GridCORTEX Live · Winter Resilience  ·  ← All Demos
On this page What you are watching The business case Run this at your utility Where you see it and how you say yes

The 72-Hour Countdown Synthetic Data · Simulation

Ice storms are won or lost before the first drop freezes. Watch the 72 hours in front of a major icing event, 0.7 inches of radial ice with 30 mph wind, where every decision has an expiration time: the mutual assistance request that gets 200 crews only if it beats the neighboring utilities to the phone, materials pushed forward before roads glaze, transmission anti-icing by re-routing load current through at-risk lines, a heating-surge load forecast that says +38%, and a rotating-outage plan you build and hope to never touch. Then the storm arrives, and the utility that spent its 72 hours wisely restores in 2.3 days instead of 6.5.

T−72H
ICING FORECAST RECEIVED
⏳ DECISION POINT: TIME SLOWED
SYNTHETIC DATA
Icing band (forecast → actual) Anti-iced transmission (load re-route) Feeder down (ice/tree) Restored ⛺ Staging (materials·crews·MA) 🛩 Drone de-icing pass Galloping span alarm

The storm was Tuesday. The win was Saturday night.

What 72 hours of computed preparation is worth when the ice arrives on schedule
,
Full restoration
,
Peak customers out
,
Rotating outages needed
The Countdown (T−72 → 0)
WithoutWith GridCORTEXΔ
The Storm & After
WithoutWith GridCORTEXΔ
Illustrative simulation on synthetic data; territory, storm, and outcomes are fictional. In a GridCORTEX pilot, the winter resilience twin runs on YOUR territory, YOUR icing climatology, and YOUR mutual assistance agreements, drilled before the season, not during the storm. See UC 8.7 "Demo and Proof Plan."
0.7"
Forecast radial ice (peak band)
0
Customers out
0 / 200
Mutual assistance crews secured
96%
Peak load vs available capacity
Storm Desk Feed, weather · EOC · RMAG · transmission · human-in-the-loop
T−72
T−40
T−12
ICE ARRIVES
+48h
The Validated Use Cases Behind This Scenario
UC 8.7
Winter Resilience Twin
The whole demo: icing physics per span, heating-surge load forecasting, and the 72-hour decision clock.
UC 3.8
Mutual Assistance Coordination
The T−66 request that secured 200 crews while the neighboring utilities were still watching the radar.
UC 8.2
Situational Awareness Generator
One storm picture for the EOC, the regulator, and the media, generated, not assembled at 3 AM.
UC 1.10
Rotating Load Shed Readiness
The plan you build at T−12 and hope to never touch, pool computed, blocks ready, water plants protected.
UC 16.1
Drone De-Icing Passes
The corridor that couldn't be anti-iced gets its glaze knocked off by drone, span by span, LiDAR-verified, before the crosswind.
Inside the Demo
What you are watching, and what it proves

A fictional utility's winter weather desk receives an outlook 72 hours ahead of a major ice storm: freezing rain is likely, expected to build 0.5 to 0.7 inches of ice around every wire across the northwest band, with a 30 mph north wind behind it, at 68% confidence and rising. Ice that thick snaps wires and poles, and the wind then whips coated lines until they fail. GridCORTEX turns the forecast into a damage estimate: roughly 1,900 broken spans of line (a span is the stretch of wire between two poles), concentrated where heavy ice, overhanging trees, and older wire stack on top of each other. The simulation clock runs 120 hours: the first 72 count down to the ice, labeled T-72 to T-0, and the rest play out the storm and the repair effort through 48 hours after the ice arrives. The premise of the whole demo: ice storms are won or lost before the first drop freezes, because every preparation move has a deadline.

Four decision points follow the countdown, and a person, the storm director, approves each one, because each one commits real money and real crews before the storm is certain. At T-66, 66 hours before the ice, the first call: five utilities sit in this storm's path, and mutual assistance, the industry system where utilities lend each other repair crews, goes to whoever asks first. The recommendation is to request 200 borrowed crews now, move poles, wire, splices, and transformers out to the Northgate, Midtown, and Riverside staging sites before the roads ice over, and book crew lodging. Confirmation comes within hours: 200 crews from three states, while a neighboring utility that called later gets 40 and a waitlist. At T-40, confidence is 88% and the forecast says demand will jump 38% as electric heating works harder in the cold. The second approval starts anti-icing: extra electric current is routed through the three most at-risk high-voltage lines so the wires warm themselves 2 to 3 degrees Celsius above the temperature at which ice can form. The utility also commits all available generation, verifies fuel, and pre-drafts a public appeal to conserve power. At T-12, the last window when the roads are still safe, the third approval moves crews into shelter at the staging sites, checks the backup generators at hospitals and water plants, and builds the rotating-outage plan nobody wants to use: 29 groups of customers who could be switched off in turn for short periods if demand outruns supply, computed in advance, with water plants excluded.

The freezing rain begins on schedule at T-0. Six hours in, ice is at 0.3 inches, 9,800 customers are out, and two high-voltage lines are alarming because their ice-coated wires have started bouncing in the wind, a failure mode called galloping. Ten hours in, the fourth decision point launches the repair sequence. Lines are restored in order of criticality, and carefully: after a long cold outage, everything in every home switches back on at once, so each re-energized line briefly draws about 1.6 times its normal load, and pickups are spaced 90 seconds apart to protect transformers. The borrowed crews are already at their pre-assigned sectors. And drones fly de-icing passes over the Riverside-Bayshore corridor, the one line that could not be warmed without overloading it, knocking the glaze off span by span and confirming each pass with laser scanning before the evening crosswind. The event peaks 16 hours in: 0.7 inches of ice, 31,000 customers out, demand at 97% of available supply, and the rotating-outage plan stays parked.

With all four approvals, 18,000 customers are back 26 hours after the ice starts, and by hour 40 the system is 92% restored with zero lines failing again under the surge of returning load. Full restoration is projected at 55 hours, 2.3 days, and the after-action report, every pre-storm decision timestamped with the forecast confidence it was made on, is already assembled. Decline the recommendations and the same storm runs 6.5 days, with 78,000 customers out at the peak and 2 hours of improvised rotating blackouts at evening peak.

Without GridCORTEX

The conventional storm room waits for certainty: "let's see the 48-hour forecast first." Every call in the playbook gets made, but each one after its deadline has passed. The crew request goes out on storm day, lands in a queue behind four other utilities, and returns 38 crews arriving in 2 to 3 days. Materials sit in the central yard behind iced roads. The at-risk high-voltage lines run cold and lightly loaded, so they glaze over like everything else.

When the 0.7-inch band lands, two high-voltage transmission lines break under the weight of the ice, blacking out whole substations: 78,000 customers out, demand at 99% of supply, and 2 hours of rotating blackouts improvised from a spreadsheet at evening peak. Restoration crawls on borrowed crews and sliding convoys. Two lines fail again under the surge of returning load and have to be switched back off. At hour 46 the system is only 61% restored, the projection says 6.5 days, and the state regulator's letter arrives before the last customer's power does.

With GridCORTEX

The software converts icing physics into decisions with deadlines attached. It models the damage span by span to size the response, and lands within 8% of the actual break count. Its confidence thresholds trigger the T-66 request that wins 200 crews. Routing current through the three at-risk lines keeps them warm and turns would-be casualties into survivors. Its restoration sequencing brings customers back in an order that never overloads a transformer. Every play needs a person: the storm director approves all four recommendations, and the emergency operations team executes them.

The winning numbers: 0 transmission lines lost, 31,000 customers out at peak instead of 78,000, roughly 1.4 million customer-hours of outage instead of 5.9 million (one customer-hour is one customer without power for one hour), zero repeat failures, a blackout plan computed and never used, and full restoration in 2.3 days instead of 6.5.

The results, side by side
MeasureWithout GridCORTEXWith GridCORTEXThe difference
MA request timingMA is mutual assistance, the system where utilities lend each other repair crews; asking first decides who gets themstorm day: 38 crewsT−66: 200 crewsthe clock won
Materialsthe poles, wire, splices, and transformers repairs need, and where they sat when the roads iced overcentral yard, iced roadsstaged forward, dry roadspre-positioned
Transmission corridorsthe high-voltage backbone lines; losing one blacks out whole substations at once2 down under icekept warm by routed current, 0 downcurrent used as heat
Crew posturewhere the repair crews were sheltered when the storm hitdriving on ice at 3 AMsheltered at the staging sitessafety + speed
Drone de-icingdrones knocking ice off the one line that could not be warmed, each pass confirmed by laser scan (LiDAR)no such capability5 spans, LiDAR-verifiedsee The Fleet Above
Shed planthe rotating-outage plan: switching customer groups off in turn for short periods when demand outruns supplyimprovised at 99% loadcomputed, parked, unusedreadiness
Damage model accuracyhow close the pre-storm estimate of broken spans came to the real countn/awithin 8% of actualsstaging was right
Full restorationthe time until the last customer's power is back6.5 days2.3 days4.2 fewer days dark
Peak customers outthe most customers without power at any one moment78,00031,000the backbone held
Customer-hoursthe total outage burden: one customer without power for one hour counts as one customer-hour~5.9M~1.4M76% less time in the dark
Cold-load re-tripslines that fail again under the surge of everything switching back on at once after a cold outage2 lines had to be switched off again0; pickups carefully spacedengineering
Rotating outagesplanned short blackouts rotated between customer groups when supply cannot cover demand2 hrs at evening peaknonethe parked plan
After-action packetthe report to the regulator showing every storm decision and when it was made3 weeks to assemble, contestedpre-storm decisions traceddefensible
The live numbers on the dashboard
Forecast radial ice (peak band)The thickness of the ice layer building around the wires in the worst-hit band. It reads the 0.7 inch forecast through the countdown, then switches to the actual measurement as the storm delivers. Above about half an inch, wires and poles start breaking; every other decision hangs on this number.
Customers outThe storm's scoreboard. 0 through the countdown is expected. The prepared path peaks at 31,000; losing the transmission lines would push it to 78,000.
Mutual assistance crews securedBorrowed repair crews committed, measured against the 200 requested. 200 of 200 is the winning reading, won by asking at T-66. Waiting until storm day fills it to just 38.
Peak load vs available capacityDemand, swollen 38% by electric heating in the cold, measured against the generation the utility lined up. Near 97% is tight but survivable, and the rotating-outage plan stays parked. At 99% the improvised blackouts start.

The Business Case: Safety, Hours, and Cost

A utility does not buy a demo. It buys a safety exposure that goes away and a cost that goes down. Below is that case for every use case behind The 72-Hour Countdown, written the way a plant manager, a safety lead, and a CFO each need to read it. Every hour and every dollar is a formula you run with your own rates and volumes. There are no vendor benchmarks in here and no invented percentages. If a number is not yours, it is not a number.
UC 8.2 Situational Awareness Generator

What happens today, without this

During a major event the emergency operations center builds its picture by hand. Someone calls each division for a crew count, someone else watches the outage management system, a third person tracks damage reports on a spreadsheet, and the situation report for the top of the hour is typed by a staffer chasing the same numbers everyone else is chasing. Status boards fall behind, executives ask for a number that was true forty minutes ago, and the restoration projection gets built from experience rather than from the confirmed damage on hand.

What it replaces or shrinks

  • Hourly phone rounds to each division to collect crew counts, crew status, and damage reports
  • Hand typing of the situation report from numbers pulled out of four or five different systems
  • Manual reconciliation of the outage management system against field damage reports and imagery
  • Whiteboard and spreadsheet status boards maintained in parallel with the real systems
  • Executive and regulator status requests answered by interrupting the people actually running the event
  • The restoration projection built by judgment on a call, which shrinks rather than disappears because the EOC director still owns the projection

Why it is safer

The safety effect here is indirect and worth saying plainly. Nobody is removed from a hazard by a dashboard. What changes is that crews get dispatched against a confirmed picture rather than a stale one, so fewer crews drive to a location that was already restored or that turns out to be a different job than the one they were sent for.

Counted in units you already track:

  • Road miles driven on crew moves that a current picture would have avoided
  • Night driving hours for crews reassigned late in a shift
  • Energized area entries at locations whose status in the outage management system was out of date
  • Switching operations attempted on a circuit whose confirmed damage had not yet reached the system

Man-hours it gives back

Status collection and reporting hours come back to the people running the event, and the EOC director gets the projection built for them instead of assembled by them.

HOURS AVOIDED PER YEAR = event hours per year x EOC positions assigned to status collection and reporting x hours each spends on collection, plus situation reports per event x hours per report x events per year, minus the time the EOC director still spends reviewing and editing each summary before it is released.

The numbers we need from you to run that formula:

  • Major event hours in an average year, by event type
  • EOC positions dedicated to status collection, reporting, and briefing
  • Situation report cadence during an event and hours to produce each one
  • Loaded hourly rates for EOC staff and for the EOC director
  • Crew hours per event currently lost to reassignment and travel on stale information, from your own debriefs

Where the dollars come from

Cost driverHow it is calculated, from a rate you supply
EOC staffingcollection and reporting hours avoided x your loaded rate for those positions x event hours per year
Crew productive timecrew hours recovered from misdirected moves x crew size x your loaded crew rate
Restoration durationhours cut off the event x your fully loaded restoration cost per hour, including contractor and mutual assistance crews already on the clock
Mutual assistance right sizingcrew days released earlier x your all in mutual assistance cost per crew day. You decide how many days a better picture actually releases

Reliability and maintenance

Reliability
The effect is on duration, not frequency. Getting the right crews to the right place from the first hour pulls hours out of the event, which shows up in CAIDI and in the event contribution to SAIDI. SAIFI is untouched, because the interruptions have already occurred.
Maintenance
Every event leaves a complete, timestamped record of what was known and when, which is what an honest after action review needs and rarely has. Across several events, the damage locations that keep recurring in that record become an input to the hardening backlog instead of an anecdote.

What else it moves

ComplianceTimestamped situation reports and a defensible record of restoration decisions, which is what a commission review of major event performance asks to see.
WorkforceThe EOC stops staffing three or four positions purely to chase numbers, which matters most in the second and third operational period when people are tired.
CustomerEstimated restoration times published to customers track the confirmed damage picture, so they get revised less often and by less.

What it costs you, stated honestly

You pay for the scoped engagement that builds and runs this, for integrations into SCADA, the outage management system, crew scheduling, weather, and whatever imagery feed you use, and for your own staff time to run it alongside the current process through at least one real event. The number of integrations is the cost driver, and crew status is usually the hardest one, because it is the least standardized system you own.

How to build the payback case

Payback is driven by hours cut off event duration and by EOC staffing hours, in that order. Event duration is the larger number but the harder one to attribute, so build the base case on staffing hours and treat duration as upside you validate over a season.

This is a planning model built from your own event hours, staffing, and restoration cost rates, not a vendor claim. Re-run it with the actuals from your first two major events.
UC 1.10 Rotating Load Shed Orchestration

What happens today, without this

In a capacity emergency the senior distribution operator builds the rotation from a printed block list and a spreadsheet, tracks by hand which block has been out how long, and checks critical feeder exclusions against memory and a separate list. Notifications go out by phone tree to the customer team, the media team, and the commission. Then, for weeks afterward, staff reconstruct from logs exactly which block went out when, for how long, and who was on it, because that is what the commission will ask for.

What it replaces or shrinks

  • The spreadsheet rotation list and the manual timekeeping of how long each block has been out
  • Manual cross-checking of critical feeder and medical baseline exclusions before each block
  • Hand building the customer and regulator notification list for each rotation block
  • The phone tree to customer care, media relations, and emergency management at each block change
  • Shrinks the after-event reconstruction of the shed record for regulatory filings

Why it is safer

Worker exposure is not the main story here and we will not pretend otherwise. The direct safety mechanism is public: life support customers, water pumping, and emergency communications stay energized because the exclusions are enforced by the plan rather than by an operator's recall under extreme pressure, and no block gets held past its planned duration because a timer was missed.

Counted in units you already track:

  • Switching operations performed per rotation block, and the extra operations caused by ad hoc replanning
  • Road miles driven by field staff repositioning during an emergency rotation
  • Night driving hours for staff mobilized during a multi-day capacity emergency

Man-hours it gives back

Plan building and block tracking hours come back to the operators and support staff working the emergency, and reporting hours come back to the regulatory team afterward.

HOURS AVOIDED PER YEAR = shed events per year x (plan build hours + blocks per event x hours per block x staff involved in tracking and notification), plus post-event regulatory reporting hours per event x events per year, minus the operator verification time per block, which stays, because an operator confirms and executes every block through your own control system.

The numbers we need from you to run that formula:

  • Shed events in your recent history and blocks per event, from your own event records
  • Hours spent building the initial rotation plan and hours per block on tracking and notification
  • Staff involved during an activation, and the overtime or callout premium that applies
  • Post-event regulatory reporting and inquiry hours per event
  • Loaded hourly rate for a senior operator, customer care staff, and a regulatory analyst

Where the dollars come from

Cost driverHow it is calculated, from a rate you supply
Emergency staffingactivation hours avoided x staff involved x your loaded rate at the overtime and callout premiums that apply during an emergency
Regulatory reportingpost-event reporting and data request hours avoided x your loaded regulatory analyst and legal support rate
Customer care volumecalls avoided through accurate, block-specific notification x your own fully loaded cost per contact center call
Over-shed energymegawatt hours shed beyond the required amount x your own value of lost load or your own cost per unserved megawatt hour, a figure you set
Switching device dutyrotation operations avoided x your maintenance cost per operation, since operation counts drive recloser and breaker inspection intervals

Reliability and maintenance

Reliability
This is a load shed tool, so the honest framing is not SAIDI improvement. It touches how much load is shed, for how long, and how evenly it is spread across customer groups, which shows up in customer minutes interrupted and in customers experiencing multiple interruptions. Under most major event day practices the shed itself sits outside your reported indices, and your commission will be looking at the equity of the rotation instead.
Maintenance
Rotation operations get spread across devices rather than concentrated on the same reclosers and breakers block after block, which keeps operation counts, and therefore your condition based inspection and overhaul intervals, from bunching on a handful of assets after a single emergency.

What else it moves

ComplianceThis is the most regulatory exposed manual process in the control center. A timestamped, per-block record showing the required load shed, the exclusions enforced, and the notifications issued is exactly what the post-event proceeding asks for, generated as you go instead of reconstructed later.
CustomerCustomers accept a rolling outage far better when the block, the duration, and the reason are communicated per block and the rotation is visibly fair. Medical baseline and life support customers get handled as a category rather than as exceptions somebody remembers.
Insurance and riskDocumented enforcement of critical load exclusions during an emergency is a defensible control if a facility later claims it should never have been shed.

What it costs you, stated honestly

You pay for the scoped engagement that builds and runs this, for integrations to your ADMS, advanced distribution management system, your customer information system, and your GIS, and for the designation work underneath: somebody on your side has to establish and defend which feeders are critical and which customers are medical baseline, and keep that current. Add drill time, because a tool nobody has practiced with is not going to be trusted during the one hour it matters.

How to build the payback case

Payback here is awkward and you should hear it straight: capacity emergencies are infrequent, so an hours-per-event case built on frequency will not hold up. Build it on the preparation and the post-event regulatory reporting work, which happens whether or not you shed, and treat the emergency day savings as the reason it exists rather than the reason it pays.

This is a planning model built from your own event history, staffing, and rates, not a vendor claim. Re-run it after your first drill and again after the first real activation, because the drill will not tell you everything the real event will.
UC 3.8 Mutual Assistance Coordination Assistant

What happens today, without this

When mutual assistance is activated, a coordinator runs the event out of spreadsheets, email, and a phone. Crews from other utilities drive long distances, arrive in the middle of the night, and then wait, sometimes most of a day, for orientation to local safety rules, a work zone assignment, and lodging. Timesheets come in on paper from crews who do not use your systems and get re-keyed weeks later for cost recovery, which is when the disputes over hours and equipment rates start. The coordinator doing all of this is usually one person with a laptop who has not slept.

What it replaces or shrinks

  • Hand assembly of orientation packets covering your safety rules, radio channels, and lodging
  • The arrival roster spreadsheet maintained by phone as crews check in
  • Manual matching of arriving crews to work zones by equipment and qualification
  • Paper timesheet collection and re-keying into your cost system
  • Shrinks the post event reimbursement reconciliation with the assisting utilities
  • The repeated phone calls asking each crew where they are and when they will arrive

Why it is safer

A crew that has driven several hundred miles and then waits half a day is a fatigued crew starting late, and a crew released to work before it has absorbed your local rules is a crew operating on another utility's practices in your territory. Compressing orientation and getting assignments right at arrival is a safety control, not just a logistics improvement.

Counted in units you already track:

  • Night driving hours accumulated by arriving crews before they are stood down or assigned
  • Road miles driven by crews unfamiliar with the service territory searching for a work zone
  • Energized area entries by crews not yet oriented to your local safety rules and switching practice
  • Switching operations performed by crews accustomed to a different utility's procedures

Man-hours it gives back

The largest block of hours returned is not yours, it is the arriving crews' idle time between arrival and first assignment, and you are paying for those hours at a contracted rate.

HOURS AVOIDED PER YEAR = arriving crews x personnel per crew x hours between arrival and first productive assignment x the share of that wait the assistant removes, which you set, plus coordinators x hours per day on packets, rosters, and timesheets x event days, plus post event reconciliation hours per event, minus coordinator review time on packets and proposed assignments.

The numbers we need from you to run that formula:

  • Crews and personnel received in a typical activation, and activations per year
  • Hours between arrival and first assignment today, measured from your last event
  • Coordinators assigned during an activation and hours per day they spend on paperwork
  • Hours spent after the event reconciling timesheets and assembling the reimbursement package
  • Contracted hourly or daily rate for assisting crews, plus loaded rates for your coordinators and accounting staff

Where the dollars come from

Cost driverHow it is calculated, from a rate you supply
Idle crew timewait hours removed x personnel x the contracted rate you pay assisting crews, which you pay whether they are working or waiting
Coordinator laborcoordination hours avoided x your loaded coordinator rate, multiplied by the number of coordinators an activation consumes
Reconciliation and accountingpost event reconciliation hours avoided x your loaded accounting rate
Cost recovery exposureyour own history of disallowed or delayed storm cost recovery x the share you attribute to incomplete documentation, a number your regulatory accounting group already knows
Lodging and per diemcrew days removed from the event x your lodging and per diem cost per person per day

Reliability and maintenance

Reliability
Restoration duration during a major event is a function of productive crew hours on the ground, and hours spent waiting for orientation are hours not restoring customers. As with all major event work, note that these days are usually excluded from reported SAIDI (system average interruption duration index) under IEEE 1366, so measure this in customer minutes and in crew days, not in your published figures.
Maintenance
The durable effect is documentation quality rather than asset condition: a complete record of who worked what, with what equipment, and for how many hours, is what makes the next activation faster and the next rate filing defensible.

What else it moves

ComplianceStorm cost recovery filings live or die on documentation. Timesheets and assignment records assembled during the event, rather than reconstructed from paper afterwards, are the difference between a clean filing and a contested one.
CustomerEvery hour a crew spends waiting for a packet is an hour of customers still out, and those customers do not distinguish between your crews and the ones you borrowed.
WorkforceYour mutual assistance coordinator is the single most overloaded person in the event. This is the role most likely to burn out and hardest to backfill mid activation.

What it costs you, stated honestly

You pay for the GridCORTEX coordination assistant, for integration into your OMS (outage management system) work queue, your cost and timekeeping systems, and your email, and for your coordinators to keep the orientation content current, since your safety rules, radio channels, and lodging arrangements change between events. The content upkeep is small but it is not zero, and stale packets are worse than none.

How to build the payback case

Payback is dominated by idle crew hours at the contracted assisting rate, because that is the largest and best documented number in an activation. Coordinator labor and reconciliation are real but secondary, and cost recovery exposure should be sized by your regulatory accounting group, not by us.

This is a planning model built from your activation history, contracted rates, and measured wait times, not a vendor claim. Pull the arrival to assignment times from your last activation and re-run the model with those before you commit.
UC 8.7 Extreme Cold and Winter Resilience Twin

What happens today, without this

Cold weather preparation runs on a checklist and a calendar. Plant staff work through winterization checklists each fall, the generation planning group runs a small number of deterministic cold cases in the production cost model, and fuel assurance is handled by contract review rather than by simulation. Each of those model runs takes an analyst days to set up and days to run, so only a handful of scenarios ever get tested and they tend to be the ones tested last year. Nobody sees the combined case where fuel curtailment, freeze offs, and transmission limits all arrive together, which is the case that actually shows up.

What it replaces or shrinks

  • The small set of hand built deterministic cold cases the planning group can afford to run
  • Days of analyst setup time per scenario in the production cost model
  • Manual assembly of the fuel assurance picture from contracts, storage positions, and phone calls
  • Hand built cold weather preparation reports for management and for the reliability organization
  • Post event reconstruction of which preparation actions would actually have mattered
  • Fall winterization scope set from last year's checklist, which shrinks rather than disappears because plant staff still walk down the units

Why it is safer

The safety effect is indirect and it comes from converting emergency winter work into planned fall work. Repairs made during a declared emergency at design minimum temperatures, on ice, at night, are the most dangerous work a plant or line organization does, and every freeze failure prevented is a set of those jobs that never gets written.

Counted in units you already track:

  • Permits to work issued under emergency conditions during a cold event rather than under planned conditions
  • Elevated work hours performed in freezing conditions and on iced structures
  • Night driving hours and road miles driven on iced roads during emergency response
  • Confined space entries performed under emergency conditions on frozen equipment and instrument lines

Man-hours it gives back

Scenario setup and analysis hours come back to the generation planning group, and the resilience planner receives a ranked action list instead of building the study that produces one.

HOURS AVOIDED PER YEAR = cold scenarios modeled per year x analyst setup and run hours per scenario, plus preparation report hours per season, plus emergent winter work orders per season x average crew hours per emergent order x crew size, minus the engineering review time still spent validating the modeled actions before they are funded.

The numbers we need from you to run that formula:

  • Cold weather scenarios you model in a typical year and analyst hours per scenario
  • Loaded hourly rate for a generation planning analyst and for a resilience planner
  • Emergent winter work orders in a typical season and the average crew hours and crew size per order
  • Your cost of replacement power during a winter capacity shortfall, per megawatt hour
  • Your unit level winterization costs and the capacity in megawatts each unit represents

Where the dollars come from

Cost driverHow it is calculated, from a rate you supply
Replacement power and scarcity exposuremegawatts of shortfall avoided x hours of the event x your own scarcity or replacement power price. In a real cold event this dwarfs everything else and it is entirely driven by your market position
Analyst laborscenario setup and run hours avoided x your loaded analyst rate
Emergency versus planned workemergent winter crew hours converted into planned fall hours x the difference between your emergency and straight time loaded crew rates, including callout and overtime premiums
Winterization spend targetingunits or components not winterized because the model shows no exposure x your per unit winterization cost, offset by the units the model adds to the scope
Load shed exposurecustomer minutes of firm load shed avoided x your value per customer minute, if you serve load. Only you can decide how much of an avoided shed to attribute to preparation

Reliability and maintenance

Reliability
This one is about forced outage rate in cold conditions and about capacity actually available at winter peak. The output is the set of preparation actions that keep units from tripping or derating when temperature and fuel pressure fall together, and that shows up as winter forced outage rate and as reserve margin delivered rather than nameplate.
Maintenance
Winterization scope stops being a uniform checklist and becomes targeted at the specific components the simulation says fail first, which is usually instrument and sensing lines and fuel system components. It also moves work from an emergency callout in January to planned work in September, which is the cheapest conversion in maintenance.

What else it moves

ComplianceA modeled, documented basis for cold weather preparation, which is what the cold weather reliability standards ask you to demonstrate rather than assert.
WorkforcePlant and line crews spend the fall doing planned winterization instead of spending a cold snap doing emergency repairs at their limits, which is where winter injury and fatigue exposure concentrates.
CustomerFirm load shed is the outcome customers and legislators remember, and this is the preparation work that decides whether it happens.
Insurance and riskModeled, documented cold weather preparation is a materially different posture than a checklist if an event turns into litigation or a penalty proceeding.

What it costs you, stated honestly

You pay for the simulation service and the compute behind it, for integration into your generation, fuel, transmission, and weather data, and for your own planners' and plant engineers' time validating that the modeled failure modes match what your units actually do. Getting unit level cold weather performance data into usable shape is usually the first season's real work.

How to build the payback case

Payback is dominated by a single avoided shortfall event, which means this is really an insurance case and should be presented that way. The scenario analysis labor savings are steady and small, and the shortfall avoidance is lumpy and large.

This is a planning model driven by your unit data, fuel position, market prices, and crew rates, not a vendor claim. Re-run it after your first winter using the actuals from your own units.
UC 16.1 Autonomous Transmission Line Inspection Drone Fleet

What happens today, without this

Transmission lines are inspected on a calendar cycle by patrol crews driving right of way roads and by manned helicopter flights. A patroller covers a set number of structures a day, records findings on paper or a tablet, and the findings are typed into the asset system later. Anything above ground gets judged from below with binoculars, or a climber goes up.

What it replaces or shrinks

  • Ground patrol driving of accessible right of way for routine condition checks
  • Manned helicopter passes flown purely to look at hardware
  • Climbing a structure to confirm a suspected finding before scoping the repair
  • Manual transcription of field notes into the asset management system
  • The separate desk review where an engineer sorts patrol findings into priority order

Why it is safer

The two highest consequence exposures in line inspection are low altitude manned flight and climbing energized structures. Both are replaced for routine condition assessment, and the climber only goes up once the defect is already confirmed and the repair is scoped.

Counted in units you already track:

  • Low altitude manned flight hours flown for inspection purposes
  • Structure climbs performed for inspection rather than for repair
  • Right of way road miles driven, including on unimproved and seasonal roads
  • Energized area entries by ground crews on routine patrol

Man-hours it gives back

Patrol hours and desk triage hours come back to the line department, and the inspection engineer stops reading every image and starts reading only the flagged ones.

HOURS AVOIDED PER YEAR = structures inspected per year x patrol hours per structure, plus helicopter hours per year x crew size, plus findings per year x desk triage minutes per finding, minus the review time an engineer still spends confirming flagged detections.

The numbers we need from you to run that formula:

  • Structures in the inspection program and the current cycle length
  • Patrol hours per structure and crew size on a patrol
  • Manned helicopter hours flown per year for inspection and the hourly cost
  • Average findings per year and the desk minutes spent triaging each one
  • Loaded hourly rate for a patroller and for an inspection engineer

Where the dollars come from

Cost driverHow it is calculated, from a rate you supply
Patrol laborpatrol hours avoided x your loaded patroller rate
Aviationmanned inspection hours avoided x your all-in helicopter hourly cost, whether owned or contracted
Engineering triagetriage hours avoided x your loaded engineer rate
Avoided failureyour own cost per unplanned transmission outage x the share of failures you believe earlier detection would have caught, which you set, not us
Vehicle and travelroad miles avoided x your fleet cost per mile, plus per diem on remote patrols

Reliability and maintenance

Reliability
Defects are found between calendar cycles rather than at the next scheduled patrol, so hardware failures get repaired as planned work instead of becoming an unplanned line outage. The reliability benefit is real but it depends on how many of your outages trace to conditions a visual or thermal inspection could have seen, which is a number you already have in your outage cause coding.
Maintenance
Findings arrive already sorted by severity and already attached to a structure identifier, so the work planner scopes the job once instead of sending someone back to confirm. Repeat imagery of the same structure across cycles shows whether a finding is stable or getting worse, which is what lets you defer safely instead of guessing.

What else it moves

ComplianceA defensible, timestamped, image-backed inspection record for every structure, which is what an audit of your inspection and maintenance program actually asks for.
WorkforceExperienced patrollers stop spending their day driving and start spending it on judgment calls, which matters when the ones who can read a structure by eye are the ones closest to retirement.
EnvironmentFewer vehicle miles on unimproved right of way roads means less soil disturbance and fewer access permits in sensitive habitat.

What it costs you, stated honestly

You pay for the flight operations, whether you own the fleet or contract it, for the GridCORTEX intelligence layer that turns imagery into ranked findings, for the integration into your asset and work systems, and for your own staff time to validate detections during the first inspection season. The intelligence layer is the smaller line item. The flight operations dominate.

How to build the payback case

Payback is usually driven by aviation and patrol labor, not by avoided failures, because avoided failure is the number you will trust least. Build the case on the two you can audit and treat avoided failure as upside.

These are planning models you drive with your own rates and volumes, not vendor claims. Re-run them with the actuals from your first inspection season before you size the program.
Each of these opens in full on the use case page, alongside the integration plan, the data ask, the path to production, and the operator console. Open the use case library.
For Your Architects and Data Owners
Run this at your utility

What is this, exactly? It is AI software: intelligent agents and models built and delivered by SoftServe, running on NVIDIA accelerated computing. It is not a hardware appliance and it does not replace the systems you run today. It deploys in your own cloud or on your premises, connects read-only to your existing systems, and recommends; your people approve every action, starting in shadow mode until it earns trust.

A simulation service for operations and resilience planners that models your grid under extreme cold and returns a ranked list of preparation actions, with the failures each action avoids. The demo above uses synthetic data; everything below describes what the real deployment needs from your organization.

Systems it connects to

Your systemTypical productsHow we connect
Energy Management System (EMS) / transmission SCADAGE e-terra, AspenTech OSI monarch, Hitachi Energyscheduled file export (CSV or CIM XML)
SCADA historianAVEVA PI System, AspenTech eDNAhistorian mirror (one-way feed)
Planning and study toolsPSS/E, PowerWorld, TARAscheduled file export (CSV or CIM XML)
Weather and environmentNational Weather Service feeds, commercial forecast servicesread-only API
Asset / work management (EAM/CMMS)IBM Maximo, SAP PMdatabase replica refreshed nightly
Outage Management System (OMS)GE PowerOn, Oracle NMS, ADMS outage moduleevent stream (read-only)
Field and crew systemsARCOS, mobile workforce tools, vehicle location (AVL)read-only API

Data it needs from you

How it runs on your systems

Runs in your own cloud account on GPU instances, or on an on-premises NVIDIA server. All connections are read-only through your existing data zone, with no connection to control systems and no control actions; it starts in shadow mode, replaying past winters.

Path to production

Weeks 1-4
Connect the historian, network model, and weather feeds; data access approvals are the usual gate.
Weeks 5-12
Replay last winter's peak cold event against your actual infrastructure and preparation plan.
Month 4
Review which preparation actions would have changed the outcome, with numbers, and make the go or no-go call.
Months 5-6
Security review, monitoring, training, and integration into winter readiness planning.
Month 7 onward
Planners run cold scenarios each fall inside the seasonal readiness process, expanding to more regions.

What we need from your team

Full integration, data, and timeline detail for each use case in this scenario: UC 8.7 · UC 8.2 · UC 1.10 · UC 3.8
For Your Operators and Dispatchers
Where you will see it and how you say yes

The Approve button you just clicked in the demo above is the real workflow. This is what it looks like on the screen of the operations resilience planner in the GridCORTEX console:

GridCORTEX ConsoleSigned in: the operations resilience planner
Notifications
Cold twin: repeat of last February at -8 F shows a 620 MW generation shortfall; 5 preparation actions ranked
Daily model refresh complete; all connected feeds healthy
Recommendation
Approve pre-winter actions closing a 620 MW cold-snap shortfall
  • Replayed peak cold puts 3 gas units at risk of fuel or freeze failure
  • Weatherizing 2 plants avoids 410 MW of the shortfall
  • Work must start 6 weeks before the season
✓ Approve preparation planModifyDecline
After you approve: Approved actions become winterization work orders in the asset management system (EAM/CMMS), and an audit entry records who approved it and why.
Computed from data as of 17:42:10 local; every card shows the timestamp of the data behind it.

What happens when you hit approve

Approve creates draft winterization work orders in your asset management system through its API, in pending status. Your maintenance planner reviews, schedules, and releases them under normal work management rules; GridCORTEX never releases work itself.

