1. Stable account management without special measures

The annual financial statements show that income and expenses were comparatively well balanced in 2025. The funding mechanism worked without short-term interventions and provided a stable foundation for ongoing payments to system operators.

What is noteworthy is that the stability was not due to one-off special effects, but rather to a consistent trend over the entire year. Neither extreme market disruptions nor short-term political corrections were necessary to balance the account. This strengthens the significance of the result and shows that the funding mechanism was set up to be resilient in 2025 under real market conditions.

2. What significance the surplus has

In the energy policy assessment, the EEG account is considered a central stress test for the conveyor mechanism. A surplus shows that income and expenses in the year under consideration were in line with each other under real market conditions. The funding could be financed without triggering short-term corrections or additional liquidity support. The account balance thus confirms the basic functionality of the system in 2025.

At the same time, the positive balance should not be understood as free financial flexibility. It neither automatically signals relief for electricity customers nor does it immediately open up space for new funding programs. Rather, the surplus documents that the existing instruments – market premiums, Federal subsidies and electricity marketing – were sustainable in their current form and stabilized each other.

From a systemic perspective, the surplus primarily fulfills a buffer function. It increases the robustness of the EEG account against short-term market disruptions, for example in the case of strongly fluctuating electricity prices or unexpected feed-in peaks. This reserve strengthens payment security for system operators and reduces the risk that the state has to intervene during the year. However, the real challenge remains to secure this financial stability with the ongoing expansion and increasing system complexity in the coming years.

3. EEG account remains in positive territory thanks to market and household income

On the revenue side, the marketing proceeds from the subsidized electricity and the federal subsidy contributed to stability. Despite sometimes low or negative stock market prices, significant annual average market revenues were achieved.

The subsidy from the federal budget replaced the previous EEG levy and ensured reliable liquidity. This means that the funding costs are spread more widely and are less dependent on electricity consumption.

At the same time, the income structure shows that the EEG account is now based on several stable pillars. Despite short-term price peaks and phases with negative prices, the proceeds from electricity marketing developed sustainably overall and made a relevant contribution to financing the funding. Supplemented by the federal subsidy, this created a revenue mix that is less susceptible to individual market effects and reduces the dependence on electricity consumption and stock exchange prices.

4. Reserve available – system conversion remains crucial

The positive conclusion in 2025 provides the EEG funding account with short-term stability. However, the real challenges lie in the further restructuring of the energy system.

Klaus Müller, President of the Federal Network Agency, classifies this: “A positive balance in the EEG account creates financial stability, but does not replace the task of consistently further developing networks, storage and control.”

What is crucial for long-term development is less the current status of the EEG account than the question of how efficiently renewable energies are integrated into the electricity system. The costs and profitability of the energy transition increasingly depend on whether generation, networks, storage and consumption are sensibly coordinated and whether electricity can be used when it is available in large quantities.

The better this system integration succeeds, the lower the follow-up costs due to restrictions, price peaks or additional compensatory measures. Conversely, the overall costs increase if network expansion, flexibility options and control mechanisms lag behind the expansion of renewable energies. The efficiency of the energy transition is therefore determined less by the funding account than by the performance of the entire energy system.