Energy poverty hits 3,5 million households and is expected to worsen

In 2019, "fuel poverty" affected 11,9% of French people and 30% of the poorest, according to the annual report.

The ONPE, which has been exercising since 2011 and the Grenelle 2 law, combines several elements including the "rate of energy effort" (the share of energy expenditure in household income, precariousness being recorded when this position reached 8%).

The 2019 result is a little better than that of 2018 (12,1%) due to rather mild winter temperatures, "but that does not prejudge the situation of the poorest", warns the observatory.

The drop in energy consumption per dwelling linked to the improvement of the heating equipment and performance of certain dwellings is felt. But the rise in the price of energy and the stagnation of purchasing power point to difficult years, note these experts, who also mention the reduction in financial aid (energy checks in particular).

They "worry" about the increase in the number of households that suffered from the cold last winter, especially 18-34 year olds.

We must "find methods of intervention more suited to these situations in order to cushion this economic and health crisis which first weakens the most precarious populations and risks pushing them into situations of great poverty", called Arnaud. Leroy, president of ONPE and Ademe.

The number of households encountering energy payment difficulties has increased, from 10% in 2013 to 18% in 2020, with an increase in interventions for cuts, also notes the ONPE, which quotes the Info-Energie 2020 barometer. of the National Energy Mediator.

In 2019, 671.546 households saw the intervention of an energy supplier due to unpaid bills (+ 17% compared to 2018).

For 2020 and 2021, the containment measures have had even more important consequences for households in fuel poverty, adds the balance sheet.

The suspension of payment of bills during an extended winter break "raises fears of an explosion in unpaid bills and requests for aid to social services". As for confinement, it favored forced cohabitation in uncomfortable housing, while housing improvement work was slowed down.