People-centered national energy systems
Combining “Power to the People” with “People to the Streets” socioeconomic storylines toward people-centered and 100% renewable-based national energy systems
Introduction
Political advocacy and the willingness to actively participate in public debates and decision-making related to energy policies is considered by many to be an important facet of energy citizenship. Considering the latter, citizens could drive the transition to 100% renewable-based national energy systems by supporting decentralized energy planning, which emphasizes local ownership and decision-making. For example, by advocating for small-scale renewable energy sources (RES) like rooftop solar PV systems, communal energy projects, and efficient self-production schemes, they can help reduce reliance on large energy corporations and ensure that energy remains closer to the people. This grassroots approach ensures that energy benefits are distributed more equitably, fostering community empowerment, and making energy transition processes more inclusive.
When it comes to Greece, citizens could influence policy developments at different scales by participating in public debates and organized movements against centralized, fossil fuel-based energy models. By raising awareness through protests, social media, and community engagement, they can pressure policymakers to prioritize investments in renewable energy, which reflect local interests and climate and environmental concerns. This collective citizen action can help shift the focus away from centralized, top-down approaches that often overlook the needs and preferences of local communities.
Citizens can also contribute by pushing for energy policies that promote decentralized, renewable-based energy systems. By voicing opposition to large-scale renewable projects like onshore wind farms that may not align with the priorities of local communities, they can advocate for a more democratized energy system. Supporting the development of a 100% renewable-based energy mix, energy transition in Greece can not only be environmentally sustainable but also socially just and aligned with citizens’ values.
By embracing decentralization, advocating for local renewable solutions, and demanding policies that prioritize people over corporations, Greece can transition to a 100% renewable-based energy system that's built by, and for its people.
So far, energy models have been increasingly used to support decision-making and explore the implications of energy policies. These models are often characterized by high technoeconomic sophistication but also by weak or no representation of social aspects such as public preferences. The consideration of such elements in simulations is crucial for an inclusive and citizen-led energy transition.
Before citizens support energy policies and commit to action against climate change, they need to feel heard, and, thus, ways need to be developed to integrate their input into energy models. Considering the above, we aim at integrating citizen preferences into a highly resolved, bottom-up energy system model to enable the assessment of social preferences alongside other aspects like technical feasibility and cost. In the context of the expected and increasingly participatory role of citizens and other societal actors in the combat against the climate crisis, driving changes in the energy system, and particularly in the supply side, we employ the OSeMOSYS-GR model to analyze preference-led energy system planning alternatives under various future-world evolutions:
 |
Following existing governmental plan? A “Familiar World” Citizens depend on national political decisions to invest in green solutions. By keeping people informed about the energy shift, the government slowly builds support, easing the rollout of RES projects. As awareness grows, opposition fades, and the path to decarbonization becomes clearer. |
 |
Energy citizenship in action? A “Unified World” Citizens come together united in the battle against the climate crisis and collectively oppose the use of fossil fuels in the energy mix, thus leaving more room for RES. They quickly become prosumers, driving rooftop solar adoption through shared responsibility with governments and companies. Decentralized planning fosters even more citizen-led initiatives. With this collective push, decarbonization happens faster than expected, surpassing national-level projections. |
 |
Energy security before the climate crisis? A “Fragmented World” In this future narrative, the energy crisis lingers, and thus citizens become distrustful and prioritize energy security over climate action. They back governmental plans that rely on fossil fuels, whether it is imported gas, or domestic lignite (in the case of Greece). Prosumers emerge very slowly, driven more by peer pressure or economic necessity rather than commitment to combating climate change. Rising energy costs further slowdown the shift, making widespread prosumerism a distant goal. |
Considering the identified energy citizenship patterns and trends related to the “Power to the People” and the “People to the Streets” storylines, we develop four (4) different scenarios which can be divided into five (5) different cases:
Business-as-usual (“BAU case”)
In the “Familiar World”, future energy planning follows the “business-as-usual” specifications, a scenario that describes a future power system as envisioned by the current governmental national energy and climate planning, i.e., the National Energy and Climate Planning in Greece, and based on the anticipated citizen participation in the energy market and social acceptance of low-carbon energy projects. Citizens do not oppose the implementation of nationally planned energy projects.
Decentralized planning (“Decentralized case”)
The “Decentralized planning” scenario emerges from protest against fossil fuel-based and centralized power structures. It relies on bottom-up initiatives with equity as the key constraint and emphasizes democratization and autonomy through decentralization as the primary aim; and RES systems of a small-scale and modular nature- are most preferred by citizens and excellently suited for this. In this scenario, decentralization is considered as a necessary precondition for decarbonization; however, a democratized and decarbonized energy system cannot be achieved if large corporations, which already hold the largest share of energy infrastructure in the power market, act in collusion with policymakers to maintain control and monopolize the energy sector. To avoid an undemocratic energy system, more than replacing technologies is required; societal change is necessary to move away from a centralized energy system model.
Centralized planning (“Centralized case”)
Contrastingly, the integrated and centralized energy production at the national level increases the security of supply but limits the opportunities for energy citizenship. The “Centralized planning” scenario relies on top-down policymaking and aims at replacing carbon-intensive technologies and practices with zero-carbon ones, but in a centrally controlled, secure way. Security plays a major role in public and political debate. Maintaining control over both the stability of energy supply and over the pace and direction of the transition are key features of central energy and climate governance.
The government respects security concerns by carefully implementing changes, with policies closely following their detailed and well-elaborated master plans. In this context, the government does not emphasize raising public awareness of the potential benefits of energy citizenship. Therefore, citizens’ lack of knowledge about RES leads to low level of social acceptance of new products, services, small-scale technologies, and innovative solutions in the energy field that could further open and promote numerous possibilities for energy citizenship initiatives. As a result, the most important technological solutions and innovations are applied mostly for the development of large-scale energy infrastructure, without actual consideration for sustainability and out of citizens’ reach.
Fossil fuel-dependent planning (“Gas-dependency case” and “Lignite-dependency case”)
Finally, the “Fossil fuel-dependent planning” scenario shares similarities with the “Centralized planning” one in terms of reliance on top-down policymaking and ensuring national security in supply; however, it presents notable differences as regards combating the climate crisis. In this scenario, national policymaking totally disregards its commitments to the European Union’s visions and targets and fails to take the necessary- from a climate-neutrality perspective- actions to replace carbon-intensive technologies and practices with zero-carbon ones. Similarly to the “Centralized planning” scenario, security plays a major role in public and political debate and thus the government respects security concerns by implementing reforms at a slower pace.
Underlined social distrust toward national and local energy policies becomes prominent. Citizens’ lack of knowledge and trust with regard to the greening of the power system and whether that would be beneficial for them due to the high costs and environmental implications that it would require leads to low acceptance levels for low-carbon solutions. Consequently, there is a strong resistance to change at the regional and locallevel, especially where the greening of the power sector is expected to cause the most drastic changes in the way people live, pushing citizens to get involved in radical action such as protest movements and other forms of agitation against RES. The resulting power system, thus, is dominated by a centralized fossil fuel-based energy generation, with national boundaries clearly visible in the system’s architecture.
The “Fossil fuel-dependent planning” scenario can be divided into two (2) cases. The first case, namely “Gas-dependency case”, assumes a national security of supply planning based on imported natural gas, while the second case, i.e., “Lignite-dependency case”, assumes a national security of supply planning based on domestic lignite.
More details about this ENCLUDE modeling application can be found in Deliverable 5.4: Report on the decarbonization potential of energy citizenship at the national and the EU levels.
Research questions
How does citizen participation in the power sector’s planning and decision-making affect the capacity requirements and the resulting electricity mix of decarbonization pathways under different potential evolutions of the future?
In the “Familiar World” narrative, the total capacity in the BAU case is expected to increase by 76.9 GW by 2050 compared to 2025, while the Decentralized case projects a higher growth of 101.6 GW. In the Decentralized case, increased public participation and opposition to large-scale wind and carbon capture projects lead to greater adoption of rooftop and commercial solar PV, with modest increase in wind capacity. As a result, in the BAU case, solar and wind capacities reach 33 GW and 23.9 GW by 2050, respectively, compared to 50.5 GW for solar and 27.7 GW for wind in the Decentralized case.
Supply-side flexibility grows to 32.8 GW in the BAU case and 42.5 GW in the Decentralized case by 2050, with a significant difference in short-term electricity storage, particularly utility and rooftop battery storage systems (BESS), reaching 14.4 GW in the BAU case and 25 GW in the Decentralized case.
The Decentralized case has also higher capacity requirements for behind-the-meter electricity storage compared to the BAU case, driven by increased onsite generation.
The following figure depicts the total capacity mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the BAU case and the Decentralized case, under the “Familiar World” narrative.
Familiar World
In the “Unified World” narrative, the Centralized case projects a 71.7 GW growth in capacity by 2050, while the Decentralized case shows a higher growth of 111 GW. In the Centralized case, lower public participation and less opposition to large-scale wind projects lead to a higher focus on onshore and offshore wind, with less reliance on rooftop and commercial solar PV. As a result, solar and wind capacities reach 28.4 GW and 33 GW respectively, compared to 58.4 GW for solar and 25.6 GW for wind in the Decentralized case.
The difference in solar and wind capacity growth between the two cases is also influenced by varying levels of electricity imports, which are higher in the Centralized case. Additionally, supply-side flexibility reaches 28 GW in the Centralized case (including 8.4 GW utility BESS, 0.4 GW rooftop BESS, 3 GW pumped hydro, and 16.2 GW electrolyzers), and 45.9 GW in the Decentralized case (28 GW utility BESS, 2.7 GW rooftop BESS, 3.1 GW pumped hydro, and 12.1 GW electrolyzers). These results show that the Centralized case requires lower short-term flexibility and higher long-term flexibility compared to the Decentralized case.
The following figure illustrates the total capacity mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the Centralized case and the Decentralized case, under the “Unified World” narrative.
Unified World
In the “Fragmented World” narrative, the Gas-dependency case projects a 47.3 GW capacity increase by 2050, while the Lignite-dependency caseshows a higher growth of 63.1 GW. Solar and wind capacities reach 26.8 GW and 18.1 GW respectively in the Gas-dependency case, as well as 31 GW and 22.5 GW in the Lignite-dependency case.
Supply-side flexibility reaches 11.8 GW in the Gas-dependency case (with 1.2 GW from utility BESS, 0.8 GW from rooftop BESS, 3 GW from pumped hydro, and 6.7 GW from electrolyzers) and 22.9 GW in the Lignite-dependency case (8.5 GW from utility BESS, 1.1 GW from rooftop BESS, 3.1 GW from pumped hydro, and 10.2 GW from electrolyzers).
These results indicate a greater need for long-term flexibility, similar to the Centralized case in the “Unified World” narrative. The lower flexibility requirements in these cases are due to the continued use of gas and lignite, which displaces the need for large amounts of variable renewable energy.
The following figure presents the total capacity mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the Gas-dependency case and the Lignite-dependency case, under the “Fragmented World” narrative.
Fragmented World
Under the “Familiar World” narrative, a relative electricity generation increase of 0.379 EJ by 2050 compared to 2025 is projected in the BAU Case, while the respective increase in the Decentralized case is 0.425 EJ.
In the BAU case, solar power increases by 246% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.169 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.049 EJ). In the Decentralized case, solar power demonstrates a notable growth with a 391% increase in generated electricity by 2050 (0.258 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.053 EJ).
Commercial and rooftop solar PV generation increases by 206% and 848% by 2050 compared to 2025 in the BAU case. In the Decentralized case, commercial and rooftop solar PV generation increases by 326% and 1769% by 2050 compared to 2025. The difference in rooftop solar PV generation between the two (2) cases highlights the significant untapped potential of prosumerism in Greece.
Moreover, wind power exhibits an even larger increase in electricity production compared to solar power. In the BAU case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 389% until 2050 (0.261 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.053 EJ). In the Decentralized case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 480% until 2050 (0.303 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.052 EJ).
The following figure depicts total annual electricity generation mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the BAU case and the Decentralized case under the “Familiar World” narrative.
Familiar World
Under the “Unified World” narrative, a relative electricity generation increase of 0.41 EJ by 2050 compared to 2025 is projected in the Centralized Case, while the respective increase in the Decentralized case is 0.446 EJ.
Furthermore, across the two (2) cases there is a consistent pattern of 100% reduction in electricity generation from lignite after 2025, gas after 2030, biomass and oil after 2035, signifying a complete phase out of traditional energy sources and complete dominance of solar and wind in the power mix.
In the Centralized case, solar power increases by 231% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.145 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.044 EJ). In the Decentralized case, solar power demonstrates a remarkable growth with a 470% increase in generated electricity by 2050 (0.298 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.052 EJ).
Commercial and rooftop solar PV generation increases by 390% and 1849% by 2050 compared to 2025 in the Decentralized case. In the Centralized case, commercial and rooftop solar PV generation increases by 211% and 371% by 2050 compared to 2025.
In the Centralized Case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 561% by 2050 (0.36 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.054 EJ). In the Decentralized case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 449% by 2050 (0.281 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.051 EJ).
The figure below shows the total annual electricity generation mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the BAU case and the Decentralized case under the “Unified World” narrative.
Unified World
Under the “Fragmented World” narrative, a relative electricity generation increase of 0.384 EJ by 2050 compared to 2025 is projected in the Gas-dependency case, while the respective increase in the Lignite-dependency case is 0.37 EJ.
In the Gas-dependency case, gas use increases by 91% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.157 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.082 EJ). In the Lignite-dependency case, lignite use increases by 167% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.072 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.027 EJ).
In the Gas-dependency case, solar power increases by 225% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.137 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.042 EJ). In the Lignite-dependency case, solar power increases by 261% in generated electricity by 2050 (0.159 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.044 EJ).
In the Gas-dependency case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 304% by 2050 (0.197 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.049 EJ). In the Lignite-dependency case, electricity generation from wind power increases by 386% by 2050 (0.246 EJ) compared to 2025 (0.051 EJ).
The following figure depicts the total annual electricity generation mix in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the BAU case and the Decentralized case under the “Fragmented World” narrative.
Fragmented World
How do costs and the carbon footprint of centralized and decentralized systems compare between different future-world evolutions?
In the “Familiar World” narrative, annual investments in electricity supply are expected to increase by 16.5% in the BAU case and by 78.6% in the Decentralized case by 2050 compared to 2025.
Annual wind energy investments will increase by 0.8 billion € in the BAU case and by 1.33 billion € in the Decentralized case in 2050 compared to 2025. On average, annual wind power investments will reach 1.66 billion € in the BAU case and 1.85 billion € in the Decentralized case.
Annual solar energy investments will reach 0.84 billion € annually in the BAU case and 1.32 billion € in the Decentralized case. In the BAU case, rooftop and commercial solar PV systems will account for 18.9% and 65.3% of average annual solar investments, respectively. In the Decentralized case, these shares will shift to 24.3% for rooftop PV and 63.6% for commercial PV.
BESS investments are projected to average 0.46 billion € annually in the BAU case and 0.74 billion € in the Decentralized case, with a focus on utility-scale BESS. Investments in electrolyzers will exceed 0.4 billion € per year.
The following figure depicts the average annual investments per technology for the BAU case and the Decentralized case over the period 2024-2050, under the “Familiar World” narrative.
Familiar World
In the “Unified World” narrative, annual investments in electricity supply are projected to increase by 130.8% in the Centralized case and by 83.6% in the Decentralized case by 2050 compared to 2025.
Annual wind energy investments will increase by 1.6 billion € in the Centralized case and 1.31 billion € in the Decentralized case by 2050 compared to 2025. On average, annual wind power investments will total 2.2 billion € in the Centralized case and 1.72 billion € in the Decentralized case.
Annual solar energy investments will average 0.68 billion € annually in the Centralized case and 1.54 billion € in the Decentralized case. In the Centralized case, rooftop and commercial solar PV will account for 12.1% and 68.2% of average annual solar investments, respectively, while in the Decentralized case, these shares will shift to 24.4% for rooftop PV and 62.8% for commercial PV.
BESS investments will average 0.29 billion € annually in the Centralized case and 0.9 billion € in the Decentralized case, with a focus on utility-scale BESS. Investments in electrolyzers are projected to reach 0.44 billion € in the Centralized case and 0.33 billion € in the Decentralized caseper year.
The following figure illustrates the average annual investments per technology for the BAU case and the Decentralized case over the period 2024-2050, under the “Unified World” narrative.
Unified World
In the “Fragmented World” narrative, annual investments in electricity supply are expected to increase by 136.3% in the Gas-dependency caseand 166.1% in the Lignite-dependency case by 2050 compared to 2025. However, total investments under this narrative will be significantly lower than those in the “Familiar World” and “Unified World” scenarios.
Wind energy investments are projected to average 1.21 billion € annually in the Gas-dependency case and 1.5 billion € in the Lignite-dependency case. Similarly, solar energy investments are expected to reach 0.63 billion € per year in the Gas-dependency case and 0.75 billion € in the Lignite-dependency case.
BESS investments will be lower than the previous cases, averaging 0.13 billion € annually in the Gas-dependency case and 0.34 billion € in the Lignite-dependency case. Annual investments in electrolyzers will reach 0.18 billion € in the Gas-dependency case and 0.28 billion € in the Lignite-dependency case.
The following figure presents the average annual investments per technology for the Gas-dependency case and the Lignite-dependency case over the period 2024-2050, under the “Fragmented World” narrative.
Fragmented World
By comparing the total cost of electricity supply between the BAU case and the Decentralized Case under the “Familiar World” narrative, it can be surmised that decentralization of the electricity supply will require additional 22.5 billion € of capital investments, while 21.6 billion € of variable cost expenditures will be saved from this strategy. Overall, the energy planning in the BAU case will lead to cost savings of 4.8 billion €.
Under the “Unified World” narrative, results show that the Centralized case is more economically efficient than the Decentralized case by 24.3 billion €, due to the much higher capital investments required in the latter.
Under the “Fragmented World” narrative, results show extremely high variable system costs, especially in the Gas-dependency case, due to the increase of gas and CO2 emission allowance prices.
The following figure depicts the total cost of electricity supply in the Greek power sector over the period 2024-2050 for the “Familiar World”, “Unified World”, and “Fragmented World” narratives.
Under the “Familiar World” narrative, results show that the complete phaseout of fossil fuels leads to decarbonization in the power sector in 2040, while, under the “Unified World” narrative, decarbonization in the power sector is achieved after 2035.
Under the “Fragmented World” narrative, both the Gas-dependency case and the Lignite-dependency case will lead to increased carbon footprints due to the extended fossil-fuel use until 2050. Carbon footprints of 0.39 Gton of CO2 (4.7 times higher than the BAU case) and 0.56 Gton (6.7 times higher than the BAU case) are reached in the Gas-dependency case and the Lignite-dependency case, respectively.
The following figure depicts the total annual CO2 footprint in the Greek power sector by 2050 for the “Familiar World”, “Unified World”, and “Fragmented World” narratives.
What are the potential socioeconomic benefits derived from citizen-led investments and how do these benefits compare among different policy mixes and potential future evolutions of the surrounding environment?
Under the “Familiar World” narrative, the Decentralized case shows higher profitability compared to the BAU case, driven by greater capacity expansion of solar rooftop PV systems. In the “Unified World” narrative, the Decentralized case delivers 2-3 times higher profitability than the Centralized case, due to the more substantial growth in solar rooftop PV capacity.
In the “Fragmented World” narrative, citizens benefit more than in the BAU case, primarily due to higher wholesale and retail electricity prices. This is particularly evident in the Gas-dependency case, where the rising cost of natural gas imports significantly increases system costs, driving up electricity prices and, consequently, the profitability of solar rooftop PV investments.
A key distinction between the “Familiar World” and “Unified World” narratives lies in the profitability of the Decentralized case, which is higher in the “Unified World” due to the faster adoption rate of solar rooftop PV. In the Unified World, the solar rooftop PV adoption follows a logarithmic trend, while in the Familiar World it follows an S-curve trend. This underscores the importance of early citizen action, i.e., those who invest in solar rooftop PV sooner can reap greater socioeconomic benefits.
The following figure illustrates the net present value of rooftop solar PV investments over the period 2024-2050 for the “Familiar World”, “Unified World”, and “Fragmented World” narratives.
More studies by ENCLUDE
You can explore results from more modelling studies by ENCLUDE project in the following links:
- Scenario design for energy citizenship
- Citizen-led transitions towards justice and inclusivity
- Impacts of Collective Energy Initiatives in Europe by 2030
- Decarbonization potentials of energy citizen clusters
- "Power to the People" transitions in EU cities