Climate Lawsuits: ICJ Takes Center Stage + Electricity: Price Caps Without Blackouts + Agora: Heading Into the Election Campaign Leaderless

Dear reader,

As Editor-in-Chief of Table.Media, I’m excited to present our latest addition, available alongside our renowned Climate.Table:

CEO.Table – Your Essential Saturday Briefing.

Germany’s economic model is facing an unprecedented global stress test. Prosperity is being reshaped, industries are undergoing radical transformation, and the foundations of our economy are shifting. What seemed stable yesterday risks becoming obsolete today. A revival of Germany’s economic foundation is imperative, and this challenge can only be met through an alliance of politics, business, and science.

CEO.Table is our journalistic response to this challenge.

Starting this Saturday at 6 a.m., we are launching CEO.Table, a complimentary executive briefing tailored for CEOs and those shaping strategies alongside them.

Concise. Expert. Insightful.

Each week, we deliver sharp analysis of key trends, debates, and developments from boardrooms, strategy hubs, and research teams. Our Editorial Director, Thilo Boss, and his team compile the best insights from CEO interviews, speeches, and presentations. Additionally, CEO.Table provides highlights from our specialized briefings, including China, Climate, Europe, ESG, Security, Africa, Agrifood, and Education & Research.

Highlights include:

CEO.Index: A unique evaluation of executive performance.
CEO.Survey: Exclusive Forsa Institute polls of decision-makers on critical topics.
Must Reads: Curated selections from leading tech and IT publications.
Executive News: Key personnel changes across Germany’s top management levels.
CEO.Economist: Analysis from top economists, including Moritz Schularick, Veronika Grimm, Philippa Sigl-Glöckner, Michael Böhmer, and Reint E. Gropp.

As a valued subscriber, you are among the key figures vital to driving Germany’s economic recovery. Join us at the CEO.Table as we navigate the future of our economic nation together.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions. For more information about CEO.Table, click here.

If you prefer not to receive CEO.Table, you can unsubscribe here.

Your
Michael Bröcker

Climate action obligations: How states have positioned themselves before the ICJ

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague is to present an expert opinion on the climate protection obligations of states.

By

Alexandra Endres

Are only the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement decisive for the climate policy actions of states, or must states also comply with broader guidelines such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the UN Charter? This was the central conflict between major emitters and developing countries particularly affected by the climate crisis, which has been heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the past two weeks.

At Vanuatu’s initiative, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) asked the ICJ to clarify two questions: What climate action obligations arise from international law? What are the consequences if states do not fulfill their obligations? From Dec. 2 to 13, 96 states and eleven international organizations took a stand on this issue. The court is expected to present its advisory opinion by next summer.

Conflicts similar to UN climate negotiations

Beforehand, the ICJ had met with a group of leading IPCC authors to find out about the current state of climate science. The IPCC reports are part of the extensive body of evidence that the court must now include in its deliberations.

The same lines of conflict that characterize the negotiations within the UN climate conferences then emerged in the states’ oral statements:

The major emitters argued that their legal obligations were essentially limited to submitting NDCs under the Paris Agreement. “Practically all major emitters have emphasized how important climate protection is to them,” says Corina Heri, climate and international law expert at the University of Zurich, to Table.Briefings. Heri was involved in the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) statement to the ICJ. “But they don’t want to make any binding commitments, they want to continue to care voluntarily.”
The particularly vulnerable countries, on the other hand, referred to the severity of the climate crisis, described the resulting damage, and called for compensation. Emerging countries emphasized their right to economic development.

Selected pleadings

Vanuatu called on the ICJ to recognize that the high greenhouse gas emissions of “a handful of easily identifiable states” are unlawful, must stop, and that its consequences must be remedied. If the ICJ complies, this could strengthen the demand for climate reparations.
Papua New Guinea and Nauru argued that countries should also be held accountable for their historical emissions, not just their greenhouse gas emissions since the relevant UN climate agreements and conventions came into existence.
Saudi Arabia referred to its own historically low emissions and said that an ICJ Advisory Opinion could not replace the UN climate negotiations.
China argued with the historical responsibility of the old industrialized countries and saw the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the UN climate negotiations as the most important basis for regulating international climate protection – more important than a court ruling in any case.
India criticized the rich countries for demanding that poorer countries reduce their consumption of resources, even though they themselves had benefited from fossil fuels for decades.
Germany referred to the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of the states for climate action laid down in the Paris Agreement, the voluntary nature of the NDCs, and the fact that the Paris Agreement does not contain any legal obligation for climate compensation.
Germany also argued that “states that comply with the Paris Agreement also fulfill their human rights obligations.” States are not obliged to protect human rights beyond their borders – Germany backed up this argument with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which declared a climate lawsuit brought by Portuguese young people against 32 states inadmissible last April.
Switzerland took the view that the ICJ could not give states any overly specific instructions for action. The possible background: In April, the ECtHR found that Switzerland had violated its climate action obligations in the case of the climate seniors – the ruling was frequently mentioned in the hearings before the ICJ. However, the Swiss authorities have so far remained unimpressed.
Thailand argued that the Paris Agreement also obliges it to protect the rights of future generations and linked this to the legally important precautionary principle.

Expert opinions from other courts could increase pressure

How the court will rule is difficult to predict, even for experts. However, in May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea published an advisory opinion stating that states must protect the climate more than required by the Paris Agreement. This could send a signal to the ICJ: “In view of the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ITLOS, there is hope for a progressive push for international climate action obligations,” says Francesca Mascha Klein, Legal Officer for Strategic Litigation at the environment and development organization Germanwatch, to Table.Briefings.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the third international court currently working on an international legal opinion on the climate action obligations of states. The fact that three high-ranking courts are dealing with this issue at practically the same time could open up new avenues for climate action. The ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding. But it could provide new arguments for further climate lawsuits. It is also likely to play a role in international climate diplomacy and the UNGA debates, as these “do not take place in a vacuum”, says Klein, “but are strongly influenced by the legal and political pressure that the ICJ could increase with its position.”

Electricity price spikes: Why there was no threat of a blackout

RWE’s Niederaussem lignite-fired power plant: The fact that one unit was out of operation at the beginning of November due to boiler damage contributed to the sharp rise in prices.

By

Malte Kreutzfeldt

The prices recorded on the EEX electricity exchange last Thursday and at the beginning of November were extreme: On Nov. 6 between 5 and 7 p.m., a kilowatt hour in day-ahead trading cost around 82 cents, and on Dec. 12 between 5 and 6 p.m. it was as much as 94 cents – that is more than ten times the average price this year.

One reason for this was that wind turbines were producing almost no electricity at the time due to a widespread lull and solar installations were not feeding anything into the grid due to the time of year and time of day. In addition, electricity consumption was above average due to the low temperatures. However, these factors cannot really explain the short-term price explosion. This is because there are actually enough power plants in Germany to reliably cover the demand for electricity at all times.

According to the Federal Network Agency, the capacity of power plants participating in the electricity market is currently 15.2 gigawatts for lignite-fired power plants, 9.6 gigawatts for hard coal-fired power plants, 31.4 gigawatts for gas-fired power plants and 9.5 gigawatts for biomass-fired power plants. These alone therefore have a secured capacity of 66 gigawatts, which would have been just enough to cover the entire demand for electricity at the two times in question without imports; in addition, oil and waste-fired power plants as well as pumped storage plants supplied over six gigawatts at the times in question.

‘Secure power supply never at risk at any time’

The Federal Network Agency therefore firmly rejected reports that the high electricity prices were a sign of an impending blackout. “The secure supply of electricity was never at risk at any time,” said the agency, which reports to the BMWK. This can also be seen from the fact that not a single reserve power plant was used. These are power plants that the operators actually wanted to shut down for economic reasons, but which had to remain on the grid by order of the Federal Network Agency in order to ensure a sufficient supply even if several power plants and lines failed. These currently have a capacity of around 10 gigawatts and can be put into operation at short notice at the request of the transmission system operators in the event of an imminent power shortage, but this did not happen in November or December.

It is currently unclear why there were such extreme price spikes despite sufficient capacity. The electricity price at any given time is determined by the most expensive power plant currently in operation. Normally, the price at which the power plants offer their electricity is based on the marginal costs, i.e. the real costs incurred for the generation of an additional kilowatt hour. However, this cannot explain the prices that occurred on Nov. 6 and Dec. 12, as they are many times higher than the real production costs of the most expensive gas and oil-fired power plants.

Such prices can only occur if demand on the electricity exchange significantly exceeds supply and the last power plant can therefore charge prices that have nothing to do with real costs. This is because as long as there are still unused, available power plants that can produce more cheaply, these would be started up immediately in a functioning market and the electricity price would fall accordingly. However, there have been doubts for some time that the electricity market is functioning as it should. After all, if individual suppliers control a large proportion of the power plants, they can theoretically manipulate prices.

Federal Cartel Office warns of RWE’s market power

In its latest “Market Power Report,” the German Federal Cartel Office warned in November that this possibility could exist at RWE. Although the “timeshares in which RWE, Germany’s largest electricity producer, was indispensable for meeting demand” had fallen slightly, they were still close to the “presumption threshold for market dominance”.

During such periods, the company enjoys “uncontrolled pricing leeway in terms of competition,” warns the Cartel Office. This is because when power plants are taken off the grid, the price of electricity can rise to such an extent that considerable additional profits are still made overall. According to the Cartel Office, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that “the periods in which the demand for electricity could not be met without RWE can be systematically predicted by this company.”

Authority examines ‘allegations of abusive market behavior’

However, when asked by Table.Briefings, RWE spokeswoman Stephanie Schunck firmly rejects the idea that this could have been the reason for the high electricity prices on Nov. 6 and Dec. 12. On both dates, the company “offered all technically available power plants on the market as usual,” she explains and emphasizes: “Any assumption that we deliberately withheld capacity has no basis.” According to the company, the fact that two large RWE lignite units – Weisweiler H and Niederaußem H – did not produce any electricity on Nov. 6 despite the high demand and prices was due to “boiler damage” occurring in both power plants independently of each other. This made it necessary to shut down each plant for a good two days.

Market observers assume that the unavailability of these two blocks could have been relevant to the sudden price increase. “1.3 gigawatts more or less makes a big difference in a tight market,” says Marco Wünsch, for example, who monitors the energy markets for the economic research institute Prognos. The Federal Network Agency, which together with the Cartel Office is responsible for monitoring the electricity market, wants to take a close look at the situation on these two days. “The Federal Network Agency is investigating the current allegations of market abuse in connection with the price spikes that have occurred in close coordination with the trading monitoring offices of the electricity exchanges,” a spokesperson said. If there are any indications of misconduct, “further investigative measures will be initiated.”

Sweden criticizes German energy policy

Meanwhile, the temporarily high electricity prices in Germany are also attracting international criticism. Because Germany also pays correspondingly high prices for imported electricity at these times, the price of electricity also rises in the countries that supply this electricity. Sweden is strongly affected by the weather dependency of electricity production in Germany, said Christian Democrat Energy Minister Ebba Busch at the EU Energy Ministers’ Meeting in Brussels on Monday. She accused Germany of making itself even more dependent on fossil fuels by building new gas-fired power plants. Germany must open up to baseload power plants that are not based on fossil fuels. Sweden relies heavily on nuclear energy and, like France, is one of the EU states that rejects a European target for renewable energies in climate legislation for 2040.

The new EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, on the other hand, defended the policy for wind and solar: “Even if renewable energies are sometimes portrayed by some as the reason for price increases, the opposite is true. From 2021 to 2023, citizens and businesses in Europe will have saved a billion euros thanks to the expansion of renewables.“

In fact, the impact of extreme price peaks on electricity prices is minimal. On the one hand, they only affect very short periods of time and, on the other, they are offset by periods in which a large supply of wind and solar power leads to low or even negative electricity prices. At 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour, the average day-ahead price on the German electricity exchange so far this year is significantly higher than before the start of the war in Ukraine, but lower than in 2021, 2022, and 2023.

Agora Energiewende: Why the Director for Germany is leaving

The Agora Energiewende think tank is entering the hot phase of the German parliamentary election campaign, in which energy and climate issues will also be important, without two of its previous managers: Agora Energiewende’s Germany Director, Simon Müller, is leaving the think tank on Jan. 15, 2025. The think tank’s long-standing EU expert, Matthias Buck, had already taken his leave in October and introduced his successor, Emeline Spire. There is as yet no successor for Müller.

In an interview with Table.Briefings, Simon Müller explained that after three years at the helm of Agora Energiewende, he wanted to take his work to a more international level and enjoy more individual freedom, but would initially remain associated with Agora as a consultant on international issues. “I have achieved the main things I set out to do.” The team is strongly positioned, “especially on economic issues and in the area of the heat transition,” and with the revised scenario for the “Climate-neutral Germany” report, “an innovative implementation perspective for the next legislative period” has been presented.

‘Agora remains fully operational’

His decision was made “in best agreement” with the Agora management back in September before the early end of the traffic light coalition made early elections necessary. Although Agora Energiewende now only has an acting head for Germany in Markus Steigenberger, one of the two managing directors of the Agora think tank, Agora is “fully operational,” according to Müller. The tender will run until the end of the year. When asked by Table.Briefings, the former head of Agora and interim State Secretary in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Patrick Graichen, stated that he would not be applying for the position.

Matthias Buck, on the other hand, is leaving the think tank, whose Europe department he set up, after nine years. The EU official had been on leave from the EU for his time at Agora. Emeline Spire has taken on this task in order to support the new EU Commission during its five years in office. The expert for electricity markets and systems had previously headed the Power System Transformation department at Agora as Director. bpo

Canada’s NDC: Why the 45 to 50 percent reduction in emissions is controversial

Canada wants to reduce its emissions by 45 to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 in accordance with its new climate target (NDC). This was announced by the Ministry of the Environment on Thursday. The new target builds on the previous goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. “This target keeps us on track to deliver on the promise to our children and grandchildren that the world we leave them will be safe, sustainable, affordable, and prosperous,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said in a statement on the new NDC.

Canada, a leading oil and gas producer, has so far missed every one of its greenhouse gas emissions targets.
Some climate groups and the official Net Zero Advisory Board have stated that the new targets are not ambitious enough. The board had called for a reduction of 50 to 55 percent, while climate groups even demanded 80 percent. Canada’s previous NDC is rated as “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker.

Elections are due in Canada next year – Trudeau’s Liberals are trailing the opposition Conservatives in the polls. The Conservatives have criticized various climate action measures, including an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. The full document on Canada’s new NDC is not expected until 2025. kul/rtr

EV boom: China hit oil consumption peak

China appears to have reached a peak in oil consumption. While 399 million tons of refined oil were consumed in 2023, the figure was already 1.3 percent lower in 2024 (394 million tons), according to calculations by a research institute of the national oil company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

China is the world’s largest oil importer. A decline in demand for oil in the People’s Republic would have a major impact on climate action. The country’s decades-long role as the main driver of rising oil consumption could therefore come to an end. The decline is primarily due to falling demand for oil products in road transportation. One reason for this is the high sales of electric vehicles. According to CNPC:

Fuel consumption is to fall to 80-100 million tons by 2035 – a reduction of 35 to 50 percent compared to 2023;
diesel demand is expected to fall to between 100 and 120 million tons in 2035 – a decline of 35 to 50 percent compared to 2023, and
total consumption of fossil refinery products in China is expected to fall by 25 to 40 percent to between 240 and 290 million tons by 2035 compared to the peak in 2023.
However, the consumption of jet fuel or kerosene is expected to increase by 70 percent to almost 61 million tons between 2023 and 2035 due to demand from aviation. nib/rtr

Survey: Cross-party majority in favor of solar expansion

For around 69% of the German population, the energy transition and climate protection are “important” or “fairly important”. In addition, 64% of respondents are in favor of a rapid expansion of solar energy. The majority of Green, SPD, FDP, and CDU/CSU voters are in favor of a faster expansion of solar energy. This is the result of a representative survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of the German Solar Industry Association. The association has drawn up a 10-point plan on how solar energy can be expanded even faster. Germany is expected to exceed its solar expansion target for 2024 with a planned expansion of around 15 gigawatts. kul

Journalism: New environmental magazine ‘Atmo’ launching

In spring 2025, “Atmo,” a new environmental magazine, will go on sale in Germany. It was founded by former editors of Greenpeace Magazine, which was discontinued in September. Atmo aims to produce good, independent environmental journalism in “times in which disinformation and populism are rampant, in which lobby interests prevail and urgently needed changes are thwarted.” Frauke Ladleif and Katja Morgenthaler are the managing directors.

