Resilience of renewable power systems under climate risks

Climate change is expected to intensify the effects of extreme weather events on power systems and increase the frequency of severe power outages. The large-scale integration of environment-dependent renewables during energy decarbonization could induce increased uncertainty in the supply–demand balance and climate vulnerability of power grids. This Perspective discusses the superimposed risks of climate change, extreme weather events and renewable energy integration, which collectively affect power system resilience. Insights drawn from large-scale spatiotemporal data on historical US power outages induced by tropical cyclones illustrate the vital role of grid inertia and system flexibility in maintaining the balance between supply and demand, thereby preventing catastrophic cascading failures. Alarmingly, the future projections under diverse emission pathways signal that climate hazards — especially tropical cyclones and heatwaves — are intensifying and can cause even greater impacts on the power grids. High-penetration renewable power systems under climate change may face escalating challenges, including more severe infrastructure damage, lower grid inertia and flexibility, and longer post-event recovery. Towards a net-zero future, this Perspective then explores approaches for harnessing the inherent potential of distributed renewables for climate resilience through forming microgrids, aligned with holistic technical solutions such as grid-forming inverters, distributed energy storage, cross-sector interoperability, distributed optimization and climate–energy integrated modelling.

Key points

Similar content being viewed by others

Quantifying the impacts of climate change and extreme climate events on energy systems

Article 17 February 2020

A systematic review of the costs and impacts of integrating variable renewables into power grids

Article 02 November 2020

Meteorological drivers of resource adequacy failures in current and high renewable Western U.S. power systems

Article Open access 11 October 2023

Introduction

Electric power systems serve as critical lifelines that underpin modern societies and enable the functioning of nearly every aspect of contemporary existence. The electricity sector holds a prominent role in the energy transition towards decarbonization and climate change mitigation 1 . As outlined in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2 , the imperative to limit global warming to 2 °C necessitates a shift towards over 90% of the world’s electricity being generated from low-carbon sources, and mandates that proactive measures start immediately.

Decarbonizing the electricity sector is in full swing globally. The US Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the most prominent piece of climate legislation from the US government so far, has strongly promoted renewable energy development, committing nearly US$400 billion to mitigate climate change 3 . The European Green Deal of the European Union sets an ambitious action plan to ensure that at least 32% of the EU’s total energy consumption comes from renewable sources by 2030 4 . The 14th Five-Year Plan of China anticipates that by 2030, non-fossil sources will account for approximately 25% of the total energy consumption, with over 1,200 GW combined installed capacity of wind and solar energy 5 . Although the goal of the energy transition is to mitigate climate change, its effects on reversing the warming trend are expected to be gradual and slow 6 . On the long-term pathway towards climate mitigation, power system resilience — the ability of a power system to withstand and recover from high-impact low-probability hazards 7 — is undergoing escalating challenges due to climate change and the intensified extreme weather events. From 2000 to 2021, over 80% of US power outages were associated with extreme events such as hurricanes, wildfires, heatwaves and flooding, with 2011–2021 witnessing a 78% increase in weather-associated power outages compared with 2000–2010 8,9 . Hurricane Maria in 2017 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022 both wreaked havoc on the Puerto Rico power grid, plunging the entire island into darkness and resulting in an estimated total damage cost of US$113.3 billion 10 .

Climate change is intensifying climate extremes such as heatwaves 11 and tropical cyclones (a generic term including hurricanes and typhoons) 12,13,14 that have caused considerable effects on energy systems. In anticipation of economic development and climate mitigation policies, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) 15 have been developed in association with the IPCC AR6. The SSPs outline five global socioeconomic pathways (SSP1–5: from sustainable to conventional economic growth) that correspond to different radiative forcing levels (2.6–8.5 W m − 2 ) by 2100 16 . For example, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 exemplify moderate and high greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Future projections under all emission scenarios suggest an increase in global average temperature of 0.8–1.3 °C from the present to the 2050s, accompanied by more-intense heatwaves, tropical cyclones and floods 17,18,19 . Additionally, the likelihood of experiencing multiple hazards simultaneously or sequentially — that is, compound hazards — is also expected to increase 20,21,22 .

Despite the intensifying climate risks, modern power system infrastructures become more exposed to the environment, owing to the large-scale integration of renewable energy such as solar photovoltaic systems and onshore and offshore wind farms 23,24,25 . Currently, most bulk power systems operate with relatively low renewable penetration (the proportion of total energy consumption supplied by renewables), such as 21.5% in the US mainland 26 . However, in view of net-zero emission targets, traditional power systems are expected to be reshaped to renewable-dominated formats with, for example, over 80% penetration 27 . Leading renewable generation infrastructures, including solar panels and wind turbines, are sensitive to the environment and vulnerable to climate extremes 28,29 . As a result, large-scale integration of these variable renewable energy resources is associated with increased operational uncertainty in maintaining stringent real-time electricity supply–demand balance during extreme weather events 30 .

The risks posed by climate change and integration of renewable energy (Fig. 1a) are not independent but rather interconnected. Globally, large-scale integration of renewable energy will eventually mitigate the effect of climate change. However, throughout this prolonged global energy transition, an individual power system might still face compound risks from climate change and renewable integration. For example, under a severe climate change scenario for 2050 (SSP5-8.5), a high-penetration renewable power system might face much higher risks than systems either with lower penetration or under less-severe climate scenarios (Fig. 1b). Moreover, electricity demand is expected to increase in the future because of more-frequent and more-intense heatwaves 31,32 . This spike in demand contrasts with the projected decline in renewable generation due to disruptions caused by extreme climate events (Fig. 1c). The gap between electricity supply and demand could be further enlarged during compound hazards — such as a tropical cyclone followed by a heatwave, causing tropical-cyclone–blackout–heatwave hazards 33 . Consequently, the intensification of climate extremes coupled with an increased penetration of renewable energy resources introduces superimposed risks to future net-zero power systems.

figure 1

Informed by observations of climate change and ongoing energy decarbonization, the research community has increasingly emphasized the need to bridge the fields of climate and energy. Such integration has been examined and discussed from multiple angles, including energy sustainability and policies 34 , decarbonization for climate change mitigation 35,36 , system design and operation 37,38 , and socioeconomic costs 39 . However, the interdependence of the risks from escalating climate extremes and large-scale renewable integration — that is, the climate-renewable superimposed risk — requires further investigation. Specifically, there is a lack of comprehensive understanding of the effects of climate extremes on renewable-dominated power systems.

In this Perspective, we outline current understanding of the climate-related risks to renewable energy and describe potential solutions aimed at reducing these risks and achieving climate resilience of future power systems. We discuss the lessons learned from historical blackouts in the United States caused by tropical cyclones and analyse the key factors that influence power system resilience. Taking into account projections of future climates under different emission pathways, we evaluate future tropical-cyclone and heatwave hazards along with their compound risks along the US East and Gulf coasts and discuss the escalating challenges they pose for future power systems with high penetration of renewables. However, we emphasize that large-scale integration of distributed renewable energy resources brings more than just the challenges posed by these superimposed risks: it also offers an opportunity to achieve climate resilience through forming microgrids, supported by interdisciplinary cutting-edge solutions. With a focus on intensifying climate risks on renewable power systems in the United States for specific analysis, this Perspective points to the broader importance and urgency of incorporating climate resilience into the global renewable energy transition.

Lessons from past blackouts

In the past decade, hurricanes have threatened the power grids serving nearly 60 million people along the US East and Gulf coasts, as well as US territories such as Puerto Rico 40,41 . Power outages resulting in catastrophic blackouts have become increasingly common during such extreme weather events 9 . This trend, marked by a nationwide increase in annual power outage durations, has magnified societal concerns regarding power system resilience. Large-scale spatiotemporal datasets on US power outages 42 sparked by severe hurricanes from 2017 to 2022 (Fig. 2) provide important information on the resilience characteristics of US power grids. The lessons learned from these historical events not only lay the foundation for understanding the superimposed risks on future high-penetration renewable power systems under intensifying climate change but also pave the way for developing future climate-resilient net-zero power systems.

figure 2

Events overview

Widespread power outages caused by hurricanes over the past 6 years (Fig. 2a) remind us that our current power systems are not fully prepared to cope with intensifying climate risks. In 2017, the US East and Gulf coasts experienced two substantial disruptions: Hurricane Irma left over 70% of residents in Florida without electricity, and Hurricane Harvey disabled over 10,000 MW of electricity generation capacity in Texas, which took over a week to restore. During 2018–2020, Hurricanes Florence, Michael, Laura, Isaias, Sally, Delta and Zeta collectively caused severe outages that affected 0.6–4.3 million customers at their peak. Hurricane Ida in 2021 led to the most extensive power outage in the history of Louisiana, with the loss of 200 million customer hours, which surpassed both Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (140 million customer hours) and Hurricane Laura in 2020 (110 million customer hours). Recovery from the power outage was notably slow over the initial 5 days following Hurricane Ida (Fig. 2b) owing to long-lasting flooding in New Orleans. In 2022, the devastating Hurricane Ian made landfall twice on the US East Coast and resulted in power outages comprising over 3.5 million customer hours across four states. Other remarkable catastrophic blackouts happened in Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria in 2017 and Hurricane Fiona in 2022. The high-resolution spatiotemporal dataset 42 shows a sharp rise in the power outage percentage during Hurricane Fiona, which soared from over 50% to 100% within 10 minutes at around 18:00 UTC on 18 September 2022 (Fig. 2c) over an hour before storm landfall, which indicates that a cascading failure happened.

An analysis of power outage data reveals a 20–80 scaling law pattern, where the most impactful 20% of failures, ranked by the number of affected customers, are responsible for 80–90% of all customer outages 43 . This suggests that outages caused by top-severe damages can have widespread effects, affecting customers across a broad area. It highlights the risks of failure propagation within grids during extreme events, due to the connected network topology and network dynamics. In terms of recovery from these outages, data analysis also exhibits a similar 10–90 scaling law pattern, where about 10% of disrupted customers account for nearly 90% of total customer interruption hours due to delayed restoration 44,45 . Moreover, as the severity of weather-induced events escalates from moderate to extreme levels, the effectiveness of rapid recovery degrades by nearly 30%, with more customers suffering from prolonged disruptions 45 . These scaling law patterns with strong nonlinearity consistently indicate that extreme weather events significantly exacerbate the vulnerability of power systems and underscore the urgent need to focus more on the effects of these less-frequent but extreme events on system resilience.

During-event operation

Small island power systems such as the Puerto Rico power grid seem to be more vulnerable to climate risks than bulk power systems. Whereas small power grids are generally expected to exhibit increased susceptibility to disturbances, it is less recognized that this vulnerability fundamentally arises from their deficiency in two different aspects of resilience: grid inertia 46 and system flexibility 47 , which act at different timescales.

Grid inertia, represented by the kinetic energy stored in the rotating masses of conventional synchronous generators such as fossil-fuel steam or gas turbines, is a crucial short-term resilience metric. Grid inertia indicates the system-wide capability to immediately respond to transient power imbalances between energy supply and demand 46 . During the initial disturbance phase, for instance, within the first few hundred milliseconds, transient power imbalances and grid inertia jointly determine the rate of change of frequency — the time derivative of the power system frequency, prior to the response of system-wide automatic generation control for eliminating frequency deviations 48 . A high rate of change of frequency, above a preassigned threshold value such as 2 Hz s −1 , signals an extreme frequency zenith or nadir and can activate off-grid service-protection mechanisms for generators 49 . The tripping of generators can exacerbate the existing imbalance, potentially leading to a widespread blackout. By contrast, bulk power systems such as the Texas power grid 50 have an increased capability to handle the same level of imbalance, owing to sufficient grid inertia to maintain frequency stability.

A perfect, sustained balance cannot exist in a power system owing to the inherent fluctuations in demand and generation. System flexibility is characterized by its capacity to manage this variability and uncertainty through the effective deployment of flexible resources, such as spinning reserves (online generators with available and unused capacity) and energy storage systems that can provide rapid responses to unexpected imbalances 51 . Compared with grid inertia (which mitigates short-term, transient disturbances), system flexibility plays a crucial role in maintaining the relative long-term balance between supply and demand, ranging from second-level frequency control to intra-hourly generation dispatch, and even extending to day-ahead unit commitment 52 . Any shortfall in system flexibility exacerbates long-term imbalances in supply and demand, and can result in additional losses of service. During extreme events, these unexpected losses are even more pronounced, especially in small island power systems like Puerto Rico that lack spatial flexibility.

During Hurricane Fiona in Puerto Rico, the shortage of flexibility and grid inertia for dealing with multiple timescale imbalances amplified the effect of damage from the extreme event and contributed to the catastrophic blackout (Fig. 2c). This scenario aligns with the US Department of Energy’s Hurricane Fiona situation report, which stated that damage to energy distribution and transmission infrastructure led to a system imbalance that resulted in the tripping of generation units and caused an island-wide blackout 53 .

Post-event recovery

Post-event recovery is crucial for mitigating the influence of prolonged disruptions on societal and economic well-being. The restoration process is primarily carried out by power utility crews and therefore is constrained by post-event environmental conditions. Flooding from tropical cyclones is an important factor that impedes the initial recovery of electricity grids 54,55 . For example, the prolonged (over 3 days) inland flooding caused by Hurricane Ida in New Orleans 56 led directly to a power outage affecting more than 50% of customers and lasting over 5 days in the city (Fig. 2b). Flooding also dominated the initial recovery after Hurricanes Laura, Harvey, Michael and Sally, and prevented service restoration in the coastal region for 3 days, 5 days, 3 days and 2 days, respectively 57 .

Heatwaves are another critical factor in the process of recovery 33,58 . Extended heatwaves can greatly affect residents, especially those who have lost power, and impair recovery efficiency while heightening the health risks of outdoor repair crews. In the absence of air conditioning, heatwave-related fatality risk increases by threefold owing to thermal stress 59 . The tropical-cyclone-induced blackout plus heatwave is an emerging compound hazard 33,60 . In 2021, a prolonged heatwave (with a heat index surpassing 37.8 °C or 100 °F) occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Ida, which particularly affected households that lost power and consequently had no air conditioning 61 . During the post-event grid restoration, utility contractors had to work 16 hours per day in intense heat and humidity, which constrained the recovery efficiency. As a result, Louisiana residents experienced a total of 35 million hours of blackout–heatwave compound hazard over 10 days after the landfall of Hurricane Ida.

Climate-renewable challenges

In the summer of 2023, record-breaking peak electricity demand was repeatedly reported in Texas under sustained heatwave conditions 62 . Intensification and prolongation of heatwaves stress the steady-state (hourly to daily) balance between supply and demand of power grids. Along with heatwaves, tropical cyclones are a primary climate-related cause of widespread catastrophic blackouts and pose a direct threat to the dynamic stability of power systems 63 . Moreover, the challenges of maintaining both steady-state balance and dynamic stability of power systems are exacerbated in the context of high penetration of renewables.

Intensifying climate extremes

General circulation models (GCMs) are widely used to project the climate change conditions corresponding to specific SSPs 64 . To foster consensus among climatologists, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) 65 was initiated to aid GCM comparisons, sensitivity tests and refinements. CMIP6, the sixth and newest phase of CMIP, contributes to the comprehensive evaluation and reporting of IPCC AR6 findings 11 . Surface temperature and relative humidity data from six CMIP6 GCMs reveal the anticipated changes in annual heatwave days (those with a daily maximum heat index over 37.8 °C) along the US East and Gulf coasts under both moderate (SSP2-4.5) and high (SSP5-8.5) emission scenarios (Fig. 3a,b). The model projections indicate a consistent rise in heatwave frequency. Moreover, high-latitude regions are expected to experience increased heatwave frequency compared with low-latitude areas.

figure 3

Across diverse emission scenarios and GCM projections, a prevailing consensus also suggests a global increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones 66,67,68,69 . This projection is verified across an array of physically driven 66,67,68 and statistically driven methods 69 . Among these, the statistical-deterministic method 70,71 offers an advanced simulation framework for generating synthetic tropical cyclones based on climate environmental conditions that capture their physical processes 72 . The projection based on this approach, averaged over six CMIP6 GCMs, shows that in most regions along the US East and Gulf coasts, the frequency of major (category 3–5) tropical cyclones will increase by at least 30% under the SSP2-4.5 scenario (Fig. 3c) and by at least 50% under the SSP5-8.5 scenario (Fig. 3d). Although some climate studies suggest a decrease in the annual frequency of tropical cyclones 73,74 , climatologists broadly acknowledge that the intensity of tropical cyclones is increasing and a greater proportion are evolving into major tropical cyclones in a changing climate 14,67,68,69,73,74 . In addition to these findings, research suggests that to eliminate the increase of hazards due to tropical-cyclone intensification, there needs to be a substantial decrease in tropical-cyclone frequency (~70%) 75 that is far larger than the maximum decrease (~30%) projected by the climate studies 14,67,68,69,73,74 . Also, mirroring the trends observed with heatwaves, high-latitude regions also show a greater increase than is seen in low-latitude regions in the frequency of major tropical cyclones. This correlation highlights the challenges posed to power grids by compound hazards.

Intensifying compound hazards

Climate-related extreme weather events can also become more correlated in space and time. Coastal flooding in the context of rising sea levels and compound flooding from storm surge, heavy rainfall and rising sea levels can cause direct damage to power systems and present substantial challenges to system restoration. For the US East and Gulf coasts in the high-emissions (SSP5-8.5) scenario, historical 100-year floods could occur annually or every 1–30 years by the end of the twenty-first century, because of the combined effects of rising sea levels and changes in tropical-cyclone climatology 76 . The frequency of joint hazard events driven by tropical-cyclone rainfall, storm surge and sea level rises could increase 7- to 195-fold along the US East and Gulf coasts under SSP5-8.5 by 2100 20 . As a result, the extension of compound flooding is projected to increase by 27% and inundation volumes by 62% in North Carolina under SSP5-8.5 77 . Even under the moderate climate change scenario (SSP2-4.5), we can expect locally meaningful changes in the land area at risk from compound flooding by 2050, with defences protecting 2,200 km 2 of land along the US East and Gulf coasts potentially compromised 78 .

Moreover, the frequency of lengthy heatwaves following intense tropical cyclones could increase sharply. For example, the expected percentage of residents in Harris County, Texas experiencing at least one tropical-cyclone-related blackout plus heatwave lasting more than 5 days in a 20-year period could increase by a factor of 23 over the twenty-first century 33 . Tropical-cyclone-induced blackout and heatwave compound hazards have been rare until recently (for example, Hurricanes Laura in 2020 and Ida in 2021, both affecting Louisiana). As climate change is expected to intensify both heatwaves and tropical cyclones, possibly in correlation, tropical-cyclone-induced blackout and heatwave compound hazards may emerge in many coastal areas.

In addition to the superimposition of multiple hazards during extreme events, the increases in event frequency can lead to temporal compounding of events, which can also greatly challenge power system resilience. Two sequential tropical cyclones 79 that make landfall close together in space and within the timeframe of power system recovery can induce more severe damage to the power system than each storm individually. For example, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria made landfall successively in Puerto Rico in 2017 within 2 weeks, leading to a prolonged disruption in the island’s power grid 80 . Under the high (SSP5-8.5) and moderate (SSP2-4.5) emission pathways, the chance of two tropical cyclones affecting the same location within 15 days of each other could substantially increase along the US East and Gulf coasts (with the return period decreasing from 10–92 years to 1–3 years over the course of the current century) owing to rising sea levels and changes in storm climatology 79 .

Superimposed risks

The power outage dataset in the US from 2017 to 2022 indicates that major tropical cyclones affected an average of 3.32 million customers annually 42 , leading to average socioeconomic losses of US$94.4 billion per year (consumer price index adjusted) 10 . Based on the historical damage data 10,42 and the intensifying trends of major tropical cyclones (Fig. 3c,d) weighted by county-level population 81 , linear estimations suggest, under SSP5-8.5 (SSP2-4.5), an annual increase of 1.83 million (1.39 million) affected customers in the United States with an additional US$53.6 billion (US$40.7 billion) in losses. Notably, this linear estimation only provides a lower bound, as it does not consider compound hazards and the increasing renewable penetration level in US power grids. Additionally, there is an increase in cooling demand in almost all regions of the world, including the United States, China and Europe, due to climate change, with Europe experiencing a notable annual rise of up to 5% 82 . This increasing cooling demand can further stress the electricity supply–demand balance during extreme heatwaves 83 .

Adopting a holistic climate and energy perspective, the escalating challenges of integrating environment-sensitive renewable power systems into future net-zero power systems under climate change conditions can be considered in terms of three aspects: infrastructure safety, grid operation and system recovery.

Vulnerability of infrastructure

Solar panels and wind turbines are directly exposed to the environment, and these leading renewable generation methods are therefore much more vulnerable to wind hazards than conventional power plants 84,85 . Historical data from the US East Coast and the Caribbean region highlight that current solar panels broadly perform below the designed reliability requirement during hurricane events 86 . During Hurricane Maria in 2017, one-third of solar farms in Puerto Rico reported over 50% damaged panels. This vulnerability is not limited to just wind hazards; ground-mounted utility-scale solar photovoltaic systems are particularly susceptible to the combined effects of intensifying wind, rainfall and storm surge from tropical cyclones. Wind turbines also face intensifying challenges. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has spurred a boom in offshore wind farm development along the US coasts. However, approximately two-thirds of the US offshore wind energy potential in deep water zones requires floating platforms, as the current fixed-bottom technique is limited to water depths of about 50 m (ref. 87 ). With further rising sea levels and intensifying tropical cyclones, changes in wind and wave patterns could lead to more severe structural damage to wind turbines 88 .

Reduced grid inertia and flexibility

Grid inertia and flexibility (the two essential features that provide resilience against operational imbalances) are further constrained by high penetration of renewables. Renewable energy resources, such as solar photovoltaic systems, are integrated into the grid via power inverters. Increasing inverter-based renewable penetration with proportionately fewer conventional synchronous generators reduces the grid inertia associated with rotational kinetic energy from grid-connected rotating turbines 89 . The low-inertia issue compromises the capacity of power grids to respond to transient imbalances caused by climate extremes, resulting in escalating risks of frequency oscillations or even catastrophic blackouts. This problem is amplified by intensifying climate risks.

In terms of the flexibility, the variability of renewable energy introduces additional uncertainty to system balance between supply and demand, necessitating greater flexibility to mitigate the uncertainty. The ‘duck curve’, the shape of daily electricity demand considering solar generation 90 , is becoming more pronounced in view of the increasing disparity between peak and nadir demand. Environment-dependent renewables introduce the uncertainty from weather systems into both minute-level and hour-level scheduling. For example, unpredictable cloud cover and low-wind periods can result in shortfalls in solar and wind generation that enlarge existing power imbalances.

During extreme weather events, solar generation experiences a steep drop as a result of the substantial drop in solar irradiance caused by thick cloud structures such as large cumulonimbi 91 . California, which rarely experiences tropical-cyclone events, experienced a strong system-wide reduction in solar generation (the daily peak declined from over 15,000 MW to 4,703 MW, nearly one-third of California’s total demand) during Hurricane Hillary in August 2023 92 . Moreover, wind turbines are designed to automatically shut down once wind speeds reach a specific threshold, typically set at around 55 mph (ref. 93 ). Even a Category 1 hurricane, which has 74–95 mph sustained wind speed, exceeds this limit. Such realities underscore the prominent risks of future power systems that are heavily reliant on renewable energy generation.

Delayed system recovery

Severe storms and other extreme climate events have a pronounced effect on the post-event recovery of renewable-dominated power systems. In addition to damaging energy infrastructure, tropical cyclones can cause an up to 80% reduction in solar radiation for several days post-landfall 91 . Moreover, environment-sensitive renewable energy generation systems are more susceptible to severe damage and face longer, more challenging recovery. For instance, Punta Lima, a 23 MW wind farm in Puerto Rico, lost almost half its turbine blades during Hurricane Maria in 2017. As of 2023, the facility remains non-operational because of an extensive rebuilding process 94 . The expected increase in post-tropical-cyclone heatwaves is likely to make power system restoration, primarily an outdoor activity, even more challenging. Additionally, wildfires resulting from heatwaves can induce post-event damage to environment-exposed infrastructure and further impede recovery 95 . The prolonged recovery periods associated with increasing renewable energy penetration could lead to substantial shortfalls in electricity generation capacity required to initially restart power grids from a blackout (black starts 96 ).

Opportunities from renewables

Although, in the context of a changing climate, renewable integration poses serious challenges to power system resilience, it is critical to look beyond these challenges. The ongoing energy transition, marked by increasing penetration of renewable energy, brings new opportunities to achieve climate resilience through the shift from centralized to distributed architectures. Despite the limited flexibility of renewable electricity supply, large-scale distributed renewable energy resources can offer improved topological flexibility owing to the formation of microgrids (Fig. 4). Distributed renewable integration is reshaping the traditional transmission-focused architecture of power systems 97 . Under steady-state conditions, distributed renewables foster flexible bidirectional power flow in active distribution networks 98 , thereby providing localized clusters with energy autonomy in microgrids. These microgrids improve both renewable energy integration and resilience. Under climate extremes, proactively configured microgrids can prevent failure propagation and mitigate the risk of cascading failure, which improves the continuity of electricity supply in less-affected areas. For example, microgrid formation is recognized as an effective and economical way to improve power system resilience in response to increasing wildfires in California, compared with the controversial public safety power shutoffs used in recent years to prevent outage propagation 99,100 . Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority is also pursuing a transformation to a more flexible power grid with the capability to form independent microgrids in response to the challenges posed by hurricanes and other climate extremes 101 .

figure 4

However, to achieve climate-resilient net-zero power systems, a substantial effort towards reshaping the traditional grid architecture is required along with innovative solutions and cutting-edge techniques, detailed in the following few sections.

Grid-forming inverters

Current grid-connected renewables mainly adopt grid-following inverters, which rely on phase-locked loops (feedback control loops that track the phase and frequency of input signals) to follow the grid voltage and frequency 102 . Grid-following inverters act as current sources that passively respond to voltage and frequency fluctuations, but rely on the grid being formed by its traditional inertial source: synchronous generators. An emerging solution to the low inertia of renewable-dominated power grids under intensifying climate risks is grid-forming inverters 103,104 . These devices function as controllable voltage sources supported by power synchronization loops (feedback control loops to emulate the rotor characteristics of synchronous generators) without relying on phase-locked loops; they actively support and stabilize grid frequency and voltage, thereby providing virtual inertia (electronic-control-based emulation of traditional mechanical inertia) and have a fast frequency response, particularly for islanded microgrids 104 . In addition, grid-forming inverters can also serve as black-start resources by offering voltage and/or frequency reference values for the recovery of power systems during climate extremes 105 .

However, even though grid-forming inverters can theoretically operate in 100% renewable power systems, empirical observations of their efficacy in high-penetration renewable power systems are still lacking. For example, reliance on control-driven virtual inertia instead of physical grid inertia could introduce latency in responses to disturbances that lead to potential grid instability 106 . In addition, the applications of grid-forming inverters in bulk power systems are limited by their insufficient ability to withstand high short-circuit current during outages (a capability known as fault ride-through) because of current-carrying limitations of power electronics 107 . Therefore, grid-forming inverters are more suitable for establishing climate-resilient microgrids than bulk power systems.

Distributed energy storage

Energy storage systems are considered one of the most efficient solutions for maintaining the balance between electricity supply and demand, especially for power systems with high penetration of variable renewable sources 108,109 . The spectrum of energy storage encompasses a variety of methods, including electrical, electromagnetic, mechanical, thermal, hydrological and electrochemical systems. Moreover, the scope of energy storage systems can be expanded by incorporating power-to-X technologies 110,111,112 such as power-to-gas (hydrogen) and power-to-heat solutions. The standout attribute of energy storage systems in terms of climate resilience is their inherent potential to be distributed 113 . A distributed energy storage system, characterized by high spatiotemporal flexibility and rapid response capability, serves as an indispensable component of renewable-dominated power systems, particularly microgrids. During climate extremes, distributed energy storage systems provide fast response services that maintain the short-term and long-term power balance. For post-event recovery following widespread blackouts, distributed energy storage systems become vital in addressing power shortages in fragmented grids that have experienced sectionalization (intentional or unintentional grid separations) caused by climate extremes.

Incorporation of portable energy storage 114 into the electricity market as a prominent concept has emerged to mitigate grid congestion. However, its potential role in response to climate extremes remains to be explored. The mobility of portable energy storage systems further enhances their spatiotemporal flexibility and might be a promising solution for future renewable power systems. Additionally, the widespread implementation of distributed energy storage systems is hindered by technological difficulties. Optimization of capacity planning and the configuration of distributed energy storage systems, along with efficient aggregation strategies in response to power imbalances, remains a challenge. In multi-stakeholder power systems, the market participation mechanism is still in the exploratory phase.

Cross-sector interoperability

Interactions between closely connected sectors (such as transportation, electricity and industry) will be instrumental in increasing the energy autonomy of microgrids, which is expected to improve the flexibility of future net-zero power systems during climate extremes 115,116,117 . For instance, decarbonization of the transportation sector through electrification is highly dependent on the electricity sector. The ongoing expansion of the electricity sector aids the formation of an energy ecosystem 36,118 . In the face of climate challenges, the electricity sector can mitigate stress on power supply and demand through increased cross-sector flexibility, for example by using the energy storage capabilities of electric vehicles and promoting active demand responses in industry and other sectors 119 . Such cross-sector interoperability requires reliable sensing, communication and integrated business models. However, promising attempts are ongoing to improve the interoperability of isolated system frameworks by exploring more integrated system-of-system architectures 120 .

Distributed optimization

Distributed optimization offers a way for power systems to transition from centralized to distributed operation 121 . Systems with distributed operation have inherent resilience without relying on a centralized control centre. This characteristic enables microgrids to adapt to climate risks by allowing them to coordinate autonomously and ride through or recover from extreme events 122 .

Distributed optimization algorithms decompose a centralized problem into subproblems and coordinate the available agents to achieve a system-wide solution 121 . They present better scalability for a large-scale problem, by parallelly solving the subproblems, and offer a more resilient communication architecture than centralized methods 97 . A unique challenge in designing distributed optimizations for power systems is the nonlinearity of power flow equations, which makes it difficult to guarantee the provable convergence of the designed algorithms 123,124 . Moreover, the speed of convergence and communication requirements as critical algorithm performance metrics make the deployment of the algorithms challenging 125 . Theoretical advances in understanding algorithm complexity, designing new distributed optimization algorithms, and efficient implementations are further needed.

Distributed control is a dynamic version of distributed optimization that aims to maintain the stability of a power grid in response to disturbances around a stable operating point set by distributed operation 126 . One promising line of research is the development of simple, distributed control strategies for ensuring the stability of power grids. Many fundamental questions remain to be addressed in the application of distributed control to microgrids. For example, the Braess paradox shows that increased network connectivity can lead to instability 126 . Increased damping coefficients (parameters that reflect the capability of power systems to reduce oscillations) can also lead to instability in the context of the nonlinear dynamics of power grids 127 . Additionally, large-scale network delays in multiagent systems have a strong effect on stability 106,128 . Further research is required to improve fundamental understanding and develop innovative designs for future low-inertia microgrids under distributed control.

Climate–energy integrated model

Renewable-dominated power systems require the integration of climate, weather and energy system models. Such interdisciplinary analyses offer insights into the superimposed risks, which support the improvement of steady-state operation and dynamic stability of future power systems. In particular, standards for planning and operation of climate-resilient microgrids would be dependent on a climate–energy integrated perspective.

Although well-developed individual models exist for climate, weather and energy systems, these models were not originally conceived as an interconnected whole. As each model has unique specifications and requirements, coupling them requires substantial research to ensure their compatibility and applicability. Mismatches between climate, weather and power system models can result in considerable overestimation or underestimation. For instance, a preliminary study for mid-twenty-first-century planning of the Texas power system shows a disparity in estimated resource adequacy amounting to nearly a 1,500 MW difference between high-resolution and low-resolution climate models 129 .

Moreover, extreme weather events are not well resolved in global climate models, and various compound hazards 130 — such as tropical cyclones, rising sea levels, flooding and heatwaves — that can affect the power system have not been modelled consistently in the risk analysis of power systems. Several research directions might help to bridge the gaps between climate, weather and power system models and aid the assessment of power system risk and resilience.

Compatible spatiotemporal climate–energy integrated modelling and risk analysis

Towards a resilient future under intensifying climate risks, the adaptive coordination of climate extreme models and power system models in both spatial and temporal dimensions becomes increasingly important. Specifically, research on extreme-event-induced cascading power outages requires the incorporation of high-resolution models of power system dynamics along with compatible spatiotemporal projections of climate hazards. These compatible hazard projections can be generated by consistent downscaling of advanced climate models 131 and simulation of the specific hazards 33,79 . To effectively optimize the planning and operation of renewable-dominated power systems, especially microgrids under climate extremes, future resilience-oriented research should focus on developing such compatible climate–energy integrated models.

In risk analysis, existing conservative-driven risk analysis and adaptation methods, such as stress testing 132 (risk magnification) and robust optimization 133 (worst-scenario approach), have demonstrated their effectiveness in enhancing the resilience of engineering decisions in the context of extreme events. However, given the extensive scale, complexity and economic considerations of modern power systems, it is essential to incorporate compatible high-resolution climate extreme scenarios into risk analysis. This offers a promising direction to better understand the intensifying superimposed risks and develop appropriate risk adaptation techniques towards a climate-resilient future.

Climate-coupled system planning

Climate-coupled system planning is essential for the design of future power systems that require increased resilience and reliability. Research should focus on the development of metrics to support the planning of power systems under diverse architectures adapting to climate change, taking into account factors such as power reserve needs, climate data integration, market behaviour and investment incentives. For instance, when planning the expansion of renewable energy such as solar and wind energy resources, comprehensive climate–energy metrics need to be applied for conducting cost–benefit analysis 134 . Moreover, the transition from a centralized network architecture to multiple microgrids requires a climate-coupled planning model to ensure both economic efficiency and climate resilience requirements.

Weather-coupled system operation

Operation of future net-zero power systems is increasingly weather-dependent and vulnerable to weather extremes. High-resolution and compatible models for forecasting spatiotemporal weather extremes and hazards 135 should be further developed and incorporated into real-time operation and emergency control of future power systems. For instance, pre-event scheduling and during-event dispatch of flexible resources, informed by high-resolution weather forecasting, are beneficial to mitigate power imbalances caused by extreme weather events. Although numerous approaches account for meteorological uncertainties for both solar and wind power in day-ahead unit commitment 136 and real-time economic dispatch 137 , there is an urgent need for developing operation strategies of future power systems, particularly in coordination of multi-microgrids, to incorporate these high-resolution hazard models during extreme events.

Outlook

The large-scale integration of environment-dependent renewable energy, coupled with intensifying climate extremes, brings superimposed risks to power systems. Climate extremes affect power system resilience and necessitate climate-resilient solutions based on the examination of historical events and future projections.

In this Perspective, we highlight large-scale historical datasets of spatiotemporal power outages caused by tropical cyclones in the United States over the past 6 years, focusing on the key features that affect power system resilience in both during-event operation and post-event recovery scenarios. The 12 tropical cyclones that made landfall in the United States between 2017 and 2022 caused extensive power outages and substantial damage to energy infrastructure, and led to prolonged recovery efforts. Two catastrophic power grid blackouts occurring in 2017 and 2022 in Puerto Rico reveal that island power grids are far more vulnerable to climate extremes than bulk power systems. These climate vulnerabilities stem from low grid inertia, which affects short-term (transient) energy balance, and decreased system flexibility, which affects the long-term balance. In the post-event recovery phase, the initial progress of recovery is profoundly influenced by persistent climate hazards such as flooding induced by extreme rainfall and storm surges. Subsequent heatwaves can further limit the efficiency of power restoration.

