Of course Arwen was exceptional but questions still need answered

The prolonged power cuts suffered by tens of thousands of households have raised again the question of whether the energy companies spend enough on “resilience” to prevent this scale of damage and hardship.

Nobody doubts that Storm Arwen was exceptional and a lot of slack must be cut for that reality. Equally, there is nothing but praise for workers at the sharp end, toiling around the clock in terrible conditions to restore power.

However, we cannot ignore the fact there are still people without electricity a week after the storm struck. Neither should we avoid hard numbers. According to the energy regulator, Ofgem, in 2019-20 investment was 19% below the regulatory target on replacement and refurbishment of equipment.

The cumulative effect is to risk more and longer power cuts than would otherwise occur when a big storm strikes. Ofgem has undertaken to review the resilience of the network in the light of the past week’s events. Whether they have much appetite for calling the companies to account is another question.

During my own time as Energy Minister, storms of equal severity swept across the south of England with similar effects. To the considerable irritation of Ofgem and the companies, I insisted on an independent report and the results proved interesting.

The biggest factor had been failure to manage trees close to power lines. Most cuts were not caused directly by the storm but by branches and falling trees bringing down lines. The power companies were supposed to pre-empt this with regular tree cutting.

Conditions vary around the country. In some places there are no trees to be a factor. But what about potential for undergrounding lines or the routine maintenance of poles or the many other factors most of us do not think about until the lights go out?

Another area in which Ofgem must seek answers involves customer communications. If people know what is happening, they can plan accordingly but if they are fobbed off with a recorded message giving generalised or inaccurate updates, their plight becomes worse.

This really does come down to whether or not the companies are prepared to spend money on employing human beings with a bit of local knowledge to communicate with customers. At the best of times, recorded messages and multiple choices of the button to press are pretty frustrating. In a crisis, they are complete unacceptable.

SSE and Scottish Hydro hold highly privileged positions in Scottish society. At the time of privatisation, their predecessors were popular so Tory ministers argued successfully to retain them as “vertically integrated” businesses – generators, distributors and retailers of electricity – unlike in England and Wales.

It means virtually nothing can happen in Scottish energy without going through these two companies in one shape or form. That is reflected in their massive profitability.

The least we should expect in return is the highest possible standards in services – including “resilience” – and Ofgem has a duty to question whether that has been delivered in the light of Storm Arwen.