It has no power of decision on the matter

The France has been a power summer and the succession of the Chairman of EDF is open. Since mid-August, rates have increased by 2. Increased three times lower than desired by Pierre Gadonneix to ensure investments, too modest in the eyes of the regulator to the evolution of the costs of the past years, but too high according to UFC-Que choose for a year without inflation, as well as many environmentalists who see more support for the nuclear power programme. The time where the leaders of the public company and a handful of officials decide incognito rates is far. Each now mixes, except, oddly, the market itself.

Investment decisions that depreciate over long period belong to the shareholder. However a gas plant or a nuclear reactor are called to operate more than thirty years. If the shareholder that his electrical business investment programme is too ambitious and risky, he therefore asked its leaders to review their copy. At this simple scheme, the French State preferred, way more complicated, Act on prices. Thus last July, EDF, through the mouth of its President, proposing a strong increase in its sale price, stalled on investments that must be done to maintain and modernize its fleet. The public shareholder replied that it is not question to accept an increase it considers astronomical. It is true that several concerns in mind, including that of the maintenance of the purchasing power of citizens. Ideally, it wishes to also that EDF creates jobs, builds showcases the export for the nuclear power industry, adopts an ambitious program of renouvelables energy development, has a safe electrical network, pays it dividends, exports cheap in Europe and sell in France its cheap electricity, including competitors.

Such contradictory economic targets should be arbitrated, and found a compromise. The France chose - despite the European framework of the energy market - keep rates administered, they form the passage obliged of all arbitrations. Their level becomes the result of a balance between different groups of pressure to the interests and agendas very various. Consumers and producers of course, but also employees of EDF, employers confederations, the anti-nuclear associations and even agricultural unions. The problem is that these groups are working, or that the State take into account their interests. It is the price of electricity, become a political battle field, stands costs and distorts the application. In short, it loses its economic virtues.

Thus early in the year, nearly 2 million non-precarious subscribers enjoyed a rate so low that it pays not energy production. The amount of their Bill at best covers the cost of transport, distribution and marketing of electricity. It is not a penny to pay the costs of production. -Side application, dice also are loaded. Administered electricity rates are lower than the market price, which of course leads to the consumption and swells needs. They send wrong signals to consumers and investors.

There is a force of callback to reduce this economic weightlessness of tariffs State. However, it is very loose. The Act provides that the regulated electricity tariffs cover all the costs, but this idea is very flexible application. The Government is also required to consult the Committee for regulation of energy on the new rates. But the regulator gives that a simple notice, it does propose neither level nor the structure of the energy tariff. It has no power of decision on the matter.

Rates less politicized, because, for example, set by the regulator and him alone, or the price freedom left to the market, yet do not lead to the abandonment of taking account of the general interest and special interests in matters of energy policy. The State has many other than administered prices levers to meet. It can make more effective actions for consumers of electricity in a precarious situation. It can promote renewable energy through energy mix requirements. It can allocate the fruits of the technological options spent for the production of nuclear origin to the taxpayer. In addition, this approach allows discussions with agenda points smaller interest groups. It avoids diluting or hide taking them into account in the tariff mishmash. The public service missions could be fully assured without government control of prices. Would everyone be better, including the next President of EDF.