In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
When was the last ice storm that caused grid problems throughout the state of Texas?
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
When was the last ice storm that caused grid problems throughout the state of Texas?
I was here in 2011 for that snowstorm. I drove to work every single day. I also took the dogs to the dog park. Last week was much different. The roads were undriveble for a week. Mail didn't get delivered. Amazon and UPS trucks sat in the parking lot undriven. It was below freezing all week and there was ice on the road all week. Pipes burst in apartments and houses never designed to withstand below freezing cold.
If this becomes the new normal because of climate change, El Nino or whatever, changes will have to be made. Expensive changes. If it is a 100 year event, not so much.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
When was the last ice storm that caused grid problems throughout the state of Texas?
2011. It was not on the same magnitude. And it is possible that they improved the grid so that a storm of the same caliber as 2011 would have had minimal impact, and this one was so much worse that the improvements were not enough. I don't know anything about it.
Its ultimately a pretty simple equation: At what point is (Cost of Upgrades)<(Cost of Damage+Opportunity Cost), tempered by the chances of it happening again. And the actuaries will be figuring that out. People will pay for it one way or another, either by increased utility costs to upgrade the grid (maybe a good time to buy some Texas utility stocks?*), or through increased insurance rates.
*Yes, I remember Enron.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I've been in Texas most my life and concur this time around was different. I've experienced these kind of conditions in New Mexico,Colorado, and several states in New England area, but never here. We've never had it get so cold and more importantly stay cold that everything just froze and stayed frozen. I had to use a hammer to break thru 2 inches of ice on my walk/drive way.
A slick salesmen tried to sell me Griddy a few years ago. My concerns were that there was no upper limit on how high prices could go - they followed the market, and that you had to sign up for automatic payments out of your checking account and there was no limit to that either. Now people are screaming because Griddy took $8,000 out of their checking account last week and they had no money for rent, house payments, food or anything else. Griddy says they have the right to do it because you signed the contract. Politicians here are running for cover on this one. There is at least one class action suit against Griddy. Another big mess.
Where are we pulling the billions of dollars in additional costs from?
Windmills elsewhere in the states have de-icing on the blades. Natural gas generators all across the snow states have similar tech.
While Texas did benefit from slightly lower electricity costs, it wasn't like it was blowing everyone else out of the water. It was kinda upper-mid pack in terms of pricing.
Who were those cost savings benefiting? Shareholders? Utility employees?
That's where my concern is: deregulation for the customer's benefit is one thing, deregulation so that CEOs and shareholders and private ownership can get rich is another.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:A slick salesmen tried to sell me Griddy a few years ago. My concerns were that there was no upper limit on how high prices could go - they followed the market, and that you had to sign up for automatic payments out of your checking account and there was no limit to that either. Now people are screaming because Griddy took $8,000 out of their checking account last week and they had no money for rent, house payments, food or anything else. Griddy says they have the right to do it because you signed the contract. Politicians here are running for cover on this one. There is at least one class action suit against Griddy. Another big mess.
You're smarter than most. I'm sure that Griddy will be somehow held accountable; from a goodwill perspective they should lower all the bills on their own, but I don't really see how they're in the wrong here... Except, of course, from a "don't be an shiny happy person" perspective.
Subscriber-unavailabile said:In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I've been in Texas most my life and concur this time around was different. I've experienced these kind of conditions in New Mexico,Colorado, and several states in New England area, but never here. We've never had it get so cold and more importantly stay cold that everything just froze and stayed frozen. I had to use a hammer to break thru 2 inches of ice on my walk/drive way.
I used to live in Vail, Colorado. We would get storms a lot worse that what I saw in Texas last week. I would actually have to go out the back door and get a snow shovel because there was 8 feet, yes feet, of snow packed against my front door. Still, I could shovel my front porch, throw my skis in the back of my Bronco II and be in line before the lifts opened with a stop for coffee at the gas station. The difference was that the Town of Vail was running about six snowplows all night long and snow got pushed off the road long before it could melt and then turn to ice. They were also dumping saline solution from the backs of the snowplow trucks. The State of Colorado had even more snowplows going up and down I-70 making sure that the 18 wheelers and day skiers from Denver could get through Vail Pass. They were putting snow in dumptrucks and hauling it out of town. The ski resort would dump salt on every functional sidewalk so people could walk around the Village and have breakfast before they ski and not have to worry about slipping and falling in their ski boots. This was on a day that was below zero, not just below freezing, and there was 8 feet of snow on the ground in some areas. A whole lot worse than Dallas was last week.
It's all about preparation.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:A slick salesmen tried to sell me Griddy a few years ago. My concerns were that there was no upper limit on how high prices could go - they followed the market, and that you had to sign up for automatic payments out of your checking account and there was no limit to that either. Now people are screaming because Griddy took $8,000 out of their checking account last week and they had no money for rent, house payments, food or anything else. Griddy says they have the right to do it because you signed the contract. Politicians here are running for cover on this one. There is at least one class action suit against Griddy. Another big mess.
You're smarter than most. I'm sure that Griddy will be somehow held accountable; from a goodwill perspective they should lower all the bills on their own, but I don't really see how they're in the wrong here... Except, of course, from a "don't be an shiny happy person" perspective.
All that was clearly in the contract when I read it. It's not really rocket science. Part of the sales pitch at the time was that Griddy was only for sophisticated investors who knew how markets worked, yet a lot of the people I read about who got screwed hard by Griddy were low income people who lived in apartments and really weren't saving that much to begin with. They were screaming because they didn't understand what happened to all the money in their bank account. Sophisticated indeed.
In reply to pheller :
Burying the power grid, uprating all buildings for sub 10 degree weather so plumbing doesn't freeze, buying the equipment to remove snow and ice from all the roads, deicing tech for renewable power producers, adding enough generation capacity to keep millions of 10kw emergency heat strips running for days on end. The list could go on and on and the costs would be in the billions. It's not worth it for an area that has never seen a storm like this before and probably won't again for decades or centuries.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
It doesn't look like a Griddy issue. It looks more like a PUCT issue, the government agency that sets the price of generated power. They raised the rate from $.12 to $9.00 per Kwh. Griddy customers got exactly what they signed up for, cost plus electric rates.
Link: https://www.griddy.com/post/griddy-update-why-energy-prices-were-sky-high-this-week
pheller said:Where are we pulling the billions of dollars in additional costs from?
Windmills elsewhere in the states have de-icing on the blades. Natural gas generators all across the snow states have similar tech.While Texas did benefit from slightly lower electricity costs, it wasn't like it was blowing everyone else out of the water. It was kinda upper-mid pack in terms of pricing.
Who were those cost savings benefiting? Shareholders? Utility employees?
That's where my concern is: deregulation for the customer's benefit is one thing, deregulation so that CEOs and shareholders and private ownership can get rich is another.
I think the whole point of deregulation is to be able to run a big shell game and hide the real price of what you are buying. Our health care system has been running that way for years. The electricity market in Texas is like that too. All kinds of fees, charges and small print that make comparing KW hours irrelevant. When Texas deregulated a few years ago I heard a few pitches, saw the shell game come out and decided to chuck it all and stay with TXU. The state was actually using taxpayer money to send me letters stating that I didn't need to stay with my old provider and that I had the "power to change". I'm probably leaving some money on the table but I have never been screwed really badly. All the sales pitches just make my head hurt.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to pheller :
Burying the power grid, uprating all buildings for sub 10 degree weather so plumbing doesn't freeze, buying the equipment to remove snow and ice from all the roads, deicing tech for renewable power producers, adding enough generation capacity to keep millions of 10kw emergency heat strips running for days on end. The list could go on and on and the costs would be in the billions. It's not worth it for an area that has never seen a storm like this before and probably won't again for decades or centuries.
It's just that we're getting a storm of the century pretty darn often lately.
Besides investing in our own country is the absolute best use of our tax dollars. It hires locals, pays a good wage with benefits. They pay taxes on that income. Using American made products Keeps the work force vital. Strengthens investment in the industries involved in make wiring, plumbing etc etc
Troublesome area's ( ghetto's ) can be updated and brought up to a good standard. Roads can be upgraded. The thousands of neglected Bridges and millions of miles of leaking waste/water/natural gas/etc pipe can be brought to a higher standard.
I realize few want higher taxes, so we prioritize our spending where it does the most good for Americans. Infrastructure. Instead of going off to start a war in some dinky country on the opposite side of the globe.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:pheller said:Where are we pulling the billions of dollars in additional costs from?
Windmills elsewhere in the states have de-icing on the blades. Natural gas generators all across the snow states have similar tech.While Texas did benefit from slightly lower electricity costs, it wasn't like it was blowing everyone else out of the water. It was kinda upper-mid pack in terms of pricing.
Who were those cost savings benefiting? Shareholders? Utility employees?
That's where my concern is: deregulation for the customer's benefit is one thing, deregulation so that CEOs and shareholders and private ownership can get rich is another.
I think the whole point of deregulation is to be able to run a big shell game and hide the real price of what you are buying. Our health care system has been running that way for years. The electricity market in Texas is like that too. All kinds of fees, charges and small print that make comparing KW hours irrelevant. When Texas deregulated a few years ago I heard a few pitches, saw the shell game come out and decided to chuck it all and stay with TXU. The state was actually using taxpayer money to send me letters stating that I didn't need to stay with my old provider and that I had the "power to change". I'm probably leaving some money on the table but I have never been screwed really badly. All the sales pitches just make my head hurt.
Notice deregulation never is about making our lives better simply about making it easier for the wealthy to make money and protect themselves from the consequences. Banks, insurances, utilities, etc get deregulated. But we can't hunt, fish, race sports cars, etc except with regulations. More and more every year.
In reply to frenchyd :
We don't have a common ground to start that conversation, and this isn't the place to do it. Suffice to say, hard pass.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to pheller :
Burying the power grid, uprating all buildings for sub 10 degree weather so plumbing doesn't freeze, buying the equipment to remove snow and ice from all the roads, deicing tech for renewable power producers, adding enough generation capacity to keep millions of 10kw emergency heat strips running for days on end. The list could go on and on and the costs would be in the billions. It's not worth it for an area that has never seen a storm like this before and probably won't again for decades or centuries.
I live in a newer subdivision where all the electrical actually is buried and less that 10 years old. We had no problems at all. Some of the older parts of town were without power all week. Cheap apartments built in the 80s had flooding from pipes bursting all over the place. Those same apartments are too expensive to heat in the summer because of lack of insulation and most of them that used to be swinging singles communities are now Section 8 rentals. How bad you had it really depended on where you lived, or in what.
I love how people who don't live in Texas, and aren't impacted by this, are the ones saying "nah, let those people die, it only happens occasionally."
In reply to pheller :
Kind of like fires and earthquakes in California.
Or hurricanes in Florida.
Or tornados in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Or floods in Houston and New Orleans.
Or snowstorms in any of the Northern States.
Or the Covid Pandemic pretty much anywhere.
In reply to pheller :
Welcome to the real world.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
When was the last ice storm that caused grid problems throughout the state of Texas?
2011. It was not on the same magnitude. And it is possible that they improved the grid so that a storm of the same caliber as 2011 would have had minimal impact, and this one was so much worse that the improvements were not enough. I don't know anything about it.
Its ultimately a pretty simple equation: At what point is (Cost of Upgrades)<(Cost of Damage+Opportunity Cost), tempered by the chances of it happening again. And the actuaries will be figuring that out. People will pay for it one way or another, either by increased utility costs to upgrade the grid (maybe a good time to buy some Texas utility stocks?*), or through increased insurance rates.
*Yes, I remember Enron.
Why should "they" upgrade the grid? Looks like they make more money when the grid fails. That is a strong financial incentive against upgrading.
It'd be interesting to have polled people prior this event in Texas if the majority of customers would be ok with paying a little bit more to avoid a 2-week power outages during record breaking cold.
It's quite possible that the vast majority of Texas residents would say "nah, it's not likely to happen, so I'm not worried."
This is kinda the Darwinian factor vs the "Should The Government Look Out for People Who Cannot Adequately Determine Risk for Themselves?"
The vast majority of people may not care, should they override the concern of the few who do? Or, instead, should those few who do have concerns look to alternative methods of self preservation, such as generators? Could that self preservation also be a different agreement or price with the electric company?
I'd argue that when you pay for a utility, you pay with the understanding that the power will always be on. Most utility companies do propose investments in the grid to the customer. They believe they know best. Does our electricity bill assume this? That when I pay my power company, I'm assuming they have my best interests in mind, and they'll keep the lights on? If not, I believe I have the right to push laws on them that make clear that contract. If the vast majority of my fellow utility customers don't care about that contract, that shouldn't impact me because I do care about it. If the utility thinks because of that contract I should be charged more, than so be it, but at least I'd go forward with the understanding of "if I don't pay extra, I don't guarantee my electric stability, and I could be without power during a cold spell for two weeks."
It's interesting becasue Libertarians are all about contracts. To me, this is a pretty big breach of contract, and the utilities/power generators should be the ones paying the customers, not the other way around.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to frenchyd :
We don't have a common ground to start that conversation, and this isn't the place to do it. Suffice to say, hard pass.
You are correct.
In reply to pheller :
I would bet, if you read the fine print everyone signs when they get service, they didn't breach the contract. I don't think I've ever read a contract that didn't have a '"Act of God" clause. Most of them have terrorism clauses these days.
I am reminded of a Dead Kennedy's album title: Give Me Convenience, or Give Me Death.
Some things are beyond our reasonable control. You may be inconvenienced. Deal.
Toyman01 (Moderately Supportive Dude) said:In reply to pheller :
I would bet, if you read the fine print everyone signs when they get service, they didn't breach the contract. I don't think I've ever read a contract that didn't have a '"Act of God" clause. Most of them have terrorism clauses these days.
I agree. If there is a %uptime guarantee (many business contracts have this), and they go over, then customers could sue for breach of contract. But no power company is going to guarantee 100% uptime as pheller suggests.
Act of god is such a bullE36 M3 clause though.
You'll need to log in to post.
