De-Coalizing Rural China: A Critical Examination of the Coal to Clean Heating Project from a Policy Process Perspective

Abstract

This article critically examines the Coal to Clean Heating Project (CCHP) implemented in rural northern China from a policy process perspective. On the one hand, CCHP is an effective environmental policy that has reduced a large quantity of low quality bulk coal; on the other hand, however, it has created mounting socio-economic and political challenges, pushing the well-intended project into a deep dilemma. Moreover, existent discussions tend to attribute the dilemma to the “inappropriate implementation” of street-level bureaucrats. Through the lens of policy process, this article identifies key features of five critical temporal stages of CCHP: agenda setting, policy formulation, policy implementation, policy evaluation and policy adjustment. It illustrates that the policy process of CCHP has followed a politics-administration-dominated approach characterized by both positive attributes such as rapid resource mobilization and efficient implementation, and negative factors such as deficient policy design, overuse of mandatory instruments, and neglect of social acceptance. The major challenges that CCHP currently faces are identified, and policy implications are proposed based on the insights drawn from the policy process perspective. It concludes by highlighting the complexity of energy transition and the strength of linking energy transition research with a policy process perspective.

Synergies between China's Whole County photovoltaic program and rural heat pump adoption

“…The central government launched a campaign aimed at replacing the use of low‐quality loose coal (sanmei, also called dispersed or bulk coal), and switching from coal to gas or coal to electricity for heating in northern regions, especially in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei region surrounding the capital city. The early phase of the program was beset by problems, most notably in the winter of 2017, when residents and schools in some areas were left without heating (Hu, 2021). The policy's focus on gas and electric heat, which are often more expensive than coal—especially for poorly insulated buildings typical in rural areas—has led to increases in energy vulnerability in many poorer regions (Fan et al, 2022; Xie et al, 2022).…”

“…The policy's focus on gas and electric heat, which are often more expensive than coal—especially for poorly insulated buildings typical in rural areas—has led to increases in energy vulnerability in many poorer regions (Fan et al, 2022; Xie et al, 2022). The program has continued, converting at least 8 million households away from coal heating, while also providing various subsidies targeting poorer rural households (Hu, 2021).…”

“…Often policies apply mainly to new buildings, and long‐term enforcement and monitoring is lacking (Zhang & Wang, 2013). Coordination problems affected the original clean heating program, with responsibility for the transformation divided between State Grid (for electrification), state‐owned and privately‐held gas companies, local officials, and oversight by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the National Energy Administration (NEA) within the NDRC, the Ministry of Ecological Environment (MEE), and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development (MOHURD) (Hove & Myllyvirta, 2017; Hu, 2021). Given the NEA and NDRC focus on energy and MOHURD's focus on buildings, the fact that each tend to pursue separately‐administered programs is apparent.…”