Grim Day on the Texas Power Grid

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
151 replies · 14K views
Engineering news on Phys.org
This is the sort of thing that 'small government' often doesn't deal with until it's too late. The better off section of the population can often buy their ways out of such temporary problems but the poorer section really suffer.
They should listen to the Engineers and not the sales force for safer planning decisions.
 
chemisttree said:
Just wait till August!

Lots of unplanned outages right after Abbott required them to winterize their equipment. Get what we deserve!
We are having August temps in June, hence the problem
 
anorlunda said:
Later in the article, they mention the "capacity market" that Texas does not have, but other states do have. In NY, we call that ICAP. ICAP pays generators for being capable of delivering energy, and bidding in the daily markets. The purpose of ICAP is to prevent bad guys like Enron from boosting prices by withholding capacity, or faking malfunctions. If ICAP payments are substantial, power generators want the payments badly. The key relevant here is, what do the power plants need to do to qualify for ICAP payments? Thinks like winterproofing for example.

Critics say ICAP pays providers for doing nothing, and Texas doesn't have it. But I agree with the WSJ that the lack of ICAP in Texas is a major blunder.
The capacity market argument applies regardless of weather. Other markets have it, but Texas rejected it, claiming that energy price alone was sufficient to assure reliability.

In brief: ICAP pays generating plants to be ready to bid in the daily energy markets. Those making the payment get to define what "ready" means. It can include winterizing, maintenance, third party inspections, and much more. If the ICAP payments are substantial enough (let's say 1/3 to 1/2 of their gross income), plants can't afford to forgo those payments and they will jump through whatever hoops needed to get them.

The Texas position is that in times of scarcity, prices go higher, but only those ready to generate can receive those high prices, and that is sufficient motive to make the power plants jump through the hoops. Variable pricing is present in all markets, but the other markets believe that ICAP is also needed.

It's certainly a fair criticism of energy deregulation that the design of the markets is so complex that they must be designed by expert energy analysts, not designed by legislators, not by finance wizards, not by lawyers. But politicians can't resist the temptation to expand their own powers. Regulatory agencies that I'm familiar with have a 400:1 ratio of lawyers to engineers on their permanent staffs.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
anorlunda said:
Regulatory agencies that I'm familiar with have a 400:1 ratio of lawyers to engineers on their permanent staffs.
Yes, that's a problem. However, government agencies can leverage engineering from industry and academic engineering sources. They can't do that with their lawyers. The lawyers can, in effect, force the industry to do their engineering for them.
 
However regulators can simply stop beneficial innovation as an incentive exists to not approve anything as they gain no benefit personally if the innovation works, but ruins their career if something bad happens - for example private pilots, who lack the lobbying ability of airlines will complain about the lack of approvals for new small aircraft design
 
DaveE said:
Yes, that's a problem. However, government agencies can leverage engineering from industry and academic engineering sources. They can't do that with their lawyers. The lawyers can, in effect, force the industry to do their engineering for them.

Regulations should give broad mandates such as, "Industry shall make a set of rules that provides reliable and affordable power to the residents of this state." But most often they give highly detailed regulations that go on for hundreds or thousands of pages. They don't want to delegate decision making power to the private sector.

During the 1980 Presidential election, Regan argued that federal regulators were creating 25,000 new pages of regulations every year. (Or was it every day?) Either way, it's too much. I wonder what that number is today for federal+state regulators.

Once again, be cautious in replies. This thread dances on the outer limits of politics allowed on PF. If it becomes heated, the mentors will close it.
 
anorlunda said:
Once again, be cautious in replies. This thread dances on the outer limits of politics allowed on PF. If it becomes heated, the mentors will close it.
Interesting. I didn't think there was any political content in these posts.
 
Texas is not the only place with concerns. Meanwhile, in California:

https://news.yahoo.com/california-walking-tight-rope-hydropower-110000393.html
Already in the state, hydropower is down about 40% this month compared with June 2020, according to BNEF. At the Hoover Dam, on the Nevada-Arizona border, capacity has fallen about 25%, with the site’s reservoir at its lowest point since 1937.
 
This article suggests that Texas will move toward a capacity market. That is what I advocated in this thread under the name ICAP. But they are still letting politicians make the decisions rather than engineers. Worse, it has become a Republican/Democrat politicized issue.

https://www.chronline.com/stories/t...id-are-a-shift-for-gov-greg-abbott-gop,269649
But even though the incentives are allocated only to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors, which Republicans favor, the use of taxpayer money or government-imposed fees to ensure Texas has an adequate power supply during peak electricity demand is more in line with an electric grid operating setup known as a "capacity market," a concept that has been favored by Democrats.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Fisherman199
@anorlunda I don't know that much about TX but wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US of which they are apart of than to try to "invent the wheel" again all by themselves?
Because from what I understand they can produce their own consumption worth of electricity under normal circumstances they just run short under extreme weather and in case of grid/ power plant malfunction which also happens mostly under extreme weather or extreme weather induced load increase.

In other words they seem to be fine as long as things are normal but simply lack the reserve for unexpected load or plant shutdowns
 
artis said:
@anorlunda I don't know that much about TX but wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US of which they are apart of than to try to "invent the wheel" again all by themselves?
Nope, that wouldn't be enough. Buried in the details of that cold day, their biggest neighbor Oklahoma was experiencing similar problems. But the Texas headlines pushed the Oklahoma news off of the front page. Also, Oklahoma is well interconnected with Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas.

Interconnection is a great thing. It helps avoid many potential shortages. But it is never enough to make up for a shortfall as big as 60% of capacity. Using very rough numbers, you could use interconnections to make up a 10% shortfall.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: chemisttree and hmmm27
artis said:
wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US
There is also the question, who do you mean by "them?"
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE and anorlunda
Bystander said:
Indiscriminate and excessive use of the word "they" has been my trigger/alarm word. Lack of specificity in identification of groups, e.g., use of "they" rather than "lawyers/ contractors/ building inspectors/military industrial complex" in construction/s of arguments equals conspiracy theory adherent/paranoid, usually followed with the "Heller Argument."

gmax137 said:
There is also the question, who do you mean by "them?"
 
by them I mean the TX utilities, the ones that control, own and operate the TX grid
 
artis said:
by them I mean the TX utilities, the ones that control, own and operate the TX grid
chemisttree said:
Right of way costs too much? Too politically unpopular to condemn that much real estate?
Your both right. New transmission is very expensive and it generates about one lawsuit per mile. But there's another reason.

To benefit those transmission lines in a case like this, the neighboring states need sufficient excess generation to send. Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana have GDPs lower than Texas, so it is highly unlikely that they would have enough unused capacity to run more than half of Texas.

I'm sure that interconnections could enable Texas to rescue its smaller neighbors in case of emergencies, but not so much visa versa.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chemisttree, sophiecentaur and Klystron
artis said:
by them I mean the TX utilities.
The electric market in Texas is deregulated. A quick search shows about 6 big T&D operators and dozens of smaller ones. They're all in business to make money today, by competing with each other. Pay back on transmission lines is over decades or longer.

In my mind, this is a big problem with the deregulated model. In the old days, the "power company" made money selling bonds to build out the infrastructure. More building = more bonds = more money. Who is going to do that now?

Especially when, as @anorlunda says, the interconnects are unlikely to ever bring power into the state.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE and sophiecentaur
anorlunda said:
Texas is not the only place with concerns. Meanwhile, in California:
I can't imagine the cost of the miles of direct burial cable they are going to put in. Any Idea how much it may cost? Got to be millions?
 
The argument the Texans use is that it is a matter of independence. If they interconnect to neighboring states that puts the whole Texas grid subject to Federal regulation. THAT is something the Texans will not stand for!

(So far anyhow. I suppose more outages could change their minds.)
 
anorlunda said:
The population of Texas is nearly half that of the UK.
The GDP of Texas is nearly 2/3 that of the UK.
Do you call that small?
Interesting misunderstand there; sorry.
The phrase “small government” is used over here to describe a system in which the state is allowed minimal influence on private organizations.
This is the opposite to tight state control, as, as in totalitarian governments. (Big government). The state oversees all operations in extreme cases.
Using the phrase was not a quality judgement; more an Engineering description.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda
dlgoff said:
I can't imagine the cost of the miles of direct burial cable they are going to put in. Any Idea how much it may cost? Got to be millions?
It varies so much that it's hard to give a single number. This http://sites.utexas.edu/energyinstitute/files/2016/11/UTAustin_FCe_TransmissionCosts_2016.pdfsays $2,500 per MW mile. Underground cables typically 7x more per mile than overhead, so $17,500 per MW mile. The California peak load is about 45 GW, so to transmit 10% of that 500 miles underground, the initial cost would be roughly 45*0.1*1000*17500=$7.8 billion. Those numbers are for transmission, distribution needs a separate calculation.

There are also many engineering problems with long distance underground cables. Probably off topic for this thread.
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: dlgoff and sophiecentaur
@anorlunda
How about the transformers. Will they be underground also? I guess I'm thinking the distribution transformers. Would there be more than two transmission transformers?
 
Last edited:
anorlunda said:
This article suggests that Texas will move toward a capacity market. That is what I advocated in this thread under the name ICAP. But they are still letting politicians make the decisions rather than engineers. Worse, it has become a Republican/Democrat politicized issue.
Hasn't everything, now? Power and associated utilities cannot be removed from political discussion. They're too closely inter-twined. A capacity market seems the only good way for Texas to continue.
 

Similar threads

The Grim Power Outlook Spreads Beyond Texas
  • anorlunda
  • · Replies 17 ·
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
17
What can we learn from Texas' power grid failure?
  • jim mcnamara
  • · Replies 73 ·
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
73