The Secretary-General of AKEL, Stefanos Stefanou, in a letter to Energy Minister Michalis Damianos.
AKEL points out that, despite the allocation of €20 million, the current plan does not adequately ensure support for the households most in need. It further emphasizes that the energy retrofitting of homes must serve as a tool to combat energy poverty and reduce electricity costs for households, rather than being limited to subsidies only for those who already the financial means to make the necessary investments.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The main part of the letter is reproduced below:
“In light of the announcement of the new 2026 Grant Scheme for Residential Energy Upgrades, we would like to bring to your attention AKEL’s positions and recommendations, with the aim of improving the program and strengthening its social dimension.
We recognize that the allocation of €20 million for the energy retrofitting of existing homes is a positive development. However, we believe that in its current form, the plan does not sufficiently ensure that government support will be directed, as a priority, to households facing the greatest financial difficulties and the highest energy costs.
Our basic position is that residential energy retrofits must be part of a comprehensive policy to address energy poverty and should not be limited to an investment subsidy program for those who already have oralready have the financial means to carry them out.
In this context, and following up on the proposals we submitted in January 2026, we recommend that the plan be reviewed and supplemented with the following measures:
1. Creation of a mechanism for advance payment of the grant or direct payment to contractors
The need to cover the initial cost of the investment is a significant barrier for low- and middle-income households. Even when the grant is approved, many households are unable to secure the necessary liquidity to begin and complete the work.
We therefore propose the creation of a mechanism for the advance payment of the approved grant or the direct payment of the subsidy to approved contractors, with appropriate safeguards for oversight and transparency. In this way, the inability to cover the initial cost will not serve as a reason for exclusion from the program.
2. Creation of a new, standalone program for households facing energy poverty
The increased subsidy for vulnerable consumers under the existing program is a positive measure, however, it is not sufficient to effectively address the needs of households living in energy poverty.
For this reason, we propose the creation of a new, standalone energy retrofit program, specifically designed for households facing energy poverty, with a separate budget, simplified procedures, and criteria that take into account their economic and social circumstances.
The new plan should provide for the possibility of a grant covering up to 100% of the total eligible costs, so that households unable to cover the cost of necessary improvements are not required to make a financial contribution. At the same time, full coverage of the necessary energy audits, Energy Performance Certificates, and expert services should be ensured, without any upfront payment required from beneficiaries.
3. Full funding for energy audits and Energy Performance Certificates for vulnerable households
The cost of energy audits, initial and final Energy Performance Certificates, and the services of specialized experts can constitute an additional barrier to participation.
We reiterate our proposal for a 100% subsidy for residential energy audits. Specifically, we recommend full coverage of the relevant eligible costs for vulnerable and low-income households, with no upfront payment required from beneficiaries.
Providing a free energy audit before the investment is submitted or implemented will allow households to know which measures are necessary and cost-effective, while also promoting the effective use of available public resources.
4. Replacing the first-come, first-served system with a social and energy scoring system
Allocating grants based solely on the date and time of application submission may create inequalities, as it does not take into account the varying financial situations and actual needs of households.
We recommend adopting a points-based system using social and energy criteria, so that priority is given to households facing energy poverty, have low incomes or increased energy needs, and are unable to cover the cost of necessary improvements.
The order of submission could be retained as a supplementary criterion when applications have equivalent scores. In this way, the allocation of public resources will better reflect social needs rather than simply the speed with which an application is processed.
In addition to the above, we believe that the plan should be strengthened with additional provisions that expand the possibilities for energy upgrades and address the diverse circumstances and needs of citizens. Specifically, we propose the following:
Establishment of an additional category for phased energy retrofitting
Inclusion of newer homes in the support framework
Combined support for photovoltaics, energy storage, and energy retrofits
Promotion of energy communities and collective solutions for tenants and citizens without adequate housing
Dear Minister,
We believe that the success of an energy retrofit program should not be evaluated solely on the basis of the size of the available budget or the number of homes to be retrofitted. It must first and foremost be assessed based on whether government support reaches those who need it most, substantially reduces energy costs, and contributes to improving quality of life.
For these reasons, we urge you to review the above proposals and proceed with the necessary amendments and additions to the draft, as well as to develop a broader policy framework to address energy poverty.”
