Finds documents with both search terms in any word order, permitting "n" words as a maximum distance between them. Best choose between 15 and 30 (e.g. NEAR(recruit, professionals, 20)).
Finds documents with the search term in word versions or composites. The asterisk * marks whether you wish them BEFORE, BEHIND, or BEFORE and BEHIND the search term (e.g. lightweight*, *lightweight, *lightweight*).
The article delves into the impact of rising energy prices on Austrian households, particularly those with low and lower-middle incomes. It evaluates the effectiveness of various compensation measures implemented between December 2021 and May 2023, assessing their social effectiveness in protecting vulnerable households and their impact on energy efficiency. The study highlights the disparities in energy cost burdens across income levels and the need for targeted support measures to mitigate the crisis's adverse effects while promoting long-term energy efficiency and climate goals.
AI Generated
This summary of the content was generated with the help of AI.
Abstract
During the energy crisis, low- and lower-middle-income households were hit hardest by the surges in energy prices, since they needed to allocate a considerably larger share of their income towards heating fuels and electricity than higher-income households. This short communication summarises the results of a structured analysis of the support measures to reduce the negative impacts of the energy crisis on households implemented in Austria along two criteria derived from the literature: social effectiveness, i.e. the degree to which they are targeted to vulnerable households, and energy efficiency incentives. The support measures implemented in Austria have generally lacked (social) targeting. Broad compensation measures tend to impede price signals that incentivise energy savings and entail higher fiscal costs. In the medium and long run, these measures, like tax reductions, price caps or untargeted lump-sum payments, should therefore be replaced by measures focussing on income support for the most vulnerable households. This would enable a more effective use of resources, improve social effectiveness, and contribute to increasing energy efficiency.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Introduction
Increasing energy prices are having an impact on both businesses and households. Among households, those with low and lower-middle incomes tend to bear the greatest burden of these price hikes, as they typically spend a much larger proportion of their income on heating fuels and electricity compared to higher-income households (see e.g. Reaños & Wölfing, 2018; Romero-Jordán et al., 2016). As a result, the financial burden of rising energy costs can be particularly severe for these households.
In the context of the war in Ukraine, gas and in turn also electricity prices surged in most EU Member States. In August 2022, the European gas index (EGIX) peaked at 235 EUR/MWh, while the weighted wholesale electricity price exceeded 400 EUR/MWh at the same time, which was more than ten times higher than in August 2020.1 The sharp rise in market prices gradually impacted retail electricity and gas prices for consumers. On average, the price of natural gas for households in the EU in the first half of 2022 was 33% higher than the price in the first half of 2020. During the same time period the electricity price for households increased by 18% (Eurostat, 2022). The energy price increases were impacting all Member States, although to different degrees, which mainly reflected variations in their energy mix, including both final energy consumption and electricity supply, and differences in the form and extent of measures already taken against price increases. In Austria, the price increase was relatively moderate compared to the European average; household prices of electricity rose by 7% and those of natural gas by 18%. Denmark, Italy and Sweden, amongst others, witnessed a strong increase in the retail prices for electricity and natural gas, while electricity prices even declined in the Netherlands or in Slovenia compared to 2020 due to reductions in taxes and duties, subsidies and tax allowances (Eurostat, 2022).
Advertisement
The EU refrained from providing a tight legal framework for compensation measures in the Member States during the energy crises, and only presented very general guidelines, such as those included in the "toolbox" against rising energy prices (European Commission, 2021) or in the emergency intervention (Council Regulation (EU), 2022/1854).2 Due to the sharply rising prices, the Member States adopted a variety of compensation measures for both businesses and households. Most notably, these included reductions in existing taxes and fees (such as reductions in excise duties or value added tax for different energy sources, grid-related fees for electricity and natural gas, or levies for renewable energy). Additionally, social transfers were increased, new subsidies introduced, and some countries even implemented direct price regulations (see e.g. Kettner & Wretschitsch, 2023; Sgaravatti et al., 2021; European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), 2023; OECD, 2022).
In Austria, between December 2021 and May 2023, a number of measures aimed at mitigating the burden of the energy crisis on households and companies were implemented. The vast majority of them focussed on a short-term relief for households and companies and were only of preliminary nature.
In this short communication, we analyse the compensation measures targeted at households in terms of their social effectiveness and energy efficiency incentives implemented between December 2021 and May 2023. First, we explore how rising energy prices affect households of varying income levels (Section 2). We then describe the criteria for the assessment of the individual Austrian compensation measures focussing on households, followed by an overview and a brief description of the measures. In Section 4, we discuss the individual measures in terms of their social effectiveness, i.e. the degree to which they are targeted to vulnerable households, and their impacts on energy efficiency, and draw conclusions based on our analysis.
Vulnerability of Austrian households to energy price increases
First studies covering all (or the bulk of the) EU Member States (Ari et al., 2022; Menyhért, 2022; Steckel et al., 2022) or on Germany (Kalkuhl et al., 2022; Kröger et al., 2023) have found that the energy crisis had a regressive effect, with lower-income households facing a greater burden due to the surge in electricity and heating fuel prices. The direct effect of the price increases dominated, but indirect increases further reduced consumption possibilities.
Advertisement
The impact of energy price increases on different household types depends on the respective consumption expenditure structures and levels as well as on the household incomes. For Austria, information on the consumption structure of private households is available from the Austrian Household Budget Survey for 2019/2020 (Statistics Austria, 2021), the years before the sharp rise in energy prices.
As Fig. 1 shows, on average across all households, income was sufficient to finance consumption expenditure. In the poorer household income groups (first to third decile), however, consumption expenditures on average were higher than disposable incomes already prior to the energy crisis. In the lowest income decile disposable household income was only sufficient to cover two thirds of the consumption expenditures, which means that these households had to finance the rest through savings or debt.3 The richest income decile spent, by contrast, only 61% of its income, indicating a savings rate of 39%. While low-income households have lower energy expenditures in absolute terms, they have to spend a considerably larger portion of their income on fuels used for heating and warm water, and electricity. On average, Austrian households spent 3.3% of their income on these goods. For households in the lowest income decile, however, this share amounted to 8.2% while it was only 1.8% for the highest income decile. As a result of the combined effects of these two factors, low-income households bear a disproportionate burden of energy price increases.
Fig. 1
Energy cost shares of Austrian households 2019/2020. Source: Statistics Austria (2021); own calculations. Only observations prior to March 8th, 2020, were included to avoid data bias due to the irregular effect of the Covid-19-pandemic
As households in the lower income deciles spend a significant share of income on electricity and heating, they are more likely severely hit by rising energy prices during the energy crisis (see also Guan et al., 2023). To protect these households from rising energy bills and to avoid an increase in energy poverty, a multitude of different policy measures were implemented in Austria.
In this article, two central aspects have been chosen for the evaluation of the measures that were introduced in Austria (for similar assessment approaches see European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, 2023, or Hemmerlé et al., 2023): First, the measures are assessed regarding their effectiveness in protecting those households which are most vulnerable to energy price increases. In this regard, the evaluation depends crucially on whether the measure was targeted towards low-income households or benefitted everyone. By targeting measures on those households which are most vulnerable, resources would be used more efficiently (Hemmerlé et al., 2023).
The second criterion we have chosen for this evaluation refers to the impact of the policy measures on energy efficiency. The rise in energy prices creates an incentive for households to save energy, which is favourable from a short- as well as a long-term perspective. In the short-term, EU Member States were called upon decreasing their energy demand to prevent a shortage of energy supply (Council Regulation (EU), 2022/1854). From a long-term perspective, increasing energy efficiency is a key part of the energy transition and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. For the reduction of emissions, especially the decrease of fossil fuel demand is indispensable but also an overall energy demand reduction facilitates a transition towards a renewable energy system. Measures to relief the burden of rising energy prices on vulnerable households should therefore be in line with energy efficiency and climate goals (see also Regulation (EU), 2023/955 on a Social Climate Fund).
Regarding these two criteria, social effectiveness and energy efficiency, the policy measures implemented in Austria described in the following section are assessed in the discussion.
Measures aimed at mitigating the detrimental effects of the energy crisis on Austrian households
General overview
Between December 2021 and May 2023, the Austrian federal government implemented four major packages of measures to support households and companies during the energy crisis (in June, October, and December 2022 as well as in May 2023), along with several other individual measures.4 The total support volume amounts to 48 bn EUR in the period 2022 to 2026, thereof 39 bn EUR for households, with 11 bn EUR allocated to energy-related measures.5 In line with the guidelines provided by the EU (Council Regulation (EU), 2022/1854; European Commission, 2021), the latter were mainly of provisional nature, with roughly one-third of them being limited to 2022 only. In the following, we provide a short description of the individual measures.
