As a graduate of the Energy and Sustainability Program, and as an informed citizen, it will be important for you to understand the role of policy analysis in our lawmaking process. The ability to examine policy critically from a variety of frameworks and evaluate its effectiveness in achieving intended goals is a crucial skill for you to cultivate over time. In this lesson, you'll be exposed to a broad range of frameworks for policy analysis that will begin to prepare you for the Critique portion of the course's Research Project.

The process of analyzing policy can be summarized in the following 6 steps, as outlined by Carl Patton and David Sawicki in the 1993 book Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, Second Edition. Please also note that many other organizations and individuals have developed similar structured outlines, but this 6-step process works well in the context of our discussion of energy policy analysis. Feel free to explore other frameworks such as these (and many others).

• Keeney, R. L., & McDaniels, T. L. (2001). A framework to guide thinking and analysis regarding climate change policies. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 989-1000. 10.1111/0272-4332.216168
• Quade, E. S. (1982). Analysis for public decisions (2nd ed.). New York: North Holland.
• Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1999). Policy analysis: Concepts and practice (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

This process, however, can be approached from myriad perspectives, and we'll be exploring the validity of some of these perspectives in this lesson. As we go through the various frameworks for policy analysis, be thinking about these two broad categories:

Quantitative policy analysis is probably the broad subtype of policy analysis with which you are most familiar. Quantitative analysis is characterized by numerical data, mathematical numbers, and other systematic scientific approaches.

Example: Based on the emissions caps presented in the Waxman-Markey climate bill, we can expect an 83% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (relative to a 2005 baseline).

Qualitative policy analysis involves the consideration of factors that are less easily quantifiable into neatly defined categories and values.

Example: Semi-structured interviews with utility customers reveal a widespread misunderstanding of how energy consumption patterns in the home actually influence their bills.

As energy and climate policy professionals, you will undoubtedly encounter more quantitative than qualitative perspectives for energy policy analysis. Legislators need to know concrete facts as they try to make decisions about whether or not implementing policies is the right decision. Costs of programs, avoided costs saved, energy saved, emissions reduced, jobs created, jobs lost - these are all critical factors in the process of evaluating a policy. But, it's important to also consider the value associated with less quantifiable research, because when it comes to energy consumption, behavioral change matters a lot! With most estimates placing more than 40% of a building's consumption at the discretion of the users, understanding how people interact with and respond to the more quantitative factors in energy policy is an important (and arguably less well-understood) component of developing energy policies that are feasible, efficient, and successful.

Now we're going to look at several different perspectives from which we can analyze energy policy. As you explore these different frameworks, think about their individual strengths and how they might apply to your Final Project. The important thing to remember is that while each perspective brings value, they should not be used in isolation from the others. They intertwine in many ways and so relying on one but not the others provides an incomplete picture.

Geographic Analysis

Many facets of energy policy necessitate an in-depth exploration from a spatial perspective. Whether it is assessing the siting feasibility for wind or solar installations, or evaluating the sub-national level impacts related to a changing climate, geography plays an important role in energy policy. Much geographic analysis can be done utilizing geographic information systems to visualize spatially-contextualized data. An important note, too, is that geographic analyses enable policy analysts to explore other types of data (like economic, demographic, and environmental) and visualize the results over space and time.

Throughout the course, we've explored the various roles different scales of government play in the development and implementation of energy policies. In additional to analyzing policies to determine if the scale of implementation is most appropriate, consider the following:

• Virtually every aspect of energy policy we've discussed in this course is inherently geographical in nature. When we look at the types of fuels on which we rely to power our economy and our lives and the places from which we acquire them, we're analyzing energy policies from a geographic perspective. When we identify the mosaic of alternative energy solutions across the country, we're looking at the geographies of these places to determine which energy resources will work and which ones will not.
• While it's necessary to employ federal standards and mandates for some issues related to energy policy (like best available technologies and practices for emissions controls at power plants or permitting specs for natural gas drilling), other issues necessitate a specially tailored highly localized approach that can only be achieved at a small scale. Maine and New Mexico will have very different needs and opportunities when establishing programs for enhanced energy efficiency.
• The consequences of our energy policies have very real geographic implications as well. The natural gas boom happening in the northeast and out west is having very real impacts on those places. Short term economic boom, the creation of jobs in places that often need them badly, and environmental damages along the way are all part of the geographic landscape. On a longer horizon, the energy policies we employ today have very real consequences for our climate tomorrow, and the impacts of climate change could not be more geographic in nature. Coastal areas face concerns about rising sea levels and intensely destructive storm surges. Agricultural regions face changing growing seasons and suitable crops. Biologically sensitive rain forests face accelerated loss of biodiversity as plants and animals struggle to adapt to an artificially quickly changing climate.

The main thing to remember is that examining our energy policies from a geographic perspective enables us to holistically understand many facets of the consequences that policy may have.

Here are a few examples of geographic analysis of energy-related policies:

• Modeling the Effects of Appliance Standards through Geographic Analysis
• A Geographic Analysis of Wind Turbine Placement in Northern California
• Geographic Analysis of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for a Grant Renewal EIS

Economic Analysis

Economic Analysis is probably the single most common type of policy analysis you'll find when it comes to energy policy. Remember back to earlier lessons and the discussions about whether or not the United States should adopt a comprehensive climate policy. Proponents of the adoption of climate policy (such as an economy-wide cap on emissions and emissions trading scheme) suggested analyses purporting that this would be the least costly alternative to reduce emissions while also generating revenue to assist low-income families with higher energy bills through energy efficiency improvements (check out the Pew Center's The Case for Cap and Trade). Opponents of the adoption of a mandatory emissions reduction scheme offered their own analyses painting a very different economic future - one marked by excessively high energy prices and the loss of manufacturing-related jobs as companies left the US to produce goods in unregulated countries.

There is no shortage of examples of economic analyses related to energy and climate policy. In addition to the few listed below, I encourage you to look for one related to your Research Project. Whether we like it or not, economic feasibility is probably the single most influential factor in whether or not a policy makes it through the implementation phase.

• CRS Report for Congress, Energy Tax Policy: An Economic Analysis by Salvatore Lazzari (2005)
• A great resource - links to EPA's economic analyses for the various climate policies in Congress over the past several years. I highly recommend you check out this site.

Political Analysis

Political Analysis of energy policy works hand in hand with economic analysis in terms of determining an energy policy's overall viability. As you've been learning throughout the course, energy policy inherently dictates winners and losers, and those actors with a stake in the outcome of a policy initiative will work hard to ensure their interests are protected. If you look through the various iterations of any energy policy from its initial draft form through the finalized legislation, you will undoubtedly find political concessions along the way. The give and take necessary to ensure enough votes for passage means tough compromises on both sides.

Life Cycle Assessment

We touched initially on this concept in the previous lesson. Life cycle assessment is a concept that is gaining a lot more traction as we begin to evaluate things from a systems approach. The best example of this as it relates to energy policy is the debate over whether natural gas or coal is the 'cleaner' fossil fuel. If we are talking strictly about the combustion of the resource to produce energy, natural gas produces about half the greenhouse gas emissions that coal does (on a per Btu basis). But if we start to take a step back and analyze the entire process from exploration and extraction through waste management, we begin to see a different picture in which those disparities in emissions begin to disappear. The same issue occurs with renewable vs fossil fuel energy sources.  As you compare the life cycle implications of wind and solar, the nature of the differences varies more than if you focused only on the “use” phase of the life cycle. 

• Climate benefits of natural gas may be overstated

Systems Analysis

Systems analysis offers a more holistic approach to examining an energy policy by considering all of the various interconnected systems in which energy flow occurs. From resource extraction, to processing, to transmission, to consumption - the flow of energy crosses many geographic and economic boundaries, and evaluating an energy policy effectively needs to consider the systemic effects across them all. A systems analysis approach focuses on identifying alternative courses of action and considering unintended consequences across technological, economic, environmental, and political variables.

