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?

---

ERCOT does not:
Own, operate or have any enforcement authority over any electric generation facilities or any
electric transmission or distribution lines or substations.

• Sell or send bills for retail electricity to residences or businesses.
• Control or operate electric service to local areas, neighborhoods or individual premises.
• Establish pricing or rates for retail electric customers.
• Have any direct customer relationships with the public.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/226271/Texas_Legislature_Hearings_2-25-2021.pdf

Approximately 48.6% of generation was forced out at the highest point due to the impacts of various extreme weather conditions.

Peak Generation Out: 48.6%
52,277 MW out of 107,514 MW total installed capacity

This is from ERCOT's slide presentation to the Thursday legislative hearing.
http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/226271/Texas_Legislature_Hearings_2-25-2021.pdf

I will also point out that neither the PUC nor ERCOT regulate nat gas pipelines

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Let's change the question. Why are they incapable? Not what are the the results of their incompetence but why are they incompetent?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Let's change the question. Why are they incapable? Not what are the the results of their incompetence but why are they incompetent?

---

ERCOT doesn't have the tools in their statutory toolbox to make generators winterize their generators.

ERCOT does not:
Own, operate or have any enforcement authority over any electric generation facilities or any
electric transmission or distribution lines or substations.

• Sell or send bills for retail electricity to residences or businesses.
• Control or operate electric service to local areas, neighborhoods or individual premises.
• Establish pricing or rates for retail electric customers.
• Have any direct customer relationships with the public.

http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/226271/Texas_Legislature_Hearings_2-25-2021.pdf

Approximately 48.6% of generation was forced out at the highest point due to the impacts of various extreme weather conditions.

Peak Generation Out: 48.6%
52,277 MW out of 107,514 MW total installed capacity

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Generation owners and operators are not required to implement any minimum weatherization standard or perform an exhaustive review of cold weather vulnerability. No entity, including the PUC or ERCOT, has rules to enforce compliance with weatherization plans or enforce minimum weatherization standards.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Generation owners and operators are not required to implement any minimum weatherization standard or perform an exhaustive review of cold weather vulnerability. No entity, including the PUC or ERCOT, has rules to enforce compliance with weatherization plans or enforce minimum weatherization standards.

---

This comes from what source?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Generation owners and operators are not required to implement any minimum weatherization standard or perform an exhaustive review of cold weather vulnerability. No entity, including the PUC or ERCOT, has rules to enforce compliance with weatherization plans or enforce minimum weatherization standards.

---

This comes from what source?

---

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.39.htm

Look at PURA Sec 39.151
This section does not contain a delegation of authority to either ERCOT or the PUCT to enforce compliance of generators with recommendations of ERCOT. Click on the link. It is long. Excerpted below is subsection (a), the delegation of authority.

SUBCHAPTER D. MARKET STRUCTURE

Sec. 39.151. ESSENTIAL ORGANIZATIONS. (a) A power region must establish one or more independent organizations to perform the following functions:
(1) ensure access to the transmission and distribution systems for all buyers and sellers of electricity on nondiscriminatory terms;
(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;
(3) ensure that information relating to a customer's choice of retail electric provider is conveyed in a timely manner to the persons who need that information; and
(4) ensure that electricity production and delivery are accurately accounted for among the generators and wholesale buyers and sellers in the region.

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Generation owners and operators are not required to implement any minimum weatherization standard or perform an exhaustive review of cold weather vulnerability. No entity, including the PUC or ERCOT, has rules to enforce compliance with weatherization plans or enforce minimum weatherization standards.

---

This comes from what source?

---

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.39.htm

Look at PURA Sec 39.151
This section does not contain a delegation of authority to either ERCOT or the PUCT to enforce compliance of generators with recommendations of ERCOT. Click on the link. It is long. Excerpted below is subsection (a), the delegation of authority.

SUBCHAPTER D. MARKET STRUCTURE

Sec. 39.151. ESSENTIAL ORGANIZATIONS. (a) A power region must establish one or more independent organizations to perform the following functions:
(1) ensure access to the transmission and distribution systems for all buyers and sellers of electricity on nondiscriminatory terms;
(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;
(3) ensure that information relating to a customer's choice of retail electric provider is conveyed in a timely manner to the persons who need that information; and
(4) ensure that electricity production and delivery are accurately accounted for among the generators and wholesale buyers and sellers in the region.

---

It seems to me then that the problems lie with the generators for not winterizing their plants and with the legislature for not providing ERCOT with the enforcement powers they needed.

*why does ERCOT not have enforcement powers?
*has ERCOT requested enforcement powers?
*if ERCOT requested enforcement powers, who shot it down and why?
*are ERCOT recommendations part of the public record?
* have generators attempted to winterize facilities?
*what are the barriers to winterization?

*always follow the money of the lobbyist on every side of the issue.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

Generation owners and operators are not required to implement any minimum weatherization standard or perform an exhaustive review of cold weather vulnerability. No entity, including the PUC or ERCOT, has rules to enforce compliance with weatherization plans or enforce minimum weatherization standards.

---

This comes from what source?

---

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/UT/htm/UT.39.htm

Look at PURA Sec 39.151
This section does not contain a delegation of authority to either ERCOT or the PUCT to enforce compliance of generators with recommendations of ERCOT. Click on the link. It is long. Excerpted below is subsection (a), the delegation of authority.

SUBCHAPTER D. MARKET STRUCTURE

Sec. 39.151. ESSENTIAL ORGANIZATIONS. (a) A power region must establish one or more independent organizations to perform the following functions:
(1) ensure access to the transmission and distribution systems for all buyers and sellers of electricity on nondiscriminatory terms;
(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;
(3) ensure that information relating to a customer's choice of retail electric provider is conveyed in a timely manner to the persons who need that information; and
(4) ensure that electricity production and delivery are accurately accounted for among the generators and wholesale buyers and sellers in the region.

---

It seems to me then that the problems lie with the generators for not winterizing their plants and with the legislature for not providing ERCOT with the enforcement powers they needed.

*why does ERCOT not have enforcement powers?
*has ERCOT requested enforcement powers?
*if ERCOT requested enforcement powers, who shot it down and why?
*are ERCOT recommendations part of the public record?
* have generators attempted to winterize facilities?
*what are the barriers to winterization?

*always follow the money of the lobbyist on every side of the issue.

---

Your first sentence is also my conclusion.

Your questions are excellent. I don't know the answers

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Try this analogy: The job of every football coach at Baylor has been to win football games. There was a long time period when those coaches were never given the tools to do their jobs (money, facilities, etc). Should we have expected as much from Bill Beall as we do from Aranda?

Is it better to go first to the knee-jerk and then to the fact-finding. I've checked with some of my BLM friends and they all think that is the best way.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Try this analogy: The job of every football coach at Baylor has been to win football games. There was a long time period when those coaches were never given the tools to do their jobs (money, facilities, etc). Should we have expected as much from Bill Beall as we do from Aranda?

Is it better to go first to the knee-jerk and then to the fact-finding. I've checked with some of my BLM friends and they all think that is the best way.

---

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Manages the flow of electric power over the bulk power system to approximately 26 million Texas end-use customers.


Must, at all times (24/7/365), balance all consumer demand in the ERCOT region and the power supplied by companies who generate electricity while maintaining system frequency of 60 Hz.

Keep consumption balanced with electric production.

It does not mean regulating the generators to insure adequate production.

Osodecentx said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Manages the flow of electric power over the bulk power system to approximately 26 million Texas end-use customers.


Must, at all times (24/7/365), balance all consumer demand in the ERCOT region and the power supplied by companies who generate electricity while maintaining system frequency of 60 Hz.

Keep consumption balanced with electric production.

It does not mean regulating the generators to insure adequate production.

