Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models

Timothy Capper; Anna Gorbatcheva; Mustafa A. Mustafa; Mohamed Bahloul; Jan Marc Schwidtal; Ruzanna Chitchyan; Merlinda Andoni; Valentin Robu; Mehdi Montakhabi; Ian J. Scott; Christina Francis; Tanaka Mbavarira; Juan Manuel Espana; Lynne Kiesling

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models

Timothy Capper (Corresponding author)
, Anna Gorbatcheva
, Mustafa A. Mustafa
, Mohamed Bahloul
, Jan Marc Schwidtal
, Ruzanna Chitchyan
, Merlinda Andoni
, Valentin Robu
, Mehdi Montakhabi
, Ian J. Scott
, Christina Francis
, Tanaka Mbavarira
, Juan Manuel Espana
, Lynne Kiesling

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

201 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Peer-to-peer, community or collective self-consumption, and transactive energy markets offer new models for trading energy locally. Over the past five years, there has been significant growth in the amount of academic literature examining how these local energy markets might function. This systematic literature review of 139 peer-reviewed journal articles examines the market designs used in these energy trading models. A modified version of the Business Ecosystem Architecture Modelling framework is used to extract market model information from the literature, and to identify differences and similarities between the models. This paper examines how peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy markets are described in current literature. It explores the similarities and differences between these markets in terms of participation, governance structure, topology, and design. This paper systematises peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy market designs, identifying six archetypes. Finally, it identifies five evidence gaps which require future research before these markets could be widely adopted. These evidence gaps are the lack of: consideration of physical constraints; a holistic approach to market design and operation; consideration about how these market designs will scale; consideration of information security; and, consideration of market participant privacy.

Original language	English
Article number	112403
Journal	Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Volume	162
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403
Publication status	Published - Jul 2022
Externally published	Yes

Funding

This publication is part of the work of the Global Observatory on Peer-to-Peer, Community Self-Consumption and Transactive Energy Models (GO-P2P), a task of the User-Centred Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme (Users TCP), run under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA). GO-P2P benefits from the support of Australia, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The author TC received financial support from the EPSRC (grant number EP/L016141/1) through the Power Networks Centre for Doctoral Training. The author AG received funding from the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Energy Demand (LoLo), grant numbers EP/L01517X/1 and EP/H009612/1. The author MAM received funding from the EPSRC through the project EnnCore EP/T026995/1, Flemish Government through the FWO SBO project SNIPPET S007619, and The University of Manchester through DKO Fellowship. The author MB would like to acknowledge the support of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC) and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland for the GO-P2P project. The author RC received funding from the EPSRC and InnovateUK co-funded EnergyREV project (grant number EP/S031863/1). The author MA recieved funding from the EPSRC through the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI) (grant number EP/P001173/1) and the DecarbonISation PAThways for Cooling and Heating (DISPATCH) project (grant number EP/V042955/1). The author VR received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie TESTBED2 project (grant number 872172). The author MM recieved funding from the Flemish Government through the FWO SBO SNIPPET project (grant number S007619). The author IJS recieved funding from the European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020), the Lisbon Portugal Regional Operational Program (LISBOA 2020), and the PRO-FCT under the CMU Portugal programme through the BEE2WasteCrypto project (grant number IDT-COP 45933). The author JME recieved funding from the Royal Academy of Engineering through the Transforming Systems Through Partnerships programme (grant number TSP2021_100067). The author MM recieved funding from the Flemish Government through the FWO SBO SNIPPET project (grant number S007619 ). The author RC received funding from the EPSRC and InnovateUK co-funded EnergyREV project (grant number EP/S031863/1 ). This publication is part of the work of the Global Observatory on Peer-to-Peer, Community Self-Consumption and Transactive Energy Models ( GO-P2P ), a task of the User-Centred Energy Systems Technology Collaboration Programme ( Users TCP ), run under the auspices of the International Energy Agency ( IEA ). GO-P2P benefits from the support of Australia, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. The author VR received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie TESTBED2 project (grant number 872172 ). The author MAM received funding from the EPSRC through the project EnnCore EP/T026995/1 , Flemish Government through the FWO SBO project SNIPPET S007619 , and The University of Manchester through DKO Fellowship. The author MA recieved funding from the EPSRC through the National Centre for Energy Systems Integration (CESI) (grant number EP/P001173/1 ) and the DecarbonISation PAThways for Cooling and Heating (DISPATCH) project (grant number EP/V042955/1 ). The author IJS recieved funding from the European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalization (COMPETE 2020), the Lisbon Portugal Regional Operational Program (LISBOA 2020), and the PRO-FCT under the CMU Portugal programme through the BEE2WasteCrypto project (grant number IDT-COP 45933 ). The author TC received financial support from the EPSRC (grant number EP/L016141/1 ) through the Power Networks Centre for Doctoral Training. The author MB would like to acknowledge the support of the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC) and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland for the GO-P2P project. The author AG received funding from the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Energy Demand (LoLo) , grant numbers EP/L01517X/1 and EP/H009612/1 .

Funders	Funder number
Marie Skłodowska‐Curie	872172, S007619
Royal Academy of Engineering	TSP2021_100067
Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek	SNIPPET S007619
European Regional Development Fund

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 7 Affordable and Clean Energy

Keywords

Community self-consumption
Electricity trading
Energy trading
Local energy market
Market model
Peer-to-peer
Prosumer
Smart grid
Transactive energy

Access to Document

10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

Cite this

Capper, T., Gorbatcheva, A., Mustafa, M. A., Bahloul, M., Schwidtal, J. M., Chitchyan, R., Andoni, M., Robu, V., Montakhabi, M., Scott, I. J., Francis, C., Mbavarira, T., Espana, J. M., & Kiesling, L. (2022). Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 162, Article 112403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

@article{a744a30948c041a0a52555c8c2ef6e9d,

title = "Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models",

abstract = "Peer-to-peer, community or collective self-consumption, and transactive energy markets offer new models for trading energy locally. Over the past five years, there has been significant growth in the amount of academic literature examining how these local energy markets might function. This systematic literature review of 139 peer-reviewed journal articles examines the market designs used in these energy trading models. A modified version of the Business Ecosystem Architecture Modelling framework is used to extract market model information from the literature, and to identify differences and similarities between the models. This paper examines how peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy markets are described in current literature. It explores the similarities and differences between these markets in terms of participation, governance structure, topology, and design. This paper systematises peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy market designs, identifying six archetypes. Finally, it identifies five evidence gaps which require future research before these markets could be widely adopted. These evidence gaps are the lack of: consideration of physical constraints; a holistic approach to market design and operation; consideration about how these market designs will scale; consideration of information security; and, consideration of market participant privacy.",

keywords = "Community self-consumption, Electricity trading, Energy trading, Local energy market, Market model, Peer-to-peer, Prosumer, Smart grid, Transactive energy",

author = "Timothy Capper and Anna Gorbatcheva and Mustafa, \{Mustafa A.\} and Mohamed Bahloul and Schwidtal, \{Jan Marc\} and Ruzanna Chitchyan and Merlinda Andoni and Valentin Robu and Mehdi Montakhabi and Scott, \{Ian J.\} and Christina Francis and Tanaka Mbavarira and Espana, \{Juan Manuel\} and Lynne Kiesling",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Authors",

year = "2022",

month = jul,

doi = "10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403",

language = "English",

volume = "162",

journal = "Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews",

issn = "1364-0321",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Capper, T, Gorbatcheva, A, Mustafa, MA, Bahloul, M, Schwidtal, JM, Chitchyan, R, Andoni, M, Robu, V, Montakhabi, M, Scott, IJ, Francis, C, Mbavarira, T, Espana, JM & Kiesling, L 2022, 'Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models', Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 162, 112403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy

T2 - A systematic literature review of local energy market models

AU - Capper, Timothy

AU - Gorbatcheva, Anna

AU - Mustafa, Mustafa A.

AU - Bahloul, Mohamed

AU - Schwidtal, Jan Marc

AU - Chitchyan, Ruzanna

AU - Andoni, Merlinda

AU - Robu, Valentin

AU - Montakhabi, Mehdi

AU - Scott, Ian J.

AU - Francis, Christina

AU - Mbavarira, Tanaka

AU - Espana, Juan Manuel

AU - Kiesling, Lynne

PY - 2022/7

Y1 - 2022/7

N2 - Peer-to-peer, community or collective self-consumption, and transactive energy markets offer new models for trading energy locally. Over the past five years, there has been significant growth in the amount of academic literature examining how these local energy markets might function. This systematic literature review of 139 peer-reviewed journal articles examines the market designs used in these energy trading models. A modified version of the Business Ecosystem Architecture Modelling framework is used to extract market model information from the literature, and to identify differences and similarities between the models. This paper examines how peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy markets are described in current literature. It explores the similarities and differences between these markets in terms of participation, governance structure, topology, and design. This paper systematises peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy market designs, identifying six archetypes. Finally, it identifies five evidence gaps which require future research before these markets could be widely adopted. These evidence gaps are the lack of: consideration of physical constraints; a holistic approach to market design and operation; consideration about how these market designs will scale; consideration of information security; and, consideration of market participant privacy.

AB - Peer-to-peer, community or collective self-consumption, and transactive energy markets offer new models for trading energy locally. Over the past five years, there has been significant growth in the amount of academic literature examining how these local energy markets might function. This systematic literature review of 139 peer-reviewed journal articles examines the market designs used in these energy trading models. A modified version of the Business Ecosystem Architecture Modelling framework is used to extract market model information from the literature, and to identify differences and similarities between the models. This paper examines how peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy markets are described in current literature. It explores the similarities and differences between these markets in terms of participation, governance structure, topology, and design. This paper systematises peer-to-peer, community self-consumption and transactive energy market designs, identifying six archetypes. Finally, it identifies five evidence gaps which require future research before these markets could be widely adopted. These evidence gaps are the lack of: consideration of physical constraints; a holistic approach to market design and operation; consideration about how these market designs will scale; consideration of information security; and, consideration of market participant privacy.

KW - Community self-consumption

KW - Electricity trading

KW - Energy trading

KW - Local energy market

KW - Market model

KW - Peer-to-peer

KW - Prosumer

KW - Smart grid

KW - Transactive energy

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85128465443

U2 - 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

DO - 10.1016/j.rser.2022.112403

M3 - Article

SN - 1364-0321

VL - 162

JO - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

JF - Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

M1 - 112403

ER -

Peer-to-peer, community self-consumption, and transactive energy: A systematic literature review of local energy market models

Abstract

Funding

UN SDGs

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this