Dver since there has been talk of “ecological transition”, the French right has suddenly become very sensitive to the social question, to the purchasing power of the most modest and to the rise in inequalities. Slowing down this transition, a factor of inflation, would therefore be a measure of social justice. This speech obviously constitutes the latest subterfuge to do nothing. The problem is that it is taken up by prominent political figures.
Edouard Philippe, invited to the start of the Democratic Movement (MoDem) in Guidel (Morbihan), on September 30, declared that the ban on thermal strainers would be “ creating an impasse for the most modest “, this ban risks drying up the rental market and therefore making rents more expensive. This position taken by the former prime minister, who in his time had long defended the carbon tax, is a very worrying turnaround given his political ambitions. Is his fear justified? The housing stock statistics cast doubt on this, for three reasons.
Firstly, since the 1er January, the accommodations affected by the rental ban are those consuming more than 450 kWh/m²/year, classified as G+. To make things concrete, this category includes a studio of 20 square meters consuming around 2,000 euros of electricity per year to heat itself to 19°C. Banning energy sieves would therefore actually increase the resources of low-income households by allowing them to save on their electricity bill.
Breath of fresh air
Second, at this stage, it is not certain that the ban on energy sieves will have an inflationary effect on rents. G+ and G housing (more than 375 kWh/m2/year) are 80% occupied by their owners and are therefore not affected by the measure. G housing, which will be prohibited for rental in 2025, only concerns 2% of the total stock and it is unlikely that this measure alone will unbalance the market.
Third, this ban measure, announced for a long time, was promulgated in 2021. Owners of thermal strainers therefore had time to carry out the necessary work. In addition, nothing obliges them to do so, and they can of course prefer to sell their property. The possible drop in property prices that this could cause would also be a breath of fresh air for young people and low-income households.
This brings us to the essential point: the real interests hurt by the ban on rental of energy sieves are not those of the working classes, but those of landlords. However, the latter are generally not to be pitied. The top two income deciles own more than half of the private rental stock. Conversely, only 7% of rental energy sieves belong to the bottom two deciles.
You have 25% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.