Three Smart Grid Predictions for Initiating the Global Power Industry Transformation

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 21, 2010

        

Prediction #1: Recognizing the emerging global power industry in the complete context around the Intelligent Utility Inside article Baltimore G&E: AMI Comeback? and that of this EWPC article, the Maryland PSC “No so fast” decision on the BGE proposal is highly likely the 1^st domino of the chain reaction that is going to start “knocking over the next” state regulator’s utility case, “which upsets the next one, and so on.”

 

Prediction #2: Rethinking the old utility compact with an obligation to serve to an emergent compact on the T&D Grid side of the EWPC-AF with an obligation to deliver, the end-to-end “smart grid” will play out as part of the Enterprise side of the EWPC-AF.  

Prediction #3:Repositioning the utilities that missed the opportunities to learn the lessons of other industries is bound to be in a restricted T&D Grid space that will sooner or later be "painfully consolidated."  

Three Smart Grid Predictions for Initiating the Global Power Industry Transformation    By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Creator of the EWPC-AF Systemic Consultant: Electricity First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 21st 2010. Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog  July 21st, 2010 ·   ·      The EWPC Textbook (23,748) ·          The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,032) ·           Demand Integration is NOT the  Province of Politics. (9,866) ·           The BIG California LIE. (9,683) ·           Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (9,613)

Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 21st, 2010 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (57) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)

Using the synthetic Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF) to update the comprehensive white paper written by Jesse Berst, named by the Edison Electric Institute as The First Push: How a utility positions itself for success as smart technologies transform markets means seeing what domino falls first enables to make the predictions to respond in a more generalized way Phil Carson’s questions posed under his very insightful and attractive Intelligent Utility Inside article Baltimore G&E: AMI Comeback?The specific questions are: “Anyone care to predict how the Aug. 5 hearing and subsequent decision will go? And why?:

 

Selecting the following from the EWPC-AF article should suffice:

 

The EWPC-AF is a two tiered architecture that greatly simplifies regulations. The first level is an intermediate architecture aimed for an energy policy act, which separates the whole emergent complex system into two less complex systems. Those systems are highly cohesive with lightly coupled interfaces among them:

 

1) A primary regulated power (integrated transmission and distribution) transportation service system (RPTSS) compact with a responsibility to transport electricity of commercial quality (EoCQ) of a given area; and

 

2) A complementary open market business system (OMBS) on the value chain generation, retail, pro-sumer (consumer that may produce).

 

To organize his whitepaper, Jesse writes that utilities “… strategic adjustment includes three Rs: recognizing the size and scope of the transformation, rethinking the organization’s role to determine the best opportunities in the new era, and repositioning the organization to optimize for the new role (or roles).” This article also follows the three Rs organization, which are in synchronicity with the underlying assumptions on my comment Let's Initiate the SG Transformation While T&D Jobs Comeback.

 

The underlying assumption “the whole power industry that is emergingsatisfies the first R, as this is not doubt a global transformation. To lead into such a transformation, Jesse describes a “chain reaction that occurs when the first domino topples, knocking over the next one, which upsets the next one, and so on”. My first prediction is that the Maryland PSC “No so fast” decision on the BGE proposal is highly likely the 1^st domino of the chain reaction that is going to start “knocking over the next” state regulator’s utility case, “which upsets the next one, and so on. ”However, if BGE is not the 1^st domino, the conditions described in this whole context are sufficient to enable the 1^stdomino in another state jurisdiction in the world interested to take the leadership of the global transformation of the power industry.

 

About the second R, rethinking, the utilities missed completely the underlying assumption that “As existing regulations were designed for a homogeneous population, governments all over the place need to enact regulations for a heterogeneous population striking a better balance between markets and regulation.” Jesse writes that “Utility executives must rethink things while remaining bound by the fundamental contracts of electric power. Unlike Apple or Google, utilities have an obligation to serve, to maintain exceptional reliability, and to keep their systems secure in an era of increasing cyber-terrorism.”

 

Since the EWPC-AF emerged (see above “transportation service system (RPTSS) compact with a responsibility to transport electricity of commercial quality (EoCQ) of a given area”), that the fundamental contract with the obligation to serve is not longer needed. Rethinking the transportation (delivery) issue, the EWPC-AF uses the architecting imperative of ultraquality (“to maintain exceptional reliability, and to keep their systems secure in an era of increasing cyber-terrorism”) to design the T&D Grid compact with the emergent obligation to deliver.

 

The architecting flaw in the simplistic Open Transmission Access was introduced in the 1992 Energy Policy Act because of a misunderstanding of the non-trivial nature of the power industry. That flaw is the culprit that somehow blocked until now the necessary rethinking based on an incomplete market structure with an obligation to serve.

 

I disagree with Jesse that “It may be too early to predict exactly how the end-to-end smart grid will play out.” My second prediction is that it is going to play as described by the EWPC-AF. He gives the example of Wal*Mar end-to-end system that operates near real time. It is evident to everyone that Wal*Mart does not control the delivery infrastructure. However, the smart grid, which I call as the smart grid that is being pushed, hangs on the obsolete responsibility to serve to try to keep control of a larger and more complex than necessary end-to-end system using interoperability architecture.

 

In addition, the regulated smart grid that is being pushed violates the insight (taken from Jesse’s whitepaper) that “When industries transform… companies can ‘have any part of the market they choose, but not everything. If they fail to choose, and try to hold on to it all, they will lose the best parts.’” That is the real source of customer backlash.

 

As designed for the EWPC-AF, instead of a regulated homogeneous Smart Grid, a fully competitive heterogeneous Smart Enterprise (the OMBS) side emerged. While the smart grid process on the competitive Enterprise side is already ongoing for companies with high tech marketing advantage, most utilities are just unprepared to participate.

 

Finally, on the third R, repositioning, the underlying assumption is that “…regulations for upgrades to the T&D system that does not target the population might still be done with the old regulations.”Jesse writes that "Only rarely are they mistakes of execution. In most cases, their execution was fine, but they were executing the wrong strategy." The wrong strategy is the result a poor job on the first and second Rs, recognizing and rethinking. For lack of where else to be positioned, my third prediction is that the T&D Grid utilities space, using Jesse’s example about the railroads, will be "painfully consolidated." The fate of the railroads has come to the T&D utilities.

 

For the above reasons, all stakeholders of the power industry should disagree with the Edison Electric Institute conclusion that “The good news is that electric power utilities still have time to recognize, rethink, and reposition themselves for the changes ahead. And they have the opportunity to minimize their mistakes by learning from the lessons of previous infrastructure transformations.”

yyy

Under-Recognized Smart Grid Market Structure and Operability Issues

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 19, 2010

        

Note: this invitation for a generative dialogue is first posted on the EWPC Blog and simultaneously in a few LinkedIn groups. Comments will be centralized in the EWPC Blog without identifying the name of the person, unless he or she authorizes it.

Two of the authors of the book Spot Pricing of Electricity, Richard D. Tabors, and Michael C. Caramanis, together with Geoffrey Parker, presented the very timely article Development of the Smart Grid: Missing Elements in the Policy Process at the Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2010.

The abstract of the article says: “This paper seeks to frame one aspect of the Smart Grid discussion which has been under-recognized in regulatory and policy debates. Significant discussion has focused Smart Grid attention on the technologies and on technical interoperability, there has been, we argue, too little attention to questions of the structure or the operation of the market(s) in which the technologies will function. The authors contend that the market structure required for a successful Smart Grid is best understood considering a “platform” framework. We present our view of the interrelationship between that market platform, ultimate customers and power suppliers. It is our conclusion that without a thorough vetting of the market structure within which Smart Grid technologies will function, the full value of the innovations can not be realized.”

The authors are correct about the overwhelming attention on technology and interoperability and too little on market structure and market operability. Please correct us if we are wrong, that one of the few (maybe the only one) comprehensive exceptions has been the creation of the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF). The EWPC-AF emerged as a simple and holistic extension of the regulated spot price based energy marketplace that was unveiled in 1988 in the book Spot Pricing of Electricity, with Fred C. Schweppe as lead researcher and author and Michael C. Caramanis, Richard D. Tabors, and Roger Bohn as co-authors. Since Schweppe died before the book was published, the marketplace lost his leader.

For a fast introduction on markets and their operability, please read the December 2009 post The Electric Power Industry is Missing a Vibrant Retail Market. To learn more about complete and fully functional electric power markets, I suggest to start looking at the presentation A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of the Electricity Industry, that I delivered at the Third Annual Carnegie Mellon Conference on the Electricity Industry, in March 2007.”

To continue learning, please turn to the EWPC Blog itself, which started on September 2007, on EnergyBlogs.com, and now has more than 200 entries. To browse that blog, I wrote the EWPC post Facilitating Research Navigation on EnergyBlogs.com .

yyy

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 6 of 6

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010

        

Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become.

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 6 of 6    By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Creator of the EWPC-AF Systemic Consultant: Electricity First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010. Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog  July 4th, 2010 ·   ·      The EWPC Textbook (23,717) ·          The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003) ·           Demand Integration is NOT the  Province of Politics. (9,838) ·           The BIG California LIE. (9,673) ·           Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (9,591)

Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (57) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)

In response to posts by a 9th and a 10th persons, I added the following: 

I think we have gone through a normal process of having a lot of diverging posts at the beginning and recently a lot of converging posts that started with the help of the 2nd person post, which in turn led to my specific suggestion to initiate the smart grid transformation process. After that, we have already received posts that I think correspond to coming up agreements on the SGEF, like the one that the 8th person suggested.

Don't get me wrong, everyone is free to add what best they feel is their contribution, whether converging or diverging. In fact, getting a bit philosophical, most of us know that it is very difficult to get ourselves out of Plato’s cave. Most of us get out the cave for a moment to later go back in after seeing the light. Maybe we are afraid to see ourselves as instruments of something larger than ourselves to emerge for the benefit of all stakeholders, which to save face might be perceived to be contrary or neutral by our peers.

In that light, Joseph Jarwosky, one of the authors of the book Presence (the others are Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, and Betty Sue Flowers) said:

“I’ll never forget one particular interview I had with a senior executive. As our conversation progressed and he opened up more and more, he began to talk about all the compromises he had made in his life in order to ‘climb the ladder’ in the corporation. He hadn’t really thought a lot about it at that time; it seemed that he was just doing what he had to be successful. He said exactly the same thing [that Hitler’s secretary], that he totally lost his capacity to feel and sense. Eventually he just looked at me and said, ‘I don’t really like the person I’ve become.’”

“So the shadow side of being an instrument is losing our sense of autonomy, our will, and the real ability to make choices,” said Otto… “Yes, and our humanity – our capacity to sense and feel,” said Betty Sue.

Having said that, now we have received two interesting and intelligent posts by Luis and specially that of Arun, that somehow seem to me (very subjectively) not to fit at this time of the generative dialogue and even to diverge. In fact, it is that of Arun which move me to add this post.

Arun, please correct me if I am wrong, by explaining what is intended with “Engineers are the one who solve simple things in a complex manner,” whether it is actually written so as to diverge or actually intended to converge, in particular about the said agreement(s) on the SGEF. I say with a lot of respect that what has been written about the EWPC-AF is the job of an architect that solves complex things in a simple manner.

Maybe at this point, someone would add that to get more customers’ points of view, we may think to organize some kind of market research to help on making agreements on a political basis instead of through the suggested architecture competition between 2GRs on the TALC. However, to support the latter approach, I submit to the consideration of all of you the December 2007 article (now with 4404 views) Market Research Doesn’t Work Yet for Demand Integration, whose summary says:

“Demand integration is a discontinuous innovation and the reason why the responses of customers are way off with respect to the non-trivial concept of demand response. Politics should NOT continue to play major interventions in regard to betting on outcomes in alternative energy and demand response, as the installation of AMI is developed by 2GRs under competition. Great opportunities are waiting “that promises much more value creation over time” under the EWPC paradigm shift.”

yyy

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 5 of 6

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010

        

Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become.

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 5 of 6    By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Creator of the EWPC-AF Systemic Consultant: Electricity First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010. Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog  July 4th, 2010 ·   ·      The EWPC Textbook (23,717) ·          The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003) ·           Demand Integration is NOT the  Province of Politics. (9,838) ·           The BIG California LIE. (9,673) ·           Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (9,591)

Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (57) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)

In response, the 7th person … continuous… 

In Chapter 5 of the book Spot Pricing of Electricity, Schweppe and his colleagues gave us two deregulation warnings, that involved non-trivial matters and which were not followed up by the deregulation movement: a) "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results" and b) “A second major difference between this chapter and most of the rest of deregulation literature lies in our concern that the economics and physical security of the power systems not be destroyed or compromised.”

As you explained organized wholesale markets still give us very negative results. They considered First Generation Retailers (1GR) which do not feedback to the supply-demand equation (think elasticity) and to make things worst they enabled the flawed deregulation policy of economic first, system reliability second (E1R2). In order not to destroy or compromise the economics and physical security of the power system, the EWPC policy of system reliability first, economic second (R1E2) is assume. That R1E2 policy is reflected in the T&D Grid side primacy over the Enterprise side of the EWPC-AF.

By the way, I had almost forgotten about the McKinsey paper "Why electricity markets go haywire: Generators, retailers, customers, and regulators alike must get used to the idea that electricity is a special kind of commodity." Consultants discovered the 2nd warning. It was in that paper that I first read in 2002 about Sweden’s lack of reserves as a result of the deregulation flaw. In order to make electricity a regular commodity you need the EWPC-AF.

Please also consider the October 2007 EWPC post Switching Retailers is NOT as Important  that was written before the EWPC-AF had been named as such. While I suggest that you read the whole post, which also mentions switching suppliers in Sweden, I like to quote a paragraph out of its whole context that says “While under E1R2 deregulation it was though that switching 1GR is a good measure of “efficiency,” under R1E2 switching is not important at all, since many customers will find a market mix that satisfies best its requirements for insured electricity for the future. Electricity contracts are similar to insurance contracts, in which customer protection will be done by prudential regulations.”

As a result, I now rewrite that as under the EWPC-AF “switching is not important at all, since many customers will find a market mix that satisfies best its requirements to” align retail rates with energy efficiency and demand response objectives.” It is precisely that flawed deregulation policy that should be accounted for that billions of pounds value destruction in the UK, as well as in Sweden and other locations in billions of additional currencies.

Thank you very much for helping make the urgency case for EWPC-AF, since venture capitalist know that good money should not be thrown after bad. Now is a great timing to shift course by creating the EWPC-AF coalition.

yyy

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 4 of 6

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010

        

Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become.

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 4 of 6    By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Creator of the EWPC-AF Systemic Consultant: Electricity First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010. Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog  July 4th, 2010 ·   ·      The EWPC Textbook (23,717) ·          The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003) ·           Demand Integration is NOT the  Province of Politics. (9,838) ·           The BIG California LIE. (9,673) ·           Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (9,591)

Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (57) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)

 My response to the 5th person… continuous… 

The EWPC-AF is also very competitive in the T&D Grid side. Without any loss of generality, we could say that there are only three general frameworks available to the industry, making all others variants of those three: vertical integration, what is left of deregulation, and the emerging EWPC-AF. What is left of deregulation, based on Open Transmission Access, gives a lot of uncertainty to transmission R&D and investments. EPAct 92 reduced the importance of not just R&D on the Transportation side; it reduced investments as well as the wrong signals were given. The result was a decrease in system reliability trajectory in restructured states.

It is in the T&D Grid side that almost all of the 7th person very clear examples of power industry innovations apply. The regulatory desire to keep totals costs (not necessarily prices in this case) at minimum in the T&D Grid side remains under EWPC-AF and is one of the component to shoot for maximum social welfare of the whole. Like the obsolete vertical integration, the EWPC-AF gives both transmission R&D and investments the necessary incentives for a competition by comparison in the global marketplace.

An earlier attempt to do a reform (not a transformation) in the US federal market to try to repair the deregulation failure was the FERC Standard Market Design. (SMD). I understand that the other main reasons for its failure, the first being introduced in EPAct 92 with Open Transmission Access, was the result of an analytic process of the mostly thermal part of the power industry, which does not apply to the mostly hydro part of the industry. The EWPC-AF process was made by synthesis to create a minimalist architecture that divides the emerging industry in the simplest possible way.

Finally, as the 8th person pointed out, “In don't think we've actually seen a true competitive energy market yet.” Retail contestability has been done by (First Generation) retailers. In the EWPC-AF, it is the global Second Generation Retailer that makes it “a foregone conclusion” to be suggested to legislative bodies for their decision.

In response, the 7th person makes a case against retailers, which starts with “…if you spent time researching the results of the two most open markets in the world, the UK and Sweden, you would understand that what you want, is not going to work…” Next is my response:

Thank you for another very important input to this generative dialogue. Before considering that input, it is important to make sure that competition under the EWPC-AF is designed for an architecture competition among Second Generation Retailers, with the purpose of introducing innovations to the power industry.

I am taking this opportunity to express that research has been at the very center of the EWPC-AF process for its full decade and a half. In fact, the EWPC-AF is an extension of the theory and practice work led by Fred C. Schweppe at MIT from 1978 to 1988. The extension is from their regulated spot price based energy marketplace to the EWPC-AF.

yyy

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 3 of 6

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Jul 11, 2010

        

Applying the IEEE tagline Advancing Technology for Humanity to the power (and maybe gas and water) grids is the mean to propose the need for a strong coalition to initiate a transformation for Advancing Grids for Customers. It is very urgent and important for the IEEE Smart Grid Group of LinkedIn to start a practical coalition in every way, as soon as possible, to advance this technology for humanity, since “IEEE is the only organization able to thoroughly provide the diversity of expertise, information, resources, and vision needed to realize the Smart Grid’s full promise and potential.” Relative to humanity, we IEEE members able to contribute should go the IEEE Code of Ethics to reflect if we like the person we have become. 

A Strong IEEE Coalition Might be Required to Start Transforming the Power Industry Part 3 of 6    By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Creator of the EWPC-AF Systemic Consultant: Electricity First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 4th 2010. Copyright © 2010 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Most Viewed on the EWPC Blog  July 4th, 2010 ·   ·      The EWPC Textbook (23,717) ·          The Sixth Disruptive Technology (17,003) ·           Demand Integration is NOT the  Province of Politics. (9,838) ·           The BIG California LIE. (9,673) ·           Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (9,591)

Most Commented on the EWPC Blog July 4th, 2010 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (57) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (34)

"The philosophy of the divine right of kings died hundreds of years ago, but not, it seems, the divine right of inherited markets. Some people [IOUs and regulators for example] still believe there's a divine dispensation that their markets are theirs - and no one else's - now and forevermore. It is an old dream that dies hard, yet no businessman in a free society can control a market when the customers decide to go somewhere else [under EWPC-AF for example]. All the king's horses and all the king's man are helpless in the face of a better product. Our commercial history is filled with examples of companies that failed to change in a changing world, and became tombstones in the corporate graveyard." 

I [am] wide open to consider other elements on the generative dialogue.

In return, the 5th person starts a response with “Thanks for the thoughtful response. I dont think this is divine rights of kings but rather the equity of decades of shareholder capital put to work for the betterment of society.” An 8th person responds “Unfortunately even the best run monopolies are inherently slow to innovate. In fact innovation and the incumbent risks to earnings are what investors in the well run monopoly seek to avoid. Innovation in the energy markets requires risk, and there are investors wiling to sponsor it, however these investments are not in the monopoly services providers as returns are not worth the risks…” In turns, the 7th person, takes the case of utility innovation by writing “I am sorry, I disagree. If you look at the utilities (monopolies) that have been allowed to keep their R&D organizations (EdF, HQ, AEP to name a few), they have been at the forefront of new innovation in the industry…” The dialogue between the 6th and 7th persons ends with “Again I think we're agreeing that the utilities are not the problem, the regulatory framework that they operate under is at issue.”

My response to the 5th person, using the inputs of the 7th and 8th persons is as follows:

The 8th person has identified a first agreement for the SGEF on this dialogue: the issue is an obsolete framework. The call is for federal and state governments to give a new framework mandate to regulators. Just as my last post, what follows is based on the potential for federal and state (cooperatives also) legislative bodies to initiate a global transformation of the power industry. By the way, suggesting a second agreement, how about organizing an EWPC-AF coalition to initiate the smart grid transformation, of which I would like your sincere thoughts, on its merits and its urgency.

Thank you 5th person for your very kind post calling thoughtful my response. I appreciated [it]. I respect very much your opinion on the divine rights of kings. This very rich generative dialogue has an example that clarifies what is meant. The best example of the divine rights of IOUs is in what the 4th person wrote: “Ahh 3rd person, you want to open up the meter ownership Pandora's box, huh? Excellent… Utilities have been fighting the meter ownership thing forever because they don't want to lose that from their asset base (remember the whole stranded asset blowup back at the start of deregulation?).

We should all agree that the 8th person has interpreted very well the need for a competitive framework. The EWPC-AF is a competitive framework in both the Enterprise and the T&D Grid. Unlike, for example, the century old vertical integration that gets ruled out as a competitive framework on the Enterprise side, the EWPC-AF meets very closely the opinion [of the 5th person] that “Some functions are best served and most efficiently allocated by market constructs (supply and demand side market response) and others by well regulated monopolies whether investor or publicly owned (wires delivery).”

yyy