Assessing Eorts in Local Energy Policy-Making

Practices, solutions, and programs towards sustainable cities are as manifold as the pre-conditions, actor constellations, and actors within them. Energy policies are a critical aspect of cities' paths to sustainability (Roosa, 2007, 194). While the gures in section 1.1 show that counties vary signicantly concerning their GHG emissions and their re-newable energy installations, it is dicult to directly draw conclusion about the eorts of the counties. The literature reviewed here proposes various measures that can help assess the role that the local government and other members of the city are playing in their own transition process.

In one of the most cited articles from the review,Aall et al. (2007) develop a framework based on a comprehensive study of local policy-making on climate change in Norway.

Policies on climate change mitigation areas compared to adaptation measureswidely overlapping with energy policies. The proposed framework helps to identify possible policy options for the local level government to address climate change mitigation. It consists of six local policy strategies along two dimensions (local and governmental involvement), addressing the importance of the local level, while accounting for the multi-level em-beddedness of local energy policy-making. Figure3.1 visualizes the six strategies, ranging from low local and low national involvement (business as usual ) over medium involvement where easy-to-implement policies are adopted (picking the low-hanging fruits) to a state in which local and national governmental actors are highly involved and actively shaping sustainability and energy policies (local government as policy actor). Other researchers come to similar distinctions. CSE (2007) and Roberts (2010) dierentiate local energy policies in `easy wins, big strides, and lasting impacts'. In their book about local impulses for energy innovations, Alle et al. (2017) follow a transformation theory approach, and categorize into incremental and radical innovation impulses.

Moreover, Aall et al. (2007) explore the strategies that local governments can pursue.

Mey et al.(2016) follow a similar approach but focus on the various roles that local gov-ernment actors can play for communalREs. In their case study in Australia, they derive an empirical typology ofRE governance, identifying six dierent roles that LGs can hold (Mey et al., 2016, 40): (1) LGs as RE consumers is the most common role, where com-munities lead by example, (2) LGs as educators and information providers, this is the most common engagement with community members, (3)LGs as facilitators for commu-nity action, (4)LGs as innovatorsby oering innovative programs, (5)LGs as catalysts, through providing administrative support to or funding for communityREprograms, and

Figure 3.1: Suggested Categorization of Dierent Local Climate Policy Strategies (byAall et al., 2007, 94)

(6) LGs as networkers and advocates, collaborating with dierent stakeholders for exam-ple to strengthen their capacities for RE engagement. (Mey et al.,2016, 40).

While Aall et al. (2007) and Mey et al. (2016) study the strategies and roles of LGs, Roosa (2007) proposes a policy typology to assess the policy outcomes in a region. The typology is based on four energy policy indicators (Roosa, 2007, 175.). First, locally supported energy policy indicators, which directly address energy issues in the commu-nity, such as improving the energy eciency of community owned buildings. Second, local policy indicators, including the creation of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and whether sustainability is a formalized regional goal. Third, participation in membership based organizations such as TMNs. And fourth, environmental policy indicators, such as recycling programs and browneld redevelopment. Roosa (2007) applies this framework to assess the eorts of 25 sunbelt cities in the US.

Puppim de Oliveira et al.(2012, 14f.) follow a similar, but more encompassing approach to assess governance mechanisms of cities, transitioning towards a green economy. They identify four dimensions along which local governance can and should be assessed and improved: (1) decision-making process (participation, accountability, eectiveness); (2) implementation capacity (organizational capacity, rule building, behavior change); (3) economic system (resource eciency, responsible consumption, internalization of external-ities); (4) socio-ecological system (resource conservation, system resilience; human

well-being).

This section gave an overview over the proposed assessment frameworks for local energy policy-making. Networking of local governments and networks within and across regional boundaries is commonly stated as a driver for local energy policies (see for example Mey et al., 2016; Bouwhuis, 2016). Despite the common understanding that the interplay of dierent actors is crucial for local energy policy-making (Faller, 2016), there is still lim-ited academic research on the interplay of dierent actors their actor constellations, their beliefs, and their relation to successful local energy policy-making. Existing network anal-yses focus on understanding inter-regional networks, such asTMNs (Kern and Bulkeley, 2009). Other works concentrate on the role ofLGs (e.g. Faller,2016) or on the role of cit-izen initiatives (e.g. Arnstein, 1969). All encompassing network approaches, which study the interplay of the relevant actors in local energy policy-making, were not yet applied.

In order to study local energy policy-making in such an actor-centered network approach, a policy framework is necessary, which understands policy outcomes as the result of the interplay between all kinds of actors. TheACFbySabatier(1988);Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith(1993) proposed exactly such an understanding. Starting from the assumption that policy-making takes place in policy subsystems which evolve around a policy problem, allows to include all actors that are potentially interested in shaping the policy outcome.

Applications of theACFin related elds, such as regional planning (Henry,2011b) and cli-mate change policy-making at the national level (Ingold,2011), show, that this framework allows to study the interplay, together with the commitment and beliefs of the various actors. Therefore, utilizing the ACF approach seems to be promising in order to under-stand the interplay of actors, which is mentioned so often butbased on this systematic reviewrarely studied in local energy policy-making.

The next chapter is devoted to introducing theACFand the other theoretical approaches that are relevant for understanding the relational part of local energy policy-making.