Electricity and the energy transition (Part 3) – From risk to resilience

Electricity is not new, but in the energy transition it takes on a dual role: both a hazard to be managed and the lifeblood of a low-carbon future. The systems built for the last century must now evolve to deliver unprecedented levels of safety, resilience, and trust.

Lives and livelihoods will depend not just on electricity’s availability, but on how well we manage the risks it brings. Risk management, seen clearly and handled early, becomes more than a safeguard – it is a design tool, a guide to innovation, and the foundation of robust electrical systems for the transition ahead.

This is the third and final article in our series exploring the role of electricity in the energy transition. We outline how structured risk management approaches can support the safe transformation of electrical infrastructure, helping electricity truly power the energy transition.

Introduction

As we reshape our energy system to meet climate and sustainability goals, electricity stands at the heart of this transformation. However, the way we generate, transmit, distribute, and use electricity must change.

In Part 1 of this series (Ref. 1), we explored how electricity must evolve to become the backbone of a cleaner, smarter, and more distributed energy system. In Part 2 (Ref. 2), we examined the risks introduced by this transformation through the three interconnected lenses of people, plant and planet.

Here, in Part 3, we explore how structured, disciplined approaches to risk management can guide the safe and effective evolution of our electrical systems. From assuring safety and resilience, to embedding sustainability, this article presents a framework for transforming electricity with care and confidence.

SAFETY ASSURANCE

Above all, the transformation of our electrical systems must be achieved safely. That means reducing risk to people (workers and the public) to levels that are as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). To do this, electrical assets must meet the three fundamental steps of effective risk management (see Figure 1):

Risk assessment: Understand what could go wrong and the consequences of this to people.
Risk treatment: Put in place the systems (plant, processes, and people) to reduce these risks to acceptable levels.
Risk monitoring: Ensure these systems function effectively throughout the asset lifecycle to support safe operations.

Figure 1 – Fundamental steps of effective risk management

Safe-by-Design (SBD) (see Ref. 3 for detailed description) means embedding safety into a project from the very beginning by taking every opportunity during design to eliminate risks at their source. Where risks cannot be fully eliminated, they are reduced ALARP by systematically applying effective safeguards.

To be truly SBD, the process must go beyond technical compliance. It requires thinking in detail about how the asset will be built, operated, maintained, and eventually decommissioned. These real-world activities must actively inform design decisions so that risks across the entire lifecycle are anticipated and reduced through smart, practical design choices. SBD is not just about creating safe assets. It is about designing safety into how people interact with those assets every day.

Achieving SBD requires a structured Safety Assurance Process (SAP), such as the one illustrated in Figure 2. While safety is clearly the central focus of the SAP, it is increasingly common, and expected, for organisations to adopt a broader lens when evaluating the potential consequences of hazards. This reflects the integrated nature of most modern Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) management systems, where environmental protection is considered alongside human safety.

Figure 2 – Safety Assurance Process (SAP)

Many organisations also recognise that hazards can impact not just people and the environment, but also the integrity of physical assets and corporate reputation. These four domains – people, environment, assets, and reputation – are often referred to collectively through the PEAR framework. This holistic approach ensures that the consequences of hazards are examined from all critical perspectives.

DESIGN RISK MANAGEMENT

Built on purpose – designing risk out and safety in

To be truly effective, the SAP must sit within a broader Design Risk Management (DRM) framework that supports a project from initial concept through to commissioning and handover. The SAP provides the overarching vision and roadmap for managing risk, while the DRM procedure sets out the step-by-step directions needed to apply it in practice. Together, they form a structured framework that ensures safety, and wider risks, are considered and reduced to ALARP throughout the asset’s entire lifecycle, embedding risk-informed thinking from design to delivery.

New grid, same guardrails

So, what does this mean for the transformation of our electrical systems to enable the energy transition?

The good news is we do not need to reinvent the process. The established principles of SBD, the SAP and DRM remain fully applicable, regardless of asset type. These frameworks are robust, well-tested, and ideally suited to managing risks in electrical assets, systems and infrastructure

A defining characteristic of many energy transition projects is that they integrate products developed and manufactured by others, such as wind turbines, switchgear, cables, or electrolysers, into a configuration that is unique to each project. This means a significant proportion of project risk is locked into the design and performance of those individual components. At the same time, logistics arrangements, including transport, installation sequencing, and access, also introduce critical risk. These risks are often distributed and complex, and they must be factored into design decisions early on.

Because electrical elements run through every stage of a project, including product and logistics elements, their associated risks do not sit in isolation. A holistic risk management approach that spans these interfaces is essential (see Figure 3). The good news is that the tools and frameworks already exist to do this well. Managing electrical risk is not about tackling something entirely new, it is about applying existing, proven approaches with discipline and deep technical understanding.

Figure 3 – Lifecycle approach

What changes when electricity leads?

The overall risk management process, and the need for a holistic approach covering project, product, and logistics, remain the same when managing electrical systems and assets. But what changes?

Grounded in knowledge: electrical expertise at the core

The effectiveness of the SAP depends on subject matter experts who can identify electrical-specific hazards, understand the associated risks, and ensure appropriate systems are in place to manage them to ALARP. Without this deep technical insight, risks may be overlooked or underestimated, and even when identified, the control measures applied may be inadequate or poorly optimised. This can result in missed opportunities to eliminate or reduce risk early in the design. In short, effective risk management relies on a deep understanding of the engineering involved

Adapting the toolkit: safety methods for electrical systems

While traditional risk assessment methods like HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Studies) and FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) are widely applied to process and mechanical systems respectively, they can, and should, be adapted to meet the specific needs of electrical engineering. When thoughtfully modified, these techniques are highly effective in identifying credible failure scenarios, assessing their consequences, and informing safer, more resilient electrical designs.

For example, in an electrical HAZOP (e-HAZOP), explored in detail in Ref. 4, the review is conducted using single-line diagrams instead of P&IDs (Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams). The analysis proceeds node by node through the electrical system, using a set of guidewords specifically adapted to reflect electrical rather than process-related hazards.

In addition, bowtie diagrams are particularly well-suited to visualising and managing electrical hazards. They help clarify the relationship between the causes of a hazardous event (threats), the event itself (the “top event”), and the consequences if it is not properly controlled. By mapping out the barriers that prevent such events and those that mitigate their consequences, bowtie diagrams offer a clear, structured way to ensure robust controls are in place.

Together, these tailored techniques support a more nuanced, system-specific approach to managing electrical risks, ensuring the safety strategy is both technically sound and aligned with real-world operation.

No silos, no surprises: designing safety across systems

As explored in Part 2 of this series, energy transition assets involving hazardous substances, such as BESS, hydrogen electrolysers, and ammonia plants, demand more than isolated electrical safety. These systems sit at the intersection of electrical and chemical domains, where faults can trigger fires, explosions, or toxic releases. Managing such risks requires a fully integrated process safety approach, combining electrical engineering expertise with an understanding of how electrical hazards interact with broader system risks. Only by blending these disciplines within a unified risk management strategy can we design and operate these technologies safely, reliably, and in line with regulatory expectations.

Capturing experience, enabling innovation

One of the key challenges identified in Part 2 is the need to retain and apply the hard-won knowledge gained over decades of safely managing electrical systems. This is becoming increasingly difficult as the workforce ages and experienced engineers approach retirement. A well-structured DRM framework offers a valuable opportunity to capture this expertise, embedding it into an SBD blueprint for new projects. It also creates a practical platform for senior engineers to coach and mentor the next generation, transferring knowledge in a meaningful and structured way.

This approach addresses another important challenge: balancing the benefits of experience with the need for innovation. By investing time upfront to develop a structured and evolving DRM framework, organisations create a consistent, repeatable approach that embeds innovation alongside proven expertise. Rather than struggling to find this balance in the day-to-day pressure of individual projects, the framework enables learning to be shared systematically across teams and projects. It builds resilience into the design process, allowing innovation to flourish safely without losing sight of hard-won lessons. This consistent approach avoids reinventing the wheel, supports continuous improvement, and accelerates the energy transition while maintaining robust safety standards.

FROM SAFETY TO RESILIENCE

Part 2 highlighted a critical trend: as assets become more distributed and unmanned, risk management must expand its focus beyond direct harm to people and embrace broader system resilience. Resilience means more than safety, it means the ability to withstand disruptions, maintain operation under stress, and recover quickly.

In a future where electricity powers hospitals, transport, water systems, and digital payments, outages are not just inconvenient, they can cause business failure or loss of life. The Iberian Peninsula power outage in Sapin in April 2025, mentioned in Part 1, is a stark demonstration of this, causing as many as 147 deaths (Ref. 5).

The SBD approach partially addresses this through the PEAR framework (which considers people, environment, assets, and reputation). However, this typically focuses on the wider consequences of hazards only when they impact safety or the environment. Traditional hazard identification guides prompt the anticipation of safety and environmental risks, but do not systematically identify all risks that affect the success of the asset or project.

Many such risks, like schedule delays, cost overruns, reduced performance, availability, or security vulnerabilities, can be mitigated or eliminated through better design. This calls for extending the SBD mindset into a Resilient-by-Design (RBD) approach.

An effective DRM framework supports this broader perspective but requires adaptation by:

Expanding the definition of hazards to include anything that threatens project delivery, reliable operation, performance, or security, so not just harm to people or the environment.
Broadening hazard identification methods to capture all foreseeable threats, using techniques such as project risk assessment, Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) analysis, and security vulnerability assessments.
Involving a wider range of experts in hazard identification and design development to address threats across all design elements and performance aspects.

By embracing this approach, we move beyond safety alone to deliver truly resilient electrical systems fit for the energy transition.

Sustainable by Design

Resilience is a critical step forward, but it is not the end point. To truly align with the goals of the energy transition, we must go further and evolve from RBD to Sustainable-by-Design. This is the next stage in the design philosophy – one that not only protects people and ensures systems can withstand disruption but also reduces long-term impacts on the planet and supports a prosperous economy and equitable society.

In Part 2, we saw how hazardous materials, accident hazards, infrastructure footprints, and loss of trust all present risks that extend well beyond immediate safety. A Sustainable-by-Design approach tackles these challenges head-on. It combines resilience (including safety, security, and environmental stewardship), with social responsibility and economic development, ensuring that assets are not only robust and reliable today but remain responsible and beneficial throughout their entire life.

In short, extending SBD through RBD into Sustainable-by-Design creates systems that are grounded in five fundamental objectives – the “roots” of sustainability illustrated in Figure 4. These roots provide the essential foundations on which truly sustainable assets can grow and thrive (Ref. 6).

Figure 4 – Sustainable by design

By embedding sustainability into the same mindset that already drives safety and resilience, we close the loop. We design assets that not only prevent accidents and withstand shocks, but also respect ecosystems, use resources responsibly, and build public trust. This evolution ensures the energy transition delivers infrastructure that is not just fit for today, but delivers on its promise: a safer, cleaner, and more equitable energy future.

Conclusion

The safe transformation of our electrical systems is not just possible, it is essential. The tools to achieve it already exist. What matters now is applying them with the right expertise, at the right time, and in the right way.

Throughout this series, several lessons have stood out. The Safety Assurance Process remains a universal foundation, applicable to all asset types. Success depends on recognising the unique hazards of electrical infrastructure, adapting proven techniques to electrical contexts, and ensuring that deep expertise is brought to the table.

Increasingly, projects demand an integrated approach, where electrical and process safety are managed together within robust Design Risk Management frameworks. And while Safe-by-Design provides the starting point, the real goal must be higher: Resilient-by-Design and ultimately Sustainable-by-Design.

By broadening our perspective and looking beyond traditional safety to embrace resilience and sustainability, we can manage this transformation with confidence.

Electricity will power the energy transition. We must ensure it does so safely, reliably, and sustainably, delivering not just energy, but trust, continuity, and a better future for all.