viernes, noviembre 02, 2007

A New Mistaken Experiment

As there are Only Two Stable Paradigms, the electricity-regulation bill approved by Ohio’s Senate is just a new mistaken experiment under economic first, reliability second, tinkering.

Mr. Paul Wilson
The Columbus Dispatch, Ohio

Dear Mr. Wilson,

On Wednesday, August 29, 2007, I wrote the article Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business. It seems that the message didn't get to the stakeholders. So, I will give a new warning to them.

Today, in the news “Electricity-regulation bill wins Senate approval,” you inform that “The bill, supported by a coalition led by manufacturers, would require utilities to prove that competition exists before moving to market-based pricing, rather than regulator-approved rates, in 2009. After tweaks in committee hearings, the bill also would require utilities to ensure that what customers pay in a deregulated system is "comparable" to rates on, 2008.”

The public needs to be aware that the approved Ohio’s Senate Bill has a big flaw: for competition to exist, utilities as we know them would disappear. For retail competition to exist there is a need to do without incumbent retailers, as the utilities need to be transformed into integrated (transmission and distribution) transportation utilities.

The central issue, however, is that the transportation utility is not a subject of congressional debate, but the subject of engineering planning, operation and control, to satisfy an ultraquality imperative, just like nuclear power plants and space flight vehicles. As there are Only Two Stable Paradigms, the electricity-regulation bill approved by Ohio’s Senate is just a new mistaken experiment under economic first, reliability second, tinkering.

In the process to allow competition, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio should shift to prudential regulation from regulations on price controls. So one important question the House Public Utilities Committee needs to answer to go forward is: Can We Concentrate on Results? Please hit the link with the question to learn the answer.

Please forward this message to the stakeholder’s representatives.

Best regards,

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity

Already posted on November 2nd, 2007, in www.energyblogs.com.

Can We Concentrate on Results?

Can we concentrate on results? I would say YES, as the knowledge required to decide that the decade old debate between great scams and the apparently lesser and more familiar customer wallet cleaning have been over has been available for more than a year.

Can We Concentrate on Results?

By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.

Systemic Consultant: Electricity

Copyright © 2007 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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Dear Prof. Banks, Dr. Rozenman, and other important and intelligent writers and readers,

I have learned a lot from the contributions (and to complete my research to address their inquiries) of Prof. Banks to Mr. Gould, which have accompanied me in this process for almost two years. By the same token, I have also learned a lot from others no so regular interactions with other intelligent and important writers.

I am sorry that sometimes I have been rude in some of my posts, but it is difficult for me to be as diplomatic as required. Thank you for understanding my apologies.

To go forward, I pose to all readers and writers the following question: Can we concentrate on results?

With a lot of respect, I understand that the historic processes are very important, interesting and useful, but even more important and useful, not necessarily interesting, are the results. I submit that these are the results:

1) Vertical integration regulation: wallet cleaning for customers that don’t need the average offers in their customer class.

2) Economy first, reliability second, (E1R2) deregulation: great scams, as documented by Prof. Banks.

3) Reliability first, economy second, EWPC (R1E2) re-regulation: the solution, that has recently emerged to both the customer wallet cleaning and the great scams problems, is for every end-customers to be able to choose the best service plan of the many available in the market, that will result from business model innovations without price controls under competition and prudential regulations. Great leadership is required to get EWPC implemented.

In the presentation A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of the Power Industry (please hit link to download the presentation), I humbly suggested in March 2006, at Carnegie Mellon University that what is needed to go forward is to concentrate in the generative dialogue to introduce the transformation from today's situation to the end-state of the industry for quite some time, by adopting the EWPC winning market architecture and design.

In the post A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 1, I introduced some of Adam Kahane’s ideas about generative dialogues.

Repeating, the question is: Can we concentrate on results? I would say YES, as the knowledge required to decide that the decade old debate between great scams and the apparently lesser and more familiar customer wallet cleaning have been over has been available for more than a year.

Best regards,

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity