[jwillp]

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?

[ars]

> 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.