Impact case study database

Having demonstrated for the first time the dramatic increase in partisan bias in the US after 2010, McGann’s gerrymandering research [ R2] directly influenced policy and legal proceedings at state, district and Supreme Court level from 2016 onwards. Furthermore, by proactively engaging with US-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and participating extensively in the public debate on partisan gerrymandering, McGann and his fellow researchers strengthened efforts to promote voting rights and enhanced public understanding of gerrymandering.

1. Influenced litigation at the state and US Supreme Court level

Described by leading political commentators as ‘an excellent book’, ‘essential reading’, ‘easily the most original and important work on partisan gerrymandering since the [Vieth v Jubelirer] ruling’ [ S1], Gerrymandering in America [ R2] was immediately taken up by influential US political scientists, such as Bernard Grofman (who as court-appointed Special Master redrew the districts in Virginia in 2016). By providing a robust legal standard to challenge the 2004 Vieth ruling, the book became a popular foundation for gerrymandering complaints to state and district courts across the US. McGann’s work was cited in complaints in 4 out of the 6 states where partisan gerrymandering cases were heard (North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maryland). As outlined in detail below, it was also used in amicus briefs (‘friend of the court’ advocacy documents used in court cases) prepared by NGOs, government entities, academics and other plaintiffs to provide grounds for legal challenge, in instances where state governments brought appeals to the US Supreme Court after district courts ruled against gerrymandering.

Political consultants drawing on Gerrymandering also acted as expert witnesses for litigants and as court-appointed consultants to draw the districts in some states. McGann’s research provided a ‘big picture’, national-level understanding of the prevalence of partisan gerrymandering, the extent of its increase since 2010, and comprehensive state-by-state measures of partisan bias.

Between 2016 and July 2020 the work was cited on over 20 occasions in US Supreme Court cases, with the briefs using McGann’s research [ R1, R2] to demonstrate the extent and political causes of partisan gerrymandering. The most prominent cases were Gill v. Whitford (2018), Lamone v. Benisek (2018) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Gill originated in Wisconsin, where in 2016 a district court ruled that gerrymandering was fundamentally unconstitutional. When the State Assembly appealed the decision in the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs and 7 out of 26 amicus briefs in their favour cited the research, most of them multiple times. The following 3 briefs referred to it most extensively:

• The late Senator (and former US presidential candidate) John McCain and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse summarised the researchers’ politically provocative argument that current levels of gerrymandering were a direct result of the Supreme Court’s Vieth ruling (6 pages; approximately 40% of the brief) [ S2].

• Grofman and Gaddie used Gerrymandering in America to demonstrate both that partisan gerrymandering increased dramatically after 2010, and that it is neither self-limiting nor the result of the urban concentration of Democratic Voters [ S3]. The conclusion on the post-2010 increase in gerrymandering was cited in Justice Kagan’s opinion on Gill v. Whitford (2018).

• The Brennan Center for Justice used the book as the primary source on the political conditions that lead to partisan gerrymandering [ S4].

The same briefs were submitted to the Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), which originated in North Carolina and Lamone v. Benisek [ S7], which deal with Maryland. The Supreme Court used the Rucho case to find that political gerrymandering was a ‘political issue’ in which the Court could not intervene.

While the US Supreme Court did not overturn partisan gerrymandering, various state courts did and the Supreme Court respected their jurisdiction. Gerrymandering in America was cited in four such cases, including League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2018) [ S5, S6]. In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the districts in Pennsylvania were unconstitutional under state law and ordered them to be redrawn. Under the old districts, Republicans won 13 seats out of 18, even when they won less votes than the Democrats; under the redrawn districts, each party has won 9 seats each.

Redistricting ordered by State courts has had a major political impact. In 2020 the Democrats retained control of the US House of Representatives with a majority of five seats (222 out of 435). However, if state courts in Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Virginia had not overturned gerrymanders in those states at various points in the previous four years, the Republicans would almost certainly have retaken the US House. In 2020 the Democrats won four more seats in Pennsylvania, four more in Virginia and two more in North Carolina, compared to any election under the original 2012 districts.

2. Informed and strengthened NGO campaigns and state-level legislation

Since 2016, McGann’s gerrymandering research and expertise has also shaped and supported the work of US-based NGOs including Fair Districts PA (a grass-roots, nonpartisan coalition of organisations and individuals campaigning for a transparent, impartial and fair process for redistricting in Pennsylvania) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (a national non-profit organisation whose mission is to use rigorous, independent science to address the world’s most pressing issues). McGann’s work has not only informed these groups, but has had a documentable effect on their strategies.

In the case of Fair Districts PA, McGann’s research has influenced how they drafted and campaigned for the Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act, a piece of Pennsylvania legislation which ‘introduces clear, measurable map-drawing criteria designed to prevent partisan gerrymandering and promote accountability to voters’ [ S8]. As confirmed by the organisation’s Advocacy Advisors Team Chair, Gerrymandering in America [ R2] has been their ‘main source of reliable information on how gerrymandering works in the USA and how both gerrymandering and fairness can be objectively measured’, and has been ‘invaluable as a reference’, when drafting the proposed legislation [ S8].

In the United States it is common practice for NGOs and other interested parties to draft legislative measures they would like to see adopted, and then work with sympathetic legislators to get them proposed. The Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Act would require redistricting authorities in Pennsylvania to use objective measures of fairness and transparent public processes of the kind advocated in Gerrymandering in America [ R2]. As of the end of the PA General Assembly session in November 2020, the proposal is being considered in both chambers, and is the focus of Fair District PA grass-roots, district-by-district campaigning. Given changes in Pennsylvania politics that mean it is now unclear which party will benefit from gerrymandering in the future, the legislation has a realistic chance of passage in 2021.

Given that Fair District PA is a volunteer citizens’ group that cannot draw on expensive consultants, the accessibility of McGann’s research was particularly appreciated. The Chair commended the book for being ‘unique in presenting up-to-date facts and analysis in a way that can be understood by any competent adult’ in comparison to ‘scholarly journals that are almost impenetrable to non-experts’ [ S8]. McGann’s direct engagement with Fair Districts PA, which provided additional information on request to enable to them ‘to refine specific points, such as the relationships between district compactness and fair electoral map’ was also highly valued.

McGann and his colleagues also directly informed the work of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which has a staff of approximately 250 scientists, analysts and communications experts and a national membership of over 130,000 [ S9]. As a result of this, UCS is now engaging increasingly with issues such as voting rights, and social science research in general. The Director of the organisation’s Center for Science and Democracy states that McGann’s research was ‘important in showing how we can work on issues such as voting rights, redistricting and electoral law from a scientific perspective.…As a result of the social scientific framework provided by scholars such as Professor Latner and Professor McGann, Union of Concerned Scientists is now able to engage more fully in questions of political process. For example, we are closely following, researching and writing about Supreme Court cases concerning gerrymandering, state laws that make voting harder, and state and national efforts to address these issues’ [ S9].

Influenced by McGann’s research, UCS has committed resources to research and campaigning on issues of political process. In 2017 it awarded a two-year Kendall Science Fellowship to Michael Latner, one of McGann’s collaborators (and former student) to investigate the link between voting rights and environmental justice for dissemination to decision-makers [ S9]. This is the first Kendall Science Fellowship working on voting rights, with recipients in the past generally coming from a natural science background. This resulted in a UCS sponsored report, Building a Healthier Democracy: The Link Between Voting Rights and Environmental Justice (2018), that showed that communities deprived of representation experience worse environment and health outcomes [ S9]. While UCS has always been concerned about the impact of science on public policy, it is now able to engage with issues of political process, for example campaigning for House Resolution 1 (which deals with campaign finance, gerrymandering and automatic voter registration) and various state level initiatives to raise voter turnout [ S9].

3. Informed debate and enhanced public understanding

Between 2016 and 2019 McGann’s research team wrote 14 accessible briefings on gerrymandering for prominent blogs with wide readerships, including LSE US Politics and Policy (LSE blog’s overall monthly readership: 790,000), The Political Studies Association Blog (15,000 readers), The Electoral Law Blog (approx. 200,000 readers), The Conversation (2,300,000 readers), and The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Blog (approx. 4,000 readers). Some posts were republished in prominent US mainstream news outlets, including The Washington Post (02/02/2017), Newsweek (10/02/2016, 10/25/2017) and the Associated Press (23/11/2016). A 2017 NBC news article referred to Gerrymandering in America as adding ‘to the growing list of standards being developed by researchers that could be used to prove in the courts what districts are being unfairly manipulated’ [ S10]. The work of the team was cited in The New York Times (14/07/2019) as evidence that the remedies for gerrymandering can be effective.

The work was also referred to as an exemplar of scientific research in blogs and news sources such as Talking Points Memo, Associated Press, the Library of Congress’ In Custodia Legis blog. The team provided background briefings for journalists, such as Stephen Wolf at US online news site Daily Kos and Harry Enten (which included calculating new partisan bias scores) at fivethirtyeight.com, a leading source of US political news founded by Nate Silver, widely considered the foremost US electoral forecaster.

Strathclyde’s EU Cohesion Policy research by Bachtler, Ferry, Mendez, McMaster and Wishlade has influenced policy developments in Europe, the UK and the Caribbean. Since 2014 it has:

• Influenced intergovernmental dialogue and national negotiating positions on Cohesion Policy;

• Informed decisions by the Scottish Government on replacements for Cohesion Policy;

• Influenced establishment of a new EU policy priority on ‘Europe closer to citizens’; and

• Enabled, beyond the EU, the development of a cohesion policy for the Caribbean Community.

1. Influenced intergovernmental dialogue and national negotiating positions

ERPC research on policy formation in Cohesion Policy, especially its understanding of national government positions in EU negotiations on policy reform, has been used in two ways. First, it facilitated intergovernmental dialogue. Bachtler was an invited contributor (the only academic present) in closed meetings of government ministers and senior officials under the Bulgarian, Dutch, Finnish, Latvian, Polish and Slovak EU Council Presidencies over the past decade [ S1].

Second, it influenced the formation of national government negotiating positions on EU reforms of Cohesion Policy. A specific example is Bachtler’s influence in convincing the German government of the continued viability of Cohesion Policy. At the request of the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs (BMWi) in 2016-17, he assessed the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of the policy and presented the results at two inter-ministerial meetings, chaired by the German Foreign Office (AA), and involving the Finance Ministry (BMF) and Chancellor’s Office (BKA). According to the BMWi, Bachtler’s contribution ‘challenged the prevailing assumption by the BMF, AA and BKA that Cohesion Policy was outdated and ineffective. He provided credible evidence that the policy had a higher impact and European added value than had hitherto been understood by other ministries’ [ S2]. Further, he ‘influenced the German national position on the future EU Cohesion Policy and delivered a major contribution to developing the Joint Statement by the Federal Government and the German Länder on EU Cohesion Policy beyond 2020 that was published on 20th June 2017. The German position included several important aspects with regard to the modernization of Cohesion policy that had previously been discussed with Professor Bachtler and which were taken up by the [European] Commission's proposals in May 2018 for the future Cohesion Policy’ [ S2] . Bachtler’s role had a broader, indirect influence on other EU governments: ‘The German position also influenced the approach of other ‘net payer' countries (Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden) towards the policy, dropping their arguments for the policy to be rationalised to focus only on poor EU countries’ [ S2]. Lastly, the BMWi acknowledged that Bachtler’s evidence ‘allowed us to rebut arguments in the German Parliament from MPs critical of the effectiveness of EU Cohesion Policy and its importance in the EU budget’ [ S2].

1. Informed decisions by the Scottish Government on replacements for Cohesion Policy

EPRC research on the governance of Cohesion Policy has also been applied to post-Brexit debates in Scotland about replacement regional development and territorial cooperation policies.

Bachtler has advised the Scottish Government on Cohesion Policy and wider regional development for two decades. In 2016, he was appointed by the Scottish Government to be Co-Chair of its Steering Group on Post-Brexit regional development policy in Scotland [ S3]. The Group’s report [ S4] formed the basis for the Scottish Government’s negotiations with the UK Government, with the Scottish Government Minister for Trade, Investment & Innovation, acknowledging Bachtler as having influenced ‘significantly the conceptual and institutional elements of the report with his in-depth research knowledge on regional development and regional policies across Europe, and the lessons for Scotland’ [ S3].

McMaster has similarly advised the Scottish Government for 15 years on its territorial cooperation strategies with neighbouring countries in north-west Europe and the Euro-Arctic. This includes assessing the evidence base for the North Sea 2020 Strategy [ S5a, b], and appointment to the Scottish Government Steering Group (2014-20) developing the Scottish Arctic Policy Framework [ S6]. For Scottish Government, this contribution ‘was particularly important given that it was new ground for us and our need to pursue an innovative approach’ [ S6]. In 2016–19, McMaster advised Scottish Government on its post-Brexit policy on territorial cooperation. Her briefings were used ‘to assess the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ outcomes of territorial cooperation, the value of continued Scottish cooperation with neighbouring EU government authorities, and their policy justifications’, ensuring that Scottish Government ‘developed a viable and credible approach to make partner countries aware of our continued interest and offer re-assurance to stakeholders’ [ S6].

1. Influenced establishment of a new EU policy priority on ‘Europe closer to citizens’

Beyond the national level, EPRC research (COHESIFY) was used by the EU institutions to demonstrate how Cohesion Policy can address another pressing problem: the popular legitimacy of the EU. During the 2017–20 EU policy debate and reform of the MFF for 2021–27 and the associated legislative package for EU Cohesion Policy, Mendez and Bachtler exercised high-level influence on proposals put forward by the European Commission (EC) for negotiation with the Council of the EU and European Parliament in the field of communication and citizen engagement.

In the wake of the 2016 UK referendum result, and other European referenda and elections, the EU became concerned by rising Euroscepticism, its ability to engage with EU citizens, and its communication of EU policies. This applied particularly to Cohesion Policy, historically claimed by the EC to be ‘closer to the citizen’ [ S7a] and which the EC sought to make more citizen-focused. During the formative stages of its policy proposals, the EC invited Mendez to participate in an internal planning meeting of DG Regio administrative units, and to provide COHESIFY briefings to senior officials responsible for communication to inform the design of the legislative proposals [ S4b]. Mendez and Bachtler were also asked to disseminate their research findings to EU Commissioners and Director-Generals to influence the final stages of political decision-making on the legislative package within the EU College of Commissioners [ S7b]. According to the EC, Mendez and Bachtler ‘provided timely evidence to support the need for a specific policy objective ‘Europe closer to citizens’ in the 2021-2027 legislative proposals’ . Further, their COHESIFY research ‘provided the Commission with a solid evidence base to justify the introduction of new regulatory provision reinforcing the obligations on Member States to fulfil their communication tasks and engage with citizens (e.g. integration of communication chapters in partnership agreements and operational programmes, more systematic resort to social media, greater obligations with regard to the publicity of projects of strategic importance, or common branding for all Funds) as well as to elaborate more guidance on information and communication to support Member States, and to try and enhance together citizen engagement’ [ S7c].

The Commission recommendations influenced legislative innovations, including the integration of communication plans in over 535 operational programmes across 27 Member States, strengthened social media outreach and greater conditionality on the publicity of major projects. Other Mendez/Bachtler recommendations taken up in soft law included elaboration of EU communication guidance, and the launch of a pilot call to increase citizen engagement [ S8a].

The Mendez/Bachtler research influenced other EU institutions’ policy positions The European Parliament Regional Development Committee (REGI) commissioned follow-up research from Mendez/Bachtler to inform the REGI negotiating position on EU regulations to increase the online visibility and communication of Cohesion Policy [ S8b, c]. The European Committee of the Regions also advocated that future EU regional strategies should take account of ‘evidence from research carried out on the effectiveness of cohesion policy communication through EU-funded projects such as “Cohesify”’, the Horizon 2020 project coordinated by Bachtler and Mendez [ S8d].

1. Enabled the development of a new cohesion policy for the Caribbean Community

Finally, the evidence base generated from EU research by Bachtler and Mendez [ R1- R3] was used to design a Cohesion Policy in a different geographical context - the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), which promotes economic integration among 15 Caribbean nations and dependencies. In 2016, the CARICOM Development Fund (CDF) approached Bachtler to develop proposals for a cohesion policy, consciously emulating the EU approach. Drawing on EU experience and lessons, Bachtler/Mendez submitted their policy proposals in 2017 [ S9a]. After approval by the CDF and CARICOM Committee of Ambassadors, the policy proposals were subject to government and parliamentary consultations in 2018–19, approved by the CARICOM Council of Trade and Economic Development (COTED) in November 2019, and adopted by Heads of Government in January 2020 [ S9b]. The CDF, which is piloting the policy’s implementation, regard Bachtler as having ‘significant influence on the design and implementation of new CARICOM Cohesion Policy. The Policy and Implementation Plan that he and his team drafted formed a substantial basis for the proposal of the CDF to the COTED and then, after Member State consultations, approved by the Heads of Government. As such, the research by Professor Bachtler has had a major impact on the Cohesion Policy of the CARICOM’ [ S10].

Since 2018, Strathclyde’s research and expertise in political economy impact analyses has:

1. Directly informed the UK Government’s Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) Action Plan (BEIS, 2018), justifying the deployment of CCUS in industrial clusters by evidencing jobs and GDP supported by high value manufacturing.

2. Enabled UK Government decision-making on residential energy efficiency, supporting public financing for a significant new energy efficiency programme in response to the Covid-19 economic crisis by evidencing wider economy returns.

3. Framed the Scottish Government’s approach to energy efficiency decision-making, embodied in the 2018 Energy Efficient Scotland Route Map (EESR) through similar evidence of economic gains emerging.

4. Informed industry responses to the decarbonisation and net zero transition challenge.

1. Informed UK Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) Action Plan

In 2018, the UK Government published a Carbon Capture, Usage and Storage (CCUS) Action Plan as part of the UK Industrial Strategy. This sets out how government and industry will work together to enable the deployment of CCUS at scale during the 2030s and provides the framework for decision-making. Through direct engagement with the Department for Business. Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), key aspects of this Action Plan were informed by Strathclyde’s Centre for Energy Policy (CEP) research on developing metrics to communicate the value to the UK economy of activity supported by industries that need to decarbonise [ R3, R4], and building consensus around emerging policy narratives [ R6]. Confirming this, the Head of the CCUS Policy Team at BEIS notes: ‘we drew directly on your research insights in developing the action plan. In particular, we used the research set out in Turner et al. 2018 [ R4] to shape the argument made on page 29 of the Action Plan around the sustained contribution that CCUS can enable in supporting direct high value jobs in capital intensive industries and, crucially, in supporting indirect employment’ [ S1]. This influence is made explicit in the Action Plan which draws language from and cites CEP research [ R4] to justify support for competitive CO2 emissions reductions systems that will ensure the continued growth and evolution of energy-intensive industries such as petrochemicals [ S2, pp.29, 70]. Strathclyde is also identified as a key UK asset, with CEP’s ‘World-leading research into economic impacts of CCUS’ recognised as one of only 7 ‘ideas foundations’ of the Industrial Strategy [ S2, pp.16-17, reiterated in S1].

The Head of Energy and Innovation Policy at the INEOS Group (a leading multinational chemical company and largest petrochemical manufacturer, with sites at 3 of the 6 UK regional industrial clusters) confirms the importance of this change in UK government strategy to industry actors who need to respond to the decarbonisation challenge. He outlines the importance of CEP’s role from an industry perspective: ‘The changes CEP research has effected in government policy strategy on CCUS and industrial emissions reduction has brought industry focus on commercial decisions and policy in this area. By enhancing our understanding of the likely impact of these changes across the wider economy, your expertise and research is enabling more effective industry engagement with government to drive forward action required for the net zero carbon transition’ [ S3].

Following the publication of the CCUS Action Plan, substantial progress has been made through the wider UK Industrial Strategy to advance development of CCUS in the UK. This is reflected both through high level policy signalling (e.g. ‘The ten point plan for a green industrial revolution’ announced by the Prime Minster in November 2020), and GBP140,000,000 for the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF), where CEP’s research continues through two industry-led ISCF projects to ‘roadmap’ and enable deployment of industrial decarbonisation solutions.

CEP’s insights on the impacts and opportunities of industrial decarbonisation have also informed ongoing UK policy debates. For example, in April 2020 written and oral evidence submitted by Professor Turner to the House of Lords EU Internal Market Sub Committee was used to support recommendations on state support for net zero initiatives to the UK Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets [ S4]. Reporting on an inquiry into EU-UK Brexit negotiations on the level playing field and state aid, the Committee’s letter quotes Turner in several places with regard to ‘the economic impacts of subsidies to support decarbonisation and energy efficiency’, ‘major infrastructure projects to support the net-zero transition’ and ‘the synergy between the UK’s net-zero ambitions and its levelling up agenda’ [ S4 pp.17-19].

2. Enabled UK Government decision-making on residential energy efficiency

In July 2020, the UK Chancellor announced a new programme of government support for residential energy efficiency through the ‘Green Homes Grant’ in the Covid-19 recovery package. Through the scheme, homeowners and landlords in England can apply for up to GBP10,000 to make properties more energy efficient. CEP helped to inform this decision to provide public support for residential energy efficiency actions through a partnership with BEIS officials funded through the Strathclyde’s EPSRC Impact Acceleration Account. CEP’s research demonstrated how different forms of support for energy efficiency actions through mechanisms and policies such as the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) and the Green Homes Grant can be justified by sustained delivery of GDP and employment gains, but that the distribution and extent of gains vary depending on how costs are recovered. Recognising CEP’s influence, the Economic Advisor on the BEIS Clean Growth team responsible for home energy states: ‘The research has provided particularly useful information on the macroeconomic impacts of ECO and helped the Government draw conclusions about the most socially cost-effective funding mechanisms. The work highlighted second-order impacts of particular elements of the scheme, helping to identify ways in which policies can be improved to promote growth and equitable transition to Net Zero’ [ S5].

BEIS also note the contribution that CEP’s research [ R1, R2] and insight played in supporting the Green Homes Grant announcement made by the Chancellor in July 2018: ‘For a recent Government announcement on a GBP2,000,000,000 insulation scheme a wide range of sources on the number of jobs that insulation can support were compiled, of which the research the Centre for Energy Policy formed part of the consideration. We are pleased that the research undertaken could provide supporting evidence for large scale policies that will have a huge impact in reducing carbon emissions and supporting jobs’ [ S5]. This example demonstrates the systematic pathway to impact that CEP has established. Not only is CEP’s work being referenced by policymakers, but CEP is also working closely with government officials to conceptualise and co-create timely and relevant research that can be drawn on, as part of a necessary wider body of evidence, to directly support the decision making process. Beyond that, the Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) methods and approaches developed by CEP are being utilised by Government teams delivering lasting and ongoing impact, for example in the BEIS adoption of our UK CGE economic model.

3. Framed Scottish Government approach to energy efficiency decision-making

In 2018, the Scottish Government published the Energy Efficient Scotland Route Map (EESR), which sets out the journey our homes, businesses and public buildings will take to become more energy efficient. Through direct engagement with the Scottish Government’s Better Homes Division, enabled by an EPSRC Impact Acceleration partnership, CEP’s research on the impact of residential energy efficiency gains across the wider economy led to a change in the framing of decisions on energy efficiency policy to emphasise the importance of enabling wider economy gains. These include sustained net gains to Scottish GDP and new jobs created. This is reflected in the EESR, which cites CEP’s research [ R1] and displays a headline result in an infographic [ S6, p.23].

The (then) Head of Area Based Schemes within the Better Homes Division affirms: ‘We gained some key insights from your work regarding the nature of economic expansion processes triggered by both investment in and realisation of energy efficiency gains. In particular, the work highlighted (a) the potential for short term negative impacts on household incomes due to repayments of loans before real income gains triggered by efficiency gains take full effect; (b) the importance of Government’s role in putting in place a funding framework that gives certainty to households and the confidence to the sector to invest in their business over the duration of the energy efficiency programme’ [ S7].

Since the EESR was published, a range of specific actions have emerged, including the introduction of regulations to improve the energy efficiency of rented homes (due April 2020, but postponed due to Covid-19), and a process of consultation on legally binding standards for owner-occupied homes.

4. Informed industry responses to the decarbonisation and net zero transition challenge

CEP’s research and expertise has directly informed industry responses to the decarbonisation challenge. To give an illustrative example, insights on the wider economy impacts of facilitating the rollout of electric vehicles [ R5] have enabled industry actors, such as the electricity network operator SP Energy Networks (supplier to 3.5 million homes and businesses in Scotland, England and Wales), to align their regulated business plans with policy commitments to achieve net zero. Acknowledging the value of CEP’s research and its influence on the company and energy sector more broadly, the Policy and Economics Manager at SPEN notes: ‘The robust analysis undertaken at the Centre has given SPEN a crucial understanding of how investing in the electricity networks to facilitate the roll-out of electric vehicles could bring benefits to the transitioning UK economy, including supporting the required recovery from the current COVID crisis. The research has also been useful in helping SPEN recognise and understand the wider public policy consequences of such an investment, and to understand how impacts on different sectors and households depend not only on a range of policy and economic factors, but also on the timing of industry investment decisions and recovery of costs through energy bills’ [ S8]. Furthermore, SPEN has used evidence of the wider benefits of network investment to ‘demonstrate to policy makers the need to take a whole energy system and economy-wide approach when designing an appropriate regulatory framework for the sector’, and applied it within strategic planning processes to ‘ensure that our business plans for the RIIO-2 Price Controls are aligned with public policy objectives’ [ S8].