REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Energy Efficiency financing in Europe An assessment of public spending for energy efficiency and the energy performance of buildings
Date: 2026-03-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU energy policy, EU financing, building, carbon neutrality, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy poverty, energy transition, improvement of housing, investment

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.3.2026  COM(2026) 118 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Energy Efficiency financing in Europe      An assessment of public spending for energy efficiency and the energy performance of buildings  
 
 
Report on Energy Efficiency financing in Europe 

An assessment of public spending for energy efficiency 

 and the energy performance of buildings 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Energy  efficiency  plays  an  instrumental  role  to  be  able  to  achieve  full  and  cost-
effective decarbonisation across the EU by 2050, make the European economy more 
competitive and ensure energy security and affordability now and in the future. In 
this context, reducing energy waste across the energy system, in all economic sectors, is 
one of the EU’s strategic objectives. Energy efficiency measures not only help to boost the 
competitiveness of EU companies, but also to alleviate energy poverty and reduce the EU’s 
dependency on imported energy sources. 

To help achieve the 2030 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55%, the recast 
Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EED  recast) (1)  sets  a  target  of  EU  primary  energy 
consumption (PEC) not exceeding 992.5 Mtoe and final energy consumption (FEC) not 
exceeding 763 Mtoe by 2030. This corresponds to a reduction of at least 11.7% by 2030 
compared to the projections of the 2020 EU reference scenario. 

The building sector has an important role to play in this regard as it accounts for 36% of 
overall EU energy consumption and 40% of total energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. 
52%  of  all  natural  gas  consumed  in  the  EU  in  2023  was  directly  or  indirectly  used  for 
buildings, so savings in this sector will also help reduce the current reliance on imported 
fossil fuels. Moreover, energy efficient housing translates into more affordable, decent and 
sustainable housing. Almost 75% of the building stock is inefficient according to current 
building standards, and 85-95% of the buildings that exist today will still be standing in 
2050. However, the weighted annual energy renovation rate is merely about 1%. 

Therefore, the renovation rate should be at least doubled and the renovation depth 
increased to ensure that the sector contributes to the 2030 targets. All new buildings should 
be zero-emission buildings by 2030 while existing buildings should be transformed into 
zero-emission buildings by 2050. The recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 
(EPBD recast) (2) is the delivery mechanism for the ‘renovation wave’ strategy (3). Its main 
aim is to increase the rate and depth of renovation in the EU, particularly for the worst-
performing buildings. 

The impact assessment supporting the Commission Communication on the 2040 climate 
targets (4) estimates that EU FEC will decrease from 763 Mtoe in 2030 to 594-624 Mtoe 
by 2040, depending on the scenario. By 2050, FEC will have dropped to approximately 

(1)  (EU) 2023/1791. 
(2)  (EU) 2024/1275. 
(3)  A Renovation Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating jobs, improving lives, COM/2020/662 

final. 

(4)  COM/2024/63 final. 

 
 
 
560 Mtoe.  On  a  sectoral  level,  it  estimates  that  energy  savings  in  buildings  will  reach 
35-38% across the various scenarios by 2040 and 40% by 2050, while energy consumption 
in industry will decrease by around 20% in the decade from 2031 to 2040 and by another 
7 percentage points in the decade from 2041 to 2050 (from 2030 figures). 

Energy  efficiency  is  a  triple  win,  for  our  competitiveness,  climate  and  security, 
offering a multitude of benefits. By reducing energy consumption, we not only decrease 
our  reliance  on  imported  fuels,  but  also  lower  emissions  and  strengthen  our  energy 
independence - every kilowatt-hour saved equates to one less that needs to be imported, 
subsidized, and/or produced. Investing in energy efficiency has a profound impact, with 
every euro invested in energy efficiency translating into 12 euros in savings on energy 
costs over the lifetime of the investment in housing, and 4 euros in industry. Moreover, 
the benefits of energy efficiency are far-reaching, from delivering up to 40% of required 
EU CO₂ cuts by 2030, to creating 1.6 million jobs and avoiding significant grid expansion 
costs,  making  it  a  vital  strategy  for  a  more  competitive  and  sustainable  economy  and 
significant investment efforts are needed to unlock the full potential of energy efficiency 
in Europe. 

Energy efficiency is Europe’s first fuel - clean, cheap, and made at home. In line with the 
energy efficiency first principle, energy efficiency solutions should be considered as the 
first option in policy, planning and investment decisions. 

Realising  the  potential  of  energy  efficiency  in  Europe  requires  a  significant 
investment effort, as highlighted by the Draghi report,  which has increased in line 
with energy and climate objectives. The PRIMES model scenario of the 2040 climate 
target plan estimates that, to deliver on the energy efficiency targets, total energy efficiency 
investment needs amount to some EUR 370 billion per year (5) in the decade from 2021 to 
2030, as compared to EUR 120 billion per year in the previous decade. This represents a 
threefold increase. By comparison, achieving the 2030 GHG reduction target of 55% is 
currently estimated to require investments of some EUR 1 241 billion per year (6). On the 
energy supply and infrastructure side, investment needs are estimated at EUR 208 billion 
per year (7) for the same reference period. After 2030, energy efficiency investment needs 
are then expected to decrease slightly but remain very high in 2031-2040 (EUR 303 billion) 
and in 2041-2050 (EUR 288 billion). Energy efficiency measures in buildings, including 
heating and cooling refurbishment, will account for the bulk of the investments needed to 
deliver on the 2030 targets, at some EUR 242 billion per year in 2021-2030. 

These targets cannot be achieved through regulation alone but will require the mobilisation 
of  both  public  and  private  funding.  Limited  public  resources  cannot  cover  all 
investment needs, so a more efficient and tailored use of public resources must be sought. 

(5)  The  estimate  is  based  on  demand  side  investments  to  achieve  the  2030  climate  and  energy  targets, 
including energy efficiency targets but excluding investment needs in transport and new constructions. 

(6)  SWD/2023/68 final. 
(7)  SWD/2024/63 final. 

2 

 
 
Also, to catalyse and de-risk private investment, use must be made of financial products 
and blended finance. 

With the goal of securing the necessary funding, Article 30 of the EED recast requires the 
Commission to assess: 

• 

the current state of public funding support and the capacity of Member States 
to boost private investments in energy efficiency; 

•  whether there is a need for an energy efficiency mechanism, or a combination 
of grants, technical assistance and guarantees, all at EU level, to help achieve 
the  EU’s  energy  efficiency  and  climate  targets  in  a  cost-effective  way.  The 
Commission is required to submit a report on this to the European Parliament and 
the Council. 

Furthermore,  Article 9(8)  of  the  EPBD  recast  requires  the  Commission  to  present  an 
analysis of: 

• 

• 

• 

the  structural  funds  and  EU  framework  programmes,  including  European 
Investment Bank funding, currently in place for improving the energy performance 
of  buildings,  especially  housing,  in  terms  of  their  effectiveness,  the  types  of 
instruments  used,  the  actual  amounts  and  whether  the  level  of  funding  is 
appropriate; 
funds available from public finance institutions in terms of their effectiveness, the 
types  of  instrument  and  measures  used  and  whether  the  level  of  funding  is 
appropriate; 
the coordination of EU and national funding and other types of measures aiming to 
stimulate  investments  in  the  energy  performance  of  buildings,  and  whether  such 
funding is sufficient to achieve the EU’s objectives. 

This report aims to cover all of the above points, in the following order: 

•  Overview of public funding for energy efficiency and energy renovations in the EU 

— Chapter 2 

•  Assessment of public funding in the EU — Chapter 3 
•  Main findings and conclusions — Chapter 4. 

2.  OVERVIEW  OF  PUBLIC  FUNDING  FOR  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  AND  ENERGY 

RENOVATIONS IN THE EU 

2.1. 

Public funding support at EU level 

2.1.1. 

Union’s budget support 

The Union’s budget support is usually provided under the multiannual financial framework 
(MFF),  a  seven-year  budget  plan.  The  total  Union’s  budget  under  the  2014-2020  MFF 
amounted to EUR 1 083 billion. The MFF for the 2021-2027 period is worth EUR 1 211 
billion. In addition, in order to support the EU’s economic recovery from the coronavirus 

3 

 
pandemic, a temporary recovery instrument – NextGenerationEU, including  its flagship 
Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) – worth in total EUR 807 billion, was established 
in 2021. Accounting for inflation, the EU’s budgetary resources have thus increased by 
86% compared to the previous MFF. 

Table 1: the EU budget 

Adopted amounts (in current prices) 

2014-2020 MFF 
2021-2027 MFF 
Next Generation EU 
RRF and 21-27 MFF 
Source: European Commission, 2024 

EUR 1 083 billion  
EUR 1 211 billion  
EUR 807 billion  
EUR 2 018 billion  

Specifically in terms of energy efficiency, the total EU funding available was multiplied 
by  6.8  between  2014-2020  (EUR 21  billion)  and  2021-2027  (EUR 144.7  billion),  an 
unprecedented  increase.  As  shown  in  Table  2  below,  the  additional  funding  came 
mainly from the RFF, accounting for 73.8% of the total, and, to a much smaller extent, 
from the cohesion policy. 

Table 2: Energy efficiency financing per EU programme (in EUR billion) 

2014-2020  2021-2027 

Increase 
(%) 

21.0 
17.8 
0.7 
1.6 

144.7 
29.0 
1.4 
1.6 

822 
132 
100 
- 

Percentage of 
current MFF 
(%) 
100.0 
20.6 
1.0 
1.1 

0.9 

2.0 

122 

1.4 

- 
- 
- 

6.8 
103.9 (8) 
79.4 (9) 

- 
- 
- 

5.5 

11.9 

116 

4.8 
73.8 

Total EU 

Cohesion policy funds  
Agricultural funds 
EFSI / InvestEU  
Dedicated energy 
efficiency programmes 
(LIFE CET, ELENA, 
Horizon Europe)  
Modernisation Fund 
RRF 

RRF for buildings 

Total co-financing 
(Cohesion + AGRI funds) 

(8)  This figure shows cost estimates of energy efficiency measures under the RRF targeting the renovation 

and construction of buildings as well as energy efficiency projects in SMEs or large enterprises based 
on data from September 2025. This figure has been obtained by summing the estimated expenditure 
associated with measures tracked with intervention fields 
024/024bis/024ter/025/025bis/025ter/026/026bis as defined in Annex VI of the RRF Regulation, 
which lays out a methodology for climate tracking of RRF supported measures. 

(9)  This  figure  shows  cost  estimates  of  measures  linked  to  energy  efficiency  and  the  renovation  and 
construction of buildings covered under the RRF based on data from September 2025. This figure has 
been obtained by summing the estimated expenditure associated with measures tracked with intervention 
fields 025/025bis/025ter/026/026bis as defined in Annex VI of the RRF Regulation, which lays out a 
methodology for climate tracking of RRF supported measures. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Total EU + co-financing 
Source: European Commission, 2024 

26.5 

156.6 

491 

A  large  proportion  of  the  RRF  was  spent  on  energy  efficiency,  particularly  in 
buildings. Of the EUR 650 billion (10) available, EUR 103.9 billion, or 16%, was used to 
finance energy efficiency investments, making this policy area a main RRF beneficiary. It 
is worth noting that all 27 Member States allocated funding to energy efficiency measures 
in their recovery and resilience plans, with allocations ranging from 31% of the available 
funds in Portugal to 2% in Finland. Energy efficiency in buildings captured the largest 
share  of  funding,  totalling  EUR 79.4  billion  (across  all  Member  States).  On  top  of 
investments,  the  RRF  is  also  driving  reform  efforts  in  energy  efficiency,  including 
improving regulatory and administrative frameworks, establishing long-term strategies and 
providing information and training. 

New resources from the EU emissions trading system (ETS) have also helped bridge 
the  investment  gap.  The  Modernisation  Fund (11),  designed  to  help  lower-income 
Member States modernise their energy systems and improve energy efficiency, is financed 
through the sale of 2% of ETS carbon allowances for 2021-2030. At the end of 2023, the 
fund had already disbursed EUR 3 billion for energy efficiency investments in beneficiary 
Member States, accounting for a quarter of total disbursements. Based on the current trend, 
it is estimated that disbursements for energy efficiency will have reached EUR 6.8 billion 
by the end of 2027. 

