The Energy Modeling Forum

The EMF (Energy Modeling Forum) was established at Stanford University in 1976 to provide a structured network or forum for discussing important energy and environmental issues. Studies are organized around an ad hoc working group that focuses its discussion by comparing the results of different market and planning models. Participants are leading energy experts and advisors from government, industry, universities, and other research organizations.

A major university provides a nonpartisan platform that ensures objective consideration of opposing views. The process emphasizes important corporate and policy decisions rather than methodology. The insights from an open consideration of all views are far more important than precise "forecasts" based upon a single perspective or expert. This “model user” focus makes the Forum's conclusions relevant to policy makers and decision makers who are not modeling experts.

Highlights

*Both EMF 24 (Climate Policy Scenarios for Stabilization and in Transition) and EMF 25 (Energy Demand and Efficiency in a Growing Economy) will be meeting regularly.

*The Stanford Energy Modeling Forum received the United States Association for Energy Economics (USAEE)'s Adelman-Frankel Award "to an organization or individual for unique and innovating contributions to the field of energy economics."  In accepting the award on behalf of the Forum, Hillard Huntington, EMF's executive director, noted that about 1500 modelers, experts and decision makers from more than 500 organizations have participated in the forum process since its inception in 1976.

*One of the great compliments is having a group copy your approach to provide insights on a new topic. A National Cancer Institute study on screening for breast cancer was based on a comparison of multiple models from many different universities. During the study, we discussed the EMF model comparison approach with our Stanford colleagues and the wider medical modeling group, who apprarently borrowed from our experiences. Although the results varied by model, the group was able to reach several conclusions regarding the value of screening.