Because I got behind posting old work, which I promised to do but ignored all summer (tsk, tsk), I am going to do two today! This next piece was written in 2015, when the Smart Electric Power Alliance (SEPA, although I think that used to stand for something else) announced a competition to 're-imagine' the electric utility industry, assuming a state that had all of the current electric infrastructure but not the laws and regulations that currently help hold what we have in stasis. The non-existant place was called the 51st state or, as I dubbed it, Fertile Ground. I had been thinking a lot about the idea of re-imagining electric utilities and so decided to write a submittal. My thought piece (which did NOT win the competition) is what I have posted today. Although these ideas are almost a decade old, I think they are still relevant. Very little has happened in the way of change in the electric industry since I wrote this thought piece; what has happened is that many of this country's electric utilities have added significant amounts of intermittent (wind and solar) generating resources to their systems and some have closed older generating plants (mostly coal!). Utilities have done what they do very well (and have done for decades) -- add investments to rate base -- and customers have done what they do very well (and have done for decades) -- purchase and use devices that require electricity as the energy source. The ideas in the winning papers re-imagining the electric utility industry have not been implemented (that I am aware of). https://lnkd.in/gSx7xPQh is all I can find online regarding this; it is not clear that one can access the original papers and I am unsure at this time, which papers/ideas 'won'. So, for what it's worth, here's what I thought might work as a start at re-imagining this over-a-century-old industry. I probably underestimated the time it would take but was, at least, trying to think about the goal systemically. I'll write more on that later. For now, enjoy this old thought piece!
The latest **ART paper**, *"From Vision to Reality: Promises and Risks of Brain-Computer Interfaces,"* offers **valuable policy insights** but falls short of **scientific standards**. It lacks **consistent in-text citations**, relies heavily on **secondary sources**, and shows **no evidence of peer review**. While useful for **policy discussions**, it cannot be considered a **scientific research paper**. Greater emphasis on **rigorous peer review, transparent citations, and empirical data** is essential to enhance its **credibility and reliability**. **Who is reviewing these papers, and how are findings validated?** These questions remain unanswered.😀😎