efficiency  contracts, and  Facility  Management  in  the  public  sector.  These  alternative  models are  considered 
mainly complementary, not competing with EnPC, and have limited weight in the energy efficiency market. For 
the consulted experts, the main competing mechanism is the  direct investment of  grant funds in the  public 
sector. 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  153.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

Expert  concerns  about  private  arrangements  correspond 
to  a  lax  understanding  of  EnPC.  Others  claim  the 
existence of certain activities. There is a major potential 
for guaranteed savings in the private sector. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Regulatory framework 
The  implementation  of  the  regulatory  framework  of  the  EU  of  relevance  for  the  development  of  ESCo  and 
EnPC markets has been assessed in the EU Survey 2022 as very limited (receiving ratings mainly of 0 and 1 
out of 3), besides energy audits which are considered highly adequate (3/3). As reviewed by the WB and the 
EC (2022), there is a problematic jurisdiction of the Ministry of Energy without attributions on buildings over 
energy  services  and  an  overall  lack  of  transposition  of  rt.  18  of  the  EED.  This  includes  issues  with  the 
definition and EnPC's lack of a list of accredited ESCOs.  These standard contracts do not refer to  M&V and 
mismatches  in  the  legislation  governing  the  procurement  process,  the  rules  governing  the  budgetary 
allocations, and the statistical treatment of the energy performance contracts and accounting as debt. 302 

302  The  World  Bank.  2022.  Diagnostic Assessment Report.  Technical Assistance  Facility  to  Support  the Renovation  Wave  in  EU  Member 

States. 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 154. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

Good practices 

Rating 
(0-3) 
1 

1 

Off-Balance 
contract 
being 
with sector 

drafted, 
discussed 

ANRE official list 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 

1 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Remaining 
barriers 
Multiple 

officially 
in 
regulatory 

Not 
transposed 
any 
act or norm. 
Contract 
does 
not include M&V 

Multiple 

No  accreditation 
or certification 

No barriers 

Multiple 

the 
Multiple, 
Ministry 
of 
energy  has  the 
attributions  on 
EnPC 
(not  on 
buildings) 

Financing  
No barriers have been identified to the combination of EU funds and EnPC. However, the widespread use of 
grants  in  energy  efficiency  investment  could  be  channelled  through  guarantees  and  guarantee  funds  to 
support  EnPC  projects  (EU  Survey  2022).  Grants are  the  most  accessible  financing  mechanism  and  the  one 
that is considered to  compete with EnPC potentially. These are provided  by various financial instruments of 
the EC, IFI and by the Romanian Government.  

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  155.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 

Private (0-3) 

Comment 

Overall (0-3) 
3 
1 
3 

2 

2 

3 
1 
1 

1 
1 
1 
2 
2 

3 
1 

Public 

Private 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

and 

Barriers 
The  major  barrier  highlighted  by  experts  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  is  the  limited  government  commitment  to 
EnPC  in  previous  years  and  the  lack  of  expectations  for  this  to  change.  Although  there  are  actors  able  to 
conduct  EnPC,  the  lack  of  demand  and  financing  and  the  problematic  legislation  impede  these  contracts. 
ESCOs are not motivated to engage with EnPC because the legal framework is inadequate, and some funds 
allow ESCOs to carry out a profitable activity with other models.  Attempts to  develop DHC at the municipal 
level have encountered barriers of a lack of local capacities, procurement rules and a lack of efficiency and 
carbon neutrality targets involving these actors.  As found by the WB, there is no mandate nor incentive for 
public buildings (“which are commonly the easy target for energy performance contracting in other countries 
in  the  region”)  to  implement  energy-saving  interventions,  and  100%  grants  cover  these,  there  is  lack  of 
awareness  amongst  potential  clients  and  an  overall  lack  of  tailor-made  financial  products  for  ESCOs 
(2022).303 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Changes and  clarifications on the  Eurostat treatment  of EnPC in government accounts greatly impacted 
the development of EnPC markets (rated 2 on the  scale  of  -2,2). An off-balance contract was developed in 
2022 but has not yet been adopted by the sector. No other budgetary rules are considered problematic  – in 
Romania,  the  balance  sheet  treatment  matters  at  the  national  level  and  not  at  the  local  level  because  the 
Local finance act states that loans used to co-finance EU grants do not count toward the budgetary limits. 
Drivers 
The experts responding to the EU Survey 2022 indicated an absence of drivers both for the periods 2020-21 
and 2022-23. There have been dynamics towards developing off-balance contracting in response to the RRP. 
However, the information collected is contradictory, with  most reviewers demanding greater attention being 
paid to the EnPC model.304 

303  The  World  Bank.  2022.  Diagnostic Assessment Report.  Technical Assistance  Facility  to  Support  the Renovation  Wave  in  EU  Member 
States. 
304 No mention to “Esco”, “Energy services” nor “Energy Performance contracting” (in Romanian) were found in the text of the approved 

national RRP. 

285 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
EU support 
The  expert  assessment  of  EU  Support  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  indicates  an  absence  of  impact  on  EnPC 
markets.305 This assessment has been revised to recognize technical support to Romania and the effects of 
grants.  Two  key  H2020  projects  have  worked  on  the  development  of  EnPC  capacities  during  the  reported 
period, i.e. by promoting green mortgages for EnPC in private residential buildings (SMARTER – 15 May 2019- 
14  November  2021)  and  addressing  split  incentives  in  the  adoption  of  EnPC  in  both  public  and  private 
buildings  (GuarantEE-  1  April  2016  -  31  March  2019).  Moreover,  the  EC  and  the  WB  provided  technical 
assistance through a trust fund to accelerate the energy renovation of buildings.  On the contrary, the effect 
of  EU  grants  from  the  RRF  and  Cohesion  Policy  Funds,  implemented  with  high  grant  investment  rates,  is 
considered to prevent EnPC.306  

Table A 156. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 

RRF 

De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

0 

-2 

0 

-2 

1 

Good 
practices 
none 

none 

none 

none 

none 

No data 

Legal 
framework 

Legal 
framework 

Legal 
framework 

Legal 
framework 
Depending  on 
implementati
on 
No data 

Legal 
framework 

none 

Perspective 
There are no expected market developments in the period 2022-23. According to experts responding to the EU 
Survey 2022, this lack of activity expected relates to the lack of concrete and useful references to EnPC in the 
RRP and the delayed drafting of model contracts. 

Recommendations 
Given the difficult status of the building sector and the enduring barriers, some reviewers recommend efforts 
to  be  allocated  to  public  lighting.  Whilst  this  could  be  positive  for  developing  the  EnPC  sector, the  pressing 
targets and the risk of locking in the potential for decarbonising the built infrastructure make it necessary to 

305  The  project  SMARTER  Finance  for  Families  (2019-21)  worked  on  the  development  of  green  mortgages  for  EnPC  through  the 
development of a tool for holistic green certifications for banks to qualify finance projects, GuarantEE (2016-19) backed the assessment 
of barriers in the public sector and provided input for the development of models and guidelines. 
306 In Romania multi-apartment building renovation is realised via local governments and the grant rate of these projects was recently 
increased to 97%, with a majoriy of grant from the EU and the national government, and a smaller share of the local government. 

286 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
appeal to EnPC as a mechanism to deepen the efforts in this domain. This is the position found common in 
other input to the EU Survey 2022 and the literature (WB and EC 2022; Renovate2recover:307 

a) 

 Development  of  a  legislative  framework  with  a  focus  on  modernising  the  heating  and  cooling  of 
buildings  alongside  DHC  to  avoid  locking  in  the  potential  by  transitioning  to  renewable-based 
solutions; 308 
 Long-term budgeting and retention of savings from EnPCs in the public sector;  

b) 
c)  Upscaling of the Romanian EE Fund (FREE) (indicated in the RRP but “stalled” ever since 2020);309 
d) 
 Documentation of ESCO projects and requirement of adequate measurement and verification; 
e)  Elimination of “distortionary grant financing”; 
f)  Training of professionals at the local level, including energy managers; 
g)  Dissemination of the EnPC model at the local level. 

At the EU level, expert recommendations focus on support mechanisms to prioritize projects that meet EnPC 
criteria  of  certification,  M&V,  and  qualification.  Technical  assistance  could  support  the  development  of 
projects and training at the municipal level and the creation of one-stop-shops.310 

307  The  World  Bank.  2022.  Diagnostic Assessment Report.  Technical Assistance  Facility  to  Support  the Renovation  Wave  in  EU  Member 
epg-green-recovery-policy-brief-24-nov-1.pdf 

Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf 

(renovate-europe.eu): 

States; 
(europeanclimate.org) 

308 There are concerns that the work of the Ministry of Energy on the legal framework may focus on generation and fail to reach out to 

the consumption in buildings, as well as to potential to jointly address DHC and building renovation (WB and EC 2022). 

309 epg-green-recovery-policy-brief-24-nov-1.pdf (europeanclimate.org) 
310 Factsheet of the 1st National Roundtable in Romania – Smafin 

287 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
22  Slovakia  

Comparison previous status 
In  2018-19,  the  Slovak  public  sector  market  of  EnPC  was  a  mature  (25  contracts  in  the  biennium)  and 
developing market projected to maintain growth after uncertainty about the treatment of EnPC in public debt 
(even since ESA 2010). Ever since the Eurostat and EIB guidance efforts of 2017 and 2018, the public sector 
started to develop and rely on off-balance contracts soon after. Contracts in the modality of guaranteed and 
shared savings with a duration of more than 8 years were common in the country. The market was considered 
well-supplied  with  providers  (the  sector  had  adopted  the  European  code  of  conduct  for  EnPC).  Projects 
involved public lighting, public pools of municipal buildings, and social housing, and there were expectations 
that  the  central  government  also  engaging  in  building  renovation.  Development  of  the  private  sector  had 
taken  place,  partly  due  to  displacement  of  providers  from  the  public  sector  by  using  ESIF  in  the  public 
sector.311  This  competition  is  still  in  place  and  furthered  by  the  RRP,  even  though  grant  intensity  for  public 
buildings  has  been  moderated  (reduced  from  95%  to  70%).  The  EnPC  sector  has  well  received  this  move. 
There was a potential need for more facilitators and support to engage with more complex off-balance sheet 
contract modalities. Although there had been previous experiences with projects operating as one-stop-shops 
(MunSEFF, SlovSEFF) which promoted integral renovations with subsidies achieving 65% of savings, 312 these 
projects  were  discontinued.  EU  support  through  Technical  Assistance  was  highly  appreciated  for  having 
resulted  in  projects  in  the  Prešov  Region,  Bratislava  City,  Košice  Region  (currently  under  implementation), 
projects  under  preparation,  energy  audits  and  the  deployment  of  energy  auditing  services  by  the  Slovak 
Innovation and Energy Agency.313 Even though the public sector was reportedly highly committed to deploying 
the model, the latter was missing as a part of exemplary efforts in central government buildings (EED Art. 5), 
and local authorities were driving the model's adoption. In 2018-19, there were expectations on the resolution 
of  compatibility  issues  between  forfaiting  with  off-balance  sheet  treatment  and  financial  support  from 
national  and  EU  sources.  These  issues  are  reportedly  overcome  through  the  development  of  common 
payment mechanisms.314  

Current Status highlights 
A review of recent government reports shows that EnPC plays a fundamental role in Slovakia’s energy-saving 
efforts. The NECP and the LTRS speak about EnPC for non-residential buildings and efforts to blend repayable 
and  non-refundable  EU  Structural  Funds  with  EnPC  (Private  sector  ESI  Funds  2021-27).  The  LTRS  also 
emphasizes support for private non-residential building renovation financed by FIs, equity, EU SFs guarantees, 
and provider financing. Whilst it is unclear to what extent this approach competes with and supports EnPC, the 
LTRS highlights that there is a risk of lock-in without the combination of EnPC with grant funding. A positive 
development for EnPC has been the reduction of ESIF an RPP grants for public buildings from 95% to 75%. 
The  NECP  and  LTRS  mentioned  plans  for  Technical  assistance  for  public  bodies’  lighting  and  building 
renovation projects, which have materialized through the support of the Slovak Innovation and Energy Agency. 

There  are  no  developments  in  terms  of  technical  assistance  for  private  commercial  buildings.  The  private 
sector  is  most  developed  in  the  industrial  domain  through  short  projects  focused  on  specific  technological 
measures.  In  commercial  buildings,  EnPCs  are  uncommon  and  focused  on  operational  optimization  through 
shared savings models. There are no mentions to social housing nor lighting, which are two domains that EC 
JRC 2021 reported as developed. The LTRS also mentioned plans for the creation of a guarantee facility and a 
guarantee  fund,  providing  amongst  other  EnPC  guarantees,  and  the  existence  of  a  proposal  for  a  debt-
purchasing  scheme  for  EnPC  providers.  Whilst  there  are  no  references  to  the  implementation  of  these 
mechanisms, a credit line for ESCOS has been created by Slovak Investment Holding, of which the Ministry of 
Finance is the only shareholder.315 More recently, the RRP mentioned the availability of support for EnPC, and 
the allocation of funds to technical assistance associated with renovation measures for the residential sector 
including  the  creation  of  regional  one-stop-shops.316  Currently,  there  are  no  one-stop-shops  established 
officially, and some EnPC facilitators (e.g. Energy Centre Bratislava and Enviros) fulfil this role in cooperation 

311 Marcel Lauko. EPC market development in Slovakia. May 15th , 2018 SEI Forum, Warsaw 
312 Marcel Lauko. EPC market development in Slovakia. May 15th , 2018 SEI Forum, Warsaw 
313 The technical assistance from SIEA for the public sector is described in https://www.siea.sk/podporne-programy/technicka-asistencia-
pre-garantovane-energeticke-sluzby-vo-verejnom-sektore/.  
314 Prezentácia programu PowerPoint (mhsr.sk) 
315https://www.sih.sk/aktuality/slovak-investment-holding-will-provide-a-4-million-loan-to-esco-slovensko-and-the-supported-

investments-will-be-directed-towards-energy-saving-of-enterprises. 

316 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu). 

288 

 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
with  specialized  law  and  public  procurement  consultants.  According  to  the  EC  analysis,  there  is  a  need  for 
developing  Regional  Sustainable  Energy  Centres  (RSEC)  and  EnPC.317  Other  reviewers  indicate  the  risk  of  “a 
shortage of qualified construction workers to deliver renovation ambitions”.  318 There have been also calls to 
“encourage more stringent and ambitious criteria for building renovations…Ensure that the exemption for gas 
boilers strictly complies with the  ‘do no significant  harm’ criteria….The RRF, ESIF and  other EU funds should 
shift support currently slated for fossil gas boilers and unsustainable biomass to more sustainable RESs”.319 
Insufficient information is available to assess Slovakia's market size and contract characteristics.  Estimates 
about  market  size  were  produced  based  on  values  previously  reported  by  JRC  (2017,  2021)  and  trends 
identified by consulted experts. Information about an integral renovation of a residential building refers to a 
project size of €0.7m, with €0.04m € savings per year and 15 years of payback.320  

The  table  below  summarizes  the  number  of  contracts  and  market  sizes  estimates,  based  on  previous  JRC 
reports and expert input on trends.  

Table A 157. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
30 

Private 
5  

Overall 
35 

Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

15 
0.5 

5 
1 

20 

Comment 
Estimates  based  on 
previously 
values 
reported  by  JRC  and 
trends  identified  by 
consulted experts 

% 

of 

payback 

Typical* 
(yrs) 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022, JRC 2021, and JRC 2017. 

savings* 

savings* 

The market trends reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

Table A 158. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Public sector 
Slow growth 

Slow growth 

Trend 2019-2021 

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Private sector 
Stable 

Slow growth 

Comments 

Business environment 
The main intervention sites are public buildings and public lighting. The private sector is mainly developed in 
the  industrial  domain,  but  projects  focus  on  short-term  contracts  focusing  on  specific  technologies.  The 
market's supply side is almost covered, and the quality of services is considered high. There is considerable 
potential  for  the  development  of  one-stop-shops, currently  fulfilled  by  private  facilitators, which  along  with 
regional energy offices, has been reviewed as a need unfulfilled by the RRP.   

317 com-2021-339_swd_en_0.pdf (europa.eu). 
318 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu). 
319 2022_02_Reaching-for-a-green-recovery-CAN-Europe-Bankwatch.pdf (caneurope.org). 
320 https://doi.org/10.34641/clima.2022.72. 

289 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 159. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
8 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 

Quality (0-3) 
3 

Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 

5 
2 

several 

actors 
to  support 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

2 

3 

2 

Comment 
Refers  to  companies 
active  in  the  service 
provision.  There  are 
76 
ESCOs 
registered321 

Function 
conducted 
by  some  facilitators, 
and  expected  from 
regional offices to be 
developed 
through 
RRP 

Table  A  160.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
2 
2 

Private clients 
2 
1 

Financing sector 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
Ever since the Eurostat and EIB guidance efforts of 2017 and 2018, the public sector started to develop and 
rely on off-balance contracts soon after. Contract duration of more than 8 years was common in the country 
(aligning with off-balance requirements). Both guaranteed and shared savings contracts are common. EnPCs 
in private commercial buildings are implemented to a low extent - usually as shared savings models focused 
on the optimization of operation.  

321 https://www.mhsr.sk/uploads/files/pxgcJ6Iu.pdf?csrt=9542441446897346835. 

290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  161.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

EnPCs  in  private  commercial  buildings  are  implemented 
to low extent - usually as shared savings models focused 
on optimization of operation 

3 

1 

1 

0 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
It is known that both guaranteed and shared savings modalities are in place in the MS and that Slovakia was 
an early implementer of the EU regulatory framework of relevance. Support to the market development from 
regional offices, which may act as one-stop-shops, is planned as a part of the RRP.322 

Table A 162. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance 
sheet) 
EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 

Rating 
(0-3) 
3 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

Use  of  model 
contract from the 
public sector 

Expected 
development  with 
support of the RRP 

3 

3 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

2 

Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public  1 

322 Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu) 

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
bodies' buildings) 

Government rules and practices of procurement, contracting and 
tendering 
Impact of EnPC on public sector performance 

Impact  of  EnPC  of  public  sector  on  private  sector  adoption  of 
EnPC 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

1 

0 

Financing  
There  is  no  information  from  national  experts  to  assess  this  domain.  Hence  the  information  presented  is 
based on the review of the literature. EU grants, financing instruments, private financing, guarantee funds and 
forfaiting are available for EnPC projects. 

Barriers 
Major barriers reported are: a) limited use of EnPC as a part of exemplary efforts (EED Art. 5), restrictions of 
the Eurostat guidelines on the off-balance treatment of EnPC, c) availability of facilitation to deal with off-
balance  contracting,  and  the  need  of  one-stop-shops,  d)  soft  building  renovation  requirements,  and  lack  of 
push  for  renewable  sources,  and  e)  potential  limitations  of  the  labour  force  to  conduct  renovations  to  the 
extend ambitioned.323  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
An  off-balance  contract  was  produced  already  in  2018  and  has  been  in  use  ever  since, but  the  number  of 
contracts  in  the  public  sector  has  seriously  contracted  due  to  the  economic  limitations  of  the  Eurostat 
guidelines. There are sectoral demands for Eurostat Guidelines to be more permissive with EnPC. Progress has 
been  achieved  in  terms  of  financing  off-balance  contracting  through  forfaiting  thanks  to  communication 
between the Ministry of Finance and banks. 

Drivers 
There  is  no  information  from  national  experts  to  assess  this  domain.  Hence  the  information  presented  is 
based on the review of the literature. In addition to a long tradition of EnPC  use, the  policy framework has 
been supportive of EnPC. Policy support to EnPCs was described in the NECP, which specified definitions, a list 
of  providers,  annual  data  collection,  development  of  a  model  compliant  with  Eurostat  rules,  and    Technical 
Assistance projects. The LTRS included support through EU-funded subsidies, loans and guarantees to finance 
EnPC,  and  continued  technical  assistance  provided  through  the  Slovak  Innovation  and  Energy  Agency,  and 
highlighted that further combination of EnPC with Grants was needed to avoid locking-in a potential. The RRP 
indicated  that  funds  can  be  allocated  through  EnPC.  The  EC  analysis  of  the  RRP  indicated  the  need  of 
structural reforms, Regional Sustainable Energy Centres (RSEC) and emphasis on EnPC. Measures to require 
the EnPC-ability of projects in the public sector have been in place but information on their success was not 
found. ELENA support is well appreciated in the MS. 

EU support 
The  most  highly  appreciated  EU  support  mechanisms  as  assessed  by  national  experts  are  Technical 
Assistance and funding, both through ESIF, Cohesion Funds and the RRF. Support from Horizon program, and 
ELENA  has  been  important  to  develop  capacities  in  the  MS.  These  are  some  of  the  projects  supporting  the 
development of market capacities: 

  QualitEE  (2017-20),  worked  on  development  capacities  of  standardization,  quality  assessment, 

procurement, and financial assessment of projects;  

  GuarantEE (2016-19), worked on addressing split incentives and rigidity of contracts  by developing 
new model contracts, market development through guidance and examples to municipal clients. 

Some of the earliest ELENA projects supporting EnPC took place in Slovakia (both SEPR in Presov region and 
EE  Bratislava  started  in  2015).  An  ongoing  project,  ENREKO,  started  in  2021  supports  the  aggregation  of 
public buildings and lighting projects from the municipalities of the Kosice region. 

323  Limitations  about  a  previously  reported  on  local  authorities  to  engage  in  contracts  with  variable  service  value  were  discarded  by 

national experts consulted and considered as no longer current. 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Although EU funding is considered to have played a role in limiting the interest of EnPC, reduced intensity of 
grant allocation and, the RRP are considered to have a positive impact by channelling of funds through EnPC. 
Some lack of clarity and uncertainty in this domain raised the concern of EC in its analysis of the RRP.  

Table A 163. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

2 

0 

2 

2 

1.5 

2 

2 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Perspective 
The  period  2019-21  was  described  as  one  of  slow  growth  in  the  public  sector  and  stability  in  the  private 
sector. There are expectations for the  public sector to  continue this growing trend and the private sector to 
also join thei trend.  

Recommendations 
A recent review of the Slovak RRP argues that the Regional Sustainable Energy Centres (RSEC) and EnPC are 
essential for the planning and financing of the achievement of decarbonisation and energy saving targets in 
Slovakia. The Slovak government should target deep renovations, facilitate regional decarbonisation plans and 
set targets for the public sector.  Recommendations of relevance for the EC, are to “Encourage more stringent 
and ambitious criteria for building renovations to fully tap into the vast energy saving potential of the sector” 
and  prioritize  renewable  sources  over  fossil  and  biofuel  sources  to  avoid  locking  in  the  potential  for 
decarbonisation.324 Continued support for the adequate deployment of regional offices to provide facilitation 
and one-stop-shop services able to promote off-balance contracting and to expand the model to the private 
building sector. 

324 2022_02_Reaching-for-a-green-recovery.pdf (bankwatch.org); Renovate2Recover_Full-Study-1.pdf (renovate-europe.eu). 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
23  Slovenia 

Comparison previous status 
In  the  period  2017-2019  there  was  a  mature  public  market  focused  on  building  renovation  in  major 
municipalities (the market had the highest relative size assessed in the EU public sector  – JRC 2021) and an 
overall  market  characterised  as  “developed”  with  slow  growth  (Refine  2021;  JRC  2021).  Slovenian  public 
markets were one of the public markets best supplied with provision and facilitation services were, however, 
demand  that  surpassed  supply  these  services.    The  Slovenian  public  sector  contracts  (guaranteed  savings 
model) were amongst the largest (>€2m) and longest in the EU, showing a prevalence of deep renovations, 
maturity, prevalence of trust relations, and availability of public support for EnPC projects. 

Government  narratives  and  initiatives  appear  to  have  supported  EnPC  in  recent  years.  Already  in  the  JRC 
survey of 2020, the targets and commitments of the government, especially major cities, appeared to be a 
most  relevant  driver.  The  strategies  of  public  spending  through  EnPC  were  available  in  the  country,  and 
central and regional authorities were using EnPC in their exemplary efforts (Art. 5 EED). Showing interest and 
awareness on the relevance of EnPC for the achievement of energy saving goals of the country, Slovenia is 
one  of  the  MSs  with  a  list  of  service  providers  specific  for  EnPCs.325  Government  reporting  highlights  the 
relevance  of  EnPC  (referred  as  “Energy  Contracting”  or  “EPO”  in  the  NECP).  The  NCEP  and  LTRS  presented 
plans to foster the extension of the model – until then only successful in the public sector with support deep 
renovations  –  to  the  residential  sector  through  Ecofund  (the  Slovenian  Environmental  Public  Fund).326It  is 
currently expected for 2024. There were also plans to stablish a One stop shop for multi-family buildings to 
support amongst other ESCO projects, by 2021. The plan also indicated an intend to implement, by 2023, a 
set of financial products to support EnPC, the provision of training, quality assurance, and evaluation tools, as 
well  as  financially  supporting  the  emergence  of  ESCOs,  especially  SMEs.327  The  use  of  Cohesion  funds  was 
also  planned  to  support  ESCo  contracting  in  the  public  sector.    The  City  of  Ljubljana  has  issued  the  Local 
Energy Concept, which includes an ambitious plan to accelerate the energy renovation and PV installations. 

Current Status highlights 
A stagnant market situation was expected due to the limited number of major cities (Ljubljana and Maribor) 
where priority public sector actions have already taken place (JRC 2021), the lack of initiatives in the central 
government,  and  failure  of  private  markets  to  take  off.  Eventually  in  the  EU  Survey  2022,  growth  was 
reported for both the national public sector (12 contracts signed) and the private sector (number of contracts 
unknown).  The  market  has remained stable in Ljubljana, where activity was already  remarkable in the  past, 
with  2  public  contracts  and  1  private  contract  signed  in  the  report  period.  There  is  a  major  potential  for 
renovating  poorly  insulated  multi-family  buildings,  but  ESCO  services  are  not  available  for  this  sort  of 
projects. The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

325  Portal  Energetika - Seznam  ponudnikov  energetskih  storitev  –  model  pogodbenega  zagotavljanja  prihrankov  energije  (energetika-

portal.si) 

326 English | Eco Fund (ekosklad.si) 
327 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/si_final_necp_main_en.pdf  

294 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 164. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Number of contracts 

Public 
12 

Overall size m€ 

36  

Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

3 
15 

Typical* payback 

12-20 

of 

% 

savings* 

Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

35 

1000 

0.1 

Private 
1 

0.5 

0.5 
5 -10 

8 

40 

500 

0.05 

Overall 

0.075 

Comment 
No  national  data  on 
private sector 
(Public:  1700  MWh/a 
Private: 
1600 
MWh/a) 

Depending  on  grant 
support 

Table A 165. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Rapid take off /(Stable) 

Private sector 
Slow take off / (Stable) 

Perspective 
2024 

2022-

Stable / (Rocketing) 

Slow take off / (Rocketing) 

Combination 

Comments 
Public: 
of 
grants (Cohesion Funds) and 
private 
financing, 
standardized 
implementation framework 
Private:  Energy  prices  (OPEX 
optimisation) 
Public:  Development  of  new 
financial 
instrument 
(Cohesion funds);  
Private:  Energy  prices,  new 
financing  instruments  (OPEX 
optimisation) 

Source: EU Survey 2022. Estimates in between brackets refer to Ljubljana. 

Business environment 
The  main  intervention  sites  are  public  buildings  (schools,  kindergartens,  health  centres,  sport  centres),  and 
public  lighting  (both  rated  3/3),  and  district  heating  and  cooling  (as  reported  in  Ljubljana,  2/3).  Actions  in 
industry are more than less restricted to lighting, heat and cold supply, compressed air, and heat recuperation. 
In  general,  EnPC  covers  mainly  integral  renovations,  installation  of  building  controls,  energy  management, 
monitoring and verification, and installation of renewables. In Ljubljana the installation of demand flexibility 
and  energy  storage  capacity  was  reported  as  relatively  relevant  (2/3),  whilst  maintenance  (1.5/  3)  and 
replacement of specific instruments (0.5/3) is less common. There are expectations on EnPC to gain relevance 
in residential buildings. 

The  supply  side  of  the  market  is  almost  covered,  and  the  quality  of  services  considered  high  in  Ljubljana. 
However, aligning with findings in previous reporting (JRC 2021), there is room of development of provision in 
the  country,  and  facilitation  could  have  greater  presence.  Five  ELENA  Technical  Assistance  has  supported 
facilitation. There is also a potential for the development of One stop shops, currently absent in the country. 
Their development could contribute to also boost the currently limited understanding and interest, especially 
amongst the private (e.g. multifamily buildings) and financing sectors, as well as the central government. 

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 166. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
8328 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
1.5 

Quality (0-3) 
2.5 

Facilitators 

10 

0.5 

0 
5 

actors 
to  support 

One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. Estimates in between brackets refer to Ljubljana. 

0 
0.5 

2 

0 
0.5 

Comment 
the 
Non-SMEs  are 
dominant 
category 
(REFINE 2021)329, 3 
large  providers  have 
the 
largest  market 
share 
Facilitation 
supported  by  ELENA 
is 
(5/10 
key 
facilitators) 

Table  A  167.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
2 
2.5 

Private clients 
1.5 
1.5 

Financing sector 
0.5 
1.5 

Comment 

Based on the EU Survey  2022, the Eurostat  Guidance  has had a  sizeable impact in the revision of  contract 
models,  improving  implementation  issues,  and  overall  making  the  public  sector  “More  willing  to  pay  for  an 
EnPC  service  and  not  for  an  investment  in  combination  with  cohesion  funds”.  Off-balance  contracts  are 
considered  satisfactory in  Ljubljana, where some  80 % of the contracts signed are off-balance. At national 
level there is a need to verification with Eurostat, and no off-balance contracts have been signed. In Ljubljana 
these  contracts  are  considered  adequate,  (80  %  of  public  projects),  but  are  not  used  in  the  central 
government.  Regarding  the  treatment  of  EnPC  as  debt  in  the  private  sector,  the  largest  Slovenian  service 
providers use IFRS and this has no impact on the potential for refinancing (Refine 2021).   

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The  responses  obtained  to  the  EU  Survey  2022  largely  differ  in  the  relevance  granted  to  contracting 
modalities at  national  level  and as  reviewed  for  Ljubljana.  At  national  level,  the  guaranteed  savings  model 
prevails in the public, and to an extent in the private sector, whilst in Ljubljana both the guaranteed savings 
and the shared savings coexist in the public sector. The latter model prevails in the private sector but supply 
contacts are most common.  Fundamentally, no respondent referred to any contracting modalities as directly 
competing with EnPC. The respondents agree to the relevance of contract energy management (2.5/3, overall). 
The  combination  of  PPP  with  EnPC  in  public  sector  projects  was  reported  as  relevant,  and  PPPs  are  a  key 
model used in the public sector (3/3). 

328  Portal  Energetika - Seznam  ponudnikov  energetskih  storitev  –  model  pogodbenega  zagotavljanja  prihrankov  energije  (energetika-

portal.si) 

329 REFINE-D2.4-Refinancing-Market-Assessment-Report.pdf (refineproject.eu) 

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  168.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts? 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

2.5 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

1.5 

0.5 

0 

3 

0 

2 

2 

2 

1.5 

0.5 

1.5 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2.5 

1.5 

0 

2.5 

0 

Supply  contacts  are  more  common  than  EnPC  in  the 
private sector 

PPPs  operate  in  combination  with  EnPC  in  the  public 
sector 
In  the  private  sector  there  are  some  power  purchase 
agreements 

Source: EU Survey 2022. Estimates in between brackets refer to Ljubljana 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets,  is  most  favourable  reviewed  in  Ljubljana,  in  comparison  with  the  overall  country.  Most 
appreciation  is  deserved  by  definitions,  guidelines,  model  contracts  for  the  public  sector,  demonstration 
projects, procurement rules and white certificates. Off-balance contracts have not been reviewed by Eurostat, 
and there  is a  need  of  formal  certification  of  providers,  simplification  of  the  legal  framework  for  PPPs,  the 
introduction of one stop shops, and the improvement of audits, whose use has been mainstreamed through 
requirements for the use of public funds supporting EnPC.   

Of note, whilst the exemplary role played by the government is considered limited (1/3), EnPCs are considered 
to  play  a  relevant  role  (2.5/3)  in  public  interventions  to  save  energy.  These  may  be  insufficiently  used  to 
transform the private sector (1/3). 

297 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 169. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible. 

Rating (0-3) 

Good practices 

Remaining barriers 

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 
EnPC  Model  contracts  public 
sector 
(whether  off-  or  on-
balance sheet) 

2.5 

3 

3 

EnPC  Model  contracts  private 
sector 

1.5 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 
Obligation 
Certificates 

schemes 

/White 

Energy Audits 
Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the 
EED  (Exemplary  role  of  public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government  rules  and  practices 
of  procurement,  contracting  and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 
1 

2 

3 

2.5 

2.5 

1 

3 

330 

Lighting 
is 
standardized 
industry 

becoming 
the 
in 

Three 
were 
pilots 
implemented  in  the  public 
sector 

for 

Required 
grant 
financing,  part  of  financing 
model 

of 

earthquake 

Integration 
resistance 
On-balance  model  (latest  models 
were  not  submitted  for  Eurostat 
review) 

Lack formal qualification system 

Needed for the residential sector 

Quality of audits needs to improve 

The  central  government  prefers 
partial 
renovations  and  public 
procurement. 
The 
framework 
legal 
continues  to  be  complex  for  the 
government projects 

PPP 

Financing 
There  is  a  wide  variety  of  financing  sources  and  instruments.  The  estimates  for  the  overall  country  and 
Ljubljana  differ  but  it  can  be  generalised  that  financing  is  usually  brought  by  providers.  Grants  are  also 
relevant,  especially  in  the  public  sector.  The  Ecofund  is  supporting  deep  renovation  in  residential  buildings. 
Debt financing is also common. Guarantees and guarantee funds have a relevance in Ljubljana not identified 
for the overall country. The relevance of forfaiting is sizeable, especially in Ljubljana. This is the case also for 
SPVs, equity, and project financing. There are no barriers to the combination of EU funds with EnPC.  

330  The  government  site  https://www.energetika-portal.si/podrocja/energetika/energetska-prenova-javnih-stavb/projektna-pisarna/  was 

cited as a good practice. 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  170.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Third-party 
funds 
Third  party  Private 
funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Grants 
Forfaiting 

Purpose 

and 

Public (0-3) 
1-3 
3 
0-3 

Private (0-3) 
1 
2 
1 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

0-2 

1.5 

0.5 
2 
1.5 

1 
1 
1.5 
0 
1.5 

3 
1.5 

0 

1.5 

0.5 
2 
1 

1 
1 
1.5 
2 
2 

2 
1.5 

Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
Based on the EU Survey  2022, the Eurostat  Guidance  has had a  sizeable impact in the revision of  contract 
models,  improving  implementation  issues,  and  overall  making  the  public  sector  “More  willing  to  pay  for  an 
EnPC  service  and  not  for  an  investment  in  combination  with  cohesion  funds”.  Off-balance  contracts  are 
considered  satisfactory  in  Ljubljana,  where  some  80%  of  the  contracts  signed  are  off-balance.  At  national 
level there is a need to verification with Eurostat, and no off-balance contracts have been signed. Regarding 
the treatment of EnPC as debt in the private sector, the largest Slovenian service providers use IFRS. The use 
of EnPC has no impact on the potential for refinancing (Refine 2021).   

Barriers 
Responding to financing barriers faced by providers, the LTRS proposed a debt-purchasing scheme for EnPC 
providers,  and  also  indicated  possible  developments  in  terms  of  creation  of  a  guarantee  facility  and  a 
guarantee fund to provide, amongst other, EnPC guarantees. This is important because, in Slovenia, the own 
funds of providers are the main source of funding in the country. As of beginning of 2021, further financing 
was  considered  by  stakeholders  to  be  “moderately  difficult”  and  although  “some  …  Slovenian  financing 
institutions are using a kind of refinancing scheme (repurchase of long-term receivables or acquisition of SPV 
company from the EES providers”. These and other refinancing mechanisms would benefit from the existence 
of state-backed guarantees (Refine 2021), not yet in place.]The renovation both as related to the overall RRP 
(€86m  of  a  total  of  €1.8b)  and  in  Country  commitments  to  climate  contributions  there  are  plans  for  a 
revolving fund for renovations in the public sector to be self-financed with savings.331 The later was reviewed 
with concern by sectoral experts. The creation of this fund was reported as an opportunity for ESCO financing 

331  On  20  August  2022,  the  RRP  available  on  the  EC  site  was  in  Slovenian  (https://www.gov.si/zbirke/projekti-in-programi/nacrt-za-
okrevanje-in-odpornost).  The  current  review  is  thus    based  on  an  automated  translation,  and  the  EC  review  (Country  Specific 
Recommendations  and  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plans  -  Thematic  overview  on  climate  and  green  transition  related  issues 
(europa.eu); EUR-Lex - 52021SC0184 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
to  be  able  to  participate  in  capital-intensive  refurbishments  with  smaller  savings,  as  highlighted  in  the  EC 
review of the national RRP.332  

The participants in the EU Survey 2022 highlighted as the major barriers limiting the market development in 
2020-21 the low energy prices, and the limited implementation capacity in both the public and private sector, 
as well as the need of technical support. In the private sector there is a demand for one stop shops and low 
loan fees, especially in the industry, where there are long payback times. The major concern is the increasing 
complexity of the model, especially in the public sector. Moreover, there is limited use of the model in central 
government buildings, where partial renovations and conventional procurement are preferred. In the upcoming 
period 2022-2023, complex needs in public buildings, involving a need for energy and earthquake retrofit and 
cultural heritage  protection bring about a new  barrier. Support oriented through grants in the  private sector 
are expected to become problematic for EnPC development.  

Drivers 
Participant  experts  in  the  EU  Survey  2022  report  the  combination  of  cohesion  funds  and  private  financing, 
and the  standardization of implementation as the  major drivers in the public sector in the  period  2020-21. 
The use of EU funds and national funds to support new financial instruments is expected to continue being a 
driver in the period 2022-23. In the private sector, energy prices and OPEX optimisation as the major drivers 
for both the period 2019-21 and 2022-23. There are expectations on the introduction of on-bill financing in 
the residential sector which is planned to combine financing from providers and grants.  

