La Fundación IBERDROLA se constituye el día 13 de marzo de 2002 por acuerdo del Consejo de Administración de IBERDROLA del día 27 de Febrero de dicho año y de conformidad con la autorización otorgada por la Junta General de Accionistas del año 2000.
El pasado 18 de diciembre de 2008 la Fundación IBERDROLA, presidida por Don Manuel Marín González, nombró a los integrantes del nuevo patronato y decidió el nombramiento del Presidente de IBERDROLA, Don Ignacio S. Galán, como Patrono de Honor de la Fundación IBERDROLA.
Patronato de la Fundación IBERDROLA
Presidente
D. Manuel Marín González
miércoles, mayo 06, 2009
lunes, mayo 04, 2009
Sent eMail: The Necessary Revolution
Dear leaders,
The question “Can Technology Save the Economy?” was wisely reinterpreted by Bill Sweet as “Can the Stimulus Bill both Stimulate and Transform?” in the IEEE Spectrum’s Energy Wise Blog. Such a reinterpretation and my post under markm@kyield.com’s comment Incremental innovation (controlled by entrenched) led me to comprehend that reform “transformation” (incremental innovation controlled by IOUs) is just not going to work.
As IOUs keep entrenched, the only way out to introduce the overdue fundamental structural radical “transformation” is spelled out by M.I.T. professor Peter Senge el al in their book “The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World.” Thus the latest EWPC article posted is Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?
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.
The question “Can Technology Save the Economy?” was wisely reinterpreted by Bill Sweet as “Can the Stimulus Bill both Stimulate and Transform?” in the IEEE Spectrum’s Energy Wise Blog. Such a reinterpretation and my post under markm@kyield.com’s comment Incremental innovation (controlled by entrenched) led me to comprehend that reform “transformation” (incremental innovation controlled by IOUs) is just not going to work.
As IOUs keep entrenched, the only way out to introduce the overdue fundamental structural radical “transformation” is spelled out by M.I.T. professor Peter Senge el al in their book “The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World.” Thus the latest EWPC article posted is Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?
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.
domingo, mayo 03, 2009
Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?
I am inviting careful and serious inquiry to try to find out how to help Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) professionals to get liberated of the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Regulatory Framework mindset. U.S. and global power industry sustainability (as opposed to its ongoing collapse) depends on valuable professional’s advice to seek the common good to enable the EWPC necessary revolution. No matter what is done, ongoing incremental extension reforms don’t have a chance to lead to a truly Smart Grid.
Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
EWPC Systems’ Architect
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 3rd, 2009.
Copyright © 2009 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Everyone should know that the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is controlled by the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) that are the key status quo protectors. This is very important now that EPRI has been retained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to be in charge of a part of the Smart Grid standardization work.
As the standards might be adopted as IEC global standards, such standardization may have a large adverse impact in the global power industry and so its sustainability, as opposed to its collapse, depends on valuable and unquestionable professional advice to seek the common good. The large value destruction in the making deserves a closer look to understand that the process will not enable maximum social welfare as we will see next.
In one of the key messages of a presentation, referred to in the post US-China Green Energy Council Smart Grid Seminar, Steven Lee, Senior Technical Executive, Power Delivery and Utilization, EPRI, advises for a holistic vision to “consider all parts together.” He in fact takes into consideration all the parts of the Investor IOUs Regulatory Framework, which considers demand as an externality. The demand exclusion is bound to be a very costly mistake, which leaders need to be aware of, as it is explained in the EWPC post Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?
Two other recent examples that also remain inside the IOUs Regulatory Framework are the opinions of Omar Siddiqui, Program Manager, Energy Utilization, EPRI, and Bernard Neenan, Technical Executive, EPRI, which can be found in the EWPC articles Does DSI Achieve a Much Larger Potential than DSM? and Balanced Market Regulation Reform for the New Order (the term reform is changed below), respectively.
The three examples make it evident that this respectful article is not personal. I consider the opinion of those leaders of the power industry as being restricted, whether they know it or not. For that reason, I think their recent opinions require careful and serious inquiry. As my comments on the opinions of the two last professionals can be found in the mentioned EWPC articles, the remainder concentrates on Dr. Lee’s opinion in said presentation.
It seems that leading to “… an Objective Assessment for the Potential for Smart Transmission and the Path to Achieve it,” is based on yet another incremental (reform like) supply side extension of the IOUs Regulatory Framework. As those who follow this blog know, from earlier interchanges, I have mistakenly been calling for reform, when I should have known it must be actually a revolution.
The necessary revolution (just as Peter Senge’s book) is a paradigm shift to the emergent truly holistic EWPC Regulatory Framework, to help also develop and integrate the highly undeveloped resources of the demand side to power system planning, operations, and control. Based on those considerations, I propose that all EPRI’s professional needs to becoming aware as soon as possible of the need to get out of the IOUs box to join the necessary EWPC revolution.
The key institution of the EWPC Regulatory revolution, to coordinate, develop, and help integrate demand, is the Second Generation Retailer (2GR) and not the Virtual Service Aggregator of slide 16 in the presentation. There is a need for real people responsible for demand commitments to handle financial settlements of net differences and do all other required institutional activities.
I strongly believe the demand side is the essential holistic part (missing in his opinion), where most of the value creation is bound to occur with the help of 2GRs in the next decade to get to the new productivity plateau. I try to explain ongoing opportunities during the transformation in the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI).
In fact, the above mentioned value creation is already in the work at the edge, where IOUs are not getting a piece of the action. However, the lack of coordination with power system expansion planning hints for important savings to be reaped by 2GRs. That value creation is summarized in the EWPC article Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy, with “Just as everybody else, power industry investors win by changing their IOUs paradigm mental model. Well in agreement with the insights of three DOE’s Electricity Advisory Committee reports, a transformation to the end-state of the power industry, for quite some time, is the EWPC paradigm that allows the application of two crucial socioeconomic insights.”
As another important industry example, I see that the “Case for Transformation” posted by the Galvin Electricity Initiative (GEI) seems to greatly differ, as do revolution and reform, from the supply side reform transformation that he presented at the mentioned seminar. Is that so and why?
The reason for that question to RPRI professionals is the reference to the Electricity Sector Framework for the Future: Achieving a 21st Century Transformation, Electric Power Research Institute, August 6, 2003. Is that presentation in accordance with that framework?
In addition, please correct me if I am wrong, I read that 90% of all customers’ service interruptions are due to distribution and not to transmission. In the same GEI post the Cost of Power Disturbances to Businesses (billions of dollars, 1996) is expected to increase from 100 to 200 from 2000 to 2025, respectively, in the business as usual case and they expect a 90% reduction to only 20 with the Smart Grid. How to explain EPRI’s concentration in transmission and none mentioned for distribution?
EPRI's professionals have a very large responsibility to the the U.S. and the world. As Paul Revere, in the American Revolution, the EWPC Necessary Revolution is set in blogs, in the territory of the Energy Central Network as New england, and Twitter as my horse, I hope that this mid-night ride message gets to people where they belong.
Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
EWPC Systems’ Architect
First posted in the GMH Blog, on April 3rd, 2009.
Copyright © 2009 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
Everyone should know that the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is controlled by the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) that are the key status quo protectors. This is very important now that EPRI has been retained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to be in charge of a part of the Smart Grid standardization work.
As the standards might be adopted as IEC global standards, such standardization may have a large adverse impact in the global power industry and so its sustainability, as opposed to its collapse, depends on valuable and unquestionable professional advice to seek the common good. The large value destruction in the making deserves a closer look to understand that the process will not enable maximum social welfare as we will see next.
In one of the key messages of a presentation, referred to in the post US-China Green Energy Council Smart Grid Seminar, Steven Lee, Senior Technical Executive, Power Delivery and Utilization, EPRI, advises for a holistic vision to “consider all parts together.” He in fact takes into consideration all the parts of the Investor IOUs Regulatory Framework, which considers demand as an externality. The demand exclusion is bound to be a very costly mistake, which leaders need to be aware of, as it is explained in the EWPC post Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?
Two other recent examples that also remain inside the IOUs Regulatory Framework are the opinions of Omar Siddiqui, Program Manager, Energy Utilization, EPRI, and Bernard Neenan, Technical Executive, EPRI, which can be found in the EWPC articles Does DSI Achieve a Much Larger Potential than DSM? and Balanced Market Regulation Reform for the New Order (the term reform is changed below), respectively.
The three examples make it evident that this respectful article is not personal. I consider the opinion of those leaders of the power industry as being restricted, whether they know it or not. For that reason, I think their recent opinions require careful and serious inquiry. As my comments on the opinions of the two last professionals can be found in the mentioned EWPC articles, the remainder concentrates on Dr. Lee’s opinion in said presentation.
It seems that leading to “… an Objective Assessment for the Potential for Smart Transmission and the Path to Achieve it,” is based on yet another incremental (reform like) supply side extension of the IOUs Regulatory Framework. As those who follow this blog know, from earlier interchanges, I have mistakenly been calling for reform, when I should have known it must be actually a revolution.
The necessary revolution (just as Peter Senge’s book) is a paradigm shift to the emergent truly holistic EWPC Regulatory Framework, to help also develop and integrate the highly undeveloped resources of the demand side to power system planning, operations, and control. Based on those considerations, I propose that all EPRI’s professional needs to becoming aware as soon as possible of the need to get out of the IOUs box to join the necessary EWPC revolution.
The key institution of the EWPC Regulatory revolution, to coordinate, develop, and help integrate demand, is the Second Generation Retailer (2GR) and not the Virtual Service Aggregator of slide 16 in the presentation. There is a need for real people responsible for demand commitments to handle financial settlements of net differences and do all other required institutional activities.
I strongly believe the demand side is the essential holistic part (missing in his opinion), where most of the value creation is bound to occur with the help of 2GRs in the next decade to get to the new productivity plateau. I try to explain ongoing opportunities during the transformation in the EWPC article Forget Demand Side management (DSM); Think Demand Side Innovation (DSI).
In fact, the above mentioned value creation is already in the work at the edge, where IOUs are not getting a piece of the action. However, the lack of coordination with power system expansion planning hints for important savings to be reaped by 2GRs. That value creation is summarized in the EWPC article Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy, with “Just as everybody else, power industry investors win by changing their IOUs paradigm mental model. Well in agreement with the insights of three DOE’s Electricity Advisory Committee reports, a transformation to the end-state of the power industry, for quite some time, is the EWPC paradigm that allows the application of two crucial socioeconomic insights.”
As another important industry example, I see that the “Case for Transformation” posted by the Galvin Electricity Initiative (GEI) seems to greatly differ, as do revolution and reform, from the supply side reform transformation that he presented at the mentioned seminar. Is that so and why?
The reason for that question to RPRI professionals is the reference to the Electricity Sector Framework for the Future: Achieving a 21st Century Transformation, Electric Power Research Institute, August 6, 2003. Is that presentation in accordance with that framework?
In addition, please correct me if I am wrong, I read that 90% of all customers’ service interruptions are due to distribution and not to transmission. In the same GEI post the Cost of Power Disturbances to Businesses (billions of dollars, 1996) is expected to increase from 100 to 200 from 2000 to 2025, respectively, in the business as usual case and they expect a 90% reduction to only 20 with the Smart Grid. How to explain EPRI’s concentration in transmission and none mentioned for distribution?
EPRI's professionals have a very large responsibility to the the U.S. and the world. As Paul Revere, in the American Revolution, the EWPC Necessary Revolution is set in blogs, in the territory of the Energy Central Network as New england, and Twitter as my horse, I hope that this mid-night ride message gets to people where they belong.
¿Cómo ir por Última Vez al FMI?
Observación: si recibió este mensaje en uno de los Grupos 1 al 9 y 0 solo BCc y quiere respondeme, hágalo a javs@ieee.org, porque hay un error en la dirección del envío.
Por crisis mundial, RD deberá caer en el Fondo es una interesante noticia publicada por Hoy Digital, escrita por: ISAOLYM MIESES (mailto:i.mieses@hoy.com.do). El subtitular presagia "RD necesita más que nunca un acuerdo con el FMI, pero tendrá que cumplir con requisitos previos." ¿Estarán esos requisitos previos asociados al Sector Eléctrico?
Veamos como podemos cumplirlos, y así evitar seguir cayendo en el fondo, en el siguiente comentario:
Por crisis mundial, RD deberá caer en el Fondo es una interesante noticia publicada por Hoy Digital, escrita por: ISAOLYM MIESES (mailto:i.mieses@hoy.com.do). El subtitular presagia "RD necesita más que nunca un acuerdo con el FMI, pero tendrá que cumplir con requisitos previos." ¿Estarán esos requisitos previos asociados al Sector Eléctrico?
Veamos como podemos cumplirlos, y así evitar seguir cayendo en el fondo, en el siguiente comentario:
El titular es muy atractivo porque tiene doble sentido. De estar blindada la economía ahora vamos a caer en el fondo.
Humildemente creo que como sociedad nos hace mucha falta comprender el mensaje "...del premio Nóbel de la Paz 1987 y presidente de la República de Costa Rica, Sr. Óscar Arias, en la Cumbre de las Américas, Trinidad y Tobago, el 18 de abril del 2009," que retitulé como "Hagámoslo Bien de Ahora en Adelante" y que pueden leer pulsando en enlace de Internet http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/2009/05/hagamoslo-bien-de-ahora-en-adelante.html
Para hacerlo bien, podemos empezar con el sector eléctrico, cuyo esfuerzo está sumamente avanzado, apoyando la iniciativa "República Dominicana Un País Sin Apagomes" (RDUPSA) como se puede observar en la Bitácora Digital del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH) pulsando el enlace http://grupomillenium.blogspot.com/También pueden verla en Twitter, por medio el usuario gmh_upsa pulsando el enlace http://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
Hagámoslo Bien de Ahora en Adelante
Palabras del premio Nóbel de la Paz 1987 y presidente de la República de Costa Rica, Sr. Óscar Arias, en la Cumbre de las Américas, Trinidad y Tobago, el 18 de abril del 2009:
ALGO HICIMOS MAL
Tengo la impresión de que cada vez que los países caribeños y latinoamericanos se reúnen con el presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, es para pedirle cosas o para reclamarle cosas. Casi siempre, es para culpar a Estados Unidos de nuestros males pasados, presentes y futuros. No creo que eso sea del todo justo.
No podemos olvidar que América Latina tuvo universidades antes de que Estados Unidos creara Harvard y William & Mary, que son las primeras universidades de ese país. No podemos olvidar que en este continente, como en el mundo entero, por lo menos hasta 1750 todos los americanos eran más o menos iguales: todos eran pobres.
Cuando aparece la Revolución Industrial en Inglaterra, otros países se montan en ese vagón: Alemania, Francia, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda… y así la Revolución Industrial pasó por América Latina como un cometa, y no nos dimos cuenta. Ciertamente perdimos la oportunidad.
También hay una diferencia muy grande. Leyendo la historia de América Latina, comparada con la historia de Estados Unidos, uno comprende que Latinoamérica no tuvo un John Winthrop español, ni portugués, que viniera con la Biblia en su mano dispuesto a construir “una Ciudad sobre una Colina”, una ciudad que brillara, como fue la pretensión de los peregrinos que llegaron a Estados Unidos.
Hace 50 años, México era más rico que Portugal. En 1950, un país como Brasil tenía un ingreso per cápita más elevado que el de Corea del Sur. Hace 60 años, Honduras tenía más riqueza per cápita que Singapur, y hoy Singapur – en cuestión de 35 ó 40 años – es un país con $40.000 de ingreso anual por habitante. Bueno, algo hicimos mal los latinoamericanos.
¿Qué hicimos mal? No puedo enumerar todas las cosas que hemos hecho mal. Para comenzar, tenemos una escolaridad de 7 años. Esa es la escolaridad promedio de América Latina y no es el caso de la mayoría de los países asiáticos. Ciertamente no es el caso de países como Estados Unidos y Canadá, con la mejor educación del mundo, similar a la de los europeos. De cada 10 estudiantes que ingresan a la secundaria en América Latina, en algunos países solo uno termina esa secundaria. Hay países que tienen una mortalidad infantil de 50 niños por cada mil, cuando el promedio en los países asiáticos más avanzados es de 8, 9 ó 10.
Nosotros tenemos países donde la carga tributaria es del 12% del producto interno bruto, y no es responsabilidad de nadie, excepto la nuestra, que no le cobremos dinero a la gente más rica de nuestros países. Nadie tiene la culpa de eso, excepto nosotros mismos.
En 1950, cada ciudadano norteamericano era cuatro veces más rico que un ciudadano latinoamericano. Hoy en día, un ciudadano norteamericano es 10, 15 ó 20 veces más rico que un latinoamericano. Eso no es culpa de Estados Unidos, es culpa nuestra.
En mi intervención de esta mañana, me referí a un hecho que para mí es grotesco, y que lo único que demuestra es que el sistema de valores del siglo XX, que parece ser el que estamos poniendo en práctica también en el siglo XXI, es un sistema de valores equivocado. Porque no puede ser que el mundo rico dedique 100.000 millones de dólares para aliviar la pobreza del 80% de la población del mundo –en un planeta que tiene 2.500 millones de seres humanos con un ingreso de $2 por día– y que gaste 13 veces más ($1.300.000.000.000) en armas y soldados.
Como lo dije esta mañana, no puede ser que América Latina se gaste $50.000 millones en armas y soldados. Yo me pregunto: ¿quién es el enemigo nuestro? El enemigo nuestro, presidente Correa, de esa desigualdad que usted apunta con mucha razón, es la falta de educación; es el analfabetismo; es que no gastamos en la salud de nuestro pueblo; que no creamos la infraestructura necesaria, los caminos, las carreteras, los puertos, los aeropuertos; que no estamos dedicando los recursos necesarios para detener la degradación del medio ambiente; es la desigualdad que tenemos, que realmente nos avergüenza; es producto, entre muchas cosas, por supuesto, de que no estamos educando a nuestros hijos y a nuestras hijas.
Uno va a una universidad latinoamericana y todavía parece que estamos en los sesenta, setenta u ochenta. Parece que se nos olvidó que el 9 de noviembre de 1989 pasó algo muy importante, al caer el Muro de Berlín, y que el mundo cambió. Tenemos que aceptar que este es un mundo distinto, y en eso francamente pienso que todos los académicos, que toda la gente de pensamiento, que todos los economistas, que todos los historiadores, casi que coinciden en que el siglo XXI es el siglo de los asiáticos, no de los latinoamericanos. Y yo, lamentablemente, coincido con ellos. Porque mientras nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías, seguimos discutiendo sobre todos los “ismos” (¿cuál es el mejor? capitalismo, socialismo, comunismo, liberalismo, neoliberalismo, socialcristianismo...), los asiáticos encontraron un “ismo” muy realista para el siglo XXI y el final del siglo XX, que es el pragmatismo.
Para solo citar un ejemplo, recordemos que cuando Deng Xiaoping visitó Singapur y Corea del Sur, después de haberse dado cuenta de que sus propios vecinos se estaban enriqueciendo de una manera muy acelerada, regresó a Pekín y dijo a los viejos camaradas maoístas que lo habían acompañado en la Larga Marcha: “Bueno, la verdad, queridos camaradas, es que mí no me importa si el gato es blanco o negro, lo único que me interesa es que cace ratones” . Y si hubiera estado vivo Mao, se hubiera muerto de nuevo cuando dijo que “la verdad es que enriquecerse es glorioso." Y mientras los chinos hacen esto, y desde el 79 a hoy crecen a un 11%, 12% o 13%, y han sacado a 300 millones de habitantes de la pobreza, nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías que tuvimos que haber enterrado hace mucho tiempo atrás.
La buena noticia es que esto lo logró Deng Xioping cuando tenía 74 años. Viendo alrededor, queridos presidentes, no veo a nadie que esté cerca de los 74 años. Por eso solo les pido que no esperemos a cumplirlos para hacer los cambios que tenemos que hacer.
Muchas gracias.
Oscar Arias
ALGO HICIMOS MAL
Tengo la impresión de que cada vez que los países caribeños y latinoamericanos se reúnen con el presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, es para pedirle cosas o para reclamarle cosas. Casi siempre, es para culpar a Estados Unidos de nuestros males pasados, presentes y futuros. No creo que eso sea del todo justo.
No podemos olvidar que América Latina tuvo universidades antes de que Estados Unidos creara Harvard y William & Mary, que son las primeras universidades de ese país. No podemos olvidar que en este continente, como en el mundo entero, por lo menos hasta 1750 todos los americanos eran más o menos iguales: todos eran pobres.
Cuando aparece la Revolución Industrial en Inglaterra, otros países se montan en ese vagón: Alemania, Francia, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Nueva Zelanda… y así la Revolución Industrial pasó por América Latina como un cometa, y no nos dimos cuenta. Ciertamente perdimos la oportunidad.
También hay una diferencia muy grande. Leyendo la historia de América Latina, comparada con la historia de Estados Unidos, uno comprende que Latinoamérica no tuvo un John Winthrop español, ni portugués, que viniera con la Biblia en su mano dispuesto a construir “una Ciudad sobre una Colina”, una ciudad que brillara, como fue la pretensión de los peregrinos que llegaron a Estados Unidos.
Hace 50 años, México era más rico que Portugal. En 1950, un país como Brasil tenía un ingreso per cápita más elevado que el de Corea del Sur. Hace 60 años, Honduras tenía más riqueza per cápita que Singapur, y hoy Singapur – en cuestión de 35 ó 40 años – es un país con $40.000 de ingreso anual por habitante. Bueno, algo hicimos mal los latinoamericanos.
¿Qué hicimos mal? No puedo enumerar todas las cosas que hemos hecho mal. Para comenzar, tenemos una escolaridad de 7 años. Esa es la escolaridad promedio de América Latina y no es el caso de la mayoría de los países asiáticos. Ciertamente no es el caso de países como Estados Unidos y Canadá, con la mejor educación del mundo, similar a la de los europeos. De cada 10 estudiantes que ingresan a la secundaria en América Latina, en algunos países solo uno termina esa secundaria. Hay países que tienen una mortalidad infantil de 50 niños por cada mil, cuando el promedio en los países asiáticos más avanzados es de 8, 9 ó 10.
Nosotros tenemos países donde la carga tributaria es del 12% del producto interno bruto, y no es responsabilidad de nadie, excepto la nuestra, que no le cobremos dinero a la gente más rica de nuestros países. Nadie tiene la culpa de eso, excepto nosotros mismos.
En 1950, cada ciudadano norteamericano era cuatro veces más rico que un ciudadano latinoamericano. Hoy en día, un ciudadano norteamericano es 10, 15 ó 20 veces más rico que un latinoamericano. Eso no es culpa de Estados Unidos, es culpa nuestra.
En mi intervención de esta mañana, me referí a un hecho que para mí es grotesco, y que lo único que demuestra es que el sistema de valores del siglo XX, que parece ser el que estamos poniendo en práctica también en el siglo XXI, es un sistema de valores equivocado. Porque no puede ser que el mundo rico dedique 100.000 millones de dólares para aliviar la pobreza del 80% de la población del mundo –en un planeta que tiene 2.500 millones de seres humanos con un ingreso de $2 por día– y que gaste 13 veces más ($1.300.000.000.000) en armas y soldados.
Como lo dije esta mañana, no puede ser que América Latina se gaste $50.000 millones en armas y soldados. Yo me pregunto: ¿quién es el enemigo nuestro? El enemigo nuestro, presidente Correa, de esa desigualdad que usted apunta con mucha razón, es la falta de educación; es el analfabetismo; es que no gastamos en la salud de nuestro pueblo; que no creamos la infraestructura necesaria, los caminos, las carreteras, los puertos, los aeropuertos; que no estamos dedicando los recursos necesarios para detener la degradación del medio ambiente; es la desigualdad que tenemos, que realmente nos avergüenza; es producto, entre muchas cosas, por supuesto, de que no estamos educando a nuestros hijos y a nuestras hijas.
Uno va a una universidad latinoamericana y todavía parece que estamos en los sesenta, setenta u ochenta. Parece que se nos olvidó que el 9 de noviembre de 1989 pasó algo muy importante, al caer el Muro de Berlín, y que el mundo cambió. Tenemos que aceptar que este es un mundo distinto, y en eso francamente pienso que todos los académicos, que toda la gente de pensamiento, que todos los economistas, que todos los historiadores, casi que coinciden en que el siglo XXI es el siglo de los asiáticos, no de los latinoamericanos. Y yo, lamentablemente, coincido con ellos. Porque mientras nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías, seguimos discutiendo sobre todos los “ismos” (¿cuál es el mejor? capitalismo, socialismo, comunismo, liberalismo, neoliberalismo, socialcristianismo...), los asiáticos encontraron un “ismo” muy realista para el siglo XXI y el final del siglo XX, que es el pragmatismo.
Para solo citar un ejemplo, recordemos que cuando Deng Xiaoping visitó Singapur y Corea del Sur, después de haberse dado cuenta de que sus propios vecinos se estaban enriqueciendo de una manera muy acelerada, regresó a Pekín y dijo a los viejos camaradas maoístas que lo habían acompañado en la Larga Marcha: “Bueno, la verdad, queridos camaradas, es que mí no me importa si el gato es blanco o negro, lo único que me interesa es que cace ratones” . Y si hubiera estado vivo Mao, se hubiera muerto de nuevo cuando dijo que “la verdad es que enriquecerse es glorioso." Y mientras los chinos hacen esto, y desde el 79 a hoy crecen a un 11%, 12% o 13%, y han sacado a 300 millones de habitantes de la pobreza, nosotros seguimos discutiendo sobre ideologías que tuvimos que haber enterrado hace mucho tiempo atrás.
La buena noticia es que esto lo logró Deng Xioping cuando tenía 74 años. Viendo alrededor, queridos presidentes, no veo a nadie que esté cerca de los 74 años. Por eso solo les pido que no esperemos a cumplirlos para hacer los cambios que tenemos que hacer.
Muchas gracias.
Oscar Arias
jueves, abril 30, 2009
Why President Obama Needs to Keep Working on Energy
'Pleased, but not satisfied' Energy crops up at Obama’s 100-day press conference is the commentary posted on 29 Apr 2009 by Kate Sheppard in the GRIST website. This is my comment:
Besides the high level of complexity of the power industry, it is important to understand the root cause of why President Barak Obama mentions “energy among the issues they need to keep working on.” The root cause is a flaw at outset of power restructuring. The flaw was not to accept that the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Framework was not longer useful, because its monopolistic business model of IOUs winning rate cases to state regulators was plain obsolete. There has been a need since EPAct 92 for business model innovations in the open market.
Power industry restructuring was set for wholesale competition, which resulted in congestion and price spikes, as the rule economy first (E1), power system performance second (P2), was applied. Soon enough a fix was found with the introduction of capacity markets, which essentially meant a counter reform towards the IOUs Framework.
Organized wholesale markets have been operating in several jurisdictions of North America with the E1P2 rule. Even less of those jurisdictions are actually implementing retail markets. The COMPETE Coalition seems to be happy that those retail market should depend on the corresponding wholesale markets.
The majority of states of the union have kept the IOUs Framework without such organized wholesale markets. That signals a failure of the reforms which are now more than a decade old.
Smart Grid designs based on the E1P2 rule suggest that every customer should have a smart meter in order to participate in the real-time market. Such a rule may induce an excessive investment which may be subject to early obsolescence, especially if the smart meters are the result of huge bets by state regulators.
The IOUs Framework incremental extensions based on the E1P2 rule is also the basis for IOUs and state officials for finding that DOE ceiling for grant funds are insufficient.
The Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Framework is based on the reversed P1E2 rule. The performance first has its origin in the ultraquality imperative of system architecture of space flight vehicles, nuclear power stations, and complex industrial installations.
P1 is what allows the emerging whole power industry to be separated into a regulated high performing power system (with neither congestion nor price spikes) and an open market on the value chain, generation, retail, prosumer.
After operations planning, demand and supply commitments and security constraint spot pricing, in time and space, are set. Deviations at the real-time operations balancing market result in economic transactions that are the responsibility of the supply and demand wholesale market agents.
Under EWPC wholesale and retail markets mutually reinforce each other, without the need for capacity markets. Second generation retail markets concentrate on the development of the resources of the demand side to enable such reinforcement. Below, please find the 10 most recent EWPC Framework articles which try to answer many key issues going forward:
The Truly Smart Grid
It is now very easy to answer Mark Sardella, PE, Writer, Local Energy News, question Smart Grids: How Smart? Look at the most recent series of post under his article and you will also become aware where we should be heading.
Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?
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...
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: Bala...
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 dis...
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 ne...
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...
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 ch...
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...
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,...
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 Oma...
Besides the high level of complexity of the power industry, it is important to understand the root cause of why President Barak Obama mentions “energy among the issues they need to keep working on.” The root cause is a flaw at outset of power restructuring. The flaw was not to accept that the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Framework was not longer useful, because its monopolistic business model of IOUs winning rate cases to state regulators was plain obsolete. There has been a need since EPAct 92 for business model innovations in the open market.
Power industry restructuring was set for wholesale competition, which resulted in congestion and price spikes, as the rule economy first (E1), power system performance second (P2), was applied. Soon enough a fix was found with the introduction of capacity markets, which essentially meant a counter reform towards the IOUs Framework.
Organized wholesale markets have been operating in several jurisdictions of North America with the E1P2 rule. Even less of those jurisdictions are actually implementing retail markets. The COMPETE Coalition seems to be happy that those retail market should depend on the corresponding wholesale markets.
The majority of states of the union have kept the IOUs Framework without such organized wholesale markets. That signals a failure of the reforms which are now more than a decade old.
Smart Grid designs based on the E1P2 rule suggest that every customer should have a smart meter in order to participate in the real-time market. Such a rule may induce an excessive investment which may be subject to early obsolescence, especially if the smart meters are the result of huge bets by state regulators.
The IOUs Framework incremental extensions based on the E1P2 rule is also the basis for IOUs and state officials for finding that DOE ceiling for grant funds are insufficient.
The Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Framework is based on the reversed P1E2 rule. The performance first has its origin in the ultraquality imperative of system architecture of space flight vehicles, nuclear power stations, and complex industrial installations.
P1 is what allows the emerging whole power industry to be separated into a regulated high performing power system (with neither congestion nor price spikes) and an open market on the value chain, generation, retail, prosumer.
After operations planning, demand and supply commitments and security constraint spot pricing, in time and space, are set. Deviations at the real-time operations balancing market result in economic transactions that are the responsibility of the supply and demand wholesale market agents.
Under EWPC wholesale and retail markets mutually reinforce each other, without the need for capacity markets. Second generation retail markets concentrate on the development of the resources of the demand side to enable such reinforcement. Below, please find the 10 most recent EWPC Framework articles which try to answer many key issues going forward:
The Truly Smart Grid
It is now very easy to answer Mark Sardella, PE, Writer, Local Energy News, question Smart Grids: How Smart? Look at the most recent series of post under his article and you will also become aware where we should be heading.
Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?
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...
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: Bala...
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 dis...
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 ne...
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...
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 ch...
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...
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,...
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 Oma...
EWPC: Servicio Individual y Competitivo Justo al Menor Costo
A continuación una selección de notas, ordenada empezando por la más reciente, hasta aquella que contiene el reto del Señor Pepin Corripio, que ofrecen una solución innovadora a la crisis sistémica del sector eléctrico, que requiere una profundización de la reforma de monopolios de comercialización a la competencia justa en comercialización.
Respuesta a El Día: Si Podemos, Enfrentando el Status Quo
24 Apr 2009 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. ...
Editorial El Día Digital: ¿Por qué no podemos?
24 Apr 2009 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 ya un costo razonable. ...
eMail Enviado - Electricidad: Respuesta al Banco Mundial
23 Apr 2009 PhD 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 ...
Precios Bajos NO Garantizan Costos Bajos
17 Apr 2009 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 ...
eMail Enviado: ¿Debe Comité Presidendial Impulsar Prueba EWPC?
7 Apr 2009 Estimados líderes, Muchas gracias a César Félíz por apoyar, al igual que la AEIH y Edwin Croes, la prueba de la EWPC con base a un proyecto piloto. Para agilizar la decisión de la prueba, la gran pregunta institucional, que entiendo ...
eMail Enviado: Panel Tema Eléctrico y Equilibrio Regulación-Mercado
6 Apr 2009
Estimados líderes, Cortésmente, les informo que el pasado 2 de abril, ...
Reinvención Eléctrica en Puerto Rico
6 Apr 2009 He recibido la noticia Junte industrial por la energía, con el subtitulo "Crean un grupo para impulsar la reinvención energética en la Isla," que fue publicada por en El Nuevo Día de Puerto Rico, bajo la firma de Marie Custodio Collazo ...
eMails Enviados - Edwin Croes: Total Acuerdo Probar EWPC
4 Apr 2009 Estimado Edwin, Muchas gracias por tu total apoyo de poner a prueba la EWPC. En consonancia con el mensaje que tomé prestado de Bernardo Vega: “Rahm Emmanuel, el jefe de los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca y principal asesor del ...
Sería Terrible Desperdiciar la Oportunidad de la Crisis
2 Apr 2009
El Comité Presidencial para el Fortalecimiento del Sector Eléctrico necesita asumir junto al Presidente Fernández el liderazgo para apoyar un proyecto piloto que he vislumbrado a realizarse en un circuito con el fin de no desperdiciar ...
eMail Enviado: Respuesta a 4 Preguntas en Duarte101
26 Mar 2009
Estimados líderes, Como recordarán, el 19 de marzo les envié un mensaje con el asunto “Energía eléctrica eficiente en Blog Duarte101,” el cual decía lo siguiente: En respuesta proactiva al Tweet “Sr., ¿sería tan amable en enviarnos un ...
Respuesta a 4 Preguntas en Duarte101
26 Mar 2009 Energía eléctrica eficiente (enlace a pulsar si se desea ver el artículo y los comentarios en la versión original en Duarte101.com) 19 Marzo 2009 : 4:52 pm Joan Guerrero 119 views El problema de la energía eléctrica lleva décadas en ...
Una Reforma Con Visión de Estado
24 Mar 2009 Debajo del Editorial de Hoy Digital, del 24 de marzo del 2009, Extrememos la prevención, coloqué el siguiente mensaje: Sin querer despreciar la primera parte del Editorial, apoyo en todo sus términos la segunda parte del mismo que versa ...
Reformas Emergentes para Evitar Violencia
20 Mar 2009
En respuesta a la noticia RD tiene alto riesgo de inestabilidad política, según The Economist, publicada en Clave Digital, hemos colocado el siguiente comentario: Este alto nivel de riesgo es una señal de un orden emergente. ...
eMail Enviado: Energía Eléctrica Eficiente en Blog Duarte101
19 Mar 2009 Estimados líderes, En respuesta proactiva al Tweet “@gmh_upsa Sr., ¿sería tan amable en enviarnos un breve artículo (3 párrafos) sobre cómo RD puede ser exitoso en materia de energía? Gracias,” luego de preparar y enviarles el artículo ...
Electricidad al Mínimo Costo con Servicio Individual al Cliente Final.
19 Mar 2009 Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad Arquitecto del Sistema EWPC Semilla Orgánica del GMH 19 de marzo, 2009 © José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Todos los derechos reservados. ...
Con Apagones Arbitrarios NO Habrá Competitividad
12 Mar 2009 En la noticia Entidades piden resultados y cumplir lo acordado, antes segunda fase Cumbre, escrita por Rosa Alcántara para Hoy Digital, Marisol Vicens, "La presidenta de la Confederación Patronal Dominicana (Copardom) dijo que hay ...
Grupo Millennium Hispaniola: Vendamos Reservas Eléctricas a Puerto ...
11 Mar 2009
Vendamos Reservas Eléctricas a Puerto Rico. En la nota Plan de Nación sin la Quimera de la Electricidad Barata, destacamos las grandes oportunidades ...
Hagamos Competente Producción Local
8 Mar 2009 En Hoy Digital se cita al Presidente Fernández diciendo que "... estamos compelidos en el corto y mediano plazo a la realización de un ajuste de nuestro actual modelo de desarrollo económico y social, a los fines de que apoye, ...
La Proyección de la Demanda es Siempre Equivocada
4 Mar 2009
La Proyección de la Demanda es Siempre Equivocada. Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad ...
Propuesta Futuro Electricidad a la Cumbre de las Fuerzas Vivas
28 Feb 2009
A todos los interesados en la sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico, Primero que todo un cordial saludo, luego de agotada la celebración de la independencia en un mundo interdependiente. Segundo, y muy cortésmente, espero poder divulgar ...
RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL SECTOR ELECTRICO
28 Feb 2009 Borrador para Discusión A la atención de los consumidores (más adelante), las distribuidoras, los generadores diesel (las minicomputadoras del sector eléctrico) y otros que se ...
Propuesta Sector Comercial en Electricidad e Hidrocarburos
1 Feb 2009 Propuesta Sector Comercial en Electricidad e Hidrocarburos. Propuesta del sector comercial de la electricidad sin apagones arbitrarios. ...
¿Tasa de Cambio Competitiva? con Transparencia Sector Eléctrico
5 Jan 2009
Yo no soy economista profesional, pero tengo una buena experiencia en el pensamiento ...
Lectura Obligada: Innovación Institucional Emergente
5 Jan 2009 ... “…que en la zona de Borojol hay casi 90 imprentas, en Sabaneta hay 150 pequeñas fábricas de quesos y en Villa Mella, en la Capital, hay un grupo de más de 150 mujeres empresarias, productoras de casabe, que son miembros del Conep…
Introducción a la Economía de los Servicios Eléctricos
25 Dec 2008 Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad Arquitecto Principal de la EWPC Semilla Orgánica del GMH 25 de diciembre, 2008 La República Dominicana tiene prácticamente todo lo que se necesita para ...
Feliz Navidad e Inicio en 2009 a un Futuro sin Apagones Arbitrarios
22 Dec 2008
A todos los clientes regulados del servicio eléctrico dominicano: El Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH), en formación, desea a todos ustedes que la Comisión Presidencial para el Fortalecimiento del Sector Eléctrico, creada por decreto, ...
Listín Diario: La Solución del Problema Eléctrico
2 Dec 2008 Columna: La Escuela Económica Por Esteban Delgado Sé que nunca seré presidente de la República, aunque no es imposible. Sin embargo, si yo dirigiera los destinos del país me concentraría en una sola área, que de ser solucionada me va a ...
Respondiendo al Reto de Pepín Corripio
19 Nov 2008 De acuerdo a Adriana Peguero, en la noticia Apagones y Educación Limitan Competitividad, el empresario José Luis Corripio Estrada (Pepín) aseguró que “El gobierno que logre superar el problema energético y de la educación, ...
Respuesta a El Día: Si Podemos, Enfrentando el Status Quo
24 Apr 2009 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. ...
Editorial El Día Digital: ¿Por qué no podemos?
24 Apr 2009 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 ya un costo razonable. ...
eMail Enviado - Electricidad: Respuesta al Banco Mundial
23 Apr 2009 PhD 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 ...
Precios Bajos NO Garantizan Costos Bajos
17 Apr 2009 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 ...
eMail Enviado: ¿Debe Comité Presidendial Impulsar Prueba EWPC?
7 Apr 2009 Estimados líderes, Muchas gracias a César Félíz por apoyar, al igual que la AEIH y Edwin Croes, la prueba de la EWPC con base a un proyecto piloto. Para agilizar la decisión de la prueba, la gran pregunta institucional, que entiendo ...
eMail Enviado: Panel Tema Eléctrico y Equilibrio Regulación-Mercado
6 Apr 2009
Estimados líderes, Cortésmente, les informo que el pasado 2 de abril, ...
Reinvención Eléctrica en Puerto Rico
6 Apr 2009 He recibido la noticia Junte industrial por la energía, con el subtitulo "Crean un grupo para impulsar la reinvención energética en la Isla," que fue publicada por en El Nuevo Día de Puerto Rico, bajo la firma de Marie Custodio Collazo ...
eMails Enviados - Edwin Croes: Total Acuerdo Probar EWPC
4 Apr 2009 Estimado Edwin, Muchas gracias por tu total apoyo de poner a prueba la EWPC. En consonancia con el mensaje que tomé prestado de Bernardo Vega: “Rahm Emmanuel, el jefe de los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca y principal asesor del ...
Sería Terrible Desperdiciar la Oportunidad de la Crisis
2 Apr 2009
El Comité Presidencial para el Fortalecimiento del Sector Eléctrico necesita asumir junto al Presidente Fernández el liderazgo para apoyar un proyecto piloto que he vislumbrado a realizarse en un circuito con el fin de no desperdiciar ...
eMail Enviado: Respuesta a 4 Preguntas en Duarte101
26 Mar 2009
Estimados líderes, Como recordarán, el 19 de marzo les envié un mensaje con el asunto “Energía eléctrica eficiente en Blog Duarte101,” el cual decía lo siguiente: En respuesta proactiva al Tweet “Sr., ¿sería tan amable en enviarnos un ...
Respuesta a 4 Preguntas en Duarte101
26 Mar 2009 Energía eléctrica eficiente (enlace a pulsar si se desea ver el artículo y los comentarios en la versión original en Duarte101.com) 19 Marzo 2009 : 4:52 pm Joan Guerrero 119 views El problema de la energía eléctrica lleva décadas en ...
Una Reforma Con Visión de Estado
24 Mar 2009 Debajo del Editorial de Hoy Digital, del 24 de marzo del 2009, Extrememos la prevención, coloqué el siguiente mensaje: Sin querer despreciar la primera parte del Editorial, apoyo en todo sus términos la segunda parte del mismo que versa ...
Reformas Emergentes para Evitar Violencia
20 Mar 2009
En respuesta a la noticia RD tiene alto riesgo de inestabilidad política, según The Economist, publicada en Clave Digital, hemos colocado el siguiente comentario: Este alto nivel de riesgo es una señal de un orden emergente. ...
eMail Enviado: Energía Eléctrica Eficiente en Blog Duarte101
19 Mar 2009 Estimados líderes, En respuesta proactiva al Tweet “@gmh_upsa Sr., ¿sería tan amable en enviarnos un breve artículo (3 párrafos) sobre cómo RD puede ser exitoso en materia de energía? Gracias,” luego de preparar y enviarles el artículo ...
Electricidad al Mínimo Costo con Servicio Individual al Cliente Final.
19 Mar 2009 Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad Arquitecto del Sistema EWPC Semilla Orgánica del GMH 19 de marzo, 2009 © José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Todos los derechos reservados. ...
Con Apagones Arbitrarios NO Habrá Competitividad
12 Mar 2009 En la noticia Entidades piden resultados y cumplir lo acordado, antes segunda fase Cumbre, escrita por Rosa Alcántara para Hoy Digital, Marisol Vicens, "La presidenta de la Confederación Patronal Dominicana (Copardom) dijo que hay ...
Grupo Millennium Hispaniola: Vendamos Reservas Eléctricas a Puerto ...
11 Mar 2009
Vendamos Reservas Eléctricas a Puerto Rico. En la nota Plan de Nación sin la Quimera de la Electricidad Barata, destacamos las grandes oportunidades ...
Hagamos Competente Producción Local
8 Mar 2009 En Hoy Digital se cita al Presidente Fernández diciendo que "... estamos compelidos en el corto y mediano plazo a la realización de un ajuste de nuestro actual modelo de desarrollo económico y social, a los fines de que apoye, ...
La Proyección de la Demanda es Siempre Equivocada
4 Mar 2009
La Proyección de la Demanda es Siempre Equivocada. Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad ...
Propuesta Futuro Electricidad a la Cumbre de las Fuerzas Vivas
28 Feb 2009
A todos los interesados en la sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico, Primero que todo un cordial saludo, luego de agotada la celebración de la independencia en un mundo interdependiente. Segundo, y muy cortésmente, espero poder divulgar ...
RECOMENDACIONES PARA LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DEL SECTOR ELECTRICO
28 Feb 2009 Borrador para Discusión A la atención de los consumidores (más adelante), las distribuidoras, los generadores diesel (las minicomputadoras del sector eléctrico) y otros que se ...
Propuesta Sector Comercial en Electricidad e Hidrocarburos
1 Feb 2009 Propuesta Sector Comercial en Electricidad e Hidrocarburos. Propuesta del sector comercial de la electricidad sin apagones arbitrarios. ...
¿Tasa de Cambio Competitiva? con Transparencia Sector Eléctrico
5 Jan 2009
Yo no soy economista profesional, pero tengo una buena experiencia en el pensamiento ...
Lectura Obligada: Innovación Institucional Emergente
5 Jan 2009 ... “…que en la zona de Borojol hay casi 90 imprentas, en Sabaneta hay 150 pequeñas fábricas de quesos y en Villa Mella, en la Capital, hay un grupo de más de 150 mujeres empresarias, productoras de casabe, que son miembros del Conep…
Introducción a la Economía de los Servicios Eléctricos
25 Dec 2008 Por José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D. Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad Arquitecto Principal de la EWPC Semilla Orgánica del GMH 25 de diciembre, 2008 La República Dominicana tiene prácticamente todo lo que se necesita para ...
Feliz Navidad e Inicio en 2009 a un Futuro sin Apagones Arbitrarios
22 Dec 2008
A todos los clientes regulados del servicio eléctrico dominicano: El Grupo Millennium Hispaniola (GMH), en formación, desea a todos ustedes que la Comisión Presidencial para el Fortalecimiento del Sector Eléctrico, creada por decreto, ...
Listín Diario: La Solución del Problema Eléctrico
2 Dec 2008 Columna: La Escuela Económica Por Esteban Delgado Sé que nunca seré presidente de la República, aunque no es imposible. Sin embargo, si yo dirigiera los destinos del país me concentraría en una sola área, que de ser solucionada me va a ...
Respondiendo al Reto de Pepín Corripio
19 Nov 2008 De acuerdo a Adriana Peguero, en la noticia Apagones y Educación Limitan Competitividad, el empresario José Luis Corripio Estrada (Pepín) aseguró que “El gobierno que logre superar el problema energético y de la educación, ...
martes, abril 28, 2009
The Trully Smart Grid
It is now very easy to answer Mark Sardella, PE, Writer, Local Energy News, question Smart Grids: How Smart? Look at the most recent series of post under his article and you will also become aware where we should be heading.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.26.09
Hi again,
If the grid is to become trully smart, I suggest to offer input asap to the meeting organized by NIST (and EPRI) for the standards workshop coming on April 28-29, at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, Virginia. This is my firts input, which I already posted under the EWPC article On Cyber Spies Threats: Keep Public Wires Regulation and go for Energy Markets (where comments might also be posted:
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
.................................................................................
Jerry Watson
4.26.09
Here is my belief not that it matters the Smart Grid will be expensive and the IOUs and other utilities will be allowed to earn a return on their investment. The fantasy of DG will not materialize on a significant scale and what does develop will be fully backed up by utility peaking units that the utilities are also collecting a return on. The net result will be higher electrical energy bills in the face current abundance of Nat Gas. Did everyone miss that the US has over twice as much recoverable Nat Gas as was believed two years ago. What does this mean? It means the US energy outlook is bright without more coal, nucs, renewables, or DG. For $45 million a generator can put a 45 millionwatt GE LM6000 unit in service that is a $1000 a KW with a 9300 simple cycle heat rate and $5 Nat gas it makes $60 power all in. Of course the utilities can beat that with heavy framed combined cycle at a 7500 (assumes cyclic operation) heat rate and still be around $1000 a KW in capital cost and make $50 power all in. Maybe I should try to collect funds and pay one of those little banner planes to fly around DC with sign saying hey we have a lot more Nat Gas than we thought.
On the bright side since combined cycle Nat Gas plants are efficient and extremely responsive even though they have a large efficiency loss at low loads they are great mates for renewables etc. I am convinced in the long term Nat Gas will rise. Nat Gas is a great fuel and old coal plants can be converted to burn it with little more than a pipe, burners and boiler tuning. Even building new plants is affordable. Its innate usefulness will drive its consumption and price up until it is in its normal zone cheaper than oil higher than coal. My guess is gas will hover between $7-9 per mmbtu after the new wears off the News we have a lot of it. Coal prices may even drop a little but with India’s and China’s unquenchable thirst for cheap fuel I do not see any drop long term drop in mining or greenhouse gas production. My conjecture is that every utility in the country has feelers out for long term Nat Gas. If supplies are such that enough of them get long term gas at $7 or below plans for both coal and nuc plants will be scrapped and we will see another wave of combined cycle Nat Gas construction like in 2001-2003.
One last point since sanity has returned to crude prices I think is safe to say peak oil was and is a ridiculous concept. Oil is very useful fuel actually the most useful since can be used to produce distillates that are liquids at ambient temperatures. I think it is safe to say the demand would be dozens of times current levels if it were free. Its usefulness like all resources is limited basically by its price. Reduced availability due to exhausted supply is still simply availability and has been a part of human existence since the controlled use of fire. Oil will continue to be used where it has the most value. To me it means the sub-Saharan Africans can look forward to starvation and actually face increased starvation and wealthy countries like the US will face recessions as more funds are drained away until the next equilibrium point is reached. Whether that point is Nuclear, Renewable or whatever I have no idea whether is 5 years or 20 years away again I do not know but I do know lots of Nat Gas in the US is short term great news for the US and its neighbors and should not be ignored. Maybe here in the US we should use this little window the fates have provided to make solid plans and smart decisions rather than dipping billions in Elmer’s glue and throwing them around to see if any of it sticks to good spot. Sadly, the dollars and trucks loaded with glue are already lined up for the slinging to begin.
