It is important to avoid turning this into an obligation, otherwise the property will depreciate.

Giorgio Spaziani Testa, president of Confedilizia — the main organization of property owners, assessed the government's position on the directive regarding "green homes".“In our opinion, the government deserves thanks for its negative vote. This is a strong signal that also encourages radical changes to be made to this document in the next European legislature, which we consider to be flawed.”“This bill could become a real burden for citizens, especially considering the requirement to replace fossil fuel boilers,” he noted.

Spadzhiani Testa emphasizes that there is now no obligation to achieve specific energy classes within predetermined deadlines. However, individual states should strive to achieve a quantitative reduction in energy consumption for housing by set dates, the first of which is 2030. He added that our Minister of Environment considers this goal unattainable.But there is a risk that future governments may try to impose obligations that are not currently provided for.“Therefore, these risks need to be addressed at the early stages,” he emphasized.

In response to the question of who will pay for these changes, Spadoni Testa mentioned the positions expressed by Minister Giorgetti:"In Italy, there are either ideologically motivated groups or those who will benefit from this work.

Regarding the possible impact of the directive, Spadiani Testa noted:"In the previous version, it was enough to consider the average costs for the Superbonus, which often overlap with the eco-bonuses."Speaking of a 16% reduction in consumption, that's a whole different story. According to a Cresme study, this translates to expenses of 320 billion euros, but other institutions provide varied estimates.

Spadzyani Testa believes that a radical reorientation of energy policy is needed for an adequate perception of the directive.“Some talk about the need to revive nuclear energy, while others advocate for a radical change in energy management in the country.”If we stick to the current course, the only way to achieve the necessary indicators is to seek government resources.There are no other sources.As I mentioned before, if no one can answer the question about funding, we need to reassess our goals.

“Results are not guaranteed, is that right?”— he poses a rhetorical question.“We have already seen in the case of Superbonus that making the necessary changes in apartment buildings, even with government funding, can be extremely difficult.”Transfer of credits and a 110% discount will be required; otherwise, the situation looks even more complicated.The discussion is about costs approaching 100,000 euros per owner, which requires holding meetings of the owners and selecting contractors.We are talking about things that are outside of reality, because in Belgium or elsewhere, it's easy to write "2030" on paper and assume that all countries are the same. In Northern European countries, the climate conditions are different, the places are less beautiful, and residential real estate is more concentrated, as in Germany, for example.It's easier there. Distributed ownership is a value, and we should protect it, as there may be a desire behind such directives to dismantle this pool of real estate, which is widespread in countries like Italy.