Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Nuclear phaseout: energy corporations have won, but not by much – MIRROR ONLINE

breathe a sigh of relief can be The Federal government. The Federal constitutional court has, after the reactor disaster in Fukushima 2011 decision, however, faster to phase out nuclear power, in principle, be waved on through: as a largely “reasonable” provision for the equal treatment and protection of trust true. From the Details of the Karlsruhe judgment is also clear: The energy companies E. on, RWEund Vattenfall, the damages request, a certain compensation.

can, However, make-up, the energy companies so far in sum of almost 20 billion euros as a compensation. Experts expect a billion Euro – if at all.

The “establishment of a fixed shut-off dates” for the German nuclear power plants (NPP), and “the reduction of the allocated residual amounts of electricity” had “in front of the basic law,” noted the Chairman of the First Senate, Ferdinand Kirchhof, right at the beginning of the promulgation of the Karlsruhe judgment.

was missing, However, in July 2011, adopted the atomic energy act phase-in fact, compensation rules, but only for two cases: Vattenfall and RWE had previously Mülheim residual amounts of electricity for some of their reactors – once Krümmel and once-Kärlich – promised to get, which were again deleted. So the corporations were not able to produce the agreed quantities of electricity.

Also, investments in the NUCLEAR power plant are to be compensated to those from December 2010, when German Chancellor Angela Merkel was handed the nuclear phase-out by the previous government until March 2011, when she accelerated the exit again. A short period of time. And the corporations would have to demonstrate that the investment was made due to the interim extension of the term – and not anyway, also with a view to the earlier maturity, would be needed.

comparison with energy companies expected

process observers and participants expect, given that a maximum of a few billions of euros in compensation. “If any money is flowing, then surely not more than an upper three-digit million-Euro amount,” says the Berlin-based energy expert Olaf Däuper, Represented three provinces. Also the representative of the Federal government, the Berlin state rights activist Christoph Möllers, expected that it was going to go with a view to the remainder of the current amounts only to “a fraction” of the previously discussed compensation.

in Addition, could be settled these claims for compensation is also different. Involved a comparison of potential for that provides sufficient. Nuclear law experts as to compensate for the energy companies a longer duration of individual power plants is conceivable. In addition, the industry is trying, the uncertainty about the incalculable costs of the final disposal of nuclear waste to get rid of. In the negotiations about this game now space, the nuclear phase-out-to tick debacle also in a Deal. According to a proposal from the atomic energy Commission’s E. on, RWE, Vattenfall and EnBW have put together more than 23 billion euros in a government Fund. In return, the state would decrease the company responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste.

Whether the compensation from the point of view of the corporations, will ultimately be fair, it must show up. Of a “reasonable compensation” languages in the constitutional court. This does not necessarily mean full compensation. It is a default with game room. And so a business starts now foreseeable cher about how high the investment during the period in question were really what costs are to be reimbursed. In the game, the price could be made to come drop in electricity, the power plants anyway unprofitable. Within five years, has halved the price for a megawatt-hour.

Different claims

is it clear now: In the now to be negotiated to compensate for the faster nuclear phase-the energy companies come out differently. Vattenfall has from the point of view of the Constitution, the guardian is entitled to compensation, because the NPP had to Krümmel in March 2011 to immediately shut down.

RWE, in turn, demands for the power plant Mülheim-Kärlich, because the group were awarded in the framework of a comparison to an alternative dispute remaining quantities of electricity. E. on, in turn, can only make investments from the 2010 claim. The group have put hundreds of millions of euros in the longer the power plant operation, had E. on argues.

for Almost five years, have engaged the judges with the actions of energy companies. They had to get Back-and-Forth of the German energy policy:

The former red-green government had decided in 2002, the phase-out of nuclear energy. With the energy companies they had set for remaining lifetimes of nuclear reactors.

This consensus is the black-yellow government tipped at the end of 2010. They extended the running times by an average of twelve years. After the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, the government took the term back extensions. For the debate on the compensation of the SPD-Federal Vice Ralf Stegner, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) responsible. “Your zig-zag course is the taxpayers cost billions,” he said.

The companies have implemented the nuclear phase-out, long in their strategies. The managers of the companies saw in the decision a non-permissible intrusion into the property rights of the shareholders. “It’s not me to the question of the energy transition,” said E. on chief Johannes Teyssen, “it’s going to be a fair compensation.”

especially an Argument, the plaintiff has not followed the Federal constitutional court: That of the accelerated nuclear phase-out was therefore unconstitutional, because it had been, in spite of the disaster of Fukushima, Germany no new safety risks and, therefore, no reason for the accelerated phase-out.

The legislature, as the churchyard in his judgment, could accelerate, with a view to his commitment for the protection of life, limb and health of the citizens and of the natural foundations of life the phase-out of nuclear power. “Just because a new, General, and political assessment of their risks” – that is, without that new security risks would become apparent.


No comments:

Post a Comment