# A Collaborative Dimension for Renewable Energy Communities

Kankam O. Adu-Kankam, Luis M. Camarinha-Matos

► To cite this version:

Kankam O. Adu-Kankam, Luis M. Camarinha-Matos. A Collaborative Dimension for Renewable Energy Communities. 14th Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical and Industrial Systems (DoCEIS), Jul 2023, Monte Da Caparica, Portugal. pp.19-37, 10.1007/978-3-031-36007-7_2. hal-05473082

HAL Id: hal-05473082

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05473082v1

Submitted on 23 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# A Collaborative Dimension for Renewable Energy Communities

Kankam O. Adu-Kankam<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />✉ and Luis M. Camarinha-Matos<fnref n="1" />

**Abstract.** Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) are collective entities whose membership is based on free and voluntary participation. RECs may involve groups of citizens, social entrepreneurs, public authorities, and community organizations that participate either directly or indirectly in the energy transition by exchanging energy-related goods and services either “for-profit” or “non-profit” within a community or ecosystem. REC members can jointly produce their own energy, which can be used locally, stored, sold, or shared with others in the ecosystem. Despite several pilot implementations of RECs, several challenges remain in terms of organization, governance and creation of incentives for participation, etc. To address these challenges, we propose the exploitation of a collaborative dimension. Thus, the concept of Collaborative Renewable Energy Community (CREC) is introduced as a type of REC that adopts collaborative principles and mechanisms to facilitate the production, sale, and sharing of renewable energy within an ecosystem. Just like many emerging concepts, the dominant literature in energy communities loosely points to this idea of CRECs but in a sparse, sometimes incoherent, disjointed, and disorganized manner, which creates a sense of ambiguity and confusion, making it difficult to comprehend the importance of the concept. In this work, we attempt to clarify the CREC concept, shed some light on their organizational structure, introduce their governance systems, and identify the types of collaborative mechanisms that can be adopted. Simulation was used as a preliminary validation of the proposed approach and models. The article further discusses some potential applications of CRECs.

**Keywords:** Collaborative Networks · Energy Ecosystems · Collaborative Renewable Energy Community · Collaborative Digital Twins · Renewable Energy Communities

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, the growth of Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) around the world has been huge. The primary reason for this rapid development is the benefits that RECs are claimed to bring to the ongoing energy transition. The dominant literature in the field

<footnote n="1">¹ School of Science and Technology, UNINOVA – CTS and LASI, Nova University of Lisbon, Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Monte de Caparica, Portugal
k.adu@campus.fct.unl.pt, cam@uninova.pt</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² School of Engineering, University of Energy and Natural Resources (UENR), P. O. Box 214, Sunyani, Ghana</footnote>
suggests that RECs can become a channel for a democratic, transformative, and equity-
enhancing means towards a just energy transition [1]. These claims are highlighted in
several studies. For instance, in [2], RECs are understood to play social roles such as
energy poverty alleviation. Similarly, RECs are suggested to promote sustainable energy
production and consumption in [3], enhance gender parity and equity for energy access
[4], and finally, promote citizen participation in renewable energy projects [5]. Accord-
ing to [6], RECs are collective entities that are based on voluntary and open participation.
REC members are constituted of stakeholders, who are principally natural persons, local
authorities, including municipalities, or small enterprises. Their union is often motivated
by a common objective, such as environmental, economic, or social (community ben-
efits). Members of RECs collectively engage in the generation of energy, particularly
from renewable sources. Other activities include energy sharing, consumption, aggre-
gation, storage, energy efficiency services, or charging services for electric vehicles.
By sharing the costs and benefits of renewable energy systems, these communities can
make renewable energy more accessible and affordable to a wider range of people, both
within and outside the community. RECs can take many different forms, from small-
scale neighbourhood projects [7] to larger initiatives that involve multiple communities
and organizations [8]. They can be initiated by individuals [9], local governments [10],
non-profit organizations [11], or private companies [12], and can involve various types
of renewable energy technologies. The concept of REC is based on the idea of energy
democracy, implying that everyone should have a say in how their energy is produced
and consumed [13]. By working together, members of RECs can create a more equitable
and sustainable energy system that benefits everyone.

In this work, we attempt to clarify some emerging concepts within the domain of RECs. The article is based on the fact that various variants of RECs are emerging within the renewable energy space that need to be clearly identified, explored and exploited. More specifically, the notion of Collaborative Renewable Energy Communities (CREC) has begun to emerge within this space and the need to identify and distinguish such communities from the general notion of RECs motivates this work. As such, the following questions are addressed.

Q1: What are RECs?

a. What are the motivations for RECs?

b. What are some of the existing cases of RECs?

c. What are the obstacles / barriers to the advancement of RECs?

d. What role can collaborative networks play to help overcome (some of) the mentioned barriers?

Q2: What are Collaborative Renewable Energy Communities (CRECs)? What are the main aspects of CRECS? (Namely in terms of structure and organization, governance, involving mechanisms of collaboration etc.

Q3: What are some potential use cases of the CREC concept?
## 2 Relationship with Connected Cyber-Physical Spaces

A CREC can be perceived as a type of REC that adopts collaborative mechanisms and principles to manage aspects of energy generation and consumption within a community or energy ecosystem. The physical component of the REC may include groups of individuals, organizations, and businesses that own renewable energy resources and are motivated by a common goal; therefore, they come together to form the community. Furthermore, it is suggested that the cyber layer may be constituted of (a) a digital twin layer and (b) a virtual organization layer. Embedded in the digital twin layer is the notion of cognitive intelligence, which enables the digital twins to make rational decisions on behalf of their physical counterparts. These rational decisions facilitate the way energy is sustainably generated, stored, consumed and distributed in the ecosystem [14]. This can be achieved through shared ownership of renewable energy resources and engaging in collective decision-making, actions, and endeavours [15]. This, therefore, suggests a connection that can fascinate the exchange of information between the cyber component and the physical component, creating the notion of a cyber-physical system.

The relationship between CRECs and connected cyber-physical spaces is a symbiotic one. The integration of renewable energy technologies with connected cyber-physical spaces can enable better energy management, distribution, and consumption. For instance, these communities can integrate sensors, actuators, and smart devices to collect real-time data about energy generation and consumption within the ecosystem. These sets of data can be used by a CREC to make decisions that can help optimize the way energy is generated, stored, consumed and distributed in the community.

Furthermore, CRECs can benefit from the integration of connected cyber-physical spaces, which can facilitate the creation of virtual entities such as virtual power plants (VPPs) [14]. These VPPs can aggregate the energy generated from multiple renewable sources and distribute it to the grid, helping to create a more stable and reliable energy supply. The integration of renewable energy technologies with connected cyber-physical spaces can enable more efficient, sustainable, and resilient energy systems, benefiting both the communities and the society.

## 3 What Are RECs?

A REC is a collective entity that is autonomous, operates in line with the applicable national laws, is based on open and voluntary participation, and is effectively governed by shareholders or members who are situated close to the renewable energy project. The establishment and operation of RECs are supported by legal frameworks such as the European Union Directive 2018/2001 [4]. This directive mandates member states of the European Union to ensure that final customers, especially household customers, are allowed to participate in a REC while upholding their rights and obligations as final customers and without being subjected to unjustified or discriminatory conditions or procedures that would prevent their participation, provided that their participation does not constitute their primary commercial or profit motive.

RECs can contribute to the alleviation of fossil fuel dominance in the current grid in several ways. For example, they can contribute to energy justice by promoting more equitable access to renewable energy resources and reducing the disproportionate impacts
of energy production and consumption on marginalized communities [16]. One of the main avenues for RECs to promote energy justice is to make renewable energy more accessible and affordable to more people. By pooling resources and sharing the costs and benefits of renewable energy systems, communities can make it possible for more people to access clean and sustainable energy sources. RECs can also help to address the unequal impacts of energy production and consumption on marginalized communities and genders. For example, many low-income and minority communities are disproportionately impacted by pollution and other negative effects of fossil fuel energy production [17]. By supporting the transition to renewable energy sources, communities can reduce these impacts and create a more just and sustainable energy system. In addition, renewable energy communities can promote energy democracy by giving people a greater say in how their energy is produced and consumed. By working together, community members can create a more participatory and democratic energy system that benefits everyone, not just a few powerful stakeholders but also to include marginalized genders such as women. Overall, renewable energy communities can play an important role in promoting energy justice by making renewable energy more accessible, reducing the negative impacts of energy production and consumption on marginalized communities, and promoting greater democratic participation in the energy system. Renewable energy communities can contribute to increasing citizens' participation in renewable energy as well.

## 3.1 What Are the Motivations for RECs?

The current literature in this field provides several motivations for RECs. Among them we can mention:

(a) Sustainability: By promoting renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro power, communities can reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and contribute to the fight against climate change [18].

(b) Energy independence: By generating their own energy, communities can become less reliant on external energy sources and become more self-sufficient [19].

(c) Cost savings: This is achieved by pooling resources and sharing the costs of renewable energy systems. In doing so, communities can make it more affordable for everyone to access clean and sustainable energy sources [20].

Other motivations may include:

(d) Community building: By working together on renewable energy projects, communities can build social connections/cohesion, and foster a sense of shared purpose and accomplishment [21].

(e) Environmental justice: By transitioning to renewable energy sources, communities can reduce the negative environmental impacts of energy production and consumption on marginalized communities and create a more just environment and equitable energy system [22].

(f) Health and well-being: RECs can be motivated by a desire to improve public health and well-being by reducing air pollution and other negative health impacts associated with fossil fuel energy production [23].
(g) Economic Development: Finally, RECs can be motivated by a desire to promote local economic development. By investing in renewable energy projects, communities can create jobs and stimulate economic growth, while also promoting environmental sustainability and energy independence [24].

## 3.2 What Are Some Existing Cases of RECs?

Currently, there are many existing RECs cases that are spread around the world. For instance, in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Denmark a huge number of community projects are thriving and contributing to the strong growth of renewables in these countries [25]. In the European Union alone, there are over 7700 RECs involving over two million people [26]. The United Kingdom also has over 5000 RECs [26]. In Table 1, a few successful cases are shown. These cases were selected from a case study that was conducted in [27].

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Some selected cases of successful RECs</caption><thead><tr><td>Case</td><td>Name</td><td>Description of the community</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Feldheim, Germany</td><td>In Germany's Brandenburg region, the village of Feldheim receives all of its electricity from renewable sources. Own wind and photovoltaic power plants provide heat and electricity to households and businesses. Biogas plants connected to the local grid provides the community with power and heat</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Wildpoldsried, Germany</td><td>Wildpoldsried is a small farming community that has been able to invest in new municipal infrastructure without going into debt, Wildpoldsried produces 321 percent more electricity than it needs and is bringing in $5.7 million annually</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Westmill Solar Co-operative</td><td>More than 20,000 polycrystalline PV panels spread across 30 acres at the location generate 4.8 GWhr/year, which is about comparable to the yearly electricity consumption of 1,600 typical houses and to avert 2,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. It is believed to be the first and biggest community-owned, cooperatively controlled solar farm in the UK</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Bristol Energy Cooperative</td><td>The UK's largest community-owned solar rooftop, with over 2000 solar panels. It is thought to be the largest rooftop solar project to date in the UK. There is a sizable 1 MW solar array on the brand-new Bottle Yard Film Studios</td></tr></tbody></table>

As seen in Table 1, RECs can have different composition, different objectives, different capacities, varying sizes with different power outputs.
## 3.3 What Are the Obstacles and Barriers to the Advancement of RECs?

There are several obstacles and barriers that can limit the chances of RECs to thrive. In a recent report published by “friends of the earth, Europe” [25] the following key barriers were highlighted.

(a) Access to the grid: RECs must have access to the energy grid in order to successfully sell its energy. However, this access is frequently barred. This is due to the fact that grid operators, who are not compelled to connect projects owned by the local community and do not perceive it as being in their best interest, are the ones who operate the grid for profit.

(b) Lack of access to funds/capital: Due to limited access to capital to invest, vulnerable communities in low-income areas are most severely impacted by this. The fact is that banks and other lending institutions frequently have a poor understanding of what a community energy project is and what kind of business model is acceptable, plays a key component of the financial challenge. Only a small number of nations have enough successful and running projects to provide banks the confidence to lend.

(c) Policy and regulatory barriers: In some areas, regulations may limit the ability of communities to install renewable energy systems or may favour fossil fuel energy sources over renewable sources.

(d) NIMBYism: Meaning “not in my backyard,” can also be a barrier to RECs. Some residents may oppose to renewable energy projects in their communities due to concerns about noise, visual impacts, or property values.

(e) These mentioned obstacles and barriers can make it difficult for renewable energy communities to thrive.

However, in the same report [25] the following recommendation were provided.

A) The grid should be managed for the benefit of the general public, considered as a common asset, and held in public ownership. Cities' local governments are in a good position to manage their local grids and make sure they are ready for a locally controlled, decentralized energy system.

B) Governments must establish a supportive legislative environment that encourages and enables the growth of RECs in their respective national contexts.

C) A single national government contact point where community energy projects can go for guidance and assistance is required. They may get all the information they require from this administrative point of contact, who can also walk them through the procedure.

## 3.4 What Role Can Collaborative Networks Play to Help Overcome (Some of) These Barriers?

Collaborative Networks (CN) can play an important role in overcoming some of the obstacles and barriers facing RECs, leading to the notion of CREC. Here are a few ways in which collaborative networks can help:

(a) CREC Virtual Power Plant (CREC-VPP): Through collaboration, small-scale distributed generation that is found within these CREC environments can be aggregated
into the equivalent of a power plant with adequate capacity, which can enable the CREC to enter into negotiations, competition, and trading with traditional power plants in the energy market [27].

(b) CREC Grid Management: Through collaboration, resources within the community can be aggregated and be used to provide ancillary services such as grid management and demand response services to the grids. In Sect. 4.4, Scenario 2 of this work, these ideas are partially demonstrated.

(c) Resilience and increased survivability in turbulent times: By working together, each member in the ecosystem complements the other. The inadequacy of one member is complimented by the adequacy of the other. This helps to build a resilient ecosystem. By working together, communities can have a stronger voice and can push for changes at the local, regional, and national levels. This capacity can also be used to negotiate for better trading terms on the energy market [28].

# 4 Introduction to Collaborative Renewable Energy Communities

In this section, we describe 3 key facets of a CREC, namely: (a) how CRECs are organized, (b) how they are governed, and (c) the various collaborative mechanisms that they can engage in. The succeeding paragraphs explain each facet in detail.

## 4.1 Organization of CRECs

In terms of organization, the following main elements can be introduced:

**CREC Manager:** This entity is responsible for the administration, organization, and management of the ecosystem. The manager shall also act as an opportunity broker who finds collaborative opportunities for the ecosystem. For instance, the manager could coordinate with external entities such as the distribution service operator to determine windows of opportunity when the ecosystem could be used to render ancillary services to the grid. The manager could also be responsible for conflict resolution, incentivization, and the promotion of sustainable behaviours within the ecosystem.

**Virtual Organizations Breeding Environment (VBE):** A VBE can be perceived as a **business ecosystem** where members have some form of binding agreement to work together. VBEs have been studied extensively in the domain of Collaborative Networks [29]. In such a business arrangement, it is always vital for members to be prepared and willing to join in the collaboration process since there may be critical situations where the window of opportunity is limited and calls for a prompt reaction, particularly when the timeframe for joint reaction is constrained. “Being ready” entails building a foundation of mutual trust between the participants, compatible operating methods, and collaboration agreements. A VBE can be seen as a long-term association of entities that are ready to cooperate anytime an opportunity comes in order to meet these needs. This strategy can be used to ensure preparedness and speed up the development of collaborative networks. In a similar manner, the grid is a very sensitive infrastructure that requires a quick response time in order to avoid catoptric failure like a system collapse. In this sense, CRECs can be organized in the form of VBEs so that the associated members will be better equipped and prepared to take advantage of any grid-related opportunities that may
arise. Examples of such opportunities may include (a) grid management services like demand response, (b) vending energy to the grid, and (c) disaster management services.

**Virtual Organization (VO) Formation:** A VO is a temporary organization that can be formed out of a VBE to take advantage of a business opportunity. VOs are a class of collaborative network that have received a lot of attention and raised expectations across a range of application areas [14]. One method to stay adaptable and survive market volatility is to be able to swiftly form VOs in response to business opportunities and have them tailored to the needs of each particular opportunity. This notion is not just useful in the business world, but also in non-business settings such as incident management and disaster management processes, where multiple entities need to work together in a swift, decisive and efficient manner. Agility is best exemplified by the notion of groups of organizations quickly transforming into a collaborative form focused on a mission or objective. Similarly, CREC VOs can be formed in the context of CRECs VBE in order to strategically take advantage of business opportunities like selling renewable energy to the grid or utilizing the strength of collective actions by aggregating resources found in the CREC ecosystem, like deferrable loads, and using them to swiftly respond to demands on the grid. In Fig. 1 we illustrate a scenario of three CREC VOs, namely VO1, VO2 and VO3, which are formed from a CREC VBE to take advantage of grid opportunities 1, 2 and 3.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. A CREC as a VBE where multiple dynamic VOs can be created.</figcaption></figure>

**Digital Twin Approach to Organizing CRECs:** Another key aspect of the CRECs is the potential to adopt or harness the benefits of the ongoing digital transformation agenda to transform the way these ecosystems are established and function. For instance, members within these ecosystems can be represented as digital twins or software agents within the cyber-physical space. This is because digital twins can be assigned with some basic decision-making capabilities that may appear laborious and daunting for human to undertake. For instance, the idea of deferring the use of certain appliances for the purposes of controlling consumption can better be carried out by digital twins than
humans. In this sense, sensors from the physical energy assets in the ecosystem can be used to collect operational data at the appliances level and be used to update the digital twin counterparts, making them “living models” [30] of the physical assets, meaning that a digital twin should constantly be updated with new data coming in from the operational environment of the physical asset in order to monitor its current condition for efficient decision-making and prediction of future behaviours. The living models of the physical asset can also be endowed with cognitive intelligence to facilitate their autonomy and collective decision-making capabilities. Figure 2 illustrates how the CREC notion relates to the concepts of digital twins and virtual organizations. Referring to Fig. 2, two key layers of the CREC ecosystem can be observed:

(a) The physical layer: This is the lowest layer of the ecosystem. It is composed of all the physical entities that come together to form the CREC ecosystem. All the energy assets, sensors, actuators, and communication channels/media are located in this layer.

(b) The cyber layer. As the name suggests, this layer is located in the cyberspace. It is comprised of two sub-layers. These are:

A) The digital twin layer: This is the middle layer, and it is composed of the digital-twins or digital replicas of all the energy assets that are located in the physical layer. The CREC manager is also located in this layer. This is a decision-making layer, and usually, cognitive intelligence and collaborative algorithms can be exhibited by each digital twin from here.

B) The virtual organization: This is the uppermost layer of the ecosystem. This layer is temporal and dynamic. It can be described as an ad-hoc layer. This is because it is usually formed when the need for a collaborative venture occurs. This is where all the collaborations occur.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. The notion of a CREC Ecosystem</figcaption></figure>
## 4.2 Governance of CRECs

Governance is “a set of coordinating and monitoring activities” that enables the survival of the collaborative partnership or institution [31]. Governance in a collaborative network is broadly about the processes and structures of public policy, decision making, and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a common purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished. Collaborative networks are structures of interdependence that involve multiple actors in order to solve problems or achieve collective goals that cannot be achieved by a single actor. As a result, they represent circumstances in which political or administrative actors must interact with others in order to obtain resources, forge political alliances, and address issues that are larger than the scope of a single actor. In this sense we propose a polycentric and decentralized governance method with a CREC manager who plays a coordinating role and promotes collaborative behaviours. According to [32] the term “polycentric governance” refers to many “formally independent” centres of decision-making that happens in a coherent manner with consistent and predictable patterns of interacting behaviours, to the extent that they take each other into account in competitive relationships, enter into various contractual and cooperative undertakings, or use central mechanisms to resolve conflicts. In this case they may be referred to as operating as a “system”. The CREC manager will be responsible for the general administration, decision making regarding collaborative opportunities, resources sharing, value co-creation, incentivization, sharing of risks and rewards and confect resolution etc.

## 4.3 Various Collaborative Mechanisms of CRECs

Collaboration plays a crucial role in the CREC concept. Collaborative behaviours, techniques and mechanism that can be practiced within this ecosystem are borrowed from the domain of Collaborate Networks. Several partial simulation studies have been conducted in [15, 28, 33] and [34] to assess the feasibility of these collaborative mechanisms. Discussed below are some collaborative mechanisms that these works illustrate, now positioned in a more comprehensive overview.

(a) **Community/Common Goals:** It is proposed that the CREC as an ecosystem should be driven by the notion of common goals. It is further suggested that membership to a CREC should be voluntary and motivated by a set of common goals which could range from sustainability, economic, social, or technological goals. Decision making and collaborative endeavours that are undertaken within the CREC ecosystem shall mostly be based on these common goals. The CREC can have multiple goals and may pursue multiple goals concurrently. The goals of the CRECs can be dynamic and are determined by the CREC manager when an opportunity is found.

(b) **CREC Member Value Systems:** Members of a CREC may have their individual “values systems” which can be used to represent the preferences, priorities, expectations and contributions of each member regarding how they intend to contribute to the mentioned community goals. Members of CRECs can have multiple value systems and this can be ranked in order of priority. The notion of value system can empower members of CRECs to contribute flexibly to community goals.
(c) **Goal Compatibility:** Goal compatibility is a decision-making process where members of a CREC compare their value system(s) with the proposed community goals to ascertain if there is a match or compatibility between their value system(s) and the community goal. Members of a CREC accept invitations to participate in community goals on the grounds that one or more of their values is compatible with the proposed community goal. In the instance of incompatibility between the members value system and the community goals, the invitation is declined.

(d) **Resource Sharing:** Resource sharing is a collaborative attribute that places emphases on sharing or access to underutilized goods and services, which prioritizes efficient utilization and accessibility over ownership. Resource sharing is also an attribute of the sharing economy which promotes sustainability [35]. The fundamental resources that can be shared in the CREC ecosystem may include both physical and virtual energy asset and services. These resources can be shared on a peer-to-peer basis or in a centralised architecture. Sharing resources in the CRECs can enhance cost savings and reduce the waste of resources that is associated with underutilization due to personal ownership.

(e) **Formation of Virtual Organizations (VOs):** In the context of CRECs, the manager identifies a business opportunity on the grid, sends invitations to members of the ecosystem. Members whose value systems are compatible with the goal will accept the invitation. A VO constituting of members with accepted invitations can be formed by the manager to pursue the opportunity. In reality, compatibility of value systems should not be a sufficient condition. It would be also necessary to consider the current context/current preferences of the member. But this was left for later developments.

(f) **Incentives:** Incentive is another attribute of collaboration that is relevant to materializing the CREC concept. An incentive is a crucial component of any collaborative endeavour. It has the ability to persuade a passive member of a community to become an active participant or collaborator based on a promise of some form of reward or acknowledgment. In a CREC ecosystem, participation in collaborative endeavours is rewarded. This is because value is co-created in the ecosystem and the created value is equitably shared amongst the collaborators. The use of incentives in CRECs is intended to increase the willingness of members and motivate them to participate in collaborative endeavours.

(g) **Delegation:** By representing the households within the CRECs with their respective cognitive digital twins, it is possible to delegate on these digital twins the responsibility to act or make some kind of rational or basic decision on behalf of the physical households. Delegation refers to the permission or authority that is given to the digital twin to act on behalf of the physical household. Due to the cognitive intelligence of CREC's digital twins, they can have cognisance of (a) whether they are delegated or not, thus, whether they are permitted to participate in collaborative endeavours or not, (b) the value system of the physical household and, (c) the proposed community goal(s).

(h) **Delegated Autonomy:** This refers to the degree or level of permission that is given to each CREC's digital twin. It constitutes the specific instruction that a household owner may assign to it digital twin to be followed in carrying out its preferences and contribution towards community goals and collaborative endeavours.
(i) **Collective Decision-making:** Collective decision is a situation in which people decide among the options that are available to them. In such cases, the final decision can no longer be attributed to any particular person in the group. This is so that every person can contribute to the final result. In collective decision-making, individual choices and group decisions are in alignment. Collaborative decision-making is one of the most effective processes for gaining support from other stakeholders, establishing consensus, and fostering creativity. In the CREC ecosystem, decisions are made on a collective basis. This enables each member to contribute in one way or another towards the community's goals and objectives.

## 4.4 Some Selected Simulation Outcomes in Support of the CREC Concept

In this section we briefly discuss some partial outcomes from simulation studies that were conducted in line with the proposed CREC concept. Detail of these works can be found in [15, 28, 33] and [34]. In this section the outcome of two scenario is shown.

**Simulation Conditions:** The conditions for modelling the considered scenarios are as follows: A CREC population of 100 members, comprising 50% prosumers, and 50% consumers. The simulation is run for seven simulation days. The considered appliances are (a) washing machine, (b) dish washer, and (c) clothes dryer. These appliances are referred to as deferrable loads because their use can be deferred to a later time without affecting the quality of service to the user. A multi-method simulation approach that integrated three simulation techniques (system dynamics, agent base, and discrete event) is adopted. The Anylogic simulation environment was used.

**Scenario 1:** Resource sharing: In Case 1 (Fig. 3a), resource sharing was disabled. In Case 2 (Fig. 3b), sharing was enabled. For the sharing enabled case, surplus energy from the prosumers is shared with a centralized community storage. Comparing Figs. 3a and 3b, it can be observed that in the case where sharing was disabled, consumption from the grid was about 54% and there was no consumption from the community storage. However, when sharing was enabled, consumption from the grid dropped from 54% to 47%, and consumption from community storage appreciated from 0% to 10%. This shows that without resource sharing, dependence on the grid could be higher within the CREC. This observed outcome is a result of collaborative efforts by the CREC digital twins.

