Introduction
Building renovation is central to the EU’s transition towards a cleaner, more electrified and competitive energy system, supporting affordability, sustainability, energy independence and security. Buildings account for approximately 40% of EU energy consumption and one-third of operational greenhouse gas emissions. They also use more than half of the EU’s natural gas, directly or indirectly, making improved energy performance essential to reducing fossil fuel imports and exposure to volatile global energy markets.
The recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) introduces National Building Renovation Plans (NBRPs) as a key strategic instrument for guiding the transformation towards a highly energy-efficient and decarbonised building stock by 2050.
With final NBRPs due by 31 December 2026, this article highlights progress and priorities for finalisation, drawing on the assessment of the first 16 complete draft plans submitted between December 2025 and May 2026.
The draft plans demonstrate clear ambition towards reducing the energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the building stock, although the level of ambition varies considerably across countries. By 2050, most targeted reductions fall between 30% and 50% for primary energy consumption and between 70% and 100% for operational GHG emissions, with around half of the draft plans aiming for GHG emission reductions of over 90%. Beyond differences in ambition, these variations also reflect differences in scope, building coverage and assumptions regarding renewable energy deployment, fuel switching and the evolution of primary energy and emission factors.
At the same time, several elements would benefit from further refinement. These include clearer and more complete targets, particularly for renovation rates and energy poverty reduction; further development of new EPBD requirements, such as trajectories for residential building renovation and minimum energy performance standards for non-residential buildings; and more systematic quantification of the impacts of policies and measures to demonstrate their contribution towards achieving the targets.
Overall, the draft NBRPs provide a solid basis for developing robust final plans to drive building renovation, reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions, strengthen energy security and affordability, improve indoor comfort, and support renewable energy integration and a more resilient energy system.
Assessment methodology
The NBRPs build on the previous long-term renovation strategies (LTRSs), while introducing a common reporting template and more explicit links between targets, implementation measures and resources. Article 3 and Annex II to the recast EPBD establish the framework for describing the building stock, setting the renovation roadmap, identifying policies and estimating investment needs and resources. They also cover zero-emission building thresholds, non-residential minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) and residential renovation trajectories.
The assessment covers the first complete draft plans of Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Belgium’s Walloon Region that were submitted until the end of June 2026. The full assessment is available here.
A common methodology employed a preliminary completeness check followed by a detailed assessment using predefined guiding questions. It examined target ambition to reach a decarbonised and highly efficient building stock by 2050, policy sufficiency, financing and administrative resources, prioritisation of worst-performing buildings, public consultation and consistency with other reporting exercises.
Ambition was assessed through energy and emission reduction targets, renovation rates and renewable energy deployment, considering the underlying assumptions and alignment with national energy and climate plans (NECPs) and earlier building renovation strategies. Particular attention was given to the new EPBD requirements and energy poverty reduction.
The analysis primarily used information provided by Member States in the draft plans; other sources were used only where clarification was needed. Missing evidence therefore limits the ability to assess a plan but does not necessarily establish that the relevant indicators, policies or resources are not in place. It also identifies best practices alongside weaknesses and reporting gaps that can be addressed in the final plans.
Ambitious energy targets with wide variation across countries
The roadmaps and associated targets show a clear intention to reduce buildings’ energy consumption. Fourteen draft plans provide primary energy targets, with reductions ranging from 6% to 30% by 2030 and from 24% to 73% by 2050, relative to the respective national baseline year, 2020 or 2023. Austria and Slovenia do not provide primary energy targets, while Cyprus projects increasing primary energy consumption, mainly because of building stock growth.
Fifteen draft plans provide final energy targets with reductions ranging from 5% to 27% by 2030 and 30% to 60% by 2050, relative to the respective national baseline year (2020 or 2023). Denmark and Cyprus project increases in total final energy consumption with reductions in energy intensity (annual energy consumption per square metre of floor area), illustrating why absolute consumption and energy intensity should be considered together.
Primary and final energy describe different aspects of energy efficiency and decarbonisation. Final energy reflects energy delivered to buildings, while primary energy additionally depends on the factors applied to different energy carriers. Both indicators are influenced by efficiency improvements, fuel switching and changes in the building stock. Setting primary energy targets therefore may involve additional uncertainty, as they depend on assumptions about the future energy mix and primary energy factors. In six draft plans, primary energy falls faster than final energy because of renewable deployment, fuel switching and changes in primary energy factors (Figure 1). Most remaining draft plans use constant primary energy factors, although changes in the energy mix can still lead to different reductions in primary and final energy consumption. Final plans should better account for the interplay between energy efficiency and changes in energy systems, also making the underlying assumptions transparent.
Figure 1. Targeted reductions in final and primary energy consumption in the assessed draft NBRPs for 2030, 2040 and 2050, relative to the respective national baseline year (2020 or 2023). Each point represents one draft plan’s targets for a given milestone year, where both indicators are available. Points above the dashed line indicate greater reductions in primary than final energy consumption. Negative values indicate increases. Source: JRC elaboration.
The assessment looked at how the energy consumption in buildings will change compared to the total national energy consumption, and how these changes contribute to the energy efficiency target for 2030. It indicates that the building sector’s final energy consumption is expected to fall faster than economy-wide consumption in most cases. This underlines the significant expected contribution from buildings to national energy efficiency commitments. Compared with the building sector targets in the 2024 NECPs, the draft NBRPs generally cover more energy indicators and/or set more ambitious targets. This partly reflects the fact that most NECPs retained targets from the LTRSs. These findings reinforce the need to demonstrate that the foreseen savings are supported by credible implementation measures, consistent with other planning, rather than treating the building sector targets in isolation.
Decarbonisation supported by renewable energy deployment
Operational GHG emissions are addressed in all assessed drafts except Sweden. By 2030, reductions vary between 1% and 74%, with most countries aiming for 30% to 40%. Beyond different starting points, this variation reflects differences in building coverage, emission factors and assumptions about their future evolution, as well as levels of ambition. Available 2050 reduction targets span 30 to 100%, with almost half of the plans exceeding 90%, illustrating overall substantial commitment to decarbonisation.
Alongside energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy deployment is central to achieving these emission reductions. Nearly all drafts describe its current contribution to building energy consumption, and 11 set renewable energy targets for 2030 or later. These targets range from 40% to 90% of buildings’ final energy consumption covered by renewable sources, including on-site, nearby and off-site renewable sources. The assessment finds generally good alignment with NECP projections and the renewable energy framework.
Renovation targets are provided, but baselines need to be completed
Renovation rates connect long-term energy and decarbonisation objectives with the scale of activity required on the ground. However, they remain among the coarsest indicators in the roadmap, as fewer than half of the drafts provide complete baseline information: how much of the building stock has already been renovated, and what is the starting point for achieving the NBRP targets? These questions remain difficult to answer in several cases, suggesting that capturing the number of buildings and floor area that underwent some sort of renovation is still challenging.
On the other hand, renovation rate targets are generally included. Annual renovation rates range from approximately 0.7% to 5.7%, with most between 1% and 3% (Figure 2). Some Member States (e.g. France, Cyprus, Romania) plan more intense renovation efforts early on, with higher rates in 2030 than in 2040 and 2050, while others (e.g. Croatia, Lithuania, Portugal) foresee an acceleration towards 2050. These differences reflect different starting conditions, assumptions about renovation depth and approaches to meeting EPBD requirements, particularly linked to Article 9.
Figure 2. Annual renovation rates for the baseline year (2020–2023) and targets for 2030, 2040 and 2050. The annual renovation rate is calculated as the ratio between the floor area renovated in a year and the total floor area identified for renovation. The JRC calculation for Wallonia, Bulgaria, Spain, Croatia and Lithuania is based on floor area targets. Bulgaria’s 2040 and 2050 targets cover non-residential buildings only; Portugal’s baseline and targets and Germany’s and Slovenia’s baseline cover residential buildings only. Missing markers indicate unavailable values. Source: JRC elaboration.
However, some targets appear preliminary and would benefit from further verification, particularly where inconsistencies with the baseline have been signalled. Although monitoring renovation continues to be challenging, the inclusion of renovated floor area targets in almost all draft plans provides a solid starting point. Final plans could build on this by clarifying baselines, resolving inconsistencies and applying consistent definitions, helping to improve data quality, track progress and support implementation.
Some EPBD requirements are less developed
MEPS for non-residential buildings and trajectories for the progressive renovation of residential buildings are generally less reported in the draft plans. Residential trajectories concern reductions in average primary energy use across the residential building stock, while non-residential MEPS establish performance thresholds that non-residential buildings must meet according to Article 9 of the recast EPBD.
In the assessed draft plans, residential renovation trajectories are more developed than non-residential MEPS. Nine draft plans include a comprehensive residential trajectory, with Germany, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal and Wallonia setting 2030 and 2035 milestones beyond the minimum EPBD requirements. Using cost-optimal energy performance levels to inform these trajectories is an observed good practice, because it draws on a well-established tool and provides confidence in the resulting milestones. Additionally, France, the Netherlands and Wallonia include existing or planned residential MEPS frameworks targeting the worst-performing dwellings, while Romania is considering their partial application.
Fewer than half of the draft plans provide complete non-residential MEPS thresholds: Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Lithuania and Romania. Of the remaining draft plans, seven do not yet specify thresholds and three provide only partial information. Among the presented approaches, Bulgaria, Croatia, Spain and Sweden differentiate thresholds by building categories, while Spain goes beyond this differentiation by also considering climatic zones.
