lunes, abril 23, 2012
domingo, abril 22, 2012
How Utilities that Become Tech Companies Might Develop Business Model Innovations
In the article From volume to value: Why utilities MUST change their business model (and one way to get started), Jesse Berst introduces an approach that goes from one end of a continuum, to the other, going through three roles that he calls infrastructure on one extreme, intermediary somewhere in the middle, and innovator in the opposite end.
He clarifies that “The volume-to-value continuum is a metaphor. In the real world, of course, the boundaries between these roles will blur; other new roles will appear. The three roles are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible to imagine a utility that innovates one or two services, while also acting as an intermediary for several more, while also maintaining its traditional infrastructure role.”
Next is a hyperlinked version that merges the comments “Continuum Versus Discrete Smart Grid Evolution” and “The Second Generation Retailer is Just a Tech Company“ that I posted under Jesse’s article.
Hi Jesse,
Thank you for repeating this interesting continuum approach, which I respect a lot. Next, I will contrast it with the EWPC-AF discrete approach that emerged through me. A lot of the though behind the continuum also applies to the discrete approach.
I wonder if the business concept “stuck in the middle” would apply, leading to the traditional low cost and high value, either/or discrete polarization.
This is how the power industry whole gets split in two highly cohesive subsystems that are lightly coupled among them:
1) A low cost wires-only T&D (Smart) Grid regulated utility. This is critical, but it no longer owns the retail customer interface.
2) A high value innovative Enterprise
That' s what has been emerging through me as the EWPC-AF, which I said a year ago may be renamed as the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF).
3) Utilities should not be forbidden of trying the intermediary role as a transition tactic, but I suspect it is a losing “stuck in the middle” strategy in the long run.
Next is a list of this year EWPC post entries, most recent first, after about half a year of inactivity.
jueves, abril 19, 2012
Should Smart Grid Startups Depend Mostly on Utilities Executives Challenges?
Summary: To meet challenges faced by utility executives, smart grid startups are trapped by utilities as their only customer via a power industry architecture that was designed in the “Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA) project, circa 2003.” To avoid traps like those, an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics has been suggested. The article is supported by 10 references.
I am very impressed with Eamonn McCormick’s Linkedin profile as an Enterprise Architecture consultant. On the contrary, no one should expect that I am an Enterprise Architect. I am certainly not. I recently discovered that I should call myself “Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer,” which in part differentiates me, for example, from Enterprise Architects.
In fact, the design work that has emerged through me [1], since 1996, is about the electric power industry as a whole and is calling for restructuring that will give rise to, for example, what I define as Second Generation Retailers – 2GRs [2] that will need the service of Enterprise Architects to develop competitive business model innovations [3].
I am also very impressed with the article [4], also written by Chi Lee, that Eamonn McCormick used to start the discussion “A Mission Oriented Smart Grid Architecture – Is it possible?” I just had the insight, that without any loss of generality, I can borrow the introduction of their article, as the status quo solution, while respecting their mission oriented smart grid architecture concept.
The argument given in several Greentechgrid ( www.greentechmedia.com ) articles to support that insight, is synthesized by then, as they write that the "… Smart grid spending has hit the doldrums. With stimulus money accounted for, utilities are working hard to manage their existing deployments and aren’t eager to start new projects. In the meantime, VCs are coming to terms with the fact that utilities are slow to adapt new technologies and subject to all kinds of reversals from customers and regulators. Home energy management, the smart grid segment that garnered a majority of VC cash back in 2008 or so, has yet to take off at all.”
In addition, Lee and McCormick ask and immediately respond themselves: “What does all this mean? One thing that this means is that the "bubble" days of Smart Grid is coming to an end and the "burden" of Smart Grid is going to fall back on the IT departments. Silicon Valley has failed to create a "silver bullet" and IT departments needs to seriously evaluate how they are going to address the long term Smart Grid challenge.”
As a result, they jumped to the question “Can IT departments create a mission oriented smart grid architecture?” Being professionals, they also wrote “[o]f course there are other major hurdles for Smart Grid but these challenges in particular cannot be easily addressed by our traditional IT architectures.”
However, saying YES to that question is nothing less that a thinking trap in which, for example, many IEEE members might fall, while thinking that they are fully satisfying the IEEE Code of Ethics. To avoid such a major hurdle trap, I have suggested an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics [5]. Since the status quo has not come forward, I am very happy to be able to debunk their current smart grid development, without needing their direct response [6].
In hindsight, it now seems very simple to show where the trap is. Hitting the hyperlink “utilities are slow to adapt new technologies,” in their article’s webpage [4], I found the article "Guest Post: Smart Grid, Dumb Investor? Investing in the smart grid is difficult and riddled with potholes. Why? [7],” by Richard MacKellar, Managing Director at Chrysalix Energy Venture Capital.” MacKellar gave many important reasons why, but only one of them is sufficient enough to explain why Venture Capitalists are not investing: "...we prefer smart grid plays where electric utilities are not the only customer. A customer? Yes, but the only customer? No."
Utilities as the only customer to startups is where the thinking trap lies: the power industry architecture was designed as “Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA) project, circa 2003,” to meet the challenges faced by utility executives [8,9,10]. No wonder VCs find that it “… is difficult and riddled with potholes...” We need 2GRs startups that will develop business models without the interference of utilities, where a mission oriented 2GR architecture might be able to participate in an architecture competition.
References:
[1] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
[2] Second Generation Retailers, July 17, 2007, GMH Blog
[3] The Sixth Disruptive Technology, September 30, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[4] Market Solution to Our Energy Needs, Chi Lee and Eamonn McCormick, April 15, 2012, Renewablesplus Blog.
[5] Proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, IEEE SSIT Group
[6] Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, April 13, 2012, EWPC Blog.
[7] Guest Post: Smart Grid, Dumb Investor? Investing in the smart grid is difficult and riddled with potholes. Why?, March 9, 2012, Richard MacKellar, greentechmedia.com.
[8] Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?, August 30, 2010, EWPC Blog
[9] A Predictable Environment for VCs Smart Grid Investments, May 6, 2011, EWPC Blog.
[10] Why Customers Will Be "Mad as Hell" With the Current Smart Grid, April 17, 2012, EWPC Blog.
martes, abril 17, 2012
Why Customers Will Be "Mad as Hell" With the Current Smart Grid
John Egan, President, Egan Energy Communications, Inc, wrote on 3.29.12, the timely EnergyPulse.net article "Utility Customers are 'Mad as Hell' -- Can Utilities Find a Path to Peace? Based on what happened to regulated railroads, my conjecture is that such a question leaves very likely an empty space. That's why I suggest to increase the solution's scope.
Rewriting said question, by changing utilities with railroads, it reads "Railroad Customers are "Mad as Hell" -- Can Railroads Find a Path to Peace?" Each of us knows that cars, trucks, airplanes, customers didn’t find a path to peace from railroads. They found peace from suppliers of transportation solutions in the open market and the provision of new infrastructures that facilitated travel without the intervention of railroads executives.
This post aims to further support the EWPC post Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, by highlighting a missed opportunity to correct the huge architecting flaw introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That specific criticism about the new power industry infrastructure, also known as the Smart Grid, can be found in the article Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?
Just as I rewrote the above question, paraphrasing a quote in that article as a challenge to railroad executives, would say that:
Rewriting said question, by changing utilities with railroads, it reads "Railroad Customers are "Mad as Hell" -- Can Railroads Find a Path to Peace?" Each of us knows that cars, trucks, airplanes, customers didn’t find a path to peace from railroads. They found peace from suppliers of transportation solutions in the open market and the provision of new infrastructures that facilitated travel without the intervention of railroads executives.
This post aims to further support the EWPC post Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, by highlighting a missed opportunity to correct the huge architecting flaw introduced in the Energy Policy Act of 1992. That specific criticism about the new power industry infrastructure, also known as the Smart Grid, can be found in the article Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?
Just as I rewrote the above question, paraphrasing a quote in that article as a challenge to railroad executives, would say that:
… the interstate highway system project, circa 1930, where under the title “THE NEED FOR AN INDUSTRY ARCHITECTURE,” … it is written that “There is a two-part answer to the question, “Why it is necessary to develop an industry architecture?’ First, it must be understood that the challenge facing railroad executives is keeping the trains running while also enhancing the value of services to consumer… The second, and more powerful argument, is that the only way to address the challenge railroad executives face is to go back to basics, understand why the current system doesn’t perform as needed, and then to design the highway system from the ground up.”
domingo, abril 15, 2012
How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.
Summary: Following Gandhi’s wisdom, this thread is intended as a semaphore for all IEEE members to contribute in Advancing Technology for Humanity.
How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.
By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 15, 2012
For example, the thread “What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a ‘New Discussion,’ [1]” that includes ‘… my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral,’ is meant to instruct and also to act as a semaphore for driving to the thread “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [2].”
It is clear that the meaning of “Discussions Leaders” can be thought to be limited to a group moderator or those of us that start discussions. However, I want to clarify that what I intended to mean was about any IEEE member who is prepared to follow Gandhi’s quote in any thread by being the change they “… want to see in the world.”
As the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [3,4,5]” seem to have been sufficiently debated, but under a process of significant distortion, I suggested that “Discussion Leaders” should drive over into the “First Draft…” thread that shows a more complete and rich context, which “… mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF).”
Even though the thread “A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030 [6],” was interfered right at the start, I hope IEEE members may still act as “Discussions Leaders” to help in Advancing Technology for Humanity. One approach that might help drive this thread into an interesting “Still Active Discussion” is in the recent EWPC post “Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments [7]” that was prepared by selecting a section of the “First Draft” thread.
I now think that still an even better approach to the “A Guess…” thread might result from the recent comments in the IEEE Smart Grid Group. Instead of the above affirmation, maybe the question “Will that 2030 Collapse be the Result of IEEE Movers and Shakers that didn’t follow a Systemic Code of Ethics?” will help them be ready to respond to that criticism.
This GMH Blog article is posted simultaneously to the IEEE Smart Grid Group, The Official IEEE Group, the IEEE SSIT Group, the IEEE Senior Members Group and the IEEE Spectrum Group.
[1] What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a “New Discussion,” April 13, 2012, GMH Blog.
[2] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[5] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[6] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[7] Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, April 13, 2012, EWPC Blog.
How Active IEEE Members Might be Prepared to Embody the Change that Needs to Happen for Advancing Technology for Humanity.
By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 15, 2012
This thread is intended as a semaphore for “Discussions Leaders” to drive other threads into “Still Active Discussion” designed as a mean to an end. In this sense, all the threads mentioned below are meant to the final end or purpose of Advancing Technology for Humanity. It is proposed that the adoption of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics might insure that all IEEE Members will be prepared to embody the change that needs to happen for that purpose.“Be the change you want to see in the world”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
For example, the thread “What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a ‘New Discussion,’ [1]” that includes ‘… my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral,’ is meant to instruct and also to act as a semaphore for driving to the thread “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [2].”
It is clear that the meaning of “Discussions Leaders” can be thought to be limited to a group moderator or those of us that start discussions. However, I want to clarify that what I intended to mean was about any IEEE member who is prepared to follow Gandhi’s quote in any thread by being the change they “… want to see in the world.”
As the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [3,4,5]” seem to have been sufficiently debated, but under a process of significant distortion, I suggested that “Discussion Leaders” should drive over into the “First Draft…” thread that shows a more complete and rich context, which “… mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF).”
Even though the thread “A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030 [6],” was interfered right at the start, I hope IEEE members may still act as “Discussions Leaders” to help in Advancing Technology for Humanity. One approach that might help drive this thread into an interesting “Still Active Discussion” is in the recent EWPC post “Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments [7]” that was prepared by selecting a section of the “First Draft” thread.
I now think that still an even better approach to the “A Guess…” thread might result from the recent comments in the IEEE Smart Grid Group. Instead of the above affirmation, maybe the question “Will that 2030 Collapse be the Result of IEEE Movers and Shakers that didn’t follow a Systemic Code of Ethics?” will help them be ready to respond to that criticism.
This GMH Blog article is posted simultaneously to the IEEE Smart Grid Group, The Official IEEE Group, the IEEE SSIT Group, the IEEE Senior Members Group and the IEEE Spectrum Group.
[1] What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a “New Discussion,” April 13, 2012, GMH Blog.
[2] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[5] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[6] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[7] Why and How the Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments, April 13, 2012, EWPC Blog.
viernes, abril 13, 2012
What You Might Do as a Discussion Leader When an Old Linkedin Discussion Shows Up as a “New Discussion.”
This is my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral. Influenced by the great American scientific philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose recognition came almost a century later [1], I suggest that the process is not simply...
By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 13, 2012
When an old discussion shows up as a “New Discussion” in an e-mail notification of Linkedin, it is likely that it may have been filtered in order no to show as a “Still Active Discussion” with a few lead words that might make a big difference to capture your attention away from the information overload. My counterintuitive suggestion to discussion leaders is to be well aware that someone may not want you to consider an important issue for you that might be becoming viral with your timely help.
This is my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral. Influenced by the great American scientific philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose recognition came almost a century later [1], I suggest that the process is not simply logical, but also ethical and esthetical. I understand that it has to do not just with the logical thinking, but with the esthetical sentiments that trigger an ethical decision. Influenced now by Malcolm Gladwell, I also understand that, to reach “The Tipping Point” in order to go viral, only a few leaders in the community need to be convinced, the rest will be convinced directly or indirectly by their leaders.
Such has been the case, once again, of the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [2, 3, 4]” that for example, today, unlike two other “Still Active Discussions” in which I participated that did show up and unlike many days before, this time did not show up consistently in any of the 5 concurrent IEEE groups as a “Still Active Discussion.” Since this now is a much larger Linkedin issue that has repeatedly happened, this discussion is now beyond the public IEEE groups. Next is a compressed version of the “Still Active Discussion” comment that showed up as a “New Discussion.” To see the whole comment, please go the actual discussion [2].
Călin Radu Vilt wrote: “Excellent discussion! Congratulations to all of You and specially to Mr. Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio for the initiative of the subject !...” This was 19 days ago… My response was: “Thank you very much Călin for writing “Excellent discussion! Congratulations… In a normal polite way I should stop at that, but then we won’t learn anything else.”
In my case didn't agree and took exception on "In principle this kind of discussion underline the difference between engineers and doctors! Doctors sworn and engineers are not doing it. From here I think start the problem with code of ethics." I suggest that in my case the difference is for an engineer or doctor to become what the article of the discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [5]” describes. This new discussion mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework.
This comment was posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.
I suggest that you please leave this discussion and go to the IEEE Group discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth” in this same public group by hitting the corresponding link:
http://bit.ly/GMH095 for the IEEE Smart Grid Group
http://bit.ly/GMH097 for the IEEE SSIT Group
http://bit.ly/GMH096 for the IEEE Spectrum Group
In the case of private groups: The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Group, search for the discussion to go there.
References:
[1] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[2] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[5] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
By José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Socio-Technical Electric Power Industry System Designer
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 13, 2012
When an old discussion shows up as a “New Discussion” in an e-mail notification of Linkedin, it is likely that it may have been filtered in order no to show as a “Still Active Discussion” with a few lead words that might make a big difference to capture your attention away from the information overload. My counterintuitive suggestion to discussion leaders is to be well aware that someone may not want you to consider an important issue for you that might be becoming viral with your timely help.
This is my humble thesis of a practical theory on how discussions (or any other social network conversations) might go viral. Influenced by the great American scientific philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, whose recognition came almost a century later [1], I suggest that the process is not simply logical, but also ethical and esthetical. I understand that it has to do not just with the logical thinking, but with the esthetical sentiments that trigger an ethical decision. Influenced now by Malcolm Gladwell, I also understand that, to reach “The Tipping Point” in order to go viral, only a few leaders in the community need to be convinced, the rest will be convinced directly or indirectly by their leaders.
Such has been the case, once again, of the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity? [2, 3, 4]” that for example, today, unlike two other “Still Active Discussions” in which I participated that did show up and unlike many days before, this time did not show up consistently in any of the 5 concurrent IEEE groups as a “Still Active Discussion.” Since this now is a much larger Linkedin issue that has repeatedly happened, this discussion is now beyond the public IEEE groups. Next is a compressed version of the “Still Active Discussion” comment that showed up as a “New Discussion.” To see the whole comment, please go the actual discussion [2].
Călin Radu Vilt wrote: “Excellent discussion! Congratulations to all of You and specially to Mr. Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio for the initiative of the subject !...” This was 19 days ago… My response was: “Thank you very much Călin for writing “Excellent discussion! Congratulations… In a normal polite way I should stop at that, but then we won’t learn anything else.”
In my case didn't agree and took exception on "In principle this kind of discussion underline the difference between engineers and doctors! Doctors sworn and engineers are not doing it. From here I think start the problem with code of ethics." I suggest that in my case the difference is for an engineer or doctor to become what the article of the discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth [5]” describes. This new discussion mixes the battle for the IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics into the war for the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework.
This comment was posted on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.
I suggest that you please leave this discussion and go to the IEEE Group discussion “First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth” in this same public group by hitting the corresponding link:
http://bit.ly/GMH095 for the IEEE Smart Grid Group
http://bit.ly/GMH097 for the IEEE SSIT Group
http://bit.ly/GMH096 for the IEEE Spectrum Group
In the case of private groups: The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Group, search for the discussion to go there.
References:
[1] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[2] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[3] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[4] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[5] First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth, April 11, 2012, GMH Blog.
miércoles, abril 11, 2012
First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth
Summary: After introducing Uno Lamm as a role model on imagination and truth for Advancing Technology for Humanity, there are parallel sections on: 1) After two old stories, a third has been emerging; 2) The Contexts; 3) The Battles; 4) The Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments; 5) The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo. This is supported by 23 references.
First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 11, 2012.
I understand that we need to consider as very important the Power Engineering Society “Uno Lamm High Voltage Direct Current Award,” which promotes the concept “Engineering – Accomplishment Through Imagination and Truth.” There is no doubt that the innovation space created by Dr. Lamm’s example has enabled great accomplishments for IEEE members.
A very attractive insight on an issue of the IEEE Power Engineering Review, published more than 30 years ago [1], started to change my life for the better. Showing “A New PES Award” in the issue’s cover, you can also find in it the above engineering concept. Inside that issue is the story “Renaissance Man: Uno Lamm, ASEA’s ‘Retired’ Electrotechnical Director, Leads a Remarkably Active and Inquisitive Life.”
The insight in that story that really altered my life was his example “… there’s the opportunity to work on ideas quite outside one’s owned special field of expertise. I can then enjoy the enthusiasm built on partial ignorance which, as you know, is greater and fuller than any other enthusiasm.”
Since then, in Dr. Lamm I found a role model, my hero [2, 3]. I know that’s what I been enjoying since then as I internalized that quote. In my experience, many of the initial partial ignorance create open loops that get closed later on as they are triggered via our reticular activating system. As I have been trying to do, I suggest we need other IEEE members to select IEEE medal recipients, like Dr. Lamm, as their hero in order to increase the innovation space for still other IEEE members in the quest for Advancing Technology for Humanity.
Surprisingly, I didn’t grasp it until a few days ago, after more than 30 years ago, which he was able to say that because he was already retired. I guess that story was replaced in my subconscious by the careers profile story “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist [4],” by Katherine Wollard, which I just found out had only the first part of that quote.
After two old stories, a third has been emerging
With those two stories we have meaningful instances for IEEE Members to emulate in Advancing Technology for Humanity, which necessarily involves, like I found out, acting ethically in order to face a strong status quo that is blocking the way of Advancing Technology for Humanity. Wollard says that “[h]is last and most ambitious project was the Pacific HVDC Intertie, bringing electricity from Bonneville, Ore. to Long Angeles, Calif.”
As many people know, my most ambitious project is not a physical one like that of HVDC technology. It has become a socio-technical system architecting one, which I believe fits nicely to enable Advancing (Electric Retail Markets) Technology for (Customers) Humanity [5, 6]. It is a paradigm shift that opens a big innovation space for IEEE members to make “accomplishment through imagination and truth” on the retail side of the global power industry. Although what has emerged through me is still being named, for practical reasons, as the Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) [7], I understand that it is better coined as the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF) [8].
The Contexts
Wollard writes about the Pacific Intertie project that Lamm lead introducing High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC). She says that “[t]he idea of the Intertie had been around since the public-work project days of the 1930s, when it was first proposed the Pacific Northwest’s huge surpluses of hydroelectricity be channeled down to the burgeoning cities of southern California. But the project run into heavy opposition and was eventually scrapped. In 1961, spurred by a steady rise for electricity in California, President John F. Kennedy reopened the battle. Kennedy wanted a big public project, using the new HVDC technology developed in Sweden. Private utilities wanted to own the Intertie and use it for ac transmission.”
The idea of restructuring the global power industry started in the 1980s. As with many huge projects, their high level system architecture is emergent. IEEE members lost their leadership influence, as economists, financiers, and politicians took over the industry. By misunderstanding the systemic implications of interconnected power, those leaders introduced a huge architecting flaw at the industry level [9, 10, 11], in which the new regulatory environment damaged the new global deregulation system that had an unstable architecture.
For example, the highly visible wicked or systemic crisis in the California jurisdiction at the beginning of the century sent a very bad and strong signal that not only stopped progress, but also helped to introduce counter reforms, at many other regulatory jurisdictions all over the world [5]. After that debacle, restructuring also "run into heavy opposition." As the urgency is shown in this document, high level leadership is sorely needed [12, 13, 14].
One essential element that I believe will help in developing an unprecedented system of hierarchical systemic architectures is the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics that resulted from the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?” That proposal is running in The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Members Group, which are private Linkedin groups; and the IEEE Smart Grid Group [15], the SSIT Group [16] and the IEEE Spectrum Group [17], which are public Linkedin groups.
The Battles
According to Wollard, in 1962, “Lamm arranged a licensing agreement that gave the General Electric Co. access to ASEA’s HVDC technology. Once the two companies were allies, Lamm said, they pull out all the stops in influencing opinion on the Intertie. Lamm took on his opponent with equanimity, good humor, and an unassailable marshalling of facts.”
The “Renaissance Man” story adds that “As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.”
It seems that taking well in consideration the wide differences in accomplishments, I guess I have been living a remarkably similar life, while fighting the ongoing war of the EAV-AF. In the recent battle active in three of the five IEEE Groups of Linkedin fronts, I am trying hard to have a good ally, like, for example, the President and CEO of the IEEE, Gordon W. Day, who has proposed to make A Flatter World [18] by using the IEEE motto “Advancing Technology for Humanity.” In the discussion of the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, so far, only the public IEEE SSIT Group is a front that has been a friendly environment to the idea, while it seems that The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Smart Grid Group seem to have been unfriendly to it.
After each new round of intense discussion was faced with “an unassailable marshalling of facts,” every time there seems to be growing support for that IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, discussions are either eliminated or shifted to new discussion on Linkedin’s email notification system on the unfriendly groups. For example, on March 27, as the idea was picking up, a discussion was deleted in the IEEE Smart Grid Group and shifted from a Still Active Discussions to a New Discussion in The Official IEEE Group that reduced visibility. From there on, any time a Still Active Discussions on the Code of Ethics in The Official IEEE Group was systematically shifted to New Discussions. On the IEEE Smart Grid Group some were deleted, while the others were shifted until April 5. Today, April 11, however, there’s some hope as the situation was reversed with the Code of Ethics discussion showing as a Still Active Discussions in The Official IEEE Group, but shifted to New Discussion on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.
To act ethically, I believe that IEEE members need for the status quo to become visible in order to respond all the criticism accumulated (see next section). I have the most respectful attitude with all of Linkedin’s Group Managers, because only with good relationship with them we will go forward. However, being “concerned with issues, not personalities,” as Dr. Lamm was, it is also important to state, that the current system so pressures managers to act in unintended ways, which seem to be ethical at the moment, but only in non-systemic ways.
In what seem to be another unfriendly act to the proposed IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics and the VAE-AF, for example, one discussion [19] was identified two times by a manager of the IEEE Smart Grid Group as one that didn’t belong to their group. In response, a manager of the IEEE SSIT Group wrote” In one of the other forums you mentioned the moderator did decide that anything out of the mainstream of the topic didn't belong. And yes, from the impact of technology point of view, that narrow scoping could be a problem.” In contrast to the Code of Ethics discussion, this one was included as a Still Active Discussions today.
The Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments
Wollard recalls that “[m]eanwhile, California’s private companies have began claiming that HVDC was impractical for the Intertie, and hired a consulting firm to ferret out flaws in the ASEA plan. The showdown came at the Winter General Meeting in New York in early 1963. The consultants read their report, and Lamm spoke in rebuttal, pointing out that the consultant had not even visited existing HVDC installations. She again adds “’to what is common practice in meetings like this’ Lamm says ‘the authors refuse to stand up to answer the criticism, even when the chairman ask them directly.’ The audience of engineers shifted to Lamm’s position.” Is there any doubt on whether that audience acted ethically?
Ever since 2005, when I first wrote “An Alternative Business Case to Demand Response [20],” as can be seen in most of the references, I have uncovered several flaws in the industry architecture but have not been given yet a fair trial by the status quo on what has emerged since then as the EAV-AF. It is clear that the status quo continues to “refuse to stand up to answer the criticism” all this time.
In particular in March 2011, for example, while playing on the highly advertized IEEE Spectrum 2025 Smart Grid Game, the obsolete, fragmented, and socially exclusive, Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its highly complex incremental extensions status quo scenario was defeated by the emergent, inclusive, holistic, simple, and minimalist, EWPC-AF scenario. As that result was not what the status quo expected, I understand they ordered to shut down the web site so that the game’s winner could not exercise valuable bragging rights [21] to tell humanity of the need for change in the industry architecture.
The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.
Wollard’s story continues with “Lamm’s admiration with for the United States and his people crops up frequently in his conversations, and was strengthened by his work on the Intertie. He relates how several power company executives – who have been those most opposed to the project - visited Sweden with their wives once the issue was decided.” As a result of the visit, Lamm recalled “[a]mong Americans, when the heat of combat is over, and a decision has been reached, all the bitterness disappears, and people work hard to bring the final decision to fruition in the best possible way.” I have also been expecting that kind of mutual behavior [22].
Showing how the HVDC project was advancing HVDC for LA, Wollard’s story says that: “It was estimated that the people of Los Angeles saved $600,000 a day when Columbia River power began flowing south. Lamm had seen a similar result on Gotland Island, when, after the installation of the HVDC link, rates were halved. ‘For us, the engineers’ he says ‘this information is a source of real joy.” In contrast, Americans are paying an extra half dollar on average on top of the utility bill [23]
Wollard adds once again that “… proud of the safe records of ASEA built [nuclear] reactors, Lamm said he raised strenuous criticism of one government designed plant, which ASEA found ‘inherently unsafe.’ Eventually, construction was halted. His action against the plant, and similar instances throughout his professional life, illustrate what Martensson calls Lamm’s ‘basic honesty – it’s part of his character: he is honest and he’s proud of it.”
References
[1] IEEE Power Engineering Review, October 1981, Volume PER-1, Number 10.
[2] The Sixth Disruptive Technology, September 30, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[3] Uno Lamm is a Leader Role Model, October 29, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[4] “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist,” by Katherine Wollard, published in the IEEE Spectrum of March 1988.
[5] The BIG California LIE, September 18, 2007.
[6] The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, December 22, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[7] The Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), November 30, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[8] Desconectemos el Presupuesto del Sector Eléctrico, May 20, 2011, Acento.com
[9] Why the Smart Grid World Forum Requires Learning About T&D Transportation Ultraquality, September 29, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[10] Three Smart Grid Predictions for Initiating the Global Power Industry Transformation, July 21, 2010.
[11] A Predictable Environment for VCs Smart Grid Investments, May 6, 2011. EWPC Blog
[12] Leadership Answers What to do First, April 16, 2008, EWPC Blog.
[13] States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners, December 13, 2009, EWPC Blog
[14] Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers?, September 9, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[15] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[16] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[17] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[18] GORDON DAY, A Flatter World: It’s time to address the challenges of universal access to technology, 5 March 2012, President’s Column, the IEEE news source - the institute.
[19] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[20] An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, November 3, 2005, EnergyPulse.net
[21] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[22] Let EWPC Come to Fruition, November 7, 2007, GMH Blog.
[23] Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy, January 26, 2009, GMH Blog.
First Draft: Let’s Emulate Uno Lamm’s Accomplishments Through Imagination and Truth
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
IEEE Life Senior Member
April 11, 2012.
I understand that we need to consider as very important the Power Engineering Society “Uno Lamm High Voltage Direct Current Award,” which promotes the concept “Engineering – Accomplishment Through Imagination and Truth.” There is no doubt that the innovation space created by Dr. Lamm’s example has enabled great accomplishments for IEEE members.
A very attractive insight on an issue of the IEEE Power Engineering Review, published more than 30 years ago [1], started to change my life for the better. Showing “A New PES Award” in the issue’s cover, you can also find in it the above engineering concept. Inside that issue is the story “Renaissance Man: Uno Lamm, ASEA’s ‘Retired’ Electrotechnical Director, Leads a Remarkably Active and Inquisitive Life.”
The insight in that story that really altered my life was his example “… there’s the opportunity to work on ideas quite outside one’s owned special field of expertise. I can then enjoy the enthusiasm built on partial ignorance which, as you know, is greater and fuller than any other enthusiasm.”
Since then, in Dr. Lamm I found a role model, my hero [2, 3]. I know that’s what I been enjoying since then as I internalized that quote. In my experience, many of the initial partial ignorance create open loops that get closed later on as they are triggered via our reticular activating system. As I have been trying to do, I suggest we need other IEEE members to select IEEE medal recipients, like Dr. Lamm, as their hero in order to increase the innovation space for still other IEEE members in the quest for Advancing Technology for Humanity.
Surprisingly, I didn’t grasp it until a few days ago, after more than 30 years ago, which he was able to say that because he was already retired. I guess that story was replaced in my subconscious by the careers profile story “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist [4],” by Katherine Wollard, which I just found out had only the first part of that quote.
After two old stories, a third has been emerging
With those two stories we have meaningful instances for IEEE Members to emulate in Advancing Technology for Humanity, which necessarily involves, like I found out, acting ethically in order to face a strong status quo that is blocking the way of Advancing Technology for Humanity. Wollard says that “[h]is last and most ambitious project was the Pacific HVDC Intertie, bringing electricity from Bonneville, Ore. to Long Angeles, Calif.”
As many people know, my most ambitious project is not a physical one like that of HVDC technology. It has become a socio-technical system architecting one, which I believe fits nicely to enable Advancing (Electric Retail Markets) Technology for (Customers) Humanity [5, 6]. It is a paradigm shift that opens a big innovation space for IEEE members to make “accomplishment through imagination and truth” on the retail side of the global power industry. Although what has emerged through me is still being named, for practical reasons, as the Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) [7], I understand that it is better coined as the Value Added Electricity Architecture Framework (VAE-AF) [8].
The Contexts
Wollard writes about the Pacific Intertie project that Lamm lead introducing High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC). She says that “[t]he idea of the Intertie had been around since the public-work project days of the 1930s, when it was first proposed the Pacific Northwest’s huge surpluses of hydroelectricity be channeled down to the burgeoning cities of southern California. But the project run into heavy opposition and was eventually scrapped. In 1961, spurred by a steady rise for electricity in California, President John F. Kennedy reopened the battle. Kennedy wanted a big public project, using the new HVDC technology developed in Sweden. Private utilities wanted to own the Intertie and use it for ac transmission.”
The idea of restructuring the global power industry started in the 1980s. As with many huge projects, their high level system architecture is emergent. IEEE members lost their leadership influence, as economists, financiers, and politicians took over the industry. By misunderstanding the systemic implications of interconnected power, those leaders introduced a huge architecting flaw at the industry level [9, 10, 11], in which the new regulatory environment damaged the new global deregulation system that had an unstable architecture.
For example, the highly visible wicked or systemic crisis in the California jurisdiction at the beginning of the century sent a very bad and strong signal that not only stopped progress, but also helped to introduce counter reforms, at many other regulatory jurisdictions all over the world [5]. After that debacle, restructuring also "run into heavy opposition." As the urgency is shown in this document, high level leadership is sorely needed [12, 13, 14].
One essential element that I believe will help in developing an unprecedented system of hierarchical systemic architectures is the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics that resulted from the discussion “Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?” That proposal is running in The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Senior Members Group, which are private Linkedin groups; and the IEEE Smart Grid Group [15], the SSIT Group [16] and the IEEE Spectrum Group [17], which are public Linkedin groups.
The Battles
According to Wollard, in 1962, “Lamm arranged a licensing agreement that gave the General Electric Co. access to ASEA’s HVDC technology. Once the two companies were allies, Lamm said, they pull out all the stops in influencing opinion on the Intertie. Lamm took on his opponent with equanimity, good humor, and an unassailable marshalling of facts.”
The “Renaissance Man” story adds that “As befits a widely educated man who is observant, articulate and outspoken on a broad range of issues, Dr. Lamm has not failed to attract his own share of criticism. That this has not visibly irritated him over the years is probably due to the fact that he is concerned with issues, not personalities. His targets are imprecise thinking, questionable logic an uncritical acceptance of political propaganda. In the course of his running battle to promote orderly processes of thinking in a frequently disordered world, he has not hesitated to cross swords (or at least exchange typewriter fusillades) with a prime minister, a Nobel laureate, a best-selling critic of capitalism and a host of other who, he often feels, are debasing modern communications.”
It seems that taking well in consideration the wide differences in accomplishments, I guess I have been living a remarkably similar life, while fighting the ongoing war of the EAV-AF. In the recent battle active in three of the five IEEE Groups of Linkedin fronts, I am trying hard to have a good ally, like, for example, the President and CEO of the IEEE, Gordon W. Day, who has proposed to make A Flatter World [18] by using the IEEE motto “Advancing Technology for Humanity.” In the discussion of the proposal of an IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, so far, only the public IEEE SSIT Group is a front that has been a friendly environment to the idea, while it seems that The Official IEEE Group and the IEEE Smart Grid Group seem to have been unfriendly to it.
After each new round of intense discussion was faced with “an unassailable marshalling of facts,” every time there seems to be growing support for that IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics, discussions are either eliminated or shifted to new discussion on Linkedin’s email notification system on the unfriendly groups. For example, on March 27, as the idea was picking up, a discussion was deleted in the IEEE Smart Grid Group and shifted from a Still Active Discussions to a New Discussion in The Official IEEE Group that reduced visibility. From there on, any time a Still Active Discussions on the Code of Ethics in The Official IEEE Group was systematically shifted to New Discussions. On the IEEE Smart Grid Group some were deleted, while the others were shifted until April 5. Today, April 11, however, there’s some hope as the situation was reversed with the Code of Ethics discussion showing as a Still Active Discussions in The Official IEEE Group, but shifted to New Discussion on the IEEE Smart Grid Group.
To act ethically, I believe that IEEE members need for the status quo to become visible in order to respond all the criticism accumulated (see next section). I have the most respectful attitude with all of Linkedin’s Group Managers, because only with good relationship with them we will go forward. However, being “concerned with issues, not personalities,” as Dr. Lamm was, it is also important to state, that the current system so pressures managers to act in unintended ways, which seem to be ethical at the moment, but only in non-systemic ways.
In what seem to be another unfriendly act to the proposed IEEE Systemic Code of Ethics and the VAE-AF, for example, one discussion [19] was identified two times by a manager of the IEEE Smart Grid Group as one that didn’t belong to their group. In response, a manager of the IEEE SSIT Group wrote” In one of the other forums you mentioned the moderator did decide that anything out of the mainstream of the topic didn't belong. And yes, from the impact of technology point of view, that narrow scoping could be a problem.” In contrast to the Code of Ethics discussion, this one was included as a Still Active Discussions today.
The Status Quo Should Respond to Criticism on Current Smart Grid Developments
Wollard recalls that “[m]eanwhile, California’s private companies have began claiming that HVDC was impractical for the Intertie, and hired a consulting firm to ferret out flaws in the ASEA plan. The showdown came at the Winter General Meeting in New York in early 1963. The consultants read their report, and Lamm spoke in rebuttal, pointing out that the consultant had not even visited existing HVDC installations. She again adds “’to what is common practice in meetings like this’ Lamm says ‘the authors refuse to stand up to answer the criticism, even when the chairman ask them directly.’ The audience of engineers shifted to Lamm’s position.” Is there any doubt on whether that audience acted ethically?
Ever since 2005, when I first wrote “An Alternative Business Case to Demand Response [20],” as can be seen in most of the references, I have uncovered several flaws in the industry architecture but have not been given yet a fair trial by the status quo on what has emerged since then as the EAV-AF. It is clear that the status quo continues to “refuse to stand up to answer the criticism” all this time.
In particular in March 2011, for example, while playing on the highly advertized IEEE Spectrum 2025 Smart Grid Game, the obsolete, fragmented, and socially exclusive, Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its highly complex incremental extensions status quo scenario was defeated by the emergent, inclusive, holistic, simple, and minimalist, EWPC-AF scenario. As that result was not what the status quo expected, I understand they ordered to shut down the web site so that the game’s winner could not exercise valuable bragging rights [21] to tell humanity of the need for change in the industry architecture.
The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.
Wollard’s story continues with “Lamm’s admiration with for the United States and his people crops up frequently in his conversations, and was strengthened by his work on the Intertie. He relates how several power company executives – who have been those most opposed to the project - visited Sweden with their wives once the issue was decided.” As a result of the visit, Lamm recalled “[a]mong Americans, when the heat of combat is over, and a decision has been reached, all the bitterness disappears, and people work hard to bring the final decision to fruition in the best possible way.” I have also been expecting that kind of mutual behavior [22].
Showing how the HVDC project was advancing HVDC for LA, Wollard’s story says that: “It was estimated that the people of Los Angeles saved $600,000 a day when Columbia River power began flowing south. Lamm had seen a similar result on Gotland Island, when, after the installation of the HVDC link, rates were halved. ‘For us, the engineers’ he says ‘this information is a source of real joy.” In contrast, Americans are paying an extra half dollar on average on top of the utility bill [23]
Wollard adds once again that “… proud of the safe records of ASEA built [nuclear] reactors, Lamm said he raised strenuous criticism of one government designed plant, which ASEA found ‘inherently unsafe.’ Eventually, construction was halted. His action against the plant, and similar instances throughout his professional life, illustrate what Martensson calls Lamm’s ‘basic honesty – it’s part of his character: he is honest and he’s proud of it.”
References
[1] IEEE Power Engineering Review, October 1981, Volume PER-1, Number 10.
[2] The Sixth Disruptive Technology, September 30, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[3] Uno Lamm is a Leader Role Model, October 29, 2007, EWPC Blog.
[4] “Uno Lamm: Inventor and Activist,” by Katherine Wollard, published in the IEEE Spectrum of March 1988.
[5] The BIG California LIE, September 18, 2007.
[6] The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market, December 22, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[7] The Electricity Without Price Control Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), November 30, 2009, EWPC Blog.
[8] Desconectemos el Presupuesto del Sector Eléctrico, May 20, 2011, Acento.com
[9] Why the Smart Grid World Forum Requires Learning About T&D Transportation Ultraquality, September 29, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[10] Three Smart Grid Predictions for Initiating the Global Power Industry Transformation, July 21, 2010.
[11] A Predictable Environment for VCs Smart Grid Investments, May 6, 2011. EWPC Blog
[12] Leadership Answers What to do First, April 16, 2008, EWPC Blog.
[13] States that Implement a Heterogeneous Grid are Poised to be the Winners, December 13, 2009, EWPC Blog
[14] Which Country Will Take the Leadership of a Global Vision for Advancing Grids for Customers?, September 9, 2010, EWPC Blog.
[15] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[16] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE SSIT Group of Linkedin.
[17] Does the IEEE Code of Ethics Fully Supports Advancing Technology For Humanity?, IEEE Spectrum Group of Linkedin.
[18] GORDON DAY, A Flatter World: It’s time to address the challenges of universal access to technology, 5 March 2012, President’s Column, the IEEE news source - the institute.
[19] A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030, IEEE Smart Grid Group of Linkedin.
[20] An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, November 3, 2005, EnergyPulse.net
[21] How to Cross the Thin Line from Arrogance to Leadership, June 19, 2010, GMH Blog.
[22] Let EWPC Come to Fruition, November 7, 2007, GMH Blog.
[23] Just as Pogo, IOUs Found the Enemy, January 26, 2009, GMH Blog.
sábado, abril 07, 2012
A Guess About Preventing World Economy Collapse by 2030
This is the 34th comment posted under the Popular Science article MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030:
I don't discount that Daniel A. Mercer was able to propose a "card deck" that produced a stable scenario. In practice, however, the recent scenarios that have unfolded, or are still unfolding, have been highly unstable. One explanation for Daniel's "final" project might be his capacity for designing a systemic long term fundamental solution "card deck." Similarly, one explanation for today’s emerging reality is that there are too many non-systemic short term symptomatic solution decision makers. Maybe W. Edwards Deming was right when he wrote that "... we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management" and added that "The route to transformation is what I call Profound Knowledge. The system of profound knowledge..." I guess that the prevailing style of management has evolved as the worst kind of corruption, an environment of systemic corruption around key systems, like energy, water, health, etc.
I don't discount that Daniel A. Mercer was able to propose a "card deck" that produced a stable scenario. In practice, however, the recent scenarios that have unfolded, or are still unfolding, have been highly unstable. One explanation for Daniel's "final" project might be his capacity for designing a systemic long term fundamental solution "card deck." Similarly, one explanation for today’s emerging reality is that there are too many non-systemic short term symptomatic solution decision makers. Maybe W. Edwards Deming was right when he wrote that "... we are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of management" and added that "The route to transformation is what I call Profound Knowledge. The system of profound knowledge..." I guess that the prevailing style of management has evolved as the worst kind of corruption, an environment of systemic corruption around key systems, like energy, water, health, etc.
martes, abril 03, 2012
Conjecture: ICT Replaces Energy as a New Type of Carrier Industry
I conjecture that energy is a manufacturing carrier industry that is being replaced by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) system design carrier industry.
This is how the “Long Wave Model” has played out. Starting around 1770, in the Industrial Revolution, cotton and pig iron were the carrier industries that “fueled” economic growth. Then around 1830, in the Victorian Prosperity, they changed to the coal and transport industries. Around 1880, in the “Belle Epoque,” the change was to the steel industry. Close to 1940, in the Golden Age of Full Employment, it shifted to the energy industry. All of those were manufacturing industries.
In every long wave a high level basic innovation is at play for the whole economy driven by the carrier industry. As an example, please take a look at the post the post The Renaissance of the Power Industry (this is a correction that replaces "The Coming Renaissance" of Business Model (not Price) Competition under EWPC-AF).
As a result of a carrier industry “running out gas,” there is a big systemic depression, which is an important destructive systemic downward spiral. As a replacement a new long wave with a systemic upward spiral enters to end the depression. My conjecture is that we are experiencing an upward spiral that is the result of the ICT system design carrier industry.
The country or countries that lead the upward spiral will be the winners. For the loser, the longer the energy manufacturing carrier industry status quo countries neutralize the ICT carrier industry, the longer the devastating effects of the systemic depression.
Please tell me how do see this conjecture. All comments will be centralized under the original post in the EWPC Blog.
This is how the “Long Wave Model” has played out. Starting around 1770, in the Industrial Revolution, cotton and pig iron were the carrier industries that “fueled” economic growth. Then around 1830, in the Victorian Prosperity, they changed to the coal and transport industries. Around 1880, in the “Belle Epoque,” the change was to the steel industry. Close to 1940, in the Golden Age of Full Employment, it shifted to the energy industry. All of those were manufacturing industries.
In every long wave a high level basic innovation is at play for the whole economy driven by the carrier industry. As an example, please take a look at the post the post The Renaissance of the Power Industry (this is a correction that replaces "The Coming Renaissance" of Business Model (not Price) Competition under EWPC-AF).
As a result of a carrier industry “running out gas,” there is a big systemic depression, which is an important destructive systemic downward spiral. As a replacement a new long wave with a systemic upward spiral enters to end the depression. My conjecture is that we are experiencing an upward spiral that is the result of the ICT system design carrier industry.
The country or countries that lead the upward spiral will be the winners. For the loser, the longer the energy manufacturing carrier industry status quo countries neutralize the ICT carrier industry, the longer the devastating effects of the systemic depression.
Please tell me how do see this conjecture. All comments will be centralized under the original post in the EWPC Blog.
lunes, marzo 19, 2012
Why the Current Smart Grid Process Doesn’t Let the New Steve Job Connect the Dots
This is another follow up to the EWPC Blog post What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation? In the process to respond one of the comments under a discussion about said post, on the SmartGrids – Energy & Water Group of Linkedin, I just got the insight that I have been trying to connect the dots of The Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), which can place Steve’s quote as a high level system’s heuristics for energy innovation to emerge."[Y]ou can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something -- your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life."
-- Stanford University commencement address, June 2005.
This time I have the current Smart Grid process as a counter example, to tell their proponents why the dots didn’t connect in two key events. I first look backwards to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, by explaining the first flaw with the strongly recommended 2008 EWPC Article Leadership Answers What to do First, whose summary says:
The answer to the question of what to do first is for the global power industry to get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible. That is the kind of leadership needed to face the inevitable fundamental changes required to significantly reduce today’s legislative and regulatory uncertainty.”For those very busy, please at least consider the one paragraph that shows why the dots don’t connect:
The most important reason why the existing paradigm – the system - is failing is because of architecture and design flaws. Eberhardt Rechtin and Mark W. Maier, in their book “The Art of System Architecting,” have a descriptive heuristics that explains what happens: “In architecting a new [the paradigm in this case program all the serious mistakes are made in the first day.” Leaving out utilities native loads, Open Transmission Access of EPAct 92 was such a serious mistake, which initiated the incremental path of the California crisis, the 2003 blackout, etc., that have taken us to today’s mess of costly and complex capacity markets, NERC mandatory requirements, etc.
In order to see why the dots semantics are not connecting either on the Smart Grid, please take a look at the article A Predictable Environment for VCs Smart Grid Investments:
The problem with the semantics is due to the Integrated Energy and Communication Systems Architecture (IECSA) project, circa 2003, where under the title “THE NEED FOR AN INDUSTRY ARCHITECTURE,” on page 2-1 of the final release of IECSA Volume I, it is written that “There is a two-part answer to the question, “Why it is necessary to develop an industry architecture?’ First, it must be understood that the challenge facing utility executives is keeping the lights on while also enhancing the value of services to consumer… The second, and more powerful argument, is that the only way to address the challenge utility executives face is to go back to basics, understand why the current system doesn’t perform as needed, and then to design interoperability into the system from the ground up.” It is very clear that VCs investors were not part of the Smart Grid definition, but to a challenge faced by utility executives.
In fact, it was defined that among the Areas beyond IECSA were “changes to the overall business and regulatory structure of the industry.” In other words, semantics were limited to a technological system to protect the status quo of the Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework (IOUs-AF). To read additional architecting evidence in support of the urgent need to restructure the electric power industry can be found in the article Should the Smart Grid be a Technological Project to Address a Challenge Faced by Utility Executives?
The heuristic that “... all the serious mistakes are made in the first day” has been known for quite some time with different wording, as it is based on what Plato said in the 4th Century Before Christ, which is also critical to connect the dots. He said that "The beginning is the most important part of the work.” For the Smart Grid the same mistake was repeated twice, last as explained above, and the first beginning with the a huge architecting mistake is in the US Energy Policy Act of 1992, as can be seen in the recent EWPC Blog post FERC's Order 1000 as a Potential Example of Over-Regulated America.
My suggestion is the result of applying The Art of Systems Architecting, by Rechtin and Maeir, to the socio-technical electric power system. Their approach is to concentrate the attention in heuristics for systems-level architecting. Plato’s quote is one of those heuristics that complement SJ quote nicely.
domingo, marzo 18, 2012
Debate Para la Campaña - Unamos a la CNE, Indotel y ProCompetencia
El primer párrafo de la nota ¿Pondremos la Educación y/o la Electricidad en el Núcleo o en el Contexto de la Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo? dice "Muy cortésmente someto a consideración el concepto innovador del Núcleo para introducirlo en la Estrategia Nacional de Desarrollo (END). Todo lo que no es parte del Núcleo de la END es parte de su Contexto."
En efecto, la decisión de incorporar los pactos de educación, energía y fiscal, colocan estas tres áreas en el núcleo de la END. Todo lo demás, que forma parte del contexto necesita eficientizarse para poder llevar adelante la END. Una buena iniciativa está ocurriendo en España para generar ahorros en el contexto que se puedan dedicar al núcleo.
En la noticia El Gobierno centraliza los órganos supervisores en la nueva Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia, podemos ver un exelente ejemplo de debate en la campaña para generar recursos que permitan resolver las necesidades del núcleo. El subtitular dice: "Supondrá un ahorro de 4 millones de euros en salarios y remuneraciones, además del que procederá de la racionalización de sedes y actividades." A continuación, un extracto de dicha noticia.
MADRID, 24 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) -
El Consejo de Ministros ha aprobado el anteproyecto de Ley para la creación de una Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia, que centralizará las tareas del actuales organismos supervisores a excepción de la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV), la Dirección General de Seguros y el Banco de España, que afectan al mercado financiero.
En rueda de prensa, la vicepresidenta primera del Gobierno, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, ha indicado que esta medida permitirá "evitar duplicidades, contradicciones en los informes, pérdidas de seguridad jurídica y desprotección del mercado y de los consumidores".
Según ha explicado, originalmente operaban la Comisión Nacional de la Energía (CNE), la Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (CMT) y la Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC), a las que se sumó en 2007 la Comisión Nacional del Sector Postal (CNSP).
En efecto, la decisión de incorporar los pactos de educación, energía y fiscal, colocan estas tres áreas en el núcleo de la END. Todo lo demás, que forma parte del contexto necesita eficientizarse para poder llevar adelante la END. Una buena iniciativa está ocurriendo en España para generar ahorros en el contexto que se puedan dedicar al núcleo.
En la noticia El Gobierno centraliza los órganos supervisores en la nueva Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia, podemos ver un exelente ejemplo de debate en la campaña para generar recursos que permitan resolver las necesidades del núcleo. El subtitular dice: "Supondrá un ahorro de 4 millones de euros en salarios y remuneraciones, además del que procederá de la racionalización de sedes y actividades." A continuación, un extracto de dicha noticia.
MADRID, 24 Feb. (EUROPA PRESS) -
El Consejo de Ministros ha aprobado el anteproyecto de Ley para la creación de una Comisión Nacional de Mercados y Competencia, que centralizará las tareas del actuales organismos supervisores a excepción de la Comisión Nacional del Mercado de Valores (CNMV), la Dirección General de Seguros y el Banco de España, que afectan al mercado financiero.
En rueda de prensa, la vicepresidenta primera del Gobierno, Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, ha indicado que esta medida permitirá "evitar duplicidades, contradicciones en los informes, pérdidas de seguridad jurídica y desprotección del mercado y de los consumidores".
Según ha explicado, originalmente operaban la Comisión Nacional de la Energía (CNE), la Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (CMT) y la Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC), a las que se sumó en 2007 la Comisión Nacional del Sector Postal (CNSP).
viernes, marzo 16, 2012
Las Edes No Tienen Futuro en el Extranjero y Mucho Menos en Dominicana
Lo que sigue es otro intento de sacar en claro el error que seguimos cometiendo al tratar de rescatar las empresas distribuidoras. Creo que entendiendo la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica es ahora muy fácil comprender la nota Conceptos Claves: Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y a Largo Plazos y el Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda que trae al presente una nota que redacté hace seis años.
Para resaltar la importancia del Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP), como parte sistémica del sector eléctrico, ayer publiqué la nota de aplicación global The Utilities’ Business Marketing Myopia Manifesto (que adaptado a nuestra situación local, es algo así como Manifiesto de la Miopía en el Mercadeo de las Distribuidoras), cuyo primer párrafo también adapto así:
Para resaltar la importancia del Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP), como parte sistémica del sector eléctrico, ayer publiqué la nota de aplicación global The Utilities’ Business Marketing Myopia Manifesto (que adaptado a nuestra situación local, es algo así como Manifiesto de la Miopía en el Mercadeo de las Distribuidoras), cuyo primer párrafo también adapto así:
Las empresas distribuidoras de electricidad no dejaron de crecer [sin contar el uso sin pago de la electricidad, por supuesto] debido a la necesidad de que los servicios a base de electricidad (luz, aire acondicionado, refrigeración, etc) se redujo. Eso creció. El sector minorista de los servicios públicos está en problemas, hoy, no porque esa necesidad fue llenada por otros en el mercado SQP (empresas de servicios energéticos, empresas de gestión de energía, proveedores de paneles solares, suplidores de eficiencia energética en el lado de la demanda, fabricantes de baterías), sino porque no podía ser llenado por las propias distribuidoras. Dejan que otros le quiten sus clientes porque creían estar en el negocio de las distribuidoras, en lugar de ser empresas de servicios de energía. La razón por la que definieron su industria de forma incorrecta fue que estaban orientadas a ser distribuidoras, en vez de estar orientada a los servicios; estaban orientadas al producto, en vez de estar orientadas al cliente…
jueves, marzo 15, 2012
Listín Diario: Conep: sector eléctrico debe ser privatizado - Versión Resaltada
PRESENTACIÓN DE INFORME
Conep: sector eléctrico debe ser privatizado
A FUTURO. VEN QUE PRIMERO SE DEBE TERMINAR EL PROCESO DE ESTABILIZACIÓN
Juan Eduardo Thomas
Santo Domingo
El presidente del Consejo Nacional de la Empresa Privada (Conep), Manuel Díez Cabral, dijo ayer al término de una reunión con el vicepresidente de la Corporación de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (CDEEE), Celso Marranzini, que el sector eléctrico nacional debe estar en manos del sector privado.
Diez Cabral aclaró que sobre el tema no hay un mecanismo definido, ni ha sido propuesto algún dispositivo en ese sentido, pero que lo mejor sería hacer un estudio que explique de manera inteligente cómo se debe pasar el sector eléctrico al sector privado para que deje de ser una carga para el Estado.
De acuerdo con su explicación, hacer la transición con un sistema que no está estable y que tiene déficits enormes lo hace muy difícil, pero el deseo del sector empresarial es que a futuro el sector eléctrico vuelva a ser manejado por el empresariado.
“Me refiero a que el sector privado siempre ha entendido que el sector eléctrico, como muchos otros sectores, debe estar en el sector privado”, dijo el empresario.
Sus declaraciones se produjeron al término de una reunión con el Vicepresidente de la CDEEE, en donde según se informó, se abordaron temas referentes a la evolución del sector eléctrico en los últimos dos años y medio, y los trabajos de mejora en la calidad de los servicios. En respuesta a sobre cuándo sería el momento para esa transición, Díez Cabral dijo que se necesita terminar el proceso de estabilización y de mejoría que se ha estado haciendo hasta ahora.
Además, dijo que falta un tiempo para llegar a la eliminación del subsidio y a que el sistema eléctrico esté funcionando de una forma en que genere interés de empresarios que estén dispuestos a invertir. Expuso que lo ideal es aprender de las lecciones del pasado y hacer lo que más le conviene a la nación dominicana en ese sentido.
Marranzini
Sobre el tema, Marranzini dijo que no ha ido a la CDEEE a privatizar el sector, sino a ‘gerenciarlo’: “Yo vengo a devolverle el valor que las empresas de distribución perdieron. Yo vengo a devolverle el servicio que la población necesita, ya después la decisión de la privatización de las distribuidoras será una decisión del Gobierno”, dijo. Sin embargo, explicó que hay sectores en donde se requiere de inversiones muy grandes, y esas inversiones tienen que venir por lo regular del sector privado. Aclaró que el hecho de que sea privado o público no quiere decir que el sistema sea eficiente, asegurando que la eficiencia tiene que ver con la calidad de la supervisión.
Privatización
A mediados del primer gobierno del Partido de la Liberación Dominicana (PLD) (1996-2000) se estableció un modelo de privatización que dividió el sector en las fases de generación, distribución y comercialización. Las empresas Unión Fenosa y AES resultaron ganadoras de la licitación por la cual se crearon las empresas de distribución Edenorte, Edesur y Edeeste, volviendo las dos primeras al Estado dominicano en la gestión presidencial de Hipólito Mejía (2000-2004), al ser adquiridas la totalidad de las acciones de Unión Fenosa. El Gobierno ha destinado RD$3,892.12 millones en subsidio en el primer trimestre del año según ha informado la Superintendencia de Electricidad (SIE).
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL
El Vicepresidente de la CDEEE también dijo que no está de acuerdo con que el sistema de transmisión de la energía pase al sector privado por tratarse de un tema de seguridad nacional.
SUBSIDIO
Marranzini explicó además que el subsidio al sector no puede ser generalizado, sino focalizado. Dijo que se está trabajando efectivamente con el programa de Bonoluz que terminará con 600,000 clientes el 31 de diciembre del presente año, usuarios que tienen que recibir el mismo servicio que alguien que puede pagar. “No se puede pagar un subsidio a alguien que no lo necesita”, aseguró.
Conep: sector eléctrico debe ser privatizado
A FUTURO. VEN QUE PRIMERO SE DEBE TERMINAR EL PROCESO DE ESTABILIZACIÓN
Juan Eduardo Thomas
Santo Domingo
El presidente del Consejo Nacional de la Empresa Privada (Conep), Manuel Díez Cabral, dijo ayer al término de una reunión con el vicepresidente de la Corporación de Empresas Eléctricas Estatales (CDEEE), Celso Marranzini, que el sector eléctrico nacional debe estar en manos del sector privado.
Diez Cabral aclaró que sobre el tema no hay un mecanismo definido, ni ha sido propuesto algún dispositivo en ese sentido, pero que lo mejor sería hacer un estudio que explique de manera inteligente cómo se debe pasar el sector eléctrico al sector privado para que deje de ser una carga para el Estado.
De acuerdo con su explicación, hacer la transición con un sistema que no está estable y que tiene déficits enormes lo hace muy difícil, pero el deseo del sector empresarial es que a futuro el sector eléctrico vuelva a ser manejado por el empresariado.
“Me refiero a que el sector privado siempre ha entendido que el sector eléctrico, como muchos otros sectores, debe estar en el sector privado”, dijo el empresario.
Sus declaraciones se produjeron al término de una reunión con el Vicepresidente de la CDEEE, en donde según se informó, se abordaron temas referentes a la evolución del sector eléctrico en los últimos dos años y medio, y los trabajos de mejora en la calidad de los servicios. En respuesta a sobre cuándo sería el momento para esa transición, Díez Cabral dijo que se necesita terminar el proceso de estabilización y de mejoría que se ha estado haciendo hasta ahora.
Además, dijo que falta un tiempo para llegar a la eliminación del subsidio y a que el sistema eléctrico esté funcionando de una forma en que genere interés de empresarios que estén dispuestos a invertir. Expuso que lo ideal es aprender de las lecciones del pasado y hacer lo que más le conviene a la nación dominicana en ese sentido.
Marranzini
Sobre el tema, Marranzini dijo que no ha ido a la CDEEE a privatizar el sector, sino a ‘gerenciarlo’: “Yo vengo a devolverle el valor que las empresas de distribución perdieron. Yo vengo a devolverle el servicio que la población necesita, ya después la decisión de la privatización de las distribuidoras será una decisión del Gobierno”, dijo. Sin embargo, explicó que hay sectores en donde se requiere de inversiones muy grandes, y esas inversiones tienen que venir por lo regular del sector privado. Aclaró que el hecho de que sea privado o público no quiere decir que el sistema sea eficiente, asegurando que la eficiencia tiene que ver con la calidad de la supervisión.
Privatización
A mediados del primer gobierno del Partido de la Liberación Dominicana (PLD) (1996-2000) se estableció un modelo de privatización que dividió el sector en las fases de generación, distribución y comercialización. Las empresas Unión Fenosa y AES resultaron ganadoras de la licitación por la cual se crearon las empresas de distribución Edenorte, Edesur y Edeeste, volviendo las dos primeras al Estado dominicano en la gestión presidencial de Hipólito Mejía (2000-2004), al ser adquiridas la totalidad de las acciones de Unión Fenosa. El Gobierno ha destinado RD$3,892.12 millones en subsidio en el primer trimestre del año según ha informado la Superintendencia de Electricidad (SIE).
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL
El Vicepresidente de la CDEEE también dijo que no está de acuerdo con que el sistema de transmisión de la energía pase al sector privado por tratarse de un tema de seguridad nacional.
SUBSIDIO
Marranzini explicó además que el subsidio al sector no puede ser generalizado, sino focalizado. Dijo que se está trabajando efectivamente con el programa de Bonoluz que terminará con 600,000 clientes el 31 de diciembre del presente año, usuarios que tienen que recibir el mismo servicio que alguien que puede pagar. “No se puede pagar un subsidio a alguien que no lo necesita”, aseguró.
Tres Conceptos Claves: Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y a Largo Plazos y el Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda
Primera actualización: Fin apagones arbitrarios: ¿será ese el regalo de Navidad del Pacto Eléctrico? Esta colaboración de calidad se refuerza mutuamente con la exposición Video CES Pacto Eléctrico: Metodología para desarrollar un Sistema Sector Eléctrico que forma parte integral de esta. También se sigue aquí el matiz histórico de dicha exposición con la intención de elevar el nivel en el Pacto Eléctrico al de diálogo generativo con énfasis en la primacía del todo, que toma en cuenta el valor que agregan o destruyen las relaciones entre las partes que quedan fuera con la metodología actual que se basa en la prímacía de las partes.
Este regalo de Navidad se sustenta primero en lo que aparece en la nota Análisis y Crítica del Discurso de Toma de Posesión del Dr. Leonel Fernández en Cuanto al Sector Eléctrico, del mismo 16 de agosto del 2008, cuando sucedió en el Congreso Nacional. Dicho regalo es que nuestra diferenciación estratégica está en concentrar la transformación en enfrentar el costo de desabastecimiento que es impulsado por apagones arbitrarios. Al respecto, es fácil comprobar que los intereses a favor de los consumidores en el Pacto Eléctrico parece que solo se preocupan en como compensarlos, sin haberlo logrado por 15 años, en vez de concentrar su atención en eliminar dichos apagones arbitrarios, como aparece en la cita sobre el antes mencionado discurso:
Dentro de tres meses serán cuatro años de la nota inicial y lo que me recordó esto fueron dos cosas. Primero el bajo nivel de la conversación en el Petit Comité 1 sobre el "Disenso 1.6" de la propuesta "101‐11629‐1714 El gobierno no debe asumir riesgos que corresponden a los entes privados; cada empresa que asuma por su cuenta los riesgos de su inversión y desarrollo." Ese es un interesante reflejo de uno de los límites de la primacía de las partes que impide ver el tema más importante del riesgo antisistémico en el Pacto Eléctrico. Si ese tema se deja de lado tenemos la garantía de seguir operando un antisistéma eléctrico dejando sobre la mesa la mejor oportunidad para el desarrollo de la República Dominicana y así desperdiciar el Pacto Eléctrico.
Y segundo la nota Cambio de paradigma a la riqueza del liderazgo en el Pacto Eléctrico y la COP21 al agregarle su "Primera actualización. ¿Deben COP21 y Pacto Eléctrico ser equilibrados y contentar a los pro-sistema?" Aunque aparentemente va a enfadar a los pro-antisistema, deben entender que les estoy haciendo un gran favor a ellos también. Veamos.
Entiendo que como dijo Leonard Hyman sea una víctoria pírrica que peor aún estará expuesta a deciciones que pueden llegar a una Suprema Corte que funcione, haciendo que sus decisiones sean tan miopes como la de los dueños de los ferrocarriles hace un siglo. Esto también me recuerda la cita de Uno Lamm, mi héroe, "Entre los Americanos, cuando termina el calor del combate y la decisión se ha alcanzado, todo el sinsabor desaparece y la gente trabaja duro para llevar a cabo la decisión final de la mejor manera," que aparece en la nota A Trabajar Duro para Enderezar las Señales a los Agentes de hace más de 10 años y medio.
Otro tema íntimamente relacionado es la decisión que empeoró aún más el riesgo antisistémico de largo plazo que tiene más de 40 años para solo ofrecer 85% de la oferta en lo que se había venido llamando la administración de la demanda y que Fabricio Gómez reconoció como administración de la oferta en su presentación "Impacto de la Crisis del Sector Eléctrico en la Economía Dominicana," basada en la encuesta INTEC-BID, ante los actores y expertos convocados. La decisión de ofrecer un servicio lo más continuo posible que dejó de ser económicamente viable cuando se compensan los apagones debe verse bajo la primacía del todo.
Al hacerlo, inmediatamente salta a la vista que los clientes se diferencian grandemente en función del costo de desabastecimiento, generando unos subsidios cruzados de seguridad de suministro a favor de los clientes no regulados que se benefician económicamente de los consumidores regulados que siguen expuestos a apagones no programados que reciben, por ejemplo, hasta los que tienen servicio de 24 horas para evitar fallas en el antisistema eléctrico.
Es con un precio spot que refleje las condiciones de oferta y demanda que se deben liqudar esas transacciones y no con precios promedios como la tarifa técnica que ocultan tales subsidios. Igualmente, de forma relativa, los consumidores regulados en circuitos de 24 horas reciben subsisidos cruzados de seguridad de suministro a expensas de los demás, siendo los más perjudicados los que está ubicados en circuitos tipo D.
Esa es la explicación dinámica que faltó en la presentación de Fabricio Mazara cuando mencionó que las microempresas enfrentan un costo promedio tres veces el de la factura. Es así como se puede justificar la transformación del sector para que se vuelva un sistema que va más allá del mercado sálvese quien pueda para convertirse en el ecosistema mayormente renovable que se introdujo en la parte superior de la lámina 13 de la mencionada exposición.
Eso nos lleva a la lámina 11 de dicha exposición que trata de un servicio continuo UPSA que es la idea que se describe en la primera nota de este Blog GMH del 15 de mayo del 2005 Un País Sin Apagones. Un mes más tarde apareció la nota El Origen de La Iniciativa UPSA: Una Buena Carta Aniversario.
La redefinición de uno de los párrafos que aparecen en la nota inicial diría, por ejemplo, "Riesgo antisistémico es el riesgo de falla del sistema iniciado por un (o varios) elemento del anti sistema que tendría repercusiones en otros elementos debido a la naturaleza interconectada de los antisistemas eléctricos. Infiero dos tipos de riesgos antisistémicos que afectan los antisistemas eléctricos según el plazo:"
Tres Conceptos Claves: Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y a Largo Plazos y el Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda
Abajo repito la nota que introduce los tres conceptos de título. En su momento, estos conceptos pasaron desapercibidos, pero al leerlos con conocimiento de la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica, creo que se podrá destacar su gran importancia. En una nota subsiguiente ampliaré la aplicación de dichos conceptos conbase al progreso obtenido desde que publiqué esa nota.
Ayer se cumplió seis años en que escribí la nota Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y Largo Plazos, que dice así:
Fin apagones arbitrarios: ¿será regalo de Navidad del #PactoElectrico @PactosRD? https://t.co/7AugOVytAF #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/mZWvY5lQgR
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 12, 2015
¡¡Usando la energía a tu favor! está disponible! https://t.co/SM7T8Siyvj Gracias a @AlbertoDSevilla @gmh_upsa @independientelr
— Respaldo de Energía (@inversorsire) December 13, 2015Este regalo de Navidad se sustenta primero en lo que aparece en la nota Análisis y Crítica del Discurso de Toma de Posesión del Dr. Leonel Fernández en Cuanto al Sector Eléctrico, del mismo 16 de agosto del 2008, cuando sucedió en el Congreso Nacional. Dicho regalo es que nuestra diferenciación estratégica está en concentrar la transformación en enfrentar el costo de desabastecimiento que es impulsado por apagones arbitrarios. Al respecto, es fácil comprobar que los intereses a favor de los consumidores en el Pacto Eléctrico parece que solo se preocupan en como compensarlos, sin haberlo logrado por 15 años, en vez de concentrar su atención en eliminar dichos apagones arbitrarios, como aparece en la cita sobre el antes mencionado discurso:
Mi introducción en el artículo “a Dominican strategy,” que me publicó la prestigiosa revista IEEE Power & Energy en mayo-junio del 2006, decía que “La economía de la República Dominicana enfrenta costos elevados de electricidad. El reto primario es encontrar formas de reducir el costo de abastecimiento a los consumidores mientras se recuperan las inversiones en el país. Sin embargo, lo que ese enfoque no toma en cuenta es que la electricidad tiene dos fuentes de costos a la economía: costos de abastecimiento y costos de desabastecimiento.”Desde un punto de vista más conceptual, esto se basa en la redefinición del riesgo sistémico como riesgo antisistemico. Por ejemplo, en este caso, parecía tener mucho sentido emplear la misma terminología de la banca "riesgo sistémico" para facilitar la comprensión del riesgo de los apagones en los sistemas eléctricos en el corto plazo y en el largo plazo.
Una mejor comprensión de esos dos riesgos resulta cuando se reconoce, por ejemplo, que la causa de los apagones sorpresivos de corto plazo, que discriminan de forma económica mayormente a los consumidores regulados en la República Dominicana, se debe a que el sector no es un sistema sino un antisistema como se explicó en la referida exposición. Esa es una razón contundente por la cual emerge la redefinición como riesgos antisistémicos a corto y largo plazos para la industria eléctrica. Igual debería la industria bancaria cambiar el término a riesgo antisistémico que resulta cuando está operando como un antisistema. Tales riesgos prácticamente desaparecen (a menos que llegue un Cisne Negro, es decir algo imposible de anticipar) cuando se opera como sistema.
Dentro de tres meses serán cuatro años de la nota inicial y lo que me recordó esto fueron dos cosas. Primero el bajo nivel de la conversación en el Petit Comité 1 sobre el "Disenso 1.6" de la propuesta "101‐11629‐1714 El gobierno no debe asumir riesgos que corresponden a los entes privados; cada empresa que asuma por su cuenta los riesgos de su inversión y desarrollo." Ese es un interesante reflejo de uno de los límites de la primacía de las partes que impide ver el tema más importante del riesgo antisistémico en el Pacto Eléctrico. Si ese tema se deja de lado tenemos la garantía de seguir operando un antisistéma eléctrico dejando sobre la mesa la mejor oportunidad para el desarrollo de la República Dominicana y así desperdiciar el Pacto Eléctrico.
Y segundo la nota Cambio de paradigma a la riqueza del liderazgo en el Pacto Eléctrico y la COP21 al agregarle su "Primera actualización. ¿Deben COP21 y Pacto Eléctrico ser equilibrados y contentar a los pro-sistema?" Aunque aparentemente va a enfadar a los pro-antisistema, deben entender que les estoy haciendo un gran favor a ellos también. Veamos.
Entiendo que como dijo Leonard Hyman sea una víctoria pírrica que peor aún estará expuesta a deciciones que pueden llegar a una Suprema Corte que funcione, haciendo que sus decisiones sean tan miopes como la de los dueños de los ferrocarriles hace un siglo. Esto también me recuerda la cita de Uno Lamm, mi héroe, "Entre los Americanos, cuando termina el calor del combate y la decisión se ha alcanzado, todo el sinsabor desaparece y la gente trabaja duro para llevar a cabo la decisión final de la mejor manera," que aparece en la nota A Trabajar Duro para Enderezar las Señales a los Agentes de hace más de 10 años y medio.
Es con un precio spot que refleje las condiciones de oferta y demanda que se deben liqudar esas transacciones y no con precios promedios como la tarifa técnica que ocultan tales subsidios. Igualmente, de forma relativa, los consumidores regulados en circuitos de 24 horas reciben subsisidos cruzados de seguridad de suministro a expensas de los demás, siendo los más perjudicados los que está ubicados en circuitos tipo D.
Esa es la explicación dinámica que faltó en la presentación de Fabricio Mazara cuando mencionó que las microempresas enfrentan un costo promedio tres veces el de la factura. Es así como se puede justificar la transformación del sector para que se vuelva un sistema que va más allá del mercado sálvese quien pueda para convertirse en el ecosistema mayormente renovable que se introdujo en la parte superior de la lámina 13 de la mencionada exposición.
La redefinición de uno de los párrafos que aparecen en la nota inicial diría, por ejemplo, "Riesgo antisistémico es el riesgo de falla del sistema iniciado por un (o varios) elemento del anti sistema que tendría repercusiones en otros elementos debido a la naturaleza interconectada de los antisistemas eléctricos. Infiero dos tipos de riesgos antisistémicos que afectan los antisistemas eléctricos según el plazo:"
Espero que esta contribución sea tomada en cuenta para no solo aprovechar la capacidad instalada en poder de los consumidores, sino para incentivar la escalabilidad del aprendizaje que nos permitíría desarrollar Un País Sin Apagones en el que sean totalmente innecesario el uso de combustibles fósiles como reservas rodantes. Eso sería algo que los ciudadanos de todo el mundo no están esperando, pero les encantará. El modelo de la capitalización que mantiene vigente el antsistema es incapaz de encantar a dichos ciudadanos.
Puede ser que la cita de T. S. Elliot "No dejaremos de explorar y el fin de nuestra exploración sera encontrar el punto de partida y conocer el lugar por primera vez," que se plasmó en la Séptima actualización. ¿Debería el Pacto Eléctrico ser nuestra puerta innovadora al progreso? de la nota Un cambio de paradigma para el Pacto Eléctrico, se corresponde al lugar de la primera nota de este blog Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, la iniciativa UPSA, que los actores y expertos convovados podrán conocer por primera vez.
Puede ser que la cita de T. S. Elliot "No dejaremos de explorar y el fin de nuestra exploración sera encontrar el punto de partida y conocer el lugar por primera vez," que se plasmó en la Séptima actualización. ¿Debería el Pacto Eléctrico ser nuestra puerta innovadora al progreso? de la nota Un cambio de paradigma para el Pacto Eléctrico, se corresponde al lugar de la primera nota de este blog Grupo Millennium Hispaniola, la iniciativa UPSA, que los actores y expertos convovados podrán conocer por primera vez.
Tres Conceptos Claves: Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y a Largo Plazos y el Mercado Sálvese Quien Pueda
Abajo repito la nota que introduce los tres conceptos de título. En su momento, estos conceptos pasaron desapercibidos, pero al leerlos con conocimiento de la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica, creo que se podrá destacar su gran importancia. En una nota subsiguiente ampliaré la aplicación de dichos conceptos conbase al progreso obtenido desde que publiqué esa nota.
Ayer se cumplió seis años en que escribí la nota Riesgos Sistémicos a Corto y Largo Plazos, que dice así:
Riesgo sistémico es el riesgo de falla del sistema iniciado por un elemento del sistema que tendría repercusiones en otros elementos debido a la naturaleza interconectada de los sistemas eléctricos. Infiero dos tipos de riesgos sistémicos que afectan los sistemas eléctricos según el plazo:
Riesgo sistémico a corto plazo en que la falla de una línea de transmisión o un generador dan como resultado un apagón general del sistema.
Riesgo sistémico a largo plazo en que la falla es por la falta de suficiente capacidad para atender la demanda con un servicio con calidad comercial.
En la República Dominicana se ha manifestado un continuo riesgo sistémico a largo plazo, dando lugar a la penetración de soluciones individuales, conforme a un proceso sistémico en que nace y crece el mercado eléctrico Sálvese Quien Pueda (SQP).
Para corregir el riesgo sistémico a largo plazo se propone el desarrollo de la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios.
Al igual que en la banca la regulación eficiente de los comercializadores es la prudencial para resolver los dos fallos en el mercado de comercialización: 1) Comprensión del riesgo de precio y 2) Información sobre la solvencia del comercializador.
Los dos remedios regulatorios son: 1) Regulación de productos (topes de riesgo) y 2) Control de la solvencia del comercializador.
The Utilities’ Business Marketing Myopia Manifesto
The utilities did not stop growing because the need for energy based services (light, air conditioning, refrigeration, etc.) declined. That grew. The retail side of utilities are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (competitive retailers, energy services companies, energy management companies, solar panel vendors, demand side energy efficiency suppliers, demand response companies, battery manufacturers) but because they could not be filled by the utilities themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the utility business rather than the energy based services business. The reason they defined their industry incorrectly was that they were utility oriented instead of services oriented; they were product oriented instead of customer oriented...The above is an excerpt of the August 2010 EWPC article Answering “What Energy Business Are You In?” As the Way Out of The Third Depression. This is a follow up of the insightful dialogue I had with Gerrit Gentier in the Smart Grid Network Group of Linkedin, where he suggested that “Steve Jobs would develop "iHEMS", the beautifully styled Apple Home Energy Management System,” and went on to describe the device. However, he ended with “Sadly, he isn't around to tell Apple and make it happen, so the world will have to make do with second rate products in this area.”
My response was “… It seems that your proposal is very close to what Steve did to surprise customer with products they then love. Why are you so sure that the new Steve Job is no already around?
He started saying “Well, José, the fact that 52 million smart meters will be rolled out in the U.S. end 2012, and no such product is available yet, gives me the impression that innovative thinking around this subject matter isn't going too well in Silicon Valley or elsewhere…”
To that part of his response, I replied with “… To open the power industry to innovative thinking we need good regulation which is simple. To understand why we have bad regulation, which is complicated, Visa founder and lead architect, Dee Hock, said "In my view the greatest evil in the world today is ever-increasing power and wealth in ever-fewer hands."
It is important to place into perspective that almost a week went by before Gerrit wrote back. Needless to say, I am glad of his come back. In the interim, other discussions were in progress. His new response came right after the Update: Many Comments on What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation? had been posted, so he had the benefit of a better feedback.
The essence of Gerrit latest response was “Jobs' game changing usually meant finding a new concept but also offering it in a tight, end to end controlled (by Apple) environment. In most energy market situations, that end to end option is impossible because of regulations… Chances are that Jobs', after analyzing the energy market, would turn his focus elsewhere, because he believed in focusing on only a few strong options instead of looking into everything.”
In accordance with the utilities myopia theme of this article, I responded:
Very good analysis Gerrit, but that is not how I see good regulation emerging. I see in your analysis an excessive dependence in regulation on end-to-end solutions of the whole power industry. I guess that the innovation space is very restricted as it involves bad regulation. I see early obsolescence play out when the new Steve Jobs is able to make an unexpected proposal that customer love under true good regulation.
Using the language of the German Network Agency, smart grid and smart markets are separated, just as the EWPC-AF has being suggesting for quite some time. Updating the idea in my 2005 EnergyPulse.net article An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, where I introduced a different value chain, to the EWPC-AF Enterprise (Smart markets) side, there is not interference by the T&D Grid (Smart Grid) side. Different to the Netherlands and utilities in the US, in this alternative value chain the smart meter is on the Enterprise side.
martes, marzo 13, 2012
Update: Many Comments on What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation?
There are now 11 Comments on the EWPC Blog post What Would Steve Jobs Do About Energy Innovation? As I have centralized all the comments there, most prominent are the 20 comments on the SmartGrids - Energy & Water Group on Linkedin. There are also 4 comments on the Smart Grid Network Group on Linkedin and 4 more under Can ARPA-E Solve Energy Problems? If you have any additional comment, please consider posting it directly on the EWPC Blog after the 11 entries.
domingo, marzo 11, 2012
Propuesta de Estudio y Opinión de Mejora a la Resolución SIE-535-2011
José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Con la noticia Usuarios no regulados reclaman más espacio, publicada el 7 de marzo de 2012 en el Listín Diario, bajo la firma de Jairon Severino, hago acopio de nuevos hechos relevantes que han acontecido desde que la AIRD expresó su rechazo a la resolución 535 del 2011 emitida por la Superintendencia de Electricidad (SIE). En dicha noticia el presidente de la recién formada Asociación Nacional de Usuarios No Regulados (ANUNR), Carlos Valiente, dijo que “Afortunadamente la entrada en vigencia de dicha resolución fue pospuesta por 120 días y esperamos que próximamente la misma sea modificada para evitar esa penalidad excesiva a nuestras empresas que tendríamos serias dificultades para controlar.”
Espero que en esas modificación se tome en cuenta la noticia Experto cree falta asesoría en rechazo a resolución de SIE, publicada por el Listín Diario el 17 de enero del 2012, dado que reitero la necesidad de lograr un justo equilibrio entre la fuerza regulatoria y la fuerza del mercado para lograr el menor costo del sistema en su conjunto. Dicha noticia concluye con el apartado Resultado que dice:
Basado en la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica, mi sugerencia es que en la resolución se emplee un mecanismo de mercado. Con este cambio de mecanismo, si falta o sobra capacidad en el sistema, las desviaciones que ayuden a su equilibrio, en vez de ser penalizadas, tendrían un crédito a su favor. En verdad, el mecanismo de mercado genera mucho más espacio que el regulatorio que lo desperdicia.
Tampoco dicho mecanismo se aplicaría solamente a las desviaciones significativas. Hay que reconocer que las desviaciones no significativas aumentan los costos del sistema, que indirectamente son a costa de los contribuyentes o de los clientes regulados, bien sea por mayores precios de mercado que incrementan el subsidio que pagamos o peor aun por mayores apagones.
El nuevo mecanismo aplicaría a todas las desviaciones de las declaraciones de los agentes para el Programa Diario de Operación Definitivo. Es decir, no es necesario dar un margen tan grande del 10 por ciento a favor en las desviaciones de las distribuidoras y los UNR ni de 7 por ciento para los generadores, como establece la resolución 535 del 2011.
Consultor Sistémico: Electricidad
Con la noticia Usuarios no regulados reclaman más espacio, publicada el 7 de marzo de 2012 en el Listín Diario, bajo la firma de Jairon Severino, hago acopio de nuevos hechos relevantes que han acontecido desde que la AIRD expresó su rechazo a la resolución 535 del 2011 emitida por la Superintendencia de Electricidad (SIE). En dicha noticia el presidente de la recién formada Asociación Nacional de Usuarios No Regulados (ANUNR), Carlos Valiente, dijo que “Afortunadamente la entrada en vigencia de dicha resolución fue pospuesta por 120 días y esperamos que próximamente la misma sea modificada para evitar esa penalidad excesiva a nuestras empresas que tendríamos serias dificultades para controlar.”
Espero que en esas modificación se tome en cuenta la noticia Experto cree falta asesoría en rechazo a resolución de SIE, publicada por el Listín Diario el 17 de enero del 2012, dado que reitero la necesidad de lograr un justo equilibrio entre la fuerza regulatoria y la fuerza del mercado para lograr el menor costo del sistema en su conjunto. Dicha noticia concluye con el apartado Resultado que dice:
El efecto sistémico inherente que se busca enfrentar con la resolución 535 es el siguiente: de no ser mitigada en el momento que ocurre por otros agentes del mercado mayorista, una desviación superior al 10% de la demanda de parte de los clientes no regulados aumenta significativamente el riesgo sistémico de falla del servicio.Amparada en el estilo dominante de gestión, como ocurre en muchos países, la SIE emplea un mecanismo regulatorio de penalidad contra las partes, como son los Usuarios No Regulados (UNR), las Distribuidoras y los Generadores. Por defecto, supongo de antemano que la SIE es quien representa los intereses de la parte de los clientes regulados, que pueden perder más si el espacio adicional que quiere la ANUNR le corresponde.
En caso de falta de capacidad en ese momento, los más frecuentemente afectados por esas desviaciones son los consumidores regulados de las distribuidoras en el mercado minorista que se ven sometidos a apagones para evitar la falla del sistema.
Basado en la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica, mi sugerencia es que en la resolución se emplee un mecanismo de mercado. Con este cambio de mecanismo, si falta o sobra capacidad en el sistema, las desviaciones que ayuden a su equilibrio, en vez de ser penalizadas, tendrían un crédito a su favor. En verdad, el mecanismo de mercado genera mucho más espacio que el regulatorio que lo desperdicia.
Tampoco dicho mecanismo se aplicaría solamente a las desviaciones significativas. Hay que reconocer que las desviaciones no significativas aumentan los costos del sistema, que indirectamente son a costa de los contribuyentes o de los clientes regulados, bien sea por mayores precios de mercado que incrementan el subsidio que pagamos o peor aun por mayores apagones.
El nuevo mecanismo aplicaría a todas las desviaciones de las declaraciones de los agentes para el Programa Diario de Operación Definitivo. Es decir, no es necesario dar un margen tan grande del 10 por ciento a favor en las desviaciones de las distribuidoras y los UNR ni de 7 por ciento para los generadores, como establece la resolución 535 del 2011.
martes, marzo 06, 2012
Un Estilo Sistémico de Gestión para el Pacto Real
Nuestra versión del artículo Los Tres Pactos de Temo tiene resaltados en negritas un aspecto relativo al sector eléctrico. El original del mismo fue escrito por el destacado economista Frederich Bergés, en su columna Observatorio Dominicano, publicado en la página 10, del periódico El Día, del 6 de marzo de 2012.
El texto resaltado presenta de forma sencilla, clara y contundente un aspecto clave de la situación reinante en el sector eléctrico, que permite pasar del estilo dominante al estilo sistémico de gestión que se sugiere en la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica. Al respecto, Berges cae en “… cuenta de que el Pacto Real, es el pacto sobre la solución del agujero negro del sector eléctrico.”
Es evidente que la existencia de tres pactos aparenta ser un enfoque no sistémico. Sin embargo, debe resultar evidente de que lo que ha venido sucediendo es que el sector eléctrico ha contagiado y sigue contagiando los sectores fiscal y educativo.
A continuación transcribo completamente la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola que elaboramos con la colaboración de destacadas personalidades a finales del año 2009.
De acuerdo a la Dra. Carlota Pérez, las grandes oleadas tecnológicas NO SOLO AGREGAN nuevas industrias, como las de las información y las telecomunicaciones. TAMBIÉN PRODUCEN:
· El rejuvenecimiento de todas las industrias pre-existentes
· Un cambio significativo en la conducta social
· Un cambio radical en los patrones de inversión
· Profundos cambios institucionales
Conforme a la visión compartida del GMH podemos empezar con una estrategia orientada al mercado global, centrada en el rejuvenecimiento de la educación, la electricidad y la salud, desplegando el potencial de las tecnologías de información y telecomunicaciones a esos sectores. Con ello se pretende un cambio radical en la cultura de dichos sectores, con una recomposición institucional que facilite la inversión productiva a largo plazo local y extranjera que los transforme en nuestras principales marcas-país.
El texto resaltado presenta de forma sencilla, clara y contundente un aspecto clave de la situación reinante en el sector eléctrico, que permite pasar del estilo dominante al estilo sistémico de gestión que se sugiere en la nota Sólo el Estilo Sistémico de Gestión Soluciona la Crisis Eléctrica. Al respecto, Berges cae en “… cuenta de que el Pacto Real, es el pacto sobre la solución del agujero negro del sector eléctrico.”
Es evidente que la existencia de tres pactos aparenta ser un enfoque no sistémico. Sin embargo, debe resultar evidente de que lo que ha venido sucediendo es que el sector eléctrico ha contagiado y sigue contagiando los sectores fiscal y educativo.
A continuación transcribo completamente la Visión Compartida de Futuro del Grupo Millennium Hispaniola que elaboramos con la colaboración de destacadas personalidades a finales del año 2009.
De acuerdo a la Dra. Carlota Pérez, las grandes oleadas tecnológicas NO SOLO AGREGAN nuevas industrias, como las de las información y las telecomunicaciones. TAMBIÉN PRODUCEN:
· El rejuvenecimiento de todas las industrias pre-existentes
· Un cambio significativo en la conducta social
· Un cambio radical en los patrones de inversión
· Profundos cambios institucionales
Conforme a la visión compartida del GMH podemos empezar con una estrategia orientada al mercado global, centrada en el rejuvenecimiento de la educación, la electricidad y la salud, desplegando el potencial de las tecnologías de información y telecomunicaciones a esos sectores. Con ello se pretende un cambio radical en la cultura de dichos sectores, con una recomposición institucional que facilite la inversión productiva a largo plazo local y extranjera que los transforme en nuestras principales marcas-país.
- Hasta el momento hemos perdido la batalla comercial con los centroamericanos y necesitamos re-especializar los sectores productivos que tienen potencial de futuro con nuevas identidades. Los sectores identificados fueron principalmente educación y electricidad y en un segundo plano salud.
- La realidad en educación es que necesitamos profesores de alta calidad. La visión que queremos compartir es la de considerar el desarrollo del sistema de conocimiento profundo que sugirió W. Edwards Deming que supla dichos profesores. Las primeras aplicaciones pueden restringirse a la electricidad y a la salud.
- Como un ejemplo del cambio en la conducta social, vale destacar que el rejuvenecimiento selectivo de estos sectores podría cambiar del modelo actual de asociaciones que defienden los intereses de sus asociados a nuevos enfoques alternativos como el de Cluster-Net.
- La realidad en electricidad es que necesitamos cambiar de una fijación sobre precios bajos de oferta centralizada a una de costos bajos y/o mayor valor agregado percibidos por los consumidores. La visión es la de integrar el desarrollo equilibrado de los recursos de la oferta y de los recursos de la demanda para perseguir el máximo bienestar social, que es la clave para reducir grandemente la destrucción de valor que ocasionan los apagones a la sociedad dominicana. Se trata de la invención de un nuevo mercado para satisfacer las necesidades individuales que los clientes puede que no sepan articular inicialmente.
- Asimismo, el sector eléctrico tiene una realidad operativa con grandísima complejidad al que evidentemente le falta un sistema (no hay un propósito claro para todos los que participan en él), sin responder a ningún modelo conocido (una situación inaceptable), todavía con compromisos jurídicos anteriores a la reforma, que va de emergencia en emergencia, parece hacer falta borrarlo todo y empezar desde el principio para facilitar la transición a una visión compartida.
- Esa visión compartida que facilite un Plan de Nación necesita basarse en un sistema eléctrico con un propósito compartido (perseguir el máximo bienestar social), a fin de poder producir efectos sistémicos inteligentes que se refuercen por medio de la innovación con otros sectores como la educación, la salud, el transporte, etc. Se debe considerar si las auditorías del sector le corresponden a una Cámara de Cuentas eficaz o si más bien dichas auditorías especializadas deberían ser realizadas por una Superintendencia de Electricidad más desarrollada.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)