Dear Edward, Len, Jim, Jeff, Ken and other writers, such as Fred, Don, Joseph, Malcolm, and Todd, which have from time to time made recent comments under these fine articles about EWPC. Thank you all for the help to make EWPC better understood, even if you don´t understand it yet.
In his elementary textbook on energy economics, Professor Ferdinand Banks calls all of us (ken is added by myself) as brilliant commentators. I recognize also that all of you are intelligent people, which are probably experts in more than one field of knowledge.
What has emerged as EWPC is the work of many years, which I would say started in 1980, when I learned how to plan an interconnected power systems, under experienced and generous (free of charge) power planning professionals from Puerto Rico. They had gone to Schenectady after a huge mistake of purchasing two oversized generators for their mostly thermal power system. The result of the mistake is that they have been operating those two generators at half load since then to satisfy the reliability criteria.
Officials and regulators of the Puerto Rico Power Electric Authority (PREPA) authorized the investment by thinking intuitively that by purchasing two large base load generators, electricity cost would come down. However, reliability results were that when one of those generators tripped, the whole system collapsed and everybody lost because of the large interruption costs. That occurred several times in the 70s. Leaning at GE ffor the was truly a paradigm shift. The essence of the message is the need for expert professionals to plan the electric system under the architecting imperative of ultraquality, just as nuclear power stations are architected and designed. That is part of a logically true and non-trivial doctrine key for EWPC.
Over the weekend, while researching to satisfy Edward A. Read Jr. request (see EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine), I came to the conclusion that I may have been trying to explain a non-trial doctrine to intelligent people. For example, central to the non-trivial subject of power system planning is the intuitive concept of "Lowest cost electricity generation" - that Puertorican had bought - which I though to be a good statement to get many readers on the same page, but apparently didn’t make it. So, in the post Lowest Cost Electricity Generation is Just Intuitive, I have included a small lecture to explain the concept, the reaction by Don Giegler who said “Seems like a pretty close-minded lecture, Jose....” and my logical response to his reaction.
The conclusion applies to Len too. Although he is very intelligent, there is not guarantee that he will understand the paradigm shift of the EWPC doctrine, not matter how well it is explained to him (see what Paul Samuelson said on EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine). So I have answered, not 7, but 11, of his 8.31.07 questions about EWPC as you will see below in the next two posts.
By the way, “a good tax,” is the one that elected government should decide, in line with a finite environmental capacity world. If we act with a business as usual (irresponsible) response, we may get to what Jim wrote about Jared Diamond’s “Collapse.” However, his suggestion at the end about finding it difficult not to keep burning coal it will only increase the probability of collapsing. One way to go about such difficult scenario is to implement a reduction of the consumption of energy per capita – while keeping as much as possible the energy service – by developing EWPC ASAP.
Industries in Ohio want to go back to vertical integration, which is a zero sum game. For industry to get lower rates, other customers will get higher rates. No so under EWPC, where price and service differentiation will let every customer find the best service plan, which better fits its requirements, as long as prudential regulations are well design and implemented.
martes, septiembre 11, 2007
Lowest Cost Electricity Generation is Just Intuitive
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio wrote on 9.3.07
To all readers Part III
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio responded to Don Giegler on 9.4.07
To all readers Part III
Don Giegler reply to the above post on 9.3.07"Lowest cost electricity generation" is a good statement to get many readers on the same page. It is also good for Joseph, because his "reality check" that I quoted above is mistaken and it also stresses even more that he might not be representing ordinary folks well. I repeat, Joseph Rosenthal said before: "It is better to just do one big thing, in my view, like build a nuclear plant, and then do your best to regulate the cost using traditional rate principles. If you try to do 10 good small things, you'll wind up doing 90 bad small things for campaign contributors. That's the reality check."
The idea of a system with just one big thing is very, very costly, because the parts are unreliable and the load is variable. That is why peaking units are required and they are the marginal units.
Lowest cost electricity generation does not make any sense to a system engineer, nor to the end customers that pay for it. As an old system planner, I will tell facts and the origin of the idea.
Under vertical integration, systems engineers made long run least cost expansion plans and as a result came up with a generation mix adapted to the forecasted long term demand. Such optimization was to minimize the costs of investments, operation, maintenance and outages to produce reliable electricity.
To produce reliable electricity is a property of the whole system not of the parts. To have 24 hours of loss of load probability - as many systems were designed - generation reserves of 20 or 25 percent resulted for many systems.
I read that PJM had recently more than 30 percent reserves. That is one of the main reasons that demand response is not attractive, because it makes obsolete a lot of generating units.
That is also why retail customers get rates which are way above the cost of base load generation. They have a lot of coal units, but ask what is the retail rate residential customers are paying for.
Hydro and nuclear seems a good mix. However, with a very uncertain future demand and with a lot of climate changes working out, I would not bet on it and have some gas installed. Or better yet, I would develop the resources of the demand side to integrate it as active demand, or said in other words develop an effective rationing system or still in another way change demand from inelastic to elastic.
Sorry for the class. But I fell it was needed for some of the people posting their ideas without sufficient understanding of electric power system planning.
Seems like a pretty close-minded lecture, Jose....
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio responded to Don Giegler on 9.4.07
Don and anybody else that might perceive my Part III post as closed-minded.
It seems, but the post is not closed/minded. It is just that a power system is a very complex system that cannot be planned and designed by debate, among stakeholders groups. The system should be design by a system planner leading to ultraquality transportation.
Some highly respected professionals in the IEEE said that an electric power system is the most complex machine ever built. One of the greatest mistakes done in deregulation was the lack of leadership that the engineering community had at the outset of deregulation. Any one that needs more details please read EWPC: People Coordinating and Cooperating with Electrons Part
2.
The conclusion is that since market architecture and design, like EWPC, was not considered in the decade old debate, a lot of value destruction has resulted. With EWPC the deregulation debate should be over. Ohio's re-regulation process is great opportunity for the whole world, because the utilities already recovered deregulation costs. European Union authorities might also be very interested in looking deeply into the issue, as the July 1st deadline is over.
domingo, septiembre 09, 2007
EWPC is a True and Non-Trivial Doctrine
To Edward A Reid Jr. and all readers,
Edward’s comments are based on my post Nuclear and Renewables Competition under EWPC.
I strongly recommend that taxpayers worldwide look closely to the responses and send letters to their government representatives. Three special cases have already gathered a sense of urgency: US Congress Energy Bill, Ohio’s re-regulation of the electric utilities and the Very Short Electricity Law of the Dominican Republic.
Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when “it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them. The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. This statement does not mean that I claim to know everything, as I operate under the generative dialogue principle that I am not my opinion.
JAVS: "...the world needs a market structure and rules (same as architecture and design) that allows competition in generation, competition in retail, and competition between generation and retail."
EARJr: I suspect that a single market structure for electricity worldwide is, if not unworkable, at least highly unlikely, especially if it is imposed by some new world body, as you have suggested previously in comments here.
JAVS: Thank you very much Edward for the very challenging comments you posted on energy pulse about EWPC. It took me many hours to come up with this very short post, but I think the results will be very useful for future consulting engagements.
Respectfully, I have not suggested imposing a new world body. I am suggesting that the world needs a worldwide competitive power industry. I agree that the current markets are an act of government. In fact, I found out that the lack of stability and predictability of today’s’ electric markets has such an effect on global trade that it qualifies for mainstream WTO work.
In addition, electricity markets, with the very clear vision of the future that already emerged on the EWPC paradigm, have the necessary sense of urgency to be negotiated under the trade in services of the multilateral trading system (WTO) agreement, just as the basic telecommunication agreement was done. The object is “to sharpen competition, motivate innovation and breed success.”
EWPC is a true and non-trivial doctrine Part II
I suggest that the power industry should be subjected to a multilateral basic discipline system. Some of the issues that require discipline are the process to get to the End-State of the global industry, prudential regulations on generation and retail, merger and acquisitions investment rules; all to discourage the accumulation of unfair play.
EWPC is not like the failed attempt on the unworkable SMD, as the approach is not to be standardized. The SMD was an attempt to make a compromise of the existing solutions of PJM, New York and New England. Many failed re-engineering projects resulted from misunderstandings of the true requirements.
EWPC is not exactly related to a reengineering project, but its similarity to discovering the true requirements suffices, as it is also about starting over. EWPC is an End-State (model convergence) market architecture and design, whose essential principles are to be adopted. A generative dialogue is needed to define the necessary transition from today’s reality to reach such End-State. This means that close attention of local conditions should be considered.
Although it is highly worthy, my confidence on EWPC doesn’t depend on the carbon tax. It depends on a non-trivial truth about electric power systems, which is a very complex machine whose design and operation is not a subject of debate, but on the work of a systems architect. It also depends on large changes experienced on fuel and transactions costs. Lowering of transactions costs allows the integration of demand to the power system with the development of the resources of the demand side, which leads to the development of robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
JAVS: "To me the solution is to implement a carbon tax and leave it to the market to make the decision, and allow private investors to receive the benefits and to take the risks."
EARJr: This suggests that a tax does not, among other things, change or influence the market. Also, carbon tax at what rate; and, if the initial rate is insufficient to "move" the market to the extent desired, do you then propose to increase the tax rate until the market makes the "correct" decision?
JAVS: By implementing a carbon tax, the business case for EWPC is enhanced, as it certainly influences the markets. Details on how to implement the carbon tax is very speculative at the moment. Some earlier discussions suggested a gradual process to increase, for example, coal carbon tax by 2% yearly increments up, to 40%.
EWPC is a true and non-trivial doctrine Part III
JAVS: "By the way, the author didn't take into account the benefits of demand response on CO2 reduction."
EARJr: Demand response may not lead to reduced carbon emissions, depending on the fuel type and efficiency of the plants which would not be operated on the shaved peak vs. the fuel type and efficiency of the plants which would supply the shifted demand during off-peak periods.
JAVS: You have a very valid point for the short term. Demand response in some states like Ohio, which has about 90% coal generation, may lead to an increase in carbon emissions, since peaking generators, fueled with natural gas with be displaced. Later on, as coal generating units are replaced with combined cycle gas generation up to 2016, the benefits arrive. So, you suggestion is an asset for EWPC reform. As the demand response business case reduces investments in generation, transmission and distribution and end-use, delaying its implementation is not warranted. What might be done is accelerating the process of the carbon tax.
JAVS: "In addition, there is a need for an institution to integrate active demand."
EARJr: If the retailer and the customer have a contractual relationship which is monitored by an intelligent meter which receives price communications from the retailer and allows the customer to control response to price signals, why is there a need for "an institution to integrate active demand". It would seem that the contract and the communication do that.
JAVS: Thank you very much for emphasizing customers with contractual relationship with a retailer. The institution is the Second Generation Retailer mentioned in earlier posts, which is a very different animal than the retailers that are operating today.
EARJr: The current regulated "market" in electricity, which you contend does not work well, is a creature of government. The "generative dialogue to re-regulate the power industry" you suggest would also be a creature of government. I do not share your confidence that the new regulatory regime would be more effective than the current regime; and, neither of us can prove the case one way or the other.
JAVS: As the introductory remarks covered the whole last paragraph, I will add that it is not necessary to prove the case. All that is needed to move forward is to cross the chasm of the technology-enabled market development, as explained by Goeffrey Moore. Skeptics may never get raid off their vertical integration mental model. Conservatives will wait until the majority has developed the business model innovations of EWPC. So what’s remaining is for technology enthusiasts and visionaries to help EWPC cross the chasm. Demand response systems already in operation are the proof that EWPC has already entered the pragmatics’ bowling alley.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Updated Background
Over 28 years of consulting experience and leadership in electric power technology and education
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University
Valued IEEE member for 36 years.
Autodidact in management systems – loves to implement applications learned by reading, listening, and integrating complementary perspectives from information sources for high tech - high touch environments
Research and practice areas, and interests include: electricity without price controls, systems architecture, systems thinking, electricity retail marketing under a customer orientation, electric market rules, information systems requirements and design, contract assistance
The above was posted in a brief form under the article An Analysis of the Carbon Emissions Impact of the Senate Energy Bill, by Chris Neil, Energy Economist.
Edward’s comments are based on my post Nuclear and Renewables Competition under EWPC.
I strongly recommend that taxpayers worldwide look closely to the responses and send letters to their government representatives. Three special cases have already gathered a sense of urgency: US Congress Energy Bill, Ohio’s re-regulation of the electric utilities and the Very Short Electricity Law of the Dominican Republic.
Paul Samuelson said that a doctrine is non-trivial when “it is attested by thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them. The EWPC doctrine is logically true, coherent and non-trivial. Reform should be based on knowledge and facts, not only on the political processes. This statement does not mean that I claim to know everything, as I operate under the generative dialogue principle that I am not my opinion.
JAVS: "...the world needs a market structure and rules (same as architecture and design) that allows competition in generation, competition in retail, and competition between generation and retail."
EARJr: I suspect that a single market structure for electricity worldwide is, if not unworkable, at least highly unlikely, especially if it is imposed by some new world body, as you have suggested previously in comments here.
JAVS: Thank you very much Edward for the very challenging comments you posted on energy pulse about EWPC. It took me many hours to come up with this very short post, but I think the results will be very useful for future consulting engagements.
Respectfully, I have not suggested imposing a new world body. I am suggesting that the world needs a worldwide competitive power industry. I agree that the current markets are an act of government. In fact, I found out that the lack of stability and predictability of today’s’ electric markets has such an effect on global trade that it qualifies for mainstream WTO work.
In addition, electricity markets, with the very clear vision of the future that already emerged on the EWPC paradigm, have the necessary sense of urgency to be negotiated under the trade in services of the multilateral trading system (WTO) agreement, just as the basic telecommunication agreement was done. The object is “to sharpen competition, motivate innovation and breed success.”
EWPC is a true and non-trivial doctrine Part II
I suggest that the power industry should be subjected to a multilateral basic discipline system. Some of the issues that require discipline are the process to get to the End-State of the global industry, prudential regulations on generation and retail, merger and acquisitions investment rules; all to discourage the accumulation of unfair play.
EWPC is not like the failed attempt on the unworkable SMD, as the approach is not to be standardized. The SMD was an attempt to make a compromise of the existing solutions of PJM, New York and New England. Many failed re-engineering projects resulted from misunderstandings of the true requirements.
EWPC is not exactly related to a reengineering project, but its similarity to discovering the true requirements suffices, as it is also about starting over. EWPC is an End-State (model convergence) market architecture and design, whose essential principles are to be adopted. A generative dialogue is needed to define the necessary transition from today’s reality to reach such End-State. This means that close attention of local conditions should be considered.
Although it is highly worthy, my confidence on EWPC doesn’t depend on the carbon tax. It depends on a non-trivial truth about electric power systems, which is a very complex machine whose design and operation is not a subject of debate, but on the work of a systems architect. It also depends on large changes experienced on fuel and transactions costs. Lowering of transactions costs allows the integration of demand to the power system with the development of the resources of the demand side, which leads to the development of robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
JAVS: "To me the solution is to implement a carbon tax and leave it to the market to make the decision, and allow private investors to receive the benefits and to take the risks."
EARJr: This suggests that a tax does not, among other things, change or influence the market. Also, carbon tax at what rate; and, if the initial rate is insufficient to "move" the market to the extent desired, do you then propose to increase the tax rate until the market makes the "correct" decision?
JAVS: By implementing a carbon tax, the business case for EWPC is enhanced, as it certainly influences the markets. Details on how to implement the carbon tax is very speculative at the moment. Some earlier discussions suggested a gradual process to increase, for example, coal carbon tax by 2% yearly increments up, to 40%.
EWPC is a true and non-trivial doctrine Part III
JAVS: "By the way, the author didn't take into account the benefits of demand response on CO2 reduction."
EARJr: Demand response may not lead to reduced carbon emissions, depending on the fuel type and efficiency of the plants which would not be operated on the shaved peak vs. the fuel type and efficiency of the plants which would supply the shifted demand during off-peak periods.
JAVS: You have a very valid point for the short term. Demand response in some states like Ohio, which has about 90% coal generation, may lead to an increase in carbon emissions, since peaking generators, fueled with natural gas with be displaced. Later on, as coal generating units are replaced with combined cycle gas generation up to 2016, the benefits arrive. So, you suggestion is an asset for EWPC reform. As the demand response business case reduces investments in generation, transmission and distribution and end-use, delaying its implementation is not warranted. What might be done is accelerating the process of the carbon tax.
JAVS: "In addition, there is a need for an institution to integrate active demand."
EARJr: If the retailer and the customer have a contractual relationship which is monitored by an intelligent meter which receives price communications from the retailer and allows the customer to control response to price signals, why is there a need for "an institution to integrate active demand". It would seem that the contract and the communication do that.
JAVS: Thank you very much for emphasizing customers with contractual relationship with a retailer. The institution is the Second Generation Retailer mentioned in earlier posts, which is a very different animal than the retailers that are operating today.
EARJr: The current regulated "market" in electricity, which you contend does not work well, is a creature of government. The "generative dialogue to re-regulate the power industry" you suggest would also be a creature of government. I do not share your confidence that the new regulatory regime would be more effective than the current regime; and, neither of us can prove the case one way or the other.
JAVS: As the introductory remarks covered the whole last paragraph, I will add that it is not necessary to prove the case. All that is needed to move forward is to cross the chasm of the technology-enabled market development, as explained by Goeffrey Moore. Skeptics may never get raid off their vertical integration mental model. Conservatives will wait until the majority has developed the business model innovations of EWPC. So what’s remaining is for technology enthusiasts and visionaries to help EWPC cross the chasm. Demand response systems already in operation are the proof that EWPC has already entered the pragmatics’ bowling alley.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Updated Background
Over 28 years of consulting experience and leadership in electric power technology and education
BS ´68, MS ´71 & PhD ´72, all from Cornell University
Valued IEEE member for 36 years.
Autodidact in management systems – loves to implement applications learned by reading, listening, and integrating complementary perspectives from information sources for high tech - high touch environments
Research and practice areas, and interests include: electricity without price controls, systems architecture, systems thinking, electricity retail marketing under a customer orientation, electric market rules, information systems requirements and design, contract assistance
The above was posted in a brief form under the article An Analysis of the Carbon Emissions Impact of the Senate Energy Bill, by Chris Neil, Energy Economist.
jueves, septiembre 06, 2007
Bernardo Vega: Reglamento LGE se Discute
Bernardo Vega, en su columna En la Cosa, informa bajo el título Futurología que "El equipo económico del gobierno tiene el don de poder pronosticar el futuro. En el "Suplemento de la Carta de Intención" al FMI, que tiene fecha 31 de agosto, dicen que "la reglamentación de la ley de lectricidad... se ha implemanado a principios de septiembre". La realidad es que todavía se discute." Yo le agrego que se discute en secreto, porque no he sido convocado.
El punto más importante es que el Reglamento tiene aspectos de caracter retroactivo. Esos elementos abren una caja de pandoras, al generarse privilegios selectivos por decisiones anteriores de la SIE.
Cada vez me queda más claro que la LGE es una ley muy corta, tal como anticipamos en la nota Congreso Obligado a Una LGE Muy Corta, Lo que necesitamos es hacer un verdadero diálogo donde todas las partes interesadas puedan participar. Ahora, solamente son invitados por excepción los que tienen conexiones.
El punto más importante es que el Reglamento tiene aspectos de caracter retroactivo. Esos elementos abren una caja de pandoras, al generarse privilegios selectivos por decisiones anteriores de la SIE.
Cada vez me queda más claro que la LGE es una ley muy corta, tal como anticipamos en la nota Congreso Obligado a Una LGE Muy Corta, Lo que necesitamos es hacer un verdadero diálogo donde todas las partes interesadas puedan participar. Ahora, solamente son invitados por excepción los que tienen conexiones.
miércoles, septiembre 05, 2007
Nuclear and Renewables Competition under EWPC
I am proposing that the world needs a market structure and rules (same as architecture and design) that allows competition in generation, competition in retail, and competition between generation and retail. Since both deregulation and vertical integration should be ruled out, so far the only available option is Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC), as explained in the post Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
While the Senate Bill ... does not otherwise provide incentives for nuclear power, the author and EPRI are forecasting 5 and 4 units per year, respectively, from 2015 to 2030.
As I have said earlier, I am not against, nor favor, nuclear power. Public policy should not pick winners, as they don't do it in other industries. Now here is a report against it: New nuclear power said too costly and risky. I have seen many comments in energypulse.net that show the contrary. To me the solution is to implement a carbon tax and leave it to the market to make the decision, and allow private investors to receive the benefits and to take the risks. That would end that debate.
The same applies to renewables. Most renewables want the repeat of PURPA to avoid competition. Both nuclear and renewables should just compete with gas on the supply side and with energy efficiency, demand response, distributed storage, etc, on the demand side (see first link). By the way, the author didn't take into account the benefits of demand response on CO2 reduction. In addition, there is a need for an institution to integrate active demand.
The next opportunity to start implementing EWPC is the state of Ohio. To develop the transition from the actual situation, a generative dialogue to re-regulate the power industry is suggested. Please refer to Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business.
While the Senate Bill ... does not otherwise provide incentives for nuclear power, the author and EPRI are forecasting 5 and 4 units per year, respectively, from 2015 to 2030.
As I have said earlier, I am not against, nor favor, nuclear power. Public policy should not pick winners, as they don't do it in other industries. Now here is a report against it: New nuclear power said too costly and risky. I have seen many comments in energypulse.net that show the contrary. To me the solution is to implement a carbon tax and leave it to the market to make the decision, and allow private investors to receive the benefits and to take the risks. That would end that debate.
The same applies to renewables. Most renewables want the repeat of PURPA to avoid competition. Both nuclear and renewables should just compete with gas on the supply side and with energy efficiency, demand response, distributed storage, etc, on the demand side (see first link). By the way, the author didn't take into account the benefits of demand response on CO2 reduction. In addition, there is a need for an institution to integrate active demand.
The next opportunity to start implementing EWPC is the state of Ohio. To develop the transition from the actual situation, a generative dialogue to re-regulate the power industry is suggested. Please refer to Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business.
lunes, septiembre 03, 2007
A Vertical Integration Conspiracy Theory for the US Judiciary
Reference and context: Economic Theory and an Unsociable Review of Some Aspects of the Global Warming Discussion - Part 2, by Ferdinand E. Banks, Professor
To all readers,
While Fred and Joseph worship the obsolete vertical integration, their observations have some merits.
Yes Fred, deregulation is a [global] catastrophe.
No Joseph, as can be seen by any impartial observer, I don't tout the Texas market at all. You are most probably right about a Texas scam, but you are completely wrong about retail competition, as it is the key to make demand elastic at lower costs, which is what you should be most concerned about for the customers you now missrepresent.
No Fred, your rhetoric won't erase "a more down to earth response is that it is evident that tinkering is not a serious way to go about anything. This means that any fool could have written that. So, Fred you were not smart enough, have flunked the test, and are losing the case."
Fred: my goal seems quixotic to a casual observer. Time will tell. I found my purpose on what has now become the emerging EWPC. I started in 1996 telling others the aim to place the Dominican Republic in the electricity map. However, from 2003 on, I found that there was a conspiracy, not to extend the deregulation scam worldwide, which occurred, but to stop competition altogether to extend the useful life of the inefficient vertical integrated utility, which both of you defend for some unknown reasons.
The whole debate - an uneven match of two evils - was limited on purpose between deregulation and vertical integration. A superior third way has been emerging since the 80s, which with my effort now makes the debate a waste of time and a value destruction of large worldwide proportions.
Joseph, I agree: the ABACUS system was designed to show progress in competition, not to show lower prices. So, even though vertical integrated systems are not competitive, they are much better deals than the deregulated scams. California IOUs were the mastermind of the failure of deregulation as they designed it. Enron’s greed just made the job easier. A well designed and perfectly executed, public relations campaign destroyed deregulation forever. Now I am in the job of destroying vertical integration as David, beat Golliath. A hint: the judicial system of the US should look very closely at the issues.
When Jim Bayer wrote his hint on 8.28.07 ”THERE ARE NO CONSPIRACIES” and Malcolm agree, they missed a great opportunity to understand what is really going on. As can be seen from the post A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 5, “According to Eamonn Kelly in his book “Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of our Uncertain World,” page 35, Winston Churchill said: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its coat on.” On page 36, Kelly says that “Conspiracy theories can, ironically, provide an ordered framework with which to understand chaotic events.”…
Picture yourself in the year 2000, and as a practical analyst that knew about the protection inherent in utility regulation and also knew what had happen in the US Midwest in the summers of 1998 and 1999. … “The debate in California has changed remarkably over the past year or two. Discussion now focuses not on whether retail competition or direct access is possible, but on how to make it happen. The three California investor-owned utilities affected by the commission's decision convened an industry working group, called the Western Power Exchange (Wepex) to address the issues related to implementing the new competitive retail market.” Please answer, to the best of your knowledge, if there might be some ground for a complot theory on which Enron was a just a casualty.
Now, to show that I don’t tout the Texas Market, in the link it is very clear that while the authors ABACUS system shows Texas in the “first place,” it lack all of the essential elements of EWPC as is found in the synthesis post Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.” See now selected paragraphs:
On March 13th, 2007, at the Third Annual Carnegie Mellon Conference on the Electricity Industry, I presented A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of The Electricity Industry. In my comments to your article, the slides mentioned are those of that presentation, which I believe is a good companion to your paper and the report.
I strongly agree with your statement that regulated pricing (also for Len) is a key barrier to retail electricity choice. This is phrased on slides 14, 16 and 43 as the “native load” barrier.
The dawn of electricity competition in Texas is about eliminating price controls on competitive activities. Difficulties experienced last year, because of lack of demand response, meant that there is not enough integration between retail and wholesale electricity markets. The Texas market is just immature.
The issue of integration of retail and wholesale markets was explained in the paper An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, which was published as a rebuttal (I mentioned the End-State then) to your DEFG partners, Brunetto and Wimberly, article The Business Case for Demand Response (please see the comments interchange with Thomas under the article).
Texas is not a Pure-Disco state either – competitive retailers should be able to replace 100% of the old monolithic regulated incumbent’s retailers [of Texas] to reach 0% overhead -, so there is a space available to reach the End-State. No nonsense competitive retailers (also for Len) business model innovations [just in EWPC] are at the center of market development (slide 21).
… The generative dialogue should approach altogether the difficulties in the interaction between regulated and competitive affiliates to get to wires-only (pure-disco). There is another argument under EWPC to support a pure-disco arrangement: transportation (transmission and distribution) should be kept whole (integrated) to manage efficiently and effectively short and long run systemic risk (slide 17).
To all readers,
While Fred and Joseph worship the obsolete vertical integration, their observations have some merits.
Yes Fred, deregulation is a [global] catastrophe.
No Joseph, as can be seen by any impartial observer, I don't tout the Texas market at all. You are most probably right about a Texas scam, but you are completely wrong about retail competition, as it is the key to make demand elastic at lower costs, which is what you should be most concerned about for the customers you now missrepresent.
No Fred, your rhetoric won't erase "a more down to earth response is that it is evident that tinkering is not a serious way to go about anything. This means that any fool could have written that. So, Fred you were not smart enough, have flunked the test, and are losing the case."
Fred: my goal seems quixotic to a casual observer. Time will tell. I found my purpose on what has now become the emerging EWPC. I started in 1996 telling others the aim to place the Dominican Republic in the electricity map. However, from 2003 on, I found that there was a conspiracy, not to extend the deregulation scam worldwide, which occurred, but to stop competition altogether to extend the useful life of the inefficient vertical integrated utility, which both of you defend for some unknown reasons.
The whole debate - an uneven match of two evils - was limited on purpose between deregulation and vertical integration. A superior third way has been emerging since the 80s, which with my effort now makes the debate a waste of time and a value destruction of large worldwide proportions.
Joseph, I agree: the ABACUS system was designed to show progress in competition, not to show lower prices. So, even though vertical integrated systems are not competitive, they are much better deals than the deregulated scams. California IOUs were the mastermind of the failure of deregulation as they designed it. Enron’s greed just made the job easier. A well designed and perfectly executed, public relations campaign destroyed deregulation forever. Now I am in the job of destroying vertical integration as David, beat Golliath. A hint: the judicial system of the US should look very closely at the issues.
When Jim Bayer wrote his hint on 8.28.07 ”THERE ARE NO CONSPIRACIES” and Malcolm agree, they missed a great opportunity to understand what is really going on. As can be seen from the post A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 5, “According to Eamonn Kelly in his book “Powerful Times: Rising to the Challenge of our Uncertain World,” page 35, Winston Churchill said: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its coat on.” On page 36, Kelly says that “Conspiracy theories can, ironically, provide an ordered framework with which to understand chaotic events.”…
Picture yourself in the year 2000, and as a practical analyst that knew about the protection inherent in utility regulation and also knew what had happen in the US Midwest in the summers of 1998 and 1999. … “The debate in California has changed remarkably over the past year or two. Discussion now focuses not on whether retail competition or direct access is possible, but on how to make it happen. The three California investor-owned utilities affected by the commission's decision convened an industry working group, called the Western Power Exchange (Wepex) to address the issues related to implementing the new competitive retail market.” Please answer, to the best of your knowledge, if there might be some ground for a complot theory on which Enron was a just a casualty.
Now, to show that I don’t tout the Texas Market, in the link it is very clear that while the authors ABACUS system shows Texas in the “first place,” it lack all of the essential elements of EWPC as is found in the synthesis post Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.” See now selected paragraphs:
On March 13th, 2007, at the Third Annual Carnegie Mellon Conference on the Electricity Industry, I presented A Generative Dialogue to Reach the End-State of The Electricity Industry. In my comments to your article, the slides mentioned are those of that presentation, which I believe is a good companion to your paper and the report.
I strongly agree with your statement that regulated pricing (also for Len) is a key barrier to retail electricity choice. This is phrased on slides 14, 16 and 43 as the “native load” barrier.
The dawn of electricity competition in Texas is about eliminating price controls on competitive activities. Difficulties experienced last year, because of lack of demand response, meant that there is not enough integration between retail and wholesale electricity markets. The Texas market is just immature.
The issue of integration of retail and wholesale markets was explained in the paper An Alternative Business Case for Demand Response, which was published as a rebuttal (I mentioned the End-State then) to your DEFG partners, Brunetto and Wimberly, article The Business Case for Demand Response (please see the comments interchange with Thomas under the article).
Texas is not a Pure-Disco state either – competitive retailers should be able to replace 100% of the old monolithic regulated incumbent’s retailers [of Texas] to reach 0% overhead -, so there is a space available to reach the End-State. No nonsense competitive retailers (also for Len) business model innovations [just in EWPC] are at the center of market development (slide 21).
… The generative dialogue should approach altogether the difficulties in the interaction between regulated and competitive affiliates to get to wires-only (pure-disco). There is another argument under EWPC to support a pure-disco arrangement: transportation (transmission and distribution) should be kept whole (integrated) to manage efficiently and effectively short and long run systemic risk (slide 17).
Tierra Adentro / Sector Eléctrico: contrarreforma y resistencia
Contrarreforma y resistencia
En el sector energético se ha estado llevando a cabo una profunda contrarreforma. A fines del siglo pasado el Gobierno del PLD impulsó un proceso de privatización del sistema eléctrico nacional y diseñó como estrategia la reducción del Estado a regulador, por un lado, y a controlador de áreas neurálgicas -las hidroeléctricas, por ejemplo- por el otro. Hoy en día el Estado controla cerca del 70% del sistema y, a través de la CDEEE, interviene vigorosamente para apropiarse de una mayor participación.
Es en ese marco en donde se produce la modificación de la Ley 125-01, con el fin de penalizar el hurto de energía -con lo cual los más diversos sectores se mostraron de acuerdo-, pero de paso los legisladores oficialistas colocaron un "impuesto" de 10% a los usuarios no regulados, la mayoría de los cuales pertenecen al sector industrial dominicano. Esta modificación de la Ley General de Electricidad es conocida como la Ley 186-01.
Ahora, dando cumplimiento a lo establecido, se trata de crear el reglamento que haga viable la aplicación de la Ley. Hay quien llegó a afirmar que la aprobación de la Ley se hizo fácil. Sin embargo, existe el peligro de que quienes encabezan la contrarreforma apuesten a fortalecer su posición mediante el mecanismo de "dictar" el reglamento.
Corresponde a la Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE) el encabezar el proceso de elaboración de dicho reglamento, para lo cual tiene hasta fines de octubre. Este reglamento, una vez presentado, debe ser aprobado por el Poder Ejecutivo. Terreno movedizo.
Terreno movedizo porque no se sabe a ciencia cierta si, dada la forma excluyente en que se están manejando algunos aspectos de la vida nacional, los usuarios del sistema eléctrico tendrán la oportunidad de participar con sus planteamientos en la elaboración del reglamento (especialmente los grandes usuarios del sector industrial).
Terreno movedizo por la prisa que manifiestan algunas instancias en aprobar el reglamento.
En ese sentido, la Asociación de Industrias de
El sector productivo ha señalado, en reiteradas ocasiones, que el tema energético constituye un pesado fardo sobre las condiciones de competitividad del sector.
Al parecer de los sectores productivos -especialmente los industriales - todos los asuntos relacionados con el sector eléctrico constituyen temas de vital importancia, ya que el costo de la energía eléctrica constituye el principal escollo para la competitividad de los sectores productivos y del país en general.
Nos preguntamos, de modo obligado, qué tanta resistencia o "aguante" tiene el empresariado nacional que pueda soportar contrarreformas y variaciones en las reglas de juego sin que el tren tome el camino de la quiebra. La participación que solicitan los sectores empresariales no sólo es conveniente -desde el punto de vista político- sino también obligatoria -desde el punto de vista de legitimidad del reglamento-.
sábado, septiembre 01, 2007
Sigo Aspirando a un Contrato de Nación sin Frustrarme
Si leen el artículo Zancadillas de Luis Arthur, que respondí en la nota Pequeña Victoria GMH en Reunión CNE, verán que en lo que respecta a la electricidad, los dominicanos no creen en su gente (todavía). De forma muy ortodoxa, Luis me inspira a ejercitar mi voz de tiempo en tiempo.
Luis concluye su artículo con “Un país sin metas, sin laboratorios, investigación, ni apoyo, donde lo que vale es lo que diga algún asesor extranjero, y cualquier pirata que comparta dinero y compre concesiones, de playas, terrenos, viento y sol. ¡Por eso tantos no regresan o se van pronto! Gastamos en prepararlos, no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente.”
Todo lo que he realizado, excepto por el informe para un consultor mejicano que menciono en La Solución Definitiva a la Crisis Sistémica de Electricidad, ha sido financiado con mi propio peculio y con base a una meta muy clara y contundente. El asesor extranjero me eligió como el experto mejor preparado aquí y en el extranjero (eso me dijo) para realizar el diagnóstico (que transformé en sistémico) y la solución.
Que no quepa duda, la ESCP es un nicho de mercado para resolver la crisis de electricidad y para generar negocios competitivos de exportación que generen elevadas divisas, en un mundo globalizado, sin depender de protección.
Un prestigioso asesor económico explicó hace poco que las remesas no van a mermar por mucho rato, que en la coyuntura actual la economía dominicana no depende ya tanto de sus exportaciones, sino que la situación depende grandemente de las inversiones. Decía que las Zonas Francas están en serias dificultades porque la tasa de cambio se equilibró mal, pero que lamentablemente no se puede jugar con ella porque las inversiones pueden ser golondrinas viajeras.
La razón porque las remesas no van a mermar es porque, como escribe Luis, los dominicanos, que no regresan o se van pronto, que gastamos en prepararlos, que no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente, están progresando. Una verdadera estrategia de competitividad sistémica, como la realizada por Irlanda, necesita dar un giro de 180 grados para invertir ese proceso. Así, además de divisas, podremos sacar mayores beneficios de los dominicanos que más han progresado.
Sobre como puedo colaborar eficazmente en el proceso de modificación del Reglamento a la LGE, lo que dice Luis de los asesores extranjeros me recuerda lo que propuse en un Seminario de ANJE en el Comentario a la ponencia de Marisol Vicens. Hace casi tres años en la lámina “Una Aclaración y un Comercial,” explicaba ¿Porqué ser Interdependiente como consultor?
Creo que, sin hacerme ilusiones, es un momento propicio para plantear de nuevo un contrato a ser remunerado por los sectores industriales, público y por los agentes del sector eléctrico para dotar al país de un Reglamento acorde a la LGE, creando el espacio para hacer las precisiones que sean necesarias para darle la estabilidad que merece el sector, propiciando las inversiones extranjeras que necesitamos.
Igualmente, haría el mismo servicio equilibrado basado en los hábitos de interdependencia a una institución que crea en su gente. Si usted amigo lector, llegó hasta aquí, su recomendación a favor del progreso de la sociedad dominicana para enfrentar el flagelo del sector eléctrico, podría ser de mucho valor. Encuentre su voz e inspire a otros a encontrar la suya.
Luis concluye su artículo con “Un país sin metas, sin laboratorios, investigación, ni apoyo, donde lo que vale es lo que diga algún asesor extranjero, y cualquier pirata que comparta dinero y compre concesiones, de playas, terrenos, viento y sol. ¡Por eso tantos no regresan o se van pronto! Gastamos en prepararlos, no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente.”
Todo lo que he realizado, excepto por el informe para un consultor mejicano que menciono en La Solución Definitiva a la Crisis Sistémica de Electricidad, ha sido financiado con mi propio peculio y con base a una meta muy clara y contundente. El asesor extranjero me eligió como el experto mejor preparado aquí y en el extranjero (eso me dijo) para realizar el diagnóstico (que transformé en sistémico) y la solución.
Que no quepa duda, la ESCP es un nicho de mercado para resolver la crisis de electricidad y para generar negocios competitivos de exportación que generen elevadas divisas, en un mundo globalizado, sin depender de protección.
Un prestigioso asesor económico explicó hace poco que las remesas no van a mermar por mucho rato, que en la coyuntura actual la economía dominicana no depende ya tanto de sus exportaciones, sino que la situación depende grandemente de las inversiones. Decía que las Zonas Francas están en serias dificultades porque la tasa de cambio se equilibró mal, pero que lamentablemente no se puede jugar con ella porque las inversiones pueden ser golondrinas viajeras.
La razón porque las remesas no van a mermar es porque, como escribe Luis, los dominicanos, que no regresan o se van pronto, que gastamos en prepararlos, que no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente, están progresando. Una verdadera estrategia de competitividad sistémica, como la realizada por Irlanda, necesita dar un giro de 180 grados para invertir ese proceso. Así, además de divisas, podremos sacar mayores beneficios de los dominicanos que más han progresado.
Sobre como puedo colaborar eficazmente en el proceso de modificación del Reglamento a la LGE, lo que dice Luis de los asesores extranjeros me recuerda lo que propuse en un Seminario de ANJE en el Comentario a la ponencia de Marisol Vicens. Hace casi tres años en la lámina “Una Aclaración y un Comercial,” explicaba ¿Porqué ser Interdependiente como consultor?
Estaba basada en mi aspiración [hasta ahora frustrada en el sector electricidad dominicano] a aplicar los 7 hábitos de Steven R. Covey, especialmente los hábitos 4,5 y 6 [sobre la interdependencia].Me referí a esta idea de nuevo en la nota Oferta Servicio Apoyo a Renegociación, que se frustró también hasta el momento, diciendo además:
· Pensar ganar, ganar
· Buscar primero comprender y luego ser comprendido
· Sinergizar
Mi enfoque es uno orientado al cliente que trata de identificar terceras alternativa sinérgicas a los conflictos profundos del sector, donde todos puedan ganar.
Es en ese contexto que sigo aspirando a un contrato de servicios de consultoría para ayudar a transformar el sector eléctrico. Todo el esfuerzo del GMH ha estado impulsado por esos tres hábitos y también por el octavo – encuentra tu voz e inspira a otros a encontrar la suya.
Creo que, sin hacerme ilusiones, es un momento propicio para plantear de nuevo un contrato a ser remunerado por los sectores industriales, público y por los agentes del sector eléctrico para dotar al país de un Reglamento acorde a la LGE, creando el espacio para hacer las precisiones que sean necesarias para darle la estabilidad que merece el sector, propiciando las inversiones extranjeras que necesitamos.
Igualmente, haría el mismo servicio equilibrado basado en los hábitos de interdependencia a una institución que crea en su gente. Si usted amigo lector, llegó hasta aquí, su recomendación a favor del progreso de la sociedad dominicana para enfrentar el flagelo del sector eléctrico, podría ser de mucho valor. Encuentre su voz e inspire a otros a encontrar la suya.
Pequeña Victoria GMH en Reunión CNE
Las sugerencias que aparecen más adelante no constituyen una posición del GMH sobre el Reglamento de la Ley General de Electricidad, sino una recomendación profesional de un experto.
Antes pasar a las sugerencias, hago una aclaración de rigor, sobre la opinión de Luis Arthur, a quien considero un gran amigo, en la reunión de la CNE, y quien dijo que me he frustrado (como verán en el sentido positivo de la palabra).
Es evidente que muchos de mis deseos y recomendaciones han sido frustrados, en un país donde la cultura del trujillismo sigue afectándonos de maneras insospechadas, pero como lo atestigua mi esfuerzo continuo en la Bitácora Digital del GMH y en el periódico de Internet energypulse.net, de ninguna manera acepto que yo estoy frustrado, que son dos cosas muy distintas.
Como dice el refrán "cada ladrón juzga por su condición," en la nota que he renombrado como Frustrado (como lo hacía mi papa – un gran amigo de Luis - cuando le ponían un sobrenombre). Como quien tiene un remordimiento, Luís aclara sabiamente en dicha nota lo que quiso decir en la reunión. Cuando estaba en la escuela intermedia México, en Santiago, quedé muy conmovido con la expresión "el que persevera triunfa," habiéndome marcado de por vida, por lo que ha sido mi gran motivador desde entonces. Por eso tengo un Ph.D. y por eso he podido desarrollar la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios (ESCP) con aplicación global.
Mi participación de ayer a nombre del GMH, del que mi amigo Luís Arthur, es un Dominicano Valiente reconocido. Contrario a la reunión de Juan Dolio donde frustraron mi participación por razones que ha resultado en un fracaso parcial de la contrareforma, en la de la CNE me escucharon, lo que puede decirse fue una pequeña victoria. No obstante, no hay ninguna garantía de que en la realidad mi intento pueda ser frustrado una vez más. Le decía a Luis que el filosofo Koestembaum define la realidad como "no hacerse ilusiones."
Pasando al tema de la modificación del Reglamento, de manera muy proactiva, hace más de un mes redacté las notas Modificada la LGE, Arreglemos el Reglamento, Reglamentemos Criminalización Fraude Electricidad y Cambiemos Reglas Incentivan uso Petróleo. Es esa tercera nota decía: “podemos dejar de hacernos ilusiones y empezar lo más pronto posible a reglamentar todo lo que se pueda para paliar la situación. El 21 de agosto con la nota eMail Enviado: Integración de Generación Eólica al SENI sugerí otro elemento de los cambios reglamentarios.
Como no debo interpretar las posiciones del sector industrial, del sector público, ni de los generadores que participaron en la reunión, me limito a presentar lo que la prensa publicó sobre la referida reunión, como pueden ver en las notas SEIC: Mantener Armonía del Conjunto y Plantean Evitar Suba Costo Electricidad.
Pues bien, como el diccionario dice que frustrar es privar a uno de lo que desaba, puedo considerar mi participación en la reunión que convocó la CNE como una pequeña victoria del GMH, independiente de lo que motivó dicha reunión.
A continuación, las sugerencias para arreglar el Reglamento de forma integral y no a retazos:
La sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico debe ser vista como la sostenibilidad para los agentes del mercado y también para los consumidores (por ej. queja del empresariado), y debe centrase en el abaratamiento de los costos, incluyendo los costos en que incurren los clientes por desabastecimiento. Al día de hoy no se han incorporado esos costos en el proceso de optimización, lo que genera una alta destrucción de valor en el país.
Para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos, que se traduce en el abaratamiento de los costos, la Ley General de Electricidad impone a la CNE velar porque se apliquen programas óptimos que minimicen los costos de inversión, operación, mantenimiento y desabastecimiento, en su literal c) del artículo 14, trata por tanto el sector de manera integral. En las operaciones que planifica el Organismo Coordinador del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional interconectado, no se está velando correctamente por el costo de desabastecimiento en que incurren los clientes consumidores por los apagones.
Un tratamiento de la normativa del sector eléctrico por partes, puede generar una señal de incertidumbre innecesaria. Por eso, es necesario incorporar en el Reglamento aspectos de mucha complejidad, como los que comentamos a continuación:
El Consejo Directivo del Organismo Coordinador contrató consultores que hicieron un estudio de herramientas y datos, encontrando dichos consultores deficiencias en los programas óptimos de la operación de sistema eléctrico interconectado, habiendo sugerido importantes recomendaciones al Reglamento de Aplicación y a los modelos de operación y en especial para llenar el cometido del literal c del Art. 14 conforme a los estándares internacionales. Además, hace falta incorporar el despacho de las unidades de generación eólica en el proceso de optimización de la operación, lo cual aunque no es trivial, primero hay que ponerse de acuerdo en el propio Reglamento de la Ley de Fuentes Renovables. Hasta que no se disponga de esos aspectos reglamentarios integrados a la operación del SENI, no se podrá conseguir que inversionistas sensatos inicien proyectos, porque no sabrán a que atenerse. La integración de esos aspectos es crucial. Sugiero que la empresa consultora sea invitada a realizar una presentación sobre los aspectos reglamentarios que sugieren a los sectores interesados lo más pronto posible. Lo ideal es un taller de dos o tres días con los consultores participando en la integración equilibrada de las disposiciones. En suma la mayor parte de los estudios e informaciones están disponibles para desarrollar un reglamento que le de la estabilidad al sector que necesitan los agentes del mercado y los consumidores.
Antes pasar a las sugerencias, hago una aclaración de rigor, sobre la opinión de Luis Arthur, a quien considero un gran amigo, en la reunión de la CNE, y quien dijo que me he frustrado (como verán en el sentido positivo de la palabra).
Es evidente que muchos de mis deseos y recomendaciones han sido frustrados, en un país donde la cultura del trujillismo sigue afectándonos de maneras insospechadas, pero como lo atestigua mi esfuerzo continuo en la Bitácora Digital del GMH y en el periódico de Internet energypulse.net, de ninguna manera acepto que yo estoy frustrado, que son dos cosas muy distintas.
Como dice el refrán "cada ladrón juzga por su condición," en la nota que he renombrado como Frustrado (como lo hacía mi papa – un gran amigo de Luis - cuando le ponían un sobrenombre). Como quien tiene un remordimiento, Luís aclara sabiamente en dicha nota lo que quiso decir en la reunión. Cuando estaba en la escuela intermedia México, en Santiago, quedé muy conmovido con la expresión "el que persevera triunfa," habiéndome marcado de por vida, por lo que ha sido mi gran motivador desde entonces. Por eso tengo un Ph.D. y por eso he podido desarrollar la Electricidad Sin Control de Precios (ESCP) con aplicación global.
Mi participación de ayer a nombre del GMH, del que mi amigo Luís Arthur, es un Dominicano Valiente reconocido. Contrario a la reunión de Juan Dolio donde frustraron mi participación por razones que ha resultado en un fracaso parcial de la contrareforma, en la de la CNE me escucharon, lo que puede decirse fue una pequeña victoria. No obstante, no hay ninguna garantía de que en la realidad mi intento pueda ser frustrado una vez más. Le decía a Luis que el filosofo Koestembaum define la realidad como "no hacerse ilusiones."
Pasando al tema de la modificación del Reglamento, de manera muy proactiva, hace más de un mes redacté las notas Modificada la LGE, Arreglemos el Reglamento, Reglamentemos Criminalización Fraude Electricidad y Cambiemos Reglas Incentivan uso Petróleo. Es esa tercera nota decía: “podemos dejar de hacernos ilusiones y empezar lo más pronto posible a reglamentar todo lo que se pueda para paliar la situación. El 21 de agosto con la nota eMail Enviado: Integración de Generación Eólica al SENI sugerí otro elemento de los cambios reglamentarios.
Como no debo interpretar las posiciones del sector industrial, del sector público, ni de los generadores que participaron en la reunión, me limito a presentar lo que la prensa publicó sobre la referida reunión, como pueden ver en las notas SEIC: Mantener Armonía del Conjunto y Plantean Evitar Suba Costo Electricidad.
Pues bien, como el diccionario dice que frustrar es privar a uno de lo que desaba, puedo considerar mi participación en la reunión que convocó la CNE como una pequeña victoria del GMH, independiente de lo que motivó dicha reunión.
A continuación, las sugerencias para arreglar el Reglamento de forma integral y no a retazos:
La sostenibilidad del sector eléctrico debe ser vista como la sostenibilidad para los agentes del mercado y también para los consumidores (por ej. queja del empresariado), y debe centrase en el abaratamiento de los costos, incluyendo los costos en que incurren los clientes por desabastecimiento. Al día de hoy no se han incorporado esos costos en el proceso de optimización, lo que genera una alta destrucción de valor en el país.
Para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos, que se traduce en el abaratamiento de los costos, la Ley General de Electricidad impone a la CNE velar porque se apliquen programas óptimos que minimicen los costos de inversión, operación, mantenimiento y desabastecimiento, en su literal c) del artículo 14, trata por tanto el sector de manera integral. En las operaciones que planifica el Organismo Coordinador del Sistema Eléctrico Nacional interconectado, no se está velando correctamente por el costo de desabastecimiento en que incurren los clientes consumidores por los apagones.
Un tratamiento de la normativa del sector eléctrico por partes, puede generar una señal de incertidumbre innecesaria. Por eso, es necesario incorporar en el Reglamento aspectos de mucha complejidad, como los que comentamos a continuación:
El Consejo Directivo del Organismo Coordinador contrató consultores que hicieron un estudio de herramientas y datos, encontrando dichos consultores deficiencias en los programas óptimos de la operación de sistema eléctrico interconectado, habiendo sugerido importantes recomendaciones al Reglamento de Aplicación y a los modelos de operación y en especial para llenar el cometido del literal c del Art. 14 conforme a los estándares internacionales. Además, hace falta incorporar el despacho de las unidades de generación eólica en el proceso de optimización de la operación, lo cual aunque no es trivial, primero hay que ponerse de acuerdo en el propio Reglamento de la Ley de Fuentes Renovables. Hasta que no se disponga de esos aspectos reglamentarios integrados a la operación del SENI, no se podrá conseguir que inversionistas sensatos inicien proyectos, porque no sabrán a que atenerse. La integración de esos aspectos es crucial. Sugiero que la empresa consultora sea invitada a realizar una presentación sobre los aspectos reglamentarios que sugieren a los sectores interesados lo más pronto posible. Lo ideal es un taller de dos o tres días con los consultores participando en la integración equilibrada de las disposiciones. En suma la mayor parte de los estudios e informaciones están disponibles para desarrollar un reglamento que le de la estabilidad al sector que necesitan los agentes del mercado y los consumidores.
Frustrado
Por: Luis H. Arthur S. http://www.luis.arthur.net/ http://www.luisharthur.blogspot.com/
31 Agosto 2007
Cuando en Junio del 1957 me gradué en el Politécnico Loyola de Perito en Electricidad Industrial me vine a trabajar por $80 mensuales a Ciudad Trujillo.
En Septiembre a mi y un compañero nos vista en el trabajo don Luis Ruiz P., SubAdministrador de la CDE y nos informa que por instrucciones del Generalísimo, dado que éramos de los primeros técnicos graduados en electricidad en el Politécnico, debíamos ir a trabajar a la CDE. La idea era que tras conocer la institución, se nos mandaría al extranjero a ampliar estudios para eventualmente sustituir al personal de Stone & Websten, antigua dueña, con contrato de administración técnica. Nos pagaban $200. Los dominicanos que ahí trabajaban hasta por 30 años, obreros que habían subido a capataces, ganaban lo mismo nuestro y nos adverasaron pensando que íbamos a sustituirlos…
En 1968 graduado de Ingeniero Electricista en el Tecnológico de Monterrey, volví a la CDE y el panorama era distinto. Los extranjeros eran pocos. Algunos de los capataces eran Superintendentes y junto a Ingenieros Civiles tenían el mando y la guerra contra mi fue ardua, pues ellos pensaban en sus empleos. Vinieron más ingenieros y para 1970 ya éramos varios en las distintas áreas, hasta que en 1971 me fui a trabajar en mi empresa de la que viví el resto de mi vida productiva.
Cuento esto, porque quizás le sirva de lección a muchos que se preparan bien, cada vez mejor y regresan a este país de precariedades con las mejores intenciones de ayudar, y se encuentran una muralla infranqueable de personas que al protegerse, retardan el avance del país.
Después de 40 años de este anécdota de vida, la situación es igual. El Presidente que habla bonito prometiendo becas para estudios y especializaciones, mientras nombra personas de dudosa y hasta de reconocida incapacidad técnica para las área en que los asignan, y su perenne acción es bloquear a los criollos capacitados y honestos. Un país sin metas, sin laboratorios, investigación, ni apoyo, donde lo que vale es lo que diga algún asesor extranjero, y cualquier pirata que comparta dinero y compre concesiones, de playas, terrenos, viento y sol. ¡Por eso tantos no regresan o se van pronto! Gastamos en prepararlos, no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente.
luis@arthur.net
Original Zancadillas
31 Agosto 2007
Cuando en Junio del 1957 me gradué en el Politécnico Loyola de Perito en Electricidad Industrial me vine a trabajar por $80 mensuales a Ciudad Trujillo.
En Septiembre a mi y un compañero nos vista en el trabajo don Luis Ruiz P., SubAdministrador de la CDE y nos informa que por instrucciones del Generalísimo, dado que éramos de los primeros técnicos graduados en electricidad en el Politécnico, debíamos ir a trabajar a la CDE. La idea era que tras conocer la institución, se nos mandaría al extranjero a ampliar estudios para eventualmente sustituir al personal de Stone & Websten, antigua dueña, con contrato de administración técnica. Nos pagaban $200. Los dominicanos que ahí trabajaban hasta por 30 años, obreros que habían subido a capataces, ganaban lo mismo nuestro y nos adverasaron pensando que íbamos a sustituirlos…
En 1968 graduado de Ingeniero Electricista en el Tecnológico de Monterrey, volví a la CDE y el panorama era distinto. Los extranjeros eran pocos. Algunos de los capataces eran Superintendentes y junto a Ingenieros Civiles tenían el mando y la guerra contra mi fue ardua, pues ellos pensaban en sus empleos. Vinieron más ingenieros y para 1970 ya éramos varios en las distintas áreas, hasta que en 1971 me fui a trabajar en mi empresa de la que viví el resto de mi vida productiva.
Cuento esto, porque quizás le sirva de lección a muchos que se preparan bien, cada vez mejor y regresan a este país de precariedades con las mejores intenciones de ayudar, y se encuentran una muralla infranqueable de personas que al protegerse, retardan el avance del país.
Después de 40 años de este anécdota de vida, la situación es igual. El Presidente que habla bonito prometiendo becas para estudios y especializaciones, mientras nombra personas de dudosa y hasta de reconocida incapacidad técnica para las área en que los asignan, y su perenne acción es bloquear a los criollos capacitados y honestos. Un país sin metas, sin laboratorios, investigación, ni apoyo, donde lo que vale es lo que diga algún asesor extranjero, y cualquier pirata que comparta dinero y compre concesiones, de playas, terrenos, viento y sol. ¡Por eso tantos no regresan o se van pronto! Gastamos en prepararlos, no sabemos cuidarlos y los regalamos olímpicamente.
luis@arthur.net
Original Zancadillas
SEIC: Mantener Armonía del Conjunto
SANTO DOMINGO.- El secretario de Estado de Industria y Comercio, Melanio Paredes, encabezó ayer junto al presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE), Arístides Fernández Zucco, una reunión con representantes de los diversos sectores público y privado interesados en participar en la elaboración del Reglamento de Aplicación de la Ley 186-07, que modifica la Ley General de Electricidad 125-01.
En el encuentro, el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE), Arístides Fernández Zucco, destacó el amplio espíritu de apertura del Gobierno para elaborar un reglamento de aplicación a la modificada Ley General de Electricidad 125-01, que contenga los aportes de todos los sectores interesados y se respete la nueva legislación y el interés nacional.
Fernández Zucco también ponderó la presencia y aciva participación del secretario de Industria y Comercio, quien estuvo en la reunión desde su inicio y sus planteamientos estuvieron ajustados al interés del Gobierno de no crear obstáculos para promover el desarrollo industrial y empresarial del país.
Paredes, en su calidad de presidente del directorio de la CNE, al dar la bienvenida a los asistentes, explicó el interés de las autoridades en escuchar los puntos de vista de cada sector a los fines de trabajar juntos en la elaboración del reglamento.
“La convocatoria de todos los sectores interesados en el mercado de la energía, se encuadra en el espíritu de diálogo y comunicación que siempre ha impulsado el presidente Leonel Fernández”, sostuvo según un reporte de la Seic.
Agregó que en virtud de las múltiples aristas que tiene el sector de la energía, “es necesario esforzarse por lograr soluciones de consenso que permitan mantener la armonía del conjunto”.
Como parte de los esfuerzos por lograr un Reglamento de Aplicación de consenso para la Ley General de Electricidad, se han agotado en las últimas horas varias sesiones de trabajo, entre las que figura un encuentro con la Secretaría de Estado de Relaciones Exteriores. Por el sector privado asistieron los reprsentantes de la cúpula empresarial del país, Asociación de Industrias, zonas francas, miembrios del sector eléctrico, entre otros.
Noticia original en el Listín Diario El Gobierno y empresarios tratan cambio reglamento
En el encuentro, el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía (CNE), Arístides Fernández Zucco, destacó el amplio espíritu de apertura del Gobierno para elaborar un reglamento de aplicación a la modificada Ley General de Electricidad 125-01, que contenga los aportes de todos los sectores interesados y se respete la nueva legislación y el interés nacional.
Fernández Zucco también ponderó la presencia y aciva participación del secretario de Industria y Comercio, quien estuvo en la reunión desde su inicio y sus planteamientos estuvieron ajustados al interés del Gobierno de no crear obstáculos para promover el desarrollo industrial y empresarial del país.
Paredes, en su calidad de presidente del directorio de la CNE, al dar la bienvenida a los asistentes, explicó el interés de las autoridades en escuchar los puntos de vista de cada sector a los fines de trabajar juntos en la elaboración del reglamento.
“La convocatoria de todos los sectores interesados en el mercado de la energía, se encuadra en el espíritu de diálogo y comunicación que siempre ha impulsado el presidente Leonel Fernández”, sostuvo según un reporte de la Seic.
Agregó que en virtud de las múltiples aristas que tiene el sector de la energía, “es necesario esforzarse por lograr soluciones de consenso que permitan mantener la armonía del conjunto”.
Como parte de los esfuerzos por lograr un Reglamento de Aplicación de consenso para la Ley General de Electricidad, se han agotado en las últimas horas varias sesiones de trabajo, entre las que figura un encuentro con la Secretaría de Estado de Relaciones Exteriores. Por el sector privado asistieron los reprsentantes de la cúpula empresarial del país, Asociación de Industrias, zonas francas, miembrios del sector eléctrico, entre otros.
Noticia original en el Listín Diario El Gobierno y empresarios tratan cambio reglamento
Plantean Evitar Suba Costo Electricidad
El sector industrial planteó en el encuentro celebrado ayer con el secretario de industria y Comercio y el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía, que se debe evitar que el reglamento para la aplicación de la nueva ley de electricidad conlleve a un aumento de costo para los usuarios no regulados del sector eléctrico, según trascendió.
De acuerdo a lo informado, las autoridades fueron receptivas ante posición planteada por el sector industrial y reconocieron que debe evitarse un deterioro en la competitividad.
De acuerdo a lo informado, los representantes del sector industrial hicieron sus planteamientos en base a un anteproyecto de reglamento que se les había entregado días antes.
Según se explicó, uno de los argumentos de mayor fuerza que presentaron los industriales es que el costo de energía es en los países de Centroamérica, que compiten con la República Dominicana, menor incluso que el costo para los usuarios no regulados.
Los representantes del empresariado indicaron que el sector industrial ha estado en desventaja para competir con los países centroamericanos en el marco del tratado de libre comercio entre los Estados Unidos, Centroamérica y la República Dominicana (DR-CAFTA, por sus siglas en inglés), y que un aumento del costo de energía para los usuarios no regulados podría deteriorar aún más la competitividad de ese sector.
Según se explicó, los usuarios no regulados representan en el país el 5% del mercado eléctrico, mientras que en algunos países de Centroamérica llegan a representan el 30%.
De acuerdo a lo informado, las autoridades del gobierno, encabezadas por el secretario de Industria y Comercio, licenciado Melanio Paredes, y el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía, licenciado Arístides Fernández Zucco, fueron muy comprensivas con los planteamientos hechos por el sector industrial.
Además, se informó que los empresarios han ponderado la decisión del Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de energía de promover que las sugerencias del sector empresarial sobre este tema sean escuchadas. Se informó que las autoridades expresaron su disposición a los representantes del sector industrial de hacer nuevos encuentros para escuchar sus planteamientos sobre el reglamento eléctrico, para que la implementación de la ley no afecte la competitividad.
Noticia original en Hoy Digital Sector industrial plantea debe evitarse suba costo electricidad
De acuerdo a lo informado, las autoridades fueron receptivas ante posición planteada por el sector industrial y reconocieron que debe evitarse un deterioro en la competitividad.
De acuerdo a lo informado, los representantes del sector industrial hicieron sus planteamientos en base a un anteproyecto de reglamento que se les había entregado días antes.
Según se explicó, uno de los argumentos de mayor fuerza que presentaron los industriales es que el costo de energía es en los países de Centroamérica, que compiten con la República Dominicana, menor incluso que el costo para los usuarios no regulados.
Los representantes del empresariado indicaron que el sector industrial ha estado en desventaja para competir con los países centroamericanos en el marco del tratado de libre comercio entre los Estados Unidos, Centroamérica y la República Dominicana (DR-CAFTA, por sus siglas en inglés), y que un aumento del costo de energía para los usuarios no regulados podría deteriorar aún más la competitividad de ese sector.
Según se explicó, los usuarios no regulados representan en el país el 5% del mercado eléctrico, mientras que en algunos países de Centroamérica llegan a representan el 30%.
De acuerdo a lo informado, las autoridades del gobierno, encabezadas por el secretario de Industria y Comercio, licenciado Melanio Paredes, y el presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Energía, licenciado Arístides Fernández Zucco, fueron muy comprensivas con los planteamientos hechos por el sector industrial.
Además, se informó que los empresarios han ponderado la decisión del Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de energía de promover que las sugerencias del sector empresarial sobre este tema sean escuchadas. Se informó que las autoridades expresaron su disposición a los representantes del sector industrial de hacer nuevos encuentros para escuchar sus planteamientos sobre el reglamento eléctrico, para que la implementación de la ley no afecte la competitividad.
Noticia original en Hoy Digital Sector industrial plantea debe evitarse suba costo electricidad
jueves, agosto 30, 2007
DR1: Windpower for Samana
Last week, the town of Las Galeras in Samana became the first part of the DR to benefit from clean electricity generated by wind power, according to Jose Oscar Orsini, president of Luz y Fuerza de Las Terrenas, C. por A. power company. The operation of the country's first commercial wind-powered generator, a 60KW generator, will reduce electricity prices by 5-8% for consumers in Las Galeras. The company plans to sell the kWh for US$0.15 and US$0.17. Luz y Fuerza de Las Terrenas, C. por A. has the concession for power distribution in the north and east of the Samana Peninsula. It purchases the power from Generadora Eolica de Las Galeras, S.A., presided by Jaime Fernandez. The Las Galeras wind park is located on a plain at Las Guzumas, Cabo Samana, where the winds are very favorable. A coastal shelf formed by a marble mine at 800 feet dropping down to the sea creates a kind of Venturi air flow effect that accelerates the force of the winds. The generator can currently provide 15% of the power used in the beach town of Las Galeras. Generadora Eolica de Las Galeras, S.A. plans to install a wind park with the capacity to generate 1,200KW to supply 20% of the north and eastern areas of the Samana peninsula. The park has the capacity for three 275KW and four 60KW generators when the Las Galeras and Las Terrenas systems are interconnected. The first four 60KWs will be installed by June 2008 and plans are for the system to be interconnected by the end of 2008. The wind park requires a US$1.5 million investment, of which US$500,000 has been invested in the first system now in operation. The site was chosen 10 years ago when USAID financed a study on wind power potential in the Dominican Republic, which was carried out by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NREC) of the United States.
Final: IMEUC not a Market Architecture and Design
Reference and context: under the energypulse.net article Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, by Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source. with 72 comments as of 8.31.07.
By now, readers have the answer to Todd's statement on the second day of comments under this article: "Jose Antonio, I'm curious of your hangup with Len."
Reality: everyone should be curious of Len's hangup with EWPC.
I am really asking for help. Is Len and/or Fred, working for some vested interest or are they just simple skeptics or just good guys trying to find the truth? Does anyone have info to that respect? I could supply a post about Fred being a skeptic, that somehow he run away from two times earlier.
EWPC market architecture and design is better than vertical integration (Model 1) which has outlived its useful life. EWPC is better than incomplete and/or no-functional markets, based on transmission open access (Model 2) and its extension which costs more than Model 1 when for example capacity markets are added.
For the benefit of Fred, I will recall a post under Playing with Fire (see A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 12 and its context):
As the readers can attests, I gave the benefit of the doubt to IMEUC as a market design and architecture, but as his author was unable to produce a synthesis, nor resolve its internal contradicitions, it is now very clear that it is not such thing. In electric power systems, optimization is done for the whole, no by optimizing the parts as IMEUC does. If anyone needs the post on wholes and parts, I will be happy to post it.
Fred, as Len does not have one, what's your market design and architecture?
If anyone has a real market architecture and design, please by all means, proceed to make a synthesis like the one I have done in Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem for everyone to see. Meanwhile, EWPC is the winning market design and architecture.
By now, readers have the answer to Todd's statement on the second day of comments under this article: "Jose Antonio, I'm curious of your hangup with Len."
Reality: everyone should be curious of Len's hangup with EWPC.
I am really asking for help. Is Len and/or Fred, working for some vested interest or are they just simple skeptics or just good guys trying to find the truth? Does anyone have info to that respect? I could supply a post about Fred being a skeptic, that somehow he run away from two times earlier.
EWPC market architecture and design is better than vertical integration (Model 1) which has outlived its useful life. EWPC is better than incomplete and/or no-functional markets, based on transmission open access (Model 2) and its extension which costs more than Model 1 when for example capacity markets are added.
For the benefit of Fred, I will recall a post under Playing with Fire (see A Generative Dialogue Without Illusions Part 12 and its context):
Thanks Fred for your timely response. I guess you are right that "no tinkering with the demand side can compensate for gaming and lack of investment on the supply side" is highly likely under Model 2 and its piecemeal extensions.
To face gaming and lack of investment under EWPC there is an ultraquality requirement to be performed by a system engineering institution. The commercial activities of generation, and wholesale and retail of electricity to end-customers need to operate under a no-nonsense prudential regulation.
If the expert to the authorities in China is pushing Model 2 and its extensions, I also agree that your "anti-electric deregulation performance" statement is very likely to occur. If vertical integration – Model 1 – becomes the default solution, the little guy is bound to pay more for the investments than he should. The development of the resources of the demand side equity criterion - Market 3 - should lead to the effective development of the Chinese market at the bottom of the pyramid, which is the largest in the world.
Unless Northamerican, Chinesse and European leaders listen very closely to the first and second part of these comments, discussions, debates, and dialogues, they will certainly be playing with fire. My humble recommendation is that they retain a system architect expert on EWPC to help them coordinate a generative dialogue to come up with a new vision and develop a transition to EWPC. An expert on gas without price controls (GWPC) should no be difficult to develop in a parallel generative dialogue.
As the readers can attests, I gave the benefit of the doubt to IMEUC as a market design and architecture, but as his author was unable to produce a synthesis, nor resolve its internal contradicitions, it is now very clear that it is not such thing. In electric power systems, optimization is done for the whole, no by optimizing the parts as IMEUC does. If anyone needs the post on wholes and parts, I will be happy to post it.
Fred, as Len does not have one, what's your market design and architecture?
If anyone has a real market architecture and design, please by all means, proceed to make a synthesis like the one I have done in Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem for everyone to see. Meanwhile, EWPC is the winning market design and architecture.
Primer Generador Eólico Comercial RD
Jose Antonio:Para que compartas en el grupo Millenium,
abrazos,
JOOB
Amigas y amigos:
Quiero compartir con ustedes un logro que ha costado 10 años de trabajo y planeamiento para el equipo que me ha acompañado en este último lustro; el instalar el primer generador eólico de uso comercial en Republica Dominicana, el cual funciona hoy por primera vez.
Es el primer Generador del Parque Eólico en Las Guzumas, Las Galeras, Samaná. El cual me gustaría bautizarlo con el nombre de mi tío “Juan Bosch”, quien era un visionario y le hubiese encantado haber visto funcionando generación limpia en nuestro país.
En la foto aparece el equipo técnico que contribuyo en la instalación de este primer molino. Con este generador podremos producir sin quemar petróleo, el 15 % de la energía que consumen Las Galeras. El plan en el futuro inmediato es instlar 1,200 KW para suminstrar el 20 % de la energia en todo el Norte y Este de la peninsula de Samaná.
Abrazos,JOOB
Tierra Adentro / Las industrias, como la arepa
A los industriales dominicanos el Gobierno los está considerando “harina” y los ha sometido a “baño María”: fuego por abajo, fuego por arriba, de lo cual posiblemente surja una “arepa” difícil de tragar (porque aunque fue nombrado un Asesor Gastronómico, el Gobierno es en estos menesteres muy mal cocinero).
Reformas fiscales (o incrementos de impuestos); intentos de arbitrios municipales no acordes con las leyes; contrarreforma en el sector eléctrico, conduciendo a una nueva estatización del sistema; trabas en el cumplimiento de lo que
Los estrategas parecen actuar bajo la consigna de que es necesario que cada semana este “fogón” reciba un nuevo “palo de leña”. Para los dirigentes empresariales, se hace agotador su trabajo y tienen que dedicar gran parte de su tiempo a la reacción, al “estar atento a con qué nos vienen esta semana”… la construcción de un aparato competitivo y de una cultura exportadora se hace a contrapelo, cuesta arriba.
Para muestra, prestemos la palabra sobre el tema del Seguro Familiar de Salud, a Marisol Vicens, brillante abogada, quien en su columna de
Afirma que “no sólo se ha violado la ley, los principios democráticos y los compromisos asumidos en el acuerdo, sino que también han lucido indefensos los afiliados del régimen contributivo”. Señala que en diciembre pasado las autoridades entendieron (parecieron entender, creemos nosotros) que las del Sistema de Seguridad Social no alcanzaban para financiar todas las prestaciones del Plan Básico de Salud, por lo que aceptaron su propuesta de iniciar el SFS mediante un plan piloto que estuviera totalmente equilibrado y que fuera un promedio de los planes privados existentes; compromisos adquiridos en el Acuerdo del 19 de diciembre del 2006. Este acuerdo se olvidó y se inventó un “supuesto sistema semiabierto”.
Esta propuesta, según Vicens, “no se ajusta tampoco a las disposiciones de la Ley 87-01, puesto que en el desesperado intento de las autoridades por mantener la promesa de inicio en la fecha prometida, más de 15 resoluciones administrativas han sido dictadas por la SISALRIL, algunas de las cuales son contradictorias con la Ley; lo que ha creado un híbrido que nadie sabe si es “chicha o limonada” o cómo operará”.
“En este frenético ejercicio no sólo se ha violado la ley, los principios democráticos y los compromisos asumidos en el acuerdo, sino que también han lucido indefensos los afiliados del régimen contributivo, a los que se les ha impuesto un nuevo plan de salud, en muchos casos más costoso, sin que entre otras cosas, puedan tener claro quiénes serán los prestadores de salud contratados por sus ARSs a las que estarán afiliados obligatoriamente por un año, cuánto tendrán que pagar de diferencia para recibir los servicios en la forma que los recibían, o cómo podrán evitar dicho pago accediendo vía el nivel de atención primario y quien financiará las atenciones de salud en casos de accidentes de tránsito que el Estado aunque se comprometió a apropiar los fondos, sólo ha prometido cubrir hasta diciembre”, indica la abogada.
Un comentario nuestro:
Durante años se criticó la doble cotización a la que era sometido el empresariado con obligarle a pagar al Instituto Dominicano de Seguridad Social (IDSS) y, a la vez, verse obligado a buscar seguros privados de salud. El Gobierno ha diseñado una estrategia que conduce, parece que sin posibilidad de evitarlo, a una “doble cotización ampliada”. Los trabajadores recibirán un servicio al estilo de muchos servicios “públicos”, es decir, ineficiente, y los empresarios se verán obligados a buscar seguros “complementarios”.
Este camino requiere, sin embargo, para ser enfrentado de un liderazgo empresarial que se manifieste más unido y contundente, menos afanoso de conciliar y de evitar las confrontaciones –que de todos modos busca el Gobierno- (tampoco que vaya al extremo de buscarlas).
Además, hay que saber que no todos los sectores de la “arepa” están sometidos igualmente a intenso fuego, pero sí es el país el que sufre como totalidad productiva o como podría señalar un consultor del que ya todos conocen el discurso: esta estrategia gubernamental no contribuye a la “competitividad sistémica”.
miércoles, agosto 29, 2007
Restructuring of Ohio’s Power Industry Business
Reference: Ohio Needs to Consider EWPC
Ohio is in the best position and timing to solve the tough power sector problem by considering the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) market architecture and design. As has been known for quite some time, in industry after industry, price controls lead to shortages and inefficiency. New technology is available to enable the transformation of the electric utility industry to EWPC.
The essential elements of EWPC are retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. The latter means that transmission and distribution should not be mistakenly separated into two different entities, with different masters. Instead, bares bone utilities is what remains serving the transport of electricity in a given area at the speed of light. Ultraquality transportation design, operation and control cannot be the result of politicians and economist decisions, but the professional work of engineers, just as is done on nuclear power plants and space vehicles to insure real time reliable service.
Now I explain the former. Once distribution is shifted to transportation, what remains from the distribution utility is a retail monopoly which should be open up to competition. I have suggested the term Second Generation Retailers (2GRs), with the object to integrate active demand (increase its elasticity) into the power system, as well as to differentiate them from simple retailers as they showed up in many jurisdictions that deregulated.
2GRs will integrate active demand by a process that I term the development of the resources of the demand side. As such, 2GRs might end up with Customers Information Systems (CIS - not to be duplicated in distribution), Automated Meter Reading/Infrastructure (AMR/AMI), and managing demand response enabling systems, energy efficiency resources, distributed generation (like solar and wind) and distributed energy storage and many other services to the customer, from long run system planning to economic transactions, just as has always been done in the generating supply side. The result will be robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
EWPC is not deregulation, but a shift from price controls regulation to prudential regulation of competitive generators and competitive retailers, similar to that of the financial industry. As debates lead to getting stuck and using congressional force to get unstuck, the recommendation to Governor Strickland is to develop a comprehensive package by promoting a generative dialogue of all stakeholders to define the transition to EWPC.
© 2007. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Ohio is in the best position and timing to solve the tough power sector problem by considering the Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) market architecture and design. As has been known for quite some time, in industry after industry, price controls lead to shortages and inefficiency. New technology is available to enable the transformation of the electric utility industry to EWPC.
The essential elements of EWPC are retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. The latter means that transmission and distribution should not be mistakenly separated into two different entities, with different masters. Instead, bares bone utilities is what remains serving the transport of electricity in a given area at the speed of light. Ultraquality transportation design, operation and control cannot be the result of politicians and economist decisions, but the professional work of engineers, just as is done on nuclear power plants and space vehicles to insure real time reliable service.
Now I explain the former. Once distribution is shifted to transportation, what remains from the distribution utility is a retail monopoly which should be open up to competition. I have suggested the term Second Generation Retailers (2GRs), with the object to integrate active demand (increase its elasticity) into the power system, as well as to differentiate them from simple retailers as they showed up in many jurisdictions that deregulated.
2GRs will integrate active demand by a process that I term the development of the resources of the demand side. As such, 2GRs might end up with Customers Information Systems (CIS - not to be duplicated in distribution), Automated Meter Reading/Infrastructure (AMR/AMI), and managing demand response enabling systems, energy efficiency resources, distributed generation (like solar and wind) and distributed energy storage and many other services to the customer, from long run system planning to economic transactions, just as has always been done in the generating supply side. The result will be robust, complete and fully functional retail and wholesale markets.
EWPC is not deregulation, but a shift from price controls regulation to prudential regulation of competitive generators and competitive retailers, similar to that of the financial industry. As debates lead to getting stuck and using congressional force to get unstuck, the recommendation to Governor Strickland is to develop a comprehensive package by promoting a generative dialogue of all stakeholders to define the transition to EWPC.
© 2007. José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
martes, agosto 28, 2007
Ohio Needs to Consider EWPC
As can be seen from the comments under the EnergyPulse articles Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge and Progress Energy's Accelerated AMR Deployment: Commitment and Communication, Ontario's deregulation failure is the result of lacking the essential elements of Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC): retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.
The same case repeats itself in many jurisdictions, and Ohio is one of them. Today the Toledo Blade published the Editorial No Rush on Re-Regulation, saying "GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio," to which the paper conclude: "Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable."
The concepts of EWPC should be strongly considered in the process of re-regulating the electric business in Ohio. If you are from Ohio, make sure that a generative dialogue is performed with all the stakeholders.
For a synthesis on EWPC please read Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
The same case repeats itself in many jurisdictions, and Ohio is one of them. Today the Toledo Blade published the Editorial No Rush on Re-Regulation, saying "GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio," to which the paper conclude: "Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable."
The concepts of EWPC should be strongly considered in the process of re-regulating the electric business in Ohio. If you are from Ohio, make sure that a generative dialogue is performed with all the stakeholders.
For a synthesis on EWPC please read Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem.
Ohio: No Rush on Re-Regulation
Article published on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 as an Editorial of the Toledo Blade
GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio.
We use the term “re-regulating” because it is glaringly obvious that the state’s nearly decade-long experiment with electric deregulation has been a colossal failure and must be corrected.
To his everlasting credit, Mr. Strickland is expected to tackle not only the ever-thorny subject of electric rates but to do so in a context that includes clean-coal, nuclear, and other technologies and also alternative, noncarbon forms of energy, like wind and solar power.
This is a tall order but one that must be addressed in a comprehensive, reasoned, and deliberate manner if Ohio is to get on a track that makes it an attractive location for the big energy users of business and industry without placing an undue cost burden on residential ratepayers.
Aides to the governor have indicated that Mr. Strickland wants the General Assembly to adopt an energy package by the end of this year to give the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio time to implement new law before the rate freezes set for FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities expire at the end of 2008.
While we see the need for urgency, lawmakers will only meet with regret if they push through regulatory reform in haste and without time to consider the consequences.
That’s what happened in 1999, when the Republican-dominated legislature ram-med through a deregulation law, heavily endowed with wishful ideology, which promised lower electric rates through competition among energy suppliers attracted by a new free market.
It didn’t work; competition never materialized, as many critics had warned. Industrial users got lower rates, while residential electric customers found themselves locked in rate schemes that were essentially frozen to avoid a public outcry over unrestrained prices.
All this came against the backdrop of what were then among the highest electric rates in the nation, especially for customers of FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison subsidiary.
Where electric rates will go as 2009 dawns is a question the governor and legislature must answer and they will have a lot of help. Lobbying forces arrayed on the issue include at least two groups representing industrial customers, plus the electric utilities trade group, and the Ohio Office of Consumers’ Counsel, representing residential ratepayers.
So far, the legislative playing field appears to be heavily tilted in favor of industry, a factor Governor Strickland should feel compelled to counteract when he comes out with his energy plan next month.
Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable.
That is the challenge Ohio faces with electric re-regulation.
GOV. Ted Strickland has set a high bar for what should be his next major legislative initiative: re-regulating the electric business in Ohio.
We use the term “re-regulating” because it is glaringly obvious that the state’s nearly decade-long experiment with electric deregulation has been a colossal failure and must be corrected.
To his everlasting credit, Mr. Strickland is expected to tackle not only the ever-thorny subject of electric rates but to do so in a context that includes clean-coal, nuclear, and other technologies and also alternative, noncarbon forms of energy, like wind and solar power.
This is a tall order but one that must be addressed in a comprehensive, reasoned, and deliberate manner if Ohio is to get on a track that makes it an attractive location for the big energy users of business and industry without placing an undue cost burden on residential ratepayers.
Aides to the governor have indicated that Mr. Strickland wants the General Assembly to adopt an energy package by the end of this year to give the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio time to implement new law before the rate freezes set for FirstEnergy Corp. and other utilities expire at the end of 2008.
While we see the need for urgency, lawmakers will only meet with regret if they push through regulatory reform in haste and without time to consider the consequences.
That’s what happened in 1999, when the Republican-dominated legislature ram-med through a deregulation law, heavily endowed with wishful ideology, which promised lower electric rates through competition among energy suppliers attracted by a new free market.
It didn’t work; competition never materialized, as many critics had warned. Industrial users got lower rates, while residential electric customers found themselves locked in rate schemes that were essentially frozen to avoid a public outcry over unrestrained prices.
All this came against the backdrop of what were then among the highest electric rates in the nation, especially for customers of FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison subsidiary.
Where electric rates will go as 2009 dawns is a question the governor and legislature must answer and they will have a lot of help. Lobbying forces arrayed on the issue include at least two groups representing industrial customers, plus the electric utilities trade group, and the Ohio Office of Consumers’ Counsel, representing residential ratepayers.
So far, the legislative playing field appears to be heavily tilted in favor of industry, a factor Governor Strickland should feel compelled to counteract when he comes out with his energy plan next month.
Simply put, the legislature should not be stampeded into a plan favoring business and industry at the expense of residential customers. Like water, electricity is a commodity that virtually all Ohioans need to survive, and its price must kept reasonable.
That is the challenge Ohio faces with electric re-regulation.
Len Ask: What Is Transportation?
Len Gould does not see any difference between the Ontario power market architecture and design and EWPC.
Transportation is one the most important issue that separates Ontario from EWPC. As shown in PART III of Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem, the essence of EWPC is “the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.”
Transportation is transmission integrated with distribution. By dividing transportation into two different companies that follow their internal rules, a transmission company and a distribution company, a mistake of large proportion was made. The aim of a transportation bares bone utility company is ultraquality, as is used in the design and operation of nuclear power plants and space vehicles.
The retailers’ discussion is over now. Nat Treadway statement is not a personal statement, likes your and mine, but an institutional statement he wrote very carefully and I am very sure he consulted it with his partners.
Transportation is one the most important issue that separates Ontario from EWPC. As shown in PART III of Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem, the essence of EWPC is “the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation.”
Transportation is transmission integrated with distribution. By dividing transportation into two different companies that follow their internal rules, a transmission company and a distribution company, a mistake of large proportion was made. The aim of a transportation bares bone utility company is ultraquality, as is used in the design and operation of nuclear power plants and space vehicles.
The retailers’ discussion is over now. Nat Treadway statement is not a personal statement, likes your and mine, but an institutional statement he wrote very carefully and I am very sure he consulted it with his partners.
lunes, agosto 27, 2007
How to Make DGs a Disruptive Technology
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio
8.27.07
To all readers,
This is what I mentioned above on the interests of Todd, which should make him support EWPC.
Under one of the articles mentioned on the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm, on 8.16.07, Todd wrote:
Dick Maclay responded on 8.16.07 as follows:
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio8.27.07
My response to Todd is only optimistic.
Under EWPC DGs cannot stand alone, but the network owners are no longer opposed to DGs with ultra-quality transportation. The problem now is with "native loads," which oppose DGs. So there will no be a decade or two delay with EWPC.
EWPC is not deregulation, but what deregulation should have been. Deregulation did not work, because there is still a need for regulation: to change price control regulation with prudential regulation.
Under EWPC, DGs development will be associated with the Second Generation Retailer's business model innovations. Maybe there is a large market segment in the making already.
As deregulation is out of fashion, the emerging EWPC has all the potential to be in fashion, if we stop debating about it and concentrate on promoting a generative dialogue.
8.27.07
To all readers,
This is what I mentioned above on the interests of Todd, which should make him support EWPC.
Under one of the articles mentioned on the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm, on 8.16.07, Todd wrote:
How would the wind storage concerns change if an army of customer owned generators could respond to real time price information to dispatch power to the grid instantaneously? Given today's knowledge, would you go back and put your money into mainframes or the little calculators?
Dick Maclay responded on 8.16.07 as follows:
Calculators and the first micro computers had a major market advantage over DG. They could stand alone. Even with DG, the cheapest back up system is some sort of network. Problem is that the network owners and their regulators look at DG as something that requires standby charges, is dependent on the transmission system, etc. They do not understand that it is to a large degree an alternative to expanding electric transmission. This is delaying DG by a decade or two.
But you describe a vibrant market at work, and deregulation is out of fashion. Unfairly out of fashion, since places like California slapped a "deregulation" sticker on a system designed to fail that did not at all resemble deregulation. But the perception that deregulation did not work is another factor slowing progress. If you are in a hurry my thoughts here are pessimistic.
But long-run they are more optimistic than the standard view. How does all of this affect wind? If I were smart enough to know that I would have been sufficiently clairvoyant to have sold all my holdings before the market started down.
Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio8.27.07
My response to Todd is only optimistic.
Under EWPC DGs cannot stand alone, but the network owners are no longer opposed to DGs with ultra-quality transportation. The problem now is with "native loads," which oppose DGs. So there will no be a decade or two delay with EWPC.
EWPC is not deregulation, but what deregulation should have been. Deregulation did not work, because there is still a need for regulation: to change price control regulation with prudential regulation.
Under EWPC, DGs development will be associated with the Second Generation Retailer's business model innovations. Maybe there is a large market segment in the making already.
As deregulation is out of fashion, the emerging EWPC has all the potential to be in fashion, if we stop debating about it and concentrate on promoting a generative dialogue.
Solving the Tough Electric Power Market Problem
Reference and context: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge
To all readers interested in engaging in a generative dialogue to solving the tough problem of electric power market:
To complement my post above on the three complexities, in his book “solving tough problems: An open way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities (highly recommended)”, Adam Kahane states: “Problems are tough because they are complex in three ways. They are dynamically complex, which means that cause and effect are far apart in time and space, and so are hard to grasp from first hand experience. They are generative complex, which means that they are unfolding in unfamiliar and unpredictable ways. And they are socially complex, which means that the people involved see things differently, and so the problems become polarized and stuck.”
Since Len has decided not to supply a synthesis, or a third article, and instead has written changes to his IMEUC proposal and also written “I've long lost patience, Jose. My published descriptions of IMEUC (see links above) are far more detailed than anything I've found on EWPC,” being responsive to Len, Todd and Jim, I will lower my defenses and make three posts not to debate, but only to try to enable a generative dialogue.
PART I
The Process of Last Resort that Len is promoting with its IMEUC proposal, to finance base load power plants operates under a non competitive assumption. The assumption has its power under debate system that leads to getting stuck and to get it unstuck the result is to activate the process. The process is the same old “native load” business model of winning cases to the regulator, in which an intermediary negotiates under monopoly in the name of customers. That is exactly what we want to avoid under competition in the power industry.
So, to avoid getting stuck, all that is needed is a robust, complete and fully functional - market architecture and design – like EWPC - that provides for long and short run systemic risk management, with a combination of supply side and demand side resources.
The key question is as follows: Is the process of last resort for “native load” on base load generation being used as part of a hidden agenda? If so, I suggest a generative dialogue instead of a debate to make sure that the second phase of competition does not require activating anything at all.
PART II
To describe what is emerging as EWPC, with some references to IMEUC, I will transcribe the Generative dialogue synthesis as of 12.26.06 (see Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 20):
Competition is divided in two phases: One) market vs market and Two) company vs company.
In Phase One all interested parties cooperate in the generative dialogue to select the emergent winning market. Phase Two is not part of the generative dialogue.
EWPC – an integral reform paradigm - is an open and robust emergent market architecture and design [not a solution!] that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions [will] compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions [will]compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand – Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars - [will] compete with each other in time and space. Module 1 commitments on planning, operation and control are to be executed by the other modules.
Based on mechanistic thinking, IMEUC is one close and fractured strategy, like any other experienced deregulation efforts, that suggests retaining one of the key elements of retail business model innovations – the metering function – as a monopoly. The intermediary Market Manager is designed to contract base load units based on long run forecasting under uncertainty, arising from improper market signals.
IMEUC as a switchboard intermediary is just one of the many potential business models. It is only through execution – high dynamic complexity – of the development of the resources on the demand side that the potential will be realized. Other potential business model innovations won’t be able to be developed if IMEUC is unfairly and prematurely selected, by giving it market power over other intermediaries. It is no correct to assume how customers will behave – and evolve - beforehand. Instead, there is a need for a customer orientation.
While incremental costs might become negligible, sunk costs might be comparatively prohibitive for all customers. As a “right” solution, IMEUC becomes a strong barrier to emergent – high generative complexity - creative destruction. The best way to find out what the real overhead costs will be is in Phase Two with the right strategy and flawless execution under competition.
Module 1 is to take decisions for the health of the whole system as they unfold. The forward looking statement suggested to Prof. Banks and Mr. Carson on the generative dialogue goes in that direction. The Market Manager does not have such integral perspective.
I want to keep my opinions on Phase One. I am open to review the general open market design and architecture, if there are unfair elements associated with it. I have “listen” carefully to Len’s opinions and perceive that his interests, by going farther than necessary, go well beyond Phase One. Other parties representative of the larger whole – high social complexity - with different interests – regulators, generation of differing kinds, wholesale, retail, transmission, distribution, fuel supply, manufacturers of systems and equipments, etc. - are invited to participate in the generative dialogue.
PART III
A minimal agreement proposal (see original of 7.7.07 Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC ) under the generative dialogue that avoids monopoly markets on wholesale and retail, open to be enhanced, is as follows:
Slides 7 to 13 of the CMU presentation (to be found on the left column of the GMH Blog) present 8 possible End-State, only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. That is the essence.
To take the best development path, including necessary transitions, to the End-State means eliminating "native load," and energy only markets at the outset, to avoid costly intermediate transitions. Those two eliminations are a prerequisite to an effective system, with wholesale and retail competition, demand integration, and transportation reintegration.
There are key elements that will require standards to complete the detailed cooperation on market vs. market competition, hopefully under global institutions. However, most technological and business solutions belong to the company vs. company competition.
In summary, a general agreement is that we should do without regulated price controls on the retail and wholesale markets (that is how the EWPC paradigm came to being on EnergyPulse with the intention to replace the faulty deregulation paradigm). I suggest that regulators worldwide should shift from price regulation to prudential regulation, under a global institution.
To all readers interested in engaging in a generative dialogue to solving the tough problem of electric power market:
To complement my post above on the three complexities, in his book “solving tough problems: An open way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities (highly recommended)”, Adam Kahane states: “Problems are tough because they are complex in three ways. They are dynamically complex, which means that cause and effect are far apart in time and space, and so are hard to grasp from first hand experience. They are generative complex, which means that they are unfolding in unfamiliar and unpredictable ways. And they are socially complex, which means that the people involved see things differently, and so the problems become polarized and stuck.”
Since Len has decided not to supply a synthesis, or a third article, and instead has written changes to his IMEUC proposal and also written “I've long lost patience, Jose. My published descriptions of IMEUC (see links above) are far more detailed than anything I've found on EWPC,” being responsive to Len, Todd and Jim, I will lower my defenses and make three posts not to debate, but only to try to enable a generative dialogue.
PART I
The Process of Last Resort that Len is promoting with its IMEUC proposal, to finance base load power plants operates under a non competitive assumption. The assumption has its power under debate system that leads to getting stuck and to get it unstuck the result is to activate the process. The process is the same old “native load” business model of winning cases to the regulator, in which an intermediary negotiates under monopoly in the name of customers. That is exactly what we want to avoid under competition in the power industry.
So, to avoid getting stuck, all that is needed is a robust, complete and fully functional - market architecture and design – like EWPC - that provides for long and short run systemic risk management, with a combination of supply side and demand side resources.
The key question is as follows: Is the process of last resort for “native load” on base load generation being used as part of a hidden agenda? If so, I suggest a generative dialogue instead of a debate to make sure that the second phase of competition does not require activating anything at all.
PART II
To describe what is emerging as EWPC, with some references to IMEUC, I will transcribe the Generative dialogue synthesis as of 12.26.06 (see Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 20):
Competition is divided in two phases: One) market vs market and Two) company vs company.
In Phase One all interested parties cooperate in the generative dialogue to select the emergent winning market. Phase Two is not part of the generative dialogue.
EWPC – an integral reform paradigm - is an open and robust emergent market architecture and design [not a solution!] that divides the vertically integrated utility at modular interfaces. 1) Long run and short run system planning, operation and control natural monopoly functions are also kept integrated. 2) The T&D wires natural transport monopoly is kept integrated. 3) Supply - generation - natural competitive functions [will] compete with each other 4) Demand - retail - natural competitive functions [will]compete with each other. 5) Supply and demand – Megawatt/vars vs Negawatt/vars - [will] compete with each other in time and space. Module 1 commitments on planning, operation and control are to be executed by the other modules.
Based on mechanistic thinking, IMEUC is one close and fractured strategy, like any other experienced deregulation efforts, that suggests retaining one of the key elements of retail business model innovations – the metering function – as a monopoly. The intermediary Market Manager is designed to contract base load units based on long run forecasting under uncertainty, arising from improper market signals.
IMEUC as a switchboard intermediary is just one of the many potential business models. It is only through execution – high dynamic complexity – of the development of the resources on the demand side that the potential will be realized. Other potential business model innovations won’t be able to be developed if IMEUC is unfairly and prematurely selected, by giving it market power over other intermediaries. It is no correct to assume how customers will behave – and evolve - beforehand. Instead, there is a need for a customer orientation.
While incremental costs might become negligible, sunk costs might be comparatively prohibitive for all customers. As a “right” solution, IMEUC becomes a strong barrier to emergent – high generative complexity - creative destruction. The best way to find out what the real overhead costs will be is in Phase Two with the right strategy and flawless execution under competition.
Module 1 is to take decisions for the health of the whole system as they unfold. The forward looking statement suggested to Prof. Banks and Mr. Carson on the generative dialogue goes in that direction. The Market Manager does not have such integral perspective.
I want to keep my opinions on Phase One. I am open to review the general open market design and architecture, if there are unfair elements associated with it. I have “listen” carefully to Len’s opinions and perceive that his interests, by going farther than necessary, go well beyond Phase One. Other parties representative of the larger whole – high social complexity - with different interests – regulators, generation of differing kinds, wholesale, retail, transmission, distribution, fuel supply, manufacturers of systems and equipments, etc. - are invited to participate in the generative dialogue.
PART III
A minimal agreement proposal (see original of 7.7.07 Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC ) under the generative dialogue that avoids monopoly markets on wholesale and retail, open to be enhanced, is as follows:
Slides 7 to 13 of the CMU presentation (to be found on the left column of the GMH Blog) present 8 possible End-State, only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. That is the essence.
To take the best development path, including necessary transitions, to the End-State means eliminating "native load," and energy only markets at the outset, to avoid costly intermediate transitions. Those two eliminations are a prerequisite to an effective system, with wholesale and retail competition, demand integration, and transportation reintegration.
There are key elements that will require standards to complete the detailed cooperation on market vs. market competition, hopefully under global institutions. However, most technological and business solutions belong to the company vs. company competition.
In summary, a general agreement is that we should do without regulated price controls on the retail and wholesale markets (that is how the EWPC paradigm came to being on EnergyPulse with the intention to replace the faulty deregulation paradigm). I suggest that regulators worldwide should shift from price regulation to prudential regulation, under a global institution.
jueves, agosto 23, 2007
Asking the Right Questions
Jim: Thanks for your insight about the right questions.
My reservations with Len are that for more than a year he keeps shifting from dialogue to debate. I learned from a highly respected advisor that putting the right market concepts into practice is indeed very complicated. So before the concepts are developed, “asking the right questions” is a great target to hidden agendas.
Most the essential market architecture and design elements of EWPC have been discussed at length earlier. Reading the comments under the articles Playing with Fire I and II, should be sufficient to be convinced that EWPC is the winning market of the first phase of competition. However, I don’t dismiss a better market from appearance. So that is why I asked to learn of the new IMEUC proposition without contradictory elements, without success.
My approach has been to avoid debate, which is based on learning from the past, introducing a generative dialogue, which is about learning from the emerging future. I will recall one of the essential elements of the dialogue in search for the emergent structure from generation to customer.
IMEUC articles have a business model with a retailer between generation and customers, which I identified with as a switchboard. The problem is the switchboard had to be monopoly retailer switchboard. On the contrary, EWPC is open to any kind of competing retailers, which should develop business design innovations and compete. In a sense, this structure is less restrictive than the switchboard business model.
This is what Playing With Fire and Collapse Part 19 says in more details:
Thanks Len for considering the generative dialogue. In a generative dialogue what is important is "listening" in sychronicity with other interest parties to the larger whole that is emerging. For example, a common understanding of what EWPC means as a third way not considered in the decade old debate.
I presume that large customers could be allowed to go directly to generators for their deals in the wholesale market. Then, what you are suggesting is a monopoly retailer innovation under a Market Manager. I suggest to have retail competition, so that other potential innovations are also allowed to emerge. Go to any marketing book and you will find why intermediaries are needed.
What you are proposing is to impose on everyone the Swithboard Profit Model “innovation,” which Adrian Slywosky describes on page 59 of his book “The Profit Zone:” Some markets are characterized by multiple sellers communicating with multiple buyers, with high costs incurred by both. In many case, there is an opportunity to create a high-value intermediary that concentrates these multiple communicating pathways through one point, one channel, by creating a switchboard. The switchboard reduces the cost to both buyers and sellers. A powerful component of the switchboard model is that it builds on itself; the more buyers and sellers that join, the more valuable it becomes.
Such middleman model is perfectly allowed under the EWPC market architecture and design. That is why I said earlier "good luck!" Please say so if there are other things that still bother you.
Len Gould Promissed a 3rd IMEUC Article on 12.26.06
Hi Todd and interested readers,
This year I wrote in EnergyPulse and said at Carnegie Mellon University that EWPC was the winning market (architecture and design) of the first phase of competition. I came to that conclusion after a very lengthy generative dialogue under the 2 Playing With Fire EnergyPulse articles.
At some point in the dialogue (it was dialogue, no debate), under playing with Fire Part I (I could include the link, but you don't like it), Len wrote on 12.26.06: "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you."
This year I wrote in EnergyPulse and said at Carnegie Mellon University that EWPC was the winning market (architecture and design) of the first phase of competition. I came to that conclusion after a very lengthy generative dialogue under the 2 Playing With Fire EnergyPulse articles.
At some point in the dialogue (it was dialogue, no debate), under playing with Fire Part I (I could include the link, but you don't like it), Len wrote on 12.26.06: "Jose Antonio: Your cogent discussion raises some issues with IMEUC which I hope to clarify in a third article in the series here on EnergyPulse in perhaps a couple of weeks, provided I can submit it up to the high standards of the editorial staff. Thank you."
Response to Todd on Market vs Market Competition
Reference: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge
Hi Todd,
Thanks for caring.
On 7.5.07 I wrote: EWPC is not a particular solution; it is an emerging market design and architecture aiming to set up mechanisms…I have followed Geoffrey Moore's advice to perform market vs. market cooperation - through an ongoing generative dialogue - as the first stage of competition to come up with the winning market architecture and design. If there is an element [of EWPC] that does not satisfy such aim, I like to learn about it to upgrade EWPC. The second stage of competition, company vs. company competition, initiates when the mechanisms are implemented and particular solutions can then arrive. The whole point is to enable a generative dialogue to reach the End-State of the power industry.
A generative dialogue (GD) is not about debating positions. After going over some of the following prerequisites, on later posts I will come back to explain that we will be learning from an emergent future, because of three kinds of complexities we are experiencing.
However, as I understand, with the post after yours, Len has made your request obsolete. In addition to your statement “I finally found your standpoint, but was too weary to respond by then,” Len says: “no other system [than IMEUC], including Jose Antonio's, [EWPC] can claim anything close.” So What I like to do is to concentrate on collaboration with you and any one else – including Len’s IMEUC – and any other “system” candidates to complete the first phase. His statement is right on the first phase of competition, even if IMEUC has many unnecessary details of the 2nd phase of competition.
So, ask Len to do exactly what you are asking me on his IMEUC first – concentrate on the essentials for the first phase of competition, so that I will have a benchmark to express not my claims on EWPC, but what insights are emerging if any from IMEUC that might make it the winner. By your own standards, the paragraph he added to his 2 links is not clear enough. He needs also to resolve all contradictions of IMEUC, including that related to LMPs. I promise you to respond in kind as soon his system is clearly understood.
For the back on topic, I will wait for the author to reply first.
Hi Todd,
Thanks for caring.
On 7.5.07 I wrote: EWPC is not a particular solution; it is an emerging market design and architecture aiming to set up mechanisms…I have followed Geoffrey Moore's advice to perform market vs. market cooperation - through an ongoing generative dialogue - as the first stage of competition to come up with the winning market architecture and design. If there is an element [of EWPC] that does not satisfy such aim, I like to learn about it to upgrade EWPC. The second stage of competition, company vs. company competition, initiates when the mechanisms are implemented and particular solutions can then arrive. The whole point is to enable a generative dialogue to reach the End-State of the power industry.
A generative dialogue (GD) is not about debating positions. After going over some of the following prerequisites, on later posts I will come back to explain that we will be learning from an emergent future, because of three kinds of complexities we are experiencing.
However, as I understand, with the post after yours, Len has made your request obsolete. In addition to your statement “I finally found your standpoint, but was too weary to respond by then,” Len says: “no other system [than IMEUC], including Jose Antonio's, [EWPC] can claim anything close.” So What I like to do is to concentrate on collaboration with you and any one else – including Len’s IMEUC – and any other “system” candidates to complete the first phase. His statement is right on the first phase of competition, even if IMEUC has many unnecessary details of the 2nd phase of competition.
So, ask Len to do exactly what you are asking me on his IMEUC first – concentrate on the essentials for the first phase of competition, so that I will have a benchmark to express not my claims on EWPC, but what insights are emerging if any from IMEUC that might make it the winner. By your own standards, the paragraph he added to his 2 links is not clear enough. He needs also to resolve all contradictions of IMEUC, including that related to LMPs. I promise you to respond in kind as soon his system is clearly understood.
For the back on topic, I will wait for the author to reply first.
miércoles, agosto 22, 2007
Estructura Industria para Enfrentar Reto Cambio Climático
Referencia: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, por Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source.
El autor ha ofrecido unas perspectivas frescas sobre la industria eléctrica compitiendo con la industria del petróleo y el gas. Mis comentarios al artículo Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, por Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group,pueden ser encontrados en la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm están cercanamente relacionados con sus sugerencias.
Dos de las sugerencias en el paradigma emergente son:
1) Un impuesto al carbón debe ser negociado en un escenario global, por ejemplo la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Cada país que no apliqué el impuesto negociado, estará engañando el sistema global.
2) La mayor parte de las discusiones están apoyando indirectamente la generación como monopolio. La competencia en generación es no solo posible, sino absolutamente necesaria para seguir adelante.
En respuesta al primer asunto de Edward A. Reid, Jr., relativo a como emplear los ingresos de impuestos, sugiero que se usen para financiar – por medio de préstamos a bajo interés – el desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la demanda (respuesta de la demanda, eficiencia energética, almacenamiento energía, etc.) por medio de Detallistas de Segunda Generación (Second Generation Retailer - 2GR). En la medida que la industria eléctrica aumenta su participación del Mercado con productos libres de CO2, los ingresos por impuestos se reducen. Por tanto, el impuesto resultará en un dispositivo temporal.
Una vez que los EEUU adoptan una estructura de impuestos como esa, las negociaciones globales para extender su alcance son facilísimas, porque el mundo en general está esperando algo como esos.
La competencia al por mayor es un ejercicio solo a largo plazo. La competencia al detalle con el desarrollo de los 2GRs es lo que permite una verdadera competencia a corto plazo. Ambas interactúan como un Mercado completamente funcional de electricidad que resultará en una de las grandes oportunidades para enfrentar el reto del calentamiento global o cambio climático. Esa es la estructura de la industria que el sector eléctrico necesita.
El autor ha ofrecido unas perspectivas frescas sobre la industria eléctrica compitiendo con la industria del petróleo y el gas. Mis comentarios al artículo Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, por Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group,pueden ser encontrados en la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm están cercanamente relacionados con sus sugerencias.
Dos de las sugerencias en el paradigma emergente son:
1) Un impuesto al carbón debe ser negociado en un escenario global, por ejemplo la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Cada país que no apliqué el impuesto negociado, estará engañando el sistema global.
2) La mayor parte de las discusiones están apoyando indirectamente la generación como monopolio. La competencia en generación es no solo posible, sino absolutamente necesaria para seguir adelante.
En respuesta al primer asunto de Edward A. Reid, Jr., relativo a como emplear los ingresos de impuestos, sugiero que se usen para financiar – por medio de préstamos a bajo interés – el desarrollo de los recursos del lado de la demanda (respuesta de la demanda, eficiencia energética, almacenamiento energía, etc.) por medio de Detallistas de Segunda Generación (Second Generation Retailer - 2GR). En la medida que la industria eléctrica aumenta su participación del Mercado con productos libres de CO2, los ingresos por impuestos se reducen. Por tanto, el impuesto resultará en un dispositivo temporal.
Una vez que los EEUU adoptan una estructura de impuestos como esa, las negociaciones globales para extender su alcance son facilísimas, porque el mundo en general está esperando algo como esos.
La competencia al por mayor es un ejercicio solo a largo plazo. La competencia al detalle con el desarrollo de los 2GRs es lo que permite una verdadera competencia a corto plazo. Ambas interactúan como un Mercado completamente funcional de electricidad que resultará en una de las grandes oportunidades para enfrentar el reto del calentamiento global o cambio climático. Esa es la estructura de la industria que el sector eléctrico necesita.
martes, agosto 21, 2007
Industry Structure to Face Climate Change Challenge
Reference: Finding Opportunity in the Global Warming Challenge, by Jay Stein, Executive Vice President, Research, E Source.
The author has given very fresh perspectives showing the power industry competing with the oil and gas industry. My comments to the article Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, can be found in the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm are closely related to his suggestions.
Two of the suggestions in the emerging paradigm are:
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
In response to Edward A. Reid, Jr., first issue with the statement on how to use the tax revenues, I suggest to use them to fund – through low interest loans - the development of the resources of the demand side (demand response, energy efficiency, energy storage, etc.) by means of competitive Second Generation Retailer - 2GR. As the power industry increases market share with CO2-free products, tax revenues decrease. So the tax will result a temporary device.
Once the USA adopts such a tax structure, global negociations to extend its range is a piece of cake, because the world in general is expecting something like that.
Wholesale competition is just a long run exersice. Retail competition with the development of 2GRs is what allows true short run competition. Both interact as a fully functional electricity market that will result one of the greatest opportunity to face the global warming or climate change challenge. That is the industry structure the power sector needs.
The author has given very fresh perspectives showing the power industry competing with the oil and gas industry. My comments to the article Wind Integration: An Introduction to the State of the Art, by Sandy Smith, Communications Coordinator, Utility Wind Integration Group, can be found in the post Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm are closely related to his suggestions.
Two of the suggestions in the emerging paradigm are:
1) A carbon tax should be negotiated on a global setting, i.e. the World Trade Organization. Each country that does not apply the negotiated tax, will then free ride the global system.
2) Most of the discussions are indirectly supporting generation as a monopoly. Generation competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to go forward.
In response to Edward A. Reid, Jr., first issue with the statement on how to use the tax revenues, I suggest to use them to fund – through low interest loans - the development of the resources of the demand side (demand response, energy efficiency, energy storage, etc.) by means of competitive Second Generation Retailer - 2GR. As the power industry increases market share with CO2-free products, tax revenues decrease. So the tax will result a temporary device.
Once the USA adopts such a tax structure, global negociations to extend its range is a piece of cake, because the world in general is expecting something like that.
Wholesale competition is just a long run exersice. Retail competition with the development of 2GRs is what allows true short run competition. Both interact as a fully functional electricity market that will result one of the greatest opportunity to face the global warming or climate change challenge. That is the industry structure the power sector needs.
eMail Enviado: Integración de Generación Eólica al SENI
Estimados VIPs,
Dentro de poco se inicia la redacción del Reglamento de la Ley 57-07 y que sugiero debe aprovecharse para introducir los cambios necesarios en la LGE.
En tal sentido, y en seguimiento a la nota Que Ganen la CNE y la SIE, ofrezco un aporte con la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm.
A modo de introducción pueden también leer la nota ¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte II, la cual responde a una noticia recién publicada.
Saludos,
José Antonio
Dentro de poco se inicia la redacción del Reglamento de la Ley 57-07 y que sugiero debe aprovecharse para introducir los cambios necesarios en la LGE.
En tal sentido, y en seguimiento a la nota Que Ganen la CNE y la SIE, ofrezco un aporte con la nota Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm.
A modo de introducción pueden también leer la nota ¿Es la Energía Eólica Segura? Parte II, la cual responde a una noticia recién publicada.
Saludos,
José Antonio
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)