On May 21, 2026, a revolving credit facility (RCF) of \u20ac2.2 billion was issued for the benefit of Energetick\u00fd a pr\u016fmyslov\u00fd holding (EPH), one of Europe\u2019s major polluters and a key player in the expansion of fossil gas on the continent. France\u2019s four largest banks \u2014 BNP Paribas, Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, and the Banque Populaire Caisse d\u2019\u00c9pargne (BPCE) group \u2014 are all involved in this transaction, despite its incompatibility with their commitments to achieve carbon neutrality. The gap between this financing and their public statements raises questions about their genuine willingness to act for the energy transition and the credibility of their climate strategies.<\/p>\n<\/div>
When contacted by Reclaim Finance regarding this RCF granted to EPH, several involved banks [1] confirmed that this transaction aligns with their policies and climate objectives, citing several arguments.<\/p>\n
One involved bank stated that \u201cEPH\u2019s transition plan is credible\u201d<\/i> and that its coal phase-out aligns with the requirements of its sectoral policy. Another involved bank even directly echoed EPH\u2019s talking points:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe do not normally comment on specific clients and transactions. EPH has however asked us to refer you to their 2025 annual report and in particular to page 351 (coal phase out plans) and page 325 (decarbonization targets and their commitment to exit coal by 2030).\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div> EPH indeed wants us to believe that its mission is to \u201csupport the energy transition in a socially sensible and responsible manner\u201d<\/i> [2]. While banks hide behind the company\u2019s claims, it is public knowledge that EPH is a giant in gas and coal.<\/p>\n In reality, this Czech private group, majority-owned by Daniel K\u0159et\u00ednsk\u00fd, is a subsidiary of EP Group, which remains to this day Europe\u2019s largest coal producer and the second-largest operator of coal power plants on the continent [3]. EPH has been publicizing its coal exit by 2030 for years [4]. However, since 2021, instead of closing its coal assets, the company has transferred a large portion of them to a new subsidiary, EP Energy Transition (EPETr), also owned by K\u0159et\u00ednsk\u00fd [5]. This coal phase-out is nothing more than an illusion created by a sleight of hand.<\/p>\n At the same time, EPH currently operates 11.1 GW of fossil gas capacity across eight European countries and plans to develop an additional 5.5 GW [6]. EPH is thus the second-largest developer of gas power plants on the continent [7]. This RCF comes shortly after EPH\u2019s recent collaboration with TotalEnergies to create TTEP, a new European gas giant. Everything indicates that EPH intends to maintain its fossil fuel-based strategy, even if it obstructs the EU\u2019s goal of transitioning to a fossil-free, renewable-based electricity sector by 2035.<\/p>\n<\/div> According to one involved bank, this RCF granted to EPH would be a green loan, with the use of proceeds defined in accordance with the Loan Market Association (LMA) provisions [8]. This is information we cannot verify, as the transaction has since been removed from the database provider\u2019s records \u201cfor confidentiality reasons.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n While the LMA\u2019s Green Loan Principles (GLP) can indeed apply to an RCF, the LMA itself acknowledges that tracking the use of funds is much more difficult in such cases. It states that \u201clenders must monitor and verify the sustainability information provided by the borrower throughout the loan\u2019s duration, ensuring the integrity of the green loan product.\u201d<\/i> Banks are thus left at the mercy of the borrower\u2019s goodwill, which they can only control ex post, through the borrower\u2019s own reporting.<\/p>\n Yet, as early as 2025, when EPH issued a green bond, an analysis by IEEFA [9] demonstrated how unlikely it is that these \u201cgreen\u201d financings could genuinely put EPH on the path to energy transition.<\/p>\n If EPH\u2019s opacity regarding the use of these \u201cgreen\u201d funds is already under criticism [10], there is reason to question how this new RCF would be any different. Banks should be all the more wary of being deceived, as S&P\u2019s assessment of EPH\u2019s Green Finance Framework highlights that \u201cthe framework includes significant investments in fossil fuel-based assets and infrastructure, as well as substantial exposure to them\u201d<\/i> [11].<\/p>\n<\/div> EPH has thrived by betting on the increasing and permanent use of fossil fuels, and there is no indication that the company\u2019s strategy has changed \u2014 quite the opposite. The transfer of its coal assets to a subsidiary \u2014 to hide them rather than close them \u2014 is a case in point. The company is doubling down on gas, despite its impacts in terms of energy price crises, ecosystem destruction, human rights violations, and health degradation. By providing massive support to EPH, BNP Paribas, Cr\u00e9dit Agricole, Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 G\u00e9n\u00e9rale, and the BPCE group are complicit in its climate-destructive strategy and are turning their backs on European climate objectives. It is urgent that banks formalize their break with fossil fuel expansion and include the development of new gas-fired power plants in their exclusion policies.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>EPH, a smokescreen transition<\/h2><\/span>
Convenient but baseless \u201cgreen\u201d claims<\/h2><\/span>