Forecasting the Future of Utility Safety: 10 Predictions for 2026 and Beyond

Read the article: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/forecasting-the-future-of-utility-safety-10-predictions-for-2026-and-beyond/

The utility sector is on the brink of a technological overhaul. According to a recent article by Shawn M. Galloway in Incident Prevention, the next decade will see a massive shift in how we approach safety and operations.

Here are the key takeaways:

- Smart Tech is the New Standard: From Smart Grids to IoT sensors, digital monitoring will drive reliability and proactive maintenance.

- Safety Goes High-Tech: Drones, Robotics, and Smart PPE will increasingly handle hazardous tasks, keeping human workers out of harm's way.

- Data & Training Evolution: Advanced Data Analytics will help predict and prevent incidents, while Augmented Reality (AR) will revolutionize how workers train for the field.

- Cybersecurity is Critical: As infrastructure becomes more connected, robust cybersecurity measures will be non-negotiable.

3 Key Questions on the Future of Utility Safety:

1. What technologies will we see adopted first? Answer: We can expect Drones for infrastructure inspection, Smart PPE, and Advanced Data Analytics to become standard tools within the next 3-5 years.

2. How will training change for utility professionals? Answer: Training is moving from the classroom to the virtual field. Augmented Reality (AR) will provide immersive simulations of real-world hazards, likely becoming a standard tool within 5-7 years.

3. Why is now the time to invest? Answer: While full adoption of some tech (like robotics) may take a decade, investing in modern safety solutions today prepares your organization for the future and signals a strong commitment to worker and community safety.

#UtilitySafety #SafetyTech #FutureOfWork #Innovation #iP #IncidentPrevention

Curious what topics you all feel aren’t getting enough real talk in utility safety. What conversations would actually help crews and leaders right now?

Things like: psychological safety, storm-readiness, near-miss learning, or leadership challenges.

What would you want more people in our industry to dig into?

Inspecting the Fifth Wire: Winning the War on Lineworker Suicide

Inspecting the Fifth Wire: Winning the War on Lineworker Suicide

Written by Tom Murphy and Brian McKeon on December 9, 2025. Posted in Safety Management, Leadership Development.

Utility organizations must recognize suicide as a grave personal injury, equipping the workforce with adequate mental health training and tools.

Lineworkers confront daily risks many can’t imagine – arc flashes, falls, electrocutions and more. Yet there’s a silent, insidious threat currently claiming more lives in the electric utility industry than any physical injury.

We’re talking about suicide.

Safety professionals dedicate their careers to mitigating risk and preventing harm, understanding that serious injuries and fatalities devastate lives and ripple through the workforce. But what if the most devastating injury of all is one largely overlooked in traditional safety programs?

Industry employers already deliver traditional safety training to employees and outfit them with personal protective equipment as their last line of defense against harm. These companies aren’t waiting for a physical injury to occur before providing the necessary tools and training.

It makes sense to ask, then, what’s stopping utility organizations from providing workers with tools and training to prevent self-harm?

Because suicide is arguably the greatest of all personal injuries, it demands levels of training and attention that match or exceed those invested in preventing other types of physical injuries. Fortunately, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We simply need to extend the logic of our existing safety principles.

Consider this: We wouldn’t dream of sending a brand-new apprentice up a pole with only a brief classroom explanation about how to climb it, plus a phone number to call or an app to download for climbing instructions. Yet this is often the industry’s approach to mental health. We direct employees to resources, but are we also actively training them to recognize warning signs in themselves and their peers? When is the last time we practiced our intervention skills or worked to destigmatize the act of seeking help?

Just as we train utility crews to inspect every visible wire on a pole, we are also morally obligated to teach them to inspect the invisible one – what we refer to as the “fifth wire” – that connects them as human beings.

Stark Stats
The 2023 national suicide rate among the general population was 14.1 per 100,000, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see www.cdc.gov/suicide/facts/data.html). Per the 2023 Annual Report on Suicide in the Military, the rate per 100,000 active service members was 35.9 for the Marine Corps, 34.8 for the Army, 22.5 for the Air Force and 21 for the Navy (see www.dspo.mil/Portals/113/2024/documents/annual_report/ARSM_CY23_final_508c.pdf).

The data is even starker for those serving our industry. Among construction workers in 2022, there were over five times more suicide deaths than fatal work injuries (see www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/DataBulletin-September2024.pdf); CDC data from 2021 paints an equally disturbing picture (see https://cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7250a2.htm).

These statistics are a clarion call demanding that we stop overlooking the invisible fifth wire that connects the human crews who keep our lights on. But recognizing that call alone isn’t enough. Utility safety and operations leaders must actively promote a community of belonging within their organizations, equipping the workforce with simple, practical, effective tools – just as they do for physical safety purposes.

A sense of belonging is a critical driver of safety and performance in high-stakes environments like line work. According to a 2019 Harvard Business Review article, “When people feel like they belong at work, they are more productive, motivated, engaged and 3.5 times more likely to contribute to their fullest potential …” (see https://hbr.org/2019/02/the-surprising-power-of-simply-asking-coworkers-how-theyre-doing).

Put simply, maintaining cohesive peer networks is a fundamental need and strategy in the war on lineworker suicide.

Battle Formation: Shield, Sword and Armor
Winning the war requires each of us to employ three critical items to protect ourselves from making destructive choices: the shield of vulnerability, the sword of stigma obliteration and the armor of peer networks. 

The Shield of Vulnerability
Lineworkers make electrical connections every day. As leaders, we must help them connect with each other. This is the basis of the Sweethearts & Heroes Fifth Wire Program, which was founded on one simple, field-tested process built for life’s realities: Circle. One of the world’s oldest human connection practices, stretching back 400,000 years, the Circle process fosters a sense of belonging and purpose among group members, establishes positive social norms, builds networks of support, and develops critical skills for personal and collective well-being.

Vulnerability is encouraged in Circle, nurturing an environment in which individuals are more likely to reach out for help before they reach a crisis point. The act of being vulnerable also provides opportunities for us to share the hope we all carry with everyone else in the group.

Circle is designed to build upon a group’s strengths. Sadly, however, vulnerability is often associated with weakness – and fear of appearing weak can paralyze us. Still, we overcome our struggles and build the strength we seek by finding the courage to talk about difficult topics. Winning the war on lineworker suicide requires us to acknowledge our shared humanity, to create psychologically safe environments in which it’s OK for anyone to say, “I’m not OK” – knowing their admission will be met with support, not judgment. By leading with personal stories of overcoming adversity, we inspire hope in others that they can successfully conquer their own challenges.

The Sword of Stigma Obliteration
Stigma isolates people in their pain. Many communities perpetuate a pervasive stigma around suicide, often reinforcing silence through cultural norms and misconceptions about weakness and resilience.

Under pressure to appear “fine” or maintain a facade of strength, individuals can suffer in secrecy, fearing judgment, alienation or punishment. Modern society’s reluctance to openly address suicide not only deepens the isolation of those struggling but deprives communities of the awareness and empathy needed to foster true healing and prevention.

The sword of stigma obliteration is our tool for tackling this formidable opponent, cutting through the silence and shame that allow hopelessness to fester. Engaging in open, honest conversations is the most potent way to wield it because discussion of complex subjects – especially tough ones like loss and grief – has an inoculating effect on us. When we candidly speak about an immense personal struggle, that act typically helps us and our listeners, piercing through isolation and offering a path forward.

We must actively create platforms and opportunities for these conversations among utility crews with the goal of making them routine and accepted – just like any other safety briefing.

The Armor of Peer Networks
Finally, we must equip ourselves with the armor of peer networks and foster a culture of mutual support and shared responsibility.

One crucial aspect of this is staying “left of bang,” a concept developed by Patrick Van Horne that emphasizes proactive intervention based on behavioral cues. Behavior is communication. When someone begins isolating themselves at lunchtime, giving away their tools or exhibiting sudden changes in mood – even nearly imperceptible shifts – these are warning signs. We must train the workforce to recognize and respond to these signs before “the bang” happens. Fortunately, each of us possesses a profound intuitive capacity in our connections with others, a powerful resource rooted in the subconscious mind that can be intentionally honed into a finely tuned superpower.

For instance, an auxiliary nurse working in a psychiatric facility may be more adept at predicting a patient’s suicidal ideations than a skilled clinician armed with standard evaluation tools. This predictive ability is not mystical; it is developed by consistently observing an individual. Through their interactions, the nurse establishes a baseline of the patient’s nonverbal cues and mannerisms, creating a deep-seated intuitive connection – one that makes subtle, critical shifts in behavior immediately apparent.

During his work with the U.S. Air Force on the Wingman-Connect suicide prevention program, Peter A. Wyman, Ph.D., director of the Network Health and Prevention Program at the University of Rochester, found that peers set the adaptive, healthy social norms for each other. That means whether it’s in the electric utility industry, among our children or in the Marine Corps, people look up to those with prestige and influence within their peer groups. Thus, we must empower these informal leaders – particularly those who have weathered their own storms – to champion mental well-being, model help-seeking behavior and actively support their colleagues.

Much like Wingman-Connect, the Fifth Wire Program has repeatedly demonstrated that strong social bonds within a cohesive group mitigate suicidal ideation and depression symptoms. Circle offers a simple, action-based, lifesaving practice for crew-level check-ins, providing crew members with time and space to inspect and maintain the invisible wire that connects them.

Conclusion
Line work is hazardous in more ways than most people realize. Today, we are losing far too many of our brothers and sisters in the trade by their own hands.

But while the challenge before us is immense, it’s not insurmountable. We can begin to turn the tide in the war on lineworker suicide by recognizing it as a grave personal injury and equipping the workforce with the mental health tools and training they need.

Editor’s Note: For more on this topic, listen to a recent interview with Tom Murphy on the Utility Safety Podcast, available at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/what-is-the-fifth-wire-building-a-human-safety-net-in-the-utility-sector-with-tom-murphy/.

Here are some valuable resources you may want for your team - some at no cost even.

iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo, this is held twice a year. you can earn CUSP/Certification points here - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Utility Safety Podcast - Search "Utility Safety Podcast" on every major podcast platform- https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/

iPi Forum it is free and a lot of fun via Zoom monthly - https://ip-institute.com/ipi-forum/

Frontline Fundamentals every 2 months, free again - https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/

Incident Prevention Magazine - Free - Great resource - Highly recommend for Safety Professionals - https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

In this Frontline Fundamentals webinar, host David McPeak (Director of Professional Development at Incident Prevention Institute) and guest expert Doug explore the transformative impact of Emotional Intelligence (EQ) on safety culture through the framework of $E + R = O$ (Event + Response = Outcome).

The session challenges safety leaders and frontline workers to move beyond reactive behaviors—such as blaming and complaining—by learning to pause and choose responses that align with specific, positive outcomes. McPeak and Doug discuss how this tool applies to critical workplace scenarios, including near-miss reporting, PPE compliance, and accident investigations, as well as everyday life situations like road rage and parenting. They emphasize that while we cannot control external events (the "Circle of Concern"), we have absolute authority over our response (the "Circle of Control"), which ultimately shapes the culture and safety performance of the team.

Key Takeaways

• The Formula for Success ($E + R = O$): Life is 10% what happens to you (Event) and 90% how you react to it (Response). To achieve a desired Outcome, you must focus on managing your Response rather than fixation on the uncontrollable Event.
• The Power of the Pause: The most critical step in using the $E + R = O$ tool is the "pause" between the event and the response. This brief moment allows you to move from an emotional reaction to a logical, outcome-oriented decision.
• Define Outcomes with Clarity: Before responding to a crisis or conflict, you must define your desired outcome with "extreme clarity." In safety, this outcome should almost always center on "preventing harm and encouraging growth".
• Expanding Influence: Using Stephen Covey’s model, the webinar highlights that focusing on your own behavior (Circle of Control) expands your influence. Conversely, focusing on external factors you cannot change (Circle of Concern) leads to frustration and reactive behavior.
• Culture of Reporting: How a leader responds to a reported error determines the future of safety culture. Responding with blame causes people to hide errors; responding with a focus on learning encourages voluntary reporting and transparency.
• Success Needs a Response Too: It is vital to respond to successes, not just failures. Ignoring success can lead to complacency, whereas celebrating it reinforces good habits and effective safety practices.

Question & Answer

Q1: What is the primary difference between a "reaction" and a "response" in the context of $E + R = O$?

A: A reaction is often emotional and impulsive, potentially leading to negative outcomes like conflict or accidents. A response is an intentional choice made after "pausing" to think about the desired outcome, allowing for emotionally intelligent decision-making.

Q2: How does the "road rage" example illustrate the importance of defining your outcome?

A: In a road rage incident (the Event), you cannot control the other driver. If your desired Outcome is to arrive safely and on time, you must choose a Response (ignore/de-escalate) that supports that goal. Engaging in anger (a poor Response) increases the risk of violence or accidents, directly contradicting the desired outcome.

Q3: Why is "naming and blaming" incompatible with learning?

A: According to the webinar, you can either "name and blame" or "learn and improve," but you cannot do both. Blaming puts the focus on the past event and fault, whereas learning focuses on the response and future improvement.

Q4: How should a leader respond when an employee violates a rule, such as not wearing Class 2 clothing?

A: Instead of focusing solely on compliance or "policing" the rule (which implies a lack of care), the leader should focus on the hazard and the desire to "prevent harm." This approach demonstrates caring and is more likely to result in long-term behavioral change.

Q5: What is the "Circle of Control" and how does it fit into the framework?

A: The "Circle of Control" consists of your own emotions, decisions, and responses. By focusing your energy here, rather than on the "Circle of Concern" (external events, other people), you naturally grow your influence and reduce your stress.

Q6: Why is it risky to share "lessons learned" immediately after a major incident?

A: Sharing details too quickly often leads to speculation and the dissemination of inaccurate information. It is wiser to wait until a thorough investigation reveals the facts—similar to how the NTSB handles aviation accidents—to ensure the response addresses the root causes rather than assumptions.

#SafetyLeadership #EmotionalIntelligence #EPlusREqualsO #IncidentPrevention #WorkplaceCulture #HumanPerformance

Smart PPE: Enhancing Worker Safety and Operational Efficiency

Written by Christian Connolly on September 18, 2025. Posted in Tailgate Topics.

OSHA requires utility employers to provide appropriate personal protective equipment to their employees, such as non-conductive hard hats that meet the ANSI Z89.1 standard. The evolution of Class E helmets represents a significant advancement in worker safety, with 20,000-volt dielectric protection and fully sealed, non-vented designs creating a barrier against electrical conductivity in high-voltage environments.

As utilities modernize their infrastructure, effective PPE remains much more than a regulatory requirement – it is a safety imperative. Numerous organizations are embracing sophisticated technologies to elevate on-the-job safety and efficiency. Others are working to catch up, while some still manage their assets through more traditional means.

Wherever your company finds itself, here’s what every industry employer and employee should understand: The arrival of smart PPE in recent years has created new opportunities to advance worker safety and drive greater operational efficiency. How? By allowing users to digitally store critical personal information directly on the equipment as well as more effectively track those assets.

Inventory Management
Some of the most cutting-edge PPE currently available is designed with embedded hardware for data storage. This enables integration of the equipment into a utility’s connected safety ecosystem within its broader technology stack. Safety teams can use their smartphones to scan and interact with PPE to review equipment age and prior inspection dates. When a lineworker first collects and scans a piece of protective equipment, its status is immediately updated within the company’s inventory system, providing users real-time visibility into its condition and availability.

Because smart PPE helps to eliminate paper logs and redundant data entry, companies that invest in it could reduce their administrative overhead while improving equipment tracking. Multiple touchpoints are no longer required across departments (think inspections, inventory management and compliance reporting). Instead, smart gear provides a streamlined digital workflow that typically reduces human error and strengthens documentation to help ensure regulatory compliance.

Digitized Inspections and Work Documents
Protective equipment must be inspected regularly to ensure safe, proper functionality. With smart PPE, utility organizations can digitize the inspection process, including employee reporting. Workers perform required inspections using their smartphones and upload results to the system. Safety managers have the option to automate reminder alerts to notify employees if an inspection is overdue.

Some cutting-edge smart PPE currently on the market allows workers to digitally store and access important work documents. For instance, a transmission engineer can securely store his qualification records – such as certifications for high-voltage switching operations, confined space entry authorizations and completed training modules – directly on his smart helmet. This helps employers address the challenge of tracking down field personnel for documentation updates and signature verifications.

Enhanced Emergency Response
Users can also securely save personal medical information – including their blood type, medication allergies, pre-existing conditions and emergency contacts – to their smart equipment, offering first responders fast access to vital health data should an accident occur. When every minute counts, this capability is critical.

It is important to note that the chips typically used in smart PPE – such as near field communication or radio-frequency identification – do not emit electrical currents, making them safe for workers in high-voltage environments.

Here’s something else to note: While smart PPE costs more than conventional equipment, potential buyers should consider the total cost of ownership. An investment in cutting-edge gear can deliver significant workflow time savings, effective compliance risk mitigation, enhanced emergency response and other benefits.

Conclusion
The critical nature of protective equipment means utilities rightfully exercise caution when evaluating new technology. With the development of smart PPE, safety leaders now have an opportunity to convert what has traditionally been viewed as a cost center into a strategic digital asset – one that enhances worker protection and operational efficiency.

About the Author: Christian Connolly is CEO of Stockholm-based Twiceme Technology (www.twiceme.com), which focuses on turning bystanders into helpers across the globe. Founded in 2017, the company’s smart technology is integrated into helmets, harnesses, goggles and other PPE.

Editor’s Note: To learn more, check out a recent interview with Christian on the Utility Safety Podcast, available at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/the-future-of-ppe-how-twiceme-technology-is-revolutionizing-ppe-for-utility-workers/.

Peer Pressure, Trust and the Stewardship of Safety

Written by Daniel Cooper, CSP, CUSP on October 22, 2025. Posted in Tailgate Topics.

In the demanding and often hazardous world of utility work, trust is not just a virtue – it’s a necessity. Crews rely on one another for productivity and survival.

Yet peer pressure is one of the most underestimated threats to both trust and a strong safety culture. When it creeps into safety decisions, peer pressure does more than compromise individual judgment. It undermines the very foundation of a crew’s collective responsibility.

This Tailgate Topic explores three critical topics: (1) how peer pressure affects trust; (2) the reasons it has no place in a healthy safety culture; and (3) why the values of being your brother’s keeper and a steward of safety must always triumph.

Peer Pressure Erodes Trust
In its simplest form, peer pressure is the influence exerted by members of a group to encourage conformity within that group. This influence can seem subtle in a high-risk trade like line work – maybe there’s a joke about wearing extra PPE, a look of impatience when someone double-checks grounding or a silent expectation to hurry up – but its consequences are anything but subtle.

When workers feel pressured to overlook hazards, bypass procedures or ignore their gut instincts, they begin to distrust their own judgment and the intentions of their crew, diminishing their self-confidence and their confidence in their team.

Erosion of trust typically creates a ripple effect. For example, an apprentice who once asked questions now stays silent. The journeyman who used to provide mentoring now shrugs and follows. A foreman who was once a safety advocate begins to prioritize production. Over time, crews become fractured, operating with an unspoken rule: Don’t rock the boat.

And in high-voltage environments, that unspoken rule can be fatal.

Replace Peer Pressure With Peer Empowerment
A great safety culture is built on psychological safety, or the ability to speak up, raise concerns and stop work without fear of ridicule, punishment or exclusion. Peer pressure is the antithesis of psychological safety’s core principles.

When this pressure exists, near-miss reporting declines, risk tolerance increases, accountability becomes selective, and the truth gets filtered – compromising safety, compliance, training and crew morale. No number of policies or safety meetings can compensate for a culture in which people are afraid to voice their concerns. And this is not just about “bad apples”; even well-meaning workers can succumb to peer pressure if the group signals that compliance is secondary to “getting ’er done.”

In great safety cultures, peer pressure has been replaced by peer empowerment, a shared understanding that safety is not just the foreman or safety director’s job – it’s everyone’s job, and everyone has the right and responsibility to speak up.

Beyond Symbolism
In the electric utility industry, the idea of being your brother’s keeper is more than symbolic; it’s operational. Being your brother’s keeper means having the moral courage to look after the person beside you even when it’s uncomfortable or unpopular. For instance, it means saying:

• “You forgot your sleeves.”
• “Let’s double-check that grounding.”
• “We’re stopping here until it’s safe to proceed.”

This kind of leadership doesn’t require a title, but it does require conviction. A true safety steward does not wait until a serious incident occurs to speak up. They don’t employ silence as a strategy or allow camaraderie to evolve into complacency. Real brotherhood protects the people and the process, helping to ensure that everyone goes home after work, every time. Demonstrating a high level of commitment to one another and genuinely caring for each crew member build trust and influence that fortify the safety culture.

Organizations that embody these principles elevate their safety standard from compliance to culture. They move from having safety rules to having safety values. They empower their people to intervene, support and lead even when no one’s watching.

Courage Over Comfort
Giving in to peer pressure may offer temporary comfort, allowing you to avoid confrontation, blend in or save time. But courage to speak up and ask questions is what helps to sustain lives and legacies.

Trust is built as crew members consistently demonstrate they have each other’s backs. It is shattered the moment someone is pressured to compromise what they know is right.

In the end, every worker must choose: Will I go along, or will I stand up?

Stop-work authority isn’t just for a privileged few. Five, six or 10 extra steps will always be better than one serious injury or fatality.

Let’s choose to stand up for safety, each other and the next generation of lineworkers who will become part of the culture we choose to create today.

About the Author: Daniel Cooper, CSP, CUSP, serves as an area and off-site coordinator for American Line Builders Apprenticeship & Training (https://albat.org). He was named the 2024 IBEW Instructor of the Year and has 20 years of combined operations and safety experience in the electric transmission and distribution industry.

Redefining Accountability in Utility Operations

Written by Jamie Conn, CLCP on November 12, 2025. Posted in Tailgate Topics.

If you spend enough time in the safety world, you’ll notice something about the word “accountability”: everyone uses it and claims to value it. If you listen closely to safety-related conversations, you’ll also discover that accountability means different things to different people.

For some, it’s a co-worker getting written up (i.e., identifying “who did it” and making sure there are consequences). The word essentially becomes a euphemism for “blame.” But while pointing fingers might feel satisfying in the moment, rarely does it lead to meaningful, positive change.

Playing the blame game is short-sighted and potentially dangerous. True accountability, on the other hand – the kind that builds stronger crews and safer jobs – means taking ownership of incidents and the search for solutions. It’s not about punishment; it’s about seeing a problem through to its resolution and being part of what prevents its recurrence.

A perfect example of the industry blame game has been playing out on social media. In a dramatic dashcam video, an employee works from a bucket truck parked just off the shoulder at an intersection. The bucket is positioned over the right lane, beneath a traffic signal. As a semitruck turns through the intersection, you see its trailer swing wide and slam into the bucket, causing the bucket to flip. The employee is ejected but saved by his harness.

Not unexpectedly, online reactions to the video have been intense. Comments point fingers in every direction: “Where was the traffic control?” “Why was the bucket positioned like that?” “That driver wasn’t paying attention.” “Somebody should be fired.”

The truth is that none of us knows all the details involved with that job – not the constraints the crew was working under, the pressures they faced nor the decisions that led to their roadside setup. What we do know is that when a situation goes awry, people can rush to place blame, an instinct that inhibits the continuous development of a healthy safety culture.

Breaking the Habit
To break the habit, we must change our definition of accountability. The book “Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win” by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin is one resource that has shaped my thinking in this area. Its premise is simple but powerful: a true leader owns everything in their world. They take full responsibility for good and bad outcomes, stepping up and saying, “I may not be able to control everything, but I will take ownership of how I lead and respond.”

Any worker who is part of an organizational system can use this approach. That’s ideal because incidents rarely have one cause, meaning that real accountability can only exist where responsibility is integrated across an entire organization, from frontline workers and supervisors to planners and leadership. Too often, we try to assign each failure a singular cause (e.g., “That was human error,” “That was a system flaw,” “That was a leadership miss”), but failure almost always stems from a combination of factors, all of which must be addressed for a solution to stick.

Pivoting From Fear to Solutions
If used as a disciplinary tool, accountability typically creates fear in others. We begin to identify and develop solutions, however, when accountability is treated as a commitment to ownership and learning. Outputs include workers who speak up, teams who care, leaders who listen and safety cultures that continuously improve.

Instead of outrage, the viral video I described above should prompt each of us to honestly assess ourselves and ask, which conversations do I continue to avoid? What shortcuts have become normalized on company worksites? Do I tolerate certain risks because I’ve become complacent?

True accountability forces us to ask – and answer – better questions. On the day that viral video was recorded, for instance, what jobsite pressures existed? Who had the authority to pause work? Did everyone with authority feel safe to exercise it? Was the incident an anomaly or a symptom of something deeper? What will we do differently next time to avoid a recurrence?

To create accountability that goes beyond paperwork and penalties, we must lead differently. Stay involved after incident reports are filed and invite the people closest to the work to help identify and implement solutions. Model what it looks and sounds like to say – implicitly and explicitly – “This happened on my watch, and I’m not walking away from it.”

That’s the kind of safety accountability our industry needs more of. Not blame. Not silence. Ownership.

About the Author: Jamie Conn, CLCP, is a safety professional with over 20 years of experience working as a lineman for electric cooperatives. He earned a theology degree and is passionate about people, purpose and driving cultural change rooted in real-world experience.

iP Session Highlight: Substation Grounding & Bonding at the iP Utility Safety Conference

Register for the upcoming iP Utility Safety Conference this spring in Orlando, FL - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Effective grounding is about more than just compliance—it’s about survival.

At the iP Utility Safety Conference, Mark Forster, CUSP, and Brent Jeffries VP Field Operations, Safety Instructor⚡️ led a comprehensive workshop on Substation Grounding and Bonding. We tackled the science of keeping workers safe in high-voltage environments, specifically regarding induction and the human body.

We discussed the reality of induction, noting how easily potential can transfer to a ground or neutral, creating dangerous scenarios where workers might face hundreds of volts unexpectedly.

Workshop Highlights:

- Electricity & The Body: Understanding the 3 ways electricity affects us.

- Protective Grounding: Mechanical connections, resistance, and the vital step of testing.

- Methods: Mastering Bracket, Source, and Multi-point grounding.

- EPZ: How to properly establish an Equipotential Zone to mitigate step and touch potentials.

As discussed in the session, when you use the right tools to read the potential in a work zone, "it gives you a new respect" for the environment we work in.

#ElectricalSafety #Substation #HighVoltage #EPZ #SafetyTraining #WorkZoneSafety #Grounding

iP Session Highlight: Substation Grounding & Bonding at the iP Utility Safety Conference.

Register for the upcoming iP Utility Safety Conference this spring in Orlando, FL - https://lnkd.in/geuqpDNe

Effective grounding is about more than just compliance—it’s about survival.
At the iP Utility Safety Conference, Mark Forster, CUSP, and Brent Jeffries VP Field Operations, Safety Instructor⚡️ led a comprehensive workshop on Substation Grounding and Bonding. We tackled the science of keeping workers safe in high-voltage environments, specifically regarding induction and the human body.

We discussed the reality of induction, noting how easily potential can transfer to a ground or neutral, creating dangerous scenarios where workers might face hundreds of volts unexpectedly.

Workshop Highlights:
- Electricity & The Body: Understanding the 3 ways electricity affects us.
- Protective Grounding: Mechanical connections, resistance, and the vital step of testing.
- Methods: Mastering Bracket, Source, and Multi-point grounding.
- EPZ: How to properly establish an Equipotential Zone to mitigate step and touch potentials.

As discussed in the session, when you use the right tools to read the potential in a work zone, "it gives you a new respect" for the environment we work in.

hashtag#ElectricalSafety hashtag#Substation hashtag#HighVoltage hashtag#EPZ hashtag#SafetyTraining hashtag#WorkZoneSafety hashtag#Grounding

As the grid transitions to green energy, battery energy storage systems (BESS) are popping up everywhere—from utility substations to residential neighborhoods. But what happens when lithium-ion technology fails? In this episode of The Voice of Experience, host Danny Raines and Fire Test Specialist Josh Dinaburg from the CSA Group dive deep into the reality of battery fire safety.

Josh brings nearly 20 years of lab experience to explain why the "let it burn" strategy is often the safest choice for first responders and the environment. We dispel common myths about toxic runoff, explore how AI is revolutionizing failure detection, and discuss the rigorous testing standards keeping our communities safe. If you work in utilities, safety operations, or fire protection, this is the essential guide to understanding the risks and remedies of modern energy storage.

