How suboptimal is my stochastic network controller allowed to be? Completion certificates with application to power grids hosting AI data centers

Abstract: Power grids are beginning to host AI data centers whose demand can change abruptly and in a correlated way, and operators and planners must decide whether existing controllers can absorb the resulting transients and where new flexibility is worth installing. We cast this as a question in stochastic control: how far from optimal is an implementable controller? For controlled diffusions with affine, state-independent actuation, additive and possibly degenerate noise and quadratic control cost, any Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) subsolution bounds the optimal cost from below and simulation bounds the deployed cost from above, so their gap certifies the permissible suboptimality. We construct subsolutions from path-integral control by completing the control geometry: enlarging the control Gramian until it matches the physical noise makes the problem linearly solvable, and its Feynman-Kac value is an automatic lower bound whose HJB residual is exactly the energy of the fictitious control. A dual noise-deflation construction can be tighter but requires a curvature condition. The geometry yields planning rules: price control authority in proportion to local noise variance, and use shadow values to guide sparse reinforcement. For nonlinear stochastic swing dynamics of the IEEE 118-bus system after a severe load loss, a simple generator controller is certified within 2.8% of optimal under homogeneous forcing; under heterogeneous forcing the gap is 39% with uniform prices and 1.2% once the same total authority is repriced, before any hardware is added.