3731
Comments (305)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
9
drjillsusedscrunchie 9 points ago +13 / -4

No it didn't, and since your reading comprehension sucks, let me explain.

Texas said, "Hey we have a one time emergency and need to increase energy output. It might put us above the environmental limits set for regular usage, but we need to increase this temporarily, for a couple days, to keep damage to a minimum. Since even that might not be enough."

DoE replied with: "Oh noooo that sucks, and indeed looks like an emergency, but the climate comes first, so you cant go over it right now, but when it already is an emergency, we * might * let you go over the limit just a bit, for 6000% the cost of what it would normally be. Maybe. You're welcome."

7
deleted 7 points ago +10 / -3
1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is the real issue. No one should reasonably expect that the government would outright say "No" in a situation like this. That would make a lawsuit against them far too easy. Best thing one can glean from this is that the Federal government made it clear that their priority was emissions, not the well-being of the people during the storm itself.

I also don't think many people understand what "$1,500/MWh" actually means. is that cheap? Is that average? Is that extortion-level expensive?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

They should have, but most bureaucrats aren't going to take any kind of initiative that risks their comfortable jobs.