3 main areas can be distinguishedː[4]​.

When we talk about "energy planning" we usually think only of electricity, but if a country has decided to use these types of energy, the 3 areas are important and must be coordinated. For example, if a combined cycle plant is being studied in a certain location, we must take into account the gas pipeline that will supply it with natural gas, and even the contracts with the producing countries that will allow it to be imported.

Energy planning is necessary because, on the one hand, the energy needs of a territory vary over time, normally upwards overall (but this increase can include energies whose use is decreasing - for example coal - and others whose growth compensates for those that are decreasing). On the other hand, the instruments to satisfy this demand that grows over time (transmission lines, power plants; the reasoning is done with electrical planning, but with the other 2 it is analogous) are not put into operation from one day to the next, but rather take a long time[4]​ (one year for an electric transmission line, depending on its length, orographic difficulties, etc.; 2 years for a combined cycle power plant; 10 years or more to build a power plant nuclear...)[10]​ and have an enormous cost. If they are built at a slower rate than they are needed, very negative consequences occur, such as blackouts or strangulation of economic growth. And if it is done at a higher rate, a lot of money is being wasted.[11]​ For similar reasons, transportation planning is necessary. The fact that energy or transportation planning is carried out in an economy does not at all mean that this makes it a planned or centralized economy.

Although national energy planning is usually carried out by the public sector (governments, ministries), the implementation of this planning (construction of power plants, transmission lines, etc.) can be carried out by the private sector,[4]​ provided that it is offered adequate incentives. Normally, the construction of an infrastructure will be put out to tender for a long term (20 years or more) and with conditions and rates that offer sufficient profitability. Energy planning can be normative (binding or mandatory) or indicative (voluntary).

The main objectives are usually 4ː sufficiency, quality, security and sustainability of supply.

As secondary objectives they can be citedː[3]​.

Greater integration of energy supply systems and local and global environmental boundaries expands the scope of energy planning, both in its content and its temporal perspective. Sustainable energy planning must consider the environmental impacts of energy production and consumption, particularly in light of the threat of global climate change, a long-term process caused largely by greenhouse gas emissions from global energy systems.

The US renewable energy industry's outlook for 2022 shows supportive policies from an administration focused on combating climate change, suggesting that this industry will grow.[13] President Joe Biden has championed the development of the clean energy industry in the US and around the world to aggressively combat climate change. Biden expressed his intention to move away from the oil industry (because it produces greenhouse gas emissions).[14]​ His 2022 administration calls for a "Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice", which aims to achieve 100% carbon dioxide emissions-free electric power generation by 2035, and carbon neutrality by 2050 in the US.[15]​.

Many OECD countries and some US states are moving towards closer regulation of their energy systems. For example, many countries and states have been adopting targets for emissions of CO and other greenhouse gases. In light of these developments, wide-ranging integrated energy planning could become increasingly important[16]​.

Sustainable energy planning takes a more holistic approach to the problem of forecasting future energy needs. It is based on a structured decision-making process based on 7 key steps:

1. Exploration of the context of the current and future situation.

2. Formulation of particular problems and opportunities that must be addressed as part of the sustainable energy planning process. This could include issues such as peak oil or the recession that energy restrictions could cause.

3. Development of a range of models to predict the likely impact of different scenarios. Traditionally, this would consist of mathematical models, but is evolving to include "Soft Systems Methodologies", such as focus groups, peer-to-peer ethnographic research, logical "what if" scenarios, etc.

4. Based on the outcome of a wide range of modeling exercises, scientific literature reviews, open forum discussions, etc., the information is analyzed and structured in an easily interpretable format.

5. This information is then interpreted to determine the scope, scale and likely implementation methodologies of the measures required to achieve the desired objectives.

6. Quality is checked by actively examining each of the previous stages, and determining whether it has been carried out rigorously, without bias, and whether it promotes the objectives of sustainable development.

7. The policies, regulations, procedures or decided tasks are published, with the idea that they are carried out through the energy policy. That is to say, energy policy, to be effective, has to be based on energy planning. Of course, if it is observed that the planning forecasts are not met (lower consumption, shortage of supplies, emergence of new technologies, sharp reduction in the cost of existing ones, etc.), the initial energy planning can (and should) be changed to accommodate. Energy policy will then take this modified energy planning as a guide.

Sensible energy planning is a necessity for all countries except very small ones well connected to their neighbors. Its lack, or errors in it, can lead to serious energy crises.[17]​.

