Energy, Gabriel Attal
New nuclear reactors: Secure the 14 EPRs, then aim for one reactor per year
Direction of change: increase, compared with current law.
The lever. Number of new nuclear reactors the programme plans to order or build. Direction rule: ↑ more reactors.
Words reported by attalpresident.fr, compte rendu de la conférence de presse « plan Messmer II »: Sur le nucléaire, Gabriel Attal veut sécuriser la construction des 14 EPR et retrouver une capacité de construction en série, avec l’objectif d’atteindre un réacteurs par an.1
Translation by the editorsOn nuclear power, Gabriel Attal wants to secure the construction of the 14 EPRs and regain a capacity for series construction, with the objective of reaching one reactor per year.
Words of Gabriel Attal reported by attalpresident.fr, compte rendu de la conférence de presse « plan Messmer II », 23 September 2026. Position taken from public statements, not from a written programme.
Encoding
| Parameter | Current law | Proposed | Effective date or horizon |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPR2 reactors committed | 6 reactors | 14 reactors* (outside the range measured by the source: linear extrapolation) (assumption by the editors, see the costing) | In €bn per year of State financing requirement (debt), during construction (about 2027-2038) |
Costing
Announced by the candidate
not announced
The cited source does not cost this measure.
Published costings
none
No external costing of this position recorded to date.
Our calculation
−€4.9bn* (outside the range measured by the source: linear extrapolation)
per year for the public accounts, additional State lending, on the debt, range −€9.6bn to −€4.9bn. Weighs on the debt, not on the deficit.
* Outside the range measured by the source: linear extrapolation (measured range: 0 to 6 reactors).
The calculation
- EPR2 reactors committed: (14 − 6) ÷ 1 = 8 times “1 EPR2 reactor more (or fewer) than the 6 in the PPE3 — State loan disbursed per year during construction”, each a cost of €0.73bn (0.61 to 1.2). Proposed value outside the range measured by the source: linear extrapolation (measured range: 0 to 6 reactors). The coefficient assumes disbursements spread from 2027 to 2038: it holds for the 6 EPR2 reactors of the PPE3. The 8 optional reactors (2045 horizon) would not be in full disbursement in 2032: beyond 6, linear extrapolation, flagged as such, overestimates the cost. Central value brought down to the smallest amount (€0.61bn per step).
Assumption by the editors. Partial costing. Fourteen EPR2s, i.e. eight more than the six of the PPE3. Beyond the six EPR2s of the PPE3, the cost schedule coefficient (disbursements spread from 2027 to 2038) is extrapolated linearly: it probably overestimates the 2032 financing requirement, since the following reactors are disbursed later. State loan: weighs on the debt, shown separately from the balance. The subsequent objective of one reactor per year is not costed.
Coefficient calculated by the editors from EDF, communiqué du 18 décembre 2025, « EDF shares its forecasted cost estimate of the EPR2 programme for €72.8bn » (copie d'archive du 13 octobre 2026, le site renvoyant une erreur 403): the position is marked as an assumption by the editors.
Central value brought down to the smallest amount: 2032 financing need acknowledged as overestimated beyond the six EPR2s of the PPE3, disbursed later than the coefficient assumes (2027 to 2038); lower bound: EDF's December 2025 estimate, 60% financed by a State loan paid out over 12 years (€0.61bn per reactor).
Current law, sources and limits of the cost schedule
Current law. The PPE3 (decree published in the JO on 13 February 2026, period 2026-2035) provides for 6 EPR2 reactors (Penly, Gravelines, Bugey), with a first commissioning targeted in 2038 and 8 additional reactors as an option. It removes early reactor closures. EDF's estimate of 18 December 2025 is €72.8bn (2020 euros, excluding financing costs). The financing planned by the Nuclear Policy Council in March 2025 rests on a subsidised State loan covering at least half of construction and a 40-year CfD capped at €100/MWh in 2024 euros; the Council of 12 March 2026 set this loan at 60% of the total programme amount, funded by the Caisse des dépôts savings fund, and EDF committed to keeping to €72.8bn (2020 euros). It still has to be approved by the European Commission. The final investment decision is expected at the end of 2026.
