3 ms·

That doesn't resolve the problem at all; it just shifts money around. If the wholesale price of electricity was set to $9000/MWh but utilities continue to charg

by kccqzy 5y ago

That doesn't resolve the problem at all; it just shifts money around. If the wholesale price of electricity was set to $9000/MWh but utilities continue to charge lower prices do you expect them to just absorb the difference? Of course not. From the article: > The Legislature approved the issuance of what will likely end up being about $5 to $6 billion in bonds to pay back some of these costs. That form of borrowing creates an obligation of about $200 for every adult and child in Texas. No, most families didn't pay $9000/MWh during the event. But they will pay for it in the form of future taxes or fees charged by the utility.

tristor 5y ago
True, but they will be paying for it any way you slice it. A thing happened, it had a cost, and the cost was paid by shifting money around using government power, fundamentally that power is derived from taxation. There's a ballot issue locally to increase electrical rates by 3.65% to cover the bond payback, if it's rejected the utility (which is government owned) /still/ has to pay the bonds back, it just does so by cutting budget elsewhere or shifting money and increasing taxes elsewhere. Any way you slice it, the cost must be paid. What's your alternative proposal? A hindsight 20/20 review would have obviously said to not have such a crisis happen in the first place through proper preparation. That didn't happen, and here we are. How do you pay for it? A key piece is that due to load-shedding, the actual cost to most Texans is significantly lower than had they "kept the lights on" at $9k. Instead, we all lost power and the price was paid only to maintain the necessary generation to recover the grid without a black start that would have been a much larger disaster. Electrical power is common infrastructure, and the cost to sustain it is a common cost, raising that in such a way seems the most reasonable path forward. I'm not happy about my rates going up or my taxes increasing, but I also understanding reality. The net effect on me as a rate payer is still far far far less than had I agreed to pay live wholesale like the tiny fraction of people on Griddy.

by kccqzy 5y ago

tristor 5y ago

True, but they will be paying for it any way you slice it. A thing happened, it had a cost, and the cost was paid by shifting money around using government power, fundamentally that power is derived from taxation. There's a ballot issue locally to increase electrical rates by 3.65% to cover the bond payback, if it's rejected the utility (which is government owned) /still/ has to pay the bonds back, it just does so by cutting budget elsewhere or shifting money and increasing taxes elsewhere. Any way you slice it, the cost must be paid. What's your alternative proposal? A hindsight 20/20 review would have obviously said to not have such a crisis happen in the first place through proper preparation. That didn't happen, and here we are. How do you pay for it? A key piece is that due to load-shedding, the actual cost to most Texans is significantly lower than had they "kept the lights on" at $9k. Instead, we all lost power and the price was paid only to maintain the necessary generation to recover the grid without a black start that would have been a much larger disaster. Electrical power is common infrastructure, and the cost to sustain it is a common cost, raising that in such a way seems the most reasonable path forward. I'm not happy about my rates going up or my taxes increasing, but I also understanding reality. The net effect on me as a rate payer is still far far far less than had I agreed to pay live wholesale like the tiny fraction of people on Griddy.