Renewable energies: why avoid EELV?

The draft law on accelerating the production of renewable energy should be voted on in the Milli Majlis on January 10. The ballot promises to be tough: a group of environmentalists has declared abstention. The text is not ambitious enough »Charles Fournier, Deputy of European Ecology-Indre-et-Loire Greens, explains.

Reporter – Why will environmentalists refrain? ?

Charles Fournier – This bill comes in the context of an absolute climate emergency that could only be considered by the President of the Republic, which could not have been foreseen. we had a priori positive: finally, a text in favor of renewable energies (ENR) !

But we see two problems. Timing problem – the text comes before a five-year programming law on energy and climate, which should define France’s ambitions on the subject. And the diagnostic problem. This means that if France falls short of its deployment targets ENR, because the procedures are very complicated and long. But that’s the problem EDF The question of not investing as an industrialist ENR.

We did everything to move the lines, but it’s clear that it’s not a good text, it’s not ambitious enough. We will abstain during the ceremonial vote, because we cannot give him environmental credit as it is and block the small steps he proposes.

What is not ambitious enough in this bill ?

Apparently, the planning of deployment of renewable energy sources is not satisfactory. There are no goals.

We also do not have a guarantee of resources coming from public services, the structuring and role of economic sectorsEDF, necessary engineering in areas. These topics are not in the text, they are referred to later.

What should be added to the text ?

for creation ENRpreference should be given to already man-made structures such as car parks [plutôt que de mettre des panneaux solaires sur des terres agricoles par exemple]. The issue of food sovereignty is important, we will not choose between this issue and the issue of climate.

We should discuss biomass, geothermal energy, tidal energy, osmotic energy… The text is silent on all these potentials. This text could launch extremely ambitious projects related to the structuring of economic sectors ; about training, knowing how to produce photovoltaic cells in our country tomorrow ; about the companies mobilized for maintenance in our areas… The text says nothing about all this.

Also read: The sun will bite the new agricultural land

Any progress yet? ?

Yes, there are positives, especially in the topics we were able to bring. For example, there is the creation of an intermediary for renewable energies. There are many conflicts around the development of renewable energies, so the idea is that we should favor dialogue rather than legalization of procedures. Hydroelectricity is already being experimented with in Occitania – we have proposed to generalize it.

There is also the creation of a renewable energy and biodiversity observatory. We have proposed a management tool that will provide more accurate information about energy sources than currently available. Ultimately, it will be limited to the relationship between renewable energies and biodiversity. We get it, but it’s not enough.

We also managed to integrate tariff modulation, a financial mechanism that encourages companies to set up. ENR it is less in the areas convenient » – where profitability is lower because there is less sun or less wind. Today, this is the compression effect [un grand nombre d’ENR dans un lieu donné] creates a problem in connecting territories.

This bill was the first of the second five-year term in which the government counted on the votes of left-wing MPs. Has he considered your suggestions? ?

The government has started a dialogue, and I welcome it. There have been many discussions around this text. This is the normal course of lawmaking, but it is so rare that it needs to be underlined.

It was also an opportunity: the government had to appeal to groups favoring renewable energies. So, the dialogue was real, but the result is not up to par.

After a ceremonial vote on January 10, the bill will be sent to a joint joint committee before a final vote. Until then, your position may change ?

Yes, it can change. If some of the themes that the Senate included in the first option (a strong ambition for public rooftop solarization, arbitrage on acceleration zones) were to be reintroduced. ENR…) and if our proposals were retained, this could affect our final vote. Finally, we could be in favor of it. On the contrary, if the text is lowered, our abstention may also turn into a vote against ».

? Subscribe to newsletters for free

Subscribe in less than a minute to receive a selection of articles published by Reporter.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *