nuclear-news

Cost of EPR2  : Reporterre publishes a censored alert.

By Émilie Massemin April 4, 2025 https://reporterre.net/Cout-des-EPR2-Reporterre-publie-une-alerte-censuree

The guarantor of the public debate on the EPR2 project in Bugey (Ain) was alarmed by the lack of economic information provided by EDF . His letter was removed from the website of the National Commission for Public Debate three hours later… Reporterre reveals it.

The public debate on the project for two  EPR2s at the Bugey nuclear power plant (Ain) is becoming explosive. On February 27, David Chevallier, the guarantor who headed the team responsible for organizing the debate  [1] , sent a letter to the president of the National Commission for Public Debate ( CNDP ), Marc Papinutti. In this letter , revealed by  Reporterre , he openly raises the question of the continuation of the debate and believes that, if it can continue,  ” its modalities must evolve “ .

Mr. Chevallier’s annoyance stems from a lack of information on the cost and financing of the EPR2 program —the daily newspaper Les Échos had just revealed that the estimate for the future reactors had been pushed back to the end of the year—and on the ”  decision-making and legislative framework  “ that governs the program of six EPR2s . This letter was posted on the public debate website on March 10 at around 10 a.m. and, in a rare occurrence, was unpublished three hours later.

Great uncertainty surrounding the cost

Let’s rewind. The construction program for six EPR2 reactors in France was announced by Emmanuel Macron during his speech in Belfort on February 10, 2022. These new 1,670 megawatt ( MW ) reactors are to be built in pairs on existing nuclear sites, in Penly (Seine-Maritime), then in Gravelines (Nord) and finally in Bugey. Preparatory work for this last pair could begin in the second half of 2027, with a target of commissioning at the beginning of the 2040s. The public debate on this project opened on January 28 and will end on May 15.

 It seemed possible and important […] that the public debate on Bugey would finally provide clarification on two key issues that were not addressed in the two 
previous public debates in Penly and Gravelines , “ wrote David Chevallier in his letter to the CNDP  : 
” clarification of the decision-making and legislative framework “ and 
” clarification of the costs and financing of this six  EPR2  program. “ 

Regarding the first point, the president of the special public debate commission ( CPDP ) on the  EPR2 project  in Bugey notes the absence of an energy and climate programming law .

”  How can we work in dialogue if we don’t have this information  ? “

But it is especially on the second point that he dwells. The estimate of the overall cost of these new reactors continues to be revised upwards: from 51.3 billion euros in April 2021, it rose to 67.4 billion euros in February 2024. The Court of Auditors, in 
a January 2025 report , mentioned a bill of 79.9 billion euros. Its president even spoke of a cost ” likely to exceed 100 billion euros  “ . 
” EDF had assured us that the cost update would take place during the debate “
  , writes Mr. Chevallier. The  CPDP had even planned a public meeting by videoconference on April 29, on the theme ” What costs ? Who finances ? “ .

This is why the announcement of the postponement of the cost estimate fell like a hammer blow to the guarantors, both in substance and in form. 
”  On the same day, we had indicated during a  public forum that the debate would continue on the question of costs. We are in dialogue with the director of public debate at 
EDF every day. And it is through the press that we learned that there will be no update. How can we work in dialogue if we don’t have this information  ? “ , the guarantor was indignantly interviewed by Reporterre .

Hence the letter to the  CNDP , written in an unfriendly tone, and its publication on the debate website. 
” We said to ourselves that we had to make our thoughts within the team public. We had started the public debate by asking the public about trust, both in this procedure and with regard to the project leader. It emerged that this debate had to provide information , 
 “ continues David Chevallier. The letter also emphasizes the need to debate 
” the appropriateness of the  EPR2  program “ and alternatives to the project, 
” including without nuclear energy. “

”  The State and EDF must provide transparent and sincere answers to the public “

Was it under pressure from the CNDP , EDF , or both, that this famous letter was unpublished from the site three hours later ? ”  Before publishing it, we sent it to EDF and 
RTE , who did not appreciate it, because they were working on what they could say in the context of this debate. That is also why we removed the letter, it was worth remaining in dialogue,  “ replied Mr. Chevallier, while specifying that unpublishing a document ”  is not usual . “ Asked about this episode, the CNDP replied that ” it was an internal letter, which is why [it] was unpublished. “

It nevertheless responds in  an opinion published on Tuesday, March 25, in which it reaffirms that ”  the public debate must in particular guarantee the public respect for its right to access complete, objective and qualitative information “ and that ” the State and 
EDF must provide transparent and sincere answers to the public concerning the cost and progress of each of the EPR2 pairs , as well as the financing scheme . 
 “ Also contacted,  EDF sent an email to  Reporterre in which the letter is not mentioned and which simply says that ” the public debate is an essential step for the integration of the project into the territory . “

” Serious and serious failings on the part of EDF  “
 The CPDP is not the only one to question the possibility of organizing a quality public debate. 
” We note serious and serious failings on the part of 
EDF , which is incapable, on the one hand, of providing studies concerning the state and flow of the Rhône by 2100 and, above all, of producing a definitive overall cost and a financing plan for the entire project ,  “ warned eleven associations [2] in 
an open letter to the guarantors of the public debate dated March 19, in which they request a ” postponement  “ of the debate pending this information. Jean-Pierre Collet, president of Sortir du nucléaire Bugey, clarified to Reporterre that when sending this letter, the associations were not aware that the CPDP had itself written to the CNDP to share its concerns.

The  CPDP responded to this letter with a letter sent on Monday, March 31, in which it rejected the associations’ proposal. 
” Not knowing the cost and financing of such a program – and therefore the projected price of the electricity produced by this equipment – constitutes, in our view, a significant gap in the public’s right to information and participation, “ wrote Mr. Chevallier.

However, ”  suspending the debate would mean waiting for the right moment when information on costs and financing would be sufficiently advanced and reliable to be able to be put up for debate, and we do not control this timetable. Furthermore, the debate would suffer from this interruption: resuming it would be difficult in terms of organization and communication with the public

These warnings come at a time when participatory democracy and the public’s right to information are under particular strain . A decree aimed at removing all industrial projects from the scope of the CNDP was rejected by the Council of State, the media outlet Contexte revealed  on March 21. But the executive does not intend to stop there and is expected to try again by way of an amendment to the 
so-called economic simplification bill , which began to be examined by a special committee on March 24.. “

Although nuclear projects are not affected by this reform, this letter affair shows that public information and participation during public debates remain largely insufficient. 
” The post-debate and the possible ongoing consultation that would take place following the public debate must already be considered,  “ the guarantor wrote in his letter.

April 6, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs