"Municipalities faced with burden of heat-related traffic light complications"
The municipal heating plan is currently causing quite a stir among Germany's communes, with 11,000 of them required to devise a climate-friendly and affordable heating strategy. Larger communes have two years left to present their plans, while smaller ones have four. However, as Mariusz Bodek, managing director of TÜV Rheinland Consulting in the "Climate Lab" of ntv, explains, this is a significant undertaking for smaller communes.
The impending anger of the citizens is palpable, according to Bodek. "They are being led to believe through the heating plan that they can opt-out," Bodek says. "But then comes the harsh realization: The network connection costs thousands of Euros, or district heating isn't even an option." Bodek's assessment is grim: "The damage is irreversible."
ntv.de: Is the municipal heating plan currently the biggest challenge for the communes?
Mariusz Bodek: The challenges are multifaceted, but the heating plan is the most imposed challenge. We have approximately 11,000 communes in Germany, of which about 2,000 are urban with a certain size. Whenever something is centrally decided and implemented federally, there's a need for flexibility from the communes.
Is it a headache?
There are communes managing well and handling this issue admirably. They've been dealing with this topic for years. From a broader perspective, it'll be tough. No matter the topic, smaller, rural regions always ask: Do we have someone on site who can implement it?
Are smaller communes finding the heating plan challenging?
Yes. The municipal heating plan entails outlining the future heating networks for both citizens and industry. Larger cities also face challenges, but they are better equipped due to the larger workforce in the administrations. In Hamburg, for instance, there are five network operators involved in distribution, who possess a remarkable data stock. Hamburg is unlikely to navigate the energy transition smoothly, but it will be manageable. On the other hand, there are often no clear plans in rural areas to serve as a foundation for the heating plan.
How many smaller communes will stumble in the planning process?
It's premature to answer that question. Despite the burden, I haven't encountered a single commune yet that's thrown in the towel and refused to engage with the issue. And that, even though the burden of this discussion has been shifted to the communes by the federal government. They must not only create a transformation plan but also endure the dissatisfaction of the citizens - who are being told through the heating plan that they can opt-out, because district heating isn't always feasible.
Is it because it's too expensive for the communes?
The cost of connecting a single or two-family house to the district heating network can range from 3000 to 5000 Euro per meter. My wife and I reside in Hamburg in a small row house. The district heating pipe is three meters away. Without subsidies or assistance, the connection would cost 9000 to 15,000 Euro. However, the network must also be maintained. To reduce the cost, suppliers need a substantial client base. The fewer people use a heat pump or other energy sources, the more potential district heating customers remain, and the lower the individual customer's costs. The same applies to gas customers: The more households switch to other heating sources, the more expensive it will be for them, as the gas network must operate at full capacity. In addition, there's the CO2 tax. Gas will become an incredibly expensive heating source.
I, therefore, assume that many citizens will opt against district heating based solely on costs. The Hamburg Energy Works have already stated that they will definitely not focus on single- and two-family houses in the district heating sector, as it wouldn't be economical.
Is a heat pump a better option instead?
For example. But if one considers not only the distribution but also the power grids in the cities, one notices: The power grids are not designed to handle the load of many heat pumps. This infrastructure must first be developed. That's also part of the communal heating planning.
Are the missing networks the first thing you and the TÜV are discussing with the municipalities about heating planning?
The municipalities are aware of this problem. They're asking rather: Where will we get the money for the networks from? Municipalities can build a buffer in their budget or go into debt. What can a small commune do? The pipes are incredibly expensive. There's a study that states: The expansion of the power grids to the last household will cost 850 billion Euro by 2045. Who should pay for that? That's a never-ending hole, because no one knows what is really needed in the end.
Does communal heating planning help at all?
No, because the core problem isn't solved. We agree that climate neutrality is a noble objective in the building sector regarding heating or electricity. But the question is, how can such a large project be implemented: Do we proceed recklessly and declare "We will heat to 65% renewably!"? That may not win approval in the population.
That's an understatement.
I don't want to exaggerate, but ultimately, the state is financed through tax revenues. If one alienates the taxpayers with the Heating Law without compelling reasons, a good idea will be damaged. It remains to be seen whether the traffic light coalition has enough time to change the public's perception about the heating plan. My impression is: The damage is irreversible.
In the upcoming federal election, it's anticipated that the Union will bag a majority, and their first course of action would be to abolish the Heating Law. But that doesn't mean we should start over and lose precious time. They've made it clear that the objectives remain unchanged.
I'm not convinced that the entire law will be invalidated. Heat pumps might still be a viable heating alternative, and electricity rates could stabilize at affordable levels. However, adjustments are necessary.
It's no secret that the building sector plays a significant role in achieving climate neutrality in this nation, but wouldn't it be prudent to focus on transportation as well?
That's an intriguing question. Indeed, our society heavily relies on private vehicles, even though they aren't a necessity in some cases. Let's get back to the Heating Law and energy planning: Unraveling this complex web isn't as simple as flipping a switch. The laws need a gradual, multi-step approach without disrupting decades-long established practices.
So what does this gradual approach look like? Think of a staircase. Our intricately developed natural gas networks won't serve households exclusively in the future, but they could be repurposed for other uses. For instance, the Biogas sector could potentially yield unimaginable benefits, but we've yet to test whether our networks can be utilized extensively for this purpose. Strangely, such testing isn't even on the horizon. It'd be ideal if citizens were given this bridge without losing sight of the ultimate goal — reaching climate neutrality by 2045.
When we evaluate the results of the European and local elections, one thing becomes clear: A segment of the population is indifferent to these issues.
I don't agree that they're disengaged; instead, they prioritize differently. As a private citizen, I openly claim: I'd rather live in a peaceful country. And if this country avoids war with Russia and my daughter can grow up safely here, I value that over my basement's heating, despite the criticism I may face due to the climate crisis. A challenging stance, indeed.
Discussion between Clara Pfeffer, Christian Herrmann, and Mariusz Bodek. The conversation was abridged and polished for clarity. You can listen to the entire discussion in the podcast "Klima-Labor".
