Search

The emergence of peer-to-peer, collective or community self-consumption, and transactive energy concepts gives rise to new configurations of business models for local energy trading among a variety of actors. Much attention has been paid in the academic literature to the transition of the underlying energy system with its macroeconomic market framework. However, fewer contributions focus on the microeconomic aspects of the broad set of involved actors. Even though specific case studies highlight single business models, a comprehensive analysis of emerging business models for the entire set of actors is missing. Following this research gap, this paper conducts a systematic literature review of 135 peer-reviewed journal articles to examine business models of actors operating in local energy markets. From 221 businesses in the reviewed literature, nine macro-actor categories are identified. For each type of market actor, a business model archetype is determined and characterised using the business model canvas. The key elements of each business model archetype are discussed, and areas are highlighted where further research is needed. Finally, this paper outlines the differences of business models for their presence in the three local energy market models. Focusing on the identified customers and partner relationships, this study highlights the key actors per market model and the character of the interactions between market participants.

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

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