Utility billing integration: the agent reads one contract and does not send the market message.

Four ways a billing agent breaks on day one

The two shapes already on the table, and why both stop short

The first shape is the assistant the vendor shipped. Schleupen has MAIA for documentation and announced a model hub on 27 January 2026. Wilken announced GY:PT on 11 March 2026, inside GY and ENER:GY, to explain process steps. Both are useful to a clerk who is already in that screen. A question that starts in the contract and ends in the network, or in the schedule, never leaves the product.

The second shape is a copy of the database, or one technical user that the model queries. PwC's February 2020 study already listed how wide these suites are: billing, market communication, device management, and often the ledger. A login that can read all of that answers a question the asking person is not allowed to ask. At a municipal utility the same person is not in supplier, grid and metering-point roles at once, and the system usually is.

Lemgo and Rosenheim show which suite a utility of this size is moving to, not a percentage of the market. PwC wrote in February 2020 that the survey could not support market shares. Schleupen states that every fourth German Stadtwerk uses Schleupen.CS. Lemgo is moving 65,000 supplier contracts off SAP IS-U onto Schleupen.CS, posted into the SAP general ledger. Rosenheim, about 90,000 contracts, signed on 7 July 2026 to do the same for supplier, grid and metering, with a target of the first quarter of 2028. kVASy took Strausberg, Ludwigsfelde and Neuruppin off IS-U on a contract dated 29 July 2025. Wilken did not sit in the PwC study; Stadtwerke SH still put more than 200,000 market locations on ENER:GY. WinEV, in that same 2020 study, billed more than 3 million customers. Those five are the billing systems a 300-person utility is choosing among. msu and Somentec sit in the same size band. powercloud sits with the larger installations.

What the agent is allowed to be

Use cases

What a billing agent can do on each system

Read 6 October 2026. PwC, February 2020, is the size band. Schleupen, Wilken, SIV and the two Stadtwerke press releases are the later facts. Cells that say the interface is unpublished are unpublished.

Schleupen.CS, the one published path

Three steps, and the third is a refusal

Wilken, kVASy, IS-U and WinEV stay on the comparison above with an empty tool list. An empty list is the finding, until that installation shows a read.

Policy, not a live call

Three lines. The first binds the call to a person. The second names a read that exists on Schleupen.CS. The third is the market message, which is absent on purpose.

caller: session-token under the asking user
allow: slp_energy_quantity, changed_locations, business_partner
deny: send_market_message

On Wilken, kVASy and WinEV the allow list stays empty until that installation shows a read. An empty list is a result.

Sources: PwC, Marktstudie ERP-Systeme in der Energiewirtschaft, February 2020 · Schleupen SE, company page: every fourth German Stadtwerk · Schleupen press note, 24 June 2025, more than 300 utilities · Schleupen, Stadtwerke Lemgo, 65,000 contracts off SAP IS-U · Schleupen, Stadtwerke Rosenheim, 7 July 2026, about 90,000 contracts · E&M, SIV replaces SAP IS-U at three Brandenburg municipal utilities, 29 July 2025. Read 6 October 2026. Vendor documentation changes; verify against the current release.

The same customer, the other two stores

• Network assets: Smallworld, Lovion, SAP PM — the meter and the house connection are not in the billing contract
• Energy data: BelVis, Robotron, SOPTIM — the schedule is a different system, and the agent still may not send it
• Schleupen integration — the named reads and the AS4 limit, on the connector page