Energy bills in France: what the 2026 barometer measures

In France, 34% of households surveyed say they have difficulty paying some energy bills in 2026, compared with 36% in 2025. This figure is distinct from the share of bills in household budgets, thermal discomfort and the vulnerability measure calculated by Insee.

In mainland France, 34% of households surveyed in 2026 say they have had difficulty paying some gas or electricity bills. The proportion remains close to one household in three, but is two percentage points lower than in 2025. The figure describes reported difficulty with payment, not a total inability to pay bills or an energy disconnection.

The energy-info barometer from the National Energy Ombudsman, published on 3 November, is based on a survey conducted by Mantu from 2 to 15 September among 2,000 households in mainland France. It sets out three different economic realities side by side: difficulty paying, the share of bills in the household budget and the effects felt at home. Conflating them turns an indicator into a diagnosis that it does not measure.

A fall compared with 2025, not a regular trend

Barometer year	Households reporting difficulty paying some energy bills
2020	18%
2025	36%
2026	34%

The comparison shows a proportion almost twice as high as in 2020, but also a slight decline since the 2025 peak. These are percentages of households surveyed in two annual polls, not a follow-up of the same households. The 2025 barometer was conducted by the BECOMING institute among 2,000 households, from 10 to 17 September; the 2026 one was conducted by Mantu. These results describe the responses in each survey and do not, on their own, explain the change or allow it to be presented as a continuous deterioration.

The word “record” refers to another indicator. In 2026, 86% of households surveyed consider their bills to weigh heavily on their budget. The Ombudsman says this proportion is at its highest level since the barometer was established in 2007. This is an assessment of the share of bills in the budget, distinct from the 34% who report difficulty paying some bills. The third figure, 89%, measures something else again: the share of households concerned about the amount of their bills.

These questions may overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A household may consider a bill burdensome without reporting difficulty paying it; another may encounter a one-off problem without energy being its main expense.

The budget also leads to compromises on comfort

Financial constraints are reflected in reported behaviour. In 2026, 72% of households say they limited heating during the winter to avoid bills that were too high, compared with 53% in 2020. For the households concerned, using less can reduce immediate spending; it does not necessarily mean they have been able to improve their home’s energy efficiency.

The barometer also finds that 35% of households say they suffered from the cold at home for at least 24 hours during the winter. For summer 2026, which saw intense heat, 65% say they experienced heat in their home for at least 24 hours. These responses provide information about the discomfort people felt, not about a temperature measured in every home or a medical diagnosis. They nevertheless show that the issue of spending is not limited to the amount of the bill: it affects the conditions in which households heat or endure their homes.

Experiences are not evenly distributed. Among respondents under 35, 55% report difficulty paying some bills, compared with 34% of households overall. The comparison concerns households in this age group represented in the survey. The Ombudsman also reports that recipients of the energy voucher are particularly exposed to combined discomfort: 46% of these recipients say they suffered both from the cold in winter and the heat in summer, compared with 28% of households overall. This subgroup should not be confused with the entire population.

Energy vulnerability is not an observed bill

Another measure helps explain the role of housing, provided it is not compared directly with the survey. In an analysis published in April 2025 using data from 2021, Insee addresses energy vulnerability related to housing through standardised expenditure: it estimates the energy needed to achieve standard thermal comfort, according to the characteristics of the home, energy prices and disposable income. The data used include energy performance certificates and tax data.

This approach does not use bills actually paid and does not ask households whether they have struggled to pay a bill when it fell due. It measures potential exposure against a standard level of comfort. The barometer, by contrast, gathers reports on difficulties, perceptions and behaviour. Insee notes that poorly insulated homes and modest incomes can increase vulnerability; this analysis sheds light on a mechanism, but does not provide a numerical explanation for the 34% measured in 2026.

This distinction matters when considering the trade-offs. Turning down the heating to limit a bill is an immediate response to an expense; insulating a home or replacing equipment requires an upfront investment. The two decisions are not made at the same time and do not respond to the same constraint.

The upfront cost weighs on plans

The 2026 barometer indicates that 18% of households are considering insulation work, compared with 21% in 2025. Among homeowners, 14% plan to install solar panels. The Ombudsman reports that equipment costs are the main obstacle cited by the respondents concerned who are not considering electrifying their equipment. This finding applies to those respondents, not to all households.

At the same time, 60% of households surveyed see the electrification of energy use as an opportunity. This opinion guarantees neither savings for every household nor the profitability of any particular piece of equipment: the outcome depends in particular on the investment, the home, patterns of use and the cost of energy. Declared interest in a solution and the ability to finance it are two different things.

The picture therefore reveals a concrete economic tension. Households may seek to reduce their consumption to keep current spending under control, while postponing work or equipment that requires financing in advance. The data shed light on the coexistence of these choices; on their own, they do not allow a single cause to be attributed to the change in payment difficulties.