Inter-jurisdictional Differences and Coordination Pathways in the Classification and Grading of Power Data: A Comparative Study across the Taiwan Strait and between Hong Kong and Macao SARs

Data classification and grading constitute the foundational institutional arrangement for cross-border data security management. Significant divergences exist across the Taiwan Strait and between Hong Kong & Macao SARs regarding the classification standards, security level determination, and outbound transfer mechanisms for power data. The same grid operation data may be assigned to different security levels across jurisdictions, resulting in the coexistence of “data silos” that impede regional energy coordination and regulatory arbitrage arising from inconsistent standards. Through a comparative analysis of the current institutional frameworks for power data classification and grading across the four jurisdictions, this paper reveals that the root causes of divergence lie in the normative tensions among three governance philosophies—"security-oriented,” “freedom-oriented,” and “rights-oriented”—and the cognitive misalignment arising from the dual attributes of power data as both “national strategic infrastructure data” and “personal/commercial data.” Drawing upon the “outcome equivalence” methodology of the GDPR’s adequacy determination and the institutional experiment of the Greater Bay Area standard contracts [], this paper proposes a “tiered equivalence recognition” coordination pathway. This pathway takes the three-tier classification framework of Mainland China’s Measures for the Security Management of Energy Industry Data (Trial) as an institutional anchor to establish a classification mapping table, sets three-tier equivalence recognition standards (Level A: strict equivalence, Level B: moderate equivalence, Level C: presumed equivalence) based on the consequences of data security risks [], and relies on an Inter-Jurisdictional Data Protection Coordination Committee to realize a dynamic procedural linkage of application-review-decision-supervision. This pathway does not pursue formal unification of classification standards across jurisdictions but rather establishes institutional mutual trust through “outcome equivalence” assessment, providing legal certainty for cross-jurisdictional power data flows without compromising the security bottom lines of each jurisdiction [], while offering an institutional interface for cross-border energy coordination scenarios such as the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area virtual power plants.