Should we keep wasting time and money fixing unfeasible markets propositions? To perform the actual implementation of the EWPC paradigm shift, it is wise to start on the essential requirement of the markets system.

Power Markets Essential Requirements

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

First posted in the GMH Blog, on March 5th, 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.

Thanks Todd for your post.

We should forget the details, and focus just on the essence.

In addition to the ultraquality requirement (not considered at the outset of deregulation), there are 8 possible discreet combinations of the following three variables. Every feasible paradigm (of the 16 possibilities many are just not feasible) needs to select a YES or a NO as an answer to make a paradigm shift.

1) Wholesale Competition: YES or NO;
2) Retail Competition: YES or NO; and
3) Active Demand: YES or NO. (Also not considered at the outset of deregulation.)

In the essence of EWPC all four variable are YES. The combination of Active Demand and Ultraquality Transportation (retained by the closed transportation market) leads to the requirement of Demand Integration to power system planning, operation and control, which is accomplished by 2GRs while performing Retail Competition and Wholesale Competition (in the open market).

Under vertical integration (fully regulated plans – Don’s paradigm) all three answers are NO. Ultraquality is a YES, but property of generation and transmission, as Inactive Demand is considered as an externality. The world changed making vertical integration unfeasible, and as a result we need to change policies, from Inactive Demand to Active Demand, as you explained on 1.15.08 in the excellent contribution that I named as An Undiscussed Elefant. Here again, to keep the ultraquality requirement leads to the need of Demand Integration by 2GRs.

At the outset, restructuring had inactive demand and separate transmission and distribution, with distribution most of the time under the incumbent utility. Lack of an ultraquality requirement and active demand in the original restructuring market architecture and design made it unfeasible. Trying to fix the BIG flaws of the original restructuring has resulted in an inordinate increase in complexity (as many unneeded rules tied to earlier contractual and regulatory arrangements remain buried while giving unnecessary commercial rights) by adding costly incremental extensions of Capacity Markets (a feature of vertical integration), NERC mandatory requirements, recently Demand Integration, etc. That is an extremely destructive and uncertain method to get there.

Since IMEUC has NO Retail Competition nor Ultraquality, and thus NO Demand Integration to power system planning, operation and control, it is just an incomplete and unfeasible proposition.

The above is just another confirmation that EWPC is the winning market architecture and design paradigm. Should we keep wasting time and money fixing unfeasible propositions?