• Organised by the GAIA cluster and in collaboration with the partners of the BIRTUOSS project (Opengela Programme), the UPV/EHU International Summer Course on Energy Communities was held in Bilbao and Urdaibai.
• Success stories of energy communities established across Europe were presented and the need to empower citizens and stakeholders to get involved in such projects was discussed.

The UPV/EHU’s International Summer Course on Energy Communities, whose main focus is empowerment through sustainable energy, was held in Bilbao, Gernika-Lumo and Forua on 4 and 5 July. It explored the transformative potential of energy-positive neighbourhoods as the seeds of decarbonised and sustainable cities.

Attendees have been immersed in the opportunities offered by proximity offices, addressing theories, practical strategies and tangible experiences through test benches involving stakeholders in urban regeneration processes. In addition, there have been guided visits to successful cases such as the ‘Otxar Opengela’ in Otxarkoaga (Bilbao) and the Tek San Fidel energy community in Gernika-Lumo (Biscay).

The main objective of this course was to provide participants with an in-depth understanding of energy communities as an innovative model for sustainable energy generation and management. Once finished, they would be able to lead energy districts initiatives, as well as applying practical and sustainable solutions in their own environments.

The opening session was led by Ignacio de la Puerta, director of Territorial Planning and Urban Agenda of the Basque Government and leader of the BIRTUOSS project (Opengela programme); Momir Tabakovic, professor and researcher at the University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien, and Jokin Garatea, director of the summer course and international head of GAIA.

De la Puerta opened the summer course with a perspective from public administration and governmental work on the extension of the model developed with the Opengela programme in the Basque Country. He also stated that «energy communities and positive energy districts are at the forefront of the energy transition, and that «these concepts imply that local communities generate, manage and consume energy in a sustainable way». The aim is to achieve «friendly, liveable and digital neighbourhoods» with «shared energy production facilities in neighbourhoods that turn them into positive energy districts», generating new opportunities for economic activity located in the neighbourhood itself, such as coworking spaces, which will have an impact on their revitalisation.

Tabakovic presented the example of energy communities and districts within the Prolight project, of which he is the coordinator. It aims to empower citizens in the participating districts to become active and responsible partners in the necessary low-carbon transition. These six demo districts are located in Vienna, Milano, Gernika-Lumo, Vaasa (Finland), Matosinhos (Portugal) and Kozani (Greece). In four districts (Gernika-Lumo, Milan, Matonsinhos and Kozani), preliminary conclusions have already been reached.

Garatea said that, in the context of energy efficiency, living labs play a crucial role in testing and refining innovative technologies and strategies for energy renovation. They provide a dynamic environment for experimentation, learning and scaling up successful practices.

Afterwards, the principles and advantages of proximity offices, working as one-stop shops for energy sustainability, were explored by Txari Vallejo, architect of Bilbao Municipal Housing; Nagore Urrutia, from the CAVIAR UPV/EHU research group, and Michael Heidenreich, from the Department of Renewable Energies of the University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien. Case studies highlighting the tangible benefits and best practices linked to the BIRTUOSS (Opengela programme) and Prolight projects were presented.

Vallejo explained the principles of the Opengela programme approach, its application in different contexts and the results achieved through its implementation. This methodology underlines the importance of community participation, tailor-made solutions and the use of local resources. She also described the case of Otxarkoaga in Bilbao, with its proximity office, called Otxar Opengela. «We want this neighbourhood to become the centre of urban regeneration in Bilbao and an example for everyone,» she emphasised. In terms of renewable energies, she spoke of the installation of between 18 and 24 photovoltaic panels in Otxarkoaga, in one of the buildings on Txotena street.

Urrutia explained that in urban regeneration most of the building works are energy related. «It is good to focus on passive solutions, on the architecture of buildings. In fact, it is the most democratic solution we can offer as it is for everyone,» she said. There are also active solutions, which improve energy efficiency in thermal conditioning and allow greater control of indoor temperatures.

However, Urrutia warned that there is still an energy gap in Spain caused mainly by inaccurate physical modelling of buildings and tenant behaviour. This is where one-stop shops or proximity offices become an essential element, as they can empower and raise awareness of energy use among neighbours. She also emphasised the importance of courses on energy use in everyday life.

Heidenreich, who is involved in the Prolight project, also spoke about the one-stop shops, which, according to him, «should offer comprehensive advice on energy efficiency and solar projects, covering both technical and administrative aspects», as «the term energy community is a recent development and needs to be made known to people».

Jokin Garatea and Irene Bertolami, researcher at Eurac Research, shared experiences in the creation of energy communities and discussed strategies for participation and identification of multiple benefits for citizens and neighbourhoods.

Both agreed on the importance of communication and acceptance of these projects by citizens and stakeholders to get involved in them. They must feel that they are part of these energy communities and experience first-hand the positive impacts of the project. Garatea gave the example of Tek San Fidel in Gernika, a Prolight project, in which, through a cultural and creative approach, it has managed to involve citizens through collaborators such as San Fidel School and Kultur Etxea, which are part of the initiative.

Alessandro Rancati, from the EU Policy Lab and expert on the New European Bauhaus; Matina Di Gallo, project manager at Planet Idea, and Paula Ferrando, project analyst at GNE Finance, spoke about the importance of community participation in the success of neighbourhoods.

Rancati warned that a neighbourhood is a «complex adaptive system» where response cannot be predicted based on rational parameters, that it is based on co-evolution and where the «hidden talents» of the community cannot be predicted. Thus, there may be cultural differences, conflicts of interests and priorities, pre-existing conditions and unexpected events. He also mentioned the need to communicate, but with a learning purpose, that no governance model is perfect and that transparency, which is sometimes financially costly, needs to be underpinned by trust.

Di Gallo presented the D2FX project, developed by Planet Smart City, in which innovative initiatives such as gamification are carried out to actively involve residents in energy management and in which they receive rewards, thus fostering unity and demonstrating that individual efforts benefit everyone.

Ferrando explained the SHAPE-EU project and gave four examples of projects that have served as inspiration for others, such as Vilawatt in Viladecans; the energy community in Luče (Slovenia), the first to be developed in the country; the Watteco cooperative in Catalonia, which helps families and communities to achieve energy self-sufficiency, and Las Naves Brillen in Valencia.

In the last talk of the day, Pablo Agustín, researcher at TECNALIA Research and Innovation, and Noelia Ortiz, technical director of BUILD:INN, explored the potential of renewable energies at district level; they presented several innovative 360º technological solutions and materials for housing renovation to build energy positive neighbourhoods and the successful application in EU projects such as BIRTUOSS and drOp (specifically in the Santa Ana neighbourhood in Ermua).

The second day of the course took place in Gernika, specifically in the auditorium of the San Fidel School, with a visit to the school’s local energy community, called TEK San Fidel. It has 200 photovoltaic panels that occupy a surface area of 600 m2 and allow 150 homes and businesses in the area to consume renewable energy and reduce their electricity bills. It also avoids the emission of 885 tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to planting 3,500 CO2-absorbing trees for 25 years.

Afterwards, the context of the energy communities in the Urdaibai Biosphere Reserve was explored by Jose Maria Gorroño, Mayor of Gernika-Lumo; Mikel Magunazelaia, Mayor of Forua, and Javier Zuazola, commercial director of EDINOR, through practical cases that highlight demonstrable benefits.

To conclude, Ugaitz Gaztelu, co-founder of View arkitektura and professor at the University of the Basque Country; Jokin Garatea, Sustainability Councillor of Forua, and Alba Juncal, from the CAVIAR UPV/EHU research group, discussed sustainability and scalability to build positive energy neighbourhoods. Thus, they talked about sustainable renovation models for energy efficiency; the adoption of nature-based solutions in the area, and more specifically, the EU iCOSHELL project, and good practices of positive energy neighbourhoods.

Once the lectures were over, the participants put into practice everything they had learnt through a joint artistic work and visited energy efficiency projects and nature-based solutions in Forua.

