Urban energy transition as policy problem

see more flaws in these reports than representatives of the municipality do. For example, residents in Twekkelerveld argued that the type of houses included in the research were not representative of the housing offer in the area. Citizen initiatives sometimes have members with a technical background who are able to review the technical aspects of reports, the response from Zwik EN on the DWA report is an example of this. Finally, respondents also base their view on news reports and internet searches. The legitimacy of views based on internet searches and news reports is difficult to trace back and goes beyond the scope of this research.

5.2.1. Science

A complicating factor for the realization of the energy transition is that there is no consensus in science for the underlying problem: climate change. Climate change is an unstructured or

‘wicked problem’ because its causes and effects are shaped by a myriad of economic, social, political, and biophysical factors (Rittel & Webber, 1973). The dynamics between these factors are difficult to identify and model, which makes it extremely complicated for science to reach consensus and deliver clear solutions (Rittel & Webber, 1973.).

While the energy transition is embedded in climate change as a policy problem, it is a policy problem of its own. The energy transition has its own problem structure that is embedded in science. The need for an energy transition is widely acknowledged in science and is consolidated in the Paris Agreement. However, the Paris Agreement acknowledges that the transition relies on technology and social development and should be realized ‘according to the best available science’ (UNFCCC, 2016). This section will discuss the results on residents’

perception of the level of agreement in science concerning the urban energy transition.

Transitioning to energy alternatives implies adaptation of new technologies. Because limited experience with these technologies, these new energy technologies are inherently unknown to people. When discussing new energy technologies, a distinction can be made between technologies that offer collective alternatives and technologies offering individual alternatives at house level. The question answered below is: How do residents and municipalities perceive the embeddedness of energy alternatives in science?

Agreement in science: collective solutions

Presently, there are various options available to replace natural gas as energy source for collective heat grids. Examples are geothermal energy, aquathermal energy, biomass, and residual heat from factories (DWA, 2019; DWA, 2020). The results from this study show that concerns of residents relate to the costs, available contextual knowledge, and durability of energy alternatives. The majority of residents in Statenkwartier opted for ‘wait, make a decision later’ in the final neighbourhood-wide opinion poll on energy alternatives. According to the research report (Statenwarmte, 2020), the main motives for residents to prefer to wait were: ‘a preference to wait for better alternatives and more experience in practice’, ‘there are too many uncertainties’, and ‘the alternatives are expensive’. The first two motives relate to the concern that there is a lack of contextual knowledge concerning collective energy alternatives.

The importance of technical studies was acknowledged by SR3, a representative of the municipality of The Hague. For some areas these studies yield great opportunities, but for other areas the outcomes are expensive.

SR3: “There are areas in The Hague where it is going to play out nicely, you also have the studies to back that up, of course you ask for a considerable initial investment but after that you sometimes pay less. Everyone will have to insulate but this can be earned back. However, for some areas in The Hague and elsewhere, the costs just add up. This is still a very important issue that needs to be looked at more closely.”

Contextual knowledge relates to knowledge of neighbourhood characteristics such as the utilization function of buildings, construction year, current heat demand, and socio-economic background of residents. All these factors can have consequences in choosing the appropriate energy alternative. For example, insulation is a cost driver for energy alternatives in neighbourhoods with old houses. Insulation is expensive for old houses and not everyone is able to afford this. As a result, high-temperature alternatives are preferred over low-temperature alternatives for old neighbourhoods like Statenkwartier and Twekkelerveld. Examples of high-temperature alternatives are geothermal energy, biomass, and high-high-temperature residual heat (DWA, 2019). However, respondents perceived little consensus in science concerning these high-temperature energy alternatives. Respondents perceived most of these alternatives as experimental, having unknown effects.

TR2: “Many energy solutions are still in their infancy and are not ready to enter the market. Now that 2030 is approaching many municipalities are talking about ‘free of natural gas’. Leaving natural gas completely instead of a reduction, which is what the government actually demands. As a result, questions are surfacing that they can't really answer yet.”

While being concerned about the climate, the citizen group Aardgasblij in Statenkwartier argued that it is ‘not wise to choose from a limited number of experimental alternatives with teething problems and disadvantages, of which the environmental benefits are uncertain’

(appendix 9). Thus, next to concerns about underdeveloped technologies, there are doubts about the environmental benefits of proposed energy alternatives. In Twekkelerveld, the local waste incinerator Twence was proposed as provider for the collective heat grid. TR2 commented that Twence imports waste from abroad to meet energy demands, resulting in energy that has not been generated sustainably.

TR2: “We have our waste incinerator who gets waste from England because they don't have enough waste here. That's coming this way with a boat. I believe a boat is one of the biggest polluters on our planet after airplanes.”

One of the survey respondents argued that we would need an incredible amount of land if we would depend on biomass for our energy supply. Whereas SR5 observed concerns about environmental disadvantages of windmills and solar parks.

TR8: “That’s a fun question. How much land do we need for plants to meet our energy demand? You will need land 12.5 times the size of the Netherlands to meet our energy demand of biomass.”

