Future grid can’t be planned using yesterday’s network model

That makes one question increasingly important: are we planning tomorrow’s grid using a sufficiently accurate picture of the grid we have today?

In many cases, the answer is complicated.

Electricity networks have accumulated enormous amounts of institutional knowledge over decades. Much of it sits across legacy systems, spreadsheets, databases and applications that were designed for a world in which networks changed relatively slowly. That model is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Every new connection, network modification or major infrastructure project can change the assumptions underpinning planning studies. Those changes then need to be reflected in network models, simulations and investment decisions – and shared with the other organisations that depend on the same information.

The scale of the transition makes this particularly pressing. In Australia, data centre capacity alone is forecast to grow tenfold by 2035, representing up to $135 billion in investment and potentially 8–11 per cent of national electricity consumption. In India, electricity demand is forecast to grow by an average 6.4 per cent annually through 2030, while Southeast Asia is pursuing deeper regional grid integration as electricity demand continues to accelerate. These are not incremental changes to the electricity system. They are structural changes.

And they are happening at the same time that renewable generation is becoming more geographically dispersed, new transmission is being built and consumers are becoming active participants in the energy system.

One of the less visible challenges is that the organisations responsible for planning and operating the electricity system do not always work from the same network model. Transmission and distribution businesses may operate separate systems. Different teams within the same organisation may maintain different datasets. External stakeholders may have their own assumptions and information.

Historically, this fragmentation was manageable because the network changed relatively slowly. It becomes much harder when dozens of projects, connections and network changes are happening simultaneously.

The problem is not simply data quality. It is the ability to maintain a shared, trusted representation of the network that can be updated, validated and communicated as the system evolves. Without that, planners risk making decisions based on different versions of the same network.

That matters because network models increasingly underpin decisions about where infrastructure should be built, how much capacity is required and how different future scenarios will affect the system. The consequences can extend beyond inefficient investment. Poorly coordinated information can create delays, increase costs and introduce operational and safety risks.

This is where data standards become important. The Common Information Model (CIM) provides an international standard for representing and exchanging power system information. Originally developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and now maintained by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), it gives utilities and software systems a common language for describing network assets and their relationships.

The value of a common standard is not simply technical interoperability. It is the ability to create a validated network model that can be shared across teams and organisations without repeatedly translating information between incompatible systems.

As the number of parties interacting with the electricity network grows, that becomes increasingly important. Transmission planners need to understand distribution networks. Distribution businesses need visibility of transmission constraints. Regulators need reliable information. Renewable developers need connection information. Planning teams need models that reflect the latest changes. The more interconnected the electricity system becomes, the less sustainable it is to maintain isolated versions of it.

The issue is beginning to be recognised at a policy level. The inaugural NSW Distribution System Plan, published jointly by Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy in late 2025, found that better coordination between transmission and distribution planning could unlock between $2 billion and $4.3 billion in value for the state’s energy system. That is significant because it demonstrates that better coordination is not simply an IT efficiency exercise. It can have a material impact on how effectively the physical energy system is planned and developed.

The same principle applies beyond Australia. As countries across the Asia-Pacific region integrate more renewable generation, expand transmission networks and respond to rapidly growing electricity demand, the ability to exchange reliable network information will become increasingly important.

Sweden’s national transmission system operator, Svenska Kraftnät, provides one example of how this can work in practice. Facing growing electricity consumption and rapid renewable integration, it worked with IPS-Energy to implement network model management that improved data visibility and supported forecasting, planning and asset management.

The technology itself is not the point. The broader lesson is that digital infrastructure has become part of energy infrastructure.

Australia has spent decades building the physical infrastructure that keeps the electricity system running. The next phase of the energy transition will require an equally serious focus on the digital infrastructure that allows that system to be understood and planned.

The renewable energy transition is often described in terms of gigawatts of solar and wind, kilometres of transmission lines, batteries and new connections. But behind every one of those assets is data. Where it is located. How it connects. How it affects the rest of the network. What happens under different demand scenarios. How the system changes when another project connects.

If that information cannot be maintained, validated and shared effectively, the quality of the decisions based on it will inevitably suffer.

The grid of the future will be more complex, more distributed and more interconnected than the one we have today. Its planning systems need to reflect that reality.

We cannot build tomorrow’s electricity network using yesterday’s assumptions – and we cannot plan it effectively without a reliable, shared model of the network itself. The energy transition therefore requires more than new physical infrastructure. It requires a digital foundation capable of keeping pace with it.

Author: Peter Howarth, General Manager APAC at IPS-Energy, a global provider of engineering and operational software for electricity and gas network operators. IPS-Energy works with utilities across Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America.