2GRs want to compete to develop market business model innovations for global retail market segments. On a given market segment, the market winner of the market vs. market competition can only be enabled after the EWPC EPAct is enacted. The EWPC EPAct should forbid state regulators from letting utilities win rate cases that involve Intelligent Utility Enterprise and Smart Grid investments, because of the high risks of failure involved.
EWPC Can’t Be a Market Winner
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 29th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
This is another attempt to have a mature level 3, win/win communications mode. Level 3 win-win communications mode is nothing more than a generative dialogue. I am not my opinion, is a generative dialogue key principle that allows the separation of our opinions from us.
I have invested many posts trying to patiently explain myself as have many other persons that have responded. I have been writing about market architecture and design, and getting technologies responses that have slowly help the truth arise. I changed my opinion to accept a comparison between EWPC and IMEUC, because they are not at all comparable. EWPC is about market structures and rules. EWPC development is about consulting work, not about technology design of market business models.
Based on the above, I can also say that EWPC is not the winner of the market vs. market competition as it was suggested by Geoffrey Moore. In fact, EWPC was not supposed to be in the market vs. market competition in the first place. Once again, EWPC is just a market architecture and design paradigm that emerged to enable open retail competition on the U.S. federal level and at the global level.
In fact, Warren Causey wrote (see his complete comment in the EWPC article Breakthrough Suggestions for Today's Utilities Environments) : “In order to adopt EWPC, public utility commissions would have to let go of their authority to regulate rates at the retail level. This is a political issue. PUCs are political entities. Commissioners pretend to believe they are "serving the public interest" by protecting the public from nasty old utilities.” EWPC should be compared with price controls that regulators have.
That comparison is precisely the reason that I am assuming that a shift from today’s regulated markets (where utilities win rate cases to the regulators) to competitive markets is bound to occur at the global level. The market bridge between supply and demand on any given market segment can filled up by one of many market business models. That is part of the EWPC architecture. As simple as that!
In addition to the Intelligent Utility Enterprise and Smart Grid (IUE/SG) that Warren Causey reports (see please EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First), another of many potential market bridges (a market switchboard business model) is IMEUC, which needs to have all customers on board. But the only way IMEUC can be adopted is when a regulator makes the same highly risky bet of utilities IUE/SG to select it.
There are also switchboards that don’t need to have all customers on board. In that case what’s needed is a market design that doesn’t allow free riders, as they will be poorly designed market rules if the allow free riders. The resulting market rules are very important for the required transition period to competition, where some customers remain under the old rules modified to eliminate cross-subsidies.
The particular example of how to avoid free riders in a transition, especially to open retail markets at the federal and global levels, was given by Nat Treadway, in his article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices. Treadway explains 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.”
There are many other potential alternative market business models that retailers can develop to bridge supply and demand and which customers have choice to select. I contend that today’s 1GRs will be replaced by 2GRs that operate at the Control Level and the Economic Level to integrate demand to power system planning, operation, and control. That I said is the market breakthrough, not a technology breakthrough. But, the real proof will be left to market vs. market competition, which will be ready to start as soon as the EWPC EPAct suggested in the above mentioned EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First is enacted.
Under the EWPC EPAct, regulators will no longer be making the large bets on markets business model (Intelligent Utility Enterprise and Smart Grid investments), that like those 75% of projects that end-up in failure in the reengineering revolution.
martes, abril 29, 2008
domingo, abril 27, 2008
Dialogue, Reliability/Ultraquality & What to do First?
To answer ‘What to do First?,’ a generative dialogue insight is that in the EWPC EPAct to be enacted, all market business models should compete in a truly open market (except from the controlled transportation market) that doesn’t favor any party, nor control all customers. System adequacy and system security are non-trivial processes to implement system reliability and ultraquality transportation that should enable social maximum welfare in the open market.
Dialogue, Reliability/Ultraquality & What to do First?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 27th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
1. On Generative Dialogues
I thank Todd for his “skillful conversation (SC),” in which he still defending IMEUC. Defending is not a level 3, win-win communications mode, as Todd forgets the “Unjustified Universal System” part of the GMH post A Universal System with Price Spikes. By ignoring that IMEUC should compete on the open market, instead of being selected as a risky bet of a regulator, as Jim seems to assert, the conversation could get stocked with a disagreement on the What to do First question to go forward.
According to Dr. William Isaacs, the author of “dialogue and the art of thinking together,” the ‘SC’ is part of “productive defensiveness,” as opposed to “unproductive defensiveness.” For more than 28 months, I have faced a lot of “unproductive defensiveness” and also every once in a while some “productive defensiveness.” The problem is that while the former is more productive than the latter, it is still very ineffective.
Dr. Isaacs suggests that deliberation in a different way is more productive. His dialogue process goes through three stages: suspension (listening without resistance; dis-identity), reflective dialogue (explores underlying causes, rules, and assumptions to get to deeper questions and framing of problems), and to generative dialogue (invents unprecedented possibilities and new insights; produces collective flow). That is the sole reason why I have promoted the level 3, win-win communications mode to enable a generative dialogue, since November 2006, when I recorded an EnergyPulse post as the GMH post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue.
2. On Reliability and Ultraquality
I want to ask again, do we all want to shift from defend to suspend? If we do, we should suspend our opinions on how the non-trivial engineering planning should be accomplished in these conversations. Assuming we are willing to suspend, so we can get to more important matters, like “What to do First?,” I will respond to Todds’ questions on (system) reliability and ultraquality as follows:
System reliability involves system security (for the short run – i.e. operations planning) and system adequacy (for the long run - i.e. investments planning). The ultraquality imperative is the concept behind system reliability which under EWPC becomes transportation ultraquality.
System security was defined above on 4.25.08 in the paragraph that stars with "To fulfill its responsibility to transport, the transportation utility performs a non-trivial operations planning process (which I have named as reliability constraint generation and demand commitment)."
The process to implement system adequacy is also non-trivial and is aimed to produce the expansion planning of the transportation system at least costs, taking also into consideration all of the investments forecasted in the open market (by customers, retailers and generators) to enable the potential for maximum social welfare. At planning intervals, the interdependent transportation controlled market and the open market reinforce each other to produce maximum social welfare.
In the open market, the potential of maximum social welfare is handled at the Economic Level, not at the Control Level as Todd have proposed. It is at the Economic Level that we optimize the capital and operating costs to have both system security and system adequacy. If we don’t execute the Economic Level transactions between customers and 2GRs, we may end up having a very costly system.
If the power market operates at ultraquality, under the coordination of demand integration to power system planning and control, then less customers will justify investing in back-up power supplies. The maximum social welfare will be then be the result of large coordination savings at the Economic Level by 2GRs, instead of the large value destruction expected by the highly risky regulators bets.
3. On What to do First?
Todd wrote that “I don't see the point in promoting any 'what to do first' conversation until it's agreed upon that a) it's truly open in all parts (except maybe the natural monopoly of distribution) b) it's not favoring any party to a given competition and c) it's technically feasable (including economics).” My response in the same a, b, c order is as follows:
a) EWPC is truly open except for the natural monopoly of (tightly integrated transmission and distribution) Transportation compact.
b) EWPC doesn’t favor utilities or IMEUC to have all customers, as 2GRs want to compete by developing market business models.
c) The way to enable that a system is technically and economically feasible is not by regulators’ edits, but by a real market vs. market competition.
As all the elements of the 'what to do first' conversation are satisfied, the only thing in the way is the political will to enact the EWPC EPAct suggested in the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary reads:
“The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”
Reference and context: Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
Dialogue, Reliability/Ultraquality & What to do First?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 27th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
1. On Generative Dialogues
I thank Todd for his “skillful conversation (SC),” in which he still defending IMEUC. Defending is not a level 3, win-win communications mode, as Todd forgets the “Unjustified Universal System” part of the GMH post A Universal System with Price Spikes. By ignoring that IMEUC should compete on the open market, instead of being selected as a risky bet of a regulator, as Jim seems to assert, the conversation could get stocked with a disagreement on the What to do First question to go forward.
According to Dr. William Isaacs, the author of “dialogue and the art of thinking together,” the ‘SC’ is part of “productive defensiveness,” as opposed to “unproductive defensiveness.” For more than 28 months, I have faced a lot of “unproductive defensiveness” and also every once in a while some “productive defensiveness.” The problem is that while the former is more productive than the latter, it is still very ineffective.
Dr. Isaacs suggests that deliberation in a different way is more productive. His dialogue process goes through three stages: suspension (listening without resistance; dis-identity), reflective dialogue (explores underlying causes, rules, and assumptions to get to deeper questions and framing of problems), and to generative dialogue (invents unprecedented possibilities and new insights; produces collective flow). That is the sole reason why I have promoted the level 3, win-win communications mode to enable a generative dialogue, since November 2006, when I recorded an EnergyPulse post as the GMH post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue.
2. On Reliability and Ultraquality
I want to ask again, do we all want to shift from defend to suspend? If we do, we should suspend our opinions on how the non-trivial engineering planning should be accomplished in these conversations. Assuming we are willing to suspend, so we can get to more important matters, like “What to do First?,” I will respond to Todds’ questions on (system) reliability and ultraquality as follows:
System reliability involves system security (for the short run – i.e. operations planning) and system adequacy (for the long run - i.e. investments planning). The ultraquality imperative is the concept behind system reliability which under EWPC becomes transportation ultraquality.
System security was defined above on 4.25.08 in the paragraph that stars with "To fulfill its responsibility to transport, the transportation utility performs a non-trivial operations planning process (which I have named as reliability constraint generation and demand commitment)."
The process to implement system adequacy is also non-trivial and is aimed to produce the expansion planning of the transportation system at least costs, taking also into consideration all of the investments forecasted in the open market (by customers, retailers and generators) to enable the potential for maximum social welfare. At planning intervals, the interdependent transportation controlled market and the open market reinforce each other to produce maximum social welfare.
In the open market, the potential of maximum social welfare is handled at the Economic Level, not at the Control Level as Todd have proposed. It is at the Economic Level that we optimize the capital and operating costs to have both system security and system adequacy. If we don’t execute the Economic Level transactions between customers and 2GRs, we may end up having a very costly system.
If the power market operates at ultraquality, under the coordination of demand integration to power system planning and control, then less customers will justify investing in back-up power supplies. The maximum social welfare will be then be the result of large coordination savings at the Economic Level by 2GRs, instead of the large value destruction expected by the highly risky regulators bets.
3. On What to do First?
Todd wrote that “I don't see the point in promoting any 'what to do first' conversation until it's agreed upon that a) it's truly open in all parts (except maybe the natural monopoly of distribution) b) it's not favoring any party to a given competition and c) it's technically feasable (including economics).” My response in the same a, b, c order is as follows:
a) EWPC is truly open except for the natural monopoly of (tightly integrated transmission and distribution) Transportation compact.
b) EWPC doesn’t favor utilities or IMEUC to have all customers, as 2GRs want to compete by developing market business models.
c) The way to enable that a system is technically and economically feasible is not by regulators’ edits, but by a real market vs. market competition.
As all the elements of the 'what to do first' conversation are satisfied, the only thing in the way is the political will to enact the EWPC EPAct suggested in the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary reads:
“The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”
Reference and context: Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
viernes, abril 25, 2008
A Universal System with Price Spikes
An Unjustified Universal System
Jim had responded himself earlier by writing “regarding a market innovation, rather than a technical one, I can see his point to some extent. If IMEUC is meant to be for all customers, then it might have to prove itself pretty thoroughly for that to be accepted. A system that could allow for multiple strategies might be more easy to get approved, as long as no free rides are allowed, as Jose has indicated.”
Len had also responded himself too on December 25, 2006. In very rare level 3 win-win communication mode participation, he wrote: “Agreed Jose Antonio on Switchboard model. The point is, once the transaction costs are zeroed with full automation, the large generating entities have no reason to object to selling directly to the smallest customers as well as "large customers". And the market manager is not monopolizing retail, simply the means of recording transactions. IF any would-be retailer can come up with a model which can attract customers away from the generating entities, then they are entirely free to enter the market with offers right alongside the originating generating entites.“
The problem to get to full automation of all of the customers entails investments by many customers, especially a “little old lady” who can perceive she afford a system to respond to real time prices. Her protection from price spikes isn’t pointless. EWPC prevents catastrophic price gouging without the need for price controls, as can be seen in the next post.
Price Spikes (and Unreliable Service)
I have spent time trying to make a clear level 3 win/win communications mode to show how under EWPC service is reliable and without price spikes. I think I got it as intellectual property, unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook.
Price spikes result from incomplete markets and lack of operations planning and demand elasticity. Under EWPC the utility responsibility to serve is shifted to the transportation (T&D natural monopoly) only utility responsibility to transport and for customers to have demand response as a condition of service to enable demand elasticity.
To fulfill its responsibility to transport, the transportation utility performs a non-trivial operations planning process (which I have named as reliability constraint generation and demand commitment). That process results in a time ahead (hour, day, week) supply demand market clearing price, that commits generating units and demand reductions by 2GRs that will be available during real time operation to guarantee reliable service, by having sufficient reserves in time and space. Any generator or 2GRs, that after committing to perform don’t perform, will pay real time prices in that separate market.
The opportunity for the real time (balancing market as it is called as a result of forecasting errors) market segment depends on generators and 2GRs missing their commitments to perform. In a sense this is the other side of the EWPC article IMEUC: Unreliable Service and Price Spikes.
So, under EWPC “little old ladies” don’t need to fear price spikes and are also protected from abuse by prudential regulations. However, if government finds that they require subsidies; those may come from the public welfare system.
Todd: in the open market, I identified earlier three modules: 1) 2GRs compete with 2GRs; generators compete with generators; and 3) 2GRs demand reductions compete with generators supply increases. It is obvious that the survival of 2GRs and generators requires they handle economic transactions very closely.
Jim got it right: price spikes are unreliability are intimately related. EWPC flies like the DC-3 of the great depression, by being the market architecture and design paradigm with commercial quality service. The EWPC EPAct should be expected ASAP to solve the global systemic energy crisis.
The two above comments were posted under the EnergyPulse article Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
Jim had responded himself earlier by writing “regarding a market innovation, rather than a technical one, I can see his point to some extent. If IMEUC is meant to be for all customers, then it might have to prove itself pretty thoroughly for that to be accepted. A system that could allow for multiple strategies might be more easy to get approved, as long as no free rides are allowed, as Jose has indicated.”
Len had also responded himself too on December 25, 2006. In very rare level 3 win-win communication mode participation, he wrote: “Agreed Jose Antonio on Switchboard model. The point is, once the transaction costs are zeroed with full automation, the large generating entities have no reason to object to selling directly to the smallest customers as well as "large customers". And the market manager is not monopolizing retail, simply the means of recording transactions. IF any would-be retailer can come up with a model which can attract customers away from the generating entities, then they are entirely free to enter the market with offers right alongside the originating generating entites.“
The problem to get to full automation of all of the customers entails investments by many customers, especially a “little old lady” who can perceive she afford a system to respond to real time prices. Her protection from price spikes isn’t pointless. EWPC prevents catastrophic price gouging without the need for price controls, as can be seen in the next post.
Price Spikes (and Unreliable Service)
I have spent time trying to make a clear level 3 win/win communications mode to show how under EWPC service is reliable and without price spikes. I think I got it as intellectual property, unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook.
Price spikes result from incomplete markets and lack of operations planning and demand elasticity. Under EWPC the utility responsibility to serve is shifted to the transportation (T&D natural monopoly) only utility responsibility to transport and for customers to have demand response as a condition of service to enable demand elasticity.
To fulfill its responsibility to transport, the transportation utility performs a non-trivial operations planning process (which I have named as reliability constraint generation and demand commitment). That process results in a time ahead (hour, day, week) supply demand market clearing price, that commits generating units and demand reductions by 2GRs that will be available during real time operation to guarantee reliable service, by having sufficient reserves in time and space. Any generator or 2GRs, that after committing to perform don’t perform, will pay real time prices in that separate market.
The opportunity for the real time (balancing market as it is called as a result of forecasting errors) market segment depends on generators and 2GRs missing their commitments to perform. In a sense this is the other side of the EWPC article IMEUC: Unreliable Service and Price Spikes.
So, under EWPC “little old ladies” don’t need to fear price spikes and are also protected from abuse by prudential regulations. However, if government finds that they require subsidies; those may come from the public welfare system.
Todd: in the open market, I identified earlier three modules: 1) 2GRs compete with 2GRs; generators compete with generators; and 3) 2GRs demand reductions compete with generators supply increases. It is obvious that the survival of 2GRs and generators requires they handle economic transactions very closely.
Jim got it right: price spikes are unreliability are intimately related. EWPC flies like the DC-3 of the great depression, by being the market architecture and design paradigm with commercial quality service. The EWPC EPAct should be expected ASAP to solve the global systemic energy crisis.
The two above comments were posted under the EnergyPulse article Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
jueves, abril 24, 2008
Yaqui y la Revolución de la Riqueza
HOLA NUEVO DÍA
A mis amigos, Radhamés Segura y José Carlos Isaías
En estos días en que el alza del petróleo es alarma nuestra de cada día y los organismos internacionales pronostican que lo peor no ha llegado en estos años de vacas flacas, globalizando así el pesimismo, viene bien que haga esta apretada síntesis del nuevo libro de los futurólogos Alvin y Heidi Toffler, la Revolución de la Riqueza. Hay bases científicas para mirar hacia el futuro con optimismo. Por lo pronto, la vida no terminará por falta de energía. Craig Venter, quien dirigió exitosamente la descodificación del genoma humano, trabaja hoy en la creación de organismos artificiales que puedan eliminar la polución y crear energía.
Él sostiene que la biología puede cambiar nuestra dependencia de los combustibles fósiles. Y en la universidad de Stanford se trabaja en la producción biológica de hidrógeno partiendo de bacterias creadas genéticamente y Howard Berke desarrolla un material tan fino como cinta de película para transformar la luz del sol en electricidad capaz de recargar celulares, GPS y otros aparatos.
En Europa y Asia se está extrayendo energía de las mareas de los océanos. Agregan los Toffler que cada día el sol transfiere a los océanos la energía térmica equivalente a 250 mil millones de barriles de petróleo.
En fin, hasta el pesimista Matthew Simmons admite que la creatividad del hombre da lo mejor de sí en tiempos de grandes crisis. Y la economía del conocimiento traerá la revolución de la riqueza y pobres con saberes tendrán poderes de un nuevo tipo de empresario. Amén o así sea.
columnayaqui@gmail.
Publicación original del Listín
A mis amigos, Radhamés Segura y José Carlos Isaías
En estos días en que el alza del petróleo es alarma nuestra de cada día y los organismos internacionales pronostican que lo peor no ha llegado en estos años de vacas flacas, globalizando así el pesimismo, viene bien que haga esta apretada síntesis del nuevo libro de los futurólogos Alvin y Heidi Toffler, la Revolución de la Riqueza. Hay bases científicas para mirar hacia el futuro con optimismo. Por lo pronto, la vida no terminará por falta de energía. Craig Venter, quien dirigió exitosamente la descodificación del genoma humano, trabaja hoy en la creación de organismos artificiales que puedan eliminar la polución y crear energía.
Él sostiene que la biología puede cambiar nuestra dependencia de los combustibles fósiles. Y en la universidad de Stanford se trabaja en la producción biológica de hidrógeno partiendo de bacterias creadas genéticamente y Howard Berke desarrolla un material tan fino como cinta de película para transformar la luz del sol en electricidad capaz de recargar celulares, GPS y otros aparatos.
En Europa y Asia se está extrayendo energía de las mareas de los océanos. Agregan los Toffler que cada día el sol transfiere a los océanos la energía térmica equivalente a 250 mil millones de barriles de petróleo.
En fin, hasta el pesimista Matthew Simmons admite que la creatividad del hombre da lo mejor de sí en tiempos de grandes crisis. Y la economía del conocimiento traerá la revolución de la riqueza y pobres con saberes tendrán poderes de un nuevo tipo de empresario. Amén o así sea.
columnayaqui@gmail.
Publicación original del Listín
miércoles, abril 23, 2008
Breakthrough Suggestions for Today's Utilities Environments
Business model competition for retail services is the key to a breakthrough in utilities services. Economies of scale and scope of electricity, gas and water will enhance their business models. The general public should be aware of the harm of extending utilities business model of winning rate cases to the regulator as we enter the Third Industrial Revolution.
Breakthrough Suggestions for Today's Utilities Environments
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 23rd, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Instead of the utility centered "Modest Efficiency Suggestions for Today's Energy Environment, proposed by Philip Hanser, Principal, The Brattle Group, the article EWPC Leadership (w/o links) is offering breakthrough suggestions that “brings absolute clarity and direction to enable a cultural shift to the power industry of the Third Industrial Revolution. Demand Integration by 2GRs [will] result in large coordination savings for society as a whole, both in customers' multiyear investments and operation costs.”
Until recently, utilities have concentrated on the development of the resources of the supply side, where modest incremental results can be expected. Breakthrough is about the development of the resources of the demand side in electricity, gas and water.
I interpret the author’s “Utilities must be made financially whole if they are expected to be a means by which energy efficiency is achieved,” as begging to help utilities develop the resources of the demand side to extend their business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. In that regard, Len Gould asked a question whose answer is already available under EWPC: “For some reason item 4) in your article bothers me. Is electricity service so unique that governments must employ only the services of the seller of the product to encourage customers to buy lees [change to less] of that product?”
The answer is in the EWPC article Shrinking the Regulator’s Jobs, whose summary says: “There is a need for a shared vision to restructure the power industry, shrinking regulators jobs to price controls of the remaining transportation electric utilities and letting end-customers make their own investments and purchasing decisions of electricity. The shared vision needs to go to the public opinion so that high level political decisions are enabled to restructure the electricity industry and shrinking regulators jobs.”
In the Third Industrial Revolution, that same answer applies to gas (GWPC) and water (WWPC) market architecture and design paradigms. Three different independent regulated transportation utilities companies and Second Generation Retailers that will be able to increase their federal economies of scale by developing economies of scope in gas and water will be the result, here and below.
Demand today is still an externality to the power system in a wide open market for customers’ investments in energy efficiency (EE) products, among other products available, making EE (integration to system planning, operation and control) a power system disruptive technology in its own right.
As soon as the EWPC EPAct described in the article Leadership Answers What to do First is adopted, R&D on EE and other disruptive technologies will all be pumped with a lot of R&D money. In fact, those are well known technologies also waiting to become power system disruptive technologies all the way to Main Street (as Geoffrey Moore calls it). As the most viewed EnergyBlogs article The Sixth Disruptive Technology (with 1218 hits at the time of this writing) explains, business model innovations developed by 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five technologies. In gas and water, similar disruptive technologies will be available.
Breakthrough Suggestions for Today's Utilities Environments
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 23rd, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Instead of the utility centered "Modest Efficiency Suggestions for Today's Energy Environment, proposed by Philip Hanser, Principal, The Brattle Group, the article EWPC Leadership (w/o links) is offering breakthrough suggestions that “brings absolute clarity and direction to enable a cultural shift to the power industry of the Third Industrial Revolution. Demand Integration by 2GRs [will] result in large coordination savings for society as a whole, both in customers' multiyear investments and operation costs.”
Until recently, utilities have concentrated on the development of the resources of the supply side, where modest incremental results can be expected. Breakthrough is about the development of the resources of the demand side in electricity, gas and water.
I interpret the author’s “Utilities must be made financially whole if they are expected to be a means by which energy efficiency is achieved,” as begging to help utilities develop the resources of the demand side to extend their business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. In that regard, Len Gould asked a question whose answer is already available under EWPC: “For some reason item 4) in your article bothers me. Is electricity service so unique that governments must employ only the services of the seller of the product to encourage customers to buy lees [change to less] of that product?”
The answer is in the EWPC article Shrinking the Regulator’s Jobs, whose summary says: “There is a need for a shared vision to restructure the power industry, shrinking regulators jobs to price controls of the remaining transportation electric utilities and letting end-customers make their own investments and purchasing decisions of electricity. The shared vision needs to go to the public opinion so that high level political decisions are enabled to restructure the electricity industry and shrinking regulators jobs.”
In the Third Industrial Revolution, that same answer applies to gas (GWPC) and water (WWPC) market architecture and design paradigms. Three different independent regulated transportation utilities companies and Second Generation Retailers that will be able to increase their federal economies of scale by developing economies of scope in gas and water will be the result, here and below.
Demand today is still an externality to the power system in a wide open market for customers’ investments in energy efficiency (EE) products, among other products available, making EE (integration to system planning, operation and control) a power system disruptive technology in its own right.
As soon as the EWPC EPAct described in the article Leadership Answers What to do First is adopted, R&D on EE and other disruptive technologies will all be pumped with a lot of R&D money. In fact, those are well known technologies also waiting to become power system disruptive technologies all the way to Main Street (as Geoffrey Moore calls it). As the most viewed EnergyBlogs article The Sixth Disruptive Technology (with 1218 hits at the time of this writing) explains, business model innovations developed by 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five technologies. In gas and water, similar disruptive technologies will be available.
lunes, abril 21, 2008
A Decent Response to Jim Bayer
Jim wrote, “… sorry I brought the whole [IMEUC] thing up,” when he wrote earlier “I do believe that IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion. And frankly, having large utilities decide how smart grids should be organized is akin the the fox watching the chickens… However, that being said, and given the potentially great interest in IMEUC, I really think it needs to be documented a bit better. I've read your 2 articles over many times and while I get the gist of it, the explanation is really not as clear as I'd prefer. Is there any new revised explanation in the works? Have you written anything else about it, other than the blogs?” He actually didn’t mention EWPC at all, so I don’t understand why he no polite with respect to EWPC, while being very polite with IMEUC. In the next post I will refer him and all readers to three very succinct EWPC articles, which speak very well of the EWPC market architecture and control paradigm, a very complex subject trully simplified.
Maybe “IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion ... ” but it is NOT as a market architecture and design paradigm. It is only for that reason that I have interacted by using the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts as a recipient of very insidious False Facts against EWPC. In fact, after hundred, and hundred, IMEUC False Facts, diffused in many directions by IMEUC promoters, since the end of 2005, to distract the attention of readers away from EWPC, I have documented 29 False Facts in the past three weeks (that is about 10 a week as a possible representative statistic). A quote from George Santayana is the perfect message that says it all: "Fanatism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
I started the ideas of what in now EWPC in 1996 following the aims of late M.I.T. professor Fred Charles Schweppe (please hit the hyperlink get to his bio as an M.I.T. EECS Great Educator) and his research team (work done from 1978 to 1988). The aim is best taken from Schweppe's just mentioned bio, which says that he “… is now regarded as one of the visionary people who foresaw changes to the electric-power industry to permit competition, long before others.” I have found and documented, in the Central Energy Network, since the end of 2005, that the problems with deregulation and the continued value destruction by today's utilities, were and are, respectively, the result of disregarding his spot price regulated energy marketplace as the first required step. Schweppes’s visionary leadership on Spot Pricing of Electricity is the basis for the EWPC market architecture and design leadership.
Competition in the power industry requires a shift from today's utility business model of winning rate cases to the regulators with monopoly Utilities Enterprise Solutions to competitive Retailers' Enterprise Solutions to develop vibrant, complete, open, and fully functional wholesale and retail markets in the global economy.
Very sharp descriptions of EWPC can be found in the EWPC articles Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC (in response to a similar question to yours, which I named Todd’s Test; there was not an IMEUC response at the time), Power Markets Essential Requirements and EWPC Leadership (w/o links).
Add to those three articles that, looking at the EWPC restructuring from the interface point of view, “EWPC is an integral reform paradigm that results is a robust emergent market architecture and design that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces, with two modules in the controlled market and three modules on the open market. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand (Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars) compete with each other. All competition is in time and space.”
Since I am now writing, the first draft of the introductory chapter of The EWPC Textbook, I know there are minor upgrades needed from insights that have evolved after I wrote them. Any comment in the third level win/win mode of communication about EWPC, but unrelated to the second phase of company vs. company competition, is welcomed.
Reference article and context: Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
Maybe “IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion ... ” but it is NOT as a market architecture and design paradigm. It is only for that reason that I have interacted by using the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts as a recipient of very insidious False Facts against EWPC. In fact, after hundred, and hundred, IMEUC False Facts, diffused in many directions by IMEUC promoters, since the end of 2005, to distract the attention of readers away from EWPC, I have documented 29 False Facts in the past three weeks (that is about 10 a week as a possible representative statistic). A quote from George Santayana is the perfect message that says it all: "Fanatism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
I started the ideas of what in now EWPC in 1996 following the aims of late M.I.T. professor Fred Charles Schweppe (please hit the hyperlink get to his bio as an M.I.T. EECS Great Educator) and his research team (work done from 1978 to 1988). The aim is best taken from Schweppe's just mentioned bio, which says that he “… is now regarded as one of the visionary people who foresaw changes to the electric-power industry to permit competition, long before others.” I have found and documented, in the Central Energy Network, since the end of 2005, that the problems with deregulation and the continued value destruction by today's utilities, were and are, respectively, the result of disregarding his spot price regulated energy marketplace as the first required step. Schweppes’s visionary leadership on Spot Pricing of Electricity is the basis for the EWPC market architecture and design leadership.
Competition in the power industry requires a shift from today's utility business model of winning rate cases to the regulators with monopoly Utilities Enterprise Solutions to competitive Retailers' Enterprise Solutions to develop vibrant, complete, open, and fully functional wholesale and retail markets in the global economy.
Very sharp descriptions of EWPC can be found in the EWPC articles Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC (in response to a similar question to yours, which I named Todd’s Test; there was not an IMEUC response at the time), Power Markets Essential Requirements and EWPC Leadership (w/o links).
Add to those three articles that, looking at the EWPC restructuring from the interface point of view, “EWPC is an integral reform paradigm that results is a robust emergent market architecture and design that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces, with two modules in the controlled market and three modules on the open market. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand (Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars) compete with each other. All competition is in time and space.”
Since I am now writing, the first draft of the introductory chapter of The EWPC Textbook, I know there are minor upgrades needed from insights that have evolved after I wrote them. Any comment in the third level win/win mode of communication about EWPC, but unrelated to the second phase of company vs. company competition, is welcomed.
Reference article and context: Building Models for the Smart Grid Business Case, by Jagoron Mukherjee, Senior Consultant, KEMA
viernes, abril 18, 2008
Many Market Matters to Change the Status Quo
Jim,
The whole discussion of incorporating new technologies in the demand side of the power industry is very important in the discussion. But as you will see, your generous “believe that IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion,” is unsupported. I humbly suggest that you take a close look at the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts, and read below, to consider changing that believe based on the many False Facts documented already.
In a series of posts under the article EWPC’s Tipping Point [a must read to get a proper response to your inquiry], in response to Len question “I can find no relationship between your last two posts and IMEUC. Clarfiy?” [my response was:]
Len ended his "techie" answers to you with “Anyway, just a few thoughts. It's very possible I'm missing something [the “many other matters as well…”] about your plan. It wouldn't be the first time.” Now he writes "Also could use any help available from anyone out there willing to collaborate / contribute expertise in the many [other missing matters] areas where [Bob too] I'm lacking."
Hence, the answer to your question: "Is there any new revised explanation [of IMEUC} in the works?" is that there is no longer a need at all to keep playing games to explain IMEUC anymore.
The means to replace the status quo can be found in the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary says: “The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”
The whole discussion of incorporating new technologies in the demand side of the power industry is very important in the discussion. But as you will see, your generous “believe that IMEUC has something to offer in this discussion,” is unsupported. I humbly suggest that you take a close look at the EWPC article IMEUC False Facts, and read below, to consider changing that believe based on the many False Facts documented already.
In a series of posts under the article EWPC’s Tipping Point [a must read to get a proper response to your inquiry], in response to Len question “I can find no relationship between your last two posts and IMEUC. Clarfiy?” [my response was:]
The relationship is with "We have a saying in Spanish which I translate as 'that only the tree that gives good fruits gets stoned' (maybe the English version is 'Picked-to-perfection fruit is just a stone's throw away')." The point is that Don Giegler [and maybe Bob and Len] is defending the utilities status quo and has been using IMEUC to throw stones at EWPC, because he knows that IMEUC is not a threat to the California utilities excesses.
Relating that third article that never came, that was suppose to respond my convincing "generative dialogue synthesis (please read about IMEUC deficiencies in the article "EWPC's Tipping Point" [the link is in the second paragraph])," I repeat that you retracted with "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you." All those issues were not clarified al all. Just like me[,] Jim Beyer is not throwing stones, but confirming the IMEUC is mostly a physical installation "market," that has not possibilities to replace the status quo. [this is what you wrote:]
To: Len Gould
Subject:
IMEUC
Len,
Based on your comment, I decided I should try to get my head around IMEUC. So I looked at your papers. I still find it a bit obtuse. Much text was devoted to the particulars of meters and their costs. I think people concerned with replacing the status quo would be concerned about many other matters as well [like those that Bob calls “Len's IMEUC market reforms,” which are totally absent].
Bob doesn't throw stones to IMEUC either [in fact there seems to be also a Bob’s IMEUC], because he is not "concerned with replacing the status quo [either, nor is he] … concerned about many other matters as well," that he has an opinion they [the many other matters] are religious . I have worked hard to get "techies," as he calls himself, and maybe [forget maybe] you, to unveil the business (not religious) and technical complexities of the power industry.
Len ended his "techie" answers to you with “Anyway, just a few thoughts. It's very possible I'm missing something [the “many other matters as well…”] about your plan. It wouldn't be the first time.” Now he writes "Also could use any help available from anyone out there willing to collaborate / contribute expertise in the many [other missing matters] areas where [Bob too] I'm lacking."
Hence, the answer to your question: "Is there any new revised explanation [of IMEUC} in the works?" is that there is no longer a need at all to keep playing games to explain IMEUC anymore.
The means to replace the status quo can be found in the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary says: “The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”
miércoles, abril 16, 2008
Leadership Answers What to do First
Third update. Contrary to a strong west back, should #GlobalDebout aim to strengthen the whole world? What follows is a response to the artícle How the west was lost – and why we need it back, written by Timothy Garton Ash for theguardian, with the subtitle "The ties between Europe and the US have loosened, but there are still huge global challenges – Russia, China, the Middle East, climate change – we can only face together." It is easy to conclude that such a viewpoint reinforces the negatives identified in the article The Global Crisis Of Leadership, written by Alon Ben-Meir. Instead of why we need a strong west back, the first update of this post concentrated on why we need to strengthen the whole world. Let's see a few views:
Mr. Garton Ash's introduction is as follows: "Whatever happened to the west? Barack Obama just visited Europe to praise and strengthen the west, urging Britain to stay in the EU and Germany to support the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Reactions in Britain, Germany and the United States suggest that he was praising a ghost. Or at least, a ghost of a former self."
Second update. Del 90% #GlobalDebout a representantes en la Cumbre de Energía EE.UU - Caribe y Centroamérica. Como los celulares que saltaron (leapfrog) los teléfonos fijos, los votantes queremos un Servicio eléctrico sobresaliente, que salte las redes inteligentes, lo cual se logra con el pensamiento disponible para redactar una Ley Sistémica de Electricidad, que servirá como patrón para una Ley Sistémica de Energía. Debajo de la nota Hacia un futuro sostenible del sistema eléctrico, escrita por Juanjo Gabiña, colocamos el siguiente comentario:
First update. Mr. Joe Biden: voters need a global framework change to a systemic energy policy act for maximum social welfare. The update of this post ‘Leadership Answers What to do First’ is intended for Vice President Joe Biden, because of the timely opportunity for voters of the USA, Spain and Dominican Republic that emerged as he will host the U.S.-Caribbean-Central American Energy Summit on May 3 and 4 in Washington, D.C. As designed as an institutional innovation, the purpose of the systemic energy policy act is maximum social welfare. Such purpose is needed to start to fill today´s empty global leadership vacuum with a sharp strategy in the Dominican Republic with a global framework change that will serve for pattern changes elsewhere.
With ongoing speech acts proposals, like “we will go to the moon,” being developed under an action oriented scientific attitude, a lot has emerged in the past 8 years after the main text of this post, as the architecting scope has been increased all the way to the global social, cultural, political, and economic spheres. As complemented below, the Dominican Republic has developed the systems architecting thought required to give every poor and rich global stakeholder the opportunity of a great, mature and reliable energy service to be offered by servant leaders. The above strategy is based on the “Second update. Do voters need #Fordism transitions or #Jobsism transformations under #GlobalDebout?,” of the @gmh_upsa paper Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon, in which we suggested:
This is a reinterpretation of what can be considered a key piece of the global leadership puzzle that we believe is our artistic conclusion of the Harvard Business Review Online blog post The Innovative Coworking Spaces of 15th-Century Italy, written by Piero Formica on April 27, 2016. Piero’s post is a welcome contribution to solve said puzzle based on what emerged in the above mentioned “Second update.” This is what we said about how to address the leadership vacuum:
To me the idea of a renaissance is very familiar. One of the owners of a company that I worked at during the 90’s and until 2010, the late José Vicini (of Italian origin of course) saw in me a Renaissance man. The late management guru Peter Drucker would have said that the renaissance was the result of the third information revolution brought by the printing press, being a precedent to the fourth information revolution renaissance brought to us by the microprocessor. The most probable self-explanation comes in a blog post of April 11, 2012 [1], which says:
In their website edgeperspective.com, John Hagel and John Seely Brown say that "We developed the ‘Shift Index,’ a new economic indicator that suggests the current recession is masking long-term competitive challenges for U.S. businesses,” which they introduce as:
The above is one way in which Piero’s contribution fits well into the leadership vacuum puzzle. Regarding his selling point, that mutually reinforce each other, besides “Turning ideas into action,” that we aim here to produce with proposals of “speech acts,” we will deal below with the selling points “Facilitating the convergence of art and science” and “Fostering dialogue.”
After reading Piero’s article, I went back to Linkedin to see what Heather had to say on the issue. To our surprise we should partially love (more below) her most recent post Education Is Not The Answer (Part 1), whose introduction says:
[2] Roberto Verganti, Harvard Business Review Online, Quantity versus quality in collaborations, June 15, 2011.
[3] Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, @gmh_upsa blog post, October 2, 2015.
[4] Roberto Verganti, Harvard Business Review, "The Innovative Power of Criticism," January-February 2016.
--------------------
The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.
Leadership Answers What to do First
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 16th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
I agree with Warren Causey’s article Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG: The Question is What to do First that “the consensus is correct: ‘fundamental changes are inevitable… the paradigm is going to have to change.’” M.I.T. professor Fred C. Schweppe, and his research team, knew that in the 1980s. The EWPC effort that extended Schweppes work is about facing those inevitable fundamental changes, as can be seen in the EWPC article The Electricity Revolution, which is summarized as:
“Warren Causey is [also] reporting a technological revolution in the power industry, which is ahead of legislative and regulatory uncertainty and is heading for a very costly dead-end. Utilities in the US and Europe are trying to extend their obsolete business model of winning rate case to the regulators. Customers, [the general market] and society should not have to pay for such large value destruction, by adopting the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm that removes the uncertainty.”
The most important reason why the existing paradigm – the system - is failing is because of architecture and design flaws. Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark W. Maier, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” have a descriptive heuristics that explains what happens: “In architecting a new [the paradigm in this case] program all the serious mistakes are made in the first day.” Leaving out utilities native loads, Open Transmission Access of EPAct 92 was such a serious mistake, which initiated the incremental path of the California crisis, the 2003 blackout, etc., that have taken us to today’s mess of costly and complex capacity markets, NERC mandatory requirements, etc.
Looking at the mistake from another perspective, legislators and regulators were trying to get efficiency from wholesale, when the breakthrough paradigm is all about business model innovations at retail to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control. Such breakthrough is enabled by the Third Industrial (communications) Revolution. Most investments to develop the resources of the demand side will be customers’ investments, that need to be well coordinated to produce large savings. Such coordination should be the result of competition of innovations among open market Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions and the development of the smart grid transportation utilities, instead of monopoly Intelligent Utility Enterprise/Smart Grid solutions.
In the EWPC article Slicing the Last of the Regulated Monopolies (an update of an article with the same title by Lester P. Silverman, a director of McKinsey & Company, on The New York Times of July 21st, 1996.) it is very clear that at the outset “‘The wires business - the transmission and distribution of electricity - will remain regulated but will be operated by [transportation only] utilities … with access to the wires open to all [generators, retailers and customers] ... Many of today’s electric utilities will be little more than regulated wires companies, but some will have grown by acquiring neighboring wires and other [gas and/or water] operations... The energy service business [under Second Generation Retailers], which involves the packaging of energy and other services [to integrate the resources of the demand side to power system is the key to the breakthrough.]"’
Why Silverman’s vision didn’t happen? We have a strong case of lack of leadership to enable a robust system that protect consumers from supply disruptions and unfair pricing. Even though, as Warren says “there still are a lot of questions about what to do first … according to most experts – Congress failed to so in an Energy Policy Act (EPAct) adopted in December,” the real make or break answer is all about legislative and regulatory leadership, which I now discuss.
In the chapter on Habit 2, of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven R. Covey tells a story about the difference between Leadership and Management to explain that leadership – “What are the things I want to accomplish?” – is the first question to ask, while management is the second question “How can I best accomplish certain things.”
Covey wrote “You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers [the utilities] cutting their way through the jungle with machetes. They’re the producers, the problem solvers. They’re cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.”
“The managers [the legislators and regulators] are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policies and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs [rate cases to be won by utilities] for machetes wielders.”
“The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation [see more than 110 articles in the EWPC Blog], and yells, “Wrong jungle.”
“But how do the busy [Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG], efficient producers and managers often respond? ‘Shut up! [José Antonio] We’re making progress.’”
So, the simple answer to “What to do First” is that the power industry should get out of the wrong jungle and adopt the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. The controlled market transportation utility with their regulated responsibility to transport will be aiming for ultraquality transportation and thus providing “the benefit of localizing disturbances and fragmenting responsibility and expense” with those of the non-real-time open market.
The modernization of the nationwide grid will then be done under a least cost transportation (tightly integrated T&D) expansion plan, considering the investments, operation, maintenance and outage costs forecasts of the whole power system including the value chain (generation, retail, customer) of the open market. The regulatory compact will shift from the utility obligation to serve to the utility obligation to transport in the closed market. The difference between the two will be demand response as a condition of service in the open market.
So, what to do first? Forgetting today’s mess, and starting from a clean slate from the ‘previous, historic paradigm,” as Warren calls it, the legislative and regulatory bodies need the vision and the courage to separate the regulated wire business, from the competitive retail and wholesale businesses of the open market. To go forward, they should take into account all the great insights that have emerged on EWPC market architecture and design paradigm, during the discussions on EnergyPulse and EnergyBlogs.com of the past 28 and 7 month, respectively. EWPC provides the required leadership to reduce the legislative and regulatory uncertainty to acceptable levels.
As Warren says “the next 10 to 15 years will see mayor changes – perhaps classified as upheavals by future historians…,” if the FERC, the administration and Congress of the US don’t take the leadership challenge head on, and produce a EWPC based EPAct to control the destiny of the global power industry, then as Jack Welch and Noel Tichy wrote, in their lessons in mastering change, “someone else will.”
Contrary to strong west back, should #GlobalDebout aim strengthen the whole world? https://t.co/FXvimCeOcN #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/w34yWiCNqS
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 3, 2016
@gmh_upsa ya formas parte de mi web https://t.co/isTwDwk9ZH https://t.co/KZbm2odiV8
— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) May 4, 2016
Mr. Garton Ash's introduction is as follows: "Whatever happened to the west? Barack Obama just visited Europe to praise and strengthen the west, urging Britain to stay in the EU and Germany to support the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Reactions in Britain, Germany and the United States suggest that he was praising a ghost. Or at least, a ghost of a former self."
In contrast, Mr. Ben-Meir argues that: "Although President Obama falls in an entirely different category — he restored to the Presidency the dignity and the stature it deserves, and demonstrated unwavering commitment to human rights — he never appreciated the US’ indispensable global role to lead... Instead, he led from behind, creating the perception of weakness and vacillation allowing other powers, especially Russia and Iran, to fill the vacuum he created, raising serious doubts in the minds of America’s allies whether the US is still up to the task."
While Mr. Garton Ash and Mr. Ben-Meir argue by learning from the past of independent countries of the industrial civilization, the first saying that "The real-life alternative is not something more progressive, but rather some ghastly amalgam of Putin, Trump and Le Pen: the Putrumpen," there's a real.life alternative that comes from learning from the emergent future of interdependent countries of the systemic civilization as can be seen in the first update that suggest what to do first.
Second update. Del 90% #GlobalDebout a representantes en la Cumbre de Energía EE.UU - Caribe y Centroamérica. Como los celulares que saltaron (leapfrog) los teléfonos fijos, los votantes queremos un Servicio eléctrico sobresaliente, que salte las redes inteligentes, lo cual se logra con el pensamiento disponible para redactar una Ley Sistémica de Electricidad, que servirá como patrón para una Ley Sistémica de Energía. Debajo de la nota Hacia un futuro sostenible del sistema eléctrico, escrita por Juanjo Gabiña, colocamos el siguiente comentario:
De 90% #GlobalDebout a representantes Cumbre Energía #USA-#Caribe y #Centroamérica https://t.co/FXvimCeOcN #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/VLaONRi4f5— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 3, 2016
Hola Juanjo,
Muy interesante y oportuna tu nota que nos sirve como "feedback." La misma llega cuando el vicepresidente Joe Biden será el anfitrión de la Cumbre de Energía de los EE.UU con el Caribe y Centroamérica, los días 3 y 4 de mayo en Washington, D.C.
Concentrando la atención en el último párrafo de tu nota, cuya última oración versa sobre la "gran importancia para analizar la importancia de las plantas de energía en relación con la seguridad del suministro en el futuro," se centra en los países avanzados que tienen centrales instaladas. Saltando hacia arriba en tu nota, la situación es muy distinta a países con capacidad instalada insuficiente, en los que no sucede que "cualquier interrupción de corriente se debe a la red de transporte y se espera que siempre sea en este nivel." En esos casos el ejemplo de las redes celulares telefónicas es muy valioso porque permiten saltar (leapfrog) las centrales con redes distribuidas.
Pero para dar ese salto se necesita hacer una reestructuración profunda del mercado, como la que aparece en la actualización de la nota [esta misma] "Leadership Answers What to do First," que ahora tiene su primera actualización "Mr. Joe Biden: voters need a global framework change to a systemic energy policy act for maximum social welfare." Dicha actualización tiene una traducción de los tres primeros párrafos que empieza así: "El liderazgo responde a qué hacer primero" y "Primera actualización. Sr. Joe Biden: los votantes necesitan un cambio de marco de referencia global a una Ley Sistémica de Energía para el máximo bienestar social."
First update. Mr. Joe Biden: voters need a global framework change to a systemic energy policy act for maximum social welfare. The update of this post ‘Leadership Answers What to do First’ is intended for Vice President Joe Biden, because of the timely opportunity for voters of the USA, Spain and Dominican Republic that emerged as he will host the U.S.-Caribbean-Central American Energy Summit on May 3 and 4 in Washington, D.C. As designed as an institutional innovation, the purpose of the systemic energy policy act is maximum social welfare. Such purpose is needed to start to fill today´s empty global leadership vacuum with a sharp strategy in the Dominican Republic with a global framework change that will serve for pattern changes elsewhere.
Mr. Joe Biden: Voters need a #SystemicEnergyPolicyAct for maximum social welfare https://t.co/FXvimCeOcN #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/y2b7r8S6Lj— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) May 1, 2016
@gmh_upsa buen contenido el tuyo. Digno de ir a mi web https://t.co/isTwDwk9ZH https://t.co/KZbm2odiV8— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) May 2, 2016
For starters, we are proposing the first three global leaders: USA transforms itself to set the pattern change for other countries unions, Spain transforms itself to set the pattern change for other countries and the Dominican Republic transforms its electric power sector to set the pattern change for other public sectors. Any other countries ready to execute those kinds of transformations please let us know.That is in sharp contrast with the Big Shift global leadership vacuum that have voters facing electoral processes that are so naïve, unreliable and dangerous. Such leadership vacuum is reflected, for example, in the USA, Spain, Brazil, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Greece, Argentina, as well as UK’s Brexit with EU, migrations towards Europe and the USA, as a result of a flawed framework change started (according to Thomas Frank’s assessment explained below) by the Democratic Party two decades ago, which we strongly believe favors global crony capitalism.
