A Three-Dimensional Analytical Framework: Textual Analysis and Comparison of Chinese and US Energy Blockchain Policies

Abstract

With the development of blockchain technology in various fields, attempts have been made by the US and China to apply it to the energy industry. This study constructed a three-dimensional policy analysis framework of “policy instrument–innovation value chain–policy level” and added the industry field research perspective. It summarises the energy blockchain policies of China and the US from 2016 to 2022 and compares the differences between the two countries. This study shows that both countries pay attention to the application of environmental-based policy tools and that there is an imbalance between the internal structure of supply- and demand-based policy tools. The energy blockchain policies are more focused on application. China and the US lack policy support in basic research and exploitation, respectively. The US energy blockchain policy distribution at the policy level is relatively uniform, while China’s energy blockchain policy has an inverted pyramid structure, with many policies at the strategic level. From the perspective of industry, the energy blockchain policies of China and the US mainly involve the new-generation information technology industry and the new energy industry. The US should reform its energy policy structure and give full play to various policy tools, while China should strengthen basic research to lay the foundation for the practice of the energy blockchain.

1. Introduction

The climate crisis is a common challenge facing humankind, and the only effective way to deal with it is a unified response to globalisation. Under this premise, countries around the world have put forward the goal of carbon neutrality. The US government’s carbon reduction commitment is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% from 2005 levels by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2050. The Chinese government has also set a clear target of reaching a carbon peak by 2030 and being carbon neutral by 2060 [1]. Achieving the above goals requires not only the optimisation and adjustment of the energy structure but also profound changes in all aspects of society and the economy. During the post-COVID-19 economic recovery, countries worldwide have announced relevant development strategies and policy measures in the field of energy. At present, the global energy system is transitioning to a new energy order. In this context, countries are starting to develop new uses for blockchains, leading to the transformation of blockchain technology from being a traditional financial application to an instrument for empowering the energy industry. Blockchain technology can be a catalyst for the green and low-carbon transformation of the energy mix. Blockchains have application potential in energy blockchain scenarios such as new energy clouds, power trading, quality services, data sharing, safe production, energy financing, distributed transactions, clean energy popularisation, and other links of the energy trading chain. This is expected to significantly change the energy industry in the future.

Governments worldwide have acknowledged the importance of energy blockchain technology for their green development. Many countries, including the US, Germany, and the UK, have issued national strategies and formulated relevant policies to promote the development and application of energy blockchains. This has been followed by the offering of significant government financial support, which aims to play an important role in the development of blockchain technology in the energy field. However, the purposes and methods of these policies differ across countries [2] and even across provinces or states. This indicates an urgent need to clarify and determine the law of application and the internal logic of energy blockchain policies. To our knowledge, although many scholars have studied energy blockchains and blockchain policies, no study has undertaken the analysis of energy blockchain policies. Most of the existing studies are theoretical discussions or policy explanations, which do not offer any specific analysis of energy blockchain policies, let alone any in-depth discussions from the perspective of policy instruments.

The United States and China, the world’s largest energy consumers and greenhouse gas emitters, both face enormous pressure to reduce carbon emissions through energy reform, and the two countries have also published the largest number of papers on blockchains [3]. The collapse in oil prices and passive production cuts caused by the pandemic had a huge impact on the energy economy of the two countries. Although they are committed to establishing energy blockchain projects and distributed power stations through a series of policies, the development and application of energy blockchains are still in their infancy, and their innovation process will inevitably encounter “market failure” problems, such as the high cost of technology research and development, high investment risks, and non-exclusive innovation income. These market deficiencies require policy guidance and support [4]. Innovation policy, as an institutional arrangement covering a wide range of industrial activities, helps to compensate for market failures and improve the overall innovation capability and comprehensive advantages [5]. Due to the technical characteristics of blockchains, different countries have different levels of acceptance of blockchains into the energy industry; therefore, the government plays an important role in the development of the energy blockchain and promulgates policies to promote its development. In light of this, it is of great practical significance to study the energy blockchain policies between China and the United States.

This study chiefly aimed to analyse and compare the energy blockchain policies of these two superpowers and grasp the characteristics and deep logic of the energy blockchain. It attempted to answer the following questions: In China and the US, what are the problems involved in the application of policy tools for the energy blockchain? What are the characteristics of the application of energy blockchain policies? Why are they different? What internal logic and laws are involved? This paper grasped the situation of energy blockchain policies between China and the US so as to find the similarities and differences in the development of the energy blockchain industry between these two countries, accurately identify the opportunities and challenges of China’s energy blockchain technology, and then put forward countermeasures and suggestions for the development of the energy blockchain industry.

The structure of this paper is as follows: the first section introduces the research background and motivation of this research; the second section expounds the basic principle of blockchains, briefly analyses the reasons for and ways of combining blockchain technology with energy systems, and then introduces the policy text analysis methods; the third section introduces the data source and research framework; the fourth section presents the analysis results; in the last section, an overall summary of the research findings and a discussion are presented, and the policy improvement measures of the US and Chinese governments for the energy blockchain are proposed; finally, the limitations of this study and possible future research directions are proposed.

2. The Literature Review

2.1. Blockchain Technology

With the in-depth development of the digital economy, the new-generation information technology represented by blockchains has become a hot topic among academics all over the world. Blockchain technology, the core supporting technology of the digital cryptocurrency system represented by Bitcoin, originated from Satoshi Nakamoto’s paper “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” [6]. It is being increasingly integrated into various fields and industries, from the information technology [7] and finance [8] to the law [9] and economics [10]. It is becoming a vital force globally by restructuring factor resources, reshaping the economic structure, and changing the competition pattern. Presently, no industry-recognised definition exists for blockchains. A blockchain, as the name suggests, is a “block + chain” algorithm and database storage technology whose core is a decentralised store of information and data [11]. According to the US Executive Order, “blockchain” refers to a distributed ledger technology where data are shared across a network to create a digital ledger of verified transactions or information among network participants, often using encryption to link data to maintain the integrity of the ledger and perform other functions, such as information sharing, evidence storage, and efficient collaboration.

Blockchains are widely regarded as the fifth disruptive innovation in the computing paradigm [12]. People are increasingly becoming interested in blockchains, and the root of this interest and excitement is blockchains’ ability to enable transactions between strangers by relying on encryption software algorithms running on distributed computing networks, thus establishing secure peer-to-peer interactions through which immutable, tamper-proof shared ledger can be coordinated in real time [13]. A blockchain is characterised by openness, autonomy, immutability, decentralisation, reliability, and anonymity [14]. Specifically, except for account privacy information that is encrypted, other data are open to all people or participants. Data records can be queried through the open interface, and the information is highly transparent. The blockchain system is operated and maintained by all nodes in the network, and there is no unified governing body. The self-scheduling and ecological operation of the system are emphasised in the energy Internet. Each node contains the same content of data, which is linked to a chain according to the chronological order of its generation. New blocks can only be added to the blockchain after successfully competing for a decentralised consensus process, and each block is protected by encryption technology. Thus, once a transaction record is added to the blockchain, it cannot be tampered with or corrupted. The integrity of each block’s data in the chain is thus guaranteed. Tampering with information in a blockchain is extremely difficult: more than 51% of the nodes must agree to change the information in all of them. A blockchain can thus serve as a secure distributed ledger, which effectively, persistently, and verifiably documents all transactions between any two parties in an open networked system without any intermediaries [15]. These advantages are based on a series of key underlying mechanisms, including the time-stamped blockchain structure, digital signatures, the consensus mechanism of distributed nodes, economic incentives based on consensus computing power, and the programmable smart contracts [16].

Ever since the concept of blockchain was proposed, the academic community has actively explored it, offering significant support for its wide application. The literature has mainly reviewed the latest progress, technical differences, and connections of blockchains from the perspectives of principles, systems, and challenges and summarised and explored blockchains’ application value. According to Risius and Spohrer [17], studies related to blockchains have mainly focused on the technical issues of design and functionality, ignoring application, value creation, and governance. Currently, the core topics of policy research on blockchains include the policy framework, attributes, impacts, and suggestions for improvement. Specifically, the existing research can be divided into macro policy analysis and micro policy analysis. At the level of macro policy analysis, Kuo and Shyu [18] provided a comparative policy framework for the theoretical analysis of blockchain technology in China and the US, analysing the blockchain policies of the two countries from the perspective of 12 policy tools and offering reference for the policy planning of different stakeholders. Based on patent analysis and social network analysis, Jiang et al. [2] compared the blockchain policies of China and the US and studied the differences in the impact of blockchain-related policies on the relevant patent applications and regional innovation in the two countries. At the level of micro policy analysis, Novak [19] studied national cases of blockchain policies, offering insights into the policy attributes of distributed ledger technology adaptation for policymakers and blockchain practitioners. Due to the high level of privacy protection provided by blockchain-based systems, much of the focus of blockchains is on their ability to fundamentally change the financial industry (digital currency, crowdfunding, cross-border bank payment, etc.) [18] and to verify the identity of individuals and assets [20]. Recently, the concept of Blockchain 3.0 has been proposed to represent the non-financial applications of distributed ledger technology in the fields of medicine, smart tourism [21], intellectual property, energy, supply chain, etc. [18]. The impact of blockchain technology thus extends beyond the financial sector [22]. It can be used to solve some problems in the construction of the energy Internet so that it can be better understood as a revolution in the energy sector [12].

2.2. Energy Blockchain Technology

Energy blockchain refers to the application of blockchain technology in the energy sector [23]. Based on blockchains, it combines traditional energy with new energy, promoting the development and utilisation of new energy while accelerating its efficient and clean utilisation [12,24]. According to a blockchain white paper published by the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology in 2021, blockchain application models can be divided into three categories: on-chain value transfer; on-chain collaboration; and on-chain storage. Focusing on the energy field, energy trading and carbon trading belong to on-chain value transfer; distributed energy production is on-chain collaboration, and carbon verification and green electricity traceability refer to the performance of the on-chain storage. The reason why blockchain technology is developing in the energy industry is that the energy system is one of the most complex systems in the world, accumulating massive data information in all links of the energy supply chain. In view of the characteristics of the energy industry, which involves many stakeholders, various business types, and long chains, we must urgently solve the problems of the lack of transparency, corruption, high centralisation, high management costs, etc. [25]. The characteristics of blockchains provide a solution to the above issues. Owing to blockchains’ technical characteristics—immutability, traceability, openness, and transparency—they could yield a significant positive impact on sustainable energy consumption [26,27].

The main challenges in the energy sector are as follows:

Lack of transparency and trust. In many countries around the world, energy systems are commonly associated with poor regulation and low transparency, which can lead to deliberate manipulation of future energy supplies to the detriment of citizens and states [28]. Take power dispatching as an example. Dispatching centres have been criticised for their unfair and opaque dispatching mode. This trust problem is caused by the centralised dispatching mode. Understanding how to properly supervise the dispatching agency and require it to disclose relevant information to the market participants is an important problem;

High centralisation. Governments around the world have natural monopolies in the energy sector because the energy supply chain involves complex infrastructure systems, numerous institutions and jurisdictions, and a large number of end users [25]. Centralised decision-making management models lead to a waste of time and resources, easily breeding corruption [29];

High management costs. Due to a large number of participants in the energy system, the strong complexity of the system, the ambiguity of identity, the diversity and distribution of resources, and other characteristics, the direction of energy flow, information flow, and capital flow is complicated. The transaction management costs in the process of energy flow and value flow are greatly increased;

Weak coordination ability. The value chain of the energy industry has not been broken through, and many links, such as the source, network, load, and storage, have not been deeply integrated. There are extensive frictions in the transactions between all links.

As shown in Figure 1, energy application scenarios are highly consistent with the concepts of openness, decentralisation, distribution, interconnection, and intelligence of blockchain technology. Its underlying infrastructure and the distributed system can effectively support energy financing, distributed trading, and carbon footprint recording throughout the entire life cycle of energy trading [30], meeting the full range of energy demands [31]. Moreover, it can offer a safer and markedly efficient economic market environment as well as a visible, credible, and reliable regulatory environment for energy trading. In the “dual carbon” age, blockchain technology can help build a reliable and efficient energy market and platform [32], enhancing the vitality of the energy trading market, building a flexible and interactive energy trading mode of energy trading subjects, institutions, governments, and other subjects, and realising the full storage and sharing of energy trading chain data. In this sense, promoting blockchain technology development is a crucial aspect of the global energy transformation [33,34]. Some energy utilities are interested in exploring the potential benefits of blockchain technology as a driver of the low-carbon transition and sustainable development, expecting blockchains to offer new solutions to administrative vulnerabilities and the challenges faced by the energy industry, for example, barriers to market entry and fair competition arising from asymmetric information [35,36].

At present, the research on energy blockchains is still at the level of theoretical research and architecture design. Real working energy blockchains are still rare. The United States, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and other regions have used blockchains for distributed power generation trading and have all carried out pilot projects. Energy blockchain projects in the US include LO3 Energy’s Brooklyn Microgrid project and WePower’s blockchain-based green energy trading platform. At present, most energy blockchain projects in the US are still dominated by independent research and development of enterprises, but government-led enterprises can more easily build capital and economies of scale while ensuring energy security. China’s energy blockchain technology research and development and application scenarios are in full swing. Although China has conducted several energy blockchain projects—the National Energy Blockchain Laboratory, the Shekou Energy Blockchain project (China’s first blockchain community public service project), the Snochem Group Blockchain Oil Imports Pilot project, the “Small Oil Steward Platform”, the Shanghai Gas Energy Blockchain Project, the Energy Blockchain Laboratory carbon asset development project, the State Grid Shanghai Electric Power distributed photovoltaic settlement project based on blockchain, etc.—most of them imitate the projects of developed countries. The representative application scenarios of energy blockchains in the US and China are shown in

Table 1. Summary of energy blockchain application scenarios in the US and China.

Country	Application Scenario	Project	Project Features
The United States	Distributed energy trading	LO3 Energy’s Brooklyn Microgrid project	Smart meters provide users with real-time data on power generation, electricity consumption, and energy transactions through a blockchain.
The United States	Distributed energy trading	Wepower Platform	This platform allows renewable energy producers to issue their own energy tokens to raise funds, and WePower is connected to energy infrastructure and energy trading markets to bring energy trading and energy sales directly to market if there is not enough demand on the platform.
The United States	Distributed energy trading	US Department of Energy Laboratory and BlockCypher cooperation project	This project connects energy producers and consumers directly, enabling power producers, transmission network operators, distribution network operators, and energy suppliers to trade at multiple levels.
The United States	Electric vehicle charging and sharing	JuiceNet Internet of Things platform P2P charging	This project combines the two major needs of electric vehicle charging and sharing and uses distributed networks to realise convenient charging and trading.
China	Distributed energy trading	The Shekou Energy Blockchain project	Users can directly choose to use clean energy on the platform, and the platform will use blockchain technology to generate smart contracts, which will directly match the peer-to-peer virtual transactions between the power station and users, and issue authoritative e-certificates for users to prove that they are using clean energy electricity.
China	Optimisation of the energy commodity trading process	Shanghai Gas Energy Blockchain Project	This project realises the links of key data in the business processes of “tank storage”, “making pick-up orders”, and “gas station loading” of liquefied natural gas and supports the link data query.
China	Carbon emission permits and green trading	Energy Blockchain Lab carbon asset development project	By issuing digital assets based on certified carbon reduction, this platform includes participants in all aspects of carbon asset development in a blockchain-based shared, collaborative, and distributed trusted ledger to achieve blockchain-based document and data transfer. The project also involves electric vehicle account management, distributed photovoltaic electricity sale settlement, virtual power plant assessment plans, etc.
China	Renewable energy subsidies	State Grid Shanghai Electric Power distributed photovoltaic settlement project based on blockchain	This project introduces blockchain technology to the application, measurement, collection, and electricity fee calculation of photovoltaic settlement.

.

According to several researchers, the application of blockchain technology in the energy sector would promote the coordination of various forms of energy and participants and achieve the diversification and cost reduction of energy transactions. Mihaylov et al. [37] introduced a blockchain to the energy market and proposed a new virtual currency to be used in the energy trading paradigm in smart grids. Chapron [38] highlighted that blockchains could support the sustainable development of a circular economy by building trust and tracing energy consumption. Truby [39] analysed the negative environmental externalities of blockchains and discussed how to reduce the energy consumption of blockchains without harming the development of the blockchain industry. Noor et al. [40] proposed a model to optimise energy efficiency by introducing a blockchain to achieve a decentralised demand-side management approach. Ahl et al. [41] explored the potential challenges of blockchain-based P2P microgrids and developed an analytical framework for P2P microgrids to offer a theoretical basis for the establishment of blockchains in the energy sector. Wang et al. [42] developed an optimised model and blockchain-based architecture to manage the operation of crowdsourced energy systems (CESs), including P2P energy trading transactions, to support seamless P2P energy trading between individual producers and/or utilities. Van Leeuwen et al. [43] designed a blockchain-based integrated energy management platform that optimises energy flow in microgrids while implementing a bilateral transaction mechanism.

Sceptics, however, argue that blockchains’ energy-intensive design has been proven false [39]. Mining pollutes, and the resource-intensive nature has caused excessive environmental damage through high power consumption and emissions. In addition, blockchain application in the energy field still has many limitations. Forms, such as the application of clean energy and distributed generation, require the integration of blockchain technology with various links in the energy sector chain [30], and this combination is heavily influenced by energy regulatory policies and other types of energy policies. However, relevant norms and standards have not yet been fully established [12].

2.3. Policy Analysis Method

The policy literature measurement method used in this research is a quantitative analysis of the structural attributes of the policy literature. This method introduces the disciplinary methods of bibliometrics, sociology, mathematics, statistics, etc., into the policy analysis so as to reveal the policy theme, objectives, and impacts, the cooperation mode of policy subjects, and the structure and evolution of the policy system. From the perspective of research methods, the measurement of the policy literature belongs to descriptive inference, that is, the use of observed values to derive conclusions that are difficult to directly observe. Among these methods, research on policy subjects usually employs the network analysis method, and the density, connectivity, centrality, and clustering coefficient among policy subjects are displayed in the form of a network [44]. Owing to the cooperative relationship between policy subjects and some policy objectives, a cooperative network is formed. Many scholars are devoted to researching network relations, such as policy-making organisation networks [45] and public service organisation networks [46].

To study how policies are implemented, what effects they produce, and to predict the potential impact of specific policy instruments, some policy researchers regard policy instruments as the interface between policy subjects and policy goals. The so-called policy instrument refers to the specific ways and approaches through which the policy subject realises the policy goal in implementing the policy. The classification of policy instruments is the basis of policy tool analysis, and only a rational classification of policy instruments can ensure their successful application. However, there are many classification models of policy instruments in academia. According to the role of policies in science and technology activities, this study used the classification idea of policy instruments proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld [47] and classified the policy instruments related to energy blockchains into supply, environment, and demand. This classification method can guide the construction of a policy system purposefully. Countries differ in the development of the energy industry and have different emphases on the introduction of blockchain technology. This classification takes into account the organisational level of policy instruments and the internal and external factors of their application—this is conducive to analysing the actions of the Chinese and US governments. The analysis of the dimensions of the innovation value chain is helpful in exploring the degree of national emphasis on different links of research, exploitation, and application. Research on the policy-level dimension helps to infer the development of energy blockchain. The analysis of each dimension alone is not comprehensive. Therefore, the three dimensions complement and support each other. Combined with other scholars’ research on the framework of public science and technology policy analysis, a three-dimensional framework of blockchain policy text analysis was constructed. In this paper, the energy blockchain policies of the United States and China were coded according to the structure of “policy instrument–innovation value chain–policy level” through text analysis. If multiple policy instruments are used in the same policy provision, all of them are recorded. In order to ensure the reliability of the data analysis [48], the coding work was first carried out by one of the authors of this paper and then checked by another author of this paper. The coders discussed the points of disagreement and finally reached an agreement.

Owing to blockchains’ short history, the basic research on them, especially their presence in the energy industry, is not thorough [23]. Existing studies provide important references, but there is still some room for further development: (1) The United States and China are large countries with multiple states and provinces. The existing literature focuses on the research of development at the national level, ignoring the significance of local energy blockchain policies for narrowing the inter-regional development gap; (2) Energy blockchain policy texts are an important basis for policy implementation, but the existing literature mainly studies policy implementation, mostly discussing the principles, application scenarios, legal risks, and other issues of energy blockchains and rarely involving in-depth analysis of the content of the policy text; (3) In terms of research objects, existing studies on energy blockchains are mainly aimed at developed countries such as the United States and Germany. We must urgently consider the policy differences between developed and developing countries to find out the structural defects of their policies and optimise them; (4) In terms of research methods, most studies only use qualitative or quantitative methods to reflect different aspects of policies, and few studies build a three-dimensional analysis framework for energy blockchain policies. Existing studies have not carried out further analysis of energy blockchain policies from the perspective of the industry field, combined with a three-dimensional analysis framework composed of policy tools, innovation value chain, and policy level.

In view of the pioneering and complex characteristics of energy blockchains as a new technology, energy blockchain policy plays a more obvious role in guiding and supporting their sustainable development. Our policy analysis method helps to analyse the focus and preference of energy blockchain policies in China and the US from multiple aspects and perspectives and to find out the policy types that need to be further improved and perfected so as to benefit the development of energy blockchains.

3. Method and Data

3.1. Data Sources and Collection

First, we visited PKULAW.com, a website that collects Chinese laws, regulations, and policies. We searched for the keyword “energy blockchain”. The keyword search scope was not limited to the title; we also wanted to find all sentences with “energy blockchain” in the articles. To ensure no policy was omitted, we searched the national and local government portals, such as the National Energy Administration, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. To collect documents related to energy blockchains in the US, we searched the Library of Congress, the official website of Congress, and www.westlaw.com (accessed on 17 July 2022). To ensure the representativeness, pertinence, and accuracy of the collected policies, we screened them according to the following principles: First, in terms of policy types, texts that did not directly express the government’s will—approval, reply, notification of project, subject application, and technical regulations—were excluded. Those with policy effects—implementation opinions, plans, and laws and regulations—were selected. Second, since the term “energy blockchain” was proposed when the world’s first energy blockchain lab was established in 2016, the scope of this study was limited to documents from January 2016 to June 2022. We then screened and eliminated duplicate texts caused by forwarding and joint posting. Finally, we obtained 19 and 74 policy texts at the central and local levels of China, respectively, and 14 and 24 policy texts at the federal and state levels of the US, respectively.

3.2. Analysis Framework

To conduct a more objective and holistic analysis of energy blockchain policies, this study drew from the policy tool theory of Rothwell and Zegveld. Furthermore, it combined other scholars’ research on the policy analysis framework of science and technology innovation to build a three-dimensional analysis framework for energy blockchain policy texts (Figure 2).

3.2.1. X Dimension: The Policy Tool of Energy Blockchain

Based on the level at which they affect technological innovation, Rothwell and Zegveld [47] divided policy instruments into three categories: supply-based; environmental-based; and demand-based. This classification reduces the dimension of the complex innovation policy system from the perspective of tools and measures, which has significant intra-dimensional aggregation validity and inter-dimensional differentiation validity, as well as strong target pertinence and content guidance. Since this classification method has been recognised and used by many scholars, this study adopted it to analyse energy blockchain policies. As shown in Figure 3, supply-based policy tools are shown as the driving force of policies on energy blockchains, which means that the government directly expands the supply, improves the supply of related elements of the energy blockchain, and promotes its development through the support of talents, information, technology, and capital. Supply-oriented policy tools can be subdivided into information, scientific and technological support, education, and public enterprise. Environmental policy tools refer to the role the government plays in influencing and penetrating energy blockchain research and development through indirect factors, regulating the interests of all the parties involved in the development environment of energy blockchains, and indirectly promoting the development of energy blockchains. Specifically, this means that the government influences the environmental factors of energy blockchains through policies, such as finance, taxation systems, regulations, and political measures, so as to provide a favourable policy environment for energy blockchain development. Demand-based policy tools refer to the government reducing market uncertainty through procurement and trade control measures and actively exploring and stabilising the market of the energy blockchain industry so as to promote the development and utilisation of energy blockchain technology. Demand-based policy tools can be divided into government procurement, public services, trade control, etc. The types of energy blockchain policy instruments and their main implications are shown in

Table 2. Types of energy blockchain policy instruments and their main implications.

Types of Policy Instruments	Names	Implications for Energy Blockchain Policy Instruments
Supply-based	Information	Policies to encourage the marketisation of the energy blockchain include the establishment of information networks and centres, databases, consultation and liaison services, etc.
	Scientific and technical	Government actions to promote the development of science and technology, such as establishing research laboratories and supporting research associations and professional associations.
	Education	Government policies for the education system, such as university general education, blockchain technology education, discipline development related to blockchains, and internships.
	Public enterprise	Measures related to the establishment and management of public enterprises, such as the innovation of public industries, the establishment of new industries, and the pioneering use of the energy blockchain by state-owned enterprises.
Environmental-based	Financial	Financial assistance to enterprises, including loans, subsidies, financial sharing arrangements, equipment, premises, services, loan guarantees, and export credits.
	Taxation	Tax incentives will be provided to companies and individuals engaged in energy blockchain research, production, investment, and consumption, such as tax reduction and exemption.
	Legal and regulatory	Measures to regulate the energy blockchain market, including patents, environmental and health regulations, inspectors, and monopoly regulations.
	Political	Short-term strategic measures to assist the development of the energy blockchain, such as planning regional policies, innovation honours or awards, encouraging mergers or consortia, and public consultation.
Demand-based	Procurement	Central or local government procurement regulations related to energy blockchain projects or services, such as government procurement, public utilities procurement, and procurement contracts.
	Public services	Supporting service measures for energy blockchain development, such as maintenance, supervision, and innovation in health services, construction, transportation, and telecommunications.
	Commercial	Restrictions on or incentives for import and export trade, including trade agreements, tariffs, and currency regulations.
	Overseas agent	The government establishes or assists enterprises in setting up various branches overseas, such as establishing overseas trade organisations.

Source: Organized from this research.

.

3.2.2. Y Dimension: Innovation Value Chain of Energy Blockchain

The policy division of a single dimension cannot fully describe all the characteristics of energy blockchain policies but must also consider the internal activity rules and characteristics of energy-blockchain-related industries, which is an important factor to be considered in the process of formulating energy blockchain policies. The Y dimension, i.e., the innovation value chain, is proposed from the perspective of the integration of technology innovation theory and value chain theory. The promotion of energy blockchain policy is consistent with the value realisation process of the innovation value chain in terms of connotation and structure. Hansen and Birkinshaw [49] proposed the concept of the innovation value chain by decomposing the innovation process and explained the internal relationship between the generation, transformation, and dissemination of innovation. An innovation value chain refers to the process of putting forward an innovation source, transforming the innovation source into a new product, and realising the innovation value of the new product’s marketisation. Bamfirld [50] proposed a more detailed classification of the innovation value chain, including research and development, industrialisation, public sector promotion, and private sector promotion.

After reviewing the literature, we used the value realisation process of the innovation value chain to describe the growth process of energy blockchain policy to promote the related industries and technologies. According to the law of technology life cycle and value chain activities, we divided the innovation value chain into three dimensions—research, exploitation, and application—to conduct detailed and phased research on the growth of energy blockchains. Among these dimensions, research is the starting point of scientific and technological innovation. It is mainly through knowledge innovation, scientific research, and other key nodes of blockchain technology that breakthroughs in the energy sector are made. Exploitation refers to the packaging and assembling technologies critical to a breakthrough needed to build a new product or technology, and exploring new possible applications of the energy blockchain is also included. Application, the last stage of scientific and technological innovation, entails promoting new technologies, new processes, and new products to the market in order to gain profits and form new industries.

3.2.3. Z Dimension: The Level of Energy Blockchain Policy

According to the different levels of policies, we divided the policies into three types: strategic level; guidance level; and implementation level. A strategic-level policy mainly grasps the direction of the energy blockchain, which is of macro-guiding significance and mainly contains the long-term planning outline and the major action plan. A guidance-level policy entails the initial concretisation of the energy blockchain policy at the strategic level. Aiming to guide the development of science and technology for small- and medium-sized enterprises and various industrial parks, this type of policy is manifested in the form of guidance opinions. The third type of policy, the most basic and concrete implementation-level policy, aims to implement policies from the basic level through some specific tax incentives, talent policies, government procurement, scientific and technological investments, financial support, and other means. These policies can play an effective role only under the guidance and leadership of the strategic and guidance layers and by specifically including implementation plans, action plans, and work arrangements.

4. Results

4.1. General Situation Analysis

4.1.1. Trends in the Number of Policies

Based on the data collected, we show the year-by-year evolution of the number of energy blockchain policies issued by China and the United States from 2016 to 2022 (see Figure 4).

4.1.2. Textual Analysis of Energy Blockchain Policies

Figure 5 shows a word cloud map of China and the United States’ energy blockchain policies at the national and local levels. In China, the documents issued at the central level are all documents containing the content of the energy blockchain rather than files specifically for the energy blockchain. It shows that words such as “energy”, “technology”, “development”, “block”, “construction”, “data”, and “management” appear more frequently. Among them, “energy” and “technology” appear more frequently than other words, reflecting the present focus of China’s central level on accelerating the application of technology exploration in the energy field and promoting not only the integrated development of digital technology represented by the blockchain and the energy industry but also the development of the energy industry in the direction of low carbon and high efficiency. Moreover, the frequency of “application”, “construction”, and “management” among all the words is relatively high, demonstrating that the central level of China emphasises the application of energy blockchain technology and takes the technological innovation of the energy blockchain as the main tone of policy support. It attaches great importance to the application of blockchain technology in the energy sector and emphasises the optimisation and improvement of energy management through the construction of smart energy networks, smart microgrids, green digital centres, and other systems. At the local level, it shows that “block”, “energy”, and “technology” appear most frequently, indicating that local governments, similar to the central government, emphasise the application of blockchain technology in the energy sector. The frequency of “development”, “planning”, “industry”, and “data” is relatively high, indicating that the local governments emphasise the frontier layout and overall planning of the energy blockchain and that they promote the collaborative innovation and development of the energy industry and the information technology industry. Moreover, the local governments attach importance to the landing and implementation of the energy blockchain and encourage the exploration of “blockchain +” and application scenarios, such as charging infrastructure, energy trading, energy supply chain, and carbon trading market.

Through an in-depth study of 14 policy texts at the federal level of the US, we found that the policies related to the energy blockchain at the federal level are mainly stipulated in bills and reports. The word cloud of the US federal-level energy blockchain policy texts shows that “energy” and “blockchain” appear most frequently, followed by “digitalisation”, “technology”, “nature”, and “climate”. This shows that the US federal level pays great attention to the impact of energy on climate and the environment and that it hopes to promote the application of digital technologies, such as the blockchain, in the energy field through a series of bills and explore the potential uses of the blockchain, such as monitoring greenhouse gas emissions, promoting the low-carbon transformation of the energy industry, and reducing the environmental impact of greenhouse gases. At the state level, similar to the federal level, “energy” and “blockchain” are the most frequently used words in the relevant policy texts, followed by “encryption”, “power”, “customer”, “service”, “company”, and “application”. This shows that the US states are focusing on the implementation of energy blockchain policies by establishing renewable energy credit systems, building data centres, and developing incubators to serve the public, companies, and other customers.

4.2. Application Analysis of Sino–US Energy Blockchain Policies Based on Three-Dimensional Structure

To conduct more detailed research on energy blockchain policies and better process the data, 131 policy texts were imported into NVivo12 software, and the in-depth analysis results are as follows.

4.2.1. Three-Dimensional Analysis of China’s Energy Blockchain Policies

At the central level, the statistical results (

Table 3. Distribution of the energy blockchain policy nodes in China.

