guest column

Texas vs the nation: Comparing energy grid resilience across America

If we want to see real change, we need action by all parties. Photo via Getty Images

The 2024 Atlantic hurricane season has proven disastrous for the United States. On July 8th, Hurricane Beryl barreled into Texas as a Category 1 storm knocking out power for nearly 3 million, causing over $2.5 billion in damages, and resulting in the deaths of at least 42 people.

More recently, Hurricanes Helene and Milton tore through the East Coast, dropping trillions of gallons of rain on Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee, causing dams to collapse, flash flooding, trees to fall, millions of power outages, complete destruction of homes and businesses, and the deaths of hundreds.

Amidst the horror and rescue efforts, wariness of the increasing strength of natural disasters, and repeated failures of energy grids around the nation begs a few questions.

  1. Is there a version of a power grid that can better endure hurricanes, heat waves, and freezes?
  2. How does the Texas grid compare to other regional grids in the United States?
  3. What can we do to solve our power grid problems and who is responsible for implementing these solutions?

Hurricane-proof grids do not exist

There is no version of a grid anywhere in the United States that can withstand the brunt of a massive hurricane without experiencing outages.

The wind, rain, and flooding are simply too much to handle.

Some might wonder, “What if we buried the power lines?” Surely, removing the power lines from the harsh winds, rain, flying debris, and falling tree branches would be enough to keep the lights on, right?

Well, not necessarily. Putting aside the fact that burying power lines is incredibly expensive – estimates range from thousands to millions of dollars per mile buried – extended exposure to water from flood surges can still cause damage to buried lines. To pile on further, flood surges are likely to seriously damage substations and transformers. When those components fail, there’s no power to run through the lines, buried or otherwise.

Heat waves and winter freezes are a different story

During extreme weather events like heat waves or winter freezes, the strain on the grid goes beyond simple issues of generation and distribution—it’s also a matter of human behavior and grid limitations.

Building and maintaining a power grid is extremely expensive, and storing electricity is not only costly but technically challenging. Most grids are designed with little "buffer" capacity to handle peak demand moments, because much of the infrastructure sits idle during normal conditions. Imagine investing billions of dollars in a power plant or wind farm that only operates at full capacity a fraction of the time. It’s difficult to recoup that investment.

When extreme weather hits, demand spikes significantly while supply remains relatively static, pushing the grid to its limits. This imbalance makes it hard to keep up with the surge in energy usage.

At the same time, our relationship with electricity has changed—our need for electricity has only increased. We’ve developed habits—like setting thermostats to 70 degrees or lower during summer heat waves or keeping homes balmy in winter— that, while comfortable, place additional strain on the system.

Behavioral changes, alongside investments in infrastructure, are crucial to ensuring we avoid blackouts as energy demand continues to rise in the coming years.

How the Texas grid compares to other regional grids

Is the Texas grid really in worse shape compared to other regional grids around the U.S.?

In some ways, Texas is lagging and in others, Texas is a leader.

One thing you might have heard about the Texas grid is that it is isolated, which restricts the ability to import power from neighboring regions during emergencies. Unfortunately, connecting the Texas grid further would not be a one-size fits all solution for fixing its problems. The neighboring grids would need to have excess supply at the exact moment of need and have the capacity to transmit that power to the right areas of need. Situations often arise where the Texas grid needs more power, but New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana have none to spare because they are experiencing similar issues with supply and demand at the same time. Furthermore, even if our neighbors have some power to share, the infrastructure may not be sufficient to deliver the power where it’s needed within the state.

On the other hand, Texas is leading the nation in terms of renewable development. The Lone Star State is #1 in wind power and #2 in solar power, only behind California. There are, of course, valid concerns about heavy reliance on renewables when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining, compounded by a lack of large-scale battery storage. Then, there’s the underlying cost and ecological footprint associated with the manufacturing of those batteries.

Yet, the only state with more utility-scale storage than Texas is California.

In recent years, ERCOT has pushed generators and utility companies to increase their winterization efforts, incentivize the buildout of renewables and electricity storage. You might have also heard about the Texas Electricity Fund, which represents the state’s latest effort to further incentivize grid stability. Improvements are underway, but they may not be enough if homeowners and renters across the state are unwilling to set their thermostats a bit higher during extended heatwaves.

How can we fix the Texas grid?

Here’s the reality we must face – a disaster-proof, on-demand, renewable-powered grid is extremely expensive and cannot be implemented quickly. We must come to terms with the fact that the impact of natural disasters is unavoidable, no matter how much we “upgrade” the infrastructure.

Ironically, the most impactful solution out there is free and requires only a few seconds to implement. Simple changes to human behavior are the strongest tool we have at our disposal to prevent blackouts in Texas. By decreasing our collective demand for electricity at the right times, we can all help keep the lights on and prices low.

During peak hours, the cumulative effort is as simple as turning off the lights, turning the thermostat up a few degrees, and running appliances like dishwashers and laundry machines overnight.

Another important element we cannot avoid addressing is global warming. As the temperatures on the surface of the earth increase, the weather changes, and, in many cases, it makes it more volatile.

The more fossil fuels we burn, the more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to more volatile weather. Volatile weather, in turn, contributes to extreme grid strain in the form of heat waves, winter freezes, and hurricanes. This is no simple matter to solve, because the energy needs and capabilities of different countries differ. That is why some countries around the globe continue to expand their investments in coal as an energy source, the fossil fuel that burns the dirtiest and releases the most greenhouse gases per unit.

While governments and private organizations continue to advance carbon capture, renewable, and energy storage technology efficiency, the individual could aid these efforts by changing our behavior. There are many impactful things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint, like adjusting our thermostat a few degrees, eating less red meat, driving cars less often, and purchasing fewer single-use plastics to name a few.

If we want to see real change, we need action by all parties. The complex system of generation, transmission, and consumption all need to experience radical change, or the vicious cycle will only continue.

———

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News