Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 10
Hi Arvid,
I suggest that you read the whole thing since it is a complex subject. That is why I said go as deep as possible. However, if you only want to look superficially, search for "Electricity WPC," "EWPC," and "electricity without price controls."
The third way is only in the article on the "future..." Above is another explanation on the historical notes. They use deregulation coming from "most of the other literature..." and the result was playing with fire...
Instead of playing with fire, it is better to develop simulation scenarios and to run system dynamics applied to water, gas and electricity – in a sense play with energy dynamics.
Arvid's comments,
José Antonio,
I will look into your articles about the, shall we call it, "third way"? ;)
And I note that we both agree that the old monopolies were better than the current system of deregulation. Concerning the EU pushed power and gas deregulation I have a rule; if they say something in Bruxelles, do the opposite.
( Spirits and liquor deregulation excluded ;) )
By the way, it's funny that no matter what the article we comment is about, we end up discussing power deregulation.
miércoles, diciembre 20, 2006
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 10
Today Prof. Banks made some comments see below.
Response to Prof. Banks:
Prof. Banks -12.20.06 - On this article: “I had intended to drop out of the deregulation discussion for a very good reason: I know too much about it, and where this subject is concerned my memory is very good.
Prof. Banks - 12.24.05 - On A Few More Unfriendly Comments on Electric Deregulation. “I'm afraid however, that I cannot tell Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio exactly what he wants to know, because everything considered, my knowledge of this subject is relatively limited. For instance, I don't know as much of the engineering as I should and could know. What I do know, however, is the academic economics, and more important I know when people who know the economics as well as I do, or better, have decided to depart from the truth because it pays them to do so. And when I say "pays" I'm talking about real money, and not cigar store coupons or feelings of relief.
Prof. Banks -12.20.06 - On this article: “… the late Fred Schweppe - a brilliant man who also got everything wrong… he had made the mistake of reading the elementary economics books, and unfortunately concluded that the people who wrote them mostly knew what they were talking about, which they might or might not, but usually not in those few paragraphs where they discuss electric/gas deregulation - where the emphasis here should be on 'few'.”
1988 - On the book Spot Pricing of Electricity: On page 111, introducing Chapter 5 “A Possible Future Deregulation,” it can be read that: “This chapter only presents a set of basic ideas; it does not analyze their impacts because such analyses have not yet been done. Since the advantages and disadvantages have not been quantified, we are not advocating deregulation (i.e. we do not know whether there is “a lady or a tiger” behind the door).” Fred Schweppe died before the book was published. If Prof. Banks opinion is correct, then Prof. Schweppe changed his opinion.
1988 - On the book Spot Pricing of Electricity: On page 126, under Historical Notes and References – Chapter 5, “The deregulation concept of this chapter is based on a supply and demand marketplace. Most of the other deregulation literature is oriented only to the supply side i.e., to deregulating generation without altering the way users buy electricity. We believe that deregulation which considerers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is very dangerous and could have very negative results… A second major difference between this chapter and most of the rest of the deregulation literature lies in our concern that the economics and physical security of power systems not be destroyed or compromised.”
Prof. Banks - 12.20.06 - On this article: “Unless I am mistaken, Jose is suggesting that there is something beautiful for deregulation scholars…”
Vanderhorst-Silverio: Only one dead scholar; the late Fred C. Schweppe.
Prof. Banks comment
I had intended to drop out of the deregulation discussion for a very good reason: I know too much about it, and where this subject is concerned my memory is very good.
I was at the NATO sponsored meeting in Portugal where a collection of cranks and fly-by-nights from both the US and Europe came to the conclusion that electric deregulation was the way to go, which was the main reason that they had been invited. The stars of that conference were Professor (of physics) Arthur Rosenfeld of the University of California (Berkeley), who got EVERYTHING wrong, and the late Fred Schweppe - a brilliant man who also got everything wrong. Why was this? In the case of Rosenfeld he thought - as I thought at the time - that any physicist probably knew more about electric deregulation than any economist, which may or may not be correct, but as I discovered a few years later when I climbed up on my anti-deregulation soapbox, is definitely not true where yours truly and a few others are concerned..
As for Dr Schweppe (from the electronics lab at MIT), he had made the mistake of reading the elementary economics books, and unfortunately concluded that the people who wrote them mostly knew what they were talking about, which they might or might not, but usually not in those few paragraphs where they discuss electric/gas deregulation - where the emphasis here should be on 'few'.
All of this took place about 20 years ago, and is no longer relevant, because now we see how the deregulation scam has turned out: it has failed, is failing or will fail just about everywhere. Sweden is one of the countries which the deregulation booster club designated a deregulation role model, and the last time I looked the consumer price of electricity had increased 70% since deregulation was initiated. The thing to remember here is that deregulation was sold to the voters in this country on the basis of efficiency (and not equity). The point was that the price to consumers was to fall, and even though there might be a few losers, most households would be winners. Instead the price has not only increased for households, but also for the energy intensive industries - which is very very bad news in a country where borders have unfortunately been opened to an absurd extent. I can also mention that in the case of France, deregulation would likely favor the good citizens of Paris while increasing the miseries of about half of the remaining country.
Unless I am mistaken, Jose is suggesting that there is something beautiful for deregulation scholars as well as the deregulation booster club in the published work of X, Y, Z...whoever. Assuming that I ever teach a course in economics again where deregulation is a main topic, any student who mentions even en-passant any of this literature during my lectures becomes a candidate for a failing grade. I don't have to mention I hope what happens to any scholar or pseudo-scholar appearing in a seminar room at this university with a deregulation song-and-dance. As I explained to Prof David Newbery of Cambridge University, he has received his warning that clown time is over, and from now on it's going to be real business.
Response to Prof. Banks:
Prof. Banks -12.20.06 - On this article: “I had intended to drop out of the deregulation discussion for a very good reason: I know too much about it, and where this subject is concerned my memory is very good.
Prof. Banks - 12.24.05 - On A Few More Unfriendly Comments on Electric Deregulation. “I'm afraid however, that I cannot tell Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio exactly what he wants to know, because everything considered, my knowledge of this subject is relatively limited. For instance, I don't know as much of the engineering as I should and could know. What I do know, however, is the academic economics, and more important I know when people who know the economics as well as I do, or better, have decided to depart from the truth because it pays them to do so. And when I say "pays" I'm talking about real money, and not cigar store coupons or feelings of relief.
Prof. Banks -12.20.06 - On this article: “… the late Fred Schweppe - a brilliant man who also got everything wrong… he had made the mistake of reading the elementary economics books, and unfortunately concluded that the people who wrote them mostly knew what they were talking about, which they might or might not, but usually not in those few paragraphs where they discuss electric/gas deregulation - where the emphasis here should be on 'few'.”
1988 - On the book Spot Pricing of Electricity: On page 111, introducing Chapter 5 “A Possible Future Deregulation,” it can be read that: “This chapter only presents a set of basic ideas; it does not analyze their impacts because such analyses have not yet been done. Since the advantages and disadvantages have not been quantified, we are not advocating deregulation (i.e. we do not know whether there is “a lady or a tiger” behind the door).” Fred Schweppe died before the book was published. If Prof. Banks opinion is correct, then Prof. Schweppe changed his opinion.
1988 - On the book Spot Pricing of Electricity: On page 126, under Historical Notes and References – Chapter 5, “The deregulation concept of this chapter is based on a supply and demand marketplace. Most of the other deregulation literature is oriented only to the supply side i.e., to deregulating generation without altering the way users buy electricity. We believe that deregulation which considerers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is very dangerous and could have very negative results… A second major difference between this chapter and most of the rest of the deregulation literature lies in our concern that the economics and physical security of power systems not be destroyed or compromised.”
Prof. Banks - 12.20.06 - On this article: “Unless I am mistaken, Jose is suggesting that there is something beautiful for deregulation scholars…”
Vanderhorst-Silverio: Only one dead scholar; the late Fred C. Schweppe.
Prof. Banks comment
I had intended to drop out of the deregulation discussion for a very good reason: I know too much about it, and where this subject is concerned my memory is very good.
I was at the NATO sponsored meeting in Portugal where a collection of cranks and fly-by-nights from both the US and Europe came to the conclusion that electric deregulation was the way to go, which was the main reason that they had been invited. The stars of that conference were Professor (of physics) Arthur Rosenfeld of the University of California (Berkeley), who got EVERYTHING wrong, and the late Fred Schweppe - a brilliant man who also got everything wrong. Why was this? In the case of Rosenfeld he thought - as I thought at the time - that any physicist probably knew more about electric deregulation than any economist, which may or may not be correct, but as I discovered a few years later when I climbed up on my anti-deregulation soapbox, is definitely not true where yours truly and a few others are concerned..
As for Dr Schweppe (from the electronics lab at MIT), he had made the mistake of reading the elementary economics books, and unfortunately concluded that the people who wrote them mostly knew what they were talking about, which they might or might not, but usually not in those few paragraphs where they discuss electric/gas deregulation - where the emphasis here should be on 'few'.
All of this took place about 20 years ago, and is no longer relevant, because now we see how the deregulation scam has turned out: it has failed, is failing or will fail just about everywhere. Sweden is one of the countries which the deregulation booster club designated a deregulation role model, and the last time I looked the consumer price of electricity had increased 70% since deregulation was initiated. The thing to remember here is that deregulation was sold to the voters in this country on the basis of efficiency (and not equity). The point was that the price to consumers was to fall, and even though there might be a few losers, most households would be winners. Instead the price has not only increased for households, but also for the energy intensive industries - which is very very bad news in a country where borders have unfortunately been opened to an absurd extent. I can also mention that in the case of France, deregulation would likely favor the good citizens of Paris while increasing the miseries of about half of the remaining country.
Unless I am mistaken, Jose is suggesting that there is something beautiful for deregulation scholars as well as the deregulation booster club in the published work of X, Y, Z...whoever. Assuming that I ever teach a course in economics again where deregulation is a main topic, any student who mentions even en-passant any of this literature during my lectures becomes a candidate for a failing grade. I don't have to mention I hope what happens to any scholar or pseudo-scholar appearing in a seminar room at this university with a deregulation song-and-dance. As I explained to Prof David Newbery of Cambridge University, he has received his warning that clown time is over, and from now on it's going to be real business.
Editorial El Día: El País Eléctrico
Editorial del 20 de diciembre de 2006.
En términos prácticos, por lo que significa la generación y venta de electricidad verdaderamente servida, no existe un país eléctrico. O sea, no somos un país con autoridades preocupadas por el desarrollo, ya que la falta de energía cierra todos los caminos del desarrollo y la competitividad.
Todo luce que el año, en términos energéticos, va a terminar como empezó. Sin grandes avances para resolver el problema de la generación suficiente para suplir la demanda nacional.
No hay mejor indicio que la situación que vivimos por la renegociación de los contratos eléctricos. Las partes hablan de “sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico”, plantean la necesidad de una “estabilidad en el mercado” y quieren “beneficios reales para el sector de distribución”.
Además, plantean el respeto que debe mantenerse ante cualquier iniciativa de negociación entre el sector privado y el Estado, el cual demandan que se haga “con apego a la ley y a los acuerdos internacionales” asumidos por el país.
El alegato de las autoridades es que ninguna de las empresas que operan bajo el Acuerdo de Madrid ha cumplido con lo estipulado en los contratos de compra y venta de energía. Y como prueba al canto hicieron público un informe que detalla la cantidad de megavatios que contrataron y los que efectivamente suministran. Hay en todas las empresas –EGE-Itabo, Dominican Power Partner, EGE-Haina– un déficit en perjuicio del Estado y los clientes finales, que reciben apagones constantes fruto del déficit de origen.
Se trata de un problema eterno, que, desafortunadamente, no tendrá solución en diciembre de 2006. De nuevo nos esperanzamos y abrazamos a una solución. Por delante tenemos, esperanzadoramente, los 365 días de un nuevo año.
En términos prácticos, por lo que significa la generación y venta de electricidad verdaderamente servida, no existe un país eléctrico. O sea, no somos un país con autoridades preocupadas por el desarrollo, ya que la falta de energía cierra todos los caminos del desarrollo y la competitividad.
Todo luce que el año, en términos energéticos, va a terminar como empezó. Sin grandes avances para resolver el problema de la generación suficiente para suplir la demanda nacional.
No hay mejor indicio que la situación que vivimos por la renegociación de los contratos eléctricos. Las partes hablan de “sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico”, plantean la necesidad de una “estabilidad en el mercado” y quieren “beneficios reales para el sector de distribución”.
Además, plantean el respeto que debe mantenerse ante cualquier iniciativa de negociación entre el sector privado y el Estado, el cual demandan que se haga “con apego a la ley y a los acuerdos internacionales” asumidos por el país.
El alegato de las autoridades es que ninguna de las empresas que operan bajo el Acuerdo de Madrid ha cumplido con lo estipulado en los contratos de compra y venta de energía. Y como prueba al canto hicieron público un informe que detalla la cantidad de megavatios que contrataron y los que efectivamente suministran. Hay en todas las empresas –EGE-Itabo, Dominican Power Partner, EGE-Haina– un déficit en perjuicio del Estado y los clientes finales, que reciben apagones constantes fruto del déficit de origen.
Se trata de un problema eterno, que, desafortunadamente, no tendrá solución en diciembre de 2006. De nuevo nos esperanzamos y abrazamos a una solución. Por delante tenemos, esperanzadoramente, los 365 días de un nuevo año.
martes, diciembre 19, 2006
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 9
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 8
Arvid, thanks for your humble response about the mental model related to the wikepedia quote about EDF Finances. It is clear from your response that it is a vertical integration controlled market mental model. As you can infer from my writing something else is emerging to solve the efficiency of electric power markets.
Uncertainty is a very complex issue. I accept that nuclear power could be part of any scenario, but it should compete with other technologies. Energy efficiency should be in all scenarios – as a predetermined element. Market rules should eliminate the barriers to the resources of the demand side to allow for the full competitive development of energy efficiency, demand response, energy storage, distributed generation, etc.
Electric power monopolies - vertical integration – have become increasingly inefficient since the 70s. Physical risk management on vertical integration was done with supply side - generation and transmission reserves for system coordination. The emerging market changes iron system coordination to bits system coordination, as information and control transaction costs that were prohibitive years ago are getting cheaper and cheaper as time goes on.
Deregulation was sold by people that apparently didn't know about electricity (maybe knew a lot) but knew a lot about making money. The “decade old debate” was about vertical integration versus a flawed reform paradigm that is more inefficient than vertical integration for the majority of the customers. Please read about electricity without price controls starting with The Future Utility Customer Service Model to understand the third way. Go as deep as possible into the links until you feel satified.
The European Union agreed to liberalize electricity and gas for all customers on July 1st, 2007. France, Germany, and Spain are being pressured to unbundled retail and other changes. However, the problem is that the market design and architecture is the flawed one. The third way was not considered at all. Unbundling and other changes, although required, are insufficient to develop a true competitive market.
Regards,
José Antonio
Arvid, thanks for your humble response about the mental model related to the wikepedia quote about EDF Finances. It is clear from your response that it is a vertical integration controlled market mental model. As you can infer from my writing something else is emerging to solve the efficiency of electric power markets.
Uncertainty is a very complex issue. I accept that nuclear power could be part of any scenario, but it should compete with other technologies. Energy efficiency should be in all scenarios – as a predetermined element. Market rules should eliminate the barriers to the resources of the demand side to allow for the full competitive development of energy efficiency, demand response, energy storage, distributed generation, etc.
Electric power monopolies - vertical integration – have become increasingly inefficient since the 70s. Physical risk management on vertical integration was done with supply side - generation and transmission reserves for system coordination. The emerging market changes iron system coordination to bits system coordination, as information and control transaction costs that were prohibitive years ago are getting cheaper and cheaper as time goes on.
Deregulation was sold by people that apparently didn't know about electricity (maybe knew a lot) but knew a lot about making money. The “decade old debate” was about vertical integration versus a flawed reform paradigm that is more inefficient than vertical integration for the majority of the customers. Please read about electricity without price controls starting with The Future Utility Customer Service Model to understand the third way. Go as deep as possible into the links until you feel satified.
The European Union agreed to liberalize electricity and gas for all customers on July 1st, 2007. France, Germany, and Spain are being pressured to unbundled retail and other changes. However, the problem is that the market design and architecture is the flawed one. The third way was not considered at all. Unbundling and other changes, although required, are insufficient to develop a true competitive market.
Regards,
José Antonio
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 8
Refeence: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 7
Hi to all of you, as the second phase of the generative dialogue is developing around nuclear energy and the emerging market design and architecture.
If I understand correctly, Len is suggesting extending EWPC to Utilities Without Price Controls (UWPC). Both water and gas end-user needs seem to be fine for such extension. That is a good suggestion for the generative dialogue. That is in synchronicity with Jamie Wimberly’s article The Future Utility Customer Service Model closure, in which he endorses systemic approach and the revolution away from the continuity scenario.
The water suggestion reminds me that central power stations extension development is a large user of water, leading to the important problem of the limits of water ecosystems services; namely cooling water requirements of power stations. According to the source Water requirements of nuclear power stations are 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations. Water ecosystem services are an issue that may impose a growth limit to power system development.
Keeping for the moment on EWPC market design and architecture, I like to add to Len’s impression that I am not sure what he means by “a pure market electricity strategy such as EWPC.” EWPC is a combination – the third way missing in the decade old debate - of a controlled market and a free market.”
Transmission tightly integrated with distribution and system planning, operation and control involve a controlled, monopoly, market which is different from open transmission access controlled by RTOs and “native” loads. Generation and retail marketing belong to a non-real time free market, so it is ["not" is replaced by "a"] straightforward market extension to other utilities. Generation monopolies are not advised and should compete with the demand side, where CANDU technology can compete freely with other technologies on the short and long run.
The interface between long run system adequacy and short run smooth real-time operation and control of a power system is based on demand side and supply side unit commitments from retailers and generators. That is needed to ensure that Fred Schweppe’s engineering criteria is met. Water and gas systems requirements will not interfere with power system operation and control, leading to the potential and sound design feasibility of Len’s suggestion on the economies of scope of UWPC, as the engineering criteria of gas and water systems don’t interfere either.
Hi to all of you, as the second phase of the generative dialogue is developing around nuclear energy and the emerging market design and architecture.
If I understand correctly, Len is suggesting extending EWPC to Utilities Without Price Controls (UWPC). Both water and gas end-user needs seem to be fine for such extension. That is a good suggestion for the generative dialogue. That is in synchronicity with Jamie Wimberly’s article The Future Utility Customer Service Model closure, in which he endorses systemic approach and the revolution away from the continuity scenario.
The water suggestion reminds me that central power stations extension development is a large user of water, leading to the important problem of the limits of water ecosystems services; namely cooling water requirements of power stations. According to the source Water requirements of nuclear power stations are 20 to 83 per cent more than for other power stations. Water ecosystem services are an issue that may impose a growth limit to power system development.
Keeping for the moment on EWPC market design and architecture, I like to add to Len’s impression that I am not sure what he means by “a pure market electricity strategy such as EWPC.” EWPC is a combination – the third way missing in the decade old debate - of a controlled market and a free market.”
Transmission tightly integrated with distribution and system planning, operation and control involve a controlled, monopoly, market which is different from open transmission access controlled by RTOs and “native” loads. Generation and retail marketing belong to a non-real time free market, so it is ["not" is replaced by "a"] straightforward market extension to other utilities. Generation monopolies are not advised and should compete with the demand side, where CANDU technology can compete freely with other technologies on the short and long run.
The interface between long run system adequacy and short run smooth real-time operation and control of a power system is based on demand side and supply side unit commitments from retailers and generators. That is needed to ensure that Fred Schweppe’s engineering criteria is met. Water and gas systems requirements will not interfere with power system operation and control, leading to the potential and sound design feasibility of Len’s suggestion on the economies of scope of UWPC, as the engineering criteria of gas and water systems don’t interfere either.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 7
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 6
Len and Paul: the supply oriented, vertical integration, central station, mechanistic thinking, continuity paradigm is just one scenario. The 28 billion euros "is far from being sufficient." The surcharge depends on what it costs consumers the electricity, no just what the electricity bill amounts to. The difference is customer's outage costs, which rise as end use devices become sophisticated.
Under mechanistic thinking Andy’s article infers the need of forecasting. Under systemic thinking Forrester’s explains why forecasting is a losing game. Instead of forecasting, the use of scenarios comes to the fore, together with what I suggest to call Energy Dynamics. Forrester wrote about Industrial Dynamics, and John D. Sterman wrote Business Dynamics.
Decision making under scenarios is centered on intelligent conversations and finding flaws on mental models to find decisions which are robust under every scenario. Those are the predetermined elements.
I strongly believe, Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR) are predetermined elements which give EWPC an edge. To develop the resources on the demand side in EWPC, the old mental model of cherry picking, as Andy suggests in “Improved energy efficiency, particularly in the commercial sector, is the quickest and most cost effective way to begin closing the energy supply gap in a meaningful way in a short period of time” should change. As I posted on April 12, 2006, under the article What a surprise: Prices move both ways this is what Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had said then:
Such an approach, based on simulations with Energy Dynamics and scenario building, will allow the development of a trusted market design and architecture where long run and short run risk management is under control. EWPC is one healthy candidate for the approach.
In “Poised for change: hopeful signs for the power industry (see Time to Innovate…),” Charles W. Gellings, vice president of innovation at the EPRI, adds that:
Going for a nuclear silver bullet strategy, without considering the emerging market reform paradigm, is playing with fire.
Len and Paul: the supply oriented, vertical integration, central station, mechanistic thinking, continuity paradigm is just one scenario. The 28 billion euros "is far from being sufficient." The surcharge depends on what it costs consumers the electricity, no just what the electricity bill amounts to. The difference is customer's outage costs, which rise as end use devices become sophisticated.
Under mechanistic thinking Andy’s article infers the need of forecasting. Under systemic thinking Forrester’s explains why forecasting is a losing game. Instead of forecasting, the use of scenarios comes to the fore, together with what I suggest to call Energy Dynamics. Forrester wrote about Industrial Dynamics, and John D. Sterman wrote Business Dynamics.
Decision making under scenarios is centered on intelligent conversations and finding flaws on mental models to find decisions which are robust under every scenario. Those are the predetermined elements.
I strongly believe, Energy Efficiency (EE) and Demand Response (DR) are predetermined elements which give EWPC an edge. To develop the resources on the demand side in EWPC, the old mental model of cherry picking, as Andy suggests in “Improved energy efficiency, particularly in the commercial sector, is the quickest and most cost effective way to begin closing the energy supply gap in a meaningful way in a short period of time” should change. As I posted on April 12, 2006, under the article What a surprise: Prices move both ways this is what Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) had said then:
--- Energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR) can be cost-effective alternatives to adding new capacity
--- Programmatic approaches to EE and DR have been successful, but have only “scratched-the-surface” of what’s possible
--- Huge opportunity to utilize technology, innovation, and markets to drive EE, DR, and overall electricity utilization
Such an approach, based on simulations with Energy Dynamics and scenario building, will allow the development of a trusted market design and architecture where long run and short run risk management is under control. EWPC is one healthy candidate for the approach.
In “Poised for change: hopeful signs for the power industry (see Time to Innovate…),” Charles W. Gellings, vice president of innovation at the EPRI, adds that:
Assumption: The end-use efficiency of energy utilization has stagnated.
Fact: The U.S. is improving its end-use energy efficiency at a rate of about 1 percent per year. However, there is a potential for reducing the consumption of electricity by between 24 and 44 percent — if all existing technologies and those under development were deployed.
Going for a nuclear silver bullet strategy, without considering the emerging market reform paradigm, is playing with fire.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 6
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 5
Hi Arvid,
"It is Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge, Opportunity. A new paradigm of electric power is emerging which will replace vertical integration and under either ("Tough Times" or "Rising Expectations") very plausible “non-continuity” scenario, will allow a large market share of distributed resources, as explained under the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model.
Notice please that a third way was missed in the decade old debate, which I consider to be electricity without price controls (EWPC). Notice also that under systemic thinking we should be changing from debate to a generative dialogue to answer the question posed by Andy “And perhaps most critically, how can we instill the sense of urgency needed for a comprehensive energy strategy to be put in place?” A lot of uncertainty will not allow imposing a highly risky silver bullet anymore.
