Green Homes: fresh Italy-EU clash as the League seeks more flexibility; Brussels says there is already plenty

Brussels – Another clash erupts between Italy and the European Union, and between the government and the European Commission, over Green Homes. The League is neither happy nor willing to accept the infringement procedure launched in March for failing to submit the draft national building renovation plan required by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, and is once again attacking the EU executive: “Italy differs significantly from other Member States, as it has one of the oldest building stocks in Europe, a high proportion of privately owned property, and a significant number of historic buildings or buildings subject to planning and landscape restrictions,” complain the League MEPs Anna Maria Cisint, Aldo Patriciello and Isabella Tovaglieri in the parliamentary question of which they are signatories. 

According to representatives of the League, “stringent, uniform application of the obligations laid down in the directive runs the risk of placing a very significant economic burden” on households and property owners. They are therefore calling for “more flexibility” for EU member states in a situation similar to Italy’s, characterised by numerous historic buildings and structures subject to landscape restrictions. 

The Commission has rejected calls from members of one of the governing coalition parties, with the Commissioner for Energy, Dan Jørgensen, stating bluntly: “NBRPs (National Building Renovation Plans, ed) are an essential tool for Member States to transform their building stock into energy-efficient, decarbonised asset by 2050.”  In other words, they must be prepared, drafted, and submitted. No exceptions, and Italy is behind schedule (the national renovation plan was due to be notified by 31 December 2025, ed.). The infringement procedure is therefore a necessary step.

As for calls for flexibility, here too the Energy Commissioner is unequivocal in his “no.” “Rather than imposing uniform rules, the recast EPBD already provides substantial flexibility to accommodate national specificities, especially for Member States with a significant share of historic or protected buildings, such as Italy.” So the European regulatory framework is tailored to Italy, Jørgensen concludes, adding: The text “does not impose renovation obligations on individual homes but sets targets for reducing the energy consumption of the overall building stock. This allows Member States to determine the most appropriate and cost-effective pathways, including prioritising interventions where they are most feasible.” 

Brussels has therefore responded to the claims that families will suffer. The directive on the energy renovation of buildings, Jørgensen emphasises once again, “preceded by an impact assessment showing that the worst-performing residential buildings are often occupied by vulnerable households and that the proposed measures will help reduce their energy bills.” In short, the dispute over green homes is more heated than ever, and the Commission is determined to press ahead with infringement proceedings if the Meloni government fails to draw up the required national strategy.