In order to secure funding for the new magazine, the Atmo editorial team had advertised for at least 17,000 subscriptions by last Sunday. By Monday morning, 17,090 subscriptions had been sold. The editorial team was thus able to secure a starting capital of more than €1.3 million. The first issue of the magazine is due to be published in print and digitally in spring. kul

Financial Times: Growth more important than desertification. The UN COP16 summit on combating desertification, hosted by Saudi Arabia, ended without agreement on a legally binding response to drought. The UN process struggled to overcome differences with fossil fuel-producing countries. African countries pushed for a binding drought protocol, while the US and the EU sought a less economically burdensome but still effective framework. Read the article

Bloomberg: Green loans under pressure. When Donald Trump takes office in the US in a few weeks, many green investments could be jeopardized. Trump has announced that he will review loans for green investments that were approved by the Biden administration at the last minute. Biden’s program has so far supported car manufacturers, battery producers, and the recommissioning of a nuclear power plant, among others. Read the article

Inside Climate News: One pollution replaces another. For decades, residents living near coal-fired power plants in North Carolina have breathed in polluted air from the smokestacks. Now they have to deal with emissions from new natural gas power plants. The power plants are a centerpiece of Duke Energy’s controversial carbon plan, which is being targeted by environmental activists across the state. They will release millions of tons of greenhouse gases and other harmful compounds into the air. Read the article

New York Times: Indigenous people divided on gas extraction. Indigenous elected leaders in Canada are looking to gas extraction to increase the prosperity of their communities. With the new investment, they hope to counter a long history of discrimination and forced displacement that has led to deepening poverty. Other, unelected leaders see gas extraction as a threat to the natural foundations of their culture. Read the article

Guardian: British toughness. Research shows that three times as many environmental activists are arrested in the UK than the global average. Only in Australia were climate and environmental protesters arrested more frequently than in the UK. In Australia, one in five environmental protests led to arrests, compared to around 17 percent in the UK. The global average is 6.7 percent. New laws have changed the relationship between protesters and the state in recent years and given the police far-reaching new powers. Read the article

Mongabay: Cooperation is the key to success. Camille Jahel, a researcher at the French Agricultural Center for International Development, wants to know what the success criteria for sustainable development are. A study now shows that the short-term needs of communities must be reconciled with long-term goals such as the restoration of ecosystems. Even then, failure is still possible, but 40 percent of projects carried out in this way were successful. Read the article

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Dear reader,

As Editor-in-Chief of Table.Media, I’m excited to present our latest addition, available alongside our renowned Climate.Table:

CEO.Table – Your Essential Saturday Briefing.

Germany’s economic model is facing an unprecedented global stress test. Prosperity is being reshaped, industries are undergoing radical transformation, and the foundations of our economy are shifting. What seemed stable yesterday risks becoming obsolete today. A revival of Germany’s economic foundation is imperative, and this challenge can only be met through an alliance of politics, business, and science.

CEO.Table is our journalistic response to this challenge.

Starting this Saturday at 6 a.m., we are launching CEO.Table, a complimentary executive briefing tailored for CEOs and those shaping strategies alongside them.

Concise. Expert. Insightful.

Each week, we deliver sharp analysis of key trends, debates, and developments from boardrooms, strategy hubs, and research teams. Our Editorial Director, Thilo Boss, and his team compile the best insights from CEO interviews, speeches, and presentations. Additionally, CEO.Table provides highlights from our specialized briefings, including China, Climate, Europe, ESG, Security, Africa, Agrifood, and Education & Research.

Highlights include:

CEO.Index: A unique evaluation of executive performance.
CEO.Survey: Exclusive Forsa Institute polls of decision-makers on critical topics.
Must Reads: Curated selections from leading tech and IT publications.
Executive News: Key personnel changes across Germany’s top management levels.
CEO.Economist: Analysis from top economists, including Moritz Schularick, Veronika Grimm, Philippa Sigl-Glöckner, Michael Böhmer, and Reint E. Gropp.

As a valued subscriber, you are among the key figures vital to driving Germany’s economic recovery. Join us at the CEO.Table as we navigate the future of our economic nation together.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions. For more information about CEO.Table, click here.

If you prefer not to receive CEO.Table, you can unsubscribe here.

Your
Michael Bröcker

Climate action obligations: How states have positioned themselves before the ICJ

By

Alexandra Endres

Are only the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement decisive for the climate policy actions of states, or must states also comply with broader guidelines such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the UN Charter? This was the central conflict between major emitters and developing countries particularly affected by the climate crisis, which has been heard by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the past two weeks.

At Vanuatu’s initiative, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) asked the ICJ to clarify two questions: What climate action obligations arise from international law? What are the consequences if states do not fulfill their obligations? From Dec. 2 to 13, 96 states and eleven international organizations took a stand on this issue. The court is expected to present its advisory opinion by next summer.

Conflicts similar to UN climate negotiations

Beforehand, the ICJ had met with a group of leading IPCC authors to find out about the current state of climate science. The IPCC reports are part of the extensive body of evidence that the court must now include in its deliberations.