EU support 
EU Support is considered to be a key market driver for the public sector markets in 2019,  ELENA was highly 
appreciated,  and  already  in  2019,  EFSI  support  was  made  available  to  RESALTA  which  was  the  first 
beneficiary of this form of support (JRC 2021). Further capacity development has taken place in Slovenia with 
the  support  of  H2020  projects  which  address  key  needs,  including  quality  provision  and  refinancing 
mechanisms.333  

The most appreciated EU support mechanisms are  ELENA, for its capacity to generate project pipelines, and 
ESIF,  whose  funds  are  used  in  combination  with  EnPC.  However,  there  are  concerns  about  the  guarantees 
needed to opt to ELENA and the need of publicity to the program. The European Green Deal, Fit for 55 and 
NextGenerationEU packages are considered to have a sizeable positive impact. The Guarantee Facility of the 
Smart Finance for Smart Buildings initiative, ESIF, and InvestEU are considered to have positively influenced 
the attitude of financing actors.334  

In the EU survey 2022, experts identified a potential at national level for EU support mechanisms to be better 
allocated  according  to  needs.  A  respondent  speaking  about  Ljubljana  referred  to  the  need  to  incorporate 
earthquake resilience measures in EU support, and prioritizing support for EnPC in multi-apartment buildings. 
For instance, since 2019 all building renovations conducted by the City of Ljubljana (schools, kindergardens, 
cultural  and  medical  buildings)  include  earthquake  protection  according  to  the  latest  building  codes  and 
standards. 

332  Country Specific Recommendations  and Recovery and  Resilience  Plans  -  Thematic  overview  on  climate  and  green  transition  related 
issues (europa.eu); EUR-Lex - 52021SC0184 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). Capital allocation to sustainable mobility (€311.9m – about 
one third of the fund), and to RES capacity and RES district heating (€146m) could be an opportunity for EnPC investment in public 
lighting, yet this possibility was not indicated in the RRP, leaving uncertain what may be the effect of the RRP in the EnPC  markets 
operating in these areas. The EC commentary did not mention the absence of EnPC in the RRP as problematic [one reason could be 
the EC being aware that EnPC being supported by other EU funding sources]. 

333 Recently, support received during the reported period include project QualitEE (June 2017-June 2020) developed capacities in terms of 
quality  assurance,  assessing  the  duration  of  EnPC  contracts  (2019),  and  advising  on  the  choice  of  types  of  business  models 
(guaranteed,  shared),  ultimately  contributing  to  fill  the  trust  gap  and  increase  the  knowledge  of  market  actors  (QualitEE  2020) 
D5.4_National-Business-Case_Slovenia.pdf (qualitee.eu).Refine (June 2020- May 2023) is assessing the availably of refinancing and 
state-backed guarantees has provided relevant knowledge and recommendations, referred in this report. 

334 EU support through ESIF is considered to have a multiplier effect of 3 on private investment (for each EU euro invested, three euros 
are invested by private actors). It is considered that the uncertainty generated by the gradual introduction of new funding is slowly 
being overcome, in a context generally willing and able to combine EU funding with EnPC (exceptions being the central government 
and multi-family apartments). 

300 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
 
Table A 171. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 

2 

1 

Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 

0 

2 

0 
1 
0 

1.5 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

1 

0 
0 
0 

0 

Financing 
actors 
0 

Barriers 

Guarantees 
required,  long 
process, 
insufficient 
public level of 
information 

Good 
practices 
5  ELENAs 
projects 
have 
provided 
pipe-lines 
of  EnPC 
projects 

1 

1 

0.5 
1 
0 

0 

1 

Slow 
progres 

Perspective 
The participant experts responding to the EU Survey 2022 expect the market to remain stable in the public 
sector, and to  slowly take off in the private sector. Fast  growth is expected to take place in both sectors in 
Ljubljana.  

Recommendations 
Recommendations in the EU Survey 2022 involve strategic allocation of support allocation (e.g. through EnPC, 
to  multi-family  buildings),335  the  development  of  facilitation  and  one-stop  shop  capacities,  and  formal 
certification of providers and facilitators, simplification of the legal framework for PPPs, the development of 
technical  and  financial  capacities  in  the  central  government,  and  the  development  of  improved  financial 
mechanisms to support EnPC in a context of needed deep renovation and earthquake resilience interventions. 
Support is particularly needed in multi-family buildings.336 There is also a potential for off-balance contracts 
to be reviewed by Eurostat and then used in the enactment of the central government buildings’ exemplary 
role. 

Recommendations  of  relevance  for  the  EU  is  continuing  to  support  Slovenia  with  technical  assistance  and 
simplification  of  the  application  procedure,  promoting  the  national  use  of  financing  instruments  and 
supporting the certification of providers and facilitators. 

335 A mechanism for preferential use of EnPC for overall energy performance interventions in Slovenia was previously recommended (JRC 

2021. One such mechanism could serve to further the impact of RRP. 

336 According to national reviewers this may require supporting small ESCOs which are likely more interested in conducting this work than 

the two major players. 

301 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
24  Spain 

Comparison previous status 
During  previous  reporting  period,  a  set  of  key  conditions  were  established,  including  a  standard  for  ES 
providers  (2018)  which  includes  qualitative  and  solvency  criteria  and  has  therefore  fostered  trust 337.  This 
standard adds to the existence of sectoral standards (ESE and ESE plus, with 8 ESCOs labelled) (Guía Anese 
2020).338  The  Public  Sector  Contracts  Act  (2017)339  added  clarity  to  the  legal  context  and,  amongst  other, 
introduced a de-indexation of contract payments from inflation, hence adding complexity to ESCO contracts. 
There was also ongoing development of model off-balance contracts, and some models were already in use. 
According to sectoral estimates, EnPC in the  public  buildings of the administration would suffice to achieve 
the savings planned in the NECP. 340 

Current Status highlights 
The national reporting highlights the pioneering role of autonomous regions, which conduct their own energy 
efficiency  plans  for  public  buildings,  and  a  role  of  the  central  government  in  promoting  energy  services, 
included an intend to make available new support to ESCOs [materialized?], and a promotion of self-sufficient 
energy  consumption  in  Central  Government  buildings,  especially  through  turnkey  solutions.  These  model 
contracts allow for long term projects. An update and development of new contracts is planned for the public 
and  private  sectors  (LTRS,  NECP).  New  guidelines  and  contracts  have  been  developed  in  the  autonomous 
region  of  Navarra.341  Following  plans  indicated  in  the  LTRS,  ESEs  receive  support  form  EU  funding,  and  is 
expected that RRF have a similar allocation – although this was not indicated in the RRP.  

The main intervention sites are public lighting, followed by buildings and industry. Some project has addressed 
district  and  residential  intervention  sites.  The  types  of  interventions  involve  almost  to  the  same  extent  the 
replacement of specific elements/ systems, maintenance, energy management and installation of RES.  

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 172. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  
Private 
525 

Number of contracts 

Overall 
700 

Public 
175 

Comment 
Estimates  based  on 
national survey 
Estimates  based  on 
national survey 
Contracts 
(with PV) are rare 
Has  shortened  for 
the private sector 

>€1m 

Overall size m€ 

Typical* size m€ 

190 

1-2 

Typical* duration 

10-15 

Typical* payback 
Typical* 
baseline 

% 

of 

7-10 

70 
(public 

lighting only) 

570 

1 

7-10 

5 

savings* 

Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 
Source: EU Survey 2022 

savings* 

870 

0.6-1 

37 

Electricity: 
Thermal: 0.072 
0.11 

0.2. 

The market trends as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022 are represented in the following table.  

337 The UNE 216701:2018 standard has been promoted in tenders, which require certificates of accordance to this standard (e.g. Bilbao-
Kirolak  Maintenance  Service  With  Guarantee  And  Energy  Management,  or  he  Contract  for  the  provision  of  energy  services  and 
maintenance of the public lighting installations of Coslada) and in the LTRS of Spain. 

338 Carlos Ballesteros. European ESCO Conference Spanish ESCO Market – trends and barriers 5 October 2022- Frankfurt (Germany) 
339 Law 9/2017 includes the Contract for Services with Investment, the Service Concession Contract and the Mixed Supply and Service 

Contract 

340 Souce: Francisco Javier Siguenza, AMIs Secretary General 
341 Guía práctica de contratación de servicios energéticos con garantía de ahorro (navarra.es) 

302 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 173. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Stable 

Private sector 
Slow take off 

Perspective 
2024 

2022-

Slow take off/ Upwards 

Slow/Rapid take off 

Comments 
Divergent 
Uncertainty NextGen, Covid 

responses. 

Use 
Still 
of  NextGen, 
insufficiently  known  model. 
government 
Central 
elections may delay take off. 

Source: EU Survey 2022 

Business environment 
The  following  tables  show  the  availability  and  quality  of  services  of  provision,  facilitation  and  financing.  In 
general, the sufficiency and quality of services is good or very good besides one-stop-shops, which are not so 
widespread in Spain. 

Table A 174. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services.  Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Providers 

Number 
50 (102-133 ESCOs) 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
3 

Quality (0-3) 
3 

Facilitators 

20 (15, 400) 

One-stop-shops 

<5 (10) 

15 (8, 20) 

actors 
to  support 

Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

2 

0 

2 

2 

1.5 

2.5 

Comment 
Very 
estimates 
Very 
estimates 
Very 
estimates 
Very 
estimates 

diverse 

diverse 

diverse 

diverse 

Table  A  175.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1.3 

Private clients 
1.4 

Financing sector 
1,5 

Comment 

1 

2 

1.7 

Higher 
lighting 
buildings 

for 
than 

street 
for 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
The EnPC is the major type of ESCO contract.342 The major models competing with EnPC are EPCMs (keys in 
hand  contracts),  which  incorporate  a  bunch  of  services,  power  purchase  agreements  (ESC),  boot,  and 
chauffage. 

342 Carlos Ballesteros. European ESCO Conference Spanish ESCO Market – trends and barriers 5 October 2022- Frankfurt (Germany) 

303 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table  A  176.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

with 

EnPC 
guaranteed 
savings  
with 
EnPC 
shared savings  

Build-own-
operate-
transfer (BOOT) 
Contract  energy 
management 
(chauffage) 
Facility 
management 
Consultancy 
and 
guarantee 
Energy 
efficiency 
improvement 
contracts? 
PPPs 

technical 

Other 

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1 

1.5 

1.5 

it is quite common in the residential sector.  
Competes with EPCM (keys on hand) (3, 3) 

Off-balance  in  the  public  sector.  In  the  form  of  Integral  supply 
contracts (5Ps) 

Services sector (hospitals), private sector. Decarbonization models.   

2.3 

2.3 

2.5 

1.3 

2 

1 

Used to be more common in the private sector 

1.5 

1.5 

2 

3 

1.5 

3 

2 

1.25 

1.75 

1.5 
1 

0.5 
3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

Audit without technical guarantee is very common. 

Very few in the public sector.  

There is interest but does not take off. 

Power purchase agreement (PPA) 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
The  implementation  of  the  EU  policy  framework  is  generally  perceived  as  positive,  with  the  exception  of 
EEOs/WhCs,  which  are  expected  to  start  operating  soon.  Also,  use  of  EnPC  in  contribution  to  the  exemplary 
role of the state could be improved (EU Survey 2022). 

304 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table A 177. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

EnPC Definitions: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Guidelines: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Model contracts public sector (whether off- or on-balance sheet): 
Rating (0-3) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector: Rating (0-3) 

Lists of EnPC qualified operators: Rating (0-3) 

One-stop-shops: Rating (0-3) 

Other information instruments: Rating (0-3) 

EnPC demonstration projects: Rating (0-3) 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates: Rating (0-3) 

Energy Audits: Rating (0-3) 
Use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public bodies' 
buildings): Rating (0-3) 
Government  rules  and  practices  of  procurement,  contracting  and 
tendering: Rating (0-3) 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Good practice 

IDAE and ICAEN 

IDAE and ICAEN 
IDAE 
(construction 
with 
mixed 
contracts  –  5Ps, 
public 
and 
and 
lighting) 
ICAEN 
Mainly 
the 
industrial sector 

in 

of 

Currently 
appearing 
platforms 
energy 
management 
with 
system 
integration  and 
big data to ease 
analysis 
and 
optimization 

cases 
Success 
(Guía 
de 
Tecnologías  de 
ANESE) 

Ongoing 
creation of CAEs 

2.7 

2.6 

2 

1,7 

1.5 

2 

0 

2 

0.7 

€1b 

2 

Remaining 
barriers 

of 

of 

lack 
submetering, 
lack 
professionals, 
technological 
and 
communication 
barriers between 
teams 
(easier 
than  10  years 
ago, 
far 
but 
from ideal) 

Long  terms,  lack 
of 
client 
knowledge  and 
promotion 
Unknown, 
they 
should  become 
mandatory  
Only 
consumers, 
executing 
measures 
mandatory 

large 

not 

Financing 
According to the EU Survey 2022, provider funds are most widely used (2.3/3) followed by client funds (1.3/3 
in the public sector and 2/3 in the private sector). Grants are widely used, especially in the public sector (2.5/ 
3)  but  also  in  private  contracts  (2/3),  and  private  financing  is  most  common  in  the  private  sector  (2.5/3). 
Forfaiting is of certain relevance as is the case of a diversity of financing mechanisms (mezzanine financing, 
equity  financing,  renting,  crowdfunding,  equity,  crowdlending.    Guarantee  funds  are  marginally  used  in  the 
private sector (GEEVE Fund). In general, there are no reported barriers to the combination of grants and EnPC. 
There are however difficulties to combine Next Generation Funds with EnPC because the investments need to 
compute in the balance sheets.  

Table  A  178.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 

305 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Public funds 

Public (0-3) 
1.3 
2.3 
1.7 

Private (0-3) 
2 
2.3 
1.3 

0.7 
1.5 

1.5 
2.0 
2.5 
1 
0 

0.5 
1.5 
1 
1 
0.5 

1.7 
2.5 

1 
1.5 
2 
1.5 
0.3 

2 
1.5 
1.5 
1.5 
0 

financing 

Private funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 

and 

Equity financing 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Other 

Purpose 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

Risk 
public 
that 
funds  bring  back 
projects 
on-
to 
balance sheet 

Fondo 
GEEVE 
(HousEEnvest)  Fondo 
de  entidad  pública 
para privado. 

Renting 
Crowdfunding 
Crowdlending (1) 

(1), 
(1), 

Barriers 
Major barriers highlighted in the LTRS 2020 to the development of EnPC in Spain were: 

 

Existing  Rules  on  the  indexation  of  prices  (“According  to  the  ESCO  sector  itself,  the  main  obstacle 
would be the current price review rules relating to public  contracts, which, on account of the law on 
the de-indexation of the economy, would make it difficult to publish review formulas and also to put 
in place long-term contracts.” (LTRS 2020, p 179)343 
 
Limited promotion of   rules on ESs in public sector  
 
Lack of incentives or requirements for EE in public buildings   
  Need promotion of EnPC in renovation of thermal installations 
 

Private sector pursues short-time returns (equipment and lighting). 

It is unclear the extent loans and grants to efficiency and RES  measures (solar and geothermal) (PAREER II 
retrofitting programme 2017, ICO line, ERDF support to energy efficiency, and fiscal reform elements ( LTRS) 
have contributed to EnPC or constituted competing financing instruments344. Some projects mentioned in the 
Spanish  LTRS  involve  a  combination  of  ESCO  and  public  financing.  However,  the  measures  proposed  in  the 
LTRS  addressed  issues  of  further  development  of  models,  and  the  combination  of  EU  support  with  EnPC 
projects. Their achievements in the reported period have not been verified.  

The  major  barriers  highlighted  by  experts  consulted  are  the  effects  of  Covid  and  the  uncertainty  related  to 
Next Generation funds. Due to NextGen Funds there are no new projects under plain EnPC, but under keys on 
hand (EPCM - Engineering, Procurement, Construction Management).345  Although there are no direct barriers 

343 According to the Public Sector Contracts Act, price revisions are only allowed in contracts with recovery period of more than 5 years 

but these revisions are often not included in tenders.  

344  Pareer  and  its  continuation  Pareer-Crece  have  been  successful  in  engaging  private  investment  in  building  renovation.  PowerPoint 
Presentation (ca-eed.eu). It is uncertain whether these programs have supported or worked in combination with EnPC. (Ballesteros 
2022). 

345 The Plan AGE has allocated €1b to this modality of contract for renovating buildings of the central administration. 

306 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
to the combination of EU funds and grants with the use of EnPC, the RRP is mainly directed to contract works. 
Moreover, expectations have caused some projects to be delayed, and countered the development of the off-
balance  approach  (RRP  support  would  compute  as  debt).  A  diversity  of  government  approaches  has  been 
identified, with some programs allowing ESCOs as potential beneficiaries and others not.346 Aligning with the 
LTRS, consulted experts are concerned about a lack of client knowledge about energy services, uncertainty of 
whether  investment  will  generate  sufficient  revenues  to  payback  the  financing,  and  lack  of  interest  to 
externalise management areas.  

Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
As  of  2019,  off-balance  contract  models  were  available  for  Spain  (IDAE),  and  the  autonomous  regions  of 
Catalonia and Extremadura. First off-balance contracts signed after the Eurostat clarification of the statistical 
treatment  of  EnPC  in  government  accounts  were  tendered  in  2019  (Police  and  Firefighting  School  of 
Mollet).347  Almost  100%  of  the  lighting  projects  are  off-balance,  overall,  the  public  sector  contracts  can  be 
90% off-balance (some respondents call for a smaller number around 50-60%). 

Drivers 
New policy developments proposed in the LTRS were a new ‘Limited Guarantee Fund’ supporting loans from 
banks  and  a  network  of  One-stop-shops  (regional  and  municipal  scope).  Further  development  of  these 
measures with support of RRF may be a key driver in upcoming years.  

EU support 
Statistical  treatment  of  EnPC  investments  has  been  positive  (+2/2)  but  then  the  Covid  and  the  RRF  had  a 
major  impact.  Now  the  contracts  need  to  be  adapted  and  simplified  and  will  be  important  for  some 
municipalities, concerned about debt.  

There is a positive appraisal amounts the experts consulted on the EU support instruments, especially TA. As 
for the RRF and Next Generation Funds, these are appraised indifferent ways, and there are concerns about 
the  use  of  grant  mechanisms.  A  preference  for  loan  mechanisms  was  stated  by  experts.  The  allocation  of 
Next Generation Funds in combination with EnPC is problematic because the investments need to compute in 
the balance sheets. 

A  diversity  of  EU  projects  have  supported  innovative  financing  schemes  for  energy  efficiency  in  Spain: 
Europace  on  Home-based  finance,  RenOnBill  on  On-bill  financing,  ESI  Europe  on  insuring  energy  savings, 
EEaaS on Energy Efficiency as a Service, Sunshine and REFINE on forfaiting and refinancing for EnPC. Support 
to  energy  services  has  been  provided  on  areas  including  project  development  assistance  (58  projects  and 
€600m  signed  since  2011),  contract  standardization  (EIB),  quality  assurance  (QualitEE),  smartification  of 
EnPC (NOVICE; AmBIENCe), pay for performance schemes (Sensei), and service bundling (INEEXS).348 

346 The national incentives for heat and cold grids based on RES is an example of the former (Programas de Incentivos a proyectos de 

redes de calor y frío que utilicen fuentes de energía renovable | Idae). 

347 Anuncios de licitación | Licitaciones | Perfiles de contratante | Plataforma electrónica de contratación pública (gencat.cat).  
348 Ballesteros, Carlos. European ESCO Conference Spanish ESCO Market – trends and barriers 5 October 2022- Frankfurt (Germany) 

307 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Table A 179. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms.  Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

2 

1 (0-2) 

1 

Financing 
actors 
1 

Barriers 

None 

Good 
practices 
HousEEnv
est,  F-PI, 
EnerInves
t349  

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
Finance 
for  Smart  Buildings 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 

0.5 

0 

1 

1 

1 
-1 -+ 2 

1 
-1 -+ 2 

De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 

- 

1.3 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1 
0 

- 

1 

1 

1 
0 

- 

1.7 

Variable 
estimates. 
Uncertainty, 
concerns 
about 
subsidies 

Uncertainty 
and 
expectation 
on  allocation 
of  loans,  not 
subsidies 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Perspective 
Previous  developments  and  already  offset  regulatory  and  trust-related  barriers  to  ESs  in  the  public  and 
private  sectors  and  planned  measures  in  LTRS  were  expected  to  further  drive  market  development.  An 
opportunity  for  the  development  of  EnPC  referred  in  the  LTRS  was  building  envelope  renovation  in  private 
commercial buildings. These envelope renovations could be included in supply and maintenance contracts. In 
general, improvements in thermal and lighting installations are expected to be the key types of interventions.  

Experts  consulted  expect  that  most  barriers  will  remain  but  there  is  hope  on  the  government  increasing 
support.  Increased  activity  due  to  the  drive  of  adapted  models  (CEN-CENELEC)  and  support  programs  for 
municipality  interventions.  There  are  now  opportunities for forfaiting  and  SPV,  as  well  as  crowdlending  and 
crowdfunding  for  smaller  projects  to  foster  EnPC  developments.  Next  Generation  Funds  will  be  useful  to 
support maintenance contracts and EnPC. This needs to be further clarified to the sector. 

The RRP does not mention ESCO or EnPC, nor contributions to financing mechanisms potentially beneficial for 
EnPC (EEF, Guarantees), and allocations to building renovation did not mention minimum savings. Hence it has 
caused  uncertainty.  Also,  plans  for  RRP  support  to  RES  integration  (amongst  other  in  buildings),  furthering 
dynamics after the removal of the “solar tax” in April 2019, and will possibly hinder EnPC development. 

A Framework Loan from the EIB “will co finance energy efficiency and renewable energy investments in Spain 
by  energy  service  companies,  The  operation  is  targeted  to  energy  efficiency  improvements  on  the  demand 

349 ANESE - F-PI H2020 (fpih2020.eu), Financing Energy Efficiency using Private Investments | F-PI Project | Fact Sheet | H2020 | CORDIS | 
European Commission (europa.eu), ENERINVEST Spanish Sustainable Energy financing Platform | ENERINVEST Project | Fact Sheet | 
H2020 | CORDIS | European Commission (europa.eu) 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
and  supply  side,  in  the  public  and  private  sector,  including  public  buildings,  street  lighting  and  hospitals  . 
Proposed EIB finance EUR 75 million Total cost EUR 200 million (Dinis Rodriges, 2022).350 

Recommendations 
Regarding national policies, the ESCO associations call for: 

  Addressing barriers of contrat duration and complexity;  
  Government  enabling  ESCO  access  to  finance  e.g.  by  starting  up  the  WhC  system,  promoting 

 
 

 

financing instruments as opposed to RRP subsidies; 
Standardized M&V protocols; 
Further  dissemination  of  ESCO  models  to  potential  customers,  especially  outside  cities,  with  the 
support of successful cases; 
Introduction of an action plan for the use of ESCO and EnPC contracts in the buildings of the central 
administration, included those with military and police functions; 

  Collaboration  with  autonomous  communities  in  the  implementation  of  savings  obligations  through 

 

 

EnPCs (update of the Plan ESE 2000); 
Tax (VAT) reductions for thermal energy originated  from  renewable sources of efficient centralized 
systems, and for the tax on construction, installation and works; 
Reducing red tape, mainly at municipal level, for efficiency and renewable energy interventions; and 
recognition  as  of  “general  interest  for  the  State”  of  the  new  efficient  and  renewable  centralized 
installations. 

At  the  EU  level,  the  recommendations  from  the  two  major  ESCO  associations  involve  improving  further 
Technical Assistance support for project aggregation; and further promotion of the model. 

Good practices 
The experience and market development in Spain has enabled the formulation and enactment of projects with 
more  complex  governance  and  financing  mechanisms.  In  2021,  the  City  of  Gijón  signed  an  EnPC  for  public 
lighting  pursuing  48%  of  guaranteed  primary  energy  savings  and  with  expectations  to  reach  to  63%  of 
savings. The project has relied on Technical Assistance to bundle up a diversity of investments into a sizeable 
project, and a forfaiting facility of EEEF which funds the totality of the project (€19.5m).351 

350 Dinis Rodrigues. 2022. EIB support to the ESCOs/EPCs market European ESCO Conference Frankfurt, 5 October EIB. Energy  Efficiency 
and Energy Advisory Division Projects Directorate  
351 Rahul Pratap Singh. The European Energy Efficiency Fund European ESCO Conference 2022. Date: 05 Oct 2022 

309 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
25  Sweden 

Comparison previous status 
Already in the period 2017-2019, it was observed that Sweden, which used to have a developed public sector 
market, had become a static market and turned to simpler contract modalities (JRC 2017; JRC 2021). This has 
been  largely  attributed  to  the  fact  that  the  public  sector  had  better  access  to  financing  than  ESCOs,  the 
availability  of  in-house  technical  capacities,  and  building  owners  wanting  to  maintain  full  ownership.  An 
opportunity  could  be  lost  to  increase  the  ambition  on  energy  performance  interventions  through  a 
combination of cheap financing and EnPC capacity.  

Current Status highlights 
In  the  past,  activity  focused  on  buildings,  where  most  low  hanging  fruits  have  been  picked.  Accordingly, 
expectations  for  a  stagnation  of  the  market  in  Sweden  have  materialized,  and  experts  report  a  stagnant 
situation in the private sector and slow take off in the public sector. Slow take off is expected in both areas in 
the  period  2022-2025.  However,  in  a  context  of  increasing  energy  prices,  there  is  increased  preference  for 
efforts in the provision of heat and electricity, and in households and SMEs. 

EnPC  is  present  to  a  limited  extent  (1/3)  in  public  and  private  sectors,  and  the  most  typical  interventions 
involve  industry,  and  in  the  public  sector  maintenance,  installation  of  building  control  plans  and  audits  (the 
three categories rated as 2/3). Public lighting and district heating and cooling are of limited relevance (1/3). 
(No changes reported regarding the sites of intervention). 

The  national  reporting  highlights  the  role  of  the  Swedish  Energy  Agency  in  connecting  customers  and 
suppliers,  promoting  the  use  of  energy  services  by  SMEs  (the  SEA  has  also  created  an  One-stop-shops  for 
household energy conservation), and having developed a model contract for housing associations, and having 
a  long  history  of  strict  efficiency  procurement  regulations  dating  back  to  2014  (NECP).  The  supportive 
framework also includes the role that Kommuninvest (owned by municipalities and regions) in offering loans 
and advice, as well  as the  availability  of  preferential  loans,  equity  and EU-backed  Technical  Assistance  has 
enabled direct implementation and to an extent the use of EnPC. However, this supportive environment may 
have  turned  against  EnPC  and  in  favour  of  in-house  interventions.  As  mentioned  in  JRC  2021,  low  demand 
may have been unable to withhold supply. 

The  Effect4buildings  developed  a  rapid  test  to  assess  the  suitability  of  EnPC,  and  a  turn-key  model  for 
partnering  (Shared  savings?)  has  been  suggested  as  most  favourable  and  a  contract  model  was  drafted.352 
This  model  can  be  considered  a  type  of  shared  savings  model,  under  which  most  projects  have  been 
conducted in the country 

The table below summarizes the data gathered on market and contract sizes.  

Table A 180. Market size and EnPC contract characteristics. Expert responses to: Please respond to the best of your 
knowledge  or  estimate.  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the  information  is 
common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate.  

Public 
0 

Private 
0 

Overall 

Comment 

0.5 
3 

7 
15-20 

Number of contracts 
Overall size m€ 
Typical* size m€ 
Typical* duration 

of 

% 

Typical* payback 
Typical* 
baseline 
Typical 
MWh/year 
Typical 
m€/year 

savings* 

savings* 

352  EPC 

rapid 

test 

|  ByggDialog  Dalarna;  https://www.byggherre.se/avtal-och-juridik/samverkan-partnering-vagledning-och-

mallar/hjaelpmedel-och-verktyg-foer-partnering/kontraktsmall-med-tillaempningsfoereskrift 

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

The market trends, as reviewed in the EU Survey 2022, are represented in the following table.  

Table A 181. Market trends 2019-21 and 2022-24. Experts’ response to the questions: Could you please identify or 
estimate the trends for the period 2019-2021? And for the period 2022-2024?  

Trend 2019-2021 

Public sector 
Stable  

Private sector 
Stable  

2022-

Perspective 
2024 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Stable 

Stable/ Slow take-off  

Comments 
Most  low-hanging  fruits  are 
gone  

Status of the business environment 
A  review  of  the  market  actors  shows  that  whilst  provision  is  relatively  sufficient,  there  is  a  potential  for 
facilitators and One-stop-shops to  support the market. The activity of facilitators and one-stop-shops could 
contribute  to  overcoming  barriers  of  limited  interest  and  understanding  from  all  actors,  especially  in  the 
financial sector. 

Table A 182. Availability, sufficiency and quality of services. Experts’ response to: Please indicate the number of 
different  operators.  Then  rate  the  sufficiency  of  their  availability  and  their  quality  as  0  (below  needs),  1  (barely 
acceptable), 2 (good), or 3 (very good).  

Number 
5 
0 
1 
10 

Providers 
Facilitators 
One-stop-shops 
Financing 
willing 
EnPC 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

actors 
to  support 

Sufficiency (0-3) 
2 
0 
0 
2 

Quality (0-3) 
2 

Comment 

2 
2 

Table  A  183.  Understanding  of  and  willingness  to  operate  with  EnPC.  Response  of  experts  to:  Please  rate  the 
understanding  of  the  workings  of  EnPC,  and  the  willingness  to  use  EnPC  of  potential  clients  in  the  public  and  private 
sectors, and of potential financiers. Use the following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (moderate), 2 (good), and 3 (very good).  

