Governments around the globe enact various energy and environmental policies focused on electricity production and consumption, conservation, waste management, water and air pollution, and many others. The public policy approaches to address such issues often lean toward a status quo that favors more powerful actors who sometimes attempt to stifle innovation. This paper reviews the “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory” framework and how it illuminates novel policy changes in an energy and environment context. This paper, entitled, “Punctuating the equilibrium: A lens to understand energy and environmental policy changes,” is a unique perspective piece that details a key public policy theory using an energy/environmental lens. The goal of this paper is to outline common attributes of policy change, as highlighted by key terms and interactions. Readers can use this piece to understand and strategize for future energy and environmental policy alterations. Energy policies refer to the suite of governmental actions that address planning, generation, and consumption issues around items such as electricity, transportation, and efficiency. These decisions are sometimes politically contentious, given the complexities and interests from various sides of the stakeholder aisle. Governmental entities often enact various financial incentives, taxation strategies, conservation tactics, and many other policies to best develop solutions for society's energy and environmental future. However, these solutions sometimes require massive shocks to change the historic status quo and bring forth strategies for newer, sustainable energies that have lower environmental and social costs. Many schools of thought illustrate how key events are the stimuli for scientific change innovations toward alternative energy sources. Over the years, the public policy discipline has specifically developed a number of theories to better comprehend changes and these types of governmental decision making processes. Such theoretical frameworks include Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Kingdon's Multiple Streams Theory, Lindblom's Incrementalism, and Baumgartner and Jones' Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET)1, among others. Downs' Issue-Attention Cycle concept is also relevant as a means to understand the public's attention to an issue and how that stimulates change. Generations of prior scholars have utilized these policy theories in both quantitative and qualitative research. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, later termed by scholars as “policy diffusion,” is a widely used and relevant approach at framing energy and environmental policy change and adoption. This theory centers on how policies are replicated and spread (ie, best practices) over geographic areas (eg, US states). Rogers categorized different levels of innovation adopters as innovators, early adopters, early majority, later majority, and laggards. Such diffusion of innovation occurs over time, meaning that there are a number of aspects (eg, the media) that can speed or slow diffusion. Kingdon's Multiple Streams approach explains agenda changes through three “streams” of separate, simultaneous activity surge: problems, policies, and politics. Kingdon's explanation of policy change accommodates some elements of rationalism and incrementalism, which relates to Lindblom's framework, which discussed policy change as evolutionary rather than revolutionary (ie, small incremental changes rather than a few substantial changes). Other theories in this realm include Advocacy Coalitions and Choice Awareness Theory, among others. These frameworks and concepts have proven useful in revealing themes for citizen, group, and governmental actions, though their value varies depending on the policy arena and situation. History is perhaps the most important aspect in understanding energy and environmental policy formulation (eg, certain events have triggered policy change or adoption), and Baumgartner and Jones' PET offers the strongest resource for such a historical narrative. Moreover, it provides the most robust set of predefined phrases (eg, bounded rationality, disproportionate attention, framing, policy monopolies, etc) that help describe how change transpires in the complex realm of energy and environmental policy. Overall, PET can be a useful framework due to the historically radical shifts in policy adoption (eg, US state Renewable Portfolio Standards), and the fact that the United States, for instance, may be at the beginning of another radical shift in policy adoption for more renewable energies. This theory also highlights political power and how institutions (and actors, such as electric utilities) often pursue an energy policy status quo (ie, policy punctuation/adoption can happen, but only via the right set of circumstances). This highly vetted theory is both unique and valuable to the study of energy and environmental policy, particularly in industrialized countries. The phrase “punctuated equilibrium” in the public policy sciences was inspired from its original application in the natural sciences to describe dramatic shifts as opposed to incremental progress in evolution. In the discipline of public policy, equilibrium (ie, balance or stability) is the result of dominance within governmental structures in maintaining the status quo. Therefore, punctuation refers to an actual public policy change or shift using data or viewpoints to alter the decisions of policymakers. In Agendas and Instability in American Politics, scholars Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones developed PET as a framework to comprehend policy stability and change. They argued that long periods of policy stability, supplemented by short periods of intense change, can be explained by the important interaction of “policy images” with “policy venues.” The concept of “policy images” refers to how policies are discussed and understood by the public and policy elites/experts (ie, they refer to the various perspectives one may have on a public policy issue). In contrast, “policy venues” refer to the establishments that literally make public policy decisions, such as state legislatures on renewable energy incentives. Since public policies affect individuals in dissimilar ways, the public holds diverse images, both positive and negative, of the same policy. In other words, there are various ways in which a policy is understood and discussed. As part of this process, the concept of framing helps explain the way such policy images can be arranged to make them appear technical and relevant only to experts, or linked to wider social values to heighten participation. For instance, to draw interest in the United States, persons often link ideas to the widely accepted values of independence, patriotism, and economic growth. As part of the policy image development, framing is “a mixture of empirical information and emotive appeals.”2 Most public policy issues are multifaceted and, therefore, can command a wide range of policy images. For instance, energy policy can be framed in terms of public health, nuisances (eg, wind farm noise or shadow flicker), employment, taxation, the role of corporations, civil liberties, and human rights, among many others. Nevertheless, while there exist various ways to frame the same problem, there is also limited time and vitality to devote to issues. Consequently, highly complex matters are often simplified, with very few issues focused on at any one time at the expense of all the rest. Conversely, policy venues are sets of governmental institutions or actors where authoritative decisions over policy are made. Relevant examples of policy venues include the federal executive branch (in the United States), Congress (United States)/Parliament (United Kingdom), courts, and lower levels of government such as state/province and local jurisdictions. Baumgartner and Jones argue that changes in a policy image can produce changes in policy venue and, reciprocally, venue changes can facilitate image changes. The interaction between venues and images may result in long periods of stability or, in some cases, short periods of intense change. An illustration of an image and venue interaction is the case of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), which was enacted in 1969 in the United States. Around that time, there was a growing concern for nuclear energy technologies by the greater citizenry as a byproduct of World War II, with nuclear anxieties further continuing into the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.3 Environmental groups were particularly concerned about nuclear power and the regulatory decisions made by the US federal government, and so they appealed to previously uninvolved members of Congress. Congress became more sympathetic to this new image of environmental policy and passed legislation to regulate business and help develop the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was more consistent with the new policy image. This image was advanced in public opinion by the nuclear power plant accident at the Three Mile Island, as many lost confidence in the nuclear industry.4 In essence, persistent opposition by the environmental groups, as well as a key triggering/focusing event, shifted the policy image of nuclear power from a positive one to an overwhelmingly negative one, causing policy and programmatic changes. These changes snowballed into other developments. For instance, in 1977, the US Department of Energy formed as an agency focused on energy and environmental policies and safety in handling nuclear materials.5 In 1986, an event in the Soviet Union at Chernobyl also led to the relative decline of the nuclear power industry and these changing policy images. Consequently, the 1980s and 1990s saw an increased focus, both through policies and programs, on renewable energy technologies such as hydrogen, solar, and wind. The Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 added to the increasing image shifts from nuclear and fossil fuel technologies toward the increased exploration of alternative energy sources and more stringent environmental policies.6 Taken as a whole, the past 40 to 50 years in US energy and environmental policy have seen dramatic shifts in attention and policy image emotions, stimulating intense changes. Often, crises such as environmental disasters serve as a triggering event, focusing media, government, and public attention to an issue previously lower (or non-existent) on the policy agenda. Such triggering or focusing events may also act as dramatic symbols of problems that are already rising to greater attention. This inclination to give disproportionate attention to disasters over more routine events allows an opportunity for activists to push forth their long-standing demands. Sometimes, these parties label problems as a crisis “to elevate a concern when facing an environment overloaded with competing claims.”7 Venue shopping is the phrase and strategy used to describe this situation of policy images and the seeking of sympathetic policy venues. According to Baumgartner and Jones, this tactic involves the manipulation of policy images in order to push policy debates toward favorable venues. In other words, those who have not succeeded in policy debates will seek supporters in alternative venues such as congressional committees, courts, or even state government agencies. In this quest, the manipulation of policy images explains why an issue is discussed in a particular venue and attracts the interest of the members of such venue. There are commonplace techniques of venue shopping. For example, venue shopping typically works to appeal to a broader audience so that more supportive participants get involved in the debate. Further, attacks to current policies from decision makers occur in other venues aiming to extend their own policy jurisdictions. The study of group-to-government relations has fashioned numerous approaches and an abundance of terms to describe this relationship such as competitive pluralism, state corporatism, sub-government, policy whirlpools, and iron triangles. One intriguing approach is the discussion of policy communities and policy networks as deliberated in PET. Baumgartner and Jones described policy communities as systems of limited participation containing interest groups and persons knowledgeable of a particular policy arena. This suggests a steady, close, and typically concurring relationship between a small number of groups and government. In contrast, policy networks represent a more comprehensive set of associations between interest groups and governments, which contains less stability and agreement. These concepts are illustrated in Table 1. As Table 1 outlines, policy communities are typically protected from the wider political process. This happens since public policies are dissected and analyzed at a level that a limited number of actors have the time or resources to become involved. These policy communities compose of stable relationships between public officials and influential interest groups. These relationships are sustained since the participants share a general agreement or expertise about a policy issue, and, at times, attempt to restrict others interested in the issue. Moreover, individuals involved in policy communities understand that while not all may agree with every decision made, it remains preferable to act in this manner as opposed to seeking larger networks which may diminish their power. In fact, such policy communities are often monopolistic in nature, as institutional structures that develop policy decisions while limiting the entrance of other participants. In turn, monopolistic control over policy venues makes changes in policy images difficult, which weakens the possibilities for policy change. The preservation of the policy monopoly requires an agreement to the same policy image as well as an ability to exclude groups who disagree. A policy issue is often rendered as dull, to minimize external interest, or as technical, requiring a certain level of expertise, specifically to leave out others. Accordingly, policymaking is often incremental and based on prior agreements between a small number of individuals. The monopolistic structure of a policy community can only be altered when new participants with opposing interests make their way into the community. Those excluded from the policy monopolies will attempt to shift the debate by questioning the existing approach and appealing to public officials. New understandings of public policy issues attract new participants to the policy process, which can sometimes weaken the power of policy monopolies. Once more, an example of this occurred when the negative images surrounding nuclear power helped diminish the powerful policy monopoly of the time. Environmental advocates raised the issue in several arenas, and an increased number of individuals were immersed in nuclear policymaking, causing the previous policy monopoly to collapse. Baumgartner and Jones acknowledged that shifting institutional and political environments can influence public policy change, as well as stimulate change in policy via centralized government structures. For instance, Congress in the United States can be either a source of policy stability or a promoter of change; it can work to maintain or destroy policy communities. When Congress pays more attention to a particular policy issue in response to requests, interest groups or executive agencies can force change in congressional behavior toward those issues. Members of Congress can link their interests with those of persons outside of Congress to move the issue to a different policy venue. This framework is also applicable in state legislatures and other forms of government, depending on the structure. The notions of agenda setting and bounded rationality are also fundamental components of PET. Since key decision-makers cannot consider all issues at all times, they disregard most and consider only a few at the top of their particular agenda. Moreover, some public policy issues are much more pressing than others, whereas some require quick actions. For example, economic issues (eg, unemployment) often remain high on the political agenda, while catastrophic events (eg, natural disasters) demand an immediate response. However, since the attention of audiences is limited, and the number of policy issues is seemingly limitless, the importance of each issue is open to various analyses and deliberations. More specifically, agenda setting refers to the aptitude of policymakers to focus on one policy issue while disregarding others. The absence of attention to a majority of policy issues explains why numerous public policies do not change, whereas concentrated periods of attention to other policy issues may stimulate alternative ways to frame and resolve such problems. The concept of bounded rationality suggests that policymakers' ability to implement decisions is inseparable from their objectives (ie, true rationality does not exist). Therefore, even individuals who intend to make rational choices are bound to make satisficing choices in these complex policymaking environments. These political environments of public policy change all point to the key PET concept that political systems can be characterized as both stable and dynamic. Most public policies stay the same for long periods, whereas others change very quickly and dramatically. Alternatively, public policy change in a certain arena may be incremental for several years, yet followed by overwhelming changes which set an entirely new direction for the issue(s) in the future. The aim of PET is to explain these long periods of policy stability punctuated by short, but intense, periods of change, considered on a time and evolution scale, as illustrated in Figure 1.8 The PET approach suggests that powerful political actors attempt to strategically control policy images through rhetoric and symbols in a way that favors their own political goals. Policies remain the same within certain communities since there is limited external interest, or perhaps limited capacity of outside parties to participate. Policies change when adequate external interest, often triggered via key focusing events (eg, an oil spill), initiates the collapse of the policy communities. In this scenario, external attention rises and the issues are considered in a broader environment, where power is more evenly spread and new actors can influence the agenda. If the levels of external pressure gain enough momentum, they may cause major policy punctuations, as opposed to the more common minor policy changes. The increased attention and communication can cause novel approaches to be considered, which may rouse new conflicts between political actors. Overall, with PET, changes in energy and environmental policy can be explained by a successful challenge to policy monopolies. Naturally, the majority of public policies remain unchanged for long periods since policymakers are incapable or reluctant to pay enough attention to them. However, those excluded from monopolies have an interest in challenging or reshaping the dominant way of defining policy problems, which are often triggered or brought to the agenda by focusing events. The successful re-definition of a policy problem prompts an influx of new actors. Previously excluded interest groups can work to attract the attention of decision-makers in other venues through the definition of new policy images. Practitioners working in the energy and environmental arenas can use this framework and analysis to comprehend how policy changes follow a progression of increased attention, venue shopping, and shifting policy images. As individuals come to understand the nature of a policy problem in a different way, more and more become attentive and involved. This growth in outside involvement offers an increased likelihood of an additional shift to a policy image, as new participants discuss new ideas and propose policy solutions (eg, renewable energy mandates). Although most public policy issues display stability, and there are numerous policy communities, they are continually being created and destroyed. Therefore, changing narratives and considering venue shopping may be a strategic approach to enact future, innovative energy and environmental policies. While challenges remain in powerful equilibriums that maintain the status quo, strategies such as attention seeking and public participation may assist in altering the equilibrium. This is greatly heightened with dramatic triggering or focusing events that can be catalysts for stimulating such punctuation. This framework and historical underpinning of policy change offers considerable, practical relevance for those interested in energy and environmental policy issues in terms of how future modifications can be made.