Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010
Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become.
A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 4 of 6
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Creator of the EWPC-AF
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010.
Copyright © 2010 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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
|
Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog
July 4th, 2010
· · The EWPC Textbook (23,717)
· The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003)
· The BIG California LIE. (9,673)
|
Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010
· The Next Energy Secretary (57)
· Response to Professor Banks (46)
· EWPC’s Tipping Point (44)
· IMEUC False Facts (41)
|
My response to the 5th person… continuous…
The EWPC-AF is also very competitive in the T&D Grid side. Without any loss of generality, we could say that there are only three general frameworks available to the industry, making all others variants of those three: vertical integration, what is left of deregulation, and the emerging EWPC-AF. What is left of deregulation, based on Open Transmission Access, gives a lot of uncertainty to transmission R&D and investments. EPAct 92 reduced the importance of not just R&D on the Transportation side; it reduced investments as well as the wrong signals were given. The result was a decrease in system reliability trajectory in restructured states.
It is in the T&D Grid side that almost all of the 7th person very clear examples of power industry innovations apply. The regulatory desire to keep totals costs (not necessarily prices in this case) at minimum in the T&D Grid side remains under EWPC-AF and is one of the component to shoot for maximum social welfare of the whole. Like the obsolete vertical integration, the EWPC-AF gives both transmission R&D and investments the necessary incentives for a competition by comparison in the global marketplace.
An earlier attempt to do a reform (not a transformation) in the US federal market to try to repair the deregulation failure was the FERC Standard Market Design. (SMD). I understand that the other main reasons for its failure, the first being introduced in EPAct 92 with Open Transmission Access, was the result of an analytic process of the mostly thermal part of the power industry, which does not apply to the mostly hydro part of the industry. The EWPC-AF process was made by synthesis to create a minimalist architecture that divides the emerging industry in the simplest possible way.
Finally, as the 8th person pointed out, “In don't think we've actually seen a true competitive energy market yet.” Retail contestability has been done by (First Generation) retailers. In the EWPC-AF, it is the global Second Generation Retailer that makes it “a foregone conclusion” to be suggested to legislative bodies for their decision.
In response, the 7th person makes a case against retailers, which starts with “…if you spent time researching the results of the two most open markets in the world, the UK and Sweden, you would understand that what you want, is not going to work…” Next is my response:
Thank you for another very important input to this generative dialogue. Before considering that input, it is important to make sure that competition under the EWPC-AF is designed for an architecture competition among Second Generation Retailers, with the purpose of introducing innovations to the power industry.
I am taking this opportunity to express that research has been at the very center of the EWPC-AF process for its full decade and a half. In fact, the EWPC-AF is an extension of the theory and practice work led by Fred C. Schweppe at MIT from 1978 to 1988. The extension is from their regulated spot price based energy marketplace to the EWPC-AF.
The EWPC-AF is also very competitive in the T&D Grid side. Without any loss of generality, we could say that there are only three general frameworks available to the industry, making all others variants of those three: vertical integration, what is left of deregulation, and the emerging EWPC-AF. What is left of deregulation, based on Open Transmission Access, gives a lot of uncertainty to transmission R&D and investments. EPAct 92 reduced the importance of not just R&D on the Transportation side; it reduced investments as well as the wrong signals were given. The result was a decrease in system reliability trajectory in restructured states.
It is in the T&D Grid side that almost all of the 7th person very clear examples of power industry innovations apply. The regulatory desire to keep totals costs (not necessarily prices in this case) at minimum in the T&D Grid side remains under EWPC-AF and is one of the component to shoot for maximum social welfare of the whole. Like the obsolete vertical integration, the EWPC-AF gives both transmission R&D and investments the necessary incentives for a competition by comparison in the global marketplace.
An earlier attempt to do a reform (not a transformation) in the US federal market to try to repair the deregulation failure was the FERC Standard Market Design. (SMD). I understand that the other main reasons for its failure, the first being introduced in EPAct 92 with Open Transmission Access, was the result of an analytic process of the mostly thermal part of the power industry, which does not apply to the mostly hydro part of the industry. The EWPC-AF process was made by synthesis to create a minimalist architecture that divides the emerging industry in the simplest possible way.
Finally, as the 8th person pointed out, “In don't think we've actually seen a true competitive energy market yet.” Retail contestability has been done by (First Generation) retailers. In the EWPC-AF, it is the global Second Generation Retailer that makes it “a foregone conclusion” to be suggested to legislative bodies for their decision.
In response, the 7th person makes a case against retailers, which starts with “…if you spent time researching the results of the two most open markets in the world, the UK and Sweden, you would understand that what you want, is not going to work…” Next is my response:
Thank you for another very important input to this generative dialogue. Before considering that input, it is important to make sure that competition under the EWPC-AF is designed for an architecture competition among Second Generation Retailers, with the purpose of introducing innovations to the power industry.
I am taking this opportunity to express that research has been at the very center of the EWPC-AF process for its full decade and a half. In fact, the EWPC-AF is an extension of the theory and practice work led by Fred C. Schweppe at MIT from 1978 to 1988. The extension is from their regulated spot price based energy marketplace to the EWPC-AF.
yyy
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario