Does progressive tariffs avoid waste? As pointed out 20 minutes, in April, the water plan announced by President Emmanuel Macron evokes a “progressive pricing” component in the context of a sharp drop in the resource available in France. A radical change in method since, today, in the vast majority of water management companies (private or public), it is the principle of degression that is applied. That is to say that the more we consume, the less the m3 costs.
About fifteen communities have nevertheless implemented this progressive pricing recently, such as Nice or Montpellier. The device could be extended to the whole of France. But will tapping the wallet be enough to reduce water consumption? At a time when drought comes its way, 20 minutes inquired with the few communities that have feedback on the subject. It is clear that the road to verify the effectiveness is still long.
Few feedback
With the Brottes law, introduced ten years ago, in 2013, around forty communities had set up social pricing whose main objective was not necessarily to reduce consumption. Moreover, among the many experimental schemes put in place, only five local authorities have tested progressive pricing. First pitfall: no study on the feedback from this particular experiment was conducted by the government before launching its water plan.
In the maze of data, 20 minutes was able to find these five communities with very varied experiences. In Normandy, Fécamp, for example, could not even carry out the planned experiment because the initial study was delayed. The small town of Blénod-lès-Pont-à-Mousson, in Lorraine, was also unable to provide figures on the evolution of consumption since the implementation of its progressive pricing in January 2018.
Difficult to establish a causal link
Difficult also for public management Rennes basin water (EBR) on the territory of Rennes, in Brittany, to draw up a convincing report. “Only the city of Rennes has benefited from this progressive tariff since 2016, explains Laurent Geneau, general manager of EBR. We deploy the principle of progressive pricing at the end of each local deadline, but first of all, we had to harmonize all the pricing that existed in the different municipalities attached to the new common water distribution network. »
If we take the example of the city of Rennes, there is a drop in average consumption of 1m3 per household between 2020 and 2021, dropping from 67 to 66 m3. “But impossible to know if it is linked to progressive pricing. The confinement phenomenon may have played a role, ”underlines Laurent Geneau. Especially since the price increase only occurs from 100 m3.
“Abolish sliding scale pricing first”
Similarly, “the drop observed from 5 to 10% during the drought period, in 2022, seems rather linked to the awareness raising launched by the public authorities”, continues Laurent Geneau. Same cautious analysis by Christophe Lime, vice-president of the Eau du Grand Besançon authority and president of France Public water, association of French public companies. “In France, there are still more than 30,000 public water and sanitation services. We do not really know what is happening in the field of consumption, ”he admits.
In Besançon, progressive pricing began in 2015, but with a level that still has little financial incentive and is set at 80 m3. Again, no data shows a drop in consumption related to this experience. “Our main work from 2019 and the consolidation of 68 municipalities was, first, to remove all decreasing pricing. Thus, we started to feel a drop in consumption only a year or two ago, especially among heavy consumers,” notes Christophe Lime. And to cite a striking example. “In 2022, this is the first time that we have not seen water consumption increase when a drought order was taken, he continues. This was unfortunately the case before. People have really become aware of the problem, especially since, for three years, we have seen the Doubs river disappear over several kilometres. »
The example of Dunkirk
In the end, only the urban community of Dunkirk is able to present a real assessment of its experience of progressive pricing. Ten years ago, it was the first community to take the plunge. This is why the Eaux du Dunkerquois network is regularly used as a reference when it comes to escalating tariffs.
“The territory does not have its own drinking water resources, that’s why we try by all means to promote sobriety”, explains Bertrand Ringot, president of Eaux du Dunkerquois. And the progressive tariff seems to be paying off. “In ten years, we have gone from an average consumption per household of 81 m3 to 67 m3”, he says. And the price changeover is precisely at 80 m3. But the chosen one understands that there are still many biases. “We would like to know the exact composition of the household in order to be able to adopt the tariff, especially for large families who necessarily consume more, but we are not helped by the CAF or the CPAM on this subject”, he laments.
The Belgian counter-example
Nevertheless, Bertrand Ringot believes that progressive pricing is only a lever to reduce consumption. “Awareness-raising and help with the installation of water savers, for example, are also necessary,” he says. This is also the conclusion drawn by a Brussels scientific studywhich, on the contrary, seriously calls into question the interest of progressive pricing.
Seven academics are sifting through this system, which has existed since 2005 in the territory of Brussels, Belgium. “It was supposed to be social and ecological (…). We highlight that nothing indicates that the progressive pricing has encouraged the inhabitants of Brussels to reduce their water consumption, which is already low”, denounce the academics who believe, on the contrary, that it “causes serious problems of fairness”.
Among the arguments developed: the size of the household and the collective meters. Above all, the study shows that the decline over the past twenty years may be linked to factors other than individual sobriety. And Christophe Lime, in Besançon, to go one better. “Between 2001 and 2012, a French study showed a drop in water consumption of approximately 1.5% each year. However, this decline was linked to technological progress, particularly in household appliances, ”he says.
Adapted seasonal pricing
So, should we really embark on the path of progressive pricing without having truly tested its effectiveness in France? And what levels are adopted to really change behavior? Christophe Lime offers an alternative solution thanks to the deployment of connected water meters. “This system would allow, for example, to set up seasonal pricing adapted in the event of a prefectural decree to combat drought”, he slips.
In Rennes, Laurent Geneau raises another problem concerning this pricing policy. “People should not be made to believe that their water bill will go down if they save money,” he notes. Lower bills would send the wrong signal because it would mean lower revenues and investments for distribution and sanitation. “Because if the Dunkirk water distribution network shows a rather good yield of 91%, in the rest of the country, it is more around 80%. That is to say that 20% of the water is lost in leaks. And Laurent Geneau to alert: “We have before us a veritable wall of investments to be made to renew our aging distribution network. »