Low-regret Strategies for Energy Systems Planning in a Highly Uncertain Future

Andr\'e Bardow; Florian Baader; Gabriel Wiest; Niklas Nolzen; Stefano Moret

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Low-regret Strategies for Energy Systems Planning in a Highly Uncertain Future

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A regret-based framework shows biomass should become fuels and chemicals, not heat, in a net-zero Switzerland.

desk verdict Solid, reproducible decision-support paper with a real in-sample learning issue in the strategy derivation; worth refereeing but needs a split-sample check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13277 v1 pith:JJDRC6SD submitted 2025-05-19 eess.SY cs.SY

Gabriel Wiest , Niklas Nolzen , Florian Baader , André Bardow , Stefano Moret This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords regretenergysystemplanningdecision-makingunderuncertaintybiomassallocationnet-zeroscenarioanalysisdecisiontreelow-regretstrategies

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how to choose biomass strategies today when the future is highly uncertain, and introduces a regret-based decision framework to answer it. The framework samples 1000 plausible futures, optimizes the energy system for each, clusters the optimal designs into five strategies, then measures the extra cost of committing to each strategy in every future. Applied to a net-zero Switzerland in 2050, it finds that converting biomass to fuels and chemicals is the lowest-regret choice across nearly all decision criteria. It also finds that today's dominant use of biomass, burning it for low-temperature heat and combined heat and power, carries far higher regret and is a must-avoid option. The point is not to predict the future, but to pick strategies that cost little if the future surprises you.

What carries the argument

The central object is strategy regret, defined as the cost penalty of following a fixed strategy instead of the optimal design for a given future. The machinery combines Latin Hypercube Sampling to draw 1000 scenarios from independent uniform parameter distributions, a linear energy-system optimization solved per scenario, a decision tree that clusters the 1000 optimal designs into five biomass-allocation strategies (Chemicals, Hydrogen, Biomethane, Biofuel, Fuel&Chemicals), and then enforced strategy constraints that let regret curves, Pearson-correlation sensitivity charts, and two-dimensional decision maps be computed across all scenarios. The regret concept is the basis for comparing strategies, while the decision tree and decision maps render the high-dimensional uncertainty space interpretable.

What would settle it

Compute the regret analysis again with a correlated joint distribution over the same uncertain parameters, for example coupling CO2 storage availability with fossil-fuel import prices and plastic recycling rates using a copula or historical data, and check whether Fuel&Chemicals still has the lowest average regret and whether Business-as-Usual remains a clear must-avoid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a method plus a case-study result. For each scenario the framework defines regret as $R^s_i = C^s_i - C^{\mathrm{opt}}_i$, the additional system cost of committing to a strategy rather than the scenario-optimal design. Across 1000 sampled futures of a net-zero Swiss energy system, the Fuel&Chemicals strategy has the lowest average regret, the lowest median regret, and ties for the most optimal scenarios, while ranking second on the 90th-percentile value-at-risk. Business-as-Usual, which burns most biomass for low-temperature heat and CHP, has average regret of 3206 MCHF/y and a maximum of 5310 MCHF/y, corresponding to annual system cost increases of up to 13%. The paper concludes that continuing the current use of biomass for low-temperature heat is a must-avoid outcome of the energy transition.

Load-bearing premise

The 1000 scenarios are drawn from uniform, independent parameter distributions, so if real-world uncertainties are correlated, the regret rankings and the must-avoid conclusion for low-temperature heat could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If biomass is converted to fuels and chemicals, the regret analysis says the energy system hedges well: this strategy has the lowest average regret and is optimal in more scenarios than any other candidate.
Continuing the current practice of using biomass mainly for low-temperature heat and CHP would add up to 13% to annual system costs, making it a must-avoid option.
The ranking of strategies changes between average regret, maximum regret, and value-at-risk, so stakeholders should choose a decision criterion that matches their risk attitude before selecting a strategy.
CO2 storage availability is the single most influential driver of regret, so building that infrastructure determines whether hydrogen-from-biomass becomes attractive.
Policy levers such as plastic recycling rates and import availability shape which strategy is lowest-regret, meaning policymakers can actively reduce regret rather than only adapt to it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same framework could be applied to other scarce resources, such as water, land, or critical minerals, where competing uses and deep uncertainty create the same need for low-regret allocation.
The decision maps implicitly allow policymakers to apply subjective probabilities: a decision-maker who believes a parameter will stay within a certain range can restrict the map and read off the conditional lowest-regret strategy, a step the paper mentions but does not formalize.
A natural stress test is to replace the uniform independent sampling with correlated scenarios built from historical co-movements; if Fuel&Chemicals remains dominant under correlation, the strategy conclusion is robust, while a ranking change would show the framework needs a correlation layer.
The must-avoid label for low-temperature heat assumes that electrification of heat is available and affordable; in regions without that option, the regret ranking could differ.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on arXiv:2505.13277. The paper delivers a genuinely useful decision-support framework: it takes a 1000-scenario ensemble, trains a decision tree to extract five biomass allocation strategies, and then evaluates each strategy with regret computed by re-optimizing the system under strategy constraints. The case study is concrete and the results are policy-relevant — in particular, the finding that BAU use of biomass for low-temperature heat and CHP has roughly two orders of magnitude higher average regret than the derived strategies is striking and well supported. The SI is comprehensive, with all data and code public, and the authors include a robustness check using fixed allocation shares. That more rigid definition raises average regret substantially but preserves the main ranking, which is real credit.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test note flags. The decision tree is fitted on the same 1000 scenarios used to evaluate regret. Thresholds chosen to summarize the empirical distribution will tend to be closer to the unconstrained optimum than exogenously fixed strategies, which can understate regret and inflate the number of scenarios where the strategy is optimal. The SI's average-based check removes within-strategy adaptation, but it still uses leaves from the same sample, so it cannot rule out overfitting to the scenario set. The BAU and No Biomass results are exogenous and therefore robust, but the headline claim that Fuel&Chemicals is best could be an artifact. A split-sample test is the missing validation.

The uniform and independent parameter distributions are acknowledged in the paper; that's a real limitation but not a flaw, and the decision maps partially let users apply their own probability weighting.

Overall: the math is correct, the data work is honest and extensive, and the paper is a serious contribution to energy planning under uncertainty. It deserves peer review. I would ask the authors to add a split-sample validation before acceptance, or at least to discuss the likely direction of the in-sample bias.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a decision-support framework for identifying low-regret strategies in energy system planning under uncertainty, and applies it to the optimal use of biomass for a net-zero Switzerland in 2050. The method samples 1000 scenarios from independent uniform distributions of uncertain parameters, solves a linear energy system optimization model for each scenario, and then uses a decision tree to group the scenario-specific optimal biomass allocations into five interpretable strategies (Biofuel, Chemicals, Hydrogen, Biomethane, Fuel&Chemicals). Each strategy is evaluated by re-optimizing the system under the strategy's allocation constraints in every scenario and computing regret as the additional cost relative to the unconstrained optimum (Eq. 14). The results are summarized through cumulative regret curves and standard decision criteria (optimal-scenario count, minimum, average, VaR90, and maximum regret), along with two fixed baselines (Business-as-Usual and No Biomass). The central finding is that a 'Fuel&Chemicals' strategy performs best across most criteria, while the current use of biomass for low-temperature heat and CHP (BAU) yields substantially higher regret and is labeled a 'must-avoid' option. The Supplementary Information provides a robustness check using rigid average-based strategy definitions that confirms the main ranking.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution by combining interpretable strategy discovery (decision trees) with regret-based evaluation, giving decision-makers an intuitive way to compare strategies under many uncertain futures. The regret definition is formally correct, and Eq. (15) properly shows the equivalence between average regret and average cost ranking. The case study is data-rich and reproducible: the model inputs are documented extensively in the Supplementary Information and the code/data are shared on a public GitLab repository. The inclusion of the SI robustness check with fixed relative shares is a genuine strength, as it shows that the qualitative conclusions do not depend on the within-strategy adaptation enabled by the threshold-based strategy definition. If the strategy rankings survive an out-of-sample check, the framework and the case-study insights would be valuable for energy planning practice.

major comments (2)

[Section 3.1 and Eq. (3)] The decision tree is trained on the outputs of interest Y* obtained from the same 1000 scenarios that are later used to compute regret. The strategy bounds Y_s (Eq. 10) are therefore chosen to summarize the exact empirical distribution of the evaluation scenarios, and the regret evaluation re-solves the model under those same scenarios (Eqs. 11–14). This in-sample fitting can make the tree-derived strategies artificially close to the unconstrained optima, inflating the optimal-scenario counts and understating average and maximum regret, most notably for the headline Fuel&Chemicals strategy. The SI average-based robustness check (SI Section 1, Table S2) removes the within-strategy adaptability by fixing relative shares, but the shares are still leaf means of the same sample and the leaf structure is itself fitted in-sample; it cannot detect overfitting of the tree boundaries. Please add a split-sample validation: train the tree on a random half of the 1000 scenarios and evaluate regret only on the held-out half, reporting the criteria of Table 1 for both halves; or, if the tree is considered too shallow to overfit, provide bootstrap evidence that leaf thresholds and the resulting ranking are stable across resampled scenario sets. Without such a test, the headline claim that Fuel&Chemicals 'performs best across all decision criteria' (Section 2.3) is not fully supported.
[Section 3.1 and Eq. (3)] The 1000 scenarios are generated by Latin Hypercube Sampling from independent uniform distributions. The authors acknowledge in Section 3.1 that correlations between uncertainties are not represented and can significantly impact optimal decarbonization pathways (ref. 52), but they do not test whether the central case-study conclusions are sensitive to this assumption. This matters because the 'must-avoid' claim for low-temperature heat (Section 3.2) is a strong policy statement intended to hold 'regardless of how the future unfolds.' Please add a sensitivity test using a correlated sampling scheme (e.g., a Gaussian or Clayton copula with plausible rank correlations among the uncertain parameters, or an alternative dependency structure) and report whether the regret ranking and the low-T heat conclusion are preserved. If such a test is beyond the intended scope, please explicitly qualify the policy conclusion to 'under the assumption of independent and uniformly distributed uncertainties' in the abstract and in Section 3.2.

minor comments (5)

[Methods, Eqs. (1) and (3)] Several inequality signs are corrupted: Eq. (1) 'c(x, θ) f 0' should read 'c(x, θ) ≤ 0', and Eq. (3) 'θ f θ f θ' should read 'θ ≤ θ ≤ θ'. Please correct these throughout the Methods section.
[Table 1 and Section 4.3] The 'Optimal scenarios' percentages in Table 1 sum to 95.6% rather than 100%. This appears to result from the lower-bound adjustment of the Chemicals strategy described in Section 4.3, where some scenarios in the original leaf do not satisfy the added chemicals lower bound and thus have no zero-regret strategy among the five. Please add a footnote or one-sentence explanation in the main text so readers do not view this as an inconsistency.
[Section 4.3, Table 3] The choice of the Chemicals lower bound at 'mean minus one standard deviation' of the leaf's biomass allocation is ad hoc. Please state how sensitive the Chemicals strategy's regret statistics (e.g., VaR90 and average regret in Table 1) are to this threshold, or justify that retaining 86% of the leaf's designs makes the strategy representative.
[Figure 3 caption] The caption says 'Leftward arrows highlight the y-intercept,' which is not immediately clear. Please clarify that these arrows mark the fraction of scenarios with zero regret for each strategy, i.e., the cumulative-regret curve's intercept with the vertical axis at regret = 0.
[Section 2.3, Table 1] The text notes that the ranking 'substantially depends on the choice of the decision criterion.' A short sentence illustrating how a risk-averse decision-maker using VaR90 or maximum regret would choose (e.g., Biomethane for VaR90, Fuel&Chemicals for maximum regret) would make this practical point more concrete for readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Optimal-scenario counts are in-sample restatements of the decision-tree fit; split-sample validation is missing.

fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Eqs. 8–14), Table 1, and Fig. 2]
"Note that in this work, the strategy defining bounds are obtained by training a decision tree on the set of outputs of interests Y*... Strategies are then defined by the set of decisions leading to each leaf node in the decision tree. ... R_i^s = C_i^s − C_opt^i"

The decision-tree thresholds are fitted to the same 1000-scenario output set Y* on which regret is later evaluated. For any training scenario i belonging to a leaf, its unconstrained optimal output y_i* satisfies the leaf's defining bounds by construction, so y_i* ∈ Y_s. The constrained problem (Eq. 11) then admits the unconstrained optimum, giving C_i^s = C_i^opt and R_i^s = 0 in Eq. (14). Thus the 'optimal scenarios' column of Table 1 is not an independent evaluation but a restatement of the tree's training partition: the reported percentages (26.2%, 20.9%, 11.7%, 10.6%) match the leaf counts N in Fig. 2, up to the manual Chemicals-threshold adjustment. The minimum-regret zero entries are likewise forced.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in its core accounting: regret is computed by re-solving the optimization model under strategy constraints (Eq. 11), and Eq. (15) correctly shows that average regret differs from average cost by a constant independent of the strategy. The central problem is a formal in-sample reduction for one of the headline criteria: strategies are defined by a decision tree trained on Y*, and then the same Y* is used to count how often each strategy is optimal. For in-leaf scenarios the unconstrained optimum is feasible by definition, so zero regret is assured rather than tested. Since the abstract and Section 2.3 claim that Fuel&Chemicals performs best 'across all decision criteria except VaR90,' and one of those criteria (number of optimal scenarios) is a restatement of the tree fit, the central claim is partially circular. The 'must-avoid' conclusion for BAU and No Biomass is much less affected, because those strategies are exogenous fixed plans evaluated on the same scenarios without any fitted thresholds. The SI robustness check is helpful but still uses cluster representatives derived from the same scenario sample, so it cannot fully establish out-of-sample validity. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the self-citation to Baader et al. (ref. 14) supplies a method, not a proof that the present ranking is forced. The correct remedy is a split-sample or leave-scenario-out validation of the strategy-derivation step, not a change in the regret equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the EnergyScope TD model, the scenario generation choices, and the strategy definitions. The main free parameters are the decision-tree thresholds that define strategies; the main domain assumptions are the Swiss net-zero 2050 setting, no biomass imports, uniform independent distributions, and the adequacy of 12 typical days. Some technology efficiencies are ad hoc estimates from expert discussions.

free parameters (2)

Decision tree split thresholds for strategy definition = Biofuel >= 11.0 TWh/y; Biomethane >= 9.0 TWh/y; Hydrogen >= 6.4 TWh/y; Chemicals >= 6.5 TWh/y; plus upper bounds…
These thresholds are learned by training a decision tree on the 1000 scenario outputs (Section 2.2) and define the five strategies whose regret is then evaluated. They are data-dependent and directly shape the regret comparisons.
Chemicals strategy lower bound adjustment = 6.5 TWh/y (implied by Table 3)
The Chemicals strategy lower bound was set to the mean minus one standard deviation of the biomass use for chemicals in the leaf node (Section 4.3), a hand-chosen adjustment that retains 86% of the leaf designs and affects the regret results for that strategy.

assumptions (7)

standard math Linear programming optimality of the energy system model (Eqs. 1-2)
The whole analysis assumes the optimization model returns the true cost-minimizing design for each scenario.
standard math Latin Hypercube Sampling yields a representative sample of the uniform independent parameter space
The 1000 scenarios are generated with LHS (Section 4), and the regret statistics are computed over these samples.
domain assumption Swiss net-zero 2050 system with nuclear phase-out, no biomass imports, and no dedicated energy crops
The case study setup (Section 4.3) restricts the scope to one national configuration, so results may not generalize to other settings.
domain assumption Uniform and independent parameter distributions adequately represent future uncertainty
Equation (3) and Section 3.1 state this explicitly; the authors note that correlations could change optimal pathways.
domain assumption EnergyScope TD with 12 typical days and single-node Switzerland is an adequate model for regret analysis
The model resolution and spatial aggregation (Section 4.3) shape all cost and allocation results.
ad hoc to paper Efficiencies and costs of emerging technologies (HTG, HTL, methane pyrolysis) are estimated from expert discussions or own assumptions
The SI (Figures S54, S58, S64) labels several values as estimates from discussions with experts or own assumptions, introducing unverified inputs that affect biomass conversion options.
ad hoc to paper A 37% efficiency for manure-to-biogas conversion
Stated in SI for DHN_BIOGAS_MOTOR; this efficiency affects the biomethane and CHP use of animal manure.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-regret Strategies for Energy Systems Planning in a Highly Uncertain Future." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJDRC6SD

@misc{pith2026250513277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-regret Strategies for Energy Systems Planning in a Highly Uncertain Future},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJDRC6SD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13277}
}

read the original abstract

Large uncertainties in the energy transition urge decision-makers to develop low-regret strategies, i.e., strategies that perform well regardless of how the future unfolds. To address this challenge, we introduce a decision-support framework that identifies low-regret strategies in energy system planning under uncertainty. Our framework (i) automatically identifies strategies, (ii) evaluates their performance in terms of regret, (iii) assesses the key drivers of regret, and (iv) supports the decision process with intuitive decision trees, regret curves and decision maps. We apply the framework to evaluate the optimal use of biomass in the transition to net-zero energy systems, considering all major biomass utilization options: biofuels, biomethane, chemicals, hydrogen, biochar, electricity, and heat. Producing fuels and chemicals from biomass performs best across various decision-making criteria. In contrast, the current use of biomass, mainly for low-temperature heat supply, results in high regret, making it a must-avoid in the energy transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13277 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Decision tree applied to the space of the outputs of i [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The cumulative regret curves display the regret of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The Pearson correlation coefficients indicate the se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The figure illustrates the dependence of regret for t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

Panos, E., Glynn, J., Kypreos, S., Lehtil¨ a, A., Yue, X., ´O Gallach´ oir, B., Daniels, D., and Dai, H. (2023). Deep decarbonisation pathways of the energy system in times of unprecedented uncertainty in the energy sector. Energy Policy 180, 113642. URL: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421523002276. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113642

arXiv 2023
[2]

Rogelj, J., McCollum, D.L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M., and Riahi, K. (2013). Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83. URL: https://www.nature. com/articles/nature11787. doi: 10.1038/nature11787

work page doi:10.1038/nature11787 2013
[3]

Garc´ ıa-Gusano, D., Espegren, K., Lind, A., and Kirkengen, M. (2016). The role of the discount rates in energy systems optimisation models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59, 56–72. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032116000253. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.359

work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.359 2016
[4]

Lane, J., Greig, C., and Garnett, A. (2021). Uncertain storag e prospects create a conundrum for carbon capture and storage ambitions. Nature Climate Cha nge 11, 925–936. URL: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01175-7 . doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01175-7

work page doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01175-7 2021
[5]

Eser, P., Chokani, N., and Abhari, R. (2018). Trade-oﬀs betw een integration and isolation in Switzerland’s energy policy. Energy 150, 19–27. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0360544218303736. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.139

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.139 2018
[6]

Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment

Pindyck, R. Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment. Tech. Rep. w3307 National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA (1990). URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3307.pdf. doi: 10.3386/w3307

work page doi:10.3386/w3307 1990
[7]

Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R.C., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Meinshausen, M., and Edenhofer, O. (2013). Economic mitigation challenges: how further del ay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environmental Research Letters 8, 034033. URL: https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033

work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033 2013
[8]

Heuberger, C.F., Staﬀell, I., Shah, N., and Mac Dowell, N. (201 8). Impact of myopic decision-making and disruptive events in power systems pla nning. Nature Energy 3, 634–640. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0159-3 . doi: 10.1038/ s41560-018-0159-3

work page

Show all 64 references

[9]

Victoria, M., Zhu, K., Brown, T., Andresen, G.B., and Greine r, M. (2020). Early decarbonisa- tion of the European energy system pays oﬀ. Nature Communicat ions 11, 6223. URL: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20015-4 . doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20015-4

2020 doi
[10]

Birge, J.R., and Louveaux, F. (2011). Introduction to Stoc hastic Programming. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. New York, NY: Springer New York. ISBN 978-1-4614-0236-7 978-1-4614-0237-4. URL: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-1-4614-0237-4...

2011 doi
[11]

Bertsimas, D., Brown, D.B., and Caramanis, C. (2011). Th eory and Applications of Ro- bust Optimization. SIAM Review 53, 464–501. URL: http://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/ 080734510. doi: 10.1137/080734510

2011 doi
[12]

Moret, S., Babonneau, F., Bierlaire, M., and Mar´ echal, F. (2020). Decision support for strategic energy planning: A robust optimization framewor k. European Journal of Oper- ational Research 280, 539–554. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0377221719304904. ...

2020 doi
[13]

Brown, D.B., and Sim, M. (2009). Satisﬁcing Measures for Analysis of Risky Positions. Manage- ment Science 55, 71–84. URL: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.1080

2009 doi
[14]

Baader, F.J., Moret, S., Wiesemann, W., Staﬀell, I., and Bard ow, A. (2023). Streamlining Energy Transition Scenarios to Key Policy Decisions. Prepr int at arXiv. doi: 10.48550/ arXiv.2311.06625

2023 doi arXiv
[15]

Yue, X., Pye, S., DeCarolis, J., Li, F.G., Rogan, F., and Galla ch´ oir, B.O. (2018). A re- view of approaches to uncertainty assessment in energy syst em optimization models. En- ergy Strategy Reviews 21, 204–217. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S2211467X18...

2018 doi
[16]

Savage, L.J. (1951). The Theory of Statistical Decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association 46, 55–67. URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459. 1951.10500768. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1951.10500768

1951
[17]

Bell, D.E. (1982). Regret in Decision Making under Uncert ainty. Operations Research 30, 961–981. URL: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/opre.30.5.961. doi: 10. 1287/opre.30.5.961

1982 doi
[18]

Loomes, G., and Sugden, R. (1982). Regret Theory: An Altern ative Theory of Rational Choice Under Uncertainty. The Economic Journal 92, 805. URL: https://academic.oup.com/ej/ article/92/368/805-824/5220411. doi: 10.2307/2232669

1982 doi
[19]

Arisoy, Y.E., Bali, T.G., and Tang, Y. (2024). Investor Regret and Stock Returns. Management Science pp. mnsc.2022.03389. URL: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc. 2022.03389. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.03389

2024
[20]

Rezai, A., and van der Ploeg, F. (2017). Climate policies un der climate model uncer- tainty: Max-min and min-max regret. Energy Economics 68, 4–16. URL: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988317303596. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco. 2017.10.018

2017 doi
[21]

Connolly, T., and Reb, J. (2005). Regret in cancer-relate d decisions. Health Psychology 24, S29–S34. URL: https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S29. doi: 10.1037/ 0278-6133.24.4.S29

2005 doi
[22]

Boeri, M., and Longo, A. (2017). The importance of regret m inimization in the choice for renewable energy programmes: Evidence from a discrete c hoice experiment. En- ergy Economics 63, 253–260. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0140988317300713. doi: 10.101...

