1004
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
1004 points (98.8% liked)
News
36366 readers
773 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hot take: The ruling is accurate.
Vote for candidates who privatize utilities. Get what you vote for.
Only sucks for those that can't leave and are stuck with a system they can't correct.
Capitalism 👌
As one of those people who is stuck in the system I can’t correct: I agree.
I had to shit in grocery bags for a week because my toilet was frozen solid. But the blame only partly lies on the power companies. The vast majority of the blame lies on the regulatory agency who had the opportunity to require winterized gear for power plants… And repeatedly refused to do so.
Companies will always choose the cheapest option for whatever market they’re in. And winterizing all your gear is expensive when compared to… Well… Not. Could they have taken the initiative and winterized anyways? Absolutely. But if there’s one thing humans are generally really really bad at, it’s emergency preparedness. Because nobody wants to spend a ton of money building an earthquake-resistant home until after they experience their first earthquake. But that’s why building codes exist, to ensure everyone is forced to build to a minimum safe standard. To use this same metaphor, the building codes didn’t require winterized gear, so the companies didn’t build winterized gear. The fault primarily lies with the people who wrote the building codes, while knowing full well that the area could and would experience winter weather.
ERCOT is the regulatory agency that set those standards, and ERCOT is the agency that refused to require winterized gear. It wouldn’t be fair to penalize the power companies for failing to provide power, when ERCOT should have ensured their facilities were adequately prepared. It would also set a weird precedent to require companies to provide something in a disaster. Yes, they’re utility companies, and are subject to more regulation than most. But does this also mean they could be penalized for downed power lines during a tornado, or for blown transformers during a hurricane flood in Houston?
Right, but also power delivery shouldn't be privatized at all. Sure the energy providers might not technically be at fault, but having a corporate middle man providing an essential service is ridiculous. We shouldn't be talking about electricity providers as corporate entities at all. But you are still technically correct
That would take away their liberties!
I'm sorry you had to go through that, and even more sorry your vote isn't joined by others in greater numbers.
Absolutely. Protecting profits and shareholders is priority #1.
GOP: "Cry more, peasants."
How can a power company realistically be compelled to provide power, in an emergency? They cannot guarantee that any more than a police officer can guarantee their ability to protect you.
Such a law could only be there to create scapegoats for politicians to hang after they botch the response to a natural disaster or some minor event that significantly disrupts power distribution.
SLOs and SLAs are a thing. And yes, they do and can guarantee power to enterprises that pay for it. So it’s not a matter of “if” but, like all things Texans, “how much”.
IMO it should be less about compelling them during an emergency as ensuring adequate disaster preparation and grid stability well before an emergency. Not much to do once the damage is already done other than figure out how to ensure it won’t happen again.
Friendly reminder about the event in question: the temperature wasn’t even THAT cold (minimum 0F IIRC). Much of the world deals with ice storms and freezing temperatures without the entire grid failing. I understand a state that deals with heat more than cold being less prepared for ice, but the lesson should need to be learned only once.
Of course, the problem as well as the solution was already recognized - distributed systems to provide redundancy. That would require being regulated nationally, which is far worse for them than some people dying.
This exact problem is systematised in software and other infrastructure regions. Even hospitals for example have backup generators.
The problem is that power companies making resilient grids eats into their profits and so they won’t do it unless they’re compelled to
Power companies don't make grids its the independent operator, in Texas' case ERCOT, who reported on this potentiality many times but did not receive direction to require facilities to cold proof their gas infrastructure or mediate the risk through gas storage etc. The power companies can't be held liable for what wasn't required of them and the regulator can't because they publicized the risk and recommended it. Ultimately it's the government at fault.
I'm on board with this. It goes to my original coment, though. It's not just the government's fault. It's the people's fault for electing them.
This is the same for other jurisdictions as well, it's just that emergency situations will be investigated. The northeast blackout is another use case in North America and it happened in August so things were much different. We've had ice storms that took out transmission infrastructure too. Ultimately the regulator in Texas case actually reported on these risks and recommended changes to regulations.