The figures for energy consumption and production for the year 2025 and the Multi-Year Energy Program of France (PPE) for the period 2025-2035 have just been published simultaneously. Over one year, the production of the nuclear fleet remained stable at around 360 TWh but electricity and natural gas consumption fell by 4.5 and 5.9% respectively. The energy deficit has been reduced to €50 billion, thanks in particular to electricity exports, which reached a record level of 95 TWh, thus contributing €5.5 billion to the trade balance.

The PPE, published two years late, is presented in a decree of 368 pages including annexes. It is therefore very difficult to detect a clear line. Final energy consumption targets are set with a reduction of 17.5% in 2030 and 34% in 2035 compared to 2023. At the same time, a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels is planned, which would represent only 40% of the final energy consumed in 2030 and 30% in 2035.

Past declines in energy consumption were mainly caused by deindustrialization and the closure of high-consumption factories. If aid is planned to encourage the implementation of less energy-intensive solutions in certain sectors and if economic policy sets itself the objective of creating the conditions for reindustrialisation, the contribution in the future of companies to the reduction in energy consumption should be modest.

For households, the main challenge is the renovation of housing. However, the uncertainties surrounding the current aid procedures, such as the lack of mechanisms adapted to each type of occupation (individual or collective, owner, co-owner or tenant), make us sceptical about the achievement of the objectives set out in the PPE. The gamble of electrification, far from being won, is also doubly costly. It implies aid to economic agents to move away from fossil fuels and to producers of renewable energies, without which investments would not see the light of day.

Given its strategic nature in any developed economy, energy must meet many requirements, with security of supply as a priority. For fossil fuels, and in a climate of international tensions that is not about to calm down, the choice of suppliers and modes of transport is essential. The PPE, although it is aware of the issue, is careful not to give any indication of the suppliers to be preferred. For electricity, the question of the intermittency of renewable energies and the adaptation of transmission and distribution networks is vital and the need for investment is mentioned, but no details are given on who will be responsible.

The PPE gives nuclear power a central role in achieving the objectives of reducing the use of fossil fuels. This is a major reversal of France's energy policy, following years of uncertainty, or even denial, if we remember the declarations announcing the closure of part of the nuclear power plant. The launch of construction sites for the construction of six units and then eight others is an essential signal for companies in the sector that will be able to prepare for it, but it will have no effect on production by 2035 given the duration of the projects. In addition, we will have to wait for the certification of the new EPR.

Alongside nuclear power, whose role is being strengthened, there are renewable energies, namely wind and solar power, since there are no plans to build hydroelectric dams, which are nevertheless the ideal method of electricity production since they generate no CO2 emissions or waste and can be controlled at will with storage capacity. We also need to get rid of the myth that wind and solar can be competitive. As they are intermittent, the costs of the production units that will be used when there is no wind or sun must be included in their costs. We must also add the investments to be made in the network and the safety mechanisms to avoid, as has just happened in Spain, general blackouts due to sudden bursts in production.

The PPE nevertheless sets ambitious targets for 2035 with 140 TWh for wind power compared to 51 in 2023 and between 70 and 100 TWh for solar power compared to 23 TWh in 2023. To remedy the lack of profitability, the PPE provides for a whole series of aids and procedures that will finance these additional costs through electricity pricing that is unfavourable to EDF and households with price increases and state aid hidden behind complex mechanisms.

In the name of the environment, and while France is one of the best pupils in Europe with emissions much lower than those of its neighbours and in particular Germany, the country is inflicting a triple penalty on itself: increasing public spending, weakening EDF which must finance future reactors and draining the purchasing power of households.

Security of energy supply is a priority for any country and environmental commitments must be met, provided that they are based on indisputable data. The choice of the reference year, 1990, is very questionable on this point since it is the year of the reunification of Germany, which therefore included a very high level of emissions in East Germany at the time. But we cannot ignore the question of the cost of producing the energy used, which is a determining factor in the competitiveness of an industry.

The PPE therefore sets France targets for reducing energy consumption that are not very compatible with other economic objectives and costly renewable energy investment projects without a precise assessment of their financial consequences, particularly for the State and for EDF, in a context where investment needs will be considerable and where the competitiveness of companies will be a priority in the future.

These proposals are part of a context of European regulation that is profoundly unfavourable to France and which will be aggravated in the future under the influence of Germany, which cannot bring itself to pay for its strategic mistakes in the energy sector and which will use all its weight to share the cost with its neighbours. This is why, alongside the necessary development of energy scenarios for the years to come, it is becoming essential to think about a reform of the electricity market where those who have invested and taken risks to build production tools will no longer be considered as rentiers and where those whose only job is to sell energy,  will have to pay the market price and not a price set by a regulatory authority.

Electricity, like money, is a common good, and therefore just as essential. A European electricity market must therefore benefit from common rules. The Maastricht Treaty did indeed set financial rules. Why not think about a regulation that would be imposed on the Member States with criteria relating to the protection of European sovereignty in terms of supplies, the reliability of production tools and the level of greenhouse gas emissions?

Developing a ten-year projection for a sector as essential as energy is an indisputable necessity. But excluding financial and regulatory issues at the European level from the reflection makes the exercise lose much of its relevance and does not help to remove uncertainties.