And no, I’m not talking about the usual heat pump versus boiler debate. Let’s look instead at heat networks.

The Climate Change Committee suggests that around 20 percent of UK homes should eventually be served by heat networks. But here’s the question: are DESNZ’s policies helping us get there - or holding us back?

Currently, government support prioritizes heat networks that use low-carbon sources such as heat pumps, waste heat recovery, renewable fuels like biomass and energy-from-waste systems.

On paper, that sounds great. In practice, it means heat networks often deliver more expensive heat compared to alternatives. If the goal is to promote heat networks aggressively, wouldn’t it make sense to get them up and running first, then transition to low-carbon sources as they become more affordable?

Another self-inflicted problem: every heat pump installed in an area with heat network potential is lost revenue for that network. Fewer customers mean higher unit costs for those who do sign up. Yet, there’s no sign of restrictions on where heat pump subsidies apply.

And then there’s the so-called “boiler tax” regime. Appliance manufacturers get a full credit (saving £500) if they replace a gas boiler with a heat pump - but not if they install a heat interface unit for a heat network, even if that network is low-carbon. That feels less like a push for low-carbon heat and more like a push to flog heat pumps.

Back in 2022, the Heat and Buildings Strategy identified three routes to decarbonize our building stock - heat pumps, heat networks and green gas boilers. So when did the policy shift to just one?

If we’re serious about decarbonizing heat, we need flexibility, not tunnel vision. Heat networks could play a huge role - but only if policy supports their growth rather than unintentionally (or not) undermining them.