At precisely \u00a012:33 PM on April 28\u00a0, the Spanish mainland’s electrical system \u00a0collapsed\u00a0. In a matter of seconds, millions were left in darkness. While electricity returned within hours, the questions surrounding the blackout linger on. Who is to blame? Why did power plants, which are financially compensated to ensure stability, fail to act when they were most needed? An official report outlines the situation in technical jargon, while the companies involved hide behind clauses of confidentiality. However, the troubling data reveals an uncomfortable truth: when the system went dark, many were not where they were meant to be.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Compensated for Stability<\/strong>. In the Spanish electrical market, certain conventional power plants\u2014\u00a0nuclear, gas, and coal\u00a0\u2014receive extra payments to be available to stabilize voltage during imbalances. On the day of the blackout, several of these plants were scheduled for maintenance. According to the official report, many were \u00a0unavailable\u00a0 due to maintenance tasks, refueling, or breakdowns, precisely when the system needed them the most.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Warnings Ignored<\/strong>. On April 22 and 24, significant \u00a0voltage fluctuations\u00a0 were already detected. By April 28, the situation escalated markedly: two large oscillations\u2014one rapid, another slower\u2014totally destabilized the grid. The epicenter of this disruption was a \u00a0photovoltaic plant in Badajoz\u00a0, which oscillated uncontrollably. From this point, the voltage collapsed in a domino effect. Some power plants attempted to sync with the network but were unable to respond in time. The entire system failed within \u00a030 seconds\u00a0.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Structural Issues<\/strong>. Each major energy company has its own backup strategy: Endesa leans towards \u00a0nuclear\u00a0, Naturgy favors \u00a0gas\u00a0, and Iberdrola relies on \u00a0hydraulics\u00a0. However, they all share a common denominator: the plants that provide system stability are controlled by the same entities that dominate the traditional electric market. What’s alarming is not merely that these companies are compensated to be operational, but that when they fail to act, there are \u00a0no clear consequences\u00a0. The official report recognizes that the information was confidential, access was voluntary, and most companies did not allow the dissemination of their data. Without accountability, without sanctions, without reform.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A Cycle of Blame<\/strong>. In the aftermath, a blame-game ensued: the Government held Red El\u00e9ctrica accountable; Red El\u00e9ctrica blamed the energy companies; the companies pointed fingers at both the Government and Red El\u00e9ctrica. Meanwhile, the public remains in the dark about which company failed its duty at one of the most critical moments for the electrical system.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A Recurring Pattern<\/strong>. As \u00a0Eloy Sanz\u00a0, a professor and researcher at Rey Juan Carlos University, highlighted on social media, major electrical companies maximize their profits at their \u00a0technological convenience\u00a0. Renewables, which should lead the transition, are often sidelined or utilized as a mere cover. The end result is a system that is vulnerable and devoid of accountability.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n An Inevitable Conclusion<\/strong>. The report proposes certain \u00a0technical measures\u00a0 and recommendations to the National Security Council. However, it does not call for sanctions or identify responsible parties. Moreover, there are no clear measures to ensure that companies disclose their failures. Even the idea of reforming confidentiality mechanisms was not entertained.<\/p>\n One thing is clear: April 28 was not just an \u00a0electrical blackout\u00a0; it was also a blackout of responsibility.<\/p>\n