“…Some of these are, indicatively, adequate warmth at home [13,14]; adequate meeting of all domestic energy needs [15][16][17]; excessive energy cost, e.g., the 2M indicator [18]; excessive energy cost in relation to household income, e.g., the 10% indicator [19] and the "Stochastic Model of Energy Poverty" (SMEP) indicator [20]; low household income, e.g., the M/2 indicator [18] and the "Minimum Income Standard" (MIS) [21][22][23][24]; poverty combined with high energy cost, e.g., the "Low Income High Cost" (LIHC) indicator [19]; compression of energy needs [25]; qualitative aspects of the problem, i.e., inability to keep home adequately warm, damp/mold problems, arrears on energy bills, e.g., [26][27][28][29][30]; composite indicators, e.g., [31,32] and many others. Apart from targeted-to-indicators approaches, some studies attempt to capture a holistic picture of the problem by integrating micro-and macro-drivers, e.g., [33] and others address the wider notion of energy vulnerability and deprivation, e.g., [34][35][36][37][38][39]. In any case, and whatever the indicator chosen to approach energy poverty, it is generally agreed that the problem mainly arises as a combination of three drivers: low income, high energy cost, and low energy efficiency of the house [40][41][42][43].…”