Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency

Illinois NextGrid redefines utility, customer, and provider roles with grid modernization, DER valuation, upfront rebates, net metering reform, and non-wires alternatives, leveraging rooftop solar, batteries, and performance signals to enhance reliability and efficiency.

Key Points

Illinois NextGrid is an ICC roadmap to value DER and modernize the grid with rebates and non-wires solutions.

✅ Upfront Value-of-DER rebates reward location, time, and performance.

✅ Locational DER reduce peak demand and defer wires and substations.

✅ Encourages non-wires alternatives and data-driven utility planning.

How does the electric utility fit in to a rapidly-evolving energy system? That’s what the Illinois Commerce Commission is trying to determine with its new effort, "NextGrid". Together, we’re rethinking the roles of the utility, the customer, and energy solution providers in a 21st-century digital grid landscape.

In some ways, NextGrid will follow in the footsteps of New York’s innovative Reforming the Energy Vision process, a multi-year effort to re-examine how electric utilities and customers interact. A new approach is essential to accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies and building a smarter electricity infrastructure in the state.

Like REV, NextGrid is gaining national attention for stakeholder-driven processes to reveal new ways to value distributed energy resources (DER), like rooftop solar and batteries. New York and Illinois’ efforts also seek alternatives, such as virtual power plants, to simply building more and more wires, poles, and power plants to meet the energy needs of tomorrow.

Yet, Illinois is may go a few steps beyond New York, creating a comprehensive framework for utilities to measure how DER are making the grid smarter and more efficient. Here is what we know will happen so far.

On Wednesday, April 5, at the second annual Grid Modernization Forum in Chicago, I’ll be discussing why these provisions could change the future of our energy system, including insights on grid modernization affordability for stakeholders.

Value of distributed energy

The Illinois Commerce Commission’s NextGrid plans grew out of the recently-passed future energy jobs act, a landmark piece of climate and energy policy that was widely heralded as a bipartisan oddity in the age of Trump. The Future Energy Jobs Act will provide significant new investments in renewables and energy efficiency over the next 13 years, redefine the role and value of rooftop solar and batteries on the grid, and lead to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions.

NextGrid will likely start laying the groundwork for valuing distributed energy resources (DER) as envisioned by the Future Energy Jobs Act, which introduces the concept of a new rebate. Illinois currently has a net metering policy, which lets people with solar panels sell their unused solar energy back to the grid to offset their electric bill. Yet the net metering policy had an arbitrary “cap,” or a certain level after which homes and businesses adding solar panels would no longer be able to benefit from net metering.

Although Illinois is still a few years away from meeting that previous “cap,” when it does hit that level, the new policy will ensure additional DER will still be rewarded. Under the new plan, the Value-of-DER rebate will replace net metering on the distribution portion of a customer’s bill (the charge for delivering electricity from the local substation to your house) with an upfront payment, which credits the customer for the value their solar provides to the local grid over the system’s life. Net metering for the energy supply portion of the bill would remain – i.e. homes and businesses would still be able to offset a significant portion of their electric bills by selling excess energy.

What is unique about Illinois’ approach is that the rebate is an upfront payment, rather than on ongoing tariff or reduced net metering compensation, for example. By allowing customers to get paid for the value solar provides to the system at the time it is installed, in the same way new wires, poles, and transformers would, this upfront payment positions DER investments as equally or more beneficial to customers and the electric grid. This is a huge step not only for regulators, but for utilities as well, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

This is a huge step for utilities, as they begin to see distributed energy as an asset to the system.

The rebate would also factor-in the variables of location, time, and performance of DER in the rebate formula, allowing for a more precise calculation of the value to the grid. Peak electricity demand can stress the local grid, causing wear and tear and failure of the equipment that serve our homes and businesses. Power from DER during peak times and in certain areas can alleviate those stresses, therefore providing a greater value than during times of average demand.

In addition, factoring-in the value of performance will take into account the other functions of distributed energy that help keep the lights on. For example, batteries and advanced inverters can provide support for helping avoid voltage fluctuations that can cause outages and other costs to customers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Toyota and Honda Moving e delivers hydrogen backup power via a fuel cell bus, portable batteries, and power exporters for disaster relief, emergency electricity, and grid outage support near charging stations and microgrids.

Key Points

A hydrogen mobile power system using a fuel cell bus and batteries to supply emergency electricity during disasters.

✅ Fuel cell bus outputs up to 18 kW, 454 kWh capacity

✅ Portable batteries and power exporter deliver site power

✅ Supports disaster relief near hydrogen charging stations

Without the uninterrupted supply of power and electricity, modern economies would be unable to function. A blackout can impact everything from transport to health care, communication, and even water supplies, as seen in a near-blackout in Japan that strained the grid. It is one of the key security concerns for every government on earth, a point underscored by Fatih Birol on electricity options during the pandemic, and the growth in the market for backup power reflects that fact. In 2018, the global Backup Power market was $14.9 billion and is expected to reach $22 billion by the end of 2025, growing at a CAGR of 5.0 percent between 2019 and 2025.

It is against this backdrop that Toyota and Honda have come up with a new and innovative solution to providing electricity during disasters. The two transport giants have launched a mobile power generation system that consists of a fuel cell bus that can carry a large amount of hydrogen, aligned with Japan's hydrogen energy system efforts underway, portable external power output devices, and portable batteries to disaster zones. The system, which is called ‘Moving e’ includes Toyota’s charging station fuel cell bus, Honda’s power exporter 9000 portable external power output device, two types of Honda’s portable batteries, and a Honda Mobile Power Pack Charge & Supply Concept charger/discharger for MPP. 

In simple terms, the bus would drive to a disaster zone, and while other approaches such as gravity energy storage are advancing, the portable batteries and power output devices would be used to extract electricity from the fuel cell bus and provide it wherever it is needed. The bus itself can generate 454kWh and has a maximum output of 18kW. That is more than enough energy to supply electricity for large indoor areas such as an evacuation area. The bus is also fitted with space for people to nap or rest during a disaster.

The two companies plan to test the effectiveness of the Moving e at multiple municipalities and businesses. These locations will have to be within 100km of a hydrogen station that is capable of refueling the bus. If the bus has to drive 200km, then its electricity supply to the disaster zone would drop from 490kwh to 240kWh. While there aren’t currently enough hydrogen stations to make this a realistic scenario for all disaster zones, especially as countries push for hydrogen-ready power plants in Germany and related infrastructure, hydrogen is growing increasingly competitive with gasoline and diesel.

While gas generators are still considered more reliable and generally cheaper than backup batteries for home use, cleaner backup power is growing increasingly popular, and novel storage like power-to-gas in Europe is also advancing across grids. This latest development by Toyota and Honda is another step forward for the battery and fuel cell industry, with initiatives like PEM hydrogen R&D in China accelerating progress, – especially considering the meteoric rise of hydrogen energy in recent years.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out highlights Gov. DeSantis rejecting EPA grant funds under the Inflation Reduction Act, limiting low-income households' access to solar panels, clean energy programs, and promised electricity savings across disadvantaged communities.

Key Points

Florida Solar for All Opt-Out is the state declining EPA grants, restricting low-income access to solar energy savings.

✅ EPA grant under IRA aimed at low-income solar

✅ Estimated 20% electricity bill savings missed

✅ Florida lacks PPAs and renewable standards

Florida has passed up on up to $400 million in federal money that would have helped low-income households install solar panels.

A $7 billion grant “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities by providing low-income households with access to affordable solar energy was introduced by President Joe Biden earlier this year, and despite his climate law's mixed results in practice, none of that money will reach Florida households.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced the competition in June as part of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. However, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has decided to pass on the $400 million up for grabs by choosing to opt out of the opportunity.

Inflation Reduction Act:What is the Inflation Reduction Act? Everything to know about one of Biden's big laws

The program would have helped Florida households reduce their electricity costs by a minimum of 20% during a key time when Floridians are leaving in droves due to a rising cost of living associated with soaring insurance costs, inflation, and proposed FPL rate hikes statewide.

Florida was one of six other states that chose not to apply for the money.

President Joe Biden announced a $7 billion “competition” to promote clean energy in disadvantaged communities.

The opportunity, named “Solar for All,” was announced by the EPA in June and promised to provide up to $7 billion in grants to states, territories, tribal governments, municipalities, and nonprofits to expand the number of low-income and disadvantaged communities primed for residential solar investment — enabling millions of low-income households to access affordable, resilient and clean solar energy.

The grant is intended to help lower energy costs for families, create jobs and help reduce greenhouse effects that accelerate global climate change by providing financial support and incentives to communities that were previously locked out of investments.

How much money would Floridians save under the ‘Solar for All’ solar panel grant?

The program aims to reduce household electricity costs by at least 20%. Florida households paid an average of $154.51 per month for electricity in 2022, just over 14% of the national average of $135.25, and debates over hurricane rate surcharges continue to shape customer bills, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. A 20% savings would drop those bills down to around $123 per month.

On the campaign trail, DeSantis has pledged to unravel Biden’s green energy agenda if elected president, amid escalating solar policy battles nationwide, slamming the Inflation Reduction Act and what he called “a concerted effort to ramp up the fear when it comes to things like global warming and climate change.”

His energy agenda includes ending Biden’s subsidies for electric cars while pushing policies that he says would ramp up domestic oil production.

“The subsidies are going to drive inflation higher,” DeSantis said at an event in September. “It’s not going to help with interest rates, and it is certainly not going to help with our unsustainable debt levels.”

DeSantis heading to third debate:As he enters third debate, Ron DeSantis has a big Nikki Haley problem

DeSantis’ plan to curb clean energy usage in Florida seems to be at odds with the state as a whole, and the region's evolving strategy for the South underscores why it has been ranked among the top three states to go solar since 2019, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

SEIA also shows, however, that Florida lags behind many other states when it comes to solar policies, as utilities tilt the solar market in ways that influence policy outcomes statewide. Florida, for instance, has no renewable energy standards, which are used to increase the use of renewable energy sources for electricity by requiring or encouraging suppliers to provide customers with a stated minimum share of electricity from eligible renewable resources, according to the EIA.

Power purchase agreements, which can help lower the cost of going solar through third-party financing, are also not allowed in Florida, with court rulings on monopolies reinforcing the existing market structure. And there have been other policies implemented that drove other potential solar investments to other states.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis highlights nuclear power vs coal and natural gas, renewables and hydropower limits, carbon emissions, energy security, and baseload reliability during Russia-related supply shocks and winter demand.

Key Points

Germany Nuclear Debate Amid Energy Crisis weighs reactor extensions vs coal revival to bolster security, curb emissions.

✅ Coal plants restarted; nuclear shutdown stays on schedule.

✅ Energy security prioritized amid Russian gas supply cuts.

✅ Emissions likely rise despite renewables expansion.

Peel away the politics and the passion, the doomsaying and the denialism, and climate change largely boils down to this: energy. To avoid the chances of catastrophic climate change while ensuring the world can continue to grow — especially for poor people who live in chronically energy-starved areas — we’ll need to produce ever more energy from sources that emit little or no greenhouse gases.

It’s that simple — and, of course, that complicated.

Zero-carbon sources of renewable energy like wind and solar have seen tremendous increases in capacity and equally impressive decreases in price in recent years, while the decades-old technology of hydropower is still what the International Energy Agency calls the “forgotten giant of low-carbon electricity.”

And then there’s nuclear power. Viewed strictly through the lens of climate change, nuclear power can claim to be a green dream, even as Europe is losing nuclear power just when it really needs energy most.

Unlike coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not produce direct carbon dioxide emissions when they generate electricity, and over the past 50 years they’ve reduced CO2 emissions by nearly 60 gigatonnes. Unlike solar or wind, nuclear plants aren’t intermittent, and they require significantly less land area per megawatt produced. Unlike hydropower — which has reached its natural limits in many developed countries, including the US — nuclear plants don’t require environmentally intensive dams.

As accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown, when nuclear power goes wrong, it can go really wrong. But newer plant designs reduce the risk of such catastrophes, which themselves tend to garner far more attention than the steady stream of deaths from climate change and air pollution linked to the normal operation of conventional power plants.

So you might imagine that those who see climate change as an unparalleled existential threat would cheer the development of new nuclear plants and support the extension of nuclear power already in service.

In practice, however, that’s often not the case, as recent events in Germany underline.

When is a Green not green?
The Russian war in Ukraine has made a mess of global energy markets, but perhaps no country has proven more vulnerable than Germany, reigniting debate over a possible resurgence of nuclear energy in Germany among policymakers.

At the start of the year, Russian exports supplied more than half of Germany’s natural gas, along with significant portions of its oil and coal imports. Since the war began, Russia has severely curtailed the flow of gas to Germany, putting the country in a state of acute energy crisis, with fears growing as next winter looms.

With little natural gas supplies of the country’s own, and its heavily supported renewable sector unable to fully make up the shortfall, German leaders faced a dilemma. To maintain enough gas reserves to get the country through the winter, they could try to put off the closure of Germany’s last three remaining nuclear reactors temporarily, which were scheduled to shutter by the end of 2022 as part of Germany’s post-Fukushima turn against nuclear power, and even restart already closed reactors.

Or they could try to reactivate mothballed coal-fired power plants, and make up some of the electricity deficit with Germany’s still-ample coal reserves.

Based on carbon emissions alone, you’d presumably go for the nuclear option. Coal is by far the dirtiest of fossil fuels, responsible for a fifth of all global greenhouse gas emissions — more than any other single source — as well as a soup of conventional air pollutants. Nuclear power produces none of these.

German legislators saw it differently. Last week, the country’s parliament, with the backing of members of the Green Party in the coalition government, passed emergency legislation to reopen coal-powered plants, as well as further measures to boost the production of renewable energy. There would be no effort to restart closed nuclear power plants, or even consider a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout for the last active reactors.

“The gas storage tanks must be full by winter,” Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the Green Party, said in June, echoing arguments that nuclear would do little to solve the gas issue for the coming winter.

Partially as a result of that prioritization, Germany — which has already seen carbon emissions rise over the past two years, missing its ambitious emissions targets — will emit even more carbon in 2022.

To be fair, restarting closed nuclear power plants is a far more complex undertaking than lighting up old coal plants. Plant operators had only bought enough uranium to make it to the end of 2022, so nuclear fuel supplies are set to run out regardless.

But that’s also the point. Germany, which views itself as a global leader on climate, is grasping at the most carbon-intensive fuel source in part because it made the decision in 2011 to fully turn its back on nuclear for good at the time, enshrining what had been a planned phase-out into law.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News