That is true, but if you start from scratch - before there was any renewable energy - if instead of adding 20% wind and winterizing forever, they simply added 20% NG, it would operate fine while being a lot more economical.
Your numbers are off. The NG was down enough that even if there was no wind and there was 20% more NG, there would be widespread blackouts (although somewhat less than there were). NG underperformed by 41% of expectations, so even if there was 20% more NG capacity, that would be only 12% more overall power (even before you deduct the wind output), which wouldn't have come close to solving the shortage.
Texas didn't necessarily do the wrong thing in saving $$$ by mandating winterization for an event that was extremely unlikely to happen, but Abott going on Fox and blaming a non existent Green New Deal for a problem that was created by the diametric opposite of big government is pathetic.
Of course, the narrative that the Texas attitude saved consumers money is a fiction, per the
WSJ This is exactly the problem with having an unreliable source of energy, you need to invest in a more reliable source to cover for when you unreliable source is down, it makes no sense economically.
Renewable energy makes no sense economically until you acknowledge carbon footprint carries a price too. That's why the government has to subsidize it.