This is a reinterpretation of what can be considered a key piece of the global leadership puzzle that we believe is our artistic conclusion of the Harvard Business Review Online blog post The Innovative Coworking Spaces of 15th-Century Italy, written by Piero Formica on April 27, 2016. Piero’s post is a welcome contribution to solve said puzzle based on what emerged in the above mentioned “Second update.” This is what we said about how to address the leadership vacuum:
To get a better understanding why we need framework change, which is supported by the great and timely article The Global Crisis Of Leadership, written by Alon Ben-Meir, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU, we need to consider from the main text of this paper what "Thomas Frank associates... with the emergence of a meritocracy that failed," to which we immediately added that "It failed not by being a meritocracy, but by the money led Groupthink consensus under the primacy of the parts." An additional explanation of the failure comes from the April 21, 2016, article Not All Practice Makes Perfect: "Moving from naive to purposeful practice can dramatically increase performance," by Anders Ericsson & Robert Pool.Such global leadership vacuum is being filled with candidates lacking the needed leadership capacity at every level of society. The reinterpretation that follows goes back to explain why electoral debate processes besides being naïve, are so unreliable and dangerous. While soaring inequality tell us that we are heading to the Second Middle Ages, Piero seems to help us believe that we have the great opportunity to be heading to a Second Renaissance.
To me the idea of a renaissance is very familiar. One of the owners of a company that I worked at during the 90’s and until 2010, the late José Vicini (of Italian origin of course) saw in me a Renaissance man. The late management guru Peter Drucker would have said that the renaissance was the result of the third information revolution brought by the printing press, being a precedent to the fourth information revolution renaissance brought to us by the microprocessor. The most probable self-explanation comes in a blog post of April 11, 2012 [1], which says:
A very attractive insight on an issue of the IEEE Power Engineering Review, published more than 30 years ago, started to change my life for the better. Showing “A New PES Award” in the issue’s cover, you can also find in it the above engineering concept. Inside that issue is the story “Renaissance Man: Uno Lamm, ASEA’s ‘Retired’ Electrotechnical Director, Leads a Remarkably Active and Inquisitive Life.”
The insight in that story that really altered my life was his example “… there’s the opportunity to work on ideas quite outside one’s owned special field of expertise. I can then enjoy the enthusiasm built on partial ignorance which, as you know, is greater and fuller than any other enthusiasm.”In my current process, I am using Google’s Blogger for production of quality collaborations [2] and Twitter for distribution with a few valuable citizens so far retweeting (and giving feedback) those collaborations. I learned of the existence of Piero’s article because John Hagel gave a 'like' on Linkedin to Heather McGowan's suggestion "We need a return to the #renaissance to create #neogeneralists and #scaleable #learning John Hagel Chris Shipley."
In their website edgeperspective.com, John Hagel and John Seely Brown say that "We developed the ‘Shift Index,’ a new economic indicator that suggests the current recession is masking long-term competitive challenges for U.S. businesses,” which they introduce as:
Corporate returns are under pressure from far more than the recession. The patterns we’ve uncovered span decades and deeply affect even the highest performing companies, with the single greatest driver of these challenges, and indeed future opportunities, being our underlying digital infrastructure. Regardless of when the economy shifts back to an upturn, the long-term implications for continued erosion of return-on-assets will continue.We suggest that such Big Shift can be understood as the result of the transition from Alvin Toffler's Second Wave (an industrial civilization that must include the earlier developments that led to the industrial revolution) to the Third Wave (what we have been calling the systemic civilization). A thought experiment thesis on the need for scalable learning suggested by Hagel and Seely Brown would have the Big Shift as a change in waves: accordingly, the Renaissance as a transition from the First Wave to the Second Wave would be a precedent to the current renaissance transition from the Second Wave to the Third Wave.
The above is one way in which Piero’s contribution fits well into the leadership vacuum puzzle. Regarding his selling point, that mutually reinforce each other, besides “Turning ideas into action,” that we aim here to produce with proposals of “speech acts,” we will deal below with the selling points “Facilitating the convergence of art and science” and “Fostering dialogue.”
After reading Piero’s article, I went back to Linkedin to see what Heather had to say on the issue. To our surprise we should partially love (more below) her most recent post Education Is Not The Answer (Part 1), whose introduction says:
The notion of education implies that there’s a path towards a definitive, finished state wherein an individual has become “educated.” But in a world of accelerated change, with rapid disruption cycles in industry and with rising automation, that end state of being “educated” is just no longer meaningful. An individual must have learning agility - the ability to learn, adapt, and apply in quick cycles. Part One of this piece discusses the learning-over-knowing imperative, and Part Two will examine the specifics of learning agility.Part One’s introduction aspect fits quite well with a new strong argument: the Democratic Party meritocracy’s failure as a result of a mistaken framework change which relied on educated experts that served as pattern change for left leaning political parties all over the world that generated said global leadership vacuum. As given in the @gmh_upsa paper mentioned above, that argument says that: “about the main difference between representative and direct democracy can be associated with complexity and simplicity respectively. After I heard Thomas Frank talk about complexity, we search his book and found this two paragraphs, the first of which is under the section “Consensus of the willing:”
All the things mentioned so far – the fascination with complexity, the desire to preserve existing players, the genuflection before expertise – all of them arise from one of the deepest wellsprings of liberal thought and action: the longing for a grand consensus of professional class that never seems to come.While we agree with Heather that we are under a Big Shift where “Education in Not the answer,” Education may well again become the answer in the future as a result of the selling point “Facilitating the convergence of art and science,” as suggested, for example, in the “Ninth update. Countries must leap into Hagel's electoral strategy of trajectory on Handy's curve of systemic civilization [3].” The Big Shift could be seen from one civilization curve to another, for example, after the framework change from the Fordism of the industrial civilization to Jobsism of the systemic civilization. This is where ‘Fostering Dialogue’ comes in, where Piero says:
A forgotten school of left-wing historians used to argue that the regulatory state began not with public-minded statesmen cracking the whip and taming big biz, but just the opposite – with business leaders deliberately inviting federal regulation as a way to build barriers to entry and give their cartels the protection of law. Long-ago giants of steel, tobacco, telephones, and meatpacking all welcome federal regulation because of the effects it would have on smaller competitors. That old style of regulation brought ancillary benefits to the public, of course: better food, a standardized phone system. But its main objects were stability for existing businesses and guarantee profits in perpetuity.”
Today, we often recognize the need for these kinds of illuminating conversations without really making space for them in our organizations, either because organizations are too afraid of conflict or because people are simply too busy to try to expand their understanding of each other. But Renaissance workshops offer proof of how important it is for collaborative workplaces to draw on sources of opposing ideas and controversial opinions.With regard to those kinds of ‘illuminating conversation,’ Verganti responded with "Jose Antonio, thanks for your reference to Otto Scharmer, indeed one of our most precious inspiration," the following paragraph of my comments to another of his blog post that says:
In addition, by using Otto Scharmer’s “Four Fields of Conversation,” next is a reinterpretation that values Verganti’s four step process insights, based on the difference between the approaches of art of ideation and those of the art of criticism. The art of ideation approaches is set in the third field under reflexive dialogue and the primacy of the parts, while the art of criticism is set in the fourth field under generative dialogue and the primacy of the whole.[1] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, @gmh_upsa blog post, April 13, 2012.
[2] Roberto Verganti, Harvard Business Review Online, Quantity versus quality in collaborations, June 15, 2011.
[3] Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, @gmh_upsa blog post, October 2, 2015.
[4] Roberto Verganti, Harvard Business Review, "The Innovative Power of Criticism," January-February 2016.
--------------------
The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.
Leadership Answers What to do First
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 16th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
I agree with Warren Causey’s article Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG: The Question is What to do First that “the consensus is correct: ‘fundamental changes are inevitable… the paradigm is going to have to change.’” M.I.T. professor Fred C. Schweppe, and his research team, knew that in the 1980s. The EWPC effort that extended Schweppes work is about facing those inevitable fundamental changes, as can be seen in the EWPC article The Electricity Revolution, which is summarized as:
“Warren Causey is [also] reporting a technological revolution in the power industry, which is ahead of legislative and regulatory uncertainty and is heading for a very costly dead-end. Utilities in the US and Europe are trying to extend their obsolete business model of winning rate case to the regulators. Customers, [the general market] and society should not have to pay for such large value destruction, by adopting the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm that removes the uncertainty.”
The most important reason why the existing paradigm – the system - is failing is because of architecture and design flaws. Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark W. Maier, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” have a descriptive heuristics that explains what happens: “In architecting a new [the paradigm in this case] program all the serious mistakes are made in the first day.” Leaving out utilities native loads, Open Transmission Access of EPAct 92 was such a serious mistake, which initiated the incremental path of the California crisis, the 2003 blackout, etc., that have taken us to today’s mess of costly and complex capacity markets, NERC mandatory requirements, etc.
Looking at the mistake from another perspective, legislators and regulators were trying to get efficiency from wholesale, when the breakthrough paradigm is all about business model innovations at retail to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control. Such breakthrough is enabled by the Third Industrial (communications) Revolution. Most investments to develop the resources of the demand side will be customers’ investments, that need to be well coordinated to produce large savings. Such coordination should be the result of competition of innovations among open market Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions and the development of the smart grid transportation utilities, instead of monopoly Intelligent Utility Enterprise/Smart Grid solutions.
In the EWPC article Slicing the Last of the Regulated Monopolies (an update of an article with the same title by Lester P. Silverman, a director of McKinsey & Company, on The New York Times of July 21st, 1996.) it is very clear that at the outset “‘The wires business - the transmission and distribution of electricity - will remain regulated but will be operated by [transportation only] utilities … with access to the wires open to all [generators, retailers and customers] ... Many of today’s electric utilities will be little more than regulated wires companies, but some will have grown by acquiring neighboring wires and other [gas and/or water] operations... The energy service business [under Second Generation Retailers], which involves the packaging of energy and other services [to integrate the resources of the demand side to power system is the key to the breakthrough.]"’
Why Silverman’s vision didn’t happen? We have a strong case of lack of leadership to enable a robust system that protect consumers from supply disruptions and unfair pricing. Even though, as Warren says “there still are a lot of questions about what to do first … according to most experts – Congress failed to so in an Energy Policy Act (EPAct) adopted in December,” the real make or break answer is all about legislative and regulatory leadership, which I now discuss.
In the chapter on Habit 2, of “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” Steven R. Covey tells a story about the difference between Leadership and Management to explain that leadership – “What are the things I want to accomplish?” – is the first question to ask, while management is the second question “How can I best accomplish certain things.”
Covey wrote “You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers [the utilities] cutting their way through the jungle with machetes. They’re the producers, the problem solvers. They’re cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.”
“The managers [the legislators and regulators] are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policies and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs [rate cases to be won by utilities] for machetes wielders.”
“The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, surveys the entire situation [see more than 110 articles in the EWPC Blog], and yells, “Wrong jungle.”
“But how do the busy [Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG], efficient producers and managers often respond? ‘Shut up! [José Antonio] We’re making progress.’”
So, the simple answer to “What to do First” is that the power industry should get out of the wrong jungle and adopt the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. The controlled market transportation utility with their regulated responsibility to transport will be aiming for ultraquality transportation and thus providing “the benefit of localizing disturbances and fragmenting responsibility and expense” with those of the non-real-time open market.
The modernization of the nationwide grid will then be done under a least cost transportation (tightly integrated T&D) expansion plan, considering the investments, operation, maintenance and outage costs forecasts of the whole power system including the value chain (generation, retail, customer) of the open market. The regulatory compact will shift from the utility obligation to serve to the utility obligation to transport in the closed market. The difference between the two will be demand response as a condition of service in the open market.
So, what to do first? Forgetting today’s mess, and starting from a clean slate from the ‘previous, historic paradigm,” as Warren calls it, the legislative and regulatory bodies need the vision and the courage to separate the regulated wire business, from the competitive retail and wholesale businesses of the open market. To go forward, they should take into account all the great insights that have emerged on EWPC market architecture and design paradigm, during the discussions on EnergyPulse and EnergyBlogs.com of the past 28 and 7 month, respectively. EWPC provides the required leadership to reduce the legislative and regulatory uncertainty to acceptable levels.
