GERMANY • ECONOMIC FAIRNESS • CONSUMER RIGHTS

Germany Has a Way to Keep the Power On. Can People Use It?

A legal protection matters when the person opening the warning letter can understand it and use it in time.

An electricity bill becomes something very different when the next letter says the supply may be cut off. It is no longer only an argument about money. It becomes a question about whether a household can keep using the things that make a home function. A warning letter deserves a serious response, but the person receiving it should not need a legal education to understand what can happen next.

Germany has a useful protection that deserves more attention. Under the current energy law, households in basic electricity or gas supply can obtain an agreement intended to prevent disconnection. It combines repayment of arrears with continued supply. The debt is not erased, and the customer still has obligations. But losing an essential service is not supposed to be the automatic next step after falling behind.

This is a story about something Germany has done constructively. It is also a question about whether that protection is usable for someone already under financial pressure. Those two points belong together. Recognizing a good rule does not require pretending that it solves every problem.

The protection behind the unfamiliar word

The German term is Abwendungsvereinbarung. In ordinary English, it means an agreement to avert the shutoff. Section 41g of the Energiewirtschaftsgesetz, Germany's energy-industry law, provides this additional protection for household customers in Grundversorgung, or basic supply. It should not be presented as an identical entitlement under every energy contract.

The agreement must provide interest-free monthly repayments and continued supply while the customer meets the agreed conditions and ongoing payments. After a shutoff threat, an eligible customer can request the offer; the basic supplier must send it within a week, or otherwise offer it no later than the formal disconnection announcement. Accepting the offer in text form before disconnection prevents the basic supplier from cutting off supply at that point. Breaking the agreement can reopen the possibility of disconnection, subject to the applicable safeguards.

That is an important distinction. A repayment arrangement is a way to keep the lights on while addressing the debt. It is not debt cancellation, a guarantee that every proposed installment is affordable, or permission to stop paying current bills.

The regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur, explains that electricity and gas shutoffs also face notice and proportionality requirements. Particular vulnerability or a concrete danger to health or life can matter. A household should tell its supplier promptly about relevant circumstances instead of assuming that the company already knows. The presence of a health condition does not mean every threatened shutoff is automatically unlawful; the circumstances need assessment.

The rules concern the supplier-customer relationship. Someone whose heating is billed through a landlord may need a different route. A reader should check the contract and ask for advice rather than assume that every energy-related charge falls under the same procedure.

Who is missing?

The missing seat belongs to the person who can explain what a proposed repayment would leave for food, housing and other essentials. It also belongs to household members who did not incur the debt but would live with the consequences of disconnection. A child's needs or another resident's health cannot be understood by looking at an account balance alone.

The supplier holds immediate operational power over the bill and the disconnection process. Parliament defines the protections, while advisers and public authorities can help people navigate them. The customer carries the responsibility for responding and meeting an agreement that actually works. That allocation deserves scrutiny because a person in difficulty may have the least time, confidence or capacity to interpret formal language.

Suppliers benefit when debts are repaid. Households benefit when repayment does not require losing supply first. My inference is that a workable agreement can make those interests less adversarial. This article does not establish how often agreements succeed, which companies use them best, or whether a particular household was unlawfully disconnected.

We should care about the design even if our own bills are paid. A society's treatment of payment problems helps determine whether a temporary financial setback remains manageable. It is reasonable for suppliers to collect money they are owed. It is also reasonable to ask whether collection procedures give people a real chance to stabilize their situation before an essential service disappears.

There is a fair counterargument. Companies cannot continue supplying energy indefinitely without payment, and an agreement that ignores future bills will not solve the problem. Other customers should not be treated as an unlimited source of money for unpaid accounts. Those concerns support realistic repayment and clear obligations. They do not make a confusing warning letter or an unusable offer good policy.

The right question is whether the household can meet the proposed arrangement while paying for current supply. A form can be signed and still fail that practical test. That is an accountability question, not evidence that all suppliers are acting improperly.

A recipe people can use

A useful first step is to gather the bill, contract, warning letters, payment records and meter information. Ask the supplier to clarify the amount owed and whether the account is in basic supply. If it is, and a shutoff has been threatened, ask explicitly for the Abwendungsvereinbarung under section 41g. Keep the request and response.

One short request can say: “Please confirm whether my account is in Grundversorgung. If it is, please send the Abwendungsvereinbarung under § 41g EnWG and explain the proposed installments and continuing monthly payments.” This is a practical starting point, not a substitute for checking a particular case.

If the installment is beyond reach, contact a recognized debt-advice service or Verbraucherzentrale promptly and ask for help reviewing the offer and available support. Tell the supplier about relevant health or vulnerability concerns. An internal complaint should not be assumed to pause every deadline, so a shutoff approaching soon needs urgent advice.

For billing disputes, the Bundesnetzagentur describes a written consumer complaint to the company and a subsequent route to Schlichtungsstelle Energie, an independent dispute-resolution body. The company generally has four weeks to respond. Eligible consumer conciliation is free; a proposed settlement binds the parties only if accepted. The regulator does not submit the complaint on the customer's behalf.

There is also an action for people who are not in debt. Ask your local basic supplier to show its shutoff-prevention process in plain language: who receives requests, how quickly offers are sent, and how customers reach advice. Ask for reporting that distinguishes threats, agreements, completed repayments and actual disconnections. Those are proposed accountability measures, not requirements this article claims the law already imposes.

Germany should get credit for making a route available before the power goes off. The next measure of success is whether people can find it, understand it and use it in time. A protection hidden behind an unfamiliar word should not remain useful mainly to people who already know how the system works.

Ally = Action. 🪑

Back to Editorials