Constructing energy scenarios is traditionally an endeavour driven by experts. I suggest that an outcome of relying solely on expertise is incompleteness. Moreover, expertise, while being a necessary condition, is not a sufficient condition for epistemic quality and normative legitimacy of energy scenarios given the scope of transitions that energy scenarios entail, which includes substantial societal repercussions. Four reasons will be provided for wide participation when constructing energy scenarios. First, there are several forecasting shortcomings of top-down approaches. Second, to rely solely on expertise provides incomplete conceptualizations of energy and central concepts such as ‘smartness’, in addition to neglecting normative views. Third, increased epistemic quality is an outcome of wide participation. A fourth reason is derived from the argument of inductive risks, stating that thresholds of evidence should reflect the potential outcomes if erroneously corroborating or rejecting a hypothesis. As energy scenarios provide input to decision-making having potentially large societal impact, they ought to be both normatively legitimate as well as of sufficient epistemic quality, components provided by wide participation.

传统上，构建能源方案是专家们的努力。我建议仅依靠专业知识的结果就是不完整。此外，考虑到能源情景所涉及的过渡范围，其中包括大量的社会影响，专业知识虽然是能源情景的认知质量和规范合法性的必要条件，但却不是充分条件。在构建能源方案时，将为广泛参与提供四个理由。首先，自上而下的方法存在一些预测缺陷。其次，除了忽略规范性观点外，仅依靠专业知识还无法对能源和诸如“聪明”之类的核心概念进行不完整的概念化。第三，认识质量的提高是广泛参与的结果。第四个原因来自归纳风险的论证，指出如果错误地证实或拒绝了假设，则证据的阈值应反映潜在的结果。由于能源情景为具有潜在的巨大社会影响的决策提供了投入，因此，它们应该既具有规范性又具有足够的认识论质量，是由广泛参与提供的组成部分。