Table 1 presents an overview of the measures targeted at households, focussing on those explicitly related to energy.
Table 1
Compensation measures for Austrian households in the context of the energy crisis implemented between December 2021 and May 2023
Measure
Package
Period
Relief volume in m EUR (2022–2026)
Energy-related measures
11,306
Price regulation
3,826
Price cap for basic electricity consumption
n/a
12/22–6/24
3,826
Reductions in energy-related fees, taxes, etc
1,736
Suspension of RES-E support payments
I
2022
400
Prolongation of suspension of RES-E support payments
n/a
2023
400
Reductions in electricity and gas tax rates
II
5/22–6/23
400
Prolongation of reductions in electricity and gas tax rates
IV
7/23–12/23
286
Postponement of the introduction of national carbon pricing
n/a
7/22–9/22
250
Energy-related subsidies
5,081
Energy cost compensation
I
2022
628
Increase in commuter subsidies
II
5/22–6/23
420
Increase in climate bonus payments
III
2022
2,800
Anti-inflation bonus
III
2022
Increase in heating cost subsidy/residential cost subsidy
n/a
2023
675
Subsidy of grid costs
n/a
1/23–12/23
558
Other
663
Promotion of energy efficiency
I
2022
15
Price reductions and expansion of public transport
II
Permanent
618c)
Tax exemption for e-mobility for employees
III
Permanent
30c)
Other short-term measuresa
2022–2023
4,352
Other long-term measuresb
From 2023
23,064
Total
38,722
Source: Adapted from Kettner et al. (2023); a) diverse subsidies for mitigating the impacts of inflation in general; b) most notably reductions in income taxes (abolishment of "cold progression") and increase in family allowance; c) while these funds for public transport will be available beyond 2026, the support volume reported in the table refers to the period 2022–2026 only
Energy-related measures
In the following, we briefly describe the energy-related compensation measures implemented in Austria between December 2021 and May 2023.
Price regulation
Price cap for basic household electricity consumption
In September 2022, the Austrian government introduced a price cap ("Strompreisbremse") for a basic household electricity consumption up to 2,900 kWh p.a. between December 2022 and June 2024 (BGBl. I Nr. 156/2022). Up to this threshold, the price is capped at 10 cents/kWh, for higher consumption the market price applies. Moreover, the subsidy is limited to 30 cents/kWh, in that sense representing rather a sliding price subsidy than a classical price cap. For multi-person households with more than three residents, the threshold was increased in December 2022 to account for the higher electricity consumption of larger households (BGBl. I Nr. 15/2023). Per additional person an additional electricity consumption of 350 kWh is subsidised.
Reductions in energy-related fees and taxes
Suspension of the renewable electricity support payments
The support payments for electricity from renewable energy sources (RES-E) in Austria include a RES-E contribution, a uniform percentage surcharge on grid fees ("Erneuerbaren-Förderbeitrag"), and a RES-E flat rate ("Erneuerbaren-Förderpauschale").6 The RES-E contribution is calculated based on consumption and is charged in cents per kWh, while the flat-rate amounts to 36 EUR per household per year. For low-income households the total support payment (RES-E contribution plus RES-E flat rate) is limited to 75 EUR per year. Both support payments were suspended for 2022, resulting in average annual savings of 100 EUR per household (BGBl. I Nr. 7/2022). In December 2022, the suspension was extended to 2023.
Reduction in excise duties on electricity and natural gas and postponement of carbon pricing
The excise duties on electricity and gas were lowered to the European minimum tax level in May 2022 (BGBl. I Nr. 63/2022). The tax rate on natural gas was reduced from 6.6 to 1.2 cents/m3; the electricity tax rate was decreased to 0.1 cents/kWh from previously 1.5 cents/kWh.
The Austrian government had announced the introduction of a national emissions trading scheme for buildings and transport for July 2022. For the period from 2022 to 2025, a fixed price with stepwise increase from 30 to 55 EUR/t CO2 was defined that should be followed by price formation on the market. To cushion the impact of surging energy prices, the start of the national emissions trading scheme was postponed from July to October 2022 (BGBl. I Nr. 93/2022). The fixed carbon price of the scheme of 30 EUR/t CO2 in 2022 corresponded to a price increase of 0.6 cents/kWh for natural gas or an increase of 8.4 cents/litre for diesel and heating oil (excluding value added tax).
A special feature of the Austrian emissions trading system is the automatic price adjustment mechanism, which applies in the event of strong price changes.7 For 2023, the increase in the CO2 price compared to the previous year has been accordingly reduced to 32.5 EUR/t CO2 (instead of 35 EUR/t CO2).
Energy-related subsidies
Energy cost compensation, increase in climate bonus payments and anti-inflation bonus
To compensate for the increased energy costs in 2022, the energy cost compensation ("Energiekostenausgleich", BGBl. I Nr. 37/2022) was agreed in the form of a voucher of 150 EUR per main residence, which was deducted from the electricity bill. The relief measure was limited to single-person households with an annual taxable income of up to 55,000 EUR and multi-person households with an annual taxable income of up to 110,000 EUR respectively.
The national carbon price was introduced in the context of a socio-ecological tax reform in which revenues from the carbon price were to be recycled back to households via regionally differentiated lump-sum payments ("climate bonus" payments). The regional differentiation distinguishes four categories reflecting both the quality of public transport and the settlement density. In 2022, the climate bonus for all adults in the lowest category (1) was set to be 100 EUR p.a. per adult. This basic amount was supplemented by regional adjustments of 33% in category 2, 67% in category 3, and 100% in category 4. Children up to the age of 18 should receive half of the payment in the respective category. Due to the sharp rise in energy prices, the Austrian government finally increased the climate bonus payments for 2022 to 250 EUR per adult (125 EUR per child), omitting any regional differentiation (BGBl. I Nr. 90/2022).8
In addition to the climate bonus payment, an anti-inflation bonus ("Antiteuerungsbonus") of 250 EUR per adult – and 125 EUR per child up to 18 years – was paid (BGBl. I Nr. 90/2022). For persons with an annual taxable income of more than 90,000 EUR, this bonus was taxed at the highest income tax rate of 50%.
Increase in commuter subsidies
Support measures also included reliefs for commuters (BGBl. I Nr. 163/2022): The commuter allowance was increased by 50% for the period between May 2022 and June 2023 and the "commuter euro", a tax deduction granted for every employee achieving the commuter allowance, was quadrupled for the same time period.9 The total relief volume of the two measures amounted to 300 m EUR and 105 m EUR, respectively.
Increase of heating and residential cost subsidies and subsidies of grid costs
As an explicit support for low-income households, the heating cost subsidies of the Austrian federal states were increased. Depending on the federal state, the eligibility criteria and subsidy level varied, ranging between 110 EUR in Carinthia to 270 EUR in Vorarlberg (one-time payment per heating period, see Fink et al., 2022). In addition to the subsidies for heating and residential cost subsidies, at the national level 75% of the grid costs (or up to 200 EUR per year) were subsidised for households with lower incomes.
Other measures
In the first relief package of June 2022 also subsidies for the replacement of household appliances and additional funds for energy consulting were included to promote energy efficiency in households. Moreover, measures aimed at reducing prices for public transport and expanding the public transport system were implemented, as well as the stipulation of a non-cash benefit value of zero for the charging of electric bicycles and CO2 emission-free motor vehicles for employees (BGBl. II Nr. 504/2022).
Discussion
In the following, we discuss the energy-related compensation measures for households in Austria based on the indicators described in Section 3.
Table 2 provides an overview of the results that is based on a literature review, descriptive statistics, and expert judgement. The general rating categories are positive ( +), indicating that the measure is synergetic with the objective of social effectiveness and, respectively, improvements in energy efficiency. A negative (-) rating, by contrast, indicates trade-offs between the measure and the target. Finally, a measure is rated as neutral ( ~) when no clear positive or negative effect can be expected. In terms of social effectiveness, a measure was rated positive ( +) if it was targeted towards low-income groups, negative (-) if no targeting occurred, or rather negative (-/ ~) if the income thresholds were too generous. For the energy efficiency criterion, all measures that dampened the price signal were rated rather negative (-/ ~) or negative (-) in the case of fossil fuels.
Table 2
Evaluation of energy-related compensation measures for Austrian households in terms of social effectiveness and effects on energy efficiency
Measure
Social effectiveness
Effects on energy efficiency
Price regulation
Price cap for basic electricity consumption
~
-/ ~
Reductions in energy-related fees, taxes, etc
Suspension of RES-E support payments
-
-/ ~
Reductions in electricity and gas tax rates
-
-/ ~| -
Postponement of the introduction of national carbon pricing
-
-
Energy-related subsidies
Energy cost compensation
-/ ~
-/ ~
Increase in commuter subsidies
-
-/ ~
Increase in climate bonus payments
-/ ~
~
Anti-inflation bonus
Increase in heating cost subsidy/residential cost subsidy
+
~
Subsidy of grid costs
+
~
Other
Promotion of energy efficiency
n/aa)
+
Price reductions and expansion of public transport
~
+
Tax exemption for e-mobility for employees
-
-/ ~
Source: Own illustration; a) Social effectiveness cannot be assessed based on the information available
Price regulation
According to the Austrian federal government, the basic amount of 2,900 kWh corresponded to 75% of the electricity demand of an average Austrian household; according to the Federal Ministry for Climate Protection (BMK), this was roughly equivalent to the consumption of an average three- to four-person household (without electric water heating).10 For small households, this generous threshold reduced incentives for energy savings. Moreover, the efficiency of the instrument was further decreased as no differentiation between primary and secondary residences was made. The combination of the price cap of 10 cents/kWh and the generous threshold defined as basic consumption lowered price increases significantly. In contrast to a mere subsidy on the market price, a fixed price reduces the price risk for the consumer (up to the threshold). However, research in behavioural economics shows that "consumers respond to average price rather than marginal or expected marginal price" (Ito, 2014). In the context of the price cap for a limited amount of energy consumption, this effect might have caused consumers to only weakly respond to the market price of electricity that applied above the basic quota (see also Kellner et al., 2022, discussing this effect in the context of a price cap on basic gas consumption in Germany), potentially reducing the energy-saving incentive similar to a classical price cap. Nevertheless, this effect was likely to be small, given the significant electricity price increases compared to the pre-crisis level.
Due to their lower electricity consumption (see Fig. 1), low-income households might have, however, benefited more strongly from this measure than richer households.
Reductions in energy-related fees and taxes
As any reduction in electricity prices, the suspension of renewable energy support payments dampened energy efficiency incentives. Due to their higher levels of electricity consumption, high-income households tend to benefit more strongly from these suspensions in absolute terms; however, in relative terms the relief will tend to be higher for lower- to middle-income households. It has to be noted, however, that the Austrian households with the lowest income levels already had been exempt from paying renewable support payments in the past.
Likewise, the reductions in the excise duties on electricity and gas and the postponement of CO2 pricing weakened the price increase of electricity, gas and other fossil fuels – and thus energy saving incentives.
Energy-related subsidies
For the energy cost compensation, the generous income thresholds implied that the transfer was also available to people with relatively high incomes. Due to the broad group of recipients, the budgetary costs were sizeable (600 m EUR) despite the comparatively low subsidy level per household. The compensation effect decreased with household size although energy costs rise with the number of household members. Moreover, since the subsidy was directly related to the energy bill, it might have dampened energy saving incentives.
The increase in climate bonus payments accrued to all households, and the anti-inflation bonus was taxed for persons with an annual taxable income of more than 90,000 EUR, which means that social targeting again was not a priority. Since these payments were not directly related to households' energy bills, energy saving incentives were not affected.
The increase in commuter allowances only benefited a relatively small group of people and did not provide any incentives for climate-friendly commuting (Baumgartner et al., 2023). Since the commuter allowance is designed as tax allowance, the benefit increased with rising (individual) income due to the progressive nature of the income tax rate, and it did not constitute a relief for workers with low incomes. The increase in the "commuter euro" constituted a relatively higher relief for low-income commuters, since it is designed as a tax deduction. Nevertheless, the share of households owning a car in the lowest income deciles is considerably lower than for higher income groups (e.g. only 35% in the first income decile compared to 77% on average in the period 2019/2020). Moreover, it should be noted that there is generally at least a partial possibility of substitution between motorised individual transport and other transport modes (non-motorised individual transport, public transport)11 that may help limit transport expenditure. Measures aimed at relieving housing and residential energy costs are more accurate, since there are often no short-term substitution options for these expenses.
The heating cost subsidies were basically socially targeted, but partly exclude certain vulnerable groups (such as third-country nationals). In the case of energy cost subsidies, it is not to be assumed that energy saving incentives were reduced, as energy costs represent a relevant cost factor for these households even after subsidies (see also Fink et al., 2022) and there is hardly any savings potential without severe deprivations.
Other measures
In contrast to the other policy measures that provided only a short-term relief in the energy crisis, improvements in energy efficiency and the expansion of public transport result in a higher long-run resilience of Austrian households to increasing fossil fuel prices. Nevertheless, the share of funds dedicated to these measures is comparably small (633 m EUR in the period 2022 to 2026). The tax exemption for e-mobility tends to benefit higher-incomes and is not in line with a more comprehensive vision of an efficient and climate-friendly transport system, focussing more strongly on non-motorised individual and public transport.
Conclusions
Austria, like many other EU Member States, implemented an extensive support regime to mitigate the adverse effects of the energy crisis. In 2022, the support measures for households amounted to 1.3% of GDP (5.8 bn EUR); in 2023, the support volume further increased to 8.9 bn EUR (1.9% of GDP). It remains to be seen whether the policy interventions against the price increases particularly of fossil fuels will reduce the credibility of climate policy and thereby incentives for investments in energy efficiency and renewables. Overall, Austria has missed the opportunity to prioritise energy efficiency in the design of compensation measures, which would also have also facilitated the long-term transformation of the energy system.
To limit the fiscal costs, compensation measures should focus on the most vulnerable households. This means targeting the funds specifically to groups with lower incomes unable to cope with the price increase on their own. For other households, the higher prices can ensure a more efficient use of energy during the crisis, thus increasing security of energy supply, and provide incentives for investments in energy efficiency (purchase of more efficient household appliances, thermal refurbishment) and renewable energy sources, such as heating systems based on renewables, or photovoltaics (Kalkuhl et al., 2022; Steckel et al., 2022).
In general, the support measures implemented in Austria lacked (social) targeting. Only the increase in heating cost subsidy and residential cost subsidy as well as the subsidy of grid-related costs were targeted exclusively to low-income households. The energy cost compensation and the anti-inflation bonus depended on income to a limited extent, i.e. households above a very generous threshold were excluded. All other support measures were independent of the households' income level. Nevertheless, low-income households benefitted more strongly from all lump-sum transfers in relative terms. In the context of the price cap for basic electricity consumption, low-income households might also have benefitted more strongly since electricity consumption tends to be lower in these households, thus they can more easily stay below the threshold. Still, even the comparably small increase in prices under the electricity price cap compared to the pre-crisis level might have constituted a substantial burden to these households.
Analyses in the context of the energy crisis (Ari et al., 2022; Kalkuhl et al., 2022; Steckel et al., 2022) show that targeted income support measures, such as lump-sum payments for vulnerable households, are effective to cushion the negative impacts of the energy price increases on the most affected households in the short run, while maintaining the price signal and keeping the fiscal costs within limits.
Targeted support measures entail more administrative complexity, whereas broad compensation measures, such as tax reductions, price caps or untargeted lump-sum payments, impede price signals and pose a fiscal burden. Therefore, in the medium and long run, these measures should be replaced by focussed support for the most vulnerable households (Menyhért, 2022).
While our analysis focussed on compensation measures in the energy crisis, the conclusions are more broadly valid in the context of the energy transition required for achieving the climate targets. Also in this context, a well-balanced combination of a broad range of policy instruments is required, which includes carbon pricing to incentivise emission reductions. Support measures should be limited to the most vulnerable households lacking the financial means for switching to climate-friendly technologies and should not dampen incentives for energy efficiency and a switch to renewables.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for research assistance by Susanne Markytan and Katharina Köberl-Schmid.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
N/a.
Consent for publication
N/a.
Competing interests
None.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
By contrast, the emergency intervention laid down very tight rules on the obligatory implementation of windfall profit taxes for the energy sectors in the Member States.
It has to be noted, however, that also retired people that can draw from their savings or students that receive support from their family are included in this group.
In addition to measures implemented by the federal government, support measures were also implemented at the level of the nine Austrian provinces and at community level. In our analysis, we do, however, focus on measures at the federal level.
I.e. if energy prices in the first three quarters of year t rise (or fall) by more than 12.5% compared to the previous year, the price increase planned for year t + 1 will be halved (or doubled). The CO2 prices defined for the subsequent years remain unaffected by the individual adjustments; they would only be adapted in the event of a renewed undercutting or overshooting of the energy price thresholds.
In addition to the quadrupling of the deductible amount, the "commuter euro" was supplemented by a one-time negative taxable amount of 100 EUR for negative tax recipients.
More than 50% of the employees receiving the commuter allowance need to travel less than 20 km to work (Kletzan-Slamanig et al., 2022).
Ari, M. A., Arregui, M. N., Black, M. S., Celasun, O., Iakova, M. D. M., Mineshima, M. A., Mylonas, V., Parry, I. W., Teodoru, I., & Zhunussova, K. (2022). Surging energy prices in europe in the aftermath of the war: How to support the vulnerable and speed up the transition away from fossil fuels. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2022/152/article-A001-en.xml
BGBl. I Nr. (7/2022). Amendment of the Renewable Energy Expansion Act (Erneuerbaren-Ausbau-Gesetz).
BGBl. I Nr. (15/2023). Amendment of the Electricity Cost Subsidy Act (Stromkostenzuschussgesetz).
BGBl. I Nr. (37/2022). Energy cost Credit Act (Energiekostenausgleichsgesetz 2022).
BGBl. I Nr. (63/2022). Amendment of the Electricity Tax Act (Elektrizitätsabgabegesetz) and the Natural Gas Tax Act (Erdgasabgabegesetzes).
BGBl. I Nr. (90/2022). Amendment of the Law on the Regional Climate Bonus (Klimabonusgesetz – KliBG).
BGBl. I Nr. (93/2022). Inflation relief package.
BGBl. I Nr. (156/2022). Electricity Cost Subsidy Act (Stromkostenzuschussgesetz).
BGBl. I Nr. (163/2022). Inflation relief package II.
BGBl. II Nr. (504/2022). Amendment of the Non-Monetary Remuneration Regulation (Änderung der Sachbezugswerteverordnung).
Council Regulation (EU). (2022/1854). 2022/1854 of 6 October 2022 on an emergency intervention to address high energy prices, 261I OJ L. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1854
Fink, M., Mayrhuber, C., & Rocha-Akis, S. (2022). Maßnahmenpakete gegen Teuerung. Potentielle Wirkung auf die privaten Haushalte. WIFO Research Briefs 11/2023. http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/69633
Guan, Y., Yan, J., Shan, Y., Zhou, Y., Hang, Y., Li, R., Liu, Y., Liu, B., Nie, Q., Bruckner, B., Feng, K., & Hubacek, K. (2023). Burden of the global energy price crisis on households. Nature Energy,8(3), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01209-8CrossRefMATH
Hemmerlé, Y., Sunel, E., D’Arcangelo, F. M., Kruse, T., Haugh, D., Pina, Á., Pisu, M., Castle, C., & Sarcina, G. (2023). Aiming better: Government support for households and firms during the energy crisis. OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 32, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/839e3ae1-en
Ito, K. (2014). Do consumers respond to marginal or average price? Evidence from nonlinear electricity pricing. American Economic Review,104(2), 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.2.537CrossRefMATH
Kellner, M., Amberg, M., Knopf, B., & Edenhofer, O. (2022). Was der Vorschlag der Gaskommission für private Haushalte bedeutet: Substanzielle Entlastung, aber sozial unausgewogen. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC).
Kletzan-Slamanig, D., Köppl, A., Sinabell, F., Kirchmayr, S., Müller, S., Rimböck, A., Voit, T., Heher, M., & Schanda, R. (2022). Analyse klimakontraproduktiver Subventionen in Österreich. WIFO. http://www.wifo.ac.at/wwa/pubid/69687
Kröger, M., Longmuir, M., Neuhoff, K., & Schütze, F. (2023). The price of natural gas dependency: Price shocks, inequality, and public policy. Energy Policy,175, 113472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113472CrossRef
Menyhért, B. (2022). The effect of rising energy and consumer prices on household finances, poverty and social exclusion in the EU: A preliminary empirical analysis. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/https://doi.org/10.2760/418422
Regulation (EU). (2023/955). 2023/955 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023 establishing a Social Climate Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1060. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/955/oj
Reaños, M. A. T., & Wölfing, N. M. (2018). Household energy prices and inequality: Evidence from German microdata based on the EASI demand system. Energy Economics,70, 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.12.002CrossRef
Romero-Jordán, D., del Río, P., & Peñasco, C. (2016). An analysis of the welfare and distributive implications of factors influencing household electricity consumption. Energy Policy,88, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.09.037CrossRef