Alex Carrascosa is a consultant for EDE Fundazioa, one of the entities that participates as a partner in the BIRTUOSS project, through which the Opengela programme is being developed. Through listening, EDE Fundazioa collects testimonies from all the people involved in this European urban regeneration project: their concerns, their complaints, their assessments, their proposals for improvement, among others.

In this interview, he explains the role of the foundation in the project, and provides details of the study they carried out at the end of 2023 on the assessment of the service of the neighbourhood offices (‘opengelas’) by the different people involved in the pilot experiences in the neighbourhoods of Txonta and Otxarkoaga: the process of elaboration, the weaknesses and strengths detected in the service, the lessons learned, the most mentioned proposals for improvement and the conclusions they drew from the study.

Which is the role of EDE Fundazioa in the Opengela project?

Throughout the process of urban regeneration, and in particular the rehabilitation of buildings, we take care of the social and human side of the work for the people involved. Not only for the people who will experience or live the effects of the refurbishment, but also for all those involved in the works.

EDE Fundazioa listens to the beneficiaries first and foremost because they are in vulnerable situations. After all, these urban regeneration processes are carried out in old housing estates, many of which are social housing estates. These are buildings with very simple dwellings that do not meet energy efficiency requirements, have accessibility problems or are affected by multiple problems. In addition, their neighbourhoods are generally elderly and all these habitats need to be adapted to their needs. This is why these urban regeneration processes are carried out wherever there is a population, an urban centre or a group of people with needs that require economic, training and communication support to carry out works of this magnitude, as well as institutional support and assistance. What we are doing is listening to the reality of these people.

You recently presented the conclusions of a study to Opengela’s partners. Tell us more in detail about it.

The study basically consisted of identifying all the professional sectors involved in urban regeneration interventions and the beneficiaries, in other words, all the people involved. We wanted to identify the real people involved in the process of building rehabilitation or urban regeneration as a whole. We are talking about three main groups. The first would be the beneficiaries or owners of the dwellings in the buildings to be refurbished; the second would be the staff of the ‘opengela’ itself, and the third would be the professional entities that have been involved in the building rehabilitation and urban regeneration works. The idea was to locate the reference people in these groups, interview them and gather as much sensitive information as possible from these three groups. And here I would like to clarify something to avoid confusion: what we are assessing in the report is not so much the degree of satisfaction with regard to building renovation or urban regeneration works, but with regard to the Opengela service. Therefore, the contents and results of the report revolve around the service from the perspective of its protagonists: the professionals who offer the service, the beneficiaries who experience it and the professionals who rely on it.

How was the process of carrying out the study?

First, we identified the stakeholders. Once identified, we proceeded to look for the reference people for each group. The study was carried out for two neighbourhoods, Otxarkoaga in Bilbao and Txonta in Eibar. Therefore, we interviewed the Municipal Housing Agency of Bilbao in the case of Otxarkoaga and the Local Development Agency Degebesa in the case of Txonta and, from there, we located the teams or people who are providing the service in the offices in order to interview them. Once the office teams had been interviewed, they helped us to contact the neighbours who wanted to give an interview or fill a survey about the service. In the survey we asked questions about the accessibility of the office or the information provided by the ‘opengela’ to the neighbourhoods; about counselling and accompaniment; about funding mechanisms, if any; and about the post-rehabilitation experience. On this last point, it was not possible to speak in absolute terms in either of the two places because there were works still to be completed or started.

In addition, through the ‘opengelas’ we also located professionals who had been involved in the works, which are the architectural firms, the construction companies and other people and entities involved such as the property administrators. They were invited to two face-to-face meetings. The interviews were very valuable as they brought us very interesting recommendations.

Going into the study in more detail, what were the main strengths of the Opengela service that you identified?

The great strength identified is the unanimity of the positive judgement of the service. All three groups consulted gave it a very positive assessment.  In the case of the neighbours, it is even more positive because the Opengela service is a technical ally with authority in different areas and helps them as an intermediary. The fact of having an entity next to them that is perfectly familiar with the technical and legal context favours mediation between the needs of the users and the product offered by the professional entities. This relationship, which is usually very vertical and unequal, is balanced and horizontalised thanks to the ‘opengela’.

