The TV Moment of 2025

To get straight to the point: I absolutely hate watching television. I get annoyed by the lack of content in the entertainment programs, the sensationalism of talk show tables and above all by all the screaming commercials.

Perhaps what irritates me most about television programs in general – and talk shows in particular – is that eight times out of ten they degenerate into futile non-commotion, after which social media continues to buzz for days with so-called public outrage about what was said at that table.

By the way, we do have a television at home and my stepson knows that if I call him, it will probably be about how to turn that thing on using the two remote controls. But then there has to be a memorable moment, like the last time trial in Milan during the Giro of 2017. But I certainly don't want to claim to be without viewing sin, because I have a free subscription to Debat direct that I use frequently, sometimes even while I'm supposed to be at work.

Debat direct is the app that allows you to watch plenary and committee debates live and stay informed about what is happening in the House of Representatives. A debate can sometimes last entire afternoons and/or evenings, and there are also constant suspensions, so I am often forced to continue watching while exercising, cooking or walking the dog.

And so it happened that on 19 June I boarded the train to Utrecht with the plenary treatment of the Collective Heat Act in my ears. The train was – as has become tradition on this route – once again packed and I was just able to secure a seat by the window.

In an unguarded moment I stared out of the window while Minister Sophie Hermans (Climate and Green Growth, VVD) continued her response (I am not quoting from memory but from the transcript): “Chair, Mrs Kröger referred to the amendment to the Heat Act last year. She said that we must make it clear that the amendment that the energy tax does not affect the heat tariffs also applies to ETS2, especially if the cost-based tariffs are a long time coming. The amended methodology of last year already means that the fixed tariff is in any case a better reflection of the costs of the average gas consumer.”

Suzanne Kröger rushed to the interruption microphone to make it clear that ETS2 is an energy tax. Then it should be logical that the costs that a gas user has to make for ETS2 are not passed on to heat tariffs. "Can't the minister state that as an intention here?", I heard her ask indignantly. To which the minister replied that it will all have to be looked at, that it will have to wait for lower legislation and that we should not forget that the heat companies will have to bear the costs (??) of ETS2.

Like a dog whose leg you accidentally step on, that was the cry that suddenly escaped my throat. All heads in the train suddenly turned to me. I got a push from the neighbor in my elbow and took out an earpiece. "Are you okay?" "Yes, sorry, I just heard some bad news," I mumbled embarrassed: it didn't seem like something you could share with random fellow travelers. She looked at me compassionately for a moment and continued her game of wordfeud.

Minister Hermans continued her argument, but I immediately turned off Debate. I was completely stunned. I was convinced that I was following the developments around heat and the new law well, but to my surprise this affordability threat completely escaped me.

The intention of introducing an emissions trading system in the built environment was to give building owners a new incentive to take steps towards insulating their buildings and switching to low-carbon sources. This with the aim of bringing emission reduction as a whole closer.

In the districts where a heating network is currently being rolled out, the basis for this is that the municipality has determined in its transition vision for heating – and soon also in the heating programme – that this is the most suitable solution. This choice is based on factors such as the geographical location in relation to an available source, the typology of the homes and their current and potential degree of insulation. In short: the heating network is the designated route to make buildings more sustainable.

Exactly: making it more sustainable – exactly what Brussels had in mind with the ETS2 system from the Fit for 55 package. In the meantime, 'we' are making life with a central heating boiler and a hob on natural gas increasingly unattractive. The ETS2 or the green gas blending obligation are two examples of this. Slowly but surely, and with all the consequences for affordability and against a background of increasing energy poverty, the screws are being tightened.

Last year, members of parliament managed to prevent the announced (but not implemented) increase in natural gas tax from being included in the calculations of the no-more-than-otherwise pricing system by means of an emergency law. You know: the system with which the ACM examines each year what a fictitious alternative to natural gas would have cost the people connected to a heating network at most.

I could never have imagined that it would even be an option that specific levies such as the ETS2 would also be included in the not-more-than-other calculation. In fact, I cannot imagine that Jos Hessels and Jan ten Hoopen (former CDA members of parliament and the founders of the NMDA) could ever have intended it that way. If I look at their initiative law from back then (2004, mind you ), it was about the most realistic alternative for district heating being the individual boiler. But that will no longer be the case in 2025, because the individual boiler is what we are trying to move people away from. And yes, in the long term, rates will be determined on the basis of actual costs. But in the meantime, we are going to have accidents this way.

My grandmother always said: “You don’t attract flies with vinegar”. And especially in a dossier like heating networks, where trust is already wafer-thin, you cannot afford to have people pay unfairly for years on the basis of an old tariff concept – certainly not for a levy that was never intended for them.

Now let's hope that this important television moment will be picked up on the talk show tables, so that finally more people will join in my indignation.