Review explores security risks of LLM integration in power systems, suggesting measures for safety and compliance.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transitioning from research concepts to transformative artificial intelligence components within the power and energy domain. Their ability to fuse diverse data, spanning SCADA logs, real-time sensor readings, and regulatory documentation enables unprecedented capabilities in forecasting, operator decision support, anomaly detection, and wide-area situational awareness for future intelligent grids. However, the integration of LLMs into safety-critical and highly regulated power systems introduces a convergence of novel and severe security risks. Beyond exhibiting model-intrinsic vulnerabilities like hallucination, prompt injection, and data poisoning, these models are susceptible to system-level threats that could compromise grid stability, distort energy market operations, or facilitate the leakage of sensitive operational data. Moreover, integrating LLM workloads into cloud or hybrid architectures necessitates strict compliance with critical standards and emerging governance frameworks like the EU AI Act. While existing surveys address AI security in power systems, general LLM security, and AI in smart grids separately, this paper bridges these threads by providing a unified treatment of LLM-specific risks, power-system deployment constraints, and emerging governance frameworks—a combination not covered in prior surveys. We provide a systematic taxonomy of risks across five dimensions: cybersecurity, privacy, robustness, explainability, and governance. We synthesize technological advances, clarify the complex interplay between LLM failure modes and grid security, and propose a forward-looking research agenda to guide future investigation. This work aims to be an indispensable resource for researchers, utility operators, and policymakers in designing resilient, trustworthy, and compliant AI-enabled energy infrastructures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: