The energy transition is more than just technology; it is a systemic transformation. But while the political goals are clearly defined, a key question remains: Is the federal government pulling the right levers? Or is valuable money being wasted on individual solutions with no strategic impact?

Technology promoted, impact limited?

Photovoltaics on the roof, heat pumps in the basement, battery storage in the garage, these technologies shape the image of the energy transition. And they are also being promoted in a targeted manner. Programs such as EnergieSchweiz, ProKilowatt, and regional initiatives support homeowners, SMEs, and municipalities in investing in efficiency and renewables.

Undoubtedly important, but is it enough?

A look at the practical reality shows that the focus is often on individual systems. Heat pumps hardly respond to grid signals. Electric mobility is being promoted, but mostly without integration into flexibility markets.

What is missing is systemic impact: the coordination of these individual measures in a networked, marketable overall system. This will result in thousands of islands, but not a functioning energy system for the future.

System intelligence remains underfunded

The vision for 2030 has long been outlined, among others by ENTSO-E and Swissgrid: a cyber-physical, flexible, and decentralized energy system that responds in real time, distributes loads, and combines market and grid logic. The Swiss Smart Grid Roadmap specifies this requirement for the domestic market. However, this vision is hardly reflected in the reality of funding.

Digital platforms for coordinating decentralized resources? None. Funding for system-friendly operating models for aggregators? Not planned. Financial incentives for prosuming with a grid-relevant impact? Not yet considered.

Instead, individual technology grants continue to dominate. And while storage and PV systems are becoming more economically attractive, the question remains unanswered: How do we coordinate these resources in the grid? How do we create interfaces, data standards, and market connections?

The dilemma is also evident in research: The SFOE's SWEET program is on the right track by addressing systemic issues, but this funding line is small and has little broad impact.

Funding policy without structure, a European comparison

Switzerland is not alone in facing this challenge. However, other countries are showing how funding policy can be used in a more targeted manner:

Norway: System-based funding

Norway is taking a consistently system-oriented approach with its state agency Enova SF. Instead of simply subsidizing individual technologies, the focus is on system impact, decarbonization, and innovation. Enova supports, among other things:

• the market development of flexibility solutions,
• the digitization of energy use,
• pilot projects for new business models and platforms,
• power-to-heat and storage solutions in industry. According to the IEA, Norway is pursuing a long-term goal: to build a low-carbon energy system that is economically viable and actively contributes to the integration of renewables. Particular emphasis is placed on linking support policies and cross-sector system integration, an aspect that receives little attention in Switzerland.

Netherlands: Real-world laboratories instead of guidelines

The Netherlands is focusing specifically on regulatory freedom: in so-called “regulatory sandboxes,” companies, network operators, and municipalities can test new market models, such as local energy markets, peer-to-peer trading, or grid-friendly storage control. Not only technologies are being tested there, but also new role models and data architectures.

At the same time, the state is investing specifically in projects that address the interaction between production, consumption, and flexibility. The IEA emphasizes that the Netherlands is thus playing a leading role in system transformation, among other things through the active participation of distribution system operators, digital platforms, and prosumer models.

And Switzerland?

In comparison, Switzerland remains cautious. Although there are ambitious programs such as SWEET and regional innovation checks, systemic integration, market proximity, and scaling are hardly considered. Subsidies remain fragmented and technologically focused, while central control and data issues are left out.

The result: many good technologies, but little visible impact on the overall system.

Conclusion: funding policy will determine the energy system of the future

Switzerland has ambitious energy policy goals and an increasingly complex energy system. But without targeted funding policy, the gap between vision and reality will remain. What we need is not a hodgepodge of individual measures, but a digital operating system for the energy transition.

Support policies should follow these principles:

• Reward system utility: Those who operate systems that are market-friendly, grid-stabilizing, or interoperable should receive more than those who simply optimize their own consumption.
• Consider digitalization: Platforms, interfaces, forecasting tools, and real-time capabilities must be just as eligible for support as hardware.
• Ensure scalability: Demo projects should not remain in the model region, but should transition to regular operation with a clear scaling strategy.
• Enable interdisciplinary cooperation: Support programs must address technical, regulatory, and economic aspects together. Because one thing is clear: without a clear structure for funding, there can be no structure in the system. And without a system, the energy transition will remain inefficient, expensive and, in the worst case, ineffective.

Sources

1. https://www.energieschweiz.ch/projektfoerderung/
2. https://www.energieschweiz.ch/sich-finanzieren/prokilowatt/
3. https://www.iea.org/reports/norway-2022/executive-summary
4. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-netherlands-2020#overview
5. https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-innovation
6. https://www.energiefranken.ch/de