Keirstead & Schulz - urban energy policy - London and beyond

ARTICLE IN PRESS Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

London and beyond: Taking a closer look at urban energy policy James Keirstead a, , Niels B. Schulz a,b a b

Energy Futures Lab, Level 7, Bessemer Building, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 16 January 2009 Accepted 22 July 2009 Available online 12 August 2009

This paper considers the field of urban energy policy, a neglected yet important topic. Cities account for approximately two-thirds of global primary energy consumption creating significant benefits and costs.

As a result there has been growing interest in the contribution of cities to global energy policy issues such as climate change but a number of significant questions remain: e.g. how do energy policy processes differ between national and urban scales, and how can cities contribute most effectively to global policy goals? We present the results of interviews with key stakeholders in London to illustrate some unique features of the urban energy policy cycle. We then take a wider view, proposing a research agenda with three key goals: describing the global variety of urban energy consumption and policy; understanding the resulting diversity in responsibility, vulnerability and capacity; and developing shared procedures and solutions. Tackling these questions is vital if cities are to contribute fully to current energy policy efforts. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cities Governance Climate change

1. Introduction The energy policy agenda has become rather crowded in recent years. Whereas the main concerns of industrialised nations were once limited largely to questions of accessibility and availability, a third ‘‘A’’—acceptability—has become increasingly important (Helm, 2002; Schiffer, 2008). In the UK for example, the 2007 energy white paper noted four major goals: to maintain the reliability of energy supplies, to ensure that every home is adequately and affordably heated, to promote competitive energy markets and to achieve a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 (DTI, 2007b). This range of themes, from traditional economic issues to ‘‘post-materialist’’ social and environmental concerns, reflects the demands on modern energy policy.

Increasingly these issues are being interpreted within an urban context. Cities account for approximately two-thirds of the world’s primary energy consumption, enabling vital economic and social activities but also creating significant environmental impacts at both local (e.g. indoor air quality, Barnes et al., 2005) and global scales (71% of fossil-fuel related and direct greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to the activities of urban areas, IEA, 2008b). These empirical findings have also been accompanied by suggestions that cities could play a leading role in developing

Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: j.keirstead@imperial.ac.uk (J. Keirstead), n.schulz@imperial. ac.uk (N.B. Schulz).

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.025

and implementing the ‘‘blueprints’’ for a more sustainable energy future, picking up slack from insufficient or ineffective central government efforts (Shell, 2008).

This pattern—where recognition of the importance of urban environments has been followed by interest in related policy processes—is also found in other fields. Economic geography for example has shifted from the wider issue of globalisation to examining how cities of different sizes and contexts can respond and adapt to these changes (Gugler, 2004; Sassen, 2001).

Similarly, the sustainable development literature has examined cities as the sources, victims and potential solutions to global environmental problems (e.g. Rotmans and Asselt, 2000; Haughton and Hunter, 2003; Satterthwaite, 2008). In other words, there is an increasing interest in the ability of actors beyond the nation state to tackle complex policy issues; after all, as Sassen (2004, p. 381) notes, ‘‘the city is a far more concrete space for politics than that of the national polity’’.

For energy issues, the focus on urban policy processes is not a new development. Nijkamp et al. published a series of articles and books on this topic in the 1990s, noting that cities are deserving focal points for energy policy owing to their administrative coherence, their direct interest in resource and environmental issues, the co-location of energy production and consumption, and the availability of statistical data (Nijkamp and Perrels, 1991; Nijkamp and Pepping, 1998; Capello et al., 1999). While much of this earlier research focused on the specific question of renewable energy, the general finding—that cities represent ‘‘islands of opportunity in seas of decay’’ (Nijkamp and Pepping, 1998, p. 1481)—remains a key message.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

Yet despite this past and present interest in urban issues, and the intractability of key energy policy goals such as climate change (Saikku et al., 2008), there remains an implicit belief that national governments, and their cooperation in international forums, represent the most appropriate scale for addressing energy policy issues. Policy targets are often set in national or regional terms (e.g. EC, 2008) and a review of the 206 papers published in Energy Policy in 2007 (ignoring correspondence, erratum, publisher’s notes, etc.) shows that 59% of papers could be said to focus on national policy issues, 26% on international issues, with sub-national and local policies representing only 10% of publications.

This paper seeks to clarify this assumption by taking a closer look at the question of urban energy policy. A meeting of urban energy and carbon researchers in 2008 provided a starting point for such an exercise, bringing together experts in modelling and policy (GCP-URCM, 2008). Building on this emerging community of practice, the paper examines the growing literature on urban energy policy and uses the case of London to illustrate the challenges and opportunities facing both policy makers and analysts. By then proposing the outlines of an urban energy policy research agenda, it is hoped that we will be able to better understand the place of cities within global energy policy debates and to take action at the appropriate scale.

2. Background, methods and goals 2.1. Perspectives on urban energy policy For the purpose of this paper, we define urban energy policy as the activities undertaken by public sector urban agents (e.g. metropolitan and neighbourhood authorities) to influence the supply and demand of energy within their urban area and to manage the consequent impacts of this consumption within and beyond the city limits. Of course other actors also have an impact on urban energy use (e.g. national governments and private sector actors) but the goal here is to understand the contributions of local decision makers, those who, as will be shown, operate in a more constrained environment than national governments.

Urban energy policy can be interpreted from a number of different perspectives. However a review of the literature on urban governance for energy (and specifically climate) issues suggests that there are perhaps four major viewpoints: legal, political economic, socio-technical and procedural (i.e. policy analysis).

First, there is a legal interpretation of local governance driven primarily by the ‘‘subsidiarity principle’’, i.e. that issues should be handled at the smallest competent level of government. Both in the United States and Europe, where strong federal systems exist, there are frequent debates about the extent to which this principle is faithfully applied and how it informs the choice of the appropriate scale for policy intervention. For example, Adler (2006) examined federal and state environmental regulations in the US and found that existing divisions of regulatory responsibility ‘‘lack any cohesive rationale or justification’’ (p. 130).

Similarly in Europe, it has been shown that the subsidiarity principle is changeable, often adapting to political and economic realities at the expensive of effective policy formation and implementation (Collier, 1997; Jordan and Jeppesen, 2000).

This constitutional view of local governance is interpreted more broadly by Sovacool and Brown (2009). Their paper examines climate change policy, and while again primarily looking at the US and European contexts, they highlight the tensions implicit in debates about subsidiarity. Local governance scales, they note, offer benefits in terms of policy diversity,

4871

flexibility, and accountability; however national scales ensure uniformity, enable economies of scale and help avoid jurisdictional leakage and other spillover effects. The choice of appropriate policy scale therefore involves a trade-off between these attributes.

In the UK, Carney and Shackley (2009) review the arguments for local energy policy from a political economy perspective and arrive at a similar conclusion about the balance between coordinated centralised decision-making and successful local implementation. They note that ‘‘the main point is not that regional and local energy and climate policies could ever replace national policy (which is clearly the locus for many key energy and climate change policy decisions), but that such a policy making capacity . . . would help to reduce the disparity between policy formulation and delivery’’. Bulkeley and Betsill (2003) also raise these issues in their work on multi-scale governance arrangements for urban climate change policy.

The pragmatic view of urban energy policy, that such activities should be flexible and adapted to circumstance, is reinforced by the work on urban infrastructures in transition. This literature adopts a more sociological tone, examining the joint construction of new social and technical systems in response to contextspecific economic, social and environmental pressures (Moss et al., 2000; Chappells, 2008; Guy, 2001). A study of energy and climate policies in Berlin is a particularly good example, demonstrating how factors as diverse as budget crises in city hall, shifts in market structure and the form of new technologies must be considered when assessing how to deliver new policy solutions appropriate to local needs (Monstadt, 2007).

These approaches demonstrate the diversity of urban policy studies but they largely represent broad theoretical analyses; less insight is provided on the daily activities of decision makers.

For this reason, we have adopted the policy cycle analysis described by Newton and van Deth (2005). This approach notes that decision-making is an on-going progress which (nominally) progresses from agenda setting, decision making, choice of means, implementation, outputs and outcomes, evaluation and feedback before restarting (Fig. 1). The advantage of adopting this framework is that, at each stage, the London experience can be described in detail to observe where differences exist between the motivations and outcomes of urban policy activities and those of more traditional centralised systems. The disadvantage however is that such a review rather arbitrarily divides a continuous and fluid process. On balance, we believe that this analytical approach provides an effective basis for illustrating daily practice in urban energy policy, even if it is only ‘‘a first step, a guide amid complexity’’ (Bridgman and Davis, 2003).

Agenda setting

Evaluation

Decision making

and feedback

Outputs and Choice of means

outcomes

Implementation Fig. 1. The public policy cycle (Newton and van Deth, 2005).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4872

J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

2.2. London’s energy policy environment

2.3. Methodology and goals

For an introduction to London’s rather complex governance arrangements, readers are referred to Pimlott and Rao (2002) or the website of the Greater London Authority (GLA, 2008c). Briefly however, the GLA was established with an elected mayor in 2000 after years of on-again–off-again metropolitan government. It has statutory responsibility for many policy areas including transport, policing, economic development and strategic spatial planning.

As will be discussed below, energy and climate change issues have also been a priority for both past and present administrations.

However as Table 1 demonstrates, the GLA is not the only governance agent affecting energy use within London. National and international agencies set many of the general priorities and market conditions for London, and the 32 boroughs address important but smaller scale issues such as planning enforcement.

The hierarchy presented in the table is incomplete due to space limitations but two features of local governance can be seen. First there are examples of what Pacione (2009) calls ‘‘Type II’’ governance constraints, where higher levels of government impose obligations on lower levels. This can be seen most clearly with the national indicators used by DCLG, the Government Office for London and the boroughs. However we can also see examples of where local innovation has occurred: the flexibility and diversity highlighted by Sovacool and Brown (2009).

To guide the policy cycle analysis, we present data gathered from hour-long in-depth interviews with members of London’s energy policy community. Six interviews were conducted representing all levels of policy making including the local borough councils, the city-wide Greater London Authority (GLA), central government (via the regional Government Office for London) and local implementation agencies. Interviewees were asked a series of semi-structured questions on key issues such as the interactions between policy actors, the prioritisation of policy issues and the use of specific policy tools such as indicators. The interviews were conducted in March 2008, prior to Boris Johnson’s election in May 2008.

A particular challenge with this study is its small sample size.

As discussed above, there are a potentially large number of agencies with an influence on London’s energy policy. Our interest however was to speak with those who were most familiar with the day-to-day workings of policy implementation and development within London; these activities are driven by the select groups represented here. The results are also intended to be illustrative of the challenges facing urban energy policy makers, rather than providing a comprehensive analysis. As Sellers (2002) notes, the study of urban governance for global issues is a relatively new field and therefore the task of research is to raise hypotheses as much as it is to test them and resolve outstanding questions.

In light of these theoretical and methodological considerations, the paper has two primary goals. First it aims to illustrate some of the opportunities and challenges facing the policy community in London, as a way of reflecting on urban energy policy more generally. These results, combined with policy documents and relevant literature, are then used to address the second goal: setting out a foundation for systematic and comparative analyses of urban energy policy. The aim is to clarify the benefits of a more rigorous approach to urban energy policy for both decision makers in individual cities and analysts trying to understand the role of urban areas in a global or regional context.

Table 1 Overview of energy policy initiatives at different scales with relevance to London.

Policy/organisation International UNFCCC IEA treaty

Description

Framework convention on climate change with implementation policies such as Kyoto protocol Requires signatories to report annually on key energy statistics (e.g. Article 33, IEA, 2008a)

Regional (EU) An energy policy for Commits EU to ‘‘a low consumption economy based on Europe more secure, more competitive and more sustainable energy’’ (EC, 2007) Various directives Address specific issues such as energy performance of buildings (2002/91/EC), energy efficiency (2006/32/EC), renewable energy (2001/77/EC) and others (see EC, 2009) National (UK) Energy white paper Outlines four priorities: secure supplies, reducing fuel poverty, reducing GHG emissions and promoting competitive markets (DTI, 2007b) DCLG Various policies to improve energy performance of buildings and monitor the progress of local authorities in climate policy (DCLG, 2009b, 2009a) Metropolitan/ regional Local area Agreements between Government Office for London and agreements boroughs to improve performance on key indicators (e.g. per capita reductions in CO2 emissions) (GoL, 2009) BERR/DECC English Regions Energy Policy Group meets quarterly to assess impacts of national energy policy on English regions (BERR, 2009) Greater London Three major documents: the energy strategy (GLA, 2004), Authority climate change action plan (GLA, 2007), and spatial development strategy (GLA, 2008b). Key initiatives include Energy Action Areas (showcases for good practice), the London Energy and GHG Emissions Inventory (GLA, 2008a) and a target of 375 MW of renewable electricity capacity installed by 2020 Borough The ‘‘Merton Rule’’ Requires local developments over 1000 m2 to provide at least 10% of energy demand from on-site renewables (LBM, 2009) In this case,‘‘urban energy policy’’ encompasses actions taken at the metropolitan and borough scales.

3. The urban energy policy cycle In this section, the results of the interviews are presented. For each phase of the policy cycle, the major differences between urban and national energy policies in London and the UK are highlighted and linked with themes from the urban governance literature.

3.1. Agenda setting Policy makers in all fields have limited resources—of time, money and political capital—and consequently only a small number of issues can be dealt with at any time. ‘‘Agenda setting’’ is the first step in this selection process, where alternative priorities are brought into public debate.

In the UK, much of the recent policy debate has been denominated by energy security and climate change. For central government, awareness of these issues is maintained by media coverage of fuel prices (e.g. the gap and lag between wholesale and retail energy prices), geopolitics (e.g. the reliability of supplies from Russia, the Middle East, and elsewhere) and the impacts of climate change. Policy debates are also framed by regional and international agreements on climate and energy (see DTI, 2007b).

These diverse concerns represent a balance of traditional and ‘‘post-materialist’’ policy themes (Newton and van Deth, 2005):

ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

the availability and affordability of energy supplies have long been issues of importance but climate change has evolved from an addon environmental quality issue to a major concern. Recent consultations about the choice of particular energy supply technologies have reflected both themes (e.g. nuclear power and renewables, DTI, 2007a; BERR, 2008d).

At the urban level, the agenda is similarly shaped by the media and higher levels of government. However the interviews found that rather than covering a range of energy issues, the focus was placed much more on climate change. This appears to have been for two reasons. Firstly, alternative priorities appear to be discounted very quickly by decision makers. For example, local authorities felt that energy security ‘‘wasn’t [their] business’’ but a national concern to which they could contribute little given their comparatively limited resources. Similarly in the case of fuel poverty, it was felt that local authorities could only ‘‘manage this issue’’ and it was central government’s responsibility take the lead. When prompted about the energy security and affordability benefits that energy efficiency might nevertheless have for a community, respondents acknowledged these factors but observed that electoral concerns discouraged local policy makers from taking the required strategic investment decisions, hence their decision to let other agencies assume more responsibility.

In contrast, the issue of climate change seems to have been actively pursued as it could offer a potentially fruitful area in which to address political and constituency concerns. Respondents from within the GLA noted how then mayor Ken Livingstone emphasised climate change, energy and the environment, partly owing to his interest in the subject but also as part of his bid to gain the support of the Green party for his wider goals within the London Assembly. (The new mayor has expressed a ‘‘commitment’’ to the previous administration’s climate goals and has launched a climate change adaptation strategy.) This is consistent with the analysis of Bulkeley and Betsill (2003) who found that climate change typically does not appear on the agenda in isolation but that the co-benefits of climate protection resonate with many local authorities (e.g. saving money, labour market and economic stimulus, local air protection, political advantage); climate change does not provide ‘‘a justification for policy action in and of itself’’ (p. 173). London’s energy policy is therefore intertwined with climate change goals and indeed the Greater London Authority Act, 2007 explicitly refers to a ‘‘climate change mitigation and energy’’ strategy.

Of course not all cities set their agendas in the same way. As a contrast to the London case, consider New York’s sustainability plan, PlaNYC, which has energy as one of its five core themes (NYC, 2007). While climate is part of the energy agenda, it is not the only focus and there is much more emphasis on questions of housing, market regulation, technology policy and urban infrastructure.

The Greater London Authority is unable to act across many of these areas and, even where they can make a contribution (e.g. building regulations), their leverage may be limited compared with central government authorities. Even greater contrasts can be seen in developing countries where access to affordable and higher quality commercial fuels, health and local environment concerns, co-benefits with climate adaptation, or questions about whether aid investments should be directed at urban or rural areas may be important (Soussan, 1990; Dhakal, 2004; Barnes et al., 2005; World Bank, 2008).

These results suggest that the key question of agenda setting is not so much which specific energy issues a city should try to tackle, as these will vary from city to city, but to understand the processes by which issues end up on the agenda. In London for example, why is it that a global issue like climate change has risen to prominence whereas other similar broad issues like energy security, or conversely more direct local issues like fuel poverty,

4873

are to some extent discounted by policy makers at the outset?

A working hypothesis is that cities act to complement the perceived competencies of other actors in the policy environment, although the literature suggests that such delineations may not be clear cut (Adler, 2006).

3.2. Decision making With an agenda of issues identified, policy makers must then decide which items to prioritise and what actions to take. Newton and van Deth (2005) argue that decisions (including nondecisions) are ‘‘the most important output of the political process, not only for practical politics, but also because they reveal how political forces mix together to produce a policy’’ (p. 270).

We therefore considered the differences between decision making processes at the UK and London levels.

One common feature at both scales is the use of consultations.

Since 2006, there have been approximately 40 energy policy consultations from the main UK energy ministry, BERR (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, now located within the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change). These exercises play an important (indeed statutory) role in soliciting stakeholder opinion about policy proposals but the volume of consultations, and their perceived use as a tool for addressing an issue without taking major decisions, has led to exasperation in some quarters: as one commentator noted, ‘‘Not another consultation document! It’s action we need . . . not vague promises of future measures’’ (Seager, 2008).

London’s energy strategy (GLA, 2004) was also informed by public consultation, though much of the exercise seems to have been designed to raise the public’s awareness of the GLA’s work in this field. The GLA distributed four consultation documents: a full draft report sent to 1096 key stakeholders, an abbreviated version sent to 7009 wider stakeholders, a summary leaflet sent to 10 000 members of the public and an online survey sent to 1000 interested parties. In total, 329 responses were received: a 1.7% response rate. For comparison, the central government’s nuclear power consultation (BERR, 2008b) was distributed to 5200 individuals by post plus 3800 registered online participants and received 2728 responses: a response rate of approximately 30.3%.

While this reflects the differing importance of each policy issue, it also suggests that the role of consultation in the decision making process, though important at both scales, is not the same.

Indeed the difference between a statutory consultation and one driven by public engagement goals reflects the spectrum of drivers for decision making in urban energy policy. At one end is the ‘‘null hypothesis’’ of urban governance (Sellers, 2002, p. 22), i.e. that cities adopt agendas and take decisions because they have a statutory obligation from higher authorities to act. At the other extreme, decisions may be taken by local policy makers in explicit contrast with superior organisations. This is a theme taken up at length in Bulkeley and Betsill’s (2003) book on urban climate policy. They note that the true answer lies somewhere in between, with cities acting within a national policy framework but at the same time they are able to reach out to other networks and stakeholders. This analysis appears to hold true for London’s urban energy policy as well. We can quickly reject the ‘‘null’’ hypothesis of hierarchical control by considering London’s climate change and energy strategy which began as a local initiative before being given statutory weight. Nor was this strategy the result of a complete absence of central government policies as the government did have broadly compatible energy and climate goals at the time.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4874

J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

Selecting the goals of urban energy policy is therefore not a straight-forward process and the corollary for researchers is that the diversity of responses for a variety of cities and policy priorities needs to be understood. If policy decisions are not driven exclusively by top-down inherited or bottom-up reactionary agendas, then what is the form and function of these intermediate governance networks? Such understanding may yield significant practical benefits. As one interviewee noted, the complexity of energy issues makes it difficult to know who controls the necessary ‘‘levers’’ of power. By mapping out these governance networks and applying tools such as social network analysis, researchers and stakeholders can begin to explore these interactions in a systematic fashion and improve their understanding of decision making processes.

3.3. Choice of means Policy makers at a national level have a wide range of tools at their disposal. Energy policy goals can be pursued through direct service provision (e.g. nationalised electricity generation and distribution), by setting general market conditions (e.g. tax and incentive structures), by regulating specific product standards and by encouraging desired behaviours through information and awareness campaigns. The choices are not unlimited however and constraints can be imposed through international agreements (e.g. EU funding or limitations on state aid) and national political processes (e.g. since liberalisation, the UK government no longer provides energy services directly) (IEA, 2006).

The urban policy maker is subject to even greater restrictions.

Capello et al. (1999) cite five possible policy mechanisms—land use planning and building regulations, regulatory energy policies (e.g. conservation), stimulation programmes (e.g. grants and information campaigns), market-based energy policies, and support for technological innovations—but experience suggests that these measures are not always available in practice. For example, government in the UK is highly centralised and local authorities are permitted to act in only a limited number of areas, such as planning (subject to central guidance) or energy management within a council’s own operations. Local authorities in northern Europe, Italy, the United States and Australia however often have much more freedom to choose their agendas and select policy means such as service provision and building codes (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003; Sellers, 2002). In general, direct market involvement by municipal governments is limited by the lack of available investment capital and limited powers of taxation and regulation (OECD, 1995; Capello et al., 1999; EU, 2007).

The London experience is consistent with this analysis. Many of the initiatives launched by the GLA to date have focused on public information and awareness (e.g. a ‘‘Green Homes’’ concierge service), efficiency drives (e.g. a light bulb amnesty, in partnership with a major retailer and an energy company) and planning regulations (e.g. the Merton Rule discussed in Section 3.4). What might be deemed direct intervention (e.g. service provision, taxation, product regulation) is more limited and where such initiatives are happening, they occur within the structure of the national liberalised market. The London Esco (energy services company) for example is a partnership between EDF Energy, a major national energy supplier (81% ownership), and the London Climate Change Agency (19% ownership, itself a limited company part owned by the London Development Agency, which is a functional body of the GLA).

While there is always the possibility of developing new policy measures, the basic mechanisms available to an urban policy maker have arguably changed little since those identified

by Capello et al. (1999) above. The question therefore is how best

to implement these tools and evaluate their performance against desired goals. London’s complex structure—with 32 independent boroughs (plus the city of London), a relatively new metropolitan body in the GLA and a strong central state—illustrates the difficulties faced when trying to identify which agencies would need to act to achieve a policy goal, as well as what means are available to each of them and where those means might overlap or conflict.

3.4. Implementation Implementation refers to how a policy gets put into practice and research in this area has traditionally focused on the way in which central diktats are modified, mis-interpreted or otherwise changed by the actions of frontline civil servants (Newton and van Deth, 2005). Of course it is unreasonable to expect that central government guidance should be adopted verbatim at the local level and the importance of multi-level governance, which ‘‘captures both the multiple levels at which governance takes place, and the myriad actors and institutions that act simultaneously across these levels’’, is increasingly recognised (Sellers, 2002; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003, p. 29). Local initiatives in climate policy, for example, were found to have been dependent as much on the enthusiasm and commitment of local officials, supported by a global network of like-minded municipalities (e.g. ICLEI’s ¨ Cities for Climate Protection network or Klima-Bundnis), as on the top-down policies of national or international government.

Research on renewable energy policy in the UK has similarly examined the relationship between central and regional governance and found ‘‘debilitating’’ tensions arising from uncertain legitimacy and accountability (Smith, 2007).

The implementation of energy policy in London demonstrates these themes and highlights in particular the cooperative structures that have emerged to deliver and support policy goals.

For example, the C40 Climate Leadership Group provides international support and recognition for London’s policies and facilitates the sharing of best practices in areas including buildings, energy efficiency, transport, and renewables. However the prominence of London on the network’s ‘‘News’’ page (7 of 13 stories) suggests that self-promotion may be a major factor in the city’s network membership (C40, 2008). Indeed as the following quote reveals, some local stakeholders feel that there is a tension between such public statements and the reality of implementation: ‘‘I think this mayor [Ken Livingstone] certainly likes to say he wants London to be seen as a world-class city so either the best or leading or whatever. I wonder how they come to those statements? . . . I mean, of course they can say things like London’s the only major world city with a climate change agency, yeah ok, accept that—but what does that actually mean? Not necessarily much.’’

Another example is the Energie-Cite s network (the GLA is not a member, though the Borough of Sutton is). This group represents over 500 European municipalities and it seeks to ‘‘promote sustainable energy policy through local action.’’ (Energie-Cite s, 2008). Their work involves sharing best practice in transport and buildings, as well as community support and capacity building through conferences and study tours; the main benefits of joining the network are listed as cost savings, emissions reductions, economic growth and international recognition. However in comparison to the C40, Energie-Cite s comprises smaller cities and much of their website emphasises the network’s ability to increase a municipality’s leverage, particularly through

ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

partnerships to access European research funding or to ďŹ nd potential collaborators.

This suggests that partnership is an important step in moving from general support networks to tangible policy action. This is particularly true in London, where the lack of direct municipal control means that the policy delivery relies to a greater extent upon links between civil society, central and local government and the private sector. Energy partnerships in London come in many different forms, including:

the London Energy Partnership, London Hydrogen Partnership,

and London Sustainability Exchange each of which work with private sector and academic organisations to improve energyrelated skills for planners, construction ďŹ rms, technologists and so on; the London Climate Change Agency working with EDF, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, and Defra (the central government environment ministry) to demonstrate how private ďŹ nance can be used to deliver a best-practice heat and power project in Barkantine; the London Energy Partnership, with funding from central government and participation from universities, private and public sector organisations, facilitating the London Renewables forum which promotes renewables in London; and the London Underground private–public partnership to ďŹ nance the renovation and expansion of London’s public transport network.

