The recast EPBD marks a pivotal moment for the EU’s building sector, introducing National Building Renovation Plans (NBRPs) to replace long-term renovation strategies and tackle energy efficiency with renewed focus. In this interview, Irma and Fabio explore how the directive is driving change—from addressing energy poverty and renovating worst-performing buildings to engaging citizens and industries in defining zero-emission standards. They dive into the challenges, solutions, and best practices shaping the future of sustainable building policies.

The recast EPBD brings in National Building Renovation Plans (NBRPs). What’s the difference, if any, between NBRPs and the national long-term renovation strategies required up until now?

Article 3 of the latest EPBD recast introduces National Building Renovation Plans, or NBRPs, which replace the long-term renovation strategies (LTRS) outlined in Article 2a of the 2018 EPBD recast. Although the two documents share similar requirements, the NBRPs bring some notable differences. For example, NBRPs now include mandatory data on zero-emission buildings, minimum energy performance standards for non-residential buildings, and national trajectories for residential buildings, including information on worst-performing buildings. These elements are entirely new and were not part of earlier EPBD versions.

The most significant change is the addition of Annex II, which provides a standardised set of mandatory and optional indicators for NBRPs. Unlike LTRSs, which allowed Member States to submit available data—often inconsistent or incomplete—Annex II ensures a more uniform approach. However, this also presents challenges for Member States that currently lack robust building-stock data. To help address this, the European Commission is preparing a guidance note and a template for NBRPs, which should be available next year.

What are the main challenges faced by the focus countries (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine) in gathering reliable building stock data, especially for non-residential buildings?

All focus countries have a solid foundation for gathering building stock data, particularly for residential buildings. Most have data distinguishing single-family and multi-family houses, including details like the number of buildings, dwellings, and floor area. Some also track additional metrics, such as age bands, energy class distribution, ownership, tenure, and energy consumption.

The situation is more complex for non-residential buildings. In most cases, only the total number of such buildings is available, with little distinction by type. Limited data exists on public buildings, typically covering only the number of buildings and their floor area.

The biggest hurdle is the absence of a centralised building stock registry or database in any focus country. Instead, information is fragmented across sources like national statistics and EPC databases. A critical task will be identifying the worst-performing buildings, which presents significant challenges, especially in Ukraine. Data on the building stock there is sparse, particularly for non-residential buildings. The ongoing Russian invasion further complicates matters, with frequent changes to the building stock due to destruction.

The NBRPs will target worst-performing buildings. How can policymakers better identify and collect data on the worst-performing buildings to ensure that renovation strategies are effectively targeted?

The EPBD recast emphasises addressing worst-performing buildings, particularly through Article 9(2), which requires Member States to renovate 43% of the worst-performing residential buildings. To meet this target, the first step is identifying these buildings. While some Member States have already undertaken this as part of their LTRS, definitions of “worst-performing” vary widely. Criteria range from energy class labels based on EPCs to construction periods or energy consumption levels.

Establishing a clear, standardised definition is critical for effective targeting.

Once identified, data collection is the next priority. Ideally, this would come from a centralised building stock database, but where such a registry is unavailable, policymakers must draw from various sources, such as EPC databases or national statistics.

For non-residential buildings, the directive specifies mandatory thresholds for maximum energy performance. Member States must renovate 16% of buildings exceeding these thresholds by 2030 and 26% by 2033. These thresholds, along with progressive renovation targets for residential buildings, are essential indicators for future NBRPs. By defining clear criteria and leveraging available data, policymakers can ensure renovation strategies effectively target the worst-performing segments of the building stock.

What are the best ways to identify investment needs and leverage private resources to support large-scale renovations?

Addressing investment needs and leveraging private resources requires several key steps. First, a comprehensive assessment of the building stock is essential to determine the renovation scope and related investment requirements. This is particularly important for developing the trajectories required for NBRPs, such as through a bottom-up building stock model.

Next, setting clear, target-oriented goals—such as reducing CO₂ emissions, improving energy efficiency, or cutting energy consumption—is crucial. Aligning these goals with EPBD and other policy targets helps define investment needs and attract potential investors.

From there, financial models and incentives can be selected. Public-private partnerships, green financing options, and energy performance contracting are effective ways to bring in private capital. Project aggregation is another key mechanism; pooling smaller projects into larger portfolios makes them more appealing to institutional investors by reducing risk and scaling opportunities. Green bonds and energy savings obligations can further support this approach by creating sustainable funding streams.

Finally, providing transparency on financial and environmental returns is critical. Sharing successful case studies and data on energy savings builds confidence among investors, demonstrating a reliable return on investment.

Energy poverty is a major concern in many of the EPBD.wise focus countries. How can NBRPs help address energy poverty while also meeting renovation and climate goals?

Under the NBRPs, Member States must provide key indicators related to energy poverty, including the percentage of people affected, the proportion of household income spent on energy, and the population living in inadequate dwellings or poor thermal comfort conditions. Additionally, each Member State will need to establish a roadmap with national targets and measurable indicators to reduce energy poverty. This roadmap should also outline policies to empower vulnerable customers and alleviate energy poverty.

The EPBD’s focus on renovating worst-performing buildings aligns closely with tackling energy poverty, as these buildings are often home to low-income, vulnerable households. Targeted renovation funding, such as grants and subsidies, can make renovations more accessible to these groups. Deep renovations, like upgrading insulation, heating systems, or windows, can significantly lower energy bills while improving indoor health and comfort conditions.

This dual approach—reducing energy poverty and cutting emissions—advances both social and climate goals. Awareness campaigns and technical assistance programs, such as one-stop shops, are also vital. They guide low-income households in accessing financial support, understanding energy-saving practices, and exploring renovation options, ensuring that resources reach those who need them most.

For Zero-Emission Buildings (ZEBs), why is it important to involve both industry and citizens in the process of defining ZEBs at the national level, and how can this be effectively done?

Workshops with focus countries highlighted the importance of citizen involvement to ensure the ZEB standard is well understood and accepted during implementation. Engaging homeowners’ and tenants’ associations through meetings and webinars can help achieve this. Equally critical, is involving the construction industry to ensure that future ZEB buildings use technologies aligned with the national industry’s expertise. Collaborating with associations of builders, material manufacturers, and installers can prevent the ZEB standard from feeling like it’s “dropped from above.”

What best practices or examples from other EU Member States do you think would be most useful for the focus countries when implementing ZEB concepts or improving upon current near Zero-Energy Buildings (nZEB) standards?

Ireland, Germany, and France have each integrated an advanced nZEB level into their national regulations, combining established indicators with new technical goals. Ireland set specific criteria for renewable energy ratios and carbon emissions, which are key to measuring ZEB performance. Germany pioneered nZEB goals, focusing on highly energy-efficient buildings and renewable energy adoption. Recent policies, like the Building Energy Act and renewable heating laws, show Germany’s commitment to reducing fossil fuel reliance through sustainable tech investments. France’s RE2020 regulation also stands out globally, integrating environmental performance into new construction.

Outside the EU, Norway’s research via its Centers for Environment-friendly Energy Research contributes significantly to ZEB goals, offering competitive solutions across building types and districts. The Centre established five ZEB levels based on renewable energy and GHG emissions compensation over a building’s lifespan and provided guidelines for documenting and creating zero-emission pilot buildings.

Read the full report here!