minimum existence does not render an update of the overall amount of benefits using the consumer prices index as evidently inadequate to cover standard needs. Nor has there been a constant rise in prices over decades with regard to household electricity that the legislature has failed to take into account (different from BVerfGE 132, 134 <166 et seq., paras. 82 et seq.>). At any rate, there is no indication that, for the period relevant for the decision, the rise in electricity prices was so extreme that the legislature should have compensated for it individually. 2. The legislature’s determination of the amount of benefit paid to cover standard needs […] satisfies the requirements for an assessment that is sufficiently transparent and that can be justified on the basis of reliable figures and plausible calculation procedures. The legislature has taken all relevant types of need into account; it has determined in an appropriate manner, that is, fully and accurately, the expenses to cover individual items of need, selecting a method that is in principle suitable and that is modified in individual cases with sufficient objective substantiation; and the legislature has determined the overall level of need on this basis (cf. BVerfGE 125, 175 <225>; 132, 134 <165, para. 79>; see C I 2 b above). There is no indication that the legislature has overlooked any types of needs that are relevant for ensuring a dignified minimum existence or that it failed to secure the benefits necessary to cover such needs in statutory claims (a). Even though the overall level of benefits to cover standard needs might merely meet a political objective, there is no objection to it from a constitutional point of view if it can be justified in a way that stands up to scrutiny as being fixed based on reliable data (b). To determine the level of benefits payable to cover standard needs, the legislature has used the statistical model, a method fundamentally suitable for assessing the benefits required to secure a dignified minimum existence (c). Starting from the income and consumption survey, the legislature uses suitable empirical data as the basis of its determination (d). Insofar as it deviates from the use of this set of data by removing or cutting certain items, there are no serious constitutional objections, based on the required overall assessment (e). The concomitant specific risks of underfunding must however be dealt with in the next update of the standard needs assessment (f). Otherwise, the constitutional objections raised against the level of standard needs for children and adolescents are without substance (g). 89 a) The legislature has secured, in statutory law, the right to benefits to ensure a dignified minimum existence. There is no indication that it has overlooked any relevant types of need. The provisions submitted for review standardise a system of claims to benefits that, without being required by the Basic Law as the only possible one, generally has no substantial deficits. […] 90 b) The legislature is not in violation of its duty under the Constitution to create arrangements to secure a dignified minimum existence. The level of benefits paid to cover standard needs can, in an overall assessment, be justified on the basis of reliable data in a way that stands up to scrutiny. It is true that at EUR 364 level 1 of standard needs […] as the amount of benefits determined for 2011 corresponds exactly to 91 15/29