Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 17

Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 16

While debating, people operate downloading and reloading rehearsed messages. They know what is true and they don’t need to “listen” to what the other writes. Some as Prof. Banks have the courage to write that “I know too much about it, and where this subject is concerned my memory is very good.”

Under a generative dialogue, the aim is different as “listening” is very important. The object is to tackle complex problems to learn from an emergent future. It is not possible to come up yet with a right solution.

On 5.12.06 – under Post hoc ergo propter hoc: The fallacy of blaming deregulation for rising electricity prices we had this interchange of opinions:

Len: I'm still waiting for anyone to acknowledge Independent Market for Every Utility Customer - Preliminary Business Case or Independent Market for Every Utility Customer Part 2 - Market Operation

José Antonio: “In other comments I have expressed that retailers’ business model innovations should be centered on AMI, CIS and demand response integration. That leads to the market winning approach, which is the first phase of competition: market vs. market, where collaboration is the critical strategy according to Geoffrey Moore in the book “Living on the fault line” … Len articles are part of the second phase of competition: company vs. company. That is a zero sum game, and so competition is the core strategy. That is why I don’t want to take sides yet. Sorry Len, I think your approach is one of several available to retailers. Good luck!”

See Avoiding the Boom and Bust Cycle in Electricity Trading and Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue for an explanation of how under EWPC the mitigation of fuel price avoids unacceptable price spikes.

Jose Antonio today: the complex situation is similar to the one facing the gas industry that Andy has brilliantly explained. This explains why "recommendations don't quite go far enough." The complexity has three dimensions according to Adam Kahane (taken from Senge and other):

High dynamic complexity: forecasting tools should be replaced by system dynamics and scenario tools deployed by competent professionals. Fuel prices should be mitigated to produce electricity prices.

High generative complexity: an emergent market design and architecture model – a third way – is available and was not included in the decade long debate. Schweppes’s theory and practice was unable to emerge. EWPC is one candidate market design and architecture open to many competing solutions that extend Schweppes’s concepts.

High social complexity: there is a need for a customer orientation to be able to develop the resources of the demand side by market segments. As customers needs evolve, such development will empower customers only by interacting with them. Retailers’ accounts are assets that prudential regulation supervises and that customers and generators will trust if the system is designed properly.

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD is an Interdependent [Systemic] Consultant on Electricity, whose “[R]esearch and practice areas, and interests include: [electricity without price controls], systems architecture, systems thinking, electricity retail marketing under a customer orientation, electric market rules, information systems requirements and design, contract assistance.”