The Building Energy Act (GEG) has a clear goal: more climate protection through the modernization of heating systems in German buildings. However, instead of providing guidance, the law has left many homeowners and tenants with one thing above all: chaos and uncertainty. Instead of a clear strategy for the energy transition, politicians seem to be taking a hasty course that presents millions of people with challenges that are almost impossible to solve.
A law with many questions but few answers
The central element of the law is the obligation for newly installed heating systems to be powered by at least 65% renewable energy. This sounds sensible in theory, but in practice the new requirements raise more questions than they answer:
1. who should pay for it?
The cost of climate-friendly heating systems such as heat pumps or hybrid solutions is considerably higher than that of conventional gas or oil heating. Although the government has announced subsidy programs, even with subsidies the financial burden for many homeowners remains enormous. Especially in difficult economic times, many feel overwhelmed – and quite rightly so.
2. technology that does not suit everyone
Not every house is suitable for modern heating solutions. Heat pumps, which are supposed to form the backbone of the heating transition, often do not work efficiently in poorly insulated old buildings. There are also technical limits in densely populated areas or apartment buildings. Although the law offers exceptions to this, these are complicated and difficult to understand.
3. shortage of skilled workers exacerbates the situation
Even if owners are willing to modernize their heating system, many fail to do so because there is a lack of tradesmen to implement the measures. There are already months-long waiting times for energy consultations or heating installations. How is the industry supposed to cope with the new demand if there is a lack of skilled workers?
4. unclear transitional provisions
Many homeowners don’t know what happens if their old heating system suddenly breaks down. Do they have to install a climate-friendly system immediately? How much time is left for a temporary solution? Such uncertainties create frustration and raise doubts about the feasibility of the law.
Uncertainty instead of climate protection
The Heating Act could be an important step towards climate protection – but it is in danger of failing due to resistance from the public. Instead of taking the citizens on board, the government has presented a concept that feels like a hasty coercive measure. The uncertainty is so great that many would rather wait and see than take action.
What’s missing: pragmatism and genuine support
A genuine heating transition needs more than ambitious targets. It needs pragmatic solutions that take social justice into account and respond to people’s needs:
– Clear and simple rules: Homeowners need comprehensible information and transparent requirements, not bureaucratic hurdles.
– Realistic subsidies: The current subsidies only cover part of the costs. Significantly higher funding rates are needed here to create broad acceptance.
– Flexibility in implementation: A rigid one-size-fits-all solution for all properties is unrealistic. Individual approaches are needed that take account of the technical conditions on site.
Conclusion: Between aspiration and reality
The Heating Act shows once again how far apart aspiration and reality are. There is no doubt that the energy transition is necessary, but it must not be carried out on the backs of citizens. Instead of spreading chaos and uncertainty, we need a clear plan that is economically viable and socially just.
Until then, the boiler room will remain a symbol of the overburdening policy of the energy transition in many places: many construction sites, but little orientation.