All of these events make more and more people recognize the relative weakness and fragility of an oil based civilization compared to an electric one.
Pipelines for liquid or gaseous fuel have a huge upfront cost and maintenance requirements compared to running power lines, so the incentives are to build them as big as possible.
Taking down a power station is certainly a viable attack vector, but the damage caused by losing a single station is drastically more manageable than losing a key pipeline that a massive region of the continent needs to feed continuously from to keep civilization running.
This is not even accounting for the further decentralizing and ruggedizing effect that comes when every rooftop subsidizes their own energy needs with solar and batteries.
It depends on which power station.
For instance, in my country, something like a tenth of the power of the whole country comes from a single place, the Itaipu hydroelectric dam. Most power from it flows through just a few power stations. In 2009, a weather-caused triple fault at one of them left half of the whole country, and the whole neighboring country, without power for a few hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Brazil_and_Paraguay_black...).
(Not to mention that the long-distance HVDC power lines used to bring power from distant hydroelectric dams like the Belo Monte dam and the Madeira river dams do also have a "huge upfront cost and maintenance requirements". Given that the power loss is lower at higher voltages, and these dams are so far from the southeast where most power demand is, the incentives are to build them as big as possible.)
Major concerns are SCADA attacks against control systems themselves, or physical attacks against regional substations which could cripple distribution for weeks or months.
Hollywood is doing society a disfavour by misrepresenting the apocalypse. EVs and bicycles are the true modes of transport when trouble starts.
