Thanks for your inputs and here are my short notes about the meeting:
EC representatives insisted that they need answers to a lot of questions (opening all tasks like uncertainty, innovation, behaviour, …) because for the next period climate and energy issues are one of the three important subjects of the EU.
That’s why they also seem to give much more importance to this new roadmap scenarios (with PRIMES; which was the reason for Bruegel to bring together this meeting because they wanted to see what else is possible). After the publication of the roadmap it should be approved in about a year.
Models should better help politicians to look at the divers points in question (also biodiversity, landscape,…
One repeated thing concerning assumptions was “be as less conservative as possible” which was especially underlined by the underestimated price development in the past.
There was a longer discussion about complexity and transparency. I think the request for transparency more and more reaches the EU – or even better is requested by the EU. New for me: IDEES now has licensed open Data (that is what the JRC representative said – but one week later at EMP-E together with Robbie we had a further discussion with them and the status is still the same as the one we discussed in the openmod (unclear if republication is possible) – we will stay in touch and push for a clear license (everybody of you should do so who is in contact with them)). Additionally they said that they opened the process of decomposition of the data to the national levels (which was not wanted when we talked in February)
One challenge we discussed was the linkage between local, national and EU models/scenarios or as someone phrased it the “consistency between the big picture and millions of small projects”. As far as I got it we didn’t come to a conclusion.
One statement that touched me was: from the macroeconomic point of view we have to decide for a technology path (e.g. e-mobility or hydrogen; etc.) whilst I thought of the “cellular approach” where every “cell” follows their approach and then we try to link them. – I cannot follow this logic I wonder if the industry market isn’t big enough for different technologies and if it wouldn’t be better from a material point of view.
Material: In a side talk someone said that there is a CGE Model with integrated material flow(from Netherlands) developed in a Project (EXIOPOLE or similar (do you know it? Otherwise I should try to get back to them)) with a free material database - this approach has been done in a static way , not structural change,…
Next discussion point GDP… index for income and for production (not for income inequalities…) ; Which indicator do we have to capture circularity? (no answer in that round)