Vertical Integration/Deregulation Debate vs. EWPC Generative Dialogue

Thanks Bob,

I know that I will not be able to convince anyone that has its own agenda. That is not my intention. I will only respond to clarify what I meant.

Adding only that EWPC is about one controlled market and one open market that operate interdependently, to offer reliable service while opening the industry to business model innovations, I am glad to be able to say what I intended in my first post under Grooming Wind, where the same response was posted to your partially repeated comment. Please read it like this: “…extending incrementally the old central station paradigm (with very complex rules and regulations that lead to simple and stupid behavior) is alive and well, allowing that in a given area there might be two transmission systems so the natural monopoly concept is changed.”

The pure and original vertically integrated utility (which is what I meant by the “old central station”) paradigm and EWPC have both very simple rules and regulations that lead to complex and intelligent behavior. This is what the generative dialogue should be about to come up with the emerging market.

As you know, my interest is about the market vs. market competition and not the company vs. company competition. All the public debate has been on market vs. market competition centered on only two paradigms: the pure vertically integrated utilities paradigm (VIU), witch now has many incremental extensions towards wholesale and full deregulation. The Cato Institute “recommend total abandonment of restructuring,” meaning going back to the pure Old Paradigm.

The incremental extensions occurred first under PURPA; then under EPAct 1992 that enabled FERC to order wholesale competition and Open Transmission Access, implemented with FERC orders 888 and 889, and 2000. In addition, several events have impacted the progress and the debate of deregulation, the meltdown of California, FERCs SMD, and the Northeast Blackout. Those events led to 2005 Energy Bill, which resulted in NERC mandatory requirements and the introduction of Demand Response.

Two systems architecting heuristics says that “the most dangerous assumptions are the unstated ones” and “that all serious mistakes are made on the first day.” The assumption that the separation of federal and state jurisdictions does not have a distorting impact on electric markets restructuring needs to be reviewed. Under that assumption transmission and distribution seem to be two separate entities. A generative dialogue aiming to find the best argument should consider this item as the first. So, maybe in other places, like the BRIC countries which don’t have those unnecessary restrictions EWPC snared vision will have a better opportunity to emerge first.

As you all know, in the past two years, EWPC emerged as the third market under a generative dialogue, which is very simple market architecture and design: retail [and wholesale] competition, demand integration and ultraquality transportation. The first two are implemented by Second Generation Retailers (that handle all revenue streams from retail customers) as part of a value chain generation, retail, and customer. Ultraquality transportation is the result of demand integration to power system planning, operation and control, by Second Generation Retailers. The only utility company remaining is the transportation utility.

If I understand correctly, IMEUC is about wholesale competition, without retailers, without demand integration and without ultraquality transportation, leaving intact the incremental extensions of the Old Paradigm, which is exactly what the Cato Institute recommended to abandon. New hardware[/software] solutions should be left for company vs. company competition.

Reference and context: Continental Grid Vision Needed, by Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Magazine