The same lines of conflict that characterize the negotiations within the UN climate conferences then emerged in the states’ oral statements:

The major emitters argued that their legal obligations were essentially limited to submitting NDCs under the Paris Agreement. “Practically all major emitters have emphasized how important climate protection is to them,” says Corina Heri, climate and international law expert at the University of Zurich, to Table.Briefings. Heri was involved in the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) statement to the ICJ. “But they don’t want to make any binding commitments, they want to continue to care voluntarily.”
The particularly vulnerable countries, on the other hand, referred to the severity of the climate crisis, described the resulting damage, and called for compensation. Emerging countries emphasized their right to economic development.

Selected pleadings

Vanuatu called on the ICJ to recognize that the high greenhouse gas emissions of “a handful of easily identifiable states” are unlawful, must stop, and that its consequences must be remedied. If the ICJ complies, this could strengthen the demand for climate reparations.
Papua New Guinea and Nauru argued that countries should also be held accountable for their historical emissions, not just their greenhouse gas emissions since the relevant UN climate agreements and conventions came into existence.
Saudi Arabia referred to its own historically low emissions and said that an ICJ Advisory Opinion could not replace the UN climate negotiations.
China argued with the historical responsibility of the old industrialized countries and saw the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and the UN climate negotiations as the most important basis for regulating international climate protection – more important than a court ruling in any case.
India criticized the rich countries for demanding that poorer countries reduce their consumption of resources, even though they themselves had benefited from fossil fuels for decades.
Germany referred to the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of the states for climate action laid down in the Paris Agreement, the voluntary nature of the NDCs, and the fact that the Paris Agreement does not contain any legal obligation for climate compensation.
Germany also argued that “states that comply with the Paris Agreement also fulfill their human rights obligations.” States are not obliged to protect human rights beyond their borders – Germany backed up this argument with a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which declared a climate lawsuit brought by Portuguese young people against 32 states inadmissible last April.
Switzerland took the view that the ICJ could not give states any overly specific instructions for action. The possible background: In April, the ECtHR found that Switzerland had violated its climate action obligations in the case of the climate seniors – the ruling was frequently mentioned in the hearings before the ICJ. However, the Swiss authorities have so far remained unimpressed.
Thailand argued that the Paris Agreement also obliges it to protect the rights of future generations and linked this to the legally important precautionary principle.

Expert opinions from other courts could increase pressure

How the court will rule is difficult to predict, even for experts. However, in May 2024, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea published an advisory opinion stating that states must protect the climate more than required by the Paris Agreement. This could send a signal to the ICJ: “In view of the Advisory Opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ITLOS, there is hope for a progressive push for international climate action obligations,” says Francesca Mascha Klein, Legal Officer for Strategic Litigation at the environment and development organization Germanwatch, to Table.Briefings.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the third international court currently working on an international legal opinion on the climate action obligations of states. The fact that three high-ranking courts are dealing with this issue at practically the same time could open up new avenues for climate action. The ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding. But it could provide new arguments for further climate lawsuits. It is also likely to play a role in international climate diplomacy and the UNGA debates, as these “do not take place in a vacuum”, says Klein, “but are strongly influenced by the legal and political pressure that the ICJ could increase with its position.”

Electricity price spikes: Why there was no threat of a blackout

By

Malte Kreutzfeldt

The prices recorded on the EEX electricity exchange last Thursday and at the beginning of November were extreme: On Nov. 6 between 5 and 7 p.m., a kilowatt hour in day-ahead trading cost around 82 cents, and on Dec. 12 between 5 and 6 p.m. it was as much as 94 cents – that is more than ten times the average price this year.

One reason for this was that wind turbines were producing almost no electricity at the time due to a widespread lull and solar installations were not feeding anything into the grid due to the time of year and time of day. In addition, electricity consumption was above average due to the low temperatures. However, these factors cannot really explain the short-term price explosion. This is because there are actually enough power plants in Germany to reliably cover the demand for electricity at all times.

According to the Federal Network Agency, the capacity of power plants participating in the electricity market is currently 15.2 gigawatts for lignite-fired power plants, 9.6 gigawatts for hard coal-fired power plants, 31.4 gigawatts for gas-fired power plants and 9.5 gigawatts for biomass-fired power plants. These alone therefore have a secured capacity of 66 gigawatts, which would have been just enough to cover the entire demand for electricity at the two times in question without imports; in addition, oil and waste-fired power plants as well as pumped storage plants supplied over six gigawatts at the times in question.

‘Secure power supply never at risk at any time’

The Federal Network Agency therefore firmly rejected reports that the high electricity prices were a sign of an impending blackout. “The secure supply of electricity was never at risk at any time,” said the agency, which reports to the BMWK. This can also be seen from the fact that not a single reserve power plant was used. These are power plants that the operators actually wanted to shut down for economic reasons, but which had to remain on the grid by order of the Federal Network Agency in order to ensure a sufficient supply even if several power plants and lines failed. These currently have a capacity of around 10 gigawatts and can be put into operation at short notice at the request of the transmission system operators in the event of an imminent power shortage, but this did not happen in November or December.

It is currently unclear why there were such extreme price spikes despite sufficient capacity. The electricity price at any given time is determined by the most expensive power plant currently in operation. Normally, the price at which the power plants offer their electricity is based on the marginal costs, i.e. the real costs incurred for the generation of an additional kilowatt hour. However, this cannot explain the prices that occurred on Nov. 6 and Dec. 12, as they are many times higher than the real production costs of the most expensive gas and oil-fired power plants.

Such prices can only occur if demand on the electricity exchange significantly exceeds supply and the last power plant can therefore charge prices that have nothing to do with real costs. This is because as long as there are still unused, available power plants that can produce more cheaply, these would be started up immediately in a functioning market and the electricity price would fall accordingly. However, there have been doubts for some time that the electricity market is functioning as it should. After all, if individual suppliers control a large proportion of the power plants, they can theoretically manipulate prices.

Federal Cartel Office warns of RWE’s market power

In its latest “Market Power Report,” the German Federal Cartel Office warned in November that this possibility could exist at RWE. Although the “timeshares in which RWE, Germany’s largest electricity producer, was indispensable for meeting demand” had fallen slightly, they were still close to the “presumption threshold for market dominance”.

During such periods, the company enjoys “uncontrolled pricing leeway in terms of competition,” warns the Cartel Office. This is because when power plants are taken off the grid, the price of electricity can rise to such an extent that considerable additional profits are still made overall. According to the Cartel Office, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that “the periods in which the demand for electricity could not be met without RWE can be systematically predicted by this company.”

Authority examines ‘allegations of abusive market behavior’

However, when asked by Table.Briefings, RWE spokeswoman Stephanie Schunck firmly rejects the idea that this could have been the reason for the high electricity prices on Nov. 6 and Dec. 12. On both dates, the company “offered all technically available power plants on the market as usual,” she explains and emphasizes: “Any assumption that we deliberately withheld capacity has no basis.” According to the company, the fact that two large RWE lignite units – Weisweiler H and Niederaußem H – did not produce any electricity on Nov. 6 despite the high demand and prices was due to “boiler damage” occurring in both power plants independently of each other. This made it necessary to shut down each plant for a good two days.

Market observers assume that the unavailability of these two blocks could have been relevant to the sudden price increase. “1.3 gigawatts more or less makes a big difference in a tight market,” says Marco Wünsch, for example, who monitors the energy markets for the economic research institute Prognos. The Federal Network Agency, which together with the Cartel Office is responsible for monitoring the electricity market, wants to take a close look at the situation on these two days. “The Federal Network Agency is investigating the current allegations of market abuse in connection with the price spikes that have occurred in close coordination with the trading monitoring offices of the electricity exchanges,” a spokesperson said. If there are any indications of misconduct, “further investigative measures will be initiated.”

Sweden criticizes German energy policy

Meanwhile, the temporarily high electricity prices in Germany are also attracting international criticism. Because Germany also pays correspondingly high prices for imported electricity at these times, the price of electricity also rises in the countries that supply this electricity. Sweden is strongly affected by the weather dependency of electricity production in Germany, said Christian Democrat Energy Minister Ebba Busch at the EU Energy Ministers’ Meeting in Brussels on Monday. She accused Germany of making itself even more dependent on fossil fuels by building new gas-fired power plants. Germany must open up to baseload power plants that are not based on fossil fuels. Sweden relies heavily on nuclear energy and, like France, is one of the EU states that rejects a European target for renewable energies in climate legislation for 2040.

The new EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, on the other hand, defended the policy for wind and solar: “Even if renewable energies are sometimes portrayed by some as the reason for price increases, the opposite is true. From 2021 to 2023, citizens and businesses in Europe will have saved a billion euros thanks to the expansion of renewables.“

In fact, the impact of extreme price peaks on electricity prices is minimal. On the one hand, they only affect very short periods of time and, on the other, they are offset by periods in which a large supply of wind and solar power leads to low or even negative electricity prices. At 7.8 cents per kilowatt hour, the average day-ahead price on the German electricity exchange so far this year is significantly higher than before the start of the war in Ukraine, but lower than in 2021, 2022, and 2023.

Agora Energiewende: Why the Director for Germany is leaving

The Agora Energiewende think tank is entering the hot phase of the German parliamentary election campaign, in which energy and climate issues will also be important, without two of its previous managers: Agora Energiewende’s Germany Director, Simon Müller, is leaving the think tank on Jan. 15, 2025. The think tank’s long-standing EU expert, Matthias Buck, had already taken his leave in October and introduced his successor, Emeline Spire. There is as yet no successor for Müller.

In an interview with Table.Briefings, Simon Müller explained that after three years at the helm of Agora Energiewende, he wanted to take his work to a more international level and enjoy more individual freedom, but would initially remain associated with Agora as a consultant on international issues. “I have achieved the main things I set out to do.” The team is strongly positioned, “especially on economic issues and in the area of the heat transition,” and with the revised scenario for the “Climate-neutral Germany” report, “an innovative implementation perspective for the next legislative period” has been presented.

‘Agora remains fully operational’

His decision was made “in best agreement” with the Agora management back in September before the early end of the traffic light coalition made early elections necessary. Although Agora Energiewende now only has an acting head for Germany in Markus Steigenberger, one of the two managing directors of the Agora think tank, Agora is “fully operational,” according to Müller. The tender will run until the end of the year. When asked by Table.Briefings, the former head of Agora and interim State Secretary in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Patrick Graichen, stated that he would not be applying for the position.

Matthias Buck, on the other hand, is leaving the think tank, whose Europe department he set up, after nine years. The EU official had been on leave from the EU for his time at Agora. Emeline Spire has taken on this task in order to support the new EU Commission during its five years in office. The expert for electricity markets and systems had previously headed the Power System Transformation department at Agora as Director. bpo

Canada’s NDC: Why the 45 to 50 percent reduction in emissions is controversial

Canada wants to reduce its emissions by 45 to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2035 in accordance with its new climate target (NDC). This was announced by the Ministry of the Environment on Thursday. The new target builds on the previous goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. “This target keeps us on track to deliver on the promise to our children and grandchildren that the world we leave them will be safe, sustainable, affordable, and prosperous,” Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said in a statement on the new NDC.

Canada, a leading oil and gas producer, has so far missed every one of its greenhouse gas emissions targets.
Some climate groups and the official Net Zero Advisory Board have stated that the new targets are not ambitious enough. The board had called for a reduction of 50 to 55 percent, while climate groups even demanded 80 percent. Canada’s previous NDC is rated as “inadequate” by the Climate Action Tracker.

Elections are due in Canada next year – Trudeau’s Liberals are trailing the opposition Conservatives in the polls. The Conservatives have criticized various climate action measures, including an emissions cap for the oil and gas sector. The full document on Canada’s new NDC is not expected until 2025. kul/rtr

EV boom: China hit oil consumption peak

China appears to have reached a peak in oil consumption. While 399 million tons of refined oil were consumed in 2023, the figure was already 1.3 percent lower in 2024 (394 million tons), according to calculations by a research institute of the national oil company China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).

China is the world’s largest oil importer. A decline in demand for oil in the People’s Republic would have a major impact on climate action. The country’s decades-long role as the main driver of rising oil consumption could therefore come to an end. The decline is primarily due to falling demand for oil products in road transportation. One reason for this is the high sales of electric vehicles. According to CNPC:

Fuel consumption is to fall to 80-100 million tons by 2035 – a reduction of 35 to 50 percent compared to 2023;
diesel demand is expected to fall to between 100 and 120 million tons in 2035 – a decline of 35 to 50 percent compared to 2023, and
total consumption of fossil refinery products in China is expected to fall by 25 to 40 percent to between 240 and 290 million tons by 2035 compared to the peak in 2023.
However, the consumption of jet fuel or kerosene is expected to increase by 70 percent to almost 61 million tons between 2023 and 2035 due to demand from aviation. nib/rtr