Analysis of Electricity Production and Consumption to Ensure Continuity After February 6, 2023 Earthquake: PV-BESS Solutions

Turkey was shaken by two devastating earthquakes of magnitudes 7.7 MW and 7.6 MW on February 6, 2023 [1], [2]. Nearly 14 million people were directly affected by these two devastating earthquakes, primarily in 11 provinces. The affected regions suffered significant material and moral damage, as well as loss of life and property. The destruction in the cities where the earthquakes occurred also severely impacted electricity distribution and communication systems [1], [2].

Continuous increase in demand for electrical energy, environmental concerns, developing technology, and falling installation costs, there is a growing effort to utilize new and renewable energy sources (RES) more effectively. photovoltaic (PV)-based solar energy systems are at the forefront of these sources, and consequently, the number of solar power plants in power systems is rapidly increasing. Turkey aims to increase the share of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, micro-hydro, and bioconversion, which have great potential, in its production to meet its continuously increasing energy demand and reduce its dependence on foreign sources [3]. The widespread adoption of distributed generation systems (DGS) is becoming increasingly important for the energy system, especially during the transition to renewable energy. The increased efficiency and reduced installation costs of DGS technologies are accelerating this change, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and imported resources, and playing a significant role in minimizing transmission and distribution losses [4], [5].

Solar power plants (SPPs) are becoming increasingly important for the energy system in the transition to renewable energy, thanks to their ease of installation and cost advantages. Increased efficiency and decreasing technology costs in SPPs are accelerating this trend. Solar energy (SE) is one of the most preferred renewable energy sources due to its local, independent, natural, inexhaustible, clean nature, unlimited availability, lack of carbon dioxide emissions, harmlessness to nature and human health, rapid installation, and absence of radioactive effects [5], [6], [7].

The rapid proliferation of RES, particularly solar energy, has made battery energy storage systems (BESS) indispensable for ensuring grid stability, reliability, and operational efficiency [8]. When integrated into the system along with PV systems, BESS has become an essential component of modern energy infrastructure to address the problems arising from the intermittent nature of renewable energy production. BESS compensates for variability in solar energy output caused by atmospheric conditions, reduces short-term fluctuations, and increases energy reliability by providing consistent power during periods of low production [9], [10]. Thanks to its rapid response capability, BESS acts as a frequency regulating power supply, balancing the active power within the grid and ensuring the maintenance of grid frequency stability [11]. From an economic perspective, the use of BESS in conjunction with PV systems provides significant cost savings by reducing energy losses, increasing operational efficiency, and enabling optimization strategies that adapt storage capacities to specific load demands and electricity market prices [12], [13], [14]. The technical and economic advantages of using PV and BESS together make BESS an attractive solution for both grid-connected and off-grid applications, supporting the transition to more sustainable and reliable energy systems [8].

This study primarily addresses the current state of electricity energy in Turkey. Then, to analyse electricity power systems during the February 6th earthquakes, production and consumption data for the relevant dates are provided. Due to the increasing share of renewable energy sources, particularly solar energy systems, in energy systems, PV and BESS system integrations are examined. Key findings of the study include:

$\bullet$ Use of real national electricity production and consumption data after natural disasters such as earthquakes,

$\bullet$ Evaluation of PV-BESS systems under both normal and extraordinary operating conditions,

$\bullet$ Presentation of the technical and economic impact of PV-BESS systems on energy systems.

In Turkey, most electricity energy needs are met by fossil fuels [5], [15]. The distribution of the country’s primary sources used in electricity production is given in Figure 1. As of the end of December 2022, the distribution of installed power sources is as follows: natural gas 24.42%, coal (domestic + imported) 21.01%, hydroelectric (river + dam) 30.41%, wind 10.97%, solar 9.79%, and others 3.4%. As can be seen from the distribution of sources, more than 45.43% of the installed power consists of power plants using fossil fuels. Figure 2 shows the change in installed power over the years. The total installed power reached 103,809.3 MW as of the end of December 2022 and 104,222 MW in March 2023 [16], [17].

The number of power plants supplying power to the interconnected system increased from 1521 at the end of 2015 to 2321 at the end of 2016, 5021 at the end of 2017, 7234 at the end of 2018, 8589 at the end of 2019, 11427 by the end of December 2022, and 11795 in March 2023 [16]. All the increases in the number of power plants in 2023 were due to SPPs [16]. The most important reason for the rapid increase in the number of power plants since 2016 is the increase in the number of unlicensed electricity generation plants, especially SPPs. The increase in the number of power plants has further accelerated with the introduction of rooftop regulations for small-capacity solar energy systems and the commencement of installations [17]. In grid-connected systems for rooftop and facade installations, initially up to 10 kW was included in the net metering scheme [18], [19]. The currency crisis and energy crisis directly affected Turkey, which is largely dependent on foreign sources for electricity production [20]. In accordance with the recommendations resulting from studies [5], [6], [7], it was decided to increase this value first to 25 kW [21] and then to 50 kW [22]. Due to reasons such as the astronomical price increase of fossil fuels, the currency crisis, the energy crisis, energy supply security, the pandemic, and the demand for detached houses after the earthquake [23], [24], the number of SPPs are expected to increase exponentially.

The earthquakes that occurred on February 6th resulted in widespread material, moral, and social destruction and devastation [1], [25], [27]. Electricity and natural gas distribution systems were also damaged and experienced outages during the earthquake. Electricity supply to buildings with undamaged or minor damage has been largely restored since the earthquake [28].

Table 1 presents Turkey’s electricity production, export, import, and consumption figures for January and February 2023. The table shows that in January, both production and consumption generally exceeded 900,000 MWh. However, in February, the month of the earthquake, the 900,000 MWh mark was mostly not reached. Comparing the monthly average daily production, consumption, export, and import figures, a decrease occurred in all averages after the earthquake. The average daily production value was 859,820.94 MWh in January, while it decreased to 851,221.52 MWh in February. Consumption averages also decreased, from 881,208.74 MWh in January to 863,619.86 MWh in February.

In the initial days following the power outage, much of the earthquake zone was without electricity. Many critical post-earthquake services, such as communication, search and rescue, healthcare, heating, and lighting, were disrupted. Solar energy systems and energy storage systems can be used as a solution to ensure the continuity of electricity supply for critical services and households after a natural disaster.

Generally, solar energy systems can be divided into two main groups according to their usage. The first is systems that generate electrical energy, and the second is systems used for heating and cooling. Two different technologies are heavily used in systems that generate electrical energy: PV systems and concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. With PV technology, electricity is produced by semiconductor materials directly converting sunlight into electrical energy. CSP systems, on the other hand, use concentrated solar radiation to heat a receiver to high temperatures, and then this high heat is converted into mechanical energy and then into electrical energy via turbines or motors [29]. Solar heating and cooling (SHC) systems are systems that use heat energy from the sun directly for heating or cooling water or the environment [30].

Turkey is in the northern hemisphere between 36–42$^\circ$ north latitude and 26–45$^\circ$ east longitude. Situated in the temperate zone, Turkey is closer to the equator than to the poles. Due to its geographical location, it possesses high solar energy potential. With an average solar radiation value of 1527 kWh/m²-year, Turkey is in a more advantageous position than many European countries in terms of solar energy potential, compared to Germany (1014 kWh/m²-year), France (014 kWh/m²-year), and Italy (1448 kWh/m²-year) [31].

Based on data measured by the Turkish State Meteorological Service (TSMS), the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (MENR) has conducted Turkey’s first solar energy potential assessment. This assessment revealed that Turkey’s average annual total sunshine duration is 2640 hours (7.2 hours/day) and its average annual solar radiation is 1311 kWh/m2-year (3.6 kWh/m2-day). Subsequently, TSMS modelled Turkey’s solar energy potential using sunshine duration and radiation data measured by 157 weather stations of TSMS in 1971 and 2000. According to the TSMS modelling, Turkey’s average annual total sunshine duration was obtained as 2573 hours (7 hours/day) and the average annual total radiation as 1527 kWh/m²-year (4 kWh/m²-day) [32]. Figure 3 shows the Turkey’s solar energy potential.

With the completion of legal regulations, the provision of incentives, and finally the commencement of monthly net metering, solar energy installed capacity has increased rapidly since 2016, as seen in Figure 4. As of March 2023, solar energy installed capacity has reached 9778 MW, and the number of power plants has reached 9718 [16]. Initially, solar energy gained momentum with ground-mounted installations of up to 1 MW [34]. From 2019 onwards, ground-mounted installation permits were abolished, and instead, permits and net metering regulations were introduced for roof and facade installations [35]. Due to factors such as rising energy costs, the pandemic, and the increased demand for detached houses after the earthquake disaster, the installed capacity and number of grid-connected (on-grid) and off-grid solar energy systems continue to increase rapidly.

This section of the study analyses a solar energy-battery energy storage system designed to maximize solar energy utilization during normal times and meet continuous energy needs during extraordinary circumstances. The proposed system will maintain a minimum energy cost relative to the grid price during normal operation. It will primarily focus on meeting load demand using solar energy, then manage battery charge/discharge costs. During extraordinary circumstances, it will directly supply the load during sunny periods and store excess energy in the storage system for use during periods of low power generation.

The system includes a solar power plant with an installed capacity of 7.5 kW. The BESS capacity is 11.20 kWh. The system also includes a standard 3-kW EV charger. The analysis was conducted for a 365-day period. The total energy demand of the system analysed is 4000 kWh. The 7.5 kW PV capacity and 11.2 kWh BESS size used in the study were determined by considering the energy load profile of a typical modern home and EV charging requirements [36]. EV integration significantly increases this demand. Based on data showing that a private light-duty EV consumes an average of 9.1 kWh of energy per day in urban use [37]. The 7.5 kW PV system will more than meet this need during sunny hours, providing sufficient margin to recharge the battery; while the 11.2 kWh battery capacity offers a sufficient ‘buffer’ space to autonomously support the EV charging load in the evening hours and the consumption of basic household appliances [38]. The proposed system was implemented using MATLAB software. Optimal values were obtained using the tool developed by Mohamed et al. [39].

The technical and economic performance of the proposed PV-BESS system was analysed using the PV-Battery Tool (PVBT), developed in MATLAB and presented by Mohamed et al. [39]. In this section, the decision variables, constraints, control strategy, tariff structure, and data sources of the model are clearly defined.

Decision Variables: Two main decision variables were determined in the optimization process: PV system capacity (kW) and BESS energy capacity (kWh). The search range for PV capacity was defined as 5–10 kW, and for BESS capacity as 2.4–20 kWh. BESS power capacity (kW) is calculated with a linear relationship to energy capacity (BESSP = 1.245 + 0.304 × BESS).

Objective Function: The system aims to minimize the total electricity bill cost. Net power flow is calculated at each time step as the energy drawn from and exported to the grid after BESS charge/discharge operations is multiplied by the relevant tariff rates to obtain daily and annual billing values. Net Present Value (NPV) and payback period are calculated in the economic evaluation.

Constraints: The following constraints were applied to battery operation:

State of Charge (SOC) limits: $\mathrm{SOC}_{\min }=0.05 \leq \mathrm{SOC}(\mathrm{t}) \leq \mathrm{SOC}_{\max }=1.00$.

Maximum Depth of Discharge (DOD): $95 \%$.

Round-trip efficiency: $90.25 \%\left(\eta_{\text {BESS }}=0.95 \times \eta_{\text {inverter }}=0.95\right)$.

BESS power limit: Charging and discharging power cannot exceed the BESSP value Grid export power limit: 3.68 kW.

SOC update equation:

BESS Control Strategy: The battery control algorithm follows a rule-based approach. Charging occurs in two modes: (i) scheduled charging during low-tariff nighttime hours (01:00–07:00) with seasonal charging percentages (Winter: 70%, Spring: 23%, Summer: 0%, Autumn: 45%), and (ii) opportunistic charging when there is excess PV production (Pnet < PTHC = 0 kW). Discharging occurs when the net power demand exceeds the threshold (Pnet > PTHD = 0 kW) and under the condition SOC > SOCmin.

Tariff Structure: The analysis applied the UK Economy 7 dual tariff structure: daytime tariff 35.89 p/kWh (08:00–01:00), night tariff 17.16 p/kWh (01:00–08:00), fixed rate 13.66 p/day, and export tariff 4.59 p/kWh.

Data Sources and Resolution: The simulation was performed for a 365-day (one full year) period with a 30-minute time resolution (48 data points per day, 17,520 data points in total). The input data consisted of three components: residential electricity consumption profile (kW), unit PV production profile (kW/kWp), and EV charging profile (kW). The total annual energy demand was estimated at approximately 4,000 kWh.

Economic Parameters: PV system cost is £1,742/kW, inverter cost is £100/kW, BESS cost is £500/kWh (15% fixed + 85% variable component), interest rate is 4.5%, electricity price increase rate is 2%/year, BESS price decrease rate is 12%/year, PV lifespan is 30 years, inverter lifespan is 15 years, BESS warranty period is 15 years, annual PV decay rate is 0.5%, and PV maintenance cost is taken as 1% of annual capital cost [39].

In this study, optimum PV-BESS configuration values were obtained to meet the electricity demand. The energy change trend characteristics of the PV-BESS hybrid system are shown in Figure 5, which shows the energy consumption and production distributions during the relevant period. The energy consumption distribution shows that the base load constitutes most of the energy demand, accounting for approximately 65% of the total consumption. EV charging accounts for approximately 35% of the system’s energy requirements. This distribution reflects typical domestic energy usage patterns where the base load demand remains mostly constant, while EV charging introduces additional energy requirements over time.

The energy production distribution shows that the PV system directly meets approximately 50% of the total energy demand, while its contribution from the grid accounts for approximately 20% of the consumption. A careful examination of the graph reveals that approximately 30% of the energy is supplied via BESS, highlighting the significant role of energy storage systems in operating with the grid. The use of BESS demonstrates that it effectively balances variable solar power generation with time-dependent load demand variations, thereby reducing grid dependence during peak tariff periods and maximizing the self-consumption of PV generation.

Figure 6 shows the graphs illustrating the analysis results for a specific day’s operation. It provides information on system behaviour throughout the sample operation day, presenting the temporal dynamics of power flows and SOC management. The sample day power components illustrate the time-varying nature of load demand, PV generation, and EV charging over a 24-hour period. Load demand exhibits a relatively constant baseline level of approximately 0.2–1.0 kW throughout the day, reaching a significant peak of approximately 8.3 kW around the 14th hour. This peak likely corresponds to high-power instantaneous load utilization. PV generation shows the characteristic bell curve of solar irradiation, starting around the 6th hour, reaching a maximum of approximately 1.0 kW around midday (8–14 hours), and decreasing by the 17th hour. The relatively modest peak PV power compared to the installed capacity of 7.5 kW suggests partial cloud cover or low-season operation. Electric vehicle charging occurs as a separate event between 18-21 hours, and power demand reaches approximately 3.0 kW; this is strategically timed to coincide with the evening hours when direct solar power generation ceases, and low electricity tariffs apply.

The BESS operation graph shows the battery’s response to these power shift dynamics. Charging predominantly occurs in the early morning hours (0–7 hours) and reaches a maximum charge rate of approximately 1.4 kW around the 5th hour. The reason for charging during this period coincides with the time interval when electricity tariffs are low, indicating that the system is operating in accordance with the economic optimization strategy. Discharging is concentrated in the evening and late afternoon hours (8–22 hours), and the highest discharge rates approach 4.5 kW around the 15th hour, coinciding with a sudden large load increase. BESS effectively balances the grid from these high-power transient demands, meeting instantaneous grid power requirements and providing an advantage in the relevant tariff rates.

The sample day’s SOC graph quantitatively shows the energy status of the 11.20 kWh BESS. The SOC profile starts at approximately 0.05 (5% charge) and steadily increases throughout the charging period, reaching approximately 0.75 (75% charge) at hour 8. This charging strategy ensures the battery remains within its optimum operating range while avoiding excessive SOC limits that could accelerate battery degradation. The SOC then decreases during discharge periods, dropping to approximately 0.15 (15%) at hour 16, before partially recovering to approximately 0.55 (55%) during a secondary charge event around hours 17–19. The final end-of-day SOC returns to approximately 0.05, demonstrating a complete daily cycle that maximizes battery utilization while maintaining sufficient reserve capacity for grid stability services.

The net power comparison graph compares system operation with and without BESS integration. Without BESS, the net power profile exhibits significant fluctuation, with the grid draw requirement reaching approximately 8.0 kW at the 14-hour load peak. With BESS, this profile is significantly smoothed, limiting maximum grid draw to approximately 3.3 kW during the evening EV charging period and keeping grid draw virtually zero for most of the daylight hours. BESS effectively distributes this energy requirement over multiple hours by meeting the sharp 8.0 kW demand surge and instead releasing stored energy. This load balancing feature reduces high demand charges and minimizes stress on the distribution infrastructure.

Figure 7 presents comprehensive monthly energy performance metrics for four components. These include load and PV generation patterns, BESS charge/discharge cycles, PV generation rates, and overall energy variations throughout the year. The monthly load and PV generation graph reveals significant seasonal effects on both consumption and generation. PV generation shows characteristic summer peaks, reaching maximum values of approximately 580 kWh in July, while it exhibits significantly reduced seasonality in the winter months (January, February, November, and December), ranging from 100–200 kWh. This difference between summer and winter generation highlights the importance of seasonal effects on solar energy availability in the study area. Load demand varies from approximately 270 kWh in May to 380 kWh in January, with an average monthly consumption of approximately 330 kWh, showing less rapid seasonal variation. Compared to PV generation, which is highly sensitive to seasonal variations, the relatively stable load profile demonstrates the necessity of energy storage systems for maintaining supply-demand balance throughout the year and achieving economic gains.

The monthly BESS charge/discharge analysis demonstrates the critical role of battery storage in the operation of the hybrid system. Maximum battery charging peaks during the summer months (May, June, July, August), with a peak charge energy of approximately 390 kWh in July, coinciding with periods of high PV production. Discharge patterns show higher activity, particularly during months of low solar production, between September and May, with monthly discharge energy ranging from 150-250 kWh. Overall balanced charge-discharge cycles throughout the year indicate optimal battery utilization, with BESS effectively storing excess solar energy during periods of high PV production and utilizing stored energy during periods of decreased solar production or increased load demand.

The graph showing monthly PV generation values illustrates the percentage of load demand directly met by PV generation. This metric peaks during the summer months, showing a significant overproduction of PV, with a maximum generation rate of approximately 192% in July. During the winter months, the generation-to-load ratio decreases significantly, falling to around 30–40% in January, February, November, and December. Spring and autumn months (March-September) maintain ratios between 85% and 190%, demonstrating the system’s ability to meet load demand requirements and its excess capacity during these periods. The average annual PV load coverage rate of approximately 110% shows that a 7.5 kW PV installation provides sufficient generation capacity to meet annual load demand, and seasonal storage supports balancing production and consumption needs. The monthly energy change graph shows the variation in load, PV generation, and EV charging profiles over time. The significant relationship between load and PV generation highlights the key challenge addressed by the integrated PV-BESS system in production-consumption. While monthly load demand remains relatively stable around 300–380 kWh, PV energy production varies significantly seasonally between 100 kWh and 580 kWh. Electric vehicle charging demand shows less seasonal variation, fluctuating between approximately 80 kWh and 220 kWh per month, averaging around 150 kWh. The convergence of these three parameters during the transitional months (March-April and September-October) indicates optimum operating conditions where solar energy production closely matches combined load and electric vehicle charging requirements.

Figure 8 presents a comprehensive economic evaluation of the PV-BESS system with four different analytical assessments: electricity bill comparison, annual savings breakdown, NPV comparison, and payback period analysis. The electricity bill comparison, given first, numerically demonstrates the economic impact of PV and BESS integration on annual electricity costs. In the base scenario, without PV or BESS, an annual electricity bill of approximately £1,970 is incurred for 4,000 kWh of consumption, representing full grid dependence. With PV integration alone, this cost is reduced to approximately £1,170, resulting in annual savings of £800 (approximately a 41% reduction). The hybrid PV-BESS system reduces annual costs to approximately £650, resulting in total savings of £1,320 (a 67% reduction) compared to the base scenario. It also provides an additional saving of £520 compared to PV-only operation. The hybrid system achieved by adding BESS to the PV system results in a 44%-tiered reduction in bill costs, maximizing the self-consumption of solar energy and demonstrating that energy storage provides a significant economic impact during periods of peak electricity tariffs.

The annual savings comparison graph divides the economic benefits into PV savings and BESS savings. PV savings, estimated at approximately £780 annually, constitute the primary economic benefit and stem from obtaining the electricity the system needs directly from solar energy production instead of the grid. BESS savings, estimated at approximately £530 annually, demonstrate the advantage gained through temporal energy arbitrage by storing excess PV energy during periods of low electricity tariffs or supporting the system during peak demand periods of high electricity tariff costs. The total annual savings of £1,310 closely coincide with the electricity bill reduction shown in the previously provided graph, confirming the consistency of the economic model by achieving optimum values. In achieving a savings ratio of approximately 1.5:1 between PV and BESS, it is observed that PV-based production forms the basis of economic benefit, while BESS significantly contributes to the overall system economy through optimal energy management.

The NPV comparison graph illustrates the analysis of the long-term economic viability of PV and BESS investments over an estimated 20-year system lifespan. The PV system shows a significant NPV of approximately £7,850, indicating a net profit over the time the system remains operational. This significant positive NPV reflects a combination of recovered electricity costs, potential electricity tariff revenues, and the long operating life (typically 25–30 years) of photovoltaic systems relative to their initial investment costs. In contrast, the BESS system shows a relatively lower NPV of approximately £1,050, providing a positive but significantly lower return on investment. The lower NPV for BESS is attributed to higher installation costs (per kWh of storage capacity), a more limited operating lifespan (typically 10–15 years for lithium-ion batteries), and cyclical degradation that reduces effective capacity over time. Despite the lower NPV, the gains achieved demonstrate that BESS integration makes economic sense when considering the added value of grid resilience, energy independence, and the overall system lifecycle.

The graph showing the payback period illustrates the total savings trajectories and break-even points for both PV and BESS investments. PV cumulative savings show a rapid return, covering the PV investment cost (approximately £6,800) in about 8.7 years, indicating the payback period of the PV system. BESS cumulative savings show a more gradual return rate, exceeding the BESS investment threshold (approximately £5,400) in about 10.2 years. By the 20th year, cumulative PV savings reach approximately £15,600, while BESS savings reach approximately £10,600. The linear structure of these savings curves assumes of constant electricity prices and system performance. In real-world scenarios, savings can be expected to accelerate due to rising electricity costs and potential revenue from grid services. Payback periods of 8.7 years (PV) and 10.2 years (BESS) are significantly shorter than expected system lifetimes, confirming the long-term economic viability of the integrated system. Considering a total investment of approximately £12,200 and total annual savings of £1,310, the hybrid system payback period is approximately 9.3 years, providing an attractive return on investment for individual home energy systems.

This demonstrates that the hybrid PV-BESS system provides attractive financial benefits through multiple mechanisms. This system enables direct grid electricity replacement, peak load demand reduction, time-of-use arbitrage, and increased energy independence. The system’s ability to reduce electricity costs by 67% while maintaining positive NPV and reasonable payback periods demonstrates the economic sustainability of this approach for residential energy management. In extraordinary situations such as grid outages caused by natural disasters, the system provides an invaluable advantage in terms of availability, going beyond just the economic perspective. It ensures uninterrupted power supply for loads when the grid infrastructure is compromised.

The economic analysis in this study is based on the assumptions that electricity prices remain constant, and system performance is stable throughout the analysis period. In real-world conditions, electricity tariffs can change significantly over time depending on factors such as energy policies, market dynamics, and inflation. Furthermore, although capacity loss was calculated using a battery degradation model in this study, long-term performance can be affected by factors such as temperature fluctuations, changes in charge-discharge characteristics, and economic aging. While these assumptions are acceptable at the current level of analysis, integrating sensitivity and probability analyses encompassing electricity price scenarios, battery degradation effects, and uncertainties in system parameters in future studies will increase the reliability and generalizability of the results obtained.

This study analyses Turkey’s electricity production and consumption dynamics following the earthquakes of February 6, 2023, revealing vulnerabilities in its energy infrastructure. The earthquakes caused average daily production to decrease from 859,820.94 MWh in January to 851,221.52 MWh in February, and consumption to fall from 881,208.74 MWh to 863,619.86 MWh. The fact that Turkey’s installed solar power capacity reached 10,154.3 MW (9.79%) as of December 2022, and the number of power plants increased from 1,521 in 2015 to 11,795 in March 2023, demonstrates the pace of the renewable energy transformation. However, the intermittent nature of solar energy necessitates BESS integration to ensure grid stability and supply continuity.

Post-earthquake experience has shown that critical services such as communication, search and rescue, healthcare, and lighting are entirely dependent on an uninterrupted electricity supply. Distributed PV-BESS systems can function as a local and resilient energy source even when central infrastructure is damaged. The strategic deployment of PV-BESS technology offers both economic and resilience opportunities in terms of reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels, minimizing transmission losses, and providing backup power in emergencies. The February 6th earthquakes serve as a reminder that energy infrastructure must be designed not only for efficiency and cost-effectiveness but also for resilience.

These findings have important implications for energy planning and disaster preparedness. For policymakers, the widespread adoption of distributed PV-BESS systems through incentive mechanisms and their integration into urban transformation and disaster management plans is of strategic importance. For residential users, these systems reduce electricity costs by up to 67% under normal conditions while providing uninterrupted energy for basic life needs in disaster situations. For grid operators, distributed storage systems reduce the load on the grid during peak demand periods and enable the local fulfilment of critical loads during post-disaster restoration. Therefore, it is recommended that PV-BESS technology be systematically incorporated into energy policies, building codes, and disaster preparedness strategies.