Texas Senate passes bill requiring solar plants to provide power at night(thehill.com)
thehill.com
Texas Senate passes bill requiring solar plants to provide power at night
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/5292792-texas-senate-bill-power-cost/
62 comments
They can’t build the gas plants (backlog to build them is ~5 years with GE and Siemens, and the costs are accelerating beyond reasonable commercial costs). At the same time, ERCOT is projecting supply shortages both this year, and more so in future years due to demand growth.
Record May Peak Demand Coming Wednesday: Grid Roundup #57 - https://www.douglewin.com/p/record-may-peak-demand-coming-we... - May 12th, 2025 ("ERCOT is forecasting a peak of over 84 gigawatts which would shatter the previous May record of 77 gigawatts and even threaten the all-time demand record. ERCOT expects plenty of extra capacity despite large thermal power plant outages; solar power is expected to deliver well over 20 gigawatts. Should various anti-energy bills (SB 715/HB 3356, SB 388, SB 819) become law, these kinds of events would almost certainly create energy emergencies")
Energy groups scrap Texas-backed projects as costs rise - https://www.ft.com/content/19a52438-b529-43a8-9a83-b2d680f3d... | https://archive.today/lsKf9 - May 12th, 2025
Texas Attempt to Kickstart New Gas-Fired Power Is Stumbling - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-05/texas-att... | https://archive.today/9jRPq - April 5th, 2025
Report on the Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) in the ERCOT Region, 2025-2029 - https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2025/02/12/CapacityDemandan... [pdf] - February 13th, 2025
Record May Peak Demand Coming Wednesday: Grid Roundup #57 - https://www.douglewin.com/p/record-may-peak-demand-coming-we... - May 12th, 2025 ("ERCOT is forecasting a peak of over 84 gigawatts which would shatter the previous May record of 77 gigawatts and even threaten the all-time demand record. ERCOT expects plenty of extra capacity despite large thermal power plant outages; solar power is expected to deliver well over 20 gigawatts. Should various anti-energy bills (SB 715/HB 3356, SB 388, SB 819) become law, these kinds of events would almost certainly create energy emergencies")
Energy groups scrap Texas-backed projects as costs rise - https://www.ft.com/content/19a52438-b529-43a8-9a83-b2d680f3d... | https://archive.today/lsKf9 - May 12th, 2025
Texas Attempt to Kickstart New Gas-Fired Power Is Stumbling - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-05/texas-att... | https://archive.today/9jRPq - April 5th, 2025
Report on the Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) in the ERCOT Region, 2025-2029 - https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2025/02/12/CapacityDemandan... [pdf] - February 13th, 2025
Isn't basically every major electricity infrastructure plan quite far behind schedule because of supply shortages?
I remember reading that transformers, especially the larger kinds, are on a 3+ year backorder.
Solar and wind farms are having to order all their parts like 5 years in advance cuz of it.
I remember reading that transformers, especially the larger kinds, are on a 3+ year backorder.
Solar and wind farms are having to order all their parts like 5 years in advance cuz of it.
No, solar and batteries can be installed in 18-24 months, from groundbreaking to first kW to the grid. Transformers for transmission? Gas plants? Yes, supply chain issues, the former with ~1 year lead times, the latter with half decade lead times.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/electric-transformer-shorta...
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/07/a-look-at-the-great-t...
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2024/03/07/a-look-at-the-great-t...
I don’t disagree there are transformer shortages. I disagree these shortages make combustion fossil generation more favorable than renewables for new generation capacity. The generation technology is irrelevant as it relates to these transformer shortages you demonstrate. The gas generator backlogs (~5 years) I mention in my top comment are gas generator specific, due to their specific supply chain and labor needs.
>Australia is a good benchmark of what that looks like. Several of their states run on solar and battery most of the time with coal/gas plants only switching on occasionally now.
I'm in Australia and have absolutely zero clue this is a thing. Do you have any sources for this? As far as I was aware we only had a few batteries that didn't really last too long (at a grid scale).
I'm in Australia and have absolutely zero clue this is a thing. Do you have any sources for this? As far as I was aware we only had a few batteries that didn't really last too long (at a grid scale).
I was just thinking that this might result in more renewables, as the article states how renewable plants are faster to get online and have been almost all of new production.
Make a law demanding more power → power demand grows rapidly → new power supply is required here and now → companies prioritise whatever power source gets them there faster.
Make a law demanding more power → power demand grows rapidly → new power supply is required here and now → companies prioritise whatever power source gets them there faster.
I'm reading the original bill, I can't find anywhere where it says that solar plants have to buy backup power from gas or coal plants. It says they have to be able to operate for 24h above seasonal average, "when called upon". Using batteries for this is explicitly allowed.
I guess the reason for this bill is stability of the grid. I'm not saying if this makes this bill good or bad, I'm not enough of an expert into electrical grids.
The original bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00715S....
I guess the reason for this bill is stability of the grid. I'm not saying if this makes this bill good or bad, I'm not enough of an expert into electrical grids.
The original bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00715S....
> I guess the reason for this bill is stability of the grid.
That's a much more optimistic view of Texas legislators than I believe in.
That's a much more optimistic view of Texas legislators than I believe in.
24h is a lot of battery power, and above average level, too, which means that the average level has to be throttled below what the sun and panels allow.
Sounds quite dirigiste to me. Cf Germany, which allows separate operators to connect batteries to the grid (and there's a stampede). The battery operators plan to buy cheap wind power at night or cheap sun at midday, and they are not constrained to use one source of power the way Texas requires.
Sounds quite dirigiste to me. Cf Germany, which allows separate operators to connect batteries to the grid (and there's a stampede). The battery operators plan to buy cheap wind power at night or cheap sun at midday, and they are not constrained to use one source of power the way Texas requires.
Would it be 24h? Wouldn't it be more like 12 hours?
The text of the law says "24 continuous hours at or above the seasonal average generation capability". 12 makes more sense to me, but what the law says is 24.
But it also says you can do it by subcontracting with an offsite battery operator.
But it also says you can do it by subcontracting with an offsite battery operator.
You have cloudy days on occasion, and maybe the requirement is to to be able to bridge this solar gap for at least 24h using batteries?
Texas lawmakers realized their free market approach led to renewables dominating, and had to put their government thumb on the scales.
[deleted]
I think this is a good idea, and attacks the problem of high availability at the correct abstraction layer.
Demand is lower at night anyway and forces these plants to invest in appropriate energy storage solutions. If we leave this problem up to the rest of the grid we will have even bigger political fights.
Demand is lower at night anyway and forces these plants to invest in appropriate energy storage solutions. If we leave this problem up to the rest of the grid we will have even bigger political fights.
Demand being lower at night implies it makes sense to demand solar production at night?
No, it is is because Texas is adding redundancy requirements. Full investment in solar is dangerous - just look at Spain and Portugal recently. Texas has a duty to provide reliable power to its customers.
I will basically copy-paste my other reply[0] to you because you are spreading a narrative that is potentially wrong (and at the very least quite misleading):
There has been no conclusive post mortem, the issue is still under investigation[1], this is a blog post by a tech company, not an authoritative agency with findings, basically speculation being used as a marketing article...
This article[2] also calls out the rumor mill about renewables being a cause:
> Political groups such as the far-right VOX – which has historically pushed back against climate action such as the expansion of renewables – also pointed to the blackout as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix”.
> However, others rejected this suggestion, with EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen telling Bloomberg that the blackout could not be pinned on a “specific source of energy”:
> “As far as we know, there was nothing unusual about the sources of energy supplying electricity to the system yesterday. So the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables.”
> Others have sought to highlight that, while it was possible solar power was involved in the initial frequency event, this does not mean that it was ultimately the cause of the blackout.
It's all inconclusive and the narrative that solar is the culprit is being pushed by anti-renewables, let's wait until there's an official conclusion to the investigation instead of peddling bullshit.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970583
[1] https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/05/01/iberian-black-out-ents...
[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-we-do-and-do-not-know-ab...
There has been no conclusive post mortem, the issue is still under investigation[1], this is a blog post by a tech company, not an authoritative agency with findings, basically speculation being used as a marketing article...
This article[2] also calls out the rumor mill about renewables being a cause:
> Political groups such as the far-right VOX – which has historically pushed back against climate action such as the expansion of renewables – also pointed to the blackout as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix”.
> However, others rejected this suggestion, with EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen telling Bloomberg that the blackout could not be pinned on a “specific source of energy”:
> “As far as we know, there was nothing unusual about the sources of energy supplying electricity to the system yesterday. So the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables.”
> Others have sought to highlight that, while it was possible solar power was involved in the initial frequency event, this does not mean that it was ultimately the cause of the blackout.
It's all inconclusive and the narrative that solar is the culprit is being pushed by anti-renewables, let's wait until there's an official conclusion to the investigation instead of peddling bullshit.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43970583
[1] https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/05/01/iberian-black-out-ents...
[2] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-we-do-and-do-not-know-ab...
[deleted]
> just look at Spain and Portugal recently
Uh, the cause of the issue has not been identified.
Uh, the cause of the issue has not been identified.
You people will twist themselves into pretzels to protect just about anything if it comes from conservatives, isnt it?
I am looking at this from a logical perspective. It has nothing to do with conservatism.
That's not what Texas demands. Rather, it demands being able to produce above average at night, which is far above what the usage patterns require.
That was my impression of the description of the bill, too. This part:
>> If passed by the House, state S.B. 715 would require all renewable projects — even existing ones — to buy backup power, largely from coal or gas plants.
If it compelled the renewable projects to buy from a coal plant, that might be an issue. But if the choice is buy from a coal plant OR invest in storage so that the amoutn of energy delivered can be consistent across the day, that’s probably a great outcome.
>> If passed by the House, state S.B. 715 would require all renewable projects — even existing ones — to buy backup power, largely from coal or gas plants.
If it compelled the renewable projects to buy from a coal plant, that might be an issue. But if the choice is buy from a coal plant OR invest in storage so that the amoutn of energy delivered can be consistent across the day, that’s probably a great outcome.
A lot of people miss the fact that coal or natural gas can provide on demand power much faster to customers when solar plants go dormant at night.
Much faster than what? Than battery storage?
Gas turbines can run continuously for hours or even days at full output. Batteries are only few hours at most. Batteries can’t provide this kind of power demand at grid scale.
> Batteries can’t provide this kind of power demand at grid scale.
Yes, they can't yet* supply enough power for overnight coverage. However, multiple grids have batteries that provide four hours of supply at grid scale.
Watch the percentage of power running overnight on batteries. Over time, you'll see an increasing blend of wind power plus batteries with a decreasing amount of gas-powered turbines.
Yes, they can't yet* supply enough power for overnight coverage. However, multiple grids have batteries that provide four hours of supply at grid scale.
Watch the percentage of power running overnight on batteries. Over time, you'll see an increasing blend of wind power plus batteries with a decreasing amount of gas-powered turbines.
You may be working with outdated information. Battery capacity has skyrocketed in the last few years and that growth is not slowing down.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64705
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64705
Thankfully nighttime doesn't last for days
I don't see a problem in this, Renewables do put strain on the grid and atleast legislating for this means they have to put some stationary storage batteries in, and that helps smooth peak demand etc.
The problem is it's a disingenuous and malicious non-solution by ideologues, not a real solution to a real problem. The solution already exists and is already in place in ERCOT. The pricing mechanism.
> it's a disingenuous and malicious non-solution by ideologues,
Are you new to Politics or something?
Are you new to Politics or something?
Politics isn't as bad as Texas in many places, states, and countries.
This title is click bait, and the article is poorly written.
A better title: "Texas Senate passes bill requiring renewables to designate backup power to reduce their volatility"
I also clicked on the references given in the article, and they don't exactly say what the article claims.
For example: "A study by the Texas Association of Business (TAB) found that the legislation would cost the state $5.2 billion more per year — and cost individual consumers $225 more."
That's not what the link says, the link says that reducing the growth of renewables would do that. The article pretends that this legislation would reduce renewables, but it does not actually prove that claim.
The Hill usually has higher quality work, this article is garbage.
A better title: "Texas Senate passes bill requiring renewables to designate backup power to reduce their volatility"
I also clicked on the references given in the article, and they don't exactly say what the article claims.
For example: "A study by the Texas Association of Business (TAB) found that the legislation would cost the state $5.2 billion more per year — and cost individual consumers $225 more."
That's not what the link says, the link says that reducing the growth of renewables would do that. The article pretends that this legislation would reduce renewables, but it does not actually prove that claim.
The Hill usually has higher quality work, this article is garbage.
If only they passed the inverse law requiring gas and coal plants to buy renewable power to reduce their pollution impact. This raises the question, why should a power generator be required to purchase external power? Isn't that the job of the grid operator, not the generation companies?
It sounds like the state grid operator is trying to put their own burden onto renewable generators, rather than manage their portfolio directly.
Who actually is responsible for balancing the grid? The state? ERCOT? Individual generators? Nobody?
How does this compare to other grids?
> If only they passed the inverse law requiring gas and coal plants to buy renewable power to reduce their pollution impact.
Why? The goal of this law is a stable grid, it's not an environmental law. And your law makes no sense, they should buy renewable power in order to sell it? Why do I need an extra middleman?
The actual purpose of this law is that if you are putting unable power on the grid it's your job to make it stable.
The grid operator is responsible for the stability of the entire thing, but this law is saying that each individual supplier must be responsible for the stability of their personal part.
I suspect as the proportion of renewables increases more and more grids will require something like this.
Why? The goal of this law is a stable grid, it's not an environmental law. And your law makes no sense, they should buy renewable power in order to sell it? Why do I need an extra middleman?
The actual purpose of this law is that if you are putting unable power on the grid it's your job to make it stable.
The grid operator is responsible for the stability of the entire thing, but this law is saying that each individual supplier must be responsible for the stability of their personal part.
I suspect as the proportion of renewables increases more and more grids will require something like this.
Thank you, and post flagged for political clickragebait which we get too much of already in here.
Well they could use dark solar panels to provide power at night ;)
https://www.ecoportal.net/en/first-dark-solar-panel-in-histo...
Digging up the vote [0] it seems to be party-line: 20 Republicans in favor, 11 Democrats against.
[0] https://legiscan.com/TX/rollcall/SB715/id/1568696
[0] https://legiscan.com/TX/rollcall/SB715/id/1568696
every mom and pop store that is open between the hours of 8 am and 5pm understands the double standard of requiring a utility to operate 24/7. It's not like it's the city that never sleeps. Who needs a solar plant to provide power 24/7?
I don’t understand why we’re not going to nuclear.
Nobody wants a plant in their backyard, nobody wants to store the waste in their state, the investment takes the length of career to pay off.
Too expensive
It takes a long time to build them. By the time they are built, the economics for them will be much worse than they already are relative to solar, wind, and hydro.
can't help but to think that somebody has bribed them to pass the stupid bill, yea? oh, sorry, "lobbied" is the correct word for it. anyway, what's with texas and fossil fuel love-story? seems they don't want to get separated.
kubb(1)
[deleted]
Recently there was a Spain/Portugal outage that caused loss of 60% of those countries overall power needs and those countries relied on solar. The high penetration of renewables without adequate storage or backup solutions made the grid more susceptible to frequency fluctuations. Texas has harsh weather and in recent years there has been issues with the resiliency of their power grid. Texas has issues with hail storms that damage the solar panel grid.
Due to several factors such as surging demand from AI data centers and manufacturers operating at full capacity, there is a natural gas turbine shortage. Without a natural gas turbine, you can’t add a solar farm to the grid. AND, without enough new gas turbines, Texas may be reluctant to add large, predominant scale solar because they can't guarantee reliability during low solar output.
So adding a battery backup requirement or use of natural gas for example may seem counter intuitive but Texas has a duty to provide reliable and redundant power to its customers
Due to several factors such as surging demand from AI data centers and manufacturers operating at full capacity, there is a natural gas turbine shortage. Without a natural gas turbine, you can’t add a solar farm to the grid. AND, without enough new gas turbines, Texas may be reluctant to add large, predominant scale solar because they can't guarantee reliability during low solar output.
