On 22 September 2002, Switzerland voted on the Electricity Market Act (EMA), passed by Parliament in December 2000. The text aimed to open the Swiss electricity market to competition gradually over six years, in the wake of the liberalisation under way in the European Union.
A facultative referendum was launched by the Public Services Union (VPOD), the Young Socialists and the Romandy left, who collected 67,575 signatures. The divide was clear: liberalisation versus defence of the public service.
The Federal Council, nearly all centre-right parties and business circles backed the opening; the Social Democrats, the Greens and the unions fought it, fearing a dismantling of the public service and price rises for small consumers.
The result was a narrow rejection: only 47.42 % Yes, on a turnout of 44.8 %. The law was buried — but market opening would return, in another form, five years later.
▲ Cantons that accepted Aargau, Bern, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, Graubünden, Lucerne, Nidwalden, Obwalden, Schwyz, Uri, Zug. | ▼ Cantons that rejected Appenzell Outer Rhodes, Appenzell Inner Rhodes, Fribourg, Geneva, Glarus, Jura, Neuchâtel, St. Gallen, Schaffhausen, Solothurn, Thurgau, Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Zurich. |
Actors and personalities
▲ Yes camp • Federal Council • FDP, CVP, SVP, LPS plus EVP, EDU, FPS • economiesuisse • Electricity industry large power companies | ▼ No camp • VPOD public services union, referendum committee • Social Democratic Party (SP), the Greens • Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB) • CSP, PdA, Lega, SD plus the Young Socialists |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) An inevitable opening to stay in the European game « Switzerland cannot remain an island; market opening is necessary to hook onto the European market and stay competitive. » — Yes camp, 2002 campaign ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly confirmed. An opening did happen, but a partial one: the 2007 StromVG liberalised the market for large consumers (over 100 MWh/year). Full hook-up to the EU, however, never materialised for lack of an electricity agreement. Source: SFOE; StromVG 2007. Competition will lower prices « Opening will spur competition and lower electricity prices for consumers. » — economiesuisse and industry, 2002 ✗~ Partly refuted Partly refuted. The promised general drop did not occur: only large consumers could choose their supplier, households remained captive, and the 2022 energy crisis brought sharp tariff rises. Source: ElCom; SFOE. A legal framework is indispensable « Without a law the sector will remain in legal uncertainty; a framework is needed to organise the opening. » — Federal Council, 2000 dispatch ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed. The legal vacuum created by the rejection forced Parliament to legislate anew: the StromVG was adopted as early as 2007, creating the regulator ElCom and the national grid company Swissgrid. Source: StromVG 2007; ElCom. | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) A threat to the public service and jobs « Deregulation will dismantle the electricity public service and threaten jobs and supply security. » — VPOD, referendum committee, 2002 ✓~ Partly confirmed Partly confirmed. The sector was restructured (grid unbundling, creation of Swissgrid), but the announced collapse of the public service did not occur and supply security held — until the tensions of 2022. Source: SFOE; Swissgrid. An opening too fast and poorly framed « This liberalisation goes too fast and is not controlled; we need a managed opening, not deregulation. » — No camp, 2002 ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed. The law that ultimately prevailed, the 2007 StromVG, chose precisely a staged, regulated and gradual opening — and the second stage, full liberalisation, was never activated. Source: StromVG 2007; SFOE. A gift to large consumers « Opening will benefit big firms first, while households gain nothing. » — Left and unions, 2002 ✓ Argument confirmed Confirmed. The StromVG opened the market only to consumers above 100 MWh a year; households remained captive to their supplier, full liberalisation being repeatedly postponed. Source: SFOE; ElCom. |
Affiches de campagne (2)
Factual record
3 Confirmed | 2 Partly confirmed | 1 Partly refuted | 0 Refuted |
| ✓ | The opening returned, but framed Five years after the rejection, the StromVG (2007) organised a partial, regulated market opening — exactly the gradual model the referendum backers had demanded. Source: StromVG 2007. |
| ✓ | Households still captive The first stage opened the market only to large consumers; full liberalisation, planned as a second stage, was never activated and households remain captive to their supplier. Source: SFOE; ElCom. |
| ~ | The price drop, an unkept promise Competition did not durably lower prices for the general public; the 2022 energy crisis instead brought sharp increases. Source: ElCom. |
The people did not reject all opening of the electricity market, but this project. The No of 2002 targeted the pace and the model: a deregulation judged too fast and insufficiently framed, carried out without guarantees for the public service or for small consumers.
Five years later, the StromVG (2007) took up the opening objective, but within a gradual, regulated framework, with a regulator (ElCom) and a national grid company (Swissgrid). The referendum backers were proved right twice over in substance: they brought down the law and saw their criticisms built into the one that replaced it.
The Yes camp's great promise — falling prices thanks to competition — did not materialise for households, who remained captive to their supplier. More than twenty years on, full liberalisation and a possible electricity agreement with the EU remain unfinished business.