On September 29, 2023, the Swiss parliament passed the "Uniform Amendment Decree for a Secure Electricity Supply
from Renewable Energies" to supposedly strengthen the security of electricity supply in winter.
This law is known as the "Shell Decree" or "Electricity Act" for short.
This should pave the way for increased electricity production from solar, wind and hydropower plants in Switzerland.
The new law will allow the Swiss Federal Council to determine when, where and how many renewable energy plants may be built.
Various organizations such as the "Alliance for Nature and Landscape Switzerland", the "Free Landscape Switzerland"
association and the "Fondation Franz Weber" have launched a referendum against the new federal law
and submitted 63,184 signatures in January 2024.
The controversial bill will therefore be put to a vote by Swiss voters on June 9, 2024.
The main argument put forward by supporters is that the new electricity law is necessary to avert the
threat of an electricity shortage in Switzerland.
The association "Aufrecht Schweiz" speaks of an invented energy crisis in this regard.
"Aufrecht Schweiz" is a citizens' movement that wants to have a say in Swiss politics with independent candidates.
In their media release "Electricity shortage in Switzerland? No way!"" from fall 2022, a computer scientist
from the electricity company and an electrical engineer, both retired, wrote the following:
"By pursuing the fear strategy promoted by the lobby, the Federal Office of Energy is quickly and directly
benefiting the gas/oil companies and electricity traders.
(...) When the federal government tells us to save electricity, it is not because we have too little of it,
but because we are too cheap in electricity trading.
Every kilowatt we save benefits the energy companies because they can sell the electricity
saved in Switzerland abroad at a much higher price."
The Association of Aargau Electricity Suppliers (VAS for short) pointed out in a statement that the blanket
decree would mean the entire nation's electricity infrastructure would have to be completely overhauled.
Until now, electricity has reached every end consumer based on the logically proven principle
of largely centralized large-scale power plants.
However, the distribution infrastructure is now to be regulated on a decentralized basis, which should also be
comprehensive, error-free and able to communicate with everyone.
According to the VAS, qualified projections estimate that the necessary conversion and expansion of the grids
in Switzerland alone will cost around CHF 100 billion.
It is primarily non-privileged consumers and tenants without the option of self-supply
who have to pay for this additional service.
As is so often the case with new laws, the result is that profits and subsidies are privatized for the few, while
costs and risks are shared by the remaining general public.
- So much for the Association of Aargau Electricity Suppliers.
Various NO committees have also criticized the new Electricity Act for calling into question fundamental principles of nature
and landscape conservation that have been enshrined in the Swiss Federal Constitution by the Swiss electorate over the decades.
For example, forests may now be cleared for the construction of wind turbines or large wind and solar parks may be built in
protected landscapes - even if this destroys valuable biotopes.
Nothing would stand in the way of the construction of large solar parks in the Swiss Alps.
Many alpine pastures could be covered with steel structures and solar systems.
Elias Vogt, President of the association "Free Landscape Switzerland", explains in an interview with
the independent TV station HOCH2.TV what this law entails and why he recommends rejecting it.
The title of the political talk show is: "The shell decree is a subsidized destruction of nature".
In the interview, Vogt addresses the following points of criticism of the new electricity law, among others:
- Democratic co-determination and the right of objection are at risk
- Electricity production takes precedence over nature conservation in the new Electricity Act
- Natural damage "by law" is possible
- The blighting of the Alps: electricity production takes precedence over tourism
Elias Vogt refers to the criticism by lawyer Prof. Dr. Alain Griffel that the controversial
blanket decree violates the Swiss Federal Constitution.
For example, energy production must be sufficient, safe, economical and environmentally friendly.
However, the criteria of environmental compatibility and security of electricity supply should be treated equally.
This will no longer be the case with the new Electricity Act.
Obviously, a law was passed in the Swiss parliament under great pressure that is not
constitutional and restricts democratic rights.
The fear of a supposed electricity shortage in winter is causing Parliament to act hastily.
Dear Swiss voters: Do you also not want the abolition of basic democratic rights and the disfigurement of the Swiss
landscape under the guise of promoting renewable energies?
Then put a "NO" to the "blanket decree" in the ballot box on June 9.
