Friends or Foes? Political Synergy or Competition between Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background: Prioritization in Policy Mixes
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Measuring Policy Prioritization
3.2. Measuring Policy Competition
3.3. Data
4. Results
4.1. Policy Mix Prioritization
4.1.1. Agenda Setting
4.1.2. Formulation and Adoption
4.1.3. Implementation
4.2. Policy Mix Competition
4.2.1. Renewables
System Change: Deployment of Renewables
Target Achievement: Deployment of Renewables
4.2.2. Energy Efficiency
System Change: Reduction of Consumption
Target Achievement: Reduction of Consumption
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Leaders/Laggards Division
Country | Index Points | Group |
---|---|---|
Sweden | 75.77 | Leader |
Denmark | 71.14 | Leader |
United Kingdom | 69.8 | Leader |
Lithuania | 66.22 | Leader |
Finland | 63.25 | Leader |
Luxembourg | 60.91 | Leader |
Malta | 60.76 | Leader |
Latvia | 60.75 | Leader |
France | 57.9 | Intermediate |
Croatia | 56.97 | Intermediate |
Germany | 55.78 | Intermediate |
Romania | 54.85 | Intermediate |
Portugal | 54.1 | Intermediate |
Italy | 53.92 | Intermediate |
Slovakia | 52.69 | Intermediate |
Greece | 52.59 | Intermediate |
Netherlands | 50.89 | Intermediate |
Estonia | 48.05 | Intermediate |
Spain | 46.03 | Intermediate |
Belgium | 45.73 | Laggard |
Austria | 44.74 | Laggard |
Ireland | 44.04 | Laggard |
Czechia | 42.93 | Laggard |
Slovenia | 41.91 | Laggard |
Cyprus | 41.66 | Laggard |
Hungary | 41.17 | Laggard |
Bulgaria | 40.12 | Laggard |
Poland | 39.98 | Laggard |
Appendix B. Country Sample MLR
Country | In Sample or Excluded due to Missing Data |
---|---|
Austria | In the final sample |
Belgium | In the final sample |
Bulgaria | Missing data |
Cyprus | Missing data |
Czechia | In the final sample |
Germany | In the final sample |
Denmark | In the final sample |
Estonia | In the final sample |
Spain | In the final sample |
Finland | In the final sample |
France | In the final sample |
United Kingdom | In the final sample |
Greece | Missing data |
Croatia | In the final sample |
Hungary | Missing data |
Ireland | Missing data |
Italy | In the final sample |
Lithuania | Missing data |
Luxemburg | Missing data |
Latvia | In the final sample |
Malta | Missing data |
Netherlands | Missing data |
Poland | In the final sample |
Portugal | In the final sample |
Romania | In the final sample |
Sweden | In the final sample |
Slovenia | In the final sample |
Slovakia | Missing data |
References
- EC. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. In Directive 2009/28/EC; European Union, Ed.; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. In 2012/27/EU; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Special Eurobarometer 271: Europeans and Nuclear Safety; DG COMM: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Lund, H. Renewable energy strategies for sustainable development. Energy 2007, 32, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- del Río, P.; Resch, G.; Ortner, A.; Liebmann, L.; Busch, S.; Panzer, C. A techno-economic analysis of EU renewable electricity policy pathways in 2030. Energy Policy 2017, 104, 484–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lipsmeyer, C.S.; Philips, A.Q.; Whitten, G.D. The effects of immigration and integration on European budgetary trade-offs. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 24, 912–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franzese, R.J.; Hays, J.C. Strategic Interaction among EU Governments in Active Labor Market Policy-making:Subsidiarity and Policy Coordination under the European Employment Strategy. Eur. Union Polit. 2006, 7, 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Majone, G. Agenda Setting. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy; Goodin, R.E., Moran, M., Rein, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V.P., Zhai, H.-O., Pörtner, D., Roberts, J., Skea, P.R., Shukla, A., Pirani, W., Moufouma-Okia, C., Péan, R., Pidcock, S., et al., Eds.; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- EC. Energy Roadmap 2050. In Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Volume 15, p. 12. [Google Scholar]
- Patt, A.; van Vliet, O.; Lilliestam, J.; Pfenninger, S. Will policies to promote energy efficiency help or hinder achieving a 1.5 °C climate target? Energy Effic. 2019, 12, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wurzel, R. Environmental policy: EU actors, leader and laggard states. In Leaderless Europe; Hayward, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liefferink, D.; Arts, B.; Kamstra, J.; Ooijevaar, J. Leaders and laggards in environmental policy: A quantitative analysis of domestic policy outputs. J. Eur. Public Policy 2009, 16, 677–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andresen, S.; Agrawala, S. Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002, 12, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knill, C.; Heichel, S.; Arndt, D. Really a front-runner, really a Straggler? Of environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union and beyond—A quantitative policy perspective. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Börzel, T.A. Why there is no ’southern problem’. On environmental leaders and laggards in the European Union. J. Eur. Public Policy 2000, 7, 141–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, A.E.; Jäger, J. Assessments of Regional and Global Environmental Risks: Designing Processes for the Effective Use of Science in Decisionmaking; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, O. Spain as an Actor in European and International Climate Policy: From a Passive to an Active Laggard? South Eur. Soc. Polit. 2006, 11, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lauber, V.; Schenner, E. The struggle over support schemes for renewable electricity in the European Union: A discursive-institutionalist analysis. Environ. Polit. 2011, 20, 508–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GGG. Common Statement on the Long-Term Strategy and the Climate Ambition of the EU; Green Growth Group: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Germanwatch. Climate Performance Index (CCPI). Available online: https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org (accessed on 2 October 2020).
- Jones, B.D.; Baumgartner, F.R. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ćetković, S.; Buzogány, A. The Political Economy of EU Climate and Energy Policies in Central and Eastern Europe Revisited: Shifting Coalitions and Prospects for Clean Energy Transitions. Polit. Gov. 2019, 7, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baumgartner, F.R.; Jones, B.D. Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. J. Polit. 1991, 53, 1044–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kingdon, J.W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies; Harper Collins: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Alexandrova, P. Institutional issue proclivity in the EU: The European Council vs. the Commission. J. Eur. Public Policy 2017, 24, 755–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CAP. Comparative Agendas Project. Available online: https://www.comparativeagendas.net (accessed on 21 October 2020).
- Tosun, J.; Biesenbender, S.; Schulze, K. Energy Policy Making in the EU; Springer: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Saunders, H. Competing policy packages and the complexity of energy security. Energy 2014, 67, 641–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Rio, P.; Howlett, M.P. Beyond the ‘Tinbergen Rule’ in Policy Design: Matching Tools and Goals in Policy Portfolios. Lee Kuan Yew Sch. Public Policy Res. Pap. 2013, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- del Río, P. Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4978–4989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffrin, A.; Sewerin, S.; Seubert, S. Toward a comparative measure of climate policy output. Policy Stud. J. 2015, 43, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffrin, A.; Sewerin, S.; Seubert, S. The innovativeness of national policy portfolios–climate policy change in Austria, Germany, and the UK. Environ. Polit. 2014, 23, 860–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knill, C.; Schulze, K.; Tosun, J. Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: Exploring a complex relationship. Regul. Gov. 2012, 6, 427–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matisoff, D.C. The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants? Rev. Policy Res. 2008, 25, 527–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, D. Policy invention as evolutionary tinkering and codification: The emergence of feed-in tariffs for renewable electricity. Environ. Polit. 2014, 23, 755–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, R.; Meyer, N.I.; Held, A.; Finon, D.; Lorenzoni, A.; Wiser, R.; Nishio, K.-I. Chapter 12-Promoting Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources–Lessons Learned from the EU, United States, and Japan. In Competitive Electricity Markets; Sioshansi, F.P., Ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2008; pp. 419–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierson, P. When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Polit. 1993, 45, 595–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Downs, A. Up and Down With Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle. Public Interest 1972, 28, 38–50. [Google Scholar]
- Bergek, A.; Jacobsson, S.; Carlsson, B.; Lindmark, S.; Rickne, A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 407–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geels, F.W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 897–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meckling, J.; Sterner, T.; Wagner, G. Policy sequencing toward decarbonization. Nat. Energy 2017, 2, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiviluoma, M.R.J. Renewable Electricity in Europe Current State, Drivers, and Scenarios for 2020; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bloomberg NEF. Sector Coupling in Europe: Powering Decarbonization; Bloomberg NEF: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jacobsson, S.; Lauber, V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 2006, 34, 256–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, A.; Jacobsson, S. Inducement and blocking mechanisms in the development of a new industry: The case of renewable energy technology in Sweden. In Technology and the Market: Demand, Users and Innovation; Coombs, R., Green, K., Richards, A., Walsh, V., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2001; pp. 89–111. [Google Scholar]
- Lauber, V.; Mez, L. Three Decades of Renewable Electricity Policies in Germany. Energy Environ. 2004, 15, 599–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Negro, S.O.; Alkemade, F.; Hekkert, M.P. Why does renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3836–3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blumer, Y.B.; Mühlebach, M.; Moser, C. Why some electricity utilities actively promote energy efficiency while others do not—a Swiss case study. Energy Effic. 2014, 7, 697–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenow, J.; Bayer, E. Costs and benefits of Energy Efficiency Obligations: A review of European programmes. Energy Policy 2017, 107, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tröndle, T.; Pfenninger, S.; Lilliestam, J. Result Data Related to “Tröndle et al (2019)—Home-Made or Imported: On the Possibility for Renewable Electricity Autarky on All Scales in Europe”; Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies: Potsdam, Germany.
- Jones, C.R.; Eiser, R.J. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3106–3117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- EC. GREEN PAPER on Energy Efficiency or Doing More With Less; Commission of the European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Gosens, J. Natural resource endowment is not a strong driver of wind or PV development. Renew. Energy 2017, 113, 1007–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, C. Feed-in tariff vs. renewable portfolio standard: An empirical test of their relative effectiveness in promoting wind capacity development. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehdi, B.J.; Slim, B.Y.; Ilhan, O. Testing environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: The role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and trade in OECD countries. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bersalli, G.; Menanteau, P.; El-Methni, J. Renewable energy policy effectiveness: A panel data analysis across Europe and Latin America. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 133, 110351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadorsky, P. Renewable energy consumption and income in emerging economies. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 4021–4028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Śmiech, S.; Papież, M. Energy consumption and economic growth in the light of meeting the targets of energy policy in the EU: The bootstrap panel Granger causality approach. Energy Policy 2014, 71, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liobikienė, G.; Butkus, M. The European Union possibilities to achieve targets of Europe 2020 and Paris agreement climate policy. Renew. Energy 2017, 106, 298–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC. IMPACT ASSESSMENT Document accompanying the Package of Implementation measures for the EU’s objectives on climate change and renewable energy for 2020. In SEC(2008) 85 C6-0041/08; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- IEA. The IEA’s Policies and Measures Database; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- IEA/IRENA. IEA/IRENA Renewable Energy Policies and Measures Database; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. EEA Database on Climate Change Mitigation Policies and Measures in Europe; European Environmental Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Share of Renewable Energy in Gross Final Energy Consumption by Sector; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Market Share of the Largest Generator in the Electricity Market—Annual Data; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Production, Value Added and Exports in the Environmental Goods and Services Sector; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. GDP Per Capita in PPS; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Real GDP Growth Rate-Volume; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Final Energy Consumption; European Statistical Office: Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- CEER. Status Review of Renewable and Energy Efficiency Support Schemes in Europe; Council of European Energy Regulators: Brussels, Belgium, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- CEER. Status Review of Renewable Support Schemes in Europe for 2016 and 2017; Council of European Energy Regulators: Brussels, Belgium, 14 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Tröndle, T.; Pfenninger, S.; Lilliestam, J. Home-made or imported: On the possibility for renewable electricity autarky on all scales in Europe. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 26, 100388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kern, F.; Kuzemko, C.; Mitchell, C. Measuring and explaining policy paradigm change: The case of UK energy policy. Policy Polit. 2014, 42, 513–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ćetković, S.; Buzogány, A. Varieties of capitalism and clean energy transitions in the European Union: When renewable energy hits different economic logics. Clim. Policy 2016, 16, 642–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lauber, V. Wind Power Policy in Germany and the UK: Different Choices Leading to Divergent Outcomes. In Learning from Wind Power; Szarka, J., Cowell, R., Ellis, G., Strachan, P.A., Warren, C., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2012; pp. 38–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thonig, R.; Del Río, P.; Kiefer, C.; Lázaro Touza, L.; Escribano, G.; Lechón, Y.; Späth, L.; Wolf, I.; Lilliestam, J. Does ideology influence the ambition level of climate and renewable energy policy? Insights from four European countries. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IISD; IGES; OCI; ODI; SEI; Columbia University. Energy Policy Tracker. Available online: https://www.energypolicytracker.org (accessed on 28 September 2020).
- Irena. Renewable Energy Statistics 2020; The International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Bauer, M.W.; Knill, C. A Conceptual Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Policy Change: Measurement, Explanation and Strategies of Policy Dismantling. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 2014, 16, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EC. A Clean Planet for all A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. In COM(2018) 773 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Policy Prioritization | ||
---|---|---|
Policy Cycle Stage | Unit of Analysis | Indicator/Measure |
Agenda setting | Target ambition | Ambition of renewables/energy efficiency targets: Targeted share of renewable energy in final energy consumption, as defined in the ‘National Renewable Energy Action Plans’ (NREAPS) for 2020, minus the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption (FEC) in 2005. Normalized with the size (FEC) of the energy system in 2005. Targeted energy savings, as defined in the ‘National Energy Efficiency Action Plan’ for 2020. Normalized with the size (FEC) of the energy system in 2005 (negative targets indicate plans for increasing energy demand). |
Measure formulation/ adoption | Measure density | Sum of policy measures implemented for renewable energy and energy efficiency: Number of measures implemented to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy, respectively, between 2005 and 2018. |
Implementation | Performance | Target performance (renewables/energy efficiency): Mean distance in 2016–2018 to the linear target trajectory between 2005 and 2020, in %-points (positive numbers indicate overachievement). |
System change performance (renewables/energy efficiency): Addition of energy from renewable sources (% added, relative to FEC in 2005); energy demand reduction (FEC decrease relative to FEC in 2005) |
Predictor | Description | Unit | Type | Group | Expectations | Literature Sources Expectations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Target performance energy efficiency | Distance to the linear target trajectory between 2005 and 2020 (mean 2016–2018). | %-points | DV | |||
Target performance renewable energy | Distance to the linear target trajectory between 2005 and 2020 (mean 2016–2018). | %-points | DV | |||
System change performance | Energy demand reduction between 2005 and 2018 (FEC decrease relative to FEC in 2005). | % | DV | |||
System change performance renewable energy | Addition of new renewables between 2005 and 2018 (% added, relative to FEC in 2005). | % | DV | |||
Target ambition (renewables, efficiency) | Percentage reduction of final energy consumption from FEC 2005. | % | IV | Policy | Establishing a direction for change, higher ambition increases performance. | [32] |
Measure density | Number of measures implemented to promote energy efficiency/renewable energy between 2005 and 2018. | No. measures | IV | Policy | More implemented measures increase performance. | [32,34] |
Support for renewable energy | Renewables electricity support per unit of gross electricity produced (including bioenergy, geothermal energy, hydropower, solar, wind energy onshore, wind energy offshore) in EUR/MWh (mean 2014/2016). | EUR/MWh | IV | Policy | Reducing the risk of investment, more financial support increases performance. | [36,37] |
Historical efforts | Share of renewable energy in FEC 2005. Energy intensity reduction between 2000 and 2007, normalized by FEC in 2000. | % | IV | System-internal context | Due to positive feedback from technical, economic and social systems, better performance in the past increases performance in the present. | [38,39,40] |
Size of energy efficiency/renewables sector | Gross added value (GAV) of goods and services for heat/energy savings or production of renewable energy to GDP (mean 2010–2017). | % | IV | System-internal context | By realizing economic and industrial co-benefits and creating vested interests for both renewables and energy efficiency, performance increases. | [41,42] |
Electricity share in final energy consumption | Share of electricity in final consumption (mean 2010–2018). | % | IV | System-internal context | A larger electricity share increases performance for renewables, while it decreases performance for energy efficiency. Countries with a higher share of electricity profit from electricity being a relatively easy and cheap option to decarbonize. The opposite is true for energy efficiency, where heat efficiency is cheaper; and fewer electricity efficiency measures exist. | [43,44] |
Centralization of the electricity market | Market share of the largest generator in the electricity market (share of domestic generation, mean 2010–2018) | % | IV | System-internal context | For renewables, performance decreases with higher centralization, while for energy efficiency performance increases. Incumbents resist deploying renewables but are supportive of energy efficiency measures as a means of costs reduction and achieving a competitive advantage. | [45,46,47,48,49,50] |
Technical potential (to expand renewables; to reduce energy intensity) | Technical–social potential (based on Tröndle et al.’s definition that defines an upper boundary to the electricity that can be generated in each administrative unit, reduced to the areas that are not socially and ecologically in use [51]) of solar PV and wind onshore and offshore (biomass and hydropower were exempt due to their comparatively small potential), as percentage of current generation (mean of annual generation 2005–2010). Energy intensity (mean 2005–2010). | energy per unit of GDP (mean intensity) und % of FEC 2005 | IV | System-external context | Larger technical potential for both policies increases performance. Larger potential for renewables reduces land-use competition and local opposition to new infrastructure. Higher energy intensity suggests that countries can still profit from “low hanging fruits” of energy efficiency. | [35,52,53,54] |
State affluence | Gross disposable income of households per capita (PPS) in 2015. | Index (European Union average = 100) | IV | System-external context | As states can spend more funds on energy/climate policies, higher state affluence increases performance. | [55,56,57,58] |
Economic growth | Annual GDP change from previous year in percent (mean annual growth 2010–2018). | % | IV | System-external context | Because an increase in FEC outweighs deployment of RE and EE measures, economic growth decreases performance. | [59,60] |
Renewable Energy System Change Performance | Renewable Energy Target Performance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variables Group | Predictors | Unit | Estimates | Std. Beta | CI | Estimates | Std. Beta | CI |
(Intercept) | −0.050 ** | −0.000 | −0.086–−0.013 | 0.166 * | −0.000 | −0.017–0.349 | ||
Policy output | Measure density | total | −0.001 ** | −0.359 | −0.002–−0.000 | |||
Target Ambition (NREAP) | % | 0.228 ** | 0.282 | 0.013–0.443 | −2.676 *** | −0.697 | −3.982–−1.370 | |
Spending on renewables support schemes | EUR/MWh | 0.001 ** | 0.341 | 0.000–0.002 | 0.006 ** | 0.374 | 0.000–0.011 | |
System-external context | Technical potential | % | 0.018 *** | 0.624 | 0.010–0.025 | 0.094 *** | 0.699 | 0.045–0.143 |
State affluence | total | 0.001 *** | 0.668 | 0.001–0.001 | ||||
Observations | 18 | 18 | ||||||
R2/adjusted R2 | 0.882/0.832 | 0.679/0.610 |
Energy Efficiency System Change Performance | Energy Efficiency Target Performance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group | Predictors | Unit | Estimates | Std. Beta | CI | Estimates | Std. Beta | CI |
(Intercept) | 0.087 ** | 0.000 | 0.008–0.165 | 0.292 ** | −0.000 | 0.056–0.528 | ||
Policy output | Measure density | total | −0.001 | −0.279 | −0.002–0.000 | |||
Target Ambition (NEEAP) | % | 0.556 *** | 0.798 | 0.257–0.854 | ||||
System-internal context | Historical efforts | % | −0.776 *** | −0.798 | −1.306–−0.246 | −0.642 ** | −0.734 | −1.131–−0.153 |
Market centralization | % | −0.098 | −0.261 | −0.228–0.032 | −0.182 *** | −0.534 | −0.275–−0.088 | |
System-external context | Economic growth | % | −7.186 *** | −0.794 | −11.454–−2.919 | −5.132 ** | −0.630 | −9.169–−1.095 |
State affluence | total | −0.001 | −0.330 | −0.002–0.000 | ||||
Observations | 18 | 18 | ||||||
R2/R2 adjusted | 0.761/0.687 | 0.834/0.765 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ollier, L.; Melliger, M.; Lilliestam, J. Friends or Foes? Political Synergy or Competition between Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policy. Energies 2020, 13, 6339. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/en13236339
Ollier L, Melliger M, Lilliestam J. Friends or Foes? Political Synergy or Competition between Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policy. Energies. 2020; 13(23):6339. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/en13236339
Chicago/Turabian StyleOllier, Lana, Marc Melliger, and Johan Lilliestam. 2020. "Friends or Foes? Political Synergy or Competition between Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Policy" Energies 13, no. 23: 6339. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/en13236339