The six independent members of the ERCOT Board of Directors have announced that they will resign after tomorrow's emergency Board meeting.

I admire their willingness to accept responsibility - the mark of true leaders. But scapegoating ERCOT's Board here is absurd. 1/
ERCOT's leaders have spent many years implementing a unified vision in Texas for electricity competition. In my experience, that unified vision among politicians, regulators, grid operators, etc., is incredible rare. No other RTO (even the other single state RTOs) has that. 2/
I'm not in Texas so maybe this is easy for me to say, but to make ERCOT's leaders targets now (including one who is unquestionably brilliant and has barely been on the Board a month) infuriates me. 3/
No one has answers yet on whether this could have been prevented, despite the very certain statements you might read in the press or on Twitter that are mostly designed to confirm priors about capacity markets, price caps, etc., now that a crisis is causing us to rethink them. 4/
Anyway, if you want to know why RTOs make conservative decisions, keep capacity markets and big reserve margins around, this is why. Because they alone suffer the consequences of events like this, even if they are not to blame.

Frustrating. 5/
Reminder - this Twitter feed is my personal views. These are some strongly held views that I have. So be it. 6/6
P.S., I was not intending to break news here, this came out this AM. I stewed in this all day and wanted to share my personal views. And that's all they are.
P.S. - Presented without comment for context:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jeff Dennis

Jeff Dennis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EnergyLawJeff

21 Feb
This Q led me to revisit Tres Amigas's 2010 request for a declaratory order from FERC that it's project (which would have connected ERCOT to the Eastern and Western Interconnections) would not threaten ERCOT's jurisdictional status. The order is here: 1/…
The order does a nice job explaining why ERCOT is not jurisdictional today. Energy transmitted on the ERCOT grid is not considered to be "commingled" on the interstate grid and is generally not transmitted or consumed outside Texas. 2/
The order also explains why the DC ties ERCOT has to outside regions today (why I used the "generally" caveat in the prior tweet) don't result in FERC jurisdiction applying. 3/
Read 6 tweets
18 Feb
There have been a number of questions about whether there are any kind of standards or requirements for generator winterization at either the state or federal level. From what I can tell, the answer is a firm "not really". Again, FERC/NERC's 2011 report is instructive. 1/
I don't have the bandwidth/resources to run this all the way to ground, but I did dig up this letter that FERC sent to NERC in June 2012. It explains that the 2011 report found a gap in federal, state, and regional standards w/ respect to winterization. 2/…
In that letter, FERC asks NERC for an update on "the initiative to modify the Reliability Standards to address winterization and related issues. NERC's response (linked here) explains it had opened a "Standards Authorization Request (SAR)." 3/…
Read 6 tweets
14 Oct 20
[Take two!] Four events this week may send us once more into the fray of FERC, state policies, and RTO/ISO wholesale markets. A thread on them, starting with a significant announcement from 5 of the New England Governors . . . 1/
1. Today, @NESCOEStates released the "Governors Statement on Electricity Reform 2020", calling for the regional ISO to become "a committed partner in [their] decarbonization efforts." 2/…
It's a forceful statement noting the misalignment of today's "electricity market and organizational structures" with the State's clean energy mandates, and suggesting these States will seek to be more in the driver's seat going forward. Significant and important! 3/
Read 9 tweets
31 Oct 19
Thanks again to @EnergyCommerce and @HouseCommerce for inviting us to testify yesterday! You can find all the testimony and a link to the webcast recording here. A couple of takeaways in this brief thread. 1/?…
@EnergyCommerce @HouseCommerce First, I want to reiterate our overarching message - with wind, solar, energy storage, DER, EE, and all other advanced energy technologies now the least-cost resources, transitioning to a 100% clean power sector is an economic opportunity for America, not an economic burden. 2/?
@EnergyCommerce @HouseCommerce Second, the panel was almost unanimous that we need the federal government to establish a policy objective of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050. We strongly support this announced goal of @EnergyCommerce leadership and look forward to working with them. 3/?
Read 9 tweets
19 Sep 19
Quick take on the PURPA proposal as I understand it so far: the proposal to drop the rebuttable presumption threshold under 210(m) from 20 MW to 1 MW, and the proposal to potentially extend 210(m) relief outside the RTOs, could both significantly harm competition. 1/?
One beef I have is that FERC seems to be progressing from the notion that PURPA was all about addressing dependence on oil and the 1970s oil shortages/embargo. But as I've noted here before, that's only one of the goals PURPA sought to achieve. 2/?
Another key goal of PURPA was to encourage more competition after a period of regulated monopolies making bad investments in power projects and leaving consumers to bear the costs. PURPA birthed non-utility generation as a competitor. 3/?
Read 7 tweets
1 Apr 19
Here's a good thread on yesterday's NYT article about the La Paloma generating plant in CA, and the complaint they filed that FERC swiftly and unanimously rejected. In addition to @MilesFarmer's excellent analysis, here is my own quick thread. 1/?
The comparison to FERC's order proposing to impose minimum offer prices on renewables and some nuclear in PJM is tenuous at best, because that order's rationale (which I strongly disagree with) is based on PJM's centralized capacity market design. 2/?
The supposed "price suppression" FERC claims occurs in PJM simply can't occur under CAISO's market design. As Miles explains, CAISO doesn't have a centralized capacity market, and FERC has never suggested it will impose one. In fact, La Paloma basically asked FERC to do that. 3/?
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!