As Warren says “the next 10 to 15 years will see mayor changes – perhaps classified as upheavals by future historians…,” if the FERC, the administration and Congress of the US don’t take the leadership challenge head on, and produce a EWPC based EPAct to control the destiny of the global power industry, then as Jack Welch and Noel Tichy wrote, in their lessons in mastering change, “someone else will.”
lunes, abril 14, 2008
Giving Thanks to Ken Silverstein
Thanks to Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in Chief, California like problems disappear, as transmission tightly integrated with physical distribution becomes transportation that gets help from rational rationing when supplies are short to produce ultraquality power system service. The jury has made the final decision, “retail competition got its legs,” as electricity is: 1) it is a truly tradable commodity on the value chain generation, retail and customer; and 2) it is also a natural monopoly for the transportation (integrated T&D) of the commodity under a regulatory compact with a responsibility to transport.
Giving Thanks to Ken Silverstein
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 14th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Ken Silverstein concluded his April 3rd, 2008, post on EnergyBlogs.com as follows: “To be sure, the columns both deserve and need to be critiqued. They are read by a wide swath of interests and let me assure you that I remain steadfastly independent – otherwise the whole concept underlying our efforts would be meaningless. Obviously there are constraints with respect to time and space. As such, the analyses may be incomplete, have voids and even errors. But that’s why we give the readers their forum, as well to provide an outlet to have a respectful, stimulating discussion.”
In response, I started what I perceived as a respectful, stimulating discussion, by writing the GMH article Asking Ken Silverstein for Help, whose first paragraph says: “Your post The Mission Statement is very objective, interesting and useful. All of your posts have enlightened my curiosity on good journalism. I think that my humble work on electricity without price controls (EWPC) deserves your help to be “read by a wide swath of interests.” To get a quick idea, please consider the GMH essay Electricity for the New Millennium.”
Ken response was very timely with a private email. Ken wrote first “I’m not sure I understand what you might be asking. But, pls explain the best you can.” Then after I explained, he wrote “Jose, I’ve written a number of stories on deregulation and restructured energy markets both in the retail and wholesale realm. I’m not sure I have anything new to add to the discussion. Ken.” As readers will see below, his lack of response turned out very helpful, when I ask for his best article on the debate.
But, it is fair to say that in the GMH article I had a different in perspective from Ken’s approach as he stated very clearly that “I’m not trying to appeal to or anger any one constituency.” My reaction was “I don’t understand it because, to me, it contradicts what you affirmed about dialogues in your post Journalism 101: “… it is my most sincere intention to be able to reach readers and to make them thirst for more information -- to, in essence, be a catalyst for more dialogue.” My point is that now people can learn from the emergent future [using unconventional wisdom], via generative dialogues that expose very rich conflicts, that might anger [non authentic leadership] constituencies, such as can be seen in the EWPC article The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”
In fact, what Ken wrote on December 11, 2006 in the energybiz insider™ article “Restructuring Debate Still Rages,” is a very helpful lead that confirms what he said in his second message (I hope that those are still his perceptions): "Critics question... whether there can ever truly be a free market in electricity trading. They argue that the transmission system is simply too constrained, which provides opportunities for market manipulation. When supplies are short, producers can exert too much influence and drive up prices - like they did in California in 2000-2001. They reason that the jury is still out as to whether electricity is truly a tradable commodity, or a natural monopoly.”
As EWPC emerged at the beginning of last year, the jury has made the final decision, “retail competition got its legs,” as electricity is both: 1) it is a truly tradable commodity on the value chain generation, retail and customer; and 2) it is also a natural monopoly for the transportation (integrated T&D) of the commodity under a regulatory compact with a responsibility to transport. As a result, California like problems disappear, as transmission tightly integrated with physical distribution becomes transportation that gets help from rational rationing when supplies are short to produce ultraquality power system service.
Ken adds: "Despite strong sentiments on both sides of the debate (EWPC is a third side that was not considered), it is [not] too late to reverse directions in the wholesale [and retail] market [under EWPC T&D integration is a reverse move for one side of the old debate, and is a forward move in the open market EWPC - see below - in both sides of the old debate that is heading into a very costly dead-end] given the existing investments in unregulated generation and the sales efforts built on that. The goal is then to create a fair market that enforces equal access to the grid and allows big [and small] buyers a choice of supplier. RTO [T means transportation] are one mechanism by which to achieve that goal while enforcing existing [ much less complex] laws [and regulations] that ensures grid access is another."
The EWPC article The Electricity Revolution summary says that "Warren Causey is reporting a technological revolution in the power industry, which is ahead of legislative and regulatory uncertainty and is heading for a very costly dead-end. Utilities in the US and Europe are trying to extend their obsolete business model of winning rate case to the regulators. Customers and society should not have to pay for such large value destruction, by adopting the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm that removes the uncertainty."
Such a revolution is based on a breakthrough that will help us shift our paradigms permanently, which was not considered in the old debate: demand integration to power system planning, operation and control. Such demand integration will be enabled by a least cost expansion planning of the integrated transportation system and by letting every customer purchase service plans of the electrical commodity in the open market that best fits (higher value and/or lower costs) their investments (for demand response, energy efficiency, etc.), making electricity development the largest social welfare possible.
Giving Thanks to Ken Silverstein
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 14th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Ken Silverstein concluded his April 3rd, 2008, post on EnergyBlogs.com as follows: “To be sure, the columns both deserve and need to be critiqued. They are read by a wide swath of interests and let me assure you that I remain steadfastly independent – otherwise the whole concept underlying our efforts would be meaningless. Obviously there are constraints with respect to time and space. As such, the analyses may be incomplete, have voids and even errors. But that’s why we give the readers their forum, as well to provide an outlet to have a respectful, stimulating discussion.”
In response, I started what I perceived as a respectful, stimulating discussion, by writing the GMH article Asking Ken Silverstein for Help, whose first paragraph says: “Your post The Mission Statement is very objective, interesting and useful. All of your posts have enlightened my curiosity on good journalism. I think that my humble work on electricity without price controls (EWPC) deserves your help to be “read by a wide swath of interests.” To get a quick idea, please consider the GMH essay Electricity for the New Millennium.”
Ken response was very timely with a private email. Ken wrote first “I’m not sure I understand what you might be asking. But, pls explain the best you can.” Then after I explained, he wrote “Jose, I’ve written a number of stories on deregulation and restructured energy markets both in the retail and wholesale realm. I’m not sure I have anything new to add to the discussion. Ken.” As readers will see below, his lack of response turned out very helpful, when I ask for his best article on the debate.
But, it is fair to say that in the GMH article I had a different in perspective from Ken’s approach as he stated very clearly that “I’m not trying to appeal to or anger any one constituency.” My reaction was “I don’t understand it because, to me, it contradicts what you affirmed about dialogues in your post Journalism 101: “… it is my most sincere intention to be able to reach readers and to make them thirst for more information -- to, in essence, be a catalyst for more dialogue.” My point is that now people can learn from the emergent future [using unconventional wisdom], via generative dialogues that expose very rich conflicts, that might anger [non authentic leadership] constituencies, such as can be seen in the EWPC article The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.”
In fact, what Ken wrote on December 11, 2006 in the energybiz insider™ article “Restructuring Debate Still Rages,” is a very helpful lead that confirms what he said in his second message (I hope that those are still his perceptions): "Critics question... whether there can ever truly be a free market in electricity trading. They argue that the transmission system is simply too constrained, which provides opportunities for market manipulation. When supplies are short, producers can exert too much influence and drive up prices - like they did in California in 2000-2001. They reason that the jury is still out as to whether electricity is truly a tradable commodity, or a natural monopoly.”
As EWPC emerged at the beginning of last year, the jury has made the final decision, “retail competition got its legs,” as electricity is both: 1) it is a truly tradable commodity on the value chain generation, retail and customer; and 2) it is also a natural monopoly for the transportation (integrated T&D) of the commodity under a regulatory compact with a responsibility to transport. As a result, California like problems disappear, as transmission tightly integrated with physical distribution becomes transportation that gets help from rational rationing when supplies are short to produce ultraquality power system service.
Ken adds: "Despite strong sentiments on both sides of the debate (EWPC is a third side that was not considered), it is [not] too late to reverse directions in the wholesale [and retail] market [under EWPC T&D integration is a reverse move for one side of the old debate, and is a forward move in the open market EWPC - see below - in both sides of the old debate that is heading into a very costly dead-end] given the existing investments in unregulated generation and the sales efforts built on that. The goal is then to create a fair market that enforces equal access to the grid and allows big [and small] buyers a choice of supplier. RTO [T means transportation] are one mechanism by which to achieve that goal while enforcing existing [ much less complex] laws [and regulations] that ensures grid access is another."
The EWPC article The Electricity Revolution summary says that "Warren Causey is reporting a technological revolution in the power industry, which is ahead of legislative and regulatory uncertainty and is heading for a very costly dead-end. Utilities in the US and Europe are trying to extend their obsolete business model of winning rate case to the regulators. Customers and society should not have to pay for such large value destruction, by adopting the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm that removes the uncertainty."
Such a revolution is based on a breakthrough that will help us shift our paradigms permanently, which was not considered in the old debate: demand integration to power system planning, operation and control. Such demand integration will be enabled by a least cost expansion planning of the integrated transportation system and by letting every customer purchase service plans of the electrical commodity in the open market that best fits (higher value and/or lower costs) their investments (for demand response, energy efficiency, etc.), making electricity development the largest social welfare possible.
jueves, abril 10, 2008
The Electricity Revolution
Warren Causey is reporting a technological revolution in the power industry, which is ahead of legislative and regulatory uncertainty and is heading for a very costly dead-end. Utilities in the US and Europe are trying to extend their obsolete business model of winning rate case to the regulators. Customers and society should not have to pay for such large value destruction, by adopting the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm that removes the uncertainty.
The Electricity Revolution
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 10th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Warren Causey’s Reinventing the U.S. Utility Blog is a great source of the power industry insider information. In his very illuminating recent article We're on the cusp of another tech revolution, Warren writes that “These new systems, one of which is in pilots at six U.S. utilities will enable the next step, utilities interacting directly with customers—rather than through a third-party—to reduce consumption.”
These new systems are very close to what Fred C. Schweppe and his team at M.I.T. proposed TWENTY YEARS AGO, as the Spot Price Regulated Energy Marketplace (SPBEM), in their 1988 book “Spot Pricing of Electricity.” Schweppe knew that such a step was not to be the end-state of the power industry, so legislative and regulatory uncertainty will remain in place after those systems, while extending unnecessarily the obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator.
EWPC is an extension, and a natural evolution, of the SPBEM that emerged as the end-state of the power industry for the Third Industrial Revolution that we are already experimenting. As part of the greater effort of demand integration to power system planning, operations and control, EWPC takes care of the retail marketing barriers of the present regulation that were not considered by Schweppe and that moved me to write the EWPC article Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction, whose summary reads as follows:
As one of the problems, excessive marketing costs are identified by Marty Agius, under today’s regulations, which make utilities and regulators unable to add customer value as will be done under EWPC. Added to his arguments is the large value creation waiting to happen with the emergence of business model innovations, to be develop by retail marketers (2GRs) to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control, since market research doesn’t work yet.
What the above means is that the incremental development of the power industry, already overdue for a large reengineering project, is going directly into a very costly dead-end (not for the utilities vested interests, but) for the customers and society in general. Comparing the US to those of Europe, Warren adds that “U.K. utilities and retailers are competitive and apparently being successful at it. The large retailers have hundreds of thousands, even millions, of customers in some cases.”
So it seems that the U.K. is getting closer to EWPC, but there are important differences, as can be seen in the article EWPC is NOT the UK Model summary that states that “In EWPC there are 8 possible End-State (UK was developed on 4), only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: 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." Europe, however, is not the UK. It seems that some of the utilities like the US model better. A hint on the differences can be found in the EWPC article Utilities vs. Neelie Kroes.
In his article, Warren adds: “The technological complexities involved in all of this are immense,” as market complexities of the power industry are still undefined everywhere “… because regulators and legislators haven’t yet told utilities what they plan to impose.” The EWPC market architecture and design paradigm has been developed to reduce both market and technology complexity, where complexity can be reduced.
EWPC emerged at the beginning of 2007, by separating market vs. market competition from company vs. company competition. The result is that the utility remaining will be a transportation only utility that will have a responsibility to transport compact that will be financed by tolls. To get demand (that used to be exogenous) integrated to power system planning, operation and control, a new breed of Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions will compete for market share.
EWPC market architecture and design adoption will solve the main legislative and regulatory uncertainty issue. I have no doubt whatsoever, that after understanding EWPC, regulators and legislators will tell utilities that they plan to impose it. Just like the telegraph companies, utilities as we know them “… won’t survive what the world is about to throw at them.”
The Electricity Revolution
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 10th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
Warren Causey’s Reinventing the U.S. Utility Blog is a great source of the power industry insider information. In his very illuminating recent article We're on the cusp of another tech revolution, Warren writes that “These new systems, one of which is in pilots at six U.S. utilities will enable the next step, utilities interacting directly with customers—rather than through a third-party—to reduce consumption.”
These new systems are very close to what Fred C. Schweppe and his team at M.I.T. proposed TWENTY YEARS AGO, as the Spot Price Regulated Energy Marketplace (SPBEM), in their 1988 book “Spot Pricing of Electricity.” Schweppe knew that such a step was not to be the end-state of the power industry, so legislative and regulatory uncertainty will remain in place after those systems, while extending unnecessarily the obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator.
EWPC is an extension, and a natural evolution, of the SPBEM that emerged as the end-state of the power industry for the Third Industrial Revolution that we are already experimenting. As part of the greater effort of demand integration to power system planning, operations and control, EWPC takes care of the retail marketing barriers of the present regulation that were not considered by Schweppe and that moved me to write the EWPC article Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction, whose summary reads as follows:
As one of the problems, excessive marketing costs are identified by Marty Agius, under today’s regulations, which make utilities and regulators unable to add customer value as will be done under EWPC. Added to his arguments is the large value creation waiting to happen with the emergence of business model innovations, to be develop by retail marketers (2GRs) to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control, since market research doesn’t work yet.
What the above means is that the incremental development of the power industry, already overdue for a large reengineering project, is going directly into a very costly dead-end (not for the utilities vested interests, but) for the customers and society in general. Comparing the US to those of Europe, Warren adds that “U.K. utilities and retailers are competitive and apparently being successful at it. The large retailers have hundreds of thousands, even millions, of customers in some cases.”
So it seems that the U.K. is getting closer to EWPC, but there are important differences, as can be seen in the article EWPC is NOT the UK Model summary that states that “In EWPC there are 8 possible End-State (UK was developed on 4), only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: 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." Europe, however, is not the UK. It seems that some of the utilities like the US model better. A hint on the differences can be found in the EWPC article Utilities vs. Neelie Kroes.
In his article, Warren adds: “The technological complexities involved in all of this are immense,” as market complexities of the power industry are still undefined everywhere “… because regulators and legislators haven’t yet told utilities what they plan to impose.” The EWPC market architecture and design paradigm has been developed to reduce both market and technology complexity, where complexity can be reduced.
EWPC emerged at the beginning of 2007, by separating market vs. market competition from company vs. company competition. The result is that the utility remaining will be a transportation only utility that will have a responsibility to transport compact that will be financed by tolls. To get demand (that used to be exogenous) integrated to power system planning, operation and control, a new breed of Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions will compete for market share.
EWPC market architecture and design adoption will solve the main legislative and regulatory uncertainty issue. I have no doubt whatsoever, that after understanding EWPC, regulators and legislators will tell utilities that they plan to impose it. Just like the telegraph companies, utilities as we know them “… won’t survive what the world is about to throw at them.”
miércoles, abril 09, 2008
Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction
Excessive marketing costs are identified by Marty Agius, under today’s regulations, which make utilities and regulators unable to add customer value as will be done under EWPC. Added to his arguments is the large value creation waiting to happen with the emergence of business model innovations, to be develop by retail marketers (2GRs) to integrate demand to power system planning, operation and control, since market research doesn’t work yet.
Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 9th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
On 12.21.05 I wrote the following under the article Free All Wisconsin Utilities to Make Money Helping Customers Save Energy:
In response to the above, Len Gould 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.” As can be seen next, Len’s opinion (which he should change as soon as possible) can now be classified as the first and foremost of the many IMEUC False Facts.
Marty Agius, Executive Vice President, SKM Group, article Relevant issues affecting the utility industry today shows very clearly that utilities need to implement retail marketing, but the market architecture and design in place are totally flawed. Marty shows that utilities and the regulator controlled market rules are generating immense value destruction with excessive marketing costs because:
-- Marketing of products and services need to utilize pinpoint targeting
-- Public service commissions want all audiences treated equally
-- To enhance shareholder value, the right audience needs to be reached with a relevant message
Even more important to value creation, as can be seen in the EWPC article Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration (please hit the link to read this highly recommended article), is that “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.”
Further, as can be seen in the EWPC article EWPC Leadership (w/o links), “…the EWPC breakthrough … brings absolute clarity and direction to enable a cultural shift to the power industry of the third industrial revolution. Demand Integration by 2GRs result in large coordination savings for society as a whole, both in customers' multiyear investments and operation costs...”
As a conclusion, it is now very clear that after a lot of work, Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) emerged at the beginning of 2007 as the winning market architecture and design paradigm on the market vs. market competition. For a quick introduction, EWPC is contrasted with the he old paradigm in the GMH essay Electricity for the New Millennium.
Two excerpts from the essay on the new paradigm reveal, first, “In the Third Industrial Revolution that we are living today … energy costs are becoming prohibited and retail customers' transactions costs are going down year after year. The regulator as an intermediary is now an unnecessary overhead, as customers' perception on electricity's value vary widely. Both of those changes are enabling a new paradigm that allows the liberalization of electricity markets, so customers have freedom of choice, fair and efficient prices, while the power system is planned, operated and controlled effectively with the response of the customers enabled by technology.
Second, “under the breakthrough EWPC market architecture and design paradigm, "... the layers of overhead of both utilities and the regulator are removed," and a new breed of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR compete at their own risk (neither at the ratepayer, nor taxpayer) in several worldwide market segments trying to develop business model innovations, as business do in many other industries.
Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 9th, 2008.
Copyright © 2008 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.
On 12.21.05 I wrote the following under the article Free All Wisconsin Utilities to Make Money Helping Customers Save Energy:
The architecture of a "true" deregulated model is centered on independent retail-marketers, and a new value chain, whose mission is to segment customers according to electricity value added services, which customers can select. The value chain is wholesale, retail, end customer, leaving the distributor as a pure transporter charging a toll. Retail-marketers then take control of the strategic Enterprise Solutions, developing innovative business models. As each customer selects what he perceives is the maximum value addition, the economy as a whole maximizes welfare.
This is just a glimpse of my insights, design, research and, humbled observations of the past 10 years. By no means am I saying that retail markets development will be easy. No; there is a lot of work needed to make it happen. Most investment in energy efficiency needs to look to the next 5 years, away from the Continuity scenario. I will be very happy if one place in the world decides to initiate the experiments required for the development of new business models on retail marketing, and I wish to be
there.
In response to the above, Len Gould 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.” As can be seen next, Len’s opinion (which he should change as soon as possible) can now be classified as the first and foremost of the many IMEUC False Facts.
Marty Agius, Executive Vice President, SKM Group, article Relevant issues affecting the utility industry today shows very clearly that utilities need to implement retail marketing, but the market architecture and design in place are totally flawed. Marty shows that utilities and the regulator controlled market rules are generating immense value destruction with excessive marketing costs because:
-- Marketing of products and services need to utilize pinpoint targeting
-- Public service commissions want all audiences treated equally
-- To enhance shareholder value, the right audience needs to be reached with a relevant message
Even more important to value creation, as can be seen in the EWPC article Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration (please hit the link to read this highly recommended article), is that “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.”
Further, as can be seen in the EWPC article EWPC Leadership (w/o links), “…the EWPC breakthrough … brings absolute clarity and direction to enable a cultural shift to the power industry of the third industrial revolution. Demand Integration by 2GRs result in large coordination savings for society as a whole, both in customers' multiyear investments and operation costs...”
As a conclusion, it is now very clear that after a lot of work, Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) emerged at the beginning of 2007 as the winning market architecture and design paradigm on the market vs. market competition. For a quick introduction, EWPC is contrasted with the he old paradigm in the GMH essay Electricity for the New Millennium.
Two excerpts from the essay on the new paradigm reveal, first, “In the Third Industrial Revolution that we are living today … energy costs are becoming prohibited and retail customers' transactions costs are going down year after year. The regulator as an intermediary is now an unnecessary overhead, as customers' perception on electricity's value vary widely. Both of those changes are enabling a new paradigm that allows the liberalization of electricity markets, so customers have freedom of choice, fair and efficient prices, while the power system is planned, operated and controlled effectively with the response of the customers enabled by technology.
Second, “under the breakthrough EWPC market architecture and design paradigm, "... the layers of overhead of both utilities and the regulator are removed," and a new breed of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR compete at their own risk (neither at the ratepayer, nor taxpayer) in several worldwide market segments trying to develop business model innovations, as business do in many other industries.
martes, abril 08, 2008
Dr. Molina Morillo Quiere No Tener Razón
Original del periódico EL DIA Quiero no tener razón, en Mis Buenos Días, por el Dr. Rafael Molina Morillo
El señor José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D., consultor sistémico, me manifiesta su desacuerdo con mi columna de ayer, en la que yo expresaba mi desazón por el poco interés que, según la encuesta Hamilton/EL DIA, pone el dominicano a los temas de la corrupción y la educación.
“Su preocupación de que ‘como nación, no nos salva ni el medico chino’ –me escribe- puede ser atinada por muchas circunstancias, pero humildemente no creo que se deba llegar a esas conclusiones al interpretar la encuesta a la que usted se refiere.
“Creo –prosigue- que su ‘… razonamiento de que al 98% de los dominicanos la educación les importa un carajo’, no se desprende de dicha encuesta. Aunque ha sido el sector productivo quien ha llevado la voz cantante en el reclamo de la prioridad de la educación, entiendo que el pueblo dominicano sí le da importancia a la corrupción y le presta atención a la educación dentro de los 11 problemas cruciales que le afecta. Estimo que para salvar la nación lo que hace falta es desarrollar una masa crítica de verdaderos líderes en todos los estratos de la población.
“Sugiero que los líderes verdaderos del sector privado necesitan apoyar a los líderes verdaderos del sector público para que tomen las decisiones correctas de políticas que apoyen el desarrollo económico y reduzcan la pobreza. Es por eso que sugiero que sean los sectores productivos los que se encarguen de la educación aplicada en liderazgo y seleccionen la reforma del sector de electricidad como la fuente de las más grandes oportunidades latentes para el desarrollo del país.
“Un consenso nacional de alto nivel en los sectores productivos, sin esperar a que concluya la campaña electoral, puede ser la fuente que ayude al acceso de dicha cuenta del milenio para implantar el cambio cultural requerido. Es de esa forma como nuestras creencias (el médico chino que llevamos cada uno dentro de nuestras mentes) nos puede salvar.”
(Hasta aquí la carta de Vanderhorst. Yo quisiera que él tenga razón).
(r.molina@codetel.net.do).
El señor José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D., consultor sistémico, me manifiesta su desacuerdo con mi columna de ayer, en la que yo expresaba mi desazón por el poco interés que, según la encuesta Hamilton/EL DIA, pone el dominicano a los temas de la corrupción y la educación.
“Su preocupación de que ‘como nación, no nos salva ni el medico chino’ –me escribe- puede ser atinada por muchas circunstancias, pero humildemente no creo que se deba llegar a esas conclusiones al interpretar la encuesta a la que usted se refiere.
“Creo –prosigue- que su ‘… razonamiento de que al 98% de los dominicanos la educación les importa un carajo’, no se desprende de dicha encuesta. Aunque ha sido el sector productivo quien ha llevado la voz cantante en el reclamo de la prioridad de la educación, entiendo que el pueblo dominicano sí le da importancia a la corrupción y le presta atención a la educación dentro de los 11 problemas cruciales que le afecta. Estimo que para salvar la nación lo que hace falta es desarrollar una masa crítica de verdaderos líderes en todos los estratos de la población.
“Sugiero que los líderes verdaderos del sector privado necesitan apoyar a los líderes verdaderos del sector público para que tomen las decisiones correctas de políticas que apoyen el desarrollo económico y reduzcan la pobreza. Es por eso que sugiero que sean los sectores productivos los que se encarguen de la educación aplicada en liderazgo y seleccionen la reforma del sector de electricidad como la fuente de las más grandes oportunidades latentes para el desarrollo del país.
“Un consenso nacional de alto nivel en los sectores productivos, sin esperar a que concluya la campaña electoral, puede ser la fuente que ayude al acceso de dicha cuenta del milenio para implantar el cambio cultural requerido. Es de esa forma como nuestras creencias (el médico chino que llevamos cada uno dentro de nuestras mentes) nos puede salvar.”
(Hasta aquí la carta de Vanderhorst. Yo quisiera que él tenga razón).
(r.molina@codetel.net.do).
lunes, abril 07, 2008
Electricidad y Educación Aumentarán Poder Adquisitivo Población
© 2008. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
El titular del periódico EL DIA sobre la encuesta Hamilton/EL DIA llama poderosamente la atención: “Corrupción sólo preocupa a un 5% de la población: Apenas 2 de cada cien piensan que educación es un problema prioritario.”
Es importante buscar las creencias en que descansan esas estadísticas y mucho más el diseño de la encuesta. Mirando la noticia bajo la firma de José P. Monegro, salen a relucir tres suposiciones importantes que enmarcan la pregunta: la pregunta misma, las posibles respuestas y el hecho que la población debía identificar una o dos de sus muchas preocupaciones.
La pregunta fue ¿Cuál de estos asuntos, cree usted, que es el más importante a ser tratado por el próximo gobierno? Todos sabemos que el próximo gobierno deberá tratar mucho más de un asunto.
Como tanto las respuestas “otro (especifique) y “no sabe” no aportaron nada en la encuesta, puede decirse que el diseño aporta que son solamente 11 las grandes preocupaciones de la población dominicana. La respuesta entonces es que el gobierno debería concentrarse en resolver no uno, o dos (como aparece en la encuesta como opciones combinadas), sino todos esos 11 problemas, algunos a corto plazo y otros a largo plazo, iniciando los esfuerzos simultáneamente. Es evidente que energía, agua y educación son tres grandes problemas a largo plazo que facilitarán minimizar eventualmente los de corto plazo.
Es evidente que el diseño de la encuesta influenció a que la población le diera mayor énfasis a los problemas de corto plazo “vinculados a la economía personal,” como dice Monegro. Dado que la creación de fuentes de trabajo y la reducción de los precios de los productos de primera necesidad tienen un impacto crucial e inmediato en el poder adquisitivo de las familias, no es de extrañarse que hayan sido seleccionadas como la primera y la segunda preocupación.
Dado que el gobierno ha invertido de manera excesiva en subsidios que no son sostenibles en energía, no es de extrañar que se haya invertido el problema de la electricidad (reducción de los apagones en 6% ) y la mejora de la salud (mejorar hospitales y servicios de salud 10%) que también afectan el poder adquisitivo inmediato.
Dado también que con poder adquisitivo se puede acceder a la educación privada y que los resultados de la educación toman mucho tiempo en madurar, la educación está lejos de ser un problema de subsistencia cuando es comparado con las otras 10 preocupaciones.
Cabe preguntarse por ejemplo: 1) Está el 97% de la población está recibiendo agua potable en cantidad, entrega y calidad en estos momentos? 2) Está el 96% de la población conforme en no controlar la inmigración haitiana?
Lo que no es evidente es que la solución de los problemas de largo plazo, de energía y educación, resuelven los problemas del poder adquisitivo de la población. Posponer la solución de esos dos problemas cruciales seguirá sumiéndonos en la pobreza. Con educación y poder adquisitivo es mucho más fácil resolver el problema de la corrupción.
El titular del periódico EL DIA sobre la encuesta Hamilton/EL DIA llama poderosamente la atención: “Corrupción sólo preocupa a un 5% de la población: Apenas 2 de cada cien piensan que educación es un problema prioritario.”
Es importante buscar las creencias en que descansan esas estadísticas y mucho más el diseño de la encuesta. Mirando la noticia bajo la firma de José P. Monegro, salen a relucir tres suposiciones importantes que enmarcan la pregunta: la pregunta misma, las posibles respuestas y el hecho que la población debía identificar una o dos de sus muchas preocupaciones.
La pregunta fue ¿Cuál de estos asuntos, cree usted, que es el más importante a ser tratado por el próximo gobierno? Todos sabemos que el próximo gobierno deberá tratar mucho más de un asunto.
Como tanto las respuestas “otro (especifique) y “no sabe” no aportaron nada en la encuesta, puede decirse que el diseño aporta que son solamente 11 las grandes preocupaciones de la población dominicana. La respuesta entonces es que el gobierno debería concentrarse en resolver no uno, o dos (como aparece en la encuesta como opciones combinadas), sino todos esos 11 problemas, algunos a corto plazo y otros a largo plazo, iniciando los esfuerzos simultáneamente. Es evidente que energía, agua y educación son tres grandes problemas a largo plazo que facilitarán minimizar eventualmente los de corto plazo.
Es evidente que el diseño de la encuesta influenció a que la población le diera mayor énfasis a los problemas de corto plazo “vinculados a la economía personal,” como dice Monegro. Dado que la creación de fuentes de trabajo y la reducción de los precios de los productos de primera necesidad tienen un impacto crucial e inmediato en el poder adquisitivo de las familias, no es de extrañarse que hayan sido seleccionadas como la primera y la segunda preocupación.
Dado que el gobierno ha invertido de manera excesiva en subsidios que no son sostenibles en energía, no es de extrañar que se haya invertido el problema de la electricidad (reducción de los apagones en 6% ) y la mejora de la salud (mejorar hospitales y servicios de salud 10%) que también afectan el poder adquisitivo inmediato.
Dado también que con poder adquisitivo se puede acceder a la educación privada y que los resultados de la educación toman mucho tiempo en madurar, la educación está lejos de ser un problema de subsistencia cuando es comparado con las otras 10 preocupaciones.
Cabe preguntarse por ejemplo: 1) Está el 97% de la población está recibiendo agua potable en cantidad, entrega y calidad en estos momentos? 2) Está el 96% de la población conforme en no controlar la inmigración haitiana?
Lo que no es evidente es que la solución de los problemas de largo plazo, de energía y educación, resuelven los problemas del poder adquisitivo de la población. Posponer la solución de esos dos problemas cruciales seguirá sumiéndonos en la pobreza. Con educación y poder adquisitivo es mucho más fácil resolver el problema de la corrupción.
domingo, abril 06, 2008
Acelerando Acceso a Cuenta del Milenio
© 2008. José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
De acuerdo a una noticia del Listín Diario, de los “casi 1,000 millones de dólares” autorizados por los Estados Unidos en DR-CAFTA, “La nueva cuenta MCA busca recompensar las decisiones correctas de políticas que apoyen el desarrollo económico y reduzcan la pobreza.”
Considerando seriamente la nota Abramos Brecha Progreso con DR-CAFTA, la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC) es una decisión correcta que aumentaría significativamente la transparencia (lo opuesto a la corrupción) en el sector eléctrico, reduciría en breve plazo a cifras manejables los subsidios, lo que a su vez aumentaría los fondos presupuestarios para salud y educación y por ende facilitaría que el país acceda a dichos recursos lo más pronto posible. Al respecto, sugerimos la nota Electricidad para el Nuevo Milenio, que contrasta sucintamente las inmensas desventajas del viejo paradigma y las grandes oportunidades de la EWPC para tomar la delantera y así reducir la pobreza.
De acuerdo a JOSÉ SIGNORET, director de la Oficina del Fortalecimiento de Capacitación Comercial (TCB) de la Oficina del Representante Comercial de los Estados Unidos (USTR), Estados Unidos descalifica a RD para fondos Cuenta del Milenio. Argumentan que “continúan sin poder acceder a los fondos que otorga el gobierno norteamericano a los países en desarrollo para enfrentar los desafíos de la pobreza mediante la Cuenta del Milenio, al no cumplir con indicadores de gobernabilidad, corrupción y mejora de la calidad de vida de la población.”
Los indicadores sobre gobernabilidad, corrupción y mejora de la calidad de vida de la población, pueden cambiar grandemente si los líderes verdaderos del sector privado dominicano desarrollan la acción voluntaria sugerida para abrir la brecha concentrándose en el aspecto de educación para el liderazgo, dejando que el gobierno concentre su atención en la salud y en los demás aspectos de educación. A futuro la gente solo podrá realizar una sola clase de trabajo que le garantice salarios llevaderos, prácticas de trabajo justas, y la protección ambiental necesaria para desafiar la pobreza.
Como a nivel global, los trabajos que puedan ser automatizados serán automatizados, solamente los trabajos de liderazgo garantizarán que su titular tome cargo de su salud, lo que hace falta es una educación complementaria orientada al liderazgo en toda la población. El mejor lugar para ofrecer esa educación de liderazgo es en las propias empresas del sector privado, por medio de una campaña en cadena similar a las de alfabetización, con los superiores respectivos a cargo de la educación de los subalternos. Esa campaña tiene el potencial de generar un círculo virtuoso de reducción de la pobreza en toda la sociedad al tiempo que garantiza mejores niveles de rentabilidad en las mismas empresas.
Signoret también “Dijo que República Dominicana no puede acceder a los fondos porque tiene que cumplir algunos criterios para ser elegible a la Cuenta del Milenio y con indicadores sobre corrupción, inversión en salud y educación, ‘que son en los que República Dominicana tiene las mayores dificultades relativo a los criterios de selección’”.
De acuerdo a una noticia del Listín Diario, de los “casi 1,000 millones de dólares” autorizados por los Estados Unidos en DR-CAFTA, “La nueva cuenta MCA busca recompensar las decisiones correctas de políticas que apoyen el desarrollo económico y reduzcan la pobreza.”
Considerando seriamente la nota Abramos Brecha Progreso con DR-CAFTA, la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC) es una decisión correcta que aumentaría significativamente la transparencia (lo opuesto a la corrupción) en el sector eléctrico, reduciría en breve plazo a cifras manejables los subsidios, lo que a su vez aumentaría los fondos presupuestarios para salud y educación y por ende facilitaría que el país acceda a dichos recursos lo más pronto posible. Al respecto, sugerimos la nota Electricidad para el Nuevo Milenio, que contrasta sucintamente las inmensas desventajas del viejo paradigma y las grandes oportunidades de la EWPC para tomar la delantera y así reducir la pobreza.
De acuerdo a JOSÉ SIGNORET, director de la Oficina del Fortalecimiento de Capacitación Comercial (TCB) de la Oficina del Representante Comercial de los Estados Unidos (USTR), Estados Unidos descalifica a RD para fondos Cuenta del Milenio. Argumentan que “continúan sin poder acceder a los fondos que otorga el gobierno norteamericano a los países en desarrollo para enfrentar los desafíos de la pobreza mediante la Cuenta del Milenio, al no cumplir con indicadores de gobernabilidad, corrupción y mejora de la calidad de vida de la población.”
Los indicadores sobre gobernabilidad, corrupción y mejora de la calidad de vida de la población, pueden cambiar grandemente si los líderes verdaderos del sector privado dominicano desarrollan la acción voluntaria sugerida para abrir la brecha concentrándose en el aspecto de educación para el liderazgo, dejando que el gobierno concentre su atención en la salud y en los demás aspectos de educación. A futuro la gente solo podrá realizar una sola clase de trabajo que le garantice salarios llevaderos, prácticas de trabajo justas, y la protección ambiental necesaria para desafiar la pobreza.
Como a nivel global, los trabajos que puedan ser automatizados serán automatizados, solamente los trabajos de liderazgo garantizarán que su titular tome cargo de su salud, lo que hace falta es una educación complementaria orientada al liderazgo en toda la población. El mejor lugar para ofrecer esa educación de liderazgo es en las propias empresas del sector privado, por medio de una campaña en cadena similar a las de alfabetización, con los superiores respectivos a cargo de la educación de los subalternos. Esa campaña tiene el potencial de generar un círculo virtuoso de reducción de la pobreza en toda la sociedad al tiempo que garantiza mejores niveles de rentabilidad en las mismas empresas.
Signoret también “Dijo que República Dominicana no puede acceder a los fondos porque tiene que cumplir algunos criterios para ser elegible a la Cuenta del Milenio y con indicadores sobre corrupción, inversión en salud y educación, ‘que son en los que República Dominicana tiene las mayores dificultades relativo a los criterios de selección’”.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)