A Tale of Two Grids

As a follow-up to the co-authored piece on ERCOT winter system reliability recently shared by Robert McCullough and me, this post shines a light on the important differences between ERCOT's light-handed approach to winter generator preparedness vs. the more requirements and mandates-driven framework imposed on those generators participating in the PJM grid.

ERCOT's approach to winter reliability preparedness is to review what generators are self-reporting and then to opine/suggest. In an Extreme Weather Reliability Assessment filed this January 15 with the Texas PUC, ERCOT wrote that a “review of plants indicates that the majority of plants are following their weatherization plans.”

On the other hand, PJM imposes requirements well beyond the simple reporting of voluntary efforts. In PJM, it would not be acceptable to have a mere "majority of plants" following their self-directed weatherization plans. Per a PJM website posting of February 18, "PJM’s preparation includes everything from increasing staffing for weather emergencies to coordinating maintenance activities that ensure equipment is ready for winter conditions. Before the winter hits, the generators complete a winter checklist and provide PJM confirmation of completion. The extensive preparations of our members, and the close coordination with those members and other stakeholders, allows PJM to prepare for unforeseen outages or other system disruptions."

While those differences may seem relatively minor to an outside observer, we believe it imprudent to leave grid reliability up to the voluntary collective efforts of market participants, each operating in the advancement of their own perceived self-interests. Rules, mandates and regulations designed to protect society's interests matter in our mission-critical industry.