ERCOT, PUC, and deregulation got us here

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

What does France do with its nuclear waste?

Pay Abbott enough and they can bury it under the West Mall. For a few bucks more, they dont even need to bury it. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

29 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Source or citation on renewables being cheaper with subsidies removed? Cheaper how; to generate per delivered KWs, EROI, NET to consumers?

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509 - IMF on subsidies for oil:

This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries.
 

Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017.

The largest subsidizers in 2015 were:

- China ($1.4 trillion),

- United States: ($649 billion),

- Russia ($551 billion),

-European Union ($289 billion), and

- India ($209 billion).

About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies.

Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have:

- lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and

- fossil fuel air pollution deaths by
46 percent, and

- increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

 

TLDR: costs from negative externalities are socialized. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by washparkhorn
link

[YChang 3432]

16 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

On top of that pressure, you have the external force that the world’s largest investment banks and >50% politicians do not want any association with major carbon projects in 2021. Grid volatility increases and thermal source peaking capability decreases. Consumers suffer rolling blackouts. We add more renewables in response increasing baseline volatility...

I get your lean towards less renewables and more thermal. But where is your citation (if produced earlier, sorry I missed it!) that more renewable leads to baseline volatility or less investment in thermal? I still don't think the jump to renewables outpacing thermal is going to happen any time soon. Investment firms may be advising their clients about this. And they recognize that climate change, pollution etc will have impact on business, but I don't see any of them advocating for... humor me, snapping their fingers and pulling their levers and making traditional energy source companies go away. 

Just as some poster want to lean super heavy into renewable only and paint a rosy picture. I kind of seeing you do the same in the opposite direction friend.

[mchookem 16243]

6 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Yeah, that complete misrepresentation of the 202-21-1 Energy Dept. Order is just a lift from InfoWars, which also mischaracterizes a Dallas Business Journal article, blaming all the rate bumps on Biden.  I made a polite correction to the disinformation to my one "cut and paste" MAGA buddy on facebook earlier today. 

 

i did the same...and it struck me just how careful i always feel i have to be 🙄

i end up with some carefully measured statement like 'it seems that accusation ["Biden blocked request when Texas begged!"] is inaccurate'  instead of what i want to say: 'that's a lie, read the damn order yourself, here's a link to the actual document and not just selective screenshots from InfoWars, come on!"

Edited February 22, 2021 by mchookem

[tx 3 putt 76447]

55 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Pay Abbott enough and they can bury it under the West Mall. For a few bucks more, they dont even need to bury it. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/10/nuclear-waste-government-rules/

[washparkhorn 9935]

5 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

What does Judith Curry’s belief or disbelief in climate change have to do the merit of her (or a 3rd party on her site, I’m not even sure) analysis of last week’s grid failure?

OT: We are about to enter the "fossil fuel" making period - quickly.  The Permian Period was the Earth's worst mass extinction event and it smells like money to the fossil fuel sector. Not a judgment. 

Time is a flat circle.  Thanks for the insight.

Link to Permian Period mass extinction fact: 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/permian

https://news.mit.edu/2018/permian-period-extinction-0919

Edited February 22, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Francisco 2.0 32347]

12 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Somebody's going to eat a shit sandwich.  There are three options:

1) The ratepayers, who used the electricity (and in particular, the ratepayers who signed up for variable-rate plans tied to the wholesale price of electricity);

2) The taxpayers, who are going to be on the hook if the State decides to forgive (i.e., pay) some of the bills incurred by the ratepayers; or

3) The power generators, who didn't winterize their facilities notwithstanding the 2011 recommendations from the State that they do so.

It seems to me that the best public policy would be to make the power generators take the biggest bite of this shit sandwich.  But I'm not sure that is constitutionally feasible.  And I'm damned sure as shit it's not politically feasible with a Republican-led state government.

 

Or, behind Door #4:

Uncle Sam, because the Texas GOP will come along, hat in hand, along with the Texas congressional delegation, power companies, everyone...and beg/plead/pretend to play nice and hope for another trillion or so in stimulus monies and in conjunction with their usual media outlets dare the House/Senate/Uncle Joe to say no.

Sure, it would be hypocritical as all get out, but so what?  The MAGA crowd would love it, along with the energy companies and everything associated it. Meanwhile, the campaign ads (remember who took care of you after the storm!) would write themselves.

It's going to be a hard pill for some to swallow on the GOP side, but by God, they will.  And it will work.  And they can all conveniently just forget about all that small government and deficit spending talk, and "we're Texas!" talk long enough to get the money.

[Nivek 16869]

9 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

 

Those are actual EIA numbers. Wind production went down because either the wind wasn’t blowing or the turbine had a failure of some sort, you’d have to ask the generator. By nature we can’t stockpile fuel for green/renewables, that’s why they are variable/unreliable for baseline power generation until we’re capable of efficiently storing GWs of green energy.

Sounds like a conspiracy nonsense. Going to have to show your work on that one. A vast networked group of oil barons is powering down wind turbines to sell more carbon fuels to peaking NG plants, was that T Boone Picken’s Plan?

 

It is not conspiracy nonsense.  It is easy to manipulate a graphic to get the reader to interpret the wrong message that I want them to interpret by omission.  A graph, without details is useless.   The more information contained in a graph the more explanation is needed especially for perturbations in the data.   That you do not know and are assuming, demonstrates your actual lack of interest in really understanding the subject matter.  Yes, that statement was a bit ad hominem, and it was also accurate. 

[jimmyjazz 45592]

10 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

Those are actual EIA numbers. Wind production went down because either the wind wasn’t blowing or the turbine had a failure of some sort, you’d have to ask the generator. 

Let's put a finer point on it:  of the 30 GW power shortfall experienced in Texas last week, 4 GW was attributed to reduced wind power.  That's 13%.  This comes straight from Dan Woodfin, who is ERCOT's SysOps Director.

Until someone can prove to me that 13% of a large problem is where we need to focus blame, I am going to accept the more obvious explanation:  our blackouts were overwhelmingly related to reduced power output from thermal energy sources (natural gas, coal & nuke).

[jimmyjazz 45592]

Question about power providers:  if someone lives in an unincorporated part of Texas but has access to the grid, are they able to sign up for a stable retail rate plan, or are all of these power providers structured to pass on variations in fuel pricing to their customers?

[956 Worldwide 34484]

13 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Holy fuck. Dave Lieber of the Dallas Morning News EVISCERATES Republican leadership, ERCOT, and the PUC.  


 

 

and so on and so forth ...


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/02/19/no-surprise-our-electricity-system-is-the-laughingstock-of-the-us-only-customers-cared-until-now/


 

Would prefer to see the specific screw-ups targeted as opposed to  ad hominemattacks on salary.  I'd also like to know who is making that salary.  I can think of few positions in the modern world that are more productive and important than running an electric grid for 25 plus million people.  If most of them are engineers and the like, I have no problem with that sort of compensation.  They are adding far more value than any hedge fund manager, finance bro, etc. that pull down far more than that. They are at least as valuable as the sorts of people we normally identify with 200,000K+ incomes--- surgeons, top-tier trial lawyers, etc. 

That is a separate question from whether the people in the role are doing a good job.  If they were then we wouldn't have any issues with them making that much. 

[Ghost of LL 15495]

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No, not on your next bill.  Your rates are fixed.  

They may crank up the surcharges after the fact, but Austin Energy should not be able to pass on the spike in natural gas cost for this billing cycle.

I think Austin Energy has already come out and said that they don't expect to raise rates next year.

I don't exactly know, but I think there is a high likelihood that Austin Energy made money during the blackout.  As much as we hate coal, Austin Energy has a 50% stake in the state's last coal-fired plant (i.e., Fayette Power Plant).  And since coal is stored on-site, it never went down.  So I suspect Austin Energy reaped some of the benefit of that $9,000/MWh that electricity was going for at times last week.

10 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

Renewables by nature are variable, their power gets purchased first adding ever increasing volatility to the grid.

I don't agree with that.  Wind is always blowing somewhere.  The sun is always shining somewhere.

This storm illustrates that.  Even though we weren't getting much wind power from West Texas (because of a lack of winterization; not because the wind wasn't blowing), the windmills along the coast were generating more wind than was forecast.  The net result was that renewables were producing more than forecast for much of last week.

32 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question about power providers:  if someone lives in an unincorporated part of Texas but has access to the grid, are they able to sign up for a stable retail rate plan, or are all of these power providers structured to pass on variations in fuel pricing to their customers?

Yes.  I think most people have set-rate plans.  My memory from when I lived in Dallas was that variable-rate plans were pretty unusual.

[skeeter 453]

Quote

A series of winter storms battered much of the United States this week, setting records, disrupting daily life, and providing ominous glimpses of a climate-changed future. The Onion looks at some of the most eye-popping numbers from this week’s winter storms.

 

 

 

• 3 Million: People whose call is important to Oncor Electric, and whose patience is appreciated as they remain on the line
• 5: Seconds until burst water pipe comes crashing right through dining room ceiling
• 34%: Portion of continental U.S. currently covered by single enormous snowflake
• 4: Number of teeth needed to complete a chatter
• #334-16H: Serial number of single malfunctioning wind turbine that will eventually take the fall of all of this
• 28.7: Tons of salt redirected from BBQ to Texas roads
• 1: Number of lieutenant governors still maintaining the biggest issue currently facing Texas is whether the national anthem is played before all major sporting events
• 6F: Seat number for Ted Cruz’s return flight
• 256: Fully equipped Ford F-150s in ditches along Texas highways
• 14: Inches of accumulated blood on Texas officials’ hands

 

https://www.theonion.com/this-week-s-winter-storms-by-the-numbers-1846301613

[TwiceHorn 31313]

34 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Would prefer to see the specific screw-ups targeted as opposed to  ad hominemattacks on salary.  I'd also like to know who is making that salary.  I can think of few positions in the modern world that are more productive and important than running an electric grid for 25 plus million people.  If most of them are engineers and the like, I have no problem with that sort of compensation.  They are adding far more value than any hedge fund manager, finance bro, etc. that pull down far more than that. They are at least as valuable as the sorts of people we normally identify with 200,000K+ incomes--- surgeons, top-tier trial lawyers, etc. 

That is a separate question from whether the people in the role are doing a good job.  If they were then we wouldn't have any issues with them making that much. 

You gotta know that the highly compensated at ERCOT are not technical people.

[Dahobbs 17454]

11 hours ago, Llano Estacado said:

...so a circumstantial ad hominem? The author’s arguments (about the failure of the grid) lack merit because a belief they hold about a different tissue, climate change. Got it.

Fair enough. Exxon Co’s historic knowledge of carbon emissions impact on the planet versus American/ERCOT’s development of storage, while completely unrelated topics, isn’t an ad hominem. Apologies, its been ~20years since my 3hrs of philosophy studies.

