From utilities to platforms: why customer capital could reshape the energy industry

This is article 3 of 3 in the Energy Shift series. Here is article 2.

The first two articles in this series examined why ordinary citizens have largely been excluded from financing the energy transition, and how instruments that pay their return in energy rather than currency might begin to close that gap. This final article turns to the other side of the relationship. If customer capital of this kind can be raised at meaningful scale, what does it imply for the utilities and energy companies that would raise it, and for the industry's business model more broadly.

The financing problem utilities now face

European utilities are entering a period of investment intensity without recent precedent. Grids built for one directional power flow from large plants to homes must be reinforced and made bidirectional to accommodate distributed solar, electric vehicle charging and battery storage. Generation capacity must expand while fossil assets are retired on a defined timetable. Heat pumps, electrification of transport and industrial decarbonisation all add load that existing infrastructure was not designed to carry. Each of these requires capital, and each must be financed against a backdrop of higher interest rates than utilities budgeted for over the past decade.

The instruments available to fund this are well established. Utilities borrow through bank loans and bond issuance, they raise equity from shareholders, and increasingly they issue green bonds, which recent research puts at roughly a quarter of a percentage point cheaper than conventional bonds for comparable issuers. These routes work, and none of them is under threat from what follows. The question this article asks is narrower: whether an additional source of capital, drawn directly from the customer base, can supplement them in ways that are structurally useful rather than merely novel.

How customer capital compares

Bank debt is the most conventional route and remains the cheapest source of capital for investment grade utilities, but it carries covenants, requires collateral or a strong balance sheet, and its cost rises with the utility's leverage and with prevailing interest rates, a sensitivity that has mattered considerably over the past three years.

Bonds, including green bonds, allow a utility to lock in a fixed rate over a long maturity and to diversify away from bank concentration risk, but access depends on credit rating and on institutional investor appetite, which narrows during periods of market stress precisely when utilities may most need to raise funds.

Equity financing dilutes existing shareholders and is typically the most expensive form of capital once the required return is accounted for, though it carries no repayment obligation and strengthens the balance sheet against which cheaper debt can subsequently be raised.

Customer capital is the term this series uses for financing that a utility raises directly from the households and businesses it serves, rather than from banks, bondholders or equity markets. It is not a single instrument but a family of them. A customer might take an equity stake in a local renewable project through a cooperative, pay a premium on their tariff in exchange for renewable backed supply, or commit a sum upfront in return for energy delivered over time. What these share is that the provider of the capital is also the consumer of the output, which is the feature that distinguishes customer capital from every conventional financing route and gives it the properties discussed below.

Structured in any of these forms, customer capital sits alongside bank debt, bonds and equity as a distinct source with its own characteristics. Part of its appeal is on cost. Capital committed by customers can carry a lower effective cost than equity, which demands a market rate of return, and it can reduce a utility's dependence on debt raised at interest rates that have risen sharply over the past three years. A household committing funds in exchange for future energy is not pricing that commitment the way a bond investor prices a coupon, which can make the blended cost of a utility's capital base lower than it would be through conventional markets alone. But the more distinctive advantages lie beyond price, in what customer capital reveals about future demand and in the relationship it creates between the utility and the people who consume its output.

The benefits of customer capital

Beyond cost, the clearest advantage of customer capital is informational, and it is worth being precise about how the mechanism produces it. When a utility borrows from a bank or issues a bond, the lender's only interest is in being repaid, and nothing about the loan indicates whether the wind farm or upgraded grid it funds will actually be used as projected. Customer capital works differently in the specific case where the person providing the capital is committing to consume the output over time. A household that puts money into an instrument repaid in electricity over several years is, in effect, telling the utility that it intends to remain a customer and to keep drawing power for that period. Aggregate enough of these commitments and the utility has a forward book of expected demand, assembled from the customers themselves, that it can plan generation and grid investment against. This property is strongest for multi year, energy denominated instruments, and weakest for a one off tariff premium, which raises revenue but says little about long term intentions.

Energy Shift is one of the rising ventures built precisely on this multi year form. It operates as a platform rather than a utility, connecting individuals to specific renewable projects, but the underlying instrument is the same: a household commits capital and receives its return as electricity delivered over time, which means each commitment functions simultaneously as financing and as a durable signal of intended future consumption. Whether models of this kind can reach the scale at which the demand information becomes material to a large utility is still unproven, but the mechanism is a genuine departure from how energy projects are currently financed.

A second advantage is retention. A customer holding a financial or energy denominated stake in a utility faces a real cost in switching supplier, because leaving may mean forfeiting or unwinding that stake. Utilities already spend heavily on acquiring and retaining customers, so a structure that reduces churn while raising capital addresses two cost lines at once. This effect, unlike the demand signal, applies across most forms of customer capital, since any stake creates some friction against switching.

There is a third benefit that operates on the balance sheet rather than the income statement. Capital committed by customers in advance, particularly through prepayment or upfront investment, arrives as cash before the corresponding energy is delivered. That timing eases the working capital pressures utilities routinely manage, from seasonal swings in demand and payment to the gap between spending on new assets and recovering those costs through tariffs over many years. Institutional debt can bridge that gap, but it does so at a cost and adds to leverage. Customer capital that flows in ahead of delivery can smooth the same cycle from within the customer base itself, reducing the amount of short term external financing a utility needs to carry.

Neither property is entirely new to the industry. Tariffed on-bill financing, in which a utility funds an efficiency or electrification upgrade at a customer's premises and recovers the cost through a fixed charge on that customer's bill, has operated in various jurisdictions for over a decade, and demonstrates that utilities can already structure capital recovery through the customer relationship rather than through capital markets alone. Green tariffs, under which customers pay a premium for renewable backed electricity, are a further precedent, aggregating household willingness to pay into a planned revenue stream. Customer capital of the kind this series describes extends the same logic from cost recovery and premium pricing into upfront financing, and lengthens the horizon over which the customer and the utility are committed to one another.

The utility as platform

Taken together, these threads point toward a change in what a utility is, not only in how it is financed. For most of the past century, a utility's product has been a commodity: electricity supplied at a metered rate, differentiated mainly by price and reliability. A utility that raises capital directly from its customers, in exchange for a stake in the outcome rather than a fixed unit price, is offering something closer to a financial relationship layered on top of the commodity.

Extending that logic further, the assets a utility might reasonably offer its customers a stake in are no longer limited to the meter. Electric vehicle charging, fuel and energy vouchers, home battery storage, solar installation, heat pump financing, home energy management and demand flexibility services all sit adjacent to the core business, and several already involve customer capital in some form, from leased solar panels to subscription based EV charging. Once a customer holds a stake in one of these, extending the relationship into the others becomes natural, and the vouchers or credits earned in one domain can be spent across the rest. A utility that connects these services within a single customer relationship, rather than treating each as a separate transaction, begins to resemble a platform coordinating energy, mobility, household finance and climate investment, rather than a company that simply bills for kilowatt hours consumed.

Realising this well will require care. An obligation to customers denominated in energy, or tied to the performance of a specific project, behaves differently from a conventional bond, and the companies building these models will earn lasting trust by being clear with both regulators and customers about how they work. The ventures that pair genuine innovation with that transparency are the ones most likely to turn customer capital from a promising idea into a durable feature of how the transition is financed.

What this means for the transition

None of this replaces the trillions of euros of institutional capital that will continue to finance the bulk of the energy transition. Banks, bond markets and equity investors will remain the primary source of funding for large scale generation and grid infrastructure for the foreseeable future.

What customer capital offers is a second track, running alongside the first, built on a resource that is already abundant and currently underused: the ongoing financial relationship between energy companies and the millions of households and businesses that pay them every month. Realised carefully, and with the consumer protections the model requires, it gives a far larger number of people a genuine stake in a transition that has so far asked a great deal of them and offered very little back.

For more than a century, citizens have been consumers of energy. In the decades ahead, they may become something more: financiers, participants and stakeholders in the transition itself. The next chapter of climate finance may not be written by institutions alone. It may be written by millions of ordinary people, one household at a time.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.