A single integrated emergent power service system is optimally structured into the enterprize and the grid subsystems, that are highly cohesive with lightly coupled interfaces. The enterprise subsystem is designed to enable an architecting war among Second Generation Retailers, while the grid subsystem remains regulated.
A Single System & the Enterprise War
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on February 7th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog February 7h, 2010
· The EWPC Textbook (15,514)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (10,854)
· Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (7,049)
· Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (6,759)
· Response to Professor Banks (6,299)
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog February 7th, 2010
· Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66)
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
· Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)
During the past week I posted comments under two SmartGridNews.com articles. Under the first article, Why Today's Utilities May Soon Be Obsolete (and What May Replace Them), written by Dr. Richard Tabors, Vice President in the Energy & Environment Practice of Charles River Associates, I posted comments under the headings EWPC-AF the Emergent Paradigm Part 1 and Part 2, as well as The Tipping Point Will Enable the Mass Market. Please read those comment at the source.
Under the second article, Smart Grid Culture War? Power Guys vs. Netheads, written by Bob Gohn, a senior analyst with Pike Research, I posted comments under the headings What Needs to be Fixed, Structuring to Avoid Incumbent and Entrant Wars, and A Single System & the Enterprise War Part 1 and 2. Making minor changes, only the last two posts will be transcribed below while adding the following clarification.
It is important to say that at the end of this post there is a quote of the book Spot Pricing of Electricity, which views "... the utility and its customers as a single integrated system." It is evident that under the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework, the single integrated system is split in two subsystems that are highly cohesive with lightly coupled interfaces among them. Those subsystems are called in this article the grid and the enterprise. In the enterprise subsystem, the customer buys and/or sells electricity to Second Generation Retailers that compete in retail and wholesale markets, while in the grid subsystem the utility has only a responsibility to deliver that electricity.
Next is the transcribed text:
I like what is emerging in a very valuable and very deep dialogue that was started by Bob Gohn. Several interesting contributions have been added. So with a lot of respect for very important and intelligent contributions, I will add the following two more post to my two posts.
So, please correct me if I am wrong, but there are cultures and subcultures. In that sense, there has been for quite some time a real-time control subculture within the utility culture. Now we see emerging many subcultures to satisfy professor Santiago Grijalva and my friend Jesse Berst. I guess all of the elements go beyond the Smart Grid and to the emerging whole SPS.
More than two years ago, in the EWPC article The Anti-System Utility, I used Warren Causey’s insights on the two utilities’ cultures, that he called the grid and the enterprise, to conclude that they “don't operate as a system because of a monopoly mindset of incumbents investor owned utilities and political interference.” I guess the anti-system utility is another way to explain in simple terms the ongoing value destruction
The culture of the grid is that of the power guys and it is shared by transmission and distribution guys. The culture of the enterprise is the culture of the netheads. As architect Louis Sullivan argued “form follows function.” This is where bill ferree post about centralization fits, which I argue also fits well with the idea of a Smart Grid with end-to-end connectivity. Thus as the old form of what I call the Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its many heterogeneous incremental and increasingly complex extensions need to be replaced by a paradigm shift to an emergent whole SPS form, that is highly simplified.
As can be seen at the end of the article Electricity Without Price [Control Architecture Framework, instead of having a war between incumbents and entrants, “Most value creation will be the result of an architecture competition centered on the Silicon Valley Model, which will lead to the final architecture of the EWPC Smart Grid, which is just one of the disruptive components of the whole.” Please update “the final architecture of the EWPC Smart Grid” to “the final architecture of the emergent SPS.” After SPS structuring, today’s’ utilities have a chance to elect the low risk primary regulated Smart Grid with the power guys’ culture or go to war with the secondary commercial subsystem entrants with netheads’ culture.
Following the insight of the Enterprise Architecture Management Group announcement, that says “This group is for those architects who focus on the enterprise as a whole, as a single system within its environment,” I sort of disagree with Jesse and Bob on the idea of letting the status quo influence the architecture. In response to the suggestion to change to system-of-systems, the synthesis of the response was that to optimize the architecture, subsystems will result from the enterprise architecting job.
My architecting work started on the vertically integrated utilities, because I discovered a fatal flaw in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, as Open Transmission Access led to the separation of T&D. Richard Tabors’ argument was probably based on inactive distribution and inactive loads, which was completely contrary to the essence of the book Spot Pricing of Electricity. On page four of that book says that “the four basic criteria [freedom of choice, economic efficiency, equity, and utility control, operation and planning] can be achieved only by returning to the first principles of economics and engineering and by viewing the utility and its customers as a single integrated system. The result of this integration is the spot price based energy marketplace, which the subject of this book.”
domingo, febrero 07, 2010
martes, enero 26, 2010
La Gran Trinitaria de Ilusiones en el Día de Duarte: la Macrored, la Energía Barata y la Constitución
Un líder realista siempre responde a los hechos, porque realismo significa no hacerse ilusiones
Peter Koestenbaum
Estimada o estimado líder,
En la celebración del natalicio del patriota Juan Pablo Duarte, muy cortésmente tengo el placer de someter a su consideración las siguientes informaciones claves con el propósito de destacar tres grandes ilusiones:
Mientras seguimos ilusionándonos con la gran red eléctrica interconectada – la macro red - y sus economías de escala, hemos pasado por alto, que para bien o para mal, los vestigios de la tecnologías disruptivas de la micro red se encuentran en nuestras narices, con plantas e inversores que como todas las tecnologías disruptivas son ineficientes al inicio. La cruda realidad es que a principios de este mes, en la Feria de Electrónica de Consumo (CES, siglas en Inglés), celebrada en Las Vegas, Nevada, empresas de alto nivel presentaron al menos 5 dispositivos, tecnologías disruptivas, para la administración de la energía en el hogar (HEM, siglas en Inglés). Al respecto, elaboré el artículo Huge States’ Costs as Utilities are Unable to Cross the Home Energy Management Chasm, que da cuenta de la increíble destrucción de valor que los Estados están impulsando por un error de reestructuración del sector eléctrico. No cabe duda que dicho error está repetido aquí también. Esa ilusión se basa en una ilusión subyacente.
Amparado en la cita del filósofo de los negocios Peter Koestenbaum, elaboré el artículo Eliminemos lo Más Pronto Posible la Ilusión a la Energía Barata. Espero que dicho artículo se convierta en lectura obligada de todos los líderes del país. Como se explica en el artículo, esa ilusión es de hecho un cuasi derecho constitucional que necesitamos eliminar de una vez por todas para poder progresar en el sector eléctrico.
Debajo de las declaraciones del Presidente del Senado, Reinaldo Pared Pérez defiende nueva Constitución; asegura Carta Magna no tiene precedentes, que aparecen en El Día, coloqué el siguiente comentario para destacar la gran ilusión que se ha producido con la constitución:
Respeto mucho lo que el presidente del Senado de la República expresa para defender la nueva constitución. No obstante, por experiencia propia me parece que la mayor influencia proviene de lo que en Estados Unidos llaman el “groupthink” (pensamiento de grupo), lo que muy bien puede asociarse a que "la Constitución estuvo rodeada de toda legalidad y respeto a los procedimientos." Si el mundo del futuro fuese una continuidad del pasado, el "groupthink" sería altamente valioso.
Pero sucede que es altamente probable que el nuevo mundo no sea una continuación del mundo que hemos venido esperando en las últimas décadas y que definitivamente no ha resultado satisfactorio a consecuencia del estilo prevaleciente de gestión que dio lugar a dicha constitución. En consecuencia, como servidor-líder del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola reitero la nota Pregunta al Liderazgo ¿Se Opondrá la Nueva Constitución al Desarrollo del País?
Espero que este aporte en el día de Duarte sea la llama que inspire a que esa serie de ilusiones pasen a ser historia y nos concentremos en aprovechar las oportunidades que nos ofrece la dura realidad para desarrollar el país.
Muy atentamente,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Servidor-Líder del GMH
Creador del Modelo EWPC
Eliminemos lo Más Pronto Posible la Ilusión a la Energía Barata
Un líder realista siempre responde a los hechos, porque realismo significa no hacerse ilusiones.
Peter Koestenbaum
Eliminemos lo Más Pronto Posible la Ilusión a la Energía Barata
Este mensaje es en seguimiento a la valiosa conferencia “Política Energética en la República Dominicana,” organizada por el Congreso Nacional y el Instituto de las Américas, el 19 de enero del 2010. Sobre la misma coloqué un avance con un email enviado con la nota Tres Segmentos de Video sobre Pacto de Política de Electricidad.
En la parte final de dicha conferencia se desarrolló una importante sesión sobre Conservación de Energía. En la misma, el presidente de la Comisión de Energía de la Cámara de diputados, Pelegrín Castillo, según aparece en El Día Digital, dijo “que para lograr un sector eléctrico eficiente, es necesario fortalecer la institucionalidad y así poder enfrentar con éxito los retos que se avecinan.”
Al proponer una Ley de Eficiencia Energética y Ahorro de Recursos, Pelegrín Castillo “Indicó que… tiene como objetivos la creación de un marco de aprovechamiento de actividades, normas y tecnologías orientadas a conseguir la mayor eficiencia posible en el uso de la energía y establecer un sistema nacional de ahorro de los recursos naturales.”
Cabe notar que el sector tendrá tres grandes leyes que afectan directamente a la industria eléctrica. Resultó evidente de una conversación en el patio del Hotel Santo Domingo, durante un receso, de que los aspectos relativos a la eficiencia energética en el lado de la demanda fueron excluidos de la Ley de Incentivo a las Energias Renovables y Regimenes Especiales 57-07, como también lo habían sido de la Ley General de Electricidad. Como se puede ver más adelante, estas tres grandes leyes generan oportunidades de una significativa creación de riqueza con una mayor integración impulsada por medio de una reestructuración del sector eléctrico.
A seguidas del diputado Castillo, Ramón Flores agregó al tema institucional popularizado recientemente de la despolitización del sector eléctrico, el gran daño al temor populista a ajustar los precios, que incide directamente en la conservación de energía. Por eso necesitamos considerar seriamente la nota de hace un año Plan de Nación sin la Quimera de la Electricidad Barata.
En la propuesta para aumentar la eficiencia, y crear un verdadero sistema (el valor del sistema es superior a la suma del valor de las partes) en el sector eléctrico, es necesario y urgente reestructurar el sector eléctrico con base al modelo emergente de la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios. Ese sistema será el resultado de integrar sinérgicamente los recursos del transporte y de la oferta centralizada, con los del lado de la demanda, entre los que se encuentran la eficiencia y el uso racional de la energía eléctrica, así como la generación distribuida, especialmente la renovable. Al respecto de la propuesta, en la nota eMail Enviado: La Corrupción del Sector Eléctrico Global se Nutre del Control de Precios, aclaré lo siguiente:
“Por la respuesta que Don Celso me ofreció,” luego de que leí el texto de la nota La pregunta a Celso Marranzini y al Gabinete
Eléctrico “… me parece que no entendió la pregunta.” Cabe aclarar, que en el modelo EWPC el control de precios se mantiene en el transporte de electricidad para poder asegurar que la comercialización libre al por mayor y al detalle a los clientes se haga con base a una electricidad con calidad comercial que sea el resultado de la oferta y la demanda.
La respuesta que Celso Marranzini ofreció a la pregunta que aparece al final de dicho texto ¿Está de acuerdo con que se estudie la EWPC como parte del Plan Energético Nacional? fue que no estaba de acuerdo con eliminar el control de precios por los problemas que se suscitaron con la liberación de los mercados eléctricos al principio de siglo XXI. A decir verdad, precisamente por eso es que solicito que la CNE estudie la EWPC, porque sostengo que esos problemas se superan con el modelo EWPC. Es decir, que lo que dijo Marranzini que anteriormente parecía cierto, podría dejar de ser cierto y abrir grandes oportunidades de desarrollo a los dominicanos.
Es importante aclarar también que el miedo principal a la opción EWPC es que los clientes necesitan responder a precios que reflejan la oferta y la demanda a corto plazo, oponiéndose a la ilusión de la energía barata. Sobre esa ilusión, Peter Schwartz, el renombrado maestro en la Planificación por Escenarios en la Royal Dutch Shell, argumenta en su artículo American Energy Economics: Maximize demand and minimize supply…, que el derecho constitucional a la energía barata es el resultado de una política que los Estados Unidos de América inició después de la gran depresión basado en el paradigma del petróleo barato. Peter escribió (traducción libre de un servidor aquí y en su conclusión) que:
… la energía era abundante y barata durante la primera parte del siglo previo debido a nuestra dotación de recursos naturales, nuestro espíritu empresarial e innovador y a las políticas concertadas para mantener los precios de energía bajos. Esta situación de energía barata duró bastante desde el principio del siglo a durante la década de los años 1960 y debido a que le energía era tan barata durante esa era del alción (ave fabulosa que solo andaba sobre un mar tranquilo), la gente simplemente no tomó en cuenta el costo y la disponibilidad de la energía cuando tomó decisiones de inversión de capital.
En la conclusión de su artículo, Schwartz dice algo que debe guiar nuestro esfuerzo:
No podemos dar marcha atrás, debemos hacer la transición radical de un mundo de energía barata a uno de costo elevado, que tendrá implicaciones con respecto a dónde y cómo vivimos, dónde trabajamos y dónde compramos y jugamos.
Esto desde luego hacer incurrir en una petición de principio de dos nuevas preguntas que tratará en otras notas…
(1) ¿Cuáles son las opciones de política para equilibrar la oferta y la demanda (local)?
(2) ¿Cómo conseguimos pasar una reforma amplia de política energética por encima de la barrera política (por ejemplo, ¿harán los projectos Waxman-Markey/Kerry-Boxer el trabajo?)
Si el derecho constitucional a la energía barata perdió su sustento cuando recién copiábamos ese derecho con la CDE para desarrollar el país, sin tener los recursos energéticos, ni el espíritu innovador que habían tenido los Estados Unidos, es evidente que nos hemos hecho unas ilusiones totalmente desproporcionadas e infundadas. La industria eléctrica dominicana necesita con carácter de urgencia una transformación que coloque en la plena realidad.
domingo, enero 24, 2010
Huge States’ Costs as Utilities are Unable to Cross the Home Energy Management Chasm
There is a consensus that only high tech firms are able to cross the Home Energy Management chasm. While utilities still “owned their markets,” by state regulatory fiat and while state governments take those very costly risks, it is very doubful that the consumer will be the king of home energy management, even if the Federal Communication Commission fully implements interoperability standards and open networks. Huge value destruction will remain in the power industry under the status quo.
Huge States’ Costs as Utilities are Unable to Cross the Home Energy Management Chasm
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on January 24th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog January 24th, 2010
· The EWPC Textbook (13,574)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (9,802)
· Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (6,361)
· Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (6,138)
· Response to Professor Banks (5,773)
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog January 24th, 2010
· Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66)
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
· Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)
Katie Fehrenbacher keeps writing valuable articles in Earth2Tech.com, about the very important and timely state of the art issues of the high tech Smart Grid. This time I will question her article Why The Consumer Will Be King of Home Energy Management in 2010, while also quoting and integrating other articles by Katie mentioned below.
From the reasons introduced through the EWPC post “The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market” and what is also added in here, I strongly doubt that the Consumer Will Be King of Home Energy Management (HEM) in 2010. Take for example the Technology Adoption Life Cycle (TALC) and follow Geoffrey Moore’s insights on his book Crossing the Chasm into the process of travelling the Bell curve that has a crack after early adoption. As Pike Research Managing Director Clint Wheelock explained, “the retail channel may become an important channel for these devices in 3 to 5 years,” but that "the early market will be driven by utilities."
Those two Katie’s quotes originated in Katie’s article Smart Grid Will Generate $200B of Global Investment, under which I posted two comments. The first paragraph of my first long post says:
Returning to Katie’s first article, in an email that she received from CEO Peter Porteous, he ratified the decision by Blue Line Innovations to shift, from their “primary focus since its 2003 launch” to the utility, to an emergent “primary focus to the consumer.” That signal should tell utilities that they will reached the dead end of the crack, which is called the Chasm, which high tech marketing companies know how to cross under the TALC. This is also confirmed by Katie, when she wrote that “As Gartner analyst Zarco Sumic told us, in the long run, “The vendors that will dominate will be the ones who know how to market, sell and meet the needs of the consumer space. It is a consumer technology play. It is not a utility play.”
But correct me if I am wrong, that in addition to the Chasm, there is still the huge regulatory barrier of the obsolete IOUs-AF, and its incremental extensions, like the regulated architecture Smart Grid. That barrier needs to be taken down to let customers freely choose the HEM they need. It will be very costly mistake by state governments to keep regulators making highly risky bets that result in a huge value destruction on HEMs tied to utilities offerings that will not be able to cross the Chasm.
I guess then the question is how long will it take state governments to change the rules of the game to open the power industry to the TALK, so that the consumer may be king? The problem is that state governments have let essential elements of the retail market, like energy sales and/or the metering infrastructure, continue to be “owned” by utilities, which is a barrier for HEMs to be whole product offerings that customers are able to choose to invest freely in said HEMs as well as the needed complementary product and services.
Katie’s article Why A French Regulator Is Bullying A Smart Grid Startup (please read the comments under the article, especially the historic lesson of the “Law of the Situation: the railroads did not understand”) has a remarkable example of my whole product reservations, that resulted in “a spat between a disgruntled utility that was losing revenues through an energy efficiency program and a smart grid tech startup that was helping utility customers save energy.” In fact, as Regis Mackenna stated about “owning a market,” in the foreword of Crossing the Chasm, “Customers do not like to be “owned,” if that implies lack of choice or freedom.”
That barrier was also described from another angle in a recent comment under Katie’s article How the FCC Will Promote Open Smart Grid Networks & Real Time Energy Data, as follows (with minor editing):
Thus, to enable the TALC, I suggest that a shift in energy policy is required away from the IOUs-AF to the technology neutral EWPC-AF. States governments are the responsible entities to change the policy, while the federal government should lead them in the process of enabling a uniform and effective change that enable customers’ to freely choose.
Huge States’ Costs as Utilities are Unable to Cross the Home Energy Management Chasm
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on January 24th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog January 24th, 2010
· The EWPC Textbook (13,574)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (9,802)
· Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (6,361)
· Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (6,138)
· Response to Professor Banks (5,773)
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog January 24th, 2010
· Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66)
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
· Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)
Katie Fehrenbacher keeps writing valuable articles in Earth2Tech.com, about the very important and timely state of the art issues of the high tech Smart Grid. This time I will question her article Why The Consumer Will Be King of Home Energy Management in 2010, while also quoting and integrating other articles by Katie mentioned below.
From the reasons introduced through the EWPC post “The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market” and what is also added in here, I strongly doubt that the Consumer Will Be King of Home Energy Management (HEM) in 2010. Take for example the Technology Adoption Life Cycle (TALC) and follow Geoffrey Moore’s insights on his book Crossing the Chasm into the process of travelling the Bell curve that has a crack after early adoption. As Pike Research Managing Director Clint Wheelock explained, “the retail channel may become an important channel for these devices in 3 to 5 years,” but that "the early market will be driven by utilities."
Those two Katie’s quotes originated in Katie’s article Smart Grid Will Generate $200B of Global Investment, under which I posted two comments. The first paragraph of my first long post says:
It is interesting to note that Pike’s smart grid forecast do not include investments beyond the meter in accordance with the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework (IOUs-AF) and its incremental extensions, such as the homogeneous smart grid. As you will see below, “…the impact of new technologies will be minimal in generation, moderate in transmission, important in distribution, and revolutionary beyond the meter. That means that predictions need to be based on the migration of value creation from supply to demand.”
Returning to Katie’s first article, in an email that she received from CEO Peter Porteous, he ratified the decision by Blue Line Innovations to shift, from their “primary focus since its 2003 launch” to the utility, to an emergent “primary focus to the consumer.” That signal should tell utilities that they will reached the dead end of the crack, which is called the Chasm, which high tech marketing companies know how to cross under the TALC. This is also confirmed by Katie, when she wrote that “As Gartner analyst Zarco Sumic told us, in the long run, “The vendors that will dominate will be the ones who know how to market, sell and meet the needs of the consumer space. It is a consumer technology play. It is not a utility play.”
But correct me if I am wrong, that in addition to the Chasm, there is still the huge regulatory barrier of the obsolete IOUs-AF, and its incremental extensions, like the regulated architecture Smart Grid. That barrier needs to be taken down to let customers freely choose the HEM they need. It will be very costly mistake by state governments to keep regulators making highly risky bets that result in a huge value destruction on HEMs tied to utilities offerings that will not be able to cross the Chasm.
I guess then the question is how long will it take state governments to change the rules of the game to open the power industry to the TALK, so that the consumer may be king? The problem is that state governments have let essential elements of the retail market, like energy sales and/or the metering infrastructure, continue to be “owned” by utilities, which is a barrier for HEMs to be whole product offerings that customers are able to choose to invest freely in said HEMs as well as the needed complementary product and services.
Katie’s article Why A French Regulator Is Bullying A Smart Grid Startup (please read the comments under the article, especially the historic lesson of the “Law of the Situation: the railroads did not understand”) has a remarkable example of my whole product reservations, that resulted in “a spat between a disgruntled utility that was losing revenues through an energy efficiency program and a smart grid tech startup that was helping utility customers save energy.” In fact, as Regis Mackenna stated about “owning a market,” in the foreword of Crossing the Chasm, “Customers do not like to be “owned,” if that implies lack of choice or freedom.”
That barrier was also described from another angle in a recent comment under Katie’s article How the FCC Will Promote Open Smart Grid Networks & Real Time Energy Data, as follows (with minor editing):
There is no guarantee that by only promoting open standards and commercial networks the power industry will be open to innovation. The power industry itself will need to be open. To do it, an understanding of the required architecture of the emergent power industry whole is also needed.
In order to actually open the power industry to innovation, as call by Mr. Nick Sinai, when he said “we must aspire for policies that facilitate the ferocious competition that drives innovation,” there is a need to change away from the obsolete and exceedingly complex (as a result of a large series of incremental extensions) Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework.
The change is to the emergent, simplified, and holistic Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework, which is introduced in the post “States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners.”
Thus, to enable the TALC, I suggest that a shift in energy policy is required away from the IOUs-AF to the technology neutral EWPC-AF. States governments are the responsible entities to change the policy, while the federal government should lead them in the process of enabling a uniform and effective change that enable customers’ to freely choose.
miércoles, enero 20, 2010
Tres Segmentos de Video sobre Pacto de Política de Electricidad
Estimado líder o estimada líder,
Muy cortésmente le informo, que debajo de la noticia Foro sugiere pacto superar el deficiente servicio electricidad, coloqué el siguiente comentario:
Aprovecho la ocasión para sugerirle que, en adición a ver dichos videos, no deje de ver la nota Re: Is Google the New Enron?
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Creador del Modelo EWPC
Muy cortésmente le informo, que debajo de la noticia Foro sugiere pacto superar el deficiente servicio electricidad, coloqué el siguiente comentario:
Destaco que, entre los planteamientos expuestos por Milton Morrison en ese evento, estuvo que la estructura actual se concentra en el desarrollo de los recursos de la oferta y que es necesario desarrollar los recursos de la demanda e introducir competencia en el mercado minorista. Mencionó el gran esfuerzo que he venido realizando para ofrecer la solución definitiva. Le agradecí el comercial, me respondió que era merecido y que lo que mencionó fue como resultado de lo que aparece en tres segmentos de video que pueden ver y escuchar, al que se llega con la nota "Solución Definitiva al Problema Eléctrico: Conversando con Milton Morrison Entrevista al Dr. José Vanderhorst,"en la dirección de Internet http://bit.ly/8e3sYZ
PARTE I - DIAGNOSTICO: UN GRANDISIMO DESORDEN EN EL LADO DE LA DEMANDAPARTE II - EL CAMBIO DE PARADIMA DE LA INDUSTRIA ELECTRICA: LA TRANSICION HACIA UN SECTOR COMPETITIVO
PARTE III - UNA SOLUCION DESARROLLISTA: EL RENACIMIENTO DE LA INDUSTRIA ELECTRICA GLOBAL
Aprovecho la ocasión para sugerirle que, en adición a ver dichos videos, no deje de ver la nota Re: Is Google the New Enron?
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Creador del Modelo EWPC
lunes, enero 18, 2010
Conversaciones Estratégicas sobre Haití, la CDE y Google
Editorial del GMH
18 de enero, 2010
Desde que se inició hace casi cinco años, el Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, una propuesta para desarrollar la República Dominicana y Haití en este siglo, hemos venido tejiendo sostenidamente conceptos organizativos emergentes, orientados a apoyar la propuesta mencionada, inicialmente en la necesaria transformación del sector eléctrico, para poner en funcionamiento un sistema que persiga el máximo bienestar social. El aporte del GMH a nuestros vecinos haitianos, en este momento de intensa solidaridad, es que trabajemos juntos para implantar un cambio del estilo prevaleciente de gestión, a uno que facilite conversaciones estratégicas en los más altos niveles organizacionales, acordes con la incertidumbre reinante en el mundo de hoy que presagia un nuevo orden emergente. En esencia, necesitamos impulsar un círculo virtuoso en que nuestros países se refuercen mutuamente.
Como muestra palpable de la mencionada incertidumbre, el Foro Económico Mundial acaba de publicar su informe sobre los riesgos globales para el 2010, del que recojo dos palabras que sintetizan la crítica situación de la economía global: agudamente vulnerable. En ese informe se destaca que los tres riesgos mayores son: 1) La crisis de la deuda soberana de los Estados Unidos y del Reino Unido; 2) Más colapsos de precios de los activos. Se estima que China va a seguir los pasos del Japón en los años 90; y 3) Durmiendo hacia una crisis energética por falta de inversión.
Coincidiendo con el 50 aniversario de la CDE, hoy se ha convocado una reunión para organizar una cumbre entre gobiernos e instituciones donantes que será centrada en el desarrollo de Haití a corto y mediano plazos. Por los grandes enlaces sistémicos que unen la República Dominicana con Haití, entiendo que la cumbre es una magnifica oportunidad para adoptar un proceso de conversaciones estratégicas, amparadas no en proyecciones que funcionan en tiempos de baja incertidumbre, sino en la planificación por escenarios, que forma parte del sistema de conocimiento profundo sugerido por W. Edwards Deming. En ese sentido, reitero la sugerencia de que lean el artículo visionario A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management.
Por ejemplo, con conversaciones estratégicas en el sector eléctrico amparadas en tres escenarios plausibles de futuro, uno de los cuales podría considerar la inminente desaparición definitiva de la CDEEE, porque la misma impida la existencia de un sistema (el todo vale más que suma de las partes) y por ende la expectativa de lograr el máximo bienestar social. Tal escenario puede basarse en la aparición en escena de Google Energy, que podría ser la señal emergente de que dicho escenario ya se activó. Al respecto, sugiero que los líderes dominicanos y haitianos, de todos los estratos, pongan mucha atención al artículo Is Google the New Enron?
Cabe indicar que, en ese escenario emergente, el empuje de la reestructuración hacia modelos organizativos radicalmente diferentes, a los que impulsa el estilo prevaleciente de gestión, es la aparición de los “agentes de software” que se suman por primera vez a nosotros, los agentes humanos, dentro de las estructuras de las organizaciones sociales. Esos agentes representativos de las tecnologías de información y comunicaciones son el nuevo elemento barato que está destinado a reemplazar el petróleo para impulsar un mayor nivel de productividad y bienestar, facilitando el desarrollo e implantación de sistemas socio técnicos y con ello las naciones del planeta.
18 de enero, 2010
Desde que se inició hace casi cinco años, el Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, una propuesta para desarrollar la República Dominicana y Haití en este siglo, hemos venido tejiendo sostenidamente conceptos organizativos emergentes, orientados a apoyar la propuesta mencionada, inicialmente en la necesaria transformación del sector eléctrico, para poner en funcionamiento un sistema que persiga el máximo bienestar social. El aporte del GMH a nuestros vecinos haitianos, en este momento de intensa solidaridad, es que trabajemos juntos para implantar un cambio del estilo prevaleciente de gestión, a uno que facilite conversaciones estratégicas en los más altos niveles organizacionales, acordes con la incertidumbre reinante en el mundo de hoy que presagia un nuevo orden emergente. En esencia, necesitamos impulsar un círculo virtuoso en que nuestros países se refuercen mutuamente.
Como muestra palpable de la mencionada incertidumbre, el Foro Económico Mundial acaba de publicar su informe sobre los riesgos globales para el 2010, del que recojo dos palabras que sintetizan la crítica situación de la economía global: agudamente vulnerable. En ese informe se destaca que los tres riesgos mayores son: 1) La crisis de la deuda soberana de los Estados Unidos y del Reino Unido; 2) Más colapsos de precios de los activos. Se estima que China va a seguir los pasos del Japón en los años 90; y 3) Durmiendo hacia una crisis energética por falta de inversión.
Coincidiendo con el 50 aniversario de la CDE, hoy se ha convocado una reunión para organizar una cumbre entre gobiernos e instituciones donantes que será centrada en el desarrollo de Haití a corto y mediano plazos. Por los grandes enlaces sistémicos que unen la República Dominicana con Haití, entiendo que la cumbre es una magnifica oportunidad para adoptar un proceso de conversaciones estratégicas, amparadas no en proyecciones que funcionan en tiempos de baja incertidumbre, sino en la planificación por escenarios, que forma parte del sistema de conocimiento profundo sugerido por W. Edwards Deming. En ese sentido, reitero la sugerencia de que lean el artículo visionario A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management.
Por ejemplo, con conversaciones estratégicas en el sector eléctrico amparadas en tres escenarios plausibles de futuro, uno de los cuales podría considerar la inminente desaparición definitiva de la CDEEE, porque la misma impida la existencia de un sistema (el todo vale más que suma de las partes) y por ende la expectativa de lograr el máximo bienestar social. Tal escenario puede basarse en la aparición en escena de Google Energy, que podría ser la señal emergente de que dicho escenario ya se activó. Al respecto, sugiero que los líderes dominicanos y haitianos, de todos los estratos, pongan mucha atención al artículo Is Google the New Enron?
Cabe indicar que, en ese escenario emergente, el empuje de la reestructuración hacia modelos organizativos radicalmente diferentes, a los que impulsa el estilo prevaleciente de gestión, es la aparición de los “agentes de software” que se suman por primera vez a nosotros, los agentes humanos, dentro de las estructuras de las organizaciones sociales. Esos agentes representativos de las tecnologías de información y comunicaciones son el nuevo elemento barato que está destinado a reemplazar el petróleo para impulsar un mayor nivel de productividad y bienestar, facilitando el desarrollo e implantación de sistemas socio técnicos y con ello las naciones del planeta.
Is Google the New Enron?
Even though a debate has already reaffirmed without doubt that “The answer should be a strong NO!,” there is additional evidence and requirements to support the “strong NO!” answer.
Is Google the New Enron?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on January 17th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog January 17th, 2010
· The EWPC Textbook (13,064)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (9,556)
· Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (6,204)
· Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (5,677)
· Response to Professor Banks (5,411)
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog January 17th, 2010
· Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66)
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
· Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)
“Is Google the New Enron?” is a very good question that was raised by Ian Bell in earth2tech.com. Repeated under the EWPC post Can We Let Google and Wal*Mart be Global Energy Retailers?, my response was:
An interesting debate under the article confirms the “strong NO!” The discussion started with Mr. Carson, who essentially took a tangent by writing that, to his “… knowledge there were no particular problems with…” EnronOnline. This was part of my first response: “I do not disagree that Mr. Carson may be right. His post, however, do not change at all my post.” As my first response might have left some doubt, however, in the ongoing discussion it was determined, without any doubt, that Enron and EnronOnline were “mutually dependent on each other.”
Even though Mr. Carson and all readers of the discussion now know that Enron’s problems were related with EnronOnline, this article will present additional evidence and requirements to further support the strong NO response. That response requires that Global Energy Retailers should emerge under a complete and fully functional architecture framework, as explained in the introductory post States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners:
As key evidence, it is important to know that Enron decided to pull the plug out of the domestic market as early as in 1998. The June issue of that year of the magazine Power Economics reads:
But we now know that the situation faced by what I call First Generation Retailers was the “result of an incomplete market, that lacked enough functionality, under a flawed architecture.” For that reason, Enron operated only in the dysfunctional wholesale market.
Google, Wal*Mart, Microsoft and/or any other potential global Second Energy Retailer will operate in the domestic market, which is where a revolution of value creation is in the making in the global power industry. As described in the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI), Second Generation Retailers will need to develop ongoing competitive business model innovations, that will include DSIs into their customers’ one stop service integrated offerings. That competition is not a price competition between First Generation Retailers, like the one that Enron described, but a system architecture competition between Second generation Retailers, like those of the Silicon Valley Model.
Nothing less than a complete and fully functional market is required to enable those innovations and the jobs and wealth that come with the development of the resources of the demand side. While the First Generation Retailers in today’s liberated markets depend on wholesale market price supply competition, the proposed Second Generation Retailers bridge the retail and wholesale markets. In that way, they compete in both markets, where the continuously changing wholesale market price is the result of both supply and demand.
As I said earlier, there eventually will emerge a set of global prudential regulations for Second Generation Retailers, so that merger and acquisition activity would be restricted. From the responses that I received at that time, I know that it is even difficult at the US federal level, unless the government takes the advice given in the EWPC article A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management.
In that regard, the post Making Socio-Technical Architecture and “The Smart Grid Game” Mutually Reinforce Each Other, gives an example of how to have effective regulation by letting the system architect decide on the few critical systemic architecting issues, that do no belong to the prevailing political process, as explained in the September/October 2002 issue of the IEEE IT Professional magazine article “Less is More with Minimalist Architecture,” written by Ruth Malan and Dana Bredemeyer.
Is Google the New Enron?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on January 17th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog January 17th, 2010
· The EWPC Textbook (13,064)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (9,556)
· Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (6,204)
· Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (5,677)
· Response to Professor Banks (5,411)
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog January 17th, 2010
· Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66)
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
· Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)
“Is Google the New Enron?” is a very good question that was raised by Ian Bell in earth2tech.com. Repeated under the EWPC post Can We Let Google and Wal*Mart be Global Energy Retailers?, my response was:
The answer should be a strong NO! Google Energy should be something very different than ENRON. ENRON was the result of an incomplete market, that lacked enough functionality, under a flawed architecture. That market was based on the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its incremental extensions, that keep adding huge complexity.
An interesting debate under the article confirms the “strong NO!” The discussion started with Mr. Carson, who essentially took a tangent by writing that, to his “… knowledge there were no particular problems with…” EnronOnline. This was part of my first response: “I do not disagree that Mr. Carson may be right. His post, however, do not change at all my post.” As my first response might have left some doubt, however, in the ongoing discussion it was determined, without any doubt, that Enron and EnronOnline were “mutually dependent on each other.”
Even though Mr. Carson and all readers of the discussion now know that Enron’s problems were related with EnronOnline, this article will present additional evidence and requirements to further support the strong NO response. That response requires that Global Energy Retailers should emerge under a complete and fully functional architecture framework, as explained in the introductory post States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners:
States legislatures need to empower state regulators to do the innovative job to satisfy the need for their constituencies that a homogeneous grid is no longer able to provide. To consider a heterogeneous grid, legislatures can take a look at the now closed debate between Mr. James Carson and I, under the EWPC article The Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF).
As key evidence, it is important to know that Enron decided to pull the plug out of the domestic market as early as in 1998. The June issue of that year of the magazine Power Economics reads:
Enron has pointed the blame at the ‘competitive transition charge’ which the incumbent investor-owned utilities are collecting to offset their stranded costs. Because of this and the across-the-board rate cut of 10 per cent that was mandated by the state government, there is very little margin with which to make attractive offers – and a profit.
But we now know that the situation faced by what I call First Generation Retailers was the “result of an incomplete market, that lacked enough functionality, under a flawed architecture.” For that reason, Enron operated only in the dysfunctional wholesale market.
Google, Wal*Mart, Microsoft and/or any other potential global Second Energy Retailer will operate in the domestic market, which is where a revolution of value creation is in the making in the global power industry. As described in the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI), Second Generation Retailers will need to develop ongoing competitive business model innovations, that will include DSIs into their customers’ one stop service integrated offerings. That competition is not a price competition between First Generation Retailers, like the one that Enron described, but a system architecture competition between Second generation Retailers, like those of the Silicon Valley Model.
Nothing less than a complete and fully functional market is required to enable those innovations and the jobs and wealth that come with the development of the resources of the demand side. While the First Generation Retailers in today’s liberated markets depend on wholesale market price supply competition, the proposed Second Generation Retailers bridge the retail and wholesale markets. In that way, they compete in both markets, where the continuously changing wholesale market price is the result of both supply and demand.
As I said earlier, there eventually will emerge a set of global prudential regulations for Second Generation Retailers, so that merger and acquisition activity would be restricted. From the responses that I received at that time, I know that it is even difficult at the US federal level, unless the government takes the advice given in the EWPC article A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management.
In that regard, the post Making Socio-Technical Architecture and “The Smart Grid Game” Mutually Reinforce Each Other, gives an example of how to have effective regulation by letting the system architect decide on the few critical systemic architecting issues, that do no belong to the prevailing political process, as explained in the September/October 2002 issue of the IEEE IT Professional magazine article “Less is More with Minimalist Architecture,” written by Ruth Malan and Dana Bredemeyer.
sábado, enero 09, 2010
Sobre las Declaraciones Sabias de la AIRD con Respecto a la Autonomía de la CDEEE
Debajo de la noticia Objetan partidismo en miembros consejos energía, publicada en el Periódico Hoy, coloqué el siguiente comentario:
En esencia, las declaraciones de la AIRD son muy sabias. Lo único que es cuestionable es la suposición de que la reforma del sector debe dar lugar a pasar de nuevo al sector privado la distribución de electricidad. Por ello, agrego que, para asegurar la transitoriedad, es muy importante que se respalde el esfuerzo que inició la Comisión Nacional de Energía para elaborar el Plan Energético Nacional (PEN).
Evidentemente, tenemos que asegurarnos de que dicho PEN persiga el máximo bienestar social del sector eléctrico en su conjunto, tal como sugerí en la aclaración a mi declaración a este mismo periódico, en la noticia "Opina decreto impulsaría década prosperidad CDEEE," que puede leerse en ese enlace de Internet, a igual que la próxima noticia.
Sobre el aspecto clave de los consejos directivos, pueden ver mi comentario en la noticia de este mismo periódico De Ramón favorece las medidas sector eléctrico.
En esencia, las declaraciones de la AIRD son muy sabias. Lo único que es cuestionable es la suposición de que la reforma del sector debe dar lugar a pasar de nuevo al sector privado la distribución de electricidad. Por ello, agrego que, para asegurar la transitoriedad, es muy importante que se respalde el esfuerzo que inició la Comisión Nacional de Energía para elaborar el Plan Energético Nacional (PEN).
Evidentemente, tenemos que asegurarnos de que dicho PEN persiga el máximo bienestar social del sector eléctrico en su conjunto, tal como sugerí en la aclaración a mi declaración a este mismo periódico, en la noticia "Opina decreto impulsaría década prosperidad CDEEE," que puede leerse en ese enlace de Internet, a igual que la próxima noticia.
Sobre el aspecto clave de los consejos directivos, pueden ver mi comentario en la noticia de este mismo periódico De Ramón favorece las medidas sector eléctrico.
jueves, enero 07, 2010
Can We Let Google and Wal*Mart be Global Energy Retailers?
Under the article “Google Energy” Subsidiary: What’s Google Up To?, by Katie Fehrenbacher, I posted the following comment, which is at this moment awaiting moderation, in response to the interesting question "Is Google the new ENRON?" written by Ian Bell
The answer should be a strong NO! Google Energy should be something very different than ENRON. ENRON was the result of an incomplete market, that lacked enough functionality, under a flawed architecture. That market was based on the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its incremental extensions, that keep adding huge complexity.
We should make sure that Google Energy, Wal*Mart Retail Energy and/or any other capable players, are able to participate in a federal (and global) complete and fully functional, simplified electricity market, as explained, for example, through the post “Ray Bell Predicts The Birth of Retail Energy in 2010,” which can be read by hitting the link http://bit.ly/7n2HaV
Based on the emergent Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), such a market will open the power industry to the real forces of innovation, as described in the article “A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management,” which can similarly be read at http://bit.ly/8xQmIz
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
