If there is a threat of an immediate electricity supply crisis, private households have to accept a loss of comfort. However, the ban orgy of the Federal Council goes too far.
If a shortage is imminent, washing may be carried out at a maximum of forty degrees.
It had already become apparent in spring that there could be a shortage of electricity in winter. It is only now, shortly before the onset of winter, that Economics Minister Guy Parmelin has finally presented his package of measures designed to ensure supplies in such an extreme scenario.
A look at the regulations gives an idea of why it took so long to draft the paper. The Federal Council lists a veritable hodgepodge of restrictions and bans that the population and businesses have to follow depending on the escalation level of the crisis.
Even at level 1, we are no longer allowed to wash our laundry at over forty degrees. And we have to set the temperature of the refrigerator according to the instructions from the authorities; it must not be below six degrees in a deficiency situation. Even the operating time of the extractor in the kitchen is regulated: According to the draft regulation, the ventilation must not run longer than cooking.
Strict rules must also be followed when watching TV: Level 1 Netflix series can only be viewed in standard resolution. If the crisis worsens, streaming services may no longer be consumed.
Certainly: If there is an imminent threat of a supply crisis, drastic measures are necessary to avoid electricity quotas for companies or even grid shutdowns. It is just as obvious that private households will also have to put up with a loss of comfort. The population also has to do without if companies are restricted in their electricity consumption at the same time – which can have serious consequences for them, up to and including closure.
Nevertheless, the ban orgy of the Federal Council for private households goes too far. Many of the proposed measures simply do not make sense. Why should the speed on the freeways be reduced to 100 kilometers per hour when only five percent of the vehicles are electrically powered? The Federal Council’s reference that petrol must be saved because it is used for the emergency generators is also not convincing.
The Federal Council is fundamentally taking the wrong direction with its ordinance: instead of dictating to the population down to the smallest detail what they have to do and not to do in everyday life, the Federal Council should appeal to the personal responsibility of the citizens even in the crisis – and leave it up to them how they want to limit their electricity consumption.
The fact that the Federal Council is micromanaging instead is an expression of helplessness. For example, Switzerland failed to install so-called smart meters across the board. If all households had such intelligent electricity meters, the Federal Council could content itself with setting savings targets for the households. The individual household would then be free to choose how to save electricity.
In addition, compliance with the measures in the budget cannot be checked anyway. He trusts the insight and intelligence of the Swiss population, said Parmelin. However, it is questionable whether the majority of the population will readily follow the rules of the Federal Council, as they did during the pandemic. During the Corona period, each individual had a personal interest in adhering to the Federal Council’s measures because this reduced their risk of infection. This individual incentive is now lacking in the coercive measures with which the Federal Council intends to reduce electricity consumption.
It is all the more important that the Federal Council restricts itself to restrictions and bans that make sense to the majority of the population. If he does not do this, there is a great danger that the measures will even prove to be counterproductive. A Strom-Trychler movement would be far more problematic than its pandemic variant.