Watch Dr. Philipp Gut's half-hour interview with Elias Vogt, President of the association "Free Landscape Switzerland", on
the political talk show of the independent TV channel HOCH2.TV.
Interview
Dear viewers, I would like to welcome you to the political talk show on HOCH2.TV.
You know it, you know it, this show is always direct, always honest, always committed to the truth and
always with exciting guests who have something to say.
Today I would like to welcome Elias Vogt, President of the association "Free Landscape Switzerland", a new political
figure in Switzerland, if I may say so, who has already made a difference and will certainly continue to do so.
Nice to have you on the show.
Thank you very much, Mr. Gut, for the invitation.
I am also delighted to be here.
You recently successfully managed a referendum with other organizations.
So for viewers in Germany and Austria: in Switzerland, you have the option of opposing
parliamentary laws and calling for a referendum on them.
You have achieved this, it needs at least 50,000 signatures.
It is about a so-called blanket decree that aims to promote renewable energies.
Before we criticize this exercise, can you say what this law actually wants?
What is this so-called blanket decree anyway?
The Mantelerlass is a revision of various laws in one coat, so to speak, hence the term.
The Energy Act is to be revised on the one hand, the Electricity Supply Act on the other, and the Spatial Planning Act on
the third, and these three laws are to be revised as a whole.
The main goal is actually the massive expansion of wind and solar energy in Switzerland.
But also the construction of 16 large hydropower plants.
All these aspects relating to these renewable energies, for this expansion, are regulated in this entire package.
This is what lies behind the term "shell decree".
That's actually, this coat is kind of a super law that includes various revisions to the law, right?
Exactly. And it also contains many open points.
This means that the Federal Council, which in our case is the government, can then
regulate individual details at ordinance level.
There are lots of details where things really get down to business.
For example, the Federal Council may shorten approval procedures.
And because the principle of municipal autonomy also applies in Switzerland, which means that the population
in Switzerland can decide directly on spatial planning in their locality, in the municipality.
If the Federal Council shortens this, then it can simply say that these municipalities no longer have a say and then directly
abolish direct democracy and referendums in the municipality.
Yes, we will come back to the points of criticism.
Perhaps first a little bit about the order of interpretation.
My further question in this context.
You did not take the referendum on your own.
Who else was a partner?
Which organizations are behind it?
So first of all, a private individual has just taken action, the referendum.
A Pierre-Alain Bruchez, a former financial expert, an employee of the federal government who is now
retired and who asked himself what is in this decree?
He saw that you can build huge solar parks in the Alps with this law.
And then he appeared before the media on October 10 of last year and said that I was going to hold a referendum.
And then the well-known "Fondation Franz Weber" also appeared in front of the media a few days later and said that
we were also taking part in the referendum, that we were supporting the countermeasures, so to speak.
And then it happened relatively quickly.
Then we from "Free Landscape Switzerland" also wanted to get involved against it, we joined Mr. Bruchez, so to speak.
Have motivated our member organization to collect signatures as well.
And in the end, 63,000 signatures were collected over Christmas and New Year with a large number of small and
large environmental and health protection organizations.
Now perhaps a word about your organization "Free Landscape Switzerland".
What exactly is that? What are your goals?
"Freie Landschaft Schweiz" is actually the umbrella organization of wind power critics in Switzerland.
We have around 50 member clubs and eight cantonal sections.
It could be in Thurgau, it could be in Vaud, it could be anywhere in Switzerland.
And they are all committed to ensuring nature conservation in Switzerland with regard to wind turbines.
But direct democracy, as I explained earlier, is also a focal point of the general decree, which is why we are vehemently
committed to preserving nature conservation and direct democracy.
Yes, let's try to fan out this problem a bit more, approach it a bit more systematically.
One point in this blanket decree, in this super law, in this super law, are certain
targets for the expansion of renewable energies.
In other words, politicians are actually saying by when the proportion of solar energy or wind power must be so and so high.
How do you rate these political objectives? Are they realistic?
Does it even make sense for politicians to make such regulations? How do you assess this?
So the blanket decree says quite vaguely that we should produce around 45 terawatt hours of additional electricity
from solar and wind over the course of the year by 2050.
Switzerland currently consumes around 60 terawatt hours.
So that's a huge amount to be added.
