The effects of fair allocation principles on energy system model designs

Abstract

What constitutes socially just or unjust energy systems or transitions can be derived from the philosophy and theories of justice. Assessments of justice and utilising them in modelling lead to great differences based on which justice principles are applied. We find that comparisons between the two principles of utilitarianism and egalitarianism dominate in assessments of distributive justice, with the latter most often considered representing a "just energy system". The lack of recognition of alternative and equally valid principles of justice, resting on e.g. capabilities, responsibilities and/or opportunities, leads to a narrow understanding of justice that fails to align with the views of different individuals, stakeholders and societies. More importantly, it can lead to the unjust design of future energy systems and energy systems analysis. In this work, we contribute to the growing amount of research on justice in energy systems modelling by assessing the implications of different philosophical views on justice on modelling results. Through a modelling exercise with a power system model for Europe, we explore different designs of a future net-zero European energy system, and its distributional implications based on the application of different justice principles. In addition to the utilitarian and egalitarian approach, we include, among others, principles of "polluters pay" and "ability-to-pay", which take historical contributions of GHG and the socio-economic conditions of a region into account. We find that socially just energy systems look significantly different depending on the justice principles applied. The results may stimulate a greater discussion among researchers and policymakers on the implications of different constructions of justice in modelling, expansion of approaches, and demonstrate the importance of transparency and assumptions when communicating such results