New  resources from the  RRF  and the ETS account for  89% of this increase. Both 
instruments are exclusively managed by the Member States. 

All things being equal, the available EU funds thus increased by 62%, from EUR 21 billion 
to EUR 34 billion (excluding resources from the RRF of EUR 103.9 billion and ETS funds 
of EUR 6.8 billion). This corresponds to an annual contribution from the Union’s budget 
of  EUR 4.8  billion  from  2021  to  2027,  rising  to  EUR 20.7 billion  if  the  RRF  and  the 
Modernisation Fund are included. 

The cohesion  policy funds  made available also  increased notably, effectively  doubling 
from EUR 17.8 billion to EUR 29 billion in the period from 2021 to 2027, and in addition 
the  mid-term  review  aims  at  doubling  cohesion  funding  for  affordable  and  sustainable 
housing. Cohesion policy funds proved to be a successful tool to strengthen cooperation 
between public and private financial institutions in various Member states, and it helped to 
mobilise private investments for energy efficiency renovations on the ground, whereit is 
important to note an increasing use of revolving financial instruments for energy efficiency 
(loans and guarantees combined with grants). 

(10)  The total financial envelope of the RRF was determined at EUR 650 billion at the end of August 2024. 
The  previously reported amount of EUR 723 billion represented the maximum amount of RRF non-
repayable  support  (EUR  338  billion)  and  RRF  loans  (EUR  385  billion)  made  available  by  the  RRF 
Regulation but was not fully exploited by Member States. 

(11)  Modernisation Fund. 

5 

 
 
 
The Social Climate Fund will kick in as of 2026, when the RRF is phasing out. The fund 
was  created  at  the  same  time  as  the  ETS  was  extended  to  cover  emissions  from  fuel 
combustion in buildings, road transport and other sectors. It will provide funding totalling 
EUR 86.7  billion,  to  be  shared  among  Member  States,  to  support  structural  measures, 
investments  in  energy  efficiency  and  the  renovation  of  buildings,  clean  heating  and 
cooling,  the  integration  of  renewable  energy  and  zero-  and  low-emission  mobility 
solutions. 

European  Energy  Efficiency  Fund  (EEEF):  a  public-private  partnership  for 
energy efficiency 

Set up in 2011, the EEEF is a public-private, long-term investment vehicle designed to 
support the EU’s energy and climate goals. The fund provides dedicated financing to 
local,  regional or national  authorities, or to  public or private  entities acting on their 
behalf,  with  the  objective  of  boosting  energy  savings  and  energy  efficiency  and 
promoting renewable energy sources in the EU.  

The  fund,  which  has  paid  out  dividends  every  year  since  2013,  has  a  diverse 
shareholder base, comprising institutions from both the public and the private sector, 
including  the  European  Commission,  which  has  contributed  risk  capital,  Generali, 
Stichting Achmea Algemeen Pensioenfonds, DBU and DWS/Wepla. 

With total investments of some EUR 180 million, the EEEF has supported 18 projects 
in 10 European countries, involving 56 public authorities and reaching over 2 million 
people annually. The fund has achieved significant results since its launch, generating 
over  EUR 380  million  in  total  investments.  It  has  supported  a  range  of  projects, 
including  public  building  renovation,  street  lighting  upgrades,  renewable  energy 
generation and clean transport infrastructure. The fund’s technical assistance facility 
has also played a critical role in helping to prepare projects leading to significant energy 
savings  and  GHG  emission  reductions.  By  the  end  of  2021,  the  fund  had  achieved 
cumulative CO₂ emissions savings of 740 460 tonnes and primary energy savings of 
1 318 549 MWh. 

The EEEF is a good example of a dedicated public-private partnership in the area of 
energy  efficiency,  demonstrating  the  potential  of  blended  financing  to  leverage  EU 
public  capital  and  crowd  in  private  investment.  The  fund’s  design,  combining 
concessional  financing,  technical  assistance  and  sectoral  expertise,  has  enabled  the 
implementation of high-impact projects with relatively modest EU capital inputs. 

2.1.2. 

The  European  Investment  Bank  Group  support  including  when 
supported by the Union’s budget 

The  European  Investment  Bank  Group  (‘EIBG’) (12),  as  the  EU’s  climate  bank  and  the 
main implementing partner for EU funds, plays an essential role in  the financing of the 
energy transition. 

(12)  The EIB Group consists of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Investment Fund 

(EIF). 

6 

 
 
As set  out in  its  climate  bank roadmap (13) and following on  from  the renovation  wave 
strategy for the building sector, its energy efficiency strategy includes intermediated loans 
and  guarantees  as  well  as  advisory  services  (InvestEU  Advisory  Hub (14),  notably  the 
ELENA facility (15)). 

As a result, resources dedicated to energy efficiency were multiplied by 12.2 from 2012 
to 2023. EIB Group funding mainly went to the building sector, and to smart appliances 
and solutions, in line with the strategy set out in the roadmap. 

On  the  other  side,  financing  remained  low  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
(‘SMEs’),  industry,  combined  heat  and  power  (‘CHP’)  and  district  heating  (‘DH’).  In 
September 2025, the EIB Group and the Commission launched the energy efficiency 
for SMEs initiative, part of the EIB strategic roadmap (16) for 2024-2027. This initiative 
will provide EUR 17.5 billion in financing from 2025 to 2027, aiming to nearly double the 
current level of support for energy-efficient solutions for SMEs (17). 

The  European  Investment  Fund  (‘EIF’)  has  been  a  long-term  supporter  of  clean 
technologies, providing venture capital investments and introducing initiatives such as a 
partial-risk guarantee to promote green loans for energy efficiency and renewable energy 
projects. Through the InvestEU programme, the EIF has further intensified its focus on 
financing  projects  that  support  decarbonization,  energy  efficiency,  renewable  energy, 
sustainable  mobility  and  circular  economy,  with  a  total  investment  of  around  EUR  4.1 
billion until 2025. 

Table 3: EIB Group financing of energy efficiency inside the EU (in EUR million) 

Energy efficiency (EE) 

Energy efficiency (EE) 

2012 
763 
2018 
2 421 

2013 
1 354 
2019 
4 289 

2014 
1 557 
2020 
5 273 

2015 
2 876 
2021 
4 539 

2016 
3 349 
2022 
7 624 

2017 
4 613 
2023 
9 326 

Source: European Investment Bank Group, 2024 

Note  that  these  figures  include  resources  from  the  Union’s  budget  implemented  by  the 
European investment bank (‘EIB’) - one of the main implementing partners for EU funds 
– and the national promotional and development banks (‘NPBIs’). Those should therefore 
not be added to the figures presented in the previous section. This is the case, for example, 
for the InvestEU guarantee programme and ELENA. The figures nevertheless highlight 
the more than twelvefold increase in the EIB group’s energy efficiency investments since 
2012. 

(13)  EIB Group Climate Bank Roadmap 2021-2025 and EIB Group Climate Bank phase 2 2026-2030. 
(14)  https://investeu.europa.eu/investeu-programme/investeu-advisory-hub_en. 
(15)  https://www.eib.org/en/products/advisory-services/elena/index. 
(16)  EIB Group 2024-2027 Strategic Roadmap 
(17)  EIB EE in SMEs Initiative 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. 

Public funding support at Member State level 

The Commission conducted a bottom-up analysis of public funding schemes. The Member 
States were then consulted (i) by means of a call for evidence (18) and (ii) through the EED 
Expert Group. This report is mainly based on the data collected directly from the Member 
States, whereas other data from the analysis , where available, was used to fill any gaps. 

In total, 426 public funding schemes were identified in the 27 Member States. 

It  needs  to  be  underlined  that,  as  energy  efficiency  data  is  not  systematically  collected 
under public funding schemes, these are only indicative estimates. 

Many national schemes are co-financed by EU programmes. 103 schemes received co-
financing from EU programmes, either partly or fully. In terms of both the number and the 
volume  of  schemes,  the  RRF  was  the  main  contributor.  Reported  EU  contributions  of 
EUR 28.8 billion have been discounted from the total to avoid double counting between 
EU and national financing schemes (19).  

No  budget  data  was  received  for  80  schemes,  so  the  assessment  is  based  on  data  for 
346 schemes  across  Europe.  Support  for  energy  efficiency  projects  from  national 
budgets  in  2014-2024  is  estimated  at  EUR 360  billion (20),  i.e.  approximately 
EUR 32.7 billion per year. The budget distribution by Member State is shown below. 

Graph 1 / Table 4: National energy efficiency schemes, 2014-2024 

Number of schemes and value by Member State

s
e
m
e
h
c
s

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

160.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

e
u
l
a
V

y
l
a
t
I

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

d
n
a
l
o
P

n
e
d
e
w
S

a
i
h
c
e
z
C

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

n
i
a
p
S

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

e
c
e
e
r
G

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
t
l
a

M

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

# Schemes

Total budget

Member States 

Number of 
schemes 

Total planned budget 
(in EUR million) 

EUR per capita 

(18)  Energy efficiency – assessing the level of EU and national funding. 

(19)  In  their  contribution,  Member  States  reported  EUR  28.8  billion  in  total  as  EU  contribution  to  the 

implemented national financing schemes.  

(20)  EUR 388.7 billion minus EUR 28.8 billion stemming from reported EU contributions. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Italy 
Sweden 
France 
Austria 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Finland 
EU-27 
Estonia 
Poland 
Latvia 
Netherlands 
Croatia 
Belgium 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Lithuania 
Greece 
Luxembourg 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Malta 
Spain 
Hungary 
Slovenia 
Ireland 
Romania 

8 
7 
14 
16 
24 
9 
15 
10 
426 
13 
34 
21 
10 
11 
25 
12 
14 
9 
7 
10 
15 
9 
16 
62 
35 
7 
6 
7 
Source: European Commission, 2024. Ranking based on EUR per capita. 

134 465 
22 067 
125 711 
14 537 
15 697 
5 720 
80 563 
5 186 
388 654 
1 137 
26 655 
1 171 
9 467 
1 877 
5 684 
4 967 
2 365 
1 084 
4 032 
236 
2 332 
361 
146 
10 663 
1 931 
331 
172 
263 

2 284 
2 104 
1 850 
1 608 
1 491 
969 
958 
933 
864 
849 
710 
623 
528 
488 
487 
479 
436 
383 
381 
363 
360 
289 
279 
224 
199 
157 
26 
14 

Among the larger Member States, Italy and France stand out with high levels of support. 
Under Italy’s Superbonus, beneficiaries received a 110% subsidy in the form of tax credits. 
In  France,  a  reduced  VAT  rate  for  renovation  works  (5.5%),  in  place  since  2014,  was 
estimated to have cost EUR 90 billion since its launch, accounting for three quarters of the 
French spending. 

Grants, technical assistance and Tax rebates are non-repayable forms of support, meaning 
that these resources can be provided to beneficiaries only once and do not flow back into 
the national budget. Non-repayable support should mainly target vulnerable beneficiaries 
who  would  struggle  to  pay  back  support,  either  due  to  a  lack  of  resources  or  due  to  a 
situation  of  tough  competition  with  other  expenses.  On  the  other  hand,  funds  received 
under repayable schemes, which include financial instruments such as loans, guarantees 
and equity, must be paid back to the national or regional implementing bodies and, in the 
case of revolving funds, can be used for successive operations. Repayable support tends to 
have  higher  leverage  potential.  There  are  also  blended  schemes  offering  a  mix  of  both 

9 

 
repayable  and  non-repayable  support.  These  are  particularly  apt  to  trigger  investment 
decisions by beneficiaries due to their subsidy component (e.g. free technical support or 
energy audits, preferential lending conditions, capital rebates, interest rates or guarantee 
fee subsidies). 

Type of scheme 

Table 5: Breakdown of national schemes by form of support 
Volume (in 
EUR million) 
248 046 
91 815  
41 621  
7 172  
388 654 

Number of 
schemes 
285 
36 
69 
36 
426 

Non-repayable 
Blended scheme 
Repayable 
Other 
TOTAL 

Volume share 
(%) 
63.8% 
23.6% 
10.7% 
1.8% 

Source: European Commission, 2024 

Member States were asked to provide data only for the most relevant schemes. Most 
of them reported less than 20, but 6 Member States reported a larger number either because 
there are distinct sub-programmes of large-scale programmes (Czechia, Hungary, Latvia, 
Poland)  or  because  energy  efficiency  programmes  are  managed  regionally  (Belgium, 
Spain). 

Member States mainly opt for non-repayable schemes. While non-repayable support 
often  consists  of  grants,  several  large  Member  States  (France,  Germany,  Italy)  mainly 
make use of tax rebates. Financial instruments (repayable schemes) account for more than 
30%  of  funding  in  only  5  Member  States  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Hungary,  Finland  and 
Portugal),  while  blended  schemes  are  widely  used  in  only  3  Member  States  (Austria, 
Denmark and Germany). 

Graph  2:  Budget  breakdown  of  national  schemes  by  form  of  support  —  national 
breakdown 

10 

 
 
Share of budget by type of scheme

Ireland
Greece
Cyprus
Spain
Estonia
Italy
Sweden
Netherlands
France
Slovenia
Malta
Latvia
Poland
Luxembourg
Czechia
Romania
Slovakia
Austria
Belgium
Hungary
Bulgaria
Finland
Denmark
Croatia
Portugal
Germany
Lithuania
EU27

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Non-repayable

Blended scheme

Repayable

Others

To  boost  the  economic  recovery  from  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  Member  States 
predominantly made use of their resources to  finance grant programmes. Until 2019, 
the number of new energy efficiency schemes set up each year varied between 10 and 25, 
but  between  2020  and  2023,  Member  States  created  no  less  than  205  new  schemes 
(between 34 and 67 per year) largely due to the implementation of the RRF. Many of these 
were  in  the  form  of  grants  (116),  followed  by  financial  instruments  (25).  In  terms  of 
volume,  grants  amounted 
to 
to  EUR 56.4  billion  and 
EUR 16.5 billion. Among the new schemes, 48 targeted residential buildings for a total of 
EUR 95.4 billion, which  is  55.6% of the total volume allocated to  new schemes in  this 
period (EUR 171.5 billion). 

instruments 

financial 

11 

 
 
 
 
Graphs 3 & 4 / Table 6: National scheme and budget breakdown according to launch date 
(in EUR million) 

Number of new schemes by launch date

s
e
m
e
h
c
s

f
o

r
e
b
m
u
N

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

90.000

80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Grant

Blended scheme

Financial instruments

Tax rebates

EEOS

No data

Volume of schemes by launch date (in EUR million)

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

Inception date

Non-repayable

Blended scheme

Repayable

Others

Non-repayable  Blended scheme  Repayable  Other 

Launch date 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 
Source: European Commission, 2024 

2 774 
4 421 
1 865 
20 645 
3 998 
51 887 
22 380 
13 576 
5 303 
1 481 

4 878 
8 050 
963 
566 
1 100 
381 
333 
2 696 
13 083 
280 

27 
- 
- 
- 
227 
213 
1 024 
164 
239 
- 

13 
- 
- 
252 
- 
- 
55 382 
2 476 
2 362 
334 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
3.  ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDING FROM EU AND NATIONAL SOURCES 

3.1.  Assessing leverage 

3.1.1. 

Multiplier effect and leverage of EU programmes 

Table 7: EU budget and leverage (in EUR million) 

EU 
budget 
A 

National co-
financing 
B 

Total 
investments 
C 

leverage  
(A+B)/A 

Total 
Multiplier  
C/A 

5 244 

11 275 

710 

24 986 

12 540 

Cohesion policy 
funds 2014-2020  
Cohesion policy 
funds 2021-2027  
Agricultural policy 
funds 2014-2022 
Recovery and 
Resilience Facility  
Modernisation Fund  
LIFE CET (Calls 
2021 and 2022) 
ELENA  
EFSI  
InvestEU  
Source: European Commission, 2024 and 2025 

295 
1 624 
624 

103 921 

3 085 

216 

1.4 

1.5 

N/A 

N/A 

2.4 

N/A 

N/A 

40.0 

32.8 
15.6 
15.9 

1 695 

8 640 

9 662 
25 400 
9 915 

EU  programmes  with  a  significant  proportion  of  grants  have  limited  leverage  on 
energy efficiency. The leverage of cohesion policy funds is below 1.5, meaning that every 
euro from the Union’s budget attracts an additional 50 cents of national co-financing. The 
total multiplier cannot be calculated as it is not possible to provide an aggregated value for 
total investments inclusive of private funding. 

As regards agricultural funds, the total multiplier is estimated at 2.4 for the period from 
2014 to 2022. RFF and Modernisation Fund multiplier is difficult to estimate for lack of 
data, but as most national funds cover only a portion of the total investment (from 20% up 
to 100%), the total public multiplier can therefore be estimated at 2 to 3. 

Cohesion  policy  funds  encourage  the  use  of  financial  instruments,  with  proven 
results.  Under  the  current  MFF,  EUR 18.5  billion  was  earmarked  for  financial 
instruments,  of  which  24% 
investments 
(EUR 4.3 billion). Although the categorisation of spending items is different between the 
two MFF periods, this means cohesion fund allocations for financial instruments almost 
tripled  compared  to  2014-2020  (EUR 1.6  billion) (21).  Under  Cohesion  policy  funds,  a 
majority of Member States  are encouraged to use combinations of grants & financial 

to  energy  efficiency 

to  be  allocated 

(21)  Financial instruments under cohesion policy 2021-2027 | Cohesion Open Data. 

13 

 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
instruments in one operation. However, this does not happen systematically across all 
the Member States and scale is often not yet reached. 

There is no precise data for each thematic objective by subject area (i.e. energy efficiency), 
but  in  2014-2020  financial  instruments  under  the  Cohesion  policy  funds  achieved  a 
leverage  of  3.8  across  all  sectors,  which  is  considerably  above  the  average  value  for 
cohesion policy of 1.4. Financial instruments leveraged additional private capital equal to 
15% of Cohesion policy budget in 2014-2020. The Commission in cooperation with EIB 
also offers various technical support to encourage up take of financial instruments 
for energy efficiency, such as the Model energy efficiency financial instrument (EEFI) 
(22), the Fi-compass platform and Energy efficiency Scale-up Initiative (23), Cohesion for 
Transitions (C4T) (24).  

EU  programmes  offering  technical  assistance,  guarantees  and  market  uptake 
measures  have  very  high  leverage.  The  ELENA  facility  in  particular,  which  provides 
advisory services to local energy and mobility projects, demanding a minimum leverage 
of 10-20 from project beneficiaries (depending on the sector), exceeded its target by far 
with an average of 32. 

Now  managed  under  the  InvestEU  programme,  ELENA  has  successfully  used  EU 
resources as seed money for local investment portfolios in 25 out of 27 Member States. A 
leverage as high as 40 was achieved by the LIFE Clean Energy Transition (LIFE CET) 
sub-programme, which includes co-financing requirements and supports  market uptake, 
project  development  and  innovative  approaches  such  as  setting  up  pilot  financial 
instruments. 

The European  Fund  for Strategic Investments  (EFSI), succeeded by  InvestEU as of 
2021, is an intermediated guarantee instrument aiming to close the investment gap in 
Europe by attracting private finance for projects in areas such as innovation, infrastructure, 
social and skills development and support for SMEs. It has become the largest vehicle for 
investments under the Union’s budget, aiming to leverage close to EUR 900 billion from 

(22)  The EEFI is a flexible model which offers a practical guide for EU member states how to easily set up 
a market-oriented FI combined with grant to provide funding and advisory support to investments EE 
(housing,  SMEs).  Crucially,  the  model  offers  a  path  to  leverage  the  funds  available  through  the  EU 
budget, to mobilise additional resources from commercial banks and private investors for such schemes, 
Energy efficiency investments under REPower EU .  

(23)  fi-compass | Financial instruments under EU shared management offers technical assistance to managing 
authorities,  helping  them  conduct  feasibility  studies,  ex-ante  assessments,  case  studies  and  other 
preparatory work necessary to establish financial instruments. As part of Fi-compass platform, the Scale-
Up: energy efficiency financial instruments brings together experts from various institutions to tackle 
barriers  in  implementing  EE  FIs  and  propose  solutions.  Task-based  working  groups  will  develop 
strategies  to  improve  and  scale-up  EE  FIs  drawing  on  best  practices  and  expertise  from  across  EU 
countries.  

(24)  Inforegio - Apply for C4T GROUNDWORK – technical assistance for Cohesion Policy investments It 
provides  expert  support  to  EU  Member  States,  regions  and  local  authorities,  helping  them  with  the 
implementation  of  Cohesion  Policy  investments  under  Policy  Objective  2  (PO2),  including  those 
focusing on energy efficiency. Support services include developing strategies, improving monitoring, 
engaging  stakeholders,  identifying  funding  opportunities,  supporting  call  preparation  and  building 
capacity.  

14 

 
 
2014  to  2027.  EFSI  achieved  a  leverage  of  15.6,  which  is  expected  to  be  equalled  by 
InvestEU. 

3.1.2. 

Multiplier effect of national funding programmes 

Multiplier data is lacking for most national support schemes. However, there is data 
on private investment leveraged by national resources for 71 such schemes. 

Table 8: Leverage of national energy efficiency schemes 
Number of 
schemes 
71 
58 

36 394 
30 651 

Implemented  Private 

56 045 
40 037 

Overall, of which: 
Non-repayable 
Blended schemes 
+ repayable 

13 

5 743 

16 008 

21 751 

Total 

Multiplier 

92 019 
70 268 

2.5 
2.3 

3.8 

Repayable 
Source: European Commission, 2024 

8 

902 

11 478 

12 381 

13.7 

The global multiplier shown in the above table hides significant differences between the 
instruments used. Non-repayable schemes have an average multiplier of 2.3, which can 
be  also  understood  as  an  average  grant  intensity  of  around  30%.  However,  private 
investment leverage increases to 2.4 where there is EU co-financing, which suggests that 
EU funding contributions has the effect of attracting more private investments. 

According to the available data, EU funding tends to not only substitute national funding 
but  also  to  lower  co-financing  requirements.  An  explanation  for  this  could  be  that  by 
increasing the grant intensity of a given programme, EU co-financing reduces the need for 
final beneficiaries to co-invest. At the same time, building sector grants — whether in the 
form of EU or national funding — are effective when they target specific owners (low-
income  households/SMEs),  building  segments  (worst-performing  buildings)  or  deeper 
renovations requiring substantial investments. 

For  financial  instruments,  the  multiplier  is  more  difficult  to  assess  as  it  can  only  be 
calculated  on  the  executed  budget,  i.e.  once  the  investments  have  taken  place.  The 
multiplier  of  repayable  schemes  is  estimated  at  almost  14,  which  is  in  line  with  the 
multiplier effect observed for InvestEU. However, the volume of financial instruments for 
which there is reliable data is extremely limited (EUR 900 million of funds disbursed over 
10 years). 

In  conclusion,  and  due  to  the  heterogeneity  of  the  available  data,  it  is  difficult  to 
accurately  quantify  the  overall  multiplier  effect  of  public  funding  in  the  Member 
States.  However,  it  can  be  assumed  that  grants  usually  generate  a  multiplier  effect  of 
around 3. 

15 

 
 
3.2.  How public funding compares to investment needs 

The PRIMES model used by the Commission to carry out impact assessments and analyse 
policy options for the energy sector has estimated that some EUR 370 billion will need to 
be invested every year from 2021 to 2030 to achieve the 2030 energy efficiency targets (25). 
For the building sector alone, the investment needs are estimated at EUR 242 billion per 
year  in  the  current  decade,  of  which  EUR 180  billion  for  the  energy  renovation  of 
residential  buildings  and  EUR 62  billion  for  the  energy  renovation  of  service  (non-
residential) buildings. 

The 2024 energy efficiency report of the International Energy Agency (IEA) (26) estimates 
that  on  average,  some  EUR  200  billion  was  invested  in  energy  efficiency  in  Europe 
annually from 2021 to 2023. Therefore, comparing investment needs with the investments 
carried  out  in  the  EU  during  that  period,  as  estimated  by  the  IEA, the  investment  gap 
needing  to  be  filled  to  deliver  on  the  2030  energy  efficiency  targets  amounts  to 
EUR 170 billion per year. 

The size of the projected investment gap is commensurate with other estimates from the 
I4CE (27) and Bruegel (28). The I4CE estimated an investment gap of EUR 137 billion per 
year with reference to 2022, and Bruegel estimates an investment gap of EUR 149 billion 
per year specifically for the building sector. 

Table 9: Annual energy  efficiency investment  needs and  investment  gap, 2021-2030 (in 
EUR billion) 

Energy efficiency 
Buildings 

Investment needs  
370 
242 

Source: European Commission, 2024, Bruegel 

Investment gap  

170 
149 

In Chapter 2 above, EU funding was estimated at EUR 20.6 billion per year and Member 
State funding at EUR 32.7 billion per year. It is thus possible to consider that EUR 53.3 
billion of public funds is allocated to energy efficiency, i.e. around one sixth (14,4%) of 
the total investment needs.  

3.3.  Energy savings achieved 

3.3.1. 

EU programmes (29) 

Reporting of energy savings under the EU financial framework varies considerably 
depending on the  requirements of each programme. There is no standard method of 

(25)  The estimate is based on the demand side investments required to achieve the 2030 climate and energy 
targets according to the PRIMES modelling scenario for the 2040 Climate Target Plan, including energy 
efficiency targets but excluding investment needs in transport and new constructions. 

(26)  IEA  2024  Energy  Efficiency  Report,  https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/f304f2ba-e9a2-4e6d-

b529-fb67cd13f646/EnergyEfficiency2024.pdf. 

(27)  Institute 4 Climate Economics (I4CE), European Climate Investment Deficit Report, source: 20240222-

i4ce3859-Panorama-EU_VA-40p.pdf. 

(28)  Bruegel, How to finance the European Union’s building decarbonisation plan, source: PB 12 2024.pdf. 
(29)  EU core performance indicators_15_07_0.pdf 

16 

 
 
 
tracking or reporting energy savings as a result of EU funding. Also, the reporting is patchy 
for a number of reasons, including incomplete and delayed reporting and the fact that some 
energy  savings  are  not  reported  at  all,  for  example  when  projects  have  an  impact  on 
reducing  energy  consumption  but  their  budget  intervention  fields  are  not  tagged  under 
‘energy efficiency’. 

It is therefore not possible to track progress and measure global impact and efficiency 
in terms of energy savings per euro of the Union’s budget spent on energy efficiency. 

As an example  of good practice,  for the ELENA facility  beneficiaries  are required  to 
estimate and report the energy savings generated by their projects. This has been the case 
since the programme was launched in 2009. 

Table 10: Estimated energy savings per fund 

Scheme 

Cohesion policy funds 2014-2020 
Cohesion policy funds 2021-2027 
Agricultural policy funds 2014-2022 
LIFE CET 2021-2027 (30) 
ELENA 
InvestEU (31) 
Recovery and Resilience Facility  (32) 
Modernisation Fund 

Annual energy savings 
estimated (MWh*) 
7 926 050 
N/A 
N/A 
8 344 000 
4 936 030 
230 736 
33 388 511 
26 886 804 

*Megawatt-hour 
Source: European Commission, 2024 

Based on the available data, by the end of 2023 the annual energy savings achieved through 
EU funds amounted to 81.9 TWh, equivalent to about 6% of the additional effort needed 
to meet the Union’s 2030 energy efficiency target. However, for the reasons set out above 
the  figure  is  based  on  incomplete  data  and  does  not  represent  the  actual  impact  of  EU 
funding. 

3.3.2. 

National programmes 

Energy savings data is unevenly reported. In 3 Member States (Denmark, Ireland and 
Spain) more than 80% of schemes report energy savings, while there is no reporting in 
8 Member States. In total, only 135 schemes across Europe report energy savings. 

There is no standard method for reporting energy efficiency gains. Energy savings can 
either be estimated ex ante or reported ex post. Most schemes (95 of 137) report FEC data, 
but 5 Member States use PEC data and some (e.g. Spain, Poland and Malta) report either 
PEC or FEC data depending on the scheme. 

(30)  Estimated target by 2030. 
(31)  Data reported for 2023. 
(32)  Common indicator on savings in annual primary energy consumption as reported by Member States in 

2024, Recovery and Resilience Scoreboard .  

17 

 
 
For the 2014-2024 period covered by this  report, 135 national schemes (less than 30%) 
reported  data  on  energy  savings.  The  reported  total  energy  savings  amounted  to 
135 611 696.46 MWh = 135.6 TWh (33),  around 10% of the additional effort  needed  to 
achieve the Union’s 2030 energy efficiency target. 

Graph 5 / Table 11: Estimated energy savings in selected countries 

Energy savings and data availability (in MWh)

h
W
M

160.000.000

140.000.000

120.000.000

100.000.000

80.000.000

60.000.000

40.000.000

20.000.000

0

90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

Total energy

Share of data

4.  MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

4.1.  Main findings 

This report shows that considerable progress has been made in recent years in the area 
of  energy  efficiency  financing,  reflecting  a  significant  increase  in  the  Union’s  budget. 
This increased funding is a crucial step towards achieving long-term sustainability goals 
and meeting demand for energy performance renovations. 

However,  a  survey  of  486  national  schemes  revealed  the  limited  use  of  blended  and 
repayable financing schemes, which currently account for less than 25% of the total. This 
underutilisation  is  due  not  only  to  the complexity of these  schemes  compared to  grant-
based subsidy schemes, but also to the lack or limited capacity of national financing entities 
specialised in mobilising energy efficiency investments. 

Although financial instruments can leverage higher levels of private investment, they are 
less frequently used than grants. This shows a need for a more effective interplay between 
grants  and  financial  instruments.  Grants  should  support  specific  social  or  sectoral 
needs,  such  as  vulnerable  households,  micro-enterprises  or  the  worst-performing 
buildings, while financial instruments should be mainstreamed, covering other areas 
and maximising the impact of public funds. 

(33) Annual savings achieved in 2023, the most recent reporting year. 
. 

18 

 
 
 
Moreover, evidence from cohesion policy financial instruments shows that grants can be 
effectively  combined  with  financial  instruments  to  improve  project  preparation, 
incentivise  deeper  energy  renovations  and  improve  affordability  for  low-income 
households  facing  energy  poverty.  Various  forms  of  grants  —  such  as  interest-rate  or 
guarantee fee subsidies, technical assistance, investment grants and capital rebates — can 
be combined with loans, guarantees or equity in a single operation, making the schemes 
more  attractive  to  both  the  market  and  financial  intermediaries.  Experience  from  the 
Recovery  and  Resilience  Facility  highlights  the  importance  of  combining  investment 
support with reforms, as well as the establishment of the necessary support networks (e.g. 
one-stop shops). 

EU  funds  for  energy  efficiency  are  spread  across  various  national  and  regional 
programmes, each managed by different organisations. This fragmentation and the lack 
of  coordination  between  public  and  financial  institutions  limit  the  uptake  of  blended 
financing and hinders the mobilisation of private investment. 

Furthermore, public funding could be made more effective by shifting the focus from 
individual  projects  to  aggregated  ones.  This  includes  supporting  standardisation, 
creating economies of scale and reaching a critical size to access finance. However, support 
for project  aggregators is  often  constrained by  rules and  regulations, including banking 
practices for long-term financing, guarantees and collateral. At the same time, relevant EU-
funded programmes such as ELENA and LIFE CET, which use resources from the Union’s 
budget effectively and have proved to have significant leverage and multiplier effect, have 
a relatively small budget. 

The  absence  of  standardised  data  and  reporting  on  energy  efficiency  projects, 
investments and energy savings continues to be a challenge in terms of assessing progress 
and measuring impact. This is true in particular for larger programmes or specific target 
populations  (e.g.  vulnerable households) and for the worst-performing  buildings, which 
have the most to gain from energy renovations. 

4.2.  Conclusions 

Despite notable progress in enhancing public support for energy efficiency projects, public 
funding  currently  covers  only  a  limited  proportion  (15%)  of  the  total  estimated 
investments needs to meet the Union’s 2030 energy efficiency targets. The end of the 
RRF in 2026 risks further widening this investment gap, making it more challenging 
to realise the full energy efficiency potential.  

Building renovations and energy efficiency improvements in SMEs and micro-enterprises 
produce substantial long-term savings, but vulnerable households and SMEs in particular 
are in need of financial support to cover upfront costs for initial investments. 

More efficient, targeted, and performance-based financing schemes at the Union, national 
and regional levels can unlock simple, tailored and attractive energy solutions for citizens 
and enterprises. 

19 

 
Therefore, there is an urgent need to maximise the catalytic and market transformation 
effect  of  public  funding  to  unlock  significant  private  investments  and  tap  into  the 
potential  of  energy  efficiency  in  terms  of  competitiveness,  affordability  of  energy, 
security, health, and quality of life, ensuring that the Union meets its energy efficiency 
objectives, particularly  in  building  renovation,  for 2030  and beyond. At the same time, 
dedicate  instruments  and  policy  measures  should  continue  to  contribute  to  stimulate 
demand for energy efficiency investments, including for instance one-stop shops services, 
as  well  as  to  stimulate  offer  of  innovative  and  private  financing  solutions  for  energy 
efficiency, including simplify and scaling up the market for energy efficiency services.  

The  modernised  scope  of  the  proposed  2028-2034  budget  allows  to  implement  this 
optimisation.  In particular, national and regional partnership plans will link reforms with 
investments  including  to  improve  energy  efficiency,  along  with  the  new  European 
Competitiveness Fund which will strengthen the Union’s economy through investments 
aiming to decarbonise the European economy and promoting energy efficiency. 

The  Union’s  budget  will  also  support  the  development  and  scale-up  of  financial 
instruments and blended financing schemes, combining grants, advisory services and 
guarantees  to  meet  sector-specific  needs.  The  Commission  Recommendation  on 
unlocking  private  investment  in  energy  efficiency  provides  valuable  guidance  and 
concrete  examples  to  Member  States  and  market  actors  to  mobilise  private  sector 
resources. 

Strong  project  development  assistance,  market  uptake  initiatives  and  capacity-
building measures are needed to improve the efficiency and uptake of public and private 
funds. Under the next MFF, the Commission will build on existing EU programmes such 
as LIFE CET and ELENA, which have demonstrated high leverage in terms of investments 
and energy savings, to prepare the ground for larger direct investment programmes. 

To maximise the impact of public funding in  support to  energy efficiency investments, 
Member  States  should  increase  the  use  of  financial  instruments  and  reduce  their 
reliance  on  grants.  However,  grants  should  still  be  used  to  address  market  failures  and 
ensure social inclusion and targeted support for specific sectoral needs. 

At the same time, the enabling framework should promote the effective deployment and 
use  of  enabling  tools,  such  as  energy  efficiency  loans  and  mortgages,  and  combined 
portfolio  guarantees,  for  building  renovation,  energy  performance  contracting,  pay-for-
performance financial schemes, fiscal incentives and energy performance standards. 

Given  the  complexities  and  challenges  associated  with  financing  energy  efficiency 
projects, the Commission recognises an increasing need for effective financing solutions,  
for large energy efficiency investment pipelines and de-risk investments. 

Energy Efficiency Accelerator Instruments could include sector-specific components to 
rapidly  increase  investments  in  building  renovation,  SMEs  and  micro-enterprises,  and 
heating  and  cooling  systems.  Member  States  could  involved  the  national  hubs  of  the 
European Energy Efficiency Financing Coalition in the development of these instruments.  

20 

 
 
Public-private partnerships such as the EEEF have proven a success in terms of scaling 
up  investment  projects  and  mobilising  private-sector  funding.  This  demonstrates  the 
potential  benefits  of  replicating  and  scaling  up  this  model  in  a  broader  EU  energy 
efficiency  financing  framework.  These  partnerships  can  serve  as  a  model  for  next-
generation accelerator instruments. By doing so, the Union can unlock significant benefits 
for energy efficiency projects, including reduced risk, increased financing, and improved 
project development. 

Finally, to significantly boost private investments in energy efficiency, while ensuring the 
effective use of public funds, the Commission launched, in 2024, the European Energy 
Efficiency  Financing  Coalition.  The  continuation  and  further  reinforcement  of  this 
structured partnership between the Commission, Member States, financial institutions, and 
industry, is crucial for the achievement of the Union’s energy efficiency goals. 

The Commission invites both the European Parliament and the Council to take note of this 
report. 

21