Climate project expert support grant
A grant for municipalities and nonprofits to hire listed experts for energy plans, climate-project grant applications and public participation.
Cette fiche est actuellement disponible en anglais.
This closed offer paid for qualified external experts to help municipalities and nonprofits carry out climate and energy projects. Only experts listed for the chosen module in the Expert:innen-Pool qualified; applicants’ own work was excluded. The five routes were municipal energy planning, administration of project grants, preparation of EU grant applications, citizen participation, and public information about planned large renewable-energy installations.
Support covered up to 70% of eligible expert costs, recognising at most €100 net per hour. Higher hourly prices were reduced to that ceiling for the calculation. VAT could be included only where it was demonstrably and finally borne by the applicant, with no right to deduct or recover it; recoverable VAT remained excluded even if it was not actually recovered.
- Module 1: up to 150 hours for municipalities with up to 5,000 residents, 250 hours for 5,001–25,000 residents, and 350 hours from 25,001 residents.
- Module 2: up to 50 hours for €30,000–€200,000 of environmentally relevant investment costs, 100 hours for €200,001–€500,000, and 150 hours from €500,001.
- Module 3: up to 50 hours where the applicant’s share of the submitted EU project was up to €200,000, 100 hours for €200,001–€500,000, and 150 hours from €500,001.
- Module 4: up to 150 hours for the participation concept and its implementation. Module 5: up to 80 hours for the information project.
Eligibility
Municipalities and cities qualified for Module 1. Module 2 was reserved for declared nonprofits, such as sports clubs, rescue organisations and cultural organisations. Module 3 accepted municipalities, other public-law bodies and declared nonprofits; Modules 4 and 5 accepted municipalities and declared nonprofits. Municipal applicants were Austrian municipalities. Nonprofits had to prove their declared nonprofit status under §34 onwards of Austria’s Federal Fiscal Code.
- Module 1 required a plan for the whole municipal area, rather than selected neighbourhoods. It had to cover the existing energy situation across energy, settlement and mobility, renewable-energy and saving potential, and a strategy with a timetable towards 2030 or 2040. Required measures included land for energy infrastructure, renovation planning, and district heating/cooling areas, assessed for emissions reduction, economics, local value, social acceptance and anticipated development. Written results and digital maps were required, with the plan presented to the municipal council. Statutory municipal tasks were excluded.
- Module 2 had to include submission of the investment-project grant application, support during implementation and completion of its final accounting. Existing support services were excluded, as were external services for projects already supported at least partly by public grants. The administration costs could not also be claimed as planning costs in the underlying investment project.
- Module 3 covered Horizon Europe, LIFE and Joint Programming Initiatives. The applicant had to take an active consortium role, such as leading or participating in a work package; an expression of interest alone did not qualify. Existing relevant advice services had to be used and confirmed at application and final accounting, and could not be funded again here. The expert’s work had to lead to a complete, timely and formally correct EU application.
- Module 4 required both a project-specific participation concept and its implementation. The concept had to follow the Grünbuch: Partizipation im digitalen Zeitalter, covering resources, objectives and responsibilities, balanced participation phases, stakeholder selection, communication, inclusion, motivation, privacy and rights.
- Module 5 required a concept following that Grünbuch, at least three public information events in the host municipality with technical project presentations and consideration of citizen participation models, an expert-led question-and-answer session after each event, a communication kit with web/press/newsletter text, presentation templates and social-media material, and support for the municipality before, during and after the events.
For Modules 4 and 5, an applicant commissioning work on behalf of a municipality needed its written support. Only one application per applicant could be active at a time within each of these modules. Projects requiring an environmental impact assessment could qualify, but work fulfilling statutory obligations under §1 UVP-G could not be included.
Services within municipalities’ statutory public responsibilities were excluded in every module.
Services eligible under conventional advisory programmes could not be claimed again, even partly. Combination with other federal grants or support programmes of the responsible climate ministry or the Klima- und Energiefonds, including KEM and KLAR programmes, was excluded. Other public funding applications had to be disclosed, with a legally binding declaration that the information was correct and complete.
Applicable equality, disability discrimination and procurement requirements had to be observed. Where the award was made under block-exempt state-aid rules, an “undertaking in difficulty” under the applicable EU definition, or an applicant failing to comply with an earlier European Commission recovery order, was excluded.
How to apply
- Statut
- indisponible
- Ouverture
- Clôture
- Conditions de cette période de candidature
- Closed historical call; applications were subject to available budgets.
The intake is closed. The retained 2025 window and terms describe that historical call. Use the official programme page for the guide and contact Kommunalkredit Public Consulting (KPC), which administers the programme, for programme enquiries.
For that call, applicants selected a listed expert and obtained an uncommitted quotation covering all required module contents, hourly price and hours. They submitted the selected module’s application and attachments through KPC’s online route before any legally binding order or engagement. Receipt of the application was not a funding commitment: work could begin at the applicant’s risk, while the binding commitment followed approval and acceptance of the grant agreement.
Modules 1, 3, 4 and 5 had to be completed within one year of accepting the agreement; Module 2 allowed three years through completion of the underlying investment project’s final accounting. A justified extension required a timely written request. Significant project changes needed immediate notification and KPC’s approval; events seriously delaying or preventing implementation or the funding purpose also had to be reported immediately.
Payment followed completion, payment of the expert’s invoices and KPC’s positive check of the complete final accounts and required module reports. Final accounting was due no later than three months after the contractual completion date, with signed forms, invoices and payment evidence.
Recipients had to provide information, records and access for checks, subject to the funding rules’ exception where the nature of the offer did not warrant that administrative requirement. This duty lasted at least ten years from the grant award. Separately, losing records through the recipient’s fault so that final accounting could no longer be checked within ten years after project completion could trigger repayment, unless an expressly provided programme exception made that requirement administratively unnecessary and its waiver lawful under state-aid rules. False material information, breach of conditions, obstructed checks and misuse of funds could also trigger repayment; missing evidence or information could do so after an unsuccessful written warning with a deadline and notice of the consequence. Repayment carried interest from payment at 4% compounded annually, or the higher EU recovery rate, with additional late-payment interest if repayment was delayed.