D10.1 Stakeholder Needs Assessment Report

The stakeholder needs assessment revealed that decision-making in Luxembourg’s energy transition is shaped by a highly complex ecosystem involving numerous actors with differing priorities, mandates, and levels of influence. Ministries, regulators, municipalities, utilities, private companies, and civil society organizations all play critical roles, yet coordination across these groups remains limited. This fragmentation results in overlapping responsibilities, inconsistent planning horizons, and challenges in aligning national, regional, and local objectives.

Stakeholders emphasized that effective energy governance requires stronger institutional coordination and structured platforms that enable continuous dialogue, joint planning, and transparent multi-stakeholder decisionmaking. Across all discussions, participants underlined persistent technical and data-related gaps that undermine evidence-based decision-making. High-resolution, interoperable, and upto-date datasets are lacking, especially regarding heat demand, energy flows, and infrastructure capacity.

Existing data sources are often fragmented across institutions, outdated, or inaccessible due to data protection concerns. This limits the capacity to compare alternative solutions—such as decentralized heat pumps versus district heating, or multi-carrier system integration—and constrains the use of advanced modelling tools. Stakeholders stressed that harmonized data standards, improved interoperability, and shared data infrastructures are essential prerequisites for developing digital tools like the D2ET Decision Support platform.

Regulatory and market challenges emerged as another major barrier to progress. Many stakeholders expressed uncertainty about ownership structures, subsidy eligibility, and long-term investment frameworks, particularly in the heating and energy community sectors. Current regulatory systems are perceived as fragmented and overly complex, with frequent changes and overlapping responsibilities that discourage private sector participation.

Moreover, misaligned incentives—such as subsidy schemes that exclude key actors or reward short-term compliance rather than long-term sustainability—further weaken investment confidence. Stakeholders called for stable, coherent, and predictable regulatory frameworks that clarify roles, responsibilities, and risk-sharing mechanisms across public and private stakeholders. A recurring theme across all scenarios was the importance of social and behavioural dimensions in ensuring the legitimacy and success of the energy transition.

Stakeholders emphasized that public trust, fairness, and social acceptance are as critical as technical or economic feasibility. Many citizens lack awareness of the differences between technologies, costs, and long-term benefits, leading to skepticism or resistance. Perceived fairness—especially in pricing, access, and distribution of benefits—strongly shapes willingness to adopt new solutions.

Transparent communication, citizen education, and participatory engagement were identified as key strategies for strengthening societal support and avoiding public backlash against disruptive projects. From a broader strategic perspective, Luxembourg’s energy transition is deeply interconnected with external systems, creating both opportunities and vulnerabilities. The country’s reliance on cross-border energy flows and data infrastructures exposes it to geopolitical, market, and regulatory risks beyond national control.

Stakeholders highlighted the need for improved international coordination, particularly in relation to supply security, infrastructure planning, and data sharing. At the same time, Luxembourg’s compact size and high institutional capacity provide an opportunity to act as a model for integrated, cross-sectoral governance and to pilot digital tools that could later be scaled to the European level. Finally, the three thematic scenarios — heating systems, multi-carrier supply, and energy communities — revealed shared challenges and complementary priorities.

Scenario 1 underscored the need for clear cost comparisons and socially acceptable governance models for heat infrastructure. Scenario 2 emphasized resilience, cross-carrier integration, and regulatory coherence as foundations for supply security. Scenario 3 highlighted the importance of empowering citizens, fostering inclusive participation, and developing fair, transparent business models for energy communities.

Together, these insights point toward the need for an integrated, participatory, and data-driven approach to decision-making that combines technical innovation with institutional learning and social legitimacy.