Last week, the town of Las Galeras in Samana became the first part of the DR to benefit from clean electricity generated by wind power, according to Jose Oscar Orsini, president of Luz y Fuerza de Las Terrenas, C. por A. power company. The operation of the country's first commercial wind-powered generator, a 60KW generator, will reduce electricity prices by 5-8% for consumers in Las Galeras. The company plans to sell the kWh for US$0.15 and US$0.17. Luz y Fuerza de Las Terrenas, C. por A. has the concession for power distribution in the north and east of the Samana Peninsula. It purchases the power from Generadora Eolica de Las Galeras, S.A., presided by Jaime Fernandez. The Las Galeras wind park is located on a plain at Las Guzumas, Cabo Samana, where the winds are very favorable. A coastal shelf formed by a marble mine at 800 feet dropping down to the sea creates a kind of Venturi air flow effect that accelerates the force of the winds. The generator can currently provide 15% of the power used in the beach town of Las Galeras. Generadora Eolica de Las Galeras, S.A. plans to install a wind park with the capacity to generate 1,200KW to supply 20% of the north and eastern areas of the Samana peninsula. The park has the capacity for three 275KW and four 60KW generators when the Las Galeras and Las Terrenas systems are interconnected. The first four 60KWs will be installed by June 2008 and plans are for the system to be interconnected by the end of 2008. The wind park requires a US$1.5 million investment, of which US$500,000 has been invested in the first system now in operation. The site was chosen 10 years ago when USAID financed a study on wind power potential in the Dominican Republic, which was carried out by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NREC) of the United States.
jueves, agosto 30, 2007
Final: IMEUC not a Market Architecture and Design
Reference and context: under the energypulse.net article Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, by Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source. with 72 comments as of 8.31.07.
By now, readers have the answer to Todd's statement on the second day of comments under this article: "Jose Antonio, I'm curious of your hangup with Len."
Reality: everyone should be curious of Len's hangup with EWPC.
I am really asking for help. Is Len and/or Fred, working for some vested interest or are they just simple skeptics or just good guys trying to find the truth? Does anyone have info to that respect? I could supply a post about Fred being a skeptic, that somehow he run away from two times earlier.
EWPC market architecture and design is better than vertical integration (Model 1) which has outlived its useful life. EWPC is better than incomplete and/or no-functional markets, based on transmission open access (Model 2) and its extension which costs more than Model 1 when for example capacity markets are added.
For the benefit of Fred, I will recall a post under Playing with Fire (see A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 12 and its context):
As the readers can attests, I gave the benefit of the doubt to IMEUC as a market design and architecture, but as his author was unable to produce a synthesis, nor resolve its internal contradicitions, it is now very clear that it is not such thing. In electric power systems, optimization is done for the whole, no by optimizing the parts as IMEUC does. If anyone needs the post on wholes and parts, I will be happy to post it.
Fred, as Len does not have one, what's your market design and architecture?
If anyone has a real market architecture and design, please by all means, proceed to make a synthesis like the one I have done in Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem for everyone to see. Meanwhile, EWPC is the winning market design and architecture.
By now, readers have the answer to Todd's statement on the second day of comments under this article: "Jose Antonio, I'm curious of your hangup with Len."
Reality: everyone should be curious of Len's hangup with EWPC.
I am really asking for help. Is Len and/or Fred, working for some vested interest or are they just simple skeptics or just good guys trying to find the truth? Does anyone have info to that respect? I could supply a post about Fred being a skeptic, that somehow he run away from two times earlier.
EWPC market architecture and design is better than vertical integration (Model 1) which has outlived its useful life. EWPC is better than incomplete and/or no-functional markets, based on transmission open access (Model 2) and its extension which costs more than Model 1 when for example capacity markets are added.
For the benefit of Fred, I will recall a post under Playing with Fire (see A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 12 and its context):
Thanks Fred for your timely response. I guess you are right that "no tinkering with the demand side can compensate for gaming and lack of investment on the supply side" is highly likely under Model 2 and its piecemeal extensions.
To face gaming and lack of investment under EWPC there is an ultraquality requirement to be performed by a system engineering institution. The commercial activities of generation, and wholesale and retail of electricity to end-customers need to operate under a no-nonsense prudential regulation.
If the expert to the authorities in China is pushing Model 2 and its extensions, I also agree that your "anti-electric deregulation performance" statement is very likely to occur. If vertical integration – Model 1 – becomes the default solution, the little guy is bound to pay more for the investments than he should. The development of the resources of the demand side equity criterion - Market 3 - should lead to the effective development of the Chinese market at the bottom of the pyramid, which is the largest in the world.
Unless Northamerican, Chinesse and European leaders listen very closely to the first and second part of these comments, discussions, debates, and dialogues, they will certainly be playing with fire. My humble recommendation is that they retain a system architect expert on EWPC to help them coordinate a generative dialogue to come up with a new vision and develop a transition to EWPC. An expert on gas without price controls (GWPC) should no be difficult to develop in a parallel generative dialogue.
As the readers can attests, I gave the benefit of the doubt to IMEUC as a market design and architecture, but as his author was unable to produce a synthesis, nor resolve its internal contradicitions, it is now very clear that it is not such thing. In electric power systems, optimization is done for the whole, no by optimizing the parts as IMEUC does. If anyone needs the post on wholes and parts, I will be happy to post it.
Fred, as Len does not have one, what's your market design and architecture?
If anyone has a real market architecture and design, please by all means, proceed to make a synthesis like the one I have done in Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem for everyone to see. Meanwhile, EWPC is the winning market design and architecture.
Primer Generador Eólico Comercial RD
Jose Antonio:Para que compartas en el grupo Millenium,
abrazos,
JOOB
Amigas y amigos:
Quiero compartir con ustedes un logro que ha costado 10 años de trabajo y planeamiento para el equipo que me ha acompañado en este último lustro; el instalar el primer generador eólico de uso comercial en Republica Dominicana, el cual funciona hoy por primera vez.
Es el primer Generador del Parque Eólico en Las Guzumas, Las Galeras, Samaná. El cual me gustaría bautizarlo con el nombre de mi tío “Juan Bosch”, quien era un visionario y le hubiese encantado haber visto funcionando generación limpia en nuestro país.
En la foto aparece el equipo técnico que contribuyo en la instalación de este primer molino. Con este generador podremos producir sin quemar petróleo, el 15 % de la energía que consumen Las Galeras. El plan en el futuro inmediato es instlar 1,200 KW para suminstrar el 20 % de la energia en todo el Norte y Este de la peninsula de Samaná.
Abrazos,JOOB
Tierra Adentro / Las industrias, como la arepa
A los industriales dominicanos el Gobierno los está considerando “harina” y los ha sometido a “baño María”: fuego por abajo, fuego por arriba, de lo cual posiblemente surja una “arepa” difícil de tragar (porque aunque fue nombrado un Asesor Gastronómico, el Gobierno es en estos menesteres muy mal cocinero).
Reformas fiscales (o incrementos de impuestos); intentos de arbitrios municipales no acordes con las leyes; contrarreforma en el sector eléctrico, conduciendo a una nueva estatización del sistema; trabas en el cumplimiento de lo que
Los estrategas parecen actuar bajo la consigna de que es necesario que cada semana este “fogón” reciba un nuevo “palo de leña”. Para los dirigentes empresariales, se hace agotador su trabajo y tienen que dedicar gran parte de su tiempo a la reacción, al “estar atento a con qué nos vienen esta semana”… la construcción de un aparato competitivo y de una cultura exportadora se hace a contrapelo, cuesta arriba.
Para muestra, prestemos la palabra sobre el tema del Seguro Familiar de Salud, a Marisol Vicens, brillante abogada, quien en su columna de
Afirma que “no sólo se ha violado la ley, los principios democráticos y los compromisos asumidos en el acuerdo, sino que también han lucido indefensos los afiliados del régimen contributivo”. Señala que en diciembre pasado las autoridades entendieron (parecieron entender, creemos nosotros) que las del Sistema de Seguridad Social no alcanzaban para financiar todas las prestaciones del Plan Básico de Salud, por lo que aceptaron su propuesta de iniciar el SFS mediante un plan piloto que estuviera totalmente equilibrado y que fuera un promedio de los planes privados existentes; compromisos adquiridos en el Acuerdo del 19 de diciembre del 2006. Este acuerdo se olvidó y se inventó un “supuesto sistema semiabierto”.
Esta propuesta, según Vicens, “no se ajusta tampoco a las disposiciones de la Ley 87-01, puesto que en el desesperado intento de las autoridades por mantener la promesa de inicio en la fecha prometida, más de 15 resoluciones administrativas han sido dictadas por la SISALRIL, algunas de las cuales son contradictorias con la Ley; lo que ha creado un híbrido que nadie sabe si es “chicha o limonada” o cómo operará”.
“En este frenético ejercicio no sólo se ha violado la ley, los principios democráticos y los compromisos asumidos en el acuerdo, sino que también han lucido indefensos los afiliados del régimen contributivo, a los que se les ha impuesto un nuevo plan de salud, en muchos casos más costoso, sin que entre otras cosas, puedan tener claro quiénes serán los prestadores de salud contratados por sus ARSs a las que estarán afiliados obligatoriamente por un año, cuánto tendrán que pagar de diferencia para recibir los servicios en la forma que los recibían, o cómo podrán evitar dicho pago accediendo vía el nivel de atención primario y quien financiará las atenciones de salud en casos de accidentes de tránsito que el Estado aunque se comprometió a apropiar los fondos, sólo ha prometido cubrir hasta diciembre”, indica la abogada.
Un comentario nuestro:
Durante años se criticó la doble cotización a la que era sometido el empresariado con obligarle a pagar al Instituto Dominicano de Seguridad Social (IDSS) y, a la vez, verse obligado a buscar seguros privados de salud. El Gobierno ha diseñado una estrategia que conduce, parece que sin posibilidad de evitarlo, a una “doble cotización ampliada”. Los trabajadores recibirán un servicio al estilo de muchos servicios “públicos”, es decir, ineficiente, y los empresarios se verán obligados a buscar seguros “complementarios”.
Este camino requiere, sin embargo, para ser enfrentado de un liderazgo empresarial que se manifieste más unido y contundente, menos afanoso de conciliar y de evitar las confrontaciones –que de todos modos busca el Gobierno- (tampoco que vaya al extremo de buscarlas).
Además, hay que saber que no todos los sectores de la “arepa” están sometidos igualmente a intenso fuego, pero sí es el país el que sufre como totalidad productiva o como podría señalar un consultor del que ya todos conocen el discurso: esta estrategia gubernamental no contribuye a la “competitividad sistémica”.
miércoles, agosto 29, 2007
Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business
Reference: Ohio Needs to Consider EWPC
Ohio is in the best position and timing to solve the tough power sector problem by considering the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) market architecture and design. As has been known for quite some time, in industry after industry, price controls lead to shortages and inefficiency. New technology is available to enable the transformation of the electric utility industry to EWPC.
The essential elements of EWPC are retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. The latter means that transmission and distribution should not be mistakenly separated into two different entities, with different masters. Instead, bares bone utilities is what remains serving the transport of electricity in a given area at the speed of light. Ultraquality transportation design, operation and control cannot be the result of politicians and economist decisions, but the professional work of engineers, just as is done on nuclear power plants and space vehicles to insure real time reliable service.
Now I explain the former. Once distribution is shifted to transportation, what remains from the distribution utility is a retail monopoly which should be open up to competition. I have suggested the term Second Generation Retailers (2GRs), with the object to integrate active demand (increase its elasticity) into the power system, as well as to differentiate them from simple retailers as they showed up in many jurisdictions that deregulated.
2GRs will integrate active demand by a process that I term the development of the resources of the demand side. As such, 2GRs might end up with Customers Information Systems (CIS - not to be duplicated in distribution), Automated Meter Reading/Infrastructure (AMR/AMI), and managing demand response enabling systems, energy efficiency resources, distributed generation (like solar and wind) and distributed energy storage and many other services to the customer, from long run system planning to economic transactions, just as has always been done in the generating supply side. The result will be robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
EWPC is not deregulation, but a shift from price controls regulation to prudential regulation of competitive generators and competitive retailers, similar to that of the financial industry. As debates lead to getting stuck and using congressional force to get unstuck, the recommendation to Governor Strickland is to develop a comprehensive package by promoting a generative dialogue of all stakeholders to define the transition to EWPC.
© 2007. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Ohio is in the best position and timing to solve the tough power sector problem by considering the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) market architecture and design. As has been known for quite some time, in industry after industry, price controls lead to shortages and inefficiency. New technology is available to enable the transformation of the electric utility industry to EWPC.
The essential elements of EWPC are retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. The latter means that transmission and distribution should not be mistakenly separated into two different entities, with different masters. Instead, bares bone utilities is what remains serving the transport of electricity in a given area at the speed of light. Ultraquality transportation design, operation and control cannot be the result of politicians and economist decisions, but the professional work of engineers, just as is done on nuclear power plants and space vehicles to insure real time reliable service.
Now I explain the former. Once distribution is shifted to transportation, what remains from the distribution utility is a retail monopoly which should be open up to competition. I have suggested the term Second Generation Retailers (2GRs), with the object to integrate active demand (increase its elasticity) into the power system, as well as to differentiate them from simple retailers as they showed up in many jurisdictions that deregulated.
2GRs will integrate active demand by a process that I term the development of the resources of the demand side. As such, 2GRs might end up with Customers Information Systems (CIS - not to be duplicated in distribution), Automated Meter Reading/Infrastructure (AMR/AMI), and managing demand response enabling systems, energy efficiency resources, distributed generation (like solar and wind) and distributed energy storage and many other services to the customer, from long run system planning to economic transactions, just as has always been done in the generating supply side. The result will be robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
EWPC is not deregulation, but a shift from price controls regulation to prudential regulation of competitive generators and competitive retailers, similar to that of the financial industry. As debates lead to getting stuck and using congressional force to get unstuck, the recommendation to Governor Strickland is to develop a comprehensive package by promoting a generative dialogue of all stakeholders to define the transition to EWPC.
© 2007. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
martes, agosto 28, 2007
Ohio Needs to Consider EWPC
As can be seen from the comments under the EnergyPulse articles Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge and Progress Energy's Accelerated AMR Deployment: Commitment and Communication, Ontario's deregulation failure is the result of lacking the essential elements of Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC): retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.
The same case repeats itself in many jurisdictions, and Ohio is one of them. Today the Toledo Blade published the Editorial No Rush on Re-Regulation, saying "GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio," to which the paper conclude: "Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable."
The concepts of EWPC should be strongly considered in the process of re-regulating the electric business in Ohio. If you are from Ohio, make sure that a generative dialogue is performed with all the stakeholders.
For a synthesis on EWPC please read Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
The same case repeats itself in many jurisdictions, and Ohio is one of them. Today the Toledo Blade published the Editorial No Rush on Re-Regulation, saying "GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio," to which the paper conclude: "Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable."
The concepts of EWPC should be strongly considered in the process of re-regulating the electric business in Ohio. If you are from Ohio, make sure that a generative dialogue is performed with all the stakeholders.
For a synthesis on EWPC please read Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
Ohio: No Rush on Re-Regulation
Article published on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 as an Editorial of the Toledo Blade
GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio.
We use the term “re-regulating” because it is glaringly obvious that the state’s nearly decade-long experiment with electric deregulation has been a colossal failure and must be corrected.
