Interesting read about ERCOT and the winter disaster
5,358 Views |
74 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
you want to copy pasta?
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
If ERCOT didn't have the authority to require hardening the system against prolonged and extreme cold because the legislature didn't give it to them, responsibility rests with the legislature and with the power generators if they declined to adequately protect their own systems when ERCOT recommended it. If my plumber recommends that I insulate my pipes and I decline to do so, it is not his fault when they freeze and burst.
This makes a couple of assumptions. 1. Power generators were told they should protect their systems against an event like the one we saw and 2. They didn't actually do that. It is important not to get ahead of the facts, so what I have described above isn't ready to be called journalism just yet. There is a lot of investigating to be done.
I agree, Oldbear. There have been resignations and lawsuits, with a promised investigation about to ensue. I'm sure the engineers at the wheel were literally overcome by demand..and did what they could to keep the system functioning. It's the bureaucrats running the show that failed miserably, in my opinion. The same people who assured Abbott and other state officials that our power grid was ready and able to handle this storm should be held accountable. I've got a feeling that this was serious enough that the facts will come to light in an attempt to insure we don't get "there" again. I hope so anyway.Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Keep in mind D.C., that the article written was an opinion piece trying to back ERCOT. It is built on opinion and trying to persuade, not actual facts.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
If ERCOT didn't have the authority to require hardening the system against prolonged and extreme cold because the legislature didn't give it to them, responsibility rests with the legislature and with the power generators if they declined to adequately protect their own systems when ERCOT recommended it. If my plumber recommends that I insulate my pipes and I decline to do so, it is not his fault when they freeze and burst.
This makes a couple of assumptions. 1. Power generators were told they should protect their systems against an event like the one we saw and 2. They didn't actually do that. It is important not to get ahead of the facts, so what I have described above isn't ready to be called journalism just yet. There is a lot of investigating to be done.
If ERCOT did not have the authority to punish generation companies for failing to meet commitments, no one does. That is, he is lying while trying to look honest.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
I worked at Reliant Energy from 2000 to 2009. In those days ERCOT ran operations with engineers, and seniority was very important. A guy with 15 years working lines out in the elements had a lot more cred than someone talking theory.Bexar Pitts said:I agree, Oldbear. There have been resignations and lawsuits, with a promised investigation about to ensue. I'm sure the engineers at the wheel were literally overcome by demand..and did what they could to keep the system functioning. It's the bureaucrats running the show that failed miserably, in my opinion. The same people who assured Abbott and other state officials that our power grid was ready and able to handle this storm should be held accountable. I've got a feeling that this was serious enough that the facts will come to light in an attempt to insure we don't get "there" again. I hope so anyway.Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Unfortunately, that changed, as ERCOT started looking for ways to look environmentally progressive and cut costs.
Some really bad decisions were made years ago which finally came to roost this month.
ERCOT's fundamental job is to keep the power on, period. It's no surprise the political crowd is trying to paint a picture where they are not criminally negligent, to the point that they will steal credit from the people who kept their stupidity from getting even worse.
Make ERCOT directorship dependent on having a degree and 5+ years of work in some kind of energy engineering, and this crap will end.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Keep in mind D.C., that the article written was an opinion piece trying to back ERCOT. It is built on opinion and trying to persuade, not actual facts.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
If ERCOT didn't have the authority to require hardening the system against prolonged and extreme cold because the legislature didn't give it to them, responsibility rests with the legislature and with the power generators if they declined to adequately protect their own systems when ERCOT recommended it. If my plumber recommends that I insulate my pipes and I decline to do so, it is not his fault when they freeze and burst.
This makes a couple of assumptions. 1. Power generators were told they should protect their systems against an event like the one we saw and 2. They didn't actually do that. It is important not to get ahead of the facts, so what I have described above isn't ready to be called journalism just yet. There is a lot of investigating to be done.
If ERCOT did not have the authority to punish generation companies for failing to meet commitments, no one does. That is, he is lying while trying to look honest.
Yes, it is an opinion piece, but it is an opinion based on facts. Those may be false assertions of facts, but they are not merely opinions, and I have no evidence that he is lying.
There is a reason why I am providing a pretty high degree of qualification and uncertainty to what I said above. I don't yet know the facts and I don't even know that the facts are yet known by anyone.
Here is a quote from the piece:
" ERCOT and the PUC can only act in ways permitted by the Texas Legislature. They do not have the authority to compel electric generators to winterize their plants. They can only suggest it."
Is this a lie?
your assertions of big changes at ERCOT to look "environmentally progressive" is an interesting accusation and I'm curious how you back that up.Oldbear83 said:I worked at Reliant Energy from 2000 to 2009. In those days ERCOT ran operations with engineers, and seniority was very important. A guy with 15 years working lines out in the elements had a lot more cred than someone talking theory.Bexar Pitts said:I agree, Oldbear. There have been resignations and lawsuits, with a promised investigation about to ensue. I'm sure the engineers at the wheel were literally overcome by demand..and did what they could to keep the system functioning. It's the bureaucrats running the show that failed miserably, in my opinion. The same people who assured Abbott and other state officials that our power grid was ready and able to handle this storm should be held accountable. I've got a feeling that this was serious enough that the facts will come to light in an attempt to insure we don't get "there" again. I hope so anyway.Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Unfortunately, that changed, as ERCOT started looking for ways to look environmentally progressive and cut costs.
Some really bad decisions were made years ago which finally came to roost this month.
ERCOT's fundamental job is to keep the power on, period. It's no surprise the political crowd is trying to paint a picture where they are not criminally negligent, to the point that they will steal credit from the people who kept their stupidity from getting even worse.
Make ERCOT directorship dependent on having a degree and 5+ years of work in some kind of energy engineering, and this crap will end.
Now the part about cutting costs I'm sure it true. Who sets ERCOT's budget? Who funds them?
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Not answering for OB, but obviously the Texas Legislature controls the purse strings. Having said that, I want to know if Abbott's statements were correct that ERCOT assured him and other senior officials that the system HAD been adequately winterized to keep functioning during the storm. I have no clue as to what was budgeted for ERCOT to oversee the power grid, but I'll bet we're gonna find out shortly.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:Keep in mind D.C., that the article written was an opinion piece trying to back ERCOT. It is built on opinion and trying to persuade, not actual facts.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
If ERCOT didn't have the authority to require hardening the system against prolonged and extreme cold because the legislature didn't give it to them, responsibility rests with the legislature and with the power generators if they declined to adequately protect their own systems when ERCOT recommended it. If my plumber recommends that I insulate my pipes and I decline to do so, it is not his fault when they freeze and burst.
This makes a couple of assumptions. 1. Power generators were told they should protect their systems against an event like the one we saw and 2. They didn't actually do that. It is important not to get ahead of the facts, so what I have described above isn't ready to be called journalism just yet. There is a lot of investigating to be done.
If ERCOT did not have the authority to punish generation companies for failing to meet commitments, no one does. That is, he is lying while trying to look honest.
Yes, it is an opinion piece, but it is an opinion based on facts. Those may be false assertions of facts, but they are not merely opinions, and I have no evidence that he is lying.
There is a reason why I am providing a pretty high degree of qualification and uncertainty to what I said above. I don't yet know the facts and I don't even know that the facts are yet known by anyone.
Here is a quote from the piece:
" ERCOT and the PUC can only act in ways permitted by the Texas Legislature. They do not have the authority to compel electric generators to winterize their plants. They can only suggest it."
Is this a lie?
Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
Did you personally observe ERCOT specifically requiring (not just recommending) winterization of power plants?
Are you a natural jerk in life, or is it just this issue?D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
Did you personally observe ERCOT specifically requiring (not just recommending) winterization of power plants?
But to your question, I have direct observations of ERCOT demanding proof of generation capacity.
Job One, Job Two, and Job Three was always 'keep the power on'.
At least back in the day.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Oldbear83 said:Are you a natural jerk in life, or is it just this issue?D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
Did you personally observe ERCOT specifically requiring (not just recommending) winterization of power plants?
But to your question, I have direct observations of ERCOT demanding proof of generation capacity.
Job One, Job Two, and Job Three was always 'keep the power on'.
At least back in the day.
I am not being a jerk. I am asking whether you specifically observed ERCOT requiring winterization of power plants. This is a legitimate question because every other source I have seen says that ERCOT did not have the power (no pun intended) to compel power providers to guarantee performance at particular temperatures for particular times by hardening their generation capacity against cold weather. Either you are wrong or they are wrong or you and they are talking about different things.
Look, I made my position clear multiple times.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:Are you a natural jerk in life, or is it just this issue?D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
Did you personally observe ERCOT specifically requiring (not just recommending) winterization of power plants?
But to your question, I have direct observations of ERCOT demanding proof of generation capacity.
Job One, Job Two, and Job Three was always 'keep the power on'.
At least back in the day.
I am not being a jerk. I am asking whether you specifically observed ERCOT requiring winterization of power plants. This is a legitimate question because every other source I have seen says that ERCOT did not have the power (no pun intended) to compel power providers to guarantee performance at particular temperatures for particular times by hardening their generation capacity against cold weather. Either you are wrong or they are wrong or you and they are talking about different things.
So yes, you are being a jerk
Stop for a moment and ask yourself one key question:
"Why does ERCOT exist?"
I promise you that every engineer there is totally committed to making sure people have power.
EVERYTHING else comes after that.
And just a cursory review of ERCOT's history, especially in comparison to states like California, shows that for a very long time ERCOT had that attitude top to bottom.
It's painfully obvious that is not true now.
Now you can believe me, someone who worked with ERCOT, Centerpoint, and Reliant Energy employees for years, or you can believe pieces written to sell excuses to protect people who should never have been at ERCOT or working in a critical role.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
If you want to understand what really happened last week, ask the people who are now retired from power plants throughout Texas. They will tell you that over the past 10-12 years many gas and coal plants were either closed down or completely imploded! Also, those plants were not significantly replaced by reliable energy sources. Furthermore, prior to the demise of these plants, workers were not replaced when they quit or retired, which left little manpower to adequately perform routine maintenance and overhauls of the units. In summation...poor decisions were made by those in charge!
Oldbear83 said:Look, I made my position clear multiple times.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:Are you a natural jerk in life, or is it just this issue?D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:9 years of personal work experience.D. C. Bear said:Oldbear83 said:
A quote from an opinion piece.
Yes, he's lying. ERCOT has always had enforcement powers, unless - and this is extremely unlikely - the Legislature took those powers away.
It's simple. The idiots at the top screwed around and got 30 people killed, so they are scrambling to tell a good story before the juries are seated.
I have found nothing in news sources to back up the claim that ERCOT had the authority to compel winterization and multiple sources that say the opposite. Do you have a different source?
Did you personally observe ERCOT specifically requiring (not just recommending) winterization of power plants?
But to your question, I have direct observations of ERCOT demanding proof of generation capacity.
Job One, Job Two, and Job Three was always 'keep the power on'.
At least back in the day.
I am not being a jerk. I am asking whether you specifically observed ERCOT requiring winterization of power plants. This is a legitimate question because every other source I have seen says that ERCOT did not have the power (no pun intended) to compel power providers to guarantee performance at particular temperatures for particular times by hardening their generation capacity against cold weather. Either you are wrong or they are wrong or you and they are talking about different things.
So yes, you are being a jerk
Stop for a moment and ask yourself one key question:
"Why does ERCOT exist?"
I promise you that every engineer there is totally committed to making sure people have power.
EVERYTHING else comes after that.
And just a cursory review of ERCOT's history, especially in comparison to states like California, shows that for a very long time ERCOT had that attitude top to bottom.
It's painfully obvious that is not true now.
Now you can believe me, someone who worked with ERCOT, Centerpoint, and Reliant Energy employees for years, or you can believe pieces written to sell excuses to protect people who should never have been at ERCOT or working in a critical role.
I am not asking about "your position." I am asking you for specific evidence to clarify what has been going on so that I can better understand why your perspective and the perspective of every piece I have read seem to be at odds.
The question I am asking isn't why they exist, it is whether they had the regulatory authority to require power generators to guarantee operation in extreme cold. It is one thing if they had it and didn't use it, and it is another thing if they didn't have it and should have.
Here's a piece that mentions another level of bureaucracy that I didn't know existed..The "North American Electric Reliability Corporation." https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/20/texas-power-grid-winterize/
Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
No, we don't know what happened and I am not "taking sides." There has not been nearly enough time to do a full and complete investigation on what went wrong. This is a Challenger-level disaster and it is going to be important to fully understand what happened to prevent another one or a similar one.
We do know what happened. Our power grid failed. We do know why. Our generators across multiple energy sources froze due to prolonged exposure to sub-freezing temperatures and severely limited the production of electricity.D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
No, we don't know what happened and I am not "taking sides." There has not been nearly enough time to do a full and complete investigation on what went wrong. This is a Challenger-level disaster and it is going to be important to fully understand what happened to prevent another one or a similar one.
What you're arguing now -- and it mirrors ERCOT's own defense -- is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas isn't actually responsible for reliable electricity in Texas. I call bull***** They may not be alone in the blame, but the buck stops with them. Period.
The basics
https://www.cnet.com/news/texas-power-outages-why-blackouts-hit-as-temperatures-fell/
https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-blackouts-millions-lost-power-in-storm-went-wrong-2021-2
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-weather-power-outage-11613425923
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-texas-wind-turbines-explain/fact-check-the-causes-for-texas-blackout-go-well-beyond-wind-turbines-idUSKBN2AJ2EI
A deeper dive
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2021/02/19/winterization-and-the-texas-blackout-fail-to-prepare-prepare-to-fail/?sh=3df7fa767c83
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/22/texas-power-grid-extreme-weather/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-grid-again-faces-scrutiny-over-cold-15955392.php
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/30-years-of-warnings-to-winterize-texas-power-plants-yet-they-still-froze-will-austin-finally-require-it/287-20540908-dbce-4e17-90a3-19aa4f4f4690
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/texas-power-plants-shut-by-cold-left-pipes-exposed-to-elements
I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
bear2be2 said:We do know what happened. Our power grid failed. We do know why. Our generators across multiple energy sources froze due to sub-freezing temperatures and severely limited the production of electricity.D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
No, we don't know what happened and I am not "taking sides." There has not been nearly enough time to do a full and complete investigation on what went wrong. This is a Challenger-level disaster and it is going to be important to fully understand what happened to prevent another one or a similar one.
What you're arguing now -- and it mirrors ERCOT's own defense -- is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas isn't actually responsible for reliable electricity in Texas. I call bull*****[url=http://www.ercot.com/][/url]
I am not arguing any such thing.
We knew very quickly after the Challenger exploded that it was caused by a failure of the solid rocket booster, I believe it was the the left one. We know that generators (or, in some cases, gas wells) failed to function in the extreme cold, but there is a whole lot that we don't yet know.
It would take some time before we knew exactly how that solid rocket failure occurred physically, and it would take some time before we learned that engineers who built the system were trying desperately to get the launch stopped but failed. The Challenger disaster was not a single point of failure but a variety of factors in engineering and testing and in organizational culture that all contributed to the disaster and all needed to be addressed.
We don't yet know where the points of failure were in this disaster, and there should be a through, deep investigation so that whatever factors are found are addressed. If that includes criminal conduct or other legal liability, that needs to be dealt with as well. However, it is foolishness to act like we already know exactly what happened and how it happened in this disaster and a rush to judgment will simply set up a future with more potential disasters.
As I said in a previous post, ERCOT may not be alone in the blame. It's likely not. But if the argument is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is incapable of handling its one and only function and can't fairly be held to a standard where that's the expectation, then it needs to be disbanded and replaced by an agency that can keep Texans safe in a winter storm. It does not need to be defended or have excuses made for its incompetence on the heels of an avoidable disaster.Sam Lowry said:I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
I'm all for a thorough and deep investigation.D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:We do know what happened. Our power grid failed. We do know why. Our generators across multiple energy sources froze due to sub-freezing temperatures and severely limited the production of electricity.D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
No, we don't know what happened and I am not "taking sides." There has not been nearly enough time to do a full and complete investigation on what went wrong. This is a Challenger-level disaster and it is going to be important to fully understand what happened to prevent another one or a similar one.
What you're arguing now -- and it mirrors ERCOT's own defense -- is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas isn't actually responsible for reliable electricity in Texas. I call bull*****[url=http://www.ercot.com/][/url]
I am not arguing any such thing.
We knew very quickly after the Challenger exploded that it was caused by a failure of the solid rocket booster, I believe it was the the left one. We know that generators (or, in some cases, gas wells) failed to function in the extreme cold, but there is a whole lot that we don't yet know.
It would take some time before we knew exactly how that solid rocket failure occurred physically, and it would take some time before we learned that engineers who built the system were trying desperately to get the launch stopped but failed. The Challenger disaster was not a single point of failure but a variety of factors in engineering and testing and in organizational culture that all contributed to the disaster and all needed to be addressed.
We don't yet know where the points of failure were in this disaster, and there should be a through, deep investigation so that whatever factors are found are addressed. If that includes criminal conduct or other legal liability, that needs to be dealt with as well. However, it is foolishness to act like we already know exactly what happened and how it happened in this disaster and a rush to judgment will simply set up a future with more potential disasters.
But any single-function agency that can't perform that single function under pressure bears the brunt of the blame when their impotence/incompetence leads to tragic consequences. They need to be accountable. Instead, what we've seen from ERCOT is not only blame-shifting and CYA tactics, but an immediate PR campaign that tries to paint them as heroes for taking "quick action" to avoid an even larger-scale disaster. It's bull*****
And let's not pretend like these people haven't been warned that something like this was possible and how it could have been avoided. There have been decades of warnings, including in 2011 when we were fortunate something similar didn't happen.
ERCOT's position is that they supervise distribution of the power that's supplied by producers. If there's not enough, they have to spread it around in a way that avoids catastrophic failure. If such failure was imminent and they avoided it, they did their job. There's also a journalist in Dallas who's been following this for years and says ERCOT's story about being minutes away from failure is about as credible as Trump's landslide victory in 2020 (or words to that effect). So I don't know, but I think it's premature to talk about disbanding. The last thing we want is for one agency to become the scapegoat while others with as much or more culpability skate by. That just means it will happen again.bear2be2 said:As I said in a previous post, ERCOT may not be alone in the blame. It's likely not. But if the argument is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is incapable of handling its one and only function and can't fairly be held to a standard where that's the expectation, then it needs to be disbanded and replaced by an agency that can keep Texans safe in a winter storm. It does not need to be defended or have excuses made for its incompetence on the heels of an avoidable disaster.Sam Lowry said:I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
This isn't the first time this has happened, though. It happened in 1989 and again in 2011 -- the latter of which drew this review from the feds.Sam Lowry said:ERCOT's position is that they supervise distribution of the power that's supplied by producers. If there's not enough, they have to spread it around in a way that avoids catastrophic failure. If such failure was imminent and they avoided it, they did their job. There's also a journalist in Dallas who's been following this for years and says ERCOT's story about being minutes away from failure is about as credible as Trump's landslide victory in 2020 (or words to that effect). So I don't know, but I think it's premature to talk about disbanding. The last thing we want is for one agency to become the scapegoat while others with as much or more culpability skate by. That just means it will happen again.bear2be2 said:As I said in a previous post, ERCOT may not be alone in the blame. It's likely not. But if the argument is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is incapable of handling its one and only function and can't fairly be held to a standard where that's the expectation, then it needs to be disbanded and replaced by an agency that can keep Texans safe in a winter storm. It does not need to be defended or have excuses made for its incompetence on the heels of an avoidable disaster.Sam Lowry said:I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
We've known for decades that our system can't handle extreme cold and that winterizing equipment would change that. As a state, we've just decided that sacrificing lives every 10, 20, 30 years is fine as long as it saves us a little money in the short term. And instead of holding those who made that determination accountable, we've given the agency responsible for a reliable power grid sovereign immunity and shielded them of all legal ramifications of their impotence/incompetence. It's gross.
I agree, but ERCOT doesn't write the laws. If there's no statute or regulation requiring the equipment to be upgraded, what does ERCOT do?bear2be2 said:This isn't the first time this has happened, though. It happened in 1989 and again in 2011 -- the latter of which drew this review from the feds.Sam Lowry said:ERCOT's position is that they supervise distribution of the power that's supplied by producers. If there's not enough, they have to spread it around in a way that avoids catastrophic failure. If such failure was imminent and they avoided it, they did their job. There's also a journalist in Dallas who's been following this for years and says ERCOT's story about being minutes away from failure is about as credible as Trump's landslide victory in 2020 (or words to that effect). So I don't know, but I think it's premature to talk about disbanding. The last thing we want is for one agency to become the scapegoat while others with as much or more culpability skate by. That just means it will happen again.bear2be2 said:As I said in a previous post, ERCOT may not be alone in the blame. It's likely not. But if the argument is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is incapable of handling its one and only function and can't fairly be held to a standard where that's the expectation, then it needs to be disbanded and replaced by an agency that can keep Texans safe in a winter storm. It does not need to be defended or have excuses made for its incompetence on the heels of an avoidable disaster.Sam Lowry said:I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
We've known for decades that our system can't handle extreme cold and that winterizing equipment would change that. As a state, we've just decided that sacrificing lives every 10, 20, 30 years is fine as long as it saves us a little money in the short term. And instead of holding those who made that determination accountable, we've given the agency responsible for a reliable power grid sovereign immunity and shielded them of all legal ramifications of their impotence/incompetence. It's gross.
Stop the bull**** PR campaign, for starters. And pretend like they care about avoiding future disasters, rather than throwing up their hands every time we see one and saying, "Welp, there's nothing we can do about it."Sam Lowry said:I agree, but ERCOT doesn't write the laws. If there's no statute or regulation requiring the equipment to be upgraded, what does ERCOT do?bear2be2 said:This isn't the first time this has happened, though. It happened in 1989 and again in 2011 -- the latter of which drew this review from the feds.Sam Lowry said:ERCOT's position is that they supervise distribution of the power that's supplied by producers. If there's not enough, they have to spread it around in a way that avoids catastrophic failure. If such failure was imminent and they avoided it, they did their job. There's also a journalist in Dallas who's been following this for years and says ERCOT's story about being minutes away from failure is about as credible as Trump's landslide victory in 2020 (or words to that effect). So I don't know, but I think it's premature to talk about disbanding. The last thing we want is for one agency to become the scapegoat while others with as much or more culpability skate by. That just means it will happen again.bear2be2 said:As I said in a previous post, ERCOT may not be alone in the blame. It's likely not. But if the argument is that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is incapable of handling its one and only function and can't fairly be held to a standard where that's the expectation, then it needs to be disbanded and replaced by an agency that can keep Texans safe in a winter storm. It does not need to be defended or have excuses made for its incompetence on the heels of an avoidable disaster.Sam Lowry said:I don't know and have no opinion yet. Obviously someone was responsible, but there are a lot of parties involved - ERCOT, the PUC, the governor, the legislature. An enforcement body can only enforce rules if such rules exist.bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:D. C. Bear said:bear2be2 said:Oldbear83 said:
"As bad as this was, it could have been much, much worse. Quick action by ERCOT engineers in the middle of the night on Feb. 15 saved many lives. Had they not acted when they did, the whole grid would have collapsed. Full service to the state could not have been restored for months. Imagine how many lives would have been lost if that disaster had occurred."
That is not an explanation, it's a self-serving excuse for not planning, yet pretending they did their jobs.
There are a lot of decision makers who need to be fired, PLUS face legal consequences.
Exactly. It's not what they did on Feb. 15 that's the root problem anyway. It's what they didn't (and still won't) do to prevent a disaster like this from happening in the first place.
A neglectful babysitter doesn't get credit for saving five of the six kids he or she is charged with overseeing from downing in the pool, no matter how "quick" their "action" on the day of the disaster.
Yes, but the pool guy who was in charge of keeping the chlorine at the right levels doesn't get blamed, either, even though he is also responsible in that sense for pool safety. Was ERCOT the babysitter or the pool guy?
I'm not sure why you're so hell bent on defending ERCOT here, but you should know that you're not required to defend authority/power every time it fails the people.
1. ERCOT is the authority responsible for keeping our power grid online in Texas.
2. Their failure to do so resulted in the unnecessary deaths of dozens and put millions of others at risk.
3. They knew our system wasn't winterized and needed to be.
ERCOT isn't some bit player here. It is the agency responsible for this disaster. The burden of proof is on them, not us, to explain why they can't fulfill their one function in a way that keeps us peons heated (and alive in some cases) during a single week of unusually cold temperatures.
I'm not defending anyone, I am interested in the truth. The burden of proof is on me if I want to understand what happened and why.
We know what happened and why. We're to the "shift blame and cover our ass" stage at this point. And you're taking the side of authority ... again.
We've known for decades that our system can't handle extreme cold and that winterizing equipment would change that. As a state, we've just decided that sacrificing lives every 10, 20, 30 years is fine as long as it saves us a little money in the short term. And instead of holding those who made that determination accountable, we've given the agency responsible for a reliable power grid sovereign immunity and shielded them of all legal ramifications of their impotence/incompetence. It's gross.
If ERCOT isn't actually responsible for or capable of ensuring reliable electricity to Texans who pay good money for it, then it needs to be replaced with an agency that has the expertise and teeth necessary to do the job. It's really that simple.