IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/rwimat/149.html

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. repec:aen:journl:ej38-si1-frondel is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. Midha, Joshua, 2022. "The Cycle of Rule: Existential Risks, Continuity Of Governance, And Conflict-Based Preservation," SocArXiv vc7w9, Center for Open Science.
    3. 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.
    4. Bloemraad, Irene & Voss, Kim & Silva, Fabiana, 2014. "Framing the Immigrant Movement as about Rights, Family, or Economics: Which Appeals Resonate and for Whom?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3b32w33p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    5. Przeszlowski, Kimberly & Guerette, Rob T., 2025. "Public perceptions on police use of information technologies: Findings from a randomized vignette experiment," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Justin Wedeking, 2010. "Supreme Court Litigants and Strategic Framing," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 617-631, July.
    7. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Gilles Grolleau & Luc Meunier & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2025. "Targeting the Sin or the Sinner? Applying Kahneman's Insights to Frame Environmental Messages for Better Waste Management," Post-Print hal-04926850, HAL.
    9. 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.
    10. Bellani, Luna & Bledow, Nona, 2025. "Top vs. Bottom: Experimental Evidence on Priming, Information, and Redistribution Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 18066, IZA Network @ LISER.
    11. Simon D Angus & Lachlan O'Neill, 2024. "Paired Completion: Flexible Quantification of Issue-framing at Scale with LLMs," Papers 2408.09742, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    12. Hawkins, Christopher V. & Chia-Yuan, Yu, 2018. "Voter support for environmental bond referenda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 193-200.
    13. Shapiro, Matthew A. & Bolsen, Toby, 2019. "Korean perceptions of transboundary air pollution and domestic coal development: Two framing experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 333-342.
    14. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    15. Grant D. Jacobsen, 2019. "How do different sources of policy analysis affect policy preferences? Experimental evidence from the United States," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 315-342, September.
    16. repec:jpe:journl:1754 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Sliacan, Jakub & Cibik, Matej, 2025. "Systemic motonormativity," SocArXiv pbgnx_v1, Center for Open Science.
    18. 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.
    19. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    20. Nikoleta Yordanova & Mariyana Angelova & Roni Lehrer & Moritz Osnabrügge & Sander Renes, 2020. "Swaying citizen support for EU membership: Evidence from a survey experiment of German voters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 429-450, September.
    21. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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.