This is not correct. The PUCT statement says NOTHING here about gas generators disconnecting. It says that the Commission directed ERCOT to raise electricity prices to $9000/MWh during demand disconnects to reflect the scarcity conditions underway. #TexasFreeze#TexasBlackout
ERCOT runs the state electricity market and operates the generation & distribution system. Early Sunday morning, as generators went offline due to various reasons, ERCOT initiated an emergency and directed distribution utilities to start demand shutoffs (shutting off substations)
The way ERCOT's electricity market is supposed to work, if there is involuntary demand shutoffs like this, the price should be at the maximum allowed price or price cap, which is $9,000/MWh (typical prices are $30-40/MWh for context).
What the PUCT statement is saying is that in this case, when ERCOT started demand shutoffs, the market prices was at 'only' $1200/MWh. So the Commission ordered ERCOT to immediately increase the market price to the cap to reflect the very real scarcity conditions underway.
So this is the PUCT telling ERCOT to *raise* electricity market prices, and says nothing AT ALL about natural gas power plants deciding to disconnect to avoid high price fuels as the quoted tweet by @jmontforttx above claims. That's just wrong.
WHY were market prices not at the cap? That's a very good question and one we will learn more about in the aftermath of all of this. But given what I know about electricity systems and market operations, allow me to speculate (remember: speculation from here on... caveat emptor)
Electricity systems MUST maintain supply & demand balance at ALL times. If demand > supply, AC frequency drops, and if it falls below a very narrow tolerance, generators & protection switches all over the system will trip off to prevent damage to synchronized generators & motors.
In other words, if demand is allowed to greatly exceed supply for more than a moment, a cascading set of failures will lead to a system-wide blackout! The whole role of electricity system operators is to PREVENT this from occuring.
To do that, system operators maintain some standby spare capacity or "reserves," power plants (or batteries) that are not operating at their full output, but are online and ready to ramp up if a generator or transmission line suddenly fails, in order to quickly restore balance.
In Texas, as supply gets scarce, ERCOT starts running w/ less reserves, as plants on standby are called into operation to meet demand. As the available reserves deplete, the electricity price is supposed to rise towards $9000 to reflect increased risk of emergency demand shutoff.
By time system operator (ERCOT) is in a true emergency and shutting off demand to balance supply, they should already be at $9000/MWh with very limited operating reserves on standby. For some reason, in this case, that did NOT occur. Price was $1200/MWh as shutoffs began on 2/14.
The reason is most likely because in these extreme conditions, with generators dropping like flies, ERCOT did not want to run with depleted reserves at all, because running with less reserves raised risk that more generator outages could cause statewide blackout.
To avoid that situation, they probably proactively started demand shutoffs w/ more reserves on hand than they normally would have -- and that the design of the 'operating reserve demand curve' meant to price reserve scarcity into markets anticipated. That would have been my move
So to wrap this up, the PUCT statement says that since there WERE demand shutoffs on 2/15 (sorry, I should have said 2/15 above; cutoffs started at 1:25 am 2/15 ercot.com/news/releases/…), the market price should be at the cap and ordered ERCOT to adjust it.
In short, NO evidence of market manipulation by generators here. Price didnt jump to cap b.c. generators purposefully went off. Price went to cap because PUCT ordered ERCOT to raise it during demand shutoffs. ERCOT probably started those early to avoid risk of total blackout /End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Update: it looks like the Texas Commission ordered ERCOT to be prepared to further increase electricity price cap from $9,000/MWh to up to 50x the spot price for natural gas, if necessary to keep incentive for gas generators to run.
That means is spot gas prices are above $180/MMBtu, the market price for electricity could rise above the $9,000/MWh cap that normally occurs during power supply scarcity. @EIAgov is reporting $350/MMBtu spot price in Houston today, so that may be in effect now!
Maybe they will do this retroactively? The current prices reported by ERCOT are still $9,000/MWh including adder to reflect demand shutoffs ongoing. ercot.com/content/cdr/ht…
#TexasBlackout update, 9:24am Central time: the grid operator @ERCOT_ISO's latest data is STILL reporting over 30 GW of thermal generators offline. ERCOT's 'extreme' generator outage scenario planned for just 14 GW.
Wind power is also at only 1,000 MW, below ~1,500 MW ERCOT planned for in an 'extreme low wind' scenario. So that's not helping either, but a far smaller contribution to supply shortage than the 30,000 MW of thermal plant outages that have persisted since Monday morning.
Demand served now is 44,539 MW, well below ~69,000 MW of peak demand experienced on Sunday in similar temps as today. We can't know the counterfactual of how much demand there would be if supply was adequate, but its probably on order of 20,000 MW higher than current levels.
Morning. The #TexasFreeze continues & grid operator ERCOT is still reporting >31,000 MW of thermal generation capacity out as of 9AM CT. Down slightly from a peak of 34,000 MW reported yesterday afternoon (ercot.com/news/releases/…) but still >40% of thermal capacity in state!
Wind power is currently producing about 4,000 MW, or 2/3 of the ~6,000 MW that ERCOT was counting on wind to contribute during winter peaking events. Solar is coming online now and helping during daytime, exceeding the <300 MW it is counted on for in system planning.
Main story continues to be the failure of thermal power plants -- natural gas, coal, and nuclear plants -- which ERCOT counts on to be there when needed. They've failed. Of about 70,000 MW of thermal plants in ERCOT, ~25-30,000 MW have been out since Sunday night. Huge problem.
TotalIRRResourcesMW = portion of 'intermittent renewable resource' (IRR) capacity, aka wind & solar, that is not producing. This appears to be the total capacity of about 25.1 GW of wind + 3.8 GW solar minus current wind/solar output. This is NOT all forced outages (eg icing up)
ERCOT only counts on 6.1 GW of wind for winter peaking capacity and 269 MW of solar, so any number in the TotalIRRResourcesMW column < 22,531 means wind & solar are *overperforming* ERCOT planning expectations. So slight better than that at moment.
Confidential info from a market participant in ERCOT: As of ~10 AM Eastern time, the system has ~30 GW of capacity offline, ~26 GW of thermal -- mostly natural gas which cant get fuel deliveries which are being priorities for heating loads -- and ~4 GW of wind due to icing.
That is a HUGE amount of gas capacity offline, about 30% of total ERCOT capacity and ~half of the natural gas fleet, according to Dec 2020 Capacity Demand and Reserves report here: ercot.com/content/wcm/li…
Devastating for reliability.
If we look at Winter planning scenerio ERCOT was using for 2026/27 (table below), they were planning for a peak demand of 67,512 "based on normal weather." Demand last night (in 2021 not 2026/27!) was 69,150
As we talk about how to ensure a just & equitable transition to a net-zero emissions economy (see e.g. NASEM nap.edu/resource/25932…), I highly recommend @OPB's Timber Wars podcast, which documents a tumultous economic transition that shaped my home state opb.org/show/timberwar…
A transition to a net-zero emissions economy can drive a net increase of 0.5-1 million jobs by 2030 and 2-3 million by 2050, according to the @Princeton NET-ZERO AMERICA study, but that topline hides significant regional and local economic transformations & potential dislocations
I was too young to remember living through these days, but I grew up in the economic and physical landscape it left behind. This history is in my blood, in the names and historic economic centers of the places I grew up.