sábado, abril 30, 2016

Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG: The Question is What to do First

Warren B. Causey | Apr 07, 2008

Share/Save   
The next 10 to 15 years will see major changes - perhaps even classified as upheavals by future historians - in the distribution of electricity to businesses and households throughout the United States. The exact nature of these changes and their long-term effect upon the economic well-being and security of the country are difficult to predict. But a consensus already exists among those working within the industry, politicians and regulators, economists, environmentalists and, increasingly, among the general public, that fundamental changes are inevitable.
The existing paradigm of nationwide grid interconnection – brought about primarily by the deregulation movement of the late 1990s – emphasizes the generation of electricity at large plants in various parts of the country and then distribution effectively nationwide. There are two reasons why this paradigm is failing. First, the transmission/distribution system was not designed as a nationwide grid; it is aged and is marginally stable. Second, political/regulatory/social movements are making the construction of large generating plants increasingly difficult, expensive, and eventually infeasible.
The previous, historic paradigm made each utility primarily responsible for generation, transmission and distribution in its own service territory; this had the benefit of localizing disturbances and fragmenting responsibility and expense. With loose interconnections to other states and regions, a disturbance in one area, or a lack of resources in a different one, had considerably less effect on other parts of the country, or even other parts of service territories.
For better or worse, we now have a nationwide interconnected grid, albeit one that was not originally designed for the purpose, and which it serves inadequately. It could be improved, but the expense would be massive and probably cost prohibitive. Knowledgeable industry insiders calculate that it would cost more than the current market value of all U.S. utilities combined to provide the upgrades necessary for the modernization of the nationwide grid and replacing its large generating facilities over the next 30 years. Obviously, the paradigm is going to have to change.
The reasons these changes are going to continue to accelerate and that various tipping points have been reached are fairly easy to see. They include:
  • The U.S. faces a serious supply/demand disconnect by 2018. Unless something dramatic happens, there will not be nearly enough electricity to go around. Already some parts of the country are feeling the pinch. Regulatory and legislative uncertainty (especially around global warming and environmental issues) makes it very difficult for utilities to know what to do. Building new generation of any type except “green energy” is very difficult and green energy cannot close the growing gap between supply and demand being projected by NERC (the North American Electric Reliability Corp.).
  • Fuel prices continue to escalate and reliability continues to decline. Increasing restrictions are being placed on fuel selection, especially coal. Fifty percent of all coal fired generating plants proposed since 2000 already have been canceled, according to Wood McKenzie, Annapolis, MD, (Gas and Power Service Insight, North America, February, 2008).
  • A whole generation of utility workers is nearing retirement and finding adequate replacements in the smaller, younger generations is proving increasingly difficult.
  • The entire U.S. transmission/distribution system is aging and becoming less stable. Because of virulent environmental and NIMBY (not in my back yard) resistance it is very difficult to site new transmission that will be needed to deal with supply/demand issues.
    While the problems are clear-cut, the solutions are not yet set in place. At best, smart grids and smarter consumers are only portions of the answers. They will help reduce demand, but probably not enough to make up the projected generation shortfall. And the development of these two concepts still is evolving. While most utility executives see the problems, they continue to be fairly uncertain about the solutions and have considerable distance to go to have them in place, as seen in the Sierra Energy Group survey conducted reporting January and February.
    According to that survey, more than 90% of utility executives now feel the Intelligent Utility Enterprise and Smart Grid (IUE/SG) are an inevitable part of their future. This finding was true of all utility types supplying electricity. While utility executives understand the problem and the IUE/SG approach to solving part of it, they are somewhat behind in planning on exactly how to get the pieces in place. That “planning lag” for the vision is shown in the following graphs:
    Part of the planning lag can be attributed to forces outside the utilities themselves. While politicians and regulators have been emphasizing conservation and demand response, guidelines for how this will work have been lacking. While a number of states have established mandatory green power percentages -- most of which cannot reasonably be met with existing technology, according to most experts -- Congress failed to do so in an Energy Policy Act (EPACT) adopted in December. And, while the EPACT of 2005 “urged” regulators to “urge” utilities to install smart meters, it was not required and regulators have moved at different speeds in different areas on this “urging.”
    Getting from where utilities were (and in many respects still are) in the last century, to where they need to go by 2018 isn’t a problem to be solved overnight. Utilities traditionally have evolved slowly. Executives know there is a need for the technological evolution to accelerate rapidly, but, as mentioned earlier, there still are a lot of questions about what you do first. Do you install AMI as rapidly as possible? Do you emphasize automating the grid and adding artificial intelligence? Do you continue to build out mobile systems to push data (and more detailed instructions) to field crews who soon will be younger and less-experienced? Do you rush into home automation? Do you build windmills, solar farms? There just isn’t enough money to go around, at least not at electricity rates that won’t bankrupt the nation and most citizens.
    A “Smart Grid” implies that it will become increasingly self-operating and self-healing. The technology for a lot of that already has been developed, though not widely deployed. Utilities have been working on basic distribution automation (DA) -- being able to operate the grid remotely -- for a number of years.
    Several Steps
    Several steps are involved in getting from the current state to the IUE/SG. These include pushing information all the way from the individual meter to the executive suite -- or wherever vital business decisions can be made. We asked utility executives how they’re doing in this area, with the following results:
    Once the information is available, utility executives will need business intelligence systems to help analyze and support those decisions. In this year’s survey, we took a benchmark of how well they believe they are doing. Those results are show in this chart:
    The final area the IUE/SG concept is expected to envelop is at the residential level. Residential home automation will enable utilities to control usage directly -- through adjusting thermostats or compressor cycling, or other techniques. Again, the technology for this is well advanced, but there are very few installations nationwide. A number of experiments were conducted with home automation in the early- to mid-1990s. Some homes were automated and even some subdivisions were built under the mantra of “Demand-side Management.”
    “Demand Response,” the current term used by politicians is considered more “politically correct,” though the net result will be the same. Home automation will enable regulators, through utilities, to “ration” usage at need. They don’t use the term, but if Global Warming concerns continue to seriously impact the ability of utilities to access adequate generation, that is going to be the effect.
    In the distant future, as technology continues to advance, electric generation in the U.S. likely will include a mix of energy sources, many of them distributed and green. However, in the next 10 years -- the window of most concern to NERC on the generation/reliability side -- there is no way green energy will be ready in sufficient quantities to forestall a significant shortfall within that period. Right now, green energy supplies less than 3% of U.S. demand, nuclear about 20% and coal 50%. The rest comes from hydroelectric dams. Nuclear is the only viable option that is possible, but sufficient nuclear energy likely will not be built in time because of on-going environmentalist and other opposition.
    The NERC Reliability report of Oct. 15 points strongly toward a significant shortfall of electricity about 10 years out that could lead to rolling blackouts and brownouts in parts of the country that have not experienced them before, plus mandatory "demand response" at the residential level, which -- to call a spade a spade -- is rationing.
    So what are utilities to do? They are going to have to get much smarter (IUE/SG) and they are going to have to prepare for rationing (AMI/Demand Response). As seen in this study, they still have quite a way to go in these areas, but this at least is something that can be -- in large part -- in place within 10 to 15 years. The technology for IUE/SG already exists, it is relatively inexpensive (in comparison with green energy and building nuclear plants) and it is something the utilities can do with relatively little regulatory oversight. In fact, regulators are encouraging it.
    The future seems to be getting clearer, just scarier. IUE/SG is a major bridge to getting there. And, even if the apocalyptic scenarios fail to develop -- Global Warming is debunked, or new generation sources develop much more rapidly than expected -- being an intelligent utility with a smart grid probably is a very good idea anyway. Utilities are working on it, and at an accelerated rate, as shown in this study.
    Meanwhile, many vendors, especially on the T&D side, still are delivering individual pieces of the puzzle -- they’ve worked within those utility silos for long, they sometimes have difficulty seeing the big picture. But utilities see it and they’re going to be increasingly looking to vendors to fill gaps in the technology to make the IUE/SG effective in dealing with the impending problems.
  • Related Topics

