Germany's heating law remains highly contested. In the first reading in the Bundestag on Thursday, the CDU/CSU and SPD emphasised homeowners' freedom to choose their heating system. The AfD criticised the Building Modernisation Act as de facto "Habeck's heating hammer through the back door". The Greens and the Left Party condemned it as a climate policy setback and flagged high costs for tenants "in the greatest oil crisis of all time worldwide". The Left Party is considering a legal challenge.
The cabinet has passed a reform of the existing Buildings Energy Act from the Ampel coalition era. The continued operation and new installation of oil and gas heating systems is to remain possible in the long term. From 2029, newly installed gas and oil boilers will be required to run on increasing proportions of biogas or bio-oil, the so-called "Biotreppe" or bio ladder. To make existing heating systems more climate-friendly, fuel suppliers will be required to blend in increasing proportions of biogenic fuels.
Economy Minister Reiche told the Bundestag on Thursday that the existing rules were complicated, bureaucratic and insufficiently flexible. The new Building Modernisation Act sets the direction, "but citizens decide". Homeowners would now have "time to adapt".
Reiche stressed the law was not at odds with CO₂ reduction and pointed to the bio ladder. She added that heat pumps would "be the leading technology in the vast majority of buildings", that subsidies for installation "will continue, that is firmly agreed", and that rising unit numbers "should lead to falling prices".
AfD MP Marc Bernhard said the new law was a "heating hammer" just like the old law from former Green Economy Minister Robert Habeck's ministry. The bio ladder amounted to a "de facto ban on oil and gas", biogas was not available in sufficient quantities and was "already three times more expensive than natural gas today". He criticised the government for not planning to check until 2030 whether "enough of the bio-waste is even available".
SPD MP Helmut Kleeberg defended the decision to amend a law his own party had helped draft. The Ampel heating law had "not achieved the necessary acceptance". Thirty percent of households had seen no way to implement it. The "new path to the heating transition" offered greater freedom of choice.
Green parliamentary leader Katharina Dröge called the law "already failed". Against the backdrop of the "greatest oil crisis of all time", the planned legislation seemed "out of time". It was, she said, "the result of a completely overwound fury against Robert Habeck", the product of "a spiral of anger".
Dröge also criticised Economy Minister Reiche for having "forgotten" small businesses such as bakeries and hairdressers. Unlike tenants, there is no cost brake for them if a landlord installs an oil or gas boiler. These businesses "are simply left on their own", she said.
Under the draft law, landlords installing an oil or gas heating system must bear 50 percent of the costs arising from the bio ladder, grid charges, and the CO₂ price. The German Tenants' Association welcomed this, tenants currently bear around 70 percent of these costs on average. In highly inefficient buildings, however, the 50/50 split could in some cases increase costs for tenants. The association is therefore calling for landlords to bear the full CO₂ price.
Left Party climate justice spokesperson Violetta Bock told the Bundestag the draft law was unconstitutional. The Left Party parliamentary group is examining a legal challenge. According to the group, Article 20a of the Basic Law establishes a non-regression principle for existing climate protection measures.
This obliges the legislature, when amending legal requirements, to ensure any alternative achieves the climate goals of international and European law equally effectively and with equal results. Environmental organisations have also already announced legal action against the bill.
The bill now goes to Bundestag committee deliberations. The Bundesrat is set to debate the new heating law on Friday. The responsible committees have criticised the draft as "deficient in its draftsmanship", saying it leads to "excessive bureaucracy and advisory burden". Key implementation questions remain unresolved due to missing definitions of several legal terms. The National Regulatory Control Council had also previously classified the draft as not fit for practical use.
From breaking news to thought-provoking opinion pieces, our newsletter keeps you informed & engaged.
