Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Strategy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/esr

Open-source modelling infrastructure: Building decarbonization capacity

in Canada
Madeleine McPherson a, c, *, Jacob Monroe a, Jakub Jurasz a, f, Andrew Rowe a, b,
Richard Hendriks d, Lauren Stanislaw a, c, Muhammad Awais a, c, e, Madeleine Seatle a, c,
Robert Xu a, c, Timothy Crownshaw a, Mohammad Miri a, c, Dustin Aldana a, Moe Esfahlani g,
Reza Arjmand a, c, Mohammadali Saffari a, c, Tristan Cusi a, Kanwarpreet Singh Toor a,
Joel Grieco a
a
Institute for Integrated Energy Systems, University of Victoria, Canada
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, Canada
c
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Canada
d
University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A4d, Canada
e
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361, Laxenburg, Austria
f
Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Wrocław, Poland
g
Institut de L’énergie Trottier, Polytechnique Montréal, Bureau A-520.40, 2900, Boul. Édouard-Montpetit, Campus de L’Université de Montréal, 2500, Chemin de
Polytechnique, Montréal, Québec, H3T 1J4, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Actions that transform our energy system are the cornerstone of decarbonizing our economy but have been
Energy systems modelling hindered by the ineffective interface between researchers and decision-makers in Canada. This paper begins by
Energy policy arguing for a more holistic perspective on energy system decarbonization modelling and exploring how insights
Open source software
can aid evidence-based decision making. We then respond with the development of a modelling platform that
Decarbonization
includes three core pillars: (1) a toolbox of models that together represent the integrated energy system, (2) a
dataset containing the inputs required to populate those models, and (3) a visualization suite to analyze and
communicate their outputs. The Spine Toolbox is leveraged to process these three components in an efficient
workflow. Taken together, the platform promotes the usability of model results by fostering consistency,
transparency, and timeliness. Furthermore, the epistemic limitations of energy systems modelling and implica­
tions for platform and model design, and engaging extended peer communities, are discussed. Our hope is that
this platform can be a foundational resource that facilitates collaboration between energy system and decar­
bonization researchers, modelling teams and decision-makers, ultimately enabling the effective application of
evidence-based policy.

1. Introduction recent push for renewable energy integration and deep decarbonization,
just to name a few. In tandem with each of these transitions, the
Models are useful tools when they illuminate the interactions within formulation, usefulness, and objectives of energy systems models have
a complex system, and when those insights inform better decision shifted. The institutional landscape, suite of available technologies, and
making. The energy system is a prime example of a complex system for economic realities that were present during each transition played a
which models can be useful. Especially when a system is amid a tran­ foundational role in shaping the modelling landscape, and the formu­
sition, the abstraction that models provide is an effective means to lations that underpin it. The resulting suite of modelling platforms that
explore ‘what if’ scenarios of possible futures. Such transitions have are currently available has been designed in response to needs as they
been a recurrent feature of energy systems, spurred by the oil crises in emerged over time: to represent systems according to the prevailing
the 1970s, human-climate system interactions in the early 2000s, or the jurisdictional boundaries; to explore topics that rose to the top of policy

* Corresponding author. Institute for Integrated Energy Systems, University of Victoria, Canada
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. McPherson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2022.100961
Received 28 July 2021; Received in revised form 24 August 2022; Accepted 5 September 2022
Available online 11 September 2022
2211-467X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

agendas; to deliver insights on stakeholders’ specific topics of interest. challenges including security, affordability, resilience, and environ­
With the progression of the transition to decarbonize our energy system mental impact, as well as opportunities including markets for new
and more broadly our economy, energy system models must once more technologies and competitive industries are driving a ‘renewed effort to
evolve, and rise to a new set of challenges. improve the model-based analysis of energy systems’ [16]. To address
In recent years, models have been used to inform energy and climate this, Pfenninger et al. call for resolving details in time and space in en­
decision making in many jurisdictions. The United States Mid-Century ergy system optimization models; representing uncertainty and trans­
Strategy for Deep Decarbonization [1] relied on analysis of quantita­ parency in energy system simulation models; handling complexity and
tive energy methods, including a 24 model intercomparison study [2], optimization across scales in power systems and electricity market
and the EnergyPATHWAYS modelling tool for deep decarbonization models; and capturing the human dimension in qualitative and
assessment [3]. The latter was also used by the State of Washington to mixed-methods scenarios [16]. DeCarolis et al. articulate similar chal­
develop pathways for strengthening emission limits while growing its lenges, and argue that macro-energy systems models face the challenges
economy [4]. In the European Union (EU), a suite of interlinked models associated with projecting novel technology cost and performance
supports the European Commission’s impact assessment and analysis of characteristics over multiple decades, incorporating diverse objectives
policy options [5], including the Commission’s climate policy impact and preferences, considering the high spatial temporal resolutions
assessments [6]. The EU organizes the Energy Modelling Platform con­ required to adequately represent variable renewable energy (VRE) or
ference where ‘modellers meet decision-makers’ with the objective of storage technologies, and appropriately representing uncertainty [17].
narrowing the gap between scientific modellers and policy makers at all In response, the authors founded the Open Energy Outlook for the
levels [7]. Initiatives such as these illustrate decision-makers’ interests United States as an interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral team of experts
in energy system planning models and their outputs. But more impor­ collaboratively developing novel approaches within a macro-energy
tantly, examples such as these illustrate the impact that energy system modelling framework [17]. In their review, Pye et al. provide a
modelling can have to improve decision making when the institutional compressive summary of the key challenges facing the energy modelling
structures and the stakeholders operating within them overcome the community: the representation of new mitigation options (especially in
communication gap between modellers and decision-makers. Such ex­ end-use sectors and carbon removal options), the development of rele­
amples stand out as successes that need to be replicated elsewhere vant insights (focused on feasibility, behaviour and policy effective­
including Canada. ness), and the application of models for policy analyses (including
However, there are several obstacles that impede the impact that incorporating uncertainty) [18]. Taking a step back, Huppmann et al.
models have on decision making. In some cases, obstacles stem from observe paradigm shifts in systems modelling: the increasing complexity
ineffective or incomplete communication of model-based analysis. For of the systems being represented, and the rising importance of nexus
example, in their review of European modelling teams, Nikas et al. argue issues and interaction across sectors [9]. The new set of issues facing
for the importance of transparency, harmonization of modelling pa­ decision makers is demanding a new set of capabilities from the models
rameters, and disclosure of input and output datasets [8]. Similarly, themselves, as well as how these models are applied in decision-making.
Huppmann et al. observe the need for a paradigm shift towards trans­ In this paper, we respond to both of these issues – the institutional
parency, reproducibility, and intelligibility in modelling processes [9]. infrastructure surrounding models, as well as the model content itself –
In other cases, obstacles stem from structural issues within the in­ with an integrated energy system platform. We focus our arguments and
stitutions engaged in modelling efforts. For example, Howells et al. effort around the concept of energy system integration (ESI). At its core,
highlight the imperative of good governance principles, in addition to ESI proposes the coordination of planning and operation of energy
rigorous analytics, when energy modelling is used to provide policy systems across scales, sectors, and vectors [19]. The reality of our energy
support (Howells et al., 2021). Howells et al. argue that modelling ef­ systems has shifted: energy production is no longer largely determin­
forts should engage relevant stakeholders in a way that prioritizes istic, demand growth is not occurring at a predictable rate, and energy,
accountability by following the U4RIA principles: Ubuntu (‘I am because per se, is no longer planners’ primary metric of concern. With the shift to
you are’ interdependency), retrievability, repeatability, reconstruct­ electrification and increasing penetration of renewables, energy is only
ability, interoperability, and auditability (Howells et al., 2021). one of many characteristics of importance; managing uncertainty and
DeCarolis et al. suggests a formalization of the energy system modelling inherent to renewables means shifting focus onto flexibility and reli­
process by developing a series of best practices [10]. Open-sourcing ability. Modelling ESI in such a way that it ‘delivers insights not
modelling and other software components is one of the responses to numbers’ [20] has implications beyond the model formulations them­
these issues. The push towards open-source models and data is emerging selves. There is a growing tension between the need to increase the scope
as a reoccurring theme that is gaining momentum. Morrison finds that of transition modelling while simultaneously providing insight and
the number of energy system modelling projects that have made their confidence in model results to stakeholders. ESI considers the breadth of
source code public has increased from zero in 2000 to six in 2010 and 28 system infrastructure and how it is modelled, as well as the human
in mid-2017 (when the survey was conducted) [11]. Wiese et al. contend dimension – individuals and institutional frameworks – across sectors,
that open-source input data for modelling is similar in character to that institutions, roles, and mandates. ESI pulls together the stakeholders
of a public good [12], and launched the Open Power System Data working in the myriad of institutions across each economic sector (e.g.,
platform to collect, verify, document and publish electricity system data services, manufacturing, resources) and each jurisdictional scale
[13]. Indeed, open-source is a paradigm that can make a significant (municipal, provincial, federal). Such a vast integration and coordina­
contribution to overcoming some of the institutional barriers that sur­ tion effort is daunting but is a core element of operationalizing energy
round modelling infrastructure. system decarbonization. Models play a key role but, as articulated by
In addition to these institutional barriers, the utility of a model is, in others in the modelling community, we must revisit what energy models
some cases, related to the structure or content of the model itself and, are representing, how they are used, and by whom.
subsequently, the types of issues that models are equipped to address. The core contribution of this paper is the development and deploy­
For example, Aryanpur et al. demonstrate how the treatment of spatial ment of an integrated modelling platform that has been designed in
dynamics impacts the results emerging from energy system analyses; in direct response to the technical and institutional demands that ESI
some cases, the modeller’s selection leads to an under- or -over esti­ poses. The platform has been designed to provide a holistic perspective
mation in total system costs [14]. In a complementary review, Marcy of the energy system that spans sectors (including sector-specific models
et al. compare different approaches for selecting representative time and integrated assessment models) as well as scales (from municipal to
segments (in capacity expansion models) in terms of their accuracy [15]. global representations). More specifically, we adopt an integration-of-
Pfenninger et al. focus on the evolution of issues over time, arguing that multiple-models approach, rather than focusing on a single-sector model

2
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

(that lacks a holistic perspective) or an individual integrated model (that necessary to achieving them (using energy-economy models) must now
omits detail and sector specificity). The platform is then embedded in a turn their attention to planning and operation of the low-carbon infra­
stakeholder engagement process designed specifically for the Canadian structure fleet (i.e. capacity expansion and dispatch models).
context. This approach is a direct response to the issues raised in our Planning and operating an integrated system pose a challenging but
review (above): the integrated platform approach addresses some of the imperative departure from the convention of representing isolated
issues pertaining to model content, while the stakeholder engagement power, transport, and buildings systems. If we are to not only deeply
process address some of the issues pertaining to the institutional infra­ decarbonize our energy systems (including power, heat, and transport),
structure surrounding models. but also improve them (e.g., a ‘Just Transition’), decision makers need a
In the following section (Section 1.1), we review common classes of holistic perspective that captures a wider range of scenarios that
energy system models and what these models typically represent to encapsulate the broader suite of metrics that are involved a transitioning
develop a sense of the current modelling landscape. We then (Section system. By building integrating insights that span disparate systems,
1.2) discuss features that help make models and the insights that they scales and perspectives, energy modellers can inform holistic policy
generate useful to decision makers in the midst of the system transition. development. We need modelling frameworks that are commensurate
Section 1.3 reviews the key stakeholders that should be part of the with the scale and scope inherent to the decarbonization challenge.
modelling process, and what structures (process and software) facilitate
their engagement and interactions. Section 2 then describes the tech­ 1.2. How: making model insights accessible
nical aspects of the modelling platform including the overall structure
(Section 2.1), the model input database (Section 2.2), the modelling Given the objective of representing an integrated energy system, the
tools themselves (Section 2), and the visualization suite (Section 2.4). challenge becomes how to build an integrated modelling platform and
These technical components are then contextualized within the model­ then how to apply such a platform, once built, to aid decision making.
ling and institutional landscape in Canada in Section 3, followed by a The platform components – raw data, databases, visualization scripts,
discussion of the epistemic limitations with modelling in Section 4. the models themselves, and the tools to link those models – must be
Finally, we suggest for future work (Section 5) and draw conclusions revisited, reimagined, and redeveloped. Model usability relies on several
(Section 6). key characteristics, which are facilitated by a series of supporting tools.
First, models must deliver insights on a timescale that is consistent with
1.1. What: representing the integrated energy system the available policy-making window [25]. Doing so means that the data
and models must be ready for immediate use: namely, they have been
The energy modelling tools at our disposal form a rich landscape built, their code has been validated, their data inputs have been gath­
from which stakeholders draw relevant insights. Each has distinct ca­ ered, verified, and are well documented. Second, decision makers must
pabilities and limitations that suit a particular research question or have trust that the model outputs are robust [25]. Trust can be fostered
objective. Mixed-integer production cost models, for example, optimize by transparency (open-source code and data) and consistency (of the
the dispatch of generation assets to meet load throughout the day and insights derived from models). Third, the modelling suite and scenario
across the system. Agent-based travel scheduling models, as another runs must be inclusive of a diverse range of disciplines, perspectives, and
example, can be used to predict when and where electric vehicles need stakeholders, specifically in the problem definition stages [25]. Doing so
to charge. As the issues that are core to decarbonization continue to can be established through a well-designed modelling process.
evolve, so too must the modelling platforms that seek to represent them.
This section characterizes this evolution and proposes a novel frame­ 1.3. Who: the institutional landscape
work in response to the core transition drivers that are underfoot.
The first stages of decarbonizing the energy system focused on the Decarbonization has become a defining feature of 21st century
supply side: substituting carbon intensive forms of generation with low- discourse, engaging stakeholders both within and outside of the energy
carbon ones [21]. However, as power systems around the world made sector. Consequently, energy systems modelling efforts must commu­
headway on decarbonizing, the conversation turned to the demand side: nicate insights to actors working within and knowledgeable about the
displacing end-users’ reliance on fossil fuels with low-carbon electricity energy system, as well as individuals whose expertise lies outside of the
[22,23]. As we move beyond the limits of electrification towards deep energy system. Despite the growing complexity and interconnectedness
decarbonization, broader energy systems integration comes to the fore of model platforms, there is a parallel need to deliver insights from
[24]. Electrification, or more broadly energy systems integration, is now energy systems models to a growing list of decision makers who are
emerging as a core pillar of decarbonization; in lockstep, the value of implicated in decarbonization.
integrating the range of modelling tools to generate a holistic platform is In addition to the broadening audience of energy systems models,
emerging as well. Returning to the example of electric vehicles, the stakeholders from across the breadth of energy systems must be
planning and operation of both power and transport systems need to be convened. Energy systems integration demands that stakeholders and
coordinated. Electrified heating, as another example, requires that the institutions hailing from distinct sectors (e.g., power, transport,
design and operation of power systems account for building system manufacturing, buildings) and scales (municipal, provincial, federal) co-
operations and configuration. To move forward with operationalizing design and co-operate in an integrated fashion outside of their silos.
electrification, modelling platforms need to represent the integration of Electric vehicle integration, for example, demands cooperation between
each energy system (power, transport, buildings). transportation planners often at the municipal scale, power system op­
At the same time, modelling tools have been designed with a diverse erators at the provincial scale, and federal agencies negotiating national
range of objectives: to design or operate power systems, to quantify a emissions reduction commitments. The multi-sector, multidisciplinary,
policy’s impact on behaviour, to understand how the distribution of and multi-scale nature of energy systems demands that stakeholders
employment shifts, among many others. Such objectives inherently convene across the breadth of sectors, vectors, and scales to engage in
emerge out of different disciplinary perspectives: engineers focused on effective planning and operational dialogue.
system design and operation, economists focused on policy impacts, or However, while the optimal design and operation of an integrated
social scientists focused on human implications. At each stage along the system demands a holistic perspective, decisions and implementation
decarbonization pathway, differing objectives are emphasized, which in occur within discrete institutions at specific scales. Effective modelling
turn shifts the model framework that is the most appropriate. For platforms must therefore balance the expanded scope of integrated en­
example, some jurisdictions that have succeeded in setting GHG emis­ ergy systems with the need to deliver insights that are appropriate for
sion targets (informed by climate models) and identified the policies specific decision makers. The decisions that are made at each

3
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

jurisdictional scale – transportation and urban planning at the municipal that analyses emerge from processes that have carefully convened
scale, power system planning and operation at provincial scale, devising appropriate stakeholders. The proposed standing repository of resources
carbon targets at the federal scale – require insights that are jurisdiction- can be expanded, adapted, and leveraged by anyone with the time, in­
specific but aligned. terest, and expertise.
An appropriate institutional framework that fosters relationships,
dialogue, and effective communication between researchers and deci­ 2.1. Overview structure – spine toolbox1
sion makers is needed to achieve useful modelling results and insights.
The Spine Toolbox2 offers an effective platform to structure, stan­
1.4. In summary dardize, version control and share data [27], with applicability to a
broad range of topics. The toolbox allows for customizing model
With the recent shift towards open-source data and open-source development, advancing interoperability of energy modelling frame­
tools, institutional barriers that have prevented effective collaboration works, bundling scenarios for model simulation, and communicating the
are now collapsing. At the same time, the need for effective collabora­ underlying assumptions, components and sub-processes of models [28].
tion tools is becoming apparent. The growing literature regarding the Spine facilitates the exchange of input data and model results that are at
merits of open-source data and models points to improving the quality of the core of interconnecting data and modelling tools. The platform es­
science, enabling collaboration between investigation and policy­ tablishes a common data storage structure that uses data processing
making, improving productivity, and fostering societal trust and debate tools to provide data to energy models of different scope, thus allowing
[26]. for an efficient modelling workflow for complex interlinked systems.
This paper is organized around the modelling workflow depicted in This approach facilitates efficient sharing of resources across modelling
Fig. 1: the decision makers and their agenda (first row) inform the tools. More specifically, Spine allows users to:
technical attributes needed from data, models, and tools (second row)
which rely on a series of institutional attributes (third row). • build data processing tools that other users can utilize, avoiding
The hierarchical depiction starts with the policy makers and their duplication of effort;
policy agenda – the list of example topics that could be aided by energy • use shared server-based databases that house data in a standardized
modelling. The system models themselves are only one part of the format;
software capacity; a larger platform is needed to represent the fully in­ • implement version control tools in repositories and built-in metadata
tegrated energy system, including the interactions between systems and structures;
scales. Other elements include the raw data, databases, and visualization • interconnect models to the standardized format;
platforms. To be effective, this software suite must be characterized by a • use the shared data as a starting point with additional functionality
series of non-technical attributes: trust in the modeller and the analysis, for project-based modifications;
consistency in the messaging around priority areas, transparency within • use tools and models developed by others within and outside of
and outside the modelling community; timeliness; and reproducibility of Canada;
results. • execute the workflow in a computing cluster or in the cloud;
This section has described the need for an integrated modelling • provide simplified access and query capabilities for non-technical
platform and the characteristics that foster effective communication. In stakeholders.
the next section, we describe the development of a software platform
that is designed to facilitate the development of integrated energy in­ Fig. 2 shows the workflow for a theoretical example with two data
sights. In summary, the goal of this platform is to leverage the range of sources and importers, three databases and four modelling tools.
modelling tool capacity - the breadth of integrated assessment and In this study, we use the Spine platform as an interface that connects
energy-economy models, with the depth of sector-specific models - to our database (Section 2.2: Pillar 1 – CODERS Database) to our a set of
provide a holistic perspective of the energy system. The standardized energy systems models (Section 2.3 Pillar 2 – Modelling platforms),
suite of data and data processing tools (Section 2.2), modelling plat­ which then populate a set of standardized visualizations (Section 2.4
forms (Section 2.3), visualizations (Section 2.4), and platform man­ Pillar 3 – IDEA Visualization suite). In this context, the Spine Toolbox
agement (Section 2.1) that we present in this paper are designed to delivers a complete view of complex model executions that enables an
enable more timely and efficient execution of energy systems modelling efficient modelling workflow.
and research. Section 3 then describes the process of communicating
these results with decision makers, who can then leverage their insights
2.2. Pillar 1 – CODERS database3
to take action to decarbonize our energy systems. Finally, we describe
epistemic limitations with modelling (Section 3), our intended future
One of the critical impediments to modelling and implementing ac­
work (Section 4) and conclude (Section 5).
tion towards deep decarbonization is the slow and opaque flow of in­
formation across institutional, disciplinary and regulatory boundaries
2. Responding to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ - platform
[28]. Input data lack transparency and accessibility or, in some cases,
development
are simply unavailable. When compared to the United States and
Europe, the accessibility of electricity data in Canada is limited and
In the first part of this paper, we respond to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’
disjointed [29]. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) in the US
with the development of a software platform consisting of three pillars –
publishes electricity data using standardized metrics at the scale of
data (Section 2.2), models (Section 2.3), and visualisations (Section2.4),
balancing authorities (of which there are 71 in the US) [30]. The
as well as the glue that holds them together (Section 2.1). Each pillar is a
critical component of an overarching framework designed to deliver
evidence-based insights. Simply publishing the open-source code, while 1
This section has been reproduced (with permission) from a report previ­
valuable from a research perspective, does not go far enough from a
ously published with the Energy Modelling Initiative; it can be downloaded
policy making perspective where timeliness, trust, and consistency are here: https://emi-ime.ca/projects/modelling-projects-2/.
paramount. Insights can be delivered in a timely fashion when re­ 2
https://github.com/Spine-project/Spine-Toolbox.
searchers or policy makers are already equipped with software capacity 3
This section has been reproduced (with permission) from a report previ­
to respond as policy opportunities arise. Results can be reproduced when ously published with the Energy Modelling Initiative; it can be downloaded
insights are derived from common data sources. Inclusiveness requires here: https://emi-ime.ca/projects/modelling-projects-2/.

4
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Fig. 1. Modelling workflow depiction.

Fig. 2. Example Spine Toolbox workflow combining power system and building models.

European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO) collects StatCan with an overall investment of $15 million over 5 years [34] as
and distributes supply and demand data in real time for each country in an independent, one-stop shop for comprehensive energy data and
the European Union [31]. Electricity data in Canada are primarily expert analysis [35]. The real-time electricity data (RTED) dashboard is
published at the provincial level, in an inconsistent and sometimes being developed by NRCan, the CER, and StatCan to provide granular
incomplete manner [29]. data on near-real time electricity systems operations, including high
While there is no single reliable and standardized source for elec­ frequency electric system data by province and territory (phase one) and
tricity data that would support electricity systems or integrated energy a national statistical framework (phase two) [36]. The CER commodity
systems modelling in Canada, there are several federal government tracking system contains monthly energy trade (imports, exports, vol­
databases that host data pertaining to various aspects of Canada’s en­ umes, prices) data for natural gas and LNG, crude oil, refined petroleum
ergy system. Statistics Canada (StatCan) publishes data on electricity products, natural gas liquids, and electricity [37]. The CER’s annual
supply, demand and prices [32]. The Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) Canada’s Energy Future report provides a conceptually consistent
tracks and publishes electricity import and export data [33]. Several “Reference Case” of long-term supply and demand projections that in­
more recent initiatives, led by a variety of institutions, have involved corporates the current economic outlook, a moderate view of energy
efforts to fill gaps in the Canadian energy data landscape. The Canadian prices and technological improvements, while considering announced
Centre for Energy Information (CCEI) was recently formed within climate and energy policies [38].

5
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Though standardized and high-quality, the target data of these fed­ 2.3. Pillar 2 – modelling platforms4
eral initiatives are of insufficient scope and granularity to support the
existing and evolving electricity systems models that are necessary to There is a plethora of energy systems models that vary in their ob­
informing grid decarbonization policy imperatives (e.g., dispatch jectives, scope, formulation, and pre-analytic problem framings. Such
modelling of electrification). While provincial utilities and independent characteristics are typically determined by the research question or
electricity system operators (ISOs) across Canada do collect and main­ policy objective that they are designed to address. The underlying
tain data of sufficient scope and granularity, there typically is no stan­ principles driving model formulation range from physical laws in the
dardized approach to this data collection or provision. For example, case of engineering-based models, to price formation or adoption
hourly electricity demand data are only publicly available at real or near behaviour in the case of economic models, to resource flows and feed­
real time for BC, Alberta, Ontario, Québec, Nova Scotia and New backs in the case of multi-disciplinary models.
Brunswick, but not the remaining provinces [29]. Data at the plant-level At one edge of the model landscape, integrated assessment models
on the supply side of electricity systems are even more limited and and energy-economy models take a broad perspective on energy,
difficult to obtain [29]. High-frequency electricity supply data are only human, and environmental systems. Such models are typically devel­
available for participating facilities in the electricity markets in Ontario oped and applied to explorations that require a high-level understanding
and Alberta, while the other provinces publish supply data with monthly of interactions between sectors: how resource availability impacts
or annual frequency [29]. Oftentimes, data is made available by utilities commodity prices which in turn impact human behaviour and demand;
in response to intervener requests during regulatory proceedings or energy conversion processes from primary resources to secondary en­
provided for a fee by system operators in response to requests from ergy carriers and energy services. Their main strength lies in their ability
market participants and stakeholders [39]. to develop an appreciation of the entire energy system, often with a
The reasons for such data gaps are manifold, including individual, long-term perspective, including its coupling to the economy, in­
organizational, commercial and legal requirements that hinder the teractions with human behaviour, the environment, and so on [42].
development of open-source databases and models [26]. Hirth (2020) However, the breadth of such inter-system and inter-generational rep­
elaborates on the legal aspect, explaining how researchers often infringe resentations comes with an inherent trade-off. These models do not
upon the intellectual rights of data holders, due to the unclear legal contain: (a) sufficient detail to capture the nuances within specific sys­
status of many energy systems databases [40]. The resulting data gaps tems (e.g., how power flows through the transmission system); (b) suf­
leave modellers with inadequate resources to perform in-depth and ficient spatial granularity to capture location-specific parameters (e.g.,
timely analyses of Canada’s low-carbon energy transition, which in turn geospatial wind and solar resource availability); or (c) sufficient tem­
frustrates the efforts of policy-makers while depriving the public of poral granularity to capture various operational aspects (e.g., the gen­
complete information [29]. Instead, individual institutions within Can­ eration fleet’s ramping capacity).
ada often develop their own datasets and tools, leading to overlapping At the other edge of the model landscape, sector-specific models
and wasted effort as well as significant delays to policy and project represent greater system detail, providing temporal and spatial granu­
implementation timelines. Furthermore, the lack of data and model larity but, by definition, omitting the dynamics or interactions between
openness often leads to unnecessary debate, wrongful conclusions, er­ the modelled system or sector and its broader context. Their narrow
rors repetition and errors propagation (e.g., as observed in the case of scope enables a robust and thorough representation of an individual
land availability for renewable sources in Europe [41]. system with the necessary details to inform investment and operational
The dataset, Canadian Open-source Database for Energy Research decisions within the context of that given system. Sector-specific design
and Systems-Modelling (CODERS), consolidates the existing national models, on one hand, can address problems such as identifying optimal
and provincial databases made public by utilities, system operators, types and locations of generation assets, and the modes and configura­
independent power producers, regulators, government agencies and tion of transportation infrastructure, including GHG emissions and cost
energy associations. Data contained in CODERS relates to generation advantages and disadvantages across competing options. Sector-specific
facilities, transmission networks, substations and other system assets, as operational models, on the other hand, represent how systems could be
well as to system operations, demand, forecasts, imports, exports and utilized to meet demand, based on their physical system limitations (e.
costs. As the database evolves in response to a broader set of modelling g., maximum power flow through a given transmission line) or should be
and policy requirements, it is anticipated that the scope of data con­ utilized (e.g., the least cost way to supply electricity demand with the
tained in CODERS will also evolve and expand. Table 1 provides a high- available grid assets). Such models offer the granularity, practicality,
level summary of the current status of data collection for CODERS. and specificity needed by planners and operators of such systems.
The database is built with a standardized and common structure Technology-specific models go even further. A storage degradation
across all 10 Canadian provinces and is designed to interface with a model, for example, can represent electro-chemical processes, and is
range of energy systems models. More specifically, CODERS contains the suited to the exploration of technical design questions. However, this
data required to populate energy systems models that span sectors granularity and detail comes at the expense of providing only narrow
(power, transport, buildings), scales (municipal, provincial, federal) and perspectives specific to each individual system. The existence of other
vectors (electricity, heat, water) (see section 2.3). CODERS is structured systems is ignored entirely or represented in such a highly simplified
to be flexible, so that data can be added as they become available, way that interactions, especially under changing circumstances, are
removed when no longer relevant, or modified as circumstances change. impossible to capture accurately.
By assembling such a database, we seek to support the development of
accessible models and the production of useful analyses that depend on 2.3.1. Model review – the canadian landscape
high quality, accessible and transparent data inputs. CODERS has been To provide context for the specific models included in our modelling
linked to a suite of energy systems models to support a broad suite of suite, we briefly describe the model categories and review the modelling
modelling activities developed (discussed in the next section). landscape in Canada using a recent survey conducted as part of the
nation-wide Energy Modelling Initiative (EMI) [43]. Over 100 re­
spondents detailed their model development and activities ranging from
transportation to buildings, oil and gas to electricity, and river systems

4
This section is a summary of a more extensive review paper which is
currently under review.

6
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Table 1
Data availability status in CODERS.

to climate change. assets as well as a spatial and temporal resolution well-suited for rep­
Capacity expansion models were the most prevalent model cate­ resenting VRE technologies and (theoretical) hydro resources. However,
gory in the EMI survey, when defined broadly to include (engineering) CREST’s static time horizon (representing a given future year) omits
optimization formulations as well as (economic) equilibrium formula­ development pathways, while its exclusion of demand response,
tions. Engineering capacity expansion models, like energy-economy mixed-integer dispatch, and reserve requirements limit its ability to
models, are useful for exploring the implications of policies (such as delve into power system dynamics and electrification. COPPER has a
carbon taxes) but focus on infrastructure requirements rather than limited technology suite and does not represent Canada’s provincially
human preferences and behaviour. Such capacity expansion models distinct carbon policies. OSeMOSYS is a hybrid capacity expansion and
treat electricity demand as a fixed constraint and focus on determining dispatch model: it can be used in a traditional capacity expansion or in
the least-cost capacity and infrastructure mix. Energy-economy models operational mode (i.e., hourly optimal dispatch with specified technol­
investigate future energy systems, including technology mix, consid­ ogy mixes) including nodal/spatial representations for transmission and
ering factors such as costs, accessibility, and convenience; such tools are trade. For example, it has been run as an hourly optimization for a
appropriate for evaluating the impacts of policies considering consumer one-year study period to examine VRE, storage, ramping requirements,
behaviour, typically under conditions of market equilibrium. While both and associated regulations [59]. CanESS, CIMS, and Energy 2020
have relevance for policy makers, the differences in their formulations represent the full energy system (beyond the electricity sector), enabling
and assumptions are driven by the nature of the explorations they are analyses of sectoral interdependence, but omit detail regarding electri­
designed to perform; neither can answer all research questions pertinent fication processes. Lengthier reviews of energy-economy models and of
to decarbonization. Capacity expansion models have been applied energy systems models can be found in Refs. [60,61], respectively.
across a range of geographic scales. The ReEDS [44] and Energy 2020 On the supply side, production cost models of the bulk power
[45] models have been applied to case studies of the combined Canadian system (i.e. excluding microgrids) include SILVER (Strategic Integration
and US grids. CREST [46], the Integrated Electricity System Dispatch of Large-scale Variable Energy Resources) [62] which has been applied
(IESD) model [47], gTech [48], CanESS [49], CIMS [50,51], throughout Canada [63], HERMES (Hydro-electric Resource Manage­
TIMES-Canada [52], and COPPER [53,54] have been applied at the ment Evaluation System) which has been applied in Ontario [64], and
pan-Canadian scale. At the sub-national scale, the SWITCH model [55] PLEXOS which has been applied in BC [65] and Alberta [66]. The SIL­
has been applied to the Western Electricity Coordinating Council VER and PLEXOS formulations are similar, including unit commitment
(WECC) region; OSeMOSYS [56] has been applied to select provinces, and optimal power flow formulations which allow representations of
including Alberta [57]; and the North American TIMES Energy Model demand response and VRE resources. HERMES focuses on river systems
(NATEM)-Canada model has been applied to the Province of Quebec and detailed hydro generation modelling but excludes demand response
[58]. Such models have employed various methodologies, ranging from and non-hydro energy storage. In addition to these models, all electric
linear programming (CREST, ReEDS, IESD, OSeMOSYS, utility companies have proprietary generation, transmission, and dis­
NATEM-Canada) to mixed integer linear programming (SWITCH, COP­ tribution system models, employing various optimization and simula­
PER), simulation (CanESS, Energy 2020), and computable general tion approaches, used in electricity system operation, planning, and
equilibrium (CIMS, gTech), as well as various temporal resolutions scheduling.
(hourly, select time slices, monthly or annual averages) and modelling Demand-side models tend to focus on smaller scales (neighbour­
environments (GAMS or Python). These models also differ in their rep­ hoods, cities, or provinces) than their supply-side counterparts. While
resentations of transmission, storage, power flow, reserve requirements, transportation is often included as a demand sector in integrated models,
and demand response, typically determined by the research applications the EMI survey identified four transportation-specific models whose
the model is designed to represent. ReEDS is robust from a standpoint of methodologies range from agent-based approaches based on survey data
technology differentiation, incorporating each major technology cate­ to regression models utilizing traffic count data. Transport Quebec
gory in extensive technical and operational detail. However, it lacks a developed the MADIGAS model to simulate agent-based urban passen­
robust representation of hydroelectric resources that are of particular ger transport and estimate traffic volumes for distinct transport modes
importance in the Canadian context. Like ReEDs, CREST and COPPER within a given region [67,68]. The TASHA model also uses agent-based
include representations of transmission and pumped hydro storage simulation, but focuses on transportation activities at the household

7
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

level [69]. The Transportation Emissions Prediction Scheme (TEPS) scales, as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 illustrates the models that have been
model [70] estimates traffic count data for various regions based on incorporated into the modelling suite to date using bubbles spanning
regression and interpolation of historical traffic count data. Finally the their sectoral representation (water, power, transport, fuels; shown on
ILUTE model [71] focuses on land use changes over a longer period (20 the y-axis) and their spatial-temporal representation (building, city,
years) based on exogenous demographic data. provincial, regional, national, or global; shown on the x-axis). Several of
Like transportation, energy demand in buildings is often included in the models (EnergyPlus, City-scale, TASHA, and MESSAGEix) incorpo­
integrated models, but can also be modelled as a stand-alone sector, rate representations of multiple infrastructure systems (spanning mul­
usually to represent or predict energy usage at either the individual tiple infrastructure systems shown on the y-axis) while others (SILVER
building or community scales. The CHREM model represents physical and COPPER) focus on a single sector. Similarly, several of the models
system characteristics and occupant-specific energy use in households (TASHA, SILVER, COPPER, and MESSAGEix) have flexible spatial-
using a building archetype approach, including the impact of new temporal representations: TASHA can represent an individual city or
technologies (e.g. retrofits, renewable generation) on energy use [72, collection of cities; SILVER can represent an individual city, province, or
73], and has been applied at the national scale. The SCEC3 model uses collection of provinces; COPPER can represent multi-provincial regions
GIS to aggregate houses into groups (i.e. building archetypes, including or Canada as a whole; MESSAGEix can represent a nation or the globe.
commercial buildings) based on their neighborhood to model the out­ The models illustrated by blue bubbles (SILVER and COPPER) have been
comes of various policies in the town of Prince George, BC [74]. The developed by the co-authors, while those shown by green bubbles have
BESOS model is a cloud-based front-end software that uses a machine been developed by other teams and integrated into the platform. The
learning approach, surrogate modelling, to reduce the computational City-scale tool shown in pink compiles information from distinct models
burden associated with running the EnergyPlus building simulation (building, transport, power) but is not a stand-alone model. Finally,
software, designed to simulate the impacts of new technologies at the arrows represent linkages established between the models allowing in­
scale of individual buildings [75–78]. As in other areas of modelling, formation (model inputs or outputs) to be exchanged.
developing techniques to reduce computational burden and thereby To address this gap, we are integrating energy systems models by
facilitate the scale and timeliness of analysis is a common theme. developing a series of linkage tools with the long-term vision of devel­
This review is intended to provide an illustrative perspective of the oping a comprehensive modelling platform shown in Fig. 3. Such linkage
strengths and gaps in the Canadian energy modelling landscape and is by tools transfer data (model inputs and outputs) between models. For
no means comprehensive. For example, diverse modelling efforts example, Seatle et al. (2021) linked the building, transportation, and
focused on energy management for isolated microgrids in remote com­ electricity dispatch model to explore 100% renewable energy scenarios
munities, rate assessment, power flow, oil and gas supply, and climate in the City of Regina [80]. Alternatively, Miri et al. (2022) linked the
have not been addressed here. SILVER electricity dispatch model with the COPPER capacity expansion
model to evaluate the flexibility of power systems across Canada [81].
2.3.2. Modelling priorities and platform development With their power system focus, SILVER and COPPER often find them­
Upon analysis, we find that the lack of model integration is a major selves at the centre of decarbonization analyses, particularly as electri­
obstacle in the Canadian context. More specifically, we lack an inte­ fication dominates the current policy discourse. As such, COPPER and
grated modelling platform which is designed to provide multi-scale, SILVER were selected as the first two components of the larger platform
multi-sector, and multi-vector insights. This gap has several important (shown in Fig. 3).
consequences: sector specificity is required to enable electrification The COPPER framework [53] builds upon the CREST model devel­
research, linkage to the gas system is needed to explore the potential of oped by Dolter and Rivers [46] with several important modifications.
renewable natural gas and hydrogen, and linkage to global models is Like CREST, COPPER is an optimization-based capacity expansion
needed to enable exploration into questions regarding the water-energy- model that co-optimizes investment in thermal generation, VRE gener­
land nexus. This observation motivates our work to develop of a ation, transmission and storage technologies to investigate long-term
modelling suite that spans infrastructure systems and spatial-temporal electricity system planning options. However, unlike CREST, COPPER

Fig. 3. The integrated modelling platform suite spanning infrastructure systems and spatial-temporal scales (adapted from Ref. [79]).

8
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

can be run as either a linear program or mixed-integer linear program; often tied to proprietary modelling software specific to the model for
the latter allowing for the representation of binary decisions, such as which it was created. Capacity expansion models such as Aurora [85],
whether to build a large hydro generation asset or not. Furthermore, Hitachi ABB System Optimizer [86], and production cost models such as
CREST is formulated as a static, single period model, while COPPER GE MAPS [87], PROMOD [88], and PLEXOS [89] have visualizations
covers multiple sequential periods. COPPER builds on CREST’s rich within graphical user interfaces integrated with their modelling func­
representation of generation and storage technologies, with expanded tions. However, the rigidity of these visualization platforms limits their
representation of hydro assets, and adds several technology categories customization and frustrates comparison between distinct models. Some
including small modular reactors, coal and gas with carbon capture and open-source electricity system models, such as PyPSA [90] and Switch
storage, and electrochemical storage. COPPER is based on a series of 2.0 [91], have custom implementations of open-source plotting func­
‘representative days’, rather than running a full year chronologically, for tions to visualize model outputs, but many exclude visualizations from
reasons of computational tractability. Furthermore, COPPER in­ their frameworks and leave it to the user to parse and plot data as
corporates up-to-date provincial and federal carbon policies as con­ required. Several open-source tools present commercial energy system
straints on capacity expansion. Finally, COPPER is scripted in the Python model outputs, such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s
language, allowing for greater interoperability with other modelling (NREL) Multi-Area Grid Metric Analyzer (MAGMA) [92] and KALEI­
platforms. Open-sourcing COPPER gives energy modellers an extensible DOSCOPE [93] visualizations of PLEXOS model outputs. These tools
framework that can be applied to evaluate the implications of decar­ benefit from transparent, open-source code and the ability to extend
bonization policy measures, hydro asset renewal and greenfield devel­ their capabilities using publicly available software libraries and
opment, technological improvements, and operational conditions on packages.
electricity system capacity planning in Canada. High-resolution models beyond electricity systems can influence
The SILVER framework is an electricity system production cost and decision making, but also tend to lack visualization capabilities to effi­
dispatch model with the requisite spatial and temporal granularity to ciently communicate to stakeholders. There is a need for a flexible,
represent the trade-offs among alternative balancing strategies for high general-purpose platform that can handle a range of energy model types,
VRE electricity grids [62]. SILVER has been applied to study the oper­ from high-resolution sector-specific models to national scale models and
ational implications of high VRE penetrations for a series of international IAMs. To the authors’ best knowledge, aside from those
provincial-level scenarios in Ontario [62] and at the city-level in Lusaka, developed for IAMs, there is a lack of generic platforms that can parse
Zambia [82]. SILVER has also been implemented to evaluate the utility diverse energy system model outputs and visualize the results.
of storage assets for different electricity system configurations and IDEA, the Integrated Dashboard for Energy transition Analysis, is a
market paradigms [83]; the potential for VRE integration across Cana­ platform in development to facilitate the consistent and comprehensive
da’s power systems [63]; and pathways to a zero-emissions electricity visualization and comparison of low-carbon transition pathways.
across Canada by 2035 [54]. Open-sourcing SILVER provides the energy Importantly, the platform interactively presents output from multiple
modelling community with an accessible production cost modelling and model types that span sectors (power, transport, buildings) and spatial-
economic dispatch framework with high spatial and temporal resolu­ temporal scales (provincial, national, international), and cuts across the
tion. This release provides energy modellers with an adaptable tool that boundaries of established research fields and various dimensions of
can be readily applied to simulate policy-relevant scenarios with varying transition pathways. By representing model outputs in a consistent,
levels of demand response, storage, transmission expansion, and EV open-source, transparent manner, the platform can facilitate and
integration. improve the energy transition dialogue between researchers, policy­
The open-source code repositories for both SILVER and COPPER will makers and industry. The suite of models discussed above, focusing on
include full programming frameworks with permissive, open-source the Canadian context, are one application for the IDEA platform.
licenses. Additionally, user-manuals, tutorials for model implementa­ Currently, IDEA produces visualizations for five different model
tion and execution, and multiple simulation test cases to validate model types: IAMs (MESSAGE), capacity expansion models (COPPER), pro­
outputs are provided. duction cost models (SILVER), transportation system models (TASHA),
and building system models (EnergyPlus). A unified platform allows
2.4. Pillar 3 – IDEA visualization suite5 decision-makers to analyze model outputs applying various user-defined
criteria using interactive plotting features, enabling comparisons across
The diversity and complexity of insights derived from individual sectors and studies. Fig. 4 illustrates the planned graphical user inter­
models, and to a greater extent multi-model platforms, can make the face, including: scenario selection; tabs detailing distinct aspects of en­
interpretation of results challenging. Visualization dashboards play an ergy systems; chart, table, and map visualization capabilities; time
important role in coherently presenting insights to facilitate the display functions; comparison details; model explorer and sensitivity
constructive dialogue necessary for navigating complex policy issues. modes; and comparison validity warnings. The final IDEA platform will
Within the broader energy modelling landscape, IAMs have enjoyed be structured around four main query types: stand-alone (one scenario
particular success in terms of their impact on policy [84]. The reason for for the variable of interest), comparison (multiple scenarios for the
this stems in part from the effectiveness of their multi-model visualiza­ variable of interest), model exploration, and multi-variate sensitivity
tion platforms, which fosters robustness, transparency, and trust [84]. analysis.
Representing IAM scenario outputs within a single visualization plat­ The visual interface is designed to increase the visibility and intel­
form allows the IAM community to compare the outputs of multiple ligibility of aspects of energy transitions scenarios that are frequently
models, fostering robust discussions about the differences between omitted or obscured, and therefore often misapprehended by stake­
model formulations and their respective scenarios. A notable visualiza­ holders. IDEA has been designed to be forward compatible with
tion platform in this vein is the Scenario Explorer hosted by the Inter­ emerging modelling best-practices (including probabilistic ensemble
national Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) [85]. modelling, comprehensive sensitivity auditing, and transparency
Within the electricity system modelling community, visualization regarding qualitative problem framings) and data management princi­
platforms have not had the same impact, in large part because they are ples (accessibility, transparency, usability) at the forefront, to facilitate:

• The integration of insights from different model types;

5
Portions of this section has been reproduced (with permission) from a report • The comprehensive exploration of energy transition scenarios,
previously published with the Energy Modelling Initiative; it can be down­ including qualitative and research design aspects;
loaded here: https://emi-ime.ca/projects/modelling-projects-2/.

