National Committee Member Kou Gang: Promote the implementation of "Electricity Renminbi" to strengthen the safety defense line of the energy industry chain through financial innovation

During the National Two Sessions, topics such as the green and low-carbon transformation of energy, the promotion of the "dual carbon" goals, and the security of the energy industry chain have become the focus of attention from all sectors. National Committee member and Director of the Big Data Research Institute at Southwest University of Finance and Economics, Kou Gang, accepted an exclusive interview with "China Energy News" regarding hot and difficult issues in related fields. Combining his own research and practice, he proposed several targeted proposals and suggestions covering key directions such as the synergy of "electricity-carbon-certificates," green electricity adaptation for computing power centers, the implementation of "electricity RMB," and innovations in green finance, providing advice for the high-quality development of China's energy sector. China Energy News: You have long focused on energy digitalization, energy finance, and green low-carbon transformation. Under the "dual carbon" goals, China's energy system is accelerating its transformation from traditional supply dominance to cleanliness, intelligence, and marketization. What are the current policy bottlenecks that need to be broken through in the coordinated construction of energy and carbon markets, green electricity trading mechanisms, and constraints on green energy use in computing power centers? What relevant proposals do you have for this year's National Two Sessions to better promote the green low-carbon high-quality development of energy? Kou Gang: The first issue is that the "electricity-carbon-certificates" three-market synergy mechanism has not yet been established. Currently, the green electricity trading market, the national carbon emission trading market, and the green power certificate system operate in parallel, but there are still issues with institutional connections where "each speaks its own language." The National Energy Administration has clearly proposed to "strengthen the coordinated connection of the electricity-carbon-certificates market," but at the implementation level, there is still no unified methodological standard between the carbon market's quota accounting and green electricity consumption accounting. This leads to enterprises facing the dilemma of repeated calculations or unclear deduction rules when participating in carbon market compliance and green electricity consumption assessments simultaneously. CCER is more inclined towards voluntary emission reductions, while green certificates focus on green electricity consumption. The two have different emphases in functional positioning, trading rules, and market positioning, but currently lack a top-level unified price signal mechanism for the three markets. My core suggestion in this year's proposals is to promote the establishment of a unified framework for electricity-carbon market synergy, connecting electricity trading and carbon emission quota compliance at the data level, so that total carbon emissions control truly has a quantifiable, traceable, and tradable closed-loop foundation. The second issue is that the precision of policies regarding green energy use constraints in computing power centers needs to be improved. The requirement for the proportion of green electricity in newly built data centers at national hub nodes should not be less than 80%, which is a correct direction. However, in reality, there is a significant mismatch between the regional distribution of computing power demand and the endowment of green electricity resources—computing power centers are mostly concentrated in the east, while high-quality renewable energy is mainly in the west. The issues of physical traceability of green electricity and cross-regional transmission certification restrict the quality of achieving policy goals. I propose to build a digital infrastructure ecological footprint management system that coordinates "electricity-water-computing," hoping to incorporate the electricity consumption, water usage, and carbon footprint of computing power centers into a unified digital management framework, promoting the layout of computing power to tilt towards areas rich in green electricity, thereby optimizing the ecological cost of digital infrastructure from the source China Energy News: You have conducted extensive research in the fields of energy big data, power finance, and international energy cooperation. In the context of profound adjustments in the global energy landscape and the accelerated construction of a new energy system in China, how can we enhance the stability and security of China's energy industry chain and supply chain through market-oriented tools, financial innovation, and digital governance? Under the premise of ensuring reliable energy supply, how can we balance the relationships between development and emission reduction, overall and local, short-term and medium to long-term? Kou Gang: At the level of market-oriented tools, the core is to promote the shift of energy pricing power from "passive acceptance" to "active participation." China is the world's largest energy consumer, with an oil import dependency exceeding 70% and natural gas over 40%. The annual import of fossil energy exceeds $440 billion, posing structural risks to energy security. To break this deadlock, on one hand, we need to accelerate the replacement of new energy to fundamentally reduce dependence on imported fossil energy; on the other hand, we should actively promote the path of "Electricity Renminbi." The "Electricity Renminbi" is not a new form of digital Renminbi or an independent settlement system, but an innovative mechanism for the internationalization of the Renminbi in the global energy sector, supported by asset securitization certificates and digital Renminbi. Specifically, it relies on overseas energy infrastructure investment and new energy power consumption scenarios, integrating photovoltaics, computing power, and new energy vehicles into a national-level solution of "low-cost energy + new productive forces" for systematic output to the world, especially to developing countries. In terms of financial innovation, the synergy between green finance and energy security is key. This year, the government work report proposed the establishment of a national low-carbon transition fund to cultivate new growth points such as hydrogen energy and green fuels, which is an important policy signal. I believe we also need to further innovate financial tools directly linked to the resilience of the energy supply chain, such as securitizing energy storage assets, establishing a guarantee mechanism for long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) for renewable energy projects, and guiding long-term low-carbon investment through price signals from carbon markets and green certificate markets. The innovative introduction of multi-year green power agreements has led to a trading scale of 60 billion kilowatt-hours by the end of last year, which is a beneficial attempt at the integration of financial tools and the energy market, worthy of further institutionalization and scaling. Regarding the balance between development and emission reduction, overall and local, short-term and medium to long-term, my basic judgment is that the essence of these three relationships is "overall planning," rather than "trade-offs." While precisely controlling carbon emissions, we should create more development space for efficient capacity release, achieving the goal of enhancing the overall economy and promoting high-quality development in the process of carbon reduction. This means that emission reduction is not the opposite of development, but an important lever to force industrial upgrading and improve total factor productivity. In balancing overall and local, during the 14th Five-Year Plan period, we should strengthen the bottom-line and strategic reserve role of fossil energy while promoting diversified supply and reserve capacity construction. That is, while developing new energy on a large scale, we should not prematurely abandon the regulatory function of traditional energy, which requires a differentiated governance framework based on regional resource endowment differences, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. In balancing short-term and medium to long-term, I believe the most important thing is to establish a predictable transition path. What enterprises fear most is not the pressure of carbon reduction, but policy uncertainty. Overall, the underlying logic of China's energy transition is correct Gradually replacing externally dependent fossil energy with self-controlled renewable energy is not only a way to reduce emissions but also a path to becoming a strong nation. The two are highly unified from a medium- to long-term perspective. Written by | Reporter Wang Changyao Produced by | China Energy News (cnenergy) Edited by | Zhao Fangting