Notes #5/2024: The stability-agility paradox
Notes are just that: Short, informal messages, or brief records of points or ideas written down. The views and opinions expressed in my notes do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of my employer or clients.
The municipality of Emmen, located in the Netherlands, is objecting to the development of wind turbines just outside its territory and just over the border with Germany. I have encountered numerous objections to and complaints about wind turbines, and I have seen some creative interpretations of rules and regulations to delay or stop such projects — and some to push such projects through. However, the legal argument made by Emmen is remarkable. The municipality is invoking the Treaty of Meppen. The 1824 Treaty of Meppen was signed between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Hanover (now part of Germany), resolving territorial disputes in the eastern Netherlands. Yes, no typo, 1824! A 200-year-old treaty is now being dusted off.
This is an interesting case and, as such, not a big deal for the energy transition. As a history nerd, I can even appreciate it. However, it illustrates a broader problem: Today, the rules of the past hamper the transition to the future.
Well-intended and, at the time of their development, necessary or useful regulations and instruments to facilitate the energy transition can become obsolete or even detrimental to the energy transition in just a few years already. Two Dutch examples from the 21st century:
The salderingsregeling: This is a net metering policy designed for solar panel owners. It allows them to offset electricity they feed back into the grid against their own electricity consumption. For every kWh of solar power generated and delivered to the grid, they can deduct an equivalent amount from their energy bill. This policy was necessary to push the generation of renewable energy. And it has been a success (the Netherlands is leading in terms of installed solar capacity). However, this system is increasingly being criticized for lacking fairness, as it disproportionately benefits those who can afford the upfront costs of solar panels, leaving renters and less affluent individuals without such advantages. Furthermore, it places an undue burden on the grid and the energy market, and on non-solar users, who indirectly subsidize this scheme through higher utility costs, highlighting a need for more equitable energy policies. A plan to phase out this now outdated policy failed in parliament recently (much in line with predictions I made in a previous post).
The warmtewet: This is the law regulating the collective-heating market. It safeguards consumers and businesses tied to local district heating networks against excessive heat prices. Protection is necessary as heat is a basic necessity, and consumers lack options due to dependency on a single supplier. Rates are determined based on the "Not More Than Otherwise" principle, in such a way that on average it does not cost more than a comparable situation with a natural gas-fired high-efficiency boiler. This principle made a lot of sense when enshrined in the collective heating act in 2014. The steeply increasing gas prices since 2021, however, have caused the rates for collective heating to soar too, leading to a decline in public support for collective heating — a crucial part of the Dutch energy transition. In the new Collective Heat Supply Act that is on its way to parliament, the link to gas prices may be removed and replaced by a cost-recovery principle with reasonable returns for heat companies, potentially leading to varied prices per heat parcel.
And then, there are older 20th century laws that were once suitable for their purposes and context when they were drafted, but they no longer reflect reality. Take, for instance, the electricity law, which was designed for a centralized fossil-fuel-based energy system. It has now become a burden, preventing grid operators from acting strategically and forcing them to work on a first-come, first-serve basis. This essentially causes net congestion and creates difficulties for local energy communities and innovative smart energy systems.
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the importance of deep-time organizations for the sustainability transition and the Anthropocene. However, the Emmen case illustrates in an exaggerated way a competing argument: Agile approaches in regulation and institutionalization of transitions are crucial. There's a paradoxical need for a solid, long-term institutional base, and a nimble, short-term regulatory regime in the energy transition. An interesting challenge for the public sector.
Addenda to previous notes
In notes #2/2024, I wrote about deep-time organizations and my new assignment at a Water Board (Hoogheemraadschap van Rijnland), an institution that has been continuously operating for 769 years. Turns out, that I completely overlooked a recent relevant related publication: Hanusch F. (2023) The Politics of Deep Time. Cambridge University Press. This book provides an exploration and systematization of "the politics of deep time" as a novel lens of planetary politics.
In notes #3/2024, I wrote about communicating and framing climate change. Hannah Ritchie recently wrote an interesting post on Substack that is complementary, expanding on that topic: Why we need to highlight stories of progress to build a better future — Five reasons to highlight markers of progress, without falling into complacency.
In notes #1/2024, I wrote about my interest in (or obsession with) cultured meat. For my Dutch speaking readers, an interesting article on the potential leading role for The Netherlands in cultured meat, much in line with my arguments: Kweekvlees is de toekomst – en Nederland kan de weg wijzen.