This is a dossier that we thought was definitely behind us, before the war in Ukraine gave it renewed relevance. Energy prices are soaring. France is spending billions on energy shields to try to contain inflation. More than half of our nuclear fleet is shut down for maintenance.
Given this context, was it really such a good idea to shut down the two Fessenheim reactors, which could have helped us through this energy crisis? The question had been asked last month to the Prime Minister.
“When the decision was taken in the five-year term of François Hollande, the continuation of the activity was not possible. Everyone must assume their responsibilities.”
Elisabeth Borne, Prime MinisterAugust 31, 2022
For Elisabeth Borne, the question therefore did not really arise, it had been decided under the five-year term of François Hollande. In form, this is indeed the case: a closure decree was signed on April 8, 2017 by the Minister of the Environment, Ségolène Royal. But only in form. Already because this decision was inapplicable: the decree specified that the Fessenheim plant could only close once the Flamanville EPR had been put into operation… which is still not the case today. Then, it was not very legitimate: to take such a decision only a few days before a presidential election, that can question. Consequence: the decree was deemed illegal by the Council of State in October 2018.
It was therefore Emmanuel Macron who made the final decision to close the plant during his first five-year term, as was welcomed by his Minister for Ecological Transition, a certain Élisabeth Borne, on June 30, 2020: “We’ve been saying for years that we have to close nuclear power plants. There are those who talk about it and there are those who do it. We do it. I think that’s what he’s talking about. must be done to be less dependent on nuclear energy.” In this case, it was this Elisabeth Borne who was right: legally, Emmanuel Macron was in no way forced to close Fessenheim.
This is what the President of the Republic suggested on Monday, September 5, when the question was put to him at a press conference: “The strategic decision had been taken five years before, on the oldest plant in the park. The factual analysis is that the more rational choice was indeed to confirm its closure.”
“Don’t come looking for me in Fessenheim! Mass had already been said.”
Emmanuel Macronon September 5, during a press conference
We find the brave rhetoric of the President of the Republic (“Don’t come looking for me in Fessenheim!”). But behind, what we hear is a technical argument… which does not hold. In 2021, the National Assembly conducted a fact-finding mission on the closure of this plant. The findings of the report are damning: “The hearings demonstrate, without possible ambiguity, that neither the safety nor the security of the plant led to the shutdown of the reactors”. According to this parliamentary report, in 2017, Emmanuel Macron could perfectly have reversed the closure of Fessenheim: he was neither technically nor legally forced to do so.
The closure of Fessenheim was a condition, some said an offering, to obtain the rallying of part of the environmentalists for the presidential majority, Nicolas Hulot in the lead.
With hindsight, when we consider the current situation of the energy market, this decision seems difficult to justify. It cost between 400 and 600 million euros to the State, which had to compensate EDF, and was cut off from guaranteed tax revenue. It deprives France of an energy that has become precious. And all this without mentioning the thousands of jobs lost, the industrial basin to be rebuilt, etc…
But paradoxically, I’m not sure that this can be blamed on Emmanuel Macron. By definition, to govern is to make decisions without having any assurance as to their consequences. Nobody could have known that we would be confronted so quickly with such a serious energy crisis – we could perhaps have foreseen it, it is true, but without any certainty. Blaming political power a posteriori for having made the wrong choices is always a bit easy.
On the other hand, what we can demand of political power is that it assumes its choices. Let him take full responsibility for it, as he should. No, the closure of Fessenheim was not rational. She was political. It’s not a dirty word… But, from my point of view, it’s a word that you have to have the courage to assume.