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?
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario