Grim Day on the Texas Power Grid

[mfb]

A guaranteed return on investment may be illegal.

In spaceflight that's called a cost+ contract and was the standard mode of operation for a while.

Option 1: Spend $8.3E9 to build power plants that would run once every ten years.
Versus
Option 2: Winterize the power plants they already have at much lower cost with earlier completion dates.

It will be interesting to watch Texas agonize over this very difficult decision.

It sounds like an easy decision, but so far Texas chose option 3, do nothing and then spend $50E9 just to recover from damage.

 

[anorlunda]

@jrmichler I welcome your skepticism. But winterizing existing plants is not so trivial as to make it a no brainer. It might mean erecting a building over the top of an existing outdoor plant. It also means adding on-site LNG storage at up to 200 sites.

A backup only plant would probably use only gas turbines. Potentially aircraft type turbines. Potentially aircraft turbines salvaged from airplanes scrapped because of the pandemic. They don't need steam boilers, steam turbines and condensers, which is the part that makes plants like in the picture above so huge in size. Each turbine generator could be enclosed by an inflatable Quonset hut. Each could be located close to loads, thus reducing dependency on the vulnerable transmission grid. They could be fueled with Jet-A (or even Jet-B) rather than natural gas which makes on-site storage easier.

You may be right that winterizing is the better choice, but it's not a no-brainer.

Oil refineries also need winterizing to prevent disruption in fuel supplies.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So what guarantee is there that the new plants will not suffer the same fate existing plants did? As I understand, natural gas was a major part of the problem to begin with. I'm not saying it's a stupid idea to build new plants, but it is if NO winterizing is done on existing infrastructure. It doesn't need to be an all or nothing deal. Some winterizing in key areas could solve a lot of problems.

 

[anorlunda]

So what guarantee is there that the new plants will not suffer the same fate existing plants did?

From the article linked above:

He said Berkshire Hathaway would create a $4 billion financial guarantee the state would receive if the plants didn’t operate when needed. They would have a week’s supply of liquefied natural gas on site, fixing the problem of the state’s gas supply infrastructure freezing up.

Some winterizing in key areas could solve a lot of problems.

That sounds reasonable, but it would be difficult to stage a test to prove the effectiveness of the winterization. As shown in the picture above, these are outdoor plants.

Also, the article linked in the OP said that the natural gas plants were experience hard times because they sell at auction in competition with renewables. The renewables are causing the energy prices to go down. Consumers might say HORRAY to low prices, except that it promotes penny pinching by the natural gas competitors. I suspect that many of them may be operating at a loss for the past several years. So to winterize, they need a way to funnel some billions in cash to those plants.

Other states address the general problem with a capacity market in addition to an energy market. There is an auction to supply capacity to generate and readiness to bid in the daily energy markets. The auction to sell energy for the day is separate. The market rules can specify the requirements to be eligible to receive those capacity payments. Winterization could be one of the rules.

In NY, I know there are some actual tests, and there are audits to verify compliance with the requirements. How is the total revenue divided? It varies, but for the sake of argument, assume roughly 50/50. 50% of the power plant's income comes from the capacity market. That is more than enough to assure that the plants are highly motivated to keep the plants well maintained and ready to generate when needed.

Texas elected to have no capacity market. Texas depends on the financial appeal of sky high prices in those brief periods of shortage to motivate power plants to be ready to sell. In the OP, I said IMO that is a big flaw.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Texas elected to have no capacity market. Texas depends on the financial appeal of sky high prices in those brief periods of shortage to motivate power plants to be ready to sell. In the OP, I said IMO that is a big flaw.

And I could not agree more.

 

[Fisherman199]

TX is a complicated case. It's not just an issue in engineering but how the energy market operates in ERCOT's domain. The bulk power price examines future price action and this is a flaw IMO. Below is a statement from NERC's 2019 SOR Report (Where they extended favorable statements to ERCOT and PUCT):

ERCOT’s energy-only wholesale electricity market relies on price signals to maintain reliability. Most generators are owned by merchant companies that compete in the market to serve ERCOT load. Prior to Summer 2019, ERCOT and the Public Utility Commission of Texas instituted designs for the Texas electricity market to support optimal performance, including expanding the triggering mechanism for scarcity pricing that provides maximum payouts to generators when supply is needed most. Price-responsive demand is also a component of the market that supports reliability. Operators in Texas use market drivers to incentivize generation, reduce outages, and manage demand during peak conditions.

This is a miss-step IMO. 60 to 100 years ago Utilities were seen as public entities in service to that public. They had to meet operating costs, yes. But the chief driver of reliability was the need for power to an expanding public and was not rooted in cold-capitalism. Utilities are to be servants to the public. This should be enough purpose to incentivize responsive demand not absurd wholesale rates. I understand this is overly-altruistic. This is my opinion based on speaking with older engineers.

With regard to the engineering, having designed Transmission and Distribution systems, I can say from experience systems are expected to be hardened against standards set forth by NERC, SERC (in my area), NEC, NESC, and IEEE. The standards cover most adverse circumstances the system may face and the system must be able to withstand those circumstances. Simply: The weather experienced was far outside normal parameters. This happened to me in Georgia back in 2018 (I think, maybe 2017). My utility had 3/4 our load dropped from downed lines and poles. The ice on the road made ordinary fixes tough to implement and crews were weary after several 20 hour days. After all was said and done, it took 1 week after the last of the ice accumulation to restore everyone. I designed the system and tested existing portions against standard ice-accumulation for my area (2 inches - as set by the standard). The system was well-able to withstand these conditions. Ice accumulation on some conductors was as much as 8 inches. 5 inches was the average accumulation. Over twice the amount against which the system was hardened. Obviously I was pulled into the city manager's office to discuss what went wrong and simply said "Nature." Once 15% of our lines were downed there simply was nothing that could be done. No amount of jumpers, emergency ties, or load shifting was going to help. The load just had to go down as it would and we got to it when we were able. This is a small example and I have many more but the point stands: At a point, there's just not much to do other than revisit design standards. Design standards are slow to be written and even slower to change.

IMO Texas experienced failures on nearly every end: Market, Engineering, and Operations. But I can't be too hard on them because I don't know a utility that wouldn't have failed were they thrown similarly adverse and unexpected conditions. I think the most important thing to take away is that there is a serious need for candid conversations surrounding climate alterations and how it affects boundary conditions for a resolute electric system. It may well-be that our assumed 100 year occurrences are no longer 100 years apart but only 25. This would change many standards in a hurry.

Ay any rate, I'm off my soap-box. Hope everyone's been doing well. I still miss reading Jim's posts.

 

[dlgoff]

I still miss reading Jim's posts.

 

[sophiecentaur]

And I could not agree more.

Me too. I had my knuckles rapped, earlier on by introducing politics into this discussion but absolutely anything involving vital supplies and big money involves politics and Government. You can't isolate Engineering from Politics and 'Good Engineers' can be amazingly naive when inventing systems.

 

[anorlunda]

I recall the ice storm that hit New York, New England, and Quebec in 1998. In that case, it took 3 months to restore power to all customers. There were more than 300K poles down in just the New England part. But it was reported as a valiant victory for the power companies, because the outage did not spread beyond the boundaries of where the ice was thickest. Most important, it did not spread to where the rich and powerful people lived.

Similarly with the events of 9/11/2001. We lost 400 MW of load in the twin towers. Yet the outage did not spread to any buildings that didn't collapse, and it didn't impact uptown Manhattan. That was considered a victory.

Considered by who? The media. The media can choose to spin things negatively or positively, and to assign blame. The national media can also choose to treat some states different than other states to suit their agenda.
New York power companies in 1998 and 2001 got much better press than Texas power companies in 2021.

Yes it's impossible to completely isolate energy from politics. Many PF members frequent PF only because discussions here are so civil compared to most Internet forums. When any thread appears to be on the verge of a flame war, the mentors have to take action.

 

[sophiecentaur]

discussions here are so civil compared to most Internet forums.

Very true. I guess it's to do with the sort of subjects / disciplines that are involved. The topics that are discussed really are worth thinking about and there's seldom time to be too annoyed with the other guy who, of course, has got it all wrong.

 

[anorlunda]

Very true. I guess it's to do with the sort of subjects / disciplines that are involved. The topics that are discussed really are worth thinking about and there's seldom time to be too annoyed with the other guy who, of course, has got it all wrong.

Thanks for the kind words, but I think it undervalues the contribution of the moderation we have here on PF compared to other science-oriented forums. Some people still behave poorly, but much of the worst stuff posted on PF is removed before anyone other than mentors see it.

Around the end of the year, we vote for awards and express thanks. Don't forget to single out the mentors for the good work they do.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Thanks for the kind words, but I think it undervalues the contribution of the moderation we have here on PF compared to other science-oriented forums. Some people still behave poorly, but much of the worst stuff posted on PF is removed before anyone other than mentors see it.

Around the end of the year, we vote for awards and express thanks. Don't forget to single out the mentors for the good work they do.

I’m impressed that the Mods seem actually to read everything (and decide it when needed). A very useful bunch of guys.

 

[anorlunda]

The saga continues, even in April with no severe weather.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidb...cks-texans-on-mild-april-day/?sh=5e308fb87b64

ERCOT chart showing statewide electricity demand vs. generating capacity for April 13, 2021.
ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL OF TEXAS

• Telemetered unit outages are currently at 21.5GW. Normally for this time of year we are measuring about 14.5 GW
• The ERCOT board of directors is saying the reason for the heavy amount of outages is due to the maintenance required from the February winter storm

That suggests to me that plants shut down during the cold on February 15 were not only unavailable on that day but were seriously damaged by the cold. They are struggling now to repair the damage, thus adding pressure to allow abnormally large numbers for what we call "unforced outages".

I hate using superlatives in my writing, but the situation in Texas is not merely bad, it is very very bad.

 

[mfb]

Get ready for the summer edition!

'Unplanned' outages hit Texas power plants in soaring temperatures

 

[jedishrfu]

Oh the pain, the pain!

 

[chemisttree]

Just wait till August!

Lots of unplanned outages right after Abbott required them to winterize their equipment. Get what we deserve!

 

[sophiecentaur]

This is the sort of thing that 'small government' often doesn't deal with until it's too late. The better off section of the population can often buy their ways out of such temporary problems but the poorer section really suffer.
They should listen to the Engineers and not the sales force for safer planning decisions.

 

[BWV]

Just wait till August!

Lots of unplanned outages right after Abbott required them to winterize their equipment. Get what we deserve!

We are having August temps in June, hence the problem

 

[anorlunda]

Later in the article, they mention the "capacity market" that Texas does not have, but other states do have. In NY, we call that ICAP. ICAP pays generators for being capable of delivering energy, and bidding in the daily markets. The purpose of ICAP is to prevent bad guys like Enron from boosting prices by withholding capacity, or faking malfunctions. If ICAP payments are substantial, power generators want the payments badly. The key relevant here is, what do the power plants need to do to qualify for ICAP payments? Thinks like winterproofing for example.

Critics say ICAP pays providers for doing nothing, and Texas doesn't have it. But I agree with the WSJ that the lack of ICAP in Texas is a major blunder.

The capacity market argument applies regardless of weather. Other markets have it, but Texas rejected it, claiming that energy price alone was sufficient to assure reliability.

In brief: ICAP pays generating plants to be ready to bid in the daily energy markets. Those making the payment get to define what "ready" means. It can include winterizing, maintenance, third party inspections, and much more. If the ICAP payments are substantial enough (let's say 1/3 to 1/2 of their gross income), plants can't afford to forgo those payments and they will jump through whatever hoops needed to get them.

The Texas position is that in times of scarcity, prices go higher, but only those ready to generate can receive those high prices, and that is sufficient motive to make the power plants jump through the hoops. Variable pricing is present in all markets, but the other markets believe that ICAP is also needed.

It's certainly a fair criticism of energy deregulation that the design of the markets is so complex that they must be designed by expert energy analysts, not designed by legislators, not by finance wizards, not by lawyers. But politicians can't resist the temptation to expand their own powers. Regulatory agencies that I'm familiar with have a 400:1 ratio of lawyers to engineers on their permanent staffs.

 

[DaveE]

Regulatory agencies that I'm familiar with have a 400:1 ratio of lawyers to engineers on their permanent staffs.

Yes, that's a problem. However, government agencies can leverage engineering from industry and academic engineering sources. They can't do that with their lawyers. The lawyers can, in effect, force the industry to do their engineering for them.

 

[BWV]

However regulators can simply stop beneficial innovation as an incentive exists to not approve anything as they gain no benefit personally if the innovation works, but ruins their career if something bad happens - for example private pilots, who lack the lobbying ability of airlines will complain about the lack of approvals for new small aircraft design

 

[anorlunda]

Yes, that's a problem. However, government agencies can leverage engineering from industry and academic engineering sources. They can't do that with their lawyers. The lawyers can, in effect, force the industry to do their engineering for them.

Regulations should give broad mandates such as, "Industry shall make a set of rules that provides reliable and affordable power to the residents of this state." But most often they give highly detailed regulations that go on for hundreds or thousands of pages. They don't want to delegate decision making power to the private sector.

During the 1980 Presidential election, Regan argued that federal regulators were creating 25,000 new pages of regulations every year. (Or was it every day?) Either way, it's too much. I wonder what that number is today for federal+state regulators.

Once again, be cautious in replies. This thread dances on the outer limits of politics allowed on PF. If it becomes heated, the mentors will close it.

 

[DaveE]

Once again, be cautious in replies. This thread dances on the outer limits of politics allowed on PF. If it becomes heated, the mentors will close it.

Interesting. I didn't think there was any political content in these posts.

 

[jedishrfu]

Interesting. I didn't think there was any political content in these posts.

We strive to remove content before it becomes too contentious.

 

[anorlunda]

Texas is not the only place with concerns. Meanwhile, in California:

https://news.yahoo.com/california-walking-tight-rope-hydropower-110000393.html
Already in the state, hydropower is down about 40% this month compared with June 2020, according to BNEF. At the Hoover Dam, on the Nevada-Arizona border, capacity has fallen about 25%, with the site’s reservoir at its lowest point since 1937.

 

[anorlunda]

This article suggests that Texas will move toward a capacity market. That is what I advocated in this thread under the name ICAP. But they are still letting politicians make the decisions rather than engineers. Worse, it has become a Republican/Democrat politicized issue.

https://www.chronline.com/stories/t...id-are-a-shift-for-gov-greg-abbott-gop,269649
But even though the incentives are allocated only to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors, which Republicans favor, the use of taxpayer money or government-imposed fees to ensure Texas has an adequate power supply during peak electricity demand is more in line with an electric grid operating setup known as a "capacity market," a concept that has been favored by Democrats.

 

[artis]

@anorlunda I don't know that much about TX but wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US of which they are apart of than to try to "invent the wheel" again all by themselves?
Because from what I understand they can produce their own consumption worth of electricity under normal circumstances they just run short under extreme weather and in case of grid/ power plant malfunction which also happens mostly under extreme weather or extreme weather induced load increase.

In other words they seem to be fine as long as things are normal but simply lack the reserve for unexpected load or plant shutdowns

 

[sophiecentaur]

@artis it’s that small word “simply” that gets in the way . It won’t be simple to deal with a party that wants to survive at all costs. As with COVID, it’s all about politics and not Engineering.

 

[anorlunda]

@anorlunda I don't know that much about TX but wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US of which they are apart of than to try to "invent the wheel" again all by themselves?

Nope, that wouldn't be enough. Buried in the details of that cold day, their biggest neighbor Oklahoma was experiencing similar problems. But the Texas headlines pushed the Oklahoma news off of the front page. Also, Oklahoma is well interconnected with Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado and Arkansas.

Interconnection is a great thing. It helps avoid many potential shortages. But it is never enough to make up for a shortfall as big as 60% of capacity. Using very rough numbers, you could use interconnections to make up a 10% shortfall.

 

[gmax137]

wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper and wiser for them to simply build a bunch of lines and switchyards and interconnect with the rest of the US

There is also the question, who do you mean by "them?"

 

[Bystander]

Indiscriminate and excessive use of the word "they" has been my trigger/alarm word. Lack of specificity in identification of groups, e.g., use of "they" rather than "lawyers/ contractors/ building inspectors/military industrial complex" in construction/s of arguments equals conspiracy theory adherent/paranoid, usually followed with the "Heller Argument."

There is also the question, who do you mean by "them?"

 

[artis]

by them I mean the TX utilities, the ones that control, own and operate the TX grid

 

[chemisttree]

Right of way costs too much? Too politically unpopular to condemn that much real estate?

 

[anorlunda]

by them I mean the TX utilities, the ones that control, own and operate the TX grid

Right of way costs too much? Too politically unpopular to condemn that much real estate?

Your both right. New transmission is very expensive and it generates about one lawsuit per mile. But there's another reason.

To benefit those transmission lines in a case like this, the neighboring states need sufficient excess generation to send. Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Louisiana have GDPs lower than Texas, so it is highly unlikely that they would have enough unused capacity to run more than half of Texas.

I'm sure that interconnections could enable Texas to rescue its smaller neighbors in case of emergencies, but not so much visa versa.

 

[gmax137]

by them I mean the TX utilities.

The electric market in Texas is deregulated. A quick search shows about 6 big T&D operators and dozens of smaller ones. They're all in business to make money today, by competing with each other. Pay back on transmission lines is over decades or longer.

In my mind, this is a big problem with the deregulated model. In the old days, the "power company" made money selling bonds to build out the infrastructure. More building = more bonds = more money. Who is going to do that now?

Especially when, as @anorlunda says, the interconnects are unlikely to ever bring power into the state.