Why being honest about uncertainty helps the heat transition move forward

The heat transition is stalling because of a familiar desire: hard guarantees about long-term affordability. But such guarantees simply don’t exist. Models and data are essential, yet they cannot eliminate fundamental uncertainties. To break the impasse, we need a different kind of conversation – one that acknowledges uncertainty and creates room to base decisions on values that still hold when the future unfolds differently than expected. And this goes well beyond the heat transition: almost every major transition requires such a value-driven process.

Affordability and the impasse

The collective heat transition is struggling mainly because of concerns about affordability, especially in existing buildings. Tenants, residents, and housing associations want certainty about future tariffs, while heat companies and municipalities cannot provide it. The result is a stalemate: without guarantees, people are reluctant to join, and without participation, projects don’t progress – and the learning curve needed to reduce costs never gets started.

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) recently reaffirmed this: uncertainty around affordability is a major barrier for district heating. Housing associations cannot offer long-term guarantees to their tenants. And as long as this certainty is missing, the transition grinds to a halt.

Models help - But they don’t solve everything

It seems logical to tackle uncertainty with better models. Some uncertainties are partially solvable: experience with installation, operation, and maintenance – especially in existing buildings – helps us better understand processes and costs, leading to more reliable data, improved models, and more efficient implementation. But to benefit from this, we first need to break the current deadlock.

At the same time, there are clear limits to what models can resolve. No one can reliably predict future energy prices, geopolitical shocks, or the regulatory environment ten years from now. Modelling and experience cannot eliminate these fundamental uncertainties. This dual nature makes the challenge tricky: we need models and data, but they cannot provide the hard guarantees about affordability that people often expect.

The honest story: Uncertainty is part of the transition

By being open about uncertainties, space emerges for a different conversation. Affordability remains important, and of course decisions should be based on the best available knowledge and data. But that still doesn’t provide a long-term guarantee. What is often missing is the conversation about uncertainty itself. It is left out because it is assumed too complex for residents, because organizations don’t want to reveal uncertainty, or because they fear resistance.

But leaving uncertainty out makes it impossible to make realistic choices together. The question, “What is guaranteed to be the cheapest solution, now and in the future?” has no answer. That certainty simply does not exist. Residents can understand this – if you explain it.

Talking openly about uncertainty broadens the conversation. Affordability stays on the table, but you can now ask: How do we want to deal with uncertainties that we cannot resolve today? The discussion shifts from comparing technologies to exploring the values that should guide decisions, such as:

• Should a heat company be fully transparent about costs and revenues?
• How high may profits be – and should they be reinvested as buffers for rising costs?
• How do we prevent anyone from ending up in financial trouble?
• To what extent do we, as a community or municipality, support one another?

These questions reach beyond affordability and touch on how a collective system should function. They move the discussion toward the values that shape how we respond to change and shocks along the way. They align with transitions in which municipalities and governments take the lead. Their role is not only to safeguard affordability, but also to protect broader public values.

Citizen or consumer?

Research by Populytics & MSG shows that framing matters. When people are approached as consumers, affordability dominates. When involved as citizens, the focus shifts to what benefits the neighbourhood and society, and values like sustainability, transparency, and comfort gain importance. This difference is crucial: it shows that while affordability is a key concern, the conversation can broaden when people aren’t treated solely as customers. That’s where a value-driven dialogue becomes possible.

From uncertain outcomes to certain values

When outcomes are too uncertain for hard promises, we shouldn’t build the entire discussion around those outcomes. That only leads to paralysis. Instead, we can focus on the values that guide decision-making. The question is not which solution is guaranteed to be the cheapest or most efficient forever, but which values should steer us when reality unfolds differently than expected.

This shifts the conversation. It’s no longer just about choosing a technology, but about agreeing on how we deal with uncertainty as a society. The people involved determine which values should take priority: do we want costs and risks to be transparent and shared fairly? Should solidarity guide how we support those who run into financial difficulty? Or should individual responsibility dominate? Instruments like surveys and citizen panels can support this.

Placing values at the centre moves the discussion from uncertain outcomes to a framework that guides future decisions. It does not eliminate uncertainty, but it makes it more manageable – because we have agreed in advance how to respond when conditions change. That makes it possible to break through the impasse created by uncertainty around affordability.

Relevant beyond the heat transition

What we see in the heat transition also appears in other societal transitions. Whether it concerns the broader energy transition, the move toward a circular economy, or climate adaptation, all of these transitions involve uncertainties about outcomes that cannot be fully removed.

Often, these issues are simplified to the point where important topics remain unspoken. By making uncertainties explicit, space opens up for making shared choices. Uncertainty then becomes not a barrier, but a starting point for a conversation about the values that make decisions stronger, more future-proof, and broadly supported.

Conclusion: An honest conversation about uncertainty

The heat transition reveals a challenge that many societal transitions face: the desire for hard guarantees and control over outcomes. But such certainty is often impossible. Better models and data improve insight and can help reduce costs, but they cannot eliminate fundamental uncertainties.

Progress depends on an honest conversation about these uncertainties and the values that guide us when the future unfolds differently than expected. Affordability remains important, but it is not the only measure. By engaging residents seriously – not just as consumers, but as community members with broader values – we can create choices that align with the society we want to build.

This applies not only to heating, but to all major transitions. By recognizing uncertainty and putting values at the centre, we can make decisions that are legitimate, resilient, and broadly supported – providing a clear path forward.