France remains firm in blocking the MidCat gas pipeline that would link Catalonia to the French region of Midi. While comments by Bruno Le Maire, who often plays well on camera, suggested a possible openness on Tuesday, the Macron government promptly reiterated its refusal. Spain, Germany and Portugal press for a different outcome, accusing Paris of lacking a true European sense. Yet Paris holds its ground, seemingly deaf to external pressure.
Amid criticism from Madrid and Berlin, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, France’s Minister for Energy Transition, reassured observers on Friday that European solidarity remains central in facing the current energy challenge. She stated that beginning this winter, interdependence should be reinforced through gas and electricity exchanges with Germany and Spain, after convening a Defense Council at the Élysée to address the energy emergency. Still, she did not confirm MidCat as a priority, and her department continues to oppose the project.
Sources close to the French Ministry of Energy Transition indicated this week that a long-term, permanent infrastructure was being considered in line with a strategy to accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. They argued that expanding interconnections between Spain and Germany via France would require substantial upgrades to the French network, a process expected to span years and cost billions. They cautioned that such developments do not offer an immediate solution to the current crisis, echoed by Le Maire who noted that a new pipeline may not help next winter.
Within France, environmental groups share concerns about MidCat, an unusual stance in a country where Macron has faced criticism for climate ambition. Anna-Lena Rebaud of Amis de la Terre and other French and Spanish environmental organizations oppose the project, arguing that it would delay urgent investments in energy efficiency and renewables. They also emphasize potential ecological impacts in the event the pipeline proceeds, including risks to aquifer ecosystems and local resistance that the government would rather avoid.
Advocates for MidCat argue that the pipeline would also facilitate green hydrogen transport. France, however, has pushed back, noting that hydrogen infrastructure remains a long-term issue with uncertain short-term benefits for security of supply over the next two winters. Economists from the University of Evry point out the technical and economic uncertainties surrounding long-distance hydrogen transport through gas networks, underscoring that the plan would require substantial transformation and investment before it could contribute meaningfully to near-term energy needs.
Spain and Germany defend the project as a means to strengthen regional energy resilience and diversify supply, while France emphasizes sobriety and rapid gains in energy efficiency and renewables. Thierry Bros, a Sciences Po energy specialist, notes that France cannot be expected to serve as a passive gas conduit for Germany or other neighbors, and he questions the logic of external decision-making that shifts costs and responsibilities without clear national benefits.
The broader debate around MidCat highlights a deeper issue: a lack of a unified energy strategy within the European Union. France’s approach has prioritized nuclear power and domestic energy sovereignty, while Germany pursued a more rapid pivot away from coal and gas, initially engaging with Russia through a complex gas relationship that was disrupted by the Ukraine conflict. The war’s aftermath has left Europe reconsidering long-standing dependencies and the balance of influence among member states.
As Europe contends with the fallout from the energy shock, France is pursuing nuclear expansion and the development of marine gas terminals, including a floating terminal planned for Le Havre this autumn due to favorable coastal access. Germany appears less enthusiastic about that route. The result is a set of divergent paths that complicate immediate crisis management, yet reflect the varied energy priorities across the union. In moments of crisis, EU members often adopt surprising positions, and the MidCat discussion is a telling example of how national interests clash with continental ambitions.
In summary, the current energy debate in France centers on preparedness for winter demands and the strategic value of diversification. MidCat remains a contentious option, with strong opposition from environmental groups and questions about its alignment with short-term security and long-term decarbonization goals. The French government continues to weigh immediate crisis management against longer-term infrastructure plans and regional solidarity, aiming to balance domestic energy security with the broader European transition.
Notes attributed to policymakers and researchers indicate that the energy strategy outlook is still unsettled. Some observers highlight that real progress depends on credible commitments to energy efficiency and the rapid deployment of renewable sources, while others stress the importance of maintaining strategic autonomy in the face of external shocks. All agree that the path forward will require careful negotiation and clear national priorities within a shared European framework.