SR5: “You also see resistance arising against filling the land with windmills and solar parks, more and more you see that there are also environmental disadvantages attached to these alternatives”

Clearly, a lack of consensus in science results in insecurities concerning the solutions that it provides. Compared to environmental consequences, the potential costs of energy alternatives are a more direct concern for residents. Because there is a lack of experience and knowledge,

both representatives of citizen initiatives and municipalities worry about the costs for residents.

TR2 and TR4 questioned the feasibility of the promises made by the municipality of Enschede.

TR2: “They have made a commitment that comfort standards may not be lowered and that housing costs cannot go up, I am a bit hard-headed about that. This will not happen without the help of the government.”

TR4: “What about people on benefits or people like me on their way to 75 years old.

For them it is not feasible anymore. What about the large amount of poorly insulated homes -where budget neutrality is impossible in my opinion-? Of course, you can say 'those people don't participate', but that’s not possible because the moment you decouple the gas, those people will be left in the cold.”

To conclude, the results show that more contextual knowledge and technology development is necessary before collective solutions can be perceived as structured solutions for old neighbourhoods like Statenkwartier and Twekkelerveld. Residents view collective solutions as experimental, question the environmental benefits, and worry about the potential costs. The results from research bureau and the information provided by the municipality was not enough to resolve uncertainties. The embeddedness of individual solutions in science is discussed next.

Agreement in science: individual solutions

In addition to collective energy solutions, technology provides energy alternatives the individual level. An individual solution refers to renewable energy supply technologies applicable at house level. Examples of individual solutions are heat pumps, solar panels, and small wind turbines. Heat pumps provide an alternative for natural gas and are also referred to as ‘all-electric’ solutions. There is a variety of heat pumps available, using different sources for extracting heat (e.g. geothermal, water, and wind). The issue with these technologies is that they provide low-temperature solutions, which means that old houses have to be insulated.

Insulation of old houses is often complicated, time-consuming, and expensive. As an answer to this problem, all citizen initiatives studied in this research are actively promoting so-called ‘no-regret’ adjustments at house level. No regret adjustments are adjustments that lower the demand of natural gas (e.g. cooking electric) or lower the overall energy demand (e.g. insulation).

TR1: “The most important decision we made was that we first want to focus on insulation until 2030, to insulate the entire neighbourhood to the maximum. Then, after 2030 really start with technology, which is now still so complicated to do.”

On the other hand, a representative of the municipality of Enschede argued that individual low-temperature solutions require individual investments that not all residents can afford. The municipality would be required to level out disparities in financial capacity amongst residents, making these solutions unaffordable.

TR3: “When you consider a collective solution, for example for Twekkelerveld, which is an old neighbourhood with a lot of 1930s, 40s, and 50s homes, you quickly arrive at a collective heat network because with low-temperature solutions you have to start leveling and that is simply too expensive, so you arrive at a kind of collective solution – which you can't do for a street, you have to do it for an entire neighbourhood. So sometimes you have to look at a larger scale level because of the technical solution.”

As the name gives away, citizen initiatives view no regret adjustments that structured solutions within the urban energy transition process. These solutions are structured because they come with little insecurities and are widely supported by residents. Moreover, in old neighbourhoods no regret adjustments are an important step in the energy transition process that can make a transition to new energy sources easier. Insulation lowers overall energy demand and makes houses more suitable for low-temperature grids. Also, by focusing on no regret adjustments first, technology for collective energy solutions gets the time to develop further. Another important argument to focus on these individual solutions is that they can be applied at a so-called ‘natural moment’. A natural moment is a moment at which it is convenient for residents to make adjustment to their houses, for example when a house changes owner or when renovations take place. Actively responding to these natural moments can yield substantial progress in making old houses ready for an energy transition.

To conclude, residents perceive consensus in science when it comes to energy solutions at the individual level. This consensus is underlined by citizen initiatives like Aardgasblij and Zwik EN who wish to advance the energy transition by focusing on individual solutions first, before moving on to collective energy alternatives. However, a focus on house-level action at natural moments does not coincide with the neighbourhood approach taken by municipalities. The

reason for a taking this neighbourhood approach is related to national and local goal setting, which will be discussed next.

5.2.2. Goals

Goal-setting is another factor that decides the structure of a policy problem. Goals-setting related to the energy transition happens at multiple governance levels. At the international level, the climate agreement sets clear goals for emission reduction but provides little guidance in how to realize these targets. Nations that signed the agreement have the freedom to design their own reduction strategy. In the in-depth interviews, all respondents were asked what they thought of the emission reduction goal set by the Dutch government, namely achieving a reduction of 49% in 2030 over 1990. The answer varied from the goal being unrealistic, to being not ambitious enough. As will be explained below, respondents mostly criticize this goal for the way that is has been translated into the ‘natural gas free’ approach. The findings presented in this chapter have to be understood within the national context as explained in chapter 4. The question answered below is: What urban energy transition goals do local governments set and how are these goals perceived by residents?

In 2018, the municipality of The Hague announced that its ambition was to be climate neutral in 2030 (Statenwarmte, 2020). This pursuit would entail that all houses would be decoupled from natural gas by 2030 latest. This goal-setting at city level was more ambitious than the goals set at national level, namely an emission reduction of 49% over 1990. It was the municipality’s ambition that seemed to have triggered residents of Statenkwartier to mobilize and become actively involved:

SR1: “At that time, The Hague set 2030 as goal to become climate neutral and that is when we woke up. We thought ‘if we as a neighbourhood have to leave natural gas as well by that time -because if you want to become climate neutral, leaving natural gas is an important element-, then we want to have an influence on that ourselves, as a neighbourhood we have to start preparing for that.”

As SR1 points out, the ambition of the municipality ‘at that time’ was to be climate neutral in 2030. The municipality had set this goal in 2017 but has let go of it since, as they realized that

Statenwarmte and stated that a lot of frustration surrounding the project originated from the undefined policy goal set by the municipality. As a result, residents were left with the feeling that the government was throwing a policy problem ‘over the fence’.

SR4: “The energy transition is a very complex subject for which not even the laws and regulations are set. And then you as an individual citizen are asked to think about how to organize it. People could have foreseen that this would arouse resentment and resistance. And by 'people' I mean in this case the municipality that asked the question.”

In 2018, the municipality of Enschede appointed Twekkelerveld as first neighbourhood to be decoupled from natural gas before 2030. Following this objective, the communication of the municipality of Enschede on the consequences contained some contradictions. At a community meeting in Twekkelerveld the following question was asked: ‘How do private homeowners make their decision?’, to which the municipality answered: ‘All houses have to leave natural gas before 2050. You can decide for yourself what alternative you want and when you want to switch’ (Gemeente Enschede, 2021a). The answer seems to be contradict, knowing that the municipality had applied for a subsidy of 10 million from the PAW. If the application would have been accepted, Twekkelerveld would be decoupled from natural gas sometime before 2030. Thus, the time horizon in which a house owner can decide when to switch shrink to somewhere before 2030. Next to this, it is also not possible for house owners to choose the alternative they want. Current collective solutions depend on a single energy source, after which residents cannot choose for another ‘collective option’. The same issue was recognized in The Hague by SR4.

SR4: “Now it's as if everyone can decide for themselves what they want. As if I can decide to be decoupled from natural gas, my neighbour can opt for a high-temperature network, the other neighbour can opt for a low-temperature network, and still another neighbour is allowed to use biogas. That will not happen. In a neighbourhood like this, where houses are built so closely together, it's really not going to happen that you get that many pipes in ground.”

The results show that the focus on leaving natural gas is perceived as problematic, as there is no consensus on how to achieve it and no legal framework that guides it. Municipalities do not have any legal ground to force residents to decouple their houses from natural gas. At the same

time, local governments are required to meet reduction goals and try to convince residents of accepting energy alternatives. Emission reduction in the context of the urban energy transition seems to be overshadowed by putting natural gas at the center of attention. The means to an end seems to become an end goal in itself.

The focus on leaving natural gas, entails the risk of not measuring what matters. What matters is an emission reduction and not the number of houses decoupled from natural gas.

Communicating this policy objective is where tension arises. The gist of the message is to ‘leave natural gas’, instead of developing energy alternatives. The difference in approach is that the first message indicates a restriction, whereas the second message is one that steers towards possibilities. TR3 explained his struggle with this terminology as representative of the municipality of Enschede.

TR3: “We struggle with this ourselves as well, we call our project ’Twekkelerveld Free of Natural Gas ¹⁰ ’ and the national program is called ‘Natural Gas Free Neighbourhoods¹¹’. (…) It’s an unfortunate choice of words, because it’s a negative message, you have to get rid of something. While I think that you have to move towards something, towards a transition, a new way of organizing our energy supply”

Finally, local goal-setting concerning the urban energy transition process can be an important trigger for the emergence of citizen initiatives. In The Hague, the municipality did not appoint Statenkwartier as pilot area for the energy transition. However, the ambitious goal to be climate neutral in 2030 triggered residents to organise the project Statenwarmte. In Enschede, the municipality informed residents about the energy transition plans after which Zwik EN was established to protect the interest of residents in the sub-district Het Zwik. In both cases, the transition strategy to achieve the goal of becoming ‘natural gas free’ was poorly defined by the municipality. This left room for specification and triggered the emergence of citizen initiatives.

However, municipalities also received a lot of critique from residents for defining the goals so loosely. The problem was ‘thrown over the fence’, transferring the insecurities to the residents.

To conclude, there seems to be consensus on the policy goal to reduce emissions but not on the means to achieve this goal. A difference in problem structure was found for individual and

collective solutions to the policy problem. Residents view collective energy alternatives as expensive and experimental, having unknown environmental benefits. The results show a preference for individual solutions that focus on emission reduction. When translating the results to the Split Ladder (Hurlbert & Gupta, 2015), individual solutions concerning the energy transition problem are seen as structured whereas collective solutions are considered moderately structured.