Thanks Bob,
I know that I will not be able to convince anyone that has its own agenda. That is not my intention. I will only respond to clarify what I meant.
Adding only that EWPC is about one controlled market and one open market that operate interdependently, to offer reliable service while opening the industry to business model innovations, I am glad to be able to say what I intended in my first post under Grooming Wind, where the same response was posted to your partially repeated comment. Please read it like this: “…extending incrementally the old central station paradigm (with very complex rules and regulations that lead to simple and stupid behavior) is alive and well, allowing that in a given area there might be two transmission systems so the natural monopoly concept is changed.”
The pure and original vertically integrated utility (which is what I meant by the “old central station”) paradigm and EWPC have both very simple rules and regulations that lead to complex and intelligent behavior. This is what the generative dialogue should be about to come up with the emerging market.
As you know, my interest is about the market vs. market competition and not the company vs. company competition. All the public debate has been on market vs. market competition centered on only two paradigms: the pure vertically integrated utilities paradigm (VIU), witch now has many incremental extensions towards wholesale and full deregulation. The Cato Institute “recommend total abandonment of restructuring,” meaning going back to the pure Old Paradigm.
The incremental extensions occurred first under PURPA; then under EPAct 1992 that enabled FERC to order wholesale competition and Open Transmission Access, implemented with FERC orders 888 and 889, and 2000. In addition, several events have impacted the progress and the debate of deregulation, the meltdown of California, FERCs SMD, and the Northeast Blackout. Those events led to 2005 Energy Bill, which resulted in NERC mandatory requirements and the introduction of Demand Response.
Two systems architecting heuristics says that “the most dangerous assumptions are the unstated ones” and “that all serious mistakes are made on the first day.” The assumption that the separation of federal and state jurisdictions does not have a distorting impact on electric markets restructuring needs to be reviewed. Under that assumption transmission and distribution seem to be two separate entities. A generative dialogue aiming to find the best argument should consider this item as the first. So, maybe in other places, like the BRIC countries which don’t have those unnecessary restrictions EWPC snared vision will have a better opportunity to emerge first.
As you all know, in the past two years, EWPC emerged as the third market under a generative dialogue, which is very simple market architecture and design: retail [and wholesale] competition, demand integration and ultraquality transportation. The first two are implemented by Second Generation Retailers (that handle all revenue streams from retail customers) as part of a value chain generation, retail, and customer. Ultraquality transportation is the result of demand integration to power system planning, operation and control, by Second Generation Retailers. The only utility company remaining is the transportation utility.
If I understand correctly, IMEUC is about wholesale competition, without retailers, without demand integration and without ultraquality transportation, leaving intact the incremental extensions of the Old Paradigm, which is exactly what the Cato Institute recommended to abandon. New hardware[/software] solutions should be left for company vs. company competition.
Reference and context: Continental Grid Vision Needed, by Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Magazine
viernes, enero 11, 2008
lunes, enero 07, 2008
Global Electric Service Shared Vision
By extending the suggestion of Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Magazine, a global electric service shared vision is needed. Such shared vision is open to gain a foothold for company vs. company competition in a state of the U.S., a country of Europe, or any of the BRIC countries.
Global Electric Service Shared Vision
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2008 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the Fifth Discipline there is quote by Robert Fritz that says “In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears.” Peter Senge rephrases it as: “In the absence of a great dream, pettiness prevails.” Senge adds: “Shared visions foster risk taking and experimentation. When people are immersed in a vision, they often don’t know how to do it. They run experiments. They change direction and run another experiment. Everything is an experiment, but there is not ambiguity. It’s perfectly clear why they are doing what they are doing. People aren’t saying ‘Give me a guarantee that it will work.’ Everybody knows that there is no guarantee. But the people are committed nonetheless.”
Earlier in my interventions, I followed the suggestion of Geoffrey Moore to divide competition in two stages: 1) market vs. market competition and 2) company vs. company competition. Since my interest on EWPC is concentrated in the first stage, I now feel very comfortable to keep working towards a shared vision as if pettiness has disappeared.
So, the opportunities towards as to how EWPC will evolve a shared vision of universal electricity service might be initiated in a state of the US, in a country of Europe, or maybe with a higher likelihood in one of the BRIC countries, as I suggested in the EWPC article A Global Standard Market Architecture and Design.
For those reasons, I respect Professor Ferdinand E Banks decision not to participate in a generative dialogue. Many of his inputs, that seem to be intended to oppose EWPC, have been very useful to the generative dialogue insights that have emerged. Obviously, every person has the same right. However, more money is to taken out of the pockets with today’s experiments in Sweden and elsewhere because of all the ambiguity as they lack a clear vision (see more below about NERC and FERC).
I recall from a whitepaper I wrote in 1996, to propose the vision that has evolved as EWPC, that I quoted Odgers Olsen Jr. of Ernst & Young as saying something like this “In the discussions that we had with people in the power industry some visions are clearly defined, others are quite clouded. For those that are clouded, some say: ‘let’s go forward and refine the vision as we go; we need to have certain flexibility.’ Others don’t understand that the vision itself is clouded. Those people will start, and restart, again and again, until they are behind in the game.”
There are many people that will not be convinced that going for a shared vision is correct. There are many people that don't believe that there is a looming (systemic) crisis that is long overdue. Those people should be left behind as it is a waste of precious time trying to convince them, when they are not open to dialogue or to have the courage to be open to be convinced. Peter Senge said that “… I find that I spend very little time trying to convince people of my view, and I can honestly say that it makes life a lot easier and more fun.”
Time is better expended working with the many others that are open to be convinced that going for a shared vision is correct and believe that there is a looming (systemic) crisis that is long overdue. In addition they have the freedom to have their personal visions which they wish to become shared visions of an emergent solution to the systemic crisis.
My vision is NOT about deregulation, but re-regulation. The Old Paradigm of the power industry has stocks of capacity (provided under regulation under a responsibility to serve) which are under the control of the system operator as the mean to provide ultraquality service for the whole system. But that ultraquality only results by overbuilding transmission and generating capacity.
The New Paradigm of the power industry (wide open to be enhanced to become a shared vision) gives the system operator (under a responsibility to transport) the control the stocks of capacity (provided from the open market under prudential regulations), in addition to the control of stocks of demand, in accordance with the commitments that customer make in the open market under contractual relationships with Second Generation Retailers (also under prudential regulations) to provide ultraquality service for the whole system. Under EWPC the long run investments expansion plans in transportation (integrated transmission and distribution) will be at least costs. Generation investments of base load power plants in the open market will lead to the development of a futures market.
As the incremental extensions (symptomatic solutions) to the Old Paradigm like Open Transmission Access that have later required the introduction of NERC mandatory rules (to give the incentives to invest in transmission, which will not be at least costs) in response to very costly blackout and as FERC is implementing Demand Response by introducing modifications to NERC rules, excessive investments in unnecessary transmission and bureaucracy will lead to more costs that in the end will have to be paid by the end-customer. Each ambiguous and unclear symptomatic solution has generated its own stranded costs that now involve “massive investments.”
The resulting shared vision of universal (global) electricity service is a more efficient power sector leading to fewer costs for the whole and for individual customers after a while. EWPC is open to gain a foothold for company vs. company competition in a state of the U.S., a country of Europe, or any of the BRIC countries, to implement such certainly needed vision.
Reference and context: Continental Grid Vision Needed, by Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Magazine
Global Electric Service Shared Vision
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2008 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the Fifth Discipline there is quote by Robert Fritz that says “In the presence of greatness, pettiness disappears.” Peter Senge rephrases it as: “In the absence of a great dream, pettiness prevails.” Senge adds: “Shared visions foster risk taking and experimentation. When people are immersed in a vision, they often don’t know how to do it. They run experiments. They change direction and run another experiment. Everything is an experiment, but there is not ambiguity. It’s perfectly clear why they are doing what they are doing. People aren’t saying ‘Give me a guarantee that it will work.’ Everybody knows that there is no guarantee. But the people are committed nonetheless.”
Earlier in my interventions, I followed the suggestion of Geoffrey Moore to divide competition in two stages: 1) market vs. market competition and 2) company vs. company competition. Since my interest on EWPC is concentrated in the first stage, I now feel very comfortable to keep working towards a shared vision as if pettiness has disappeared.
So, the opportunities towards as to how EWPC will evolve a shared vision of universal electricity service might be initiated in a state of the US, in a country of Europe, or maybe with a higher likelihood in one of the BRIC countries, as I suggested in the EWPC article A Global Standard Market Architecture and Design.
For those reasons, I respect Professor Ferdinand E Banks decision not to participate in a generative dialogue. Many of his inputs, that seem to be intended to oppose EWPC, have been very useful to the generative dialogue insights that have emerged. Obviously, every person has the same right. However, more money is to taken out of the pockets with today’s experiments in Sweden and elsewhere because of all the ambiguity as they lack a clear vision (see more below about NERC and FERC).
I recall from a whitepaper I wrote in 1996, to propose the vision that has evolved as EWPC, that I quoted Odgers Olsen Jr. of Ernst & Young as saying something like this “In the discussions that we had with people in the power industry some visions are clearly defined, others are quite clouded. For those that are clouded, some say: ‘let’s go forward and refine the vision as we go; we need to have certain flexibility.’ Others don’t understand that the vision itself is clouded. Those people will start, and restart, again and again, until they are behind in the game.”
There are many people that will not be convinced that going for a shared vision is correct. There are many people that don't believe that there is a looming (systemic) crisis that is long overdue. Those people should be left behind as it is a waste of precious time trying to convince them, when they are not open to dialogue or to have the courage to be open to be convinced. Peter Senge said that “… I find that I spend very little time trying to convince people of my view, and I can honestly say that it makes life a lot easier and more fun.”
Time is better expended working with the many others that are open to be convinced that going for a shared vision is correct and believe that there is a looming (systemic) crisis that is long overdue. In addition they have the freedom to have their personal visions which they wish to become shared visions of an emergent solution to the systemic crisis.
My vision is NOT about deregulation, but re-regulation. The Old Paradigm of the power industry has stocks of capacity (provided under regulation under a responsibility to serve) which are under the control of the system operator as the mean to provide ultraquality service for the whole system. But that ultraquality only results by overbuilding transmission and generating capacity.
The New Paradigm of the power industry (wide open to be enhanced to become a shared vision) gives the system operator (under a responsibility to transport) the control the stocks of capacity (provided from the open market under prudential regulations), in addition to the control of stocks of demand, in accordance with the commitments that customer make in the open market under contractual relationships with Second Generation Retailers (also under prudential regulations) to provide ultraquality service for the whole system. Under EWPC the long run investments expansion plans in transportation (integrated transmission and distribution) will be at least costs. Generation investments of base load power plants in the open market will lead to the development of a futures market.
As the incremental extensions (symptomatic solutions) to the Old Paradigm like Open Transmission Access that have later required the introduction of NERC mandatory rules (to give the incentives to invest in transmission, which will not be at least costs) in response to very costly blackout and as FERC is implementing Demand Response by introducing modifications to NERC rules, excessive investments in unnecessary transmission and bureaucracy will lead to more costs that in the end will have to be paid by the end-customer. Each ambiguous and unclear symptomatic solution has generated its own stranded costs that now involve “massive investments.”
The resulting shared vision of universal (global) electricity service is a more efficient power sector leading to fewer costs for the whole and for individual customers after a while. EWPC is open to gain a foothold for company vs. company competition in a state of the U.S., a country of Europe, or any of the BRIC countries, to implement such certainly needed vision.
Reference and context: Continental Grid Vision Needed, by Martin Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Magazine
domingo, enero 06, 2008
A Global Standard Market Architecture and Design
One of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India or China) is poised to be the enabler of a global Standard Market Architecture and Design, if U.S. companies decide to stay behind by keeping in place several inefficient statewide incremental extensions of the Vertically Integrated Utilities paradigm, none of which is able to become a U.S. standard, let alone a global standard. The EWPC standard will enable important global economies of scale.
A Global Standard Market Architecture and Design
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
The last two comments that I posted, yesterday under the post Oil Prices Torching from Marty Rosenberg, which is a good introduction to the second which I posted today under the reference cited below. A development of the optimal mix of resources that satisfy the needs of end-customers, will come from the demand side and from the supply side.
While developed countries will have initially very high percentages of resources from the supply side, developing countries will be able for the first time to provide commercial quality reliable service (almost no unintended blackouts) with lower percentages of resources from the supply side, as EWPC becomes a global Standard Market Architecture and Design.
Marty’s article concludes with “…BIG NEWS with huge implications for consumers, the energy industry, the American and world economy, global politics, global terrorism... You name it. So when you read about high oil prices, don't agonize. It may be just the birth pangs of a much better world. And a new era of human enterprise,” as he wrote. This is my first comment:
The second comment says:
Reference and context of the second post: Grooming Wind, by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider.
A Global Standard Market Architecture and Design
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
The last two comments that I posted, yesterday under the post Oil Prices Torching from Marty Rosenberg, which is a good introduction to the second which I posted today under the reference cited below. A development of the optimal mix of resources that satisfy the needs of end-customers, will come from the demand side and from the supply side.
While developed countries will have initially very high percentages of resources from the supply side, developing countries will be able for the first time to provide commercial quality reliable service (almost no unintended blackouts) with lower percentages of resources from the supply side, as EWPC becomes a global Standard Market Architecture and Design.
Marty’s article concludes with “…BIG NEWS with huge implications for consumers, the energy industry, the American and world economy, global politics, global terrorism... You name it. So when you read about high oil prices, don't agonize. It may be just the birth pangs of a much better world. And a new era of human enterprise,” as he wrote. This is my first comment:
Hello Mr. Rosenberg,
Happy New Year,
The key sentence on the quotes of Arthur Kressner, director fo R&D for Consolidated Edison, is "If properly integrated with the grid, we could do this in a very effective manner benefiting the environment, consumer and the company." Readers are advised to take a look at the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics (please the link … to read it).
Under EWPC the utilities become just wires only T&D transportation utilities under an obligation to transport at ultraquality. Centralized and distributed resources should go to the open market with competition at wholesale and retail. The integration of demand should be done through a new institution that I call Second Generation Retailers. For more information, please go to the EWPC Blog . . .
The second comment says:
Dear Don,
California and other states of the U.S. seem to have foregone a great opportunity by locking in their power sectors in an increasingly inefficient development path. Other states that are in a wait and see attitude should consider EWPC, as an emergent worldwide standard market architecture and design.
The reality that FERC SMD ended in failure can't be taken as an assumption that a single worldwide standard is impossible. Important economies of scale are the best incentives that the standard will provide.
If just one BRIC country undertakes the development of EWPC, it will extend very fast towards many other developing countries under reinforcing feedback. The resulting convergence will comeback to find states and countries and their companies locked with non-compatible rules losing business later on in the game.
¡El que ríe último, ríe mejor!
Best regards,
José Antonio
Reference and context of the second post: Grooming Wind, by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider.
sábado, enero 05, 2008
No Te Lo Van a Publicar
El viernes 4 Diario Libre publicó DL: Ed. - Energía. El sábado 5 agregó DL: Espejo de papel. - Palabras. Ambos son críticas que se resumen en la concentración en soluciones sintomáticas a expensas de las soluciones fundamentales del sector energía y muy en particlar el sector eléctrico.
Desde el 15 de mayo del 2005 he venido publicando en esta Bitácora Digital del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola una solución que inicié en 1996 y que ha pisado los periódicos muy brevemente. Es una solución fundamental al problema eléctrico.
Una posible razón por la que no llega al a prensa es porque los métodos de la dictadura trujillista siguen campantes. Para entender esos métodos dictatoriales que corrompen al Cuarto Poder vale la pena escuchar la entrevista que hizo ARISTEGUI al autor del libro "La Otra Guerra Secreta," en el siguiente enlace. Me impactó la expresión No Te Lo Van a Publicar, pero sí se lo publicaron.
En la contraportada del libro aparece lo siguiente:
Cuánto costaba el silencio en México?
¿Quién decidía lo que se decía durante los sexenios del PRI?
¿Qué hicieron los dueños de los medios cuando el gobierno silenciaba a los opositores?
¿Dónde estuvieron los líderes de opinión, los columnistas, los reporteros?
¿Quién protestó?
¿Desde qué dependencia se callaba a los periodistas?
¿Los callaron a todos o hubo quienes prefirieron callar por voluntad propia?
En La otra guerra secreta el lector encontrará muchas de las respuestas que hacían falta. Un país que se busca a sí mismo, que trata de hacer las paces con su pasado y con su historia, necesita desnudarse para encontrar la verdad. En este libro, a partir de fuentes primarias del Archivo General de la Nación #de los fondos correspondientes a los órganos de inteligencia de la Secretaría de Gobernación: Dirección Federal de Seguridad y Dirección de Investigaciones Políticas y Sociales#, se desvelan los modos y las estrategias del gobierno, así como las posiciones y predilecciones de los comunicadores y dueños. No queda sin tratar ningún asunto, ningún #particular#. La mayoría de los reporteros, periodistas, líderes de opinión y dueños de medios #demuestra Jacinto Rodríguez Munguía# callaron por voluntad propia. Fueron los tiempos de la guerra sucia, una guerra clandestina y soterrada, una guerra implacable. Los tiempos en que los medios de comunicación fueron el aliado fundamental de las botas, las torturas y las eliminaciones extrajudiciales. Fue ésta la otra guerra, la guerra secreta, la de la alianza de los medios y el poder, la de la complicidad y las canonjías.
Desde el 15 de mayo del 2005 he venido publicando en esta Bitácora Digital del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola una solución que inicié en 1996 y que ha pisado los periódicos muy brevemente. Es una solución fundamental al problema eléctrico.
Una posible razón por la que no llega al a prensa es porque los métodos de la dictadura trujillista siguen campantes. Para entender esos métodos dictatoriales que corrompen al Cuarto Poder vale la pena escuchar la entrevista que hizo ARISTEGUI al autor del libro "La Otra Guerra Secreta," en el siguiente enlace. Me impactó la expresión No Te Lo Van a Publicar, pero sí se lo publicaron.
En la contraportada del libro aparece lo siguiente:
Cuánto costaba el silencio en México?
¿Quién decidía lo que se decía durante los sexenios del PRI?
¿Qué hicieron los dueños de los medios cuando el gobierno silenciaba a los opositores?
¿Dónde estuvieron los líderes de opinión, los columnistas, los reporteros?
¿Quién protestó?
¿Desde qué dependencia se callaba a los periodistas?
¿Los callaron a todos o hubo quienes prefirieron callar por voluntad propia?
En La otra guerra secreta el lector encontrará muchas de las respuestas que hacían falta. Un país que se busca a sí mismo, que trata de hacer las paces con su pasado y con su historia, necesita desnudarse para encontrar la verdad. En este libro, a partir de fuentes primarias del Archivo General de la Nación #de los fondos correspondientes a los órganos de inteligencia de la Secretaría de Gobernación: Dirección Federal de Seguridad y Dirección de Investigaciones Políticas y Sociales#, se desvelan los modos y las estrategias del gobierno, así como las posiciones y predilecciones de los comunicadores y dueños. No queda sin tratar ningún asunto, ningún #particular#. La mayoría de los reporteros, periodistas, líderes de opinión y dueños de medios #demuestra Jacinto Rodríguez Munguía# callaron por voluntad propia. Fueron los tiempos de la guerra sucia, una guerra clandestina y soterrada, una guerra implacable. Los tiempos en que los medios de comunicación fueron el aliado fundamental de las botas, las torturas y las eliminaciones extrajudiciales. Fue ésta la otra guerra, la guerra secreta, la de la alianza de los medios y el poder, la de la complicidad y las canonjías.
DL: Ed. - Energía
Ed. - Energía
Diario Libre: Opinión, 3 de Enero del 2008
Hasta ahora el Gobierno se ha mostrado muy tímido frente a las alzas del petróleo. El Presidente le habló al país, se están instalando semáforos inteligentes y se dice que se incautarán los vehículos oficiales que circulen sin necesidad los fines de semana.
Esas son curitas contra una hemorragia.
Lo importante es lo que se pueda hacer en las grandes políticas públicas, como es la energía renovable, que avanza a paso de tortuga dormida; como es el análisis serio de los costos en nuestro sistema eléctrico, que está lleno de grasa y de desperdicio por la gran cantidad de energía que se pierde o no se cobra.
Al Gobierno le ha faltado energía para atacar el problema de la energía, pues ni siquiera los proyectos a los que apostó, las plantas de carbón, ha podido iniciarlos
Diario Libre: Opinión, 3 de Enero del 2008
Hasta ahora el Gobierno se ha mostrado muy tímido frente a las alzas del petróleo. El Presidente le habló al país, se están instalando semáforos inteligentes y se dice que se incautarán los vehículos oficiales que circulen sin necesidad los fines de semana.
Esas son curitas contra una hemorragia.
Lo importante es lo que se pueda hacer en las grandes políticas públicas, como es la energía renovable, que avanza a paso de tortuga dormida; como es el análisis serio de los costos en nuestro sistema eléctrico, que está lleno de grasa y de desperdicio por la gran cantidad de energía que se pierde o no se cobra.
Al Gobierno le ha faltado energía para atacar el problema de la energía, pues ni siquiera los proyectos a los que apostó, las plantas de carbón, ha podido iniciarlos
DL: Espejo de papel. - Palabras
El presidente Fernández afirmó que el problema eléctrico es el gran reto para la Nación. La idea, aunque cierta, sorprende. Leonel no se ha mostrado enérgico ante el problema energético. Los apagones son tanto de luz como de ideas. La verdad es que esta administración, como las anteriores, no acierta a definir una política eficaz para solucionar el problema. El Gobierno prefiere paliar que resolver, por eso pone toda su fe en los subsidios al sector. Los subsidios sólo sirven para mantener prendidos los bombillos, pero apagan las finanzas públicas y oscurecen el camino de las soluciones definitivas. ¡Palabras, palabras!
hfigueroa@diariolibre.com
hfigueroa@diariolibre.com
viernes, enero 04, 2008
Power System Operation Stocks and Flows
An important discovery about the non-trivial aspects of power system planning, operation and control is in the making, under a generative dialogue. Resources are needed to develop an update of Jason Black's PH.D. M.I.T thesis to simulate the EWPC architecture and design paradigm shift of the power industry.
Power System Operation Stocks and Flows
Thank you Fred,
Your post is very good, as you engage the generative dialogue as I asked.
From what you wrote, I infer that you confirm that Len “. . . is seduced by the early chapters in his econ 101 textbook, and so he didn't bother to read the later chapters, where he might have been informed that regulating [and re-regulating under EWPC as explained below] the electric industry makes a lot of sense.”
You are probably right that Prof. Schweppe didn’t take explicitly into account stocks and flows into his regulated (not deregulated) energy marketplace, but he included the criterion “Utility Control, Operation and Planning: Consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system," which suffices to me to extend the regulated marketplace to a re-regulated one.
That criterion is the ultraquality imperative which is a true and non-trivial essential characteristic of vertical integration that also belongs to EWPC, but is missing from IMEUC. So, thanks to you, maybe we are discovering something new. This is what I see about introducing stocks and flows to the power industry, which necessarily is in draft form and thus wide open to enhancements.
The vertically integrated utilities (VIU) paradigm developed under the assumption of demand as an externality. Under the VIU paradigm, the job of the power system dispatcher is to accumulate generating capacity “stock” by interconnecting (and disconnecting) generating units to the power system according to a process called “security constraint unit commitment” to find out the proper places and the proper rates thereby operating the power system at ultraquality to satisfy the accumulated external load “stock” at each time and location. It is a tough job that involves important delays that result in the disequilibrium dynamics of the power system.
Under EWPC, demand is integrated to power system planning, operation and control with the aim of ultraqualty service, under the tough job to be planned (long run and short run) by 2GRs to aggregate “dispatchable” load stock in the wholesale market, by making contractual agreements with customers at the retail market.
