1. Dr. Popi KONIDARI Head of Climate Change Policy Unit of KEPA
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 KONIDARI Head 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 Types
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: Positive direct interaction, owners of households (different types) – not entire target group
Case study 3: Positive direct interaction, 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)