The simulation reveals both similarities and differences among the scenarios in various metrics. For example, the BAU and DENS scenarios, based on actual ComEd data, exhibit similarities in certain parameters, such as free cash, although they differ in terms of demand formation principles. Similarly, the CEJA, REN, and RENBS scenarios share similarities in generation patterns due to their significant reliance on renewable energy. On the other hand, the DEC scenario shows behavior that varies across the relevant metrics since it is the only scenario focusing on independently produced energy outside of central power providers.
Under the BAU scenario, the system showed a well-balanced equilibrium between electricity supply and demand, the slightest fluctuations of price, relatively stable profit from sales, and growing free cash. These results support the current electricity market in northern Illinois with low penetration of renewable energy resources, high dependence on nuclear power, and thermal-powered capacities (coal and natural gas). However, this scenario has the highest CO2 emissions at the end of the simulation period and at almost all years in the simulation. The business-as-usual current and future stage is not a result only of a utility not making enough steps toward the change but also regulators with not enough strategic planning solutions, as discussed in Rozhkov (2023). Also, in today’s circumstances, natural gas is considered one of the reasonable temporary transitional solutions on the way to the cleaner grid, however, as seen in the BAU scenario, the results in terms of CO2 emissions from operations are still far from the intended and continues to grow until the very end of the simulation. DENS scenario shows similar trends over time, however, with lower produced electricity and, therefore, lower CO2 emissions from operations and the total emissions at the end of the simulation. The emissions dynamics in this scenario presented earlier display a significant drop in 2050. However, there are essential differences between this scenario and the BAU; in DENS, the interventions are made only from the urban planning and design perspectives. Basically, this scenario works under the theory that the average household consumptions decrease due to the densification of neighborhoods. Densification (sometimes called urban infill) leads not only to some benefits in the electricity sector but was demonstrated to improve land use to a more efficient (Koroso et al. 2021), increase social interaction (Teller 2021), promote affordable housing (Debrunner & Hartmann 2020), and provide cost savings to other public infrastructure such as roads, public transportation, etc. (Næss et al. 2020) if adequately monitored and regulated. There are many potential strategies that could be employed in the process, for instance, changes in zoning regulations and designating zones for more mixed-use purposes, implementation of transit-oriented developments, urban redevelopment targeting underutilized or vacant areas within cities, or providing incentives, such as tax breaks or expedited permitting processes, to developers who build higher-density and energy efficient projects with incorporating affordable housing units. Following the principles discussed in Rozhkov (2023), a new strategic municipal planning framework with connections between municipalities and energy planning entities, involving stakeholders at different levels, from local communities to national entities, became a crucial basis. When it comes to the planning processes in the evolving today’s energy market, considering the varying scales ensures a comprehensive approach that addresses market dynamics, environmental concerns, social justice, and efficient land use, enabling goal setting and performance evaluation that align with the diverse needs of each level of planning.
REN and RENBS scenarios have relatively similar patterns in most of the metrics, and those scenarios play a significant part in reaching the goal of decreasing carbon emissions and are a good possibility for utilities to convert their business toward a more sustainable way. They both show a significant drop in CO2 emissions over time, with an almost full or complete shutdown of fossil-fuel-based power plants and a substantial increase in the generation of renewable sources. The REN scenario is the best scenario if CO2 emissions were the only criterion; the total CO2 emissions are approximately four times lower than in BAU or DENS scenarios. As it was discussed earlier, the main difference between REN and RENBS scenarios is that in RENBS, there is a huge peak in CO2 emissions in the 2030s due to the very emissions-intensive manufacturing of batteries. So, even taking into account the significantly lower amount of CO2 emissions from operations, the total amount of emissions is only two times lower than in BAU or DENS scenarios. The electricity price is growing during the high construction operations (until 2030–2035) and then normalizes and remains stable until the end of the simulation at approximately $80/MWh with some drops to $40–60/MWh. However, with very high CAPEX, some years are not profitable, and free cash shows negative numbers for both scenarios at some point in the middle of the simulation. This gap might be covered by long-term strategic government or state initiatives and programs, which was found as an important lever in the CLD in MASKED FOR REVIEW, and it is clearly not possible to fill with only tariff regulations or utilities-centered initiatives and could be solved only with significant collaboration between levels of governance. Utilities in Illinois are required to provide a “reliable, environmentally safe and least-cost” delivery of electricity (Illinois General Assembly 2020); however, without proper planning and control, they can fit within the law without spending at all, just providing “demand response” programs, for example, rewarding customers who use do not use energy when there is a high demand (Kibbey 2021). But there is an interest in utilities being involved in the less cost-effective projects due to the fact that they can collect an additional percentage as a profit, and more costly solutions (even if not very environmentally friendly) can potentially generate more revenue as a result. It supports the fact that even though REN and RENBS solutions are outstanding in terms of CO2 emissions, they might not be as desirable by utilities’ stakeholders who are incentivized to make more expensive investments (such as physical infrastructure and costly thermal power generators) due its higher potential to generate revenue if not properly controlled by regulators (who may target cheaper solutions, e.g., energy efficiency programs). It is worth noting that in the modeling, we did not distinguish between decentralized and centralized renewable solutions in these scenarios, so both of them are possible. The decision will be based on the particular needs of the municipality, the geographical uniqueness of the area, and overall strategic goals. For example, on-site generation or community solar subscription solutions are good examples of successfully implemented decentralized options managed by utilities or other power providers.
CEJA scenario, reflecting the real legislative action, shows robust results over simulations and supports the strategic character of the proposed steps. In almost all metrics, CEJA is located between more radical REN and RENBS scenarios, however, performing much better than the current projections of the BAU scenario. It is insignificantly worse than REN in the total CO2 emissions and even better than RENBS due to lower emissions from the constructions. Due to the low CAPEX, CEJA shows decent free cash at the end of the simulations, which is lower than in all other previously mentioned scenarios, however, it never got negative, giving a chance to power providers to implement strategies without outside investments. Interestingly, CEJA shows one of the lowest electricity prices over time, with approximately 50 $/MWh at the end of the simulation, with some drops to 18 $/MWh in the middle period of the simulation, which may become a popular solution for a customer. Additionally, even though it was not designed as a different scenario, if combined with the DENS solution, the drop in CO2 emissions and electricity prices is even higher; however, it requires a comprehensive framework of collaboration between the energy market and urban planners in municipalities.
Finally, while the previously discussed solutions partly have common trends over time, the DEC scenario demonstrates a unique pattern in comparison to all other scenarios. In this scenario, where customers have much more freedom in the decision-making process and can generate their own power through individual or community-based solutions, it can be less desirable and profitable for traditional utilities. In all other scenarios, utilities typically operate within a centralized model where they generate and distribute electricity to consumers, allowing them to control and profit from the entire supply chain. As a result, utilities may face reduced revenues and profits as their role in energy generation and distribution diminishes. DEC shows high CAPEX, low sales, and, therefore, low free cash. However, it clearly indicates that decentralized solutions are extremely difficult to handle without the support of utilities or other market participants. As it was discussed earlier, the increased interest in these solutions is based on the benefits each customer sees in this transition, such as increased resilience, reduced transmission losses, greater renewable energy integration, and lower CO2 emissions as a result. In addition to the most decisive factor, which is a reduction of the total electricity bill, DEC has the lowest electricity price at $15–20/MWh at the end of the simulation), there might be various strategies to increase the willingness of utilities to switch from the centralized solutions to become a significant part of the decentralized transition. There might be done through multiple energy policies, subsidies, and incentives, for example, by offering financial incentives, tax credits, setting renewable energy targets, implementing feed-in tariffs, net metering programs, or subsidies for utilities and other players that actively participate in decentralized energy projects or incorporate renewable energy into their portfolios. Interestingly, at the end of the simulation, there is a complete switch to the decentralized solutions from the central utilities under the assumption that there is enough funding to implement those strategies. Thus, it might seem beneficial for utilities, in order to stay in the market and not lose customers, to become a part of that decentralized community micro- or nano-grids transition by providing, first of all, funding, as well as solutions, such as energy storage services, smart controllers, or enabling bidirectional energy flow. In addition, if there is a goal to make BAU and DENS scenarios became more profitable and sustainable, utilities and municipalities can take part in the development and get better outcomes in the end. In the DENS scenario, the question of how decentralized energy systems might be implemented into the current urban environment taking into account the historical heritage of urban centers and well-established development of urban territories could be solved in parallel with urban design solutions. Similarly to CEJA, the DEC scenario was not combined with other strategies as a separate scenario. However, it was tested, and the results show that DEC solutions can potentially strengthen and make other scenarios more robust, facilitating the integration of renewable energy and decentralized solutions into the existing energy ecosystem and bringing the unique benefits of the decentralized systems discussed earlier.
Following insights from scenario simulations, as electricity consumption continues to outpace decarbonization efforts, it becomes crucial to transition from centralized, capital-intensive projects to decentralized and intelligent small-scale energy production initiatives, as seen from the simulations. Additionally, the recognition of the fact that the aging state of centralized energy infrastructures, often poorly maintained by power providers, which come with high environmental costs, further necessitates this shift. Therefore, we must diligently assess our energy consumption patterns. From the simulations and historical data, it is clear that the overall electricity demand is not decreasing now, and it will not in the following decades, so moving away from careless energy consumption and acknowledging the substantial costs of energy production, we can embrace a mindset that treats energy as a product, every customer should care about. Using decentralized systems, as suggested in the DEC scenario, in combination with other energy solutions (such as combined heat and power (CHP), waste and biomass local plants, or solar heaters), we can decrease the amount of total usage of electricity coming from the centralized plants firsthand. Also, this option of electricity production in a decentralized manner similar provides an opportunity for customers to be more involved in the energy market and control their own electricity bill via private-public partnerships, as well as having options to be involved in the same process in a building level, districts, village, or even the whole community level. Finally, very cost-intensive REN and RENBS solutions show their clear benefits in terms of CO2 emission reduction and meeting environmental targets of the region. On this basis, we conclude that these solutions, with more renewables in energy systems than in any other scenarios, show reasonable security of electricity generation even at lower costs than some thermoelectricity-based scenarios.