Models
Three global integrated assessment models took part. Each reports Europe at a different resolution, which matters when comparing them:
GCAM 7.0 — EU-27, with EU-12 and EU-15 sub-aggregates; the most detailed variable set (469 variables).
TIAM_Grantham — 16 world regions, Europe as Western (WEU) and Eastern Europe (EEU).
PROMETHEUS V1 — 10 world regions, Europe as EU28, reporting from 2015.
Scenarios
Scenario | What it constrains | Models |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline: NDCs to 2030, long-term targets to 2050 | GCAM, TIAM, PROMETHEUS |
| Renewables, batteries and EVs | GCAM, TIAM |
| Biomass, capped at 5–6 EJ in the EU by 2050 | GCAM, TIAM |
| CCS, capped at 10–20 MtCO₂ by 2050 | GCAM, TIAM |
| No energy imports from Russia | GCAM, TIAM |
PROMETHEUS also reports two reference cases, CP_EI (current policies) and NDC_EI (NDCs only).
Harmonisation
All constrained scenarios keep the carbon pricing and policy framework of NDC_LTT, so differences isolate the effect of each technology limit.
The models’ submissions spelled the same scenarios differently (NDC_LTT_limBIO and NDC_LTT_LimBio, NDC_LTT_norusimp and NDC_LTT_NoRus…). For this study they were aligned to one name each with the dashboard’s Correct values tool, so a chart can put the models side by side.
Model intercomparison
Differences between GCAM and PROMETHEUS are less pronounced, which can be attributed to the myopic nature of the models and the logit choice among technologies. TIAM’s perfect foresight, on the other hand, brings investment forward: alternative mitigation technologies and energy-efficiency measures arrive earlier, increasing electrification.