Techno-Economic Assessment of Net Metering and Energy Sharing in a Mixed-Use Renewable Energy Community in Montreal: A Simulation-Based Approach Using Tool4Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a techno-economic analysis of two energy-sharing mechanisms—Net Metering (NM) and Energy Sharing (ES)—within a mixed-use renewable energy community (REC) in Montreal. The study employs an integrated simulation framework combining urban energy modeling, PV generation, and policy-sensitive economic evaluation. The topic is timely and relevant, especially given the growing interest in decentralized energy systems and community-based energy strategies.

1. The literature review is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. Consider streamlining Section 1.2 to focus more on research directly related to mixed-use communities and energy-sharing mechanisms.
2. The introductory review section lacks some recent references on REC implementation in North America. The following related research can be compared a: Coordinated operation of multi-energy microgrids considering green hydrogen and congestion management via a safe policy learning approach B: Extension of pole differential current based relaying for bipolar LCC HVDC lines c: N-1 Evaluation of Integrated Electricity and Gas System Considering Cyber-Physical Interdependence

 

3. More details are needed on why the Tools4Cities platform was chosen, and a comparison table with other tools should be added.
4. In the photovoltaic modeling part, some data need to add references to indicate the data source, such as fixed tilt angle.
5. In the results section, the discussion of peak shaving and valley filling can be further expanded by combining seasonal analysis.
6. The caption of Figure 4 is a bit messy and should be made clearer.
7. Some reference data before 2020 can be replaced by newer ones.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper presents a techno-economic analysis of two energy-sharing mechanisms—Net Metering (NM) and Energy Sharing (ES)—within a mixed-use renewable energy community (REC) in Montreal. The study employs an integrated simulation framework combining urban energy modeling, PV generation, and policy-sensitive economic evaluation. The topic is timely and relevant, especially given the growing interest in decentralized energy systems and community-based energy strategies.

1. The literature review is comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. Consider streamlining Section 1.2 to focus more on research directly related to mixed-use communities and energy-sharing mechanisms.

R1.1: Thank you for your comment. Section 1.2 has been revised.

2. The introductory review section lacks some recent references on REC implementation in North America. The following related research can be compared a: Coordinated operation of multi-energy microgrids considering green hydrogen and congestion management via a safe policy learning approach B: Extension of pole differential current based relaying for bipolar LCC HVDC lines c: N-1 Evaluation of Integrated Electricity and Gas System Considering Cyber-Physical Interdependence

R1.2: Thank you for your comment. The papers have been included in the Introduction.

3. More details are needed on why the Tools4Cities platform was chosen, and a comparison table with other tools should be added.

R1.3: Thank you for your comment. Additional details have been added to Section 2.1 to justify the selection of the Tools4Cities platform and highlight its distinctive features compared with other urban building energy modeling (UBEM) tools. A new comparison table (Table 1) has also been included, summarizing the main differences among widely used tools such as City Energy Analyst (CEA), URBANopt, and TEASER, in terms of data input requirements, scalability, energy-sharing capabilities, and intended application scale. This addition clarifies that Tools4Cities was selected for its modular architecture, automated archetype assignment, direct integration with irradiance-aware PV modeling, and its ability to couple simulation outputs with policy evaluation and energy-sharing mechanisms, which are essential for this study community-scale techno-economic analysis.

4. In the photovoltaic modeling part, some data need to add references to indicate the data source, such as fixed tilt angle.

R1.4: Thank you for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we have added proper references to support the photovoltaic modeling parameters, including the fixed tilt angle, inter-row spacing, and performance coefficients. In particular, the fixed tilt angle (38°) used for Montréal was referenced to both optimal-tilt empirical models and validation studies for PV systems in similar latitudes. We also clarified that the chosen angle maximizes annual global irradiance on the plane of array under local climatic conditions. Additional references have been inserted in Section 2.2 “PV Modelling Workflow”.

5. In the results section, the discussion of peak shaving and valley filling can be further expanded by combining seasonal analysis.

R1.5: Thank you for your comment. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the discussion of peak shaving and valley filling in Section 5.2, integrating a seasonal perspective (winter vs. summer) to highlight how solar irradiance availability and consumption patterns influence grid-load smoothing. We also added new insights explaining that while summer PV generation allows substantial peak shaving during afternoon hours, winter conditions result in limited PV contribution and therefore reduced potential for valley filling. The revised text provides a detailed interpretation of these seasonal dynamics and their implications for renewable energy community (REC) operation and grid interaction.

6. The caption of Figure 4 is a bit messy and should be made clearer.

R1.6: Thank you for your comment. Figure 4 caption has been rewritten for improved clarity and readability.

7. Some reference data before 2020 can be replaced by newer ones.

R1.7: Thank you for your comment. In the revised version, we have updated several references published before 2020 with more recent and relevant works to ensure that the literature reflects the current state of research on Renewable Energy Communities (RECs), energy sharing mechanisms, and urban energy modeling.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript mainly concerns on assessment of net metering and energy sharing in a mixed-use renewable energy community. In general, the paper is high-quality. It is thought that this manuscript is able to publish after the revision.

• The abstract is lengthy, and the novelty of this paper is necessary to add.
• Research gaps are necessary to describe in detail.
• What is the key difference of energy communities in European and Canada?
• The quality of figure 1 is poor.
• What is the advantage and disadvantage of NM and ES?
• The economic result seems insensitive to jee. Why?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript mainly concerns on assessment of net metering and energy sharing in a mixed-use renewable energy community. In general, the paper is high-quality. It is thought that this manuscript is able to publish after the revision.

1. The abstract is lengthy, and the novelty of this paper is necessary to add.

R2.1: Thank you for your comment. The abstract has been revised according to the reviewer suggestions.

2. Research gaps are necessary to describe in detail.

R2.2: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Introduction (end of Section 1.2, before Section 1.4 “Aim and Contributions”) to explicitly describe the research gaps identified from the existing literature. The new paragraph summarizes the main shortcomings of prior studies on renewable energy communities (RECs), particularly regarding mixed-use urban contexts, data-scarce environments, and policy-oriented simulation tools. We also clarified how the present study addresses these gaps by developing a replicable, archetype-based modeling framework that integrates energy-sharing mechanisms and economic analysis within a Canadian regulatory context.

3. What is the key difference of energy communities in European and Canada?

R2.3: Thank you for your comment. To clarify this important aspect, we have expanded Section 1.3 (Regulatory Context) by explicitly contrasting the European and Canadian approaches to Renewable Energy Communities. The revised text now highlights that while the EU has a well-defined legal framework under the Clean Energy Package (Directive (EU) 2018/2001) that recognizes RECs as legal entities with rights and incentives for collective self-consumption, Canada lacks a unified national regulation. Instead, community energy projects depend on provincial utility programs (e.g., net-metering rules of Hydro-Québec and Ontario’s IESO). This addition clarifies why the Canadian case offers a distinct and under-explored policy and technical setting for energy sharing.

4. The quality of figure 1 is poor.

R2.4: Thank you for your comment. The quality of figure has been improved.

5. What is the advantage and disadvantage of NM and ES?

R2.5: Thank you for your comment. To address it, we have added a new comparative discussion at the end of Section 5.2 explicitly outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the Net Metering (NM) and Energy Sharing (ES) mechanisms from both technical and economic perspectives. A new short table (Table 6) and accompanying paragraph were introduced to summarize the main trade-offs in grid interaction, community participation, and financial feasibility.

6. The economic result seems insensitive to jee. Why?

R2.6: Thank you for this remark. We acknowledge that the notation jee (annual escalation rate of electricity price) may have caused some confusion with pee (unit electricity price). In the manuscript, jee represents the cost of electricity purchased from the grid, whereas pee refers to the selling price of electricity exported to the grid. The economic results indeed show limited sensitivity to pee, as discussed in Section 5.3, because of the low amount of electricity exported to the grid compared to the amount imported from the grid in case of ES (roughly 6 GWh imported against roughly 0.6 GWh exported). Therefore, the influence of electricity selling price is minimal in the economic performance, as better explained in the Manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper does not provide any major contribution. The topics presented are not new and are well-documented. The methodology used is rather simple.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The paper does not provide any major contribution. The topics presented are not new and are well-documented. The methodology used is rather simple.

R3: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their feedback. We respectfully disagree that the paper lacks contribution, and we have revised the Introduction and Conclusions to clarify both the scientific novelty and practical relevance of this study. While the concepts of Net Metering (NM) and Energy Sharing (ES) are indeed established, our work contributes in several original ways:

1. Contextual novelty:

This is, to our knowledge, the first comparative techno-economic assessment of NM and ES mechanisms applied to a mixed-use Renewable Energy Community (REC) in Canada, a country where RECs are not yet formally regulated. Prior studies have mainly focused on residential communities or European frameworks.

1. Methodological contribution:

The study introduces a replicable, archetype-based simulation framework built on the Tools4Cities platform. This workflow integrates irradiance-aware PV simulation, hourly building demand modeling, and community-level redistribution algorithms under both NM and ES mechanisms. Although intentionally streamlined, the framework is computationally efficient and scalable, allowing its application to large data-scarce urban areas – an aspect that complex optimization models often fail to address.

1. Policy relevance and scalability:

Beyond the technical results, the paper provides quantified policy insights, identifying the financial tipping points (e.g., CAPEX subsidies, feed-in tariff levels) required to make RECs viable under Québec low-tariff conditions. Such evidence is currently missing in the Canadian literature and can directly inform policymakers and urban planners.

To highlight these elements, we have better explained the gaps found in literature and the contribution of the work within the revised version of the Manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised carefully according to review comments. It is recommended acceptance for it.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper in the current version. The contributions are now explicit and clearer.