And as I said earlier, it remains to be seen which technology will produce how much electricity.
This means that the Federal Council can now say that we need so many solar panels and we need so many wind turbines.
Personally, I suspect that he wants to realize around 1,500 wind turbines and several hundred square kilometers of solar panels.
Where these are to be located, whether on roofs or in the open countryside, is also really up to the Federal Council.
And there is a threat of massive environmental interference in an already densely populated Switzerland.
And it is a huge amount of electricity that is generated during the day, which is then generated irregularly when the wind blows.
And the whole system, this super law, regulates the details far too little.
And that's why it's all well and good to set targets - we want to produce an additional 45 terawatt hours.
But whether that is realistic, the gods know, nobody knows.
And that is why we are also critical of the law in this respect.
Another point - we are still in the process of breaking down what different areas are actually involved - are subsidies.
Renewable energies are to be strongly promoted.
What does that look like?
We already adopted a new energy law in 2017.
This is now the second stage, so to speak, this blanket decree.
And at that time it was said that we would no longer provide subsidies for solar and wind power plants from 2022.
And that is now being broken.
With the second, this super package, the blanket decree, the Federal Council is given a free hand.
He can decide how many subsidies solar and wind power plants receive.
Even there, we don't know how many subsidies there will be.
But it can be assumed that it is over 50 percent of the investment costs.
So the law apparently states that up to 60 percent of investment costs can be subsidies.
Yes, there are two models.
Either the investor says, I want 60 percent of the investment from the federal government.
And then he gets that and he still has to organize the 40 percent with a bank.
Or he says that the federal government will provide a guarantee for every kilowatt hour he produces.
Nobody knows how high it is.
That will probably also amount to 60 percent.
So you see, this is a subsidized destruction of nature.
And because it is not economical - especially the wind power plants, because we have very poor wind
conditions in Switzerland - and we simply have to provide enormous subsidies to make it happen at all.
One problem, as you briefly mentioned in a subordinate clause, is the regular energy, the band energy that is actually needed.
Now it's logical, when it rains, when it's dark, solar doesn't work.
If there is no wind, wind does not work.
How can this problem be solved?
Respectively, isn't that a new problem if you invest too heavily in such unreliable, flighty energy producers?
This is the big point in the Mantelerlass that has not been clarified, which creates new problems.
The entire network planning is not included, the storage is not included.
In other words, large amounts of solar energy and wind energy are being added.
But how this is then to be stored is written in the stars.
Personally, I think rooftop solar energy is a good option because you can use it locally and store it locally, the solar power.
But that is not regulated in the general decree, that this is to be promoted, that research is to be
carried out, that there are better storage options.
And that means that we are in danger of going in the same direction as Germany, where huge amounts of
wind power are suddenly available, suddenly gone.
During the day there is a lot of solar power at midday, then suddenly nothing at all at night.
And then you suddenly have huge network problems.
And that causes costs and uncertainty.
And that is now a major point of criticism of this blanket decree.
Another point, which you have already mentioned several times, is democratic participation.
Obviously, this law also restricts the possibilities for lodging objections.
Switzerland is known for its subsidiarity principle.
This means that decisions are made at the lowest possible level, directly with those affected.
Now this is actually being centralized.
The Federal Council, the federal government, i.e. the national government, is given more power.
How does this restriction of the right to object, the right to have a say and the democratic
co-determination of citizens manifest itself in concrete terms?
In Switzerland, we have two options for having a say in wind power projects.
One is that we vote on projects.
This is currently the case in 24 out of 26 cantons, where the local population votes.
Individuals, private individuals, but also environmental organizations can object to projects, even if
they are approved, in order to address nature conservation or personal noise issues, for example.
And both options are now to be massively abolished or restricted by the blanket decree.
As I have already said, the blanket decree would allow the Federal Council to abolish referendums.
And on the other hand, the blanket decree stipulates that electricity production should
always take precedence over all other interests.
This means that if you make an objection and say that far too many people are being disturbed
by noise at this wind farm, that is not possible.
Or trees are felled, that is not possible, it is not in proportion to the benefit.
Then the court must always approve the wind farm anyway, because electricity production
always takes precedence over all other interests.
So you may no longer be able to vote, but you can still make an objection, but it will certainly be rejected.
So it is a drastic reduction of our direct democracy.
That leads us directly to the next point. This balancing of interests is also constitutional.
A well-known lawyer, Professor Alain Griffel, has criticized this and said that this blanket decree also violates the constitution,
violates the Swiss Federal Constitution, because it cannot be said that certain interests suddenly take precedence over others.
Can you elaborate on what this professor's criticism of the new blanket decree is specifically?
In Switzerland, we have an article in the constitution on energy policy that contains five principles.
I don't know if I can list them all, but the power supply or energy production must certainly be
sufficient, safe, economical and environmentally friendly.
I can't think of the fifth point right now.
But in any case, these points are all of equal importance.
This means that they must be achieved at the same time.
In other words, environmental compatibility and security of electricity supply must be treated equally.
And by Parliament now saying that electricity production takes precedence over nature conservation.
This is a free pass to simply wave environmentally harmful projects through everywhere. That is unconstitutional.
This is not what the Swiss population wanted.
And that harms the basis of our existence, nature.
And that can have massive, serious consequences.
The fact is that the Swiss population has repeatedly enshrined environmental protection in the constitution over the decades.
This is therefore quasi applicable law.
And this is now being virtually pushed away with a stroke of the pen from above.
What do you think? How did this situation come about in the first place?
It is somewhat strange. The people's representatives actually know that too.
So what zeitgeist or what emergency situation perhaps led to such a brutal law being introduced in the first place?
So it already started in the fall of 2022.
Before that, Parliament had never dealt with energy policy for years.
And in the summer of 2022, just as the coronavirus pandemic was over, the Electricity Commission made a major media report
that many nuclear power plants in France were being overhauled.
And it could be that we in Switzerland could suddenly suffer an electricity shortage next winter.
And then, within three weeks, Parliament decided on a solar express in a complete rush and said we are
now building large solar power plants in the Alps.
So we are installing huge areas of alpine pastures with solar panels.
And that was already unconstitutional at the time.
And it came together in three weeks.
So that was completely rushed.
And then actually, because it was unconstitutional, parliament should have automatically consulted the population.
Our constitution provides for this.
If you make an unconstitutional law, then you have to put it to a popular vote.
And Parliament simply didn't do that.
And then I went to the Federal Supreme Court and lodged an appeal, saying that this should actually go before the electorate now.
And then the Federal Supreme Court said, yes, parliament is all-powerful in Switzerland.
And in this spirit of omnipotence, in this awareness, one law after the next was passed.
A Windexpress has arrived and now this shell decree.
And parliament doesn't care whether the constitution is implemented or not.
They simply do everything for electricity production.
I'll delve a little deeper into the potential damage you fear to nature and the landscape.
What exactly is possible with this law, or what are you afraid of?
What specific interventions are possible in nature?
So first and foremost, huge solar parks are planned and possible in the Alps.
This was actually only a temporary option that was decided in the fall of 2022 as a
short-term measure to remedy the electricity shortage.
And that should now be a long-term possibility.
This means that gigantic alpine pastures can be covered with steel structures and solar systems.
The other is that wind turbines should also be explicitly permitted in forests in Switzerland.
In other words, to protect the climate you go into forests, clear a soccer pitch of woodland for a
wind turbine and then erect a wind turbine there.
Is that already explicit in the law or is it open?
Does it mean you want to make it easier or does it mean that's the way it is?
So in concrete legal terms, wind turbines in forests are site-specific.
And that is a very strong relief, if not a permit for wind farms in forests.
You have to bear in mind that in the canton of Zurich, which is the most populous canton in Switzerland, well over a million
people live there, 120 wind turbines are now planned and 110 are to be built in the forest, because there
is no more space than on the ridges and in the forest.
And these are actually the most serious environmental interventions.
Of course, there are also hydropower plants that would like to be built in biotopes of
cantonal importance, which is also possible.
Nature simply doesn't count for anything anymore.
It almost seems a bit absurd, doesn't it?
They want to save the climate, so to speak, hence the hype surrounding these renewable energies.
At the same time, we are cutting down forests and destroying nature.
How does that work together?
That's the absurdity of it.
It cannot be that we are clearing forests for so-called green energy.
There is simply not much space in Switzerland, you have to see that.
