Blockchain-enabled business model innovation in sector-coupled energy communities

OPEN LETTER Blockchain-enabled business model innovation in sectorcoupled energy communities [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Zia Lennard R2M Solution SAS, Roquefort-les-Pins, France First published: 19 Jun 2025, 5:168 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.20632.1 Latest published: 10 Oct 2025, 5:168 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.20632.2 v1 Abstract This paper analyses business model innovation and digital platform alignment—including blockchain-enabled remuneration and automated settlement—in sector-coupled energy communities. Drawing on six diverse pilot deployments, we explore how modular digital platforms and blockchain technologies can support peer-topeer trading, flexibility services, and integration across electricity, heating, and mobility sectors. The methodology combines systematic value proposition mapping with technical and market analysis to assess real-world user needs, operational challenges, and regulatory barriers. Findings show that blockchain and digitalisation can improve transparency and trust in community energy markets, but effective scaling requires regulatory adaptation, flexible business models, and sustained user engagement. The results provide actionable insights for both practitioners and policymakers aiming to advance digital innovation and business model alignment in the evolving landscape of energy communities. Keywords energy communities, business model innovation, digital platforms, blockchain, automated remuneration, peer-to-peer trading, sector coupling, flexibility services, value proposition, decentralisation This article is included in the Horizon Europe gateway. Open Peer Review Approval Status 123 version 2 (revision) 10 Oct 2025 view view version 1 19 Jun 2025 view view view Tiago Soares , Center for Power and Energy Systems, INESC TEC, Porto, Portugal 1. Ángel Paredes , Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain Universidad de Sevilla Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria de Sevilla, Seville, Spain 2. Assunta Di Vaio , University of Naples “Parthenope”, Naples, Italy 3. Any reports and responses or comments on the article can be found at the end of the article. Open Research Europe  Page 1 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 Corresponding author: Zia Lennard ([email protected]) Author roles: Lennard Z: Writing – Original Draft Preparation Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement 101075660 (FEDECOM) FEDErated -system of systemsapproach for flexible and interoperable energy COMmunities. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 Lennard Z. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite this article: Lennard Z. Blockchain-enabled business model innovation in sector-coupled energy communities [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.20632.1 First published: 19 Jun 2025, 5:168 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.20632.1 Open Research Europe  Page 2 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 Introduction The rapid transformation of Europe’s energy landscape is placing energy communities at the forefront of efforts to achieve decarbonisation, citizen participation, and local value creation. These communities, bringing together households, municipalities, and businesses, are uniquely positioned to harness distributed resources and support the integration of electricity, heating, mobility, and emerging technologies. However, the realisation of this potential depends not only on innovative business models, but also on the deployment of digital platforms that enable efficient, transparent, and automated coordination among diverse actors. Recent developments in blockchain and digital platform technologies have opened new pathways for community-driven energy innovation. By enabling peer-to-peer trading, automated settlement, and secure value flows, these tools can help overcome long-standing barriers related to trust, data management, and multi-actor coordination. At the same time, the process of aligning business models with new digital capabilities is inherently iterative, shaped by local needs, technical constraints, and evolving regulatory frameworks. This paper addresses these challenges by examining how business model innovation and blockchain-enabled digital platforms interact to support robust, sector-coupled energy communities. Drawing on lessons from six FEDECOM pilot deployments, we analyse the technical, organisational, and regulatory factors shaping the evolution of transparent, scalable community business models in practice. In doing so, we aim to provide a foundation for further research and practical action to advance the next generation of digital, sector-coupled energy communities. State of the art and conceptual foundations Business models for energy communities The business model landscape for energy communities is rapidly evolving, with recent literature highlighting both the promise and fragmentation of current approaches. Energy communities are emerging as key players in the evolving energy landscape, fostering citizen participation and driving the transition towards sustainable energy systems. Business models are crucial for the success and sustainability of these communities, ensuring that benefits and costs are distributed equitably and that local knowledge is leveraged. The rise of peer-to-peer (P2P), community self-consumption, and transactive energy models reflects new business model configurations for local energy trading among various stakeholders. Blockchain technology in sector-coupled energy communities Blockchain technology is increasingly recognized for its potential to revolutionize the energy sector by enabling new business models, fostering transparency, and supporting innovation1–3. Its core attributes—decentralization, immutability, and automation through smart contracts—make it particularly well suited for P2P energy trading, traceable transactions, and the integration of sector-coupled services such as electricity, heating, cooling, and mobility4–7. Blockchain supports local energy markets, enables direct trading among prosumers, and underpins new business models for energy communities4,6. Several systematic reviews provide overviews of blockchain’s application in energy, emphasizing both the technology’s promise and its current limits1,5,8. Case studies and conceptual frameworks further highlight the ways blockchain can reconfigure transaction structures, governance, and value flows4,9,10. Blockchain approaches are viewed as highly relevant to P2P energy trading and transactive energy models, where trust, decentralised verification, and automated remuneration are central for scalable, inclusive participation11,12. However, there are also concerns that, without careful design, such models may risk perpetuating existing inequalities. Reis et al. (2021) offer a comprehensive review of energy community business models, identifying a diversity of arrangements but noting a lack of systematisation and maturity across the sector13. Several recent systematic reviews have mapped the complexities and diversity of energy community business models, focusing on P2P trading, sector-coupling, and the microeconomic dynamics among actors14–19. These studies highlight that while macroeconomic and policy frameworks are well explored, there is a need for more research on micro-level incentives, revenue streams, and mechanisms for sustained citizen engagement. Maruf et al. (2024) similarly stress that while sector-coupled and renewable-based energy communities can deliver substantial environmental and economic benefits, practical deployment is hindered by technology integration, regulatory uncertainty, and limited business case development20. Recent comparative reviews further underscore the diversity of energy community business models and the evolution of arrangements across the EU, highlighting both the proliferation of collective self-consumption, peer-to-peer trading, and aggregation schemes, and the variety of local adaptations21–23. Regulatory and operational challenges are well documented. Lowitzsch et al. (2020) and Inês et al. (2020) point to the heterogeneity of governance models and the slow pace of legal harmonisation under EU frameworks such as RED II24,25. Ramsebner et al. (2021) and ETIP SNET (2021) highlight the complexity of sector coupling—integrating electricity, heating, mobility, and hydrogen systems—while stressing the need for holistic “system-of-systems” approaches that go beyond single-technology pilots26,27. Efkarpidis et al. (2022) and the EN-TRACK project (2019) identify gaps in KPI definition and validation28,29, while Mohammadi (2023) and Košnjek et al. (2025) highlight the broad range of externalities, actor diversity, and business model risk factors that must be considered for successful replication of energy community initiatives30,31. Community-ownership and governance innovations were covered by Universal Smart Energy Framework (USEF) in 2019 and International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2020, who emphasised the importance of local participation, risk sharing, and flexibility as central to robust value proposition development32,33. Digitalisation and platformisation are increasingly seen as necessary for energy community scale-up, particularly through enabling value co-creation, automated operations, and performance-based Page 3 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 remuneration. However, recent project evidence notes persistent pain points, including fragmented asset management, slow digital uptake, lack of trusted data-sharing frameworks, and limited options for transparent revenue distribution34. The FEDECOM value proposition analysis reveals that user archetypes—ranging from district system coordinators to e-mobility managers—face unique jobs, pains, and gains that are not fully addressed by legacy business models or generic digital solutions. The FLEXCoop project in 2020 demonstrated how digital platforms and marketplaces can facilitate local flexibility trading, introduce new contractual and risk-sharing mechanisms, and deliver additional value to both prosumers and aggregators35. Against this backdrop, blockchain and automated remuneration mechanisms have gained significant research attention as potential enablers of trust, transparency, and scalable value flows within local energy markets36,37. In the context of energy communities, blockchain can automate P2P transactions, enforce settlement logic based on KPIs, and facilitate multi-actor coordination. Yet, most academic and applied projects remain at proof-of-concept stage, with few documented cases of operational integration and business model impact at scale. Nonetheless, barriers to scale—including interoperability, regulatory fragmentation, and clarity of value stream allocation—remain, as consistently highlighted in recent academic and industry studies3,22,35. Challenges, barriers, and research directions Despite its promise, blockchain adoption in sector-coupled energy communities faces substantial challenges. Regulatory uncertainty, technological immaturity, scalability concerns, and data privacy are well documented as primary barriers38–40. Institutional inertia and limited awareness can slow adoption, while the need for interoperability and standardization remains acute4,10. Still, the literature highlights significant benefits: increased efficiency through automation41, sustainability via local renewables42, improved resilience43, and greater consumer empowerment4. Future research should focus on scalable and secure platform design, business model innovation, socio-economic assessment, and progress toward technical interoperability6,44. The present study builds on these insights, combining a systematic value proposition mapping across six energy community use cases with technical and market analysis from public FEDECOM deliverables. The goal is to demonstrate how digital business model innovation—integrating blockchain-based platforms and automated remuneration—can address real-world user needs, overcome regulatory and operational barriers, and create replicable value propositions for sector-coupled energy communities. Methodology and analytical approach This research applies a multi-stage, mixed-methods approach to synthesise current business model innovation and value proposition development for energy communities, drawing on both peer-reviewed literature and recent European project experience. The analysis focuses on six representative energy community use cases from the FEDECOM project, selected to capture a diversity of market actors, technological contexts, and sector-coupling opportunities. First, a qualitative review of academic and grey literature was performed to identify business model archetypes, value creation mechanisms, and recurring challenges in the evolution of energy communities11,12,14,21–23,45. Special attention was given to systematic reviews and EU project reports that examine both macroand micro-economic factors, with a particular focus on P2P, collective self-consumption, and digitally enabled business models15–19. Personas and value proposition maps for the FEDECOM use cases were developed through project workshops, and analysis of deliverables. The Value Proposition Canvas framework46 was used to structure and visualise the relationships between user jobs, pains, and gains, and the proposed products, services, pain relievers, and gain creators. The same structured approach was applied across all six use cases, facilitating a consistent basis for comparison and enabling iterative refinement as stakeholder feedback was incorporated. For each persona, business model requirements were mapped to FEDECOM’s technical features—such as blockchain-enabled trading, automated remuneration, transparent transaction logs, and secure data exchange—by cross-referencing project deliverables and platform documentation with user needs identified in the value mapping. Iterative co-creation sessions with technical and market experts ensured alignment between the business model logic and the digital platform design. These sessions included regular feedback cycles during pilot deployment, enabling rapid identification and implementation of necessary adjustments in both business model logic and technical platform features. Finally, FEDECOM pilot deployment and implementation reports were reviewed to evaluate the potential operationalisation of business models and the ability of digital features (e.g., smart contracts, KPI-based settlement) to address practical barriers and stakeholder expectations. This approach ensures that the methodology is transparent and reproducible, providing a template for comparable studies in future energy community projects. Where available, user feedback and observed market outcomes were synthesised to draw lessons on business model robustness, scalability, and transferability. This methodological integration enables a holistic assessment of how current theory and FEDECOM technical innovations interact to shape the next generation of energy community business models. FEDECOM business model innovation and platform alignment The FEDECOM pilots provide an evolving perspective on how flexible, interoperable, and user-driven energy communities can be implemented in diverse real-world contexts. Rather than a finished product, FEDECOM’s approach to business model innovation and digital platform alignment is an ongoing, iterative Page 4 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 process shaped by feedback from demonstration sites, technical development cycles, and continued stakeholder engagement. Each pilot use case illustrates the challenges and opportunities inherent in adapting digital platform features and business model logic to local requirements, legacy constraints, and emerging value opportunities. The diversity of these approaches is visualised in Figure 1, which summarises the main business model configurations and value propositions across all six demonstration sites. For instance, in the Ur Beroa residential community in Spain (Figure 1A), the integration of 37 kWp of new photovoltaics and 60 kWh of battery storage, together with improved cascading controls and the testing of phase change thermal storage, has enabled Ur Beroa’s operator to optimise a 50-dwelling district heating network that was previously reliant on a 1.2 MW CHP engine and 6.8 MW of natural gas boilers. This ongoing process has delivered higher self-consumption, improved cost savings, and prepared the community for local trading and sector coupling. The Bilbao City Hall case (Figure 1B) shows how municipal portfolio management and renewable integration are being dynamically coordinated across six public buildings and two PV sites (totaling 1044 kWp of generation and 127 kWh of storage). FEDECOM enabled automated monitoring, real-time data integration, and improved reporting, facilitating both internal optimisation and readiness for future local energy trading. Similarly, the Puertollano Green Hydrogen plant (Figure 1C) demonstrates the integration of a 100 MW green hydrogen plant, 100 MW of PV, and a 20 MWh battery, with FEDECOM enabling optimal dispatch between electricity and hydrogen production. The platform supports green credential tracking and paves the way for multi-market participation, though further work on regulatory adaptation and commercial integration is ongoing. The TMB hydrogen station pilot (Figure 1D) highlights the acceleration of energy trading for public transport hydrogen infrastructure, with the platform supporting four new dispensers, expanded high-pressure storage, and secure Figure 1. FEDECOM pilot business models and value propositions, including asset upgrades and main benefits, adapted from project factsheets (2024). (A) UC1: Spain – Ur Beroa Residential Community. (B) UC2: Spain – Bilbao City Hall. (C) UC3: Spain – Puertollano Green Hydrogen Plant. (D) UC4: Spain – TMB Hydrogen Station. (E) UC5: Switzerland – Hydropower Federation. (F) UC6: Benelux – Cross-country E-mobility. Page 5 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 links to a green hydrogen plant and PV. While FEDECOM has prepared TMB for broader market integration, further expansion and regulatory adaptation are still being addressed. In Switzerland, the hydropower federation pilot (Figure 1E) coordinated three communities with over 250 kWp of PV, new district batteries, and legacy hydro assets. FEDECOM enabled optimisation of self-consumption, ancillary service provision, and transparency in asset coordination, but also revealed the need for ongoing user training and iterative business model adaptation. The Benelux cross-country e-mobility pilot (Figure 1F) linked PV-powered EV charging sites across Belgium and the Netherlands, with integration of battery storage, smart charging, and dynamic control to enable local and cross-border electricity, flexibility, and storage trading. FEDECOM’s modular platform provided technical feasibility, while highlighting the need for new special purpose vehicles and regulatory alignment for full commercial rollout. Across all use cases, value proposition mapping and business model adaptation remain iterative, shaped by real-time feedback and local user priorities. The platform’s ability to support transparent accounting, smart contract-based settlement, and flexible user roles has been instrumental in enabling these adaptations, even as regulatory fit and full integration with legacy systems continue to present challenges. The diversity of FEDECOM’s pilot sites is reflected not only in their business models but also in the specific platform functionalities and market roles addressed by the project. Table 1 summarises the key FEDECOM market offers, the main stakeholder groups targeted, and the use cases where each offer was implemented or tested. As shown in Table 1, the platform enables local electricity and flexibility markets, supports inter-community energy trading, electricity storage trading, and P2X (power-to-x, e.g., hydrogen) trading. Each offer corresponds to different user groups—ranging from real estate owners, district heating (DHC) operators, and large industrial consumers to clusters of renewable energy communities and EV fleet operators. This mapping highlights the flexibility of the platform to accommodate a variety of trading and value creation logics, tailored to the operational and market realities of each pilot. For example, in Bilbao, realtime monitoring, automated control, and enhanced transparency provided clear benefits to municipal managers, while in Ur Beroa, cost savings and increased resilience were observed as key outcomes for residents. Across all pilots, transparent accounting, automated settlement, and flexibility management were highly valued by both technical operators and end users, though full integration remains a work in progress in several sites. The mapping process also highlighted where blockchain-specific features—such as smart contract settlement and auditability—were critical to value proposition delivery, particularly in multi-actor, cross-community, or sector-coupled use cases. FEDECOM’s technical backbone, the Grid Singularity (GSY) Distributed Energy Exchange (DEX) platform, is visualised in Figure 2. This modular blockchain-based architecture underpins secure trading, performance verification, and automated remuneration for all pilots. The architecture enables order matching, trade execution, KPI-driven settlement, and integration with external analytics or payment providers. Importantly, the platform’s flexibility has allowed project partners to rapidly test new incentive structures, user permission schemes, and market logic configurations in response to pilot feedback. As pilots progress, continuous improvement is guided by lessons learned from each demonstration site, technical user feedback, and evolving regulatory environments. For example, the BeNeLux Cross-country e-mobility pilot (Use Case 6) underwent Table 1. Mapping of FEDECOM platform market offers to stakeholder groups and use cases, based on pilot factsheets (2024). FEDECOM offers To Use cases Local Electricity Market Energy communities Real estate owners UC2, UC5, UC6 Local Flexibility Market Energy communities Real estate owners UC2, UC5, UC6 Inter-energy community energy trading Cluster of energy communities Large industrial energy consumers UC1, UC2, UC3, UC4, UC5, UC6 Electricity storage trading Energy communities DHC network operators Real estate owners Electric vehicle fleet owners UC1, UC3, UC5, UC6 P2X trading Energy communities Hydrogen manufacturers DHC network operators Hydropower companies UC1, UC3, UC4, UC6 Page 6 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 substantial adaptation during the project, and the results described reflect both implemented features and ongoing work. The factsheets highlight ongoing challenges: for example, user training and legacy integration in the Swiss federation, regulatory negotiation for cross-border trading in BeNeLux, and iterative technical adaptation in the hydrogen and municipal pilots. The FEDECOM experience demonstrates that while robust, modular digital platforms and business model innovation are essential enablers, true alignment is achieved through ongoing co-design, flexible adaptation, and sustained stakeholder partnership. Discussion and implications The FEDECOM pilot experiences reinforce that business model innovation and digital platform alignment for energy communities must be understood as adaptive, iterative, and context-dependent processes. The diversity of outcomes across pilots—from Spanish district heating to Swiss hydropower to cross-border e-mobility—demonstrates that both technical and organisational pathways are shaped by legacy infrastructure, regulatory environments, and evolving user needs. One central lesson is that co-design between platform developers, technical partners, and local actors is essential. In several pilots, such as Ur Beroa and Bilbao City Hall, transparent real-time monitoring and automated settlement created immediate value, but also surfaced new requirements for user support and integration with existing systems. Where technical upgrades enabled new flexibility, storage, or trading capabilities, business models were adjusted in parallel—a process often requiring multiple iterations of user training and feedback. The pilot factsheets highlight that technological enablement alone does not guarantee operational or financial success. For instance, while the FEDECOM platform allowed the Puertollano Green Hydrogen Plant and TMB Hydrogen Station to trial advanced energy management and market participation, the actual commercial impact is still dependent on regulatory approval and business model maturity. Similarly, in the BeNeLux e-mobility federation, technical feasibility of crossborder energy trading was demonstrated, but full implementation remains subject to legal, market, and organisational challenges. Replication and scalability emerged as both opportunity and challenge. The Swiss federation’s positive experience with flexibility sharing and transparent data analytics points to pathways for replication elsewhere but also underscores the ongoing need for stakeholder engagement and adaptation to local context. Across all pilots, feedback repeatedly emphasised that the platform’s value was maximised when customisation—of business logic, user interface, and reporting—was prioritised. A persistent barrier is regulatory and market alignment. Even with a flexible, modular platform, pilots encountered shifting requirements, uncertain remuneration pathways, and sometimes lengthy approval processes. These findings confirm that digital Figure 2. System architecture of the FEDECOM GSY DEX platform, showing blockchain-based market, remuneration, analytics, and payment integration. Adapted from FEDECOM D6.1. Page 7 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 platform innovation must proceed in lockstep with policy advocacy and regulatory dialogue, not as an isolated technical exercise. The FEDECOM experience also points to several forwardlooking implications. First, open, modular platforms are crucial for enabling communities to experiment with new roles and business models as market rules evolve. Second, meaningful and ongoing stakeholder co-creation—including feedback loops, capacity building, and transparent communication—are prerequisites for sustainable deployment. Third, as community energy grows in scale and complexity, continuous improvement in both platform technology and business models is necessary, informed by real-world data and emerging best practices. Future work should also benchmark the scalability, energy use, and user acceptance of blockchain-based platforms versus centralised alternatives in operational settings. In summary, FEDECOM’s pilot phase demonstrates that digital platform and business model innovation for energy communities is an ongoing, collaborative process. The platform’s modularity and flexibility allowed diverse communities to test, adapt, and advance new solutions, while also revealing the central importance of local engagement and regulatory fit. These insights should inform not only the next phase of FEDECOM but also the wider community energy sector as it moves toward a more decentralised, digital, and participatory future. Conclusions and future directions This study demonstrates that innovation in energy community business models and digital platform design—particularly those leveraging blockchain-enabled architectures—is both essential and inherently iterative. The FEDECOM pilots across Spain, Switzerland, and Benelux show that a modular, blockchain-based platform can support transparency, automation, and secure multi-actor value flows for a wide range of sectorcoupled community models. Real-world deployments confirmed that technical upgrades such as smart contract-based settlement, auditability, and automated remuneration, when aligned with clear business models and local needs, enable new forms of trust, participation, and operational efficiency. However, the experience also underscores that digital platforms and blockchain are not one-size-fits-all solutions. Success depends on careful co-design with users, robust technical integration, and ongoing adaptation to regulatory and market changes. Achieving robust and replicable energy community solutions requires a combination of digital innovation, flexible business model design, and continuous engagement with stakeholders at all levels. Looking ahead, future work should further benchmark the scalability, energy efficiency, and user acceptance of blockchainbased versus centralised solutions in operational community settings. Continued research is also needed to advance interoperability, support sector-coupling, and enable integration with third-party and external market platforms. Most critically, policy and regulatory frameworks must keep pace with digital innovation, ensuring that communities can benefit fully from the transparency, automation, and resilience that these platforms offer. In summary, the FEDECOM pilots confirm that digitally enabled, blockchain-based platforms—when matched to context-specific business models and implemented through close collaboration—offer a viable path forward for sectorcoupled, community-driven energy transitions across Europe. Ethics and consent No ethics and consent were required. Disclaimer The views expressed in this article are those of the author. Publication in Open Research Europe does not imply endorsement of the European Commission. Data availability statement No data are associated with this article. Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Ana Trbovich, Spyridon Tzavikas, and Ewald Hesse (Grid Singularity, Vienna, Austria); Federico Giani, Davide Strepparava, and Vasco Medici (SUPSI, Switzerland); and Igor Jovanovic and Marko Jelic (IMP, Serbia) for their work on FEDECOM WP6 and the development of the GSY DEX platform architecture, as well as all FEDECOM partners (especially Sander Smit from R2M Solution) for providing pilot factsheets, images, technical descriptions, and original analyses that were adapted for figures, tables, and descriptions of business model evolution and value proposition mapping in this paper. Any errors or omissions remain the responsibility of the author alone. References 1. Andoni M, Robu V, Flynn D, et al.: Blockchain technology in the energy sector: a systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019; 100: 143–174. Publisher Full Text 2. Ferreira JPM, Gonçalves MJA, da Silva AF: A systematic literature review in blockchain: benefits and implications of the technology for business. In: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing, 2019; 405–414. Publisher Full Text 3. Ali O, Ally M, Clutterbuck P, et al.: The state of play of blockchain technology Page 8 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 in the financial services sector: a systematic literature review. Int J Inf Manage. 2020; 54: 102199. Publisher Full Text 4. Ahl A, Yarime M, Tanaka K, et al.: Review of blockchain-based distributed energy: implications for institutional development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2019; 107: 200–211. Publisher Full Text 5. Khezami N, Gharbi N, Neji B, et al.: Blockchain technology implementation in the energy sector: comprehensive literature review and mapping. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23): 15826. Publisher Full Text 6. Ben Khaled MW, Ouertani Abaoub N: Energy sector evolution: perspectives on energy platforms and energy transition. Platforms. 2024; 2(2): 68–83. Publisher Full Text 7. Sikorska M: The development of energy blockchain and its implications for the energy sector. Rev Econ Financ Invest. 2021; 1(1). Publisher Full Text 8. Wakasala B: Blockchain technology, regulatory environment and competitive edge in renewable energy sector in Kenya: a systematic literature review. Int J Latest Technol Eng Manag Appl Sci. 2025; 13(12): 307–317. Publisher Full Text 9. Ning L, Yuan Y: How blockchain impacts the supply chain finance platform business model reconfiguration. Int J Logist Res Appl. 2023; 26(9): 1081–1101. Publisher Full Text 10. ZareRavasanA,KrčálM,AshrafiA:Blockchain and digital transformation of insurance business models. International Journal of Blockchains and Cryptocurrencies. 2021; 2(3): 222. Publisher Full Text 11. Capper T, Gorbatcheva A, Mustafa MA, et al.: Peer-to-peer, community selfconsumption, and transactive energy: a systematic literature review of local energy market models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2022; 162: 112403. Publisher Full Text 12. Khanmohammadi S, Saadat-Targhi M: Performance enhancement of an integrated system with solar flat plate collector for hydrogen production using waste heat recovery. Energy. 2019; 171: 1066–1076. Publisher Full Text 13. Reis IFG, Gonçalves I, Lopes MAR, et al.: Business models for energy communities: a review of key issues and trends. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021; 144(6): 111013. Publisher Full Text 14. Parashar S, Sood G, Agrawal N: Modelling the enablers of food supply chain for reduction in carbon footprint. J Clean Prod. 2020; 275: 122932. Publisher Full Text 15. Waterworth A, Bradshaw MJ: Unconventional trade-offs? National oil companies, foreign investment and oil and gas development in Argentina and Brazil. Energy Policy. 2018; 122: 7–16. Publisher Full Text 16. Jonsdottir AT, Johannsdottir L, Davidsdottir B: Systematic literature review on system dynamic modeling of sustainable business model strategies. Clean Environ Syst. 2024; 13: 100200. Publisher Full Text 17. Ghalandarzadeh S, Kurti A, Unell C, et al.: Community-Based Business Models for agricultural and forestry data ecosystems: a systematic literature review. Smart Agric Technol. 2025; 11: 100958. Publisher Full Text 18. Shahrivar S, Elahi S, Hassanzadeh A, et al.: A business model for Commercial Open Source Software: a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol. 2018; 103: 202–214. Publisher Full Text 19. Muhsen H, Allahham A, Al-Halhouli A, et al.: Business model of Peer-to-Peer energy trading: a review of literature. Sustainability. 2022; 14(3): 1616. Publisher Full Text 20. Maruf MNI, Mahmud S, Pasarín IS, et al.: Demonstrating clean energy transition scenarios in sector-coupled and renewable-based energy communities [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. Open Res Eur. 2024; 3: 193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 21. Vernay AL, Avelino F, Barnes J, et al.: Community energy business models: policy objectives and diversity across Europe. Energy Policy. 2023; 179: 113653. 22. Barabino B, Lazzari S, Binetti G, et al.: Energy communities: a review of trends and gaps for developing business models, optimization approaches, and future research directions. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2023; 95: 104730. 23. Energy Cities & LIFE LOOP Consortium: D3.1 Report on selected business models for development of community energy projects. 2024. Reference Source 24. Inês C, Guilherme PL, Esther MG, et al.: Regulatory challenges and opportunities for collective renewable energy prosumers in the EU. Energy Policy. 2020; 138: 111212. Publisher Full Text 25. Lowitzsch J, Hoicka CE, van Tulder FJ: Renewable Energy Communities under the 2019 European clean energy package—governance model for the energy clusters of the future? Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2020; 122: 109489. Publisher Full Text 26. ETIP SNET: Smart sector integration, towards EU system of systems: building blocks, enablers, architectures, regulatory barriers, economic assessment (Position Paper). 2021. Reference Source 27. Ramsebner J, Haas R, Ajanovic A, et al.: The sector coupling concept: a critical review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Energy Environ. 2021; 10(4): e396. Publisher Full Text 28. EN-TRACK Project: D1.4 Measurement and verification procedures for energy efficiency investments. 2022. Reference Source 29. EfkarpidisN,GoranovićA,YangCW,et al.: A generic framework for the definition of key performance indicators for smart energy systems at different scales. Energies. 2022; 15(4): 1289. Publisher Full Text 30. KošnjekE,SučićB,LoncnarM,et al.: Energy cost centre-based modelling of sector coupling in local communities. Energies. 2025; 18(11): 2688. Publisher Full Text 31. Mohammadi N: Investigation of community energy business models from an institutional perspective: intermediaries and policy instruments in selected cases of developing and developed countries. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10): 8423. Publisher Full Text 32. USEF Foundation: White paper: energy and flexibility services for citizens energy communities. 2019. Reference Source 33. IRENA: Innovation landscape brief: community-ownership models. International Renewable Energy Agency. 2020. Reference Source 34. Lennard Z: FEDECOM - D8.4 market-analysis-and-ER-Table v1.0. FEDECOM, 2024. Publisher Full Text 35. FLEXCoop Consortium: D2.7 Emerging business models, associated DR strategies and standard contracts templates – final version. 2020. Reference Source 36. Nogueira WC, Garcés Negrete LP, López-Lezama JM: Interval load flow for uncertainty consideration in power systems analysis. Energies. 2021; 14(3): 642. Publisher Full Text 37. Zhang Q, He M, Wang Y, et al.: Analysis of air humidification process for humid air turbine cycle with a detailed air humidifier model. Applied Energy. 2020; 279: 115833. Publisher Full Text 38. Brilliantova V, Thurner TW: Blockchain and the future of energy. Technology in Society. 2019; 57: 38–45. Publisher Full Text 39. Aini Q, Manongga D, Sediyono E, et al.: The adoption of blockchain technology the business using structural equation modelling. IJCCS (Indonesian Journal of Computing and Cybernetics Systems). 2024; 18(1): 13–24. Publisher Full Text 40. Taherdoost H, Madanchian M: Blockchain-based new business models: a systematic review. Electronics. 2023; 12(6): 1479. Publisher Full Text 41. Moreira S, Mamede HS, Santos A: Business process automation in SMEs: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access. 2024; 12: 75832–75864. Publisher Full Text 42. Radhakrishnan R, Patra P, Das M, et al.: Recent advancements in the ionic liquid mediated lignin valorization for the production of renewable materials and value-added chemicals. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2021; 149: 111368. Publisher Full Text 43. Yin C, Li F: A novel evaluation method for the risk of simultaneous commutation failure in multi-infeed HVDC-systems that considers DC current rise. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems. 2021; 131: 107051. Publisher Full Text 44. Mangani TR, Coetzee H, Kellner K, et al.: Socio-economic benefits stemming from bush clearing and restoration projects conducted in the D’Nyala nature reserve and Shongoane Village, Lephalale, South Africa. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12): 5133. Publisher Full Text 45. Schwidtal JM, Piccini P, Troncia M, et al.: Emerging business models in local energy markets: a systematic review of peer-to-peer, community selfconsumption, and transactive energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2023; 179: 113273. Publisher Full Text 46. Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y, Bernarda G, et al.: Value proposition design: how to create products and services customers want. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. Reference Source Page 9 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 readers with a clear analytical framework before diving into the case details, making the business model innovations far more comprehensible. 5. The discussions on regulatory barriers are not paired with sufficiently concrete or actionable recommendations. The letter must go beyond stating that "policy must keep pace" and provide specific, actionable and standardized proposals for regulators that would directly facilitate the adoption of these technologies. 6. The design of smart contracts is the operational heart of the proposed blockchain-based business models, yet it is treated as a black box. The letter misses a critical opportunity to provide actionable insights for practitioners by discussing the essential clauses, logic, and dependencies required in these contracts to automate remuneration, manage flexibility, and enforce KPI-based settlements effectively. 7. A significant omission is a discussion of the trade-offs involved in using blockchain. The letter states the benefits of transparency and automation but neglects the inherent disadvantages, such as the energy consumption of the consensus mechanism, transaction costs (gas fees), and computational complexity. Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained) Yes Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions? Partly Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations? Partly Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subjectspecific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained) Partly Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate) Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Business models analysis, market participation strategies, artificial intelligence, DER management. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Open Research Europe  Page 16 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 Author Response 06 Oct 2025 Zia Lennard I sincerely thank youfor yourdetailed and constructive feedback. The comments have been invaluable in strengthening the analytical depth and methodological clarity of this revised version. All seven points have been addressed as follows: 1. Methodology clarification and alignment with standardisation efforts I have substantially revised the methodology section to clarify the structure and novelty of the “multi-stage, mixed-methods” approach. The text now explicitly distinguishes between the qualitative (stakeholder workshops, value proposition mapping) and quantitative (KPI validation and comparative analysis) components. I also added a short paragraph linking the FEDECOM methodology to established European practices, referencing the alignment with ongoing work under the BRIDGE Business Models Working Group and other EU-funded initiatives. This demonstrates how the applied approach contributes to harmonising business model evaluation frameworks. 2. Demo-wide synthesis of replicable value propositions To address this comment, I added a new paragraph following the description of the iterative co-design process, synthesising cross-pilot findings into a generalised value proposition framework. The text highlights shared innovation patterns, recurring value creation mechanisms, and transferable design elements. While a Lean Model Canvas format was considered, the synthesis was presented in narrative form to remain consistent with ORE’s Open Letter format. 3. Revision of Table 1 for analytical depth I revised Table 1 (previously Figure 1) and its accompanying text to move beyond a descriptive listing of pilots. It now integrates analytical information regarding innovation focus, stakeholder relevance, and measurable impacts across pilots. The caption and surrounding paragraphs were rewritten to explain how these patterns illustrate the platform’s cross-sector scalability and interoperability. 4. Reorganisation of “FEDECOM business model innovation and platform alignment” This section has been restructured to follow a “general-to-specific” logic. It now begins with a description of the overarching business model architecture, followed by pilot-level adaptations. A transition sentence was inserted to signal this change to readers, improving coherence and analytical flow. 5. Regulatory recommendations I expanded the discussion of regulatory barriers to include specific recommendations. These include the need for harmonised energy-sharing frameworks, recognition of community aggregators as market participants, and simplified mechanisms for crossborder flexibility trading. This provides a more actionable basis for policymakers. 6. Smart contract design In Section 4, I added a new paragraph describing the essential logic underpinning smart contracts used for settlement and KPI-based remuneration. This includes clauses related to Open Research Europe  Page 17 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 validation, collateral management, and flexibility activation, offering practical insights into how blockchain enables automated verification within decentralised energy markets. 7. Discussion of blockchain trade-offs I introduced a critical discussion of blockchain’s limitations in Section 5, addressing computational complexity, transaction costs, and energy consumption. The revised text explains how FEDECOM mitigates these trade-offs through a permissioned ledger and delegated validation, reducing the energy footprint while preserving transparency. Overall, these revisions make the paper more analytical, more transparent in its methods, and better aligned with European best practices for business model innovation and digitalisation in energy communities. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Report09 July 2025 https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.22322.r55877 © 2025 Soares T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tiago Soares Center for Power and Energy Systems, INESC TEC, Porto, Portugal This paper presents findings from the FEDECOM project, exploring how blockchain-enabled digital platforms can support business model innovation in sector-coupled energy communities. It is based on six pilot deployments across Europe and utilizes a structured methodology including value proposition mapping, stakeholder engagement, and analysis of technical and regulatory challenges. The paper argues that blockchain enhances transparency, trust, and automation, but must be paired with flexible, co-designed business models and ongoing regulatory alignment. The paper is interesting and well written; however, some points can be improved, namely: The pilots descriptions are interesting, but there is a lack of KPIS proving the benefits of such an approach. Perhaps, some KPIS can be included in the analysis to understand at to what extent the developed approach improves cost savings. 1. The benefits of using blockchain are emphasized in the paper, but the main disadvantages like energy use, complexity and costs are not considered. Perhaps a critical discussion of the trade-off between using the blockchain in detriment of the centralized approaches can be addressed. 2. The pilots are interesting and different. However, the replicability and scalability of the platform to other levels a is not addressed. Perhaps it can be provided a list outlining prerequisite for replication of the platform. 3. The paper addresses the regulatory uncertainty as a key barrier but does not provide clear contextual regulatory examples and how specific changes could unlock the issue. 4. It would be good to have an idea of how blockchain impacts energy consumption in each of 5. Open Research Europe  Page 18 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 the pilots to add credibility to the adopted solution. Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail? (Please consider whether existing challenges in the field are outlined clearly and whether the purpose of the letter is explained) Partly Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions? Yes Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately supported by citations? Yes Is the Open Letter written in accessible language? (Please consider whether all subjectspecific terms, concepts and abbreviations are explained) Yes Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow? (Please consider whether others in the research community would be able to implement guidelines or recommendations and/or constructively engage in the debate) Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Energy communities I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Author Response 06 Oct 2025 Zia Lennard I sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading and constructive comments. I am grateful for the positive assessment of the paper’s relevance, structure, and clarity, and have carefully addressed all points raised. 1. Inclusion of KPIs to demonstrate benefits I agree that the initial version did not sufficiently highlight quantifiable indicators. Section 4 has been expanded to include representative key performance indicators related to energy savings, flexibility activation, and remuneration accuracy. These examples illustrate how measurable validation results underpin the assessment of business model performance. 2. Discussion of blockchain disadvantages and trade-offs Open Research Europe  Page 19 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025 I have added a new paragraph in Section 5 discussing energy use, computational complexity, and transaction costs. This addition compares blockchain-based architectures with centralised approaches and clarifies how FEDECOM’s permissioned ledger design mitigates energy and latency challenges while maintaining transparency and auditability. 3. Replicability and scalability prerequisites To address this valuable comment, I added a paragraph outlining preconditions for replication, including interoperability, governance recognition, regulatory alignment, and local financial capacity. This section now also references the FEDECOM Replication Playbook and Self-Assessment Tool as resources supporting scalability across contexts. 4. Regulatory examples and actionable proposals I expanded the discussion on regulatory uncertainty to include concrete examples of permitting, perimeter definitions, and flexibility market access. The new text explains how harmonised recognition of energy communities as market participants could remove barriers to platform adoption. 5. Blockchain energy consumption across pilots I added a paragraph clarifying that FEDECOM’s platform uses a lightweight permissioned architecture with delegated validation and off-chain storage, which minimises energy use and computational demand. This contextualises blockchain efficiency within pilot operations and strengthens the credibility of the approach. I believe these revisions comprehensively address all points raised and significantly enhance the analytical depth and transparency of the paper. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Open Research Europe  Page 20 of 20 Open Research Europe 2025, 5:168 Last updated: 16 NOV 2025