At the end of January, on the Vikerraadio show "Reporteritund," Arp Müller was told by Ave Schank-Lukas, the economic adviser of the European Commission's Representation in Estonia, that specific numerical targets have not been set for residential buildings. Each country needs to establish its national trajectory on how to achieve a reduction in energy use in standard residential buildings.

She explained that the directive sets minimum energy efficiency standards and renovation targets for existing buildings. While it is numerically determined that non-residential buildings must achieve the renovation of 16 percent of the buildings with the worst efficiency by 2030, such specific numerical targets have not been set for residential buildings, Schank-Lukas confirmed. By 2033, 26 percent of the worst energy-efficient non-residential buildings such as offices, stores or hospitals must be renovated.

The directive sets a goal for member states to reduce the energy use of residential buildings by 20 to 22 percent by 2035, stating that 55 percent of this reduction must occur among the 43 percent of buildings with the worst energy efficiency. Member states can decide for themselves which measures to adopt to meet the new standards. Although the directive will only come into effect after final approval – it still requires the consent of the governments of the member states – and will be published two years later, Estonia must submit its plan by the summer of 2025.

While it is still uncertain how the renovation will be financed, according to a state-commissioned overview, there are about 100,000 small houses, 14,000 apartment buildings and 27,000 non-residential buildings in Estonia that require renovation, covering 54 million square meters of space. The cost of renovation by 2050 is estimated at approximately €20 billion, for which funding has not yet been identified. The European Commission is only set to draft its financing plan by mid-2025.

In recent years, Estonia has used European Union structural funds to distribute renovation grants for apartments and small houses through KredEx, and this will continue for the next few years. However, in the longer term, it must be determined whether this funding will come from the national budget or additional EU funds, said Hannamary Seli, the head of sustainable construction at the Ministry of the Environment, on Wednesday's Vikerraadio show "Uudis+."

Mandatory renovation claim originated in the European Parliament

Commenting on the term "mandatory renovation" used in relation to the directive, several officials involved in the matter and MP Liisa Pakosta disagreed with such a claim, which was based on the European Parliament's initially overly ambitious position.

"Definitely not," replied Hannamary Seli, the head of sustainable construction at the Ministry of the Environment, on Wednesday when asked if it concerns mandatory renovation. "I understand very precisely where the notion of mandatory renovation came from. It originated from the draft by the European Parliament, where there was essentially a desire to impose an obligation on building owners to renovate their buildings to a certain standard. However, it should be noted that the final text did not remain in that form. This means that the obligations related to minimum energy efficiency standards apply to the state. And the state decides domestically how it can achieve these goals," she explained.

Liisa Pakosta, chair of the Riigikogu European Union Affairs Committee, spoke to Arp Müller in January on "Reporteritund," stating: "I think we can set aside the European Parliament's minor initiative, which fortunately was suppressed, and reaffirm that there is no proposal in any way in this directive to forcibly renovate homes anywhere. This does not mean that it isn't a good idea to fix up homes, but there is no obligation for mandatory renovation, no obligation to renovate homes."

Schank-Lukas supported her in the same program, saying that the process was a typical European Union legislative procedure where, for some reason, the European Parliament's original very ambitious position received disproportionately large backlash in Estonia. "Actually, the parliament's position was merely a negotiation stance, followed by trilateral negotiations involving the Council, Parliament and Commission, where several compromises were made, and the agreement reached last December was a fairly balanced solution, a collection of compromises. It is quite normal for the Council and Parliament's positions not to match the Commission's at the beginning. And in that sense, nothing special happened with this bill. But yes, the media then echoed the parliament's position," she said.

On Wednesday, European Parliament member Marina Kaljurand also spoke on "Reporteritund" on Vikerraadio, stating that everyone familiar with the internal workings of the European Union knows that the parliament is indeed more ambitious, as reflected in the parliament's initially formulated position.

Among Estonian MEPs, social democrats Marina Kaljurand and Sven Mikser voted in favor of adopting the directive, while Andrus Ansip and Urmas Paet from the Reform Party, Jana Toom from the Center Party, Riho Terras from Isamaa, and Jaak Madison from the Estonian Conservative People's Party voted against it.

In Estonia, with the help of KredEx grants, over 1,400 apartment buildings have been fully renovated in 15 years.

According to the European Commission, buildings consume 40 percent of energy used in the European Union and are responsible for 36 percent of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions. In Estonia, buildings consume over 50 percent of final energy.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!