Which heat company gets to operate in your neighbourhood? How far does municipal authority extend? And at what point in that process can residents actually have a say — before the municipality decides, or only after the contract is signed?
These are the three questions that stakeholder and environmental managers are increasingly being asked now that the Wet Collectieve Warmte (Collective Heat Act, WCW) has been in force since 1 January 2026. The act is an institutional transformation: for the first time, municipalities have a statutory directing role in the construction and operation of district heating networks. That sounds logical — heating is a local challenge. But in practice, this directing role requires a new type of stakeholder process for which most municipalities have yet to develop routines.
What the WCW actually changes
District heating networks existed before the WCW. Eneco, Vattenfall, Westland Infra and dozens of smaller heat companies operated district heating in cities like Rotterdam, Amsterdam, The Hague and Leiden. But those networks grew from commercial initiatives, not from municipal direction. Municipalities could grant a concession, but had no decisive say over tariffs, mandatory connection requirements or the choice of company.
The WCW reverses those relationships. The act introduces three core mechanisms:
Heat zones (warmtekavels). Municipalities designate geographic areas within which one heat company may exclusively supply. Without designated zones, no licence. This means the municipality determines the spatial logic — which neighbourhoods qualify, in what order, and on what timeline.
Majority public ownership. The municipality or a public body must hold a majority stake in the heat company operating in the zone. This directly raises the question of how municipalities want to fulfil that role: establish their own heat company, cooperate with neighbouring municipalities, or create a structure with an existing company as a minority shareholder.
Tariff regulation by the ACM. The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) now sets maximum tariffs for heat supply, decoupled from the gas price. This provides consumer protection, but also reduces the scope for heat companies to cross-subsidise unprofitable connections from profitable zones.
Step 1: Start with a heat vision, not a zone
The most common error in implementing the WCW is that municipalities begin by designating zones — often under political pressure to make quick decisions about natural gas-free neighbourhoods. But a zone without public support is a guarantee for delay.
The stakeholder analysis phase must precede the zone decision. This means: map the stakeholders in the relevant neighbourhood before a zone is published. Who is involved: housing associations (which have a decisive voice when large rental blocks are at stake), owners’ associations (VvE’s), private homeowners, mid-sized businesses, and social institutions such as schools and care facilities? Which parties are willing to connect early, and which are sceptical? Are there historical conflicts around previous heating initiatives?
A heat vision that incorporates the stakeholder map helps municipalities draw zones that are feasible — not only technically, but also socially.
Step 2: Organise early participation with a clear mandate
The WCW requires municipalities to conduct participation when drafting the heat vision and when making zone decisions. But the act does not specify how that participation must be structured. This is a deliberate legislative choice — and at the same time a risk for municipalities that treat participation as an information obligation rather than a substantive process.
Participation in district heating projects has a specific character that differs from participation in spatial planning:
- Residents become customers, not merely neighbours. They will become heat consumers, with a contract, a tariff and security of supply. That makes their stake more concrete than in a road project passing near their home.
- Connection can effectively become mandatory. The WCW makes a mandatory connection requirement possible in areas where alternatives are not available. That is politically sensitive. Stakeholder and environmental managers must communicate this clearly, without papering over it with “only as a last resort.”
- Housing associations are not residents but key decision-makers. A housing association with 400 rental units in a zone can make or break the business case of a heat company. Their governance process often does not run in sync with municipal planning.
A well-designed participation process under the WCW works in two tracks: a residents’ process (informative and emotionally aware) and a stakeholder process with housing associations, owners’ associations and large consumers (substantive and business-case-focused). These two tracks require different frequencies, language and timelines.
Step 3: Separate decisions and establish their sequence explicitly
A common problem: municipalities make too many decisions simultaneously. The choice of zone, the choice of heat company, the connection strategy — these are three distinct decisions that each deserve their own participation moment.
Establish the decision sequence explicitly and communicate it publicly. This gives stakeholders a frame of reference: they know what they are being consulted about now, and which decisions have already been made. This prevents residents from asking tariff questions at an information session about zone designation — and being disappointed when no one can answer.
A clear decision sequence also helps internally. Municipal heating projects typically involve multiple departments (spatial planning, sustainability, land affairs, communications, finance) that do not always operate at the same pace. The stakeholder and environmental manager is the person who above all maintains the external communication line and synchronises it with the internal decision-making rhythm.
Step 4: Actively manage expectations around affordability
The decoupling of heat tariffs from the gas price is one of the most discussed aspects of the WCW. Residents accustomed to gas costs that move with the market want to know: what will we pay in future?
The honest answer is: nobody knows exactly. The ACM sets tariff methodologies, but the actual cost depends on heat source, pipe distance, connection density and investment costs — which can vary significantly between zones. Stakeholder and environmental managers who now suggest concrete price guarantees damage the trust that will be needed later. The right approach: explain how tariff regulation works, name the factors that influence the price, and indicate when and how a realistic tariff signal will become available.
Pitfalls to avoid
Participation as communication. The WCW participation requirement is too often fulfilled as an information session: the municipality presents the plan, residents may ask questions. This satisfies legal requirements, but builds no support. Participation in which nothing remains to be decided confirms residents’ sense that they are not being taken seriously.
Too-late involvement of housing associations. Associations are sometimes only brought into the process after the zone has been designated. This leads to protracted connection negotiations that put the heat company’s business case under pressure — and consequently the supply to private homeowners as well.
Underestimating the connection process. Designating a heat zone is one thing. The individual connection of each home is a separate process, with its own decision moments, its own communication and its own technical implementation. Stakeholder and environmental managers who think their work is done after the zone decision underestimate the implementation challenge.
Conclusion
The Collective Heat Act gives municipalities something they previously lacked: genuine authority over the heat transition in the built environment. But authority is not a guarantee of implementation. The municipalities that successfully realise heat zones in the coming years are not those with the best technical plans — they are the municipalities that take stakeholder and environmental management seriously from the start.
That means: understand the environment first, then draw the zone. Participate first, then decide. And always communicate what residents can expect — even when that answer is still uncertain.