**Scenario 2:** Here we explore delegation i.e., the permission or authority that is given to a CREC digital twin to act on behalf of the physical household. In Case 1 (Fig. 4a), all the digital twins (100%) are delegated to defer the use of their deferrable loads between the window of opportunity (T1 and T2). The window of opportunity in this case represents an opportunity to contribute to grid management by reducing consumption from the grid during the peak period between T1 and T2. In Case 1, it can be observed that there is absolutely no consumption within the window. Figure 4b represents case 2. In this case, 80% of the population is delegated, 20% are undelegated. It can be observed that there was some consumption within the window. This consumption is a result of the 20% undelegated digital twins.
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3a.** Case 1: Sharing disabled</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3b.** Case 2: Sharing</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4a.** Case 1: 100% delegation</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4b.** Case 2: 80% delegation</figcaption></figure>

This therefore suggests that collaboration between CREC members can have some considerable effect on the power grid and can be considered for grid management services such as demand response.
## 4.5 Limitations

**Assessment of the Energy Aspects:** Since Anylogic is not a dedicated tool for the simulation of energy consumption and generation, the results, in relation to the energy aspects may not be accurate. However, since the focus of the work is to show that the mentioned collaborative behaviours can have some impact on the energy infrastructure, the obtained results can however be accepted on these grounds.

**Data Source:** The data that was used to model the various households in the model was sourced from the United Kingdom. The authors share the view that perhaps the system should also be verified using other data sources since the use-behaviours of households in Ghana for instance may be different from that of the UK.

## 4.6 Validation of the Model

Detail about the validation process can be found in [15]. However, a focus group discussion constituting of the following potential users was conducted in Ghana.

(a) Potential User Group. This group constituted representatives from nine households who have installed photovoltaic systems of different capacities on their respective residences.

(b) Professional Interest Group 1. This group is made up of professionals from Ghana's energy sector. The group was mainly composed of employees from the Volta River Authority of Ghana (VRA) the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG), and the Bui Power Authority

(c) Professional Interest Group 2. This group constituted of academic staff from the Regional Centre of Energy and Environmental Sustainability (RCEES), which is a leading internationally accredited centre of excellence providing quality research and postgraduate education in energy and environmental sustainability.

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model is adopted for the validation. Using this model, 8 constructs are developed. Each construct is further broken down into a few dimensions, totalling 28 dimensions. The definitions of the various constructs and dimensions, as well as the validation process is discussed in detail in [15]. Questionnaires that were based on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree”, having a weight of “1” to “strongly agree” having a weight of “5” is administered. Data from 31 respondents is collected and used for the analysis. The outcome of the validation process is shown in Table 2.

The general conclusion from this validation is that the respondents agreed to all the 8 constructs and 28 dimensions of the Model. This can be interpreted as a unanimous acceptance to the fact that the developed model, that was demonstrated to them is fit for its intended purpose, despite the identified limitations.
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Results of the validation process</caption><thead><tr><th>Construct</th><th>Dimensions</th><th>Average score (Based on 31 respondents)</th><th>Concluding Remarks (Based on the Likert scale)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">PE:</td><td>PE1</td><td>4.55</td><td>Strongly agree</td></tr><tr><td>PE2</td><td>4.48</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>PE3</td><td>4.45</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>PE4</td><td>4.26</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">EE:</td><td>EE1</td><td>4.29</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>EE2</td><td>4.32</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>EE3</td><td>4.39</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>EE4</td><td>4.26</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">SI</td><td>SI1</td><td>4.03</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>SI2</td><td>3.97</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>SI3</td><td>4.16</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">FC</td><td>FC1</td><td>4.48</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>FC2</td><td>4.10</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>FC3</td><td>4.58</td><td>Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td>FC4</td><td>4.13</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>FC5</td><td>4.39</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">UI:</td><td>UI1</td><td>4.58</td><td>Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td>UI2</td><td>4.55</td><td>Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td>UI3</td><td>4.48</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">GA:</td><td>GA1</td><td>4.52</td><td>Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td>GA2</td><td>4.32</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>GA3</td><td>4.16</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Co:</td><td>Co1</td><td>4.23</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>Co2</td><td>4.35</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>Co3</td><td>4.26</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">DG:</td><td>Dg1</td><td>4.23</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>Dg2</td><td>4.35</td><td>Agree</td></tr><tr><td>Dg3</td><td>4.35</td><td>Agree</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5 Potential Use Cases of CRECs

**Grid Management - Demand Response.** In this context the CREC manager can aggregate resources within the community to be used in support of grid management activities. For instance, deferrable loads can be utilized to achieve this purpose. In the CREC ecosystem, the manager could ensure a collective deferral of these loads to ensure that
consumption within the ecosystem is significantly minimized. By adopting the concept of CRECs, several grid management techniques as shown in Sect. 4 can be achieved. For instance, a grid management VO can be formed to provide ancillary services, such as helping to shift loads from peak periods to off-peak periods using the concepts of “delegated autonomy” and “value system” compatibility. Similarly, a VO can be formed with the objective of minimizing consumption from the grid by ensuring that deferrable loads are delegated to make maximum use of renewable energy sources when available. Additionally, the ecosystem could use the VO formation techniques to aggregate and export surplus energy from within the community to the grid, particularly when the ecosystem generates surplus renewable energy. This could be accomplished through a collaboration effort between the CVPP-E manager, a distribution service operator, the energy market, and the CREC digital twin themselves.

**Disaster Response Management.** For example, if a disruptive event or catastrophic failure occurs anywhere inside or outside of the ecosystem, several potential Emergency Virtual Organizations (EVO) can be formed to assist emergency response teams in planning and carrying out the necessary disaster response/recovery operations. In such circumstances, the CREC digital twins can collect valuable data regarding the extent to which the different physical households have been impacted by the disaster. Such data from CREC digital twins can be used to assess the general impact of the disruptive event on the entire community. From the collected data, the response team can develop the most effective rescue plan. Similarly, an ad-hoc EVO can also be formed in such circumstances to aggregate energy that can be used to support critical infrastructures or parts of the community that are in dire or critical need of energy. Additionally, with their cognitive intelligence and decision-making capabilities, CREC digital twins can take autonomous decisions, such as isolating the physical household that are considered to be vulnerable or susceptible to cascading failures from the grid to avoid further damage or catastrophe.

**Real World Implementations.** In the current stage of the work, only simulation-based developments were performed. For a real-world implementation, the following strategy is devised:

(a) **Identification and Selection of Suitable Sensors and Actuators:** Although the market is saturated with many of these devices, some preliminary studies need to be conducted to identify the most suitable and compatible units. Additionally, smart appliances will also be explored to determine how their integrated smart capabilities can be utilized in this sense.

(b) **Digital Twin Service Provider:** The service of a suitable “digital twin as a service provider” needs to be identified, assessed, and procured. This provider may be expected to provide the digital twin environment (DTE) to host the digital twins. Further assessment needs to be carried out to determine if the implementation of intelligent and collaborative algorithms can be supported in their DTEs. Some service providers that have already been identified include: Ansis Twin Builder, Bosch IoT suit, IBMs Digital Twin Builder, and Azure Digital Twins.
(c) Other smart home portals that are currently available may also be explored to determine if they could provide DTE services. Some portals that have already been identified include: openHAB, Home Assist, ioBroker, Ago Control, OpenMotics, and Domoticz.

(d) After completing the first 3 milestones, thus steps (a), (b), and (c) a prototype CREC constituting a few households will be developed. This prototype will be used for further studies to advance these ideas.

After the prototype implementation, other collaborative scenarios, such as disaster management, as well as other collaborative behaviours like value co-creation and the sharing of rewards, would be further explored. Furthermore, it would be relevant to consider the development of a governance framework as well as the detailed architecture of the CREC ecosystem.

# 6 Conclusion

The objective of this article is three-fold: (a) to provide a brief description of RECs, (b) introduce the CREC concept as an emerging case of RECs, and (c) describe some possible use cases of the CREC concept. The key highlight of the paper is the introduction of the CREC concept, and the partial demonstration of the feasibility of the concept. Although the authors acknowledge that these ideas are still in the developmental stage and that several studies are needed to advance the concepts, we share the opinion that these concepts are feasible and may have the potential to improve the way RECs are organized and how they function. The CREC idea can also introduce efficiency into the management of RECs and the grid, as human interference and decision making can be reduced. It is foreseen that through the technique of “delegation” certain daily and mundane tasks can be delegated to CREC digital twins to be performed on behalf of their users. Such unexciting activities may involve daily decisions, preferences, and changes in consumer behaviour towards sustainable energy use. Furthermore, the notion of value system can enable consumer to flexible contribute to sustainability endeavours without affecting their expected quality of service.

**Acknowledgments.** The authors acknowledge the Portuguese FCT program UIDB/00066/2020 and UIDP/00066/2020 for providing financial support for this work. The University of Energy and Natural Resources and UNINOVA-CTS are hereby acknowledged for supporting this work with their research facilities and resources.

# References

1. Hanke, F., Guyet, R., Feenstra, M.: Do renewable energy communities deliver energy justice? Exploring insights from 71 European cases. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. **80**, no. August, 102244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102244

2. Interreg Europe: Empowering Citizens for Energy Communities: A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform on Low Carbon Economy, no. November, pp. 1–24 (2022)
3. Tarpani, E., et al.: Energy communities implementation in the european union: case studies from pioneer and laggard countries. Sustainability **14**(19), 12528 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912528

4. The European Union: Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable Sources. Off. J. Eur. Union **82**(L 328), 82–209 (2018)

5. Lennon, B., Velasco-Herrejón, P., Dunphy, N.P.: Operationalizing participation: Key obstacles and drivers to citizen energy community formation in Europe’s energy transition. Sci. Talks **5**(Nov 2022), 100104 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sctalk.2022.100104

6. REScoop.EU. Q&A: What are ‘citizen’ and ‘renewable’ energy communities? (2019). https://www.rescoop.eu/uploads/rescoop/downloads/QA-What-are-citizens-energy-communities-renewable-energy-communities-in-the-CEP.pdf. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

7. Boles, S., Cornwell, J., Rob Del Mar, Reichers, J., Schultz, A.: Study on small-scale and community-based renewable. Oregon Dep. Energy 1–48 (2022)

8. Eitan, A., Fischhendler, I.: The architecture of inter-community partnerships in renewable energy: the role of climate intermediaries. Policy Stud. 1–17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2138307

9. Jackson County Green Energy Park. Jackson County Green Energy Park – Renewable Energy From Landfill Methane Gas – Dillsboro NC. https://www.jcgep.org/. Accessed 06 Mar 2023

10. Bringault, A., Eisermann, M., Lacassagne, S., Fauchadour, N.: Cities heading towards 100% renewable energy by controlling their consumption Food for thought and action, France (2016). https://energy-cities.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/publi_100pourcent_final-web_en.pdf. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

11. Empowerment, G.: Green Empowerment | Village Solutions for Global Change (2022). https://greenempowerment.org/. Accessed 06 Mar 2023

12. Ta'u, A.S.: American Samoa Island Community Microgrid - Clean Energy Group (2022). https://www.cleangroup.org/ceg-projects/resilient-power-project/featured-installations/american-samoa-microgrid/. Accessed 06 Mar 2023

13. Judson, E., Fitch-Roy, O., Soutar, I.: Energy democracy: a digital future? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. **9**(February), 102732 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102732

14. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.: Towards collaborative Virtual Power Plants: trends and convergence. Sustain. Energy, Grids Networks **16**, 217–230 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segan.2018.08.003

15. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.: Modeling collaborative behaviors in energy ecosystems. Computers **12**(2), 39 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/computers12020039

16. Sovacool, B.K., Burke, M., Baker, L., Kotikalapudi, C.K., Wlokas, H.: New frontiers and conceptual frameworks for energy justice. Energy Policy **105**, 677–691 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.005

17. Donaghy, T., Jiang, C.: Fossil fuel racism: how phasing out oil, gas, and coal can protect communities. Greenpeace, pp. 1–46 (2021)

18. Chaichana, C., Wongsapai, W., Damrongsak, D., Ishihara, K.N., Luangchosiri, N.: Promoting community renewable energy as a tool for sustainable development in rural areas of Thailand. Energy Procedia **141**, 114–118 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.022

19. In focus: Energy communities to transform the EU's energy system. https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/focus-energy-communities-transform-eus-energy-system-2022-12-13_en. Accessed 20 Mar 2023

20. Roberts, M.B., Sharma, A., MacGill, I.: Efficient, effective and fair allocation of costs and benefits in residential energy communities deploying shared photovoltaics. Appl. Energy **305**, 117935 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.117935
21. IRENA. Community-ownership Models. Innovation landscape brief 2020, Innovation Landscape Brief. Abu Dhabi. https://www.irena.org//media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Jul/IRENACommunity_ownership. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

22. van Bommel, N., Höffken, J.I.: Energy justice within, between and beyond European community energy initiatives: a review. Energy Res. Soc. **79**(2020), 102157 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102157

23. Mayer, A., Smith, E.K.: Exploring the link between energy security and subjective well-being: a study of 22 nations. Energy Sustain. Soc. **9**(1), 1–13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0216-1

24. Interreg Europe, “Renewable Energy Communities, A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform on Low-carbon economy (2018). https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/inline/20180830_Policy_brief_Renewable_Energy_Comunities PB_TO4_final.pdf. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

25. Friends of the Earth-Europe, Barriers and Threats to the People-Owned Energy Revolution Barriers to Community Ownership Covered Below (2021). https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/05/FOEE_barriers_and_threats.pdf. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

26. European Commission: State of the Energy Union 2021 – Contributing to the European Green Deal and the Union’s recovery, no. COM (2021) 950 final. European Commission, Brussels. https://www ffms.pt/sites/default/files/2022-07/state_of_the_energy_union_report_2021.pdf. Accessed 03 Apr 2023

27. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.: Emerging community energy ecosystems: analysis of organizational and governance structures of selected representative cases. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Almeida, R., Oliveira, J. (eds.) DoCEIS 2019. IAICT, vol. 553, pp. 24–40. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17771-3_3

28. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.: Modelling ‘Delegated Autonomy’ in cognitive household digital twins. In: 2022 11th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Application (ICRERA), pp. 192–199 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRERA55966.2022.9922673

29. Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H.: Classes of collaborative networks. In: Putnik, G.D., Cunha, M.M. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Networked and Virtual Organizations, vol. 1, pp. 106–111. IGI Global (2008)

30. Melesse, T.Y., Di Pasquale, V., Riemma, S.: Digital Twin models in industrial operations: state-of-the-art and future research directions. IET Collab. Intell. Manuf. **3**(1), 37–47 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1049/cim2.12010

31. Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C., Stone, M.M.: Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Adm. Rev. **75**, 647–663 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432.Designing

32. Ostrom, E.: Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Assoc. **100**(3), 641–672 (2010)

33. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-matos, L.: Delegating autonomy on digital twins in energy ecosystems. Int. J. SMART GRID **6**(4) (2022). https://doi.org/10.20508/ijsmartgrid.v6i4.257.g253

34. Adu-Kankam, K.O., Camarinha-Matos, L.M.: Modelling “Cognitive Households Digital Twins” in an energy community. In: Bendaoud, M., Wolfgang, B., Chikh, K. (eds.) ICESA 2021, pp. 67–79. Springer, Singapore (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0039-6_6

35. Stanoevska-Slabeva, K., Lenz-Kesekamp, V., Suter, V.: Platforms and the Sharing Economy: An Analysis. Report from the EU H2020 Research Project Ps2Share: Participation, Privacy, and Power in the Sharing Economy (2017). https://www.bi.edu/globalassets/forskning/h2020/ps2shareanalysis-paper_final.pdf. Accessed 11 Feb 2022