5 ERCOT board members resign, according to report

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by Marcy de Luna 2/23/2021

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/5-ERCOT-board-members-resign-15973390.php

Several board members of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the manager of the state's power grid, have resigned.

Sally Talberg, chair of the state's power grid operator, Vice Chair Peter Cramton, and board members Raymond Hepper, Terry Bulger, Vanessa Anesetti-Parra, according to Bloomberg.

The announcement comes a week after the catastrophic energy crisis caused by last week's winter storm.

[Elderberry]

ERCOT board members resign after being criticized for living outside of Texas

Dallas Morning News by James Barragán 2/23/2021

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/02/23/ercot-board-members-resign-after-being-criticized-for-living-outside-of-texas/

Four board members of the state’s power grid operator, including chairwoman Sally Talberg, resigned Tuesday, a week after power outages left millions across Texas shivering in their homes during severe winter storms and state officials criticized some board members for not living in the state.

Along with Talberg, the three other current board members who resigned are: Peter Cramton, an unaffiliated director; Terry Bulger, an unaffiliated director; and Raymond Hepper, an unaffiliated director.

All four are believed to live out of state. Talberg’s bio on the ERCOT website said she lives in Michigan. Bulger’s bio said he lives in a suburb of Chicago.

The four board members resigned together in a joint letter addressed to other ERCOT members and the Public Utility Commission, which oversees ERCOT. The letter was posted on the Public Utility Commission’s website.

ERCOT officials are expected to testify in front of lawmakers on Thursday during hearings about last week’s power failures.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So they resigned rather than face the music over the debacle of last week.

This really exposes Abbott as a first class fool for supporting them in the first place, then claiming "they reassured me we will have not problems in the grid this winter".

He is to blame in selecting incompetent people and believing they were trustworthy.

He needs to go.

[sneakypete]

Let me see if I understand this,ok?

These people are being forced to retire because they didn't predict the freak,once in a century,weather circumstances Texas is experiencing this year?

WTF? Are they supported to be seers,who can predict the future?

[Bigun]

Let me see if I understand this,ok?

These people are being forced to retire because they didn't predict the freak,once in a century,weather circumstances Texas is experiencing this year?

WTF? Are they supported to be seers,who can predict the future?

E(energy) R(reliability) C(Commission) O(f) T(exas)

They are supposed to ensure that Texas has a reliable power grid and they totally failed to do that.  They should ALL resign!

[berdie]

Let me see if I understand this,ok?

These people are being forced to retire because they didn't predict the freak,once in a century,weather circumstances Texas is experiencing this year?

WTF? Are they supported to be seers,who can predict the future?

I agree with you @sneakypete . Sometimes things happen...because they just do. I say this as someone who has/is dealing with this. This is so far out of the norm it's unbelievable. The whole state being down is what makes it so crazy. Ya really couldn't flee to a safer place because of road conditions.
Heck...my vehicle doors were frozen shut... Hopefully this will bring attention to the weaknesses in the system and can be repaired. If that doesn't happen...then I'll be livid.

As far as the ERCOT execs being "forced" to resign...I don't see that will help them when heads start to roll.  I do think the ERCOT execs should live in Texas. These folks evidently do not. I don't blame Abbott either.  Having been in mgt, you kinda have to rely on those that do the jobs.

We can't rage at the iceberg after the ship has sunk. Just FIX the problem and quit wasting time assigning blame. jmho

[Idiot]

So they resigned rather than face the music over the debacle of last week.

This really exposes Abbott as a first class fool for supporting them in the first place, then claiming "they reassured me we will have not problems in the grid this winter".

He is to blame in selecting incompetent people and believing they were trustworthy.

He needs to go.

[sneakypete]

E(energy) R(reliability) C(Commission) O(f) T(exas)

They are supposed to ensure that Texas has a reliable power grid and they totally failed to do that.  They should ALL resign!

@Bigun

Just exactly HOW were they supposed to know,when it caught the National Weather Service by surprise?

Remember,these people are NOT Climatologists. They are regular people,chosen to sit on the board as regular people,not as scientists.

[sneakypete]

I agree with you @sneakypete . Sometimes things happen...because they just do. I say this as someone who has/is dealing with this. This is so far out of the norm it's unbelievable. The whole state being down is what makes it so crazy. Ya really couldn't flee to a safer place because of road conditions.
Heck...my vehicle doors were frozen shut... Hopefully this will bring attention to the weaknesses in the system and can be repaired. If that doesn't happen...then I'll be livid.

As far as the ERCOT execs being "forced" to resign...I don't see that will help them when heads start to roll.  I do think the ERCOT execs should live in Texas. These folks evidently do not. I don't blame Abbott either.  Having been in mgt, you kinda have to rely on those that do the jobs.

We can't rage at the iceberg after the ship has sunk. Just FIX the problem and quit wasting time assigning blame. jmho

@berdie

*I* don't "think" they should live in Texas to sit on a board about the climate in Texas,it should have been a freaking REQUIREMENT since Day One.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

Just exactly HOW were they supposed to know,when it caught the National Weather Service by surprise?

Remember,these people are NOT Climatologists. They are regular people,chosen to sit on the board as regular people,not as scientists.

The National Weather Service was talking about the possibility of such an event for at least a full month that I personally know about and WARNING about it for at least 14 days @sneakypete so your argument doesn't hold water. 

They were NOT paying any attention and ASSUMED that everything would be fine.  They were flat wrong about that!

[sneakypete]

The National Weather Service was talking about the possibility of such an event for at least a full month that I personally know about and WARNING about it for at least 14 days @sneakypete so your argument doesn't hold water. 

They were NOT paying any attention and ASSUMED that everything would be fine.  They were flat wrong about that!

@Bigun

I was not aware of that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I agree with you @sneakypete . Sometimes things happen...because they just do. I say this as someone who has/is dealing with this. This is so far out of the norm it's unbelievable. The whole state being down is what makes it so crazy. Ya really couldn't flee to a safer place because of road conditions.
Heck...my vehicle doors were frozen shut... Hopefully this will bring attention to the weaknesses in the system and can be repaired. If that doesn't happen...then I'll be livid.

As far as the ERCOT execs being "forced" to resign...I don't see that will help them when heads start to roll.  I do think the ERCOT execs should live in Texas. These folks evidently do not. I don't blame Abbott either.  Having been in mgt, you kinda have to rely on those that do the jobs.

We can't rage at the iceberg after the ship has sunk. Just FIX the problem and quit wasting time assigning blame. jmho

My times in Management made me responsible for the people I selected.

Abbott personally selected the three members of the PUC.  Two are lawyers who were his Asst General Counsels.  The third is an Anthropology graduate whose resume was as an aide to two Senators and is a Greenie.  All are pure patronage positions.  Do you believe any are qualified to discern the complex operational issues surrounding replacing reliable coal powered generation with the unreliable renewable power generation?

They are the overseers of Ercot. 

Abbott is incompetent in his selection of those responsible for grid reliability.

Abbott is fresh off his State of the State in which he deprioritized anything related to the power grid reliability out of his speech. 

In my world of management, one is responsible and is accountable for personnel selection.  Apparently, in your management world, you are like Abbott when he says "But they told me it would be reliable."

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Bigun

Just exactly HOW were they supposed to know,when it caught the National Weather Service by surprise?

Remember,these people are NOT Climatologists. They are regular people,chosen to sit on the board as regular people,not as scientists.

They are supposed to know something about which they are responsible for, aren't they?

Two members of the PUC which oversee Ercot are lawyers and one has a degree in Anthropology.

Are you satisfied those are qualifications to be responsible for managing a complex power grid?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@berdie

*I* don't "think" they should live in Texas to sit on a board about the climate in Texas,it should have been a freaking REQUIREMENT since Day One.

Which is one more reason whoever approved them being there should be fired.

Not living in the state you are managing the power grid means you do not know enough about what you are managing or just don't freaking care what happens cause it does not affect you.

[sneakypete]

They are supposed to know something about which they are responsible for, aren't they?

I doubt it. They are political appointees. Since when have political appointees had to know anything about anything to get appointed to a job?

Two members of the PUC which oversee Ercot are lawyers and one has a degree in Anthropology.

What is that supposed to mean? Does the job requirement state that members should be climatologists?

Probably not,although I STRONGLY agree that should be THE base requirement over all other requirements.

Are you satisfied those are qualifications to be responsible for managing a complex power grid?

Absolutely not,but I didn't write the requirements.

What should be done,is going after the politicians that established the qualifications and make THEM responsible by booting their asses out of office for incompetence.

[thackney]

I agree with you @sneakypete . Sometimes things happen...because they just do. I say this as someone who has/is dealing with this. This is so far out of the norm it's unbelievable. The whole state being down is what makes it so crazy. Ya really couldn't flee to a safer place because of road conditions.
Heck...my vehicle doors were frozen shut... Hopefully this will bring attention to the weaknesses in the system and can be repaired. If that doesn't happen...then I'll be livid.

As far as the ERCOT execs being "forced" to resign...I don't see that will help them when heads start to roll.  I do think the ERCOT execs should live in Texas. These folks evidently do not. I don't blame Abbott either.  Having been in mgt, you kinda have to rely on those that do the jobs.

We can't rage at the iceberg after the ship has sunk. Just FIX the problem and quit wasting time assigning blame. jmho

We would do SOOOO much better to focus on the causes (essential equipment at all levels, in different technologies) not being able to handle the severe cold.

Assigning people to blame, instead of focusing on what needs fixed, and who pays for that is the real problem.  And focusing on blame rather than the problem, means we will be doing this again because we did not get it fixed, just like last time.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We would do SOOOO much better to focus on the causes (essential equipment at all levels, in different technologies) not being able to handle the severe cold.

Assigning people to blame, instead of focusing on what needs fixed, and who pays for that is the real problem.  And focusing on blame rather than the problem, means we will be doing this again because we did not get it fixed, just like last time.

You are speaking in the corporate world in which we are both familiar and spent careers in.

This is a political matter totally.

If one assigns patronage positions to incompetent people in the political world, one must be accountable.

That is the way it worls.

Anthropology graduates should never be responsible for handling our power supply.

You would never see that in the company you work for, and it should not be seen in government either.

[thackney]

This is a political matter totally.

The people that think that way are dooming us to repeat the problem.

[HoustonSam]

You are speaking in the corporate world in which we are both familiar and spent careers in.

This is a political matter totally.

If one assigns patronage positions to incompetent people in the political world, one must be accountable.

That is the way it worls.

Anthropology graduates should never be responsible for handling our power supply.

You would never see that in the company you work for, and it should not be seen in government either.

Are we talking about the ERCOT board or the Public Utilities Commission?

I'll certainly agree that members of the PUC should have some competence about public utilities, and an anthropology degree alone would not confer that competence; in fact I don't know of *any* degree program that would confer that competence.  In fairness I don't know what experience that person might have gained after finishing their anthropology degree; actual work experience counts for more than formal education, and I say that as someone who possesses as much formal education as one can acquire.  Our recent experience with appropriately-degreed experts like Dr. Fauci should put to rest any belief that having the "correct" education makes one effective in managing public policy.

The argument made on this thread about the ERCOT board is that those members should live in TX or else they are incompetent to consider the TX grid and apathetic about what happens within it.  I find that argument ill-reasoned.  The bio summaries I've seen on some of the now-resigned ERCOT board members indicate they have significant experience in understanding and managing widespread power infrastructure, and living outside TX makes them more neutral in considering the competing interests of TX consumers, TX transmission companies, and TX generators.

I was initially taken aback, and irritated, that ERCOT board members would live out of state.  But on further thought that doesn't bother me.  The position that they must live here to be effective falls into the standard liberal fallacy of confusing empathy with effectiveness.  As a now-dead research manager I used to work with sometimes reminded us, "We don't have all the smart people."

Perhaps a careful and dispassionate analysis of all the facts will indicate that heads should roll over last week's power failures.  But so far the only blame I can assign is with ERCOT and private company leadership for failures in communication, and with the TX State Legislature/PUC for not requiring by statute or administrative law effective winterization for weather that happens once in a generation.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The people that think that way are dooming us to repeat the problem.

so it is your belief that the private sector controls the grid, not the PUC or Ercot?

Why would you assume that?  It is not reality.


I repeat:  This is not a problem that an engineer put in the wrong system.  It is a problem that political entities decided to put in the wrong systems and did not plan prudently.

[sneakypete]

We would do SOOOO much better to focus on the causes (essential equipment at all levels, in different technologies) not being able to handle the severe cold.

Assigning people to blame, instead of focusing on what needs fixed, and who pays for that is the real problem.  And focusing on blame rather than the problem, means we will be doing this again because we did not get it fixed, just like last time.

@thackney

And THERE it is.

[sneakypete]

The argument made on this thread about the ERCOT board is that those members should live in TX or else they are incompetent to consider the TX grid and apathetic about what happens within it.  I find that argument ill-reasoned.

@HoustonSam

How about the reasoning that states they should live in Texas so that if they don't take their positions seriously,they have to suffer with everyone else?

[HoustonSam]

@HoustonSam

How about the reasoning that states they should live in Texas so that if they don't take their positions seriously,they have to suffer with everyone else?

We always have emotional affinity for people who have "skin in the game" with us.  But that doesn't necessarily make them the best problem solvers; I don't insist that my physician suffer the same malady as I in order to treat me for it, or that my plumber must himself have burst pipes in order to repair mine.

If it is demonstrated that the PUC and ERCOT Board members were actually malfeasant, or even misfeasant, in their duties, I'll agree that there should be accountability and remedy.  But simply living out of state is not evidence for those contentions.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Are we talking about the ERCOT board or the Public Utilities Commission?

I'll certainly agree that members of the PUC should have some competence about public utilities, and an anthropology degree alone would not confer that competence; in fact I don't know of *any* degree program that would confer that competence.  In fairness I don't know what experience that person might have gained after finishing their anthropology degree; actual work experience counts for more than formal education, and I say that as someone who possesses as much formal education as one can acquire.  Our recent experience with appropriately-degreed experts like Dr. Fauci should put to rest any belief that having the "correct" education makes one effective in managing public policy.

