The International Energy Agency will bring back the “current policies scenario” for the first time since 2019 in its upcoming World Energy Outlook later this year. The new model will reflect the likely trajectory of energy demand under existing measures without relying on speculative future policies . This marks a shift towards a more cautious posture amid growing US unease about overly optimistic energy transition forecasts . Energy Secretary Chris Wright has responded with defiance, stating that unless the IEA revises its modelling, the United States may withdraw from the agency. The threat is framed as a demand for reform rather than an immediate exit, although it underscores deep frustration with forecasts Wright dismisses as detached from market realities. This confrontation partly stems from IEA projections indicating that global oil demand will plateau before 2030. Wright has characterised such forecasts as “nonsensical”, rejecting the notion that oil consumption could falter this decade . The divergence highlights a broader conflict between long‑term energy transition models and continued reliance on fossil fuels . Pressure is mounting on the IEA from several directions. A recent report by a former IEA oil director and an energy analyst criticised the agency’s emphasis on net‑zero pathways, accusing it of underestimating oil demand in fast‑growing markets and overestimating electric vehicle adoption . Republicans in Congress have also called for changes to IEA leadership and signalled potential funding cuts. The reintroduction of the current policies scenario may be seen as a tactical response. The model outlines how energy markets might evolve under existing policy, providing a baseline that could appease critics without abandoning normative climate targets. Still, the agency finds itself navigating a difficult path. It must preserve its analytical credibility while responding to political realities, particularly the risk of losing influence if the United States withdraws . The IEA’s forecasts carry global weight, guiding investment decisions and government strategy—yet now face scrutiny over assumptions and methodology. In essence, the IEA’s move to reinstate a grounded scenario reflects not ideology but strategic necessity . Whether it mollifies Washington remains uncertain, but it may provide breathing space for dialogue and preserve a seat at the table in a fractured energy debate....