Can grid upgrades be made safer before work even begins?

As the UK continues to upgrade electricity networks, how do contractors and clients eliminate hazards from the outset, rather than simply managing them during delivery? Paul Lowe, SHE Director at BRUSH Group and Mark Patterson, Group SHE Director at SSE explore. 

The pressure to modernise ageing grid infrastructure is intensifying. With this comes the demand for engineering teams across the UK to deliver complex, high-voltage upgrades without interrupting supply to the customers who depend on it. While this presents a technical challenge, it presents an even greater one when it comes to managing risk and ensuring team safety.

As the green transition accelerates, the industry must take opportunities to learn how interface risk can be managed and, where possible, eliminated, how design review processes can fundamentally change project scope, and how safety culture shapes outcomes long before anyone sets foot on site.

Identifying interface risk before it becomes a problem

Live substation upgrades are a critical part of grid modernisation, with one of the most underestimated risks being the interface between organisations. This is rarely down to a single organisation. Instead, with multiple asset owners, contractors and authorisation frameworks converging on a single site, the potential for miscommunication, conflicting procedures and gaps in accountability increases considerably.

This was the practical reality at a 132kV substation in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, where a circuit breaker replacement and protection scheme upgrade was required on a site shared between three separate network operators – National Grid, SSE and UK Power Networks. This meant any contractor would need to operate simultaneously under three separate sets of operational standards and authorisation protocols.

The lesson here is not specific to that project but is a broader point about contractor selection and pre-construction planning. Where multi-operator sites are involved, interface risk should be assessed as a primary project risk from the outset, rather than managed reactively once works are underway. Questions about which organisation’s procedures take precedence, where handover points sit and how competency is verified across different frameworks need answers before mobilisation, not during it.

The Amersham project was completed on time, within budget and with zero safety incidents, illustrating the importance of pre-project planning and a clear understanding of where the interface risks lay.

The impact of an effective Design SHE review

At Aldershot Grid substation, the trigger for the project was a measurable increase in system fault levels following asset replacement. The existing 33kV feeder circuit breakers, along with the incoming circuit breakers and bus coupler, were assessed as inadequate to withstand the new fault levels. Left unaddressed, this represented a direct risk to network reliability and a failure to meet the requirements of the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations (ESQCR).

The original project scope was relatively contained. However, this changed fundamentally following a comprehensive Design SHE review.

Conducting a structured Design SHE review at the design stage, rather than treating it as a compliance exercise, produced a materially different outcome. The review identified that the existing substation arrangement presented construction risks that could not be adequately mitigated within the original scope. The recommendation was to construct a new GIS switchroom and install a new 33kV GIS switchboard, transferring the incomer and feeder circuits to the new infrastructure entirely.

This was a significant change in scope. By designing out the identified risks at the planning stage rather than simply managing them during construction, the project addressed the reliability risk to the network and avoided safety risks associated with working within the existing arrangement. ESQCR compliance was maintained, continuity of supply was protected, and the construction phase was delivered without the residual risks that the original approach would have carried.

Design SHE reviews are most valuable when they are genuinely empowered to change scope. A review that can only confirm an existing plan is a limited tool. Instead, major infrastructure projects need reviews that can recommend a fundamentally different approach, with the authority and support to do so. This is where the real risk reduction happens.

Safety culture as an operational asset

While technical processes and engineering controls are necessary, they are not sufficient on their own. The human element – specifically the behaviours, communication habits and leadership culture of the people delivering the work – brings these policies and actions to life, rather than leaving them to exist only on a company website.

Behavioural safety leadership training can influence how project teams operate. Immersive safety training can help teams develop stronger communication practices, a culture of psychological safety and safety leadership principles that can be integrated into daily routines long after the training is complete. This can support a more consistent application of safety standards on site. Rather than focusing solely on compliance, this approach helps create an environment where people feel able to raise concerns, challenge assumptions and share lessons learned without hesitation.

Language matters in this context. The way safety is discussed, the words used in briefings and the tone of conversations between supervisors and operatives all shape whether safety is experienced as a genuine priority or a procedural obligation. Consistent, respectful safety language reduces ambiguity and reinforces the behaviours that keep people safe.

What grid upgrade projects can learn from this

The projects described here are not exceptional in their complexity. Substation upgrades involving legacy assets, multi-operator sites, rising fault levels and live network constraints are a routine feature of the current investment cycle across UK distribution networks. What they illustrate is that the difference between a project that delivers safely and one that does not often comes down to decisions made well before construction begins.

Early identification of interface risk, Design SHE reviews with genuine authority to influence scope, and sustained investment in safety culture should not be considered ‘premium additions’ to a project. Where contractors and clients can collaborate from the outset, there is greater opportunity to manage risks before they reach site, while protecting network reliability and continuity of supply.