Horizon. In €bn per year of State financing requirement (debt), during construction (about 2027-2038). The Maastricht deficit is affected only by the loan subsidy, which is not costed by the sources read.
Limits. This cost is not of the same nature as the others: a loan is a financial transaction that increases debt but not the deficit, except for the subsidised portion and any call on the CfD. Calculation: lower bound 72.8/6 ≈ €12.1bn per reactor (EDF, 2020 euros) × 60% / 12 years ≈ 0.61; central 79.9/6 ≈ €13.3bn (Cour des comptes, 2023 euros, EDF costing of late 2023, since superseded by that of December 2025) × 60% / 11 years ≈ 0.73; upper €13.3bn entirely lent over 11 years. Share lent: 60% (Conseil de politique nucléaire of 12 March 2026). The durations of 11 to 12 years are the editors' assumptions (from the decision at the end of 2026 to commissioning in 2038); yet EDF is aiming for 2038 for the first reactor and an interval of 12 to 18 months between the following ones: for the last reactors, disbursement in 2032 is probably lower, and the coefficient overestimates it. The loan will be funded by the savings fund of the Caisse des dépôts: its effect on State debt remains to be established. The Cour des comptes (January 2025) noted the absence of a « devis abouti » [“finalised estimate”]. Greenpeace estimates the relaunch at between €380bn and €650bn (campaigning figure, different scope). The CfD may cost or bring in money depending on market prices after 2038, hence beyond the 2032 horizon. Sign convention for options: negative = gain. Abandonment is given by the linear parameter. The 8 optional reactors are no longer an option: their disbursement schedule (2045 horizon) is not sourced, and the coefficient, calculated over 2027-2038, would overestimate them in 2032.
- EDF, communiqué du 18 décembre 2025, « EDF shares its forecasted cost estimate of the EPR2 programme for €72.8bn » (copie d'archive du 13 octobre 2026, le site renvoyant une erreur 403), 2025-12-18: « This forecasted cost estimate stands at €72.8bn2020 […] The target date for commissioning the first reactor at Penly is 2038, with the subsequent reactors scheduled to be commissioned at intervals of 12 to 18 months. […] A subsidised loan to finance at least 50% of construction costs; - A 40-year contract for difference; »
- Élysée, cinquième Conseil de politique nucléaire, 12 mars 2026, 2026-03-12: « EDF s’est engagé à tenir la cible de coûts de construction à hauteur de 72,8 Md€2020 et de calendrier du programme. […] Le prêt bonifié de l’Etat accordé au programme EPR 2 pour 60% du montant total du programme sera financé par le fonds d’épargne de la Caisse des dépôts. »
- Cour des comptes, « La filière EPR : une dynamique nouvelle, des risques persistants », janvier 2025 (page 32 du PDF), 2025-01-14: « Le coût de construction overnight de trois paires d’EPR2 est passé de 51,7 Md€2020 à 67,4 Md€2020 (soit 79,9 Md€2023), soit une augmentation de 30% à conditions économiques inchangées et hors effet de l’inflation. »
- PPE 3 : le décret sur la feuille de route énergétique publié au JO (AFP / Connaissance des énergies, via résultat de recherche), 2026-02-13: « Construction de six EPR2, première mise en service visée en 2038, huit réacteurs supplémentaires en option ; production nucléaire de 380 à 420 TWh en 2030. »
How to read these amounts. These are static costs and revenues, with no feedback effect, over a full year: nothing on growth, employment or the revenue that economic activity would gain or lose. A higher net cost does not on its own make a worse policy, nor net savings a better one: each programme rests on an economic model (demand-led stimulus, lower compulsory levies, consolidation of the public accounts…) that the cost schedule does not settle. GDP itself measures a volume of activity, not well-being or the usefulness of what is produced. Economic models and feedback effects.
- attalpresident.fr, compte rendu de la conférence de presse « plan Messmer II », 23 September 2026. Words of Gabriel Attal reported by this outlet: the text quoted is the article’s, not their exact words. Position taken from public statements, not from a written programme. Read the source (attalpresident.fr, compte rendu de la conférence de presse « plan Messmer II »).
Contest this encoding (prefilled email; procedure and deadlines)