“We will make progress in the systemic transition to renewables”

Ms. Scheer, to what extent will the new coalition potentially advance the energy transition, even compared to the current framework conditions shaped by the traffic light coalition?

Nina Scheer : Assuming the coalition agreement receives majority approval from the parties involved, we will make progress in the systemic transition to renewable energies. It contains a number of statements on increasing flexibility, storage, the effectiveness of grid expansion and grid utilization, as well as statements on further simplification of planning and approval processes. Combined with the accelerating factors for renewables already established in recent years, this can significantly advance us.

What are you most proud of after your working group's preliminary negotiations, and what pains you?

Nina Scheer: Even if "proud" isn't an appropriate category for me, I consider valuable, in addition to the things mentioned, the statements that the expansion and modernization of the grids will be synchronized with the expansion of renewables – and not the other way around – as well as the fact that renewables will be able to fully refinance themselves on the market in the future. The word "can" shouldn't be overlooked here. The refinancing statement aims for a framework that, strictly speaking, addresses full supply from renewables.

The coalition agreement, which has already been published, states that you want to "incentivize the construction of up to 20 gigawatts of gas-fired power plant capacity by 2030, regardless of technology, as part of a power plant strategy that will be revised quickly." What exactly do you hope to achieve with the more precise phrases "up to" and "incentivize regardless of technology"? Do you also want to address critics of a feared excessive expansion of conventional power plant technologies based on fossil fuels?

Nina Scheer: From both a climate protection and resource perspective, it must be clear to everyone that any additional state-supported power plant capacity that is not fueled by renewables can only be justified by security of supply. In this respect, the "up to" you quoted, in combination with the expansion of gas-fired power plants, is an important addition.

During the now long-running public debate on a power plant strategy, very different opinions continue to be heard regarding the volume of new capacity and the technologies involved, as well as the resources to be deployed. Some believe that 20 GW of new capacity is unavoidable; others believe that not a single new gas-fired power plant is needed. And there are also assessments that lie in between. What is ultimately needed depends crucially on the course set for the systemic transition to renewables. Regarding bioenergy, we adopted new regulations at the end of January that are intended to encourage further flexibility.

Do you think that making bioenergy power generation more flexible will have a moderating effect on the “up to 20 gigawatts” estimated in the coalition agreement?

Nina Scheer: Even if only partially, it is suitable for limiting the need for expansion that would otherwise exist. However, the regulation is currently pending notification in Brussels. The Federal Network Agency's Advisory Board has now also taken action on this issue – incidentally, this also applies to last year's solar package.

… because this is also stuck in the notification process by the European Union…

More effective grid utilization, better "use instead of shut down," Section 13k of the Energy Industry Act, and the increased integration of flexibility are also among such measures and are also reflected in the coalition agreement. Section 13k is being applied too restrictively; contrary to widespread assumptions, the two-year trial phase, which is contained in Section 13k, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3, only applies to flat-rate tenders that are permitted by derogation. Incidentally, it is already a permanent regulation today, but - contrary to the contrary - has not yet been applied in this way.

"Applied too restrictively," as you say, because the grid operators interpret the paragraph in such a way that more effective grid utilization through greater use instead of switching off weather-dependent surplus green electricity has so far only been achieved in temporary pilot projects... But to what extent can we refute the fears of the biogas and combined heat and power sectors, as well as the criticism from operators of wind and solar energy plants with volatile feed-in, that new large-scale gas-fired power plants, where they are built anyway, will only "operate in medium load in order to be able to regulate downwards and upwards at unrivaled low costs depending on flexibility market rules and prices? What can be done to counteract this?

Nina Scheer: To put it briefly: needs-based justice…

...according to the coalition agreement, this is to be guaranteed by new gas-fired power plants being built "primarily at existing power plant sites throughout Germany and controlled regionally according to demand." Okay, I understand. Another point: According to industry experts, five times the number of grid connection points using multiple technologies could create a decentralized de facto reserve power plant structure thanks to flexible electricity generation from biomass. The coalition agreement mentions this development in a single sentence. Can you elaborate on this?

Nina Scheer: The development must be pursued consistently. For biomass, it is important to strengthen the generally growing relevance of waste recycling and to keep the "fuel vs. plate" question in mind. Bioenergy can certainly achieve significantly more than it does today; however, it is also clear that there are resource limitations here.

Regarding the generation of the green electricity volumes required in the future, which will continue to come largely from wind power: "To ensure local acceptance, we will ensure the steering effect of wind energy areas, in accordance with the existing participation rights of municipalities," the coalition agreement states. Do you intend to strengthen or restructure these participation rights?

Nina Scheer: Local and municipal participation has demonstrably positive effects on how people deal with spatial changes. At the same time, it's also clear that issues that cannot be decided at the local level cannot be changed by local decisions.

Incidentally, in the context of wind energy, the final overall agreement reached by our parliamentary groups, after we had presented our negotiation results as working groups, also included statements that, in any case, should not constitute an obstacle to the energy transition. Special attention will be paid to this. I am referring, for example, to the review of temporary bottleneck areas announced in the coalition agreement, as well as the announced evaluation of the area target for designated wind power areas in 2032.

The licensing authorities should be protected “from excessive claims for damages” – by whom?

Nina Scheer : That is a question of design.

How do you prevent a planned review of the reference yield model, "including with regard to uneconomical low-wind locations," from slowing down the wind power project development that is just getting started in southern Germany? The reference yield model provides for a percentage premium for wind farms depending on wind levels, so that project developers in less windy locations, such as southern Germany, can bid fairly in the tender process?

Nina Scheer: Here, too, there's talk of a review. The future design of the reference yield model must also, in addition to the price-related necessity of switching to renewables as quickly as possible, ultimately meet the requirement of maintaining a single electricity price zone, and therefore should not limit the expansion of wind energy in the south.

How do you intend to limit land leases for new wind farms – another goal mentioned by the coalition government?

Nina Scheer: Excessive rents have become a clear requirement. The "how" is a question of design. Where subsidies are provided, the result must be—in other words—absolutely no unreasonable rents.

The coalition agreement lists many such desirable improvements without defining how they intend to achieve them or how they can avoid the potentially threatening economic side effects. Another example: For offshore wind energy, "generation-optimized areas" are to be created in the future. But wouldn't that equate to a reduced expansion of generation capacity below the previous expansion targets, because fewer wind turbines would be allowed to be built on the same already planned development areas?

Nina Scheer: It must be about a design that does justice to the objectives.

There's also no mention of a reorganization of the tendering criteria for offshore wind power, moving away from the very price-driven criteria to qualitative ones—as the industry wants. Instead, there's talk of hybrid grid connections, which will likely depress trading prices for offshore wind power. Shouldn't you do more to ensure fair conditions for domestic value creation?

Nina Scheer: It's not just recent trade policy developments that have made it clear that domestic and European value creation must be protected against distorting interventions. The coalition agreement also provides for measures to strengthen resilience.

Do you think that strengthening the country or the EU in competition or conflicts with other regions of the world would also secure this added value in the renewable energy sectors? This might be consistent with the introduction of a protected, reduced industrial electricity price. But how do you prevent the reduced industrial price from inadvertently disrupting the market for long-term, free power purchase agreements between green energy producers and companies?

Nina Scheer: The industrial electricity price is about creating European and domestic investment security in light of the significantly increasing global trade challenges. However, interventions of this kind are, of course, only justified to the extent that they do not hinder self-acting mechanisms with equivalent price-reduction effects on the path to the energy transition.

Will there also have to be storage and hydrogen targets, similar to the electricity sector, in conjunction with tenders for the regular expansion of capacities?

Nina Scheer: The question of expansion targets should not be confused with debates about instruments. We certainly need more renewables – a complete transition to renewables – storage, flexibility, and also green hydrogen. Regarding instruments, there are EU regulations that must be taken into account, but I don't see that the auction route is the only permissible option. Based on proven success, the choice of instruments should be guided by the positive effects of the feed-in tariff system, which the EU will then have to incorporate a clawback mechanism into its design.

Another process impending with the coalition agreement concerns agreed monitoring. Given the ongoing discussion on electricity volumes for several weeks, this monitoring will focus on future-oriented mapping of the definitely growing electricity demand across all sectors. Otherwise, the expansion targets for renewables could be called into question. And that would be a fatal step backwards, also for our country's energy security.