The question "Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?" should be in the mind of every participant in the Smart Grid Interoperability Standards Interim Roadmap Workshop, that will be held at the Hyatt Regency at Reston Town Center, 1800 Presidents Street in Reston, Virginia. The workshop is open to the public and free of charge, after registering.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 26th, 2009
Under the EWPC article U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and Comprehensive Energy Legislation, James Carson has given six lobbyists like questions to object to the need, which I repeat again, for “comprehensive Energy Legislation, which the U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and the general public needs to be aware of.” The last two of those questions are: Do you think the public is even aware of this issue? Do you think that those few who are aware of the issue care, or agree with you?
My response is very simple: U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and the general public will become well aware when they learn that reform is needed to avoid wasting billions in taxpayers’ money, which IOUs are now asking to keep extending incrementally the monopolistic IOUs framework.
Believe it or not, in the cryptic EWPC post DOE's WISE NOI for an FOA, that I wrote following Mr. Carson’s post DOE Preliminary Guidelines for Smart Grid Funding is the key to be able to test the EWPC Framework. The guidelines on the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Issue a Funding Oportunity Annoucement (FOA) are not just “smart,” they are very wise, as they open the industry to innovations by ‘favoring’ coops and munis.
The guidelines are indeed signaling the development of business model innovation under competition in the federal market to replace the obsolete IOUs regulated business model of winning rate cases to regulators. If DOE do “raise the ceiling ‘after major electric utilities complained that the proposed $20 million-per-grant limit was too low to encourage commercial-scale deployment of advanced technologies,’” the large taxpayer money waste mentioned above is guaranteed to occur.
The IOUs Framework mindset applies to business as usual. That mindset is correctly for normal times. However, these are not normal times.
We are in a process where a new order is emerging, and creative destruction wipes out business models that run out of steam after many years. We are in fact experiencing a once in a lifetime historical process, very similar to the systemic crisis of the great depression, where the way the “political and bureaucratic processes [used to] work in a large federal nation like the United States or Canada,” mentioned by Mr. Carson, underwent paradigm shifts.
Like the railroads and the telegraph, the IOUs are in a process in which they are unable to participate in the smart grid under the IOUs Framework, which is an information and communication technologies event. Phones were disruptive technologies seen as toys by the telegraph companies and now we have iPhones. The obsolete IOUs business model of winning rate changes to regulators has already undergone the same fate.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
domingo, abril 26, 2009
On Cyber Spies Threats: Keep Public Wires Regulation and go for Energy Markets
Under Alex Yu Zheng’s, Smart Grid News.com, Blogging the Grid article Foreign Cyber-Spies Inject Spyware into U.S. Grid with Potential for Serious Damage, I posted the following comment:
Balancing regulation and markets by shifting away from the excessively unbalanced IOUs Framework, the maximum social benefit purpose can be aimed at by letting regulated Investor Owned Transporters (IOT), that replace IOUs, be responsible for the public grid (see my comment under Philip Bane’s article “Smart Grid Stimulus Bill: DOE Snubs IOUs and Meters”). As to the private grids, which are behind the (potentially smart) meters, security management should [be] one of the key market issues open to innovation.
A paradigm shift from the IOUs Framework to the EWPC Framework is the key for the emerging EWPC based EPAct (see also my comment under Jesse Berst’s blog " The Coming Paradigm Shift and How To Achieve It"). Standards development by EPRI and NIST should look deeper into these suggestions.
For more details, go to EWPC Blog at www(dot)energyblogs(dot)com(slash)ewpc
Balancing regulation and markets by shifting away from the excessively unbalanced IOUs Framework, the maximum social benefit purpose can be aimed at by letting regulated Investor Owned Transporters (IOT), that replace IOUs, be responsible for the public grid (see my comment under Philip Bane’s article “Smart Grid Stimulus Bill: DOE Snubs IOUs and Meters”). As to the private grids, which are behind the (potentially smart) meters, security management should [be] one of the key market issues open to innovation.
A paradigm shift from the IOUs Framework to the EWPC Framework is the key for the emerging EWPC based EPAct (see also my comment under Jesse Berst’s blog " The Coming Paradigm Shift and How To Achieve It"). Standards development by EPRI and NIST should look deeper into these suggestions.
For more details, go to EWPC Blog at www(dot)energyblogs(dot)com(slash)ewpc
viernes, abril 24, 2009
DOE's WISE NOI for an FOA
Following the lead given by James Carson, I posted a comment under the SmartGrid.com featured article Smart Grid Stimulus Bill: DOE Snubs IOUs and Meters. This is what I wrote:
I find the above discussion a productive one, that was enabled by a well written and timely article. The main barrier to the smart grid is the obsolete IOUs Framework with demand as an externality and supply side power system planning, operation and control. That framework served very well its useful purpose up to close to 1970.
The IOUs Framework is based on the business model of winning rate cases to the regulator for energy and transportation (T&D) sales. That Framework should remain for transportation only as the IOT Framework. The Smart Grid should enable business model innovations under competition in the open market to develop and integrate the resources of the demand side to power system planning, operation, and control.
I have written extensively in the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Blog, which emerge as a holistic Framework to replace the IOUs Framework. Please go to www(dot)energyblogs(dot)com(slash)ewpc to see the articles and posts.
The EWPC Framework divides the complex emergent whole power industry in two parts, which is the simplest wait to do it. One part is the open market on the value chain generation, retail, prosumer (a consumer that may produce). The other part is the regulated transporter (the T&D smart grid). The transporter’s compact will give IOTs the responsibility to transport in exchange for reasonable tolls. Distribution in fact will become indistinct from transmission.
I believe that the small grant size is well thought out. Like IBM with the PC development, IOUs need to set up independent units if they want to be funded and to stay in the game.
While under the IOUs Framework isolation will win over interoperability, under the EWPC Framework interoperability is about business model innovations competition for the federal retail market, by what I term Second Generation Retailers (search my blog for 2GR). Isolation thus becomes a losing proposition. Financiers’ will recognize the environment similar to that of the computer industry.
I find the above discussion a productive one, that was enabled by a well written and timely article. The main barrier to the smart grid is the obsolete IOUs Framework with demand as an externality and supply side power system planning, operation and control. That framework served very well its useful purpose up to close to 1970.
The IOUs Framework is based on the business model of winning rate cases to the regulator for energy and transportation (T&D) sales. That Framework should remain for transportation only as the IOT Framework. The Smart Grid should enable business model innovations under competition in the open market to develop and integrate the resources of the demand side to power system planning, operation, and control.
I have written extensively in the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Blog, which emerge as a holistic Framework to replace the IOUs Framework. Please go to www(dot)energyblogs(dot)com(slash)ewpc to see the articles and posts.
The EWPC Framework divides the complex emergent whole power industry in two parts, which is the simplest wait to do it. One part is the open market on the value chain generation, retail, prosumer (a consumer that may produce). The other part is the regulated transporter (the T&D smart grid). The transporter’s compact will give IOTs the responsibility to transport in exchange for reasonable tolls. Distribution in fact will become indistinct from transmission.
I believe that the small grant size is well thought out. Like IBM with the PC development, IOUs need to set up independent units if they want to be funded and to stay in the game.
While under the IOUs Framework isolation will win over interoperability, under the EWPC Framework interoperability is about business model innovations competition for the federal retail market, by what I term Second Generation Retailers (search my blog for 2GR). Isolation thus becomes a losing proposition. Financiers’ will recognize the environment similar to that of the computer industry.
Respuesta a El Día: Si Podemos, Enfrentando el Status Quo
Esta es la tercera entrega del GMH, dedicada a los actores que la semana que viene estarán reunidos en Washington, para, por enésima vez, tratar de resolver de forma definitiva la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico. Las entregas anteriores pueden conocerse en las notas Sent eMail: Power Sector Washington Meeting y eMail Enviado - Electricidad: Respuesta al Banco Mundial.
Como es acostumbrado, esa reunión viene acompañada de todo un despliegue paralelo de prensa al que no se ha admitido todavía estas entregas. Espero que la tercera sea la vencida. Hoy me concentro en la nota que responde al Editorial El Día Digital: ¿Por qué no podemos?
La banca multilateral ha calificado nuestra crisis de perenne, sin darse cuenta que al defender el status quo ella misma es una parte indiscutible e integral del problema. Todo luce indicar que se tratará nuevamente de preservar el status quo de la Ley General de Electricidad 125-01, empleando los mismos expertos y haciendo lo mismo. Es necesario seguir la sugerencia de Albert Einstein, escrita durante la crisis sistémica que se conoce como la gran depresión, que se inicia con “No pretendamos que las cosas cambien, si siempre hacemos lo mismo.”
Como se verá a continuación, la solución a la compleja crisis sistémica es discontinua con el orden establecido, habiendo nuestro país invertido grandemente en el orden emergente. Esas inversiones y el trabajo de investigación que disponemos nos ofrecen una ventaja a nivel global que debemos capitalizar. Esperamos que en las reuniones de Washington así lo comprendan.
Los llamados planes integrales de la CDEEE y del CONEP no se pueden cumplir, porque simplemente no son integrales. Son planes que intentan las mejoras de las partes, que se vuelven egoístas e interfieren unas con otras destruyendo el conjunto. Esa es la razón por la que no podemos; no son planes a favor del conjunto que permitan perseguir el máximo bienestar social.
Por ejemplo, el CRI (Cash Recovery Index) hace que las distribuidoras para preservar el servicio socializado se vuelvan egoístas tratando de resolver su problema y a hacerlo castigan sin piedad a los clientes que pagan y enfrentan costosos apagones por estar mal ubicados. Al mismo tiempo, perdonan a los que hurtan por estar bien ubicados.
La solución integral es iniciar lo más pronto posible la transición para pasar del obsoleto servicio socializado al emergente servicio individualizado, resolviendo simultáneamente otros problemas no menos importantes que agregan valor como facilitar, por ejemplo, introducir un mecanismo de financiamiento eficaz para la inversión en eficiencia energética a los clientes finales. Así no se perdería la oportunidad de profundizar la reforma con una solución incremental simplemente para enfrentar el importante problema del hurto.
Dado que la campaña de prensa está definitivamente a favor de preservar el status quo, se puede afirmar que sigue los planes del CONEP. Asimismo, es evidente que dicha campaña va en contra del plan de la CDEEE, ya que se concentra en demostrar como es que la CDEEE se volvió egoísta. Los principales ejemplos son el de la excesiva y creciente nómina, que es matizada con el reciente escándalo del PRA.
Desde los años 70, en que Balaguer le permitió a las industrias invertir en el autoabastecimiento, los elementos de la nueva industria eléctrica con servicio individualizado habían empezado a emerger. En consecuencia, la industria empezó a desintegrarse y desde los años 80 el autoabastecimiento parcial ha crecido de forma exponencial con la llegada de toda una gama de tecnologías disruptivas de autoabastecimiento, generando lo que denomino el mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP) de soluciones individuales. Este mercado vibrante es un mercado abierto que asigna muy buen los recursos, pero que es muy egoísta al permanece aislado del conjunto.
A principio de los 90 se inició una reforma que se trasplantó desde Chile, sin tomar en cuenta el avanzado proceso de desintegración del mercado SQP que afecta principalmente el desarrollo de lado de la demanda. El principal efecto económico de la desintegración es la división del poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y la costosa falta de coordinación de esas inversiones en poder de los consumidores con las del sector formal, el cual se reintegra con el servicio individualizado. Es así como en 1999, por disposición administrativa, como parte del proceso de Capitalización de varias empresas públicas, se introduce una reforma del sector eléctrico que se modifica para dar lugar a la Ley 125-01 con el cambio de administración.
Esa reforma mantiene regulado el lado de la demanda e introduce la competencia a largo plazo en el lado de la oferta. Sin embargo, en respuesta al primer choque externo se elevaron excesivamente los precios del mercado spot y se inició un proceso de contrarreforma, asociado a la CDEEE. Ese proceso alteró mucho más el desequilibrio mercado regulación del extremo hacia el mercado que resulta con la capitalización, al extremos de la regulación que resulta de la contrareforma. Podemos si implantamos una reforma que equilibre el mercado y la regulación.
La causa principal del choque, que no se enfrentó con la contrarreforma, es que la reforma elegida es inestable, porque la demanda carece de elasticidad. La salida que se negoció a la crisis fue el llamado Acuerdo de Madrid que extendió los contratos por muchos años e impidió la prometida competencia de parte de las autoridades.
Acogiéndose al bonito nombre integral es que nacen los llamados planes que de integral no tiene nada. La esencia de un plan integral debe ser precisamente reintegrar el mercado SQP al Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado con el propósito de tratar de alcanzar el máximo bienestar social.
El desarrollo de una reforma integral, cuyas investigaciones y propuestas se iniciarion en 1996, es de lo que se trata todo el esfuerzo que ha emergido como la electricidad sin control de precios. Es esfuerzo en esencia abre la industria a la innovación y a la competencia en los sectores minorista y mayorista, a corto y largo plazos, aunque mantiene regulado el transporte (la transmisión junto a la distribución) para dotar la demanda de elasticidad y facilitar el transito hacia un país sin apagones con un servicio individualizado al menor costo.
Como es acostumbrado, esa reunión viene acompañada de todo un despliegue paralelo de prensa al que no se ha admitido todavía estas entregas. Espero que la tercera sea la vencida. Hoy me concentro en la nota que responde al Editorial El Día Digital: ¿Por qué no podemos?
La banca multilateral ha calificado nuestra crisis de perenne, sin darse cuenta que al defender el status quo ella misma es una parte indiscutible e integral del problema. Todo luce indicar que se tratará nuevamente de preservar el status quo de la Ley General de Electricidad 125-01, empleando los mismos expertos y haciendo lo mismo. Es necesario seguir la sugerencia de Albert Einstein, escrita durante la crisis sistémica que se conoce como la gran depresión, que se inicia con “No pretendamos que las cosas cambien, si siempre hacemos lo mismo.”
Como se verá a continuación, la solución a la compleja crisis sistémica es discontinua con el orden establecido, habiendo nuestro país invertido grandemente en el orden emergente. Esas inversiones y el trabajo de investigación que disponemos nos ofrecen una ventaja a nivel global que debemos capitalizar. Esperamos que en las reuniones de Washington así lo comprendan.
Los llamados planes integrales de la CDEEE y del CONEP no se pueden cumplir, porque simplemente no son integrales. Son planes que intentan las mejoras de las partes, que se vuelven egoístas e interfieren unas con otras destruyendo el conjunto. Esa es la razón por la que no podemos; no son planes a favor del conjunto que permitan perseguir el máximo bienestar social.
Por ejemplo, el CRI (Cash Recovery Index) hace que las distribuidoras para preservar el servicio socializado se vuelvan egoístas tratando de resolver su problema y a hacerlo castigan sin piedad a los clientes que pagan y enfrentan costosos apagones por estar mal ubicados. Al mismo tiempo, perdonan a los que hurtan por estar bien ubicados.
La solución integral es iniciar lo más pronto posible la transición para pasar del obsoleto servicio socializado al emergente servicio individualizado, resolviendo simultáneamente otros problemas no menos importantes que agregan valor como facilitar, por ejemplo, introducir un mecanismo de financiamiento eficaz para la inversión en eficiencia energética a los clientes finales. Así no se perdería la oportunidad de profundizar la reforma con una solución incremental simplemente para enfrentar el importante problema del hurto.
Dado que la campaña de prensa está definitivamente a favor de preservar el status quo, se puede afirmar que sigue los planes del CONEP. Asimismo, es evidente que dicha campaña va en contra del plan de la CDEEE, ya que se concentra en demostrar como es que la CDEEE se volvió egoísta. Los principales ejemplos son el de la excesiva y creciente nómina, que es matizada con el reciente escándalo del PRA.
Desde los años 70, en que Balaguer le permitió a las industrias invertir en el autoabastecimiento, los elementos de la nueva industria eléctrica con servicio individualizado habían empezado a emerger. En consecuencia, la industria empezó a desintegrarse y desde los años 80 el autoabastecimiento parcial ha crecido de forma exponencial con la llegada de toda una gama de tecnologías disruptivas de autoabastecimiento, generando lo que denomino el mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP) de soluciones individuales. Este mercado vibrante es un mercado abierto que asigna muy buen los recursos, pero que es muy egoísta al permanece aislado del conjunto.
A principio de los 90 se inició una reforma que se trasplantó desde Chile, sin tomar en cuenta el avanzado proceso de desintegración del mercado SQP que afecta principalmente el desarrollo de lado de la demanda. El principal efecto económico de la desintegración es la división del poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y la costosa falta de coordinación de esas inversiones en poder de los consumidores con las del sector formal, el cual se reintegra con el servicio individualizado. Es así como en 1999, por disposición administrativa, como parte del proceso de Capitalización de varias empresas públicas, se introduce una reforma del sector eléctrico que se modifica para dar lugar a la Ley 125-01 con el cambio de administración.
Esa reforma mantiene regulado el lado de la demanda e introduce la competencia a largo plazo en el lado de la oferta. Sin embargo, en respuesta al primer choque externo se elevaron excesivamente los precios del mercado spot y se inició un proceso de contrarreforma, asociado a la CDEEE. Ese proceso alteró mucho más el desequilibrio mercado regulación del extremo hacia el mercado que resulta con la capitalización, al extremos de la regulación que resulta de la contrareforma. Podemos si implantamos una reforma que equilibre el mercado y la regulación.
La causa principal del choque, que no se enfrentó con la contrarreforma, es que la reforma elegida es inestable, porque la demanda carece de elasticidad. La salida que se negoció a la crisis fue el llamado Acuerdo de Madrid que extendió los contratos por muchos años e impidió la prometida competencia de parte de las autoridades.
Acogiéndose al bonito nombre integral es que nacen los llamados planes que de integral no tiene nada. La esencia de un plan integral debe ser precisamente reintegrar el mercado SQP al Sistema Eléctrico Nacional Interconectado con el propósito de tratar de alcanzar el máximo bienestar social.
El desarrollo de una reforma integral, cuyas investigaciones y propuestas se iniciarion en 1996, es de lo que se trata todo el esfuerzo que ha emergido como la electricidad sin control de precios. Es esfuerzo en esencia abre la industria a la innovación y a la competencia en los sectores minorista y mayorista, a corto y largo plazos, aunque mantiene regulado el transporte (la transmisión junto a la distribución) para dotar la demanda de elasticidad y facilitar el transito hacia un país sin apagones con un servicio individualizado al menor costo.
Editorial El Día Digital: ¿Por qué no podemos?
Sin ser expertos en materia energética nos atrevemos a afirmar que no tiene justificación el fracaso de nuestro país al no poder garantizar un servicio de electricidad eficiente, estable y a un costo razonable.
Gobierno tras gobierno, período tras período, administración tras administración, se repiten una y otra vez las promesas de que finalmente saldremos del hoyo en que estamos metidos, sin que lleguen a materializarse las esperanzas creadas.
Las deudas millonarias de uno a otro sector de la maraña eléctrica que nos envuelve, nunca se acaban de pagar. Los apagones siguen a la orden del día.
Las fórmulas legales o corporativas que se han inventado dizque para salir del embrollo no han dado resultado y el problema se pone cada vez más grande, con el consiguiente aumento del costo de la electricidad que nos pone en desventaja frente a otros países del área y nos resta capacidad para competir a la hora de exportar nuestros productos.
¿Por qué no podemos resolver ese problema? ¿Estamos condenados a vivir así por el resto de la eternidad? ¿Somos seres inferiores a los que habitan países similares al nuestro?
Se supone que estamos rodeados de expertos, pero éstos no dan pie con bola, ni por asomo.
Para nuestro corto entender, queda sin respuesta la pregunta: ¿Por qué no podemos?
Original ¿Por qué no podemos?
Gobierno tras gobierno, período tras período, administración tras administración, se repiten una y otra vez las promesas de que finalmente saldremos del hoyo en que estamos metidos, sin que lleguen a materializarse las esperanzas creadas.
Las deudas millonarias de uno a otro sector de la maraña eléctrica que nos envuelve, nunca se acaban de pagar. Los apagones siguen a la orden del día.
