Six insulation federations are contesting the new calculation of the DPE (Energy Performance Diagnosis).

What changes does the decree of August 19, 2026 bring?

The text lowers the conversion factor from final energy to primary energy for electricity, from 1,9 to 1,7 , for energy performance certificates issued from January 1 ^, 2027. It follows the decree of August 13, 2025, which had already reduced this factor from 2,3 to 1,9 on January 1, ^2026. In two texts signed a year apart, both in August, the coefficient has lost 26% of its value.

The Ministry for Ecological Transition presents the measure as a way to promote the electrification of home heating and encourage the replacement of fossil fuel boilers with heat pumps. The six signatories point out that the decision was made, in their view, against the advice of the High Council for Energy.

The count of dwellings that are changing their label

This is the crux of the complaint. According to the signatory organizations, more than 300,000 homes currently rated F and G will be removed from the "energy inefficient" category without any renovation work having been undertaken. These are in addition to the more than 800,000 homes that the summer 2025 amendment to the energy efficiency coefficient had already reclassified.

This point is not new in the public debate: the same industry had already taken a stance during the first reduction, denouncing a threat to renovation . A year later, the argument is the same, and the total number of homes cited by the industry exceeds one million.

A measurement tool that has become an adjustment variable

The signatories reiterate the function of the primary energy coefficient in the energy performance assessment: to measure the energy impact of a dwelling on a national scale. By modifying it administratively, they write, the Government is distorting the spirit of the assessment and skewing the energy planning trajectory that it is supposed to inform.

Their second concern relates to the user of the energy performance certificate. An occupant whose rating increases without a corresponding decrease in their bill or improvement in their comfort will notice the discrepancy, and their confidence in the tool will suffer. It is this confidence, more than the rating itself, that the organizations say they see as threatened.

Electrification and insulation: two policies that the industry refuses to pit against each other.

The text is not an argument against electricity. The six organizations write that they support the electrification of energy uses, which they consider essential for the energy transition. Their objection concerns substitution: electrifying a home does not eliminate the need to insulate its envelope, otherwise every kilowatt-hour consumed is lost to heat loss.

This is the argument that the mineral wool trade association has long defended, and which it had already raised regarding the role of the building envelope in renovation. For these organizations, managing energy performance through the building envelope remains the prerequisite for effective electrification.

The six signatories and their request

The opinion piece is signed by Elisabeth Bardet, president of FILMM, Philippe Boussemart, president of Mur-Manteau, Joaquim Correia, president of AFIPEB, Vincent Hannecart, president of AICB, Christine Muscat, vice-president of SNPU, and Matthieu Lechantre, president of Exiba France. It covers mineral wool, external insulation, expanded polystyrene, bio-based materials, polyurethane, and extruded polystyrene.

Their demand rests on two points: stabilizing the regulatory and standards framework for energy renovation, and implementing a policy that combines thermal insulation and electrification. The press release includes neither a proposed alternative text nor a timeline for referral.