Table 4 Comparison of results corresponding to the stated hypotheses between the LAMP and [73]
From: Empirical case study of a digitally enabled energy community with prosumers and P2P trading
Concept | Results from [73] | Results LAMP |
|---|---|---|
Willingness-to-pay for local renewable generation | Even though a majority stated to be willing to pay a premium for locally generated renewable generation, almost all participants set bids below the displayed reference price of the utility | All participants stated before the project to be willing to pay a premium for local renewable generation. Over time, all but two rather inactive participants lowered their bid prices for local PV generation below the reference price |
Participant activity in the EC | Participation was heterogeneous. The majority of recorded activity occurred in the beginning of the project. Some participants never interacted with the market | There were bursts of activity while at the end of the project participants did no longer interact with the system. Overall, activity was low with an average 4.5 interactions per participant over 13 months |
Use of the information system | Appreciation for monthly reports. A majority used the app for market-related data [2] | Monthly reports were the main medium of interaction with the system. Participants asked to still receive reports after the project ended. The mobile application was used when reports indicated extraordinary values |
Demand response | Several participants stated to have made efforts to consume during sunshine hours. This was not further evaluated. No differentiation between consumers and prosumers. Local generation often had to be fed into the grid | The data suggest some within-day demand response. However, consumers stated not to have reacted to prices even though they represented differences of 100 Euro per MWh. Prosumers stated to adjust to sunshine. Quantitative evaluation did not confirm this |
Market understanding | Bid prices were reduced over time, which indicates that the market mechanism was not understood. A majority of respondents of a survey among participants correctly responded to questions in regard to the market mechanism | Participants stated not to have understood the market. Particularly, participants noted that changes in their bid prices did not result in different market outcomes. Participants reported that it influenced their interaction frequency with the system |
Automated bidding | 35% of users prefer not to have to set prices vs. 30% prefer to set prices themselves [2] | Automated bidding was directly implemented and led to a reduction in energy costs. Full automation of bidding of all participants might be better represented by a tariff structure |