Transnational Expert Group

Q&A WITH TEG EXPERTS

A Transnational Expert Group (TEG) is formed by prominent experts who will advise the Local Working Groups on the technical, financial, legal, and environmental aspects of the Clean Energy Transition. In this Q&A section municipalities and public sector professionals can ask questions and receive expert guidance across energy, sustainability, infrastructure, funding, planning, and environmental topics.

ASK A QUESTION

EXPLORE QUESTIONS AND EXPERT INSIGHTS

Discover practical answers, recommendations, and case studies prepared by
professionals working across sustainable development and municipal transformation.

Project Area: SECAP

Q: Is it compulsory for municipalities willing to prepare a SECAP to also develop an energy poverty assessment and set related targets, in addition to GHG reduction and adaptation targets?

A: Reporting on energy poverty is a mandatory requirement for all new Covenant of Mayors (CoM) signatories. Any municipality submitting a new Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP) or monitoring report must include an energy poverty diagnosis, clear goals and at least one key energy poverty action.

For more information, refer to the new SECAP Guidebook.

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/4489817. JRC142148.

Project Area: Renewable expansion

Q: On top of municipal solid and gardening wastes and black waters, is there any other source of energy within the municipal services scope of activities?

A: Yes, there are. Grey and rain waters are a very adequate source or sink of heat, which can be used to taking or pouring heat in HVAC applications and domestic hot water preparation. Obviously, heat transfer must be boosted by a water to water heat pump. The efficiency of those systems can reach up to 5-6 depending on the temperature jump. Water to water heat pumps can save up to 10 times the primary energy needed for space heating and cooling applications in comparison to fossil fuel powered boilers.

Project Area: Energy communities

Q: Do small municipalities across Europe have enough institutional and financial capacity to make an energy community viable and sustainable?

A: Small municipalities are generally interested in the idea of energy communities because they see the potential benefits for local resilience, lower energy costs, and citizen participation. However, their main concern is whether they have the capacity to implement and sustain such initiatives in practice. Many small municipalities operate with limited budgets and small administrative teams, making it difficult to finance projects, navigate complex regulations, and manage the technical and legal aspects involved. They are also concerned about securing grid access, maintaining long-term citizen engagement, and ensuring that projects remain financially viable over time. Overall, the challenge is less about willingness and more about having the necessary resources, expertise, and institutional support to turn the concept into a successful and lasting reality.

Project Area: Land use planning for increased carbon absorption

Q: How should we define the carbon baseline and future land-use design if the site is converted into a mixed native afforestation and grassland-restoration area, taking into account capped or potentially contaminated soil layers, drainage patterns, suitable tree and shrub species, planting density, buffer zones, maintenance regime, and the risk of continued informal waste dumping, so that the increase in carbon absorption can be measured credibly over time?

A: The carbon baseline should be defined through an initial mapping of existing land cover, soil condition, capped or potentially contaminated zones, drainage patterns, existing vegetation and areas affected by informal waste dumping. Based on this, the site should be divided into suitable restoration zones: mixed native afforestation only where soil depth and safety conditions allow it, while capped, compacted or sensitive areas should be restored through grassland, shrubs and buffer vegetation rather than deep-rooting trees. To credibly measure increased carbon absorption over time, permanent georeferenced monitoring plots should be established before intervention, with repeated measurements of vegetation survival, biomass growth, canopy development and soil organic carbon at regular intervals. The assessment should count only the additional carbon stored in new vegetation and restored surface soil, not carbon already present in buried waste layers, while access control, signage and regular inspections should be included to reduce the risk of continued informal dumping and protect long-term restoration results.

Project area: Waste-to-energy

Q: Which waste-to-energy solution would be most suitable for a rural area, and what key conditions, such as minimum waste volumes, feedstock quality, emissions control and management of by-products, must be secured to avoid building a facility that is too large, too costly or inconsistent with the EU waste hierarchy?

