An important discovery about the non-trivial aspects of power system planning, operation and control is in the making, under a generative dialogue. Resources are needed to develop an update of Jason Black's PH.D. M.I.T thesis to simulate the EWPC architecture and design paradigm shift of the power industry.
Power System Operation Stocks and Flows
Thank you Fred,
Your post is very good, as you engage the generative dialogue as I asked.
From what you wrote, I infer that you confirm that Len “. . . is seduced by the early chapters in his econ 101 textbook, and so he didn't bother to read the later chapters, where he might have been informed that regulating [and re-regulating under EWPC as explained below] the electric industry makes a lot of sense.”
You are probably right that Prof. Schweppe didn’t take explicitly into account stocks and flows into his regulated (not deregulated) energy marketplace, but he included the criterion “Utility Control, Operation and Planning: Consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system," which suffices to me to extend the regulated marketplace to a re-regulated one.
That criterion is the ultraquality imperative which is a true and non-trivial essential characteristic of vertical integration that also belongs to EWPC, but is missing from IMEUC. So, thanks to you, maybe we are discovering something new. This is what I see about introducing stocks and flows to the power industry, which necessarily is in draft form and thus wide open to enhancements.
The vertically integrated utilities (VIU) paradigm developed under the assumption of demand as an externality. Under the VIU paradigm, the job of the power system dispatcher is to accumulate generating capacity “stock” by interconnecting (and disconnecting) generating units to the power system according to a process called “security constraint unit commitment” to find out the proper places and the proper rates thereby operating the power system at ultraquality to satisfy the accumulated external load “stock” at each time and location. It is a tough job that involves important delays that result in the disequilibrium dynamics of the power system.
Under EWPC, demand is integrated to power system planning, operation and control with the aim of ultraqualty service, under the tough job to be planned (long run and short run) by 2GRs to aggregate “dispatchable” load stock in the wholesale market, by making contractual agreements with customers at the retail market.
It is in those agreements that most of the leverage is to be found to increase the efficiency of power sectors (i.e. avoidance of excesive capacity). Such agreements are already being executed in several states of the U.S. by demand response aggregators. However, the lack of a proper market architecture and design is the source of the FERC action on NERC mandatory requirements mentioned in the above post under today’s mess.
The lack of long run and short run planning of stocks (i.e. inventories) of customer demand response in the California debacle was one important missing item that let the incredible price spikes and costly rotating blackouts result.
As it cost a lot of money, instead of sending my heros to Upsala, I am sending through you this post to get their feedback. With regard to money, my priority now is to find the funds to develop the stock and flow diagram of power system planning, operation and control for EWPC to update the system dynamic model of Jason Black’s M.I.T. Ph.D. theses.
Reference and context: Grooming Wind, by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider.