Los políticos no quieren que el pueblo dominicano se haga adulto. Siempre están tratando de "protegerlo" de todos los males que le afligen y no lo dejan aprender de sus errores y ganarse la adultez como lo hemos hecho todos, levantándonos de nuestras caídas.
Hipólito, por ejemplo, justificó una vez la entrega tardía de la regalía pascual, en que había que evitar que lo gastaran todo antes de la Navidad. Franklyn Almeyda, justifica la veda de los fuegos artificiales para evitar accidentes lamentables por el mal manejo de los mismos.
Hay que establecer las medidas más absurdas porque la gente no sabe cuidarse a sí misma y los políticos tienen la "sagrada misión" de proteger a sus súbditos.
Debe ser por eso entonces que no nos dan educación de calidad ni buen servicio de salud, para que crezcamos mendigando desnutridos por la ayuda oficial.
Por ese camino nos hemos convertido en un país de pordioseros (limosnero es el que da limosnas), que tiene que esperarlo todo de la mano de los políticos que, de paso, se hacen multimillonarios. (Pero ese es un detalle insignificante, que no vale la pena mencionar)
Nos han castrado tanto que tenemos personas refugiadas en barrancones desde hace casi 30 años que todavía "esperan" por la ayuda del Gobierno. ¿Cómo es posible que alguien pueda pasarse 30 años esperando por una ayuda que no llega y seguir viviendo en las peores condiciones de existencia?
Eso sólo es posible porque nos han castrado. Nos dicen hasta qué hora podemos beber, las cosas que podemos hacer y las que no. Somos un pueblo enano, porque ya tenemos mayoría de edad, pero no nos dejan crecer, porque ese es el gran negocio.
atejada@diariolibre.com
Original publicado por Diario Libre el 23 de Diciembre del 2007, 9:34 PM
viernes, diciembre 28, 2007
viernes, diciembre 21, 2007
Solar and Micro-Wind Breakthroughts?
In Solar and micro wind tax credits, jmaximus9 wrote on 12/13/2007:
My response is as follows: That solar and micro-wind don’t “need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now...” seems to be a very good point. However, it is a policy that leads to high inefficiencies under today’s power sector paradigms designed for demand as an externality, resulting in a total lack of coordination with the interconnected power system . EWPC is a paradigm shift which aim to increase total social welfare, by increasing power system coordination and economics while integrating demand.
The major breakthrough required is for those potential “disruptive technologies” to be integrated into power system planning, operation, and control. The glue to integrate them (demand integration) is the development of information technology (intensive) business model innovations by Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs.
To enable such integration, the most important issue is to shift the paradigm from the energy-making business to the energy-moving business (read please the article Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm, which was posted under the piece "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," also by Kevin Bullis). Solar, micro wind and other renewable investments should compete with in the process to integrate demand to the power system.
Any tax credits should be available to develop all the resources of the demand side, including those of information technology. The resources of the supply side which are energy intensive are already highly developed.
I have a better idea, go back to a Carter era style subsides [http://www.dsireusa.org/ ] for installing solar and micro wind and other energy conserving device in the home and small biz sectors... Solar panels should be as common as decks or swimming pools in the southwest [http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php ]. Microwind should be the same way in the great plains [ http://www.windterra.com/ ]... None of these things need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now... Power to people!
My response is as follows: That solar and micro-wind don’t “need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now...” seems to be a very good point. However, it is a policy that leads to high inefficiencies under today’s power sector paradigms designed for demand as an externality, resulting in a total lack of coordination with the interconnected power system . EWPC is a paradigm shift which aim to increase total social welfare, by increasing power system coordination and economics while integrating demand.
The major breakthrough required is for those potential “disruptive technologies” to be integrated into power system planning, operation, and control. The glue to integrate them (demand integration) is the development of information technology (intensive) business model innovations by Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs.
To enable such integration, the most important issue is to shift the paradigm from the energy-making business to the energy-moving business (read please the article Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm, which was posted under the piece "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," also by Kevin Bullis). Solar, micro wind and other renewable investments should compete with in the process to integrate demand to the power system.
Any tax credits should be available to develop all the resources of the demand side, including those of information technology. The resources of the supply side which are energy intensive are already highly developed.
miércoles, diciembre 19, 2007
Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm
Nanosolar has made great progress as it has faced and apparently surpassed many barriers so far. However, they are still facing the most important barrier, which is the old electric power paradigm centered on central generating station.
Nanosolar’s product is in essence a distributed generation product, but as there is a strong barrier against the development of the resources of the demand side its first applications are supply side applications.
Michael Power writes a clear message to characterize the old business and the new business we are entering in the fifth technological revolution: "Electricity consumers becoming part-time producers – “pro-sumers” – and utilities shifting from “energy-making business” to “energy-moving business”…
There is a new paradigm that has emerged in the past two years, as an extension of research work done originally at MIT, where utilities shift to become just transportation utilities that do the actual movement for generators and customers (not just consumers anymore). Under the new paradigm a set of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR do the actual business transactions under competition. That paradigm is electricity without price controls (EWPC). To break down the barrier faced by Nanosolar and many innovative companies, the main mission of 2GRs is the development of the resources of the demand side.
For more details, please take a look at the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. Under the article there is a set of comments which were posted under another Kevin Bullis TR Editors’ blog, explaining the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm shift paradigm and also responding davel’s questions “why is it important to slash energy use” to additional questions posed by frankellim.
This comment was posted as Old vs. New Paradigm under Technology Review Editors blog, post "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," by Kevin Bullis.
Nanosolar’s product is in essence a distributed generation product, but as there is a strong barrier against the development of the resources of the demand side its first applications are supply side applications.
Michael Power writes a clear message to characterize the old business and the new business we are entering in the fifth technological revolution: "Electricity consumers becoming part-time producers – “pro-sumers” – and utilities shifting from “energy-making business” to “energy-moving business”…
There is a new paradigm that has emerged in the past two years, as an extension of research work done originally at MIT, where utilities shift to become just transportation utilities that do the actual movement for generators and customers (not just consumers anymore). Under the new paradigm a set of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR do the actual business transactions under competition. That paradigm is electricity without price controls (EWPC). To break down the barrier faced by Nanosolar and many innovative companies, the main mission of 2GRs is the development of the resources of the demand side.
For more details, please take a look at the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. Under the article there is a set of comments which were posted under another Kevin Bullis TR Editors’ blog, explaining the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm shift paradigm and also responding davel’s questions “why is it important to slash energy use” to additional questions posed by frankellim.
This comment was posted as Old vs. New Paradigm under Technology Review Editors blog, post "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," by Kevin Bullis.
lunes, diciembre 17, 2007
Making Electricity a Commodity
To make electricity a commodity, a proper market architecture and design has emerged in the last two years, as the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm. The structural flaws in the current incremental extensions of the vertical integration paradigm will not go away by implementing NERC mandatory requirements, as it prevents the necessary coordination leading to maximum social welfare.
Making Electricity a Commodity
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Electricity is not a regular commodity like gasoline, unless it meets the requirement to properly managed systemic risk of system failure. To explain how to make electricity a commodity, I will try to convey the information which might be non-trivial on the EWPC articles Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics, To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering and Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration, and their respective hyperlinks, in another way.
As far as I know, only the original vertical integration and the EWPC paradigms are designed to satisfy such requirement. As you can see in the GMH article NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure, NERC mandatory requirements are just a set of costly afterthoughts, which “will no fix the structural flaws remaining.”
Missing in the afterthoughts is that systemic risk of system failure requirement under vertical integration aimed to provide maximum social welfare by developing the power system infrastructure under least costs expansion plans. Under EWPC the transportation infrastructure is to be developed under similar least costs to enable maximum welfare in the open market. Coordination is brought about by EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. When customers take their decisions independently the results can be way off the social welfare optimal as lack of coordination will lead to a lot of value destruction.
As the work of FERC is correctly showing, demand response (and thus energy efficiency) investment and service plan procedures information is required beforehand to determine the price of electricity when demand gets integrated into power system planning, operation and control. EWPC dual markets design provide how customers will interact in supplying the needed information while selecting 2GRs’ service plans, which under competition will become business model innovations.
The transition from vertical integration to EWPC should proceed in a reasonable time frame in which supply side risk management gets reduced by increasing demand side risk management of system failure, as the customers’ education process continues.
The alternative is to go back to vertical integration to keep receiving a monthly bill and using costly generating reserves to manage systemic risk of system failure, which in turn lead to very costly electricity.
Making Electricity a Commodity
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Electricity is not a regular commodity like gasoline, unless it meets the requirement to properly managed systemic risk of system failure. To explain how to make electricity a commodity, I will try to convey the information which might be non-trivial on the EWPC articles Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics, To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering and Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration, and their respective hyperlinks, in another way.
As far as I know, only the original vertical integration and the EWPC paradigms are designed to satisfy such requirement. As you can see in the GMH article NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure, NERC mandatory requirements are just a set of costly afterthoughts, which “will no fix the structural flaws remaining.”
Missing in the afterthoughts is that systemic risk of system failure requirement under vertical integration aimed to provide maximum social welfare by developing the power system infrastructure under least costs expansion plans. Under EWPC the transportation infrastructure is to be developed under similar least costs to enable maximum welfare in the open market. Coordination is brought about by EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. When customers take their decisions independently the results can be way off the social welfare optimal as lack of coordination will lead to a lot of value destruction.
As the work of FERC is correctly showing, demand response (and thus energy efficiency) investment and service plan procedures information is required beforehand to determine the price of electricity when demand gets integrated into power system planning, operation and control. EWPC dual markets design provide how customers will interact in supplying the needed information while selecting 2GRs’ service plans, which under competition will become business model innovations.
The transition from vertical integration to EWPC should proceed in a reasonable time frame in which supply side risk management gets reduced by increasing demand side risk management of system failure, as the customers’ education process continues.
The alternative is to go back to vertical integration to keep receiving a monthly bill and using costly generating reserves to manage systemic risk of system failure, which in turn lead to very costly electricity.
domingo, diciembre 16, 2007
¿Mi Regalo de Navidad?: Productividad con Cambio Paradigma Educativo
¿Mi Regalo de Navidad?: Productividad con Cambio Paradigma Educativo
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant
Los elementos esenciales de un cambio de paradigma educativo nacen del impacto de la 5ta revolución tecnológica que está transformando a todos los sectores. El sector educativo es uno de los que más serán impactos por los cambios tecnológicos, afectando grandemente la productividad de los distintos egresados y de los sectores productivos.
Siguiendo un ejemplo de la venta de sillas de madera, David McWilliam, MD at Cognos SA, escribe que de acuerdo a la consultora McKinsey existen tres formas primarias de trabajo y actividades de negocios:
- Trabajo transformacional: extracción de materias primas y/o conversión a productos terminados (tomar madera y hacer una silla.)
- Trabajo transaccional: interacciones que se desdoblan de forma basadas en reglas y que pueden ser escritas o automatizadas. (Tomar madera pre-cortada y construir sillas en una línea de ensamblaje.)
- Trabajo tácito: interacciones más complicadas requiriendo un nivel superior de juicio y envolviendo ambigüedad y extrayendo conocimiento tácito o experimental. (Administrando las ventas de sillas para una región específica.)
Con un amplio progreso en las zonas francas y el turismo, los dominicanos hemos demostrados que podemos realizar el trabajo transaccional con alta productividad. El sistema educativo dominicano parece estar bien orientado a esa clase de trabajo.
Según McWilliam, de acuerdo a McKinsey el trabajo tácito ha aumentado en los últimos 9 años a más del 70% de los nuevos trabajos en los Estados Unidos, llegando al 40% del empleo total. No obstante, informa que hay un gran desfase porque se han invertido seis veces más en tecnología para trabajo transaccional que en trabajo tácito. Como el trabajo transaccional es fácil de duplicar, la ventaja competitiva depende cada vez más de la productividad del trabajo tácito.
Todo luce indicar que las quejas de los sectores productivos dominicanos pueden radicar en el desconocimiento de ese tipo de trabajo y de ese desfase. Si es así, ese es el regalo de Navidad que les ofrezco a aquellos que no lo habían entendido todavía. Lo que requieren es personal que sea capaz de realizar trabajo tácito, pero el sector educativo no esta preparado para suplirlo en las cantidades necesarias. Estamos en frente de un nuevo renacimiento, pero no solo para las elites.
Se necesita entonces transformar el sistema educativo dominicano vía un cambio de paradigma que permita suplir la demanda de empleados capaces de realizar trabajo tácito. Los educadores y los estudiantes deben entender que el trabajo transaccional es un trabajo que puede ser y es reemplazado por las máquinas y los sistemas de información.
En el nuevo renacimiento, la educación liberal necesita ser enfatizada más que nunca en el sistema educativo para poder realizar “interacciones más complicadas requiriendo un nivel superior de juicio y envolviendo ambigüedad y extrayendo conocimiento tácito o experimental.”
La escuela-fábrica de producción de trabajadores para el mercado masivo debe ser cuestionada y en su lugar dar paso a, por ejemplo, un nuevo modelo para el mercado de educación casi a la medida. La interacción de los sectores productivos con el sector educativo puede ayudar a facilitar el ambiente necesario aprovechando los sistemas de redes de información. Las aulas pueden entonces que se muevan de sitio para los niveles superiores.
En tal sentido, y con base a la nota Política de Educación para un Desarrollo Humano Inclusivo y Renovado, se podría pensar en grandes profesores que ni siquiera estén ubicados en el país y cooperando con excelentes asistentes ubicados en los sectores productivos o en escuelas especializadas y no en la escuela-fábrica. Es así como podría ser el nuevo paradigma educación superior.
Espero que estas ideas puedan ayudar a reorientar el debate en cuanto a la necesidad de desarrollar líderes a todos los niveles, pues son los líderes los que están preparados para realizar el trabajo tácito.
sábado, diciembre 15, 2007
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
Demand integration is a discontinuous innovation and the reason why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response. Politics should NOT continue to play major interventions in regard to betting on outcomes in alternative energy and demand response, as the installation of AMI is developed by 2GRs under competition. Great opportunities are waiting “that promises much more value creation over time” under the EWPC paradigm shift.
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics it is very clear that there are non-trivial aspects of electricity and that there is a need for a paradigm shift of the power industry as a consequence of demand integration. The non-trivial aspects of vertical integration make possible to plan, operate and control by risk management on the supply side without demand integration. It is also clear from the article that according to FERC demand response, the basic element of demand integration also includes demand side energy efficiency.
It is important to see that the old whole power industry paradigm had two separate interdependent markets, the so called vertical integration controlled market up to the customers meters and the demand open market of customer devices beyond the meter that transform electricity into useful energy services (see below a quote of Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign, on those services).
The EWPC paradigm restructuring discovery separates the same whole power industry in a different way into two interdependent markets, with also one open, and the other controlled. The controlled transportation utility market retains the non-trivial aspects of the vertical integration controlled market as demand response is executed to bridge the retail and wholesale open markets to produce ultraquality transportation. Those controlled markets are the machines that should be ran by engineers, no politicians, if we want to enable the maximum social welfare from electricity. For more details, please see the articles Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 and Engineers Needed for Lower Prices.
The whole point is that under EWPC it is possible to plan, operate and control by a mix of supply side and demand side risk management to offer high service system (not customers) reliability even without storage. Those concepts are explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response that I wrote as a rebuttal to The Business Case for Demand Response, which Jamie co-authored with Thomas Brunetto, Managing Director, Distributed Energy Financial Group. By the way, the analogy with gasoline doesn’t hold because electricity is produced and consumed at the same instant and demand response requires planning with customer supplied information.
Regarding another key view of the paradigm shift, in response to my comments to the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model, Jamie wrote “At my firm, the Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC, we believe the changing utility customer service model is simply one manifestation of a technological revolution akin to the industrial revolution that promises much more value creation over time.” That revolution is precisely fueling the paradigm shift of the power industry by enabling demand integration that “promises much more value creation over time.” Making bets on AMI investments should be avoided and left to competitive customer service model as the utility is restricted to transport the electricity.
Looking at the “green gap” from another angle, in that same article, Jamie wrote “And what do customers want? Most customers are not buying ‘alternative’ or ‘green,’ but are more interested in cheap, reliable energy sources. In fact, I would argue that they are not even buying energy per se, but rather comfort, convenience, light, entertainment, mobility, etc. Greater levels of efficiency allowing for greater levels of consumption of what people desire have the virtuous impact of being ‘cleaner and greener.’ One must be careful to not confuse cause and effect.”
So, educating customers without “greater levels of efficiency” will not necessarily support customers’ efforts and investments in new technology like those suggested by Bob Amorisi. In fact, differentiation in customers’ (not system) reliability is akin to comfort and convenience energy service differentiation that leads to affordable prices for a large segment of any population that can do without full ultraquality transportation.
Such paradigm shift is the reason why market research doesn’t work in this particular initial situation. When disruptive technologies (discontinuous innovations) occur people just don’t have a clue of what is going on. One of the examples given was somehow the very small number of computers that IBM forecasted initially by market research. Another example is that of Henry Ford famous quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
That explains why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response and not so with the apparently familiar energy efficiency concept. What happens is that customers will discover the value of the technology later on fueling 2GRs business model innovations.
As for who should pay for AMI, under EWPC it is 2GRs that are responsible for their respective (Retailers’) Enterprise Solutions (see K2007 Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions). In addition, Nat Treadway, Managing Partner, Distributed Energy Financial Group, LLC, in the article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices, whose theme is “regulated pricing inhibits efficiency,’ explains how to develop and implement a default service transition, which I suggest makes very easy to implement a complete AMI transformation by 2GRs.
The possibility of such an organized transition gets me back to the article To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering. From the viewpoint of the individual customer, and not from the political regulator, the Ontario Electricity Coalition seems to understand that installing “smart meters in all homes in the province” is wrong. Since Bob wrote “As far as EWPC, I am very much in favour of less price regulation if it promotes free markets for consumers,” during the transition, customers will be able to freely choose whether or no to stay in default service. The most conservative, like the Ontario Electricity Coalition, will stay on default service waiting for the best deals under competition.
So the job of the politicians at this stage is to adopt very clear market structure and rules. EWPC is such a market architecture and design. As the controlled utility market guarantees ultraquality transportation, the open market becomes a true commodity market of electricity without price controls and under prudential regulations.
Reference and context: The Green Gap in Communications and Messaging, by Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign and Andrea Fabbri, COO and Chief Marketing Officer, EcoAlign
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics it is very clear that there are non-trivial aspects of electricity and that there is a need for a paradigm shift of the power industry as a consequence of demand integration. The non-trivial aspects of vertical integration make possible to plan, operate and control by risk management on the supply side without demand integration. It is also clear from the article that according to FERC demand response, the basic element of demand integration also includes demand side energy efficiency.
It is important to see that the old whole power industry paradigm had two separate interdependent markets, the so called vertical integration controlled market up to the customers meters and the demand open market of customer devices beyond the meter that transform electricity into useful energy services (see below a quote of Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign, on those services).
The EWPC paradigm restructuring discovery separates the same whole power industry in a different way into two interdependent markets, with also one open, and the other controlled. The controlled transportation utility market retains the non-trivial aspects of the vertical integration controlled market as demand response is executed to bridge the retail and wholesale open markets to produce ultraquality transportation. Those controlled markets are the machines that should be ran by engineers, no politicians, if we want to enable the maximum social welfare from electricity. For more details, please see the articles Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 and Engineers Needed for Lower Prices.
The whole point is that under EWPC it is possible to plan, operate and control by a mix of supply side and demand side risk management to offer high service system (not customers) reliability even without storage. Those concepts are explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response that I wrote as a rebuttal to The Business Case for Demand Response, which Jamie co-authored with Thomas Brunetto, Managing Director, Distributed Energy Financial Group. By the way, the analogy with gasoline doesn’t hold because electricity is produced and consumed at the same instant and demand response requires planning with customer supplied information.
Regarding another key view of the paradigm shift, in response to my comments to the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model, Jamie wrote “At my firm, the Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC, we believe the changing utility customer service model is simply one manifestation of a technological revolution akin to the industrial revolution that promises much more value creation over time.” That revolution is precisely fueling the paradigm shift of the power industry by enabling demand integration that “promises much more value creation over time.” Making bets on AMI investments should be avoided and left to competitive customer service model as the utility is restricted to transport the electricity.
Looking at the “green gap” from another angle, in that same article, Jamie wrote “And what do customers want? Most customers are not buying ‘alternative’ or ‘green,’ but are more interested in cheap, reliable energy sources. In fact, I would argue that they are not even buying energy per se, but rather comfort, convenience, light, entertainment, mobility, etc. Greater levels of efficiency allowing for greater levels of consumption of what people desire have the virtuous impact of being ‘cleaner and greener.’ One must be careful to not confuse cause and effect.”
So, educating customers without “greater levels of efficiency” will not necessarily support customers’ efforts and investments in new technology like those suggested by Bob Amorisi. In fact, differentiation in customers’ (not system) reliability is akin to comfort and convenience energy service differentiation that leads to affordable prices for a large segment of any population that can do without full ultraquality transportation.
Such paradigm shift is the reason why market research doesn’t work in this particular initial situation. When disruptive technologies (discontinuous innovations) occur people just don’t have a clue of what is going on. One of the examples given was somehow the very small number of computers that IBM forecasted initially by market research. Another example is that of Henry Ford famous quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
That explains why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response and not so with the apparently familiar energy efficiency concept. What happens is that customers will discover the value of the technology later on fueling 2GRs business model innovations.
As for who should pay for AMI, under EWPC it is 2GRs that are responsible for their respective (Retailers’) Enterprise Solutions (see K2007 Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions). In addition, Nat Treadway, Managing Partner, Distributed Energy Financial Group, LLC, in the article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices, whose theme is “regulated pricing inhibits efficiency,’ explains how to develop and implement a default service transition, which I suggest makes very easy to implement a complete AMI transformation by 2GRs.
The possibility of such an organized transition gets me back to the article To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering. From the viewpoint of the individual customer, and not from the political regulator, the Ontario Electricity Coalition seems to understand that installing “smart meters in all homes in the province” is wrong. Since Bob wrote “As far as EWPC, I am very much in favour of less price regulation if it promotes free markets for consumers,” during the transition, customers will be able to freely choose whether or no to stay in default service. The most conservative, like the Ontario Electricity Coalition, will stay on default service waiting for the best deals under competition.
So the job of the politicians at this stage is to adopt very clear market structure and rules. EWPC is such a market architecture and design. As the controlled utility market guarantees ultraquality transportation, the open market becomes a true commodity market of electricity without price controls and under prudential regulations.
Reference and context: The Green Gap in Communications and Messaging, by Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign and Andrea Fabbri, COO and Chief Marketing Officer, EcoAlign
jueves, diciembre 13, 2007
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates a Babel Tower in Ontario. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts making like risky bets of installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
One case in point about a green gap is in today’s Energy Central Daily news. Ontario should get smart, follow Hydro Quebec decision to abandon time-of-use meters, electricity coalition says. "The Ontario government would be doing consumers a favour if it were to follow the example of Hydro Quebec and abandon its plan to install so-called smart meters in all homes in the province, says the Ontario Electricity Coalition."
“… Hydro Quebec has decided that the expense of installing the meters would be borne by consumers through higher electricity rates…”
"Time-of-use meters are less about energy conservation and more about raising the cost of electricity to pay for private power generation,"
"There is little evidence that smart meters will reduce electricity consumption and plenty of evidence that prices will increase. The cost of installation alone in Ontario is more than $2 billion," he said. "There really is nothing smart about basing an energy plan on time-use-meters in Ontario homes… That money would be better spent on an effective energy conservation plan."
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates such a Babel Tower. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts like installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
Under EWPC, demand integration (as explained in the above post) is about both energy conservation and reducing the cost of electricity by developing demand elasticity with efficient pricing.
There is a great risk that the smart meters bet made by regulators and utilities will result in a price increase for customers. Those risks are better handled through the market by competitive 2GRs service plans that combine interdependent decisions on investments by customers. In addition, instead of installing meters in all homes, it is more efficient to do it during a transition period under competition.
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
One case in point about a green gap is in today’s Energy Central Daily news. Ontario should get smart, follow Hydro Quebec decision to abandon time-of-use meters, electricity coalition says. "The Ontario government would be doing consumers a favour if it were to follow the example of Hydro Quebec and abandon its plan to install so-called smart meters in all homes in the province, says the Ontario Electricity Coalition."
“… Hydro Quebec has decided that the expense of installing the meters would be borne by consumers through higher electricity rates…”
"Time-of-use meters are less about energy conservation and more about raising the cost of electricity to pay for private power generation,"
"There is little evidence that smart meters will reduce electricity consumption and plenty of evidence that prices will increase. The cost of installation alone in Ontario is more than $2 billion," he said. "There really is nothing smart about basing an energy plan on time-use-meters in Ontario homes… That money would be better spent on an effective energy conservation plan."
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates such a Babel Tower. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts like installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
Under EWPC, demand integration (as explained in the above post) is about both energy conservation and reducing the cost of electricity by developing demand elasticity with efficient pricing.
There is a great risk that the smart meters bet made by regulators and utilities will result in a price increase for customers. Those risks are better handled through the market by competitive 2GRs service plans that combine interdependent decisions on investments by customers. In addition, instead of installing meters in all homes, it is more efficient to do it during a transition period under competition.
jueves, diciembre 06, 2007
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
Demand integration and system reliability are not the provinces of politics, but of engineering systems and competition. FERC’s demand response staff assessment begs the question of a properly restructured electricity market. The highly complex paradigm inherent on its market structure will become even more complex if FERC’s correct instructions are implemented. A paradigm shift to the EWPC market structure and design is expected to avoid getting the developed countries’ power industry into that of third world service.
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
As described in the "2007 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued the incorporation of demand response to transmission planning; the revision of NERC mandatory requirements to incorporate demand response; and the proposal to add demand response enhancements to competition in wholesale markets. As can be seen below, those three correct instructions beg the need for properly restructured electricity markets.
Looking very carefully at the instructions, those signals highlight the increasing complexity of the open transmission access incremental extension of the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm. It is now very clear that those begging signals justify the need for the paradigm shift to the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm in order to follow the design mantra “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
EWPC is the only properly restructured electricity markets available, where complexity is reduced by the discovery of two simplified interdependent markets: one is the controlled transportation (T&D) utility market and the other is the open commercial market. See Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 (please hit link here and further down to get more details).
Second Generation Retailers Required
While utilities and third parties have the responsibility to integrate retail demand to wholesale markets, under EWPC the institution of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR is the sole responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. So instead of customers facing two institutions they will be able to have the whole relationship with the customers. As competition between utilities and third parties depends on the political process, on a state by state basis, innovation and progress is being delayed.
In addition, to further justify EWPC, in FERC’s assessment demand response is being extended to include energy efficiency. A simple explanation is that the latter can be understood as a long run demand response. This insight is very important because it recognizes that customers’ investments in short run demand response are interdependent with investments in long run demand response.
Interdependency is one key element to justify the need for retail competition and thus retailers. See The Sixth Disruptive Technology for more details on the other interdependent investments to be made by customers and retailers. It is now clear that 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five disruptive technologies with their business model innovations.
System Reliability is Non-Trivial and Not the Province of Politics
The vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) true and non-trivial paradigm led to a highly reliable electric service for many jurisdictions that understood and applied the paradigm. At many other locations that didn’t understand the non-trivial paradigm, usually known as third world electric service, unreliable service was offered. The knowledge accumulated behind of the true and non-trivial VIUs controlled market paradigm (for example by PJM) was based on the development of the theory and practice of physical risk management for an industry without energy storage that considered reliability and demand as externalities.
The result is a highly developed long run and short run supply side physical system risk management body of knowledge to offer commercial reliable service even without electricity storage, which is known under the terms system adequacy, supply security constrained economic dispatch, contingency analysis, loss of load probability studies, etc.
As the electric industry has develop its own risk management methodologies, which are true and non-trivial, it seems much more complex for other intelligent and important people, just as “Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when ‘it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’ The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. See EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine.
Today the responsibility for system reliability is divided into federal and state regulators, NERC, and RTO/ISO under a political process. However, under EWPC it is just the transportation institution that is responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. That institution is the controlled transportation (transmission and distribution) utility market, being responsible for transportation ultraquality. By doing so, those institutions are way into the true and non-trivial aspects of electric power systems, which are not the province of politics, but of engineering systems.
Transportation Ultraquality is the Province of Engineers Not Politics
The ultraquality imperative, was explained as follows in EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 2:
Demand Integration is the Province of Competition Not Politics
FERC’s assessment states “In November of 2006, the Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners began a demand response collaborative effort, co-chaired by Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, to coordinate the efforts of the state and federal electric regulators to integrate demand response into retail and wholesale markets and planning." Demand response integration by 2GRs under competition and open transportation access make both retail and wholesale competition a lot simpler.
Such political collaborative to integrate demand is apparently needed because of the present system structure. The “Increased activity by third parties to aggregate retail demand response,” reported by FERC, identifies an activity that should be performed by the 2GR customer facing institution. Under EWPC the integration of demand response to wholesale market is to be performed by 2GRs.
Reference and context: FERC Assesses Advanced Metering Programs by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
As described in the "2007 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued the incorporation of demand response to transmission planning; the revision of NERC mandatory requirements to incorporate demand response; and the proposal to add demand response enhancements to competition in wholesale markets. As can be seen below, those three correct instructions beg the need for properly restructured electricity markets.
Looking very carefully at the instructions, those signals highlight the increasing complexity of the open transmission access incremental extension of the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm. It is now very clear that those begging signals justify the need for the paradigm shift to the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm in order to follow the design mantra “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
EWPC is the only properly restructured electricity markets available, where complexity is reduced by the discovery of two simplified interdependent markets: one is the controlled transportation (T&D) utility market and the other is the open commercial market. See Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 (please hit link here and further down to get more details).
Second Generation Retailers Required
While utilities and third parties have the responsibility to integrate retail demand to wholesale markets, under EWPC the institution of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR is the sole responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. So instead of customers facing two institutions they will be able to have the whole relationship with the customers. As competition between utilities and third parties depends on the political process, on a state by state basis, innovation and progress is being delayed.
In addition, to further justify EWPC, in FERC’s assessment demand response is being extended to include energy efficiency. A simple explanation is that the latter can be understood as a long run demand response. This insight is very important because it recognizes that customers’ investments in short run demand response are interdependent with investments in long run demand response.
Interdependency is one key element to justify the need for retail competition and thus retailers. See The Sixth Disruptive Technology for more details on the other interdependent investments to be made by customers and retailers. It is now clear that 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five disruptive technologies with their business model innovations.
System Reliability is Non-Trivial and Not the Province of Politics
The vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) true and non-trivial paradigm led to a highly reliable electric service for many jurisdictions that understood and applied the paradigm. At many other locations that didn’t understand the non-trivial paradigm, usually known as third world electric service, unreliable service was offered. The knowledge accumulated behind of the true and non-trivial VIUs controlled market paradigm (for example by PJM) was based on the development of the theory and practice of physical risk management for an industry without energy storage that considered reliability and demand as externalities.
The result is a highly developed long run and short run supply side physical system risk management body of knowledge to offer commercial reliable service even without electricity storage, which is known under the terms system adequacy, supply security constrained economic dispatch, contingency analysis, loss of load probability studies, etc.
As the electric industry has develop its own risk management methodologies, which are true and non-trivial, it seems much more complex for other intelligent and important people, just as “Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when ‘it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’ The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. See EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine.
Today the responsibility for system reliability is divided into federal and state regulators, NERC, and RTO/ISO under a political process. However, under EWPC it is just the transportation institution that is responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. That institution is the controlled transportation (transmission and distribution) utility market, being responsible for transportation ultraquality. By doing so, those institutions are way into the true and non-trivial aspects of electric power systems, which are not the province of politics, but of engineering systems.
Transportation Ultraquality is the Province of Engineers Not Politics
The ultraquality imperative, was explained as follows in EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 2:
Eberhart Rechtin and Mark Maier, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” explain that “social system quality… is less a foundation than a case-by-case trade-off; that is, the quality desired depends on the system to be provided. In nuclear power generation, modern manufacturing, and manned space flight, ultraquality is an imperative. But in public health, pollution control, and safety, the level of acceptable quality is only one of many economic, social, political, and technical factors to be accommodated.”
In the first case, the experts are the engineers. For the center stage, controlled market, system engineer institution to assures that electrons and people have the same purpose, as I mentioned on 12.30.06, ultraquality is an imperative to manage short run and long run systemic risk, with both supply side and demand side resources.
In the second case, according to Rechtin and Maier, the accommodation is done by the architect with “a professional response to the public needs and perceptions.” It is such unjustified perceptions that fueled the decade long debate. Bill Hogan mistake was that he didn’t understand what Fred Schweppe meant by the fourth criterion: “consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system,” which can only be met by ultraquality. As time has advanced and new digital technology market share becomes larger, electricity demand for quality is only increasing. A professional response is needed, however, for the remaining, non real-time, free market activities of retail and generation. EWPC for the customers is such a response.
Demand Integration is the Province of Competition Not Politics
FERC’s assessment states “In November of 2006, the Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners began a demand response collaborative effort, co-chaired by Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, to coordinate the efforts of the state and federal electric regulators to integrate demand response into retail and wholesale markets and planning." Demand response integration by 2GRs under competition and open transportation access make both retail and wholesale competition a lot simpler.
Such political collaborative to integrate demand is apparently needed because of the present system structure. The “Increased activity by third parties to aggregate retail demand response,” reported by FERC, identifies an activity that should be performed by the 2GR customer facing institution. Under EWPC the integration of demand response to wholesale market is to be performed by 2GRs.
Reference and context: FERC Assesses Advanced Metering Programs by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central
viernes, noviembre 30, 2007
El Estado NO Debe Comprar RDP
Varios sectores del mundo empresarial se están oponiendo a la compra del resto de las acciones de la RDP o REFIDOMSA. Se trata de un negocio muy riesgoso ante un mundo tan incierto. Lo que el Estado debe hacer es poner en venta su parte y abrir el mercado de importación al mismo tiempo en competencia con la refinería.
Hay tres escenarios para la próxima década que he tomado del libro “Powerful Times” que se pueden contemplar para hacer la decisión. Su autor Eamonn Kelly estima que uno de estos tres escenarios (no predicciones) dominará la próxima década, derivando su forma primaria y sustancia para el próximo siglo. Se dice que “la incertidumbre crítica” es “cual de ellos dominará,” porque “cada uno de esos escenarios contiene elementos de los otros dos. De hecho, los tres estarán en juego al mismo tiempo a cierto nivel… ninguno tiene derechos exclusivos al futuro.”
Los escenarios parten del modelo ‘emergente’ de poder, desde abajo hacia arriba, descentralizado, en redes, que probaría ser la fuente verdadera de una transformación profunda del mundo. Los escenarios son:
1) Emergencia (es el escenario ‘emergente’ de liderazgo, innovación y cambio).
2) El Nuevo Siglo Americano (es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la creciente influencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo).
3) Poderes de Parchos (Es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la decreciente influencia de los Estados Unidos).
Estos escenarios fueron “diseñados para ensanchar nuestros pensamientos, retar nuestras suposiciones, y ayudar a prepararnos con múltiples posibilidades, en vez de asumir un futuro único o simplemente esperando, como Pandolfo Petrucci, para reaccionar a cualquier cosa que nos ponga el destino al frente.”
La decisión en el escenario Emergencia es obviamente NO COMPRAR. La gran incertidumbre que se cierne sobre la humanidad necesita ser enfrentada con liderazgo e innovación. Estrategias como reducir la factura de petróleo y gas en 25% en los próximos 4 años, requieren un planteamiento decidido a reestructurar el sector eléctrico. Por ejemplo, al hacer la eficiencia energética uno de los pilares de la reducción del consumo en los medidores del sector eléctrico, no se tendría que afectar el consumo final de energía que necesitamos para impulsar el crecimiento de la economía.
El Nuevo Siglo Americano se basa en un “sistema de mercado que tiene una demostrada tolerancia a los fracasos; hasta parece que están dispuestos a permitir que grandes corporaciones sucumban a la competencia en vez de sacarlas de apuro, asegurando una remoción y dinamismo que son la envidia de muchos otros países.” Bajo ese escenario la decisión obvia es la de NO COMPRAR.
Sin embargo, por lo que está sucediendo, por ejemplo en la industria eléctrica, dicha tolerancia parece haber desaparecido. Por otros muchos indicios, que Kelly menciona como “errores hechos en los años que siguieron al horror del 11 de septiembre… hay una lista bastante depresiva de las formas en que los Estados Unidos han socavado su propia autoridad y posición en el mundo,” todo luce indicar que El Nuevo Siglo Americano podría ser minimizado y que la humanidad, con los Estados Unidos a la cabeza, debería apostar por Emergencia, en que los ideales originales americanos de democracia y capitalismo son abrazados por muchos otros países.
No obstante Poderes de Parcho está cobrando mucha fuerza en la República Dominicana. La decisión en ese escenario es claramente la de COMPRAR, porque no se necesita desarrollar liderazgo, ni embarcarse en los senderos de la innovación. Este escenario está siendo reforzado por préstamos venezolanos para que sigamos atados al petróleo, a cuenta de las nuevas generaciones de dominicanos que los tendrán que pagar. Este escenario nos confirma como grandes derrochadores y contaminadores, que hablan hasta de aumentar la capacidad de refinar petróleo.
Esos tres escenarios son radicalmente apartados de lo que estamos acostumbrados a vivir. Como los dominicanos debemos estar preparados para vivir en cualquiera de esos tres escenarios del futuro, la mejor decisión entonces es NO COMPRAR.
Hay tres escenarios para la próxima década que he tomado del libro “Powerful Times” que se pueden contemplar para hacer la decisión. Su autor Eamonn Kelly estima que uno de estos tres escenarios (no predicciones) dominará la próxima década, derivando su forma primaria y sustancia para el próximo siglo. Se dice que “la incertidumbre crítica” es “cual de ellos dominará,” porque “cada uno de esos escenarios contiene elementos de los otros dos. De hecho, los tres estarán en juego al mismo tiempo a cierto nivel… ninguno tiene derechos exclusivos al futuro.”
Los escenarios parten del modelo ‘emergente’ de poder, desde abajo hacia arriba, descentralizado, en redes, que probaría ser la fuente verdadera de una transformación profunda del mundo. Los escenarios son:
1) Emergencia (es el escenario ‘emergente’ de liderazgo, innovación y cambio).
2) El Nuevo Siglo Americano (es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la creciente influencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo).
3) Poderes de Parchos (Es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la decreciente influencia de los Estados Unidos).
Estos escenarios fueron “diseñados para ensanchar nuestros pensamientos, retar nuestras suposiciones, y ayudar a prepararnos con múltiples posibilidades, en vez de asumir un futuro único o simplemente esperando, como Pandolfo Petrucci, para reaccionar a cualquier cosa que nos ponga el destino al frente.”
La decisión en el escenario Emergencia es obviamente NO COMPRAR. La gran incertidumbre que se cierne sobre la humanidad necesita ser enfrentada con liderazgo e innovación. Estrategias como reducir la factura de petróleo y gas en 25% en los próximos 4 años, requieren un planteamiento decidido a reestructurar el sector eléctrico. Por ejemplo, al hacer la eficiencia energética uno de los pilares de la reducción del consumo en los medidores del sector eléctrico, no se tendría que afectar el consumo final de energía que necesitamos para impulsar el crecimiento de la economía.
El Nuevo Siglo Americano se basa en un “sistema de mercado que tiene una demostrada tolerancia a los fracasos; hasta parece que están dispuestos a permitir que grandes corporaciones sucumban a la competencia en vez de sacarlas de apuro, asegurando una remoción y dinamismo que son la envidia de muchos otros países.” Bajo ese escenario la decisión obvia es la de NO COMPRAR.
Sin embargo, por lo que está sucediendo, por ejemplo en la industria eléctrica, dicha tolerancia parece haber desaparecido. Por otros muchos indicios, que Kelly menciona como “errores hechos en los años que siguieron al horror del 11 de septiembre… hay una lista bastante depresiva de las formas en que los Estados Unidos han socavado su propia autoridad y posición en el mundo,” todo luce indicar que El Nuevo Siglo Americano podría ser minimizado y que la humanidad, con los Estados Unidos a la cabeza, debería apostar por Emergencia, en que los ideales originales americanos de democracia y capitalismo son abrazados por muchos otros países.
No obstante Poderes de Parcho está cobrando mucha fuerza en la República Dominicana. La decisión en ese escenario es claramente la de COMPRAR, porque no se necesita desarrollar liderazgo, ni embarcarse en los senderos de la innovación. Este escenario está siendo reforzado por préstamos venezolanos para que sigamos atados al petróleo, a cuenta de las nuevas generaciones de dominicanos que los tendrán que pagar. Este escenario nos confirma como grandes derrochadores y contaminadores, que hablan hasta de aumentar la capacidad de refinar petróleo.
Esos tres escenarios son radicalmente apartados de lo que estamos acostumbrados a vivir. Como los dominicanos debemos estar preparados para vivir en cualquiera de esos tres escenarios del futuro, la mejor decisión entonces es NO COMPRAR.
jueves, noviembre 29, 2007
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
First Energy Corp. entered into a contradiction by handing a letter signed by prominent economists to show they believe in competitive markets. The contradiction is that the economists recommended focusing on the necessary improvements in market design, while the utility identified a “number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Ohio House of Representative should focus closely on EWPC.
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Speaking before the Ohio House of Representative, Leila L. Vespoli, senior vice president and general counsel for FirstEnergy Corp., testify on November 28 on the proposed energy policy.
Stating three reason for a continue believe in competitive markets, Ms. Vespoli provided a copy of the June 26, 2006, Open Letter to Policymakers, signed by the prominent economists Paul L. Joskow, Alfred E. Kahn, William W. Hogan, Peter Cramtom, Howard J. Axelrod and Vernon L. Smith.
The conclusion of the letter states: “… despite the recent increases in electricity prices, policymakers should stay the course and continue to support restructuring and the evolution of competitive wholesale and retail markets for power. Competition is the very foundation of our nation’s economy. Competitive electricity markets are relatively new and will continue to evolve. We urge policymakers to focus on making the necessary improvements in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation. We are persuaded that competition in electricity markets will stand the test of time and continue to provide visible customer benefits.”
It is important to highlight the suggestion to “… focus on making the necessary improvement in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation,” since EWPC market architecture and design emerged as the key to such improvements.
In the statement, Ms. Vespoli also stated “… if we fail to preserve the market-based option for utilities and customers, we create a number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Such argument, however, contradicts the conclusion of the prominent economists, since the utilities grid and enterprise need to be separated to make the necessary improvements to allow competition to emerge in the enterprise without incumbent retailer.
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Speaking before the Ohio House of Representative, Leila L. Vespoli, senior vice president and general counsel for FirstEnergy Corp., testify on November 28 on the proposed energy policy.
Stating three reason for a continue believe in competitive markets, Ms. Vespoli provided a copy of the June 26, 2006, Open Letter to Policymakers, signed by the prominent economists Paul L. Joskow, Alfred E. Kahn, William W. Hogan, Peter Cramtom, Howard J. Axelrod and Vernon L. Smith.
The conclusion of the letter states: “… despite the recent increases in electricity prices, policymakers should stay the course and continue to support restructuring and the evolution of competitive wholesale and retail markets for power. Competition is the very foundation of our nation’s economy. Competitive electricity markets are relatively new and will continue to evolve. We urge policymakers to focus on making the necessary improvements in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation. We are persuaded that competition in electricity markets will stand the test of time and continue to provide visible customer benefits.”
It is important to highlight the suggestion to “… focus on making the necessary improvement in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation,” since EWPC market architecture and design emerged as the key to such improvements.
