1.1. Methodology
The study is based on:
An overarching desk research and literature review on Energy Communities in Europe
Seven country studies (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands), consisting of country specific desk research of relevant literature, studies and national policy documents as well as interviews. In total interviews with 40 interviewees were conducted within the scope of this study.
A comparative mapping of the different aspects of the Energy Communities and the implementation of the directives in the respective country.
1.2. Conclusions
In the countries included in the study, few have fully transposed the definitions of REC and CEC into their national legislation. Even fewer seem to use the definition in the general discourse. Most often, they are simply referred to as Energy Communities (or a rather similar translation into the respective language) in which many different models are included. There are several attributes in which the communities differ, most prominently are: organisational form, technology, energy sharing models and activities conducted. The combination of difference in transposition of the definitions and large disparity in models for energy communities renders a cross-model comparison rather sprawly and to an extent inconclusive. Instead, it underlines the importance of simple and clear definitions in both legal documents and general discourse. This will help clarify which possibilities and responsibilities apply to the respective model and simplify the decision making when initiating a community.
Similarly, there is a large diversity of concepts and terminology used for community initiatives in energy across Europe. Both in the academic literature, general discourse and consultations, a wide range of terms are used, such as Energy community, Community Energy, Citizen Energy Community, Renewable Energy Community, Clean Energy Community and more. This exacerbates conceptual confusion and makes horizontally comparing both policy recommendations and research findings cumbersome and less stringent. A reduction on the number of concepts as well as a clear definition of what is encompassed in and required for each concept would facilitate more expedient policy analysis, recommendations and translation of lessons learnt.
Another important observation is that although interest in Energy Communities among the public is increasing, the public awareness of the concept is low, omitting both possible community initiatives and potentially important inputs to the public debate regarding Energy Communities.
Thus far, the studied countries have not found a conclusive way to circumvent the conflict between economic viability for the communities and fairness in shared costs for the collective grid. Without a simple, efficient as well as cost- and input-reflecting solution for electricity sharing, many potential initiatives are unviable and are either decreased in scope or never started. The choice of electricity sharing model for each country should be individually assessed, based on factors such as population density, foreseeable expansion needs of collective electricity grid, and current energy mix.
1.3. Recommendations
Given our general observations, the context of the Nordic countries and the currently evolving knowledge surrounding Energy Communities, we present three recommendations to help enable Energy Communities without promoting an unfair division of costs.
1.3.1. Introduce Clear and Coherent Definitions of Energy Communities
Clear definitions in both legal documents and general discourse lessen uncertainties and hesitation in the initial phase of establishing an energy community.
1.3.2. Ensure Accessibility to Establish Energy Communities
Two of the main barriers to the deployment of Energy Communities identified is related to awareness and knowledge. Firstly, few citizens are aware of the possibility of establishing or joining an energy community, thus acting as a first hindrance to possible deployment of an unknown number of communities. Secondly, the knowledge needed to establish an energy community, both technical and judicial, acts as a barrier for many citizens that do not have the prior knowledge or the time to fully acquire the necessary know-how. To mitigate these barriers, we propose two main strategies:
Counteract all risks of ambiguity. Partly, to provide an explicit and easily comprehensible framework for potential founders and members. Partly, to discourage geographically differentiated interpretations by e.g., local authorities or DSOs.