lunes, diciembre 25, 2006

Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 19

Reference: Playing with Fire - The 10 Tcf/year Supply Gap -- Part I

Merry Christmas to everyone!

Thanks Len for considering the generative dialogue. In a generative dialogue what is important is "listening" in sychronicity with other interest parties to the larger whole that is emerging. For example, a common understanding of what EWPC means as a third way not considered in the decade old debate.

I presume that large customers could be allowed to go directly to generators for their deals in the wholesale market. Then, what you are suggesting is a monopoly retailer innovation under a Market Manager. I suggest to have retail competition, so that other potential innovations are also allowed to emerge. Go to any marketing book and you will find why intermediaries are needed.

What you are proposing is to impose on everyone the Swithboard Profit Model “innovation,” which Adrian Slywosky describes on page 59 of his book “The Profit Zone.”


Some markets are characterized by multiple sellers communicating with multiple buyers, with high costs incurred by both. In many case, there is an opportunity to create a high-value intermediary that concentrates these multiple communicating pathways through one point, one channel, by creating a switchboard. The switchboard reduces the cost to both buyers and sellers. A powerful component of the switchboard model is that it builds on itself; the more buyers and sellers that join, the more valuable it becomes.
Such middleman model is perfectly allowed under the EWPC market architecture and design. That is why I said earlier "good luck!" Please say so if there are other things that still bother you.

Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 18

Reference: Playing with Fire - The 10 Tcf/year Supply Gap -- Part I

Mr. Carson initiated what seems to be a heated debate with Prof. Banks. In my most recent comment you may see that a debate centers on the typical downloading and reloading. However, if they decide to learn from the emerging future, by following my suggestion to Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue all of us might be served better.

In that respect, I also suggest to change the debate based on the past

NO TINKERING ON THE DEMAND SIDE CAN OFFSET THE GAMING AND LACK OF INVESTMENT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE!

to an emergent generative dialogue on

IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCATION, THE BEST INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR AN ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEM WITH THE APPROPIATE MARKET ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN IS A MIX OF INVESTMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE DEMAND SIDE AND INVESTMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE SUPPLY SIDE THAT REDUCES SHORT RUN AND LONG RUN SYSTEMIC RISK WHILE SOCIETY RECEIVES THE MAXIMUM VALUE FROM ELECTRICITY.

The suggested forward looking statement itself is open to be clarified and refined.