A: A rural municipality should first separate the question into organic/biodegradable waste and residual non-recyclable waste, because these require different solutions. For most rural areas, the most suitable local waste-to-energy option is usually anaerobic digestion of separately collected bio-waste and agricultural residues, producing biogas for heat/electricity or upgrading to biomethane, provided that there is a stable clean feedstock supply and a safe, legally compliant use for digestate. This is more consistent with the EU waste hierarchy than building a small standalone incineration/gasification plant, because EU policy places prevention, reuse and recycling above energy recovery, and the Commission’s waste-to-energy guidance notes that anaerobic digestion with biogas and digestate can be treated more favorably than thermal treatment of residual waste.

For the remaining mixed residual waste, I would normally recommend regional cooperation rather than a municipal-scale thermal facility, unless several municipalities can guarantee sufficient non-recyclable waste quantities over the long term. The key conditions to secure are: reliable waste data based on actual composition analysis, proof that recyclables and bio-waste are not being diverted into energy recovery, long-term feedstock agreements, identified local heat or electricity users, emissions-control compliance, and a clear plan for digestate, ash or other by-products. If thermal waste-to-energy is considered, it should only treat genuinely non-recyclable residual waste and must comply with strict EU Best Available Techniques requirements for waste incineration emissions and permitting.

In short, I would advise: small/rural scale = anaerobic digestion where clean organic feedstock exists; residual waste = regional solution after recycling and separation; standalone incineration/gasification = only if justified by robust waste quantities, strict emissions control, and no risk of undermining recycling targets.

Project Area: Sustainable transport and electromobility

In preparation of a pre-feasibility study for an integrated tourism and sustainable mobility project (including 10 shared electric bicycles and 2 charging stations), we would appreciate your expert advice on the design of charging infrastructure and the operational model.

The project aims to support sustainable tourism while encouraging electric mobility in a small urban area. At present, only a very small number of electric vehicles in use locally, and only two EV charging stations already exist.

Q: Which option is more efficient for electric bicycles charging station:
• dedicated e-bike charging stations, or
• combined charging stations for electric vehicles and e-bikes?

A: Charging infrastructure for electric bicycles

The most efficient approach is to provide dedicated charging solutions for electric bicycles, rather than fully combined EV–e-bike chargers. Although co-location at the same sites is feasible and often desirable, the two systems have different technical requirements and usage patterns. E-bikes operate with low-power charging systems, while EV infrastructure is high-power and protocol-based. Co-location of e-bike and EV charging infrastructure is feasible and recommended where appropriate; however, the charging systems should remain technically and functionally separate due to differing power levels and operational requirements. Therefore, functional separation ensures greater efficiency, safety, and ease of operation.
Q: What will be the optimal model for the electric bicycles
• used exclusively for the tourist route, or
• integrated into a broader shared mobility system covering daily trips across the municipality?

A: Optimal use model for electric bicycles

We would recommend the phased model as the most appropriate approach, starting with exclusive use for the tourist route. This allows for simpler operations, controlled demand, and clear performance monitoring in the initial stage. Over time, the system should be designed with the option to expand into a broader shared mobility service covering everyday trips, depending on demand and operational capacity. This ensures both short-term feasibility and long-term scalability.
Q: Where should charging infrastructure be best located:
• in the city center
• at the starting/key point of the tourist route
• or at multiple points?

A: Location of charging infrastructure

We would recommend a two-node hybrid model, where a main hub should be placed either in the city center or at the starting point of the tourist route. This ensures operational management, bicycle storage, distribution, and maintenance, including overnight charging of most or all bikes.

A second station should be located at a key point along the tourist route, providing top-up charging during the day and operational flexibility for bicycles in active use. This improves range, enhances the user experience, and allows smoother circulation along the route without requiring full returns to the main hub.

Together, the two stations create a simple and efficient system combining strong operational control with route-based flexibility.