Dimension	Tree Node	Child Node	Node Number at Central Level	Node Number at Local Level	Coverage at Central Level	Coverage at Local Level	Total (Central)	Total (Local)
Policy tool	Supply-based	Information	1	3	5.26%	4.05%	31.58%	31.08%
		Scientific and technical	4	17	21.05%	22.97%
		Education	1	0	5.26%	0.00%
		Public enterprise	0	3	0.00%	4.05%
	Environmental-based	Financial	0	0	0.00%	0.00%	57.89%	52.70%
		Taxation	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
		Legal and regulatory	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
		Political	11	39	57.89%	52.70%
	Demand-based	Procurement	0	0	0.00%	0.00%	10.53%	14.86%
		Public service	1	11	5.26%	14.86%
		Commercial	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
		Overseas agent	1	0	5.26%	0.00%
Innovation value chain	Research		1	7	5.26%	9.97%	100.%	100.%
	Exploitation		6	9	31.58%	11.54%
	Application		12	62	63.16%	79.49%
Level	Strategic		7	53	36.84%	71.62%	100%	100%
	Guidance		12	18	63.16%	24.32%
	Implementation		0	3	0.00%	4.05%

) show that, among the 19 documents related to the energy blockchain, more than half of them are environmental-based policy instruments (57.89%), followed by supply-based policy instruments (31.58%), with demand-based policy instruments accounting for the lowest proportion (10.53%). The analysis of energy blockchain policies in the dimension of the innovation value chain shows that the number of energy blockchain policies concerning the application is the highest (63.16%), followed by the number of policies on the exploitation stage (31.58%), with policies on basic research being the least substantial (5.26%). Regarding the policy level, there are seven energy blockchain policies at the strategic level, accounting for 36.84% of the total number of texts. There are 12 policies at the guidance level, accounting for 63.16% of the total sample, while at the implementation level, there are 0 policies.

At the local level in China, the proportions of various types of policies, as Table 3 shows, were obtained. Among the 74 policy texts, the three types of policy instruments account for 14.86% (demand-based), 31.08% (supply-based), and 52.70% (environmental-based) of the total. Concerning the innovation value chain, the policies related to research, exploitation, and application show a pyramid shape, accounting for 9.97%, 11.54%, and 79.49%, respectively. In the dimension of the policy level, most policies are at the strategic level (71.62%), followed by the guidance level, accounting for 24.32%. Only three policies are at the implementation level (4.05%).

4.2.2. Three-Dimensional Analysis of US Energy Blockchain Policies

Table 4. Distribution of energy blockchain policy nodes in the US.

Dimension	Tree Node	Child Node	Node Number at Federal Level	Node Number at State Level	Coverage at Federal Level	Coverage at State Level	Total (Federal)	Total (State)
Policy tool	Supply-based	Information	0	0	0.00%	0.00%	28.57%	37.50%
		Scientific and technical	4	9	28.57%	37.50%
		Education	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
		Public enterprise	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
	Environmental-based	Financial	0	2	0.00%	8.33%	64.29%	62.50%
		Taxation	1	3	7.14%	12.50%
		Legal and regulatory	6	6	42.86%	25.00%
		Political	2	4	14.29%	16.67%
	Demand-based	Procurement	0	0	0.00%	0.00%	7.14%	0.00%
		Public service	1	0	7.14%	0.00%
		Commercial	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
		Overseas agent	0	0	0.00%	0.00%
Innovation value chain	Research		3	10	21.43%	41.67%	100%	100%
	Exploitation		2	1	14.29%	4.17%
	Application		9	13	64.29%	54.17%
Level	Strategic		11	4	78.57%	16.67%	100%	100%
	Guidance		3	10	21.43%	41.67%
	Implementation		0	10	0.00%	41.67%

shows the analysis results of the energy blockchain policies in the US. At the federal level, there are 14 policy documents. When it comes to policy instruments, similar to China, the US federal policy instruments also tend to use environmental policy instruments (64.29%), followed by supply and demand policy instruments, accounting for 28.57% and 7.14%, respectively. Concerning the Y dimension, energy blockchain policies at the federal level are involved in various fields, accounting for the following proportions from high to low: application (64.29%); research (21.43%); and exploitation (14.29%). Concerning the policy level, the energy blockchain policies at the federal level are mainly strategic policies, accounting for 78.57% of the total number of texts, and there are three policies at the guidance level, accounting for 21.43% of the total number of texts. The specific application level is missing, as is the case at the central level in China.

At the state level, it can be clearly seen that the policy tools of energy blockchain policies are still dominated by environmental policy (62.50%) and supplemented by supply-based policy (37.50%). Concerning the innovation value chain, energy blockchain policies at the state level focus on supporting the research (41.67%) and application stages (54.17%) but offer little support to the exploitation stage (4.17%). Concerning the policy level, the distribution level of the energy blockchain policies in the US states is relatively uniform, with 41.67% being at the guidance and implementation levels and 16.67% at the strategic level.

4.2.3. Further Analysis of Energy Blockchains in China and the US from the Perspective of Industry

Energy blockchains are mainly applied in emerging industries. Therefore, policies related to energy blockchains are also mainly concerned with emerging industries. Different industrial fields have their own characteristics and needs, which require a scientific layout and coordinated development. Therefore, this study includes the industry sector in the three-dimensional analysis framework of energy blockchains and attempts to analyse the situation of energy blockchain policies in different emerging industry sectors. This study refers to the Reference Relationship Table of Strategic Emerging Industries Classification and International Patent Classification (2021), and divides emerging industries into nine categories: new-generation information technology industry; high-end equipment manufacturing industry; new material industry; biology industry; new energy automobile industry; new energy industry; energy conservation and environmental protection industry; digital creativity industry, and other service industries. From the analysis, policies related to energy blockchains only involve the new-generation information technology industry, new energy automobile industry, new energy industry, energy conservation and environmental protection industry, and related service industries. As shown in

Table 5. Comprehensive analysis of quantisation proportion of energy blockchain policies from the perspective of emerging industries.

China				The United States
Industry	Policy Tool (%)	Innovation Value Chain (%)	Policy Level (%)	Industry	Policy Tool (%)	Innovation Value Chain (%)	Policy Level (%)
New-generation information technology industry (51.61%)	S 25.00	r 4.00	s 77.08	New-generation information technology industry (31.58%)	S 25.00	r 41.67	s 41.67
	E 56.25	e 14.00	g 18.75		E 75.00	e –	g 41.67
	D 18.75	a 82.00	i 4.17		D –	a 58.33	i 16.67
New energy automobile industry (2.15%)	S 100.00	r –	s 100.00	New energy automobile industry (0.00%)	S –	r –	s –
	E –	e –	g –		E –	e –	g –
	D –	a 100.00	i –		D –	a –	i –
New energy industry (27.96%)	S 61.54	r 18.52	s 61.54	New energy industry (36.84%)	S 42.86	r 21.43	s 35.71
	E 26.92	e 18.52	g 38.46		E 50.00	e 21.43	g 28.57
	D 11.54	a 62.96	i –		D 7.14	a 57.14	i 35.71
Energy conservation and environmental protection industry (15.05%)	S 57.14	r 6.67	s 21.43	Energy conservation and environmental protection industry (18.42%)	S 42.86	r 71.43	s 57.14
	E 35.71	e 20.00	g 71.43		E 57.14	e –	g 42.86
	D 7.14	a 73.33	i 7.14		D –	a 28.57	i –
Related service industry (3.23%)	S 33.33	r –	s 66.67	Related service industry (13.16%)	S 20.00	r –	s 20.00
	E 66.67	e –	g 33.33		E 80.00	e –	g 20.00
	D –	a 100.00	i –		D –	a 100.00	i 60.00

, this paper combines the industries involved in the policy with the three-dimensional policy analysis framework to analyse the quantitative situation of energy blockchain policies of various industries in different dimensions. Policy tools, including supply-based, environmental-based, and demand-based, are represented by S, E, and D. The research, exploitation, and application stages of the innovation value chain are denoted by r, e, and a, respectively. The policy level is divided into the strategic, guidance, and implementation levels, and they are represented by s, g, and i, respectively.

4.3. Comparison of Energy Blockchain Policies in China and the US

4.3.1. Analysis of the Main Factors of Sino–US Energy Blockchain Policies

By analysing the network diagram derived from Gephi, we found that, from the perspective of policy-issuing subjects, most of China’s energy blockchain policies at the central level are in the form of joint publications. In contrast, the US tends to publish policies independently through each agency, and there exists no network relationship among the policy-issuing entities (Figure 6 and Figure 7). As Figure 7 shows, the National Energy Administration, the National Development and Reform Commission, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in China have more connections with other nodes, and joint publications are more frequent. According to the Ucinet data, the top three nodes in absolute centrality (Degree) and standardised centrality (NrmDegree) are the National Energy Administration (22.000, 26.190), the National Development and Reform Commission (20.000, 23.810), and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (19.000, 22.619). The centralisation and heterogeneity of the whole node relationship network are 17.26% and 2.11%, respectively.

4.3.2. Comparison of Energy Blockchain Policies between China and the US

Table 6. The weight ranking of policy instruments in the USA and China.

China			USA
Policy Instrument	Rank	Coverage	Policy Instrument	Rank	Coverage
Political	1	53.76%	Scientific and technical	1	34.21%
Scientific and technical	2	22.58%	Legal and regulatory	2	31.58%
Public service	3	12.90%	Political	3	15.79%
Information	4	4.30%	Taxation	4	10.53%
Public enterprise	5	3.23%	Financial	5	5.26%
Education	6	1.08%	Public service	6	2.63%
Overseas agent	7	1.08%

shows the ranking of energy blockchain policy tool adoption in China and the United States. Figure 8 shows two comparative scatter diagrams of US and Chinese energy blockchain policies in the innovation value chain dimension and policy level dimension to highlight the policy priorities of each country.

5. Conclusions and Policy Implications

5.1. Findings and Discussion

(1)

As can be seen in Figure 4, the trend of energy blockchain policy issuance in China and the United States has been increasing year by year. Obviously, from 2016 to 2019, the number of policies issued by both countries was small. This shows that the two countries have begun to explore the use of blockchain technology in the energy sector and introduced policies to encourage it. Since 2020, the number of energy blockchain policies in China has increased rapidly, while the US has shown a steady increase. As shown in this investigation, the two countries have confirmed the rationality of energy blockchains and have begun to promote them gradually.

(2)

From the perspective of the objectives and basic directions of the use of policy tools in China and the US, the word clouds (Figure 5) show that both the Chinese and US governments consider technology application the primary goal of energy blockchain development and regard technological innovation as the foundation of energy blockchain development. The difference is that China’s energy blockchain policies are more purposeful and pay more attention to policy output or policy effects. Development and application are the overall goals of China’s energy blockchain policies. The US government, similar to the Chinese government, emphasises the application of energy blockchain technology, discussing the integration of the blockchain and other digital technologies as policy support. The overall strategy of the US for energy blockchain technology support focuses on services and research, while China focuses on industrial landing. Overall, for the policy application of energy blockchain development, both countries have a clear functional distinction in their policy positioning. Presently, the countries highlight the use of environmental-based policy tools committed to building consensus and establishing a preliminary institutional framework to create a suitable social ecosystem for the development of the energy blockchain. At the same time, the countries highlight that scientific and technological support, among the supply-based policy tools, can help the development of the energy blockchain.

(3)

Comparison of energy blockchain policy profiles at the central and provincial levels in China.

In China, the energy blockchain policy at the central level takes into account the use of the policy tools of supply, environment, and demand, indicating that the current energy blockchain policy supports the application of blockchain technology in the energy field from various angles and fields in different ways. The only environmental policy tool is political measures, which is also the most frequently used (57.89%), indicating that the central energy blockchain policies are more based on top-level design and overall planning. Regarding the application of supply-based policy tools, scientific and technical measures (21.05%) are used the most because the application and development of the energy blockchain require a high technical level and infrastructure. Compared with the other types of policy instruments, demand-based policy tools are used the least (10.53%). The “overseas agent” is mainly used to expand overseas markets, but, at present, the development of the energy blockchain industry in China is still in the developmental stage in the domestic market. Therefore, the main target of the policy is not the overseas agent. In general, the development of the energy blockchain industry relies mainly on environmental policy tools. The application of energy blockchain policy tools at the central level is mainly based on the global perspective, committing to removing obstacles and creating a suitable external environment for the development of the energy blockchain. Moreover, it can be seen that while the policies on basic research are few, China’s central energy blockchain policies focus chiefly on the application and exploitation of blockchain technology in the field of energy, as well as the development and exploration of new functions of blockchains. From the perspective of the policy level, China’s central energy blockchain policies mainly focus on the strategic layer and the guidance layer without any specific provisions at the implementation level. This may be because the guidance layer of energy blockchain policies involves the gradual expansion and implementation of strategic-layer policies, which can be said to be the supporting implementation policies of strategic-layer policies, so their number shows an increasing trend. However, since the implementation of the energy blockchain is currently in the exploration stage, a basic direction and goal must be determined first before determining a concrete implementation plan.

At the provincial level, compared with demand-based policies, supply-based policy tools are used more frequently, indicating that local governments are focusing on the development of the energy blockchain industry. Among them, the proportion of scientific and technical measures is 22.97%, showing that local governments attach great importance to the role of science and technology in the construction of the energy blockchain industry. There is no significant difference in the use of environmental policy tools and supply-based policy tools, indicating that local governments are also committed to providing a relaxed environment for the development of the energy blockchain. Political measures account for the largest proportion of the environmental policy tools, indicating that local governments hope to offer incentives for the development of the energy blockchain industry by improving policy systems and mechanisms. However, there is a significant lack of demand-based policy tools. Presently, local governments mainly drive the application of the energy blockchain through public services. Local governments pay attention to industrial input and accelerate industrial application. However, the policy support from local governments at the research and development level of the energy blockchain is insufficient. Regarding the policy level, the proportions of strategic, guidance, and implementation policies show an inverted pyramid shape. The energy blockchain policy support at the local level is more strategic than the policy support at the central level.

(4)

Comparison of energy blockchain policy profiles at the federal and state levels in the US.

The US regulatory system follows a two-tier federal and state structure. In regard to the policy at the federal level in the US, among environmental-based policy instruments, legal and regulatory measures account for the highest proportion (42.86%), probably because most policies that relate to the energy blockchain at the federal level exist in bills and acts. From the perspective of the innovation value chain, it is shown that the US federal level focuses on the development of energy blockchain application and supports it, to a certain extent, in the research and exploitation stages. Concerning the policy level dimension, energy blockchain policy at the federal level is concentrated at the strategic (78.57%) and guidance levels (21.43%), with no policies at the implementation level.

At the US state level, a variety of environmental-based policy tools are involved, but supply policy tools only use scientific and technical measures. Demand-based policy tools are missing. Moreover, the policy tools of energy blockchain policy at the state level are used unevenly, and there exists no reasonable resource allocation for policy-making. With respect to the innovation value chain dimension, energy blockchain policies at the state level focus on research (41.67%) and application (54.17%), while development only accounts for 4.17%. In the policy level dimension, it is shown that the states have gradually begun to implement the practical application of the energy blockchain, which is consistent with the rule of policy-making. In general, it can be seen that the US states are working hard to provide a favourable policy environment for the development of the energy blockchain. Consistent with the study of Zhao et al. [51], the growth of energy requires good policy support. Regulatory policies vary from state to state in the United States, and energy blockchains are more likely to thrive in some regions with looser regulatory policies.

(5)

From an industry perspective (see Table 5), China’s energy blockchain policy gives the most support to the new-generation information technology industry, accounting for 51.61%, followed by the new energy industry and the energy conservation and environmental protection industry. It is also involved in the new energy automobile industry and related service industries. However, the energy blockchain policy of the US gives the most support to the new energy industry, followed by the new-generation information technology industry, and does not involve the new energy automobile industry. The policy distribution of each industry in different dimensions is basically consistent with that of the whole country.

(6)

Comparison of network relationships among policy-issuing agencies.

As shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, under the US model, the energy blockchain policy is proposed by each agency independently, and there is no joint publication by each agency. Most energy blockchain policies are sent in the form of bills, indicating that compared with China, the United States is more focused on legalising policies through legislation to improve the legal status of its energy blockchain policies. This kind of energy blockchain policy passed in the form of laws and bills has strong execution and high efficiency. In fact, during the Trump administration, although the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not make blockchains one of the priorities of the US federal government, several other government departments began to support blockchain research and development. The US Department of Homeland Security has funded Florida International University’s new platform for blockchain technology research and development and the University of North Dakota’s blockchain-based network security protection system for fossil fuel power generation. The National Science Foundation has also funded the “Transformable Storage + Blockchain Module for Distributed Energy” project. However, since the energy blockchain involves multiple sectors—energy, natural resources, and science and technology—it is inevitable that the separate formulation of policies by each sector could lead to duplication or even conflicts, which could weaken the authority and consistency of policies and confuse the energy industry. In China, it can be seen that the distribution of institutional relations on energy blockchain policy published at the central level is not concentrated on a few “centre” nodes; instead, the figure shows the characteristics of a non-single centre with three major institutions as the main part and other institutions as the auxiliary. This type of node–network relationship is also the embodiment of China’s new nationwide system. Through multi-agency collaboration, the interests of different agencies are taken into account. However, this also increases the difficulty of policy implementation and the uncertainty of the division of responsibilities between departments.

