"2025 was the year with the most new registrations"

Sandrine Brunet (SB): The programme only supported fossil-free projects that could not have been realised without the support of the KliK Foundation. Unfortunately, district heating projects are often still not economically viable, which means support is important to ensure their implementation and the resulting contribution to the energy transition. The projects supported by the KliK Foundation had to meet strict criteria to guarantee that emissions have actually been avoided.
Jürg Liechti (JL): The supported programme was particularly important for smaller heating networks, as the investment in an individual project application would be far too large for a small project. Within a programme, additionality can be assessed across the board and there is no requirement for individual project validation, which means the project owner doesn’t incur any costs for project development.

SB: District heating is particularly valuable as it removes the need for individual heating systems. It allows larger zones to be supplied from a central location and many buildings to be heated sustainably at the same time.
JL: Exactly. Renewable district heating offers many advantages in terms of climate protection. If, for example, a town on a lake operates a heating network with lake water or a municipality can supply its inhabitants with waste heat from its sewage treatment plant, a large number of individual heating systems can be replaced at the same time as a result.

SB: Depending on the location and environment, not all projects have access to the same resources. As Jürg says, a heating network for a location on a lake can be operated with lake water, while woodchip may be the better option for another project. The technological scope has also made it possible, for example, to make use of waste heat from waste incineration plants.

JL: Yes, we quickly realised during the development of the programme that we cannot assess all projects with the same general factors due to the variety of renewable energy sources that are possible. We have a different cost structure for each technology and therefore different calculations, so the programme consists of various modules, which we had to have individually approved by the FOEN (Federal Office for the Environment). In the beginning, this meant a little more effort, but afterwards implementation was much easier for the participants and for us.

JL: Neosys received and assessed the applications from the applicants. We calculated whether the project in its current form – i.e. without the subsidies – was uneconomical and therefore eligible for funding, and if the decision was positive the applicants were then able to register for the programme.
SB: Following the assessment by Neosys, the KliK Foundation also checked the data and drew up a contract for the purchase of the attestations that the project receives from the FOEN as a result of the carbon reductions. This way, the financing of the heating network was secured.
JL: Once a year, we received the relevant measured data from the project, and this monitoring allowed us to calculate the performance of the heating network and the corresponding carbon reduction. Our report was then verified by an independent body.
SB: Following a positive verification of the monitoring report and a review by the FOEN, the KliK Foundation paid out the subsidy. Consequently, it was possible to guarantee annual financing until 2030 for all heating networks registered in the programme.

SB: From our point of view, clearly not. Certain projects would need more support in order to be realised. Since the KliK Foundation must abide by the CO₂ Act in its implementation of the carbon offset obligation for fuel importers, the amount of funding is limited, and the maximum charge for the carbon offset is also limited to 5 centimes per litre of motor fuel. What’s more, the current CO₂ Act expires in 2030, which means that projects can only be funded until 2030. Projects that are only being realised now or even later will receive financial support for just a short period of time, and in many cases, this is not enough to ensure operation beyond 2030.
JL: That’s how I see the situation, too. What bothers me most is this arbitrary “restriction” of a tool that works very well and on a fair market-economy basis. The carbon offset mechanism could simply have been allowed to continue until there was nothing more to compensate for, because there were sufficient reductions everywhere. 2025 was the year with the most new registrations for the programme. It would certainly have been possible to do much more here.

JL: No. On the contrary, there were quite a few interested parties who were even relieved that the funding did not come from taxpayers’ money. We also realised that not enough people knew about the work of the KliK Foundation and the funding logic behind it. I would go so far as to say that, had there been greater awareness of both, the supported programme could have had an even bigger impact.

SB: The total calculated reduction in tonnes of CO₂ is considered to be fairly substantial. By January 2026, the active projects in the programme had already saved 116,908 tonnes of CO₂ since its launch in 2016, and by the end of 2030 the total should be around 959,000 tonnes.
JL: That’s right. We need to stress that the programme will reduce emissions from fossil fuels in Switzerland by almost 2 per cent by 2030.

SB: Both tools complement each other. Various measures are being promoted, and in some cantons, heating networks can be subsidised by both instruments. In these cases, double funding increases the chances of a project’s implementation.
JL: Cantonal funding was not handled in the same way across all locations, but I also see a good and important addition to these two support options. From a financial point of view, contributions from the public sector are advantageous as investment contributions. They are free from risk and offer planning security. If, however, the project is later unsuccessful or is no longer continued, this contribution to climate protection is lost. It has not produced any demonstrable impact. The KliK Foundation’s funding logic in the heating network programme ensures a different outcome. Here, payment is only made retrospectively and in line with the reduced CO₂ emissions. Projects that do not have a strong donor structure in the background are naturally happy to receive investment contributions. With a payment per reduced tonne, there are more incentives to continue operating and optimising the project and thus to get the most out of it.

SB: Absolutely, yes.
JL: Yes, definitely. There are still enough projects related to renewable heating that are not feasible without subsidies. The carbon offset mechanism should definitely be continued; it’s more effective than an emissions trading system because the money flows directly into projects and not into the state coffers.

JL: As I said, I am still convinced by the market-orientated, results-based aspects of funding in the carbon offset mechanism. Financial support is provided for every tonne of CO₂ that is saved, which makes it measurable, verifiable and fair for all participants.