Energy coaching and ‘fix team’ retrofitting to mitigate energy poverty: An ex-post analysis of treatment and interaction effects

Rising energy prices across Europe have increased concerns over energy poverty. Despite significant scholarly focus on financial relief measures instituted by national governments, locally tailored crisis measures have remained overlooked. This study delves into the Dutch context, where part of the government's response to the energy crisis was decentralised, allowing municipalities considerable discretion in experimenting with energy poverty interventions. It compares two strategies: ‘energy coaching’ services – offering advice on sustainable energy practices – and shallow retrofitting by ‘fix teams’ – installing minor energy-saving measures in homes. The impact of these interventions on residential comfort, sustainable behaviour adoption, and (financial concerns regarding) energy bills is assessed through an extensive survey involving treatment and control groups coupled with detailed administrative data on households and dwellings. Results indicate that, on an aggregate level, local interventions significantly enhanced perceived comfort and reduced energy bills among the treatment groups. Comparing individual interventions, notably, more extensive ones such as fix teams and comprehensive energy coaching were significantly more impactful than those involving a single visit, highlighting the importance of continuous engagement. Additionally, we found that energy poverty status significantly amplified the effectiveness of these interventions, thereby stressing the importance of focusing efforts on vulnerable households. • The decentralised Dutch approach towards mitigating energy poverty enables a critical evaluation of local interventions. • Regression analyses reveal that local interventions significantly enhance residential comfort and reduce energy bills on an aggregate level. • Comprehensive energy coaching and particularly ‘fix teams’ prove most effective, underscoring the value of sustained engagement. • Impact is significantly greater for households experiencing energy poverty, emphasising the importance of targeted measures.