From Pilots to Scale: Unlocking Flexibility Across Energy Systems
In the latest session of Smart Talks with Jovan – Season 9, we brought together Elena, an energy flexibility adviser working with utilities, grid operators and aggregators; Jerry, FlexibilityMarket Business Development Manager at ESB Networks; and Dr. Ana Trbovich, a digital energy and interoperability expert and member of the UNECE Task Force on Digitalization in Energy.
Throughout the session, the speakers explored what must happen for flexibility to move beyond isolated pilots and be come a scalable, dependable part of modern energy systems. The discussion focused on three fundamental questions: what is currently preventing flexibility from scaling, why clear implementation roadmaps are essential, and how flexibility mechanisms can be designed to work for both customers and the wider energy system.
In your opinion, what is the biggest barrier to scaling flexibility in energy systems: technological integration, regulatory alignment, or the transformation of existing business and operational models?
Elena:
Technology is no longer the main barrier to scaling flexibility.
Solutions for forecasting, aggregation, control and market participation have matured significantly over the past decade. Although regulatory development remains uneven across Europe, regulation alone is not the greatest obstacle.
The most difficult challenge is transforming existing business and operational models.
Flexibility requires TSOs, DSOs, aggregators, technology providers and customers to work differently. New technology can be deployed and regulations can be amended, but changing established processes, responsibilities, internal structures and organizational behavior is far more difficult.
This is one of the main reasons successful pilots frequently fail to develop into regional or nationwide programs. The technology may be ready, but the organizations responsible for implementing it are not always prepared to integrate flexibility into everyday planning and system operation.
Gerry:
All three areas present challenges, but technological integration and interoperability are particularly significant from a utility perspective.
The necessary technologies already exist. The practical difficulty is integrating them with legacy systems that continue to drive existing processes and network operations.
Utilities cannot simply discard their current infrastructure and start again. They must modernize gradually while continuing to operate the network safely, reliably and efficiently.
At the same time, flexibility products must be standardized and scalable. A functioning flexibility market cannot be based on individual pilots or bespoke products designed separately for every customer group and market segment.
Utilities therefore face a difficult balancing act: integrating new technologies, maintaining existing operational processes and developing a clear product roadmap that flexibility service providers can understand and build their businesses around.
Ana:
Technology, regulation and organizational transformation are closely connected and cannot be addressed separately.
Technology has developed considerably, but it can only deliver its full value when it is supported by compatible regulation and appropriate operating models.
In some cases, policies designed to achieve different objectives actively work against one another. A country may support renewable energy deployment while maintaining rules that prevent customers from sharing batteries, trading locally produced energy or participating effectively in flexibility markets.
Interoperability is another major challenge. The energy sector still contains decades of vendor lock-in, closed platforms and components that cannot communicate with one another.
As a result, utilities and technology providers often have to rebuild solutions instead of reusing proven components.
Regulators should remain technology-neutral, but neutrality must not allow closed and restrictive systems to dominate the market. Policy frameworks should clearly support interoperable, modular and decentralized solutions that can evolve as technologies and market requirements change.
Can flexibility scale without a clear roadmap connecting system needs and organizational change?
Gerry:
Flexibility cannot achieve significant scale without organizational change and a clear roadmap.
Flexibility service providers need reliable signals about where flexibility will be required, what types of products will be procured and how the market is expected to develop over the medium and long term.
This certainty allows aggregators and other service providers to identify future opportunities, prepare their market strategies and build credible business cases.
However, roadmaps cannot remain static. They must be regularly updated to reflect changing network requirements, regulatory developments and lessons learned from pilot programs.
As flexibility requirements become increasingly location-specific, clearer roadmaps can also help service providers understand where their resources will create the greatest value.
Utilities must recognize that providers need time to recruit customers, develop technology, secure investment and prepare a viable route to market. Without sufficient visibility and preparation time, the market will struggle to attract the participation and liquidity required for scale.
Ana:
Clear roadmaps are essential because technology providers, investors and market participants need certainty.
Regulations and public programs frequently establish deadlines or future requirements, but these commitments are not always implemented according to schedule. Companies may plan investments and product development around these targets, only to discover that the expected market conditions have not materialized.
There is also a disconnect between innovators and regulatory processes.
Large companies often have dedicated teams that participate in consultations and influence regulatory development. Smaller innovators may have valuable technical knowledge but lack the time and resources required to contribute continuously.
As a result, regulations, procurement procedures and publicly funded projects do not always reflect the capabilities of technologies already available on the market.
In some cases, public funding is used to develop solutions that already exist. Unnecessary licensing or certification requirements can also prevent innovative software and service providers from entering the market.
A meaningful roadmap should therefore address more than high-level policy targets. It should connect regulation, procurement, data access, interoperability, hardware integration and organizational readiness.
It must also help utilities move away from vendor lock-in and allow different systems—including metering, billing, document management and asset-management platforms—to work together.
Elena:
One of the most important lessons from the past decade is that technology often scales more easily than organizations.
Deploying batteries, smart meters or digital platforms does not automatically create a functioning flexibility ecosystem.
Assets must be supported by operational processes, market mechanisms, data governance, data exchange, planning methodologies and regulatory frameworks.
Without a roadmap connecting system needs with organizational transformation, flexibility remains a collection of individual projects rather than becoming part of normal system operation.
Roadmaps are needed at both national and company level.
A national roadmap gives aggregators, investors and technology providers a clear direction for their long-term investment decisions. It helps them understand future market needs and align their strategies accordingly.
Utilities and DSOs also require internal roadmaps. Many organizations continue to purchase and deploy individual systems without a clear plan for how the resulting data and capabilities will be integrated.
Even in markets with extensive smart-meter deployment, data can remain trapped in separate systems and cannot be used effectively for planning, customer services or flexibility markets.
A successful roadmap must therefore connect technology investment with data integration, organizational responsibilities and the long-term strategic objectives of the energy system.
How can we design flexibility mechanisms that are simple enough for customers to engage with, yet robust enough to support system-level needs?
Ana:
Customers currently face too many technical, administrative and regulatory barriers.
Even when households invest in solar panels, batteries or other distributed energy resources, their meters, sensors and applications may not communicate with one another.
Customers may be able to view their data through one provider while remaining unable to share it with another provider offering a better or more valuable flexibility service.
The same problem affects energy communities. Registration processes can be complex, definitions differ between European and national frameworks, and communities may depend on a single company that controls both their physical assets and access to their data.
Flexibility mechanisms must remove these barriers.
Customers should be able to register, connect their assets, authorize access to their data and participate through clear and straightforward processes.
Policy makers must also establish concrete milestones for moving successful solutions into mainstream implementation. Without defined targets, pilot programs can continue indefinitely without achieving meaningful scale.
A trusted flexibility registry could provide an important foundation. It could allow approved service providers to connect securely to customer assets while giving customers greater control over who may access their data and manage their flexibility.
Energy communities should also be able to trade with neighboring communities. This would support local renewable-energy consumption, reduce pressure on the electricity network and allow communities without generation assets to benefit from locally produced energy.
Elena:
There is no universal model for customer engagement.
Research and practical pilot programs have demonstrated a significant digital divide between different customer groups.
Some customers want fully automated participation with minimal interaction. Others want detailed information, direct control and the ability to opt in or out of individual events.
Customers also respond differently to financial incentives, environmental messages, digital notifications and other engagement tools.
Although designing one standard solution may initially be cheaper, it is unlikely to achieve broad and lasting participation. Flexibility programs should therefore provide different engagement pathways while keeping the overall customer experience simple.
Customers should not need to understand congestion management, balancing markets, battery dispatch or the technical operation of the electricity network.
That complexity must be managed by platforms, aggregators and market operators.
From the customer’s perspective, it should not matter whether flexibility comes from an electric vehicle, heat pump, battery, industrial load, local generation or temporary reduction in electricity consumption.
Participation must be easy, automated wherever possible and financially attractive.
When customers are required to become energy-market experts before they can participate, the mechanism has already failed.
Gerry:
ESB Networks’ residential demand-response initiative, Is This a Good Time?, demonstrates both the opportunities and limitations of current customer-engagement models.
The program has engaged more than 46,000 residential customers and has been particularly successful among digitally confident users and customers motivated by carbon reduction and active energy management.
However, this group represents only one part of the wider customer base.
Reaching a broader audience requires mechanisms that recognize different levels of digital confidence, financial motivation and interest in the energy transition.
The next stage is to evolve from a primarily behavioral program toward a more advanced demand-response model incorporating smart-meter data and greater automation.
This would make residential flexibility measurable, allow it to be targeted toward specific geographic network requirements and provide customers with rewards based on the flexibility they actually deliver.
For the DSO, the result would be a more reliable resource for managing congestion and network constraints in specific locations.
In the longer term, energy communities could aggregate participating households and transform small individual contributions into meaningful flexibility products.
This could create additional value for community members while providing measurable and dependable support to the distribution network.
Conclusion
Flexibility is no longer limited by technology alone. The bigger challenge is changing how energy actors work together. Scaling it requires new operational models, clearer roles for DSOs, TSOs, aggregators and customers, and systems that can move beyond isolated pilots.
Roadmaps are essential because markets and service providers need predictability. Without clear signals on where flexibility will be needed, when it will be valued and how it will be integrated into grid operations, it is difficult to build credible business cases.
For flexibility to reach scale, participation must become simple for end users while remaining robust for the system. That means removing administrative barriers, improving access to data, enabling interoperability and creating platforms that allow customers and energy communities to contribute without having to understand market complexity.