Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme: consultation analysis
An analysis of the responses received to the consultation on Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme (SEEP) published in January 2017.
31. The Scottish Government consultation on Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme ( SEEP) was one of five consultations in relation to the energy sector published by the Scottish Government in January 2017:
- Consultation on a draft Scottish Energy Strategy.
- Consultation on a draft Onshore Wind Policy Statement.
- Consultation on Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme ( SEEP).
- Consultation on Local Heat and Energy Efficiency Strategies and District Heat Regulation ( LHEES).
- Talking "Fracking" - A consultation on Unconventional Oil and Gas.
32. This report focuses on Scotland's Energy Efficiency programme ( SEEP) only. Separate reports have been prepared on the other consultations. Why Research has produced four of the five reports.
33. The consultation document on Scotland's Energy Efficiency Programme ( SEEP) set out the long-vision for Scotland's building stock and looked at different options for programme and policy design to deliver the vision.
34. The consultation asked 27 questions and covered a range of issues including:
- the vision, aims and objectives of SEEP
- the role of regulation, standards and financial incentives
- appropriate levels and sources of funding
- the provision of advice, information and consumer protection
- how to establish and sustain local supply chains and trusted delivery agents
- the balance of local and national responsibilities, and programme delivery
35. The consultation ran from 24 January until 30 May 2017. The findings from analysis of responses to the consultation will be used to inform policy decisions on the overall design and operation of SEEP.
36. There were 104 responses to the consultation: 94 from organisations and 10 from individuals. Respondents were assigned to respondent groupings in order to enable analysis of any differences or commonalities across or within the various different types of organisations and individuals that responded.
37. A list of all those organisations that submitted a response to the consultation and agreed to have their name published is included in Appendix 1. The following table shows the numbers of responses in each analysis group.
|Academia / Research / Training||8|
|Building / Insulation||18|
|Public Sector / Delivery Agency / Regulator||6|
|Third Sector / NGO||14|
38. Responses to the consultation were submitted using the Scottish Government consultation platform Citizen Space or by email or hard copy.
39. It should be borne in mind that the number responding at each question is not always the same as the number presented in the respondent group table. This is because not all respondents addressed all questions; some commented only on those questions or sections of relevance to their organisation, sector or field of interest. The report indicates the number that commented at each question.
40. Some respondents did not use the consultation questionnaire and, instead, presented their views in a report or letter format. Wherever possible, researchers assigned relevant sections of these documents to the relevant questions in order that all comments on similar issues could be analysed together.
41. Comments made by respondents were examined and the range of issues mentioned in responses were noted; including reasons for opinions, specific examples or explanations, alternative suggestions or other related comments. Grouping these issues together into similar themes allowed the researchers to identify whether any theme was specific to any respondent sub-group or groups.
42. Wherever a particular comment came from respondents in one or two specific sub-groups, this has been highlighted. Where no sub-groups are mentioned, it can be assumed that the comment was noted in responses from several different groups. When looking at group differences however, it must be also borne in mind that where a specific opinion has been identified in relation to a particular group or groups, this does not indicate that other groups did not share this opinion, but rather that they simply did not comment on that particular point.
43. When referring to respondents who made particular comments, the terms 'a small number', 'several' and so on have been used. While the analysis was qualitative in nature, as the questionnaire did not include any quantifiable questions, as a very general rule of thumb it can be assumed that: 'a small number' indicates fewer than 10 respondents; 'several' indicates around 10 to 20; and 'many' indicates over 20 but fewer than half of those who commented at any question.
44. While the consultation gave all who wished to comment an opportunity to do so, given the self-selecting nature of this type of exercise, any figures quoted here cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the respondent sample.
45. The views presented in this analysis have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. The opinions and comments submitted to the consultation may be based on fact or may, indeed, be based on what respondents perceive to be accurate, but which others may interpret differently. It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives. The report may, therefore, contain analysis of responses which may be factually inaccurate or based on misunderstanding or misinformation but nevertheless reflect strongly held views. In some instances, such inaccuracies and misunderstandings will be relevant findings in themselves.
46. A small number of verbatim comments, from those who gave permission for their responses to be made public, have been used in the report to illustrate themes or to provide extra detail for some specific points.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback