Matthias Miersch wants effective price brakes for gas and electricity as quickly as possible and is hoping for a result from the gas price commission on Monday, of which he is a member. In the ntv.de interview, the SPD parliamentary group leader explains why the watering can principle can only end next year and why the SPD's ideas about the help for this winter go beyond the proposals of the gas price commission. Miersch accuses the Union of "blatant populism" in the nuclear power debate and "pure chaos" in energy price policy.
ntv.de: Mr. Miersch, the members of the gas price commission would like to meet next Monday for what would ideally be their last meeting. What is the biggest challenge this body has faced?
Matthias Miersch: The exploding energy prices burden families far into the middle of our society. Many companies also have their backs to the wall. The biggest challenge is that the proposed price brakes work quickly and accurately. The citizens rightly expect that. I am grateful to the Federal Chancellor that with the 200 billion euro defense shield there are definitely enough funds available to really relieve people on a broad scale.
Does the high time pressure jeopardize good results? And will the Commission finish its recommendations on Monday?
Perhaps another month would have been desirable, but with more time the Commission would not have come to very different conclusions. I could imagine that we will finish on Monday.
The Union complains that the Commission was set up as too late. Why wasn't this option taken in the summer?
I'm not going to let the Union drive me. The CDU is always quick to come up with suggestions, as long as there is a headline. However, like the immediate gas embargo demanded in the spring, they would have been a disaster. The SPD advocated systemic intervention in the energy market at an early stage in order to curb prices. This was controversial within the coalition, but in the end common sense prevailed: We make a basic energy requirement affordable and even skim off the excess profits in the energy sector. Some in the coalition first had to be convinced.
So that was also and above all a process of knowledge in the coalition partner FDP?
Everyone has cognitive processes. And the European level also played a role. Of course, people waited and hoped that something would come from Brussels, keyword: electricity price brake. The agreement to jointly buy gas for Europe in the future is an important signal. Europe stands together and we will not let ourselves be driven apart.
The Commission proposes that both the reimbursement of the advance payments for December and the gas price brake be granted to all gas customers as a lump sum. The Verdi services union, among others, criticizes the fact that no upper limit is imposed here as unfair. Will the SPD do it again in the parliamentary process?
Verdi chairman Frank Wernecke also approved the proposals because he said what is now available is necessary. But of course we have to look again at a wide variety of adjustment screws. The suppliers told us in the commission that they didn't know what a connection meant - the famous villa with a pool, an apartment building or a larger company? Nevertheless, the topic is not off the table. At least for the gas price brake next winter, we shouldn't subsidize every consumption, but rather take a more targeted approach. To do this, suppliers must now quickly collect the data.
So an advance payment in December based on the watering can principle and then a more accurate gas price brake next winter?
It is important to me that the effect of the down payment reimbursement is noticeable. And there is very little time left until December. Here we are faced with the dilemma that we have to act quickly and still want to relieve the burden noticeably. When in doubt, we can only achieve accuracy if the providers get more information about who and what is behind a connection. This will not be possible until December, so that it will then have to be examined how more information, for example through corresponding declarations by consumers, can be created in a way that is as unbureaucratic as possible.
In order for the effect of the one-off payment on account to be felt, some voices are calling for it to be granted for two months. You say yourself: There is still air in the household.
I pointed out last week in the Bundestag plenary session that we need to look again at the period from November to March. I also wonder whether high discount demands are still justified at all, although the state has already assured the suppliers that it will reimburse them the difference between 12 cents consumer price and the market price from March. If it is technically possible, the gas price brake could also take effect retrospectively for January and February. Or we check whether we actually repeat such a refund of the down payment again in January or February. The deliberations are going on here.
Another aspect of the justice debate concerns people who heat with oil or pellets and who are also confronted with high price increases.
Yes, and we also have to look at these hardships. But we have the basic problem that there are no fixed contractual structures. However, consumers have an invoice for their oil and pellet purchases and could use it to demonstrate hardship if necessary.
How is it ensured that the reimbursement of the December down payment also reaches the tenants? Landlords or housing administrations are interposed.
The problem is that many tenants are not direct customers of the gas supplier, but the landlord passes the costs on to all tenants in a house. It is therefore important that we have committee members from the housing industry on board. It is true that a blanket solution meets a large number of different contractual constructs. Together with the federal government, we will have to solve the issue creatively. It's not trivial.
This week, the Federal Ministry of Economics presented proposals for the electricity price brake, which are similar in the implementation of the gas price cap and are to be financed through the surplus profits of electricity companies. How do you rate the concept from Robert Habeck's house?
I think it is right to align the energy price brakes for gas and electricity. However, when it comes to electricity, we have different contractual structures between suppliers and customers, which makes it easier than in the gas sector. The topic of skimming off random profits is more difficult. Nevertheless, we have to implement this in November.
Does that mean that the electricity price brake should come quickly, even if the question of financing may not have been finally clarified?
For me, giving people security is an absolute priority. We must be able to say to companies, craftsmen and citizens: 'The state is now systematically intervening and that is the upper limit that you can calculate with.' And in my opinion, the question of financing is also guaranteed by the 200 billion and skimming off profits in any case.
On the one hand, the state wants to catch up with energy prices again, but on the other hand, it also wants to work towards savings. The latter has so far hardly taken place. What else has to happen?
We are already seeing savings in industry. The Gas Price Commission will present further proposals on how we can leverage savings potential for citizens. The campaign of the Federal Ministry of Economics has also started, although there is still room for improvement. I think we should also take another look at the flow temperature of gas boilers, if we reduce this by a few degrees, there is enormous potential for savings. At the same time, we are introducing a law to increase energy efficiency.
Incentives to save are a challenging situation for political communication. Tips from politicians about shower times and washcloths were obviously counterproductive.
I found that very unfortunate too, to put it bluntly. Especially since the households in this situation are set up very differently. Some are already under a lot of pressure and are really saving money, while others don't really notice it yet. The Gas Price Commission discusses the whole range of options and in the end their proposals have to be politically weighed and decided.
That's where it could get tricky. The traffic light coalition got completely stuck with the last three nuclear power plants, which are almost irrelevant for the total amount of electricity, until the Chancellor had to make use of his directive authority. Why should things go better with the upcoming, difficult decisions?
I think the decision that Olaf Scholz has now made is appropriate. Funnily enough, the topic was also of great importance in journalistic circles, although the effect on energy policy is minimal. In this respect, politicians and journalists got stuck. As an energy politician, I say it's a bugbear because it does us far too little in the energy crisis. What is much more important is that we have achieved more energy policy in the traffic light in the last few months than in four years with the Union. Now we will implement the energy price brakes in a concentrated manner because we know that people need security.
Robert Habeck recently warned that his ministry would be overburdened. Now the energy price brakes have to be worked on there as well. Are we currently experiencing that Germany is reaching an administrative and legislative capacity limit? Do we have to get this?
This also applies to the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Ministry of Justice. We don't have to worry about that, but we are experiencing absolutely challenging times. I have great respect for what the government has to do. However, I also expect from a highly industrialized and well-positioned country that work is done cleanly and, if necessary, quickly.
How do you perceive the role of the opposition in this context?
It is important that the opposition also put forward its own proposals, but if we had listened to Friedrich Merz, Jens Spahn and so on in the spring when they wanted to impose a gas embargo on Russia, the Federal Republic would not have received important gas. Our stores would not be full now. The fact that the Union is hyping the issue of term extensions as if that were the solution is sheer populism. And what I do not understand at all is that Alexander Dobrindt and Friedrich Merz say that we do not agree to the 200 billion euros because no blank check should be issued. But how should the down payment be made in December if the legislature does not provide any money? The behavior of the Union is pure chaos.
Sebastian Huld spoke to Matthias Miersch
