Smart grids and beyond : an EU research and innovation perspective.
Date: 2021-10-26
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU financing, EU research policy, digital technology, energy grid, energy research, energy technology, innovation, research and development, research project, research report

Smart Grids and Beyond: An EU research 
and innovation perspective  

Vasiljevska, J. 

Gangale, F. 

Covrig, L. 

Mengolini, A. 

2021 

EUR 30786 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does 
not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the 
Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying 
the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the 
referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion 
whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or 
concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

EU Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC125980 

EUR 30786 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-36194-7 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/705655 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the 
reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under 
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that 
reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other 
material that is not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union 2021, except: cover, ©j-mel-Adobe Stock, 2021. Source: stock.adobe.com  

How to cite this report: Vasiljevska, J., Gangale F., Covrig L., Mengolini, A., Smart Grids and Beyond: An EU research and innovation 
perspective, EUR 30786 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-36194-7, 
doi:10.2760/705655, JRC125980. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

1.  Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

1.1.  Policy context .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 

1.2.  Scope of the report .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

2.  Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 

2.1.  Identification and selection criteria ........................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

2.2.  Data sources ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 

2.3.  Project domains ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 

2.4.  Project participants ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 

3.  Projects overview - statistical analysis ............................................................................................................................................................................. 17 

3.1.  General statistics ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

3.1.1. 

Research and development versus demonstration projects ......................................................................................... 19 

3.1.2. 

Time distribution and EU funding ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 

3.1.3. 

Participations and EU funding ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 

3.2.  Project domains ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 

3.2.1. 

Investment per project domain................................................................................................................................................................. 23 

3.2.2. 

Time distribution of investment per project domain............................................................................................................ 25 

3.2.3.  Geographical distribution of investment per project domain ...................................................................................... 26 

3.2.4. 

Share of EU budget across project domains and funding programmes ........................................................... 28 

3.2.5.  Analysis by project domain ........................................................................................................................................................................... 29 

3.2.5.1.  Smart network management ........................................................................................................................................................ 29 

3.2.5.2.  Demand-side management ............................................................................................................................................................ 31 

3.2.5.3. 

Integration of distributed generation and storage ................................................................................................... 34 

3.2.5.4. 

Large-scale integration of renewable energy sources and storage ........................................................ 36 

3.2.5.5.  Smart city ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 

3.2.5.6. 

E-mobility ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 

3.2.5.7.  Other ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 

3.3.  Participating organisations ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 44 

3.3.1.  Overall picture ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 

3.3.1.1.  Number of participants and EU funding............................................................................................................................. 44 

3.3.1.2. 

Participations across funding programmes .................................................................................................................... 46 

3.3.1.3. 

Participation ranges and first-time participants......................................................................................................... 47 

3.3.1.4. 

Participations across domains ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 

3.3.1.5.  Geographical distribution of participations ..................................................................................................................... 53 

3.3.1.6.  Collaboration links between countries ................................................................................................................................. 58 

3.3.1.7. 

The regional dimension ...................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

3.3.2.  Macro-categories focus.................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 

i 

 
3.3.2.1.  Research and innovation stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 63 

3.3.2.2. 

Technology and service providers ............................................................................................................................................ 65 

3.3.2.3. 

Energy market players ........................................................................................................................................................................ 67 

3.3.2.4.  Regulated operators .............................................................................................................................................................................. 69 

3.3.3. 

Public institutions ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 

3.3.3.1.  Other ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 

4.  Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 77 

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79 

List of boxes......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80 

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 

List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84 

Annexes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 

Annex 1. Geographical distribution and highest ranking organisations per category .......................................................... 85 

Annex 2. List of projects .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 92 

ii 

 
 
 
Abstract 

This report presents an overview of EU research and innovation (R&I) projects in the field of smart grids funded 
by  the  last  two  framework  programmes  for  R&I  (the  seventh  EU  framework  programme  for  research, 
technological development and demonstration activities and Horizon 2020) and by the competitiveness and 
innovation  framework  programme.  R&I  projects  can  play  a  pivotal  role  in  addressing  and  investigating  the 
technological, regulatory, economic and social challenges of the energy transition, and analysing them can help 
to understand the  direction  Europe is taking and inform  current and future  policy  developments. The  report 
looks into projects addressing the need to modernise the electricity grid and to better integrate the behaviours 
and actions of all connected users. In this sense, it goes ‘beyond smart grids’ strictly speaking, and looks at the 
energy  transition  beyond  purely  technological  solutions.  The  analysis  of  the  projects  surveyed  provides  an 
overview  of  the  main  trends;  of  the  main  areas  in  which  projects  intervene;  and  of  the  organisations  that 
participate in the projects as well as synergies and collaborative links between the organisations.  

1 

 
Acknowledgements 

We would like to acknowledge with much appreciation the valuable contribution of Felix Covrig and thank Maria 
Astorga Llorens for reviewing the document. 

Authors 

Julija Vasiljevska, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 

Flavia Gangale, independent consultant, Italy 

Laura Covrig, independent consultant, Netherlands 

Anna Mengolini, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission 

2 

 
Executive summary 

Policy context 

A shift towards a low-carbon economy calls for increasing digitalisation and electrification of the energy system. 
The energy sector has been an early adopter of digital technologies, using them to facilitate grid management 
and operation. Digital technologies are viewed as enablers of a more connected, intelligent, efficient, reliable 
and sustainable energy system. The political guidelines of the European Commission 2019–2024 call for Europe 
to tackle the challenges of being the first climate-neutral continent and to address the transformations brought 
about by digital technologies. In this context, the Commission has put forward a series of policy documents that 
should lead Europe to be a climate-neutral continent by 2050 raising the 2030 emission reduction target to at 
least 50 % (‘A European green deal’1) while ensuring that Europe grasps the potential of digital technologies to 
provide solutions to societal challenges (‘A Europe fit for the digital age’2). The twin challenge of a green and 
digital transformation has to happen together in order for Europe to lead the transition to a healthy planet and 
a new digital world (European Commission 2020a).  The twin digital and energy transition is thus positioned at 
the core of a low-carbon economy. In the last 10 years, several EU energy policy documents have placed smart 
grid  technologies  at  the  centre  of  the  energy  transition.  At  the  same  time,  there  has  been  an  increasing 
awareness  that  digital  technology  deployment  entails  active  participation  of  consumers  and  should  be 
accompanied  by  an  assessment  of  the  associated  societal  implications;  this  is  needed  to  guarantee  early 
identification  of  the  challenges  and  opportunities  that  the  use  of  digital  technologies  and  other  innovative 
solutions can present for EU consumers’ living conditions. 

Key conclusions 

General  trend. There  was an increase in research and innovation (R&I) activities in the smart  grid  arena in 
2007–2020. More specifically, in 2014–2020 (covered by Horizon 2020 (H2020)) there was a 25 % increase in 
the number of projects, a 59 % increase in total investment and a 117 % increase in EU funding compared with 
2007–2013 (covered by the seventh EU framework programme for research, technological development and 
demonstration activities (FP7), the competitiveness and innovation framework programme – information and 
communication technology policy support  programme (CIP-ICT-PSP) and the competitiveness and innovation 
framework  programme  –  intelligent  energy  Europe  programme  (CIP-IEE)). Most projects  received  an  EU 
contribution of less than EUR 5 million. On average they received 73 % of their funding from the EU, but half 
of all projects received more than 78 % of their funding from it. On average, EU funding shares increased from 
62 % in 2007–2013 to 82 % in 2014–2020. In addition, the number of demonstration projects in comparison 
with  research  and  development  projects rose  substantially in  2007-2020,  thanks  to  the  increasing  maturity 
reached by many technologies and solutions and the growing focus on demonstrating the enabling role of smart 
grids in accelerating the twin digital and energy transition. There are significant differences between countries, 
with Spain, Germany and Italy showing the largest numbers of participations (one participation being defined 
as the participation of one organisation in one project) and the highest shares of collaboration links with other 
countries. The situation is rather different when focusing on the regional dimension; the top five EU regions, in 
terms of number of participations are in France, Spain, Greece and Belgium and the top five regions in terms of 
EU funding are in France, Germany and Spain.   

Project domains. Most of the projects focus on demand-side management (DSM), mainly in the residential 
sector. There is a balanced distribution of EU funding across all project domains with DSM bearing the highest 
share  of  EU  funding, followed  by smart  city,  smart  network  management and integration  of  distributed 
generation  and  storage.  The  project domain ‘other’ also  received  a  substantial  share  of  EU  funding,  which 

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en  

3 

 
                                                                 
indicates increased R&I attention to cross-cutting issues, such as cybersecurity, standardisation, development 
of big energy data platforms, and socioeconomic, cultural, political and gender aspects of the energy transition.   

Participating organisations. R&I stakeholders represent 42 % of participations in all projects, technology and 
service providers 22 %, regulated operators 9 %, energy market players and public institutions 8 % each, and 
the organisations grouped under the macro-category ‘other’ 11 %. Among the organisations that participated 
in  over 10  projects,  those  in  the  top  15  positions  in  terms  of  number  of  participations  are  mainly  research 
centres  and  universities. More  than  half  of  the  organisations  participating  in  H2020  projects  were 
newcomers, i.e. first-time applicants that did not apply to any of the other reviewed programmes (FP7, CIP-ICT-
PSP, CIP-IEE). The share of newcomers is above average for organisation categories that are newer in the smart 
grid  arena,  such  as transport  solution  providers, market  operators  and  energy  brokers  /  traders, energy 
cooperatives and local governments, while it is below average for more traditional actors, such as transmission 
system  operators  (TSOs), research  centres and universities. This  indicates  that  H2020  was  successful  in 
allowing new organisations to join and receive funding, particularly new actors in the smart grid sector that are 
able to push innovative technologies and business models to markets.  

Participating  organisations  by  project  domain.  Organisation  categories  show  a  varied  pattern  of 
participation in the different domains, in line with the business sector in which they operate and their role in 
smart grid deployment. For example, local governments are active in the smart city and e-mobility domains, 
where they play a pivotal role for the transformation of city infrastructures and services. Housing associations 
/ real estate developers are also particularly active in the smart city domain, indicating a growing interest among 
the  residential  sector,  especially  the  social  housing  sector.  Distribution  system  operators  (DSOs)  and 
transmission system operators (TSOs), traditionally active in the smart network management domain, show a 
high  level  of  participation  in  the  domain  ‘other’,  indicating  their  growing  interest  in  the  cross-cutting  issues 
addressed  by  these  projects,  such  as  cybersecurity,  the  potential  of  big  data  for  the  modernisation  of  the 
European electricity grid and the creation of new smart grid services. DSOs and TSOs increasingly collaborate 
with ICT and software providers, in particular in the smart network management and DSM domains, which points 
to  the strong commitment  of  system  operators to  digitalising  their  businesses  but  also  to  the  key  role  of 
collaboration on the road to the digital transformation of the energy sector.    

Main findings 

4 

 
 
Related and future JRC work 

JRC will continue collecting and analysing R&I projects at national and EU levels with the aim of  supporting 
early identification of the challenges and opportunities that the use of digital technologies and other innovative 
solutions can pose to EU consumers’ living conditions.  

Quick guide 

Chapter 1 presents the policy context and the scope of the work.  Chapter 2 elaborates the ad hoc methodology 
developed for identifying and selecting projects and for the organisation of data. Chapter 3 provides first an 
overview  of  the  main  general  trends,  and  then  a  focused  analysis  of  project  domains  and  participating 
organisations. Finally, Chapter 4 presents a summary of the main findings. 

5 

 
1.  Introduction 

1.1.  Policy context 

The political guidelines of the European Commission 2019-2024 (von der Leyen 2019) emphasise the urgency 
of leading the transition to a healthy and new digital world, addressing the challenges of Europe being the first 
climate-neutral  continent  (Commission  priority  ‘A  European  Green  Deal’3)  and  the  transformations  brought 
about by digital technologies (Commission priority ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’4). 

While ‘A European Green Deal’ intends to transform the EU into a climate-neutral continent by 2050 and to 
raise the 2030 emission reduction target to at least 50 %, ‘A Europe fit for the digital age’ aims to ensure that 
Europe  grasps  the  potential  of  the  digital  age  and  of  digital  technologies  to  provide  solutions  to  societal 
challenges. In the communication ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’ (European Commission 2020a) the European 
Commission emphasises that the twin challenge of a green and digital transformation has to happen together 
in order for Europe to lead the transition to a healthy planet and a new digital world. The twin digital and energy 
transition is placed at the core of a low-carbon economy. 

A shift towards a low-carbon economy calls for increasing digitalisation and electrification of the energy system. 
Combining  widespread  electrification  and  digital  technologies  with  renewable  power  can  in  fact  become  a 
central pillar for the development of smart grids and smart cities, fostering energy efficiency improvement in 
urban areas, sustainable mobility systems, and innovative sustainability-related consumer-centred services. A 
growing electrification of the economy is already occurring worldwide, as ‘electricity is increasingly the “fuel” of 
choice in economies that are relying more on lighter industrial sectors, services and digital technologies’ (IEA 
2018, p. 24).  

The energy sector has been an early adopter of digital technologies, using them to facilitate grid management 
and  operation.  It  is  argued  that  in  the  coming  decades  digital  technologies  will  enable  more  connected, 
intelligent, efficient, reliable and sustainable energy systems (IEA 2017). To this end, digitalisation of the energy 
sector  should  be  adopted  along  the  whole  value  chain,  from  production  to  distribution,  consumption  and 
management of energy. 

In the net zero emission report (IEA 2021), the IEA maintains that the rapid electrification of all sectors  will 
make electricity even more central to energy security than it is today. The report projects that electricity systems’ 
flexibility will quadruple by 2050 as reductions in fossil fuel capacity reduce conventional sources of flexibility. 
This transition calls for major increases in all sources of flexibility: batteries, demand response and low-carbon 
flexible power plants, supported by smart meters and more digital electricity networks (IEA 2021, p. 23). 

With the 2009 Third Energy Package5 the EU energy policy put forward smart meters – a building block for the 
digitalisation of the electricity grid – as enabling technologies for more efficient and sustainable use of energy. 
In this context, the EU Smart Grids Task Force was set up to advise the European Commission on issues related 
to  the  development  and  deployment  of  smart  grids.  In  the  last  10  years,  many  EU  policy  documents  have 
followed, in which smart grid technologies’ central role in the energy transition has been further established 
(Figure 1). At the same time, there has been increasing awareness that digital technology deployment entails 
active participation of consumers (European Commission 2015a) (European Commission 2015b) and should be 
accompanied  by  an  assessment  of  the  associated  societal  implications;  this  is  needed  to  guarantee  early 
identification  of  the  challenges  and  opportunities  that  the  use  of  digital  technologies  and  other  innovative 
solutions can present for EU consumers’ living conditions (European Commission 2016) (European Commission 
2019) (European Commission 2020a) (European Commission 2020b) (European Commission 2020c).  

3 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en  
4 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en  
5 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/markets-and-consumers/market-legislation/third-energy-package_en  

6 

 
                                                                 
Figure 1. Digitalisation of the electricity sector in EU energy policy documents 

1.2.  Scope of the report 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The Joint Research Centre (JRC)  has since 2011 monitored developments in the smart grid arena, collecting 
quantitative and qualitative data about smart grid projects in Europe. The first smart grid project outlook was 
released in 2011 and updated three times, in 2013, 2014 and 2017 (Giordano, Gangale, et al. 2011)  (Giordano, 
Meletiou, et al. 2013)  (Covrig, et al. 2014)  (Gangale, Vasiljevska, et al. 2017). Further analyses on data subsets 
have focused on issues of energy poverty,  collective action in the energy sector and consumer engagement 
(Gangale and Mengolini 2019) (Gangale, Mengolini and Marinopoulos , et al. 2020)  (Gangale, Mengolini and 
Onyeji  2013).  In  2020,  we  started  a  new  data  collection  exercise,  with  the  launch  of  a  revised  online 
questionnaire.  The  increasing  number  of  smart  grid  projects  at  national  and  international  levels  and  the 
associated  difficulty  of  exhaustively  retrieving  data  do  not  allow  for  a  thorough,  comprehensive  and  fair 
analysis. Therefore, for the 2021 edition, we have decided to limit the scope of our research and analysis to EU 
co-funded research and innovation (R&I) projects. Our aim is to offer insights based on more complete and 
accurate information using official sources of the European Commission as well as to provide a closer look into 
the R&I trends in Europe driven by European R&I needs.  

The report presents an overview of EU-funded efforts in the field of smart grids carried out in Europe under the 
last two framework programmes for R&I: the seventh EU framework programme for research, technological 
development and  demonstration activities (FP7) and the  eighth EU framework programme for research and 
innovation, better known as  Horizon 2020 (H2020). For the sake of exhaustiveness,  we also included in the 
analysis the projects funded by the competitiveness and innovation framework programme – information and 
communication technology policy support  programme (CIP-ICT-PSP) and the competitiveness and innovation 
framework programme – intelligent energy Europe programme (CIP-IEE). R&I projects can play a pivotal role in 
addressing  and  investigating  the  technological,  regulatory,  economic  and  social  challenges  of  the  energy 
transition, and analysing them can help to understand the direction Europe is taking and inform current and 
future policy development (Gangale, Mengolini and Marinopoulos , et al. 2020) (Gangale and Mengolini 2019) 
(Mengolini, Gangale and Vasiljevska 2016). We build our research and analyses on the definition of smart grid 
as an ‘electricity network that can integrate in a cost efficient manner the behaviour and actions of all users 
connected to it, including generators, consumers and those that both generate and consume, in order to ensure 
an economically efficient and sustainable power system with low losses and high levels of quality, security of 
supply and safety’ (European Parliament and Council 2013, article 12). In this perspective, we look into projects 
dealing with grid modernisation as well as integration of connected users’ behaviours. In both cases, a key role 
is  played  by  new  business  models  and  practices,  new  regulations  and  market  designs,  as  well  as  by  more 
intangible  elements  such  as  consumers’  behavioural  change  and  social  acceptance.   With  this  in  mind,  we 
broaden our scope beyond smart grids in the strict sense, in order to look at the energy transition beyond purely 

7 

 
 
technological solutions. Ultimately, transformation of technology goes hand in hand with changes in culture, 
behaviour and practice, and thus there is a compelling need for social sciences and humanities input in research 
and policy approaches dealing with energy transition.  To  develop our methodology for project selection and 
categorisation we have closely looked into similar European initiatives such as Bridge6 and ETIP SNET7  and 
aligned our approach accordingly.  

Unlike previous editions in which the focus was mainly on the technological side, the 2021 Smart Grids and 
Beyond outlook offers a sociotechnical perspective. The report has been thought of as a compendium of key 
facts and figures that can be used to inform and support further analysis. In the field of smart grids, knowledge 
sharing is indeed of fundamental importance to stimulate regulators to design tailored incentive schemes, to 
inspire  public  authorities  to  replicate  initiatives  successfully  tested  elsewhere  and  to  inform  companies’ 
investment strategies. It can also provide a glimpse of the market opportunities for emerging market players 
in the smart grid domain. 

6 https://www.h2020-bridge.eu/     
7 https://www.etip-snet.eu/  

8 

 
                                                                 
2.  Methodology 

This chapter presents the project identification and selection criteria, the sources used for data collection and 
the categories for the classification of project domains and participants.  

2.1.  Identification and selection criteria 

The identification and selection of projects were guided by the following criteria: 

 

 

 

 

The project is a research and development (R&D) or demonstration project. By R&D projects we mean 
projects that carry out ‘creative and systematic work undertaken in order to increase the stock of knowledge 
–  including  knowledge  of  humankind,  culture  and  society  –  and to  devise  new  applications  of  available 
knowledge’  (OECD  2015,  p.  44).  By  demonstration  projects  we  mean  projects  that  carry  out  real-world 
testing  of  technological  solutions,  market  designs,  policy  schemes  and  business  models  in  different 
operational environments.  

The project has received EU funding under one of the following programmes: CIP-ICT-PSP, CIP-IEE, FP7 
and H2020 (see Box 1). 

The project start date is between January 2007 and December 2020. 

The project addresses at least one of the following aspects: 

 

integration of new technologies, capabilities and resources into the grid (e.g. new ICT and energy 
technologies  that  increase  network  operational  efficiency  and  enable  integration  of  increased 
shares  of  distributed  energy  resources;  capabilities  that  enable  real-time  or  close  to  real-time 
monitoring and control of network operation by grid operators and of energy usage by the end 
user); 

  market  design  and  regulatory  frameworks  that  facilitate  grid  integration  of  renewable  energy 

sources (RESs), energy storage and new type of loads, such as electric vehicles; 

 

 

cross-cutting issues relevant  to smart  grid development,  such as cybersecurity, standardisation 
and interoperability; 

the promotion and integration of the behaviours and actions of all connected users, including those 
who are energy poor, using different means (e.g. ICT-enabling technologies, collective approaches, 
awareness raising and behavioural change strategies). 

9 

 
 
 
Box 1. Funding sources  

CIP-ICT-PSP and CIP-IEE8 are two funding programmes under the competitiveness and innovation framework programme 
(CIP), which ran from 2007 to 2013 with an overall budget of EUR 3 621 million.  CIP-ICT-PSP aims at wider uptake and 
best  use  of  ICT  and  digital  content  by  citizens,  governments  and  businesses,  in  particular  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises (SMEs). The focus is placed on driving this uptake in areas of public interest while addressing EU challenges such 
as moving towards a low-carbon economy or coping with an ageing society. We looked into projects funded in the area of 
ICT for energy efficiency and smart mobility. The programme contributes to a better environment for developing ICT-based 
services,  and  helps  overcome  hurdles  such  as  the  lack  of interoperability  and  market  fragmentation.  CIP-IEE  promotes 
efficiency and rational use of energy resources by encouraging the use of renewable sources and offering incentives for 
the adoption of the latter in various sectors, such as transport. To achieve this objective, it aids pilot projects, projects in 
their first commercial application, and projects promoting and publicising the development of capacities, the dissemination 
of know-how, the exchange of experiences, public awareness raising, and education and training. We looked into projects 
funded under all four CIP-IEE funding areas: SAVE – energy efficiency and the rational use of energy; ALTENER – new and 
renewable resources, STEER – energy in transport; and integrated initiatives. 

FP7 ran between 2007 and 2013 with a total budget of EUR 50.6 billion. It was organised in four programmes: cooperation, 
ideas, people and capacities. We looked into the specific cooperation programme, specifically at the themes ‘Energy’ and 
‘Information  and  communication  technologies’.  We  also  reviewed  the  other  themes  to  identify  relevant  projects  for  our 
analysis, such as the themes ‘Transport’ and ‘Nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials and new production technologies’, 
both building on the smart grid concept to integrate the growing penetration of electric vehicles and RESs using, for example, 
integrated concepts of interconnectivity between buildings, distributed energy resources, grids and other networks at district 
level.  

H2020  ran  from  2014  to  2020,  with  a  budget  of  nearly  EUR  80  billion. It  brought  together  three  separate 
programmes/initiatives: the multiannual research framework programmes, innovation aspects of CIP and the EU contribution 
to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology.  We focused our search and analysis on projects under the priorities 
‘Societal challenges’ (secure, clean and efficient energy and smart, green and integrated transport) and ‘Industrial leadership’ 
(ICT). Other themes with direct links to the scope and aim of our study were also subject to investigation (e.g. secure societies, 
nanotechnologies). 

Selection of EU framework programmes with direct link to smart grids 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

8 We refer to the IEE follow-on programme, which was included in CIP in order to contribute to achieving the objectives of EU energy 

policy and to implementing the Lisbon Agenda. 

10 

 
 
                                                                 
2.2.  Data sources 

This report builds on a large number of data collected through desk research, at both funding programme level 
and  project  level.  In  April  2020  we  also  launched  an  online  survey  to  collect  data  directly  from  project 
participants. Figure 2 gives an overview of the main sources of information used for data collection: the EU 
CORDIS web page9, the Horizon dashboard10, the Financial Transparency System of the European Commission11 
and the JRC online survey.  

Figure 2. Data input and output 

The resulting database includes the following project information:  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

project name, 

start and end date, 

total budget and EU contribution, 

funding programme and call for proposal, 

participating organisations, their role in the project, country, EU contribution, 

if relevant, the SME status of the organisations. 

Through the analysis of project documentation (project documentation and deliverables, related articles, project 
websites), we also derived and included the following information: 

 

 

project stage of development (R&D or demonstration), 

project  domain,  that  is  the  area  of  intervention  where  the  solutions  investigated  and  tested  in  the 
project aim to produce their impact (see Section 2.3), 

9 https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/en  
10 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/horizon-dashboard  
11 https://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm  

11 

 
 
                                                                 
 

 

 

number and location of the implementation sites, that is the place where projects’ solutions are trialled, 
demonstrated and validated, 

the organisation category of each project participant, according to the classification adopted for this 
study (see Section 2.4), 

for demand-side management (DSM) projects, the consumption sector involved (i.e. residential, mixed, 
non-residential). 

12 

 
 
 
2.3.  Project domains 

Based on the aim and the scope of the selected  projects, as well as the type of technologies and solutions 
developed and trialled in these projects, we have identified seven main project domains as summarised in Table 
1.  

Table 1. Classification of project main domains  

Application 

Definition 

Smart network 
management 

Smart network management projects focus on increasing the operational flexibility 
of  the  electricity  grid  through  enhanced  grid  monitoring  and  control  capabilities.  
Typically, this involves installation of network monitoring and control equipment, and 
fast and real-time data communications. 

Demand-side 
management  

Demand-side  management  projects  include  both  projects  that  aim  to  shift 
consumption to another point in time (demand response) and projects that aim to 
reduce the level of energy consumption and increase the efficiency of energy usage, 
including projects focusing on energy awareness.  

Integration of 
distributed 
generation and 
storage  

Integration of 
large-scale RESs 
and storage 

Smart city 

E-mobility 

Other 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Integration of distributed generation and storage projects focus on advanced control 
schemes  and  new  ICT  solutions  for  integrating  distributed  generation  and  energy 
storage into the distribution network while ensuring system reliability and security of 
supply. 

Integration of large-scale RESs and storage projects mainly aim to integrate RESs at 
transmission or high-voltage distribution network level. 

Smart  city  projects  focus  on  optimising  energy  systems  in  smart  cities  by,  for 
example,  development  of  new  energy  data  ecosystems  to  accommodate  cross-
domain data, or development of ICT tools to facilitate sharing of renewable energy 
within  a  neighbourhood  and  in  this  way  enable  energy-neutral  or  energy-positive 
neighbourhoods. 

Electric  mobility  projects  focus  on  the  integration  of  electric  vehicles  and  plug-in 
hybrid vehicles into the electricity network (development of charging infrastructure, 
smart charging strategies, sector integration, etc.). 

This group includes projects that cannot be categorised under any of the categories 
above. Examples of such projects include projects focusing on big data and artificial 
intelligence technologies for leveraging the potential of smart grids; projects dealing 
with regulatory, institutional and social conditions for development and operation of 
new  clean  energy  communities;  projects  focusing  on  cybersecurity  and  smart  grid 
standardisation; etc.  

13 

 
We strove to identify a single domain for each project. In some cases, however, projects investigate and trial 
several  solutions  without  any  one  of  them  prevailing,  as  they  focus  instead  on  the  systemic  integration  of 
different smart grid solutions. For example, a project can focus on the integration of RESs and demand response 
along  with  the  necessary  smart  grid  infrastructure  to  support  them  and  in  this  case  the  project  has  been 
assigned to three main project domains. 

2.4.  Project participants 

Project participants have been classified under 22 categories, grouped in 6 macro-categories, as detailed in 
Figure 3 and Table 2.  

A ‘participation’ is defined as the participation of one organisation in one project. As many organisations appear 
in more than one project, we look at both the number of participations and the number of organisations (i.e. the 
number of participations is higher than the number of organisations). 

Figure 3. Organisation categories 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

This categorisation introduces changes from the classification adopted by previous smart grid outlook editions. 
Modifications reflect changes in definitions provided in policy documents and take into account the definitions 
used  in  recent  reports  (Bridge  2019)  (ETIP  SNET  2018).  In  some  cases,  assigning  the  organisation  category 
required extra investigation. Many energy companies, for example, are active as both producers and suppliers, 
and the project information is not always sufficient to determine which branch of the integrated organisation 
is involved in the project. Difficulties were also registered with many organisations using digital solutions as 
part of their core business. Whether to classify them as ICT and software providers or energy service providers 
was particularly challenging at times and required deeper investigation of the company’s business model and 
of its specific role in the project. This points to a growing presence of organisations with integrated activities as 
part of their core business, largely enabled by the digitalisation of the energy sector. 

14 

 
 
 
Table 2. Organisation categories: definitions 

Macro-category 

Category 

Definition 

Energy market players 

Energy producers 

Natural or legal persons who generate energy12 

Energy suppliers 

Natural or legal persons active in the sale, including the resale, of energy to customers13 

Energy cooperatives 

Associations in which citizens jointly own and participate in decentralised energy or energy efficiency initiatives, independently 
of their legal statute 

Municipal energy utilities 

Organisations owned or dominated (> 50 % shares) by local public authorities that operate in different businesses along the 
energy supply value chain  

Market operators and energy 
brokers / traders 

Organisations that manage and/or operate the business of an energy exchange; organisations involved as buyers or sellers of 
energy and related products for their own account or on behalf of a third party 

Energy service providers 

Specialised energy service companies offering energy audits, energy efficiency services and energy performance contracting 
(e.g. energy service companies (ESCOs)) and companies aggregating multiple customer loads or generated electricity for sale, 
purchase or auction in any electricity market (aggregators14) 

Research and 
Innovation 
stakeholders 

Universities 

Research centres 

Consultancies 

Public or private higher education institutions 

Public or private organisations dedicated to scientific research 

Organisations providing professional expert advice to other public and private organisations 

Technology and 
service providers 

Energy technology providers 

Manufacturers  and/or  suppliers  of  a  wide  range  of  technological  products  and  solutions  for  the  energy  and  automotive 
industries15 

ICT and software providers 

Organisations  active  as  software  developers  (including  software  as  a  service),  system  designers,  system  integrators  and 
telecom companies 

Engineering service providers 

Organisations involved in a broad spectrum of consulting, engineering and analytical services that work collaboratively with 
partners across the energy, utilities, infrastructure and associated sectors16 

12 Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on common rules for the internal market for electricity and amending Directive 2012/27/EU (European Parliament and 

Council 2019). 

13 Directive (EU) 2019/944. 
14 Directive (EU) 2019/944. 
15 By way of example, organisations under this category include those providing power quality, distribution and control solutions; solutions for energy conversion technologies, their components and other related 

energy services; storage technologies; and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 

16 By way of example, the category includes companies that carry out maintenance services and activities for electricity, gas, water and communication infrastructure; construction, installation and maintenance of 
high-voltage electrical networks and telecommunications systems; engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of renewable and conventional energy projects; installation and management of 
smart metering infrastructure; and construction of low-energy buildings and other civil infrastructures. 

15 

 
                                                                 
Transport solution providers 

Organisations operating in the conventional and electro-mobility sectors17 

Regulated operators 

Transmission system operators 

Natural  or  legal  person  who  is  responsible  for  operating,  ensuring  the  maintenance  of  and,  if  necessary,  developing  the 
transmission system in a given area and, when applicable, its interconnections with other systems, and for ensuring the long-
term ability of the system to meet reasonable demands for the transmission of electricity18  

Distribution system operators 

Natural  or  legal  person  who  is  responsible  for  operating,  ensuring  the  maintenance  of  and,  if  necessary,  developing  the 
distribution system in a given are and, where applicable, its interconnections with other systems, and for ensuring the long-
term ability to meet reasonable demands for the distribution of electricity19 

Public institutions 

Local governments 

Government units having a local sphere of competence including a variety of public entities, mainly counties, municipalities, 
cities and towns 

Other public entities 

Public organisations active in different energy-related fields20 

Other 

Business incubators / funding 
agencies and early-stage 
investors 

Environmental and other civil 
society organisations 

Housing associations / real estate 
developers 

Organisations  that  actively  support  the  process  of  creation  and  development  of  new  companies  by  providing  guidance, 
mentorship and other services / organisations that provide funding to support research or entrepreneurial activities 

Organisations dedicated to furthering environmental and other public interest causes21 

Organisations that provide affordable housing for rent or accession to ownership to specific target groups, typically defined in 
terms of socioeconomic status or the presence of vulnerabilities / organisations involved in a variety of activities, ranging from 
the renovation and re-leasing of existing buildings to the purchase of greenfield sites and the sale of developed land or parcels 
to others 

Networks / industry associations 

Federations providing a collective voice for their members at national and/or international level 

Miscellaneous 

Organisations active in various sectors that cannot be placed in any of the abovementioned categories 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

17 By way of example, this category includes charging point operators; mobility service providers; shared mobility operators; public transport operators; traffic information, planning and optimisation companies; 

private transport companies; and companies providing software solutions for the optimisation of sustainable and multimodal mobility. 

18 Directive (EU) 2019/944. 
19 Directive (EU) 2019/944. 
20 By way of example, this category includes environmental and energy agencies; regional and local development agencies; urban regeneration agencies; and community development agencies. 
21 By way of example, this category includes organisations dedicated to environmental protection; sustainable development; the relief of fuel poverty; the promotion of civic participation; and the protection of 

citizens’ and consumers’ rights. 

16 

 
                                                                 
3.  Projects overview - statistical analysis 

3.1.  General statistics 

Overall, we collected and analysed 407 projects, totalling around EUR 3 billion of investment and EUR 2.3 billion 
of EU contribution from three EU funding programmes. The projects bring together 3 130 organisations from 
45 countries, with an average of 15 (median of 12) organisations per project. There are 285 demonstration 
projects, carrying out real-world testing of technological solutions, market designs, policy schemes and business 
models in 1 243 implementation sites. These findings are summarised in Figure 4.  

Figure 4. Summary of main findings 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 5 presents the projects’ timeline, in terms of number of projects starting each year during 2007–2020, 
number of R&D versus demonstration projects, total budget, EU contribution per funding programme, and the 
prevailing project domain (in terms of number of projects per domain). We see that most of the projects starting 
each year focus on DSM with the exception of 2019, for which the prevailing domain is ‘other’.      

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Projects’ timeline 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

18 

 
 
 
Figure 6 summarises the main project data, indicating an increase in activities in the smart grid area over 2007–
2020.  A strong increase in the number of projects can be observed between FP7 and H2020 (79 %), indicating 
the growing importance of this field in relation to the transition towards a more secure, sustainable and inclusive 
energy system. The total investments increased by over 80 %, and EU funding by 145 %. Even considering CIP-
ICT-PSP and CIP-IEE together with FP7, H2020 still shows a significant increase in the number of projects (25 
%), in total investments (59 %) and in EU funding (117 %). 

Figure 6. Number of projects, total investment and EU funding for all programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Project  data  also  reveal  the  different  characters  of  the  funding  programmes.  CIP-ICT-PSP  funded  mainly 
demonstration  projects (22 out of 25) aimed at validating and replicating innovative  and interoperable ICT-
based  services  for  energy  efficiency  and  smart  mobility  in  real  settings.  CIP-IEE  focused  more  on  the  non-
technical barriers to market uptake and to the promotion and dissemination of energy technologies, and funded 
a more balanced mix of R&D and demonstration projects (17 and 13 respectively). Between FP7 and H2020, 
the number of demonstration projects rose substantially, thanks to the increasing maturity reached by many 
technologies  and  solutions  and  the  growing  focus  on  demonstrating  the  enabling  role  of  smart  grids  in 
accelerating the twin digital and energy transition. 

3.1.1.  Research and development versus demonstration projects 

Overall, the number of demonstration projects increased from 115 in 2007–2013 to 170 in 2014–2020, while 
R&D projects decreased from 67 to 55.  The associated EU contribution to demonstration projects increased 
from  EUR  543.11  million  to  EUR  1  410  million  for  demonstration  projects,  while  for  R&D  projects  the  EU 
contributions decreased from EUR 188.5 million to EUR 177.46 million. In relative terms, the demonstration 
share of the EU contribution increased from 59.6 % to 82.5 % between 2007–2013 and 2014–2020, while the 
R&D share increased from 67.8 % to 97.3 % (Figure 7 and Figure 8). It needs to be noted that in the figures 

19 

 
 
throughout the report, projects have been assigned to the start and not to the funding year; this implies that 
some projects funded under FP7 and CIP, which started in 2014, appear under the funding period 2014–2020. 

Figure 7. Time distribution of R&D and demonstration projects 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 8. Time distribution of R&D and demonstration investment and EU contribution 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

3.1.2.  Time distribution and EU funding 

Figure  9  and  Figure  10  show  the  time  distribution  of  projects  and  EU  funding  across funding  programmes, 
confirming the overall upward trend but also revealing a slowdown in certain years. Yearly variations could be 
due to a variety of factors, including the amount of funding available each year and the evolving priorities of 
the yearly work programmes.  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 9. Time distribution of projects for all programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 10. Time distribution of EU funding for all programmes 

3.1.3.  Participations and EU funding 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Project consortia range from 70 partners (OneNet project) to 2 partners (Energise project), with an average of 
15 (median of 12) (Figure 11). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Number of participants by project for all programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The majority of projects received an EU contribution of less than EUR 5 million. On average, they received 73 
% of their funding from the EU, but half of all projects received more than 78 % from it. On average, funding 
shares increased from 62 % in 2007–2013 to 82 % in 2014–2020, calculated as total EU contribution divided 
by total budget (Figure 12). 

Figure 12. EU funding by project for all programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

3.2.  Project domains 

This section focuses on the project domains with the aim of closely looking into the direction EU efforts take 
when it comes to deployment of smart grid solutions and technologies. More specifically, we investigate the 
magnitude of investment across time and place and across EU funding programmes. 

22 

 
 
 
 
3.2.1.  Investment per project domain 

Figure 13 provides an overview of the total investment and EU contribution as well as number of projects  in 
each  project  domain.  It  also  differentiates between  types  of  project  (R&D  and  demonstration).  We  see  that 
demonstration projects prevail in most of the domains, except in the domain integration of large-scale RESs 
and storage and the domain ‘other'. Projects categorised in the domain ‘other’ largely focus on R&D on specific 
topics, such as investigation of regulatory, institutional and social conditions to support the emergence of energy 
communities or on energy transition at large, market design and business models for flexibility provisions. They 
also build on synergies between electricity, heating/cooling and gas networks. On the other hand, projects in the 
smart  city  domain  are  all  demonstration  projects  whose  activities  may  include  prototyping,  testing, 
demonstrating, piloting, large-scale product validation and market replication.  

Figure 13. Investment and number of projects in each project domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 14 illustrates the percentage of EU funding by main project domain. We can observe a quite balanced 
distribution  of  EU  budget  across  all  project  domains  with  DSM  bearing  the  highest  share  of  the  EU  budget 
(22.41  %),  followed  by  smart  city  (19.33  %),  smart  network  management  (16.78  %)  and  integration  of 
distributed generation and storage (16.35 %). The project domain ‘other’ also holds a substantial share of the 
EU  budget,  higher  than  in  the  domains  e-mobility  and  integration  of  large-scale  RESs  and  storage,  which 
indicates increased R&I focus on cross-cutting issues, such as cybersecurity, standardisation and development 
of big energy data platforms, as well as more general but equally relevant socioeconomic, cultural, political and 
gender aspects of the energy transition. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Percentage of EU funding by main project domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 15 illustrates the share of total and EU demonstration and R&D investment per main project domain. EU 
funding for demonstration projects accounts for more than 70 % in all domains and nearly 70 % in the case of 
integration of large-scale RESs and storage (67.8 %). In addition, demonstration projects bear a higher share 
of the total project investment in all project domains, despite the higher number of R&D projects in the domains 
DSM, integration of large-scale RESs and storage and ‘other’ (Figure 13). The largest proportion of the R&D 
projects  in  the  domain  ‘other’  focus  on  the  important  role  of  social  sciences  and  humanities  aspects  in 
supporting  the  clean  energy  transition.  Additional  aspects  include  development  of  advanced  tools  and 
technologies for grid modelling, operation, and planning. R&D projects focusing on integration of large-scale 
RESs and storage investigate aspects such as use and implementation options for auctions for RESs support, 
financing alternatives for RESs, tools for the design and modelling of new markets and negotiation mechanisms 
facilitating 100 % renewable European power systems. 

24 

 
 
 
 
Figure 15. Share of total and EU R&D and demonstration investment by main project domain 

3.2.2.   Time distribution of investment per project domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 16 illustrates the time distribution of total investment in each project domain. We can see that all project 
domains remain present across the years,  although with different shares relative to the other domains. The 
domain  ‘other’  shows  increasing  shares  in  recent  years,  which  could  indicate  the  need  to  investigate  other 
aspects  of  smart  grids,  equally  relevant  for  their  successful  deployment.  Some  of  these  aspects  include 
cybersecurity, building on the potential of big data in reinforcing European efforts to modernise the European 
electricity grid and creation of new smart grid services. Other aspects investigate how social innovation can 
bring about more sustainable energy systems in Europe. Additional aspects focus on the socioeconomic, gender, 
sociocultural, and sociopolitical factors and their interrelations with technological, regulatory, and investment-
related aspects in the field of smart grids and its role in the energy transition, in general.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Time distribution of total investment in each main project domain  

3.2.3.  Geographical distribution of investment per project domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 17 shows the geographical distribution of the total investment in each project domain. Spain displays 
the largest share of total project investment in the domains of smart network management and DSM, followed 
by Denmark and Italy. Spain also appears to have the highest share of total investment in the domain of smart 
city, followed by the  Netherlands.  Nevertheless, different characteristics of the Member States and national 
circumstances  –  e.g.  size,  population  and  electricity  landscape  –  need  to  be  taken  into  account  in  these 
observations. To this end, Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate the geographical distribution of total investment 
per project domain normalised by gross domestic product (GDP)22 and by population23. In both cases, Slovenia 
– which appears at the low  end of the investment level  spectrum (Figure 17) –  shows the largest share of 
investment after normalisation in all project domains except e-mobility and smart city.  This can basically be 
attributed  to  the  size  and  small  population  of  the  country,  as  well  as  its  location  in  Europe.  As  a  regional 
crossroads, Slovenia needs to increasingly invest in smart grids to be able to respond to large transit power 
flows from neighbouring countries. Estonia shows the highest share of total investment in the smart city domain 
after normalisation, moving from the low end of the investment range (Figure 17). Countries such as Germany, 
France and the United Kingdom – which appear to have the largest investment in most of the project domains 
– move to the low end of the investment spectrum after normalisation. 

22 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tec00001/default/table?lang=en  
23 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tps00001/default/table 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Figure 17. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 18. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain normalised by GDP 

 Source: JRC, 2021. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 19. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain normalised by population 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 20 illustrates the percentage of total investment distribution in each project domain. By looking at the 
percentage distribution of total investment, we can observe the presence of all project domains, in most of the 
countries. What emerges is the large share of investment in smart city projects in some Member States, such 
as Estonia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Sweden and Finland. It also emerges from the figure that cross-cutting 
issues – included in the domain ‘other’ – are largely present in all the Member States.    

Figure 20. Percentage distribution of total investment by smart grid domain and country  

3.2.4.  Share of EU budget across project domains and funding programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 21 illustrates the share of EU budget across project domains and funding programmes. While the FP7 
and H2020 budgets for the projects included in our analysis are largely balanced across all the domains, CIP-
IEE mainly focuses on integration of large-scale RESs and storage, integration of distributed generation (DG) 
and storage, and DSM, whereas CIP-ICT-PSP mainly targets DSM projects.   

28 

 
 
 
 
Figure 21. Share of EU budget across project domains and funding programmes  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

3.2.5.  Analysis by project domain 

3.2.5.1.  Smart network management 

Figure  22  illustrates  the  shares  of  total  and  EU  investment  in  the  smart  network  management  domain  by 
organisation type. We can see that after universities and research centres – the organisations with the highest 
shares of total budget across all project domains – energy technology providers, ICT and software providers, 
DSOs and TSOs have the largest shares of total and EU budgets in this project domain.    

29 

 
 
 
 
Figure 22. Share of smart network management investment by organisation type 

Source: JRC, 2021.  

Figure 23 illustrates the distribution of total and EU investment in the smart network management domain over 
the project lifespan. We can observe an increase in total investment through the years, with a drop taking place 
in 2018, accompanied by the same trend in the EU budget. Nevertheless, in 2020 the EU budget exceeded the 
budget peak of 2015 and it is expected to continue growing in the coming years. The reduction after 2020 is 
attributed to the fact that our database includes only projects with a starting date before the end of 2020. 

Figure 23. Distribution of smart network management investment over the project lifespan  

Figure 24 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates  with  whom  in  the  smart  network  management  domain.  The  links  represent  the  number  of 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

30 

 
 
 
collaborations  between  each  pair  of  organisations  participating  in  projects  in  this  domain.  Universities  and 
research centres are the entities that collaborate most with the rest of the organisations. We can also see that 
DSOs, ICT and software providers, energy technology providers and TSOs, are also active actors in this domain. 
More specifically, we can see that DSOs collaborate strongly with ICT and software providers, energy technology 
providers and TSOs, as well as with universities and research centres.  

Figure 24. Collaboration links between different organisations active in smart network management  

3.2.5.2.  Demand-side management  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 25 illustrates the share of DSM investment in each energy consumption sector. The residential sector 
has the largest share of total investment in this domain, followed by mixed (commercial and/or industrial and/or 
public, in addition to residential) and non-residential (commercial and/or industrial and/or public). Some projects 
–  mainly  R&D  –  do  not  specify  the  energy  consumption  sector  in  which  the  project’s  solutions  are  to  be 
trialled/deployed.      

31 

 
 
 
 
Figure 25. Share of DSM investment in each energy consumption sector  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 26 illustrates the share of total and EU investment in the DSM domain by organisation type. We can see 
that after universities and research centres – the organisations with the highest shares of total budgets across 
all project domains – ICT and software providers, consultancies, energy technology providers and DSOs have 
the largest shares of total and EU budgets in this project domain.     

Figure 26. Share of DSM investment by organisation type 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 27 illustrates the distribution of total and EU investment in the DSM domain over the project lifespan. 
We can observe an upward trend in total and EU investment through the years until 2013, with a sudden drop 
in 2014, followed by one peak in 2020. The drop in 2014 could be partially attributed to the end of FP7 in 2013, 
but also to the end of CIP as projects under CIP–IEE, largely focusing on DSM, were part of it. As in the other 
domains,  the  reduction  after  2020  is  attributed  to  the  fact  that  our  database  includes  only  projects  with  a 
starting date before the end of 2020.  

32 

 
 
 
 
Figure 27. Distribution of DSM investment over the project lifespan  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 28 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations  to help understand who 
collaborates with whom in the DSM domain. The links represent the number of collaborations between each 
pair of organisations participating in projects in this domain. Universities, research centres and consultancies 
are the entities that collaborate most with the rest of the organisations. We can also see that ICT and software 
providers,  consultancies,  energy  technology  providers  and  local  governments  are  also  active  in  this  domain. 
DSOs are also highly active in this domain and besides universities and research centres, they also collaborate 
with  ICT  and  software  providers,  energy  technology  providers,  and  other  entities  such  as  energy  suppliers, 
energy service providers and local governments.  

33 

 
 
 
Figure 28. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in DSM  

3.2.5.3. 

Integration of distributed generation and storage  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure  29  illustrate  the  share  of  total  and  EU  investment  in  the  integration  of  DG  and  storage  domain  by 
organisation type. We can see that after universities and research centres – the organisations with the highest 
shares of total budgets across all project domains – energy technology providers and ICT and software providers 
together with consultancies have the largest shares of total investment in this domain. 

34 

 
 
  
 
Figure 29. Share of integration of DG and storage investment by organisation type  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 30 illustrates the distribution of total and EU investment in the integration of DG and storage domain 
over the project lifespan. We can observe an upward trend in total and EU investment through the years with a 
peak in 2015. As in the other domains, the reduction after 2020 is attributed to the fact  that our database 
includes only projects with a starting date before the end of 2020.  

Figure 30. Distribution of integration of DG and storage investment over the project lifespan 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 31 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates  with  whom  in  the  integration  of  DG  and  storage  domain.  The  links  represent  the  number  of 
collaborations between each pair of organisations participating in projects in this domain.  As with the other 

35 

 
 
 
domains above, universities, research centres and consultancies are the entities that collaborate most with the 
rest of the organisations. We can see that ICT and software providers, energy technology providers, DSOs and 
networks / industry associations are also active in this domain.  

Figure 31. Collaboration links between types of organisations active in integration of DG and storage   

3.2.5.4.  Large-scale integration of renewable energy sources and storage   

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 32 illustrates the share of total and EU investment in the integration of large-scale RESs and storage 
domain per organisation type. We can see that after universities – one of the organisations with the highest 
share of total budget across all project domains – energy technology providers, research centres and TSOs have 
the highest budgets in this project domain.     

36 

 
 
 
Figure 32. Share of integration of large-scale RESs and storage investment by organisation type 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure  33  illustrates  the  distribution  of  total  and  EU  investment  in  the  integration  of  large-scale  RESs  and 
storage domain over the project lifespan. We can observe an increase in total and EU investment through the 
years with a peak in 2012, followed by higher peaks in 2017, 2019 and 2020. There is also a sudden drop in 
2014 that could be partially attributed to the end of the FP7 and CIP in 2013. As in the other domains, the 
reduction  after  2020  is  attributed  to  the  fact  that  our  database  includes  only  projects  with  a  starting  date 
before the end of 2020.  

Figure 33. Distribution of integration of large-scale RESs and storage investment over the project lifespan  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

37 

 
 
 
Figure 34 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates with  whom  in  the  integration  of  large-scale  RESs  and  storage  domain.  The  links  represent  the 
number of collaborations between each pair of organisations participating in projects in this domain. Universities 
and energy technology providers are the entities that collaborate most with the rest of the organisations. We 
can also see that, besides universities and research centres, energy technology providers, TSOs and networks / 
industry associations are also active in this domain.  

Figure 34. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in integration of large-scale RESs and 
storage  

3.2.5.5.  Smart city 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 35 illustrates the share of total and EU investment in the smart city domain by organisation type. We 
can see that local  governments, together with  research centres, universities and housing associations  / real 
estate developers, have the highest shares of budgets related to projects in this domain, thus demonstrating 
the increasing interest of local actors in the development of smart city projects.   

38 

 
 
 
 
Figure 35. Share of smart city investment by organisation type 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure  36  illustrates  the  distribution  of  total  and  EU  investment  in  the  smart  city  domain  over  the  project 
lifespan. We can observe an increase in total and EU investment through the years with a peak in 2019. As in 
the other domains, the reduction after 2020 is attributed to the fact that our database includes only projects 
with a starting date before the end of 2020.  

Figure 36. Distribution of smart city investment over the project lifespan  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 37 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates with whom in the smart city domain. The links represent the number of collaborations between 
each  pair  of  organisations  participating  in  projects  in  this  domain.  Local  governments  are  the  entities  that 

39 

 
 
 
collaborate most with the rest of the organisations – mainly with research centres and universities, but also 
with  the  category  ‘miscellaneous’  (e.g.  water  and  waste  treatment  companies,  automotive  equipment 
manufacturers),  municipal  utilities,  other  public  entities,  and  networks  /  industry  associations.  In  addition, 
besides universities, research centres and consultancies, also ICT and software providers, housing associations 
/ real estate developers, transport solution providers and energy technology providers show great interest in 
participating in this domain.   

Figure 37. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in the smart city domain  

3.2.5.6.  E-mobility 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 38 illustrates the share of total and EU investment in the e-mobility domain by organisation type. We 
can see that after research centres – one of the organisations with the highest share of total budget across all 
project domains – energy technology providers, universities, and ICT and software providers have the highest 
budgets.     

40 

 
 
 
 
Figure 38. Share of e-mobility investment per organisation type 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure  39  illustrates  the  distribution  of  total  and  EU  investment  in  the  e-mobility  domain  over  the  project 
lifespan. We can observe an increase in total and EU investment through the years with a peak in 2013, followed 
by another peak in 2018 and 2019. We can also see a sudden drop in 2016, followed by a sharp increase in 
2017. As in the other domains, the reduction after 2020 is attributed to the fact that our database includes 
only projects with a starting date before the end of 2020.  

Figure 39. Distribution of e-mobility investment over the project lifespan  

Figure 40 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates with whom in the e-mobility domain. The links represent the number of collaborations between 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

41 

 
 
 
each  pair  of  organisations  participating  in  projects  in  this  domain.  Research  centres  are  the  entities  that 
collaborate most with the rest of the organisations. We can also see that energy technology providers, ICT and 
software  providers,  transport  solution  providers,  universities,  local  governments  and  ‘miscellaneous’  (mainly 
automotive equipment manufacturers) also actively collaborate in this domain. 

Figure 40. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in e-mobility  

3.2.5.7.  Other  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 41 illustrates the share of total investment in the domain ‘other’ by organisation type. We can see that 
after universities and research centres – the organisations with the highest shares of total budgets across all 
project domains – ICT software providers and TSOs have the highest budgets in this domain. 

42 

 
 
 
 
Figure 41. Share of investment by organisation type in domain ‘other ‘ 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 42 illustrates the distribution of total and EU investment in the domain ‘other’ over the project lifespan. 
We can observe an upward trend of total and EU investment along the years with a peak in 2020. As in the 
case of the other domains, the reduction after 2020 is attributed to the fact that our database includes only 
projects with a starting date before the end of 2020.  

Figure 42. Distribution of investment in domain ‘other’ over the project lifespan  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 43 illustrates the collaboration links between different types of organisations to help understand who 
collaborates with whom in the domain ‘other’. The links illustrate the number of collaborations between each 
pair of organisations participating in projects in this domain. Universities and research centres are the entities 

43 

 
 
 
that collaborate most with the rest of the organisations. We can also see that DSOs and TSOs are active in this 
domain  –  mostly  collaborating  with  research  centres  and  universities  but  also  with  consultancies,  ICT  and 
software providers and with each other (TSO–DSO).  

Figure 43. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in the domain ‘other’ 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

3.3.  Participating organisations 

3.3.1.  Overall picture 

3.3.1.1.  Number of participants and EU funding 

The  project  catalogue  reports 5  986  participations  and  3  130  organisations.  Project  participants  have  been 
classified under 22 categories, grouped in 6 macro-categories, as detailed in Table 2. The presence of a varied 
range of actors is in line with the evolution of the energy system towards a complex sociotechnical system, 
which  combines  the  integration  of  new  technological  advances  in  energy  systems  and  ICT  with  human 
behavioural and social aspects. Such complexity requires collaboration between different actors: older players 

44 

 
 
 
in the smart grid arena, such as regulated operators, energy producers and suppliers, and more recent players, 
such as local governments and civil society organisations.   

Overall, R&I stakeholders represent 42 % of participations, technology and service providers 22 %, regulated 
operators  9  %,  energy  market  players  and  public  institutions  8  %  and the  organisations  grouped  under the 
macro-category ‘other’ 11 %. The distribution of EU funding across the macro-categories follows roughly the 
same pattern (Figure 44).  

Figure 44. Distribution of participations (left) and EU funding (right) by macro-category 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Within  the  macro-categories,  individual  categories  show  different  numbers  of  participations  along  the 
distribution spectrum (Figure 45). Moreover, the amount of EU contribution received by each category (Figure 
46) does not always reflect the distribution of participations, as the amount received for each participation is 
dependent on many factors, including the size of the project, the different roles in the project and differing local 
costs associated with participating. 

45 

 
 
 
 
Figure 45. Distribution of participations across participant categories 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Figure 46. Distribution of total budget and EU contribution across participation categories  

3.3.1.2.  Participations across funding programmes 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Out of the total 5 986 participations, 316 were recorded in CIP-IEE, 411 in CIP-ICT-PSP, 1 644 in FP7 and 3 615 
in H2020. The average number of participants per project shows differences between funding programmes. It 
increased from FP7 to H2020 (from 13 to 16), showing a tendency towards more complex projects, involving a 
wider range of participants. In the same period, the average project total budget also increased from EUR 8.22 
million (FP7) to EUR 8.4 million (H2020), confirming a tendency towards larger projects. CIP-ICT-PSP projects 

46 

 
 
 
show the same average number of participants as H2020 projects (16), while CIP-IEE projects have the lowest 
average number of participants (10).  

Figure 47 presents the distribution of participations and EU funding by macro-category and funding programme, 
highlighting that the participation of some actors, such as public institutions, energy market players (particularly 
energy  cooperatives)  and  some  of  the  organisations  grouped  under  ‘other’  (mainly  networks  /  industry 
associations and environmental and other civil society organisations) was supported, ahead of H2020, by CIP-
ICT-PSP and CIP-IEE. 

Figure 47. Distribution of participations (top) and EU funding (bottom) by macro-category and funding programme 

3.3.1.3.  Participation ranges and first-time participants 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

On  average,  each  organisation  participated  in  eight  projects.  Across  all  funding  programmes,  71  %  of  the 
organisations only participated in 1 project, while only 2 % participated in over 10 projects (see Figure 48).  

47 

 
 
 
 
Figure 48. Project participation ranges 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Among the organisations that participated in over 10 projects, those in the top 15 positions in terms of number 
of  participations  are  mainly  research  centres  and  universities  (Figure  49).  The  participation  of  these 
organisations in a large number of projects implies that they were assigned large cumulative EU contributions 
that helped to support the creation of big knowledge centres. 

In H2020, 54 % of the organisations were newcomers, i.e. successful first-time applicants to H2020 that did 
not  apply  to  any  of  the  other  reviewed  programmes  (FP7,  CIP-ICT-PSP,  CIP-IEE).  This  finding  indicates  that 
H2020 was successful in allowing new organisations to join and receive funding, particularly new players in the 
smart grid  sector that are able to  push innovative technologies and business models to  markets.  Figure 50 
shows the distribution of newcomers across organisation categories.  

.

48 

 
 
Figure 49. Organisations in the top 15 positions in terms of number of participations, 2007–2020 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

49 

 
 
 
Figure 50. Percentages of H2020 newcomers by category 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The share of newcomers varies discernibly by organisation category. It is above average for categories that are 
newer in the smart grid arena, such as transport solution providers (81 %), market operators and energy brokers 
/ traders (76 %), energy cooperatives (73 %) and local governments (67 %), while it is below average for more 
traditional players, such as TSOs (33 %), research centres (44 %) and universities (46 %).   

The large-scale participation of new transport solution providers can be explained by H2020 funding of smart 
city  projects  –  alongside  e-mobility  projects  –  in  which  innovative  solutions  are  tested  involving  different 
organisations  operating  in  the  conventional  and  electro-mobility  sectors.  Germany  is  the  country  with  the 
highest number of newcomer transport solution providers in 2014–2020. 

Projects in the  smart city domain – alongside a  pretty steady number of new  DSM  projects per year – also 
contribute to explaining the large number of new entrants in the local government category. The participation 
of local governments, as the public stakeholders closest to the public, provides an opportunity for citizens to 
take advantage of the opportunities offered by innovative technologies and new business models and to benefit 
from the ongoing energy transition. Italy and Spain are the countries with the highest numbers of newcomers 
among local governments (18 and 16 respectively). 

The  participation  of  new  market  operators  and  energy  brokers  /  traders  in  H2020  is  mainly  found in  smart 
network management and DSM projects that aim to define and test new approaches to the wholesale market, 
facilitating the participation of variable RESs, adequately remunerating new flexibility services to the grid and 
reducing the cost of network operations. These projects promote collaboration among different organisations, 
and facilitate the networking of cross-border players and the establishment of a balancing market. Among the 
participants, we find several nominated electricity market operator (NEMOs)24, such as IBEX, HUPX, HEnEx and 
OMIE. 

24 A NEMO is an entity designated by the competent authority to run the day-ahead and intraday integrated electricity markets in the EU. 

50 

 
 
                                                                 
Finally, H2020 shows the participation of energy cooperatives, a category that previously only appeared in CIP-
IEE projects. Energy cooperatives are community-led energy initiatives, usually trusted as community partners 
and  political  advocates.  They  appear  mainly  in  DSM  and  integration  of  DG  and  storage  projects,  aimed  at 
boosting  local  energy  sources  and  activating  local  demand  response.  In  these  projects,  they  often  act  as 
facilitators to enhance the involvement of local energy consumers and producers, and as knowledge centres to 
develop and test methodologies based on best practices. Their participation is favoured by several calls  for 
proposals, as they are considered  to be facilitators that trigger investments and promote public  support for 
sustainable energy technologies at the community level. Newcomers come from 11 countries: Germany, Ireland, 
Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal have two newcomers each. 

As  for  the  other  funding  programmes,  only  about  9  %  of  the  organisations  that  participated  in  FP7  also 
participated in CIP-ICT-PSP, and 6 % in CIP-IEE, suggesting weak linkages between these programmes in the 
smart grid sector. 

3.3.1.4.  Participations across domains 

Organisations  are  active  across  all  domains,  with  notable  differences  among  macro-categories.  All  macro-
categories, however, show the highest number of participations in the DSM domain, with the sole exception of 
regulated  operators,  which  show  the  highest  number  of  participations  in  the  smart  network  management 
domain (Figure 51). 

Figure 51. Number of participations in each macro-category across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Within the macro-categories, each category shows distinctive levels of participation in the different domains 
(Figure 52). Apart from research centres, universities and consultancies, which show a high level of participation 
in all domains, the other organisation categories show a more varied pattern, in line with the business sector in 

51 

 
 
which they operate and their role in smart grid deployment. Local governments for example, are particularly 
active in the smart city and e-mobility domains, where they play a pivotal role  in the transformation of city 
infrastructures and services. In the smart city domain, in particular, local governments work together with other 
partners  to  develop  and  demonstrate  innovative  energy  solutions,  often  through  cooperative  processes,  to 
improve local energy efficiency and increase local production of renewable energy. Housing associations / real 
estate developers are also particularly active in this domain, indicating a growing interest among the residential 
sector,  especially  the  social  housing  sector,  in  a  just  energy  transition  that  addresses  energy  poverty  by 
increasing  residential  energy  efficiency  and  self-consumption  of  renewable  energy.  Finally,  DSOs  and  TSOs, 
traditionally active in the smart network management domain, show a high level of participation in the domain 
‘other’,  indicating  their  growing  interest  in  the  cross-cutting  issues  addressed  by  these  projects,  such  as 
cybersecurity, the potential of big data for the modernisation of the European electricity grid and the creation 
of new services enabled by smart grid deployment. 

Figure 52. Organisation categories participation shares by domain 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

52 

 
 
 
3.3.1.5.  Geographical distribution of participations 

The geographical distribution of participations  highlights relevant differences  between  countries, with Spain, 
Germany and Italy showing the largest numbers of participations (Figure 53 and Figure 54) and the highest 
shares of EU contribution (Figure 55).  

Figure 53. Geographical distribution of participations (graph)  

Source: JRC, 2021. 

53 

 
 
 
 
Figure 54. Geographical distribution of participations (map) 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

54 

 
 
 
 
Figure 55. Geographical distribution of EU contribution 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Different levels of participation can be explained by a wide range of country-specific circumstances, such as 
the state of the electricity grid, the overall climate for innovation, the existence of a  favourable national or 
regulatory  environment,  and  differences  in  GDP  and  population.  Figure  56  and  Figure  57  present  the 
geographical distribution of participation after normalisation by GDP and population, showing large differences 
in the positioning of many countries. 

Figure 56. Number of participations normalised by GDP 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 57. Number of participations normalised by population (million) 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Several  countries  at  the  low  end  of  the  participation  level  spectrum,  move  to  the  top  positions  after 
normalisation. Slovenia is the most evident case, jumping from well below the EU average to the first position 
in  the  ranking  in  both  normalisations.  As  already  reported  in  previous  editions  of  the  SG  outlook  (Gangale, 
Vasiljevska, et al. 2017), Slovenia is indeed a small country with a small population, which, given the peculiarities 
of its power networks, has invested in a timely manner and extensively in the modernisation of the grids, at 
both transmission and distribution levels. At transmission level, Slovenia is a regional crossroads, exposed to 
large transit power flows from neighbouring countries, with the consequent need to improve the observability 
and predictability of the power systems. At distribution level, attention has focused on the need to enable the 
active participation of users and new market players through the adoption of innovative solutions and business 
models. Participation data for Slovenia confirm this situation, with a high level of participation by DSOs (18 % 
of participations, against 5 % overall), TSOs (9 %, against 3 % overall) and energy suppliers (6 % against 3 % 
overall) (Figure 59).  

Figure  58 and Figure  59 show the number and the  share of  participations  by organisation category and  by 
country. 

56 

 
 
 
Figure 58. Number of participations by organisation category and by country 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 59. Share of participations by organisation category and by country 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

An interesting case is that of municipal energy utilities, which only appear in 10 Member States, with Germany 
towering above all others (34 participations out of 60 and 19 organisations out of 41). Municipal energy utilities 
(Stadtwerke)  are  characteristic  of  Germany’s  energy  landscape,  and  their  peculiarity  lies  not  only  in  their 
organisational structure, but also in their being active in different businesses along the energy supply value 
chain. Their participation in EU-funded projects reflects their inclination to embrace innovation and collaboration 
with other actors in the energy arena. 

Energy cooperatives, active in the generation and retail of renewable energy, also come from a limited number 
of  countries.  Interestingly,  most  organisations  in  the  database  do  not  come  from  countries with  a  long  and 
strong tradition of cooperativism in the energy sector, such as Denmark and Germany, but rather come from 
countries that more recently started on this path, such as Spain, Belgium and Portugal (8, 6 and 5 participations 
respectively).  

Annex  1  provides  an  overview  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  participations  and  of  the  most  active 
organisations for all organisation categories.  

3.3.1.6.  Collaboration links between countries 

EU–funded  projects  offer  a  valuable  opportunity  for  organisations  from  different  countries  to  establish 
collaborative links and share experiences and ideas, as well as to network and explore new market possibilities.  
Figure 60 shows the collaboration links between countries for all funding programmes and for all organisation 
categories. Each line represents the number of collaborations, established through the participation in the same 
project, between the organisations of two countries. The colour coding exemplifies the number of collaborations: 
darker red lines correspond to a higher number of collaborations. Figure 61 shows an alternative visualisation 
of the same data. 

58 

 
 
Spain, Germany and Italy are the countries with the highest shares of collaborations. Spain accounts for around 
9  %  of  the  collaborations  established  by  all  countries,  Germany  7  %  and  Italy  6  %.    Spain  shows  strong 
collaboration links (over 900 collaborations) with a high number of countries (19), and very strong collaboration 
links (over 1 200 collaborations) with 5 countries (i.e. Germany, Italy, France, the United Kingdom and Belgium, 
in  descending  order).  Germany  and  Italy  show  strong  collaboration  links  (over  900  collaborations)  with  5 
countries (Belgium, France,  Greece, the  Netherlands and the United Kingdom), and  very strong collaboration 
links (over 1 200 collaborations) with only 2 countries (Spain and Italy for Germany and Spain and Germany for 
Italy). This representation is based on the total number of collaborations and does not take into account the 
country’s size, in terms of GDP or population. 

Figure 60. Collaborative links between countries for all programmes (map) 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

59 

 
 
 
 
Figure 61. Collaborative links between countries for all programmes 

3.3.1.7.  The regional dimension 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Large  differences in participation  also emerge  within countries, with some regions towering over the others 
(Figure 62). The concentration around some areas, often the capital cities, is partly due to the location of the 
participating  organisations’  headquarters,  which  does  not  necessarily  coincide  with  the  areas  where  the 
solutions  investigated  in  the  projects  are  demonstrated.  This  geographical  distribution  does  not  take  into 
account  the  region’s  economic  strength  or  its  population.  Figure  62  presents  the  regional  distribution  of 
participations according to the EU NUTS25 classification. We used the NUTS 2 level for EU countries, the United 
Kingdom, Norway and Turkey. For all other countries we used the NUTS 1 level. 

25 The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) classification is a hierarchical system for dividing up the economic territory of 
the  EU  and  the  United  Kingdom  for  the  purposes  of  the  collection,  development  and  harmonisation  of  European  regional  statistics; 
socioeconomic 
classification 
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/345175/629341/NUTS2021.xlsx),  valid  for  data  transmissions  to  Eurostat  from  1  January 
2021, lists 104 regions at NUTS 1 level, 283 regions at NUTS 2 level and 1 345 regions at NUTS 3 level. 

The  NUTS  2021 

analyses 

regional 

framing 

policies. 

regions; 

the 

EU 

of 

of 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                                 
Figure 62. Distribution of participations at NUTS level 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Table 3 reports the top five  regions by number of  participations. Interestingly, this ranking does not  include 
regions from three of the top five countries in terms of number of participations, namely Germany, Italy and 
the United Kingdom. 

61 

 
 
 
 
Table 3. Top five regions in terms of number of participations  

Region name 

Country 

Number of 
participations 

Prevailing domain 

Île-de-France 

France 

Community of Madrid 

Spain 

Attica 

Brussels Region 

Catalonia 

Source: JRC, 2021 

Greece 

Belgium 

Spain 

250 

234 

227 

201 

164 

DSM 

DSM 

DSM 

DSM 

DSM 

The distribution of EU funding at regional level (Figure 63) is roughly in line with the distribution of participations 
(Figure 62), but, as we can see from a comparison between Table 3 and Table 4, the top five regions in terms 
of participation do not fully coincide with the top five regions in terms of EU contribution.  

Figure 63. Geographical distribution of EU financial contribution, regional level 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

62 

 
 
 
Table 4. Top five regions in terms of EU funding 

Region name 

Country 

EU contribution, 
(million EUR) 

Prevailing domain 

Île-de-France 

France 

135 

North Rhine-Westphalia  Germany 

79.3 

Community of Madrid 

Spain 

Basque Country  

Spain 

79.1 

78.1 

Integration of DG and 
storage 

Smart network 
management 

DSM 

Smart city 

Bavaria 

Germany 

76 

DSM 

Source: JRC, 2021 

3.3.2.  Macro-categories focus 

3.3.2.1.  Research and innovation stakeholders 

R&I stakeholders form the largest macro-category with over 40 % of total participations (Figure 64). Within this 
macro-category, universities and research centres show roughly the same share of participations (38 % and 37 
%, respectively), while consultancies make up 25 %. Together, they account for 44 % of the total EU contribution 
allocated to projects in our database. R&I stakeholders represents the vast majority of organisations in the top 
15  positions  in  terms  of  participation  (Figure  49),  confirming  the  support  provided  by  EU  funding  to  the 
emergence of research leaders in the smart grid sector. 

Figure 64. R&I stakeholders: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Role in the projects. Overall, R&I stakeholders took the lead in 62 % of the projects, with research centres 
leading 28 % of the projects (115 projects), universities 19 % (76 projects) and consultancies 15 % (61 projects).  

R&D versus demonstration projects. As for the share of R&I stakeholders participation in R&D projects, the 
share of universities and research centres is higher than average (33 % and 28 % respectively, against 24 % 
for all macro-categories), confirming a tendency of higher education and research organisations to participate 

63 

 
 
 
preferentially  in  research  projects,  as  already  highlighted  in  previous  studies  (van  der  Veen,  et  al.  2014). 
Consultancies’ share of participation is in line with the average (24 %). The participation of R&I stakeholders in 
demonstration projects presents a mirror image: it is below average (76 %) for universities (67 %) and research 
centres (72 %) and in line with the average for consultancies (76 %). 

Participations  across  domains.  Within  this  macro-category,  all  organisation  categories  show  the  highest 
number of participations in the DSM domain (Figure 65). 

Figure 65. R&I stakeholders: participations across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Participation  across  funding  programmes.  R&I  stakeholders  participated  in  projects  funded  under  all 
programmes.  FP7,  H2020  and  CIP-IEE  show  similar  participation  rates by  universities  and  research  centres, 
while  CIP-ICT-PSP  shows  a  predominance  of  research  centres.  Consultancies,  on  the  other  hand,  show  the 
highest participation rate in CIP-IEE projects and the lowest in FP7 (Figure 66 left). The share of EU financial 
contribution follows roughly the same pattern (Figure 66, right). 

64 

 
 
 
Figure 66. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, R&I 
stakeholders 

3.3.2.2.  Technology and service providers 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The macro-category technology and service providers represent 22 % of participations and 22 % of the total 
EU contribution allocated to projects in our database. Within this macro-category, ICT and software providers 
get  the  lion’s  share  of  participations  (49  %)  (Figure  67).  Only  1  organisation,  namely  the  ICT  and  software 
provider Engineering SpA, figures in the top 15 positions in terms of participation (Figure 49).  

Figure 67. Technology and service providers: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Large companies are predominant in all categories except ICT and software providers. The share of SMEs26 is 
about 52 % for ICT and software providers, 43 % for engineering service providers, 32 % for energy technology 
providers, and 30 % for transport solution providers. The higher prevalence of SMEs in the ICT and software 
providers category can be explained by the vast opportunities offered by the evolving energy system to new 
business and consumer services that are enabled by ICT solutions. Innovation in this field can be pursued by 
companies of all sizes. SMEs’ collaboration in international projects can support faster research and testing of 
technological innovations and business models, and help them to find new partners and expand their business 
in other countries.  

26 As defined in the Commission recommendation concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (European 
Commission 2003). Information on SME status was retrieved from the organisation profile of the FP7 and H2020 dashboard: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dashboard/sense/app/a22d6695-65d1-4f7a-a06f-b5bf3f3cc59c/sheet/3bcd6df0-d32a-4593-b4fa-
0f9529c8ffb0/state/0).  

65 

All other categories, 78 %ICT and software providers, 49 %Energy technology providers, 34 %Engineering service providers, 11 %Transport solution providers, 6 %Technology and service providers,22 % 
 
 
                                                                 
Role in the project. Overall, technology and service providers took the lead in 17 % of the projects, with ICT 
and software providers leading 11 % of the projects (44 projects), energy technology and engineering service 
providers 3 % each (11 and 14 projects respectively) and transport solution providers never taking a leading 
role.  

R&D versus demonstration projects. Technology and service providers’ participation in R&D projects is lower 
than the average (24 %) for all categories in the group (18 % for ICT and software providers, 13 % for transport 
solution  providers,  20  %  for  energy  technology  providers  and  16  %  for  engineering  service  providers).  This 
finding could be explained by their role as providers of technologies and solutions that are typically trialled in 
demonstration  projects.  Conversely,  the  participation  of  technology  and  service  providers  in  demonstration 
projects is higher than the average (76 %) for all categories in the group (ICT and software providers 82 %, 
energy technology providers 80 %, engineering service providers 84 % and transport solution providers 87 %). 

Participation  across  domains.  Within  the  macro-category,  all  organisation  categories  show  the  highest 
number of participations in the DSM domain, with the sole exception of transport solution providers which show 
the highest number of participations in the e-mobility domain (Figure 68). 

Figure 68. Technology and service providers: participations across domains 

Participation across funding programmes. Technology and service providers participated in projects funded 
under all programmes, with the sole exception of transport solution providers which did not take part in CIP-

Source: JRC, 2021. 

66 

 
 
ICT-PSP projects. Figure 69 shows the within-group share of participations (left) and the within-group share of 
EU financial contribution (right). 

Figure 69. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, technology and 
service providers 

3.3.2.3.  Energy market players 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The macro-category energy market players represents 8 % of participations and 7 % of the total EU contribution 
allocated to projects in our database. Within this macro-category, energy suppliers account for over a third of 
participations (31 %) (Figure 70).  

Figure 70. Energy market players: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Role in the project.  Overall, energy market players took the lead in only 3 % of the projects, with energy 
service providers leading five projects, energy suppliers leading three projects, energy producers leading two 
projects and municipal energy utilities and energy cooperatives leading one project each. Market operators and 
energy brokers / traders never took a leading role.  

R&D  versus  demonstration  projects.  Energy  market  players’  participation  in  R&D  projects  varies 
considerably between categories in the group. It is below average (24 %) for energy service providers (9 %), 
municipal energy utilities (17 %) and energy suppliers (23 %), while it is above average for energy cooperatives 

67 

All other categories, 92 %Energy suppliers, 31 %Energy service providers, 26 %Energy producers, 18 %Municipal energy utilities, 12 %Energy cooperatives, 7 %Market operators and energy brokers/traders, 6 %Energy market players, 8 % 
 
 
(25 %), energy producers (29 %) and market operators and energy brokers / traders (37 %). The particularly 
high level of participation of market operators and energy brokers / traders in R&D projects is in line with what 
we highlighted before. They mainly participated in R&D smart network management and DSM projects that aim 
to  define  and  test  new  approaches  to  the  wholesale  market,  facilitating  the  participation  of  variable  RESs, 
adequately  remunerating  new  flexibility  services  to  the  grid  and  reducing  the  cost  of  operations.  The 
participation of energy market players in demonstration projects presents a mirror image: it is above average 
(76 %) for energy service providers (91 %), municipal energy utilities (83 %) and energy suppliers (77 %), while 
it is below average for energy cooperatives (75 %), energy producers (71 %) and market operators and energy 
brokers / traders (63 %). 

Participations  across  domains.  Within  the  macro-category,  all  organisation  categories  show  the  highest 
number of participations in the DSM domain, with the sole exception of market operators and energy brokers / 
traders which show the highest number of participations in the  smart network management domain (Figure 
71).  

Figure 71. Energy market players: participations across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Participation across funding programmes. Energy market players participated in projects funded under all 
programmes, with the exception of energy cooperatives, which participated only in CIP-IEE and H2020 projects, 
and market operators and energy brokers / traders, which did not participate in CIP-ICT-PSP projects. Figure 72 
shows the within-group share of participations (left) and the  within-group share of EU financial contribution 
(right). 

68 

 
 
Figure 72. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, energy market 
players 

3.3.2.4.  Regulated operators 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The  macro-category  regulated  operators  represents  about  9  %  of  participations  and  9  %  of  the  total  EU 
contribution  allocated  to  projects  in  our  database.  Within  this  macro-category,  DSOs  represent  61  %  of 
participations and TSOs 39 % (Figure 73). Only 3 organisations, namely the Greek DSO Hedno, the Italian DSO 
E-distribuzione SpA and the French TSO RTE, figure in the top 15 positions in terms of participation (Figure 49). 

Figure 73. Regulated operators: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Role in the project. Overall, regulated operators took the lead in 7 % of the projects, with DSOs leading 5 % 
and TSOs leading 2 % of the projects (19 and 10 projects respectively).  

R&D versus demonstration projects. Participation in R&D projects is below average (24 %) for DSOs (19 %) 
and above average for TSOs (46 %). TSOs participated in several R&D projects, mainly funded under FP7, that 
aimed  at  investigating  new  tools,  methods and  solutions  to  support  the  integration  of  massive  intermittent 
energy  sources  and  of  electric  vehicles,  while  ensuring  secure  grid  operation;  enhancing  TSO-DSO 
interoperability;  and  further  harmonising  and  integrating  the  European  power  network.  The  participation  of 
regulated operators in demonstration projects presents a mirror image: it is above average (76 %) for DSOs 
(81 %) and below average for TSOs (54 %). 

69 

 
 
 
Participations across domains. Both DSOs and TSOs show the highest number of participations in the smart 
network management domain (Figure 74). 

Figure 74. Regulated operators: participations across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Participation  across  funding  programmes.  DSOs  participated  in  projects  funded  under  all  programmes, 
while  TSOs  did  not  participate  in  any  CIP-ICT-PSP  project.  Figure  75  shows  the  within-group  share  of 
participations (left) and the within-group share of EU financial contribution (right). 

70 

 
 
 
 
Figure 75. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, regulated 
operators 

3.3.3.  Public institutions 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

The macro-category public institutions represents 8 % of participations and 8 % of the total EU contribution 
allocated to projects in our database. Within this macro-category, local authorities represent 64 % and other 
public authorities 36 % (Figure 76). 

Figure 76. Public institutions: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021 

Role in the project. Overall, public institutions took the lead in 4 % of the projects, with local governments 
leading eight projects and other public entities leading nine projects. 

R&D  versus  demonstration  projects.  Participation  in  R&D  projects  is  below  average  (24  %)  for  both 
categories (local governments, 6 %; other public entities, 20 %).  This finding is in line with the high number of 
participations  by  both  categories in  the  smart  city  domain,  where  we  only  find  demonstration  projects.  The 
participation of public institutions in demonstration projects presents a mirror image, being above average (76 
%) for both categories (local governments, 94 %; other public entities, 80 %). 

71 

 
 
 
Participations across domains. Local governments show the highest number of participations in the smart 
city domain, while other public entities show the highest number of participations in the DSM domain (Figure 
77). 

Figure 77. Public institutions: participations across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Participation  across  funding  programmes.  Public  institutions  participated  in  projects  funded  under  all 
programmes. Figure 78 shows the within-group share of participations (left) and the within-group share of EU 
financial contribution (right). 

Figure 78. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, public 
institutions 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

72 

 
 
 
3.3.3.1.  Other 

The macro-category ‘other’ represents 11 % of participations and 9 % of the total EU contribution allocated to 
projects  in  our  database  (Figure  79).  Within  this  macro-category,  networks  have  the  highest  share  of 
participations (36 %), followed by ‘miscellaneous’ (26 %).  

Figure 79. Other: within-group shares of participations 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Role in the project. Overall, the organisations under the macro-category ‘other’ took the lead in 7 % of the 
projects,  with  networks  /  industry  associations  leading  16  projects,  environmental  and  other  civil  society 
organisations  leading  7  projects,  ‘miscellaneous’  leading  3  projects,  housing  associations  /  real  estate 
developers leading 2 projects and business incubators / funding agencies / early-stage investors not leading 
any project.  

R&D versus demonstration projects. Participation in R&D projects is below average (24 %) for all within-
group categories (housing associations / real estate developers, 1 %; networks / industry associations, 21 %; 
business  incubators  /  funding  agencies  /  early-stage  investors,  21  %;  miscellaneous,  16  %),  with  the  sole 
exception of environmental and other civil society organisations (33 %). Their participation in demonstration 
projects  offers  a  mirror  image,  with  all  within-group  categories  being  above  average  (76  %)  with  the  sole 
exception of environmental and other civil society organisations. 

Participation  across  domains.  Within  the  macro-category,  environmental  and  other  civil  society 
organisations, housing associations / real estate developers and ‘miscellaneous’ show the highest number of 
participations in the DSM domain; networks / industry associations in the integration of DG and storage domain 
and business incubators / funding agencies / early-stage investors equally in the DSM and smart city domains 
(Figure 80).  

73 

 
 
 
 
Figure 80. Other: participations across domains 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

Participation across funding programmes. Organisations grouped under the category ‘other’ participated 
in projects funded under all programmes, with housing associations / real estate developers showing a high 
level of participation in CIP-ICT-PSP projects and networks / industry associations and environmental and other 
civil society associations in CIP-IEE projects.  Figure 81 shows the within-group share of participations (left) and 
the within-group share of EU financial contribution (right). 

Figure 81. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, ‘other’ 

Source: JRC, 2021. 

74 

 
 
 
4.  Conclusions 

This report presents an overview of EU-funded R&I efforts in the field of smart grids. It analyses 407 projects, 
funded under the last two framework programmes for R&I, FP7 and H2020, and under CIP, more specifically 
CIP-ICT-PSP and CIP-IEE. These projects – identified using an ad hoc methodology developed for collecting and 
categorising projects – represent a total investment of around EUR 3 billion, of which EUR 2.3 billion comes from 
EU funding. They bring together 3 130 organisations from 45 countries, with an average of 15 (median of 12) 
organisations per project and a total of 5 986 participations. There are 285 demonstration projects, carrying 
out real-world testing of technological solutions, market designs, policy schemes and business models in 1 243 
implementation sites.   

For the general trend, the study reveals an increase in R&I activities in the smart grid area in 2007–2020. More 
specifically, in 2014–2020 (covered by H2020) there was a 25 % increase in the number of projects, a 59 % 
increase in total investment and a 117 % increase in EU funding compared with 2007-2013 (covered by FP7, 
CIP-ICT-PSP and CIP-IEE). Most projects received an EU contribution of less than EUR 5 million. The average EU 
funding share is 73 %, but half of all projects have a funding share of above 78 %. On average, EU funding 
shares increased from 62 % in 2007–2013 to 82 % in 2014–2020. The number of demonstration projects in 
comparison with R&D projects rose substantially in 2007–2020, thanks to the increasing maturity reached by 
many technologies and solutions and the growing focus on the demonstration of the enabling role of  smart 
grids. The geographical distribution of participations reveals significant differences across countries, with Spain, 
Germany and Italy showing the largest numbers of participations and the highest shares of collaboration links 
with other countries. The picture is rather different when focusing on the regional dimension: the top five EU 
regions, in  terms  of  number  of  participations, are  from France,  Spain,  Greece  and  Belgium, and  the  top  five 
regions in terms of EU funding are in France, Germany and Spain.  

The study also investigates the project domains – areas of intervention where the solutions investigated and 
tested in the projects aim to produce their impacts. Most of the projects focus on DSM, mainly in the residential 
sector. We observe a balanced distribution of EU funding across all project domains with DSM having the highest 
share  of  EU  funding,  followed  by smart  city, smart  network  management and integration  of  distributed 
generation  and  storage.  The  project domain ‘other’ also  received  a  substantial  share  of  EU  funding,  which 
indicates increased R&I attention to cross-cutting issues, such as cybersecurity, standardisation, development 
of  big  energy  data  platforms,  and  socioeconomic,  cultural,  political  and  gender  aspects  of  the  energy 
transition. In addition to the time distribution, we look into the geographical distribution of total investment  in 
each  project  domain.  Most  EU  countries  participate  in  projects  across  all  smart  grid  domains,  with  some 
countries showing a particularly strong focus on a specific domain. Estonia, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Sweden 
and Finland, for example, show the largest shares of investment in the smart city domain.        

Furthermore,  the  study  investigates  participating  organisations.  R&I  stakeholders represent  42  %  of 
participations in  all  projects, technology  and  service  providers 22  %, regulated  operators 9  %, energy  market 
players and public institutions 8 % each and the organisations grouped under the macro-category ‘other’ 11 %. 
Among the organisations that participated in over 10 projects, those in the top 15 positions in terms of number 
of  participations  are  mainly  research  centres  and  universities. The attribution  of  large  cumulative  EU 
contributions to these types of organisation helped to support the creation of big knowledge centres. More than 
half of the organisations participating in H2020 projects were newcomers, i.e. first-time applicants that did not 
apply to any of the other reviewed programmes (FP7, CIP-ICT-PSP, CIP-IEE). The share of newcomers is above 
average for  organisation  categories  that  are  newer  in  the  smart  grid  arena,  such  as transport  solution 
providers, market operators and energy brokers / traders, energy cooperatives and local governments, while it 
is below average for more traditional actors, such as TSOs, research centres and universities. This indicates that 
H2020 was successful in allowing new organisations to join and receive funding, particularly new actors in the 
smart grid sector that are able to push innovative technologies and business models to markets.  

75 

 
The  analysis  of  participating  organisations  by  project  domain  highlights  the  important  role  of  some 
categories of organisations in specific domains. Local governments for example, are particularly active in the 
smart city and e-mobility domains, where they play a pivotal role in the transformation of city infrastructures 
and services. Housing associations / real estate developers are also particularly active in the smart city domain, 
indicating a growing interest among the residential sector, especially the social housing sector, in a fair energy 
transition that addresses energy poverty by increasing residential energy efficiency and self-consumption of 
renewable energy. Finally, DSOs and TSOs, traditionally active in the smart network management domain, show 
a high level of participation in the domain ‘other’, indicating their growing interest in the cross-cutting issues 
addressed  by  these  projects,  such  as  cybersecurity,  the  potential  of  big  data  for  the  modernisation  of  the 
European electricity grid and the creation of new smart grid services. DSOs and TSOs increasingly collaborate 
with ICT and software providers, in particular in the smart network management and DSM domains, which points 
to  the strong commitment  of  system  operators to  digitalising  their  businesses  but  also  to  the  key  role  of 
collaboration on the road to digital transformation of the energy sector.    

76 

 
References 

Bridge. 2019. The Bridge initiative and project fact sheets. BRIDGE H2020. 

Covrig, Catalin Felix, Mircea Ardelean, Julija Vasiljevska, Anna Mengolini, Gianluca Fulli, and Eleftherios Amoiralis. 
2014. Smart Grid Projects Outlook 2014, EUR 26651. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European 
Union. 

ETIP SNET. 2018. Presentation of recent and ongoing R&I projects in the scope of the ETIP SNET. ETIP SNET. 

European Commission. 2016. “Commission communication — Clean Energy for All Europeans (COM/2016/860).” 

Brussels. 

European Commission. 2015b. “Commission communication  — Delivering a New Deal for Energy Consumers 

(COM/2015/339).” Brussels. 

European Commission. 2015a. “Commission communication — Enery Union Package: A Framework Strategy for 

a Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy (COM/2015/80).” Brussels. 

European Commission. 2020c. “Commission communication  — Europe's moment: Repair and Prepare for the 

Next Generation (COM/2020/456).” Brussels. 

European  Commission.  2020b.  “Commission  communication  —  Powering  a  climate-neutral  economy:  An  EU 

Strategy for Energy System Integration (COM/2020/299).” Brussels. 

European Commission. 2020a. “Commission communication — Shaping Europe's digital future (COM/2020/67).” 

Brussels. 

European  Commission.  2019.  “Commission  communication  —  The  European  Green  Deal  (COM/2019/640).” 

Brussels. 

European Commission. 2003. “Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, 

small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/316/EC).” Brussels. 

European Parliament and Council. 2019. Directive (EU) 2019/944 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  5  June  2019  on  common  rules  for  the  internal  market  for  electricity  and  amending  Directive 
2012/27/EU. OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 125–199, Brussels: European Union. 

European Parliament and Council. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 April 2013 on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure and repealing Decision 
No 1364/2006/EC and amending Regulations (EC) No 713/2009, (EC) No 714/2009 and (EC) N. OJ L 
115, 25.4.2013, p. 39–75, Strasbourg: European Union. 

Gangale,  Flavia,  and  Anna  Mengolini.  2019.  Energy  poverty  through  the  lens  of  EU  research  and  innovation 

projects, EUR 29785. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 

Gangale, Flavia, Anna Mengolini, and Ijeoma Onyeji. 2013. “Consumer engagement: An insight from smart grid 

projects in Europe.” Energy Policy Vol. 60, pp. 621-628. 

Gangale, Flavia, Anna Mengolini, Antonios Marinopoulos , and Julija Vasiljevska. 2020. Collective actions in the 
energy sector: insights from EU reseach and innovation projects, EUR 30339. Luxembourg: Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

Gangale, Flavia, Julija Vasiljevska, Catalin Felix  Covrig, Anna Mengolini, and Gianluca Fulli . 2017.  Smart grid 
projects outlook 2017: Facts, figures and trends in Europe, EUR 28614. Luxembourg: Publications Office 
of the European Union. 

77 

 
 
Giordano, Vincenzo, Alexis Meletiou, Catalin Felix Covrig, Anna Mengolini, Mircea Ardelean, and Gianluca Fulli . 
2013. Smart Grid projects in Europe: Lessons learned and current developments - 2012 update, EUR 
25815. Luxembourg: Publication office of the European Union. 

Giordano, Vincenzo, Flavia Gangale, Catalin Felix Covrig, and Manuel Sanchez Jimenez. 2011. Smart Grid Projects 
in Europe: lessons learned and current developments, EUR 24856. Luxembourg: Publications Office of 
the European Union. 

IEA. 2017. Digitalization & Energy . International Energy Agency. 

IEA. 2021. Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. Intenational Energy Agency. 

IEA. 2018. World Energy Outlook 2018. International Enegy Agency. 

Mengolini, Anna, Flavia  Gangale, and Julija Vasiljevska.  2016. “Exploring Community-Oriented Approaches in 

Demand Side Management Projects in Europe.” Sustainability 8(12), 1266. 

OECD. 2015. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental 
Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. OECD Publishing: 
Paris. 

van der Veen, Geert, Matthias Altmann, Patrick Eparvier , Matthias Ploeg, and Paola Trucco . 2014.  Evaluation 
of the impact of projects funded under the 6th and 7th EU Framework Programme for RD&D in the 
area of non-nuclear energy. Final Report. Technopolis Group. 

von der Leyen, Ursula. 2019. Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2014. A Europe that 

strives for more. My agenda for Europe. European Commission. 

78 

 
 
Abbreviations 

CIP 

competitiveness and innovation framework programme 

DSM  

demand-side management 

DSO 

distribution system operator 

FP7  

seventh  EU  framework  programme  for  research,  technological  development  and  demonstration 
activities 

GDP 

gross domestic product 

H2020  Horizon 2020  

ICT 

information and communication technology  

IEE 

intelligent energy Europe 

PSP 

policy support programme 

R&D 

research and development 

R&I 

research and innovation 

RES 

renewable energy source 

SMEs 

small and medium-sized enterprises 

TSO 

transmission system operator 

79 

 
 
List of boxes 

Box 1. Funding sources .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 

80 

 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Digitalisation of the electricity sector in EU energy policy documents .....................................................................7 

Figure 2. Data input and output .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 3. Organisation categories....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 4. Summary of main findings ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 

Figure 5. Projects’ timeline...................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 6. Number of projects, total investment and EU funding for all programmes ...................................................... 19 

Figure 7. Time distribution of R&D and demonstration projects .................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 8. Time distribution of R&D and demonstration investment and EU contribution .............................................. 20 

Figure 9. Time distribution of projects for all programmes ............................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 10. Time distribution of EU funding for all programmes .................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 11. Number of participants by project for all programmes ............................................................................................... 22 

Figure 12. EU funding by project for all programmes ........................................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 13. Investment and number of projects in each project domain .................................................................................... 23 

Figure 14. Percentage of EU funding by main project domain ....................................................................................................... 24 

Figure 15. Share of total and EU R&D and demonstration investment by main project domain ............................. 25 

Figure 16. Time distribution of total investment in each main project domain .................................................................... 26 

Figure 17. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain ................................................. 27 

Figure 18. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain normalised by GDP .... 27 

Figure 19. Geographical distribution of total investment in each main project domain normalised by 
population ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 

Figure 20. Percentage distribution of total investment by smart grid domain and country ........................................ 28 

Figure 21. Share of EU budget across project domains and funding programmes ........................................................... 29 

Figure 22. Share of smart network management investment by organisation type ........................................................ 30 

Figure 23. Distribution of smart network management investment over the project lifespan .................................. 30 

Figure 24. Collaboration links between different organisations active in smart network management .............. 31 

Figure 25. Share of DSM investment in each energy consumption sector .............................................................................. 32 

Figure 26. Share of DSM investment by organisation type ............................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 27. Distribution of DSM investment over the project lifespan ......................................................................................... 33 

Figure 28. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in DSM ................................................ 34 

Figure 29. Share of integration of DG and storage investment by organisation type ..................................................... 35 

Figure 30. Distribution of integration of DG and storage investment over the project lifespan ............................... 35 

Figure 31. Collaboration links between types of organisations active in integration of DG and storage ............ 36 

Figure 32. Share of integration of large-scale RESs and storage investment by organisation type ...................... 37 

Figure 33. Distribution of integration of large-scale RESs and storage investment over the project lifespan 37 

Figure 34. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in integration of large-scale 
RESs and storage ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38 

Figure 35. Share of smart city investment by organisation type................................................................................................... 39 

81 

 
Figure 36. Distribution of smart city investment over the project lifespan............................................................................. 39 

Figure 37. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in the smart city domain ........ 40 

Figure 38. Share of e-mobility investment per organisation type ................................................................................................ 41 

Figure 39. Distribution of e-mobility investment over the project lifespan ............................................................................ 41 

Figure 40. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in e-mobility ................................... 42 

Figure 41. Share of investment by organisation type in domain ‘other ‘ ................................................................................. 43 

Figure 42. Distribution of investment in domain ‘other’ over the project lifespan ............................................................. 43 

Figure 43. Collaboration links between different types of organisations active in the domain ‘other’ ................. 44 

Figure 44. Distribution of participations (left) and EU funding (right) by macro-category............................................ 45 

Figure 45. Distribution of participations across participant categories ...................................................................................... 46 

Figure 46. Distribution of total budget and EU contribution across participation categories ...................................... 46 

Figure 47. Distribution of participations (top) and EU funding (bottom) by macro-category and funding 
programme .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 

Figure 48. Project participation ranges ........................................................................................................................................................... 48 

Figure 49. Organisations in the top 15 positions in terms of number of participations, 2007–2020 ................... 49 

Figure 50. Percentages of H2020 newcomers by category .............................................................................................................. 50 

Figure 51. Number of participations in each macro-category across domains .................................................................... 51 

Figure 52. Organisation categories participation shares by domain ........................................................................................... 52 

Figure 53. Geographical distribution of participations (graph) ........................................................................................................ 53 

Figure 54. Geographical distribution of participations (map) ........................................................................................................... 54 

Figure 55. Geographical distribution of EU contribution ...................................................................................................................... 55 

Figure 56. Number of participations normalised by GDP .................................................................................................................... 55 

Figure 57. Number of participations normalised by population (million) ................................................................................. 56 

Figure 58. Number of participations by organisation category and by country ................................................................... 57 

Figure 59. Share of participations by organisation category and by country ........................................................................ 58 

Figure 60. Collaborative links between countries for all programmes (map) ........................................................................ 59 

Figure 61. Collaborative links between countries for all programmes ....................................................................................... 60 

Figure 62. Distribution of participations at NUTS level ........................................................................................................................ 61 

Figure 63. Geographical distribution of EU financial contribution, regional level ................................................................ 62 

Figure 64. R&I stakeholders: within-group shares of participations ............................................................................................ 63 

Figure 65. R&I stakeholders: participations across domains ............................................................................................................ 64 

Figure 66. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, R&I 
stakeholders ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 

Figure 67. Technology and service providers: within-group shares of participations ....................................................... 65 

Figure 68. Technology and service providers: participations across domains ....................................................................... 66 

Figure 69. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, 
technology and service providers.......................................................................................................................................................................... 67 

Figure 70. Energy market players: within-group shares of participations ............................................................................... 67 

Figure 71. Energy market players: participations across domains ................................................................................................ 68 

82 

 
Figure 72. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, 
energy market players ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69 

Figure 73. Regulated operators: within-group shares of participations..................................................................................... 69 

Figure 74. Regulated operators: participations across domains ..................................................................................................... 70 

Figure 75. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, 
regulated operators ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71 

Figure 76. Public institutions: within-group shares of participations........................................................................................... 71 

Figure 77. Public institutions: participations across domains ........................................................................................................... 72 

Figure 78. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, 
public institutions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 72 

Figure 79. Other: within-group shares of participations ...................................................................................................................... 73 

Figure 80. Other: participations across domains ...................................................................................................................................... 74 

Figure 81. Share of participations (left) and EU financial contribution (right) across funding programmes, 
‘other’ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 

83 

 
 
List of tables 

Table 1. Classification of project main domains ....................................................................................................................................... 13 

Table 2. Organisation categories: definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 15 

Table 3. Top five regions in terms of number of participations ...................................................................................................... 62 

Table 4. Highest ranking universities in terms of number of participations ............................................................................ 85 

Table 5. Highest ranking research centres in terms of number of participations ................................................................ 85 

Table 6. Highest ranking consultancies in terms of number of participations ....................................................................... 85 

Table 7. Highest ranking ICT and software providers in terms of number of participations ........................................ 86 

Table 8. Highest ranking energy technology providers in terms of number of participations ..................................... 86 

Table 9. Highest ranking engineering service providers in terms of number of participations ................................... 86 

Table 10. Highest ranking energy suppliers in terms of number of participations ............................................................. 87 

Table 11. Highest ranking energy service providers in terms of number of participations ........................................... 87 

Table 12. Highest ranking energy producers in terms of number of participations ........................................................... 88 

Table 13. Highest ranking municipal energy utilities in terms of number of participations ......................................... 88 

Table 14. Highest ranking energy cooperatives in terms of number of participations .................................................... 88 

Table 15. Highest ranking DSOs in terms of number of participations ...................................................................................... 89 

Table 16. Highest ranking TSOs in terms of number of participations ....................................................................................... 89 

Table 17. Highest ranking local governments in terms of number of participations ........................................................ 89 

Table 18. Highest ranking other public entities in terms of number of participations ..................................................... 90 

Table 19. Highest ranking networks / industry associations in terms of number of participations ......................... 90 

Table 20. Highest ranking housing associations / real estate developers in terms of number of participations
 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 

Table 21. Highest ranking environmental and other civil society organisations in in terms of number of 
participations ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91 

84 

 
Annexes 

Annex 1. Geographical distribution and highest ranking organisations per category 

Universities   

There are 333 participating universities, representing 26 Member States (all except Luxembourg and Malta), 
plus 8 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from the United Kingdom (132 participations, 
48  participating  universities),  Germany  (116  participations,  40  participating  universities),  Spain  (80 
participations, 24 participating universities) and Italy (78 participations, 29 participating  universities). The EU 
contribution to universities amounts to EUR 393.4 million, EUR 290.6 million of it for demonstration projects 
and EUR 102.8 million for R&D projects. Table 4 reports the highest ranking universities in terms of number of 
participations.  

Table 4. Highest ranking universities in terms of number of participations 

Research centres 

There  are  298  participating  research  centres,  representing  24  Member  States (all  except  Czechia,  Denmark, 
Cyprus  and  Slovakia),  plus  7  non-EU  countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Spain  (203 
participations,  55  participating  research  centres),  Germany  (123  participations,  44  participating  research 
centres),  Italy  (95  participations,  29  participating  research  centres)  and  Greece  (79  participations,  14 
participating  research  centres).  The  EU  contribution  to  research  centres  amounts  to  EUR  433.7  million,  EUR 
348.6 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 85.1 million for R&D projects. Table 5 reports the highest 
ranking research centres in terms of number of participations. 

Table 5. Highest ranking research centres in terms of number of participations 

Consultancies  

There are 345 participating consultancies, representing 22 Member States (all except Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta and Slovakia), plus 7 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from Belgium 
(96 participations, 34 participating consultancies), Germany (86 participations, 50 participating consultancies), 
Italy  (79  participations,  40  participating  consultancies)  and  Spain  (78  participations,  43  participating 
consultancies). The EU contribution to consultancies amounts to EUR 205.1 million, EUR 165.2 million of it for 
demonstration projects and EUR 39.9 million for R&D projects. Table 6 reports the highest ranking consultancies 
in terms of number of participations. 

Table 6. Highest ranking consultancies in terms of number of participations 

Information and communication technology and software providers 

There are 368 participating ICT and software providers, representing 26 Member States (all except Latvia and 
Lithuania), plus 9 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from Spain (83 participations, 49 

85 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankUniversityCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)51RWTH Aachen UniversityDE0112193237582Danmarks Tekniske UniversitetDK2110152814693Universidad Pontificia ComillasES50111127156Top 15 rankWithin-group rankResearch centerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)11Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.VDE3116274786422Fundación Tecnalia Research & InnovationES0420214556933VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandFI12112135880Top 15 rankWithin-group rankConsultancyCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)101Vlaamse Instelling voor Technologisch Onderzoek N.V. (VITO)BE0181625352122Rina Consulting SPAIT02713227100⎼3VaasaETT Ltd Ab OyFI003912075 
 
 
 
participating ICT and software providers), Italy (77 participations, 38 participating ICT and software providers), 
Greece  (60  participations,  21  participating  ICT  and  software  providers)  and  Germany  (57  participations,  33 
participating ICT and software providers). The EU contribution to ICT and software providers amounts to EUR 
225.2 million, EUR 195 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 30.2 million for R&D projects. Table 7 
reports the highest ranking ICT and software providers in terms of number of participations. 

Table 7. Highest ranking ICT and software providers in terms of number of participations 

Energy technology providers 

There are 297 participating  energy technology providers, representing 21 Member States (all except Cyprus, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia), plus 6 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of 
participations are from Germany (74 participations, 51 participating energy technology providers), Spain (57 
participations, 40 participating energy technology providers), Italy (57 participations, 35 participating energy 
technology  providers)  and  France  (45  participations,  25  participating  energy  technology  providers).  The  EU 
contribution  to  energy  technology  providers  amounts  to  EUR  213.4  million,  EUR  194.4  million  of  it  for 
demonstration  projects  and  EUR  19  million  for  R&D  projects.  Table  8  reports  the  highest  ranking  energy 
technology providers in terms of number of participations. 

Table 8. Highest ranking energy technology providers in terms of number of participations 

Engineering service providers 

There are 94 participating engineering service providers, representing 17 Member States (all except Bulgaria, 
Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden), plus 2 non-
EU  countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Spain  (56  participations,  30  participating 
engineering  service  providers),  Italy  (15  participations,  10  participating  engineering  service  providers)  and 
Germany (12 participations, 10 participating engineering service providers). The EU contribution to engineering 
service providers amounts to EUR 53 million, EUR 47 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 6 million 
for R&D. Table 9 reports the highest ranking engineering service providers in terms of number of participations. 

Table 9. Highest ranking engineering service providers in terms of number of participations 

Transport solution providers 

There  are  68  participating  transport  solution  providers,  representing  19  Member  States  (all  except  Cyprus, 
Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania and Slovakia), plus 3 non-EU countries. The 
highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Germany  (22  participations,  17  participating  transport  solution 
providers),  Spain  (10  participations,  9  participating  transport  solution  providers),  the  Netherlands  (7 
participations, 6 participating transport solution providers), Italy and France (both with 5 participations and 5 
participating transport solution providers). The EU contribution to transport solution providers amounts to EUR 

86 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankICT and software providerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)101Engineering - Ingegneria Informatica SpaIT0161825692⎼2Atos Spain SAES0041115380⎼3Sap SESE028313262Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnergy technology providerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Schneider Electric Industries SASFR00279167⎼2Renault SASFR01438175⎼3Siemens AGDE00167157⎼3Efacec Energia, Máquinas e Equipamentos Eléctricos SAPT00347071⎼3Etrel Svetovanje in druge storitve DOOSI01337071⎼3Siemens AGDE00617143Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEngineering service providerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Acciona Construccion SAES027413085⎼2Končar Inženjering za energetiku i transport DDHR00167086⎼3Cobra Instalaciones y Servicios SAES00156183 
 
 
 
26.9 million, EUR 22,8 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 4.1 million for R&D projects. The highest 
ranking organisations are not reported, as all 68 would appear at the top in terms of number of participations. 

Energy suppliers 

There  are  87  participating  energy  suppliers,  representing  22  Member  States  (all  except  Cyprus,  Latvia, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta and Slovakia), plus 4 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are 
from  Spain  (22  participations,  13  participating  energy  suppliers),  Greece  (20  participations,  4  participating 
energy suppliers) and France (16 participations, 1 participating energy suppliers). The EU contribution to energy 
suppliers amounts to EUR 44.8 million, EUR 39.3 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 5.5 million for 
R&D projects. Table 10 reports the highest ranking energy suppliers in terms of number of participations. 

Table 10. Highest ranking energy suppliers in terms of number of participations 

Energy service providers 

There  are  78  participating  energy  service  providers,  representing  19  Member  States  (all  except  Denmark, 
Estonia,  Cyprus,  Lithuania, Luxembourg,  Malta, Poland,  Slovenia  and  Slovakia),  plus  3  non-EU  countries.  The 
highest numbers of participations  are from Italy and Spain (21  participations each, 12 and 10 participating 
energy service providers respectively) and France (17 participations, 13 participating energy service providers). 
The  EU  contribution  to  energy  service  providers  amounts  to  EUR  43  million,  EUR  41.5  million  of  it  for 
demonstration  projects  and  EUR  1.5  million  for  R&D  projects.  Table  11  reports  the  highest  ranking  energy 
service providers in terms of number of participations. 

Table 11. Highest ranking energy service providers in terms of number of participations 

Energy producers 

There  are  52  participating  energy  producers,  representing  18  Member  States  (all  except  Belgium,  Czechia, 
Ireland,  Cyprus,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Austria,  Romania,  Slovakia  and  Finland),  plus  5  non-EU  countries.  The 
highest numbers of participations are from Italy (16 participations, 9 participating energy producers), France 
(14  participations,  5  participating  energy  producers)  and  Spain  (11  participations,  3  participating  energy 
producers).  The  EU  contribution  to  energy  producers  amounts  to  EUR  33.8  million,  EUR  29.8  million  for 
demonstration  projects  and  EUR  4  million  for  R&D  projects.  Table  12  reports  the  highest  ranking  energy 
producers in terms of number participations. 

87 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnergy supplierCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1EDF - Électricité de France SAFR0110516069⎼2PUBLIC POWER CORPORATION S.A.EL018413138⎼3Vattenfall ABSE001340100⎼3E.ON Sverige ABSE00224075⎼3EnBW Energie BadenDE2020400Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnergy service providerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Kiwi Power LtdUK000550100⎼1Giroa SAES010450100⎼1CiviESCo SrlIT000550100⎼2Caverion Suomi OyFI001340100⎼2Engie SA FR010340100⎼2Enel.si srlIT00314050⎼3Regenera Levante SLES00033067⎼3Enerim Oy FI000330100⎼3Ekodoma LtdLV10113067⎼3SEnerCon GmbHDE01113067⎼3Ennovatis GmbHDE01203067 
 
 
Table 12. Highest ranking energy producers in terms of number of participations 

Municipal energy utilities 

There  are  41  participating  municipal  energy  utilities,  representing  9  Member  States  (i.e.  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden), plus 1 non-EU country. The highest numbers of 
participations  are  from  Germany  (34  participations,  19  participating  municipal  energy  utilities),  Denmark  (7 
participations, 6 participating municipal energy utilities) and Sweden (5 participations, 4 participating municipal 
energy utilities). The EU contribution to municipal energy utilities amounts to EUR 26.7 million, EUR 25.7 million 
of  it  for  demonstration  projects  and  EUR  1  million  for  R&D  projects.  Table  13  reports  the  highest  ranking 
municipal energy utilities in terms of number of participations. 

Table 13. Highest ranking municipal energy utilities in terms of number of participations  

Energy cooperatives 

There  are  22  participating  energy  cooperatives,  representing  11  Member  States  (i.e.  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany, Spain, France, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom). The 
highest numbers of participations are from Spain (7 participations, 3 participating energy cooperatives), Belgium 
(6  participations,  2  participating  energy  cooperatives),  Portugal  (4  participations,  2  participating  energy 
cooperatives) and the Netherlands (3 participations, 3 participating energy cooperatives). The EU contribution 
to energy cooperatives amounts to EUR 8.8 million, EUR 7.9 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 
0.9 million for R&D projects. Table 14 reports the highest ranking energy cooperatives in terms of number of 
participations. 

Table 14. Highest ranking energy cooperatives in terms of number of participations 

Market operators and energy brokers / traders  

There  are  17  participating  market  operators  and  energy  brokers  /  traders,  representing  10  Member  States 
(Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, Netherlands,  Austria, Slovenia and the United Kingdom), 
plus 3 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from Austria (4 participations, 3 participating 
organisations)  and  Bulgaria  (4  participations,  2  participating  organisations).  The  EU  contribution  to  market 
operators  and  energy  brokers  /  traders  amounts to  EUR  7.4  million,  EUR  4.4  million  of  it  for  demonstration 
projects and EUR 3 million for R&D projects. The highest ranking organisations are not reported, as all 17 would 
appear at the top in terms of number of participations. 

88 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnergy producerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1EDF - Électricité de France SAFR00538150⎼2Iren SpaIT001560100⎼2Mytilinaios Anonimi EtaireiaEL00066083⎼3Iberdrola Renovables Energía SAES20215060Top 15 rankWithin-group rankMunicipal energy utilityCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1MVV Energie AGDE10225060⎼2Badenova AG & Co. KGDE10034050⎼2Stadtwerk Haßfurt GmbHDE00044075⎼3SWW Wunsiedel GmbHDE000330100Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnergy cooperativeCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Ecopower cvbaBE20035160⎼2Zelena energetska zadruga za uslugeHR000330100⎼2Som Energía  SCCLES10023067⎼2EnergÉtica S. CoopES00033067⎼3Coopérnico - Cooperativa de Desenvolvimento Sustentável CrlPT000220100⎼3EnercoopFR10012050⎼3Enercoutim - Associação Empresarial de Energia Solar de AlcoutimPT000220100 
 
 
 
 
 
Distribution system operators 

There are 106 participating DSOs, representing 26 Member States (all except Luxembourg and Malta), plus 4 
non-EU  countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Spain  (55  participations,  15  participating 
DSOs), Italy (39 participations, 9 participating DSOs) and France (27 participations, 7 participating DSOs). The 
EU contribution to DSOs amounts to EUR 124.9 million, EUR 113.6 million of it for demonstration projects and 
EUR  11.3  million  for  R&D  projects.    Table  15  reports  the  highest  ranking  DSOs  in  terms  of  number  of 
participations. 

Table 15. Highest ranking DSOs in terms of number of participations 

Transmission system operators  

There are 49 participating TSOs, representing 25 Member States (all except Luxembourg, Malta and Slovakia), 
plus  10  non-EU  countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  France  (17  participations,  1 
participating  TSO),  Portugal  (16  participations,  2  participating  TSOs)  and  Slovenia  (12  participations,  1 
participating  TSO).  The  EU  contribution  to  TSOs  amounts  to  EUR  77  million,  EUR  51  million  of  it  for 
demonstration projects and EUR 26 million for R&D projects. Table 16 reports the highest ranking TSOs in terms 
of number of participations. 

Table 16. Highest ranking TSOs in terms of number of participations 

Local governments 

There are 243 participating local governments, representing 24 Member States (all except Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg  and  Malta),  plus  7  non-EU  countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Italy  (44 
participations, 35 participating local governments) Spain (43 participations, 31 participating local governments) 
and the United Kingdom (30 participations, 15 participating local governments). The EU contribution to local 
governments amounts to EUR 155.9 million, EUR 153.7 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 2.2 
million  for  R&D  projects.  Table  17  reports  the  highest  ranking  local  governments  in  terms  of  number  of 
participations. 

Table 17. Highest ranking local governments in terms of number of participations 

Other public entities 

There are 118 participating other public entities, representing 25 Member States (all except Denmark, Lithuania 
and Slovakia), plus 4 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from Spain (45 participations, 

89 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankDSOCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)131Hedno - Diacheiristis Ellinikou Diktyou Dianomis Elektrikis Energeias AeEL0041519079152E-Distribuzione SpaIT1112317471⎼3EDP Distribuição Energia SA PT0061016375Top 15 rankWithin-group rankTSOCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1RTE - Réseau de transport d'électricitéFR1010617335⎼2ELES, d.o.o., sistemski operater prenosnega elektroenergetskega omrežjaSI003912167⎼2Terna - Rete Elettrica Nazionale SpaIT105410040⎼3Elia System Operator SABE009110050Top 15 rankWithin-group rankLocal governmentCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Bristol City CouncilUK03137086⎼2Ayuntamiento de MálagaES001340100⎼2Manchester City CouncilUK012141100⎼3Municipality of WarsawPL010230100⎼3Grad RijekaHR101130100⎼3Obshtina BurgasBG100230100⎼3Ayuntamiento de ZaragozaES100230100⎼3Blaenau Gwent County Borough CouncilUK00123067⎼3Comhaire nan Eilean SiarUK10113033⎼3Comune di GenovaIT020130100 
 
 
 
34 participating other public entities), Bulgaria (10 participations, 2 participating other public entities) and Italy 
and Portugal (9 participations each, 8 and 6 participating other public entities respectively). The EU contribution 
to other public entities amounts to EUR 36.3 million, EUR 31 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 
5.3 million for R&D projects. Table 18 reports the highest ranking other public entities in terms of number of 
participations. 

Table 18. Highest ranking other public entities in terms of number of participations 

Miscellaneous 

There are 157 participating organisations in the category miscellaneous, representing 19 Member States (all 
except  Czechia,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Romania),  plus  5  non-EU 
countries.  The  highest  numbers  of  participations  are  from  Spain  (31  participations,  27  participating 
organisations),  Italy  (23  participations,  22  participating  organisations)  and  France  (17  participations,  15 
participating organisations). The EU contribution to the organisations grouped under the category miscellaneous 
amounts to EUR 58.3 million, EUR 50.4 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 7.9 million for R&D 
projects. The highest ranking organisations are not reported, as all 157 would appear at the top in terms of 
number of participations. 

