Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes

(1)

Policy packaging or policy patching? The development of

complex energy efficiency policy mixes

Article (Published Version)

http://sro.sussex.ac.uk

Kern, F, Kivimaa, P and Martiskainen, M (2017) Policy packaging or policy patching? The

development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes. Energy Research and Social Science,

23. pp. 11-25. ISSN 2214-6296

This version is available from Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/65385/

This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies and may differ from the

published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to

consult the publisher’s version. Please see the URL above for details on accessing the published

version.

Copyright and reuse:

Sussex Research Online is a digital repository of the research output of the University.

Copyright and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual

author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable, the material

made available in SRO has been checked for eligibility before being made available.

Copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third

parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit

purposes without prior permission or charge, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic

details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the

content is not changed in any way.

(2)

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Energy

Research

&

Social

Science

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e r s s

Original

research

article

Policy

packaging

or

policy

patching?

The

development

of

complex

energy

efﬁciency

policy

mixes

F. Kern

a,∗

,

P. Kivimaa

a,b

,

M. Martiskainen

a

a_Centre_on_Innovation_and_Energy_Demand,_Science_Policy_Research_Unit_(SPRU),_University_of_Sussex,_Jubilee_building,_Brighton,_BN1_9SL,_United_Kingdom b_Finnish_Environment_Institute_(SYKE),_{Mechelininkatu}_34a,₀₀₂₆₀_Helsinki,_Finland

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received31May2016

Receivedinrevisedform3November2016 Accepted4November2016

Keywords: Policymixes

Buildingenergyefﬁciency Policydevelopment Finland

UK

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Theambitionofenergypolicyhaslongbeentoreducecarbonemissions,secureenergysupplyand provideaffordableenergyservices.Inrecentyearsanincreasingnumberofpolicyinstrumentshave beenintroducedtopromoteenergyefficiencyindifferentsectorsacrosstheEU.Whilepreviousresearch haslargelyanalysedtheeffectivenessofindividualpolicyinstrumentsandtheirimpactonthediffusion ofparticularenergyefficienttechnologiesorpractices,ouranalysistakesabroaderviewandexamines themixofexistingpoliciesaimedatstimulatingreductionsinenergyuse.Theempiricalfocusofthe paperisonpolicygoalsandinstrumentsaimedatstimulatingenergyefficiencyinbuildingsinFinland andtheUnitedKingdom(UK).Wetracethedevelopmentofthepolicymixesduring2000–2014and analysetheiremergingoverallcharacteristics.Theanalysisisbasedonamappingofpolicygoalsand instruments,documentaryanalysisandsemi-structuredinterviewswithstakeholders.Wefindthatboth countrieshaveincreasinglycomplexpolicymixes,encompassingavarietyofgoalsandinstrumentsand makeuseofarangeofdifferentinstrumenttypestoencourageuserstoreducetheirenergyconsumption. DespitethesharedEUinfluence,thewayinwhichthepolicymixeshaveevolvedinbothcountrieswere foundtobequitedifferent.

1. Introduction

Stimulating energy efficiency is an important partof many policystrategiesaimedataddressingenergyand climatepolicy objectives.The relative focus onenergy efficiency hasrecently increasedin many countriesacrossEuropefollowing EU initia-tives [51]. According to the InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), stimulatingenergyefficiencyofbuildingshasanumberof poten-tialbenefitswhichincludepublicexpendituresavingsofaround D30-40bacrossEuropeaswellasimprovedoccupanthealthand well-being[38].Asbuildingsaccountfora40%shareofenergyuse inEurope,thereismuchpotentialforreducingtheirenergyuse.For exampleastudyoftheSwedishresidentialbuildingstockfounda maximumtechnicalreductionpotentialinenergydemandof53%

[46].SimilarlyastudyinItalyfoundthatduetothepoorqualityof existinghousinginthePiedmontregion,potentialenergysavings of77%couldbeachieved[3].However,evencosteffectivesolutions areoftennottakenup[39,24].Thus,scholarshavestartedtopay moreattentiontonotionsofasocialpotentialforreducingenergy

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddress:[email protected](F.Kern).

use[49]andthelimitationsoftheconventional physical-technical-economicmodel[44].Giventheidentifiedenergyefficiencygap,a rangeofpolicyinstrumentshavebeenintroducedinmany coun-triestohelpincreaseenergyefficiency[64].

Muchexisting energypolicyresearchanalysesthe effective-nessofthedifferenttypesofpolicyinstruments[63],oftenfocused ontheimpactsofselectedinstruments.Wearguethatless atten-tionhasbeenpaidtothemixesof policiesinfluencing building energyefficiency,whichisanimportantgapgiventhehighshare ofenergyuseinbuildings.Murphyetal.[50]foundthatwhile pol-icyinstrumentcombinationsaddressingtheenergyperformanceof buildingsexist,theyappearratheradhoc,oftenresultingfromEU legislationandoverlappingpolicyaims.Thisindicatesthatfrom animpactsperspective,studyingreal-life(ratherthanintended) policy mixes, including theirevolution over time, is of impor-tance[62,9].Examplesofpreviousstudiesincludeananalysisof EUcountries’NationalEnergyEfficiencyActionPlans[21],astudy ofinteractioneffectsacrossDutchpolicymeasuresonhousehold energyefficiency[6],andastudyofinteractionsinbuildingenergy efficiencypolicyin14Europeancountries[59].Thesestudiesfocus onthecurrentstateofpolicies.Theliteraturehaslargelyfocusedon theanalysisofsinglepolicyinstruments,pairwiseinstrument inter-actionsorondeliberatelydesignedmixes,andoftenonlycapture

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002

(3)

F.Kernetal./EnergyResearch&SocialScience23(2017)11–25

snap-shotsintime.Therefore,wearguethatfurther complemen-taryanalysisisneededtoshedlightonthecomplex,realworld policymixes,howtheydevelopovertimeandtheiremerging char-acteristicssuchasconsistencyandcoherence.Thisisimportantas itinﬂuencestheirpotentialperformance.Wealsoarguethatour paperaddsvaluetotheexistingliteraturebyprovidinga compre-hensiveanalysisofbuildingenergyefﬁciencypolicymixesintwo countriesandbyexamininghowtheydevelopovertime,rather thancontributing todiscussions tryingtoidentify‘ideal’policy packages(cf[31]).Indoingso,weagreewithFlanaganetal.[23]

thattherearenounambiguously‘good’mixes.

Policymixesare “complexarrangementsofmultiplegoalsand meanswhich,inmanycases,havedevelopedincrementallyovermany years”[41]:395.Policygoalscanbedefinedasthe“strategictargets definedbypolicyactors”[52]:397,whicharenotstatic,coherentor alwaysevenhierarchical,butoftenarangeofgoalsexistthatcan changeovertimeandbeinconflict[23].Policymeansor instru-mentsaretheconcretetoolstoachievepolicygoals[58].Drawing onpreviousliteratureonpolicymixeswithinthefieldofpolicy design,thisarticleexaminesthedevelopmentofpolicymixes relat-ingtoenergyefficiencyinbuildingsinFinlandandtheUKbetween 2000and2014.Theaimsofthearticleare:(1)todescribethe devel-opmentofthepolicymixesinthetwocountriesovertimeand(2) toanalysetheiremergingcharacteristics.Ournovelinsightsrelate tointroducingaconceptualperspectiveontheevolutionof pol-icymixesintoenergypolicydebatesandnewempiricalanalysis regardingbuildingenergy efficiencypoliciesin Finlandandthe UnitedKingdom(UK).

Theremainderofthepaperisorganisedasfollows:Section2

discussestheexistingliteratureonpolicymixesandenergy efﬁ-ciencypolicyandelaboratestheconceptualframework.Section3

detailsthemethodology.Section4containstheempiricalanalysis. Section5discussesthemainﬁndings.Section6concludes.

2. Theoreticalapproachtopolicymixes

2.1. Energyefﬁciencypoliciesandpolicymixes

Manyexistingstudiesonenergyefficiencypolicyfocusonthe effectivenessof individual policy instruments(or a few instru-ments)suchasenergyauditprogrammes[2],energyperformance certificates[1],energyperformanceregulation[4]ormarketbased instrumentssuchastheUK’sGreenDeal[16,25,61].Furthermore, previousstudieshaveoftenlookedatenergyefficiencypolicies’ impactonthediffusion of particulartechnologiesor consumer practices(e.g.[5,49])ortheeffectsofpoliciesontechnological inno-vation[53].Whilestudiesonsingleinstrumentsarevaluable,itis alsoimportanttoconsiderthewidercontextinwhichinstruments aredesignedandimplemented.Inordertopromoteenergy effi-ciency,awholerangeofinstrumentsisrequiredwhichneedtobe implementedcomprehensively[64].Forexample,complementary policyinstrumentsarerequiredtocreateastructuralmarketfor energysaving[68],whileevaluationsofpolicyinstrumentsshould takeintoaccountthat“severaldifferentmeasuresareusuallyrequired foraneffectivepolicymix”[22]:75.

Overthelastdecadeasmallbutgrowingliteratureonpolicy mixesorinteractionsbetweendifferentenergyefficiency instru-mentshasemerged(e.g.see[6,31,56,9,66,59]).Boonekamp[6],for example,developedaqualitativematrixforassessingthe interac-tioneffectsbetween15energyefficiencyinstruments.AEuropean projectlookedatarangeofpolicyinstrumentsinfluencingenergy efficiencyin theindustrial, transport and building sectors [54]. RecentworkhasexaminedthecoherenceoftheEU’senergy secu-rityandclimatemitigationpoliciesincludingenergyefficiency[66]. Rosenowetal.[59]provideananalysisofselectedbuildingenergy

efficiencyinstrumentsin14Europeancountriesfocussingon pair-wiseinteractionsofinstrumentsatonepointintime.Theydonot studytheevolutionoftheoverallpolicymixesovertime.Inthis lit-erature,analysisofpairwiseinteractionsoftentakesplacethrough theoreticalconsiderations(e.g.[56,59]),expertjudgementorboth (e.g.[31]).Costantinietal.[9]analysetheeffectsofenergy effi-ciencypolicymixesfortheresidentialsectoronpatentapplications andfindapositiveinducementeffect.Agoodreviewofthe liter-atureonqualitativeandquantitativemethodologiesemployedfor theappraisalofinteractingenergyandclimatepoliciesisprovided bySpyridakiandFlamos[65].

Existingresearchshowsthattherearemanyproblems associ-atedwithenergyefﬁciencypolicymixes.First,theyareoftenan uncoordinatedoutcomeofinstrumentsstipulatedbytheEUand overlappingpolicyaims[50].Second,thedesign of comprehen-siveenergyefﬁciencypolicymixesiscomplicatedbythevariety andcomplexityofend-users[51].Third,policymixesevolve,and thereisanemergingliteratureonhowpolicymixeschangeover timeandwithwhatconsequencesfortheirpotentialeffectiveness

[23,41,29].Itisthelatterchallengewhichtheanalysisinthisarticle iscontributingto(howmixesemergeandchangeovertime),while othershaverecentlycontributedtoanemergingliteratureonhow todesignaneffectivepolicymix(e.g.[59]).

2.2. Conceptualisingthedevelopmentofpolicymixes:policy packagingandpolicypatching

Theexistingliteratureonenergyefficiencypolicymixesfocuses mainlyontheex-postevaluationofpolicyinteractions.Incontrast, theapproachtakeninthisarticleisinterestedinanex-ante assess-mentofpolicymixes.Thisapproachbuildsonthepolicydesign literaturewhich judgesthepotentialeffects ofpolicymixes on thebasisofcriteriasuchasconsistencyandcoherence,and analy-seswhymanyexistingpolicymixesaresub-optional.Howlettand Raynerunderstandpolicydesignasfollows:“howspecifictypesof policytoolsorinstrumentsarebundledorcombinedinaprincipled mannerintopolicy‘portfolios’or‘mixes’inanefforttoattainpolicy goals”([30]:172).WedrawonHowlettandRayner[30]whodefine consistencyas“theabilityofmultiplepolicytoolstoreinforcerather thanundermineeachotherinthepursuitofpolicygoals”([30]:174). Coherenceisthe“abilityofmultiplepolicygoalstoco-existwitheach otherandwithinstrumentnormsinalogicalfashion”([30]:174). However,goalsandinstrumentsareaddedtoandsubtractedfrom themixovertime.Policymakersarenotcompletelyfreeintheir choicesaspolicymixesarepath-dependentandtypicallyevolve throughfourprocesses:layering,drift,conversionandreplacement

[29,30,41].

Layeringreferstotheprocessofaddingnewpolicygoalsand instrumentstoexistingpolicymixeswithoutdiscardingprevious measures[30].HowlettandRayner[29]arguethatthisoftenresults inincoherenceamonggoalsandinconsistencyofinstruments.In turn,“driftoccurswhennewgoalsreplaceoldoneswithout chang-ingtheinstrumentsusedtoimplementthem.Theseinstrumentsthen canbecomeinconsistentwiththenewgoalsandmostlikely ineffec-tiveinachievingthem”[41]:395.Third,“[c]onversioninvolvesthe reversesituationwherebynewinstrumentmixesevolvewhileholding oldgoalsconstant.Iftheoldgoalslackcoherence,thenchangesin pol-icyinstrumentsmayeitherreducelevelsofimplementationconﬂictsor enhancethem,butareunlikelytosucceedinmatchingmeansandends ofpolicy”[41]:395.Finally,replacementdescribesaprocessinwhich aconsciouseffortismadetofundamentallyrestructurebothgoals andinstrumentsinacoherentandconsistentmannerby sweep-ingasideoldelementsanddesigninganewmixdenovo[41,29]. However,HowlettandRayner[30]notethatempiricallymost exist-ingpolicymixeshave developedthroughlayering,conversionor drift,oftenresultingininconsistentandincoherentpolicymixes.

(4)

F.Kernetal./EnergyResearch&SocialScience23(2017)11–25 Table1

Relationshipbetweenpolicydevelopmentprocessesandtheexpectedcoherence andconsistencyofapolicymix.

Instruments

Goals Consistent Inconsistent

Coherent Replacement Conversion

Incoherent Drift Layering

Source:KernandHowlett[41]:396. Table2

Componentsofapolicymix.

HighLevelAbstraction ProgrammeLevel Operationalisation Policy Focus Policy Aims Goals

Whatgeneraltypesof ideasgovernpolicy development?(e.g. environmental protection,economic development)

Objectives Whatdoespolicy formallyaimtoaddress? (e.g.savingwilderness orspecieshabitat, increasingharvesting levelstocreate processingjobs) Policy Instruments InstrumentLogic Whatgeneralnorms guideimplementation preferences?(e.g. preferencesfortheuse ofcoercive

instruments,ormoral suasion)

Mechanisms Whatspeciﬁctypesof instrumentsare utilised?

(e.g.theuseofdifferent toolssuchastax incentives,orpublic enterprises) Source:HowlettandRayner[30]:176.

Situationswherenewpolicymixesaredeveloped‘fromscratch’are rare.Table1belowsummarisestherelationshipbetweenpolicy developmentprocessesand theexpectedcoherenceand consis-tencyofapolicymix.

HowlettandRaynerarguethatpolicy(re-)designcanthusbe understoodastwodifferenttypesofprocesses:policypackagingor policypatching.Policypackagingreferstoapolicydesignprocess inwhichpreviouspoliciesarediscardedandanewpolicypackage isintroduced(replacement)[30].Whilemanyearlypolicydesign studieshaveapreferenceforthisapproach,HowlettandRayner arguethatprocessesoflayering,driftandconversioncanalsobe intentionallydesignedasaformofpolicypatching,“muchinthe same wayassoftware designersissue‘patches’ fortheir operating systemsandprogrammesinordertocorrectﬂawsorallowthemto adapttochangingcircumstances”[30]:177.Theaimofbothtypes ofprocessesistheincreasedcoherenceofgoalsandconsistencyof instruments.Policymakersarealsoencouragedtousethefullrange ofpossibleinstruments“ratherthanassumingthatachoicemustbe madebetweenonlyafewalternativessuchasregulationversus mar-kettools”[30]:175.Wearguethatwherethisisnotthecase,policy mixesareunlikelytobeeffectiveinmeetingtheirgoals.Studying theprocessesofhowpolicymixesevolveovertimeandthe emerg-ingoverallpolicymixcharacteristicsintermsoftheirconsistency andcoherencecanthereforebeusedasaproxytoassesslikely pol-icyoutcomesexante.Table2summarisesthedifferentcomponents ofapolicymix.

3. Methodology

Thisarticleexaminesthedevelopmentofbuildingenergy efﬁ-ciencypolicyinFinlandandtheUKduring2000–2014.Analysing multiplecasesisarguedtoprovideabettertestoftheproposed frameworkthanasinglecasestudy[73].FinlandandtheUKwere chosenascontrastingcasesastheydifferinanumberofrespects:

(1)WhiletheUKwasfoundtohaveaclearstrategyforimproving energyefﬁciency,policyprogressbetween2010and2013was rankedfromlowtomoderate;incontrast,Finlandwasranked amongthetopthreecountriesintermsofprogressinenergy efﬁciencypolicy[21].

(2)Thecountriesalsodifferinenergyconsumptionproﬁles,with theUKhavingoneofthelowestenergyconsumptionsperGDP amongIEAcountries[36]withFinlandhavingoneofthehighest

[37].InFinlandmanufacturingisthelargestenergyconsumer accountingfor47%oftotalconsumptionin2015whilespace heating ofbuildingsaccountsfor 25%oftheﬁnal consump-tionofenergy[75],whileintheUKdomesticandnon-domestic buildingstogetheraccountfor49%ofenergyconsumption[11]. TheUKhasoneoftheoldestbuildingstocksinEurope,with20% ofits26milliondwellingsbeingover100yearsoldandnearly 70%beingbuiltbefore1946;incontrast,60%ofFinland’s2.5 milliondwellingshavebeenbuiltsincethe1970sand90%since 1946[47].

Thecountriesdifferintermsofpopulationsizeanddensity,and climaticconditions.Thus,thetwocountriesprovidecontrasting settingsfortheanalysisofenergyefﬁciencypolicywhilebothbeing EUmembers.Ashortcomingofthisselectionrationale,basedon contrasts,isthattestingtherolethatnationalinstitutionalcontexts playinshapingpolicyismoredifﬁcult,becausethecasesdifferin manyaspectsinadditiontotheirinstitutionalcontexts.However, thisisnottheprimarymotivationofthisarticle.

Thedataonwhichouranalysisisbasedwascollectedfroma numberofsourcesoutlinedbelow.

1.A systematic review of national energy policy documents, reports, IEA documents,and databases was used to identify building-relatedpolicygoalsandinstruments.Theseincluded theIEApoliciesandmeasuresdatabasesonenergyefﬁciency1_;

IEA country reviews [32–37], the European Environmental Agency’s databaseonclimatechange mitigationpoliciesand measures in Europe2_; _the _IEA _Sustainable _Buildings _Centre’s

BuildingEnergyEfﬁciencyPoliciesdatabase3_and_the

ODYSSEE-MUREdatabase.4

2.AnExcelspreadsheetanda timelineofpolicyinstrumentsin place in late 2014in each country wasused to analyse the overall characteristicsofthepolicymixes.In addition,policy instrumentsremovedsince2000wereidentiﬁedfromIEA coun-tryreviewsandtheODYSEEE-MURE database,whileresearch programmesendedsince2000inFinlandwereidentiﬁedfrom informationonthewebsiteoftheFinnishFundingAgencyfor InnovationTekes.5_The_collected_information_was_used_to_trace

policydevelopmentsovertime.

3.Stakeholderinterviewswereusedtocross-checkthelistof pol-icyinstrumentsandelicitinformationaboutthedevelopment of thepolicymixes. Atotal of19 semi-structured interviews wereconductedwithstakeholderswhohaveexpertiseinenergy efﬁciencyinbuildings,includingrepresentativesofthebuilding industry,technicalexperts,energyagencies,civilservantsand NGOs(see AppendixA).Intervieweeswereaskedabouttheir viewsontherespectivecountry’sbuildingenergyefﬁciency poli-cies.Allinterviewswererecorded,transcribedandcodedusing NVivosoftware.Dataanalysiswasconductedusinganopen cod-ingprocessbasedontheanalyticalframeworkwithtriangulation

1_{http://www.iea.org/policiesandmeasures/}_. 2_{http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/pam/}_. 3_{http://www.iea.org/beep/}_.

4_{http://www.measures-odyssee-mure.eu/topics-energy-efﬁciency-policy.asp}_. 5_{http://www.tekes.ﬁ/en/programmes-and-services/tekes-programmes/}_.

(5)

DevelopmentofFinnishenergyefﬁciencygoalsinbuildings. Policycontent

HighLevelAbstraction ProgrammeLevelOperationalisation Goals

Whatgeneraltypesofideasgovernpolicydevelopment?

Objectives

Whatdoespolicyformallyaimtoaddress? 2000–2002 Climatechangemitigation(fortheﬁrsttime)asanenergypolicygoal

co-existwitheconomicandemploymentgoals[42]

“Buildingrequirementswillbetightenedsothattheheatenergy consumptionofnewbuildingsisapproximately30percentlowerthan thecurrentlevelofrequirements”[43].

2003–2006 Developmentofenergyandenvironmentaltaxation,principleof ‘ecologicaltaxrenewal’[76]

Tosecurethesupplyofcompetitiveenergyandatthesametimefulﬁl therequirementssetbyinternationalenvironmentalcommitments [76]

“Thelongtermobjectiveofenergysavingmeasuresistohaltgrowth inthetotalconsumptionofprimaryenergyandturnittodecline” “Energyefﬁcientandlowenergybuildingwillbepromoted”[79] 2007–2010 Climatechangemitigationasaprominentgoal(ﬁrstofthelist)in

energypolicy[77].

Emphasisonbioenergyasaprincipalsolutiontoenergyandclimate problems[77].

“Tosaveenergyandimproveefﬁciencyitisimportanttodrafta tightenedenergysavingprogrammebyendof2008.Aspartofthat, e.g.,buildingenergyefﬁciency,energysavingagreement

procedures...mustbedeveloped.Additionalfundingforenergy savingissafeguarded.”([77]:44)

“TheCouncilofStatesetsasthestrategicobjectiveofFinlandtohalt growthinthetotalconsumptionofprimaryenergyandturnitto declinesothattheprimaryenergyconsumptioninyear2020would becirca310TWHi.e.morethan10%smallerthaninbusinessas usual.”“Buildingenergy-efﬁciencyrequirementswillbetightened circa30%in2010comparedtothecurrentlevelorrequirements” 2011–2013 Energytaxrenewal,loweringindustrialenergytaxratestoboost

employmentandcompetitiveness;focusoninnovationandcleantech [78]Carbon-neutralsocietyasalongtermgoal

“Toimprovebuildingenergyefficiencythroughregulationandother steeringandbycreatingincentives.Todraftaroadmapforbuilding energyefficiencyregulationwithanaimofnearzeroenergybuilding by2020.Theroadmapaimsforenforcementofregulationaslarger mixes.”“Toincreaseeducationandresearchinenergyefficient buildingandrenovation”([78]:71)

“Anoverarchinggoaltohalt,andreverse,growthinﬁnalenergy consumption...anambitioustargettolimitﬁnalenergyconsumption to310TWhin2020.”([37]:44)

fromdifferentsources of evidence.One of thelimitations of theanalysisisthatitonlycoversnationallevelpolicies(i.e.the horizontalpolicymix),whileEuropeanorlocalpoliciesarenot covered(i.e.theanalysisoftheverticalpolicymixisbeyondthe scopeoftheanalysis),unlesstheydirectlydrivethe develop-mentofnationalpolicyschemes(asisthecasewithseveralEU directives).

4. Building-relatedenergyefficiencypolicymixesin FinlandandtheUnitedKingdom:analysis

4.1. Finland 4.1.1. Background

Atpresent,“Finland’sbuildingstockisrelativelyenergy-efﬁcient asthecoldclimatehasnaturallyencouragedtheadoptionof energy-efﬁcienttechnologies...guided by national legislation since 1976”

[37]:50.Typicalmeasuresincludetripleglazing,minimum effi-ciencyperformancestandardsforbuildingcomponents,anduse offuel-efficientdistrictheating.However,thesectorisfacedwith challengesfrom “high-carbonheating fuels innon-district heated properties”[37]:35.Theresponsibilityforclimateandenergypolicy isdistributedacrossseveralministries.TheMinistryof Employ-mentandEconomy(MEE)overseesenergypolicy,includingenergy efficiency.The Ministryof theEnvironment(MOE) has respon-sibilityforbuildingregulationsandrenovationgrants,whilethe administrationofgrantsisundertheHousingFinanceand Devel-opmentCentre(ARA).TheEnergyAuthorityisresponsibleforthe implementationofenergy efficiencyagreements,energy audits, design andlabelling of products,as wellasproviding guidance onenergyrelatedissues.InadditionMotiva,agovernment-owned company,promotesenergysavingtoconsumersandbusinesses.

4.1.2. Developmentofbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicy goals

The policy goal development during 2000–2014 can be describedasincrementalimprovementtowardsincreasedenergy efficiency and zero carbon buildings. The policy objectives of reducing energydemandrelate totwooverarching energy pol-icy goals:maintainingsecurityofenergysupply and mitigating climatechange.Aside fromdiversifyingtheenergysupply mix, reducingenergy usehasbeenthewaytoavoiddependence on energyimportsinacountrywithlimitedindigenousresources[37]. Policygoalsandobjectiveshavebeendescribed inanumber of climate(andenergy) strategiessince 2001 [43,69,70]and in specificenergyefficiencyactionplansanddecisionsin2000and 2010.Governmentprogrammespublishedbyeach new govern-ment have been crucial in setting goalsand objectives.A long term,non-quantitativeandratherunspecificobjectiveofhalting andreversinggrowthinenergyconsumptionhasprevailedsince theearly2000s.Intermsofnewbuildings,atargetofanadditional 30%improvementinenergyefficiencyhasbeensetfourtimesin 2003,2008,2010and2012.In2011Finlandadoptedtheobjectives ofimprovingtheexistingbuildingstockandintroducingnearzero carbonnewbuildingsby2020[78].

ThelatestClimateandEnergyStrategyof2013highlighted,one, thedevelopmentofalong-termplanforbuildingenergyefﬁciency and,two,addressingtheenergyefﬁciencyofgovernmentbuildings

[70].ThenewEnergyEfﬁciencyAct(HE182/2014)setgeneral tar-getstoimproveenergyefﬁciencyby9%by2016and20%by2020. The2016targethasalreadybeenmetin2013andtheachievement ofthe2020targethasbeenestimatedtobeverylikely[70].

Apartfromtheaboveobjectives,thegovernmentprogrammes andstrategies setlonglistsof speciﬁcpolicyinstrumentstobe implementedratherthanpresentingmoregeneralobjectives.This meansthattheoverallgoalshaveremainedrathersimilaroverthe studiedperiod.FordetailsonthedevelopmentofFinnishenergy

(6)

DevelopmentofFinnishpolicyinstruments.

PolicyInstruments InstrumentLogic Mechanisms Whatgeneralnormsguide

implementation preferences?(e.g. preferencesfortheuseof coerciveinstruments,or moralsuasion)

Whatspeciﬁctypesof instrumentsareutilized? (e.g.theuseofdifferent toolssuchastaxincentives, orpublicenterprises) Changesbetween

2000and2014

Coerciveinstrumentsas principalmeanshave playedakeyrole(innew build)whileatthesame timevoluntarymeasures havereceivedparticular attentioninFinland (existingbuildings).Very recentlygovernment preferencechanged towardsadditional coercivemeasuresforboth newandexistingbuildings largelyduetoEUpressure.

Mixofregulatory, economicandvoluntary measureshasbeenakey strategy.However,dueto economicpressureonthe governmenttheroleof subsidieshasweakened overthetimeframeofthe analysis.

efﬁciency goals and objectives related to buildings, please see

Table3.

Thetwo overarching goalsof climatechangemitigationand reducingdependenceonenergyimportsareseenas complemen-taryfromtheperspectiveofbuildingenergyefficiency.Thechange inthespecificbuildingenergyefficiencyobjectivestowardstheend ofthestudiedperiodhighlightsanimprovedcoherencebetween tightenedenergyefficiencyrequirementsfornewbuildingsand theaspirationstoimproveexistingbuildingstockbyencouraging theuseofalternativestofossil-fuelbasedheating.Thishasalso beenreflectedin achangeinoverall policygoals,which recog-nisethatclimatechangeandtherequirementstoreduceemissions areintegralratherthansomethingtobequestioned(interviewee FIN4),visiblealsointheintegrationofenergyefficiencyintothe StrategyforRenovationin2007[72].However,concernshavealso beenraisedbysomeintervieweesabouttheincoherenceofgoals towardshighlyenergyefficientbuildingsandhealthylivingdue topotentialindoor airquality implicationsof improvedenergy efficiencyifnotproperlycarriedoutorcombinedwitheffective ventilation(FIN5,FIN7).Besidesthis,nosignificantincoherenceof goalswasidentified.Cross-departmentalworkinggroupsareused bythegovernmentadministrationasmeanstomaintaincoherence

[36].

4.1.3. Developmentofbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicy instruments

Weidentifiedatotalof36policyinstruments,whichwerein forcetoinfluencebuildingenergyefficiencyin2014:heating spe-cific(9),electricityspecific(4),coveringelectricityandheating(8), andcross-sectoral(15)policyinstruments.Fig.1illustrateschanges inpolicyinstrumentsregardingbuildingenergyefficiencybetween 2000and2014.

Finlandusesamixofdifferenttypesofpolicyinstrumentsto addressbuildingenergyefﬁciency,includingeconomic(subsidies, publicprocurement,research&development(R&D)supportand taxation),regulatoryand‘soft’instruments(informationand vol-untarymeasures).KeytrendsaresummarisedinTable4.

Whilesomemoretraditionalinstruments,suchasbuilding reg-ulationsandenergyconservationagreementshavebeenupdated, alsonewtypesofpolicyinstrumentshavebeenadded,including variousinnovationandadvicefocusedinstruments,aswellas sub-sidies.

Foraddressingexistingbuildings,subsidiestoencourage ren-ovation have been important (FIN6). The government hasalso

encouraged the switching tolow carbon heating fuels suchas biomasswoodfuels, groundsourceheat pumpsandsolar heat-ing(e.g.2003subsidyforreplacingoil-basedheatingsystemsand 2011subsidyforefficientwood-fuelledheatingsystems),while atthesametime discouragingtheuseoffossilfuelbased heat-ingfuelsthroughtaxation(the1996electricitytaxalsoaddresses heating fuels).Onekey featureof thepolicymixsince thelate 1990shasbeentheuseofvoluntaryagreementstoencouragethe uptakeofenergyefficiencymeasuresindifferentsectors.Whilenot solelylimitedtoexistingbuildings,theagreementshavemainly addressedrenovation ofexistingbuildings(FIN8).By 2010,80% ofFinland’stotalenergyconsumptionwascoveredbythe agree-ments[37].Aregulatoryapproachtoaddressenergyefficiencyin therenovationofexistingbuildingswasaddedtothemixaslateas 2013.

Newbuildingshavebeenaddressedthroughregulatory instru-ments,predominantlytheNationalBuildingCode,introducedin 1975 and the Land Use and Building Act of 1999. The Build-ingCode hasbeentightened severaltimes,withadditional30% increasesinenergyefﬁciencyrequirementsaddedin2003,2008, 2010and2012respectively.Tighteningbuildingregulationshave marked a cleardownward trendin theenergy consumption of new buildings since 2000[74]. The 2012update also included a requirement thatthe calculationof buildingenergy useis to bebasedontotalprimaryenergy use,withhousebuildersable tochoosethemeasurestomeetthosecriteria,including renew-ableenergygeneration.Thischangeinbuildingregulationswas signiﬁcant according to interviewees (FIN3, FIN4, FIN8, FIN9), as theBuildingCode is nowalso usedtoencourage renewable energy.

Inaddition,variousinformationinstrumentshavebeen devel-oped by different actors, including MEE, MOE and Motiva addressingbothexistingandnewbuildings.Thesehavespanned different sectors including government departments, small to mediumsizeenterprisesandhouseholders.Sitra,theFinnish Inno-vation Fund established a National Consumers Energy Advice Network&Architecturein2010.Theinformationandadviceaimed athouseholdshasfocusedonaidingrenovationdesignstoensure thathouseholdscanﬁndbestoptionsbeforeundertakingprojects, ratherthanhavingtochangeinstallationsretrospectively(FIN8).

Thesignificantincreasesinregulatorydemandssince2000were drivenbyEUpolicy(e.g.throughthe2007ActonBuildingEnergy Certification) and domestic objectives (e.g. those stated in the 2010Governmentdecisiononenergyefficiency),indicatingatrend towardsanincreasedroleofregulationintheoverallpolicymix. Theprocessofintroducingnewmeasuresandspecificationshas beenrelativelyfast-paced,especiallysince2008,withtheincreased focusontheimportanceoftacklingclimatechangeaswellas reg-ulationcomingfromtheEU(FIN4).ThisisconfirmedbyFig.1and

Table5.

Our data(summarised in Table5)shows thatFinland intro-duced31newpolicyinstrumentsbetween2000and2014,while11 instrumentswereremoved.Instrumentsnolongerinplaceinclude mainlyﬁxed-termR&Dprogrammes(5),informationprovision(3) and some grant schemes (2). New R&D programmes have also beenintroduced,suchastheBuiltEnvironmentSHOKin2009,the FutureofLivingandHousingProgrammeandtheGreenGrowth Programmein2011.Forinformationprovision,therehasbeena reducingtrend(FIN5,FIN8).Despitetheestablishmentofthe Con-sumerEnergyAdviceNetwork&Architecturein2010,thefunding availableforenergyefﬁciencyadviceonthegroundremainedthe sameduring2012and2014,andfurthercutswereproposed(FIN5), undoingsomeofthelongterminformationprovisionthatFinnish policymakinghadadvocatedinthepast.Intervieweesconsidered theincorporationofadviceasacrucialpartoftheoverallmix com-plementingregulatoryandeconomicinstruments(FIN7,FIN9).

(7)

Fig.1. ThedevelopmentoftheFinnishpolicyinstrumentsforbuildingenergyefﬁciency,2000–2014.

Severalenergysubsidieshavebeencutfollowingpressureson publicfinancesandreductionofgovernmentspendingonenergy efficiency(FIN3).Forexample,energygrantsforenergyefficiency improvementswereavailabletoallhouseholdsin2011butthey werereducedandarenowonlyavailabletothoseonlowincomes, theelderlyanddisabled(FIN6).Thiswaspossiblyduetothe govern-mentwantingtosupportonlythosewhocannototherwiseafford energyefficiencymeasures(FIN6).Theremainingsubsidiesrelate tofuelpoverty6 _mitigation_objective, _while_this _is_not _typically

explicitlyvoicedinFinnishpolicydialogue.

Thedevelopmentofinstruments haslargely beenconsistent, benefittingfromcross-ministrycoordination[36]andthecreation oftheERA17ActionProgrammeonEnergySmartBuilt Environ-mentthatwaslaunchedin2010bytheMinistryoftheEnvironment jointlywith Sitra andthe FinnishFundingAgency for Technol-ogyandInnovation,Tekes.Theprogrammehaseffectivelybrought together31differentpolicyinstruments–somealreadyinplace andsomeproposed–andactorsaroundbuildingenergyefficiency aimingtocreateacoordinatedpolicymixtoadvanceenergy effi-ciency.It hasbenefitted fromthelongertermfocus over three governmentperiodsduetotheinvolvementofSitraandTekesand isseenasanactionthatisintendedtocreatesynergiesbetween

6 _Fuel_poverty_is_generally_understood_as_a_household_having_to_spend_>10%_of

theirincometokeeptheirhomeadequatelyheated(21◦_C_in_living_rooms,₁₈◦_C_in

otherrooms).Since2013,fuelpovertyinEnglandhasbeenmeasuredbytheLow IncomeHighCostsdefinition.Underthisdefinitionahouseholdisfuelpoorifthey haverequiredfuelcoststhatareaboveaverage(thenationalmedianlevel),and weretheytospendthatamount,theywouldbeleftwitharesidualincomebelow theofficialpovertyline[13].

thevariouspolicyinstrumentsinﬂuencingenergyefﬁciencyinthe builtenvironment. BesidesERA17, particularlythecombination ofsubsidiesandregulationswithadviceandotherinformational instrumentshasbeenperceivedasbeingsupportiveofconsistency (FIN7).

4.1.4. CharacteristicsofthedevelopingFinnishpolicymix, 2000–2014

Our analysisshows thatthe developmentof the policymix tendedtofollowareplacementprocessintheformofcoherent long-termpolicygoalsand(increasing)consistencyoftheinstrument mixusedtoimplementthem.However,theﬁndingsdonotchime completelywithHowlettandRayner’sconceptualisationof replace-mentthroughpolicypackaging:insteadofacompleteoverhaulof themix,thedevelopmentresemblespolicypatchingbyadopting mechanismstocreatesynergisticmixesofbothexistingandnew policies(suchastheERA17Programme).Thisseemstohaveled toapolicymixwithsomepromiseofeffectiveness–atleastfrom anex-anteperspective.However,anelementoflayeringstillexists asmanymoreinstrumentshavebeenaddedthanremoved(see

Table5).

HowlettandRayner[29,30]arguethatpolicypatchingcanlead toincoherentpolicymixes.Despiteevidenceofpolicypatchingin theFinnishpolicymix,intervieweesfeltthatthebuildingenergy efﬁciencypolicymixinFinlandhasworkedrelativelywell, espe-ciallyintermsofrequirementsfornewbuildings(FIN1),though therehasalsobeenmuchundoingofefforts,especiallyintermsof removinginstruments,suchasinformationprovision(FIN5).The needforconsistentinformationandadvicehasalsobeennewly recognisedbytheFinnishgovernment,ashighlightedintheEnergy

(8)

TrendsinFinnishpolicyinstruments.

Year Instrumentsintroducedsince2000 Instrumentsremovedsince2000

2001 1997–2001ResearchProgrammeonEnergyConservationDecisions

andBehaviour(LINKKI2),MinistryforTradeandIndustry,D0.7 million(R&D)

2002 TEKESBuildingServicesTechnologyProgramme(CUBE)toimprove energyperformanceandcomfortforresidentialandnon-residential buildings(R&D)

ClimateChangeCommunicationsProgramme,Motiva(I) VoluntaryEnergyConservationAgreementofMunicipaland Non-proﬁtHousingPropertiesofASRA(V)

2003 Subsidiesforreplacingoil-basedheatingsystems(S)

Energygrantsforauditingandrepairofresidentialbuildings,ARA(S) EnergyGrantsbyARAfortheuptakeofrenewableenergy(S) 2005 Increasingtheefﬁciencyofspaceuseingovernmentadministration(I)

Energy-EfﬁcientHomecampaign,Motiva(I)

1996–2005EnergyExpertstrainingprogramme,Motiva(I) 2003–2005EnergygrantsbyARA,forupto40%ofenergyauditsand upto10–15%ofinvestmentsrelatedtoenergyefﬁciency(e.g. insulation,windows,ventilation,heatingsystemsincl.renewables, connectiontodistrictheating,boilers,heatpumps;forresidential buildingswithminimumofthreeﬂat(S)

2006 Maintenanceanduserinformationingovernmentproperties(I) Energylabelsforwindows(V)

Renovationaidforelderlyanddisabled(S)

2002–2006TEKESBuildingServicesTechnologyProgramme(CUBE)to improveenergyperformanceandcomfortforresidentialand non-residentialbuildings(R&D)

2007 ActonBuildingEnergyCertiﬁcation(R) ActonInspectionofAir-ConditioningSystems(R) TEKESSustainableCommunityprogramme(R&D) TEKESFunctionalMaterialsprogramme(R&D)

2002–2007ClimateChangeCommunicationsProgramme,Motiva(I)

2008 EcodesignAct(R)

SitraEnergyProgramme(R&D)

2005–2008Energy-EfﬁcientHomecampaign,Motiva(I) 2009 EnergyadviceforSMEs(I)

BuiltEnvironmentSHOK(R&D)

GuidelinesforEnergyEfﬁciencyinthePublicProcurement(P) Massroll-outofsmartmeters(R)

2010 ConsumersEnergyAdviceNetwork&Architecture(I) ActontheEnergy-EfﬁciencyServicesofCompanies(R) GovernmentDecisiononenergyefﬁciency(R) ERA17(I,V)

2011 Thefutureoflivingandhousing(R&D)

Subsidyforefﬁcientwood-fuelledheatingsystems(S) GreenGrowthProgramme(R&D)

2012 2002–2012VoluntaryEnergyConservationAgreementofMunicipal

andNon-proﬁtHousingPropertiesofASRA(V)

2007–2012TekesSustainableCommunityprogramme(R&D) 2008–2012SitraEnergyProgramme(R&D)

2013 Energyefﬁciencyrequirementsforrenovation(R) Decisioninprincipleofsustainablepublicprocurement(P) Renovationaidforapartmentbuildings(S)

2007–2013TEKESFunctionalMaterialsprogramme(R&D)

2003–2013EnergyGrantsbyARAfortheuptakeofrenewableenergy (S)

Total 31newinstruments 11instrumentsremoved

Legend:I=Information,P=PublicProcurement,R=Regulation,R&D=Research&Development,S=Subsidy,T=Tax,V=Voluntary.

andClimateRoadmap,publishedin2014[71].Overallthe

ﬁnd-ingsindicatethatpolicypatchingcanbeanequally–ifnotmore –promisingstrategy,asitprovidessomelongtermpolicy conti-nuitythatisimportant,forexample,forinnovation.However,the recentremovalofinstrumentsrelatedtobothadviceandfunding forbuildingenergyefﬁciency,createsgapsandreducesexisting synergiesinthepolicymix.

4.2. UK

4.2.1. Background

WhiletheUKhasoneofthelowestenergyuseperunitofGDP amongIEAcountries,there“issignificantpotentialforhigher effi-ciency,inparticularinthebuildingsector”[36][36]:15.Giventhat twothirdsoftheexistingbuildingstockisestimatedtostillbein existencein2050[27],improvingtheenergyefficiencyofexisting buildingsisanimportanttask.Severaldepartmentshave responsi-bilityforbuildingenergyefficiency[11].Overallresponsibilityfor energyefficiencyhasbeenwiththeDepartmentofEnergyand

Cli-mateChange(DECC).7_The_Department_for_Communities_and_Local

Government(DCLG)is responsibleforminimumenergy perfor-mancerequirementsfornewbuildings.Theenergysectorregulator Ofgemisresponsiblefortheadministrationofhouseholdenergy efficiencyschemes.Someprogrammesweredeliveredbythe Car-bonTrust(businessenergyefficiency)ortheEnergySavingTrust (domesticenergyefficiency).

4.2.2. Developmentofbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicy goals

Overtheperiod2000–2014thegovernmentintroducedarange ofgoalsandobjectives,butprimarilybuildingenergyefﬁciency wasseenasimportantfortacklingfuelpovertyandcontributing tocarbonreductiontargets(seeTable6).Since2000,several pol-icystrategieshavehighlightedtheimportanceofenergyefﬁciency, including the 2003 Energy White Paper and the2008 Climate ChangeActwhichsetalegallybindingtargettoreduceemissions

(9)

DevelopmentofUKbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicygoalsandobjectives. Policycontent

HighLevelAbstraction ProgrammeLevelOperationalisation Goals

Whatgeneraltypesofideasgovernpolicydevelopment?

Objectives

Whatdoespolicyformallyaimtoaddress? 2000–2001 Amixofinstrumentsincludingregulation,sector-speciﬁcvoluntary

agreements,information/adviceandeconomicinstrumentsaswellas actioninpublicsectorbuildingsisrequired[80].

Allsocialhousingshouldmeetestablishedstandardsofdecencyby 2010([80];[34]:73)

Reducinggreenhousegasemissionsfrompublicsectorbuildingsby1% perannumcomparedagainst1999–2000levels[32]

2001:Targettoeradicatefuelpovertyinvulnerablehouseholdsin Englandby2010[34]:76

2001–2005 Energyefﬁciencyinbuildingsisimportantinordertoreducecarbon emissionsandfuelpoverty[32]:7.

“thecheapest,cleanestandsafestwayofaddressingourenergypolicy objectivesistouselessenergy”[18].

‘Valuefortaxpayers’money’isimportantforenergyefﬁciency programmes(e.g.[32]:60).

Buildingregulationsareimportantfornewbuilt,butother instrumentsareneededtotackleexistingbuildings,suchas incentivisinginsulation[15]

Commitmenttotighteningbuildingstandardseveryﬁveyears[15]

Progressivelyimprovebuildingstandards,increaseinsulation,increase theuseofenergyefﬁcientlighting[18].

Halfoftheexpectedemissionsreductionsthroughto2020should comefromimprovedefﬁciency[18].

Eradicateallfuelpovertyby2016–2018[18].

“Anewaimtosecureannualcarbonsavingsfromthehouseholdsector intheUKofaround4.2milliontonnesby2010”[15].

Energyefﬁciencycanachievecarbonsavingsofaround10MtCby 2020,beyondthosedeliveredby2010.Thiscouldbesplitroughly equallybetweenhouseholds(4–6MtC)andthebusinessandpublic sectors(4–6MtC)[15].

Cuttingcarbonemissionsofcentralgovernmentestatebysome29% between1990and2011[15].

2005–2007 long-termambitionofmakingallnewdevelopmentscarbonneutral [19]

Governmentneedstorespondtodifferentmarketfailuresindifferent ways.Apackageofmeasureswillbethemosteffectiveapproach[19]

2006:anynewdomesticbuildingsneedstobezerocarbonfrom2016 onwards[20]

2007–2010 2009:Increasingrecognitionthata‘wholehouse’approachisrequired tomakehomeszerocarbon

2009:Anynewnon-domesticbuildingneedstobezerocarbonfrom 2019onwards[28]

2009:newpublicsectorbuildingstobezerocarbonfrom2018andfor allschoolstobezerocarbonby2016[28]

2009:cutemissionsfromhomesby29%on2008levelsby2020,by 2050emissionsfromhomesneedtobealmostzero[28]

2009:by2030allhomeswillhaveundergonea‘wholehouse’package includingallcost-effectiveenergysavingmeasures,plusrenewable andlow-carbonheatandelectricitymeasuresasappropriate[28] 2010–2014 2014:Bringingasmanyresidentialandcommercialbuildingsas

possibleuptoahighlevelofenergyperformanceisapriorityDECC, 2014

2011:By2027,basedonthescenariossetoutinthisplan,emissions frombuildingsshouldbebetween24%and39%lowerthan2009 levels.([27]:6)

2012:18%reductioninﬁnalenergyconsumptionacrossallsectors, relativetothe2007business-as-usualprojection([11]:5)

2014:governmentintroducedtheobjectiveofensuringthatasmany asisreasonablypracticableofthehomesofpersonsinEnglandliving infuelpovertyhaveanenergyefﬁciencyratingofBandCby2030[12]

by80%by2050[27].The2006EnergyChallengereportaddedthe objectivetointroducezerocarbonnewdomesticbuildingsfrom 2016onwards,providing a long-term vision for policyand the buildingindustry (UK2)inresponse towhich, designersstarted toexplorehowtoimprovefabricinsulation,reducetheneedfor spaceheating,andincorporaterenewableenergytechnologiesinto buildingdesignand operation(UK10). In 2009thegovernment announcedthatby2019alsoallnewnon-domesticbuildingswould bezerocarbon[28].Sincethenavarietyofpolicydocuments,such asthe2011CarbonPlan,havestressedtheimportanceofenergy efﬁciencyinmeetingtheUK’semissionreductiontargets[27].

Alongsidethecommitmenttocarbonreductions,the govern-mentalsoseesbuildingenergyefﬁciencyaskeytotacklingfuel poverty.The2001UKFuelPovertyStrategysetthegoalto erad-icatefuelpovertyinvulnerablehouseholds8_in_England_by₂₀₁₀

[17],whilethe2003EnergyReviewaimedtohelperadicatefuel povertyaltogetherby2016–2018[18].

Thegovernment’s approachtobuildingenergyefﬁciencyhas beenguidedbyideasaroundtheneedforamixofinstruments(see

Table6)andseesenergyefﬁciencyasoneofthemostcosteffective waysofmeetingenergypolicygoals(e.g.[15].

8 _Vulnerable_households_are_deﬁned_as_older_households,_families_with_children

andhouseholderswhoaredisabledorhavealong-termillness.

Intermsofthecoherenceofpolicygoals, oneoftheissuesis whetheritispossibletoaddressclimatechangeconcernsinacost effectivewaywhilealsoensuringtheaffordabilityofenergybills. BothgoalsinformpolicybuttheIEAhascriticisedthatmixingsocial goalsintoenergyefficiencypolicyisatoddswithdesigningcost effectivecarbonreductionpolicies[34]:16–17.Similarly,thereis anincoherencebetweenthegoaloftacklingfuelpovertyand stim-ulatingenergyefficiencyintheresidentialsectorbyinternalising externalcosts.Forsocialpolicyreasons,thegovernmenthasbeen reluctanttointroducepoliciesthatraisefuelbillsandsotheuse ofeconomicinstrumentsin thedomestic sectorislargelyruled out(e.g.see[80]).Forexamplethedomesticsectorwas explic-itlyexemptedfromthe2001ClimateChangeLevybecauseitwas seentobecounterproductive toachievingthegoalsofthefuel povertystrategy[32].The2009TransitionPlanchangedthisfocus andacknowledgedthatthepoliciesintheplanwillcontributeto householdbillincreases.Morerecentlyhowever,energyefficiency instrumentswerecutbecausetheywerearguedtoaddtoconsumer energybills(UK1,UK5,UK7),whichbecameacontentiouspolitical issuein2013[8].Inaddition,theIEAhasrepeatedlycriticisedthat UKenergyefficiencypolicyhasbeenpursuedtoomuchfroma cli-matechangeperspective,ratherthanfromabroaderperspective includingsecurityofsupplyconcerns[34,36].Interviewevidence confirmedthatwhereasenergysecurityhasbeenoneofthe over-archinggoalsofUKenergypolicy,ithasnotfeaturedprominently

(10)

inbuildingenergyefﬁciencypolicy(UK1,UK2,UK3).Thereisalso atensionbetweentheambitionofthegovernmenttosigniﬁcantly increasethenumberofnewhomesbeingbuilt,giventheincrease inhousepricesintheUK,andstringentzerocarbonhomes tar-getsthatincreasethepriceofnewbuilthomes(UK10).Similarto theFinnishcasetherewasalsoaconcernraisedthathighinsulation standardscanleadtoairqualitydeteriorationincasesofineffective ventilationandtosummertimeoverheatingofbuildingsthrough unwantedsolargain(UK10).

Overall,itseemsthatatleastsomeofthegoalsofUKbuilding energyefﬁciencypolicyaredifﬁculttoachievesimultaneouslyand arethereforearguedtobeincoherent.Policyambitionsincreased overtimefor examplewiththeintroductionof thezerocarbon buildings objectives.9 _Some_objectives _were_also _{‘downgraded’,}

suchasthecommitmenttoeradicatefuelpoverty,whichwas refor-mulatedashomesofpeoplelivinginfuelpovertyachievingatleast aBandCenergyefﬁciencyratingby2030[12].Thelatestprogress reportbytheClimateChangeCommitteepointedoutthattherehas beenverylimitedprogressinreducingemissionsfrombuildings becauseofaslowuptakeoflowcarbontechnologiesandbehaviours

[7]:13.

4.2.3. Developmentofbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicy instruments

Intotal38policyinstrumentstoinfluencebuildingenergy effi-ciency,inforceattheendof2014,wereidentifiedinourreview: heatingspecificinstruments(12),electricity-specificinstruments (5),instruments coveringboth electricity andheating (14), and cross-sectoralpolicyinstruments(7).Fig.2summarises develop-mentsbetween2000and2014.

Our analysis shows that there is a high level of awareness amongstpolicymakersthatapolicymix(e.g.[15,19]),ora pack-ageofpolicies(e.g.[10]),isneeded:thismixismainlythoughtof intermsof:instrumentstargeteda)atdifferentdomainssuchas electricityuseorheating,b)atdifferentgroups(households, indus-tryorpublicsector),c)ateitherneworexistingbuildingsandd) usingdifferenttypesofinstruments.Typesofpolicyinstruments toimprovebuildingenergy efﬁciencyincludefunding, informa-tion,loans,publicprocurement,regulation,subsidies,taxationand voluntaryinstruments.Aninitialemphasisonvoluntarymeasures (suchastheClimateChangeAgreementsortheCodeforSustainable Homes)hasgivenwaytoamoreregulatoryapproach(withafocus onsupplierobligationsandstrengthenedbuildingregulations)as wellasmarket-basedinstrumentssuchastheGreenDeal10

offer-ingloansforenergyefficiencymeasures(seeTable7andFig.2). Accordingtointervieweestheseshiftshavebeendrivenbythe Con-servativepartyideologythatmarkets,notgovernmentorthetax payer,shouldpayforenergyefficiencymeasures(UK4,UK6)and thatderegulationisnecessary(UK10).Analystshavearguedthat forthefirsttimethegovernmentplacedmoreweightonmarkets todeliverenergyefficiencymeasuresbasedonvoluntaryactionby theconsumer,ratherthanonanenergysupplierobligation[45].

Existingdomestic buildingsformthebulk of theUK’s hous-ingstockand manytypesofinstrumentshavebeenintroduced toimprovetheinsulation ofthose properties,including regula-tion,subsidiesandloans.However,retroﬁttingischallengingas, forexample,homeownersareoftenfacedwithbalancing improve-mentsinthebuildingfabricwitharangeofheritageandaesthetic concerns[67].Boththe2004and2007EnergyEfﬁciencyAction Planshighlightsupplierobligationsastheprincipalpolicy

mech-9_The_analysis_covers_the_time_period_2000–2014._Since_then,_in_July_2015,_the

zerocarbonbuildingsobjectiveshavebeenabandoned.

10_It_should_be_noted_that_the_analysis_covers_the_time_period_2000–2014._The_Green

DealwasremovedinJuly2015.

Table7

Changesininstrumentlogicandmechanismsbetween2000and2014. PolicyInstruments InstrumentLogic Mechanisms

Whatgeneralnormsguide implementation preferences?(e.g. preferencesforthe useofcoercive instruments,ormoral suasion)

Whatspeciﬁctypesof instrumentsareutilized? (e.g.theuseofdifferent toolssuchastax incentives,orpublic enterprises) Changesbetween

2000and2014

Useofarangeof instrumentsincl.ﬁnancial incentivesandminimum standardsthroughbuilding regulationsinresidential andcommercialsector

[32].

Useofbothmandatoryand voluntaryapproachesbut withanemphasison voluntaryones[32]:70. Thisfocushaschanged laterwithaseriesof supplierobligations (EEC1-2,CERT,ECO) becomingtheprinciple policydriverinthe householdsector[60]. Mostrecentlyfocushas changedto

market-instrumentssuch asGreenDeal[45].

Boththe2004and2007 EnergyEfﬁciencyAction Planhighlightsupplier obligations(EEC,CERT, ECO)astheprincipalpolicy mechanismtodeliver energysavingsinexisting buildingsinthedomestic sector[15,60,34]. Thewarmfrontschemeis consideredthe“keytool fortacklingfuelpovertyin theprivatesector”[34]:76.

anismtodeliverenergysavingsinthedomesticsector[60].The governmentimplementedasuccessionoftheseschemes includ-ingtheEnergyEfficiencyStandardsofPerformance(EESoP),the EnergyEfficiencyCommitment(EEC1andEEC2),theCarbon Emis-sionReductionCommitment(CERT),and theEnergyCompanies Obligation(ECO).EECmandatedthatatleast50%ofthesavings hadtocomefromprioritygroups,mainlyfromlow-income house-holds.InCERT,thelow-incomegrouprequirementwasreducedto 40%[55].ECO hasbeenlargelyaimedatthose onlow incomes, whilepeoplemoreabletopayhadaccesstoloans throughthe GreenDeal.Fundingfordomesticenergyefficiencymeasureshas alsobeenavailablethroughprogrammestargetedatfuelpoverty (e.g.DecentHomesandWarmFront).

Intermsofnewbuildings,energyefﬁciencyhasmainlybeen addressedbyregulatoryinstruments(UK10),e.g.through updat-ingbuildingregulations,whichhavebeentightenedseveraltimes (in2000,2005,2006,2010and2013).Informationalandvoluntary instrumentshavebeenusedinarelativelylimitedway.Examples ofinformationalinstrumentsincludetheClimateChange Commu-nicationsInitiative(2005)andthe‘ActonCO2’campaign(2007).

Table 8 summarises which instruments were added to and removedfromthebuildingrelated energyefﬁciencypolicymix between2000and2014.50instrumentswereaddedduringthis time,while22instrumentswereremoved.

Ouranalysisshows,first,theincreasedimportanceofenergy efficiencyovertimewithavarietyofnewinstrumentsintroduced whichcanbeseenasevidenceofatargetedandincreasingly com-prehensivepolicymix.Second,italsoshowsthatthereisquitea lotof‘churn’,withmanyinstrumentscomingtoanend,thenbeing extended(e.g.EEC1and2),orbeingreplacedbysimilarschemes (e.g.WarmFrontreplacedbyECO;EECbeingreplacedbyCERT) increasinguncertaintyforstakeholdersandhouseholds.Third,the additionofmoreandmoreinstrumentsalsoincreasesthe chal-lengeofensuringconsistency.In2002theIEAalreadywarnedthat thevarietyofenergyefficiencyprogrammesneedstobewell coor-dinatedtobeeffective([34]:70).Inits2006reporttheIEAagain pickeduponthistensionbutconcluded:“Whilesuchawiderange

(11)

Fig.2. ThedevelopmentoftheUKpolicyinstrumentsforbuildingenergyefﬁciency,2000–2014.

ofmeasuresandprogrammesmayleadtocomplications,dispersion ofresourcesandoccasionalbureaucraticinﬁghting,italsoallowseach programmetospecialiseinaparticularareaandtooperatemore inde-pendentlyand,ideally,moreeffectively.TheUKgovernmentmanages thisinherenttensionwell”[34]:87.Sincethenthegovernmenthas cutfundingtoanumberoforganisations(EnergySavingTrust, Car-bonTrust.11_),_which_has_reduced_the_number_of_involved_parties,

andhasmadeeffortstocoordinatepolicythroughthe establish-mentofanEnergyEfﬁciencyDeploymentOfﬁcein201212

Ourintervieweesnotedthatdespitetherangeofinstruments usedinthepolicymix,buildingenergyefﬁciencyhasnotimproved asfastasisnecessarytomeettargets(UK4,UK6),andespecially fallingshort with regardsto theexisting building stock (UK1). For example annual rates of cavity wall and loft insulation in 2013–2015were60%downand90%downrespectivelyonannual ratesin2008–2012[7]:13).Thiswaslargelyattributedtothefact thatthegovernmenthadnotsucceededinraisingdemanddrivers (UK2)and awarenessof theimportanceofenergy efﬁciencyby consumers(UK1,UK2,UK4,UK8),whichhasbeenfurther jeop-ardisedbycutsinfundingtokeyinformationproviderssuchas

11 _This_has_meant_that_some_of_the_information_provision_services_that_the_Carbon

Trustprovidedhavenotbeencontinued,meaningthatsomeofthevaluableenergy efﬁciencyinformationforthenon-domesticsectorhasbeenlost(UK3).

12 _This_ofﬁce_was_however_subsequently_abolished_in_May_2015.

theEnergySavingTrustortheCarbonTrust(UK3).Whilethereis knowledgeandunderstandingofbuildingenergyefficiencybeing generatedbyactorssuchasuniversitiesand researchinstitutes, thisknowledgeisstillnotbeingemployedbythemassconsumer market(UK10).Withoutconsumerunderstandingofenergy effi-ciency,evenwelldesignedpolicyinstrumentswillsufferfroma lackofdemand(UK2).AlsotheCCCadvocatedthatthereisaneed for“clear,consistentandcrediblepolicies[...]thatareattractive toownersandlandlordsofbothhomesandworkplaces,that over-comebehaviouralbarriersandthatcanbuildupskillsandsupply chains”[7]:13.Whilethepolicymixoverallseemswelltargeted andouranalysisdidnotidentifyanysignificantinconsistencies acrossinstruments,therearegapsespeciallyintermsofreduction ofinformationprovisionandinstrumentsaimedatbuildingenergy use(ratherthanbuildingfabric)aswellasissueswith‘churn’.

4.2.4. CharacteristicsofthedevelopingUKpolicymix,2000–2014 OuranalysisshowsthatthedevelopmentoftheUKpolicymix tendedtofollowwhat[41]describedasadriftprocesswhichoccurs whenthereareatleastpartlyincoherentpolicygoaldevelopments combinedwitharelativelyconsistentinstrumentmix,accordingto thelogicofTable2inSection2.2.However,thisempiricalﬁndingis slightlyatoddswiththedeﬁnitionofdrift“tooccurwhennewgoals replaceoldoneswithoutchangingtheinstrumentsusedtoimplement them.Theseinstrumentsthencanbecomeinconsistentwiththenew

(12)

DevelopmentsinUKbuilding-relatedenergyefﬁciencypolicyinstruments(2000–2014).

Year Instrumentsintroducedsince2000 Instrumentsremovedsince2000 2000 DecentHomes(S)

WarmFront(S)

1991–2000HomeEnergyEfﬁciencyScheme(HEES)(S) 2001 EnhancedCapitalAllowance(S)

ClimateChangeLevy(T) TheCarbonTrust(S,R&D)

2002 EEC1(R)

CommunityEnergy(S)

1994–2002EnergyEfﬁciencyStandardsofPerformance(EESoP)(R) 1989–2002EnergyEfﬁciencyBestPracticeProgramme(EEBPp)(I, R&D)

2003 EnergyProgramme(R&D) SustainableCommunities(S) BuildingSchoolsfortheFuture(S)

1997–2003NewDealforSchools(S)

2004 Landlords’EnergySavingAllowance(S) SalixProject(L)

2005 EEC2(R)

ClimateChangeCommunicationsInitiative(I)

2002–2005EEC1(R) 2006 MarketTransformationProgramme(I)

LowCarbonBuildingProgramme(S)

SustainableOperationsontheGovernmentEstate(SOGE)(P) 2007 CodeforSustainableHomes(V)

EnergyTechnologiesInstituteBuildingsProgramme(R&D) ModernBuiltEnvironmentKnowledgeTransferNetwork(R&D) EnergyPerformanceCertiﬁcates(R)

“ActonCO2”climatecampaign(I)

Stampdutyreliefforzero-carbonhomescostingmorethan£500,000 (T)

EnergyEfﬁciencyLoansforSmallorMediumsizedEnterprises(SMEs) (L)

VoluntaryAgreementonthePhaseOutofIncandescentLightBulbs(V) HomeInformationPack(HIP)(R)

2008 CERT(R)

PlanningandEnergyAct(R)

LowImpactBuildingsInnovationPlatform(R&D) ClimateChangeAct(R)

LivingwithEnvironmentalChange(S)

2002–2008CommunityEnergy(S) 2005–2008EEC2(R)

2007–2008“ActonCO2”climatecampaign(I)

2005–2008ClimateChangeCommunicationsInitiative(I) 2009 NationalSustainablePublicProcurementProgramme(I,P)

NationalProductsPolicy(R)

CommunityEnergySavingsProgrammeforlowincomecommunities (S)

LowCarbonTechnologyProgramme(S)

2007–2009VoluntaryAgreementonthePhaseOutofIncandescent LightBulbs(V)

2010 CarbonReductionCommitmentEnergyEfﬁciencyScheme(R) BoilerScrappageScheme(S)

2007–2010HomeInformationPack(HIP)(R) 2010BoilerScrappageScheme(S)

2003–2010BuildingSchoolsfortheFuture(S) 2011 GovernmentBuyingStandards(P)

Non-domesticRenewableHeatIncentive(L) EnergyEfﬁciencyFinancingScheme(S) RE:FIT(S)

2008–2011CERT(R)

2006–2011LowCarbonBuildingProgramme(S)

2006–2011SustainableOperationsontheGovernmentEstate(SOGE) (P)

2009–2011CentralGovernmentLowCarbonTechnologyProgramme (S)

2012 UKGreenInvestmentBank(L) 2001–2012TheCarbonTrustwasfundedbygovernmentuntilMarch 2012(S,R&D)

1992–2012EnergySavingTrustwasfundedbygovernmentuntil March2012(S,R&D)

2007–2012Stampdutyreliefforzero-carbonhomescostingmore than£500,000(T)

2009–2012CommunityEnergySavingsProgrammeforlowincome communities(S)

2013 EnergyCompanyObligation(R) CapacityMechanism(S) DisplayEnergyCertiﬁcate(R) CarbonFloorPrice(T) Non-domesticGreenDeal(L) GreenDeal(L)

2000–2013WarmFrontScheme(S)

2014 DomesticRenewableHeatIncentive(S) Smartmeteringandbilling(R)

Totaladded:50 Totalremoved:22

Legend:I=Information,P=PublicProcurement,R=Regulation,R&D=Research&Development,S=Subsidy,T=Tax,V=Voluntary.

goalsandmostlikelyineffectiveinachievingthem”[41][41]:395.In

thiscasedrifthasoccurredthroughtheintroductionofsocialand

carbonreductionambitionsintoenergyefﬁciencypolicywhichled

toa setofpartlyincoherentgoals, makingitverydifﬁcultfora

setofinstrumentstoachieveboththecarbonreductionandthe

fuelpovertyobjectivesinacosteffectiveway.Thisstrugglecan

clearly beseen inthe design ofthe varioussupplier obligation

schemeswhichtriedtostrikeabalancebetweenenablingthe

sup-plierstomeettheobligationsatlowestcostandtoalsomeetsocial

objectives.Thereisalsosomelayeringinwhichmoreandmore

goalsandinstrumentsareaddedtothemix,althoughsomegoals

(13)

SummaryoftypesofinstrumentsinFinlandandtheUKinplacein2014.

Typesofinstruments Finland UK

Economicinstruments Subsidy 8 11

Loans 0 3

Taxation 2 3

Publicprocurement 2 2 Research&Development 3 4 Regulatoryinstruments Regulation 9 12 Softinstruments Voluntarymeasures 7 1

Information 6 3

Total 37 39

NB:Becausesomeinstrumentsareclassedundermorethanonetype,theoverall numberdoesnotmatchwiththeonesinSection4.

implementingnationalenergyefﬁciencyactionplans(requiredby theEU)canalsopartlybeinterpretedascontaininganelementof policypackagingwithsomenewinstrumentshavingbeendesigned andimplementedaspartofapackageandreplacingasetof previ-ouslyexistinginstruments.DECChasalsostartedtothinkaboutthe consistencyofvariousdemandsideinstrumentsandcommissioned areportonthisissue[14].Overall,however,thereisahighriskthat thepolicymixwillnotbesuccessfulinachievingtheambitious energyandclimatepolicytargetscf.[7].

5. Discussion

The analysis of building related energy efficiency policy in FinlandandtheUKshowedthatavarietyofgoalsandinstruments haveaccumulatedduring2000–2014inbothcountriesandthatasa consequencebuilding-relatedenergyefficiencypolicyhasbecome acrowdedfield.Theanalysiscanbesummarisedinanumberof keypoints:

First,bothcountrieshaveanincreasinglycomplexpolicymix, encompassinga varietyof goalsand instruments.Inboth cases morenewgoalsandinstrumentshavebeenaddedovertimethan havebeenremoved.Thisposeschallengesintermsofpolicy coor-dinationaswellasevaluatingthepolicymix.Bothcountriesshould makeanefforttostartevaluatingtheoverallimpactoftheirpolicy mixesratherthanevaluatingindividualinstrumentsorselected bundlesofinstrumentsasiscommonpractice.Aﬁrstattemptof doingthishasbeenaUKDECCcommissionedreporton‘D3: Oppor-tunitiesforintegratingdemandsideenergypolicies’whichargued thatthereisawiderangeofgovernmentprogrammessupporting energyefﬁciencyanddistributedenergysolutionsbutthatalack ofintegrationcouldcausepoliciestocompeteorundermineeach other’seffectiveness[14].

Second,intermsofthetypesofinstrumentsbeingused,Table9

showsthatbothcountriesmakeuseofthe‘fulltoolbox’ofavailable instruments,includingfinancial,regulatoryaswellas‘soft’ instru-mentsinareasonablybalancedway.Thisisimportantsinceinearly policydesignstudiesanalystsoftenarguedforimplementingthe leastintrusivemeasuresfirstandthenratchetingupthelevelof coercion.Incontrast,HowlettandRaynerarguethat“ratherthan assumingthatachoicemustbemadebetweenonlyafewalternatives suchasregulationversusmarkettools”[30]:175,policymakersare encouragedtousethefullrangeofpossibleinstruments. Interest-ingly,duringtheearly2000s,theUKgovernmentwascriticised forputtingafocusonvoluntaryenergyefficiencymeasures(e.g.

[32]).However,nowthereisverylittleuseofvoluntarymeasuresin theUK(1)comparedtoFinland(7)wherevoluntarymeasures–in particularenergysavingagreementsandassociatedauditSchemes –havebeensuccessful[37].UKpolicymakersshouldbe encour-agedtodrawonexperiencesfromelsewhere(e.g.Finland)tosee whethersuchinstrumentscouldbeusedtoa greaterextentto

meetgoals.Conversely,Finlanddoesnothaveanyloanschemes forenergyefﬁciencyimprovementswhichis anareawherethe FinnishgovernmentcouldpotentiallylearnfromtheUK. Surpris-ingly,giventhepressureonpublicﬁnancesinbothcountries,there havebeenseveralsubsidyschemesinplace,althoughsimply count-ingtheinstrumentsdoesnotsayanythingabouttheirbudgetsand howtheyhavechangedovertime.

Third,much of thepolicyaction inboth countrieshasbeen stimulatedbytheEU’sdrivetowardsincreasingenergyefficiency, particularlythroughthe2012EnergyEfficiencyDirective,the2002 European Building Energy Performance Directive [53], and the recastDirective2010/31/EUontheEnergyPerformanceof Build-ings.However,despitethisEUinfluence,thecountrieshaverather differentpolicymixesforbuildingenergyefficiencywhichshows theflexibilitymemberstateshaveinchoosinghowtomeetthe objectivessetoutinEUdirectives.Whilereducingfuelpovertyhas beenakeyenergypolicygoalintheUK,thisisratherimplicitinthe Finnishpolicymix.

Forth,whileintheUKtherehasalsobeenalot of‘churn’in policyinstruments,Finlandhashadasomewhatmorestablepolicy environment,wheretheaddedpolicieshavenotasradicallyaltered themix.Accordingtopreviousresearch,arapidlyﬂuctuatingpolicy environmentcanslowinnovationdownascompaniesgenerally preferstability fortheirinvestmentdecisions,particularlygiven thatinnovationprocessescantakedecades(see[40]forareview ofthisresearch).ThismeansthattheUKpolicycontextmayineffect deterlowenergyinnovationsandtheirdiffusion.Incontrast,while themorestableFinnishapproachislikelytosupportinnovation anddiffusionofbuildinginnovationssuchasheatpumpscf.[26], insulationandventilationsystems,itisunlikelytoleadtoradical systeminnovationinzerocarbonorpassivehousescf.[48,57].

6. Conclusion

Inenergypolicydiscussionsamongstbothpolicymakersand academics,thereisanincreasinginterestintheeffectsof combi-nationsofgoalsandinstruments(i.e.policymixes)andhowthey evolveover time.Thisarticle drawsonthepolicydesign litera-turetointroducea conceptualframeworktostudypolicymixes andtheirevolutioninordertoprovideanexanteassessmentof theirpotentialimplications.Thisframeworkwasappliedtostudy buildingenergyefficiencypoliciesinFinlandandtheUKbetween 2000and2014.Thespecificaimsofthisarticleweretodescribe(1) thedevelopmentofthepolicymixesovertimeinthetwo coun-triesandto(2)analysetheiremergingoverallcharacteristics.Our analysisisnovelcomparedtotheexistingenergyefficiencypolicy literaturewhichpredominantlyfocussesonsingleinstrumentsor, ifinterestedinmixes,focussesonpairwiseinstrumentinteractions orselectedbundlesofinstrumentsatonepointintimeratherthan comprehensivelyanalysingthedevelopmentofpolicygoalsand instrumentsovertimetoassesstheoverallcharacteristicsofthe mix.

Ouranalysisfoundthatbothcountrieshaveincreasingly com-plexpolicymixes,encompassingavarietyofgoalsandinstruments andmakinguseofavarietyofdifferenttypesofinstruments– cre-atingchallengesforboththedesignandevaluationofthepolicy mixes.This confirms thefindingthat,in order tomeet EU tar-gets,manymemberstatesareintroducingadditionalpoliciesinto analreadycrowdedspaceRosenow,2016.Interestingly,theway inwhichthepolicymixesevolvedduring2000–2014,despitethe sharedEUpolicyinfluence,werequitedifferentinthetwo coun-tries.WhiletheFinnishmixevolutionshowedcharacteristicsofa replacementprocess,italsodisplayedadegreeoflayeringofnew instrumentsandanapproachofpolicypatchingratherthana com-pletere-packagingthattheliteratureassociateswithreplacement.

(14)

Nevertheless,thepolicymixisseentofunctionrelativelywelland islikelytoleadtopositiveoutcomesatleastintermsof incremen-talinnovation.Forexample,theenergyperformanceofresidential buildingofthecapitalcityHelsinkishowsacleardownwardtrend inresponsetopolicyLemstrom,2015.

Incontrast,theUKcaseispredominantlycharacterisedbydrift aspartlyincoherentpolicygoalshavebeencombinedwitha rel-ativelyconsistentandlargelywelltargetedinstrumentmixwith some gaps, which mayundermine progress towards achieving thegoals. Especiallywithregard totheexisting buildingstock, energyefficiencyhasnotimprovedasfastasisnecessarytomeet targets.UnlikeinFinland,progressinimprovingtheenergy per-formanceofresidentialbuildingshasstalledsince2012,following goodprogressduring2008–12[7].Conceptually,theUKcaseshows adifferentpatterncomparedtothewaydrifthaspreviouslybeen definedasoccurringwhennewgoalsreplaceoldoneswhile keep-ing the instruments similar [41]. Instead in this case drift has occurredthroughtheintroductionofsocialandcarbonreduction goalsintotraditionalenergyefficiencyambitionswhichledtoaset ofpartlyincoherentgoals.Thedefinitionofdriftshouldbeextended inlinewiththisfindingandotherstudiesshouldbeusedto corrob-oratewhetherthisisamorecommonfinding.Until2014,theUK alsoshowedarapidaccumulationofnewinstruments(layering) combinedwithadegreeofpolicypackaging.

Whatmaybesomeofthereasonstoexplainthedifferentways inwhichthepolicymixeshaveinvolvedinthetwocountries?We arguethatanumberoffactorsmayexplainthetwotrajectories: TheUK hasa parliamentary systemwhich favourssingle party governmentsbecauseoftheﬁrst-past-the-postelectoralsystem.13

Ideologicalcontrastsbetweenthetwomajorparties(Labourand Conservatives)abouttheappropriateroleofthestatein stimulat-ingenergyefficiency,thus,canmeansignificantchangesinpolicy goalsandinstrumentsfollowingachangeofgovernment, poten-tiallyexplaining whythere ismore ‘churn’in theUK.Frequent changesinwhowasresponsibleforenergyefficiencypolicy(DETR, DEFRA,DECC,DCLG)andwhoisimplementingcoreprogrammes (e.g.DEFRA,CarbonTrust,EnergySavingTrust)mayhavealso con-tributed.Incontrast,theFinnishpolitical systemismuch more consensualandfrequentlyhascoalitiongovernments,leadingto morepolicystabilitythathashelpedmaintainfocusoverthree gov-ernmentperiods.However,thisalsoreducestheopportunitiesfor policypackaging.TheFinnishgovernmenthasalsoachieved bet-tercoordinationofpoliciesthroughsettingupcross-departmental working groups and creating theERA17 Action Programme on EnergySmartBuiltEnvironment,whilesuchcoordination mech-anismsarelesswelldevelopedintheUK.

OurresultssupporttheclaimbyHowlettandRayner[30]that strategicpolicypatchingmaybeamorepromisingapproachfor pol-icymakersthanthecreationofcompletelynewpolicypackagesfrom theperspectiveofachievingacoherentandconsistentpolicymix. Wearguethattheconceptofpatchingisusefulforpolicymakersas itchimesbetterwiththerealityof‘messy,real-world’policy mak-ing.Ouranalysishasidentifiedwaysinwhichsuchpatchingcan bestrategicallyusedbypolicymakersinbothcountriestoincrease thechancesofsignificantimprovementsinbuildingenergy effi-ciency.Finlandhasachievedcoherencethroughpolicypatchingby improvingnotonlyinter-departmentalcoordinationbutby creat-ingadialoguebetweenarangeofstakeholdersregardingpolicy mixdesign,illustratedbytheERA17programme.IntheUK,policy

13 _This_is_an_voting_system_in_which_the_candidate_attracting_the_most_votes_in_a

constituencyiselectedtoparliament,whichmeanspredominantlycandidatesfrom largepartiesareelected.Thisisoncontrasttoarepresentativevotingsystemwhich allowssmallerpartiestoenterintoparliamentwhichmakesitmoredifﬁcultto createanoverallmajorityforanypartytogovern.

makershavestartedtoworkonpolicypatchingthroughthenational energyefﬁciencyactionplansandthroughconsideringthe portfo-lioofgoalsandinstrumentsinthecontextoftheD3strategy.Our ﬁndingsshowthatthereismuchpotentialforlearningbetween thedifferentcountryapproaches,not onlyabouttherespective toolboxesappliedbutalsoabouthowtocarryoutsuccessfulpolicy patching.

Dataaccessstatement

Mostoftheanalysisinthismanuscriptwasbasedonsecondary datawhichisavailablepubliclythroughthesourcescitedinthe methodology section.However,theinterview datais not avail-ablesinceduetothepoliticallysensitivenatureoftheresearch, nointervieweesconsentedtotheirdatabeingretainedorshared.

Acknowledgements

Theresearchonwhich thispaperis basedhasbeenenabled throughtheCentreonInnovationandEnergyDemandwhichis fundedbytheResearchCouncilUK’sEUEDProgramme(grant num-ber EP/KO11790/1) and an Academy of Finland grant (number 286230).Thisfundingisgratefullyacknowledged.Thismanuscript beneﬁtedfromcommentsonanearlierversionbyKarolineRogge and SteveSorrell.We wouldalsoliketothankall interviewees fortheirtime.Allremainingerrorsandinterpretationsremainour own.

AppendixA. Listofinterviewedorganisations ListoforganisationsinterviewedinFinland

FIN1:Rakennusteollisuusry(ConferederationofFinnish Con-structionIndustries)

FIN2:RAKLI−TheFinnishAssociationofBuildingOwnersand ConstructionClients

FIN3:VTTTechnicalResearchCentreofFinland FIN4:DemosHelsinki

FIN5: Kuntaliitto (Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities)

FIN6:ARA(theHousingFinanceandDevelopmentCentre) FIN7:Kiinteistöliitto(FinnishRealEstateFederation) FIN8:Motiva

FIN9:Ympäristöministeriö(MinistryoftheEnvironment)

ListoforganisationsinterviewedintheUK UK1:UKenvironmentalthinktank UK2:UKGreenBuildingsCouncil(UKGBC) UK3:NationalEnergyFoundation(NEF) UK4:BuildingResearchEstablishment(BRE) UK5:formeremployeeEnergySavingTrust(EST) UK6:EnergyBillRevolution

UK7:WWF-UK

UK8:chairmanoftheBritishEnergyEfﬁciencyFederation UK9:ZeroCarbonHub

UK10:formerseniorcivilservantinvolvedinenergyefﬁciency policy(DEFRA)andformeremployeeCarbonTrust(CT)

References

[1]H.Amecce,Theimpactofenergyperformancecertiﬁcates:asurveyof Germanhomeowners,EnergyPolicy46(2012)4–14.

[2]E.Annunziata,F.Rizzi,M.Frey,Enhancingenergyefﬁciencyinpublic buildings:theroleoflocalenergyauditprogrammes,EnergyPolicy69(2014) 364–373.