At the same time, however, the service also has a very positive effect on the professional entities, as it acts as an intermediary that lightens their workload and also acts as a kind of filter. The works bring with them problems of all kinds that affect personal and everyday aspects of people’s daily lives. The neigbourhood office also helped them to ‘humanise’ the service, as it made them aware of how they often operate more from the interest of the company than from the interest of the client.

Another of the great strengths of ‘opengela’ is the fact of having a team that combines different profiles. This multidisciplinary nature has been covered in Otxarkoaga due to the role played in large part by Bilbao Municipal Housing, but in Txonta it was not possible due to various circumstances; in fact, there was only one person working in the office. For this reason, it is necessary for the new offices to have four clearly identified profiles: technical, legal, administrative and social.

What about weaknesses?

I wanted to emphasise this last profile (the social one) through the need to have social workers, who are figures that all inclusion systems have and who are fundamental to work as neural connectors between the demands of rehabilitation and the realities of the people affected. In fact, it could be said that social workers are the ones who activate and develop the most human sensitivity of the rest of the necessary profiles.

In the end, we are talking about a sum of owners and tenants and, even if all possible mechanisms are put in place, there will always be at least one cohabitation unit in a dwelling with a problem that makes it difficult or impossible for it to fit into this complex chain. As soon as one link fails, the chain is completely damaged. This is why the figure of the social worker is essential, as he or she not only accompanies and detects what is there, but is also particularly sensitive to those episodes that can break the chain.

There is also another aspect related to this, and that is that exclusion involves many aspects of personal life, and just as a situation of personal disadvantage can become chronic or complex, in some populations it can even become ‘zoned’. It is therefore necessary to understand what happens in these places, because it is not a question of providing solutions to the physical conditions of some dwellings, but of contributing to the solution of the reality of people in very critical situations.

What do you think have been the main lessons you have learned during these months of work?

All the groups and people interviewed agreed on the need for the Opengela service to cover the different technical, social, legal and administrative areas, but also to address relational skills. This has been extremely important, the fact of ‘personalisation’, since in the end, at the end of each intervention, there is a group of people who are going to receive that impact, whether good or bad.

Another issue that was also addressed was that of financial aid. Two problems arose with regard to financial aid. On the one hand, the concurrence of different lines of funding and their lack of coordination in terms of both timing and management, which continues to be a challenge for the service. On the other hand, from the point of view of the owners, the time of payment of the subsidies does not coincide with the deadline for payment of the works, which requires the payment of large sums of money in advance. This adds to the challenge of providing financing mechanisms to communities and, above all, to the most vulnerable people.

Which proposals for improvement were most frequently mentioned?

There is one issue that should not be forgotten, which is the maintenance of the staff (or subrogation) of the ‘opengela’, at least for the duration of the rehabilitation works, including post-rehabilitation. The idea that we must keep in mind is that the neighbours, during the sensitive period of the works, should have the same reference people in the office, given that the greatest difficulty, as in any human process, is the generation of trust, which all the agents point out as the ‘key’ of the service. Once this trust has been created, it would be senseless to interrupt continuity and even change the people in charge of the office for a purely administrative requirement, as this would distort the service and cause enormous unease among users. In short, it is a question of adjusting all deadlines or administrative mechanisms to respect and care for this trust, which, I insist, is the most precious value of the ‘opengela’.

EDE Fundazioa, as a social partner of Opengela, what conclusions have you drawn from this study?

Opengela, whether public or public-private, is still a service. As such, it is established in the face of citizens and, therefore, its fundamental value is the generation of trust. In fact, although it is conceived as a ‘one-stop shop’, it is rather an open room – as we have witnessed – where the neighbourhood can express itself and be assisted. This model of attention differs from the classic counter where we are often dismissed as if we were a problem. Opengela operates the other way around: understanding people as part of the solution. Another associated characteristic is that it acts as a small office, more than ‘of inclusion’, but at least ‘of attention’, since it is a space that is aware of the different levels and impacts that affect the realities of building rehabilitation and urban regeneration and addresses these levels consequently through a multi-profile service.