Understanding 
Willingness 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Public clients 
1 
1 

Private clients 
1 
1 

Financing sector 
0 
1 

Comment 

Contract modalities and alternatives 
As  shown  in  the  table  below,  EnPC  operates  both  with  guaranteed  and  shared  savings.  There  are  other 
contract  modalities,  mainly  facility  management  and  energy  efficiency  improvement  contracts,  with  which 
EnPC is not reported to compete directly. 

311 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  A  184.  Relevance  of  different  contract  models  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  of  the  MS.  Experts 
response to: Please rank from 0 to 3 the extent different service contracts are used (0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = 
common,  and  3  = very  common).  (You  only  need  to  fill  in  the  column  allocated  to  overall  markets  whenever  the 
information is common to both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Comment 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

guaranteed 
EnPC  with 
savings 
(contractor 
guarantees energy savings, 
clients  take  the  financial 
risk) 
EnPC  with  shared  savings 
the 
(both  parties  share 
savings,  contractor 
take 
financial risk) 
Build-own-operate-transfer 
(BOOT) 
Contract 
management (chauffage) 
Facility management 

energy 

Consultancy  and  technical 
guarantee 
Energy 
improvement contracts 
PPPs 

efficiency 

Other 

Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Regulatory framework 
In the implementation of the regulatory framework of the EU of relevance for the development of ESCo and 
EnPC  markets,  the  most  favourably  reviewed  instrument  is  energy  audits  (3/3),  followed  by  the  EnPC 
guidelines,  model  contracts  for  both  public  and  private  sectors,  the  use  of  demonstration  schemes,  white 
certificates and the use of EnPC to fulfil Art.5 of the EED (Exemplary role of public bodies' buildings). 

Table A 185. Experts’ perception of the MS’s implementation of the EU regulatory framework. Based on your 
experience and judgement, please rate the implementation and adequacy of the EU  policies listed in the table. Use the 
following scale: 0 (absent), 1 (barely acceptable), 2 (good) or 3 (very good). Please specify good practices and barriers of 
relevance for EnPC in these domains when possible.  

Rating 
(0-3) 

Good practices 

Remaining 
barriers 

EnPC Definitions 

EnPC Guidelines 
EnPC  Model  contracts  public  sector  (whether  off-  or  on-balance 
sheet) 

EnPC Model contracts private sector 

Lists of EnPC-qualified operators 

One-stop-shops 

Other information instruments 

EnPC demonstration projects 

Obligation schemes /White Certificates 

Energy Audits 
Use  of  EnPC  to  fulfil  Art.5  of  the  EED  (Exemplary  role  of  public 
bodies' buildings) 
Government  rules  and  practices  of  procurement,  contracting  and 
tendering 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

2 

312 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financing 
Most projects, whether public or private, are either funded by client or provider funds (See table below). 

Table  A  186.  Financing  sources  for  EnPC  projects.  Experts’  responses  to:  Please  rank  from  0  to  3  the extent 
different financing  sources  and  schemes  are  used  to  support  EnPC  in  the  public  and  private  sectors  (find  below  some 
explanatory notes on the types of schemes). Use the following scale 0 = not in use, 1 =uncommon, 2 = common, and 3 = 
very common. (You only need to fill in the column allocated to overall markets whenever the information is common to 
both public and private markets, or you lack grounds to provide a disaggregated estimate).  

Public (0-3) 
3 
3 
1 
2 

Private (0-3) 
3 
3 
1 
1 

Overall (0-3) 

Comment 

financing 

Client funds 
Provider funds 
Public funds 
Private funds 
Private 
inst. 
Public financing inst. 
Debt financing 
Equity financing 
Grants 
Forfaiting 
Guarantees 
guarantee funds 
Mezzanine financing 
Project financing 
Leasing 
Special 
Vehicles 
Other 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

Purpose 

and 

Barriers 
The major barrier is that real estate owners, both public and private, want to stay in control of their assets.353 
Public bodies have better access to financing than ESCOs and availability of in-house capacities. Since shorter 
contracting options have been exhausted, these actors are not prone to move onto longer contracts, usually 
involving  maintenance, where limited trust  between actors and preference  for in-house action weighs down 
the  initiative.  This  lack  of  trust  was  reported  in  JRC  2021  and  the  EU  Survey  2022  as  related  to  some 
negative  experiences  in  the  past.  Moreover,  their  experiences  at  the  municipal  level  have  been  reported  as 
being highly time intensive for clients and not resulting in savings compared to direct implementation in the 
context of favourable borrowing conditions for municipalities.354 

A favourable environment for energy performance interventions appears to have largely fulfilled most of the 
potential activity for EnPC. The Swedish LTRS indicated a slowing down of the market and the need to address 
more complex and integral solutions as early as 2014.355 However, EnPC and Energy services were no longer 
mentioned in the 2020 LTRS and the 2022 RRP, whose green recovery component was sizeable (€1.5b). The 
EC did not refer to EnPC in its commentary to the Swedish RRP either.356  

To  this  situation  contributes  the  absence  of  long-term  visions,  real  estate  renovation  strategies,  and 
mandatory national targets for regions, councils and bodies.  

353 According to a participant expert, there are two types of clients, regardless of belonging to the public and the private sector: those 
building owners, usually large ones, which have in-house competences and do not like to outsource responsibility and control and other, 
usually  smaller  owners, e.g.  of  industrial  buildings,  without  own  capacity  and  knowledge which  are  more  interested  in EnPC  and  other 
energy service contracts 
354 Partnering: Next Step After EPC Projects - Effect4buildings 
355  “The  number  of  new  Energy  Performance  Contracts  (EPCs)  has  generally  been  fewer  than  ten  in  recent  years,  whereas  the  total 
number since 2000 may be approximately a hundred. The business model for EPCs in Sweden has developed over the last seven or eight 
years, and it has shifted from being a solution with a focus on technology to a model focussed more on property economics. The focus 
has shifted from short repayment periods to longer collaboration and greater flexibility in the solutions.” (LTRS 2014). 
356 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52022SC0102&from=EN 

313 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                        
 
Eurostat treatment of EnPC 
No impact of the changes and clarifications on the statistical treatment of EnPC in public accounts has been 
reported. 

Drivers 
The major driver identified is the lack of in-house capacities in the smallest real estate owners, both public 
and private, which drives outsourcing (both for 2019-2021 and 2022-2025). As reported under EU support, 
there are expectations on the EuropeanGreenDeal and decarbonisation drive to increase the attention paid to 
EnPC in Sweden. 

EU support 
According  to  experts,  the  European  Green  Deal,  Fit  for  55  and  NextGenerationEU  package  are  expected  to 
have a sizeable expected impact (2/3) in both the private and public sectors. 

Table A 187. Expert assessment of EU support mechanisms. Based on your experience and judgement, please rate 
the relevance of these EU support instruments in mobilizing the public, private or overall EnPC market. When relevant, also 
rate  the  impact  on  the  financing  sector.  Use  the  scale  -2  (very  negative  impact)  -  +2  (very  positive  impact),  where  0 
depicts a neutral reaction. When possible, please specify good practices and barriers found in the implementation of these 
support mechanisms.  

Public 

Private 

Overall 

Financing 
actors 

Barriers 

Good 
practices 

Technical  Assistance  i.e.  ELENA, 
LIFE  Clean  Energy  Transition 
(Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency, 
PDA H2020 
Guarantee  Facility  of  the  Smart 
for  Smart  Buildings 
Finance 
initiative 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(2014-20) Cohesion Policy Funds 
(2021-27) 
InvestEU 
RRF 
De-Risking  Efficiency  Platform 
(DEEP)  and  EEFIG  Underwriting 
Toolkit 
European Green Deal, Fit for 55 
Source: EU Survey 2022. 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 
0 
0 

2 

Perspective 
There are expectations for a slow take-off in the public sector to continue. A possible take-off may occur in 
the current private sector. 

Recommendations 
There  is  a  need  for  long-term  strategies  and  an  improved  role  of  SEAPs  in  guiding  municipalities  towards 
adequate assessment of energy-saving options and for granting consideration to external financing options, 
which  should  be  mapped  as  a  part  of  municipal  planning  of  energy-efficient  investments.  Moreover, 
“Contracting energy service companies (ESCOs) to implement Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) or Multi-
Service Contracting that include benefits besides energy saving measures can be a concrete aim in the action 
part  of  a  SEAP.”357  Exchange  platforms  involving  providers  and  clients  have  been  recommended  to  adjust 
contracts to clients' needs (no maintenance, power reduction, load control, decarbonisation) and increase trust. 
To  the  latter,  it  would  also  contribute  to  developing  accreditation  mechanisms  for  ESCOs  and  facilitation 
capacities. Finally, cost reduction could be achieved through project aggregation. 358 

357  Effect4Buildings  2020.  Financial 

tools  and 

instruments 

in 

local  and 

regional  Sustainable  Energy  Action  Plans 

(SEAPs)Recommendations-for-SEAPs.docx (live.com) 

358 Anthesis. 2017. Nulägesanalys av energitjänster med garanterad energibesparing i Sverige 

314 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                        
 
EU  measures  that  could  be  combined  with  Swedish  action  are  the  emphasis  of  communication  on  EnPC  as 
more  than  financing  and  energy  performance  as  more  than  savings—EU-level  support  to  accreditation  of 
providers and facilitators.  

315 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you online 
(european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

On the phone or in writing 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, 

— via the following form: european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/write-us_en. 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is  available  on  the  Europa  website  (european-
union.europa.eu). 

EU publications 

You  can  view  or  order  EU  publications  at  op.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple  copies  of  free  publications  can  be  obtained  by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre (european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en). 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex 
(eur-lex.europa.eu). 

Open data from the EU 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  agencies.  These  can  be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth 
of datasets from European countries. 

The  portal  data.europa.eu  provides  access  to  open  datasets  from  the  EU  institutions,  bodies  and  agencies.  These  can  be 
downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth 
of datasets from European countries.