What energy policy for France?

The Syrota report recalls that, up to the recent years, French energy policy has been dictated by dominant economic considerations. Efforts aimed at reducing energy consumption and diversifying supply sources have been systematically undertaken during the increase in oil prices and as soon as the price of a barrel has become affordable. These policies have had lasting consequences, in particular the development of a large nuclear fleet, reducing French dependence on hydrocarbons. But the most painful decisions, concerning the control of energy consumption, have been dodged. The sensitivity of opinion was blurred “ by stretching calls to mobilization to prevent dramas which, a few months later, seemed chimerical fears ».

Today, the mobilization on global warming creates an opportunity window to set up a policy of the duration (hence the relevance of the 2020 and 2050 deadlines retained by the report) in order to brake and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The decision -making in the energy field is particularly delicate: due to the evolution of knowledge, we can consider that the decision made tomorrow will necessarily be more optimal than that of today, which leads to a permanent postponement of decisive developments. Pragmaticly, the Syrota Commission advocates an adaptive perspective. It is a question of initiating actions which, in the medium term, will place us on a trajectory allowing to deal with different plausible hypotheses today (in particular the need for a division by 2 of the world emissions in 2050), hypotheses which can only be decides thanks to the acquisition of knowledge, or even “ experience feedback “, Which could require many years. It is also a question and simultaneously, to prepare for the challenges of the long -term, by launching policies – regional planning, societal developments, research policies – which can only have effect on the long term. These requirements must be reconciled with the concern of French economic competitiveness.

Compared to its main partners, France has acquired an important advance in terms of limiting emissions CO2 in “ decarbonant Almost completely its electricity production thanks to the use of hydraulic and nuclear power. It would therefore have an interest in setting an objective of convergence of emissions per capita. With this in mind, the report defends a “ Factor 4 For the European Union by 2050, which would correspond for France to a division by around 2.5 of its emissions compared to their 1990 level, which already represents a very ambitious objective.

In all likelihood, the major challenges for France are in the field of transport, residential and tertiary sector. Transport represents 71% of oil consumption and 26% of emissions from CO2 from Europe, the latter being growing continuously until the last years. Energy issues are also geopolitical. International oil trade could double by 2030 (p.38), most of this growth from the Middle East, an unstable area to say the least.

The Syrota report also looks at the evaluation of public action in energy matters. The amount of public investment in research is satisfactory with regard to expenses, in particular tax, of support for cleaner or more economical consumption ? According to the authors, some clear principles could be set in order to avoid the waste of public funds, a rare resource if it is:

– develop a tool for analyzing the public effort rate in support of each sector which would incorporate aid from local authorities ;

– Arrange that public support must be the same as equivalent result in terms of emission avoided greenhouse gas or consumption avoided tons of oil equivalent (TEP) ;

– Interrupt support when the production costs of the sector are more than covered by market prices ;

– constantly confront public support for what actors’ spontaneous behavior would be to measure the windfall ;

– Improve arbitration between instruments inducing an expenditure (budgetary or fiscal) and those do not resulting directly (normalizations, quotas, etc.). Standardization could thus develop at low cost, for example by the obligation to label all energy consumer equipment, and not only of household appliances, on their consumption and their performance.

Finally, the report highlights operational recommendations in a large number of areas. It proposes, for example, to improve the performance of existing buildings and provide very restrictive standards for new constructions, which goes concretely through a massive effort for training professionals in the sector. He insists on the development of certain technologies, in particular the capture and storage of CO2 as well as heat pumps substituting electricity with fossil fuels for thermal uses. He also suggests lifting regulatory brakes on the use of renewable energy (for the installation of solar panels in particular). In terms of lifestyles, the report is pronounced for the development of transport substitutes (telework), incentives for the development of carpooling or for regional planning resolutely opting for the densification of agglomerations. He also advocates the restoration of a car sticker seated on the emissions of CO2with an increase in Tipp which ends the taxation differential between gasoline and diesel.

However, the Commission recognizes that the implementation of these actions is delicate insofar as they most often fall under decentralized actors: local authorities, companies, real estate developers, managers of buildings, simple individuals … then arises the question of consistency between the decision criteria of these actors – especially in terms of investment -, and the supposed criteria reflect the general interest drawn up at the national level.

This report is therefore generally a tool of quality, both in substance, which is particularly exhaustive, as in the form marked by a commendable effort of pedagogy and readability through the use of didactic diagrams and illustrations.

We can however regret certain biases which probably arise from the composition of the commission, the latter giving pride of place to manufacturers and civil servants. Thus, the massive choice of nuclear is discussed at any time, any more than the opening to competition from the energy markets whose economic and social consequences are however questionable. Indeed, the report itself recognizes that these markets are not truly competitive. They also naturally tend towards an oligopolistic functioning. The possible gains in terms of economic efficiency are therefore particularly low. In addition, the problems of interconnection of national networks are far from resolved. Prices will finally increase significantly compared to regulated prices. These increases, justified by the Commission from the angle of “ The truth of the price signal “, Will actually lead to the budget of the most modest households.

We also deplore the little explanatory choice to dismiss the problem, however crucial and particularly complex, of air transport. The report also takes a slightly rapid position for the implementation of protectionist measures compared to countries not having made sufficient arrangements to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, without questioning the relevance and the feasibility of such a measure. It emerges the unpleasant impression that the interests of French industry (in the nuclear and aeronautics sectors in particular) come somewhat a little rich and unavoidable reflection.

Finally, an advanced technical analysis of the feasibility and the consequences of certain recommendations would be desirable. To give it a real utility, this report should therefore be followed by a series of thematic points by sector: transport, residential, lifestyles, energy supply, etc. which would detail the different possible choices. The energy policy intended to influence deeply both on the habitat and on transport or lifestyles, it will have to be quickly subject to authentically political debates and arbitrations.