To his everlasting credit, Mr. Strickland is expected to tackle not only the ever-thorny subject of electric rates but to do so in a context that includes clean-coal, nuclear, and other technologies and also alternative, noncarbon forms of energy, like wind and solar power.
This is a tall order but one that must be addressed in a comprehensive, reasoned, and deliberate manner if Ohio is to get on a track that makes it an attractive location for the big energy users of business and industry without placing an undue cost burden on residential ratepayers.
Aides to the governor have indicated that Mr. Strickland wants the General Assembly to adopt an energy package by the end of this year to give the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio time to implement new law before the rate freezes set for FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities expire at the end of 2008.
While we see the need for urgency, lawmakers will only meet with regret if they push through regulatory reform in haste and without time to consider the consequences.
That’s what happened in 1999, when the Republican-dominated legislature ram-med through a deregulation law, heavily endowed with wishful ideology, which promised lower electric rates through competition among energy suppliers attracted by a new free market.
It didn’t work; competition never materialized, as many critics had warned. Industrial users got lower rates, while residential electric customers found themselves locked in rate schemes that were essentially frozen to avoid a public outcry over unrestrained prices.
All this came against the backdrop of what were then among the highest electric rates in the nation, especially for customers of FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison subsidiary.
Where electric rates will go as 2009 dawns is a question the governor and legislature must answer and they will have a lot of help. Lobbying forces arrayed on the issue include at least two groups representing industrial customers, plus the electric utilities trade group, and the Ohio Office of Consumers’ Counsel, representing residential ratepayers.
So far, the legislative playing field appears to be heavily tilted in favor of industry, a factor Governor Strickland should feel compelled to counteract when he comes out with his energy plan next month.
Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable.
That is the challenge Ohio faces with electric re-regulation.
GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio.
We use the term “re-regulating” because it is glaringly obvious that the state’s nearly decade-long experiment with electric deregulation has been a colossal failure and must be corrected.
To his everlasting credit, Mr. Strickland is expected to tackle not only the ever-thorny subject of electric rates but to do so in a context that includes clean-coal, nuclear, and other technologies and also alternative, noncarbon forms of energy, like wind and solar power.
This is a tall order but one that must be addressed in a comprehensive, reasoned, and deliberate manner if Ohio is to get on a track that makes it an attractive location for the big energy users of business and industry without placing an undue cost burden on residential ratepayers.
Aides to the governor have indicated that Mr. Strickland wants the General Assembly to adopt an energy package by the end of this year to give the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio time to implement new law before the rate freezes set for FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities expire at the end of 2008.
While we see the need for urgency, lawmakers will only meet with regret if they push through regulatory reform in haste and without time to consider the consequences.
That’s what happened in 1999, when the Republican-dominated legislature ram-med through a deregulation law, heavily endowed with wishful ideology, which promised lower electric rates through competition among energy suppliers attracted by a new free market.
It didn’t work; competition never materialized, as many critics had warned. Industrial users got lower rates, while residential electric customers found themselves locked in rate schemes that were essentially frozen to avoid a public outcry over unrestrained prices.
All this came against the backdrop of what were then among the highest electric rates in the nation, especially for customers of FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison subsidiary.
Where electric rates will go as 2009 dawns is a question the governor and legislature must answer and they will have a lot of help. Lobbying forces arrayed on the issue include at least two groups representing industrial customers, plus the electric utilities trade group, and the Ohio Office of Consumers’ Counsel, representing residential ratepayers.
So far, the legislative playing field appears to be heavily tilted in favor of industry, a factor Governor Strickland should feel compelled to counteract when he comes out with his energy plan next month.
Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable.
That is the challenge Ohio faces with electric re-regulation.
Len Ask: What Is Transportation?
Len Gould does not see any difference between the Ontario power market architecture and design and EWPC.
Transportation is one the most important issue that separates Ontario from EWPC. As shown in PART III of Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem, the essence of EWPC is “the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.”
Transportation is transmission integrated with distribution. By dividing transportation into two different companies that follow their internal rules, a transmission company and a distribution company, a mistake of large proportion was made. The aim of a transportation bares bone utility company is ultraquality, as is used in the design and operation of nuclear power plants and space vehicles.
The retailers’ discussion is over now. Nat Treadway statement is not a personal statement, likes your and mine, but an institutional statement he wrote very carefully and I am very sure he consulted it with his partners.
Transportation is one the most important issue that separates Ontario from EWPC. As shown in PART III of Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem, the essence of EWPC is “the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.”
Transportation is transmission integrated with distribution. By dividing transportation into two different companies that follow their internal rules, a transmission company and a distribution company, a mistake of large proportion was made. The aim of a transportation bares bone utility company is ultraquality, as is used in the design and operation of nuclear power plants and space vehicles.
The retailers’ discussion is over now. Nat Treadway statement is not a personal statement, likes your and mine, but an institutional statement he wrote very carefully and I am very sure he consulted it with his partners.
lunes, agosto 27, 2007
How to Make DGs a Disruptive Technology
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
8.27.07
To all readers,
This is what I mentioned above on the interests of Todd, which should make him support EWPC.
Under one of the articles mentioned on the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm, on 8.16.07, Todd wrote:
Dick Maclay responded on 8.16.07 as follows:
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio8.27.07
My response to Todd is only optimistic.
Under EWPC DGs cannot stand alone, but the network owners are no longer opposed to DGs with ultra-quality transportation. The problem now is with "native loads," which oppose DGs. So there will no be a decade or two delay with EWPC.
EWPC is not deregulation, but what deregulation should have been. Deregulation did not work, because there is still a need for regulation: to change price control regulation with prudential regulation.
Under EWPC, DGs development will be associated with the Second Generation Retailer's business model innovations. Maybe there is a large market segment in the making already.
As deregulation is out of fashion, the emerging EWPC has all the potential to be in fashion, if we stop debating about it and concentrate on promoting a generative dialogue.
8.27.07
To all readers,
This is what I mentioned above on the interests of Todd, which should make him support EWPC.
Under one of the articles mentioned on the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm, on 8.16.07, Todd wrote:
How would the wind storage concerns change if an army of customer owned generators could respond to real time price information to dispatch power to the grid instantaneously? Given today's knowledge, would you go back and put your money into mainframes or the little calculators?
Dick Maclay responded on 8.16.07 as follows:
Calculators and the first micro computers had a major market advantage over DG. They could stand alone. Even with DG, the cheapest back up system is some sort of network. Problem is that the network owners and their regulators look at DG as something that requires standby charges, is dependent on the transmission system, etc. They do not understand that it is to a large degree an alternative to expanding electric transmission. This is delaying DG by a decade or two.
But you describe a vibrant market at work, and deregulation is out of fashion. Unfairly out of fashion, since places like California slapped a "deregulation" sticker on a system designed to fail that did not at all resemble deregulation. But the perception that deregulation did not work is another factor slowing progress. If you are in a hurry my thoughts here are pessimistic.
But long-run they are more optimistic than the standard view. How does all of this affect wind? If I were smart enough to know that I would have been sufficiently clairvoyant to have sold all my holdings before the market started down.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio8.27.07
My response to Todd is only optimistic.
Under EWPC DGs cannot stand alone, but the network owners are no longer opposed to DGs with ultra-quality transportation. The problem now is with "native loads," which oppose DGs. So there will no be a decade or two delay with EWPC.
EWPC is not deregulation, but what deregulation should have been. Deregulation did not work, because there is still a need for regulation: to change price control regulation with prudential regulation.
Under EWPC, DGs development will be associated with the Second Generation Retailer's business model innovations. Maybe there is a large market segment in the making already.
As deregulation is out of fashion, the emerging EWPC has all the potential to be in fashion, if we stop debating about it and concentrate on promoting a generative dialogue.
Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem
Reference and context: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge
To all readers interested in engaging in a generative dialogue to solving the tough problem of electric power market:
To complement my post above on the three complexities, in his book “solving tough problems: An open way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities (highly recommended)”, Adam Kahane states: “Problems are tough because they are complex in three ways. They are dynamically complex, which means that cause and effect are far apart in time and space, and so are hard to grasp from first hand experience. They are generative complex, which means that they are unfolding in unfamiliar and unpredictable ways. And they are socially complex, which means that the people involved see things differently, and so the problems become polarized and stuck.”
Since Len has decided not to supply a synthesis, or a third article, and instead has written changes to his IMEUC proposal and also written “I've long lost patience, Jose. My published descriptions of IMEUC (see links above) are far more detailed than anything I've found on EWPC,” being responsive to Len, Todd and Jim, I will lower my defenses and make three posts not to debate, but only to try to enable a generative dialogue.
PART I
The Process of Last Resort that Len is promoting with its IMEUC proposal, to finance base load power plants operates under a non competitive assumption. The assumption has its power under debate system that leads to getting stuck and to get it unstuck the result is to activate the process. The process is the same old “native load” business model of winning cases to the regulator, in which an intermediary negotiates under monopoly in the name of customers. That is exactly what we want to avoid under competition in the power industry.
So, to avoid getting stuck, all that is needed is a robust, complete and fully functional - market architecture and design – like EWPC - that provides for long and short run systemic risk management, with a combination of supply side and demand side resources.
The key question is as follows: Is the process of last resort for “native load” on base load generation being used as part of a hidden agenda? If so, I suggest a generative dialogue instead of a debate to make sure that the second phase of competition does not require activating anything at all.
PART II
To describe what is emerging as EWPC, with some references to IMEUC, I will transcribe the Generative dialogue synthesis as of 12.26.06 (see Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 20):
Competition is divided in two phases: One) market vs market and Two) company vs company.
In Phase One all interested parties cooperate in the generative dialogue to select the emergent winning market. Phase Two is not part of the generative dialogue.
EWPC – an integral reform paradigm - is an open and robust emergent market architecture and design [not a solution!] that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions [will] compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions [will]compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand – Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars - [will] compete with each other in time and space. Module 1 commitments on planning, operation and control are to be executed by the other modules.
Based on mechanistic thinking, IMEUC is one close and fractured strategy, like any other experienced deregulation efforts, that suggests retaining one of the key elements of retail business model innovations – the metering function – as a monopoly. The intermediary Market Manager is designed to contract base load units based on long run forecasting under uncertainty, arising from improper market signals.
IMEUC as a switchboard intermediary is just one of the many potential business models. It is only through execution – high dynamic complexity – of the development of the resources on the demand side that the potential will be realized. Other potential business model innovations won’t be able to be developed if IMEUC is unfairly and prematurely selected, by giving it market power over other intermediaries. It is no correct to assume how customers will behave – and evolve - beforehand. Instead, there is a need for a customer orientation.
While incremental costs might become negligible, sunk costs might be comparatively prohibitive for all customers. As a “right” solution, IMEUC becomes a strong barrier to emergent – high generative complexity - creative destruction. The best way to find out what the real overhead costs will be is in Phase Two with the right strategy and flawless execution under competition.
Module 1 is to take decisions for the health of the whole system as they unfold. The forward looking statement suggested to Prof. Banks and Mr. Carson on the generative dialogue goes in that direction. The Market Manager does not have such integral perspective.
I want to keep my opinions on Phase One. I am open to review the general open market design and architecture, if there are unfair elements associated with it. I have “listen” carefully to Len’s opinions and perceive that his interests, by going farther than necessary, go well beyond Phase One. Other parties representative of the larger whole – high social complexity - with different interests – regulators, generation of differing kinds, wholesale, retail, transmission, distribution, fuel supply, manufacturers of systems and equipments, etc. - are invited to participate in the generative dialogue.
PART III
A minimal agreement proposal (see original of 7.7.07 Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC ) under the generative dialogue that avoids monopoly markets on wholesale and retail, open to be enhanced, is as follows:
Slides 7 to 13 of the CMU presentation (to be found on the left column of the GMH Blog) present 8 possible End-State, only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. That is the essence.
To take the best development path, including necessary transitions, to the End-State means eliminating "native load," and energy only markets at the outset, to avoid costly intermediate transitions. Those two eliminations are a prerequisite to an effective system, with wholesale and retail competition, demand integration, and transportation reintegration.
There are key elements that will require standards to complete the detailed cooperation on market vs. market competition, hopefully under global institutions. However, most technological and business solutions belong to the company vs. company competition.
In summary, a general agreement is that we should do without regulated price controls on the retail and wholesale markets (that is how the EWPC paradigm came to being on EnergyPulse with the intention to replace the faulty deregulation paradigm). I suggest that regulators worldwide should shift from price regulation to prudential regulation, under a global institution.
To all readers interested in engaging in a generative dialogue to solving the tough problem of electric power market:
To complement my post above on the three complexities, in his book “solving tough problems: An open way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities (highly recommended)”, Adam Kahane states: “Problems are tough because they are complex in three ways. They are dynamically complex, which means that cause and effect are far apart in time and space, and so are hard to grasp from first hand experience. They are generative complex, which means that they are unfolding in unfamiliar and unpredictable ways. And they are socially complex, which means that the people involved see things differently, and so the problems become polarized and stuck.”
Since Len has decided not to supply a synthesis, or a third article, and instead has written changes to his IMEUC proposal and also written “I've long lost patience, Jose. My published descriptions of IMEUC (see links above) are far more detailed than anything I've found on EWPC,” being responsive to Len, Todd and Jim, I will lower my defenses and make three posts not to debate, but only to try to enable a generative dialogue.
PART I
The Process of Last Resort that Len is promoting with its IMEUC proposal, to finance base load power plants operates under a non competitive assumption. The assumption has its power under debate system that leads to getting stuck and to get it unstuck the result is to activate the process. The process is the same old “native load” business model of winning cases to the regulator, in which an intermediary negotiates under monopoly in the name of customers. That is exactly what we want to avoid under competition in the power industry.
So, to avoid getting stuck, all that is needed is a robust, complete and fully functional - market architecture and design – like EWPC - that provides for long and short run systemic risk management, with a combination of supply side and demand side resources.
The key question is as follows: Is the process of last resort for “native load” on base load generation being used as part of a hidden agenda? If so, I suggest a generative dialogue instead of a debate to make sure that the second phase of competition does not require activating anything at all.
PART II
To describe what is emerging as EWPC, with some references to IMEUC, I will transcribe the Generative dialogue synthesis as of 12.26.06 (see Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 20):
Competition is divided in two phases: One) market vs market and Two) company vs company.
In Phase One all interested parties cooperate in the generative dialogue to select the emergent winning market. Phase Two is not part of the generative dialogue.
EWPC – an integral reform paradigm - is an open and robust emergent market architecture and design [not a solution!] that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions [will] compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions [will]compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand – Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars - [will] compete with each other in time and space. Module 1 commitments on planning, operation and control are to be executed by the other modules.
Based on mechanistic thinking, IMEUC is one close and fractured strategy, like any other experienced deregulation efforts, that suggests retaining one of the key elements of retail business model innovations – the metering function – as a monopoly. The intermediary Market Manager is designed to contract base load units based on long run forecasting under uncertainty, arising from improper market signals.
IMEUC as a switchboard intermediary is just one of the many potential business models. It is only through execution – high dynamic complexity – of the development of the resources on the demand side that the potential will be realized. Other potential business model innovations won’t be able to be developed if IMEUC is unfairly and prematurely selected, by giving it market power over other intermediaries. It is no correct to assume how customers will behave – and evolve - beforehand. Instead, there is a need for a customer orientation.
While incremental costs might become negligible, sunk costs might be comparatively prohibitive for all customers. As a “right” solution, IMEUC becomes a strong barrier to emergent – high generative complexity - creative destruction. The best way to find out what the real overhead costs will be is in Phase Two with the right strategy and flawless execution under competition.
Module 1 is to take decisions for the health of the whole system as they unfold. The forward looking statement suggested to Prof. Banks and Mr. Carson on the generative dialogue goes in that direction. The Market Manager does not have such integral perspective.
I want to keep my opinions on Phase One. I am open to review the general open market design and architecture, if there are unfair elements associated with it. I have “listen” carefully to Len’s opinions and perceive that his interests, by going farther than necessary, go well beyond Phase One. Other parties representative of the larger whole – high social complexity - with different interests – regulators, generation of differing kinds, wholesale, retail, transmission, distribution, fuel supply, manufacturers of systems and equipments, etc. - are invited to participate in the generative dialogue.
PART III
A minimal agreement proposal (see original of 7.7.07 Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC ) under the generative dialogue that avoids monopoly markets on wholesale and retail, open to be enhanced, is as follows:
Slides 7 to 13 of the CMU presentation (to be found on the left column of the GMH Blog) present 8 possible End-State, only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. That is the essence.
To take the best development path, including necessary transitions, to the End-State means eliminating "native load," and energy only markets at the outset, to avoid costly intermediate transitions. Those two eliminations are a prerequisite to an effective system, with wholesale and retail competition, demand integration, and transportation reintegration.
There are key elements that will require standards to complete the detailed cooperation on market vs. market competition, hopefully under global institutions. However, most technological and business solutions belong to the company vs. company competition.
In summary, a general agreement is that we should do without regulated price controls on the retail and wholesale markets (that is how the EWPC paradigm came to being on EnergyPulse with the intention to replace the faulty deregulation paradigm). I suggest that regulators worldwide should shift from price regulation to prudential regulation, under a global institution.
jueves, agosto 23, 2007
Asking the Right Questions
Jim: Thanks for your insight about the right questions.
My reservations with Len are that for more than a year he keeps shifting from dialogue to debate. I learned from a highly respected advisor that putting the right market concepts into practice is indeed very complicated. So before the concepts are developed, “asking the right questions” is a great target to hidden agendas.
Most the essential market architecture and design elements of EWPC have been discussed at length earlier. Reading the comments under the articles Playing with Fire I and II, should be sufficient to be convinced that EWPC is the winning market of the first phase of competition. However, I don’t dismiss a better market from appearance. So that is why I asked to learn of the new IMEUC proposition without contradictory elements, without success.
My approach has been to avoid debate, which is based on learning from the past, introducing a generative dialogue, which is about learning from the emerging future. I will recall one of the essential elements of the dialogue in search for the emergent structure from generation to customer.
IMEUC articles have a business model with a retailer between generation and customers, which I identified with as a switchboard. The problem is the switchboard had to be monopoly retailer switchboard. On the contrary, EWPC is open to any kind of competing retailers, which should develop business design innovations and compete. In a sense, this structure is less restrictive than the switchboard business model.
This is what Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 19 says in more details:
Thanks Len for considering the generative dialogue. In a generative dialogue what is important is "listening" in sychronicity with other interest parties to the larger whole that is emerging. For example, a common understanding of what EWPC means as a third way not considered in the decade old debate.
I presume that large customers could be allowed to go directly to generators for their deals in the wholesale market. Then, what you are suggesting is a monopoly retailer innovation under a Market Manager. I suggest to have retail competition, so that other potential innovations are also allowed to emerge. Go to any marketing book and you will find why intermediaries are needed.
What you are proposing is to impose on everyone the Swithboard Profit Model “innovation,” which Adrian Slywosky describes on page 59 of his book “The Profit Zone:” Some markets are characterized by multiple sellers communicating with multiple buyers, with high costs incurred by both. In many case, there is an opportunity to create a high-value intermediary that concentrates these multiple communicating pathways through one point, one channel, by creating a switchboard. The switchboard reduces the cost to both buyers and sellers. A powerful component of the switchboard model is that it builds on itself; the more buyers and sellers that join, the more valuable it becomes.
Such middleman model is perfectly allowed under the EWPC market architecture and design. That is why I said earlier "good luck!" Please say so if there are other things that still bother you.
Len Gould Promissed a 3rd IMEUC Article on 12.26.06
Hi Todd and interested readers,
This year I wrote in EnergyPulse and said at Carnegie Mellon University that EWPC was the winning market (architecture and design) of the first phase of competition. I came to that conclusion after a very lengthy generative dialogue under the 2 Playing With Fire EnergyPulse articles.
At some point in the dialogue (it was dialogue, no debate), under playing with Fire Part I (I could include the link, but you don't like it), Len wrote on 12.26.06: "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you."
This year I wrote in EnergyPulse and said at Carnegie Mellon University that EWPC was the winning market (architecture and design) of the first phase of competition. I came to that conclusion after a very lengthy generative dialogue under the 2 Playing With Fire EnergyPulse articles.
At some point in the dialogue (it was dialogue, no debate), under playing with Fire Part I (I could include the link, but you don't like it), Len wrote on 12.26.06: "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you."
Response to Todd on Market vs Market Competition
Reference: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge
Hi Todd,
Thanks for caring.
On 7.5.07 I wrote: EWPC is not a particular solution; it is an emerging market design and architecture aiming to set up mechanisms…I have followed Geoffrey Moore's advice to perform market vs. market cooperation - through an ongoing generative dialogue - as the first stage of competition to come up with the winning market architecture and design. If there is an element [of EWPC] that does not satisfy such aim, I like to learn about it to upgrade EWPC. The second stage of competition, company vs. company competition, initiates when the mechanisms are implemented and particular solutions can then arrive. The whole point is to enable a generative dialogue to reach the End-State of the power industry.
A generative dialogue (GD) is not about debating positions. After going over some of the following prerequisites, on later posts I will come back to explain that we will be learning from an emergent future, because of three kinds of complexities we are experiencing.
However, as I understand, with the post after yours, Len has made your request obsolete. In addition to your statement “I finally found your standpoint, but was too weary to respond by then,” Len says: “no other system [than IMEUC], including Jose Antonio's, [EWPC] can claim anything close.” So What I like to do is to concentrate on collaboration with you and any one else – including Len’s IMEUC – and any other “system” candidates to complete the first phase. His statement is right on the first phase of competition, even if IMEUC has many unnecessary details of the 2nd phase of competition.
So, ask Len to do exactly what you are asking me on his IMEUC first – concentrate on the essentials for the first phase of competition, so that I will have a benchmark to express not my claims on EWPC, but what insights are emerging if any from IMEUC that might make it the winner. By your own standards, the paragraph he added to his 2 links is not clear enough. He needs also to resolve all contradictions of IMEUC, including that related to LMPs. I promise you to respond in kind as soon his system is clearly understood.
For the back on topic, I will wait for the author to reply first.
Hi Todd,
Thanks for caring.
On 7.5.07 I wrote: EWPC is not a particular solution; it is an emerging market design and architecture aiming to set up mechanisms…I have followed Geoffrey Moore's advice to perform market vs. market cooperation - through an ongoing generative dialogue - as the first stage of competition to come up with the winning market architecture and design. If there is an element [of EWPC] that does not satisfy such aim, I like to learn about it to upgrade EWPC. The second stage of competition, company vs. company competition, initiates when the mechanisms are implemented and particular solutions can then arrive. The whole point is to enable a generative dialogue to reach the End-State of the power industry.
A generative dialogue (GD) is not about debating positions. After going over some of the following prerequisites, on later posts I will come back to explain that we will be learning from an emergent future, because of three kinds of complexities we are experiencing.
However, as I understand, with the post after yours, Len has made your request obsolete. In addition to your statement “I finally found your standpoint, but was too weary to respond by then,” Len says: “no other system [than IMEUC], including Jose Antonio's, [EWPC] can claim anything close.” So What I like to do is to concentrate on collaboration with you and any one else – including Len’s IMEUC – and any other “system” candidates to complete the first phase. His statement is right on the first phase of competition, even if IMEUC has many unnecessary details of the 2nd phase of competition.
So, ask Len to do exactly what you are asking me on his IMEUC first – concentrate on the essentials for the first phase of competition, so that I will have a benchmark to express not my claims on EWPC, but what insights are emerging if any from IMEUC that might make it the winner. By your own standards, the paragraph he added to his 2 links is not clear enough. He needs also to resolve all contradictions of IMEUC, including that related to LMPs. I promise you to respond in kind as soon his system is clearly understood.
For the back on topic, I will wait for the author to reply first.
miércoles, agosto 22, 2007
Estructura Industria para Enfrentar Reto Cambio Climático
Referencia: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, por Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source.
El autor ha ofrecido unas perspectivas frescas sobre la industria eléctrica compitiendo con la industria del petróleo y el gas. Mis comentarios al artículo Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, por Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group,pueden ser encontrados en la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm están cercanamente relacionados con sus sugerencias.
Dos de las sugerencias en el paradigma emergente son:
1) Un impuesto al carbón debe ser negociado en un escenario global, por ejemplo la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Cada país que no apliqué el impuesto negociado, estará engañando el sistema global.
2) La mayor parte de las discusiones están apoyando indirectamente la generación como monopolio. La competencia en generación es no solo posible, sino absolutamente necesaria para seguir adelante.
En respuesta al primer asunto de Edward A. Reid, Jr., relativo a como emplear los ingresos de impuestos, sugiero que se usen para financiar – por medio de préstamos a bajo interés – el desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la demanda (respuesta de la demanda, eficiencia energética, almacenamiento energía, etc.) por medio de Detallistas de Segunda Generación (Second Generation Retailer - 2GR). En la medida que la industria eléctrica aumenta su participación del Mercado con productos libres de CO2, los ingresos por impuestos se reducen. Por tanto, el impuesto resultará en un dispositivo temporal.
Una vez que los EEUU adoptan una estructura de impuestos como esa, las negociaciones globales para extender su alcance son facilísimas, porque el mundo en general está esperando algo como esos.
La competencia al por mayor es un ejercicio solo a largo plazo. La competencia al detalle con el desarrollo de los 2GRs es lo que permite una verdadera competencia a corto plazo. Ambas interactúan como un Mercado completamente funcional de electricidad que resultará en una de las grandes oportunidades para enfrentar el reto del calentamiento global o cambio climático. Esa es la estructura de la industria que el sector eléctrico necesita.
El autor ha ofrecido unas perspectivas frescas sobre la industria eléctrica compitiendo con la industria del petróleo y el gas. Mis comentarios al artículo Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, por Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group,pueden ser encontrados en la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm están cercanamente relacionados con sus sugerencias.
Dos de las sugerencias en el paradigma emergente son:
1) Un impuesto al carbón debe ser negociado en un escenario global, por ejemplo la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Cada país que no apliqué el impuesto negociado, estará engañando el sistema global.
2) La mayor parte de las discusiones están apoyando indirectamente la generación como monopolio. La competencia en generación es no solo posible, sino absolutamente necesaria para seguir adelante.
En respuesta al primer asunto de Edward A. Reid, Jr., relativo a como emplear los ingresos de impuestos, sugiero que se usen para financiar – por medio de préstamos a bajo interés – el desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la demanda (respuesta de la demanda, eficiencia energética, almacenamiento energía, etc.) por medio de Detallistas de Segunda Generación (Second Generation Retailer - 2GR). En la medida que la industria eléctrica aumenta su participación del Mercado con productos libres de CO2, los ingresos por impuestos se reducen. Por tanto, el impuesto resultará en un dispositivo temporal.
Una vez que los EEUU adoptan una estructura de impuestos como esa, las negociaciones globales para extender su alcance son facilísimas, porque el mundo en general está esperando algo como esos.
La competencia al por mayor es un ejercicio solo a largo plazo. La competencia al detalle con el desarrollo de los 2GRs es lo que permite una verdadera competencia a corto plazo. Ambas interactúan como un Mercado completamente funcional de electricidad que resultará en una de las grandes oportunidades para enfrentar el reto del calentamiento global o cambio climático. Esa es la estructura de la industria que el sector eléctrico necesita.
martes, agosto 21, 2007
Industry Structure to Face Climate Change Challenge
Reference: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, by Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source.
The author has given very fresh perspectives showing the power industry competing with the oil and gas industry. My comments to the article Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, can be found in the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm are closely related to his suggestions.
Two of the suggestions in the emerging paradigm are:
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
In response to Edward A. Reid, Jr., first issue with the statement on how to use the tax revenues, I suggest to use them to fund – through low interest loans - the development of the resources of the demand side (demand response, energy efficiency, energy storage, etc.) by means of competitive Second Generation Retailer - 2GR. As the power industry increases market share with CO2-free products, tax revenues decrease. So the tax will result a temporary device.
Once the USA adopts such a tax structure, global negociations to extend its range is a piece of cake, because the world in general is expecting something like that.
Wholesale competition is just a long run exersice. Retail competition with the development of 2GRs is what allows true short run competition. Both interact as a fully functional electricity market that will result one of the greatest opportunity to face the global warming or climate change challenge. That is the industry structure the power sector needs.
The author has given very fresh perspectives showing the power industry competing with the oil and gas industry. My comments to the article Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, can be found in the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm are closely related to his suggestions.
Two of the suggestions in the emerging paradigm are:
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
In response to Edward A. Reid, Jr., first issue with the statement on how to use the tax revenues, I suggest to use them to fund – through low interest loans - the development of the resources of the demand side (demand response, energy efficiency, energy storage, etc.) by means of competitive Second Generation Retailer - 2GR. As the power industry increases market share with CO2-free products, tax revenues decrease. So the tax will result a temporary device.
Once the USA adopts such a tax structure, global negociations to extend its range is a piece of cake, because the world in general is expecting something like that.
Wholesale competition is just a long run exersice. Retail competition with the development of 2GRs is what allows true short run competition. Both interact as a fully functional electricity market that will result one of the greatest opportunity to face the global warming or climate change challenge. That is the industry structure the power sector needs.
eMail Enviado: Integración de Generación Eólica al SENI
Estimados VIPs,
Dentro de poco se inicia la redacción del Reglamento de la Ley 57-07 y que sugiero debe aprovecharse para introducir los cambios necesarios en la LGE.
En tal sentido, y en seguimiento a la nota Que Ganen la CNE y la SIE, ofrezco un aporte con la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm.
A modo de introducción pueden también leer la nota ¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte II, la cual responde a una noticia recién publicada.
Saludos,
José Antonio
Dentro de poco se inicia la redacción del Reglamento de la Ley 57-07 y que sugiero debe aprovecharse para introducir los cambios necesarios en la LGE.
En tal sentido, y en seguimiento a la nota Que Ganen la CNE y la SIE, ofrezco un aporte con la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm.
A modo de introducción pueden también leer la nota ¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte II, la cual responde a una noticia recién publicada.
Saludos,
José Antonio
lunes, agosto 20, 2007
Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm
Republished from Aug. 20th, 2007. There is a need for a change in mental models to integrate wind to power systems operation. Several generative dialogue suggestions are given to apply the fundamentals of EWPC.
Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
After reading the article by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, some of its references, the articles by Roger Arnold, and all of the really valuable comments on all 4 articles, I like to select what J. Charles Smith wrote in the article Winds of Change as a summary message:
The following are my generative dialogue suggestions (I am not my opinion) for a fundamental realignment in our thinking :
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
3) Wind generation variability is an important consideration, but wind generation uncertainty is even more important. Power system systemic risk management of system failure (system security) responds to uncertainty. Supply side management of systemic risk of system failure should be complemented by demand side management of systemic risk of system failure. See An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response and a Dominican strategy.
4) Wind generation best performance will come from balancing areas, in which generators are widely dispersed and mostly located in the distribution system. Open transmission access is insufficient to integrate wind generation in the state of the art.
5) There is thus a need for full transportation access. Transmission and distribution reintegration requires dismantling native loads, which changes the concept of a utility to wires only utility. See NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure.
6) Fully functional and competitive wholesale and retail markets can then allow the development of the resources of the demand side. See We Need 2GRs as the Forecast is Always Wrong.
All of the above implies an emerging EWPC is Pragmatics' Winning Market Architecture and Design.
To go forward to EWPC as the End-State of the electricity industry for quite some time, I made a presentation at Carnegie Mellon University that can be found on the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog, as A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of the Power Industry.
Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
After reading the article by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, some of its references, the articles by Roger Arnold, and all of the really valuable comments on all 4 articles, I like to select what J. Charles Smith wrote in the article Winds of Change as a summary message:
For many of us, this has created the necessity of a fundamental realignment in our thinking. We must understand all the implications of this and go about the business of helping to create the future.
The following are my generative dialogue suggestions (I am not my opinion) for a fundamental realignment in our thinking :
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
3) Wind generation variability is an important consideration, but wind generation uncertainty is even more important. Power system systemic risk management of system failure (system security) responds to uncertainty. Supply side management of systemic risk of system failure should be complemented by demand side management of systemic risk of system failure. See An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response and a Dominican strategy.
4) Wind generation best performance will come from balancing areas, in which generators are widely dispersed and mostly located in the distribution system. Open transmission access is insufficient to integrate wind generation in the state of the art.
5) There is thus a need for full transportation access. Transmission and distribution reintegration requires dismantling native loads, which changes the concept of a utility to wires only utility. See NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure.
6) Fully functional and competitive wholesale and retail markets can then allow the development of the resources of the demand side. See We Need 2GRs as the Forecast is Always Wrong.
All of the above implies an emerging EWPC is Pragmatics' Winning Market Architecture and Design.
To go forward to EWPC as the End-State of the electricity industry for quite some time, I made a presentation at Carnegie Mellon University that can be found on the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog, as A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of the Power Industry.
domingo, agosto 19, 2007
¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte II
Hay varios elementos que comentar sobre el artículo que aparece en la nota ¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte I, pero solamente nos concentraremos en el aspecto de seguridad.
No cabe ninguna duda: la energía eólica es insegura. El concepto de seguridad en electricidad responde a la idea de la probabilidad de disponer electricidad en cualquier momento futuro y la posibilidad de quedarnos sin vientos suficientes es bastante elevada en todo momento. Así de simple.
Es por lo anterior, que la energía eólica debe ser empleada con otros sistemas para cumplir su labor, como puede ser un sistema eléctrico interconectado que opere con seguridad o con el empleo de sistemas de almacenamiento locales.
En el primer caso, en sectores de amplios apagones la energía eólica por sí sola no resuelve el problema de seguridad. En el segundo caso, el sistema de almacenamiento requerido debe ser diseñado con un buen entendimiento de la esperanza matemática de la energía de los vientos en el lugar. Tal entendimiento requiere de buena asesoría para minimizar los costos totales de por vida resultantes, los cuales dependen de una política estable en el sistema interconectado.
Con una política incierta en el sistema interconectado, los costos esperados de las inversiones en energía eólica serán impredecibles. En las discusiones sobre el reglamento de la Ley de Incentivos a la Energías Renovables y el nuevo reglamento de la Ley General de Electricidad este es un tema crucial. Si la incertidumbre persiste y muchos clientes "rentables" prefieren independizarse de las distribuidoras, se hará un daño mayor al sector eléctrico, a los consumidores que no tienen capacidad para independizarse y en general a la economía del país.
No cabe ninguna duda: la energía eólica es insegura. El concepto de seguridad en electricidad responde a la idea de la probabilidad de disponer electricidad en cualquier momento futuro y la posibilidad de quedarnos sin vientos suficientes es bastante elevada en todo momento. Así de simple.
Es por lo anterior, que la energía eólica debe ser empleada con otros sistemas para cumplir su labor, como puede ser un sistema eléctrico interconectado que opere con seguridad o con el empleo de sistemas de almacenamiento locales.
En el primer caso, en sectores de amplios apagones la energía eólica por sí sola no resuelve el problema de seguridad. En el segundo caso, el sistema de almacenamiento requerido debe ser diseñado con un buen entendimiento de la esperanza matemática de la energía de los vientos en el lugar. Tal entendimiento requiere de buena asesoría para minimizar los costos totales de por vida resultantes, los cuales dependen de una política estable en el sistema interconectado.
Con una política incierta en el sistema interconectado, los costos esperados de las inversiones en energía eólica serán impredecibles. En las discusiones sobre el reglamento de la Ley de Incentivos a la Energías Renovables y el nuevo reglamento de la Ley General de Electricidad este es un tema crucial. Si la incertidumbre persiste y muchos clientes "rentables" prefieren independizarse de las distribuidoras, se hará un daño mayor al sector eléctrico, a los consumidores que no tienen capacidad para independizarse y en general a la economía del país.
¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte I
Artículo original del Listín Diario Energía eólica: cara pero segura y beneficiosa al medio ambiente
Por Wanda Méndez, .
Santo Domingo.-Aunque la inversión inicial que requiere la instalación de un sistema de energía eólica es elevada y se constituye en el principal obstáculo para las familias, a largo plazo representará un ahorro económico, porque se evitarán los pagos de las facturas que cada mes reciben de las distribuidoras de energía eléctrica y los apagones.
En lo inmediato, el mayor beneficiario será el medio ambiente, pues contribuirá a reducir la contaminación. Se estima en mil dólares la instalación de generadores para producir un kilo de energía para una vivienda.
La esperanza de abaratamiento de los costos para quienes aspiran a independizarse del sistema eléctrico nacional son los beneficios que consigna la Ley de Incentivos de Energía Renovable.
La eólica es un tipo de energía alterna o renovable que se logra con el aprovechamiento energético de las fuerzas del viento.
Todavía el sistema no ha tenido una gran demanda, pero hay empresas que han visto las ventajas y decidieron desconectarse de la red de energía eléctrica, instalando sus generadores eólicos.
Proyectos
El Instituto de Formación Técnico Profesional (Infotep) inició el año pasado un proyecto dirigido a la producción de energía eólica y a la capacitación de personal para el manejo de los generadores.
El país dispone de condiciones climáticas favorables para la instalación de ese tipo de energía. Estudios realizados por Infotep, con la asesoría de la Agencia de Cooperación del Japón, indican que se pueden aportar 10,500 megavatios eólicos, considerados suficientes para abastecer a todo el territorio nacional.
“Tenemos una demanda de alrededor de 2,100 megavatios, sin embargo el sistema tiene 3,000 megas instalados y la crisis sigue, es decir, que el país es uno de los que mejor podría aprovechar ese tipo de energía”, afirmó Rafael Marrero, asistente del taller de instalación y mantenimiento de Infotep. Pedernales, Barahona, Puerto Plata y parte de la cordillera Central han sido identificados como los lugares donde se produce la mayor cantidad de vientos.
Para instalar ese sistema se requiere realizar estudios de las condiciones ambientales para determinar la cantidad de kilovatios que se pueden aprovechar.
Hay que tomar en cuenta también las características que tiene el viento, intensidad, velocidad y la ubicación geográfica. Francisco Espinal, gerente de los Centros Tecnológicos de Infotep, argumentó que se ha demostrado que independientemente del costo del kilovatio instalado, los generadores eólicos producen energía a un costo muy por debajo que con la energía eléctrica.
El sistema dispone de unos acumuladores o baterías que permitirán tener energía cuando no haya vientos. La vida útil de un generador es de 30 a 40 años y el mantenimiento es mínimo. Por cada 50,000 horas de operación se le puede chequear el rodamiento.
Se puede apagar y prender por internet, al igual que chequear la velocidad.
Por Wanda Méndez, .
Santo Domingo.-Aunque la inversión inicial que requiere la instalación de un sistema de energía eólica es elevada y se constituye en el principal obstáculo para las familias, a largo plazo representará un ahorro económico, porque se evitarán los pagos de las facturas que cada mes reciben de las distribuidoras de energía eléctrica y los apagones.
En lo inmediato, el mayor beneficiario será el medio ambiente, pues contribuirá a reducir la contaminación. Se estima en mil dólares la instalación de generadores para producir un kilo de energía para una vivienda.
La esperanza de abaratamiento de los costos para quienes aspiran a independizarse del sistema eléctrico nacional son los beneficios que consigna la Ley de Incentivos de Energía Renovable.
La eólica es un tipo de energía alterna o renovable que se logra con el aprovechamiento energético de las fuerzas del viento.
Todavía el sistema no ha tenido una gran demanda, pero hay empresas que han visto las ventajas y decidieron desconectarse de la red de energía eléctrica, instalando sus generadores eólicos.
Proyectos
El Instituto de Formación Técnico Profesional (Infotep) inició el año pasado un proyecto dirigido a la producción de energía eólica y a la capacitación de personal para el manejo de los generadores.
El país dispone de condiciones climáticas favorables para la instalación de ese tipo de energía. Estudios realizados por Infotep, con la asesoría de la Agencia de Cooperación del Japón, indican que se pueden aportar 10,500 megavatios eólicos, considerados suficientes para abastecer a todo el territorio nacional.
“Tenemos una demanda de alrededor de 2,100 megavatios, sin embargo el sistema tiene 3,000 megas instalados y la crisis sigue, es decir, que el país es uno de los que mejor podría aprovechar ese tipo de energía”, afirmó Rafael Marrero, asistente del taller de instalación y mantenimiento de Infotep. Pedernales, Barahona, Puerto Plata y parte de la cordillera Central han sido identificados como los lugares donde se produce la mayor cantidad de vientos.
Para instalar ese sistema se requiere realizar estudios de las condiciones ambientales para determinar la cantidad de kilovatios que se pueden aprovechar.
Hay que tomar en cuenta también las características que tiene el viento, intensidad, velocidad y la ubicación geográfica. Francisco Espinal, gerente de los Centros Tecnológicos de Infotep, argumentó que se ha demostrado que independientemente del costo del kilovatio instalado, los generadores eólicos producen energía a un costo muy por debajo que con la energía eléctrica.
El sistema dispone de unos acumuladores o baterías que permitirán tener energía cuando no haya vientos. La vida útil de un generador es de 30 a 40 años y el mantenimiento es mínimo. Por cada 50,000 horas de operación se le puede chequear el rodamiento.
Se puede apagar y prender por internet, al igual que chequear la velocidad.
viernes, agosto 17, 2007
Síntesis: Solución Energética Sistémica II
Estimados Amigos potenciales del GMH,
Gracias Bernardo por remitir el artículo que coloqué en la Bitácora Digital con la nota Estrategia Energética de las Plantas a Carbón.
Anteriormente enviaste un artículo que coloqué en la nota Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? y agregué entre otras cosas: "La República Dominicana no tiene ninguna ventaja estratégica que desarrollar con el carbón, pero si con el mercadeo al detalle de electricidad. El desarrollo de un sistema de racionamiento eficiente es un nicho de mercado que nadie está explotando todavía. Podemos desaprovechar nuestra ventaja comparativa para generar un servicio eléctrico de calidad comercial, sin igual en ningún país en desarrollo."
En la nota Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? Parte 2 agregué: "el desarrollo de un mercado minorista que le brinde la misma oportunidad a la administración de la demanda (no la gestión que se hace aquí) a plazos corto (con demand response) y largo (eficiencia energética propiamente dicha) que a las centrales de generación requiere una reestructuración que elimine los incentivos perversos que tiene los distribuidores. Desde ese punto de vista el desarrollo del mercado minorista ofrece otra ventaja grande al país."
Y en Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? Parte 3, agregué, también entre otras cosas,: "Rosemberg, recomienda leer dos artículos de carácter obligatorio para todo empresario eléctrico. El primero es el artículo de portada del National Geographic, de agosto 2005, "After Oil – Powering the Future." El segundo es de Amory Lovins' en Scientific American, de septiembre 2005, "More Profit with Less Carbon."
El informe del National Geographic pone en evidencia la existencia de un consenso que está emergiendo rápidamente sobre un rumbo totalmente nuevo para la industria. El segundo le reclama a los reguladores que eliminen los incentivos perversos que frenan los beneficios de la eficiencia energética, esperando que las distribuidoras innoven hacia un nuevo modelo y se repartan los beneficios del ahorro con los clientes. La propuesta que hace el GMH genera una reestructuración que llena el cometido hacia el futuro de la industria eléctrica de una manera muy natural."
Creo que el artículo del Padre Alemán es un buen insumo para comentar la nota Síntesis: Solución Energética Sistémica, en la cual soluciones del lado de la demanda hacen innecesaria la instalación de la planta a carbón de los chinos.
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, PhD
Gracias Bernardo por remitir el artículo que coloqué en la Bitácora Digital con la nota Estrategia Energética de las Plantas a Carbón.
Anteriormente enviaste un artículo que coloqué en la nota Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? y agregué entre otras cosas: "La República Dominicana no tiene ninguna ventaja estratégica que desarrollar con el carbón, pero si con el mercadeo al detalle de electricidad. El desarrollo de un sistema de racionamiento eficiente es un nicho de mercado que nadie está explotando todavía. Podemos desaprovechar nuestra ventaja comparativa para generar un servicio eléctrico de calidad comercial, sin igual en ningún país en desarrollo."
En la nota Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? Parte 2 agregué: "el desarrollo de un mercado minorista que le brinde la misma oportunidad a la administración de la demanda (no la gestión que se hace aquí) a plazos corto (con demand response) y largo (eficiencia energética propiamente dicha) que a las centrales de generación requiere una reestructuración que elimine los incentivos perversos que tiene los distribuidores. Desde ese punto de vista el desarrollo del mercado minorista ofrece otra ventaja grande al país."
Y en Predicen Vuelta al Carbón - ¿Qué Ventaja nos Ofrece? Parte 3, agregué, también entre otras cosas,: "Rosemberg, recomienda leer dos artículos de carácter obligatorio para todo empresario eléctrico. El primero es el artículo de portada del National Geographic, de agosto 2005, "After Oil – Powering the Future." El segundo es de Amory Lovins' en Scientific American, de septiembre 2005, "More Profit with Less Carbon."
El informe del National Geographic pone en evidencia la existencia de un consenso que está emergiendo rápidamente sobre un rumbo totalmente nuevo para la industria. El segundo le reclama a los reguladores que eliminen los incentivos perversos que frenan los beneficios de la eficiencia energética, esperando que las distribuidoras innoven hacia un nuevo modelo y se repartan los beneficios del ahorro con los clientes. La propuesta que hace el GMH genera una reestructuración que llena el cometido hacia el futuro de la industria eléctrica de una manera muy natural."
Creo que el artículo del Padre Alemán es un buen insumo para comentar la nota Síntesis: Solución Energética Sistémica, en la cual soluciones del lado de la demanda hacen innecesaria la instalación de la planta a carbón de los chinos.
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, PhD
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)