Europe’s flexibility: What EU‑DREAM has learned from 1,000+ households

On a Saturday late morning, the hum of washing machines rises across Europe. Families load weekend laundry; cycles start in late morning and early afternoon, peaking when people have time to spare. From a grid perspective, that chorus is a pattern – predictable, shiftable and potentially valuable. 

The question for energy professionals is simple: how do we turn everyday routines like this into reliable, consumer‑friendly flexibility?

A new survey from EU‑DREAM offers an unusually human, data‑rich answer. The project’s Deliverable D1.1 blends a manufacturer feature survey, a review of related EU projects and scientific literature and two large end‑user questionnaires on appliance controllability and timing of use. The intent is pragmatic: quantify what ‘smart’ looks like at home today, identify the gaps that keep consumers from participating, and point the way to solutions the Enlit community can implement next.

Consumer perspective

Despite rising sales of connected devices, manual control still rules the kitchen and utility room. Among smart appliance owners, nearly seven in ten primarily use physical buttons and knobs. Programmable schedules and smartphone apps have become mainstream behaviours, but more ‘advanced’ modes lag: PC/web interfaces, voice assistants, home‑automation integration and external system control are used by a minority. 

The 35–44 age group is the most engaged across methods; younger users favour apps, while older adults lean toward manual and programmable settings.

Consumers are also ambivalent about AI in appliances. Only a small share reported AI‑based functions in their devices, and a third answered ‘I don’t know’ – a sign that AI is either invisible or poorly communicated. If consumers don’t see or understand the value, it won’t drive adoption or trust. For manufacturers and retailers, that is an immediate communications opportunity: make the benefits visible and personal – in euros saved, minutes gained and comfort kept.

When asked what holds them back from adopting or using smart appliances, households were clear: cost is the number one barrier, followed by satisfaction with existing devices, privacy concerns and lack of knowledge about controllability. Yet the perceived benefits are equally clear: lower bills, reduced consumption, environmental gains and time savings. 

On willingness to pay, most resist large premiums; however, a modest 10–20% extra is acceptable for a significant share, especially for air conditioners and heat pumps, where comfort and savings are tangible. That points to a segmentation strategy: start with high impact devices, pair them with simple incentives and prove value quickly.

The timing‑of‑use questionnaire adds more texture. For the washing machine, prevalent start times cluster on weekend late mornings and early afternoons; weekdays are more distributed across morning and evening. Seasonal differences are relatively small. For flexibility services – whether dynamic tariffs, signals from aggregators, or community‑level coordination – that predictability is gold. It says you can nudge, reschedule or batch without undermining comfort.

Manufacturer survey

On the supply side, EU‑DREAM’s manufacturer survey proposes a taxonomy of control spanning manual, programmable, several remote modes (dedicated remotes, apps, web, voice), adaptive/AI‑based, direct external control and smart‑home integration. Across categories, one pattern dominates: Wi‑Fi paired with proprietary mobile apps. Bluetooth appears in some models; Ethernet, RS‑485 and cellular connections are mostly reserved for home batteries and EV wallboxes.

From a grid integration standpoint, that creates three friction points. First, interoperability remains limited: many devices rely on closed protocols; open, standards‑based options exist but often demand technical setup beyond typical household capabilities.

Second, demand response readiness is rare: few appliances can receive grid signals or participate directly in DR today; wallboxes and batteries edge closer, but household white goods lag. 

Third, smart home integration is patchy: even when integration is possible, cross‑brand ecosystems and fragmented apps add complexity that discourages everyday use.

Sector implications

The implication for utilities, DSOs, retailers and aggregators is straightforward: if flexible capacity at the edge is strategic, then procurement, programme design and market rules must reward openness and grid readiness. Otherwise, Europe will keep accumulating islands of smartness – great for convenience, weak for system value.

Ensuring a just energy transition means recognising and addressing the needs of all consumers, including those who are more vulnerable, and designing digital solutions that make participation easier, fairer, and more intuitive. EU‑DREAM’s recommendations focus on closing the gap between consumers and the transition by making information practical and personal, lowering the cost of participation through simple and visible incentives such as grants, rebates, on‑bill financing, or energy‑as‑a‑service models, and using behavioural nudges that respect everyday routines with default settings and easy opt‑out options. 

Strengthening community level engagement is also essential, as energy communities work best when solutions are co‑created, locally relevant and transparently governed. 

By promoting openness and interoperability, encouraging devices and platforms that follow recognised standards – digitalisation can become a powerful driver of equity, offering clearer information, personalised support, and tools that improve comfort, affordability, and well‑being. 

In EU‑DREAM, this commitment to inclusiveness ensures that digital energy innovations benefit every type of consumer and help prevent existing gaps from widening.

About the author