Comment by infecto

I agree that the ability to adapt, whether to flexible loads, partial failures, or cross-area balancing, is the real test of a grid design. Texas’s isolation means it inherently lacks some of the tools SPP or MISO can use, which makes resilience harder. That is not a “market” problem so much as a structural one. ERCOT’s ruleset was built to optimize for low-cost generation in-state, not multi-region contingency planning.

Where I think a Texas-like market could work better is if you layered competitive generation with enforceable capacity and resiliency standards, along with some interconnection flexibility. Right now, the market rewards generators for selling MWh in good weather, not for being ready in bad weather. That is the economic misalignment.

The EU freight analogy works in the sense that reliability is often a public-good investment. No private actor has the incentive to overbuild or maintain resources for rare events. Texas’s approach does not have to mean politics fully getting out of the way. It could mean using market signals to keep prices efficient while still mandating the backup, winterization, and grid-sharing capabilities that the economy needs.