In the statement, Ms. Vespoli also stated “… if we fail to preserve the market-based option for utilities and customers, we create a number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Such argument, however, contradicts the conclusion of the prominent economists, since the utilities grid and enterprise need to be separated to make the necessary improvements to allow competition to emerge in the enterprise without incumbent retailer.
sábado, noviembre 24, 2007
Una Verdad “Trivial” de Amcham
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.[Actualización del 25 de noviembre en corchetes.
"El liderazgo eficaz deriva su credibilidad no de prácticas y técnicas (las que son importantes), sino de la persona que las apoya, el ser humano detras del comportamiento de liderazgo."
Peter Koestenbaum - Leadership: The inner Side of Greatness]
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
24 de noviembre, 2007
Bajo el título, “A propósito de institucionalidad y desarrollo de la nación,” la Cámara Americana de Comercio (Amcham), en su columna “Comercio y Competitividad,” publicada en el Listín Diario del 24 de noviembre, 2007, ha producido una muy importante exhortación hacia la institucionalidad y el desarrollo de la nación.
No obstante, el ejemplo que emplean no ha sido el mejor. Creo que se basa en una verdad trivial sobre el devenir del sector eléctrico dominicano. A continuación presentamos la verdadera reforma institucional del sector eléctrico que requiere el desarrollo de la nación, basada en una verdad no trivial sobre la electricidad, que tiene un alto potencial para crear grandes oportunidades de negocios al país.
Con el auspicio de la USAID, vía el Centro Universitario de Estudios Políticos y Sociales de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra, fui seleccionado y contratado en 1996 por el Grupo de Acción por la Democracia, como especialista nacional, para redactar uno de 3 documentos de trabajo con planes de acción en la prioridad del sector eléctrico. Diferente a los otros dos especialistas, yo había practicado la planificación de los sistemas eléctricos interconectados y el desarrollo de sistemas modernos de información.
De acuerdo a la “Agenda Nacional de Desarrollo (Volumen II): Planes de Acción para las Diez Principales Prioridades,” la propuesta que elaboré se suponía debía “contribuir con la tarea de las autoridades nacionales, y más especialmente de aquellas que habrán de conformar el equipo de la nueva Administración a inaugurarse el venidero 16 de agosto [del 1996], de formular las mejores políticas para impulsar el desarrollo nacional.”
Lamentablemente para la familia dominicana, mi documento de trabajo no fue ni siquiera considerado por esa Administración, ni por las que le sucedieron. Creo que humildemente puedo decir que en aquel momento hubo falta de institucionalidad que afectó grandemente el proceso posterior de reestructuración y que le ha costado grandes pérdidas a nuestra sociedad. En particular, existen ahora toda una serie de costosos intereses creados que se pudieron evitar. Ahora bien, los errores en las reformas han sido en todo el mundo, dejándonos todavía la oportunidad para ser los pioneros en la reforma de los mercados eléctricos mundiales.
Ramón Flores, un especialista nacional, que redactó uno de los otros dos documentos, escribió “Cualquier sector energético de propiedad pública o privada que no se sustente en sí mismo, sino en las finanzas del Estado termina convirtiéndose en un barril sin fondo.” No obstante, la decisión de capitalizar extendió la participación de las finanzas del Estado en el negocio eléctrico. Esa participación, se hizo con el modelo de negocios de las distribuidoras, que sirve para extraer rentas abultando las compras de infraestructura que se pasan a tarifa. El resultado es tres distribuidoras quebradas.
La verdad trivial sobre el sector eléctrico aludida por la Amcham se basa en los estudios de los economistas Douglas North, premio Nóbel 1993, que ofrece “una visión neoclásica del desempeño económico de los pueblos, incorporando la importancia del rol de las instituciones y la evolución de la sociedad a través del tiempo,” y Hernando de Soto “quien se ha enfocado en un concepto revolucionario al que ha llamado ‘la carencia de derechos de propiedad formales como la fuente de la pobreza en los países pobres.’” Sucede que la verdad del sector eléctrico no es solo asunto de sus aspectos triviales; es ante todo un asunto de un aspecto no trivial de electricidad.
Sabemos que el premio Nóbel de economía 1970, Paul Anthony Samuelson, ofreció una proposición que fuese a la vez verdadera y no trivial: “El principio de las ventajas comparativas. Que es lógicamente verdadera no es necesario comprobarlo ante un matemático; que no es trivial se ha comprobado por los miles de hombres importantes e inteligentes que nunca han podido entender por sí mismos dicha doctrina o creer en ella después que se les ha explicado".
Basado en los aspectos triviales de la electricidad, el economista Alfred E. Kahn ha dicho “Estoy preocupado sobre cuán únicos son los mercados eléctricos. Siempre he estado incierto sobre eliminar la integración vertical. Podría ser una industria en que esta funcione razonablemente bien.”
Lo que el Dr. Kahn explica es un asunto que es lógicamente verdadero y que también no es trivial. Lamentablemente, no fue tomado en cuenta el gran esfuerzo desplegado en el Instituto Tecnológico de Massachussets, durante gran parte de los años 80, por un equipo de investigadores dirigido por Fred C. Schweppe, dando lugar a la teoría y la práctica de la formación de precios de oportunidad (spot) de electricidad.
La integración vertical permitía aproximar el mayor bienestar social, cuando la expansión del conjunto generación-transmisión del sistema eléctrico interconectado se realizaba al mínimo costo, como lo exigió a la CDE el Banco Mundial al final de los años 80. Yo preparé un plan de expansión en esa oportunidad. Esta expansión asumía la demanda y la confiabilidad del sistema eléctrico como externalidades, e incluía los costos de inversión, operación, manteniendo y desabastecimiento (los costos de los apagones a la sociedad).
No obstante, la reestructuración introducida en el país en el año 1999 continúo dejando los insoportables costos de los apagones a los consumidores, dada la baja confiabilidad ofrecida, al tiempo que le confiscan su potencial derecho de propiedad de manera indefinida. Así se refuerza el mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP) de soluciones individuales de autoabastecimiento a los consumidores. Es ese defecto de la reforma, los apagones como externalidad, que aparentemente [eliminé "la"] hace atractiva la reforma a los inversionistas, a mi entender la fuente principal del fracaso de la misma. De ahí es que puede operar la creencia subyacente que ha impulsado el hurto de electricidad a niveles alarmantes, de que ladrón que le roba a ladrón tiene 100 años de perdón.
Es por lo anterior que los cambios incorporados a la normativa, que según Amcham “pretenden corregir algunas distorsiones del sector de distribución, estableciendo mayores penalidades y acciones punitivas para el resguardo de las consabidas garantías Estatales al derecho de la libre empresa y a la seguridad jurídica de las empresas distribuidoras,” se quedan cortas para contribuir a la institucionalidad y al desarrollo de la nación, por estar concentradas en los derechos de una sola de las dos partes.
El Ex-Vicepresidente de los Estados Unidos, Al Gore, en el prefacio de la segunda edición del libro “Capitalism at the Crossroads,” de Stuart L. Hart, afirma que “los intereses de los accionistas, tanto públicos como privados, a través del tiempo, serían mejor servidos por compañías que maximicen su rendimiento financiero administrando estratégicamente su rendimiento económico, social, ambiental y ético… La ‘licencia para operar’ ya no puede ser una suposición de los negocios, cuando retos tales como la crisis ambiental… escasez de agua y la pobreza llegan a un punto donde la sociedad civil y los consumidores demandan una respuesta de los negocios y del gobierno. Las compañías líderes entienden esto y ya están moviéndose antes que los legisladores y los reguladores y, al hacerlo, están asegurando la ventaja competitiva.” Es [no "Esa"] así como se deben interrelacionar de ahora en adelante el comercio y la competitividad.
El aumento de la eficiencia de los sectores eléctricos mundiales, en la propuesta de Schweppe y su equipo, diseñada para un mercado regulado y extendida por el autor para un mercado abierto, proviene de la competencia al detalle con demanda activa, haciendo que la demanda y la confiabilidad dejen de ser externalidades. Para lograr el mayor bienestar social, la eficiencia del sector entonces resultaría de la optimización del conjunto, tomando en cuenta no solo la oferta y el transporte, sino también la confiabilidad y la demanda. Esto es posible por la reducción significativa en los costos de transacción, gracias al gran progreso acontecido y por acontecer en las tecnologías de la información. Más abajo amplío esto al tratar las tecnologías “disruptivas.”
El aspecto de confiabilidad nace de uno de cuatro criterios en que descansa la teoría y la práctica de la formación de precios spot que es cierto y no trivial. El criterio es considerar los requisitos para controlar, operar y planear un sistema eléctrico. En verdad es el criterio fundamental de diseño arquitectónico del sistema eléctrico. Como veremos a continuación, al ser cierto y no trivial, ese criterio no puede ser objeto de debate, como se ha realizado equivocadamente al implantar los mercados eléctricos en todas las jurisdicciones y mucho peor en la República Dominicana, donde se ha realizado una fuerte contrarreforma sin ni siquiera debate.
Eberhardt Rechtin y Mark Maier, en su libro “The Art of System Architecting,” explican que “la calidad de un sistema social… es menos un fundamento que una elección caso por caso; esto es, la calidad deseada (en nuestro caso principalmente la confiabilidad) depende del sistema que se quiere proveer. En la generación nuclear, en la manufactura moderna, y en los vuelos espaciales, la ultracalidad es un imperativo. Pero en salud pública, en control ambiental, y en seguridad, el nivel aceptable de calidad es solo uno de muchos factores económicos, sociales, políticos y técnicos a ser reconciliados.”
Con el objeto de obtener un mayor bienestar social que en la industria verticalmente integrada, la propuesta que realicé en 1996 como “La Necesidad de una Política Integral de Electricidad para la República Dominicana,” separa el sector eléctrico en dos grandes mercados: el mercado controlado de transporte y el mercado abierto de comercialización de electricidad al por mayor y al detalle. Hallazgos posteriores en lo que ha emergido, durante los últimos dos años, como la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC, por sus siglas en inglés) aplica el imperativo de ultracalidad al sistema controlado de transporte. Ese sistema de transporte se planea para una expansión de mínimo costo que habilita el máximo bienestar social en el mercado abierto.
Peter Van Doren y Jerry Taylor, del Cato Institute, indican que “la reestructuración eléctrica fue iniciada en los años 90 para remediar el problema de costos de electricidad relativamente elevados en el Noreste y en California… los economistas querían una reforma que eliminara los incentivos a la capacidad excesiva de generación y para introducir precios en tiempo real.”
En las conclusiones de su trabajo, Van Doren y Taylor decían: “mientras la reestructuración no ha sido tan mala como las facciones contrarias al mercado mantienen, ha creado problemas desconocidos previamente en la industria eléctrica:”
1. Se concentró en la competencia en generación e ignoró los asuntos de precios e incentivos relativos a la administración del sistema de transmisión y sus características públicas comunes
2. Injertó un mercado mayorista relativamente libre encima de un mercado al detalle altamente regulado; y
3. Estableció instituciones artificiales que invitaron a la manipulación y el abuso. El resultado final ha probado estar lejos de ser satisfactorio.
Esos problemas desconocidos resultan en la falta de conocimiento de los elementos esenciales del mercado genérico de la EWPC que humildemente descubrí, sinteticé y presenté este año en la Universidad Carnegie Mellon: competencia al detalle con demanda activa y transporte de ultracalidad, los cuales había intuido en la propuesta que realicé en 1996.
El primer problema desconocido para Van Doren y Taylor se resuelve con un mercado controlado de transporte con ultracalidad. El segundo con la competencia en el mercado al detalle con demanda activa, el cual da una ventaja bien grande a los dominicanos para integrar el mercado SQP al sistema interconectado. El tercero se resuelve con el cambio de la regulación de control de precios a la regulación prudencial para proteger a los consumidores de los abusos de los detallistas y del potencial poder de mercado de los generadores.
Siguiendo las sugerencias del premio Nóbel Douglas North, en 1996 escribí: “Las instituciones y la gente necesitan tiempo para asimilar los cambios, especialmente aquellos que transforman. Se puede adoptar un cambio radical para ser implantado en etapas con pasos firmes. La gente necesita tiempo para conocer, entender y finalmente comprender que se quiere hacer… la meta de transformar la industria eléctrica en dos etapas, es en verdad una meta muy optimista.”
La primera de las dos etapas que estimaba de 5 años era para desarrollar el mercado minorista y el mercado de transporte (transmisión y distribución) de electricidad de clase mundial. La apertura de la generación era para la segunda etapa.
Argumenta Amcham que “A seis años de promulgada dicha Ley (General de Electricidad), su implementación y aplicación real ha sido limitada y aún no ha resuelto la problemática de la sostenibilidad del segmento de distribución.” Este tema de la sostenibilidad es una creencia altamente defectuosa en la mente de los que dirigen la reforma dominicana.
La sostenibilidad que impulsa el desarrollo es la que resulta en el máximo bienestar social del conjunto, que garantiza a su vez el bienestar de cada una de las partes. La primera etapa que sugerí en 1996, como parte de la política integral, suponía que “mientras más actores (en el mercado minorista) hay presentes inicialmente en la solución de las pérdidas, más pronto se solucionará el problema.” En efecto, la política implantada se hizo a la inversa y considerando la sostenibilidad de los segmentos por separado sin pensar en la del conjunto.
[Sustituir "Como afirmamos más arriba, la" por "La"] La industria eléctrica a nivel mundial está desde hace tiempo en la Zona No Rentable. En esa zona, los aumento de los costos (incluyendo aquí los de los apagones) a los clientes resultan del modelo de negocios de las distribuidoras de ganarle casos de tarifas a los reguladores. Para sacarla de esa zona se necesitar reestructurar correctamente. De eso es que trata la EWPC para posicionar la industria en la Zona Rentable.
Mientras el bienestar del segmento de generación está garantizado a las empresas capitalizadas por contratos a largo plazo con el segmento de distribución, no así está garantizado el derecho de propiedad del segmento de los consumidores, incluso de aquellos que no carecen de derechos de propiedad formales. Se trata en efecto de reglas de juego muy defectuosas que se amparan en la impunidad de los derechos formales, como lo son los contratos de la capitalización y el Acuerdo de Madrid.
Así que en el país, la reforma del sector eléctrico ofrece derechos de segunda categoría a los consumidores del mercado minorista, lo que va más allá de los conceptos que aboga Hernando de Soto sobre “la carencia de derechos de propiedad formales como la fuente de pobreza en los países pobres.” Al ofrecer un servicio precario sin compensar los apagones, los derechos de los consumidores afectados son secuestrados con impunidad.
La EWPC genera un derecho a los clientes que estén dispuestos a recibir un servicio de menor confiabilidad a cambio de un derecho de propiedad a título individual. Los pobres podrán contar con ese derecho, de forma que paulatinamente la electricidad pueda contribuir junto a la institución del micro-crédito a reducir la pobreza.
Es al considerar también los derechos de los consumidores que la EWPC tiene su enfoque que la diferencia de los otros procesos de reestructuración. La reforma planteada para desarrollar las instituciones del sector eléctrico, tienen la EWPC como uno de los “factor[es] determinante[s] para garantizar el desempeño económico de” la nación dominicana “y su permanencia con el paso de los años.”
A la fecha he identificado 6 tecnologías “disruptivas” que permitirán desplazar la industria eléctrica de la Zona No Rentable a la Zona Rentable. Esas tecnologías son: 1) la respuesta de la demanda, 2) la eficiencia energética, 3) la generación y almacenamiento de electricidad, 4) la infraestructura avanzada de medición (AMI por sus siglas en inglés), 5) la red inteligente (smart grid) y 6) los modelos innovadores de negocios. Esta sexta tecnología “disruptiva” es la que permitirá integrar mezclas de las otras cinco, por medio de planes de servicio a los clientes consumidores de parte de los detallistas de segunda generación (esto es para diferenciarlos de los detallistas que ofrecen servicios en los mercados actuales).
Es importante destacar que disponemos una gran inversión en la generación y almacenamiento de electricidad en el mercado SQP. Al integrar al Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado dichas tecnologías deberá ocurrir lo mismo que acontece con la industria de la computación, en la que modelos de negocios sucesivos permiten mayores niveles de eficiencia, empezando por algunas implantaciones rudimentarias. Es con la estructura de la EWPC que se inicia la gran revolución de los sectores eléctricos mundiales, lo que debería ocurrir aquí.
Generando un conjunto de reglas claras y contundentes “se asegura una continuidad del desarrollo institucional, se obtiene una mayor confianza en la comunidad de inversionistas, tornándolos predecibles en el desempeño de nuestras instituciones, disminuyendo el riesgo y creando confianza, lo que se traduce en atracción de la necesaria inversión para mejorar la productividad, la creación de empleos y por ende el bienestar de la ciudadanía,” tal como sugiere Amcham.
Ante las anteriores explicaciones, repetimos la pregunta que hace Amcham: ¿tendrán la sociedad dominicana y las organizaciones políticas la voluntad de contar con instituciones sólidas, para cimentar su desarrollo con una visión de largo plazo? La respuesta es que sí la tienen, pero para ello debe existir un ideario común, un proyecto país compartido por la sociedad…” Para el sector eléctrico, ese proyecto es la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC).
Con mucho respeto, espero de los directivos de la Cámara Americana de Comercio expresen su refutación o aprobación a esta exposición.
Para más información se puede consultar la Bitácora Digital del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com) y a www.energyblogs.com.
jueves, noviembre 22, 2007
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership. As “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem,” I would like to learn from the bystanders whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment.
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In order to get support for EWPC, I wrote the now best selling Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X (562 views, until Nov 22nd, 2007). So now I think is time to ask what that means in terms of leadership.
“The Tipping Point: how little things can make a big difference,” by Malcolm Gladwell, carries the story of Kitty Genovese, which I contend is similar to that of EWPC in Energy Central Network environment.
Gladwell tells that “… Kitty was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watch from the windows. During that time, however, none of the thirty-eight witnesses called the police.”
Two New York City psychologists, Bibb Latane and John Darley named the above situation the “bystander problem,” explaining that “when people are in a group… responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem… isn’t really a problem.”
In the case of EWPC, during the past two years Mr. G has attacked without mercy EWPC, and no one else have come with help, even though an inordinate amount of people have seen it.
Gladwell ends the brief story by saying that “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem.”
This is a good test for EWPC now that it seems to have tipped in www.energyblogs.com with 6 of the 10 “Most Commented” and the top 6 and the 8th place of the 10 “Most Viewed” articles, but no one has firmly committed (Mr. Causey issued a nice comment) his/her support to EWPC.
I would like to learn from the bystander whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment. Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership.
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In order to get support for EWPC, I wrote the now best selling Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X (562 views, until Nov 22nd, 2007). So now I think is time to ask what that means in terms of leadership.
“The Tipping Point: how little things can make a big difference,” by Malcolm Gladwell, carries the story of Kitty Genovese, which I contend is similar to that of EWPC in Energy Central Network environment.
Gladwell tells that “… Kitty was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watch from the windows. During that time, however, none of the thirty-eight witnesses called the police.”
Two New York City psychologists, Bibb Latane and John Darley named the above situation the “bystander problem,” explaining that “when people are in a group… responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem… isn’t really a problem.”
In the case of EWPC, during the past two years Mr. G has attacked without mercy EWPC, and no one else have come with help, even though an inordinate amount of people have seen it.
Gladwell ends the brief story by saying that “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem.”
This is a good test for EWPC now that it seems to have tipped in www.energyblogs.com with 6 of the 10 “Most Commented” and the top 6 and the 8th place of the 10 “Most Viewed” articles, but no one has firmly committed (Mr. Causey issued a nice comment) his/her support to EWPC.
I would like to learn from the bystander whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment. Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership.
miércoles, noviembre 21, 2007
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
Edison Electric Institute members have empowered the government to take control of the power industry. They should stop dreaming, work hard to ban regulation and to let the market decide by following Hewlett Packard’s advice of “eating your own lunch.”
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the book “Inside the Tornado,” Goeffrey Moore writes “There is no more challenging management task than, as the folks of H-P like to put it, “eating your own lunch.”
The power industry is in the process to be transformed by the information revolution. By hiding behind “native load,” generators and utilities have empowered the government to control the power industry.
In the article All the issues crux of the matter, explaining that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem, Warren Causey writes:
EEI membership should take serious consideration to the EWPC articles EEI California Dreamin’, To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio and “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio.
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the book “Inside the Tornado,” Goeffrey Moore writes “There is no more challenging management task than, as the folks of H-P like to put it, “eating your own lunch.”
The power industry is in the process to be transformed by the information revolution. By hiding behind “native load,” generators and utilities have empowered the government to control the power industry.
In the article All the issues crux of the matter, explaining that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem, Warren Causey writes:
With regard to good ideas dying at the utility/commission staff interfaces, I don’t disagree at all. In fact, I consider that as proof of the argument in my original post, and as both the crux of the issue and the fly in the ointment of Dr. Silverio’s, and other bloggers’, restructuring proposals. My educational training actually is in history and that’s why I consider this a fascinating time-period in which to live.
Over the last couple of generations, the U.S. has become increasingly socialist (regardless of the party in power) and people increasingly expect the government regulate everything and solve every problem. The issue with that is that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that
bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem. You can ask the Russians what a long, slow dive into an empty swimming pool feels like. Of course don’t pay to much attention to what they say because now they seem intent on climbing, dazed, back up onto the board and trying it again.
When you introduce government planning into any operation at any level of government (local planning commissions and their interventions into private property are a nightmare) and remove or distort economic incentives, you produce a horse designed by a committee—it looks a lot like a camel. Add politics (most state regulators are elected and national politicians’ raison d’etre is to get elected regardless of the consequences) and the possibility of allowing free markets to work out problems via trial-and-error disappears.
EEI membership should take serious consideration to the EWPC articles EEI California Dreamin’, To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio and “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio.
martes, noviembre 20, 2007
Increased Sense of Urgency of EWPC
EWPC sense of urgency is reinforced. As the market architecture and design breakthrough paradigm, EWPC will enable the possibility to a superior development path for the power industry. However, putting EWPC into practice to reap most of the benefits requires high caliber professional advice.
Increased Sense of Urgency of EWPC
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Gould,
Thank you very much for asking one right question, the one in the first crucial point that reinforces the increased sense of urgency about EWPC. The balance of your comments, however, has distortions and unnecessary repetitions.
In that “crucial point” you are describing the possibility of systemic risk – system adequacy problem - which is one of the main jobs of the system engineer (planner and operator) to be performed in coordination with generators, transporters and retailers. Today's regulation, deregulation, and re-regulation, based on inactive and inelastic demand (and an externality), and lacking customer oriented service, are not prepared to handle the managerial complexity involved.
To handle such complexity, we need to deploy 2GRs before "... electricity should become the mode to replace transportation fuels (PHEV's, H2, etc.)." Several market segments will develop, for example price takers, responsive demand (source of demand elasticity) and long term contracts. As 2GRs come up with the long term contractual commitments of ( i.e. industrial and commercial) customers that desire to buy the right of future electricity service at a fixed price, including those that have serve to finance base load power plants (i.e. via futures market), 2GRs will provide the system operator much more accurate demand forecasts. Such forecasts are better because demand in no longer an externality.
By updating power system planning procedures to EWPC with those quite accurate forecasts, the “projected demand” will NEVER “exceed available supply by a larger margin than the available demand control?” System reserves, in the proper mix of the “elastic” demand side and the supply side, should be adequate to run a stable system.
“How will your grid operator "guarantee" it's existence in all combinations of circumstances?” By proper long run power system planning system adequacy development. The statement “a new 1500 MW nuclear station when demand for it may be only at 100 MW,” is the result of a planning mistake or a misunderstanding of power system operation procedures.
That is why EWPC is the winner of the first phase of competition are precisely highly interrelated "absolute requirements" 1) integration of active demand and 2) that distribution and transmission are fully integrated geographically. Those requirements enable a superior solution path to the PROFIT ZONE through fully functional retail and wholesale competition. The obsolete regulation paradigm shifted the industry to the NO PROFIT ZONE and the deregulation experiments place it in an even more inferior path of development.
As for price caps, they are easily sold to voters. Under EWPC each customer has the right to choose its own price caps in the service plan of their 2GR as explained in No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I and No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II.
Distorting and naming the “absolute requirements” of EWPC as “two minor differences,” is no serious, just as it is also the “the added point” which are repeated again, and again, because Mr. G NEVER followed the links on EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either. Comparing the Ontario single generation retailer actions to those of the 2GRs adds insult to injury.
Finally, I repeat the summary of the article Take EWPC Lead & Reap Large Benefits: “The US Congress, the European Commission, the state of Ohio, and the Dominican Republic, are some the most likely candidates to start the paradigm shift to EWPC, ending demand forever as an externality. It has been shown that the days of the obsolete VIUs paradigm are counted. A paradigm shift to EWPC is the next source of business innovations, jobs with a lot of future and increasing exports. Those governments that take the lead, and avoid the risks of market implementation failure by retaining high caliber professional team advice, will reap most of the benefits.”
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Increased Sense of Urgency of EWPC
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Gould,
Thank you very much for asking one right question, the one in the first crucial point that reinforces the increased sense of urgency about EWPC. The balance of your comments, however, has distortions and unnecessary repetitions.
In that “crucial point” you are describing the possibility of systemic risk – system adequacy problem - which is one of the main jobs of the system engineer (planner and operator) to be performed in coordination with generators, transporters and retailers. Today's regulation, deregulation, and re-regulation, based on inactive and inelastic demand (and an externality), and lacking customer oriented service, are not prepared to handle the managerial complexity involved.
To handle such complexity, we need to deploy 2GRs before "... electricity should become the mode to replace transportation fuels (PHEV's, H2, etc.)." Several market segments will develop, for example price takers, responsive demand (source of demand elasticity) and long term contracts. As 2GRs come up with the long term contractual commitments of ( i.e. industrial and commercial) customers that desire to buy the right of future electricity service at a fixed price, including those that have serve to finance base load power plants (i.e. via futures market), 2GRs will provide the system operator much more accurate demand forecasts. Such forecasts are better because demand in no longer an externality.
By updating power system planning procedures to EWPC with those quite accurate forecasts, the “projected demand” will NEVER “exceed available supply by a larger margin than the available demand control?” System reserves, in the proper mix of the “elastic” demand side and the supply side, should be adequate to run a stable system.
“How will your grid operator "guarantee" it's existence in all combinations of circumstances?” By proper long run power system planning system adequacy development. The statement “a new 1500 MW nuclear station when demand for it may be only at 100 MW,” is the result of a planning mistake or a misunderstanding of power system operation procedures.
That is why EWPC is the winner of the first phase of competition are precisely highly interrelated "absolute requirements" 1) integration of active demand and 2) that distribution and transmission are fully integrated geographically. Those requirements enable a superior solution path to the PROFIT ZONE through fully functional retail and wholesale competition. The obsolete regulation paradigm shifted the industry to the NO PROFIT ZONE and the deregulation experiments place it in an even more inferior path of development.
As for price caps, they are easily sold to voters. Under EWPC each customer has the right to choose its own price caps in the service plan of their 2GR as explained in No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I and No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II.
Distorting and naming the “absolute requirements” of EWPC as “two minor differences,” is no serious, just as it is also the “the added point” which are repeated again, and again, because Mr. G NEVER followed the links on EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either. Comparing the Ontario single generation retailer actions to those of the 2GRs adds insult to injury.
Finally, I repeat the summary of the article Take EWPC Lead & Reap Large Benefits: “The US Congress, the European Commission, the state of Ohio, and the Dominican Republic, are some the most likely candidates to start the paradigm shift to EWPC, ending demand forever as an externality. It has been shown that the days of the obsolete VIUs paradigm are counted. A paradigm shift to EWPC is the next source of business innovations, jobs with a lot of future and increasing exports. Those governments that take the lead, and avoid the risks of market implementation failure by retaining high caliber professional team advice, will reap most of the benefits.”
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
domingo, noviembre 18, 2007
EEI California Dreamin’
The U.S. power industry is dreaming that it is safe, when in fact the leaves are brown and the sky is gray as the industry is in the NO PROFIT ZONE. To get it safe and warm into the PROFIT ZONE, EEI should lead the regulation ban, on such a winter’s day, to let the commercial market decide.
EEI California Dreamin’
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Rosenstock
Albeit minimizing the importance of a well documented proposed “ban of regulation [except on transportation]” (see To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio) to “let the [commercial] market decide” (see “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio), thank you very much for at least acknowledging the ban. I think it is a defensive, but nonetheless, good start.
Highlighting the positive, the ban’s objective, and to let the market decide, is to “…provide the potential for modernizing the whole productive structure and for raising the general level of productivity and quality to a higher plateau,” of the power industry. In other words, the goal is to shift the industry from the NO PROFIT ZONE to the PROFIT ZONE, so that the EEI membership avoids what the railroads, the nuke industry, and Detroit, went through or are going through.
The need for the shift is in the EWPC article Customer Wallet Cleaning Problem and Solution, where you can “… learn that the vertically integrated utilities paradigm has been in a NO PROFIT ZONE for quite some time, letting utilities make a profit under regulation only by the ‘consumer having his wallet cleaned out by ever increasing power costs.’ To get the power industry in the PROFIT ZONE, there is a need to restructure with the aim to admit business model innovations to develop.”
Going back to the beginning, in the Executive Summary of the full paper, Van Doren and Taylor write: “Electricity restructuring was initiated in the 1990s to remedy the problem of relatively high electricity costs in the Northeast and California... Economist wanted reform to eliminate regulatory incentives to overbuild generating capacity and spur the introduction of real time prices."
What happen after that is partially (more below) documented in the EWPC article The BIG California LIE, which in brief says: “The BIG LIE is that retail competition is impossible in electric markets. The implementation of a competitive retail market was the center of the debate in California. Instead of cooperating to implement it, the three big California utilities, that didn't care about the end-customers, acted very irresponsibly. EWPC is the paradigm shift to show that retail competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to turn the electricity industry into a vibrant value added business for all stakeholders.”
That explains why you “don’t know any regulators who would really like that idea.” We all should questioned if behind the irresponsibility there was a conspiracy that seems to have been “successful” so far. Please read the EWPC article A Vertical Integration Conspiracy Theory for the US Judiciary to learn about it.
You are right, “there are many politicians who seem to want more price controls and regulation on electricity,” because they are unaware of both the BIG LIE and the potential conspiracy, while also unaware of the recent emergence of EWPC.
To learn more about what happen in California, please read the following EWPC articles (excerpts are included below each title):
Divine Dispensation of Electric Markets is Gone
The Sixth Disruptive Technology
Let EWPC Come to Fruition
EEI California Dreamin’
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
All the leaves are brown … And the sky is grey … I've been for a walk … On a winter's day … I'd be safe and warm … If i was in l.a … California dreamin' … On such a winter's day …
Dear Mr. Rosenstock
Albeit minimizing the importance of a well documented proposed “ban of regulation [except on transportation]” (see To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio) to “let the [commercial] market decide” (see “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio), thank you very much for at least acknowledging the ban. I think it is a defensive, but nonetheless, good start.
Highlighting the positive, the ban’s objective, and to let the market decide, is to “…provide the potential for modernizing the whole productive structure and for raising the general level of productivity and quality to a higher plateau,” of the power industry. In other words, the goal is to shift the industry from the NO PROFIT ZONE to the PROFIT ZONE, so that the EEI membership avoids what the railroads, the nuke industry, and Detroit, went through or are going through.
The need for the shift is in the EWPC article Customer Wallet Cleaning Problem and Solution, where you can “… learn that the vertically integrated utilities paradigm has been in a NO PROFIT ZONE for quite some time, letting utilities make a profit under regulation only by the ‘consumer having his wallet cleaned out by ever increasing power costs.’ To get the power industry in the PROFIT ZONE, there is a need to restructure with the aim to admit business model innovations to develop.”
Going back to the beginning, in the Executive Summary of the full paper, Van Doren and Taylor write: “Electricity restructuring was initiated in the 1990s to remedy the problem of relatively high electricity costs in the Northeast and California... Economist wanted reform to eliminate regulatory incentives to overbuild generating capacity and spur the introduction of real time prices."
What happen after that is partially (more below) documented in the EWPC article The BIG California LIE, which in brief says: “The BIG LIE is that retail competition is impossible in electric markets. The implementation of a competitive retail market was the center of the debate in California. Instead of cooperating to implement it, the three big California utilities, that didn't care about the end-customers, acted very irresponsibly. EWPC is the paradigm shift to show that retail competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to turn the electricity industry into a vibrant value added business for all stakeholders.”
That explains why you “don’t know any regulators who would really like that idea.” We all should questioned if behind the irresponsibility there was a conspiracy that seems to have been “successful” so far. Please read the EWPC article A Vertical Integration Conspiracy Theory for the US Judiciary to learn about it.
You are right, “there are many politicians who seem to want more price controls and regulation on electricity,” because they are unaware of both the BIG LIE and the potential conspiracy, while also unaware of the recent emergence of EWPC.
To learn more about what happen in California, please read the following EWPC articles (excerpts are included below each title):
Divine Dispensation of Electric Markets is Gone
… the “Law of the Situation: the railroads did not understand,” (see my post of 9.11.07 above) that applies to VIUs, from which I extract, “Some people [IOUs for example] still believe there’s a divine dispensation that their markets are theirs - and no one else’s - now and forevermore. It is an old dream that dies hard, yet no businessman in a free society can control a market when the customers decide to go somewhere else [under EWPC for example]. All the king’s horses and all the king’s man are helpless in the face of a better product. Our commercial history is filled with examples of companies that failed to change in a changing world, and became tombstones in the corporate graveyard.”
When energy costs were low, the business model of winning rate cases to the regulator didn’t bother the customers. But since the oil embargo in the 70s, customers are ever more interested in competitive prices, as free society recognized that IOUs cannot control anymore the electricity markets. I have followed Donella Meadows advise (see link Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue) to end the divine dispensation to the IOUs. But after many things have occurred during more than 30 years, with the obsolete VIUs controlled market, customers like those of the state of Ohio want and effective and efficient re-regulation process.
The Sixth Disruptive Technology
The above difficulties are also explained in a different way by Jack A. Casazza, as the scrambled egg, that can’t be unscrambled. That would mean that The BIG California LIE was supposed to get away with a much larger scam than the Enron’s scam, as vested interests extended the obsolete VIUs paradigm well beyond its useful life, by tilting the competitive balance in an equilibria away from the best economic outcome for society. That is what is fueling a backward movement away from real retail liberation in Europe now. It is to the best equilibria that EWPC is concerned. As Einstein said; "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Let EWPC Come to Fruition
Just like you [another person], I am also a long time critic of deregulation that agrees with many of the professor’s points. However, instead on placing myself on the problem side, as a power engineer I have been, since 1995, concentrated on the solution side. By “Working on ideas outside” engineering, I “can enjoy the enthusiasm built on partial ignorance,” as my hero and role model Uno Lamm suggested. Please refer to “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist,” by Catherine Wollard, published in March 1988 on the IEEE Spectrum, here and below.
It is such a solution that evolved into EWPC, which makes the deregulation debate totally unnecessary. In fact, such debate was a completely waste of time, which could had been avoided if The BIG California LIE (hit link to read the article about that LIE) had not been enabled, as retail competition “is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to turn the electricity industry into a vibrant value added business for all stakeholders.”
In addition, in the BIG LIE article I repeated that there is a great need to consider A Vertical Integration Conspiracy Theory for the US Judiciary (please hit link also) to provide an ordered framework with which to understand that chaotic event and process.
Finally, unlike the case the HVDC Pacific Intertie, in which “it was estimated that the people in Los Angeles saved $600,000 a day when Columbia River power began to flow south,” the same California IOUs were unable to come up with their BIG LIE. Like Uno Lamm, I understand that “’Among Americans, when the heat of combat is over, and a decision has been reached,’ he says, ‘all the bitterness disappears, and people work hard to bring the final decision to fruition in the best possible way.” That has been a central tenet in my work on the development of EWPC.
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either
Just as EWPC is not the UK Model, it is not the Ontario market model either. However, probably with a hidden purpose, Mr. G keeps confusing the de-regulation market model of Ontario with the EWPC market paradigm. Is that serious behavior? It seems that although he is a very intelligent and important man, Mr. G. has a very difficult time following links.
EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Gould,
Thank you for your intelligent and important questions, which I will respond with care and diligence.
However, please don’t use phrases like “anyone can take you in any way seriously…,” as they don’t follow the “most important rule of the EnergyPulse media,” set by Mr. Y. So, don’t forget to read what Mr. Y said about Mr. G in the Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X, particularly where is says: “It doesn't surprise me AT ALL that you didn't follow the link, you NEVER follow a link…” So once again follow the links below.
With much respect, please find my last response to Mr. Giegler, which could have been found by following the link, under the article Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2. The response was:
Following Einstein’s (Mr. Y’s role model) quote “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler,” the essential requirements of EWPC, that differ from existing de-regulation that you mentioned is “retail competition with active demand (UK had no active demand) and ultraquality transportation (UK has separate transmission and distribution and no ultraquality identified). That is the essence." as can be seen by following the link to the recent article EWPC is NOT the UK Model (referred, from here on, as the first article). It follows that to get ultraquality transportation, transmission and distribution should be tightly integrated.
However, the Ontario, Canada, paradigm as you explained on 11.16.07 under the article Distributed Architectural Renewable Energy Generation, has these characteristics: “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.”
According to your opinion, under de-regulation and inactive loads, the separation of transmission and distribution is assumed as an absolute requirement. However, under EWPC with active loads the separation is a big mistake, as the optimization of the transportation system (that enables the optimization of the system as a whole under EWPC) does not result from the optimization of transmission plus the optimization of distribution by themselves.
The optimization of the system as a whole, can also be seen in the first article where “I wrote of the discovery that ‘To optimize the transportation system, it is required to consider total social (demand, transport, supply) welfare needs, and not just the optimization of transmission, distribution, or both, by themselves.’”
The discovery (not invention) mentioned above is the ultraquality imperative that the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm and the EWPC paradigm have, but which Ontario, Canada and the UK models don’t. The whole VIU paradigm controlled market can be divided into two markets, one of which, the controlled transportation market retains the ultraquality imperative, by planning, operating and controlling the transportation system to keep the characteristics of the whole (both the controlled transportation market and the competitive commercial market).
The response to “Why would any retailer risk the financial investment to implement real demand control on their customers when the resulting benefits will accrue not to them or their customers, but to all connected customers including those of their competitive retailers?,” can be found in the comments to the article A Little Silicon is Necessary but NOT Sufficient (please hit the link and follow it to read them).
I like to add, that the qustion itself comes from a misunderstanding of the theory and practice of spot pricing of electricity, which may or may not have been implemented under de-regulation. Under EWPC, as an extension of Schweppe et al regulated energy marketplace, spot prices are not the result of real demand control, but forecasted prices resulting from security constraint unit commitment (generation and demand) simulations.
As I wrote yesterday (see above) all that is needed to develop a market with financial credibility is a professional market with high reliability and without price spikes (a fully functional market). By lacking those two elements, IMEUC needs fallback to government / rate-payer guarantees. Read the details in the whole article To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio, to try to understand “The idea that regulation is the only paradigm that ensures generation investments is flawed.”
To understand the last comment of your post, readers are advised to read, as an example, A Paradigm Shift to EWPC (don’t forget to follow the link) to see my response to a similar complaint by Len that said “My problem with EWPC are myriad eg. it's precisely identical to every existing failed attempt at de-regulation in N. America. And it's promoter flatly refuses to answer any difficult questions about it. Questions which I have posed before, such as:…”
See also Len Ask: What Is Transportation?, 2nd Time: Ontario is Far From EWPC...
So the final boomerang question is: Is Mr. G serious about EWPC or just fooling around?
EWPC is NOT the Ontario Model Either
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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 to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Dear Mr. Gould,
Thank you for your intelligent and important questions, which I will respond with care and diligence.
However, please don’t use phrases like “anyone can take you in any way seriously…,” as they don’t follow the “most important rule of the EnergyPulse media,” set by Mr. Y. So, don’t forget to read what Mr. Y said about Mr. G in the Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X, particularly where is says: “It doesn't surprise me AT ALL that you didn't follow the link, you NEVER follow a link…” So once again follow the links below.
With much respect, please find my last response to Mr. Giegler, which could have been found by following the link, under the article Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2. The response was:
There is no need for simulation at all... The R1E2 concept makes the VIUs and the EWPC paradigms indistinct in term of the non-triviality of electric power systems, which is missing from IMEUC and all deregulation experiments. [this discovery is mentioned below] … The added efficiency of EWPC with respect to the VIUs paradigm comes from demand integration and the elimination of prices controls. Said in other words, the VIUs paradigm can't no longer maximize welfare for the future, as that process started back in the 70s.
Following Einstein’s (Mr. Y’s role model) quote “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler,” the essential requirements of EWPC, that differ from existing de-regulation that you mentioned is “retail competition with active demand (UK had no active demand) and ultraquality transportation (UK has separate transmission and distribution and no ultraquality identified). That is the essence." as can be seen by following the link to the recent article EWPC is NOT the UK Model (referred, from here on, as the first article). It follows that to get ultraquality transportation, transmission and distribution should be tightly integrated.
However, the Ontario, Canada, paradigm as you explained on 11.16.07 under the article Distributed Architectural Renewable Energy Generation, has these characteristics: “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.”
According to your opinion, under de-regulation and inactive loads, the separation of transmission and distribution is assumed as an absolute requirement. However, under EWPC with active loads the separation is a big mistake, as the optimization of the transportation system (that enables the optimization of the system as a whole under EWPC) does not result from the optimization of transmission plus the optimization of distribution by themselves.
The optimization of the system as a whole, can also be seen in the first article where “I wrote of the discovery that ‘To optimize the transportation system, it is required to consider total social (demand, transport, supply) welfare needs, and not just the optimization of transmission, distribution, or both, by themselves.’”
The discovery (not invention) mentioned above is the ultraquality imperative that the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm and the EWPC paradigm have, but which Ontario, Canada and the UK models don’t. The whole VIU paradigm controlled market can be divided into two markets, one of which, the controlled transportation market retains the ultraquality imperative, by planning, operating and controlling the transportation system to keep the characteristics of the whole (both the controlled transportation market and the competitive commercial market).
The response to “Why would any retailer risk the financial investment to implement real demand control on their customers when the resulting benefits will accrue not to them or their customers, but to all connected customers including those of their competitive retailers?,” can be found in the comments to the article A Little Silicon is Necessary but NOT Sufficient (please hit the link and follow it to read them).
I like to add, that the qustion itself comes from a misunderstanding of the theory and practice of spot pricing of electricity, which may or may not have been implemented under de-regulation. Under EWPC, as an extension of Schweppe et al regulated energy marketplace, spot prices are not the result of real demand control, but forecasted prices resulting from security constraint unit commitment (generation and demand) simulations.
As I wrote yesterday (see above) all that is needed to develop a market with financial credibility is a professional market with high reliability and without price spikes (a fully functional market). By lacking those two elements, IMEUC needs fallback to government / rate-payer guarantees. Read the details in the whole article To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio, to try to understand “The idea that regulation is the only paradigm that ensures generation investments is flawed.”
To understand the last comment of your post, readers are advised to read, as an example, A Paradigm Shift to EWPC (don’t forget to follow the link) to see my response to a similar complaint by Len that said “My problem with EWPC are myriad eg. it's precisely identical to every existing failed attempt at de-regulation in N. America. And it's promoter flatly refuses to answer any difficult questions about it. Questions which I have posed before, such as:…”
See also Len Ask: What Is Transportation?, 2nd Time: Ontario is Far From EWPC...
So the final boomerang question is: Is Mr. G serious about EWPC or just fooling around?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)