188 Alexandros Nikas et al.
acceptance; inexperienced personnel and lack of technical skills; and unfavourable market conditions. They can be distinguished as primary and secondary risks.
The most critical risk appears to lie in the complexity of bureaucratic procedures necessary to approve, apply for, and secure funding for or implement most
of the considered policy instruments. The most interesting observation is that
this risk appears to be the most critical among all eight risks not only for the
policies targeted at the residential and commercial sectors, but also for some of
those involving responsibilities of and actions by the central government and
local authorities. It is also noteworthy that, especially with regard to the latter,
experts appear to stress the importance of transparent and effective communication and co- ordination between the central and local governments for almost
all policy instruments acting at the municipal level.
Risks of a financial nature, namely the inadequacies of the involved financial
institutions (banks) to support renovation actions and the unfavourable economic environment, can also prove critical to successfully implementing policy
instruments targeted at the residential and commercial sectors. Inexperienced
personnel and poor technical skills required at all stages of renovation work is
another crucial risk. Interestingly, this was considered not only to potentially
hinder the successful installation and management of BEMS in public buildings,
but also to constitute a barrier to the successful communication of the benefits
of energy efficiency actions to citizens.
Among the remaining implementation risks, political instability was not
considered among the most critical for any of the 15 measures. This can in part
be attributed to the fact that any turbulence in the political scene may be considered to be reflected in societal acceptance, given the short time horizon and
the equally limited time and capacity to drastically change the regulatory
framework.
The most ‘at risk’ policy instruments appear to be the offsetting of fines on
illegal buildings with energy efficiency- related interventions, and the replacement of old private passenger vehicles. These are closely followed by: the implementation of the OPESD programme; the energy upgrade of buildings in the
broader (central and municipal) public sector; and the appointment of energy
managers in public buildings. In other words, stakeholders appeared to view policies targeted at the residential sector as more vulnerable to existing implementation risks. This is mainly because of the complexity of the associated
bureaucratic processes and the adverse economic conditions, followed by policy
instruments targeting buildings of the broader public sector and especially those
at the municipal level (Doukas and Nikas, 2019).
This is also why only one of these highly vulnerable instruments among the
measures, namely appointing energy managers at the municipal level, appears to
be beneficial to achieving near- term energy savings, in an approach aiming to
both maximise cost effectiveness and minimise risk. Aside from this risky instrument, the other two most beneficial instruments were found to be the ‘Save
Energy at Home II’ programme and the energy efficiency and demonstration
projects in SMEs. It is also worth to note that a policy portfolio mainly
acceptance; inexperienced personnel and lack of technical skills; and unfavourable market conditions. They can be distinguished as primary and secondary risks.
The most critical risk appears to lie in the complexity of bureaucratic procedures necessary to approve, apply for, and secure funding for or implement most
of the considered policy instruments. The most interesting observation is that
this risk appears to be the most critical among all eight risks not only for the
policies targeted at the residential and commercial sectors, but also for some of
those involving responsibilities of and actions by the central government and
local authorities. It is also noteworthy that, especially with regard to the latter,
experts appear to stress the importance of transparent and effective communication and co- ordination between the central and local governments for almost
all policy instruments acting at the municipal level.
Risks of a financial nature, namely the inadequacies of the involved financial
institutions (banks) to support renovation actions and the unfavourable economic environment, can also prove critical to successfully implementing policy
instruments targeted at the residential and commercial sectors. Inexperienced
personnel and poor technical skills required at all stages of renovation work is
another crucial risk. Interestingly, this was considered not only to potentially
hinder the successful installation and management of BEMS in public buildings,
but also to constitute a barrier to the successful communication of the benefits
of energy efficiency actions to citizens.
Among the remaining implementation risks, political instability was not
considered among the most critical for any of the 15 measures. This can in part
be attributed to the fact that any turbulence in the political scene may be considered to be reflected in societal acceptance, given the short time horizon and
the equally limited time and capacity to drastically change the regulatory
framework.
The most ‘at risk’ policy instruments appear to be the offsetting of fines on
illegal buildings with energy efficiency- related interventions, and the replacement of old private passenger vehicles. These are closely followed by: the implementation of the OPESD programme; the energy upgrade of buildings in the
broader (central and municipal) public sector; and the appointment of energy
managers in public buildings. In other words, stakeholders appeared to view policies targeted at the residential sector as more vulnerable to existing implementation risks. This is mainly because of the complexity of the associated
bureaucratic processes and the adverse economic conditions, followed by policy
instruments targeting buildings of the broader public sector and especially those
at the municipal level (Doukas and Nikas, 2019).
This is also why only one of these highly vulnerable instruments among the
measures, namely appointing energy managers at the municipal level, appears to
be beneficial to achieving near- term energy savings, in an approach aiming to
both maximise cost effectiveness and minimise risk. Aside from this risky instrument, the other two most beneficial instruments were found to be the ‘Save
Energy at Home II’ programme and the energy efficiency and demonstration
projects in SMEs. It is also worth to note that a policy portfolio mainly