Policy Failure and the Case of Solar Power in the Czech

CEU eTD Collection

in partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts in Public Policy in ofArts degree ofMaster the for fulfillment in partial AND THEPOWERCASEAND OFSOLAR IN THEREPUBLICCZECHIN Supervisor: Supervisor: Central European University Central European Department of Public Policy of Public Department POLICY FAILURE Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Ashley Quisol Ashley Submitted to Submitted Marie 2013 By -

Pierre F. Granger F. Pierre

CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection Signature: ……………………………………………………… Name…Ashley (printedQuisol…………………………………………………… letters): Date: ……May 30,2013………………………………………………… t non or degree academic other any of requirements the of part as accepted been has which material no contains previously material p no other any contains by thesis published this knowledge my of best the To thesis. this of author sole the am I that declare hereby Quisol…………………. …………Ashley undersigned the I, hesis, including final revisions. - degree program, in English or in any other language. This is a true copy of the the of copy true a is This language. other any in or English in program, degree erson except where due acknowledgement has been made. This thesis This made. been has acknowledgement due where except erson

CEU eTD Collection

CEU eTD Collection partial failure solarRepublic. powerpolicy inthe of Czech that shows t wrong, went policy the where exactly budget public the negative policy, this the of impact However, policy. government successful a of product the as completion target energy. renewable on Directive EU the by stipulated as sources, renewable from consumption energy for target 2020 its meet to track on is 2004, since Union European the of State Member a Republic, Czech The ABSTRACT faults within various within faults

, eosrt ta te policy the that demonstrate namely Many have lauded the rapid increase in PV installations to facilitate this facilitate to installations PV in increase rapid the lauded have Many

immense electricity market distortion market electricity immense phases his paper paper his , especially with especially , i

a lrey en failure. a been largely has examines each stage of the policy process and and process policy the of stage each examines in the in

evaluation stage, evaluation

and unmanageable costs unmanageable and

n re to order In

account for the the for account identify to

CEU eTD Collection 3:Analysis Chapter 2:Literature ReviewChapter 1:Background Chapter Introduction Abstract Table Contentsof Part Implementation 4:Policy Part DecisionMaking Formation 2:Policy and Pa Part 4:Methodology Part process of of 3:Components thepolicy stages withinPart process failure 2:Policy thepolicy Part Success 1:Policy 3.2.E 3.2.E 3.2.D 3.2.C 3.2.B 3.2.A 3.1.B 3.1.A 2.3.C 2.3.B 2.3.A 2.2.A Origins2.2.1 Process of thePolicy 2.1.D 2.1.C 2.1.B 2.1.A 3.3.A 3.3.A rt 1: Agenda Setting rt 1:Agenda

......

Agents of failure inthe policy Solar Czech German RES policy modelfor as policymakers a Czech German RES outcomesAnalysis: Policy EU among StatesMember vary Identifying agents’ tasks responsibilities and an as Compliance insufficient success indicatorof policy Agents process tasks and thepolicy within Policy successcriteria basedcomplex on Czech Policymakers Strategy New a Develop

EU setsEU theagenda P Compliance as thefoundationfor evaluation Boosting Generation through RES Investment

Choosing EconomictoChoosing Incentives ...... Analysis: different policies, outcomes Similar Decisions the about of details thepolicy olicy processolicy best methodfor as the analysisof this case

......

...... Republic ......

...... - ......

Boost Investment success orfailure?

......

...... ii ......

......

31 30 29 28 27 26 26 25 23 21 21 21 19 19 18 18 17 16 15 15 14 13 12 11 11 11

4 1

CEU eTD Collection References Conclusion Part Evaluation 4:Policy Paralyzed Policyma Paralyzed 3.4.C 3.4.B 3. Analysis 3.3.G 3.3.F 3.3. 3.3B 4.A 4.A C C

......

Potential Corruption in Awarding ContractsPotential Corruption inAwarding Differences inEvaluationSchemes ERO Promotes Technology ERO Photovoltaic Germany takesGermany action,are politicians Czech “asleep” FiT rates retroactivepolicies and Germany policyGermany evaluation RES

...... king king

...... Led ......

to Failure ......

......

...... iii

......

44 42 41 39 37 37 36 35 34 32 31

CEU eTD Collection grid the compelled Act the Furthermore, increased. supply as fall not did producers solar to paid ( Office Regulatory Energy the with contracted power solar of producers the law, the to according Since, grow. would capacity solar which at rate drastic the underestimated government the However, investment. Act This Col.]. of prioritization 180/2005 [No. Sources Energy Renewable of Use the of Promotion the on Act Czech the through 2001/77/EC Directive of transposition the to attributed ( 2012 in 11% over to 2004 in 3.8% from country the propelled installations solar into investment of influx rapid a 2012), al. country the speculatedthat for target 2020 its meet the of StateMember a Republic, Czech The with the Directive, namelywith the with Directive. comply to order in targets similar undertaken have States Member 2020, by (RES) Wit policies. energy national formulate states Member that way the in changes wide EU prompted has energy ofrenewable onthepromotion 2001/77/EC drasticchange. Directive example, For theEU policy its of incorporation the leg national on the into dependent legislation governing largely is Union European the of functioning The Introduction Energetický h sces f hs plce hs agl be jde bsd n oml compliance formal on based judged been largely has policies these of success The

the h photovoltaic (solar) technology and offered econ offered and technology (solar) photovoltaic ol f consuming of goal regulační úřad regulační consuming

would not likely meet its targets within the given timeframe given the within targets its meet likely not would

ERO

timely achievement oftargetgoals.achievement timely

2012). This rapid increase in investment can almost en almost can investment in increase rapid This 2012).

13% of its its of 13% -

ERO 0 of 20% ) at fixed subsidized rates upon installation, the price the installation, upon rates subsidized fixed at ) l rmwrs f Member of frameworks al EU energy

1 since 2004, is one of the states that is on track to to track on is that states the of one is 2004, since o

eal energy verall

from RES. Though researchers previously previously researchers Though RES. from

from renewable energy sources sources energy renewable from mcicnie o encourage to incentives omic

tts often States, loe fr the for allowed

warranting warranting (Sviek et et (Sviek tirely be be tirely CEU eTD Collection and buildingintegrated systems. 1 RES other promotion the in as such policies, similar in mistakes analogous of replication establi to important is It wrong? largely and ontargetfulfillment rarely onotherofthe policy. outcomes evalua T few). ( compliance to due success a as s reports, many to According 2013). needed” (European Commission is investment more significantly when time a at investment, discourage clearly and business of expectations legitimate the “alter they since climate” investment the on impact negative a had have changes…that critical “most the as made been already had that investments RES the on return reduce that changes policy such to referred has Commission European the Additionally, an authorities Czech investment. new Government Czech (Prague Monitor betwee crowns billions of tens nearing prices budget state the subsidized for losses these in resulted Consequently, demand. and supply in fluctuation the despite RES, electri all purchase to country the in distributor electricity major and operator nesadn ta ti plc ws o fly ucsfl te usin hn s wee i i g it did where is: then question the successful, fully not was policy this that Understanding

The taxThe onlyapplied toground mounted PV facilities with a30kWp generating capacity, exempting roof tion is largely due to the way in way the to due largely is tion i dsrpny ewe te ag ngtv ipc o te oiy n is favorable its and policy the of impact negative large the between discrepancy his

1 2013). 2013).

This retroactive tax has already resulted in a number of lawsuits against the against lawsuits of number a in resulted already has tax retroactive This passed a law that applied a 26% tax on solar facilities to curb production and and production curb to facilities solar on tax 26% a applied that law a passed d will no doubt add to the already enormous cost incurred by this policy. policy. this by incurred cost enormous already the to add doubt no will d

In 2010, in order to cope with t tocope In 2010, inorder

olar power policy in the Czech Republic has widely been reviewed reviewed been widely has Republic Czech the in policy power olar

Beurskens h xcl wee alr developed failure where exactly sh

which its success was measured: these studies focused studies these measured: was success its which

et al. 2011; Resch et al. 2011; Morris 2011; al. et Resch 2011; al. et 2

he sudden increase of solar electricity,of solarhe sudden the increase

n re t aod the avoid to order in n 2005 and 2011 2011 and 2005 n by generated city

2012 to name a a name to 2012 - top o

CEU eTD Collection the evaluation stageaccount mostly ea within tasks relev the examine to method tracing process a use will paper this Republic, where determine to order In use be also may governments employing considering programs promote similar technology. to RES findings these Indeed, Republic. Czech the in technologies ch stage of the policy process, eventually demonstrating eventually process, policy the of stage ch

alr occurred failure for the partial failure partialfor the of 3

ihn h slr oe plc o te Czech the of policy power solar the within the policy.

that that ant policy agents and and agents policy ant actions ful for other other for ful

taken during taken

CEU eTD Collection For others. all than 2 larger markedly was solar for support the however, RES; of number a for support provided Act The incentives. FiP and FiT the betweenchoose must RES in Investors The Act (EREC,2009): mechanisms employedRES encourage several inorder to investment in February 23,2005. th with Republic, Czech Consequently,the energy legislation.related policy and the incorporate must EU the within that meaning States, Member 27 the of each into transposed individually be must Commission European the from Directives such (TFEU), Union European the of Functioning EU the by made 20 OJ ([2009] RES of promotion RES 2001/77/EC Directive 2001/77/EC). (Directive protection environmental and cohesion economic security, energy further to order in promot the Unionregards The European 1:Background Chapter Directive 2009/28/EC also replaced Directive % of %   

f the of e Act on the Promotion of the Use of Renewable Energy Sources [No. 180/2005 Col.] on Col.] 180/2005 [No. Sources Energy Renewable of Use the of Promotion the on Act e

guarantees be to asetpaid o ontop premium feed A be tothe distribution sold systemprice;a set operator at A feed Preferential tothe powergrid; connection overall energy consumption consumption energy overall uoen alaet n Council, and Parliament European - - in in - - tariff tariff ihn h Koo rtcl Protocol. Kyoto the within rmu (i) rga, cle a (called program, (FiP) premium

(FiT) program which guarantees that all electricity produced by guarantees allelectricity(FiT) program can RES which that produced

101) set L140/16),

a Member StateMembera individual within the EU the within ([2001] OJ L 283/33) L OJ ([2001]

ion of renewable energy sources (RES) as a high priority priority high as a (RES) renewable energy sources ion of 2003/30/EC onthe promotion of biofuels.

n vrl objective overall an targets set within the Directive into their national their into Directive the within set targets 4

According to Article 288 of the Treaty on the the on Treaty the of 288 Article to According

mne ad elcd y 2009/28/CE by replaced and amended

since 2004, transposed the Directive into lawDirective into the transposed 2004, since

f the marketf theelectricity. for price by 2020 by

Gen ou” ihn h act) the within Bonus” “Green

on the promotion of electricity from from electricity of promotion the on , consistent with the commitments the with consistent ,

ht E sal otiue to contribute shall RES that

each country each

n t on which he

CEU eTD Collection 3.4 only from risen had Republic Czech the in power solar of capacity installed the photovoltaics, favorable extremely this to Due 2011). (Spacil, years 15 to up for year a 5% to added) (premiums program Bonus Green the for prices buyback in decline the limited (MoE), Energy of Ministry the and (MiT) Industry of Ministry the by prepared bill, The Source: Klein etal., FiP FiT Table set at 0. FiP and FiT the 2008, in example, 44

MWp installed capacityMWp in2007 € 0. /kWh, respectively, whereas geothermal, the second most supported RES in the Act were were Act the in RES supported most second the geothermal, whereas respectively, /kWh, 1 16 and : Tariff level 2.0 6.6 Hydro Small 0. - - 5.4 9.9

2008 10

€

in [€2008 Republic Cents/kWh] Czech in the /kWh, respectively 2009)./kWh, (EREC,

7.1 9.4 Onshore Wind - - 10.3 12.5

programs for photovoltaic installations were set at set were installations photovoltaic for programs to nearly 1600 MW at the close MW to nearly of 2010( 1600 - - Offshore Wind

5 4.4 9.3 biomass Solid

- - 11.2 16.1

4.0 8.9 Biogas - - 10.0 14.9

netet niomn for environment investment

22.0 25.1 PV

ERO - - 48.4 51.5

2012). 12.9 17.2 Geothermal 0.

47 and 47

CEU eTD Collection photovoltaic the by generated electricity since Consequently, grid. the to connected is that power solar all purchase to required is grid, voltage high Republic’s Czech the operates that company pr electricity renewable the despite operators, photovoltaic of purchase the to guarantee investors with contracts the in electricityclauses Since electricity. of oversupply for price market the of top on premium cont was government the producers; electricity solar with contracts government the by guaranteed prices buyback the by for accounted be can prices €/ incr prices Infact, prices. in decrease corresponding a to lead not steady)did held (demand Republic Czech the in electricity of supply the in rise the logic, economic to Contrary EnergySource: Renewable Czech (2011) Agency Figure k Wh in 2008 to over .15 .15 over to 2008 in Wh 1 : Installed : Installed Capacity ofRESinthe CR oduced, € / k Wh in 2012. The simultaneous increase in electricity supply and and supply electricity in increase simultaneous The 2012. in Wh zc Tasiso Gi Oeaos ( Operators Grid Transmission Czech

ractually obligated to continue to pay the the pay to continue to obligated ractually ČEPS) te tt run state the , eased from eased .12

CEU eTD Collection producerItalyper solar capita power of Germany and(Shahan behind 2013). largest third the Republic Czech the making production electricity of 2GW surpassed generation thus 2012, of June and January between construction and connection grid to for approved led installations eventually ban the of easing 2012).The (Dorda grid the to panels) f allowed PRE) and E.On, (CEZ, larges three the 2012 in installations, solar new to ( grid the to plants photovoltaic blackouts, cause could production power fluctuating seasons. different during as well as day the of hours the among greatly fluctuates generation electricity solar time, given any at available of amount the with corresponding electricity produce panels photovoltaic Since 2010). (Johnstone sources energy renewable to connect efficiently to designed not also but capacity, taxed largely distortion market this to addition In crowns,billion nearly of(Johnstone thestate half 2010). budget subs state by supported but high is 2010). (Johnstone low production is demand when months summer the during example for produced, electricity ca Republic Czech the in used are that panels

otnig h ted f nraig aaiy Dra 2010 (Dorda capacity increasing of trend the continuing the power grid of the Czech Republic, which is not only outdated in terms of of terms in outdated only not is which Republic, Czech the of grid power the idie s,

there was speculation that speculation was there Johnstone 2010). Though this ban temporarily closed the market the closed temporarily ban this Though 2010). Johnstone or the interconnection of small scale solar installations (roof installations solar scale small of interconnection the or I n 2010 n , the rapid influx of electricity from photovoltaics has also has photovoltaics from electricity of influx rapid the , , In 2010, voicing concern that the surges caused by by caused surges the that concern voicing 2010, In

d ue to the rise in installed capacity of photovoltaics of capacity installed in rise the to ue nnot be stored, be nnot 7

pwr opne i te zc R Czech the in companies power t ČE this polciy this PS

banned the interconnection of new new of interconnection the banned ČEPS is forced to purchase excess excess purchase to forced is ČEPS

. y h ed f 02 solar 2012, of end the By ).

would cost the state over 500 over state the cost would

12,000 new solar solar new 12,000

sunlight sunlight epublic - top top CEU eTD Collection (2011) Technica Source: Clean F igure 2 : PV Installations percapita:

CEU eTD Collection the Furthermore, production. out Directive, EU the within set goals target achieving the Though announced had thatit procedures launched arbitration (CTK against 2 theCzech authorities (IPVIC) Club Investors between 2013). (CTK, tax solar retroactive the to regards with procedures arbitration inves solar 2011, November, th in set the incentives with economic the contracted to had according that government companies from lawsuits impending the fearing tax, new the against Court Supreme the to complaint a filed Senate Czech the of members 22 2011, March, In loans have would policy in change the that claimed investors subsidies, the from benefited had that generation essentially, as, amendment the Interpreting 2013). (CTK, 2011 in beginning years three of period a for 2010, and 2009 between operation in been had that plants power solar on tax percent 26 a for provided specifically amendment limit would which Act RES Czech the to amendmentan law into signed president Czech the December,2010 in ČEPS, by cited as polices power solar current the with problems other and prices electricity in rise the to response a As comes including high electricity prices and over taxing of the electricity grid from surges in in surges from grid electricity the of taxing over and prices electricity high including comes investors and the and investors

eaiey fet hi ivsmns n hne te i re in them hinder and investments their affect negatively zc ntoa plce t pooe oa power solar promote to policies national Czech (Dorda and and (Dorda , an association of solar power plant operators and investors, officially investors, and operators plant power solar of association an , state

tors sent tors retroactive

failed in 2011 and, in May 2013, the 2013, May in and, 2011 in failed

notice to the Czech authorities indicating the initiation of initiation the indicating authorities Czech the to notice tax policy put in place to cope with these problem these with cope to place in put policy tax the costs incurred by the st the by incurred costs the a retroactive tax on returns from solar power power solar from returns on tax retroactive a 9

the policy has produced undeniably negative negative undeniably produced has policy the Ali slr oiis Dra 01. In 2011). (Dorda policies solar e

- O moved the country closer to to closer country the moved tigr 2010 ettinger ate from ate International Photovoltaic International - iacn ter relevant their financing

photovoltaics. The photovoltaics. Dispute resolution Dispute 013). s

has has ).

CEU eTD Collection attention and resources be can inorder focused onthatphase tomitigate fa future then place, took failure policy the where determined be can it If matter. that for change policy of formulation the to knowledge this apply to also but Republic, Czech the in photovoltaics of status current the with dealing for only not important is This failed. partially policy this phase which during T solar powerCzech Republic largely policy inthe indicatepartial its failure. arbitration cos will which investors solar from lawsuits of barrage a to led e ot of roots he .

Thus, d Thus, hs policy this future policies that may employ economic incentives to promote RES or other or RES promote to incentives economic employ may that policies future espite meeting EU targets for RES generation, the negative effects from the from effects negative the generation, RES for targets EU meeting espite alr ms b ident be must failure

10 ified and isolated in order to better understand understand better to order in isolated and ified

t the Czech state a great deal in deal great a state Czech the t

ilures. ilures.

CEU eTD Collection Tosun and (Knill directives of incorporation legal formal successful of rate the or effectiveness, Toshkov 2005; Rhinard and (Dimitrova Directives of transposition of rate the on largely focuses which States, Member New the about literature academic to regard with framework legislative national their into directives Law Union European with comply group) (target States Member which to degree the by measured been has compliance, thus and success, directives, EU With implementation. and adoption policy of rate and degree the by measured thus focused is policy the which to population complian with success equates often policies of evaluation employed, often most and clearest, The policies. successful of recognizing and defining to dedicated been has literature evaluation policy Much 2.1. organization’s goals” 2005). (Davidson the achieving to such relation with of interventions the evaluation of value the the “determine thus to crucial policy, is decisions public every of heart the at lies theory, in betterment, 2008). “an (Dunn improvement” address for to opportunity order or in value unrealized action public of form a embody often and sphere specific a within decisions, government of form the in 1989). (Brooks achieve to wishes government the that goals specific of set a with paired typically is issue, specific a undertake that government by made decisions the or policy, Public Success Policy Part 1: Review 2:Literature Chapter A

Compliance as the foundationforevaluation Compliance asthe ce. Usually relating to the extent to which target population target which to extent the to relating Usually ce.

ulc policies public —

complies with a regulation (OECD 2000) (OECD regulation a with complies 11

(Haverla

liaey tie o mrv cond improve to strive ultimately

Atce 8, TFEU] 288, [Article nd et al. 2011 al. et nd

gnrl ol f societal of goal general e ).This is especially true especiallytrue is ).This —

2008), transposition 2008), the segment of the of segment the

by transposing transposing by regard to the to regard , success is success , Usually Usually itions CEU eTD Collection not is implementation, it overallsufficientits determining success. in consequences. ha other the on while future, the for set goals achieving to track on is and goals stated achieved has it hand, one the on conflict: in be to seem policy this of success widespre a to the Directive. RES EU the under set goals target of completion country’s the facilitated would Republic Czech the in policy power According literature thatplaces compliance as tosuch thefoundationalindicator of success, solar 2.1.B indicators (forexampledegree policy change of implementation on largely focusing policies, the evaluating comprehensively of short fall also bee s While few. a costs, legitimacy sector, electricity the on impact H data. this by driven largely are policies national evaluate that studies these achievements, their Since achieving M new withi European 2001/77/EC Directive EU reviews specifically that Literature national of terms in examined enforcementgroup targetcomplianc and domestic largely Directives, of implementation national and 2009), owever these r these owever rnpsd rm Udrcie ( directives EU from transposed n negative Member States are responsible for setting five setting for responsible are States Member

Compliance as an insufficientindicatorCompliance success asan ofpolicy niiul ol st ne te Directiv the under set goals individual byprod ad condemnation of this policy within the country. Therefore, the evaluations of the the of evaluations the Therefore, country. the within policy this of condemnation ad everal authors have probed the question of the success of p of success the of question the probed have authors everal In other words, while compliance is a necessary component of policy policy of component necessary a is compliance while words, other In eports often omit data that falls outside of the target completion, such as overall overall as such completion, target the of outside falls that data omit often eports emb ucts of this policy this of ucts r S er ae often tates

ouig on focusing Haas 1998; 1998; Haas (rise in electricity prices, taxing of the grid, etc.) have led have etc.) grid, the of taxing prices, electricity in (rise be consid be 12

and enforcement)and outcomes. rather than

and e (Faulknerand Trieb 2008). e Goetz 2004; Faulkner and Trieb 2008 Trieb and Faulkner 2004; Goetz o coe o on or close, how Krtrv 2006; (Korytarova ered to be extremely successful since it has it since successful extremely be to ered - implications for pu for implications year targets and publishing th publishing and targets year n d

rc, h cutis r in are countries the track, it has had s had has it

erkn e a. 2011 al. et Beurskens n Central and Eastern Eastern and Central n blic budgeting, to name to budgeting, blic olicies after they have have they after olicies

erious negative erious e results of results e

However, However,

), they they ), ). ).

CEU eTD Collection ucs, r hn h plc poue pltcl eeis n ehne te euain of reputation the enhances and benefits political produces policy the when or success, Since su be would policies logically therefore justification,” normative or purpose intended their “achieve poli the from arise may that deficiencies other address to failing while solution, single a evaluates it since approach narrow a still however thisis problem(2007); least thereductionload” ofto problemsolving,the at or policy successful a that note Wegrich and Werner Similarly, 2004). policy, a of evaluation the in Hart and Bovens 1980; (Nagel success determine to damage”losses and benefits of balance the examining “net of concept the of importance the emphasize a Other 2004). Hart and (Bovens achievements the of quality perceived and interpreted the on emphasis places it that in differs it completion, goal on based success of evaluation the 2001; al. et (Peters solutions sensible and workable deliver issues specific tackle to take governments that steps the whether evaluates and policies, of resilience and efficiency effectiveness, the or success, in on literature The and goals intentions. stated their beyond responsibility more decisions government assigning produce, policies that externalities and outcomes diverse the account greater into take they because useful fai and success policy of definitions complex More success. of rubric sophisticated more a against evaluated be must policy this outcomes, negative overall its and Republic Czech the in under better to order In 2.1.C ccessful they do when policy performance is integr is performance policy

Policy success based oncomplexPolicy based criteria success

Davidson 2005; McConnell 2010). While this approach is largely similar to to similar largely is approach this While 2010). McConnell 2005; Davidson - depth policy evaluation evaluation policy depth stand the conflict between the compliance measurements of solar policy solar of measurements compliance the between conflict the stand .

cy. According to Kerr to According cy. al to its effectiveness, the effectiveness, its to al 13 eeal fcss n set o programmatic of aspects on focuses generally

(1976) , policies are failures when they do not do they when failures are policies ,

consideration of a policy’s a of consideration

would generally “contribute generally would

political political lure are are lure uthors CEU eTD Collection as characterized be largely can policy this success, policy determining in damage net of logic the to according Therefore, government. to cost enormous the outweighed not had power) solar in pr the of benefits the that indicates largely face, would government the that lawsuits anticipated the despite installments, solar on tax retroactive a of passage The negativelyelectricity ultimatelyit impacting 2011). market,which the did(Smrcka wit investment initial spur to enough market the with interfere to policy this of intention the was it that assume can one legislation, the in stated explicitly not though Therefore, market. the interfe definition by policy, solar Czech of that as such intervention, economic an While run. long the in electricity of costs decrease solarinvestment power,onefor in in the financingprogram ofthe justifications to normative was Repub Czech the in policy power solar the of goals stated the while example, For society. by perceived as existence of purpose its rather, or justification, normative its meet achieves it While 2010). (McConnell failure toward tipping success” “precarious a as characterized be likely most can Republic Czech the in policy power solar success, policy of definition this to According 2.1.D for powerpolicy theevaluation forinthe Czech Republic. solar rubric useful most the provides it success, policy for criteria political and programmatic the both virt and/or is support significance any of criticism no attracts and achieve, to out set proponents that goals the “achieves that one as policy successful a defines McConnell definitions, these Synthesizing le political for important as is “perception because success programmatic as important equally be may 2010), (McConnell government

Solar p Solar al uiesl (conl, 00. ic MCnels eiiin encompasses definition McConnell’s Since 2010). (McConnell, universal” ually

olicy intheCzech Republic pcfc agt a oiial dfnd ihn eilto, t ant e ad to said be cannot it legislation, within defined originally as targets specific res with the free market, it ideally will not greatly distort distort greatly not will ideally it market, free the with res gitimacy as is performance” (Peters et al. 2001). 2001). al. et (Peters performance” is as gitimacy 14

success or failure? success failure? or

ogram (increased investment investment (increased ogram lic were to increase increase to were lic

hout CEU eTD Collection policy (Werner 2007;Dunn2008;Howlettand 2 asfollows processWegrich is contemporary the of model accepted widely The 1999). (deLeon own” its of presence and life linear process policy terminated perhaps and out carried examined, proposed, is policy given concep first the introduced and policymaking of stages the dissecting of task similar a undertook Lasswell Harold 1950’s, the In 2.2.1 OriginsofthePolicy Process failure. Czech the one failed, Republic in policy solar the where exactly determine to order in Consequently, be should reformed. policies similar future, of components which determine cannot they wrong, went ot In terminated. or replicated be can policy the of aspects which unclear is it of failure, partial a is policy realms a if However, states. other or policy to transferred or replicated be may it successful, be to deemed is policy a if replicatedbe not will likelyis that is failure,it a be to policydeemed a is When process policy the within failure Policy Part 2: cannot beconsidered whollysuccessful. regards with policy’s the undermining largely successful been has policy this though short, In success. and effectiveness its thus sphere, andlegitimacy academic and private public, the from criticism proponent the Furthermore, failure. a 1.

, and distinct, each possessing “ possessing each distinct, and , Agenda

to compliance (target achievement), it has failed on a number of other fronts and and fronts other of number a on failed has it achievement), (target compliance to

(Lasswell 1956; deLeon1999) The stages of the policy process are chronological, are process policy the of stages The deLeon1999) 1956; (Lasswell - setting setting

must dissect the stages of its formation in order to isolate the incidence of of incidence the isolate to order in formation its of stages the dissect must

tualization of what would later become “the procedure by which a a which procedureby “the become later would whatof tualization her words, if policymakers do not know where the policy policy the where know not do policymakers if words, her a o te oiy ae xeine lre poiin and opposition large experienced have policy the of s mannerism and process that give the individual stage a a stage individual the give that process and mannerism

, ”

nw nw s the as now known 010):

in full. Likewise, full. in

CEU eTD Collection of analysis this to regard with concern little of of is steps criticism disparate this 1999), the (deLeon policymaking about theories different integrate to rather but events, policy predict stage between relationships causal determine to process policy the intend that not fact did Lasswell the to addition In 1999). deLeon 1998; (Sabatier another to stage one from moves t of criticism second A appropriate, tasksofas eachasare longpolicy the stage defined. is process policy the of framework the within Republic Czech the in policy solar of analysis the be that activities of sets certain are there that clear is it however, example); for making, decision and (formation intertwined closely arepolicymakingthat of tasks aresome ThereWegrich 2007). (Wernerand discreteunits nam model, the of conceptualization theoretical the question critics Firstly, Republic. Czech the in policy power solar of analysis the in usefulness its from detract not do shortfalls its years, the over criticized widely been has process policy the While 2.2.A events to related 1999) A s a device to device a s 5. 4. 3. 2.

this the policy process policy the this Policy Evaluation PolicyImplementation Decision Policy Formation policy process disaggregate - solar policy inthe Czech making he policy process is that it lacks a causal explanation of how the policy policy the how of explanation causal a lacks it that is process policy he

“

as the best method best as the foranalysis ofthiscase model transactions,” policy public of web seamless otherwise an

long in distinct stages of policymaking (deLeon 1999). Therefore, Therefore, 1999). (deLeon policymaking of stages distinct in long

is a useful tool in tool useful a is Republic 16

in order todetermine where it ordering and ordering l te iiin f tgs into stages of division the ely

analyzing

the culmination of culmination the

failed.

(deLeon (deLeon

s or s CEU eTD Collection the policy r its process into of stage each dissect will paper this failed, it where determine to Republic Czech the in policy power solar examine deeply to order in Therefore, policy. the of outcome eventual the influence ass actors various process, policy the of stage each Within process the policy of stages of Components Part 3: criticisms andits shortfalls. despite case, this of analysis for model best the remains process policy the Therefore, Republic. actio policy by followed then was and authorities EU by was first identified problem clearly policy the since Republic Czech the in policy solar of case the for appropriate seque top the clear: quite is casethis in formulation problem Forexample, case. this relativeto not are theyaddress problems in policy solar of evaluation the in preferable less are approaches alternative these however Dunn2008), 2006; Weible and Sabatier (Jenkins place takes initiation policy and setting stage each between relationships the address example, for to, order in suggested been have process policy the to alternatives Various 2000). (John middle” just end… or beginning no is “there and unordered often are policymaking of stages the made; pol how rarely is presented framework linear and institutional the that out point critics as feature, controversial most its perhaps is model the of nature sequential or chronology, The prediction of futurepolicymaking. r a primarily is it since Republic Czech the in policy solar c o dcsos ht olw ta i fud n h plc poes em t b quite be to seems process policy the in found is that follow) that decisions of nce - down approach to policymaking (a clear origin of the policy problem and problem policy the of origin clear (a policymaking to approach down elevant outcomes. tasksand agents,

the Czech Republic than the policy process because the the because process policy the than Republic Czech the 17

- mt 19; igo 19; aair 1988; Sabatier 1995; Kingdon 1991; Smith or reevaluate when and how agenda agenda how and when reevaluate or m rls n mk dcsos that decisions make and roles ume eview of past events, rather than a a than rather events, past of eview

ns in the Czech the in ns icy is is icy CEU eTD Collection to agents failure. relevant to by essence, In events. coul Hart and Bovens agent, negative each to responsibilities and the tasks the determining caused have could that behavior agents’ the behind aft Finally, them. prompted have could what, or who, determined and events negative the behind developments the Secondly, losses. and benefits relevant the weighing by policy the by caused In their analysis 2.3.B policy’sthe policy proliferation,“agents,” orbe will an important firststep. th in policy solar the in failure the analyzing in Consequently, factors. exogenous or macroeconomic than rather failure, for reasons main the be to shortcomings and error institutional or human find These 2010). (Howlett, stakeholders and result its forecast capacity lack a to failure policy attributes Howlett study, similar a In 2004). Hart and (Bovens pathologies” information and arrogance cognitive all of most and laziness power, intellectual and institutional information, cognitive stalemat and adequate of “lack things, other among to, failure attributed Hart and Bovens Europe, in fiascos policy of examination their In 2.3.A er identifying possible agents of failure, Bovens and Hart attempted assess the rationale rationale the assess attempted Hart and Bovens failure, of agents possible identifying er Ceh eulc ietfig hs rsosbe isiuin ad niiul) o the for individuals) and (institutions responsible those identifying Republic, Czech e Agents offailureAgents -- e, and eventually ‘fuzzy gambling’ of policy makers, managerial folly, greed, lust for for lust greed, folly, managerial makers, policy of gambling’ ‘fuzzy eventually and e, Identifying and tasks responsibilities agents’ the amount of basic research a government can acquire or conduct about a policy to to policy a about conduct or acquire can government a research basic of amount the

of policy fias of policy -- and the degree to which it can communicate this policy to the relevant parties relevant the to policy this communicate can it which to degree the and

cos

, Bovens and Hart Bovensand Hart ,

studies of policy failure are similar in that they both they that in similar are failure policy of studies 18

(2004) first assessed the extent of thedamage extent assessedfirst the

of political analytical political of

d assign “blame” “blame” assign d CEU eTD Collection th 2010), (Howlett process policy the of stages to assigned be then can failures these and 2004), Hart and (Bovens failure produce tasks in is it failed, policy the where determining for model preferred a be to shown been has process policy the Whereas Part 4: Republic. Czech the in policy power solar of failure partial the of case the examine to studies two these incorporate will analysis this process), policy the within (examination frameworks conceptual similar followed and policyfailure) examine (to goals similar had authors these Since wit government the agenda the within occur could that failure policy of government” type assigns“overreachingas a Forexample, Howlett can thatstage. from originate poli the of stage each within agents of responsibilities and tasks the connects it since useful is classification This process. policy the of stage each to them assigns explicitly more and failure of types different identifies Howlett lines, similar Along ratheran policymaker individual than or task,todeterminewhere thepolicy failed. agent identity to usefulmore is it agents, of number age the Since failed. policy process the in where indicate will tasks these within failure process, policy the of stages to assigned are responsibilities and tasks once Likewise, process. policy the of stage making adopt to is legislator a of task one example, For process. policy the into incorporated be can they clear, are agents of responsibilities and tasks the When 2.3.C Agents andtasks withintheAgents policy process

Methodology h the responsibility of clarifying its goals and resources (Howlett 2010). 2010). (Howlett resources and goals its clarifying of responsibility the h opee ehdlgcly ih ead o hs nlss Sne gns and agents Since analysis. this to regard with methodologically complete nts may have a number of tasks, and likewise tasks may be assigned to a a to assigned be may tasks likewise and tasks, of number a have may nts

is analysis will first assign first will analysis is 19

- task combinations within the policyprocess, the within combinations task - setting stage of the policy process, tasking tasking process, policy the of stage setting cy process, with the potential failure that failure potential the with process, cy

the policy which falls into the decision the into falls which policy the

agent - task pairs pairs task

to each stage stage each to

the logic of of logic the CEU eTD Collection interpretation ofpolicy document the on rely mainly will analysis the however, evidence; supplementary as conducted been have Interviews failure?” produce responsibilities their fulfilled actors relevant the which in way the analys the process, policy the of stage each Within 2011). Collier 1994; (Owen variables observed between relationships causal examine qualitatively to tracing process of method a use will analysis this evidence, selected examine systematically to order In the policy tookplace. it which process in agent between relationship causal a is there whether determine will it Secondly, process. policy the of - task pairs and failure. And finally, when failure is found, it will be assigned to the stage of of stage the to assigned be will it found, is failure when finally, And failure. and pairs task s, news articles, academics, newsand articles articles, industry reports.

is will attempt to answer “did “did answer to attempt will is

CEU eTD Collection exces “without RES) for opportunities market fair (especially cohesion economic Directive the 2010, by RES from electricity of consumption for goals piece major first the RES, of sources. promotion the energy prioritized that renewable plans action of community various by promotion Preceded the regarding legislation EU the by determined Czech the of case the In 3.1.A formation stage. policy the affect will that way a in problem policy the articulating with tasked are agents stage, within and approaches weighing while issue policy the proble policy the selecting of process the encompasses polic other and officials elected account 1995). (Kingdon government non of as well attention as officials serious warrant to setting) (agenda action public of consideration for agenda the on put be then must it problem, policy a of selection the Following 2008). Dunn p issues of set diverse a from identified is problem policy a process, policy the of stage first the During Part 1: 3:Analysis Chapter various stages of the policy process policy the of stages various

eetd y lce ad pone ofcas f h pbi ( public the of officials appointed and elected by resented for most variables affecting agenda setting (Werner and Wegrich 2007), Wegrich and (Werner setting agenda affecting variables most for EU sets the EU sets agenda Agenda Setting Agenda of legislation in this sphere was Directive 2001/77/EC. In addition to setting target target setting to addition In 2001/77/EC. Directive was sphere this in legislation of

Though the Though - oenetl cos h ae lsl a closely are who actors governmental

Republic, the policy problem and policy objectives were largely largely were objectives policy and problem policy the Republic,

influence of non of influence mkr wo e te ulc gna Aed stig o only not setting Agenda agenda. public the set who ymakers

( Werner 21 - oenetlatr ie neet groups), interest (i.e. actors governmental instruments that instruments

and Wegrich 2007). Therefore, during this this during Therefore, 2007). Wegrich and m, but it is also a process of structuring of process a also is it but m, ssociated with the policy issue issue policy the with ssociated can shape policy shape can Werner emphasized social and and social emphasized

n Wegrich and ultimately, it is is it ultimately,

sive financial sive development development

2007; 2007; often CEU eTD Collection process. agenda the thus and legislation, this of formation the impacted significantly actors Czech that unlikely is it negotiations, 2009/28/EC the of time the o weak fairly to Due 2009. in presidency EU Czech the for preparations with concerned largely was and 2007 until open not did House, Czech Brussels, in group lobbying influential most Republic’s Czech the fact, In 2011). (Ydersbond schemes key some in cert green and active FiT between debate not the as such legislation, were the about discussions groups interest and actors political 2001/77/EC, Directive Furthermore, Directive. durin the from followed that setting agenda subsequent and 2001/77/EC of development the in impact significant any had Republic Czech the that unlikely is it 2004), g affiliated EU larger, EU with affiliations formal that maintained groups environmental few very had Republic Czech the EU, the to accession following 2010 by 8.4% to RES from electricity the 2004, in EU the to accession Upon onsustainable developmentsummit 2002(Europa 2011). in change climate on convention Nations United the of product Protocol, Kyoto the see to desire the by driven largely was 2001 technologies. RES for promotion for measures specific produc RES for grid the to access fair from aside however, construction; new for incentives of financial and number fiscal as a such RES suggested promoting also for mechanisms legislation The legislation. the for justifications as burdens,” g the policy negotiations leading up to Directive 2009/28/EC Directive to up leading negotiations policy the g

roups are crucial in influencing EU environmental policy (Hallstrom (Hallstrom policy environmental EU influencing in crucial are roups eoitos etr no oc bfr te oansug world Johannesburg the before force into enter negotiations,

under the p the under - ba zc Rpbi ws o nrae h cnupin of consumption the increase to was Republic Czech e fdrto gop (Hallstrom groups federation sed 22

rovisions of the directive. directive. the of rovisions - etn drn ti pae f h policy the of phase this during setting fficial representation in Brussels during during Brussels in representation fficial The decision to issue the directive in in directive the issue to decision The ers, the directive did not mandate any any mandate not did directive the ers,

which amended and replaced replaced and amended which Prior to, and directly directly and to, Prior

04. ic these Since 2004). ificate support support ificate CEU eTD Collection 3 renewable for targets indicative 2010 their achieved not had States Member the of half while national policies onrenewable energy resultingagenda from theEU measures. setting their in problems similar had they whether examine to compared be can the legislation Union, European the of States Member all to applies Directive EU the Since failure. of origin an as the out ruled which be largely in can identified way was problem the Republic, Czech the in policy power solar of case the to regard With 3.1. to regard energy consideredcan oftheagenda agents policy and themain be with Republic Czech the in agenda national the set largely authorities EU (goals), (promoti issue form policy the could formulating By legislation. Republic RES national Czech the which in framework the established essentially Directives ove of 13% EU the consumption, of RES for targets target binding establishing In a 2020. by RES on from consumption EU the with agreed Republic Czech The binding. were Directive 2009 the within set those indicative, only were 2001/77/EC within set targets targets overall of 20% of goal wide EU an set and [2003/30/EC] Biofuels on Directive the and [2001/77/EC] Ultimately, cmaio o al 7 ebr tts y h Erpa Cmiso soe mxd results: mixed showed Commission European the by States Member 27 all of comparison A

Individual Member State targets are based on the following criteria: - - -

that differed from the treaty, within specific parameters specific within treaty, the from differed that Some account is taken of A further increase is added based onnational GDP capita per All member states must achieve a marginal flat increase in final RES consumption of 5.75%. energy consumed from RES by 2020. Member States were again able to set national national set to able again were States Member 2020. by RES from consumed energy Analysis: Policy

Directive 2009/28/EC combined the Directive on Renewable Electricity Electricity Renewable on Directive the combined 2009/28/EC Directive

existing RES technological advances outcomes vary amongEUMember outcomes vary 23

ucms f hi implementing their of outcomes 3 ;

however, whereas the national the whereas however, - setting phase.setting on of RES) and the targets targets the and RES) of on

States

rall energy energy rall

CEU eTD Collection from Eurostat COM(2013)Source: and Data 175 Figure the increase prices in electricity and country a of mix energy RES the in increase an between correlation no is there that shows mechanism policy different by and pursue to chose countries that technologies renewable of types the in variation wide is there that clear country each observing When 2013). Commission 2 than more by targets surpassed had others mix, electricity their in energy

-0.04 Percent Change in RES share from 2005-2010 3 : EU electricity prices and share : EUelectricity -0.02 Change electricity in comparedprices to change 10% Change in Electricity Prices between 2005 between Prices Electricity in Change 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 0.00 in in % share ofRES in EU Member States 0.02

0.04 [ Figure 3] 0.06 . s

of RES

(Euros 0.08 24

data countrycross the Additionally, 2013). tat - 2010 (Euro cents) (Euro 2010 0.10 according to renewable fuel mix, mix, fuel renewable to according 0.12

0.14 0.16

percent (European percent

Member States Member it is also is it

CEU eTD Collection process policy the of phase one as stages two the of events policy the analyze to appropriate is it agentthe Since their select oftask isto policy abundle optio legislators the are process policy solar Czech the in phase making decision the of agents adoption official the for responsible ultimately stage decision policy the within agents main the remain officials elected adoption, ( mus policy w within parameters the sets human) and material (both resources of availability The relevant submitting draft and policyoptions legislation tothe legislature(Spacil 2011). Environment directed (MoE), each the Republic, Czech the in policy RES of case the In legislature. the options policy of selection designand th have who officials government ultimately is it process, formation policy the on have can actors outside that influence undeniable the Despite 2008). (Dunn phase crea departments, and units ministerial within negotiations of process informal an Following Part 2: were different. markedly parameters polic the in instrumental not was energy renewable of promotion the on Directive EU the that clear is it results, these From Werner te alternative policies and options to deal with the problem specified in the agenda setting agenda the in specified problem the with deal to options and policies alternative te

n Wgih 07. huh xenl cos a b ifunil n em o policy of terms in influential be can actors external Though 2007). Wegrich and t be adopted during the decision making phase making decision the during adopted be t Policy Formation and Decision Making and Decision Formation Policy (and similar targets) for all Member St Member all for targets) similar (and - task pairs in both the policy formation and decision making stages are so similar, similar, so are stages making decision and formation policythe both in pairs task

fiue n h Ceh eulc T Republic. Czech the in failure y

by Members of Parliament, were responsible for Parliament, weighing were the by of Members responsible ,

since they are the ones who can submit draft legislationto draft submit canwho ones arethe they since ns to include inafinallegislation. piece of ns to 25 (and outcomes (and

ates; however

thus narrowing the available options options available the narrowing thus ) of these policies. Therefore, the the Therefore, policies. these of ) , e U ietv st h same the set Directive EU he

the outcomes in each country country each in outcomes the MiT

e final call on the final final the on call final e

and the Ministry of the the of Ministry the and ,

since they are are they since

hich the the hich officials officials ,

and and ,

CEU eTD Collection policy ( Czec legislation their of aspects policies European Western of emulation of form the in especially transfer, policy high of degree a in engaged Directives EU with comply to required were that states member new The 3.2.B that strives toincrease generation these include mechanisms. should RES R successful for qualities these ensure the deliver to adequate and efficient cost “predictable, be should schemes support RES successful since Furthermore, 2006). al. et (Held RES in investment encouraging as objective first the defined policymakers pl installed newly of promotion exclusive the on focus clear a be should “there generation, RES increase rapidly to order in that, shown non to virtually a promote have and RES from would energy of generation Republic Czech the this, do to order In standards. EU with comply to order in on early framework legal national its reform to began preemptively Republic Czech the 1998, as early as EU the with negotiations accession official begun Having 3.2.A decision making process. the and policy the of formulation the both in participate to able are they parliament, of members sugge as h RES policy making, there seems to be a high degree high a be to seems there making, policy RES h Erneuerbare Boosting sted by sted German RESGerman pol Werner - Energien RES Generation through Generation RES Investme

agt, plcmkr wud ae o mly oiy ehnss to mechanisms policy employ to have would policymakers targets,” and Wegrich (2007). Moreover, since the heads of the ministries are ministries the of heads the since Moreover, (2007). Wegrich and

n in and - icyfor Czech policymakers model asa Gesetz tttos ( stitutions

– ES promotion (Eurelectric 2011). Therefore, any policy policy any Therefore, 2011). (Eurelectric promotion ES

EEG) ofEEG) ants” no matter what policy is chosen, Czech Czech chosen, is policy what matter no ants” aoy 2004; Jacoby 26 2000. 2000.

otn t l 2009) al. et Gorton - existent sector. Since studies have studies Since sector. existent of emulation of emulation of nt

drastically increase the the increase drastically

the .

n h cs of case the In

German RES RES German or CEU eTD Collection t EEG, German the of emulation the to addition In 2011). (Spacil legislation German the of example the following instead, rate degression 5% a include to chose policymakers prices, purchase FiT on rate degression maximum 10% a suggested MoE year forprovision 15 contracted a included and investment on guarantee EEG’s the of example the followed law RES Czech new (pursuant grid the to connection preferential guaranteed that provision the to addition In EEG. German the to copy closer even an was and country the in laws RES previous all replaced and repealed Use of Promotion on Act 2001, of program RES the from knowledge policy some Havingdeduced Directive2001/77/EC. within set targets and regulations the with comply to policy RES reformulate to began policymakers strategy new a for need the Understanding Develop Policymakers 3.2.C Czech incomplete policy (Bechberger transfer and 2004). Reiche remuneration) changing annually Czech opp as rate FiT set year 20 the at (such success its to components key out left had aspect borrowed only had policy RES Czech the since that, the citing many technologies, renewable in investment scale large spurring in unsuccessful largely was Republic 2001 in system Germany’s 2004) occur to were policy RES new a about deliberations before immediately parliament of members to act the distributed and translated had Association Energy Renewable suggest that evidence striking most The Cneunl, h Czec the Consequently, . Article 7(6) of Directive 2001/77/EC and thus applicable to all Member States), the States), Member all to applicable thus and 2001/77/EC Directive of 7(6) Article lack of investment stability in the sector. Consequently, policymakers believed believed policymakers Consequently, sector. the in stability investment of lack .

oee, ewe 20 ad 04 te i sse i te Czech the in system FiT the 2004, and 2001 between However,

rate [Article 6, No. 180/2005]. Furthermore, 180/2005]. tho [Articlerate 6,No. Rpbi itoue a FT ytm agl mdld after modeled largely system FiT an introduced Republic h

f eeal Sucs Lw o 1020] asd n 2005, in passed 180/2005] No. [Law Sources Renewable of ,

the failure to promote wide scale investment was due to to due was investment scale wide promote to failure the s policy policy s epcal uo acsin o h E, Czech EU, the to accession upon especially , 27

a Strategy New

mlto fo te EEG the from emulation

s from the EEG (the FiT scheme) FiT (the EEG the from s he Czech legislation drew some some drew legislation Czech he

(Bechberger and Reiche Reiche and (Bechberger

s ht h Czech the that is ugh the MiT and ugh and MiT the osed to the the to osed

but but

CEU eTD Collection alter thus and different, decidedly are countries two the between contexts social and economic, could transfer policy the Firstly, reasons. several for failure, policy to led have could EEG the emulated policymakers Czech which in way the that possible is it Furthermore, process. making decision analytical rational, a of results the the that possible is emula policy of it product a was policy Spain), RES Czech the of extent, adoption and formation lesser a to (and, Germany to models, as regard policies with RES especially European Western of influence apparent the of light in However, islogicalpromote RES investment in andrational based ontheavailable alternatives. Neuhof & Butler 2005; EC 2003; (Lemming certificates green tradeable as such alternatives than investors for al. bes the are incentives economic such since RES o goals stated the achieving in fit best be to seem systems FiP and larg (Sweden), to According 2011). (Europa measures voluntary or (Poland), certificates tariff of use the as such alternatives out rule to chose also policypolicymakers In this option, choosingRepublic. Czech the renewableenergyin ma to rates degression the and systems) FiP and FiT (the incentives economic the on heavily targets), depend to of choice inclusion the (i.e. law the for framework the formed directive EU the While 3.2.D a as paid premium of ontop marketprices 6]. [Article be would that Bonus”) “Green or (FiP Premium in Feed a or rate FiT the between choose to investors allowed that provisions namely Spain, in policy RES the from provisions

2006)

Choosing EconomicChoosing toBoostInvestment Incentives

and are more cost effective, less susceptible to bureaucratic obstacles, and not as risky risky as not and obstacles, bureaucratic to susceptible less effective, cost more are and nage them were key decisions made by policymakers with regard to the promotion of of promotion the to regard with policymakers by made decisions key were them nage f 2008 f .

In light of these of light In

studies, the decision to use a use to decision the studies,

ae been have 28 t way to ensure fast deployment of RES of deployment fast ensure to way t

“ inappropriate

industry f encouraging investment in investment encouraging f

studies, the choice of FiT of choice the studies,

FiT and FiP system to to system FiP and FiT ”

ic te political, the since

r a incentives tax er tion rather than than rather tion

( Held et Held CEU eTD Collection neighborand ( trade) in as (such frequently engage that governments between frequent more d becomes makers transfer policy policy since Furthermore, Czech that logical is it 2012), Fulton 2007; Corre and Mendonça 2006; Groscurth and (Bode RES promote to wish that countries other for been has policy RES German the that fact the Given set targets the fulfill to order in Republic Czech the of policy energy the changing significantly with then, It (Gortonlarge EUlegislation etal.with theof transposition 2009). amounts of coupled is EU the of accession where Europe, Eastern and Central of states member new the time under problem a to solution hurriedlyafor searching is government aplacewhen takes policyoften Since transfer 3.2.E often leads to be to considered been also have could transfer policy the installations, of sizes all to applied rates same the Republic Czech indicators. the economic divergent their considering same, Conside the exactly be Czech the and would Germany for Republic rates the that illogical seems it 2010), (NREL rate degression the considering Indeed, as such 2000). factors of number Marsh and (Dolowitz operates policy the which in way the by theEU that Czech policymakers Czech that

ring that the FiT policy in Germany largely applied to rooftop installations, whereas in whereas installations, rooftop to applied largely Germany in policy FiT the that ring Analysis:

largest trading partner seems like alargest trading partnerseems like lo failure (Dolowitz and Marshfailure 2000). (Dolowitz RES RES Directive Similar policies,outcomes different constraints (Dolowitz and Marsh 20 Marsh and (Dolowitz constraints

the cost of inputs and access to credit that should determine the initial the determine should that credit to access and inputs of cost the

within within likely sought a Western European policy to emulate when tasked tasked when emulate to policy European Western a sought likely ooiz n Mrh 00, emn a te zc Republic’s Czech the as Germany 2000), Marsh and Dolowitz “ incomplete, the given

timeframe ” an additional obstacle additional an ” 29

gical policy source knowledge. of lauded as a great success and an archetype an and success great a as lauded .

00), policy emulation is prevalent in prevalent is emulation policy e lrey rm h EEG. the from largely rew

o policy to is not surprising surprising is not

emul

ation that ation CEU eTD Collection implementation does describenot a successful policy outcome (Weimar and Vining 2010). 4 responsibility regulatoryag of schemes support RES of implementation the in important 2007) Wegrich and (Werner phase implementation the during allocated be should resources human and financial how and executed detail 2000), (John related closely are phases implementation and formation policy the Though 25). (John, outcomes policy negative of eventthe in blame the of brunt the bear often implementation offices, the authorities,” local lower to decisions controversial more and harder the symbolic leave and policies create events, to react to happy often “are bureaucrats senior and politicians since t within decided are policy a of details crucial the of Many mobilize government within units implementation the in policy the administrativeimplement, or with, comply to resources, relevant the adopted, is policy a Once Part 4: canaccounted befor during failure policy of entirety the that clear not still is it outcome, in divergent but design, in similar the for responsible an in albeit Germany, of policy RES emul Republic Czech the that likely is it policies, two the between similarities the Given

While “implementation” itself describes theefforts made toexecute goals with these resources, successful

o te oiy uh s o te a sol b itrrtd hw h porm hud be should program the how interpreted, be should law the how as such policy the of s Policy Policy

failure

Implementation

the decision making/the decision

encies prices toset purchasing h Ceh eso. oee, ic te w plc dsgs were designs policy two the since However, version. Czech the agencies and other levels of government responsible for for responsible government of levels other and agencies incomplete and inappropriate and incomplete

30 policy formation phase.policy formation

and award contracts.and award since it is often, if not always, the the always, not if often, is it since e mlmnain hs. Indeed, phase. implementation he . These decisions These .

manner that manner ,

level organizations and organizations level are generally executed executed generally are 4

phase (Dunn 2008). (Dunn phase

are p are may

have been been have articularly articularly ated the the ated the CEU eTD Collection ok et hn uprig E tcnlg ta i tcnlgcly led established already technologically is that technology RES supporting when best work incentives economic since Furthermore, example). for generation, heat than (rather electricity RES increase would that promote to technology a choosing with tasked was ERO the electricity, RES of promotion the on Directive 2001/77/EC the to reaction a was legislation 2005 the Since grea the by shown as photovolatics, in investment back strongly most to decided ERO the Republic, ( technology of type one of promotion suc incentives, economic through Several 3.3B low, there incentive be will little Corre (Mendonça for and 2007). investment i if whereas profits, windfall high unnecessarily from benefit will producers the high, too is Therefore, year previous the 6 of [Article 95% of minimum a at rates purchasing set and years 15 of investment ( system connection each and of operation requirements of types different the and time, over systems of development the purchase, of costs the account into takes ERO the year, following the for premiums and tariffs When 180/2005]. No. (1), 6 [Article RES from generated electricity for (FiP) determine to significantly most regulations, implementing Czec the Within 3.3.A

a trade a t divergence in tariffs and intariffs t divergence ERO P studies that have evaluated the most effective mechanisms effective most the evaluated have that studies Decisions about the detailsDecisions ofthe policy about - , No. 180/2005 No. , off between promoting investment and balancing government budgets; if the tariff is tariff the if budgets; government balancing and investment promoting between off setting the correct t correct the setting romote h law on the promotion of RES, power has been delegated to the to delegated been has power RES, of promotion the on law h ], there is there ], s Photovoltaic T premiumstechnology for each ariff is ariff ec e a. 2010 al. et Resch h as FiT and FiP, emphasize the need to focus resources on the on resources focus to need the emphasize FiP, and FiT as h

limited flexibility in reducing these reducing in flexibility limited

crucial in determining the future costs to the program as it it as program the to costs future the determining in crucial Resch et al. 2010 al. et Resch 31 echnology

). Sinc ). In the case of RES policy in the Czech Czech the in policy RES of case the In ). e

h EO ut osdr r a consider must ERO the purchase prices and green bonuses bonuses green and prices purchase [Table

1]. to increase RES investment RES increase to

rates once they are set. set. are they once rates

calculating these these calculating ERO tr on eturn

to t is too is t

issue CEU eTD Collection investment boom 2009 of (Slezáková 2011). since themost organize groups in the industry did not make their way totheCzech scene before the evidence lobbying of for solar 6 technologies, including photovoltaic panels. 5 enacted have that States Member EU five the policies; solar from control cost with deal to policies retroactive of implementation power. the on blamed be on could technology RES from generated revenues tax retroactive the prompted eventually that government the to cost large the Intuitively, 3.3. C the choice topromote PV that likely is it Germany, of policy RES the emulated authorities and policymakers Czech that RES. from generation electricity of promotion the to regard photovoltaics of support the logic, this to According wasinstallations years theproduct ofmore ofdeliberatio than15 with interview an In tohydrolimited wind and solar. power, suppo RES to regard with Republic Czech the in choices the 1982), (Zimmerman

Though lobbying for solar power was prevalent inother countries (Germany), there seems to be no Rudolf Kalkus ow is workable options strongly that blow doesn’t wind the mountains, between valley a in essentially we’re because but windmills, few a also are There needed. electricity the produce cannot rivers few and a “There

oee, hr de nt em o e srn creain ewe hg trfs n the and tariffs high between correlation strong a be to seem not does there However, FiT andretroactive rates policies re a number of hydro power plants in the country; however our small hills small our however country; the in plants power hydro of number a re . ner of Aquares Construction Company thatis one of the leading installers of RES So policymakers decided to back solar back to decided policymakers So

uof Kalkus, Rudolf . ”

(Kalkus, interview). (Kalkus, was largelyexample setby influenced byEEG.the the

in theCZ at the time of policy formation or implementation in2004 and 2005

retroactive polices retroactive 5

xlie ta te eiin o rmt photovoltaic promote to decision the that explained

—

Bulgaria, emd h ms rtoa dcso with decision rational most the seemed

Additionally, in line with the theory theory the with line in Additionally, as one of the only remaining remaining only the of one as n with regard toenergyn withregard policy

Czech Republic, Czech high initial tariffs set for solar for set tariffs initial high 6

rt were largely largely were rt

Greece, Italy Greece, :

CEU eTD Collection Table for thefailure ofPV account fully to able be would rate FiT initial high a that unlikely is it that shoes analysis basic a analyzed, been has that data of amount small bythe limited is analysis this Though 2007).Corre the in electricity of price the times three about only /kWh, of non 2004 in Republic: Czech F Spain and urthermore, Germany’s initial FiT rate was higher in actual and relative and actual in higher was rate FiT initial Germany’s urthermore, - 2 subsidized electricity, whereas the Czech Republic’s initial FiT rate set in 2006 was € 2006was ratesetin Republic’s FiT initial theCzech whereas electricity, subsidized : Feedin inthe Tariffs EU — are distributed

policy inthe Czech Republic. Cyprus Slovenia* Bulgaria* Austria* Portugal* Italy United Kingdom Germany* Luxembourg* Czech Republic Netherlands* Greece Member state listed didlisted providenot information.FiT countries thathave enacted retroactive policies; EU notMS FiT Source: EU Energy Portal, http://www.energy.eu/; * PV Estonia Hungary Slovakia Spain*

rates have been averaged. Highlighted cells represent Germany

rat

e eel o te it f V ta PV of list the on evenly her

’s

initial

FiT PVFiT 33 rate was rate

€/kWh

€0.595 country at the time the at country

/kWh, nearly five times the price the times five nearly /kWh, rif f 0.3405 s 0.051 0.097 0.375 0.455 0.521 0.27 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.55 Tbe 2 [Table 0.4

terms than that of the of that than terms

] (Mendonça and (Mendonça

Bez 2012). (Beetz 0.45

CEU eTD Collection Table appearsit bemore that will it susceptible topolicyfailure. retroactive 3 for [Table policies need the without PV promoted that countries to relation in corruption public to regards with poorly relatively scored all they Republic, Czech the of those to similar policies role. a play to seem policies, retroactive of implementation not does there Though 3.3.F 3 : PV FiT andCorruption Potential policies tocounter costs to state budgets. clean; (for FiT rates see previous table); highlighted haveMS enacted retroactive Source: Netherlands* Luxembourg* Austria* Germany* United Kingdom Estonia Slovenia* Cyprus Spain* Portugal* Hungary Czech Republic Slovakia Italy Bulgaria* Greece Member State

]. In other words, if a country prioritizes prioritizes country a if words, other In ]. Corruption Perception Index

Corruption inAwardingCorruption C

seem to be a correlation between high purchasing prices for PV and the and PV for prices purchasing high between correlation a be to seem

f h cutis ht rmtd V n ltr mlmne retroacti implemented later and PV promoted that countries the Of

PVFiT

, 2010, where 0ishighly corrupt and10 is perceived as (2010) €/kWh

0.3405 unsurprisingly public corruption within the country does does country the within corruption public unsurprisingly 0.521 0.375 0.051 0.097 0.455 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.33 0.38 0.27 0.36 0.55 0.4

Corruption Index (2010) ontracts PV and has a high level of corruption, of level high a has and PV

8.8 8.5 7.9 7.9 7.6 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 4.7 4.6 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.5 6

ve ve CEU eTD Collection t with line in on chosen was PV that possible also based is it analyses, technical decision rational a be to seems it while technologies: RES other over PV promote analyzed, evidence the to According 3.3.G non a in illegally prices. high awarded were investors PV to contracts that possible is applications rigorouslydocuments and the from exempt uniquely is it since technologies RES other than transparent less are installations PV 30 take usually permits and applications such since treatment, preferential show would this true, are allegations these If yearapproved ofthe (Radio lastday 24hours ofthe2013). within CZ solar plant license operate applicants indicateto reports forthatsubsidies EROseveral PV, 2010 in Furthermore, 2013). CZ (Radio investors illeg have may employees ERO that revealed which 2013, February, in agency the of audit an prompted allegations The non a in prices purchasing setting of accused been recently has 2010 PV every issued for are installation, required permits building example For investors. PV to documentation other setting to addition the since In policy. RES important Czech the implementing is in discretion great granted phase were authorities regulatory implementation the during corruption of consideration The ).

Though

Analysis Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure (EIA) Assessment Impact Environmental

EU studies have found that the ERO the that found have studies EU purchasing prices, purchasing : Corrupt Contracts Account Could : Corrupt for Failure

- depending “purely on dec on “purely depending 60 days to approve ( approve to days 60 ally increased prices of electricity in contracts made with solar solar with made contracts in electricity of prices increased ally the ERO the

t s nla t wa ws h mi die i cosn to choosing in driver main the was what to unclear is it within the EI within Resch et al. 2010). al. et Resch 35 is responsible for awarding for responsible is

, ision of the [ERO] office clerk office [ERO] the of ision

just before there was a significant decrease in decrease significant a was there before just

A database ( database A to be credible and independent and credible be to ,

which usually takes up to one to up takes usually which -

transparent manner (CTK 2013). (CTK manner transparent Moreover, Moreover, Resch et al. 2010 al. etResch

he policy emulation of the of emulation policy he - rnprn mne with manner transparent contr contracts and issuing issuing and contracts acts to construct construct to acts ). ). ” ( ” (EC 2011) (EC Therefore, it Resch et al. et Resch

s were s year , it it CEU eTD Collection s its achieved has policy certain a not or whether of evaluations commissioned) 2010) (McConnell failure opponents and success claiming greatly can been Having interpretation and perspective of matters necessarily s this at obstacle main the is evaluation policy the from developed impacts and objectives intended its policy thein levelfinal the is stage evaluation”“policy the certainpolicy, a of outcomes the fullyassess however evaluation; of degree a faces stage each process, policy the Throughout Part 4: failure ofsola 2013). oth in investments personal to due subsidies PV opposed long have that sources from come have accusations the of many motivations: political by complicated Republic. Czech the in generation surroundi atmosphere political current the to due complicated is however, claim, This costs incurredgovernment. by the the contracts awarded during corruption that possible contri is significantly have it may phase However, implementation policies. PV of failure the and rates FiT high between correlation strong a be to seem not does there Additionally, EEG. German

process. This process. hrfr, ni te at o te ae oe o ul fruition, full to come case the of facts the until Therefore, Policy Evaluation Policy affect the way in which the outcomes o outcomes the which in way the affect

r policy inthe Czech Republic tookplace phase. during theimplementation omltd ihn h faeok f oiis priasi ad oiia posturing political and partisanship politics, of framework the within formulated

ih nltd rcs t h coe f 2 of close the at prices inflated with stage necessarily begins with the appr the with begins necessarily stage ( Werner

, accounting for accounting , h fcs f h cs aant R rmi unclear remain ERO against case the of facts The

and Wegrich 2007). The normative aspect of policy policy of aspect normative The 2007). Wegrich and ae sne oh oiy ucms n itnin are intentions and outcomes policy both since tage, 36

f these policies are evaluated with proponents with evaluated are policies these f

any unintended consequences that may have have may that consequences unintended any (Peters et al. 2001; Bovens and Hart and Bovens 2001; al. et (Peters ue t te oiys alr; f h ERO the if failure; policy’s the to buted 0, it 009, aisal of the policy outcomes against against outcomes policy the of aisal I adto t te fiil (often official the to addition In .

er energy sources energy er ol acut o sm o the of some for account would it is still not clear that that clear not still is it tated goals and and goals tated ( Groszkowski Groszkowski ,

n re to order in ng energy ng

n are and

2004). 2004). the CEU eTD Collection and fulfil for timeframes at achievement goal to relation main their within provisions include Germany and Republic Czech the both 2009/28/EC, Directive of Pursuant 3.4.B Czech Republic and Germany. the between outcomes policy in differences the for account can stage evaluation the during taken actions the in variance that possible is became it Therefore, ta avoid. to retroactive able shown, was Germany a that revenues been of passage has the prompting as Republic, but, Czech the Germany in uncontrollable in stabilized increases cost changes, these changes significant underwent policy investme in growth steady experienced countries both 2008 and 2004 between Republic: Czech the of that to similar were policy RES and design policy in compa for similar case good is Germany a as serves of it thus Republic, Czech the policy of that to tariffs) set RES (initial regulations implementation the that shown been has It 3.4.A thus compoundin evaluation, policy of aspect political the into back feeds then which policy, the impact of opinion public largely that information of sources the are these cases, most in since, relevance their process themselves policy the of evaluations informal produce all media the as well as releases, press government publications, academic as such sources other outcomes, Article 20 of the EEG, EEG, the of 20 Article MCnel 00. h ifraiy of informality The 2010). (McConnell Germany policy RES evaluation Differences inE g complexity. its

RES legislation RES rison within the evaluation stage. In fact, the first few years of Germany’s of years few first the fact, In stage. evaluation the within rison epciey. n mi dfeec i the in difference main One respectively]. valuation Schemes valuation

for the evaluation of national RES policies and progress and policies RES national of evaluation the for ,

while Czech RES policy remained the same. Following same. the remained policy RES Czech while nt in the PV sector. PV the in nt 37

hs eautos os o etrl undermine entirely not does evaluations these

lment

[Article 7 (2) of the Czech RES Act RES Czech the of (2) 7 [Article However, in 2008 Germany’s R Germany’s 2008 in However, and complicate the evaluation evaluation the complicate and RES policy evaluation evaluation policy RES o RES on x

with ES CEU eTD Collection increas sharing, information from costs lower these to addition In lower. significantly are plant a build to investors other for costs the plants, install and PV in invest firms more as that, means This is experience that from gained information also half but company, the by internalized the of half plant), (solar installation energy prices input to response in investors of curves,” a to adjusted regularly be should systems FiT that shown have Studies FiT. like incentives economic on based schemes support evaluating when useful especially is electricity of rates consumption and costs the beyond markets RES about information Additional onlyelectricity, thecosts of costsfor butchanges ininput investors( comp more a includes ministries German the by report the information, this to addition In year. given that during Republic in Czech year coming the for electricity of costs projected the and fluctuations, price as electricity, the on focuses report ERO’s the while directive, EU the within set targets the fulfilling to the track on degree is country what to evaluating for responsible are MiT and MoE the Republic, Czech the In informationfailure assessing availablea or for of thesuccess the thus and reports, assessment the in inclusion for required are that components different the pub for responsible are Technology and Economics of Ministry Federal the and Protection Consumer and Agriculture Food, of Ministry the Safety, Nuclear and Conservation Nature Environment, responsi are ERO and MoE MiT, the whereas evaluations: the for responsible authorities the in is country each of procedures lishing a joint evaluation every four years. The difference in evaluating authorities reflects reflects authorities evaluating in difference The years. four every evaluation joint a lishing ed investment in solar will subsequently increase demand for inputs (solar panels), panels), (solar inputs for demand increase subsequently will solar in investment ed zc eetiiy grid electricity Czech ble for annual reporting in the Czech Republic, the the Republic, Czech the in reporting annual for ble rehensive view of the RES market as a whole, considering not not considering whole, a as market RES the of view rehensive ,

including statistics statistics including benefits all firms in the industry (Zimmerman 1982). 1982). (Zimmerman industry the in firms all benefits 38 (Eurelectric 2011). When a firm invests in a new new a in invests firm a When 2011). (Eurelectric

policy. related to the consumption of of consumption the to related EEG Report2007 Progress

ccommodate the “learning the ccommodate Ministry for the the for Ministry ).

CEU eTD Collection scopethe limited ofthe reports. official evaluation attribu be could Inaction policy. the reform and react not did politicians Czech investment, in influx rapid this Despite investors foreign more attracted and larger were investments neighboring in than Republic Czech the in lower already were labor) and land (namely inputs of costs the since Additionally, unchanged. largely remained policy Czech the reformed, and evaluated being was policy RES German the While (BMU 2012). year that installed PV of volume the on based rate this of decrease or increase an 9%, butallowing for averageat amended2011, settingthe degressionrate legislationagain the in the understood Having provisions. th of these importance include to 2009 in EEG the amended and report the within recommendations the to reacted actively Policymakers 2007). Report Progress (EEG 7% to 5 from rate (EEG 2011 in reduction further degression recommended possible Progress Additionally, increasing thereport the Report2007). a with 2009, after commissioned plants for remuneration pric input in decrease j report progress The 3.4.C enjoyingrates FiT high ( 30 by cost input solar for costs 2009, of due endinvestors hadacrosstoinformation EUt sharing lowered significantlyand the the By costs. lowering and production increasing eventually Analysis:

- ruh oiy vlain n h saiiain f V akt, h Bundestag the markets, PV of stabilization the in evaluation policy orough 40%; thereby 40%;

for plants installe plants for ointly published by the German ministries in 2007 accurately predicted the the predicted accurately 2007 in ministries German the by published ointly Germany action, “asleep” takes Czechare politicians s n css n sgetd a suggested and costs and es ted to a dearth of information about the change in costs of inputs due to due inputs of costs in change the about information of dearth a to ted Fendekova 2011). and Kohoutova

creating an extremely advantageous investment climate for PV for climate investment advantageous extremely an creating d after January, after d 39

2009, and 8% for plants installed after 2011 2011 after installed plants for 8% and 2009, Germany, the learning effects from initial initial from effects learning the Germany, . 1 €

kh euto i te ai rt of rate basic the in reduction /kWh

o ul poooti plants. photovoltaic build to he re

in Germany Germany in duction of duction

CEU eTD Collection policy RES Czech the in change any illicit not did evaluation the of scope narrow the for whereas customers, costs electricity of increase rapid a mitigated that Germany in redesign policy prompted f and success policy in resulted phases and Czechevaluation German the theagents actions betweenvariance of Itclear the that of the is (CEZ 2013). 2010 and 2009 between plants PV its of all constructed which Republic, Czech the in electr largest the CEZ, of decisions investment the but supported robustly is claim His 5%. at set rate degression the and high, rates FiP and FiT low, were investment of costs the adv took businessmen time this during that commented Republic, Czech policy. a not were policymakers that unlikely is it Germany, of that after modeled been largely had policy RES Czech the since However,

Ing. Vladislav Blecha, owner of a 3MW solar plant in the South Bohemia Region of the the of Region Bohemia South the in plant solar 3MW a of owner Blecha, Vladislav Ing. ni te ot fo slr ee otolbe ny y rtocie tax. retroactive a by only controllable were solar from costs the until antage of it” ( it” of antage Blecha, interview Blecha, ware of the changes that had been made within their RES their within made been had that changes the of ware ailure, respectively. The comprehensive policy evaluation evaluation policy comprehensive The respectively. ailure, 40

). Blecha installed his plant in 2009 in plant his installed Blecha ). te oiiin wr ale ad some and asleep were politicians “the icity producer producer icity ,

when CEU eTD Collection phase. evaluation policy the during avoided been have arguably could failure outcomes, negative policy’s the to contributed have could factors these of all While the implementation phase. then investors, PV for setting price formation/ to led have could that factors likely are provisions policy the of transfer incomplete the then and policy, borrow to which from model a as Germany of choice inappropriate The phase. formation policy the of emulation Subsequent likely toborrowfrom Western policyEuropean models Countries. policymakers time, of period short relatively a within targets set the achieve to order in policy energy its to changes drastic make to required was Republic Czech the since Germany; framed and identified was problem the which in way the Republic, Czech the in failure policy the for responsible fully been have not could setting agenda this that indicates outcomes policy in variance the While ide authorities EU the RES, promote to occurred. legislation have could failure where process policy the within stages several failure success policy overall with equated be cannot achievement target that policy solar Czech of case the from clear is It Conclusion . With the aim of aim the With decision making

could have prompted the Czech Republic to engage in policy transfer from from policytransfer in engageto Republic Czech the prompted have could

flawed n cn vn acrig o te dfntos b consi be definitions, other to according even, can and

determining Germany’s RES policy could have contributed to policy failure during during failure policy to contributed have could policy RES Germany’s

phase. phase. policy However, i

policy failure will more significantly be be significantly more will failure policy

where this policy failed, this this failed, policy this where

ein n consequent and design f it is f itis 41

proven ntified the policy issue and set the agenda. agenda. the set and issue policy the ntified

that the ERO engaged inillegallythat theERO high Furthermore, the actions of the the of actions the Furthermore,

analysis fou analysis alr drn th during failure accounted for during during for accounted nd that there are there that nd

ee a partial a dered n establishing In

were more more were e policy policy e CEU eTD Collection the in policy RES to paid was attention little 2009, until lasted that ODS of rule the during Thus, 2007). (CTK term coming the for agenda policy their formed largely which government ex the include not did Topolanek anti largely been always has ODS conservative the that fact the to addition In Democrats. Christian the and Party Green the with coalition unlikely an into num a after and, (CSSD) Democrats Social the over victory slight a with elected were (ODS) Democrats Civic the elections, 2006 the During time. the at country the within climate political divisive the to attributed be largely can EEG) the reforming Germ (while stage evaluation policy the during Republic Czech the in action of lack The L Paralyzed Policymaking controlled and failure avoided. t RES on tax retroactive the revenues. prompting eventually market, electricity the distorted largely of number the reduced largely applican have could an this of Though introduction 2008). the and (Spacil list deposit reservationapplication the on remain could applicants that limit time suppor to documentation and land (lacking nature in speculative were applications these of most that clear was it Since 2011). (Spacil network the 2008 in apparent unsustainabl become would PV that indications Republic, Czech the Within phasefailure this lies policywithin inthe Czech Republic withregard tosolar ofpolicy making. in the and ERO he degression rate in 2008, like Germany, it is likely is it Germany, like 2008, in rate degression he ts, no policy action policyaction no ts, If the Czech policymakers had changed the purchasing prices for new installations and and installations new for prices purchasing the changed had policymakers Czech the If action of policymakers in 2008 largely indicate that most of the responsibility for responsibility the of most that indicate largely 2008 in policymakers of action ,

when there was a large increase in applications for RES plants to connect to connect to plants RES for applications in increase large a was there when was taken and an influx of solar installations between 2009 and 2010 2010 betweeninstallationsandsolar of2009 influx an andtaken was

amination of energy policy within his stated priorities for the the for priorities stated his within policy energy of amination ed to Failure 42

t their existence), the ERO in 2008 suggested a a suggested 2008 in ERO the existence), their t

that costs could have been significantly significantly been have could costs that - RES (and pro (and RES e ffie eoitos entered negotiations, failed of ber - nuclear), PM Mirek PM nuclear), e were already already were e any was was any

CEU eTD Collection reactiveand flexible. be must policymakers and policies budget, state the protect to order in thus predictions, alter marke systems; support as incentives economic on depend that policies RES of implementation and development the to regard with important especially and is This success. effectiveness policy’s the on impact great have can policies RES abandon, or shepherd, signifi findingis This and other attribute policyanalysesoffiasco the with linelargely in is phase,evaluation imp the during policy solar Czech more of failure likely the theory, (2010) Howlett’s following capacity analytical of lack to attributed be can phase making formation/decision policy the within identified failure the While failure. policy’s sign highly was government the of inaction the that clear is it phase, evaluation the greatestfailure occurred during the indeterminingpolicy However, that negative effects. side g of paralysis The boomtookplacePV inthe Czech Republic. the when exactly almost 2010, of elections parliamentary until place in put was Fischer Jan by headed government caretaker a dissolution, the Following 2009). (AP country the in downturn e the handled had ODS that way was the to due largely confidence parliamentno of vote a in dissolved EU, the of presidency rotating Republic’s Czech the during 2009 of March country dsie h wrig o te R ad oiy hne i Gray Frhroe in Furthermore, Germany. in changes policy and ERO the of warnings the despite ,

policy failure to the faults of policymakers from managerially folly, political stalemate, stalemate, political folly, managerially from policymakers of faults the to failure policy human factors. overnment caused neither the solar boom in the country, nor the subsequent subsequent the nor country, the in boom solar the neither caused overnment cant because it demonstrates that demonstrates it because cant

lementation phase, and especially during the the during especially and phase, lementation

the way in which individual policymakers individual which in waythe Bovens t changes can drastically drastically can changes t

and Hart (2004) that(2004)Hart and ificant in the the in ificant conomic conomic

CEU eTD Collection 830. Tracing. Process Understanding David Collier, environment/solar " Group. CEZ wind power development." Energy (2008) Renewable 33,1854 "ComparisonButler,L.feed& K. of Neuhoff, (EEG) theElectricity Price" on" Helmuth and Sven, Bode, Blecha, Vladislav States Member European the of 2011. Plans Action " Energy Renewable Vethman. National the P. in and Published Hekkenberg M. , L.W.M. Beurskens, industry chan subsidy retroactive against action for Magazine calls industry solar "EU Becky. Beetz, Germany Policies Green feed Change," Environmental energy Global renewable of spread "The EU the in (REFITs) Reiche. Danyel and Mischa, Bechberger, Č March, 2009, "No Press. Associated proti cesku/936318. arbitráž http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/zahranicni zahájili ( Republic Czech the against arbitration file investors solar "Foreign power http://praguemonitor.com/2013/02/18/er%C3%BA end 2013, by prices February, power solar setting of audit publish to "ERÚ References

- prices - calls . 2004. 1t Dcme, 2012, December, 19th , - - end http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/24/czech for

CEZ Group | Solar Power Plants Power Solar | Group CEZ

- - . Interview by . - acti feb. power - 25." 25." on

- ofdne oe rns on zc government." Czech down brings vote confidence - against - In plants.html (accessed Mayplants.html 28 2 - Michael Groscurth. Michael

Proceedings of the Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Dimensions Human the on Conference Berlin the of Proceedings

- author . No.358.HWWA Discussion Paper, 2006. retroactive http://www.pv . esku

Recording - )." subsidy -

- solarni

ek Noviny Cesky in The Effect of the German Renewable Energy Act Act Energy Renewable German the of Effect The ." 2009. http://www.cez.cz/en/power 2009. ." Political Science & Politics Politics & Science Political - tariff, quota and auction mechanisms tosupport tariff, and auction quota . Berlin, Integration", Policy and Interlinkages

Jindrichuv HradecJindrichuv - - magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/eu changes - investori 013).

Renewable Energy Projections as as Projections Energy Renewable

- - – Feb." zahajili 1867. , 9th May, 2013, 2013, May, 9th , - coalition Zahraniční solární investoři solární Zahraniční

- The ,

publish

May 10,2013 May - arbitraz rge Monitor Prague

h Guardian The - - vote (2011) 44: 4, 823 4, 44: (2011) audit - proti .

- setting . - -

plants - e ." ges in tariffs tariffs in - - , 24th 24th , 18th , solar solar - and

PV PV ." – - - - CEU eTD Collection omnt srtg ad cin plan action sources and ofthePublications European 2005. Communities, strategy " Commission. European energy http://europa.eu/legislation_su " Legislation. Community EU of Summaries Europa May 2013). 24 (accessed http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/energy/renewable_energy/l27035_en.htm renewable " Legislation. EU of Summaries Europa " (accessedn.htm 2013). 24May Legislation. EU http://europa.eu/legislation_ of Summaries Europa Eurelectric. " Dunn, http://www.pv supreme 2011, ." Court Supreme by reviewed be to tax solar "Czech Jaroslav. Dorda, http://www.solarplaza.com/ar boom." boom. PV” 2012, “rooftop new facing September, Republic "Czech Jaroslav. Dorda, magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/czech tax." Ali Shamsiah and Jaroslav, Dorda, Directives.Integration EuropeanVol. OnlinePapers, 9,No.16,2005. Dimitr it is Where done? it has What process: policy going." the to approach stages "The Peter. DeLeon, 2005 Jane. E. Davidson, http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/125598 představil "Topolánek CTK. Renewable from Energy 2005) (Brussels: Sources, Electricity of Support The (EC). Communities European the of Commission

V Ma PV

ova, Antoaneta L. and Rhinard, Marc, The Power of Norms in the Transposition of EU EU of Transposition the in Norms of Power The Marc, Rhinard, and L. Antoaneta ova, William N.“PublicWilliam PolicyIntroduction Analysis: An

Theories of the policy processTheories ofthe policy - court.

National Renewable Energy Plans:Anindustry Renewable analysis Action National

gazine vlain ehdlg basics methodology Evaluation - Vso fr htvlac Technology Photovoltaic for Vision A magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/czech 1t Dcme, 00 http://www.pv 2010, December, 16th , summaries/environment/cooperation_with_third_countries/l28060_e

"PPP" mmaries/other/l27023_en.htm (accessedMay 24 2013).

- - Oettinger. "Czech President approves controversial solar solar controversial approves President "Czech Oettinger.

1 (1999): 19 1 (1999): ě peirkc roi ." priorit premiérských pět - topolanek - eeal eeg: h pooin f lcrct from electricity of promotion the energy: Renewable president eeal eeg: ht Ppr aig on a down laying Paper White energy: Renewable yt Pooo o ciae change climate on Protocol Kyoto

- predstavil - - 32. approves Tosn Ok, ai. ua] Sg Publ, Sage [u.a.]: Calif. Oaks, Thousand . ticle/czech

- -

4/E.” (2008) - ppp controversial - republic - " rses Ofc fr Official for Office Brussels: ." pet

Novinky - " 2011. ." solar -

premierskych

PV Magazine PV - -

facing tax

, 29th October, 2009, 2009, October, 29th , - SolarniNovinky solar ." 2013. - to " 2001. ." - - new be - tax - - reviewed prior

, 4th March, March, 4th , - rooftop

." 2011. 2011. ." it.html 12th , - - by pv .

- - - CEU eTD Collection K boom." operator power solar brake to seeks Prague operator grid electricity "Czech Chris. Johnstone, policy." waste (1991): 157 nuclear of study the for strategy Jenkins evidence and capacity Canada. (2009) Administration, Public Canadian 52(2), 153 analytical Policy M. Howlett, (2011), 49: 265 Union. European the in Deficits Transposition Haverland environmentalEuropean policy." in participation NGO and elites EU enlargement? "Eurocratising K. Lars Hallstrom, and relations international from insights directives: EU c with "Compliance M. Peter Haas, 27/a implic its Studies and Eastern Republic Czech the in scandal solar "A Jakub. Groszkowski, University 2005.). Press, Lequesne. Christian and Simon, H. Klaus Goetz, Safety, Fulton, Mark, Auer." and Joseph Nuclear and (Erneuerbare Act Conservation Sources Energy Renewable EnergienGesetz new Nature the to pursuant Environment, calculations sample and the for ( Ministry Federal to New Member EU The Four? or Compliance of Worlds "Three Treib. Oliver and Gerda, Falkner, Regions The Renewable report energy progress Of Committee The And Committee Social And Economic European The Council, uoen omsin " Commission. European Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit und Naturschutz Umwelt, für Bundesministerium omparative politics." alkus,Rudolf - solar 2d eray 21, http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/czech 2010, February, 2nd , - - Smith, Hank C. "Alternative theories of the policy process: Reflections on research research on Reflections process: policy the of theories "Alternative C. Hank Smith, seeks - , M., Steunenberg, B. and Van Waarden, F., Waarden, Van and B. Steunenberg, M., , scandal - 166. - . Interview. by to , 27th February, 2013, http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/ceweekly/2013 2013, February, 27th , –

States."

- 291. EEG) of 4 August 2011('EEG 4August EEG) of 2012') brake - "h Nw ebr tts n te U" rgnly ulse i Bulmer, in published Originally EU." the and States Member New "The . czech

Journal ofEuropeanPublic Policy Journal

Environmental Politics Environmental - solar

- JCMS: Market Journal ofCommon Studies republic eot rm h Cmiso T Te European The To Commission The From Report

- author power

German Feed In Tariff: recentTariff: policy FeedIn German changes ebr tts n te uoen Union European the and States Member - ." Brussels:." 2013. and . -

boom. Recording - its - implications.

13, no.1(2004): 175 .

Straz nadStraz Nezarko CS Junl f omn akt Studies, Market Common of Journal JCMS:

S Pltcl cec ad polit and science Political PS:

." Berlin:2012. ." Sectors at Different Speeds: Analysing Analysing Speeds: Different at Sectors

- 5, no. 1 (1998): 17 5, no.1(1998): ae policy based - 175.

May 8, 2013 May

46, no. 2(2008): 293 46, no. 193. BMU). " BMU).

- making: Lessons from from Lessons making:

(New York: Oxford Oxford York: (New - 37. Tariffs, degression Tariffs, ations."

." 2012. alaet The Parliament,

- . electricity

‐ 15 Compared Compared 15 ics etr for Center

4 n. 2 no. 24, - 313. Radio Radio - grid - 02

- - -

CEU eTD Collection (Florida)." the http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/11/czech State Z Shahan, policy of role the oriented learningand therein." change policy of framework coalition advocacy "An A. Paul Sabatier, Ragwitz Mario Busch, Sebastian " Panzer, Christian , Gustav Resch, 87 Peace. Democratic Produces Liberalism How M John Owen, " Econom of Ministry Federal the and Protection Consumer and Agriculture Federal Food, the Ministry agreementwith of Nuclearin (BMU) Safety and NatureConservation success/150/510/58341/. 2012, success." solar is Republic Czech "Small Chris. Morris, in Germany Mendonça, Policy in areas grey and failure policy success, "Policy Allan. McConnell, certificate market.” K. J. Lemming, Lasswell, H.D. External Union European borders?." its Governance 16,no.6(200 beyond and within adoptions shape policy EU the environmental does how markets: or networks, "Hierarchy, Tosun. Jale and Christopher Knill, Unive Vienna and Economics Group Innovationsforschung und Systemtechnik Cooperation." and feed Resch, different Gustav Ragwitz, Mario Held, Anne Arne, Klein, Longman 2002. Publishing Group, W. John Kingdon, Renewable Energy Industry Roadmap Czech for EnergyIndustry Renewable Republic Energy(EEG)Renewable Report Sources Act2007 Progress - - 125. sunshine

30, no. 03 (2010): 345 30, no.03(2010):

achary . "Czech Republic Has 35.5 Times More Solar Per Capita Than The Sunshine Sunshine The Than Capita Per Solar More Times 35.5 Has Republic "Czech . achary Miguel , and James Corre. " Corre. James and , Miguel ." e ." - state/.

- alrh, emn ad aebr, uti: ruhfr nttt für Institut Fraunhofer Austria: Laxenburg, and Germany Karlsruhe, - n aif ein pin: et rcie ae fr h Itrainl Feed International the for paper practice Best options: design tariff in A pre

Parliament, 2013. Parliament, “Financial risks for risks “Financial

(2007).

Energy Policy Energy

gna, lentvs ad ulc oiis Lnmn lsis edition) classics (Longman policies public and alternatives, Agendas, - view ofthe policyview sciences

la Technica Clean

Policy sciences http://www.renewablesinternational.net/small 9): 873 - 362.

, (2003) 31,21 -

894. green electricity investors and producers in a tradable green tradable a in producers and investors electricity green

Success story: Feed story: Success

21, no.2 - republic . (New NY:Elsevier:1971).. York, American - , 11th February, 2013, 2013, February, 11th , 32. - - 3 (1988): 129 has

- 35 ." 2012. eeals International Renewables - - 5 In Tariffs Support renewable energy renewable Support Tariffs In -

times International Security, International Berlin:." 2007. hms ae. Eauto of "Evaluation Faber. Thomas - st o Tcnlg Energy Technology of rsity

168. - more - between."

- czech solar and Daniel Rosende. Rosende. Daniel and ics and Technology. and ics

- - Journal of Public of Journal republic per - capita 1t June, 11th , (1994)19:2 - is - - than solar

- - in - - . CEU eTD Collection The case ofnuclear power." energynewtechnologies: ofcommercialization the and"LearningeffectsB. Zimmerman, Martin German energy (2012). industry." "MultiInga. Ydersbond, ( J. Gerald Fisher, Frank in cycle’ policy Sidney, S. Mara and Miller the of ‘Theories Wegrich, Kai and Werner Werner, 2010). practice. and Concepts analysis: Policy A.R. Vining, & D. Weimer, andMethodsPolitics, Researchersfor Tips Weible, and Candidates." Post EU's the in Compliance and "Corruption Anna. Milada Vachudova, C Eastern Europe." in Directives EU with Compliance Law European "Embracing Dimiter. Toshkov, Spáčil, Aleš ." 1792 Environment. 22.02.2011 Republic Czech the Cambridge in Photovoltaics Luboš. Smrčka, Masarykdiss., University, 2011. Slezako CRC Press: 2007) CRC - 8230.

va, Veronika. " Veronika. va, Christopher, M. and Paul A. Sabatier. " Sabatier. A. Paul and M. Christopher,

Cambridge Czech PV Market PV2011andOutlookfor2012 in Czech

JCMS: JournalJCMS: ofCommonMarket Studies UnionPolitics European

." In Frank Fischer et al. (eds.) al. FranketFischer In ." . (New Press: York:2006). CRC Lobbying in the EU: Theoretical and Practical Aspects Practical and Theoretical EU: the in Lobbying -

level lobbying in the EU: The case of the Renewables Directive and the and Directive Renewables the of case The EU: the in lobbyinglevel WES rs, 01 s 378 s. 2011, Press, WSEAS :

Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods. and Politics Theory, Analysis: Policy Public of Handbook The Bell Journal ofEconomicsThe Bell –

50.01 In: 25.02.2011.

9, no.3(2008): 379 A Guide to Guide A

Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Theory, Analysis: Policy Public of Handbook

eet Research Recent

– 8. SN 978 ISBN 383. –

(1982): 297 the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Coalition Advocacy the

47 (2009): 43 xml o a itre Market. Distorted a of Example ." 2012. - 402.

(London, U.K.: Longman: U.K.: (London,

- 310. s n nry & Energy in es - ‐ - 960 Communist Members Members Communist 62.

- 474 ." Undergraduate Undergraduate ." - 274 nrl and entral - . ISSN 5.