Another Considerable Rise of EEG Surcharge on the Horizon (Germany)

[FBaggins]

The surcharge or reallocation charge for renewable energy sources pursuant to the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) may rise from 3.592 ct/kWh in 2012 to between 4.8 to 5.2 ct/kWh in 2013, the newspaper Handelsblatt reported.

With the EEG surcharge, consumers pay for the difference between the guaranteed feed-in tariffs paid pursuant to the EEG for renewable energy fed into the grids and the sale of the renewable energy at the EEX energy exchange by the TSOs. The complex system of the sale of the renewable energy by TSOs and their compensation is laid down in AusglMechV and the corresponding AusglMechAV.

A 33% rise of the EEG reallocation charge to 4.8 ct/kWh would be another considerable increase of the total costs of roughly EUR 13 billion, Handelsblatt says (for the exact costs in 2011 please see here). While the EEG surcharge only rose slightly from 3.53 ct/kWh in 2011 to 3.592 ct/kWh in 2012, it already increased by 72% in 2011 (2010: 2.047 Cent/kWh).

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=9211

Up to a 150% increase in three years? The surcharge alone would be more than half as much as many of us pay for power.

[JDPriestly]

1. How much have other energy charges increased in the same time in Europe?

We subsidize so as to make fossil fuel energy seem artificially cheap.

That makes the price of alternative energy seem high.

[FBaggins]

2. Why Europe?

Energy policy throughout Europe is not homogeneous.

We subsidize so as to make fossil fuel energy seem artificially cheap.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Unless you count "we fail to charge them what I think the externalized costs should be", the subsidy per kWh is higher for non-fossil energy. And when you do try to charge them for a small part of their impact on the environment, some hear have called that a nuclear subsidy.

Regardless, this is just a specific surchage. The underlying rates are whatever they are.

[kristopher]

3. Two questions

1) Who ultimately receives the money collected as a surcharge? The government collects it and then disburses it to those that are installing the renewable energy systems, correct?
What demographic(s) comprise that group of recipients?

2) With your unrelenting criticism of the nation that is most successful at GHG reductions, you seem to be of the opinion that we should continue business as usual.
Why do you want the effort to move to a carbon free energy system to fail?

[FBaggins]

4. Two answers

1) Who ultimately receives the money collected as a surcharge? The government collects it and then disburses it to those that are installing the renewable energy systems, correct?

Incorrect. The utilities collect it from the consumers of electricity and keep it to offset their own costs.

2) With your unrelenting criticism of the nation that is most successful at GHG reductions, you seem to be of the opinion that we should continue business as usual.

I'm actually of the opinion that you should return to reality to visit once in awhile.

Germany was the most successful at GHG reductions when they were expanding renewables and relying on existing nuclear power... and I had no "unrelenting criticism" of them at the time. Currently they are not the most successful at GHG reductions... in fact their power generation sector is only increasing their GHG emissions and they'll spend the next couple decades struggling to tread water (spending hundreds of billions of euros that could have gone to actual GHG reductions). That's when my criticism began.

Coincidentally, it's your plaudits that have come fast and furious as their GHG emissions (from generation) climb. and their economy suffers.

[kristopher]

5. That's extremely disingenuous Baggins.

That's extremely disingenuous Baggins, but I can understand your reticence. You have specifically identified the renewable energy surcharge which is used to pay for the installation of renewable energy generation. Who receives that money when it is paid out?
Answer: most of it goes to small community and individual owned projects.

As you well know their temporary uptick in GHG emissions rate of reductions (they are still reducing their emissions) is necessary because of the need to transition away from centralized thermal generation. Politically they were forced to start with nuclear in line with the decision taken in 2000 and the law passed at that time to implement their choice.

Just because you don't like or believe in their choice doesn't give you the right to make up facts, nor does it justify rooting for failure if your actual goal were dealing with climate change. It is very obvious that your concerns are focused on the success of the nuclear industry above all else.

[FBaggins]

6. Not at all... you're trying hard to avoid the subject.

You have specifically identified the renewable energy surcharge which is used to pay for the installation of renewable energy generation.

You may be thinking of the FIT. That's paid by grid operators to generators (including indibviduals) to help pay for the installation of renewables.

The OP isn't talking about that.

As you well know their temporary uptick in GHG emissions rate of reductions (they are still reducing their emissions

Also incorrect. Their power generation sector increased GHG emissions and the only thing that saved them from far worse statistics was a mild winter (with heating demand down almost double digits). You can pretend that it's a "temporary uptick", but that "temporary" will last well over a decade because they aren't done shutting down reactors.

And that doesn't take into account the GHG that would have been released by the generation of the power they are importing at a far higher rate than before. Luckily, most of that is nuclear.

Politically they were forced

Yep... and it was a stupid decision. You can't avoid the consequences of a decision that you now agree with (though you were on the other side of the fence until a year or so ago) just because you would like it to be unscored in the debate. The decision to retire their reactors has had (and will continue to have for many years) a substantial impact on their ability to achieve GHG reduction targets.

[kristopher]

7. Yes, the FIT is one of the ways that payouts are made.

Last edited Mon May 7, 2012, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

From the OP

With the EEG surcharge, consumers pay for the difference between the guaranteed feed-in tariffs paid pursuant to the EEG for renewable energy fed into the grids and the sale of the renewable energy at the EEX energy exchange by the TSOs.

The surcharge reimburses the difference in cost for what is paid to the producers and what they sell the renewable power for on their market.
The government collects the surcharge. They give it to the TSO, and the TSO pays it out (mostly to local communities and individuals) along with what the power actually sold for, as compensation for the FIT.

The obstruction and projections of gloomy doom by nuclear plant owners and the conservatives in Merkel's government haven't changed, nor have they been fulfilled as they claimed.

Your willing attempts to misinform on behalf of the nuclear industry can now have the final word.

[FBaggins]

8. Try reading threads you reply to.

Your continued insistence that whatever you post sets the new standard for what is permissable on the thread is funny... but not very useful.

The OP is clear that we're talking about a fee paid by consumers to TSOs.


Oh but what the heck... let's pretend that it really is about the FIT and these are funds that are going to homeowners with solar PV on their roof. It's still an increase cost for consumers even if some of it goes to other consumers. It's not as if this is a tax on the wealthy to support working classes... if anything it's just the opposite.

[JDPriestly]

9. But energy costs were high there when I lived in various countries some years ago,

much higher than here.

At least in Germany and Austria and reportedly in Poland, people could see the damage that climate change was causing to the forests even years ago. In my experience Europeans were ready to sacrifice in order to save their environment.

Many Americans deny the damage that we are doing to our environment here -- and even more are completely unwilling to make the slightest sacrifice such as paying more for energy to save it.

That is so sad.