I am under the impression that this is an attempt by certain groups to control the narrative, and also to give petroleum producers (the home team down in Texas) a leg up.
That is correct, but the issue that the Texas Senate is trying to solve is 'How to best protect the profits of their fossil fuel sponsors.'
In that sense, this is exactly the solution they need.
If the wind infrastructure can be weatherized to effectively prevent such a scenario from happening (which it's my understanding is the case), then the claim that wind is to blame is still an untrue allegation. The blame would lie with not weatherizing the equipment, not with wind.
It can't with current technology. Wind can handle cold but not storms. Wind is the hardest power source to protect against the elements.
Wind turbines usually brake after 25m/s wind speeds for safety reasons. They stopped working in Texas cause they were frozen, not because it was too windy.
Clearly this is a Texas only problem, given it works in much colder countries and States. Texas did not want to pay to winterize to maximize profits. Risk reward, a few hundred dead people once in a while vs. profits every year.
This is not even close to fair. Everyone is forgetting how exceptional the storm really was. If Miami were hit by a magnitude 7 earthquake would you all be whining about Miami’s building codes?
Considering that this exact thing also happened ten years ago. How exceptional is this kind of storm?