The federal government met on Wednesday with the energy prices increased due to the Iran war busy. The coalition is under pressure: According to a Forsa survey, 77 percent of Germans are in favor of significant relief measures. Which instruments would actually help is controversial. FOCUS online asked the parties.

Great agreement: There is a need for action on energy prices

All parties see a need for action. Andreas Lenz, energy policy spokesman union, explains that energy prices are putting a “massive” burden on households. “Measures will be derived from the situation”.

The AfD also sees an “urgent need for action”. Your energy policy spokesman Leif-Erik Holm attributes this primarily to German government policy and “the energy transition that is not working.”

Michael Kellner, energy policy spokesman Greens and former State Secretary in the Ministry of Economic Affairs, calls for “urgent relief for households and businesses.”

For the left Jörg Cezanne points out that even before the Iran war, around five million households were unable to heat according to their own needs. His party had therefore “already seen an acute need for action”.

Also at BSW Energy prices have been identified as a “hot topic”. Party leader Amira Mohamed Ali complains: “The federal government should have acted long ago. Now we are experiencing a price shock and there is a risk of a return to record inflation, because exploding energy prices are making life more expensive.”

Antitrust law: parties in favor, but with different ideas

Many observers believe that the increased prices at gas stations are also due to the fact that the oil companies want to profit from the current situation. One indication of this is that since the beginning of the Iran war, fuel prices in Germany have risen significantly more than in other countries – even though Germany only imports a small portion from the Gulf region. The cartel office could investigate this and intervene if necessary.

Should there be “evidence of a lack of competition or abusive pricing,” see Unions-Politician Lenz sees antitrust law as a “real instrument”. It cannot be the case that the current situation is being exploited; action must be taken against it.

Nina Scheer, the energy policy spokeswoman for the SPD-Group, emphasizes that profits from crises must be excluded from competition. She is also considering changes to the law: “The legal framework must be sharpened immediately if the current law is not sufficient.”

Also AfD-Politician Holm wants to equip the cartel office with the necessary skills. “It shouldn’t be a toothless tiger.” “It must have all the necessary skills to act quickly and decisively when market power is exploited, as now appears to be the case with the oil companies.”

Those too Greens join this. Energy politician Kellner blames the CDU and CSU in particular: “The Union wanted to weaken the cartel office in the election program, that has to stop.”

The left demands that the Cartel Office now also derive measures from its investigations: “It is only logical that we now also use the new antitrust law options,” said Cezanne. “This would primarily involve prohibiting automated price increases at gas stations through to the unbundling of oligopolistic corporate structures.”

BSW-Head Mohamed Ali wants a “strong Federal Cartel Office”. There is also a need for government price supervision “to ensure that tax cuts that have to come now also reach consumers.”

Fuel discount: Parties are divided

A fuel discount means a temporary tax reduction for diesel and gasoline. That can be a big lever: from the price that end customers pay, A large part goes to the state. The federal government has already resorted to this instrument once when prices rose in 2022 as a result of the war in Ukraine. Later investigations came to a mixed conclusion: the fuel discount reduced prices, but part of the tax cut was also pocketed by the corporations.

This also refers to this negative effect union. “Experience with fuel price caps has shown that government price reductions have only partially reached consumers,” said Lenz. He is therefore more likely to oppose additional burdens. The coalition needs to talk about whether these would fit the times.

SPDPolitician Scheer clearly rejects the discount: “It would be the wrong answer to unjustifiable price jumps and war profits.”

The AfD sees the very term “discount” as a problem. “Taxes and duties make up half of the price of fuel,” explains Holm. “It would make sense to permanently reduce the energy tax rates for gas and all fuels to the permissible minimum rates by changing the energy tax law.”

The Greens had supported the 2022 fuel discount in the traffic light coalition at the time. Today, former State Secretary Kellner describes the instrument as a “serious mistake.”

They rate it differently leftwhat happened back then: The price curbs came too late, emphasizes Cezanne, “but they worked”. The Left is now calling for an oil price cap that should apply to key oil products starting at the refinery. That would have the quickest effect. Cezanne cites Luxembourg and Belgium as role models.

The BSW wants more than a new edition of a fuel discount: “We need a reduction in the VAT on fuel – and energy in total – to seven percent, because the state cannot continue to make money from the rip-off,” demands Mohamed Ali. In addition, the energy tax should be reduced and the CO2 price should be abolished. The BSW calculates that this would reduce fuel prices by 50 cents.

Excess profits tax: Disagreement in the coalition

The excess profits tax is also an idea that came about after the outbreak of the Ukraine war. This is intended to allow the state to pocket the money that the oil companies make from oil they bought cheaply before the crisis when they later sell it at a high price. The money can then be used to relieve the burden on citizens. The EU had introduced such an energy crisis contribution for 2022 and 2023.

The union is skeptical about a new edition. “An ‘excess profits tax’ sounds politically obvious, but is economically and legally demanding and raises considerable questions of demarcation,” explains Lenz. Such tax interventions would then have to be well justified and legally secure.

SPDEnergy politician Scheer, on the other hand, is clearly in favor of the instrument: “Additional war-related profits or improperly obtained special profits must be skimmed off.”

The AfD assesses an excess profits tax as a “disturbance of socialist mothballs”. For Holm, new taxes “are poison in the current economic situation, and the control and bureaucratic effort alone would be horror.”

For the Greens Waiter greets the instrument. “I think collecting excess profits is the right thing to do.” It would be best for Germany to move forward together with all EU states.

This also agrees left to. “If the instrument already existed, it would have a deterrent effect that could potentially prevent excessive price increases at the pumps,” explains Cezanne. The problem is that it only becomes clear retroactively whether there are excess profits. It is all the more important to react quickly now.

BSW– Boss Mohamed Ali makes it clear: “Bring on the excess profits tax! It would curb the rip-offs of the oil companies!” It is known that dominant companies also exploit wars to cause prices to explode.

Release of national reserves: Minister acts, parties skeptical

In addition to rather complex instruments, there is a simple-sounding idea that Economics Minister Katherina Reiche (CDU) now wants to implement: the national emergency reserves should be released. This could increase the quantity on the market and cause prices to fall accordingly.

For the union Energy politician Lenz had previously appeared skeptical: “The national reserve primarily serves to protect against bottlenecks in the event of supply crises. There are currently no supply bottlenecks.” But he didn’t rule it out, especially if the step was coordinated internationally – which Minister Reiche did.

Looks critical too SPD-Politician Scheer released the release: “Strategic reserves must not be used to cushion anti-competitive price jumps.” The top priority must be whether pricing is appropriate and in line with competition.

The AfD-MP Holm is in favor of release “to a very limited extent”. He also emphasizes that the reserves are actually intended for serious supply bottlenecks.

The left considers the use of reserves to be sensible. But Cezanne also emphasizes: “It is questionable how effective this measure is in compensating for short-term price fluctuations.” In addition, the reserves are limited, but it is unclear how long the Iran war will last. “In view of the uncertain future course of the war, this instrument should not be used first.”

The BSW proposes an alternative to tapping the reserves – to get oil again “where it is cheapest and most effective for the economy and consumers,” says Mohamed Ali. She demands: “Germany should therefore again import Russian oil to Schwedt via the Druzhba pipeline.” This would contradict the sanctions currently in force due to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.

Other ideas: Many supporters of the Austrian model

For the Greens Michael Kellner brings two further measures into play: On the one hand, he calls on the black-red coalition to “urgently reduce the electricity tax, as they themselves promised”. He also pulls the Austrian model Considering: “Gas stations there are only allowed to increase prices once a day, but can lower them as often as they like. We should do that for Germany.” Also Unions-Politician Lenz thinks that it is worth taking a look at Austria.

Also in the SPD there is sympathy for this. Energy politician Scheer also advocates fundamentally questioning oil and gas as energy sources: “The situation shows that we are well advised to become independent of fossil resources across sectors as quickly as possible.”

AfD-Energy politician Holm sees the abolition of climate protection measures as the method of choice. Among other things, he wants to abolish the CO2 tax and rely on nuclear power again.