The Federal Council must decide how it wants to get the population to save electricity. But he overestimates the effect of bans. The previous proposals are hardly practicable and full of contradictions.
In December, electricity consumption in Switzerland skyrocketed. But the savings targets of the federal government are contradictory.
The icy cold of the past few days is a foretaste of what could be in store for Switzerland: in mid-December, power consumption skyrocketed while the reservoirs emptied rapidly. The figures are freely available on the federal energy dashboard – and they make it clear that if the temperatures in January and February fall below zero for a longer period of time, it cannot be ruled out that electricity in Switzerland will be in short supply for the first time in decades.
Four weeks ago, the Federal Council therefore proposed reducing electricity consumption in an emergency with drastic cuts and bans. Now he has to decide what to do with this concept. As right as it is to make private households responsible: the concept presented, according to which citizens are banned from Netflix by regulation and a maximum temperature in the living room is prescribed by the authorities, is a failure.
The weaknesses begin with the endless lists of restrictions and regulations. Much is neither practical nor coherent. Lighting with more than 100 lux should be banned – but who should measure that? Why is there an upper limit of 20 degrees for gas heating systems, but only 18 degrees for heat pump heating systems? Does it make sense to let the ski lifts continue to run if electricity has to be allocated in hospitals? And why do we need speed limits on the Autobahn?
The SVP feels reminded of the GDR
It is not without reason that the SVP feels reminded of the GDR when reading the draft regulations, which range in detail to the point of appearing absurd. The fact that the preliminary work was carried out in the department of SVP Federal Councilor Guy Parmelin makes this comparison particularly spicy, but no less accurate. Significantly, those who would have to monitor compliance with the catalog of prohibitions also waved them off: Because there was a lack of staff, the cantonal justice and police directors declared from the outset that they were unable to even carry out spot checks.
In fact, the very idea of sending police officers armed with thermometers to inspect energy supplies at retailers, restaurants or private homes is ridiculous. It seems as if, for lack of alternatives, the recipes of the corona pandemic should simply be copied and pasted to the energy crisis. But the effect of bans is overestimated.
During the pandemic, each and every individual had a personal interest in adhering to the measures because this reduced their own risk of infection. Taking responsibility for yourself automatically meant protecting others as well. As a result, controls were largely superfluous. It was not the power of the authorities that helped the code of conduct to succeed, but the conviction of a majority that there was no alternative to the procedure chosen by the Federal Council. In addition, the regulations met with acceptance above all when the idea behind them was comprehensible and the implementation was understandable. Otherwise it got complicated.
Saving energy is a matter of conviction
The bill on the electricity regulations, on the other hand, contains so many contradictions from the outset that it is hard to imagine how this concept can be sensibly saved. It would be better to radically cut the package and limit yourself to a few efficient measures. Saving energy is primarily a question of conviction.
This year’s disarmament of the Christmas lights in the front gardens indicates that the population is quite willing to do without. But there is no need for annoying regulations about the use of irons. But first and foremost a Minister of Economics who can explain plausibly and irrefutably why everyone matters in the coming months.