RN spokesperson Ménagé wants to abolish MaPrimeRénov' and replace it with interest-free loans

Paris – 30.06.2026: Thomas Ménagé, deputy for Loiret and spokesperson of the Rassemblement National group in the National Assembly, demanded the abolition of MaPrimeRénov’ on the France 2 show “4V”. The state subsidy for energy renovations should be replaced by interest-free loans. Public funds, Ménagé said, should no longer flow into what he sees as faulty or poorly executed renovations, but be made available to households in a targeted way through loans. At the same time he called for a large-scale program to air-condition schools, nursing homes and other public buildings.

His remarks come at a time of ongoing debate over the direction of French climate policy in the building sector. Since 2020 MaPrimeRénov’ has bundled various aids for homeowners to support boiler replacement, insulation and other renovation measures. Critics, however, complain about administrative burden, fraud cases and quality defects in individual projects. From RN circles the model “100 % Rénov'” has already been sketched out, which envisages comprehensive interest-free loans and stretches repayment over long terms. Proponents of a loan model argue it would enable larger projects and discipline workmanship, because funds would be earmarked and repayable.

Headwinds come from trades associations and ministries. They warn that an abrupt system change could jeopardize planning certainty, delay ongoing construction projects and unsettle households that had budgeted based on promised subsidies. Industry representatives also point out that grants reach low-income households better than loans, even if those loans are interest-free. Government circles say, in substance, that a reform must strengthen quality controls without causing demand to collapse. In recent months MaPrimeRénov’ has been adjusted several times, for example through stricter requirements for certified firms and an adjustment of subsidy rates.

Ménagé linked his demands with sharp criticism of the state’s response to the recent heatwave. According to him, care workers and emergency services bore the main burden. A nationwide air-conditioning program for public buildings should therefore be given priority to protect particularly vulnerable groups. Supporters of the existing subsidy logic counter that sustainable cooling in the building stock is hardly effective without energy renovations and could create additional peak loads on the power grid. The political dispute thus revolves not only around the choice of financing instrument, but around the strategic sequence: renovate first and reduce demand — or at the same time step up investment in cooling technology.

How the government will respond to the RN proposals is open. A change in the law would require a viable majority, and budget frameworks and social criteria would have to be renegotiated. One thing is clear: in view of recurring heatwaves and ambitious climate targets in the building sector, the competition between models — grant versus loan, insulation versus cooling or both in combination — will shape the agenda in Paris in the coming weeks.