Texas power plants have no responsibility to provide electricity in emergencies, judges rule
Texas power plants have no responsibility to provide electricity in emergencies, judges rule
A panel of judges has said that big power companies cannot be held liable for failure to provide electricity during the 2021 blackout. The reason is Texas’ deregulated energy market.
Almost three years since the deadly Texas blackout of 2021, a panel of judges from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has ruled that big power companies cannot be held liable for failure to provide electricity during the crisis. The reason is Texas’ deregulated energy market.
The decision seems likely to protect the companies from lawsuits filed against them after the blackout. It leaves the families of those who died unsure where next to seek justice.
In February of 2021, a massive cold front descended on Texas, bringing days of ice and snow. The weather increased energy demand and reduced supply by freezing up power generators and the state’s natural gas supply chain. This led to a blackout that left millions of Texans without energy for nearly a week.
The state has said almost 250 people died because of the winter storm and blackout, but some analysts call that a serious undercount.
You're viewing a single thread.
Rich people's electricity stayed on, I'm just saying...
People seem surprised that the face-eating leopards who said that everything was going to be fine if you just allow deregulation of the market, proceeded to then eat the faces of the poors (but not those of the rich, at least whenever it could be avoided).
I'm not even kidding - see no /s - but in Texas, this isn't a bug, it's a feature. This is what "lower taxes" means, bc you don't get something for nothing; and when you pay less, you necessarily get less in return (even though the converse is not always true) - in this case lower robustness to perturbations of the system.
Texas does not have lower Taxes. That is a myth. Texas has lower Income Taxes. They more than make up for it in the other taxes and fees they collect. Texas is actively trying to force People from their homes such that wealthy connected folks can buy the property and rent it out.
Texas does not have lower taxes for the poors, but nonetheless it has lower taxes for the most wealthy citizens. Rich people literally cannot buy as much as the difference between what they make vs. the poors, so the lower Income vs. Sales taxes works in their favor, plus whatever other contributions they may make (charity, tips) they get to choose to hold back in return for services rendered - a building (or wing/floor of one) named in their honor, etc.
But since facts rarely matter, "lower taxes" is one major reason why people want to live in Texas, and why bills passed in Texas get passed - e.g. I was presuming that was how the disconnection from the federal energy grid was sold to the populace.
Even (especially) if it's not strictly true, "lower taxes" is the reason for much that is done in Texas.
The Taxes are not lower, they were just shifted to the wage slaves.
Yes, but (a) a humongous proportion of people don't know/care about that, compared to let's say owning the libs, and (b) ironically they actually are lower, though only for those up top, thus providing the incentive to claim that taxes are "lower" there (when in fact, to the people they are aiming those messages at, they are higher).
shifting costs around to other sources of funding isn't lowering costs. Someone else is paying the Taxes is all that has changed.
This is not even a taxes issue - it’s extremely short sighted regulation, or lack of. But, no sarcasm intended, if regulators don’t set any bar for reliability, I suppose it follows that companies aren’t liable for it.
"Short sighted" presumes that those who enacted it did not realize what effects it would have, but very likely they did, and this outcome is how they wanted things to go.
(1) Companies are free to make moar monay; and (2) the "only people who (should) matter" get electricity, when resources become scarce, whereas minorities do not. Bonus points if infants from the latter group die, thus keeping that population more "manageable", in that "Pro-Life" state that is so against abortion that it would sooner allow the mother to die than to ensure that she receives lifesaving medical care, e.g. in cases of miscarriage or such where for anyone who knows anything at all about biology (or is willing to read through the definition of the word "miscarriage") there is not even the remotest shadow of a doubt that there is no "child's life" involved at all (anymore).
But it is complex a little bc those who write the laws are not those who vote on them. Even more foundationally though... well, this video explains it far better than I could: https://youtu.be/agzNANfNlTs?si=EX7LDD58Q5AOhHrY (if you need an intro to decide whether to watch the whole thing or not, use from 3 or 4 to 5:30 min from beginning)