2017 doi
[23]

Mersch, M., Markides, C.N., and Mac Dowell, N. (2023). The i mpact of the energy crisis on the UK’s net-zero transition. iScience26, 106491. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S2589004223005680. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106491

2023
[24]

Klemm, C., Vennemann, P., and Wiese, F. (2024). Potential- risk and no-regret options for urban energy system design — A sensitivity analysis. Sustai nable Cities and Society pp. 105189. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2210670724000192. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.20...

2024
[25]

Loulou, R., and Kanudia, A. (1999). Minimax regret strateg ies for greenhouse gas abatement: methodology and application. Operations Resea rch Letters 25, 219–230. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167637799000498. doi: 10. 1016/S0167-6377(99)00049-8

1999
[26]

Li, Y., Huang, G., and Chen, X. (2011). An interval-valued min imax-regret analysis ap- proach for the identiﬁcation of optimal greenhouse-gas aba tement strategies under uncer- tainty. Energy Policy 39, 4313–4324. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0301421511...

2011 doi
[27]

Yazdanie, M., Dramani, J.B., and Orehounig, K. (2024). St rengthening Energy System Resilience Planning Under Uncertainty Using Optimization Mod els and Regret. . URL: https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4837704. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4837704

2024 doi
[28]

Ganter, A., Gabrielli, P., Goericke, H., and Sansavini, G. (2024). Minimum-regret hydrogen supply chain strategies to foster the energy transition of E uropean hard-to-abate industries. Preprint at arXiv. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.05988. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407. 05988

2024 doi arXiv
[29]

Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach - 2023 Update

IEA. Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C Goal in Reach - 2023 Update. Tech. Rep. IEA Paris (2023). URL: https://www.iea.org/reports/ net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c -goal-in-reach

2023
[30]

Millinger, M., Hedenus, F., Zeyen, E., Neumann, F., Reichen berg, L., and Berndes, G. (2025). Diversity of biomass usage pathways to achieve emissions ta rgets in the European energy system. Nature Energy. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01693-6 . doi: 10.1038/...

2025 doi
[31]

Colla, M., Blondeau, J., and Jeanmart, H. (2022). Optimal Use of Lignocellulosic Biomass for the Energy Transition, Including the Non-Energy Demand: The Case of the Belgian Energy System. Frontiers in Energy Research 10, 802327. URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/ articles/10.33...

2022
[32]

Bergero, C., Gosnell, G., Gielen, D., Kang, S., Bazilian , M., and Davis, S.J. (2023). Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation. Nature Sustainability 6, 404–414. URL: https://www. nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01046-9 . doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-01046-9

2023 doi
[33]

Meys, R., K¨ atelh¨ on, A., Bachmann, M., Winter, B., Zibunas, C., Suh, S., and Bardow, A. (2021). Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emission plastic s by a circular carbon economy. Science 374, 71–76. URL: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg9853. doi: 10.1126/scie...

2021 doi
[34]

Ozoli¸ na, S.A., Pakere, I., Jaunzems, D., Blumberga, A., Gr ¯ avelsi¸ nˇ s, A., Dubrovskis, D., and Da ‘gis, S. (2022). Can energy sector reach carbon neutrality wi th biomass limita- tions? Energy 249, 123797. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0360544222007...

2022
[36]

Hamelin, L., Møller, H.B., and Jørgensen, U. (2021). Harness ing the full potential of biomethane towards tomorrow’s bioeconomy: A national case study coupling sustainable agri- cultural intensiﬁcation, emerging biogas technologies an d energy system analysis. Renewable and Su...

2021
[37]

C., and Park, Y.K

Cha, J.S., Park, S.H., Jung, S.C., Ryu, C., Jeon, J.K., Shin, M. C., and Park, Y.K. (2016). Production and utilization of biochar: A review. Jou rnal of Industrial and En- gineering Chemistry 40, 1–15. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1226086X16301472. doi: ...

2016 doi
[38]

Lenz, V., Szarka, N., Jordan, M., and Thr¨ an, D. (2020). Status and Perspectives of Biomass Use for Industrial Process Heat for Industrialized Countries. C hemical Engineering & Technology 43, 1469–1484. URL: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ceat.202000077. doi: 10...

2020 doi
[39]

Gokcol, C., Dursun, B., Alboyaci, B., and Sunan, E. (2009) . Importance of biomass energy as alternative to other sources in Turkey. Energy Policy37, 424–431. URL: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421508005600. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.057

2009 doi
[40]

Hahn, H., Krautkremer, B., Hartmann, K., and Wachendorf, M. (2014). Review of concepts for a demand-driven biogas supply for ﬂexible power generat ion. Renewable and Sustain- able Energy Reviews 29, 383–393. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1364032113006254....

