Active customers across Europe benefit from a wide array of financial and policy support mechanisms that differ significantly by country. These mechanisms differ across national contexts (PERSIST D.2.1, 2024) in terms of the scale of financial support provided, administrative complexity, integration with local energy markets and level of awareness of technologies installed, make a substantial contribution to the achievement of National Energy and Climate Plans’ objectives (European Commission, 2025b). The effectiveness of a support scheme in driving adoption and active customer satisfaction depends not only on financial returns but also on long-term stability, regulatory clarity, and administrative simplicity.

In addition to the broad support schemes’ categories described above, specific national programs provide insight into how support is implemented in practice. One of the more established examples is Norway’s Enova subsidy program (Solarstone, 2023), which offers investment grants to households installing solar PV and other energy-efficient technologies. Enova is funded by a public energy fund and has become the main instrument for small-scale renewable incentives in Norway. Although Norway does not offer FiTs, the Enova grants, together with NB mechanisms, have allowed for a steady increase in residential active customers. Similarly, Poland’s “My Electricity” program (Iea, 2025) offers lump-sum subsidies for PV installation and has reached high visibility due to its straightforward application process and repeat rounds of funding. The program provides non-refundable grants covering up to 50% of eligible investment costs, with a maximum of 5,000 PLN (approximately 1,100 EUR). This initiative has significantly contributed to the growth of active customer PV installations in Poland (Zdonek et al., 2022). Romania’s Casa Verde Fotovoltaice program (Caneurope, 2024) supports PV systems for households, offering grants that cover up to 90% of capital expenses for solar systems with a minimum capacity of 3 kW, up to a ceiling of 20,000 RON (approximately 4,000 EUR). The program has been credited with enabling over 110,000 active customers by 2023. Building on Romania’s experience of rapid active customer growth through upfront grants, Latvia adopted a new support structure in 2024 combining performance-based incentives with NBS (Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Latvia, 2024). The Latvian support mechanisms for active customers include both grants and NBS. Households must achieve a minimum self-consumption rate of 80% to qualify for government support. The grant covers up to 70% of eligible costs, with a maximum of 4,000 EUR for PV or wind systems and up to 15,000 EUR for heating systems. Additionally, energy storage systems with a capacity of at least 5 kWh are eligible for support up to 2,500 EUR, not exceeding 70% of the device’s cost (Ekii, 2025; Altum, 2025). Moving to Portugal, active customers also benefit from NBS, and additionally from VAT exemptions and solar rebates. The NBS compensates exported electricity at around 90% of the wholesale market price, encouraging self-consumption while allowing for partial economic recovery of surplus generation (Resource, 2024). In 2023, a 30 million EUR national solar rebate program was launched to further support residential PV adoption, offering partial reimbursements for installation costs (Caneurope, 2025). These rebates function as post-installation financial incentives, typically reimbursing a percentage of the system cost. A comparable policy environment exists in Spain, where active customers benefit from simplified administrative procedures and NBS. Installations up to 15 kW are exempt from access and connection permits, streamlining the process for small-scale active customers (Clean, 2025). In Switzerland, active customer support mechanisms include both national and regional instruments. One-time investment subsidies are offered for PV systems from 2 kW to 50 MW, covering part of the initial costs. For large-scale PV, up to 60% of investment costs can be reimbursed. Additionally, certain cantons offer tax deductions for renewable energy investments (Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2024). In France, the self-consumption bonus (prime à l’autoconsommation) complements NBS by offering direct grants depending on system size. Installations up to 3 kWp are eligible for a bonus of 370 EUR per kWp, while those between 3 and 9 kWp receive 280 EUR per kWp. Active customers also benefit from VAT reductions and low-interest green loans (Éco-prêt à taux zéro) (Service, 2025), which provide up to 50,000 EUR in interest-free financing for approved energy renovations, including solar thermal systems when used for heating or hot water. This loan is available without income restrictions and can be combined with other aid schemes. Turning to Germany, the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG 2021) (Gridx, 2021) supports active customers by exempting PV systems up to 30 kWp from the EEG surcharge if annual self-consumption remains below 30 MWh. Additionally, the KfW Renewable Energy Programme (Legal, 2019) – Standard (KfW 270) offers low-interest loans that cover up to 100% of eligible costs for solar PV and battery storage systems. In Austria, active customers benefit from a mix of regional investment subsidies and tax exemptions. To further support participation, the Climate and Energy Fund has introduced initiatives such as community PV and tenant electricity models (Federal Ministry Republic of Austria, 2025). Building on inclusive models like those in Austria, Greece supports active customers through a robust NAS (REKK, 2024), which is further complemented by tax incentives. A notable feature is the legal provision for VNM, which has seen widespread uptake among municipalities and energy cooperatives, enabling broader participation in shared renewable energy projects. In a similar effort to promote residential solar adoption, Croatia offers co-financing through its Environmental Protection and Energy Efficiency Fund (Commission, 2025), with a particular focus on family homes. The program offers co-financing of up to 50% of the total justified costs, with a maximum of 600 EUR per kW of installed capacity. This initiative aims to encourage the wider application of solar energy and reduce electricity bills for citizens (Energy2store, 2025).

Active customer satisfaction refers to how active energy customers perceive their experience with installing, operating, and benefiting from RES within the framework of support schemes. Across Europe, satisfaction is generally high where financial incentives are perceived as reliable, application processes are simple, and the systems deliver expected savings and performance (Schulte et al., 2022). Conversely, dissatisfaction often arises from policy instability, delayed payments, or excessive administrative complexity. These experiences vary considerably by country and policy model, and they reflect broader trust in institutions and the energy transition itself.

For instance, in Poland, the “My Electricity” grant program led to high customer satisfaction despite a moderate average rating of 2.9/5 for grant size. However, 72% of respondents said it was well-matched to their needs (Zdonek et al., 2022). In Lithuania, participants in VNM schemes express high satisfaction, particularly with the accessibility for apartment dwellers, the simplicity of online registration, and the transparency of billing through the national ESO platform. This model has enabled broad participation, and satisfaction is further supported by national communication and recent interviews highlighting the social and financial benefits of remote solar park ownership.

In contrast, Belgium’s abrupt cancellation of NAS in Flanders in 2021 (Bellini, 2021). This sudden reversal led to widespread dissatisfaction, particularly among recent adopters who faced financial losses. In response, the government introduced compensation measures to restore confidence, distinguishing between early and late adopters. While many active customers still benefit from earlier schemes, trust was undermined, highlighting the importance of policy stability. In Wallonia and Brussels, NAS remains in place for now, while Flanders transitions toward a feed-in tariff model. Satisfaction today largely depends on the clarity and predictability of these ongoing changes. Similarly, in Romania, delays in subsidy disbursement have undermined public trust. Romania’s active customer sector has experienced rapid growth, with the number of active customers increasing by 79% in 1 year to over 200,000 by early 2025 (Todorović, 2025). However, this expansion has been hindered by bureaucratic inefficiencies, including prolonged delays in subsidy disbursements under programs like “Casa Verde Fotovoltaice.” These administrative challenges have caused frustration among applicants and stalled the implementation of renewable energy projects (Caneurope, 2025).

Germany, where many active customers locked in FiTs during the early 2010s, continue to report strong satisfaction due to high returns and low administrative complexity (Mundaca and Samahita, 2020; Ouwerkerk, 2024; Wirth, 2025). The simplicity and reliability of the FiT system have minimized administrative burdens, contributing to positive customer experiences. Recent analyses indicate that small PV systems remain economically beneficial. Additionally, policy adjustments, such as the removal of the 70% feed-in cap and the introduction of VAT exemptions for PV installations in 2023, have further enhanced the financial appeal of solar investments. Collectively, these factors have sustained strong active customer satisfaction in Germany’s residential solar sector.

The Netherlands has long been considered an active customer-friendly country due to its generous NAS (saldering) (GridX, 2025), which allows households to offset consumption with solar generation at full retail value. This simple and stable policy led to rapid PV adoption and high customer satisfaction, with many active customers reporting short payback periods and minimal bureaucracy. However, as solar penetration increased (Bellini, 2024), concerns over grid impact and cost distribution prompted plans to gradually phase out NAS starting in 2025. Although this created uncertainty, a 2024 Senate decision delayed the phase-out, temporarily restoring confidence among active customers (Shetty, 2024).

In Finland, for example, early adopters remained “very satisfied” with their PV systems despite modest profitability but clearly acknowledged that economic returns were not strong (Karjalainen and Ahvenniemi, 2019). Finnish active customers have embraced PV out of environmental commitment and interest, but the slow return on investment tempers broader participation.