The success of these measures is variable and as an interviewee noted, ‘‘a partnership is fundamentally a very difďŹ cult beast to get something really speciďŹ c out of’’. Nevertheless the Merton Rule demonstrates the potential beneďŹ ts of partnerships. The Merton Rule is a planning regulation which encourages new developments over 1000 m2 to provide 10% of their energy demand from on-site renewables (LBM, 2009). An interview with the policy ofďŹ cer responsible for this initiative revealed that, while verifying the actual output of installed renewables remained a challenge, the policy’s biggest success had been in building coalitions of relevant stakeholders: ‘‘. . . [the Merton Rule] is the ďŹ rst thing that came along that made building services engineers sit down with architects, sit down with building engineers, sit down with developers and planners and go ‘Oh ——, how are we going to do that?!’’’ These discussions helped to establish common interests and visions which in turn gave the policy robustness when it was later challenged by central government (see Section 3.5). This suggests that partnerships can indeed magnify the impact of small local initiatives and inuence even major initiatives of central government.

A common theme here is that local energy policy and its implementation is often driven by a need to be seen to be doing something. Whether it is small communities leveraging partnered funding on a speciďŹ c project or London promoting itself on the world stage through a broad network, these activities represent efforts to demonstrate to constituencies that action is being taken in response to their concerns. The interviews found that within London boroughs, the support of chief executives (unelected ofďŹ cials who nonetheless believe their mandate is derived from election results, JRF, 1997) was key to promoting climate policies such as the Merton Rule. Of course the need for public support also has its downsides, because issues like climate change may require unpopular short-term decisions but also because, as one interviewee noted, ‘‘it’s amazing what you can get done if you’re prepared not to take the credit for it’’. In other words, there is a

4875

risk that politicians may overlook more productive activities in favour of those that garner immediate kudos. The accountability of local governments, as a driver for policy innovation, is therefore a double-edged sword and more complex than outlined in Sovacool and Brown (2009).

3.5. Outputs and outcomes Policy outputs can be deďŹ ned as ‘‘the political decisions taken, the laws passed and the money spent’’, whereas outcomes refer to ‘‘the results or consequences of the outputs’’ (Newton and van Deth, 2005, p. 272). This distinction recognises that the outcomes of a policy decision are often unexpected and it cannot simply be assumed that a policy decision will yield the desired result.

At a national level, these discrepancies might be attributed to the distance between the central policy maker and those implementing the decision. The public policy literature describes many instances where desired outcomes, for example as set out in service targets, were not achieved due to local authorities acting to protect their ‘‘turf’’ or having insufďŹ cient resources to carry out the measures (e.g. Smith, 1990; Jacobs and Manzi, 2000).

Furthermore in UK energy policy, service delivery is often left to the market not government itself; private ďŹ rms following a proďŹ t incentive may respond unexpectedly (even perversely) to government policy.

The unpredictability of energy policy interventions is a theme common to both urban and national scales, owing largely to the breadth and complexity of the policy agenda. For example, the Merton Rule discussed above appears to be quite straight-forward.

As a policy ‘‘output’’, it deďŹ nes a relatively narrow window of policy intervention (i.e. buildings over a certain size) and the actual policy instrument (planning approval) is ďŹ led with and approved by one agency, the local council. The corresponding ‘‘outcome’’ would therefore be a number of compliant buildings within the borough. However not only is there uncertainty about the generated electricity output of these installations (versus planned), but there are also complications in the links between this local policy and the goals of central government, particularly in the area of low carbon buildings. After ďŹ rst declaring their interest in expanding the Merton Rule nationwide in June 2006, central government support has wavered. In August and September 2007, concerns about the burdens that mismatched local policies might place on housing developers led to a consideration that such local initiatives should be banned in favour of a single national strategy (Seager, 2007). But following a backlash in the media, largely generated by the partner network discussed above, the policy once again has central government support (DCLG, 2007). The ‘‘outcome’’ of the policy decision in this case therefore depended on the acquiescence of central government authorities and the cooperation of building developers.

Earlier research recognised that urban energy policy initiatives risk being fragmented across scales and suggested a more integrated approach, one that ‘‘would require sufďŹ cient institutional support with a view to the potential offered by creative actions of stakeholders in the urban area.’’ (Capello et al., 1999, p. 40). When asked about speciďŹ c policy tools to overcome this obstacle, such as the use of performance indicators, the interviewees felt that such initiatives often lack sufďŹ cient resources to make plans reality. ‘‘I think [the GLA] are focused on putting in place some excellent strategies and mechanisms but I don’t think we’re seeing perhaps the delivery or monitored delivery clearly yet.’’ ‘‘In the end there are people, a considerable number of people and resources expended going through this kind of this process

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4876

J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

[developing strategies and targets], [and] very few people actually focused on doing, delivering the targets.’’

3.6. Evaluation and feedback

6000 Population (millions)

These difficulties have been acknowledged by the local authorities themselves and in some cases, as in the GLA’s Climate Change Action Plan, policy success has been explicitly linked with integrated action at the national level (GLA, 2007). This suggests that research should focus on identifying the complementarities between policies at different scales, determining the preconditions for successful local action and the limitations imposed by the absence of such measures.

8000

Urban > 10 mil Urban 5−10 mil Urban 1−5 mil Urban 500k−1 mil Urban < 500k Rural

4000

2000

Evaluation is perhaps the most important stage of the policy cycle as an assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of existing policies is a vital input to the next iteration of the policy cycle. However it is also a difficult and contentious task, as can be seen by the efforts of policy makers to define policy outcomes in ambiguous (‘‘flexible’’) terms and to perform such assessments within government rather than independently (Newton and van Deth, 2005).

Evaluating the efficiency of a policy means determining whether or not the policy has achieved the greatest possible effect for the least possible resources. At the national level, publications such as the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics and UK Energy Sector Indicators (BERR, 2008c, 2008a) provide this function, outlining the performance of the national energy system against policy goals and to recognised international standards.

However for urban energy issues, the collection and analysis of relevant data is more problematic. One difficulty is that the city’s administrative boundaries often do not correspond to the functional definition of the city and its energy system. For example, the official population of Greater London in 2000 was approximately 7.2 million but according to Columbia University’s urban extents database, the ‘‘true’’ population of London at this time was closer to 12.8 million (SEDAC-CIESIN, 2007). For the rare city-state, such as Singapore, these issues are less of a problem as the national boundary coincides with the city boundary. However even in these cases, there are difficulties in accounting for the upstream flows and hinterland effects which influence the performance of the energy system (Dhakal, 2004; Schulz, 2007).

Finally, assessing the effectiveness of a policy must also separate the influence of local policy measures from the broader social and spatial context (Sellers, 2002); again city-states such as Singapore have an advantage here (Gugler, 2004). Ideally, one would like to be able to state with confidence that one city is ‘‘better’’ than another owing to its policies, rather than simply benefiting from a benign climate, unique economic structure or other fortuitous circumstances.

It should be noted that, from the perspective of urban energy policy as a discipline, evaluation and feedback is about more than the performance of one city. If we wish to understand the potential benefits of urban energy policy and its contribution to national and international goals, then we need a better understanding of the diversity of urban energy use around the world, for different climates, economies, and societies (e.g. Schulz, 2009a).

When considering population for example, one of the major drivers of urban energy consumption, the UN provides sufficient data to plot a figure demonstrating the size and distribution of the world’s urbanisation (Fig. 2). However we do not yet have a similar profile indicating which cities are responsible for what portion of global emissions, what are the most pressing issues for different classes of cities and whether there are common themes between them. There is nevertheless recent recognition of the

0 1960

1980

2000

2020

Fig. 2. Global urban population (UN, 2008).

need for such data from the OECD and policy research institutions (Brown et al., 2008; IEA, 2008b).

4. Discussion When Capello et al. (1999) wrote their book on urban energy policy, they took ‘‘the optimistic perspective that modern cities can indeed play a strategic role in the necessary pathway to sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the opportunities offered by local energy and environmental initiatives.’’ (p. v). This paper reinforces that finding, illustrating that a city such as London can contribute to sustainable energy policy by complementing national policies, by introducing new innovations and by working in partnership with a range of stakeholders.

However the hypotheses raised here would benefit both from further study and wider interpretation. Therefore rather than focusing on specific policy proposals for London, the discussion will take a broader perspective, formalising some of the emerging views about urban energy policy and proposing a coordinated research agenda. In particular we believe there are three major challenges that need to be addressed: describing practice, understanding diversity and developing shared procedures.

4.1. Describing practice It was shown that little is known about the processes by which urban energy policy issues are identified and tackled. By describing current practice in diverse cities, researchers can begin to understand how urban energy policy is approached at all stages of the policy cycle. Research networks such as the Urban Climate Change Research Network at Columbia University and the Global Carbon Project’s Urban and Regional Carbon Management theme provide a forum for these discussions, bringing together researchers with expertise in cities such as New York, Mexico City, London, Shanghai, Bangkok, Tokyo, Jakarta, Rio de Janeiro and many others.

To facilitate comparative analyses, these case studies need to be sufficiently detailed and key issues to be covered include local governance arrangements (both within the city and relative to national and regional scales), market structures, history, politics, culture, and environment. In addition to this qualitative data, there is also a need for improved quantitative statistics. As noted

ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4879

in Section 3.6 above, a lack of consistent and comparable data makes aggregate analyses of urban energy use difďŹ cult. At the national and international levels, well-established guidelines exist for data collection but the urban scale arguably requires greater ďŹ&#x201A;exibility. Data collection methods are therefore needed that can be applied fairly to a range of different circumstances.

4.2. Understanding diversity With a wealth of case studies outlining the urban energy policy process in detail, the next major step would be to understand this diversity both theoretically and practically. This includes exploring the multi-level governance structures that exist between local and national scales and also determining the extent to which these processes and their outcomes vary across geographies.

Ultimately the goal of this activity should be to identify the potential of, and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;rightâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;â&#x20AC;&#x2122; scale for, effective policy interventions.

These variations in practice might be described along three axes of differentiation:

Diversity in responsibility: Cities do not exist in isolation but are

open highly interdependent systems. Consequently the extraction and utilisation of energy resources, and associated impacts, are unequally distributed in time and space. The systematic interactions between cities needs to be better understood, for example to assist with the allocation of responsibility for emissions between producers and consumers (e.g. Schulz, 2009b). Similarly the drivers of policy change and the scope for policy action should be assessed with regard to present resource consumption, historical legacies and future trajectories (Haughton, 1999).

Diversity in vulnerability: The consequences of an energy policy failure must also be understood. These vulnerabilities, which act as important policy drivers, will vary from city to city. For example, climate may be the primary risk factor in cities such as Manila. Here, electricity is provided largely by hydroelectric Ë&#x153; o years, the climate tends to be hotter plants and during El Nin and drier than average, increasing demand for air conditioning while decreasing rainfall and hence power availability. Climate may also shape the consequences of a failure; Canadaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1998 ice-storm left thousands without heat and power in the middle of winter and urban governments had to provide communal shelters for those affected. Markets are another important factor, acting for example as contributors to Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2001 power shortages or as potential mediators in oil supply crises (e.g. Gupta, 2008). Diversity in vulnerability is therefore about understanding the acute and chronic threats to a cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy security and the alternatives available to mitigate or adapt to these challenges.

Diversity in capacity and capability: Even if a city is able to understand its role in energy policy and spot potential risks well in advance, its long-term success will be dependent on its ability to respond effectively to these challenges. The issues of capacity and capability are therefore central to understanding how cities might inďŹ&#x201A;uence energy use both locally and globally.

On the one hand, this is largely a question of descriptive analysis. The economic and governance structures of a city can have a signiďŹ cant inďŹ&#x201A;uence on its ability to choose new energy pathways, both locally and further aďŹ eld. In some cases, like Munich or Vienna for example, municipal governments own their utility companies and can utilise their revenues directly for infrastructure and other investments. Other urban activities have a wider inďŹ&#x201A;uence. Detroit and Dongguan for example produce

4877

signiďŹ cant quantities of consumer goods (automobiles and electronics respectively); these production processes affect local patterns of energy consumption but they also shape energy use in consumer cities worldwide. Similarly the economy of London has a signiďŹ cant indirect effect as its ďŹ nancial services industry facilitates global capital ďŹ&#x201A;ows for energy infrastructure and related investments.

However a more detailed analysis must go beyond an enumeration of the potential paths of inďŹ&#x201A;uence. The recent World Development Report 2009 (World Bank, 2008) noted an important paradox of urban governance: cities are centres of development and yet they have limited control over their own destinies, their actions being mediated by regional, national, and international governments as well as the global investment decisions of the private sector. Identifying these policy bottlenecks, i.e. situations where cities could have a positive inďŹ&#x201A;uence if key constraints were removed, is an important part of realising the full potential of urban energy policy. For example, the deďŹ nition of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;â&#x20AC;&#x2122; versus â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;urban areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;â&#x20AC;&#x2122; is not just a question of language: these distinctions may have signiďŹ cant administrative consequences that affect the ability of governments to inďŹ&#x201A;uence the functional area of a city and its energy consumption (particularly in, but not limited to, transport). Furthermore intermediaries, i.e. agents acting between governments and service delivery agencies, are increasingly seen as an important part of assessing the capability of a system to change (Moss, 2009).

With all of these issues, temporal and geographic scale is important. Risks for electrical network engineers may be described in seconds, whereas climate change impacts may occur over decades or centuries; similarly local resource use may be the product of supply chains that stretch across continents and oceans. A cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resource consumption is not only triggered by the ďŹ nal demands of its inhabitants; manufactured products and services are also induced by urban and rural demands elsewhere.

This diversity may initially appear daunting. However if well understood, it arguably holds the key to achieving global beneďŹ ts through local action.

4.3. Developing shared procedures Finally policy makers and urban energy stakeholders need to be able to use this new-found knowledge. Developing a suite of analytical tools and procedures can arguably help local governments to assess their unique situation and choose appropriate solutions. Such a toolkit might include basic software tools to support multi-criteria decision making (e.g. Bell et al., 2001) and examples of how and where the co-beneďŹ ts between energy policy and other ďŹ elds can be achieved. These resources could be valuable particularly for cities in developing countries where, although the policy agenda may be extremely crowded already, offers of development assistance may provide unique opportunities for large cross-sector projects, e.g. through the UNFCCC proposed adaptation fund (IEA, 2008b). In all cases however, care must be taken that any recommended solutions are not overly prescriptive.

In their study on urban climate policy, Bulkeley and Betsill (2003) found that local communities often emphasise the rhetoric of climate change and sustainability but are unable to institutionalise processes that will promote active decision making.

Developing shared procedures for urban energy policy analysis could help to overcome this barrier, though local judgment and participation will be necessary to ensure the solutions are effective. A good way to begin this process would be with data collection, deďŹ ning standards that can be tested and applied in multiple contexts.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4878

J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

5. Conclusion This paper has demonstrated that energy policy is not only a matter of national and international concern but that cities also have an important role to play. Of course, cities are already central to energy-related decisions but given the increasing demands on energy policy and the role of cities as centres of consumption and production, it is likely that the significance of this scale will only increase. However urban energy policy as a separate field of analysis is relatively neglected and the goal of this paper has been to explore some of the relevant issues and propose a research agenda.

Drawing on interviews with stakeholders from London’s energy policy scene and literature from related fields, distinctions between urban and national-level energy policies can be seen throughout the policy cycle. Whether it is promoting local issues to complement national priorities, or using partnerships and networks to leverage scarce resources, the case of London demonstrates how cities can use their creativity and enthusiasm to contribute to broader energy policy goals. However cities can also be constrained by their relations with higher levels of governance and, at least in London, it appears that policy initiatives are consequently limited largely to awareness raising and pilot projects.

Moving beyond London, these findings suggest that if urban energy policy is to be seen as a tool for addressing modern energy challenges, then there needs to be a more robust framework for the analysis of cities and their efforts in this field. It was suggested that three themes—describing practice, understanding diversity, and developing shared procedures—are priorities for research in order to better understand both the potential benefits of focused urban energy policies and the peculiarities of local context that must be considered when seeking to transfer best practice.

Existing research networks have begun work on these themes but it is hoped that this paper might also stimulate wider interest in the question of urban energy policy.

Acknowledgements The financial support of BP via the Urban Energy Systems project at Imperial College London is gratefully acknowledged.

The comments of two anonymous reviewers were invaluable and Yael Parag at the University of Oxford provided some helpful reading suggestions. We take responsibility for any remaining errors.

References Adler, J.H., 2006. Jurisdictional mismatch in environmental federalism. New York University Environmental Law Journal 14 (1), 130–178.

Barnes, D.F., Krutilla, K., Hyde, W.F., 2005. The Urban Household Energy Transition: Social and Environmental Impacts in the Developing World. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. Bell, M.L., Hobbs, B.F., Elliott, E.M., Ellis, H., Robinson, Z., 2001. An evaluation of multi-criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10 (5), 229–256.

BERR, 2008a. Digest of UK energy statistics /http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/ statistics/publications/dukes/page45537.htmlS. BERR, 2008b. Meeting the energy challenge: a white paper on nuclear power /http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/nuclear-whitepaper/page42765.htmlS. BERR, 2008c. UK energy sector indicators /http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/ statistics/publications/indicators/page46000.htmlS. BERR, 2008d. UK renewable energy strategy consultation /http://www.berr.gov. uk/consultations/page46797.htmlS. BERR, 2009. English regions energy policy group (EREPG) /http://www.berr.gov. uk/energy/governance/erepg/index.htmlS. Bridgman, P., Davis, G., 2003. What use is a policy cycle? Plenty if the aim is clear.

Australian Journal of Public Administration 62 (3), 98–102.

Brown, M.A., Southworth, F., Sarzynski, A., 2008. Shrinking the carbon footprint of metropolitan America. Technical Report, Brookings Institute.

Bulkeley, H., Betsill, M., 2003. Cities and climate change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance, Routledge Studies in Physical Geography and Environment, vol. 4. Routledge, New York.

C40, 2008. C40 cities: climate leadership group /http://www.c40cities.org/S. Capello, R., Nijkamp, P., Pepping, G., 1999. Sustainable cities and energy policies, Advances in Spatial Sciences. Springer, Berlin, New York.

Carney, S., Shackley, S., 2009. The greenhouse gas regional inventory project (GRIP): designing and employing a regional greenhouse gas measurement tool for stakeholder use. Energy Policy, in press, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.028.

Chappells, H., 2008. Systematically sustainable provision? The premises and promises of ‘joined-up’ energy demand management. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 9 (2), 259–275.

Collier, U., 1997. Sustainability, subsidiarity and deregulation: new directions in EU environmental policy. Environmental Politics 6 (2), 1–23.

DCLG, 2007. Planning policy statement: planning and climate change. Technical Report, Department of Communities and Local Government.

DCLG, 2009a. National indicators for local authorities and local authority partnerships /http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performan ceframeworkpartnerships/nationalindicators/S. DCLG, 2009b. Planning, building and the environment /http://www.communities. gov.uk/planningandbuilding/theenvironment/S. Dhakal, S., 2004. Urban Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Asian MegaCities: Policies for A Sustainable Future. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan.

DTI, 2007a. The future of nuclear power: the role of nuclear power in a low carbon UK economy /http://www.berr.gov.uk/consultations/page39704.htmlS. DTI, 2007b. Meeting the energy challenge: a white paper on energy /http://www. dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.htmlS. EC, 2007. An energy policy for Europe /http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/ energy/european_energy_policy/l27067_en.htmS. EC, 2008. Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources /http://ec.europa. eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_directive_en.pdfS. EC, 2009. Energy /http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/index_en. htmS. Energie-Cite s, 2008. Energie-Cite s: promoting sustainable energy policy through local action /http://www.energie-cites.org/S. EU, 2007. State of European cities report: adding value to the European urban audit. Technical Report, European Union Regional Policy.

GCP-URCM, 2008. International symposium on urban energy and carbon management: challenges for science and policy and international workshop on urban energy and carbon modeling /http://www.gcp-urcm.org/A20080204/Re portS. GLA, 2004. The mayor’s energy strategy /http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/ strategies/energy/index.jspS. GLA, 2007. Action today to protect tomorrow: the mayor’s climate change action plan. Technical Report, Greater London Authority.

GLA, 2008a. London energy and greenhouse gas emissions inventory 2008 /http:// www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publications/2008/12/leggi.jspS. GLA, 2008b. The London plan: spatial development strategy /http://www.london. gov.uk/thelondonplan/S. GLA, 2008c. Mayor of London, London Assembly and the Greater London Authority /http://www.london.gov.ukS. GoL, 2009. Local area agreements /http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/Local_govt/Localar eaagreements/?a=42496S. Gugler, J. (Ed.), 2004. World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization, Development, and Inequality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gupta, E., 2008. Oil vulnerability index of oil-importing countries. Energy Policy 36 (3), 1121–1195.

Guy, S., 2001. Constructing sustainable urban futures: from models to competing pathways. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 19 (2), 131.

Haughton, G., 1999. Environmental justice and the sustainable city. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18 (3), 233–243.

Haughton, G., Hunter, C., 2003. Sustainable Cities. Routledge, London.

Helm, D., 2002. Energy policy: security of supply sustainability and competition.

Energy Policy 30 (3), 173–184.

IEA, 2006. Energy policies of IEA countries, the United Kingdom 2006 review.

Technical Report OECD/IEA. IEA, 2008a. Agreement on an international energy program. Technical Report, International Energy Agency.

IEA, 2008b. World energy outlook 2008. Technical Report, International Energy Agency/OECD. Jacobs, K., Manzi, T., 2000. Performance indicators and social constructivism: conflict and control in housing management. Critical Social Policy 20 (1), 85–103.

Jordan, A., Jeppesen, T., 2000. EU environmental policy: adapting to the principle of subsidiarity?. European Environment 10 (2), 64–74.

JRF, 1997. The role of the local authority chief executive /http://www.jrf.org.uk/ knowledge/findings/government/G55.aspS. LBM, 2009. The Merton rule /http://www.merton.gov.uk/living/planning/plan ningpolicy/mertonrule.htmS. Monstadt, J., 2007. Urban governance and the transition of energy systems: Institutional change and shifting energy and climate policies in Berlin.

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (2), 326–343.

Moss, T., 2009. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transition. Environment and Planning A 41 (6), 1480–1495.

ARTICLE IN PRESS J. Keirstead, N.B. Schulz / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 4870–4879

Moss, T., Guy, S., Marvin, S., 2000. Urban Infrastructure in Transition: Networks, Buildings and Plans. Earthscan, London.

Newton, K., van Deth, J.W., 2005. Foundations of comparative politics: democracies of the modern world, Cambridge Textbooks in Comparative Politics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

Nijkamp, P., Pepping, G., 1998. A meta-analytical evaluation of sustainable city initiatives. Urban Studies 35 (9), 1481–1500.

Nijkamp, P., Perrels, A., 1991. The potential of European cities for sustainable environmental/energy policy. Technical Report, Vrije Universiteit.

NYC, 2007. Pla NYC /http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home. shtmlS. OECD, 1995. Urban Energy Handbook: Good Local Practice. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Pacione, M., 2009. Urban geography: a global perspective, third ed. Routledge, London.

Pimlott, B., Rao, N., 2002. Governing London. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Rotmans, J., Asselt, M.B.A.V., 2000. Towards an integrated approach for sustainable city planning. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 9 (1–3), 110–124.

Saikku, L., Rautiainen, A., Kauppi, P.E., 2008. The sustainability challenge of meeting carbon dioxide targets in Europe by 2020. Energy Policy 36 (2), 730–742.

Sassen, S., 2001. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, second ed. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, Oxford.

Sassen, S., 2004. Afterword. In: Gugler, J. (Ed.), World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization, Development, and Inequality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15–396.

Satterthwaite, D., 2008. Cities’ contribution to global warming: Notes on the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment and Urbanization 20 (2), 539–549.

4879

Schiffer, H.-W., 2008. WEC energy policy scenarios to 2050. Energy Policy 36 (7), 2464–2470.

Schulz, N.B., 2007. The direct material inputs into Singapore’s development.

Journal of Industrial Ecology 11 (2).

Schulz, N., 2009a. Urban scale energy consumption estimates for Europe (EU27).

Energy Policy, this issue.

Schulz, N., 2009b. Delve into carbon footprints of Singapore: comparing direct and indirect GHG emissions. Energy Policy, this issue.

Seager, A., 2007. Builders attack green homes rule, The Guardian, London, 14 August.

Seager, A., 2008. A renewed effort on green energy, The Guardian, London, 25 June.

SEDAC-CIESIN, 2007. Global rural–urban mapping project (grump) /http://sedac. ciesin.org/gpw/index.jspS. Sellers, J.M., 2002. Governing From Below: Urban Regions and the Global Economy.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Shell, 2008. Shell energy scenarios to 2050. Technical Report, Shell International.

Smith, A., 2007. Emerging in between: the multi-level governance of renewable energy in the English regions. Energy Policy 35 (12), 6266–6280.

Smith, P., 1990. The use of performance indicators in the public sector. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 153 (1), 53.

Soussan, J., 1990. Final report on alternative energy sources for urban areas.

Technical Report, ETC Consultants.

Sovacool, B.K., Brown, M.A., 2009. Scaling the policy response to climate change.

Policy and Society 27 (4), 317–328.

UN, 2008. World urbanization prospects: the 2007 revision population database /http://esa.un.org/unup/S. World Bank, 2008. World development report 2009 /http://www.worldbank.org/ wdr2009S.