I will chance to predict the future of the Smart Grid. It will basically be sliding rates based on time of day and time of year. The big winners will be utilities, consultants and software vendors. The losers will be ratepayers and taxpayers. The plans will look a lot like the current plans that most utilities offer except they will be mandatory. All and all the off peak prices will be slightly cheaper 75% of current cost the peak periods will 200% of current with random critical periods 600% the shoulder hours will be at the current levels. What this means if one organizes one’s life around his/her electric bill they will save 10%. The vast majority will pay 25% or so more and the utilities will keep it as return on the investment in the Smart Grid Technology.
.................................................................................
Bob Amorosi
4.27.09
Jerry,
Your last paragraph describes quite closely the spread of mandatory regulated Time-Of-Use rates soon to roll out to all 5 million residential customers in Ontario as we all are being equipped with smart meters. The utility companies here are mostly distribution companies, and they were forced by our provincial government legislation to adopt smart meters for TOU rates. But the government would not pay for them with tax revenues, instead they allowed utilities to finance the smart meters by tacking on a monthly smart meter charge on everyone's bill, which was expected to pay off their infrastructure investment over 15 years. Trouble is most expect the new smart meters will need replacing within 10 years, since after all their service life is not expected to be anywhere near as long as the old electromechanical units. Other pressures will emerge too to force smart meter replacement to upgrade their software or hardware to handle any sort of Smart Grid applications, like HANs, etc.
The unfortunate part is customers in Ontario are being left out completely from participating in any Smart Grid plans. Any form of demand response using smart meters or Smart Grid is all being viewed as utility controlled, making it unappealing for consumer product companies like Apple or others to jump in with new products on the customer side of the meter. Google will find they will have a tough time implementing their plans to provide real-time power demand or real-time pricing information to residential customers without intimately working with utility companies, which means there will have to be some benefit (meaning money) for the utility companies before they allow Google work with their smart meter systems.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.27.09
Jerry's arguments seem similar to those of the telegraph companies when the telephone arrived. We all know what happen though sucessive innovations leading to today's iPhone. Nat gas is also a dirty gas, with half as much GHGs as coal.
DOE process to grant funding on the Smart Grid seems to be on the opposite site of Ontario's goverment, sooner or later, 'dumb' grid as a one time big shot, as Bob explains. I say the DOE funding intent is not just 'smart,' they are wise.
Responding to James Carson's plead to keep the IOUs Framework in place, the EWPC Blog post Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars? leads to show how DOE is trying to introduce succesive innovations to enable the 'smart' grid' via grants and how IOUs are trying to keep the 'dumb' grid in a one time big shot. I invite comments to it.
The introduction of the article says: "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."
Tomorrow and the day after tomorow may have an impact of the real future of the Smart Grid in a roadmap of succesive innovations.
.................................................................................
Len Gould
4.27.09
The problem Bob describes is at the core of any randomly retailer-supported smart-grid initiative, such as EWPC and etc. The smart grid needs some smart planners to lay out a groundwork before it is possible for innovaters to come in and implement various competing initiatives. Otherwise all the benefits accrue to the free riders.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.27.09
Hi Len,
There is no such core problem. Minimum interoperation is required, as well as prudential regulations. Instead of IOUs based closed standards, as Bob endorsed, in the past, open standars are absolutely necessarary.
.................................................................................
Jerry Watson
4.28.09
Jose, at least be accurate coal is around 220 lbs of CO2/mmbtu Nat Gas 110 lbs of CO2/mmbtu; however coal at base load operation has a heat rate of around 10000 were Combined Cycle Nat Gas has a base load heat rate around 6600 so finish the math. Coal is 2.2 lbs CO2 per KW and Nat Gas is .72 lbs CO2 per KW. That is a third not half. I have worked at both Coal fired and Nat Gas fired plants. Not included is the small army of trucks belching CO2 used to support coal plant operations. Coal plants produce byproducts like ash and slag and consume non fuel resources like limestone for SO2 removal. My guess is when it all said and done Nat Gas CO2 emissions are more like a forth of that of coal. Personally, I do not worry about CO2 emissions I am convinced whatever cataclysm comes with uncontrolled CO2 emissions will be suffered. Not a lot of utility in worrying about the inevitable.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.28.09
Thank you Jerry for the explanation. As you have assumed, I confirm that I don't know everything.
If you may, I like to see those figures in terms of GHGs, not just CO2. Apparently missing in the comparison (correct me if I am wrong) is that coal power plants can also be designed for combined cycle operation. If the coal plant is close to a city, Can it be part of a district energy redesign? On the other hand, coal plants have mercury impacts too.
You have your rights, which I strongly respect, not to worry about making earth living environment collapse; I understand that that collapse is similar to what happened in Easter Island under different circumstances. I may be wrong, but given the example of Easter Island, I think that global leaders have the responsibility to get the general population aware as soon as possible that the environmental collapse can not be taken with a wait and see attitude. So to meet the large reduction of GHG emissions as soon as possible, for those that have a right to a different understanding than you, Can we conclude that Nat gas is not the silver bullet either?
.................................................................................
Edward A. Reid, Jr.
4.28.09
Jose Antonio,
The US administration's "wish" is an 80% reduction in US GHG emissions by 2050, to "save the globe" from AGW. We all know that the US could not "save the globe", but that is obviously just an insignificant detail, which can be conveniently ignored.
UN FAO estimates that ~18% of global GHG emissions are emitted by domesticated animals. If we assume that meat remains a dietary staple, then no more fossil fuel emissions after 2050.
Therefore, you are correct that NG is not the "silver bullet". NG is not even acceptable as part of the solution, unless it is combined with 100% carbon capture. Of course, that is also true of coal and petroleum.
The future is hydro (existing), geothermal, solar, wind, wave power, OTEC, storage batteries, very long distance transmission, supplier or government controlled equipment service interruptions, brownouts and blackouts.
Fortunately, hydrogen/plug hybrid vehicles get infinite miles per gallon, using the common parlance, so we don't need to worry about transportation.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.28.09
Thank you Ed!
I add energy efficiency on the demand side and new green architecture and design of buildings. Those innovative buildings may result in net output towards the grid, becoming then as a whole one of the most important "energy" sources in the future. Unlike the IOUs Framework, which prefers the supply side, the EWPC Framework is well set to cover any mix of the development of the resources of supply side and the demand side.
For that reason, the long transition expected to a global clean energy (the U.S. is now taking the leadership) transformation will need to add customers with smart systems interfaces (not necessarily meter) organically. That is why it is important that innovation in retail business models be set for the federal market.
There may be also other sources in the making that a real smart grid will help enable under the EWPC based EPAct. So the way to go is EWPC.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.26.09
Hi again,
If the grid is to become trully smart, I suggest to offer input asap to the meeting organized by NIST (and EPRI) for the standards workshop coming on April 28-29, at the Hyatt Regency in Reston, Virginia. This is my firts input, which I already posted under the EWPC article On Cyber Spies Threats: Keep Public Wires Regulation and go for Energy Markets (where comments might also be posted:
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
.................................................................................
Jerry Watson
4.26.09
Here is my belief not that it matters the Smart Grid will be expensive and the IOUs and other utilities will be allowed to earn a return on their investment. The fantasy of DG will not materialize on a significant scale and what does develop will be fully backed up by utility peaking units that the utilities are also collecting a return on. The net result will be higher electrical energy bills in the face current abundance of Nat Gas. Did everyone miss that the US has over twice as much recoverable Nat Gas as was believed two years ago. What does this mean? It means the US energy outlook is bright without more coal, nucs, renewables, or DG. For $45 million a generator can put a 45 millionwatt GE LM6000 unit in service that is a $1000 a KW with a 9300 simple cycle heat rate and $5 Nat gas it makes $60 power all in. Of course the utilities can beat that with heavy framed combined cycle at a 7500 (assumes cyclic operation) heat rate and still be around $1000 a KW in capital cost and make $50 power all in. Maybe I should try to collect funds and pay one of those little banner planes to fly around DC with sign saying hey we have a lot more Nat Gas than we thought.
