Process and Policy Insights from Intercomparing Electricity System Capacity Expansion Models

This study undertakes a detailed intercomparison of four open-source electricity system capacity expansion models--Temoa, Switch, GenX, and USENSYS--to examine their suitability for guiding U.S. power sector decarbonization policies. We isolate the effects of model-specific differences on policy outcomes and investment decisions by harmonizing empirical inputs via PowerGenome and systematically defining "scenarios" (policy conditions) and "configurations" (model setup choices). Our framework allows each model to be tested on identical assumptions for policy, technology costs, and operational constraints, thus distinguishing results that arise from data inputs or configuration versus inherent model structure. Key findings highlight that, when harmonized, models produce very similar capacity portfolios under each current policies and net-zero configuration, with less than 1 percent difference in system costs for most configurations. This agreement across models allows us to examine the impact of configuration choices. For example, configurations that assume unit commitment constraints or economic retirement of generators reveal the difference in investment decisions and system costs that arise from these modeling choices, underscoring the need for clear scenario and configuration definitions in policy guidance. Through this study, we identify critical structural assumptions that influence model outcomes and demonstrate the advantages of a standardized approach when using capacity expansion models. This work offers a valuable benchmark and identifies a few key modeling choices for policymakers, which ultimately will enhance transparency and reliability in modeling efforts to inform the clean energy transition for clean energy planning.