The whole discussion of incorporating new technologies in the demand side of the power industry is very important in the discussion. But as you will see, your generous “believe that IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion,” is unsupported. I humbly suggest that you take a close look at the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts, and read below, to consider changing that believe based on the many False Facts documented already.
In a series of posts under the article EWPC’s Tipping Point [a must read to get a proper response to your inquiry], in response to Len question “I can find no relationship between your last two posts and IMEUC. Clarfiy?” [my response was:]
The relationship is with "We have a saying in Spanish which I translate as 'that only the tree that gives good fruits gets stoned' (maybe the English version is 'Picked-to-perfection fruit is just a stone's throw away')." The point is that Don Giegler [and maybe Bob and Len] is defending the utilities status quo and has been using IMEUC to throw stones at EWPC, because he knows that IMEUC is not a threat to the California utilities excesses.
Relating that third article that never came, that was suppose to respond my convincing "generative dialogue synthesis (please read about IMEUC deficiencies in the article "EWPC's Tipping Point" [the link is in the second paragraph])," I repeat that you retracted with "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you." All those issues were not clarified al all. Just like me[,] Jim Beyer is not throwing stones, but confirming the IMEUC is mostly a physical installation "market," that has not possibilities to replace the status quo. [this is what you wrote:]
To: Len Gould
Based on your comment, I decided I should try to get my head around IMEUC. So I looked at your papers. I still find it a bit obtuse. Much text was devoted to the particulars of meters and their costs. I think people concerned with replacing the status quo would be concerned about many other matters as well [like those that Bob calls “Len's IMEUC market reforms,” which are totally absent].
Bob doesn't throw stones to IMEUC either [in fact there seems to be also a Bob’s IMEUC], because he is not "concerned with replacing the status quo [either, nor is he] … concerned about many other matters as well," that he has an opinion they [the many other matters] are religious . I have worked hard to get "techies," as he calls himself, and maybe [forget maybe] you, to unveil the business (not religious) and technical complexities of the power industry.
Len ended his "techie" answers to you with “Anyway, just a few thoughts. It's very possible I'm missing something [the “many other matters as well…”] about your plan. It wouldn't be the first time.” Now he writes "Also could use any help available from anyone out there willing to collaborate / contribute expertise in the many [other missing matters] areas where [Bob too] I'm lacking."
Hence, the answer to your question: "Is there any new revised explanation [of IMEUC} in the works?" is that there is no longer a need at all to keep playing games to explain IMEUC anymore.
The means to replace the status quo can be found in the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary says: “The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”