Energy planning can be carried out using different computer programs, to cover different time periods and with different resolutions (i.e. small, medium or large divisions of time or space). There are multiple platforms available for all types of energy planning analysis, with focuses on different areas and significant growth in terms of software or modeling platforms available in recent years. There are different types of energy planning software: commercial, open source, educational, free and used by governments (the latter are often custom designed).[18]​.

Electrification

One possible energy option is to change all machines that currently use fossil fuels or natural gas for machines that only use electricity. This includes cars, trucks, boats, heating appliances... It is about not only making them available to consumers at an affordable price, but also banning appliances that emit carbon dioxide. This is known as decarbonizing the economy, or achieving a climate neutral economy. To eliminate dependence on fossil fuels, all electricity is required to be generated from renewable sources. In 2020, 60.3% of the energy generated in the United States came from fossil fuels, 19.7% from nuclear power plants, and 19.8% from renewable energy.[19]​ The United States and many other countries still rely heavily on fossil fuels. For decarbonization, more renewable energy plants, such as wind, solar or hydroelectric plants, would have to be built.

Another potential problem that comes with the use of renewable energy is the transmission of that energy. A study by Princeton University found that the locations with the greatest renewable potential are in the Midwest. However, the places with the highest energy demand are coastal cities.[20]​ To effectively use electricity from these renewable sources, more high-voltage transmission lines would have to be built, because the further the source of electricity is from its consumption, the more it is lost in transmission. This is partly avoided if the transmission is carried out at high voltage. The total amount of energy (GW) that the grid is capable of conducting would have to increase. Without this increase, the electric car could not become widespread, since its energy demand could not be met.

Nuclear power

Nuclear energy is a controversial energy source: some consider it clean,[21]​ because it does not emit greenhouse gases (GHG), and others, dirty,[22]​ because it generates radioactive waste, toxic for thousands of years, and can cause accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. During the construction of the nuclear power plant, the uranium extraction process, and its transportation to the plant, GHG emissions occur, but the process of obtaining energy from uranium itself does not produce these emissions.[23]​ The time it takes for radioactive waste to stop being radioactive depends on its half-life. The safe storage of radioactive waste is expensive,[24]​ problematic and generates strong social opposition.[25]​.

Public support for nuclear energy is an important consideration when conducting energy planning. Accidents such as Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island have tarnished the reputation of nuclear energy. Most people are concerned about the health and environmental impacts of a nuclear power plant accident, and believe that the risk is not worth it. However, a minority believes it is necessary to build more nuclear power plants, because they consider that the danger of climate change is much greater than the nuclear danger (this is a false dilemma, because global warming can be combated without resorting to nuclear energy).[26]​ For example, according to a 2022 survey, 40% of Spaniards consider nuclear energy as negative or very negative, while only 32% consider it very positive or somewhat positive.[27]​.

The majority of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions are derived from the energy sector, which contributes to 72.0% of global emissions.[28]​ The majority of that energy goes into the production of electricity and heat (31.0%), with the next largest contributor being agriculture (11%), followed by transportation (15%), forestry (6%), and manufacturing (12%).[28]​ There are multiple different molecular compounds that are classified. as greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is the most emitted greenhouse gas, accounting for 76% of global emissions. Methane is the second most emitted greenhouse gas, at 16%, mainly from agriculture. Finally, nitrous oxide represents 6% of greenhouse gases emitted globally. Agriculture and industry are the largest emitters of nitrous oxide.[29]​.

The challenges in the energy sector include eliminating dependence on coal, because it is the fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide per unit of electrical energy produced (1,001 grams of COeq/kWhe, when a hydroelectric plant only emits 4 grams, that is, 250 times less; see Emission intensity). Coal continues to be key to the energy matrix of many countries such as India or China (others, such as Norway, in 2022 will already produce 98% of their electricity with renewable sources).[30]​ Energy planning evaluates the current energy situation and establishes the changes that must be made to meet future demand in conditions of sufficiency, quality and security of supply.[31]​.

Energy planning approaches depend on the planning agent and the scope of the exercise. Several concepts are closely associated with energy planning. Resource planning is considered basic, that is, a prediction of what the energy sources will be in the future. Energy planning can be done assuming that demand will evolve in a "natural" (increasing) way, or that it will be reduced by implementing energy efficiency measures. The energy crisis of the 1970s ended a period of relatively stable energy prices and a stable supply and demand relationship. The concepts of energy demand management, least cost planning and integrated resource planning (IRP) emerged with a new emphasis on the need to reduce energy demand through new technologies or simply saving energy.[8][9]​.

3 main areas can be distinguishedː[4]​.

When we talk about "energy planning" we usually think only of electricity, but if a country has decided to use these types of energy, the 3 areas are important and must be coordinated. For example, if a combined cycle plant is being studied in a certain location, we must take into account the gas pipeline that will supply it with natural gas, and even the contracts with the producing countries that will allow it to be imported.

Energy planning is necessary because, on the one hand, the energy needs of a territory vary over time, normally upwards overall (but this increase can include energies whose use is decreasing - for example coal - and others whose growth compensates for those that are decreasing). On the other hand, the instruments to satisfy this demand that grows over time (transmission lines, power plants; the reasoning is done with electrical planning, but with the other 2 it is analogous) are not put into operation from one day to the next, but rather take a long time[4]​ (one year for an electric transmission line, depending on its length, orographic difficulties, etc.; 2 years for a combined cycle power plant; 10 years or more to build a power plant nuclear...)[10]​ and have an enormous cost. If they are built at a slower rate than they are needed, very negative consequences occur, such as blackouts or strangulation of economic growth. And if it is done at a higher rate, a lot of money is being wasted.[11]​ For similar reasons, transportation planning is necessary. The fact that energy or transportation planning is carried out in an economy does not at all mean that this makes it a planned or centralized economy.

Although national energy planning is usually carried out by the public sector (governments, ministries), the implementation of this planning (construction of power plants, transmission lines, etc.) can be carried out by the private sector,[4]​ provided that it is offered adequate incentives. Normally, the construction of an infrastructure will be put out to tender for a long term (20 years or more) and with conditions and rates that offer sufficient profitability. Energy planning can be normative (binding or mandatory) or indicative (voluntary).

The main objectives are usually 4ː sufficiency, quality, security and sustainability of supply.

As secondary objectives they can be citedː[3]​.

Greater integration of energy supply systems and local and global environmental boundaries expands the scope of energy planning, both in its content and its temporal perspective. Sustainable energy planning must consider the environmental impacts of energy production and consumption, particularly in light of the threat of global climate change, a long-term process caused largely by greenhouse gas emissions from global energy systems.

The US renewable energy industry's outlook for 2022 shows supportive policies from an administration focused on combating climate change, suggesting that this industry will grow.[13] President Joe Biden has championed the development of the clean energy industry in the US and around the world to aggressively combat climate change. Biden expressed his intention to move away from the oil industry (because it produces greenhouse gas emissions).[14]​ His 2022 administration calls for a "Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice", which aims to achieve 100% carbon dioxide emissions-free electric power generation by 2035, and carbon neutrality by 2050 in the US.[15]​.

Many OECD countries and some US states are moving towards closer regulation of their energy systems. For example, many countries and states have been adopting targets for emissions of CO and other greenhouse gases. In light of these developments, wide-ranging integrated energy planning could become increasingly important[16]​.

Sustainable energy planning takes a more holistic approach to the problem of forecasting future energy needs. It is based on a structured decision-making process based on 7 key steps:

1. Exploration of the context of the current and future situation.

2. Formulation of particular problems and opportunities that must be addressed as part of the sustainable energy planning process. This could include issues such as peak oil or the recession that energy restrictions could cause.

3. Development of a range of models to predict the likely impact of different scenarios. Traditionally, this would consist of mathematical models, but is evolving to include "Soft Systems Methodologies", such as focus groups, peer-to-peer ethnographic research, logical "what if" scenarios, etc.

4. Based on the outcome of a wide range of modeling exercises, scientific literature reviews, open forum discussions, etc., the information is analyzed and structured in an easily interpretable format.

5. This information is then interpreted to determine the scope, scale and likely implementation methodologies of the measures required to achieve the desired objectives.

6. Quality is checked by actively examining each of the previous stages, and determining whether it has been carried out rigorously, without bias, and whether it promotes the objectives of sustainable development.

7. The policies, regulations, procedures or decided tasks are published, with the idea that they are carried out through the energy policy. That is to say, energy policy, to be effective, has to be based on energy planning. Of course, if it is observed that the planning forecasts are not met (lower consumption, shortage of supplies, emergence of new technologies, sharp reduction in the cost of existing ones, etc.), the initial energy planning can (and should) be changed to accommodate. Energy policy will then take this modified energy planning as a guide.

Sensible energy planning is a necessity for all countries except very small ones well connected to their neighbors. Its lack, or errors in it, can lead to serious energy crises.[17]​.

Energy planning can be carried out using different computer programs, to cover different time periods and with different resolutions (i.e. small, medium or large divisions of time or space). There are multiple platforms available for all types of energy planning analysis, with focuses on different areas and significant growth in terms of software or modeling platforms available in recent years. There are different types of energy planning software: commercial, open source, educational, free and used by governments (the latter are often custom designed).[18]​.

Electrification

One possible energy option is to change all machines that currently use fossil fuels or natural gas for machines that only use electricity. This includes cars, trucks, boats, heating appliances... It is about not only making them available to consumers at an affordable price, but also banning appliances that emit carbon dioxide. This is known as decarbonizing the economy, or achieving a climate neutral economy. To eliminate dependence on fossil fuels, all electricity is required to be generated from renewable sources. In 2020, 60.3% of the energy generated in the United States came from fossil fuels, 19.7% from nuclear power plants, and 19.8% from renewable energy.[19]​ The United States and many other countries still rely heavily on fossil fuels. For decarbonization, more renewable energy plants, such as wind, solar or hydroelectric plants, would have to be built.

Another potential problem that comes with the use of renewable energy is the transmission of that energy. A study by Princeton University found that the locations with the greatest renewable potential are in the Midwest. However, the places with the highest energy demand are coastal cities.[20]​ To effectively use electricity from these renewable sources, more high-voltage transmission lines would have to be built, because the further the source of electricity is from its consumption, the more it is lost in transmission. This is partly avoided if the transmission is carried out at high voltage. The total amount of energy (GW) that the grid is capable of conducting would have to increase. Without this increase, the electric car could not become widespread, since its energy demand could not be met.

Nuclear power

Nuclear energy is a controversial energy source: some consider it clean,[21]​ because it does not emit greenhouse gases (GHG), and others, dirty,[22]​ because it generates radioactive waste, toxic for thousands of years, and can cause accidents such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. During the construction of the nuclear power plant, the uranium extraction process, and its transportation to the plant, GHG emissions occur, but the process of obtaining energy from uranium itself does not produce these emissions.[23]​ The time it takes for radioactive waste to stop being radioactive depends on its half-life. The safe storage of radioactive waste is expensive,[24]​ problematic and generates strong social opposition.[25]​.

Public support for nuclear energy is an important consideration when conducting energy planning. Accidents such as Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island have tarnished the reputation of nuclear energy. Most people are concerned about the health and environmental impacts of a nuclear power plant accident, and believe that the risk is not worth it. However, a minority believes it is necessary to build more nuclear power plants, because they consider that the danger of climate change is much greater than the nuclear danger (this is a false dilemma, because global warming can be combated without resorting to nuclear energy).[26]​ For example, according to a 2022 survey, 40% of Spaniards consider nuclear energy as negative or very negative, while only 32% consider it very positive or somewhat positive.[27]​.

The majority of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions are derived from the energy sector, which contributes to 72.0% of global emissions.[28]​ The majority of that energy goes into the production of electricity and heat (31.0%), with the next largest contributor being agriculture (11%), followed by transportation (15%), forestry (6%), and manufacturing (12%).[28]​ There are multiple different molecular compounds that are classified. as greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Carbon dioxide is the most emitted greenhouse gas, accounting for 76% of global emissions. Methane is the second most emitted greenhouse gas, at 16%, mainly from agriculture. Finally, nitrous oxide represents 6% of greenhouse gases emitted globally. Agriculture and industry are the largest emitters of nitrous oxide.[29]​.

The challenges in the energy sector include eliminating dependence on coal, because it is the fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide per unit of electrical energy produced (1,001 grams of COeq/kWhe, when a hydroelectric plant only emits 4 grams, that is, 250 times less; see Emission intensity). Coal continues to be key to the energy matrix of many countries such as India or China (others, such as Norway, in 2022 will already produce 98% of their electricity with renewable sources).[30]​ Energy planning evaluates the current energy situation and establishes the changes that must be made to meet future demand in conditions of sufficiency, quality and security of supply.[31]​.