The identification of worst-performing buildings is generally well addressed across the residential and non-residential sectors. Eleven plans clearly define these buildings, usually through energy performance certificate classes. Regarding their prioritisation for renovation, most drafts show this through specific targets or strong policy frameworks aimed at improving their energy performance.
Final plans should build on these foundations by completing residential trajectories and non-residential MEPS, supported by implementation measures, and clearly demonstrating how renovating worst-performing buildings contributes to the required improvements.
Energy poverty and housing affordability gain prominence in renovation planning
Energy poverty is recognised as a priority in all assessed draft plans, and almost all describe the baseline situation. However, definitions and indicators of the concept vary considerably. Some plans use composite indicators combining income, energy expenditure, dwelling conditions and risk of poverty, while others focus on individual aspects, such as the inability to keep homes adequately warm.
Targets remain less developed and do not consistently cover the full planning period. Lithuania and the Netherlands aim to eradicate energy poverty by 2050, while several other draft plans provide targets only for 2030. Targets also differ in formulation; some specify the share of households or people expected to be in energy poverty in a given year, while others specify a relative reduction from a baseline. Final plans should reflect the multidimensional nature of energy poverty through clearly defined indicators and targets with explicit links to the baseline to support monitoring.
Housing affordability is generally addressed in relation to vulnerable households. Several good practices illustrate how renovation can increase affordable housing availability while protecting tenants. Spain and Wallonia support the renovation of vacant properties on the condition that affordable rents are maintained. The Netherlands links maximum rents to dwelling quality, including energy performance, while Denmark combines support for renovation in the non-profit housing sector with subsidies to keep rents affordable. Final plans could build on these approaches by clarifying how renovation measures will support housing availability and maintain affordability for the households concerned.
Broad policy coverage but limited quantification of expected impacts
Twelve drafts cover all mandatory policy areas in Annex II, indicating considerable progress in developing comprehensive renovation frameworks. However, broad policy coverage alone does not demonstrate that the targets can be achieved, as quantified objectives and expected impacts are often incomplete. Only Spain and Wallonia provide comprehensive quantification of the measures’ impacts; the remaining 14 drafts provide this information only partially.
Despite this, five drafts appear to include sufficient policies to achieve their targets. Alongside Spain and Wallonia, Croatia, France and the Netherlands provide good examples of broad policy mixes, including regulatory, financial, advisory, information and training measures, although these three draft plans show incomplete quantification or some gaps in policy area coverage. For the remaining plans, further information is needed to assess adequacy. This does not imply that their targets will not be met, but that the contribution of the proposed measures needs to be demonstrated more clearly.
Final plans should quantify the expected contribution of each major measure to the relevant targets (energy savings, emission reductions, renovated floor area or other relevant indicator). This would help assess whether the combined effects of the measures are sufficient to achieve the roadmap.
Investment needs are identified, but financing requires further development
Fourteen draft plans identify investment needs, providing a starting point for identifying financial support required for implementation. However, calculation methods and input assumptions are often insufficiently explained. Wallonia and Lithuania show good practices by drawing on building-level costs from recent cost-optimal calculations.
The assessment reveals substantial variation in investment needs per square metre of renovated floor area: four countries are below EUR 200/m², six between EUR 200/m² and EUR 500/m², and two above EUR 500/m². This variation reflects different levels of ambition, as expressed in the roadmap targets, and may also stem from differences in building stock condition, economic conditions, methodological choices and assumptions. Differences in cost coverage further limit comparability, and some estimates require verification. More details and transparency on assumptions would help characterise the differences.
Fewer draft plans identify financing sources, and even fewer specify the administrative resources needed for implementation. Public funds generally cover around 20 to 30% of renovation costs, making private investment central to delivery. However, only seven drafts address the mobilisation of private finance in some way.
Half of the draft plans indicate no financing gap, while the others require clarification. An unreported gap should not be interpreted as evidence that all investment needs are financed. The distinction between estimated needs and identified resources is essential, as a plan may calculate the investment required without showing how public support will be sustained throughout the planning period or how private financing will be mobilised. Presenting needs and resources over the same time horizon and with comparable scope would clarify the remaining financing challenge and help identify where additional instruments are required.
Conclusions
The first 16 draft NBRPs provide a strong foundation for the final plans, combining ambitious energy and emission targets, broad policy coverage and national practices that can inspire wider uptake. Building on this progress requires clearer renovation baselines, energy poverty targets, quantified policy impacts and financing arrangements. Together, these improvements can support effective implementation of the recast EPBD, helping deliver more energy-efficient, comfortable and affordable buildings.
