Engineers no longer have any possibility to take back the whole industry for themselves. EWPC is a market architecture and design breakthrough discovery that gives engineers what belongs to engineers - the reliable planning, operation and control of the machine and the transportation system - and that gives business people what belongs to them - the money (no the electrical) activities of the value chain
Give Engineers What Belongs to Engineers
By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D.
Systemic Consultant: Electricity
Copyright © 2007 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. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.
In the good old days engineers didn't need mandatory standards. Today they don't need them either, especially when they are an afterthought to fix convoluted incremental extensions away from the vertically integrated utilities paradigm.
As Tracy Rolstad wrote, standards compliance by fines is misplaced. The problem is there are important systemic delays which system planners need to approach several years earlier.
However, the good all engineering days are gone forever. Engineers no longer have any possibility to take back the whole industry for themselves. EWPC is a market architecture and design breakthrough discovery that gives engineers what belongs to engineers - the reliable planning, operation and control of the machine and the transportation system - and that gives business people what belongs to them - the money (no the electrical) activities of the value chain. Please read the article Engineers Needed for Lower Prices where many important questions about a reliable and cost effective power system formulated several years ago by Jack Casazza are responded with the EWPC paradigm.
The reason why lawyers remain in control is because they control a business model of winning rate case to regulators. As the industry is opened to competition they no longer will have that power.
For more details on EWPC please read the Electricity Without Price Controls Blog in the Energy Central Network where 28 other articles are already posted.
Reference and context: NERC-CIP: 'Critical' or in 'Critical Condition'?, by Warren Causey, Vice President, and Mike Smith, Senior Vice President, Sierra Energy Group.
Jose Antonio: "the non-trivial aspects of power system planning, operation and control that I discovered" From reading the referenced link, ["Tracy Rolstad wrote, standards compliance by fines is misplaced. The problem is there are important systemic delays which system planners need to approach several years earlier.", "EWPC is a market architecture and design breakthrough discovery that gives engineers what belongs to engineers - the reliable planning, operation and control of the machine and the transportation system - and that gives business people what belongs to them - the money"] I gather that those supposedly revolutionary discoveries are that engineers are not usually good at running large public corporations, and businessmen are very difficult to educate in the nuances of what engineers do. I gather that your point is that the customer (in the case of EWPC that's the retailers) will enforce reliability on the generators by market forces, e.g. threatening to refuse to purchase in future from generation which displays poor reliability. SO, why doesn't that now work in Ontario now? The problem with that model is that it still demands an available if not spinning reserve in order for the retailers to HAVE ANY choice with which to threaten unreliable suppliers. Without significant excess generation available in a market region, there is no threat possible, so EWPC logically implies significant excess generation. If you've read the referenced article above you can see that Ontario presently is using EWPC, but still needs an ISO with economic power to enforce reliability. The system proposed in IMEUC is far more effective. The market design has the necessary economic penalties (not post-event fines) to enforce reliability built right in to the market model, where the failing generation or transmission service is responsible for providing 100% fulfillment of obligations to supply, either with their own equipment, by purchasing from their competitors, or by paying customers with demand response capability to reduce their consumption by an equal amount. The settlement is immediate and sufficiently painful to ensure proper retirement of worn-out facilities, unlike EWPC where the ideas is "Well, we sure do hope it might happen". IMEUC is designed to operate with little or no reserve required, with rapid response from online demand response controllers controlling all loads, properly compensated, used instead. It will seriously reduce costs.
To understand what Mr. Gould, and intelligent and important person, has written about EWPC all you need to do is to read http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/2...