(7)

Comparison of energy blockchain policy structure and issues between China and the US.

From the perspective of the subdivision steps of environmental-based policy instruments, the order of choice of China’s policy instruments is markedly different from that of the United States. China used political policies (53.76%), aiming to build an environment conducive to development. Among the environmental-based policy tools in the US, various types of environmental-based policy tools are involved, and the US pays more attention to the use of laws and regulations (31.58%), indicating that its government is not eager to pursue economic benefits but to comprehensively create a suitable environment for the development of the energy blockchains from various aspects, such as finance, taxation, and law. The reason is that blockchains, which have both technical and social attributes, have long gone beyond the scope of technological competition for disruptive technological breakthroughs in the energy industry and have become a major focus of national comprehensive competitiveness. Therefore, the United States’ energy blockchain policy tools give priority to the use of scientific and technical support and legal regulations, which is also expected to defend the United States’ leading position in the global energy blockchain field. This is also consistent with the long-term governing tone of the United States government. Among the environmental-based policy tools, China’s weak links are the financial support policy tools, tax incentives, and laws and regulations, which have proportion of 0% at present. The US has proportions of 5.26%, 10.53%, and 31.58%, respectively, which shows that the US has carried out practical explorations of these tools for the development of the energy blockchain, while China is still in the exploratory stage. In addition, the US energy blockchain fiscal policy tool is also relatively weak (5.26%), significantly lower than the proportion of the other three policy tools, indicating that China and the US still need further follow-up in terms of financial support.

From the perspective of the subdivided measures of supply-based policy tools, China has explored all types of supply-based policy tools. Among them, the most important measure is science and technology support (22.58%), which aims to promote new economic growth points through investment and infrastructure construction. In contrast, the US has some deficiencies concerning supply-based policy. It uses only science and technology support, and the coverage of other tools is 0%, indicating a relatively simple use of supply-based policy tools.

Demand-based policy tools in both China and the US account for the lowest proportion (only 13.98% in China and 2.63% in the US), indicating that the current energy blockchain policies in the two countries have not focused on the demand level of the blockchain industry and that the overall application of energy blockchain technology is still in its infancy. Moreover, specific projects for industrial development and government services have not been widely implemented.

Overall, in China, demand-based policy tools are scarcely used. Environmental-based policy tools provide a clear direction for energy blockchain development, but compared with demand- and supply-based policy tools, they mainly play a role of indirect influence and infiltration, and the proportion of the use of the other two types of policy tools is too small, especially demand-based policy tools, which is not conducive to directly promoting the rapid development of energy blockchains. Although more than half of the policy tools are environmental-based, they are only political measures, lacking tax incentives, financial support, strategic policies, and regulations. Presently, most of the environmental-based policy tools in China are still in the target and strategic planning stage, and tax incentives, financial policy tools, laws and regulations, and other policy tools among the environmental policy tools remain in the preliminary exploration stage. The use of policy tools in the United States is also not comprehensive, and the internal structure of supply- and demand-based policy tools is unbalanced. Among the supply-based policy tools, there are only science and technology support policies, while the proportion of important consulting services, education, and public enterprise is zero, which will result in a lack of necessary public resources supporting measures for the development of the energy blockchain industry. Moreover, demand-based policy instruments accounted for the lowest proportion, with only public services being used. Consequently, the entire energy blockchain policy tool structure is seriously unbalanced, and serious polarisation exists. The use of environmental-based policy tools is excessive, while the use of supply- and demand-based policy tools is largely blank.

Comparing the innovation value chain dimensions of the energy blockchain policies in China and the US (Figure 8), it can be seen that the policies of the United States and China in the innovation value chain dimension basically cover the whole process of energy blockchain development, but there are still differences in policy selection sequences and preferences. Compared with China’s pyramid structure, the US takes application and research as the main initiative to promote the development of the energy blockchain. This shows that, in promoting the development of the energy blockchain, China prefers technology application to drive the development of technology, summarises experiences and problems from practice, and makes gradual improvements. The US, on the other hand, emphasises application and research simultaneously. American enterprises, research and development institutions, military, and think-tank foundations have always been in the dominant position in basic research, and the market of scientific and technological research and development is very active, which is why the United States pays attention to the basic research of energy blockchains. This structural model is not only conducive to technology research and development but also able to gain real knowledge from practice.

The industrial policy of the energy blockchain emphasises more applications and less research and exploitation, which is inconsistent with China’s emphasis on strengthening basic research to lay a solid foundation for scientific and technological innovation. China is eager to seize the major strategic opportunities in the development of new fields and build a first-mover advantage in China’s blockchain development. However, the current policy structure can lead to an inadequate research base, giving the impression of a quick fix. Being too pragmatic can also easily lead to the use of policy tools that focus on short-term effects, the overuse of strategic measures, and the insufficient use of policy tools, such as technical support, public services, and R&D investment. Although China’s policy structure emphasises application, it neglects support for basic research, which is an important reason why China has been imitating developed countries in terms of the energy blockchain but has never surpassed them. This shows that China’s R&D investment in the development of the energy blockchain is its biggest weakness, which must be strengthened in the future. Application is goal-oriented, but China’s institutional advantage of focusing on achieving big things is essential for the research and exploitation of the energy blockchain in the early stage of development.

The US pays attention to policy innovation and technology research, and it is building a solid foundation for the development of the energy blockchain, as well as pursuing steady and down-to-earth development. However, the proportion of research policies is only 8.25% in China. This shows that the Chinese government pursues quick and more visible short-term economic benefits, whereas its structure of policy tools in the innovation value chain dimension is unbalanced. In the US energy blockchain policy, research and application account for a large proportion, while development accounts for the smallest—only 7.89%—and there is a lack of policy support in the transition stage between research and application.

China’s energy blockchain policy shows an inverted pyramid shape, while strategic, guidance, and implementation policies are evenly distributed in the US policy. This demonstrates that, in promoting the development of the energy blockchain, China takes strategic policies as its guidance and goals, and its policy application is more goal-oriented to ensure energy security and a stable supply and to increase the capacity and efficiency of energy production. Although China places more emphasis on implementation in the innovation value chain dimension, the policies related to implementation exist more in long-term development plans and other documents. On the other hand, the US emphasises the formulation of strategic, guiding, and practical policies simultaneously. This structure is more targeted and conducive to the stable development of the energy blockchain and policy implementation. China’s energy blockchain policies mostly focus on the strategic level and exist in the “14th Five-Year Plan” of various industries without specific implementation opinions and guidance. In particular, policies issued by local governments more or less tend to “follow the central government”, “chase hot spots”, and “blindly invest”, which deviates from the original intention of energy blockchain policy and the realistic demand for economic development. Though there has been a boom in new policies, many of the existing policies actually focus on similar topics, such as new energy storage development, blockchain development, and reform in the energy sector, with some of them merely mechanically repeating instructions from higher authorities. This phenomenon is contrary to the usual law of policy-making, which is not conducive to the concrete implementation of the energy blockchain. This may be because the policy formulation of China’s energy blockchain development is still in the initial stage, and understanding how to activate the energy blockchain application market and realise the reform of the traditional energy structure is still in the exploratory stage. Therefore, the application of predictable and adaptable policy tools at the central and local levels remains a major issue that needs to be further explored in the development of the energy blockchain.

In order to achieve the long-term strategic goal of maintaining America’s international competitiveness, Biden has made energy one of his top priorities since taking office, attaching great importance to the interaction between climate change, energy consumption structure, and industrial structure. In contrast to Mr Trump’s policy of “energy dominance”, Mr Biden launched a coordinated push on the energy and climate agenda, announcing a return to the Paris Agreement and the goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2050. Unlike China, the US, which engages in scientific and technological innovation, has a strong foundation in information, computer algorithms, finance, and other technologies related to the energy blockchain. Its emphasis on the basic research of blockchain technology has achieved promising results, and its policies in the application and implementation stages account for a larger proportion than China’s, indicating that the energy blockchain in the US has been put into practical application and is no longer limited to the guidance of top-level design. The United States, which has a relatively high level of market economy development, has always followed the principle of “big market and small government” and paid attention to strengthening and giving play to the role of market players, such as social partners in the development of artificial intelligence. The US Department of Energy is one of the main departments promoting energy blockchain technology research in the US. The request for the project calls for the development of new concepts for the energy system and the use of blockchain technology to ensure the stability of the energy system. Domestically, the US Department of Energy and other institutions are actively promoting the innovation and application of the energy blockchain. Internationally, the State Department is responsible for actively conducting energy and climate diplomacy with other countries. Organisations are working together to promote the development of blockchains in the energy sector. However, the US ignores the balance in the use of policy tools, especially the lack of demand-side policy tools, which needs to be considered and improved.

5.2. Conclusions

Lin-Yun Huang et al. [52] used patent analysis technology to explore the development trend of a blockchain energy system and analysed the research and development priorities of various countries concerning energy blockchains, having reference value for the policy inspiration of energy blockchain technology patent distribution. Dao-Shun Zha et al. [53] used the bibliometric analysis method to systematically analyse the literature, policies and regulations, national cooperation, and other aspects in the field of “blockchain + energy”, providing references for future blockchain research, application model innovation, and related policymakers. On the basis of the existing research, this study built a three-dimensional policy analysis framework, added the industry field analysis perspective, and discussed the energy blockchain policies of China and the US at the national and local levels, aiming to find structural differences in energy blockchain policies in China and the US and their impact on the energy blockchain industry. This work studied the energy-blockchain-related policies in the two countries from 2016 to 2022. The results offer valuable information to governments and relevant agencies and may help them make effective decisions to guide the development of energy blockchain technology. Our main conclusions are put forward from three different analytical dimensions:

(1)

Concerning policy tools, both China and the US tend to use environmental-based policy tools, followed by supply-based policy tools. Demand-based policy tools are the least frequently used. A change in the energy demand side can largely determine the future energy structure and the timing of the carbon peak. However, demand-based policy tools have single uses in both China and the US. Their internal structure is unbalanced, and many types of policy tools are underused;

(2)

Concerning the innovation value chain dimension, the energy blockchain policies of China and the US pay more attention to practical applications. The difference is that China has a pyramid structure and lacks policies in basic research, while the US lacks policy support in the exploitation stage. Research is the foundation of technology development and application. If a blockchain is hastily applied to the energy sector without sufficient knowledge and technical preparation, China can only superficially imitate and catch up with the achievements of developed countries; it will not be able to surpass them or lead the development in this field. According to China’s development status, the proportion of policy used for the energy blockchain, from high to low, should be research, exploitation, and application instead of the current inverted pyramid. As for the US, development is the combination and improvement of the existing key and core technologies to create new products or technologies. The small proportion of investment in development will affect the process and scope of commercialisation and industrialisation. The US should thus appropriately increase the proportion of its use of development policies;

(3)

Concerning the policy level, the distribution of energy blockchain policies in the US is relatively uniform, and the policies at all levels are relatively complete, which is conducive to ensuring the implementation of policies. However, as already mentioned, China has an inverted pyramid structure, with more policies at the strategic level and fewer policies at the implementation level. Presently, the basic purpose of China’s energy blockchain policies is to encourage the energy industry to use the blockchain for technological innovation and industrial optimisation. However, the implementation effect is not good, mainly because these policies are mostly concentrated at the strategic level, and there is a lack of guidance at the application level, which hampers policy implementation.

5.3. Policy Implications

In both China and the United States, the carbon-neutral goal is a backwind mechanism that links energy, the environment, and high-quality economic growth. Given the strong relevance and importance of energy to production and life, carbon peak planning requires balancing system costs and building system solutions to achieve high-quality economic growth. Based on the above analysis of the three-dimensional structure, this study puts forward systematic policy suggestions for the utilisation of the energy blockchain to optimise the energy structure and achieve carbon neutrality.

The US should improve and reform its energy blockchain policy structure, giving full play to various policy tools. Since the policy of the United States is mainly aimed at the application and research fields, the United States should improve the problems found in the process of research and practical application and find solutions in practice. As an important force promoting the development of blockchains globally, the US should take the lead in building standards for blockchain technology to maximise its value. Moreover, the US should strengthen the cooperation between the government and enterprises, promote the combination of production, education, and research, and develop more possibilities for energy blocks. The development of the open source community in the United States is more advanced than in other countries, so the United States should provide more opportunities and support for the development of the open source community and provide lessons for other countries.

While the use of blockchains in the energy sector has many benefits, it is important to prevent such innovation from exceeding the ability of the United States to evaluate energy blockchains. The United States should strengthen the analysis of the rights and responsibilities involved in the application of energy blockchain technology, establish a scientific energy blockchain evaluation system, and evaluate the reliability, openness, equality, equality of responsibilities and rights, transparency, etc. For the new energy blockchain project, the United States should assess the uncertainty of the project and whether there is an equal distribution of responsibilities and authority between the parties to the energy transaction. While we advocate strengthening the risk assessment of energy blockchain projects, due to the high proportion of “legal and regulatory” policy tools used in the United States, care should be taken to prevent over-regulation and stifling the development of the energy blockchain. The US government should avoid imposing undue constraints and engage moderately.

The research and application of the blockchain in China’s energy sector thus remain in the exploratory stage. Evidently, China’s energy blockchain policies relatively lack research policies. Moreover, the lack of basic research policies hinders technological progress, directly resulting in the fact that China’s energy blockchain policies are mostly focused on the strategic level but not on the implementation level. China’s energy structure has been dominated by fossil fuels for a long time. It is not easy to achieve the goal of “dual carbon”. The fundamental reform of the energy structure lies in policies. This study also confirms the view of Zhu et al. (2020) [30] that despite China’s technological backwardness, the biggest obstacle to China’s development of the energy blockchain remains policy issues.

As the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC (Communist Party of China) Central Committee proposed, China should build a new nationwide system to tackle the key and core technologies under the condition of a socialist market economy. In this context, national policies play an important guiding role, and the central government emphasises the route of technological progress and economic development. China’s central government should thus learn from the US on this basis and take advantage of the new nationwide system in accordance with the purpose of “concentrating resources to accomplish great things”, fully integrate China’s resources that are scattered in various fields, and maximise the input–output ratio of China’s scientific and technological research and development.

China should focus on industry–university–research cooperation and international cooperation. Large private enterprises, state-owned enterprises, universities, research institutes, and other institutions should cooperate with each other in investing their core resources in energy blockchain fields. China should thus actively create conditions for the application of the energy blockchain and strengthen its policy guidance and support for basic research. It should strengthen basic research by supporting universities, enterprises, and research institutes, establish an energy blockchain research platform, and vigorously promote the construction of distributed power generation. Due to the security of energy and climate issues, the energy game between China and the United States is also likely to intensify, and the energy cooperation between the two countries still has great limitations. China’s economy continues to strengthen energy blockchain cooperation with other countries, including the United States, to expand the industrial scale of the energy blockchain.

China’s energy sector is dominated by large state-owned enterprises, making it difficult for private companies to enter the market. The over-centralised energy market structure and strict regulatory environment also make it difficult for China to adapt to the distributed energy operation mode. China should improve its energy blockchain policies at all levels and promote the implementation of policies through institutional reform. China should also reform its energy system and, if necessary, introduce new laws to ensure connectivity between the blockchain and the energy sector. Regulators should promote smart regulation to ensure safe and fair transactions.

5.4. Limitations and Further Research

This study has some limitations. First, it only employed a three-dimensional analysis framework to analyse energy blockchain policies using the dimensions of policy tools, innovation value chain, and policy level. Further text analysis can be conducted by adding more dimensions, such as industry and time.

Second, instead of using quantitative methods to measure the impact of policies on energy blockchain development (carbon emissions, energy blockchain enterprise performance, patent applications, etc.), qualitative methods were used. To further measure the impact of policies and offer new insights into energy blockchain research, it is recommended to conduct further research using quantitative methods.

Third, only the policies of two countries, China and the US, were studied. Germany, Britain, Japan, and many other countries have also conducted research and implemented policy support for energy blockchains. To arrive at more generalisable results, future studies can expand their scope by including more countries.

Finally, this study only analysed the energy-blockchain-related policy texts in China and the US. Future studies can further analyse the technological development and industrial competition situation of energy blockchains based on patent information and identify the opportunities and challenges for the development of the energy blockchain industry in China and the US.