Networks / industry associations 

There are 160 participating networks/industry associations, representing 24 Member States (all except Croatia, 
Cyprus, Luxembourg and Slovenia), plus 4 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from 
Belgium (94 participations, 46 participating networks / industry associations), Germany (26 participations, 13 
participating networks / industry associations) and Spain (23 participations, 18 participating networks/industry 
associations).  The  EU  contribution  to  networks/industry  associations  amounts  to  EUR  68.1  million,  EUR  50.8 
million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 17.4 million for R&D projects. Table 19 reports the highest 
ranking networks / industry associations in terms of number of participations. 

Table 19. Highest ranking networks / industry associations in terms of number of participations 

Housing associations / real estate developers 

There are 102 participating housing associations / real estate developers, representing 16 Member States (all 
except Estonia, Ireland, Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and 
Slovakia), plus 2 non-EU countries. The highest numbers of participations are from France (22 participations, 
19  participating  housing  associations  /  real  estate  developers),  and  the  Netherlands  and  Germany  (12 
participations each, 12 and 11 participating housing associations / real estate developers, respectively). The EU 
contribution to housing associations / real estate developers amounts to EUR 50.1 million, EUR 50 million of it 
for demonstration projects and EUR 0.1 million for R&D projects. Table 20 reports the highest ranking housing 
associations / real estate developers in terms of number of participations. 

90 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankOther public agencyCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Energy Agency of PlovdivBG412180100⎼2Electricity Authority of CyprusCY000550100⎼2Krajowa Agencja Poszanowania Energii SAPL10045020⎼2Mittetulundusuhing Tartu Regiooni EnergiaagentuurEE00055060⎼3Lisboa E-Nova - Agência de Energia e Ambiente de Lisboa PT011240100Top 15 rankWithin-group rankNetwork / industry associationCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1ICLEI European Secretariat GmbHDE10089056⎼1European Distribution System Operators for Smart Grids (EDSO)BE10269167⎼2REScoop EU AsblBE00077071⎼2CRE - Romanian Energy centreRO00077086⎼3Stichting New Energy CoalitionNL000550100⎼3WindEurope - European Wind Energy Association BE30205220⎼3EUREC - European Renewable Energy CouncilBE3101500 
 
 
Table 20. Highest ranking housing associations / real estate developers in terms of number of participations 

Environmental and other civil society organisations 

There are 75 participating environmental and other civil society organisations, representing 23 Member States 
(all except Estonia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta and Finland), plus 4 non-EU countries. The highest numbers 
of participations are from the United Kingdom (25 participations, 17 participating organisations), France (10 
participations, 5 participating organisations) and Germany, Belgium and Italy (7 participations each, 7, 5 and 5 
participating  organisations  respectively).  The  EU  contribution  to  environmental  and  other  civil  society 
organisations amounts to EUR 22.5 million, EUR 15.4 million of it for demonstration projects and EUR 7.1 million 
for R&D projects. Table 21 reports the highest ranking environmental and other civil society organisations in 
terms of number of participations. 

Table 21. Highest ranking environmental and other civil society organisations in in terms of number of participations 

Business incubators / funding agencies / early-stage investors 

There  are  20  participating  business  incubators,  representing  14  Member  States  (i.e.  Belgium,  Denmark, 
Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom). The highest number of participations is from Germany (11 participations, 1 participating business 
incubator). The EU contribution to business incubators amounts to EUR 16 million, EUR 15.20 million of it for 
demonstration projects and EUR 0.8 million for R&D projects. The highest ranking organisations are not reported, 
as all 20 would appear at the top in terms of number of participations.  

91 

Top 15 rankWithin-group rankHousing association / real estate developerCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Cecodhas - Comite Europeen de Coordination de l'habitat Social Aisbl BE01034075⎼2Akademiska Hus ABSE000330100⎼3Vilogia SAFR100120100⎼3Sociedad Municipal Zaragoza ViviendaES010120100⎼3Habitats et Territoires ConseilFR020020100⎼3Kreis Lippe Der LandratDE000220100⎼3Mostostal Warszawa SAPL011020100⎼3Cordium CubaBE001120100⎼3SPM Promocions Municipals de Sant Cugat del Vallès SA ES010120100⎼3CV Zonnige KempenBE110020100⎼3Granlund OyFI010120100⎼3Moulins HabitatFR020020100Top 15 rankWithin-group rankEnvironmental and civil society organisationCountryCIP-IEECIP-ICT-PSPFP7H2020TotalLead roleDemonstration (%)⎼1Severn Wye Energy Agency LimitedUK30o25080⎼2PrioriterreFR300140100⎼2GreenDependent Sustainable Solutions AssociationHU10124050⎼2DECO - Associação Portuguesa para a Defesa do Consumidor PT10034025⎼2Društvo za oblikovanje održivog razvojaHR10034075⎼3HespulFR101130100⎼3Knowle West Media CentreUK010230100⎼3Federacja Konsumentów StowarzyszeniePL00033067 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. List of projects 

Project acronym 

Website 

3e-Houses 

Achieve 

Address 

Advanced 

AIM 

AMBASSADOR 

AmI-MoSES 

AnyPLACE 

Assist 

Assured 

Atelier 

Attest 

AURES 

AURES II 

Barenergy 

BD4OPEM 

BEAMS 

Be Aware 

BECA 

Beneffice 

BESOS 

BEST Energy 

Best Paths 

Beyond2020 

BeyWatch 

BodenTypeDC 

Bright 

Campus21 

Cassandra 

Catalyst 

C-DAX 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/250491  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/achieve  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/207643  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308923  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224621  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314175  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224250  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646580  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754051  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/769850  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864374  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864298  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646172  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/817619  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/213558  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/872525  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285194  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224557  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/270981  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768774  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608723  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/238889  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/612748  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/beyond2020  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/223888  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768875  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957816  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285729  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/288429  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768739  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318708  

Changing Behaviour 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/213217  

ChArGED 

Cheetah 

Citizenergy 

Cityfied 

CityOpt 

CityxChange 

City-zen 

CIVIS 

CLEAR 

CLEAR 2.0 

ComAct 

COME RES 

Comets 

Compile 

Conseed 

COOPERaTE 

CoordiNet 

CO-POWER 

CoSSMic 

Cotevos 

Creators 

Crossbow 

CrowdFundRES 

CryoHub 

CUBER 

Dareed 

DC4Cities 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696170  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723716  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/citizenergy  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/197827  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608830  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824260  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608702  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608774  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/clear  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/749402  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/892054  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/953040  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/837722  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824424  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723741  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600063  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824414  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/co-power  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608806  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/110924  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957815  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773430  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646435  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691761  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/875605  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609082  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609304  

92 

Funding program 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

 
 
Decide 

Defender 

Dehems 

DELTA 

Dimmer 

Discern 

DLC+VIT4IP 

Dolfin 

Dominoes 

domOS 

DR-BOB 

DREAM 

DRES2Market 

Drimpac 

DRIVE 

E+ 

E3SoHo 

EASY-RES 

eBADGE 

E-Balance 

ebalance-plus 

Echoes 

EC-LINC 

ECO2 

Eco-Bot 

EcoGem 

EcoGrid EU 

ECO-Qube 

eCREW 

e-DASH 

EdgeFLEX 

Edison 

eDREAM 

EEPOS 

e-Highway2050 

E-HUB 

E-LAND 

Electrific 

EL-EFF Region 

E-Lobster 

ELSA 

Elvire 

Elviten 

Emerald 

Empower 

Empowering 

EmpowerMed 

EN-2 

Enable.EU 

Enchant 

enCOMPASS 

EnerGAware 

Energise 

Energise II 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/894255  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/740898  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224609  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773960  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609084  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308913  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247750  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609140  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/771066  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/894240  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696114  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609359  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/952851  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768559  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774431  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600065  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/250497  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764090  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318050  

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/109894  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864283  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727470  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/ec-linc  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/784988  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/767625  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260097  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/268199  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/956059  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/890362  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285586  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/883710  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297386  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774478  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600050  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308908  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260165  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824388  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/713864  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/el-eff-region  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774392  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646125  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/249105  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/769926  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314151  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646476  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/empowering  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847052  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/en2  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727524  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957115  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723059  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649673  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194455  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727642  

Energy Neighbourhood 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/energy-neighbourhood  

EnergyKeeper 

EnergyMEASURES 

EnergyTIC 

ENERsip 

eNeuron 

Enpor 

Entropy 

EPIC-HUB 

Eplace 

E-price 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731239  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/894759  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/270947  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247624  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957779  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/889385  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649849  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600067  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/325182  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/249096  

93 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

 
eSESH 

eStorage 

eTEACHER 

EU heroes 

EUniversal 

EU-SysFlex 

Evident 

Evolvdso 

Farcross 

FEEdBACk 

FEVER 

FHP 

Fiemser 

Fiesta 

Finesce 

Finseny 

Flex4Grid 

Flexcoop 

Flexgrid 

Flexiciency 

Flexigrid ES 

Flexigrid SE 

Flexitranstore 

Flexmeter 

FlexPlan 

FutureFlow 

G4V 

GAIA 

Garpur 

GENiC 

Geyser 

GIFT 

GOFLEX 

Green Emotion 

GREEN@Hospital 

GreenCharge 

GreenCom 

GreenDataNet 

GreenPlay 

GreenSoul 

Grid4EU 

Gridsol 

GridTECH 

GrowSmarter 

Hestia 

HIFLEX 

HiPerDNO 

Holisder 

HosPilot 

Hyperride 

I3RES 

IANOS 

ICE-WISH 

Icoeur 

ICT 4 EVEU 

ICT4FEV 

ICT4SmartDG 

IDE4L 

Ideas 

iDistributedPV 

IElectrix 

iFLEX 

IGREENGrid 

Improgres 

In2stempo 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/191721  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/295367  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768738  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764805  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864334  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773505  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957117  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608732  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864274  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768935  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864537  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731231  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/248605  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/fiesta 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/604677  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285135  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194427  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773909  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/863876  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194447  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864579  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864048  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774407  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194457   

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/863819  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691777  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/241295  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696029  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608540  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608826  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609211  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824410  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731232  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/265499  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297290  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/769016  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318213  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609000  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649621  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/696129  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/268206  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727362  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/gridtech  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646456  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957823  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/857768  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/248135  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768614  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/238933  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957788  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106338  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957810  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/270898  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/227122  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297224  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260116  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/191801  

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/109372  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600071  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764452  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824392  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957670  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308864  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/improgres  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/777515  

94 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

 
InBetween 

INCIT-EV 

Increase 

IndustRE 

Inertia 

Ingrid 

INSULAE 

InteGrid 

inteGRIDy 

INTEGRIS 

InterConnect 

InterFlex 

Interplan 

Interpreter 

Interrface 

INTrEPID 

IntUBE 

Invade 

IRENE-40 

IRIS 

Islander 

iTESLA 

iUrban 

KnoholEM 

Lightness 

Maesha 

Magnitude 

Making-City 

Market4RES 

Mas2tering 

Massig 

MAtchUP 

Meister 

MERGE 

Merlon 

MetaPV 

Meter-ON 

Migrate 

Mirabel 

MOBI.Europe 

Mobility 2.0 

Mobincity 

Mobistyle 

Molecules 

MUSE GRIDS 

mySMARTLife 

Naiades 

Natconsumers 

NeMo 

Net2DG 

Netfficient 

Newcomers 

NOBEL 

NOBEL GRID 

Northseagrid 

NRG2peers 

NRG4Cast 

NUDGE 

Odysseus 

OneNet 

OPEN meter 

OpenNode 

Optimate 

OrbEEt 

Origin 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768776  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/875683  

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/109974  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646191  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318216  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/296012  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824433  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731218  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731268  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247938  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/857237  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731289  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773708  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864360  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824330  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/317983  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224286  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731148  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/90317  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774199  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957669  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/283012  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/110156  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285229  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/953020  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957843  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774309  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824418  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/market4res  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/192066  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/massig  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774477  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/769052  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/241399  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824386  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/239511  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308794  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691800  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/248195  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297271  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314129  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314328  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723032  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297244  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824441  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731297  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194439  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/195485  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/713794  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774145  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646463  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/837752  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247926  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646184  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/northseagrid  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/890345  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600074  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957012  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600059  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957739  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/226369  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/93771  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/239456  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649753  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314742  

95 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

 
OrPHEuS 

OS4ES 

Osmose 

P2P-SmarTest 

Parity 

PEAKapp 

Pebble 

Pegase 

PENNY 

Pentagon 

Performance Plus 

PHOENIX 

PlaMES 

Plan4Res 

Planet 

Plangridev 

PlatOne 

Platoon 

P-MOB 

Pocityf 

Posytyf 

Powerpoor 

PowerUp 

PROMOTioN 

Proseu 

PV Financing 

PV Grid 

PV Parity 

PV CROPS 

PV-Prosumers4Grid 

RE4Industry 

REACH 

REACT 

READY  

Realisegrid 

RealValue 

Redream 

Reflex 

Remourban 

Renaissance 

RENergetic 

RenewIT 

Replicate 

RESCOOP 20-20-20 

REScoopVPP 

RE-SERVE (RESERVE) 

REserviceS 

Resilient 

Resolvd 

Respond 

Response 

RiCORE 

Robinson 

Ruggedised 

S3C 

S4ECoB 

Sabina 

Safewind 

save@work 

Save Energy 

SAVES 

SAVES2 

Scissor 

SCORE 

SEAM4US 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608930  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619302  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773406  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194444  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864319  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/695945  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/248537  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/211407  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/723791  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731125  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308991  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/893079  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/863922  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773897  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773839  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608957  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864300  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/872592  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260087  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864400  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/883985  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/890437  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285285  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691714  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764056  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646554  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/pv-grid  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/pv-parity  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308468  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/764786  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/952936  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/reach  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/218611  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/609127  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/219123  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646116  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957837  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691685  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646511  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/824342  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957845  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/608679  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691735  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/rescoop-20-20-20  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/893240  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727481  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/reservices  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/314671  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773715  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768619  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957751  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646436  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957752  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731198  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/105831  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/284628  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731211  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/213740  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649660  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/238882  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/saves  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/754203  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194207  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/784960  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285408  

96 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

 
SEEDS 

Seesgen-ict 

Seetsoc 

Semiah 

Sender 

Sensible 

Sharing Cities 

SHAR-Q 

Showe-it 

Sim4Blocks 

Singular 

Smart Build 

Smart Campus 

Smart4RES 

Smart-A 

SmartC2Net 

smartCEM 

SmartCoDe 

SmartEnCity 

Smarter Together 

SmarterEMC2 

SmartHG 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/285150  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/238868  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/239453  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619560  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957755  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/645963  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691895  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731285  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/270951  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/695965  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/309048  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297288  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297251  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864337  

https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smart  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318023  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297328  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/247473  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691883  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691876  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646470  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/317761  

SmartHouse/SmartGrid 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/224628  

SmartKYE 

SmartNet 

SmartRegions 

SmartRuralGrid 

Smartspaces 

SMART-UP 

Smartv2g 

SMILE II 

SmILES 

SocialRES 

SocialWatt 

SOGNO 

Solution 

Sonnet 

SPARCs 

S-PARCS 

SPEAR 

Spine 

Spirit 

SportE2 

Stardust 

Stargrid 

STEP 

STEP_BY_STEP 

STEP-IN 

Storage4Grid 

STORE 

STORE&GO 

Stories 

STORY 

Success 

Sunseed 

Sunshine 

Susplan 

Sustainable 

Synergy 

Tabede 

Talent 

TDX-Assist 

TEDS4BEE 

TIGON 

TILOS 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/600061  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691405  

https://ses.jrc.ec.europa.eu/smartregions  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619610  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297273  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649669  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/284953  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731249  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/730936  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/837758  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/845905  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774613  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/239285  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/837498  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864242  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/785134  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/787011  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774629  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/spirit  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/260124  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774094  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/318782  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/847080  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649733  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/785125  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731155  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/store  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/691797  

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/stories  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646426 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/700416  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619437  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/325161  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/218960  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/308755  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/872734  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/766733  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864459  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/774500  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/325160  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957769  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646529  

97 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

FP7 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

H2020 

H2020 

 
TradeRES 

Triangulum 

TRIBE 

TRIME 

Trinity 

Twenties 

TwinERGY 

Umbrella 

United-Grid 

Upgrid 

Up-Stairs 

USER-CHI 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/864276  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/646578  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/649770  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/trime  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/863874  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/249812  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957736  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/282775  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/773717  

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/194452  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/892037  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/875187  

Usmartconsumer 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/usmartconsumer  

UtilitEE 

VERYSchool 

Vimsen 

VPP4Islands 

Wattalyst 

WEB to Energy 

Windbarriers 

WiseGRID 

X-FLEX 

XFLEX HYDRO 

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/768600  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/297313  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/619547  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/957852  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/288322  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/246800  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/projects/en/projects/windbarriers  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/731205  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/863927  

https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/857832  

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

CIP-ICT-PSP 

FP7 

H2020 

FP7 

FP7 

CIP-IEE 

H2020 

H2020 

H2020 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre 
nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
0
7
8
6
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/705655  

ISBN 978-92-76-36194-7