Today's episode of the trib Cast is sponsored by the City of Corpus Christi, Texas Realtors and water Groves. Welcome to the trib Cast. I'm Eleanor Clibanoff, women's health reporter. I am not the women's health reporter at the Texas Tribune anymore.
Wow, that is just like muscle memory.
I'm Eleanor Klibanoff, as of today, the law and politics reporter at the Texas Tribune. Here with my as always with my co host, Matthew, editor in chief, still has the same job as he did yesterday.
Yeah, but sometimes I've worked at the Tribune for ten years, but sometimes I still almost instinctively tell people that I'm a reporter from the Dallas Morning News.
So I feel you.
That's a deep cut for you, Matthew. Where in the world are you, Eleanor.
I'm someplace warm. I have a place where the beer flows like wine, where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place like called Aspen.
Wow.
That, by the way, just before I creep anyone out. As a quote from Dumb and Dummer, I hope folks picked up on that.
And I'm not just talking. Yes, I'm an Aspen.
I am at a convenient of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It is almost too beautiful to bear out here. I'm angry to be inside recording for these forty five minutes and not outside.
But yeah, that's what's that. I said. At least you have all those plugs.
Yeah, yeah, you had everything charging. It's a good chance to get charged up before you go back out.
And Carlos, I unplugged that before we started recording, and I appreciate you bringing it up.
We invite you to watch this episode on YouTube and you know, see the Matthews plug setup. Well, that sounds great. I am glad you're an Aspen. I'm not jealous at all. Actually, as we've discussed, I weirdly am going to Aspen in a couple of weeks for a different conference. Apparently it's real conference season and Aspen.
Yeah, I think so. I think so.
I think you might be actually coming to the same place that I am right now. And I will tell you Eleanor it's pretty good.
That's great. How are you with the altitude?
I'm doing okay, okay, it's my flight in got canceled on Sunday night, so I had to spend a night in the crappy near the Denver Airport Hotel, which allowed me to adjust a little bit more, you know.
Gradually to acclimatize.
Yeah, when I'm going, I'm going directly from New Orleans, which is like the lowest sea level to Aspen, which is like the highest, and so I think I might die anyway.
Drink lots of water.
Everyone has been telling me that, They're like, oh, you're from Texas, drink lots of water. Well, and then they're also like, we we in Colorado hate Texans.
So this is a perfect segue to talk about our subject of the week, which is, you know, we've jokingly been calling this episode infrastructure Week.
You know, as most people listening, I presume no. Yesterday was sineed. I the last day the legislative session, and a lot of times like the stuff that gets the biggest headlines or the you know, most the legislators certainly enjoy talking about a lot are sort.
Of these.
Culture war issues or sort of more social socially conservative issues obviously gets a lot of airtime, but a lot of what Texans care about has to do with our infrastructure, Can we keep the lights on? Can we keep water flowing? And so we wanted to talk today about what our lawmakers did on those issues and what the future of
life in Texas looks like to do that. We are joined by Alejandra Martinez, the Texas Tribunes Environmental Reporter, and Carlos Nogeros Ramos, the Texas Tribunes Permian Basin Reporter.
Welcome to both of you.
Thank you.
Quite a geographic spread we have.
We've got Austin, Fort Worth, Odessa, and Aspith.
Yeah yeah, yeah, we are all over.
Yeah yeah. Well let's start with water.
Hugely important topic this session the Texas Tribune, you know, specifically Alejandra, Carlos, your teams, especially with Jamie Lozanocarver. Did I believe more almost two dozen stories on the water, the state of the state's water systems, a phenomenal project. If you guys haven't taken the chance to look at these stories, I mean really just so comprehensive and really really accessible. It was a huge topic of conversation this session. So Ali, why don't you start by telling us why why water?
And why now? Like why this?
Why are we now talking about water. What's the state of the crisis.
Yeah, yeah, well, I mean, not to be an alarmist, but I mean in the state, Texas is running out of water and pretty fast.
There's a lot.
Of things threatening our water supply. There are aging pipes that are leaking, and that's like old old infrastructure, sometimes hundreds of years old, still under the ground and piping our water that hasn't been repaired or upgraded. There are drought pressures that are only really worsening with climate change. And then we have the population growth these booming areas across the state. I think DFW is going to need more like about half as more as it requires now
in a couple of years. And so there's all these things really squeezing our water resources. And you mentioned the series Running Out where we documented all these different aspects of what's happening with our water supply and the state part of that series, we used state data from the Texas Water Development Board to look at what is our long term water supply and how long is that gonna last.
And one instament that showed that Texas towns and cities will and I'm saying will not could will face a water shortage by twenty thirty, you're talking about five years from now. This is if there's a historic drought like we saw in the nineteen fifties and if no water solutions are implemented.
And so water was a.
Pretty big deal, and our state leaders took note of that. You had Governor Greg Abbott that made water, who made water an emergency item and called really early in the session for a quote like Texas Wide investment to water.
And so there were all these different things that people were paying attention to and that people had been noticing in these last couple of years, with like the intense droughts that we've been having across the state, the continuous boil water notices that happened because water pressures are down doue to old infrastructure, and so really they want really this session, they'd geared down and started figuring out.
What can we do?
And I guess they're so like, where did we end up with? Right, you mentioned Siany die was yesterday and after a lot of debate and discussion, which we should definitely get to later, all the water drama that was happening at the Capitol, but the final deal that came out would allocate one billion dollars a year starting in twenty twenty seven until twenty forty seven to secure the
state's water supply. That's twenty billion dollar dollars in total, and that money would be used for new water quote new water supply projects is what they call it, which is desalination, which is removing minerals and salt from brackish groundwater that's that really salty water. Or another solution is repairing old infrastructure conservation and flood mitigation projects. And so that one billion dollar will be a ballot amendment measure that voters will get to, you know, castor ballots and
vote on this upcoming November. So that's one piece of the bucket. And then the second piece of the bucket is a one time investment of two point five billion dollars into the water fund that came out of the current budget surplus. So you have billions of dollars that were secured this session for water.
Is that enough? We know that it's not right.
There are a lot of of amazing thing tanks like Texas twenty thirty six and others that have made.
Their estimates of how much is needed.
Sometimes I think that estimate's like hundreds of billions of dollars. So, but it is one step forward, is what water experts and water lobbyists are saying.
Oh, I want to drill a little bit deeper into that last point that you made. Right, So, the Texas twenty thirty six report you're talking about, I'm citing a story that you wrote here, was that the state needs one hundred and fifty four billion dollars by twenty fifty.
Right, So when you.
Hear twenty billion dollars plus another two point five you think, wow, twenty two point five billion dollars. That's a lot of money, But that's a lot less than one hundred and fifty billion dollars by twenty fifty. I mean, what's the what's the mood among the people who have been calling for this, you know, in the.
Lead up to this session? Is this is it? Yeah? This is great? We did what we need to do. Is it okay, this is a good start?
Or is it?
Oh god?
You know this was the big moment when everyone was rallied around this and we didn't even you know, get to half of what some people said we needed up until this time.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think the mood is it's a great start. I mean a lot of these water experts and lobbyis are just, I think, in some ways happy that the issues like finally getting attention. You have a senator at the capital, Senator Charles Perry, who's been advocating for water money, like any funding for water for I think over a decade.
And so there's been a few number of people who have been really pushing for this kind of water investment, but it wasn't until like this year that it seemed like more people got on board or understood what.
Is happening.
I think a lot of recent events added to that. I mean, I know God Loos who's on this quote too, Like he wrote about I don't remember if it was Odessa or Milan, but cities in West Texas with continuous boiled water notices.
Right.
So there's like more and more communities facing those immediate problems or issues because of our water systems.
Right. And so I will note that also last session.
There was a dedication for water funding, nothing as big as this session, but I think it's like what I'm hearing is like these baby steps are what's gonna build or get us somewhere bigger.
Right. So, although we had one of the what.
They're calling the biggest investments for water in Texas history. They're gonna come back next session and push for more.
And I'm hearing Carlos, I want to ask, like, you're in the Permian Basin, like a region that you know, as I understand it is really hopefully going to benefit from some of this water money. I mean, what's the outlook there for water and what are you sort of hearing about, uh, you know, how this deal is being received in that area.
I would agree with Alejandra's assessment that there is a lot of buzz and excitement. We will take anything we can get. You know, the water boil notices that I wrote about was because I lift them.
You know, we were without.
Water for almost a day, and before I had moved, I had moved to Odessa a year before the city had been without water for two days, and that was an infrastructure issue more than it was a money problem. And so, you know, like she said, we you know, if there's a solution, we we want because the ones we have now are limited. The Texas Water Development Board is limited in what the authority it has and the and the money it can distribute, and so yeah, it's
you know, it's it's good news. I would also say I covered water from the oil and gas industry standpoint, and you know, among among uh these these folks, you know, there is a sense that you can't just throw money at a problem and expect it to kind of make it go away or disappear. And so there was a conversation here around what the oil and gas industry could contribute into the water dielemma, considering that it's an industry
that requires so much water to operate and run. And as you know, we broke records last year for oil and gas production. This year we are set to do the same. I mean, we are drilling for so much oil and gas, which takes water and so but you know, from under the earth also comes water. And you know, the question was can can we clean this water or can we treat it to a standard that is acceptable
to the agency and safe for conception. But guess what, that's also going to require so much money because it takes infrastructure, it takes energy to clean it. And then you know, once you do, how do you get it
to the places where it needs to go? You know, do we build pipelines and then do we have a workforce that's able to build that, and so it's a it's a it's a dilemma with with a lot of moving parts, and so certainly people say, you know, this is a good start, but certainly nowhere near the finish line either.
It was interesting, I'll a be there was a lot of agreement on the idea that we need to do something about water, but there was a lot of disagreement in how to go about doing that. I think like one of the big questions, right is, if you're going to solve the water problems, you can create more supply or you can patch up and fix a lot of that infrastructure. Right, Like, one of the big issues driving this water problem isn't just that we don't have enough water.
It's that a lot of the water that we have is being leaked into the ground via pipes. You know, there's Carlos mentioned the problems in Odessa. There's things like that happening all over the state. And there seemed to be some disagreement among lawmakers right about whether which of those two things to invest more in the supply or the patching up of the pipes. Can you talk a little bit about that conversation and where we landed there.
Yeah, this is definitely where the water drama happened.
The how are you going to spend this?
The allocation of this money, right the leaky pipes versus new water supply, which it could include like desalination or treating oil field wastewater, that godless is mentioning.
And so at the early.
Start of the sessions, there were kind of these two proposals that were put up, one by Senator Charles Perry that kind of divided those buckets of money into an eighty twenty split. Eighty percent of that fund would go to new water supply projects, desalination, treating oil field wastewater, and then the remaining twenty percent would go to everything else that includes infrastructure, conservation, water vus aquafer storage, recovery projects.
So and then the other proposal, which was by Representative Cody Harris, kind of made the allocation and said, you know, the Texas Water Development Board will know where best to spend this money because they're the ones they're the agency that have the biggest connection with communities across the state, and the Water Board knows best. And so this is where that kind of fight over the ratio, the split grew more heated and heated over the course of the session.
We had water experts and lobbyists at first being kind of hesitant to speak speak for or against that ratio or split in fear that you know, speaking about it would put in jeopardy any type of water funding.
Right. These are people that are finally like, yay, we're.
Finally talking about water funding, and you know, if we say the wrong thing, maybe everything will come undone and
no more water funding. So but as the session you know, progressed, and they saw that, you know, these bills weren't coming out of committee, or they were being delayed on the process, or they weren't getting put on the House or Senate floor, more and more of them started speak up against and and it was and when they spoke up, it was against this eighty twenty ratio, led by their quote water champion Senator Charles Perry, who finally put.
Water on the map at the Capitol. And so it was, it was very it was.
It required a lot of conversation with different people because so many of them were at many times hesitant to go on the record because of what I just explained. Putting water funding in jeopardy, but knew that or they felt that that split wasn't the best because they were very concerned about, why are we going to start creating new water supply right when we haven't fixed our infrastructure, so we're just gonna pump more water for it to
leak out of our aging pipes. It just they didn't agree with that approach, and so so what we ended up with, or what they ended up with and landed at, was that a fifty to fifty split.
So the first half of the money would go to all of the projects.
Conservation water we use, dsal of seawater, brackish ground water, and developing reservoirs, and then the remaining would go to the Water Development Board, which what we heard has identified a number of projects that already need that money, and they will determine which of those projects will get it.
I think a lot of people are interested on like what projects end up getting that money after that really like back and forth debate over new water and infrastructure, and that's what we'll have to see in the next couple of years as that money starts rolling out.
And all hundred just sort of to tie up this issue, it now will go to the voters, right, and yeah, I mean, do they anticipate this will pass? Like it seems like an issue people are sort of generally supportive of, but it's a pretty big price tag.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think there have been a couple of surveys that were done ahead of session of do voters want more money to go towards water? And I think and overwhelmingly so, they were overwhelmingly supportive of that. The people that they that these organizations surveyed, and based on conversations I've been having, there are no worries there. But we'll see, you know, we'll see when the election comes around.
It's a slam dunk, it'll pass.
Yeah, that's a certainly feels like a thing people are. It's very tangible to be like, you know, do you want to be able to have water? It's hard to vote no on that, though some people, I'm sure find a way. Well, let's take a quick break and think our responds. Today's episode is supported by Corpus Christie Water. Learn how the City of Corpus Christi is securing an affordable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly water solution for the coastal Bend during
serious drought conditions. At Sustainablewater dot corpus Christi Tx dot gov. Texas Realtors with more than one hundred and forty five thousand members. Texas Realtors is a professional membership organization that represents all aspects of real estate in Texas. We are the advocate for realtors and private property rights in Texas.
Learn more at Texas real Estate.
Dot com and water Grows our Food economy and future. Discover how Texas farmers make strides to make water lasts for Texans now and for generations to come more at watergrows dot org. Well, let's turn out to the other major issue that gets people a little stressed out, which is the grid and our energy infrastructure.
I would just like to just to say that there are way more than two of issues that get people.
Two issues that stress Texans out. Survey says only two. Everyone is so calm about everything else. No one is freaking out about th HC or bail or you know anything else.
Sorry, mess up your flow.
Fine.
Texas is expecting well, let me say this, if you're not freaking out about the grid, stand by uh. Texas is expecting the state's energy demand to double in the next six years. Uh, it's really unclear for we'll be able to sort of meet that demand and keep up with with that. This was such a huge issue on people's minds. You know, when we had winter storm or Yuri. I was I say winterstorm Uri.
Anyways, so they had the freeze. I don't mean the name Uri is faked, to be clear, I mean calling winter storms names of shakes.
The freeze of twenty twenty one in the middle of session, you know, put this issue really in the spotlight. Carlos, I know you've been covering this sort of whole infrastructure of the energy infrastructure. How big of an issue was this for lawmakers this session?
First, I just have to say I'm glad we're having this conversation now because I'm working on my story that I have to file, and it'll be nice to have this fresh in my mind. And maybe I'll just take what I said here and just put it into words and be done.
With my story.
Yeah, brainstorm out loud.
I want to contributor to tag on the site exactly.
Yeah, the trade cast contributed.
A couple bylines here. Yes, a pretty substantial deal, I would say. Ever since twenty twenty one, grit catastrophe the Texas experienced I think kind of inspired a sense that the legislature needed to do something about grid, something that had not significantly acted on before twenty twenty one. And the question, you know, the central question became, how do we keep people's lights on when this happens again in
twenty twenty one. Immediately following Yurea, I was just talking about this with Pat Wood, who's the former chairman of the Public Utility Commission, And immediately after twenty twenty one, it was a response plan, you know, how do we
fix what's broken now? And then in the twenty twenty three session is how do we encourage more more infrastructure because if you don't know this, we have an energy only market in Texas, which excuse me, an open energy market in Texas, which means that power generators to people who give us the resources that convert into electricity what we call megawats or gigawatts. The natural gas plants, wind and solar farms, battery storage needed to shore up infrastructure
right so that they can meet the demand. So how do we as a legislature speed that up? And so we came with a couple of ideas. Some worked others didn't. There were there were some performance credits that were floated around that ultimately fell through. And then we had the Texas Energy Fund, which had five billion dollars injected into it in twenty twenty three and it all went to
natural gas infrastructure. Those plants are years away from being built, and you know, through all of these short term solutions, the question still was how do we make the grid reliable? Because so far the answers that we have are very very far away down the timeline. Meanwhile, guess what's happening. Texas is growing. We have people moving here, businesses want to come here. We are becoming a hub for data centers.
And so for the legislature, you know, now it wasn't just a question, it's can we UH ensure that the grid is reliable without blocking business development? You know, can we still assure people that Texas is a place that you can come tap into our grid and we won't put too many hurdles UH to do that. And so that's what UH. That was the that was at the
center of or at least my coverage. Senate Bill six UH, sponsored by State Senator King Phil King, you know, puts UH wide in place wide ranging rules around energy use, energy users, particularly the industrial customers. I'm talking manufacturing plants, you know, oil and gas plans, you know, hospitals for example, big data centers, people who just suck up.
A lot of a lot of the energy, a lot a lot of new rules there.
Ericot for example, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, you know how now has the latitude to to shut off power to plans over seventy five megawatts. So if you're a mom and pop, that doesn't apply to you. Just want to make that really clear. But you know, this is this is unprecedented, it's it's very new. It gives us a lot of unilateral authority. And there's this course language that was put in there to make people a
little bit more comfortable around the concept. But it's still needing the remote disconnection or what people avoid calling the kill switch.
Uh.
There was also a big question around if you know, we're going to grow as a state and we're going to deliver the nearly double amount of electricity that you mentioned earlier, who is going.
To pay for that?
You know, who's going to pick up the tab? Because for that we need to build infrastructure to deliver electricity, and usually the people who end up paying for that is everyone on this call, you know, the everyday electricity
user transmission costs. That's how they're allocated. And so in this bill, you know, there were questions about, you know, can these can these industrial facilities put a little bit more money up front so that in the long term it doesn't run at the tab on our utility bills. So that's just one of many things. I mean, I have like a whole page of notes, but that that was like the kicker I think for this session as
far as energy is concerned. And then of course something that never misses in Texas is the politics of renewable energy and how much we want them to be here, right.
Yeah, I mean the Senate Bill six, I mean obviously a very high priority number or a low number of high priority pretty surprise, like Texas famously very anti regulation, anti you know, sort of putting these sort of rules in place for businesses and major manufacturers and things like that.
How was that.
Received by like the business world, let's say.
A lot of trepidation around the specifics. I think something everyone agrees on is that the grid needs to be more reliable, that benefits everybody in the long term, you know, when when there's another Yuri, which will happen. To be clear, everyone needs to have wants to have electricity. But but the devil was in the details for for a lot of these for a lot of these folks, and and there was concern around you know, you can't just shut
us off like that. And then if you if you just say, like for example, it only applies to facilities of seventy five mega Watson Apple, that could be a hospital too, So are you're shutting off a hospital if you if the grid needs to reroute electricity elsewhere, And so I think for folks it comes down to the rulemaking. So what that means is that the agency is involved
in us in this. The Public Utility Commission will need to come up with the specifics and I think in the coming months that's uh, that's where the conversation will play out. But coming back to your question, I'm sorry, a bit of a tangent. They're coming back to your question. I yeah, a lot of a lot of trepidation around
the remote disconnection, you know, the red tape. There were questions about whether you know it's this helping costs is this helping reliability you know, business arrangements between a natural gas plant and a data center. You know, er Cotton now has oversight over that, and so for folks it's you know, how does that help you know, the residential consumer in the long run when this is an individual
business agreement. But I think ultimately people were you know, amenable to are amicable to the idea of a bill that gives the grid more security.
Yeah, I mean ultimately what I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Carlos was driving a lot of this fear. Right, It was specifically the addition to the grid, the projections of editions of data centers, bitcoin miners, and a lot of these sort of new technology uses, you know, where in some cases the state really wants to attract this right.
We want to be a leader in AI. We want you.
Know, a lot of our state leaders have really kind of extended a hand to the crypto industry and everything like that. But the just massive amounts of power that those facilities require was scary to a lot of people, particularly to a lot of politicians who I think felt no stronger blowback in the past few years than what happened in that twenty twenty one winter storm and a feeling like if we go through something like that again.
And the reason we went through it was because Texas sort of just rolled out the red carpet to these massive industrial uses that don't really individually create you know, there's not a lot of people actually working in those facilities, right, and there's a lot of skepticism around, you know, particularly the crypto industry, that they need to be able to do something to avoid that because you know, among the things they're going to piss off their voters the most would be.
Allowing something like that to happen again.
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.
The driver of this conversation was the forecast that came out that you know, put out us a number that scared everyone and said, well, you know, how.
Do we respond to this? Uh?
You know, twenty years ago we broke up monopolies. Uh, and and that move, you know, gave out a you know what they call it market signal for people to come here and do and do business. But then it started straining us in other ways. So how, you know, how do we come up with a political response to this? What is what is the appropriate amount of policy? But yes, that was data centers and the oil and gas industry were absolutely what drove the conversation.
In this session.
Matthew, where did you go.
Housekeeping? From my hotel? I was knocking down the door. I tried to make it smooth, but.
Thank you figure out I had to know. I had to know.
Yeah, No, I think that's all really, I think, Matthew, that's a very strong point too, about like also just the timing of the storm being like in the middle of a session. I think about I was not here in twenty twenty one, but like I arrived, not why I arrived not long after the storm, and just the way that like now like people everyday Texans like know what Urkot is and have an opinion on it is so telling of like you never want to have to
know what Urkot is. Like in an ideal world, I think Urkott would prefer that nobody knows what they are or what they do, just because like that means things are probably working the way they're supposed to. And so now you know a lot of scrutiny in recent years as.
Can we talk just briefly about what if anything the legislature did related to green energy? I mean One of my favorite topics is this sort of contrast right where state leaders have largely been opposed to the idea of, you know, really pushing and incentivizing green energy, while at the same time, Texas has seen a massive increase in green energy energy production, far out pacing places like California where there seems to be a much more political will
to to grow that. How has that industry come out of this session?
Do you think unscathed? I will say it's funny.
One of the things that I was talking to Doug Lewin about, the author of the Texas Power and Energy newsletter and an expert in this industry, is that the this session wasn't defined not UH was defined not only by what passed, but also by what didn't. Like the last session, there there were bills targeting renewables UH directly, for example, a repeat of Senator Lewis cole course UH looking to put a lot of red tape on renewable
energy development. You know, the way renewable energy has has done so well in Texas is because you can just go up to a private property owner, come up with a business arrangement, set up a royalty system, a payout for that person and then you just put your uh, you know, your window solar farm there so long as you can follow the rules around that. And there are
also federal stipulations in that. But Senator col course did not like that they expanded really fast and thought that it merited a little bit more scrutiny, uh.
Which garnered a lot of backlash for the renewable energy industry, as you can imagine.
I mean, they essentially said it would kill them and they wouldn't grow nearly as well as as they did. And it's been an interesting political response to an industry that you know, contributed uh megawatts. We didn't have outages last summer because our storage and generating capacity, you know, the amount of energy we were able to harbor was was more and it helped make the grid reliable. But of course the politics of a Republican state play into that.
You know, we're really resentful of the federal subsidies that renewable has gone at the at the federal level, even though Texas hasn't you know, given a single set to renewable energy. But but there was anyway, the response to to renewables in the session was what you would expect, uh, In large part because of the politics, but also because lawmakers.
Are you okay on.
Are you ironically like the lights have gone off in here?
Lights are off?
Which I asked Rob to do that after you were making funny No, I didn't, but I wish I had.
We talk about energy.
That's so funny, crazy timing.
There, all right, for those not watching at home or those not watching on YouTube. Also lights went off for a minute, they came back.
Look, you know we've we've all worked a lot these last few days, were retired.
You know, it's lights out for all of.
Yeah, exactly, and that's yeah, that's a sign.
But then what I was going to add is that, you know, for lawmakers, it was also there was also a sense of uh, strengthening what they call dispatchable, which is just the traditional forms of energy, so think natural gas, coal, and now battery storage. It's kind of in that definition as well. You know, they wanted to make sure the grid could rely just as much on those energy sources
as much as as wind and solar. But they but in doing so, they kind of singled out renewable energy and tried to force them out of the definition of dispatchable, which you know, in one bill, they would have been punished if they couldn't come up with natural gas plants as backups to the wind and solar farms. And in another bill, if the grid wasn't needing fifty percent of its energy source from dispatchable energy, the renewable companies would have to pay a credit to kind of make sure
the economics of that were evened out. But yeah, I mean it comes down to the politics of this. We like certain sources of energy. We are a proud oil and gas state that also just happens to have a really strong renewable energy industry, and it's you know, who do we favor and how do we go about that? And does everybody have a place in the open market. I think in the policy it kind of says it, right, No,
they don't. It's the sources that we would prefer that make us more comfortable for the grid's reliability.
I think not, unlike water, going to continue to be.
Like a major political issue going forward for future sessions. Sounds like, you know, some a lot of movement this session, but nothing really permanently resolved in any way that will you know, allow lawmakers to stop talking about the grid as much as I'm sure some of them probably want to.
Well, let's leave it there. That's it for today.
You can find all episodes of the Tribecast on YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. Be sure to like, subscribe, and share the podcast on all of your platforms. If you'd like to get in touch with the team, you can reach us at Tribecast at Texastribune dot org. Thank you to our sponsors City of Corpus Christi, Texas Realtors
and Water Grows. Thank you so much to Alejandra and Carlos for joining us, and if once again, if you haven't already, check out their series on Water and Carlos is really great coverage of the the fights over you know, the grid reliability during the session. Our producers are Rob Avila and Chris Spovida. Our theme music is composed by Rob and we will see you next week.