The federal government probably sees it differently... or why else are billions being spent on the construction of Nordstream2?
Regarding fossil fuels and the climate debate: Likewise, the existing natural gas grid could also be (partially) supplied with biogas in the future.
Because money can be made with it and accordingly many existing buildings rely on gas. That will not change overnight. Apart from that, the pipeline is built and maintained by the private sector, not by the state.
Biogas is at least a moral problem if agricultural land is specifically used for this purpose instead of growing food. The efficiency is also an issue, although not as much as with the dud hydrogen, whose production is simply far too expensive.
The CO2 price was set at €25/t from 2021. That corresponds to about €75 for 12,000 kWh of gas per year. It will rise to €55/t or €160 by 2025.
From 2026 it will be recalculated annually.
The Swiss have already gone through this; after the ramp-up phase the CO2 price currently went up to about €90, as far as I know.
Electricity will be relieved in return.
Yes, €100 more or less per year does not compensate for several thousand euros in acquisition costs. In my opinion, gas heating is still not an obsolete model as of today. In 10 years it will be different, that I dare to predict.
However, I would already try today to limit the impact, i.e. prepare the building for another energy source (structural conditions for split heat pump, design underfloor heating for low flow temperature) and reduce consumption (insulation + controlled residential ventilation). Those who need little energy are not interested in rising levies.