Committee on Budgetary Control Ordinary meeting CONT Committee meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
CONT European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Csaba Molnár
The first is reaffirming the need for robust democratic scrutiny and control over the implementation of the EU budget, and the second one is adding a reference to the lack of gender balance to the original report provided by the rapporteur. So I look forward to our cooperation and the coordination of this file as we did the last years too. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much Csaba, this has been very helpful. Thanks for speaking yourself. And for the PfE, it's Mr. Knotek. And you will do it Tamás, over to you.
Tamás Deutsch
Köszönöm szépen, tisztelt elnök úr. Molnár képviselő úr kivételt jelentő hozzászólása után, aki a maga nevében beszélt, én ismételten elnök úr gyakorlatát kell, hogy folytassam. Ondřej Knotek képviselő úr, a Patrióta frakció árnyékjelentéstevője sajnos nem tud most jelen lenni a bizottsági ülésen, ezért az ő szavait tolmácsolva arról tudom tájékoztatni a tisztelt bizottságot, hogy képviselő úr, mint árnyékjelentéstevő egyetért azzal, hogy a Parlament és a Tanács között a mentesítési eljárás kapcsán fennálló, régóta húzódó nehézségek komoly problémát jelentenek, és hogy a szorosabb együttműködés, valamint a megbízható információkhoz való hozzáférés egyértelműen előnyösebb lenne a Költségvetési Ellenőrző Bizottság munkája szempontjából. Ezért fontos a két intézmény közötti párbeszéd újraindítása a patthelyzet feloldása érdekében. Képviselő úr jelzi, hogy közös célunk kell, hogy legyen a megbízható pénzgazdálkodás és a megfelelő ellenőrzés biztosítása, miközben elkerüljük a felesleges konfrontációt a tagállamokat képviselő Tanáccsal.
Emellett az egyhangú döntéshozatal kérdését egyáltalán nem kellene árnyékjelentéstevő úr szerint érinteni a mentesítési jelentésben.
Az egyhangúság továbbra is a szerződéseken alapuló legitim mechanizmus, amelyen keresztül a tagállami kormányok demokratikus felelősséget gyakorolnak a különösen érzékeny területeken. Alkalmazásának, mármint a vétó alkalmazásának bénultságként vagy akár zsarolásként való leírása nem segíti elő a konstruktív párbeszédet. Ennek megfelelően fog árnyék-jelentéstevő úr frakciónk részéről módosító javaslatokat benyújtani. Köszönöm szépen.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Tamás. Next one is Mr. Sturza, but he will be replaced by Mr. Eriksson. Over to you.
Dick Erixon
Yes, please, thank you. The Council also spends taxpayers' money, so it should be accountable to the citizens who pay it. But let us be honest about the guards in this Union. It is the Member States in the Council, and mainly the frugal Member States, that cut the annual budget and strike out spendings that does not deliver. Last year, the Member States took 1.3 billion euro out of the Commission's draft budget for 2026.
This Parliament put every euro back and added another 600 million on top. The Member States are closer to their citizens, so they have to answer more directly for where taxes go and what people gets back. That is why it is wrong to demand treaty changes and more power to Brussels. I am grateful to the veto on tax exists. It is what stops some parties in this House from putting more tax burdens on our citizens and spending more of their money.
Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Eriksson. Next one would be the Liberal Group, but Mr. Garibaldi, and I think no other colleague is here, so I will give the floor to Damian Boeselager from the Greens, but I think it will be done by Mr. Freund.
Daniel Freund
The shadow is now Rasmus Nordqvist since Damian Boeselager has left the committee. But yes, I have to say, I mean, what the colleague from the ECR just said. I mean, there is a difference between budget reduction and budget control. We can all talk about whether the budget is correctly allocated and whether it should be larger or smaller, but once we decide on a budget as legislator, jointly with the Council, we should make sure that that budget is executed accordingly. And the part of the Council we cannot see.
And we cannot fulfill the task given to the European Parliament in the EU Treaty. I have to say, I mean, I'm all fine that we do this year after year, and it's the 15th iteration that we have not discharged the Council. But I have to put this back to colleagues. I think that at some point in time, I don't know when we're ready to do this, after 20 times no discharge or 30, I'm open to discuss. But I think ultimately we ought to do something about it, because just writing it down every year and adopting it with a large majority as we do is not changing the behavior of the Council.
And I think quite honestly that that is unacceptable. The treaty is very clear about us discharging the EU budget, including the part that is being spent in the Council. And I think we ought to do something about that.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much, Daniel Freund. If any other member would like to speak, please, Maria.
Voi vorbi în limba română. Da, vreau să continui ce a spus colegul.
Am fost și eu raportoare de descărcare de gestiune și la Comisie, nici n-am semnat raportul, și la Consiliu. Este limpede că trebuie făcut ceva pentru că dacă șefii de stat și de guverne, cine e Consiliul, șefii de stat și de guverne, dau un asemenea exemplu de lipsă de transparență, cum poate să aibă încredere cetățenii că da, Uniunea Europeană este un proiect important, avem nevoie de acest proiect. Dar pentru asta, transparența să n-o clameze Consiliul doar să ceară statelor membre, să ceară Parlamentului, să ceară instituțiilor Uniunii Europene și Consiliul, dar eu zic că și Comisia în mare măsură, dau dovadă de o lipsă de transparență repetabilă, să spun așa. Și dacă soluția este că da, noi nu descărcăm de gestiune, dar continuă să facă la fel, cred că pot fi căutate alte soluții juridice.
Andreas Schwab
Danke, Frau Kollegin Grapini. Gibt's weitere Wortmeldungen? That doesn't seem to be the case, then we can close this item. Thank you for your contribution and we will then further proceed with the file as foreseen. We then come to agenda item number six, which is the special report of the European Court of Auditors on improving the energy efficiency.
And I would like to give the floor here right at the beginning to our colleague from the European Court of Auditors, which is Mr. Nikolaos Milionis. A very good name for a court, for an auditor. He's the rapporteur for the special report. And there is also Christina Iordan, who is the head of unit Economics and Resilience, and Francesco Carlucci, he is the head of unit Recovery and Resilience. Welcome to all of you.
I would also like to thank my colleague, hardworking on the budget, Carla Tavares. She is following this file very closely from our side. Thank you very much for this. But I think we agree we give the floor, Carla, to Mr. Milionis to present the special report and then it will be you speaking on our behalf. And therefore over to you, please.
Nikolaos Milionis
Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, my surname is with one L instead of two Ls. Thank you. Well, dear chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honor for me to present to the Budgetary Control Committee our latest report on funding energy efficiency renovation of private homes. Next slide, please.
Why did we...
Okay, let's go to the second slide. Yes, okay. And why did we do this audit? The Recovery and Resilience Facility, the RRF, set aside 43 billion euros to support energy efficiency improvements in private homes. This represents around 8% of total available RRF funding.
This is also significantly more than what cohesion funds are providing for residential energy efficiency. Residential buildings account for a quarter of EU energy use and around 75% of them are still energy inefficient. Improving their efficiency is essential to lower bills, ensure energy security and achieve climate neutrality goals. Well, what did we look at? Our audit asked whether RRF investments and reforms contributed to the energy efficiency of residential buildings effectively and cost-effectively.
We examined whether the framework adequately addressed renovation needs, whether the measures were progressing and delivering savings and, finally, whether their results and cost-effectiveness were adequately monitored. The audit covered February 2020 to December 2025. We analyzed relevant information across the Union and carried out detailed work in Belgium, Italy, Cyprus and Lithuania. In these four Member States, we examined 28 measures: 18 investments and 10 reforms. We analyzed costs, targets and reported savings and, finally, visited 27 renovation projects.
We also interviewed the responsible authorities and consulted specialists. Next slide, please. Okay. What did we find? Our main conclusion is straightforward.
The RRF has provided broad financial support, but weaknesses in design and implementation limit how much energy is actually saved and at what cost. Overall, the RRF mainly financed medium-depth renovations. Reforms were not clearly defined and their effect on investments and energy savings was not demonstrated. There were implementation delays, while actual results and cost-effectiveness were not adequately analyzed or monitored. Now let me present you these findings in more detail.
Next slide, please. The first is the weaknesses in the foundations.
Before the RRF was launched, the Commission has stressed the importance of deep renovations, of deep renovations, those achieving more than 60% energy savings. Yet, the RRF regulation made no reference to deep renovation. Only one Member State, Romania, associated an RRF measure with a target explicitly referring to deep renovations. Across the Union, measures targeting at least medium-depth renovation represented more than 80% of estimated costs, while for the remaining part, there was no minimum energy saving requirement. Medium or light renovation can be useful, but when it is not planned as part of a coherent pathway towards higher performance, it can create a lock-in effect.
In this case, initial works may make deeper renovation later more difficult or more expensive. We also found weaknesses in project selection in the four audited Member States. Projects were generally selected on eligibility, and all eligible projects were financed while funding remained available. There was no comparative quality assessment to rank projects according to expected results. The criteria were often not significantly selective to direct support towards the worst-performing buildings or households with greater financial need.
Supporting reforms alongside investments is a key innovation of the RRF. However, the concept of a reform was not clearly defined, leading to inconsistent approaches across Member States. Some measures described as reforms were in substance mainly investments. Other reforms could support future investment, but there was insufficient evidence and a lack of suitable indicators to demonstrate their effects. Next slide, please.
Shortcomings in achieving results. Although the RRF was intended to be performance-based, most targets focused on outputs, such as the number of area of homes renovated, rather than on results, meaning energy saving. Among more than a hundred renovation measures across the Union, we found only three with result-oriented targets. This limits the Commission's ability to assess performance. Measures that were simple to implement or offered very high support generally progressed quickly.
More complex measures, including roof or wall insulation, were more difficult to deliver within the RRF time frame. At the time of our audit, 12 of the 18 investments we examined in detail were delayed. Targets had also been reduced in 13 cases. Even after revisions, some measures remained at risk of not being completed by the RRF deadline. We also identified significant weaknesses in the information used to report energy savings.
Energy performance certificates are useful for showing a building's performance under standard conditions. However, they were not designed to measure actual savings from a publicly funded scheme. Their estimates can differ substantially from actual consumption because consumption is affected by residents' behavior. This performance gap was not reflected in reporting savings. Certificates and calculation methods also differ between and within member states, limiting comparability.
Checks by national and regional authorities found anomalies and our review identified further reliability issues. At EU level, energy savings are aggregated under common indicator one across all RRF measures, including those targeting public buildings and enterprises. The data is not sufficiently broken down to assess residential renovation measures individually. The Commission carries out plausibility checks on the data reported by member states but does not examine the figures in detail. Overall, we found that the available information on achieved energy savings was not reliable, comparable, or detailed enough for meaningful monitoring of actual results.
Next slide, please. Lack of focus on cost-effectiveness. Neither the Commission nor the selected member states tracked the cost-effectiveness of the measures as the RRF regulation did not require this. Our calculation showed substantial variation on the cost per unit of energy saved. The measures differ in design, building stock, and policy choices, so comparison requires care.
Nevertheless, the variation demonstrates why cost-effectiveness should be monitored. One notable example was the Italy's Superbonus, which supported up to 110% of eligibility costs. Although savings per projects were relatively high, they came at a very high cost. Among the measures examined, the Italian Superbonus was by far the most expensive and least cost-effective, requiring only nearly 10 euros to achieve a 1 kilowatt-hour saving per year. We concluded that this level of support was not in line with sound financial management and did not represent a cost-effective use of European funds.
Next slide, please. We made three recommendations to better report on the performance on RRF funds and improve further energy efficiency measures. Regarding the RRF, the Commission should disclose more transparently the methodology used to measure energy savings and explain how this affects the reliability of reported data. It should also evaluate the results of cost-effectiveness of residential energy efficiency measures, including the appropriate level of public support to draw lessons for future programs. Now, for measures under the next multiannual financial framework, the Commission should check whether member states include deep renovations and set clear, well-substantiated energy saving targets where appropriate to support the European climate objectives.
Finally, the Commission should improve the methodology for reporting energy savings, including by taking account of the difference between estimated and actual savings. It should collect reliable measure-level information on results achieved and amounts paid from the European Union, national, and private sources. The central message of this special report is that broad financial support is not enough. Future programs need stronger foundations. Better targeted renovation, clear result-based objectives, reliable information on actual savings, and systematic attention on cost-effectiveness.
These elements are necessary to demonstrate that the European funding has achieved and to improve future support. I would like to thank you all for your attention. We are at your disposal to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Milionis. This has been very helpful. It gave us a good overview and now it's our colleague Carla Tavares who will get the floor. Please, Carla.
Carla Tavares
Thank you, chair. Muito obrigada. Muito obrigada. Vou falar em português. Muito obrigada também ao Tribunal de Contas Europeu por esta apresentação.
Como foi aqui dito, estamos já no final do MRR, mas estamos a trabalhar no próximo quadro financeiro. Percebemos nesta relevante e importante medida de apoio à eficiência energética no parque habitacional privado que há um conjunto de lacunas que importa aperfeiçoar por parte da Comissão relativamente, em particular, ao próximo quadro financeiro, desde logo num conjunto na própria regulamentação. Há uma questão que aqui foi colocada muito pertinente do meu ponto de vista e que tem a ver com a forma própria metodologia dos certificados energéticos que é, de facto, e eu sei-o bem pelo meu país, uma dificuldade nos dados que nos fornece e para permitir cumprir depois os objetivos de aplicação e utilização dos fundos europeus para, de facto, haver, para além do conforto energético, uma redução também dos consumos e esse também é, de facto, um objetivo. Tinha uma pergunta relativamente a todas as sugestões e ao extraordinário trabalho que nos deixaram e que será muito útil, por certo, para o futuro, quando também temos em cima da mesa uma proposta da Comissão para o próximo quadro financeiro muito centrada nos marcos e metas. E o que perguntava é se há forma de, no futuro, relativamente ao próximo quadro financeiro, o próprio Tribunal conseguir verificar se a Comissão implementou, de facto, todas as recomendações que são vertidas neste relatório e não só formalmente os documentos.
Porque eu acho que a grande dificuldade nesta área, e permitam-me aqui este aparte, eu própria estive de autarca nos últimos doze anos, é nós entre aquilo que são os documentos formais e depois a eficiência e eficácia da utilização dos dinheiros públicos para uma medida tão importante como esta na área da eficiência energética. E o que pergunto é se, na vossa perceção, as medidas que estão aqui a sugerir neste relatório e muito relevantes, conforme já referi, são mensuráveis depois por parte da Comissão e se são possíveis de ser trabalhadas para termos os resultados que todos desejamos que tenhamos em medidas como esta.
Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Carla. Are there any other colleagues that would like to have the floor? Please, Mr. Eriksson.
Dick Erixon
Thank you, and thank you Mr. Milionis. 43 billion euro of RRF money was planned for home renovations, and citizens were told this was money for the fight against climate change. Out of 101 renovations measures across the Union, only three has target for energy savings. Only three. Nobody tracks what the savings actually cost, not even for those three, and the regulation did not ask them to.
On top of that, Italy paid people, as we just heard, more than their renovation cost and spent nearly 10 euro to save one kilowatt hour, almost four times the original estimate. That is a large inefficiency. It can't be justified. In the next MFF, we must pay for real results. Money spent is not a result.
So I have a call to the Commission to identify the programs that saved the most per euro and support the kind of programs in the next MFF so we can tell citizens we got the most out of their taxes. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Eriksson. Is there any other colleague who would like to have the floor? If that's not the case, I would like to ask a question myself because I mean retrospectively it seems to me that the whole RRF exposure has been done to relaunch the economy in the European Union as a whole. Maybe I'm wrong there, but that is a bit my understanding. And on that basis, I'd say that money that has been spent in the real economy, even though we may not have liked it all over, is a use, was of use to relaunch or to stabilize and to relaunch the real economy.
And that's in sharp difference to cases that may exist where the money has not been going into the real economy. Can you make, Mr. Milionis, maybe a comment on this, especially with your critical remarks to the Italian superbonus, which has created a lot of discussions, yes, also in Germany there is only a little improvement for your credit rate that you get if you invest in energy efficiency, and in that country that you have been making reference to you got even the whole measure fully paid and the bank got 10% of the overall, but still it has helped to stabilize the economy. So can you make in the light of this question some comments on your assessment? That would be very useful. And I wonder again if there is any colleague who would like to ask Mr. Milionis where he has found the Milionis, but it's not the case, so over to you.
Nikolaos Milionis
Ms. Tavares' comments, yes, we are very happy that the Commission let's say accepted all our recommendation.
Every three years, we make a follow-up of the implementation of our recommendations and we'll see if they will accept in reality our recommendations. On the problem with, yes, about the three cases, the main, let's say, comment we constantly make to the RRF design and implementation is that although it is intended to be performance-oriented, most targets focus on outputs. It means in this case the number or area of homes renovated rather than on results, meaning on energy saved. Among, we, in our report, we noticed that among more than a hundred renovation measures across the Union, we found only three cases with result-oriented targets to be according to the RRF initial, let's say, design. On Mr. President's comments, yes, it's a big issue that the RRF introduced an important new approach by linking payments with agreed milestones and targets.
As I explained that in the area we audited, there was not enough focus on actual results, especially energy saving and cost-effectiveness. It is, let's say, a constant comment we made on the RRF design and implementation. Now the Superbonus, it's, let's say, the most controversial thing we made. What happened in Italy? The Italian Superbonus scheme accounted for about one-third of the 43 billion euros.
It means 13 billion euros, one-third of the RRF funding for home renovation was taken by Italy. But it covered up to 110% of renovation costs and was not well-targeted. I understand the Commission's stance, they consider it that it's legal, but it is our approach is not only on the legality. Even the Corte dei Conti, Italian Corte dei Conti and the Central Bank of Italy made the same, let's say, remarks as we did, as we do. Our approach is on the performance, the performance of the cost-effectiveness in the case of, in the Italian case, the Italian who received money from the RRF gained more money than they had the right to do.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Mr. Mignoni. I wonder if there are colleagues that would like to have the floor in our general exchange with you.
I don't see them. If not, I would like to give the floor to close this to Carla Tavares, as she is our responsible colleague. Over to you.
Carla Tavares
Muito obrigada, muito obrigada, Presidente. Obrigada uma vez mais também ao Tribunal de Contas. Eu acho que as opiniões foram expressas aqui pelos diversos colegas espelham bem a importância deste relatório e a necessidade que temos de que, no próximo quadro financeiro, matérias como esta e outras similares tenham por parte depois da própria Comissão, não só sob o ponto de vista dos regulamentos e às vezes, como se costuma dizer, o diabo está nos pormenores e, portanto, logo no início destes processos, eu acho que o programa de recuperação e resiliência nos ensinou a todos, quer à Comissão, quer ao Conselho, mas também ao Parlamento, que desde o início é preciso olhar muitas vezes com particular atenção para os regulamentos. Mas dizia eu, naturalmente, o que se espera é que o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual não repita estas mesmas questões e que possa, de facto, nestas áreas como noutras, ser um importante instrumento ao serviço daquilo que são os seus objetivos e, em particular, também daquilo que é a utilização dos dinheiros europeus. Muito obrigada.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much, Carla. This is a very helpful analysis. But we have also here the European Commission that on RRF normally doesn't want to give us too much insights. But now I think there is the end of this term, so we will, I don't know if you have today already something on the analysis of the use of these moneys. If yes, then you, you will have the floor if you want.
Please.
Christina Iordan
Um, yes, good afternoon. So we have prepared slides on the, on our reply to the, to this recommendation. So I don't know whether, so I, I suggest that I go through these slides and then I also would like to make a point on the superbonus. So of course we thank the ECA for the report and we take good note, note of the findings and the recommendations. Overall, the RRF supports 419 reforms and investments dedicated to energy efficiency.
And so this is close to 80 billion, out of which some 44 billion is specifically allocated to energy efficiency of buildings. And so we think that this is really a crucial support provided in the current context of the high energy price and where there's really a need to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels. Before moving to the recommendations as such, let me make three more general points. So the first is just on the kind of period where the audit took place. So the cutoff date was December 25.
And we have to remember that the REPowerEU chapters, they were only agreed in mid-23. So it is therefore normal that implementation was still very much ongoing when this audit took place. Second, the report puts a lot of emphasis on deep renovations of buildings. These are far-reaching renovations that are of course very effective. The RRF does allow for such deep renovations and we do have some examples in the plans.
However, as the ECA also said, there was no legal obligation to have these kind of renovations. And also given the strict timeline of the instrument, it wouldn't always have been feasible for member states to include these kind of renovations.
And then, and this is a point that we have discussed here already in the past on the issue of cost-effectiveness. Under the RRF, efficiency must be assessed by comparing the payments to Member States against the actual reforms and investments that have been implemented. The fact that we as Commission do not have systematic access to all data on actual costs does not mean that it's impossible to assess the efficiency of the instrument. Next slide, and then I will just go through the recommendations. Exactly, so there's overall six recommendations and we accept five partially and one completely.
Only four of these recommendations are about the RRF and the other two concern the future MFF proposal. So the first part of the first recommendation asks the Commission to check whether Member States include these deep renovations for financing under the next MFF. We partially accept this. And for the next MFF, as you probably all know, the Commission has proposed a dedicated tracking and performance monitoring framework for all programs. And this includes also intervention fields for light, medium, but also deep renovations.
Of course, the outcome of the future of the exact regulation will depend on the negotiations that are currently going on. Next slide, please. On the second part of this first recommendation, this is about setting energy saving targets for measures to be financed under the next MFF. And also here we think that the performance regulation that we have proposed goes a long way in addressing this. The proposed framework, it will provide concrete output and result indicators, so really very much what the ECA has been asking for, to measure the effects of EU funding.
And for energy efficiency achieved, energy savings is indeed very much one of these indicators that Member States can use. Next slide, please. On the second set of recommendations, so this is about calling on the Commission to transparently report on the savings and evaluate the RRF measures to improve energy efficiency of residential buildings. The first part is about the methodology used for the common indicator on energy savings. And here we are asked to disclose further information on the methodology and its limitations.
And we fully accept this recommendation. We are happy to provide more such information on the website. We just would like to recall that indeed this common indicators data, it remains data of the Member States and while indeed we carry out plausibility checks, we have no legal basis to reject or completely alter this data. Next slide, please. On the second part of this recommendation, it requires the Commission to evaluate the results and cost-effectiveness of the measures for the energy efficiency of residential buildings.
And again, we can partially accept this. In the context of the ex-post evaluation of the RRF, we will evaluate to the extent possible the results of measures to improve the energy efficiency of residential buildings. And again, on this point of cost-effectiveness, I would like to recall the point I made before that since this is a performance-based instrument, the mechanism to assess cost-effectiveness is a bit different than under the usual cost-based financing instruments that we are used to. And now I give the floor to my colleague, Head of Unit from DG ENER.
Stefan Moser
Yes, good afternoon. So just picking up, next slide, please. Oh no, here we are, that's good. Recommendation three, so about improving the performance tracking of energy savings under the next MFF, already touched upon a few times. Again, bear in mind that future MFF proposals are still being negotiated and the Commission proposed a specific methodology there.
Recommendation A asks the Commission to improve the methodology for reporting energy savings through renovation measures, and we partially accept this. Of course, the recent revision of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive already includes important measures to improve the reliability of both energy performance certificates and the assessment of energy performance, bearing in mind that this is often still asset-rating based and not operational-measurement based. But of course, we are working closely with Member States to ensure transposition and implementation. More generally, as regards the Court's criticism of using EPCs in this context, we note that certificates are widely recognized. They have been endorsed by both Parliament and Council in the recent review, and of course, we admit they're not perfect, but the Commission does consider them an appropriate and robust tool for assessing improvements in the energy performance of buildings resulting from RRF measures.
Next slide, please. This recommendation asks the Commission to collect reliable information on the results achieved and amounts paid, and also this recommendation is partially accepted. The proposal for the performance regulation for the next MFF ensures that all measures financed are clearly linked to output and result indicators. And information on the amounts paid will depend on the concrete system of individual programs, of course, which we cannot predict in advance. Thank you very much.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. I think this was very helpful. You would like to add something? Over to you.
Christina Iordan
No, indeed, thank you, Chair, just to add one word on the Superbonus because it's indeed, I think, an important topic. And just to clarify, indeed, as was mentioned before, the amount financed under the RRF in the Italian RRP was some 14 billion out of a total estimated cost of around 132 billion. So I do admit this is a lot of money, but just to be clear, the RRF financed around 10.6% of the total costs that Italy incurred for this measure. And at no point, and on this I want to be very clear because it's sometimes represented a bit differently, did the EU budget therefore cover 100% of the costs, neither by Italy nor by the final recipients. Then, however, let me also say that we note that the inclusion of this measure in the Italian RRP was decided at a specific moment in time, in a crisis moment.
The Commission will surely draw lessons from the policy design of this type of tax credit measures for future funding instruments. I just wanted to be clear on these two aspects. Thank you.
Andreas Schwab
Thank you very much. Is there any other comment to be done on RRF and energy? It doesn't seem to be the case. Thank you very much for your contributions. Thank you very much for the information that you have shared with us.
A special thanks to my colleagues that have been spending their time and attention on this. And like that, I can close this item. Thank you very much, and we then come after a break of two minutes to our coordinators' meeting, which should start at 17:45, but there are some colleagues that can't be here, so maybe we can even start a bit earlier. Thank you very much and have a nice evening.