> I have no idea then why you're trying to throw shade on something good that was accomplished by bending the truth

I'm not trying to "throw shade on something good" - in contrary, even with a "once in a decade event", the benefit of renewables speaks mountains (not even to speak of the severe damage fossil energy causes that's currently unaccounted in the price of expelling greenhouse gasses).

If renewable energy increases the chances of such events happening, only with accurate numbers you can do the appropriate risk management and operate an efficient, yet stable, grid.

My original comment is flagged now so well, didn't mean to fuel some awful views trying to pretend renewable energy is bad - something I strongly disagree.