Well, the cause is known - it's many causes that have accumulated. Of course, maybe more research will bring some more definitive conclusions - but overall the core mechanisms seem to be well understood, at least to the extend on what will be needed to avoid similar scenarios in the future.
I don't understand why your reply is so aggressive though.
What is upsetting you by others talking about the blackout?
Especially understanding the economic impacts better, seems to be a reasonable thing to do?
Overall, there seems to have been very little effect on the economical growth of both countries - even though it has been a regular business day.
I also don't know what's aggressive about questioning speaking matter-of-factly about the cause of the event when it's not clear what the cause was. The end of your document says at fault was "just about everyone", starting from gas plants that did not do their job. I have no idea then why you're trying to throw shade on something good that was accomplished by bending the truth. I did not read the article and the 4.6B figure might be BS, but if it is, pinning something as the definitive cause of the blackout, when this is not really known, is not the way to correct it.
> 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.
