On 20 March 2026, the U2Demo project, together with project partner VITO, hosted its second webinar in the U24U series, bringing together experts from across Europe to explore how energy sharing models and flexibility mechanisms can shape the future of energy communities.
Building on the discussions from the first session, this webinar shifted the focus from regulatory frameworks to practical implementation, offering a deep dive into how different models perform in real-world scenarios—and what this means for the energy transition.
You can rewatch the full webinar here:
A diverse landscape of energy sharing models
The webinar opened with a structured overview of local energy sharing models, highlighting that there is no single approach to organizing energy exchanges within communities.
Speakers presented a spectrum of models, ranging from simpler cooperative setups to more advanced market-based systems:
- Cooperative structures without direct energy sharing
- Allocation-based models distributing energy and revenues
- Centralised systems using predefined internal prices
- Auction-based market mechanisms
- Fully decentralised peer-to-peer (P2P) trading models
This classification illustrated a key message echoed throughout the session:
the design of energy sharing depends heavily on community objectives, governance, and technical context.
Flexibility: from concept to implementation
A central theme of the webinar was flexibility, a cornerstone for integrating renewable energy and managing local grids.
Speakers distinguished between:
- Implicit flexibility, where users respond to price signals
- Explicit flexibility, where flexibility is actively offered as a service
The discussion made clear that while flexibility is often seen as a technical concept, it is in practice deeply linked to market design, pricing mechanisms, and user behaviour.
Different instruments were explored, including:
- Capacity tariffs and time-of-use pricing
- Direct control via aggregators
- Market-based flexibility services
A recurring insight was that aligning these instruments is crucial—otherwise, conflicting signals can reduce efficiency or even create new peaks.
From theory to practice: the Scheveningen case study
To connect theory with reality, the webinar introduced a common case study based on the Scheveningen living lab in The Hague, and dutch pilot of the U2Demo project. By testing multiple scenarios with varying levels of local generation, flexibility, and contract types, researchers were able to directly compare how different models perform in practice.
Across the board, results showed:
- Consistent cost savings for communities
- Increased self-consumption of locally generated energy
- Opportunities for additional revenues through flexibility
At the same time, the findings highlighted important trade-offs between efficiency, fairness, and complexity.
Comparing approaches: what works best?
Several modelling approaches were presented, each offering different advantages and challenges.
1. Internal pricing models: simple but effective
Models based on predefined internal prices demonstrated that relatively simple mechanisms can already deliver meaningful savings and higher self-consumption. However, their performance depends strongly on how prices are designed—especially under dynamic market conditions.
2. Auction-based models: performance depends on strategy
Auction-based trading can unlock significant savings (up to around 10%), but results vary depending on the community’s asset mix and bidding strategies. Interestingly, more aggressive strategies do not always lead to better outcomes, underlining the importance of balanced market design.
3. Peer-to-peer models: flexibility with fairness challenges
Fully decentralized P2P models give participants the freedom to trade directly with each other, enabling high flexibility and user choice. However, they also raise new questions: How to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly across all members?
Flexibility as a value driver
Beyond energy sharing itself, flexibility emerged as a key source of additional value.
Speakers highlighted that:
- Capacity tariffs can help reduce peak demand, but require careful calibration
- Explicit flexibility services can generate substantial revenues for communities
- Shared assets—especially batteries—play a crucial role in unlocking flexibility potential
At the same time, the discussions emphasized that coordination is essential. Without it, interactions between tariffs, market signals, and user actions can lead to unintended effects, such as increased grid stress.
Key takeaways
Across presentations and discussions, several clear conclusions emerged:
- Energy sharing delivers real benefits, including cost savings and improved self-consumption
- There is no one-size-fits-all model—solutions must be tailored to each community
- Flexibility creates new revenue streams, but depends on good coordination and design
- Fairness remains a central challenge, particularly in decentralized models
- The interaction between technology, market rules, and human behavior is decisive (definitive) for success
Looking ahead
The webinar concluded with a panel discussion featuring stakeholders from research, industry, and policy, who reflected on the broader implications for Europe’s energy transition.
A shared perspective emerged: Energy communities will play a key role in enabling a more decentralized, resilient, and citizen-driven energy system.
As U2Demo moves forward, these insights will feed into the project’s ongoing work to test and validate energy sharing and flexibility solutions across real-life demonstration sites in Europe.
Comments are closed.