Some examples of systems analysis work related to energy:

• Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project is doing systems analysis research (as well as technology assessment)
• The Argonne National Laboratory's Center for Energy, Environmental, and Economic Systems Analysis (CEEESA) is doing work related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. You can check out a sampling of their projects on their website.
• The ISO 50000 series of standards on energy management systems for organizations.

In addition to examining an energy source's (or policy's) economic, environmental, and political viability, policy analysts and lawmakers must also consider associated risks. Risk assessment involves looking at the potential loss and the probability that such a loss will occur. It's important to know that nothing is without risks (think about the list of potential side effects you get when you pick up an antibiotic at the pharmacy). But risk assessment plays an important role in formulating the political and environmental feasibility of any particular energy source.

With traditional fossil fuels, we tend to think of human health risks and environmental risks. The fuel sources are plentiful, well-understood, and relatively inexpensive. When we look at the risks associated with alternative energy sources, those risks involve decreased reliability of supply, higher costs, and the loss of jobs associated with traditional fue

A relevant article on the Huffington Post website by Aron Cramer, President and CEO of an organization called BSR that focuses on corporate sustainability issues. The article discusses the earthquake and tsunami in Fukishima, Japan and how events like that shape how we think about energy policy. It is also an example of systems analysis. Please take a moment to think about this article and reflect on how our energy policies ripple throughout society.

To learn more about the risks associated with nuclear reactors, check out the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fact Sheet.

Actual vs. Perceived Risk

There is an extensive body of literature regarding perceived risk and how that influences people's opinions on everything from energy sources to natural disasters. Understanding how information (or lack of information) shapes people's views on energy issues is key to identifying knowledge gaps and disseminating factual information to help them make educated choices. For better or worse, perceived risk - no matter how realistic or unrealistic it is - is equivalent in impact on individual perception of risk and thus should be considered in policy analysis.

The application of science into policy decisions related to energy and climate is extremely important. Climate change is a hotly contested political issue at all scales of governance, but is perhaps most visible at the federal level. Generally, committees within the House and Senate hold hearings about issues they are considering for legislative action (such as energy and climate policy) where they bring in a range of experts to testify about the issues and to inform their development of policy. The selection of those 'experts' is at times a calculated and choreographed exercise in strategy to ensure that the suggestions they offer align with other political goals.

In the House of Representatives, the following committees work on policy related to energy and climate:

• Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
• Committee on Energy and Commerce
• Committee on Natural Resources

The relevant committees in the Senate include:

• Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
• Committee on Environment and Public Works
• Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

If you look at Congress over any significant amount of time, you can note the pendulum-like swings between positions. What we saw during the 116th Congress (2019-2021), which focused in part on climate change mitigation, was a dramatic departure from the 115th and 114th Congress. These Congresses were a step backwards in many ways to revisiting the issue of whether or not climate change is a) occurring at all and b) anthropogenic in nature (we also saw a lot of this in the 111th and 112th sessions). The most recently elected 117th Congress is deprioritizing climate issues. 

This wasted time and effort disputing virtually unequivocal science could be used to produce meaningful energy legislation to create skilled labor jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and propel us forward as a world leader in clean technologies. Clearly, the 2016 election drew a definitive line in the sand in terms of the direction energy and climate policy will take in the coming years. Things changed somewhat in 2018 and the 116th Congrss with the Democrats taking over the House, then dramatically in 2020 with the Biden Administration and a slim effective majority in the Senate (technically a 50/50 split, with the Vice President being the tie-breaking vote). It is difficult - okay impossible - to believe that the IRA or IIJA would have been feasible without this political dynamic. It is clear that who is in power matters significantly when it comes to policy priorities.

The recent IAC Report on the role of government seems particularly relevant to our discussion here, despite it being several years old now. What do we, and more importantly, what should we expect from our elected officials when it comes to integrating scientific understanding into our public policy?

While the later years of the Obama Administration brought forward such meaningful climate legislation progress like the Clean Power Plan and the US commitment to the Paris Agreements, prior to that, progress on large-scale environmental issues had waned considerably for several years, sparked in large part by the sharp economic downturn and recession. Environmental concerns became luxury issues, and were back-burnered for more immediately pressing needs in times of economic hardship. We can all understand and appreciate that to an extent but the challenge will be that the lines between immediate and future consequences of our environmental policies are becoming less clearly defined. Climate change is no longer an issue for future generations; it is a “now” issue.

When we talk about improving energy efficiency, there are two broad paradigms under which we might consider options for increased efficiency. The first is a very engineering-centric perspective known as PTEM (which stands for Physical-Technical-Economic Model), which approaches energy efficiency from the perspective that new technologies are the only driver of greater efficiencies, so long as they are economically viable. This often requires subsidization because emerging technologies almost always cost more than ones that have already established themselves in the market. When we think about this in the context of energy efficiency programs out there today, it makes sense - there are myriad rebate programs and tax credits that aim to reward increases in energy efficiency among residential and commercial users. The purpose of this is to make them less expensive than existing technologies and practices.

But if changing energy consumption were really this cut and dry, we would likely not be in the energy policy conundrum in which we find ourselves as a country today. Economics and numbers work quite well on paper, but people don't always behave in the most economically or technologically rational ways. We're people (not homo economicus), and our behaviors are often irrational and unpredictable, and that extends to our behavior related to energy consumption. Some experts suggest that nearly half of all actual energy use is based on operating behavior, not technologies in place. But changing behaviors is challenging - a seemingly much more daunting task than coming up with new technologies! Think about this - You could be given free LEDs - maybe even installed in your home for you (and in fact many programs do this, including in Delaware). But how can this act influence your decision to leave them on all day and night? This is a tough challenge, even with the economic incentive to conserve energy that we all understand as utility customers. People are creatures of habit, and it's hard to make them (well, us) change our ways for even economic benefits, much less those more tertiary benefits like avoiding elevated CO₂ levels in our atmosphere. this "overuse" of energy due to behavioral changes after efficiency measures are installed is called "the rebound effect." Some recent research suggests that economy-wide rebound effects often exceed 50% (!) and thus - among other things - can significantly compromise modeling of energy reductions due to decoupling efforts.

Another key consideration in the differences between PTEM and human behavior is the quantifiability. It is no surprise that approaches under the PTEM model are more easily verified. If you use this technology in this way, you can anticipate X savings on your utility bill. Quantifiable reductions are viewed as key indicators for the success of a program. Working with people in more qualitative ways to understand and influence their energy consumption patterns is much more challenging to quantify, and therefore harder to determine if it's working or not. The important thing you should take away from this discussion is that there is no one right or wrong way. Like much of what we've discussed in this course, energy efficiency improvements necessitate a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches to ensure maximum increases.

The very definition of sustainability touches on this PTEM vs. human behavior relationship.  Although people tend to use the term “sustainable” interchangeably with “environmentally preferable”, they are not the same.  Sustainability is the balance of environmental, economic, and social (quality of life) elements, with the environment being only one of the three pillars.  By virtue of the definition, we see that typically neither the cheapest, or most environmentally preferable, or most socially preferred option is the truly sustainable one.  Instead, it is the balance of the three pillars.  Hence, picking having technology available, or reasonable costs, or thinking about what you would prefer as the sole factor might not lead to the most sustainable solution- it will be a mix of the three.  Forcing people into any one, and only one, of the three pillars will lead to the examples given of human behavior vs PTEM quagmires. 

Important concepts to take away from this lesson

This lesson has been an exploration of the various perspectives from which we can approach policy analysis, and more specifically - energy policy analysis. We've learned that humans do not always behave rationally, that no one perspective for policy analysis can be the only analysis, and that our energy policies infiltrate all sectors of our economy and society, so a systems approach makes a lot of sense, and it's crucial that we inform the development of these policies with the best science knowledge we have available.

One of the core competencies of the ESP program is to develop strong analytical thinking skills, and this lesson was designed to prepare you with the tools you'll need to do this. A critical eye toward how our policy decisions today ripple through our lives tomorrow is a marketable skill you should continue to cultivate throughout your academic and professional career.

Reminder - Complete all tasks!

You have reached the end of the Lesson! Double-check the Lesson Requirements in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the tasks listed there.