Discover what the Citizens’ Energy Package (CEP) really means for your projects: lower bills, empowered consumers, clearer rules, and new opportunities for community energy and energy‑efficiency investment.
Felix Kriedemann, Senior Policy Advisor at RESCoop | LinkedIn profile
(Note: Opinions in the articles are of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union)
On 10th March 2026, and in response to the second spike in fossil fuel prices in less than 5 years, the European Commission published its Citizens’ Energy Package (CEP). The package is a non-legislative initiative providing recommendations to Member State governments on how to decrease energy bills, enhance consumers’ rights, fight energy poverty, and encourage Member States to properly implement existing legislation.
The CEP highlights community-owned renewable energy as a key tool to achieve affordability, local energy control, and energy independence. It does so through nine actions, ranging from reduced taxes on renewable energy compared with fossil fuels, to guidelines on how to establish energy communities. The package was accompanied by a Clean Energy Investment Strategy to help mobilise private investment for renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.
In a context of geopolitical instability and painful fossil fuel dependencies, the logic of the CEP and the Clean Energy Investment Strategy is a solid one: empower citizens, decrease dependencies, mobilise private capital, and fight energy poverty. The question, however, remains whether the package and strategy have enough bite to deliver on their promise of a just transition.
On the one hand, the Clean Energy Investment Strategy highlights the collaboration between the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to mobilise EUR 75 billion over the next three years to support the objectives of the energy transition. Particularly interesting is a pilot scheme to be launched by the EIB to leverage EUR 500 million in financing to ‘accelerate the offer and uptake of energy efficiency as a service model’. The strategy also recommends strengthening energy efficiency financing through InvestEU, to support energy efficiency measures in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2034), and to deploy an ‘Energy efficiency accelerator instrument’. This strategy was accompanied by a report on energy efficiency financing, recommendations on how to unlock private investment in energy efficiency, and guidance on one-stop-shops and energy performance of buildings.
On the other hand, the CEP recommends Member States to remove non-energy levies from bills (as some Member States include public broadcasting taxes in energy bills) and to lower VAT to the maximum amount possible. The Commission expects these reductions to save households up to EUR 200 per year.
Similarly, the package recommends lowering network costs, encouraging flexibility in the grid, and pledges to work with national regulatory authorities to define network tariffs in such a way that they incentivise matching energy production with consumption.
The CEP also continues Europe’s trajectory of increasing renewable energy. The Commission encourages the use of innovative financing tools such as social leasing, where citizens can procure renewable technologies (e.g. heat pumps) at zero upfront cost, paying them off instead through instalments. It also recommends that companies increase transparency in their energy bills to make them understandable, offer customers the best tariff for their consumption profile, and provide them with early warnings when consumption goes beyond the expected levels.
The Commission will deliver an Energy Communities Action Plan, with the goal of increasing citizen-led energy tenfold, to reach 90 GW by 2030. To do so, and considering the patchy implementation of energy community legislation across national governments, the Commission will issue guidance to Member States on how to set up well-designed enabling frameworks for community energy. This is a welcome development for local democratic initiatives such as citizen-led renovations and community-led heating and cooling, which bring comfort, independence, and reduced bills for homes across the EU.
Most interesting, however, is the focus on vulnerable households, a needed step considering that one in ten Europeans can no longer adequately warm their homes. The CEP aims to empower national, regional, and local authorities to tackle energy poverty through the Social Climate Fund, the Cohesion Funds, the Energy Poverty Advisory Hub, and the LIFE programme. Parallel to this, the Commission will publish guidance for Member States on how to design appropriate disconnection safeguards, so that citizens no longer face the threat of an energy disruption.
Overall, the CEP has the potential to decrease bills, empower citizens, and protect the most vulnerable, were it not built on a foundation of quicksand.
First, the CEP does not include any enforcement mechanisms to reach its objectives, and no reference is made to the need for national governments to implement the current energy community framework. Considering Member States’ failure to abide by EU law to deliver energy democratisation, a voluntary framework seems based on little more than hopes and dreams. A key lesson learned from the Union is that national governments are unlikely to move a finger unless they are bound by legally binding targets and appropriate enforcement from the Commission. Both elements shine through their absence in the CEP.
Second, the CEP ignores the growing issue of corporate capture, where private entities disguise themselves as energy communities, leading to embezzlement of public funds and space in the grid that was meant for community initiatives.
Third, the CEP’s objectives are not accompanied by additional sources of funding, as there are no references to energy communities in the Clean Energy Investment Strategy. This is particularly short-sighted, as energy community projects can deliver two to eight times more benefits to the local economy than projects by external actors. Moreover, complex community projects such as community-led district heating or citizen-led renovations require funding streams, particularly for the initial development stages of the project. While there are some examples of good practices in the EU for community-led heating and cooling funds, such as in the Netherlands, this is by no means the norm across the EU.
The European Commission’s efforts to address energy poverty, strengthen consumer rights, and support citizen‑led energy initiatives point clearly in the right direction. The foundations of the CEP are solid, and its intentions align with a fair and people‑centred energy transition. Yet, without a stronger connection to the Clean Energy Investment Strategy, the initiative risks lacking the financial and structural support needed to fully deliver on its ambitions. Europe now has an opportunity to reinforce this framework and ensure that citizens remain at the heart of a just and resilient energy system.
