Higher-education campuses are well suited to staged decarbonization because they combine concentrated electrical demand, substantial rooftop area, diverse load flexibility, and long-term institutional ownership of energy assets. This study develops a Campus Microgrid Renewable Integration and Energy-Saving Assessment Framework (CMR-ESAF) for planning the transition of Shivaji University, India, from grid-dependent operation to an optimized hybrid renewable energy system (HRES) microgrid. Unlike a greenfield sizing study, the framework explicitly separates three transition states: S0, a grid-only reference; S1, the existing campus with 930 kW of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) capacity; and S2, an optimized HRES incorporating PV expansion, supplementary wind generation, battery energy storage (BESS), demand-side management (DSM), and energy-management-system (EMS) dispatch under grid and campus-network constraints. The S2 planning problem is solved using an adapted NSGA-III many-objective framework with normalized constraint handling, dynamic feasibility relaxation, reference-vector association, dual archives, and fuzzy best-compromise selection. Under the stated annual hourly simulation assumptions, S0 requires 3650 MWh/yr of grid electricity, emits 2993 tCO ₂ 2 /yr, and reaches a maximum demand of 1080 kVA. S1 lowers grid import to 2430 MWh/yr, corresponding to a 33.4% reduction in grid dependency and 1000.4 tCO ₂ 2 /yr of avoided emissions. The selected S2 configuration comprises 1580 kW total PV, 150 kW wind DG, a 500 kW/1500 kWh BESS, and 130 kW of DSM participation. It reduces grid import to 1175 MWh/yr and maximum demand to 695 kVA, yielding a 67.8% grid-dependency reduction, 35.6% peak-demand mitigation, 72.3% renewable fraction, and 65.8% renewable self-sufficiency. The modeled annual utility cost decreases from INR 413.6 to 145.7 lakh/yr; the corresponding planning estimate gives a levelized campus electricity cost (LCEC) of INR 4.85/kWh and a simple payback period of 6.4 years. The principal contribution is a replicable transition framework that distinguishes the value already delivered by installed PV from the incremental benefit of coordinated HRES, storage, DSM, and EMS investment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kamble et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: