On February 16, the Green Party presented its 10-point plan for the energy transition. The occasion was the announced grid package by Federal Minister for Economic Affairs Katherina Reiche, which aims to prioritize grid connections and limit the expansion of wind and solar energy. The plan, however, relies on even more expansion, even more grid investments, and stronger control of consumption and industry through volatile price signals. The central risk factor lies in the growing gap between politically mandated expansion figures and the actual capacity of the grid to absorb and stabilize this feed-in. The consequences threaten to accumulate: rising grid fees, higher tax burdens, more interventions in the system, and additional uncertainty for industrial processes and security of supply during periods of low wind and solar output. (gruene: 16.02.26)
10-Point Plan: Ten Key Issues, but No Concrete Development
In their 10-point plan, the Green Party outlines key demands regarding wind and solar energy expansion, grids, storage, taxes, digitalization, and industry and transportation. While they present a package of measures, crucial aspects of implementation, priorities, and financing remain unclear. Therefore, the following is a list of the ten points and the critical core conflict for each.
1) Onshore wind: Increase tenders from 10 to 15 GW per year
This is quantity-driven policy, but without demonstrating any added value for security of supply. More installations primarily increase volatility, while periods of low wind and solar output remain unchanged. During periods of high wind, surpluses, curtailment, and negative prices increase. This generates costs and conflicts, but no guaranteed kilowatt-hour in an emergency.
2) Right to solar for all
This entitlement sounds appealing to citizens, but at the same time, it becomes a ticket into a system that is already operating at its limit. If feed-in and subsidies dominate, everyone pays through grid fees and taxes. Those responsible don’t bear the collateral costs, while the infrastructure continues to expand. This is marketed as socially responsible, but systemically expensive.
3) Distribution grid expansion initiative 2030
Here, the most expensive part of the energy transition is labeled an “initiative.” Distribution grids cannot be expanded arbitrarily quickly or cheaply. Every additional wave of grid connections drives up network charges, while permits, materials, and construction capacity become limiting factors. Without clear priorities, this will become an endless project with ever-increasing costs.
4) Massively expand electricity storage and manage it in a way that benefits the grid
The term “storage” is used here as a pacifier. Short-term storage smooths out minutes and hours, but it cannot bridge multi-day periods of low power generation. The risk is politically dangerous: You’re selling security while only buying convenience. In the end, the gap remains, and new cost factors are added.
Announcing relief, but the financing remains unclear.
5) Make grid expansion cheaper
“Cheaper” only comes about by relabeling costs. Forgoing returns or government takeover means: taxpayers instead of grid customers, but always the same cash flow. This doesn’t reduce overall costs, but merely shifts them. At the same time, political control over infrastructure operators increases.
6) Reduce electricity tax and provide 600 hours of free summer electricity
“Free” is just a marketing term here, because financing and cost accounting are lacking. If the state is simultaneously expected to shoulder more network costs, expenditures and revenues clash. Then, the only options are debt or redistribution, while the structural cost drivers remain untouched. This is symbolic politics with hidden costs.
More control, more dependency, more intervention
7) Accelerate the rollout of smart meters
Smart meters are not power plants, but control instruments. They help manage scarcity, but they don’t eliminate it. In practice, this increases the pressure on load management and variable tariffs. This makes households and businesses more flexible for the system, but not the system more stable for them.
8) A technology-neutral capacity market instead of focusing on large gas-fired power plants
A capacity market is a permanent subscription for capacity availability. Customers pay year-round, even though it remains unclear how often the capacity will be needed. This may be necessary, but it will become a multi-billion-euro transfer if the causes of scarcity continue to grow. Furthermore, the term “technology-neutral” remains empty if key options are politically excluded.
Accelerating Electrification Despite Shaky Foundations
9) Accelerating Heat Pumps and Electromobility, Lowering Grid Fees
This plan presents a fundamental contradiction. More heat pumps and electric cars increase electricity demand and peak loads, thus requiring more grid expansion. At the same time, grid fees are to be reduced, further undermining the financing. Subsidy demands shift the burden to households, while citizens pay twice: through taxes and electricity prices.
10) Reducing Electricity Costs for Industry and Promoting Electrification
The plan aims for dynamic grid fees and shifting consumption patterns. In practical terms, this means: industry should operate when wind and sun permit. Many processes cannot do this, while downtime is expensive and supply chains require synchronization. This threatens a location model that makes production a secondary condition of weather conditions.
Conclusion: More expansion as a knee-jerk reaction, but no answer to security of supply and costs
The 10-point plan focuses on acceleration, but speed does not replace system stability. Increased volatile feed-in without guaranteed capacity increases interventions and reserve requirements. Promises of relief are contradictory because they merely shift costs. The 10-point plan thus primarily delivers demands, but not a robust architecture for price stability, grid realities, and security of supply.