Go back and look at what you quoted. There isn't an ad hominem attack in there. Instead, the posts points out that, like Texas, Iowa also had an issue with gas generation going down and providing less power than predicted. In both places, renewable energy provided what it was predicted to do. And the discussion of energy storage was a related tangent, not an ad hominem attack or completely unrelated topic. That being said, attacks on the bias/honesty of the author (which weren't made in the portions you quoted) are technically ad hominem attacks, but they aren't necessarily fallacious.

Quote

Source or citation on renewables being cheaper with subsidies removed? Cheaper how; to generate per delivered KWs, EROI, NET to consumers?

Cheaper, period. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34372005/solar-cheapest-energy-ever/

https://ieefa.org/study-shows-renewables-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-across-middle-east-north-africa-region/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/as-renewable-power-prices-drop-researchers-tally-up-their-added-costs/

 

Quote

Absolutely agreed, there was/is no incentive to winterize. But that extends the argument from the blog post and peers, that I tend to believe - There is less and less incentive for “reliability” in ERCOT or most of our grids anymore.

Take away all subsidies and PTC. What market force is there to build new thermal baseline or peaking generation? Renewables by nature are variable, their power gets purchased first adding ever increasing volatility to the grid. We need reliable peak demand capabilities and something to compensate for that volatility as our population and energy consumption grows. ROI for an investor is quick on a wind turbine, it can be built quickly without much red tape and by default its electrons are always purchased first, slam dunk. We build more wind turbines increasing the generation volatility of our grid. Existing combined cycle coal/gas plants generate less power day to day as more wind is added as a base and they become unprofitable for investors (or in a COOP/public utility model they’re mothballed, under utilized/staffed, or not properly maintained). When we need 20% of peaking power +20% of baseline, because it is a windless day, life extended combined cycle plants are unable to ramp up due to asset integrity failures further decreasing grid reliability.

Renewables and their cheap energy are not to blame for the market's failure to adequately price in reliability. That's purely a failure of the market design itself. And, again, thermal generation failed to a far greater extent than renewable generation (which roughly hit the amount of energy predicted). I don't understand why you think the solution to this problem is to build MORE of the thing that failed the most. Isn't the solution instead to invest in all our sources of energy to make them more robust (i.e., winterization)? Now, I do agree that renewable energy is more variable. If a grid is 100% reliant on renewable energy, to ensure an adequate supply at power at all times, you either have to substantially overbuild renewable generation or invest in large scale storage. That doesn't mean it isn't reliable. Fossil fuels serve their place for now. We'll eventually have to transition away. And a big part of that process is already taking place because fossil fuel plants are more expensive to build, maintain, and fuel than renewable energy. 

Quote

On top of that pressure, you have the external force that the world’s largest investment banks and >50% politicians do not want any association with major carbon projects in 2021. Grid volatility increases and thermal source peaking capability decreases. Consumers suffer rolling blackouts. We add more renewables in response increasing baseline volatility...

The grid didn't fail because we didn't have enough thermal plants. It failed because the thermal plants we had didn't work like they were supposed to. The solution is to fix it so that they, and our other sources of power, can survive the winter. It isn't to build more things that would have also not worked. Having more gas plants would have just meant more plants that couldn't be fueled due to frozen gas lines. It wouldn't have meant any more power. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 104728]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The grid didn't fail because we didn't have enough thermal plants. It failed because the thermal plants we had didn't work like they were supposed to. The solution is to fix it so that they, and our other sources of power, can survive the winter. It isn't to build more things that would have also not worked. Having more gas plants would have just meant more plants that couldn't be fueled due to frozen gas lines. It wouldn't have meant any more power. 

This is key.

EVERY resource that failed - wind turbines, gas generation, even the nuclear unit, failed because of lack of winterization.

Wind turbines -- froze, because not winterized.

Gas gen -- delivery lines and wells froze, because not winterized.

Nuclear -- a plant component froze, because not fully winterized.

What killed us was not our mix of generation.  It was 1) that very little of our generation was winterized, and 2) we didn't have enough generation resources to handle peak capacity if a few assets went down (although that may not have helped if the extra capacity ALSO was not winterized).

I really think that when all is said and done, any HONEST evaluation of the utter failure here is going to come down to those two issues - lack of winterizing and not enough extra capacity to provide a margin of safety.  The amazing thing here is that neither solution requires re-inventing the wheel.  Winterization techniques exist and are used all over.  And every other grid has a capacity market function.

But I'm sure we'll find a way to step on our collective dick, blame it all on AOC and the Green New Deal, pay extra money to un-mothball old coal plants, and subsidize the hell out of them in a massive transfer of customer dollars to select private industry, because that's how we roll.

[Nivek 16869]

54 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Would prefer to see the specific screw-ups targeted as opposed to  ad hominemattacks on salary.  I'd also like to know who is making that salary.  I can think of few positions in the modern world that are more productive and important than running an electric grid for 25 plus million people.  If most of them are engineers and the like, I have no problem with that sort of compensation.  They are adding far more value than any hedge fund manager, finance bro, etc. that pull down far more than that. They are at least as valuable as the sorts of people we normally identify with 200,000K+ incomes--- surgeons, top-tier trial lawyers, etc. 

That is a separate question from whether the people in the role are doing a good job.  If they were then we wouldn't have any issues with them making that much. 

His point is there are highly paid members and one would expect highly paid members to do their job well which includes risk mitigation.   Now, they might have known the risks and said fuck it, or might not have known the risks and fucked it up.  Maybe they were taking their kid to the dentist that day the engineers sent out a memo.    Either way there were mistakes or negligence from the consumers perspective.  

A McDonald's manager might make shit money.  If he forgets to order hamburgers and chicken nuggets from corporate, it doesn't matter how great he is at inspiring employees or how clean his store bathrooms are.  Maybe his talent wasn't math, and maybe it was the job of the assistant manager to order supplies, but this guy still fucked up.   

But then again, some people think leadership is accountable while others accept "I take no responsibility at all." for what happens.   

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is key.

EVERY resource that failed - wind turbines, gas generation, even the nuclear unit, failed because of lack of winterization.

Wind turbines -- froze, because not winterized.

Gas gen -- delivery lines and wells froze, because not winterized.

Nuclear -- a plant component froze, because not fully winterized.

What killed us was not our mix of generation.  It was 1) that very little of our generation was winterized, and 2) we didn't have enough generation resources to handle peak capacity if a few assets went down (although that may not have helped if the extra capacity ALSO was not winterized).

I really think that when all is said and done, any HONEST evaluation of the utter failure here is going to come down to those two issues - lack of winterizing and not enough extra capacity to provide a margin of safety.  The amazing thing here is that neither solution requires re-inventing the wheel.  Winterization techniques exist and are used all over.  And every other grid has a capacity market function.

But I'm sure we'll find a way to step on our collective dick, blame it all on AOC and the Green New Deal, pay extra money to un-mothball old coal plants, and subsidize the hell out of them in a massive transfer of customer dollars to select private industry, because that's how we roll.

Your angle here is obvious. With all this talk about failing to winterize, you are likening our grid to the Wehrmacht during Operation Barbarossa. And by likening our grid to the Wehrmacht, you are equating our grid with Hitler. 

Therefore, because of Godwin's Law, you lose the argument.

(Slorch, if Slorch was educated by Jesuits.)

Edited February 22, 2021 by MaybeACoordinator

[washparkhorn 9935]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I'd also like to know who is making that salary.  I can think of few positions in the modern world that are more productive and important than running an electric grid for 25 plus million people.  If most of them are engineers and the like, I have no problem with that sort of compensation.  They are adding far more value than any hedge fund manager, finance bro, etc. that pull down far more than that. They are at least as valuable as the sorts of people we normally identify with 200,000K+ incomes--- surgeons, top-tier trial lawyers, etc. 

https://nonprofitlight.com/tx/austin/electric-reliability-council-of-texas-inc

 

[jimmyjazz 45592]

Look, in this political climate (see what I did there?), winterization of the Texas power infrastructure is not going to happen.  The problem isn't fundamental to any particular type of power generation, the problem is that Texans elected people who serve corporate interests far more than they serve the people who voted for them.

Anyone who thinks Greg Abbott and crew are actually going to "investigate" and "get to the bottom of this" is a fool.  I doubt we'll ever even get a report.  

Were such an undertaking ever to happen, the cost would be born by the taxpayers, not the power infrastructure.  So, towards that end, I'm just looking at ways I can protect myself and my family in lieu of the higher taxes I'd have to pay should Texas shock me and actually try to build a more reliable year-round grid.

It's not even the grid independence that's the problem so much as it's the impetus for going independent:  small state, reject Federal overlords and their burdensome regulations, hurr durr durr.  Frankly, I don't see why Federal law even allows Texas to fail to meet minimum standards for reliability, but there you go.

[wildcat09 29284]

29 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The grid didn't fail because we didn't have enough thermal plants. It failed because the thermal plants we had didn't work like they were supposed to. The solution is to fix it so that they, and our other sources of power, can survive the winter. It isn't to build more things that would have also not worked. Having more gas plants would have just meant more plants that couldn't be fueled due to frozen gas lines. It wouldn't have meant any more power. 

It's amazing that some people are so committed to a certain position that they can't understand this.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

What is most interesting to me is an analogy I thought of if Briskettexan is correct:

We Texans want (Demand) cheap energy. The deregulated energy industry in Texas/REPs (Supply) what the market (Texans) is willing or at least wanting to bear.

I'm reminded of the manufacturing industry and how everyone clamors to bring all the manu back to the States. But Americans want (Demand) cheap consumer goods. So the same people griping about iPhones weasly-worded "Designed in California, Made in China" are the same people who would gripe about paying $3k vs $1k if manufacturing were done in Phoenix.

Is Winterization or the lack thereof at fault? Or is it that the public was not informed and educated on the adverse effects of NOT winterizing and what that would mean? Was there meaningful proposals that showed a cost modeling with winterization and without, allowing a vote for this?

I have to assume this level of evaluation and transparency was not done and the end-users/consumers were not given a choice to pay more and winterize or not (and even if majority of Texans would have rejected the higher costs/taxes, and rest assured we would have at the time, at least you'd have it documented they declined the coverage and there'd be some shared responsibility)I think whichever committee oversaw the plan and executed on the strategy, while well-meaning (not altruistic, but well-meaning in the sense of serving the market with low costs while still operating at a sufficient profit for shareholders, if not a non-profit), this committee should bear a lot of the responsibility here. I don't know if that committee is ERCOT or ONCOR or PUC or Texas Leg., etc.

Edited February 22, 2021 by DonkeyCigars

[Brisketexan 104728]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

What is most interesting to me is an analogy I thought of if Briskettexan is correct:

We Texans want (Demand) cheap energy. The deregulated energy industry in Texas/REPs (Supply) what the market (Texans) is willing or at least wanting to bear.

I'm reminded of the manufacturing industry and how everyone clamors to bring all the manu back to the States. But Americans want (Demand) cheap consumer goods. So the same people griping about iPhones weasly-worded "Designed in California, Made in China" are the same people who would gripe about paying $3k vs $1k if manufacturing were done in Phoenix.

Is Winterization or the lack thereof at fault? Or is it that the public was not informed and educated on the adverse effects of NOT winterizing and what that would mean? Was there meaningful proposals that showed a cost modeling with winterization and without?

I have to assume this level of evaluation and transparency was not done and the end-users/consumers were not given a choice to pay more and winterize or not (and even majority of Texans would have rejected the higher costs/taxes, and rest assured we would have at the time, at least you'd have it documented they declined the coverage and there'd be some shared responsibility)I think whichever committee oversaw the plan and executed on the strategy, while well-meaning (not altruistic, but well-meaning in the sense of serving the market with low costs while still operating at a sufficient profit for shareholders, if not a non-profit), this committee should bear a lot of the responsibility here. I don't know if that committee is ERCOT or ONCOR or PUC or Texas Leg., etc.

The public has next to zero understanding of our electric power and grid design.  Seriously, the vast majority of Texans had never even HEARD of ERCOT before this week.

The design of our market and grid was done by the Texas Lege and the Governor-appointed PUC over the last 20 years or so.  The question of winterization of natural gas resources was in the hands of the Texas Railroad Commission (which most people don't understand either, and which has been elected on an entirely partisan basis for a generation).

The decision to not require winterizing wasn't done because ratepayers would have squealed.  It was done because O&G producers and transporters would have squealed.  And the one party that has controlled Texas for a generation will never, ever, ever do anything to upset those folks.  In fact, if they even mentioned something that upset the O&G industry, they'd apologize for their insensitivity.

That's where the buck stops.  With a PUC appointed by a GOP governor for a generation, and a RRC elected and governing on a one-party basis for a generation, both being beholden to industry over people.

[wildcat09 29284]

You guys, I think a Republican is on the verge of learning about market failure.

[jimmyjazz 45592]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

You guys, I think a Republican is on the verge of learning about market failure.

Don't hold your breath.

[Homercles 10205]

I think the generating companies are full of shit on winterization costs.  Gimme an army of guys from the Winter thread in DT, we will have all that shit protected from the cold with an 18-wheeler full of foam covers, dish towels, HEB bags, rubber bands, hand warmers, space heaters, boiling water, buckets and whataburger cups.  

Edited February 22, 2021 by Homercles

[bad_teammate 13140]

The idea that Americans just want the cheapest thing available is a lie that finance uses to justify outsourcing and wage depression and lobbying for austerity.

We LOVE to spend money. Love it. All you have to do is give us a good sales pitch and we are overjoyed to pay more for things. We'll buy a new phone every 2 years (or less) even though it's the same thing. We'll buy new cars when a used one is fine. We'll get a huge home we don't need. We love it.

[Brisketexan 104728]

2 minutes ago, Homercles said:

I think the generating companies are full of shit on winterization costs.  Gimme an army of guys from the Winter thread in DT, we will have all that shit protected from the cold with an 18-wheeler full of foam covers, dish towels, HEB bags, rubber bands, hand warmers, space heaters, boiling water, buckets and whataburger cups.  

An army of Surlyites asking "where are them pipes?"

[Brisketexan 104728]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The idea that Americans just want the cheapest thing available is a lie that finance uses to justify outsourcing and wage depression and lobbying for austerity.

We LOVE to spend money. Love it. All you have to do is give us a good sales pitch and we are overjoyed to pay more for things. We'll buy a new phone every 2 years (or less) even though it's the same thing. We'll buy new cars when a used one is fine. We'll get a huge home we don't need. We love it.

Correct.  We live in a country where people actually pay extra on the "protection plan" for their new stereo at Best Buy.  We will pay a slight surcharge for "insurance."  

[DonkeyCigars 144]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The public has next to zero understanding of our electric power and grid design.  Seriously, the vast majority of Texans had never even HEARD of ERCOT before this week.

The design of our market and grid was done by the Texas Lege and the Governor-appointed PUC over the last 20 years or so.  The question of winterization of natural gas resources was in the hands of the Texas Railroad Commission (which most people don't understand either, and which has been elected on an entirely partisan basis for a generation).

The decision to not require winterizing wasn't done because ratepayers would have squealed.  It was done because O&G producers and transporters would have squealed.  And the one party that has controlled Texas for a generation will never, ever, ever do anything to upset those folks.  In fact, if they even mentioned something that upset the O&G industry, they'd apologize for their insensitivity.

That's where the buck stops.  With a PUC appointed by a GOP governor for a generation, and a RRC elected and governing on a one-party basis for a generation, both being beholden to industry over people.

Assuming you are correct and everything is factual here, what is the argument in Texas from folks like yourself, for government-owned/operated versus privately? In the past the argument was that we can't have the private sector control such public good/utilities for two reasons a) costs, in the sense some things can't be done profitably and will always be a loss leader for the common good and b) trust, you can't trust private organizations in a capitalist society to do the right things, not sell out for a buck, etc.

In the modern era, digital age, Industrial revolution 4.0 I would argue, if you are correct about the above, that having a large multinational corp. control and run the power grid because answering to end customers trumps answering to a few specialist politicians, right?

I mean don't we already see this with wastewater and waste, with large private orgs like Waste Management and Veolia?

[bad_teammate 13140]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  We live in a country where people actually pay extra on the "protection plan" for their new stereo at Best Buy.  We will pay a slight surcharge for "insurance."  

People will pay 20% more for electricity if they get a yard sign that says "This Home Runs on Organic Power"

[Ghost of LL 15495]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Assuming you are correct and everything is factual here, what is the argument in Texas from folks like yourself, for government-owned/operated versus privately? In the past the argument was that we can't have the private sector control such public good/utilities for two reasons a) costs, in the sense some things can't be done profitably and will always be a loss leader for the common good and b) trust, you can't trust private organizations in a capitalist society to do the right things, not sell out for a buck, etc.

In the modern era, digital age, Industrial revolution 4.0 I would argue, if you are correct about the above, that having a large multinational corp. control and run the power grid because answering to end customers trumps answering to a few specialist politicians, right?

I mean don't we already see this with wastewater and waste, with large private orgs like Waste Management and Veolia?

It's not a question of government-owned vs. private-owned.  It's a question of regulated vs. deregulated.

On the other two grids, the market participants in the electricity market are generally private.  There are some public entities, but they tend to be retail providers.  The generators and wholesale providers are all private entities.

But they are regulated.  The regulators set utility rates, which ensure that the (private) generators and (private) wholesalers cover their costs and realize a reasonable ROI.  Hence, they are incentivized to invest in infrastructure (including winterization).

[ndawg 1242]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

In the modern era, digital age, Industrial revolution 4.0 I would argue, if you are correct about the above, that having a large multinational corp. control and run the power grid because answering to end customers trumps answering to a few specialist politicians, right?

This is a difficult sentence to parse.

[Brisketexan 104728]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Assuming you are correct and everything is factual here, what is the argument in Texas from folks like yourself, for government-owned/operated versus privately? In the past the argument was that we can't have the private sector control such public good/utilities for two reasons a) costs, in the sense some things can't be done profitably and will always be a loss leader for the common good and b) trust, you can't trust private organizations in a capitalist society to do the right things, not sell out for a buck, etc.

In the modern era, digital age, Industrial revolution 4.0 I would argue, if you are correct about the above, that having a large multinational corp. control and run the power grid because answering to end customers trumps answering to a few specialist politicians, right?

I mean don't we already see this with wastewater and waste, with large private orgs like Waste Management and Veolia?

See what GOLL said.  You posted a disingenuous, false dichotomy -- which is the way of the modern Repub.  We must either have anarcho-capitalism, or communism!  And you guys aren't commies, are you?!?!?!?!

Of course we can have a mixed economy, and a mixed electric power system.  Private generators are nifty.  They just have to be regulated, including not only things they are prohibited from doing (like dumping mercury into the river), but in things they are required to do (winterize).  And yes, private waste companies are regulated as hell -- go to TCEQ and apply for a landfill permit.  It's a complicated process....as it should be.

It's not that hard to have a functioning set of laws and regulations that protect the public interest, and it's not inconsistent with a capitalist economy.  Western Europe pulls it off easily, as just one example.  

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, ndawg said:

This is a difficult sentence to parse.

Agreed, apologies, let me restate. In 2021 when answering to the consumers demands/needs-- and with speed, transparency and in a "connected" experience e.g. highly available, mobile/digital apps, etc.-- it seems having a large organization whose shareholders' bread is buttered by us, the end user, is preferable to having politicians of any stripe or team whose only interest is in serving a few specialist lobbyists/organizations.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  We live in a country where people actually pay extra on the "protection plan" for their new stereo at Best Buy.  We will pay a slight surcharge for "insurance."  

Do we though? I'm laughing at the image of Briskettexan with his fanny pack on enthusiastically opting for the insurance on his rental car.

[wildcat09 29284]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Agreed, apologies, let me restate. In 2021 when answering to the consumers demands/needs-- and with speed, transparency and in a "connected" experience e.g. highly available, mobile/digital apps, etc.-- it seems having a large organization whose shareholders' bread is buttered by us, the end user, is preferable to having politicians of any stripe or team whose only interest is in serving a few specialist lobbyists/organizations.

Don't mind me, I'm just bolding these two things for no reason. It's certainly not intended to indicate a connection between them.

[Brisketexan 104728]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Do we though? I'm laughing at the image of Briskettexan with his fanny pack on enthusiastically opting for the insurance on his rental car.

Oh, I wave off the DUPLICATIVE or UNNECESSARY coverages in life -- I've never bought a Best Buy protection plan (it's not economically sound), and I don't buy coverage on my rental car (my insurance covers me already).

But by the same token, I advise clients entering into construction contracts all the time.  They always require -- and pay for -- insurance coverage on the project.  And on my cars, even after they are paid off, if they have any value worth protecting, I continue to maintain collision insurance.  Even once my house is paid off, I'll maintain insurance on it.   Those are smart risk management choices.

The question of the extra "insurance" cost for winterization and capacity isn't an unknown -- it has been asked and answered by the entire rest of the country.  And the rest of the country has made those smart risk management choices.

Not all "risk management" products are good choices.  Never buy the plan at Best Buy.  Others are proven good choices -- winterize and have a capacity market, like literally everyone else.

[Ghost of LL 15495]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Do we though? I'm laughing at the image of Briskettexan with his fanny pack on enthusiastically opting for the insurance on his rental car.

