Most of us recognize that the energy industry has monopolistic traits—but do we truly understand how deep this control and strategic positioning goes? To grasp the full picture, it helps to look at the classic game of Monopoly. It offers a surprisingly accurate metaphor for why the energy sector has lagged in innovation and the open sharing of information.
The Basics of a Monopoly is a guaranteed market. Energy and water utilities are structured around jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, they are heavily regulated, and customer base is essentially guaranteed, and energy utilities do not need to compete with one another. Utilities provide the infrastructure essential to our modern economy. Our energy industry is mature, and its players are protected—ensuring cost recovery and delivering modest but reliable returns to utility shareholders. Our reliance on energy and water is clear and without its society, will collapse. In Monopoly terms, this is like a game where all the properties have already been bought. The board is full, and the players are just collecting rent for what is already built. At face value, this seems logical. But is the game changing due to technology and innovation? Maybe.
When you examine the energy market—generation, emissions, customer expectations, and the political landscape—it’s well-defined that change is constant. Public policy and the needs of the public often take precedence. This has been true since the inception of utilities and isn’t likely to change soon.
External pressures—natural disasters, economic shifts, protectionism, climate events, and even pandemics—force the energy industry to adapt quickly. In Monopoly terms, it is like rolling the dice or drawing a Chance card. Changes are usually regional and in turn play on their own game board as each utility must respond individually, constrained by legacy systems tailored to their specific needs. History has shown that these core systems are rarely replaced, reinforcing monopolistic dependencies on long-standing vendors that feed off this type of control. When energy policy changes are mandated, the associated costs are quietly absorbed into “the system”—often unnoticed by the public until these costs are passed on to ratepayers, sometimes years later, a few dollars at a time.
Let’s consider the cost of legacy physical assets: meters, poles, transformers, and other specialized equipment. Utilities are incentivized to extend the life of these assets to maximize return on investment and avoid the disruption caused by integrating modern technologies. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But is it? Take smart meters, for example. They’ve been around since the early 2000s, yet consumers and third-party developers still struggle to access or integrate with them and their data. This is a major roadblock to the development of smart grids and smart buildings.
Ironically, the earliest smart devices were more capable than the newer ones. Today’s hardware is frequently stripped of features to reduce costs and focus solely on calculating the bill. This makes it easier for entrenched vendors to maintain control while making it more difficult to use this data for future needs outside of being used as a cash register for the utilities. This stifling of energy data limits interoperability for other uses while locking utilities into long-term vendor relationships, reducing flexibility and innovation while at the same time guaranteeing added revenue streams for existing market players every time there are changes to the system.
Today’s utilities are reliant on legacy staff, consultants and advisors who are incentivized to maintain the status quo. The result is a risk-averse environment where the game never ends, and the Monopoly game players rarely change positions.
Unlike other industries, the energy sector lacks dynamic, innovation-driven data standards. Market-driven standards often fail to gain traction because they are shaped by conflicting interests and lack openness. As a result, innovation stalls, and the industry becomes increasingly disconnected from global trends and the digital economy outside the old school energy industry.
Most energy data standards that aim to drive innovation fail—unless they serve to further entrench legacy systems. This process of building on outdated foundations is seen as normal in an industry where the Monopoly board never changes. In the age of digitization, this approach is outdated. Has the traditional method of energy standards development become obsolete and has anyone other than a few of us noticed?
The urgency to change this is Now. Other industries are rapidly evolving to address the challenges of cost, IoT integration, cybersecurity, and data privacy. The energy sector, however, only changes when forced by government policy. Even then, the process is slow, biased, and often controlled by the same Monopoly players so there are guarantees of revenue. The result? A flawed game board where innovation is stifled, and data management lags modern day expectations.
We live in a digital world where cyber threats are constant. Energy infrastructure is especially vulnerable because its standards evolve too slowly. When a breach occurs, it is often due to outdated systems, unresponsive vendors, or unsupported technologies. It is like someone nudging the Monopoly board. You know something is off, but it is easier to ignore than to figure out what really happened. Utilities just hope the board does not get bumped too often—because if someone looks too closely, they might see how fragile the system really is.
Energy standards are rarely ready for prime time. They are often flawed from the start, shaped by outdated processes, and managed by people who only look at the technology they have in place and understand, eventually aging out the evolution of well developed and tested standards. Standards become relics—symbols of red tape, individual self-interest, and strategic entrenchment to keep the players of the game safe. The energy industry must do better. It is not well-positioned to manage its own digital transformation while stuck in a game where the board never changes and the existing players never leave.
In today's Energy Monopoly Game there is never a winner. We live in a volatile digital economy—one where bad actors are constantly looking for ways to disrupt critical infrastructure. In the energy sector, the standards that are meant to improve efficiency often take years to evolve. Ironically, this slow pace creates risk on the very systems they are designed to protect.
When a cyberattack breaches an energy system, it is usually due to outdated IT practices, unresponsive legacy vendors, or the inability to retire unsupported systems. You know something is off, but you cannot quite tell what changed—so you ignore it and hope no one else notices. But the truth is, change is happening all around us. Innovation is accelerating so rapidly that it is only a matter of time before the entire game is upended.
Energy industry standards are rarely ready for prime time. They often suffer from fundamental flaws in how they’re created, tested, and managed. As the digital world evolves, these standards fall further behind. Eventually, they’re abandoned—not because they’re no longer needed, but because the people who maintained them have moved on or aged out. What’s left is a legacy of red tape and a lack of strategic entrenchment.
Our energy industry is not well-positioned to manage its own digital transformation. The Monopoly game being played is outdated, and the utilities are stuck in positions defined by legacy providers—while the rest of the world moves forward.
So, what’s the real issue? Is it the industry itself? Or is it the monopolistic traits embedded throughout the utility value chain? We see silos everywhere: siloed business units, siloed IT systems, siloed hardware, and siloed standards. It’s a system designed to isolate rather than integrate. That sounds a lot like a monopoly, doesn’t it?
In this industry, monopolies are hard to spot. Business is regionally controlled, company-focused, and government-regulated. Change is rare, and challenges are few. Most people don’t even remember how the game started, let alone who’s making the moves. We continue to view the industry in its fragmented state, reacting only to the roll of the dice or the card we’re dealt.
A glimpse at ‘What’s Next’ in this series. As a teaser for the next article, consider this: there must be a way out of this never-ending Monopoly game. It starts with the future. Do utilities and the governments that support them need to change the rules and create a new game board? Can they lead the next wave of energy evolution? We must look inward and remove the barriers—both technical and bureaucratic—that prevent progress and secure interoperability. That includes freeing up the energy data.
In the next installments, we’ll explore the Monopoly game being played within internal IT systems, and existing data exchanges. Because if you’ve ever played a game of Monopoly where no one wins and nothing changes, you know how it ends: boredom, frustration, and eventually, manipulation—until one player dominates and the rest give up. That’s not a game worth playing. But there’s hope. Are there untapped opportunities for utilities to become key players in the digital economy?
Innovation is here, and it’s not going away. Utilities, innovators, and customers can find a way to work together—if we are willing to change the game.