A range of options exist, authorities can persuade the general society to save energy by compensating energy saving. This can come in a form of legislation or policy reforms. Secondly, authorities can pass laws that enforces a change in regional and housing planning systems that encourages or enforces passive energy saving mechanisms by the way new houses are positioned, orientated, built and the types of materials used to reduce the demand of energy during occupation. There can also diversification of energy use waste-to-energy technologies which will have double positive impact on carbon sequestration, create jobs and so forth. Automation of energy use in households and commercial buildings can be more helpful. See some alternatives in one of my publications.

Article Influence of energy saving on the quality of lighting servic...

Dear my friend,

Honestly, it is a debatable question which is a multi-dimension one. You should pay attention to the types of energy, role of governments, etc before considering the energy regulatory reform. I have attached some useful links. Hope they may be useful for you.

Good luck!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509006971

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000178

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421506005246

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509004455

THANK YOU FANNIE AND EHSAN FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL RESPONSES> I WILL FOLLOW UP WITH EACH OF YOU AND WILL READ CAREFULLY THE SUGGESTED ARTICLES AND REPORTS> INDEED< IT IS A VERY COIMPLEX QUESTION FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS< BUT THE KEY ISSUE IS HOW TO RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE REGULATORY PROCESSES THAT ARE SUPPOSE TO PROTECT THEM>

Indeed it is a multivariable issue dealing with technology, policies, social and technical development and also with the climate...

Starting by the climate, because a large share of energy use is in buildings and buildings despite the technological progresso must be seen very much identified with the local climatic conditions and the most updated concepts of Comfort. If we do that energy needs will become more confined. The fact that thebuilding stock represents a wider share of the Energy neede by a country/city requiers a more sophisticated and detailed regulation strategy It cannot be just supply side orienetd but shall care a bout tehd emand side opportunities. Otherwise the pressure from the techmologies/markets crossing the bordersends by imposing an air conditionning apparatus for cases where a good shade would solve the problem.

Other issue is the mobility. Like for buildings, despite the expectancies on the electric vehicles, there should be policeis favorable to the diffusion of practices regarding soft means of mobility (Bejing should go back to bikes (?) and ... very important indeed - a great deal of effort must be done towards colective electric transportation/mobility.

For both cases, buildings and transportation a NEW concept has been gaining a growing interest: the Energy Sufficiency. I haveone book chapter one chapter on it (see my list of Researchgate or search a report byf IEA (International Energy Agency), 2013 where it is clearly stated: sufficiency before efficiency!

For the rest we shall aplly the best practices of management bearing in mind  that Energy is not just a resource or, evenless, a good but is an element of the overall environmental chain. Energy is not produced neither consumed. It is used in a flow that can be said to be natural be it promoted os just caught like the water in a river or the wind in a mil or just the radiation from the Sun. And, then the challenge iis to promote all those uses for the wellbeing of all without jeopardizing the whole climate.

Thank you for this considered response to my question. I appreciate the insights about supply versus demand. You are correct about the energy associated with the built environment.

I would like to contribute by saying that, as everyone knows the subject is complex and multidimensional, however the only group of tools that are really effective in achieving objectives are "economic incentives". Just creating enough economic incentives can redirect the energy sector towards the use of nergy efeiciente and towards the use of renewable energies. Similary, the application of economic desincentives for the use of non-renewable energy, especially fossil energy soorces. These tools are universally applicable. I do not believe in the effectiveness of the regulations. I believe more in the effectiveness of economic incentives and disincentives.

Thank you - a very insightful comment. I agree, the carrot is more effective than the stick, but the two can and do work together.

It is not just about economic incentives. It is also about technological and policy learning, adaptation, social acceptance and breaking more fundamental lock-ins. See for example here in case of renewable electricity in Europe: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/2/323

http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/5/2/323

most consumers are living with the dream of grafting alt energy sources onto fossil fuel lifestyles. they do not understand that money is NEVER the independent variable.

until most consumers have an accurate understanding of the supply and demand realities of basic physical necessities - clean air and water, healthy food, comfy shelter, cooking, and plenty of sleep and exercise - their perceptions and thus market prices will never accurately reflect post-fossil-fuel realities.

people reflexively think they need money, or cars, and such. untrue. these are not physical needs.

it's true that humans also have metaphysical needs, but those are tangential to the fossil fuel physical energy discussion.

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/moyermap.html

Many thanks Muriel - you are so correct. We take for granted the what we deem to be the 'essentials' of daily life, but do't question the underlying costs to provide them. The tinkering at the margin with energy saving technologies do not get to the fundamental issue of the need to reorder the basic energy equations of modern life. Admittedly it will take time to come to pass, but it can happen if the will (both political and personal) is there to follow the way,'

Thanks again

The Report of the Expert Panel on the Modernization of Canada's National Energy Board has been released and the federal government is accepting comments on its recommendations until June 14. The report makes sweeping recommendations based on five principles:

1. Living the Nation-to-Nation Relationship

2. Alignment of NEB Activities to National Policy Goals

3. Transparency of Processes and Decision-Making and Restoring Confidence

4. Public Engagement Throughout the Lifecycle

5. Results Matter: Regulatory Efficiency and Effectiveness 

The report is available here:http://bit.ly/2q0SE06

https://www.ferc.gov/about/ferc-does/ferc101.pdf