France

Energy community definitions

Average

Summary

Updated April 2026

The definition of RECs and CECs in French law was introduced by the Climate Energy Act of 2019 and the Ordinance of March 3, 2021, and were subsequently clarified by the APER Act of 2023 and the Decree of December 26, 2023 on energy communities. RECs and CECs are now defined in articles L291-1 to L293-4 and R291-1 to R293-1 of the French Energy Code.

The definition’s inclusion of associations of different member types, and of enterprises that are intended to provide social utility, demonstrate the potential for using energy communities to pursue socio-economic benefits. Furthermore, there are strong requirements for autonomy and effective control, and participation of different categories of participants, which can help promote inclusiveness and prevent corporate hi-jacking. However, the reference to the autonomy requirement under  the EU’s Recommendation on RECs could actually make it hard for energy communities to create special purpose vehicles (SPVs), which could significantly limit the potential to mature and take on more complex activities, and to create second level energy communities.

There is no monitoring role assigned to the regulatory authority to oversee registration of energy communities, check for abuse, and monitor challenges around how the definition is implemented. For instance, geographic proximity varies depending on member type, and it will inherently shape effective control requirements, which could pose challenges particularly for local authorities participating in more than one energy community. These issues need to have channels for identification and proposals for solutions.

Detailed assessment

Quality of national level definition

Good
RECs 
  • Open and voluntary membership

Covered

  • Autonomy

Under the 2023 Decree, the principle of autonomy was simplified compared to the original ordinance, although it still contains some concrete rules.

The main reference for whether a REC is autonomous is the standard of autonomy adopted for SMEs under Article 3 of EU Recommendation 2003/361/EC (Recommendation on SMEs). This may result in challenges for RECs that do not register as a company (see available legal forms below). Subject to Article 3, RECs may not hold more than 25% of shares in another enterprise. This criteria is likely to act as a hurdle towards the creation of an SPV, or participation in a second-level energy community, by a REC. Ultimately, this could arbitrarily hinder collaboration between different energy communities that want to undertake more complex activities and to mature, for instance supply members, provide flexibility, set up one-stop shops, etc.

There are safeguards to prevent control by companies or their employees. An employee of a company holding more than 10% of the voting rights and 10% of the equity and quasi-entity of a company, or of a company controlling or that is controlled directly or indirectly by said company, may not hold (directly or indirectly):

  1. Individually, more than 10% of the voting rights and 10% of the equity and quasi-equity (current accounts of partners, and convertible bonds that are not subject to a unilaterally decided conversion option) of the REC;
  2. Jointly, more than 33% of equity and quasi-equity and voting rights, nor more equity and quasi-equity and voting rights than other natural persons, communities or their groups, collectively

A company and its employees must not, together, hold more than 40% of the equity and quasi-equity and voting rights of the REC.

The limitations on companies and their employees owning shares in a REC should help prevent hijacking of RECs by traditional market actors. 

  • Eligible actors

Eligibility is limited to natural persons, local governments and their groupings, funds eligible for the denomination of social entrepreneurship, SMEs that are considered autonomous under Article 3 of the EU’s Recommendation on SMEs,  Sociétiés d’Économie Mixte (SEMs, or in English, Mixed Economy Companies), renewable energy developers that are recognised as a socially useful solidarity enterprise, and companies that do not have participation in energy communities as a main commercial or professional activity. Associations of natural persons, SMEs, local authorities and joint stock companies are also eligible. 

SEMs are specific legal forms that exist in French law to allow local authorities to blend public and private funds so that they can develop and invest in renewable energy projects. It is therefore important that such legal forms are eligible to participate in energy communities, as it allows local authorities to be directly involved.

  • Proximity requirements

Geographical proximity is determined depending on where different members are located. For natural persons, associations of natural persons, and SMEs, close proximity is residence or location in the department or a bordering department where the project is being implemented (there are exceptions for departments that do not have more than two neighbouring departments). For regions and departments, proximity is equated to renewable energy projects developed on their respective territories. For municipalities and groups of municipalities, proximity is equated to renewable energy projects that are installed on the territory of the municipality or group or on the territory of a neighbouring municipality or group of municipalities.

  • Effective control

Effective control is limited to local actors, and is based on different categories of eligible members/shareholders. Natural persons are deemed to constitute a category when there are 20 of them. A category is presumed to exercise effective control when it has, directly or indirectly, more than 40% of voting rights and if no other category has more proportion of voting rights than its own. The statutes of the energy community must guarantee this. 

CECs 
  • Open and voluntary membership

Covered

  • Autonomy

Autonomy requirements apply equally for CECs and RECs.

  • Eligible actors

Eligibility is open to any type of member or shareholder

  • Effective control

Effective Control is based on different categories of eligible members/shareholders. For companies, it is limited to small enterprises. Natural persons are deemed to constitute a category when there are 20 of them. A category is presumed to exercise effective control when it has, directly or indirectly, more than 40% of voting rights and if no other category has more proportion of voting rights than its own. The statutes of the energy community must guarantee this.

Clearly defined purpose

Average

Their primary purpose is to provide environmental, economic or social community benefits for its shareholders or members or for the local areas where it operates, rather than financial profits (i.e. copy-paste of the EU legislation for both definitions). Nevertheless, the Decree provides special rights for enterprises with a special recognition of social utilities (i.e. socially useful solidarity enterprise) that develop renewable energy. For instance, as eligible members of an energy community, they do not have to be autonomous in order to be able to participate in an energy community. This would seem to further encourage the development of social enterprises to develop energy communities.

ICA cooperative governance principles

Average

Yes, to the extent they are included in the EU definition – there is a prohibition on making financial profit one of the main objectives.

Citizen participation ensured

Bad

No. Nevertheless, unless 20 natural persons participate directly in the REC or CEC, it must include at least two categories of persons that must benefit from the energy community and its activities. This prevents the creation of energy communities solely between local authorities or by SMEs on their own. However, it does not prevent the creation of an energy community solely by natural persons, as long as there are at least 20 members. If a SME leaves an energy community in which a local authority is also a member, the local authority has a pre-emptive right for up to two months to buy back the shares.

Number of definitions

Good

2 (RECs and CECs)

Coherence between both definitions

Average

Under the Energy Code, RECs and CECs remain separate concepts with no explicit articulation about how they relate to each other. Nevertheless there is alignment on standards of effective control and autonomy.

Authority designated to monitor and oversee

Bad

No authority to oversee.

Fair, proportionate and transparent procedures to register as an energy community

Bad

There is currently no dedicated national registry or simplified one-stop procedure to register as an energy community in France. While the legal definitions (CER/CEC) exist in the Energy Code, a community must first register as a standard legal entity (e.g., Association, SCIC, SAS). The "recognition" as an energy community only happens a posteriori through complex administrative justifications when applying for specific grid tariffs, subsidies, or during the grid connection process with Enedis. This lacks transparency and creates a significant administrative burden for citizen-led initiatives. 

Recommendations

What is at stake: The legal definition is the cornerstone of the forthcoming "Enabling Framework." If the definition is too restrictive, the supportive measures will fail to reach the very citizen-led projects they are intended to help. Two criteria need to be modified so that the definition evolves and can play its role as energy-communities accelerator.

1) The autonomy criteria : the understanding of the autonomy modelled on the SME’s definition limits ownership to 25% in other enterprises and therefore prevents RECs from creating Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) or joint ventures for larger projects.

=> Our recommendation is to adapt the interpretation of "autonomy" to allow RECs to create or participate in project-specific companies (SPVs) without losing their community status, provided the community retains effective control. This is essential for scaling up and professionalizing citizen energy.

2) The proximity criteria : the current "bordering department" criterion is sometimes unadapted to rural realities or large-scale inter-municipal projects.

=> Our recommendation is to refine the proximity criteria to be more flexible, potentially using functional or "living area" (bassin de vie) logic rather than strictly administrative boundaries, to facilitate territorial coherence.