lunes, octubre 18, 2010

Dos Grandes Revoluciones Tecnológicas: ¿Valdrá Más Pájaro en Mano, que Cien Volando?


“Estamos en la antesala de una nueva gran revolución tecnológica”
Doctor Leonel Fernández, Presidente de la República.


Estimada y estimado líder,

Muy consciente de que no tengo todas las respuestas, estoy de acuerdo con el Presidente Fernández de que estamos en la antesala de una nueva gran revolución tecnológica. No obstante, entiendo que estamos viviendo en medio de la gran Revolución de los Sistemas, que le precede a la que está en la antesala. ¿Habremos nosotros aprovechado suficiente del enorme potencial de la primera? Además, ¿podremos desarrollar la capacidad necesaria proveniente de la primera para poder aprovechar mejor la segunda?

En sincronicidad con las declaraciones del Presidente, he seguido dos artículos conmemorativos al 40 aniversario del libro Future Schock de Alvin Toffler, publicados en días consecutivos en FastCompany.com por Greg Lindsay. Un buen ejemplo del mencionado potencial de la primera gran revolución lo podemos ver en el artículo Future Shock at 40: What the Tofflers Got Right (and Wrong), del 15 de octubre del 2010, de donde extraigo que:

One reason the Tofflers seem stuck in the past is that we have yet to take all of their recommendations. “It really upsets me that people say we have to bring manufacturing back,” Heidi said. “We have to re-train people how to think! We can’t compete with second-wave manufacturing, and China is starting to realize it, too. Future Shock is about the process of change, and The Third Wave is about the structures of change. And so far we’ve proven incapable of designing the systems that prepare us for change.”

Entiendo que nuestro gran atraso como nación es que como muchos otros países hemos hecho caso omiso del mensaje de los Tofflers y en especial el diseño de los sistemas que necesitamos para reemplazar los arreglos que han evolucionado en antisistemas. Los Tofflers tienen gran incidencia en la Revolución de los Sistemas. ¿Será tanto defectuosa una Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo concentrada en empresas seguidoras de la Segunda Ola? En vez de empresas seguidoras, creo que necesitamos desarrollar empresas líderes de la Tercera Ola, como sugiero en la nota eMail Enviado - IDECEM :) No hay crisis, Faltan Líderes.

Adicionalmente en el artículo anterior Future Shock at 40: The Tofflers Stir Up "Cyberdust" With New Scenarios, del 14 de octubre del 2010, extraigo parte de lo que dice Deborah Westphal, la socia gestora de Toffler Associates:

We’ve built much of the world economy on an industrial model, and that model doesn’t work in an information-centric society. That’s probably the greatest challenge we still face – understanding the old rules don’t apply for the future.

¿Podrían esas ideas explicar como prepararnos para poder competir mucho mejor con Centroamérica? Dice Heidi que hay que entrenar de nuevo a la gente en como pensar. Definitivamente es necesario dar un giro del pensamiento mecánico al sistémico y cuando eso sucede el problema del choque del futuro se disuelve y desaparece. ¿Podría el costo de que no cambiemos suficientemente rápido, al seguir resistiendo ciegamente La Tercera Olanaci, reflejarse en la pérdida de las grandes oportunidades que tenemos por delante al impulsar el Plan Dominicano de Desarrollo Sistémico?

Creo que podemos suponer que esas revoluciones son la primera y la segunda parte de lo que los Tofflers llaman La Tercera Ola. Estas son la Quinta y la Sexta Revoluciones Tecnológicas de acuerdo a la experta Venezolana, la Dra. Carlota Pérez, reconocida mundialmente por sus investigaciones sobre Revoluciones Tecnológicas. ¿Provendrá la mayor parte del potencial para los próximos 20 años de la Quinta Revolución Tecnológica que está ya desplegando su potencial en el resto de la economía a nivel global?

Por las inquietudes anteriores, sugiero encarecidamente que nos aseguremos de no desperdiar las oportunidades que tenemos con el pájaro en mano de la nota Rescate a la chilena del Sector Eléctrico: saquemos las empresas que están atrapadas por el derrumbe y cerremos las distribuidoras, para concentrar la atención en cien que podrían venir volando en la Sexta Revolución Tecnológica. De lograrlo, ese rescate sería el ejemplo para poder atrapar otros pájaros en mano de la Revolución de los Sistemas, para desarrollar verdaderos sistemas de educación, agua y salud, que al igual que la electricidad requieren una institución autónoma para impulsarlos.

Al igual que el Presidente John F. Kennedy, el Presidente Leonel Fernández puede pasar a la historia como un estadista que unió al pueblo dominicano para iniciar el renacimiento de la nación. La cita introductoria, divulgada durante la presentación del libro Estado del Futuro 2009, me llevó a identificar al líder tecnológico en que se apoyó Kennedy. En el Resumen Ejecutivo de ese libro dice que “Sabemos más acerca de cómo mover el año pico para las emisiones de GHG (green house gas) para acercarlo al presente, de lo que el pionero de cohetes Werner von Braun sabía sobre como llevar a un hombre de la tierra a la luna cuando el Presidente Kennedy anunció el famoso objetivo de 10 años.”

Me gustaría decir que como pionero del sistema emergente de los sectores eléctricos puedo afirmar que sé más para aprovechar ese pájaro en mano en un plazo de 5 años, “de lo que el pionero de cohetes Werner von Braun sabía sobre como llevar a un hombre de la tierra a la luna cuando el Presidente Kennedy anunció el famoso objetivo de 10 años.” Aunque, por ejemplo, la nanotecnología está ya siendo empleada para reducir los costos de la energía solar, creo que no será sino en Sexta Revolución Tecnológica cuando esta pueda abaratar grandemente los precios de la energía. Mientras tanto, por el interés reciente que tienen los inversionistas, existe buen potencial para bajar los costos de la energía con el rediseño integral de las edificaciones y sus sistemas de apoyo para aumentar la eficiencia energética.

Entiendo que la ingeniería y la arquitectura tienen todo lo que se necesita para dicho rediseño que permitirá reducir la demanda de las edificaciones del orden del 40 por ciento sin necesidad de aumentar los costos de por vida de las mismas. Ese potencial de ahorro se explica en la existencia de una política energética defectuosa a nivel global que por permanecer innecesariamente por muchos años ha expandido los recursos del lado de la oferta excesivamente, mientras los recursos del lado de la demanda han permanecido subdesarrollados.
Si ya eres miembro de LinkedIn, pero no del grupo PDDS, pulsa el enlace Ir al Grupo PDDS que lleva a la Página Web donde podrás solicitar tu inscripción. Si no eres miembro todavía, puedes inscribirte en un instante siguiendo la instrucción que aparece en la parte de abajo de la misma Página.
Gracias a nombre del país,

viernes, octubre 15, 2010

Rescate a la chilena del Sector Eléctrico: saquemos las empresas que están atrapadas por el derrumbe y cerremos las distribuidoras.

Estimado o estimada líder,

Por este medio estoy sugiriendo tu apoyo al Plan Dominicano de Desarrollo Sistémico, que en este momento cuenta con 29 miembros. El asunto un tanto ampliado de este mensaje presenta la analogía “Rescatemos a la chilena el Sector Eléctrico: saquemos las empresas (los mineros) que están atrapadas por el derrumbe (la crisis sistémica) y cerremos las distribuidoras (la mina de los generadores).”

Amplío un poco más la analogía. Basados en un pensamiento del status quo, que corresponde al desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la oferta, el Gobierno sigue una estrategia de la Era de la Producción en Masa. Con esa estrategia, protegida todavía por las instituciones multilaterales, como el FMI, el Banco Mundial y el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, los expertos chilenos han sido contratados por el Gobierno Dominicano para salvar a los generadores, que son contractualmente los verdaderos dueños de las distribuidoras. Esto está confirmado cuando dice “…el Gobierno en su misiva al FMI que tiene la intención de reducir todas las cuentas por pagar a las generadoras de electricidad a un nivel que no requiere el pago de intereses (en efecto, cero días de atraso).”

Las lecciones aprendidas en el rescate de los mineros chilenos sugieren un enfoque del desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la demanda, que en vez de salvar a los dueños de la mina, concentran la atención en salvar a los mineros y a cambiar las reglas de juego basándonos en un pensamiento que corresponde con la realidad actual de la Era de los Sistemas.

Esta es la analogía que apoya el cambio. De acuerdo al Editorial: El ejemplo de los mineros Chilenos, publicado en costaricahoy.info, “Una de las grandes lecciones que nos dejaron los mineros son las palabras que dijo en la madrugada de este miércoles Mario Sepúlveda, el segundo minero chileno rescatado “este país tiene que entender que hay que hacer cambios”, refiriéndose a las causas de la tragedia que los tuvo a él y a otros 32 mineros, 70 días atrapados dentro de la montaña.”

En efecto, siguiendo el ejemplo de los mineros chilenos, los dominicanos tenemos que entender que es necesario hacer una reestructuración del sector eléctrico para rescatar a las empresas atrapadas desde hace mucho tiempo por la crisis sistémica de dicho sector. Si quieres colaborar en la definición de esta alternativa, espero muy atentamente tu participación, y la de otros líderes como tu, en el Grupo Plan Dominicano de Desarrollo Sistémico (PDDS).

Si ya eres miembro de LinkedIn, pero no del grupo PDDS, pulsa el enlace Ir al Grupo PDDS que lleva a la Página Web donde podrás solicitar tu inscripción. Si no eres miembro todavía, puedes inscribirte en un instante siguiendo la instrucción que aparece en la parte de abajo de la misma Página.

Gracias a nombre del país,

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - LinkedIn

jueves, octubre 14, 2010

Smart Grid America Forum II - Shift into the Customer Era

Posted At : October 14, 2010 8:54 AM
Posted By : Katarina Prochazkova - American Leaders Blog

Related Categories: Clean Power Investing, Demand Management, Demand Response, Distribution Management Systems, Energy Efficiency, Grid Security, Metering

At Smart Grid America Forum II, February 15th and 16th 2011, in Washington DC¸ delegates and speakers will consider a set of questions and contribute to a set of collective judgments. Was 2010 the year that pushed Smart Grid out of the boardroom, into marketing departments, and firmly into the American lexicon? Will 2011 be the year that Smart Grid’s paradigm shifts toward consumer utilization, and sales? Has recent resistance from Public Utilities Commissions, and met by utilities attempting to move ahead with AMI and real time pricing, forced Smart Grid stakeholders to re-examine strategy? Conference’s keynote speakers reveal more…

As the conference takes shape, the growing pool of industry leaders, advisors, and early bird delegates will set the tone. They will confront these questions, driving the discussion that follows to steer Smart Grid discourse on to new themes, models, and practices.

Propelled by a mix of keynote speakers, panel & roundtable discussions, and a PR workshop, the conference relies on experienced leadership and depth of perspective from visionaries like PhD. Peter Fox-Penner.

His presentation will link major challenges facing the utility industry: climate change investments, declining sales and the demand for further energy efficiency; as well as smart grid. As these forces interact, and current regulatory compacts and business models become unsustainable; what structures will remain? How will legislation and the competencies of regulation adapt to these needs?

With many key structural issues underlying current Smart Grid Business Models laid out, we can explore the shifting emphasis from infrastructure and software, towards products and services focused on new & renewed utility-customer relationships. How dramatic will the shifts need to be to reinvigorate the sector?

Join PhD. Jose Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio -systemic consultant in the electric power industry and 38 year veteran of the IEEE- in his quest for a fundamental solution that will require deep policy changes “of the highest leadership to restore effectiveness to the whole electric power industry, moving it from an era of mass production to a systems era.”

To demonstrate this, he will explore the integration of key cross-cutting issues needed to reactivate the economy with new energy (mainly electricity), communication (including IT), and construction sector policies. “Resorting to independent symptomatic regulatory solutions is no longer sufficient to face the serious problems of an obsolete mass production energy policy that has led to an unsustainable overexpansion of the resources of the supply side.”

Delegates will be able to appraise these two visions through fresh presentations and case studies provided by our other keynote speakers. Southern California Edison will detail how they have used Demand Side Management to augment their Smart Grid activities. HOK architecture will share lessons learned from their experience in Green Building, integrating energy efficiency and “smart” technologies into their concepts. OPower, will present on their deepening knowledge of customer engagement and behaviors. Hlinko Consulting chimes in on pumping up your Smart Grid efforts using web based PR and Marketing.

Join us in the coming weeks for updates on speakers and their activities, conference news, and other American Leader’s information. We look forward to seeing you in February.

Event website: http://www.americanleaders.com/events/smart-grid-america.html

miércoles, octubre 13, 2010

Easing Smart Meters Path with a New Legislative Mandate

Ken Silverstein has written, on October 12, 2010, the timely article Maryland's Turning Point on Smart Meters: Ratepayers Won't be Patsies, which I responded with this comment:

Hi Ken,

Back in June 2010, I posted the comment Every State Government Should Follow Maryland PSC's Leadership, that said:

Maryland PSC's great leadership decision on BG&E's Smart Metering Project has answered the question posed in the EWPC article Is the Smart Grid that is Being Pushed a Costly Mistake? That decision fulfills Peter Koestenbaum’s leadership strategies on how to achieve greatness: it has extraordinary value on ethics, vision, reality, and courage.

The summary of said article suggests the leadership step waiting to happen: “The main argument is that, by inaction, each State Government should be responsible to their constituencies for a very costly mistake that is being made by letting the smart grid process continue without giving State Regulators the proper mandate.”

On top of that, State Governments need to look very closely at the discussions posted in The Dynamic Pricing Debate Shows that Utilities Won't be Able [to] Engage Customers.

Now I see that you wrote that "The Galvin Institute adds that the technologies are already working and if regulators would ease the path, more providers would participate and those tools would get even better. It also says that for every $1 invested in smart meters, $4 to $5 is returned in the form energy savings, greater productivity and more jobs." Are all regulators able to "ease the path" without the new legislative mandate to open the retail markets for providers competition that I am asking for?

Also supporting the case for a new mandate, the Galvin Electricity Initiative, in their recently launched booklet “An Electric Revolution: Reforming Monopolies, Reinventing the Gridand Giving Power to the People,” says that:

"Recognizing the profound benefits to the economy and environment, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Smart Grid Investment Grant program awarded $4.3 billion to 100 projects during 2009, most of which regrettably emphasize only semi-intelligent electric meters. Alas, fewer than 20 of the projects are
designed to give consumers the real tools and information needed to make informed choices. More than 90 percent of the money is simply going to shovel-ready projects, using meters with limited features that retain a utility’s control of electricity use and price data. The unfortunate result is that these less-sophisticated devices — which in some cases are leading to mysterious overcharges — are not only giving smart meters a bad reputation among consumers, but also raising suspicions about utility motives and predatory practices."

Best regards,

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. - LinkedIn

lunes, octubre 11, 2010

Should the World Bank Insists on Maintaining the IOUs-AF in Developing Countries?

First Update. This comments come from the original EWPC Blog.

Comments

World bank supplies only a very small part of finance to country like India. Then it is never in a position now for some umpteen years even to appoint consultants even though it does some semblence of selecting them.ButThe bank officials will admit that the couyntries where they are supposed to work often decide who is going there and who is not going there.Having said this please note that World bank is not a pure bank but a Political Economic bank and it has its own limitations. Often it futhurs the interest of the private enterprise from countries that have a major say. So yo can not wexpect these people to write the energy policies for countries to whom they lend except the ones who are so small that in a map you have to use a Looking Glass.There is much talk and no fire!Then again Going to demand side often means encouraging the Industries to produce such goods and services which do not exist in the coutry in Question.The world bank is not really bothered till the country experts themselves say so and Minister concerned then takes up the case. There is also a problem of scale of production and people who can take up such projects. Sometimes it may be there and at other times it may not be there. In case of India world bank will leave it to Private sector like Siemens etc to do the work.So let be clear about what this World bank is about.They are there to initiate development and letting the private sector from their member countries take over in one form or other. they have a develpment arm but the purpose is not altruistic
Alok Misra

Thank you Alok,

Essentially what I am saying is that there are two competing energy policies at the most highest level. The IOUs-AF (with many incremental extensions) and the EWPC-AF. I believe that a shift at the WB away from the IOUs-AF is in accordance with what is says at the World Bank Website:

At the World Bank we have made the world's challenge--to reduce global poverty--our challenge.

The Bank focuses on achievement of the Millennium Development Goals that call for the elimination of poverty and sustained development. The goals provide us with targets and yardsticks for measuring results.

Our mission is to help developing countries and their people reach the goals by working with our partners to alleviate poverty. We address global challenges in ways that advance an inclusive and sustainable globalization--that overcome poverty, enhance growth with care for the environment, and create individual opportunity and hope.

Six strategic themes drive our efforts. By focusing on these strategic themes, the Bank delivers technical, financial and other assistance to those most in need and where it can have the greatest impact and promote growth: to the poorest countries, fragile states and the Arab world; to middle-income countries; to solving global public goods issues; and to delivering knowledge and learning services.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio

In response to the Oct 10, 2010, energybiz.com article Bringing Electricity to Poorer Countries: Electrification tops UN Agenda, by Ken Silverstein, I wrote on Oct 11, 2010, the following comment under the title "Strategy for the Development of the Resources of the Demand Side:"

Hi Ken,

You report that "… the United Nations has established a goal of bringing power generation to the under-developed regions so that they can improve their quality of life." Such a goal could be very misleading as it can be interpreted as a policy in accordance with the Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework (IOUs-AF) that concentrates the attention into the resources of the supply side, with generation as the key technology.

That IOUs-AF policy has led to such a development of the resources of the supply side, which has been saturated for quite some time. During that time, that IOUs-AF policy has kept the development of the resources of the demand side highly underdeveloped. That is why the potential of the development of demand side is where most of the value creation is available to both develop and even more so for the developing countries, with for example net zero energy buildings as a goal.

So what is needed is not just to bring power generation to the under-developed regions of the world, but to also design an emergent power system with the highest systemic leverage possible. That involves a paradigm shift from the status quo IOUs-AF to the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF).

In order to find out which is the best way to satisfy the needs of underdeveloped regions of the world, I strongly suggest that the UN, as an integral part of the socio-technical whole power system, should concentrate their active attention in the EWPC article Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers? In that article, I give the example of a developing country, the Dominican Republic, “… as one of the potential candidates to initiate the transformation of the electric power industry. I did that because that transformation is more dependent on a mental model shift about energy policy than a technological one to satisfy customers’ needs and to reduce industry strategic risk.”

Should the World Bank, as an active investor arm of the UN, insists on maintaining the IOUs-AF in South Africa, the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere?

Best regards,

José Antonio

martes, octubre 05, 2010

A Suggestion to Some Global Elected Official on Bernanke's Threat From Deficits 'Real And Growing'

The October 4, 2010, story Bernanke: Threat From Deficits 'Real And Growing' distributed by The Associated Press, starts with “The economy could be hurt if Congress and the White House fail to come up with a plan to curb the nation's huge budget deficits in the coming years, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Monday.” That is a tough situation that other governments, like that of the Dominican Republic, are also facing.

The story adds that “Bernanke steered clear of making recommendations on the best way to reduce the deficits, saying those tough decisions are best left to the nation's elected officials.” Below I advice elected officials of countries with huge deficits on why the electric power industry is one of the best ways to help reduce it.

The electric power industry is ripe for a transformation that is a predetermined element of most plausible global scenarios, being a prerequisite, for example, to the White House scenario of clean energy. Such a transformation differs greatly from the ongoing reform process that is named as the Smart Grid. The difference is that the reform process has kept, through a system-of-systems architecture approach, the utility status quo practically intact, thus providing an inferior solution to customers and society in the global marketplace.

That inferior solution has its roots in the flawed restructuring process initiated in the 1990s that came no only to halt with the California crisis, which has unnecessarily extended the useful life of vertical integration in many states, but that actually became a counter reform process to the organized wholesale markets, for example, with one of the worst manifestations in the Dominican Republic. Whether under vertical integration, or under organized wholesale markets, smart meter investments are being made in the global marketplace by risk averse utilities or what I term First Generation Retailers. As a result, most of the stimulus funds are now further engrossing healthy utilities or being transfered to generators, as in the case of the Dominican Republic.

To provide the highest systemic leverage, industry has one single key facet that is explained by the post "Why the IEEE Smart Grid World Forum Requires Learning About T&D Transportation Ultraquality," which went missing in the above mentioned restructuring process. For that simple reason, the key professional of the industry are the system engineers, whose role involves system planning in addition to system operations. Those system engineers must be the leaders of the primary regulated T&D Grid system compact of the EWPC-AF to develop and execute a long run system adequacy and a short run system security strategy designed to implement the ultraquality imperative.

Similar to the tough decision made by Theodore Roosevelt during The Great Depression, elected officials need to consider the restructuring of the electric power industry in order to transform it with a superior solution for the benefit of humanity. Under the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework, smart meters investments are not be regulated, but must be done by competitive retailer’s investment in the marketplace.

As a result, Second Generation Retailers (2GRs) that lead the complementary Enterprise system of the EWPC-AF do not get a regulated rate base, as retail and wholesale markets mutually reinforce each other. 2GRs depend on their business models to recoup all their advance technology investments. Thus, 2GRs must be non risk averse.

The message to elected officials is that the transformation of the power industry only needs the incentives of an effective energy policy that promotes long run production capital private investments, instead of more short run financial government stimulus investments. That could be part of the plan to curb huge budget deficits of many nations. For more details to support that really tough decision, please take a look at the EWPC article Answering “What Energy Business Are You In?” As the Way Out of The Third Depression, whose summary says that:

During a similar time of great change, railroads and utilities have defined their business incorrectly, by ignoring several insights, like the one Theodore Levitt gave us in his 1960’s Marketing Myopia manifesto. A quote on the 1982 book Megatrends explains utility investors why the attempt to keep a monopoly on the customer relationship, with an ineffective old economy Big-Bang Advanced Metering Infrastructure will further extend the uneconomic overexpansion of the resources of the supply side. To reduce the odds of the return of the depression, we need policies for the new economy, like power industry transformation and boring banking, which mutually reinforce each other with the coming communications’ boom to enable innovative value creation and long term jobs.

lunes, octubre 04, 2010

Why is there so much potential risk associated with the smart grid?

"The sheer volume of interactive devices on two-way networks is the biggest risk. By the end of 2015 we will have 440 million new hackable points on the grid. Nobody’s equipped to deal with that today" is part of the excerpts of a conversation between Kenneth Van Meter, Lockheed’s general manager of Energy and Cyber Services, and Melanie D. G. Kaplan of SmartPlanet.com that was published as Lockheed Martin on the smart grid: ‘440 million new hackable points’

In my third comment under Melanie's piece, I respond the question in a simpler and better way:

Because it involves all of it, everything up to the meter and everything behind the meter, the utility will be managing huge risks.

One key Second Generation Retailers (2GRs) job is to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control. The result is that we have several competitive 2GRs managing their own risk after the meter and one transmission and distribution utility managing the risk before the meter, thus dividing the risk among them. Isn't that a much better proposition?


Continuing in reverse, under the heading Reliable Customer Service and Complexity Reduction, I wrote:

In the end-to-end smart grid being developed consumers will receive service from utility that is responsible for reliability, whether they like it or not. Even if you have a First Generation Retailer, they will not be participating in system operability performance.

The end-to-end value chain under the EWPC-AF is separate from transmission and distribution. Second Generation Retailers will be responsible for both prices and operability, as they will contibute to system operation performance for their customers. If you are not satisfied with a 2GR, you may go to a different one.


Finally, my first comment relative to piece was:

The smart grid has been made more complex than necessary, as a result of a system-of-systems architecting approach designed to protect most of utility system status quo profits, leaving practically intact their systems. That approach is summarized as: interoperability first and operability second. It can also be though as utility first and customers and society second.

To learn about how to simplify the architecture with the approach operability first and interoperability second, please take a look at the post "Why the IEEE Smart Grid World Forum Requires Learning About T&D Transportation Ultraquality.

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Creator of the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Valued IEEE Member for 39 Years