Blockchain Renewable Energy Challenge (2023)

Blockchain technology enables smart contracts, that work in association with smart grid and smart metering technology to enable a wide variety of applications. Smart metering and smart grid technologies enable users to install on the fly applications that make energy utilization, consumption, sharing and monetization a reality. The goal of this assignment is to create a peer-to-peer energy trading system on the blockchain and enable energy suppliers who have installed capacities for renewable energy to trade energy currencies through tokenizing future capacity.

Challenge

Design a peer-to-peer energy marketplace using smart contracts, smart meters and renewable energy suppliers.  The solution should specifically model a real world scenario, where users can enable small and medium scale energy producers to sell energy either through a direct token approach or through a futures approach where they price in future energy values; similar to commodity futures. The marketplace will enable the energy producer to sell energy directly to the consumer or will enable a buyer to resell excess energy purchased downstream to other customers.

A real world use case  is as follows:

Firm EnergyFl has a renewable energy source capacity of 25 MW and wants to sell this energy to willing customers. They create a token which splits this capacity into 0.2 MW capacity each and makes this token available on the open market through a marketplace. Interested users e.g., retail users or small and medium scale businesses bid for this token and purchase this token. Upon purchasing this token, the  token is added to their wallet on their smart meter, and burnt upon usage. This mechanism will increase competition for users who  need energy at low prices, and can enable small and medium-scale businesses to hedge against energy price fluctuations. 

  1. Design such a token with all its features including date of usage, expiry, repudiation clauses, etc. and enable features to create such a token.
  2. Design a marketplace that facilitates the trade
  3. Design a smart meter application that enables the wallet functionality, the consumption functionality and burn functionality
  4. Design a supply side token creation mechanism based on energy storage, supply and distribution

Reference: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Building-Blockchains.pdf

What is it that my team and I will need to submit?

  • A Word document summarizing the team’s analysis and findings must be submitted by Tuesday February 28th Deadline Extended! Sunday, March 5.  
    1. A title page which specifies the name of the participants and the topic chosen (does not contribute to the total page count)
    2. An executive summary
    3. Narrative of overall analysis/findings (tables and graphics that support the analysis can be included here, or in the appendix. If referencing tables and graphics in the overall analysis/findings section, please include a reference to where this can be found in the appendix. Including tables/graphics in the narrative of the overall analysis/findings contributes to the total page count)
    4. References (APA format, does not contribute to the total page count) 
    5. Appendix (does not contribute to the total page count)

    1. Formatting requirements: double spaced lines, size 12 font, APA format without an abstract.
    2. Content requirements (narrative of overall analysis/findings to not exceed 5 pages in length, excluding the title page, references, and the appendix):
  • A video recording of the team presentation summarizing their analysis and findings must be submitted by Tuesday February 28th Deadline Extended! Sunday, March 5.
    1. Video length must not exceed 10 minutes
    2. Provide an URL to the video with appropriate authorization for viewing access

Finalists will be notified by Tuesday, March 7th Friday, March 10 and are required to submit a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the team’s analysis and findings by March 28th, in preparation for a 15-minute presentation in front of a judging panel at the AIS (Association for Information Systems) SCLC on March 30th.  Additionally, finalists are encouraged to submit a prototype of their design.

How you should submit

Submit Here


What happens after you submit:

  1. You will receive a confirmation email acknowledging your entry.
  2. Teams selected as Finalists will be notified by email on Tuesday, March 7th Friday, March 10.
  3. Finalists will present their work in front of the judging panel during the AIS SCLC 2023 conference to be held in Miami Thursday March 28th- Saturday April 1st.

Competition Rules

  • Teams are limited to 4 members. 
  • The project submission must be entirely the work of the student team. While faculty and other individuals can help review the submission, they should not contribute to the content of the report or the solution.
  • Incomplete submissions will not be considered.
  • The contest materials must be submitted by the due dates. Late submissions will not be accepted, and no extensions will be given.

Prizes

First place: $2,000 per team

Second place: $1,000 per team

Third place: $500 per team

Please contact ais@fiu.edu with questions about this competition.

Judging Criteria

Submissions will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Quality of the analysis/solution proposed (Word document submission evaluation criteria):

Criteria

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Needs Improvement

Inadequate

Novelty/creativity/innovativeness

4 – The team demonstrated an original and potentially unexpected approach to the analysis and/or proposal of solution(s).