On the bright side since combined cycle Nat Gas plants are efficient and extremely responsive even though they have a large efficiency loss at low loads they are great mates for renewables etc. I am convinced in the long term Nat Gas will rise. Nat Gas is a great fuel and old coal plants can be converted to burn it with little more than a pipe, burners and boiler tuning. Even building new plants is affordable. Its innate usefulness will drive its consumption and price up until it is in its normal zone cheaper than oil higher than coal. My guess is gas will hover between $7-9 per mmbtu after the new wears off the News we have a lot of it. Coal prices may even drop a little but with India’s and China’s unquenchable thirst for cheap fuel I do not see any drop long term drop in mining or greenhouse gas production. My conjecture is that every utility in the country has feelers out for long term Nat Gas. If supplies are such that enough of them get long term gas at $7 or below plans for both coal and nuc plants will be scrapped and we will see another wave of combined cycle Nat Gas construction like in 2001-2003.
One last point since sanity has returned to crude prices I think is safe to say peak oil was and is a ridiculous concept. Oil is very useful fuel actually the most useful since can be used to produce distillates that are liquids at ambient temperatures. I think it is safe to say the demand would be dozens of times current levels if it were free. Its usefulness like all resources is limited basically by its price. Reduced availability due to exhausted supply is still simply availability and has been a part of human existence since the controlled use of fire. Oil will continue to be used where it has the most value. To me it means the sub-Saharan Africans can look forward to starvation and actually face increased starvation and wealthy countries like the US will face recessions as more funds are drained away until the next equilibrium point is reached. Whether that point is Nuclear, Renewable or whatever I have no idea whether is 5 years or 20 years away again I do not know but I do know lots of Nat Gas in the US is short term great news for the US and its neighbors and should not be ignored. Maybe here in the US we should use this little window the fates have provided to make solid plans and smart decisions rather than dipping billions in Elmer’s glue and throwing them around to see if any of it sticks to good spot. Sadly, the dollars and trucks loaded with glue are already lined up for the slinging to begin.
I will chance to predict the future of the Smart Grid. It will basically be sliding rates based on time of day and time of year. The big winners will be utilities, consultants and software vendors. The losers will be ratepayers and taxpayers. The plans will look a lot like the current plans that most utilities offer except they will be mandatory. All and all the off peak prices will be slightly cheaper 75% of current cost the peak periods will 200% of current with random critical periods 600% the shoulder hours will be at the current levels. What this means if one organizes one’s life around his/her electric bill they will save 10%. The vast majority will pay 25% or so more and the utilities will keep it as return on the investment in the Smart Grid Technology.
.................................................................................
Bob Amorosi
4.27.09
Jerry,
Your last paragraph describes quite closely the spread of mandatory regulated Time-Of-Use rates soon to roll out to all 5 million residential customers in Ontario as we all are being equipped with smart meters. The utility companies here are mostly distribution companies, and they were forced by our provincial government legislation to adopt smart meters for TOU rates. But the government would not pay for them with tax revenues, instead they allowed utilities to finance the smart meters by tacking on a monthly smart meter charge on everyone's bill, which was expected to pay off their infrastructure investment over 15 years. Trouble is most expect the new smart meters will need replacing within 10 years, since after all their service life is not expected to be anywhere near as long as the old electromechanical units. Other pressures will emerge too to force smart meter replacement to upgrade their software or hardware to handle any sort of Smart Grid applications, like HANs, etc.
The unfortunate part is customers in Ontario are being left out completely from participating in any Smart Grid plans. Any form of demand response using smart meters or Smart Grid is all being viewed as utility controlled, making it unappealing for consumer product companies like Apple or others to jump in with new products on the customer side of the meter. Google will find they will have a tough time implementing their plans to provide real-time power demand or real-time pricing information to residential customers without intimately working with utility companies, which means there will have to be some benefit (meaning money) for the utility companies before they allow Google work with their smart meter systems.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.27.09
Jerry's arguments seem similar to those of the telegraph companies when the telephone arrived. We all know what happen though sucessive innovations leading to today's iPhone. Nat gas is also a dirty gas, with half as much GHGs as coal.
DOE process to grant funding on the Smart Grid seems to be on the opposite site of Ontario's goverment, sooner or later, 'dumb' grid as a one time big shot, as Bob explains. I say the DOE funding intent is not just 'smart,' they are wise.
Responding to James Carson's plead to keep the IOUs Framework in place, the EWPC Blog post Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars? leads to show how DOE is trying to introduce succesive innovations to enable the 'smart' grid' via grants and how IOUs are trying to keep the 'dumb' grid in a one time big shot. I invite comments to it.
The introduction of the article says: "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."
Tomorrow and the day after tomorow may have an impact of the real future of the Smart Grid in a roadmap of succesive innovations.
.................................................................................
Len Gould
4.27.09
The problem Bob describes is at the core of any randomly retailer-supported smart-grid initiative, such as EWPC and etc. The smart grid needs some smart planners to lay out a groundwork before it is possible for innovaters to come in and implement various competing initiatives. Otherwise all the benefits accrue to the free riders.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.27.09
Hi Len,
There is no such core problem. Minimum interoperation is required, as well as prudential regulations. Instead of IOUs based closed standards, as Bob endorsed, in the past, open standars are absolutely necessarary.
.................................................................................
Jerry Watson
4.28.09
Jose, at least be accurate coal is around 220 lbs of CO2/mmbtu Nat Gas 110 lbs of CO2/mmbtu; however coal at base load operation has a heat rate of around 10000 were Combined Cycle Nat Gas has a base load heat rate around 6600 so finish the math. Coal is 2.2 lbs CO2 per KW and Nat Gas is .72 lbs CO2 per KW. That is a third not half. I have worked at both Coal fired and Nat Gas fired plants. Not included is the small army of trucks belching CO2 used to support coal plant operations. Coal plants produce byproducts like ash and slag and consume non fuel resources like limestone for SO2 removal. My guess is when it all said and done Nat Gas CO2 emissions are more like a forth of that of coal. Personally, I do not worry about CO2 emissions I am convinced whatever cataclysm comes with uncontrolled CO2 emissions will be suffered. Not a lot of utility in worrying about the inevitable.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.28.09
Thank you Jerry for the explanation. As you have assumed, I confirm that I don't know everything.
If you may, I like to see those figures in terms of GHGs, not just CO2. Apparently missing in the comparison (correct me if I am wrong) is that coal power plants can also be designed for combined cycle operation. If the coal plant is close to a city, Can it be part of a district energy redesign? On the other hand, coal plants have mercury impacts too.
You have your rights, which I strongly respect, not to worry about making earth living environment collapse; I understand that that collapse is similar to what happened in Easter Island under different circumstances. I may be wrong, but given the example of Easter Island, I think that global leaders have the responsibility to get the general population aware as soon as possible that the environmental collapse can not be taken with a wait and see attitude. So to meet the large reduction of GHG emissions as soon as possible, for those that have a right to a different understanding than you, Can we conclude that Nat gas is not the silver bullet either?
.................................................................................
Edward A. Reid, Jr.
4.28.09
Jose Antonio,
The US administration's "wish" is an 80% reduction in US GHG emissions by 2050, to "save the globe" from AGW. We all know that the US could not "save the globe", but that is obviously just an insignificant detail, which can be conveniently ignored.
UN FAO estimates that ~18% of global GHG emissions are emitted by domesticated animals. If we assume that meat remains a dietary staple, then no more fossil fuel emissions after 2050.
Therefore, you are correct that NG is not the "silver bullet". NG is not even acceptable as part of the solution, unless it is combined with 100% carbon capture. Of course, that is also true of coal and petroleum.
The future is hydro (existing), geothermal, solar, wind, wave power, OTEC, storage batteries, very long distance transmission, supplier or government controlled equipment service interruptions, brownouts and blackouts.
Fortunately, hydrogen/plug hybrid vehicles get infinite miles per gallon, using the common parlance, so we don't need to worry about transportation.
.................................................................................
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
4.28.09
Thank you Ed!
I add energy efficiency on the demand side and new green architecture and design of buildings. Those innovative buildings may result in net output towards the grid, becoming then as a whole one of the most important "energy" sources in the future. Unlike the IOUs Framework, which prefers the supply side, the EWPC Framework is well set to cover any mix of the development of the resources of supply side and the demand side.
For that reason, the long transition expected to a global clean energy (the U.S. is now taking the leadership) transformation will need to add customers with smart systems interfaces (not necessarily meter) organically. That is why it is important that innovation in retail business models be set for the federal market.
There may be also other sources in the making that a real smart grid will help enable under the EWPC based EPAct. So the way to go is EWPC.
domingo, abril 26, 2009
Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars?
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
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
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.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)