miércoles, diciembre 27, 2006

Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 22

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

Part 2 of 2.

On 12.20.06, Fred wanted to restart the debate, but was unsuccessful. Len suddenly decided to take command and defend his baby project IMEUC as an emerging deregulation project, saying to Fred “I would like to submit that on de-regulation I believe you are wrong (and therefore naturally and to my regret, myself for a failing grade).”

On 12.21.06 I defused Prof. Banks argument about “NO TINKERING ON THE DEMAND SIDE CAN OFFSET THE GAMING AND LACK OF INVESTMENT ON THE SUPPLY SIDE!” He said nothing, which to the untrained eye means he accepted the arguments. However, being a great downloader he repeated it later on in response to James.

On 12.24.06 Mr. Carson came to respond Banks on the “NO TINKERING…” argument that he didn’t defend.

Trying to reframe the debate, on 12.25.06, I rephrased Fred’s “NO TINKERING…”argument in a generative dialogue sense. But, on 12.26.06, Mr. Carson’s did not “listen” as his aim was to keep debating.

Before completing my 12.26.06 response to Len, which starts with “Generative dialogue synthesis,” I said “I have ‘listened’ carefully to Len’s opinions and perceive that his interests, by going farther than necessary, go well beyond Phase One. Other parties representative of the larger whole – high social complexity - with different interests – regulators, generation of differing kinds, wholesale, retail, transmission, distribution, fuel supply, manufacturers of systems and equipments, etc. - are invited to participate in the generative dialogue.”

On 12.26.06 Len asked for a time out of “perhaps a couple of weeks…”

I hope to have taken away some of the interference that seems to exist on the generative dialogue.


José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD

Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 21

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

To all readers that want to learn about the third way of deregulation

Part 1 of 2.

I am against debates on deregulation, because there is nothing we can do about the decade old debate. That is why I proposed instead to work on a generative dialogue, because we can learn about the emerging future, by considering, for example, EWPC as a candidate for such third way. Deregulation is a very complex and tough problem situation.

Adam Kahane says on page 68 of his book “solving tough problems,” that “[M]ost conventional approaches to solving problems emphasize talking, especially the authoritarian, boss or expert, way of talking: telling…” just like James Carson and Prof. Banks.

Kahane continuous saying: “In a debate, each party prepares their position and speech in advance and then delivers it to a panel, which chooses the most convincing speech. The same process is used in courtrooms and boardrooms and in parliament (except the legislators have usually made up their minds before they hear the speeches).” Fred and James seem to be excellent legislators.

Kahane concludes that “This approach works for deciding between already created alternatives, but it doesn’t create anything new… The additional element that is required to create something new, and that is ignored in most conventional approaches, is listening… [on page 70] the next step, listening openly, is even harder.”

Given that in this medium it is not possible to impose a solution by force, debates can only get stuck. With very high probability, that will be the result of Carson vs. Banks.

We need at least two people to start a debate, specially a heated debate. According to the Webster’s American Dictionary, debate means “discussion, especially of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints.” Before Mr. Carson’s first comment, I believe that I was conducting a generative dialogue with Len (but not with Prof. Banks), since on 12.25.06 Len said “…I might add that it seems that the greatest benefit of "generative dialogue"…”

So, I will try to summarize some of the signals that have resulted so far from the electricity industry generative dialogue.

I recall that 12.19.06 was a very important synchronicity day for the generative dialogue on deregulation. While I was recalling that “it is time innovate…,” Len said he was “actually one of the strongest supporters of a pure market electricity strategy such as EWPC.” As I explained that EWPC is not a pure market electricity strategy, I found an important and strong signal: “Jamie Wimberly’s article The Future Utility Customer Service Model closure, in which he endorses systemic approach and the revolution away from the continuity scenario.” That is the key issue here!