Search

At global scale, the building sector accounts for 40% of total energy end use and almost 35% of greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it one of the most important sectors to focus on for reaching the 1.5–2 °C target of the Paris Agreement, to enhance energy security of supply and to alleviate energy poverty. The European Union (EU) is often seen as a leader in climate governance, which is also true for energy efficiency. The improvement of energy performance of buildings has been part of EU public policy for more than 50 years, making the EU a pioneer in the policy domain. Based on a semi-structured review of the scientific literature (N = 90), this paper is aimed at drawing the lessons from research on governance of energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings in the EU. As for the findings, there is a multitude of policy instruments developed on different levels of governance, more or less integrated and managed by different actors and no single instrument is sufficient to stimulate energy-efficient and zero-carbon buildings. Five key challenges are identified in the governance literature examining the transition towards energy efficiency and zero-carbon buildings. An ambiguous leadership, heterogeneity of implementation, lack of incentives, limitations of non-regulatory policies and market-based instruments, and limited diffusion between governance levels. We also conclude that most policy instruments focus on new buildings which is problematic since the greatest challenge in the transition is the renovation of the large existing building stock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The co-legislators of the EU adopted in July 2023 a revised version of the Energy Efficiency Directive, implying that the ‘energy efficiency first’ (EE1) principle is made legally binding for member states, to apply in policy, planning and investment decisions exceeding euro 100 million each and euro 175 million for transport infrastructure projects. The EE1 principle complements two other guiding principles of EU energy and climate policy: cost-effectiveness and consumer protection. This article analyses the policy process and politics leading to the adoption of the EE1 principle as a legal institute in EU energy and climate policy. Policy core and secondary beliefs of four different advocacy coalitions are identified, and explained what are the paths to policy change. Lines of dispute among the coalitions related to (i) the purpose and meaning of energy efficiency policy, (ii) the size of projects covered (all projects or only very large projects) and (iii) which sectors to be covered (the public sector or both the public and private sectors). The adoption of the EE1 principle as a binding provision follows an ‘external shock’ to the political subsystem of energy efficiency, namely the Paris Agreement and the subsequent adoption of an EU climate law strengthening the EU climate targets for 2030 and 2050. In addition, it is a ‘negotiated agreement’ between the Council and the Parliament, undertaken as a deliberative problem-solving exercise rather than bargaining. The deliberative nature of the negotiations opened for ‘policy-oriented learning’ across belief systems in the subsystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article combines, in a complementary way, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) with argumentative discourse analysis to analyze the politics of the "energy efficiency first" (EE1) principle as a new legal institute in European Union energy and climate policy. Two different discourses and storylines were identified. The first is where the meaning of energy efficiency policy is to fulfill multiple benefits. It is associated with a strong regulation of EE1. The second is where the purpose of energy efficiency policy is primarily to contribute to mitigating climate change. It is associated with weak regulation of EE1. Four advocacy coalitions with different secondary beliefs regarding the EE1 principle were identified. Analyzing the inter‐discursive communication between different coalitions provides insights to the policy‐oriented learning taking place. It is concluded that studies using the ACF could merit from focusing more on narratives and communication between belief systems. Related Articles: Kanol, Direnç. 2022. "Narrative Strategies for Emerging Disruptive Technologies: A Case Study of Blockchain for Europe." Politics & Policy 50(5): 952–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12492. Nowlin, Matthew C., Maren Trochmann, and Thomas M. Rabovsky. 2022. "Advocacy Coalitions and Political Control." Politics & Policy 50(2): 201–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12458. O'Donovan, Kristin T. 2018. "Does the Narrative Policy Framework Apply to Local Policy Issues?" Politics & Policy 46(4): 532–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12265. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]