Merkel Pays a Price for Her Energy Policy Shift

Source: Getty
Op-Ed New York Times
Summary
Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing the political repercussions of her decision to shut down Germany's remaining 17 nuclear power plants after the nuclear disaster in Japan last year.
Related Topics
Related Media and Tools
 

It was exactly the kind of news that Chancellor Angela Merkel did not want.

Voerdal, an aluminum company employing more than 400 people, has gone into bankruptcy. It will close unless the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia comes up with a rescue package. This state-of-the art company is in such dire financial straits because of rising energy prices. Voerdal officials say that the company’s energy bill went up to 40 percent of total costs, all because of the government’s confused energy policies.

Voerdal is not an isolated case in the energy-intensive sector, which is why Ms. Merkel, who faces re-election next year, is becoming worried.

High energy prices are the Achilles heel of the government,” said Tilman Mayer, a political science professor at Bonn University. “Merkel’s Christian Democrats know that energy price rises will erode their popularity. The chancellor has to reassure her supporters that her energy policies are the right ones.

The political repercussions of energy prices are all too familiar to leaders of other industrialized countries. In the United States, President Barack Obama is trying to avoid a confrontation with Iran because it would push up energy prices in the middle of his re-election campaign.

Back in Germany, Ms. Merkel is now paying the price of the radical energy policies she introduced last year following the nuclear catastrophe in Japan. Then, in a decision that grabbed the headlines all over the world, she announced the closure of the last of Germany’s 17 nuclear power plants by 2022.

It was extremely controversial even in her own party, which had voted to prolong the lifetime of Germany’s nuclear power plants just before the tsunami hit Japan. In the 14 months since Ms. Merkel’s dramatic announcement, little has happened to help one of the world’s most highly industrialized countries cope with the chancellor’s energy transformation, known in German as Energiewende.

Much of the blame has fallen on Norbert Röttgen. As environment minister, he was supposed to ensure that Germany would have sufficient and affordable energy supplies once nuclear power was ended. Nuclear power provided 23 percent of electricity in Germany.

He failed to communicate to industry or the public how he was going to do that,” said Hermann-Josef Wagner, a professor of energy systems and energy economics at Ruhr-University-Bochum. Instead, Mr. Röttgen was more focused on his political career, with his sights on succeeding Ms. Merkel one day. His ambitions fell apart this month when he suffered a humiliating electoral defeat in his home state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Ms. Merkel stood by Mr. Röttgen for a few days, then fired him, and not just because of his miserable election campaign. He was not on top of the energy dossier.

Analysts say Ms. Merkel is perfectly aware of the fact that she will be blamed personally should the Energiewende fail. That explains why she reacted so nervously when, over the past several months, industry officials began to complain about higher energy prices and how they would affect investments, growth and jobs.

Until now, the German economy, Europe’s largest, has been insulated from the euro crisis because of exports and changes to the social welfare system that drove down unemployment. Any significant rise in energy prices, said economists, could make Germany vulnerable to the economic crisis that is pulling down the rest of Europe.

McKinsey & Co., the consulting group, estimated in a recent study that by 2020, German consumers could be paying 60 percent more — to €21.5 billion from €13.5 billion, or $27.1 billion to $17 billion — for their energy bill. That does not include costs the industry will carry.

There were and still are a lot of unanswered questions about the costs of the transition,” Mr. Wagner said.

Electricity grids would need to be built to connect north to south and east to west. There is an urgent need for storage facilities for surplus wind and solar energy to safeguard supplies on calm and cloudy days.

And the pricing system for renewable energy needs to be overhauled. For example, if a grid operator asks a solar or wind power producer to stop generating energy in order to keep the grid stable, the grid operator is obliged by law to pay the producers for the power that has not been generated. Those costs fall on the consumer.

There also is the question of the security of energy supply given that some of the nuclear plants were shut down in 2011. Germany had to cope with serious shortages during a bitterly cold spell last January. Industry officials proposed expanding coal and natural gas production even though that would jeopardize Germany’s commitment to a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

McKinsey now says that Germany can reach a reduction of only 31 percent.

The big energy companies and nuclear producers accepted, with huge reservations, the government’s energy policy. That decision had a hugely negative impact on these companies. Because they are losing substantial income from nuclear plants, they have begun selling assets to offset losses and diversify into renewable energy.

At the same time, they have made clear to Ms. Merkel that they are not prepared to invest in the new grids, or in coal or natural gas plants, until they understand how the Energiewende is going to be implemented and financed.

Still, experts believe that Ms. Merkel will stick to her energy policy.

Politically, she cannot afford to do another U-turn. But neither can she afford to anger voters with ever-rising energy prices. She has no choice but to make the Energiewende work — especially as other big industrial economies want to see if it is feasible.

This article was originally published in the New York Times.

End of document

Comments (1)

 
 
  • Christine David
    I resent recycled articles. In the middle is Obama's strategy "because of his re-election issues". Obama's re-election has come and gone
     
     
    Reply to this post

     
    Close Panel
Source http://carnegieeurope.eu/2012/05/28/merkel-pays-price-for-her-energy-policy-shift/bjaj

More from The Global Think Tank

In Fact

 

45%

of the Chinese general public

believe their country should share a global leadership role.

30%

of Indian parliamentarians

have criminal cases pending against them.

140

charter schools in the United States

are linked to Turkey’s Gülen movement.

2.5–5

thousand tons of chemical weapons

are in North Korea’s possession.

92%

of import tariffs

among Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have been eliminated.

$2.34

trillion a year

is unaccounted for in official Chinese income statistics.

37%

of GDP in oil-exporting Arab countries

comes from the mining sector.

72%

of Europeans and Turks

are opposed to intervention in Syria.

90%

of Russian exports to China

are hydrocarbons; machinery accounts for less than 1%.

13%

of undiscovered oil

is in the Arctic.

17

U.S. government shutdowns

occurred between 1976 and 1996.

40%

of Ukrainians

want an “international economic union” with the EU.

120

million electric bicycles

are used in Chinese cities.

60–70%

of the world’s energy supply

is consumed by cities.

58%

of today’s oils

require unconventional extraction techniques.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

50%

of Syria’s population

is expected to be displaced by the end of 2013.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

81%

of Brazilian protesters

learned about a massive rally via Facebook or Twitter.

32

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

1 in 3

Syrians

now needs urgent assistance.

370

political parties

contested India’s last national elections.

70%

of Egypt's labor force

works in the private sector.

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

2%

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

78

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
 
 
Carnegie Europe
 
Carnegie Europe Rue du Congrès, 15 1000 Brussels, Belgium Phone: +32 2 735 56 50 Fax: +32 2736 6222
Please note...

You are leaving the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy's website and entering another Carnegie global site.

请注意...

您离开卡内基 - 清华全球政策中心网站,进入另一个卡内基全球网站。