    Comments

    {QUOTE} mandatory "demand response" at the residential level, which -- to call a spade a spade -- is rationing. {/QUOTE}

    You make it sound so scary. Tell us, why should a residential customer prefer A) a system where consumption peaks exceed consumption averages by 150% resulting in heavy usage of expensive and inefficient short-run peaking plants, as say current California, over B) a system where the customer gets paid by the utility an amount equivalent to the difference in cost between B1) generating with simple-cycle gas turbines which operate only a few hours per month and B2) generating with continuously running high-efficiency baseload units?

    Ease of implementation will depend entirely on the approach taken and the level of equitable sharing of the financial rewards. If a large part of the rewards are to be confiscated by the utility, or re-distributed to free-loader customers who contribute nothing to the solution, then, perhaps there might be a lot of opposition.

    https://www.euci.com/conferences/0608-dree/

    Check out this link on demand response and energy efficiency. I'm curious if you think the main topics are covered in this one.

    Len, Warren's article does sound scary because it is. Over time North America will lose its cheap reliable supply without clever and fair ways to pay for new generation sources.

    I think the main point of this article is utility companies tending to divorce themselves from the growing need for generation sources, and focusing instead much more on T&D automation and customer rationing with DR and EE. I can understand their apprehension to dealing with generation if efforts for any new generation sources are being blocked at every political turn, for whatever reasons. Their natural response is to batten down their hatches and make T&D as reliable as possible, and prepare for DR rationing and EE if / when generation falls short in future.

    Your comment about innovative simple-cycle gas turbines along with marketing reforms that incent consumers (alluding to your IMEUC market proposal) is precisely what SHOULD be talked about.

    A big problem is our utility companies are accustomed to uniform billing for every customer. Adopting market reforms and handling lots of distributed generation sources would necessarily require them to provide targeted billing and services to consumers like we already see in Cable-TV and telephone companies. There is hope they will be forced into this mode of operation if they adopt widespread DR programs with consumers, since by its nature it will get deployed in a targeted manner i.e. not all consumers will have the same DR technology, and there will be big differences between utility-controlled versus consumer-controlled in-home technology as to how they work and are paid for.

    Heath, the design of DR and EE programs as in your conference's discussion topics might also consider generation side planning and how energy markets might handle them. DR and EE cannot efficiently be planned in isolation of it, nor in isolation of engaging the consumer side much more with targeted billing and consumer incentives.

    Bob - that is a very strong point on incorporating generation side planning. On the note about simple-cycle gas turbines... how does this effect utilities in the short/long term? I guess I am not as familiar on how this would all play out.

    Bob: "utility companies tending to divorce themselves from the growing need for generation sources, and focusing instead much more on T&D automation and customer rationing with DR and EE. " -- You're right. Agreed this is where the current fashion in regulator activity is forcing the utilities, but it's clearly the wrong direction. Our regulators should be incenting the most knowledgeable local (non-imported) energy producers we have, the electrical utilities, to cut back on their production, but to increase it (in the cleanest ways possible). Society should be using the electricity then to substitute for scarce Natural Gas (ground-source heat pumps) and for imported transport fuel (PHEV vehicles, electric rail, etc.). -- Confusing the electric utilities with nonsense about "efficiency" and "demand reduction" is a dumb move which only dissapates their corporate energy / creativity. -- Those activities belong in the customer's area, not the utilities. The regulators are shirking their responsibilities by shoving them off on the utilities.

    (above should read) "the electrical utilities, NOT to cut back on their production, but to increase it"

    I hate to keep saying it, but my IMEUC proposal is designed to fix such confused incentive issues. By separating distribution into a regulated monopoly from the competitive free-market generation entities, it provides regulators with all the tools needed to do customer incentive programs for efficiency and DR through the distribution monopoly, while allowing the necessary incentive to profit from increased sales to enable the generatoin experts to move agressively toward substituting electricity for scarce, costly and insecure imported fossil fuels.

    The critical issue is the "incentive vectors" which a company percieves. Trying to make an investor-owned entity both an efficient energy producer AND a conduit for convincing customers to reduce consumption is simply dumb, or some less polite adjective.

    I advise readers to take a close look at the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts, which now includes 18 IMEUC False Facts. I guess now the readers can make their own homework to see if it classifies as IMEUC False Fact #19.

    I hate to keep saying it, but my IMEUC proposal is designed to fix such confused incentive issues. By separating distribution into a regulated monopoly from the competitive free-market generation entities, it provides regulators with all the tools needed to do customer incentive programs for efficiency and DR through the distribution monopoly, while allowing the necessary incentive to profit from increased sales to enable the generatoin experts to move agressively toward substituting electricity for scarce, costly and insecure imported fossil fuels.


    Hint: "... it provides regulators with ALL the tools needed to do customer incentive programs for efficiency and DR through the distribution monopoly."

    Dear Warren,

    You have written another timely article about extending the life of the obsolete power utilities business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. In response to it, I have written the article Leadership Answers What to do First, concentrating on the need to avoid costly and risky high technology investments, many of which will fail with a high probability, ending up unnecessarilly in the customer's rate based. Those high tech projects should compete as business models in the open market, under the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm.

    The summary of the EWPC article goes as follows: "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."

    Best regards,

    José Antonio

    Please change "rate based" to "rate base."

    Jose Antonio: I simply cannot see why you keep criticising IMEUC incorrectly. Is it that you actually think your already failed EWPC (see Ontario,Canada or Texas etc. -- greatly increased prices, requires government mandate legislation to get even minor customer-oriented improvements past the recalcitrant retailers) has any viability?

    IMEUC False Fact #22 "I simply cannot see why you keep criticising IMEUC incorrectly." See FF #16 for "already failed EWPC. IMEUC FF link is a few posts above.

    Jose Antonio,

    In attempting to explain your EWPC proposals on this website, you are claiming system reliability has two sides. System crashes can be mitigated by a least cost mix of supply and demand risk management tools applied in time and space, which becomes your 'Ultraquality Transportation" requirement. This begs the questions WHO would be using these risk management tools and WHAT exactly are these tools? It is a well know fact of engineering that to make anything become ultraquality comes at a cost, and if the mix of tools your refer to need to be developed yet, then WHO will bear their development and commercialization costs.

    You also state that using DR to achieve segmentation of customers would provide supply security, which becomes your Retail Competition. This begs the questions WHO would bear the cost to develop DR technologies, and WHO will control DR, consumers or the industry players? Among other concerns, there will be massive public opposition if industry players are allowed to control DR.

    From what I can tell, Len's IMEUC proposal is the only proposal that provides the economic incentives to industry to bear these development costs to achieve all the above, while giving consumers full control over DR and enjoy competitive retailing.

    "a well known fact of engineering"

    Bob,

    The vertically integrated utilities paradigm developed those risk management tools for the supply side to operate at ultraquality. The transportation only utility will arrange to update them, to include the demand side. They will use them, with inputs from generators and retailers. Yes they come at a cost that like all software development purchase by utilities, in this case transportation only utility.

    The obvious first means of segmentation is the wide range of customers' reliability requirements. 2GRs will invest to develop that and other market segments in the second phase of company vs. company competition. Some customers will agree to DR (contractual agreement to respond) others to DD (contractual agreement to interrupt) and others might be just price takers, etc.

    No opposition will develop if customers have choice of 2GR and choice of service plans that satisfy their needs. Opposition will certainly develop if customers have no market choice, like having to purchase an IMEUC, one size fits all system that many don't need. The California PCT example is a precedent of such opposition developed under public pressure.

    False Fact #24: "IMEUC proposal is the only proposal that provides the economic incentives to industry to bear these development costs to achieve all the above, while giving consumers full control over DR and enjoy competitive retailing."

    Go ahead "enjoy competitive retailing" and read carefully the other 23 IMEUC False Facts - the link is above. If you are in a hurry, don't forget to check the EWPC article behing FF#18.

    Jose Antonio,

    False Fact #1: "The obvious first means of segmentation is the wide range of customers' reliability requirements. 2GRs will invest to develop that and other market segments in the second phase of company vs. company competition."

    2GR's will never be able to develop market segmentation based on various customer reliability requirements because any given customer will have dynamic reliability needs - some uses of energy in a home for example may be need reliable service while others at other times may not. 2GRs would have to be able to dynamicly change their service reliability for any given customer on demand from the customer. IMEUC specifically offers to do just this however.

    Furthermore demand response technology for consumers must be developed and commercialized for it to work with and be part of DR or DD contracts. Its development hinges on the intimate involvement of players in the electricity industry, particularly the owners of the smart meters to bridge the communication between in-home DR technology and the electricity system. Expecting 2GRs or any other company to do this development is wishful thinking because no one is going to bear the huge cost to replace smart meters already deployed in the field to upgrade them for handling new capabilities. IMEUC puts smart meter ownership into the hands of the consumer where the consumer controls upgrading it or changing its functionality over and above basic metering. EWPC does not allow for this.

    Bob,

    Before responding your post, first I like to characterize your interventions as ineffective first level mode of communication, as explained in the highly recommended article EWPC’s Tipping Point. I believe we can go to the third level.

    Second, what you though was religious stuff earlier on EWPC, is now stuff that is better explained in the most read GMH post Many Market Matters to Change the Status Quo, where I repeated what Jim Beyer wrote to Len several months ago: “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].” To grasp the whole discussion, I humbly recommend that we change to the 3rd level mode of communication and align our efforts to change the status quo.

    That said, I suggest that you need to shift your deterministic paradigm to a probabilistic one, like that of the insurance industry. Reliability is a probabilistic concept based on long term performance. Hence IMEUC False Fact #25: "2GR's will never be able to develop market segmentation based on various customer reliability requirements."

    I know that marketing to 100 percent of customers (which have widely different perceptions) will not work with the message: "IMEUC puts smart meter ownership into the hands of the consumer where the consumer controls upgrading it or changing its functionality over and above basic metering."

    EWPC is not a physical solution: it is a breakthrough market architecture and design paradigm that allows all business models to compete for customers' market share.

    Jose Antonio: Isn't it generally frowned upon in academic circles to insert your own words to another persons when you are quoting them, particularly inside the quote marks? eg. from above, the words in brackets are not mine.

    (QUOTE) 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].” (/QUOTE)

    Thank you Len for the advise.

    I want and I will rephrase and enhance the message while at it. All bracketed expressions above are mine. They were meant to pinpoint my opinion while quoting, which may lead to unintended and clearly unnecessary confusion, especially with Jim's "I think."

    Please change the message to the following paragraph:

    "I think people concerned with replacing the status quo would be concerned about many other matters as well.” I add, that the many other matters quoted are those that Bob calls “Len's IMEUC market reforms,” which are absent to a great extent in Len and Bob's opionions of IMEUC, which they may change.

    As you can see, I prefer to use "opinions" instead of Len's IMEUC or Bob's IMEUC, but I was first quoting Bob.

    I still don't get it. "absent to a great extent" ?? What is "absent" from my market reform proposal documents which is contained in your EWPC documents?

    What Jim asked is for "people concerned with replacing the status quo would be concerned about many other matters as well," are market matters absent from the IMEUC proposal.

    But, as time has already made EWPC the wining paradigm, as IMEUC doesn't even qualify, as a robust, technology neutral, and wide open (to any future business models) market architecture and design paradigm, you need not worry nor keep fighting anymore.

    If you and Bob don't respond to the utilities status quo and would like to change it, I strongly recommend that both of you should concentrate on shifting from a win-lose level 1 communications mode to a level 3 win-win mode by helping push for the new EPAct. Now is time for real entrepreneurs to support a leadership move to expect a new EWPC EPAct that removes the legislative and regulatory uncertainty that will kick off company vs. company competition.

    Once the public opinion is on the move, you and Bob may start to redesign the IMEUC system for a market segment on the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm to try to get a piece of the global competitive market.

    Jose Antonio,

    We already have Transportation only utility companies in Ontario. There is no ultraquality requirement and there are regulated price controls, so it is not your EWPC as such. But even if the regulated price controls were lifted, the fact remains the residential billing meters are owned by the utilities, and they have zero economic incentive to add more DR or DD functionality to them, even if the government demanded they must adopt an "ultraquality" transportation system, unless the utilities passed on the costs to all rate payers.

    The meters are crucial here because they are a direct measure of instantaneous demand and past energy consumption, and the two-way AMI smart meters provide a direct communication link into the electricity grid. They legally belong to the utility companies, and no visionary preaching by you about EWPC will be able to change this. Your refusal to acknowledge the central importance of AMI smart meters is also a clear indication of your lack of understanding of the technical AND economic issues.

    Len's IMEUC proposals specifically require customer-owned smart meters, and it would give consumers the freedom to upgrade them with new functionality of their own free choice. Without similar proposals for the meters by you, EWPC is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by you, with the only possible intention to block revolutionary changes in the industry. Is it perhaps there are vested interests in the industry who want to block changes paying you to do this Jose? I don't expect you to admit to this, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

    Keep on dreaming Jose.

    As Len wrote on 11.16.07 that “The separation of distribution from generation, transmission and (retail if used) into a regulated monopoly on geographic boundaries should be considered an absolute requirement for competitive electrical systems. Otherwise the liklihood of the distribution owner making mischief for his competitor generators or retailers is just too much, and too difficult to monitor. I think your fears of problems are far over-emphasized. Here in Ontario we did it with no complaining at all anywhere (at least on that score) The province now has about 90 separate regulated distribution companies mostly private, some rural co-op. There is also now a fair bit of consolidation going on among them, which makes sense,” we have False Fact #26: “We already have Transportation only utility companies in Ontario.”
    You write that “There is no ultraquality requirement and there are regulated price controls, so it is not your EWPC as such.” The EWPC market architecture and design has a tightly integrated T&D transportation utility. Those new transportation only utilities can be though to arise from a restructuring of the old vertically integrated utilities (vintage 1970), that had a responsibility to serve, into one with a responsibility to transport under regulated price controls. Wholesale and retail sales go to a completely open market without price controls for the customers, which have demand response (in a wide sense, including DR, DD and EE) as a condition of service. False Fact #27: EWPC has transportation without price controls.
    You write that “But even if the regulated price controls were lifted, the fact remains the residential billing meters are owned by the utilities, and they have zero economic incentive to add more DR or DD functionality to them, even if the government demanded they must adopt an "ultraquality" transportation system, unless the utilities passed on the costs to all rate payers.” As regulated price controls need not be lifted for distribution (as part of transportation), the integrated T&D transportation utility will receive tolls (controlled prices) as part of their regulated compact. However, one very most important fact is that under EWPC there are no incumbent retailers, as structural separation is forbidden.

    It doesn’t make any sense at all for the utility to keep their meters and customers to take the risk to buy duplicate smart meters (many of them don’t need IMEUC as they invest in DD and EE instead under a 2GR contract) than can become obsolete in a few years or result in early system failure. Standards interfaces will resolve all hardware and software difficulties mentioned. Legal problems will be resolved by legislative and regulatory decisions. False Fact #28: “Your refusal to acknowledge the central importance of AMI smart meters is also a clear indication of your lack of understanding of the technical AND economic issues.”
    In response to my suggestion “If you and Bob don't respond to the utilities status quo and would like to change it, I strongly recommend that both of you should concentrate on shifting from a win-lose level 1 communications mode to a level 3 win-win mode by helping push for the new EPAct. Now is time for real entrepreneurs to support a leadership move to expect a new EWPC EPAct that removes the legislative and regulatory uncertainty that will kick off company vs. company competition,” I received False Fact #29: “Without similar proposals for the meters by you, EWPC is nothing more than a scam perpetrated by you, with the only possible intention to block revolutionary changes in the industry. Is it perhaps there are vested interests in the industry who want to block changes paying you to do this Jose? I don't expect you to admit to this, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit.” Don’t forget to read very carefully the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First.

    Keep on dreaming Jose. Thank you. Please read the EWPC article I Have a Dream Too.

    Jose Antonio: If stubborn determination alone could make arguments correct,.....

    Related to IMEUC False Facts, readers are advised to read the GMH post A Decent Response to Jim Bayer.

    Jose Antonio,

    You say that it doesn't make sense for utility companies to keep their meters, and the legal issues with ownership of utility meters will be resolved by legislative and regulatory decisions. This can only mean massive government intervention will take the ownership of the meters away from utility companies, and allow emerging 2GRs under your EWPC proposal to provide them to consumers with contracts that adopt DR and EE.

    I have news for you Jose. Many large utility companies in North America are currently entertaining or have in some cases accepted proposals for AMI smart meters already. The new meters and their supporting AMI systems will soon be deployed without any standards for interfaces in place yet. There is indeed a very big risk of system obsolescence and system failures because the current meters will not satisfy future needs of DR, DD, and EE, and smart grids.

    It’s reasonable to assume AMI systems and their smart meters will over time require replacement and / or future upgrades to handle emerging DR, DD, and EE, and smart grid requirements.

    Let's say your predictions come true and governments force utility companies to give up ownership of the meters. As a consumer, suppose I had a choice whether to pay a 2GR under contract to get my upgraded meter as in your EWPC, or pay for one and own it myself under IMEUC. Under EWPC a 2GR is effectively a middleman that will profit from selling (or renting) me new AMI smart meter capabilities under a retailing contract. Under IMEUC I would buy and own a new meter myself at any time I choose to buy one.

    It's clear to me that buying and owning meters myself under IMEUC will in the long run cost me less than EWPC’s middlemen 2GRs selling or leasing them to handle emerging requirements.

    IMEUC False Fact #22 "I simply cannot see why you keep criticising IMEUC incorrectly."

    Bob,

    Thank you for suspending False Fact #23: "EWPC is made obsolete by the utility tech revolution," when you wrote "Let's say your predictions come true and governments force utility companies to give up ownership of the meters."

    I suggest that meters should be standard commodity items that will replace today’s meters. One meter gets installed and changes should not involve replacing the meter later on for quite some time. So, in the interim, all meters installed by "many large utility companies in North America [that] are currently entertaining or have in some cases accepted proposals for AMI smart meters already," will generate a waste of resources because of the uncertainty and the costly risks of obsolescence and systems failure. Those risks and system failures will go into the base rates of the states and provinces where regulators make those silly mistakes.

    With the introduction of a new EWPC EPAct, as described in the articleLeadership Answers What to do First, the legislative and regulatory issues resolution is the key to reduce the great uncertainty in the power industry and the costs of the above risks and failures.

    EWPC is an open market architecture and design paradigm that gives costumers choice of middleman. Your statement (suspending for the moment False Fact #8. The utility enterprise and the utility grid separation will never "get ever implemented politically" and False Fact #5. 2GRs are not needed. ) “… suppose I had a choice whether to pay a 2GR under contract to get my upgraded meter as in your EWPC, or pay for one and own it myself under IMEUC,” is not a proper statement regarding EWPC. 2GRs (or any middlemen for that matter that wants to compete with 2GRs) under EWPC will develop business models, which could include customers paying and owning a metering system. The critical point is those customers don’t have choice of middlemen under IMEUC. If that is not a case, then several middlemen will be able give customers’ choice, meaning that we are talking about the EWPC open market.

    The statement “Under EWPC a 2GR is effectively a middleman that will profit from selling (or renting) me new AMI smart meter capabilities under a retailing contract,” is incomplete because EWPC operates at the (Control and) Economic Level (False Fact #4: IMEUC operates on the Economic Level.). The contractual relationship between a customer and a middlemen involves (Economic Level) investments and operating costs of the customer and the middlemen (see the EWPC article The Sixth Disruptive Technology), no just “selling (or renting) me new AMI smart meter capabilities.”

    I hate to disappoint you Jose, but you can chew on these facts for now.

    FACT #1: IMEUC and EWPC are both energy market reform proposals at this point in time, and not adopted by anyone yet. Ontario's paradigm has similarities to the EWPC model, but not entirely.

    FACT #2: EWPC has not been proven by anyone to be a "breakthrough" market architecture design paradigm. (If some jurisdiction has adopted EWPC, please let us know who it is.)

    FACT #3: Many utilities in North America are plunging forward with investing huge dollars in AMI systems and smart grid technologies, but none are appearing to even consider adopting EWPC. They are surely not telling us about it on this website forum if any are.

    FACT #4 : Len Gould's IMEUC in my opinion has the best chance of being adopted some day by some jurisdiction in North America. Why? As I write this there is a new affordable consumer residential smart metering technology being developed that will be marketed directly to consumers, not utility companies. It will be a wireless technology that one can retrofit on a house WITHOUT installing meter sockets for a traditional utility meter, and it will have the capability to record specific energy transactions like for future PHEV type of applications etc. This technology will be sold directly to consumers as real-time in-home energy use monitoring and bill tracking for consumers, and potentially also to appliance manufacturers for measuring energy efficiencies. Our utility regulators may even take notice of it and want to access it as a practical means to acquire consumption data for specific residential uses of electrical energy. And, they might just view it as a practical way to implement IMEUC.

    And guess what Jose, I am personally involved in developing it.

    Bob,
    FACT #4. That's an unfeasible dream. Unless the utilities and regulators let you, by taking down the barriers on the demand side, your have nothing. The only way new business models will replace the utilities business model of winning rate cases to the regulators is by separating the utility grid and the utility enterprise, opening the latter to the competitive market.

    FACT #2. Breakthrough are just mind shifts.

    EWPC emerged for the world of the third industrial revolution, where demand is no longer an externality and there is a need for a power system that should operate at ultraquality, with the help of demand response, in a wholesale, retail, customer value chain.

    The essence of EWPC is "the generic market model paradigm: Retail Competition, Active Demand, and Ultraquality Transportation," which includes wholesale competition, as 2GRs link both markets.

    Such essence is the basis for a breakthrough, which is the tipping point that shifts paradigms permanently. The breakthrough is … the epitome of the 'AHHA!' moment bringing absolute clarity and direction… that now … comes to the power industry for both the open (retail and wholesale) market (with competitive incentives for the development of business model innovations) and the closed (transportation) market (the new utility, with a responsibility to transport).

    Jose Antonio,
    I agree that the new smart metering technology I am developing to market to consumers may not necessarily be adopted by regulators or utility companies. But I disagree with you saying that unless the utilities and regulators let me, I will have nothing without the barriers being taken down on the demand side. In essence I don't care whether the electricity industry or regulators adopt it or not because consumers want this technology and are willing to pay for it, making it a potentially commercially viable technology.

    What I have learned about regulators and the utility industry is most are all generally risk averse, meaning most avoid participating or investing in the development of any new technology concepts. They much rather prefer to let technology suppliers bear all the risks in new technology development, and then go shopping for what has been perfected and is ready for commercial use.

    If my technology becomes commercially successful by selling it to consumers and possibly appliance manufacturers, then and only then will it have a chance to even be CONSIDERED by regulators and utility companies to be adopted. Sure they may not want it, and there may be a whole host of vested interests that may want to block it from being used by the electricity industry, but its commercial success will not depend on it being adopted by them is my whole point.

    When Len's IMEUC market reform proposals are recognized by the utility industry as being a desirable path to take, which you will surely disagree with, regulators and industry players will only consider adopting it if they can see practical ways to implement it. Regulators will not force anything on the industry that has not been demonstrated, or has no practical means to implement it. I could potentially resolve this with my technology.

    Also, your definition of a "breakthrough" is a change in traditional ways of thinking. In the world of engineering, breakthroughs must be proven technically and economically before anyone will agree that a new way of thinking is a breakthrough, because without proving it practice, it is nothing more than an idea. Remember Jose, for every breakthrough idea that is proven successful in practice, there are hundreds that are failures because they are flawed.

    Good luck with your EWPC Jose, you're going to need it.

    This is an attempt to have a mature level 3, win/win communications mode.

    I have invested many posts trying to patiently explain myself. I have been writing about market architecture and design, and getting technologies responses. I am sorry to have made the mistake to accept a comparison between EWPC and IMEUC, but they are not at all comparable. EWPC is about market structures and rules. EWPC development is about consulting work, not about technology design.

    I am assuming that a shift from today’s regulated markets (where utilities win cases to the regulators) to competitive markets is bound to occur at the global level. The market bridge between supply and demand can filled up by one of many business models. That is what the EWPC architecture is all about. As simple as that!

    One of many market bridges (a switchboard business model) is IMEUC that needs to have all customers on board. There are also switchboards that don’t need to have all customers on board. In that case what’s needed is a market design that doesn’t allow free riders. The resulting market rules are very important for the required transition period, where some customers remain under the old rules modified to eliminate cross-subsidies.

    There are many other alternative business models that retailers can develop to bridge supply and demand and which customers have choice to select. I contend that today’s 1GRs will be replaced by 2GRs that operate at the Control Level and the Economic Level to integrate demand to power system planning, operation, and control. That is the market breakthrough, not a technology breakthrough.

    To make progress, please avoid a technology oriented response.

    Jose Antonio,
    If your EWPC proposal is meant to be totally independent of technology design, it is a very admirable proposal indeed, and would certainly be a desirable concept. However few markets in any industry are totally independent of technology design, or totally independent of society culture and political forces. In my world of the electronics industry it has been commonplace throughout its history to open whole new consumer markets with new technology introductions.

    Technology design intimately affects everything old and new in the electricity industry, from power generation, distribution, electricity system information systems, to how consumers use electrical energy. The use of electrical energy is a commercial activity, as is also the commercialization of new technology, and their courses are / will be deeply rooted in economics as opposed to any idealistic vision of how commercial markets should be structured.

    If you believe that a 'market design' is possible that will work and will have longevity in the electricity industry without considering new technology design and its trends Jose, best of luck to you.

    Readers are urged to take a look at the GMH post A Universal System with Price Spikes.

    The response to Bob can be found on the reference of the GMH post, where repeated the same post.

    yyy

    miércoles, abril 20, 2016

    ¡Respaldemos cambio de marco de referencia #globaldebout #DD_SM YA!

    Primera actualización. Clave #GlobalDebout: santificar YA desregulación mercados sistémicos. Sin conocer otros lugares (bienvenidos sean) que ya tienen desarrollada la capacidad para la desregulación de los mercados sistémicos, uno excepcional para lograr tal santificación (ver artículo Simplicidad) es la República Dominicana. En tal sentido se sugiere apoyar en lo que queda hasta el 15 de mayo de 2016 el reclamo de una Ley Sistémica de Electricidad que cambia el marco de referencia para todo el mundo al de un servicio eléctrico sobresaliente. Es así como el Global Debout puede mostrar una cosecha temprana el mismo 15 de mayo, fecha que coincide con las elecciones dominicanas, si respaldan el cambio de marco de referencia basado en la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM) por medio de las redes sociales.



    Para constatar que la República Dominicana es un lugar excepcional para hacer la transformación a la democracia directa del mercado sistemíco de electricidad, se sugiere contemplar atentamente el video de 29 minutos que fue presentado en el Consejo Económico y Social (CES). Lamentablemente el CES es una "Plataforma en Llama," anulada por el pensamiento de grupo (Groupthink) del marco de referencia vigente que sirve al capitalismo de amiguetes global y sus socios.

    Contrario a lo que la mayoría de la gente puede esperar, la estrategia del movimiento de los indignados de todo el mundo necesita ser global para poder cambiar el marco de referencia en unos pocos y selectos lugares del mundo. Así se le sugiere aquí a los organizadores del Global Debout. En lo que respecta a dicho sector clave se debe saber que cambia al mismo tiempo la crisis ambiental global de problema a solución, que luego servirá para cambio de patrón y para acción directa en otras partes del mundo. Eso queda respaldado en el texto inicial de esta nota que sigue a continyuación..

