5 ERCOT board members resign, according to report

[thackney]

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.

Wind turbines in northern climates typically have heating elements in the blades for this reason.  It is not a reason to eliminate wind.  It is the same problem with the other types of traditional power, not spending the money up front for full winter ratings.

[thackney]

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.

I do not favor the subsidy.  But perhaps a tiered generation payout.  One level for any power available.  A bonus for dispatchable power (comes on when needed, needs to include penalty for not)  and an even higher rate for power with its own site fuel supply, even a week would make a heck of difference.  That could even generate some integrated Nat Gas storage.

[HoustonSam]

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.

Understood; the upside of the $9000/MWH would only be on excess delivery beyond what is contracted.  So the net loss on failure would be whatever price you would have gotten on the contracted delivery plus the $9000/MWH added penalty.

So contract to deliver the power, then calculate how many days you can afford to fail before you've lost more than you would save by skipping the winterization.  If it's fewer days than you think we'll be knocked out by cold weather, winterization clearly pays for itself.  And it REALLY pays for itself if you'll have spare capacity to sell for that $9000.

Of course I realize actual capital budgets aren't determined this way, and even if they were it fails to consider the dire consequences of failure on the consumers.  So I'm coming around to a required degree of winterization to some standard.  It wouldn't keep the gas flowing into the now-winterized generation plant, but it would make that one part of the system more resilient.

[thackney]

Understood; the upside of the $9000/MWH would only be on excess delivery beyond what is contracted.  So the net loss on failure would be whatever price you would have gotten on the contracted delivery plus the $9000/MWH added penalty.

So contract to deliver the power, then calculate how many days you can afford to fail before you've lost more than you would save by skipping the winterization.  If it's fewer days than you think we'll be knocked out by cold weather, winterization clearly pays for itself.  And it REALLY pays for itself if you'll have spare capacity to sell for that $9000.

Of course I realize actual capital budgets aren't determined this way, and even if they were it fails to consider the dire consequences of failure on the consumers.  So I'm coming around to a required degree of winterization to some standard.  It wouldn't keep the gas flowing into the now-winterized generation plant, but it would make that one part of the system more resilient.

We need more winterization, but not just our electrical power.  All "essential" services, public water, fuel delivery, ect.  I favor intensives payed by the user of product, but likely requiring more legislative regulations.  And I hate adding government regs.

After Hurricane Ike, Texas added some rules regarding onsite generation for gasoline/diesel retail.  It may have had some size/volume limits before kicking in.

The easiest way for most of this is making it a requirement for permits, I believe.

[Bigun]

Just because last week's weather has not happened since 1989 does not mean it will be anywhere near that long before it happens again. Weather is cyclic and some of those cycles are longer than a lifetime.

And with that, I will leave this discussion to others now since electrical power generation is not my primary area of expertise

[HoustonSam]

We need more winterization, but not just our electrical power.  All "essential" services, public water, fuel delivery, ect.  I favor intensives payed by the user of product, but likely requiring more legislative regulations.  And I hate adding government regs.

After Hurricane Ike, Texas added some rules regarding onsite generation for gasoline/diesel retail.  It may have had some size/volume limits before kicking in.

The easiest way for most of this is making it a requirement for permits, I believe.

Sounds like we agree, and your understanding is much more robust and experienced than mine.

[Idiot]

Understood; the upside of the $9000/MWH would only be on excess delivery beyond what is contracted.  So the net loss on failure would be whatever price you would have gotten on the contracted delivery plus the $9000/MWH added penalty.

So contract to deliver the power, then calculate how many days you can afford to fail before you've lost more than you would save by skipping the winterization.  If it's fewer days than you think we'll be knocked out by cold weather, winterization clearly pays for itself.  And it REALLY pays for itself if you'll have spare capacity to sell for that $9000.

Of course I realize actual capital budgets aren't determined this way, and even if they were it fails to consider the dire consequences of failure on the consumers.  So I'm coming around to a required degree of winterization to some standard.  It wouldn't keep the gas flowing into the now-winterized generation plant, but it would make that one part of the system more resilient.

I got an email from Reliant yesterday stating that my rates were locked in and that the HUGE price spike would not affect me.  WHEW!

[thackney]

I got an email from Reliant yesterday stating that my rates were locked in and that the HUGE price spike would not affect me.  WHEW!

We got ours, about double price for the month.  But I am in an Index rate tied to the monthly average of Nat Gas price, and we used a lot more since the power mostly stayed on.  I am happy with double for a month with that cold snap and staying warm.

[Elderberry]

We need more winterization, but not just our electrical power.  All "essential" services, public water, fuel delivery, ect.  I favor intensives payed by the user of product, but likely requiring more legislative regulations.  And I hate adding government regs.

After Hurricane Ike, Texas added some rules regarding onsite generation for gasoline/diesel retail.  It may have had some size/volume limits before kicking in.

The easiest way for most of this is making it a requirement for permits, I believe.

After Ike I was without power for just shy of 2 weeks. Sometime around a week of running my generator on my 100# propane bottle, it felt like it was half full or so. So I went on a drive to find where I could get it refilled. Driving down SH35, I had to go somewhere halfway between Alvin and Angleton before I found a place that could fill my bottle. I drove past lots of places that sold propane, when they had power. Where I got my propane was running on a generator.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

That is a false statement for NG, and if one uses batteries or gravity/thermal storage, as well as for the power produced by renewables that can be stored.

Natural gas can be stored effectively as LNG or in underground reservoirs and has been done so for many decades.

And the electric power generated by any method including NG and renewables can be stored in batteries, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

The only measure is how much does it cost to do so.

The stored potential energy of nuclear and hydrocarbons is a powerful reason to utilize those methods if one wants surety of supply as batteries usage are minimized.

[berdie]

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.

I agree that attention needs to be paid to water supply and natural gas as well as electrical generation. But, as in most things in life will the consumer be willing to handle the extra cost involved? This reminds me of when the roads in major cities are impassable during a storm. Everybody screams "Why don't we have the equipment like in other states?"

I claim no expertise in this area, at all. But in reading this thread (especially your posts) there seems to be a lot of fingers in the electrical grid pie. In my experience, that never bodes well. So I must assume alot is due to deregulation?

In any event, we can never truly thwart Mother Nature.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Just because last week's weather has not happened since 1989 does not mean it will be anywhere near that long before it happens again. Weather is cyclic and some of those cycles are longer than a lifetime.

And with that, I will leave this discussion to others now since electrical power generation is not my primary area of expertise

True statement, as attested by my father, a career meteorologist who knew better than anyone how often rain amounts come.  He used that knowledge and purchased a lakehouse below a dam spillway as he believed only a hundred year flood could cause him to go under water.

We had three hundred year storms over the past 25 years and it flooded each time.

[thackney]

I claim no expertise in this area, at all. But in reading this thread (especially your posts) there seems to be a lot of fingers in the electrical grid pie. In my experience, that never bodes well. So I must assume alot is due to deregulation?

We had the same problem, the same outcome, in 1989 before deregulation.  But it was a smaller storm with a smaller impact.

...Moreover, some of the same equipment, the report noted, had failed during previous cold snaps. One in December 1989 prompted the state’s grid operator to resort to system-wide rolling blackouts for the first time.

“Many generators failed to adequately apply and institutionalize knowledge and recommendations from previous severe winter weather events, especially as to winterization of generation and plant auxiliary equipment,” the 2011 report said....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-17/texas-was-warned-a-decade-ago-its-grid-was-unprepared-for-cold

In any event, we can never truly thwart Mother Nature.

Absolutely

February 1899 Arctic Outbreak across Texas - In February of 1899 record cold affected
Texas. A record February low for San Antonio of 4 degrees was set February 12, 1899. It
was also a record February low for Austin of -1 on February 12, 1899. During this
historic cold spell, extremely cold temperatures affected the entire state of Texas. On
February 13, 1899 the whole part of Galveston Bay, except the main channel, was
covered by thin ice. Lows in other locations around Texas on Feb. 12, 1899 include:
Tulia -23; Amarillo -16; Brownsville 16; Dallas-Ft. Worth -8; Waco -5; Laredo 5;
Galveston 8; and Corpus Christi 11. In the February of 1899 arctic outbreak, the coldest
low in Brownsville was 12 on Feb. 13, 1899, still an all time record low for Brownsville.
The low of -23 at Tulia, in the southern part of the Texas panhandle, Feb. 12, 1899 was a
record low for the state of Texas, then was tied when Seminole observed -23 on Feb. 8,
1933. Unofficial reports of -30 came from Wolf Creek and also southeast of Perryton,
both in the northern part of the Texas panhandle.

https://www.weather.gov/media/ewx/wxevents/ewx-18992000.pdf

[HoustonSam]

That is a false statement for NG, and if one uses batteries or gravity/thermal storage, as well as for the power produced by renewables that can be stored.

Natural gas can be stored effectively as LNG or in underground reservoirs and has been done so for many decades.

And the electric power generated by any method including NG and renewables can be stored in batteries, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

The only measure is how much does it cost to do so.

The stored potential energy of nuclear and hydrocarbons is a powerful reason to utilize those methods if one wants surety of supply as batteries usage are minimized.

I recognize that NG in fact can be stored; of course it's routinely stored in underground reservoirs as you point out.

My belief - I stand to be corrected - is that at the point of electrical power generation NG is not routinely stored, while coal is and nuclear effectively is; consequently the decision thackney referenced favors NG, wind, and solar relative to coal and nukes, who have a working capital investment on hand.

Storing produced energy in batteries, while of course possible and routine on a small scale, is not relevant to the reference thackney shared.

I agree with you in favoring hydrocarbons and nukes; it seems to me that all-in-all they will be the most energy dense and the most reliable.

[GrouchoTex]

Just because last week's weather has not happened since 1989 does not mean it will be anywhere near that long before it happens again. Weather is cyclic and some of those cycles are longer than a lifetime.

And with that, I will leave this discussion to others now since electrical power generation is not my primary area of expertise

Reminded me a lot of 1989.
I remember a lot of broken pipes but not the power outage.

[thackney]

Reminded me a lot of 1989.
I remember a lot of broken pipes but not the power outage.

https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/February%202011%20Southwest%20Cold%20Weather%20Event/Final_Draft_Assessment_of_Previous_Severe_Winter_Weather_Report.pdf

December 21-24, 1989 – TRE and FRCC Cold Weather Event

TRE: During December 21-24, 1989, Texas experienced the coldest temperatures recorded in over 100
years. It was the first time in history that ERCOT (which serves 85 percent of load in Texas)
implemented region-wide load shedding due to heavy demands on the electric grid. ERCOT shed 1,710
MW of firm customer load. Natural gas supplies were also curtailed to most utilities (generators) during
the cold weather event. The peak that occurred on December 22, 1989 was 12.4 percent above
forecast and 10.8 percent over the 1988/1989 actual peak.

FRCC: During December 23-25, 1989 Florida experienced extremely cold weather throughout the state.
Natural gas supplies to Florida's utilities were curtailed beginning December 22 through December 26.
Record low temperatures were experienced. Record load (34,776 MW) from extreme cold temps
combined with numerous units offline due to maintenance resulted in rotating blackouts (five to eight
hours maximum). On December 24, 4,744 MWs of firm load was not being served.
In both TRE and FRCC, the circumstances, size, geographic area, and impact on the bulk power system
(BPS) of this event were deemed to be very similar to the February 2011 Cold Weather Event.

Issues Identified:
Inadequate cold weather preparations
Frozen ancillary plant equipment
Fuel oil problems
Natural gas supplies were curtailed

Recommendations:
There were numerous recommendations for utilities in both the FRCC and ERCOT footprints. For ERCOT,
according to the PUCT Report dated November 1990, certain corrective actions were implemented by
the utilities.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I recognize that NG in fact can be stored; of course it's routinely stored in underground reservoirs as you point out.

My belief - I stand to be corrected - is that at the point of electrical power generation NG is not routinely stored, while coal is and nuclear effectively is; consequently the decision thackney referenced favors NG, wind, and solar relative to coal and nukes, who have a working capital investment on hand.

Yes to all.

Since you had pointed out that NG, in the same vein as renewables, cannot be stored, I wanted to correct that in order to not give a false impression on NG to others who do not have the knowledge.

And that NG storage is indeed not as common for power station fuel as it is for burner tip needs for residential usage, but it seems it should be.

[Bigun]

https://www.nerc.com/pa/rrm/ea/February%202011%20Southwest%20Cold%20Weather%20Event/Final_Draft_Assessment_of_Previous_Severe_Winter_Weather_Report.pdf

December 21-24, 1989 – TRE and FRCC Cold Weather Event

TRE: During December 21-24, 1989, Texas experienced the coldest temperatures recorded in over 100
years. It was the first time in history that ERCOT (which serves 85 percent of load in Texas)
implemented region-wide load shedding due to heavy demands on the electric grid. ERCOT shed 1,710
MW of firm customer load. Natural gas supplies were also curtailed to most utilities (generators) during
the cold weather event. The peak that occurred on December 22, 1989 was 12.4 percent above
forecast and 10.8 percent over the 1988/1989 actual peak.

FRCC: During December 23-25, 1989 Florida experienced extremely cold weather throughout the state.
Natural gas supplies to Florida's utilities were curtailed beginning December 22 through December 26.
Record low temperatures were experienced. Record load (34,776 MW) from extreme cold temps
combined with numerous units offline due to maintenance resulted in rotating blackouts (five to eight
hours maximum). On December 24, 4,744 MWs of firm load was not being served.
In both TRE and FRCC, the circumstances, size, geographic area, and impact on the bulk power system
(BPS) of this event were deemed to be very similar to the February 2011 Cold Weather Event.

Issues Identified:
Inadequate cold weather preparations
Frozen ancillary plant equipment
Fuel oil problems
Natural gas supplies were curtailed

Recommendations:
There were numerous recommendations for utilities in both the FRCC and ERCOT footprints. For ERCOT,
according to the PUCT Report dated November 1990, certain corrective actions were implemented by
the utilities.

It's a great thing that they seem to have the load-shedding thing down very well.  Now they need to work on no having to do that when the demand gets high!

[HoustonSam]

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.

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.

@thackney  I see that during yesterday's blame-storming fest in Austin the chairwoman of the TX RR Commission Christi Craddick testified that NG production in TX fell last week *because the producers lost electrical power*, not because of the cold; i.e. she testified that NG production in TX is sufficiently winterized to manage last week's temperatures : https://www.click2houston.com/news/texas/2021/02/26/after-tense-first-day-ercot-hearings-to-pick-back-up-this-morning/

Craddick’s testimony countered ERCOT CEO Bill Magness’ reports that freezing temperatures and precipitation are what unexpectedly knocked dozens of power plants offline, and natural gas was hit harder than most. Craddick fought back those claims.

“When you ask if we have enough gas in this state, the answer is yes, if we can keep the electricity on,” Craddick said. “Time and time again, the number one problem we heard from our operators was the lack of power at their production sites.”

Power plant executives offered similar testimony - they could have stayed on line producing power had they not themselves experienced blackouts driven by their utility companies : https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fault-investigation-texas-blackout-begins-004047307.html

"The testimony offered a troubling new look at how quickly America’s energy capital ran out of energy. Curtis Morgan, the CEO of Vistra Corp., told lawmakers at the outset that the blackouts affected plants that could have generated more power that was urgently needed. He said when officials from his company called utility providers, they were told they weren’t a priority.

“How can a power plant be at the bottom of the list of priorities?” Morgan said.

“You-know-what hit the fan, and everybody’s going, ‘You’re turning off my power plant?'" he said."

If true, this might shed a different light on the relative reliability of the NG portion of the generation grid.  Any thoughts?

[Bigun]

If true, this might shed a different light on the relative reliability of the NG portion of the generation grid.  Any thoughts?

  More nukes and far less unreliables!

[thackney]

@thackney  I see that during yesterday's blame-storming fest in Austin the chairwoman of the TX RR Commission Christi Craddick testified that NG production in TX fell last week *because the producers lost electrical power*, not because of the cold; i.e. she testified that NG production in TX is sufficiently winterized to manage last week's temperatures : https://www.click2houston.com/news/texas/2021/02/26/after-tense-first-day-ercot-hearings-to-pick-back-up-this-morning/

BS.  Yes it contributed, but we have our own @mrpotatohead to explain they were shutting down wells ahead of the storm due to the coming cold.

...As for the clueless people who wonder why gas/oil wells were shut in...  We shut ALL of our production in before the freeze, because we have waaaay too much equipment to put at risk of being destroyed.  What idiot would risk their equipment for the pitiful price we receive for the product?

Power plant executives offered similar testimony - they could have stayed on line producing power had they not themselves experienced blackouts driven by their utility companies : https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fault-investigation-texas-blackout-begins-004047307.html

If true, this might shed a different light on the relative reliability of the NG portion of the generation grid.  Any thoughts?

I am going to have to learn more first, but I am quite doubtful this is more than miscommunication/misunderstanding during chaos.

[HoustonSam]

More nukes and far less unreliables!

If true; the people offering the testimony had plenty of self-interested reasons for that testimony.  And they didn't say anything about nukes, only that they could have stayed in production had they not lost power themselves.

[Bigun]

If true; the people offering the testimony had plenty of self-interested reasons for that testimony.  And they didn't say anything about nukes, only that they could have stayed in production had they not lost power themselves.

Picture lines of dominoes standing on end with all the lines interconnected. Knock one domino over and who knows where it stops.

[thackney]

New estimates today show last week's winter storms could cost more than $200 billion across the state. And that's way more money than Hurricane Harvey.

https://news.yahoo.com/ercot-ceo-grilled-state-lawmakers-020400399.html

[thackney]

ACK FINK: But today, Governor Abbott blamed ERCOT again for the situation, saying they blew an opportunity to slowly implement rolling outages.

GREG ABBOTT: Instead, what they did, they delayed their decision-making process about rolling blackouts until they got right to a few minutes before the entire grid crashing, and they did the equivalent of slamming on brakes while driving on ice.

JACK FINK: Power companies said ERCOT's actions forced their power plants offline.

THAD HILL: What we have found lead us to believe that there was a greater disturbance.

BILL MAGNESS: If they're right, then absolutely we have to do something, because there was something going on that we weren't seeing.

JACK FINK: The company said that exposed another problem: the industry and state agencies never updated the critical infrastructure list. So power plants were among those that lost power. The CEO said they winterize their plants, but in some cases it wasn't adequate.

https://news.yahoo.com/ercot-ceo-grilled-state-lawmakers-020400399.html

[HoustonSam]

BS.  Yes it contributed, but we have our own @mrpotatohead to explain they were shutting down wells ahead of the storm due to the coming cold.

I am going to have to learn more first, but I am quite doubtful this is more than miscommunication/misunderstanding during chaos.

Thanks @thackney and @mrpotatohead; this is good ground-level insight to counter testimony offered with at least some motivation for bureaucratic self-preservation.

I suspect it will be a while before all the competing cause-effect issues can be sorted out; a combination of technical and policy responses is probably needed.  If I could pick one single human driver of last week's disaster, it would be that no one is really in charge during a crisis; decisions which are designed to be market-based (hence de-centralized) cannot be effectively coordinated in the heat of the moment.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@thackney  I see that during yesterday's blame-storming fest in Austin the chairwoman of the TX RR Commission Christi Craddick testified that NG production in TX fell last week *because the producers lost electrical power*, not because of the cold; i.e. she testified that NG production in TX is sufficiently winterized to manage last week's temperatures : https://www.click2houston.com/news/texas/2021/02/26/after-tense-first-day-ercot-hearings-to-pick-back-up-this-morning/

Power plant executives offered similar testimony - they could have stayed on line producing power had they not themselves experienced blackouts driven by their utility companies : https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/fault-investigation-texas-blackout-begins-004047307.html

If true, this might shed a different light on the relative reliability of the NG portion of the generation grid.  Any thoughts?

The driver of choice in the oilpatch is electric motors on pumping units, so this makes total sense.

To put it another way, electric power => oil well production => NG production => NG into pipeline => NG power plant feed => Electric power production

Summary: No electric power, no nothing

Recommendaton:  Emphasis on making electric power from other than NG, such as coal or nuclear.

Alternative is to store NG nearby power plants to use as fuel

And anybody with a thread of knowledge of the energy industry could have come up with this simple analysis.  It is why we need technical people involved with the decision making of our grid reliable instead of a bunch of political hacks on the PUC>

Those hacks focused on bringing in more renewables into the grid that decreased the reliability of power generation during times like this and were oblivious to the consequences of these actions.

[GrouchoTex]

Thanks @thackney and @mrpotatohead; this is good ground-level insight to counter testimony offered with at least some motivation for bureaucratic self-preservation.

I suspect it will be a while before all the competing cause-effect issues can be sorted out; a combination of technical and policy responses is probably needed.  If I could pick one single human driver of last week's disaster, it would be that no one is really in charge during a crisis; decisions which are designed to be market-based (hence de-centralized) cannot be effectively coordinated in the heat of the moment.

There are a lot of moving parts to this.
No singular thing caused the lack of power.
The media, both left and right, are trying to simplify the blame down to single sources and causes.
Not so easy, or accurate, to do so.

[thackney]

I am still convinced there is blame at all levels in multiple industries and assigning a few scapegoats only means the real problems will still be with us next time.  There is not simple easy solutions to a problem this large and widespread.  Accept that and start prioritizing the fixes and get the problems much smaller for next time.

Catastrophic Texas power outages prompt finger pointing and blame shifting at legislative hearings
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/25/texas-house-senate-ercot/

...Earlier in the day, state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, asked whether lawmakers should reexamine ERCOT’s governance structure.

“Y’all made us,” Magness said. “You should change us.”...

...“Some of the blame belongs right here in this building,” State Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, said Thursday. “There’s blame out there for everybody.”...

...“If the Legislature fails to mandate weatherization of pipelines or power plants, there are limits to how far the regulatory agencies can go to step beyond where the Legislature has given them direction,” Alison Silverstein, an Austin-based energy consultant who has advised state and federal agencies, said Wednesday on a virtual conference with other energy experts....

...The head of the PUC, DeAnn T. Walker, appeared before lawmakers on Thursday after Magness testified for roughly five hours....

...Later, in the House, Anchía quizzed Walker surrounding the PUC’s authority over ERCOT, concluding that the commission did have decision-making ability over the operator.

“It seems to me, comprehensive," Anchía said.

“We told you to report to us if you thought we were unprepared because we had promised our constituents, ‘This was not going to happen again,’ and we told PUC to take care of it," he said. "And we gave you power, we gave you rule-making authority to take care of it."

Anchía said the PUC was empowered to winterize with legislation passed in 2011, after frigid temperatures caused equipment failures and blackouts. He asked if the commission ever submitted a report as was it was authorized to in the bill. Walker answered no....

...The executives agreed: The entire energy system in Texas saw widespread problems that ultimately led to supply failing to meet demand. Texans demanded an amount of electricity normally not seen in the winter months. The power grid was not prepared for that level of demand or equipment failure due to freezing temperatures.

“The entire energy sector failed Texans, we know we can do better,” NRG Energy CEO Mauricio Gutierrez said. “And we must do better to make sure that this never happens again.”

Vistra Corp. CEO Curt Morgan acknowledged that his company could have performed better, but said the biggest problem they faced was disruptions in the state’s natural gas supply system, which was not prepared for the winter weather. Morgan instructed his employees to buy gas at any price, but they couldn’t get it at the pressures necessary. He said that even if all equipment was winterized, it wouldn’t have prevented gas interruptions....

...After the outages began, Abbott asked state lawmakers to mandate the winterization of generators and power plants, a proposal previously floated but not implemented by state leaders in the aftermath of another winter storm in 2011. And Abbott requested that lawmakers provide power companies with funding to make the necessary changes....

One way the state could have communicated the emergency better was through something similar to an amber alert, recommended state Sen. Angela Paxton, who left the state with her husband during the outages. Some of her colleagues agreed.  note by thackney ARE YOU KIDDING!  THIS IS A SOLUTION?!?!?!?!?!  ...

...Toward the end of the House committees' joint hearing, state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, at times seemed to struggle to contain her frustration as testimony stretched past the 15-hour mark.

“Why are people not talking to each other? Why do we have this set up to where the PUC and ERCOT and the Railroad Commission and the Legislature and whoever else needs to be involved here, why are we not talking to each other?” she said. “I am dumbfounded by it. And I don’t want tonight to be the last thing we say about this.”...

[Bigun]

There are a lot of moving parts to this.
No singular thing caused the lack of power.
The media, both left and right, are trying to simplify the blame down to single sources and causes.
Not so easy, or accurate, to do so.

  Rows and rows of dominoes stood on end and all interconnected! WAY more complicated than it should be!

K.I.S.S.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am still convinced there is blame at all levels in multiple industries and assigning a few scapegoats only means the real problems will still be with us next time.  There is not simple easy solutions to a problem this large and widespread.  Accept that and start prioritizing the fixes and get the problems much smaller for next time.

Catastrophic Texas power outages prompt finger pointing and blame shifting at legislative hearings
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/25/texas-house-senate-ercot/

It is damning that the 2011 legislation empowering the PUC to spend funds to winterize was apparently not used and instead focused funds on deploying more unreliable renewables to the grid, as is still being done by offering renewable credits. 

Renewable Energy Credit

ERCOT acts as the program administrator of the Renewable Energy Credit (REC) trading program, which was established by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) to (1) promote an additional 2,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity to be built in Texas by 2009, to be increased to 10,000 megawatts by 2025; and (2) allow customers to have access to providers of energy generated by renewable energy resources.

To earn RECs, a generator must be a new facility or a small producer that meets the requirements in PUCT Substantive Rule §25.173(c).

A facility is eligible to earn RECs if it relies exclusively on an energy source that is naturally regenerated such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave/tidal, biomass or biomass-based waste products. The energy source can not be derived from fossil fuels, waste products from fossil fuels or waste products from inorganic sources.

Where to File: Applicants should visit the Renewable Energy Credit Program  website.

