National policymakers, a technocratic approach to district heating
Sustainable district heating, a locally anchored project
Main focus
Technical focus (visible through the indicators for subsidies)
Focus on the local impact (financial, societal, environmental, social)
Perimeter of thinking
Dominant silo thinking – political timeframe
Attempts at long-term ecosystem thinking
Table 1. Two worlds in tension. This table summarizes the main differences between the national policymakers’ approach to district heating and the local one. The national one has a technical and political base, whereas the local one strives to integrate district heating into a holistic transition.
if formalized in local plans, these objectives struggle to get quantified and gain recognition outside the municipality pe- rimeter.
ased by the fear of deforestation. Thus, even in forestry regions, the potential of wood energy is not reached, hampering the reaching of the national objectives.
2. Local project developers, a pragmatic approach to district heating systems
3. The intricate linking between national and local visions
In opposition to the engineering approach of DH bore by the policymakers, local actors have developed a pragmatic ap- proach to these systems as key infrastructures to structure a local transition. When I use the term “project developers,” I re- fer here to local authorities responsible for the development of DH, not to the private companies operating the systems. 2.1 District heating as a lever for local action, an ecosystemic approach More and more metropolis and municipalities are engaging in a local transition. The main driver of this transition is to ensure citizens a better, cleaner future. To do so, they can use various tools: energy infrastructures, local policies, etc. DH is starting to be viewed as a significant lever for local action because of its flexibility and overreaching impact. When discussing the prior- ities of local project developers around DH, I was struck by the gap between their vision and the national one. If they value the technical optimization of the system, it is only a base for a more ecosystemic impact. 2.2 A real utopia around district heating For local project developers, DH should participate in the at- tractivity of the city, the decarbonization of its energy, and the improvement of the air. It should also consider water man- agement, in collaboration with other utilities, and the reuse of waste heat. It should create synergies with already settled industries and with social housing. It should help structure and secure new employment sectors and have a positive so- cietal impact on the municipality. Overall, it should become a structuring actor of urban development, more than an in- visible energy provider. Local public authorities want to in- vestigate innovative solutions and partnerships to make this vision real. However, they do not necessarily feel supported to build this expertise by existing national public policies. Even
Here is a recapitulative table to clearly show the tensions be- tween the policymakers’ vision and the local one (Table 1).
This deformed mirror image between these two visions is em- bodied through the difficulties of translating national planning at local levels. “In 2014, the Cerema 1 tried to sum up the ambitions of every region (through the figures stated in their regional planning for climate, air, and energy), and it was not even a tenth of the national objectives. […] There is no real link between each level.” (employee of a Cerema regional office, own translation) This difficulty is intensified by the lack of clear interlocutor fo- cusing solely on DH development at every administrative level (municipalities, regions, nation).
4. What now?
Box 2: Other factors impeding the growth. Of course, this gap between the visions of national policy- makers and the one of local project developers does not explain the difficult development of DH systems. Among other factors, the French cultural and historical context, favoring the emergence of national electrical and natu- ral gas networks throughout the country, makes invest- ing in new network development difficult. The choice of nuclear energy supported by public policies also encour- ages the emergence of all-electric housings. Above these national considerations, the EU regulations on the energy market or its competitiveness law can sometimes prevent cross-sector planning and operations.
1 The Cerema is a public organization under the supervision of different ministries. They work on risks, environment, mobility, and planning, with a focus on experience sharing. They produce e.g., « best practice » documents and short explanations on regulations.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker