As energy systems across Asia and the Pacific become more complex, the need for credible, grounded, and practical planning tools is growing. For many economies, the challenge is not only understanding long-term energy pathways, but also using those insights to inform real-world policy choices amid technological change, market uncertainty, and shifting geopolitical conditions.
In this conversation, Peter du Pont of SIPET Connect speaks with Robert Tromop of the Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) about APERC’s role within APEC, the value of its Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, and why the real strength of scenario work lies not only in the final report, but in the process of building, debating, and testing assumptions with economies themselves.
***
SIPET Connect: Could you start by briefly introducing APERC and your role to our readers, and explain how your work supports energy transition planning across the region?
Robert: Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre (APERC) is a 30-year-old regional energy research institution whose mandate stems from the APEC Economic Leaders’ Summit in Osaka in 1995, where leaders recognized the need for stronger insight into energy trends and policy across the region.
Our role is to help foster understanding among APEC economies of global, regional, and domestic energy demand and supply trends, infrastructure development, regulatory reform, and related policy issues.
Our flagship publication is the APEC Energy Supply and Demand Outlook, which utilizes scenarios to project energy trends for each of APEC’s 21 economies and for APEC as a whole. We also publish the APERC Energy Overview, which is an annual update of each APEC economy’s progress in energy use dynamics, policies, and actions.
A second major part of our mandate is to support rational energy policy formulation and strengthen capacity building in energy research. Each researcher at APERC supports research both focused on their home economy, as well as on broader APEC topics. In addition, APERC runs training exercises in energy statistics, modelling, and energy security for officials from APEC economies.
The third major plank of our work is around energy security, economic growth, and environmental quality. We produce annual reports on coal, oil, and gas production and trade dynamics, and we are now adding a hydrogen report to that series. Our Oil and Gas Security Initiative also looks at security-of-supply challenges and includes tabletop emergency response exercises with economies.
SIPET Connect: APERC is closely linked to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)’s energy architecture. How does that shape the way you work?
Robert: APEC is a consensus-based entity, so good ideas can certainly be put forward, but they need support from member economies in order to move ahead. That means the work is considered collective by design.
We also operate within an enduring ecosystem of expert groups under the APEC Energy Working Group. The main ones are the Expert Group on Energy Data and Analysis, the Expert Group on Energy Efficiency and Conservation, the Expert Group on New and Renewable Energy Technologies, and the Expert Group on Clean Fossil Energy. Those groups provide a strong technical foundation for exploring policy options.
There is continuity in the relationships. People change, of course, but these communities persist over time, and that matters. At the end of the day, relationships are what hold a lot of this together.
A key part of APERC’s longevity also comes from the consistent support of the Japanese government, which has funded APERC since its founding. That sustained commitment is a big reason we are able to keep doing this work year in, year out.
SIPET Connect: APERC’s Energy Outlook is widely referenced across APEC economies. Beyond the report itself, how do you see it functioning as a practical tool for policymakers and planners?
Robert: For me, the strength of the Outlook is that we conduct individual analyses for each of the 21 APEC economies, examining historical and projected energy demand, transformation, and supply across multiple scenarios.
We usually develop two main scenarios. One is a reference or baseline scenario — what will occur if current energy-related policies are maintained. The second is a scenario that reflects some kind of accelerated change, whether that is stronger electrification, a lower-carbon pathway, or some other policy objective.
What matters most is the engagement of officials from each economy throughout the modelling and production process. That engagement is itself a core deliverable. By testing modelling inputs, assumptions, and policy settings, and debating what is realistic, we can have greater confidence that the resulting scenarios are robust and credible.
The process also builds shared understanding and shapes how officials think about the range of available policy options.
SIPET Connect: One of the region’s big challenges is moving from long-term scenarios to near-term decisions, especially in a period of geopolitical volatility and energy insecurity. In that context, how can governments use outlooks like yours more effectively?
Robert: It is important to be realistic about technology change rates, economic potential, and the costs and benefits of each option.
I like to think that the narrative around the graphs is what really matters. The report can help inform what is possible, and it can encourage realism and balance across a portfolio of policy options.
At the end of the day, our role is to inform. Ultimately, our role is to inform. Political leaders will act according to the mandates and pressures they face, but our responsibility is to provide information and analysis that supports informed decision-making. So I would say the Outlook is most useful when it is treated not as a prescription, but as a grounded decision-support tool.
SIPET Connect: You also mentioned the Energy Outlook roadshow. Could you walk us through how that works in practice, and what makes it effective?
Robert: In practice, it is simply a series of visits to economy governments — and sometimes local research institutes — where we take officials through the modelled work.
We sit down with a broader group of officials than just those directly involved in reviewing the report. Often that includes more senior officials or ministers. We walk them through the analysis, answer questions, and talk through the implications.
While everyone looks at the plots, I think the real value lies in the narrative and the discussion around why and how different technologies and policies are driving change. That is where the key insights often are.
It is also a useful feedback loop. We hear what is front of mind for officials, and that often helps shape what we need to think more carefully about in the next round.
SIPET Connect: In your experience, where do economies typically struggle when using energy outlooks or modelling outputs?
Robert: I would not necessarily say they struggle. They make choices, and we add to the range of tools they may or may not use in making those choices.
The bigger challenge, in my view, is making sure the modelling remains realistic and grounded in actual economy conditions. That requires good insights into the driving forces behind change, the state and prospects of technologies, and the policy context in each economy.
It also requires enough resolution in the modeling for changes to be visible. If things are too aggregated, you lose a lot of practical insight.
So I think the issue is less about economies struggling with the tool, and more about making sure the tool itself is as credible and useful as possible.
SIPET Connect: Southeast Asia is especially diverse in terms of energy systems, policy conditions, and development pathways. How does APERC tailor its analysis to remain relevant across such different contexts?
Robert: The Outlook’s strength is really in the discussion and debate as we develop individual analysis and modelling results for each APEC economy. That is what helps ensure we are reflecting actual issues and realities on the ground.
We do temper extremes of ambition in discussion, because realism matters. But working economy by economy gives us a much better feel for what is going on.
That is particularly important in Southeast Asia, because the region is so diverse. That diversity is also where there may be opportunities for greater collaboration. One obvious example is the ASEAN Power Grid. The region can potentially gain a great deal by sharing more effectively across borders, and one of the things the Outlook helps highlight is that regional value. APERC also benefits from the presence of visiting researchers from many Southeast Asian economies. Those researchers bring insights from their home economies and also have the networks to draw on specialist expertise and perspectives when needed.
SIPET Connect: How do you see APERC’s approach as distinct?
Robert: Different organisations are often looking at different parts of the elephant, so to speak. They may be trying to explore different issues, using different assumptions, or applying different methodologies.
What distinguishes APERC’s work, I think, is the degree to which we build it from the bottom up, economy by economy, in direct discussion with economy experts. That gives us a pretty good check on whether we are broadly getting it right.
We also benchmark our scenarios against others. That is useful because it helps us reflect on our own process and identify where we may want to improve. But I do not think it is necessarily helpful if all scenario work lines up perfectly. Different perspectives can expose different insights.
SIPET Connect: What modelling platform does APERC use, and what are the key ingredients that make this kind of outlook-driven planning process work?
Robert: We are currently finalising a transition to Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) as our main modelling platform. We had used different tools over time, depending on researchers and their backgrounds, but bringing things back to a common platform has been important for consistency.
LEAP is a very good platform for what we do. It is not a black box, and it is widely used by many others working in the space. Using a consistent platform also helps shorten our cycle time and lets us spend more time on what really matters — getting the assumptions and driving forces right.
To make this kind of process work, I think there are three main elements.
First, you need a consistent modelling platform.
Second, you need good insight into the driving forces, technology options, costs, benefits, and policy contexts in each economy — with enough detail for change to be visible.
Third, you need ongoing discussion with economy focal points. That back-and-forth is essential. Good modelling does not happen in isolation.
SIPET Connect: APERC is also known for its capacity-building role. How important is that dimension to your work?
Robert: It is very important. Building capacity is one of our key outputs.
We have around 18 researchers at APERC, including modellers, statisticians, and researchers with economy and sector expertise. People come and go quite quickly — often every couple of years — but that is part of the model. Researchers come here, learn a great deal in a well-connected international context, contribute to the work, and then often go on to bigger roles back home.
That is something we value. It means APERC is not only producing analysis, but also helping build capability across the region over time.
SIPET Connect: Finally, if another institution or economy wanted to adopt a similar approach, what would be most important to get right?
Robert Tromop: I would come back to the same fundamentals.
You need a consistent modelling platform.
You need strong insight into the state of technologies, the driving forces behind change, and the policy context in each economy.
And you need real discussion with economy focal points.
If I had to add one more point, it would be realism. As soon as you start fooling yourself, or assume something is right just because someone said it, you lose the value of the exercise. It is really about trying to get the equilibrium of insights right — getting the balance right, and getting some realism into the model.
That, in the end, is what makes the process useful.