Who Should File: A generator that is a new facility or a small producer as defined in PUCT Substantive Rule 25.173(c), meets the requirements of 25.173 and would like to earn RECs is encouraged to file. All competitive retailers, as they are approved to do business in Texas, are required by law to register in the REC program and retire RECs annually. http://www.ercot.com/services/programs/rec/

Credits for renewables but nothing for reliability

[IsailedawayfromFR]

...Toward the end of the House committees' joint hearing, state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, at times seemed to struggle to contain her frustration as testimony stretched past the 15-hour mark.

“Why are people not talking to each other? Why do we have this set up to where the PUC and ERCOT and the Railroad Commission and the Legislature and whoever else needs to be involved here, why are we not talking to each other?” she said. “I am dumbfounded by it. And I don’t want tonight to be the last thing we say about this.”...

They do talk to one another.  But only for peak summer time power usage as evidenced in this article.

RRC Chairman Craddick And PUC Chairman Walker Working To Ensure Availability Of Natural Gas For Electric Service This Summer
February 27, 2019
http://www.rrc.texas.gov/news/022719a-rrc-chairman-craddick-and-puc-chairman-walker-working-to-ensure-availability-of-natural-gas-for-electric-service-this-summer/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Rows and rows of dominoes stood on end and all interconnected! WAY more complicated than it should be!

K.I.S.S.

K.I.S.S includes competency on who is in charge of managing the grid.

How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

[Bigun]

K.I.S.S includes competency on who is in charge of managing the grid.

How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

You bet your sweet bippy it does! I don't know the answer to your question as I have never seen a lawyer attempt to change one.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You bet your sweet bippy it does! I don't know the answer to your question as I have never seen a lawyer attempt to change one.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A1: How many can you afford?

A2: None, lawyers only screw us.

A3: It only takes one lawyer to change your light bulb to his light bulb.

A4: Three. One to do it and two to sue him for malpractice.

A5: Three. One to change it and two to keep interrupting by standing up and shouting "Objection!"

A6: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.

A7: 65. 42 to sue the power company for insufficiently supplying power, or negligent failure to prevent the surge that made the bulb burn out in the first place, 14 to sue the electrician who wired the house, and 9 to sue the bulb manufacturers.

A8: You won't find a lawyer who can change a light bulb. Now, if you're looking for a lawyer to screw a light bulb...

[Bigun]

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A1: How many can you afford?

A2: None, lawyers only screw us.

A3: It only takes one lawyer to change your light bulb to his light bulb.

A4: Three. One to do it and two to sue him for malpractice.

A5: Three. One to change it and two to keep interrupting by standing up and shouting "Objection!"

A6: Fifty four. Eight to argue, one to get a continuance, one to object one to demur, two to research precedents, one to dictate a letter, one to stipulate, five to turn in their time cards, one to depose, one to write interrogatories, two to settle, one to order a secretary to change the bulb, and twenty-eight to bill for professional services.

A7: 65. 42 to sue the power company for insufficiently supplying power, or negligent failure to prevent the surge that made the bulb burn out in the first place, 14 to sue the electrician who wired the house, and 9 to sue the bulb manufacturers.

A8: You won't find a lawyer who can change a light bulb. Now, if you're looking for a lawyer to screw a light bulb...

Sounds about right!   

[HoustonSam]

K.I.S.S includes competency on who is in charge of managing the grid.

I think that's a fundamental part of the problem - no one seems to know who is actually in charge during an emergency.

The de-regulated free market design includes as a feature that no one is in charge - buyers and sellers of power engage in free, voluntary transactions which establish a wholesale price - and I favor that for normal operations.  In an emergency some reversion to command/control is necessary and that doesn't seem to be defined well at all.

[Bigun]

I think that's a fundamental part of the problem - no one seems to know who is actually in charge during an emergency.

The de-regulated free market design includes as a feature that no one is in charge - buyers and sellers of power engage in free, voluntary transactions which establish a wholesale price - and I favor that for normal operations.  In an emergency some reversion to command/control is necessary and that doesn't seem to be defined well at all.

And it would be VERY helpful for the person in charge to have a working knowledge of the system he is in charge of I think.

[thackney]

The driver of choice in the oilpatch is electric motors on pumping units, so this makes total sense.

To put it another way, electric power => oil well production => NG production => NG into pipeline => NG power plant feed => Electric power production

Summary: No electric power, no nothing

And the primary means of keeping a gas or oil well flowing in subfreezing temperatures is electric heat trace (heating cable, covered in insulation).  No electric -> no heat -> freezing lines.  Oil and gas typically bring up water with their flow.

[GrouchoTex]

Rows and rows of dominoes stood on end and all interconnected! WAY more complicated than it should be!

K.I.S.S.

My point is that The left blames lack of green energy and the right blames too much reliance on green energy, and it just isn't that black and white.

[Bigun]

My point is that The left blames lack of green energy and the right blames too much reliance on green energy, and it just isn't that black and white.

Oh but it is!  Cut out the government props from under all that "green" energy crap and see how fast it disappears.

[GrouchoTex]

Oh but it is!  Cut out the government props from under all that "green" energy crap and see how fast it disappears.

That is one factor, but, naw, more too it than that.

De-regulation worked to keep our light bills down (somewhat) but gave power generators no incentive to provide backups or redundancy, so they didn't, so to keep their cost down and profits up.
Gas transmission stations are covered and heated in the great white north, but not here, and it would be expensive to do so, but a move should be underway to insulate them more somehow,
Channel 26 news in Houston also reported that the winterizing checks done in person each year were done virtually, if at all, due to  COVID concerns in 2020/2021.

There's 3 more reasons for you to ponder, and I haven't even mentioned ERCOT or the PUC yet.
Many things to fix and adjust.

[Bigun]

That is one factor, but, naw, more to it than that.

I disagree.  I see it as a matter of keeping things as simple as possible.

[GrouchoTex]

I disagree.  I see it as a matter of keeping things as simple as possible.

@Bigun
Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 

[thackney]

Oh but it is!  Cut out the government props from under all that "green" energy crap and see how fast it disappears.

If every Solar and Wind generator in Texas had been replaced with Nat Gas power plants, AND that those Nat Gas generators were properly winterized, we would have had more power outages.

We did not have Nat Gas supply enough to keep those that were available running.  More dependable and reliable power plants WITHOUT fuel does not solve our problem.

[Bigun]

@Bigun
Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
 

I have no problem with disagreement.  I do have a real problem with circular arguments but I have never found you guilty of that.  @GrouchoTex

[Bigun]

If every Solar and Wind generator in Texas had been replaced with Nat Gas power plants, AND that those Nat Gas generators were properly winterized, we would have had more power outages.

We did not have Nat Gas supply enough to keep those that were available running.  More dependable and reliable power plants WITHOUT fuel does not solve our problem.

No doubt that is true if you believe that everything else would have been as it was had those things not been in the mix but I happen to not believe that.  @thackney

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Channel 26 news in Houston also reported that the winterizing checks done in person each year were done virtually, if at all, due to  COVID concerns in 2020/2021.

Doing a winterization check virtually instead of in person is a joke. 

What are the checkers afraid of, getting Covid from a pipeline?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If every Solar and Wind generator in Texas had been replaced with Nat Gas power plants, AND that those Nat Gas generators were properly winterized, we would have had more power outages.

Your own graphs show that is not a true statement.  How can replacing Wind which produced almost nil during the storm with Natural Gas be worse than relying on Natural Gas?

And what you seem to be missing is that if there were more broader usage of natural gas as our power fuel, there would have been a more concerted effort to ensure the supply of fuel was less interrupted by nearby storage or by other means. 

The prevalent notion by those who control the grid, Ercot and the PUC, is we gain reliability of supply by varying the methods by which we get power onto the grid.  That is their way of propping up renewables.

That is a falsehood as we have proven with the absolute failure of renewables to provide ANY power during the freeze.  A continued fuel supply to natural gas generators had been consequently deprioritized as the grid operators believed, erroneously, that the renewables would be able to perform.  They are novelties, not to be relied upon.

That is the mistake of those who foist political episodes such as increasing renewables onto us instead of achieving the 'R' part of their name, Reliability.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And this puts the lie to these fact checker claims:

Fact check: Renewable energy is not to blame for the Texas energy crisis
No, frozen wind turbines aren’t the main culprit for Texas’ power outages
No, Wind Farms Aren’t the Main Cause of the Texas Blackouts

The truth…
Renewable energy is why Texas has less natural gas and coal capacity than it would have had otherwise.
Frozen wind turbines are why coal-fired power plants were operating at >90% of capacity from February 9-14 and natural gas power plants were operating at 70% to more than 80% of capacity from February 11-14.
Wind farms aren’t the main cause of the Texas blackouts because most of them had already been knocked offline by freezing temperatures and ice… Nearly a week before the blackouts!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/25/wind-was-operating-almost-as-well-as-expected-a-texas-sized-energy-lie/