The energy transition occupies all spheres: from companies to individuals, the most concerned; from energy companies to distributors, of course; but above all that of institutional players, who have put energy at the heart of public policies. And that’s good. The awareness is there. Climatic vagaries and collateral crises are reminders, if need be, of the acuteness of the challenge.
However, plans, agendas, programs, plans and other resolutions jostle and clash. While they should respond with a well-coordinated logic, they often appear as scattered choices. The crisis in Ukraine has unfortunately revealed more divergences than convergences. However, given the stakes, it would be counter-productive – even terribly risky – to disperse our efforts and not share a long-term vision. This approach raises the question of achievement scales. If the national dimension legitimately participates in the imperatives of sovereignty, two scales must imperatively be part of an operational logic: the territories and Europe.
Territories are, by nature, closest to needs; they are best qualified to put into perspective the energy consumption linked to local activity, to the expectations of those who live there as well as those who produce. They constitute the right scale to identify the sources of energy production, whether they are renewable, solar, wind or whether they come from biomass such as biogas; but also nuclear, including around a fleet of mini-power plants (SMR or small modular reactors), the geography of which will revolve around uses that go beyond the production of electricity alone. The territories are, finally, the best placed to animate the debate, locally, between the needs and the available sources of supply, and to define, consequently, a balance of supply as well as a path of acceptability valuing the economy. circular. The word ecosystem takes on its full political dimension, opening the way to energy decentralization.
Independence, sustainability, competitiveness
Europe is the other scale. Faced with the influence of blocks in tension, whether they are producers or consumers of energy, the issue and the solutions are obviously part of a dual dynamic of international cooperation and power relations. There are already enough variables that are difficult to control – from the evolution of demand in Asia to the strategy of producing countries, including climatic hazards or political risks – not to isolate ourselves in our strategies. energy. Ursula von der Leyen introduced, during her trip to China, the idea of ”de-risking” the relationship with this country, while the Union’s green strategy means increasing our imports from China in the short term and medium term.
Successful transition means taking into account three long-term imperatives: an imperative of independence or, at the very least, of controlled dependencies, indexed to the evolution of our needs; another on sustainability, in line with the objectives of the COPs; and finally competitiveness, in order to support our economies in the face of particularly aggressive blocks on the world market. Like the territories, Europe must build common principles capable of securing its supplies while participating in the challenges of decarbonization. Our businesses are not fungible in an energy mess. Areas in which supplies are stable will benefit from a major attractiveness bonus.
Our enduring sovereignty in question
The energy transition is more than a supply issue. It is becoming a central parameter in the future of international relations. Among all the issues, four factors crystallize the tensions today: the strategic divergences of the Franco-German axis, which involve Europe in a risk of “every man for himself”; the mastery of low-carbon technologies by the Chinese, which strongly questions our sustainable sovereignty; the status of African mineral resources, over which Chinese control is not sustainable and which must not either become an object of predation or blackmail in the context of the aggressive strategy pursued by Russia on this continent; and pricing mechanisms that respond more to political logic than a balance for economic prosperity.
Awareness of these issues is a prerequisite for moving forward; that of the modalities is a condition for achieving this. However, these methods will not escape a question, and an arbitration: the choice of the right scales, for the right responsibilities, according to the principles of efficiency and stability.
* Jean-Christophe Fromantin is general delegate of the Anticipations think tank, Cécile Maisonneuve, founder of Decysive and Laurence Poirier-Dietz, general manager of GRDF