Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 4 hours ago
France’s 2026 Energy Law and the accompanying PPE3 decree have fundamentally reshaped the regulatory landscape for renewable energy contracts in France, creating immediate contractual exposures for project developers, offtakers and lenders alike. Published in February 2026, the PPE3 decree introduces new balancing and market-participation obligations, broadens the scope for administrative permit reassessments and recalibrates grid-access priorities in favour of nuclear baseload capacity. These changes collectively trigger change‑of‑law provisions in existing power purchase agreements (PPAs), EPC contracts and project-finance facilities, and in some cases may meet the threshold for force majeure under French law.
This guide provides the practitioner-level drafting guidance, model clauses, negotiation checklists and dispute strategies that project stakeholders need to respond effectively within the first 30 to 180 days after the reforms take effect.
The combined effect of the 2026 Energy Law and PPE3 demands immediate action across the full contractual stack of any French renewable energy project. The following takeaways summarise what developers, buyers and lenders should prioritise.
France’s new national Energy Law represents the most significant reorientation of energy policy since the Loi de Transition Énergétique of 2015. The legislation explicitly rebalances national energy strategy toward nuclear capacity while maintaining, but materially qualifying, France’s commitments to renewable deployment targets. The PPE3 decree, the third iteration of the Programmation Pluriannuelle de l’Énergie, translates these strategic priorities into binding operational and administrative obligations that directly affect project economics.
The PPE3 decree published in February 2026 introduces three categories of obligations with direct contractual relevance. First, it imposes enhanced balancing responsibilities on renewable generators, requiring participation in revised capacity mechanisms and compliance with updated PRMC rules administered by the Commission de Régulation de l’Énergie (CRE). Second, it grants prefectoral authorities broadened powers to reassess existing operating permits where installations conflict with newly designated nuclear priority zones or updated environmental standards. Third, it recalibrates grid-priority rules, potentially altering the dispatch order that underpins revenue assumptions in long-term PPAs.
The PPE3 implications extend across the entire project value chain. Developers with operating or pipeline solar and onshore wind projects face the most immediate exposure through permit reassessments and balancing-cost increases. EPC contractors may encounter scope-change claims and delay liability if permitting timelines extend. Distribution system operators (DSOs) and Réseau de Transport d’Électricité (RTE) must implement revised connection and dispatch protocols. Corporate offtakers under long-term PPAs face price and volume uncertainty. Lenders and equity investors confront a material change in the project risk profile that may affect debt-service coverage ratios and covenant compliance.
| Date | Legal / Regulatory Action | Contractual Impact (Developer / Buyer / Lender) |
|---|---|---|
| February 2026 | PPE3 decree published, introduces balancing obligations, permit-reassessment powers and revised grid-priority rules | May trigger permit reassessments and new balancing costs → revenue volatility and potential PPA performance adjustments |
| March–June 2026 | 2026 Energy Law enters into force, rebalances national energy strategy toward nuclear | Broad change‑of‑law exposure; possible reclassification of grid-access and priority-dispatch rules |
| 2026–2028 | Secondary implementing decrees and CRE regulatory guidance expected | Developers should plan renegotiation windows; lenders should schedule covenant reviews and regulatory-risk audits |
Understanding the precise legal mechanisms through which the 2026 reforms create contractual exposures is essential for any party seeking to invoke, or defend against, change‑of‑law or force majeure claims. Three principal vectors of risk merit close analysis.
The PPE3 decree grants prefectoral authorities expanded discretion to reassess existing environmental and operating permits. Where a renewable installation falls within a newly designated nuclear priority zone or conflicts with updated environmental criteria, the relevant prefect may initiate a review that could result in operating restrictions, curtailment obligations or, in extreme cases, permit revocation. For developers, this creates an exposure that sits at the intersection of administrative law and contract law: the permit reassessment itself is a sovereign act, but its consequences, reduced output, increased costs, or project termination, flow directly through PPA delivery obligations, EPC milestone schedules and lender security packages.
Industry observers expect that prefectoral authorities will exercise these powers selectively rather than broadly, targeting installations in areas of acute grid congestion or proximity to planned nuclear sites. Nevertheless, the mere existence of the power alters the risk calculus for any renewable project in France, and prudent developers should treat permit reassessment as a live contractual risk that requires specific drafting responses.
The revised PRMC framework requires renewable generators to assume greater responsibility for balancing their output against capacity commitments. Under the previous regime, many renewable installations benefited from feed-in tariffs or complément de rémunération structures that insulated them from balancing costs. The PPE3 decree progressively shifts this insulation, requiring generators to either participate directly in the balancing mechanism or procure balancing services at market rates. The CRE has issued preliminary guidance indicating that compliance costs could represent a material percentage of project revenue for wind installations with high intermittency profiles.
For PPAs structured on the assumption of priority dispatch and minimal balancing exposure, this represents a fundamental change in the economic baseline. The likely practical effect will be to force renegotiation of pricing structures in merchant and corporate PPAs, and to require updated financial models in project-finance facilities.
A well-drafted change‑of‑law clause is the primary contractual defence against the regulatory shifts introduced by the 2026 Energy Law and PPE3. In France, change‑of‑law provisions are not implied by the Civil Code and must be expressly negotiated. The drafting objectives are straightforward: define the triggering events with precision, allocate the economic consequences between the parties, establish clear notice and mitigation obligations, and provide an escalation pathway that preserves value rather than destroying it through termination.
Effective change‑of‑law clauses require the affected party to deliver written notice within a defined period, typically 30 to 60 days of the legislative or regulatory change becoming effective. The notice must identify the specific legal instrument, quantify or estimate the financial impact and describe the mitigation steps the notifying party intends to take. A mitigation obligation prevents opportunistic reliance on the clause and is critical for maintaining credibility with both counterparties and lenders.
The clause should mandate a structured renegotiation period, typically 90 to 120 days, during which the parties negotiate in good faith to adjust the affected terms. If renegotiation fails, the clause should provide for escalation to expert determination, mediation or, ultimately, the contractual dispute resolution mechanism.
Not every legislative change should trigger contractual relief. A materiality threshold, often expressed as a percentage impact on project revenue, net present value or levelised cost of energy, distinguishes genuine regulatory disruption from routine regulatory evolution. A developer-friendly clause will set this threshold relatively low (e.g., a 5% impact on projected annual revenue), while a balanced clause will set it higher (e.g., 10–15%) and require the impact to be sustained over a defined period.
Model Clause A, Developer-Friendly Change‑of‑Law:
“If, after the Effective Date, any Change of Law [defined as any new or amended law, decree, regulation, administrative decision or binding guidance issued by a Governmental Authority] (a) materially increases the cost of the Seller’s performance, or (b) materially reduces the revenue or economic benefit reasonably expected by the Seller under this Agreement, and such impact exceeds [5]% of projected annual revenue calculated over [12] consecutive months, then the Seller shall be entitled to deliver a Change‑of‑Law Notice to the Buyer within [60] days. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith for a period of [90] days to agree amendments that restore the economic equilibrium of this Agreement.
If no agreement is reached, either Party may refer the matter to [dispute resolution mechanism].
Model Clause B, Balanced Lender-Friendly Change‑of‑Law:
“Upon the occurrence of a Qualifying Change of Law [defined to exclude changes that were reasonably foreseeable at the Signing Date or that apply generally to all electricity generators without disproportionate impact on renewable installations], the Affected Party shall (i) deliver notice within [30] days identifying the relevant legal instrument and its estimated financial impact, (ii) take all commercially reasonable steps to mitigate such impact, and (iii) provide the Lenders’ Agent with a copy of such notice simultaneously. If the Qualifying Change of Law results in a Material Adverse Effect [defined as a reduction in the Debt Service Coverage Ratio below [1. 15]x for [2] consecutive Calculation Periods], the Parties shall renegotiate for [120] days.
Failing agreement, the Security Agent shall have the right to exercise Step-In Rights under the Direct Agreement.
Force majeure in France occupies a distinct doctrinal space. Under Article 1218 of the Civil Code, an event constitutes force majeure only where it is beyond the debtor’s control, could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of contracting and its effects cannot be avoided by appropriate measures. French courts, including the Cour de cassation and the Conseil d’État, have historically applied a strict interpretation of these cumulative requirements. A legislative or regulatory change will generally not qualify as force majeure under the statutory definition because regulatory evolution is considered inherent to the business environment and therefore foreseeable.
However, contractual definitions of force majeure may, and in energy contracts frequently do, expand the statutory definition to include specified governmental or administrative acts. This contractual freedom is the critical tool for developers seeking protection against PPE3’s permit-reassessment powers and the broader regulatory shifts of the 2026 Energy Law.
A party invoking force majeure must act promptly and document meticulously. The following steps are essential:
Model Force Majeure Clause, Tailored to Regulatory Acts:
“Force Majeure Event shall include, without limitation, any act, order, decree, directive or administrative decision of a Governmental Authority (including any prefecture, ministry or regulatory body) that (a) revokes, suspends, materially amends or fails to renew any Permit required for the operation of the Facility, or (b) imposes obligations on the Seller that were not in force at the Signing Date and that render the Seller’s continued performance commercially impracticable, provided that such event satisfies the requirements of exteriority and unavoidability under applicable law.”
Where a permit reassessment or administrative act threatens imminent and irreparable harm, developers should consider emergency interim relief. In French administrative courts, the référé-suspension procedure allows a party to seek suspension of an administrative decision pending a full hearing, provided they demonstrate urgency and a serious doubt as to the legality of the decision. For contracts subject to arbitration, most major institutional rules (including ICC Rules) provide for emergency arbitrator procedures that can issue binding provisional measures within days of application.
Renegotiation of existing PPAs is not merely advisable after PPE3, for many projects it is commercially necessary. The following playbook outlines the tactical steps for a structured PPA renegotiation in France.
Before escalating to formal dispute resolution, parties should exhaust contractual dispute avoidance mechanisms. Expert determination, using a jointly appointed energy-market expert, is particularly effective for quantifying balancing-cost impacts. Mediation, whether ad hoc or administered under the ICC Mediation Rules, preserves the commercial relationship while providing a structured framework for settlement.
| PPA Clause | Negotiation Lever | Desired Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Change‑of‑law / hardship | Quantified impact assessment + formal notice | Price adjustment or shared-cost mechanism |
| Volume commitment / delivery obligation | Output reduction modelling under PPE3 scenarios | Volume flexibility band (e.g., ±10–15%) |
| Balancing / grid-access representation | Updated PRMC cost projections from CRE data | Balancing-cost pass-through or cap |
| Termination for convenience / regulatory event | Threat of termination as negotiation catalyst | Renegotiated terms preferable to termination costs |
| Dispute escalation clause | Expert determination or mediation trigger | Resolution without litigation costs and delay |
The 2026 reforms have materially increased project finance regulatory risk in France. Lenders underwriting renewable energy projects must recalibrate their due diligence frameworks and strengthen covenant packages to reflect the new risk environment.
The broadened permit-reassessment powers under PPE3 directly affect the value of security packages that rely on the continuity of operating permits. Lenders should require:
Step-in rights allow lenders to assume operational control of a project if the borrower defaults or a material regulatory event threatens project viability. In the post-PPE3 environment, step-in provisions should be enhanced to include:
Model Lender Covenant, Regulatory Event Trigger:
“If a Regulatory Event [defined to include any permit reassessment, revocation, or material amendment under the PPE3 decree or 2026 Energy Law] occurs and (i) the Borrower fails to deliver a Mitigation Plan within [30] days, or (ii) the projected Debt Service Coverage Ratio falls below [1.10]x for any Calculation Period, the Security Agent shall be entitled to exercise Step-In Rights under the Direct Agreement, including the right to (a) assume the Borrower’s rights under the PPA, EPC and Grid Connection Agreement, (b) appoint a substitute operator, and (c) negotiate directly with the relevant Governmental Authority regarding the Regulatory Event.”
The choice of dispute venue is a strategic decision with significant practical consequences for renewable energy contracts in France. Parties must weigh speed, cost, expertise, interim-relief availability and enforceability when selecting between arbitration and French courts.
French administrative courts offer the référé-suspension and référé-liberté procedures, which can yield interim relief within 48 hours to two weeks depending on urgency. For commercial disputes subject to arbitration, the ICC Emergency Arbitrator procedure can produce a binding order within approximately 15 days of application. The practical implication is that parties facing imminent permit reassessment should file for administrative-court relief against the prefectoral decision while simultaneously pursuing contractual remedies through the agreed dispute mechanism.
ICC arbitration provides neutrality, confidentiality and ease of cross-border enforcement under the New York Convention, advantages that are particularly valuable for international developers and lenders. French commercial courts, conversely, offer lower upfront costs and access to the juge des référés for emergency measures. For purely domestic PPAs between French counterparties, French courts may be more efficient. For cross-border transactions or disputes involving international lender syndicates, arbitration, seated in Paris with French governing law, is generally the preferred venue.
Early indications suggest that the volume of energy-related disputes before French administrative courts will increase significantly as prefectoral authorities begin exercising their new PPE3 powers. Developers should build litigation reserves and ensure that their dispute resolution clauses are calibrated for the specific types of claims most likely to arise.
The model clauses and checklists in this guide are designed to be adapted to specific project circumstances. The following index summarises the key drafting tools available:
A downloadable clause pack containing editable versions of all model clauses and checklists referenced in this article is available upon request. Practitioners are encouraged to adapt the templates to the specific terms of their project documentation and to seek jurisdiction-specific legal advice before implementation.
The 2026 Energy Law and PPE3 decree represent a structural shift in the French energy regulatory environment that demands a coordinated contractual response. Developers, offtakers, lenders and investors who act decisively in the first 180 days will be best positioned to preserve project value and manage the transition effectively.
The reforms are complex, the timeline is compressed and the stakes, for both individual projects and the broader French renewables market, are substantial. Practitioners navigating renewable energy contracts in France should treat this guide as a starting framework and seek project-specific legal advice to address the unique risk profile of each transaction.
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice specific to their circumstances. Last reviewed: July 6, 2026.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Cendrine Delivré at Franklin, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Member
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
