The Swiss Power-to-X Collaborative Innovation Network (SPIN) welcomes the Federal Council’s wide-ranging review of Power-to-X, prepared in response to Postulate 25.3022. SPIN criticises the report, however, for drawing the opposite conclusion to the very countries it studies — and for resting parts of its reasoning on incorrect assumptions. While Japan, South Korea and Singapore are deliberately de-risking their Power-to-X industries, the Swiss government wants to do without additional instruments. The decisive investment barriers lie at the ordinance level — and the report does not address them.
On 24 June 2026, the Federal Council published its report «The potential of Power-to-X as a contribution to security of supply», fulfilling Postulate 25.3022 of the Council of States’ Committee for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy (UREK-S). The report compares the strategies of Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Singapore and draws lessons for Switzerland from them. Its conclusion: it is «appropriate to refrain from additional funding measures and instruments».
The Asian comparison proves the opposite of the conclusion drawn
In SPIN’s view, the report’s survey is neither careful enough nor are the consequences it draws for Switzerland coherent. The report documents in detail how comparable import-dependent countries secure their Power-to-X projects. Under its Hydrogen Society Promotion Act, Japan relies on fifteen-year Contracts for Difference. South Korea combines auctions, tax incentives and both investment and operating-cost subsidies. Singapore is building certification systems for international tradability. What the report leaves out: in the mobility sector, synthetic fuels can cut CO₂ emissions faster when they are deployed without ideology and as a complement to electrification.
False assumptions about conversion losses and storage infrastructure
The assumption that conversion losses and a lack of storage infrastructure are a problem is mistaken. Conversion losses are irrelevant for imported Power-to-X derivatives, because these are produced in regions where energy can only be harvested, stored and transported either not at all or in the form of molecules (Power-to-X). The synthetic petrol for Porsche, for example, is produced in Patagonia, where there are vast quantities of wind energy but no local offtake. The claim about storage infrastructure is equally wrong: Power-to-X derivatives are climate-neutral, yet chemically all but identical to fossil energy carriers, and can be stored and consumed in exactly the same way.
Every one of the countries studied that is in a situation similar to Switzerland’s is actively reducing the investment risks for its Power-to-X industry. The Federal Council describes these instruments precisely — and then concludes that Switzerland should do nothing of the kind. This gap between analysis and conclusion is the report’s real weak point.
National Councillor Martin Bäumle, Co-President of SPIN
The real barriers lie at the ordinance level — and they are arbitrary
The report moves throughout at the level of strategy and primary legislation. In doing so it inadvertently confirms one of SPIN’s core observations: Switzerland today has one of the most advanced legal frameworks for Power-to-X in Europe. Final Investment Decisions fail not because of the law, but because of gaps in the implementing regulation — for instance on certification, grandfathering, investment security and the tax treatment of synthetic fuels. This ordinance level is exactly what the report leaves out.
This becomes especially clear with imports, which the report itself designates as the main future source of supply. For synthetic fuels meeting the EU standard (RFNBO), Switzerland still lacks the customs tariff headings in its mineral-oil-tax law. Imports are therefore effectively blocked — a contradiction of the report’s own import logic. On top of this, the tax relief for renewable fuels expires in 2030. Such a horizon is incompatible with investment decisions that have to pay off over 15 to 20 years.
The report rightly notes that Switzerland’s legal framework is well advanced. That is precisely why it is wrong to put on the brakes now. Anyone who takes security of supply seriously has to remove the investment barriers where they actually lie — in the implementing regulation. Other countries are showing us how to do this successfully. Switzerland should learn from this review rather than use it as a reason to wait.
Peter Metzinger, Co-Managing Director of SPIN
The Federal Council defers the question of additional instruments to the monitoring of the Hydrogen Strategy and to the Round Table on Energy Storage, which concludes at the end of 2026. The latter, however, treats Power-to-X only as a side issue and without adequate regard for the Swiss Power-to-X landscape. SPIN will feed the concrete regulatory barriers — from pre-certification through legacy protection to the full tax exemption of synthetic fuels — into these and other processes in a targeted way, such as the current consultation on the partial revision of the CO₂ Ordinance and the Electricity Supply Ordinance. As a Collaborative Innovation Network spanning the entire Power-to-X value chain, SPIN brings together the knowledge of science, industry and the offtake side for this purpose.
Power-to-X Congress Switzerland 2026 — «Reality Check with Net Zero»
22 September 2026, 10–18h, Kursaal Bern. Co-organised by energie-cluster.ch and SPIN. Register and find out more →