Utility Week

UTILITY WEEK | JANUARY 2023 | 41 Networks Others agreed that this is a critical but thorny area. There were some complaints about Ofgem's expectations for networks to provide extensive community facilities "at point of use" in emergency scenarios. More than one network leader pointed out that the Civil Contingencies Act puts Local Resil- ience Forums and Local Resilience Partner- ships directly in the frame for providing this kind of response while networks should be allowed to focus on "getting the lights back on". As a direct counter-argument to this however, other attendees pointed out that chronically under-resourced and under- skilled local bodies cannot be relied upon to mount robust resilience strategies for their communities, and responsible infrastructure owners must shoulder responsibility for the wellbeing of their customers. From a more strategic perspective, it was generally agreed that growing interde- pendency between di€ erent infrastructure networks and common domestic services – including utilities, telecoms, broadband and transport networks – is making resil- ience more complex. To try and tackle this complexity, utilities need to collaborate proactively with other infrastructure own- ers and local government bodies to build a picture of resilience at community, local and regionalƒlevels. The live question in the room was whether this understanding of local resilience should be built with a top-down approach – start- ing with a national governance framework and vision for resilience. Or from a bottom- up perspective, which would allow more … exibility for immediate progress but raise challenges around integration of local and regional resilience strategies going forward. While one participant argued strongly for the former approach, there was a general feeling that, while bottom-up development of localised resilience might come with inef- ‡ ciencies, the need for immediate progress should override the pursuit of an optimised system – at least for the time being. "The reality is that this will have to hap- pen organically," commented one DNO operations leader, adding that it is "unre- alistic" to expect the required level of coor- dination and political will to support a centralised approach – especially given that major uncertainties remain in the overall strategy for the UK's transition to net zero, many of which are tied to the need for di€ er- ent regional solutions. Missed opportunities Building on the idea that making incremen- tal, locally relevant resilience gains should be encouraged, our roundtable participants bemoaned the lack of regulatory support for opportunistic asset and network upgrades in the interest of resilience. As a simple example, one networks leader described the potential opportunity following storm events to replace broken wooden poles for over- head lines with sturdier but more expensive options. "The investment case for this just doesn't stack up at the moment. Like-for-like replacement is the norm. But this is a missed opportunity for building resilience." Others agreed, with more examples of issues caused by "lowest common denomi- nator" asset speci‡ cations, driven by a focus on short-term cost, causing operational problems and resilience issues further down the line. There was unanimous agreement that Ofgem could do more to remove disin- centives for networks to "do the right thing" on asset replacement. The air of frustration spilled over into an exchange of experiences about tree felling – a key tactical consideration for improving resilience, but one that is currently fraught with di' culties for network operators. In a storm scenario, power losses – espe- cially in rural areas – are frequently tied to fallen trees hitting overhead lines or trans- formers. Networks are keen to make more interventions to clear trees and branches to a safe distance from vulnerable lines. How- ever, our assembled leaders exchanged col- ourful anecdotes about their encounters with landowners who are deeply unwilling to allow for this. One operations leader said they have been driven to mount legal action to enforce clearance on a key stretch of their network. "I am going to have to go to court. If I play so• ly-so• ly, gently-gently I can't do the sec- tion I really want to," they said. Another power network leader at the table said they are similarly preparing their teams for an increase in legal cases to mandate tree clear- ance due to mounting frustration with "land ransom cases". Among the many reasons why tree fell- ing di' culties were agreed to be a "massive problem" for the industry relates to strain on skilled engineering and technical resources in storm response scenarios. As one attendee pointed out, "if we could do more clearance then we wouldn't have to send out so many guys to repair damage a• er a storm. That would really ease the strain on what is a lim- ited pool of skilled people." This proved to be a rich seam for con- versation. Across the board, our attend- ees expressed deep-seated worry about diminishing numbers of experienced lines- men who can be mobilised for emergency response scenarios. While mutual aid agreements between networks have been enormously helpful in recent years, supporting swi• mobilisation of personnel to wherever the point of great- est need might be on a national level, there was consensus that these arrangements are in need of review. The justi‡ cations for this were varied, but a key argument hinged on the current lack of relief from performance standards for net- works sending aid to their peers. One partici- pant described the current situation in which networks are "held to peacetime standards when they are ‡ ghting a war and helping partners elsewhere," as "an anathema". "A• er the storms in 2013 we took a good step forward with modernisation of the NEWSAC mutual aid agreement," they said. "But what we didn't deal with – which I think is getting worse as customer expecta- tion increases and dependence on electric- ity as a single point failure node increases – is that we do not suspend the guaranteed standards on any planned work during the period of a storm. What that means is that if you're the donating entity in a mutual aid situation, you are accepting risk by sending your resources to support a di€ erent com- pany for the greater good. You get no relief from the risk. For me, its been an anathema for quite a while." Others agreed that risk exposure is "the elephant in the room". In a discussion which covered myriad resilience interests and roused passion- ate opinions, it was clear this event only scratched the surface of the issues which the energy industry must grapple with to safe- guard the prospect of reliable supplies in a climate-stressed future. The total challenge is immense. But as our group made clear, there are many "low or no regrets" actions which could be taken today to make a "material dif- ference" to long-term resilience. For networks to feel at liberty to make these, however, our leaders asked for greater freedom to "make the right choices" on asset replacement and, critically, to release resilience investment from its "bogeyman" casting. Jane Gray, content director "The evolving nature of the resilience threats means the sector does not only need to consider solutions for this winter, but also for 2030, 2040 and beyond." Grant McEachran, regulatory a airs director, S&C Electric Company in association with

• Cover