Regarding “Texas paid $31 million to bitcoin miner to cut energy use during heat wave,” (Sept. 7): I see Texas’ Electric Reliability Council has paid one of the state’s largest Bitcoin miners $31.7 million this summer for cutting back on mining during the hot weather. Mining consumes enormous amounts of electricity. This happened as Bitcoin was in a prolonged decline in value and the company was in a competition war with other miners. It is, of course, incidental that company shares have more than doubled this year.
Meanwhile, Texas consumers get daily notices by email, text, radio and television to cut back on energy usage or face possible brownouts or blackouts. In other words, if the lights (A/C!) go out, it’s the consumer’s fault. Who is being regulated here?
Roger Vaught, Houston
Regarding “Want to save Texas’ grid? Pay customers to cut energy usage. (Editorial),” (Sept. 5): There is a better solution. Namely, to stop supplying cryptocurrency miners entirely. Let the cryptocurrency miners go elsewhere (perhaps to Iceland, where energy is plentiful). This would remove something like 3 to 4% of the grid’s daily load and reduce a socially useless, environmentally harmful and monetarily dubious burden on Texans.
Milton D. Rosenau, Jr., Bellaire
It was not too long ago that Gov. Abbott assured Texans that the grid was secure and that there would be plenty of electrical power. Now we are being told day after day to conserve power, as the grid is being taxed severely by extreme heat. So much for assurances.
Gonzalo Martinez, La Porte
Regarding “Batteries helped keep Texas grid afloat, but operators worry ERCOT rules could ‘chill’ the industry,” (Sept. 5): It is stated that widespread coal- and gas-fired plant outages were responsible for the Texas power grid running low on electricity supply last week. However, in the press, on the news and in notices received from our power suppliers to cut back our power usage in the late afternoon and evening it was noted that wind and solar power supplies were also diminished during this time period. We obtain electric power from multiple sources and all should be recognized and acknowledged for their roles in not meeting the electricity demand of customers in Texas.
Jim Robertson, Houston
Impeachment trial
Regarding “Paxton’s trial may confuse your inner echo chamber. Good. (Editorial),” (Sept. 5): Up until Wednesday morning last week, my general reflections on the impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton reflected those of letter writer Phil Lynch (“Little faith in justice,” Sept. 6), and I felt little interest in watching the proceedings or even reading about them.
However, this editorial piqued my curiosity. In spite of — or because of — its light, gawking tone, the editorial reminded me that the trial is not just political drama. There is substance behind the facade of the defendant’s lawyer’s hyperbole, the prosecution’s star witness’ dubious credentials and the partisan habits of our state Senate. I was reminded that this trial is a rare occasion in which our democratic system of justice places an allegedly corrupt state attorney general in judgment before his peers and requires them to pay attention to the evidence of his deeds.
It demands that the head of the Senate, a wildly controversial lieutenant governor, take responsibility for facilitating the proceedings in a respectful manner, in a forum where serious allegations must be taken seriously.
So thank you, editorial staff, for encouraging me to hope that some good will come from all this — maybe even something extraordinary to witness.
Alice Lively, Houston
Regarding “Tony Buzbee says news organizations are making him look more tan at Paxton trial, but are they?” (Sept. 8): With Tony Buzbee’s current look of dyed black, slicked-back hair, your front-page photo is reminiscent of “The Godfather” and his consigliere.
David Clewis, Houston
Regarding “Dueling legal strategies emerge in Texas AG Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial,” (Sept. 8): Under Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s rules, Ken Paxton is not required to attend his own impeachment trial and listen as all his dirty laundry of corruption and adultery is publicly aired…but his wife Angela Paxton is. She’s also forbidden to comment or vote on it. If that isn’t on-brand for Republicans, I don’t know what is.
Donny Jansen, Katy
Why in the world would Patrick rule that Paxton does not have to testify at his own impeachment trial?
Paxton is an employee of the people of Texas. If an employee in the corporate world were accused of corruption and stealing from their employer, they would never be allowed to assert that they did not have to answer their employer’s questions about their misdeeds. If they refused to respond to queries, they would likely be summarily fired, which is exactly what should happen to the Lone Star State’s corrupt and criminal attorney general.
One can only assume that Patrick’s shocking protection of Paxton is the result of the $3 million in campaign contributions and loans made to Patrick by Defend Texas Liberty, a misnamed conservative group that is supporting Paxton and is bankrolled by longtime far-right megadonors Tim Dunn and the Wilks family.
Andrew Edmonson, Houston
