Energy-efficient building retrofits can no longer stop at meeting the nZEB standard. The next step is to transform retrofitted buildings into active buildings capable of continuously measuring, controlling, and optimizing energy consumption, production, and storage in relation to the grid. This was one of the key ideas discussed at the Efficient Romania 2026 Forum, organized by the Energy Policy Group with the support of OMV Petrom, during a dialogue focused on the decarbonization of buildings and housing affordability with a view to 2030.
The discussion on energy-efficient buildings has entered a more concrete and demanding phase. While the focus has naturally been on renovation, insulation, reducing consumption, and meeting nZEB standards, experience from projects already implemented shows that a building’s actual performance does not end upon project completion. It actually begins during operation.
Andrei Ceclan, president of the Romanian Society of Energy Auditors and Managers, drew attention to a trend that warrants careful analysis: extensively renovated buildings can become significant consumers of electricity, especially when they include heat pumps, chillers, ventilation systems, and photovoltaic panels, but lack an integrated energy management system. “What is happening now with the deep renovation of nZEB buildings is that, in cities, it is not industrial sites that are reappearing, but renovated buildings, with electricity consumption comparable to that of industrial sites,” said Andrei Ceclan, referring in part to schools renovated as part of the renovation wave.
This observation does not call into question the need for renovation, but rather shows that renovation must go further. An energy-efficient building is not merely a building that is better insulated and equipped with new technologies. It is a building that can measure, integrate, and control these technologies. Without a coherent energy management system, high-performance equipment may operate in a fragmented manner, generate higher costs than anticipated, or be used improperly.
The examples mentioned at the Forum show that, in some renovated schools, ventilation systems are turned off due to noise, windows are left open even in winter, and BMS systems only partially integrate ventilation, cooling, or heat pumps. Under these conditions, the design standard does not automatically guarantee operational performance.
This highlights the need for a new transition: from nZEB buildings to active buildings. As defined by Andrei Ceclan, an active building is one that automatically measures and controls, through an energy management system, how much it consumes, how much it produces, how much it stores, and how it interacts with the power grid.
This shift in perspective is essential in an energy system where the electrification of consumption, the integration of heat pumps, distributed generation, and flexibility are becoming increasingly important. Buildings are no longer merely end consumers. They can become local hubs for consumption, generation, storage, and flexibility, with a direct impact on grids and on public and private energy costs.
True performance requires data, not just certificates
The shift toward active buildings brings the issue of data back to the forefront of the discussion. Romania needs data on its building stock, but above all, it needs data that is usable, up-to-date, and linked to public policy decisions. Without such data, prioritizing renovations, assessing actual savings, and identifying the buildings with the most significant problems remain incomplete exercises.
Cătălin Lungu, president of the Romanian Order of Energy Auditors, explained that, in drafting the National Building Renovation Plan, energy performance certificates were an important source of information, but the quality and robustness of the data remain a problem. Of the more than 500,000 certificates analyzed, fewer than 100,000 could be used in the modeling process.
This limitation highlights why the future National Digital Building Registry could become a strategic tool. It would integrate information on energy performance, urban planning, seismic risk, the circular economy, and other relevant building characteristics. But the tool will only be truly useful if the data is collected, verified, updated, and effectively used for public policy.
Raul Pop, State Secretary at the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Forests, clearly articulated the purpose of this phase: data does not reduce emissions on its own, but it shows who needs to take action and who is falling behind. In other words, data fosters accountability.
This is a significant shift for the building sector. Instead of general discussions about what needs to be done, Romania needs simple, publicly available indicators that are constantly monitored: how many buildings have been identified, how many have been renovated, how many have generated real savings, how many have functional energy management systems, and how many have reduced consumption and emissions in line with their stated goals.
In the absence of this transparency, renovation risks remaining a collection of projects rather than a coherent national program.
Public funds will not be enough
Data is important for another reason as well: without it, it is impossible to build a solid case for mobilizing private funding. During the Forum, several speakers emphasized that the renovation targets for 2030 and 2050 cannot be achieved through public funds alone.
Anca Ginavar, director at the Ministry of Development, Public Works, and Administration, noted that Romania needs approximately 30 billion euros just to meet the 2030 renovation targets and over 100 billion euros for the 2050 goals. In this context, 100% non-reimbursable funding schemes can no longer be considered sufficient.
The issue is not only fiscal but also related to market behavior. Raul Pop explained that the promise of grants can hinder investment decisions: when the market anticipates free money, property owners hesitate to take out loans or invest their own funds.
The same point was made by Alice Corovessi, director of the Institute of Zero Energy Buildings in Greece, who spoke about the experience of Greek renovation programs. Greece has succeeded in creating demand through public funding programs, but faces difficulties when trying to shift the market toward credit-based instruments, even under favorable terms.
For Romania, it is important to recognize that the future of renovation cannot be built solely on grants. A combination of public funds, bank financing, guarantees, green instruments, owner contributions, and technical support will be needed. And for these mechanisms to work, the benefits of renovation must be expressed not only in climate terms but also in economic terms: cost reduction, increased property value, comfort, health, safety, and protection against energy price volatility.
The renovation must address structural safety, heritage preservation, and circularity
Another key message from the Forum was that energy renovation cannot be treated in isolation. In many cases, buildings that require energy efficiency improvements also need seismic retrofitting, functional upgrades, fire safety measures, or preservation of their historical value.
Theodor Bratoșin, a research associate at EPG, presented the experience of a local renovation plan implemented as part of the REDESIGN project in Sighetu Marmației. The exercise demonstrated that planning is possible even with incomplete data, but only if the limitations are transparently acknowledged. In the case of public buildings, energy data did not fully reflect the reality on the ground, and some properties had structural or functional issues that needed to be integrated into the renovation decision.
The same complexity arises in the case of historic buildings. Anca Ginavar pointed out that strictly energy-focused interventions can harm heritage if they are not accompanied by technical guidelines and appropriate approaches. Heritage buildings often have low energy performance, but their renovation requires solutions different from those applied to the standard building stock.
Eugen Pănescu, vice president of the Architects’ Council of Europe, framed the issue in a broader context: demolition and building from scratch are still too easy and too cheap, while the renovation and adaptive reuse of buildings remain more difficult, slower, and more expensive processes. However, if the goal is to reduce the carbon footprint across the entire life cycle of buildings, the reuse of the existing building stock must become the first option, not the exception.
This is where energy efficiency, circularity, and urban policies converge. Materials resulting from demolition should not be treated merely as waste, but as potential resources for a circular market. But this market will not emerge on its own. It requires regulations, demand, quality standards, clear responsibilities for manufacturers and builders, and public procurement criteria that favor low-carbon materials.
ETS2 is changing the definition of vulnerability
All these issues converge on a major social question: who will be able to bear the costs of the transition, and who risks being left behind?
During the panel discussion on ETS2, the conversation revealed that energy vulnerability must be understood in a broader sense than before. Constantin Postoiu, coordinator of the data analysis department at EPG, explained that the poorest households are not necessarily the ones who will directly bear the highest costs of ETS2 through their gas bills or fuel prices. Many of them do not use natural gas for heating and do not own cars. However, they will be indirectly affected by rising prices for goods and services, driven by higher energy and transportation costs.
This distinction is essential for the design of the Social Climate Fund. Support should not be directed solely toward consumers who already appear in traditional vulnerability statistics, but also toward households that may quickly become vulnerable in the context of rising fossil fuel costs.
Laura Nazare, coordinator of Bankwatch Romania’s energy transition campaign, emphasized that ETS2 requires public policies to identify households that are currently managing to get by but live in inefficient buildings, rely on gas for heating, and lack the financial means to renovate or switch to clean technologies. These households do not always fit into traditional definitions of vulnerability.
Ruxandra Chirilă, director at the Ministry of Investments and European Projects, noted that the Social Climate Plan aims for a balanced approach across transportation, energy, and buildings, with interventions that combine direct support for bill payments with structural investments in renovation, clean technologies, and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. It is important that short-term support not replace investments that reduce vulnerability in the long term.
From pilot projects to a full-scale system
The Efficient Romania 2026 Forum confirmed that Romania has moved beyond the stage where building energy efficiency could be discussed solely as a technical or climate-related objective. Building renovation is now a matter of energy policy, social policy, urban policy, public and private financing, industrial competitiveness, and local governance.
The shift from nZEB to active buildings encapsulates this change. It is not enough to renovate more. We must renovate better, measure results, monitor consumption, integrate buildings into the energy system, and learn from projects already implemented.
The next phase will not be defined solely by the number of renovated buildings, but by the quality of their operational performance. And this performance will depend on several essential conditions: public and interoperable data, real energy management, blended financing, local administrative capacity, professional expertise, rules for circularity, and social policies capable of reaching vulnerable households before they are pushed into crisis.
In this sense, the active building is not merely a technical formula. It is the embodiment of a new phase in the energy transition within the building sector: a phase in which efficiency must be demonstrated, not merely designed.