Isn't per capita a more equalizing metric? If you go off raw numbers the data will be skewed even more heavily. Though there are certainly other methods to compare, such as per km^2, that you could use to perform other comparisons, depending.

It's not, because of the scales involved. One is a heavily agrarian/rural state and the other is a combination of rural and major metropolises.

Because of how the states are divided, it becomes a compare "nearly pure rural" to "vibrant mix of major rural, suburban and urban" communities. Some states are just absolutely tiny by population and entirely rural. And it's just not an apples to apples comparison to compare one rural area with one rural/urban area. A better comparison would be just Texas's rural areas to Nebraska, without any of its cities.

When comparing apples to oranges this way, it's a roundabout way of saying "just be rural" or "don't even try to solve urban problems".

It’s a relevant metric when the discussion is about asymmetric supply/demand. The context is that if they are disproportionately high in the demand side, it stresses the grid.

It’s essentially an approximation for normalizing production (supply) based on consumption (demand). It tells us (roughly) how stressed the grid is.

> I don't like per capita metrics because it makes Texas look bad

Ok.