Modeling For Forecasting Versus Modeling for Understanding: Observations from Energy Planning

Abstract

The majority of energy modeling has been conducted for the purpose of forecasting the future. The experience has been, for the most part, a long record of erroneous forecasts misleading to public and private sector policymaking. An alternative use of models is for understanding and expansion of community debate. This article delineates some of the distinguishing features of the two modeling approaches and compares three sets of energy scenarios, generated in the mid-1970s using models developed as tools for understanding, to sets of energy forecasts. Comparisons are made for electricity and transportation energy use in Wisconsin and total primary energy for the U.S. Using the criteria of which of the two approaches has more closely matched actual outcomes, the modeling for understanding approach appears to be superior. Other advantages to a modeling for understanding approach are described, as are implications for planning education and practice.