Identification of energy policy priorities from existing energy portfolios using hierarchical decision model and goal programming: Case of Germany and France

Abstract

Purpose

There has not been a technology assessment study conducted that can be found publicly that created the energy policies of France and Germany – which are two nations that represent the vast extremes of national energy mix in Europe. This paper aims to use objective data to reverse generate the energy policy priorities that would yield the current portfolios.

Design/methodology/approach

A hierarchical decision model was developed and analyzed backward using the goal programming to identify the priorities of criteria in a variety of technology alternatives. The three levels of goals are combined in one discrepancy minimization. Goals are defined in a non‐linear way to determine the values in different levels. Although the goals are given the same priority, the proposed model is used to determine the weight of each criterion and then finds the weight of technical, political/social and economic influences. Discrepancies achieved after having run the goal‐programming model determines the unbalanced policies.

Findings

The paper results in key findings. First is that social/political factors have overwhelmingly low importance. It is also found that this is not completely reflecting the countries' portfolios, suggesting more research must be done to refine and extend the model. Also, experts need to be consulted and areas such as public opinion need to be quantified.

Originality/value

The paper presents a hybrid method to identify the true priorities that lead to the current energy portfolios of France and Germany. Although limited, this approach can be expanded to all Europe.

Citation

Daim, T.U., Schweinfort, W., Kayakutlu, G. and Third, N. (2010), "Identification of energy policy priorities from existing energy portfolios using hierarchical decision model and goal programming: Case of Germany and France", International Journal of Energy Sector Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506221011033080