2014 doi
[41]

Converse, A.O. (2012). Seasonal Energy Storage in a Renew able Energy System. Proceedings of the IEEE 100, 401–409. URL: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5713802/. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2011.2105231

2012
[42]

Burg, V., Bowman, G., Erni, M., Lemm, R., and Thees, O. (201 8). Analyzing the potential of domestic biomass resources for the energy transition in Swi tzerland. Biomass and Bioenergy 111, 60–69. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0961953418300382. doi: 10.1016...

doi
[44]

Lark, T.J., Hendricks, N.P., Smith, A., Pates, N., Spawn-Lee, S.A., Bougie, M., Booth, E.G., Kucharik, C.J., and Gibbs, H.K. (2022). Environmental outcom es of the US Renewable Fuel Standard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2101084119. URL: https: //pnas....

2022 doi
[45]

N´ u˜ nez-Regueiro, M.M., Siddiqui, S.F., and Fletcher, R. J. (2021). Eﬀects of bioenergy on biodiversity arising from land-use change and crop type. Co nservation Biology 35, 77–

2021
[46]

Muscat, A., De Olde, E., De Boer, I., and Ripoll-Bosch, R. ( 2020). The battle for biomass: A systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Global Food Security 25, 100330. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2211912418301366. doi: 10.1016/j. gfs.2019.100330. 20

2020
[47]

Mavromatidis, G., Orehounig, K., and Carmeliet, J. (2018). Comparison of alternative decision- making criteria in a two-stage stochastic program for the de sign of distributed energy sys- tems under uncertainty. Energy 156, 709–724. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrie...

2018 doi
[48]

Energieperspektiven 2050+ - Gesamtdokumentation der Arbeiten

Prognos AG, TEP Energy GmbH, and INFRAS AG. Energieperspektiven 2050+ - Gesamtdokumentation der Arbeiten. Tech. Rep. Im Auftr ag des Bundesamtes f¨ ur Energie, Bern. (2021). URL: https://www.bfe.admin. ch/bfe/de/home/politik/energieperspektiven-2050-plu s.exturl.html/ aHR0cHM6...

2021
[49]

Grodzi´ nska-Jurczak, M., Tomal, P., Tarabu/suppress la-Fiertak,M., Nieszporek, K., and Read, A. (2006). Eﬀects of an educational campaign on public environmental attitudes and behaviour in Poland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 46, 182–197. URL: https://linkinghub.else...

2006 doi
[51]

Mersch, M., Caton, P., Markides, C.N., and Mac Dowell, N. (2 024). Energy import security in optimal decarbonization pathways for the UK energy system. C ell Reports Sustainability 1, 100236. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S294979062400377X. doi: 10.1016/j.c...
[52]

Rodriguez-Matas, A.F., Ruiz, C., Linares, P., and Perez-B ravo, M. (2025). How energy strate- gies are shaped by the correlation of uncertainties. Applied Energy 382, 125257. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306261924026412. doi: 10.1016/j. apenergy.2024.125257

2025
[53]

Lu, M., Sun, Y., and Ma, Z. (2024). Multi-objective design optimization of multiple energy sys- tems in net/nearly zero energy buildings under uncertainty c orrelations. Applied Energy 370, 123620. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306261924010031. doi: 10.10...

2024
[54]

Millinger, M., Reichenberg, L., Hedenus, F., Berndes, G., Zeyen, E., and Brown, T. (2022). Are biofuel mandates cost-eﬀective? – an analysis of transpo rt fuels and biomass usage to achieve emissions targets in the European energy system. App lied Energy 326, 120016. URL: http...

2022 arXiv
[55]

Wu, F., Muller, A., and Pfenninger, S. (2023). Strategic us es for ancillary bioenergy in a carbon-neutral and fossil-free 2050 European energy syste m. Environmental Research Letters 18, 014019. URL: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aca9e1. doi: 10.1088/17...

2023 doi
[56]

Li, X., Damartzis, T., Stadler, Z., Moret, S., Meier, B., F riedl, M., and Mar´ echal, F. (2020). Decarbonization in Complex Energy Systems: A Study on the Fe asibility of Carbon Neu- trality for Switzerland in 2050. Frontiers in Energy Resear ch 8, 549615. URL: https:// www.f...

2020
[57]

Rixhon, X., Tonelli, D., Colla, M., Verleysen, K., Limpen s, G., Jeanmart, H., and Contino, F. (2022). Integration of non-energy among the end-use deman ds of bottom-up whole-energy system models. Frontiers in Energy Research 10, 904777. URL: https://www.frontiersin. org/artic...

2022
[58]

Codina Giron` es, V., Moret, S., Peduzzi, E., Nasato, M., and Mar´ echal, F. (2017). Optimal use of biomass in large-scale energy systems: Insights for energy policy. Energy 137, 789–797. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0360544217307831. doi: 10.1016/j. ener...

