A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

 

The EWPC EPAct is a sensible contribution to provide fair electricity prices to customers. Things have gone horribly wrong in the power industry, because policy makers did not consider critical non-trivial knowledge in the industry by analysts making al sorts of reports. We need a – highly relevant - EWPC EPAct, as soon as possible, to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift.

Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates

By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity

First posted in the GMH Blog, on July 6th, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

Without making any sensible contribution to the debate, Don Giegler keeps responding all the articles written about EWPC under the mistaken assumption that people can vote, based on being right or wrong. In the interview “Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong,” the sociologist of science Harry Collins responded “We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.” Things have gone horribly wrong in the power industry, because policy makers did not consider critical non-trivial knowledge in the industry by analysts making al sorts of reports.

Under the highly recommended expert article, EWPC EPAct will Provide Fair Electricity Prices, Don Giegler has suggested that I consider one of such reports: “A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION,” posted on the Energy Central News.

Read the conclusions of the “critical assessment,” and you will find that it is based on the existence of “interaction of market power and market failure,” lack of standards of service, and the environmental problems induced by deregulation. It is precisely issues like those that support the Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates that the EWPC EPAct will provide.

The “interaction of market power and market failure” is designed out of EWPC by the following sensible contribution, which although I have made great effort to explain it may be not understood by some people lacking the proper tacit knowledge (that can’t be written out) or experience. Market power was introduced on deregulated markets by the E1R2 [economy first, reliability second] policy and by keeping retail markets completely undeveloped. In fact on my post of 6/20/08, in the mentioned EWPC article, I wrote that “Phasing in deregulation is to enable the E1R2 policy (see earlier posts and their links), which leads to a systemic crisis (when the power system gets into its limits on E1 events that disrupt R2 – most price spikes are correlated with low reliability - like that of the 2003 blackout arise that reduce stakeholders confidence) and as a result a vicious circle. All the complexity introduced for example by capacity markets and NERC mandatory requirements need to be dismantled by going back to the essence which is on what EWPC is based on…”

The post 6/20/08 adds on the R1E2 policy that complies with the standard of service, which is to operate the power system on the normal state (R1 is reliability first, which requires the power system no to be operated under the alert or emergency state). “One of the most important benefits of the EWPC approach, which you [Dick Maclay] consider purist, is the R1E2 policy. See on my post of 5.19.08 that Van Doren and Taylor ‘... 'previously unknown' problems arose because of the non-trivial nature of the vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm which is preserved under EWPC with R1E2.’ In practice, the implementation of the open and the closed ideal markets reference will be impacted by the reality of its approximations.”

With regard to environmental issues, I suggest to read EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions (the first EWPC article posted), to see how EWPC is superior that vertical integration and deregulation. First, “as fuel costs increases, customers pay the increment, with no reduction of fuel consumption at all.” Second “in the deregulation paradigm, fuel costs increases lead to an amplification of fuel use…” And third, “in the EWPC non-trivial paradigm as fuel costs increases lead to a mitigation of fuel use, as demand is no longer an exogenous variable. This results as demand elasticity is increased with the development of the resources of the demand side. Carbon emission reduction is much larger than under the VI paradigm.”

I repeat once again, that regulators should not be allowed by legislative action to make the technology bets - incredible tinkering - they are currently doing. That is why we need a – highly relevant - EWPC EPAct, as soon as possible, to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift.

6185 Views Comments 33 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Jose,

It seems that you truly have discovered yet another way to introduce electric energy price spikes without Tand D failures, R1E2. Who did you say will pay for R1? Perhaps that is why E1 has become E2. Or are you operating under the premise that the consumer won't have pay for what he can't have? Or do "demand integration", "rational rationing" and "prudential regulation" fall once again into those tacit properties of EWPC that defy explanation or, as I understand you, can only be experienced? Regulator "bets" seem tame in comparison.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/7/08 3:23 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Thanks!
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/7/08 6:23 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo You're welcome! Make that "...won't have to pay for..." .
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/9/08 11:11 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo May I also congratulate you on being "approximately" scientific!
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/9/08 11:18 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Seems reasonable that this bit of what you find lacks sense should be repeated here:

Jose,

Here's another sad commentary on the results of introducing competition and electric energy markets by artificial insemination:

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS DEREGULATION

Economic deregulation of electric and gas utilities has failed to
achieve its proposed objectives of lowering price, promoting
greater consumer choice, constraining market power, and improving
infrastructure performance. - (YellowBrix)
--> http://www.energycentral.com/global/news_text.cfm?...
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/9/08 11:28 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo No Don, that report make a lot of sense in the decade old deregulation debate, which is the basis for the Coalition activities. It lacks sense once the Coalition considers the emergence of the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm.

I repeat that "According to John Anderson, president of the Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON), 'Today's organized markets are not competitive, are anti-consumer, and are likely to remain that way without significant action by FERC or Congress.'" That is why we need an EWPC EPAct, as soon as possible, to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift.

The significant action should be based on the sysnthesis of this article:

The EWPC EPAct is a sensible contribution to provide fair electricity prices to customers. Things have gone horribly wrong in the power industry, because policy makers did not consider critical non-trivial knowledge in the industry by analysts making al sorts of reports. We need a – highly relevant - EWPC EPAct, as soon as possible, to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/10/08 1:40 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo typo 'sysnthesis' should be 'synthesis'.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/10/08 1:42 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Jose,

It looks like Ohio, as you would say, is "sensibly" more interested in E1 than E2:

CONSUMER GROUPS SCOUR ELECTRICITY PRICING RULES ; PROPOSAL WOULD
REQUIRE A QUARTER OF THE ELECTRICITY SOLD IN OHIO TO COME FROM
ADVANCED SOURCES BY 2025.

More than a dozen advocacy organizations for Ohio's electricity
consumers are teaming up to scrutinize proposed rules for
regulating electric power prices in the state for decades to come.
- (YellowBrix)
--> http://www.energycentral.com/global/news_text.cfm?...
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/11/08 10:06 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Looks like Ohioans prefer the "W" in EWPC to stand for "with" not "without".
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/11/08 10:10 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo My recommendation on November 2007 to the people of Ohio is in the EWPC article "Ohio Should Focus on EWPC ( http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/11/... )" whose summary reads "First Energy Corp. entered into a contradiction by handing a letter signed by prominent economists to show they believe in competitive markets. The contradiction is that the economists recommended focusing on the necessary improvements in market design, while the utility identified a "number of legal problems that won't easily or quickly be resolved." Ohio House of Representative should focus closely on EWPC."

Since "The rules are intended to put into effect the energy legislation that Gov. Ted Strickland signed into law May 1," I am sorry that Ted did not follow my expert recommendations to focus on EWPC. Once again, "policy makers did not consider critical non-trivial knowledge in the industry..."
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/11/08 1:54 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Could it be that Ted was puzzled by "demand integration", "rational rationing" and "prudential regulation" and all those tacit properties of EWPC that defy explanation or, as I understand you, can only be experienced?
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/11/08 9:56 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Thanks again.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/12/08 1:34 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Again, you're totally welcome.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/13/08 9:08 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo NYISO ISSUES 2008 COMPREHENSIVE RELIABILITY PLAN

The Board of Directors of the New York Independent System Operator
(NYISO) has approved the 2008 Comprehensive Reliability Plan (CRP)
for New York's bulk electricity grid. - (YellowBrix)
--> http://www.energycentral.com/global/news_text.cfm?...

Enlighten us, Jose. Is this an example of R1E2 or E1R2?
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/17/08 1:44 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo That is a great example of E1R2. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) operates New York's bulk electricity grid, administers the state's wholesale electricity markets, and provides comprehensive reliability planning for the state's bulk electricity system. R1 is about closely integrated and regulated T&D. Two features of NYISO are as follows:

Installed Capacity (ICAP) - this is borrowed from vertical integration rates.

The New York Installed Capacity (ICAP) market is based on the obligation placed on load serving entities (LSEs) to procure ICAP to meet minimum requirements. The requirements are determined by each LSE by forecasting the contribution to its transmission district peak load, plus an additional amount to cover the Installed Reserve Margin. The amount of capacity that each supplying resource is qualified to provide to the New York Control Area (NYCA) is determined by an Unforced Capacity (UCAP) methodology. NYISO ICAP auctions are designed to accommodate LSEs and suppliers' efforts to enter into UCAP transactions

Transmission Congestion Contracts (TCC)

Transmission Congestion Contracts (TCCs) enable energy buyers and sellers to hedge transmission price fluctuations. A TCC holder has the right to collect or the obligation to pay congestion rents in the Day-Ahead Market for energy associated with transmission between specified points of injection and withdrawal.The NYISO conducts periodic auctions where TCCs are bought or sold.

The key elements in the post are the need for ICAP, TCCs, the fragmentation of T&D, merchant transmission, a high level of complexity in market rules, which means that although "comprehensive" reliability is second to economy.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/18/08 4:00 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo NYISO has been developed with the incremental extensions that started with transmission open access. R1E2 is the policy that enables electricity as a commodity. Readers should take a look at the EWPC article "Making Electricity a Commodity" ( please hit the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/12/... ). The summary says:

To make electricity a commodity, a proper market architecture and design has emerged in the last two years, as the electricity without price controls (EWPC) paradigm. The structural flaws in the current incremental extensions of the vertical integration paradigm will not go away by implementing NERC mandatory requirements, as it prevents the necessary coordination leading to maximum social welfare.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/18/08 9:16 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo "...necessary coordination leading to maximum social welfare."

Didn't you say EWPC has not been implemented anywhere? And that its effects would not be understood until the paradigm was experienced? How can we conclude, then, that the coordination you espouse will maximize anything? So far, it seems every step further away from the intelligently regulated VIUs that existed before restructuring occurred has maximized consumer electric energy rates and, in so doing, minimized "social welfare". Forcing competition that doesn't exist and regulating the multitude of players, including the customer, that the EWPC paradigm entails appears headed for even higher rates. Counterexamples, I'm sure, would be welcomed by all.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/20/08 4:00 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo And we must not "unintended consequences" sneak up on, e.g. :

DUTCH UTILITIES ON WATCH NEG ON UNBUNDLING OF REGULATED OPERATIONS

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said today it placed on
CreditWatch with negative implications all ratings on Dutch
integrated utilities, Essent N.V., N.V. NUON, ENECO Holding N.V.,
and Delta N.V., including the long-term corporate credit ratings
on these utilities (see list below for details). - (Energy Central)
--> http://www.energycentral.com/global/news_text.cfm?...
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/21/08 4:30 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo "...let unintended consequences sneak up on us..."
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/21/08 4:32 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo In the EWPC article "Is Gore's Revolutionary Leadership Challenge Feasible?" (please hit link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2008/7/2... ) you may find that:

Kevin Bullis writes of unanticipated consequences. They are the result of symptomatic solutions pushed by special interests instead of systemic solutions as Gore is calling for. A great example can be found in "The BIG California LIE" (link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/1... ) , which was written to you and whose summary states "The BIG LIE is that retail competition is impossible in electric markets. The implementation of a competitive retail market was the center of the debate in California. Instead of cooperating to implement it, the three big California utilities, that didn't care about the end-custumers, acted very irresponsibly. EWPC is the paradigm shift to show that retail competition is not only possible, but absolutely necessary to turn the electricity industry into a vibrant value added business for all stakeholders.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/22/08 2:56 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo "which was written to you," is not in the reference article. You refers to Don.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 7/22/08 2:59 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Jose,

I'm sure there are some folks in this discussion whose acquaintance with truth is minimal. I'm not referring to California utilities or myself. Now about you and Mr. Gore...?
# Posted By Don Giegler | 7/30/08 11:19 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo You forgot to add Adam Kahane truthful insider explanation on The BIG California LIE (look at the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/1... )
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/1/08 5:26 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Forget the link... here is the detail... and add also Hyman to your list.

Leonard Hyman, a noted research analyst, wrote that the utilities scoffed at the idea of deregulation when he spoke to them: "... I got the impression that they viewed restructuring as a nutty scheme that would never got support beyond a few regulatory staffers." But deregulation plans continued and Hyman wrote: "I think that this movement perturbed the utilities. I'm not sure that the big utilities agreed on what they wanted... but in the end, they got together and went for what looked like a last minute deal."

"The deal", said Hyman, "look like this: the utilities would collect their stranded costs, however defined, what looked like the real prize, and they bought into the rest of the proposal."

The above fits with Adam Kahane impression: "The primary focus of PG&E's management attention was therefore not on customers, but on formal public hearings before the CPUC. Fittingly, eight of the nine members of the company's executive Management Committee were lawyers."

Kahane added about a PG&E retreat in his second year that "was a profound letdown. I watched the business sections in stupefied disbelief. The executives ignored the analytical material, played power games, ganged up on each other, pretended to misunderstand (as Don is doing), settled old scores. I was deeply disillusioned and felt my commitment to the company slipping away. This was not the brilliant, informed, rational decision making that I had been trained to expect..."
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/1/08 5:31 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo With "insiders" like Kahane and Hyman at work, it's a wonder the California electric energy supply system meltdown was no worse than it was. On the other hand, to their credit, neither has claimed to have invented the internet. That is, as far as I know.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 8/3/08 11:41 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Make that "...as far as I know they have not."
# Posted By Don Giegler | 8/3/08 3:39 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo "...Fittingly, eight of the nine members of the company's executive Management Committee were lawyers." How many are still lawyers at the top? Lawyers are the key persons to keep alive the century old business model of winning rate cases to the regulators. Does the power industry need innovation to create value? Without value creation the power industry will remain less than a zero sum game. Is that what society needs?

As the summary states above, "The EWPC EPAct is a sensible contribution to provide fair electricity prices to customers. Things have gone horribly wrong in the power industry, because policy makers did not consider critical non-trivial knowledge in the industry by analysts making al sorts of reports. We need a – highly relevant - EWPC EPAct, as soon as possible, to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift."

Can anti-consumer lawyers understand the critical non-trivial knowledge? I believe NOT. That explains why "things have gone horribly wrong in the power industry."
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/5/08 3:01 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo If EWPC and EPact are "critical non-trivial knowledge", you appear to be on pretty thin ice when you ask folks to experience these new, untried revolutionary paradigms because they defy explanation. Expert or not, you are going to need a whole lot of help selling "critical non-trivial knowledge" you've never applied and cannot explain. Have you thought about teaming with some lawyers?
# Posted By Don Giegler | 8/5/08 6:16 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo "Critical non-trivial knowledge" for lawyers and many other intelligent and important people. Readers should take a look at the EWPC article "Engineers Needed for Lower Prices" (please hit link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/2... ), whose summary says: "The paradigm shift from the vertically integrated utilities to the electricity without price control paradigm will lead to lower costs, lower profits and lower prices after a reasonable delay. To accomplish that engineers need to take the transpotation function that allow the market between supply and demand run efficiently." Readers should read Jack A. Casazza's non-trivial understanding of the great losses in engineering knowhow in the power industry as lawyer took over. An EWPC based EPAct is sorely needed to enable fair electricity rates, making lawyers most go back to their desks and be replaced ASAP as leaders by engineers and businessmen.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/6/08 1:07 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Whatever gave you the idea that an infinite time delay is reasonable? Not infinite, you say. Show us why not. It ought to be an interesting demonstration for someone who doesn't want to use electric energy rates, residential or otherwise, as a metric.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 8/6/08 11:09 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo What gave you that mistaken idea. I am pro fair electricity rates. But, we want to do it by taking lawyers and their obsolete business model of winning rate cases to the regulator by implementing an EWPC EPAct to enable entrepreneurs innovative business models in the open market. That is the only way to produce fair electricity rates and not by having regulators meet in back rooms with lawyers.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/18/08 8:38 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Jose,

Unfortunately, your idea of fair rates appears synonymous with uncontrolled, higher rates. Perhaps "prudential regulation" or "rational rationing" have some, as yet, unexplained features that will deal with the problem. Seems doubtful, but one never knows... Of course, if you can cite any evidence that what you are pushing provides or has provided lower electric energy rates than intelligently regulated, unrestructured VIUs have, you'll have at least one less critic.
# Posted By Don Giegler | 8/19/08 3:21 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Don,

Thank you again for a difficult and motivating question to change you from a critic to a believer. The response to your insistence with a paralising urge for analisis can be found on the EWPC article "Let's Avoid Many Expensive Fiascos" in the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2008/8/2...
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 8/26/08 7:11 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox

Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2012 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.