Troubling Words from the State Court of Auditors Over Climate Fund
The State Court of Auditors isn't thrilled about the Senate's plans to finance climate protection measures via a special fund. Senator Cornelia Seibeld (CDU) prefers this approach, but the Court of Audit President Karin Klingen isn't convinced. "According to the Berlin Debt Brake Act, borrowing is only permitted if there's an emergency situation," Klingen stated at the annual report presentation. She raises doubts about an emergency situation given the draft bill's vague statements.
The recent Federal Constitutional Court ruling on the federal budget strengthens the debt brake and supports the Court of Audit's position. An emergency situation needs specific justification for each financial year, and the causal link between the emergency and planned measures should be clear. Klingen believes the climate protection fund doesn't meet these requirements.
Klingen also criticizes the Senate's intentions to cover a test track for a magnetic levitation train and police station renovations with the climate fund. She worries this isn't the purpose of debt brake exceptions. Klingen advises considering the Federal Constitutional Court ruling in regards to the maglev proposal.
Concerning the Berlin budget, Klingen warns of an impending imbalance. Black-red coalition plans to exhaust 2.5 billion euros' reserves this year and 4.6 billion euros in 2024/25, likely depleting reserves swiftly. Future expenditure might surpass income, per Court of Audit recommendations.
The Court of Audit has reservations regarding housing company socialization's potential financial impact on the state budget. Calculations reveal minimal financial consequences only if housing companies receive below-market compensation. A quarter of market value compensation would require budget subsidies or rental price increases.
Klingen also sharply criticizes Wohnraumversorgung Berlin (WVB) for failing to fulfill its task. Created in 2016 to optimize housing companies' tasks, WVB has relied on bureaucratic inefficiency and constant staff expansion. The Court of Audit recommends combining the task with the Senate responsible for housing management, remove WVB, and save taxpayers around four million euros over six years.
While the Senate's proposed special climate protection fund could provide a more stable financial basis for household budgets in the long term, the State Court of Auditors' concerns about justify emergency situations and fund usage remain.
Sources: Clean Energy Wire and DPA
Enrichment Data Insights: While the Court of Auditors doesn't provide explicit arguments against a special climate protection fund, context suggests potential issues: financial challenges, populist threats, economic concerns, administrative burden, and political divisions.