Given a “non-continuity” – systemic thinking - expansion scenario, to be simulated using Energy Dynamics against the nuclear silver bullet – mechanistic thinking - expansion “continuity” scenario, please describe the mental model behind the proposal explaining the following about EDF Finances (Source Wikipedia).
For a long time, EDF suffered from very low profits for a group benefiting from such monopoly, especially since in the weakness of its results on the domestic market, were added the poor performances of its foreign subsidiaries. Nevertheless, its balance sheet is very fragile, because of its international development, of its tariff policy in France and rapid deterioration of its profitability.
From 2001 till 2003, EDF was forced to reduce its equity capital due to untoward deviations of conversion in South America and write-down of its assets in Germany, Italy and in Brazil for a total of €6.4 billion total. However, according to the report of the Roulet Commission, international development, although costly, must be followed, because if EDF spent €15 billion euro on acquisitions, its rivals would spend €70 billion. The commission recommends a European strategy, an international presence, albeit focussed, and a larger drive to supply gas.
The most significant problem (in May, 2004) was the rocking of the balance sheet between equity capitals of €19 billion and a €24.5 billion debt (November, 2004), for which it is necessary to add:
--- about €30 billion to meet its commitments to retirement of its workers in the electrical and gas industries (retirement at 55 years, favourable pension rates, etc), which will be met over time by the new tax payable tariff by consumers.
--- €6.4 billion for financial commitments in Italy and in Germany, a sum which could come to more than €10 billion, from 2005.
--- and a huge sum to continue establishing reserves to finance the future dismantling of 58 nuclear power stations. A theoretical reserve currently valued at €28 billion was made, but it is far from being sufficient and it is used in fact to a greater extent for international development.
Thanks,
José Antonio (not just José)
Hi Arvid,
"It is Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge, Opportunity. A new paradigm of electric power is emerging which will replace vertical integration and under either ("Tough Times" or "Rising Expectations") very plausible “non-continuity” scenario, will allow a large market share of distributed resources, as explained under the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model.
Notice please that a third way was missed in the decade old debate, which I consider to be electricity without price controls (EWPC). Notice also that under systemic thinking we should be changing from debate to a generative dialogue to answer the question posed by Andy “And perhaps most critically, how can we instill the sense of urgency needed for a comprehensive energy strategy to be put in place?” A lot of uncertainty will not allow imposing a highly risky silver bullet anymore.
Given a “non-continuity” – systemic thinking - expansion scenario, to be simulated using Energy Dynamics against the nuclear silver bullet – mechanistic thinking - expansion “continuity” scenario, please describe the mental model behind the proposal explaining the following about EDF Finances (Source Wikipedia).
For a long time, EDF suffered from very low profits for a group benefiting from such monopoly, especially since in the weakness of its results on the domestic market, were added the poor performances of its foreign subsidiaries. Nevertheless, its balance sheet is very fragile, because of its international development, of its tariff policy in France and rapid deterioration of its profitability.
From 2001 till 2003, EDF was forced to reduce its equity capital due to untoward deviations of conversion in South America and write-down of its assets in Germany, Italy and in Brazil for a total of €6.4 billion total. However, according to the report of the Roulet Commission, international development, although costly, must be followed, because if EDF spent €15 billion euro on acquisitions, its rivals would spend €70 billion. The commission recommends a European strategy, an international presence, albeit focussed, and a larger drive to supply gas.
The most significant problem (in May, 2004) was the rocking of the balance sheet between equity capitals of €19 billion and a €24.5 billion debt (November, 2004), for which it is necessary to add:
--- about €30 billion to meet its commitments to retirement of its workers in the electrical and gas industries (retirement at 55 years, favourable pension rates, etc), which will be met over time by the new tax payable tariff by consumers.
--- €6.4 billion for financial commitments in Italy and in Germany, a sum which could come to more than €10 billion, from 2005.
--- and a huge sum to continue establishing reserves to finance the future dismantling of 58 nuclear power stations. A theoretical reserve currently valued at €28 billion was made, but it is far from being sufficient and it is used in fact to a greater extent for international development.
Thanks,
José Antonio (not just José)
domingo, diciembre 17, 2006
Atención al Proceso de Colapso Parte 3
Muchas gracias de nuevo César,
Primero lo esencial. Entendí la explicación de la disciplina y es definitivamente necesaria. Amplié, no obstante, como habrás visto otro empuje positivo en la nota Síntesis: Jugando con Fuego y con el Colapso, en la que concluyo con lo siguiente:
Como deben haber inferido, ustedes, el gobierno y los inversionistas privados e institucionales (BID, FMI y BIRF), en el país seguimos jugando con fuego y llevando el sector eléctrico y la economía al colapso. Los inversionistas en el sector eléctrico necesitan pensar muy bien si les conviene un sector eléctrico decadente en proceso de desintegración y en vías de colapso o si les conviene mejor un sector eléctrico renovado y reintegrado que ofrezca un servicio de alta confiabilidad y calidad y que aproveche al máximo su competitividad frente a terceros países.
Tomaré lo de maestro con mucha humildad y porque en verdad dejé las aulas para seguir enseñando por este medio digital, que no se compara con el intercambio de persona a persona, pero sí es muchísimo más efectivo que los salones de clases prehistóricos para aquel segmento de personas que aprenden leyendo.
Ciertamente mi énfasis ha estado puesto en los aspectos conceptuales que son la base con la que trabaja la administración de negocios. El énfasis lo he puesto en sacar a flote los modelos mentales defectuosos de los que toman decisiones pensando que no son teóricos.
Mirando el bosque de palabras, me encantó tu concepto de la filosofía como "teoría general del desarrollo." Mi muy limitado y tardío interés práctico a una clase de filosofía - teoría general de desarrollo - surgió de un artículo del Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, que se tituló algo como Do you have the will to lead? Me acordé en ese momento de los que José Ramón Bonilla llama temblorosos y quise dejar de ser uno más de ellos.
Luego encontré su libro “Leadership: the inner side of greatness,” que no es más que una compilación-guía de la sabiduría acumulada de la humanidad en un diamante cuyos vértices o estrategias son: visión, realidad, equidad y coraje. Para él la visión es pensar en grande y en lo nuevo; la realidad es no hacerse ilusiones; la ética es proveer servicio; y el coraje es actuar con iniciativa sostenida. El témpano debajo de esas estrategias es inmenso.
Mientras mayor es la intensidad de las estrategias mayor es el área del diamante y la grandeza que uno puede lograr. Lo que hice y sigo haciendo es tratar de poner en práctica esas enseñanzas filosóficas.
Saludos muy cordiales,
José Antonio
From: César Féliz [mailto:cesar.feliz@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:58 PM
To: Jose Antonio Vanderhorst
Subject: Fwd: Atención al Proceso de Colapso Parte 2
Apreciado amigo y maestro:
He leído tu respuesta a mis reflexiones y que bautizas con el halago de filósofica (inmerecido talvez). No me cabe duda alguna de tu correcta interpretación a mi reflexión filosófica. Quizás mucho de lo que se ha venido diciendo (ESCP) resulte para muchos lectores demasiado abstracto, pero me parece esta filosofía cimiento imprescindible sin el que sería imposible exponer las reflexiones sobre la ESCP. Iniciar la ESCP con una elemental filosofía, y toda filosofía obliga a mirar las cosas desde arriba, para que la ojeada abarque lo esencial desde el pasado hasta el presente y quizá apunte aurora de futuro. Pido pues excusas, suplico la lectura paciente y benevolente de los párrafos recién concluidos y sigo adelante.
Cuando el número de preguntas y su radicalidad arrollan patentemente la fragilidad recelosa de las respuestas disponibles, quizás sea la hora de acudir a la filosofía. No tanto por afán dogmático de poner pronto remedio al desconcierto sino para utilizar este a favor del pensamiento: hacernos intelectualmente dignos de nuestras perplejidades es la única vía para empezar a superarlas. Pero es que el proyecto mismo de la filosofía no puede desligarse de la cuestión del mercado. De vez en cuando, mi respetado maestro y colega vuelve a plantearse la cuestión de cuál sea el gran tema de la filosofía actual: confieso que sus respuestas me dejan siempre notablemente insatisfecho. Que si el retorno de la religión, que si la crisis de valores, que si los peligros de la técnica, que si el enfrentamiento entre individualismo y comunitarismo...cuestiones todas ellas muy adecuadas para ejercer el talento o para disimular altisonantemente la carencia de él. Sin embargo el tema de la ESCP, que coexiste con todos los anteriores y muchos otros, casi nunca lo oigo mencionar por muchos de nuestros exegetas eléctricos y de otras ramas afines. Por lo visto es algo muy sectorial, demasiado especializado, demasiado funcional y modesto para suscitar la atención de los grandes especuladores de hoy...aunque no lo fuese para muchos tampoco malos de los de ayer, como Schwepps y otros. Incluso, quien te escribe, que llega a definir la filosofía como "teoría general del desarrollo", incurriendo quizá en una exageración pero no en un absurdo. En cualquier caso, mi opinión está más cerca de esa hipérbole que de otras declamaciones que convierten a los filósofos en sacristanes o en auxiliares de laboratorio.
Antes de terminar, quiero manifestarte de tu fino olfato con relación a mis reflexiones, en especial en lo atinente al párrafo de tu respuesta, que dice: "Ahora bien, percibo una amenaza en el escrito que me preocupa y que puede servir para seguir polarizando e impulsando un debate." Supongo que te refieres a la idea subyacente que dejo entrever relativa a la "imposición" del nuevo modelo. Bien sabes de mi vocación democrática, y que la imposición o coacción del modelo no es lo que subyace en mis neuronas, ni es por lo que propugna el nuevo modelo. Sin embargo, quise traer esta posibilidad (imposición coacción) ante la insensatez e intemperancia de los agentes del sector ante el caos y colapso que nos amenazan. Es defícil complacer a todos, aún en la democracia. Si nadie está dispuesto a ceder y concertar con mira a la estabilidad y racionalidad, si todo es una babel, una mascarada y componenda de grupos para beneficiarse ilimitadamente en perjuicio de otros, entonces el sentido común (que talvez es el menos común de los sentidos) nos empujará hacia una lamentable imposición o coacción. ¿provendrá la imposición del gobierno?, es muy probable. ¿Tendrá el gobierno el coraje para hacerlo a sabienda de las implicaciones locales e internacionales?, en verdad no lo sé.
La historia está llena de imposiciones cuando reina el caos o se vislumbra el colapso. Es un hecho, que el poder con los difundidos poderes varios actuan normalizadora y disciplinarmente en el campo social en situaciones de caos y/o colapso.
Ojalá que el resultado no sea un borbotón de sangre, como auguró en vida el poeta Molinaza.
Un abraso
César Féliz
Síntesis: Jugando con Fuego y con el Colapso
Estimados Amigos del GMH y demás lectores,
Por la íntima relación con el proceso de colapso que vivimos en la economía dominicana, este fin de semana concentré mi atención en un artículo muy oportuno e interesante, que aparenta ser excesivamente leído (3,461 veces en menos de 3 días), sobre los riesgos de precio y suministro en la crisis emergente de gas natural. Aunque recomiendo leer cuidadosamente el artículo Playing with Fire – The 10 Tcf/year Supply Gap -- Part I, de Andrew Weissman, Editor-in-Chief & Publisher, EnergyBusinessWatch.com, y los comentarios al respecto, esta es una breve e incompleta síntesis a este momento del dialogo generativo que he impulsado:
Playing With Fire and Collapse
Leí con mucho interés el artículo llegando a la conclusión de que era un caso que pide el empleo de la disciplina Dinámicas de Negocio (Business Dynamics). La disciplina Dinámicas de Negocios es la aplicación a los negocios de la Dinámicas de Sistema, que es la profesión del diseño de sistema social. Esa profesión es joven todavía, porque cuenta con 50 años de existencia.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 2
Recientemente, el creador de la disciplina Dinámicas de Sistema, el Profesor de MIT, Jay Wright Forrester, ha sido incorporado como miembro del Salón de la Fama de Investigación de Operaciones (OR por sus siglas en inglés) de la International Federation of Operational Research Societies.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 3
Aprehendí de una entrevista del autor del artículo el “insight” sobre como la Dinámicas de Energía pueden ayudar a reconocer el sentido de urgencia en los procesos de crecimiento y de colapso por el daño que la falta de decisión apropiada ocasiona.
Propuse emplear la Dinamicas de Energía para estudiar los defectos de la liberación de los mercados realizada a bajo costo la ESCP. Quedé abierto a experimentar y afinar la ESCP con la Dinámicas de Energía.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 4
Agregué un enlace a un pdf de un proyecto en ejecución en Dinámicas de Energía.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 5
Respondí al Prof. Banks su cuestionamiento a mi aseveración sobre la invalidez de ciertos pronósticos.
Como deben haber inferido, ustedes, el gobierno y los inversionistas privados e institucionales (BID, FMI y BIRF), en el país seguimos jugando con fuego y llevando el sector eléctrico y la economía al colapso. Los inversionistas en el sector eléctrico necesitan pensar muy bien si les conviene un sector eléctrico decadente en proceso de desintegración y en vías de colapso o si les conviene mejor un sector eléctrico renovado y reintegrado que ofrezca un servicio de alta confiabilidad y calidad y que aproveche al máximo su competitividad frente a terceros países.
Con mucho afecto para ustedes y los lectores que se dignaron a leerlo, muy atentamente,
José Antonio
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 5
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 4
In response to the comment of Ferdinand Banks that is copied below, this is what I said:
Ferdinand, please take the whole sentence and the context in consideration.
You seem to be right under a mechanistic thinking mental model that doesn’t consider the environment. However, under a systemic thinking mental model, the interdependencies are very important. These are the components playing in the environment: 1) In simple term; 2) the world is undergoing a revolution - transition - from a stable state to hopefully another stable state; 3) In the past stable state –until the oil crisis - forecasting gave us reasonable results; 4) as uncertainty increases during a transition; and 5) forecasting just does not work anymore.
As for the environment you have the paragraph: The attempt to forecast future economic behavior is often taken as the proper and maybe the only important test of an economic model. The ability of a model to forecast future conditions is sometimes described as the gold standard for model evaluation. But seldom in the economic literature is there any claim that a model forecast is better than a naïve forecast of simply extrapolating from the recent past. Actually, I believe that attempts to forecast future conditions is a losing game and has been a diversion that has carried economists away from far more productive work.
The correct interpretation is different and valuable using the correct mental model.
Under a generative dialogue you are different than your opinion. While understanding Imy opinion may be wrong, I think your opinion was wrong. You are, however, a very intelligent man and a valuable member of any generative dialogue. Please keep at it.
Best regards,
José Antonio
This is what Prof. Banks said:
In response to the comment of Ferdinand Banks that is copied below, this is what I said:
Ferdinand, please take the whole sentence and the context in consideration.
You seem to be right under a mechanistic thinking mental model that doesn’t consider the environment. However, under a systemic thinking mental model, the interdependencies are very important. These are the components playing in the environment: 1) In simple term; 2) the world is undergoing a revolution - transition - from a stable state to hopefully another stable state; 3) In the past stable state –until the oil crisis - forecasting gave us reasonable results; 4) as uncertainty increases during a transition; and 5) forecasting just does not work anymore.
As for the environment you have the paragraph: The attempt to forecast future economic behavior is often taken as the proper and maybe the only important test of an economic model. The ability of a model to forecast future conditions is sometimes described as the gold standard for model evaluation. But seldom in the economic literature is there any claim that a model forecast is better than a naïve forecast of simply extrapolating from the recent past. Actually, I believe that attempts to forecast future conditions is a losing game and has been a diversion that has carried economists away from far more productive work.
The correct interpretation is different and valuable using the correct mental model.
Under a generative dialogue you are different than your opinion. While understanding Imy opinion may be wrong, I think your opinion was wrong. You are, however, a very intelligent man and a valuable member of any generative dialogue. Please keep at it.
Best regards,
José Antonio
This is what Prof. Banks said:
"Forecasting doesn't work any more", you say Jose. Kind of reminds me of what Kenneth Arrow's commanding officer told him during WW2 when Prof Arrow was doing weather forecasting for the US Air Force: 'We know that the forecasts are worthless, but what would be do without them.'
The correct interpretation here is that worthless means different things for different people. If forecasting makes any sense at all, which it does, then it was better that Captain Arrow did it instead of 'Yardbird' Bill.
sábado, diciembre 16, 2006
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 4
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 3
Please take a look at Systems Thinking for Sustainability: A Decision-Support Approach for Electrical Utility Executives Addressing Climate Change (416KB pdf), by Andrew Jones (2005), to see an ongoing Energy Dynamics project. I am sure others such efforts are in the making.
Please take a look at Systems Thinking for Sustainability: A Decision-Support Approach for Electrical Utility Executives Addressing Climate Change (416KB pdf), by Andrew Jones (2005), to see an ongoing Energy Dynamics project. I am sure others such efforts are in the making.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 3
Reference: Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 2
Hi again,
There is more food for thought on the “sense of urgency” as a key issue. Please check on the Interview on Proposed Windfall Profits Tax >>, Report on Business Television on April 28, 2006 on ANDY WEISSMAN'S SPEECHES & WEBCASTS, to understand the “in the process will be a huge amount of damage,” that results from complex interdependencies not being acknowledge with the required sense of urgency. By the way, Andy is underlined in the interview as “In defense of big oil.”
Murray Duffin and Bill Paine info about uncertainty of data also helps the business case for Energy Dynamics development.
System dynamics is the tool to look at growth and collapse processes by understanding system dynamic structure. The emergent EWPC paradigm is oriented in “defense of the customer,” with special emphasis on the opportunities for the development of markets at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Energy Dynamics is the tools to study the flaws of deregulation, without real live costly experiments. I am wide open to test and optimize EWPC with emerging Energy Dynamics simulation experiments.
Hi again,
There is more food for thought on the “sense of urgency” as a key issue. Please check on the Interview on Proposed Windfall Profits Tax >>, Report on Business Television on April 28, 2006 on ANDY WEISSMAN'S SPEECHES & WEBCASTS, to understand the “in the process will be a huge amount of damage,” that results from complex interdependencies not being acknowledge with the required sense of urgency. By the way, Andy is underlined in the interview as “In defense of big oil.”
Murray Duffin and Bill Paine info about uncertainty of data also helps the business case for Energy Dynamics development.
System dynamics is the tool to look at growth and collapse processes by understanding system dynamic structure. The emergent EWPC paradigm is oriented in “defense of the customer,” with special emphasis on the opportunities for the development of markets at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Energy Dynamics is the tools to study the flaws of deregulation, without real live costly experiments. I am wide open to test and optimize EWPC with emerging Energy Dynamics simulation experiments.
Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 2
Hi Andrew, Len, Ferdinand and readers,
Please note on the System Dynamics NEWSLETTER, Volume 19 – Number 4, October 2006 that “The creator of the discipline of System Dynamics, Prof. Jay Wright Forrester, has been made a member of the International Federation of Operational Research Societies' OR Hall of Fame.”
In addition, one of the experts on “Energy Dynamics” is Professor Andy Ford, the author of "Modeling the Environment". He developed a system dynamics model for the Western wholesale market of the US. For example (see document):
In simple term, the world is undergoing a revolution - transition - from a stable state to hopefully another stable state. In the past stable state –until the oil crisis - forecasting gave us reasonable results. However, as uncertainty increases during a transition, forecasting just does not work anymore. The article gives very rich examples of uncertainty of both gas demand and gas supply.
Andrew’s article brings a very important system dynamics element in his first summary article: how to sell the sense for urgency. For example, he identifies important systemic delays that people with mechanistic mental models just don't take into account. Those delays can be dynamically simulated in a complex system model, based on interdependent – systemic – elements to support the sense for urgency. Also, for example, Yaghootkar project seems to be useful for modeling the Alaskan Natural Gas Project.
The interdependencies identified by Andrew are the reason we need to cut across topics on EnergyPulse. The last addition to the generative dialogue was placed under the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model to support the emergent EWPC solution paradigm to power sector flaws.
Regards,
José Antonio
Please note on the System Dynamics NEWSLETTER, Volume 19 – Number 4, October 2006 that “The creator of the discipline of System Dynamics, Prof. Jay Wright Forrester, has been made a member of the International Federation of Operational Research Societies' OR Hall of Fame.”
In addition, one of the experts on “Energy Dynamics” is Professor Andy Ford, the author of "Modeling the Environment". He developed a system dynamics model for the Western wholesale market of the US. For example (see document):
As noted in a panel discussion on investor behavior at a workshop convened by the California Energy Commission on November 7, 2001, “Exploring Alternative Wholesale Energy Market Structures of California,” Professor Andy Ford remarked as follows:So the development of Energy Dynamics started already. As a further proof, on the same NEWSLETTER, one of Andy Ford student, Allyson Beall, gave “A first-timer’s view” at a “PhD Colloquium,” saying, among other things:
…when the western market is simulated over a longer time interval, it becomes clear that the Power Authority commitments will eventually lead to a reduction in private sector investment. (“Simulation Scenarios for the Western Electricity Market,” prepared by Professor Andrew Ford, Washington State University, p. 24)…IEP agrees with Professor Ford that the intervention of the CPA, particularly in an owner/operator mode, will tend to drive away much needed private investment in California.
Having had little face to face experience with system dynamics modelers other than my chair Andy Ford, I came to the colloquium having no idea what to expect…Stefan Groesser, modeling innovations in the residential building market, is grappling with the goal of the Swiss government to dramatically reduce residential energy demand. The second session opened with a study by Mathias Bosshardt of technological change in the Swiss car fleet… Kaszem Yaghootkar described his project dealing with the management of the problem of uncertainties in overlapping phases of engineering projects.
In simple term, the world is undergoing a revolution - transition - from a stable state to hopefully another stable state. In the past stable state –until the oil crisis - forecasting gave us reasonable results. However, as uncertainty increases during a transition, forecasting just does not work anymore. The article gives very rich examples of uncertainty of both gas demand and gas supply.
Andrew’s article brings a very important system dynamics element in his first summary article: how to sell the sense for urgency. For example, he identifies important systemic delays that people with mechanistic mental models just don't take into account. Those delays can be dynamically simulated in a complex system model, based on interdependent – systemic – elements to support the sense for urgency. Also, for example, Yaghootkar project seems to be useful for modeling the Alaskan Natural Gas Project.
The interdependencies identified by Andrew are the reason we need to cut across topics on EnergyPulse. The last addition to the generative dialogue was placed under the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model to support the emergent EWPC solution paradigm to power sector flaws.
Regards,
José Antonio
viernes, diciembre 15, 2006
Playing With Fire and Collapse
I posted a comment under the article Playing with Fire – The 10 Tcf/year Supply Gap -- Part I, by Andrew Weissman, Editor-in-Chief & Publisher, EnergyBusinessWatch.com. I think that playing with fire will lead to collapse. This is what I said:
Mr. Weissman,
I read your first article on the emerging gas crisis with great interest. The approach and the information you have presented is very rich indeed.
My interest is compounded as I have been researching and writing for more than 10 years about a current crisis in electricity in the Dominican Republic. I claim to have developed a market architecture and design – electricity without price controls (EWPC) - that solves the electricity restructuring flaws worldwide. Both crisis need to be studied as systemic crisis.
As your “goal is to stimulate further discussion and deeper inquiry into matters of urgent concern,” in line with my suggested generative dialogue on EnergyPulse, I suggest that you have disclosed a case begging the use of Business Dynamics. Business Dynamics is an outgrowth of System Dynamics, which is a "social system design" profession that is about 50 years old, as you can see at the beginning of the System Dynamics NEWSLETTER, Volume 19 – Number 2, June 2006.
The father of system dynamics, and Founding President of the System Dynamic Society, in his plenary address to the International System Dynamics Conference, on July 2003, under the title "Economic Theory for the New Millennium," Jay W. Forrester explained clearly why forecasting is a losing game:
Among other key elements, Professor Forrester also spoke about how prices develop:
Paraphrasing Mr. Forrester (see Newsletter), we need to "see emerging a stream of powerful, insightful, provocative, and publicly influential books on dynamics of subjects like energy." It could be called "Energy Dynamics."
A sense or urgency to face the worldwide energy crisis and a sense of urgency to practice Energy Dynamics will reinforce each other, creating a virtuous circle. In line with Energy Dynamics, the generative dialogue welcomes your series of articles and especially your goal to help us avoid playing with fire in the future.
Regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent (Systemic) Consultant on Electricity
Proponent of Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC)
Mr. Weissman,
I read your first article on the emerging gas crisis with great interest. The approach and the information you have presented is very rich indeed.
My interest is compounded as I have been researching and writing for more than 10 years about a current crisis in electricity in the Dominican Republic. I claim to have developed a market architecture and design – electricity without price controls (EWPC) - that solves the electricity restructuring flaws worldwide. Both crisis need to be studied as systemic crisis.
As your “goal is to stimulate further discussion and deeper inquiry into matters of urgent concern,” in line with my suggested generative dialogue on EnergyPulse, I suggest that you have disclosed a case begging the use of Business Dynamics. Business Dynamics is an outgrowth of System Dynamics, which is a "social system design" profession that is about 50 years old, as you can see at the beginning of the System Dynamics NEWSLETTER, Volume 19 – Number 2, June 2006.
The father of system dynamics, and Founding President of the System Dynamic Society, in his plenary address to the International System Dynamics Conference, on July 2003, under the title "Economic Theory for the New Millennium," Jay W. Forrester explained clearly why forecasting is a losing game:
The attempt to forecast future economic behavior is often taken as the proper and maybe the only important test of an economic model. The ability of a model to forecast future conditions is sometimes described as the gold standard for model evaluation. But seldom in the economic literature is there any claim that a model forecast is better than a naïve forecast of simply extrapolating from the recent past. Actually, I believe that attempts to forecast future conditions is a losing game and has been a diversion that has carried economists away from far more productive work.
Among other key elements, Professor Forrester also spoke about how prices develop:
In the model, supply and demand are not balanced by prices alone, as is commonly done in economic models. Inventories, backlogs, and delivery delays are the primary short-term balancing forces. Prices then change as a result of over or under supply of product.
Paraphrasing Mr. Forrester (see Newsletter), we need to "see emerging a stream of powerful, insightful, provocative, and publicly influential books on dynamics of subjects like energy." It could be called "Energy Dynamics."
A sense or urgency to face the worldwide energy crisis and a sense of urgency to practice Energy Dynamics will reinforce each other, creating a virtuous circle. In line with Energy Dynamics, the generative dialogue welcomes your series of articles and especially your goal to help us avoid playing with fire in the future.
Regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent (Systemic) Consultant on Electricity
Proponent of Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC)
Atención al Proceso de Colapso Parte 2
Referencia: Atención al Proceso de Colapso
Estimados Amigos del GMH,
También en celebración de los 19 meses de la Bitácora Digital, es importante el giro que debemos dar para transformar el sector eléctrico dominicano y desarmar el avanzado proceso de colapso a que está sometido con una reforma ajustada a las necesidades globales. Es momento de sumar voluntades para aprovechar grandes oportunidades que reduzcan grandemente el derroche de energía (y agua) que practicamos los dominicanos.
Muchas gracias a César por el aporte filosófico que nos envía en apoyo a la ESCP y en contra del libertinaje que se impuso con la reestructuración incompleta de los mercados eléctricos, no en RD solamente sino en amplios lugares del mundo. Todo sucedió porque el interés de preservar los grandes intereses pasaron por alto una tercera alternativa que entiendo está emergiendo y que no parece que se vaya a detener. De eso trata la nota The Future of the Power Industry in 2006 Part 2, que combina los últimos informes de EnergyBiz sobre “tiempo de innovar” y el debate de la APPA y las RTO, que se trataron ayer. En un párrafo de dicha nota aprehendí un “insight” de gran valor:
Mi traducción es la siguiente:
Resalta la sincronicidad el aspecto “regulado estrictamente” con la idea de la disciplina de la libertad que César asocia al colapso. Ahora bien, percibo una amenaza en el escrito que me preocupa y que puede servir para seguir polarizando e impulsando un debate.
Tal como aparece en Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 12, quiero insistir en que nos concentremos en las oportunidades emergentes y para eso es el diálogo generativo. Por eso vuelvo a la obra “Más Allá de los Límites,” que tiene los subtítulos “confrontando el colapso global” e “imaginándonos un futuro sustentable,” para citar esta vez a Aurelio Peccei:
Mi traducción de nuevo:
Muy atentamente,
José Antonio
Estimados Amigos del GMH,
También en celebración de los 19 meses de la Bitácora Digital, es importante el giro que debemos dar para transformar el sector eléctrico dominicano y desarmar el avanzado proceso de colapso a que está sometido con una reforma ajustada a las necesidades globales. Es momento de sumar voluntades para aprovechar grandes oportunidades que reduzcan grandemente el derroche de energía (y agua) que practicamos los dominicanos.
Muchas gracias a César por el aporte filosófico que nos envía en apoyo a la ESCP y en contra del libertinaje que se impuso con la reestructuración incompleta de los mercados eléctricos, no en RD solamente sino en amplios lugares del mundo. Todo sucedió porque el interés de preservar los grandes intereses pasaron por alto una tercera alternativa que entiendo está emergiendo y que no parece que se vaya a detener. De eso trata la nota The Future of the Power Industry in 2006 Part 2, que combina los últimos informes de EnergyBiz sobre “tiempo de innovar” y el debate de la APPA y las RTO, que se trataron ayer. En un párrafo de dicha nota aprehendí un “insight” de gran valor:
Missing in the decade old debate was a third way: the natural and simple way. The way to do it: the wires are natural monopolies to be kept integrated and tightly regulated to meet Schweppe’s 4th criteria – “consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system.” The mistake: open transmission access, which also violated the other three criteria for the end-customers. My research shows that the separation of transmission and distribution is not done at a modular interface from the operation standpoint. Generation and retail marketing are natural competitive enterprises.
Mi traducción es la siguiente:
Hizo falta en el debate de la última década una tercera vía: la vía natural y simple. La vía de hacerlo: los alambres son monopolios naturales que deben mantenerse integrados y regulados estrictamente para satisfacer el cuarto criterio de Schweppe – “considerar los requisitos para controlar, operar y planear un sistema eléctrico de potencia.” El error: acceso de transmisión abierto, el cual también viola los otros tres criterios para los clientes finales. Mis investigaciones demuestran que la separación de la transmisión de la distribución no fue hecha en un interfaz modular desde el punto de vista de operación. La generación y el mercadeo al detalle son empresas naturalmente competitivas.
Resalta la sincronicidad el aspecto “regulado estrictamente” con la idea de la disciplina de la libertad que César asocia al colapso. Ahora bien, percibo una amenaza en el escrito que me preocupa y que puede servir para seguir polarizando e impulsando un debate.
Tal como aparece en Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 12, quiero insistir en que nos concentremos en las oportunidades emergentes y para eso es el diálogo generativo. Por eso vuelvo a la obra “Más Allá de los Límites,” que tiene los subtítulos “confrontando el colapso global” e “imaginándonos un futuro sustentable,” para citar esta vez a Aurelio Peccei:
The future is no longer what it was thought to be, or what it might have been if humans had known how to use their brains and their opportunities more effectively. But the future can still become what we reasonably and realistically want.
Mi traducción de nuevo:
El futuro ya no es lo que pensamos iba a ser, o lo que hubiera sido si los humanos hubieran sabido como usar sus cerebros y sus oportunidades más eficazmente. Pero el futuro puede todavía tornarse en lo que razonable y realisticamente queremos.
Muy atentamente,
José Antonio
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 12
Referencia: Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 11
Estimados y estimadas VIPs,
Hoy que la Bitácora Digital del GMH cumple 19 meses de existencia, reitero algo más sobre la verdad absoluta versus el diálogo generativo, en mi sugerencia de que ustedes deberían ser los primeros en ser parte de la masa crítica de pensadores sistémicos que necesitamos. Sigo parafraseando el libro “Más Allá de los Límites”. Esta cita la presenté el 9 de octubre del 2003 en INTEC en una charla titulada "Electricidad al Detalle: Una Gran Oportunidad de Negocios." Repetí esta cita en uno de los talleres de la CNE en diciembre de ese mismo año y la coloqué también en Resaltando Sutilezas Sobre Centrales a Carbón #8 el 11 de junio del 2005.
Igualmente, cito dos párrafos de la nota La Verdad Sobre el Secuestro del Desarrollo:
Un fuerte abrazo,
José Antonio
Estimados y estimadas VIPs,
Hoy que la Bitácora Digital del GMH cumple 19 meses de existencia, reitero algo más sobre la verdad absoluta versus el diálogo generativo, en mi sugerencia de que ustedes deberían ser los primeros en ser parte de la masa crítica de pensadores sistémicos que necesitamos. Sigo parafraseando el libro “Más Allá de los Límites”. Esta cita la presenté el 9 de octubre del 2003 en INTEC en una charla titulada "Electricidad al Detalle: Una Gran Oportunidad de Negocios." Repetí esta cita en uno de los talleres de la CNE en diciembre de ese mismo año y la coloqué también en Resaltando Sutilezas Sobre Centrales a Carbón #8 el 11 de junio del 2005.
La profundidad de la ignorancia humana es mucho más profunda que la que la mayoría de nosotros está dispuesta a admitir. Especialmente en momentos cuando el país se debe unir en un todo más integrado que antes, cuando elementos de la sociedad están presionando contra los límites dinámicos del sector eléctrico, y cuando se reclaman completamente nuevas formas de pensar, nadie sabe realmente suficiente. Ningún líder, no importa la autoridad que pretenda tener, entiende la situación. Ninguna política puede ser declarada e impuesta a todos los demás.
– D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, 1992
Igualmente, cito dos párrafos de la nota La Verdad Sobre el Secuestro del Desarrollo:
Al igual que mi introducción en la presentación de INDOTEC en 1996, la propuesta que he preparado se basa en un concepto de abundancia e interdependencia, y asume que los dominicanos tenemos que ponernos de acuerdo. Que bueno que la burbuja del secuestro del sector eléctrico está siendo explotada por todas partes en sincronicidad. Para terminar de explotarla, hagamos lo que recomienda Eamonn Kelly en su libro Powerful Times, cuando sugiere: “Las apuestas son muy elevadas: nuestra era es demasiado compleja, sus retos demasiado significativos, sus promesas demasiado grandiosas, y su velocidad demasiado rápida para que nosotros simplemente reaccionemos. En vez de ello, debemos amplificar nuestros cerebros, individual y colectivamente, para cazarlos con nuestras nuevas circunstancias.”
La masa crítica de gente pragmática que sugiero es imprescindible para salvar el abismo de la mediatización y para liberarnos del secuestro a nuestro desarrollo. La gente pragmática que estudie esta nota dejará de tener elementos para seguir siendo apática. En sus manos está la solución y las subsecuentes oportunidades.
Un fuerte abrazo,
José Antonio
jueves, diciembre 14, 2006
The Future of the Power Industry in 2006 Part 2
On December 27th, 2005, under the article A Few More Unfriendly Comments on Electric Deregulation, I quoted Fred C Schweppe el al (Spot Pricing of Electricity, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988) saying:
"Restructuring Debate Still Rages," December 11, 2006, by Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, Editor-in-Chief, starts out with a dilemma as follows: "The discussion over whether electricity can be made into a competitive enterprise or whether it is an uncommon commodity that should be tightly regulated still rages more than a decade after the concept of restructuring was first envisioned."
Missing in the decade old debate was a third way: the natural and simple way. The way to do it: the wires are natural monopolies to be kept integrated and tightly regulated to meet Schweppe’s 4th criteria – “consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system.” The mistake: open transmission access, which also violated the other three criteria for the end-customers. My research shows that the separation of transmission and distribution is not done at a modular interface from the operation standpoint. Generation and retail marketing are natural competitive enterprises.
"Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF]," EnergyBiz magazine, November/December 2006, is about an emerging third way. EWPC: electricity without price controls the extension of Schweppe’s model is just one potential emerging candidate industry scenario.
© 2006. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
New directions for the utility industry are being sought by many interested parties in the government, the private sector, and the universities. One such direction has been widespread interest in utility-customer cooperation through innovative rates characterized by broader options and better use of information on utility costs and customer needs. The goal of this book is to provide a theoretically sound, yet practical foundation for the implementation of utility-customer transactions based on today's needs. Our goal is to meet four criteria:
1) Freedom of Choice: provide customers with options on the cost and reliability of supply and how they choose to use electric energy.
2) Economic Efficiency: Motivate customers to adjust their own electric energy usage patterns to match utility marginal costs.
3) Equity: Reduce customer cross-subsidies…
4) Utility Control, Operation and planning: Consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system.
"Restructuring Debate Still Rages," December 11, 2006, by Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, Editor-in-Chief, starts out with a dilemma as follows: "The discussion over whether electricity can be made into a competitive enterprise or whether it is an uncommon commodity that should be tightly regulated still rages more than a decade after the concept of restructuring was first envisioned."
Missing in the decade old debate was a third way: the natural and simple way. The way to do it: the wires are natural monopolies to be kept integrated and tightly regulated to meet Schweppe’s 4th criteria – “consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system.” The mistake: open transmission access, which also violated the other three criteria for the end-customers. My research shows that the separation of transmission and distribution is not done at a modular interface from the operation standpoint. Generation and retail marketing are natural competitive enterprises.
"Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF]," EnergyBiz magazine, November/December 2006, is about an emerging third way. EWPC: electricity without price controls the extension of Schweppe’s model is just one potential emerging candidate industry scenario.
© 2006. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 11
Estimados Amigos del GMH y del Exatec,
Como expresé en la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 9 , en respuesta al atento y oportuno email de César Féliz,
Muchas gracias de nuevo a Bernardo por su insistencia en aclarar la propuesta del GMH. Hoy nos envía una aporte con el asunto “Debate Sobre los Beneficios de la Reestructuración del Sector Eléctrico en EUA,” que he cambiado otra vez a la serie “Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue,” porque entiendo la mención a la verdad absoluta nace de las siguientes notas que ahora aparecen en la Bitácora Digital:
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 10
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 9
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 8
Como precisamente no soy un conocedor de la verdad, sino un dominicano laborioso, entusiasta y visionario, propulsor de la emergente electricidad sin control de precios, con el propósito de resolver la crisis enorme de electricidad que hemos venido padeciendo los dominicanos, he propuesto que dialoguemos para impulsar la mejor solución emergente. El diálogo generativo tiene precisamente como característica que uno no es su opinión, dejando claramente establecida la humildad y la capacidad de reconocer que es intrínseca en la naturaleza humana no ser dueña de la verdad absoluta.
El diálogo generativo es una expresión superior al debate que en vez de quedarse encerrada en el pasado da la posibilidad de buscar soluciones del futuro emergente que satisfagan a todas las partes sin concepciones preconcebidas.
Como bien se explicó en la Parte 8, ninguna de las dos posiciones del debate de los Estados Unidos que están escenificando dos entidades comprometidas con su territorio es valedera. En un lado está la APPA, que representa los intereses de la industria verticalmente integrada de los Estados Unidos (modelo mental que inspira el de la CDEEE, pero quedándose esta última bien corta) y que tiene una campaña montada bajo el nombre de Electric Market Reform Initiative (EMRI).
En el otro están las RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations), que representan la liberación de los mercados basadas en la separación de la transmisión de la distribución, con el famoso Open Transmission Access (modelo mental que inspira el de la capitalización, pero quedándose esta última bien corta). En la electricidad sin control de precios – un modelo mental emergente que extiende las investigaciones de Fred C. Scheppe - la transmisión y distribución permanecen integradas o son reintegradas en un monopolio de transporte puro. La diferencia es vital.
Silverstein inicia su comentario en que la discusión es sobre si la electricidad puede volverse una empresa competitiva o si debe mantener fuertemente regulada. La electricidad sin control de precios hace ambas cosas a las partes que les compete: las actividades naturalmente competitivas pasan a lograrlo, pero sin interferir en el desarrollo del sistema de transporte, ni en interferir en el riesgo sistémico a corto o largo plazos para obtener poder de mercado.
Ayer mismo estuve mirando el informe del profesor Kwoka, quien aparentemente encuentra que no hay evidencia confiable y convincente en que los consumidores están mejor, al encontrar deficiencias metodológicas importantes en 12 estudios, como se puede ver en la Nota de Prensa de la APPA. En su campaña, la APPA (Refutes LECG Study on Benefits of RTOs) refuta el Estudio LEGG de los beneficios de las RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations).
En síntesis la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 8 explica que la posición de la APPA es insostenible porque los clientes grandes encuentran oportunidades para evitar el sistema, que es lo que está haciendo Wal-Mart en Méjico. Que los grandes intereses negociaron en aposentos con los reguladores para imponer el Open Transmission Access, dejando a los clientes regulados cautivos, para asegurar que sus inversiones en generación no se volvieran obsoletas.
Por otro lado, la respuesta sobre Casazza aparece en la serie siguiente:
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate Parte 3
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate Parte 2
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate
La electricidad sin control de precios está diseñada para aprovechar las economías de coordinación que Jack menciona. Esas economías nacen de la reintegración del sector eléctrico dominicano, tal como lo expliqué en mi artículo del IEEE Power & Energy Review, en mi presentación de la Academia de Ciencias y en la propia Bitácora Digital. Esas economías de coordinación se fueron perdiendo con la desintegración del sector, creo primero en los ingenios azucareros. Federico toca el desarrollo de la Romana como isla independiente y que ahora resulta evidente cuando hablamos de colapso.
Con relación al colapso, la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 10 responde a Federico Martínez sobre lo aparentemente obvio en la noticia de Wal-Mart, para explicar la estrategia global de esa empresa. Lo importante del reportaje de EnergyBiz Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF] es el convencimiento de que estamos en el momento ideal para pensar frescamente sobre la solución a los problemas de la reforma de los sectores eléctricos.
Por lo anterior, vuelvo y repito que “Necesitamos que la clase económicamente pudiente y pragmática esté enterada de este mensaje, tome un nuevo rol y una sus esfuerzos para que la República Dominicana sea una de las sociedades exitosas de “estar dispuestos a reevaluar sus valores fundamentales,” como bien ha sugerido el Dominicano Valiente Federico Martínez.”
Un fuerte abrazo,
José Antonio
From: Bernardo Castellanos [mailto:bacm25@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:48 PMTo: Martín Robles; Michael Roy; Agustin Abreu; Gustavo Alba Sanchez; Jonathan Arthur; Luis Arthur; Emilio Contreras; "Máximo" D'oleo; Hector Jaquez; javs@ieee.org; Federico Martinez; George Reinoso; Martín Robles; Armando Rodriguez; Michael Roy; Milcíades Valenzuela; Jose Antonio Vanderhorst; Baron Victoria; Ernesto A. VilaltaSubject: DEBATE SOBRE LOS BENEFICIOS DE LA REESTRUCTURACION DEL SECTOR ELECTRICO EN EUA
En EUA exisyte un interesante debate sobre los supuestos beneficios que la reestructuracion del sector electrico ha traido a los uuarios Este articulo publicado en la revista EnergyBiz Insider trata sobre una serie de estudios realizados los cuales demuestran conclusiones contrapuestas
En adicion he incluido algunos comentarios de lectores de la revista
Quiero traer a colacion un comentario realizado hace un año por Jack Cassaza sobre este tema, el cual considero muy importante
Todo esto demuestra, que nadie es dueño de la verdad absoluta
Saludos
Bernardo
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=249
On 12/29/05, Jack Casazza wrote:
Dear Jose Antonio,
I have been reading the discussions between you, Prof. Banks and others and did not comment previously because I did not have anything to add. I thought perhaps I could be helpful at this time by providing a few comments, as follows:
- The restructuring and deregulation of the electric power industry was a serious mistake in the USA and in many countries, harming the general public.
- Competition has produced some benefits, particularly in the improvement in the operation of generation plants, but caused a severe decline in the coordination needed between the participants in the planning, design and operation of the generation and transmission systems of electric power grids. The reduction in the number of companies involved can produce some future savings.
- Generation dispatch is based on quoted prices rather that incremental production costs, increasing total production costs.
- Present and long range costs have been increased significantly since each company made decisions based on its own profits and not what was best for the overall grid in the long run, i.e., the overall public interest. (In the USA past studies have shown that the savings from coordination exceeded $20 billion a year before restructuring. Many of these prior benefits have been lost.)
- In most cases the changes that have been made in the industry structure and procedures cannot be undone, so we have to proceed by trying to use what is good from restructuring and removing or correcting the many harmful things that have resulted.
- I believe the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination between those involved in the power industry. A way to correct this learned from the past is through "coordination contracts" signed by the participating companies that provide for the planning, design and operation to be performed as if they constituted a single company. In such contracts the long range lowest total cost solution and lowest cost operation procedures were selected even if it meant that one company had to spend extra funds or give up some profits, as long as it resulted in a lower overall cost or was necessary to preserve reliability, even if in another system. These contracts provided for the compensation of a company for its extra costs or profits foregone plus a share of the overall benefits resulting to the public. (I have negotiated such contracts as far back as 50 years ago.)
There is much more analysis needed, but perhaps the comments above will get you thinking about the power system, not the markets.
Best regards,
Jack Casazza
Your Dec. 11 article, "Restructuring Debate Still Rages" completely misses the point with respect to the APPA-commissioned review of several studies of the benefits of restructuring (or lack thereof) mentioned therein. The quotes you used in the article come from the final paragraph of APPA's press release. Those quotes have virtually nothing to do with the substance of the review itself. Instead, they describe APPA's concerns regarding developments in the wholesale markets that prompted us to commission this review in the first instance.
The review itself was undertaken by Dr. John Kwoka, Neil F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of Economics at Northeastern University in Boston. After reviewing twelve of the most frequently cited studies of the consequences of industry restructuring, Prof. Kwoka concluded that "despite much advocacy, there is no convincing evidence that consumers are better off as a result of restructuring of the U.S. power industry today." The LECG study, to which you devote four paragraphs, suffers from many of the same deficiencies as the studies reviewed by Dr. Kwoka, and should not be relied upon as providing convincing evidence of consumer benefits from restructuring. A copy of Dr. Kwoka's paper is available on our Web site (www.APPAnet.org). I encourage you to read it - and perhaps to even write about it.
Alan H. Richardson
President & CEO
American Public Power Association
The debate about restructuring remains hopelessly muddled, and will continue to until we shift the conversation to one that includes the whole electricity system. As you point out, the transmission system is constrained and there is relatively little that commodity-deregulation is going to do to change this fact. Additionally, the efficiency of power generation remains locked at 33%. These two facts are innately linked: The single most expensive component of the power grid is the T&D backbone. And the biggest losses in the system are the heat losses from central power. Combined, this means that the single biggest opportunities to extract greater efficiencies from the grid are excluded from wholesale, commodity-focused restructuring: Namely, local generation. Local generation bypasses T, and much of D. Local generation enables the use of opportunity fuels and waste heat recovery. But to a large degree, local generators cannot meaningfully participate in restructured markets, due to a combination of their (usually) relatively small size, (often) high transactional costs to participate in ISO/RTO markets and a failure of these markets to acknowledge location- or time-specific values of electricity. At present, the deployment of local generation, is driven only by the displacement of regulated electricity from the local utility, not by any of the market restructuring which has occurred on the commodity side. Absent structures that recognize the values created by local generation, restructured markets can do little other than fuel swap - which is essentially all they have done. Ultimately, a grid responsive to market forces will include a mix of local and central generation, fossil and renewable fuels, power-only and CHP plants - but so far, the market signals have failed to make any serious effort to affect deployments of downstream assets. The irony is that as we become increasingly wires- and fuel-constrained, the commodity prices are bound to rise until we introduce full deregulation, which does perversely make the economics of local-generation ever more compelling, but this is a rather indirect and costly way to get to the right place.
We have gotten so caught up in the so-called unique nature of the electricity system, that we fail to see the current model for what it is. Imagine, if you will a world in which anyone could grow tomatoes, but once grown they had to sell them to Del Monte who had the exclusive right to process those tomatoes and distribute them through a chain of government-controlled grocery stores. Would any reasonable person call that a functional tomato market? The inefficiencies of this hypothetical model are obvious, and yet it is exactly what we have done in electricity. It is undoubtedly true that the opening up of wholesale markets was a step in the right direction - but we've still got miles to walk before we will see market forces significantly affecting the price of delivered electricity.
Sean Casten
Turbosteam Corporation
As a California resident, I saw the effects of California attempt at deregulation. Companies didn't simply game the market to their best legal advantage, they broke laws intended to keep the market fair and traders at those companies laughed and joked about it while they were ripping people off. I don't want these same companies to be in a free market again. They had their chance and proved themselves to be the worst stereotypes of big corporations.
Chris Stehlik
I don't know if our sound bite society is incapable of understanding nuance, or if interest groups are simply unwilling to concede that sometimes the opposition is right in some circumstances.
The PJM interconnect was a balkanized patchwork of many small companies. Getting rid of pancaked transmission improved economic dispatch of regional resources and lowered costs for everyone, hopefully enough to offset transmission cost increases on those entities that had low cost before the restructuring.
Out here in the Pacific Northwest, BPA controls about 80% of the regional transmission, PacifiCorp controls half or more of the remaining transmission. Because of this circumstance, there is far less uneconomic dispatch in the region, and therefore fewer benefits would result from an RTO. Since it costs a lot of money to create an RTO, it isn't clear the region would benefit from creating a duplicate of the structure that worked in PJM.
Furthermore, there is some point at which pancaked transmission is the efficient economic signal. When we import low cost power from Montana we pay two transmission charges to get it to the west coast. My gut feeling is that power generated half a continent away should pay more for transmission than local resources.
The transmission market is not perfect here, but I feel that too often studies are done for the express purpose of posturing, or are taken by advocates to support positions without understanding the differences between regions.
Eric Hiaasen
Mid-term Trader
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Como expresé en la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 9 , en respuesta al atento y oportuno email de César Féliz,
… sigo esperando otros “feedbacks.” Lo que hace falta ahora es ampliar el Círculo de Amigos al GMH o a lo mejor al Círculo de Amigos a la ESCP – no para imponerla – sino para desarrollar una concertación que permita a los dominicanos transformar esta crisis sistémica – la gran depresión eléctrica – en un conjunto de grandes oportunidades, con la asociación del capital extranjero para dirigirnos a convertir la electricidad como nuestra marca país.
Muchas gracias de nuevo a Bernardo por su insistencia en aclarar la propuesta del GMH. Hoy nos envía una aporte con el asunto “Debate Sobre los Beneficios de la Reestructuración del Sector Eléctrico en EUA,” que he cambiado otra vez a la serie “Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue,” porque entiendo la mención a la verdad absoluta nace de las siguientes notas que ahora aparecen en la Bitácora Digital:
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 10
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 9
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 8
Como precisamente no soy un conocedor de la verdad, sino un dominicano laborioso, entusiasta y visionario, propulsor de la emergente electricidad sin control de precios, con el propósito de resolver la crisis enorme de electricidad que hemos venido padeciendo los dominicanos, he propuesto que dialoguemos para impulsar la mejor solución emergente. El diálogo generativo tiene precisamente como característica que uno no es su opinión, dejando claramente establecida la humildad y la capacidad de reconocer que es intrínseca en la naturaleza humana no ser dueña de la verdad absoluta.
El diálogo generativo es una expresión superior al debate que en vez de quedarse encerrada en el pasado da la posibilidad de buscar soluciones del futuro emergente que satisfagan a todas las partes sin concepciones preconcebidas.
Como bien se explicó en la Parte 8, ninguna de las dos posiciones del debate de los Estados Unidos que están escenificando dos entidades comprometidas con su territorio es valedera. En un lado está la APPA, que representa los intereses de la industria verticalmente integrada de los Estados Unidos (modelo mental que inspira el de la CDEEE, pero quedándose esta última bien corta) y que tiene una campaña montada bajo el nombre de Electric Market Reform Initiative (EMRI).
En el otro están las RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations), que representan la liberación de los mercados basadas en la separación de la transmisión de la distribución, con el famoso Open Transmission Access (modelo mental que inspira el de la capitalización, pero quedándose esta última bien corta). En la electricidad sin control de precios – un modelo mental emergente que extiende las investigaciones de Fred C. Scheppe - la transmisión y distribución permanecen integradas o son reintegradas en un monopolio de transporte puro. La diferencia es vital.
Silverstein inicia su comentario en que la discusión es sobre si la electricidad puede volverse una empresa competitiva o si debe mantener fuertemente regulada. La electricidad sin control de precios hace ambas cosas a las partes que les compete: las actividades naturalmente competitivas pasan a lograrlo, pero sin interferir en el desarrollo del sistema de transporte, ni en interferir en el riesgo sistémico a corto o largo plazos para obtener poder de mercado.
Ayer mismo estuve mirando el informe del profesor Kwoka, quien aparentemente encuentra que no hay evidencia confiable y convincente en que los consumidores están mejor, al encontrar deficiencias metodológicas importantes en 12 estudios, como se puede ver en la Nota de Prensa de la APPA. En su campaña, la APPA (Refutes LECG Study on Benefits of RTOs) refuta el Estudio LEGG de los beneficios de las RTO (Regional Transmission Organizations).
En síntesis la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 8 explica que la posición de la APPA es insostenible porque los clientes grandes encuentran oportunidades para evitar el sistema, que es lo que está haciendo Wal-Mart en Méjico. Que los grandes intereses negociaron en aposentos con los reguladores para imponer el Open Transmission Access, dejando a los clientes regulados cautivos, para asegurar que sus inversiones en generación no se volvieran obsoletas.
Por otro lado, la respuesta sobre Casazza aparece en la serie siguiente:
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate Parte 3
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate Parte 2
Jack Casazza Recommendation: Cooperate and Coordinate
La electricidad sin control de precios está diseñada para aprovechar las economías de coordinación que Jack menciona. Esas economías nacen de la reintegración del sector eléctrico dominicano, tal como lo expliqué en mi artículo del IEEE Power & Energy Review, en mi presentación de la Academia de Ciencias y en la propia Bitácora Digital. Esas economías de coordinación se fueron perdiendo con la desintegración del sector, creo primero en los ingenios azucareros. Federico toca el desarrollo de la Romana como isla independiente y que ahora resulta evidente cuando hablamos de colapso.
Con relación al colapso, la nota Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 10 responde a Federico Martínez sobre lo aparentemente obvio en la noticia de Wal-Mart, para explicar la estrategia global de esa empresa. Lo importante del reportaje de EnergyBiz Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF] es el convencimiento de que estamos en el momento ideal para pensar frescamente sobre la solución a los problemas de la reforma de los sectores eléctricos.
Por lo anterior, vuelvo y repito que “Necesitamos que la clase económicamente pudiente y pragmática esté enterada de este mensaje, tome un nuevo rol y una sus esfuerzos para que la República Dominicana sea una de las sociedades exitosas de “estar dispuestos a reevaluar sus valores fundamentales,” como bien ha sugerido el Dominicano Valiente Federico Martínez.”
Un fuerte abrazo,
José Antonio
From: Bernardo Castellanos [mailto:bacm25@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:48 PMTo: Martín Robles; Michael Roy; Agustin Abreu; Gustavo Alba Sanchez; Jonathan Arthur; Luis Arthur; Emilio Contreras; "Máximo" D'oleo; Hector Jaquez; javs@ieee.org; Federico Martinez; George Reinoso; Martín Robles; Armando Rodriguez; Michael Roy; Milcíades Valenzuela; Jose Antonio Vanderhorst; Baron Victoria; Ernesto A. VilaltaSubject: DEBATE SOBRE LOS BENEFICIOS DE LA REESTRUCTURACION DEL SECTOR ELECTRICO EN EUA
En EUA exisyte un interesante debate sobre los supuestos beneficios que la reestructuracion del sector electrico ha traido a los uuarios Este articulo publicado en la revista EnergyBiz Insider trata sobre una serie de estudios realizados los cuales demuestran conclusiones contrapuestas
En adicion he incluido algunos comentarios de lectores de la revista
Quiero traer a colacion un comentario realizado hace un año por Jack Cassaza sobre este tema, el cual considero muy importante
Todo esto demuestra, que nadie es dueño de la verdad absoluta
Saludos
Bernardo
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=249
On 12/29/05, Jack Casazza wrote:
Dear Jose Antonio,
I have been reading the discussions between you, Prof. Banks and others and did not comment previously because I did not have anything to add. I thought perhaps I could be helpful at this time by providing a few comments, as follows:
- The restructuring and deregulation of the electric power industry was a serious mistake in the USA and in many countries, harming the general public.
- Competition has produced some benefits, particularly in the improvement in the operation of generation plants, but caused a severe decline in the coordination needed between the participants in the planning, design and operation of the generation and transmission systems of electric power grids. The reduction in the number of companies involved can produce some future savings.
- Generation dispatch is based on quoted prices rather that incremental production costs, increasing total production costs.
- Present and long range costs have been increased significantly since each company made decisions based on its own profits and not what was best for the overall grid in the long run, i.e., the overall public interest. (In the USA past studies have shown that the savings from coordination exceeded $20 billion a year before restructuring. Many of these prior benefits have been lost.)
- In most cases the changes that have been made in the industry structure and procedures cannot be undone, so we have to proceed by trying to use what is good from restructuring and removing or correcting the many harmful things that have resulted.
- I believe the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination between those involved in the power industry. A way to correct this learned from the past is through "coordination contracts" signed by the participating companies that provide for the planning, design and operation to be performed as if they constituted a single company. In such contracts the long range lowest total cost solution and lowest cost operation procedures were selected even if it meant that one company had to spend extra funds or give up some profits, as long as it resulted in a lower overall cost or was necessary to preserve reliability, even if in another system. These contracts provided for the compensation of a company for its extra costs or profits foregone plus a share of the overall benefits resulting to the public. (I have negotiated such contracts as far back as 50 years ago.)
There is much more analysis needed, but perhaps the comments above will get you thinking about the power system, not the markets.
Best regards,
Jack Casazza
Your Dec. 11 article, "Restructuring Debate Still Rages" completely misses the point with respect to the APPA-commissioned review of several studies of the benefits of restructuring (or lack thereof) mentioned therein. The quotes you used in the article come from the final paragraph of APPA's press release. Those quotes have virtually nothing to do with the substance of the review itself. Instead, they describe APPA's concerns regarding developments in the wholesale markets that prompted us to commission this review in the first instance.
The review itself was undertaken by Dr. John Kwoka, Neil F. Finnegan Distinguished Professor of Economics at Northeastern University in Boston. After reviewing twelve of the most frequently cited studies of the consequences of industry restructuring, Prof. Kwoka concluded that "despite much advocacy, there is no convincing evidence that consumers are better off as a result of restructuring of the U.S. power industry today." The LECG study, to which you devote four paragraphs, suffers from many of the same deficiencies as the studies reviewed by Dr. Kwoka, and should not be relied upon as providing convincing evidence of consumer benefits from restructuring. A copy of Dr. Kwoka's paper is available on our Web site (www.APPAnet.org). I encourage you to read it - and perhaps to even write about it.
Alan H. Richardson
President & CEO
American Public Power Association
The debate about restructuring remains hopelessly muddled, and will continue to until we shift the conversation to one that includes the whole electricity system. As you point out, the transmission system is constrained and there is relatively little that commodity-deregulation is going to do to change this fact. Additionally, the efficiency of power generation remains locked at 33%. These two facts are innately linked: The single most expensive component of the power grid is the T&D backbone. And the biggest losses in the system are the heat losses from central power. Combined, this means that the single biggest opportunities to extract greater efficiencies from the grid are excluded from wholesale, commodity-focused restructuring: Namely, local generation. Local generation bypasses T, and much of D. Local generation enables the use of opportunity fuels and waste heat recovery. But to a large degree, local generators cannot meaningfully participate in restructured markets, due to a combination of their (usually) relatively small size, (often) high transactional costs to participate in ISO/RTO markets and a failure of these markets to acknowledge location- or time-specific values of electricity. At present, the deployment of local generation, is driven only by the displacement of regulated electricity from the local utility, not by any of the market restructuring which has occurred on the commodity side. Absent structures that recognize the values created by local generation, restructured markets can do little other than fuel swap - which is essentially all they have done. Ultimately, a grid responsive to market forces will include a mix of local and central generation, fossil and renewable fuels, power-only and CHP plants - but so far, the market signals have failed to make any serious effort to affect deployments of downstream assets. The irony is that as we become increasingly wires- and fuel-constrained, the commodity prices are bound to rise until we introduce full deregulation, which does perversely make the economics of local-generation ever more compelling, but this is a rather indirect and costly way to get to the right place.
