People rightly expect that when they turn on a switch, the lights come on. Yet just as Britain becomes more dependent on electricity, resilience risks becoming a postcode lottery.
As we electrify our economy, more of the fundamentals we depend on for modern life - heating our homes, transporting people and goods, working from home - will depend on a stable electricity system. Grid resilience is not just a technical energy networks issue; it is about planning for disruptions so the network can withstand them and recover quickly, making it a vital pillar of the climate agenda.
Andy Burnham rightly wants growth to work for every place[1]. Energy resilience is one practical test of that ambition.
Closing the rural resilience divide
Britain’s electricity network was designed for a different era. Much of it was built in the 1950s and 1960s around large coal-fired power stations sending electricity in one direction to homes and businesses, rather than today’s more decentralised, two-way system. That ageing network is now being asked to manage rising demand while contending with more severe storms, flooding and extreme heat.
Some communities carry more of that risk than others. Rural and remote areas tend to experience more network failures, with long overhead lines particularly exposed to severe weather. Faults in these areas can also be harder to locate and repair, causing power outages to be not only more frequent but also longer.
Storm Arwen showed what that inequality means in practice. About one million customers lost power in total. Of those, around 40,000 were disconnected for more than three days, while nearly 4,000, predominantly in remote rural areas of Scotland and Northumberland, were without electricity for more than a week[2]. Network operators subsequently paid £44 million in compensation and wider redress[3], though even that does not capture the lost income or additional costs borne directly by affected households and businesses. A network can appear reliable nationally while some communities endure days without power.
These outages are especially serious for people reliant on medical equipment and communities dependent on electric heating, digital connectivity and public services. Rural areas also host much of the generation and transmission infrastructure supporting the energy transition and are being expected to help power it while enduring a less reliable supply. The transition should be built on a genuine partnership with rural Britain rather than a one-sided and extractive relationship.
From “fix-on-fail” to “predict-and-prevent”
The regulator, Ofgem, has recognised this challenge. In May, it set out its approach to ED3, the framework determining what local network operators should invest in and how they are rewarded from 2028[4]. This introduces enhanced climate-resilience metrics and stress testing, with stronger plans to support customers during storms.
This is progress, although the new metrics will initially operate through a learning period before being used for formal assessment or incentives. Ofgem has also deferred until 2027 its decision on when severe-weather outages should be excluded from its main financial incentive for reducing power cuts.
The test is whether those ambitions change operator behaviour – given that it is financial considerations that predominantly drive this. The capability now exists to cost-effectively spot deteriorating assets before they fail and pinpoint faults when they occur. Modelling for our recent From Risk to Resilience report suggests that continuous monitoring and real-time analytics on the network could reduce customer minutes lost during storms by up to 80%, accounting for the reality of ageing assets[5]. This could be transformative for the experience of rural communities when storms hit – as they are doing with increasing intensity.
The Government should therefore use the forthcoming Energy Resilience Strategy to encourage wider deployment of proven tools and make prevention the expectation[6]. Ofgem should reinforce this through ED3 by rewarding investment that avoids outages and improves performance during storms. No single technology provides the whole answer, and spending must always be justified by results. It should be judged on whether it reduces disruption and delivers lasting value for consumers - regardless of where they live.
Resilience cannot remain an afterthought, considered only after the next storm or outage. If we truly want to have good growth in every postcode, it needs to be underpinned by an energy system that works for all. This must become an active principle of system planning, shaping how Britain regulates and invests in its electricity network moving forward.
[1] https://www.andyburnham.org.uk/speech-29-june
[2] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/research/storm-arwen-report
[3] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/press-release/ofgem-publishes-full-report-following-six-month-review-networks-response-storm-arwen
[4] https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-05/ED3%20Sector%20specific%20methodology%20decision%20core%20document.pdf
[5] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/website/From-Risk-to-Resilience---Imperial-Consultants-v8-RS.pdf
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nesos-north-hyde-report-government-response/nesos-north-hyde-report-government-response-accessible-webpage