Smart Contract Design in Distributed Energy Systems: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blockchain technology and, in particular, smart contracts based on it, offers a new, decentralized mechanism for entering into and fulfilling contracts in diverse markets. Energy markets are no exception, and indeed, the decentralized nature of the blockchain may be particularly important for them as the penetration of residential prosumers offering microgeneration to the grid grows. At this time, however, the literature on smart contracts in energy markets—and particularly their interaction with the technical infrastructure of the smart grid—is limited and scattered. There is a need to consolidate these studies into a comprehensive understanding of the state-of-the-art in smart contract design for the smart grid. However, no existing reviews focus on smart contracts in energy systems. The scope of our study is the role of smart contracts in energy systems and what limitations they encounter. We conduct a systematic review of this topic, focusing on systems that have been implemented as prototypes. These studies provide key evidence on the scalability of smart contracts for energy systems and their interaction with the technical elements of the smart grid. We selected a pool of 76 papers meeting our criteria, with three others excluded for misinterpreting fundamental aspects of blockchains and smart contracts. After reviewing each paper, we found that this literature falls into four categories: market operations, ancillary services, auditing and monitoring, and cybersecurity. We then identify and examine the cross-cutting concerns of data storage in and interoperability between blockchains. We finally discuss the implications of our findings for future research. In particular, there is likely to be a complex interplay between the data generated and stored via the blockchain versus the data required to meet energy system reliability targets and market obligations for participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".