Esta nota trata dos temas íntimamente interrelacionados con los mercados emergentes de la Base de la Pyrámide: creemos que 1) el modo de penalizar el robo eléctrico propuesto por CDEEE es ineficaz e insostenible y 2) el riesgo en las inversiones en los medidores prepagados debe ser asumido por inversionistas privados. En ambos casos hay alternativas desarrollistas que no se deben frustrar.
Hace diez años vislumbré un mercado emergente de electricidad para los dominicanos. Hace tres años vislumbré un país sin apagones para los dominicanos. Hace un año vislumbré que ese mercado es para todo el mundo en desarrollo y que los dominicanos tenemos ventajas comparativas para ser los más avanzados al respecto.
Como parte de mi propuesta de un diálogo generativo, hoy escribí el comentario Emerging Technology Transforming the Power Industry, en que se desprende que las tarifas basadas en el desempeño (PBRs, por sus siglas en Inglés) orientados a la distribuidora dan paso a precios diferenciados orientados al cliente emergentes.
Hoy también, McKinsey publica el artículo “A grassroot approach to emerging-market consumers,” que traduzco como “Un acercamiento fundamental a los consumidores de mercados emergentes.” El artículo se inicia con la siguiente oración: “[C]uando las compañías encuentran como servir rentablemente a los consumidores de bajos ingresos en los países en desarrollo, todo el mundo gana: los desafortunados ganan acceso a productos y servicios que el sector privado está mejor posicionado para entregar, mientras las compañías aprovechan vastos nuevos mercados. Encima de eso, cuando sectores esenciales de la economía – tales como la banca, electricidad, telecomunicaciones, y agua – prosperan, transforman a los consumidores en productores y promueven el desarrollo económico.”
Ellos identifican la electricidad, agua y vivienda como sectores de baja rentabilidad para servir a los mercados de bajos ingresos, pero de alto impacto en el desarrollo de la comunidad. La solución a los retos de robos de electricidad, rotura de contadores, robos de cables, etc., de acuerdo al artículo de McKinsey, “yace en la comunidad. Enfrentar esos retos es un problema clásico principal agente: una variedad de agentes (consumidores y líderes de la comunidad) pueden actuar en formas que no van necesariamente en el mejor interés del principal (proveedores de productos y servicios)…la solución convencional… sería prohibitivamente costosa, las compañías necesitan modelos de negocios creativos para resolver el problema principal-agente de manera sostenible.” Meter a los que roban la electricidad a 5 años de prisión es una de esas soluciones no sostenibles, prohibitivamente costosas.
Una de las soluciones que están siendo impulsadas son los medidores prepagados. Me parecen una buena tecnología, siempre y cuando el suplidor asuma los costos del riesgo de obsolescencia que pueden traer con ellos. Me parece que se puede desarrollar un modelo de negocios rentable con ellos, por lo que recomiendo encarecidamente que no se pasen a tarifa. Es fundamental liberar el mercado minorista. Esta no es una idea nueva, como puede verse en mi carta al Dr. Carlos Rufin, cuando concebí la iniciativa de Un País Sin Apagones hace tres años y que aparece en la nota Actualización: El Origen de La Iniciativa UPSA.
En aquel entonces le dije al Dr. Rufin: “En varias conversaciones que hemos sostenido, te inclinas fuertemente a la implantación de medidores pre-pagados para los clientes de escasos recursos. Leí con gran interés el artículo "Electricidad para todos: Pensar en el propósito de una gran empresa de servicio público"[1] que describe la experiencia de Eskom, la "CDE" de Africa del Sur. Ellos innovaron y produjeron el medidor pre-pagado.”
Además, agregué lo siguiente: “Al igual que la innovación inherente en el modelo chileno trajo con el tiempo su propia necesidad de reforma [2], porque no responde bien a choques externos, o simplemente porque hay mejores soluciones hoy, el medidor pre-pagado es una muy buena solución que también debe competir con posibles soluciones mejores (esto hay que enfatizarlo - no se deben pasar a tarifa ningún medidor). En síntesis, sugiero dejar espacio a la innovación con PYMES locales compitiendo contra el mundo civilizado.
martes, diciembre 05, 2006
DL: Espejo de papel. - El fraude eléctrico
El sector eléctrico electrocuta. El Gobierno no le pone la mano temiendo la quemada, pero si no lo hace terminará por achicharrarse igual. La CDEEE envió al ejecutivo un proyecto de ley que busca penalizar el robo eléctrico. La iniciativa pone los dedos sobre el alambre fino del consumidor, pero no toca el grueso cable de la distribución. La ley contempla que las distribuidoras determinarían si las alteraciones en un contador son dolosas. Las EDES serían jueces de su causa. Una norma no es justa si penaliza una de las partes y exculpa a la otra por la misma falta.
Emerging Technology Transforming the Power Industry
Below is a comment to the article Technology Transforming Distribution, by Charles Newton , President, Newton-Evans Research Company, Inc., posted on 12/01/06 on EnergyPulse.
Mr. Newton offers important contributions to the suggestion introduced in the post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue. I believe he writes about a technology transformation trend to the power industry which goes well beyond distribution. He is actually talking about in his conclusion of "a new-school view that is customer focused." Said in another way he is writing about a new customer oriented paradigm of the industry that is emerging and thus an important element of the integral reform paradigm.
Mr. Newton mentions that studies suggest a causal link between reforms on performance based rates (PBRs) to spending increases in DA. As PBRs are utility focused, this is a clue to something that is emerging as customer focused. Look under the Peak Load Management Alliance (PLMA) for the customer focused presentation Achieving Electricity Market Value through DR Technologies I made in the Fall of 2004, where on the slide # 10, I say “Ask and Respond: the Four Who to develop a set of self consistent market rules.”
The emerging rules are coherent with the last sentence of the article the author says “In the end, fewer outages and fewer complaints brought about by DA investments will certainly mean more revenue flow delivered to the bottom line," which should be paid by those who benefit, and not by the average consumer. It is the lack of such coherent rules that is a barrier to the "sense of urgency to upgrade the electric power T&D infrastructure" leading to the integral reform paradigm.
The author even see "some hopeful signs out there... yet it is more difficult, more cumbersome and perhaps more expensive to retrofit and upgrade the existing distribution grid... than to start afresh, as developing nations can do in their greenfields approach to development of an electric power grid." In this regard, I also made a PLMA presentation Dominican Republic Electricity Risk: A Customer Orientation in the Spring of 2005, where I envisioned the great opportunities that I see emerging. That presentation evolved into the article a Dominican strategy published by the IEEE Power & Energy Review, in the May-June, 2006, issue.
Mr. Newton gives another confirmation to go beyond utility focused PBRs to customer focused price differentiation when he says: "Their customers are sensing better power delivery performance, obtaining more reliable and more secure power delivery with minimized outage duration and frequency," which depends on the specific customer, because "[i]n the end, the cost of acquiring and installing DA will be more than offset by concrete improvements in power quality, an issue so vital to the key industrial and commercial accounts, and a cause of customer erosion and lost revenues for the utility."
The emerging paradigm I believe is electricity without price controls (EWPC), as it is evolving so far in my comments on EnergyPulse under many articles, and in the GMH Blog. Under EWPC, the regulator and the distributor will cease to be intermediaries as retailers take their jobs to develop business design innovations to compete with other retailers on a new value chain, as explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, which makes me strongly believe that My iPod is on the Demand Side.
Mr. Newton offers important contributions to the suggestion introduced in the post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue. I believe he writes about a technology transformation trend to the power industry which goes well beyond distribution. He is actually talking about in his conclusion of "a new-school view that is customer focused." Said in another way he is writing about a new customer oriented paradigm of the industry that is emerging and thus an important element of the integral reform paradigm.
Mr. Newton mentions that studies suggest a causal link between reforms on performance based rates (PBRs) to spending increases in DA. As PBRs are utility focused, this is a clue to something that is emerging as customer focused. Look under the Peak Load Management Alliance (PLMA) for the customer focused presentation Achieving Electricity Market Value through DR Technologies I made in the Fall of 2004, where on the slide # 10, I say “Ask and Respond: the Four Who to develop a set of self consistent market rules.”
The emerging rules are coherent with the last sentence of the article the author says “In the end, fewer outages and fewer complaints brought about by DA investments will certainly mean more revenue flow delivered to the bottom line," which should be paid by those who benefit, and not by the average consumer. It is the lack of such coherent rules that is a barrier to the "sense of urgency to upgrade the electric power T&D infrastructure" leading to the integral reform paradigm.
The author even see "some hopeful signs out there... yet it is more difficult, more cumbersome and perhaps more expensive to retrofit and upgrade the existing distribution grid... than to start afresh, as developing nations can do in their greenfields approach to development of an electric power grid." In this regard, I also made a PLMA presentation Dominican Republic Electricity Risk: A Customer Orientation in the Spring of 2005, where I envisioned the great opportunities that I see emerging. That presentation evolved into the article a Dominican strategy published by the IEEE Power & Energy Review, in the May-June, 2006, issue.
Mr. Newton gives another confirmation to go beyond utility focused PBRs to customer focused price differentiation when he says: "Their customers are sensing better power delivery performance, obtaining more reliable and more secure power delivery with minimized outage duration and frequency," which depends on the specific customer, because "[i]n the end, the cost of acquiring and installing DA will be more than offset by concrete improvements in power quality, an issue so vital to the key industrial and commercial accounts, and a cause of customer erosion and lost revenues for the utility."
The emerging paradigm I believe is electricity without price controls (EWPC), as it is evolving so far in my comments on EnergyPulse under many articles, and in the GMH Blog. Under EWPC, the regulator and the distributor will cease to be intermediaries as retailers take their jobs to develop business design innovations to compete with other retailers on a new value chain, as explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, which makes me strongly believe that My iPod is on the Demand Side.
viernes, diciembre 01, 2006
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 7
Ferdinand Banks added a comment to AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market, which I responded to as follows:
Thanks Ferdinand for point out that the residential customers are not happy in Texas. Item 5 Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2, above your comment is precisely about TXU, which is a good starting point for a generative dialogue on Texas. This is also an example of deregulation of the weird sort, as you used to call it.
To go back to the origin of my dialogue with Prof. Banks, at the beginning of this year, in the posts some friendly comments on true electric deregulation part 5, I wrote (some typos are now corrected and new insights have emerge on EWPC during the year):
Maybe we need a new expression different from "true" deregulation to convince experts that non-market solutions to electricity industry are (or will soon be) inefficient. Neither utilities, nor regulators, are prepared to cross the chasm. We need competitors to cross the chasm, and so far I have received no acceptable arguments from the experts quoted by Prof. Banks. A simple (but not simplistic) architecture centered on retailers, while keeping the vertical control supply chain structure based on demand response, is worth a try.
Professor Banks decided not to answer my questions and referred them to experts and to a widespread audience, which I am glad that he did. I think he saved face while giving me the benefit of the doubt, which I had documented earlier on my blog. As far I humbly learn, none of the experts had anything substantial against my proposal of true deregulation yet.
While not claiming to be an expert on Sweden, the problem experimented with price spikes and insufficient reserves, due to faulty deregulation, can be mitigated (unless they are of the wierd sort) by completing the market so that customers become part of the system. A hint to that effect is to ensure that electricity sold Germany is priced on short run marginal costs of energy and supply security. However, that proposition depends on answering apparently tough questions, like my earlier questions, for which I want feedback. I repeat them again in a readable format:”
For the detailed questions, see the post.
Finally, unless we find a new name for "true" deregulation, I wish Prof. Banks would change his article to A Few More Unfriendly Comments on "Faulty" Electric Deregulation. I understand that the EU is now questioning competition in electricity and gas, and I humbly think it is the right moment for Sweden to get a better deal. Finally I hope Prof. Banks NIMBY refers only to faulty deregulation.
I suggest, to readers interested in the generative dialogue, the book “Blackout: How the Electric Industry Exploits America,” by Gordon Weil, whose purpose “is to reveal much of what has been hidden from the general public and to suggest how matters may be improved. Much consumer apathy results from ignorance about electric industry and the sense that consumers have no power to bring about change. Because the voice of the consumer is weak and because of the pernicious effect of campaign contributions by the industry, politicians do not take up the consumer’s cause but instead acquiesce in the growing power of the major electric industry companies.”
Thanks Ferdinand for point out that the residential customers are not happy in Texas. Item 5 Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2, above your comment is precisely about TXU, which is a good starting point for a generative dialogue on Texas. This is also an example of deregulation of the weird sort, as you used to call it.
To go back to the origin of my dialogue with Prof. Banks, at the beginning of this year, in the posts some friendly comments on true electric deregulation part 5, I wrote (some typos are now corrected and new insights have emerge on EWPC during the year):
Maybe we need a new expression different from "true" deregulation to convince experts that non-market solutions to electricity industry are (or will soon be) inefficient. Neither utilities, nor regulators, are prepared to cross the chasm. We need competitors to cross the chasm, and so far I have received no acceptable arguments from the experts quoted by Prof. Banks. A simple (but not simplistic) architecture centered on retailers, while keeping the vertical control supply chain structure based on demand response, is worth a try.
Professor Banks decided not to answer my questions and referred them to experts and to a widespread audience, which I am glad that he did. I think he saved face while giving me the benefit of the doubt, which I had documented earlier on my blog. As far I humbly learn, none of the experts had anything substantial against my proposal of true deregulation yet.
While not claiming to be an expert on Sweden, the problem experimented with price spikes and insufficient reserves, due to faulty deregulation, can be mitigated (unless they are of the wierd sort) by completing the market so that customers become part of the system. A hint to that effect is to ensure that electricity sold Germany is priced on short run marginal costs of energy and supply security. However, that proposition depends on answering apparently tough questions, like my earlier questions, for which I want feedback. I repeat them again in a readable format:”
For the detailed questions, see the post.
Finally, unless we find a new name for "true" deregulation, I wish Prof. Banks would change his article to A Few More Unfriendly Comments on "Faulty" Electric Deregulation. I understand that the EU is now questioning competition in electricity and gas, and I humbly think it is the right moment for Sweden to get a better deal. Finally I hope Prof. Banks NIMBY refers only to faulty deregulation.
I suggest, to readers interested in the generative dialogue, the book “Blackout: How the Electric Industry Exploits America,” by Gordon Weil, whose purpose “is to reveal much of what has been hidden from the general public and to suggest how matters may be improved. Much consumer apathy results from ignorance about electric industry and the sense that consumers have no power to bring about change. Because the voice of the consumer is weak and because of the pernicious effect of campaign contributions by the industry, politicians do not take up the consumer’s cause but instead acquiesce in the growing power of the major electric industry companies.”
miércoles, noviembre 29, 2006
7 Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue
1. Nick Clark de Utilitynet Canadá Aporta a Dialogo Generativo
Dear Nick,. You are welcome [see letter below]. I see your paper as a contribution towards the End-State of the power industry. I also read what you posted on EnergyPulse today and find it very useful confirmation of the model I ...
2. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 6
Another post added to AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market. I welcome the contribution of Nick to the generative dialogue, as follows: The privatization of metering services is a key technology for the “integrated” ...
3. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 5
I added a post under the EnergyPulse article The Power Will Be There But Will It Get to Market?, by Michael Morrison, National Energy and Infrastructure Industry Group Manager, Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP, and David McFadden, Chair, ...
4. Thanks Gary for your interest. Electricity Without Price Controls ...
Thanks Gary for your interest. Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) is an emerging paradigm - no comparative studies exist as far as I know. The split of wires into T and D was a big mistake that needs to be undone. ...
5. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 4
As you can see below, Gary Scheffer has responded to my suggestion of a generative dialogue, under the article AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market. This is what I posted as a response. Thanks Gary for your interest. ...
6. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2
I placed a comment under the EnergyPulse article TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies, by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central. This is what I said: What about displacing an important share ...
7. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue
I posted the following comment on www.EnergyPulse.net as a follow up to the article AMI Services Solutions for Alberta’s Deregulated Market, on what were supposed to be its Part 3. This is what I wrote: ...
Dear Nick,. You are welcome [see letter below]. I see your paper as a contribution towards the End-State of the power industry. I also read what you posted on EnergyPulse today and find it very useful confirmation of the model I ...
2. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 6
Another post added to AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market. I welcome the contribution of Nick to the generative dialogue, as follows: The privatization of metering services is a key technology for the “integrated” ...
3. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 5
I added a post under the EnergyPulse article The Power Will Be There But Will It Get to Market?, by Michael Morrison, National Energy and Infrastructure Industry Group Manager, Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP, and David McFadden, Chair, ...
4. Thanks Gary for your interest. Electricity Without Price Controls ...
Thanks Gary for your interest. Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) is an emerging paradigm - no comparative studies exist as far as I know. The split of wires into T and D was a big mistake that needs to be undone. ...
5. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 4
As you can see below, Gary Scheffer has responded to my suggestion of a generative dialogue, under the article AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market. This is what I posted as a response. Thanks Gary for your interest. ...
6. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2
I placed a comment under the EnergyPulse article TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies, by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central. This is what I said: What about displacing an important share ...
7. Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue
I posted the following comment on www.EnergyPulse.net as a follow up to the article AMI Services Solutions for Alberta’s Deregulated Market, on what were supposed to be its Part 3. This is what I wrote: ...
Mi Marciano Favorito y el Diálogo Generativo
Estimado Luís,
Te felicito por tu interesante nota Mi marciano favorito. Estoy contigo de que es momento de unir en vez de dividir. Como concluyes, "[S]on tiempos de buscar soluciones".
Para ello, la nota Conferencia Antonio Isa Conde en Amcham fue redactada con un espíritu muy positivo, con énfasis en buscar dichas soluciones transparentando los modelos mentales subyacentes. El “feedback” de tú nota es una contribución a sacar a flote diversos elementos de los modelos mentales del público.
De mi parte, con la nota La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa - eMail enviado estoy solicitando al Círculo de Amigos del GMH comentarios a la nota La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa – Primer Borrador.
Lo anterior es parte del esfuerzo de la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue. Es decir, que es necesario que la búsqueda de soluciones pase de los aposentos en que se armó la capitalización a los medios más abiertos posibles. Tu columna, “Sin temor ni favor,” es uno de esos medios.
Saludos cordiales,
José Antonio
CC: Círculo de Amigos del GMH, Exatec Ampliado y BD-GMH
Nick Clark de Utilitynet Canadá Aporta a Dialogo Generativo
Dear Nick,
You are welcome [see letter below]. I see your paper as a contribution towards the End-State of the power industry.
I also read what you posted on EnergyPulse today and find it very useful confirmation of the model I suggested earlier. You can find the additional comment on EnergyPulse.
I will be glad to post this more detail email message response in the GMH blog, but there is a confidential note at the bottom of the message.
Regards,
José Antonio
P.D.: 1) Nick says: “Hi Jose – I have removed the confidential note – Thanks for taking note.”
2) The additional comment promised to Nick is in the post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 6.
3) Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 5 is a comment to the article The Power Will Be There But Will It Get to Market?, by Michael Morrison, National Energy and Infrastructure Industry Group Manager, Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP.
From: Nick Clark [mailto:Nick.Clark@Utilitynet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:12 PM
To: javs@ieee.org
Subject: comments
Dear Jose
Thanks for your comments on my article. I attempted to post the following on the EC web – but it was bounced back as a Data Base Error - at any rate – below are a few further comments regarding our thoughts on AMI / Deregulation.
Often the debate regarding deregulation does not necessarily reflect the gains being made in C & I or Retail market sector. As a note of interest: the issue of metering communication infrastructure, which sparked this article was based on REAs in Alberta (Farming Co-operatives) wanting to take greater control over all aspects of their business in an attempt to drive down prices and increase services offered to their customers (members).
Under deregulation, the REAs faced two options. 1. Do nothing and continue to accept whatever the IOU Retailers provided them in term of services and RRO prices; or, 2. Take advantage of the opportunities, as the government unbundled various aspects of the value chain. Today, in
Some businesses have profited in our deregulated market; in particular are those that have learned how to manage their energy. They have focused on understanding the business drivers, the nature of their load, profiles and mining their energy data. It starts with asking the right questions. Given that every enterprise requires energy to produce products and profits; how can you accurately determine your energy consumption for each business units or cost center? How much electrical power do they use each month? Can you control it, and/or; more importantly reduce the costs?
For large commercial enterprises, electricity is one of those critical line items that can impact the bottom line, especially given the high volatility of the spot market. Only with increased insight over financial reporting can an organization identify the fixed costs and manage those costs that are variable. In today's business climate, knowing actual costs per business unit is needed to help to drive internal accountability in determining the true profitability of each unit. Given the unbundling of charges – variable costs are more transparent. To profit from deregulation requires the customer to seriously take the time to understand all aspects of managing the purchase and consumption of electricity as they would any other commodity. But to do so, requires systems and data mining services to help manage the complexity of the various aspects of overall value chain.
Market participants in today’s deregulated market will not profit from it, unless they are willing to invest in learning how to manage all aspects of it.
At UTILITYnet we have focused on providing our customers (C & I plus REA clients) with energy management software and reporting system designed to collect, interpret, monitor and display metered, billing consumption and demand data for use by our client’s management team to help them achieve the lowest possible cost in buying power and/or in the management of the consumption of electricity.
Effectively, we have re-assembled all the data streams that the government unbundled into a consolidated information bank.
All meter reads and customer invoices undergo a detailed exception reporting validation review. All exceptions are then researched and resolved by our staff. Our reviews include but are not limited to areas such as meter changes, route planning, work-order management, high-low thresholds, meter read validations, load factor validations, usage/cost per hour/day/month and demand levels. Again, the unbundling of fees has made this process much more complicated – but at the same time, it has put more control in the hands of the customer to make informed decisions. As an ASP business provider, our systems are used to not only help our clients manage their corporate procurement strategies and risk but also validate the accuracy of all (site by site) invoices plus reports on how each of their business and processes consume electricity power. Most importantly, the information is used to help promote accountability, boost efficiency and improve productivity.
Customers can profit from deregulation, but only if they opt to proactively focus on managing their energy requirements (from the meter to cash). Unquestionably, some REAs in
Next on the horizon is AMI. Control over the meter needs to be removed from the IOUs. We are in favor of privatization of the MDM function. With the decline in costs it now becomes far more affordable to take advantage of the benefits of an integrated business solution. It will allow the Retailer to link his wholesale purchasing and retail pricing strategies together. One day in the not to distant future, an REA co-operative in Alberta will be able to read the meter, invoice his customer, automatically deposit members payment, reconcile the wholesale power contract – and do so, prior to paying for the settled load. This will mitigate financing charges and under the concept of a co-operative, the savings will be passed onto the members (the ultimate consumer benefit of deregulation).
Regards,
Nick
martes, noviembre 28, 2006
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 6
Another post added to AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market.
I welcome the contribution of Nick to the generative dialogue, as follows: The privatization of metering services is a key technology for the “integrated” development of the resources of the demand side. “Integrated” is an added insight emerging from this dialogue. The only incentive for such development is a proper market architecture and design, to allow the development of innovative business designs. Please find four nearly one year old quotes on such designs.
With regards to incentives, under the article Energy Bill 2005 - A Waste of Time? “if true retail (and wholesale) competition is enabled, retail marketers will have the right incentives to develop innovative business designs, without the need for price controls, integrating real time metering, energy efficiency, and demand response. Again, I believe that is a vision leading to the End-State of the electric power industry.”
Under the article Strategic Perspectives on Utility Enterprise Solutions, I said: “… Bob Lieberman has given a new hope to residential real-time pricing based on the existence of a risk premium, part of which responsive customers can pocket. Bob adds that conventional wisdom regarding that real-time pricing of residential customers won’t work was proven wrong. Lieberman identifies 4 problems to be overcome develop the market: 1) Short term thinking; 2) Who's job is it?; 3) Overcoming the "DR is about protection system "mindset; and, 4) Explaining to customers what we are talking about and what's in it for them…By taking a close look to … all 4 problems can be addressed by competitive retail marketers, with innovative business designs under their own Retailers Enterprise Solutions. The result will be a new paradigm of the electricity industry for the new global economy, where increased efficiency will result. Every customer will be able to choose value added from electricity and the majority of customers will have lower prices, after a while.
Responding a letter of Jack Casazza, on the post some friendly comments on true electric deregulation, I said: “Jack’s assumption that there can be no product … differentiation is true under a deterministic world, but false on a probabilistic one. Every customer has a perceived supply security requirement … that minimizes his/her costs of electricity in the long run. By developing and applying demand response technology, an opportunity to develop new competing business designs innovations can be implemented to satisfy long run least cost power sector development and benefit from increases in scale … Actually, under systemic competitiveness that would change from least cost to maximum value added.”
On the post utilities vs retail-marketers on the purchase of communication ... I added the following, “Late professor Fred C. Schweppe recommended on the book “Spot Pricing of Electricity,” that customer’s choice should be centered on price-reliability, and not on price alone. Retail-marketers are better positioned than utilities to perform retail marketing. By letting retail-marketers (not utilities) purchase an AMI system to develop their business designs, under a set of minimum standards, much of the confusion goes away. Eventually winning standards will arrive for each market segment. In a sense the purchasing decision becomes part of the relevant winning business designs models.”
I welcome the contribution of Nick to the generative dialogue, as follows: The privatization of metering services is a key technology for the “integrated” development of the resources of the demand side. “Integrated” is an added insight emerging from this dialogue. The only incentive for such development is a proper market architecture and design, to allow the development of innovative business designs. Please find four nearly one year old quotes on such designs.
With regards to incentives, under the article Energy Bill 2005 - A Waste of Time? “if true retail (and wholesale) competition is enabled, retail marketers will have the right incentives to develop innovative business designs, without the need for price controls, integrating real time metering, energy efficiency, and demand response. Again, I believe that is a vision leading to the End-State of the electric power industry.”
Under the article Strategic Perspectives on Utility Enterprise Solutions, I said: “… Bob Lieberman has given a new hope to residential real-time pricing based on the existence of a risk premium, part of which responsive customers can pocket. Bob adds that conventional wisdom regarding that real-time pricing of residential customers won’t work was proven wrong. Lieberman identifies 4 problems to be overcome develop the market: 1) Short term thinking; 2) Who's job is it?; 3) Overcoming the "DR is about protection system "mindset; and, 4) Explaining to customers what we are talking about and what's in it for them…By taking a close look to … all 4 problems can be addressed by competitive retail marketers, with innovative business designs under their own Retailers Enterprise Solutions. The result will be a new paradigm of the electricity industry for the new global economy, where increased efficiency will result. Every customer will be able to choose value added from electricity and the majority of customers will have lower prices, after a while.
Responding a letter of Jack Casazza, on the post some friendly comments on true electric deregulation, I said: “Jack’s assumption that there can be no product … differentiation is true under a deterministic world, but false on a probabilistic one. Every customer has a perceived supply security requirement … that minimizes his/her costs of electricity in the long run. By developing and applying demand response technology, an opportunity to develop new competing business designs innovations can be implemented to satisfy long run least cost power sector development and benefit from increases in scale … Actually, under systemic competitiveness that would change from least cost to maximum value added.”
On the post utilities vs retail-marketers on the purchase of communication ... I added the following, “Late professor Fred C. Schweppe recommended on the book “Spot Pricing of Electricity,” that customer’s choice should be centered on price-reliability, and not on price alone. Retail-marketers are better positioned than utilities to perform retail marketing. By letting retail-marketers (not utilities) purchase an AMI system to develop their business designs, under a set of minimum standards, much of the confusion goes away. Eventually winning standards will arrive for each market segment. In a sense the purchasing decision becomes part of the relevant winning business designs models.”
De Israel Electric se Interesan en Diálogo Generativo
Estimados Amigos
Lean por favor la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 4, para conocer el mensaje de Gary Shaffer de Israel Electric, interesado en el Dialogo Generativo, y la respuesta que le he dado.
Saludos,
José Antonio
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 5
I added a post under the EnergyPulse article The Power Will Be There But Will It Get to Market?, by Michael Morrison, National Energy and Infrastructure Industry Group Manager, Gowlings Lafleur Henderson LLP, and David McFadden, Chair, National Energy and Infrastructure Industry Group, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP. The post says the following:
The authors have presented a very clear article on the key infrastructure of an intermediate and but unstable reform, where generation has center stage and where transmission follows the generation mix. The purpose of the development of an Integrated Power System Plan is to reverse the situation, to have the generation mix follow transmission. Such reform is clearly an afterthought.
Under electricity without price controls (EWPC), an important design requirement is for the transportation (T&D) to be the key infrastructure that takes precedence to the generation mix. System adequacy comes from a new paradigm where transportation takes center stage and performs physical risk management to avoid systemic risk. As customers’ quality and reliability requirements increase, transportation from far locations becomes relatively more risky and thus more expensive than from closer locations. As renewable power is also distributed, distribution requirements become as important as transmission requirements, since the development of the resources on the demand side should compete with the development of the resources on the supply side.
At the center of a generative dialogue is something similar to an Integrated Resources Power System Plan. As customers become active participants of the power system, and demand forecasts are no longer useful, the old assumptions of supply side system development should be complemented with the development of the resources on the demand side. Please join the generative dialogue that has started under the articles AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market and TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies.
The authors have presented a very clear article on the key infrastructure of an intermediate and but unstable reform, where generation has center stage and where transmission follows the generation mix. The purpose of the development of an Integrated Power System Plan is to reverse the situation, to have the generation mix follow transmission. Such reform is clearly an afterthought.
Under electricity without price controls (EWPC), an important design requirement is for the transportation (T&D) to be the key infrastructure that takes precedence to the generation mix. System adequacy comes from a new paradigm where transportation takes center stage and performs physical risk management to avoid systemic risk. As customers’ quality and reliability requirements increase, transportation from far locations becomes relatively more risky and thus more expensive than from closer locations. As renewable power is also distributed, distribution requirements become as important as transmission requirements, since the development of the resources on the demand side should compete with the development of the resources on the supply side.
At the center of a generative dialogue is something similar to an Integrated Resources Power System Plan. As customers become active participants of the power system, and demand forecasts are no longer useful, the old assumptions of supply side system development should be complemented with the development of the resources on the demand side. Please join the generative dialogue that has started under the articles AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market and TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies.
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 4
As you can see below, Gary Scheffer has responded to my suggestion of a generative dialogue, under the article AMI Services Solutions for Alberta's Deregulated Market. This is what I posted as a response.
Thanks Gary for your interest.
Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) is an emerging paradigm - no comparative studies exist as far as I know. The split of wires into T and D was a big mistake that needs to be undone. If necessary, the split of wires needs to be done area wise, by keeping cohesive T&D monopolies together linked by tie lines. Non real-time competitive activities - retail marketing and generation - as explained in a recent posts, should be left to a market that can be verify to enable workable competition.
For research, I suggest to study Spot Pricing of Electricity and in general the research led by Fred C. Schweppe of MIT from 1978 to 1988. In the early 90s a big mistake was done by Bill Hogan, which interpreted erroneously the work of Schweppe by assuring that distribution and retail marketing could be kept together. Hogan misunderstood the meaning of customer, which for Schweppe was the end-customer, to be even a utility-customer. The result was transmission open access and native loads own by utilities.
As for the extension of Schweppe work that is emerging I suggest to Google vanderhorst-silverio in the site of EnergyPulse for English speaking material. Please find in the May-June issue of IEEE Power & Energy Review the article a Dominican strategy. You may find under the Peak Load Management Alliance for the presentations I made in the Fall of 2004 Achieving Electricity Market Value through DR Technologies and in the Spring of 2005 Dominican Republic Electricity Risk: A Customer Orientation.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent (Systemic) Consultant on Electricity
javs@ieee.org
Gary Shaffer post the following message on EnergyPulse
Thanks Gary for your interest.
Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) is an emerging paradigm - no comparative studies exist as far as I know. The split of wires into T and D was a big mistake that needs to be undone. If necessary, the split of wires needs to be done area wise, by keeping cohesive T&D monopolies together linked by tie lines. Non real-time competitive activities - retail marketing and generation - as explained in a recent posts, should be left to a market that can be verify to enable workable competition.
For research, I suggest to study Spot Pricing of Electricity and in general the research led by Fred C. Schweppe of MIT from 1978 to 1988. In the early 90s a big mistake was done by Bill Hogan, which interpreted erroneously the work of Schweppe by assuring that distribution and retail marketing could be kept together. Hogan misunderstood the meaning of customer, which for Schweppe was the end-customer, to be even a utility-customer. The result was transmission open access and native loads own by utilities.
As for the extension of Schweppe work that is emerging I suggest to Google vanderhorst-silverio in the site of EnergyPulse for English speaking material. Please find in the May-June issue of IEEE Power & Energy Review the article a Dominican strategy. You may find under the Peak Load Management Alliance for the presentations I made in the Fall of 2004 Achieving Electricity Market Value through DR Technologies and in the Spring of 2005 Dominican Republic Electricity Risk: A Customer Orientation.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent (Systemic) Consultant on Electricity
javs@ieee.org
Gary Shaffer post the following message on EnergyPulse
Dear All I am joining in from the Israel Electric, still a government owened vrtically integrated utility of some 11,000 MW, 2.3 million customers and some 45,000 km of transmission and distribution lines. We do it all, from power station and network construction through generation and supply to meter reading and invoicing and we are trying hard to avoid the mistakes some markets went through when restructuring their electricity business."the power brokers in the back rooms" in our case are ministry officials that will not stop at less than 3-5 power suppliers and 4-5 distribution local monopolies. Privat power producers have been encouraged by law for the last 10 years, but our price is too low so there are almost none. So I would like to take you up on Jose's proposition on the need for a generative dialogue. I am ofcourse mostly interested in avoiding the split of our wire business into mini-utilities. Can you suggest reaserch, articles, views, dealing with the optimal configuration of the wire business? are you aware of any comparative (benchmarking?) studies on this topice?
lunes, noviembre 27, 2006
George Reinoso Sugiere Implantar la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios
Al Gobierno Dominicano, a los Agentes del Mercado Eléctrico y a la Banca Multilateral,
Distinguidas personalidades,
Humildemente, le sugiero tomar muy en cuenta la oportuna recomendación que hace
Partiendo ese mensaje de una persona que ha ocupado esas elevadas posiciones, así como la de profesional y empresario destacado en el sector, el círculo de Amigos del GMH se enorgullece de tenerte con nosotros.
En respuesta a George, expreso que, como he mencionado en varias ocasiones, fui subcontratado por un consultor que tiene un proyecto más amplio y en ese proyecto escribí un plan integral, con hitos más o menos definidos, para implantar la visión que necesita ser compartida por todos los grupos interesados de relevancia.
Le reitero las gracias a George por estimar que la propuesta está bien debatida y afirmada. No tengo ninguna duda de que todos los sectores interesados serán beneficiarios de la reforma propuesta.
Saludos cordiales,
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, PhD
Propulsor de la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios
Semilla Orgánica del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola
Consultor Interdependiente (Sistémico) en Electricidad
From: george reinoso [mailto:george.reinoso@verizon.net.do]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 12:51 PM
To: 'José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD'
Subject: Re: Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2
SALUDOS JOSÉ ANTONIO,
CREO QUE TU PROPUESTA ESTA BIEN DEBATIDA Y AFIRMADA. PERO PIENSO QUE SERIA BUENO HACER PLAN INTEGRAL COMO PONER HITOS A LOGRAR QUE HACER PRIMERO, Y LUEGO CUALES SON LAS ACTIVIDADES SIGUIENTES. PIENSO QUE PARA PONER EN MARCHA TU PLAN HAY QUE HACER ALGUNAS TAREAS ANTES DE PONER EN FUNCIONAMIENTO TU MODELO, POR LO QUE TE INVITO A QUE TE PONGAS A DESARROLLAR COMO REALIZAR TU VISIÓN, DESDE LO QUE EXISTE HOY A LO QUE SE LOGRARÍA EN EL FUTURO. CUALES SON LOS CAMBIOS QUE EXPERIMENTARÍAN LOS DIFERENTES AGENTES ( GENCOS, DISCO, TRANSCO, REGULADOR Y GOB ) Y EL NUEVO PLAYER QUE SERIA EL COMERCIALIZADOR.
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 3
Estimados Amigos del GMH,
Acabo de colocar la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2 en EnergyPulse.
Saludos,
José Antonio
BCC: Solamente a EXATEC
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 2
I placed a comment under the EnergyPulse article TXU Displacing Older Generation With Advanced Technologies, by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central. This is what I said:
What about displacing an important share of generation for energy and reserves with the development of the resources on the demand side?
TXU supply side strategy: "Faced with higher fuel costs, over-reliance on natural gas generation, increased demand, dropping reserve margins and anticipated pressures to regulate carbon emissions, TXU has made plans for $2 billion of investment in advanced technologies." Did TXU consider energy efficiency under a true free market orientation to compete on an equal basis in the long run with the supply side? Did TXU consider demand response to replace under a true free market orientation to compete on an equal basis for reserves in time (short run) and space with the supply side? Please read the article "Flaws Seen in Markets for Utilities," by David Cay Johnston, on the New York Times, November 21st, 2006, to learn that the Texan market does not work right.
The article explains that "producers can withhold power or limit production, with little risk or penalty...," even in the "free" Texans market. A true free market is required where generation and retail compete without the interference of the wire monopolies. The wires monopolies need to be reintegrated and have total control of the real time operation, so that withholding committed power capacity will face the proper risks or penalties.
In the new paradigm of electricity without price controls, center stage changes from generation to T&D, leading to the End-State of the power industry for quite some time. Displacing older generation with generation is insufficient. We need to displace generation with a combination of generation and resources from the demand side, which requires a reform in the market architecture and design to eliminate the evident flaws identified.
Since electric power deregulation is a very complex matter, debate is insufficient to resolve the flaws. What is needed is a generative dialogue, which will help us learn the market architecture and design that is emerging from the theory of Spot Pricing and from the experiments in several locations. This idea was introduced in the post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue.
What about displacing an important share of generation for energy and reserves with the development of the resources on the demand side?
TXU supply side strategy: "Faced with higher fuel costs, over-reliance on natural gas generation, increased demand, dropping reserve margins and anticipated pressures to regulate carbon emissions, TXU has made plans for $2 billion of investment in advanced technologies." Did TXU consider energy efficiency under a true free market orientation to compete on an equal basis in the long run with the supply side? Did TXU consider demand response to replace under a true free market orientation to compete on an equal basis for reserves in time (short run) and space with the supply side? Please read the article "Flaws Seen in Markets for Utilities," by David Cay Johnston, on the New York Times, November 21st, 2006, to learn that the Texan market does not work right.
The article explains that "producers can withhold power or limit production, with little risk or penalty...," even in the "free" Texans market. A true free market is required where generation and retail compete without the interference of the wire monopolies. The wires monopolies need to be reintegrated and have total control of the real time operation, so that withholding committed power capacity will face the proper risks or penalties.
In the new paradigm of electricity without price controls, center stage changes from generation to T&D, leading to the End-State of the power industry for quite some time. Displacing older generation with generation is insufficient. We need to displace generation with a combination of generation and resources from the demand side, which requires a reform in the market architecture and design to eliminate the evident flaws identified.
Since electric power deregulation is a very complex matter, debate is insufficient to resolve the flaws. What is needed is a generative dialogue, which will help us learn the market architecture and design that is emerging from the theory of Spot Pricing and from the experiments in several locations. This idea was introduced in the post Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue.
domingo, noviembre 26, 2006
Los Expertos, los Intereses y Gandhi
Gracias a ti Gustavo por confirmar y también por el comentario que me da la oportunidad de ampliar tu perspectiva, agregar una importante experiencia del GMH y un cierre motivando al Círculo de Amigos del GMH.
Donde hay muchos recursos en juego los intereses más grande dominan. El caso de la industria de electricidad es típico de una industria en transformación que se resiste al cambio. Los bueyes más poderosos que no quieren cambiar vienen de allá. Esa es la razón por la que he estado divulgando mis conocimientos gratis en EnergyPulse. Esa resistencia fue la que Donella Meadows infirió en el artículo que coloqué en la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue.
En la discusión del artículo What a surprise: Prices move both ways, de 
Mark Gabriel, que llegó a 40 comentarios, 19 míos, demostré que William Hogan, el gurú de los mercados eléctricos y Jefe de la Escuela JFK de gobierno de Harvard, hizo una chapusa que cambió el destino de la industria eléctrica. Fue en ese mismo artículo en que respondí a Jack Casazza, colocando el mensaje que gentilmente me había enviado y que ustedes encontraron muy bueno. Definitivamente que hay que tener mucho cuidado con los expertos famosos de instituciones super-renombradas.
Cierro con una adaptación a las palabras de Gandhi que coloqué en la nota please do not fight them, they may win. Primero ignoraron el GMH. Luego se rieron del GMH. Luego pelearon con el GMH. Luego el GMH gana. El Estado-Final de la industria eléctrica: cada cliente distinto tiene habilitado el máximo valor de la electricidad (ellos gana), mientras las inversiones eficientes logran los retornos correctos (ellos ganan). Esa es la trayectoria que el Círculo de Amigos debe tratar de transitar.
Otro abrazo,
José Antonio
From:
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 8:30 PM
To: José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Subject: Re: Chequeo... confirmen por favor que recibieron el artículo desde el NYT
Estimado Jose A.
Confirmo la recepcion
Un saludo.
Pedro Russo está Interesado en Ser Amigo del GMH
Estimado Pedro,
Aunque indirectamente, creo haber contestado con creces tu inquietud - la que he tenido presente desde el momento en que me escribiste - sobre los requisitos para integrar el Círculo de Amigos del GMH. Este fin de semana, los requisitos han seguido emergiendo y de la primera propuesta de artículo a nombre de los Amigos del GMH, he sugerido que pasemos a escribir una serie de ellos.
En el centro de los requisitos está ser evangelistas del GMH, como aparece en la nota Invitación Formal y Sincera Parte 2. Pon atención a los artículos de este fin de semana y toma tu decisión. Me encantaría si colaboras en el artículo La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa – Primer Borrador, con base a La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa - eMail enviado.
La decisión a ser miembro es tuya.
Un abrazo,
José Antonio
On 11/13/06, José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD wrote:
Muchas gracias Pedro,
Excelente pregunta. Pensaba que con simplemente estar a favor de la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios era suficiente. Tendré que escribir algo al respecto que sintetice el esfuerzo.
Saludos,
José Antonio
On 11/13/06,
Jose Antonio, favor déjame saber cuales son los requisitos para integrar el círculo de amigos del GMH ya que pudiera estar interesado en serlo y así acompañar a mi amigo Jose Oscar.
Saludos,
Pedro R. Russo P.
On 11/13/06, Pedro Russo <mailto:russop@verizon.net.do> wrote:
Jose Antonio, favor déjame saber cuales son los requisitos para integrar el círculo de amigos del GMH ya que pudiera estar interesado en serlo y así acompañar a mi amigo Jose Oscar.
Saludos,
Pedro R. Russo P.
La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa - eMail enviado
Estimados Amigos del GMH,
En consonancia con un email enviado ayer, en que interpreté las sugerencias de Eloy Blanco y Emilio Contreras como la necesidad de hacer una serie de mensajes al público, que cubran antecedentes, sugiero que empecemos a trabajar con la nota La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa – Primer Borrador, para introducir la electricidad sin control de precios.
Como siempre, espero los comentarios y observaciones de cada uno de ustedes, así como los de los lectores.
Saludos,
José Antonio
La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa – Primer Borrador
La Capitalización es Muy Defectuosa – Primer Borrador
En la Conferencia Antonio Isa Conde en Amcham, recientemente, se renovó una defensa a la capitalización, aparentemente para que sea profundizada. Sin embargo, el discurso del Dr. Isa Conde no entró a examinar los defectos del Modelo Mental de la Capitalización, sino los del Modelo Mental CDEEE. Para introducir dicha conferencia en el diálogo generativo sugerido (en dicha nota) para desaprender los modelos mentales defectuosos con la mayor transparencia, veamos otra campana que suena mucho más fuerte y anunciemos la existencia de una nueva reforma de mercado muy prometedora que corrige esos defectos.
David Cay Johnston está desarrollando en el New York Times la serie “Power Play,” que tradujimos como “juegos de electricidad”. El quinto artículo de la serie, que también tradujimos como “Ven Fallas en los Mercados Eléctricos,” aparecen al menos cuatro claras lecciones sobre los defectos en la Capitalización. Las lecciones son:
1) Un creciente coro indica que los mercados eléctricos no funcionan bien. Citan a grandes industrial, distribuidoras municipales y grupos de consumidores.
2) Los generadores pueden dejar de producir, con poco riesgo de penalidad, hasta en demanda máxima, significando que los precios pueden subir vertiginosamente. Citan a los sectores anteriores.
3) La mezcla actual de mercado mayorista con distribuidoras-comercializadoras reguladas no pueden producir los beneficios de la competencia. Cita al profesor Frank Wolak de la Universidad de Stanford.
4) El diseño de los mercados importa mucho y dicho diseño debe ser verificado para ver si funciona como un mercado libre. Cita al profesor Sarosh N. Talukdar de la Universidad Carnegie Mellon.
En el GMH hemos acopiado y aplicado esas y otras lecciones trabajando con conocimiento profundo de ellas. La primera enseñanza es clara y contundente para cualquier dominicano – el mercado de la capitalización no funciona bien. Pero ahora sabemos que tampoco funcionan bien en los Estados Unidos.
La segunda lección – que revela un aspecto de la inestabilidad de esos mercados - debe interpretarse aquí de otra manera: los generadores pueden dejar de producir, con poco riesgo de penalidad, hasta en demanda máxima, significando que los costos a los clientes pueden subir vertiginosamente. Por ejemplo, si la CDEEE o las distribuidoras no le pagan a tiempo a los generadores los apagones se incrementan haciendo que los costos de los consumidores suban vertiginosamente. Se afectan impunemente los derechos de consumidores que no participan en esas negociaciones.
Una parte substancial del esfuerzo del GMH ha sido basado en la tercera enseñanza – la capitalización no puede producir los beneficios de la competencia porque se realizaron consensos inválidos de aposentos, sin la participación del grupo principal de interesados – los clientes - a pesar del insistente reclamo de parte del GMH, como se puede constatar en la nota 29 posteos anteriores solicitando el inicio de la tarea pendiente.
Como Consultor Interdependiente (Sistémico) en Electricidad, el Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio ha acopiado y empleado herramientas muy poderosas – la arquitectura de sistemas, el pensamiento sistémico, la orientación al cliente, el mercadeo al detalle, la Teoría de la U, entre otras, para aprender del futuro emergente de los mercados eléctricos estables. Desde antes de salir a la luz pública la Bitácora Digital del GMH, ha insistido en el empleo del Dialogue y los escenarios – basados en el pensamiento sistémico – como los medios idóneos para pensar juntos y desarrollar una visión compartida. Sin embargo, la normal apatía de los afectados y el hábito de quedarse atrincherados en el debate que es difícil de superar por los intereses particulares.
Al mismo tiempo, la sugerencia del empleo del dialogo generativo, entendemos ahora, serviría para verificar que la propuesta de electricidad sin control de precios, diseñada con base a las herramientas anteriormente mencionadas, funciona como un mercado libre. También serviría para verificar que la capitalización no funciona como mercado libre, ambos en referencia a la cuarta lección.
En la Conferencia Antonio Isa Conde en Amcham, recientemente, se renovó una defensa a la capitalización, aparentemente para que sea profundizada. Sin embargo, el discurso del Dr. Isa Conde no entró a examinar los defectos del Modelo Mental de la Capitalización, sino los del Modelo Mental CDEEE. Para introducir dicha conferencia en el diálogo generativo sugerido (en dicha nota) para desaprender los modelos mentales defectuosos con la mayor transparencia, veamos otra campana que suena mucho más fuerte y anunciemos la existencia de una nueva reforma de mercado muy prometedora que corrige esos defectos.
David Cay Johnston está desarrollando en el New York Times la serie “Power Play,” que tradujimos como “juegos de electricidad”. El quinto artículo de la serie, que también tradujimos como “Ven Fallas en los Mercados Eléctricos,” aparecen al menos cuatro claras lecciones sobre los defectos en la Capitalización. Las lecciones son:
1) Un creciente coro indica que los mercados eléctricos no funcionan bien. Citan a grandes industrial, distribuidoras municipales y grupos de consumidores.
2) Los generadores pueden dejar de producir, con poco riesgo de penalidad, hasta en demanda máxima, significando que los precios pueden subir vertiginosamente. Citan a los sectores anteriores.
3) La mezcla actual de mercado mayorista con distribuidoras-comercializadoras reguladas no pueden producir los beneficios de la competencia. Cita al profesor Frank Wolak de la Universidad de Stanford.
4) El diseño de los mercados importa mucho y dicho diseño debe ser verificado para ver si funciona como un mercado libre. Cita al profesor Sarosh N. Talukdar de la Universidad Carnegie Mellon.
En el GMH hemos acopiado y aplicado esas y otras lecciones trabajando con conocimiento profundo de ellas. La primera enseñanza es clara y contundente para cualquier dominicano – el mercado de la capitalización no funciona bien. Pero ahora sabemos que tampoco funcionan bien en los Estados Unidos.
La segunda lección – que revela un aspecto de la inestabilidad de esos mercados - debe interpretarse aquí de otra manera: los generadores pueden dejar de producir, con poco riesgo de penalidad, hasta en demanda máxima, significando que los costos a los clientes pueden subir vertiginosamente. Por ejemplo, si la CDEEE o las distribuidoras no le pagan a tiempo a los generadores los apagones se incrementan haciendo que los costos de los consumidores suban vertiginosamente. Se afectan impunemente los derechos de consumidores que no participan en esas negociaciones.
Una parte substancial del esfuerzo del GMH ha sido basado en la tercera enseñanza – la capitalización no puede producir los beneficios de la competencia porque se realizaron consensos inválidos de aposentos, sin la participación del grupo principal de interesados – los clientes - a pesar del insistente reclamo de parte del GMH, como se puede constatar en la nota 29 posteos anteriores solicitando el inicio de la tarea pendiente.
Como Consultor Interdependiente (Sistémico) en Electricidad, el Dr. Vanderhorst Silverio ha acopiado y empleado herramientas muy poderosas – la arquitectura de sistemas, el pensamiento sistémico, la orientación al cliente, el mercadeo al detalle, la Teoría de la U, entre otras, para aprender del futuro emergente de los mercados eléctricos estables. Desde antes de salir a la luz pública la Bitácora Digital del GMH, ha insistido en el empleo del Dialogue y los escenarios – basados en el pensamiento sistémico – como los medios idóneos para pensar juntos y desarrollar una visión compartida. Sin embargo, la normal apatía de los afectados y el hábito de quedarse atrincherados en el debate que es difícil de superar por los intereses particulares.
Al mismo tiempo, la sugerencia del empleo del dialogo generativo, entendemos ahora, serviría para verificar que la propuesta de electricidad sin control de precios, diseñada con base a las herramientas anteriormente mencionadas, funciona como un mercado libre. También serviría para verificar que la capitalización no funciona como mercado libre, ambos en referencia a la cuarta lección.
sábado, noviembre 25, 2006
Invitación Formal y Sincera Parte 3
Estimado Gustavo,
Muchas gracias por reiterar el importante mensaje que debe facilitar la unión de esfuerzo de todos nosotros.
Con los mismos afectos,
José Antonio
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:57 AM
To: José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Subject: Re: Invitación Formal y Sincera
Estimado Jose Antonio,
Con el problema
Un afectuoso saludo.
Invitación Formal y Sincera Parte 4
Estimado César,
Gracias por la nota que aparece más abajo. Luego de aclarado el malentendido, a continuación repito, para ti y los que estén interesados en ser evangelistas del Círculo de Amigos del GMH, el texto que elaboré anteriormente en la nota Marca-País: Electricidad Sin Apagones – Primer Borrador y que remití con la nota Marca-País: Electricidad Sin Apagones - eMail Enviado. Los aportes de los evangelistas Eloy Blanco y Emilio Contreras, al igual que las anteriores notas, están en la Bitácora Digital.
Otro abrazo,
José Antonio
Marca-País: Electricidad Sin Apagones – Primer Borrador
La electricidad sin apagones debe ser el activo nación más ansiado por dominicanos. Manuel Morales Lama en su artículo “Rol del Activo Nación en la Estrategia Marca-País,” publicado en la página A-11 del 17 de noviembre, 2006, del Listín Diario, explica que “las marcas suelen jugar un papel constructivo y aportan coherencia a los procesos de decisión… Se ha establecido una correspondencia entre las preferencias del consumidor por las marcas de una nación y la percepción del nivel cultural, económico y político de ese país.” En nuestro caso, la electricidad sin apagones si no se constituye en la marca-país, al menos debe ser un elemento fundamental de la estrategia adoptada.
Agrega el actual embajador dominicano en Brasil, “adviértase que las percepciones son resistentes al cambio, siendo necesarios años de continuos y notables éxitos para modificar la creencia sobre una determinada marca-país con valor negativo, considerándose, de esta forma, el activo país más complejo y sofisticado que el activo marca. No obstante, cuando los consumidores crean juicios de valor sobre la calidad del producto suelen hacerlo integrando información sobre la marca y su país de origen.”
Querámoslo o no, la estrategia emergente marca-país de la República Dominicana hacia la inversión extranjera directa (IED) está resultando en una estrategia centrada en las grandes debilidades del sector eléctrico, cuyo principal exponente son los odiosos apagones. Agrega Morales Lama, “[E]l activo país podría definirse como un conjunto de fortalezas y también de debilidades, que suelen vincularse al país de origen de un producto o servicio y que suelen sumarle o restarle al prestigio suministrado a la marca de dicho producto o servicio…” En efecto, el país ha decidido establecer esa marca-país negativa con la apatía natural de mucha gente.
Sin embargo, el país cuenta con importantes recursos para cambiar esa mala imagen. Cuenta con un desarrollo sin igual de seguridad de suministro en poder de la población – el mercado sálvese quien pueda (SQP) – que de integrarse al, y coordinarse con el, sistema eléctrico nacional interconectado (SENI) produciría una economía substancial por el aumento significativo de la calidad y la consabida reducción en los costos que origina. Para ello, cuenta con la filosofía de la electricidad sin control de precios que sería el hilo conductor conceptual de la integración y la coordinación.
En el sentido anterior, el embajador concluye “se debe avanzar en forma coordinada en la creación de una imagen de la nación que corresponda a la nueva realidad económica, social y cultural del país de que se trate. Así mismo, debe tomarse en cuenta prominentemente la necesidad objetiva del sector productivo de la nación, interesado en dar a conocer en el exterior sus productos y servicios para ampliar sus operaciones a nivel internacional. Cabe destacar, finalmente, que la estrategia marca-país suele atribuírsele, entre otros significativos beneficios, la atracción de IED hacia la nación en cuestión y la captación de turismo de calidad.”
Es evidente que, para cambiar la estrategia marca-país actual, es necesario cambiar ante todo las percepciones de los agentes generadores del mercado de electricidad que han invertido en el país sobre el prestigio negativo que afecta al sector. Deben entender que los principales consumidores del sector eléctrico provienen de la IED que surge inicialmente del DR-CAFTA necesitan precios razonables con electricidad sin apagones. El defectuoso sistema actual, no simplemente las distribuidoras, es el que produce electricidad de baja calidad.
Es necesario un cambio profundo del sistema que ofrezca electricidad de alta calidad y confiabilidad, para que genere un aumento substancial de la economía de escala del sector vía la integración de los mercados del SENI y del SQP. Es ese cambio de sistema el que traerá credibilidad y transformará el sector en un imán a la IED, propiciando crecimiento sostenido. Esa es la estrategia marca-país de la electricidad sin apagones y para eso está siendo diseñada la electricidad sin control de precios: una visión de futuro.
Para jugar un papel constructivo, previo a la renegociación de los contratos, y aportar la debida coherencia a los procesos de decisión, la participación de los generadores es imprescindible. Esta participación se haría en un dialogo generativo que concentre su atención en aprender el futuro emergente, presenciándolo con sus acciones. Solo así, sus inversiones y su prestigio, y las de los detallistas, los colocarán a ambos en los primeros lugares a nivel global en un plazo razonable.
From:
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:37 AM
To: Jose Antonio Vanderhorst
Subject: Fwd: Invitación Formal y Sincera Parte 2
Apreciado Vanderhorst:
Tu anota aclara el malentendido. Estoy plenamente de acuerdo en que el beneficio de la duda es insuficiente, pero en modo alguno insignificante, lo que nos debe llevar a profundizar y divulgar más en el evangelio que compartimos, y del que tú eres padre, abuelo, tío, hermano, etc, y muchos de nosotros primos hermanos, como ya te dije antes.En definitiva, lo innovador, y muy especial todo lo que violenta los esquemas tradicionales, encuentra mucha dificultad para su aceptación. Lo viejo se aferra a la pared
Bien por lo de Jackie Huba, con su concepto sobre la lealtad: en definitiva se necesita fuego en el corazón.
Por otro lado, no recuerdo haber leído lo
Y en verdad, estoy tratando de evangelizar, de hacer comprender este nuevo enfoque que rompe con el pasado, y que presenta una solución integral. No le temo al que dirán ni que se nos acuse de simple teórico. Simplemente creo en esto a la luz de la razón, y estoy dispuesto a luchar para llevarlo a los hechos. Admito que requerimos de tiempo, pero sobre todo de fuego en el corazón, para dejar atrás el pasado y enrutarnos por un auspicioso presente-futuro.
Un abrazo
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)