Actually, California and Texas are actually a lot more similar than they are different, in regards to their energy production and needs. Both expect to get their peak energy requirements in the summer (and are occasionally surprised by wintertime peaks), and they rank #1 and #2 in the 50 states for the share of their power consumption that is renewables. It's odd that a state like Texas, for which the oil industry is such a major player, is #2 in renewables, but it's true.

The main reason is that, in imitation of California, they made an energy market where you can charge more for power during peak times, which means that solar or wind that doesn't always produce, but when it does is often during peak summertime usage, can be a lot more economically competitive. They are able to make up (economically) for the times when they aren't producing, during the peak usage price spikes. Texas doesn't brag as much about using renewables, and certainly would never admit to imitating California, but there it is.

Unfortunately, solar and wind don't always produce during winter peak usage, so when it happens, we cross our fingers. But I think Texas is doing a lot better than two years ago.

Well. There is some pretty big context issues here.

Texas hasn't been shutting down power plants while subsidizing less capable replacements and outlawing non-electric alternatives.

Texas governor also hasnt warned people not to charge their state subsidized electric cars...

Note: Not a Texan so I reserve the right to hold both states in contempt.

Curious how much CO2 the PG&E forest fires emitted