Adding insult to injury: Many Texans are about to get stuck with VERY high electricity bills for February

[RegGuheert]

Note that the utilities were paying $9000/MWh for electricity for a couple of days during the worst of the outages.  That is $9/kWh, or about 100 times what we normally pay here in VA.  On colds days like today when it got down to 10° F (just briefly), our all-electric home will consume over 100 kWh of electricity.  Assuming a small markup to $10/kWh, that would cost over $1000 dollars for one day's worth of electricity!!

Here is an article with some more discussion of what may be coming to Texans who are already suffering from this event:

As Texas deep freeze subsides, some households face electricity bills as high as $10,000

[Farrar]

I read that article yesterday and it's just heartbreaking.

I've heard that people are quickly detaching their credit cards and bank accounts from their electric utilities so they don't get bled dry.

[Melissa in Australia]

Shocking 

[Gobblygook]

This just seems wrong!

[prairiewindmomma]

Do you think people should be able to buy power at cost, like the Griddy concept? They have benefitted in the past from cheaper rates than standard utility models. They just got caught up in a rare circumstance where the downside of that risk caught up with them.

I don’t know that you can say that they shouldn’t have to pay unless you also believe some regulation should apply to utilities.

(I am very sympathetic to these families but this is kinda like choosing not to pay for health insurance when you could have and then starting a go fund me when you get appendicitis. They had mainstream options outside of griddy.)

Edited February 21, 2021 by prairiewindmomma

[RegGuheert]

I personally think that ERCOT has created a system under which electricity customers are on the hook for both the consequences AND the costs of failures during extreme conditions.  To use an economics term, they have allowed the electricity providers to externalize those costs and risks associated with extreme conditions onto the consumer.  The problem is that THEY NEVER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Have a look at this article and see how they have presented the idea of an energy-only electricity market:
Summer price spikes are a feature of Texas' power market, not a bug

As you can see, they tell you that that their energy-only market is a great thing.  What they DON'T tell you is that there is another side to this coin:  there is no longer any guaranteed capacity maintained.  That is different from every single other state in the United States, including other states with large amounts of solar and wind generation, such as California.

My flippant attitude tells me that if the power companies cannot guarantee that they will provide electricity, then, by the same measure, the consumers should not have to guarantee that they will pay the bill.  The response would go something along the lines of: "This was an extreme event which has not been seen in our lifetimes, therefore we are not going to be able to pay your over-the-top bill at this time.  Once conditions return to being more normal, we will do our best to start paying our electricity bills again."

Edited February 21, 2021 by RegGuheert
typo

[Bootsie]

19 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

I personally think that ERCOT has created a system under which electricity customers are on the hook for both the consequences AND the costs of failures during extreme conditions.  To use an economics term, they have allowed the electricity providers to externalize those costs and risks associated with extreme conditions onto the consumer.  The problem is that THEY NEVER INFORMED THE CONSUMER THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Have a look at this article and see how they have presented the idea of an energy-only electricity market:
Summer price spikes are a feature of Texas' power market, not a bug

As you can see, they tell you that that their energy-only market is a great thing.  What they DON'T tell you is that there is another side to this coin:  there is no longer any guaranteed capacity maintained.  That is different from every single other state in the United States, including other states with large amounts of solar and wind generation, such as California.

My flippant attitude tells me that if the power companies cannot guarantee that they will provide electricity, then, by the same measure, the consumers should not have to guarantee that they will pay the bill.  The response would go something along the lines of: "This was an extreme event which has not been seen in our lifetimes, therefore we are not going to be able to pay your over-the-top bill at this time.  Once conditions return to being more normal, we will do our best to start paying our electricity bills again."

But, if the utility companies were taking all of the costs and risks themselves, then consumers would pay higher prices for the energy they consume every month.  Yes, we have experienced a horrible event in Texas, but haven't other states had problems that they do not have enough capacity to keep everyone's electricity on when there is high demand?  Do electric companies in other states really guarantee that they will provide electricity regardless of how high demand is?  

[prairiewindmomma]

Our comunity-service provided monthly bill contained a "fuel cost" portion of the bill, and it was clear how that was calculated, as it was printed on the back.  In addition, they included an insert every year reminding us of these provisions. 

I'm playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, in that I think ERCOT's behavior was completely egregious.....but the board really reflects some, uh, somewhat unique Texan values.  Texas fundamentally needs to re-regulate the market, but I think it's going to take a bit of pain and self-reckoning to get there.  

In San Antonio, CPS took down the customer account portal for several days. If you had power, you had no idea what you were paying during those days, because there was no access to the account portal.  CPS is talking about financing the costs of the past week over the next decade so bills aren't egregious next month....but as of yet, they aren't excusing the costs. New Braunfels (between San Antonio and Austin) is making a one-time adjustment.  So, at the moment, every utility is handling this differently, which I think will lead to disparity in handling among Texans unless the legislature steps in.

 

[RegGuheert]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

But, if the utility companies were taking all of the costs and risks themselves, then consumers would pay higher prices for the energy they consume every month.

That sounds like a statement of faith, but you have not provided evidence.  I will point out that every other state in the U.S. has a capacity market and that some of those states have lower electricity prices than Texas.

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

That sounds like a statement of faith, but you have not provided evidence.  I will point out that every other state in the U.S. has a capacity market and that some of those states have lower electricity prices than Texas.

I think what I stated is grounded in basic economic theory.  A company is going to want to be rewarded for risk (if it has to take the risk) or it will take its capital elsewhere.  

I am not sure what it means for every state in the US to have a capacity market.  Does that solve the problem?  Or, have those states with a capacity market ALSO had times in which electricity output has fallen short of electricity demand?  If so, then the fact that Texas does not have a capacity market does not indicate that it is the source of the recent problem or that if Texas did have a capacity market these problems would have been avoided.

[melmichigan]

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul says that federal aid, our tax dollars, will be used to pay these high energy bills, so the energy companies will just further benefit from their greed and lack of preparation.  

[RegGuheert]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

I think what I stated is grounded in basic economic theory.  A company is going to want to be rewarded for risk (if it has to take the risk) or it will take its capital elsewhere.  

I am not sure what it means for every state in the US to have a capacity market.  Does that solve the problem?  Or, have those states with a capacity market ALSO had times in which electricity output has fallen short of electricity demand?  If so, then the fact that Texas does not have a capacity market does not indicate that it is the source of the recent problem or that if Texas did have a capacity market these problems would have been avoided.

I believe you are completely ignoring the GIGANTIC costs which have just been foisted onto every single electricity customer in the form of destroyed property which must now be repaired or replaced. Or do ERCOT and the electricity generators pay for all of those repairs?

As far as whether the capacity market solves the problem:  It always has in the past.  Please note that this recent event in Texas has been predicted for decades for Texas: ever since they eliminated the capacity market.

[melmichigan]

40 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, if the utility companies were taking all of the costs and risks themselves, then consumers would pay higher prices for the energy they consume every month.  Yes, we have experienced a horrible event in Texas, but haven't other states had problems that they do not have enough capacity to keep everyone's electricity on when there is high demand?  Do electric companies in other states really guarantee that they will provide electricity regardless of how high demand is?  

Other states are part of grids, so if one state has an issue, other states feed into the grid.  Here in Michigan, my husband worked overtime all last week because they were full out on the megawatts they were trying to produce to help push it into the grid, to help states that were struggling to keep up with demand.  You can see by the picture below where the lack of interconnection exists.  Michigan can feed to, and receive energy from all those states within its dotted interconnection area.  Because our electricity is regulated the electrical company can only make so much profit and increases to customers have to be approved.

Edited February 22, 2021 by melmichigan

[DoraBora]

As @Dreamergalindicated, the governor and others are looking into this issue.

I'm sorry for these people.  I really am, but I think they bear some responsibility for their choice of electric provider.  

A two minute Google search brought me to this article from August 2019:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/08/20/griddy-customers-report-dramatic-spike/#:~:text=The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is the,BBB claimed Griddy violated its code of advertising.

Another quick search led me here (also August 2019):

https://www.texaselectricityratings.com/blog/my-experience-with-griddy/

Did these current Griddy customers spend even 15 minutes looking into their one-of-a-kind deal?  Did they see anything that gave them pause?

I feel sure that some sort of relief will be offered them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RegGuheert]

Serious question:  Is this only a Griddy thing?

What is happening to customers of other providers?

[Farrar]

23 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul says that federal aid, our tax dollars, will be used to pay these high energy bills, so the energy companies will just further benefit from their greed and lack of preparation.  

This is infuriating to me. So essentially people in Texas suffered because the government refused to spend money on planning ahead or regulate in such a way to force energy companies to plan ahead. The regulation encouraged allowing consumers to get duped into signing onto these variable rates and encouraged the energy companies to profit off that. And now they want federal funds to bail out - not the people who suffered, but the energy companies - without any promises to do things differently.

This is probably too political a statement here, but this, for me, is a core difference dividing line in American politics and policy. One side wants to save money by not spending on planning, but still takes for granted (whether they're for it in the abstract or not) that the government will bail things out when there's a disaster of any sort. The other side wants to spend money to plan ahead. I know which would have been cheaper and not led to so much suffering in this case. The people of Texas would have been better off on any other part of the US electrical grid.

[DoraBora]

6 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

Serious question:  Is this only a Griddy thing?

What is happening to customers of other providers?

Well, I don't know.  😀  Griddy is the only one that I've seen in the stories about people who are seeing bills in the thousands of dollars. 

There was the one woman in your OP article, who is a variable rate customer with Reliant.  She was worried about her bill for next month being roughly double the $63 she paid earlier this month.

I was trying to check what's going on with my usage/bill, but TXU's website seems to be down. 

[DoraBora]

nvm

Edited February 22, 2021 by DoraBora

[melmichigan]

16 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

As @Dreamergalindicated, the governor and others are looking into this issue.

I'm sorry for these people.  I really am, but I think they bear some responsibility for their choice of electric provider.  

When it looked like this would happen, the Public Utilities Commission of Texas ordered ERCOT to allow prices to increase to reflect the lack of supply, allowing prices to skyrocket. It is not only Griddy and Reliant, and common practice is to move customers over to variable rate plans when contracts expire, so many people are probably shocked to find that's what they are on and what the consequences will be. 

[ktgrok]

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

[melmichigan]

12 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

I found this Texas Power Guide.  It's enough to make ones head spin.  I'll take my singe choice with the guaranteed price, thanks.

Even worse, many of the variable programs require real time payment, so they simply swept in and wiped accounts for these people.

Edited February 22, 2021 by melmichigan

[Bootsie]

58 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

I believe you are completely ignoring the GIGANTIC costs which have just been foisted onto every single electricity customer in the form of destroyed property which must now be repaired or replaced. Or do ERCOT and the electricity generators pay for all of those repairs?

As far as whether the capacity market solves the problem:  It always has in the past.  Please note that this recent event in Texas has been predicted for decades for Texas: ever since they eliminated the capacity market.

The costs of repairs are a separate issue from what electricity would have been costing Texans in recent years under a different structure.  Yes, those costs should be considered on a cost/benefit analysis from a societal issue (with the risk of an event being factored in.)

I know people who were without electricity in Oklahoma this past week.  I know people in Louisiana who were without electricity this past week.  So, the capacity market did not solve this problem in those states this past week.  And, I am certain that there have been blackouts in other states besides Texas in recent years.  If a capacity market solves that problem, how/why have there been blackouts in other states with a capacity market? 

[prairiewindmomma]

In TX, you can sign up for an indexed rate, a variable rate, or a fixed rate.

Griddy is a variable rate plan. Most Texans do not have variable rates (but I don’t know the stats on the latest numbers). Most are on fixed rates. I was on a fixed rate with tier pricing when I lived there.

[DoraBora]

47 minutes ago, melmichigan said:

I found this Texas Power Guide.  It's enough to make ones head spin.  I'll take my singe choice with the guaranteed price, thanks.

Even worse, many of the variable programs require real time payment, so they simply swept in and wiped accounts for these people.

If it's too much, people can always go with one of their local long-time providers and choose a fixed rate plan.  There are lots of websites out there to help people choose.  I hadn't heard of anyone being switched from fixed to variable before - that seems unfair.

I also hadn't heard of any companies that require real time payments until this Griddy thing hit the news.  Which others did you find?  That's interesting.  Most people I know of pay a bill once a month for last month's power.  Some prefer a variable plan, some prefer to pay the same amount every month, to smooth out the ups and downs.

At my house, we just brace ourselves every July to pay $500 plus per month through September.

Edited February 22, 2021 by DoraBora

[Shoeless]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

Not really in my area. You get whatever power company services your area.  My area is served by a non-profit electricity co-op with tiered rates. Inside the city limits, the utilities are billed through the city. 

I'm really not sure how the electricity wholesalers work. We've received ads for them before, but it always seemed kind of shady to me. Griddy is based out of California, which somehow makes it seem worse. They were sunny, warm, and passing on enormous bills to their Texas customers. 

Edited to add: Texas is big. This is what it's like in my sliver of the state.  Not everywhere is like DFW.

Edited February 22, 2021 by MissLemon

[Bootsie]

46 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

It depends upon what part of the state you are in.  In some parts it is a municipal company; in other parts it is a private company.  Where I live now, we have a "choice" but it really boils down to who is going to be billing me and how that billing is structured; there is one provider of the electricity.  So, when my electricity goes out it is not the company who I pay that I have to call about the outage.  So, it is really a false sense of "choice."  

There are all types of innovative pricing plans from a traditional pay a flat rate per kilowatt used, to pay only for the KW you use between 8:00am and 8:00pm another other time is free, don't pay for KW on the five days you use the most electricity--just the other 25 days of the month.  

[DoraBora]

53 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

In larger cities, you can choose.  For my Dallas zip code, I can choose between thirty-ish plans offered by half a dozen competing companies.  It wasn't always this way.  When I was a child, we all used the same electric company -- was it Dallas Power and Light?  I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it was one company and one plan.

ETA: Piggybacking on what Bootsie wrote.  We have one wholesale power provider in my area.  They maintain the lines and equipment (I think), but I can choose the company I prefer.  It may well be a false choice!  I like to keep it simple, so I work with a plain old company and a fixed-rate plan.  All the "Free Nights and Weekends" and "Solar Days" are confusing, and I think I wouldn't really end up paying much less anyway.

Edited February 22, 2021 by DoraBora

[melmichigan]

36 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I know people who were without electricity in Oklahoma this past week.  I know people in Louisiana who were without electricity this past week.  So, the capacity market did not solve this problem in those states this past week.  And, I am certain that there have been blackouts in other states besides Texas in recent years.  If a capacity market solves that problem, how/why have there been blackouts in other states with a capacity market? 

The storm, which they named Url, impacted 170 million people and caused the biggest blackout since the Northeast blackout of 2003 (I do remember that one).  5 million people lost their electricity.  4.3 million of them were in Texas.  There really isn't a comparison.

[Halftime Hope]

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

Yes, most of us get quite a few choices. (Some rural areas have a co-op that negotiates for the whole area.)  Most of us choose plans that smooth the cost over a number of months.  When our contracts expire, if we don't renew or choose another contract, we go onto a daily market rate plan, and that can be a financial beating if, for example, the contract expires in early August.  

I know two Griddy customers, and they both claim to have saved thousands of dollars over the last year to 18 months.  They knew that they were on wholesale market rates and it could get bad, but no one knew how high the open market price was going to go.  Griddy themselves were texting their customers and  warning people, last week, several days before this started, to leave the company and get a plan with someone else.  But our bad weather arrived about  48 hours earlier than expected (we had ice on Thursday -- 100 car pile-up in Fort Worth-- it was not supposed to arrive until late day Sunday), and it generally takes a few days to have someone from your new provider contact the service people to get a meter read.

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Halftime Hope

[Shoeless]

28 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I keep paranoidly (yes it is a word, spell check) checking and so far all is calm.  We had power throughout and I do not know if it the calm before the storm or peaceful calm. DH is on red alert. The cheap  frugal person in him will be ready at a moment's notice. I just have to sound the alarm. 

I keep checking ours, too. I know the bill will be high because usage was high. The co-op has a message saying that the effects of this storm won't be reflected in rates and bills for another 4-6 weeks. Rates will go up, but I don't expect to see a $2000 bill.

[RegGuheert]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

The costs of repairs are a separate issue from what electricity would have been costing Texans in recent years under a different structure.  Yes, those costs should be considered on a cost/benefit analysis from a societal issue (with the risk of an event being factored in.)

I suppose you can imagine that they are separate costs until you consider that electricity is an essential service in modern America.  Our cities are not structured like those in parts of India where the power goes out several times every day (literally).  Our systems depend on power being available 24/7.  Anything less than that is a failure and results in costs being incurred by the electricity customers.

I will plot the maps of Texas and Oklahoma outages from last Tuesday morning for everyone's benefit  (the first two were at the same point in time):

Texas (no capacity market and few interconnects to other states):

Oklahoma (has a capacity market and shared a grid with several other states):

Oklahoma had more outages starting later on Tuesday morning:

The point is that Oklahoma went through the same unprecedented cold snap that Texas did and their outages started later and were much less common.  Counties in Oklahoma with 0% outages were adjacent to counties in Texas with nearly 100% outages.

And since we are in the thread talking about costs, I will point out that I do not see any articles claiming that Oklahomans are getting $10,000 power bills for this month.  If I am wrong about this, I'm sure someone in Oklahoma will let me know.

The bottom line is that Texas' energy-only experiment has failed the people of Texas miserably.  It needs to be fixed.

[Frances]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

Do people get a choice in electric companies there? Here there is no choice. 

I’ve never lived anywhere with a choice, I honestly didn’t know that even existed in the US until all of the news articles about TX. My city is served by three different power companies, but it’s totally dependent on where you live, not which company you choose.

[Bootsie]

7 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

I suppose you can imagine that they are separate costs until you consider that electricity is an essential service in modern America.  Our cities are not structured like those in parts of India where the power goes out several times every day (literally).  Our systems depend on power being available 24/7.  Anything less than that is a failure and results in costs being incurred by the electricity customers.

I will plot the maps of Texas and Oklahoma outages from last Tuesday morning for everyone's benefit  (the first two were at the same point in time):

Texas (no capacity market and few interconnects to other states):

Oklahoma (has a capacity market and shared a grid with several other states):

Oklahoma had more outages starting later on Tuesday morning:

The point is that Oklahoma went through the same unprecedented cold snap that Texas did and their outages started later and were much less common.  Counties in Oklahoma with 0% outages were adjacent to counties in Texas with nearly 100% outages.

And since we are in the thread talking about costs, I will point out that I do not see any articles claiming that Oklahomans are getting $10,000 power bills for this month.  If I am wrong about this, I'm sure someone in Oklahoma will let me know.

The bottom line is that Texas' energy-only experiment has failed the people of Texas miserably.  It needs to be fixed.

But, are you comparing the differential of what Oklahoma experienced with what was normal for Oklahoma and what Texas experienced with what was normal for Texas.  Although it was the same storm--its impact (from the norm) in the two states was very different.  Just like Oklahoma City does not prepare for a hurricane in the same what that Houston does (although the same weather mass may hit both places), Houston understandably does not prepare for a winter storm the way Oklahoma City does.  

You cannot compare costs by comparing one month's bill--you would have to compare bills over a period of time to tell if costs overall are lower in one state than in another.  I have not seen any data on that, so I am not able to draw conclusions about it.  

[RegGuheert]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

You cannot compare costs by comparing one month's bill--you would have to compare bills over a period of time to tell if costs overall are lower in one state than in another.  I have not seen any data on that, so I am not able to draw conclusions about it.  

Of course I can.  Oklahoma both maintains a capacity market AND does NOT ALLOW power plants to charge $9000/MWh for electricity.  That's a "feature" of the Texas plan, as I posted above.

Put another way, In Oklahoma, power providers are paid to maintain margin to be able to address emergency needs as a matter of course.  In Texas, NO ONE GETS PAID TO PROVIDE SUCH CAPACITY.

The result is that Oklahoma utilities incurred extra costs to maintain standby capacity but were already paid for that, so they are not allowed to gouge their customer when their standby capacity is put into play.

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, RegGuheert said:

Of course I can.  Oklahoma both maintains a capacity market AND does NOT ALLOW power plants to charge $9000/MWh for electricity.  That's a "feature" of the Texas plan, as I posted above.

Put another way, In Oklahoma, power providers are paid to maintain margin to be able to address emergency needs as a matter of course.  In Texas, NO ONE GETS PAID TO PROVIDE SUCH CAPACITY.

The result is that Oklahoma utilities incurred extra costs to maintain standby capacity but were already paid for that, so they are not allowed to gouge their customer when their standby capacity is put into play.

What was the demand in Oklahoma versus normal/average demand for this time of year?  Would the Oklahoma model have provided enough margin for Texas?  That would be the question that would have to be answered.  I doubt that Oklahoma maintains enough margin that no matter what demand is they could meet it.  

Someone is paying for that extra capacity in Oklahoma.  Who is that?  I don't think it is just the Oklahoma utilities paying for it--I think it is the citizens of Oklahoma.  Whether that is a wise choice is another question.  

[RegGuheert]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What was the demand in Oklahoma versus normal/average demand for this time of year?  Would the Oklahoma model have provided enough margin for Texas?  That would be the question that would have to be answered.  I doubt that Oklahoma maintains enough margin that no matter what demand is they could meet it.  

Someone is paying for that extra capacity in Oklahoma.  Who is that?  I don't think it is just the Oklahoma utilities paying for it--I think it is the citizens of Oklahoma.  Whether that is a wise choice is another question.  

I showed a map of both states.  Do you really think that this event was somehow much more of an outlier in one county in Texas than it was in the adjacent county in Oklahoma?  Because I think it was equally as rare in both places.  The ONLY difference was that the county in Texas had nearly 100% of their customers blacked out while the county in Oklahoma had NONE.

I don't understand your question about who pays for the extra capacity in Oklahoma given that electricity is CHEAPER in Oklahoma.  Here are the electricity rates in those two states as of June 2018:

Texas: 11.36 cents/kWh

Oklahoma: 10.72 cents/kWh

So here is a much better question for you:  Why do Texans pay MORE for electricity and get less reliable service?

And, finally, why would you defend that?

[Amy in NH]

Reading through this exchange it strikes me that this is a perfect example of the problem in America with people being intentionally obtuse and refusing to understand facts put in front of them.  It also strikes me as ironic that Texas was trying to sue the other 49 states and secede from the union just days before asking for this big handout to bail out their unregulated utility owners.

[prairiewindmomma]

I find it interesting that this conversation veered into variable rate plans and commodity markets rather than just pointing out that insulating the natural gas wells when they were put in (for an additional $20k each) would have prevented most of the catastrophe of this past week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/

Edited February 22, 2021 by prairiewindmomma

[Bootsie]

Just now, RegGuheert said:

I showed a map of both states.  Do you really think that this event was somehow much more of an outlier in one county in Texas than it was in the adjacent county in Oklahoma?  Because I think it was equally as rare in both places.  The ONLY difference was that the county in Texas had nearly 100% of their customers blacked out while the county in Oklahoma had NONE.

I don't understand your question about who pays for the extra capacity in Oklahoma given that electricity is CHEAPER in Oklahoma.  Here are the electricity rates in those two states as of June 2018:

Texas: 11.36 cents/kWh

Oklahoma: 10.72 cents/kWh

So here is a much better question for you:  Why do Texans pay MORE for electricity and get less reliable service?

And, finally, why would you defend that?

Different states have different ways of generating electricity that can be cheaper or more expensive.  The rates that you quote are AVERAGE residential rates--so in one state do non-residential customers pick up a larger burden.  Are these mean rates?  Median rates?  Without knowing what the meaning of "average" is, it is difficult to know if the total people in Oklahoma are paying for KWH is more or less than in Texas.  Also, these say they are the average on one day.  Does one state have an average that is very different in the summer than in the winter and the other doesn't? Does one state rely more heavily on municipally produced power that is subsidized?  Picking one statistic does not really tell the story between the two states.  

Yes, I think the situation in Texas was more of an outlier than in Oklahoma:

Both Abilene and San Angelo, Texas, smashed their all-time snowiest calendar day Sunday, in records dating to the late 1800s.

In Austin, Texas, 6.4 inches of snow was recorded at both Bergstrom Airport and Camp Mabry, their heaviest snowstorm in 72 years, since Jan. 30, 1949.

San Antonio officially picked up 2.5 inches of snow, leading to a surreal snowy view of area freeways. It was their heaviest two-day snowfall in 36 years, since Jan. 12-13, 1985. Parts of the metro area, including near Sea World on the city's west side, picked up 6 inches of snow.

80% of Texas was blanketed in snow.

As far as the bolded question, I am not sure that Texans pay more; I cannot conclude that from a one day average residential price.  Second, I do not know that Texas is less reliable--it surely was during the past week, but is it overall less reliable?  

 

[DoraBora]

13 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

Reading through this exchange it strikes me that this is a perfect example of the problem in America with people being intentionally obtuse and refusing to understand facts put in front of them.  It also strikes me as ironic that Texas was trying to sue the other 49 states and secede from the union just days before asking for this big handout to bail out their unregulated utility owners.

What a minute.  The STATE OF TEXAS was trying to sue the other 49 states in order to secede?  How on earth did miss that?

[Amy in NH]

9 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

What a minute.  The STATE OF TEXAS was trying to sue the other 49 states in order to secede?  How on earth did miss that?

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/01/texas-secession-bill-formally-filed-in-state-legislature/

I'm looking for a link to the law suit...

Edited February 22, 2021 by Amy in NH

[DoraBora]

2 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/02/01/texas-secession-bill-formally-filed-in-state-legislature/

 

Um, this isn't a lawsuit.  It's a bill that has been introduced (by one of our more... colorful... legislators), but it hasn't been passed.  It may not even make it to the floor for a vote. 

Quote:  "The bill is unlikely to pass and has already been rebuked by fellow Republicans, including State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Dallas."

[Amy in NH]

2 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

Um, this isn't a lawsuit.  It's a bill that has been introduced (by one of our more... colorful... legislators), but it hasn't been passed.  It may not even make it to the floor for a vote. 

Quote:  "The bill is unlikely to pass and has already been rebuked by fellow Republicans, including State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Dallas."

I did not say the lawsuit was to secede...

[DoraBora]

2 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

I did not say the lawsuit was to secede...

I stand corrected.  You did say we tried to secede from the Union, which is untrue.

[Amy in NH]

I guess Texas has sued other states so frequently that I cannot find the particular law suit I most recently read about. 

It was 2-3 weeks ago.  I'm still looking for it.

[Amy in NH]

Just now, DoraBora said:

I stand corrected.  You did say we tried to secede from the Union, which is untrue.

How is it untrue?  Do you see other states with bills to secede?

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

How is it untrue?  Do you see other states with bills to secede?

IMO there is a big difference between a bill being introduced and the STATE OF TEXAS doing something.  My understanding of the bill is that it was for a referendum to explore secession.  

[DoraBora]

2 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

How is it untrue?  Do you see other states with bills to secede?

Probably not (though I'm not looking for them) but one state rep. sponsoring a bill doesn't mean our whole state is trying to leave the Union.  He is just one guy.  My state rep and senator wouldn't vote in favor of that.  It's silly.  We're Americans.

Well, if you do find the info about us suing the other 49 states (Are we suing your state?  What ever for?), I'd be interested. 

Also, I'd love to see info on someone who has already, today, just days after we "tried to secede", asked for big handouts to bail out our unregulated utility owners.  

If I sound snarky, I honestly don't mean it that way.  I just can't find this news. 

 

[Jann in TX]

13 minutes ago, Amy in NH said:

How is it untrue?  Do you see other states with bills to secede?

UM-- read up on Texas History... we are the ONLY state that has this option...

I think EVERY legislative session has at least one crazy bill asking for us to secede... this is nothing new and totally not practical!

--

As a Texan who actually lived through the cold of last week-- I can say that it was AWESOME to see people coming together to help each other.  We were warned about the record-breaking cold-- over a week in advance.  I stocked up several days before it hit (just wish I would not have passed up that bottled water...). I did make a quick diaper run just as the first flakes were coming down... We knew it was going to be bad-- just never imagined this bad. It was a horrible tragedy. 

I'm sure there will be some new 'regulations' that come out of this. I can see both sides-- I think a good emergency (grid) plan should be in place as weather patterns are changing...

---

So much easier to point fingers than it is to actually say/do something that matters...  this goes for our state's energy commission and the posters on this board.

 

[Bootsie]

One of the things that I have seen that led to problems in Texas was that our peak energy use is usually in the summer.  Because of planning for a summer peak, some capacity was unavailable because of routine maintenance that is intentionally done when peak is expected to be low.  Yes, we got a little bit of warning of this cold air, but not enough to stop that routine maintenance and get it operational.  I still had tomatoes and bell peppers from last summer growing in my yard before this cold snap.  I had not even gotten down my box of gloves, scarves, turtlenecks, etc. from the upper shelf.  My swimsuit was even hanging in the bathroom from recent use.  The next two blocks are torn up as the city was digging up and replacing all of the water pipes.  I don't quite understand why they do it, but some of those pipes are left running 24/7 while the work is being done.  So, it was a mess having water flowing, then turning to ice, then all of the work buried under ice and snow, especially when the city is asking PLEASE do not use water--but it was the time of the year that was best to do this work, or so they thought last month when they started.