The energy crisis, that began in 2021 has exacerbated energy poverty throughout Europe. Households with lower incomes, higher energy requirements, and less efficient homes and appliances are disproportionately affected by this crisis. These households often lack the financial capacity to upgrade outdated and inefficient appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines. This then leads to increased energy costs or necessitates cutbacks in other energy uses such as heating, which in turn diminishes their residential comfort. In response to this issue, the Dutch government has implemented various strategies to mitigate energy poverty, including the 'White Goods Scheme'. The term ‘White Goods Schemes’ usually refers to a governmental initiative that offers financial incentives or assistance to consumers to encourage the purchase of new, energy-efficient household appliances. Despite such initiatives, there is hardly any research evaluating their effectiveness. This study examined the impact of the 'White Goods Scheme' in two regions of the Netherlands, by means of a questionnaire among residents (N = 541), comparing households that have made use of a white goods scheme (intervention group; N = 310) with households that have not yet made use of a white goods scheme (control group; N = 231). The findings show that the white goods schemes have the potential to improve residential comfort conditions, enhance physical health and reduce energy costs and financial concerns, yield better mental health. Yet, the causal mechanisms behind these connections need to be further scrutinised. While the scheme has demonstrated positive outcomes in terms of comfort, financial well-being and health, it is suggested that combining improvements like shallow retrofits and appliance schemes with other local support initiatives like energy advice is essential to address energy poverty, effectively.

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.