The argument made on this thread about the ERCOT board is that those members should live in TX or else they are incompetent to consider the TX grid and apathetic about what happens within it.  I find that argument ill-reasoned.  The bio summaries I've seen on some of the now-resigned ERCOT board members indicate they have significant experience in understanding and managing widespread power infrastructure, and living outside TX makes them more neutral in considering the competing interests of TX consumers, TX transmission companies, and TX generators.

I was initially taken aback, and irritated, that ERCOT board members would live out of state.  But on further thought that doesn't bother me.  The position that they must live here to be effective falls into the standard liberal fallacy of confusing empathy with effectiveness.  As a now-dead research manager I used to work with sometimes reminded us, "We don't have all the smart people."

Perhaps a careful and dispassionate analysis of all the facts will indicate that heads should roll over last week's power failures.  But so far the only blame I can assign is with ERCOT and private company leadership for failures in communication, and with the TX State Legislature/PUC for not requiring by statute or administrative law effective winterization for weather that happens once in a generation.

The PUC controls Ercot.

Ercot is an acronym for Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

The emphasis is on Electric Reliability.  Did we achieve that by the way the PUC and Ercot handled the design and operation of the Texas grid last week?

Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Damn right we need accountability.  My mother almost died in a nursing home that lost power and heat last week due to negligence by the authorities in the composition of the electric grid we use.

This is not the fault of an engineer which designed the system.

It is the fault of political decisions made that did not recognize consequences of those decisions.

[HoustonSam]

The PUC controls Ercot.

Ercot is an acronym for Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

The emphasis is on Electric Reliability.  Did we achieve that by the way the PUC and Ercot handled the design and operation of the Texas grid last week?

Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Damn right we need accountability.  My mother almost died in a nursing home that lost power and heat last week due to negligence by the authorities in the composition of the electric grid we use.

This is not the fault of an engineer which designed the system.

It is the fault of political decisions made that did not recognize consequences of those decisions.

Very sorry to hear of your mother's experience @IsailedawayfromFR, and I hope she is resting comfortably now.

No, the grid certainly was not reliable last week and I agree that the fundamental failure is in political decisions, but it's not clear to me that those decision failures were by the PUC or by ERCOT.  The grid failed because it is not winterized, it's not winterized because there is no regulatory requirement that it be winterized, and there is no regulatory requirement because TX rarely sees the temperatures we experienced last week.

It is not my understanding that ERCOT has the authority to order generators, transmission companies, and pipeline operators to winterize.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that ERCOT is accountable for regulating the physical maintenance of the grid.  ERCOT is accountable to monitor the balance between generation capacity and power demand, and they did that.

Does the PUC have the authority to order winterization?  I don't know, perhaps they do.  But the organization that unquestionably DOES have that authority is the TX State Legislature.   When the law is inadequate, it's the job of law makers, not executives, to make the law adequate, either by direct legislation or by delegating authority for administrative law to an appropriate agency.  I don't want appointees to commissions and boards asserting the right to make law and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

So yes, it's fundamentally a political issue, but the undergraduate majors of the PUC members and the home mailing addresses of the ERCOT board are irrelevant distractions.  PUC and ERCOT can only operate within the authority they have been given by the legislature and I haven't seen it documented anywhere that either of them have been given the authority to order winterization of grid assets.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Very sorry to hear of your mother's experience @IsailedawayfromFR, and I hope she is resting comfortably now.

No, the grid certainly was not reliable last week and I agree that the fundamental failure is in political decisions, but it's not clear to me that those decision failures were by the PUC or by ERCOT.  The grid failed because it is not winterized, it's not winterized because there is no regulatory requirement that it be winterized, and there is no regulatory requirement because TX rarely sees the temperatures we experienced last week.

It is not my understanding that ERCOT has the authority to order generators, transmission companies, and pipeline operators to winterize.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that ERCOT is accountable for regulating the physical maintenance of the grid.  ERCOT is accountable to monitor the balance between generation capacity and power demand, and they did that.

Does the PUC have the authority to order winterization?  I don't know, perhaps they do.  But the organization that unquestionably DOES have that authority is the TX State Legislature.   When the law is inadequate, it's the job of law makers, not executives, to make the law adequate, either by direct legislation or by delegating authority for administrative law to an appropriate agency.  I don't want appointees to commissions and boards asserting the right to make law and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

So yes, it's fundamentally a political issue, but the undergraduate majors of the PUC members and the home mailing addresses of the ERCOT board are irrelevant distractions.  PUC and ERCOT can only operate within the authority they have been given by the legislature and I haven't seen it documented anywhere that either of them have been given the authority to order winterization of grid assets.

This is not just a case of freezing pipes as you suggest.

It is a case of spending tax dollars to subsidize and prioritize unreliable power systems like wind power while shutting down cheaper and much more reliable coal derived power.

It is about failing miserably to recognize that reliance upon natural gas power by pipeline alone gives no contingency should that supply become interrupted.

The power heroes in our political world have been awarding accolades to those who bring about the so-called renewables into the world, disregarding whether these are in fact environmentally better than what they replace.

When is the last time anyone in our government actually suggested reliability of base power supply should be a concern?  If it were, we should be subsidizing coal and nuclear rather than yoking them with ever increasing fiats.

Another thing on winterization.  Why install assets that will not take the winter climates thrown at them, such as solar or wind?  As I understand it, government demands preference for these to operate and provide power over hydrocarbon power production.  Any preferences like that certainly weaken hydrocarbon power plant prioritization, while weakening our abilities to withstand future colder weather.

[thackney]

Here is another piece of the puzzle.

In addition to ERCOT reporting to the PUC, they also follow the standards of NERC.

As of June 18, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted NERC the legal authority to enforce
Reliability Standards with all U.S. users, owners, and operators of the BPS, and made compliance with those standards
mandatory and enforceable.

Does ERCOT meet these standards of Reliability?  Are the standards insufficient and need to be modified?




https://www.nerc.com/files/IVGTF_Task_1_5_Final.pdf

[HoustonSam]

This is not just a case of freezing pipes as you suggest.

It is a case of spending tax dollars to subsidize and prioritize unreliable power systems like wind power while shutting down cheaper and much more reliable coal derived power.

It is about failing miserably to recognize that reliance upon natural gas power by pipeline alone gives no contingency should that supply become interrupted.

You and I are in complete agreement that subsidies and tax breaks should not artificially favor one generation technology over another in a market.  If we're going to leave it to markets to select the winners and losers, each contestant has to stand on its own two feet.  Perhaps a subsidy is merited to maintain a more reliable, but less cost-effective, source of energy, but it means consumers pay an inflated price every day in exchange for that reliability for a few days in a decade.

If last week doesn't teach that reliability is critical then nothing will ever teach it.  I don't know what that means for specific generation technologies; I would like to see a more clear analysis of the freeze-driven failures of each technology last week in per cent terms, and a better presentation of how the various technologies are included "in the mix" as the seasons change during the year.  I've seen arguments here that wind was a very small part of the mix going in to last weekend so the absolute magnitude of its failure was immaterial; I've also seen that wind had been a much larger part of the mix just one week earlier.

I think the Achilles heel of "renewables" is not weather resistance so much as their intermittent nature, requiring redundant capacity and as-yet-uninvented energy storage capabilities.  I suppose that's just a fancy way of saying they are inherently unreliable and thus require huge additional capital investment to compensate.

[HoustonSam]

As of June 18, 2007, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted NERC the legal authority to enforce
Reliability Standards with all U.S. users, owners, and operators of the BPS, and made compliance with those standards
mandatory and enforceable.

Does that mean the grid in TX *is* within the jurisdiction of federal regs, in spite of everything that's been reported in the last week?  And if so, how specifically is ERCOT "on the hook" for that accountability and is there evidence for some kind of federal crime in last week's failure?

[sneakypete]

Very sorry to hear of your mother's experience @IsailedawayfromFR, and I hope she is resting comfortably now.

No, the grid certainly was not reliable last week and I agree that the fundamental failure is in political decisions, but it's not clear to me that those decision failures were by the PUC or by ERCOT.  The grid failed because it is not winterized, it's not winterized because there is no regulatory requirement that it be winterized, and there is no regulatory requirement because TX rarely sees the temperatures we experienced last week.

It is not my understanding that ERCOT has the authority to order generators, transmission companies, and pipeline operators to winterize.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that ERCOT is accountable for regulating the physical maintenance of the grid.  ERCOT is accountable to monitor the balance between generation capacity and power demand, and they did that.

Does the PUC have the authority to order winterization?  I don't know, perhaps they do.  But the organization that unquestionably DOES have that authority is the TX State Legislature.   When the law is inadequate, it's the job of law makers, not executives, to make the law adequate, either by direct legislation or by delegating authority for administrative law to an appropriate agency.  I don't want appointees to commissions and boards asserting the right to make law and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

So yes, it's fundamentally a political issue, but the undergraduate majors of the PUC members and the home mailing addresses of the ERCOT board are irrelevant distractions.  PUC and ERCOT can only operate within the authority they have been given by the legislature and I haven't seen it documented anywhere that either of them have been given the authority to order winterization of grid assets.

@HoustonSam

Not that I think politicians would try to shift the blame away from themselves,but 

[thackney]

Does that mean the grid in TX *is* within the jurisdiction of federal regs, in spite of everything that's been reported in the last week?  And if so, how specifically is ERCOT "on the hook" for that accountability and is there evidence for some kind of federal crime in last week's failure?

I see a lot of shades of grey in this issue, and a LOT of equipment that has to change in multiple industries to prevent it from happening again.  Water supply has lots of problems as does the Nat Gas system, but people are mostly focused on Electric Generation.

This storm was so bad that Canada had significant Nat Gas supplies shut down from the cold.  Exactly what standard do you build for?  Some standards become conflicting.  Building Nat Gas Power turbines inside heated building instead of open structures makes our summers requiring derating of units capacity during the summer peak electrical demand.

[dfwgator]

E(energy) R(reliability) C(Commission) O(f) T(exas)

They are supposed to ensure that Texas has a reliable power grid and they totally failed to do that.  They should ALL resign!

"You Had ONE JOB!"

[dfwgator]

In my world of management, one is responsible and is accountable for personnel selection.  Apparently, in your management world, you are like Abbott when he says "But they told me it would be reliable."

First Rule of Leadership:  EVERYTHING is YOUR Fault!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You and I are in complete agreement that subsidies and tax breaks should not artificially favor one generation technology over another in a market.  If we're going to leave it to markets to select the winners and losers, each contestant has to stand on its own two feet.  Perhaps a subsidy is merited to maintain a more reliable, but less cost-effective, source of energy, but it means consumers pay an inflated price every day in exchange for that reliability for a few days in a decade.

If last week doesn't teach that reliability is critical then nothing will ever teach it.  I don't know what that means for specific generation technologies; I would like to see a more clear analysis of the freeze-driven failures of each technology last week in per cent terms, and a better presentation of how the various technologies are included "in the mix" as the seasons change during the year.  I've seen arguments here that wind was a very small part of the mix going in to last weekend so the absolute magnitude of its failure was immaterial; I've also seen that wind had been a much larger part of the mix just one week earlier.

I think the Achilles heel of "renewables" is not weather resistance so much as their intermittent nature, requiring redundant capacity and as-yet-uninvented energy storage capabilities.  I suppose that's just a fancy way of saying they are inherently unreliable and thus require huge additional capital investment to compensate.

I understand what you are conveying and we seem to be mostly in agreement.

I will point out a couple of things:

One, wind power has preferences over other power generation, so the week before it was robust because of this and weather did not impact it.  It is why natural gas and coal were both reduced.  Both coal and gas had to step in to replace the loss of wind power when the weather affected it.  You seem to suggest that during the freeze that wind was such a small part of the problem that it was not a primary issue for the lack of power to the grid, oddly because it was already out of the mix.  Don't you find that odd?  It is supposed to generate power and when it does not, it is not its fault?  The overall fact is that wind cannot step in when needed, so why is it there in the first place if one needs reliability as well as power generation?  It fails on one side of the coin.  Wind and solar to me are considered novelties, and should never be relied upon without substantial backup with other, more reliable systems.

Second, you also suggest a subsidy for ensuring more reliability may be needed.  Simply taking an unreliable power generation scheme out of the mix will provide that reliability as more strength toward installing and operating other reliable systems will exist.  Also, the most reliable power generation by far is coal and nuclear, and both are faced with increasingly onerous regulations that threaten their survival.

Texas requires political leadership that stands up to the imposition of these regulations and asserts its sovereign rights to decide what is best for its citizens rather than to permit dictates from unaccountable DC bureaucrats to decide.  If Texans suffer or die from bad decisions, we want state accountability we can change out.  We do not need just politicians who receive accolades from the wind energy like Abbott.

[Bigun]

Very sorry to hear of your mother's experience @IsailedawayfromFR, and I hope she is resting comfortably now.

No, the grid certainly was not reliable last week and I agree that the fundamental failure is in political decisions, but it's not clear to me that those decision failures were by the PUC or by ERCOT.  The grid failed because it is not winterized, it's not winterized because there is no regulatory requirement that it be winterized, and there is no regulatory requirement because TX rarely sees the temperatures we experienced last week.

It is not my understanding that ERCOT has the authority to order generators, transmission companies, and pipeline operators to winterize.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere that ERCOT is accountable for regulating the physical maintenance of the grid.  ERCOT is accountable to monitor the balance between generation capacity and power demand, and they did that.

Does the PUC have the authority to order winterization?  I don't know, perhaps they do.  But the organization that unquestionably DOES have that authority is the TX State Legislature.   When the law is inadequate, it's the job of law makers, not executives, to make the law adequate, either by direct legislation or by delegating authority for administrative law to an appropriate agency.  I don't want appointees to commissions and boards asserting the right to make law and I'm pretty sure you don't either.

So yes, it's fundamentally a political issue, but the undergraduate majors of the PUC members and the home mailing addresses of the ERCOT board are irrelevant distractions.  PUC and ERCOT can only operate within the authority they have been given by the legislature and I haven't seen it documented anywhere that either of them have been given the authority to order winterization of grid assets.

As far as I know, ERCOT has no ability to order anyone to winterize anything but IMHO no one should ever need to do that.  If your business is to generate and sell electricity, it seems to me that it is in your best interest to make sure you can do that at all times.  YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT GENERATE. It's the same with Natural Gas suppliers as well.

Beyond that, I hold the government (both state and federal) culpable for tilting the table in favor of highly unreliable (green) generators and away from proven reliable generators. THAT should end immediately as the marketplace cannot work its magic under those conditions. No government subsidies to anyone and let the market rule.

@HoustonSam

[Bigun]

Also, the most reliable power generation by far is coal and nuclear, and both are faced with increasingly onerous regulations that threaten their survival.


  If we stopped subsidizing the unreliable methods of generation and ended the needless overregulation you speak of The marketplace would resolve the probems for us in no time. @IsailedawayfromFR @HoustonSam

[HoustonSam]

.... If your business is to generate and sell electricity, it seems to me that it is in your best interest to make sure you can do that at all times.  YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT GENERATE. It's the same with Natural Gas suppliers as well.

But they didn't winterize @Bigun .  If it's just plain good business to do so, then why didn't they?  Are they not good businessmen?  I think they calculated that it's better for their bottom line to shut down and lose revenue for, say, five days out of a decade, than to pay the cost of winterizing for 3650 days out of a decade.

In my industry we are very guilty of chasing revenue rather than profit.  I think the power generators are better businessmen and recognize that their bottom line, not their top line, is what matters; they can give up those five days of revenue in exchange for 3645 days of higher profit.  But that leaves the consumers at risk of the kind of disaster we experienced last week; if we're going to avoid that disaster again I think we'll need a legal obligation for the companies that participate in the grid to demonstrate winterization to some standard.  It will be very difficult to figure that out and make it work, but last week's consequences are just too severe to risk again, in my opinion.

Beyond that, I hold the government (both state and federal) culpable for tilting the table in favor of highly unreliable (green) generators and away from proven reliable generators. THAT should end immediately as the marketplace cannot work its magic under those conditions. No government subsidies to anyone and let the market rule.

I join you in opposing subsidies to some generators over others; let them fight it out on fair ground and the best man should win.  I think it's still unproven whether the green generators were more affected by cold last week than the traditional generators.

[HoustonSam]

I understand what you are conveying and we seem to be mostly in agreement.

We're in close agreement, just using different words.

[thackney]

Both coal and nuclear had similar problems in Texas.  Only requiring more of them does not solve the problem.  We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

If every wind and solar facility was replaced with Nat Gas AND winterized to keep running in the weather, our problems would have been WORSE last week.  MORE power would have gone offline and MORE people would have been out of power.  We did not have enough gas available to serve the amount we did have available to run.

We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

Ercot has neither the responsibility nor the authority to require fuel types.  This stupid blame game is going to keep the problems from getting fixed.

[HoustonSam]

Both coal and nuclear had similar problems in Texas.  Only requiring more of them does not solve the problem.  We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

If every wind and solar facility was replaced with Nat Gas AND winterized to keep running in the weather, our problems would have been WORSE last week.  MORE power would have gone offline and MORE people would have been out of power.  We did not have enough gas available to serve the amount we did have available to run.

We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

Ercot has neither the responsibility nor the authority to require fuel types.  This stupid blame game is going to keep the problems from getting fixed.

Granted that coal and nukes in fact are *not* being built; I think the argument is that they *should* be built.  Would coal and nukes be less vulnerable, not invulnerable but less vulnerable, to the kind of weather we saw last week?

[thackney]

But they didn't winterize @Bigun .  If it's just plain good business to do so, then why didn't they?  Are they not good businessmen?  I think they calculated that it's better for their bottom line to shut down and lose revenue for, say, five days out of a decade, than to pay the cost of winterizing for 3650 days out of a decade.

I believe it was more a case of not realizing just how bad the cold could get, how widespread and for how long.

More than just not getting to supply power, that $9,000 per MWH is not just the bonus to supply extra power, it is also the applied penalty for contracting to supply power and not delivering.

...There is an offer cap placed on the wholesale market price. The maximum wholesale market
price for electricity is reserved for extreme scarcity conditions to encourage any and all
generation able to come online. These peak prices are paid by wholesale buyers that
have failed to purchase power in advance to hedge risk exposure for their customers.
They are also paid by generators who do not generate power that they have committed
to provide. This acts as a penalty for generators who fail to show up when needed....

https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/facts/factsheets/elecfacts/WinterStormPriceExplainer-FIN.pdf

[thackney]

Granted that coal and nukes in fact are *not* being built; I think the argument is that they *should* be built.  Would coal and nukes be less vulnerable, not invulnerable but less vulnerable, to the kind of weather we saw last week?

Coal dropped ~30% and Nuke ~20%.  Nat Gas maybe ~35% but some of that was fuel supply from others.

[thackney]

Granted that coal and nukes in fact are *not* being built; I think the argument is that they *should* be built.  Would coal and nukes be less vulnerable, not invulnerable but less vulnerable, to the kind of weather we saw last week?

Anyone remember this?

In a brief order on Monday, FERC rejected the DOE's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which would have provided cost recovery for power plants that keep 90 days of fuel onsite. Instead, the Commission asked regional grid operators to review an extensive list of questions about improving power system resilience and report back within 60 days.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-rejects-doe-nopr-kicking-resilience-issue-to-grid-operators/514334/
Jan. 8, 2018

[HoustonSam]

More than just not getting to supply power, that $9,000 per MWH is not just the bonus to supply extra power, it is also the applied penalty for contracting to supply power and not delivering.

Excellent point, which you had shared earlier.  So that can be as much as an $18,000/MWH net penalty (losing the revenue AND paying the penalty) on the generators who "tripped off" Sunday and early Monday AM, presumably paid for every committed MWH until they came back on line.  I wonder whether there is a Force Majeure provision, and if so, how it would apply to the generators' inability to get NG versus their decision to forego adequate winterization.

I don't know what sort of profit margin they routinely get; I would still like to see the numbers run on a few days paying that penalty versus many days at higher profit margin due to lower operating costs.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Both coal and nuclear had similar problems in Texas.  Only requiring more of them does not solve the problem.  We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

If every wind and solar facility was replaced with Nat Gas AND winterized to keep running in the weather, our problems would have been WORSE last week.  MORE power would have gone offline and MORE people would have been out of power.  We did not have enough gas available to serve the amount we did have available to run.

We haven't built a coal or nuclear plant in Texas for a long time.  It has been 10 years since the last coal plant built in the lower 48.

Ercot has neither the responsibility nor the authority to require fuel types.  This stupid blame game is going to keep the problems from getting fixed.

How could our problems be worse using natural gas if the contribution from wind and solar was negligible during the freeze?  That makes no sense whatsover because wind was already essentially offline.

And one does not simply assume we use natural gas the way we are.  A prudent and operationally astute regulatory authority would have recognized the threat of online deliveries via pipeline alone as a fuel supply was an unreliable mechanism to support reliable power generation during severe weather and implemented strategies beforehand to accommodate a more ready supply via storage.

Instead, the regulatory authority existing emphasized the usage of unreliable power generation systems such as wind and ensured we achieve greater losses when they went down during the storm.

[HoustonSam]

Coal dropped ~30% and Nuke ~20%.  Nat Gas maybe ~35% but some of that was fuel supply from others.

Thanks, you had shared this chart earlier but I failed to pay adequate attention.  So these data suggest some differences in cold weather resiliency, but still significant vulnerability for coal and nukes also.

Why do you think wind dropped so much one week before the front hit?

[Bigun]

I think it's still unproven whether the green generators were more affected by cold last week than the traditional generators.

Basic science should tell you that they were. Airfoils CANNOT work when they become loaded up with snow and ice and it's the exact same with solar except clouds, bird droppings, and tumbleweeds work just as well as snow and ice for them.

[HoustonSam]

Anyone remember this?

In a brief order on Monday, FERC rejected the DOE's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which would have provided cost recovery for power plants that keep 90 days of fuel onsite. Instead, the Commission asked regional grid operators to review an extensive list of questions about improving power system resilience and report back within 60 days.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-rejects-doe-nopr-kicking-resilience-issue-to-grid-operators/514334/
Jan. 8, 2018

I certainly do not remember that.  It seems to really break against coal, which presumably can be piled up and ready to use, and nukes, which don't have to receive fuel regularly, and to favor solar and wind and even NG generation, which can't store their fuel for later use. 

Stated differently it disables a good method for improving reliability.

[HoustonSam]

Basic science should tell you that they were. Airfoils CANNOT work when they become loaded up with snow and ice and it's the exact same with solar except clouds, bird droppings, and tumbleweeds work just as well as snow and ice for them.

That tells me they were affected, not that they were more affected.  @thackney has shared the actual data above, and it doesn't show that the "renewables" were more vulnerable to the cold.

And just to be clear, I'm not an advocate of "renewables."

[thackney]

Excellent point, which you had shared earlier.  So that can be as much as an $18,000/MWH net penalty (losing the revenue AND paying the penalty) on the generators who "tripped off" Sunday and early Monday AM, presumably paid for every committed MWH until they came back on line.  I wonder whether there is a Force Majeure provision, and if so, how it would apply to the generators' inability to get NG versus their decision to forego adequate winterization.

I don't know what sort of profit margin they routinely get; I would still like to see the numbers run on a few days paying that penalty versus many days at higher profit margin due to lower operating costs.

I don't think you can fully double dip that in cost justification.  You could earn that much with surplus capacity above what you already contracted to deliver.  But if you had not contracted to deliver power, you could not be charged the penalty.