Susanne Geissler and Naghmeh Altmann are leading experts on deep renovation strategies and renovation passports within the Concerted Action EPBD, where they co-coordinate Central Team 3: Deep Renovation and Renovation Passports. They support EU Member States in interpreting and implementing the new Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) 2024 provisions, particularly Article 12 and Annex VIII, while helping shape practical frameworks for high-quality, staged renovation pathways across Europe. Together, they bring a unique combination of policy, technical, and practical implementation expertise.

Susanne Geissler is the founder and managing director of SERA Global Institute, a boutique research and consulting firm specialised in sustainable building policy, renovation strategies, and integrated quality assurance frameworks, as well as other natural-resources-related areas. With more than 25 years of experience across European energy and building policy, she has advised national authorities, European institutions, and international initiatives on EPBD implementation, energy performance assessment, and long-term renovation planning.

Naghmeh Altmann is a senior expert at the Austrian Energy Agency (AEA), where she focuses on building performance, Energy Performance Certification (EPC) system development, and national renovation strategies. She has contributed extensively to Austria’s EPBD implementation, digital tool development for staged renovation, methodologies that support cost-optimal and future-proof building upgrades, and development of educational programs and roadmaps for the further training of skilled workers in the construction and energy sectors.

BUILD UP (BUP): Renovation passports (RP) were formally introduced under Article 12 and Annex VIII of the 2024 recast EPBD. From your perspective, what is the single most important misconception about RPs that policymakers and practitioners still have?

Susanne Geissler & Naghmeh Altmann: The most persistent misconception we see is that Renovation Passports are just more paperwork and more cost on top of what already exists. For many policymakers and energy experts, and, almost not at all yet, by the general public, RPs are perceived as an additional administrative layer: a new tool, new forms, new software that has to be bought and maintained every year, with unclear benefits for the end user. Behind this is also a conceptual misunderstanding. People often ask: What is really different from the recommendations already provided in an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC)? And if the aim is to look ahead to 2050, how can we design a roadmap today when prices, technologies, and policy frameworks are evolving so fast? It makes some stakeholders nervous because they fear committing to something fixed for over 25 years. In our view, this is fundamentally a communication challenge. Renovation Passports should not be framed as a bureaucratic obligation, but as a practical, long‑term roadmap that sequences measures in the right order and helps avoid lock‑in. The more clearly we can show that RPs support better decisions, rather than just adding to the file, the easier it will be for both policymakers and practitioners to embrace them.

BUP: The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) establishes a common EU framework but leaves Member States flexibility to design national RP schemes. What design choices (scope, assessment method, level of detail, mandatory vs voluntary rollout) will most strongly influence the success of national renovation passport programmes?

SG & NA: One key choice is whether you try to design ‘one RP for all buildings’ or accept that different building types need different approaches. From our experience as energy advisors, the needs of single‑family homeowners, multi‑apartment buildings managed by facility managers, and public or commercial buildings are not the same. A single, uniform concept risks being either too complex for homeowners or too superficial for professional building owners. Tailored approaches for these main segments are likely to be more effective. For single‑family houses, RPs can be especially powerful because many owners simply do not know where to start, and they are afraid of making a wrong step that creates lock‑in. Here, it can make sense to link passports to subsidies and even make them mandatory when public support is used. In larger residential buildings, there is usually already a maintenance and financial plan in place. In that context, the RP should feed into and structure this existing planning rather than be one more document, and it does not necessarily have to be mandatory in the same way. A second crucial design choice is to clearly distinguish the renovation roadmap from a detailed renovation plan. The roadmap is the heart of the RP. It is about putting measures in the correct sequence over time, not about tender‑ready technical specifications. We often see confusion here, so communication should stress that the RP helps owners and managers see the big picture, while a more detailed design comes later. Finally, Member States should think carefully about when RPs are voluntary and when they are required. One option we see as reasonable is to make them mandatory for the worst‑performing buildings (for example, EPC class E and below) now, when major works are planned. This allows the scheme to focus first where the decarbonisation need is greatest, while also recognising the political and societal sensitivity of imposing obligations on every building from day one.

‘Member States should think carefully about when RPs are voluntary and when they are required’

BUP: One of the key strengths of Renovation Passports is their ability to prevent lock-in and ensure staged deep renovation. What are the most effective ways to ensure RPs offer truly optimised, sequenced measures rather than generic advice?

SG & NA: First, there needs to be a clear ‘carrot and stick’. In practical terms, this means linking Renovation Passports and roadmaps directly to subsidy schemes or other public support. If you want to access funding, you should have a high‑quality roadmap. This helps ensure that RPs are taken seriously, that the information they contain is reliable, and that recommendations are implemented, rather than sitting as generic advice on paper. Second, an on‑site visit by a qualified expert is essential. Without seeing the building and talking to the user, it is impossible to provide a meaningful, optimised sequence of measures. The expert needs to understand the real condition of the building and the way it is used. That allows the roadmap to prioritise what should be done in the next three to five years in a quite precise way, while still sketching a longer‑term direction to 2050 that can be adjusted as technologies and prices evolve. Third, we recommend that Renovation Passports have a defined validity period. If no measures have been implemented within, say, five years, the passport should be updated, because underlying assumptions may have changed significantly. This can also be monitored through the EPB databases, where passports are stored. In this way, the RP remains a living document that supports staged deep renovation over time, rather than a one‑off report that quickly becomes outdated and generic.

BUP: Renovation Passports require a stronger link between building-level roadmaps and financial or advisory support. What governance or delivery models (one-stop shops, public agencies, energy advisors, digital tools) best support the RP roll-out, especially for vulnerable households and SMEs?

SG & NA: We see the one-stop-shop as the backbone of a successful RP delivery model. For the building owner, there should be a single point of contact where they can come with a concern, ‘I need to renovate my building’, and receive first advice, an energy assessment, information on financing schemes, and access to qualified companies. In Vienna, for example, a one-stop shop operates with a network of vetted installers and service providers, which gives owners confidence and simplifies the whole process. Within or connected to these one-stop shops, a ‘renovation coach’ plays a crucial role. Homeowners in particular often need support in translating a roadmap into real decisions: checking offers, comparing solutions, understanding contracts, and organising site supervision. A coach can guide them through these steps and ensure that what is written in the RP is actually implemented in the right order. In that sense, the coach is the bridge between the roadmap and a concrete renovation project. Energy advisors are, in many ways, a one-stop shop in one person. In Austria, for instance, they use digital tools to prepare EPCs and roadmaps and are often the trusted face at the kitchen table. Combining these advisors with structured one-stop shops and robust digital tools can create a very effective ecosystem: advisors bring expertise and trust, one-stop shops bring institutional continuity and links to finance, and digital tools support consistency and quality. 

When it comes to vulnerable households, the situation is more complex. Many live in rented apartments and simply do not have the financial means or ownership status to trigger major renovation measures themselves. In Austria, social workers and energy advisors have been brought together in a programme that visits low‑income households, offering behavioural advice and small soft measures, while the government can fund the replacement of one or two very inefficient appliances. This improves comfort and reduces bills, but the responsibility for deep renovation remains with the building owner or the public housing provider. For SMEs and non‑residential buildings, financial logic is often a stronger driver: if the renovation roadmap shows clear cost savings, owners tend to act because they want to reduce operating expenses. Here, RPs integrated into one-stop shops, combined with suitable financing products (including ‘as‑a‑service’ or performance‑based models), can support rapid uptake. But again, the governance model should ensure that advice, design and implementation support are coordinated, not fragmented.

‘For the building owner, there should be a single point of contact where they can come with a concern, ‘I need to renovate my building’, and receive first advice, an energy assessment, information on financing schemes, and access to qualified companies’

BUP: If you were advising a Member State starting from scratch, what are the three ‘non-negotiables’ they must include in their national RP scheme to ensure long-term value for both building owners and professionals?

SG & NA: First, a Renovation Passport must be easy to understand and genuinely user‑centred. Many building owners do not have a technical background, so the document has to speak their language. That means clear visuals, simple explanations of the steps, and recommendations that are linked to how they actually use the building. To achieve this, an on‑site visit by a well‑trained expert is non‑negotiable; you cannot design a meaningful roadmap without seeing the building and discussing user behaviour with the occupants. Second, the scheme must be structurally linked to financing and implementation support. Passports that are not connected to funding programmes risk remaining theoretical. If, instead, the RP becomes the entry point for grants, loans or tax incentives, and if there is a renovation coach or similar advisory role to help owners implement the roadmap, then the passport becomes a practical tool that creates long‑term value for both owners and the supply chain. Third, we would insist on robust but low‑cost digital infrastructure. Experts should be able to produce EPCs and RPs in an integrated software environment, ideally based on a calculation core or tool that is maintained under public responsibility rather than fragmented across many expensive commercial solutions. This allows data to be reused easily, supports the evolution towards building logbooks, and keeps costs down for practitioners, which is essential if we want RPs and EPCs themselves to remain affordable. Taken together, these three elements, user‑friendly content, strong links to finance and coaching, and cost‑effective digital tools, create a solid foundation on which Member States can build Renovation Passport schemes that work in practice and can scale across the building stock. They also align well with the way the EPBD 2024 frames RPs within Article 12 and Annex VIII.