The government and the ruling party confirmed the government reorganization plan, officially establishing the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment. With the dual structure separating the construction and export functions of nuclear power, concerns over policy confusion have been raised, and warnings have emerged regarding the possibility of electricity rate increases due to the separation of electricity and gas management by ministry.
The Ministry of the Interior and Safety announced the 'government reorganization plan' containing this content after a high-level government party meeting on the afternoon of the 7th.
The government decided to reorganize the Ministry of Environment into the 'Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment' by integrating the energy functions under the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy. This is explained by the government as a measure to consistently promote carbon neutrality and energy transition policies.
However, the resource industry and nuclear power export functions remain under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, and the name of the ministry changes to 'Ministry of Industry and Trade.' In addition, the Climate Response Fund and the Green Climate Fund will be transferred to the newly established ministry, and the 2050 Carbon Neutral Green Growth Committee will be reorganized into the 'Climate Crisis Response Committee,' with its functions strengthened. A government official explained, 'The Ministry of Environment will be responsible for energy transition and climate crisis response, while the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy will handle resources and exports to enhance efficiency.'
Members of the ruling party in the National Assembly's Trade, Industry, Energy, SMEs, and Startups Committee have expressed opposition to this reorganization plan. 'Energy policy aims to stimulate the industry, so it is not appropriate to transfer it to the regulatory-focused Ministry of Environment.' 'Rather, it would be an alternative to establish the Ministry of Climate and Energy independently or to maintain the current system.' 'In a situation where the solar and wind industries are less competitive compared to China and Europe, energy policy should not just be simple regulation but also connected to industrial promotion and exports,' they noted.
Criticism also continued at the leadership level of the Democratic Party. Lee Un-joo, a senior member, said, 'If the regulatory-focused Ministry of Environment oversees energy policy that needs promotion, neither the environment nor energy will be properly managed,' adding that 'the reorganization plan must be reconsidered.' He criticized Minister Kim Sung-hwan of the Ministry of Environment on social media, saying it is 'creating positions for individuals,' and stated, 'If you want to work in energy, you can establish the Ministry of Climate and Energy after the government reorganization and serve as the minister, rather than expanding the Ministry of Environment, which is a wrong choice.'
In response to concerns that 'if the regulatory-focused Ministry of Environment takes charge of energy policy, conflicts will be inevitable,' Lee Chang-kyu, director of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety's organization division, rebutted, 'The Ministry of Environment is not just a regulatory agency; it has been comprehensively implementing various policies.' He continued, 'In fact, integrating functions under one minister will reduce inter-ministerial conflicts,' emphasizing that 'energy policy must ultimately be promoted within the larger framework of carbon neutrality and climate change response, so the new ministry may demonstrate its coordinating power.'
Experts are concerned that splitting energy functions and transferring them to the Ministry of Environment may exacerbate structural confusion. Professor Kang Cheon-gu of Inha University noted, 'The Ministry of Environment is a regulatory-focused agency, while energy is an area that needs industrial growth and investment expansion.' He pointed out that 'particularly, if fossil fuels like oil and gas remain with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy and only renewable energy and hydrogen are transferred to the Ministry of Environment, the energy mix strategy itself could be shaken.' He criticized, 'The entire energy sector should be overseen by one ministry, but this reorganization is merely a 'sharing' between ministries.'
Professor Yoo Seung-hoon of Seoul Tech University remarked, 'No advanced country separately manages electricity and gas.' He said, 'Dividing electricity under the Ministry of Environment and gas under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy could destabilize power supply reliability and greatly increase the likelihood of electricity rate hikes.'
He further warned, 'Liquefied natural gas (LNG) accounts for half of Korea's electricity production, and separating its management will make coordination impossible, leading to unavoidable policy conflicts.' He added, 'If things get serious, blackouts could occur as early as next spring.'
Meanwhile, the issue of the affiliation of public institutions related to nuclear power has also come to the surface. Lee Chang-kyu of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety stated regarding the transfer of organizations such as Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP), 'Only the nuclear power export function will remain under the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, while the remaining nuclear-related industry functions will move to the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment.' He added, 'Public institutions under it will also move accordingly,' but noted that 'detailed organization and institutional placement will require further discussion.'