It’s because people don’t so much like their party as they have visceral hatred for the other one.

But wouldn't it make logical sense for the general population to consider trying something different? We're talking decades of single party control (left wing liberals), and these cities are rat-pits.

I guess that's why it's so powerful that the left currently owns the mass media...they stir up that visceral hatred to the point where people forget about reality.

Republicans don’t even try and compete in major cities anymore. In fact they use them as a foil to convince their suburban and rural constituency from voting for the party that has “New York values”, etc. they literally just insult that part of the country so how could they win?

And why would a Republican do better is a question I’d ask? Their track record across the vast swaths of America they control are full of drug addicts, high rates of welfare, and crumbling towns. It really is the white ghetto. Outside the affluent suburbs the country is more or less not doing any better than the major cities.

Regardless, the Republican argument would need to change to “effective government” from their typical “no government” stance. People do want self sufficiency and they do want to be treated as individuals and not reduced to group identity. But there are certain things republicans would have to change to break through.

The republican party is only staying afloat via voter suppression, radicalization, and gerrymandering. That said they're doing a pretty good job of it. They're trying to double down on it in the South as well, plus take away even more women's rights to do what they want with their body. It's still anyone's ballgame but the left is slowly winning by sheer numbers and demographics. The R wall can't hold forever but they don't seem to be willing to change.

While I agree, the recent Texas power outage is the result of a free-market system for energy. California hasn't done well with energy either, but for different reasons. My point is that funny things happen when markets fail and when empathy-driven policy goes too far.

You’re uninformed about the situation in Texas. Electricity is regulated in Texas more of less the same way as its regulated everywhere else: regulated monopolies control the distribution grid, and power is generated in regulated markets and fed into the grid. That basic mechanism is used not only in the US, but Europe too: https://fsr.eui.eu/electricity-markets-in-the-eu/ (“Please note that while in the EU electricity markets have been deregulated, other regulatory models can be in place in other parts of the world.”). The problem in Texas wasn’t free market for energy specifically, but failure on the part of ERCOT (a quasi-regulatory body that oversees the grid) to impose appropriate reliability requirements in the face of unpredictable climate events.

My understanding is that no one provided incentives to cold harden production or keep surplus capacity on standby. p999 events like that are where markets fail because it's rare for utilities or consumers to have that time horizon, and "we're only sending power during a cold spell to customers already on the premium plan" isn't politically viable.

Your point is why “deregulated” energy systems don’t actually leave those choices completely up to the market. Regional Transmission Organizations, like ERCOT, are quasi regulatory entities that are supposed to ensure grid reliability. These entities actually engage in all sorts of central planning, and then conduct various types of auctions with precise parameters to set prices. The “deregulation” part is mainly about shifting from government regulators setting prices to having artificially constructed markets setting prices. It’s nothing like the free-for-all people are imagining.

ERCOT is a bit different in that it doesn’t use what’s called a forward capacity auction. All RTOs in the country have markets where users pay generators for instantaneous electrical production. RTOs other than ERCOT, however, also have what’s called a forward capacity market. The RTO projects how much peak power will be required three years from now, and conducts auctions to provide the required capacity at the lowest price. Then there are various mechanisms attached to that which ensure that a generator that commits to providing a certain amount of capacity actually does so when the RTO calls it in. ERCOT instead maintains a fixed reserve margin—it tries to ensure that capacity is about 13.5% higher than peak projected demand. That’s different, but it’s still not a free-for-all.

Amusingly, many people called the lack of a capacity market a positive thing. In practice it tends to prop up coal plants, because those can reliably commit to providing a particular generation capacity years in advance, unlike renewables: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/flexibility-wit....

Your last sentence is exactly what regulations are for. it's like you destroyed your whole argument with that last sentence deliberately?

> the recent Texas power outage is the result of a free-market system for energy

Texas was not the only area that had problems. Louisiana is regulated and had outages, people with no potable water, etc [0] Nearby states did not have available power to send via the interconnects. It was really cold for a really long time. Everyone talks about how it snowed ten years ago in Austin. I know, I was there. But do they also mention that this cold spell was the worst cold spell in 100 years?

There are many bad things that can happen in this world, we can't afford to prevent all of them. As a society we do not have unlimited money to spend, decisions need to be made, sometimes we have to muddle through. Societies have to prioritize where to spend their limited resources.

I get the feeling that there's a lot of partisan politics involved in the dialogue around things like this, always in hindsight! I don't understand the urge people have to knock down others who are doing something different. Not everyone thinks the way you or I do. The Texas power system has its pros and cons. They've been enjoying cheap power for a long time. They, along with others, struggled during this record cold. I don't understand why this needs to be a partisan issue, or what business it is of anybody outside of Texas. I'm sure they'll make adjustments and improvements to their system. They get to decide, it's their system, right?

I wouldn't say that regulation is a failed model because the power went out in Louisiana. I also don't agree that markets are to blame for a 100-year cold snap in Texas. Disasters happen.

(Note that I don't necessarily agree with the parent you were replying to. I grew up in a city like the ones mentioned, and the problems were more due to corruption, I believe. Politicians are not our friends, none of them.)

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/02/17/te...

I live in New Orleans and by and large things were fine. Maybe 50K people lost power and water in the state and most of those were in BR. (Lake Charles is still recovering from the hurricanes). It was much worse here in Jan 2018.

Entergy turned over its grid control to MISO, as well as built a (huge waste of a) gas peaker plant that I will concede was used in this situation but probably wasn't needed given our connection with other states. Louisiana may be an economic colony of Texas, but please don't drag us into apologia for the national media or Texas' poor decisions.

I drew an equivalence to highlight that the problems related to the record 100 year cold weather crossed regulatory boundaries, which was the topic of discussion.

In Louisiana 2 million people lost power (42% of the state population), 800k had to boil water (17%), and 5 people died (1 of every 940k).

In Texas 4.5 million people lost power (17% of the state population), 12 million had water problems (43%), and 40 deaths as of a few days ago (1 of every 685k).

I don't think my comparing the two states to prove a point was out of bounds. The numbers show significant impact in both of them. I know Oklahama got it pretty bad, and Mexico was impacted. Cold weather kills. Water pipes were going to freeze regardless of electricity. People don't go to shelters when they should. I know the numbers are not the complete picture, but back to the original point: This was a 100 year cold spell, not a free market failure.

I'm not sure of your angle, I might be misunderstanding your comment. I didn't mean to trash Louisiana. It's understandable that this record cold would cause problems. I don't think it's fair to single Texas out, and the numbers above support that.

The power producers that did winterize couldn't run their plants for lack of gas due to wellheads and pipelines freezing [0] (Texas Railroad Commission jurisdiction) and an emergency order directing gas away from power plants (TRC again) [1]

[0] https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/blackout-crisis-texans-ele... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/12640ebb-5c20-4d00-aec0-9c8810541...

Gotcha. Thanks for the links!

I'm just finished reading about the people in Texas who got $10k bills. I'm wondering if these people, residential customers, knew the rate limits were increased for those 32 hours? It's not fair if they don't have a mechanism to monitor or limit the rate they're willing to pay. I wouldn't call that a complete failure of their system, but it needs to be made right. A 10k surprise bill sucks. They pushed the risk to these people, and the regulators there knew it. I don't know where the money is going. I'd try to negotiate it down. I also think it should be easier to declare bankruptcy. People are more important than companies. I'm hoping they get bailed out at some point, they are as deserving as anyone else. I'd be outraged if people don't get the tools to monitor and limit their usage rates.

This writeup on the 1989 cold spell might also be of interest:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/A-t...

Interesting. This thread has refined my opinion.

I still wouldn't characterize this as a "free market failure", implying there is no room for competition, or everything needs to be the same as the rest of the country.

I paid a lot of attention to the following from the grandparent's linked texasmonthly.com article: "You essentially pay up front for peace of mind. But because neither regulators nor state lawmakers ordered anybody to pay, nothing was done." (regarding winterizing, costs to keep the grid robust, etc)

I assume that the regulators and the politicians weren't smart enough to do their part. Free markets can be great, can be better than too much regulation, but need to be tempered by the people's interests. The politicians involved failed big time. Didn't they think past their next reelection? Hopefully they make adjustments, both in their current regulations, and in the processes around reviewing and maintaining those regulations. I'm disgusted at the oversights that led to this. They had regulators who were responsible for this stuff! I'm curious how this will play out.

On a related note, it's not a free market if the customers don't know when the price increases a hundred fold or more.