Effective and equitable energy policy requires a comprehensive understanding of the spatial and social patterns of household incomes and energy expenditures. Domestic and transport energy costs are higher in rural than in urban areas while housing costs show the opposite pattern. We examine this tradeoff by systematically analyzing 6.2 million households’ observed incomes and car fuel, domestic energy, and housing expenditures for the first time. We determine the marginal effects of built environment characteristics and sociodemographic factors with a disaggregate econometric modeling framework.We find that car fuel expenditures are lowest in high-density areas whereas proximity to train stations has a limited effect. Domestic energy costs are lowest for residents of urban apartments and terraced dwellings. Policy may further reduce apartment dwellers’ domestic energy bills by supporting homeowners associations in installing solar panels and heat-pumps. Private rent and mortgage costs are lower in low-density, remote areas. Social housing rents are largely independent of local built environment features.For private tenants and homeowners, total expenditures are higher in urban areas, as higher housing costs outweigh savings on domestic and transport energy. Rural households, however, devote a larger share of their residual budget to energy carriers. Policy aimed at maintaining an adequate supply of affordable urban social housing can therefore reduce households’ vulnerability to energy price shocks.Incomes and leftover budgets are low in both remote and high-density urban areas, but are driven primarily by sociodemographic characteristics. Vulnerable groups include disabled and unemployed households, households with children, and single-adult households.