Ministry of Energy

Rationale

This single fund is 792,500.0 millió Ft — 53% of the entire chapter, and larger than every other line in the chapter combined except the grid and government-IT blocks. It finances the household utility-price cap (the rezsicsökkentés): it pays energy retailers the difference between the capped price households are charged for electricity and gas and the market cost of supplying it. In 2025 the equivalent compensation to MVM, the state energy retailer, was 823.4 milliárd Ft. The 2026 allocation of 792.5 milliárd Ft is the same mechanism, slightly reduced. The mechanism deserves a careful, link-by-link reading, because the rezsicsökkentés is the most popular single policy in Hungarian energy debate and the case against it is not the case against helping households with energy bills. The cap sets the household price below the cost of supply. The household paying the capped price sees cheap energy. What is not visible is that the difference does not vanish; it is paid, and the fund is where it is paid from. The 792.5 milliárd Ft is collected from taxpayers and from the energy sector's levied profits, and routed through the fund to the retailer. So the household is not, in fact, buying energy cheaply; it is buying energy at roughly its true cost and paying the difference a second time — once in the capped bill, once in tax. The two payments are split apart so that only the first is visible at the moment of consumption. This matters because the cap also destroys the signal the price carries. A price held below cost tells every household that energy is more abundant, relative to everything else they could spend on, than it actually is. The household that would have insulated, replaced an old boiler, or simply turned the thermostat down faces a price that says it need not bother. Consumption is higher than it would be at the true price; the higher consumption raises the cost of supply; the higher cost of supply raises the compensation the fund must pay. The cap does not reduce the cost of energy — it relocates it and enlarges it. And the relocation has a distributional shape that the universalist "rezsicsökkentés protects families" framing hides. The cap's benefit is not flat across households: it scales with how much capped energy a household consumes. A larger home, more heated rooms, a second property, a pool, more appliances — all draw more subsidised energy and collect more of the fund's transfer. A pensioner in a small flat heating two rooms draws a modest benefit; a high-income household in a large detached house draws several times more from the same fund. The funding, meanwhile, is broadly distributed — general taxation and energy-sector levies whose cost passes through to all consumers. Set the benefit pattern against the funding pattern and the universalist framing inverts: a consumption-scaled benefit financed from broadly-distributed tax means the modest-consuming household is, on net, contributing to the larger-consuming household's heating bill. The wage-earner in a small flat, paying SZJA and the energy-sector levy that flows into the fund, is part-funding the subsidised gas of a household whose home is three times the size. The diagnostic is the standard one — a benefit that scales with consumption, funding that does not, and a universalist label over the top. None of this means households facing genuine energy hardship should be left unaided. It means the aid should take a form that does not destroy the price signal and does not route the largest transfers to the largest consumers. A targeted, means-tested energy payment to low-income households — a defined sum, paid to the household, with the household then facing the true market price for each additional unit it consumes — protects the vulnerable household's budget while leaving intact the signal that tells every household, including that one, what energy actually costs. It is also dramatically cheaper, because it does not subsidise the consumption of households that need no help. The phase-out is set at 4 years, and the horizon is genuine rather than political. Households have built their budgets, and in some cases their housing and heating choices, around the capped price; moving the household price toward cost in a single step would impose a real and abrupt shock on families who relied in good faith on the policy continuing. The protected party is the household, and the bridge is the staged adjustment itself: the cap is lifted gradually over four years while the targeted means-tested payment is stood up in parallel, so that by the time the blanket subsidy reaches zero the low-income support mechanism is fully in place. This is reliance protection in the framework's sense — the destination is the market price, the method honours the families who planned around the old policy.

Rationale

This centrally-managed fund finances water-utility development and, as its name signals, compensation — it covers the gap between what water utilities are allowed to charge and what their service costs. The development half is a financing question of the same kind as the grid line: water-network investment is properly recovered from the users it serves through the water tariff, not from general tax. The compensation half is the more revealing part. A "compensation fund" for a utility exists because the utility is not allowed to charge a price that covers its costs; the fund then pays the utility the difference. This is the price-cap mechanism in miniature. The administratively held-down tariff destroys the information the price would otherwise carry — it no longer tells the household what water actually costs to deliver, and it no longer tells the utility where investment is worth making — and the fund exists to paper over the shortfall the suppressed price creates. The reform is to let the water tariff move toward cost and recover network investment from users, retaining a transparent, means-tested support payment for genuinely low-income households rather than a blanket utility-side subsidy. The phase-out is gradual because the fund carries multi-year development commitments and because the tariff adjustment must itself be staged so households can absorb it.

Rationale

This is the second-largest expenditure block in the chapter, and it deserves a precise mechanism reading. The transmission grid itself — the high-voltage backbone and the last-mile distribution network — has a genuine network-economic character: parallel competing wires to every house are not how the service is delivered. But state budget financing of grid expansion is a different question from the natural-monopoly character of the wires. Grid investment is normally funded by the regulated network operator and recovered through regulated network tariffs paid by the users who benefit from the connection — that is how the cost reaches the people who actually draw on the new capacity. Financing grid expansion from the general budget instead shifts the cost from connecting users onto the general taxpayer, and breaks the signal that tells the operator where new capacity is actually worth building. The phase-out moves grid-development financing back onto the regulated-tariff base where it belongs. It is gradual rather than immediate because grid projects are multi-year capital commitments: contracts are let, construction is staged, and a contractor mid-project has an enforceable claim. A 3-year linear phase-out lets in-flight grid contracts complete; net saving rises from 25,276.6 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 75,829.9 millió Ft in year 3, by which point new grid investment is on the network operator's balance sheet and the regulated tariff.

Rationale

Running the IT systems on which government administration depends — the operational and infrastructure lines — is a real support cost of functions that exist for other reasons. It is not itself a rights-protection function, but it is the unavoidable operating cost of the administration that delivers those functions, and it cannot be cut without disabling the services it underpins. The honest classification is Nominal Freeze: hold the lines flat, let real-terms erosion impose a steady efficiency discipline (roughly 20-25% real compression over a decade), and require the operator to absorb that through procurement and consolidation rather than through tariff growth. Government IT is a notorious soft-budget environment — costs drift upward because the internal customer does not face a price and the provider faces no competitive tender — so the nominal freeze is doing real work: it converts an open-ended cost into a fixed envelope the provider must manage within.

Rationale

This is the largest single discretionary item in the chapter after the two centrally-managed funds, and it is a direct transfer of capital to selected firms. The seen is the recipient enterprise: a named company receives a grant toward an energy-modernisation investment, and the investment proceeds. The unseen is everything that grant displaced. The 59.3 milliárd Ft does not appear from nowhere; it is collected from taxpayers — disproportionately working-age earners through the payroll and consumption wedge — and the firms that did not receive a grant face a competitor whose capital cost was partly socialised. A subsidised firm can underprice an unsubsidised rival not because it is more productive but because the state covered part of its balance sheet. Capital that would have flowed, through ordinary saving and lending, to whichever energy investment the market judged most valuable is instead directed to whichever applicant the ministry judged most deserving — and the ministry has no price signal telling it which investment yields the most. There is no contractual reliance interest that survives scrutiny here — grant applicants are not parties the state owes a phased exit; a grant not yet disbursed creates no enforceable claim. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

This line is the analytical problem. It is fourteen times the ministry's named operating-cost line (Dologi kiadások, 3,636.2 millió Ft) and three times its entire personnel bill. An "other operating purposes" line at this scale is not the cost of running a ministry building; it is a discretionary disbursement channel whose contents the budget line itself does not disclose. The taxpayer funding it cannot see what it buys, the budget cannot show what level of it is "optimal" because there is no output it is priced against, and a line defined only as "other" is by construction the line where allocation is least disciplined. Where a budget item is large, residually defined, and attached to a ministry that disburses sectoral support, the burden is on the line to justify itself — and a line that cannot say what it funds cannot meet that burden. Immediate Cut; if specific obligations inside it turn out to be genuine contractual commitments, those should be re-presented as named lines that can be assessed on their own terms.

Rationale

Investment in water-supply and water-management infrastructure — drinking-water networks, drainage, the physical plant that delivers a basic service and protects against water-related harm — is core infrastructure in the protective category. Keep, with the proviso that where a specific project is a discrete capital investment with a defined completion point, it should run to completion under its existing financing rather than be open-endedly renewed.

Rationale

This is the problem line in the infocommunication block, and it is a large one. A 41.6 milliárd Ft line named only "other professional tasks", sitting beside named operations and development lines, is a residual discretionary channel. The taxpayer funding it cannot see what it buys; the budget cannot demonstrate the right level of it because it is priced against no defined output; and "other", as a line definition, is precisely the category where allocation discipline is weakest. The defence will be that the line funds genuine IT work that simply does not fit the other four headings — but if so, that work can be named and presented as its own line, where it can be assessed. A line that cannot say what it funds cannot be assumed to fund something worth 41.6 milliárd Ft of involuntary contribution. Immediate Cut, with the standard route back: genuine commitments inside it return as named, assessable lines.

Rationale

This line compensates electricity generators for keeping capacity available as a system-security (reserve) service. There is a genuine technical function underneath it: a power system needs reserve capacity it can call on, and that reserve has a real cost. But financing it as a budget transfer is the wrong mechanism. In a properly designed market, system-security services are procured through a capacity or ancillary-services market in which the transmission system operator buys reserve from whichever generators offer it most cheaply, and the cost is recovered from electricity users through the network tariff — the people who consume the reliability pay for it, and the competitive procurement reveals what the reserve actually costs. A flat budget transfer instead pays an administratively set sum to designated generators, with no tender to discipline the price and no signal of whether the reserve is worth what it costs. The phase-out migrates the function to a market-procured, tariff-funded ancillary-services arrangement. It is gradual because existing capacity-availability agreements run for fixed terms that must be honoured.

Rationale

The Vízügyi Igazgatóságok are the regional water-management authorities responsible for flood control, river regulation, drainage, and water-body management. Flood defence is a protective response to irreversible involuntary harm: a Danube or Tisza flood does not respect the property line of whoever declined to fund the levee, and the harm — drowned land, destroyed homes, lost life — cannot be undone or compensated after the fact in the way a financial loss can. This is the narrow class the framework recognises as a genuine rights-protection function of the state, not a matter of preference. Keep does not mean exempt from efficiency review — the personnel and operating lines should be held to the same scrutiny as any large public workforce — but it does mean the directorates are not phase-out candidates.

Rationale

A second residually-named "other" line in the same block, on top of the 41.6 milliárd Ft one. Two separate "other" lines totalling 68.6 milliárd Ft — 41% of the entire infocommunication sub-chapter — is itself the finding: it is the signature of a budget structure in which the discretionary, undefined share has grown to rival the named, assessable share. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

Running the IT systems on which government administration depends — the operational and infrastructure lines — is a real support cost of functions that exist for other reasons. It is not itself a rights-protection function, but it is the unavoidable operating cost of the administration that delivers those functions, and it cannot be cut without disabling the services it underpins. The honest classification is Nominal Freeze: hold the lines flat, let real-terms erosion impose a steady efficiency discipline (roughly 20-25% real compression over a decade), and require the operator to absorb that through procurement and consolidation rather than through tariff growth. Government IT is a notorious soft-budget environment — costs drift upward because the internal customer does not face a price and the provider faces no competitive tender — so the nominal freeze is doing real work: it converts an open-ended cost into a fixed envelope the provider must manage within.

Rationale

The Vízügyi Igazgatóságok are the regional water-management authorities responsible for flood control, river regulation, drainage, and water-body management. Flood defence is a protective response to irreversible involuntary harm: a Danube or Tisza flood does not respect the property line of whoever declined to fund the levee, and the harm — drowned land, destroyed homes, lost life — cannot be undone or compensated after the fact in the way a financial loss can. This is the narrow class the framework recognises as a genuine rights-protection function of the state, not a matter of preference. Keep does not mean exempt from efficiency review — the personnel and operating lines should be held to the same scrutiny as any large public workforce — but it does mean the directorates are not phase-out candidates.

Rationale

The honest position is that the ministry's mandate should shrink as the interventions analysed below are wound down — a ministry that no longer administers a household price-cap fund, no longer manages a portfolio of energy SOEs, and no longer disburses discretionary enterprise-support programmes needs fewer staff and less office. But that shrinkage follows the programme phase-outs rather than leading them; freezing the administrative lines at nominal level lets real-terms erosion (roughly 20-25% of real value over a decade at 2.5% inflation) do the gradual work while the substantive reforms set the pace.

Rationale

These are household-facing energy-modernisation subsidies — typically co-financing for insulation, heating-system replacement, or rooftop solar. The mechanism objection is the same as for the enterprise programmes: the subsidy substitutes an administrative judgement for the household's own cost-benefit decision, and a household that would have insulated anyway collects the grant as pure transfer. But the classification differs because some households will have entered multi-year co-financing arrangements — works contracted, instalments scheduled — and abrupt termination would strand a genuine reliance interest. A 4-year linear phase-out lets in-flight household commitments run off; net saving rises from 3,001.8 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 12,007.2 millió Ft in year 4.

Rationale

This is the largest single discretionary item in the chapter after the two centrally-managed funds, and it is a direct transfer of capital to selected firms. The seen is the recipient enterprise: a named company receives a grant toward an energy-modernisation investment, and the investment proceeds. The unseen is everything that grant displaced. The 59.3 milliárd Ft does not appear from nowhere; it is collected from taxpayers — disproportionately working-age earners through the payroll and consumption wedge — and the firms that did not receive a grant face a competitor whose capital cost was partly socialised. A subsidised firm can underprice an unsubsidised rival not because it is more productive but because the state covered part of its balance sheet. Capital that would have flowed, through ordinary saving and lending, to whichever energy investment the market judged most valuable is instead directed to whichever applicant the ministry judged most deserving — and the ministry has no price signal telling it which investment yields the most. There is no contractual reliance interest that survives scrutiny here — grant applicants are not parties the state owes a phased exit; a grant not yet disbursed creates no enforceable claim. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

Irrigation infrastructure is a productive agricultural asset whose benefit accrues to the specific farms it serves. Unlike flood defence — which protects against involuntary harm to whoever happens to be in the floodplain — irrigation is a private good consumed by identifiable agricultural producers, and the case for financing it from general tax is weak: the farms that gain from the water should fund the works that deliver it, through usage charges or co-investment. The phase-out is gradual only because irrigation works already under construction are multi-year contracts. A 3-year linear phase-out lets in-flight projects complete; net saving rises from 2,250.0 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 6,750.0 millió Ft in year 3, after which new irrigation investment is funded by the benefiting agricultural users.

Rationale

The Vízügyi Igazgatóságok are the regional water-management authorities responsible for flood control, river regulation, drainage, and water-body management. Flood defence is a protective response to irreversible involuntary harm: a Danube or Tisza flood does not respect the property line of whoever declined to fund the levee, and the harm — drowned land, destroyed homes, lost life — cannot be undone or compensated after the fact in the way a financial loss can. This is the narrow class the framework recognises as a genuine rights-protection function of the state, not a matter of preference. Keep does not mean exempt from efficiency review — the personnel and operating lines should be held to the same scrutiny as any large public workforce — but it does mean the directorates are not phase-out candidates.

Rationale

A residually-named regional-development line with no specified project and no identified contractual counterparty. Immediate Cut; any genuine in-flight commitment inside it should be re-presented as a named project line.

Rationale

Flood-defence capital investment is in the protective-response category for the reasons set out under the Vízügyi Igazgatóságok. Keep.

Rationale

Investment in water-supply and water-management infrastructure — drinking-water networks, drainage, the physical plant that delivers a basic service and protects against water-related harm — is core infrastructure in the protective category. Keep, with the proviso that where a specific project is a discrete capital investment with a defined completion point, it should run to completion under its existing financing rather than be open-endedly renewed.

Rationale

The honest position is that the ministry's mandate should shrink as the interventions analysed below are wound down — a ministry that no longer administers a household price-cap fund, no longer manages a portfolio of energy SOEs, and no longer disburses discretionary enterprise-support programmes needs fewer staff and less office. But that shrinkage follows the programme phase-outs rather than leading them; freezing the administrative lines at nominal level lets real-terms erosion (roughly 20-25% of real value over a decade at 2.5% inflation) do the gradual work while the substantive reforms set the pace.

Rationale

Genuine pollution-enforcement and contaminated-site oversight — action against a polluter who imposes physical harm on others' property without consent — is a rights-protection function. But this single line bundles that enforcement core with a broader, discretionary environmental-programme element. Rather than guess the split, a nominal freeze holds the line flat and lets a future functional review separate the enforcement core (Keep) from the discretionary remainder (Immediate Cut). Freeze for now.

Rationale

Running the IT systems on which government administration depends — the operational and infrastructure lines — is a real support cost of functions that exist for other reasons. It is not itself a rights-protection function, but it is the unavoidable operating cost of the administration that delivers those functions, and it cannot be cut without disabling the services it underpins. The honest classification is Nominal Freeze: hold the lines flat, let real-terms erosion impose a steady efficiency discipline (roughly 20-25% real compression over a decade), and require the operator to absorb that through procurement and consolidation rather than through tariff growth. Government IT is a notorious soft-budget environment — costs drift upward because the internal customer does not face a price and the provider faces no competitive tender — so the nominal freeze is doing real work: it converts an open-ended cost into a fixed envelope the provider must manage within.

Rationale

Land rehabilitation of closed mines is the remediation of physical damage already done — subsidence, contaminated spoil, unstable ground — to land and to the people who live on or near it. This is not discretionary industrial policy; it is the cleanup of an irreversible harm whose cost the state has assumed. The mine-safety and closed-site-management component is a protective function of the same kind. Keep, with the standard caveat that the directorate carrying out the work should be held to ordinary cost discipline.

Rationale

This line funds Hungary's contributions to international energy bodies (the International Energy Agency and similar) and treaty-linked sectoral obligations. Membership contributions to bodies the state has joined by treaty are commitments that bind while the treaty binds; they are not a phase-out candidate on a single budget cycle. But the line also bundles a discretionary "sectoral tasks" element that does not carry the same standing. A nominal freeze holds the line flat, lets real-terms erosion compress the discretionary share, and defers the treaty-membership question to a review of which memberships are worth retaining — a question for the next contractual cycle, not this budget.

Rationale

The honest position is that the ministry's mandate should shrink as the interventions analysed below are wound down — a ministry that no longer administers a household price-cap fund, no longer manages a portfolio of energy SOEs, and no longer disburses discretionary enterprise-support programmes needs fewer staff and less office. But that shrinkage follows the programme phase-outs rather than leading them; freezing the administrative lines at nominal level lets real-terms erosion (roughly 20-25% of real value over a decade at 2.5% inflation) do the gradual work while the substantive reforms set the pace.

Rationale

These are household-facing energy-modernisation subsidies — typically co-financing for insulation, heating-system replacement, or rooftop solar. The mechanism objection is the same as for the enterprise programmes: the subsidy substitutes an administrative judgement for the household's own cost-benefit decision, and a household that would have insulated anyway collects the grant as pure transfer. But the classification differs because some households will have entered multi-year co-financing arrangements — works contracted, instalments scheduled — and abrupt termination would strand a genuine reliance interest. A 4-year linear phase-out lets in-flight household commitments run off; net saving rises from 3,001.8 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 12,007.2 millió Ft in year 4.

Rationale

Emergency response to floods and environmental disasters is a protective response to irreversible involuntary harm — the same category as the Vízügyi Igazgatóságok. Keep.

Rationale

Another discretionary grant line with no named deliverable and no protected counterparty. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

Flood-defence capital investment is in the protective-response category for the reasons set out under the Vízügyi Igazgatóságok. Keep.

Rationale

Running the IT systems on which government administration depends — the operational and infrastructure lines — is a real support cost of functions that exist for other reasons. It is not itself a rights-protection function, but it is the unavoidable operating cost of the administration that delivers those functions, and it cannot be cut without disabling the services it underpins. The honest classification is Nominal Freeze: hold the lines flat, let real-terms erosion impose a steady efficiency discipline (roughly 20-25% real compression over a decade), and require the operator to absorb that through procurement and consolidation rather than through tariff growth. Government IT is a notorious soft-budget environment — costs drift upward because the internal customer does not face a price and the provider faces no competitive tender — so the nominal freeze is doing real work: it converts an open-ended cost into a fixed envelope the provider must manage within.

Rationale

The Vízügyi Igazgatóságok are the regional water-management authorities responsible for flood control, river regulation, drainage, and water-body management. Flood defence is a protective response to irreversible involuntary harm: a Danube or Tisza flood does not respect the property line of whoever declined to fund the levee, and the harm — drowned land, destroyed homes, lost life — cannot be undone or compensated after the fact in the way a financial loss can. This is the narrow class the framework recognises as a genuine rights-protection function of the state, not a matter of preference. The investment line (Beruházások, 913.1 millió Ft) and the flood-defence development lines below sit in the same protective category.

Rationale

Another discretionary grant line with no named deliverable and no protected counterparty. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

A direct capital grant to companies the ministry holds an ownership stake in. A state-owned company that needs a resource injection from the budget is exhibiting the soft budget constraint in its plainest form: a firm facing a hard budget constraint either earns its capital or borrows it against a credible repayment plan, and the discipline of having to do so is what forces it toward efficiency. A firm that can be topped up from the owner's tax revenue faces no such discipline, and the top-up crowds out the productive private capital the same forint could have financed. Immediate Cut; a state-owned company should fund itself from its own revenue or be restructured so that it can.

Rationale

A small discretionary policy-tasks line with no defined output and no contractual counterparty whose reliance must be protected. Lines of this kind fund commissioned studies, conference participation, and advocacy-adjacent activity; none of it is a rights-protection function or a constitutional precondition. Small size is not a reason to keep it — the principle that political officeholders should not hold open-ended discretionary allocation budgets scales down as cleanly as it scales up.

Rationale

A residually-named "sustainability tasks" line with no specified deliverable. As with the energy-and-climate-policy line, the problem is not the topic but the form: an undefined discretionary line attached to a ministry, fundable at whatever level the officeholder chooses, priced against no output. Immediate Cut.

Rationale

This line funds annuity and compensation obligations the state assumed toward uranium and coal miners — health-damage compensation and supplementary annuities for a workforce in an industry that has largely closed. This is exactly the case where the framework's rule-of-law method governs: the obligation is an accrued individual entitlement of identifiable people, earned through work already done, and the classical-liberal protection of good-faith reliance means it is honoured in full. There are no new entrants — uranium and coal mining of the relevant kind has ended — so the line is a closed-class commitment that falls naturally as the cohort ages. No active reform is needed and none is proposed; the "phase-out" here is simply the actuarial fact that a closed cohort of elderly former miners diminishes over time.

Rationale

Land rehabilitation of closed mines is the remediation of physical damage already done — subsidence, contaminated spoil, unstable ground — to land and to the people who live on or near it. This is not discretionary industrial policy; it is the cleanup of an irreversible harm whose cost the state has assumed. The mine-safety and closed-site-management component is a protective function of the same kind. Keep, with the standard caveat that the directorate carrying out the work should be held to ordinary cost discipline.

Rationale

The energy-efficiency obligation scheme requires energy suppliers to deliver a quota of metered end-use savings each year. The administrative line here is small and is fully offset by its own revenue, so this is not a fiscal-cost item. The phase-out logic is mechanism-based: the scheme imposes a quantity mandate on suppliers in place of letting the price of energy carry the conservation signal. Where energy is priced at cost, a household weighing insulation against its heating bill is already deciding how much efficiency to buy; the obligation scheme substitutes an administratively chosen quota for that decentralised judgement. The phase-out is gradual rather than immediate only because suppliers hold multi-year delivery commitments under the current scheme rules that should be allowed to run their course.

Rationale

A residually-named regional-development line with no specified project and no identified contractual counterparty. Immediate Cut; any genuine in-flight commitment inside it should be re-presented as a named project line.

Rationale

This is the second-largest expenditure block in the chapter, and it deserves a precise mechanism reading. The transmission grid itself — the high-voltage backbone and the last-mile distribution network — has a genuine network-economic character: parallel competing wires to every house are not how the service is delivered. But state budget financing of grid expansion is a different question from the natural-monopoly character of the wires. Grid investment is normally funded by the regulated network operator and recovered through regulated network tariffs paid by the users who benefit from the connection — that is how the cost reaches the people who actually draw on the new capacity. Financing grid expansion from the general budget instead shifts the cost from connecting users onto the general taxpayer, and breaks the signal that tells the operator where new capacity is actually worth building. The phase-out moves grid-development financing back onto the regulated-tariff base where it belongs. It is gradual rather than immediate because grid projects are multi-year capital commitments: contracts are let, construction is staged, and a contractor mid-project has an enforceable claim. A 3-year linear phase-out lets in-flight grid contracts complete; net saving rises from 25,276.6 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 75,829.9 millió Ft in year 3, by which point new grid investment is on the network operator's balance sheet and the regulated tariff.

Rationale

33.7 millió Ft, a negligible capital line; freeze and let it lapse.

Rationale

Irrigation infrastructure is a productive agricultural asset whose benefit accrues to the specific farms it serves. Unlike flood defence — which protects against involuntary harm to whoever happens to be in the floodplain — irrigation is a private good consumed by identifiable agricultural producers, and the case for financing it from general tax is weak: the farms that gain from the water should fund the works that deliver it, through usage charges or co-investment. The phase-out is gradual only because irrigation works already under construction are multi-year contracts. A 3-year linear phase-out lets in-flight projects complete; net saving rises from 2,250.0 millió Ft in year 1 to the full 6,750.0 millió Ft in year 3, after which new irrigation investment is funded by the benefiting agricultural users.