Switzerland is very densely populated, from west to east, from north to south.
And if you want to massively expand wind power, then you have to take into account that these are 250-meter
turbines nowadays, they need a certain amount of space.
And in Switzerland, the biodiversity islands, as well as the recreational islands for the population, are still the forests.
They also always have heavily shaved forest edges.
It used to be much more open and there were a lot more trees in the field.
Today, the forests have been cleared.
And now they are going into the woods, wanting to build ten-meter-wide roads and clear a soccer pitch of forest.
And that is actually our main argument.
You can't cut down trees to protect the climate.
You come from a wind power-critical background.
Now, if you take a half-step back and assess this, where do you fear the greatest damage?
Is it the wind turbines, the large hydroelectric power plants or perhaps the solar power plants in the Alps?
Is it possible to quantify where the worst is threatening nature from your point of view?
In the case of hydropower, it is certainly the case that you have a large benefit for a relatively small intervention.
There is this damage there too, that's for sure.
But in the case of solar installations, you can really assume that huge areas of alpine pasture are actually to be built over.
That is a huge loss for me, because Switzerland lives from its landscapes.
Landscapes are very important for our country - historically speaking.
We have many grand hotels that were built in places where you had a wonderful view of the Alps.
And it is precisely these Alps that are now to be built over.
That means it also has historical significance.
And yes, the second thing is the forests where I see this damage.
Interesting what you say about tourist regions and the Alps.
The canton of Graubünden wants to be a pioneer in this area.
I am happy to take up this keyword.
They actually want to push ahead and have set up x zones, I think 30 zones, and - you correct me - over two dozen in
any case in prime locations, so to speak, on mountain slopes.
So apart from St. Moritz, I think you'll see giant wind turbines like this in front of every major tourist resort in the future.
What do you think this means for the importance of tourism and the economy in Switzerland?
Wind turbines are huge, they also need space.
They have to be built in exposed locations where there is wind.
And if the federal government orders the canton of Graubünden, one of the world's best-known tourism hotspots, to install 100
wind turbines, then there is no getting around the fact that these wind turbines will be built in Davos, on
Lenzerheide, in Arosa, at the Swiss National Park, wherever the best-known tourism locations are.
And as I said before, historically this has great significance, because tourism and the Alps are what make up our identity.
At the end of the 19th century, Switzerland grew massively and became one of the richest countries in the world.
And precisely because of these landscapes, because many people from abroad have come to us to admire these landscapes.
And the fact that the Alps are no longer valued is something I personally find very
bad and a terrible development in Parliament.
Now all these decrees, this blanket decree, these various express templates that you mentioned there,
Solarexpress, Windexpress, they are actually in the context of this so-called energy transition.
People want to move away from fossil fuels, but at the same time have reservations about nuclear energy, which
is no longer being built in Switzerland at the moment - there is a kind of technology ban.
Germany has already turned them off, but in other parts of the world it's quite different.
What is your fundamental position on this energy transition?
Is that necessary? Does the state have to push it?
Can the economy do that? Can it be regulated independently? How do you see it?
The energy transition is a very complex topic in itself.
What I see for sure is that fossil fuels lead to climate change and climate change is harmful.
We have to find solutions.
The problem is how politicians approach this.
She asked the population, do you want to phase out nuclear energy?
The population said yes, not surprisingly.
The population was asked, do you want to get out of fossil fuels?
The population said yes.
In both votes, no one said what it would mean, what it would cost, how exactly it would work, but instead they set targets and then
the population accepts them and then they come up with the consequences and then get upset that it doesn't work,
that the population resists, that there is damage to nature, that it will be expensive, that it creates uncertainty.
For me, that is an unfair approach.
Instead, I would like to see the population being given a clear message and told that they
have three options for producing electricity.
With solar panels on the roofs, that needs this and that.
With gas-fired power plants, that means that and that for the climate.
With nuclear power plants, that means that and that for the waste, for the storage, for the procurement of uranium.
Then you know what you're talking about.
But you simply set goals now, they sound good, and then you look at how to implement them later.
And I have great reservations about that.
It's a kind of utopian and also not really honest policy, if I may summarize it that way.
The question also arises - if you look at the supporters of this blanket decree - who is actually all in this together.
And as a neutral observer, I am a little surprised.
This goes from left to right, so to speak, from electricity barons to powerful business associations to the
Greens and other environmental organizations, not yours.
How is it possible that so many political opponents are suddenly in cahoots? What does that tell us?
So the problem there is that a lot of players who are now in favor of the blanket decree
are in the same boat in the Climate Alliance.
This means that the solar lobby is in the same boat as the environmental associations in the Climate Alliance.
And that is of course a contradiction when it comes to nature conservation.
When it comes to climate protection, both are certainly on the same page.
There are conflicts when it comes to nature conservation.
And I have noticed that people often lack the backbone to say, yes, we as environmental associations are not
just in favor of climate protection, but we are also consistently in favor of nature conservation.
And that's where we need much more clarity and the courage to declare war on the electricity barons and say, yes,
we're both for the climate, but when it comes to nature conservation, then perhaps the friendship will end.
And that takes courage, which is obviously lacking.
And so now both sides are in the same boat when it comes to the decree, the environmental associations perhaps grudgingly, and
the electricity barons are happy because they are looking forward to the subsidies that will flow if they
are allowed to build everywhere in the open countryside.
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung ran the headline about you "The landscape conservationist that Albert Rösti should be afraid of".
Albert Rösti is the Federal Councillor responsible for this dossier.
How do you intend to convince the electorate?
The referendum will then take place in June of this year.
That's a very tight schedule.
Perhaps it was chosen deliberately.
I believe that there is a lack of information among the population about what it would mean if this blanket
decree were to be adopted now, with these objectives, with these restrictions, with these unanswered questions.
And I believe we have to inform the public in a very objective way.
What does it mean to build a wind turbine? What does it mean to build it in the forest?
What does it mean to build a solar plant in the Alps that is 100 soccer fields in size?
What happens in winter when there is snow?
And I believe that you simply have to approach people with images and information and
create information on many different channels.
And that is certainly the way to convince the population that they can see that these are
the goals we are voting on and the consequences.
In addition to this referendum vote, which as I said is due in June, you have also recently announced two
new popular initiatives that go in a similar direction.
Can you briefly describe what this is about?
So in our association "Free Landscape Switzerland", nature conservation and direct democracy are two
core concerns that we attach particular importance to.
Direct democracy and nature conservation are now both endangered by this blanket decree.
But we can already see in parliament that even crazier ideas are being put forward to abolish the referendum per se in
the law in order to restrict nature conservation even further.
And we want to counteract this.
We have launched two popular initiatives. The forest protection initiative and the community protection initiative.
The forest protection initiative wants wind turbines to be banned in forests and on the edge of forests.
And the community protection initiative wants wind turbines, if they are built, to always
require the consent of the affected population.
And the collection of signatures is now underway.
And we have to collect 100,000 valid signatures by July 2025.
Now we are curious to see if you succeed.
And then there are sure to be the next voting battles.
You can also look forward to that. Finally, perhaps a personal question.
They are still young and already very committed to these environmental and landscape conservation issues.
How did you get involved in the first place?
Maybe that comes a bit from the family.
My mother has already had a lot of contact with landscape conservation.
She grew up in the 1970s in Wangen am Zürichsee in the canton of Schwyz, where the A3 highway was
built through the middle of the village in the 1970s.
In the 1980s, she then moved to the canton of Zurich, to Bonstetten.
The plan was to build the A4 highway through the open countryside.
And in the 90s, my mother came to Grenchen in the canton of Solothurn with my father.
As luck would have it, the A5 highway was to be built through the open countryside.
And this commitment from both my parents rubbed off on me too.
I live in a very beautiful place in Grenchen, between the Jura and the Mittelland.
You can also see the Alps, in other words all three of Switzerland's major landscapes.
And I always think to myself, I'll only be 54 years old in 2050.
I also want to leave my children an ecologically valuable landscape.
And to preserve and sustainably maintain this landscape for as long as possible, as we have it today.
Thank you very much. We wish you every success in this major undertaking, which is already looking to the future.
Nice to have you on the show. Elias Vogt, thank you.
And I would like to thank you, dear viewers, for your attention.
I look forward to seeing you again next week when we say welcome to the political talk show on HOCH2.TV.