Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva approached Andrey Tsekov, Minister of Regional Development and Public Works; Nikolay Nankov, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Public Works and Local Self-Government; Delian Dobrev, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy; Ivailo Aleksiev, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy Development Agency; and Anna Martinova-Petkova, Executive Director of the Audit of European Union Funds Executive Agency and brought to them the piles of complaints from associations of owners from different regions of the country as well as from mayors of municipalities to report problems under Procedure BG-RRP-4.023 “Support for sustainable energy renovation of the residential building stock – Stage I” under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.

11 January 2024

Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva approached Andrey Tsekov, Minister of Regional Development and Public Works; Nikolay Nankov, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Regional Policy, Public Works and Local Self-Government; Delian Dobrev, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Energy; Ivailo Aleksiev, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy Development Agency; and Anna Martinova-Petkova, Executive Director of the Audit of European Union Funds Executive Agency and brought to them the piles of complaints from associations of owners from different regions of the country as well as from mayors of municipalities to report problems under Procedure BG-RRP-4.023 “Support for sustainable energy renovation of the residential building stock – Stage I” under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan.

The discontent has been provoked by the exclusion from the application process for the free of charge rehabilitation despite the compliance with all needed requirements as set out in the Application Guidelines for the Procedure. Citizens disagree with the evaluations of the investment proposals, which they see as unfair. They express doubt about the impartiality of the analysis of the energy efficiency of the applicants, the buildings, and the non-exercise of control on this analysis. Citizens object strongly to the imbalance found in the buildings approved for rehabilitation in the municipalities in some of which there is not even one building approved.

“Regardless of the significant efforts made and the financial resource that is not small and that was invested (and that will be lost in the event of non-participation) to meet the set criteria, citizens are precluded to join the procedure for free,” the Ombudsman wrote.

Further, she wrote that the Chamber of Energy Auditors in Bulgaria, among other, entertains suspicions about prejudiced selection and insists on access to information about the order of appointment of the evaluation panel, the number of the panel members and their skills and asks to have the reports after the conclusion of the evaluation procedure.

The Ombudsman attached concrete complaints from associations of owners of residential buildings that had not been approved for rehabilitation in towns and cities as follows: Stara Zagora, Aitos, Svilengrad, Shoumen, Veliko Turnovo, Plovdiv, Sofia, Sandanski, Lovech, among other. There people ask questions about the evaluation, the vague criteria and the non-availability of sufficient information and, accordingly, request that an appeal procedure be initiated and give specific reasons for that.

For instance, one of the citizens’ associations asks for assistance to protect the rights of the owners of a condominium who have been making efforts in good faith ever since 2016 to contribute to the energy efficiency of their building but the 108 points awarded under the current procedure put them on a reserve list for participation in a second stage subject to 20% co-financing which they cannot afford.

Another association insists on a complete check of the evaluation of proposals and the disclosure of the reasons for the drastic cuts of the sums allocated as compared to the preset ceilings.

Third: it is considered that the announced results do not reflect, in a correct and fair manner, the cost of projects submitted within the procedure given the fact that there is not even one single project approved in their municipality (Aitos).

An association from Mladost residential area in Lovech expresses the disagreement of all owners with the result of the building under the project as, in their view, it does not reflect, in a correct and fair manner, the cost of the projects and they ask for a reconsideration of the project proposal and for the provision of complete information, including information about the possibility to contest the evaluation.

Another association of owners from Lovech objects to the criterion of renewable energy, as for example pellets or firewood, as “these automatically push the applicant to the bottom of the ranking list”, compared to approved similar buildings that have a different type of heating.

Owners from Sandanski request the reconsideration of the result of a project proposal rated with 108 points. The rating is questioned as they state that it was just one project approved for the municipality of Sandanski and express suspicions about the delivery of false energy certificates.

Moreover, an association of owners from Stata Zagora insists on “a complete revision of the Program itself, a complete reconsideration of the evaluation of the blocks of flats and a complete recalculation of the points awarded”.

“Very few of the associations that are on the reserve list for participation in Stage II, as indicated in the complaints, will be able to afford the required co-financing, therefore, I find it necessary to make an analysis on the possible alternatives, including the option of reallocation of funds,” Prof. Kovacheva wrote.

She added that the general public had been informed about the objections of the mayors of the municipalities Rousse, Dimitrovgrad, Smolyan, Stara Zagora, etc. who similarly insist on a revision of the selection and point out divergences between the funds planned and the funds really disbursed.

The Ombudsman warned about the obstacle to the possibility of funds from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan to reach more municipalities and to avoid a significant local concentration of investments in certain municipalities and regions.

“In view of the above-stated reasons and in line with Art. 19, para 1, subpara 7 and Art. 20, para 1, subpara 2 of the Ombudsman Act, I am addressing you in keeping with the powers provided for in the Spatial Development Act, the Energy Efficiency Act, the Management of Resources from the European Funds under Shared Management Act and other relevant acts with a proposal for complete consideration of the complaints lodged and objections made by the owners’ associations and to exercise control, among other matters, on: 1) compliance with the criteria as set in The Conditions to Apply for Funding under the Procedure  “Support for sustainable energy renovation of the residential building stock – Stage I” by the selection of proposals for investment by end beneficiaries under the sub-measure “Support for sustainable energy renovation of the residential building stock”; 2) energy audit and verification whether the methods adopted were properly applied in the energy efficiency analysis. If any violations are found, corrective measures should be applied to prevent action that may be detrimental to the process of energy renovation of the residential buildings,” the Ombudsman insisted.

Further, Prof. Kovacheva recommended that a broad public awareness campaign be launched to explain, inter alia, other existing options for citizens to become beneficiaries of funding to achieve energy efficiency of their residential buildings (such as the Development of Regions Program 2021-2027, the National Decarbonization Fund, the Just Transition Fund) and to encourage the input to the process on the part of energy poverty-stricken people.

OMBUDSMAN'S RECEPTION-ROOM

• address: 22 George Washington str.,
  1202, Sofia
• phone: (+359 2) 810 6955; fax: (+359 2) 810 6963
• e-mail: priemna@ombudsman.bg

PRESS CENTER OF THE O