Many will have seen a symbol there. Tuesday, January 10 in the evening, at the time of the examination in public session on the bill for the acceleration of renewable energies, part of the electronic boxes supposed to allow the vote of the deputies of the Assembly broke down. A simple technical hiccup, nevertheless extremely rare, leading President Yaël Braun-Pivet to request the organization of a ballot. Around 9:30 p.m., the bill was finally passed, 286 against 238 against thanks to the votes of the Socialists and despite the opposition of the Republicans, La France insoumise or the abstention of the Greens. A confusing epilogue therefore, for a text whose passage in the lower house will have been much more bumpy than in the Senate, where it had been voted by a very large majority (320 votes for, 5 against and 18 abstentions).
“This text brings many advances which will make it possible to reduce project development times by several years without denying anything of our environmental requirements, without denying anything of the protection of biodiversity”, welcomed despite everything the Minister for Energy Transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, a few minutes after the result. On January 24, a Joint Joint Committee will lead to a final version of the text, given the significant amendments to the initial text voted by the two chambers, sometimes in opposite directions. A balanced text is also the opinion of Maud Bregeon, spokesperson for Renaissance and specialist within the majority on energy-related subjects, who takes the opportunity to denounce the dogmatism of the opposition to National Assembly.
L’Express: While the bill to accelerate renewable energies in the Senate was passed by a very large majority, the text only passed thanks to the vote of the Socialists and Independent Liberties, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) groups ) to the National Assembly. How do you explain this difference in appreciation between the two chambers?
Maud Bregeon: We had a real moment of political clarification on Tuesday evening. Through the vote on this bill in the National Assembly, we have seen those who are on the side of the climate, and those who are unable to depart from political postures. However, we are coming out of several weeks of exchanges between Agnès Pannier-Runacher, the rapporteurs of the text and the political groups. I salute the responsibility of the Socialist Group and LIOT, who voted for the text having worked on it with the majority in a constructive spirit. The position of La France insoumise, the National Rally and the Republicans is a form of ecological denial, given the urgency we are facing.
Nor do I understand the abstention of Europe Ecologie – Les Verts, which has been advocating the development of renewable energies for years and ends up opposing the text which allows their acceleration. What I take from this is that within the Chamber of the Assembly, and unlike the Senate, political parties have favored political logic, rather than the interest of the country. The systematic opposition serves neither the climate, nor the sovereignty, nor the purchasing power of the French.
There are oppositions in principle, as you say, but also those who believe that the text does not go far enough. Renewable players are generally skeptical about the ability of the text to give a big boost to deployment…
It is a balanced and effective text, which will make it possible to accelerate the energy transition with real contributions in terms of reducing procedures and which, at the same time, provides strong guarantees on biodiversity and the place given to territorialisation, a condition of acceptability. The bill gives real power to local elected officials to determine the most suitable areas for projects. The text includes, for example, an overhaul of the framework for offshore wind farms, which will make it possible to go much faster by pooling public debates, while it took more than ten years to finalize the first French park, in Saint Nazaire. The promise of the text to divide the deadlines by two, remains kept. The Minister for Energy Transition Agnès Pannier-Runacher has done a remarkable job of openness and listening to obtain these advances. When we witness, behind, an attempt to block on the part of a part of the Nupes which nevertheless claims to be pro-renewable energies, we can only deplore a certain form of hypocrisy.
Maud Bregeon, REN deputy to the National Assembly
© / National Assembly
The initial text has been widely amended, first by the senators, then by the deputies, sometimes in a different direction. The Joint Joint Commission, which will be held on January 24, will it not lead to political bargaining that will definitively bury the few advances in the text?
I’m confident in our ability to find a balanced landing spot. There are obviously a certain number of things to be clarified, substantive amendments, editorial aspects, but I would find it incomprehensible given the position of senators and a majority of deputies that we are unable to land towards a text that responds to the urgency of the situation. The first loser would undeniably be the climate.
Climate crisis, energy crisis, sovereignty… Probably never in the country’s history has the deployment of renewable energies benefited from such interest in taking action. Some, particularly in industry, believe that the law does not go far enough, that it does not provide enough means to reduce delays and procedures on the side of prefectures and justice, or gives too much power to elected officials premises.
On the subject of renewable energies, we have to find a balance between three subjects. The ecological emergency that requires these accelerations, the need to protect biodiversity, and the acceptability of the projects. In my view, these three issues are well articulated in the text. I insist on the last of them: you have to listen to the field, you cannot decide on the basis of great abstract principles from Paris while ignoring the impacts and the feelings of people. A large part of the French are in favor of renewable energies, but we cannot ignore that in certain departments such as Aisne or Eure-et-Loir, there has been a saturation of the deployment of wind power over the past 20 years.
What we have done poorly in terms of method, we must draw conclusions so as not to reproduce it, at the risk of fueling similar mistrust. This is the reason why we have notably given important prerogatives to local elected representatives. Their role is not intended to be blocking, but to develop projects that are as adapted as possible to the reality of the territories, hand in hand with the State. It is not, of course, a question of leaving them to the front, but of giving them the keys to appropriating the projects. It is a sign of trust. As for the acceleration of procedures, today there are joint instructions from the Ministries of the Interior and Energy Transition to the prefectures, with initial feedback showing us that things are moving. On the slowness of justice, it is a more global problem. More resources are needed to recruit more and speed up the instructions: the budget for 2023 is growing for the third consecutive year by 8%. This represents an increase of nearly 40% since 2017!
Among the amendments voted in the National Assembly, the idea for example of putting on the table an automatic public debate for each project above 100 million euros worries industrialists. Overall, the systematization of consultation, which we know is in no way a guarantee of effectiveness or acceptability, is it not a brake on the ideal of acceleration advocated by the text?
This is a point which, in my view, should be discussed again during the Joint Joint Committee. Given the necessary acceleration of the energy transition and the fluidity of decision-making processes, I am not convinced that the solution lies in more public debate. We can see how this kind of debate unfolds, with participants with very militant postures, rarely representative of the greatest number. Finally, it is a real setback compared to the existing framework (ASAP law), where the raising of the CNDP seizure threshold was a progress resulting from the joint action of the Minister and the President of the Economic Affairs Commission, Guillaume Kasbarian. I believe much more in the action of local elected officials to involve the population.
After the debate on renewable energies, will come that on nuclear power with a bill aimed at accelerating deployment again. The oppositions are likely to be more nourished still, than on renewable energies. As a former employee of the sector, now in the political field, what lessons do you draw from this on the French energy debate?
The President of the Republic has set the course, and wants to make France the first major nation to get out of fossil fuels. I note that the French have made significant progress over the past 10 years, the majority is now convinced that we will need all the low-carbon energies to achieve our objectives. The various crises have made it possible to rationalize this debate, reminding us that electricity does not fall from the sky and that ousting means of production without CO2, if we are even slightly attached to the climate, is inadmissible. Public opinion is advancing faster than some of the political actors, who have not yet taken this path. Unfortunately, there remains a duality between renewable and nuclear energies, conveyed by militant positions that are dramatic for the issues of climate and sovereignty.
To claim that we could do without one or the other today is a lie. One only has to see the incalculable number of false information issued by the National Rally during the debates on this bill. It is likely that it will be the same, but on the other side of the Assembly, in the coming weeks on nuclear power. Faced with the colossal challenge that we must take up, political leaders must abandon their partisan logic and finally rely on facts and scientific knowledge. This increase in skills on these technical subjects can only be beneficial to the debate.