---

It sure sounds like the word "reliability" would mean that you were ensuring that regional network would reliably produce sufficient amounts of power to provide adequate supply, and there are certainly no stipulations there that say, "unless it's too cold or hot," or "unless the supplier wants to save money on upgrades." In fact, I don't see anything there that stipulates any excuses excepted.

It also sounds like the excuse highlighted in your response is simply akin to, "cut off consumers if the suppliers we oversee can't produce enough for Texas residents."

Malbec said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Try this analogy: The job of every football coach at Baylor has been to win football games. There was a long time period when those coaches were never given the tools to do their jobs (money, facilities, etc). Should we have expected as much from Bill Beall as we do from Aranda?

Is it better to go first to the knee-jerk and then to the fact-finding. I've checked with some of my BLM friends and they all think that is the best way.

---

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

---

My answer is to find the answers to the questions I listed above. Based on the answers given, more questions will come. I think they call it an investigation.

Malbec, who do the generators answer to?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec, who do the generators answer to?

---

Answer to for what? (Not a snarky question, they answer to and for a variety of people and things).

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec, who do the generators answer to?

---

Answer to for what? (Not a snarky question, they answer to and for a variety of people and things).

---

who do they answer to for their reliability or their output?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec, who do the generators answer to?

---

Answer to for what? (Not a snarky question, they answer to and for a variety of people and things).

---

who do they answer to for their reliability or their output?

---

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/25/texas-power-grid-ercot-puc-greg-abbott/#:~:text=Electricity%20generators%2C%20such%20as%20NRG,it%20to%20residents%20and%20businesses.&text=ERCOT%20and%20electric%20utilities%20answer,appointed%20by%20Gov.%20Greg%20Abbott.

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

Malbec said:

---

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

---

go back and read my post then, point out to me where I defended ANYONE?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

---

go back and read my post then, point out to me where I defended ANYONE?

---

Well now, that was not a response to your post, so not sure why you applied it to your position. Something to think about.

Malbec said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

---

go back and read my post then, point out to me where I defended ANYONE?

---

Well now, that was not a response to your post, so not sure why you applied it to your position. Something to think about.

---

your comment was not quoting or responding to anyone specific and the prior post was a link with no comment. Also, I thought about my post prior to making it. It's similar to thinking about complicated problems prior to making accusations. Try it sometime.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

---

go back and read my post then, point out to me where I defended ANYONE?

---

Well now, that was not a response to your post, so not sure why you applied it to your position. Something to think about.

---

your comment was not quoting or responding to anyone specific and the prior post was a link with no comment. Also, I thought about my post prior to making it. It's similar to thinking about complicated problems prior to making accusations. Try it sometime.

---

Then there should have been no reason to assume my post was directed to your comments right? Now you suggest that I was "making accusations"? Holy mackerel! It's two sentences about a personal opinion that I wasn't buying the excuses for ERCOT. Really, what is up with you?

It is credible. I have it on first hand authority from someone in the control room as it happened that the grid was indeed minutes away from crashing entirely. ERCOT did exactly their job, they kept the grid up, because if they hadn't we would still be trying to spool up generation in the dark. People who think of ERCOT as some regulation enforcer have mistaken it for the PUC, which is the actual entity that would enforce regs. It was Abbott's appointees to the PUC that declined to enforce winterization recommendations, and I suspect that is the reason Abbott made sure ERCOT was the first acronym people looked to lay blame on, otherwise the trail would lead back to him and Rick Perry.

Malbec said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Malbec said:

---

Quote:

---

(2) ensure the reliability and adequacy of the regional electrical network;

---

What does that mean to you?

---

Manages the flow of electric power over the bulk power system to approximately 26 million Texas end-use customers.


Must, at all times (24/7/365), balance all consumer demand in the ERCOT region and the power supplied by companies who generate electricity while maintaining system frequency of 60 Hz.

Keep consumption balanced with electric production.

It does not mean regulating the generators to insure adequate production.

---

It sure sounds like the word "reliability" would mean that you were ensuring that regional network would reliably produce sufficient amounts of power to provide adequate supply, and there are certainly no stipulations there that say, "unless it's too cold or hot," or "unless the supplier wants to save money on upgrades." In fact, I don't see anything there that stipulates any excuses excepted.

It also sounds like the excuse highlighted in your response is simply akin to, "cut off consumers if the suppliers we oversee can't produce enough for Texas residents."

---

Yes, it does. A change of law would be required to give ERCOT that authority. A better place would be the PUCT.

While you're doing a colonoscopy of ERCOT (well-deserved IMO), include the PUC in that exam.

drahthaar said:

---

While you're doing a colonoscopy of ERCOT (well-deserved IMO), include the PUC in that exam.

---

Don't forget the Railroad Commission. They regulate natural gas pipelines, the one that froze up

Malbec said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Malbec said:

---

I appreciate the excuses for ERCOT offered with conviction. I'm just not buying it.

---

go back and read my post then, point out to me where I defended ANYONE?

---

Well now, that was not a response to your post, so not sure why you applied it to your position. Something to think about.

---

your comment was not quoting or responding to anyone specific and the prior post was a link with no comment. Also, I thought about my post prior to making it. It's similar to thinking about complicated problems prior to making accusations. Try it sometime.

---

Then there should have been no reason to assume my post was directed to your comments right? Now you suggest that I was "making accusations"? Holy mackerel! It's two sentences about a personal opinion that I wasn't buying the excuses for ERCOT. Really, what is up with you?

---

Now that you have that out of your system, how do you suggest the governor go about finding the issues. (I used the plural on purpose)

Hope the rest of you day is better

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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."

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.

---

If it's replaced by another agency that lacks the power to enforce winterization, what have you accplished?

The key question is simply who had the power to force utilities to winterize. Whoever that is failed harder than anyone else. It would not be surprising to find it's the Texas state legislature. Texas had to try hard to make sure the feds couldn't force them to winterize.

Porteroso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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."

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.

---

If it's replaced by another agency that lacks the power to enforce winterization, what have you accplished?

The key question is simply who had the power to force utilities to winterize. Whoever that is failed harder than anyone else. It would not be surprising to find it's the Texas state legislature. Texas had to try hard to make sure the feds couldn't force them to winterize.

---

The answer of who all failed very likely is "all of the above."

But ERCOT has rubbed me the wrong way with its callous, ass-covering response to an avoidable disaster that cost dozens -- including a handful of children -- their lives.

bear2be2 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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?

---

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."

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.

---

If it's replaced by another agency that lacks the power to enforce winterization, what have you accplished?

The key question is simply who had the power to force utilities to winterize. Whoever that is failed harder than anyone else. It would not be surprising to find it's the Texas state legislature. Texas had to try hard to make sure the feds couldn't force them to winterize.

---

The answer of who all failed very likely is "all of the above."

But ERCOT has rubbed me the wrong way with its callous, ass-covering response to an avoidable disaster that cost dozens -- including a handful of children -- their lives.

---

I agree. When everyone says "not our fault" it's a little hard to believe all of them.

DC's question is valid, and I also would like to know what authority over winterization ERCOT had.

boognish_bear said:

---

---

I read this article last week. I tried to find the data on which the authors relied, but it isn't available (at least to someone with my research skills). I shop and I'm paying less than every regulated utility in Texas (municipal electrics and co-ops).

I can't tell if they refer to the regulated portions of ERCOT (munis and co-ops), the parts of Texas not in ERCOT e.g. Panhandle, E. Texas, or if they are comparing the deregulation portion of Texas fairly. I'd love to see their data as well as their conclusions

Chairman of the PUC resigned today

Osodecentx said:

---

Chairman of the PUC resigned today

---

This is a first class mess. I put up a link to the Brazos Electric BK filing story..They are the wholesale power supplier for their 16 member owned distribution co-ops. BEPC apparently got a bill from ERCOT for nearly 2 Billion dollars , and that put them in BK. Reminds me of a family dinner outing where everyone's looking at each other to see who's gonna pay the bill. It will come back to the taxpayer...as everything always does.