Keeping the (Waste) Heat in the City

Abstract: The recovery of ‘waste heat’ from industrial and urban processes could meet a significant share of heating demands in urban and semi-urban areas. Replacing conventional heat sources in district heating (DH) systems with recovered heat could decrease primary energy inputs in a sector that globally relies to 90% on fossil fuels. Yet, despite the environmental, social, and economic benefits of waste heat recovery (WHR), it is not widely practiced due to a number of non-technical barriers. This research aims to analyze governance instruments that local governments can use in order to proactively support the integration of WHR in local energy systems. Using a multiple-case study approach, WHR-supportive governance in Gothenburg (Sweden), Turku (Finland), and Rotterdam (Netherlands) is analyzed, applying a framework of six different governance modes: Hierarchical Planning and Regulation, Market Facilitation, Market Provision and Promotion, Network Facilitation, Network Coordination and Advocacy, Network and Awareness Raising and Outreach. Multiple instruments that local governments can use to support WHR projects were identified in a pre-study of the case cities. A key difference was identified between the governance modes used by Gothenburg and Turku, both of which have municipally owned DH systems, as opposed to Rotterdam whose system is run by multiple private DH providers. This finding suggests that ownership of local DH structures has a major impact on governance options to support WHR. Taking into account further contextual factors, the replicability of governance modes and instruments identified is discussed. In conclusion, recommendations for local governments willing to support WHR in their context are provided, encouraging local governments to use their central position in local energy systems to connect and coordinate WHR-relevant actors and to establish WHR-supportive planning and decision-making processes. This contribution is the first work compiling governance instruments which local governments can use in order to support WHR and thus is particularly of interest for practitioners, but also relevant for researchers in the field. Further case studies on WHR-supportive governance would diversify the findings. The generalizability of the framework developed in this study, should also be further tested by analyzing local level governance in other sectors.