This is an answer to an answer, not to the question, and as such should be a comment on Ted Wrigley's answer.

@Rekesoft This is an answer to the question that highlights the costs and consequences of energy regulations, using the same real-world example that was cited by the other answer. And this information is too long to fit in a comment.

This answer seems to ignore all the cases where energy regulation is working or at least appears to be working of focusing on one single case where there appears to be problems when shifting regulation models. And more specifically we are not hearing of these types of problems in the rest of the country that is under federal regulation.

@JoeW It’s rather strange to complain that an answer doesn’t cover all cases, especially when it’s already as long as this one. This answer simply illustrates the downsides that might motivate the question’s situation; that does not require covering all cases. Recall that this case was (inaccurately) brought up by Ted, not me.

I am not complaining that it doesn't cover all cases. I am complaining that it is trying to make an argument based on a single case with issues and ignoring every other cases without issues. When we had this massive cold spike there appears to be only one area of the country that had major issues with the power grid and that is the only one not on the federal grid. In addition it appears it was just one of the private grids in that area as non ERCOT grids appeared to handle it better. news.yahoo.com/amphtml/…

@JoeW Thanks for the link. Again, this answer simply illustrates some potential motivations for the question’s situation, which is what the question asked for.

What this answer is talking about and what the question is asking about are different. This is talking about the issues when deregulating a power grid not about the regulation after it is in place. At best this would be an answer on the issues of regulating or deregulating a power grid not on the pros or cons of a regulated power grid.

@JoeW See this comment. A cross-state grid triggers additional cross-state regulations. That’s probably the reason.

That comment has nothing to do with the issues that California had with attempting to deregulate their powergrid in the 90's and doesn't change the fact that your answer is ignoring the fact that every state doesn't seem to have any problems surrounding the federal regulations. It seems the only grid that is having problems is the one not doing maintenance and upkeep that would be required because of those regulations.

@JoeW Again, cross-state grid implies additional cross-state regulations. This answer shows why the latter might be undesired, and hence why the former might be undesired. This is called modus tollens.

@JoeW Remember that California also had rolling blackouts over the summer, though it didn’t have such a severe weather event.

Comparing rolling blackouts versus power outages that have lasted days in weather that is causing damage due to water pipes freezing and bursting?

@JoeW Yes, California did not experience such a rare weather event.

Texas was not the only state to experience a rare weather event.

@JoeW It was the most severe, as I understand it.

@JoeW California also had blackouts in 2011 and 2020. New York also had blackouts in 2012 and 2020. Massachusetts also had blackouts in 2011 and 2012. Michigan also had blackouts in 2013 and 2017.

This isn't just about having or not having blackouts but the root cause of them which in the case of Texas appears to be poor planning and not being able to handle cold weather which has now caused massive statewide blackouts at least twice in the last 10 years.

@JoeW You have to show that the benefits exceed the costs or viceversa, and so far you have done nothing of the sort. These examples show that Texas is far from unique in having experienced blackouts in the last 10 years.

And you keep pointing to a single case where the process of deregulating the industry was poorly managed by the Republican leadership of a state. You have yet to show examples of regulation that was in place and not being removed that caused problems.

@JoeW Again, my answer shows, with supporting references, that it was regulations rather than deregulation that caused California’s problems. I encourage you to take the time to read it.