IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwimat/149.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Alternative Finanzierung der erneuerbaren Energien: Experimentelle Evidenz für Deutschland

Author

Listed:
  • Frondel, Manuel
  • Eßer, Jana
  • Sommer, Stephan

Abstract

Die jüngste Verschärfung der nationalen Klimaschutzziele erfordert die Ergreifung zusätzlicher umweltund klimapolitischer Maßnahmen sowie eventuelle Nachbesserungen bei den bestehenden Maßnahmen, etwa einen beschleunigten Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien. Dies führt unweigerlich zu höheren Lasten für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Damit einher gehen zahlreiche Fragen, etwa zu deren Präferenzen und Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen bezüglich dieser Maßnahmen. Zur Beantwortung dieser Fragen wurde im Juni 2021 eine Erhebung unter rund 8.000 Mitgliedern des forsa-Haushaltspanels durchgeführt. Die Erhebung beinhaltete ein randomisiertes Kontrollexperiment, um herauszufinden, welche von zwei Finanzierungsalternativen die Befragten beim Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien bevorzugen: die Finanzierung über die Stromrechnung, wie es über zwei Jahrzehnte der Fall war, oder durch den Staat. Das zentrale Ergebnis bezüglich der beiden zur Wahl gestellten Finanzierungsalternativen lautet: Die große Mehrheit der Befragten votiert dafür, dass der Ausbau der erneuerbaren Energien aus Steuermitteln des Staates finanziert wird. So halten 69,7% der Befragten der Kontrollgruppe eine Finanzierung durch den Staat für die gerechtere Alternative. Mit der Abschaffung der EEG-Umlage zum 1. Juli 2022 und der gänzlichen Finanzierung der Kosten der Förderung der Erneuerbaren aus Steuermitteln hat die Politik den Präferenzen der Mehrheit der Befragten entsprochen. Allerdings konterkarieren die gerade sehr stark gestiegenen Stromerzeugungskosten die dämpfenden Effekte der Abschaffung der EEG-Umlage. Dadurch steigen die Strompreise für die Verbraucher aktuell massiv an, um 50 % und mehr gegenüber dem Jahr 2021. Deshalb sollte die Politik weitere Maßnahmen ergreifen, um die privaten Haushalte beim Strompreis substanziell zu entlasten, nicht zuletzt durch die Senkung der Stromsteuer auf den EU-Mindestsatz. Andernfalls könnten die stark gestiegenen Strompreise in Kombination mit den mit der Zeit wachsenden Belastungen durch die neu eingeführte CO2-Bepreisung fossiler Brenn- und Kraftstoffe eine hohe soziale Sprengkraft entfalten.

Suggested Citation

  • Frondel, Manuel & Eßer, Jana & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Alternative Finanzierung der erneuerbaren Energien: Experimentelle Evidenz für Deutschland," RWI Materialien 149, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:rwimat:149
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/271509/1/1846826152.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chong, Dennis & Druckman, James N., 2007. "Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(4), pages 637-655, November.
    2. Malte Preuss & Wolf Heinrich Reuter & Christoph M. Schmidt, 2021. "Distributional Effects of Carbon Pricing in Germany," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 77(3), pages 287-316.
    3. Mark A. Andor, Manuel Frondel, and Colin Vance, 2017. "Germanys Energiewende: A Tale of Increasing Costs and Decreasing Willingness-To-Pay," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(KAPSARC S).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frondel, Manuel & Helmers, Viola & Mattauch, Linus & Pahle, Michael & Sommer, Stephan & Schmidt, Christoph M. & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2021. "Akzeptanz der CO2-Bepreisung in Deutschland: Evidenz für private Haushalte vor Einführung des CO2-Preises," RWI Materialien 147, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    2. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    3. Midha, Joshua, 2022. "The Cycle of Rule: Existential Risks, Continuity Of Governance, And Conflict-Based Preservation," SocArXiv vc7w9, Center for Open Science.
    4. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    5. Stringer, Thomas & Joanis, Marcelin, 2022. "Assessing energy transition costs: Sub-national challenges in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    6. Herath, N. & Tyner, W.E., 2019. "Intended and unintended consequences of US renewable energy policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Newbery, David & Pollitt, Michael G. & Ritz, Robert A. & Strielkowski, Wadim, 2018. "Market design for a high-renewables European electricity system," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 695-707.
    8. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    10. Alexander Wimmers & Reinhard Madlener, 2023. "The European Market for Guarantees of Origin for Green Electricity: A Scenario-Based Evaluation of Trading under Uncertainty," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-35, December.
    11. Lee, Min-Kyu & Nam, Jungho & Kim, Miju, 2023. "Valuing the public preference for offshore wind energy: The case study in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PB).
    12. Manuel Frondel and Gerhard Kussel, 2019. "Switching on Electricity Demand Response: Evidence for German Households," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 5).
    13. Finn Roar Aune & Rolf Golombek, 2020. "Are carbon prices redundant in the 2030 EU climate and energy policy package?," Discussion Papers 940, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    14. McComas, Katherine A. & Schuldt, Jonathon P. & Burge, Colleen A. & Roh, Sungjong, 2015. "Communicating about marine disease: The effects of message frames on policy support," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 45-52.
    15. Sungwook Yoon, 2023. "Willingness-to-Pay of Converting a Centralized Power Generation to a Distributed Power Generation: Estimating the Avoidance Benefits from Electric Power Transmission," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Frondel, Manuel & Kaeding, Matthias & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Market premia for renewables in Germany: The effect on electricity prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    17. Han, Wenchen & Gao, Shun & Huang, Changwei & Yang, Junzhong, 2022. "Non-consensus states in circular opinion model with repulsive interaction," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    18. Vincenzo Carrieri & Maria De Paola & Francesca Gioia, 2021. "The health-economy trade-off during the Covid-19 pandemic: Communication matters," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Haar, Lawrence, 2020. "An empirical analysis of the fiscal incidence of renewable energy support in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    20. Frondel, Manuel & Kussel, Gerhard & Sommer, Stephan, 2019. "Heterogeneity in the price response of residential electricity demand: A dynamic approach for Germany," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 119-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Randomisiertes Kontrollexperiment; Panelerhebung;

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • C25 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:rwimat:149. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rwiesde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.