The security of one of our most essential infrastructures, the electric power grid, against geomagnetic disturbances is becoming increasingly concerning as the United States enters an era defined by the rapid growth of AI data centers and the reindustrialization of the economy. In this context, the flow of geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) in the electric grid, triggered by solar disturbances, could disable large fleets of major power transformers. This risk is particularly troubling in a world characterized by limited transformer supply chains and modest domestic production and stockpile capabilities.
Under these circumstances, current recovery strategies, largely based on the assumption that damaged equipment can be replaced after an event, appear unrealistic. In the case of a widespread geomagnetic disturbance affecting multiple regions, an ex-post replacement approach would likely face severe logistical and manufacturing constraints, making system recovery extremely difficult.
Two major obstacles complicate the development of a comprehensive mitigation plan. The first is the ambiguity surrounding institutional leadership and jurisdictional responsibilities. Federal agencies, Congress, states, and the utility industry have all attempted to address the issue within their respective domains. Entities such as the U.S. Department of Energy and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation have conducted studies and proposed guidelines, and some level of collaboration has taken place. Nevertheless, the absence of a clear national strategy has resulted in fragmented efforts and limited tangible progress.
The second obstacle stems from the nature of the phenomenon itself. Geomagnetic superstorms are typically classified as High-Impact, Low-Frequency (HILF) events. This classification introduces significant uncertainty regarding both the probability of occurrence and the potential scale of damage. The resulting knowledge gaps complicate the decision-making process for policymakers and industry leaders who must weigh the cost of mitigation investments against uncertain risks.
Power system experts generally agree that meaningful mitigation would require the installation of GIC-blocking devices at a large number of Ultra-High Voltage (UHV), Extra-High Voltage (EHV), and High Voltage (HV) transformers across the transmission network. Ideally, these devices would be deployed broadly and in a coordinated manner to ensure consistent protection across interconnected systems. However, such an undertaking would likely involve the large-scale deployment of bulky and costly equipment, some of which remain relatively experimental. For utilities accustomed to conservative engineering practices and proven technologies, this approach introduces additional operational and financial concerns.
Notwithstanding these challenges, references within the NERC GMD Task Force point to simpler device alternatives that could serve as basic protective measures. These solutions might be viewed as a practical safeguard of last resort—analogous to the manual landing gear system in an aircraft. While modern aircraft rely heavily on sophisticated automated servomechanisms, they also include simple mechanical backup systems to ensure safe landing in the unlikely event of a system failure. Such redundancy reflects well-established principles in decision analysis and behavioral research when dealing with HILF scenarios.
Nevertheless, the prevailing institutional posture, essentially tolerating the risk of severe geomagnetic impact, raises important questions. Leading space scientists estimate that the probability of a Carrington-type solar storm occurring within a decade may be around ten percent. The risk could be even higher when considering the possibility of intentional electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events.
In contrast, simpler GIC-blocking devices are sometimes dismissed on the grounds that they may underperform under a highly specific condition: the simultaneous occurrence of a geomagnetic disturbance and a network ground fault. Yet the probability of such a combined event has been estimated to be below one-hundredth of one percent.
This situation creates a counterintuitive outcome. The institutions responsible for safeguarding critical infrastructure appear willing to accept exposure to extremely severe hazards while remaining reluctant to fully explore potentially cost-effective mitigation alternatives.
Returning to the aviation analogy, it would seem inconceivable to eliminate manual landing gear systems from aircraft simply because they might have limited reliability under extremely rare circumstances. Likewise, when dealing with threats capable of disrupting the electric grid on a national scale, it may be prudent to consider every practical layer of protection—including simple and robust safeguards that could significantly reduce systemic vulnerability
Â