Energy policy | “Poison list” from the Union for the EEG reform

The Union wants a dusk for renewable energies. Photo: dpa/Federico Gambarini The political debate in the Bundestag over the reform of the electricity market initiated by the coalition continues to intensify. On Wednesday, a comprehensive list of demands from the CDU and CSU for the negotiations on the reform of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG), which is already under time pressure, was announced. The Union's 40-page paper, which is available to the "nd", has it all: the first and most important point in the "poison list" is called for nothing less than a "binding and long-term predictable path" in order to phase out the promotion of renewable energies.

To this end, according to the Union's wishes, the upper limit of 25 kilowatts of installed capacity previously provided for in the draft law, up to which the EEG remuneration for renewable energy systems will no longer apply from the beginning of 2027, should be gradually increased in the period up to 2038 - the date of the coal phase-out. To this end, the CDU-led Federal Ministry of Economics should present a concrete step-by-step and annual path. Apparently the Union side, for which CDU Bundestag member Lars Rohwer is in charge of negotiating the EEG reform, sees some kind of connection between the end of coal-fired power generation and the exit from renewable energy funding. However, this is not explicitly mentioned in the paper. It only says that the need for funding must decrease as the market becomes more mature. However, the consequences of this are serious: The Union is calling for the 20-year funding period for new systems, which still applies in the current EEG draft, to be reduced to zero by 2045.

At the same time, the Union faction apparently also wants to reduce the tender quantities. These should not increase “automatically” – regardless of electricity demand, market-driven expansion and the development of the electricity system. Systems built outside of the EEG should also be taken into account in the future.

The Union is also putting the brakes on the expansion of electricity storage. These should not be considered with an additional EEG bonus or with reduced financing contributions to the network. There should also be no additional tenders for storage within the EEG.

In addition to overarching measures, the 40 pages contain a lot of smaller pinpricks against the expansion of renewables. Direct supply contracts between wind and solar parks and industrial customers - so-called PPAs - should be established solely via the market and no longer receive any protection via the EEG. The maximum values ​​for the EEG remuneration in the tenders should be capped - for onshore wind power at 5.5 cents per kilowatt hour and for photovoltaics at four to 7.5 cents, depending on size and design. And the maximum eligible system size for solar parks on open spaces is to be reduced from the 50 stipulated in the EEG draft to 20 megawatts. In return, the Union wants to see all nature conservation requirements removed from open-space facilities.

The 40 pages reveal where the Union represents its own lobbying interests.

At the same time, the 40 pages reveal where the Union represents its own lobbying interests. In the future, hydropower plants should be treated “separately” from wind power and photovoltaics, according to the paper. According to the reasoning, these have a more consistent and easier to plan generation profile. The fact that hydropower is significantly losing stability as a result of climate change and more frequent low water levels has apparently not yet gotten around among the CDU/CSU parties. What is crucial here is that the two southern states of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, which are important for the CDU and CSU, are the leaders in Germany when it comes to the use of hydropower.

When it comes to bioenergy, the paper is even more strongly influenced by regional lobbying - almost 40 percent of all German biogas plants are operated in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. In order to stabilize electricity generation from biomass at today's level, the Union is calling for an expansion target of around 22,500 megawatts. This is far beyond the goal in the EEG draft of stabilizing the current capacity at around 9,000 megawatts. The bioenergy industry itself believes an expansion to up to 12,500 megawatts by 2030 and to 24,000 megawatts by 2040 is possible.

The Union is also practically adopting other demands from the industry on a one-to-one basis, such as increasing the flexibility surcharge to 130 euros per installed kilowatt hour per year. And if a system is late in achieving the required flexibility due to “external bottlenecks,” it should not be sanctioned.

The renewables industry is initially holding back when assessing the Union paper. At best, this documents the interim status of negotiations on the part of a coalition partner, explains Ursula Heinen-Esser, President of the BEE industry association, upon request. For them, the catalog of suggestions is also a “double-edged sword”. Some of the measures contained therein would have the potential to significantly limit the expansion of individual renewable technologies, while others would represent improvements, she emphasizes.

For Claudia Kemfert from the German Institute for Economic Research, the 40-page paper goes well beyond the usual technical improvements to a bill. The energy economist summarizes that the aim is to achieve a faster withdrawal from EEG funding, a shorter funding period, lower funding maximums, more PPA and market financing, and tender volumes that are more closely oriented towards demand and market expansion. She believes that more market integration of renewables makes sense in principle. However, it will become critical if the protection of investments is scaled back faster than networks, storage, smart meters, digitalization and flexible demand develop. Kemfert warns that higher risks and financing costs could then arise. »More market needs more infrastructure, not less investment security. Anyone who dismantles security first and only delivers networks, storage and digitalization later is curbing the energy transition from behind."

Observers, however, speculate that the “poison list” can be seen as a threat to the coalition partner. The CDU and CSU could then give in to the SPD at one point or another in order to get the highly controversial EEG reform through parliament as unscathed as possible.

This article cost you nothing. We do: for research, printing and technology. We saved on office rent as well as printing and distribution. And we gave up salary. Nevertheless, the calculation doesn't work without you. We need 300,000 euros by the end of the year. You pay what you can, in return we keep writing.

No paywall, no small print, just one goal: that nd stays.