Chris Foulds, Aled Jones, Sarah Royston, Roberto Pasqualino
{"title":"Aligned interpretations? Comparing energy modeller and policymaker perspectives on model development and use","authors":"Chris Foulds, Aled Jones, Sarah Royston, Roberto Pasqualino","doi":"10.1016/j.egyr.2025.08.025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Models are not neutral. Yet, there has been insufficient attention given to the possible divergence in interpretations between those producing energy models and those using the related modelling evidence. This paper investigates how various actors involved in an energy policymaking-modelling system imagine key components of model design and development. We focus on four model components that energy-economic modellers have identified as essential for advancing the relevance and value of energy-economic models in the context of net-zero transitions: (1) uncertainties; (2) technological innovation and radical transformation; (3) diversity of actor responses; and (4) long-time horizons. We adopted a case study approach that focused on the EU energy policymaking-modelling system. We conducted 16 interviews; 6 with European Commission policy officers, and 10 with those developing Commission-funded energy-economic models. We found that the four model components exhibited little Interpretative Flexibility; specifically, only one component (long-time horizons) was interpreted differently between EU policymakers and energy-economic modellers. Indeed, the policymakers’ understanding of model development meant that they did little interpretative work on energy models altogether. We call for modeller-policymaker dialogue to prioritise what sits behind interpretations (e.g. theories, ideologies) and to more constructively discuss model boundaries and scope (e.g. via systems thinking, use of intermediaries).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11798,"journal":{"name":"Energy Reports","volume":"14 ","pages":"Pages 1866-1876"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Reports","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484725004883","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Models are not neutral. Yet, there has been insufficient attention given to the possible divergence in interpretations between those producing energy models and those using the related modelling evidence. This paper investigates how various actors involved in an energy policymaking-modelling system imagine key components of model design and development. We focus on four model components that energy-economic modellers have identified as essential for advancing the relevance and value of energy-economic models in the context of net-zero transitions: (1) uncertainties; (2) technological innovation and radical transformation; (3) diversity of actor responses; and (4) long-time horizons. We adopted a case study approach that focused on the EU energy policymaking-modelling system. We conducted 16 interviews; 6 with European Commission policy officers, and 10 with those developing Commission-funded energy-economic models. We found that the four model components exhibited little Interpretative Flexibility; specifically, only one component (long-time horizons) was interpreted differently between EU policymakers and energy-economic modellers. Indeed, the policymakers’ understanding of model development meant that they did little interpretative work on energy models altogether. We call for modeller-policymaker dialogue to prioritise what sits behind interpretations (e.g. theories, ideologies) and to more constructively discuss model boundaries and scope (e.g. via systems thinking, use of intermediaries).
期刊介绍:
Energy Reports is a new online multidisciplinary open access journal which focuses on publishing new research in the area of Energy with a rapid review and publication time. Energy Reports will be open to direct submissions and also to submissions from other Elsevier Energy journals, whose Editors have determined that Energy Reports would be a better fit.