We have gotten so caught up in the so-called unique nature of the electricity system, that we fail to see the current model for what it is. Imagine, if you will a world in which anyone could grow tomatoes, but once grown they had to sell them to Del Monte who had the exclusive right to process those tomatoes and distribute them through a chain of government-controlled grocery stores. Would any reasonable person call that a functional tomato market? The inefficiencies of this hypothetical model are obvious, and yet it is exactly what we have done in electricity. It is undoubtedly true that the opening up of wholesale markets was a step in the right direction - but we've still got miles to walk before we will see market forces significantly affecting the price of delivered electricity.
Sean Casten
Turbosteam Corporation
As a California resident, I saw the effects of California attempt at deregulation. Companies didn't simply game the market to their best legal advantage, they broke laws intended to keep the market fair and traders at those companies laughed and joked about it while they were ripping people off. I don't want these same companies to be in a free market again. They had their chance and proved themselves to be the worst stereotypes of big corporations.
Chris Stehlik
I don't know if our sound bite society is incapable of understanding nuance, or if interest groups are simply unwilling to concede that sometimes the opposition is right in some circumstances.
The PJM interconnect was a balkanized patchwork of many small companies. Getting rid of pancaked transmission improved economic dispatch of regional resources and lowered costs for everyone, hopefully enough to offset transmission cost increases on those entities that had low cost before the restructuring.
Out here in the Pacific Northwest, BPA controls about 80% of the regional transmission, PacifiCorp controls half or more of the remaining transmission. Because of this circumstance, there is far less uneconomic dispatch in the region, and therefore fewer benefits would result from an RTO. Since it costs a lot of money to create an RTO, it isn't clear the region would benefit from creating a duplicate of the structure that worked in PJM.
Furthermore, there is some point at which pancaked transmission is the efficient economic signal. When we import low cost power from Montana we pay two transmission charges to get it to the west coast. My gut feeling is that power generated half a continent away should pay more for transmission than local resources.
The transmission market is not perfect here, but I feel that too often studies are done for the express purpose of posturing, or are taken by advocates to support positions without understanding the differences between regions.
Eric Hiaasen
Mid-term Trader
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 10
Estimados Amigos del GMH y del Exatec,
Muchas gracias a Federico Martínez por sus preguntas muy atinadas, que permiten aclarar mi sugerencia de hacer – con el impulso de los receptores, nacionales y extranjeros, pragmáticos y poderosos de este email - que se torne inminente una reforma realmente integral del sector eléctrico.
Verdaderamente, para cualquier persona que no sea entusiasta o visionaria, lo que se desprende de la información referida por Luís Arthur es simplemente un “peak shaving” y nada más. Sin embargo, yo sabía que Wal-Mart tiene una estrategia global, cuyas metas son:
20% Energy/GHG reduction in existing stores within 7 years
30% Energy/GHG reduction for new prototype within 4 years
GHG es green house gases.
Una cita complementaria:
"I have traveled extensively visiting retail in North America, Central America, South America, Europe and Asia. I can honestly say that in my opinion the stores Wal-Mart builds today in the US are the most energy efficient of any I have ever seen anywhere in the world."
Anexo pueden encontrar una foto de War-Mart que respalda mi comentario “la cogeneración le permite a Wal-Mart aprovechar el calor que las centrales desperdician,” que aparece en “Part 8” de esta serie.
A la luz de la información anterior y ahora que EnergyBiz emitió el informe Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF], a mi me parece otra cosa. Ese informe dice: “As levels of spending escalate, the paramount question will be whether the money is spent on appropriate technologies. The moment is ideal, some suggest, for utilities to think freshly about how to best accomplish their mission.
Me encantó esto del momento ideal para pensar frescamente (de eso trata el diálogo generativo), ahora que según Federico el país está yendo hacia el colapso. Si el país se va al colapso, estoy completamente seguro, y así lo he escrito en varias ocasiones, que el principal empuje lo está dando el sector eléctrico desde los años 70. Los agentes del sector eléctrico que están considerando invertir en centrales a carbón IPP se darán un gran susto si el sector eléctrico sigue el proceso de colapso. A ellos le recomiendo leer la nota Atención al Proceso de Colapso para asegurarse de que están invirtiendo sus recursos en las tecnologías apropiadas.
Necesitamos que la clase económicamente pudiente y pragmática esté enterada de este mensaje, tome un nuevo rol y una sus esfuerzos para que la República Dominicana sea una de las sociedades exitosas de “estar dispuestos a reevaluar sus valores fundamentales,” como bien ha sugerido el Dominicano Valiente Federico Martínez.
Saludos muy cordiales,
José Antonio
From: Federico A. Martinez [mailto:federico@promarketdr.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:25 PMTo: 'José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD'; 'Bernardo Castellanos'; 'Luis H. Arthur S.'; 'Armando Rodriguez'; 'César Féliz'; 'Ernesto A. Vilalta'; 'george reinoso'; javs@ieee.org; 'Jonathan Arthur'; '"'Martín" Robles''Cc: 'Alvaro Sousa'; 'Antonio Peña'; 'Eloy Blanco Abbott'; 'Emilio Contreras'; 'Frank Castillo (CONEP)'; 'Gustavo Alba Sanchez'; 'Jorge Abbott'; 'Jose Oscar Orsini Bosch'; 'Marie Carmen Jaquez'; 'Milcíades Valenzuela'; 'Milton Tejada/T&T Prime Media'; 'Rhadamés García'Subject: RE: De El Norte de hoy
Parece más bien que instalaron plantas de “peak shaving”. ¿Será que se desconectan a la hora en que la energía es más cara?
FM
Muchas gracias a Federico Martínez por sus preguntas muy atinadas, que permiten aclarar mi sugerencia de hacer – con el impulso de los receptores, nacionales y extranjeros, pragmáticos y poderosos de este email - que se torne inminente una reforma realmente integral del sector eléctrico.
Verdaderamente, para cualquier persona que no sea entusiasta o visionaria, lo que se desprende de la información referida por Luís Arthur es simplemente un “peak shaving” y nada más. Sin embargo, yo sabía que Wal-Mart tiene una estrategia global, cuyas metas son:
20% Energy/GHG reduction in existing stores within 7 years
30% Energy/GHG reduction for new prototype within 4 years
GHG es green house gases.
Una cita complementaria:
"I have traveled extensively visiting retail in North America, Central America, South America, Europe and Asia. I can honestly say that in my opinion the stores Wal-Mart builds today in the US are the most energy efficient of any I have ever seen anywhere in the world."
Anexo pueden encontrar una foto de War-Mart que respalda mi comentario “la cogeneración le permite a Wal-Mart aprovechar el calor que las centrales desperdician,” que aparece en “Part 8” de esta serie.
A la luz de la información anterior y ahora que EnergyBiz emitió el informe Time To Innovate - Energy Utilities Face Unprecedented Challenge,Opportunity [PDF], a mi me parece otra cosa. Ese informe dice: “As levels of spending escalate, the paramount question will be whether the money is spent on appropriate technologies. The moment is ideal, some suggest, for utilities to think freshly about how to best accomplish their mission.
Me encantó esto del momento ideal para pensar frescamente (de eso trata el diálogo generativo), ahora que según Federico el país está yendo hacia el colapso. Si el país se va al colapso, estoy completamente seguro, y así lo he escrito en varias ocasiones, que el principal empuje lo está dando el sector eléctrico desde los años 70. Los agentes del sector eléctrico que están considerando invertir en centrales a carbón IPP se darán un gran susto si el sector eléctrico sigue el proceso de colapso. A ellos le recomiendo leer la nota Atención al Proceso de Colapso para asegurarse de que están invirtiendo sus recursos en las tecnologías apropiadas.
Necesitamos que la clase económicamente pudiente y pragmática esté enterada de este mensaje, tome un nuevo rol y una sus esfuerzos para que la República Dominicana sea una de las sociedades exitosas de “estar dispuestos a reevaluar sus valores fundamentales,” como bien ha sugerido el Dominicano Valiente Federico Martínez.
Saludos muy cordiales,
José Antonio
From: Federico A. Martinez [mailto:federico@promarketdr.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:25 PMTo: 'José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD'; 'Bernardo Castellanos'; 'Luis H. Arthur S.'; 'Armando Rodriguez'; 'César Féliz'; 'Ernesto A. Vilalta'; 'george reinoso'; javs@ieee.org; 'Jonathan Arthur'; '"'Martín" Robles''Cc: 'Alvaro Sousa'; 'Antonio Peña'; 'Eloy Blanco Abbott'; 'Emilio Contreras'; 'Frank Castillo (CONEP)'; 'Gustavo Alba Sanchez'; 'Jorge Abbott'; 'Jose Oscar Orsini Bosch'; 'Marie Carmen Jaquez'; 'Milcíades Valenzuela'; 'Milton Tejada/T&T Prime Media'; 'Rhadamés García'Subject: RE: De El Norte de hoy
Parece más bien que instalaron plantas de “peak shaving”. ¿Será que se desconectan a la hora en que la energía es más cara?
FM
Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 9
Muchas gracias a César por tu atento y oportuno “feedback” y por la clara apreciación sobre el destino de los bueyes que no quieran cambiar.
Necesitamos otros “feedbacks.” Lo que hace falta ahora es ampliar el Círculo de Amigos al GMH o a lo mejor al Círculo de Amigos a la ESCP – no para imponerla – sino para desarrollar una concertación que permita a los dominicanos transformar esta crisis sistémica – la gran depresión eléctrica – en un conjunto de grandes oportunidades, con la asociación del capital extranjero para dirigirnos a convertir la electricidad como nuestra marca país.
Resultará evidente que aquellos que tienen intereses creados, y que normalmente exigen el cumplimiento de sus derechos adquiridos, deberían cambiar de modelo mental y asociarse al diálogo generativo para orientar sus derechos y exigencias de otra manera.
Esa otra manera es la de mirar al sector como una unidad que compite con los otros sectores eléctricos de Centroamérica y el Caribe, asociada a los demás sectores productivos, para aprovechar los acuerdos de DR-CAFTA con USA y de AAE con la Unión Europea. Al hacerlo, desarrollarán ventajas competitivas para luego desplazarse a Centroamérica, al Caribe y hasta llegar a América del Sur a completar la reforma que iniciaron los chilenos.
La industria eléctrica tradicional debe dejar de ser protegida y dejar que emerja la nueva industria. Hagamos como los ingleses: murió el Rey; viva el Rey. Esos son elementos de una visión compartida emergente. Esperemos que así se entienda.
Un humilde abrazo,
José Antonio
From:
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:09 AM
To: Jose Antonio Vanderhorst
Subject: Fwd: Let's Get Out of Back Rooms to a Generative Dialogue Part 8
Apreciado José Antonio:
Tu punto de vista respecto al caso WalMart en México y Hotel Jaragua y otras empresas de República Dominicana, recalca una vez más el lema de que ninguna clase se suicida (encuentran "los defectos en las obsoletas reglas de los sectores eléctricos para salirse del defectuoso y costos sistema" y las ventajas, "tener bajo su control su propia generación y asegurar así un menor riesgo a sus delicados sistemas de operación".) En síntesis, estos casos ponen de manifiesto, que los clientes no son tomados en cuenta en la repartición del pastel eléctrico, excepto en el pago de éste.
El artículo de Donella Meadows lo explica con claridad, estoy de acuerdo que talvez mucho de los del grupo, no leyeron completo el artículo o talvez no hayan podido hacer una buena traducción.
Lo importante es, que los modelos viejos han demostrado que no funcionan adecuadamente, y que la electricidad sin control de precios (nuevo modelo) si resuelve los defectos del modelo (sintomático) infuncional actual. Finalmente, si los bueyes que no quieren cambiar no se alinean con los nuevos astros (nuevos modelos), es posible que los astrólogos no los tomen en cuenta en el zodíaco o la realidad del mercado les dará en la cara.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)