Demand Response Under EWPC

Reference: The Potential for Residential Demand Response on Transmission and Distribution Assets

Roger’s “Hmmm, this discussion sounds vaguely familiar...” is related to the long discussion about deregulation, under the article Playing with Fire - The 10 Tcf/year Supply Gap -- Part I, in which I suggested that the decade old deregulation debate, centered on the past, is no longer necessary, because an important third way of true deregulation market architecture and design went missing from implementation. I suggested to shift to a generative dialogue centered on an emerging future that was envisioned by Fred C. Schweppe and colleagues at MIT from 1978-1988.

As can be seen from the series “EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons,” referred to in my post above, and in the most recent posts A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 9 , A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 8, A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 7, EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 8, and EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 7, the parallel discussion with Fred Banks, Len Gould, Arvid Hallén, and James Carson, seems to have ended in favor of my suggestion of the emergent conceptual architecture and design of Market 3, electricity without price controls for the customers (EWPC) approach.

In the post My iPod is on the Demand Side, I said, among other things, that: “A breakthrough in electric power needs to start with a proper reform leading to a new paradigm - the End-State of the power industry [for quite some time]. Such End-State I believe will come from a structure where there is a T&D transportation monopoly (controlled market) that is separate from retail marketing and generation (free market) activities.”

In addition, Roger’s “Hmmm…” is suggesting that in Playing with Fire – Part II, the deregulation discussion was to be only about natgas. As I explained in EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 6, “Electric power market architecture and design is right at the center of the topic.” The intended topic of the author, not the EnergyPulse assigned topic, is what counts.

As can be seen in My iPod is on the Demand Side Part 2, “Demand Response is the best candidate iPod of the utility industry, located at the customer interface of the monopoly transportation system with a real and true potential free market.”

Roger’s opinion is directed at extending the obsolete monopoly retail market architecture and design model. The utility business model is not centered on a customer orientation, but on the supply oriented, good old days, of exploiting asymmetric knowledge with legal know-how to win rate cases to the regulator. As I said at the end of EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 2: “There is a need to allow for the emergence of the good new days, and EWPC is a strong candidate to increase the revised criteria: 1) Freedom of choice; 2) Economic efficiency; 3) Equity; and 4) Ultraquality. Only through new knowledge and innovations will societies satisfy emergent needs.”

© 2007, José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.