I don't opt for the insurance on my rental car because I get that through my AmEx.  And yeah--that's one of the primary perks of paying the annual fee that I pay to AmEx.  So yeah--we do pay extra for insurance and a protection plan.

[Nivek 16869]

What is most interesting to me is an analogy I thought of if Briskettexan is correct:
We Texans want (Demand) cheap energy. The deregulated energy industry in Texas/REPs (Supply) what the market (Texans) is willing or at least wanting to bear.
I'm reminded of the manufacturing industry and how everyone clamors to bring all the manu back to the States. But Americans want (Demand) cheap consumer goods. So the same people griping about iPhones weasly-worded "Designed in California, Made in China" are the same people who would gripe about paying $3k vs $1k if manufacturing were done in Phoenix.

Where is the proof we demand the cheapest?
Where did we sign up for cheap and unstable energy ?

You made the claim now back it up.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

But they are regulated.  The regulators set utility rates, which ensure that the (private) generators and (private) wholesalers cover their costs and realize a reasonable ROI.  Hence, they are incentivized to invest in infrastructure (including winterization).

So in Texas, there are no regulators that set utility rates at benchmarks to serve the REPs, despite the chain of command ultimately landing in the lap of the Texas government. Am I understanding that right? All we need to do is introduce some regulation to ensure that winterization is done at a minimally acceptable level, for example?

And I'm to understand that the likes of Brisket think that because GOP runs the circus that is the Texas government, this was not done. But had the good guys from the Dem party been in charge winterization would have been done and that is something we should infer and is a reasonable expectation from those D's who would deign to go govern in Texas (based off of prior campaign promises or positions or statements)? 

[Dahobbs 17454]

6 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Agreed, apologies, let me restate. In 2021 when answering to the consumers demands/needs-- and with speed, transparency and in a "connected" experience e.g. highly available, mobile/digital apps, etc.-- it seems having a large organization whose shareholders' bread is buttered by us, the end user, is preferable to having politicians of any stripe or team whose only interest is in serving a few specialist lobbyists/organizations.

In what sense do you think power generators would ever answer to the end consumer? If they don't provide power for a day, the end consumer gets hurt and is angry. But, power still only comes from one place. You can't switch to a different powerplant. This is a problem of externalities. All the harm caused by lack of power is external to the power generators. The only harm they feel is the lost profits from not providing power, which is de minimis in comparison to the overall harm caused to society. Absent a system of liability, the costs associated with death, illness, pain, fear, and economic down turn are completely external to the power generators. Regulation and liability are two ways to capture those externalities. 

[Dahobbs 17454]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And I'm to understand that the likes of Brisket think that because GOP runs the circus that is the Texas government, this was not done. But had the good guys from the Dem party been in charge winterization would have been done

Yes. Texas Dems have numerous times introduced bills to force winterization of the power grid. Said bills were then killed by the Texas GOP. 

[YChang 3432]

8 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And I'm to understand that the likes of Brisket think that because GOP runs the circus that is the Texas government, this was not done. But had the good guys from the Dem party been in charge winterization would have been done and that is something we should infer and is a reasonable expectation from those D's who would deign to go govern in Texas (based off of prior campaign promises or positions or statements)? 

Nothing is certain and no one can make a 100% accurate prediction. But in my opinion yeah it's a lot more likely that a Democratic-led government would have done more. Doesn't mean they would have done it perfectly either. 

Also to add to Dahobbs point, there have been bi-partisan bills introduced about this, but it was killed off. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by YChang

[Ghost of LL 15495]

2 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So in Texas, there are no regulators that set utility rates at benchmarks to serve the REPs, despite the chain of command ultimately landing in the lap of the Texas government. Am I understanding that right? All we need to do is introduce some regulation to ensure that winterization is done at a minimally acceptable level, for example?

And I'm to understand that the likes of Brisket think that because GOP runs the circus that is the Texas government, this was not done. But had the good guys from the Dem party been in charge winterization would have been done and that is something we should infer and is a reasonable expectation from those D's who would deign to go govern in Texas (based off of prior campaign promises or positions or statements)? 

We have a fully deregulated energy market.  There are no regulators that set utility rates.  The one caveat is that there is a $9,000/MWh cap on the price of wholesale electricity, which is very rarely reached.

ERCOT doesn't just run the grid.  It also runs the electricity spot market.  It essentially operates the electricity market in the same way that the NYSE operates the stock market--it clears trades.  Electricity within ERCOT is sold in 5-minute increments.  So every five minutes, the price of electricity on the spot market changes.

There are a number of state regulations on generators, mostly dealing with environmental regulations.  But from an economic standpoint, there's no regulation.

After the 2011 storm, the state recommended that the RRC and the PUC promulgate additional regulations requiring winterization.  Those recommendations were not acted upon.  Either the Legislature, the RRC, or the PUC could've done so.  They didn't. 

[TwiceHorn 31313]

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The public has next to zero understanding of our electric power and grid design.  Seriously, the vast majority of Texans had never even HEARD of ERCOT before this week.

The design of our market and grid was done by the Texas Lege and the Governor-appointed PUC over the last 20 years or so.  The question of winterization of natural gas resources was in the hands of the Texas Railroad Commission (which most people don't understand either, and which has been elected on an entirely partisan basis for a generation).

The decision to not require winterizing wasn't done because ratepayers would have squealed.  It was done because O&G producers and transporters would have squealed.  And the one party that has controlled Texas for a generation will never, ever, ever do anything to upset those folks.  In fact, if they even mentioned something that upset the O&G industry, they'd apologize for their insensitivity.