9
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Fig. 4. Planned graphical user interface for the IDEA platform.

• Explicit comparison of energy system model formulations, bound­ modelling expertise in decision making processes is a substantial missed
aries, and corresponding limitations; and opportunity. Other efforts to convene researchers and decision makers
• Mapping the solution space for energy system decarbonization with in decarbonization pathway design are being undertaken around the
the requisite contextual framing. world. For example, Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy
collaborated with researchers from several universities in Costa Rica and
continues to be developed via new releases to improve its capabilities Europe to develop and assess a national decarbonization plan that is
and address limitations, including ongoing expansion of supported technically possible and delivers financial and socioeconomic benefits
models, enumeration of visualized results, improving documentation (Godínez-Zamora et al., 2020). Initiatives such as this provide a valuable
and tutorials, and launching the platform in the form of a readily framework for how collaborative modelling processes occur outside of a
accessible web application. formalized institutional structure. Energy modelling programs, such as
those in the UK and California, have played a critical role in achieving
3. Responding to ‘the who’ – the institutional landscape climate targets while maintaining economic prosperity [99].

Despite a focus on technology often overshadowing the conversation,

Canada’s energy system transition is also hindered by institutional 3.1. United Kingdom – a global benchmark of climate policy
barriers. Policy actions and investments have been burdened by
entrenched interests and a lack of attention on pathways that consider Over the last 15 years, the UK has become a world leader on climate
disrupting employment, moderating economic growth, or imposing change, systematically meeting and exceeding its goals while devel­
higher energy prices that disproportionately harm low-income house­ oping policies that are reference points for the rest of the world [100].
holds [94]. Modelling can help decision-makers navigate such political This success owes credit to the Energy Research Centre (), which is
and policy decisions by clarifying potential complex mandated with four “national capabilities”: (1) leveraging energy
socio-economic-technical interactions and identifying the likely impacts modelling capability to deliver evidence for decision making, (2)
of public investments. However, the lack of a coordinated body engaging a broad suite of stakeholders, (3) hosting energy data, and (4)
mandated to convene stakeholders, including policy-makers from mul­ supporting and maintaining energy models. The Committee on Climate
tiple jurisdictions, researchers from multiple disciplines, and citizens Change (CCC), in turn, develops evidence-based climate change policy
from across Canada, has stalled progress. In Canada, the slow and often based on modelling work procured from the UKERC, performed in-house
ineffective interface between modellers and decision-makers has and/or through collaboration with a wide range of modellers and
emerged as a particularly important but weak link, despite the stakeholders. In particular, the CCC’s highly effective Carbon Budgets
commitment to evidence-based decision making that was emphasized in policy marked a milestone in the use of energy and climate modelling in
the Prime Minister’s Mandate Letters for Infrastructure [95], Environ­ policy making [101,102]. The clear direction derived from the legal
ment [96], and Natural Resources (NRCan) [97]. Canada is unique obligation to adopt the Carbon Budget twelve years ahead of time was
among advanced economies in its lack of a permanent institutional instrumental in the policy’s success, as it provided the time required to
mandate to bridge the modelling-policy interface; in fact, the called for develop and implement policies, grow nascent markets, adapt consumer
sustained R&D funding to support capacity in national laboratories and behaviour, and support infrastructure and innovation investments.
other institutions in Canada [98]. Our failure to leverage Canada’s Furthermore, CCC and UKERC modelling work has led to electricity
market reform (implemented in 2013) [103], a ban on the sale of new

10
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

internal combustion engines by 2035 (currently in the public consulta­ identified four core tenets of an effective modelling-policy workflow
tion process) [104], and targeted heating systems decarbonization by that are currently lacking in the Canadian context: it must be sufficiently
2050 [105]. The UK’s evidence-based approach, resting on energy and agile to respond during the timeframe in which the relevant policy
climate modelling, has helped to achieve the UK’s world leader status. making window is open; it must be open, transparent, and inclusive to
foster trust and confidence; it must convene multiple disciplines (engi­
3.2. California – evidence-based approach to meeting climate and neering, economics, public policy), levels of government (municipal,
economic goals provincial, federal), and stakeholders (academic, public, private sector,
government, utilities, NGOs) throughout the scenario definition,
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California En­ modelling, and analysis process; and it must develop holistic insights
ergy Commission (CEC) have a history of successfully implementing that span systems, scales, and vectors [25]. The Energy Modelling Hub
evidence-based policy built on a multi-model approach [106]. The CARB aims to fill this gap.
develops and updates the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which identifies
and evaluates emission reduction measures and mechanisms for 3.4. The Scenario Bundling Process
“feasible and cost effective GHG reductions” [107] using the Energy
2020 bottom-up model and E-DRAM top-down model [108]. In parallel, For model-based studies to have an impact on decision- or policy-
the CEC is responsible for ensuring adequate and cost-effective energy making, the pre-analytic process associated with building or applying
supply. As part of this mandate, the CEC publishes the biannual Inte­ the models is just as important as the technical aspects of the modelling
grated Energy Policy Report (IEPR), which forecasts emission reductions platforms. Each of the four core tenets of an effective modelling-policy
pathways using the PATHWAYS model [109]; these forecasts are then workflow that were identified by the EMI – agile, transparent, plural­
used for planning by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) istic, holistic – have both technical and institutional implications. The
and the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The IEPR is proposed Scenario Bundling Process is an iterative workflow that aims to
an impactful example of the applications of energy modelling to policy. operationalize these core tenets. The process itself is still a nascent idea,
These coordinated efforts have played a key role in charting California’s especially when compared to the mature field of energy modelling, and
climate mitigation and economic growth path, while positioning Cali­ subject to constant iteration and improvement. The proposed Scenario
fornia as a climate policy leader both within the United States and Bundling Process centers on the co-development (by the appropriate suite
internationally [110]. of stakeholders) and execution (by the appropriate modelling teams) of
‘Scenario Bundles’ that explore a selected decarbonization project, pol­
3.3. Canada and the energy modelling hub icy, or target through the series of activities shown in Fig. 5.
The Process begins with a series of pre-forum ‘listening sessions’ in
Several studies have used models to explore decarbonization policy which stakeholders with topic-relevant expertise (including policy
options in Canada, and the interest for further studies is growing rapidly. makers and modellers) assemble in a forum-style workshop to: (a) define
The memorandum of understanding between the British Columbia and the policy issue, question and objectives; (b) develop the Scenario Bun­
Canadian governments on the electrification of the gas sector [111], the dles, including the input datasets and reference scenario data, ‘what-if’
Atlantic Canada Clean Energy Growth roadmap [112], the Regional pathways, topic scale, scope and methods; (c) prioritize the un­
Electricity Cooperation and Strategic Infrastructure Initiative (RECSI) certainties that are most relevant to the topic at hand (technological,
[113] and the RECSI internal evaluation [114] were each informed by societal, political) and define the scenario matrix accordingly; and, (c)
modelling efforts. However, until recently, Canada lacked an institu­ select the appropriate suite of models. The term ‘bundling’ articulates
tional mandate, such those in the UK or California, that bridges the the assembly of components within the modelling workflow, including
policy-modelling interface. This posed a major obstacle to implementing the input and reference scenario data, scenario matrix, visualization
evidence-based policy, transitioning our energy system, and ultimately suite and models themselves. These inputs would then populate the
decarbonizing our economy. The reason for this may derive from the fact IDEA Visualization Suite. After the research teams have performed their
that Canada’s natural abundance of hydroelectric resources (approxi­ integrated modelling work, a second forum is be convened to: (a) discuss
mately 60% of total electricity supply) means that we already have a the initial model results focusing on cross-model synergies, consistencies
largely decarbonized power system; many other countries have been (common themes and robust implications), and inconsistencies (where
developing institutional capacity (increasing levels of human resources, further debate is required); (b) determine if subsequent rounds of
strengthening organizations, enhancing interactions between organiza­ modelling is required to coalesce divergent results or redefine the Sce­
tions [115]) to more effectively pursue concerted decarbonization ac­ nario Bundle (reverse arrow in Fig. 5); and (c) brainstorm questions and
tivities. However, this gap has nevertheless proven to be problematic in scenarios for subsequent rounds. Subsequent consultations occur with
the Canadian context in which federalism necessitates coordinated ac­ additional stakeholders identified in the first forum, extending beyond
tions from levels of government with both complementary and over­ modellers and decision-makers to ensure that multiple perspectives are
lapping policy levers. The extant diversity in terms of provincial energy incorporated and that the process is inclusive and transparent. While
markets, from deregulated, competitive wholesale markets to regulated this process represents an initial organizational template, individual
Crown Corporations and hybrid structures, and access to primary re­ contexts and circumstances may demand modifications to this work­
sources, from fossil fuels to hydro resources, further strengthens the flow, such as limiting the list of stakeholders, engaging in virtual
need for an inclusive and strategic approach to policy making. meetings, or expediting the timeline (e.g., due to a short policy window).
Strengthening the modelling-policy interface, distinct from strength­ The Scenario Bundling Process is an evolving proposal that is subject
ening the field of energy model development, depends on capacity to learnings from ongoing research and testing. The process has been
building within a framework that convenes stakeholders in a structure applied in several case studies across a range of spatial scales including
suited to Canada’s decentralized energy systems. national, provincial, and municipal. The first case study, entitled Clean
In response to their Mandate Letter, emphasizing engagement with Power Pathways [116] explored pan-Canadian decarbonization path­
experts to operationalize energy efficiency, climate resilience, and ways, including zero-emissions electricity and aggressive electrification,
electrification, NRCan funded the Energy Modelling Initiative (EMI) (in in collaboration with a range of contributors and collaborators from
2019 and 2020) which was then renamed the Energy Modelling Hub academia, government, the private sector, led by the David Suzuki
(EMH) (funded from 2021 to 2025) to mobilize modellers, policy- Foundation [54]. The study linked the COPPER capacity expansion and
makers, utilities and other stakeholders from across Canada in energy SILVER production cost models to test the effectiveness and technical
transition discourse. The EMI stakeholder consultation process feasibility of Canada’s recently proposed decarbonization policies. The

11
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

Fig. 5. Proposed Scenario Bundling Process: formalizing the policy-modelling workflow.

second in-progress case study delves into the role of inter-provincial described by Ref. [122], modelling outcomes can be impeded by insuf­
transmission expansion, whereby hydro-dominated provinces balance ficient popular understandings of the pertinent system, which can result
wind and solar expansion in neighbouring fossil-dependent provinces, in “negotiated nonsense”. Therefore, an appropriate balance must be
through a cost-benefit analysis across Canada’s four western provinces. established between prioritizing demonstrated expertise and fostering
This study also links COPPER and SILVER, but focuses on transmission greater participation.
infrastructure, both in terms of the technical aspects of the modelling Both the development of energy system models and the interpreta­
and analysis as well as the group of stakeholders who are engaged in the tion of their results must embrace transparency and reflexivity. Effective
project. Finally, the third case study integrates power (represented by modelling must reject a common emphasis on prediction and instead
SILVER), transport (represented by TASHA), and building system (rep­ embrace greater attention towards understanding qualitative problem
resented by EnergyPlus) models applied to the City of Regina with a framings and exploring of areas of ignorance. In fact, establishing
100% renewable energy target [80]. Further information can be found appropriate problem framings is generally more important than, and
in Ref. [117]. All case studies have adopted the Scenario Bundling Process must occur prior to, consideration of technical or methodological details
to co-develop the scenario matrix and analysis framework in a distinct in modelling [123–125]. The Scenario Bundling Process is one example of
way; each entailed a distinct list of stakeholders, adopted a different an approach to establishing alternative problem framings via partici­
model implementation and approach, and engaged in a distinct series of patory modelling. As noted by van Der Sluijs et al. (2005), “the main
forums and processes. While the specifics of each case study differ, the problem characteristic is that unquantifiable uncertainties dominate the
Scenario Building Process has thus far proven to be a useful approach to quantifiable ones. Unquantifiable uncertainties include those associated
transparent, participatory modelling. with problem framings, model structures, assumptions, system bound­
aries, indeterminacies, and value ladenness” [123]. Special attention
4. Addressing epistemic limitations in energy systems modelling must be paid to the common pitfall of allowing the qualitative problem
framing to be conditioned by available models and established meth­
Beyond the accessibility issues of energy system modelling in Canada odological choices, as described by Ref. [126].
and the consistency, transparency, and timeliness of model results, Knowledge produced by any given model is necessarily contingent,
discussed in the preceding sections, attention must also be given to the imperfect, and only meaningful within a finite descriptive domain. As
epistemic foundations of quantitative modelling and how this should Saltelli et al. (2020) caution, “Mathematical models are a great way to
influence the development of new platforms designed to improve the explore questions. They are also a dangerous way to assert answers”
overall quality of the energy transition dialogue. Due to the highly [124, 126]. Funtowicz and Ravetz (1990) note that quantitative com­
complex and interdependent nature of today’s major socio-ecological puter models are particularly sensitive to the “garbage in, garbage out”,
challenges, including energy system transitions, research approaches or GIGO principle [120]. Quantification, through the language of
rooted in reductionism are no longer defensible, as argued by Refs. [118, mathematics, can give a false sense of concreteness which often serves to
119]. Instead, these challenges require holism, systems-based ap­ reinforce perceptual uniformity and rigidity. Floyd et al. (2020) argue
proaches, and a research orientation of epistemic humility. that energy system models built on principles of pluralism and epistemic
Ravetz (1990) and (2003) suggests that a shift away from expert humility are needed, and the proper interpretation of results requires
monopolies on knowledge, which often suffer from reductionism and transparency regarding the limitations of the chosen modelling
conceptual rigidity, and towards participatory approaches to modelling, approach [127].
including stakeholder policy design and extended peer communities, This research orientation suggests a greater focus on emerging
can play a vital role in building better models [121]. However, as modelling best practices, widely applied in climate modelling but still

12
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

under-developed in energy systems modelling, such as ensemble and power, transport and building sectors; and a cutting-edge visualization
probabilistic methods, and comprehensive sensitivity analysis. As platform to illustrate model results and identify avenues toward deep
described by van Der Sluijs et al. (2005) and Berner and Flage (2016), decarbonization. Integrating these three software components will allow
this shift requires the quantification of output sensitivity (i.e., the impact researchers to expand the modelling scope and descriptive domain of
of estimation error), input data pedigree (“strength of knowledge”, i.e., Canadian deep decarbonization pathways. In addition, the Spine envi­
the likelihood of estimation error), and finally, diagnostic analysis ronment abstracts the workflow process in a simple way, which im­
summarizing both impact and likelihood and thereby identifying key proves the ability of modellers to both explain their work and connect
research priorities for iterative model improvement [123, 128]. As a individual parameters of their models to the appropriate stakeholder
prerequisite to such methods, model input parameters subject to during policy development sessions. Further, the design environment
epistemic uncertainty must be specified via probability distributions lowers the barrier to entry to participation in the decarbonization dia­
where possible, rather than specified as deterministic point estimates. logue, allowing for a more diverse range of disciplines, perspectives, and
Repeated sampling and simulation can then be used to build up arbi­ stakeholders to interact during the modelling and policy formulation
trarily large ensembles of plausible model outcomes, with results pre­ processes. The visualization platform provides a versatile toolkit to
sented probabilistically. Achieving this shift is necessarily a gradual and communicate model results in a manner that is understandable, inter­
involved process, as the associated data gathering, analytical, and active, and pleasing to the eye, which both engages the audience and
computational requirements are substantial – legacy modelling formu­ makes model findings more accessible. In addition, the development
lations are often not immediately amenable to such a shift. However, process will unfold with an eye to the epistemic basis of energy systems
research efforts aimed at better understating the implications of modelling and emerging best practices, seeking to leverage the successes
epistemic limitations in energy systems research will tend to produce of quantitative modelling in other scientific fields while promoting
more robust outcomes over time, including improved and more nuanced pluralistic energy transition research. The modelling tools outlined in
understanding of energy transition solution space among decision this paper can be implemented for a diverse range of objectives such as
makers and other stakeholders. charting decarbonization transition pathways, investigating the spatial
and temporal implications of decarbonization policies, the planning and
5. Future work operation of low-carbon generation assets, or evaluating water-energy-
land nexus impacts, among others. Our ultimate goal is to assemble
The development of the Spine platform described in this paper, as the requisite modelling components to explore the vast solution space of
well its implementation, are ongoing processes. Our next platform integrated energy systems through a holistic lens.
development steps include: (1) integrating a growing suite of models
into the platform, (2) expanding dynamic linkages between models Credit author statement
within the platform, and (3) developing the capacity to perform
advanced visualizations and multi-model comparisons. Future devel­ Madeleine McPherson – intro, energy modelling landscape, discus­
opment work will be guided by the demands identified by stakeholder- sion, conclusions. Jacob Monroe - open source models & Spine archi­
driven studies alongside a long-term goal of strengthening the epistemic tecture. Andrew Rowe – paper review. Jakub Jurasz, Dustin Aldana,
foundations of energy systems modelling in Canada, including building Tristan Cusi – software development, writing original draft (CODERS
capacity to both perform probabilistic and ensemble modelling and Database section). Richard Hendriks – data collection; writing original
visualize the corresponding outputs where practicable, as discussed draft (CODERS Database section). Muhammad Awais, Mohammad Miri,
above. Incorporating an expanded suite of models – including novel Kanwarpreet Singh Toor, Joel Grieco – software development; writing
methodologies – into the platform will drive energy modellers to tackle a original draft (IDEA Visualization section). Reza Arjmand – software
diverse range of increasingly complex issues such as inter-sectoral policy development (COPPER model). Mohammadali Saffari – software
implications or water-energy-land nexus issues, among many others, development (SILVER model). Lauren Stanislaw, Robert Xu, Madeleine
from a growing set of research perspectives. A new set of linkages must Seatle – writing original draft (model review section). Moe Esfahlani –
be developed for each study depending on the nature of the research writing original draft (model review section). Timothy Crownshaw –
question, the sectoral coverage and spatial-temporal scope, and the contributing content on epistemic limitations and IDEA visualization
availability of data. As the complexity of energy issues grows, it becomes suite, and paper review
increasingly important to perform cross-study comparisons, including
both same-model comparisons and multi-model compilations. Contem­ Declaration of competing interest
poraneously, the growing repositories that store the models and their
results must continue to be maintained and made accessible to the en­ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
ergy modelling community. In addition to the model and platform de­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
velopments, the Scenario Bundling Process will undergo further research the work reported in this paper.
and development. Each engagement session offers new insights
regarding the participatory modelling process, convening modellers, Acknowledgements
and empowering policy makers. As new models are added onto the
platform, new research questions will inevitably be posed; as energy We would like to thank Normand Mousseau, Professor at the Uni­
systems become increasingly integrated, new linkages will be devel­ versity of Montreal and Scientific Director of the Trottier Energy Insti­
oped; as issues become increasingly interdisciplinary, a variety of tute and Louis Beaumier, Executive Director of the Trottier Energy
workflows and processes will emerge. Ultimately, this platform and Institute for supporting this work. We would also like to thank the En­
process aims to become the foundation for multitudinous avenues for ergy Modelling Initiative (invoice numbers: RA046775, RA046776) and
future improvements in energy systems modelling in Canada. Natural Resources Canada (agency award number: 6549) for funding
our software development efforts, as well as MITACS (application
6. Conclusions reference number: IT14846) and NSERC (award number: NFRFE-2018-
00338) for funding our research efforts.
This paper discusses the software and institutional infrastructure
requirements for reimagining energy systems decarbonization: core
energy modelling tools including an extensive database of Canadian
energy system information (CODERS); a suite of models that spans the

13
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

References [33] Canada Energy Regulator, International Power Lines Dashboard, 2021. https
://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/facilities-we-regulate/international-pow
er-lines-dashboard/index.html.
[1] The White House, United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization,
[34] Natural Resources Canada, Government of Canada Launches the Canadian Centre
2016.
for Energy Information Website, 2020.
[2] L. Clarke, A. Fawcett, J. Weyant, J. McFarland, V. Chaturvendi, Y. Zhou,
[35] Government of Canada, Canadian Center for Energy Information, 2021.
Technology and US emissions reductions goals: results of the EMF 24 modeling
https://energy-information.canada.ca/en.
exercise, Energy J. 35 (Special Issue) (2014).
[36] S. Préfontaine, Real-time Electricity Data (RTED), 2021.
[3] J. Williams, B. Haley, F. Kahrl, J. Moore, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in
[37] Canada Energy Regulator, Energy Commodities, 2021. https://www.cer-rec.gc.
the United States. Retrieved from USDDPP Reports, 2014.
ca/en/data-analysis/energy-commodities/.
[4] Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Deep Decarbonization. (T. O. Washington,
[38] Canada Energy Regulator, Canada’s Energy Future, 2021.
Producer), 2016.
[39] Alberta Electricity System Operator, Data Requests, 2021.
[5] European Commission, Modelling Tools for EU Analysis, 2021.
[40] L. Hirth, Open data for electricity modeling: legal aspects, Energy Strategy Rev.
[6] European Commission, EU 2030 Climate and Energy Framework, 2021.
27 (100433) (2020).
[7] Energy Modelling Platform For Europe, EMP-E 2020 Modelling Climate
[41] D.S. Ryberg, M. Robinius, D. Stolten, Evaluating land eligibility constraints of
Neutrality for the European Green Deal, 2020.
renewable energy sources in Europe, Energies 11 (5) (2018) 1246.
[8] A. Nikas, et al., Perspective of comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model
[42] A.S. Dagoumas, N.E. Koltsaklis, Review of models for integrating renewable
energy and climate science in Europe, Energy 215 (Jan. 2021) 119153, https://
energy in the generation expansion planning, Appl. Energy 242 (March) (2019)
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.119153.
1573–1587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.194.
[9] D. Huppmann, et al., The MESSAGE ix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix
[43] Energy Modelling Initiative, Energy Modelling Initiative Inventory, 2020.
modeling platform (ixmp): an open framework for integrated and cross-cutting
https://emi-ime.ca/inventory/. (Accessed 10 April 2020).
analysis of energy , climate , the environment , and sustainable development,
[44] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Regional Energy Deployment System
Environ. Model. Software 112 (March 2018) (2019) 143–156, https://doi.org/
Model, 2019. https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/reeds/. (Accessed 18 March 2019).
10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012.
[45] I. Systematic Solutions, Energy 2020 - Publications, 2019. https://www.energy20
[10] J. DeCarolis, et al., Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization
20.com/publications. (Accessed 19 October 2020).
modelling, Appl. Energy 194 (2017) 184–198, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[46] B. Dolter, N. Rivers, The cost of decarbonizing the Canadian electricity system,
apenergy.2017.03.001.
Energy Pol. 113 (February 2017) (2018) 135–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[11] R. Morrison, Energy System Modeling: Public Transparency, Scientific
enpol.2017.10.040.
Reproducibility, and Open Development vol. 20, Energy Strategy Rev., Apr. 2018,
[47] Navius Research, Integrated Electricity System Dispatch (IESD) Model, 2020.
pp. 49–63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.12.010.
https://www.naviusresearch.com/services/electricitymodeling/. (Accessed 19
[12] F. Wiese, et al., Open power system data – frictionless data for electricity system
October 2020).
modelling, Appl. Energy 236 (December) (2019) 401–409, https://doi.org/
[48] Navius Research, Introducing gTech, 2020. https://www.naviusresearch.com/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.097.
gtech/. (Accessed 19 October 2020).
[13] E. Z. and D. B. Neon Neue Energieökonomik, Technical University of Berlin,
[49] whatIF? Technologies, Canadian Energy Systems Simulator (CanESS), 2016.
“Open Power System Data - A Free and Open Data Platform for Power System
http://www.whatiftechnologies.com/caness. (Accessed 19 October 2020).
Modelling, 2021. https://open-power-system-data.org/. (Accessed 27 June
[50] M. Jaccard, International Handbook on the Economics of Energy: combining top
2021).
down and bottom up in energy economy models, Int. Handb. Econ. Energy (2009)
[14] V. Aryanpur, B. O’Gallachoir, H. Dai, W. Chen, J. Glynn, A review of spatial
311–331.
resolution and regionalisation in national-scale energy systems optimisation
[51] R. Murphy, M. Jaccard, Energy efficiency and the cost of GHG abatement: a
models, Energy Strategy Rev. 37 (Sep. 2021) 100702, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
comparison of bottom-up and hybrid models for the US, Energy Pol. 39 (11)
esr.2021.100702.
(2011) 7146–7155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.033.
[15] C. Marcy, T. Goforth, D. Nock, M. Brown, Comparison of temporal resolution
[52] K. Vaillancourt, et al., A Canadian 2050 energy outlook: analysis with the multi-
selection approaches in energy systems models, Energy 251 (Jul. 2022) 123969,
regional model TIMES-Canada, Appl. Energy 132 (Nov. 2014) 56–65, https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123969.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.072.
[16] S. Pfenninger, A. Hawkes, J. Keirstead, Energy systems modeling for twenty-first
[53] R. Arjmand, M. McPherson, Canada’s electricity system transition under
century energy challenges, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33 (May 2014) 74–86,
alternative policy scenarios, Energy Pol. 163 (Apr. 2022) 112844, https://doi.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.02.003.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112844.
[17] J.F. DeCarolis, et al., Leveraging open-source tools for collaborative macro-energy
[54] Stephen Thomas, Shifting Power: Zero-Emissions Electricity across Canada by
system modeling efforts, Joule 4 (12) (2020) 2523–2526, https://doi.org/
2035, David Suzuki Foundation, May 2022, 978-1-988424-85–9.
10.1016/j.joule.2020.11.002.
[55] Renewable & Appropriate EnergyLaboratory, SWITCH-WECC- Desining Low-
[18] S. Pye, et al., Modelling net-zero emissions energy systems requires a change in
Cost, Low-Carbon Power Sstems Using the SWITCH Optimization Model, 2020.
approach, Clim. Pol. 21 (2) (Feb. 2021) 222–231, https://doi.org/10.1080/
http://rael.berkeley.edu/old_drupal/switch/. (Accessed 19 October 2020).
14693062.2020.1824891.
[56] M. Howells, et al., OSeMOSYS: the open source energy modeling system: an
[19] M. O’Malley, B. Kroposki, Unlocking Flexibility: Energy Systems Integration,
introduction to its ethos, structure and development, Energy Pol. 39 (10) (Oct.
February, 2017.
2011) 5850–5870, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.033.
[20] R. Hamming, Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers, McGraw-Hill, New
[57] K. Palmer-Wilson, et al., Impact of land requirements on electricity system
York, 1962.
decarbonisation pathways, Energy Pol. 129 (February) (2019) 193–205, https://
[21] T. Morita, J.R. Robinson, J. Alcamo, N. Nakicenovic, K. Riahi, Greenhouse Gas
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.071.
Emission Mitigation Scenarios and Implications, 2001, ISBN 0-521-01502-2.
[58] K. Vaillancourt, O. Bahn, A. Levasseur, The role of bioenergy in low-carbon
Cambridge.
energy transition scenarios: a case study for Quebec (Canada), Renew. Sustain.
[22] S. Sakamoto, et al., Demand-side decarbonization and electrification: EMF 35
Energy Rev. 102 (December 2017) (2019) 24–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
JMIP study, Sustain. Sci. 16 (2) (2021) 395–410, https://doi.org/10.1007/
rser.2018.11.025.
s11625-021-00935-w.
[59] J. English, et al., Flexibility requirements and electricity system planning:
[23] G. Luderer, et al., Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5-2 ◦ c pathways, Nat. Clim.
assessing inter-regional coordination with large penetrations of variable
Change 8 (7) (2018) 626–633, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0198-6.
renewable supplies, Renew. Energy 145 (2020) 2770–2782, https://doi.org/
[24] Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project, Pathways to Deep Decarbonization 2015
10.1016/j.renene.2019.07.097.
Report, SDSN - IDDRI, 2015.
[60] E. Rhodes, K. Craig, A. Hoyle, M. McPherson, Survey of energy-economy model
[25] L. Beaumier, M. Esfahlani, M.-M. Roy, N. Mousseau, M. McPherson, Energy
developers and users in Canada, Mendeley Data V1 (2021) 1–39.
Modelling Centre – Long-Term Plan Proposal, a Report by the Energy Modelling
[61] L. Stanislaw, et al., Modeling the transition to an electric economy in Canada: a
Initiative, 2020.
cross-sectoral review of building, transportation, and electricity system models,
[26] S. Pfenninger, J. DeCarolis, L. Hirth, S. Quoilin, I. Staffell, The importance of open
Prog (2021).
data and software: is energy research lagging behind? Energy Pol. 101 (2017)
[62] M. McPherson, B. Karney, A scenario based approach to designing electricity
211–215.
grids with high variable renewable energy penetrations in Ontario, Canada:
[27] Spine Project, Spine Toolbox, 2020. https://github.com/Spine-project/Spine-Too
development and application of the SILVER model, Energy 138 (1) (2017)
lbox.
185–196.
[28] R.M. Hendriks, et al., CODERS : Introducing an Open Access Dataset for
[63] M. Saffari, M. McPherson, Assessment of Canada’s electricity system potential for
Decarbonizing Canada ’ S Energy System, 2021.
variable renewable energy integration, Energy 250 (123757) (2022) 12.
[29] A. Leach, N. Rivers, B. Shaffer, Canadian Electricity Markets during the COVID-19
[64] J. Snell, HERMES, Energy Modelling Initiative (EMI), 2020. https://emi-ime.ca/i
Pandemic: an Initial Assessment, Can. Public Policy, 2020, pp. S145–S159,
nventory-model/hermes/. (Accessed 23 March 2021).
https://doi.org/10.3138/CPP.2020-060.
[65] I. Moazzen, B. Robertson, P. Wild, A. Rowe, B. Buckham, Impacts of large-scale
[30] U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/.
wave integration into a transmission-constrained grid, Renew. Energy 88
(Accessed 17 February 2021).
(Complete) (2016) 408–417, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.11.049.
[31] ENTSOE, Transparency Platform, 2021.
[66] V. Keller, et al., Coal-to-biomass retrofit in Alberta - value of forest residue
[32] Statistics Canada, Electricity and Renewable Energy, 2021. https://www150.sta
bioenergy in the electricity system, Renew. Energy 125 (2018) 373–383, https://
tcan.gc.ca/n1/en/subjects/energy/electricity_and_renewable_energy.
doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.02.128.

14
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

[67] Transports Québec, Modèles d’affectation en transport en commun, 2018. https [92] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Releases - NREL/MAGMMA, 2021.
://www.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/ministere/Planification-transports/modeles https://github.com/NREL/MAGMA/releases. (Accessed 6 March 2021).
-transport/modeles-affectation-transport-commun/Pages/modeles-affectation [93] National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Kaleidoscope, 2021. https://github.com/
-transport-commun.aspx. (Accessed 19 October 2020). NREL/kaleidoscope. (Accessed 6 March 2021).
[68] Transports Québec, Concepts généraux des modèles de transport urbain des [94] M. Jaccard, The Citizen’s Guide to Climate Success, Cambridge University Press,
personnes, 2017. Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108783453.
[69] E.J. Miller, M.J. Roorda, Prototype model of household activity-travel scheduling, [95] Government of Canada, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Mandate
in: Transportation Research Record, vol. 1831, 2003, pp. 114–121, https://doi. Letter, 2020. https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-infrastructure-a
org/10.3141/1831-13. nd-communities-mandate-letter. (Accessed 3 February 2020).
[70] A. Ganji, M. Shekarrizfard, A. Harpalani, J. Coleman, M. Hatzopoulou, [96] Government of Canada, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Mandate
Methodology for spatio-temporal predictions of traffic counts across an urban Letter, 2020. https://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-environment-and-
road network and generation of an on-road greenhouse gas emission inventory, climate-change-mandate-letter. (Accessed 3 February 2020).
Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. (Nov. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1111/ [97] Government of Canada, Minister of Natural Resources Mandate Letter, 2020. htt
mice.12508 p. mice.12508. ps://pm.gc.ca/en/mandate-letters/minister-natural-resources-mandate-letter.
[71] E.J. Miller, B. Farooq, F. Chingcuanco, D. Wang, Historical validation of (Accessed 3 February 2020).
integrated transport–land use model system, Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. [98] IEA, Energy Policies of IEA Countries - Canada 2015 Review, 2015.
Board 2255 (1) (Jan. 2011) 91–99, https://doi.org/10.3141/2255-10. [99] L. Beaumier, N. Mousseau, S.-P. Breton, M. Purdon, For a Sustained Canadian
[72] L.G. Swan, V.I. Ugursal, I. Beasuoleil-Morrison, A new hybrid end-use energy and Energy Systems Modelling Initiative, 2017.
emissions model of the Canadian housing stock, in: Third SBRN and SESCI 33rd [100] Climate Action Tracker, United Kingdom Current Policy Projections, 2020. http
Joint Conference, 2008, p. 8. s://climateactiontracker.org/countries/uk/current-policy-projections/.
[73] L. Swan, V.I. Ugursal, I. Beasuoleil-Morrison, Implementation of a canadian (Accessed 14 April 2020).
residential energy end-use model for assessing new technology impacts, in: IBPSA [101] Committee Climate Change, The Fourth Carbon Budget – Reducing Emissions
2009 - International Building Performance Simulation Association 2009, 2009, through the 2020s, 2010. London, UK.
pp. 1429–1436. [102] Committee on Climate Change, The Fifth Carbon Budget - the Next Step towards a
[74] J. Webster, et al., Evaluating Residential Energy, Emissions and Cost Scenarios for Low-Carbon Economy, 2015.
Prince George’s Official Community Plan: ICEM Approach, Methods and SCEC 3 [103] UK Government, Energy Act 2013 Chapter 32, 2013. United Kingdom.
Model Results, March, 2012. [104] UK Government, Open Consultation: Consulting on Ending the Sale of New Petrol,
[75] G. Faure, T. Christiaanse, R. Evins, G.M. Baasch, BESOS: a collaborative building Diesel and Hybrid Cars and Vans, 2020.
and energy simulation platform, in: BuildSys 2019 - Proceedings of the 6th ACM [105] UK Government, Clean Growth - Transforming the Heating: Overview of Current
International Conference on Systems for Energy-Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Evidence, 2018.
Transportation, Nov. 2019, pp. 350–351, https://doi.org/10.1145/ [106] California Energy Commission, 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report,
3360322.3360995. Sacramento, 2015.
[76] P. Westermann, C. Deb, A. Schlueter, R. Evins, Unsupervised learning of energy [107] California Legislative Assembly, Bill 32, 2006. Chapter 488, Section 1, Division
signatures to identify the heating system and building type using smart meter 25.5. CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT of 2006, 2006.
data, Appl. Energy 264 (Apr. 2020) 114715, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [108] California Air Resources Board, Economic Models, Sacramento, 2010.
apenergy.2020.114715. [109] E3, Tools: PATHWAYS Model, 2017. San Francisco.
[77] G.M. Baasch, A. Wicikowski, G. Faure, R. Evins, Comparing gray box methods to [110] Energy Futures Initiative, Optionality, Flexibility & Innovation: Pathways for
derive building properties from smart thermostat data, in: BuildSys 2019 - Deep Decarbonization in California, 2019. Washington D.C.
Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Systems for Energy- [111] Government of Canada, Memorandum of Understanding between the
Efficient Buildings, Cities, and Transportation, Nov. 2019, pp. 223–232, https:// Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia on the
doi.org/10.1145/3360322.3360836. Electrification of the Natural Gas Sector, 2020. https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgr
[78] B. Morvaj, R. Evins, J. Carmeliet, Decarbonizing the electricity grid: the impact on ounders/2019/08/29/memorandum-understanding-between-government-cana
urban energy systems, distribution grids and district heating potential, Appl. da-and-government.
Energy 191 (Apr. 2017) 125–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [112] Government of Canada, Atlantic Canada Growth Strategy - Clean Energy, 2019.
apenergy.2017.01.058. [113] Natural Resources Canada, Clean Energy and Electricity Infrastructure, 2021.
[79] M. McPherson, T. Akhtar, Introducing a flexible platform for modelling energy [114] Government of Canada, Evaluation of the Regional Electricity Cooperation and
systems integration, in: Presented at the 18th International Workshop on Large- Strategic Infrastructure (RECSI) Initiative, 2019. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/n
Scale Integration of Wind Power into Power Systems as Well as on Transmission rcan/plans-performance-reports/strategic-evaluation-division/reports-plans-yea
Networks for Offshore Wind Power Plants, Dublin, Ireland, 2019 [Online]. r/evaluation-reports-2019/evaluation-regional-electricity-cooperation-and-stra
Available: https://windintegrationworkshop.org/dublin2019/. tegic-infrastructure-recsi-initiative/22363. (Accessed 8 January 2021).
[80] M. Seatle, L. Stanislaw, R. Xu, M. McPherson, Integrated transportation, building, [115] S. Willems, K. Baumert, Institutional Capacity and Climate Actions, 2003.
and electricity system models to explore decarbonization pathways in Regina, [116] David Suzuki Foundation, Clean Power Pathways, 2022. https://davidsuzuki.
saskatchewan, Front. Sustain. Cities 3 (Nov. 2021) 674848, https://doi.org/ org/project/clean-electricity/. (Accessed 12 August 2022).
10.3389/frsc.2021.674848. [117] Madeleine McPherson, Stakeholder engaged energy systems modelling: three
[81] M. Miri, M. Saffari, A. Reza, M. Madeleine, Integrated Models in Action: Canadian case studies, in: Presented at the 21st Wind & Solar Integration
Analyzing Flexibility in the Canadian Power System toward a Zero-Emission Workshop, the Hauge, Netherlands, Oct. 2022 [Online]. Available: https://
Future, Energy, 2022. windintegrationworkshop.org/.
[82] M. McPherson, M. Ismail, D. Hoornweg, M. Metcalfe, Planning for variable [118] I. Prigogine, I. Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature,
renewable energy and electric vehicle integration under varying degrees of Bantam Books, Toronto, Canada, 1984.
decentralization: a case study in Lusaka, Zambia, Energy 151 (2018) 332–346, [119] F. Capra, P.L. Luisi, The Systems View of Life: a Unifying Vision, Cambridge
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.073. University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014.
[83] M. McPherson, S. Tahseen, Deploying storage assets to facilitate variable [120] S. Funtowicz, J. Ravetz, Post-normal science: a new science for new times, Sci.
renewable energy integration: the impacts of grid flexibility, renewable Eur. 266 (10) (1990) 20–22.
penetration, and market structure, Energy 145 (2018) 856–870, https://doi.org/ [121] J.R. Ravetz, Models as metaphors, in: B. Kasemir, J. Jäger, C.C. Jaeger, M.
10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.002. T. Gardner (Eds.), Public Participation in Sustainability Science: A Handbook,
[84] M. Awais, M. Miri, J. Monroe, K.S. Toor, J. Grieco, M. McPherson, An Open- Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. xxix, https://doi.org/10.1017/
Access Integrated Platform for Visualizing Canadian ’ S Transition to a Low- CBO9780511490972.
Carbon Energy System, 2021. [122] Matthias Ruth, Innovation, technology, and economic growth, in: Handbook on
[85] D. Huppmann, J. Rogelj, E. Kriegler, V. Krey, K. Riahi, A new scenario resource Growth and Sustainability, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UNITED KINGDOM,
for integrated 1.5 ◦ C research, Nat. Clim. Change 8 (12) (2018) 1027–1030, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017, pp. 213–231, https://doi.org/10.4337/
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0317-4. 9781783473564.00018.
[86] Hitachi, Capacity Expansion, 2021. https://www.hitachiabb-powergrids.com/o [123] Jeroen P. van der Sluijs, Matthieu Craye, Silvio Funtowicz, Penny Kloprogge,
ffering/product-and-system/energy-portfolio-management/market-analysis Jerry Ravetz, James Risbey, Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of
/capacity-expansion. (Accessed 6 March 2021). uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: the NUSAP system, Risk
[87] GE Energy Consulting, GE MAPS, 2021. https://www.geenergyconsulting.co Anallysis 25 (2) (2005) 481–484.
m/practice-area/software-products/maps. (Accessed 6 March 2021). [124] A. Saltelli, et al., Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto,
[88] Hitachi, PROMOD, 2021. https://www.hitachiabb-powergrids.com/offering/pr Nature 582 (7813) (2020) 482–484, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-
oduct-and-system/energy-portfolio-management/market-analysis/promod. 01812-9.
(Accessed 6 March 2021). [125] M. Giampietro, K. Mayumi, A. Şorman, Energy Analysis for a Sustainable Future:
[89] Energy Exemplar, PLEXOS Market Simulation Software, 2021. https://energyexe Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism, Routledge,
mplar.com/solutions/plexos/. (Accessed 6 March 2021). London, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203107997.
[90] T. Brown, J. Hörsch, D. Schlachtberger, PyPSA: Python for power system
Analysis, Open Res. Softw. 6 (1) (2018), https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.188.
[91] J. Johnston, R. Henriquez-Auba, B. Maluenda, M. Fripp, Switch 2.0: a modern
platform for planning high-renewable power systems, Software 10 (2019),
100251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2019.100251.

15
M. McPherson et al. Energy Strategy Reviews 44 (2022) 100961

[126] A. Saltelli, et al., The technique is never neutral. How methodological choices [128] C.L. Berner, R. Flage, Comparing and integrating the NUSAP notational scheme
condition the generation of narratives for sustainability, Environ. Sci. Pol. 106 with an uncertainty based risk perspective, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 156 (2016)
(2020) 87–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.008. 185–194.
[127] J. Floyd, et al., Energy descent as a post-carbon transition scenario: how
‘knowledge humility’ reshapes energy futures for post-normal times, Futures 122
(Sep. 2020) 102565, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102565.

16