The sentence is literally correct, but misleading. A continuous 100GW might power those two states, but that's not what you get out of a 100GW wind installation. The capacity factor for wind is about 25-30%.
It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" which is not true.
You've highlighted my essential issue with wind (and other renewables). Under the guise of "ah the dumb public won't understand", things like the actual expected output of a wind farm are hidden. It's a long enough road to renewable energy without hiding away the essential facts. The capacity factor, and resulting actual output of a wind farm, is the most important figure, along with its cost (which is a whole different debate).
Also, as has been pointed out, the loose use of terms for power and energy in the article is enough to make an engineer wince.
