Decision-Making Chamber 4 of the Federal Network Agency intends to issue a determination—departing from Section 19(2) of the Electricity Grid Fee Ordinance (hereinafter “StromNEV”)—to establish incentives that serve the interests of the system. In its key points, the Federal Network Agency outlines the “key background and objectives of the proposed regulation.” The Federal Network Agency points out that the generation landscape has changed significantly. This has also led to altered requirements in grid operation. A “reassessment of the incentives” provided through special grid fees is necessary. The BDI welcomes the federal government’s intention to provide greater flexibility for the energy system. It acknowledges that the generation landscape has changed significantly as a result of the energy transition and the associated practical and regulatory changes. This also affects the current organization of the consumer market, which—within the limits of technical and economic feasibility—should be structured in a way that is compatible with the changing generation landscape.

Is there a risk of a new burden arising from industrial grid fees?

Regardless of this, it should be noted that Germany’s position as an industrial hub must not be further jeopardized by a change—the Federal Network Agency refers to it as a “further development”—in industrial grid fees in the electricity sector. When revising the industrial grid fees in accordance with Section 19(2) of the Electricity Network Ordinance (StromNEV), care must therefore be taken to ensure that non-privileged industrial companies are not subject to additional burdens. In particular, the reduced rate for the manufacturing sector (end-user group C) must be retained without exception. The BDI remains committed to the transition toward climate-neutral generation and production. In many industries, climate-neutral production primarily requires electrification—for example, through the use of green electricity and electrolytically produced hydrogen. The current structure of industrial grid fees incentivizes operational decarbonization through electrification. To ensure the continued success of this transformation—and if Germany wishes to become climate-neutral and remain a strong industrial nation—sufficient quantities of renewable electricity at internationally competitive prices are absolutely essential.

Appeal to the Federal Network Agency

Hence this appeal to the Federal Network Agency: This matter goes beyond the general authority to design the grid tariff system, which the Federal Network Agency undoubtedly possesses under the Energy Network Act (EnWG). Furthermore, the Federal Network Agency is also authorized to adopt regulations that deviate from or supplement the current legal framework even before the StromNEV expires (December 31, 2028). This initiative is about more than that: it is about the future of Germany as an industrial hub. Not only for the companies directly affected, but also for those involved in the value chains.

Individual grid fees are crucial for international competitiveness

A complete elimination or significant reduction in the grid fee reduction would have considerable negative consequences for the industries that have thus far taken advantage of Section 19(2) of the StromNEV. The BDI welcomes the Federal Network Agency’s intention that existing agreements on individual grid fees under Section 19(2) of the StromNEV should “not immediately lose their effect” (Key Points, p. 8). End consumers are to be granted “sufficient transition periods” (Key Points, p. 8). An increase in grid fees—in extreme cases by a factor of 5 to 10, plus any further increases—would drive up electricity costs even further. The situation in international competition, particularly for energy-intensive industries, would become even more severe.

The provision of flexibility, to the extent that it is even possible, should continue to be provided only on a voluntary basis and with appropriate compensation

Flexibility potential should primarily be tapped through positive incentives. It is not primarily the responsibility of industry to provide flexibility. Even though industry is committed to the energy transition and climate neutrality, it is not primarily responsible for ensuring that the energy system functions under the new conditions with numerous volatile feed-in sources. Only if the cost advantages of operating in a manner aligned with electricity prices outweigh the disadvantages of moving away from the otherwise—and still—technically more sensible steady operating mode could this be a conceivable alternative or solution for companies after a longer transition period.

The Electricity Grid Fee Ordinance should remain in effect at least until the end of 2028

The Electricity Grid Fee Ordinance (StromNEV) should remain in force at least until December 31, 2028. It should not, as currently intended by the Federal Network Agency, be terminated prematurely as early as the end of 2026. The fact is that, according to the Federal Network Agency’s own statement, the “specific design of an incentive scheme intended to encourage system-supporting behavior on the part of loads” requires “further insight into the actual capabilities of the load side” (Key Points, p. 10). It is not clear, however, how a decision on “whether” to bring forward the effective date from 2028 to 2026 can be made without first having gained “additional insight into the actual capabilities of the load side.” Furthermore, the establishment of the intended new special network fee “should not be subject to a strict time limit” (Key Points, p. 8 et seq.). Consequently, the Federal Network Agency should also have a vested interest in ensuring that the determination—including the new special network fee and transitional provisions—remains in effect in the long term. This necessarily requires, in an appropriate manner, a comprehensive assessment of the situation and its evaluation. This, in turn, requires that the current regulation remain in effect until the identification and assessment of flexibility potentials have been completed.

Outlook

Everything indicates that the situation—even independently of the Federal Network Agency’s planned reform of industrial grid fees—will continue to deteriorate negatively for Germany as an industrial location and, consequently, for Germany as a whole. In our view, this too must be taken into account in the Federal Network Agency’s proposed initiative. Since the government subsidy for transmission grid fees was eliminated as part of federal budget cuts, costs—and thus a key component of electricity prices alongside the pure procurement price—have already doubled as of 2024. This is already leading to significant increases in overall costs across many industrial sectors. Furthermore, unless there is a change in this regard, at least 240 billion—and likely significantly more—will need to be raised by 2045 for the transmission grids alone. This, too, means that grid costs will remain at a high level in the long term or even rise further. For many companies, the high and rising electricity grid fees pose a serious threat to their very existence. The changes planned by the Federal Network Agency must not increase the cost burden any further. Doing so would dangerously exacerbate the competitive disadvantage that Germany already faces as an industrial location when compared internationally. Rather, the Federal Network Agency’s intended “further development” of industrial grid fees in the electricity sector should be carried out in accordance with the needs and, in particular, the technical requirements of German industry.