2017 doi
[59]

Codina Giron` es, V., Peduzzi, E., Vuille, F., and Mar´ echal, F. (2018). On the Assessment of the CO2 Mitigation Potential of Woody Biomass. Frontiers in Energy Research 5. URL: https:// www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00037. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2017. 00037

2018
[60]

Kwakkel, J.H., and Pruyt, E. (2013). Exploratory Modeling and Analysis, an ap- proach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty. T echnological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 419–431. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0040162512002491. doi: 10.1016/...

2013 doi
[61]

McKay, M.D., Beckman, R.J., and Conover, W.J. (1979). A Comp arison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Out put from a Computer Code. Technometrics 21, 239–245. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1268522. doi: 10.2307/ 1268522

1979
[62]

Low” and “High

Cowan, N. (2010). The Magical Mystery Four: How Is Working M emory Capacity Limited, and Why? Current Directions in Psychological Science 19, 51–57. URL: http://journals. sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721409359277. doi: 10.1177/0963721409359277. 22 Low-regret Strategies for Ener...

2010 doi
[67]

Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emission plasti cs by a circular carbon economy

Treibstoﬀverbrauch und Schadstoﬀemissionen - 1990-2023 — Tabelle . de. 2024. url: https : / / www . bfs . admin . ch / asset / de / 32013534 (visited on 03/27/2025). [S20] Cemsuisse. Yearly report 2023 . Tech. rep. Bern, 2023. url: https:// www.cemsuisse.ch/jahresberichte/. [S...

2022
[87]

URL: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13452. doi: 10. 1111/cobi.13452

doi
[929]

doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1080.0929
[2019]

Mitigating future winter electricity deﬁ cits: A case study from Switzerland

url: https://www.infothek-biomasse.ch/images//429_2019_ Stadler_Carbon_Flows_in_the_Energy_Transition.pdf. [S11] Prognos AG, TEP Energy GmbH, and INFRAS AG. Energieperspektiven 2050+ - Gesamtdokumentation der Arbeiten. Tech. rep. Im Auftrag des Bundesamtes f¨ ur Energie, Bern....

2021
[2022]

EnergyScope TD: A novel open-source mode l for regional energy systems

url: https://sweet-cross.ethz.ch/data/assumption-cross- scenarios/2022-09-30. [S3] Gauthier Limpens et al. “EnergyScope TD: A novel open-source mode l for regional energy systems”. en. In: Applied Energy 255 (2019), p. 113729. issn: 03062619. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.11372...

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Panos, E., Glynn, J., Kypreos, S., Lehtil¨ a, A., Yue, X., ´O Gallach´ oir, B., Daniels, D., and Dai, H. (2023). Deep decarbonisation pathways of the energy system in times of unprecedented uncertainty in the energy sector. Energy Policy 180, 113642. URL: https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301421523002276. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113642

arXiv 2023

[2] [2]

Rogelj, J., McCollum, D.L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M., and Riahi, K. (2013). Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83. URL: https://www.nature. com/articles/nature11787. doi: 10.1038/nature11787

work page doi:10.1038/nature11787 2013

[3] [3]

Garc´ ıa-Gusano, D., Espegren, K., Lind, A., and Kirkengen, M. (2016). The role of the discount rates in energy systems optimisation models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 59, 56–72. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1364032116000253. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.359

work page doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.359 2016

[4] [4]

Lane, J., Greig, C., and Garnett, A. (2021). Uncertain storag e prospects create a conundrum for carbon capture and storage ambitions. Nature Climate Cha nge 11, 925–936. URL: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01175-7 . doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01175-7

work page doi:10.1038/s41558-021-01175-7 2021

[5] [5]

Eser, P., Chokani, N., and Abhari, R. (2018). Trade-oﬀs betw een integration and isolation in Switzerland’s energy policy. Energy 150, 19–27. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0360544218303736. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.139

work page doi:10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.139 2018

[6] [6]

Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment

Pindyck, R. Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment. Tech. Rep. w3307 National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA (1990). URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w3307.pdf. doi: 10.3386/w3307

work page doi:10.3386/w3307 1990

[7] [7]

Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R.C., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Meinshausen, M., and Edenhofer, O. (2013). Economic mitigation challenges: how further del ay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environmental Research Letters 8, 034033. URL: https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033

work page doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033 2013

[8] [8]

Heuberger, C.F., Staﬀell, I., Shah, N., and Mac Dowell, N. (201 8). Impact of myopic decision-making and disruptive events in power systems pla nning. Nature Energy 3, 634–640. URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0159-3 . doi: 10.1038/ s41560-018-0159-3

work page