Tuesday, 06. December 2016
in 2011, decides the Federal government is hastily the accelerated nuclear phase-out. The utilities see themselves after years of political wrangling your assets and actions. You can hope for compensation?
A faster process looks different. This Tuesday, the Federal constitutional court wants to decide whether claims of the German nuclear industry on remuneration can be justified in the billions or not. Karlsruhe is concerned since this March, with the decision of the Federal government for a faster nuclear phase-out in 2011. The history of the actions of energy companies Eon, RWE and Vattenfall goes back to the year 2002.
at the Time, had the red-green Federal government in agreement with the big four utilities – EnBW, including the first nuclear phase-out decided, and each temporary running times for nuclear power plants agreed. In December 2010, the later black-yellow Federal government picked up this consensus and extended with the so-called exit from the exit, the run-times of the reactors to an average of twelve years. A political turnaround in favour of the operator, which had only short stock.
Just seven months later, after the meltdown in the Japanese nuclear power plant Fukushima, decided the same Federal government, the so-called second nuclear phase-out law, which made the lifetime extension for the nuclear reactors back on. Berlin ordered the immediate shutdown of nine power plants. The rest of the legislature to Deadlines, up to which the operation would be phased out permits. By the year 2022, the Plan should be turned off the last NUCLEAR power plant.
A momentous decision. Because the energy companies Eon, RWE and Vattenfall saw it as an expropriation. The fourth major group, EnBW, did not raise any constitutional complaint. The other three, however, called for a fundamental claim to any compensation, the report, according to the media up to 20 billion euros could amount to. Five years later, it is now clear the Federal constitutional court, who has the right.
Kalkar-decision as a blueprint
At the hearing in March, an earlier ruling was discussed, which dampened the hope for compensation of most of the plaintiffs: The government argued that it was a “use regulation”, for which there was previously no compensation. Berlin relied on the so-called Kalkar-decision: in 1978, Karlsruhe, Germany, had granted to the legislature with a view to “not-yet-foreseeable developments” and “changing circumstances” a wide scope for the use of nuclear energy.
Federal environment Minister Barbara Hendricks defended with regard to the exit decision. The SPD politician said in the trial reactor of the Fukushima disaster “made in Germany, too, a re-evaluation of the use of nuclear energy related risks”.
“It’s not about nuclear energy. At the end of a fair compensation,” said Eon CEO Johannes Teyssen at the same hearing. To the shareholders, a significant wealth was created damage that was not compensated. “The risks of nuclear energy had not changed with Fukushima, but the perception of Risk,” said RWE-power-plant-in-chief Matthias Hartung.
Eon quantified its damage caused by the nuclear phase-out on more than eight billion euros. RWE has named no sum, analysts but of six billion euros. Vattenfall wants to 4.7 billion euros and complains also before an international court of arbitration in the United States.
A special point in the complex procedure of the damages claim by the Swedish energy group Vattenfall, due to the immediate shutdown of the nuclear power plant Krümmel. Theoretically, however, there could be an inadmissible unequal treatment: Because at that time, the Federal government had made the age of the nuclear reactors to the criterion. The power plant in Krümmel, however, was younger than the other disused – probably it was withdrawn because of its many glitches.
But back to the long Bank?
It is possible, therefore, that Vattenfall has at the end of the sole plaintiff is entitled to compensation. The court must decide, however, whether a foreign state-owned company such as Vattenfall at all the protection of fundamental rights in Karlsruhe can sue for. If not, there would be no compensation. The output of the process is completely open.
The ailing company could use a positive judgment. The chances of energy to get corporations law, are not according to the experts, bad, as in the case of the hasty decision to abandon, in their view, craft, mistakes were made. The state government of Rhineland-Palatinate, stands on the side of the Federal government, considers that it is not, however, possible that Karlsruhe reversing the second opt-out act immediately, but the Federal a period of time for improvement, the compensation scheme. This would reduce the amount of money for the corporations.
Even if the corporations get on Tuesday is partially right, experts are anticipating that money will flow. The dispute will go before the specialised courts and it will take a long time before the amount of compensation.