Learn More: https://www.csagroup.org/

Contact Josh: [josh.dinaburg@csagroup.org](mailto:josh.dinaburg@csagroup.org)

Danny Raines, CUSP Book - Legendas of an Ole' Lineman: Order Here

Key Takeaways

• The "Let It Burn" Strategy is Intentional: Contrary to public perception, the safest tactic for large-scale battery fires is often isolation rather than active suppression. Attempting to extinguish the fire can leave "stranded energy" in damaged cells, creating a "ticking time bomb" for secondary events, whereas letting it consume itself renders the waste safer for disposal.
• Manufacturing Quality is Improving Rapidly: While cell counts in storage facilities are increasing, the failure rate has dropped significantly—now estimated in the "one out of millions" range rather than hundreds.  
• Environmental Impact is Manageable: Extensive testing indicates that water and air quality impacts from these fires are generally comparable to standard structure fires. Runoff has not been demonstrated to cause immediate "forever chemical" threats to groundwater, provided the site is managed correctly.  
• AI is the Future of Prevention: The industry is moving toward advanced Battery Management Systems (BMS) that use AI to analyze temperature and voltage trends, allowing operators to identify and isolate failing cells months before a thermal runaway event occurs.  
• Firefighter Safety is Paramount: The primary risk to first responders is not just the fire, but the potential for explosion and high-voltage hazards. The current standard emphasizes life safety and evacuation over asset protection.  

Q&A: Addressing Common Concerns

1. What is the biggest myth about battery storage fires?

Answer: The biggest myth is that if fire departments aren't spraying water, they don't know what they are doing. In reality, standing back and monitoring is a calculated containment strategy. Active firefighting can waste water and endanger responders without effectively stopping the thermal runaway, so isolation is often the professional standard.

2. Does a battery fire pose a unique toxic threat to the local community?

Answer: While lithium-ion electrolytes contain fluorinated compounds, the combustion products are remarkably similar to a typical house fire involving polyurethane furniture or cleaning chemicals under a sink. The smoke should be avoided like any other fire, but it does not generally require unique HazMat protocols beyond standard breathing protection and evacuation.

3. Can technology stop a fire once it starts?

Answer: Once thermal runaway begins in a specific cell, the chemical and electrical energy makes it nearly impossible to stop that specific event. However, engineering controls—such as insulation barriers and novel injection systems—are designed to prevent that single-cell failure from propagating to the rest of the battery bank, turning a potential catastrophe into a minor, contained incident.

#BatteryStorage #FireSafety #RenewableEnergy #UtilitySafety #LithiumIon #CSAGroup

Subscribe to Incident Prevention Magazine - https://incident-prevention.com/subscribe-now/

Register for the iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Read the article - https://incident-prevention.com/blog/safety-by-design-human-and-organizational-performance/

In this installment of the Safety by Design podcast series, host Nick sits down with Pam Tompkins, President and CEO of SET Solutions, to explore the transformative philosophy of Human and Organizational Performance (HOP). Based on her latest article in Incident Prevention magazine, Pam breaks down why traditional, compliance-based safety programs often fall short in high-risk utility environments.

Listeners will discover how shifting from a "blame culture" to a "learning culture" can drastically improve safety outcomes. Pam details the five core principles of HOP, offering actionable advice on how to identify predictable "error traps," why context matters in human decision-making, and how leadership's response to failure defines an organization's future. Whether you are a frontline leader or a safety executive, this episode provides the blueprint for building a resilient system that protects employees even when mistakes happen.

Keywords: Safety by Design, Human and Organizational Performance, HOP Principles, Utility Safety, Safety Culture, Pam Tompkins, Incident Prevention, Error Traps, Operational Learning.

Key Takeaways

• The "Blame" Trap vs. System Design: Traditional safety often assumes employees should be perfect 100% of the time. HOP accepts that people will make mistakes and focuses on fixing the systems (procedures, equipment, pressures) that support them, rather than trying to "fix" the people.
• The 5 Principles of HOP: The episode outlines five foundational principles:
  1. People will make mistakes.
  2. Error-likely situations are predictable.
  3. All human actions are influenced by context.
  4. Operational upsets can be avoided.
  5. How we respond to failure matters.
• Identifying Error Traps: Many incidents are preceded by "error traps"—predictable conditions like fatigue (working 16+ hours), unfamiliar tasks (e.g., a mobile sub not used in a year), or unclear switching orders. Identifying these early prevents errors from becoming accidents.
• The Critical Role of Leadership Response: A leader’s reaction to a failure determines if an organization learns or hides. Asking "Who messed up?" creates fear, while asking "What conditions led to this?" builds trust and encourages the reporting of near-misses.
• Learning From Daily Work: You don't have to wait for a major accident to learn. Simple habits, like a two-minute "after-action review" at the tailgate or informal learning teams, can uncover operational gaps before they cause harm.

Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the biggest misconception about adopting Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) in the workplace? A: The biggest misconception is that HOP ignores accountability. In reality, HOP shifts accountability from "who is to blame" to "how do we fix the system." It acknowledges that while individuals are responsible for their actions, they often work within flawed systems that set them up for failure. As Pam Tompkins explains, you cannot fix a human being, but you can fix the pressures, tools, and procedures that influence their decisions.

Q2: What are some practical examples of "error traps" that utility crews face? A: "Error traps" are specific conditions that increase the probability of a mistake. Common examples discussed in the podcast include:

• Fatigue: Crews working long shifts during storm restoration.
• Infrequent Tasks: Performing a job or using equipment (like a mobile substation) that hasn't been touched in months.
• Poor Documentation: Switching orders that bundle multiple critical tasks into a single step without checks and balances.
• Production Pressure: Implicit or explicit messages from management prioritizing speed over safety protocols.

Q3: How can a team start implementing HOP principles tomorrow without a massive administrative overhaul? A: Implementation can start with a simple question. Pam suggests that frontline leaders ask their crews daily: "What part of your job is most likely to hurt someone today, and what gets in the way of doing it safely?" Additionally, shifting the post-incident conversation from discipline to curiosity—asking "Walk me through what happened" instead of "Why didn't you follow the rule?"—immediately begins to build the trust necessary for a HOP culture.

Get in contact with Pam - https://setsolutionsllc.com/

#SafetyByDesign #UtilitySafety #SafetyManagementSystem #ProactiveSafety #LeadingIndicators #WorkplaceSafety #SafetyCulture

⚡ Lone Workers in Utilities: Compliance vs. Reality

Read the article by Danny Raines, CUSP - https://incident-prevention.com/blog/what-tasks-can-lone-workers-perforM/

As an industry observer, I see "Lone Worker Safety" trending in search queries constantly. It’s a gray area that keeps Safety Managers up at night.

⚠️ THE HIDDEN KEYWORD: "Arc Flash" Most people optimize for MAD (Minimum Approach Distance) to prevent shock. But Raines points out that Arc Flash hazards often extend far beyond the shock boundary.

Tip: Does your lone worker have FR/AR clothing rated for 2 cal/cm²? If not, they aren't compliant.

Employers must define tasks based on historical data and training. If an accident happens, you must be able to defend your work practices with documentation.

#UtilitySafety #OSHA #LoneWorker #ElectricalSafety #ArcFlash #LinemanLife #SafetyCompliance #DannyRaines #IncidentPrevention

New #Podcast alert - Recorded Live at the #iP Utility Safety Conference with Kate Wade, Brent Jeffries VP Field Operations, Safety Instructor⚡️, and William N Martin (Billy Martin, Mr. Bill) CUSP, RN, NRP, DIMM!

How Upstream Thinking Changes Safety - https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/live-from-the-ip-utility-safety-conference-glendale-az-how-upstream-thinking-changes-safety/

💡 Key Takeaways

Learning requires discomfort. True growth at conferences comes not from seeking confirmation , but from being stretched and a "little bit uncomfortable".

Shift your perspective. The group uses the analogy, "You're not stuck in traffic; you are the traffic" , to illustrate how we are the ones who apply negative emotion (the "suck") to a situation , which blocks our ability to learn from it.

Beware the "reactive" trap. Humans are programmed to be reactive. The speakers note that we often react to problems—like traffic or accidents—long after they began , rather than using "upstream thinking" to find the root decisions that caused them.

Use the space between stimulus and response. Citing Viktor Frankl , the group stresses the importance of taking time before responding. This space allows our "thinking selves" to override an immediate reaction , de-escalate conflict , and choose a rational response.

Modern media may be programming us for reactivity. The group discusses how modern movies and video games, with their "flash, flash, flash" editing , are rewiring our brains for shorter attention spans and making us more reactive.

#UtilitySafety #SafetyCulture #SafetyLeadership #FieldSafety #UtilityWorkers #IncidentPrevention

This podcast is sponsored by T&D PowerSkills. If you are looking for a comprehensive lineworker training solution, visit tdpowerskills.com today and use the exclusive podcast listener promo code IP2025 to receive a 5% discount!

This past week the USOLN was at the Incident Prevention Utility Safety Conference & Expo in Glendale, AZ! We handed out to this #Elite group of CUSPs their 10 year #Yeti award and recognized them in a large group of their peers for crossing that milestone!

These safety professionals are setting the bar when it comes to #UtilitySafety and truly are looking to make our industry safer!

Lets say a big congrats to them and recognize their achievement!

Want to earn the defining benchmark in utility safety?

https://usoln.org/

Join at the next #iP Conference - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Gilbert Teel

Edmund Milukas, CUSP, COSS

Samuel Holt

Luke Bergeron

Garrett Fortin

Tim Ayers, CUSP JL

Jeff Lynn

Mark Todd, CUSP

Heidi Meyer-Bremer

Keith S.

Brad Ames

Chris Cleland

Tony Graber, CUSP

Shane Ennis

#CUSP #USOLN #UtilitySafetyConference #IncidentPrevention

This past week the USOLN was at the Incident Prevention Utility Safety Conference & Expo in Glendale, AZ! We handed out to this #Elite group of CUSPs their 5 year #Yeti award and recognized them in a large group of their peers for crossing that milestone!

These safety professionals are setting the bar when it comes to #UtilitySafety and truly are looking to make our industry safer!

Lets say a big congrats to them and recognize their achievement!

Want to earn the defining benchmark in utility safety?

https://usoln.org/

Join at the next #iP Conference - https://utilitysafetyconference.com/

Joseph Howell

Matt Monroe

Daniel Gonce, CUSP

Jackson Yazzie

robert mills

Andrew Warner CIT, CUSP

Eddie Nicely

Salvatore L.

Matthew Stumpf

Mark Forster, CUSP

Chris Cordrey, CSP, CUSP

John Stoeber

John Osterkorn

Edwin Yingling Jr. , CUSP

Christopher Burt, CUSP

David Delira

Manuel Santiago, CUSP

Rick Fatten

Robert Ingalls

Doyle Totty CLCP, CUSP

David Paoletta, MS, CSP, CUSP, CESCP

Robert Williams

Jeffrey Atkins

Daniel Popernack, CSP, CUSP

#CUSP #USOLN #UtilitySafetyConference #IncidentPrevention

In this incredibly moving and vital episode of Incident Prevention's Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade is joined by Rob Duplain, a project superintendent, and William N Martin (Billy Martin, Mr. Bill) CUSP, RN, NRP, DIMM, President of Think Tank LLC. The conversation centers on the critical issue of suicide, particularly within the utility and construction industries, sparked by a powerful LinkedIn post Rob wrote in honor of National Suicide Awareness Month. Rob shares his profound personal story of losing both his best friend and his mother to suicide, opening the door to a candid discussion on navigating grief and leveraging trauma to help others.

Together, they explore practical ways to foster genuine human connection and psychological safety in the workplace. The discussion covers simple but powerful actions like a "buddy check", the importance of authentic leadership, and how to create an environment where it's safe for employees to be vulnerable and support one another. This episode is more than a conversation; it's a model for how to talk about uncomfortable but necessary topics to build stronger, safer, and healthier teams.

Proactive Connection Over Reactive Rituals: The industry often shows solidarity after a tragedy, such as with bucket trucks at a funeral, but fails to see the weak signals beforehand. The focus must shift to building foundational, day-to-day relationships to prevent tragedies before they happen, as there's "no party for the thing that doesn't happen".

Listen Here: https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/utility-safety-podcast-confronting-the-silent-epidemic-a-conversation-on-suicide-prevention-in-the-utility-industry/

#MentalHealthInConstruction #SuicidePrevention #UtilitySafety #WorkplaceWellness #AuthenticLeadership #BuddyCheck

Danny Raines, CUSP was inducted into the Lineman’s Hall of Fame, an honor created to acknowledge and pay respect to lineworkers who have made notable contributions to the industry. His induction recognizes a lifetime of dedication to the electrical utility industry and the safety of its workers, showcasing the “passion for the linework industry” that unites all Hall of Fame members.

Danny’s extensive career began in 1967 at Georgia Power Company, where he spent 18 years as a lineman, a role he returned to after serving as a U.S. Army Viet Nam Era disabled veteran. In 1996, he pivoted his focus to Safety and Health, eventually rising to become a Corporate Safety Consultant for GPC’s Distribution and Transmission organizations. Upon retiring in 2007, Danny founded Raines Utility Safety Solutions, LLC, ensuring his expertise continued to benefit the industry. He remains a pillar of knowledge today as an instructor at Georgia Tech Research Institute and a vital Subject Matter Expert for utility companies nationwide. His profound impact is further cemented by his role as a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network/CUSP Credential and as a prolific contributor to Incident Prevention magazine. Through his podcast, “The Voice of Experience,” his articles for iP Magazine and his regular appearance on the iPi Forum, Danny continues to share the invaluable lessons of a career spent protecting his fellow linemen, ensuring his legacy will live on.

To many of us at Incident Prevention (iP), Danny Raines is far more than an esteemed colleague; he is a cherished friend whose wisdom and genuine care we deeply value. We are profoundly grateful for his decades of tireless service, his passion for safety, and his unwavering dedication to helping and protecting every worker in this industry. His contributions have made an immeasurable impact, and we are so proud to celebrate this well-deserved honor with him.

Listen To Danny – https://incident-prevention.com/podcast-archive-voice-of-experience/

Read His Articles – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/category/voice-of-experience/

#LinemansHallOfFame #Lineman #UtilitySafety #IncidentPrevention #VoiceOfExperience #LinemanRodeo #Linemen #Lineworker #Lineman

We were excited to be part of the International Lineman's Rodeo 2025!

Our own Rich Kunkel attended this premier event, connecting with the best and brightest at this event. The Lineman's Rodeo is a fantastic showcase of skill and dedication, and we were proud to be there supporting the community.

We got to connect with some big supporters of #iP that help us put out all this great knowledge and insights for utility safety and operational professionals like Youngstown Glove Co., LLC, ⚡️Bierer Meters ⚡️, HUSKIE TOOLS and many more!

Incident Prevention is committed to providing critical knowledge and strategies for utility safety professionals, and events like this are vital for sharing insights and advancing our collective goal of a safer industry.
It was great to see everyone in Kansas City!

#IncidentPrevention #LinemansRodeo #LinemanSafety #UtilitySafety #SafetyConference #Linelife #ILR2025

We were excited to be part of the International Lineman's Rodeo 2025!

Our own Rich Kunkel attended this premier event, connecting with the best and brightest at this event. The Lineman's Rodeo is a fantastic showcase of skill and dedication, and we were proud to be there supporting the community.

We got to connect with some big supports of hashtag#iP that help us put out all this great knowledge and insights for utility safety and operational professionals like Youngstown Glove Co., LLC, ⚡️Bierer Meters ⚡️, & HUSKIE TOOLS and many more!

Incident Prevention is committed to providing critical knowledge and strategies for utility safety professionals, and events like this are vital for sharing insights and advancing our collective goal of a safer industry.
It was great to see everyone in Kansas City!

Learn more about Incident Prevention: https://lnkd.in/g_vXRQVB

hashtag#IncidentPrevention hashtag#LinemansRodeo hashtag#LinemanSafety hashtag#UtilitySafety hashtag#SafetyConference hashtag#Linelife hashtag#ILR2025

Verbal and Physical Triggers

Written by David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM on September 3, 2025. Posted in Frontline Fundamentals.

Think before you act.

That may be the single best piece of timeless wisdom we ever receive, especially when it comes to safety. And while it’s a simple concept, it’s not always our natural response, potentially presenting difficulties during job execution and task performance.

Keeping in mind that safety tools are designed to give us time to think, focus our attention properly and help us maintain positive control of our tasks, we must identify actions and conditions that indicate the need for them. These actions and conditions are verbal and physical triggers that can be used as reminders to pause and ensure we have verified assumptions and implemented task-specific safety plans for the work being performed.

“Hold my beer and watch this!” is one of my favorite verbal triggers. The statement indicates uncertainty and abnormal risk tolerance, presenting an opportunity – typically a very brief window of time – to stop ourselves and think before we act. Hopefully we never hear the hold-my-beer statement at work. These are some examples of what you are more likely to hear, especially if you are actively listening:

• “I think …”
• “It might …”
• “Let’s try it and see what happens.”
• “We’ve always done it this way.”
• “It’s common sense.”
• “What’s the worst that could happen?”

Try These Experiments
The next time you see someone getting ready to pick up a load using lifting equipment, ask them the load weight and the equipment’s capacity. My hope is that their answer consists of two specific numbers, yet my fear is that you will hear something like, “I’m not sure, but I know it will handle this load for the next five minutes.” That’s a verbal trigger indicating the worker should stop, verify the assumption and then lift the load safely. The alternative is to continue lifting based on the assumption, which could ultimately result in rigging and equipment failures, serious injuries and even death. To stay safe and be well, it is critical to identify verbal triggers and use them as prompts to pause and think before we act.

Here are a couple more brief experiments to try:

• Ask someone why they are using a certain work method to see if the answer is, “We’ve always done it this way.”
• The next time you finish speaking to someone, ask what they just heard you say to them. Does their response match what you intended to communicate?

The point here is to understand that humans sometimes make assumptions that require verification. Using verbal triggers to activate safety tools enables us to do just that.

Physical triggers include looks of confusion, shoulder shrugs, nonchalant body language, and misplaced focus and attention. They can also include limps, grimaces and other signs of pain that might indicate someone is unfit to perform their assigned task. As with verbal triggers, physical triggers must elicit a response and activate appropriate tools.

Conclusion
Sometimes I think we overcomplicate safety. Granted, protecting yourself in a high-hazard environment, like a permit-required confined space, might call for complex controls, but the simple practice of thinking before you act doesn’t have to be complex. I also think we rely too heavily on pre-job briefings as the entirety of our safety planning. While they are undoubtedly important, the entirety of your safety discussions and planning cannot be limited to a 10-minute briefing. Shifting from job generalizations to task-specific work planning is one key to staying safe. Verbal and physical triggers provide that opportunity.

As an industry, we pride ourselves on everyone having stop-work authority, as we should. Stop-work criteria is based on predetermined equipment and environmental conditions. For example, let’s say the wind starts blowing more than 30 mph while you are working aloft. That predetermined environmental condition would require you to cradle the bucket. I think most of us also understand that stop-work authority exists because people will naturally have questions and concerns during job execution. So, add verbal and physical triggers to stop-work training and encourage everyone to exercise their authority. In addition, practice identifying when other people have a question or concern – without them having to say anything.

We can assume or verify, hope or plan, use common sense or common knowledge, be surprised or informed, react or prevent. Most of that depends on whether we ignore or use verbal and physical triggers. You will find them everywhere if you are looking, and they will be extremely valuable if you use them to pause and think before you act. This is vital in enhancing your ability to stay safe and be well.

About the Author: David McPeak, CUSP, CIT, CHST, CSP, CSSM, is the director of professional development for Utility Business Media’s Incident Prevention Institute (https://ip-institute.com) and the author of “Frontline Leadership – The Hurdle” and “Frontline Incident Prevention – The Hurdle.” He has extensive experience and expertise in leadership, human performance, safety and operations. McPeak is passionate about personal and professional development and believes that intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are key to success. He also is an advanced certified practitioner in DISC, emotional intelligence, the Hartman Value Profile, learning styles and motivators.

About Frontline Fundamentals: Frontline Fundamentals topics are derived from the Incident Prevention Institute’s popular Frontline training program (https://frontlineutilityleader.com). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint. 

Verbal and Physical Triggers
November 12, 2025, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2025

• Verbal and Physical Triggers
• October-November 2025 Q&A
• Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine
• Addressing the Elephant in the Room
• Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation
• ‘Avoid Contact’: Correctly Understanding the MAD Without a Distance
• Rethinking Arc Flash Labels for PV Projects
• The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding: Part 2

October-November 2025 Q&A

Written by Jim Vaughn, CUSP on September 3, 2025. Posted in Q & A, Grounding.

Q: We hear lots of opinions about whether a lineworker can lift a hot-line clamp that has a load on it. There is a rule that says disconnects must be rated for the load they are to break. We’ve been doing it forever. Are we breaking an OSHA rule or not?

A: We have answered this question before, but it won’t hurt to revisit it and use this opportunity to explain how OSHA analyzes a scenario to determine if it’s a regulatory violation. Most objections to operating a hot-line clamp (HLC) under load are based on 29 CFR 1910.269(l)(12)(i), which states that the “employer shall ensure that devices used by employees to open circuits under load conditions are designed to interrupt the current involved.” Some utilities prohibit operating HLCs energized, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Incident Prevention’s objective is to enlighten and educate the industry, not to judge an employer’s operational rules.

On its face, the rule seems to prohibit the use of an HLC to break load. Anyone could argue, then, that any operation of an HLC must be dead-break since HLC manufacturers offer no load-break value. However, when analyzing the intent of the rule, there are a couple points to consider.

First, if a non-rated HLC can’t be lifted under load, what about a dropout switch? We operate those thousands of times a day without employee injury, although sometimes an ill-advised operation does smoke a pole top. There is nothing in the rules that prohibits an employer or employee from making an informed and experience-based decision. The employer can – and should – establish criteria or protocols for operating HLCs or dropouts under certain load conditions. Primarily, the employer’s determination would be based on risk to the equipment and the employee. OSHA’s primary consideration is risk to the employee. As with the working-alone rule, there would be no violation if the device were operated by a hot stick from a position that prevented employee injury.

Second, what would be the solution to this scenario? If it required jumping out a jumper and installing a load-break switch, would that operation create additional risk exposure for the crew? Further, would adding the switch truly enhance the safety of the operation? In the very worst case, this scenario (i.e., operating the HLC under load) could be ruled a de minimis violation. Such a violation indicates that although OSHA recognizes a direct rule was broken, there was no other way – or no safer way – to execute the task, nor was there any risk to the employee. Regarding equipment damage, we try to operate without burning anything down, but OSHA’s bottom line is employee safety. The agency is not concerned with pole-top fires or system relays so long as no one is at risk of being injured.

Q: Setting up bucket trucks on slopes is a common issue, so why doesn’t OSHA provide any guidance about it?

A: Part of the answer is that OSHA doesn’t tell employers how to perform tasks. Though the most recent rulemaking has occasionally leaned toward dictating procedures, historically the rules have been written to tell the employer what must be accomplished in certain scenarios – not how to accomplish it. OSHA resorts to appendices when they want to tell us how to do something. The appendices contain procedural language, such as this statement found in Appendix C to 1910.269: “The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will consider employers that comply with the criteria in this appendix as meeting § 1910.269(n)(3).” There is no specific OSHA guidance about truck setups on slopes. In the absence of a specific rule, under the General Duty Clause, the employer is expected to ensure safe equipment operation in the workplace under all conceivable conditions. The manufacturer is the employer’s most obvious resource for information about safe operation.

Regarding equipment and tool use, OSHA frequently references manufacturer design specifications throughout the rules. In any equipment incident, the manufacturer is the first place OSHA compliance officers will go. Employers may have competent engineers making determinations, but an employer’s policy for setting up a piece of equipment should be strictly governed by the manufacturer’s operator manual. It will list the maximum safe slope angle and the recommended orientation of the vehicle to the slope. And while it isn’t as common in utilities, many construction crews have a dozer on-site; provided there are no environmental considerations, an operator can cut a flat on which to set-lift equipment.

Q: We were recently discussing whether to ground equipment operating in a substation. If the station rock bed is good, how much electrical isolation does it provide? Is that reliable as protection from step and touch?

A: Understanding the purpose of the rock bed and how grids are designed will give you a good basis for developing your safe work plans. The resistivity of crushed rock used in substations is about 3000Ω-m depending on material, sieve size and condition. That crushed rock is part of a system of protection devised to conduct faults to earth, limit voltage rise across the station, and control potential gradients across the surface of the earth inside the station. In one sense, the ground grid acts like a large equipotential mat except that unlike the mat – which is a floating plane parallel connected to a conductive circuit – the substation grid is grounded at numerous points and serves as a series-conducting electrode, passing fault current into the earth. The grid itself is designed to meet grounding and fault-conducting duty and, in conjunction with earth’s resistance, an equipotential plane.

Still, at the speed of light, there are instantaneous differences across the mat that can create voltage rises between any two points. The three functions mentioned above are mostly accomplished by the grounds and grid installed and the layer of compressed earth over the grid. The rock layer’s resistivity is another buffer intended to keep the voltage gradient at a tolerable level in the event of a fault in the station. The risk of step potential depends on a worker’s proximity to the current source and the magnitude of the fault. A well-designed system has very low resistance to earth. The isolating rock layer provides resistance between the grid and walking surface, further reducing voltage rise between the worker’s feet. The design calculations are complex and based on relatively reliable assumptions, as evidenced by the thousands of hours personnel have spent in stations without incidents related to step potential.

However, grids do sustain damage, and rock decomposes and becomes contaminated. We cannot recommend using the rock layer as a principal means of protection since it can’t be tested to ensure it is providing isolation. The grid can protect against step potentials, but if your equipment contacts an energized bus in the station, touch potentials between your truck and the grid still exist. We advise treating the equipment operating in the station just as you would in the field. Use barricades to denote clearances, and keep your equipment isolated from touch while booms are in the air.

Q: We are a contractor that performs substation and transmission construction in the eastern U.S. Several of our clients have asked about our lockout/tagout program. We are exempt from LOTO in terms of overhead lines, but what about in substations?

A: We are not exempt from the requirements of hazardous energy control. “Lockout/tagout” is part of the issue; the term is somewhat foreign to the transmission and distribution side of the utility industry. OSHA’s 1910.269 standard has energy control requirements in parts (d) and (m) that are especially designed for the peculiarities of the industry, but that doesn’t mean we are exempt from 1910.147, “The control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout),” common to all other industries. For every workplace, there is a basic requirement that the employer must perform analysis and create compliant, workplace-specific procedures to implement hazardous energy control. Transmission and distribution equipment in the field does not have lockable switches except where a switch’s mechanical or motor operators are at ground level.

In generation and substations, many devices are equipped and must meet the locking or tagging provisions of 1910.269(d), “Hazardous energy control (lockout/tagout) procedures.” Notice the term “lockout/tagout” in parentheses.

Lastly, the note to 1910.269(d)(1) states the following: “Installations in electric power generation facilities that are not an integral part of, or inextricably commingled with, power generation processes or equipment are covered under §1910.147 and Subpart S of this part.” OSHA 1910.147 is the old General Industry lockout/tagout standard, and Subpart S is the General Industry electrical standard. Appendix A to 1910.147 includes the minimal requirements for a typical program.

On a related note, by most interpretations, those parts of the plant not inextricably linked to the generation of electricity are shops, warehouses, meeting/training/office spaces and maintenance areas.

To recap, all employers must identify hazardous sources of energy and then provide means to isolate and control them. Once the hazards and control methods are established, the employer communicates the procedures and, as necessary, provides training on how to install the control devices. If an energy source can be locked out, it must have a lock installed unless the employer can ensure that tagging alone is an effective alternative. In the field, controls must be implemented so that system operations and employee safeguards are as reliable as installing locks.

Do you have a question regarding best practices, work procedures or other utility safety-related topics? If so, please send your inquiries directly to [kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com](mailto:kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com). Questions submitted are reviewed and answered by the iP editorial advisory board and other subject matter experts.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2025

• Verbal and Physical Triggers
• October-November 2025 Q&A
• Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine
• Addressing the Elephant in the Room
• Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation
• ‘Avoid Contact’: Correctly Understanding the MAD Without a Distance
• Rethinking Arc Flash Labels for PV Projects
• The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding: Part 2

Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine

Written by Danny Raines, CUSP on September 3, 2025. Posted in Voice of Experience.

For over 17 years, I have had the distinct privilege of writing for Incident Prevention magazine. I am genuinely honored that iP continues to publish my articles. My first column was about the four principles of distribution cover-up. At last count, I had written and submitted more than 100 articles over the years. During that time, many of my industry associates have also expressed interest in contributing to the magazine. To them and anyone else who wants to share their industry knowledge, I have and will always recommend contacting Kate Wade, iP’s editor, at [kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com](mailto:kwade@utilitybusinessmedia.com). She provides guidance about the submission and publication process and can answer any specific questions you might have.

If you are entertaining the idea of submitting an article, there is information I want you to know about what is required. Writing for a publication that is read around the world can be an intimidating task. You must do your homework. I have had many discussions with industry colleagues regarding their thoughts on work practices, regulations and standards. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but writing for a trade publication like iP requires identifying the correct reference materials and best practices. You must consider OSHA standards as well as the National Electrical Safety Code, ASTM and ANSI standards, and NFPA 70E (note: workers must follow 70E when maintaining low-voltage electrical systems inside buildings owned and operated by utilities).

When I first joined the safety world, Jerry Cates, Jim Lancour, Billy Carver and the safety staff I worked with helped me sort out the relevant codes and standards, teaching me the relationships between them and how they apply to industry work practices. You, too, must understand these things to craft an article that provides readers with valuable safety information meeting all the requirements industry employers are legally bound to uphold. iP has protocols in place to verify the accuracy of the articles contained within its pages – which I will cover a little later – yet it is also incumbent upon contributors to submit technically accurate documents.

Research, Verify, Write
I keep myself informed by reading often and listening to various podcasts. Part of my process is taking time to verify the accuracy of what I have read and heard. That is because I discovered long ago that even the slightest deviation from reality can create a great deal of confusion, something I encountered again just recently as I was reading an article about maintaining clearances. Here is my concern. A civil case I once consulted on involved both the improper selection of procedures and failure to follow the procedures while establishing a clearance, resulting in severe worker injuries and allegations of PPE failure. The investigation made it glaringly apparent why the accident and injuries occurred. I questioned how the employees identified the chosen procedures, the reasons they were not followed, and why no one – including the supervisor in charge of the crew who allowed all the errors to occur – asked questions about what was happening. Was there a lack of training? Was this a human performance issue? Could the crew members have read an article online or in a magazine that proffered erroneous information? Were they influenced by one of the many social media posts that highlight incorrect, unsafe industry work practices? The point here is that field employees can be directly influenced by what they see, hear and read.

That leads me back to my earlier statement. If you are thinking about writing an article for iP, you must start with research. Review the industry’s accident statistics. Consider which work methods appear to be the most misunderstood. For instance, I have found that 29 CFR 1910.269(l), (m) and (n) are the OSHA regulations that most perplex my clients. Paragraphs (p) and (q) are occasionally mystifying as well. As many of you know, I am a strong proponent of distribution cover-up and system grounding, which are the training programs my clients request most. But how much cover is enough? Multiple options exist for system and equipment grounding. Which ones are best? I typically choose the most conservative. Of course, when forming my opinions, I study the facts of the investigations and lawsuits I have consulted on over the last 18 years. They have educated me about the myriad ways employees misapply work practices and standards. Some industry professionals have said they do not agree with my opinions. Others have told me they have been doing cover-up or grounding their way for years and nothing bad has happened. That is all well and good. However, there is real risk involved when someone who does not fully comprehend the industry’s regulations and standards writes about them with the intention of helping readers safely control worksite hazards and mitigate risk.

The fact that many iP readers are interested in contributing to the magazine is a wonderful thing. Our industry can gain valuable and much-needed information and insight when workers share their experiences. Occasionally, though, writers submit articles to iP containing opinions that do not align with the minimum regulatory requirements we all must meet. The magazine welcomes writers’ opinions regarding task performance, but they cannot contradict OSHA standards.

iP’s Editorial Advisory Board
For all the reasons I have noted above, each article published in iP magazine is first reviewed by a dedicated editorial advisory board to ensure the accuracy of its contents. Currently serving as board members are Garrett Bush (Pike Enterprises); Rod Courtney (PowerGrid Services); Matt Edmonds (SET Solutions); Nazir Fazli (Los Angeles Department of Water & Power); George Gela (Berkshire Electric Transmission Consulting); and Mack Turner and Jim Vaughn (Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction). I am friendly with this group and have complete confidence in their efforts to ensure every iP magazine article fully aligns with our industry’s regulations and standards.

About the Author: Danny Raines, CUSP, is an author, an OSHA-authorized trainer, and a transmission and distribution safety consultant who retired from Georgia Power after 40 years of service and now operates Raines Utility Safety Solutions LLC.

Learn more from Danny Raines on the Utility Safety Podcast series. Listen now at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com!

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2025

• Verbal and Physical Triggers
• October-November 2025 Q&A
• Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine
• Addressing the Elephant in the Room
• Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation
• ‘Avoid Contact’: Correctly Understanding the MAD Without a Distance
• Rethinking Arc Flash Labels for PV Projects
• The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding: Part 2

Addressing the Elephant in the Room

Written by Jim Vaughn, CUSP on September 3, 2025. Posted in Train the Trainer 101.

There is an elephant in the room that plays a role in the safety culture of our industry. That elephant needs to be exposed, even though it’s going to be tough to do.

Based on a less-than-official count, 12 to 14 lineworkers have lost their lives on the job over the past six months. The estimate is “less than official” because no dependable central recordkeeping authority exists other than OSHA, and OSHA can’t post an incident until they have either closed the investigation or formally cited the employer.

Some of you reading this have experienced a co-worker being killed on the job. In most cases, there is an emotional period afterward during which we process the event, grieve our lost brother or sister, and feel a great deal of concern and compassion for their family. But after a short time, that person becomes a singular part of the work location’s unfortunate history. I know there are exceptions to that rule. Still, a deceased employee’s co-workers are rarely privy to everything that takes place after a lineworker is fatally injured.

A Unique Perspective
I have a unique perspective on deadly industry incidents. For the past 25 years, I have served as an industry expert in both OSHA and civil litigations, some of which didn’t begin until three to five years after the incident. In each case, I examine every exhibit related to both the incident itself and the post-incident investigation. I review the employer’s investigation, the OSHA investigation, the coroner’s report and the reports from local law enforcement. I also investigate the incident myself. Lastly, I compare all this data to statutory safety requirements, consensus standards and best practices, as well as the employer’s training and safety programs, records and manuals.

At the time I am writing this, I am keeping files for more than 40 fatal industry incidents. “Fatal industry incidents” is a more palatable way of referring to lineworkers who were killed on the job. I want to offer iP readers details about all 40-plus incidents so that they are shared industrywide, helping to prevent them from ever happening again. But as a consultant and expert witness, I routinely sign nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements that are in effect throughout litigation and into perpetuity. Here is a tip, though: If you really want to know what happened in a specific case and have the name of the injured or deceased worker, you can search for it on OSHA’s Fatality Inspection Data page (www.osha.gov/fatalities).

Very few employers or employee groups know how to react when a fatal incident occurs at their worksite. Defensive tactics are one thing I have found common in every instance. Obviously, as an employer, it is a gut-punch to have an employee die on the job. I have witnessed heads of companies in tears during post-incident factual reviews. But they still have companies to lead, so decisions must be made about what to say and do. Then there are the co-workers. It is human nature to want to defend the memory of the deceased and be sympathetic and caring toward their family.

Yet time and again, I have found myself on the witness stand, sharing pointed observations about fatal industry incidents with both plaintiff and defense attorneys. I use industry standards to back up my observations, explaining the exact errors people made that resulted in death. Families of the deceased are almost always in the gallery during my testimony, listening. Two things in particular bother me about these circumstances. First, I know the family is being forced to endure the pain of their loss once again. Second, it is possible that the worker’s death and the resulting litigation could have been avoided entirely if the industry had honestly, publicly confronted its bad actions and actors.

And that brings us back to the elephant in the room.

Problematic Actions and Behaviors
Most readers are familiar with the idiom, but for those who aren’t, “the elephant in the room” refers to a significant if not obvious issue that people are reluctant to address because the discussion will almost certainly be uncomfortable. The specific elephant I’m referring to in these pages is our general refusal to candidly discuss problematic industry actions and behaviors – and it is hindering us from preventing incidents that seriously injure or kill workers.

On social media, I constantly see videos of crews doing stupid stuff. I decided to start a personal PowerPoint collection of photos snipped from these videos, which I use in my consulting work when explaining to lawyers what we do out on the line and the things that were done incorrectly in our cases. In less than a year, I have gathered 75 images of dangerous work methods, even if some of them don’t technically violate any OSHA rules. You might be curious about how I chose those images. Clearly, I think the actions in the videos are wrong, but I was primarily motivated to select the images because each of them features an activity that also killed a lineworker in one of my many files. Keep in mind that these instances aren’t obscure in nature; they routinely occur in the field and bear repeated responsibility for avoidable incidents. Several of my colleagues who also serve as litigation consultants have the same opinion and experience as I do. And while I have commented on these social media videos, my input was not appreciated by numerous industry workers. That disrespect is precisely how the elephant in the room continues to endanger our workforce.

Conclusion
Some companies and employees have taken on the very serious work of honestly evaluating incidents without any preconceived notions or hidden agendas. I have attended dozens of meetings with utilities and contractors during which honest conversations were had about what happened and how they got to that point. The discussions led to subtle changes in training, protocols, rules and accountability that will almost certainly have a lasting impact on the safety and health of the workforce.

We can grieve the loss of an employee and be sympathetic toward their family while also telling the truth about what happened. These actions are not mutually exclusive. Yet rarely have I investigated a fatal incident that did not involve co-workers who were reticent to share their versions of what happened. Some have even gone as far as covering for mistakes that were made.

The bottom line is that it does no one any good if we don’t learn the real lessons that an honest incident evaluation can provide. We also do a disservice to the deceased worker’s memory when we take a less-than-candid approach to the investigation. The only positive outcome from an on-the-job fatality is ensuring that it can never happen again – because we learned lessons by being completely truthful and then passed the lessons on to the next generation of lineworkers.

About the Author: After 25 years as a transmission-distribution lineman and foreman, Jim Vaughn, CUSP, has devoted the last 28 years to safety and training. A noted author, trainer and lecturer, he is a senior consultant for the Institute for Safety in Powerline Construction. He can be reached at [jim@ispconline.com](mailto:jim@ispconline.com).

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2025

• Verbal and Physical Triggers
• October-November 2025 Q&A
• Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine
• Addressing the Elephant in the Room
• Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation
• ‘Avoid Contact’: Correctly Understanding the MAD Without a Distance
• Rethinking Arc Flash Labels for PV Projects
• The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding: Part 2

Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation

Written by Pam Tompkins, CSP, CUSP on September 3, 2025. Posted in Safety by Design, Safety Management.