3 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s).

2 – The team demonstrated a mostly original approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with several elements that were not particularly innovative.

1 - The team developed an unoriginal approach to the analysis and/or proposal of the solution(s), with few or no elements of innovation.

Insight

4 – The team provided interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations.

3 – The team provided mostly interesting and meaningful findings and interpretations.

2 – The team provided somewhat uninteresting findings and weak interpretations. 

1 – The team provided uninteresting or weak findings and interpretations.

Relevance

4 – The team’s analysis relates to the problem statement and utilizes the appropriate tools and techniques.

3 – The team’s analysis mostly relates to the problem statement and utilizes mostly appropriate tools and techniques but may have some areas of irrelevance.

2 – The team’s analysis is somewhat unrelated to the problem statement, and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with several areas of irrelevance.

1 – The team’s analysis is unrelated to the problem statement and/or utilizes inappropriate tools and techniques, with numerous areas of irrelevance.

Scope

4 – The team incorporated an adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research used appropriately in the solution proposal(s).

3 – The team incorporated a mostly adequate amount and variety of data analysis and/or research but may have had a few minor areas where more research or data was needed, or the data or the research was not utilized as effectively as it could have been.

2 – The team incorporated a somewhat inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research, with several areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or the research was not utilized effectively. 

1 – The team incorporated an inadequate amount or variety of data analysis and/or research with numerous areas where more data or research was needed or where the data or research was used ineffectively. 

Utility

4 – The team drew accurate conclusions and were clear about the implications for the proposal.

3 – The team drew mostly accurate conclusions and were mostly clear about the implications for the proposal but may have had a few instances of inaccuracy or unclearness.

2 – The team drew somewhat inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with several areas of inaccuracy or unclearness.

1 – The team drew inaccurate conclusions and/or were unclear about the implications for the proposal, with numerous areas of inaccuracy or unclearness.

Quality of the presentation of the analysis and/or solution (PowerPoint + demo(optional)  presentation + Question and Answers ):


If a team is selected as a finalist, they will be required to present and will be evaluated per the following rubric. The following rubric will be used to determine the winners of the overall competition.

Criteria

Exceeds Expectations

Meets Expectations

Needs Improvement

Inadequate

Clarity

4 – The presentation and analysis provided a well-organized, complete, and clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached.

3 – The presentation and analysis provided a generally clear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, but may have had a few minor areas of confusion.

2- The presentation and analysis provided a somewhat unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with several areas of confusion.

1 – The presentation and analysis provided an unclear description of the approach taken, research conducted, data utilized, and conclusions reached, with numerous areas of confusion.

Consistency

4 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted.

3 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were mostly logically and reasonably consistent with the data analysis and research conducted. 

2 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were somewhat inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with several inconsistencies.

1 – The presentation and analysis delivered conclusions and proposed solution(s) that were inconsistent with the data analysis and research conducted, with numerous inconsistencies.

Quality and Effectiveness

4 – The presentation and analysis utilized suitable visuals and delivery styles that work together to create a convincing and compelling narrative.

3 – The presentation and analysis utilized mostly suitable visuals and delivery style, to create a somewhat convincing and compelling narrative.

2 – The presentation and analysis utilize somewhat unsuitable visuals and delivery style that inadequately create a convincing and compelling narrative.

1 – The presentation and analysis are of poor quality and do not effectively communicate the intended message.

Engagement

4 – Multiple team members presented. Overall, the team members exhibited command of the topic and a sense of passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.

3 – Multiple team members presented, but some team members may have struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.

2 – Not all team members presented, and the team struggled to command the topic or show passion and enthusiasm for the ideas presented.

1 – Not all team members presented, and the team did not show command of the topic or passion or enthusiasm for the ideas presented. 

Documentation

4 – The team identified all sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents, with all supporting research properly cited.

3 – The team identified sources of data and research and provided links to data sources and other documents but may have had a few minor errors in citations.

2 – The team identified most sources of data and research and provided links to some data sources and documents but had several errors in citations.

1 – The team did not identify all sources of data and research and provided few or no links to data sources or documents, with numerous errors in citations.