Spain offers a contrasting trajectory–from policy whiplash to rapid growth. In 2018 Spain scrapped the sun tax and enacted supportive regulations for self-consumption. The removal of this barrier, along with new rules allowing compensation for surplus generation, unleashed a surge of rooftop solar adoption (Lombardi, 2024; CAN Europe, 2024). Active customer experiences in Spain thus turned largely positive as economic returns improved. Nonetheless, recent reports highlight that some challenges persist (Gimeno et al., 2020; Cherry and Sæle, 2020). There are “administrative hurdles” that still delay installations, especially for collective projects like solar communities. Even individual active customers have encountered paperwork and grid-connection delays in certain cases. Another concern is funding instability: Spain lacks a permanent feed-in tariff for small PV, relying instead on time-limited subsidy programs. However, the overall mood among PV owners in Spain is optimistic: they appreciate the significantly lower bills and believe that Spain is finally making self-consumption easy and affordable after years of political failure.

According to Norway’s 2020 survey on household solar interest found that, even with subsidies, many Norwegian homeowners expect long payback periods and remain hesitant to invest heavily in PV (Cherry and Sæle, 2020). Two notable barriers reported were “uncertainty in regulatory conditions” and “uncertainty in support” – about 20% of respondents cited fears that the rules or incentives might change to their disadvantage. Interestingly, survey data show that 84% of interested homeowners view helping the environment as a prime motive, and 65% want to “support the solar market” and innovation in Norway. Other common motivators include reducing energy bills (68%) and gaining independence from the power company (over 50%). On the other hand, Norwegian active customers are sometimes frustrated by grid constraints and the limited scope of current incentives. For example, while Norway exempts active customers from certain feed-in fees, there is no high premium for that excess–any sale is typically at wholesale electricity prices, which remained low until the recent pan-European energy price rise. In summary, Norway’s active customers enjoy the idea of producing their own solar energy and appreciate the Enova grants, but many still call for stronger incentives (or higher electricity tariffs) to shorten payback times. As one recent review concluded, “generous support programs may be needed” for Norway to realize its full residential solar potential.

Across these country cases, a clear pattern emerges active customers flourish when they feel the economic equation is favorable and predictable, and when they face minimal hassle in accessing support. Satisfaction is highest where payback times are short and where policy signals have remained consistent. By contrast, sudden policy reversals or opaque bureaucracy tend to frustrate active customers and can dampen participation. Another cross-cutting theme is that while money matters, active customers are often motivated by more than just profit–environmental values, energy independence, and technology curiosity play a significant role. Support schemes that recognize these diverse motivations can enhance overall satisfaction. The ultimate success of active customerism will depend on careful policy design that sustains public enthusiasm while addressing economic and technical sustainability.

Evaluation of active customer satisfaction has employed a mix of quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, and occasionally experimental or modelling approaches. Quantitative surveys of active customers are common–for example, Poland’s recent “My Electricity” program was evaluated with a survey of 57 solar PV owners (Iea, 2025). Such surveys often use structured questionnaires with Likert-scale items (Koo et al., 2025) to gauge satisfaction levels with various aspects (e.g., rating the ease of application or the performance of the system). Surveys typically yield statistical measures of satisfaction (e.g., mean satisfaction scores) and allow correlating satisfaction with various factors (like demographics, type of support scheme, etc.).

Many studies complement surveys with in-depth interviews to capture active customers’ personal experiences and narratives (EEA, 2022). For instance, in Poland 12 “enthusiast” active customers were interviewed to qualitatively explore their motivations, perceived benefits, and any problems encountered. These interviews helped formulate survey questions and interpret the quantitative results. Semi-structured interviews are common–an interviewer will have a guide covering topics like decision process, installation experience, current usage, and feelings about the system, but will allow the interviewee to elaborate freely. A notable example is the Finnish study (Karjalainen and Ahvenniemi, 2019) based on 28 semi-structured interviews with PV households. This qualitative approach revealed rich insights: interviewees explained how they overcame adoption barriers, described their day-to-day engagement with the panels, and expressed satisfaction derived from intangible benefit. Qualitative data are typically analysed by coding responses into themes (e.g., “financial satisfaction,” “technical issues,” “environmental motivation”), which then inform the thematic structure of findings in the literature. Some works also include comparison groups: comparative study by Nesta in 2022 surveyed 2,500 heat pump owners versus 1,000 gas boiler customers to benchmark satisfaction (Santos, 2023).

An increasing number of studies use a mixed-methods approach, combining survey data with follow-up interviews or focus groups (Palm, 2020). This allows researchers to validate and deepen their findings. For example (Palm and Eriksson, 2018), study not only surveyed PV adopters but also conducted 16 follow-up telephone interviews with selected respondents.

European researchers have begun to use econometric modelling on survey data to identify which factors (e.g., income, environmental attitude, payback time) significantly predict satisfaction or adoption decisions (Karjalainen and Ahvenniemi, 2019). Overall, however, the dominant approach in Europe has been cross-sectional surveys of active customers, often combined with qualitative insights. These methods provide both statistical measures of satisfaction (e.g., what percentage are satisfied) and richer explanations (why they are satisfied or not). The PROSEU (2025) project conducted cross-sectional surveys and in-depth interviews across nine EU countries, engaging with over 150 renewable energy active customer initiatives. The study identified various business models and policy frameworks that support or hinder active customerism (Campos et al., 2023). The authors of (Zdonek et al., 2022; Doračić et al., 2020; Hall, 2020) employed surveys and interviews to assess citizen satisfaction with solar energy installations in both urban and rural settings in the Netherlands. The comprehensive report (Mundaca and Samahita, 2020) combined quantitative data analysis with qualitative case studies across various European countries to understand the role of active customers in the energy transition.

A few recent works go further to integrate satisfaction into modelling frameworks. For example, the authors (Al-Refaie et al., 2023) developed a system dynamics model to simulate how adopters’ satisfaction feeds back into solar adoption rates. To parameterize such models, the authors drew on survey findings about what drives satisfaction (quality, cost savings, etc.).

Despite these methodological advancements, most existing studies do not differentiate between types of satisfaction drivers or consider the different sensitivity in how different support scheme features influence customer satisfaction. Current approaches often lack a framework to distinguish between basic expectations, performance-related features, and delighters. This study seeks to address these gaps by applying a Kano-based interpretation to survey data from five European countries, combined with a mixed-methods approach that integrates both structured satisfaction metrics and qualitative thematic coding. This allowed us to identify not only statistical patterns in active customer satisfaction but also the nuanced motivations and barriers experienced in practice.

This study implements a mixed-method empirical approach, collecting and analysing original data to investigate the experiences and satisfaction levels of residential active customers with renewable energy support schemes in Europe. The primary goal was to gather insights from residential electricity active customers and potential active customers regarding their knowledge, motivations, and experiences related to RES installation, support schemes, and incentive programs use.

To evaluate the impact of active customers’ satisfaction with the ways and manners of the offered support schemes for installation of RES equipment, a qualitative thematic survey was conducted aimed at identifying hidden issues and non-obvious necessities, as well as promoting transparency and clarity in the process of providing support schemes to active customers. Survey was realised in five European countries to dive deeply and in detail into the topic of satisfaction of active customers, their understanding and acceptance/rejection of support schemes and the need for actions to improve them. Customer response is usually one of the most actionable ways to find out the real situation and, if necessary, discuss the need for changes at the level of information campaigns, policies or procedures.

Specifically, the survey was designed to address several core aspects of residential active customer experience with renewable energy support schemes, directly aligned with the study’s research questions. These include identifying the most influential factors affecting active customer satisfaction (1), understanding how customers evaluate their experience with the installation and operation of RES technologies (2), exploring the key drivers and barriers influencing participation and satisfaction (3), and collecting feedback that can inform policy recommendations for improving support scheme design and effectiveness (4). In particular, the survey examined motivations for adopting RES, the perceived quality and accessibility of support mechanisms, the reasons for non-participation, and potential incentives for future engagement. It also assessed customers’ knowledge of renewable energy options and their awareness of national support instruments and procedures.

The empirical analysis is based on a cross-country online survey conducted in 2024 within the framework of the PERSIST project (EHU, 2025). It was implemented across five projects’ countries—Latvia, Portugal, Spain, Romania and Norway. This set of countries is also interesting from the point of view of differences in legislation and geographical location. The survey combined quantitative and qualitative methods. The structured questionnaire included closed-ended items (e.g., Likert-scale ratings) to measure satisfaction with key aspects such as financial incentives, administrative procedures, and system performance. These closed items enabled analysis of satisfaction levels and exploration of correlations with demographic and technical factors (e.g., we assume that households with lower income levels can have a higher participation rate in support schemes). In addition, the questionnaire included open-ended questions that allowed respondents to freely express their experiences, challenges, and suggestions for improvement. The qualitative responses were analysed using thematic coding, identifying recurring themes such as financial (un)satisfaction, administrative burdens, and environmental motivations.

To enhance the interpretative power of the collected data, selected support scheme attributes were also analysed through the lens of the Kano model (Heinrich et al., 2024). The Kano model categorises product or service attributes based on how their presence or absence affects customer satisfaction. It distinguishes between Must-Be (basic expectations), One-Dimensional (performance-related), Attractive (unexpected but delightful), Indifferent, and Reverse (undesirable) features (Figure 1). While the present survey did not include a dedicated Kano-style questionnaire (with functional/dysfunctional paired questions), retrospective mapping of the most frequently mentioned aspects to Kano categories was carried out based on both quantitative ratings and qualitative insights. This interpretive step provides a deeper understanding of which features of support schemes function as minimum expectations, which drive satisfaction proportionally, and which offer the potential for positive surprise. A more formal Kano classification may be developed in future work by designing a dedicated Kano questionnaire instrument.

The selection of attributes for Kano classification was done by structured, multi-step process:

First, open-ended responses were coded to identify common themes related to active customer experience.

This interpretive mapping was not based on a formal Kano questionnaire but emerged from data triangulation between narrative responses and satisfaction ratings.

The Kano model was chosen because it aligns with the study’s objective and survey structure, which were designed to capture both functional and emotional aspects of user perception in energy-related solutions. Unlike linear satisfaction models such as (Parsu et al., 1988), which measure the gap between expectations and performance, or the Customer Satisfaction Index (Rajendran and Arun, 2019), which aggregates determinants into a single value, the Kano model reveals asymmetric effects of attributes on satisfaction. It distinguishes between features whose presence creates delight and those whose absence causes dissatisfaction—relationships traditional indices assume to be symmetric. The questionnaire’s paired functional and dysfunctional items make the Kano approach methodologically appropriate, allowing a more precise, behaviourally grounded classification of different above mentioned attributes and offering deeper insight into user expectations than CSI- or SERVQUAL-based evaluations.

By combining structured quantitative data with qualitative narratives and conceptual interpretation via the Kano framework, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of household customers’ experiences and expectations, supporting statistically grounded and policy-relevant findings (Figure 2).

To provide comprehensive survey data analysis and easy “question-answer” navigation, the survey was created using the freely available and open-access survey platform “Google Forms”. This platform allows respondents to complete the survey without registration and implements data encryption to protect the privacy of participants. The questions in the survey were divided into the following groups: demographics; RES technology used and its characteristics; support scheme used; motivations; barriers and challenges; feedback from support schemes/incentive programs customers. The structure of the survey can be seen in Supplementary Annex A (in English). However, it should be added that some countries took advantage of the suggestion to tailor the questionnaire a little to the specifics and characteristics of their country, which contributed to a better understanding of the questionnaire for respondents and did not prevent a general analysis from being made on the basis of the data obtained.

The survey initially targeted a broad group of electricity customers, without pre-selecting based on their renewable energy adoption status. Following the collection and preliminary analysis of the responses, participants were categorised into three distinct groups:

Active customers—household final customers (EUR- Lex, 2025) who have installed and operated RES equipment.

To interpret actual customer behaviour regarding renewable energy adoption, this study additionally applies the revealed preference method. This method is based on the principle that observed decisions and actions provide more reliable evidence of customer preferences than stated intentions alone. The method provides more objective results about customers’ preferences than subjective surveys with stated preferences.

For the purposes of this study, the Kano analysis (see below subsection 4.3) focuses exclusively on respondents with direct operational experience in RES.

The overall survey organization and response collection process were examined in each participating country, along with the distribution of respondents across demographic profiles and an analysis of total respondents by age, gender, education, and average household income; additionally, national characteristics specific to each country were also considered.

A total number of respondents from this category comprised two distinct survey target group categories: respondents with existing RES installations or measures who did not choose to participate in support schemes or incentive programs, and respondents without RES installations or related measures. The primary objective of this targeted survey was to determine the key factors affecting the decision-making processes of these respondents, specifically examining their reasons for not applying for RES support. Moreover, it allowed the identification of potential actions and improvements that could increase their acceptance of RES support schemes in the future.

Among active customers who have not participated in RES support schemes, solar panels emerged as the most prevalent installed RES technology. A significant interest was observed also in heating infrastructure upgrades, as well as heat pumps and gas boilers. Conversely, there is small interest in installation of solar collectors, wind turbines and ventilation systems. It is worth noting that, when excluding gas boilers (which were not eligible for existing support measures), the distribution of other RES technologies and measures among support receivers and non-receivers exhibits a notable degree of similarity. This suggests that the adoption of specific RES technologies and measures is affected not only by the availability of the support, but also by the inherent advantages and alignment with the goals of energy-efficient and economically conscious customers and perceived benefits in a long-term from the implementation of these RES technologies or measures.

Furthermore, even without participating in RES support schemes or programs, respondents demonstrated a high level of awareness about existing support initiatives (see Figure 15). When asked if they had heard of any support scheme or programme promoting the use of RES in their country, many respondents answered positively. Nevertheless, the distribution across countries in this case is clearly uneven: from 90% in Romania, 72% in Latvia, and up to 33% in Norway.

However, taking into account the small number of statistical samples responding, it is possible to draw some preliminary conclusions on the availability of information provided to residents on the possibilities of obtaining support schemes for the installation of RES. Latvia, Portugal and Norway could pay more attention to diversifying and making available information on support programmes from different sources, while Romania and Spain seem to be on the right track and perhaps exchanging information at the level of those responsible for organizing support would be useful.

The reasons for the decision not to participate in the support schemes are varied (this question could contain several answers) (see Figure 16), however, the most common reasons can be distinguished, namely, no matching property or need indicated the largest number of respondents. This category includes respondents who rent a house and are therefore unable to install RES and ask for financial support; as well as those who do not meet the specified requirements for receiving support (e.g., respondents satisfied with existing electricity bills, or those who wanted to install solar panels on the roof of a barn rather than on a residential building with tree shade), and others.

Another significant group of respondents considered the process of applying for assistance to be too complicated and rejected it at the level of reviewing the application. Customers also frequently cite financial conditions and restrictions, failure to meet eligibility and/or program participation requirements, and lack of information as reasons for decision to not receiving assistance.

When asked if they would like to know more about the requirements for participating in supporting/encouraging programs (see Figure 17), the majority responded positively. However, the number of those who are unsure or even unwilling to receive information on this issue is higher in Latvia and Spain than in the other countries surveyed, while respondents from Romania showed the highest level of agreement among participating countries to learn more about RES-related incentives.

Finally, participants identified the most motivational additional sources of information to get involved with the initiatives under consideration (see Figure 18).

Simplifying the application process and clarifying advantages and benefits are top motivators for participation in assistance programs. In addition, as shown in the graph, these items ranked high in all countries surveyed. This indicates the general difficulties and misconceptions that residents face. Also, testimonials and recommendations from participants in support schemes/incentive programs, the importance of shared neighbourhood experiences, and respondents’ economic opportunities were cited as popular motivators.

Table 1 presents the classification of key support scheme attributes using the Kano model. This categorization distinguishes between essential features that must be present to avoid dissatisfaction, performance-related attributes that proportionally increase satisfaction, and additional elements.

The analysis shows that some support scheme features clearly fall into the Must-Be category: timely financial disbursement, administrative simplicity, and regulatory stability. For example, respondents in Romania and Spain frequently mentioned that delays in receiving financial support and complicated administrative steps made the overall experience frustrating. In addition, in Spain, many participants noted that unclear eligibility criteria and frequent changes in the rules made it harder to trust the support scheme. One-Dimensional attributes, like the visibility of available schemes and the level of financial support, had a more proportional effect: in Latvia and Portugal, respondents who were better informed or saw a clearer return on investment tended to be more satisfied and more likely to participate. A few features turned out to be Attractive - things that customers did not necessarily expect but appreciated when they were available. In Portugal, technical help with installation or application steps was seen very positively, and in Latvia, environmentally motivated customers valued when their contribution to sustainability was recognised. On the other hand, some conditions, such as rigid post-installation rules, fell into the Reverse category. In Latvia, for instance, restrictions on changing or removing equipment were seen as limiting and discouraging.