Enhancing Energy Efficiency in Greek Sectors: Policy Interaction Analysis

1. 8th International Scientific Conference on ‘Energy and Climate Change”, 7-9 October 2015, Athens, Greece Analyzing policy interactions for promoting energy efficiency in the Hellenic sectors of buildings and transport Dr. Popi KONIDARIHead of Climate Change Policy Unit of KEPA National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

2. Structure • Problem • Approach • Case studies • Conclusions National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

3. Problem National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

4. Policy interactions • Parallel implementation of policy instruments creates • Conflicts negative policy interaction • Synergies positive policy interaction • Neutrality no policy interaction • appropriate tool for developing optimum policy mixture through acceptable policy interactions (types and extent) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

5. Approach National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

6. Definition • Policy interaction • observed or foreseen deviation from actual or expected performance of each one or both instruments (mixture) during implementation • Types • Positive interaction: increased performance (against a criterion or variable) • Negative interaction: decreased performance • Neutral interaction: no change National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

7. Analyzing policy interactions Policy instrument Policy instrument Objectives Objectives Target groups Target groups Rules – influencing mechanisms Rules – influencing mechanisms 1 2 Implementation network Implementation network National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

8. Interactions due to objectives • Objectives:set of explicitly mentioned and forecasted outcomes of instrument; divided into primary and secondary • Interaction forms • same primary objectives (p–p) • primary same with secondary objective (p–s) • same secondary objectives (s–s) Condition: If there is no interaction due to objectives then there is no interaction National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

9. Interactions due to target groups • Target groups: Entities fall under instrument and obliged to comply with its requirements. • Interaction forms • instruments imposed at the same target groups (Direct target group interaction) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

10. Interactions due to target groups • Interaction forms: • If then there is no direct target group interaction, but there may be indirect one • operations of other sectors, linked with specific target groups of examined instruments, are affected (indirect target group interaction (i–i)) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

11. Interactions due to rules-influencing mechanisms • Rules-influencing mechanisms: all legal and financial arrangements used for compliance, coercion, encouragement and persuasion of target groups towards the fulfillment of objectives National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

12. Interactions due to rules-influencing mechanisms • Interaction forms • Trading (t): Market-based instruments interact for same trading commodity (emission permit, green certificate, etc.) or market regulations of commodities of one instrument are affected due to the respective ones of the other. • Regulatory (r): similar or same rules and influencing mechanisms concerning regulatory issues. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

13. Interactions due to implementation network • Implementation network: set of pertinent public and private authorities assigned with specific duties (diffusion of information, conduction of controls, etc.) for the successful implementation of instruments • Interaction forms • full responsibility interaction (f–r): same competent authority has full responsibility for implementing both instruments; National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

14. Interactions due to implementation network • Interaction forms • partial responsibility interaction (p–r): two or more authorities are assigned partial responsibilities for implementing both instruments • different responsibility interaction (d-r): different authorities are responsible for the equivalent number of different policy instruments National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

15. Case studies National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

16. Case studies • Selection • Two most energy consuming sectors in Greece based on the available data and reports • Buildings and transport sectors • Available information about the examined policy instruments National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

17. Case studies • “Energy labelling” and “Green Public Procurement” • for the building and the transport sector – Direct link with energy; National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

18. Case studies • “Regulation for the Energy Efficiency of Buildings (KENAK)” and the “Specific Program for the Development of Photovoltaic systems on buildings and specifically on their lofts and roofs (SP)” • Only for the building sector – Direct link with energy; National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

19. Case studies • “Planning policy instrument for Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)” and “Emission standards (Euro 5 and Euro 6) (ES)” • Only for the transport sector – Indirect link with energy National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

20. Interactions due to objectives • Case study 1: Energy labelling – GPP • Positive interaction - primary and secondary objectives • Case study 2: KENAK– SP • Positive interaction - secondary objectives • Case study 3: ITS – ES • Positive interactions - common secondary objectives National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

21. Interaction due to target groups • Case study 1: Positive indirect interaction, producers - manufacturers of EE products and services • Case Study 2: Positivedirect interaction, owners of households (different types) – not entire target group • Case study 3: Positive directinteraction,End-users (drivers of all vehicle types, private and public) National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

22. Interactions due to rules-influencing mechanisms • Case Study 1: Positive regulatory interaction - Energy/ Eco Labelling standards can be used as preconditions for GPP tenders • Case Study 2: Neutral up to slightly positive interaction • Case study 3: Neutral policy interaction National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

23. Interactions due to implementation network • Case study 1: Negative policy interaction -Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy (MEE) mainly responsible • Case Study 2: Neutral policy interaction - MEE and other common entities, but also some additional ones • Case study 3: Negative policy interaction -Same entities – No defined distribution of responsibilities National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

24. Overall policy interaction • Case study 1: Positive in total • Case study 2: Positive, towards neutral • Case study 3: Slightly positive National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

25. Recommendations • Positive interactions can be enhanced • Negative interactions can be confronted • Implementation network: Distribution of responsibilities can assist the situation • Rules and influencing mechanisms: Careful design National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

26. Conclusions • The approach is an appropriate tool to • Understand the existence of policy interactions • Recognize the type of interaction • Support recommendations for improving the performance of policy instruments/mixtures National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)

27. Thank you National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Energy Policy and Development Centre (KEPA)