It is in those agreements that most of the leverage is to be found to increase the efficiency of power sectors (i.e. avoidance of excesive capacity). Such agreements are already being executed in several states of the U.S. by demand response aggregators. However, the lack of a proper market architecture and design is the source of the FERC action on NERC mandatory requirements mentioned in the above post under today’s mess.
The lack of long run and short run planning of stocks (i.e. inventories) of customer demand response in the California debacle was one important missing item that let the incredible price spikes and costly rotating blackouts result.
As it cost a lot of money, instead of sending my heros to Upsala, I am sending through you this post to get their feedback. With regard to money, my priority now is to find the funds to develop the stock and flow diagram of power system planning, operation and control for EWPC to update the system dynamic model of Jason Black’s M.I.T. Ph.D. theses.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Reference and context: Grooming Wind, by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider.
Power System Operation Stocks and Flows
Thank you Fred,
Your post is very good, as you engage the generative dialogue as I asked.
From what you wrote, I infer that you confirm that Len “. . . is seduced by the early chapters in his econ 101 textbook, and so he didn't bother to read the later chapters, where he might have been informed that regulating [and re-regulating under EWPC as explained below] the electric industry makes a lot of sense.”
You are probably right that Prof. Schweppe didn’t take explicitly into account stocks and flows into his regulated (not deregulated) energy marketplace, but he included the criterion “Utility Control, Operation and Planning: Consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system," which suffices to me to extend the regulated marketplace to a re-regulated one.
That criterion is the ultraquality imperative which is a true and non-trivial essential characteristic of vertical integration that also belongs to EWPC, but is missing from IMEUC. So, thanks to you, maybe we are discovering something new. This is what I see about introducing stocks and flows to the power industry, which necessarily is in draft form and thus wide open to enhancements.
The vertically integrated utilities (VIU) paradigm developed under the assumption of demand as an externality. Under the VIU paradigm, the job of the power system dispatcher is to accumulate generating capacity “stock” by interconnecting (and disconnecting) generating units to the power system according to a process called “security constraint unit commitment” to find out the proper places and the proper rates thereby operating the power system at ultraquality to satisfy the accumulated external load “stock” at each time and location. It is a tough job that involves important delays that result in the disequilibrium dynamics of the power system.
Under EWPC, demand is integrated to power system planning, operation and control with the aim of ultraqualty service, under the tough job to be planned (long run and short run) by 2GRs to aggregate “dispatchable” load stock in the wholesale market, by making contractual agreements with customers at the retail market.
It is in those agreements that most of the leverage is to be found to increase the efficiency of power sectors (i.e. avoidance of excesive capacity). Such agreements are already being executed in several states of the U.S. by demand response aggregators. However, the lack of a proper market architecture and design is the source of the FERC action on NERC mandatory requirements mentioned in the above post under today’s mess.
The lack of long run and short run planning of stocks (i.e. inventories) of customer demand response in the California debacle was one important missing item that let the incredible price spikes and costly rotating blackouts result.
As it cost a lot of money, instead of sending my heros to Upsala, I am sending through you this post to get their feedback. With regard to money, my priority now is to find the funds to develop the stock and flow diagram of power system planning, operation and control for EWPC to update the system dynamic model of Jason Black’s M.I.T. Ph.D. theses.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Reference and context: Grooming Wind, by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider.
viernes, diciembre 28, 2007
A.M. - Un pueblo adulto
Los políticos no quieren que el pueblo dominicano se haga adulto. Siempre están tratando de "protegerlo" de todos los males que le afligen y no lo dejan aprender de sus errores y ganarse la adultez como lo hemos hecho todos, levantándonos de nuestras caídas.
Hipólito, por ejemplo, justificó una vez la entrega tardía de la regalía pascual, en que había que evitar que lo gastaran todo antes de la Navidad. Franklyn Almeyda, justifica la veda de los fuegos artificiales para evitar accidentes lamentables por el mal manejo de los mismos.
Hay que establecer las medidas más absurdas porque la gente no sabe cuidarse a sí misma y los políticos tienen la "sagrada misión" de proteger a sus súbditos.
Debe ser por eso entonces que no nos dan educación de calidad ni buen servicio de salud, para que crezcamos mendigando desnutridos por la ayuda oficial.
Por ese camino nos hemos convertido en un país de pordioseros (limosnero es el que da limosnas), que tiene que esperarlo todo de la mano de los políticos que, de paso, se hacen multimillonarios. (Pero ese es un detalle insignificante, que no vale la pena mencionar)
Nos han castrado tanto que tenemos personas refugiadas en barrancones desde hace casi 30 años que todavía "esperan" por la ayuda del Gobierno. ¿Cómo es posible que alguien pueda pasarse 30 años esperando por una ayuda que no llega y seguir viviendo en las peores condiciones de existencia?
Eso sólo es posible porque nos han castrado. Nos dicen hasta qué hora podemos beber, las cosas que podemos hacer y las que no. Somos un pueblo enano, porque ya tenemos mayoría de edad, pero no nos dejan crecer, porque ese es el gran negocio.
atejada@diariolibre.com
Original publicado por Diario Libre el 23 de Diciembre del 2007, 9:34 PM
Hipólito, por ejemplo, justificó una vez la entrega tardía de la regalía pascual, en que había que evitar que lo gastaran todo antes de la Navidad. Franklyn Almeyda, justifica la veda de los fuegos artificiales para evitar accidentes lamentables por el mal manejo de los mismos.
Hay que establecer las medidas más absurdas porque la gente no sabe cuidarse a sí misma y los políticos tienen la "sagrada misión" de proteger a sus súbditos.
Debe ser por eso entonces que no nos dan educación de calidad ni buen servicio de salud, para que crezcamos mendigando desnutridos por la ayuda oficial.
Por ese camino nos hemos convertido en un país de pordioseros (limosnero es el que da limosnas), que tiene que esperarlo todo de la mano de los políticos que, de paso, se hacen multimillonarios. (Pero ese es un detalle insignificante, que no vale la pena mencionar)
Nos han castrado tanto que tenemos personas refugiadas en barrancones desde hace casi 30 años que todavía "esperan" por la ayuda del Gobierno. ¿Cómo es posible que alguien pueda pasarse 30 años esperando por una ayuda que no llega y seguir viviendo en las peores condiciones de existencia?
Eso sólo es posible porque nos han castrado. Nos dicen hasta qué hora podemos beber, las cosas que podemos hacer y las que no. Somos un pueblo enano, porque ya tenemos mayoría de edad, pero no nos dejan crecer, porque ese es el gran negocio.
atejada@diariolibre.com
Original publicado por Diario Libre el 23 de Diciembre del 2007, 9:34 PM
viernes, diciembre 21, 2007
Solar and Micro-Wind Breakthroughts?
In Solar and micro wind tax credits, jmaximus9 wrote on 12/13/2007:
My response is as follows: That solar and micro-wind don’t “need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now...” seems to be a very good point. However, it is a policy that leads to high inefficiencies under today’s power sector paradigms designed for demand as an externality, resulting in a total lack of coordination with the interconnected power system . EWPC is a paradigm shift which aim to increase total social welfare, by increasing power system coordination and economics while integrating demand.
The major breakthrough required is for those potential “disruptive technologies” to be integrated into power system planning, operation, and control. The glue to integrate them (demand integration) is the development of information technology (intensive) business model innovations by Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs.
To enable such integration, the most important issue is to shift the paradigm from the energy-making business to the energy-moving business (read please the article Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm, which was posted under the piece "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," also by Kevin Bullis). Solar, micro wind and other renewable investments should compete with in the process to integrate demand to the power system.
Any tax credits should be available to develop all the resources of the demand side, including those of information technology. The resources of the supply side which are energy intensive are already highly developed.
I have a better idea, go back to a Carter era style subsides [http://www.dsireusa.org/ ] for installing solar and micro wind and other energy conserving device in the home and small biz sectors... Solar panels should be as common as decks or swimming pools in the southwest [http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php ]. Microwind should be the same way in the great plains [ http://www.windterra.com/ ]... None of these things need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now... Power to people!
My response is as follows: That solar and micro-wind don’t “need major breakthroughs, they are ready to use now...” seems to be a very good point. However, it is a policy that leads to high inefficiencies under today’s power sector paradigms designed for demand as an externality, resulting in a total lack of coordination with the interconnected power system . EWPC is a paradigm shift which aim to increase total social welfare, by increasing power system coordination and economics while integrating demand.
The major breakthrough required is for those potential “disruptive technologies” to be integrated into power system planning, operation, and control. The glue to integrate them (demand integration) is the development of information technology (intensive) business model innovations by Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs.
To enable such integration, the most important issue is to shift the paradigm from the energy-making business to the energy-moving business (read please the article Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm, which was posted under the piece "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," also by Kevin Bullis). Solar, micro wind and other renewable investments should compete with in the process to integrate demand to the power system.
Any tax credits should be available to develop all the resources of the demand side, including those of information technology. The resources of the supply side which are energy intensive are already highly developed.
miércoles, diciembre 19, 2007
Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm
Nanosolar has made great progress as it has faced and apparently surpassed many barriers so far. However, they are still facing the most important barrier, which is the old electric power paradigm centered on central generating station.
Nanosolar’s product is in essence a distributed generation product, but as there is a strong barrier against the development of the resources of the demand side its first applications are supply side applications.
Michael Power writes a clear message to characterize the old business and the new business we are entering in the fifth technological revolution: "Electricity consumers becoming part-time producers – “pro-sumers” – and utilities shifting from “energy-making business” to “energy-moving business”…
There is a new paradigm that has emerged in the past two years, as an extension of research work done originally at MIT, where utilities shift to become just transportation utilities that do the actual movement for generators and customers (not just consumers anymore). Under the new paradigm a set of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR do the actual business transactions under competition. That paradigm is electricity without price controls (EWPC). To break down the barrier faced by Nanosolar and many innovative companies, the main mission of 2GRs is the development of the resources of the demand side.
For more details, please take a look at the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. Under the article there is a set of comments which were posted under another Kevin Bullis TR Editors’ blog, explaining the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm shift paradigm and also responding davel’s questions “why is it important to slash energy use” to additional questions posed by frankellim.
This comment was posted as Old vs. New Paradigm under Technology Review Editors blog, post "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," by Kevin Bullis.
Nanosolar’s product is in essence a distributed generation product, but as there is a strong barrier against the development of the resources of the demand side its first applications are supply side applications.
Michael Power writes a clear message to characterize the old business and the new business we are entering in the fifth technological revolution: "Electricity consumers becoming part-time producers – “pro-sumers” – and utilities shifting from “energy-making business” to “energy-moving business”…
There is a new paradigm that has emerged in the past two years, as an extension of research work done originally at MIT, where utilities shift to become just transportation utilities that do the actual movement for generators and customers (not just consumers anymore). Under the new paradigm a set of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR do the actual business transactions under competition. That paradigm is electricity without price controls (EWPC). To break down the barrier faced by Nanosolar and many innovative companies, the main mission of 2GRs is the development of the resources of the demand side.
For more details, please take a look at the EWPC article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. Under the article there is a set of comments which were posted under another Kevin Bullis TR Editors’ blog, explaining the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm shift paradigm and also responding davel’s questions “why is it important to slash energy use” to additional questions posed by frankellim.
This comment was posted as Old vs. New Paradigm under Technology Review Editors blog, post "Big Solar News: Nanosolar is shipping printed solar cells," by Kevin Bullis.
lunes, diciembre 17, 2007
Making Electricity a Commodity
To make electricity a commodity, a proper market architecture and design has emerged in the last two years, as the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm. The structural flaws in the current incremental extensions of the vertical integration paradigm will not go away by implementing NERC mandatory requirements, as it prevents the necessary coordination leading to maximum social welfare.
Making Electricity a Commodity
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Electricity is not a regular commodity like gasoline, unless it meets the requirement to properly managed systemic risk of system failure. To explain how to make electricity a commodity, I will try to convey the information which might be non-trivial on the EWPC articles Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics, To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering and Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration, and their respective hyperlinks, in another way.
As far as I know, only the original vertical integration and the EWPC paradigms are designed to satisfy such requirement. As you can see in the GMH article NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure, NERC mandatory requirements are just a set of costly afterthoughts, which “will no fix the structural flaws remaining.”
Missing in the afterthoughts is that systemic risk of system failure requirement under vertical integration aimed to provide maximum social welfare by developing the power system infrastructure under least costs expansion plans. Under EWPC the transportation infrastructure is to be developed under similar least costs to enable maximum welfare in the open market. Coordination is brought about by EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. When customers take their decisions independently the results can be way off the social welfare optimal as lack of coordination will lead to a lot of value destruction.
As the work of FERC is correctly showing, demand response (and thus energy efficiency) investment and service plan procedures information is required beforehand to determine the price of electricity when demand gets integrated into power system planning, operation and control. EWPC dual markets design provide how customers will interact in supplying the needed information while selecting 2GRs’ service plans, which under competition will become business model innovations.
The transition from vertical integration to EWPC should proceed in a reasonable time frame in which supply side risk management gets reduced by increasing demand side risk management of system failure, as the customers’ education process continues.
The alternative is to go back to vertical integration to keep receiving a monthly bill and using costly generating reserves to manage systemic risk of system failure, which in turn lead to very costly electricity.
Making Electricity a Commodity
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Electricity is not a regular commodity like gasoline, unless it meets the requirement to properly managed systemic risk of system failure. To explain how to make electricity a commodity, I will try to convey the information which might be non-trivial on the EWPC articles Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics, To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering and Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration, and their respective hyperlinks, in another way.
As far as I know, only the original vertical integration and the EWPC paradigms are designed to satisfy such requirement. As you can see in the GMH article NERC Compliance and Power Sector Structure, NERC mandatory requirements are just a set of costly afterthoughts, which “will no fix the structural flaws remaining.”
Missing in the afterthoughts is that systemic risk of system failure requirement under vertical integration aimed to provide maximum social welfare by developing the power system infrastructure under least costs expansion plans. Under EWPC the transportation infrastructure is to be developed under similar least costs to enable maximum welfare in the open market. Coordination is brought about by EWPC market architecture and design paradigm. When customers take their decisions independently the results can be way off the social welfare optimal as lack of coordination will lead to a lot of value destruction.
As the work of FERC is correctly showing, demand response (and thus energy efficiency) investment and service plan procedures information is required beforehand to determine the price of electricity when demand gets integrated into power system planning, operation and control. EWPC dual markets design provide how customers will interact in supplying the needed information while selecting 2GRs’ service plans, which under competition will become business model innovations.
The transition from vertical integration to EWPC should proceed in a reasonable time frame in which supply side risk management gets reduced by increasing demand side risk management of system failure, as the customers’ education process continues.
The alternative is to go back to vertical integration to keep receiving a monthly bill and using costly generating reserves to manage systemic risk of system failure, which in turn lead to very costly electricity.
domingo, diciembre 16, 2007
¿Mi Regalo de Navidad?: Productividad con Cambio Paradigma Educativo
¿Mi Regalo de Navidad?: Productividad con Cambio Paradigma Educativo
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant
Los elementos esenciales de un cambio de paradigma educativo nacen del impacto de la 5ta revolución tecnológica que está transformando a todos los sectores. El sector educativo es uno de los que más serán impactos por los cambios tecnológicos, afectando grandemente la productividad de los distintos egresados y de los sectores productivos.
Siguiendo un ejemplo de la venta de sillas de madera, David McWilliam, MD at Cognos SA, escribe que de acuerdo a la consultora McKinsey existen tres formas primarias de trabajo y actividades de negocios:
- Trabajo transformacional: extracción de materias primas y/o conversión a productos terminados (tomar madera y hacer una silla.)
- Trabajo transaccional: interacciones que se desdoblan de forma basadas en reglas y que pueden ser escritas o automatizadas. (Tomar madera pre-cortada y construir sillas en una línea de ensamblaje.)
- Trabajo tácito: interacciones más complicadas requiriendo un nivel superior de juicio y envolviendo ambigüedad y extrayendo conocimiento tácito o experimental. (Administrando las ventas de sillas para una región específica.)
Con un amplio progreso en las zonas francas y el turismo, los dominicanos hemos demostrados que podemos realizar el trabajo transaccional con alta productividad. El sistema educativo dominicano parece estar bien orientado a esa clase de trabajo.
Según McWilliam, de acuerdo a McKinsey el trabajo tácito ha aumentado en los últimos 9 años a más del 70% de los nuevos trabajos en los Estados Unidos, llegando al 40% del empleo total. No obstante, informa que hay un gran desfase porque se han invertido seis veces más en tecnología para trabajo transaccional que en trabajo tácito. Como el trabajo transaccional es fácil de duplicar, la ventaja competitiva depende cada vez más de la productividad del trabajo tácito.
Todo luce indicar que las quejas de los sectores productivos dominicanos pueden radicar en el desconocimiento de ese tipo de trabajo y de ese desfase. Si es así, ese es el regalo de Navidad que les ofrezco a aquellos que no lo habían entendido todavía. Lo que requieren es personal que sea capaz de realizar trabajo tácito, pero el sector educativo no esta preparado para suplirlo en las cantidades necesarias. Estamos en frente de un nuevo renacimiento, pero no solo para las elites.
Se necesita entonces transformar el sistema educativo dominicano vía un cambio de paradigma que permita suplir la demanda de empleados capaces de realizar trabajo tácito. Los educadores y los estudiantes deben entender que el trabajo transaccional es un trabajo que puede ser y es reemplazado por las máquinas y los sistemas de información.
En el nuevo renacimiento, la educación liberal necesita ser enfatizada más que nunca en el sistema educativo para poder realizar “interacciones más complicadas requiriendo un nivel superior de juicio y envolviendo ambigüedad y extrayendo conocimiento tácito o experimental.”
La escuela-fábrica de producción de trabajadores para el mercado masivo debe ser cuestionada y en su lugar dar paso a, por ejemplo, un nuevo modelo para el mercado de educación casi a la medida. La interacción de los sectores productivos con el sector educativo puede ayudar a facilitar el ambiente necesario aprovechando los sistemas de redes de información. Las aulas pueden entonces que se muevan de sitio para los niveles superiores.
En tal sentido, y con base a la nota Política de Educación para un Desarrollo Humano Inclusivo y Renovado, se podría pensar en grandes profesores que ni siquiera estén ubicados en el país y cooperando con excelentes asistentes ubicados en los sectores productivos o en escuelas especializadas y no en la escuela-fábrica. Es así como podría ser el nuevo paradigma educación superior.
Espero que estas ideas puedan ayudar a reorientar el debate en cuanto a la necesidad de desarrollar líderes a todos los niveles, pues son los líderes los que están preparados para realizar el trabajo tácito.
sábado, diciembre 15, 2007
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
Demand integration is a discontinuous innovation and the reason why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response. Politics should NOT continue to play major interventions in regard to betting on outcomes in alternative energy and demand response, as the installation of AMI is developed by 2GRs under competition. Great opportunities are waiting “that promises much more value creation over time” under the EWPC paradigm shift.
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics it is very clear that there are non-trivial aspects of electricity and that there is a need for a paradigm shift of the power industry as a consequence of demand integration. The non-trivial aspects of vertical integration make possible to plan, operate and control by risk management on the supply side without demand integration. It is also clear from the article that according to FERC demand response, the basic element of demand integration also includes demand side energy efficiency.
It is important to see that the old whole power industry paradigm had two separate interdependent markets, the so called vertical integration controlled market up to the customers meters and the demand open market of customer devices beyond the meter that transform electricity into useful energy services (see below a quote of Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign, on those services).
The EWPC paradigm restructuring discovery separates the same whole power industry in a different way into two interdependent markets, with also one open, and the other controlled. The controlled transportation utility market retains the non-trivial aspects of the vertical integration controlled market as demand response is executed to bridge the retail and wholesale open markets to produce ultraquality transportation. Those controlled markets are the machines that should be ran by engineers, no politicians, if we want to enable the maximum social welfare from electricity. For more details, please see the articles Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 and Engineers Needed for Lower Prices.
The whole point is that under EWPC it is possible to plan, operate and control by a mix of supply side and demand side risk management to offer high service system (not customers) reliability even without storage. Those concepts are explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response that I wrote as a rebuttal to The Business Case for Demand Response, which Jamie co-authored with Thomas Brunetto, Managing Director, Distributed Energy Financial Group. By the way, the analogy with gasoline doesn’t hold because electricity is produced and consumed at the same instant and demand response requires planning with customer supplied information.
Regarding another key view of the paradigm shift, in response to my comments to the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model, Jamie wrote “At my firm, the Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC, we believe the changing utility customer service model is simply one manifestation of a technological revolution akin to the industrial revolution that promises much more value creation over time.” That revolution is precisely fueling the paradigm shift of the power industry by enabling demand integration that “promises much more value creation over time.” Making bets on AMI investments should be avoided and left to competitive customer service model as the utility is restricted to transport the electricity.
Looking at the “green gap” from another angle, in that same article, Jamie wrote “And what do customers want? Most customers are not buying ‘alternative’ or ‘green,’ but are more interested in cheap, reliable energy sources. In fact, I would argue that they are not even buying energy per se, but rather comfort, convenience, light, entertainment, mobility, etc. Greater levels of efficiency allowing for greater levels of consumption of what people desire have the virtuous impact of being ‘cleaner and greener.’ One must be careful to not confuse cause and effect.”
So, educating customers without “greater levels of efficiency” will not necessarily support customers’ efforts and investments in new technology like those suggested by Bob Amorisi. In fact, differentiation in customers’ (not system) reliability is akin to comfort and convenience energy service differentiation that leads to affordable prices for a large segment of any population that can do without full ultraquality transportation.
Such paradigm shift is the reason why market research doesn’t work in this particular initial situation. When disruptive technologies (discontinuous innovations) occur people just don’t have a clue of what is going on. One of the examples given was somehow the very small number of computers that IBM forecasted initially by market research. Another example is that of Henry Ford famous quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
That explains why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response and not so with the apparently familiar energy efficiency concept. What happens is that customers will discover the value of the technology later on fueling 2GRs business model innovations.
As for who should pay for AMI, under EWPC it is 2GRs that are responsible for their respective (Retailers’) Enterprise Solutions (see K2007 Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions). In addition, Nat Treadway, Managing Partner, Distributed Energy Financial Group, LLC, in the article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices, whose theme is “regulated pricing inhibits efficiency,’ explains how to develop and implement a default service transition, which I suggest makes very easy to implement a complete AMI transformation by 2GRs.
The possibility of such an organized transition gets me back to the article To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering. From the viewpoint of the individual customer, and not from the political regulator, the Ontario Electricity Coalition seems to understand that installing “smart meters in all homes in the province” is wrong. Since Bob wrote “As far as EWPC, I am very much in favour of less price regulation if it promotes free markets for consumers,” during the transition, customers will be able to freely choose whether or no to stay in default service. The most conservative, like the Ontario Electricity Coalition, will stay on default service waiting for the best deals under competition.
So the job of the politicians at this stage is to adopt very clear market structure and rules. EWPC is such a market architecture and design. As the controlled utility market guarantees ultraquality transportation, the open market becomes a true commodity market of electricity without price controls and under prudential regulations.
Reference and context: The Green Gap in Communications and Messaging, by Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign and Andrea Fabbri, COO and Chief Marketing Officer, EcoAlign
Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the article Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics it is very clear that there are non-trivial aspects of electricity and that there is a need for a paradigm shift of the power industry as a consequence of demand integration. The non-trivial aspects of vertical integration make possible to plan, operate and control by risk management on the supply side without demand integration. It is also clear from the article that according to FERC demand response, the basic element of demand integration also includes demand side energy efficiency.
It is important to see that the old whole power industry paradigm had two separate interdependent markets, the so called vertical integration controlled market up to the customers meters and the demand open market of customer devices beyond the meter that transform electricity into useful energy services (see below a quote of Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign, on those services).
The EWPC paradigm restructuring discovery separates the same whole power industry in a different way into two interdependent markets, with also one open, and the other controlled. The controlled transportation utility market retains the non-trivial aspects of the vertical integration controlled market as demand response is executed to bridge the retail and wholesale open markets to produce ultraquality transportation. Those controlled markets are the machines that should be ran by engineers, no politicians, if we want to enable the maximum social welfare from electricity. For more details, please see the articles Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 and Engineers Needed for Lower Prices.
The whole point is that under EWPC it is possible to plan, operate and control by a mix of supply side and demand side risk management to offer high service system (not customers) reliability even without storage. Those concepts are explained in the article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response that I wrote as a rebuttal to The Business Case for Demand Response, which Jamie co-authored with Thomas Brunetto, Managing Director, Distributed Energy Financial Group. By the way, the analogy with gasoline doesn’t hold because electricity is produced and consumed at the same instant and demand response requires planning with customer supplied information.
Regarding another key view of the paradigm shift, in response to my comments to the article The Future Utility Customer Service Model, Jamie wrote “At my firm, the Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC, we believe the changing utility customer service model is simply one manifestation of a technological revolution akin to the industrial revolution that promises much more value creation over time.” That revolution is precisely fueling the paradigm shift of the power industry by enabling demand integration that “promises much more value creation over time.” Making bets on AMI investments should be avoided and left to competitive customer service model as the utility is restricted to transport the electricity.
Looking at the “green gap” from another angle, in that same article, Jamie wrote “And what do customers want? Most customers are not buying ‘alternative’ or ‘green,’ but are more interested in cheap, reliable energy sources. In fact, I would argue that they are not even buying energy per se, but rather comfort, convenience, light, entertainment, mobility, etc. Greater levels of efficiency allowing for greater levels of consumption of what people desire have the virtuous impact of being ‘cleaner and greener.’ One must be careful to not confuse cause and effect.”
So, educating customers without “greater levels of efficiency” will not necessarily support customers’ efforts and investments in new technology like those suggested by Bob Amorisi. In fact, differentiation in customers’ (not system) reliability is akin to comfort and convenience energy service differentiation that leads to affordable prices for a large segment of any population that can do without full ultraquality transportation.
Such paradigm shift is the reason why market research doesn’t work in this particular initial situation. When disruptive technologies (discontinuous innovations) occur people just don’t have a clue of what is going on. One of the examples given was somehow the very small number of computers that IBM forecasted initially by market research. Another example is that of Henry Ford famous quote “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
That explains why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response and not so with the apparently familiar energy efficiency concept. What happens is that customers will discover the value of the technology later on fueling 2GRs business model innovations.
As for who should pay for AMI, under EWPC it is 2GRs that are responsible for their respective (Retailers’) Enterprise Solutions (see K2007 Retailers’ Enterprise Solutions). In addition, Nat Treadway, Managing Partner, Distributed Energy Financial Group, LLC, in the article The Dawn of Electricity Competition: Efficient Prices and Efficient Choices, whose theme is “regulated pricing inhibits efficiency,’ explains how to develop and implement a default service transition, which I suggest makes very easy to implement a complete AMI transformation by 2GRs.
The possibility of such an organized transition gets me back to the article To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering. From the viewpoint of the individual customer, and not from the political regulator, the Ontario Electricity Coalition seems to understand that installing “smart meters in all homes in the province” is wrong. Since Bob wrote “As far as EWPC, I am very much in favour of less price regulation if it promotes free markets for consumers,” during the transition, customers will be able to freely choose whether or no to stay in default service. The most conservative, like the Ontario Electricity Coalition, will stay on default service waiting for the best deals under competition.
So the job of the politicians at this stage is to adopt very clear market structure and rules. EWPC is such a market architecture and design. As the controlled utility market guarantees ultraquality transportation, the open market becomes a true commodity market of electricity without price controls and under prudential regulations.
Reference and context: The Green Gap in Communications and Messaging, by Jamie Wimberly, CEO, EcoAlign and Andrea Fabbri, COO and Chief Marketing Officer, EcoAlign
jueves, diciembre 13, 2007
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates a Babel Tower in Ontario. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts making like risky bets of installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
One case in point about a green gap is in today’s Energy Central Daily news. Ontario should get smart, follow Hydro Quebec decision to abandon time-of-use meters, electricity coalition says. "The Ontario government would be doing consumers a favour if it were to follow the example of Hydro Quebec and abandon its plan to install so-called smart meters in all homes in the province, says the Ontario Electricity Coalition."
“… Hydro Quebec has decided that the expense of installing the meters would be borne by consumers through higher electricity rates…”
"Time-of-use meters are less about energy conservation and more about raising the cost of electricity to pay for private power generation,"
"There is little evidence that smart meters will reduce electricity consumption and plenty of evidence that prices will increase. The cost of installation alone in Ontario is more than $2 billion," he said. "There really is nothing smart about basing an energy plan on time-use-meters in Ontario homes… That money would be better spent on an effective energy conservation plan."
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates such a Babel Tower. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts like installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
Under EWPC, demand integration (as explained in the above post) is about both energy conservation and reducing the cost of electricity by developing demand elasticity with efficient pricing.
There is a great risk that the smart meters bet made by regulators and utilities will result in a price increase for customers. Those risks are better handled through the market by competitive 2GRs service plans that combine interdependent decisions on investments by customers. In addition, instead of installing meters in all homes, it is more efficient to do it during a transition period under competition.
To BE or NOT to BE Smart Metering
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
One case in point about a green gap is in today’s Energy Central Daily news. Ontario should get smart, follow Hydro Quebec decision to abandon time-of-use meters, electricity coalition says. "The Ontario government would be doing consumers a favour if it were to follow the example of Hydro Quebec and abandon its plan to install so-called smart meters in all homes in the province, says the Ontario Electricity Coalition."
“… Hydro Quebec has decided that the expense of installing the meters would be borne by consumers through higher electricity rates…”
"Time-of-use meters are less about energy conservation and more about raising the cost of electricity to pay for private power generation,"
"There is little evidence that smart meters will reduce electricity consumption and plenty of evidence that prices will increase. The cost of installation alone in Ontario is more than $2 billion," he said. "There really is nothing smart about basing an energy plan on time-use-meters in Ontario homes… That money would be better spent on an effective energy conservation plan."
The lack of a consistent market architecture and design paradigm shift creates such a Babel Tower. There is a need to consider the whole power industry and not isolated incremental shifts like installing “smart meters in all homes in the province.”
Under EWPC, demand integration (as explained in the above post) is about both energy conservation and reducing the cost of electricity by developing demand elasticity with efficient pricing.
There is a great risk that the smart meters bet made by regulators and utilities will result in a price increase for customers. Those risks are better handled through the market by competitive 2GRs service plans that combine interdependent decisions on investments by customers. In addition, instead of installing meters in all homes, it is more efficient to do it during a transition period under competition.
jueves, diciembre 06, 2007
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
Demand integration and system reliability are not the provinces of politics, but of engineering systems and competition. FERC’s demand response staff assessment begs the question of a properly restructured electricity market. The highly complex paradigm inherent on its market structure will become even more complex if FERC’s correct instructions are implemented. A paradigm shift to the EWPC market structure and design is expected to avoid getting the developed countries’ power industry into that of third world service.
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
As described in the "2007 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued the incorporation of demand response to transmission planning; the revision of NERC mandatory requirements to incorporate demand response; and the proposal to add demand response enhancements to competition in wholesale markets. As can be seen below, those three correct instructions beg the need for properly restructured electricity markets.
Looking very carefully at the instructions, those signals highlight the increasing complexity of the open transmission access incremental extension of the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm. It is now very clear that those begging signals justify the need for the paradigm shift to the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm in order to follow the design mantra “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
EWPC is the only properly restructured electricity markets available, where complexity is reduced by the discovery of two simplified interdependent markets: one is the controlled transportation (T&D) utility market and the other is the open commercial market. See Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 (please hit link here and further down to get more details).
Second Generation Retailers Required
While utilities and third parties have the responsibility to integrate retail demand to wholesale markets, under EWPC the institution of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR is the sole responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. So instead of customers facing two institutions they will be able to have the whole relationship with the customers. As competition between utilities and third parties depends on the political process, on a state by state basis, innovation and progress is being delayed.
In addition, to further justify EWPC, in FERC’s assessment demand response is being extended to include energy efficiency. A simple explanation is that the latter can be understood as a long run demand response. This insight is very important because it recognizes that customers’ investments in short run demand response are interdependent with investments in long run demand response.
Interdependency is one key element to justify the need for retail competition and thus retailers. See The Sixth Disruptive Technology for more details on the other interdependent investments to be made by customers and retailers. It is now clear that 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five disruptive technologies with their business model innovations.
System Reliability is Non-Trivial and Not the Province of Politics
The vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) true and non-trivial paradigm led to a highly reliable electric service for many jurisdictions that understood and applied the paradigm. At many other locations that didn’t understand the non-trivial paradigm, usually known as third world electric service, unreliable service was offered. The knowledge accumulated behind of the true and non-trivial VIUs controlled market paradigm (for example by PJM) was based on the development of the theory and practice of physical risk management for an industry without energy storage that considered reliability and demand as externalities.
The result is a highly developed long run and short run supply side physical system risk management body of knowledge to offer commercial reliable service even without electricity storage, which is known under the terms system adequacy, supply security constrained economic dispatch, contingency analysis, loss of load probability studies, etc.
As the electric industry has develop its own risk management methodologies, which are true and non-trivial, it seems much more complex for other intelligent and important people, just as “Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when ‘it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’ The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. See EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine.
Today the responsibility for system reliability is divided into federal and state regulators, NERC, and RTO/ISO under a political process. However, under EWPC it is just the transportation institution that is responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. That institution is the controlled transportation (transmission and distribution) utility market, being responsible for transportation ultraquality. By doing so, those institutions are way into the true and non-trivial aspects of electric power systems, which are not the province of politics, but of engineering systems.
Transportation Ultraquality is the Province of Engineers Not Politics
The ultraquality imperative, was explained as follows in EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 2:
Demand Integration is the Province of Competition Not Politics
FERC’s assessment states “In November of 2006, the Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners began a demand response collaborative effort, co-chaired by Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, to coordinate the efforts of the state and federal electric regulators to integrate demand response into retail and wholesale markets and planning." Demand response integration by 2GRs under competition and open transportation access make both retail and wholesale competition a lot simpler.
Such political collaborative to integrate demand is apparently needed because of the present system structure. The “Increased activity by third parties to aggregate retail demand response,” reported by FERC, identifies an activity that should be performed by the 2GR customer facing institution. Under EWPC the integration of demand response to wholesale market is to be performed by 2GRs.
Reference and context: FERC Assesses Advanced Metering Programs by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central
Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics.
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
As described in the "2007 Assessment of Demand Response and Advanced Metering," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued the incorporation of demand response to transmission planning; the revision of NERC mandatory requirements to incorporate demand response; and the proposal to add demand response enhancements to competition in wholesale markets. As can be seen below, those three correct instructions beg the need for properly restructured electricity markets.
Looking very carefully at the instructions, those signals highlight the increasing complexity of the open transmission access incremental extension of the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm. It is now very clear that those begging signals justify the need for the paradigm shift to the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm in order to follow the design mantra “simplify, simplify, simplify.”
EWPC is the only properly restructured electricity markets available, where complexity is reduced by the discovery of two simplified interdependent markets: one is the controlled transportation (T&D) utility market and the other is the open commercial market. See Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 (please hit link here and further down to get more details).
Second Generation Retailers Required
While utilities and third parties have the responsibility to integrate retail demand to wholesale markets, under EWPC the institution of Second Generation Retailer - 2GR is the sole responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. So instead of customers facing two institutions they will be able to have the whole relationship with the customers. As competition between utilities and third parties depends on the political process, on a state by state basis, innovation and progress is being delayed.
In addition, to further justify EWPC, in FERC’s assessment demand response is being extended to include energy efficiency. A simple explanation is that the latter can be understood as a long run demand response. This insight is very important because it recognizes that customers’ investments in short run demand response are interdependent with investments in long run demand response.
Interdependency is one key element to justify the need for retail competition and thus retailers. See The Sixth Disruptive Technology for more details on the other interdependent investments to be made by customers and retailers. It is now clear that 2GRs will tightly integrate the other five disruptive technologies with their business model innovations.
