Rapporteur:

Corina MURAFA BENGA

Advisors	George JIGLAU (for the rapporteur) Priska LUEGER (for Group II)
Bureau decision	25.3.2025
Referral	European Commission, 20.3.2025
Legal basis	Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Section responsible	Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society
Adopted in section	4.9.2025
Adopted at plenary session	18.9.2025
Plenary session No	599
Outcome of vote (for/against/abstentions)	97/3/3

1.   Conclusions and recommendations

1.1.

The EESC has been expressing concerns for many years that the European Commission is not delivering properly on its intention set out in the Energy Union package (1) to place the citizen at the heart of the energy system. Thus, we welcome the Commission’s initiative to draw up a Citizens’ Energy Package (CEP) as a means of actively involving citizens and communities towards an affordable, secure, sustainable energy system. The CEP must provide the necessary guarantees for this at last.

1.2.

The strategic role of citizen energy communities in energy policy should be clearly acknowledged and promoted by the CEP. It must clarify key concepts related to community energy, such as membership, autonomy and effective control, which are now understood very differently by Member States (MS). The package should contain a toolkit of regulatory sandboxes that MS must implement without delay to make energy communities and the right to energy sharing a functional reality across the EU. It should offer clear guidance on how to establish and run energy communities, in particular tax and tariff deductions, facilities and technical support offered by DSOs, which MS cannot bypass.

1.3.

Through the next multiannual financial framework, including state aid monitoring tools, and future cohesion and just transition funding, the Commission must create dedicated funding streams for energy communities. The CEP should require the European Investment Bank to develop an energy community facility for local and regional energy communities, similar to the existing SME facility. The CEP should seek to scale up other existing good practices (2) on financing energy communities. Funding should also prioritise and be subject to minimal standards being met in the areas of youth engagement, fostering energy literacy and developing green skills. Complementary energy audits should be financed to support the collection of crucial household data. Furthermore, Member States must link any public funding scheme for energy projects to the participation of local communities as shareholders in energy projects and other forms of benefit-sharing.

1.4.

There can be no citizenship without energy. To uphold the full implementation of European citizenship, the CEP must take stronger action to tackle energy poverty in the EU by introducing a unified definition and data-driven identification of affected households starting at local level. Energy poverty milestones should consider households, with macroeconomic indicators used only as complementary tools.

1.5.

As drivers of empowerment for citizens and establishment of the prerequisites for mitigating energy poverty, we recommend that the EU: 1) immediately impose an EU-wide ban on disconnection of households; 2) move away from the merit order system, which links electricity prices to gas prices; 3) adjust the policy language by referring to ‘citizens’, instead of ‘consumers’, in relation to energy; 4) set up a European energy ombudsperson.

2.   Background to the opinion

2.1.

The energy transition is not just about technologies and targets. It is also about trust, protection and participation, which should be the foundation of a social pact for a citizen-driven energy transition. The Citizens’ Energy Package (CEP) should become a meaningful step in support of all EU citizens, not just a policy checklist. The CEP should consider people not just as consumers but as citizens and co-creators of the energy future, to ensure that the energy transition can become a reality. In this opinion, the EESC sets out its vision for the CEP.

2.2.

Over ten years ago, the European Commission stated in its communication on the Energy Union package: ‘… our vision is of an Energy Union with citizens at its core, where citizens take ownership of the energy transition, benefit from new technologies to reduce their bills, participate actively in the market, and where vulnerable consumers are protected.’ Ten years have passed without any noticeable delivery on these promises.

2.3.

The upcoming CEP comes at a time of persistently high levels of energy poverty in the EU, of strong public distrust in the energy market almost two decades after the liberalisation of the European energy market, of ineffective national processes for transposing the EU legislation on energy communities, of uneven uptake of citizen participation and energy sharing models across MS and of increasing scepticism towards the long-term technical and financial viability of prosumerism.

2.4.

The EESC has consistently proposed ways to strengthen citizens’ roles in the energy sector, especially electricity. Real progress depends on how electricity market reform is structured. In opinions TEN/793 (3)and TEN/837 (4), the EESC recommends a market that is liberalised where possible and regulated where necessary to ensure protections for citizens, prosumers, and energy communities.

3.   General comments

3.1.

Current EU energy discourse frequently positions individuals as ‘consumers’, implicitly reinforcing market-centric models. However, a shift towards viewing people as ‘citizens’ – members of a political community with energy rights – is necessary. The European Charter on the Rights of Energy Consumers (5) further acknowledges energy as a critical component of social and territorial cohesion. As noted in EU Directive (EU) 2019/944 (6), energy services are fundamental to safeguarding well-being and enabling social inclusion.

3.2.

The language of citizenship reorients the debate, encouraging the design of policies that emphasise dignity, rights, and participation. This is crucial for citizen support and cooperation for the energy transition, as energy poverty affects millions of Europeans, especially women and young people (7), limiting their ability to heat, cool and power their homes at affordable costs. Despite formal recognition and policy efforts aimed at addressing energy poverty across all MS, implementation of effective mitigation strategies remains sluggish.

3.3.

Citizens have low levels of control over their energy access and consumption and perceive institutions as unresponsive. Trust deficits between market and state players further complicate coordinated action. This deadlock contributes to inertia in addressing the energy needs of the most vulnerable. Simply transposing EU directives into national law is not enough, as the suboptimal outcome of the legislation on energy communities demonstrates.

3.4.

To give long-term meaning to energy citizenship, citizens, through representative bodies such as already- existing consumer organisations, must be given structured mechanisms to help them shape and monitor energy policies, integrated into the EU’s multi-level governance structure. Moreover, the concept of intergenerational equity needs to be integrated into EU energy policies, ensuring that today's decisions do not compromise future generations and with young people as permanent stakeholders. Otherwise, the shift from ‘consumer’ to ‘citizen’ will remain purely rhetorical.

3.5.

Additionally, grounded in Principle 20 of the Pillar on Social Rights on the right to essential services, the EU should immediately establish an energy ombudsperson, with local branches (8). Such an office would empower citizens in energy matters and re-establish trust. The ombudsperson should receive complaints, submit necessary requests to the regulators and offer legal assistance to citizens wrongfully treated by suppliers and to energy communities and prosumers whose development is blocked by regulatory and implementation hurdles. It should also assist citizens in dealing with public and private actors regarding measures to alleviate their state or risk of energy poverty.

4.   Specific comments on citizen empowerment and restoring public trust in the energy sector

4.1.

Empowerment goes far beyond information – it means enabling citizens to act. Citizens need real choices in energy use, production and investment. This applies not only when it comes to the electricity meter in a private household, but much more broadly. The networks must be made available to citizens. Involving citizens as prosumers or in energy communities increases energy independence and, especially when paired with good insulation and with effective targeting, can help reduce energy poverty. To pursue this goal, the CEP should require MS, with the support of both public and private actors, to simplify procedures for more flexible access to energy, create one-stop shops with well trained staff as close as possible to the grassroots level and promote community initiatives.

4.2.

Local and regional authorities could be uniquely positioned to mediate between national energy policy and citizens’ needs. They could develop their own municipal energy policies that could be tailored to the specific socio-economic and climatic conditions of their communities. They could also act as aggregators of demand, facilitate public procurement of green technologies, provide space for equipment installation and partner with local organisations to co-deliver services. Unfortunately, such policies can only be seen in a vanishingly small proportion of municipalities, with most municipalities being essentially inactive on energy policy. The Citizens’ Energy Package should therefore also explicitly target municipalities. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its call for the promotion of ‘extended collective’ self-consumption models, as proposed in TEN/801 (9), which can be effectively implemented through municipal platforms, as a means of citizen empowerment.

4.3.

Restoring public trust in the energy system requires more than technical fixes. It demands transparent governance, inclusive decision-making and consistent communication. When citizens perceive tangible benefits, their willingness to participate and invest increases. Such benefits can include measures such as electricity discounts, restoration and conservation initiatives or municipal funding for regions affected by larger energy projects. The electricity market reform mentioned in point 2.4 is a prerequisite for this.

4.4.

Energy literacy is fundamental for empowering people. Understanding how energy systems work, how to read energy bills, how to reduce consumption and how to participate in collective schemes is crucial for an informed citizenry. Public campaigns, school curricula and community workshops can foster this literacy. Consumer organisations, NGOs, CSOs and education institutions must play a central role in designing and delivering these initiatives, which should be supported by transparent, real-time access to energy consumption, cost and emissions data through user-friendly digital platforms. Energy literacy programs should also specifically engage youth organisations to co-design educational materials and campaigns. Young people should be seen not only as beneficiaries but as co-creators and multipliers of energy literacy initiatives, ensuring intergenerational justice and long-term sustainability.

4.5.

The development of green skills – particularly in installation, maintenance, and energy auditing – is essential for supporting local energy transitions. Incorporating energy topics into vocational training, adult education, and university curricula can ensure that citizens across age groups and sectors are included. An energy audit wave across the EU, to help mitigate energy poverty, could turn these green skills into green jobs.

4.6.

While public funding plays a key role in driving the energy transition, it often fails to deliver direct benefits to the communities hosting energy projects. Too many investments are made without real local involvement or shared value, reinforcing a top-down model that risks public resistance. EU rules should require MS to link energy subsidies or funding schemes to the participation of local communities as shareholders in energy projects and other forms of benefit-sharing.

4.7.

Seven years after the adoption of TEN/657 (10), we regretfully do not see an effective Energy Dialogue with organised civil society at national, regional, or local level, while there is some progress at EU level through the Citizens’ Energy Forum. The EESC recommends organising multilevel governance dialogue to provide MS with tools to remove the market and institutional barriers that prevent the general public, consumers, communities, and SMEs from participating in and benefiting from the clean energy transition. Such a dialogue could also improve the quality of communication and help restore trust among citizens and stakeholders.

5.   Specific comments on energy communities

5.1.

The EESC reiterates its frequently shared view that small-scale electricity generation must be encouraged to increase grid flexibility options. Active engagement from citizens, SMEs and local authorities is much easier to achieve in decentralised power generation than in centralised structures with large power plants. We regretfully do not see a strategic prioritisation of the decentralised model in the current EU market design. Mechanisms must be identified as a priority to ensure the inclusion of young people and vulnerable groups, who face financial barriers, in innovative collective energy arrangements.

5.2.

Thus, citizen-driven energy communities must be acknowledged as a strategic element of energy policy. They can foster social solidarity if they are designed in a way that allows energy redistribution, supports vulnerable households and encourages local investments. These communities make an important contribution to social justice and security of supply, fostering support for a just energy transition (11). The EESC urges authorities to establish and promote energy communities to ensure meaningful citizen participation in their design and governance, including participation of those citizens who face challenges relative to their ownership status, such as tenants.

5.3.

Enabling prosumers and renewable energy communities to benefit as much as possible from the electricity they generate themselves, even if they feed it into the grid, should be a fundamental principle of the CEP. One example of how this can be organised in another, more honest way for small producers is an ‘electricity bank’, an example that that the EESC describes in its opinion on Electricity Market Reform (see opinion TEN/793).

5.4.

Current EU policy lacks systematic monitoring of energy communities. In many MS, energy communities exist as a legal possibility on paper, yet due to the lack of proper citizen engagement processes and truly functional enabling legislative frameworks, they do not work in reality. The licensing of an energy community is too bureaucratic, calls for technical skills that regular citizens do not possess and often requires hefty upfront payments from citizens.

5.5.

The CEP should commit to tightening EU legislation on energy communities in the next revisions of existing energy directives. For example, the EU legislation on community energy still suffers from vague definitions and inconsistent implementation. Key terms like ‘energy community’ and ‘energy sharing’ are interpreted differently across MS. Poor enforcement of EU criteria risks enabling corporate capture. Stronger safeguards are essential to protect the integrity of community energy.

5.6.

The authorities which should eliminate obstacles faced by energy communities are not functioning properly, either due to staffing and know-how barriers or due to pressures from incumbents. Registration requirements are excessive and DSOs refuse or postpone the grid connection of new energy communities and prosumers. They should improve connection capacity and face consequences if they do not react within the set timeframes. This requires high-level and regional energy spatial plans and grid development plans to reflect the growing number of such alternative energy systems.

6.   Specific comments on energy poverty

6.1.

The persistence of high energy poverty rates suggests the need for a transformative approach based on citizen empowerment, beyond regulatory compliance (12). As prerequisites, the EU should: 1) impose an EU-wide ban on fuel disconnections, which place households in a state of energy poverty and only exacerbate their vulnerability because they now have to content with difficult reconnection processes; and 2) reform the electricity market to move away from the merit order system, which links electricity prices to gas prices (13), to allow companies and citizens to benefit from the low price of renewable energy.

6.2.

While the EU comprehensively acknowledges energy poverty, it has left definitions and responses to MS, limiting coherent action due to political and financial differences. This approach has not worked, as EU and country-based data shows persistent high levels of energy poverty. The EU must decisively adopt a unified approach based on a household’s ability to meet minimal energy needs. The CEP should trigger the establishment of a mechanism to calculate minimal energy needs using building and household data, to trigger a consistent data collection process across all governance levels. Eurostat’s role should be strengthened in coordination with national statistics offices, local authorities and energy providers to collect household data effectively.

6.3.

Improving housing quality is critical in mitigating energy poverty (14), not only in cold seasons but increasingly when it comes to summer energy poverty. Energy audits and renovation subsidies should be mainstreamed into local strategies. Data collection on housing energy performance must be improved to better target interventions. Energy companies, social housing companies and/or local authorities can help to pre-finance the necessary investments, which residents can then (partially) repay through savings on their energy bills (15). Specific provision should be made for tenants whose energy arrangements are mediated by the relationship with a landlord and who also potentially face higher rents when renovations are involved.

6.4.

Varying home ownership regimes should be clearly acknowledged as a potential driver of energy poverty. Mitigation strategies should therefore include mechanisms for tenant protection and for empowerment of homeowners’ associations and be adapted to local home ownership contexts.

6.5.

The use of solid fuel, especially wood, is linked with energy poverty in rural and marginalised urban areas. Wood is often sourced from informal markets, leading to price volatility, limited access and poor quality, contributing to environmental harm through illegal logging and to health and safety risks. Proper wood storage and stove quality should be key concerns for local authorities, which can intervene to manage appropriate storage and data-based targeted distribution.

---

(1)  For further reference, see OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 86 and OJ C 123, 9.4.2021, p. 22.

(2)  Such as the revolving fund for community district heating operating in the Netherlands.

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) 2019/943 and (EU) No 2019/942 as well as Directives (EU) 2018/2001 and (EU) 2019/944 to improve the Union’s electricity market design (COM(2023) 148 final — 2023/0077 (COD)) ( OJ C 293, 18.8.2023, p. 112).

(4)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – The future of the supply and pricing of electricity in the EU (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/1187, 21.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1187/oj).

(5)   COM(2007)386 final, p. 3.

(6)  Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125).

(7)  As data for Austria or for Greece shows.

(8)  Croatia offers an example of good practice in creating the narrative for integrating energy within the scope of the national ombudsperson.

(9)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on individual and collective energy self-consumption as a factor in the fight for the green and energy transition, and for economic and social balance (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2024/873, 6.2.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/873/oj).

(10)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: Third Report on the State of the Energy Union’ (COM(2017) 688 final) ( OJ C 262, 25.7.2018, p. 86).

(11)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Between a trans-European super grid and local energy islands – the right mix of decentralised solutions and centralised structures for an economically, socially and ecologically sustainable energy transition’ (own-initiative opinion) ( OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 85).

(12)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Tackling energy poverty and the EU's resilience: challenges from an economic and social perspective (exploratory opinion requested by the Czech Presidency) ( OJ C 486, 21.12.2022, p. 88).

(13)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – The future of the supply and pricing of electricity in the EU (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/1187, 21.3.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1187/oj).

(14)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee – Social housing in the EU – decent, sustainable and affordable (own-initiative opinion) (OJ C, C/2025/771, 11.2.2025, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/771/oj).

(15)  Building on good practices such as those reflected by the EIB.