Las fórmulas legales o corporativas que se han inventado dizque para salir del embrollo no han dado resultado y el problema se pone cada vez más grande, con el consiguiente aumento del costo de la electricidad que nos pone en desventaja frente a otros países del área y nos resta capacidad para competir a la hora de exportar nuestros productos.
¿Por qué no podemos resolver ese problema? ¿Estamos condenados a vivir así por el resto de la eternidad? ¿Somos seres inferiores a los que habitan países similares al nuestro?
Se supone que estamos rodeados de expertos, pero éstos no dan pie con bola, ni por asomo.
Para nuestro corto entender, queda sin respuesta la pregunta: ¿Por qué no podemos?
Original ¿Por qué no podemos?
jueves, abril 23, 2009
eMail Enviado - Electricidad: Respuesta al Banco Mundial
Señores Banco Mundial
Ciudad.
Atención: Sr. Roby Senderowitsch
Representante en República Dominicana
Distinguidos señores,
En seguimiento a la nota Sent eMail: Power Sector Washington Meeting enviada “To the participants in the solution of the power sector systemic crisis,” damos seguimiento a las declaración del banco a la periodista Cándida Acosta, sobre la solución a la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico.
Dichas declaraciones, que aparecen en la NOTA CENTRAL de la sección Economía y Negocios del Listín Diario, del 23 de Abril de 2009, están contenidas en el enlace de Internet Banco Mundial propone medidas ante crisis eléctrica. En la misma, el banco admite que “el tema es medular para el desarrollo del país y por tanto no es partidario de prescribir fórmulas mágicas porque tiene múltiples dimensiones.”
La crisis dominicana se ha profundizado en exceso, precisamente porque las medidas ejecutadas a la fecha siempre se han basado fórmulas mágicas. Un claro ejemplo de dichas fórmulas es la propia Ley 125-01, que no consideró que los sectores eléctricos del mundo necesitan acogerse a una reforma integral emergente en que el desarrollo de los recursos de la demanda es clave.
Para estos fines, sugiero estudiar la nota U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and Comprehensive Energy Legislation, la cual da las razones que explican la urgente necesidad de cambiar la ley 125-01 para resolver de forma definitiva la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico, al tiempo que posicionar al país entre los líderes en las reformas de los sectores eléctricos mundiales.
Espero que los que todos participen la próxima semana en Washington estén al tanto de este mensaje.
Atentos saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
Ciudad.
Atención: Sr. Roby Senderowitsch
Representante en República Dominicana
Distinguidos señores,
En seguimiento a la nota Sent eMail: Power Sector Washington Meeting enviada “To the participants in the solution of the power sector systemic crisis,” damos seguimiento a las declaración del banco a la periodista Cándida Acosta, sobre la solución a la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico.
Dichas declaraciones, que aparecen en la NOTA CENTRAL de la sección Economía y Negocios del Listín Diario, del 23 de Abril de 2009, están contenidas en el enlace de Internet Banco Mundial propone medidas ante crisis eléctrica. En la misma, el banco admite que “el tema es medular para el desarrollo del país y por tanto no es partidario de prescribir fórmulas mágicas porque tiene múltiples dimensiones.”
La crisis dominicana se ha profundizado en exceso, precisamente porque las medidas ejecutadas a la fecha siempre se han basado fórmulas mágicas. Un claro ejemplo de dichas fórmulas es la propia Ley 125-01, que no consideró que los sectores eléctricos del mundo necesitan acogerse a una reforma integral emergente en que el desarrollo de los recursos de la demanda es clave.
Para estos fines, sugiero estudiar la nota U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and Comprehensive Energy Legislation, la cual da las razones que explican la urgente necesidad de cambiar la ley 125-01 para resolver de forma definitiva la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico, al tiempo que posicionar al país entre los líderes en las reformas de los sectores eléctricos mundiales.
Espero que los que todos participen la próxima semana en Washington estén al tanto de este mensaje.
Atentos saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
Sent eMail: Power Sector Washington Meeting
To the participants in the solution of the power sector systemic crisis:
This is my message to Washington. It is aimed to the USAID, the IDB and the WB. The last two multilateral financial institutions are already in the process to provide, once again, a definite solution to the systemic crisis of the power sector of the Dominican Republic.
I suggest that the experts at both banks need to understand that there is an emerging whole power industry that is not limited to the Dominican Republic. To convince them, I further suggest they answer to the best of their abilities the post A Question to the State Secretary at the Santo Domingo Digital Town Hall. I hope the USAID get involved by a decision of the State Department as this is a global issue.
In that light, the should consider a few quotes of Secretary Clinton posted in No new source, no new generation, but just use more efficiently what we currently have. The Electricity Without Price Controls framework includes a high leverage financial mechanism designed to integrate energy efficiency to power system planning, operation and control. Such mechanism is critical for the medium term solution of the local crisis here and at other jurisdictions with similar crisis.
The Dominican Republic has the great opportunity to be the first place in the world to complete its reform of the power industry with a fundamental, complete, and fully functional, solution to the global power sector in the new order. I have already envisioned a pilot project to show results.
Hoping that the solution does not center in the sustainability of the investments, but go beyond to ensure maximum social welfare, I remain at your call to collaborate in the substantive effort.
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
This is my message to Washington. It is aimed to the USAID, the IDB and the WB. The last two multilateral financial institutions are already in the process to provide, once again, a definite solution to the systemic crisis of the power sector of the Dominican Republic.
I suggest that the experts at both banks need to understand that there is an emerging whole power industry that is not limited to the Dominican Republic. To convince them, I further suggest they answer to the best of their abilities the post A Question to the State Secretary at the Santo Domingo Digital Town Hall. I hope the USAID get involved by a decision of the State Department as this is a global issue.
In that light, the should consider a few quotes of Secretary Clinton posted in No new source, no new generation, but just use more efficiently what we currently have. The Electricity Without Price Controls framework includes a high leverage financial mechanism designed to integrate energy efficiency to power system planning, operation and control. Such mechanism is critical for the medium term solution of the local crisis here and at other jurisdictions with similar crisis.
The Dominican Republic has the great opportunity to be the first place in the world to complete its reform of the power industry with a fundamental, complete, and fully functional, solution to the global power sector in the new order. I have already envisioned a pilot project to show results.
Hoping that the solution does not center in the sustainability of the investments, but go beyond to ensure maximum social welfare, I remain at your call to collaborate in the substantive effort.
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
miércoles, abril 22, 2009
U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and Comprehensive Energy Legislation
This is in response to Mr. BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States, Earth Day call for comprehensive Energy Legislation, which the U.S. CONGRESS, the COMPETE Coalition and the general public needs to be aware of.
The response is in a set of recent comments, questions, and answers, that aims to explain that the COMPETE Coalition should be calling for complete, fully functional, and comprehensive energy legislation based on fundamental energy reform. The source is the EWPC article A Question to the State Secretary at the Santo Domingo Digital Town Hall
--------------------------------------------------------------
--As a result of the California-Enron crisis, electricity reform underwent a push from market deregulation towards excessive regulation. --
Nonsense. Although the de-regulation process stalled, only California backtracked, and they re-instituted a formal balancing market within the past month.
--There is a need to divide the highly complex power industry emerging whole in two subsystems: 1) a regulated power transportation system and 2) an open market business system. --
??? Already done, Jose. They are called 'ISOs' and/or 'RTOs'. Several US states and Canadian provinces have implemented retail markets, too.
James Carson, http://www.risquant.com/ JBCarson@RisQuant.com
Posted By James Carson 4/21/09 6:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi James,
I see that you didn't answer the question on the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas (not just the US) and the world.
Believe it, or not, there is a pressing need to complete the reform with a fully functional system that has emerged as EWPC. Today, U.S. customers are expending on the average 50 additional cents per every dollar billed by power companies to face the lack of performance of the service. I am sure that savvy utilities investors have already recognized the problem which is being solved by adding value an open market which is forbidden to them.
In fact, electricity reform stalled in many states that were in the process to deregulate which also backtracked to the highly excessive vertical integration. Most "deregulated" states continue to have excessive regulation (and vicious circles the reinforce each other, such as coupling of profits and sales or with artificial decoupling) with added capacity markets which produce excessive regulation, in addition to face the increasing unnecessary complexity of NERC mandatory rules.
I hope that the COMPETE Coalition, which advocates: "... well functioning, competitive wholesale electricity markets which enable state governments to implement retail electric service options best sited to their regional needs and which enable consumers to benefit from the best possible price and service" will review as soon as possible that message. We all know that organized wholesale markets have undergone a series of costly incremental extensions under the attraction of the old paradigm.
ISOs and RTOs are based on the incremental extensions that stated with EPAct '92 and open transmission access (which introduces more complexity than necessary), no like EWPC with open power transportation access with integrated T&D companies based on much simpler rules.
EWPC extends Schweppe's development by involving customers operating as partners of the utility to make a big difference: "Under EWPC, retail electric service is not simply enabled by wholesale electricity markets. Retail electric markets and wholesale electricity markets mutually reinforce each other to provide a fully functional [competitive] electric service. That is why EWPC is able to produce a superior solution path through innovation in retail electric service at the federal level."
That big difference results in a virtuous circle of increasing leverage between the open and the regulated markets. That is why the emergent and complex whole is divided like that, so the COMPETE Coalition can have its new message.
Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4/21/09 4:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------
--I see that you didn't answer the question on the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas (not just the US) and the world. --
On the contrary, my point is that fundamental energy reform through implementation of electricity markets in the US has been underway for more than a decade, longer elsewhere.
--In fact, electricity reform stalled in many states that were in the process to deregulate which also backtracked to the highly excessive vertical integration. --
Name the states that have 'backtracked', and how they did so.
--Most "deregulated" states continue to have excessive regulation... --
No argument here.
If I may quote you from a different thread: "We should forget the details, and focus just on the essence." So, I conclude that you are not concerned about implementation details.
The power sector is an enormously important industry. Practically EVERY other facet of life in America depends on it on a moment to moment basis. Do you seriously expect the US to implement fundamental market reforms other than incrementally?
Posted By James Carson 4/22/09 9:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------
On the first and last comments:
The need for fundamental reform can not be defined incrementally (although it may be so implemented), because it involves a paradigm shift from one obsolete center of attraction - the IOUs Framework – to the emergent whole center of attraction – the EWPC Framework. That is what the administration, by focusing on the true essence of both systemic crises, has planned for both the financial and the health care systems, as can be seen from the EWPC article Reform on Obama Address: Health Care 9; Education 1; Energy 0., (to read it, please hit the hyperlink http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/2/25/Reform-on-Obama-Address-Health-Care-9-Education-1-Energy-0 ) from where I extract that:
"I contend that the Fed does not want to learn anything from California energy policy, because the state developed a flawed electricity reform in order to keep an 'outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our' energy 'market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.' In those two quotes, I only change what President Obama said in his address to the joint session of Congress, by introducing the word energy, instead of financial. There is an urgent need for a real reform."
I repeat that "Fundamental reform is urgently needed to balance market and regulation appropriately, to get the power industry into a higher performance plateau in the emerging digital Era."
On the second comment I quote the CEIDS Steering Committee Meeting December 2003, page C11, that says:
"Only a few years ago, it appeared that the United States was rapidly on its way to open access for power competition in those markets. The California power "crisis" of 2000 and collapse of Enron halted those efforts dramatically. While competition is functioning in some states (most notably Texas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania), most markets are seeing only limited participation or have halted open access efforts completely. The National Regulatory Research Institute, recently found that of 24 states that had announce electric retail restructuring, only 17 are continuing their original plans. Seven states have pulled back to some degree: Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Oregon."
According to the December 2008 ABBACUS report of DEFG, of those seven states, Arkanzas and New Mexico backtracked completely. At both residential and C&I retail, California is marginal, while the other four are unsatisfactory. Virginia and Michigan also backtracked as they are also unsatisfactory.
Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4/22/09 8:57 PM
The response is in a set of recent comments, questions, and answers, that aims to explain that the COMPETE Coalition should be calling for complete, fully functional, and comprehensive energy legislation based on fundamental energy reform. The source is the EWPC article A Question to the State Secretary at the Santo Domingo Digital Town Hall
--------------------------------------------------------------
--As a result of the California-Enron crisis, electricity reform underwent a push from market deregulation towards excessive regulation. --
Nonsense. Although the de-regulation process stalled, only California backtracked, and they re-instituted a formal balancing market within the past month.
--There is a need to divide the highly complex power industry emerging whole in two subsystems: 1) a regulated power transportation system and 2) an open market business system. --
??? Already done, Jose. They are called 'ISOs' and/or 'RTOs'. Several US states and Canadian provinces have implemented retail markets, too.
James Carson, http://www.risquant.com/ JBCarson@RisQuant.com
Posted By James Carson 4/21/09 6:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi James,
I see that you didn't answer the question on the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas (not just the US) and the world.
Believe it, or not, there is a pressing need to complete the reform with a fully functional system that has emerged as EWPC. Today, U.S. customers are expending on the average 50 additional cents per every dollar billed by power companies to face the lack of performance of the service. I am sure that savvy utilities investors have already recognized the problem which is being solved by adding value an open market which is forbidden to them.
In fact, electricity reform stalled in many states that were in the process to deregulate which also backtracked to the highly excessive vertical integration. Most "deregulated" states continue to have excessive regulation (and vicious circles the reinforce each other, such as coupling of profits and sales or with artificial decoupling) with added capacity markets which produce excessive regulation, in addition to face the increasing unnecessary complexity of NERC mandatory rules.
I hope that the COMPETE Coalition, which advocates: "... well functioning, competitive wholesale electricity markets which enable state governments to implement retail electric service options best sited to their regional needs and which enable consumers to benefit from the best possible price and service" will review as soon as possible that message. We all know that organized wholesale markets have undergone a series of costly incremental extensions under the attraction of the old paradigm.
ISOs and RTOs are based on the incremental extensions that stated with EPAct '92 and open transmission access (which introduces more complexity than necessary), no like EWPC with open power transportation access with integrated T&D companies based on much simpler rules.
EWPC extends Schweppe's development by involving customers operating as partners of the utility to make a big difference: "Under EWPC, retail electric service is not simply enabled by wholesale electricity markets. Retail electric markets and wholesale electricity markets mutually reinforce each other to provide a fully functional [competitive] electric service. That is why EWPC is able to produce a superior solution path through innovation in retail electric service at the federal level."
That big difference results in a virtuous circle of increasing leverage between the open and the regulated markets. That is why the emergent and complex whole is divided like that, so the COMPETE Coalition can have its new message.
Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4/21/09 4:17 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------
--I see that you didn't answer the question on the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas (not just the US) and the world. --
On the contrary, my point is that fundamental energy reform through implementation of electricity markets in the US has been underway for more than a decade, longer elsewhere.
--In fact, electricity reform stalled in many states that were in the process to deregulate which also backtracked to the highly excessive vertical integration. --
Name the states that have 'backtracked', and how they did so.
--Most "deregulated" states continue to have excessive regulation... --
No argument here.
If I may quote you from a different thread: "We should forget the details, and focus just on the essence." So, I conclude that you are not concerned about implementation details.
The power sector is an enormously important industry. Practically EVERY other facet of life in America depends on it on a moment to moment basis. Do you seriously expect the US to implement fundamental market reforms other than incrementally?
Posted By James Carson 4/22/09 9:05 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------
On the first and last comments:
The need for fundamental reform can not be defined incrementally (although it may be so implemented), because it involves a paradigm shift from one obsolete center of attraction - the IOUs Framework – to the emergent whole center of attraction – the EWPC Framework. That is what the administration, by focusing on the true essence of both systemic crises, has planned for both the financial and the health care systems, as can be seen from the EWPC article Reform on Obama Address: Health Care 9; Education 1; Energy 0., (to read it, please hit the hyperlink http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/2/25/Reform-on-Obama-Address-Health-Care-9-Education-1-Energy-0 ) from where I extract that:
"I contend that the Fed does not want to learn anything from California energy policy, because the state developed a flawed electricity reform in order to keep an 'outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our' energy 'market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse.' In those two quotes, I only change what President Obama said in his address to the joint session of Congress, by introducing the word energy, instead of financial. There is an urgent need for a real reform."
I repeat that "Fundamental reform is urgently needed to balance market and regulation appropriately, to get the power industry into a higher performance plateau in the emerging digital Era."
On the second comment I quote the CEIDS Steering Committee Meeting December 2003, page C11, that says:
"Only a few years ago, it appeared that the United States was rapidly on its way to open access for power competition in those markets. The California power "crisis" of 2000 and collapse of Enron halted those efforts dramatically. While competition is functioning in some states (most notably Texas, New Jersey and Pennsylvania), most markets are seeing only limited participation or have halted open access efforts completely. The National Regulatory Research Institute, recently found that of 24 states that had announce electric retail restructuring, only 17 are continuing their original plans. Seven states have pulled back to some degree: Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Oregon."
According to the December 2008 ABBACUS report of DEFG, of those seven states, Arkanzas and New Mexico backtracked completely. At both residential and C&I retail, California is marginal, while the other four are unsatisfactory. Virginia and Michigan also backtracked as they are also unsatisfactory.
Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4/22/09 8:57 PM
lunes, abril 20, 2009
A Question to the State Secretary at the Santo Domingo Digital Town Hall
Dear Secretary Clinton,
Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question about the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas. As a result of the California-Enron crisis, electricity reform underwent a push from market deregulation towards excessive regulation. Fundamental reform is urgently needed to balance market and regulation appropriately, to get the power industry into a higher performance plateau in the emerging digital Era.
As the Obama administration has taken action to strongly face the systemic economic, energy and environmental crisis, that are mutually reinforcing each other with many vicious circles that are increasing poverty in the Americas, I wonder Why there is not a fundamental reform of the investor owned utilities framework, which is holding back the process and reducing at a large costs the great opportunities for the needed magnitude of large leverage?
Please ask Matt_at_State [see below] to brief you about my response on this Townhall about how the questions he asked me on the Energy and Environment Forum.
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
.………………………………………
Climate change and energy security concerns can be dealt with a new order. Such order calls for reform to allow the emergence of a whole system. Go to my websites to learn about electricity without price controls framework, which shift the obsolete socialized price controls into efficient individualized pricing that results in least costs to customers and thus maximum social welfare.
Posted by JoseAVanderhorstS
Thank you. I think we all agree that we need to move to a lower-carbon basis for our economy. We have tried over the years to promote this movement in different ways — stimulating use of biofuels, promoting regional integration of energy markets, including elctricity grids, e.g. — and some of these efforts have borne fruit. But we obviously need something more. We hope to begin a regional conversation on how to do this at the Summit — what central themes should be top priority? How can we engage governments, private sectors and civil society groups in a constructive way?
Posted by Matt_at_State
1st question: “… what central themes should be top priority?” the need for a paradigm shift away from the investor owned framework that has a strong attraction force to fossil fuels and supply side only solutions. A new center of attraction should enable the development of the resources of the demand side, without artificial decoupling of profits and sales, just to keep the old framework in place.
2nd question “… How can we engage governments, private sectors and civil society groups in a constructive way?” There is a need to divide the highly complex power industry emerging whole in two subsystems: 1) a regulated power transportation system and 2) an open market business system. Those two systems should interact to mutually reinforce each other. See next…The architecting of the power transportation system is an enginnering problem that should be designed, operated and controlled by the ultraquality imperative, just as is done for space flights, nuclear power stattions, etc. Next on the business system.
To engage stakeholders, according to Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark Maeir, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” to go forward “[S]ocial economist bring two special insights to sociotechnical systems.” They are: 1) “the four who’s:” who benefits? who pays? who provides? and, as appropiate, who loses? and 2) In any resource-limited situation, the true value of a given service or product is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain it. That’s it.
Posted by JoseAVanderhorstS
Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question about the need for fundamental energy reform in the Americas. As a result of the California-Enron crisis, electricity reform underwent a push from market deregulation towards excessive regulation. Fundamental reform is urgently needed to balance market and regulation appropriately, to get the power industry into a higher performance plateau in the emerging digital Era.
As the Obama administration has taken action to strongly face the systemic economic, energy and environmental crisis, that are mutually reinforcing each other with many vicious circles that are increasing poverty in the Americas, I wonder Why there is not a fundamental reform of the investor owned utilities framework, which is holding back the process and reducing at a large costs the great opportunities for the needed magnitude of large leverage?
Please ask Matt_at_State [see below] to brief you about my response on this Townhall about how the questions he asked me on the Energy and Environment Forum.
Best regards,
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity.
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University.
Valued IEEE Member for 38 Years.
javs@ieee.org
Follow on http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/
http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/
Research and practice areas, and interests: Electricity Without Price Controls; Systems architecture; Systems thinking; Retail marketing; Customer orientation; Information systems requirements and design; Market rules; Contract assistance
.………………………………………
Climate change and energy security concerns can be dealt with a new order. Such order calls for reform to allow the emergence of a whole system. Go to my websites to learn about electricity without price controls framework, which shift the obsolete socialized price controls into efficient individualized pricing that results in least costs to customers and thus maximum social welfare.
Posted by JoseAVanderhorstS
Thank you. I think we all agree that we need to move to a lower-carbon basis for our economy. We have tried over the years to promote this movement in different ways — stimulating use of biofuels, promoting regional integration of energy markets, including elctricity grids, e.g. — and some of these efforts have borne fruit. But we obviously need something more. We hope to begin a regional conversation on how to do this at the Summit — what central themes should be top priority? How can we engage governments, private sectors and civil society groups in a constructive way?
Posted by Matt_at_State
1st question: “… what central themes should be top priority?” the need for a paradigm shift away from the investor owned framework that has a strong attraction force to fossil fuels and supply side only solutions. A new center of attraction should enable the development of the resources of the demand side, without artificial decoupling of profits and sales, just to keep the old framework in place.
2nd question “… How can we engage governments, private sectors and civil society groups in a constructive way?” There is a need to divide the highly complex power industry emerging whole in two subsystems: 1) a regulated power transportation system and 2) an open market business system. Those two systems should interact to mutually reinforce each other. See next…The architecting of the power transportation system is an enginnering problem that should be designed, operated and controlled by the ultraquality imperative, just as is done for space flights, nuclear power stattions, etc. Next on the business system.
To engage stakeholders, according to Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark Maeir, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” to go forward “[S]ocial economist bring two special insights to sociotechnical systems.” They are: 1) “the four who’s:” who benefits? who pays? who provides? and, as appropiate, who loses? and 2) In any resource-limited situation, the true value of a given service or product is determined by what one is willing to give up to obtain it. That’s it.
Posted by JoseAVanderhorstS
No new source, no new generation, but just use more efficiently what we currently have
“Even as we deal with this crisis, we’ve got to think about the future. That is why we think it’s so important to invest in clean, renewable energy, to take action against climate change, to invest in education, even when times are as tough as they are. Because that will set us up so that when the recovery happens, we’re not behind where we were when the crisis hit.”
“So part of what we are hoping is that as countries think about what each can do, investing in clean, renewable energy is a win-win. It puts people to work and it cuts energy costs over the long run. Dealing with the effects of climate change, reforesting areas. I think of Haiti again. Reforesting the watersheds in Haiti will save Haiti money if we can figure out a plan to be able to do that.“
"No new source, no new generation, but just use more efficiently what we currently have.”
“So part of what we are hoping is that as countries think about what each can do, investing in clean, renewable energy is a win-win. It puts people to work and it cuts energy costs over the long run. Dealing with the effects of climate change, reforesting areas. I think of Haiti again. Reforesting the watersheds in Haiti will save Haiti money if we can figure out a plan to be able to do that.“
"No new source, no new generation, but just use more efficiently what we currently have.”
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
Digital Town Hall at Funglode
April 17th, 2009
Impulsemos la Prosperidad de la Hispaniola
El Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) se encuentra muy complacido con los últimos acontecimientos de carácter político que acontecieron en los últimos días bajo el impulso de la V Cumbre de las Américas.
Esos acontecimientos generan la oportunidad de sacar los mejores resultados, si aprovechamos la sabiduría acumulada en el movimiento que se inició con la publicación del libro La Quinta Disciplina de Peter Senge. En dicho libro, Senge sugiere que los mejores resultados se logran cuando el líder es el diseñador de la organización.
Es precisamente en esa filosofía que descansa el esfuerzo del GMH. Los logros nacen de transformar todo un conjunto de círculos viciosos que se refuerzan entre sí, para llevarnos a la miseria, en otro conjunto de círculos virtuosos que también se refuerzan entre sí, para apalancar los resultados y llevarnos a la prosperidad en un mundo definitivamente orientado a la energía limpia.
El viernes 17, la Canciller y Secretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos, Hilary Rodham Clinton, llegando desde Haití, ofreció una reunión de Ayuntamiento Digital (Digital Town Hall) en Funglode, ofreciendo elementos claves hacia la prosperidad de la Hispaniola. La Canciller Clinton definió una de las metas hemisféricas la reducción de la inseguridad alimentaria, y en particular en Haití. Agregando que, “esta es una de las áreas en que se asociarán con nosotros ayudando a lograr progreso.”
Sugiero a la Comisión Mixta Bilateral, que está a punto de reunirse, que concentren su trabajo de liderazgo en un diseño con base al orden emergente. Así, el primer proceso a definir e implementar, que puede ser diseñado con base a círculos virtuosos, podría ser el de seguridad alimentaria. Así, la agropecuaria, la banca, y los suplidores, generarían nuevos empleos con visión de futuro para ambos países.
Igualmente puede suceder con los procesos de reconstrucción de Haití., en los que primaría una reforestación que puede ser financiada con fuentes bonos ambientales. Así anticipo una gran oportunidad de bonanza para ambos países. Esto se suma a la noticia Empresarios estiman positiva propuesta inversión con Haití, la cual deberá orientarse al diseño basado en círculos virtuosos. Todos podrían ser elementos importantes para reactivación de la economía y la sociedad.
Asimismo, este lunes, 20 de Abril de 2009, Clave Digital nos ofrece el Editorial República Dominicana ante los cambios en las Américas, que se inicia con “Soplan vientos de cambios en las Américas. Para nadie es un secreto. La Quinta Cumbre de las Américas, celebrada el fin de semana en Puerto España (Trinidad-Tobago) confirmó que los países del continente americano viven un momento estelar, no sólo por la crisis económica, que golpea a todo el mundo, sino por los cambios que está impulsando la administración del joven presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama.”
Dicho Editorial concluye con el efecto que los buenos augurios para Cuba y Haití, diciendo: “Claro, en modo alguno los dominicanos debemos oponernos a que países hermanos puedan superar sus problemas ni a que desarrollen sus economías y eleven la calidad de vida de su gente… En consecuencia, debemos saludar los hasta ahora positivos vientos de cambio en las Américas, y prepararnos para competir con éxito en este nuevo escenario.” Es con el cambio de mentalidad hacia los círculos virtuosos y la cooperación decidida con que los tres países hermanos podremos aspirar a la prosperidad.
No obstante, ese compromiso potencial puede ser visto también de forma negativa, al verlo como una carga, tal como aparece en la caricatura del periódico El Día. O con mayor negatividad en el artículo El país espera que lo defiendan, bajo la firma de Vinicio A. Castillo Semán. Todo luce indicar de que con planteamientos como esos se trata de mantener el status quo.
Esos acontecimientos generan la oportunidad de sacar los mejores resultados, si aprovechamos la sabiduría acumulada en el movimiento que se inició con la publicación del libro La Quinta Disciplina de Peter Senge. En dicho libro, Senge sugiere que los mejores resultados se logran cuando el líder es el diseñador de la organización.
Es precisamente en esa filosofía que descansa el esfuerzo del GMH. Los logros nacen de transformar todo un conjunto de círculos viciosos que se refuerzan entre sí, para llevarnos a la miseria, en otro conjunto de círculos virtuosos que también se refuerzan entre sí, para apalancar los resultados y llevarnos a la prosperidad en un mundo definitivamente orientado a la energía limpia.
El viernes 17, la Canciller y Secretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos, Hilary Rodham Clinton, llegando desde Haití, ofreció una reunión de Ayuntamiento Digital (Digital Town Hall) en Funglode, ofreciendo elementos claves hacia la prosperidad de la Hispaniola. La Canciller Clinton definió una de las metas hemisféricas la reducción de la inseguridad alimentaria, y en particular en Haití. Agregando que, “esta es una de las áreas en que se asociarán con nosotros ayudando a lograr progreso.”
Sugiero a la Comisión Mixta Bilateral, que está a punto de reunirse, que concentren su trabajo de liderazgo en un diseño con base al orden emergente. Así, el primer proceso a definir e implementar, que puede ser diseñado con base a círculos virtuosos, podría ser el de seguridad alimentaria. Así, la agropecuaria, la banca, y los suplidores, generarían nuevos empleos con visión de futuro para ambos países.
Igualmente puede suceder con los procesos de reconstrucción de Haití., en los que primaría una reforestación que puede ser financiada con fuentes bonos ambientales. Así anticipo una gran oportunidad de bonanza para ambos países. Esto se suma a la noticia Empresarios estiman positiva propuesta inversión con Haití, la cual deberá orientarse al diseño basado en círculos virtuosos. Todos podrían ser elementos importantes para reactivación de la economía y la sociedad.
Asimismo, este lunes, 20 de Abril de 2009, Clave Digital nos ofrece el Editorial República Dominicana ante los cambios en las Américas, que se inicia con “Soplan vientos de cambios en las Américas. Para nadie es un secreto. La Quinta Cumbre de las Américas, celebrada el fin de semana en Puerto España (Trinidad-Tobago) confirmó que los países del continente americano viven un momento estelar, no sólo por la crisis económica, que golpea a todo el mundo, sino por los cambios que está impulsando la administración del joven presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama.”
Dicho Editorial concluye con el efecto que los buenos augurios para Cuba y Haití, diciendo: “Claro, en modo alguno los dominicanos debemos oponernos a que países hermanos puedan superar sus problemas ni a que desarrollen sus economías y eleven la calidad de vida de su gente… En consecuencia, debemos saludar los hasta ahora positivos vientos de cambio en las Américas, y prepararnos para competir con éxito en este nuevo escenario.” Es con el cambio de mentalidad hacia los círculos virtuosos y la cooperación decidida con que los tres países hermanos podremos aspirar a la prosperidad.
No obstante, ese compromiso potencial puede ser visto también de forma negativa, al verlo como una carga, tal como aparece en la caricatura del periódico El Día. O con mayor negatividad en el artículo El país espera que lo defiendan, bajo la firma de Vinicio A. Castillo Semán. Todo luce indicar de que con planteamientos como esos se trata de mantener el status quo.
viernes, abril 17, 2009
Precios Bajos NO Garantizan Costos Bajos
En la mente de los líderes del sector eléctrico persiste una idea defectuosa: confundir precios bajos de las facturas del sector con la solución de la crisis. Lo que se necesita son costos bajos, especialmente en un mundo en que los costos de la mala calidad siguen aumentando vertiginosamente en la medida en que pasamos a la Era Digital.
Que quede claro, que es muy probable que las inversiones que presentará el gobierno pueden ayudar al máximo bienestar social de la nación, pero para ello es necesaio asegurar también que los costos de los conusmidores sean también tomados en cuenta. Eso significa que será necesaria una reforma profunda del sector para adecuarse a la Era digital que tenemos por delante.
Para ser competitivos, los sectores productivos necesitan invertir continuamente en tecnología digital para competir en un mundo cada vez más globalizado. Por eso, lo que necesitamos es impulsar el movimiento República Dominicana Un País Sin Apagones, al cual se puede dar seguimiento vía Twitter con el hashtag #RDUPSA
La idea de “garantizar la posibilidad de producir energía eléctrica a precios más bajos” se desprende de la noticia Tema eléctrico no se cumple en la Cumbre, publicada por el Listín Diario en su sección Economía y Negocios, bajo la firma de Abel Guzmán, de la que tomamos que:
Que quede claro, que es muy probable que las inversiones que presentará el gobierno pueden ayudar al máximo bienestar social de la nación, pero para ello es necesaio asegurar también que los costos de los conusmidores sean también tomados en cuenta. Eso significa que será necesaria una reforma profunda del sector para adecuarse a la Era digital que tenemos por delante.
Para ser competitivos, los sectores productivos necesitan invertir continuamente en tecnología digital para competir en un mundo cada vez más globalizado. Por eso, lo que necesitamos es impulsar el movimiento República Dominicana Un País Sin Apagones, al cual se puede dar seguimiento vía Twitter con el hashtag #RDUPSA
La idea de “garantizar la posibilidad de producir energía eléctrica a precios más bajos” se desprende de la noticia Tema eléctrico no se cumple en la Cumbre, publicada por el Listín Diario en su sección Economía y Negocios, bajo la firma de Abel Guzmán, de la que tomamos que:
El lento cumplimiento de los acuerdos para superar la crisis del sector eléctrico es la principal preocupación de la comisión de seguimiento de la Cumbre por la Unidad Nacional Frente a la Crisis Económica Mundial, reveló ayer el secretario de Economía Planificación y Desarrollo, Temístocles Montás.
“La mesa más lenta es la del sector eléctrico”, indicó Montás. “Después, todas las otras mesas han ido trabajando y algunas cosas todavía no se han concretizado pero están avanzando”, agregó el funcionario.
Montás manifestó que la insostenibilidad financiera está afectando al sector eléctrico y a la competitividad de los sectores productivos del país.
“El tema eléctrico es un tema serio, un tema que le resta competitividad a República Dominicana, y tenemos que solucionarlo para viabilizar la competitividad, pero no es un problema de ahora ni se revuelve de hoy para mañana”, enfatizó.
….
Señaló que la Corporación Dominicana de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (CDEEE) anunciará el cumplimiento de un importante acuerdo de la Cumbre que va a garantizar la posibilidad de producir energía eléctrica a precios más bajos.
jueves, abril 16, 2009
Investor Owned Transporters Can’t be Providers of Last Resort
Under the highly recommended EnergyPulse article Smart Grids: How Smart?, I responded to Edward A. Reid, Jr. that as the IOUs framework is replaced, we need Investor Owned Transporters (IOTs) that are not allowed to be POLR.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 16th, 2009
WOW!!! As you can see below (taken from the EnergyPulse article), Ed is describing key features of EWPC framework, as opposed to the IOUs framework. So as Todd suggest below, we need another acronym for the EWPC framework.
The suggestion is to change IOUs to Investor Owned Transporters (IOTs). IOTs plan, operate, and control, a regulated transportation (T&D) power system, under a responsibility to transport in exchange for a reasonable rate of return. That is, we need to add that the distribution grid should be integral with the transmission grid in every control area.
If that is the case, no artificial decoupling rules are necessary, as generation, retail and customers are in an open market value chain. For retailers - which are competitive Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs as opposed to the traditional no regulated retailer - survival under competition will produce the necessary decoupling to offer the best business plans to customers, as a mix of DSIs to develop a long term relationship. Yes, 2GRs should be responsible for metering and handle the customer interface.
Just as artificial decoupling, POLR is a mean to keep the IOUs paradigm alive. It is also a mean to unnecessarily duplicate investments (known since the late 90s). Need to add to the NO POLR, that no incumbent retailer under Chinese walls be allowed.
There is only one smart grid that will be smart. We need to shift to the EWPC paradigm to enable it.
Posts taken from the EnergyPulse article (I strongly suggest to read the whole article and its ongoing comments).
Edward A. Reid, Jr. 4.16.09
Todd,
There appear to me to be two "smart grid" camps. One camp views "smart grid" as an opportunity to control peak demand by controlling customer appliances and equipment to shave peaks. The other camp views smart grid as an opportunity to expose customers to the real cost of electric power and to empower them to adjust their consumption patterns in response to price signals.
The "command and control" camp has met with significant resistance from customers, because customers are unwilling to cede control of their lives to "big brother". However, when customers have been given the opportunity to respond to peak pricing by managing demand, they have responded beyond expectations.
However, it is time to move beyond the short term trials which limit response by discouraging investment as part of the process. It is time for a permanent program which encourages customers to invest in responsive appliances and equipment which can automatically respond to price signals as according to the customers' criteria.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4.16.09
Ed,
The second camp needs reform to get away from the investor owned utilities framenwork. Your first camp is about Demand Side Management, while the second is about Demand Side Innovations (DSI). The obsolete business model of winning coupled energy sales rate cases to the regulator should end asap.
Instead of regulated retailers, we need competitive retailers that will introduce business model innovations to reap the increasing DSI development in the open market. Customers have a choice to invest in appliances for demand response (short term price signals), energy efficiency (long term price signals) and many other innovations that will come up as it happened in other industries after reform.
Todd McKissick 4.16.09
Ed,
Fully agreed here. The command and control camp refuses to recognize the other camp in public or at any lobbying table. VERY smart move on their part because they're taking the credit from the empowering camp's support while simultaneously gagging their voice. In the meantime, they're confiscating all the subsidies for smart grid money and using it to install more half smart meters which will become stranded.
The empowered camp needs a new acronym to differentiate it from the smart grid. I see a couple floating around, but there's not enough cohesion for any of them to stick.
Edward A. Reid, Jr. 4.16.09
Jose Antonio,
The IOU distribution grid exists. There is no reason why it cannot be operated efficiently as a common carrier system. There is certainly no economic justification for installing competing distribution grids.
Their is no fundamental conflict between the concept of competitive retailers and the concept of a regulated common carrier distributor of a commodity supplied by competitive retailers. The devil, as usual, is in the details.
With decoupling, there is no reason why the common carrier distributor should be responsible for metering. There is also no need for the common carrier distributor to have a direct customer interface; the distributor can be compensated by the competitive retailer for providing the service.
One of the details which must be addressed is the POLR. I am not convinced that a POLR is necessary in a competitive market. I am convinced that the common carrier distributor should not be the POLR, if regulators insist on a POLR. There is also no reason why the competing retailers could not support a POLR "pool", if the regulators insist on a POLR.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 16th, 2009
WOW!!! As you can see below (taken from the EnergyPulse article), Ed is describing key features of EWPC framework, as opposed to the IOUs framework. So as Todd suggest below, we need another acronym for the EWPC framework.
The suggestion is to change IOUs to Investor Owned Transporters (IOTs). IOTs plan, operate, and control, a regulated transportation (T&D) power system, under a responsibility to transport in exchange for a reasonable rate of return. That is, we need to add that the distribution grid should be integral with the transmission grid in every control area.
If that is the case, no artificial decoupling rules are necessary, as generation, retail and customers are in an open market value chain. For retailers - which are competitive Second Generation Retailers - 2GRs as opposed to the traditional no regulated retailer - survival under competition will produce the necessary decoupling to offer the best business plans to customers, as a mix of DSIs to develop a long term relationship. Yes, 2GRs should be responsible for metering and handle the customer interface.
Just as artificial decoupling, POLR is a mean to keep the IOUs paradigm alive. It is also a mean to unnecessarily duplicate investments (known since the late 90s). Need to add to the NO POLR, that no incumbent retailer under Chinese walls be allowed.
There is only one smart grid that will be smart. We need to shift to the EWPC paradigm to enable it.
Posts taken from the EnergyPulse article (I strongly suggest to read the whole article and its ongoing comments).
Edward A. Reid, Jr. 4.16.09
Todd,
There appear to me to be two "smart grid" camps. One camp views "smart grid" as an opportunity to control peak demand by controlling customer appliances and equipment to shave peaks. The other camp views smart grid as an opportunity to expose customers to the real cost of electric power and to empower them to adjust their consumption patterns in response to price signals.
The "command and control" camp has met with significant resistance from customers, because customers are unwilling to cede control of their lives to "big brother". However, when customers have been given the opportunity to respond to peak pricing by managing demand, they have responded beyond expectations.
However, it is time to move beyond the short term trials which limit response by discouraging investment as part of the process. It is time for a permanent program which encourages customers to invest in responsive appliances and equipment which can automatically respond to price signals as according to the customers' criteria.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio 4.16.09
Ed,
The second camp needs reform to get away from the investor owned utilities framenwork. Your first camp is about Demand Side Management, while the second is about Demand Side Innovations (DSI). The obsolete business model of winning coupled energy sales rate cases to the regulator should end asap.
Instead of regulated retailers, we need competitive retailers that will introduce business model innovations to reap the increasing DSI development in the open market. Customers have a choice to invest in appliances for demand response (short term price signals), energy efficiency (long term price signals) and many other innovations that will come up as it happened in other industries after reform.
Todd McKissick 4.16.09
Ed,
Fully agreed here. The command and control camp refuses to recognize the other camp in public or at any lobbying table. VERY smart move on their part because they're taking the credit from the empowering camp's support while simultaneously gagging their voice. In the meantime, they're confiscating all the subsidies for smart grid money and using it to install more half smart meters which will become stranded.
The empowered camp needs a new acronym to differentiate it from the smart grid. I see a couple floating around, but there's not enough cohesion for any of them to stick.
Edward A. Reid, Jr. 4.16.09
Jose Antonio,
The IOU distribution grid exists. There is no reason why it cannot be operated efficiently as a common carrier system. There is certainly no economic justification for installing competing distribution grids.
Their is no fundamental conflict between the concept of competitive retailers and the concept of a regulated common carrier distributor of a commodity supplied by competitive retailers. The devil, as usual, is in the details.
With decoupling, there is no reason why the common carrier distributor should be responsible for metering. There is also no need for the common carrier distributor to have a direct customer interface; the distributor can be compensated by the competitive retailer for providing the service.
One of the details which must be addressed is the POLR. I am not convinced that a POLR is necessary in a competitive market. I am convinced that the common carrier distributor should not be the POLR, if regulators insist on a POLR. There is also no reason why the competing retailers could not support a POLR "pool", if the regulators insist on a POLR.
martes, abril 14, 2009
Smart Grid Requires Spot Pricing of Ultraquality Electricity
A wide audience should read the EnergyPulse article Smart Grids: How Smart?, by Mark Sardella, PE, Executive Director, Local Energy.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 14th, 2009
Hello Mark,
Yesterday I made a tweet with the hashtag #EWPC, which as you can see served to tell my followers on Twitter that your article deserves to be read by a wide audience.
I see 3 key parts to your article, which I qualify as follows:
a) Making the public aware of the results of the lobby to keep the power industry under the obsolete investor owned utilities framework. Smart work!
b) Suggesting the need to open the power industry to innovation. As you wrote, “modernizing our electric power infrastructure using policies that create entrepreneurial opportunities for small businesses is where the smart money will go.” Smart work!
c) Giving the example of feed-in-tariffs. Not so smart.
In regard to a), Len, Todd, and Lance, seem to agree with the value of making the public aware. Relatively to decoupling, as has been commented by Jim and Ed, I try to explain in the post Forget Decoupling Under Price Controls, that “… regulated decoupling has an insidious secondary effect: extending the obsolete utilities and regulators price controls business model.”
In response to part b), EWPC means electricity without price control (EWPC) and it is a framework, which tells about the whole power industry that is emerging is what you are writing about. The EWPC Blog has more than 160 post and articles describing the framework from many different perspectives. The EWPC aim of this post is next.
Trying to add value to your article, I will concentrate this post on replacing, the not so smart, part c). EWPC is an extension of the works done, back in the 80s, by the late M.I.T. professor Fred C. Schweppe and his colleagues. They wrote the following about avoided costs (which are related to feed-in-tariffs) in their book Spot Pricing of Electricity:
"In the United States, the PURPA legislation stated that buy-back rates should be based on avoided costs without clearly defining what avoided costs are. Hourly spot prices provided such a definition."
So, based on that quote and Fred comment, I have only one observation of your entire excellent article: the real secret I suggest is to consider hourly spot prices instead of Denmark’s feed-in-tariffs. Since Schweppe and his team also advised to consider the criteria of the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system, the shift to spot prices need to be based on the architecting imperative of system’s ultraqualiity.
System’s ultraquality is one of the essential elements of EWPC, as I just discover now that spot pricing should be another one. One of the flaws of deregulation was a lack of the system’s ultraquality imperative, which meant a policy economy first, performance second, which is reversed under the EWPC policy, performance first, economy second.
System’s ultraquality is what makes possible that “Those appropriations are stirring the hopes of renewable energy advocates, who foresee expanded opportunities for solar and wind technologies as well as a big, new role for plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.”
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 14th, 2009
Hello Mark,
Yesterday I made a tweet with the hashtag #EWPC, which as you can see served to tell my followers on Twitter that your article deserves to be read by a wide audience.
I see 3 key parts to your article, which I qualify as follows:
a) Making the public aware of the results of the lobby to keep the power industry under the obsolete investor owned utilities framework. Smart work!
b) Suggesting the need to open the power industry to innovation. As you wrote, “modernizing our electric power infrastructure using policies that create entrepreneurial opportunities for small businesses is where the smart money will go.” Smart work!
c) Giving the example of feed-in-tariffs. Not so smart.
In regard to a), Len, Todd, and Lance, seem to agree with the value of making the public aware. Relatively to decoupling, as has been commented by Jim and Ed, I try to explain in the post Forget Decoupling Under Price Controls, that “… regulated decoupling has an insidious secondary effect: extending the obsolete utilities and regulators price controls business model.”
In response to part b), EWPC means electricity without price control (EWPC) and it is a framework, which tells about the whole power industry that is emerging is what you are writing about. The EWPC Blog has more than 160 post and articles describing the framework from many different perspectives. The EWPC aim of this post is next.
Trying to add value to your article, I will concentrate this post on replacing, the not so smart, part c). EWPC is an extension of the works done, back in the 80s, by the late M.I.T. professor Fred C. Schweppe and his colleagues. They wrote the following about avoided costs (which are related to feed-in-tariffs) in their book Spot Pricing of Electricity:
"In the United States, the PURPA legislation stated that buy-back rates should be based on avoided costs without clearly defining what avoided costs are. Hourly spot prices provided such a definition."
So, based on that quote and Fred comment, I have only one observation of your entire excellent article: the real secret I suggest is to consider hourly spot prices instead of Denmark’s feed-in-tariffs. Since Schweppe and his team also advised to consider the criteria of the engineering requirements for controlling, operating and planning an electric power system, the shift to spot prices need to be based on the architecting imperative of system’s ultraqualiity.
System’s ultraquality is one of the essential elements of EWPC, as I just discover now that spot pricing should be another one. One of the flaws of deregulation was a lack of the system’s ultraquality imperative, which meant a policy economy first, performance second, which is reversed under the EWPC policy, performance first, economy second.
System’s ultraquality is what makes possible that “Those appropriations are stirring the hopes of renewable energy advocates, who foresee expanded opportunities for solar and wind technologies as well as a big, new role for plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.”
lunes, abril 13, 2009
Does DSI Achieve a Much Larger Potential than DSM?
Please look at the comment with questions to the EnergyPulse article Achievable Potential from Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S.: 2010-2030 (please hit red hyperlinks), by Omar Siddiqui, Program Manager, Energy Utilization, EPRI.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 13th, 2009.
Dear Mr. Siddiqui,
Please take a look at the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI) and the EWPC post Balanced Market Regulation Reform for the New Order to respond my questions.
I checked the article looking for the word innovation and did not find it. I also looked into the Executive Summary of “EPRI's "Assessment of Achievable Potential from Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S. (2010-2030." and did not find it either. Based on that simple check, I presume that the assessment restricted itself to EE and DR as a DSM utility oriented potential.
Was a business as usual approach without innovations considered over the 20 year period?
Do you expect that an alternative assessment that breaks important barriers to consider DSI, under a market reform that enables innovations, and under the emerging order, would achieve a much larger potential?
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 13th, 2009.
Dear Mr. Siddiqui,
Please take a look at the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI) and the EWPC post Balanced Market Regulation Reform for the New Order to respond my questions.
I checked the article looking for the word innovation and did not find it. I also looked into the Executive Summary of “EPRI's "Assessment of Achievable Potential from Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S. (2010-2030." and did not find it either. Based on that simple check, I presume that the assessment restricted itself to EE and DR as a DSM utility oriented potential.
Was a business as usual approach without innovations considered over the 20 year period?
Do you expect that an alternative assessment that breaks important barriers to consider DSI, under a market reform that enables innovations, and under the emerging order, would achieve a much larger potential?
domingo, abril 12, 2009
Zero-Energy Homes Should Not Be Mandated
This comment is posted under the article New Calif. homes would have to be energy producers, by Steve Lawrence in Silicon Valley's MercuryNews.com
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 12th, 2009
Steve,
Please tell state Assemblywoman Lori Saldana to ask for a complete overhaul of the power industry structure and rules.
I agree that new buildings can and may be designed with the concept of zero-net energy all over the world. I disagree that they should be mandated, as every customer should be able to exert its choice.
Anyhow, there are important barriers to be overcome for zero/net energy and the most critical one is the investor owned utilities’ framework. California deregulation was set to disprove concepts such as zero-net energy buildings to extend the obsolete supply side business model of utilities.
What California, and all other global jurisdictions, need is to reform the utilities’ framework to allow for innovation not just on the supply side, but essentially in the demand side. Please take a look at the EWPC article "Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI) ." at the internet address http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/4/7/Forget-Demand-Side-management-DSM-Think-Demand-Side-Innovation-DSI
DSM is a utility concept design to maintain the obsolete and monopolistic business model of winning rate case to the regulator, when what are needed are business model innovations similar to those of the computer industry that emerge under competition. Zero-net energy building will not need to be mandated at all, they will emerge organically as DSI’s when the 20 years old awaited reform is enacted.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 12th, 2009
Steve,
Please tell state Assemblywoman Lori Saldana to ask for a complete overhaul of the power industry structure and rules.
I agree that new buildings can and may be designed with the concept of zero-net energy all over the world. I disagree that they should be mandated, as every customer should be able to exert its choice.
Anyhow, there are important barriers to be overcome for zero/net energy and the most critical one is the investor owned utilities’ framework. California deregulation was set to disprove concepts such as zero-net energy buildings to extend the obsolete supply side business model of utilities.
What California, and all other global jurisdictions, need is to reform the utilities’ framework to allow for innovation not just on the supply side, but essentially in the demand side. Please take a look at the EWPC article "Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI) ." at the internet address http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2009/4/7/Forget-Demand-Side-management-DSM-Think-Demand-Side-Innovation-DSI
DSM is a utility concept design to maintain the obsolete and monopolistic business model of winning rate case to the regulator, when what are needed are business model innovations similar to those of the computer industry that emerge under competition. Zero-net energy building will not need to be mandated at all, they will emerge organically as DSI’s when the 20 years old awaited reform is enacted.
¿Puede la Tierra Negra Evitar el Desierto de la Hispaniola?
Estudien la nota ¿Tierra Negra: Futuro de Haití y Dominicana? y digan si podría ayudar a resolver la situación planteada en La página de José Rafael Sosa con la nota ¿Alguien repara en este detalle? Vamos hacia el desierto
Closing Coal-Fired Plants Quickly
This is a comment I posted under the post Closing coal-fired plants quickly a fairy tale, by Jos Lesscher, in the Daily Times of Farmington, New Mexico, in reference to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar declarations.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 12th, 2009
Closing coal plans quickly is not a fairy tail; it is a must to confront a human made tragedy of the commons. What is a fairy tail is doing it with just wind as silver bullet. Many means are available to confront the tragedy by closing coal plants quickly. To close them we must first reform the energy policy to enable Demand Side Innovations (DSI).
Such reform transforms regulated utilities into regulated transportation (physical transmission and distribution) only utilities that sets the limits available while keeping high system performance. The varying time and space capacity available defines a market which may be limited from time to time at given locations. The development of DSI will help develop transactions in an open market, where innovation emerges just as in the information technology industry. Carbon taxes will help in the solution to the tragedy of the commons.
For more details, please look at the EWPC Blog at the Internet address http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 12th, 2009
Closing coal plans quickly is not a fairy tail; it is a must to confront a human made tragedy of the commons. What is a fairy tail is doing it with just wind as silver bullet. Many means are available to confront the tragedy by closing coal plants quickly. To close them we must first reform the energy policy to enable Demand Side Innovations (DSI).
Such reform transforms regulated utilities into regulated transportation (physical transmission and distribution) only utilities that sets the limits available while keeping high system performance. The varying time and space capacity available defines a market which may be limited from time to time at given locations. The development of DSI will help develop transactions in an open market, where innovation emerges just as in the information technology industry. Carbon taxes will help in the solution to the tragedy of the commons.
For more details, please look at the EWPC Blog at the Internet address http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc
jueves, abril 09, 2009
eMail Enviado: Cumbre Américas 17-19 Abril. Obama: Energía y Medioambiente
Estimados líderes,
La presión de nuestros compromisos en DR-CAFTA con energía y medioambiente se va a iniciar este mismo mes. Clave Digital publicó la noticia Obama propondrá cooperación energética con Latinoamérica en la Cumbre de las Américas, cuyos primeros párrafos dicen:
En “un marco abierto de trabajo,” tenemos mucho que mostrar en base al humilde trabajo que he venido haciendo. Por eso aconsejo que se valore la reforma hacia la EWPC, cuyas investigación está prácticamente desarrollada, faltando el necesario desarrollo que sugiero se inicie con el plan piloto que he sugerido. Sugiero asimismo que el Comité Presidencial del Sector Eléctrico se reúna y adopte un mandato a los negociadores.
Si desean continuar leyendo la noticia, pulsen por favor el enlace de arriba.
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Arquitecto de Sistemas de la EWPC
Semilla Orgánica del GMH
Síganme en Twitter en http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
La presión de nuestros compromisos en DR-CAFTA con energía y medioambiente se va a iniciar este mismo mes. Clave Digital publicó la noticia Obama propondrá cooperación energética con Latinoamérica en la Cumbre de las Américas, cuyos primeros párrafos dicen:
WASHINGTON, EEUU.- Estados Unidos propondrá una mayor cooperación en temas energéticos con Latinoamérica durante la Cumbre de las Américas que se celebrará entre el 17 y el 19 de abril en Puerto España, Trinidad y Tobago.
Así lo afirmó este jueves Jeffrey Davidow, asesor de la Casa Blanca para la Cumbre de las Américas, quien indicó que la energía y el medio ambiente serán dos de los temas dominantes durante el encuentro en Puerto España, al que asistirán los 34 países de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y al que Cuba no ha sido invitado.
El Gobierno que preside Barack Obama "propondrá una asociación energética con las Américas", dijo Davidow durante una conferencia en el centro de estudios Council on Foreign Relations.
Indicó que se tratará de un marco abierto de trabajo que se centrará fundamentalmente en lo que definió como una "agenda verde", que vinculará las preocupaciones en materia energética con los problemas del cambio climático.
En “un marco abierto de trabajo,” tenemos mucho que mostrar en base al humilde trabajo que he venido haciendo. Por eso aconsejo que se valore la reforma hacia la EWPC, cuyas investigación está prácticamente desarrollada, faltando el necesario desarrollo que sugiero se inicie con el plan piloto que he sugerido. Sugiero asimismo que el Comité Presidencial del Sector Eléctrico se reúna y adopte un mandato a los negociadores.
Si desean continuar leyendo la noticia, pulsen por favor el enlace de arriba.
Saludos,
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Arquitecto de Sistemas de la EWPC
Semilla Orgánica del GMH
Síganme en Twitter en http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
Is What I am Doing to Reduce GHG Emissions Enough?
This is a comment posted as a link under the energyblogs.com post "Please pass Al Gore a Valium -- and better make it a double," (please hit red hyperlinks), by Warren Causey in his Reinventing the U.S. Utility Blog.
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 9th, 2009.
After an illuminating must read interchange under said post, Alan Belcher inquired:
Thank you Alan for the opportunity to summarize what I have been doing for quite some time. What I have been doing I believe would help reduce GHG emissions. I have been trying to help the power industry become sustainable.
My initial aim was to help the power industry of my country, the Dominican Republic, become sustainable. But, in the process, through a lot of research, that got me into areas such as systemic thinking, I learned that most of the influence to change it need to come from outside, especially the US. Thus I am a researcher that in the process became aware that we need to protect the environment.
As it happens, the solution whole that emerged to solve the Dominican problem became exactly the same for the global power industry. I have been working on the development of what evolve and emerged as the electricity without price control (EWPC) basic innovation framework, as you can see from the EWPC Blog here on enegyblogs.com. That framework is an extension of the research that, the late M.I.T. professor, Fred C. Schweppe and his colleagues integrated into the book Spot Pricing of Electricity.
EWPC is a technology neutral market architecture and design paradigm, architected to replace the investor owned utilities (IOUs) paradigm or framework. Technology neutral means that it works fine for both fossil fuels and renewable energy, so it is a framework that without any doubt helps to transition smoothly to clean energy.
The IOUs paradigm has a strong attraction force to fossil fuels, as they are supply side utility oriented, centered on an obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. That business model is the main barrier to sustainability.
The EWPC paradigm is neutral on the supply side and the demand side. But, as the demand side is highly undeveloped, most value can be added by developing the resources of the demand side, to enable business model innovations, which in turns breaks the strong barriers of the IOUs paradigm against renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Back in September 2007, the first article of the EWPC Blog was EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions." I introduced it with "A comparison between the power industry vertical integration and electricity without price controls (EWPC) non-trivial paradigms, will show that EWPC should be adopted in the new US Energy Bill, as part of a new deal, like the one of the 1930s, to get the world power industry in a superior development path."
Since then, I have written more than 160 articles or post on many views of the EWPC framework. Please browse them by searching within the EWPC Blog. Please also be aware that the blogs themselves on energyblogs.com only return the last 10 entries, which it seems to be a software bug. To get around it, to see a "More entries" link at the bottom of the page, you can simply search for EWPC within the EWPC Blog itself.
There is not time to waste to get the message to the public that GHG emission need to be reduced as soon as possible. In that sense, I just hope that I have been doing is enough.
Thanks once again for the opportunity to tell other readers what I have been doing.
Regards,
José Antonio
First posted on the GMH Blog on April 9th, 2009.
After an illuminating must read interchange under said post, Alan Belcher inquired:
Jose,
Since you share my opposition to the "wait and see" view, may I ask exactly what, in practical terms, have you done or are currently doing to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
Thank you Alan for the opportunity to summarize what I have been doing for quite some time. What I have been doing I believe would help reduce GHG emissions. I have been trying to help the power industry become sustainable.
My initial aim was to help the power industry of my country, the Dominican Republic, become sustainable. But, in the process, through a lot of research, that got me into areas such as systemic thinking, I learned that most of the influence to change it need to come from outside, especially the US. Thus I am a researcher that in the process became aware that we need to protect the environment.
As it happens, the solution whole that emerged to solve the Dominican problem became exactly the same for the global power industry. I have been working on the development of what evolve and emerged as the electricity without price control (EWPC) basic innovation framework, as you can see from the EWPC Blog here on enegyblogs.com. That framework is an extension of the research that, the late M.I.T. professor, Fred C. Schweppe and his colleagues integrated into the book Spot Pricing of Electricity.
EWPC is a technology neutral market architecture and design paradigm, architected to replace the investor owned utilities (IOUs) paradigm or framework. Technology neutral means that it works fine for both fossil fuels and renewable energy, so it is a framework that without any doubt helps to transition smoothly to clean energy.
The IOUs paradigm has a strong attraction force to fossil fuels, as they are supply side utility oriented, centered on an obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator. That business model is the main barrier to sustainability.
The EWPC paradigm is neutral on the supply side and the demand side. But, as the demand side is highly undeveloped, most value can be added by developing the resources of the demand side, to enable business model innovations, which in turns breaks the strong barriers of the IOUs paradigm against renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Back in September 2007, the first article of the EWPC Blog was EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions." I introduced it with "A comparison between the power industry vertical integration and electricity without price controls (EWPC) non-trivial paradigms, will show that EWPC should be adopted in the new US Energy Bill, as part of a new deal, like the one of the 1930s, to get the world power industry in a superior development path."
Since then, I have written more than 160 articles or post on many views of the EWPC framework. Please browse them by searching within the EWPC Blog. Please also be aware that the blogs themselves on energyblogs.com only return the last 10 entries, which it seems to be a software bug. To get around it, to see a "More entries" link at the bottom of the page, you can simply search for EWPC within the EWPC Blog itself.
There is not time to waste to get the message to the public that GHG emission need to be reduced as soon as possible. In that sense, I just hope that I have been doing is enough.
Thanks once again for the opportunity to tell other readers what I have been doing.
Regards,
José Antonio
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)