Posts

CADER/DPCA Symposium on Distributed Resources

/0 Comments/in , /by

[I’ll be attending the DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting in Washington next Monday September 27, followed by the IEEE working group session.]

San Diego Sept 13-14

(see program/agenda at http://www.cader.org)

The meeting was very well attended, exceeding expectations, with roughly 400 registered. It included keynotes by notables (Larry Papay of Bechtel, Dan Reicher, Ass’t Secty, EE/DOE, and David Rohy, Calif Energy Commissioner) and two days of parallel sessions on “Policy”, “Technologies” and “Markets”. It was impossible to be in 3 places at once, however the 2″ thick binder provided copies of the vugraphs from most of the presentations.

A dominant theme: it is not a matter if, or even when, but only of how fast, distributed generation will be deployed on a major scale. In fact, DG is already here, and has been for a long time, in various forms and applications. If it truly is a “disruptive technology”, then we can expect it to lurk below the surface, serving in various niche applications, until a crossover occurs and it emerges an a major scale.

The biggest issue seems to be interconnection with the grid. Advocates see utilities as putting up strong resistance. One speaker, Edan Prabhu, explained it terms of distribution departments, at the low end of the totem pole in utilities, trying to protect themselves and their “turf” from this dangerous invasion of “their” system. He explained how the good guys meet the “nice guys”–DG advocates vs. the well-meaning protectors of the system.

There was considerable muttering in the back of the room as speakers from the California utilities claimed to be doing all they can. Repeatedly, we see instances where utilities can handle interconnections just fine, when they want to. In other situations, however, they seen as throwing up roadblocks and delays. Ironically, utilities are entirely comfortable with large motors, which feed back fault current when voltage disappears, but this same issue is seen as a huge problem for DG.

As Dan Reicher explained in his comments, nine states have now gone ahead to establish some kind of interconnection standards for small scale generation, while the long term answer is to have one new national standard. The IEEE work under Dick DeBlasio is key to this, and DOE also supports the development of advanced hardware and software for interconnection.

———–
There was a very good summary of the remarkable events in Texas, where a process has moved with unprecedented speed to cut through the confusion and arrive at an interim set of workable policies. The proposed rules are available online:
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/21220/21220.cfm

A hearing is scheduled for October 25. The presentation was given by Nat Treadway, a former PUC analyst, who is now on his own. 713-669-9701, treadway@alumni.princeton.edu
———–
New York state has a similar initiative for small DG (under 300 KVA). A commission staff proposal was issued in July, however timing of a decision is uncertain. Comments were due by September 20. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/distgen.htm
————
In California, the PUC took longer than expected to announce a decision on a staff recommendation to split their rulemaking proceeding into two parts — Distribution Competition, and DG Implementation Issues. A draft decision to do this was finally announced Sept 21, and is now available online (2 documents) at:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/distgen/docs.htm
————
The California ISO presented an interesting comparison of technical requirements for large generators on the system with what might be needed for DG. Generators need to have sophisticated communications and control capabilities that the ISO can monitor and talk to directly. The ISO is implementing the “ANALOPE” system to do some of this over the internet (there is a strong need to certify bids and contracts–i.e. failsafe digital signatures). Once this is established, it may pave the way for the use of internet technology to communicate with DG’s and enable them to participate in the California energy and ancillary services markets.
(Contact: David Hawkins 916-351-4465 dhawkins@caiso.com)
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/index.html
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/projects/analope/faq.html
————
The Technology sessions featured presentations by makers of microturbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines, dish stirling, storage, and renewables. Discussions on “Markets” ranged from the “sleeping giant” of international electric demand, to combined heat and power and the use of smart technology to capture market value. Selected items may be featured in future UFTO Notes.

Innovators Dilemma – Disruptive Technologies

/0 Comments/in , /by

This editorial is from the March issue of Power Engineering magazine, and does a nice job introducing an important recent book, while pointing out some major implications for the energy utility industry.

Power Engineering is a Pennwell publication, with free subscriptions.
See http://www.pennwell.com/pages/magazines/toc-pe.htm

Thanks to John Zink for providing UFTO with an electronic copy. John, whom many of you may know, tells me he is retiring on May 15. We’ll miss him.

As for the points raised, is the utility industry paying too little heed to new technologies? Do you agree that the only way is to establish small independent subsidiaries? I’ve also included the review from amazon.com

================================================

Warning: Disruption Ahead

by: John C. Zink, Ph.D., P.E., Managing Editor

Three years ago in Power Engineering I identified what I called “strategic technologies.” I listed distributed generation, energy storage and direct current devices as having the potential to create a paradigm shift (a term I have grown to hate) in the power generation business. In later issues I added electric vehicles and hydrogen technologies to the list because of their similar potential to reformulate the way we think of power generation, distribution and use. I recently discovered a more-definitive work that sheds light on this topic.

A 1997 Harvard Business School book calls such new technologies “disruptive technologies” and examines their characteristics in-depth. The book, The Innovator’s Dilemma ? When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clayton M. Christensen, also offers some advice to companies that wish to profit from these disruptive technologies. I think it deserves a look.

The book describes entrenched technology as “sustaining technology.” Companies develop and refine their major products as desired by their customers, continuing to become more efficient while continuing to upscale their offerings. This process increases profit margins and, hence, company expectations and hurdle rates for new products. However, at some point the market does not need further upscale capabilities in these bread-and-butter products. At that time competition shifts to such things as reliability and delivery time and then, ultimately, to price. When the product reaches this mature stage, the business has turned into a commodities business, and profit margins begin to erode.

Unfortunately, revolutionary new products—the disruptive technologies—are not in the pipeline at these companies. Their product pipeline contains only the unneeded future upgrades to their current offerings. Christensen notes that companies which have a solid competitive position in a sustaining technology are seldom able to simultaneously develop a disruptive technology. This is certainly true in the “upscaling” part of the product cycle. The disruptive technologies, while still in their formative stages, usually have high prices and limited capabilities. They cannot serve the company’s upscale market, nor can they meet the company’s profit requirements.

The book observes that the only way companies with established technologies can exploit disruptive technologies is to establish small, independent subsidiaries with lower profit-margin and market-size expectations.

It is not hard to postulate the development of distributed generation or electric vehicles (EVs) following the disruptive technologies model. For example, EVs are now too limited in range and too expensive to displace internal combustion engine cars. There are niche applications, e.g. city buses, where EV efficiency, life-cycle cost and non-polluting nature give them an advantage, but they cannot now satisfy much of the automobile market. As fuel cells and microturbines develop and begin to fill the role of battery charger for hybrid vehicles, these gradually chip away the performance disadvantage of existing EVs, but they are still not price competitive. However, some begin to recognize hybrid vehicles’ potential application as energy storage devices or as distributed generation devices to provide home electricity when not being used for transportation. Aggressive companies may recognize synergies with their businesses and offer not only clean, economical transportation, but also clean, economical power for the home from the same device.

The auto companies, while experimenting with EVs, are not able to bring about the breakthrough because they see EVs as only a niche transportation market. Electric utilities, while seeking new off-peak “appliances,” appreciate the potential of EVs but are not interested in the next generation, the hybrids, because they do not fit the central station generation market. Thus, the door is open for totally separate companies to get into the auto companies’ and utilities’ cash registers. A disruptive technology has struck again.

================================================

From Amazon.com
What do the Honda Supercub, Intel’s 8088 processor, and hydraulic excavators have in common? They are all examples of disruptive technologies that helped to redefine the competitive landscape of their respective markets. These products did not come about as the result of successful companies carrying out sound business practices in established markets. In The Innovator’s Dilemma, author Clayton M. Christensen shows how these and other products cut into the low end of the marketplace and eventually evolved to displace high-end competitors and their reigning technologies.

At the heart of The Innovator’s Dilemma is how a successful company with established products keeps from being pushed aside by newer, cheaper products that will, over time, get better and become a serious threat. Christensen writes that even the best-managed companies, in spite of their attention to customers and continual investment in new technology, are susceptible to failure no matter what the industry, be it hard drives or consumer retailing. Succinct and clearly written, The Innovator’s Dilemma is an important book that belongs on every manager’s bookshelf. Highly recommended.

Book Description
THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA takes the radical position that great companies can fail precisely because they excel at the commonly accepted practices of good management.

It demonstrates why outstanding companies like Xerox, IBM, Sears, and DEC that had their competitive antennae up, listened astutely to customers, and invested aggressively in new technologies still lost their positions of market dominance. And it shows companies today how they can avoid a similar fate.

Drawing on patterns of innovation in a variety of industries, the author argues that good business practices-such as focusing investments and technology on the most profitable products that are currently in high demand by the best customers-ultimately can weaken a great firm. He shows how truly important, breakthrough innovations, or disruptive technologies, are initially rejected by customers who cannot currently use them. This rejection can lead firms with strong customer focus to allow their most important innovations to languish. The fatal disability in these firms is their failure to create new markets and find new customers for these products of the future. As they unwittingly bypass opportunities, they open the door for more nimble, entrepreneurial companies to catch the next great wave of industry growth.

Many companies now face the innovator’s dilemma. Keeping close to customers is critical for current success. But long-term growth and profit depend upon a very different managerial formula. This book will help managers see the changes that may be coming their way and show them how to respond for success.