Bloomberg OpinionThe details of what went wrong in Texas last week — most likely the biggest forced blackout in U.S. history — will take time to establish. So will exactly what to do about it. But this emergency already underlines something that should’ve been obvious before. As the growing threat of extreme weather puts vital economic systems at risk, climate resilience needs to be taken much more seriously.

As of early Friday morning, nearly 190,000 homes were still without power as Texas grappled with an unusual weather pattern that sent temperatures plummeting and demand for energy soaring. With the local grid overwhelmed, officials resorted to rolling blackouts that at one point left millions without heat or clean water and led to at least 20 deaths. President Joe Biden has declared an emergency and federal regulators have launched an investigation.

Evidently no one thing went wrong. The failure was systemic and multifaceted. The extreme cold shut down power from fossil fuel and nuclear plants when instruments and pipelines froze. As the problems cascaded through the state’s electricity grid, outages due to frozen wind turbines made a small contribution to the losses — though nowhere near as much as critics of renewable energy have claimed. The system as a whole had not been weatherized to the necessary standard.

In Texas, two other factors compounded that basic vulnerability. First, the state has, by design, a relatively self-contained grid. This limits its ability to draw power from elsewhere in emergencies. Second, its lightly regulated energy producers compete vigorously on price, which leads them to economize on maintenance and backup systems. Most of the time, the benefit to consumers is real — cheap power. But the delayed cost of those forgone investments is what consumers are now having to endure.

Texas can’t say it had no warning. Severely cold weather caused rotating power shutdowns in 2011, and before that in 1989. Both times, outcry and investigations followed, and calls for generators and supporting infrastructure to be more thoroughly winterized were duly issued. Too little was done.

Investing in resilience is a form of insurance. It costs money, and it’s reasonable to ask how much is enough. The right amount of spending on resilience — the ongoing cost of climate-change insurance — will keep getting bigger year by year until the underlying threat is addressed.

Get Unlimited Access
$3 for 3 Months
Subscribe Now

After the initial selected subscription period your subscription rate will auto renew at $8.00 per month.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.