Energy taxes: where do Belgium's parties stand in 2026?

How does the State tax your energy bill?

On a Belgian gas or electricity bill, the State levies mainly through two channels: VAT, at 6% on residential supply since 2023, and excise duties, charged by consumption bracket, a little like income tax. The energy price you pay is therefore not just the market price: a fixed share goes to the federal level.

These two levers are not handled the same way. VAT is a uniform percentage, which rises mechanically when the pre-tax price climbs — handy when prices fall, painful in a spike. Excise duties are an amount per megawatt-hour, independent of the market price, and can be adjusted by bracket to spare small consumers. It is this technical difference that explains the political choices of 2026.

One figure to frame the Belgian stakes: in the first half of 2025, electricity cost 4.15 times more than gas in Belgium, against 3.28 in Germany, 1.98 in France and 1.62 in the Netherlands, according to the CREG. A good part of that gap comes from taxation: federal excise duties reached about €50.33/MWh for electricity against €8.72/MWh for gas. Taxing energy is not neutral — it also steers the choice between heating with gas or electricity.

How do you read the parties' positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign here, not a mark: a green + when it clearly backs the approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system deliberately replaces stars or marks out of 5, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column designates a "good" party. A party favourable to the excise reform is often reserved on the idea of freezing prices, and vice versa. The two columns answer different priorities — budget balance and price signal on one side, immediate protection of purchasing power on the other — backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

This table is not a ranking: the left column reflects support for the reform as launched, the right column the appetite for measures going further in relief. A + does not mean "better" — it marks a direction, not a quality.

What does the Arizona energy reform actually change?

The Arizona government, in office since February 2025, chose not to raise the VAT rate on energy and to act instead on excise duties. In practice, excise duties on gas rise gradually from 2026 to 2029, while those on electricity fall in return.

The stated aim is twofold: to raise revenue — about €633 million a year — and to rebalance the relationship between gas and electricity. By making gas a little more expensive and electricity a little cheaper, the government indirectly pushes towards electrified heating, consistent with the transition, without displaying a VAT increase that the MR deemed contrary to its campaign promises.

On the figures, the budget agreement points to a saving of about €15 a year for an average household on electricity in 2026, and a rise in gas excise duties of about €18 this year, climbing to nearly €74.50 more per year by 2029. The balance therefore depends on the heating mode: an all-electric household gains a little, a gas household loses more as the years pass.

Why did the government touch excise duties rather than VAT?

Because VAT was a political sticking point, and excise duties a more flexible tool. During the budget negotiations, some partners considered a broad VAT rise to find several billion euros; the French-speaking liberals of the MR deemed it inconceivable, contrary to their commitments. The scenario retained was therefore one of targeted rises through excise duties.

Technically, this choice has a logic. VAT, uniform, allows no progressivity: there is no way to spare small consumers. Excise duties, charged by bracket, do allow it. They also make it possible to treat gas and electricity differently, which a single VAT rate does not. For a government wanting both revenue and a signal in favour of electricity, the excise duty is the most workable instrument.

One deadline remains beyond anyone's control: the European Union requires a return to 21% VAT on gas from 2030. How the excise duties will then be adjusted is not yet known. In other words, the 2026 debate is only a stage; the next legislature will have to reopen it, whatever the majority in place.

What does the opposition hold against this reform?

The left opposition mainly contests the rise on gas, which it deems unfair to modest households. The PTB·PVDA calls for scrapping this rise and defends a "fair tax system" that would make large fortunes contribute more, rather than workers' bills. The PS shares this criticism: raising the cost of gas hits older homes and tenants first, who cannot afford to install a heat pump.

The argument is social as much as technical. Many precarious households heat with gas for lack of an affordable alternative, and several actors, including Test-Achats and sector associations, stressed the lack of targeted support for these groups. Conversely, the cut on electricity mainly benefits those who can electrify their home — an investment out of reach for part of the population.

The Vlaams Belang also opposes the rise, but on another register: defending households' purchasing power, without the left's emphasis on redistribution. Two oppositions, then, voting the same way on this precise point for very different reasons — a classic of Belgian politics, where the same "no" covers opposite visions.

Should energy prices be frozen or capped?

This is the other big debate, distinct from the excise reform. Several parties — the PTB·PVDA, the PS and Les Engagés — have proposed freezing or capping fuel and energy prices to protect households. The MR and the N-VA oppose it, in the name of budget cost and how the market works.

Supporters put forward a logic of immediate protection: when prices soar, a cap shields households without waiting for the slow effect of taxation. Some, like Vooruit, defend a more targeted variant, the "reverse ratchet" on fuel excise duties — an automatic tax cut when prices rise, rather than a general freeze. The idea is to smooth peaks without freezing prices for good.

Opponents reply that a freeze is costly to public finances, blurs the price signal that encourages using less, and can discourage investment in production. Conversely, doing nothing leaves households exposed to market volatility. None of these positions is absurd: they trade off differently between short-term protection and long-term effects. At this stage, no general freeze is in force.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best. The real effect of an energy tax depends on market prices, the winter's weather, each home's heating mode and European rules that go beyond Belgium alone. Nor does it factor in your situation: tenant of a gas-heated flat, owner of an electrified house or precarious household, you will not live through the same reform.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls — revenue and price signal on one side, immediate protection of purchasing power on the other — then to test this overview against what you expect from an energy policy. On paper as in the votes, each party makes a choice; it is up to you to say which fits your priorities.

How can you check these positions yourself?

You can reconstruct each position from public sources. The 2024 manifestos set out each party's course; the federal government agreement and the votes in the Chamber show who turned talk into decision; publications by the CREG and the Federal Public Service Finance detail the share of taxes in the bill, as do the analyses by Test-Achats.

To go faster, the comparator puts two parties side by side on purchasing power, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the quiz starts from your priorities rather than a manifesto. To widen the frame, our purchasing power comparison of the parties places these taxes in the broader debate on the cost of living, and the climate and energy comparison sheds light on the transition side. The methodology explains how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge.