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).
You should never have bothered in the first place then because you're clearly unable to argue in good faith.
Whether you disagree with me or not really doesn't matter. You aren't going to get anywhere with the "I know it and you know it" line. The DOE worded their response so they could have plausible deniability, making any potential legal battles over this boil down to a "proving intent" case, which would be very hard to do.
The only evidence we have available is the linked PDF document. Within it, the DOE makes it at least appear that it was willing to help within limits. Determining whether those limits were "realistic" or not is part of the problem. The second part is determining if the setting of "unrealistic" limits (should they be shown as such) was intentionally done to cause problems.
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).
I disagree with you and I don't view this as a productive conversation.
Good bye and stay classy.
You should never have bothered in the first place then because you're clearly unable to argue in good faith.
Whether you disagree with me or not really doesn't matter. You aren't going to get anywhere with the "I know it and you know it" line. The DOE worded their response so they could have plausible deniability, making any potential legal battles over this boil down to a "proving intent" case, which would be very hard to do.
The only evidence we have available is the linked PDF document. Within it, the DOE makes it at least appear that it was willing to help within limits. Determining whether those limits were "realistic" or not is part of the problem. The second part is determining if the setting of "unrealistic" limits (should they be shown as such) was intentionally done to cause problems.