    ¡Respaldemos cambio de marco de referencia #globaldebout #DD_SM YA! 
    “La elevación de la productividad del trabajo de servicios no se puede lograr ni por la intervención del gobierno ni por medio de la política. Esa labor la deben hacer los gerentes y ejecutivos de las empresas y de las organizaciones no lucrativas. Esa es la primera responsabilidad social de la sociedad del conocimiento.” -- Peter F. Drucker, Facetas No. 101 3/1993

    En breve aparece copiado integramente el texto provisional sobre #GlobalDebout que aparece en el blog "¡Democracia real YA! - No somos mercancías en manos de políticos y banqueros'." Entendenmos que dicho texto es muy certero y brillante de acuerdo al acostumbrado aprendizaje del pasado. Pero también es muy oportuno en ocasión de lo que se hizo en la nota Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?, (´Puede el llamado internacional #GlobalDebout concentrase en un cambio en el marco de referencia sólido como el de Ashoka? En tal sentido, a seguidas introducimos en medio del texto 6 observaciones que se basan en el aprendizaje del futuro emergente. Por estar la República Dominicana lista para enfrentar el capitalismo global de amiguetes, adelantamos la última observación que dice lo siguiente: 

    Observación 6. Dado que hay elecciones en EE.UU (en noviembre),  República Dominicana (coincide con el 15 de mayo) y posiblemente en España (en junio), no debemos dejar para mañana lo que podamos hacer hoy, respaldando el cambio en curso del marco de referencia que se inicia con "Resumen ejecutivo: Estando abierto a mejoras, este paper esta dirigido a una innovación institucional pre-electoral para el crecimiento verde elevado que aumenta el estándar de vida en todo el mundo," que aparece en la "Decimotercera actualización. Ocupar o no ocupar el Estado, esa es la cuestion de los indignados" de la nota ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía? 




    15 de mayo 2016 #globaldeboutBY 


    Gente de Europa, gente del mundo:
    El 15 de mayo de 2011, después de otra protesta contra políticos , banqueros y contra las radicales medidas de austeridad que sufrió España, un pequeño grupo de personas decidió que una manifestación no era suficiente, no volvió a casa y continuó el debate en la plaza de la Puerta del Sol.
    La razón era clara y simple, nuestra democracia había caído en manos de los banqueros y nuestros políticos se habían corrompido. Ya no nos representaban. Era la hora de que la gente recuperara el poder para dar significado a la palabra democracia.
    Observación 1. Esa razón clara y simple ha sido reinterpretada como el capitalismo de amiguetes global que domina el mundo por encima de los países con un pensamiento de grupo ('Groupthink').  
    A pesar de la violenta represión de las fuerzas de policía y el silencio de los medios de comunicación, rápidamente se contagió en unas pocas semanas este viento de esperanza en toda Europa. Desde Madrid a Atenas y Turquía , luego de Nueva York a Brasil y Méjico, y finalmente hasta Hong Kong en todas partes las plazas fueron ocupadas por campamentos de soñadores que aspiraban a construir una nueva forma de democracia directa y participativa. Siguiendo el modelo de la Primavera Árabe la gente de abajo comenzó a organizarse en asambleas populares para crear el comienzo de un movimiento internacional de toda la humanidad, horizontal, y apartidista. El 15 de octubre de 2011 en la Convocatoria de Occupy Wall Street un grito de democracia real resonó en más de 1.000 ciudades.
    Observación 2. Con base a la primera actualización de la referida nota (y respaldada con la cita inicial del finado gurú de la gerencia del siglo XX Peter F. Drucker), sugerimos el texto provisional que aparece al final que traducimos y adaptamos para que diga: "No mundo sin democracia, representativa y directa, no democracia representativa sin política y no democracia directa sin emprededurismo, no hay política sin partidos ni emprendurismo sin grandes talentos." La sociedad del conocimiento de Drucker pasa a ser la civilización sistémica donde se llega al capitalismo sobresaliente que reemplaza al capitalismo de amiguetes.
    5 años más tarde el movimiento de las plazas resurge de sus cenizas en Francia con #NuitDebout. Desde el 31 de marzo, los franceses ocupan la Plaza de la República para escuchar su propia voz.

    Nuestra lucha va más allá de la reforma laboral: es todo un sistema que queremos repensar y crear juntos hasta el final.


    Observación 3. El sistema ya está repensado de foma provisional. Se trata de un Estado minimalista que impulsa la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM siglas en inglés).

    #NuitDebout representa un nuevo impulso en la lucha mundial contra la dictadura de las finanzas, la explotación de las personas y la destrucción del medio ambiente.
    Observación 4. Esa lucha se enfrenta con una estrategia selectiva en el cambio de mentalidad que se sugiere lograr con leyes sistémicas de electridad en lugares como EE.UU, España y República Dominicana. 
    Esta lucha no solo la libra Europa, Canadá o Estados Unidos, sino en todo el mundo la gente sencilla como nosotros encuentra la esperanza, es por ello que la asamblea se ha reunido esta noche para convocar otros #NuitDebout y construir un porvenir digno para todos en el mundo …
    Observación 5. Ese cambio de mentalidad que aumenta radicalmente la productividad sirve de ejemplo para cambios de patrón y acción directa para todo el mundo en ese y otros sectores de servicio. 
    Por ello hoy, la asamblea popular reunida en la plaza de la República en París hace un llamamiento a todos los pueblos de Europa y del mundo, para ocupar los lugares públicos y organizar para las próximas semanas una nueva temporada de la lucha por la democracia.
    Observación 6. Dado que hay elecciones en EE.UU (en noviembre), República Dominicana (coincide con el 15 de mayo) y posiblemente en España (en junio), no debemos dejar para mañana lo que podamos hacer hoy, respaldando el cambio en curso del marco de referencia que se inicia con "Resumen ejecutivo: Estando abierto a mejoras, este paper esta dirigido a una innovación institucional pre-electoral para el crecimiento verde elevado que aumenta el estándar de vida en todo el mundo," que aparece en la "Decimotercera actualización. Ocupar o no ocupar el Estado, esa es la cuestion de los indignados" de la nota ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía? 
    El 15 de mayo del año 2016 debería marcar el advenimiento de una conciencia global.
    Somos el 99%, ¡todos juntos podemos cambiar el mundo!
    (texto provisional, desarrolandose en las asambleas NuitDebout)


    yyy

    lunes, abril 18, 2016

    Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?

    Third update. Please falsify my TC1 claim to be the thought leader of #GlobalDebout. My systems architecting synthetic claim on this 3 month old tweet conversation TC1, complemented here, is that all nations of the world need to transform to developing countries to change course towards The Wealth of Globalization, by having provided the key decisions of the best imperfect change available to what we call below Middle-Class Indignados (that set the aspiration of the poor), which is the same as Global Debout, that must love the transformation to concentrate on the transition:

    I claim to have led the answer to Zigmunt Bauman’s quote "The 15-M is emotional, lacks thought“ for the electric power industry. So what I conjectured, back in November 2013, in the paper A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal is now in the companion image:


    That synthesis is part of the more than three months process of this long tweet conversation TC1, designed to help emerge that civilization, with the contributions of “Sophisticated minds invited to be part of the system in this tweet conversation.”
    Having unveiled the most critical systems architecting strategic decisions, right now TC1 is getting close to 100 tweets, and no one as far as I know (it may be secret to some groups), has yet falsify any of my claims as to their validity.  I hope to be given the opportunity to admit any error in order to continue what has become my life effort.

    This is based on what is said in the following image:


    My thought leadership will help emerge the transition to the Bright Globalization. This is part of a major Jobsism upgrade that is integrated in this posts and the next two that mutually reinforce each other, which are Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon and Would middle-class 'indignados' prefer direct democracy?, where we once again follow Steve Jobs' quote from his first story of 12 years ago at Stanford University commencement address:
    Again, you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something – your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.
    Based at least in those three mutually reinforcing post I have falsified the claim that there is no alternative to the Neoliberalism of The Wealth of Nations, which escalated into the The March of Folly  of the Dark Globalization, that is being responded with very high risks of collapse of humanity, with nuclear or conventional wars, in Korea, Syria, and probably in Venezuela, with the wrong course towards the third Middle Ages.

    By the way, the third Middle Ages replaces previous mentions of the second Middle Ages in this GMH Blog that emerged after the collapse of the Roman Empire thought to be as the first Middle Ages. The first Middle Ages I am referring now is related to the collapse of the Egyptian Empire which lead, for example, to the Greek Middle Ages.

    In the case of Syria we discovered an important insight shown in the following image.



    The above insight is well in line with the post on"Minimalist governments...," an institutional innovation, a model constitution for independent and interdependent countries is that of a minimalist global government with the migration of democracy towards an increased share of direct democracy anticipated in the post "Would middle-class..." that will support an entrepreneurial society of The Wealth of Globalization.

    Contrary to the current situation of pushing emerging economies to follow developed economies of The Wealth of Nations towards collapse, both dependent and independent sovereign countries under The wealth of Globalization have the incentives to be pulled by win-win or o no deal decisions in due time that reduce their sovereignty to become interdependent to approximate its development in the Systemic Civilization.

    Second update. Can #USA2016 be reframed to fit the reality required by #GlobalDebout? Under the Linkedin blog post Like It or Not, Trump is a Textbook Disruptor, written by Whitney Johnson, Thinker, Writer, Speaker, Advisor, Coach, I added the following comment:

    Excellent and timely blog post. Excellent for bringing out the potential to disrupt the "Comfort Zone" under crony (mediocre) capitalism to leap into "Where the magic happens" under of great capitalism, based on an application of Jim Collins' book Good (mediocre) to Great.

    Timely for being in synchronicity (not synchronic) with GlobalDebout. I will use the late management guru Peter Drucker's 1994 article "The Theory of the Business," which I used today to write the blog post Votante: exige en tu país un gobierno basado en una teoría de negocio ajustada a la realidad, something like "Voter: required in your country a government based on a theory of business that fits reality." That is based in the last sentence of the introduction of the Drucker's article that says: "The assumption on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality."

    Writing in the section "Preventive care," Drucker said "The second preventive measure is to study what goes on outside the business, and especially to study noncustomers." In that light, whether they see it or not, the Democratic Party is also under a strong disruptive attack. I will concentrate my comment on your section "Be discovery-driven" to wonder whether or not Trump is using an action oriented scientific attitude, which is about learning from the emergent future, as oppose to learning from the past as most human beings do today.

    This comment is being repeated as "Second update. Can #USA2016 be reframed to fit reality required by #GlobalDebout?" of the (this same)  post Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?, which has its "First update. To @FareedZakaria: ¿Are American elections and Global Debout ready for #DD_SM?" which ends as follows:

    ... what's not longer right in this period of big change is Clinton Rossiter quote that "... begins his classic book 'Parties and Politics in America' with this declaration: 'No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties.'” An update to the quote for American voters, that equates direct democracy with #DD_SM, and in fact for voters all over the world, to be polished if necessary by learning from the emergent future, might say: "No America without democracy, 
    First update. To @FareedZakaria: ¿Are American elections and Global Debout ready for #DD_SM? Whether or not the #GlobalDebout (a typo says #GlobalDebaut) international call, mentioned below, elects a framework change in favor of Direct Democracy Systemic Markets (#DD_SM), we suggest that American voters deserve to receive such a framework change call as soon as possible from the mass media that's no part of crony capitalism 'Groupthink.' The call is not in defense of any political party whatsoever. So we suggest the need to question, the Washington Post article In defense of the GOP, where Fareed Zakaria wrote that:

    Having recently discovered how the nomination process works in the Republican Party, Donald Trump is furious. “They wanted to keep people out,” he bellowed. “This is a dirty trick.” In fact, Mr. Trump is right on the first count and wrong on the second. Political parties do have mechanisms to “keep people out.” But far from being a trick, they are the crux of what makes parties valuable in a democracy.
    Of course his assumption that it is not a dirty trick is right, but what's not longer right in this period of big change is Clinton Rossiter quote that "... begins his classic book 'Parties and Politics in America' with this declaration: 'No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties.'” An update to the quote for American voters, that equates direct democracy with #DD_SM, and in fact for voters all over the world, to be polished if necessary by learning from the emergent future, might say:
    "No America without democracy, representative and direct, no representative democracy without polítics and no direct democracy without entrepreneurship, no polítics without parties and no entrepreneurship without great talents."
    Can #GlobalDebout international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist
    We (me and a small select group of citizens from a few countries that have distributed and feed-backed my suggestions) find very timely and important the INTERNATIONAL CALL BY #NUITDEBOUT, whose text is copied below in order to try to upgrade it with a few observations in light of our humble experience that is represented at the end of this post, based on a recent nomination to the Ashoka Global Fellowship as an attempt to show our credibility. The main changes reframe the call for being mainly about liquid emotions, as the polish philosopher Zygmunt Bauman characterized the 15-M back in 2011, by saying it lacked the solid though that we claim is available in this blog background.






    The first impression of the call seems that #NuitDebaut is committed to “Occupy the State,” as has been done in Spain and Greece, in contrast to the original 15-M spirit which was “Not to Occupy State.” In addition to a video, where “Ashoka Founder and CEO Bill Drayton explains how his organization uses unique measures of impact to gauge the work of their social entrepreneurship fellows. Drayton also discusses the differences between pattern change and framework change, and uses an example from k-12 education to illustrate the latter,” we repeat the Call with interspersed observations based on our experience:

    WE CALL FOR A #GLOBALDEBOUT DAY OF ACTION ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2016

    We call on peoples movements across the world to mobilise for justice and real democracy on the 15 of May, 2016 for a #GLOBALDEBOUT. We invite you to come to Paris for an International Gathering of movements at Place de la Republic on May 7 and 8.
    Observation 1. Real democracy has been thought to be only representative and participatory democracy that is part of the State, but a direct democracy of systemic markets has emerged to shift from the existing unsatisfactory anti-systemic State market equilibrium dominated by crony capitalism ‘Groupthink’ of the industrial civilization to the emerging equilibrium of the systemic civilization under great capitalism (more below).   
    Today #46mars (April 15) is just two weeks after one million people mobilized in Paris and the movement Nuit Debout continues to grow. In numerous French and foreign cities, #Nuitdebout (Night on our Feet) is a light in the dark, it gives testimony to our hopes, dreams and common rebellions. Those who have taken the squares in the past and those who are taking them NOW: we know something is happening.

    The struggle for a better world is Global and without boarders, let's construct together a global spring of resistance! Join to us on May 7th and 8th in Paris at Place de Republique to debate, to share our experiences and to begin to construct together common solutions. There we will strategise and prepare for an International day of Action on MAY 15th (#76mars). On this date we will occupy, mobilise and take direct action together across the world.
    Observation 2. The time for resistance and debate based on the exclusive primacy of the parts can be upgraded to a time of proactive action and generative dialogue based on the inclusive primacy of the whole to start to co-create the systemic civilization as a mindset or framework change with energy policy acts that enable economic green growth that the serve as pattern changes and direct action later on in other sectors.
    Nuit Debout's first aim is to create a space for the 'convergence of struggles'. We hope this convergence will go beyond France and spread worldwide. There exist numerous links between social movements in all four corners of the world; from unemployment to the imposition of the financial markets, from the destruction of the environment to war and unacceptable inequality.
    Observation 3. As the space for the convergence of anti-systemic struggles of the industrial civilization is based on the paradigm of independence, a global declaration of interdependence for the systemic civilization is critical to unite all social movements in all four corners of the world; from unemployment to the imposition of the financial markets, from the destruction of the environment to war and unacceptable inequality, which have a root cause on the global crony capitalism ‘Groupthink.’
    In response to a system based on competition and individualism, we answer with the solidarity, participatory democracy and collective action. Our differences are not a source of divisions, but rather our strength, as we complement each other struggles. We are neither listened nor represented by the current economic system.
    Observation 4. As the anti-systemic existing market State equilibrium centered on short run financial capital and big government that is leading us to the Second Middle Ages has been erroneously interpreted as based on competition and individualism, form an industrial civilization paradigm perspective, the emerging market State centered on long run production capital will lead to the first Golden Age of the systemic civilization based on systemic competition and collaboration. In the new equilibrium every citizen has the opportunity to win (or there is no deal, as Steven Covey suggested) under great capitalism.
    Together we retake public space and politics because politics is a matter of all of us. Now is not the moment retreat, but to come together for change.
    Observation 5. Concentrate on “Not to Occupy State” with mindset change starting supporting selected energy policy acts in specific locations, for example, USA, Spain and Dominican Republic.
    We are the 99 % and we are here to reject the financial and political rule of the 1 % and their world. We are here to take back our cities, our places of work and our lives.
    Observation 6. Please adjust based on the first 5 observations.
    On May 7th and 8th, let's come together to Paris to the square of the Republic!

    On the day of May 15 we will rise up together for a global day of action.

    #NuitDebout everywhere! #GlobalDebout!


    Nomination of José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio to the Ashoka Global Fellowship

    Please articulate the core idea of your work and describe how this idea is new or different from current approaches.
    The need to leap from the industrial civilization (centered on the paradigm of independence) to what we (me and a few Twitter citizens) named as the systemic civilization (centered on the paradigm of interdependence). Such leap is based on a framework change that might start on the electricity sector to enable high green economic growth, for example, in the USA, Puerto Rico, Spain, Haiti, Dominican Republic, other countries, or any combination of them. This work started in 1996 addressing Dominican Republic electricity crisis. The main difference with current approaches is transition versus transformation. Transition, for example, is what’s driving the IEEE Smart Grid (more below) and even in the climate change COP21 Paris Agreement, where their ideas are based on the primacy of the parts, while transformation is based on the primacy of the whole.
    What is the main social problem this idea is attempting to solve? What is the impact of the problem and why does it persist?
    The main social problem is soaring inequality, which is the result of global crony capitalism incomplete deregulation, which privatizes the benefits to those capitalists and their associates, whether they know it or not. This seems to have led to anti-systemic (not systemic, which have positive synergy, but contrary to system with negative synergy).  The impact can be explain as heading to the Second Middle Ages, which persists by a strong global ‘Groupthink’ that involve most global institutions that negatively mutually reinforce each other to maintain the unsuccessful current equilibrium comfort zone of crony capitalism
    What is the scale of the impact of your work to date?
    Pilot
    What is your strategy for scaling the impact of your idea? What will be different in 5-10 years if you are successful?
    This is not a direct activity pilot, nor a change pattern pilot. It is a change framework pilot that is based on an action oriented scientific attitude and heuristic systems architecting though experiments that have play out on Twitter, that is now ready to be able to introduce systemic energy policy acts in selected places. Such policy act is based on the fair, complete an fully functional Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), which emerged increasing the architecting scope as to transform (no fix & maintain, develop, nor transition) not just the global electric power industry but in order to leap into a new equilibrium State and markets to leap to where the magic happens for great capitalism, which Carlota Pérez has described as a Golden Age. This will, for example, apply what Prahalad and Krishnan suggested in their book 'the new age of innovation:’ N=1 (one consumer experience at a time) and R=G (resources from multiple vendors and often from around the globe).The electric power industry tipping point will be overcome in less than 10 years.
    Why are you personally dedicated to the issue?  Please share relevant background, including: your history of entrepreneurship (including childhood years) and the life experiences and/or insights that led to your current path.
    In the 1950’s, I spliced an analogue tape recorder’s tape and made a close loop with a message that repeated it endlessly and left the house. For a moment, my mother though that I had become crazy. In elementary school 6th grade’s final official math exam, my teacher didn’t understand a question that had a graph, which I explained to her, was a pie chart.  I earned the first prize of an essay about a local personality, who happened to be the one my high school (one or two years later) had been named earlier. In my first two years in university, I earned Shell Co. prize as the best engineering student. As the university was closed down during a civil war in 1965, one of my professors, who happened to be a board member at the public power company, offered me a scholarship in electrical engineering if I was accepted in any of five prestigious universities in the US. Cornell University accepted me and I went on to get BS, MS, and PhD degrees. I realized recently that my professor is the reason why I have been dedicated to the issue which emerged as EWPC-AF.  On May 2009, I applied to the “Contest for Innovation in Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean,” a program jointly sponsored and managed by three international organizations and  the Inter American Development Bank (IADB), with the pattern change proposal which I translate as “A country without arbitrary power interruptions," which was submitted as “an organizational basic innovation (revolutionary) EWPC sustainable regulatory model.” The proposal was not even selected in the short list 250 out of 1000 proposals. In March 2011, playing as the EWPC-AF_Creator, I thought to have been the “All Around Winner of the Smart Grid 2025 Game.” Later I demonstrated the game was for a transition scenario to support the statu quo IEEE Smart Grid, when what’s required is a mindset changer transformation scenario like the EWPC-AF. In November 2012 I was accepted as the interim (first) Chair of the IEEE Dominican Republic Subsection, with an approved business plan of leaping it from Good to Great.  The plan which would later lead to the transformation of the IEEE from Good to Great became bombarded by the corresponding Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Section and IEEE headquarters.