How you tell it what it cannot see

Scenario runs trigger automatically from the connected weather and historian feeds; to test a custom scenario, enter a temperature and duration in the console.

Live data, not stale data

Reads EMS telemetry and the historian continuously and weather every 15 minutes; each card shows the as-of timestamp of its data. Early shadow pilots may run on periodic replicas, with the cadence shown on the card.

Where it lives day to day

Scenario runs live in the GridCORTEX console linked to planning tools; a modeled shortfall above threshold sends an email and Teams push to operations leadership. The console runs in a browser beside your existing screens on day one; embedding into your own systems is a roadmap step once the read-only phase has earned trust. Approve, Modify, and Decline are all captured in an audit trail your compliance team can pull, and GridCORTEX never blocks or overrides anything in the systems you run today.

The Gap: Why Your Existing Systems Don't Already Do This

The fair question from any storm director: "We have weather vendors, an EOC playbook, and mutual assistance agreements, what's new here?" Here's the honest answer.

What you own keeps doing its job

  • Weather services, the forecasts keep coming; the twin turns them into per-span ice loading, not a county-colored map.
  • The EOC playbook, activation levels and roles stand; the twin fills in the numbers the playbook leaves blank.
  • Mutual assistance agreements, the RMAG process is untouched; the twin just tells you WHEN to call, which is everything.
  • Your storm directors, every pre-position, re-route, and shed plan you watched was a human call with math attached.

The gap GridCORTEX fills, above them, not instead of them

  • Icing damage is physics, and nobody computes it. Radial ice × span length × conductor age × tree exposure = breakage probability per span. The county-level forecast can't say WHERE your 1,900 breaks will be; the twin's damage field can; that's what staging locations should be built from.
  • The mutual assistance clock is the whole game. When five utilities share one ice storm, the crews go to whoever committed first. The twin's confidence curve says "request 200 crews NOW at 68% forecast confidence"; a call humans reliably make one day too late.
  • Anti-icing by dispatch is free and unused. Re-routing load current through at-risk transmission lines warms conductors above glaze threshold, de-icing with electrons instead of helicopters. It needs hour-by-hour icing-vs-loading math nobody does by hand.
  • The heating surge is a second storm. +38% peak load arrives WITH the ice. Load forecast, generation checks, conservation appeals, and the rotating-outage pool have to be built before the event, the twin builds them as one coherent plan.
  • Cold-load pickup breaks hurried restorations. Every restored feeder returns at ~1.6× load. Staged pickup against transformer ratings is the difference between restoration and re-tripping (ask any operator who has re-shed a feeder twice).
Accent, don't replace: GridCORTEX turns the forecast into a per-span damage field, the damage field into staging and MA numbers, the load surge into a generation-and-shed plan, and the restoration into a cold-load-safe sequence, all before the first drop freezes. Your storm organization executes. The 72 hours finally count.
Under the Hood: What GridCORTEX Took Into Account in This Scenario

When someone asks "what did it actually calculate?", this is the list. In the simulation these factors drive the storyline; in a pilot they are computed from your territory, climatology, and agreements.

🧊 The Icing Physics

  • Km-scale precipitation type and surface temperature (Earth-2 class): freezing rain vs sleet vs snow, hour by hour, band by band
  • Radial ice accretion per span: precipitation rate × wind × conductor diameter, with the 0.5"-plus-wind catastrophic threshold mapped
  • Damage field: breakage probability per span from ice load × span length × conductor age × tree exposure (the vegetation layer again)

⏱ The Decision Clock

  • Forecast-confidence triggers: what to commit at 60% confidence vs 85%, MA requests, material pushes, crew shelters, each with its expiration time
  • Mutual assistance sizing from the damage field: 200 crews, requested while the neighbors were still watching radar
  • Materials pre-positioning: poles, wire, splices, transformers to 3 staging sites before the roads glaze

⚡ The Grid Plays

  • Anti-icing dispatch: load current re-routed through at-risk transmission corridors to hold conductor temperature above glaze, modeled hourly against ratings
  • Heating-surge forecast (+38% peak): generation commitments, fuel checks, conservation appeal timing
  • Rotating-outage readiness: the Manual Load Shed pool computed in advance, blocks, criticals excluded, cadence ready (see that demo)
  • Cold-load pickup restoration: ~1.6× inrush staged against ratings, feeder by feeder

🧾 The Record & The Stack

  • Galloping-span detection from SCADA oscillography during the event, crews routed to conductors before they fail
  • One situational picture for EOC, regulator, and media, generated continuously (UC 8.2)
  • Runs on the NVIDIA Agent Toolkit: Earth-2-class weather physics, cuOpt staging and restoration sequencing, every pre-storm decision Relay-traced for the after-action and the PUC

Presenter's one-liner: "The forecast said seven-tenths of an inch with wind. The twin turned that into a damage map, the damage map into two hundred mutual assistance crews requested a day before anyone else, materials on the right side of the ice, three transmission lines kept warm with routed load, and a rotating-outage plan we never had to touch. The ice came on schedule. We were done in two days; the utility next door took a week."

GridCORTEX Live Scenario Demo · Synthetic data throughout, no utility, storm, or event is depicted · Storm directors decide; operators execute · SoftServe + NVIDIA · Created by Ronnie Mauldin, NVIDIA Solutions Director, Power & Utilities, SoftServe · JUL 2026