System Reliability is Non-Trivial and Not the Province of Politics
The vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) true and non-trivial paradigm led to a highly reliable electric service for many jurisdictions that understood and applied the paradigm. At many other locations that didn’t understand the non-trivial paradigm, usually known as third world electric service, unreliable service was offered. The knowledge accumulated behind of the true and non-trivial VIUs controlled market paradigm (for example by PJM) was based on the development of the theory and practice of physical risk management for an industry without energy storage that considered reliability and demand as externalities.
The result is a highly developed long run and short run supply side physical system risk management body of knowledge to offer commercial reliable service even without electricity storage, which is known under the terms system adequacy, supply security constrained economic dispatch, contingency analysis, loss of load probability studies, etc.
As the electric industry has develop its own risk management methodologies, which are true and non-trivial, it seems much more complex for other intelligent and important people, just as “Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when ‘it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them.’ The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. See EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine.
Today the responsibility for system reliability is divided into federal and state regulators, NERC, and RTO/ISO under a political process. However, under EWPC it is just the transportation institution that is responsible, like it used to be under the original VIUs paradigm. That institution is the controlled transportation (transmission and distribution) utility market, being responsible for transportation ultraquality. By doing so, those institutions are way into the true and non-trivial aspects of electric power systems, which are not the province of politics, but of engineering systems.
Transportation Ultraquality is the Province of Engineers Not Politics
The ultraquality imperative, was explained as follows in EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part 2:
Eberhart Rechtin and Mark Maier, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” explain that “social system quality… is less a foundation than a case-by-case trade-off; that is, the quality desired depends on the system to be provided. In nuclear power generation, modern manufacturing, and manned space flight, ultraquality is an imperative. But in public health, pollution control, and safety, the level of acceptable quality is only one of many economic, social, political, and technical factors to be accommodated.”
In the first case, the experts are the engineers. For the center stage, controlled market, system engineer institution to assures that electrons and people have the same purpose, as I mentioned on 12.30.06, ultraquality is an imperative to manage short run and long run systemic risk, with both supply side and demand side resources.
In the second case, according to Rechtin and Maier, the accommodation is done by the architect with “a professional response to the public needs and perceptions.” It is such unjustified perceptions that fueled the decade long debate. Bill Hogan mistake was that he didn’t understand what Fred Schweppe meant by the fourth criterion: “consider the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system,” which can only be met by ultraquality. As time has advanced and new digital technology market share becomes larger, electricity demand for quality is only increasing. A professional response is needed, however, for the remaining, non real-time, free market activities of retail and generation. EWPC for the customers is such a response.
Demand Integration is the Province of Competition Not Politics
FERC’s assessment states “In November of 2006, the Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners began a demand response collaborative effort, co-chaired by Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, to coordinate the efforts of the state and federal electric regulators to integrate demand response into retail and wholesale markets and planning." Demand response integration by 2GRs under competition and open transportation access make both retail and wholesale competition a lot simpler.
Such political collaborative to integrate demand is apparently needed because of the present system structure. The “Increased activity by third parties to aggregate retail demand response,” reported by FERC, identifies an activity that should be performed by the 2GR customer facing institution. Under EWPC the integration of demand response to wholesale market is to be performed by 2GRs.
Reference and context: FERC Assesses Advanced Metering Programs by Bill Opalka, Editor-in-Chief, Topic Centers, Energy Central
viernes, noviembre 30, 2007
El Estado NO Debe Comprar RDP
Varios sectores del mundo empresarial se están oponiendo a la compra del resto de las acciones de la RDP o REFIDOMSA. Se trata de un negocio muy riesgoso ante un mundo tan incierto. Lo que el Estado debe hacer es poner en venta su parte y abrir el mercado de importación al mismo tiempo en competencia con la refinería.
Hay tres escenarios para la próxima década que he tomado del libro “Powerful Times” que se pueden contemplar para hacer la decisión. Su autor Eamonn Kelly estima que uno de estos tres escenarios (no predicciones) dominará la próxima década, derivando su forma primaria y sustancia para el próximo siglo. Se dice que “la incertidumbre crítica” es “cual de ellos dominará,” porque “cada uno de esos escenarios contiene elementos de los otros dos. De hecho, los tres estarán en juego al mismo tiempo a cierto nivel… ninguno tiene derechos exclusivos al futuro.”
Los escenarios parten del modelo ‘emergente’ de poder, desde abajo hacia arriba, descentralizado, en redes, que probaría ser la fuente verdadera de una transformación profunda del mundo. Los escenarios son:
1) Emergencia (es el escenario ‘emergente’ de liderazgo, innovación y cambio).
2) El Nuevo Siglo Americano (es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la creciente influencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo).
3) Poderes de Parchos (Es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la decreciente influencia de los Estados Unidos).
Estos escenarios fueron “diseñados para ensanchar nuestros pensamientos, retar nuestras suposiciones, y ayudar a prepararnos con múltiples posibilidades, en vez de asumir un futuro único o simplemente esperando, como Pandolfo Petrucci, para reaccionar a cualquier cosa que nos ponga el destino al frente.”
La decisión en el escenario Emergencia es obviamente NO COMPRAR. La gran incertidumbre que se cierne sobre la humanidad necesita ser enfrentada con liderazgo e innovación. Estrategias como reducir la factura de petróleo y gas en 25% en los próximos 4 años, requieren un planteamiento decidido a reestructurar el sector eléctrico. Por ejemplo, al hacer la eficiencia energética uno de los pilares de la reducción del consumo en los medidores del sector eléctrico, no se tendría que afectar el consumo final de energía que necesitamos para impulsar el crecimiento de la economía.
El Nuevo Siglo Americano se basa en un “sistema de mercado que tiene una demostrada tolerancia a los fracasos; hasta parece que están dispuestos a permitir que grandes corporaciones sucumban a la competencia en vez de sacarlas de apuro, asegurando una remoción y dinamismo que son la envidia de muchos otros países.” Bajo ese escenario la decisión obvia es la de NO COMPRAR.
Sin embargo, por lo que está sucediendo, por ejemplo en la industria eléctrica, dicha tolerancia parece haber desaparecido. Por otros muchos indicios, que Kelly menciona como “errores hechos en los años que siguieron al horror del 11 de septiembre… hay una lista bastante depresiva de las formas en que los Estados Unidos han socavado su propia autoridad y posición en el mundo,” todo luce indicar que El Nuevo Siglo Americano podría ser minimizado y que la humanidad, con los Estados Unidos a la cabeza, debería apostar por Emergencia, en que los ideales originales americanos de democracia y capitalismo son abrazados por muchos otros países.
No obstante Poderes de Parcho está cobrando mucha fuerza en la República Dominicana. La decisión en ese escenario es claramente la de COMPRAR, porque no se necesita desarrollar liderazgo, ni embarcarse en los senderos de la innovación. Este escenario está siendo reforzado por préstamos venezolanos para que sigamos atados al petróleo, a cuenta de las nuevas generaciones de dominicanos que los tendrán que pagar. Este escenario nos confirma como grandes derrochadores y contaminadores, que hablan hasta de aumentar la capacidad de refinar petróleo.
Esos tres escenarios son radicalmente apartados de lo que estamos acostumbrados a vivir. Como los dominicanos debemos estar preparados para vivir en cualquiera de esos tres escenarios del futuro, la mejor decisión entonces es NO COMPRAR.
Hay tres escenarios para la próxima década que he tomado del libro “Powerful Times” que se pueden contemplar para hacer la decisión. Su autor Eamonn Kelly estima que uno de estos tres escenarios (no predicciones) dominará la próxima década, derivando su forma primaria y sustancia para el próximo siglo. Se dice que “la incertidumbre crítica” es “cual de ellos dominará,” porque “cada uno de esos escenarios contiene elementos de los otros dos. De hecho, los tres estarán en juego al mismo tiempo a cierto nivel… ninguno tiene derechos exclusivos al futuro.”
Los escenarios parten del modelo ‘emergente’ de poder, desde abajo hacia arriba, descentralizado, en redes, que probaría ser la fuente verdadera de una transformación profunda del mundo. Los escenarios son:
1) Emergencia (es el escenario ‘emergente’ de liderazgo, innovación y cambio).
2) El Nuevo Siglo Americano (es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la creciente influencia de los Estados Unidos en el mundo).
3) Poderes de Parchos (Es el escenario ‘no emergente’ a la decreciente influencia de los Estados Unidos).
Estos escenarios fueron “diseñados para ensanchar nuestros pensamientos, retar nuestras suposiciones, y ayudar a prepararnos con múltiples posibilidades, en vez de asumir un futuro único o simplemente esperando, como Pandolfo Petrucci, para reaccionar a cualquier cosa que nos ponga el destino al frente.”
La decisión en el escenario Emergencia es obviamente NO COMPRAR. La gran incertidumbre que se cierne sobre la humanidad necesita ser enfrentada con liderazgo e innovación. Estrategias como reducir la factura de petróleo y gas en 25% en los próximos 4 años, requieren un planteamiento decidido a reestructurar el sector eléctrico. Por ejemplo, al hacer la eficiencia energética uno de los pilares de la reducción del consumo en los medidores del sector eléctrico, no se tendría que afectar el consumo final de energía que necesitamos para impulsar el crecimiento de la economía.
El Nuevo Siglo Americano se basa en un “sistema de mercado que tiene una demostrada tolerancia a los fracasos; hasta parece que están dispuestos a permitir que grandes corporaciones sucumban a la competencia en vez de sacarlas de apuro, asegurando una remoción y dinamismo que son la envidia de muchos otros países.” Bajo ese escenario la decisión obvia es la de NO COMPRAR.
Sin embargo, por lo que está sucediendo, por ejemplo en la industria eléctrica, dicha tolerancia parece haber desaparecido. Por otros muchos indicios, que Kelly menciona como “errores hechos en los años que siguieron al horror del 11 de septiembre… hay una lista bastante depresiva de las formas en que los Estados Unidos han socavado su propia autoridad y posición en el mundo,” todo luce indicar que El Nuevo Siglo Americano podría ser minimizado y que la humanidad, con los Estados Unidos a la cabeza, debería apostar por Emergencia, en que los ideales originales americanos de democracia y capitalismo son abrazados por muchos otros países.
No obstante Poderes de Parcho está cobrando mucha fuerza en la República Dominicana. La decisión en ese escenario es claramente la de COMPRAR, porque no se necesita desarrollar liderazgo, ni embarcarse en los senderos de la innovación. Este escenario está siendo reforzado por préstamos venezolanos para que sigamos atados al petróleo, a cuenta de las nuevas generaciones de dominicanos que los tendrán que pagar. Este escenario nos confirma como grandes derrochadores y contaminadores, que hablan hasta de aumentar la capacidad de refinar petróleo.
Esos tres escenarios son radicalmente apartados de lo que estamos acostumbrados a vivir. Como los dominicanos debemos estar preparados para vivir en cualquiera de esos tres escenarios del futuro, la mejor decisión entonces es NO COMPRAR.
jueves, noviembre 29, 2007
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
First Energy Corp. entered into a contradiction by handing a letter signed by prominent economists to show they believe in competitive markets. The contradiction is that the economists recommended focusing on the necessary improvements in market design, while the utility identified a “number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Ohio House of Representative should focus closely on EWPC.
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Speaking before the Ohio House of Representative, Leila L. Vespoli, senior vice president and general counsel for FirstEnergy Corp., testify on November 28 on the proposed energy policy.
Stating three reason for a continue believe in competitive markets, Ms. Vespoli provided a copy of the June 26, 2006, Open Letter to Policymakers, signed by the prominent economists Paul L. Joskow, Alfred E. Kahn, William W. Hogan, Peter Cramtom, Howard J. Axelrod and Vernon L. Smith.
The conclusion of the letter states: “… despite the recent increases in electricity prices, policymakers should stay the course and continue to support restructuring and the evolution of competitive wholesale and retail markets for power. Competition is the very foundation of our nation’s economy. Competitive electricity markets are relatively new and will continue to evolve. We urge policymakers to focus on making the necessary improvements in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation. We are persuaded that competition in electricity markets will stand the test of time and continue to provide visible customer benefits.”
It is important to highlight the suggestion to “… focus on making the necessary improvement in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation,” since EWPC market architecture and design emerged as the key to such improvements.
In the statement, Ms. Vespoli also stated “… if we fail to preserve the market-based option for utilities and customers, we create a number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Such argument, however, contradicts the conclusion of the prominent economists, since the utilities grid and enterprise need to be separated to make the necessary improvements to allow competition to emerge in the enterprise without incumbent retailer.
Ohio Should Focus on EWPC
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Speaking before the Ohio House of Representative, Leila L. Vespoli, senior vice president and general counsel for FirstEnergy Corp., testify on November 28 on the proposed energy policy.
Stating three reason for a continue believe in competitive markets, Ms. Vespoli provided a copy of the June 26, 2006, Open Letter to Policymakers, signed by the prominent economists Paul L. Joskow, Alfred E. Kahn, William W. Hogan, Peter Cramtom, Howard J. Axelrod and Vernon L. Smith.
The conclusion of the letter states: “… despite the recent increases in electricity prices, policymakers should stay the course and continue to support restructuring and the evolution of competitive wholesale and retail markets for power. Competition is the very foundation of our nation’s economy. Competitive electricity markets are relatively new and will continue to evolve. We urge policymakers to focus on making the necessary improvements in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation. We are persuaded that competition in electricity markets will stand the test of time and continue to provide visible customer benefits.”
It is important to highlight the suggestion to “… focus on making the necessary improvement in market design and resist the temptation to reject competition for a return to heavy-handed regulation,” since EWPC market architecture and design emerged as the key to such improvements.
In the statement, Ms. Vespoli also stated “… if we fail to preserve the market-based option for utilities and customers, we create a number of legal problems that won’t easily or quickly be resolved.” Such argument, however, contradicts the conclusion of the prominent economists, since the utilities grid and enterprise need to be separated to make the necessary improvements to allow competition to emerge in the enterprise without incumbent retailer.
sábado, noviembre 24, 2007
Una Verdad “Trivial” de Amcham
Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.[Actualización del 25 de noviembre en corchetes.
"El liderazgo eficaz deriva su credibilidad no de prácticas y técnicas (las que son importantes), sino de la persona que las apoya, el ser humano detras del comportamiento de liderazgo."
Peter Koestenbaum - Leadership: The inner Side of Greatness]
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
24 de noviembre, 2007
Bajo el título, “A propósito de institucionalidad y desarrollo de la nación,” la Cámara Americana de Comercio (Amcham), en su columna “Comercio y Competitividad,” publicada en el Listín Diario del 24 de noviembre, 2007, ha producido una muy importante exhortación hacia la institucionalidad y el desarrollo de la nación.
No obstante, el ejemplo que emplean no ha sido el mejor. Creo que se basa en una verdad trivial sobre el devenir del sector eléctrico dominicano. A continuación presentamos la verdadera reforma institucional del sector eléctrico que requiere el desarrollo de la nación, basada en una verdad no trivial sobre la electricidad, que tiene un alto potencial para crear grandes oportunidades de negocios al país.
Con el auspicio de la USAID, vía el Centro Universitario de Estudios Políticos y Sociales de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra, fui seleccionado y contratado en 1996 por el Grupo de Acción por la Democracia, como especialista nacional, para redactar uno de 3 documentos de trabajo con planes de acción en la prioridad del sector eléctrico. Diferente a los otros dos especialistas, yo había practicado la planificación de los sistemas eléctricos interconectados y el desarrollo de sistemas modernos de información.
De acuerdo a la “Agenda Nacional de Desarrollo (Volumen II): Planes de Acción para las Diez Principales Prioridades,” la propuesta que elaboré se suponía debía “contribuir con la tarea de las autoridades nacionales, y más especialmente de aquellas que habrán de conformar el equipo de la nueva Administración a inaugurarse el venidero 16 de agosto [del 1996], de formular las mejores políticas para impulsar el desarrollo nacional.”
Lamentablemente para la familia dominicana, mi documento de trabajo no fue ni siquiera considerado por esa Administración, ni por las que le sucedieron. Creo que humildemente puedo decir que en aquel momento hubo falta de institucionalidad que afectó grandemente el proceso posterior de reestructuración y que le ha costado grandes pérdidas a nuestra sociedad. En particular, existen ahora toda una serie de costosos intereses creados que se pudieron evitar. Ahora bien, los errores en las reformas han sido en todo el mundo, dejándonos todavía la oportunidad para ser los pioneros en la reforma de los mercados eléctricos mundiales.
Ramón Flores, un especialista nacional, que redactó uno de los otros dos documentos, escribió “Cualquier sector energético de propiedad pública o privada que no se sustente en sí mismo, sino en las finanzas del Estado termina convirtiéndose en un barril sin fondo.” No obstante, la decisión de capitalizar extendió la participación de las finanzas del Estado en el negocio eléctrico. Esa participación, se hizo con el modelo de negocios de las distribuidoras, que sirve para extraer rentas abultando las compras de infraestructura que se pasan a tarifa. El resultado es tres distribuidoras quebradas.
La verdad trivial sobre el sector eléctrico aludida por la Amcham se basa en los estudios de los economistas Douglas North, premio Nóbel 1993, que ofrece “una visión neoclásica del desempeño económico de los pueblos, incorporando la importancia del rol de las instituciones y la evolución de la sociedad a través del tiempo,” y Hernando de Soto “quien se ha enfocado en un concepto revolucionario al que ha llamado ‘la carencia de derechos de propiedad formales como la fuente de la pobreza en los países pobres.’” Sucede que la verdad del sector eléctrico no es solo asunto de sus aspectos triviales; es ante todo un asunto de un aspecto no trivial de electricidad.
Sabemos que el premio Nóbel de economía 1970, Paul Anthony Samuelson, ofreció una proposición que fuese a la vez verdadera y no trivial: “El principio de las ventajas comparativas. Que es lógicamente verdadera no es necesario comprobarlo ante un matemático; que no es trivial se ha comprobado por los miles de hombres importantes e inteligentes que nunca han podido entender por sí mismos dicha doctrina o creer en ella después que se les ha explicado".
Basado en los aspectos triviales de la electricidad, el economista Alfred E. Kahn ha dicho “Estoy preocupado sobre cuán únicos son los mercados eléctricos. Siempre he estado incierto sobre eliminar la integración vertical. Podría ser una industria en que esta funcione razonablemente bien.”
Lo que el Dr. Kahn explica es un asunto que es lógicamente verdadero y que también no es trivial. Lamentablemente, no fue tomado en cuenta el gran esfuerzo desplegado en el Instituto Tecnológico de Massachussets, durante gran parte de los años 80, por un equipo de investigadores dirigido por Fred C. Schweppe, dando lugar a la teoría y la práctica de la formación de precios de oportunidad (spot) de electricidad.
La integración vertical permitía aproximar el mayor bienestar social, cuando la expansión del conjunto generación-transmisión del sistema eléctrico interconectado se realizaba al mínimo costo, como lo exigió a la CDE el Banco Mundial al final de los años 80. Yo preparé un plan de expansión en esa oportunidad. Esta expansión asumía la demanda y la confiabilidad del sistema eléctrico como externalidades, e incluía los costos de inversión, operación, manteniendo y desabastecimiento (los costos de los apagones a la sociedad).
No obstante, la reestructuración introducida en el país en el año 1999 continúo dejando los insoportables costos de los apagones a los consumidores, dada la baja confiabilidad ofrecida, al tiempo que le confiscan su potencial derecho de propiedad de manera indefinida. Así se refuerza el mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP) de soluciones individuales de autoabastecimiento a los consumidores. Es ese defecto de la reforma, los apagones como externalidad, que aparentemente [eliminé "la"] hace atractiva la reforma a los inversionistas, a mi entender la fuente principal del fracaso de la misma. De ahí es que puede operar la creencia subyacente que ha impulsado el hurto de electricidad a niveles alarmantes, de que ladrón que le roba a ladrón tiene 100 años de perdón.
Es por lo anterior que los cambios incorporados a la normativa, que según Amcham “pretenden corregir algunas distorsiones del sector de distribución, estableciendo mayores penalidades y acciones punitivas para el resguardo de las consabidas garantías Estatales al derecho de la libre empresa y a la seguridad jurídica de las empresas distribuidoras,” se quedan cortas para contribuir a la institucionalidad y al desarrollo de la nación, por estar concentradas en los derechos de una sola de las dos partes.
El Ex-Vicepresidente de los Estados Unidos, Al Gore, en el prefacio de la segunda edición del libro “Capitalism at the Crossroads,” de Stuart L. Hart, afirma que “los intereses de los accionistas, tanto públicos como privados, a través del tiempo, serían mejor servidos por compañías que maximicen su rendimiento financiero administrando estratégicamente su rendimiento económico, social, ambiental y ético… La ‘licencia para operar’ ya no puede ser una suposición de los negocios, cuando retos tales como la crisis ambiental… escasez de agua y la pobreza llegan a un punto donde la sociedad civil y los consumidores demandan una respuesta de los negocios y del gobierno. Las compañías líderes entienden esto y ya están moviéndose antes que los legisladores y los reguladores y, al hacerlo, están asegurando la ventaja competitiva.” Es [no "Esa"] así como se deben interrelacionar de ahora en adelante el comercio y la competitividad.
El aumento de la eficiencia de los sectores eléctricos mundiales, en la propuesta de Schweppe y su equipo, diseñada para un mercado regulado y extendida por el autor para un mercado abierto, proviene de la competencia al detalle con demanda activa, haciendo que la demanda y la confiabilidad dejen de ser externalidades. Para lograr el mayor bienestar social, la eficiencia del sector entonces resultaría de la optimización del conjunto, tomando en cuenta no solo la oferta y el transporte, sino también la confiabilidad y la demanda. Esto es posible por la reducción significativa en los costos de transacción, gracias al gran progreso acontecido y por acontecer en las tecnologías de la información. Más abajo amplío esto al tratar las tecnologías “disruptivas.”
El aspecto de confiabilidad nace de uno de cuatro criterios en que descansa la teoría y la práctica de la formación de precios spot que es cierto y no trivial. El criterio es considerar los requisitos para controlar, operar y planear un sistema eléctrico. En verdad es el criterio fundamental de diseño arquitectónico del sistema eléctrico. Como veremos a continuación, al ser cierto y no trivial, ese criterio no puede ser objeto de debate, como se ha realizado equivocadamente al implantar los mercados eléctricos en todas las jurisdicciones y mucho peor en la República Dominicana, donde se ha realizado una fuerte contrarreforma sin ni siquiera debate.
Eberhardt Rechtin y Mark Maier, en su libro “The Art of System Architecting,” explican que “la calidad de un sistema social… es menos un fundamento que una elección caso por caso; esto es, la calidad deseada (en nuestro caso principalmente la confiabilidad) depende del sistema que se quiere proveer. En la generación nuclear, en la manufactura moderna, y en los vuelos espaciales, la ultracalidad es un imperativo. Pero en salud pública, en control ambiental, y en seguridad, el nivel aceptable de calidad es solo uno de muchos factores económicos, sociales, políticos y técnicos a ser reconciliados.”
Con el objeto de obtener un mayor bienestar social que en la industria verticalmente integrada, la propuesta que realicé en 1996 como “La Necesidad de una Política Integral de Electricidad para la República Dominicana,” separa el sector eléctrico en dos grandes mercados: el mercado controlado de transporte y el mercado abierto de comercialización de electricidad al por mayor y al detalle. Hallazgos posteriores en lo que ha emergido, durante los últimos dos años, como la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC, por sus siglas en inglés) aplica el imperativo de ultracalidad al sistema controlado de transporte. Ese sistema de transporte se planea para una expansión de mínimo costo que habilita el máximo bienestar social en el mercado abierto.
Peter Van Doren y Jerry Taylor, del Cato Institute, indican que “la reestructuración eléctrica fue iniciada en los años 90 para remediar el problema de costos de electricidad relativamente elevados en el Noreste y en California… los economistas querían una reforma que eliminara los incentivos a la capacidad excesiva de generación y para introducir precios en tiempo real.”
En las conclusiones de su trabajo, Van Doren y Taylor decían: “mientras la reestructuración no ha sido tan mala como las facciones contrarias al mercado mantienen, ha creado problemas desconocidos previamente en la industria eléctrica:”
1. Se concentró en la competencia en generación e ignoró los asuntos de precios e incentivos relativos a la administración del sistema de transmisión y sus características públicas comunes
2. Injertó un mercado mayorista relativamente libre encima de un mercado al detalle altamente regulado; y
3. Estableció instituciones artificiales que invitaron a la manipulación y el abuso. El resultado final ha probado estar lejos de ser satisfactorio.
Esos problemas desconocidos resultan en la falta de conocimiento de los elementos esenciales del mercado genérico de la EWPC que humildemente descubrí, sinteticé y presenté este año en la Universidad Carnegie Mellon: competencia al detalle con demanda activa y transporte de ultracalidad, los cuales había intuido en la propuesta que realicé en 1996.
El primer problema desconocido para Van Doren y Taylor se resuelve con un mercado controlado de transporte con ultracalidad. El segundo con la competencia en el mercado al detalle con demanda activa, el cual da una ventaja bien grande a los dominicanos para integrar el mercado SQP al sistema interconectado. El tercero se resuelve con el cambio de la regulación de control de precios a la regulación prudencial para proteger a los consumidores de los abusos de los detallistas y del potencial poder de mercado de los generadores.
Siguiendo las sugerencias del premio Nóbel Douglas North, en 1996 escribí: “Las instituciones y la gente necesitan tiempo para asimilar los cambios, especialmente aquellos que transforman. Se puede adoptar un cambio radical para ser implantado en etapas con pasos firmes. La gente necesita tiempo para conocer, entender y finalmente comprender que se quiere hacer… la meta de transformar la industria eléctrica en dos etapas, es en verdad una meta muy optimista.”
La primera de las dos etapas que estimaba de 5 años era para desarrollar el mercado minorista y el mercado de transporte (transmisión y distribución) de electricidad de clase mundial. La apertura de la generación era para la segunda etapa.
Argumenta Amcham que “A seis años de promulgada dicha Ley (General de Electricidad), su implementación y aplicación real ha sido limitada y aún no ha resuelto la problemática de la sostenibilidad del segmento de distribución.” Este tema de la sostenibilidad es una creencia altamente defectuosa en la mente de los que dirigen la reforma dominicana.
La sostenibilidad que impulsa el desarrollo es la que resulta en el máximo bienestar social del conjunto, que garantiza a su vez el bienestar de cada una de las partes. La primera etapa que sugerí en 1996, como parte de la política integral, suponía que “mientras más actores (en el mercado minorista) hay presentes inicialmente en la solución de las pérdidas, más pronto se solucionará el problema.” En efecto, la política implantada se hizo a la inversa y considerando la sostenibilidad de los segmentos por separado sin pensar en la del conjunto.
[Sustituir "Como afirmamos más arriba, la" por "La"] La industria eléctrica a nivel mundial está desde hace tiempo en la Zona No Rentable. En esa zona, los aumento de los costos (incluyendo aquí los de los apagones) a los clientes resultan del modelo de negocios de las distribuidoras de ganarle casos de tarifas a los reguladores. Para sacarla de esa zona se necesitar reestructurar correctamente. De eso es que trata la EWPC para posicionar la industria en la Zona Rentable.
Mientras el bienestar del segmento de generación está garantizado a las empresas capitalizadas por contratos a largo plazo con el segmento de distribución, no así está garantizado el derecho de propiedad del segmento de los consumidores, incluso de aquellos que no carecen de derechos de propiedad formales. Se trata en efecto de reglas de juego muy defectuosas que se amparan en la impunidad de los derechos formales, como lo son los contratos de la capitalización y el Acuerdo de Madrid.
Así que en el país, la reforma del sector eléctrico ofrece derechos de segunda categoría a los consumidores del mercado minorista, lo que va más allá de los conceptos que aboga Hernando de Soto sobre “la carencia de derechos de propiedad formales como la fuente de pobreza en los países pobres.” Al ofrecer un servicio precario sin compensar los apagones, los derechos de los consumidores afectados son secuestrados con impunidad.
La EWPC genera un derecho a los clientes que estén dispuestos a recibir un servicio de menor confiabilidad a cambio de un derecho de propiedad a título individual. Los pobres podrán contar con ese derecho, de forma que paulatinamente la electricidad pueda contribuir junto a la institución del micro-crédito a reducir la pobreza.
Es al considerar también los derechos de los consumidores que la EWPC tiene su enfoque que la diferencia de los otros procesos de reestructuración. La reforma planteada para desarrollar las instituciones del sector eléctrico, tienen la EWPC como uno de los “factor[es] determinante[s] para garantizar el desempeño económico de” la nación dominicana “y su permanencia con el paso de los años.”
A la fecha he identificado 6 tecnologías “disruptivas” que permitirán desplazar la industria eléctrica de la Zona No Rentable a la Zona Rentable. Esas tecnologías son: 1) la respuesta de la demanda, 2) la eficiencia energética, 3) la generación y almacenamiento de electricidad, 4) la infraestructura avanzada de medición (AMI por sus siglas en inglés), 5) la red inteligente (smart grid) y 6) los modelos innovadores de negocios. Esta sexta tecnología “disruptiva” es la que permitirá integrar mezclas de las otras cinco, por medio de planes de servicio a los clientes consumidores de parte de los detallistas de segunda generación (esto es para diferenciarlos de los detallistas que ofrecen servicios en los mercados actuales).
Es importante destacar que disponemos una gran inversión en la generación y almacenamiento de electricidad en el mercado SQP. Al integrar al Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado dichas tecnologías deberá ocurrir lo mismo que acontece con la industria de la computación, en la que modelos de negocios sucesivos permiten mayores niveles de eficiencia, empezando por algunas implantaciones rudimentarias. Es con la estructura de la EWPC que se inicia la gran revolución de los sectores eléctricos mundiales, lo que debería ocurrir aquí.
Generando un conjunto de reglas claras y contundentes “se asegura una continuidad del desarrollo institucional, se obtiene una mayor confianza en la comunidad de inversionistas, tornándolos predecibles en el desempeño de nuestras instituciones, disminuyendo el riesgo y creando confianza, lo que se traduce en atracción de la necesaria inversión para mejorar la productividad, la creación de empleos y por ende el bienestar de la ciudadanía,” tal como sugiere Amcham.
Ante las anteriores explicaciones, repetimos la pregunta que hace Amcham: ¿tendrán la sociedad dominicana y las organizaciones políticas la voluntad de contar con instituciones sólidas, para cimentar su desarrollo con una visión de largo plazo? La respuesta es que sí la tienen, pero para ello debe existir un ideario común, un proyecto país compartido por la sociedad…” Para el sector eléctrico, ese proyecto es la electricidad sin control de precios (EWPC).
Con mucho respeto, espero de los directivos de la Cámara Americana de Comercio expresen su refutación o aprobación a esta exposición.
Para más información se puede consultar la Bitácora Digital del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com) y a www.energyblogs.com.
jueves, noviembre 22, 2007
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership. As “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem,” I would like to learn from the bystanders whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment.
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In order to get support for EWPC, I wrote the now best selling Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X (562 views, until Nov 22nd, 2007). So now I think is time to ask what that means in terms of leadership.
“The Tipping Point: how little things can make a big difference,” by Malcolm Gladwell, carries the story of Kitty Genovese, which I contend is similar to that of EWPC in Energy Central Network environment.
Gladwell tells that “… Kitty was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watch from the windows. During that time, however, none of the thirty-eight witnesses called the police.”
Two New York City psychologists, Bibb Latane and John Darley named the above situation the “bystander problem,” explaining that “when people are in a group… responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem… isn’t really a problem.”
In the case of EWPC, during the past two years Mr. G has attacked without mercy EWPC, and no one else have come with help, even though an inordinate amount of people have seen it.
Gladwell ends the brief story by saying that “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem.”
This is a good test for EWPC now that it seems to have tipped in www.energyblogs.com with 6 of the 10 “Most Commented” and the top 6 and the 8th place of the 10 “Most Viewed” articles, but no one has firmly committed (Mr. Causey issued a nice comment) his/her support to EWPC.
I would like to learn from the bystander whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment. Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership.
Does EWPC have a “Bystander Problem”?
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In order to get support for EWPC, I wrote the now best selling Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X (562 views, until Nov 22nd, 2007). So now I think is time to ask what that means in terms of leadership.
“The Tipping Point: how little things can make a big difference,” by Malcolm Gladwell, carries the story of Kitty Genovese, which I contend is similar to that of EWPC in Energy Central Network environment.
Gladwell tells that “… Kitty was chased by her assailant and attacked three times on the street, over the course of half an hour, as thirty-eight of her neighbors watch from the windows. During that time, however, none of the thirty-eight witnesses called the police.”
Two New York City psychologists, Bibb Latane and John Darley named the above situation the “bystander problem,” explaining that “when people are in a group… responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem… isn’t really a problem.”
In the case of EWPC, during the past two years Mr. G has attacked without mercy EWPC, and no one else have come with help, even though an inordinate amount of people have seen it.
Gladwell ends the brief story by saying that “human beings are a lot more sensitive to their environment than they may seem.”
This is a good test for EWPC now that it seems to have tipped in www.energyblogs.com with 6 of the 10 “Most Commented” and the top 6 and the 8th place of the 10 “Most Viewed” articles, but no one has firmly committed (Mr. Causey issued a nice comment) his/her support to EWPC.
I would like to learn from the bystander whether EWPC has tipped or not in the Energy Central Network environment. Believe it or not, EWPC is about teaching leadership.
miércoles, noviembre 21, 2007
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
Edison Electric Institute members have empowered the government to take control of the power industry. They should stop dreaming, work hard to ban regulation and to let the market decide by following Hewlett Packard’s advice of “eating your own lunch.”
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the book “Inside the Tornado,” Goeffrey Moore writes “There is no more challenging management task than, as the folks of H-P like to put it, “eating your own lunch.”
The power industry is in the process to be transformed by the information revolution. By hiding behind “native load,” generators and utilities have empowered the government to control the power industry.
In the article All the issues crux of the matter, explaining that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem, Warren Causey writes:
EEI membership should take serious consideration to the EWPC articles EEI California Dreamin’, To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio and “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio.
EEI-ting Your Own Lunch
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. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the book “Inside the Tornado,” Goeffrey Moore writes “There is no more challenging management task than, as the folks of H-P like to put it, “eating your own lunch.”
The power industry is in the process to be transformed by the information revolution. By hiding behind “native load,” generators and utilities have empowered the government to control the power industry.
In the article All the issues crux of the matter, explaining that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem, Warren Causey writes:
With regard to good ideas dying at the utility/commission staff interfaces, I don’t disagree at all. In fact, I consider that as proof of the argument in my original post, and as both the crux of the issue and the fly in the ointment of Dr. Silverio’s, and other bloggers’, restructuring proposals. My educational training actually is in history and that’s why I consider this a fascinating time-period in which to live.
Over the last couple of generations, the U.S. has become increasingly socialist (regardless of the party in power) and people increasingly expect the government regulate everything and solve every problem. The issue with that is that government bureaucracy (and state-controlled enterprises are extensions of that
bureaucracy) is inherently the worst possible way to solve any problem. You can ask the Russians what a long, slow dive into an empty swimming pool feels like. Of course don’t pay to much attention to what they say because now they seem intent on climbing, dazed, back up onto the board and trying it again.
When you introduce government planning into any operation at any level of government (local planning commissions and their interventions into private property are a nightmare) and remove or distort economic incentives, you produce a horse designed by a committee—it looks a lot like a camel. Add politics (most state regulators are elected and national politicians’ raison d’etre is to get elected regardless of the consequences) and the possibility of allowing free markets to work out problems via trial-and-error disappears.
EEI membership should take serious consideration to the EWPC articles EEI California Dreamin’, To EEI: “Let's Ban Regulation,” Starting in Ohio and “Let the Market Decide” in Ohio.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)