The power of assumptions

Abstract

Recent energy justice scholarship has argued for the need to reflect more explicitly on the normative assumptions that underpin claims to justice in energy systems. While such reflections increasingly inform energy policy, less attention has been paid to how these assumptions shape the design of algorithmic systems central to energy system planning and operations. This paper explores how normative assumptions in the design of algorithmic systems used to request flexibility from electricity consumers and producers to manage grid congestion may influence distributive justice outcomes. By systematically reviewing the scientific literature presenting such systems, we define two categories of assumptions: (1) scope assumptions , which set the boundaries of the justice analysis by determining which burdens and benefits, scale, subjects, and timeframe are considered relevant; and (2) design assumptions , which specify how these considerations are translated into the structure of algorithmic systems, such as allocation principles, technical problem framing, data availability and evaluation metrics. We find that the particular assumptions adopted within each category determine the distributive outcomes of these algorithmic systems. Recognizing their normative character, we propose that scope assumptions should be informed by context-specific risks of injustice identified by policymakers, while engineers should reflect on and validate their design assumptions in relation to these risks.