Well, of course costs of resiliency would practically exceed savings for energy companies. But the costs of outages are tremendous for Texas overall. That's why critical infrastructure must be well regulated. Corrupt politicians are sure to protect profits of the energy industry, but in the end we all pay for the shenanigans that deregulation allows them to get away with.

Lets say it led to no increased profits and the savings were entirely passed on to the customer (perhaps through careful regulation like you mention). Then wouldn't the costs be better for Texas overall?

No, the cost to produce electricity is largely independent of the value people receive from it.

Differences in incentives are why hospitals for example have backup generators. They might be paying 100x as much to get power from a generator for a few hours a year, but losing power would cost them vastly more.

That said, individual consumers are going to have their own personal preferences. For some people saving 10c a month on their monthly electric bill might be worth a once in a decade power outage. Some might even agree to save 1c/month.

I think there is another factor of Choice that needs to be considered here. If people were given the choice between losing power when it gets cold and saving money or paying more for more reliable power then it might be reasonable.

Power companies making that choice for their customers isn't fair. As a utility it should be expected that it is well run and stable. It isn't an easy market to have competition in due to the infrastructure meaning we can't have "cheap and unstable" options next to "expensive and stable". Where the state decides the utilities fall on that axis is the question here, I personally think they should be on the more conservative side and provide stability.

The other thing to consider are the huge knock on effects from losing power. I may be ok with getting extra cash in exchange for power outages but when the stop lights are out and restaurant freezers start thawing things get a lot worse.

Good points. Although, it is of course impossible to have perfect service. Is a major failure once a decade not "well run and stable"? What level of service would be acceptable?