THERMAL ACCOUNT 3.0: GSE TECHNICAL RULES PUBLISHED.

On 16 December 2025, the Energy Services Manager (GSE) published the official Application Rules of the Thermal Account 3.0, completing the implementation framework of the Ministerial Decree of 7 August 2025 of the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security.  

DOWNLOAD HERE THE APPLICATION RULES THERMAL ACCOUNT 3.0

  With this step, the Thermal Account 3.0 becomes fully operational: citizens, tertiary companies, bodies and public administrations can finally submit applications according to clear, binding and verifiable technical rules. This is not a simple procedural update, but a substantial change of pace compared to the past: the new Thermal Account is a tool strongly oriented towards decarbonisation, with more stringent rules but also with very fast economic payback times if the intervention is designed correctly.   WHO CAN ACCESS THE THERMAL ACCOUNT 3.0 The GSE Rules definitively clarify the subjects admitted:

• PRIVATE ENTITIES (NATURAL PERSONS) They can access for interventions on residential buildings, exclusively for interventions of Title III (production of thermal energy from renewable sources).
• COMPANIES AND TERTIARY ENTITIES (SHOPS, OFFICES, ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES, PROFESSIONAL STUDIOS) They can access for buildings in the tertiary sector, but interventions involving the use of fossil fuels, including natural gas, are not allowed.
• PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIONS AND NON-ECONOMIC ETSThey can access a greater number of interventions, with incentives that can reach up to 100% of eligible expenditure.

This means that the plant design must be set up correctly from the beginning, because some solutions today are simply no longer incentivised.   WHICH INTERVENTIONS ARE INCENTIVIZED (AND WHICH ARE NOT) The Thermal Account 3.0 exclusively incentivises:

• ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS for winter (and often also summer) air conditioning;
• SOLAR THERMAL SYSTEMS for DHW and heating integration;
• HIGH-EFFICIENCY BIOMASS GENERATION, with very stringent emission limits;
• HIGH EFFICIENCY MICRO-COGENERATION (for specific areas).

It is essential to clarify a point that often generates confusion: photovoltaics and storage systems are not incentivized by the thermal account 3.0 except for VAT numbers, Public Administrations and Third Sector Entities (ETS).   65%: CEILING, NOT AUTOMATIC PERCENTAGE

Article 11 of the Ministerial Decree of 7 August 2025 establishes that: the amount of the incentive cannot exceed 65% of the expenses incurred.

This value represents:

• the theoretical maximum limit;
• the correct calculation basis in the feasibility phase;
• not a guaranteed percentage for each intervention.

The real value always depends on:

• installed technology,
• power,
• coefficients and ceilings provided for by the GSE.

 

RECOMMENDED EXAMPLE – FLAT-RATE VAT NUMBER ON YOUR HOME (CT ONLY)

This is the most frequent and most interesting case for VAT numbers under the flat-rate regime.

Professional who:

• lives in their own residential home,
• cannot take advantage of tax deductions,
• it wants to eliminate gas and reduce energy costs.

HYPOTHETICAL INTERVENTION

• Replacement of the winter air conditioning system
• Installation of electric heat pump (air-to-water or geothermal)
• No photovoltaics (not incentivized in residential areas for individuals)

Intervention allowed exclusively pursuant to Title III of the decree.

REALISTIC COSTS

• Heat pump + plant works: € 25,000 – 30,000

THERMAL ACCOUNT INCENTIVE 3.0

• Calculation basis: maximum ceiling 65%
• Maximum theoretical incentive: € 15,000 – 19,500

In practice, the effective incentive:

• it is often between 50% and 65% of expenditure,
• but it remains a direct and immediate contribution, not linked to personal taxation.

REAL COST OF THE INTERVENTION: € 30,000 – € 19,500 = € 10,500 (no further deductions are possible)  

WHY IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL INCENTIVE FOR FLAT-RATE TAXPAYERS

For a VAT number under the flat-rate regime:

• IRPEF deductions are unusable;
• recovery in 10 years makes no sense;
• the investment remains entirely the responsibility of the professional.

The Thermal Account 3.0 instead:

• disburses real money with non-repayable funds;
• it does not depend on income;
• it immediately reduces the cost of the intervention;
• It makes the change of the heating system sustainable even at home.

For many flat-rate taxpayers, it is the only truly effective public tool to change the system.

 

EXAMPLE OF A TERTIARY COMPANY

Tertiary building (offices, commercial activities, laboratories).

INTERVENTIONS CARRIED OUT

• Replacement of the thermal power plant with an electric heat pump
• Installation of photovoltaic system with storage

COSTS

• Heat pump: € 50,000
• Photovoltaic + storage: € 60,000

TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE: € 110,000

 

THERMAL ACCOUNT INCENTIVE 3.0

• Calculation basis (65%): € 71,500
• Disbursement: 5 annual installments

REAL COST OF INTERVENTION: € 110,000 – € 71,500 = € 28,500 ( + depreciation of the system)  

WHY DESIGN IS DECISIVE

The Thermal Account 3.0 rewards only correct interventions:

• appropriate sizing,
• complete documentation,
• coherence between building, use and technology.

Incorrect design can drastically reduce the incentive or compromise access to it.

NOT ONLY GSE CONTRIBUTION: THE REAL VALUE IS THE IMMEDIATE REDUCTION OF ENERGY COSTS When it comes to Thermal Account 3.0 , it is essential not to stop at the amount of the contribution recognized by the GSE.
The real economic benefit of a well-designed energy renovation is the combination of two simultaneous effects:

• on the one hand, the public contribution, which comes over time in the form of a direct incentive;
• on the other, the immediate and structural reduction of energy costs, which immediately affects the bill.

Let’s take a concrete example, typical of many energy-intensive companies.

A business that today uses gas boilers can easily spend 200,000 euros a year just for heating and production.
Moving to an integrated system consisting of:

• electric heat pump,
• photovoltaic system with self-consumption,

It is realistic to achieve a reduction in energy requirements of up to 70%, because a significant proportion of the energy required is self-produced.

This means that:

• the annual energy cost can drop from 200,000 to about 60,000 euros,
• with an immediate saving of about 140,000 euros per year, from the first financial year.

The contribution of the Thermal Account:

• is disbursed over time (2 or 5 years),
• But the cost of “fuel” is immediately lowered.

And this is where the perspective completely changes.

If you add:

• the GSE incentive, which can reach up to 65% of eligible expenses,
• annual savings on bills, which immediately affect operating costs,

The overall economic return of the intervention can far exceed 65%, in some cases covering 100% of the initial investment, or even more, especially for very energy-intensive gas-powered buildings. In these cases, we no longer speak only of an incentive, but of a real industrial and economic redevelopment of the building.  

OUR APPROACH: NOT JUST “HOW MUCH YOU GET”, BUT “HOW MUCH YOU SAVE”

For over 15 years We operate in the Energy upgrading, following individuals and companies from the feasibility study to the disbursement of the contribution.

In the Thermal Account 3.0, the difference is not the technology chosen, but how the intervention is designed.

It is precisely for this reason that, in our studio, the energy requalification is never evaluated only in terms of the cost of the intervention.

Our work consists of:

• analyze how much the building costs today in terms of consumption;
• design the most energy-effective intervention;
• estimate post-intervention consumption;
• calculate all the economic benefits, clearly distinguishing:
  • the net contribution recognized by the GSE through the Thermal Account,
  • the structural reduction of bills, which immediately affects the budget.

Only by putting together incentive + real energy savings is it possible to correctly assess the convenience of an intervention.

And it is often in this overall analysis that the real surprising fact emerges: not how much the intervention costs, but how much it is convenient to do it today.