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 These households often lack the financial capacity to upgrade outdated and inefficient appliances, such as refrigerators and washing machines.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.

Since the start of the energy crisis in 2020, the Dutch government has introduced various programmes aimed at alleviating energy poverty among low-income households. This research examines the effects of three specific interventions—energy coaching, home renovations, and white goods schemes—on a range of energy poverty-related aspects, including living comfort, physical and mental health, energy costs, financial concerns, social connection, neighbourhood involvement, and sustainable behaviour. While previous studies have mostly investigated these interventions in isolation, this research offers a comparative analysis to explore how their impacts differ and how they may complement one another. This research, comparing an intervention group and control, shows that energy coaches, renovations, and white goods schemes each have positive effects on various aspects of energy poverty. However, the nature and magnitude of these effects differ by type of support measure. Renovations are the most effective overall, significantly improving living comfort, physical health, and reducing energy costs. White goods schemes primarily reduce moisture and mould in dwellings and have a notable positive impact on mental health. Energy coaches contribute to improved living comfort, lower energy costs, and uniquely enhance community involvement. The complementary nature of these interventions highlights the potential added value of integrated or combined approaches to tackling energy poverty.