Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/638625
The Topic: Resilience RESILIENCE THE TOPIC 14 | 12TH - 18TH FEBRUARY 2016 | UTILITY WEEK A t last we are starting to see an understanding of the role of natural capital in the water sector. There is a recog- nition that activities like wet- land conservation can mitigate flooding, enhance recharge and sequester carbon dioxide. And an increasing number of forward- thinking water companies are working with wildlife groups and rivers trusts to deliver landscape-based solutions to water challenges. This use of so infrastructure is a key element in delivering a resilient water sector. But there is still very little discussion of what I call social infrastructure. During the last periodic review there were several statements from Ofwat that customers should be seen as part of the solution to water sector problems, but I fear that customer-based solutions are still not seen as real solutions, and that a project is not a proper project unless it involves a hard hat and several million tonnes of concrete. Totex might be a regulatory reality but many companies still definitely think in terms of capex and opex. And this mind-set means that given the choice of building stuff or interacting with customers, the physical infrastructure option oen trumps the social infrastruc- ture option, even though it may not be the best choice. This is because companies wrongly think the social infrastructure option is unknown, untried and untested, because there are perceived issues of liability and most importantly, because a fixed asset is seen as tangible with a nice clear monetary value. But these views are outdated. Other sectors have engaged with customers and rolled out distributed infrastructure and developed their social capital through trust and engagement. There is a pressing need for water companies to work with customers to develop a culture in which water is respected. This can be done through using community groups or NGOs or reaching out to customers en masse using social media. Big infrastructure is expensive and inflexible in the face of social, economic or environ- mental change. Kielder Water or Australia's mothballed desalination plants show the folly of using big infra- structure to solve complex problems. If we are to be resilient, we must communicate water challenges to the public and we shouldn't underestimate their ability to understand how water systems work. The recent UK flooding has shown that simply building higher defences is not an option. We need to engage with communities and interact with physical, social, environmental and economic drivers at catchment level. These are long-term solutions and are not as imme- diately attractive or simple as cutting the ribbon on a new reservoir or pledging £10 million for defences in a flooded village. Jacob Tompkins, managing director, Waterwise Opinion: Water companies must do more to engage with people to get the message across. Resilience is not a matter of pouring concrete AVERAGE MINUTES LOST PER GAS CUSTOMER, GB Source: Ofgem AVERAGE MINUTES LOST PER ELECTRICITY CUSTOMER, GB Source: Ofgem ESTIMATED SUBSTATION FLOOD RISK SCENARIOS, GB Source: Ofgem WHAT CONSTITUTES NETWORK RESILIENCE? Source: Cabinet Office Resistance Infrastructure resilience Redundancy Reiliability Response & recovery 14.5 15 12.5 10 7.5 5 2.5 0 125 10 7.5 5 2.5 0 100 75 50 25 0 Average minutes lost per customer Average minutes lost per customer Customers supplied by substation per flood risk profile 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2012/13 2002/03 2004/05 2011 2005/06 2013 2007/08 2015 2009/10 2017 2011/12 2019 2003/04 Starting point 2005/06 2012 2006/07 2014 2008/09 2016 2010/11 2018 2012/13 2020 Minutes lost per customer (planned) Minutes lost per customer (unplanned) Minutes lost per customer (planned) Minutes lost per customer (unplanned) 1/100 1/200 1/1,000 No data <1/1,00 1/>1,000