Yeah, the linked PDF definitely makes no allusions to preventing Texas from generating any power ahead of the storm by going outside EPA standards.
I don't think this is ERCOT's way of shifting blame, this sounds more like a knee-jerk from people who didn't take the time to actually read the documents in question lumped in with a click-bait headline.
We like to call libruls stupid here, but they are quite clever with words.
Of course they arent going to explicitly say Texas can ignore air quality regulations during an emergency, they just make the conditions to qualify for the exemption not possible to meet.
That's what the conversation here is about.
Interpreing this is like looking at the forest instead of each individual tree.
But you still have to interpret it. Words have meaning, and that is what will come into play in any kind of legal battle over this. This document basically gives them an out, where they can say something like "We made this suggestion based on projections given to us by our experts and did not expect the situation to worsen like it did". It's plausible deniability, and it is something you have to get through if you genuinely expect any problem similar to this (i.e. election fraud) to actually get solved.
Agreed. I would have just ignored the regulations and generated more power.
All I was saying is Biden had the option to sue Texas because of the wording, and the final interpreter of the legal obligations here is the Supreme Cuck Court.
ERCOT chose wrong here, and the reasons should be investigated, but I suspect they will use this document to justify their actions.
Again, you don't get it at all. Words and meanings matter a lot in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court only takes what's given to them, and their decision on the Texas case was about as I expected. Making a ruling where one state can sue another over differences in state laws would open up a tremendous can of worms (i.e. New York suing low-tax states due to industries leaving).
Yeah, the linked PDF definitely makes no allusions to preventing Texas from generating any power ahead of the storm by going outside EPA standards.
I don't think this is ERCOT's way of shifting blame, this sounds more like a knee-jerk from people who didn't take the time to actually read the documents in question lumped in with a click-bait headline.
We like to call libruls stupid here, but they are quite clever with words.
Of course they arent going to explicitly say Texas can ignore air quality regulations during an emergency, they just make the conditions to qualify for the exemption not possible to meet.
That's what the conversation here is about.
Interpreing this is like looking at the forest instead of each individual tree.
But you still have to interpret it. Words have meaning, and that is what will come into play in any kind of legal battle over this. This document basically gives them an out, where they can say something like "We made this suggestion based on projections given to us by our experts and did not expect the situation to worsen like it did". It's plausible deniability, and it is something you have to get through if you genuinely expect any problem similar to this (i.e. election fraud) to actually get solved.
Agreed. I would have just ignored the regulations and generated more power.
All I was saying is Biden had the option to sue Texas because of the wording, and the final interpreter of the legal obligations here is the Supreme Cuck Court.
ERCOT chose wrong here, and the reasons should be investigated, but I suspect they will use this document to justify their actions.
[email protected] "Supreme Cuck Court"
Again, you don't get it at all. Words and meanings matter a lot in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court only takes what's given to them, and their decision on the Texas case was about as I expected. Making a ruling where one state can sue another over differences in state laws would open up a tremendous can of worms (i.e. New York suing low-tax states due to industries leaving).