Heating and cooling account for roughly half of EU final energy demand, yet the decarbonisation of community-led district heating remains underrepresented in the finance literature. This paper examines the financial viability of heat cooperative business models through a three-model typology (administrative, leasing, asset) developed within the HeatCOOP project, applied to a financial feasibility analysis of two Slovenian biomass district heating projects. Both adopt the asset model via a public–private concession framework; capital expenditures range from €617,000 to €1.87 million and annual heat delivery from 1100 to 3300 MWh. Sensitivity analysis across grant rates of 0–65% shows that the subsidy rate is the dominant financial viability determinant: all four variants achieve positive net present value and internal rate of return of 7.3–7.8% at approximately 45% subsidy, while none are viable without public co-financing. The levelised cost of heat ranges from 85–97 €/MWh on a private basis to 114–134 €/MWh on an unsubsidised full-cost basis. Comparison with fourteen European benchmark cases shows that public subsidy functions not as a market-failure correction but as a structural substitute for cooperative member capital in environments where the cooperative tradition is nascent—with direct implications for subsidy programme design targeting cooperative district heating.

National energy planning increasingly needs to account for climate risks, yet adaptation priorities in National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) often remain too generic to guide infrastructure, regulatory, and investment decisions. This paper develops a policy-facing framework for translating energy sector climate risk evidence into ranked adaptation priorities. The framework decomposes the national energy system into supply chains and aggregate element types, combines stakeholder-derived system importance weights with multi-hazard exposure and vulnerability scores, and derives a relative impact ranking. Exposure is represented through hazard magnitude, frequency, and spatial prevalence, while vulnerability is assessed through expert-based sensitivity and adaptive capacity scores. The framework is demonstrated for Slovenia, covering electricity, gas, liquid fuels, solid fuels, and district heat as part of the country’s first national sectoral climate vulnerability and risk assessment for energy. The results identify electricity transmission and distribution networks, liquid fuel import and logistics infrastructure, gas imports and transmission, and selected storage and conversion assets as priority areas. In the RCP8.5 climate stress case, exposure rises substantially for floods, heat, landslides, and wildfires. Monte Carlo robustness checks indicate that the core set of high-priority element types remains stable. The paper contributes a system-wide screening approach for integrating climate risk knowledge into climate-resilient energy planning, adaptable to different national contexts.