French Observatory of access conditions to the ecological transition for households, 2025 Edition

« The ecological transition is a luxury only the rich can afford” and is “out of reach for the majority of French people”. Most people will have heard or thought this during discussions about climate and climate policies. Buying an electric vehicle costs €10 000 more than a combustion engine car. Replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump costs €15 000 … And deep retrofitting your home can cost €50 000. But is the ecological transition really out of reach? Is it truly unaffordable for middle-income households?

To answer this question, we have (again) looked at the data and defined key indicators, that enable us to assess the capacity of households to invest in the ecological transition, for both housing and mobility: the out-of-pocket cost, in other words the investment amount after deducting state aid; the households’ capacity to finance this out-of-pocket cost through their savings or a loan; and the impact on household budgets, to determine whether energy savings can cover the monthly repayments in the case of a loan. We explore the accessibility of investments that may not be strictly necessary due to ageing or unsuitable equipment (boilers, roofs, cars), but are justified overall by the need to meet climate targets and to protect households from potential energy price hikes. For electric mobility, we also look at the comparison with investment in an equivalent combustion engine alternative.

In this year’s edition, we have assessed these indicators retrospectively – over ten years for retrofitting and five years for electric mobility – in order to identify the factors that have made transition solutions more, or less, economically accessible in recent years.

We present these indicators for two household profiles: the Fields family and the Newtown family, both middle-income households that rely on a car for their daily needs. We have chosen to focus on a lower-middle-income rural household (the Fields family) and an upper-middle-income peri-urban household (the Newtown family). These two households clearly do not capture the full range of household situations, nor do they fully represent the middle-income group. However, we felt that these two profiles enable us to assess interesting situations at the heart of the policy debate. We have also explored certain indicators in other scenarios, including a low-income household and a high-income household. These additional analyses are mentioned throughout this Observatory report and are detailed in the annexes.

We focus here on the economic capacity of households to make the investments needed for the ecological transition. The accessibility of this transition for households depends on many other factors, such as the availability of charging stations, of retrofitting tradespeople, and so on. We analyse the evolution of some of these other access conditions using a dashboard of indicators, though this overview is not intended to be exhaustive. This household-centred analysis might suggest that the success of the ecological transition lies in the hands of individuals, but it is important to remember that the transition is above all a matter of collective choices and public policies.

The ecological transition demands that households make substantial investments – in insulating their homes, installing a low-carbon heating system, buying an electric car, and so on. Are these investments economically accessible to households, especially those in the middle-income bracket?

This edition of the Observatory reviews key indicators, that enable us to assess the capacity of households to invest in the ecological transition, for both housing and mobility. These indicators are assessed retrospectively for two middle-income household profiles: a lower- middle-income rural household (the Fields family) and an upper-middle-income periurban household (the Newtown family).

• This analysis shows that retrofitting a home is, overall, more accessible to middle-income households than it was 10 years ago. In 2025, the Fields family, who live in a rural oil-heated house, can afford to carry out a deep energy retrofit of their home and even make net savings, which was not the case 10 years ago. 

Ten years ago, the out-of-pocket cost for a deep energy retrofit of the Fields household’s home was €36 000 – almost a full year’s income. They had enough borrowing capacity to take out a loan for that amount, but energy savings were not enough to cover the loan repayments. Ten years on, the out-of-pocket cost has fallen by €15 000 and now amounts to just under six months of income. Their borrowing capacity has improved, and now energy savings cover the monthly loan repayments, and even leave them with net savings of €130 per month.

• The Newtown family, who live in a peri-urban gas-heated house, can also finance a deep energy retrofit, but energy savings do not fully cover their loan repayments.

The Newtown household has also seen some improvement since 2015, but their situation in 2025 is less favourable than that of the Fields household. The financial aid they can obtain for retrofitting their home is lower, since they are in a different ANAH (National Housing Agency) income category and their property has different characteristics. They have sufficient borrowing capacity to cover the out-of-pocket costs with a loan, but energy savings do not fully cover their loan repayments, even when using their savings to reduce the loan amount. However, the net increase in their budget remains modest (around €20 per month), which seems manageable, especially since a deep energy retrofit improves comfort and protects the household from potential future energy price hikes.

• Installing a heat pump enables households to make enough energy savings to cover the monthly loan repayments.

For the installation of a heat pump, the out-of-pocket cost has increased over the past ten years for both the Fields and Newtown households. However, while energy savings were not enough to cover the loan repayments a decade ago, they easily cover them now.

Other developments also need to be monitored to determine the accessibility of deep energy retrofits: in particular, the number of RGE-certified tradespeople (certified under the French government’s environmental quality scheme), which rose slightly to 63 000 in 2024; and the availability of subsidised loans for households, with a growing number of “Eco-PTZ”.

Developments in mobility are less clear-cut.

• For the Fields household, the out-of-pocket cost has increased, and the fuel savings still do not cover the cost of financing an electric car.

For a household that does not specifically need to change their car (here, the Fields household), we compare buying an electric car with keeping their petrol car. This scenario can also provide a rough benchmark for comparison with buying an older, third-hand model, for example, which is cheaper to purchase but has higher maintenance costs.

In this situation, we assess the total out-of-pocket cost for an electric car, which has increased over the past five years by between €5 000 and €10 000, depending on the model. Fuel savings (of around €110 per month in 2020, rising to €120 in 2025) are not sufficient to cover the loan repayments. Only the social leasing scheme would have enabled the Fields household in 2024 to access an electric car while reducing their mobility budget. It should be noted that this scheme only made the car available to households for three years, raising questions about long-term access to electric mobility if the scheme is not renewed and the buy-back price – for contracts with a purchase option – remains too high for households.

It should also be noted that for the Fields household, an alternative scenario is described in the annexes, comparing the purchase of an electric car with that of a combustion engine equivalent.

• For the Newtown household, the extra cost of an electric car compared to a combustion engine equivalent has increased over the past five years, but the fuel savings are still enough to cover the cost of financing that difference.

For an upper middle-income household (here, the Newtown household) that needs to replace their car, we compare the purchase of an electric vehicle with that of a combustion engine equivalent. Five years ago, a new entry-level electric car cost almost €5 000 less than its combustion engine equivalent. Today, the out-of-pocket cost for an electric car exceeds that of the combustion version by a few thousand euros. But purchasing an electric car still makes financial sense for the Newtown household. The fuel savings from switching to electric are enough to cover the higher loan repayments compared to a combustion engine alternative. In 2025, the overall mobility budget – covering all car-related expenses, including the loan – could fall by a few dozen euros for the Newtown household. These net savings have declined over the past five years; in 2020, they were closer to €140 per month.

Other trends in recent years have been quite positive for the development of electric mobility: more and more electric cars are being sold on the used market, and the number of publicly accessible charging points continues to rise, keeping pace with the rollout of electric vehicles.

Various key factors explain these developments

• The first key factor is the impact of financial aid available to households.

Where deep energy retrofits are concerned, the introduction of the MaPrimeRénov’ Parcours Accompagné scheme has led to a significant increase in retrofitting aid for middle-and lower-income households. Changes to the Eco-PTZ (a higher maximum amount and longer term) have also made investments more accessible to households.

Where mobility is concerned, the social leasing scheme has enabled lower-middle- and low-income households to purchase an electric car without increasing their mobility budget. Other electric mobility incentives have largely decreased over the past two years: the scrappage scheme was withdrawn, the bonus reduced, and eligibility criteria tightened (removal of aid for used cars and introduction of an environmental rating), all of which have resulted in an increase in the out-of-pocket cost for electric vehicles.

• The second key factor behind these developments is the cost of investments.

For retrofitting, this is generally an upward factor: the cost of work has increased, as have heat pump prices (both rising by more than 30% between 2015 and 2025). For mobility, electric car prices have also increased as a rule. However, the launch of new entry-level models and the greater availability of used electric cars have helped to offset this trend.

• A final key factor strongly affecting the accessibility of investments for households is the price of energy.

Prices for gas, heating oil and petrol have risen sharply in recent years, especially in 2022 and 2023, significantly boosting potential energy savings. Gas prices doubled from 2015 to 2025, heating oil prices doubled between 2015 and 2023 before falling slightly, and petrol prices rose by more than 20% between 2015 and 2023, before declining slightly.

Lessons for the future

The situation has improved across a number of indicators: out-of-pocket costs for deep energy retrofits have fallen significantly for middle-income households, potential energy savings have increased, and financing options are now more favourable.

Given that certain investments are still financially out of reach for households, particularly those in the middle-income bracket, and that past improvements are largely due to state aid, careful attention will need to be paid to the government’s 2026 budget in a challenging fiscal context.

The 2026 budget will need to prioritise access to transition solutions for those who need them most, through subsidies, schemes like social leasing, and so on. Regulatory or fiscal measures can also be used to encourage those with the means to invest. These measures can, in turn, make investments more accessible to households: for example, EU vehicle emissions regulations can encourage manufacturers to reduce the sale price of their electric models. Similarly, regulations on greening corporate fleets help to boost the used electric vehicle market.

It is also important to remember that other changes are needed to make the ecological transition truly accessible to households, such as developing public transport, training retrofitting tradespeople, and so on. Some of these changes will also need to be supported by public spending.

A focus on two household profiles for the middle-income bracket

To assess the economic capacity of households to invest in the transition, we focus on two household profiles: the Fields family and the Newtown family. These two households share certain characteristics: they belong to the middle-income bracket (defined here as households whose standard of living falls between the third and eighth deciles), they live in a single-family house that they own and are still paying off through a mortgage, they rely on a car for everyday travel, and they have two children. They differ in other respects: income level, area of residence, housing characteristics, and mobility habits (see boxes). 

The methodological report included in the annex to this Observatory provides a detailed description of the household characteristics, data sources, results for other household profiles, as well as sensitivity analyses for certain key parameters. It should be noted that in this edition of the Observatory, local aid has not been taken into account, although it can significantly improve the accessibility of investments for households (I4CE, 2024).

* The income categories used by ANAH do not correspond to the definition applied elsewhere in this document. The Fields household, which we classify as lower-middle-income (with a standard of living between the third and fourth deciles) falls into ANAH’s low-income category. This category is calculated based on reference tax income and household size.

Support by