Policy Making Process in Japan
Strategic Energy Plan as a Case Study

Ⅰ.

Purpose of this report: To examine Japan’s energy policy making process

Ⅱ.

Japan’s climate and energy policy framework

Ⅲ.

Strategic Energy Plan (SEP): Committee structure and management

02

02
04

1. Regulatory basis for advisory bodies
2. Guidelines for advisory bodies
Ⅳ.

Strategic Energy Plan (SEP): Analysis of the policy making process

05

1. Focus and features of this analysis
2. Committee structure: 6th SEP (actual), 7th SEP (expected)
3. Flow of policy deliberations
4. Analysis of committee membership
1） By sector

日本の政策決定プロセス
エネルギー基本計画の事例の検証

2） By age

Published by

3） By gender

Climate Integrate4） By stanceⅤ

Summary

16

April 2024

Ⅰ. Purpose of this report: To examine Japan’s energy policy making process
The international community aims to limit the globalof the Parties to the United Nations Framework

line with the Paris Agreement.

2023, governments agreed to transition away fromtemperature rise to 1.5° C above preindustrial levels in
At the G7 Hiroshima Summit in May 2023, in orderto bridge the gap between this goal and the current

situation and further strengthen actions, G7 leaders
committed to achieving a fully or predominantly

decarbonized power sector by 2035 and to accelerate
the phase-out of domestic unabated coal power

generation. At the 28th Session of the Conference

Convention on Climate Change (COP28) in December
fossil fuels, triple the capacity of renewable energy,
and double the annual average energy efficiency

improvement rate by 2030, among other things. Japan
must strengthen its climate and energy policies inview of these international commitments.

Since climate and energy policies span across all

socio-economic activities and have a broad impact on

both current and future generations, policy making
processes must be fair and transparent.

Measures to reduce energy-derived CO2 emissions –which account for about 90% of Japan’s CO2 emissions– are central to climate and energy policies. In that
context, this report uses Japan’s Strategic Energy

Plan ( “SEP” ) as a case study to examine the reality ofJapan’s policy making processes, based on publicly
available information including materials from thegovernment’s advisory bodies.

Ⅱ. Japan’s climate and energy policy framework
Figure 1 provides an outline of Japan’s climate

Energy Policy, under the jurisdiction of the Ministrybasic approach and vision for carbon neutrality by

the basic policies and measures concerning energy

and energy policy framework. The government’s
2050 are stated in the Long-term Strategy under

the Paris Agreement. In addition, the government’s
greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets
and measures are stated in the Plan for Global

Warming Countermeasures, based on the Act on the
Promotion of Global Warming Countermeasures,

which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of theEnvironment ( “MOE” ). SEP, based on the Basic Act on

2of Economy, Trade and Industry ( “METI” ), sets out
supply and demand. The Plan for Global WarmingCountermeasures and SEP are to be reviewed atleast every three years. Based on these two plans,
the government will prepare and submit Japan’snationally determined contribution (NDC), which

under the Paris Agreement must be submitted every

five years. Both plans and Japan’s NDC are scheduled
to be formulated in fiscal year 2024 ending March

2025.

In 2023, the Act on Promotion of a Smooth Transition
to a Decarbonized Growth-Oriented Economic

Structure (GX Promotion Act) was enacted under

the jurisdiction of METI, creating a framework forinvestment in decarbonization-related sectors, using
government bonds as a source of revenue. Thislegislation is also a part of Japan’s climate and energy
policy framework.

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 1. Japan's climate and energy policy frameworkLaws/strategies/plans on climate, energy
Ministry of
the Environment● On the FY���� policy agenda

Long-term Strategy under the Paris Agreement

Act on Promotion of
Global Warming Countermeasures

Plan for Global Warming Countermeasures

NDC

Basic Act on Energy Policy

Strategic Energy Plan
Electricity
Business

Japan's approach to reduce energy-related CO� emissions

Renewable Energy
Special Measures(��% of national total) is basically set by legislation under

METI’s jurisdiction. Strategic Energy Plan determines Japan's

climate policy and nationally determined contribution (NDC).

