Wird die EEG-Umlage abgeschafft?

23.10.20 Less red tape, more green energy? A proposal to abolish Germany’s renewables surcharge Thorsten Müller, Research Director of the Foundation for Environmental Energy Law • 8 min.

Scroll to Read
Thorsten Müller

Thorsten Müller is founder and Research Director of the Foundation for Environmental Energy Law, a Würzburg-based energy policy think tank. The foundation recently partnered with the German Energy Agency (dena) and the FiFo Institute for Public Economics at the University of Cologne to publish a study proposing the abolition of the renewables surcharge, the mechanism by which Germany has subsidized the growth of wind and solar power since 2000. Müller and his colleagues believe that eliminating the surcharge would actually accelerate Germany’s energy transition. How?

Germany’s renewables surcharge has been a topic of contentious debate for years. What prompted you to dedicate a study to it now?

Two reasons. First, the Fuel Emissions Trading Act, which introduces emissions trading to Germany’s heating and transport sectors starting in 2021, will generate revenue that’s supposed to be returned to citizens in some form or another. Its enactment was accompanied by a symbolic reduction of the renewables surcharge. Second, reducing the renewables surcharge further would provide welcome economic stimulus to an economy hard hit by the corona pandemic. Besides, we’re not the first to propose this. Agora, an energy policy think tank in Berlin, has recommended lowering the surcharge from 6.5 cents to 5. Germany’s Green Party is also in favor of trimming the renewables surcharge, as are the energy ministers of a number of German states. Even Markus Söder, Minister President of Bavaria, has suggested abolishing it.

Thorsten Müller, Leiter der Stiftung Umweltenergierecht
© Manuel Reger

Thorsten Müller, founder and Research Director of the Foundation for Environmental Energy Law

Wouldn’t eliminating the surcharge entirely be a fairly radical step?

Well, it would certainly radically cut red tape for transmission system operators (TSOs), distribution system operators (DSOs), energy-intensive industries, people and companies that generate their own electricity, and BAFA, Germany’s Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, which is responsible for administering the surcharge. In other words, eliminating the surcharge would reduce paperwork as well as costs.

Would the reduction in bureaucracy really be that significant?

Probably more than many people realize. For example, Germany’s four TSOs first calculate the total amount of renewables subsidies paid out and divide it equally among themselves. They then pass these costs through to the DSOs, which need to account for them. In addition, Germany has millions of solar panel owners who have paperwork related to the surcharge. There are also more than 2,000 companies that qualify for a special offset scheme. They have to submit an annual application, which requires the support of auditors and in some cases lawyers. Then BAFA has to process these applications. Although these administrative expenses don’t equal the billions in renewables subsidies, they are significant.

Your study also asserts that the renewables surcharge impedes innovation. How?

Tomorrow’s electricity is supposed to generate heat, produce hydrogen, and power electric cars. But today’s electricity is expensive compared with gasoline, oil, and natural gas because it’s subject to grid fees, the renewables surcharge, and the electricity tax. Expensive electricity impedes the transition to a low-carbon economy. For example, it slows the conversion from grey hydrogen to green. Cheaper electricity would give green hydrogen and many other innovative applications a boost.

But wouldn't cheaper electricity encourage overconsumption?

That’s a valid objection, since expensive electricity certainly provides people and companies with an incentive to use it more efficiently. But is this an argument against lowering the renewables surcharge or for addressing this issue with other energy legislation? Our study recommends offsetting the revenue lost from the elimination of the renewables surcharge by temporarily increasing the electricity tax. But this measure would be transitional, since Germany won’t achieve its climate policy goals by lowering the renewables surcharge and doing nothing else. On the other hand, combining the reduction of the surcharge with a decarbonization-oriented reform of the electricity tax would create an additional incentive for climate protection that I think would be very desirable.

Who would benefit from abolishing the renewables surcharge? And who would suffer?

Almost everyone would benefit because almost everyone would save money. There would also be the reduction in bureaucracy that I already mentioned. Households with lower incomes would tend to benefit more than those with higher incomes, so our proposal has a social aspect as well. By contrast, companies that currently benefit from the offset scheme and have therefore until now paid a smaller renewables surcharge would only be slightly better off. And they would lose their competitive advantage over companies that don’t qualify for the scheme. Our proposal also wouldn’t benefit companies that have taken steps to reduce their exposure to the renewables surcharge, like those that produce their own power and don’t draw any from the grid. But their advantage would’ve diminished going forward anyway. Abolishing the surcharge merely accelerates this trend. Our aim was for all consumers in Germany to benefit equally and for no company to be worse off after eliminating the surcharge and temporarily increasing the electricity tax than they would be if both were retained. Our purpose wasn’t to redistribute but rather to simplify.

What are the chances that the surcharge will actually be eliminated?

I think that it eventually will be. In any case, it will certainly decline going forward. First, the rising prices of EU emissions allowances and the phasing out of coal-fired and nuclear power plants will reduce Germany’s installed generating capacity. This decrease in supply will tend to push German electricity prices higher, which would serve to reduce the renewables surcharge. Second, Germany’s earliest renewables facilities are gradually becoming too old to qualify for the subsidy, which will make green electricity increasingly cheaper. Revenues from the Fuel Emission Trading Act, which are to be used to reduce the renewables surcharge, constitute another factor. I suspect that as the surcharge gets smaller, policymakers will face increasing pressure to simply eliminate it. So the end of the renewables surcharge is probably only a matter of time.


The contents of this website are created with the greatest possible care. However, Uniper SE accepts no responsibility for the accuracy, completeness and topicality of the content provided. Contributions identified by name reflect the opinion of the respective author and not always the opinion of Uniper SE.

You might also like

Atomkraft, Atomkraftwerk
Energy • Economy • Innovation The future of nuclear power Thomas Schmidt • 8 min.
Energy • Economy Can electricity be both renewable and reliable? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Climate Cutting carbon cost-effectively Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Innovation Will hydrogen’s future arrive? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Economy Can our emissions be undone? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Innovation • Science A British biologist’s uncanny clairvoyance Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Energy • Society • Climate A new era, a new color, a new world view Dariush Jones • 5 min.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Energy • Society • Economy Russia modernizes its fossil power plants Dariush Jones • 7 min.
Energy • Society • Innovation Less fretting about jetting Thomas Schmidt • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation Harnessing more renewable energy, decarbonizing industry Thomas Schmidt • 3 min.
Energy • Event Debate.Energy Conference: Best of Jochen Brenner • 15 min.
Energy • Society “Corona is accelerating developments that we didn’t expect for several years” Hannah Meisters • 4 min.
Energy • Innovation “As green as hydrogen can get” Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 6 min.
Energy • Climate #Anthropause: is corona climate-friendly? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 7 min.
Energy • Climate • Politics • Economy Gas is the ideal enabler of a successful energy transition Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 4 min.
Joe Biden
Energy • Society • Climate • Politics Biden's climate plan: jobs, workers, unions. Oh, and clean energy too. Dariush Jones • 6 min.
Energy • Innovation • Economy A different incentive for energy efficiency Thomas Schmidt • 7 min.
Donald Trump
Energy • Society • Politics • Climate Donald Trump's climate policy: “A golden age of energy dominance” Dariush Jones • 7 min.
Bremst der Coronavirus die Energiewende aus?
Energy • Climate • Society Opportunity or obstacle? What corona means for the energy transition Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 9 min.
Energy • Innovation • Climate Podcast: "Städte spielen eine zentrale Rolle für die Energiewende" Jochen Brenner • 30 min.
Wasserstoff: Energieträger der Zukunft
Energy • Climate • Opinions Hydrogen: Jules Verne’s vision brought to life Andreas Schierenbeck, Vorstandsvorsitzender Uniper SE • 8 min.
Energy • Innovation Nuclear fusion: elation or illusion? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 5 min.
Energy • Economy • Science Fuel cells for passenger cars: hope or hype? Hans-Joachim Ziegler • 8 min.
Energy • Climate Avast those emissions! Dariush Jones • 8 min.
Energy • Economy A solution for Germany’s green power glut Thomas Schmidt • 6 min.
Energy • Society • Climate Corona promotes energy conservation Thomas Schmidt • 6 min.
Energy • Opinions • Society Soll ich mir ein E-Auto kaufen, Prof. Schuh? Jochen Brenner • 25 min.
Follow us on Social Media
Follow us
on Social Media