[RÉACTION] “377 deputies voted for the doubling of your electricity bills”

On June 24, with the support of the extreme left, the Republicans having abstained, the macronist deputies voted against their own text on energy in order to empty the safeguards that the RN, its allies and some republican deputies had previously obtained. What does this rejection teach us? What will its concrete consequences be? The specialist in Fabien Bouglé energies sheds light on us.

Etienne Lombard: the rejection of the PPE text (multi-year energy programming) to the National Assembly at first reading was often commented as a kind of anti-RN front. What do you think?

Fabien Bouglé: The question of the moratorium and the dispute of intermittent energies is not a recent history, nor the fact of political parties, whatever their trend. In 2015, the late Jean Germain, socialist senator from Indre-et-Loire, had published a text that had made a lot of noise called “Why are we smoky by wind turbines?” »». In 2018, Laure de la Raudière [ancienne député de centre droit d’Eure-et-Loir, NDLR]with 10 parliamentarians, 5 macronists and 5 LR, had published a forum in Le Figaro asking for a moratorium on wind turbines. In 2021, Marine Le Pen published a platform on the National Union on Wind turbines herself affirming that it was a subject that transcended political parties. So I found the postures that followed the votes in the National Assembly for the moratorium on wind turbines then against the absolutely scandalous PPE. Reducing the subject to the positions of RN and its allies is lamentable, because in reality, it is a subject that has exceeded all political currents for years.

Proglio (ex patron EDF), Accoyer (ex pdt an), Welsh (ex SNCF & Airbus boss), André Merlin (founder RTE, electric transport fr.) And the academy of sciences are all pro – #gueux : for the cessation of ruinous madness of the renewables wanted by Macron, for the moratorium… https://t.co/rbduGick0z

– Alexandre Jardin (@alexandrejardin) June 25, 2025

EL: Beyond the partisan cleavages, what meaning to give to this vote?

F.B. : We saw 377 deputies vote simply for the multiplication by two of the electricity bills, that is to say that they helped to massacre their fellow citizens economically. On the one hand, there was the block of the extreme left that combined with the block of wind farmers, and both followed the lobby of wind farmers. On the other side, the right and far-right block resisted by maintaining that it was important not to multiply the electricity bill by two. And then there was the Bloc of Republicans who did not come to the National Assembly and whose abstention allowed the rejection of the text. The most incredible in this case is that in 2019, Julien Aubert, then deputy LR of Vaucluse, had made not only a parliamentary commission of inquiry on renewable energies, but also, as a member of the finance committee, a report on the cost of intermittent energies for France and for the French, and whose conclusions were also extremely negative. This vote against the PPE was therefore the revealing of a field of political ruins, in which an extreme left combined with the most foul-smelling stateless to explode the invoice of the French.

EL: The explosion of electricity bills concerns individuals, but what will it be for professionals?

F.B. : The increase in the share of intermittent energies, which is at the heart of the project, will have a mechanical impact on the excise [ex CSPE, NDLR]the tax that makes it possible to finance intermittent energies. Companies that are the most gourmet in electricity, those called electro-intensive, have negotiated contracts directly over-the-counter with EDF. But the small and medium -sized enterprises are subject to the excise and will therefore undergo the explosion of electricity bills. And it should be remembered that these have already been multiplied by two for ten years. So our deputies in fact ratified a multiplication by four of electricity bills in just a decade!

EL: Beyond electricity bills, what will be the consequences of the government project?

F.B. : There is indeed the physical impact that this law represents, with what can be called punitive energy, that is to say the development of an energy which contributes to the invasion of the French, maritime and terrestrial territories by wind turbines. The objective of the PPE government project consists in multiplying by fifty the number of wind turbines at sea, two the number of terrestrial wind turbines and by four the number of solar panels. It is for this reason that the text had been modified by RN, UDR deputies and some LRs, by amendments, one of which establishes a moratorium on the development of wind turbines and solar panels. And it is also because this modified text only suited him Marc Ferracci, the Minister of Energy, announced very recently that he wanted to pass the text in force, by decree. And it is good to say today that parliamentary work leads to a large anything, which would justify the use of the decree. All this ultimately shows that beyond the substantive oppositions on energy policy, there is also in this case a power struggle between the government and the parliament. We are witnessing an institutional showdown on which is in charge of the multi -year energy programming. The government saying, under the Constitution, is the government, but parliamentarians saying that since it has a cost, this case is public finances, which is a power of the parliament. Anyway, this story is not over. We will talk about it again at the start of the school year.