tion. However, the statistical model as a whole may not be amended to such an extent that the suitability of the model for determining the level of standard needs for securing existence is called into question. Insofar as it is necessary to review the findings obtained using the statistical model, for example because of developments that are clearly relevant to peoples’ needs, the legislature may also ensure that existential needs are in fact covered by using the basket-of-goods method. Similarly, it may use considerations regarding certain items to adapt the consumer data from the income and consumption survey to determine needs. In the present case, there is no constitutional objection to the legislature’s removal and reduction of items for the period that is relevant for the decision, since this is based on evaluations for which the legislature must take political responsibility but which are not determined in detail by the Constitution (see C I 2 b bb above). aa) The fact that the needs of adults in family households are determined under the provisions being challenged at the level of the needs determined for one-person households can be objectively justified. No concrete claims to specific state benefits to support the parents’ task of caring for and bringing up the child can be derived from the Constitution (cf. BVerfGE 130, 240 <252 et seq.> with further references). […] It is true that care must be taken in the future to see that the total needs in family households are in fact covered, since calculating the needs of adults according to the needs in one-person households does not take into account that the needs of children and adolescents have been calculated with reference to adults for whom the calculation is now being based on different figures, resulting in the danger that fixed costs that are incurred jointly in larger households will not be covered […]. However, there is no indication at present that family-specific needs have been clearly ignored. Here, too, it is not the task of the Federal Constitutional Court to examine whether the best of all conceivable methods of calculation for the family has been chosen; it carries out its examination of compatibility with the Basic Law only to find whether constitutional standards are being satisfied by a calculation that is adequate and stands up to scrutiny. 110 bb) In principle, the determination of existential needs with regard to costs arising for household electricity satisfies constitutional requirements. In view of exceptional price increases for such an important item of expenditure, however, the legislature is obliged to review and, if necessary, modify not only the index for updating standard needs (see C I 2 b cc above) but also the underlying rules for determining need with regard to household electricity. There is, however, no reason to believe that the level of the total lump sum for standard needs in the proceedings submitted for review is no longer consistent with the Constitution for going below the minimum level guaranteed under the Basic Law. 111 Different from the determination of standard needs in a special evaluation of the 2003 income and consumption survey, no merely “random” deductions have been made for electricity required for heating (BVerfGE 125, 175 <237 and 238>). Need with regard to household electricity is calculated on the basis of a special evaluation 112 20/29