4 ms·
The terminology is perhaps not exactly correct because the "grids" one would expect Texas to cooperate with are either the Eastern or the Western - but it does
by jcrawfordor 3y ago
The terminology is perhaps not exactly correct because the "grids" one would expect Texas to cooperate with are either the Eastern or the Western - but it does make a fair degree of sense. It's pretty open that Texas's reason for operating their own interconnection is to avoid federal regulation by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. By operating an electrical interconnect that is mostly confined by the Texas state borders, they create a strong argument that there is no interstate commerce, thus avoiding any federal oversight.
Renewable energy construction is proceeding rapidly in Texas because events have shown that the Texas interconnect lacks sufficient capacity or interconnection to reliably meet Texas's electrical demand. There is definitely a climate advantage, but it's important to understand that renewables are increasingly the cheapest option in the southwestern United States where land (the main resource wind and solar consume) is inexpensive, insolation is high, and the landscape is often amenable to wind production. The problem remains acute and the Texas legislature recently approved a ten-plus billion dollar program to construct new gas power plants to help address the need. It's more of an all-out scramble than a climate change strategy.
This situation is mostly self-made. Texas has not been a very attractive market to build generation in because the lack of interconnection makes it difficult to achieve good utilization over the full year. Texas has repeatedly backed out of efforts that would improve connectivity between Texas and the Eastern and Western through rectifier-inverter systems, for example the Tres Amigas Superstation, largely over political concerns about interstate commerce. The Texas power crisis is long brewing but didn't really achieve political visibility until the last few years.
- nocoiner 3y agoIs the argument that a self-contained grid means no interstate commerce really that strong? With this Supreme Court, OK, fine, maybe trying to look at precedent is a sucker’s game, but I would have thought Wickard v. Fillburn would have put an end to that argument 80 years ago. Of course, if the relevant statutes only apply to transmission across state lines, then maybe that’s the answer (I recall that’s how Southwest was able to start with an unregulated route system by flying only between Texas cities at first) but if not, I would think that regulators could establish a jurisdiction basis over 80 GW of electrical generation.
- rayiner 3y agoIt’s questionable whether Wickard is still good law. But more importantly, the Federal Power Act is specifically addressed to interstate and wholesale electric sales. That’s why FERC doesn’t have jurisdiction over ERCOT. Note that electric generators in Texas certainly are subject to EPA regulation, which also rests on the Commerce Power. Pollution produced by Texas plants does travel interstate, even if sales of wholesale electricity do not. But for the same reason, the complaint about ERCOT being a way to bypass federal pollution regulation is nonsensical.
- jcrawfordor 3y agoYes, as I understand it, the long-running political tension between ERCOT and FERC primarily has to do with rate and transmission agreement regulations, not environmental regulation. That said, FERC actually does have a fairly substantial environmental regulation function in that they handle NEPA matters for electrical initiatives triggered by federal policy. So avoiding FERC regulation may avoid having to complete NEPA process (e.g. EIS) in some cases, but it doesn't help with requirements under Clean Air Act/Clean Water Act, which are typically the more onerous for power plants.