Restart of Fessenheim, moratorium on renewable energies… A worrying shift in the debates

Published on June 21, 2025 at 11:02 a.m.

Google News Subscribe

Reading time: 3 min.

In this column, Maxence Cordiez, associate energy expert at the Institut Montaigne and co-author of the book "Nuclear Energy in 100 Questions" (Tallandier), highlights the unrealistic and dangerous nature of the amendments to the Energy-Climate Act passed this week. This, he emphasizes, is in the "best interest of the nation."

This article is an op-ed, written by an author outside the newspaper and whose point of view does not reflect the editorial staff's views.

An energy-climate bill, also known as the "Grémillet bill" after the senator who initiated it, is under consideration in the National Assembly. While energy traditionally arouses passions in the political body, its instrumentalization entered a new dimension during the first reading of this text. Against a backdrop of significant absenteeism within the Assembly, the bill is preparing to be voted on next Tuesday in plenary session after seeing several particularly problematic amendments adopted.

Return of the opposition between nuclear and renewables, to the benefit of fossil fuels

First of all, an amendment (No. 486) brought by Les Républicains establishes a moratorium on renewable energies, going as far as prohibiting the extension or renewal of installations beyond the end of authorized operation "for the entire period necessary to carry out an objective and independent study aimed at determining the optimal energy mix for France" .

Let's remember that in France, 60% of the energy consumed is of fossil origin (oil, gas, and marginally coal). This dependence is harmful to the climate and to the French trade balance, given that importing these fuels costs our country several tens of billions of euros per year. It therefore seems ironic to establish a moratorium on some of the low-carbon energy needed to replace these fossil fuels.

Also read

Interview on the Moratorium on Wind and Photovoltaic Energy: "It's the most climate-sceptic text we've ever had!"

Furthermore, the "objective and independent" study requested by the deputies has already been carried out by RTE in 2021 (Futurs énergies 2050), then updated in 2023 in its forecast report 2023-1935. RTE demonstrated that electricity mixes based on nuclear and renewable energies were both economically optimal and reduced the risk of failure by avoiding industrially or socially unrealistic trajectories, as well as the use of technologies that have not been industrially proven and are economically dubious (such as the massive storage of electrolytic hydrogen to power power plants in scenarios without nuclear power).

Denying the existence of these studies – technically sound and whose various sets of hypotheses have been discussed with all stakeholders – can find no other explanation than the rejection of its conclusions and the expectation of a study which, by showing that renewable energies would have no role to play in decarbonization and securing French supplies, could as such be considered “objective and independent” .

The adoption of this amendment is all the more ironic given that the National Assembly also voted for a directly antagonistic amendment (No. 601 proposed by the Socialist Party) to the same text, which imposes renewable electricity production of at least 200 TWh in 2027...

Let's continue with Amendment No. 6 proposed by the National Rally (RN), which provides for the restart of Fessenheim. I personally campaigned against the – purely political – closure of this plant when the reactors were shut down in 2020, notably by writing several articles explaining the lack of foundation in most of the arguments used to justify its shutdown, and the consequences of this decision on French _CO2 emissions.

However, it is clear that restarting it is now profoundly unrealistic. The engine rooms have been largely dismantled and are now virtually empty. Similarly, the primary circuit has been acid-etched (a step prior to its dismantling), and extensive studies with uncertain conclusions would be necessary to try to demonstrate that it could still be used despite this. Restarting these reactors therefore no longer appears realistically feasible.

Finally, LFI adopted an amendment (No. 758) that grants a monopoly on the operation of nuclear power reactors to EDF (a political initiative that was never defended by EDF, let us point out). Such an amendment is in direct contradiction with several articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: at the very least, Articles 49 on freedom of establishment and Article 106 requiring EU Member States to respect the treaties, particularly in matters of competition law. Members of Parliament, assisted by attachés, political advisors, and the Assembly's administration, should be able to conduct a legal analysis of their amendments and avoid proposing amendments that are in such flagrant violation of European law.

Also read