Taking into account territorial differences in social and energy vulnerability of households is a strong tool to overcome poverty and inequalities and to achieve a wider coverage of measures with the same financial means. For example, improving the energy efficiency of individual houses is more cost-effective than implementing these measures for multi-family buildings. The reason for this is that funding can only be provided with income criteria for the most vulnerable households with 3 or more members. With an investment of BGN 100 million and a limit of funding per household of up to BGN 20 thousand, 5.7 per cent of houses with three or more residents where 23 598 energy poor people live will be renovated while apartment buildings will account for only 0.92 per cent of vulnerable groups, with 11 362 residents. This is crucial for the effectiveness of the investments under the National Social Climate Plan which has to be submitted to the EC by 30 June this year. The Social Climate Fund is expected to provide financial support to vulnerable individuals, households and micro businesses affected by the new Emissions Trading System for buildings and transport from 1 January 2026.
This has become clear at a round table for presenting the results of the “Geographical approach for the preparation of a National Map of Energy-Vulnerable Households in Bulgaria” project which is funded by the European Climate Foundation. WWF Bulgaria is the lead organization, and the Economic Research Institute (ERI) at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is the co-executor.
The round table was attended by nearly 40 representatives of state institutions, business and NGOs, and the results of the regional study with a map of energy and social vulnerability of households in Bulgaria were presented by Assoc. Prof. Teodora Peneva from ERI at BAS.
The investment in improving the energy efficiency of buildings is aimed at long-term energy cost reduction and covers specific vulnerable groups with clear income and household size criteria, she said. Addressed to energy-poor households in individual houses, the measures would provide a sustainable effect on energy poverty. Separately, they would also offer the highest potential for real change in quality of life, especially in areas with a high proportion of multi-person households. To increase the scope of the investment, it could be combined with lower-cost partial measures for thermal insulation, replacement of window frames and heating systems in areas with fewer large households, Assoc. Prof. Peneva said.
The study introduces a comprehensive energy vulnerability index with 11 indicators divided into 3 groups – energy needs, social vulnerability and energy poverty. The results have shown that the most vulnerable districts in Bulgaria, with the highest energy needs and the most problems in terms of social vulnerability are Sofia district, Razgrad, Veliko Tarnovo, Vidin and Dobrich.
Veliko Tarnovo has the highest social vulnerability, together with Lovech, Haskovo, Yambol, Sliven, Montana. Excluding Veliko Tarnovo, these are the districts that have the lowest average income per person and a high share of people in poverty, and the highest unemployment rates, Assoc. Prof. Teodora Peneva said. According to her, unemployment in Veliko Tarnovo is very low – only 4% but incomes are 37% lower than Sofia city, with the capital being taken as the best performing district in this respect. The situation is most critical in Sliven where incomes are 47% lower than in Sofia.
In addition to income, social vulnerability and energy needs, the type of heating used is also taken into account in the study.
The results have shown that households heating with wood have much lower incomes than other households. Their average income per person is BGN 2 078, coal – BGN 2 365, electricity – BGN 2 404 and gas – BGN 3 112. The conclusion from this is that energy poverty in Bulgaria is more closely related to the use of wood, low incomes, the high proportion of people with income below the poverty line, and the lack of energy efficiency measures, and much less to the use of gas and unemployment, Assoc. Prof. Teodora Peneva highlighted.
According to her, the state does not have a programme to help the energy poor, despite the fact that according to official data they are about 1.8 million or nearly 60% of the population in the country. To reduce the 20-22% of the population in poverty, the country’s income, employment and economic development policies should play the leading role, not energy policy, the economist said.
It is realistic to talk about getting 600 thousand people out of energy poverty by 2050, other things being equal such as energy prices, overall population base, etc., the roundtable said.
