Abbott seems to back fossil fuels in PUC demands

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by Shelby Webb 7/7/2021

Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday ordered the Public Utility Commission to make substantial changes to “ensure the reliability of the Texas power grid” but that prioritize the same sources that failed caused the bulk of the failures during power crises this year, energy experts say.

Abbott asked the agency to create more incentives for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s grid manager, to develop and maintain power sources such as natural gas and coal.

He also wants renewable energy generators to pay additional costs for periods when they don’t provide power to the grid, establish a maintenance schedule for nonrenewable power sources to prevent mechanical failures, and order ERCOT to speed development of some transmission projects.

“The objective of these directives is to ensure that all Texans have access to reliable, safe, and affordable power,” Abbott wrote in a letter mandating the changes.

The orders could effectively impose rules considered — but ultimately abandoned — by the Texas Legislature this year as lawmakers debated how to shore up the state’s troubled electrical grid. Chief among them is assessing additional fees for wind and solar power generators while providing tax incentives and perhaps subsidies to fossil-fuel and nuclear power producers.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Abbott-directs-PUCT-ERCOT-to-make-more-changes-16296430.php

[thackney]

Texas needs a capacity market for Ercot, not penalties and subsidies.  Pay providers not only for delivered KWH but also the ability to provide additional power on demand.

The great capacity market debate: Which model can best handle the energy transition?
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/the-great-capacity-market-debate-which-model-can-best-handle-the-energy-tr/440657/
April 18, 2017

Why doesn’t Texas have a Capacity Market?
https://cpowerenergymanagement.com/why-doesnt-texas-have-a-capacity-market/
April 10, 2019

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Texas needs a capacity market for Ercot, not penalties and subsidies.  Pay providers not only for delivered KWH but also the ability to provide additional power on demand.

The great capacity market debate: Which model can best handle the energy transition?
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/the-great-capacity-market-debate-which-model-can-best-handle-the-energy-tr/440657/
April 18, 2017

Why doesn’t Texas have a Capacity Market?
https://cpowerenergymanagement.com/why-doesnt-texas-have-a-capacity-market/
April 10, 2019

That may be, but it seems a more expensive power will be the result.

If we go that way, I would begin by requiring every single wind and solar facility to have backup generation capability.  If we truly want to have more grid reliability, and I believe more reliability is the rationale of going to a capacity market, we should demand those two notoriously unreliable energy sources to increase substantially their reliability to generate power during downtimes.

Fundamentally, ERCOT failed us during the last storm because it did not primarily focus upon reliability, but instead upon adding unreliable renewable generation increasingly into the grid.  It failed in its primary mission.

[thackney]

That may be, but it seems a more expensive power will be the result.

There is no way any solution does not require spending more money, and that money will eventually be paid by the rate payers.

If we go that way, I would begin by requiring every single wind and solar facility to have backup generation capability.  If we truly want to have more grid reliability, and I believe more reliability is the rationale of going to a capacity market, we should demand those two notoriously unreliable energy sources to increase substantially their reliability to generate power during downtimes.

By having a capacity market, in addition to the energy delivered market, the solar, wind and other non-dispatchable cannot bid, as they have no way to guarantee delivery.  It only rewards those that can delivery on demand as needed.

Fundamentally, ERCOT failed us during the last storm because it did not primarily focus upon reliability, but instead upon adding unreliable renewable generation increasingly into the grid.  It failed in its primary mission.

ERCOT does not have the authority to require what you demand.  The failure is with the legislature setting the rules.  And the legislature still has not fixed this problem, but only did cosmetic, pretend to fix, stuff as far as I can tell.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

There is no way any solution does not require spending more money, and that money will eventually be paid by the rate payers.

By having a capacity market, in addition to the energy delivered market, the solar, wind and other non-dispatchable cannot bid, as they have no way to guarantee delivery.  It only rewards those that can delivery on demand as needed.

ERCOT does not have the authority to require what you demand.  The failure is with the legislature setting the rules.  And the legislature still has not fixed this problem, but only did cosmetic, pretend to fix, stuff as far as I can tell.

Go back to past press releases by Ercot like during 2020.

It celebrates the strength of adding capacity to the grid, mostly from wind and solar.

It states this added capacity will add power reserve margin to cushion the demand expected from the power grid.

No where does it question the reliability of that capacity addition and, in fact, I cannot find even the term "Reliability" used in any of its press releases. 

That of course is its main function  Electric RELIABILITY Council of Texas.

If it did not have the power to increase reliability, then it should have notified the PUC and the Texas legislature of that fact, and made appropriate suggestions whether to weatherize, add storage for renewables, add reliable nuclear or coal power generation, etc..

It underwhelmed in that primary mission.

[thackney]

That of course is its main function  Electric RELIABILITY Council of Texas.

I suppose you believe the Affordable Care Act was about providing making health care affordable, because it is in the name after all.

Ercot does not have the authority to make require Generators to be available at all times, or even most times.

The reliability aspect is in simplistic terms about frequency control and keeping the system from tripping off unexpectedly.  Your expectations of something different do not grant them authority to make those changes. 

The problems will not get fixed without changes from the legislature.  To either force the changes from the providers of electrical power, or to grant the authority to allow Ercot to force the changes.  But shuffling the chairs at Ercot changes nothing that matters.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I suppose you believe the Affordable Care Act was about providing making health care affordable, because it is in the name after all.

Ercot does not have the authority to make require Generators to be available at all times, or even most times.

The reliability aspect is in simplistic terms about frequency control and keeping the system from tripping off unexpectedly.  Your expectations of something different do not grant them authority to make those changes. 

The problems will not get fixed without changes from the legislature.  To either force the changes from the providers of electrical power, or to grant the authority to allow Ercot to force the changes.  But shuffling the chairs at Ercot changes nothing that matters.

you are confusing an almost inaccessible federal govt with a much friendlier and accountable state govt.

I never indicated it was within Ercot's power to dictate changes to reliability to the grid.

It is within its power, and responsibility, to report to its controlling entities PUC and legislature, potential areas of concern toward power generation reliability, and recommended changes that could improve such.

In its press releases, I only see reports of added generation, mostly from solar and wind, being able to increase what it calls 'reserve power' which fortifies the grid.  No mention whether this reserve power translates to actual reliability during stressful times such as the winter freeze.  For the case of new solar and wind power, I believe we all know the answer to that one even if Ercot thinks otherwise.

It failed on its mission of being a monitor of grid reliability.

Or do you suggest some other state entity is that moniter?

[thackney]

Like reports in the past, the problems get reported but the legislature is not held accountable.  Voters are stupid as long as a different boogie-man gets reported.

Winter storm blackouts plagued Texas in 2011, too. Recommendations made afterward went unenforced.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/18/state-energy-winter-protections-lacking-reports-have-suggested/4490501001/
Feb 19, 2021

February power blackouts across Texas echoed 1989 failures, state report shows
https://www.statesman.com/article/20110411/NEWS/304119704
 Apr 11, 2011

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Like reports in the past, the problems get reported but the legislature is not held accountable.  Voters are stupid as long as a different boogie-man gets reported.

Winter storm blackouts plagued Texas in 2011, too. Recommendations made afterward went unenforced.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/18/state-energy-winter-protections-lacking-reports-have-suggested/4490501001/
Feb 19, 2021

February power blackouts across Texas echoed 1989 failures, state report shows
https://www.statesman.com/article/20110411/NEWS/304119704
 Apr 11, 2011

The USA article seems to be oriented to take Texas toward a national grid - not good at all and will most certainly not help Texans.

Do you believe that federal control would have helped us during this past winter?

That's akin to federal control helps this state in controlling influx of illegals.

[thackney]

The USA article seems to be oriented to take Texas toward a national grid - not good at all and will most certainly not help Texans.

Do you believe that federal control would have helped us during this past winter?

That's akin to federal control helps this state in controlling influx of illegals.

No, stronger connections to areas that were also overloaded would not have helped.  The storm did not stop at the Ercot border, but was stronger inside Ercot than outside.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, stronger connections to areas that were also overloaded would not have helped.  The storm did not stop at the Ercot border, but was stronger inside Ercot than outside.

Not sure what all that means, but are suggesting once again that Texas is better off being dependent upon outside power supply?

If so, that would be a mistake of the first magintude

[thackney]

Not sure what all that means, but are suggesting once again that Texas is better off being dependent upon outside power supply?

If so, that would be a mistake of the first magintude

No, that is not what I am saying.

The grids outside Ercot were having trouble meeting their own load during the storm and did not have surplus power to spare.  Our problem is NOT with a lack of outside connection, but a lack of sufficient dispatchable capacity inside Ercot.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, that is not what I am saying.

The grids outside Ercot were having trouble meeting their own load during the storm and did not have surplus power to spare.  Our problem is NOT with a lack of outside connection, but a lack of sufficient dispatchable capacity inside Ercot.