Department of Energy announces $1.5 billion in electric grid improvements(www.upi.com)

It’s paying to rebuild infrastructure where the state government has been neglecting. I’m sure part of it will be to rebuild what’s been destroyed by the hurricane.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

protist@mander.xyz

12 points

1 month ago

So bailing out who? Sounds like they’re bailing out the people by building a more resilient energy grid, which some might instead define as an investment in the future

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

cybervseas@lemmy.world

10 points

1 month ago

As I understand it, Texas republicans pushed to privatize the state’s electrical grid, and allow “provider choice” in way that has led to extreme profit-taking by private entities and reduced any investment in infrastructure. This contributed to the extremely high prices that some Texans have been paying in the winter, as well as more frequent and sever outages.

We could consider this a bailout because private entities sucked all the money out of the system, and now the federal government is investing to try and get it into a working state again.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

protist@mander.xyz

4 points

1 month ago

Texas is solidly in the lower half of US states for residential energy costs. You probably read about some people who bought into a “wholesale” energy provider who got fucked during the winter storm in 2021, but that situation involved a very small number of people who made a bad choice and does not generalize to the whole state.

I honestly think the inverse of what you’re saying is true…Texas invested billions in the 2000s in transmission capacity between West Texas and where everyone lives in Central and East Texas, opening up West Texas to wind and solar development. Texas is now #1 in wind generating capacity and #2 in solar, after California.

All that mess that happened in 2021 was due to corruption within the Texas Railroad Commission, which had the power to force natural gas electric generating facilities to winterize but did not do so. When the temperature dropped to 4°, the natural gas plants froze and went offline almost all at once, causing an immediate drop in power supply necessitating severe and immediate power cuts statewide to protect the grid from failure. Circuits were reenergized slowly over the following few days, but it stayed really cold for really long. I had personally never been through weather even remotely like that in my 35 years in Texas.

All the other outages you’ve heard about in Texas were mechanical outages, localized areas where power lines were damaged by weather, like Austin in the '23 ice storm or Houston after Hurricane Beryl this past July. People on here generalize these to “Texas’s grid is failing again!”, but every state and every nation faces the same challenges with weather-related mechanical outages.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Monument@lemmy.sdf.org

2 points

1 month ago

You’re both sorta wrong (and sorta right).

Texas’s grid is crap. It’s far too unregulated and operators do not focus on the right sorts of improvements that will enhance grid stability. Sure, production is great, which means prices are low, but when you ignore warning calls, you invite disaster. They knew, and they chose not to enforce regulations that other states enforce. Other states deal with far colder weather. This was a failure of regulation. And they also fail to maintain basic system design, so a normal power fault can grow out of control to take out power to most of west Texas.

Anyway - sorry. That’s just a pet annoyance of mine. I hate it when pro-corporate governmental policies are seen as a positive thing based on limited metrics. Lower rates amidst poorer performance is not what I’d consider a marker of success. People die, have their homes and property damaged, and lose a lot of money during power outages.
While the chronic underinvestment in their infrastructure is still an issue, the recently announced infrastructure investment is geared toward transmission and generation, which wouldn’t (directly) address their reliability woes.

It seems to me that the goal of this allocation is to build generation capacity in states with space for solar (and possibly wind, although the Biden admin isn’t trying to bootstrap the wind industry in the U.S.). And also build transmission capacity to get that power out of those states and into other areas of the country. (And possibly back in, should they face local problems.)
My hunch is that they want to get some of that renewable power out west, to have a backup the next time the Colorado river/areas that currently get power from the Hoover Dam suffer from a drought, and to feed power up to the east coast so they can decarbonize more easily.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

[ - ]

partial_accumen@lemmy.world

5 points

1 month ago

It’s paying to rebuild infrastructure where the state government has been neglecting.

Besides Texas, none of those states listed are population dense or otherwise rich. In fact the low population density may require the cost per subscriber to be significantly higher because more infrastructure is required to bring service to fewer people. This is a perfect example of good federal government spending.

Is your preference that if these regions can’t afford to build/maintain this infrastructure they should go without?

permalink

report

parent

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

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 right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

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.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

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.

Community stats

14K
Monthly active users
9K
Posts
163K
Comments

Community stats

Community moderators