sábado, octubre 20, 2007

Vivir el Presente Sin Mirar el Futuro

Mientras el Secretario de Estado Temístocles Montas propone un pacto social de larga espera que se basa en un escenario de continuidad con el futuro, el Dr. Erich Kunhardt afirma que la prosperidad solo surge de la innovación. El futuro dominicano basado en la continuidad es otra forma de vivir el presente sin mirar el futuro. El Grupo Millennium Hispaniola insiste en que necesitamos desarrollar multinacionales dominicanas y que una de las más grandes oportunidades de innovación está precisamente en la electricidad, conforme a lo que dijo el Secretario Montás en 1996 “…que al margen de una reestructuración profunda de la industria eléctrica dominicana, no hay posibilidad de superar los problemas que hemos estado confrontando…”

Vivir el Presente Sin Mirar el Futuro

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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

“República Dominicana debe establecer los mecanismos institucionales que garanticen la estabilidad suficiente para que su economía crezca de manera sostenida en no menos de un 5% anual. Esa es la única forma mediante la cual, al cabo de 40 años, el país obtendrá niveles de ingresos per cápita iguales a los de un país desarrollado.” Así lo expresó el secretario de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo, Témístocles Montás, quien afirmó que el crecimiento sostenido en el mediano y largo plazos, sólo se puede lograr con el establecimiento de un pacto social que se trace objetivos para los próximos 25 años.

La única forma de obtener niveles de ingreso iguales a los de un país desarrollado es a través de la innovación y la tecnología, como sugiere Erich Kunhardt en el reportaje de Virginia Rodríguez G., publicado por el Listín Diario el 20 de octubre de 2007. Virginia pregunta ¿Qué es, entonces lo que hace un pueblo próspero? “Los innovadores. Solamente la innovación. Eso es lo que ha hecho las transformaciones. Eso fue lo que causó la industrialización, eso es lo que está pasando ahora en China, lo que transformó a Estados Unidos y a todo el mundo,” respondió el Dr. Kundhardt.

El Grupo Millennium Hispaniola le ofrece muy respetuosamente al Secretario Montás una afirmación contraria a su opinión, basado en el principio de que uno no es su opinión, lo que no le quita nada sobre su alta inteligencia, ni sobre su elevada dignidad. Crecer en no menos de un 5% anual por 40 años no solo no es la única forma, sino que es otra forma de “vivir el presente – continuo - sin mirar el futuro,” en un mundo que está sentenciado a la discontinuidad, especialmente por lo que el propio Secretario Montás expresó en marzo de 1996, al sugerir una reestructuración profunda de la industria eléctrica dominicana, que no ha sido lograda por falta de un modelo idóneo y que solo recientemente ha cobrado vida con la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios (EWPC por sus siglas en inglés).

Decía el Secretario: “Hace alrededor de dos años [1994] era prácticamente un mito y, diría yo, casi hasta un delito hablar sobre la reestructuración de la industria eléctrica en los términos que se está concibiendo hoy. Pienso que hemos llegado a un punto en el cual se reconoce, salvo los que estén en la luna, en Marte o en Venus, que al margen de una reestructuración profunda de la industria eléctrica dominicana, no hay posibilidad de superar los problemas que hemos estado confrontando a lo largo de los últimos 25 años.

Desde que se impuso la capitalización, ha sido un mito y también un gran delito hablar y escribir sobre una propuesta innovadora que nació en esa misma ocasión, como se comprueba en el Libro “Electricidad y Desarrollo: El reto Dominicano,” que contiene las ponencias del 1er. Simposio Nacional de Energía Eléctrica.

En mi ponencia, en el mismo evento en INDOTEC, en la sección “Nueva Teoría del Negocio de la Industria Eléctrica,” dije:

Recientemente se está desarrollando una nueva teoría del negocio de la industria eléctrica, la cual está siendo puesta a prueba en varios países y que presagia una nueva época. De moda en los organismos internacionales, esta nueva teoría del negocio se basa en conceptos sólidos de una importante teoría económica del negocio eléctrico. La misma cambia radicalmente las suposiciones que definen las reglas de juego, especialmente tratando de reducir el horizonte de planeamiento e introducir la competitividad de acuerdo a las nuevas fuerzas de la globalización y la apertura de los mercados. Todos los nuevos modelos que nos presentó Temístocles Montás surgen de las mismas fuerzas predominantes, siendo sus diferencias más notables las adaptaciones a la realidad particular de los países.

A seguidas agregué: “De implantarse universalmente, después de varios años de esfuerzo, se puede esperar que la teoría sirva para el muy largo plazo (por decir algo, otros 50 años más por lo menos). Dentro de su ciclo de vida esa teoría del negocio se encuentra en su período de infancia, por lo que es de esperarse muchos refinamientos en los procesos de implantación, como los que están ocurriendo ya…”

El Dr. Kunhardt argumenta que “… es precisamente inversión en investigación e innovación lo que le hace falta a los países en desarrollo. “La ciencia y la tecnología en Latinoamérica no existen. Nadie les pone atención,” denuncia. Desde hace mucho tiempo, las oportunidades de innovar con la electricidad sin control de precios han estado disponibles a los dominicanos, aunque he invertido mucho tiempo y dinero en el desarrollo de la EWPC aparentemente aquí nadie les pone atención para seguir viviendo el presente sin mirar el futuro.

Sin embargo, basta mirar el nuevo sitio www.energyblogs.com del Energy Central Network para ver que el artículo más leído es Financing and Developing Wind Projects, con 343 lecturas a las 7:51 PM del sábado 20 de octubre de 2007. En adición, otros 10 artículos sobre EWPC tienen más de 100 lecturas como sigue:

Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X - 239

Engineers Needed for Lower Prices - 184

The Sixth Disruptive Technology - 156

Slicing the Last of the Regulated Monopolies - 132

Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 - 126

2nd Disruptive Technology Crossed Chasm - 117

Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm - 114

Give Engineers What Belongs to Engineers - 113

EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions - 108

Demand Integration Under EWPC - 102

La conclusión de todo esto es que la EWPC es el futuro que debemos mirar.

Los últimos artículos y sus síntesis que he colocado en el Electricity Without Price Controls Blog, como resultado de intercambios en www.energypulse.net son los siguientes:

1) Disruptive Technologies Convergence
Now that EWPC has emerged, it is to too little, too late, to try to extend the VIUs paradigm beyond its capabilities to integrate the grid and the enterprise. The availability of at least six disruptive technologies, waiting to be tightly integrated to provide commercial quality electricity service under EWPC, offers the needed sense of urgency to restructure electric power sectors.

2) No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II
Customers’ price caps are the key to the infrequent rational rationing of service. During a transition to EWPC that ends with every customer defining its own price cap, it is important to understand that most of the customers need to make load commitments well in advance of real time operation. They will do that by participating in hour ahead, day ahead, week ahead, and futures markets. Any system with a larger than optimal balancing, real-time market, is bound to become an unreliable market.

3) No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I
Missing in the discussion under the article "Meeting Our Need for Electric Power," up to the 19th of October, 2007, are the huge coordination problems of short run unit commitment and long run system adequacy, which involve the opportunity for demand integration. Reliability First, Economic Second, is the approach to solve those problems. No longer will regulated price caps will be issued by regulators, as customers themselves have negotiated individually their price caps with Second Generation Retailers.

4) Full Retail Choice Emerges
As customer value migrates a paradigm shift of full retail choice emerges under EWPC from R&D discoveries that allows retail and wholesale competition without incumbent retailers.

5) The Sense of Urgency for EWPC Restructuring
There is a strong sence of urgency for the implementation of EWPC. Professor Alberto Ramírez Orquín writes "Soaring prices together with the perception of a deteriorating service/product quality contribute to this notion. For the electric power system this trend is particularly worrisome given its vital implications to society."



Disruptive Technologies Convergence

Now that EWPC has emerged, it is to too little, too late, to try to extend the VIUs paradigm beyond its capabilities to integrate the grid and the enterprise. The availability of at least six disruptive technologies, waiting to be tightly integrated to provide commercial quality electricity service under EWPC, offers the needed sense of urgency to restructure electric power sectors.

Disruptive Technologies Convergence

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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Dear Mr. Finamore,

Your article identifies very important applications of the AMI technologies, such as outage detection and network load monitoring, in addition to Demand Response and ToD shifting applications as key drivers for implementation.

However, it seems that you are making an effort to justify the integration of the grid with the enterprise, now that it is too little, too late, to keep extending the IOUs vertically integrated utility (VIUs) paradigm beyond its usefulness.

As can be seen in the article The Anti-System Utility: “… Most, if not all, of the issues identified by Mr. [Warren] Causey [of the Sierra Energy Group], a very objective observer of recent industry activity, are the results of maintaining the native load requirement that IOUs have imposed on the electric industry, which keep the utility grid and the enterprise under the control of VIUs. Mr. Causey calls for integrating the grid and the enterprise, which means that IOUs have not been able to integrate both dissimilar functions, so it is easier to go forward with EWPC.”

As I explained in my [seminal] article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, “Demand Response is no just load shifting and conservation, but a demand side risk management tool for the whole power system.” As such, Demand Response integrates the retail and wholesale markets, making the business case of AMI much better.

Under that same [seminal] article I also wrote: “… electric power systems will also “fly” reliably (a very low frequency and duration of crashes) and experience commercial quality electricity under complete deregulation [read now as re-regulation], when Demand Response gets tightly integrated with AMI and other existing technologies under a proper market design. DR will enable the system to operate within the Normal Operating State, returning back as soon as possible from the Alert and Emergency States with Demand Response actions. This is poised to be the End-State of the electricity industry for the long run.”

Under EWPC there is a need to consider the utility as the wires only (T&D integrated) transportation utility. Such utility will operate the power system under an ultraquality imperative by developing the smart grid as envisioned in the article Solving Smart Grid Cost Recovery. As the transportation utility provides the delivery services to customers, all of the principles identified in your article can be applied to the delivery network as they interface with the customers and Second Generation Retailers.

In addition, AMI, the Smart Grid and Demand Response can be considered three of sixth disruptive technologies innovations waiting to be integrated into power system control, operation and planning, as can be seen in the article The Sixth Disruptive Technology. So at least six technologies will be participating in a much larger convergence, by reinforcing each other, to get then “tightly integrated” as I envisioned in my [seminal] article.

Best regards,

José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.

Reference and context: Convergence of Smart Metering And the Smart Grid, by Ed Finamore, President, ValuTech Solutions Inc.

No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II

Customers’ price caps are the key to the infrequent rational rationing of service. During a transition to EWPC that ends with every customer defining its own price cap, it is important to understand that most of the customers need to make load commitments well in advance of real time operation. They will do that by participating in hour ahead, day ahead, week ahead, and futures markets. Any system with a larger than optimal balancing, real-time market, is bound to become an unreliable market.

No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II

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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

In response to the content of my article No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I, Mr. Len Gould wrote:


Jose Antonio: "customers themselves have negociated individually their prices caps with Second Generation Retailers." - I can see no way to assure reliability fairly without a large percentage of running reserve except if all customers participate continuously in a real-time price market. If only a few participate, e.g. through only one or two of several copmpeting retailers in a distribution region, they wind up subsidizing all the competing retailer's customers as "free-riders". Why on earth do you expect ANY retailer to go that route when they can never recover the costs because the rewards are distributed equally to all customers, including their competitors customers? So the key question is, once you have applied real-time market price metering to all customers, as necessary, what use are retailers?

Below is my response:

Dear Mr. Gould,

Thank you for your question about retailers, which is a repeat of many earlier interventions which I responded almost two years ago in the first intervention which came as a result of the Letter to Dr. Alfred E. Kahn (hit link please):

Len Gould on 12.21.05 wrote:


Jose: You're close, just not going quite far enough. You need to eliminate your "Retail marketers" by implementing intelligent software within the customer's meters which takes over the simple task of selecting either a lowest-cost supplier from among all available in a central electronic "marketplace", or alternatively choose to not purchase, and shut down some of the customer's less critical loads if the price exceeds customer-set limits.

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio on 12.21.05 responded:

Thank you very much Len for the “lead” and a sharp comment.

Being conservative, I agree with you if there were only the short run market problem. However, there is also a long run problem for which retailers need to coordinate in the wholesale market. This is where I understand boom bust (long run risk management) power system behavior should be managed from the demand side by retail (and wholesale) marketers. Marketing service offerings need to be designed based on what will be coming up in the future.

In addition, while most price response marketplaces have been designed with real-time, day ahead, and hour ahead markets, I strongly believe there is an important week ahead market mainly (some industries would classify also) for the low end residential market, where retailers need to participate on the wholesale market to complete week-ahead unit commitments.

However, I don’t dismiss "just not going far enough," because I am over 60 years old now, having work through design, operation, planning, management, and research of vertically integrated and (faulty) deregulated power systems, which don’t let me see very well outside of the box. For those simple reasons, Len, maybe I [am] missing something really important, so please advice!

Regards,

José Antonio

The advice on how to tackle the large non-real time non balancing market segment never came.

Now think of two extremes: perfect vertical integration and perfect EWPC. In the first case, reliability requires an excessive reserve in both generation and transportation. In the second case, all customers will have their own price caps, but there will be a penetration (sufficiently small) that will result optimal in the real-time balancing market. There are other markets identified, such as day ahead, week ahead (very important when a low probability rationing is foreseen to know ahead customers price caps), and future markets, which will allow demand integration development, which is a lot of work for 2GRs.

In practice, however, there is need for a transition from today’s situation to EWPC. As there will be no incumbent retailers, 2GRs will need to carry the default service customers during the time limited transition period.

Nat Treadway, wrote in the article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices that, “The design of default service (also called basic or standard service or provider of last resort) was identified as the most significant determinant of the success of retail electricity choice. A poorly designed default service undermines competition. If default service is designed to satisfy all residential consumers’ needs, or if it bundles and spreads risks among all consumers, or if it is priced below market, then it is unlikely that new retail electricity providers will enter the market. With few choices, consumers are left with only the poorly designed default service, and with limited benefit.”

During such a transition, 2GRs will have both types of customers (as there is no incumbent retailer), with increasing development of the resources of the demand side, as the default service will have essentially all the “free riders” being subsidized by peers. Hence, a systemic incentive to non-free riders will result, as they get the pressure for efficient prices and efficient choices. So, if only one or two retailers are truly competitive (2GRs), they will end up with the whole market.


No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I

Missing in the discussion under the article "Meeting Our Need for Electric Power," up to the 19th of October, 2007, are the huge coordination problems of short run unit commitment and long run system adequacy, which involve the opportunity for demand integration. Reliability First, Economic Second, is the approach to solve those problems. No longer will regulated price caps will be issued by regulators, as customers themselves have negociated individually their prices caps with Second Generation Retailers.

No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I

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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

In addition of my comment on 10.15.07, about the emergence of at least 6 disruptive technologies, some of which Len and Todd want to integrate to power systems, but which Joseph think not, there is a prerequisite need of Rethinking Electricity Restructuring as EWPC, as I wrote above on 10.12.07.

"Meeting our need for electric power" has offered a very good interchange environment, mainly between Joseph on one side and Len and Todd on the other.

ToD stupid meters (for deterministic events) were used with specific ToD hours in the 90s. ToD smart meters (for probabilistic events) are to be used mainly anytime to avoid beforehand getting the system close to capacity at a given location, as peak pricing is a random variable. The idea of ToD meters is assumed to be under an Economics First, Reliability Second, approach, as it suggests US$1,250 dryer bills. That is exactly the theme of IMEUC: Unreliable Service and Price Spikes.

In addition, Joseph has discussed difficulties on the marketing and financing. EWPC is developed under a customer orientation as value migration has occurred and at least 6 disruptive technologies (some mentioned by Len and Todd) are available that will satisfy low personal intervention. Please look at Full Retail Choice Emerges, under prudential regulations to respond to Joseph opinions.

There are several market segments. Every customer should shop in the market to find the best fit for his needs, in terms of the mix of the six disruptive technologies. Some customers, for example, with high reliability need, might find out that demand side energy efficiency and distributed generation are the key investments need they have, which could be repaid in part or in full through competitive electric pricing. As the grid become unavailable at their location, the size of the DG could be fitted to an efficient load.

Missing in the above discussion are the huge coordination problems of short run unit commitment and long run system adequacy, which involve the opportunity for demand integration. Reliability First, Economic Second, is the approach to solve those problems. No longer will regulated price caps will be issued by regulators, as customers themselves have negociated individually their prices caps with Second Generation Retailers.