To achieve these objectives, Björn Hoops, researcher of this project, conducted interviews with in total 12 Energy Commons in Germany and Italy. On this basis, Hoops made a list of decisions that Energy Commons take on their internal organization and external relations, concerning purposes, activities, membership, management, benefit distribution, and finance. Hoops then gathered the statutes of Energy Commons in Germany and Italy and analysed in total around 600 statutes to determine what choices German and Italian Energy Commons made regarding those aspects. At the same time, Hoops drafted a questionnaire on those topics to which he received around 135 valid responses.
The analysis of the interviews, statutes, and responses to the questionnaire led Hoops to divide the Energy Commons into five groups. The first group are small and democratic Energy Commons with a limited number of members, small PV generation capacity, and a direct democracy in which almost all members participate in the management. The second group consists of self-sufficient Energy Commons that often have their own heat network to which an entire village is connected, in which all inhabitants are members, and that are managed by a group of active members or even professionals, while the majority of members merely monitors the managers. The third group are medium-sized place-based Energy Commons that do not have their own grid, but have much greater generation capacity than the first group. Just as the second group, this group only has members from the local area and is run by active members. The fourth group are interest-based Energy Commons that resemble the third group but also admit members from outside the local area. The fifth group are the Investment Energy Commons that resemble the fourth group, but demote 'normal' citizens to investors and are run by a commercial company or public body. This categorization is useful because each of these groups has its own wishes and needs and can thus give regulators guidance on how to regulate their affairs in more tailored way.
Hoops then did research on the rules that apply the internal and external affairs of the Energy Commons. Hoops reviewed the literature on the Commons and Energy Democracy and found that scholars have expectations that Energy Commons should meet. For example, Energy Commons should be inclusive of vulnerable households, their members should actively participate in the management, Energy Commons should be free of corporate interests, and Energy Commons should be primarily local. Hoops also examined EU, German, and Italian law on energy communities and found that it pursues similar goals as the reviewed literature. Hoops concluded that the legislation clashes with how the Energy Commons organize themselves in practice. Many Energy Commons make a profit and distribute some of this profit among members; the larger the Energy Commons and their generation capacity, the more likely it is to collaborate with energy companies and large enterprises and the more passive many members will be; Energy Commons are often the domain of the well-off and the well-educated; and many Energy Commons expand beyond their local communities. Consequently, the energy community legislation excludes many Energy Commons.
An explanation for these findings is that the energy sector is relatively complex and expensive, favouring collaboration with large professional players and, more generally, those with money and skills. Hoops developed policy recommendations to counter this. Regulators should reduce complexity by cutting red tape for Energy Commons, for example by revisiting consumer rights for people sharing energy. At the same time, legislatures should ensure that the distribution of profits remains possible for energy communities, accept that most members will be passive investors, facilitate the collaboration with professional players, while ensuring that they do not take over the Energy Commons, and take concrete measures to promote inclusive Energy Commons.
The results were incorporated in five peer-reviewed publications, one White Paper, and two blogs. They were presented at 14 conferences, and the researcher organized five conferences to discuss the progress and results of the project.