COP��

Transition away from fossil fuels
Renewables x �, Energy Eﬃciency x �Boost NDC ambitions

Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry

CCS
Business

Rationalizing
Energy Use

Hydrogen Society
Promotion

See Area
Utilization

GX Promotion Act

GX Promotion Strategy

Scientiﬁc ﬁndings / Climate crisis
Currently headed for �.�-�.�°C warming
Dramatic GHG reductions globally needed tolimit warming to �.�°C

Sophisticated Methods ofEnergy Supply Structures

International agreements, scientiﬁc evidenceG� Leaders' Communiqué (May ����)Phase out domestic unabated coal
Fully/predominantly decarbonize power sector by ����End public support for int’l unabated fossil energy sector

Prepared by Climate Integrate3

Ⅲ. Strategic Energy Plan (SEP): Committee structure and management

01 Regulatory basis for advisory bodies
Under Japan’s Basic Act on Energy Policy, thegovernment is required to formulate SEP to promotemeasures on energy supply and demand (Article

12.1). METI must listen to the opinions of the Advisory
Committee for Natural Resources and Energy( “ACNRE” ), formulate a draft of SEP, and seek acabinet approval thereon (Article 12.3). ACNRE is oneof the advisory bodies established within the Agency
for Natural Resources and Energy ( “ANRE” ), one of
METI’s affiliated agencies.

ACNRE has four subcommittees: (1) Strategic Policy,(2)Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (3)Natural Resources and Fuel, and (4) Electricity and

Gas Industry. Among them, it is the Strategic Policy

Committee that prepares the draft SEP (Article 6.1 (1)of ACNRE Ordinance). Specific topics are discussed

by subcommittees, working groups (WG), task forces
and other bodies (Article 7.1 of ACNRE Ordinance)

under each of these committees. In addition, METI has
established a number of study groups and discussion
groups that are ad hoc, not statutory. Discussions arealso being held by public-private councils, consultative
bodies of other related ministries and agencies, and4study groups of the Organization for Cross-regional

August 1, 2008, and it is not possible to confirm thean authorized corporation under METI based on themembers and the current composition. ANRE has only

Coordination of Transmission Operators (OCCTO),
Electricity Business Act.

The Strategic Policy Committee compiles the draft of
SEP by integrating discussions from both inside andoutside ACNRE.

02 G
 uidelines for advisory bodies
The Basic Plan for Reorganization and Rationalizationof Advisory Bodies was formulated in 1999 to guidethe management of the government’s advisory

bodies. It was formulated in response to criticism thatsome of them had been functioning as “hideouts”
during central government ministry and agency

reforms. Annex 3 of “Guidelines for the Managementof Advisory Bodies” ( “Guidelines” ), stipulates that
their composition should be fair and balanced.

There is no disclosure of the timing and selection
criteria for appointments of members of METI’s

advisory and consultative bodies, at least if one
checks the METI website. As for ACNRE, the lastrecord of any general meeting having been held is forappointment or reappointment status of committeeannounced that on February 16, 2024, Shuzo Sumi,an advisor to Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance,
was appointed as the committee’s new chair.

Guidelines for the Management of Advisory
Bodies (excerpt from April 27, 1999)• C omposition: Must be fair and balanced interms of opinion and relevant experience.

• A ppointments: Former government officials
should be strictly limited. Unless otherwise
required, no person should be appointed
from a ministry that has jurisdiction over the
relevant body.

• E lderly: Considering the responsibilities, theelderly should not be appointed, in principle.
• C oncurrent positions: In principle, one
person should serve a maximum of threebodies, with an upper limit of four.

• T erm: 2 years. Reappointment is notprohibited, but should not exceed 10 years.

• G ender: Make efforts to increase female ratio
to 30%.

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in JapanⅣ. S
 trategic Energy Plan (SEP): Analysis of the policy making process

01 Focus and features of this analysis
The purpose of this report is to shine a light on

Japan’s policy making processes relating to energy.

Specifically, taking up the process of formulating the
6th SEP, which occurred between October 2020 and

October 2021, we analyze the deliberative framework,
the process from the start to the point of Cabinet

approval, and member composition of the various
consultative bodies (by sector, age, gender, andstance).

Based on legislation, SEP is discussed mainly by

consultative bodies that are under ACNRE, which isunder METI (ANRE). (In sectors such as transportationand construction, some deliberations are also

conducted under the jurisdiction of the Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism ( “MLIT” ).)In the case of the 6th SEP, then-Prime Minister

Yoshihide Suga declared in an October 2020 policy
speech that Japan would aim to achieve carbon

neutrality by 2050. At the U.S.-hosted Leaders Summiton Climate in April 2021, Suga announced that Japan
would aim to reduce GHG emissions by 46% to 50%
by 2030. In a departure from past practices, thesepolitical decisions were being made even while

been renamed and new subcommittees and working

aspect was that an “Expert Panel on Climate Change”

objectives, some consultative bodies are no longer

deliberations were still in progress. Another interesting
had been created within the Cabinet Secretariat anda “Task Force for Comprehensive Regulatory Review

related to Renewable Energy, etc.” within the Cabinet
Office, with discussions being conducted in parallel.
Regarding the formulation of SEP in the future, themanner of deliberations could vary with the politicalsituation in Japan and abroad, but the basic statutory
structure for the Plan to be formulated under ACNRE
remains unchanged. Thus, in this report, we focus

mainly on the processes involving consultative bodies
under ACNRE.

02 C
 ommittee structure: 6th SEP(actual), 7th SEP (expected)
Figures 2 and 3 outline the deliberative framework forJapan’s 6th SEP (2020–2021) and the 7th (expected, asgroups have been established. Having met certain

meeting (such as the WG to Review Coal Power), while
it is not yet known if others will resume meetings(such as the WG on Electricity Cost Verification). Of

the four committees, two (Electricity and Gas Industry
Committee and the Committee on Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy) have not met for some time,
while only their subcommittees and subordinate

bodies have been meeting. OCCTO, an organization
external to ACNRE, is deeply involved in important
issues, such as examining master plans for cross-regional grid interconnections during the formulationof the 6th plan, and as of April 2024, examining future
electricity supply and demand scenarios.

As explained above, it is exceedingly difficult todetermine where important discussions are being

held and decisions are being made in the formulationof SEP.

of April 2024).

Many consultative bodies, mainly centering on ACNRE,
are involved in the formulation of SEP. The basic

deliberative framework for the 7th SEP is the same

as for the 6th, although some subcommittees have5Figure 2. Advisory committee structure behind 6th SEP (2020–2021)
Cabinet Secretariat

�th Strategic Energy Plan

Global Warming Prevention HQ

Expert Panel on Climate Change

METI (ANRE)
Advisory Committee on
Natural Resources and Energy

C: Strategic Policy
SC:
Sustainable
Electricity
Systems

SC: Reforms to
Mainstream
Renewables

WG: Electricity Cost

SC: Electricity
and GasSC:
Renewables

WG:
Institutional Review

C: OCCTO Master Plan Review

WG:
Electricity Grid

WG: Coal
Powe Review

NDC

Central Environment Council
Global Environment Committee

Expert Panel on Coal Power Exports

MLIT

C: Natural Resources
and Fuel

SC: Large-Scale
Deployment ofRenewables

SC: Energy
Eﬃciency

WG:
Gas Industry System

6

C: Energy Eﬃciency
and Renewables

C: Electricity and
Gas Industry
SC: Nuclear

Global Environment SC
Industrial Structure Council

MOE

Study Group on Energy-Saving
Measures in Buildings

Cabinet Oﬃce

SC: Mining

Regulatory Review on Renewables

SC: Petroleum
and Natural Gas

Liberal Democratic Party���� Carbon Neutrality HQResearch Commission: Energy Strategy

WG: Oﬀshore
Wind Promotion

Research Commission:
Global Warming Countermeasures

Parliamentary League on Renewables
Parliamentary League: Stable Electricity Supply

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind(METI, MLIT)

PPC: Promotion of
Fuel Ammonia (METI)■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan、C: Committee、SC: Subcommittee、PPC: Public-Private Council、MOE: Ministry of Environment、MLIT: Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, METI: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, ANRE: Agency for Natural Resources and Energy

Prepared by Climate Integrate

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 3. Advisory committee structure behind 7th SEP (Outlook as of April 2024)
Cabinet Secretariat

�th Strategic Energy Plan (expected)

Global Warming Prevention HQ
GX Implementation Council

METI (ANRE)
Advisory Committee on
Natural Resources and Energy

C: Electricity and
Gas Industry

C: Strategic Policy
SC:
Sustainable
Electricity
Systems
SC: Long-term
Energy Supply and
Demand Outlook

SC: Next
Generation
Energy Supply/
DemandStructure

SC: Nuclear

SC:
Electricity
and GasWG:
Gas Industry System

WG: OCCTOElectricity Supply/
Demand Scenarios

C: Energy Eﬃciency
and Renewables
SC: Renewables

SC: Energy
Eﬃciency

WG: Institutional
Review

WG: Electricity Cost

Global Environment SC
Industrial Structure Council

WG:
Electricity Grid

WG: Coexistence ofRenewables with
Local Communities

C: Natural Resources
and Fuel

SC: Hydrogenand Ammonia

SC: Large-Scale
Deployment ofRenewables

NDC

SC: Mining

SC: Resource
Development
and Fuel Supply

SC: Carbon
Management
SC:
Decarbonized
Fuel Policy

Central Environment Council
Global Environment Committee

Cabinet Oﬃce

Regulatory Review on Renewables

Liberal Democratic Party
GX HQResearch Commission: Energy Strategy
Research Commission:
Global Warming Countermeasures

Parliamentary League on Renewables
Parliamentary League:
Stable Electricity Supply

Parliamentary League:
Carbon Neutrality (non-partisan)

WG: Oﬀshore
Wind Promotion

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind(METI, MLIT)

MOE

This color indicates bodies thathave met since January ����.

■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan、C: Committee、SC: Subcommittee、PPC: Public-Private Council、MOE: Ministry of Environment、MLIT: Ministry of Land,

Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, METI: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, ANRE: Agency for Natural Resources and Energy

Prepared by Climate Integrate

7

Ⅳ. S
 trategic Energy Plan (SEP): Analysis of the policy making process

03 Flow of policy deliberations
Discussions on the 6th SEP began at the 32nd

meeting of the Strategic Policy Committee of ACNRE,
on October 13, 2020. Meetings were held 17 times(including five hearings), and the final draft wascompiled at the 48th meeting, on August 4, 2021.
Subsequently, after a public comment period of

about a month, the plan received Cabinet approval on
October 22 (Figure 4).

As mentioned above, deliberations on SEP areheld not only by the Strategic Policy Committee

but also by subcommittees and other consultative

bodies both within and external to ACNRE, with theframework mainly concentrated in the Strategic

Policy Committee. Understanding the policy making
processes requires careful examination of the link

between discussions both within and outside of theStrategic Policy Committee.

Figure 4 identifies the 15 main consultative bodies
where deliberations were held related to theformulation of the 6th SEP. It shows the points

at which those discussions connected up to thediscussions of other consultative bodies and the8Strategic Policy Committee. In practice, other bodies

Regarding mainstreaming renewable energy as an

figure focuses on the interconnectedness between

Deployment of Renewable Energy was launched in

not covered here may also be involved, but this

deliberations that represent critical junctures for the
15 consultative bodies identified.

The consultative bodies within ACNRE arehierarchically organized, from committees tosubcommittees, working groups and task forces. The

structure is complex, with discussions percolating up

from subordinate to higher bodies, based on the topic
being discussed (as indicated by the six color codes in
the figure).

For example, regarding the utilization of fuel ammonia,
the “Public-Private Council on the Promotion of FuelAmmonia” was established on October 27, 2020,

consisting of vested-interest parties and government

officials. It confirmed the importance of the utilizationof fuel ammonia in coal-fired power generation, andits findings were incorporated into the secretariat

documentation of the Strategic Policy Committee

in December that year. In the end, the idea of 20%

ammonia co-firing in coal-fired power generation by
2030, as stated in the interim report of that public-

private council in February 2021, was reflected in thereport of the Natural Resources and Fuel Committee,

electricity source, the Subcommittee on Large-Scale
July 2020 to discuss the topic. But it was actually
OCCTO’s Master Plan Review Committee that

reviewed grid utilization rules and related matters,
while the Public-Private Council on Offshore Wind
Power discussed the strengthening of Japan’scompetitiveness in offshore wind power. The twobodies then reported to the Subcommittee on LargeScale Deployment of Renewable Energy in October
2020, and January 2021, respectively.

Our review could not identify a single case in which theStrategic Policy Committee discussed matters from aholistic perspective and made any significant changes,
after specific topics had been split up and addressedby subordinate or external bodies. Meanwhile, thepublic comment stage occurred only at the endof the process, after the draft SEP had been madepublic. Even though 6,392 comments were submitted,
the plan later approved by the Cabinet was nearly

identical to the draft version. As the secretariat, METI

controlled the entire process, preparing materials andorganizing meetings.

and then incorporated into SEP.

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 4. Flow of discussions for 6th SEP (2020-2021)���� SEP.

EnergyEﬃciency
Renewable
EnergyStrategic Policy
Committee

C: OCCTO
Master Plan
Review *SC: Large-scale
Deployment ofRenewables

PPC:
Oﬀshore Wind *Electricity market /coal / gas

SC:Electricity
and Gas

WG:
Institutional
Review

WG: CoalPower Review

WG: GasIndustry System

NOV.

DEC.

Carbon neutrality（��/��）���� JAN.

Deliberations Identify
begin
key issues hearing

Deliberations on Strategic
Energy Plan (total �� meetings)

SC:
EnergyEﬃciency

OCT.

��/��

��/��

��/�� ��/��

FEB

Deliberations on useof electricity grid

�/��

�/��

��/�

�/��

�/��
��/�

��/��

�/��

��/��

��/��

APR.

�/�

hearing
�/��

JUN.

����
Renewables
Outlook�/���/��/�� Present
directions

�/�

Nuclear Natural resources / Hydrogen /Energy CCS / Fuel ammonia

PPC:
Promotion of
Fuel Ammonia *�/��Gas system
reform review

�/�

Cost

WG:
Electricity Cost

�/�� Report��/�■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan

�/��

��/��

Interimsummary��/���/�

Summary�/�� Summary

�/��Deliberations onammonia/coal co-ﬁring

�/�Interimsummary�/��

SC: Mining
SC: Petroleum
and Natural Gas

Publiccomment

CabinetApproval(��/��)�/��

Report

C: Natural
Resources
and Fuel�/�-��/�

OCT.

Interim �/��review

�/��
Progress report

SC: Nuclear

hearing�/�� �/�� �/�� �/�� �/�

SEP.

�/��

�/�

Deliberations onmaster plans

�/��

��/��

hearing

�/��

�/��

AUG.

Preliminary draft

Outline draft

�/�� �/�� �/��JUL.

Summarize
deliberations

Oﬀshore Wind Power ��/��
Industry Vision (�st)�/�� EstablishedMAY��-��% GHG reduction
target（�/��）hearing�/��Deliberations on mainstreaming
renewable energy
�/��

MAR.

Summarize �/��deliberations

�/�� Report

�/�
�/��

■ Asterisks indicate bodies outside the Advisory Committee on Natural Resources and Energy

Summarize
deliberations

Report（Sep.）
�/��Prepared by Climate Integrate

9

Ⅳ. S
 trategic Energy Plan (SEP): Analysis of the policy making process

04 Analysis of committee membership
Below are the results of analysis of the members* ofthe 15 consultative bodies, by sector, age, gender, andstance.

* For consultative bodies that have convened in January 2024
or later, we used the most recently available member list asof March 31, 2024. For those that had not yet convened in
2024 as of April, we used the member list from October 2020,
when deliberations began on the 6th SEP. Observers who areallowed to comment on deliberations are also included.

1) By sector
We classified the sectors as shown on the right tounderstand the composition of members.

Member composition differs depending on the

consultative body, but overall, there is a greater

tendency for members to come from academia, thinktanks, and consulting. Among companies, the majorityof members are in energy-intensive “materials,

resources/energy supply, transportation” industries,
while some members are from the financial sector.

In consultative bodies that are lower in the hierarchy
and/or involved in natural resources and fuels, the10majority of members tend to be representing industry
groups, materials companies, and plant builders. In
some cases, the companies or industry groups are
direct stakeholders, which raises concerns about

conflicts of interest. In particular, the public-private
councils are composed mainly of vested interest

parties and government officials. Some members withacademic affiliations are actually former company

and government officials. In some cases, members
appointed from think tanks, industry groups, andgovernment-related organizations are originally from
METI. On the other hand, companies on the energy
demand side, many of which are proactive in theenergy transition, are severely under-represented,
and there are very few members from non-profit
organizations and other sectors. Many members
participate in multiple consultative bodies. Our

analysis of member lists of the 15 bodies mentioned
above revealed that in the most extreme case, one

person participated in eight bodies, while 13 members
participated in three or more (see table on page 12).
A comparison of these findings with the Guidelines
described above reveals obvious discrepancies

in terms of sectors, appointment of officials fromgovernment ministries, and duplication, and thatfairness and balance is lacking.

Classification of committee membership• Companies (materials, natural resources/
energy supply, transportation): Includes
four materials industries (steel, cement,chemicals, pulp and paper), power utilities, oiland gas, energy suppliers (including trading
companies)• Companies (plant builders)• Companies (finance)• Companies (others)• Industry groups• Government: Includes government-relatedorganizations established by legislation(JOGMEC, JBIC, DBJ, etc.)• Academia• Thinktank/Consulting• NPO/NGO• Consumer groups• Media• Others

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 5. Composition of consultative bodies influencing the development of 6th & 7th SEP (by Sector)
Consumergroups �%

Media
�%

Corp.（plant

Thinktank/Consulting��%

Academia
��%

Govt
�%

Academia��%

Academia��%

SC: Energy Eﬃciency

Consumergroups ��%

Corp. (materials, etc.)
�%

Corp.
(ﬁnance)�%

WG: Institutional Review

Academia��%Corp. (ﬁnance)�%Thinktank/Consulting��%
Academia
��%

Govt
��%

Industrygroups��%

Others �%Consumergroups �%Corp.
(ﬁnance)�%Industrygroups��%

WG: Gas Industry System

Media
�%

NPO/NGO �%

Thinktank/Consulting��%Industrygroups��%
Academia��%Corp. (ﬁnance)�%Thinktank/Consulting��%Industrygroups��%

Academia��%Thinktank/Consulting
�%

Govt
��%

SC: Mining

Corp.
(ﬁnance)�%Industry groups
��%
Govt
�%

C: OCCTO Master Plan Review

Industrygroups
�%

Govt
��%

Academia��％Industrygroups
�%

Govt
��%

Corp.
(materials,etc.) ��%Corp.
(plantbuilders)
��%

PPC: Fuel Ammonia

Thinktank/Consulting �%

Academia
�%

Govt
�%

WG: Electricity Cost

Industrygroups��%

Academia
��%

Govt
��%

Corp.
(materials,etc.) ��%Thinktank/Consulting
��%

Govt
�%

SC: Nuclear

SC: Electricity and Gas
Consumergroups�％
Thinktank/Consulting��%Corp. (ﬁnance)�%Corp. (ﬁnance)�%Corp. (materials, etc.) �%

Academia
��%

Govt
�%

Industrygroups��%Consumergroups �%

SC: Resource Development
and Fuel Supply

Thinktank/Consulting��%Corp. (materials, etc.)
��%Thinktank/Consulting
��%

Corp.
(materials,etc.) ��%Govt
�%Industrygroups��%

SC: Renewables Deployment

Others�%

Academia��%Consumergroups �%

Thinktank/Consulting��%Consumergroups ��%

Thinktank/Consulting
��%

Govt
�%

Corp. (ﬁnance)�%

C: Natural Resources, Fuel

Govt �%Thinktank/Consulting��%

Academia��%Corp.（others）�％C: Strategic Policy

Media
��%

Consumer groups �% Corp. (materials, etc.) �%builder）�％Media �%
Corp.
Corp.
(materials,
Thinktank/（ﬁnance）
etc.)
Consulting ��%
�％
��%

Corp.
(materials,etc.) ��%Corp. (plant
Corp.
builders)
��％ (ﬁnance)�％Corp. (others)�%

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind

■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan、C: Committee、SC: Subcommittee、PPC: Public-Private Council ■ "Companies (Corp.) (materials, etc.)" refers to companies(materials, resources and energy supply, transportation). ■ The diﬀerent background colors of the graphs indicate committee, subcommittee, or working group, etc.

Media
�%
Thinktank/Consulting��%
Academia��%Corp. (materials, etc.)
��%Industrygroups��%

WG: Coal Power Review
Prepared by Climate Integrate

11

Ⅳ. S
 trategic Energy Plan (SEP): Analysis of the policy making process
Table. Members participating in at least three ofthe 15 consultative bodies (2020–2021)
No. ofbodies87
4Name and affiliation
Toshihiro Matsumura (University of Tokyo)
Keigo Akimoto (Research Institute of

Innovative Technology for the Earth, RITE)
Yukari Takamura (University of Tokyo)
Kenji Yamaji (RITE), Masakazu Toyoda(Institute of Energy Economics, Japan),Figure 6 reveals a tendency for members to be moreadvanced in age the higher the consultative body isin the hierarchy. The majority are in their 50s to 70s,
with fewer in their 40s, and almost none in their 30s

or younger. The Guidelines stipulate that, in principle,
older persons should not be appointed as advisorycommittee members. With WHO defining people aged

Surveillance Commission), Takeo

Kikkawa (International University ofJapan), Hirotaka Yamauchi (Hitotsubashi
University), Yuka Matayoshi (Mizuho
Securities)

Figure 7 reveals that females account for less than
Guidelines state that an effort should be made toincrease the female ratio to 30%, but it is below that in
11 of the 15 bodies.

4) By stance
Figure 8 shows an analysis of members’ stance.

The classification of an individual’s stance is basedon our own criteria* at Climate Integrate regarding
how positive a member’s attitude is regardingtransitioning away from existing systems centered

12• Unclear• Positive (supports a shift away from fossil

fuels, supports renewable energy, promotes
an energy transition)

systems such as fossil fuels and nuclear power.

half of committee members in all 15 bodies. The

Etsuo Sato (Electricity and Gas Market

power, maintaining the status quo)

members of the Strategic Policy Committee).

(University of Tokyo), Takao Kashiwagi
Hiroshi Ohashi (University of Tokyo),• Negative (supports fossil fuels and nuclear

Our analysis revealed that in many of the bodies, theseveral bodies have members in their 70s (e.g., 33% of

3) By gender(Tokyo Institute of Technology),

on fossil fuels, as follows:

65 or above as older adults, it is less than ideal that

Chisato Murakami (Nippon Association ofConsumer Specialists), Yumiko Iwafune

32) By agevast majority of members support maintaining existing* Criteria for determining stance: Generally, we classified
members as “Negative” if they were affiliated withcompanies (materials, natural resources/energy supply,transportation), companies (plant builders), industry groups,
and government-related agencies, because they support
maintaining the existing energy system and are reluctant
to make a bold shift toward renewable energy. In addition,
the chair of a consultative body is generally selected to bein line with METI’s preferences, and the government tends
to adopt path-dependent policies, so we generally classified
the chair as “Negative.” For other members, we made ourdeterminations based on the member’s statements, having
reviewed minutes of the consultative body, papers written,
opinion pieces, and other sources. Members who weredifficult to classify are indicated as “Unclear,” but this does
not necessarily mean that they are neutral.

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 6. Composition of consultative bodies influencing the development of 6th & 7th SEP (by Age)
Unknown�%Unknown
�%
��s
��％

��s
��%

��s
��％

��s
��%

��s
��％

C: Strategic Policy

��s
��%

C: Natural Resources, Fuel

��s
�％

��s
�%

Unknown
��%

��s
��%

��s
�%
Unknown
��%
��s
��%

��s
��%

WG: Institutional Review■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan

��s
��%

��s
�%
Unknown
��%

��s
��%
��s
��%

WG: Gas Industry System

��s
��%

��s
�%

��s
��%
��s
��%

��s
��%

SC: Nuclear
Unknown
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%
��s
��%

��s
��%

SC: Renewables Deployment

��s
��%

��s
��%

Unknown��%

SC: Resource Development
and Fuel Supply

��s
��%

SC: Energy Eﬃciency

Unknown
��%

��s
��%

Unknown
�%

��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
�%

Unknown��%

SC: Electricity and Gas

��s
��%

SC: Mining

WG: Electricity Cost��s
�%

Unknown
��%
��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%

C: OCCTO Master Plan Review

Unknown
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%

��s
��%
��s
��%

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind

■ The diﬀerent background colors of the graphs indicate committee, subcommittee, or working group, etc.

��s
�%

��s
��%

PPC: Fuel Ammonia

��s�%
Unknown
��%

��s
��%

��s
�%

Unknown
��%

��s
��%
��s
��%
��s
�%

WG: Coal Power Review

Prepared by Climate Integrate

13Figure 7. Composition of consultative bodies influencing the development of 6th & 7th SEP (by Gender)

Female��%Female
��%

Male
��%

C: Strategic Policy

Female
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

C: Natural Resources, Fuel

SC: Resource Development
and Fuel Supply

Female
��%

Male
��%

SC: Nuclear

Female
��%

Male
��%

WG: Electricity Cost
Female�%Female
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

SC: Energy Eﬃciency

SC: Renewables Deployment

Female
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

SC: Electricity and Gas

SC: Mining

PPC: Fuel Ammonia

Female��%Female��%Female�%Female
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

Male
��%

WG: Institutional Review

WG: Gas Industry System

C: OCCTO Master Plan Review

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind

WG: Coal Power Review■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan

14

Female��%Female��%Female��%■ The diﬀerent background colors of the graphs indicate committee, subcommittee, or working group, etc.

Prepared by Climate Integrate

Policy Making Process in Japan

Policy Making Process in Japan

Figure 8. Composition of consultative bodies influencing the development of 6th and 7th SEP (by Stance)
Positive�%Positive�%

Unclear��%

Negative��%

C: Strategic Policy

Positive�%

Unclear��%

Unclear��%
Negative��%

Negative��%

C: Natural Resources, Fuel

SC: Resource Development
and Fuel Supply

Unclear��%

Positive��%
Negative��%

SC: Nuclear

Unclear��%

Negative��%

WG: Electricity Cost

Positive�%Positive��%

Negative��%Positive��%

Unclear��％

Unclear��%

SC: Energy Eﬃciency
Positive�%

Unclear��%

Negative��%

SC: Renewables Deployment

Unclear��%
Negative��%

SC: Electricity and Gas

Unclear��%

Negative��%

SC: Mining

WG: Institutional Review■ SEP: Strategic Energy Plan

Unclear��%

PPC: Fuel Ammonia
Positive�%Positive��%

Negative��%

Negative���%

Negative��%

WG: Gas Industry System

Positive��%
Unclear��%

Negative��%

C: OCCTO Master Plan Review

Positive��%
Unclear��%

Negative��%

PPC: Oﬀshore Wind

■ Classiﬁcation of stance is based on our own criteria regarding a member’s attitude toward transitioning away fromexisting systems centered on fossil fuels. ■ The diﬀerent background colors of the graphs indicate committee, subcommittee, or working group, etc.

Unclear��%
Negative��%

WG: Coal Power Review
Prepared by Climate Integrate

15

Ⅴ. Summary
Below are key observations from our review.
• Although the draft SEP is compiled by theStrategic Policy Committee of ACNRE, actual

discussions and coordination are conductedprior to that by many consultative bodies

established inside and outside ACNRE. Within
the Strategic Policy Committee, there is scant
opportunity for deliberation from a holistic
perspective.

person participating in as many as eight.

• The majority are in their 50s to 70s, and theaverage ratio of males in the consultative
bodies exceeds 75%.

• The majority of members have a reluctant
stance regarding shifting away from the

Climate and energy policies affect all socio-• The composition of the 15 major consultative

generations. Considering this, a more democratic

bodies is lacking fairness and balance as aresult of discrepancies with the Guidelines for
the Management of Advisory Bodies.

• Many committee members are fromcompanies affiliated with energy-intensive
industries, while some are former METI

officials. The lower in the hierarchy, thegreater the tendency for parties with vested
interests to be involved.

• There is little participation from companies on
the energy demand side, many of which arevery proactive in the energy transition, as well
as from NPOs, and other sectors.

• Many members overlap and participate in

We hope that this report has helped untangle
the policy making processes behind SEP andwill provide opportunities to ensure fairness andbalance in the processes that develop Japan’s

climate and energy policies.

existing fossil fuel-based system.

• Serving as the secretariat, METI is in a position
to control the entire process.

16

three or more consultative bodies, with one

economic activities and have impacts on future
policy making process should be pursued informulating SEP. Selection of committee members

should not be biased toward any particular persons

Publisher: Climate Integrate
Date of issue: April 2024

Writers: Hiroyuki Yasui, Kimiko Hirata, Haru
Mochizuki

Designers: Yasuyuki Sasaki (layout, Figs.
5–8), Minami Hirayama (Figs.1–4)

or organizations, while ensuring an expert level ofdeliberations and also taking into account diversity
in terms of sector, age, gender, and opinion. In
doing so, it is necessary to reconsider the very
processes that are centered on government

advisory bodies and consider adopting new

methods for national debate, including citizens’

climate conferences, which are increasingly being
held around the country.

Climate Integrate is an independent climate
policy think tank. We provide research andanalysis on climate policy and support for

decarbonization efforts by central and local
governments, industry, and civil society.

Policy Making Process in Japan