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.








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.
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?...
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.
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?...
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..."
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?...
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.
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...?
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..."
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."
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.
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...