parent-child relationship. Microgrids in the fractal grid can share their generation and services
with other microgrids to shave peak demand and
thereby increase the reliability of the whole
system, or they can island themselves to manage
generation and load independently. The Fractal
Grid Demonstration at Camp Pendleton military
camp in California and NRECA’s Agile Fractal
Grid are other examples of microgrids in a
parent-child relationship.
(2) Peer-to-peer electricity trading
Peer-to-peer electricity trading could allow individual owners of small-scale generation, storage
and demand resources to participate in electricity
markets. Currently, electricity is traded between
generators and large electricity suppliers. As
discussed above, virtual power plants are also
likely to enter the electricity market. In addition,
developments in peer-to-peer electricity trading
could facilitate individual owners of small-scale
generation, storage and demand resources to
trade electricity. Peer-to-peer energy trading is
being trialled at pilot scale in several small
microgrid networks. For example, the Brooklyn
Microgrid in New York connects generators,
distribution lines, batteries and load sources, with
trades and electricity flows tracked though the
blockchain distributed ledger.
If peer-to-peer trading is widespread, there
may be a reduced role for intermediaries in
operating the electricity system. Some commentators suggest that blockchain could automate the
active participation of large numbers of distributed resources, such that an intermediary, for
example, a virtual power plant, is not required. In
future, peer-to-peer electricity trading might take
place not only within a microgrid, but between
resources at the level of the distribution network,
and potentially the transmission network. It is
theoretically possible that sufficient automation
might reduce the role of system operators at the
distribution or even transmission system levels,
though it is likely that their core roles, managing
network constraints and maintaining system
security, will remain.
9.2 Analysis of Policy on the Reform
of State-Owned Energy
Enterprises in China
9.2.1 The Reform of State-Owned
Enterprises Since the 12th
Five-Year Plan (2011–15)
In November 2013, the Third Plenary Session of
the 18th CPC Central Committee deliberated and
adopted the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues Concerning
Comprehensively Deepening Reform, marking
the start of this round of reform of state-owned
enterprises. General Secretary Xi clearly
explained the status of state-owned enterprises
and the background of the reform in his statement on the Decision: “State-owned enterprises
are an important force that promotes the modernisation of the country and safeguards the
common interests of the people. After years of
reform, state-owned enterprises have, on the
whole, been integrated with the market economy.
Meanwhile, they need to be further reformed due
to the presence of some problems and drawbacks”. The key points for further deepening
reform are identified in the Decision: “China will
perfect the state-owned asset management system, strengthen the supervision of state-owned
assets primarily by means of capital management, reform the system of authorised operation
of state-owned capital, establish several
state-owned capital operation companies, and
support the reorganisation of state-owned enterprises into state-owned capital investment companies if conditions permit”.
As for important measures for deepening the
reform of state-owned enterprises, the Decision
sets out that, China will, first: “actively develop a
mixed ownership economy”, “allow more
state-owned sectors, and sectors with other types
of ownership, to develop into a mixed ownership
economy”, “allow non-state capital to participate
in state-owned capital investment projects” and
“encourage non-public ownership enterprises to
participate in the reform of state-owned enterprises, and encourage the development of mixed
ownership enterprises held by non-public
578
S. Yaodong and A. Gillespie
with other microgrids to shave peak demand and
thereby increase the reliability of the whole
system, or they can island themselves to manage
generation and load independently. The Fractal
Grid Demonstration at Camp Pendleton military
camp in California and NRECA’s Agile Fractal
Grid are other examples of microgrids in a
parent-child relationship.
(2) Peer-to-peer electricity trading
Peer-to-peer electricity trading could allow individual owners of small-scale generation, storage
and demand resources to participate in electricity
markets. Currently, electricity is traded between
generators and large electricity suppliers. As
discussed above, virtual power plants are also
likely to enter the electricity market. In addition,
developments in peer-to-peer electricity trading
could facilitate individual owners of small-scale
generation, storage and demand resources to
trade electricity. Peer-to-peer energy trading is
being trialled at pilot scale in several small
microgrid networks. For example, the Brooklyn
Microgrid in New York connects generators,
distribution lines, batteries and load sources, with
trades and electricity flows tracked though the
blockchain distributed ledger.
If peer-to-peer trading is widespread, there
may be a reduced role for intermediaries in
operating the electricity system. Some commentators suggest that blockchain could automate the
active participation of large numbers of distributed resources, such that an intermediary, for
example, a virtual power plant, is not required. In
future, peer-to-peer electricity trading might take
place not only within a microgrid, but between
resources at the level of the distribution network,
and potentially the transmission network. It is
theoretically possible that sufficient automation
might reduce the role of system operators at the
distribution or even transmission system levels,
though it is likely that their core roles, managing
network constraints and maintaining system
security, will remain.
9.2 Analysis of Policy on the Reform
of State-Owned Energy
Enterprises in China
9.2.1 The Reform of State-Owned
Enterprises Since the 12th
Five-Year Plan (2011–15)
In November 2013, the Third Plenary Session of
the 18th CPC Central Committee deliberated and
adopted the Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues Concerning
Comprehensively Deepening Reform, marking
the start of this round of reform of state-owned
enterprises. General Secretary Xi clearly
explained the status of state-owned enterprises
and the background of the reform in his statement on the Decision: “State-owned enterprises
are an important force that promotes the modernisation of the country and safeguards the
common interests of the people. After years of
reform, state-owned enterprises have, on the
whole, been integrated with the market economy.
Meanwhile, they need to be further reformed due
to the presence of some problems and drawbacks”. The key points for further deepening
reform are identified in the Decision: “China will
perfect the state-owned asset management system, strengthen the supervision of state-owned
assets primarily by means of capital management, reform the system of authorised operation
of state-owned capital, establish several
state-owned capital operation companies, and
support the reorganisation of state-owned enterprises into state-owned capital investment companies if conditions permit”.
As for important measures for deepening the
reform of state-owned enterprises, the Decision
sets out that, China will, first: “actively develop a
mixed ownership economy”, “allow more
state-owned sectors, and sectors with other types
of ownership, to develop into a mixed ownership
economy”, “allow non-state capital to participate
in state-owned capital investment projects” and
“encourage non-public ownership enterprises to
participate in the reform of state-owned enterprises, and encourage the development of mixed
ownership enterprises held by non-public
578
S. Yaodong and A. Gillespie