Guest Column

Can the Texas grid handle extreme weather conditions across regions?

Texans are facing extreme weather at every turn — can the grid withstand these events? Photo via heimdallpower.com

From raging wildfires to dangerous dust storms and fierce tornadoes, Texans are facing extreme weather conditions at every turn across the state. Recently, thousands in the Texas Panhandle-South Plains lost power as strong winds ranging from 35 to 45 mph with gusts upwards of 65 mph blew through. Meanwhile, many North Texas communities are still reeling from tornadoes, thunderstorms, and damaging winds that occurred earlier this month.

A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that Texas led the nation with the most billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in 2023, while a report from Texas A&M University researchers indicates Texas will experience twice as many 100-degree days, 30-50% more urban flooding and more intense droughts 15 years from now if present climate trends persist.

With the extreme weather conditions increasing in Texas and nationally, recovering from these disasters will only become harder and costlier. When it comes to examining the grid’s capacity to withstand these volatile changes, we’re past due. As of now, the grid likely isn’t resilient enough to make do, but there is hope.

Where does the grid stand now?

Investment from utility companies have resulted in significant improvements, but ongoing challenges remain, especially as extreme weather events become more frequent. While the immediate fixes have helped improve reliability for the time being, it won't be enough to withstand continuous extreme weather events. Grid resiliency will require ongoing efforts over one-time bandaid approaches.

What can be done?

Transmission and distribution infrastructure improvements must vary geographically because each region of Texas faces a different set of hazards. This makes a one-size-fits-all solution impossible. We’re already seeing planning and investment in various regions, but sweeping action needs to happen responsibly and quickly to protect our power needs.

After investigators determined that the 2024 Smokehouse Creek fire (the largest wildfire in Texas history) was caused by a decayed utility pole breaking, it raised the question of whether the Panhandle should invest more in wrapping poles with fire retardant material or covering wires so they are less likely to spark.

In response, Xcel Energy (the Panhandle’s version of CenterPoint) filed its initial System Resiliency Plan with the Public Utility Commission of Texas, with proposed investments to upgrade and strengthen the electric grid and ensure electricity for about 280,000 homes and businesses in Texas. Tailored to the needs of the Texas Panhandle and South Plains, the $539 million resiliency plan will upgrade equipment’s fire resistance to better stand up to extreme weather and wildfires.

Oncor, whose territories include Dallas-Fort Worth and Midland-Odessa, analyzed more than two decades of weather damage data and the impact on customers to identify the priorities and investments needed across its service area. In response, it proposed investing nearly $3 billion to harden poles, replace old cables, install underground wires, and expand the company's vegetation management program.

What about Houston?

While installing underground wires in a city like Dallas makes for a good investment in grid resiliency, this is not a practical option in the more flood-prone areas of Southeast Texas like Houston. Burying power lines is incredibly expensive, and extended exposure to water from flood surges can still cause damage. Flood surges are also likely to seriously damage substations and transformers. When those components fail, there’s no power to run through the lines, buried or otherwise.

As part of its resiliency plan for the Houston metro area, CenterPoint Energy plans to invest $5.75 billion to strengthen the power grid against extreme weather. It represents the largest single grid resiliency investment in CenterPoint’s history and is currently the most expensive resiliency plan filed by a Texas electric utility. The proposal calls for wooden transmission structures to be replaced with steel or concrete. It aims to replace or strengthen 5,000 wooden distribution poles per year until 2027.

While some of our neighboring regions focus on fire resistance, others must invest heavily in strengthening power lines and replacing wooden poles. These solutions aim to address the same critical and urgent goal: creating a resilient grid that is capable of withstanding the increasingly frequent and severe weather events that Texans are facing.

The immediate problem at hand? These solutions take time, meaning we’re likely to encounter further grid instability in the near future.

---

Sam Luna is director at BKV Energy, where he oversees brand and go-to-market strategy, customer experience, marketing execution, and more.

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