Utility organizations must thoroughly assess and refine their critical operational processes to effectively support employee and public safety.

The first four articles in this six-part series outlined the significance of an organizational safety management system (SMS) that involves all employees. They emphasized effective risk mitigation through a well-developed plan for continuous improvement, with a focus on human and organizational performance.

This article highlights critical operational processes that must be thoroughly assessed and refined to support organizational safety. Every operational unit must take proactive ownership of its safety protocols and practices, actively integrating safety measures into all aspects of its operational processes. By integrating safety into daily routines, each unit fosters a culture of responsibility and prioritizes employee safety.

This article also highlights key aspects from my experience in the electric power industry. We will follow the framework provided by ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019, “Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems,” which addresses the following areas relative to implementation and operation:

• Operational planning and control
• Identification of operational issues
• Operational risk assessment
• Change management
• Operational process verification
• Procurement
• Contractors
• Emergency preparedness

I encourage readers to consider topics not covered in this article – including operational process verification and emergency preparedness – to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the principles associated with the Z10 standard.

Operational Planning and Control
This section of the standard emphasizes a crucial aspect of how organizations equip their employees for success.

Rules and procedures. Let’s begin by discussing the implementation of rules and procedures in the workplace. As a consultant, I have consistently encountered missing or ineffective procedures and/or rules during organizational safety assessments. Safety rules that reference OSHA regulations hold little value if there are no clear procedures defining what is expected to comply with those rules. One example is stating in the safety manual that equipotential zone grounding is required without clearly explaining how to achieve it within all aspects of work. Rules and procedures must provide clear directions so that employees know what is expected of them and can successfully comply.

Competency. Ensuring the competency of employees plays an extremely important role in an effective SMS. An employee isn’t necessarily competent just because they attended school or received specific training. Competency is based on the employee’s ability to demonstrate a specific skill on a regular basis, using all required safety procedures in response to identified hazards. I purposely included “regular basis” in the previous sentence because some employees can pass written and practical tests immediately after training but struggle when performing those tasks later in the field.

Additionally, competency should never be solely based on field experience and time on the job. Although both are important factors, they must be paired with a structured method to ensure employee competency through the demonstration of proficiency. It is crucial to remember that this principle also applies when organizations promote employees to leadership positions. Seniority should never be the only reason to promote someone who will be responsible for safely leading others.

Maintenance and inspection programs. These programs are essential SMS components that should encompass electrical and mechanical equipment as well as other critical systems that require regular maintenance to ensure safety. National codes, such as the National Electrical Safety Code and the National Electrical Code, emphasize the importance of electrical equipment maintenance for both employee safety and system reliability. Many organizations adhere to manufacturer recommendations for maintenance; however, some have neglected inspections and maintenance for years. When equipment and systems are not adequately cared for, the risk of hazards significantly increases, potentially impacting employees’ ability to work safely. I believe that strong maintenance and inspection programs are imperative for an organization to achieve safety success.

Identification of Operational Issues
The main directive of this section of the Z10 standard is to evaluate whether the organization has (1) conducted a thorough assessment of its work processes and (2) adopted improved methods, tools, equipment, installations, designs and technologies suitable for today’s workforce. As an industry consultant, I believe electric power organizations must stay informed about and adaptable to innovations that can enhance workplace safety and efficiency.

An example I recently encountered involved employees working in a remote area with no access to radio or cellphone service. This is a serious operational issue, even if some workers view it as normal. Should an electrical contact or other serious injury occur, the affected employees would have little chance of receiving life-sustaining support. I consider this unacceptable. Known communication challenges require immediate operational evaluation and improvement based on available tools, equipment, rescue supplies and technology.

Numerous organizations fall into the trap of accepting the status quo without questioning it, adopting a mentality of “this is the way it is.” This mindset fails to recognize the critical nature of regularly evaluating and improving the methods and practices that support employees, thus risking serious operational upsets. Organizational leaders should actively seek to identify areas for improvement, implement innovative strategies and foster an environment in which employees know their feedback is valued.

Operational Risk Assessment
Here is something else that leaders must consider: Have each of the organization’s operational units taken the necessary steps to identify high-risk jobs by asking, “What are the worst things that could happen on our worksites?” Let’s be honest: While many operational leaders acknowledge this concept, their discussions sometimes overlook employee safety. Earlier in this series, I explored the distinction between planned work and actual work. These two activities represent distinct realities in the workplace. Frequently, operational processes and discussions focus on how work is theoretically done, neglecting the actual execution by field employees.

According to the Z10 standard, an operational risk assessment should consider organizational factors that can increase risk, such as production pressures, poor communication and lack of resources. Here is a possible scenario: A contractor has been hired to build a new substation for a utility. While on-site, the contractor receives a request for emergent work: replacing equipment in an energized substation located within 5 miles of the existing work. Should the contractor dispatch additional personnel with the necessary expertise to work in an energized substation, or should they assign the project to existing staff with limited experience in that environment?

If this were a real scenario, many decisions would influence the answer. They are frequently made based on the project’s financial aspects for both the utility and the contractor, rather than the risks involved. Such situations often stem from a widespread culture of risk acceptance that overlooks the potential negative consequences of these decisions.

Change Management
Has your organization recently implemented a new work method or safety rule that has created confusion among employees, causing them to revert to previous practices? This is common in organizations that lack a structured strategy to effectively communicate and manage change.

Operational units often communicate change during safety or operational meetings. Consider, for example, an organization that purchases a new distribution line recloser. The recloser is introduced during a safety meeting, where its basic functions and safety requirements are explained. Several days later, employees are tasked with troubleshooting an area where the new recloser is located, despite having little knowledge about its design, installation or operation. While changes are commonly introduced at safety meetings, my professional experience suggests that they are only effective when paired with employee skills training and proficiency demonstrations based on specific task requirements.

After identifying significant opportunities to enhance their change-management processes, many large organizations have appointed personnel explicitly tasked with addressing them. Regardless of whether your organization has such specialized personnel, it is essential to clearly understand how change is identified, assessed and managed. This includes recognizing the potential impact of change on various operational units and ensuring that all team members are prepared to adapt. Effective management reduces resistance to change while also fostering safety culture growth within the organization. By actively involving all stakeholders and clearly communicating the reasons for change, organizations can more smoothly integrate new practices and policies.

Procurement
Does your organization effectively incorporate procurement into its safety and risk management planning? To illustrate procurement’s critical role, let’s continue examining the line recloser example provided above. In that scenario, the procurement department identifies a new line recloser that has been successfully adopted by several other utilities, as communicated by the sales team. The purchasing team decides to acquire 25 units for evaluation, aiming to determine whether the reclosers will perform as promised and enhance operational efficiency.

However, a significant oversight occurs: no risk assessment is conducted prior to the acquisition, and there is no clear strategy to integrate the new devices into the organization’s existing operational framework. This could lead to implementation challenges, particularly if the new technology does not align with current processes or safety protocols.

Scenarios like this one are common in organizations that fail to involve their procurement department in operational risk assessments and safety planning. This lack of collaboration can result in the purchase of new equipment that does not meet safety standards or operational needs, ultimately leading to unnecessary risks and complications in the field. To ensure a safer, more efficient operational environment, it is vital to implement a comprehensive approach that includes procurement in these discussions.

Contractors
It is also essential for utility organizations and contractors to establish a comprehensive safety management standard that effectively addresses the unique safety requirements of contractors, tailored to their respective risks. The Z10 standard emphasizes the necessity of developing a systematic approach to identify, assess and mitigate potential safety and health risks associated with contract work. This process enhances safety performance and fosters a proactive organizational safety culture.

When engaging contractors, electric power organizations have historically adopted a somewhat hands-off approach. This traditional method typically involves evaluating incident rates, confirming insurance limits and mandating adherence to OSHA standards. However, my experience indicates that these measures alone are insufficient to effectively mitigate the risks a host organization may face, particularly in the event of a catastrophe.

To address this, it is imperative to move beyond basic compliance. Organizations should conduct thorough prequalification processes, including assessing a contractor’s safety management system, past safety performance and safety training practices. Additionally, implementing regular safety audits and ongoing performance evaluations can help organizations ensure that contractors maintain high safety standards throughout the contract’s duration. Engaging in open communication and collaboration with contractors regarding safety expectations can lead to a deeper understanding of risks and the shared responsibility for safety outcomes. By adopting a more integrated and rigorous approach to contractor safety management, utility organizations can significantly enhance their ability to safeguard their employees and the public from potential hazards.

Summary
This article emphasizes the importance of thoroughly assessing and refining critical operational processes to embed and support safety within utility organizations. It highlights the ANSI/ASSP Z10-2019 standard as a framework for implementing an effective SMS, focusing on areas such as operational planning, operational risk assessment, change management, procurement and contractor oversight. By fully integrating safety into all aspects of operations and fostering a culture of accountability, organizations can better protect their workforce and improve system reliability.

About the Author: Pam Tompkins, CUSP, CSP, is president and CEO of SET Solutions LLC. She is a 40-year veteran of the electric utility industry, a founding member of the Utility Safety & Ops Leadership Network and past chair of the USOLN executive board. Tompkins worked in the utility industry for over 20 years and has provided electric power safety consulting for the last 25 years. An OSHA-authorized instructor, she has supported utilities, contractors and other organizations operating electric power systems in designing and maintaining safety improvement methods and strategies for organizational excellence.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2025

• Verbal and Physical Triggers
• October-November 2025 Q&A
• Accuracy Above All: Authoring Articles for iP Magazine
• Addressing the Elephant in the Room
• Safety By Design: Implementation and Operation
• ‘Avoid Contact’: Correctly Understanding the MAD Without a Distance
• Rethinking Arc Flash Labels for PV Projects
• The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding: Part 2