Electricity and the energy transition (Part 2) – The challenges of transformation

As the world moves to decarbonise, electricity is taking centre stage, evolving from a utility into a critical enabler of the energy transition. But reimagining our electrical power systems to meet net zero goals will bring new and complex risks. These risks do not sit neatly in silos, they cut across the human, technical, and environmental domains. The challenge is not just to transform the grid, but to do so safely, reliably, and responsibly.

This is the second article in a three-part series exploring the role of electricity in the energy transition. It focuses on the key risks that must be identified, understood, and managed if electricity is to serve as a truly enabling force driving us towards a net zero future.

Introduction

As the world races toward net zero, electricity has emerged as the energy transition’s most vital enabler. In Part 1 (Ref. 1) of this series, we explored how electricity must evolve, not just as a power source, but as the backbone of a cleaner, smarter energy future. But delivering that future means major change: from the generation mix and power network architecture to technologies, standards, and the way we design, operate, and maintain our electrical power systems and assets.

With change comes risk. In this article, we focus on the challenges and uncertainties introduced by the transformation of this electrical infrastructure. If we fail to identify and manage these risks effectively, we may slow or even derail the transition itself.

To provide structure, we examine these risks through three interconnected lenses:

People – the workforce and public exposed to, and potentially harmed by, new technologies and who will work to meet these challenges.
Plant – the physical infrastructure, systems, and engineering being transformed to enable the energy transition. This includes existing generation assets, substations, and networks, as well as the new technologies, equipment, and control systems that must be developed, deployed, and operated to deliver the flexibility, stability, and capacity the future grid will require.
Planet – the broader environmental and systemic implications of this change.

Together, these interconnected perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the challenges ahead, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The interplay of risk to people, plant and planet

PEOPLE

Safeguarding knowledge while building the future

Decades of experience have taught us how to design, build, and operate electrical systems safely, with robust safeguards against risks like arc flash, electrocution, overloads, and fire. But as the grid expands and becomes more complex, the industry faces a dual challenge: an ageing workforce and a growing demand for skilled professionals. If hard-won expertise is not captured and passed on, we risk losing critical knowledge just when it is needed most. Meeting the demands of the energy transition will require urgent investment to attract, train, and retain the next generation of engineers while preserving the lessons of the past.

Competence and the new workforce

The rapid energy transition is drawing new players – startups, tech firms, and non-traditional operators – who bring innovation and agility. But they can lack deep expertise in risk management, safety-critical infrastructure and rapidly evolving safety and compliance requirements. Understanding risks and safety duties to protect workers and the public is essential. Strong organisational capability, with skilled and knowledgeable workers, underpins the supply chain delivering the electrical transition.

Location and working environment present additional challenges that impact competence requirements. For example, while an experienced onshore Senior Authorised Person (SAP) brings valuable skills, operating offshore demands significant additional training and adaptation to manage the harsher conditions and complexities. Competence frameworks must evolve to reflect diverse environments and ensure personnel can safely manage risks across different settings.

Emerging technologies, new hazards

Many technologies central to the energy transition pose challenges to traditional safety assumptions. For instance, solar PV panels generate electricity whenever exposed to light (even moonlight) making them inherently live. This makes rigorous isolation procedures critical, as installations can appear de-energised but may still become live without warning.

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) introduce distinct risks, including thermal runaway, fires, toxic chemical release, and explosive gas generation. Their high energy density and complex power electronics also bring electrical hazards such as arc flash and high-frequency currents. While similar principles are used in managing risks in traditional UPS systems, the scale, chemistry, and integration of BESS in grid or utility-scale applications create new failure modes and greater consequences.

Unmanned assets, systemic consequences

As the energy transition accelerates, generation and storage assets such as solar farms, wind installations, and battery systems are increasingly designed to operate without full-time, on-site personnel. This reduces the immediate risk of harm to workers from a fault within the asset. However, it fundamentally changes the nature of risk management.

The main challenge is no longer just protecting individuals from harm. It is about ensuring system resilience – the ability of the electricity infrastructure to withstand disruption, operate under stress, and recover quickly. In a world where electricity powers not just homes, but hospitals, water systems, transport, and digital services, outages can carry far-reaching consequences. Blackouts are no longer minor inconveniences; they can jeopardise public safety, economic stability, and national security.

Put simply: electricity has become the backbone of modern life, and unmanned assets must be designed with that critical role in mind.

A second, related challenge is the loss of human oversight. Without people on-site to spot warning signs or intervene early, system failures may escalate before they can be addressed. This places even greater importance on robust design, monitoring, and control systems from the start.

Together, these shifts demand that we move beyond traditional safety thinking and embed resilience deeply into how we design, operate, and manage unmanned electrical assets.

Blurring boundaries – electrical meets process safety

In traditional power generation, electrical safety (e.g., managing switchgear, transformers, HV systems) and process safety (e.g., controlling pressure, temperature, and flammable substances in steam cycles or fuel handling) were often managed separately, with distinct systems, teams, and regulatory approaches.

But the energy transition is dissolving that boundary. New technologies such as BESS, hydrogen electrolysers, and fuel cells inherently intertwine electrical and chemical processes. A fault in one domain can directly trigger hazards in the other. For example:

A BESS thermal runaway event can originate electrically but escalate into a chemical fire and toxic gas release.
A hydrogen electrolyser may combine high-voltage DC with flammable gas production, raising simultaneous risks of arc flash and explosion.

These converging risks demand integrated thinking across disciplines. Electrical and process safety can no longer be siloed they must be addressed as interconnected parts of a unified safety strategy.

PLANT

Ageing infrastructure, new demands

Much of today’s electrical infrastructure was not built with the energy transition in mind. Yet repurposing legacy assets is often faster, more cost-effective, and less impactful to users than starting from scratch, and, crucially, it is also the more sustainable option. By reusing existing infrastructure, where feasible, we reduce the need for new materials, minimise waste, and lower the carbon footprint associated with large-scale construction. In the context of climate change, making the most of what we already have is not just pragmatic, it is essential.

The challenge is ensuring that ageing electrical infrastructure can safely and reliably support the demands of a modern grid – supporting power generation at the edges, enabling two-way power flows, and coping with reduced mechanical inertia and its impact on system stability, as explored in Part 1 (Ref. 1). Many legacy assets were never designed with these dynamics in mind. Yet they are now being asked to operate far beyond their original purpose, as part of national critical infrastructure.

This includes the essential systems and networks that underpin economic stability, public health, national security, and everyday life – from energy and transport to water, healthcare, and digital communications – all of which depend on reliable electricity. In a net zero future, resilience and adaptability will be just as important as capacity.

A transformer fire near Heathrow Airport in March 2025 caused a complete shutdown of the airport (Ref. 2). This highlights the risks: long-term moisture ingress into transformer bushings led to an arc flash event igniting the transfer insulating oil, resulting in a catastrophic event and major power disruption. This incident underscores how ageing infrastructure, if not properly monitored and maintained, can fail in ways that are both foreseeable and preventable.

Addressing this requires applying appropriate surveillance measures and responding promptly to warning signs, therefore prolonging the operational life of equipment and preventing propagation into a disruptive incident. This means completing routine maintenance and assessing inspection procedures for ongoing suitability – requiring detailed asset assessments, targeted modernisation strategies, and ongoing condition monitoring – to ensure equipment availability and continued compatibility with new technologies, operating environments, and safety expectations.

New technologies, legacy practices

Delivering the energy transition will depend on reshaping our power networks through a blend of established systems, cutting-edge innovations, and ideas yet to be realised.

For new technologies not yet known, how do we ensure they are developed safely? We must not forget the value of experience. Many of the challenges we will face will be like those we have already learned to manage, often the hard way, over decades. This experience is vital in helping us avoid repeating past harms. However, we must also be careful not to let old ways of thinking or legacy practices hold back innovation or prevent us from finding better, safer ways of doing things. Striking the right balance between caution and progress is essential.

The “black box” products challenge

Many important energy transition technologies, like wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and electrolysers, are effectively mass-produced “black boxes,” with complex electrical systems built in and limited visibility into their internal workings. While this helps speed up deployment, it can create integration challenges. Hidden failure modes, or compatibility issues may only show up once the units are operating, making them harder to fix. Managing these risks requires careful planning during design, thorough testing, close collaboration with suppliers, and tailored safety assessments. Successfully addressing the black box challenge is essential for safely integrating new technologies while keeping the grid reliable and protecting people and assets.

Smarter systems, greater cybersecurity risk

The move toward smarter, decentralised grids, with widespread use of distributed energy resources and associated control systems, introduces significant cybersecurity challenges. Unlike legacy systems, modern grid controls depend on digital technologies, remote access, and automation, making them more vulnerable to cyber threats. Attacks could disrupt operations, trigger outages, manipulate data, or damage equipment, with impacts ranging from local failures to national impact.

The convergence of operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT) adds complexity, demanding a layered defence strategy: encryption, real-time monitoring, incident response, and user awareness. As the energy transition accelerates, cyber resilience must be embedded from design through to operation, ensuring that increasingly digital systems remain reliable, secure, and safe.

Physical security in a digital age

Security risks extend beyond the digital realm. As electricity becomes the foundation of modern society, powering healthcare, transport, industry, and daily life, its infrastructure is increasingly critical and vulnerable. The shift to decentralised, renewable energy has created a growing network of remote assets, unmanned sites, and widely distributed transmission infrastructure that is much harder to monitor and protect.

These systems are often located in hard-to-reach or sparsely populated areas, increasing the risk of sabotage, vandalism, or even state-sponsored attacks. Major electrical infrastructure, particularly subsea cables and interconnectors, can present attractive targets for those seeking to disrupt a nation’s economy or security. Unlike a data breach, a physical disruption can bring entire regions to a standstill, cutting off power supplies for millions.

In this context, ensuring the physical security of the electricity system is not just a technical or operational issue, it is a matter of national resilience. As the grid evolves, so too must the strategies to protect it, combining surveillance, design resilience, contingency planning, and international cooperation.

Engineering harmony: safety, reliability, operability and security

In some cases, there may be trade-offs between reliability, safety, operability and security. For example, over-engineering for availability may introduce unnecessary complexity or mask underlying hazards. Strong cybersecurity defences (e.g., firewalls, encryption, multi-factor authentication) are designed to restrict access and prevent intrusion, yet emergency protocols require rapid, potentially offline or manual control. We need a balanced approach, one that treats these parameters not as competing priorities but as integrated design goals where a resilient, agile and practical solution can be generated.

Planet

Hazardous materials and environmental risks

Electrical infrastructure can have a significant environmental footprint. From the use of sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆), a potent greenhouse gas used in switchgear, to the mining of critical minerals for batteries and cables, the impact is far-reaching. Insulation and dielectric materials, whether ceramics, plastics, or specialty gases, are crucial for preventing electrical exposure by safely containing electricity within cables and equipment. However, each of these materials carries its own environmental cost, including energy-intensive production, challenges in recycling, and disposal impacts. Reducing reliance on harmful substances and designing with recyclability and end-of-life management in mind is therefore critical.

Many of the electrical assets and technologies underpinning the energy transition such as switchgear, transformers, and battery energy storage systems (BESS) carry major accident hazard potential. Incidents like fires, explosions, or thermal runaway not only pose serious risks to people but can also result in significant environmental harm, including toxic emissions, water contamination, and long-term ecosystem damage.

Infrastructure footprint and biodiversity

Building the infrastructure to support the energy transition such as offshore substations, onshore cabling and grid extensions can disturb ecosystems and communities. The physical footprints of clean energy technologies are often much greater in size than traditional centralised power stations. For example, dismantling offshore wind infrastructure at end of life can significantly disrupt marine habitats established during the operational life. Early engagement with stakeholders, rigorous environmental assessments, and sensitive design can both forecast and mitigate these impacts by design.

Social licence to operate

The success of the energy transition depends on public support. Failures, whether technical, safety, environmental, or ethical, can erode trust and delay progress. Transparency, good governance, and a strong track record of risk management are essential to maintaining a social licence to operate.

Conclusion

Electricity is not new, but what we are asking it to do now is unprecedented. The systems, skills and standards that powered the 20^th century must evolve to support a radically different future.

Every transformation brings uncertainty. But risk is not the enemy of progress. When identified early and managed well, risk becomes a design input, a guide to safer, sustainable decisions, and an enabler of innovation.

The challenge ahead is not just to electrify more of our energy system, but to do so in a way that is safe, resilient, and trusted. That means recognising risk as a central part of the energy transition, not a barrier, but a compass.

And at the heart of that transition lie people, plant and planet: protecting lives and livelihoods, safeguarding the infrastructure that sustains us, and preserving the environment we all depend on. Only by balancing these three can we deliver an energy future that is both resilient and responsible.

In the third and final part of this series, we explore the critical role risk management must play in meeting these challenges to help enable the energy transition in a safe and effective way.