The current tax treatment of heating fuels in Romania’s residential building sector creates uneven incentives for reducing emissions and improving air quality. A number of fuels used for residential heating, including coal, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas and solid fuels, are currently not covered by excise taxes, limiting the role of energy taxation in supporting environmental objectives. While the new EU Emission Trading System ETS2 will strengthen carbon price signals from fuel combustion in buildings, the exclusion of biomass could encourage a shift toward fuels that are not necessarily cleaner from a local air pollution perspective. Higher energy prices can also raise affordability concerns particularly for low-income and energy vulnerable households and where cleaner heating alternatives are not readily available.
Against this backdrop, Romania could consider broadening the excise tax base for residential heating fuels to include currently exempt fuels, such as coal, LPG, natural gas and solid fuels, with rates based on their energy content. Including biomass could also help reduce the risk of fuel switching that worsens local air pollution. Such reform should be embedded in a broader policy package that supports vulnerable households, facilitates switching to lower-carbon energy sources, and improves buildings’ energy performance, helping keep GHG and air pollutant reduction targets within reach.
Addressing air pollution requires a comprehensive policy package, and an air pollution tax might not be suitable in the Romanian context. Simulation results suggest that a hypothetical national air pollution tax on particulate matter emissions across energy products for heating purposes could significantly reduce emissions while limiting substitution effects towards heating fuels that create more local air pollution. However, tax measures alone are unlikely to be sufficient for Romania to move closer to its national emission ceiling targets. They also risk imposing substantial short-term costs on consumers and raising significant concerns about administrative feasibility and implementation capacity. Alternative non-tax measures include a restriction on the use of highly polluting heating stoves in the most affected areas, alongside targeted support for vulnerable groups to replace them. Parallel investment in electrified heating, district heating, better data collection and greater public awareness, would also be important to achieve the required reductions in air pollution.
Finally, distributional concerns should be integrated into the design of energy tax reform. Simulation results suggest that energy price increases resulting from the ETS2, an excise tax reform and an air pollution tax in the building sector would disproportionately affect lower-income and rural households, highlighting the need for well-targeted compensation mechanisms and complementary policies that improve access to low-emission and energy-efficient alternatives. Support should be targeted, replacing broad measures such as price caps or untargeted subsidies. Where feasible, eligibility criteria should account for multiple factors, such as geographic location and specific household needs to improve precision and equity. Complementary structural measures, including investment in district heating and natural gas grids, can further expand low-emission alternatives to reduce the burden on vulnerable households.