Transformative energy efficiency and conservation: a sustainable development path approach in British Columbia, Canada

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400 DOI 10.1007/s12053-009-9048-8

Transformative energy efficiency and conservation: a sustainable development path approach in British Columbia, Canada Nichole Dusyk & Tom Berkhout & Sarah Burch & Sylvia Coleman & John Robinson

Received: 20 June 2008 / Accepted: 6 February 2009 / Published online: 28 February 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Achieving the greatly enhanced levels of reduction in energy demand that are required for climate stabilization will require new approaches to energy efficiency and conservation that go well beyond conventional approaches. Broadening the scope from discrete goals to systemic development path changes can contribute to sustainable futures by helping to overcome barriers to energy efficiency and by enhancing and expanding co-benefits, including improving social welfare and energy security. We call this approach transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC). The province of British Columbia, Canada, has recently emerged as a locus for new energy efficiency and conservation initiatives that push the boundaries of what has been tried before in this jurisdiction. This paper examines the British Columbia case concluding that, although still in the early stages, the province is taking steps toward the development path changes that would be required to achieve transformative energy efficiency and conservation. N. Dusyk : T. Berkhout : S. Burch : S. Coleman : J. Robinson Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada S. Burch (*) 429-2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Energy efficiency . Climate change . Sustainable development . Development path

Introduction The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in 2007, has demonstrated that achieving stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system will require energy efficiency improvements that go far beyond what most jurisdictions have achieved to date. This will demand unprecedented levels of energy efficiency and fuel switching. The IPCC notes that “[t]he scenarios that report quantitative results with drastic CO2 reduction targets of 60–80% in 2050 (compared to today’s emission levels) require increased rates of energy intensity and carbon intensity improvement by 2–3 times their historical levels” (Fisher et al. 2007, p. 172). Such strong demand-side responses are especially important in the first half of this century. In comparing a set of regional and national mitigation studies, the IPCC notes that “[t]he results of scenario analysis since the Third Assessment report, in 2001 (TAR) show that energy intensity improvement is superior to carbon intensity reduction in the first half of the 21st century, but that carbon intensity reduction becomes more dominant in the latter half of the century” (p. 217).

388

Achieving these greatly enhanced levels of reduction in energy use will require new approaches to energy efficiency and conservation that go well beyond conventional approaches. In this paper, we argue that it will be necessary to move toward more transformative approaches that integrate energy efficiency and conservation with broader development path changes. Broadening the scope to systemic development path changes can contribute to sustainable futures by helping to overcome barriers to energy efficiency and by enhancing and expanding co-benefits, including improving social welfare and energy security. This type of transformative action requires shifts from discrete goals and initiatives to more integrative and systemic approaches, and from independently reducing energy use and throughput toward altering the development path and promoting sustainability. We call this approach transformative energy efficiency and conservation (TEEC). The province of British Columbia, Canada, has recently emerged as a locus for new energy efficiency and conservation initiatives that push the boundaries of what has been tried before in this jurisdiction. These initiatives range in scale from provincial policies to individual buildings and include, for example, a new provincial carbon tax, radical efficiency goals by the province’s primary electrical utility, and examples of leading-edge community and building design. This paper will examine the British Columbia case in order to determine whether these changes are likely to lead to development path changes that will in turn give rise to transformative energy efficiency and conservation.

From conventional to transformative energy efficiency and conservation Achieving levels of energy efficiency and conservation (two different kinds of energy demand reduction) that are multiples of those achieved through energy demand-side management policies in the past will likely require approaches that go far beyond the focus of previous policies. Policies that help to achieve transformative energy intensity reductions will address both energy efficiency, defined as a reduction in the amount of energy used per unit of activity, as well as energy conservation, defined as reductions in the level of activity (or service) itself. This transformation, furthermore, will entail societal and structural change

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

more broadly, including lifestyles, consumption and values, as well as technological and economic change. These factors suggest the importance of considering what might be called the development path of the jurisdiction in question. By development path, we mean the socioeconomic and technological trajectories or pathways that provide the context for energy-using behaviors. It consists of “a complex array of technological, economic, social, institutional, cultural, and biophysical characteristics that determines the interactions between human and natural systems, including consumption and production patterns in all countries, over time at a particular scale” (Sathaye et al. 2007, p. 696). Evidence for the importance of the development paths in achieving mitigation goals comes from almost a decade of research into long-term climate mitigation scenarios. That research indicates that the difference in GHG emissions between alternative development path scenarios can be as great as that between scenarios with or without climate change mitigation (Fisher et al. 2007; Moomaw et al. 2001). This suggests that it can be as important to achieve a low emission development path as to implement successful mitigation policies (Swart et al. 2004). Based on these concepts, we argue that transformative energy efficiency and conservation requires a fundamental change in the underlying development path, toward carbon neutrality. Theoretical developments in the emerging field of sociotechnical regimes help us develop a language to describe the process by which development paths change and transition. Strongly influenced by complex systems theory, the sociotechnical regime model attempts to explain how large-scale transformative change occurs. The model is based on interactions between three different levels of co-evolutionary social and technological development: landscape, regime, and niche. The model presents the three levels in a nested hierarchy; multiple niches may exist within a regime, and the landscape serves as a backdrop for both regimes and niches. At the heart of the system, or the meso-level, is the sociotechnical regime. It reflects the dominant physical (e.g., infrastructure) and immaterial (e.g., routines, regulations, power structures, actor networks) institutions that define and guide the trajectory of each of society’s numerous constructed systems (e.g., energy, transportation, health care, housing; Geels and Schot 2007; Loorbach 2007). The highest level of the socio-

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

technical system is the landscape level. It represents the broad notions of “social values, political cultures, built environment (factories, etc.) and economic development and trends” (Loorbach 2007, p.20) and acts as the macro-level backdrop on which different regimes and niches are constructed. Although “[t]he landscape level typically develops autonomously”, it “directly influences the regime level as well as the niches by defining the room and direction for change” (Loorbach 2007, p.20). Niches, the third and final level of the sociotechnical regime model, operate at the micro-level. Although niches, like regimes, consist of both material and immaterial institutions, niches represent an important space where innovative technologies and institutions that challenge existing regimes are created and protected from the dominant regime (Geels and Schot 2007). For the purpose of this paper, the critical question we ask is: how do conventional energy-related regimes transition into ones where radical levels of energy efficiency and conservation are realized? According to the sociotechnical regime model of change, dominant regimes are challenged when changes in the regime’s external “landscape” cause its ability to meet its expected societal role to be called into question (Geels and Schot 2007). At such points in time, the dominant regime may become destabilized, creating new space for alternative technological and social institutions to be considered. During such periods of destabilization, niche-level regimes compete to be recognized as legitimate alternatives to the now destabilized dominant regime (Geels and Schot 2007). Historical case studies (e.g., Belz 2004; Geels 2005; van der Brugge et al. 2005; Verbong and Geels 2006) show that the circumstances that eventually led to the destabilization of past dominant regimes were usually more an outcome of chance events that took place at the “landscape” level than intentional design. However, scholars working in the field of “transition management” argue that governance strategies can intentionally steer regime-level transformations, particularly toward arrangements that are consistent with the goals of sustainable development (Loorbach 2007; Voß and Kemp 2006). In this vein, Howlett (2008) argues that three critical factors must intermesh if governments are to successfully engender a transformation in the dominant sociotechnical regime. These are: establishing coherent goals, introducing policy instruments that are consistent with these goals, and

389

ensuring that enough capacity exists to adopt appropriate governance strategies and policy tools. Combining a development path approach with the theory of large-scale sociotechnical transformations can help articulate elements that influence development path transitions and build on the tools and concepts that each theory provides. Using the concept of a development path allows us to describe transformative activities in terms of overall system change. At the same time, the multilevel perspective offers useful vocabulary and conceptual tools for understanding the dynamics of change. Together, they suggest that destabilization of existing regimes is essential to opening up a development path to change. Simultaneously, elements of a new regime, that are coherent with the cultural understandings of the landscape, need to emerge and stabilize. Within shifting landscapes and regimes, existing capacity and niches must be activated and institutionalized. In the case studies that follow, we add specific details to this general description of development path transition. The case is based on GHG reduction initiatives taking place in the province of British Columbia, Canada and the implications of these initiatives for energy efficiency and conservation. It is used to describe what we believe may be a shifting development path. Drawing examples from multiple sectors and levels of government, we describe how existing regimes are being challenged, and new ones appear to be taking form. In doing so, we provide a current example of specific elements that can contribute to development path transition. Although the outcome of this “transition” cannot be certain, we examine whether the kinds of changes being undertaken correspond to the development path changes required to achieve TEEC.

Provincial policy and action in British Columbia The province of British Columbia, situated on Canada’s west coast, is home to 4.4 million people, approximately 13% of Canada’s population (British Columbia 2008a) and is responsible for roughly 13% of the nation’s gross domestic product (Statistics Canada 2008). The province has a reputation within Canada for being a locus of environmental advocacy and action. Until recently, however, the provincial government had not itself taken a strong lead in

390

addressing climate change. In 2007, the government appeared to make a drastic reversal in policy, under the direct leadership of the Premier’s office, essentially beginning the systemic changes necessary for transitioning toward a carbon neutral economy. Although the official policy discourse in the province changed quite suddenly, the seeds of the transformation go back several years. In December 2004, the province released its climate action plan entitled Weather, Climate, and the Future: BC’s Plan (British Columbia 2004). The plan acknowledged the potentially significant impacts of global climate change on British Columbians and the need for both mitigation and adaptation. However, it contained little in the way of concrete targets and strong commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In February 2007, the government of British Columbia released its most recent energy plan entitled The BC Energy Plan: A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership (Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 2007). The 2007 energy plan required all new electrical generation to be carbon neutral and declared that existing thermal electrical generation will be carbon neutral by 2016. Overall, the plan committed the province to maintaining 90% of electrical generation from clean sources, and set an overall goal of achieving provincial electricity self-sufficiency by 2016. Corresponding with the release of the energy plan, the provincial speech from the throne in February 2007 announced a significant shift in government policy. The announced policy changes, initiated by the Premier’s office, included a series of precedentsetting climate change mitigation goals that were subsequently enacted into legislation, and made legally binding, in November 2007. These commitments included reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 33% below 2007 levels by 2020 and to at least 80% below 2007 levels by 2050. The legislation also required that interim reductions targets for 2012 and 2016 be established by December 31, 2008. Finally, it mandated a carbon neutral public sector by 2010 (British Columbia 2007a). These legally binding greenhouse gas reduction goals exceed any other targets in North America (British Columbia 2007b). Reducing GHG emissions by 33% in 2020 will only bring the province in line with Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, but the 2050 target of 80% emissions reductions below 2007 levels represents a significant and potentially

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

transformative goal. Furthermore, even the goals for 2020 extend far beyond the emissions reductions that were expected to occur through existing energy efficiency programs already in place in the province. Therefore, to achieve their own targets, the provincial government has initiated a host of new actions. First, the government has introduced a four-part series of legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The first part is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Effective July 1, 2008 the tax charges $10 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent and increases, in a stepwise function by $5 each year, to $30 per ton in 2012. Although it “isn’t the highest…it is the most consistent and comprehensive” carbon tax in the world (Durning 2008) that provides, to all sectors in the province, a crucial signal of the increasing cost of carbon over time. The second part of the legislation enables the government to implement and enforce a cap and trade system for designated large emitters. The details of the system will be developed as part of the Western Climate Initiative, a multijurisdictional partnership between seven US states and four Canadian provinces (with an additional six states and one province acting as official observers to the process). The final two parts of the four-part climate policy introduced by the B.C government create vehicle and fleet emissions standards and allow for the regulation of industrial emissions including emissions from waste facilities and from coalgenerated electricity. In addition to its specific climate policy, the B.C government has also initiated a suite of climatefriendly policies and regulations. These include developing a new, green building code, updating the Utilities Commission Act (which governs the electrical and gas utilities in the province), and adding the requirement of climate goals and policies to the municipal and community charters. All of the initiatives currently underway in the province are highlighted in the Climate Action Plan released in June, 2008. This includes the newly introduced LiveSmart BC program that, for its first phase, consists of a $60-million, province-wide energy efficiency incentive program. Independent modeling undertaken in the last year predicts that the plan will bring the province to 73% of its goal of a 33% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 (British Columbia 2008b). To help make up the remaining nine million tons CO2 equivalent, or 27% of its goal, the Premier created the provincial Climate Action Team, an

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

external advisory group that brings together 22 experts and stakeholders from the research, not-forprofit, First Nations, and business communities. The Climate Action Team’s report, suggests interim reduction targets of 5% to 7% below 2007 levels by 2012 and 15% to 18% below 2007 levels by 2016. In addition, it recommends further actions and steps to enhance the impact of current initiatives, for instance recommending mandatory goals for net-zero buildings and the pricing of emissions beyond 2012 (British Columbia Climate Action Team 2008). The policy shift undertaken by the BC provincial government was initiated at the highest level, the Premier’s office, but is supported by, and relies upon, the activities at other levels of government and in a number of sectors in the province. It exhibits a form of leadership that can be called “strategic capacity” (Healey 2004, p.99) in that the provincial government has seized on the potential of the moment, reduced risk and encouraged action from other actors, created connections and synergy, and helped overcome obstacles to change. The government targets and policy leadership have set the tone in the province, creating an atmosphere where climate change mitigation is a priority that is actively promoted on a number of fronts. This form of leadership, which is helping to both destabilize existing regimes and encourage the formation of new ones, is enabled by previous plans and policies (such as the 2004 climate action plan and the 2007 energy plan) that have laid the groundwork for more transformative climate policy, by the current public sentiment toward climate change, and by a number of regimes in the province that are, themselves, poised for transformation.

Energy efficiency and conservation in British Columbia’s electricity sector The generation and distribution of electricity in the province of British Columbia is dominated by a single public utility which serves over 94% of the province’s population (BC Hydro 2007a). Historically, the utility has been able to count on a surplus of electricity supply, predominately from large hydroelectric sources of generation, to meet its domestic demand. In 2005, its total “existing and committed” supply of electricity was 55,381 gigawatt hours (GWh; BC Hydro 2006b, p.66), and its domestic demand for

391

electricity including losses was 55,500 GWh (BC Hydro 2006a). Since 2005, however, the province has been a net importer of electricity, and the utility predicts that between 2005 and 2027, its domestic demand for electricity will increase between 17,505 and 27,355 GWh or from 31% to 49% above 2005 levels (BC Hydro 2008). British Columbia’s primary electrical utility, therefore, is confronted with a growing gap between its current level of supply and its projected demand. Prior to 1980, the utility had a more or less free hand in planning and managing provincial electricity resources as it saw fit. The creation of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) in 1980, however, ushered in a new era of electricity planning within the province; the formal regulatory process opened the utility’s engineer-driven planning regime to formal public and regulatory scrutiny for the first time (Smith 1988). One of the most significant outcomes of the new planning regime was the acceptance of energy efficiency and conservation as a viable resource alternative (Kellow 1996). In 1989, the utility introduced its demand-side management (DSM) program—Power Smart. As of 2007, the utility’s cumulative annual incremental energy savings was 2,518 GWh (BC Hydro 2007b). Perhaps even more significant from the stand point of TEEC than the creation of the BCUC was the 2007 BC Energy Plan (Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources 2007) which, among the other items outlined above, required that the utility acquire 50% of its incremental resource needs through conservation by 2020. The 2007 BC Energy Plan marks a clear break from its predecessor, the 2002 Energy Plan, which had mandated the development of new coal-generated electricity as a major solution to closing the anticipated supply gap; this was a strategy that met strong public resistance. Since the release of the 2007 plan, the utility’s President and Chief Executive Officer, Bob Elton, has stated an even more ambitious long-term energy conservation target for the utility: Our goal is to develop and foster a conservation culture in BC...we strongly believe that we can go beyond the 50% conservation target set out by the 2007 B.C. Energy Plan and lead a change such that in 2027 we would return to 2007 electricity consumption levels while allowing for growing and economic prosperity (Elton 2007, p.1).

392

Tangible evidence of the emergence of an energy efficiency and conservation regime within the utility is found by comparing its 2008 Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) application filed with the BCUC with its 2006 LTAP application (BC Hydro 2006a). The 2008 application requested $552.2 million in expenditures between 2009 and 2011, $418 million or 75.7% of which is earmarked for implementing DSM programs (BC Hydro 2008). This represents a $232.4 million (125%) increase in anticipated DSM spending for the same 3-year period from the amount proposed in its 2006 LTAP application. British Columbia’s provincial power utility is not alone in making energy conservation a key component of its long-term development path. Table 1 compares the different energy efficiency and conservation targets being pursued by a number of North American utilities and jurisdictions. Although direct comparisons are difficult to make because of differences in definition, measurement, legislated powers for implementation, and variances in the duration of the different targets (ranging from 4 to 22 years beyond the 2005 base year), the final two columns give an indication of the level of commitment being made by BC’s public power utility to a development path that is deeply imbued with sustainable patterns of energy use. By ranking the different utilities and jurisdictions according to the proportion of energy efficiency and conservation in the projected energy mix (Column 7), we see that BC’s public power utility—whether using its CEO’s 2027 stretch target, the 2008 LTAP or 2007 BC Energy Plan—is following one of the most radical energy efficiency and conservation development pathways in North America. Perhaps even more telling is a comparison of its new targets with its historical DSM track record. The stretch savings goal for the next 20 years is over 21,800 GWh, which represents a more than eightfold increase from its Power Smart achievements to date1. Given the magnitude of its energy efficiency and conservation goals, British Columbia’s public power utility has formed a permanent stakeholder advisory committee called the Electricity Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee (EC&E) whose 23 1

This figure is calculated using the utility’s (2008) mid-range (76,800 GWh) load forecast for 2027. The stretch energy savings goals for the low (72,191 GWh) and high (81,511 GWh) range load forecasts represent a seven- and an 11-fold increase from Power Smart achievements to date.

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

members represent civil society, government, First Nations, the business community, and the energy sector. The EC&E has developed a multilevel strategic framework which it describes as a “framework for societal change,” and argues that such a framework must be followed if the utility is going to realize its aggressive energy conservation and efficiency targets (BC Hydro 2007c, p.9). Unlike historical DSM strategies, which have concentrated largely on programs promoting voluntary individual behavioral and technological change and to a lesser degree setting performance standards, the strategic framework espouses the need for radical change at three levels: individual (behaviors and technologies), market (the rules of the game), and societal (shared notions of energy-related routines, expectations, and infrastructure). The 2007 BC Energy Plan and public resistance to the construction of new large-scale generation facilities have accelerated the process of destabilizing the provincial utility’s supply-oriented electricity regime, a process that began in the early 1980s. Preliminary long-term planning efforts make it evident that energy efficiency and conservation is moving from a niche within the utility to a dominant regime. In addition, though it is too early to tell what the specific consequences of the Advisory Committee recommendations will be, the sweeping scope of the strategic framework makes it clear that the long-term targets set by the utility will require an approach to energy conservation and efficiency that extends well beyond its conventional information and subsidy-based DSM program (BC Hydro 2007b). Instead, it requires a strategy that is deeply integrated throughout the province with the potential to transform both the utility’s own policy and activities as well as its customers’ energy use patterns. In other words, the province’s electricity sector is taking steps that, if continued, could potentially transform its development path.

The city of Vancouver Empowered by the possession of its own municipal Charter (which gives substantially greater power to Vancouver’s municipal government, compared to the provincially mandated Community Charter applied to all other cities in the Lower Mainland) and a lucrative tax base, the City of Vancouver has emerged as one of the most active municipalities in British Columbia on

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

393

Table 1 Projected energy efficiency and conservation (E&C) savings for major North American utilities and districts Projected energy conservation savings 2005 Energy demand (GWH)

Year of energy efficiency and conservation target

Number of years to reach target (2005 base year)

Projected BAU demand in year of target (GWH)

Energy efficiency and conservation target demand savings (GWH)

Energy E&C as percent of projected demand growth (%)

New energy E&C savings as percent of total BAU demand in target year (%)

2027

22

76,800

21,800

102

28 18

Utility targets BC Hydro (CEO’s target)

55,500

Manitoba Hydro

19,800

2017

12

26,958

4,905

69

BC Hydro (2008 LTAP)

55,500

2027

22

76,800

12,835

60

17

BC Hydro (2007 BC Energy Plan) SCE (California))

55,500

2020

15

70,100

7,300

50

10

95,406

2013

8

107,654

10,608

87

10

PG & E (California)

103,115

2013

8

115,507

9,933

80

9

17,133

2017

12

23,435

1,581

25

7

88,842

2017

12

108,760

3,549

18

3

SaskPower (Saskatchewan) ComEd (Illinois) Provincial/state targets New Jersey

81,897

2020

15

99,728

19,946

112

20

New York

150,148

2015

10

184,097

27,615

81

15

California

254,2050

2013

8

315,477

30,000

49

10

158,000

2017

12

174,658

13,564

81

8

Ontario Nevada

32,501

2015

10

39,923

1,996

27

5

Pacific Northwest

165,176

2009

4

185,283

2,748

14

1

Texas

334,258

2010

5

369,293

3,504

10

1

Sources: BC Hydro—BC Hydro (2006b, 2008), Elton (2007), Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (2007); Manitoba Hydro—Manitoba Hydro (2003, 2006), Government of Manitoba (2007); SCE and PG&E—California Public Utilities Commission (2004); SaskPower—Government of Saskatchewan (2007), SaskPower (2002, 2006); ComEd—Howes (2005), Illinois Commerce Commission (2005); New Jersey—Energy Information Administration (2007), State of New Jersey (2006, 2007); New York—Custer & Maniaci (2008), Energy Information Administration (2007), Levitan & Associates, Inc. (2004), Spitzer (2007); California— California Energy Commission (2005), Energy Information Administration (2007); Ontario—Ministry of Energy (2006), Ontario Power Authority (2006); Nevada—Energy Information Administration (Energy Information Administration 2007), Nadel (2006), Nevada State Office of Energy (2005); Pacific Northwest—Energy Information Administration (2007), Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2005, 2007); Texas—Energy Information Administration (2007), Nadel (2006), Silverstein et al. (2006)

the issues of climate change and energy efficiency. Early efforts to respond to climate change took the form of the Task Force on Atmospheric Change, which helped to set out reduction targets for both carbon dioxide and ozone-depleting substances, subject to “future reports which will clarify the costs and trade-offs involved in achieving the objectives and targets” (City of Vancouver 1990). However, the ambitious targets and recommendations put forward by the Task Force were not matched by concrete action on climate policy in Vancouver, and 12 years

passed before further Council Reports or external policy documents addressing climate change were produced by the City of Vancouver. Since 2002, leadership on municipal climate change action has re-emerged in the City of Vancouver. Although this re-emergence can likely be attributed to a number of factors, it is clear that the dramatic increase in public awareness, strong leadership at the provincial level, and early successes by other cities in Europe and the US played significant roles. Between 2003 and 2005, special attention was paid to developing

394

a cohesive and integrated definition of sustainability, which included social sustainability, ethical purchasing, energy efficiency, and GHG reduction. By 2005, the Vancouver City Council approved two action plans on climate change: one addressing the emissions resulting from corporate or municipal activities and the other geared toward broader community-based emissions (City of Vancouver 2003, 2005). Both the corporate and community climate change action plans were formulated based on the advice and participation of the new Cool Vancouver Task Force, an assemblage of corporate leaders, politicians, environmentalists, and scientists, designed to provide the City with recommendations regarding GHG reduction (City of Vancouver 2007). The effect of this collaboration was substantial, in that buy-in for climate change action was generated among key stakeholders, and the policies produced were more likely to be scientifically robust as well as politically and economically feasible. These plans committed the City of Vancouver to achieving a 20% reduction in civic (or corporate) GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2010, and a 6% reduction in community emissions from 1990 levels by 2012 (in order to help achieve Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol; City of Vancouver 2007). In July of 2007, the City of Vancouver began to consider long-range GHG planning and the issue of carbon neutrality, and the Council adopted targets to reduce community GHG emissions by 33% below 2006 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of Vancouver 2007). In order to achieve these targets, the City of Vancouver has implemented (or is planning to implement) a range of projects that significantly affect long-term emission trajectories. For example, the City of Vancouver has designated the area of Southeast False Creek, approximately 80 acres of former industrial land near downtown Vancouver and future site of the 2010 Winter Olympic Village, as a model sustainable community. This includes the design of a Neighbourhood Energy Utility and a minimum building standard of LEED Silver (City of Vancouver 2007). In 2005, the City of Vancouver approved the Green Building Strategy, the purpose of which was to develop new zoning guidelines and bylaws to enhance the environmental performance of new buildings in Vancouver (City of Vancouver 2008). In 2008, the city Council unanimously approved the Green Homes Program, which broadened the scope of the Green Building Strategy and applies significant

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

energy efficiency bylaws to one- and two-family dwellings. In particular, the new bylaws address efficiency issues related to building envelope performance, windows, light fixtures, gas-fuelled fireplaces, and heatrecovery ventilators (City of Vancouver 2008). Of special relevance to a shift in the long-term development path in the City is the Green Homes Program’s recommendation that new single family homes be equipped to support roof-mounted photovoltaic or solar thermal systems, as well as plug-in electric vehicles. These changes are accompanied by increased spending on public transit throughout the region, retrofits of existing commercial, residential, and institutional buildings for energy efficiency, and enhanced provision of biodiesel fuel blends throughout the city. Taken together, these initiatives signal what appears to be a destabilization of the previous, carbon- and energy-intensive, regime. A change in the set of rules and practices that surround the current fossil fuel-oriented sociotechnical system, including the new green building code, suggest that more stringent energy efficiency goals are being embedded in the day-to-day operations of the city, and may thus influence routines and standard operating procedures. The City of Vancouver is currently creating a comprehensive long-range strategic sustainability plan with the aim of ensuring that all municipal departments share common objectives and collaborate effectively to achieve them. This process has the potential to transform niche energy efficiency and GHG reduction activities into a more cohesive, integrated pathway. Thus, while municipal climate change action in the City of Vancouver has yet to reach the ultimate goal of fundamentally transforming the high emissions development path that has characterized Canadian cities in the past, it is well-equipped to do so if resources continue to be committed to reaching mandated targets, political leadership maintains sustainability as a top priority, and significant efforts are made to create an integrated long-term strategy for action.

Green building in British Columbia The rise of green building in the North American context is closely linked to the use and success of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Canada-NC Green Building Rating System for New Construction version 1.0, launched by the

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

Canadian Green Building Council (CAGBC) in 2004. BC has the largest number of LEED buildings per capita in Canada, with 20 certified and 180 registered to be reviewed for certification as of June 2008 (CAGBC 2008). Although the LEED Rating System does not, yet, mandate carbon neutrality in buildings, the system provides incentives for up to 64% reductions in energy costs over an existing reference energy standard (CAGBC 2004). Winning the 2010 Winter Olympics bid in 2003 greatly contributed to Vancouver’s already strong architecture and construction boom, and all the Olympic venues currently under construction are required to meet a LEED Silver standard. In 2004, the City of Vancouver officially adopted the LEED Gold standard for new municipal buildings, which constituted the highest standard set by any municipality in North America (Osborne 2006). The Province has also mandated LEED Gold for new provincially owned or leased buildings. Because optimizing energy efficiency beyond the minimum is not mandatory in the LEED standard, the City of Vancouver also required the achievement of specific energy points in order to ensure a 30% energy reduction in all new civic buildings (Green Buildings BC 2006). As mentioned above, the City of Vancouver approved the Green Building Strategy in 2005, and the Green Homes Program in 2008, both mandating bylaws for building environmental performance. Adding further to this regulatory drive to mandate green building performance, the province implemented an initiative to green the BC Building Code by 2008 (BC Office of Housing and Construction Standards 2007). While BC’s municipal and market drivers have aided in the development of a strong local green building movement, there are nevertheless structural barriers to green building, specific to the field of architecture, which have served to reinforce the conventional approach to building. The primary barrier still concerns cost and includes an aversion to a perceived or actual higher first cost or “green premium” for green features (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2008). Only as the cohort of green buildings has grown has the data indicated that the so-called green premium is closer to 0–6% in cost above conventional buildings (Matthiessen and Morris 2004; Kats et al. 2003). As the BC market has matured, these and other innovative green building initiatives have taken root in BC, centered around the achievement of carbon

395

neutrality in local demonstration projects, including the design and construction of a carbon neutral office tower, the first of its kind in North America (Gold 2007). These initiatives have taken place around the same time as the City of Vancouver’s endorsement of The 2030 Challenge (Williams 2007), a global initiative specifically targeting carbon neutrality in buildings. In the BC context, the LEED-certified green building niche is beginning to be institutionalized through model buildings and via municipal and provincial policy. Given the inertia of the existing regime, whole-scale transition in the building sector tends to be slow; yet due to the competitive nature of design, innovations and challenges to the conventional, and even the latest design practices, are inevitable. Below are two examples that are challenging the existing regime and showcasing the rules and requirements for more sustainable building. Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability A foundational set of design goals developed through a series of design charrettes set the target for the Centre for Interactive Research on Sustainability (CIRS). CIRS is intended to be the most innovative and high-performance building in North America. The building is designed to live almost entirely within its own footprint, obtaining all heating and cooling, water, ventilation, and waste treatment on-site, and to be net positive in energy and water. A primary goal is to deliver the building at the same total cost of ownership as conventional University of British Columbia (UBC) buildings, thereby eliminating the green premium barrier. It is expected to go beyond LEED standards and to be entirely carbon neutral both operationally and in terms of building materials. CIRS is intended to be a state-of-the-art 42,000 square foot “living laboratory” on the main UBC campus that will allow partners from local institutions and the building industry to research and evaluate sustainable building systems and technologies. Advanced visualization, simulation, and community engagement technologies and processes will support research on new approaches to interacting with citizens in exploring the trade-offs and consequences involved in achieving sustainable futures. Finally, partners from the private, public, and nongovernmental (NGO) sectors will work with CIRS researchers to develop and diffuse sustainability-related technolo-

396

gies and services that they identify as having a high potential for commercialization and broader market transformation. Dockside Green Dockside Green is a large-scale building development located on a 15-acre rehabilitated industrial site in Victoria, BC. The project has 1.3 million square feet of mixed residential, office, retail, and commercial buildings. It is a pilot project for the new LEED for Neighbourhoods Rating System and recently received the highest LEED rating yet awarded. Going beyond LEED standards, the entire project is designed to use an integrated, systems-oriented, Triple Bottom Line approach. As a master-planned urban development, the design team took advantage of economies of scale in developing the project’s integrated energy, water, waste, and resource management systems, thereby helping to lower the green cost premium. The project is designed to use about 50% less energy than code, and the implementation of a biomass energy system and use of waste heat will result in the first greenhouse gas-positive community development in North America (Dockside Green 2007). Although their goals are yet to be proven in practice, both CIRS and Dockside Green can be viewed as niche development. They challenge existing building practices and at the same time seek to establish new rules and practices. Given the tendency in architecture for successful innovative projects to spur imitations and further innovation, if successful, these cases have the potential to spur development of correspondingly innovative projects, thereby helping to further change in the BC building sector.

Transforming British Columbia’s development path We have argued above that regime destabilization is needed to support the kind of transformative change in development paths required to achieve our climate change goals. We have found early evidence for such destabilization in each of our four examples. Critically, the province has undertaken three important actions to help facilitate a transition to a carbon neutral economy. It has mandated large, near-

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

term emission reduction targets, provided an enabling regulatory environment, and encouraged integrated action in the province. This includes ensuring that the government’s own activities are oriented toward common goals. This leadership, which might be called strategic capacity, has changed the operating environment in the province2. It has helped challenge the status quo assumption that climate change will be dealt with using incremental, discrete actions. This, in turn, has contributed to the destabilization of regimes throughout the public sector and in the electricity and building sectors. In the case of BC’s public power utility, destabilization first began in the 1980s but was accelerated by the recent provincial targets and policies. We see both destabilization of the existing regime and the creation of a new regime being driven by a mix of internal and external activities. The utility’s commitment to this path has recently been demonstrated by a substantial increase in resources earmarked for energy efficiency and conservation activities. For the City of Vancouver, as with all BC municipalities, provincial policy has destabilized its operating environment. Although the city has been building capacity and working toward sustainability for many years now, without provincial support in challenging the existing regime, it was unable to initiate a systemic transition. However, in combination with provincial policy and action, the city is now taking important steps toward institutionalizing new policies and practices that support carbon neutrality. Our final example describes how the building sector has been fostering LEED credentialing and how new municipal and provincial policy is in the process of institutionalizing the LEED System. Interestingly, the ongoing transition can be witnessed by the creation of new niches, such as CIRS and Dockside Green, which push the boundaries on LEED even as it is becoming accepted practice. Thus, although there is a long way to go in the building sector, innovative activity on the ground is poised to take advantage of a changing policy and regulatory context.

2 BC will hold a provincial election in May 2009. It remains to be seen whether the changes in provincial policy regime described here will be maintained (the main opposition party has campaigned against the carbon tax). This underlines the potential political fragility of policy change.

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400

These findings, taken together, suggest that the transition underway in British Columbia may, if maintained, lead to change in British Columbia’s development path. We argue that such development path change is an essential prerequisite for the achievement of transformative energy efficiency and conservation. In this case study, we have regimes at multiple levels that interact and influence each other. In order to avoid a simplistic narrative of cascading transformation, we have combined the language and theories of sociotechnical transformations with the concept of development path change. This allows us to talk about multiple, co-existing regimes influencing one another in complex, multidimensional, and multidirectional ways. Taken together, the ideas, rules, activities, technologies, and institutions of these regimes critically shape the province’s development path. The changes we describe in our four examples represent early steps toward the development path change required for TEEC to occur. The impact of these changes has been evaluated by an independent review conducted by the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance which, in its provincially graded report card, awarded British Columbia a C− in 2000, a B in 2005, and an A+ in 2007 (Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance 2008). This assessment supports our view that a substantive shift has occurred in British Columbia and that the goals being set by the province are starting to be backed by concrete action and political will. These goals are not reactive actions but, rather, make use of the existing capacity and niches that have been developed over time within the province. In effect, the provincial government has taken advantage of the existing capacity in the province and changed the rules (e.g., building codes and taxation) such that existing capacity and niches can be leveraged into structural change. If these policies are maintained, and the measures and activities underneath them continue to grow and spread, the structural change we describe may, ultimately, lead to development path change. Adapting Howlett’s (2008) three factors for regime transformation, we can postulate a set of four critical factors that are facilitating change in British Columbia: & &

Large, mandated, near-, and long-term emission reduction targets An enabling context that includes support for market initiatives, adaptation of regulatory and

397

& &

institutional structures, the promotion of cultural change, and the development of tools and metrics to ensure substantive progress Integrated and coherent action that links goals and policies and occurs across sectors, scales, and jurisdictions The mobilization of capacity in response to common goals

The difference between previous attempts at change and the current situation is that all of these criteria are now present in British Columbia. This is why, we are seeing institutional and structural changes, such as the integration of carbon into the monetary system, which hold the potential for longterm, development path transformation. Of course this transition is in its early stages, and there is no way to know the outcome with any certainty. Considerable political opposition, which could impede or even reverse the policy and institutional change we have cited, has developed in response to the carbon tax. In addition, there are still many sectors and organizations that need to be integrated into the process of change. However, as we have described, the public sector, the electricity sector, and (with a few key projects leading the way) the building sector, are beginning to step together toward structural and institutional change. In our view, these are basic building blocks that are required if we are to achieve the levels of transformative energy efficiency and conservation needed to achieve our climate goals.

References BC Hydro (2006a). BC Hydro 2006 integrated electricity plan (IEP) and long-term acquisition plan (LTAP). Vancouver, BC: BC Hydro. BC Hydro (2006b). BC Hydro's annual report 2006. Vancouver, BC: BC Hydro. BC Hydro (2007a). Quick facts. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from www.bchydro.com/quickfacts BC Hydro (2007b). 2007 annual report of the BC Hydro Electricity Conservation and Efficiency Advisory Committee. Vancouver, BC: BC Hydro. BC Hydro (2008). 2008 long-term acquisition plan (2008 LTAP). Retrieved August 25, 2008, from http://www. bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info57678.pdf BC Office of Housing and Construction Standards (2007). Summary of Changes to the BC Building Code, Effective September 5, 2008. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from, http://www.housing.gov. bc.ca/building/green/TextofCodechanges.pdf.

398 Belz, F. M. (2004). A transition towards sustainability in the Swiss agri-food chain (1970–2000): using and improving the multi-level perspective. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability (pp. 97–113). Cheltenham, UK; Northhampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. British Columbia (2004). Weather, Climate and the Future: A Plan for BC. Victoria: British Columbia. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from, www.env.gov.bc.ca/air/climate/cc_plan/ pdfs/bc_climatechange_plan.pdf British Columbia (2007a). Speech from the Throne, Third Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament, delivered February 13, 2007. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from, http://www.leg.bc. ca/38th3rd/4–8–38–3.htm British Columbia (2007b). BC Introduces Climate Action Legislation, News Release 2007OTP0181–001489 November 20, 2007. Retrieved June 10, 2008 from, http://www2.news.gov. bc.ca/news_releases_2005–2009/2007OTP0181–001489.htm British Columbia (2008a). BCStats. Retrieved June 14, 2008 from, http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/ British Columbia (2008b). Climate action plan. Victoria: British Columbia. British Columbia Climate Action Team (2008). Meeting British Columbia’s targets: A report from the B.C. Climate Action Team. Victoria: British Columbia. Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance (2008). 2007 National Report Card on Energy Efficiency. Retrieved August 15, 2008 from http://www.energyefficiency.org/eecentre/ eecentre.nsf/009217a0b33cd394852569b9001701c6/ 76afec8fe9bc5333852574c1004d0e34?OpenDocument CAGBC (2004). LEED Green Building Rating System Reference Package for New Construction & Major Renovations LEED Canada-NC version 1.0. Ottawa: CAGBC. CAGBC (2008). Canada Green Building Council LEED Projects and Accreditations Update, June 2008. Vancouver: CAGBC. California Energy Commission (2005). California energy demand 2006–2016 staff energy demand forecast (staff final report). Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www. energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-034/CEC400-2005-034-SF-ED2.PDF California Public Utilities Commission (2004). Interim opinion: energy savings goals for program year 2006 and beyond [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http:// www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/ 40212–02.htm#P126_13700 City of Vancouver (1990) Clouds of Change: Final Report of the City of Vancouver Task Force on Atmospheric Change. Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2003). A corporate climate change action plan for the city of Vancouver. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2005). Community climate change action plan: Creating opportunities. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2007). City of Vancouver Climate Protection Progress Report. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. City of Vancouver (2008). Policy report: The green homes program. Vancouver: City of Vancouver. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (2008). Green Building in North America: Opportunities and Challenges.

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400 Secretariat Report to Council Under Article 13 Of The North American Agreement On Environmental Cooperation. Montreal: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Custer, C., & Maniaci, A. (2008). 2008 long term forecast. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http://www.nyiso.com/ public/webdocs/committees/bic_espwg/meeting_materials/ 2008–03–13/ESPWG_Load_Forecast.pdf Dockside Green (2007). Dockside Green Green Initiatives. Vancity. Retrieved May 22, 2008 from, http://dockside green.com/images/stories/sustainability/overview/greenini tiatives.pdf. Durning, A. (2008) Climate Fairness, Sightline Institute. March 10, 2008. Retrieved June 1, 2008 from, http://daily.sightline. org/daily_score/archive/2008/03/10/other-carbon-tax-shifts Elton, B. (2007). To our customers and residents across British Columbia. In BC Hydro 2007 Conservation Potential Review: the potential for electricity savings, 2006–2026 (pp. 1–3). BC Hydro. Energy Information Administration (2007). State electricity profiles 2005. Retrieved May 15, 2007: http://www.eia. doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2005.pdf Fisher, B. S., Nakicenovic, N., Alfsen, K., Corfee Morlot, J., de la Chesnaye, F., Hourcade, J. -C., et al. (2007). Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 17(4), 445–476. doi:10.1080/09537320500357319. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003. Gold, K. (2007). Carbon-neutral building sets a standard. Globe and Mail, November 20. Retrieved June 14, 2008 from, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC. 20071120.PRCARBON20/TPStory/Business. Government of Manitoba (2007). Energy efficiency initiatives. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/seeing green/economic_growth/initiatives/energy_efficiency.html Government of Saskatchewan (2007). Energy and climate change plan. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www. saskatchewan.ca/Default.aspx?DN=b92e42b6–6ab2– 448a-a8d7-f698cad62eec Green Buildings BC (2006). Green Buildings: Key Market Developments and the Growth of LEED® as of March 2006. Resource document. Green Buildings BC. Retrieved June 12, 2008 from, http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/ Portals/GBBC/docs/dd.pdf. Healey, P. (2004). Creativity and Urban Governance. Policy Studies, 25(2), 87–102. doi:10.1080/0144287042000262189. Howes, H. (2005). ComEd’s proposed implementation plan energy efficiency portfolio standard [Electronic Version]. DR/EE working group report for the sustainable energy plan initiative. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400 icc.illinois.gov/industry/publicutility/energy/electricity/ SustainableEnergyPlanInitiative.aspx. Howlett, M. (2008). Implementing complex policy initiatives: layering, drift, conversion and policy design as alternative outcomes of system reform efforts in transition management. Paper presented at the Annual general meeting of the British Columbia Political Studies Association. Illinois Commerce Commission (2005). Illinois Sustainable Energy Plan. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.commerce. state.il.us/NR/rdonlyres/26A736D5–6B18–46CC-90DAFB900EBA3DDF/0/IllinoisSustainableEnergyPlan.pdf Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E., & Perlman, J. (2003). The costs and financial benefits of green buildings: a report to California’s sustainable building task force. Sustainable Building Task Force. Kellow, A. J. (1996). Transforming power: the politics of electricity planning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Levitan & Associates, Inc. (2004). ICAP Demand Curve Review [Electronic Version]. New York ISO ICAP Working Group. Retrieved May 23, 2008, from http://www.nyiso.com/ public/webdocs/committees/bic_icapwg/meeting_materials/ 2004–04–22/revised_icwg_levitan_pre sentation.pdf Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books. Manitoba Hydro (2003). A filing by Manitoba Hydro to provide an information update regarding financial results, forecasts, methodologies, processes, and other matters relating to sales rates changed by Manitoba Hydro. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://pub.gov.mb.ca/pdf/03hydro/007–03.pdf Manitoba Hydro (2006). Highlights [Electronic Version]. The Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board annual report. Retrieved May 15, 2007, from http://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/ar/ 2005/ar_2005_highlights.pdf Matthiessen, L. F., & Morris, P. (2004). Costing green: A comprehensive cost database and budgeting methodology. Davis Langdon. Ministry of Energy. (2006). Integrated power system plan. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.energy.gov.on. ca/english/pdf/electricity/1870_IPSP-June132006.pdf Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources (2007). The BC energy plan. Victoria: British Columbia. Moomaw, W. R., Moreira, J. R., Blok, K., Greene, D. L., Gregory, K., Jaszay, T., et al. (2001). Technological and economic potential of greenhouse gas reduction. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation; Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O. Davidson, R. Swart and J. Pan. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Nadel, S. (2006). Energy efficiency resource standards: experience and recommendations (No. E063). Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Nevada State Office of Energy (2005). Electricity assessment [Electronic Version]. 2005 status of energy in Nevada report. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.energy. state.nv.us/2005%20Report/2005%20Report.htm. Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2005). Making it happen—The action plan, [Electronic Version]. The fifth

399 northwest electric power and conservation plan, Volume 2: Supporting data and analysis. Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powerplan/plan/ Default.htm Northwest Power and Conservation Council (2007). Development of short-term demand forecasting model and its application in analysis of resource adequacy. Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/df/20507%20Tech% 20Short%20Term%20Loads.pdf Ontario Power Authority (2006). Discussion paper 2: Load forecast [Electronic Version]. Ontario's integrated power system plan. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.powerauthority. on.ca/ipsp/Storage/26/2132_Load_Forecast.pdf Osborne, T. (2006). Canada's greenest buildings. Summit Special Supplement: Green Procurement, Apr/May. Retrieved May 30, 2008 from, http://www.summitconnects. com/Articles_Columns/PDF_Documents/200605_09.pdf. SaskPower (2002). 10-Year transmission development plan. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.saskpower.com/ pubs/pdf/spc_10yrdevplan.pdf SaskPower (2006). Financial highlights [Electronic Version]. Annual report. Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://www. saskpower.com/aboutus/corpinfo/anreports/2006/pdfs/ Highlights(s).pdf Sathaye, J., Najam, A., Cocklin, C., Heller, T. C., Lecocq, F., Llanes-Regueiro, J., et al. (2007). Sustainable Development and Mitigation. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave and L. A. Meyer. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press. Silverstein, A., Hedman, B., & Sloan, M. (2006). Potential for energy efficiency, demand response, and onsite renewable energy to meet Texas's growing electricity needs (Report No. E073): American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy o. Document Number). Smith, G. (1988). Taming BC Hydro: Site C and the implementation of the B.C. Utilities Commission Act. Environmental Management, 12(4), 429–443. doi:10.1007/BF01873257. Spitzer, E. (2007). 15 by 15: a clean energy strategy for New York. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.ny.gov/ governor/keydocs/CleanEnergySpeech-final.pdf State of New Jersey (2006). Electricity [Electronic Version]. State of New Jersey Energy Master Plan (Draft). Retrieved July 25, 2007, from http://nj.gov/emp/home/docs/ pdf/061013e.pdf State of New Jersey (2007). State of New Jersey Executive Order #54. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www. state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eojsc54.htm Statistics Canada (2008). Summary Table of Gross Domestic Product, Expenditure-based by Province and Territory. Retrieved June 13, 2008 from, http://www40.statcan.ca/ l01/cst01/econ15.htm Swart, R., Raskin, P., & Robinson, J. (2004). The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change, 14, 137–146. doi:10.1016/ j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002.

400 van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The Transition in Dutch Water Management. Regional Environmental Change, 5(4), 1436–3798. doi:10.1007/s10113004-0086-7. Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2006). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025–1037. doi:10.1016/j.enpol. 2006.02.010.

Energy Efficiency (2009) 2:387–400 Voß, J. -P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction. In J. -P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.),Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 3–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Williams, P. (2007). Meeting the 2030 challenge requires tools, says Halsall Associates engineer. Daily Commercial News and Construction Record, October 30. Retrieved September 13, 2008 from, http://www.dcnonl.com/ article/id24891