Over the past few months, oil and gas expert Daniel Yergin
has become a critic of the Energiewende, Germany's clean energy policy, due to
its its impact on energy prices for industry.
"There has been a kind of waking up to the fact that
the premises of the Energiewende, however well-intentioned they are, no longer
hold because the world is changed," wrote Yergin in a recent New York Times article.
The article also refers to a recent IHS study (Yergin is vice president of IHS), which
argues that "the country cannot meet its future needs solely through
renewable sources." However, the study argues that Germany cannot do what
it is not attempting -- the goal is 60 percent renewable energy by 2050, not
100 percent.
In February, Yergin told the Wall Street Journal that "Germany should scale
back its plans for expensive renewables and complement the drive with more
domestic natural gas production." And in January, he reported from
the World Economic Forum in Davos that Germany's economic competitiveness was
at stake, particularly in light of lower energy prices in the U.S. Strangely,
he did not add what the Forum itself found: Germany is the fourth most
competitive country in the world, ranking even ahead of the U.S.
To be fair, Yergin also quoted German Industry Minister
Sigmar Gabriel, who conjured up the threat of "dramatic
deindustrialization." But the concern makes little sense.
Let's start off by recognizing that Germany actually still
has a lot of industry to lose, though the Energiewende has been going on since
at least 1991 or 2000, depending on which legislation you start
with. In 2012, industry made up 19.1 percent of the U.S. economy,
21 percent of the U.K.'s economy, and 28.1 percent of the German economy.
Next, let's acknowledge that Germany's neighbors would love
for the Germans to be less competitive. The country's unemployment rate is at
its lowest level since reunification more than two decades ago.
Its tax revenue hit a record high in 2013. Germany's Finance Minister
recently announced the first balanced budget since 1969. German businesses
are doing so well that the country posted a record trade surplus last year. The surplus almost
reached 3 percent of GDP, a record not only for Germany, but for any country
anywhere throughout history. Yet we read that U.S. investors are worried about German energy policy.
There is no doubt that energy prices are higher in Germany
than in the U.S. There is also no doubt that cheaper fossil fuel is not a goal of the Energiewende. Leaving more unburnable
carbon where it belongs -- in the ground -- is the goal. The Germans aim to
transition to renewables, phasing out nuclear completely, as well as fossil
energy to a great extent. These goals are only achievable in combination with
greatly reduced energy demand. Germany is also highly dependent on fossil fuel
imports, and prices are rising.
Shale gas -- one reason why energy prices are currently so
low in the U.S. -- is politically not an option in Germany. Shale gas is
booming in America not just because of technical breakthroughs, but because the
Energy Bill of 2005 makes it nearly impossible to hold fracking firms liable
for environmental damage.
Last year, former German Environmental Minister Peter
Altmaier, a member of the Christian Democratic Union party, said shale gas can move ahead anytime in Germany -- as soon as a
community is found that accepts it. In other words, he would not give
corporations rights against the will of local communities affected. The new
coalition under Chancellor Merkel (also a member of CDU) has not changed that
position.
Here is the point of confusion for many observers. Yergin is
mainly talking about the price of gas, which is indeed relatively high in
Germany. Look closer, and you'll see that most discussions about "high
energy costs" in Germany are more closely linked to natural gas than
electricity.
Retail electricity rates are up; Germany has the
second-highest in the EU after Denmark. But industry doesn't pay retail rates.
The rates they pay differ greatly, however, depending upon which exemptions to
surcharges are granted. Firms with the greatest power consumption (that is, the
ones with the most exemptions) paid as little as around 0.05 euros per
kilowatt-hour in 2013. Energy-intensive industry in Germany is therefore paying
prices close to those in New England where, incidentally, power prices rose by
more than 50 percent last year. In contrast, wholesale prices in
Germany are falling.
Energy policy designed to keep industries at home
With all the talk about deindustrialization, you'd think
that energy-intensive industry in other countries would be doing better. In
reality, Dutch aluminum firm Aldel declared bankruptcy at the end of 2013, claiming it
could not get a direct connection to the German grid fast enough so it could buy much cheaper German
electricity.
Likewise, French aluminum firm ArcelorMittal would also like
to close shop (the French government is trying to stop it). In
mid-March, Bloomberg reported that "the competitiveness of large
French power consumers" has "dropped off in a way that is extremely
worrying," according to a French industry lobby group. The article adds,
"large German industrial power users will pay 35 percent less for their
electricity next year than those in France." Not surprisingly, aluminum
giant Norsk Hydro recently announced a 130-million-euro investment in a
new production line in Germany.
The conflict is not, however, primarily between foreign
firms and German firms. It began as a conflict between large German firms with
exemptions to surcharges and smaller companies without any exemptions. While
firms that are not exempt are harder hit, it is important to keep in mind that
energy does not make up much of their total expenditures. On average, energy
only makes up around 2 percent of total expenses at such companies,
according to the German Industry Ministry.
One current proposal is to charge energy-intensive firms an
extra 1.2 euro cents per kilowatt-hour, which is fair; in 2009, wholesale
prices were a full 1.5 cents higher than today. As Bloomberg recently explained, solar and wind have helped bring down
wholesale prices for four years in a row. So while we continue to hear
complaints about the Energiewende driving away energy-intensive firms, these firms
have actually benefited considerably from lower wholesale prices.
Not surprisingly, energy-intensive firms are not leaving
Germany. BASF, the largest chemicals firm in the world, recently invested 10 billion euros at its headquarters in Germany,
roughly 150 percent more than it is now investing in the U.S. The company makes
all of its electricity from its own natural gas turbine, so it has been completely unaffected by the entire power price
discussion. The firm is doing quite well; its EBIT rose by 17 percent to 1.45
billion euros in Q4 alone.
Nonetheless, in an act of preemptive complaining, BASF's CEO
has recently begun criticizing the Energiewende. One figure tossed
about is 60 million euros, which is the amount the firm would
allegedly lose annually if it had to pay the full charge for renewable
electricity. No one is proposing that BASF pay the full charge, but it's worth
putting that amount into perspective. It's equivalent to around half of one
week worth of corporate profits based on the Q4 figure above.
Fracking lacks support and wouldn’t reduce gas prices in
Europe
BASF is not just a buyer of natural gas. Wintershall, a
German gas provider, is a 100 percent subsidiary of BASF. The chemicals giant
can get its gas from its own subsidiary, so not even gas prices are an issue.
When BASF nonetheless calls for shale gas in the name of low prices, it is
merely asking to be able to produce gas domestically -- a resource that would
give the company considerable business for a few decades.
Contrary to claims made by BASF and Yergin, shale gas
production in Germany would not lower prices. In the U.S., the lower prices associated
with shale gas production have not been not spread evenly across the country;
rather, they were the result of excessive production in specific areas. But in
Europe, gas networks are better developed, and Germany has by far the greatest
gas storage capacity of any EU country. German gas firms were even able to sell
gas quite profitably to the U.K. from its reserves in the harsh winter of 2012-2013.
In the end, the real conflict is between large firms heavily
invested in fossil fuels and communities that do not wish to bear the burden of
socialized risks while corporations rake in profits. The energy sector is
increasingly turning out to be one in which mom-and-pop shops -- homeowners, SMEs, and municipal
utilities making their own energy -- can handle everything fairly well, thereby
marginalizing large energy providers.
The danger is not that industry will not be able to get
affordable energy. Increasingly, industry is making its own renewable energy. So are communities and homeowners in Germany. For sellers of
conventional energy, the danger is the prospect of a smaller market .
So don't worry about how the Energiewende will impact the
German economy. The Germans are replacing fossil fuel imports with renewables
and reducing consumption in order to improve their economy, not to hurt it.
With each year, renewables become more affordable; conventional energy, less
so. It will take some time, but within the next ten to twenty years -- a short
timeframe for infrastructure -- economies banking on shale gas today will wish
they had gone renewable earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment