The current social electricity bonus, in operation for more than a decade, could have its days numbered as we know it. A study by the Foundation for Applied Economics Studies (Fedea) proposes to thoroughly reform this system of aid for vulnerable households and move towards a energy voucher broader, based mainly on income and designed to cover all household energy expenses. The proposal seeks to simplify the model, improve its redistributive nature, and ensure that aid truly reaches those who need it most.
The social bonus applied to the electricity bill was born in 2009, although its current structure was largely defined with the approval of Royal Decree 897/2017, which established the current framework to protect vulnerable consumers. Since then, the reforms have been specific and have focused mainly on three aspects: the criteria for determining who can access the aid, the discount percentages applied to the bill, and the financing system of the bonus itself.
Who receives the social bonus?
A new study published by Fedea and prepared by the economist Diego Rodríguez, professor at the Complutense University of Madrid, analyzes how this instrument of support for households with difficulties paying for energy works today. The work starts from a clear idea: there is a real problem of energy affordability that affects the well-being of certain households and that justifies the existence of income transfer mechanisms, accompanied by regulatory measures that guarantee access to supply.
The report examines, first of all, who actually receives the electricity social bonus. According to the analysis, the current system combines income-based criteria with others that do not directly depend on it, which introduces distortions between real economic vulnerability and the effective granting of aid.
One of the clearest examples is the criterion of large family, which in the current model acts as a sufficient condition to access the social bonus. According to the author, this design weakens the redistributive nature of the measure, as it allows households that are not among the most economically vulnerable to receive the aid. This criterion also generates territorial differences, since in some autonomous communities the weight of beneficiaries who access the bonus for being a large family is especially high.
For this reason, Rodríguez advocates reviewing the eligibility criteria so that access depends exclusively on income, maintaining adjustments for household size through equivalence scales. Along these lines, the report positively values the orientation proposed by the National Strategy against Energy Poverty 2026-2030, which contemplates eliminating the large family criterion as an automatic way of accessing the bonus.
Distribution of the aid
The study also analyzes how aid is distributed according to income level. Based on data from the Survey of Living Conditions, it is observed that the coverage of the social bonus has increased between 2021 and 2025 at all income levels, largely thanks to the expansion of access criteria during the energy crisis.
However, the problem persists where aid should be concentrated most. Coverage remains relatively low among households with lower incomes, especially in the first two income deciles, while at higher levels it is practically complete. In fact, the percentage of beneficiary households has increased in the highest deciles, which suggests that the current design reduces the redistributive capacity of the instrument.
Another aspect that the work examines is how the social bonus is financed. The system has not been exempt from legal controversies. The Supreme Court annulled the financing mechanisms on two occasions for considering that they violated the principle of non-discrimination among agents in the electricity sector.
The distribution of the cost
Currently, the cost is distributed among generation, transmission, distribution, and commercialization companies, in addition to direct consumers. However, the report recalls that, in practice, that cost ends up being passed on to all consumers through the electricity system.
Beyond the social bonus, the study raises a fundamental question: whether it makes sense to maintain a fragmented approach to energy poverty or if it would be preferable to move towards an integrated instrument that covers all household energy consumption.
This reflection gains even more importance in a context in which the so-called energy poverty in transport is also beginning to be recognized. Furthermore, the future implementation of ETS2, the European system that will extend the price of CO₂ to fuels used in heating and transport, could increase energy costs for households and will force the strengthening of compensation mechanisms for the most vulnerable.
From the minimum vital income to the energy check
The paper proposes two possible paths to reform the aid system. The first would consist of incorporating an energy supplement into the Minimum Living Income (IMV). However, the author warns that the number of IMV beneficiaries is currently much lower than that of the social bonus. Furthermore, integrating this aid into a general income benefit could reduce the system's ability to take into account specific factors, such as climate or household location.
The second option would be to create an energy check that covers all domestic energy consumption, including those that do not depend on a supply contract, such as fuels for heating or transport. This check would be determined based on income, household size, certain situations of special vulnerability and geographical location, and would preferably be granted automatically by public administrations.
Its financing could come from a combination of budgetary resources, contributions from the energy sector and European funds, in particular from the Social Climate Fund. Another possibility would be to channel aid through personal income tax (IRPF) in the form of a refundable tax credit, that is, a mechanism similar to a negative income tax comparable to the current maternity deduction.