CPPCC National Committee Member Kou Gang: Promote the implementation of "Electric Power RMB" and strengthen the security of the energy industry chain through financial innovation

During the National Two Sessions, topics such as green and low-carbon energy transformation, the advancement of the “dual carbon” goals, and energy industry chain security have become focal points of attention across various sectors. Kong Gang, a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and Director of the Big Data Research Institute at Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, was interviewed exclusively by China Energy News. Combining his research and practical experience, he proposed several targeted suggestions and proposals covering key areas such as “electricity—carbon—certificates” coordination, green energy adaptation in computing power centers, the implementation of “electricity Renminbi,” and innovation in green finance, offering advice for high-quality energy development in China.

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 shift from traditional supply-led models to cleaner, smarter, and market-oriented approaches. Could you share what the most critical policy bottlenecks are in the current efforts to coordinate energy and carbon markets, green electricity trading mechanisms, and green energy constraints in computing centers? What proposals do you have for the upcoming National Two Sessions to better promote high-quality, green, and low-carbon energy development?

Kong Gang: The first issue is that the “electricity—carbon—certificates” three-market coordination mechanism has not yet been fully integrated. Currently, the green electricity trading market, the national carbon emissions trading market, and the green power certificate system operate in parallel, but there are still inconsistencies in their institutional linkages. The National Energy Administration has explicitly called for strengthening the coordination among these markets, but at the implementation level, there is no unified methodology standard for carbon quota accounting and green electricity consumption accounting. This results in companies facing difficulties such as double counting or unclear rules for deductions when participating in both carbon compliance and green electricity consumption assessments. CCER (Chinese Certified Emission Reduction) leans more toward voluntary emission reductions, while green certificates focus on green electricity consumption. Although both serve different functions and have distinct trading rules and market positioning, there is currently a lack of a top-level unified price signal mechanism linking the three markets. My core proposal this year is to promote the establishment of a unified “electricity—carbon” market coordination framework, integrating electricity trading and carbon quota compliance data to create a closed-loop system that makes total carbon emission control truly quantifiable, traceable, and tradable.

The second issue concerns the policy precision of green energy constraints in computing power centers. The requirement that new data centers at national hub nodes must have at least 80% green energy is a positive direction. However, there is a clear mismatch between regional demand for computing power and the availability of renewable energy resources—most computing centers are concentrated in the east, while high-quality renewable energy is mainly in the west. The physical tracing and cross-regional transmission certification of green electricity limit the effectiveness of policy goals. I propose building a “electricity-water-computing” coordinated digital infrastructure ecological footprint management system, aiming to include the electricity consumption, water usage, and carbon footprint of computing centers into a unified digital management framework. This would promote the deployment of computing resources in regions rich in green energy, optimizing the ecological costs of digital infrastructure from the source.

China Energy News: You have conducted extensive research in 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 domestic energy system, how can market-based tools, financial innovation, and digital governance enhance the stability and security of China’s energy industry supply chain? Under the premise of ensuring reliable energy supply, how can we balance development and emission reduction, overall and local interests, as well as short-term and long-term goals?

Kong Gang: On market-based tools, the most crucial step is to shift energy pricing power from “passive acceptance” to “active participation.” China is the world’s largest energy consumer, with over 70% dependence on imported crude oil and more than 40% on natural gas. Annual imports of fossil fuels exceed $440 billion, posing structural risks to energy security. To address this, we need to accelerate the replacement of fossil fuels with new energy sources to fundamentally reduce reliance on imports. Additionally, promoting the “electricity Renminbi” pathway is essential. This is not a new form of digital Renminbi or an independent settlement system but an innovative mechanism supported by asset securitization certificates and digital Renminbi, aimed at internationalizing the Renminbi in the global energy sector. Specifically, leveraging overseas energy infrastructure investments and new energy electricity consumption scenarios, integrating photovoltaic, computing power, and new energy vehicles into a “low-cost energy + new productivity” national solution, and systematically exporting it to the global market, especially to developing countries in the south.

In terms of financial innovation, the synergy between green finance and energy security is key. The government’s work report this year proposed establishing a national low-carbon transformation fund and fostering new growth points such as hydrogen energy and green fuels—an important policy signal. I believe further innovation is needed in financial instruments directly linked to energy supply chain resilience, such as securitizing energy storage assets, establishing long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) guarantees for renewable energy projects, and using price signals from carbon and green certificate markets to guide long-term low-carbon investments. The introduction of multi-year green power agreements has already seen a transaction volume of 60 billion kWh by the end of last year, demonstrating a beneficial integration of financial tools and energy markets, which should be further institutionalized and scaled.

Regarding balancing development and emission reduction, overall and local interests, and short-term and long-term goals, my fundamental view is that these relationships are essentially about “overall planning” rather than “trade-offs.” While precisely controlling emissions, we should also create more space for efficient capacity release and promote high-quality development. This means that emission reduction is not opposed to development but a lever to upgrade industries and improve total factor productivity. For the balance between overall and local interests, during the 14th Five-Year Plan period, we should strengthen the role of fossil fuels as a safety net and strategic reserve, while promoting diversified supply and reserve capacity building. Large-scale development of renewable energy should not lead to an early abandonment of traditional energy’s balancing functions; this requires a regional resource-based differentiated governance framework rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. For short-term versus long-term balance, establishing predictable transition pathways is crucial. The biggest concern for enterprises is not the pressure to reduce emissions but policy uncertainty. Overall, China’s energy transition logic is sound: gradually replacing external dependence on fossil fuels with domestically controlled renewable energy is both a path to emission reduction and a way to strengthen the nation. In the medium to long term, these goals are highly aligned.