So adding a battery backup requirement or use of natural gas for example may seem counter intuitive but Texas has a duty to provide reliable and redundant power to its customers
> Recently there was a Spain/Portugal outage that caused loss of 60% of those countries overall power needs and those countries relied on solar.
The outage had nothing to do with solar though, no idea why you brought it up.
The outage had nothing to do with solar though, no idea why you brought it up.
https://enode.com/blog/evolving-energy/the-iberian-blackout-...
“ Two sudden disconnections at solar generation sites in southwestern Spain triggered a rapid frequency drop. Historically, fossil fuel plants would have provided inertia to dampen the swing and limit disruption. But that day, renewables made up nearly 80% of supply. The energy feeding the grid was clean, but inflexible.”
Texas has chosen to add a non renewable backup option as a reasonable choice. The article there advocates for a complex battery option that is more decentralized from the main power grid. That’s one option but it requires deploying millions of dollars in batteries and things like natural gas turbines simply perform better with today’s technology in these situations.
“ Two sudden disconnections at solar generation sites in southwestern Spain triggered a rapid frequency drop. Historically, fossil fuel plants would have provided inertia to dampen the swing and limit disruption. But that day, renewables made up nearly 80% of supply. The energy feeding the grid was clean, but inflexible.”
Texas has chosen to add a non renewable backup option as a reasonable choice. The article there advocates for a complex battery option that is more decentralized from the main power grid. That’s one option but it requires deploying millions of dollars in batteries and things like natural gas turbines simply perform better with today’s technology in these situations.
There has been no conclusive post mortem, the issue is still under investigation[0], this is a blog post by a tech company, not an authoritative agency with findings, basically speculation being used as a marketing article...
This article [1] also calls out the rumor mill about renewables being a cause:
> Political groups such as the far-right VOX – which has historically pushed back against climate action such as the expansion of renewables – also pointed to the blackout as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix”.
> However, others rejected this suggestion, with EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen telling Bloomberg that the blackout could not be pinned on a “specific source of energy”:
> “As far as we know, there was nothing unusual about the sources of energy supplying electricity to the system yesterday. So the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables.”
> Others have sought to highlight that, while it was possible solar power was involved in the initial frequency event, this does not mean that it was ultimately the cause of the blackout.
It's all inconclusive and the narrative that solar is the culprit is being pushed by anti-renewables, let's wait until there's an official conclusion to the investigation instead of peddling bullshit.
[0] https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/05/01/iberian-black-out-ents...
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-we-do-and-do-not-know-ab...
This article [1] also calls out the rumor mill about renewables being a cause:
> Political groups such as the far-right VOX – which has historically pushed back against climate action such as the expansion of renewables – also pointed to the blackout as evidence of “the importance of a balanced energy mix”.
> However, others rejected this suggestion, with EU energy chief Dan Jørgensen telling Bloomberg that the blackout could not be pinned on a “specific source of energy”:
> “As far as we know, there was nothing unusual about the sources of energy supplying electricity to the system yesterday. So the causes of the blackout cannot be reduced to a specific source of energy, for instance renewables.”
> Others have sought to highlight that, while it was possible solar power was involved in the initial frequency event, this does not mean that it was ultimately the cause of the blackout.
It's all inconclusive and the narrative that solar is the culprit is being pushed by anti-renewables, let's wait until there's an official conclusion to the investigation instead of peddling bullshit.
[0] https://www.entsoe.eu/news/2025/05/01/iberian-black-out-ents...
[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-what-we-do-and-do-not-know-ab...
Batteries would allow solar plants to provide power when the sun doesn't shine. And those are of course already being deployed in record numbers on the grid and very popular in combination with wind and solar setups. Any surplus of battery capacity would weaken the business case for operating gas plants and push those into the role of peaker plants.
Australia is a good benchmark of what that looks like. Several of their states run on solar and battery most of the time with coal/gas plants only switching on occasionally now.