Search for a command to run...
The energy transition represents a complex, multi-level system subject to profound uncertainty and recurrent shocks. Current policy design approaches predominantly rely on static optimization frameworks (centralized, calculative models that presume stable conditions and predictable technological trajectories). Yet evidence from the 2021–2023 energy crisis in Europe, coupled with structural challenges in market liberalization and renewable integration, demonstrates persistent challenges in policy implementation. Price interventions affect competitive dynamics; subsidies influence technology selection; capacity mechanisms create coordination tensions; and rigid tariff structures create misalignments with evolving grid needs. This paper argues that these recurrent policy tensions stem not from implementation gaps, but from an inadequate theoretical foundation: the treatment of energy systems as optimizable rather than as complex, adaptive systems operating under Knight–Mises uncertainty and Huerta de Soto dynamic efficiency. This work explores an alternative framework grounded in dynamic efficiency, complex–uncertain systems, decentralized incentives, and adaptive governance (international–domestic, public–private, etc.). This review uses the theoretical and methodological framework of the Heterodox Synthesis, an alternative to the Neoclassical Synthesis. There is a reinterpretation of some insights from Knight and Mises (uncertainty), Hayek (distributed knowledge), Huerta de Soto (dynamic efficiency) and contemporary complexity economics into operational criteria applicable to energy policy design: (1) robustness to deep uncertainty; (2) preservation of price signals and risk-bearing mechanisms; (3) alignment of incentives across distributed actors; (4) institutional adaptability; and (5) minimization of ex post policy corrections. Through illustrative application to four critical policy instruments (price caps, renewable subsidies, capacity mechanisms, and network tariff design), it is shown how this framework identifies systematic tensions and consequences that conventional analysis overlooks. The contribution is exploratory in a bootstrap way: theoretical, by integrating classical and contemporary economics into energy governance; methodological, by operationalizing dynamic efficiency into evaluable criteria distinct from existing adaptive governance frameworks; and sectorial, by providing policymakers and regulators with diagnostic tools for assessing design robustness in conditions of deep uncertainty and rapid transition. According to this review, improved energy policy design under uncertainty is not achieved through more sophisticated optimization (in a calculative way), but through institutional architectures that preserve creative and adaptive learning, maintain distributed decision-making capacity, and remain functional when assumptions prove incorrect or not well-known.