Taking the US East and Gulf coasts as an example, climate projections from both moderate (SSP2-4.5) and high (SSP5-8.5) emission pathways indicate a considerable rise in the frequency of heatwaves and major tropical cyclones from 2020 to 2050. Moreover, these projections predict the exacerbation of compound hazards such as combinations of tropical cyclones, extreme rainfall and heatwaves. Under conditions of intensifying climate extremes, the large-scale integration of renewable energy imposes escalating challenges on future power system resilience, from aspects of infrastructure and operation to recovery.

Nevertheless, the inherently distributed character of renewable energy presents unique opportunities to establish climate-resilient power systems. The transition from a centralized power system to distributed microgrids can improve system resilience during climate extremes by offering additional topological flexibility. In particular, we highlight several state-of-the-art technologies and strategies that might contribute to a net-zero future in a changing climate. Important advances include grid-forming inverters, distributed energy storage, cross-sector interoperability, distributed optimization and climate–energy integrated models. These advances could play a pivotal role in reshaping the traditional power grid into a climate-resilient distributed system with large-scale integration of renewable energy. However, achieving climate resilience requires intense efforts to integrate climate, weather and energy system models and to apply such integrated models to support infrastructure planning as well as real-time operation and recovery.

References

  1. Luderer, G. et al. Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios. Nat. Energy7, 32–42 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) 615–670 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  3. Bistline, J. et al. Emissions and energy impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Science380, 1324–1327 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. A European Green Deal, commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (European Commission, 2019).
  5. China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025), english.www.gov.cn/ (The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, 2021).
  6. Hanna, R. & Victor, D. G. Marking the decarbonization revolutions. Nat. Energy6, 568–571 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Xu, L., Guo, Q., Sheng, Y., Muyeen, S. M. & Sun, H. On the resilience of modern power systems: a comprehensive review from the cyber-physical perspective. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.152, 111642 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Electric Emergency Incident and Disturbance Report (Form OE-417), oe.netl.doe.gov/oe417.aspx (US Department of Energy, 2022).
  9. Surging Power Outages and Climate Change, www.climatecentral.org/ (Climate Central, 2022).
  10. U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/ (NOAA, 2023).
  11. Lawrence, J. et al. in Climate Change2022:Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner H.-O. et al.) 1517–1600 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
  12. Emanuel, K. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature436, 686–688 (2005). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang, S. & Toumi, R. Recent migration of tropical cyclones toward coasts. Science371, 514–517 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Knutson, T. et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change assessment. Part II: Projected response to anthropogenic warming. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.101, 303–322 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Meinshausen, M. et al. The Shared Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500. Geosci. Model. Dev.13, 3571–3605 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Moore, F. C. et al. Determinants of emissions pathways in the coupled climate–social system. Nature603, 103–111 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Perkins, S. E., Alexander, L. V. & Nairn, J. R. Increasing frequency, intensity and duration of observed global heatwaves and warm spells. Geophys. Res. Lett.39, L20714 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirabayashi, Y. et al. Global flood risk under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change3, 816–821 (2013). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Knutson, T. R. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nat. Geosci.3, 157–163 (2010). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gori, A., Lin, N., Xi, D. & Emanuel, K. Tropical cyclone climatology change greatly exacerbates US extreme rainfall–surge hazard. Nat. Clim. Change12, 171–178 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Change8, 469–477 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Zscheischler, J. et al. A typology of compound weather and climate events. Nat. Rev. Earth Env.1, 333–347 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kemfert, C. et al. The expansion of natural gas infrastructure puts energy transitions at risk. Nat. Energy7, 582–587 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Veers, P. et al. Grand challenges in the science of wind energy. Science 10.1126/science.aau2027 (2019).
  25. Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M. & Thernstrom, S. Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule2, 2498–2510 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Electricity Generation, Capacity, and Sales in the United States. www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php (US Energy Information Administration, 2023).
  27. Cochran, J., Mai, T. & Bazilian, M. Meta-analysis of high penetration renewable energy scenarios. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.29, 246–253 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Patt, A., Pfenninger, S. & Lilliestam, J. Vulnerability of solar energy infrastructure and output to climate change. Clim. Change121, 93–102 (2013). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose, S., Jaramillo, P., Small, M. J., Grossmann, I. & Apt, J. Quantifying the hurricane risk to offshore wind turbines. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA109, 3247–3252 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Denholm, P. et al. The challenges of achieving a 100% renewable electricity system in the United States. Joule5, 1331–1352 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Perera, A. T. D., Nik, V. M., Chen, D., Scartezzini, J. L. & Hong, T. Quantifying the impacts of climate change and extreme climate events on energy systems. Nat. Energy5, 150–159 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Perera, A. T. D. et al. Challenges resulting from urban density and climate change for the EU energy transition. Nat. Energy8, 397–412 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Feng, K., Ouyang, M. & Lin, N. Tropical cyclone–blackout–heatwave compound hazard resilience in a changing climate. Nat. Commun.13, 4421 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Stern, P. C., Sovacool, B. K. & Dietz, T. Towards a science of climate and energy choices. Nat. Clim. Change6, 547–555 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoffert, M. I. Advanced technology paths to global climate stability: energy for a greenhouse planet. Science298, 981–987 (2002). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Davis, S. J. et al. Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science360, eaas9793 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Craig, M. T. et al. Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling. Joule6, 1405–1417 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Craig, M. T. et al. A review of the potential impacts of climate change on bulk power system planning and operations in the United States. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.98, 255–267 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Qiu, M., Ratledge, N., Azevedo, I. M., Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Burke, M. Drought impacts on the electricity system, emissions, and air quality in the western United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA120, e2300395120 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Grinsted, A., Ditlevsen, P. & Christensen, J. H. Normalized US hurricane damage estimates using area of total destruction, 1900−2018. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA116, 23942–23946 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Cohen, D. T. 60 Million Live in the Path of Hurricanes (US Census Bureau, 2018).
  42. The Power Outage Monitoring Product, poweroutage.us/ (Poweroutage, 2023).
  43. Ji, C. et al. Large-scale data analysis of power grid resilience across multiple US service regions. Nat. Energy1, 1–8 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Ji, C. et al. Resilience of energy infrastructure and services: modeling, data analytics, and metrics. Proc. IEEE105, 1354–1366 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Afsharinejad, A. H., Ji, C. & Wilcox, R. Large-scale data analytics for resilient recovery services from power failures. Joule5, 2504–2520 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Tielens, P. & van Hertem, D. The relevance of inertia in power systems. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.55, 999–1009 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Panteli, M. & Mancarella, P. The grid: stronger, bigger, smarter? Presenting a conceptual framework of power system resilience. IEEE Power Energy Mag.13, 58–66 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Denholm, P., Mai, T., Kenyon, R. W., Kroposki, B. & O’Malley, M. Inertia and the Power Grid: A Guide Without the Spin (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2020).
  49. Kannan, A., Nuschke, M., Dobrin, B. P. & Strauß-Mincu, D. Frequency stability analysis for inverter dominated grids during system split. Electr. Power Syst. Res.188, 106550 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Inertia: Basic Concepts and Impacts on the ERCOT Grid (Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, 2018).
  51. Lannoye, E., Flynn, D. & O’Malley, M. Evaluation of power system flexibility. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.27, 922–931 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Nosair, H. & Bouffard, F. Reconstructing operating reserve: flexibility for sustainable power systems. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy6, 1624–1637 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Hurricane Fiona Situation Reports, www.energy.gov/ceser/hurricane-fiona-situation-reports (US Department of Energy, 2022).
  54. Movahednia, M., Kargarian, A., Ozdemir, C. E. & Hagen, S. C. Power grid resilience enhancement via protecting electrical substations against flood hazards: a stochastic framework. IEEE Trans. Industr. Inform.18, 2132–2143 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Nofal, O. M. & van de Lindt, J. W. Understanding flood risk in the context of community resilience modeling for the built environment: research needs and trends. Sustain. Resilient Infrastruct.7, 171–187 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kozlov, M. Hurricane Ida forces researchers to rethink their future. Nature597, 313 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Hurricane Response, www.energy.gov/ceser/hurricane-response (US Department of Energy, 2023).
  58. Zhang, C. Resilient cooling strategies — a critical review and qualitative assessment. Energy Build.251, 111312 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Watts, N. et al. Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. Lancet386, 1861–1914 (2015). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Matthews, T., Wilby, R. L. & Murphy, C. An emerging tropical cyclone–deadly heat compound hazard. Nat. Clim. Change9, 602–606 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. NWS New Orleans/Baton Rouge Hurricane Ida Post Tropical Cyclone Report, www.weather.gov/lix/pshhurricaneida (NOAA, 2021).
  62. ERCOT Issues Weather Watch, www.ercot.com/news/release/2023-08-04-ercot-issues-weather (Electricity Reliability Council of Texas, 2023).
  63. Panteli, M., Mancarella, P., Trakas, D. N., Kyriakides, E. & Hatziargyriou, N. D. Metrics and quantification of operational and infrastructure resilience in power systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.32, 4732–4742 (2017). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Edwards, P. N. History of climate modeling. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change2, 128–139 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M. & Stouffer, R. J. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.81, 313–318 (2000). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Sobel, A. H. et al. Human influence on tropical cyclone intensity. Science353, 242–246 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Murakami, H. & Wang, B. Patterns and frequency of projected future tropical cyclone genesis are governed by dynamic effects. Commun. Earth Environ.3, 77 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Bhatia, K., Vecchi, G., Murakami, H., Underwood, S. & Kossin, J. Projected response of tropical cyclone intensity and intensification in a global climate model. J. Clim.31, 8281–8303 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Kossin, J. P., Emanuel, K. A. & Vecchi, G. A. The poleward migration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum intensity. Nature509, 349–352 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Emanuel, K., Sundararajan, R. & Williams, J. Hurricanes and global warming: results from downscaling IPCC AR4 simulations. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.89, 347–368 (2008). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Emanuel, K. Response of global tropical cyclone activity to increasing CO2: results from downscaling CMIP6 models. J. Clim.34, 57–70 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Meiler, S. et al. Intercomparison of regional loss estimates from global synthetic tropical cyclone models. Nat. Commun.13, 6156 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Chand, S. S. et al. Declining tropical cyclone frequency under global warming. Nat. Clim. Change12, 655–661 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Knutson, T. R. et al. Simulated reduction in Atlantic hurricane frequency under twenty-first-century warming conditions. Nat. Geosci.1, 359–364 (2008). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Xi, D. & Lin, N. Investigating the physical drivers for the increasing tropical cyclone rainfall hazard in the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL099196 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Marsooli, R., Lin, N., Emanuel, K. & Feng, K. Climate change exacerbates hurricane flood hazards along US Atlantic and Gulf Coasts in spatially varying patterns. Nat. Commun.10, 3785 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Gori, A., Lin, N., Schenkel, B. & Chavas, D. North Atlantic tropical cyclone size and storm surge reconstructions from 1950–present. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.128, e2022JD037312 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Bates, P. D. et al. Combined modeling of US fluvial, pluvial, and coastal flood hazard under current and future climates. Water Resour. Res.57, e2020WR028673 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Xi, D., Lin, N. & Gori, A. Increasing sequential tropical cyclone hazards along the US East and Gulf coasts. Nat. Clim. Change13, 258–265 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Hurricanes Nate, Maria, Irma, and Harvey Situation Reports, www.energy.gov/ceser/articles/hurricanes-nate-maria-irma-and-harvey-situation-reports (US Department of Energy, 2023).
  81. 2015–2019 American Community 5-Year Data Profile, www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2019/ (US Census Bureau, 2023).
  82. Staffell, I., Pfenninger, S. & Johnson, N. A global model of hourly space heating and cooling demand at multiple spatial scales. Nat. Energyhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01341-5 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Nik, V. M. Making energy simulation easier for future climate — synthesizing typical and extreme weather data sets out of regional climate models (RCMs). Appl. Energy177, 204–226 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Watson, E. B. & Etemadi, A. H. Modeling electrical grid resilience under hurricane wind conditions with increased solar and wind power generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.35, 929–937 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Bennett, J. A. et al. Extending energy system modelling to include extreme weather risks and application to hurricane events in Puerto Rico. Nat. Energy6, 240–249 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Ceferino, L., Lin, N. & Xi, D. Bayesian updating of solar panel fragility curves and implications of higher panel strength for solar generation resilience. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.229, 108896 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Offshore Wind Resource Assessment (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2022).
  88. James M., Haldar S., Varghese R., Bhattacharya S. & Pakrashi V. in Wind Energy Engineering 2nd edition (ed. Letcher, T. M.) 413–422 (Academic, 2023).
  89. O’Malley, M. et al. Enabling power system transformation globally: a system operator research agenda for bulk power system issues. IEEE Power Energy Mag.19, 45–55 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. As Solar Capacity Grows, Duck Curves Are Getting Deeper in California, www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=56880# (US Energy Information Administration, 2023).
  91. Ceferino, L., Lin, N. & Xi, D. Stochastic modeling of solar irradiance during hurricanes. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess.36, 2681–2693 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  92. Today’s Outlook, www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx (California ISO, 2023).
  93. How Do Wind Turbines Survive Severe Storms?www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-do-wind-turbines-survive-severe-storms (US Department of Energy, 2017).
  94. Reconstruction of the Punta Lima Wind Farm and Related Transactions, aeepr.com/es-pr (Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, 2021).
  95. Vazquez, D. A. Z., Qiu, F., Fan, N. & Sharp, K. Wildfire mitigation plans in power systems: a literature review. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.37, 3540–3551 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Holttinen, H. et al. System impact studies for near 100% renewable energy systems dominated by inverter based variable generation. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.37, 3249–3258 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Cheng, Z., Duan, J. & Chow, M. Y. To centralize or to distribute: that is the question: a comparison of advanced microgrid management systems. IEEE Ind. Electron. Mag.12, 6–24 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Hu, Z. & Li, F. Cost–benefit analyses of active distribution network management. Part I: Annual benefit analysis. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid3, 1067–1074 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  99. Moreno, R. et al. Microgrids against wildfires: distributed energy resources enhance system resilience. IEEE Power Energy Mag.20, 78–89 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Perera, A. T. D., Zhao, B., Wang, Z., Soga, K. & Hong, T. Optimal design of microgrids to improve wildfire resilience for vulnerable communities at the wildland–urban interface. Appl. Energy335, 120744 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  101. Puerto Rico Energy Public Policy Act 17, www.pr.gov/ (Gobierno de Puerto Rico, 2019).
  102. Zhang, H., Xiang, W., Lin, W. & Wen, J. Grid forming converters in renewable energy sources dominated power grid: control strategy, stability, application, and challenges. J. Mod. Power Syst. Clean. Energy9, 1239–1256 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  103. Lasseter, R. H., Chen, Z. & Pattabiraman, D. Grid-forming inverters: a critical asset for the power grid. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron.8, 925–935 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  104. Poolla, B. K., Groß, D. & Dörfler, F. Placement and implementation of grid-forming and grid-following virtual inertia and fast frequency response. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.34, 3035–3046 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  105. Lin, Y. et al. Research Roadmap on Grid-forming Inverters (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2020).
  106. Xu, L., Guo, Q., Wang, Z. & Sun, H. Modeling of time-delayed distributed cyber-physical power systems for small-signal stability analysis. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid12, 3425–3437 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  107. Taul, M. G., Wang, X., Davari, P. & Blaabjerg, F. Current limiting control with enhanced dynamics of grid-forming converters during fault conditions. IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top. Power Electron.8, 1062–1073 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  108. Braff, W. A., Mueller, J. M. & Trancik, J. E. Value of storage technologies for wind and solar energy. Nat. Clim. Change6, 964–969 (2016). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  109. Denholm, P. & Hand, M. Grid flexibility and storage required to achieve very high penetration of variable renewable electricity. Energy Policy39, 1817–1830 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  110. Chicco, G., Riaz, S., Mazza, A. & Mancarella, P. Flexibility from distributed multienergy systems. Proc. IEEE108, 1496–1517 (2020). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  111. Heinisch, V. et al. Inter-comparison of spatial models for high shares of renewable electricity in Switzerland. Appl. Energy350, 121700 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  112. Sorrenti, I., Rasmussen, T. B. H., You, S. & Wu, Q. The role of power-to-X in hybrid renewable energy systems: a comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.165, 112380 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  113. Carpinelli, G. et al. Optimal integration of distributed energy storage devices in smart grids. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid4, 985–995 (2013). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  114. He, G. et al. Utility-scale portable energy storage systems. Joule5, 379–392 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  115. Perera, A. T. D., Javanroodi, K. & Nik, V. M. Climate resilient interconnected infrastructure: co-optimization of energy systems and urban morphology. Appl. Energy285, 116430 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  116. Gonzalez, J. M. et al. Designing diversified renewable energy systems to balance multisector performance. Nat. Sustain.6, 415–427 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  117. Mancarella, P. MES (multi-energy systems): an overview of concepts and evaluation models. Energy65, 1–17 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  118. Perera, A. T. D. & Hong, T. Vulnerability and resilience of urban energy ecosystems to extreme climate events: a systematic review and perspectives. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.173, 113038 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  119. Turner, S. W., Voisin, N., Fazio, J., Hua, D. & Jourabchi, M. Compound climate events transform electrical power shortfall risk in the Pacific Northwest. Nat. Commun.10, 8 (2019). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  120. Chen, B. et al. Energy-circuit-based integrated energy management system: theory, implementation, and application. Proc. IEEE110, 1897–1926 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  121. Boyd, S., Parikh, N., Chu, E., Peleato, B. & Eckstein, J. Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Found. Trends Mach. Learn.3, 1–122 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  122. Gholami, A. & Sun, X. A. Towards resilient operation of multimicrogrids: an MISOCP-based frequency-constrained approach. IEEE Trans. Control. Netw. Syst.6, 925–936 (2018). ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  123. Sun, K. & Sun, X. A. A two-level ADMM algorithm for AC OPF with global convergence guarantees. IEEE Trans. Power Syst.36, 5271–5281 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  124. Kocuk, B., Dey, S. S. & Sun, X. A. Strong SOCP relaxations for the optimal power flow problem. Oper. Res.64, 1177–1196 (2016). ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  125. Gholami, A., Sun, K., Zhang, S. & Sun, X. A. An ADMM-based distributed optimization method for solving security-constrained alternating current optimal power flow. Oper. Res. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2023.2486 (2023).
  126. Gholami, A. & Sun, X. A. Stability of multimicrogrids: new certificates, distributed control, and Braess’s paradox. IEEE Trans. Control. Netw. Syst.9, 308–319 (2021). ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  127. Gholami, A. & Sun, X. A. The impact of damping in second-order dynamical systems with applications to power grid stability. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst.21, 405–437 (2022). ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  128. Xu, L., Guo, Q., He, G. & Sun, H. The impact of synchronous distributed control period on inverter-based cyber-physical microgrids stability with time delay. Appl. Energy301, 117440 (2021). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  129. Zheng, X. et al. Impact of climate simulation resolutions on future energy system reliability assessment: a Texas case study. iEnergy,https://doi.org/10.23919/IEN.2023.0014 (2023).
  130. Lockwood, J. W. et al. Correlation between sea‐level rise and aspects of future tropical cyclone activity in CMIP6 models. Earths Future10, e2021EF002462 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  131. Schneider, T. et al. Harnessing AI and computing to advance climate modeling and prediction. Nat. Clim. Change.13, 887–889 (2023). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  132. Brown, C. & Wilby, R. L. An alternate approach to assessing climate risks. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union.93, 401–402 (2012). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  133. Xu, L., Guo, Q., Yang, T. & Sun, H. Robust routing optimization for smart grids considering cyber-physical interdependence. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid10, 5620–5629 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  134. Hottenroth, H. et al. Beyond climate change. Multi-attribute decision making for a sustainability assessment of energy system transformation pathways. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.156, 111996 (2022). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  135. Nateghi, R., Guikema, S. D. & Quiring, S. M. Comparison and validation of statistical methods for predicting power outage durations in the event of hurricanes. Risk Anal31, 1897–1906 (2011). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  136. Cordova, S. et al. An efficient forecasting-optimization scheme for the intraday unit commitment process under significant wind and solar power. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy9, 1899–1909 (2018). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  137. Reddy, S. S., Bijwe, P. R. & Abhyankar, A. R. Real-time economic dispatch considering renewable power generation variability and uncertainty over scheduling period. IEEE Syst. J.9, 1440–1451 (2014). ArticleGoogle Scholar
  138. Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php (NOAA, 2023).
  139. NLDAS: North American Land Data Assimilation System, climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nldas-north-american-land-data-assimilation-system (US National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2023).

Acknowledgements

L.Xu, K.F. and N.L. were supported by US National Science Foundation grant numbers 1652448 and 2103754 (as part of the Megalopolitan Coastal Transformation Hub) and Princeton University Innovation Fund. H.V.P. was supported by US National Science Foundation grant number ECCS-2039716. The authors thank N. Zhang at USC Iovine and Young Academy for developing the original artwork for this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA Luo Xu, Kairui Feng & Ning Lin
  2. Center for Policy Research on Energy and the Environment, Princeton, NJ, USA Luo Xu & Ning Lin
  3. Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA A.T.D. Perera
  4. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA H. Vincent Poor
  5. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA Le Xie
  6. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA Chuanyi Ji
  7. Sloan School of Management, Operations Research Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA X. Andy Sun
  8. Department of Electrical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China Qinglai Guo
  9. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK Mark O’Malley
  1. Luo Xu