Berlin – The spokeswoman for the Ministry of Economics is to note the uneasiness. In the federal press conference on Monday she will be asked about the details of the controversial gas levy. A journalist wants to know whether it is possible for consumers to secure the profits of companies. “A company needs a certain profit margin in order to be able to continue operating,” says the spokeswoman tight-lipped.
For weeks there have been reservations about the gas surcharge, which the federal government ordered by ordinance for a year and a half. It is intended to support the companies who, due to the failure of Russian gas deliveries, are now buying the raw material at high prices on the world market, but have to resell it on the German market at the old conditions.
The difference, which for some companies amounts to millions every day, is to be paid by the gas consumers with an initial surcharge of 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour. It had been unclear for a long time to which company exactly the levy would go. But after the names of the twelve entitled companies became known on Monday, it is now also evident that companies can also pass on the levy to their customers who have recently made substantial profits.
For example, the Austrian energy group OMV made a profit of 5.6 billion euros in the first half of the year alone – significantly more than in the same period of the previous year. The Gunvor energy company is also allowed to pass on the levy to its customers – despite a half-yearly balance sheet with a profit of around two billion euros.
The Ministry of Economics had actually justified the gas surcharge differently: “to prevent insolvencies of gas traders and domino effects in the supply chain of the energy industry,” it said in a statement from the Ministry. In fact, there seem to be two main companies involved: Uniper and SEFE, which until recently operated as Gazprom Germania.
In the past, both companies have mainly done business with Russia and have therefore gotten into trouble. Uniper, in which the federal government recently acquired a 30 percent stake, made a loss of around twelve billion euros in the first half of the year. SEFE is currently under the trusteeship of the Federal Network Agency. If the two companies collapse, the gas supply in Germany would probably collapse.
However, companies that have positioned themselves more broadly and are already compensating for their losses from Russian business elsewhere can now also benefit from the gas surcharge. Acceptable for the Ministry of Economics: “We are of the opinion that a company must also make profits in order to position itself more broadly and ultimately to make itself less dependent on Russian gas supplies,” said the spokeswoman.
A scandal for the opposition: “If it doesn’t matter at all with the gas levy whether companies make a profit or are in distress, then it’s actually about expropriation of the population,” said Dietmar Bartsch, leader of the left-wing parliamentary group, in the Tagesspiegel. The gas surcharge should be blocked for profitable companies, he demands. The energy policy spokesman for the Union, Jens Spahn, also criticized: “Even the Federal Chancellor and the Minister of Finance seem to have lost sight of the chaos levy.”
But the resentment is also loud in their own ranks. “The gas levy was a bad idea from the start,” Green Youth spokeswoman Sarah Lee Heinrich told the Tagesspiegel. The independent youth organization of the Greens, but also parts of the Union and the left, had spoken out in the past for an energy price cap. “It’s still the best way to get through the winter,” Heinrich said.
The concept provides that a basic gas requirement is defined for households, which is paid for at the old market price. The consumption, which is above the basic requirement, would then have to be paid for at the significantly higher market prices. The model was also introduced by economists, as it pursues both a social component and an incentive to save via prices.
The spokeswoman for the Green Youth demanded that the additional costs for the basic gas requirement be financed by the federal budget. “It is completely incomprehensible why the government can, on the one hand, make 100 billion euros for the military with a snap of the fingers, but then on the other hand say that there is hardly any money for the people,” said Heinrich, who sees the coalition as responsible.
“First and foremost, a government must be there for the many people who don’t know how to get through the winter – but the traffic light with the gas levy is setting completely wrong priorities,” criticized Heinrich, who understood a possible hot autumn with demonstrations expressed. “The burdens of the energy crisis are fuel for our democracy. If the traffic light doesn’t manage to put together a real relief package on its own, then it’s time to organize the pressure, also on the street.”
