guest column

Energy expert: Unlocking the potential of the Texas grid with AI & DLR

Georg Rute ,CEO of Gridraven, discusses the potential of AI and DLR. Photo via Getty Images

From bitter cold and flash flooding to wildfire threats, Texas is no stranger to extreme weather, bringing up concerns about the reliability of its grid. Since the winter freeze of 2021, the state’s leaders and lawmakers have more urgently wrestled with how to strengthen the resilience of the grid while also supporting immense load growth.

As Maeve Allsup at Latitude Media pointed out, many of today’s most pressing energy trends are converging in Texas. In fact, a recent ERCOT report estimates that power demand will nearly double by 2030. This spike is a result of lots of large industries, including AI data centers, looking for power. To meet this growing demand, Texas has abundant natural gas, solar and wind resources, making it a focal point for the future of energy.

Several new initiatives are underway to modernize the grid, but the problem is that they take a long time to complete. While building new power generation facilities and transmission lines is necessary, these processes can take 10-plus years to finish. None of these approaches enables both significantly expanded power and the transmission capacity needed to deliver it in the near future.

Beyond “curtailment-enabled headroom”

A study released by Duke University highlighted the “extensive untapped potential” in U.S. power plants for powering up to 100 gigawatts of large loads “while mitigating the need for costly system upgrades.” In a nutshell: There’s enough generating capacity to meet peak demand, so it’s possible to add new loads as long as they’re not adding to the peak. New data centers must connect flexibly with limited on-site generation or storage to cover those few peak hours. This is what the authors mean by “load flexibility” and “curtailment-enabled headroom.”

As I shared with POWER Magazine, while power plants do have significant untapped capacity, the transmission grid might not. The study doesn’t address transmission constraints that can limit power delivery where it’s needed. Congestion is a real problem already without the extra load and could easily wipe out a majority of that additional capacity.

To illustrate this point, think about where you would build a large data center. Next to a nuclear plant? A nuclear plant will already operate flat out and will not have any extra capacity. The “headroom” is available on average in the whole system, not at any single power plant. A peaking gas plant might indeed be idle most of the time, but not 99.5% of the time as highlighted by the Duke authors as the threshold. Your data center would need to take the extra capacity from a number of plants, which may be hundreds of miles apart. The transmission grid might not be able to cope with it.

However, there is also additional headroom or untapped potential in the transmission grid itself that has not been used so far. Grid operators have not been able to maximize their grids because the technology has not existed to do so.

The problem with existing grid management and static line ratings

Traditionally, power lines are given a static rating throughout the year, which is calculated by assuming the worst possible cooling conditions of a hot summer day with no wind. This method leads to conservative capacity estimates and does not account for environmental factors that can impact how much power can actually flow through a line.

Take the wind-cooling effect, for example. Wind cools down power lines and can significantly increase the capacity of the grid. Even a slight wind blowing around four miles per hour can increase transmission line capacity by 30 percent through cooling.

That’s why dynamic line ratings (DLR) are such a useful tool for grid operators. DLR enables the assessment of individual spans of transmission lines to determine how much capacity they can carry under current conditions. On average, DLR increases capacity by a third, helping utilities sell more power while bringing down energy prices for consumers.

However, DLR is not yet widely used. The core problem is that weather models are not accurate enough for grid operators. Wind is very dependent on the detailed landscape, such as forests or hills, surrounding the power line. A typical weather forecast will tell you the average conditions in the 10 square miles around you, not the wind speed in the forest where the power line is. Without accurate wind data at every section, even a small portion of the line risks overheating unless the line is managed conservatively.

DLR solutions have been forced to rely on sensors installed on transmission lines to collect real-time weather measurements, which are then used to estimate line ratings. However, installing and maintaining hundreds of thousands of sensors is extremely time-consuming, if not practically infeasible.

The Elering case study

Last year, my company, Gridraven, tested our machine learning-powered DLR system, which uses a AI-enabled weather model, on 3,100 miles of 110-kilovolt and 330-kilovolt lines operated by Elering, Estonia’s transmission system operator, predicting ratings in 15,000 individual locations. The power lines run through forests and hills, where conventional forecasting systems cannot predict conditions with precision.

From September to November 2024, our average wind forecast accuracy saw a 60 percent improvement over existing technology, resulting in a 40 percent capacity increase compared to the traditional seasonal rating. These results were further validated against actual measurements on transmission towers.

This pilot not only demonstrated the power of AI solutions against traditional DLR systems but also their reliability in challenging conditions and terrain.

---

Georg Rute is the CEO of Gridraven, a software provider for Dynamic Line Ratings based on precision weather forecasting available globally. Prior to Gridraven, Rute founded Sympower, a virtual power plant, and was the head of smart grid development at Elering, Estonia's Transmission System Operator. Rute will be onsite at CERAWeek in Houston, March 10-14.

The views expressed herein are Rute's own. A version of this article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away. Photo via Getty Images

For the past 40 years, climate policy has often felt like two steps forward, one step back. Regulations shift with politics, incentives get diluted, and long-term aspirations like net-zero by 2050 seem increasingly out of reach. Yet greenhouse gases continue to rise, and the challenges they pose are not going away.

This matters because the costs are real. Extreme weather is already straining U.S. power grids, damaging homes, and disrupting supply chains. Communities are spending more on recovery while businesses face rising risks to operations and assets. So, how can the U.S. prepare and respond?

The Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies (CES) points to two complementary strategies. First, invest in large-scale public adaptation to protect communities and infrastructure. Second, reframe carbon as a resource, not just a waste stream to be reduced.

Why Focusing on Emissions Alone Falls Short

Peter Hartley argues that decades of global efforts to curb emissions have done little to slow the rise of CO₂. International cooperation is difficult, the costs are felt immediately, and the technologies needed are often expensive. Emissions reduction has been the central policy tool for decades, and it has been neither sufficient nor effective.

One practical response is adaptation, which means preparing for climate impacts we can’t avoid. Some of these measures are private, taken by households or businesses to reduce their own risks, such as farmers shifting crop types, property owners installing fire-resistant materials, or families improving insulation. Others are public goods that require policy action. These include building stronger levees and flood defenses, reinforcing power grids, upgrading water systems, revising building codes, and planning for wildfire risks. Such efforts protect people today while reducing long-term costs, and they work regardless of the source of extreme weather. Adaptation also does not depend on global consensus; each country, state, or city can act in its own interest. Many of these measures even deliver benefits beyond weather resilience, such as stronger infrastructure and improved security against broader threats.

McKinsey research reinforces this logic. Without a rapid scale-up of climate adaptation, the U.S. will face serious socioeconomic risks. These include damage to infrastructure and property from storms, floods, and heat waves, as well as greater stress on vulnerable populations and disrupted supply chains.

Making Carbon Work for Us

While adaptation addresses immediate risks, Ken Medlock points to a longer-term opportunity: turning carbon into value.

Carbon can serve as a building block for advanced materials in construction, transportation, power transmission, and agriculture. Biochar to improve soils, carbon composites for stronger and lighter products, and next-generation fuels are all examples. As Ken points out, carbon-to-value strategies can extend into construction and infrastructure. Beyond creating new markets, carbon conversion could deliver lighter and more resilient materials, helping the U.S. build infrastructure that is stronger, longer-lasting, and better able to withstand climate stress.

A carbon-to-value economy can help the U.S. strengthen its manufacturing base and position itself as a global supplier of advanced materials.

These solutions are not yet economic at scale, but smart policies can change that. Expanding the 45Q tax credit to cover carbon use in materials, funding research at DOE labs and universities, and supporting early markets would help create the conditions for growth.

Conclusion

Instead of choosing between “doing nothing” and “net zero at any cost,” we need a third approach that invests in both climate resilience and carbon conversion.

Public adaptation strengthens and improves the infrastructure we rely on every day, including levees, power grids, water systems, and building standards that protect communities from climate shocks. Carbon-to-value strategies can complement these efforts by creating lighter, more resilient carbon-based infrastructure.

CES suggests this combination is a pragmatic way forward. As Peter emphasizes, adaptation works because it is in each nation’s self-interest. And as Ken reminds us, “The U.S. has a comparative advantage in carbon. Leveraging it to its fullest extent puts the U.S. in a position of strength now and well into the future.”

-----------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Trending News