| Do you have any idea how much damage can be done to the grid if there is a great disparity that forms between demand and supply? You literally had machines running on redline to keep up with demand because so much generation capacity went offline at the same time, and the weather precliuded deployment of either the personnel or equipment to handle it safely and quickly. That is why the statutory max price was set. If you were going to use that power, and put that generating capacity at risk, so PUC thought, you were going to pay for it. They figured the pricing signal would control demand. Well... They were wrong. "Your debt collection stops being my concern when my and my dependent's survival is on the line." --Every human being in the back of their head, in the lizard brain, ever. Sure, it feels bad afterward, and you try to follow what guidance you can at the end of the day, and reach out to those you're in a position to reasonably help, but that was a demand inelastic situation. Be able to pump a certain threshold of BTU's into your environment by money, barter, burning, or retaining via insulation... Or die. I'll give ERCOT and PUC the benefit of a assumption of reasonability given info at the time; but I really can't forgive the human nature centric myopia that the homo economicus model has foisted on the world. |
>Well... They were wrong.
I don't think they ever thought it would reduce demand, they just thought it would increase supply. The reasoning for not reducing demand is simple: most consumers pay fixed rate plans, so if you were at home and had power, there really wasn't any incentive for you to reduce power consumption.