Stakeholder inclusion in estimating future techno-economic data for energy technologies for long-term energy planning

Many countries worldwide and the European Union have set ambitious targets for CO2 reductions. Following policy targets set by the European Union, Denmark has set a target of a 70% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. Furthermore, Denmark aims to be independent of fossil fuels by 2050. These policy targets require a dramatic and rapid transition of the country’s energy system. These targets enjoy a cross-party political consensus in Denmark, but the details in which these targets may be reached are still being contested and debated. As policymakers and scholars know, there are multiple techno-economic pathways for the transition to a sustainable energy system (Rosenbloom, 2017). In this sense, the future is openended: the number of potentially promising innovations and initiatives surpasses those that will eventually prevail. Furthermore, both innovation processes and political processes are decisively non-linear and may change unexpectedly (Köhler et al., 2019). To address this situation, like other countries, Denmark employs a range of future-looking activities (FLA) to inform policy decisions on possible ways to achieve the CO2 targets. The Danish Energy Agency uses model-based scenarios to uncover different techno-economic pathways to achieve climate goals. The scenarios describe alternative futures and their implications. The consequences of these alternative futures are examined using the IntERACT energy systems model based on the TIMES model. The scenarios and their consequences are used as a foundation for discussions and policy decisions on the green transition and related STI policies.

All modelling is based on a range of input and epistemic assumptions about the future (Silvast et al., 2020), and this is also true in the Danish case. Some inputs are based on internationally recognized forecasts provided by international organizations like World Energy Outlook from IEA. However, the Danish Energy Agency also develops the ‘Danish Technology Catalogues’. For each technology (e.g., large wind turbines offshore), a description of the present state of the technology and future prospectives are described, including assessments of future techno-economic data (e.g., cost and performance data) for time horizons of 2020, 2030, 2040 and 2050. The techno-economic data typically contain technical issues (e.g., average unit size, outage percentage, technical lifetime, regulatory ability) and economic issues (e.g., CAPEX and O&M). If relevant, the assessments also contain environmental impact (e.g., emissions of SO2, NOx, and particles). The aim is to establish commonly accepted data sets and provide transparency in long-term energy studies. The methodology used for establishing the data sets is described in a set of guidelines developed by the Danish Energy Agency and include traditional foresight methods such as defining the technology, finding and selecting experts and stakeholders, expert reports, extrapolations, stakeholder workshops, wider public consulting, and dissemination of the results. The Danish Technology Catalogues are not only an exemplar of energy policy planning in Denmark. The data and the methods behind the data have become international influential and utilized as a more detailed and updated alternative to projections by international actors, e.g., IEA/OECD. Similar energy technology catalogues were developed for India in a governmental India-Denmark Energy Partnership.

Scenario planning and energy system models have been studied exhaustively in interdisciplinary energy research, economics, and social science literature (Fodstad et al., no date). There exist a wealth of studies on stakeholder involvement in scenario planning and other FLA in the domain of energy and sustainable development (Chilvers, Pallett and Hargreaves, 2018; Sovacool et al., 2020; Andersen, Hansen and Selin, 2021; McGookin, Ó Gallachóir and Byrne, 2021). While all FLA is posing problems of public significance (e.g., what counts as part of our energy futures), recent literature has tended to focus on engagement, particularly as public deliberation (Sovacool et al., 2020) and engagement of the public with everyday life objects such as solar PVs and EVs (Ryghaug, Skjølsvold and Heidenreich, 2018). Meanwhile, only a few studies exist on the very front end of the scenario process, where experts and stakeholder representatives are often involved in identifying assumptions about future trends and providing basic data (Andersen, Hansen and Selin, 2021).

In general, scenarios and other FLA are relevant and valuable for science, technology and innovation policy (Weber and Schaper-Rinkel, 2017). However, exploratory and participatory scenarios are often criticized as difficult to translate into policy-relevant information (Robinson et al., 2021). The described front-end input inputs (or techno-economic assumptions ) can be considered as one particular type of scenario, predictive forecasts, rather than explorative scenarios (Börjeson et al., 2006). Although – or because of - the predictive nature of the assessments of techno-economic futures of the energy technologies, uncertainty is a key issue. Processes leading to plausible and reliable techno-economic data for future energy technologies are not trivial. There is a lack of studies of such data, particularly for emerging technologies (Fodstad et al., no date).

Research question
This paper confronts the overall research question of what is the nature and quality of the contributions of experts, stakeholders, and the wider public in detailed techno-economical input to scenario analyses used for discussions and policy decisions on the green transition and STI policies in general.

A range of more detailed questions are raised from this overall research question: How are experts and stakeholders identified, selected, and engaged during the technology catalogue process? What is the role – if any - of the wider public? What does the influence of these actors affect the quality (plausibility, acceptance, etc.) of the resulting techno-economic data and, further on, the final scenarios and their use in policymaking?

Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework behind this paper draws from two coherent and established theoretical fields that are of relevance for addressing the research questions.

First, we draw on the extensive literature on foresight, scenario planning and stakeholder involvement in scenarios. Scenarios are widely used as a method for ‘strategic conversation’ (van der Heiden, 1996) and to engage stakeholders in a strategic conversation on exploring uncertainties, plotting alternative futures, and devising resilience policy and strategy options (Cairns et al., 2013; Ramirez and Wilkingson, 2016). Also, extensive literature exists on stakeholder involvement in scenario planning and other FLA in the domain of energy and sustainable development (Chilvers, Pallett and Hargreaves, 2018; Sovacool et al., 2020; Andersen, Hansen and Selin, 2021; McGookin, Ó Gallachóir and Byrne, 2021). Furthermore, the distribution of power and influence in scenario planning is an extensive research topic in scenario planning literature (Wright, Cairns and Bradfield, 2013; Cairns, Wright and Fairbrother, 2016; Bourgeois et al., 2017; Cairns and Wright, 2019).

Second, we consider STS studies on public engagement in science and technology (Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Stirling, 2008; Stilgoe, Lock and Wilsdon, 2014; Kern, 2015; Selin et al., 2016). The literature on this topic is vast and has documented that involving stakeholders and citizens in debates and research about science and technology is crucial to secure an impact on actual policymaking and produce positive societal outcomes. Chilvers and Kearnes have summarized this long line of research and recognized two different and potentially incompatible research interests in it: one a normative interest in increasing participation and democracy, another a constructivist approach on a situated description of how the concept of the public is produced in different interventions (Chilvers and Kearnes, 2020). As both these lines show, the concepts of both experts and stakeholders are contested and debated (Stirling, 2008; Freeman et al., 2010; Colvin, Witt and Lacey, 2016; Miles, 2017), both as concerns who is a participant in democratic processes and as concerns how these participants are constructed, and several studies have pointed at the blurred distinction between experts and stakeholders and blurred distinction between stakeholders and researchers (Andersen, Hansen and Selin, 2021). The established concerns in STS have focused on expertise, contested expertise, expert-lay relations, and questions of how knowledge and expertise are recognized in societal processes (Åkerman et al., 2021). These discussions point to critical questions concerning recognizing who counts as a stakeholder, why, and with what consequences.

Data and methodological approaches
The study takes an exploratory approach as the first step towards a larger research agenda on stakeholder engagement, energy system modelling, and priority-setting in STI policy. The research is based on desk studies of documents (publicly available documents from relevant institutions) and interviews with key stakeholders. The research comprises both the technology catalogue activities in general and a deeper analysis on two specific sets of technology data: ‘Offshore wind’ updated 2021 and ‘Energy Storage’ (with our focus on Hydrogen storage) from 2018 with an update from 2020.

Expected results
The expected results of research comprise two elements. The first result is an overall description of the processes leading to Technology Data for selected technologies. This also includes a brief description of alternative approaches technology catalogue process found internationally. The second result is an analysis of the nature and quality of the contributions of experts and stakeholders during the process.

The research contributes to how scenario planning aligns expectations and builds shared visions of futures. This is particularly relevant when mission-oriented energy and STI policies require a coordinated, intensive and longterm interaction between policy makers, science, and societal stakeholders. As such, the paper also applies new research on the frontiers in energy system modelling (Fodstad et al., no date) and highlights advances in longterm energy planning and the evolution of mixed quantitative and qualitative exploratory scenarios.

Conclusions and policy issues
In general, scenarios and other FLA are relevant and valuable for science, technology and innovation policy (Weber and Schaper-Rinkel, 2017). However, exploratory and participatory scenarios are often criticized as difficult to translate into information relevant to STI policy (Robinson et al., 2021). While the dialogue between quantitative and qualitative approaches has received considerable scrutiny, we examine the usually hidden underpinning data that are input to energy scenarios and energy system models, respectively. This ‘negotiated’ data profoundly impacts STI policies for low carbon futures and infrastructural landscapes, and our paper is among the first openings of this important topic.