More than Energy System Modeling: Developing a Socio-Technical Feasibility Space for Energy System Transitions
By Paulina Jaramillo
Introduction
Energy systems models are used extensively to plan net-zero CO2 emissions globally by 2050, a critical step in mitigating climate change. These models serve as indispensable tools, offering insights into myriad energy transition pathways characterized by diverse fuel and technology options that achieve net-zero emissions. In the United States, significant modeling efforts have identified a crucial need for
technological flexibility. As indispensable as these models are, recognizing and addressing their limitations can produce more comprehensive and equitable decarbonization strategies.
The Limitations of Energy System Models
Spatial Resolution Constraints
The spatial resolution represented in energy system models - such the county or state scale - is not constrained by model theory but by both the availability of granular data and computational capabilities. For example, the Open Energy Outlook model divides the U.S. into 9 regions and, depending on the specific version, takes approximately 12 hours to simulate. Modeling at broad spatial scales does not capture more localized socio-economic and environmental impacts. These constraints can mask the intra-national equity implications and social acceptability of emission mitigation options, even if these options are least-cost.
Assumption of Centralized Decision-Making
Energy systems models assume technologies and sources change on the basis of least total system cost. To do so, models aggregate individual energy decisions to estimate their combined benefits and costs, then find the alternatives that are least costly on an aggregate basis. This approach assumes the underlying individual decisions are well represented by a centralized, least-cost planner. In reality, decisions are made by a
multitude of stakeholders, each with their own imperfect information and diverse values Moreover, aggregated costs and benefits may not be evenly distributed across stakeholders, meaning decisions that are least-cost in aggregate may not be so for stakeholders. While cost minimal energy transitions are a helpful guidepost, it is also imperative to better understand which energy transition pathways are feasible and acceptable, to whom, and why. The fluidity of policy environments at different levels (local, regional, federal) and the diversity of decision-makers can pose risks to effective decision-making. Public opposition to clean energy projects and carbon taxes serves as a reminder of the challenges that can arise when social acceptability is not adequately considered. Stakeholder engagement looms large as a critical element in ensuring equitable outcomes and averting opposition that can stymie progress. Identifying the
factors that underpin opposition to decarbonization activities assumes paramount significance for energy system analysis.
Limited Impact and Distributional Analysis
Most energy system models primarily focus on tracking costs and greenhouse gas emissions, with only a handful extending their purview to other impacts like public health, labor, and environmental justice. This compartmentalization from material flow analysis leaves a significant gap in the capacity for comprehensive impact assessments. These assessments aren't just vital for bolstering the climate resilience of the energy system but also for addressing concerns regarding environmental justice, job creation, economic competitiveness, and the vulnerabilities of clean energy technology supply chains. Similarly, energy system models often fail to consider environmental justice and equity in the planning of energy transitions, resulting in the potential for unintended disparities in the distribution of benefits and burdens.
The Role of Socio-Technical Feasibility Space
Energy systems models play an essential role in planning emission reductions, but parallel and complementary analyses are needed to realize their full potential. To transcend the limitations of energy system models and provide a more comprehensive view of energy transitions, the concept of socio-technical feasibility space emerges as a promising solution. As Jewell et al. note, “feasibility spaces are a promising method to prioritize climate options, realistically assess the achievability of climate goals, and construct scenarios with empirically grounded assumptions.” A socio-technical feasibility space takes into account impacts across various attributes, including climate change, supply chain vulnerabilities, labor impacts, environmental justice, energy equity, and social acceptability. This approach offers a more holistic and informed perspective on the challenges and opportunities of energy transitions. At the Open Energy Outlook
Initiative, we aim to develop and implement the analytical tools needed to identify the socio-technical feasibility space. We believe in providing a multifaceted and inclusive framework for energy system transitions, ultimately paving the way for more sustainable and equitable decarbonization strategies.