Abstract
Energy communities (EC) and collective self-consumption (CSC) systems can make a significant contribution to reducing dependence on fossil fuels and energy costs. They create mechanisms for the active participation of end-consumers in the energy system by becoming self-producers of renewable electricity and adapting their energy behavior to the needs of the system. CSC also alleviates energy poverty by reducing the energy costs of vulnerable members. The CSC is still in its early stages, and regulation is being developed in several countries along with pilot projects to test different rules and incentives. This chapter discusses the most relevant common definitions of CSC and EC so far, as well as the main challenges in relation to energy sharing rules and the management of EC and CSC. © 2025 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Abstract
The Renewable Energy Communities (RECs) and self-consumption frameworks defined in Directive (EU) 2023/2413 and Directive (EU) 2024/1711 are currently being integrated into national regulations across EU member states, adapting legislation to incorporate these new entities. These regulations establish key principles for individual and collective self-consumption, outlining operational rules such as proximity constraints, electricity sharing mechanisms, surplus electricity management, grid tariffs, and various organizational aspects, including asset sizing, licensing, metering, data exchange, and role definitions. This study introduces a model tailored to optimize investment and energy-sharing decisions within RECs, enabling multiple members to invest in solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind generation assets. The model determines the optimal generation capacity each REC member should install for each technology and calculates the energy shared between members in each period, considering site-specific constraints on renewable deployment. A case study with a four-member REC is used to showcase the model’s functionality, with simulation results underscoring the benefits of CSC over ISC. © 2025 by the authors.

Abstract
Purpose of Review: This paper reviews the flexibility-centric value chain (FCVC) and analyses how coordinating digital platforms along the FCVC is essential for enabling FCVC activities and supporting key actors. Based on the FCVC, the digital infrastructure needed to support flexibility provision in power systems is reviewed, with special focus on the role of energy communities (ECs) as emerging relevant actors and potential aggregators of its members. Recent Findings: We review the Grid Data and Business Network (GDBN), a platform developed by the authors to support the FCVC, with special focus on those stages of the FCVC not properly supported by existing solutions. It also analyses platforms used in local flexibility markets (LFMs), and it presents the RECreation digital platform designed to manage ECs to support the participation in flexibility markets. Summary: Digital platforms are necessary for scaling flexibility services. The GDBN offers a comprehensive approach by enabling the FCVC and facilitating interoperability with existing platforms dedicated to specific segments, such as ECs and LFMs. By addressing current limitations in platform integration, this paper contributes to a clearer understanding of how digital tools can enable an efficient flexibility ecosystem. © The Author(s) 2025.

Abstract
Distributed energy resources (DERs) offer untapped potential to meet the flexibility needs of power systems with a high share of non-dispatchable renewable generation, and local flexibility markets (LFMs) can be effective mechanisms for procuring it. In LFMs, energy communities (ECs) can aggregate and offer flexibility from their members' DERs to other parties. However, since flexibility prices are only known after markets clear, flexibility bidding curves can be used to deal with this price uncertainty. Building on previous work by the authors, this paper employs a two-stage methodology to calculate flexibility bids for an EC participating in an LFM, including not only batteries and photovoltaic panels, but also cross-sector (CS) flexible assets like thermal loads and electric vehicles (EVs) to assess their impact. In Stage 1, the EC manager minimizes the energy bill without flexibility to define its baseline. In Stage 2, it computes the optimal flexibility to be offered for each flexibility price to build the flexibility bidding curve. Case examples allow to assess the impact of CS flexible assets on the final flexibility offered.

Abstract
Planning Energy communities (ECs) requires engaging members, designing business models and governance rules, and sizing distributed energy resources (DERs) for a costeffective investment. Meanwhile, the growing share of nondispatchable renewable generation demands more flexible energy systems. Local flexibility markets (LFMs) are emerging as effective mechanisms to procure this flexibility, granting ECs a new revenue stream. Since sizing with flexibility becomes a highly complex problem, we propose a 2 -stage methodology for estimating DERs size in an EC with collective self-consumption, flexibility provision and cross-sector (CS) assets such as thermal loads and electric vehicles (EVs). The first stage computes the optimal DER capacities to be installed for each member without flexibility provision. The second stage departs from the first stage capacities to assess how to modify the initial capacities to profit from providing flexibility. The impact of data clustering and flexibility provision are assessed through a case study.

Abstract
The business models (BM) for renewable energy communities (REC) are often based on their promoters being the sole or primary investors in energy assets, such as photovoltaic panels (PV) and battery energy storage systems (BESS), operating these assets centrally, and selling the locally produced energy to the REC members. This research addresses the computation of fixed local energy prices that the REC developer may apply under the optimal operation of the energy assets to maximize its revenues, while guaranteeing that all REC members benefit from belonging to the REC. We do this from two perspectives, depending on who operates the storage systems: i) maximizing the investor's benefits and ii) minimizing the REC cost by maximizing its self-consumption, ensuring maximization of the energy sold by the REC promoter/investor. The optimization framework includes energy production and demand balance constraints, peak load limitations, and constraints coming from the Portuguese regulatory framework. It also considers the opportunity costs of the members for buying the energy deficit from the grid or selling the energy surplus to the grid. © 2025 IEEE.