*Article* **Implementation Framework for Energy Flexibility Technologies in Alkmaar and Évora**

**Nienke Maas 1,\*, Vasiliki Georgiadou 1, Stephanie Roelofs 1, Rui Amaral Lopes 2, Anabela Pronto <sup>2</sup> and Joao Martins <sup>2</sup>**


Received: 30 September 2020; Accepted: 4 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020

**Abstract:** As energy generation based on renewable resources does not always match energy consumption profiles, Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) should embody energy flexibility technologies to decrease possible negative impacts on existing grids due to, e.g., reverse power flows. As part of the EU H2020 Smart Cities and Communities project POCITYF, the cities Alkmaar (NL) and Évora (PT) aim to support the deployment and market uptake of such districts and in doing so demonstrate innovative and integrated technologies to enable flexibility in the energy system. This paper addresses implementation conditions for energy flexibility technologies that help cities to engender the expected impact and ensure replication of these technologies to other sites. It aims to guide both urban planners and technology solution providers through pitfalls and opportunities that can appear during the design and implementation of PEDs. Taking this into consideration, the RUGGEDISED innovation and implementation framework for smart city technology was taken as a starting point to describe and analyze the experiences in Alkmaar and Évora.

**Keywords:** governance; energy flexibility; positive energy districts; sustainable energy; smart city deployment

#### **1. Introduction**

The need for cities to become more sustainable is high and several definitions of smart cities refer to this need. A definition of a smart city is "a sustainable and efficient City with high Quality of life that aims to address Urban challenges (improve mobility, optimize use of resources, improve Health and safety, improve social development, support economic growth and participatory governance) by application of ICT in its infrastructure and services, collaboration between its key stakeholders (Citizens, Universities, Government, Industry), integration of its main domains (environment, mobility, governance, community, industry, and services), and investment in Social capital" [1]. However, retrofitting existing environments remains challenging [2]. Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) play an important role in more liveable and sustainable future cities. PEDs are districts producing energy from local and distributed renewable energy sources, presenting generation surplus over a specific balance period (typically one year) that may be transferred to areas outside a PED's boundaries [3]. One definition of PEDs by JPI Urban Europe (2019) refers explicitly to the active management of energy flows: "PEDs are energy-efficient and energy-flexible urban areas or groups of connected buildings which produce net zero greenhouse gas emissions and actively manage an annual local or regional surplus production of renewable energy" [4].

The large deployment of distributed generation based on renewable energy (RE) can increase the complexity of grid management and operation due to several factors (see, for instance, the impact of reverse power flows on distribution transformer aging [5]. Increased energy flexibility in the existing energy systems is therefore a crucial mechanism to delay costly and overdesigned adaptation of the grid infrastructure itself [6]. In this context, technology can be of great help in linking resource efficiency and flexibility in energy supply and demand with innovative, inclusive and more cost-effective services for citizens and businesses. Such technologies can integrate infrastructures like smart grids that have been piloted in several cities in FP7 and H2020 projects [7].

In Alkmaar (Netherlands) and Évora (Portugal), innovative and integrated technical solutions are being implemented in order to support the deployment and market uptake of PEDs. This research and the pilots in Alkmaar and Évora are being conducted within the EU H2020 Smart Cities and Communities project POCITYF [8]. The project started in October 2019 and includes the demonstration of solutions of a high technology readiness level (TRL ≥ 6) [9] for achieving flexible and efficient use of electricity in contexts with different climatic conditions and regional characteristics (technical, financial, social and legal). Alkmaar and Évora are proving grounds for innovative and integrated technical solutions for buildings and districts in which energy management systems are implemented to increase flexibility. Starting points are lessons learnt from pre-pilots at other sites, i.e., locations and buildings where individual technologies have been implemented before. The second step, which is dedicated to demonstration activities, combines technologies toward integrated systems at the building, block and district levels in the areas of Alkmaar and Évora. The third step refers to replication of these integrated systems in other selected areas of Alkmaar and Évora and in the six fellow cities: Granada (Spain), Bari (Italy), Celje (Slovenia), Újpest in Budapest (Hungary), Ioannina (Greece) and Hvidovre (Denmark).

Starting from the RUGGEDISED innovation and implementation framework developed in the EU H2020 RUGGEDISED project [10], this paper addresses implementation conditions for energy flexibility technologies in Alkmaar and Évora in order to support the achievement of expected impacts and ensure replication of these technologies within and beyond POCITYF. The technologies under consideration are ReFlex [11] for Alkmaar and flexibility control algorithms for Évora. Both aim at exploiting the energy flexibility provided by the available controllable devices (e.g., batteries or electric water heaters) at the building, block and district levels in order to achieve specific objectives (e.g., improve matching between renewable generation and energy demand or decrease peak loads).

The RUGGEDISED innovation and implementation framework is an analytical tool that helps city planners to assess important success factors in the implementation process of smart technologies well in advance. This framework focusses on smart city technologies in a broader sense without concentrating necessarily on energy flexibility technologies alone. Therefore, this paper aims to guide both urban planners and technology solution providers through pitfalls and opportunities that can appear during the design and implementation of a PED. It describes practical examples of implementation conditions seen or experienced in Alkmaar and Évora (or that were missing). This can be used to describe valuable lessons for the implementation of energy flexibility in future PEDs. This framework identifies both the implementation conditions that were of relevance and influence in either case of the two cities, and those conditions that did not play a role. In doing so, it provides insights in improving and adjusting projects and shifts the focus on conditions that matter. This paper discusses the application of the framework by presenting how it is being used in practice for the analysis of the implementation of PEDs in Alkmaar and Évora.

#### **2. Materials and Methods**

The RUGGEDISED framework [10] can be used to assess the implementation process of smart city projects and therefore "advises" what should be in place for successful implementation. In POCITYF, records of progress on pre-pilots and foreseen demonstration activities in Alkmaar and Évora have been taken, using questionnaires. These questionnaires focused on key technical components and specifications of the innovative solutions, on the demonstration sites (considering specific challenges related to the context), on problems and restrictions experienced and on lessons learnt

(e.g., technical improvements, energy savings or socioeconomic benefits). The project partners involved with each innovative solution took care of the respective questionnaires. These project partners work for different organizations, e.g., research institutes, governments, utilities and technology providers.

Despite common challenges, the cities of Alkmaar and Évora face city- and district-specific challenges due to divergent geography, geology, demography, climate and socio-economic and cultural characteristics. These characteristics mean that urban energy transition challenges are embarked upon from different starting points and perspectives, thus enhancing the complementarity of the POCITYF solutions. Évora represents South European cities, which generally show lower investments on reducing the footprint of their households and business sector but can enjoy an abundant solar potential. Alkmaar represents West European cities that are strongly dependent on gas for electricity and heating.

In more detail, the RUGGEDISED framework provides a useful base for analyzing success factors and hindering factors for the implementation of smart technologies. In POCITYF, innovative smart city solutions are implemented in order to achieve PEDs. This framework (see Table 1) was consolidated in the EU H2020 RUGGEDISED project and allows the analysis of suppressing and enhancing factors in implementation processes of smart solutions. Such an analysis is beneficial in designing successful implementation processes, in assessing the potential project impact and in selecting aspects that need further consideration for successful implementation.

**Table 1.** RUGGEDISED innovation and implementation framework: enhancing and suppressing factors [10].


The framework distinguishes three levels of impact that are needed in order to think beyond implementation of single solutions and consider the real impact of implementation, namely:


The implementation factors influencing the development of smart solutions are described per impact level. A division is made between hardware, software and orgware implementation factors. Hardware focuses on physical infrastructure topics such as energy storage, conversion and savings. Software refers to ICT, data-related factors and applications. Hardware and software must be supplemented with orgware, which refers to organizational and governance aspects such as stakeholder management, institutional and organizational arrangements and innovation platforms. Dividing impact levels and implementation factors in three categories allows for structuring the different factors that influence projects in different stages. Some factors help or hinder the realization and output of smart solutions, whilst others specifically impact the working together of multiple solutions to realize embedded outcomes. The framework shows that the importance of orgware implementation factors increases as the impact level rises. These orgware implementation factors, in turn, affect the upscaling and replication of smart solutions.

#### **3. Results**

One of the objectives of the POCITYF project is to deploy and validate smart energy management and storage solutions to optimize energy flows with the goal of maximizing self-consumption, reducing grid stress and valorizing flexibility services. To that end, innovative solutions to be demonstrated and replicated include several individual elements: e.g., low-temperature waste heat, innovative short- and long-term storage solutions, such as hydrogen fuel cells or electrical vehicles (EVs) coupled with stationary batteries, smart ICT solutions to interconnect the energy management system at the household, building and district levels, the virtual power plant (VPP) concept, thermal grid controllers or market-oriented building flexibility services.

Figure 1 illustrates how the individual elements corresponding to the various layers, from concrete, device-specific to abstract, domain-specific, are stacked on top of each other and interact to bring about the full implementation and impact of an integrated innovative solution. On the left side, the data and control flow is bidirectional for the full stacked solution to perform as per design, while on the right side, there is only sharing of information to gain insight into the system, evaluate different options and decide for further optimization and improvement steps. The loop is closed by feeding these insights back to the operational system in place.

**Figure 1.** From the concrete, device-specific layer to the abstract, domain-specific one.

Taking this into consideration, Tables 2 and 3 map the information associated with the technologies under analysis (i.e., ReFlex for Alkmaar and flexibility control algorithms for Évora) based on the impact levels and implementation factors that comprise the RUGGEDISED framework described in Section 2.



**Implementation Factor Explanation** Level 1 realization and output **Software** Privacy • Including privacy by design in order to meet both national and European standards and adhere to GDPR guidelines. In doing so, privacy concerns will not pose obstacles to implementation. Security • Taking cyber security issues into account as they may arise. Including privacy and security by design so that they will not become an obstacle for implementation and the implementation will meet the required national and European regulations and standards. It can be helpful to follow the eight principles of privacy by design [12]. Smart grid ICT • Internet of things software from ICT.eu links all electricity consumers per platform. The data are made accessible via the cloud, giving the energy supplier remote control. Via this platform, everything can be connected per household that uses or generates energy. User interfaces • Using future-proof standards (even with low maturity) to implement new use cases and future business models. **Orgware** Business models • Cost reduction of grid operations as a result of unlocking and exploiting flexibility. • New revenue streams potential from valorizing flexibility. • Analysis of pricing mechanisms and market liquidity has been carried out as well as a usability analysis. • Bundling multiple smaller devices to increase accessibility to the trade market. Data and data ownership • Handled according to the principle "as open as possible, as closed as necessary". Level 2 embedded outcomes of multiple smart solutions **Hardware** Communicating infrastructure • Continuous internet connection in order to communicate in real time between assets, the network and the energy market. Robustness of the system • Fast response to disconnection. • Backup facility. • Risk management: what goes wrong if the system is down or unavailable? Taking measures appropriate to the risks (system overload or just some missing data). • The placement of bidirectional charging stations is currently not a standard job. They are still far more expensive than standard charging stations, they need a reliable internet connection to function and during the City-zen project, problems with the hardware were encountered frequently. • The reliability of OT/IT connections through 4G and Wi-Fi communication networks used for VPP and V2G applications is lower than that of the grid itself. The reliability needs to increase to match the reliability of the grid before a VPP or V2G can be used as part of the vital infrastructure balancing loads on the LV grid.

**Table 2.** *Cont.*


**Table 2.** *Cont.*


**Table 2.** *Cont.*


#### **Table 3.** Mapping Évora.

**Table 3.** *Cont.*


**Table 3.** *Cont.*


#### **4. Analysis**

The RUGGEDISED framework allows for conducting an analysis of important implementation conditions in the cities of Alkmaar and Évora. This section presents the respective main observations.


(in time, budget and purpose). This results in the delivery of flexibility technologies that function (Level 1) but will not necessarily graduate to achieve Level 2 and Level 3 impact; as such, upscaling and replication are not induced. Single flexibility technologies are delivered but this does not result in energy flexibility as a whole or flexibility in smart city systems. At the community or neighbourhood level, subsidies are effective in reaching goals, but in order to achieve large-scale impact (Level 2 and Level 3), combined strategies and widespread collaboration are needed.


#### **5. Conclusions**

In this paper, the RUGGEDISED framework was applied as the starting point to evaluate the implementation conditions of energy flexibility solutions within the POCITYF project. Indeed, the selected framework can be leveraged to provide a first analysis of both the success and hindering factors for the implementation of smart technologies while taking a holistic approach that includes not only technological perspectives but also organizational and systemic ones.

The main recommendations and findings for implementing energy flexibility-related technologies at the PED level are summarized below.


loop enables deeper understanding of the sources of error, that can either be found in the control (use) or in the characterization function. For acceptance of energy flexibility, it is important to close this loop. Insights delivered via tracking key performance indicators (KPIs) are needed both on rational arguments (economic and energy metrics) and on perception arguments (e.g., satisfaction of citizens).


The experiences of Alkmaar and Évora result in an easy-to-use methodology for cities to deal with energy flexibility technologies and create optimal conditions for their successful implementation and integration. In the coming period, demonstration of the related energy flexibility technologies is being carried out in both cities at the block and district levels. Starting from the analysis, progress is to be tracked especially focused on achieving Level 1 and moving forward to higher impact levels. This effort will also support the replication process not only in other areas within Alkmaar and Évora but also the so-called "fellow" cities participating in the POCITYF project.

#### **6. Practitioners Review by Roel Massink MSc**

The authors of this paper asked me to provide my view on the methods and results of this research paper in my capacity as Project Coordinator for the H2020 Smart City Lighthouse project IRIS and innovation manager for the Municipality of Utrecht. I am happy to fulfil this task and I thank the authors for the carefully presented research results based on actual demonstration. This review is based on the experiences collected in the IRIS Smart Cities project, a similar project to RUGGEDISED and POCITYF. In IRIS, an integrated project approach is demonstrated: in the Kanaleneiland district (Utrecht, The Netherlands), near zero-energy-efficient building retrofitting is connected to the development of a smart energy and mobility system integrating PV panels with stationary and V2G storage. The smart solutions in IRIS Smart Cities Utrecht mostly all fall within Level 2 of the RUGGEDISED implementation framework. Below, some general reflections based on these experiences toward the RUGGEDISED implementation framework and the conclusions of the paper can be found.

The structure of the RUGGEDISED framework is very much in line with what is happening in practice in the IRIS Smart Cities project and further development of the framework in practice is appreciated. Within the IRIS Smart Cities project, the smart solutions are implemented along transition tracks and structured through a maturity assessment in the following categories: (1) pre-pilots: solutions that have been tested on a small scale in a pilot project; (2) integrated solutions: multiple smart solutions that are demonstrated as integrated solutions at a larger scale at the demonstration site of the project; and (3) replicated solutions: through either the copying of a successful integrated solution to other sites or by upscaling of the integrated solution in the same city or region. This categorization provides the IRIS partners and stakeholders a framework and a roadmap for all smart solutions to be developed, demonstrated and scaled-up. The RUGGEDISED framework is valuable and will

offer practitioners at public authorities, grid operators, solution providers and knowledge institutes a coherent overview of what is important for implementation. However, below I have some suggestions in view of the practical applicability of the RUGGEDISED framework. First, smart solutions are integrated solutions by nature. To ensure that the smart solutions (that are realized in isolation; Impact Level 1) meet the requirements of an embedded outcome of multiple smart solutions (Impact Level 2), it is suggested that an integrated approach with all implementation factors is taken into account. To ensure such an integrated (and systemic) assessment throughout the development of smart solutions, an iterative execution of the implementation framework could be proposed. This means that at Level 1, the implementation factors of Level 2 and Level 3 are also considered. Assessment of implementation factors in Level 2 and Level 3 includes more detailed and specific information once the development of smart solutions progresses.

The following three reflections are supportive of including higher-level implementation factors at the start of the pilot projects.

The paper highlights the importance of aligning partner goals with pilot project aims. This should be seen as a conditional factor for achieving progress at the different impact levels. An example from IRIS Smart Cities Utrecht is the development of a bidirectional charging ecosystem for grid flexibility and mobility services. Currently, this integrated solution consists of multiple smart solutions (bidirectional charging infrastructure, bidirectional enabled electric vehicles, stationary battery storage, energy management system) that are being connected to provide embedded outcomes (Level 2). The current state of development is a result of careful stakeholder management from the start of the pilot projects (already pre-IRIS). Companies, knowledge institutes, grid operators and public authorities aligned their roadmaps and activities in pilot projects under the lead of an ambitious SME (Level 1) and now this is leading to embedded outcomes in the IRIS demonstration project (Level 2). Furthermore, scaled adoption in public procurement documents of electric charging infrastructure now paves the way for city-wide flexibility services of electric vehicles (Level 3). An important success factor was/is stakeholder alignment from the start of the pilot projects. Based on this experience, it is argued that stakeholder management (or rather stakeholder alignment) should take position already at Level 1 to ensure that partner roadmaps are aligned to move the smart solution to Level 2 and 3.

The paper also points towards the requirement of end-user involvement (or co-creation) in the development of smart solutions and could argue for the inclusion of a new implementation factor in the RUGGEDISED framework. This could be "end-user satisfaction" or similar. This is a valid point; often smart solutions are hampered because end-user needs were not considered well enough in the original approach. A design-thinking (or another systemic) approach could offer smart solution developers tools to better involve end-users. A practical notion that requires attention here is the use of grant subsidies in this innovation framework (as the authors also refer to in moving from Level 1 to Level 2). It is recommended that subsidy programs, grant applicants and consortia put more attention into making end-user involvement more explicit in call texts and subsequently also allow more flexibility in the implementation of the grant project based on changes offered by end-users.

Next to this, the paper explains the requirement of a legal framework that supports the transition from pilot projects to scaled solutions. This is true as well for the IRIS Smart Cities project. Especially within the field of smart energy projects or services like peer-to-peer, a supportive legal framework is needed for scaled adoption. The exploitation of grid flexibility services is hampered by legal constraints. Research from the IRIS project shows that bidirectional charging services are discouraged because of double energy taxation (for each charging and discharging cycle, energy tax needs to be paid on either the stored or consumed kWh). This significantly hampers the realization of profitable business models and commercial scaling of these integrated smart solutions. Therefore, it could be argued that regulation/the legal framework is already introduced as an implementation factor in Level 2 of the framework to ensure that, in time, legal constraints are targeted in a concerted action by smart cities.

Finally, what the paper does not explain but what is highly valuable for practitioners is guidance on how the implementation framework leads into an implementation process. The presented implementation framework provides an assessment of implementation factors related to smart solutions but does not directly translate the assessment into implementation guidelines. Further guidance on the implementation pathway resulting from the assessment could support practitioners in applying this framework more easily.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, N.M., V.G. and S.R.; methodology, N.M. and S.R.; validation, N.M., R.A.L. and J.M.; formal analysis, N.M., V.G., S.R., R.A.L. and J.M.; investigation, N.M., V.G., S.R., R.A.L., A.P. and J.M.; resources, S.R. and R.A.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.M., V.G., S.R., R.A.L., A.P. and J.M.; writing—review and editing, N.M., V.G., S.R., R.A.L. and J.M.; visualization, V.G.; supervision, N.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by POCITYF, (FP7 grant agreement N◦ 864400). And The APC was funded by EERA Joint Program Smart Cities.

**Acknowledgments:** This paper is based on information collected during the initial phase of EU H2020 Smart Cities and Communities project POCITYF (grant agreement N◦ 864400). The authors would like to express their gratitude to Roel Massink MSc, coordinator of the H2020 Smart City Lighthouse project IRIS, for reviewing the methods and results of this research and for all the suggestions provided.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

*Energies* **2020**, *13*, 5811

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
