The power of assumptions
A literature review on how algorithmic design influences energy justice in electrical distribution grids
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13064238 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Eva de Winkel (Delft University of Technology, corresponding author), Zofia Lukszo (0000-0002-6643-3699, Delft University of Technology), Mark Neerincx (Delft University of Technology), Roel Dobbe (0000-0003-4633-7023, Delft University of Technology) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 133 |
| Pages | 104605-104605 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-17 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Energy Research & Social Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2214-6296 • E-ISSN: 2214-6326 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.erss.2026.104605 |
| OpenAlex | W7129736272 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 43 |
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. • Algorithmic systems are increasingly used to manage congestion in distribution grids. • Normative assumptions in the design of these systems shape distributive justice. • Scope assumptions define the conceptual and analytical frame for justice. • Design assumptions determine how this frame is translated into algorithmic systems. • Highlights the need to align algorithmic design with policy on energy justice
Distributive property · Economic Justice · Flexibility (engineering · Frame (networking · Injustice · Normative · Relation (database · Scholarship · Scope (computer science · Optimal Power Flow Distribution · Smart Grid Energy Management · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Energy justice
The concept of energy justice across the disciplines
Energy justice
Recognition of and response to energy poverty in the United States
Social vulnerability to long-duration power outages
Tensions in transparent urban AI
The energy injustice of household solar energy
Adapting to limited grid capacity
(No) room for time-shifting energy use
Flexibility capital and flexibility justice in smart energy systems
Energy justice beyond the wire
Distributive energy justice
Energy justice at the utility scale
Trust, fairness, and transparency
Putting the three-tenets energy justice framework into policy practice
Energy justice, Just Transitions and Scottish energy policy
Strengthening the foundations of energy justice scholarship
Restorative Justice
Theory Construction in Qualitative Research
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |