Those figures don't sound right, here's the installed capacity:
View attachment 45869
In terms of nameplate capacity relative to the total:
Gas: 49%
Wind: 28%
Coal: 13%
Nuclear: 5%
Solar: 5%
Hydro: 0.5%
Bio: 0.0%
HOWEVER, dependable capacity they only bank on 7,000MW of wind with a confidence of 45%. It under-performed by 50% on average during the event (due, in part, to the icing situation) but did drop down to below 700MW for a stint.
The media is trying to spin it, likely by using total annual production to make wind sound less significant, but the reality is that almost 30,000MW of wind wasn't expected to show up when the chips were down, which is why it is backed by gas in the first place.
Because wind is unreliable and can't be counted on, and the aforementioned gas capacity failed to deliver due to myriad factors that include a lack of supply, issues at the plants themselves...etc, the wheels came off. You've got a clearly fragile system where the largest generator depends on JIT delivery of its consumable and the 2nd largest isn't expected to provide meaningful capacity. That's not a recipe for success.