Simonwalcal said "It's because cold is the nature of the beast in our part of the globe. Not generally for theirs. Though it CAN be, it's very rare. Thus, not worth the cost of retrofitting the infrastructure.
Truth be told, even I was surprised at how isolated the Texas power grid was from that of the rest of North America. Though it apparently makes for (or CAN make for) very cheap power rates, this is the other side of the coin. Big problems when there is a huge spike in demand in combination with a drastic drop in generation capacity.
It's unfortunate, really. Given the right infrastructure investments in Texas, I could even see power generated as far away as here helping the situation. The intercontinental grid infrastructure is there (though I suspect the price may not be the best considering how many power companies are between here and TX). "
Just so we're clear, I'm not laughing at them, as in, "Look, they can't handle the cold!" It's for sure a disasterous, rare situation... that they had 10 years ago and were warned about then. They neglected to upgrade and force companies to take the recommended steps should such an event happen again. They actually have deregulated and created less incentive to build the infrastructure to withstand these events that have occurred and will occur again.
THAT's the cost of their cheaper power. They might have saved a few million in infrastructure then, but damages are in the billions now, and will potentially take months or years to recover from all the damage. They're comparing it to Katrina. And it could have been largely mitigated with a little foresight and planning.
What I *am* finding laughable is that they're using it as a excuse to pan renewable energy, and many pro-oil pundits are placing the blame squarely on that. Had only that failed and the rest of their generation capacity remained intact, they might have been okay. But that's not what happened.