For average households and possibly also smaller commercial consumers, the bills should not increase by more than 10 or 20 percent, Felbermayr confirmed his idea to the APA on Monday. But there are still open questions and the budget will be burdened.
“Therefore, the energy suppliers should give away part of the energy consumption of the households free of charge, but charge market prices for the rest,” says the director of the economic research institute (Wifo). The logic is simple, but according to Felbermayr there are still important questions to be clarified for implementation – politicians are examining the proposal.
It is about how different household sizes should be taken into account when calculating the credit, what upper limits there should be and whether electricity and gas should be treated the same, according to the economist. Furthermore, the questions arose as to whether smaller commercial consumers should be included and how the state compensates the energy suppliers for the credits to be granted: “Does it compensate for lost profits or the costs incurred?” says Felbermayr.
It is “working feverishly”
Answers to these questions are still being “worked on feverishly”. Two things are central here: “Firstly, the solution must not lead to new injustices and secondly, it must be administratively quick and easy to implement.” Last week, Felbermayr said on the fringes of a press event when asked: “You could credit households with certain amounts of standard consumption, it would be similar with the electricity price.” This would mean that households would pay in full if they were above certain standard consumption levels, and if they stayed below them, they would benefit.
From Felbermayr’s point of view, this would kill two birds with one stone: “The price signals would be received, the incentives to save would be high. It would be ensured that people could handle the burden – if you save, you save a lot because the prices are so high The basic equipment (with energy, NB) would be guaranteed at the normal price or even at zero price.”
“Will tear gaps in the federal budget”
“It is already clear that the implementation of the model will create gaps in the federal budget,” said Felbermayr today. In any case, the market price for electricity must go down. The industry would then also benefit from this. “If you subsidize the generation of electricity from gas, possibly also from coal, like Portugal and Spain are doing, the price for electricity would drop significantly, even if it was produced with hydro, solar or wind power. But only Austria can do that together with the neighboring countries. That’s where the EU comes into play,” the Wifo director points out.
Felbermayr spoke out in favor of energy compensation for households several times last week. “We have to mobilize everything we can to save energy – and of course the private sector is part of that,” he said in response to journalists’ inquiries at a press event. In order for energy to be saved there, “the price signals have to get through there; that energy is expensive, that heating is expensive. But the bills mustn’t explode, compensation is needed so that households don’t suffer from existential difficulties. Because: “In the short term, saving energy is the biggest thing Lever.”
An obligation to save energy is not appropriate: “A room temperature commissioner will not go through the apartments. The room temperature is certainly in the autonomy of the individual. But what is important is that the potential is used, and that has to do with financial incentives,” according to the economist. “Therefore, the price signals should actually be passed on to households and not filtered. I don’t think a cap is good. It’s important that everyone realizes how incredibly scarce gas is – and therefore expensive.”
Source: Nachrichten
