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

The full report will be available in English in September

“The ecological transition is a luxury only the rich can afford.”; “It’s out of reach for most French citizens.” Who hasn’t thought or heard something like this during a discussion about climate and climate policies? Buying an electric vehicle? That’s €10,000 more than a combustion engine car. Replacing a gas heating system with a heat pump? €15,000. Deep energy retrofitting of a house? €50,000… But is the ecological transition truly out of reach? Unaffordable for middle-income households?

To answer that question, we dove (again) into the data and defined key indicators that help us assess households’ capacity to invest in the ecological transition in both housing and mobility: the out-of-pocket cost–that is, the investment amount minus aid; the financing capacity of households to finance this out-of-pocket cost through savings or loans; and the impact on household budgets, to assess whether energy savings can cover the out-of-pocket repayments in the case of a loan.

We assess the accessibility of investments that may not be driven by necessity (e.g., a broken boiler, leaking roof, or old car), but which are justified by climate targets and by protecting households from potential energy price hikes. For electric mobility, we also compare the investment with that of a combustion engine equivalent vehicle.

In this year’s edition, we assess these indicators retrospectively–over the past ten years for deep energy retrofits, and over the past five for electric mobility–to identify factors that have improved or worsened economic accessibility to transition solutions in recent years.

We present these indicators through two representative households: the Fields family and the Newtown family, both middle-income, homeowners, and car-dependent. We could have chosen many profiles, but we focused on a lower middle-income rural household (the Fields family) and an upper middle-income peri-urban household (the Newtown family). Of course, these two households do not reflect the full diversity of household situations, not even within the middle class. However, we believe they represent relevant cases at the heart of the political debate. We also evaluated certain indicators for other scenarios, including a for a low-income household and a wealthier one. These complementary analyses are discussed throughout the report and detailed in the appendices.

Our focus here is on the economic capacity of households to make the necessary investments for the ecological transition. The accessibility of the transition also depends on many other conditions–like the availability of charging stations, qualified retrofit tradespeople, etc. We analyze a few of these access conditions via a dashboard of indicators, without claiming to be exhaustive. While this household-centered analysis might suggest that success in the ecological transition depends on individuals, it is crucial to remember that it is fundamentally about collective choices and public policy.

Our first finding is that deep energy retrofitting has become more accessible to middle-income households than it was ten years ago:

• In 2025, the Fields family, living in a rural home heated with oil, can now finance a deep energy retrofit and even achieve net savings–something that wasn’t possible a decade ago.

Ten years ago, the out-of-pocket cost for deep energy retrofitting of their home was €36,000–nearly one year’s income. They could technically take out a loan to finance it, but the energy savings didn’t cover the out-of-pocket repayments of the loan. Today, the out-of-pocket cost has dropped by €15,000 and is now equal to less than six months of income. Their borrowing capacity has improved, and energy savings now fully cover the loan out-of-pocket repayments, even leaving €130 of net monthly savings.

• The Newtown family, living in a peri-urban house heated with gas, can also finance deep energy retrofitting, but their energy savings do not fully cover their loan out-of-pocket repayments.

While their situation has improved since 2015, it remains less favorable than the Fields’. The Newtown household receives less in subsidies due to income level and housing characteristics. Although they can finance the out-of-pocket cost with a loan and even tap into their savings to reduce the borrowed amount, the loan repayments are not fully covered by energy savings. Still, the net increase in their budget remains moderate (around €20/month), which appears sustainable–especially since deep energy retrofitting increases comfort and shields the household from potential future energy price hikes.

• Installing a heat pump now leads to sufficient energy savings to cover the loan out-of-pocket repayments

Over the last decade, the out-of-pocket cost of installing a heat pump has increased for both the Fields and Newtown households. Yet, while energy savings couldn’t cover the loan out-of-pocket repayments ten years ago, they can now do so.

Other developments should also be monitored to assess accessibility to deep energy retrofitting: notably, the number of qualified tradespeople (up slightly to 63,000 in 2024) and the increased distribution of subsidized loans (113,000 zero interest “eco-PTZ” loans in 2024).

The situation is more mixed when it comes to mobility

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

For a household that doesn’t necessarily need to change cars (as is the case with the Fields), we compare buying an electric car with keeping their old combustion engine one. This scenario also provides a proxy for comparing an electric vehicle (EV) with an older, low-cost used car that may have high maintenance costs.

The total out-of-pocket cost for an electric car has increased in the last five years–from €5,000 to €10,000 depending on the model. Fuel savings (€110/month in 2020, €120/month in 2025) are still not enough to cover loan out-of-pocket repayments. Only the social leasing scheme (a State-aided car leasing program that allows the most modest half of households to rent an EV for a relatively low rent) would have allowed the Fields family to access an electric vehicle while lowering their mobility budget in 2024. It’s worth noting that this scheme provided the car for just three years, raising questions about long-term electric mobility access if the program isn’t extended and the buyout price proves unaffordable.

An alternative comparison between buying an electric car and buying a combustion engine equivalent is also presented for the Fields family (see infographic below and appendix).

• For the Newtown family, the additional cost of an electric car compared to a combustion engine equivalent has widened over the past five years, but fuel savings still cover the additional cost.

For this upper middle-income household, which needs to replace its car, we compare an electric car to its combustion engine equivalent. While five years ago a new entry-level electric car was nearly €5,000 cheaper than the combustion engine version, the out-of-pocket cost for an electric car now exceeds that of a combustion engine equivalent by a few thousand euros. Nevertheless, the electric option remains financially beneficial. Fuel savings cover the higher loan out-of-pocket repayments, and in 2025, the Newtown family can reduce its mobility budget (which includes all car-related expenses, including loan payments) by several dozen euros per month. These net savings have declined since 2020, when they were around €140/month.

Other positive developments include a growing used electric vehicle market and a steady increase in publicly accessible charging stations, keeping pace with EV deployment.

Several factors have been driving these trends

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

For deep energy retrofits, the introduction of the “MaPrimeRénov’ – Parcours Accompagné” scheme by the Anah (the National Housing Agency) has significantly increased the aid available to middle- and low-income households. Improvements to the zero interest “eco-PTZ” loan (higher ceiling, longer duration) have also enhanced investment accessibility.

For electric mobility, the aid has declined in recent years: the scrappage premium has been removed, the ecological bonus reduced, and eligibility criteria tightened (no more subsidies for used cars, new environmental score that conditions the granting of aid on the carbon footprint of vehicles). This has increased the out-of-pocket cost of electric cars. However, the social leasing scheme allowed some lower middle-income and low-income households to acquire EVs without raising their mobility budgets.

A second factor explaining these trends is the cost of investment.

For retrofits, costs have gone up–deep energy retrofitting costs and heat pump costs both increased by over 30% between 2015 and 2025. For mobility, EV prices also rose overall, but the arrival of entry-level models and a growing used EV market helped offset that.

A final factor that has a strong impact on the accessibility of investments for households is the price of energy.

Fossil energy prices (gas, oil, gasoline) surged–especially in 2022–2023. Gas prices doubled from 2015 to 2025; oil prices doubled from 2015 to 2023 before slightly declining; gasoline prices rose by over 20% between 2015 and 2023 before also slightly declining. These increases substantially boosted potential energy savings.

Lessons for the future

Several indicators show improvements: the out-of-pocket cost of deep energy retrofitting has dropped significantly for middle-income households, potential energy savings have risen, and financing options have improved.

Yet some investments remain economically inaccessible to households, particularly middle-income ones. Past improvements largely stemmed from public aid–hence the 2026 state budget will be critical, especially in a tight fiscal context.

Budget priorities must focus on ensuring access to transition solutions for those who need them–via subsidies, programs like social leasing, etc. Other tools (regulatory, fiscal) can encourage those who can afford it to invest. These may indirectly improve accessibility for all: for example, EU vehicle emissions regulations may push manufacturers to lower EV prices; corporate fleet greening obligations may increase the supply of used EVs.

Lastly, broader developments are needed to truly make the ecological transition accessible to households–like public transport expansion and retrofitting tradespeople training. Many of these efforts will also require public spending.

Support by