That's where the buck stops.  With a PUC appointed by a GOP governor for a generation, and a RRC elected and governing on a one-party basis for a generation, both being beholden to industry over people.

An addendum.  

Whether taxpayers would have squealed or not never entered the equation.  These guys give not one single fuck about the taxpayer until and unless  the taxpayers get mad enough to come after their jobs.

The single overarching decision criterion of the PUC and the RRC is, will it hurt the industry?

Just like "trickle down" was a smokescreen for rich-people policies, lower energy prices is a smokescreen for OG-rich-people policies.

The fact that our grid is so unusual in so many ways in favor of producers, yet still doesn't produce the cheapest kWh in the nation, is all you need to know about that.

Edited February 22, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[Ghost of LL 15495]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

An addendum.  

Whether taxpayers would have squealed or not never entered the equation.  These guys give not one single fuck about the taxpayer until and unless  the taxpayers get mad enough to come after their jobs.

The single overarching decision criterion of the PUC and the RRC is, will it hurt the industry?

An addendum to that--The single overarching decision criterion of the PUC is "will it hurt the industry" if there is a private entity involved.  When it comes to regulating retail water service provided by a public entity, the PUC is very happy to overturn the provider's rates.

[Brisketexan 104728]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

So in Texas, there are no regulators that set utility rates at benchmarks to serve the REPs, despite the chain of command ultimately landing in the lap of the Texas government. Am I understanding that right? All we need to do is introduce some regulation to ensure that winterization is done at a minimally acceptable level, for example?

No, we have a deregulated, energy-only power market.  Rates are NOT set by regulators.  They are set by the market.  That's the whole point -- the State has functionally ceded all oversight of rates and related matters.  It's the wild west, but for a few guardrails at the extreme end (e.g., the PUC setting a max price of $9,000 per MwH, a system for all parties paying for any fallout from the bankruptcy of a REP, that sort of thing).

Yes, some simple regulation requiring winterization probably would have avoided the worst of what we saw happen this last week.  We still might have lost some resources, and we still might have had demand outstrip capacity, but not by as much, and the blackouts could have indeed been kept small and rolling.  

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

And I'm to understand that the likes of Brisket think that because GOP runs the circus that is the Texas government, this was not done. But had the good guys from the Dem party been in charge winterization would have been done and that is something we should infer and is a reasonable expectation from those D's who would deign to go govern in Texas (based off of prior campaign promises or positions or statements)? 

To your first sentence -- yes, the reason this was not done was directly in line with the GOP position for years.

And to your next question, yes, if the Dems were in charge, the exact kind of measures I discussed would have happened.  How do we know this?  They actually proposed legislation to do just that.  All efforts were smothered in the crib.  Some examples:

Quote

Turner, a Democrat, authored HB 1986, which called for the Public Utility Commission to ensure the Electric Reliability Council of Texas had adequate reserve power to prevent blackout conditions. ERCOT manages about 90% of the state’s electric load.

"Ironically that bill that I filed was not heard in committee," Turner said this week on CNN.

.........

In 2013, former state Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat from Houston, filed HB 3759, would have required an independent organization to set reserve capacity. It died in committee.

In 2019, Republican state Sen. Kelly Hanock filed SB 1941, which would allow for the use of electric energy storage facilities to improve system reliability. It made it through the Senate and a House committee before it died.

State Rep. Rafael Anchia, a Dallas Democrat, sits on the House Energy Resources Committee.

“Nothing was done enough to prevent the failure, the massive failure we had by our grid and by our generators,” Anchia said.

One of the few bills that did pass after the 2011 winter storm, required power plants to submit a “weather emergency preparedness report.” But it contained no mandatory requirements on exactly how to prepare, including no equipment specifications to protect against extreme cold.

So, yes, Dems in particular have been LISTENING to the blaring alarm about the dire position of our grid for a decade.  They tried to get some fixes passed.  They were killed by the Repub-controlled legislature.  So, your question was answered.  And you could have found that answer easily, but you're not interested in that.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

We have a fully deregulated energy market.  There are no regulators that set utility rates.  The one caveat is that there is a $9,000/MWh cap on the price of wholesale electricity, which is very rarely reached.

ERCOT doesn't just run the grid.  It also runs the electricity spot market.  It essentially operates the electricity market in the same way that the NYSE operates the stock market--it clears trades.  Electricity within ERCOT is sold in 5-minute increments.  So every five minutes, the price of electricity on the spot market changes.

There are a number of state regulations on generators, mostly dealing with environmental regulations.  But from an economic standpoint, there's no regulation.

After the 2011 storm, the state recommended that the RRC and the PUC promulgate additional regulations requiring winterization.  Those recommendations were not acted upon.  Either the Legislature, the RRC, or the PUC could've done so.  They didn't. 

If recommendations are not acted upon after this storm, then I'll join you in outrage. Thanks for the education here today. 

[wildcat09 29284]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An addendum.  

Whether taxpayers would have squealed or not never entered the equation.  These guys give not one single fuck about the taxpayer until and unless  the taxpayers get mad enough to come after their jobs.

The single overarching decision criterion of the PUC and the RRC is, will it hurt the industry?

Right. Who else remembers when Joe Barton apologized to BP? BP dumped over two hundred million gallons of oil into the Gulf, and Joe Barton apologized to them for the fact that people were mad at them.