I don`t know enough about California's problems but Texas was due to bad management (being kind with that) and corrupt govt.
Firstly the State decided it was going to be self-sufficient in electricity and disconnected itself from the national grid. This provided the states' energy suppliers with a monopoly. Secondly, they relaxed the regulations in regard to weatherproofing their equipment. Making the necessary upgrades to gas pipelines and wind turbines to ensure they could handle extreme cold was now simply "advisory". As a result, the one in a hundred-year storm hit Texas. (Note how many of these are happening. Just like the scientists said they would). They were not able to buy juice in from other states (California had a surplus at the time) and Texas suppliers were also able to hike the price up to extortionate levels. You guys go on about corruption and the deep state. Look into how much those same energy suppliers made in campaign contributions to the likes of Abbot and Cruz. And whilst you are doing so, bear in mind that wind turbines operate in such inhospitable areas as Antarctica. Blaming them is like blaming a Prius for not handling winter roads when you didn't buy snow tires or chains.

This is a classic example of how the division and polarization of American politics are used as distractions. Whenever someone fucks up all they have to do is say "Look a squirrel" and you guys fall for it.
The USA is about the only industrialised nation where the climate crisis is a party political issue. Even my own Conservative govt is committed to the UK being carbon neutral by 2030. We are not alone in this, the GOP is. Renewables vs fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive. Although the future belongs to the former, we are not there yet and we have a long way to go. In the meantime, every kWh produced by renewables is one less that you don't have to pull out of the ground. Don't worry, it's not going anywhere. It will still be there for future generations to use wisely.