I’m a Dem here in Texas. Our wind turbines froze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?

First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

+1 and, Texas came perilously close to killing the entire grid and being off-line for a month.

Think what that does to potential economic development going forward for years.

[Anonymous]

Don't you insulate those natural gas lines!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas...eeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

I don't understand this. Aren't utility rates regulated? How does this work in Texas?

Not in Texas! The final shock is going to be their utility bills.

The high maximum price is the incentive used in the energy only system to incentivize extra capacity for times like this. Because Texas, unlike the rest of us, doesnt subsidize capacity or require weatherization that is where the books balance. The thing is, as this event shows, it doesn't work. All it does is provide huge profits in times of electrical scarcities. The idea was that the profit motive would encourage extra capacity in times of need and disaster preparedness. However, since the timing of emergency needs are unpredictable long term at the same time as capital construction costs are too high means that it doesnt encourage anything unless there's a creative destruction moment. In other words it doesn't practically provide any incentive.

It's another failed supply side ideological policy that doesn't work long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

Clearly they favored the latter, as this is how they voted. Don’t blame the politicians, blame the people that voted for them and/or didn’t vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

Clearly they favored the latter, as this is how they voted. Don’t blame the politicians, blame the people that voted for them and/or didn’t vote.

And yet, I'd be shocked if anyone in Texas changes their vote over this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

Clearly they favored the latter, as this is how they voted. Don’t blame the politicians, blame the people that voted for them and/or didn’t vote.

And yet, I'd be shocked if anyone in Texas changes their vote over this.

A few million pissed off suburban moms with $10,000 power bills plus the burst pipe costs will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

Clearly they favored the latter, as this is how they voted. Don’t blame the politicians, blame the people that voted for them and/or didn’t vote.

And yet, I'd be shocked if anyone in Texas changes their vote over this.

A few million pissed off suburban moms with $10,000 power bills plus the burst pipe costs will.

I’m not holding my breath. They will find some way to overlook it. God! Guns! Abortions! Owning the libs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
is it cheaper to prepare for disaster or weather the storm?


First, think of the wasted productivity with millions offline and focused on survival.
Then, think of all of the damage to the infrastructure
Then, think of the damage to private property
Then, think of all the overtime for first responders and DPW types

This is billions of dolllars.

Yes, ask the people of Texas whether they would rather spend a few dollars more every month to prepare or whether they would rather take their chances and go through no heat and boiling water for days on end.

Clearly they favored the latter, as this is how they voted. Don’t blame the politicians, blame the people that voted for them and/or didn’t vote.

And yet, I'd be shocked if anyone in Texas changes their vote over this.

A few million pissed off suburban moms with $10,000 power bills plus the burst pipe costs will.

I’m not holding my breath. They will find some way to overlook it. God! Guns! Abortions! Owning the libs!

Beto lost by 200000 votes.

So it might happen. But they know that Ted is part of gods plan so probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That’s the point! Nobody has a system with 100% backup. What you have is reserve margin which acts as what you’re calling backup. The storm knocked out the reserve margin. There isn’t a system in the US is built to withstand a 4 standard deviation event. Everybody wants to act like you can just plan to this event, but it doesn’t work that way anywhere in the country.

No. What people are saying is that if the generators, in areas like Dallas, had undertaken standard winterization measures and Texas paid for emergency capacity, like the rest of us do, then they would not have been minutes away from a total grid collapse on Sunday.

What this shows is the inherent problems and limitations of an energy only market. That energy only market is the cause of the problem. It does not handle emeegency situations very well.

+1

There were several states facing the exact same temperatures, and they all fared better. So no matter how many standard deviations the pp wants to imply, it's factually wrong to say that nobody else was prepared. I mean, Louisiana did better. Let that sink in.

No on all counts.

Capacity markets also experience blackouts during extreme weather events (see 2020). Both energy and capacity markets have limitations bc nobody is built to withstand extreme events. The same temps on an objective basis are meaningless in different regions because regional systems are built for regional climates. That Texas could handle 40 straight days over 100F in the summer is meaningless to the fact that the DMV could not handle it bc Texas is built for Texas historical conditions as DMV is built to DMV historical conditions.

And yet, no mention that Texas has different climates within it, none of which (except for el paso) were prepared, or the differences between capacity and energy systems.

Texas experimented with energy only and gambled that there would never be abnormal events. It failed them mightily TWICE because energy only disincentivizes weatherization and excess capacity.

Certain regions were prepared. Obviously there were generators who continued to operate (we won’t see the after action reports for at least a month), but I know certain generators in north Texas (where this climate is more common) did continue to operate. Obviously they were winterized. . What’ll really be interesting is to see which generators went offline due to weather and which went offline due to fuel supply.

Capacity markets have also failed during times of extreme demand.

Where are you getting this idea that Texas doesn’t have excess capacity? Texas has about 84000 MW of installed capacity. Prior winter peak demand was about 65000MW in January if 2018 (January’s being important). Peak demand during this storm was just shy of 70,000 MW. The reserve margin exists in Texas, it just got knocked offline by the weather.

[Anonymous]

On the bright side, the "100,000" workers (according to Republicans) who were going to be out of a job due to the the Keystone Pipeline cancellation can now get jobs in Texas - either fixing water mains, or weatherizing the power system, thanks to the Repubs. incompetency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas...eeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

I don't understand this. Aren't utility rates regulated? How does this work in Texas?

In Texas, they can pick their energy provider. The energy providers buy in bulk from the energy generators that run the power plants and wind mills then resell it to customers for a mark-up. Usually there's a set per kw/h price but it varies by provider. I used to live in Texas and still have family there. Griddy is a provider that, for a nominal fee, passes on the actual cost of the electricity to the customers. While most utilities would have that per kw/h allowable charge and would sort of even it out over the course of the year, Griddy literally exposes the customer to the full charge. These people picked Griddy in hopes that they'd be able to save a lot of money on power by using very little power during expensive times (generally the day during the summer) and more during the off times. Now there's more demand for electricity than generation and the per kw/h rate is high to entice electricity generators to provide additional power. So no there's no regulation and no this type of "utility" shouldn't actually be allowed. Sometimes regulation is there to protect you from yourself. Heat during a sub-zero winter event isn't the kind of thing that should be subject to market forces like a used car. Heat in the winter, A/C in extreme temperatures, and water (along with other basic utilities) are fundamental human rights and needed to live. As such, "Griddy" would not even be allowed to operate in most states. At this point, these people either have to shut off the power to their entire home from the breaker box or risk bankrupting themselves.

[Anonymous]

I guess we now know how Texas would fare if it ever actually seceded.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this is going to be a tipping point to get rid of some of the Republican leadership in Texas unfortunately memories are short when it comes to elections

just remember people this is the price you pay for low taxes and lack of regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if this is going to be a tipping point to get rid of some of the Republican leadership in Texas unfortunately memories are short when it comes to elections

just remember people this is the price you pay for low taxes and lack of regulation.

Memories are definitely short but this is pretty awful and it's going to be months and months from now before the pipes are all fixed. Millions have lost power. I don't think this is going to be one of those things that people quickly forget about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas...eeze/ar-BB1dOkgd?ocid=msedgntp One lady now faces a 6k power bill, and the disaster isn't over yet
Isn't this price-gouging?

I don't understand this. Aren't utility rates regulated? How does this work in Texas?

In Texas, they can pick their energy provider. The energy providers buy in bulk from the energy generators that run the power plants and wind mills then resell it to customers for a mark-up. Usually there's a set per kw/h price but it varies by provider. I used to live in Texas and still have family there. Griddy is a provider that, for a nominal fee, passes on the actual cost of the electricity to the customers. While most utilities would have that per kw/h allowable charge and would sort of even it out over the course of the year, Griddy literally exposes the customer to the full charge. These people picked Griddy in hopes that they'd be able to save a lot of money on power by using very little power during expensive times (generally the day during the summer) and more during the off times. Now there's more demand for electricity than generation and the per kw/h rate is high to entice electricity generators to provide additional power. So no there's no regulation and no this type of "utility" shouldn't actually be allowed. Sometimes regulation is there to protect you from yourself. Heat during a sub-zero winter event isn't the kind of thing that should be subject to market forces like a used car. Heat in the winter, A/C in extreme temperatures, and water (along with other basic utilities) are fundamental human rights and needed to live. As such, "Griddy" would not even be allowed to operate in most states. At this point, these people either have to shut off the power to their entire home from the breaker box or risk bankrupting themselves.

But if they shut off the power and the pipes freeze - they’re bankrupt anyway from the repair costs of exploding ceilings?