Open the trench, vault or manhole. Strip back the jacket. Expose the neutrals. Remove the semicon and insulation. Crimp the connector. Rebuild the conductor shield, insulation and semicon. Seal the outside.

This splicing routine eventually becomes second nature for medium-voltage cable splicers, which can make some workdays feel like a rote checklist to slog through. But each procedural step exists to help ensure precision electrical devices are competently dismantled and rebuilt. Reliable execution is more likely when splicers understand the logic at the root of each step. This article explores that logic in greater detail.

Examining the Layers
A modern medium-voltage cable, whether insulated with cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or ethylene propylene rubber (EPR), is built in layers from the inside out. The conductor is at the center. A semiconductive strand shield (conductor shield) sits around it, covered by a thick layer of insulation. Atop that insulation is a second semiconductive layer (insulation shield), followed by a metallic shield or concentric neutral, and finally a protective jacket.

During manufacturing, each cable layer is extruded and assembled in controlled factory conditions to create a smooth, predictable electric field from the conductor to ground. Cutting into the cable interrupts its field control system, designed by the manufacturer to last decades. Industry professionals use splice and termination kits to reconstruct these systems.

Reconstruction work begins with the conductor, which could be copper or aluminum, concentric or compact stranded. Splicers must confirm correct installation of connectors. Ideally, conductor and connector metals will be the same; copper-aluminum connections risk corrosion. Note that an under-crimped connector or a connector with the wrong die marks is a built-in hot spot. Adequate crimping squeezes the metal to create a low-resistance, mechanically strong joint that will not loosen, shift or change shape under thermal cycling or fault current. Inadequate crimping means extra heat during normal operation that stresses insulation from the inside out.

Smoothing the Electric Field
Surrounding the conductor is the inner semiconductive layer, also called the conductor shield. Its job is to smooth the electric field at the conductor’s surface. A stranded conductor is full of sharp edges and tiny gaps. If we directly apply insulation over those strands, the electric field will concentrate at each strand tip and across each tiny air pocket. Those spots can ionize under medium-voltage stress, prompting partial discharge that erodes insulation. The conductor shield fills the voids, bonds to the insulation, and presents a smooth, nearly cylindrical surface at the same potential as the conductor. When stripping this layer during a splice, use specialized tools and correct depth settings to ensure a clean finish with no ridges or gouges. These are not cosmetic efforts; a single nick in the insulation or jagged edge left on the conductor shield is a future stress point that could lead to breakdown.

The main insulation layer, either XLPE or EPR, blocks system voltage from ground. It is more than thick rubber or plastic, polarizing when voltage is applied. The electric field sets up radially from the conductor to the insulation shield. Stress is highest at the inner surface, near the conductor; it is lowest at the outer surface. Cable manufacturers spec materials and thicknesses to ensure maximum stress does not exceed insulation breakdown strength or the level at which partial discharges will begin. Stress is best handled by smooth, uniform insulation.

Employers and trainers take note: Because weak points typically result from scratches, inadvertent cuts, contaminants and moisture on insulation surfaces, splicers must be qualified to use specialized tools, strip cable in a controlled fashion, and competently clean tools, cable and equipment.

Weak points are the reason insulation levels exist. Clearly, the wall of a 15-kV cable with 133% insulation is thicker than one with 100% insulation. Thick insulation is intended for systems in which ground faults could take up to an hour to clear. Thinner, 100% insulation is not designed for those conditions (clears a fault in 60 seconds or less). Critically, as we choose cables and accessories, we also choose our dielectric margins should something go wrong.

Uniform Ground Potential
A cable’s outer semiconductive layer is functionally similar to the conductor shield, managing the electric field at the insulation’s outer surface. This layer bonds to the insulation, keeping its surface at a uniform ground potential. During normal operation, the electric field is almost entirely located between the conductor and this shield; little of it exists in the jacket or surrounding soil and air, which explains why a qualified person can safely touch a grounded shielded cable that contains thousands of volts.

Splicers must cut back this outer semicon layer to the exact length specified by the splice or termination kit’s instructions. The cutback distance, the straightness and smoothness of its edge, and the exposed insulation’s cleanliness are nonnegotiable details, determining how electrical stress will behave once the splice or termination is energized. A crooked or ragged semicon edge elevates local stress. Dirt and moisture encourage tracking. When we take time to perfectly dress the edge, we are shaping the future electric field.

Metallic Shield and Outer Jacket Functionality
Depending on the cable, the metallic shield located outside the insulation shield could consist of helically wrapped concentric copper neutrals, flat copper straps, copper tape with overlap, or a corrugated metal sheath. This shield performs critical functions: providing a low-impedance path for fault current; allowing protective devices to clear faults quickly; carrying the small charging current that flows through the insulation during normal operation; and confining the electric field, limiting stress exposure. In many distribution designs, the metallic shield also serves as the return path for unbalanced load current.

Any cuts to the cable also cut the metallic shield. If we do not restore continuity using properly sized and installed bonds, braids and spring clamps, we change how future faults will travel and where voltage will rise during abnormal conditions. Floating and poorly bonded shields are associated with dangerous potentials, delayed fault clearings and changes in electric field behavior near splices. Bonds are rebuilt by gathering every neutral wire and reattaching them according to the company’s approved reshielding process, restoring the safety system surrounding the insulation.

A cable’s outer jacket prevents water penetration, defends neutrals against corrosion, and safeguards shields and insulation from physical damage. When we strip the jacket to make a splice, we create a potential path for water entry. Modern cable manufacturers use water-swellable tapes and powders to address this reality, but they also rely on good seals. Some splice and termination kits call for use of specific mastics and sealant wraps and instruct users to add rejacketing sleeves over their splices; these actions greatly assist in protecting a cable’s contents. Moisture, corrosion and thermal cycling undermine splices that are electrically perfect but poorly sealed, leading to their eventual failure.

Geometric Stress Control
The cable layers described above work together to control electrical stress. The stress present in an intact section of cable is purely radial and behaviorally predictable. Trouble begins with the introduction of a shield cutback, termination or other discontinuity point where the electric field must bend. In those cases, the field no longer runs straight out from the conductor, instead curling along the insulation’s surface and into the surrounding air, causing longitudinal stress and creating areas in which the field can potentially bunch up. If the outer shield ends abruptly, with bare insulation continuing, the electric field crowds around that sharp edge. Concentrated stress under operating voltage produces corona and tracking, especially in humid and contaminated conditions, eroding materials and potentially leading to a flashover or failure.

Geometric stress control (i.e., the use of shape to spread out the electric field) solves the problem. The stress cones and internal contours of premolded and cold-shrink terminations and taped splices are designed to extend a conductive or semiconductive surface beyond the shield edge so that potential drops gradually over a longer path. Capacitive and resistive stress grading using tapes and mastics with special electrical properties takes this idea one step further. Applied in precise patterns at the shield cutback, the materials pull some of the electric field into themselves, distributing the voltage drop over their length. Pattern instructions that call for an exact number of half-lapped layers, starting precisely at the semicon edge and ending at a specified distance, are the result of laboratory design and testing.

Conclusion
A medium-voltage splice is a field-built extension of a cable’s original design. The conductor must be solid and correctly installed. Its surrounding conductor shield and insulation must be uniform and clean. The semiconductive layer must reestablish smooth electric field boundaries. The metallic shield must be continuous and grounded. The jacket must seal and prevent water and other physical damage.

When medium-voltage splicers understand why each cable layer exists, a splice or termination kit’s instructions begin to look less like suggestions and more like what they truly are: a roadmap to restoring a cable’s safe, factory-quality performance. Well-made splices disappear into lines, quietly doing their work during storms and faults without drawing attention. Achieving that level of reliability is a direct result of qualified splicers who understand cable contents and construction, how electrical stress behaves inside cable, and the significance of each cut, crimp and wrap.

About the Author: Mark Savage is the owner of DeadBreak, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business providing underground distribution and transmission training, consulting and field services. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran with over 25 years of experience in underground construction and emergency response, Savage is a credentialed journeyman cable splicer/lineman and qualified medium-voltage splicing trainer. Reach him at msavage@deadbreak.us.

Utilities are investing millions of dollars in drones, automated monitoring systems and artificial intelligence applications. These tools offer unprecedented safety and operational advantages as grid complexities evolve – assuming crews willingly use them as intended.

New technology should make it safer and easier for frontline workers to execute their tasks, particularly when stressed or fatigued. Deploying drones to conduct post-storm inspections, for instance, keeps workers safely distanced from hazardous areas while potentially speeding up triage efforts. Digital pre-job briefing forms that incorporate AI-driven alerts offer crews enhanced, real-time understanding of worksite risks before they arrive.

But successfully rolling out newly adopted safety technologies is no small feat. Frontline buy-in depends on an organization’s cultural readiness. How can readiness be achieved? A sustainable strategy begins with people. It is then enforced via process and enhanced by technology. In that order.

Safety Lives in the Field
Safety starts at the top, but it lives in the field. Frontline workers will notice if senior leaders only speak about safety during budget meetings. By incorporating it into daily tailboards, performance metrics, public commitments and organizational strategy, leaders demonstrate that safety is a nonnegotiable organizational value.

Critically, leaders must be good listeners, consulting frontline workers for their firsthand insights into the organization’s operational risks and inefficiencies. Feedback loops assist decision-makers in determining the merits of new safety solutions. These loops are especially helpful when piloting AI-driven systems, whose accuracy is shaped through human oversight.

Technology buy-in often expands as workers witness the impact of their feedback. For example, one utility that uses an AI tool to enhance infrastructure inspections noted a boost in tool adoption when crews began gathering for post-shift debriefings. The time crew members spent analyzing AI images of their jobsites, flagging errors and feeding that data into the model increased its future reliability and relevance.

Change Management
Workers will commonly shelve new technology tools that are poorly rolled out. Leaders have various options to mitigate this risk, including appointing organizational safety champions as liaisons between field crews and technology/innovation teams; hosting cross-functional workshops during which information technology, operations and safety personnel collaborate to address adoption barriers; and celebrating quick wins that underscore new technology’s advantages.

Dominion Energy offers a good example. As part of a drone and AI implementation project, the utility designated safety liaisons to facilitate communication between leadership and field teams, which played a significant role in building early momentum for the broader rollout.

Employee Training
Technology can only be as effective as its users. Thus, employers must ensure their employees are trained to best leverage its value. Some utility organizations are using other technologies to assist with training, such as virtual- and augmented-reality applications that simulate real-world scenarios, reducing risk to trainees.

Peer mentoring, which combines relational and procedural learning, often complements formal industry training. Pairing seasoned lineworkers with younger, less experienced employees can be mutually beneficial, enhancing technology skills transfer and reinforcing institutional and industry wisdom.

Safety Accelerants
With the right people and processes in place, utilities can use new technologies to accelerate safer field operations. Consider the following three examples.

1. Drones
Drone adoption has become increasingly common within industry organizations. For instance, in 2023, New York Power Authority invested $37.2 million in its drone program. Integrated into these unmanned aerial systems are high-resolution cameras, light detection and ranging (lidar), and thermal sensors that enhance fault and damage detection capabilities while limiting worker hazard exposure and bucket truck deployments.

Frontline buy-in becomes more likely when crews feel confident that the data collected by company drones will be accurate, easily accessible and fully integrated into their workflows. Some utilities have addressed this by implementing joint flight validation sessions during which pilots and field technicians collaborate to review drone inspection footage. These sessions can uncover technological and procedural blind spots and reinforce to personnel that drones are considered tools, not worker replacements.

2. Artificial and Visual Intelligence
AI accelerates the identification of infrastructure corrosion, vegetation risks and structural faults at a scale that humans alone can’t match. Beyond speed and scale, human-in-the-loop AI models incorporate experienced inspectors to validate and refine model outputs, helping to reduce errors, build user trust and strengthen organizational learning.

Field safety can be dramatically enhanced when AI learns from humans and humans trust its support. During Hurricane Harvey, for example, one utility used AI-powered drone data to safely route repair crews away from flooded roads and damaged assets, improving response times while minimizing crew hazard exposure.

3. Substation Monitoring
Substations are sometimes inspected just once a year by a single technician. Today, AI-enabled monitoring systems offer 24/7 surveillance that alerts users to overheating, smoke, fire, unauthorized access incidents and PPE violations in real time. Some monitoring systems also act as a second set of eyes for lone workers, detecting falls and prolonged inactivity and triggering alerts.

Moving the Needle
As the U.S. electrical grid grows more complex, frontline employee safety and system resilience increasingly depend on the power and influence of strong, healthy organizational cultures. New technologies alone won’t improve safety or other outcomes. Utilities begin to move the needle when leadership sets clear intentions, builds and refines processes that reinforce cultural values, and rolls out new technologies with ample training and respect for workers.

About the Author: Kaitlyn Albertoli is co-founder and CEO of Buzz Solutions (www.buzzsolutions.co), a California-based provider of visual intelligence solutions to inspect, maintain and secure energy infrastructure.

Editor’s Note: Learn more from Kaitlyn in a recent podcast interview with iP’s Kate Wade, available at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/utility-safety-podcast-using-visual-intelligence-to-strengthen-utility-infrastructure/.

The previous articles in this series examined two factors that strongly influence personal safety. Accountability is the idea that meaningful improvement begins when workers accept responsibility for their own safety decisions. Through mental preparation, workers gain an understanding of the ways in which temperament, emotional triggers and habits affect their judgment under pressure.

This article builds on those concepts by addressing spiritual preparation, a third factor not nearly as commonly discussed that nevertheless plays a critical role in how people behave on the job.

Spiritual preparedness is not necessarily about religion (although it could be) or belief systems imposed by organizations. Rather, it is an individual’s collection of commitments, fueled by an internal source of strength that provides identity, purpose and meaning during adversity.

Taking Risks When We Know Better
In safety-critical lines of work, clarifying and honoring one’s source of strength and associated commitments often helps employees follow the rules they know are right instead of taking shortcuts that feel easier in the moment.

Many serious injuries have occurred because people knew better and broke the rules anyway – not because they weren’t aware of the rules. Every day, lineworkers and other employees make tradeoffs because they think, “The odds are low that this will go wrong,” “I’ve done this a hundred times,” or “This will only take a second.”

These decisions feel completely rational in the moment, like jaywalking when traffic seems light. No one wants to be hurt or killed, naturally, but people don’t always experience risk in a consistent manner.

In a nutshell, safety professionals strive toward zero risk. Frontline workers manage perceived risk.

When a worker’s task appears routine with little probability of harm, rules can feel like inconveniences whose costs outweigh the benefits. It is in that gap – the one between how organizations think about risk and how frontline workers experience it – where people get hurt.

So, how do we bridge the gap? What can we do to help people further lower their injury risk even when it doesn’t feel necessary to them? The answer isn’t more rules. It’s spiritual preparation: strengthening the internal commitments that guide human behavior when risk feels acceptable.

The Limits of Policies and Procedures
Organizational policies and procedures are developed under the assumption that employees will act rationally and consistently in all conditions. Realistically, stress and fatigue affect human decision-making. When those influences are strong, even well-designed rules can lose their power. This is why incident investigators so often discover that the individuals involved understood the hazards and knew the correct procedures yet still made different choices.

Such behavior is not primarily driven by training or policy but by what the individuals valued most in the moment (e.g., speed, group acceptance, avoiding hassle, simply getting the job done). That behavioral shift is exactly why spiritual preparation matters; it is when a person’s moral code enters the picture.

Lineworkers rely on pole partners near energized conductors because a second set of eyes can catch things a lone worker might miss. Professional divers operate the same way underwater. However, these systems only work when both people genuinely believe they are responsible for each other’s safety, not just their own.

Written rules are not the source of that belief. It is a deeply held internal standard, a personal moral code that firmly states, “I don’t look the other way when someone next to me is at risk.”

The U.S. military provides a clear example of how powerful this can be. When a fellow soldier is injured in combat, our self-preservation instinct tells us to seek cover. Yet soldiers stay put because they are anchored to the commitment that they will not leave anyone behind despite their own fear. The strength of their personal and collective moral codes is what enables them to act against their instincts.

Civilian work is different, but the mechanism is the same. Employees who have clarified their own moral code – those values and commitments they refuse to violate – are far less likely to drift into unsafe behavior under difficult conditions.

Spiritual Preparation and Safety Performance
Again, spiritual preparation is the work of identifying and strengthening that code. It addresses a segment of safety performance that exists below conscious human awareness, influencing what happens when someone knows the right thing to do but feels pressure to do something else. Without making clear commitments, people are more susceptible to fatigue, rushing, overconfidence and unspoken group norms. Moral clarity makes those pressures easier to resist because decisions are anchored to something deeper than convenience or habit.

In practical terms, spiritual preparation helps turn ideas like “I am my brother’s keeper” into consistent behavior, not merely situational intent.

Building a Spiritual Foundation
Developing a personal moral code doesn’t happen by accident. Employees in high-risk professions have long relied on proven approaches to clarify their values and strengthen their ability to act consistently under pressure. Three of these proven approaches are described below for the reader’s consideration.

1. Arete: Excellence of Character
Rooted in classical philosophy, “arete” (ah–reh–tay) means excellence of character. It’s the idea that under pressure, people fall back on who they believe they are rather than what they intend to do.

Arete focuses on aligning one’s identity, habits and behavior so that internal standards remain steady even when shortcuts appear tempting. From a safety perspective, this strengthens the internal voice that says, “This risky choice does not align with who I am or how I want to be known.”

“Premeditatio malorum” – Latin for “premeditation of evils” – is one concept I’ve found particularly helpful. The phrase is inscribed on a small coin I keep with me, an unwavering reminder to think through likely problems before they occur. While the coin’s wording reflects ancient hardships, I’ve adapted the idea to modern work situations, including winter storms, incorrect circuit maps, missing equipment and poor planning. Taking time to think through these scenarios in advance makes it easier to respond calmly, deliberately and safely if they do occur.

I also recommend reviewing Brian Johnson’s Philosopher’s Notes (see www.philosophersnotes.com), which combine ancient wisdom and modern psychology in short, easy-to-read installments. They are inspiring to read and directly applicable to our work.

2. The U.S. Army: Spiritual Fitness Under Adversity
Spiritually fit individuals possess an internal source of strength that provides them with identity, purpose and meaning during adversity, according to the U.S. Army. That source could be faith, duty, service, loyalty or promises made to others. In the Army, spiritual fitness is supported by both the chain of command and the storied Chaplain Corps.

Our deeply held beliefs help us sustain disciplined behavior when stress, fear and exhaustion take over. Law enforcement officers, firefighters and emergency responders rely on similar internal moral codes every day, often supported by chaplains, because the codes help them function reliably in high-consequence situations.

I witnessed this firsthand while working as a switching center supervisor during a period of civil unrest in Los Angeles. Several of us stayed on duty for days. First the U.S. Marines secured the intersection outside the station, and then the National Guard moved directly into the facility while we continued to operate the system citywide. It was a tragic situation, but the team drew on a shared sense of duty to restore and maintain service. No one questioned staying or doing what needed to be done.

That kind of reliability under pressure is a product of clear internal commitments – not rules – the same foundation the Army refers to as spiritual fitness.

3. Fuller Seminary: Meaning and Connection
Fuller Seminary’s Thrive model (see https://thethrivecenter.org/explore) suggests that people find meaning when they feel a sense of connection to something larger than themselves. Judgment improves when work is clearly tied to contribution and responsibility to others. Unsafe behavior becomes harder to self-justify.

The Thrive model focuses on preparation rather than control. Since it is impossible to prevent every challenge we will face on the job, it makes sense to concentrate on fortifying ourselves in advance so that we respond well when conditions inevitably deteriorate. In this sense, spiritual health works like physical conditioning, improving how we perform under stress.

What does this require from a practical standpoint? You must clarify what matters most to you; build daily habits that support safe decision-making; stay connected to those you work and live with; and periodically assess whether your actions still match the kind of worker and teammate you want to be.

I found the Fuller concepts invaluable during periods of organizational upheaval, including layoffs, station closures, involuntary reassignments, and in the aftermath of serious injuries and fatalities. Those experiences pushed me to reconsider the broader arc of my life and take comfort in what exists beyond work.

Why This Matters
The persistence of serious injuries and fatalities in the utility industry indicates that safety efforts must continue to evolve. Spiritual preparation is designed to help us better control our behavior. It is much like defensive driving on a larger scale; think of it as defensive working.

This preparation helps people clarify what they stand for before they find themselves under pressure. A worker armed with a clear personal moral code has something solid to rely on when their instincts and emotions could lead to poor choices. Professionals who operate in exceedingly high-risk environments (U.S. Army soldiers, for example) have learned that distinct moral commitments are essential to reliable performance.

There is no reason the same principles cannot apply to us.

Human behavior is often based on unconscious drivers. Spiritual preparation matters because it improves our behavioral consistency when conditions are at their worst. That consistency under pressure is one of the strongest predictors of whether a worker goes home safely at the end of each day.

About the Author: Tom Cohenno, Ed.D., CSP, CUSP, NBC-HWC, is a recognized safety expert and principal of Applied Learning Science (https://appliedlearningscience.com). With deep academic and operational experience as a U.S. Navy veteran, substation chief and former utility executive, he blends real-world insight with evidence-based research to deliver practical, impactful safety solutions.

In safety management, data is often treated as objective truth. Leaders use incident rates, near-miss reports, injury trends and predictive models to guide them as they prioritize risk and allocate organizational resources.

Yet data can quietly mislead us, particularly when bias is embedded in what we collect and our measurement and interpretation methods. Effective, ethical safety leaders continuously work to recognize and address these distortions.

Exploring Various Biases
A widely cited World War II-era example illustrates the dangers of biased data. During the war, Allied forces studied returning aircraft to determine where additional armor was needed. Analysts initially recommended reinforcing areas with the most visible bullet holes. Statistician Abraham Wald challenged this reasoning, highlighting what is now known as survivorship bias. He observed that the only aircraft analyzed were those that survived their missions. Aircraft that failed to return home had likely sustained catastrophic damage to areas where no bullet holes were observed on the surviving planes. Wald’s insight suggested that undamaged areas required reinforcement, not the visibly damaged ones.

Survivorship bias remains a powerful warning for leaders whose safety programs rely on incomplete or filtered data. However, it is only one source of potential distortion.

Selection bias occurs when data is drawn from an unrepresentative sample. In a utility environment, this could happen when organizations heavily rely on information from crews or regions with strong reporting cultures while underestimating risk in areas where incidents and near misses are less likely to be reported. Leaders may inadvertently prioritize the wrong hazards when the dataset does not reflect the entire population.

Even when data is broadly collected, confirmation bias can still emerge (i.e., leaders subconsciously favor data that supports their existing beliefs or assumptions). For example, if management believes a particular work practice is safe, near-miss data that challenges their belief may be discounted or dismissed as anomalous. Over time, selective interpretation reinforces blind spots and weakens organizational learning.

Measurement bias can be introduced at the point of data capture, resulting in inconsistently defined or poorly standardized safety data. Metrics that depend on subjective judgment – such as what qualifies as a safety observation or near miss – can vary widely among supervisors, crews and contractors. When measurement practices differ, trends become unreliable and comparisons across departments or time periods lose meaning.

Historical bias arises when data reflects outdated assumptions, norms or exclusions that no longer align with today’s workforce or operating environments. Caroline Criado Perez’s book “Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men” highlights how systems built on incomplete data can overlook entire populations. In safety-critical industries, this could appear in PPE design, equipment ergonomics or training materials developed for a narrow segment of the workforce, leaving others at elevated risk.

More recently, algorithmic bias has emerged as organizations increasingly adopt predictive analytics and other safety tools driven by artificial intelligence, which can inherit and amplify patterns embedded in historical data. Any algorithms trained using past incident data that underrepresents certain hazards, job roles or worker groups may consistently underestimate risk in those areas. Since algorithmic outputs often appear objective, this bias can be difficult to detect and challenge without deliberate oversight.

Overcoming Vulnerabilities
Embedded bias distorts safety intelligence and can create organizational vulnerabilities. Resources may be misdirected. Early warning signs could be missed. Emerging hazards might remain invisible until a serious incident occurs. Overreliance on lagging indicators like recordable injury rates could create a false sense of security, especially in high-risk utility operations.

Biased data can also further erode trust. Reporting declines when frontline workers witness leadership decisions that conflict with their lived experiences, deepening the data gap.

Despite these risks, high-quality data remains indispensable to effective safety management, enabling organizations to identify trends, prioritize controls, evaluate interventions, and shift from reactive responses to proactive prevention. Decisions made without data are often driven by anecdotes and intuition.

The challenge, therefore, is not whether to use data but how to use it thoughtfully and with full awareness of its limitations.

Recognizing bias is the first step. Leaders should routinely ask, who is missing from this dataset? What assumptions shaped these metrics? What risks could be hidden? A questioning approach encourages more accurate, proactive, ethical decision-making. Leaders who understand bias are more likely to consult multiple data sources, blending quantitative indicators with qualitative insights from job observations, worker feedback and learning teams. Most importantly, confronting data bias helps to ensure that safety systems are designed to protect all workers, not just those most visible in the data.

Intentional effort is required to turn awareness into action. Organizations must routinely audit safety data for gaps and inconsistencies, standardize definitions and measurement practices, and foster psychologically safe reporting environments. As use of predictive analytics and other AI tools expands, transparency and human oversight are essential. Leaders must treat model outputs as decision aids – not decision-makers – and be accountable for how data-driven insights are applied in the field.

Conclusion
Numbers carry authority, shaping organizational budgets, priorities and narratives. However, as Abraham Wald demonstrated decades ago, some of our greatest threats may never appear in the data we see. Safety leaders who understand and deliberately question, test and correct for biases ultimately position their organizations to more effectively mitigate risk.

About the Author: Gina Vanderlin, CSP, CHMM, CIT, CUSP, is the customer operations health and safety program manager at PSEG Long Island. With over 15 years of experience leading EHS initiatives in high-reliability industries, she remains passionate about elevating safety from a compliance function to a strategic driver of culture, engagement and operational excellence. Reach Vanderlin at gina.vanderlin@psegliny.com.

I’m not sure how I became an analyst. It wasn’t something I planned for. Various types of analyst roles exist, but I primarily analyze incidents, breaking down and studying the elements of events to identify causes and effects. Incident analysis, done well, ultimately helps prevent undesired future outcomes.

Over the last 15 years, I have analyzed a half-dozen apprentice training yard accidents and watched two videos of apprentice-involved incidents. These events are reminders that lineworkers frequently learn their lessons the hard way. I continue striving to change that fact because – far too often – the hard way becomes the final act to what could have been a great life.

I was once asked to write an opinion about a root cause analysis (RCA) conducted by OSHA and a utility. The analysis focused on a singular event that put three apprentices in the hospital. OSHA performs RCAs only to identify whether employers are at fault. The analysis I was asked to write about stated that the incident’s cause was various physical conditions and procedural mistakes. But while the conditions and mistakes were causally related, none was the true root cause.

That concerning realization is the reason I wrote this article: to clarify what a good RCA entails and explore its relationship with lessons learned from training accidents.

A Peculiar Art Form
RCA is a peculiar art form that requires analysts to be knowledgeable about safety standards and human performance principles. Numerous utilities use RCA software applications, mostly algorithm-based methodologies designed to help investigators determine the most likely root cause. The applications were developed to standardize RCAs, offering guided protocols to prevent investigator errors. However, the human element can still impact results. A persistent issue with RCA application use is listing, evaluating and interpreting the causal factors that preceded an incident.

Causal factors contribute to the incident under investigation, but they are not the root cause. The root cause is the singular event that prompted the incident; if it had not occurred, the incident would not have occurred either.

I recently reviewed two incidents so similar in nature that the same investigation report could have been written for both. In these cases, which took place a few years apart, investigators used RCA software to determine a root cause. The only difference between the two final RCA reports? You guessed it: the identified root cause. Two entirely different RCA conclusions resulted from the very same causal factors. My point here is that an RCA application is only effective when users complete the software training and stick to its process. Root causes are not always easy to determine, and they are not always what we initially believe they are – which brings us back to training.

Introducing Thom and Goob
To demonstrate rodeo-style hurt man rescue, an apprentice named Thom climbed to the top of a distribution pole. He successfully reached the mannequin only because of his portable fall protection device. Thom then fumbled with the rigging, desperately trying to get the mannequin down in four minutes. He could hear encouragement from the ground, shouts of “Go, go, go,” “Wrap this,” “Pull that,” “Reach around that.” Finally rigged, Thom reached around the mannequin and, using the hawkbill knife that he had sharpened to a razor’s edge for the demonstration, cut his own fall protection. He fell 38 feet, right into life in a wheelchair.

In another rescue incident (see https://youtu.be/gaH7pK-6n84), a worker nicknamed Goob also inadvertently cut his fall protection. I don’t know how that worked out for him, but for lineworkers reading this, the lesson is found in Goob’s now-infamous rescue fail.

We have an industry training shortcoming that is exacerbated by our need to get lineworkers trained and in the air (or in the ditch). The problem lies in the difference between objective and subjective training goals. Earlier, I stated that Thom’s portable fall protection device was the sole reason he reached the mannequin. Neither Thom nor Goob was subjectively competent enough to successfully complete their tasks. The difference between subjectivity and objectivity plays a considerable role in training, particularly when training trainers.

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity
Objective evaluation is rooted only in facts and goals. Subjective evaluation is influenced by the evaluator’s personal experience, feelings and opinions. In this context, “personal experience” is legitimate hands-on utility industry experience.

Note: To be clear, I believe that good instructors possess a great amount of career experience and industry knowledge. This is not an indictment of on-the-job (OTJ) training using lineworker mentors. I am a product of the OTJ process and have great respect for those who taught me. Negligence and incompetence are not the issues I am addressing here. The problem is generic in nature and perhaps even a hidden organizational defect.

Thom, the apprentice who made it to the mannequin, fell victim to two objective influences that resulted in his fall. First, he was not a competent climber. It is unlikely that Thom would have climbed a 40-foot pole had he not been wearing a personal fall arrest system (PFAS). He was allowed to do so because he had trained in a PFAS that everyone believed would prevent his fall. Using the system, Thom got to the top of the pole, but his hook sets were tentative. His body was off-center and uncomfortably oriented because he did not periodically adjust his PFAS during ascent.

The “git-r-done” mentality was the second objective influence. Although I love 1990s-era Larry the Cable Guy, he didn’t do us any favors, but it’s not really his fault. Git-r-done was a comedy phenomenon that made light of simple men using unsophisticated methods to complete manly tasks, resulting in their unrestrained celebration. I am in favor of all those things, especially the unrestrained celebration, but the industry may have taken git-r-done too far.

Encouragement from people on the ground was an additional event precursor in both Thom’s case and Goob’s case. Objectively, both apprentices were working hard to succeed; it is human nature to seek approval from others. But the level of problem-solving Thom and Goob displayed demonstrated that the two men did not possess the competence needed. Goob’s pole strap was too far out, and he displayed poor foot positioning and poor rigging management skills. Thom’s circumstances were the same. He explained to me that he had not felt confident in his climbing skills while on the pole but believed his PFAS would protect him. When Thom reached the top, his problem-solving skills were compromised by his lack of experience and the pressure of well-intentioned coworkers shouting encouragement from below.

Competence is the first goal of industry training. Next, trainees are coached to both competently and efficiently complete their tasks. Until an apprentice demonstrates adequate problem-solving and skill competency independent of trainer instruction, the process must be unrushed and orderly. An apprentice simply climbing to the top of a pole is an objective measurement of quality. Climbing to the top with demonstrated skill is a subjective measurement.

Where Do RCAs Fit In?
Trainer competency was the root cause of Thom’s incident, Goob’s incident and the other training yard incidents I referenced earlier. But that is not because the trainers were incompetent. Rather, they had not been sufficiently trained to train other workers. I hate making that statement without first preparing readers because these incidents truly were not the fault of industry trainers. They did not lack lineworker skills or knowledge; they lacked understanding of the individuals who they were training. An effective trainer understands the nature of the trainee and recognizes subjective indicators of their competence to safely perform learned skills. Those trainers with effective technology transfer skills understand the nature of the learning and the learner, training modalities, subjective indicators of training success and objective competency measures.

Falls accounted for two of the previously referenced training yard incidents. In both instances, the instructors bowed to trainee pressure, deviating from their planned training methodologies to instead oversee speed-climbing events. One apprentice climbed off the top of a pole. The other gaffed himself and almost bled to death. Neither had climbing skill characterized by good hook sets, technique, hand position and body orientation. In fact, neither even looked up while ascending.

In yet another case, apprentices used trial and error to learn how to compress sleeves with a 60-ton press. Blown hydraulic hoses hospitalized two individuals. The utility’s investigation blamed a failed hose that “should have been capable of containing the hydraulic pressure.” But the RCA revealed that the hose had been plugged into a universal pump open-center system, which prematurely forced pressure into the hose of the closed center head, preventing operation of the spring-loaded quick coupling. The apprentices forced the coupling and broke the hose. So, the problem wasn’t a faulty hose but an objective-based training issue: “Squeeze the sleeve without bending it.” That initial introduction to the task and the training methodology lacked requisite preparation and instruction elements, which should have been audited by observing the steps via an orderly process.

The Bottom Line
I am now going to use RCA to lobby for a comprehensive review of the nature of our industry’s training. We have too many examples of trainees pushed beyond their skill level, and they are not limited to climbing in 100% fall protection. Let’s audit our training processes, including how we train our trainers, ensuring that we provide them with the technology transfer skills they need to successfully pass on their experience, craft skills and other knowledge.

A utility manager once challenged me about the cost of training the organization’s trainers. He said it was frustrating to spend the time and money just for them to eventually leave. His attitude is one more example of mistakenly relying on objective concerns. His subjective concern should have been, what if we don’t train our trainers and they stay?

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.

Our industry’s frontline workers are commonly promoted to supervisory positions in rapid fashion. Some struggle with the transition as they discover that their new role involves far more than increased compensation, a fancier title and the keys to a company pickup truck. This installment of “Voice of Experience” addresses important points about lineworker leadership transitions learned through my decades of professional experience.

What Prompts Worker Promotions?
Lineworkers are not necessarily promoted based on their years of field experience or company seniority. Often, the move is both recognition and reward for an employee’s current technical skill set. That is understandable. Utility organizations in the past sometimes promoted employees for reasons other than technical merit; reorganizations in particular could be highly problematic. Employees with little to no construction or maintenance work experience were appointed to foreman and even area supervisor positions. They were at a severe disadvantage, and their crews knew it, rightfully feeling that such inexperienced leadership was unsafe and inappropriate. Supervisors without the technical acumen to lead crews will almost certainly fail to earn credibility or respect.

During my 40-year tenure with an investor-owned utility, I spent over 15 years as a journeyman before the company named me a crew supervisor. Now, some journeymen are promoted to similar roles in just two to four years. Simple math tells us that supervisors of the past often had considerably more real-world frontline experience than many of today’s supervisors do.

Even with all my years as a journeyman and the wholehearted belief that I was prepared to be a great supervisor, I quickly realized that overseeing employees is far more challenging than building a job. Management skills training and a transition period are essential to success; without them, new leaders are much more likely to struggle.

Supervisor Development Program
Fortunately, not long after I was promoted, the utility launched a supervisor development program. Management identified future supervisors and enrolled them in the program’s multiweek classes, which they completed while still working as journeymen. This turned out to be a wise company investment.

At the time, I was chosen to be a program adviser. I worked with several other relatively new supervisors to identify the topics that most needed to be addressed before or during a journeyman’s transition to leadership. The development program prioritized team communication, with an overarching goal of helping new supervisors effectively establish themselves in their roles. Supervisor trainees typically had a great deal of field experience, but some lacked the skill to effectively transfer their knowledge to others. The program’s interpersonal communications class was extremely helpful in that regard.

Readers should note that supervisors who are knowledgeable about and easily adapt to generational and personality differences tend to have an easier time establishing rapport with their crews. Every human being communicates and receives information a bit differently. Supervisors who don’t willingly adjust to their employees will experience related challenges.

But we’re not finished yet. Electric utility leadership also demands that supervisors be fair and trustworthy, with excellent time management skills and proficiency in human performance principles and industry regulatory rules. In my opinion, too many of today’s recently promoted supervisors do not recognize the full scope of their responsibilities. It is imperative that they understand the potential impact of their role, including tort liability exposures.

Highly Skilled Journeymen
A former co-worker and I used to talk about how a top-notch journeyman could reconductor a mile of three-phase line with single pots, three-phase banks, and riser and junction poles without any customer being the wiser (unless they looked out a window). I still truly believe that a highly skilled journeyman can reconductor a line and keep everything hot without any intentional outages.

Our industry’s supervisors – each and every one – should be able to illustrate reconductoring and other relevant work processes to crews as needed throughout job planning and execution. They should be equally skilled at anticipating possible challenges and offering solutions.

One of my mentors told me long ago that good supervisors are where the rubber meets the road. Their technical expertise combined with their management authority means they can take ownership of job-related issues until they are successfully resolved. My mentor also memorably explained that a supervisor can tell they have arrived when crew members begin asking them for their honest opinions. Those wise words remain true today.

A Word of Thanks
In closing, I want to thank each of the diligent industry supervisors currently working in the field. I deeply appreciate what you do, and I’m always here to share a word of support or advice should you need it.

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!

Q: Why does an EPZ pole connection need to be close to the worker’s feet?

A: In an equipotential arrangement, if the bus is inadvertently energized, the length of the bonding cable from the grounded conductors to the structure will affect the voltage across the worker. The worker is only exposed if they contact the phases and the structure at the same time. This is also the case with neutrals floating at a distribution pole and a static on an insulator or swinging clevis at the top of a transmission structure. If they are not electrically bonded to the pole or structure, lethal potential can exist between conductor and structure.

The bonding jumper has the same role when we mach out a system neutral. Two purposes are served by installing a mechanical jumper across the system neutral and then cutting the neutral. First, the system neutral’s current-carrying capability is continued through the mechanical jumper. Second, this creates a bond across the open in the cut neutral conductor, ensuring that no voltage appears in the open that could put the worker at risk.

Total resistance of the bonding jumper across its length will result in a measurable voltage drop across that length. Resistance is determined by conductor size and length and the amount of current flowing across the jumper. Since the bonding jumper is there to equalize potential across the open, the potential that exists across the open neutral will also be the potential across the mechanical jumper.

The same condition applies to the worker on the pole. The voltage that occurs across the length of the bonding jumper between the grounded conductors and the structure is the same voltage that the worker will be exposed to. This is why keeping the jumper as short as possible affects the total voltage that the worker can be exposed to.

Cable-length effect is one of two reasons why most procedures specify keeping the structure bond connection close to the work area. Length produces the resistance that determines the voltage drop across the cable and the worker. Cable whipping is the second reason. If a clamp located 10 feet down the pole is connected to a 20-foot cable, the cable will whip violently during the first few cycles of a fault. This can produce enough energy to pull apart connections and present just as much of a hazard to a nearby worker as poor grounding practices. It is good practice to tie down extra-long cable if you find it in your work area.

Q: Does the configuration matter when grounding three-phase?

A: Yes, but the extent to which it matters depends on the variables that could occur when a grounded circuit is unexpectedly energized. Review this comment published in Appendix C to OSHA 29 CFR 1910.269: “… if employees are working on a three-phase system, the grounding method must short circuit all three phases. Short circuiting all phases will ensure faster clearing and lower the current through the grounding cable connecting the deenergized line to ground, thereby lowering the voltage across that cable.”

Normal or fault current in a three-phase system is still electricity that behaves the same way normally operating three-phase currents do. In a three-phase grounded wye system, the current on the grounded neutral will be the imbalance between the conductor currents in the system. That is what the Appendix C statement above refers to. If we short circuit the three-phase system and it is suddenly hit by a current, the current will circulate within the three-phase system, causing the relay system to trip and open the feed. As with any three-phase system, while the current circulates within it, the imbalance will go to ground in that Y connection. In our case, that’s our ground connection, with – as per the Appendix C statement above – most of the current staying in the three-phase system, thereby limiting the current flowing into ground at the work area. This is an excellent reason to prioritize making the three-phase ground to the system neutral and the bonding connection to the pole between the neutral and pole. The current on the ground connection is distributed across the very low-resistance system neutral and every interconnected pole bond nearby.

Here, the ground cable three-phase current principle applies. The lower the current across the cable, the lower the voltage drop across the cable. Remember, the voltage drop across the cable is the voltage that the worker will be exposed to.

Phase to ground three times is the alternative configuration. A fault in that configuration is still short circuited but in a much longer pathway across the ground connection. The difference is that the short jumper short circuit limits the current to ground in the work area, while the phase-to-ground-three-times configuration passes the available fault current through the work area ground connections.

Q: I’ve noticed that some manual operators stand on grids when throwing substation gang switches while others do not. Are there any regulatory rules about this? 

A: Switching grids are discussed as an additional protective method in Part 9.1.3 of IEEE 80, “IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding.” The grid below the surface of a substation creates an equipotential mat for workers. The switch handle is bonded to the structure, and the structure is bonded to the substation grid. Two modes of worker protection are available here. One is the layer of rock under the worker’s feet that creates an insulating buffer above the substation’s equipotential mat grid. For us, in terms of incidental versus intentional protection, there is a big difference between the grid below the substation rock and the visible grid that an operator stands on. The operator is incidentally protected by the substation grid and rock bed, but we can’t see the condition of the grid or the grid connections buried beneath our feet. Alternatively, we can install a conductive grid that is visibly bonded to the structure and handle.

Q: When working in substations, are we required to bond conductive lifts to grounded bus work?

A: Yes. Workers have been killed due to potential differences between bus work and unbonded lifts. OSHA addresses this in 1910.269(n)(3), “Equipotential zone,” which states the following: “Temporary protective grounds shall be placed at such locations and arranged in such a manner that the employer can demonstrate will prevent each employee from being exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential.”

There is almost always current flowing or circulating in a substation’s grounded bus. Raising a conductive lift to the bus extends a path to ground from the bus, down through the lift and into the earth. Insulating barriers to the pathway do exist, such as rubber tires and the substation rock layer, but their efficacy is not guaranteed. With current in the grounded bus and a ground path through the lift, there will be a potential difference between the bus and lift. If the potential is great enough to penetrate the worker’s skin, the circulating current will divide and flow through the worker into the lift. A bonding jumper connection between the grounded bus and the lift will bond out the potential difference, protecting the worker. The same rule applies to conductive lifts used in line construction, particularly where nearby energized lines present induction hazards. Bonding the lift to the new circuit conductors bonds out the potential difference between the bus and the lift path to ground.

Q: Can you explain the rule that requires utilities to install “High Voltage” signs on their jointly owned wood poles?

A: Utilities are required to post warning signs where unqualified individuals could access their facilities. Signage is mandatory where access points are located at or near ground level and could easily be breached (e.g., substations, vault doors, aerial banks on ground-level pads).

The ANSI Z535 standards don’t specifically call out when signs are required, but they do state that where a fenced-in facility contains exposed electrical equipment, signage must be legible at a safe distance from the hazard. So, no standard spacing exists. Compliant installation is based on an observer’s most likely angle as they approach the fence. For instance, signs every 50 feet would be noticeable where an observer approaches from an alley with a broad view of the fence. However, if the observer approaches through an ornamental hedge located 5 feet from the fence, there is a good chance they would not see the signs.

Section 110 of the National Electrical Code contains requirements for conspicuous signage on entrances to guarded rooms and other locations. The signage must warn unqualified individuals against entry. Part C of NEC Section 110 states the same criteria for high-voltage enclosures. The National Electrical Safety Code requires safety signs at substation gates and entrances and on the exterior lengths of substation fences and walls. NESC Part 217 addresses “readily climbable” structures, which include lattice with braces that can be used as steps and climbed by almost anyone. These structures require barriers, plus safety signs above the barriers that indicate the electrocution hazard.

Unless a utility pole has steps installed at ground level, it cannot be readily accessed by anyone other than individuals who have been trained to recognize the hazards noted above. For that reason, warning signs are not typically required on poles and similar structures. It is the owner’s responsibility to determine whether untrained individuals can access their facilities.

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. Questions submitted are reviewed and answered by the iP editorial advisory board and other subject matter experts.

Discipline equals freedom. That’s a leadership dichotomy that Jocko Willink and Leif Babin address in Chapter 12 of their book “Extreme Ownership.”

Similarly, in the Bible, just before instructing the Ephesians to don their spiritual armor, Paul urges Christians to live disciplined lives according to the Ten Commandments “so … that you may enjoy long life on the earth” (see Ephesians 6:3). He then lists six pieces of spiritual armor that will help them stand up to the devil’s schemes: the belt of truth; breastplate of righteousness; feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace; shield of faith; helmet of salvation; and sword of the spirit.

This article follows Paul’s example, offering six metaphorical pieces of safety armor that utility safety and operations professionals can use to combat hazards and invisible forces like complacency, stress, time pressure, distractions, assumptions and risk tolerance:

1. Belt of verification.
2. Breastplate of caring.
3. Boots of fitness for duty.
4. Shield of the hierarchy of controls.
5. Hard hat of emotionally intelligent decision-making.
6. Sword of courage.

Belt of Verification
Wrap yourself and your TEAM (Together Everyone Accomplishes More) in verification practices by consistently asking questions and determining the accuracy of assumptions, particularly when you notice confused expressions or hear statements like, “I think so,” “We’ve always done it this way,” “It worked last time,” “This will only hurt a little,” “It will only take a minute,” or “Let’s see what happens.”

Belts stop our pants from falling down. Verification stops us from falling victim to assumptions.

Breastplate of Caring
Soldiers once wore breastplates to shield their vital organs. Put on your breastplate of caring and act in ways that support your TEAM. Consider the fact that team members are appreciating assets only if you care enough to prevent their harm and encourage their growth.

Boots of Fitness for Duty
Fitness for duty includes job- and task-specific training and qualification, as well as healthy physical, mental and emotional states. We can use the act of putting on our boots as a prompt to evaluate everyone’s fitness for duty and speak up if someone seems off or unprepared.

Shield of the Hierarchy of Controls
Defense often comes to mind when we think about shields. However, watch Captain America in action and you might reconsider their purpose. He uses his shield for protection and as a weapon. The hierarchy of controls is our version of a shield (note: it’s better than vibranium). We wield it as a safety weapon, and it offers us safety by design and defense in depth.

Hard Hat of Emotionally Intelligent Decision-Making
Controlled emotions typically lead to controlled behavior. Or, more bluntly, our 6 inches up top help to determine how quickly we will find ourselves 6 feet below. By consistently using the Event + Response = Outcome tool – which regular “Frontline Fundamentals” readers know is my favorite – we don the hard hat of emotionally intelligent decision-making. Deliberately pausing before we respond to events gives us precious time to define our desired outcomes, setting the stage for safer, more informed and more rational choices.

Sword of Courage
A discussion of availability bias during a recent Frontline Fundamentals class evolved into conversation about how we use screwdrivers for various purposes beyond their intended use. When I mentioned a tool specifically designed to open paint cans (no, not a screwdriver), one student confessed to being unfamiliar with it. Three more students then chimed in to say the same thing.

Eventually, the entire class learned that the local hardware store where the students live provides free stirring sticks to its paint-buying customers. The can openers are free, too, but customers must grab one themselves from the bucket they are kept in. Albeit a simple example, this illustrates how an entire group can benefit when just one person is vulnerable and brave enough to speak up.

The point here is that we must supplement our safety armor with offensive tools to be truly effective in battle. Among those tools is the sword of courage, which we employ whenever we voice our questions, concerns, ideas or feedback.

Conclusion
The protective value of our safety armor largely depends on whether we are disciplined enough to use it consistently. Paul ended his spiritual armor discussion by asking his readers to pray. I am ending this discussion by asking Incident Prevention readers to actively use all six pieces of your metaphorical safety armor so that we may enjoy long life on the earth.

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://ip-institute.com/frontline-online/). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

The Armor of Safety
May 13, 2026, at 11 a.m. Eastern
Visit https://ip-institute.com/frontline-webinars/ for more information.

It’s 2 a.m. on an early fall day in Northern California’s Sierra foothills. The winter rains haven’t arrived yet. A large tree limb in the area snaps and falls on a distribution line, triggering a fault powerful enough to trip circuit breakers at a substation 15 miles away. Alarms sound in the company’s control center. At this time of year, daytime temperatures can still reach into the 90s and fire conditions still exist. The utility knows something has failed, but they don’t know what – or where.

It’s dark outside when dispatch notifies the troubleshooters; the sun won’t be up for another four hours. They head out in their trucks to patrol the lines, searching for the fault. Is a tree down across a line? Did squirrels breach conductor insulation, causing it to arc? Was a crossarm damaged? The control center knows only that a fault occurred somewhere on the circuit, nothing more. Since they can’t test due to potential fire conditions, a full patrol must be completed.

The troubleshooters split up. One heads north in his truck, along the ridge. The other takes the valley road. They are looking for anything out of the ordinary: a broken line, failed equipment, branches tangled in conductors. One troubleshooter stops to investigate a downed oak tree. He flags the issue, but it’s not the one they’re looking for. The other troubleshooter checks an area with historical tree issues, finding nothing.

A Hidden Problem
For lineworkers, these searches are an operational inconvenience, a safety liability and a detriment to customer service. Crews rolling out in the early hours don’t know if the hazard is still active. Not wanting to miss anything, they do what they have always done: drive the line in search of the issue.

The central safety challenge here is the chunk of time between when a hazard manifests and when operations teams understand what happened. Known as “hazard awareness delay,” this fundamental information gap sends troubleshooters into the field with incomplete data.

Consider what happens at a utility’s control center. When a circuit trips, control center employees can typically identify a general location, perhaps several miles of line. But they don’t know if a tree is actively shorting the line, for example, or whether the hazard is stable or still developing.

Multisensor Technology
Hazard awareness delay typically occurs when a utility organization monitors only electrical indicators. Fortunately, it is not inevitable. Recent technological developments are shifting how utilities can detect grid hazards. Multisensor units installed on poles can continuously capture data and share information through cellular and mesh networks. Rather than waiting for electrical signatures to build to a level that triggers alarms, real-time hazard detection technology provides continuous visibility into physical, electrical and environmental conditions across the distribution network. It expands traditional monitoring’s focus on current and voltage to include temperature, physical stress on poles, vibration patterns, vegetation contact, wind speed and humidity.

Continuous monitoring means hazards are detected as they develop. Dispatchers receive the exact fault location to the pole span, fault type and severity level, enabling crews to respond to known conditions with the proper safety precautions in place.

Xcel Energy: Detection Before Disaster
In March 2025, some Xcel Energy sites experienced severe wind gusts that caused adjacent utility poles to fail while the primary line remained structurally energized. Traditional monitoring systems likely would have missed this until an electrical fault occurred, potentially igniting a fire.

However, Xcel had previously installed multisensor devices to provide real-time intelligence. The devices detected structural failure through vibration, acoustic and pole-tilt measurements prior to voltage loss. A crew was dispatched with detailed knowledge of what they would encounter, allowing them to safely de-energize the line and make repairs before a fault could occur.

Conclusion
Real-time detection technology offers utilities the data they need to safely, efficiently identify and troubleshoot unexpected field hazards. Its adoption will likely expand as utility organizations continue seeking enhancements to employee safety and grid reliability.

About the Author: Tim Bedford is the principal customer success manager for Gridware. Reach him at tim.bedford@gridware.io.

Editor’s Note: To learn more about multisensor technology for utilities, check out a recent interview with Tim on the Utility Safety Podcast, available at https://utilitysafety.podbean.com/e/closing-the-hazard-awareness-delay-real-time-grid-visibility-with-active-grid-response/.

In this episode, we go beneath the surface into the high-stakes, “unforgiving” world of medium-voltage underground cable splicing. Drawing from Mark Savage’s expert insights in Incident Prevention Magazine, we explore why cable identification isn’t just a technical task—it’s a survival skill. We break down the “Zero Trust” philosophy where every cable is treated as lethal until proven otherwise, and even then, safety margins remain non-negotiable. From arc flashes hotter than the sun to 40-foot remote hydraulic cutters, learn how elite utility professionals engineer redundant systems to eliminate single points of failure. Whether you are in the trenches or the boardroom, this episode offers a masterclass in total risk mitigation.

Read the article here: https://incident-prevention.com/blog/cable-identification-and-cutting-safety-for-medium-voltage-splicers/

Key Takeaways:

• The Zero Trust Mindset: Workers must assume every cable is energized and lethal, even after a “green light” or testing indicates otherwise.
• The Physics of Failure: An arc flash in a medium-voltage environment can reach 35,000°F—hotter than the surface of the sun—instantly vaporizing copper and creating concussive pressure waves.
• Redundant Layers of Defense: Safety is achieved through overlapping layers: validated PPE (arc-rated clothing and dielectric gloves), administrative lockout/tagout (LOTO) with dual authority, and sophisticated electronic identification tools.
• Induced Voltage Risks: Even a disconnected “dead” cable can become lethal by picking up energy from live parallel cables, acting like a giant transformer; this necessitates strict grounding protocols.
• The “Remote Cut” Rule: The most critical safeguard is that the first cut into a cable must always be made remotely—using hot sticks, Bluetooth, or hydraulic tools—to keep the human worker outside the potential blast radius.
• Maintenance as Safety: A safety system is only as good as its tools; delicate electronic testers must be stored in climate-controlled, shock-absorbing cases to prevent calibration errors that lead to “false positives” on live lines.

Questions and Answers:

1. Why is “Dual Authority” required for removing a lockout tag? Under this protocol, a tag can only be removed when both the Central Dispatch Center and the specific worker who physically placed the tag agree. This prevents dispatch from accidentally re-energizing a line while a worker is still in the vault, ensuring the person in the “line of fire” has the ultimate final say over their own safety.

2. What are the dangers of using a wire-pulling snake during cable identification? A worker should never run a conductive wire-pulling snake through a duct unless the cable inside is definitively proven dead. If the snake encounters an energized cable with degraded insulation, it creates a bridge for an arc flash to travel directly back to the worker’s hands.

3. How do impulse test kits identify a specific cable across distances as long as 20 miles? The kit uses a transmitter at a known point (like a substation) to send a unique, directional, low-voltage electrical pulse pattern down the line. A splicer miles away uses a clamp-on receiver to read that specific pulse, allowing the cable to “broadcast” its identity and even its specific phase.

#UtilitySafety #ArcFlashProtection #ZeroTrust #LineWorker #IncidentPrevention #RiskManagement #UndergoundUtilities #Splicing

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

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

AED Programs in 2026: From “Do We Need Them?” to “Can We Trust They’ll Work?”

** THIS WEBINAR WILL BE RECORDED **

Sign Up today!

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

About Avive Solutions
Avive Solutions is a technology company focused on improving survival from sudden cardiac arrest by making AED programs more reliable, visible, and ready when they are needed most. Its connected AED platform combines intelligent devices, real-time monitoring, and automated program management to help organizations ensure their lifesaving equipment is always rescue-ready. Utilities, public safety agencies, and enterprise organizations use Avive to support distributed workforces, fleets, and facilities where traditional inspection models often fall short. By providing greater visibility and operational oversight, Avive helps safety leaders build scalable cardiac arrest response programs that protect employees and the communities they serve.

Buckingham offers flight-ready solutions for human external cargo (HEC) applications: the BuckFLIGHT HEC Harness (Non-Step In); Arc Tested Buck Access Tower Harness (Step In); and Arc Tested BuckTech Harness (Non-Step In).

Per FAA Policy Statement PS-AIR-27/29.865, ANSI Z359.11 full-body harnesses are now acceptable for use in HEC applications, providing an alternative to the harness requirements previously defined under FAA TSO-C167.

The BuckFLIGHT HEC Harness (64992) – developed collaboratively by experts who live and breathe safety, flight operations and on-structure work – sets a new standard for HEC performance. Key features include hi-vis webbing color that enhances visibility for pilots during HEC operations; an integrated RFID tag for inspection tracking; and a new HEC tagging system that includes a removable five-year HEC service-life label.

The 61992 Arc Tested Buck Access Tower Harness is the ultimate companion for both tower and fly work, providing exceptional suspension comfort during flight while maintaining the familiar fit and feel of a traditional lineman’s belt.

Lastly, the 68K966K6 Arc Tested BuckTech Harness takes safety and performance to the next level with the superior adaptability, comfort and performance required for both flight- and structure-based operations. https://buckinghammfg.com

Xwatch Safety Solutions, part of Hexagon, a leader in excavator safety systems, and RodRadar, developer of the field-proven Live Dig Radar (LDR), have announced the industry’s first safety-grade solution for preventing underground utility strikes. The integrated system automatically stops excavator bucket movement when subsurface utilities are detected during active excavation, making RodRadar’s Zero-Strike vision a reality.

RodRadar’s AI-driven LDR digging system uses the first-ever ground-penetrating radar embedded directly in an excavator bucket to detect underground utilities in real time, during excavation, without reliance on pre-project utility data. Through the RodRadar/Xwatch integration, LDR-detected utilities trigger an automatic bucket stop via Xwatch’s safety-grade hydraulic control system.

This integration represents a fundamental step in excavation safety. The approach is analogous to the automotive industry’s evolution from advanced driver assistance systems that merely warn drivers to autonomous emergency braking that actively prevents collisions. The integrated system takes direct action, delivering what RodRadar terms Stop-Before-Strike, while operators retain override capability. https://hexagon.com, https://rodradar.com

3M DBI-SALA Davit Arm Systems are designed for manhole and confined space entry/retrieval applications. These units are constructed of lightweight materials, including high-strength aluminum. The davit pivots for ease of rescue and has adjustment for overhead clearance restrictions. The lower base adjusts to fit most standard entries. Many other portable and fixed bases are available to suit any jobsite need. www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/dc/v100869192/

Durabilt Durbin has introduced the all-new DuraTorQ (DTQ) Series, a patent-pending torque drive load binder engineered to redefine efficiency in load securement. Designed for drill activation, the DTQ-12 is compatible with 1/2-inch to 3/8-inch chain, while the DTQ-38 is compatible with 3/8-inch to 5/16-inch chain, delivering fast, controlled tensioning with significantly reduced physical strain.

These binders shift manual force to power-assisted operation, dramatically cutting operator fatigue and shortening loading and unloading times. Each DTQ binder is 100% proof load tested and includes trace codes for enhanced product accountability and tracking. With a focus on productivity and consistency, the DuraTorQ Series allows crews to secure loads faster without sacrificing safety or performance. https://durabiltusa.com

Guardian’s new Mobile Elevated Work Platform (MEWP) Kits with leading-edge protection provide a complete, compliant fall protection solution designed specifically for MEWP operators. Each all-inclusive kit features a Guardian Full-Body Harness paired with the CR3-Edge Class 2 Self-Retracting Lifeline (SRL) and is conveniently packaged in a durable Carry Bag for easy transport and storage. Since MEWPs do not offer overhead anchorage, a Class 2 leading-edge-rated SRL is required to help ensure proper protection. The CR3-Edge connects directly to the MEWP anchor point, removing the weight of the device from the worker’s back and reducing fatigue during extended tasks at height. Many lifts include multiple anchorage locations, including mid-rail anchor points, allowing the SRL housing to remain secured to the structure of the lift while the user maintains continuous tie-off. With 10 feet of usable cable, the CR3-Edge provides enhanced mobility within lifts and supports efficient movement in warehouse and distribution environments. All Guardian Class 2 MEWP Kits are OSHA and ANSI compliant and engineered to keep operators safe, comfortable and productive at height. https://guardianfall.com/product/mewp-kit

In this episode of the Influencing Safety podcast, Kate Wade and Bill Martin pull back the curtain on their creative process with a raw, “behind-the-scenes” brainstorming session. They explore the critical shift from reacting to downstream incidents to identifying the “upstream” conditions that create them. By discussing concepts like the “teaspoon fallacy,” psychological safety, and the importance of neurodiversity, they challenge the utility industry to move beyond comfortable data and embrace the uncomfortable curiosity required to save lives.

Key Takeaways

• Look Upstream for Solutions: Focusing only on the outcome of an incident is a downstream reaction; true prevention requires identifying the weak signals and root conditions—such as poor communication or high-pressure environments—that exist higher “up the funnel”.
• The Teaspoon Fallacy: Certainty can be dangerous; humans often defend a “teaspoon” of information as if it were the entire ocean, leading them to dismiss valid ideas or safety concerns simply because they haven’t personally experienced them.
• Engagement is a Condition, Not a Command: Management cannot simply order workers to be engaged. True engagement emerges when managers create psychologically safe environments where even the “back row” feels comfortable speaking up and challenging the status quo.
• Neurodiversity as a Safety Asset: Individuals with neurodivergent traits often excel at early pattern recognition; leveraging these unique skill sets can help organizations spot risks that more neurotypical workers might miss.
• Aligning Three Critical Questions: To solve problems effectively, teams must agree on: what the problem is, what the long-term mission is, and whether short-term measures actually align with that mission.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is “Flow State” and how does it relate to safety?

A: Flow state is a zone of optimal performance where an individual is stretched just enough out of their comfort zone to learn and produce high-quality work without reaching the level of anxiety or stress that inhibits learning.

Q: Why does Bill Martin criticize the industry’s obsession with data?

A: Bill argues that data often reflects outcomes from years prior, and reacting solely to those results ignores the millions of interactions and shifting conditions that have happened since, making it difficult to prove that current actions are truly responsible for change.

Q: According to the episode, what are the four stages of psychological safety?

A: Citing Timothy R. Clark, the stages are: first, feeling safe to be included; second, safe to learn; third, safe to contribute; and finally, safe to challenge the status quo.

#UtilitySafety #PsychologicalSafety #UpstreamThinking #HumanPerformance #IncidentPrevention

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

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

In this episode of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade dives deep into the science of sleep with Dr. Eric Rogers, a performance sleep coach who has trained elite military units like the US Navy SEALs. Designed specifically for the high-hazard utility industry, this conversation reframes sleep from a passive recovery state to “the most powerful performance enhancer on the planet”.

Dr. Rogers explores the “inconvenient truths” about how alcohol and caffeine sabotage sleep architecture, the hidden dangers of “micro sleeps” during long shifts, and the life-threatening impact of untreated sleep apnea in the workforce. Whether you are a lineman navigating storm restoration or a leader looking to reduce driving-related accidents, this episode provides tactical, non-medicated strategies to ensure your brain remains the ultimate piece of PPE.

Key Takeaways

• The Brain as Primary PPE: While physical gear is vital, the brain is the command center for every decision; sleep is the primary factor ensuring it functions correctly in high-risk environments.
• The Danger of Micro Sleeps: These involuntary, split-second “brain shutdowns” occur during severe sleep deprivation and are a leading cause of driving accidents after long shifts.
• Alcohol’s False Promise: While alcohol acts as a sedative to help you fall asleep faster, it “wreaks havoc” on sleep architecture, resulting in poor quality, non-restorative rest.
• Tactical Napping & Caffeine: Strategic, short “tactical naps” (even 5 minutes) and early-shift caffeine use are effective tools for managing fatigue during emergency storm restoration.
• Circadian Rhythm Vulnerability: Human bodies are hardwired to be alert during the day; the “trough” of alertness between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. makes night shifts and early morning commutes particularly hazardous.
• Cultural Shift in Leadership: Organizations must move away from “praising sleep deprivation” and instead build rest periods and “buddy checks” into job planning to protect workers and productivity.

Questions & Answers

Podcast Episode Overview: The High-Voltage Sleep Gap

Host: Kate Wade, Editor of Incident Prevention Magazine Guest: Dr. Eric Rogers, Founder of Peak Sleep LLC and former sleep specialist for US Navy SEAL teams

In this episode of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Dr. Eric Rogers to discuss why consistent, high-quality sleep is the most powerful performance enhancer available to utility workers. Drawing on his experience with elite military units, Dr. Rogers explains how sleep deprivation directly impacts the “command center” of the body—the brain—affecting judgment, risk-taking, and physical safety. The conversation covers the “inconvenient truth” about alcohol’s impact on rest, the mechanics of dangerous “micro sleeps” during long shifts, and actionable strategies like tactical napping and box breathing to manage fatigue in high-hazard environments.

Key Takeaways

• The Brain as Primary PPE: Sleep is the number one way to ensure your brain—the command center for every action—is functioning correctly to prevent bad outcomes.
• Alcohol and Sleep Architecture: While alcohol is a sedative that helps you fall asleep faster, it dramatically damages sleep quality by wreaking havoc on your sleep architecture.
• The 24-Hour Impairment Rule: Being awake for 24 hours straight results in reaction times and cognitive abilities equivalent to a 0.10 blood alcohol level.
• Micro Sleep Dangers: These involuntary “brain shutdowns” last from a fraction of a second to several seconds and often happen without the person even realizing it, particularly during repetitive tasks like driving.
• Circadian Rhythm Vulnerability: Human bodies have a natural “trough” or low point in alertness between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m., making this the most dangerous time for shift work and commutes.
• Tactical Napping: For workers on long shifts, even a 5-to-15-minute “tactical nap” can significantly reduce fatigue and the risk of micro sleeps.

Q & A

Q: How does sleep deprivation compare to alcohol impairment on a job site?

A: When an individual has been awake for 24 hours or more, their cognitive functions, such as reaction time, are equivalent to someone with a 0.10 blood alcohol level. While most crews would never work alongside someone who is actively drunk, many frequently work 24-hour shifts with that same level of impairment.

Q: What is the most effective way to stabilize your internal clock (circadian rhythm)?

A: The single best strategy is to set a consistent wake-up time and stick to it seven days a week. Dr. Rogers notes that waking up at the same time every day is actually more important for your circadian rhythm than going to bed at the same time.

Q: Why is sleep apnea a specific concern for the utility industry workforce?

A: Sleep apnea is a breathing disorder more common in men and those who carry extra weight or significant muscle mass in the neck area. Because it causes the person to briefly wake up dozens of times per hour, it leads to non-restorative sleep and dangerous daytime sleepiness, such as falling asleep unintentionally during meetings or at red lights.

Q: What can leadership do to change the culture around sleep and safety?

A: Leaders should move away from praising sleep deprivation and instead encourage proper rest. This includes building rest periods into job planning, encouraging tactical naps during shifts longer than 16 hours, and using “buddy check” systems for night shifts to ensure no one is working compromised.

#UtilitySafety #SleepPerformance #LinemanLife #SafetyLeadership #FatigueManagement #IncidentPrevention

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

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

• 

  IMG_7569

• 

  IMG_7570

• 

  IMG_7591

• 

  IMG_7585

• 

  IMG_7584

• 

  IMG_7582

• 

  IMG_7583

• 

  IMG_7577

• 

  IMG_7574

• 

  IMG_7573

In the nearly 15 years I’ve worked in the electric utility industry, I’ve witnessed life-altering injuries and helped to bury more than one coworker-turned-friend.

The toughest part for me to accept is knowing that most of those injuries and deaths were preventable. We were well-trained. Our compliance systems and paperwork were in place. Yet we still failed our brothers and sisters.

That reality should eat at all of us because our industry could have done better then – and we should be doing better now. We must face the truth that not all safety methods work as intended. Without adjusting our approach, elimination of serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs) is nearly impossible.

The Illusion of Safety
One specific thing that keeps me up at night is the illusion of safety. Many of us are drowning in paperwork, but it is not meaningfully moving the needle in terms of SIF prevention.

Think about it. Nearly every incident we investigate circles back to either a lack of clarity or a lack of communication. Both are preventable forms of confusion. In allowing uncertainty to linger, we accept far greater risk than the cost of slowing down or stopping work to make things right.

Compliance is a science. It’s measurable, rigid, written in black and white. Regulatory and organizational rules tell us what’s permitted and what isn’t, what will pass an audit and what won’t. Safety, on the other hand, is an art. It’s dynamic, fluid, constantly changing. Because each jobsite is different, frontline workers must assess changing site conditions to identify hazards, applying what they’ve learned from their safety and compliance training to mitigate harm. This skill requires a combination of creativity, discipline and situational awareness in real time.

Unfortunately, the industry often considers compliance and safety as one and the same – and that’s a problem.

Job hazard analyses and pre-job briefings should never be treated solely as company-mandated compliance measures. Time spent on these activities should be dedicated to ensuring frontline employees truly understand the work and hazards ahead. Job forms signed without worker understanding are much like shields crafted from cheap paper: easily torn and ignored, potentially exposing users to fatal hazards.

The Courtroom vs. the Pole
Here’s another hard truth: While compliance measures often protect employers in courtrooms, that’s not necessarily the case for lineworkers.

Completed job forms help employers demonstrate to judges and juries that they fulfilled their legal obligations. But as any lineworker suspended 45 feet in the air will tell you, a signed job form will never support their weight as they work or prevent them or their coworker from making a potentially fatal error.

Sadly, some organizations have weaponized compliance paperwork, using it as grounds for discipline or termination. Yet it is critical to note here that compliance is not our enemy. This is about perspective. By viewing compliance as a safety tool rather than our end goal, we can focus on what we should be aiming at: sending workers home in the same condition they arrived in (or better).

Keep in mind that workers who believe safety rules and paperwork exist only to protect their employer will almost always sign their forms, nod during meetings and walk away unchanged – and likely unwilling to change.

Leadership Sets the Tone
This is an industry problem. Leadership sets the tone. Executives who speak about safety purely as a compliance metric send a message to crews, loud and clear, that employer liability concerns matter more than employee lives. When production is pushed at all costs, workers are taught that safety rules aren’t rules; they’re suggestions.

Good, strong leadership looks different. These executives invest in clarity and measure safety by how many workers return home uninjured, not the number of forms completed.

The fix to our industry’s safety culture is not complicated, but it requires courageous leaders who are willing to (1) prioritize employee understanding over signed job forms; (2) treat compliance paperwork as a living tool; (3) measure safety by outcomes, not optics; and (4) create organizational cultures in which workers believe the system exists to protect them.

Let’s stop pretending that more rules will save us. What we need is greater clarity, accountability and humanity in our approach. Safety is about people, not paperwork – but until we consistently treat it that way, we will keep paying the price.

About the Author: Stephen Shutt, CUSP, serves as an instructor and the director of powerline programs for Heavy Equipment Colleges of America. Reach him at stephen.shutt@hecofa.com.

“Built In, Not Bolted On” explores the critical integration of safety into the core of organizational operations rather than treating it as a secondary, compliance-based add-on. Author Doug Hill argues that when safety is established as a fundamental organizational value—rather than just a priority—it naturally drives improvements in quality, productivity, and overall operational excellence. By utilizing Human and Organizational Performance (HOP) principles, the article highlights how a “safety-first” culture motivates employees to follow standards even when unobserved, ultimately reducing rework and fostering a more efficient workforce.

Read the article by Doug Hill, CUSP – Built In, Not Bolted On: Using Safety to Drive Operational Excellence

Key Takeaways

• Safety as a Value, Not a Priority: Priorities can shift depending on the day’s demands, but values remain constant. When safety is a value, employees adhere to standards because they see the inherent worth in them.
• The Interconnectivity of Success: Safety, quality, and productivity are not silos. A safe process is often a high-quality process that leads to productive outcomes.
• Human and Organizational Performance (HOP): Systems should be designed so that processes are easy to follow and make sense to the people actually doing the work.
• The Power of “Why”: Employees are more likely to follow protocols (like wearing PPE) when they understand the personal stakes (family, health, well-being) rather than just trying to avoid a reprimand.
• Learning from Success: Organizations should focus on learning from what goes right just as much as they learn from failures to identify opportunities for continuous improvement.

3 Questions and Answers

Q1: What is the main difference between safety being a “priority” versus a “value”? A1: A priority is something that can change based on circumstances or pressure (like a deadline), whereas a value is a core belief that remains constant regardless of the situation. When safety is a value, it is integrated into every action naturally.

Q2: How does the article suggest safety impacts productivity and quality? A2: The author uses the analogy of building a child’s bicycle: because you care about the safety of the rider, you follow instructions more carefully (Quality), which ensures the bike works correctly the first time and doesn’t require repairs (Productivity/Efficiency).

Q3: Why is “peer-to-peer support” mentioned as a critical factor in safety culture? A3: Because supervisors cannot be everywhere at once. A strong safety culture relies on workers looking out for one another and holding each other accountable to standards even when leadership is not present.

#UtilitySafety #OperationalExcellence #OccupationalSafety #HOP #WorkplaceCulture #IncidentPrevention

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

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

“Hot Spots on Energized Switches: What They Signal, What Causes Them, and What Utilities Can Do Without Creating Unnecessary Outages”

WEBINAR RECORDING

MEET YOUR SPEAKERS

FirstPower Group LLC (FPG) is a specialized industrial manufacturer and service provider dedicated to the maintenance and repair of high-voltage circuit breakers and compressors for the electric power industry. Founded in 2007, the company carries forward a legacy dating back to 1979, having roots in J.W. Harley Inc. and a subsequent period as part of GE Power Generation Services.

FPG distinguishes itself by applying decades of engineering expertise to modernize aging equipment, offering affordable solutions that improve productivity while reducing environmental impact. The company’s operations are guided by the principles of Kaizen and Lean manufacturing, focusing on the systematic elimination of waste and continuous operational improvement. Safety and reliability are paramount, with a workforce fully trained in OSHA standards to ensure the dependable delivery of electric services. Ultimately, FPG aims to be a global leader in equipment remanufacturing, driven by a customer-centric culture and a commitment to achievement.

The EMCOOLS ArcticCore Vest from Global Healthcare, a world leader in medical cooling technology, is powered by HypoCarbon to deliver deep-core cooling – not merely surface-level relief. By penetrating body tissue to lower the user’s core temperature for over four hours, it aids in preventing heat stress and injury.

The vest is constructed using the same proven technology as the FDA-approved CarbonCool system, which offers ultra-compact, rapidly deployable cooling performance that exceeds full ice-bath immersion with no need for ice, water or electricity. CarbonCool is an entirely dry cooling technology that is compatible with other medical interventions, including AEDs and diagnostic imaging.

To meet the demands of high-risk industrial environments, EMCOOLS recently introduced a flame-resistant ArcticCore Vest that complies with NFPA 2112, enabling safe deployment in settings where fire hazards exist.

The EMCOOLS ArcticCore Vest is also available with an optional hydration bladder, which can be frozen to extend the cooling duration while providing on-the-go hydration.

Email Global Healthcare SG (info@globalhealthcare.sg) or EMCOOLS (info@emcools.com) for clinical and peer-reviewed studies, OSHA guidance and demos. www.globalhealthcare.sg, https://emcools.com

Prevent soft-tissue injuries, minimize struck-by incidents, and reduce sprains and strains with the KNOCK’ER-IN pipe and conduit installation tool from Innisfree. Offering an alternative to the traditional 2-x-4 method of joining UG conduit, this tool helps to increase worker safety, productivity and comfort, 10 feet at a time. The molded polyurethane block coupled with a fiberglass handle and rubber handgrip provides a cushion for every blow, while the positioning shoe offers stabilization through the strike. Additionally, the KNOCK’ER-IN features a concave arch bottom – because sometimes you need to knock’er-off. www.innisfreetools.com

Twiceme Technology, a company building the digital safety standard for jobsites and adventures, has expanded its partnership with height safety leader Guardian. Building on Twiceme’s existing integration in Guardian’s B7-Comfort Harness, it will now be integrated into 10 Guardian anchor-mounted self-retracting lifelines (SRLs), marking a first for the fall protection industry. The Twiceme-enabled SRLs from Guardian are expected to be available this spring.

These SRLs range from 16 to 65 feet, providing extended working distance while efficiently stopping the user from hitting the ground or next level in the event of a fall. With Twiceme’s integration into Guardian’s SRLs, organizations can use its safety management portal to access equipment health inspection and work document features, tracking on-site certification and ensuring PPE is safe and in good condition. The Medical ID features assist first responders in rescue missions. https://twiceme.com, https://guardianfall.com

DICA is expanding its product portfolio with the introduction of its own line of ground protection and site access mats. The new Ranger HD, Defender and Titan mats provide contractors with high-performance, cost-effective access options for a variety of jobsites. DICA will debut the company’s light-, medium- and heavy-duty mats in March at CONEXPO-CON/AGG 2026 in Las Vegas.

Ranger HD is a 4-foot-by-8-foot, half-inch-thick mat designed for light-duty temporary access where hand deployment and surface protection are primary needs. Defender is a 3-foot-by-6-foot, 1-inch-thick medium-duty option with overlapping flanges that lock together. It is suited to a wider range of ground conditions, providing a more rigid surface for heavier equipment, such as concrete pump trucks, large material-handling equipment, boom trucks and rough terrain cranes. Titan access mats provide heavy-duty ground protection. The 2-inch-thick mats covering 71 square feet are designed for higher load requirements (e.g., heavy mobile cranes, crawler cranes). https://dicausa.com

The Buckingham 401SRK Self-Rescue System is an emergency descent device designed to allow workers to safely perform self-rescue from an elevated position when no third party is present. The system utilizes an all-aluminum descent control device (DCD) featuring an anti-panic brake that ensures a safe, controlled descent from an elevated surface. The DCD incorporates a unique cam feature that provides smooth modulation, allowing the user to easily control descent speed by pulling the lever to find the optimal position. If the user pulls the lever too far, the DCD will stop the descent. Compact at only 7.5 mm, the Technora descent line is designed to withstand heat during long descents. The system includes two retro rappelling straps for use with any style full-body harness that does not have a rated attachment for rescue. This device is securely packed in a weather-resistant bag that can withstand an electric arc flash. The 401SRK system is available for one- or two-man buckets; the two-man bucket system includes two pairs of retro rappelling straps and two DCDs. https://buckinghammfg.com/products/self-rescue-system-401srk/

In this episode of the Utility Safety Podcast, host Nick chats with Bill Martin, CUSP about a concept that goes far beyond the standard safety manual: the physics of human energy. Inspired by Nikola Tesla’s quote on energy, frequency, and vibration, Bill explains why workers are like “human tuning forks” and how one person’s attitude can physically resonate through an entire crew. The conversation dives deep into the biology of leadership, contrasting the stress of “command and control” with the high performance of synchronized teams. Bill also challenges the industry’s reliance on caffeine and energy drinks, arguing that true high performance starts with regulating your own physiology and inputs. Tune in to learn how to move from a state of basic compliance to a state of high-frequency synchronization.

Key Takeaways

• The Tuning Fork Analogy: Humans are like tuning forks; energy transfers between people without physical contact, meaning a single person’s mood or “vibration” can affect the safety and performance of the entire team.
• Synchronization Over Compliance: While “command and control” works in predictable environments, high-risk utility work requires synchronization—like pushing a swing in rhythm—to maintain forward momentum and safety.
• The Chemistry of Leadership: A leader’s approach triggers biological responses; criticism releases cortisol (stress/defense), while praise releases oxytocin (connection/higher cognition), changing the frequency at which the team operates.
• Impact of Substances: Reliance on energy drinks, caffeine, and alcohol dehydrates the brain and lowers cognitive frequency, effectively making workers “stupid” and slower to react in critical situations.
• The 5-Second Rule: To avoid reacting negatively to a “toxic” team member, use the 5-second rule (count down 5-4-3-2-1) to bypass your biological defense mechanism and choose a constructive response.
• The Power of Sync (Millennium Bridge): Just as the rhythmic walking of pedestrians caused London’s Millennium Bridge to wobble violently, a team that is perfectly synchronized can generate immense power and capability.

Questions & Answers

Q1: How does Bill Martin explain the concept of “making your own luck” regarding safety and life?

A: Bill explains that prediction is simply how our brains work to make things happen, rather than a lottery ticket. He argues that we are in 100% control of our next decision regardless of the hand we are dealt, meaning we decide if our “luck” is good or bad based on our mindset and actions.

Q2: Why does Bill suggest that energy drinks are detrimental to line workers?

A: Bill notes that energy drinks alter physiology by spiking heart rates, which the body struggles to distinguish from fear or running from a threat. He states that caffeine dehydrates the brain (which is 70% water), slowing down brain conduction and thinking speed, which is dangerous in high-stakes work.

Q3: What is the “marshmallow” effect in a team setting?

A: Using the analogy of Newton’s cradle (pendulum balls), Bill describes a person who is out of sync or vibrating at a low frequency as a “marshmallow”. If placed in the middle of the team, this person absorbs the energy rather than transferring it, stopping the team’s momentum.

Q4: How can a worker change the “frequency” of a negative interaction immediately?

A: Instead of reacting defensively to a bully or an angry coworker, Bill suggests smiling or staying silent for five seconds to disrupt their predicted response. By refusing to let the other person decide your energy, and instead responding with curiosity or kindness, you change the dynamic of the interaction.

#UtilitySafety #Leadership #TeamSync #HumanPerformance #Mindset #LineLife

In this episode of Incident Prevention’s Utility Safety Podcast, host Kate Wade sits down with Tim Bedford, a 36-year veteran of PG&E and current Principal Customer Success Manager at Gridware. Together, they explore a critical new category of grid intelligence: Active Grid Response.

Tim explains the concept of “Hazard Awareness Delay”—the dangerous gap in time between a grid event occurring and the utility becoming aware of it . By utilizing Gridware’s Gridscope, a mechanical sensing device installed on poles, utilities can now detect hazards like broken poles, vegetation impact, and conductor vibration in real-time .

Listen in to learn:

• How real-time grid visibility eliminates unnecessary exposure for linemen, drastically improving utility safety.
• The role of mechanical sensing in preventing wildfires by identifying risks before they ignite .
• How Gridware’s technology creates a “zero delay line break” response, potentially de-energizing falling lines before they hit the ground .
• Strategies for funding safety technology through reliability and fleet maintenance budgets .

Whether you are in operations, safety management, or fleet logistics, this episode offers actionable insights into modernizing grid protection.

Guest Contact: Tim Bedford | tim.bedford@gridware.io Learn More: www.gridware.io

Key Takeaways

• Defining Hazard Awareness Delay: This is the critical time lapse between an event occurring on the electrical system and the utility’s awareness of it; reducing this delay prevents outages and catastrophic events like wildfires.

• Mechanical Sensing Technology: Gridware’s “Gridscope” acts like a pickup on a guitar string, detecting vibration, sound, and pole angle changes to pinpoint exact fault locations without needing to patrol the entire line.

• Enhancing Lineman Safety: By providing the exact location of a fault, utilities reduce the need for linemen to patrol hazardous terrain in the dark, significantly lowering safety risks and exposure.

• Rapid Installation: The devices are approximately the size of a shoebox, weigh 3.5 lbs, and can be installed in under five minutes; a single crew can install upwards of 50 devices per day.

• Future “Zero Delay” Capabilities: Gridware is currently piloting technology that can detect a line break and trigger a recloser to de-energize the circuit before the wire even hits the ground.

Q&A: Utility Safety & Grid Visibility

Q: What is the “Active Grid Response” solution provided by Gridware?

A: Active Grid Response is a new category of grid intelligence that provides real-time visibility into the physical, electrical, and environmental conditions of the grid. It uses sensors to monitor vibrations and pole angles, allowing utilities to identify specific hazards—like a tree striking a line or a car hitting a pole—before they escalate into major outages or wildfires.

Q: How does this technology directly improve utility safety for the workforce?

A: It drastically reduces the “hunt and seek” method of finding faults. Instead of a troubleman patrolling miles of line in hazardous conditions (darkness, rough terrain, severe weather), the system provides a pinpoint location . This minimizes the time employees spend in dangerous environments and reduces fleet vehicle exposure .

Q: Is this technology cost-prohibitive for smaller utilities or tight budgets?

A: Tim Bedford suggests that funding often comes from shifting budgets based on the use case. For example, the technology offsets costs in fleet fuel, engine hours, and patrol time. Additionally, it can replace less effective legacy devices like standard fault indicators, and deployments can be scaled to focus only on high-risk protection zones rather than the entire system immediately.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #GridModernization #LinemanSafety #WildfirePrevention #SmartGrid #ActiveGridResponse

When I consider the advancements in the construction industry over the past 20 years, the emphasis on safety is one that immediately stands out. Today, we continue to strive to elevate our safety awareness, knowledge, training and program development – but that is only one side of the coin. On the other side, our workforce is experiencing concerning rates of turnover, burnout, mental exhaustion and suicide.

But how can this be our reality if our jobsites have become safer in recent decades?

The answer is directly tied to the way we manage overload. To help explain this, let’s look at three commonly understood areas – exercise science, electrical energy and mental health – that require proper overload management to yield the greatest benefits.

1. Exercise Science: Progressive Overload and Rest
The roots of exercise science are often traced to the story of Milo of Croton, an ancient Greek athlete. As a young boy, Milo carried a small calf on his shoulders each day. The two grew together, and after years of consistent effort, Milo was carrying a full-grown bull. His strength had increased in direct proportion to the bull’s growth.

Modern exercise science recognizes progressive overload as fundamental, with workouts intentionally designed to incrementally increase the stress placed on targeted muscles over time. Muscle will not experience hypertrophy or gain functional strength unless it has been pushed beyond its current limitations.

However, intentional stress must also have a limit. That is because muscle growth occurs in a state of rest and recovery, not in the moment of overload. If the muscle never rests, growth will be minimal or even regressive. Thus, overload must be managed properly, with an emphasis on rest, to reduce injury and achieve muscle growth.

2. Electrical Energy: Fixed Limits and Preventive Maintenance
Electrical energy is a largely unobservable force that is generated, transmitted and distributed via observable components. Each component of an electrical circuit must be capable of safely withstanding the demands placed upon it. When calculating system load, keep the components’ known limitations in mind to avoid creating an overload condition.

Electrical components, unlike the human body, do not benefit from progressive overload. They have a fixed failure point, where load demand exceeds rated capacity. Both electrical and mechanical components depend on preventive maintenance for safe, reliable operation.

Preventive maintenance programs have become standard practice in the utility sector, helping to ensure functionality and longevity. Inspections and repairs must only be done after electrical components have been verified as de-energized. Once again, overload is properly managed through deliberate rest.

3. Mental Health: Neuroplasticity Needs Recovery
The human brain is remarkable, in part because of its neuroplasticity, or the capacity to adapt in response to stimuli. The new neural connections created when the brain experiences stress are neuroplasticity at work. Moderate stress can drive positive adaptation and growth; unrelenting levels have the opposite effect.

As with exercise science and electrical energy, rest is essential here. The brain’s stress load must be relieved to allow neuroplasticity to produce positive, sustainable change – instead of damage. In other words, rest is how mitigation is achieved.

Where Do We Go From Here?
In 2026, we understand more than ever about exercise science, electrical energy and mental health. We know we cannot train our muscles all day if we want them to grow, and we understand that electrical system reliability depends on scheduled, de-energized maintenance. We have also begun to admit that the human brain is no different. Under constant load, and without real recovery, it will fail.

We are making huge strides in physical safety, too. Guards, personal protective equipment, procedures and programs are better than they have ever been. But when it comes to the human side of safety, we are merely at the starting line. Chronic overload experienced by our foremen, supervisors and managers is quietly eroding the very performance we are asking them to deliver. This must become a safety conversation.

Progressive overload is a powerful tool for building skills, knowledge and capability – but only when it is paired with deliberate rest and preventive maintenance. On the job, that means we must watch for early signs of mental fatigue, normalize the use of support resources, and give our key people time and space to recover.

We will always need power for our electrical systems and productivity for our projects, but we cannot forget the simplest truth of all: In the electric utility industry, safety isn’t just about the energy we lock out. It’s also about recognizing when our employees have reached maximum overload and then effectively responding to prevent them from experiencing burnout or worse.

About the Author: Rob Duplain is a superintendent for Virginia-based Miller Electric Co. A former police officer and graduate of Taylor University who earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology, he joined the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in 2010.

Layering flame-resistant (FR) clothing has long been a best practice among industrial athletes. In addition to providing critical hazard protection, this tried-and-true strategy enhances user comfort by enabling industrial athletes to add or remove clothing layers as their activity level or the weather changes.

Base, middle and outer FR layers are equally important. Each serves its own purpose, so it is wise for lineworkers to own all three types.

Base Layer: Moisture Management
This next-to-skin garment layer wicks moisture away from the body, a function that becomes especially important in frigid conditions, lowering the user’s risk of chills and hypothermia by keeping the skin dry and warm. Base layers are offered in various fabric weights, with a general rule of thumb that the heavier the fabric, the warmer it will keep you – so long as it wicks properly.

Keep in mind, however, that the primary purpose of an FR base layer isn’t to increase your warmth. Beyond offering hazard protection, this layer is intended to pull moisture away from the skin. So, when shopping for an optimal base layer, choose a quick-drying garment that offers permanent moisture-wicking performance. Permanent moisture management is achieved through a blend of hydrophobic/water-hating and hydrophilic/water-loving fibers. Manufacturers that make claims about their fabrics’ moisture-management benefits but don’t use this type of fiber blend typically rely on topical finishes that will wash out over time, diminishing garment performance.

FR fabric blends with proven moisture-management properties are available from numerous industry vendors. As you spec and select garments, ask for this and other relevant data to help guide your purchasing decisions.

Middle Layer: Insulation
The middle layer of an FR clothing system also moves moisture, similar to a base layer, but its primary role is helping users retain their body heat. Essentially, the more efficiently this layer traps heat, the warmer you will be. Fabric weight can be adjusted by users to match changing conditions; this is where the art of layering truly begins.

Here is just one example: Your shift starts early in the morning, when temperatures will be their lowest for the day. You opt to wear a base layer, a heavier midweight layer and a protective outer shell, all appropriately rated for the hazard exposure. As your body warms and the ambient temperature rises, you decide to swap your midweight layer for a lighter option that still provides adequate flame protection.

Ideally, industrial athletes will own middle layers in various fabric weights, including a heavier FR fabric for colder weather, giving themselves the flexibility to add or shed layers for comfort. Remember to select middle layers that provide permanent moisture-wicking performance. As with base layers, this feature helps to ensure fabric stays dry even as temperatures and physical activity levels rise.

Outer Layer: Wind, Rain and Snow Protection
Your outer FR layer should be breathable and wick moisture, but more importantly, it must protect you from the elements. Any wind or water given the opportunity to penetrate inner garment layers can quickly chill you, making this layer especially critical during storms.

One common consumer mistake is choosing an outer FR layer that’s too heavy and/or doesn’t breathe well, trapping moisture inside and providing subpar protection from wind, rain and snow. Outerwear should allow moisture to escape while being lightweight enough to allow the user’s freedom of movement. An FR clothing system that includes an outer layer with permanent moisture-wicking performance can move moisture from one layer to the next until it evaporates into the atmosphere.

Conclusion
Moisture-wicking technology was initially developed to enhance athletes’ performance in extreme outdoor environments, keeping them cooler and drier in hot conditions and warmer and drier in cold ones. Today, industrial athletes – like lineworkers – can take advantage of moisture-wicking, high-performance FR garments and well-designed layering systems to help keep them safe and comfortable in hazardous outdoor work environments.

About the Author: Brad Sipe is the director of business development for Lakeland Fire + Safety’s HPFR Division and a 25-year veteran of the apparel industry. Reach him at bssipe@lakeland.com.

*****

Selection Tips for Base, Middle and Outer Layers

Base

• Choose a base layer with permanent moisture management, which will help to ensure full lifetime performance of the garment.
• An optimal blend of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers is key. This combination pulls and pushes moisture through the FR fabric so that it spreads and dries more effectively. Ask vendors for garment data – it’s available – and be sure to check labels to confirm fiber blends.

Middle

• For flexibility, select FR middle layers in different fabric weights. These garments can be swapped out as temperatures and activity levels change.
• Ensure middle layers provide permanent moisture-wicking performance.

Outer

• Choose outerwear that will adequately protect you from wind, rain and snow.
• Make sure the FR garment is lightweight, breathable and incorporates permanent moisture management.

A medium-voltage underground splicer’s ability to safely and correctly identify, test and cut cable is more than part of their job; it is a survival skill. These splicers must be trained to make their first cut remotely – every time – whether performing routine maintenance or responding to an emergency, even when the cable has been tested and grounded. This approach ensures the worker is safely out of harm’s way if residual or unexpected energy remains in the system.

Procedural Development and Training
Proper cable identification supports operational efficiency, helping to minimize outages, reduce the risk of damaging cable and equipment, and expedite the restoration process after service disruptions.

Because misidentifying and/or improperly cutting a live cable can result in severe injury or death, utility organizations ideally develop and train employees on stringent cable identification procedures. Splicers must learn to use a combination of testing, grounding and electronic tracing to confirm cable identity before proceeding, regardless of the environment or circumstances.

Employers are legally required to comply with OSHA standards, which outline what they must accomplish to protect employees. Utility-specific guidelines also provide direction about how work is to be safely performed.

Layers of Defense
Cable splicing mirrors high-risk switching operations, which means that personal protective equipment is critical to worker safety. Standard PPE for a medium-voltage splicer includes a hard hat, safety glasses with side shields, steel-toe boots and flame-resistant clothing rated for the hazard exposure. Depending on the voltage and situation, a splicer may also need to wear rubber gloves, sleeves and arc-rated garments in exposed energized environments. Insulating hot sticks and grounding equipment are equally essential. Note that all PPE and tools must bear valid inspection stickers to confirm they are safe for use. The hazards of underground electrical work leave no room for shortcuts.

Lockout/tagout procedures offer another layer of defense. Once a cable has been identified, the splicer must work with dispatch to locate the nearest sectionalizing switches and isolate the line. Testing verifies the line has been properly switched out, and grounding removes any remaining induced voltage. Only then should a tag be placed on the equipment, clearly indicating that the cable must not be re-energized until the tag has been removed under the authority of dispatch and the worker who affixed it.

Modern electronic cable identification methods may not be available or reliable in some cases. Corroded grounds, damaged markers and other factors could force splicers to use traditional verification techniques, such as checking duct position numbers, verifying tags and footage markers, using blowers to feel air movement through ducts, and performing tug tests. Under no circumstances, however, should a snake be run through a duct unless the cable has first been proven de-energized.

Helpful Tools
Various advanced tools are available to help workers improve identification accuracy. Impulse test kits help to locate and phase identify direct-buried or conduit cables up to 20 miles long, including submersible cable. Using a transmitter that sends electrical impulses combined with a clamp-on receiver that reads the signals, splicers can accurately identify both single-phase and three-phase systems. Calibration and careful use of these tools are essential to prevent false readings.

Even with reliable identification tools, the process does not end once a cable is located and phased. Remote cutting is the final safeguard. No matter how certain the splicer is that a cable is de-energized, they must perform the first cut at a distance. Cutting implements can be selected based on the working environment. Grounded hot-stick cutters allow for smaller cable cuts from outside confined spaces. Bluetooth-enabled cutters can be operated remotely while secured in position to prevent accidental swings. Hydraulic cutters, with hoses and cords extending up to 40 feet, allow workers to stand clear of the cable during an initial cut. Regardless of the method, the objective remains the same: Keep workers out of the line of fire until the cable is fully severed.

The tools referenced here can help save lives – but only if they are in good condition. Follow manufacturer guidelines, store tools clean and dry in protective cases, and keep them shielded from unnecessary vibration and other exposures that could upset their calibration. With its constant bumps and jolts, a splicing truck is no place for delicate instruments unless they are properly secured. Dedicated, climate-protected storage ensures these devices remain reliable when they are needed most.

The Bottom Line
When it comes to cable identification and cutting, one principle stands above the rest: Treat every cable as if it is energized until proven otherwise – and maintain a margin of safety even then. By creating layers of defense with PPE, lockout/tagout procedures, proven tools and remote cutting, splicers safeguard themselves, their coworkers and the communities they serve. Underground cable work is largely unforgiving, but it can be performed safely and efficiently when approached with caution, precision and respect.

About the Author: Mark Savage is the owner of DeadBreak, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business providing underground distribution and transmission training, consulting and field services. A U.S. Marine Corps veteran with over 25 years of experience in underground construction and emergency response, Savage is a credentialed journeyman cable splicer/lineman and qualified medium-voltage splicing trainer. Reach him at msavage@deadbreak.us.

“If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” -Sir Ken Robinson

Innately curious and hardwired to seek order, humans often grasp onto the latest ideas and inventions that help us satisfy our need to understand the world around us. Don’t believe me? Consider geocentricism, or the now-obsolete belief that the Earth is the center of the universe.

In earlier millennia, we followed herds of animals as they migrated, all of us sleeping under the stars. Our ancestors knew the night sky better than many of us do today. As they watched their world revolve around them, they assumed that the universe must have been created in service to them – right up until the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton confirmed heliocentrism (i.e., that the sun is the center of our solar system).

Naturally, our ancestors were slow to accept this new information because changing deep-seated beliefs is no easy feat. They experienced discomfort and outright fear, preferring the warm and fuzzy feeling derived from trusting that the universe was solely focused on their needs.

Much like our ancestors, humans today often feel certain that we know all there is to know. When we dip a teaspoon into the proverbial ocean of available knowledge and find no whales, it is easy to assume whales do not exist. There weren’t any in our saltwater sample, right?

I noted earlier that it is not uncommon for us to acquire a small amount of information and run with it. Sometimes we will even protect and defend that information when someone challenges us or proves us wrong. Why do we respond in that manner? Well, our beliefs feel like a cozy security blanket, and our discomfort is provoked when someone snatches that blanket away. Though modern human society has undoubtedly evolved, the reality is that we are not vastly different from our ancestors. One exception is that in 2026, there is no valid reason why we shouldn’t trade in our teaspoons for much larger buckets of knowledge.

Predictive Processing Errors
We should not be surprised that safety has evolved in much the same way, given that it is a product of human systems and behaviors. Still, recognizing that can be difficult without the proper perspective. Let’s start by acknowledging that so long as we are breathing, there exists an infinite number of circumstances, decisions and other possibilities that could impact us. These possibilities intersect – again, in infinite ways – sometimes combining to produce worksite incidents. Yet too many industry professionals believe that we can identify and prevent the limitless number of potential event scenarios, using incident analyses to determine and address root causes.

Incidents stem from predictive processing errors, which is just a fancy term for certain mistakes made by the human brain. Here is the critical part that readers must understand: We cannot and will not predict an incident that we have never previously experienced or imagined or do not believe could occur. Recall the teaspoon-and-whales fallacy referenced earlier.

Time constraints and other job pressures are not uncommon in our industry. When we feel as though we must make a snap decision, the brain looks for cues and patterns based on our previous experiences and education. It will not make any decisions based on information it does not possess. In other words, greater intelligence and safer jobsites are much more likely to emerge when we share information with each other, preferably in healthy group settings that support quality interactions.

But here’s the catch. First, the human brain wants to conserve as much of the body’s energy as possible. Second, many of us are painfully aware that some individuals and working environments require more of our energy than others do. With that said, we can try to avoid interacting with coworkers who deplete us, but we also must realize that nothing results from a conversation that never takes place. No one will learn anything new that could enhance safety for all.

Optimism Bias and Experiential Blindness
Optimism bias – or a person’s inclination to underestimate the likelihood that something could go wrong – is a predictive processing error often made when the brain is in a state of experiential blindness. Our ability to accurately predict future events is severely hampered if we have never experienced those scenarios or imagined they could happen. Discovering our mistakes can be troubling as well, often triggering an emotional response that blocks the brain’s frontal lobe – the part that controls our critical thinking and executive functions.

Keep the previous paragraph in mind as we work through this next part. Let’s say someone raises a concern during a job briefing that is almost immediately dismissed by the rest of the crew. A concern shot down that quickly will likely never elicit any feedback or suggested actions from the group. But what if we reframe the way we think about concerns, treating them as predictions of unwanted outcomes? The more concerns that we raise, the more possibilities we can imagine, which increases our likelihood of identifying mitigation strategies that protect employees, customers and the public.

Safety is a product of our interactions on the job. Humans have invented the social hierarchy that exists in many organizations, but here is the reality: Every single worker is a piece of our puzzle. Remove one of them and outcomes change. The same is true in non-utility environments. For instance, a patient’s care could be undermined if the sheets on their hospital bed are soiled or their meals haven’t been carefully prepared. The next time you decide to bake your favorite loaf of bread, omit a couple of ingredients and let us know if it looks and tastes the same way you remember.

Tracking Events That Don’t Happen
Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: “If we can’t measure it, we can’t manage it.” That may be true for many things, yet it is not wholly accurate for safety. Yes, we collect and analyze data after incidents have occurred. But in an organization that fosters high-level, quality interactions among workers – interactions that enable us to carefully and intentionally move forward together through uncertainty – how do we measure and manage those incidents that never happened because of our safety efforts? The simple answer: We don’t. Instead, we focus on learning what we can from every outcome – wanted, unwanted, expected and unexpected.

Upstream Signals
There is one last thing I want to mention here. Since we do not typically notice what we are not looking for, we can miss weak upstream signals that point toward unwanted and unexpected outcomes. That means we must make a concerted effort to improve our observational skills, with success greatly dependent on team dynamics. Is there synchrony among our team? If not, who or what is out of alignment?

Our next safety meeting could provide some clues. While there, observe who is sitting in the back of the room. Have those individuals mostly assumed the same body language and posture, such as crossing their arms? Isn’t that interesting when we consider the tidy sum many of us are willing to pay for good seats to an event we are eager to attend? In fact, I do not believe our workers who sit in the back row, arms crossed, are consciously or voluntarily making that choice. I believe their behavior is an indicator of an unsettling, undefined “something” occurring upstream in the organizational system.

Conclusion
Safety should be about playing to win – not merely playing not to lose. To continue the utility industry’s safety evolution, it is imperative that we foster work environments in which concerns are treated as predictions of unwanted outcomes and our interactions with one another are considered opportunities to expand our collective intelligence.

About the Author: William N. Martin, CUSP, NRP, RN, DIMM, is president and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC (www.thinkprojectllc.com) and SAFR LLC. A third-generation electric utility worker and medical professional with extensive experience in high-risk operations and emergency medicine, he served nearly 20 years in lineman, line supervisor and safety director roles. Additionally, Martin spent 23 years as a critical care flight paramedic and registered nurse with cardiology and orthopedic experience. He earned a Diploma in Mountain Medicine and was an instructor/trainer for the National Ski Patrol. Currently, Martin writes and speaks nationally about safety and human performance, with a special focus on unleashing human potential.

Author’s Note: The first part of this five-part series (see https://incident-prevention.com/blog/when-the-system-isnt-enough-how-to-create-personal-motivation-that-saves-lives/) explored the notion of accepting 100% accountability for our safety at work. This article addresses mental preparation to reduce risk of serious injuries and fatalities. Part three will cover spiritual health, with a focus on clarifying and leveraging our own deeply held beliefs.

*****

Combat had endless tests, and one of the worst sins was “chattering” on the radio, which was reserved for essential messages; loose talk showed the wrong stuff. A Navy pilot once yelled, “I’ve got a MiG at zero!” as the enemy locked on his tail. An irritated voice cut in: “Shut up and die like an aviator.”

–Paraphrased from Tom Wolfe’s “The Right Stuff”

Are U.S. Navy pilots really born this way?

Many lineworkers have their own phrase: “He is a good hand.” While understated, it is meant to describe the pinnacle of lineworker excellence. But what is the “right stuff” in our industry? Calm, cool and collected? Competent, stoic and thoughtful? The kind of person who can say, “Houston, we have a problem” without missing a beat? Do we expect a lineworker to perform a thorough job briefing or safety analysis during a heat wave in the same way astronaut Jim Lovell calculated trajectories for Apollo 13’s return inside an overheated space capsule?

Navy pilots aren’t born calm, and lineworkers aren’t born good hands. These are learned behaviors cultivated through training, character development and good habit formation. As such, this article will not provide readers with a single definition of the right stuff. Instead, it will explain the origins of our natural dispositions and how we can evolve into people others trust with their lives.

What You’re Born With vs. What You Build
Since we’re not born ready-made for hazardous work, it is helpful to understand the raw wiring we begin our lives with and the patterns we develop over time.

Temperament is your nervous system’s factory setting, the tendencies you exhibited as a toddler and probably still demonstrate today. Some of us are naturally quiet and steady while others jump right into the center of things. None of this is good or bad. It is simply your starting point.

Your personality, or learned response to life, is shaped as your temperament interacts with your environment. You can thank everyone you have ever known for influencing it. Personality is the ongoing negotiation between who you are on the inside and what the external world expects of you. Some struggle with this balance, but most manage it well enough.

Emotional reactions arise from the interplay of both. Like voltage seeking ground, every moment is matched against your temperament and personality. Experiences in line with your natural tendencies generate little emotional current, while those that conflict create spikes. If someone threatens your family, for example, you’ll almost certainly feel it at full wattage; less so if someone hands you a package of peanut M&M’s instead of the plain ones you prefer.

Strong spikes become trigger points that can create havoc. Thankfully, David Rock, Ph.D., devised the SCARF Model, a cheat sheet for understanding these emotional triggers. In simple terms, the typical adult will have an emotional response to a perceived threat against their sense of status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness or fairness. The bigger the threat, the bigger the reaction – works every time. Consider an apprentice who has just been insulted in front of the rest of the crew. Depending on their temperament, they may react loudly and immediately or quietly a few hours later. For some it will be an immediate fistfight; others will prefer nailing your favorite hard hat to a pole when you’re not around.

What Predicts Safe Behavior?
Once you know what sets you off, you can train yourself to manage those triggers and influence safety in the field. Psychologists have studied five core personality traits – measured by the Five Factor Model, which has been supported by numerous studies since 1992 – that predict safety-related behavior. Taking this assessment can help you understand your temperament, personality, emotional triggers and how likely you are to work safely in hazardous conditions. The five factors are:

1. Conscientiousness: High assessment scores indicate deliberate, careful work. Low scores suggest carelessness.
2. Neuroticism: High scores signify impulsive, reactive behavior, especially under stress. Low scores mean stability, calm and steady decision-making.
3. Extroversion: High extroversion can either lead to distraction and horseplay or, with genuine competence, turn into strong, vocal advocacy for safety.
4. Agreeableness: High scores mean you’re cooperative, willing to follow rules and a team player.
5. Openness: Being open to untested approaches in hazardous situations can be risky, but being cautiously open to new safety tools and methods is a plus.

It is in your best interest to know your Five Factor scores, which highlight natural risks and areas that may need development. Although personality does not dictate your decisions, it does strongly influence your likeliest choices, and most of us are more predictable than we realize. Five Factor assessment results often confirm an individual’s suitability for line work, but even then, understanding these traits provides clearer insights into how we operate internally.

Personality Can Change With Practice
Now that we know which traits influence safe behavior, the question is, can we modify our own personal traits to enhance our safety in the field? Contrary to popular belief, the answer is yes – but there are three requirements: (1) willingness to change your behavior, (2) belief that you can change and (3) consistent practice until the new behavior becomes habit.

This may sound like psychobabble, but it is based on the same principle as boot camp, during which character development trains emotions. Boot camp attendees typically walk in with one disposition and walk out with another. Line apprenticeships work the same way. Often, there is a notion that we rise to the occasion, but the reality is that we sink to our level of training. True mastery is on us. It is – and can only be – a personal choice.

Elite athletes and special operations soldiers are prime examples. Their careers demand constant mastery, so they relentlessly concentrate on how they eat, move, sleep, communicate, focus, make decisions, plan their work and avoid complacency. Their apprenticeship never really ends.

In the utility world, effort often tapers once someone tops out, but we shouldn’t give up once we’ve “made it” because injuries and fatalities still happen. True mastery doesn’t stop at the peak; it’s up to each of us to keep learning and improving. Full accountability for our own safety means we shouldn’t ignore anything that could give us an edge.

Upgrading Your Mental Firmware
If your temperament is the factory setting of your nervous system, then mastery comes from upgrading the mental firmware that runs on top of it. The first step is understanding how you’re built (i.e., your natural temperament and the personality you’ve developed over time). The next step is intentionally improving how you operate.

This is when models like SCARF become useful. In addition to explaining why you react the way you do, they also help you predict what will set you off, enabling you to manage your pressure points before they manage you.

Note: Because this work is deeply personal, these upgrades should always be voluntary and confidential.

Here are the four steps I train clients to use when upgrading their mental firmware:

1. Understand how thinking and emotion interact: Recognize what high-quality decisions look and feel like, especially under pressure.
2. Strengthen habits: Build routines that make safe behavior automatic, not optional.
3. Improve attention and focus: Stay mentally present and resist complacency.
4. Visualize work processes before the day begins: Perform a mental pre-mortem – picture the job, identify hazards and make adjustments – before stepping onto the site.

All of these skills can be trained on, practiced and improved. In combination, they help to close the gap between who a person is naturally and the person the work requires them to be to keep themselves safe.

A Deliberate Endeavor
The right stuff isn’t magic or something bestowed upon you. It’s developed deliberately over time by people who want to be the best at what they do and go home whole. Everyone employed in a hazardous trade has the capacity to develop the right stuff, but it will only happen when workers learn who they are, understand their triggers and commit to mastery.

About the Author: Tom Cohenno, Ed.D., CSP, CUSP, NBC-HWC, is a recognized safety expert and principal of Applied Learning Science (https://appliedlearningscience.com). With deep academic and operational experience as a U.S. Navy veteran, substation chief and former utility executive, he blends real-world insight with evidence-based research to deliver practical, impactful safety solutions.

*****

To learn more about Dr. David Rock’s SCARF model, read “SCARF: A Brain-Based Model for Collaborating With and Influencing Others” (see https://schoolguide.casel.org/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SCARF-NeuroleadershipArticle.pdf) and “Managing With the Brain in Mind” (see https://davidrock.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ManagingWBrainInMind.pdf).

Batteries have become a critical component of electric utility operations. Once limited to backup power in substations and control rooms, energy storage now drives innovation across the grid. As use of batteries increases, so does the responsibility to manage the unique chemical and physical hazards they introduce. Understanding how battery systems are governed under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200, “Hazard Communication,” is essential to ensuring worker safety, regulatory compliance and operational reliability.

Energy Storage and the HCS
Electric utilities sit at the center of the energy transition. The shift toward renewable generation, distributed energy resources and grid modernization has made large-scale energy storage critical to system reliability. Lithium-ion batteries have revolutionized grid-scale storage with fast response times, high efficiency and the ability to smooth fluctuations in renewable output. Meanwhile, sealed lead-acid batteries remain vital in substation operations, providing emergency power for relays, switchgear and communication systems. As utilities expand energy storage, workers encounter a growing variety of battery chemistries and configurations, each with distinct hazards that must be identified, communicated and controlled.

OSHA’s 1910.1200 hazard communication standard (HCS) is a right-to-know law intended to ensure that employees understand the hazardous chemicals they may be exposed to, the risks involved and how to protect themselves. Under the HCS, employers must maintain an inventory of all hazardous chemicals in the workplace; make safety data sheets readily accessible; verify all relevant containers and systems are properly labeled; and provide training to teach employees how to interpret and act on this information. Employers also must maintain a written hazard communication program describing how these requirements are met. For utilities, this means batteries – regardless of type – must be assessed for chemical hazards, just like any other regulated substance.

Battery Types and Risks
Different batteries pose different risks depending on their chemistry and use.

Lead-acid batteries, common in backup systems and mobile equipment, contain lead, lead oxide and sulfuric acid. Risks are limited when these batteries are intact, but hydrogen gas and acid mist can be released during charging or maintenance, creating fire and health hazards.

The dominant choice for grid storage, lithium-ion batteries contain flammable electrolytes and lithium salts that can react violently if overheated, overcharged or damaged, leading to thermal runaway and potential fires.

Nickel-based batteries, such as nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride, are valued for their durability in extreme conditions but contain toxic and corrosive materials (e.g., nickel, potassium hydroxide). Note that cadmium is a regulated carcinogen under OSHA 1910.1027.

Flow batteries, used for long-duration storage, rely on circulating electrolytes such as vanadium or zinc-bromine. Leaks and spills can create corrosive and environmental hazards.

And while designed for improved safety, even sodium-based and solid-state batteries may present reactivity or fire risks if damaged or mishandled.

HCS Misconceptions
One persistent misconception among professionals in the utility industry is that sealed batteries are entirely exempt from OSHA’s HCS. The fact is that the standard applies to any workplace in which employees may be exposed to hazardous chemicals – including those contained in batteries. Sealed or intact batteries may be partially exempt if they do not release hazardous substances under normal use. However, once a battery is charged, serviced, recycled or damaged, it could release hazardous materials, thus requiring full HCS compliance. This means utilities must maintain easily accessible safety data sheets for every battery type; ensure battery storage and charging areas are clearly labeled; and provide training to workers who install and maintain batteries and/or respond to battery-related incidents.

Other misconceptions could lead to HCS compliance gaps as well, such as “sealed means safe.” Sealed batteries may vent gases and electrolytes due to heat, mechanical stress and overcharging. Additionally, some industry workers believe OSHA’s HCS applies only to chemicals, but its scope covers equipment that contains or could release hazardous chemicals. And although some assume that safety data sheets are required only for substances employees pour or mix, OSHA explicitly demands sheets for all hazardous chemicals an employee could be exposed to, including those found inside batteries.

Hazard Management
To successfully manage battery-related hazards, a utility organization must develop and maintain a structured, proactive approach that integrates chemical safety protocols into daily operations. Begin by conducting a comprehensive battery inventory, identifying all systems, types, quantities and locations. Mapping the hazards for each battery type will help to determine potential exposures during installation, charging, maintenance and disposal. Based on the assessment results, establish a battery management plan that outlines procedures for safe handling, storage, charging, spill control and emergency response. The plan should define inspection intervals and maintenance responsibilities.

Effective hazard management relies on effective employee training. Workers must understand battery-specific hazards, proper personal protective equipment use, labeling systems and emergency procedures. Employers must ensure safety data sheets and labels are available in both office and field environments. Equip facilities with spill kits, adequate ventilation and fire suppression systems designed for the batteries in use (e.g., Class D extinguishers for lithium fires). Design storage areas to prevent interactions among incompatible materials.

Finally, utilities should regularly review and update their HCS programs. As new battery chemistries and technologies are introduced, programs must be modernized to capture new hazards, revise safety data sheet inventories and refresh employee training. Periodic audits help to ensure programs remain compliant and aligned with current industry best practices.

Conclusion
Batteries are transforming the electric utility industry, enabling cleaner, more reliable and more flexible power systems. Yet with these innovations comes a great amount of responsibility for employers and employees. By heightening our understanding of OSHA’s HCS and how it applies to batteries – and dispelling myths regarding battery use – we can more safely and sustainably embrace energy storage. Inventorying systems, mapping hazards and empowering workers through training aid in the protection of people and infrastructure while guiding us toward a more resilient and decarbonized energy future.

About the Author: Gina Vanderlin, CSP, CHMM, CIT, CUSP, is the customer operations health and safety program manager at PSEG Long Island. With over 15 years of experience leading EHS initiatives in high-reliability industries, she remains passionate about elevating safety from a compliance function to a strategic driver of culture, engagement and operational excellence. Reach Vanderlin at gina.vanderlin@psegliny.com.

I know a lot about buckets, but it wasn’t until after I hung up my tools that I learned much of what I’m going to share with you in this article.

Background
I was lucky to work as a lineman when I did. The buckets we used at Florida Power & Light through the 1970s were unlined, simple fiberglass Hi-Ranger platforms that got us close enough to the wire that we could hot-stick it. In my opinion, the Hi-Rangers of the ’60s and ’70s were the best bucket trucks ever built, and I know I’m not the only one who thinks so.

We didn’t glove at FPL back then, but when we started, I was the newest foreman operating the oldest line truck. Soon I became the first foreman out of the northeast service center to operate the new over-center Asplundh Line-Lift double gloving bucket with a material-handling jib. This technology was brand new to the line industry. FPL’s lift featured an electric-over-hydraulic boom with a large, enclosed, 48-volt battery stack behind the cab that would turn the power takeoff, providing hydraulics for boom and bucket operation. The battery bank charged slowly while the truck’s engine was running, so if you ran the boom on electric, you had to plug it in at night to get any time out of it the next day.

Because the technology was so new, an Asplundh trainer spent a couple days teaching me and my crew how to maintain and use the truck, particularly the material-handling boom. That was when I first learned that fiberglass gloving buckets with insulating liners – like those on my Line-Lift – are not truly insulating. The trainer instructed us not to lift wire with the bucket, even with rubber hose on it. More specifically, we were warned never to let the bucket contact uncovered wire and, when gloving, never to let the bucket contact the pole. The Asplundh training session was also where I learned that, while nonconductive, the hydraulic fluid used in insulating aerial devices is highly flammable, especially when atomized by system pressure through a small puncture in a hydraulic hose.

And now, a brief warning: Should you choose to stop reading here, remember that the rules in the previous paragraph remain true and legally enforceable today.

Insufficient Operator Training
As I’ve noted in the past, I provide litigation support services, offering subject matter expertise on power-line training and operations and OSHA. I’ve worked on several bucket-fire cases over the years, including two I’m currently assisting with, but it was the first bucket-fire case I ever worked on that really caught my attention – most notably due to the clear lack of sufficient training for our industry’s bucket operators. My experience suggests this lack of training persists.

In that first bucket-fire case, a four-man crew had been tasked with transferring a tangent crossarm three-phase primary to make room for a roadway curb pavement expansion. The poles were about 5 feet apart and 2 feet out of line. The #2 copper primary was at the same elevation on the new pole. A lineman was in the material-handling bucket, a six-step apprentice was on the new pole, and the foreman and a first-year helper were on the ground.

The crew was using the material-handling jib, equipped with a wire roller clip attachment, to move the primary. The apprentice, with a jumper-holding hot-stick, helped them successfully transfer the far-side phase. The lineman tied in the phase with crew-fabricated, soft-drawn #6 wire ties.

As the crew transferred the middle phase, everything quickly went wrong. The crossarm was mounted on the bucket side of the pole, and the pole-top pin for the middle phase was mounted on the back of the pole. As the lineman moved in the bucket to land the phase, the corner of its control box contacted the new crossarm. There was no audible sound, according to the crew, but the apprentice and foreman stated that they witnessed smoke coming from the bucket’s control box and called it out. The lineman, who did not have full situational awareness, was partially dropping the wire on the insulator and needed to secure the phase. Trying to do so delayed him from moving the bucket away from the crossarm. Flames erupted around the controls just as the lineman tried to reach in to use them, preventing his attempt.

The foreman called for the apprentice to get down from the pole and then moved the bucket with the lower controls. As he moved it, the half-landed phase went to ground on the pole top, locking out the feeder that was on “one-shot” nonautomatic. Halfway down, the bucket’s hydraulics failed; they had been feeding the fire. The lineman escaped by sliding down the boom and dropping into the truck bed. He had first-degree burns on his face and hands, through his leather gloves, plus a broken leg and collarbone from landing on rolls of triplex and a stack of screw anchors.

This incident confirmed my opinion that the best approach to moving a phase is not tying down a flying bucket with an energized phase. A couple things went wrong, starting with the fiberglass jib. The crew believed it was insulating, so they had added the wire roller clip attachment and then proceeded to land a hot phase on it at the end of the jib. Despite what you may have seen in some pictures and advertisements, the major material-handler manufacturers warn that jib booms and jib winch lines are not intended for use as energized material-handling booms. Insulating links on the jib are intended to hold energized conductors. Use a link between the hot phase and the rope hook, holding energized wire with the material handler’s winch rope.

Did you know that buckets, too, are largely not considered to be insulating? In nearly all instances, the lineworkers I have spoken with during audits had never questioned the insulating value of fiberglass jibs or buckets, which – ironically enough – the industry commonly refers to as “insulating buckets.”

Understanding Primary Insulation
It is important that readers understand how “primary means of protection” is defined. In energized work environments, employers are required to safeguard employees from energized contact. The first – or primary – protective means must be designed for the task and periodically inspected and tested to ensure proper functionality; intervals have been established by consensus standards and are recognized by OSHA. These rules also apply to buckets, but OSHA standards do not call out bucket-boom testing specifications the way they do specs for rubber gloves, sleeves and hot sticks. Instead, the ANSI A92 family of standards establishes maintenance rules for insulating aerial devices that OSHA recognizes and enforces through the General Duty Clause.

Here is what you should know about the Category B insulating gloving buckets referenced in ANSI A92. Their booms and bucket liners, if present, must be tested annually. However, booms and liners are considered secondary means of protection for the worker in the bucket because annual electrical testing without periodic close inspections and maintenance does not ensure employee protection.

Rubber gloves or hot sticks serve as a worker’s primary protective means. Yes, without incident, crews occasionally bump uncovered wire with buckets and frequently land hot conductors with the fiberglass jib. How? The boom insulation keeps buckets isolated from ground. But boom insulation could not protect that lineman who shorted out his bucket against a wet new crossarm and pole. Buckets, jibs, hoses and winch ropes are subject to contamination by road salt and atmospheric conditions. Equivalent salt deposit density testing is used to measure salt contamination on electrical insulators, quantifying soluble salts – like road salt and coastal spray – on the insulators’ surfaces. When damp or wet, they create a conductive film that reduces insulation strength and could cause flashovers. Testing has demonstrated that buckets hung over the backs of trucks are highly susceptible to road salt contamination, as are jib booms. When the bucket contacted the crossarm in the incident described earlier, it tracked over and began arcing to the arm. That ignited the fiberglass and eventually burned a hole in some of the hydraulic lines, adding flammable hydraulic spray to the fire.

Frequent Issues
The remainder of this article focuses on the most frequent bucket truck issues I have discovered during incident investigations and program audits. Relevant ANSI A92 rules – which refer to the trucks as mobile elevating work platforms, or MEWPs – are italicized, and many are followed by my unitalicized commentary.

4.9.4.3 Strength requirement. Anchorages shall be capable of withstanding a static force of 3600 lbs. (16,000N) for each person allowed by the manufacturer on the attachment without reaching ultimate strength. The strength requirement shall apply only to the anchorage(s) and their attachments to the boom, platform, or platform mounting. (ANSI A92.2)

You will notice that the rule states 3,600 pounds, establishing the equipment requirement. Per OSHA and ANSI Z359, a fall arrest anchorage is 5,000 pounds. That means your system must limit restraint forces to the limits of the anchorage. I’ve included more information below regarding self-retracting lifelines, sometimes called SRLs or retractables.

Note to 4.9.4.3: This does not imply that the aerial device is meant to meet or comply with this load requirement. (ANSI A92.2)

Pay attention to this note. It means the anchorage attachment is rated, but the bucket or boom the anchorage is attached to may not be. Using the correct devices, such as retractable and deceleration attachments, limits strain on the boom and bucket mounts.

When it comes to bucket fall protection, most of us are generally satisfied with a full-body harness and a 6-foot lanyard. OSHA’s opinion, however, is that retractable lanyard use is the best way to prevent workers from leaving buckets during ejection events. The small, short personal retractables tend to lock up before workers can exit. But even if someone does go over the side, the SRL will prevent them from hitting the turntable below, which remains a fall protection requirement.

By the way, the first personal retractable was developed in conjunction with an employer after a lineman, ejected from a bucket due to a boom issue, was fatally injured upon striking the truck. OSHA is on record approving a settlement adopting retractable lanyards in at least two struck-surface-below ejection cases that I am aware of.

Another potential benefit of SRLs is that in most ejection scenarios, they have entirely prevented users from leaving their buckets, a critical feature when timely rescue is required after a fall arrest. For lone workers, this nearly eliminates the issue of self-rescue from suspended heights.

4.9.4.4 Connector requirement. Anchorage shall be compatible with a lanyard connector complying with ANSI/ASSP Z359.1-2017. (ANSI A92.2)

4.9.4.1 Location. The manufacturer shall provide anchorage(s) on the boom, platform, or platform mounting. The anchorage shall be designed to protect against detrimental interference between components of the aerial device having movement relative to the anchorage and an attached lanyard connector. (ANSI A92.2)

You can add strap-mounted anchorages to the boom. If needed, the equipment manufacturer will assist you with modifying the bolt-on panels. I have seen anchorage connectors in the control box that can interfere with the operating controls, so when you order a new bucket, specify where the anchorages will be located.

4.9.4.2 Markings. Location of the anchorage(s) shall be identified, and the number of anchorages shall equal or exceed the number of permissible occupants. More than one occupant may attach to a single anchorage if the anchorage is rated and identified as being for more than one person. (ANSI A92.2)

4.9.5.1 Non-insulating buckets or baskets designed for use with insulating liners. These non-insulating baskets shall be constructed from non-conductive materials or when installed, be capable of complying with [A92.2] Section 4.10 Covers. The basket shall be identified as non-insulating. Insulating liners for these baskets shall be constructed from non-conductive materials and tested in accordance with [A92.2] Section 5.4.2.5. The liner shall be supported by the inside bottom surface of the basket. These non-insulating baskets shall not have drain holes or access openings. (A92.2)

4.9.5.3 Insulating baskets or buckets. Insulating baskets shall be constructed from non-conductive materials and shall have no drain holes or access openings. Insulating baskets shall be tested in accordance with the dielectric tests for liners [A92.2] Section 5.4.2.5. (ANSI A92.2)

You can use fiberglass buckets as insulating if you test them in the same submersion electrical test as the liners. This is allowed, but as with hot sticks, the testing and daily wipe-downs and inspections make it impractical.

4.10.1 Aerial devices intended for gloving work methods. Aerial devices intended for gloving work methods shall have covers for metal boom tip components of the aerial device that are exposed to conductor contact and are at risk of phase to ground or phase to phase current flow. (ANSI A92.2)

The fiberglass covers at the boom tip – the ones your workers keep knocking off – are required to use the bucket for gloving. Missing or damaged covers mean gloving is no longer approved.

4.11 Material handling rope. For synthetic-type rope(s), the average breaking strength shall not be less than 5 times the maximum working load. (ANSI A92.2)

I have found utilities using less expensive rope with a smaller diameter, but the rope you use must exceed five times the application, not necessarily the rating of the jib/winch. If you use a lighter rope, you must list the load limit – based on five times the new rope’s breaking strength – at the operator’s control station.

Following are the ANSI A92.2 categories of insulating aerial devices, which you can find at 5.1.2.

Category A. Aerial devices which are designed and manufactured for bare-hand work in which the boom is the primary insulation. All conductive components at the platform end shall be bonded together to accomplish equipotential of all such components.

Category A platforms are barehand platforms. A barehand bucket can be used for gloving provided that the platform is constructed of fiberglass and that the covers required by Section 4.10 are in place.

Category B. Aerial devices which are equipped with a lower test electrode system but are designed and manufactured for work in which the boom is not considered as primary insulation, but secondary to using insulating tools. Category B aerial devices require the use of live line tools with appropriate dielectric ratings. [Note: Check the manufacturer’s operating instructions; jibs do not have dielectric ratings]. These tools are to be depended upon for primary protection, just as in all cases where the boom is used as secondary protection.

Depending on your employer’s policy, this is a gloving bucket or a hot-stick bucket. Category B buckets are typically equipped with electrodes around the lower end of the insulating boom, making testing both reliable and convenient. A lower boom electrode uses a conductive band inside and out that completely encircles the boom.

Category C. Aerial devices which are not typically equipped with a lower test electrode system and are designed and manufactured for work in which the insulating system is not considered as primary insulation, but secondary to, using insulating gloves or tools.

These aerial devices are designed for gloving work and tool methods at 46 kV and below.

Category D. Aerial devices which are designed and manufactured for work in which the insulating system is not considered as primary insulation, but secondary.

Rated at 46 kV and below, Category D devices are not designed for gloving work methods and thus do not have to comply with Section 4.10, “Covers.”

Category E. Aerial devices which are designed for lower voltage applications.

Guarding or isolation methods can be used to accomplish insulation requirements. These units are designed and manufactured for work in which they are considered secondary insulation, not primary. They are rated at voltages of 20 kV, 5 kV, and 1 kV and below.

These last two rules appear in ANSI A92.24, which addresses MEWP training requirements.

5.1 Training shall be provided to MEWP operators and their supervisors and include the inspection, maintenance, use, application, and operation of MEWPs. Supervisors of MEWP operators shall also complete training as specified in Section 6.5 of this Standard.

5.2 Only personnel properly trained in compliance with this Standard and who have received unit-specific familiarization shall operate a MEWP. The user [employer] shall determine if personnel are qualified to operate the MEWP prior to authorization.

Conclusion
It is my hope that this information will help readers audit their bucket truck programs and eliminate the frequent incidents these rules are designed to prevent. Feel free to contact me with questions about anything you’ve read here.

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.

*****

Photo caption: The cover missing in the photo above violates ANSI A92.2 rules, exposing flammable and conductive contamination. This bucket is no longer approved for gloving.

Read the articles writted by Alan Drew – https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-evolution-of-personal-protective-grounding-part-1/

https://incident-prevention.com/blog/the-evolution-of-personal-protective-grounding-part-2/

About the Author: Alan Drew began his power industry career in 1959. While working for a local utility company, he earned a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. Drew was hired as the general superintendent for Clallam County Public Utility District in 1991. He moved to Boise, Idaho, in 1998, where he became an instructor with Northwest Lineman College and advanced to the position of senior vice president of research and development. He is a lifetime member of IEEE and a 2008 International Lineman Museum Hall of Fame inductee. Drew’s most recent accomplishment is writing “The American Lineman,” a book that honors the evolution and importance of the U.S. lineman. He retired in 2020 and is now a part-time technical consultant for Northwest Lineman College.

These articles chronicle the historical transition of personal protective grounding (PPG) from primitive, improvised tactics to rigorous modern safety standards for electrical workers. Early utility pioneers relied on basic tools like grounding chains and simple water pipe connections, but rising accident rates eventually necessitated more sophisticated testing and insulation. Mid-century research by experts like Charles Dalziel provided a scientific understanding of how electrical currents impact the human body, shifting the industry toward standardized equipment and formal regulations. The narrative highlights the move from bracket grounding toward the equipotential zone concept, ensuring that lineworkers are protected by maintaining equal voltage across all contact points. Ultimately, the sources emphasize that while technology and OSHA mandates have advanced, the core mission of PPG remains the most vital safeguard in high-voltage environments.

Based on the two-part series “The Evolution of Personal Protective Grounding,” here is a podcast package designed to summarize the content effectively.

Key Takeaways

• From Primitive to Precise: The history of grounding began with crude methods like throwing chains over conductors or simply shutting down generators. It has evolved into a highly technical science focusing on creating “equipotential zones” (EPZ) to guarantee worker safety.
• The Pivot to Worksite Grounding: Early practices relied on “bracket grounding” (grounding at adjacent poles). However, 1950s testing by the Bonneville Power Administration proved this was insufficient, leading to the modern standard of grounding and short-circuiting directly at the worksite.
• The Impact of Research: Charles Dalziel’s mid-century research on human shock thresholds provided the crucial medical data needed to evaluate whether grounding methods actually protected human life, moving the industry away from guesswork.
• Standardization Saved Lives: The shift from homemade tools (like copper wire and water pipes) to manufactured, certified equipment was driven by regulations from OSHA (1970s) and standards from ASTM and IEEE, ensuring reliability and accountability.

4 Questions & Answers

Q: How did early lineworkers verify a line was de-energized before modern voltage detectors existed?

A: Early methods were incredibly risky and often involved “fuzzing” (listening for a buzzing sound) or primitive “tests” like throwing a crescent wrench tied to a grounded tower onto the conductor to see if a fuse would blow.

Q: What major flaw did the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) discover in 1954 regarding “bracket grounding”?

A: The BPA tests revealed that placing grounds only on structures adjacent to the work area (bracket grounding) did not provide adequate protection. They found that to truly protect the lineworker from accidental energization, all conductors had to be short-circuited and grounded directly at the work location.

Q: What is the “Equipotential Zone” (EPZ) and when did it become the industry standard?

A: The EPZ is a safety method where grounds are arranged to ensure that all equipment and the worker are at the same electrical potential, eliminating hazardous voltage differences across the worker’s body. It became a formal regulatory requirement with the issuance of OSHA standard 1910.269 in 1994.

Q: How did the “Shotgun Stick” improve safety in the 1950s?

A: The development of the grip-all or “shotgun stick” allowed lineworkers to apply protective grounds while maintaining a safe distance from the conductor. This was a significant improvement over earlier methods that brought workers dangerously close to potential hazards during installation.

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

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

#LinemanSafety #UtilityIndustry #ElectricalSafety #ProtectiveGrounding #OSHAHistory #EquipotentialZone

Leadership continues to be a critical area of focus for utility safety and operations professionals. In my own career at Georgia Power, “Can I be the leader?” was a question I often asked myself and my employer. Now, in this installment of “Voice of Experience,” I am going to discuss the opportunities I was afforded during my 40-year journey with the company. My goal is to provide real-life insight into some of the industry leadership roles available while illustrating the passion and perseverance needed to safely, effectively guide our brothers and sisters through the workday.

What It Takes
Desire is a key requirement for strong leaders – you must want to work hard and never stop learning – but it is far from the only one. I certainly did not understand the full list of job demands when I started out. It was a series of promotions and time spent in those positions that educated me about the serious nature of leadership in hazardous environments. So, keep in mind that desire is not enough; we are also obligated to learn how to lead well. Humility is imperative.

Electric utility work calls for a specialized skill set, adding complexity. This means we must only promote employees to supervisors, crew foremen and similar roles if they are fully qualified to execute them. Leaders who do not understand the work present safety risks. They cannot offer dependable, practical guidance to crews and may fail to recognize unsafe acts as they occur. Yet it appears as though leadership positions are increasingly being filled by individuals who do not have the requisite training or work experience. Merely filling spots with bodies is a big problem given the nature of our work.

Here’s something else I want readers to understand: Know-it-alls have no place in management roles; we must instead strive to be learn-it-alls. And since effective leadership necessitates a combination of the willingness to serve others, an unending quest for knowledge and a healthy tolerance for being unpopular, only a small portion of the workforce will be ready to take that step at any given time.

I believed I was ready to take that step each time Georgia Power promoted me – and each time, I quickly realized that I needed to better understand how and why things worked best. Most of that came through on-the-job experience.

Moving On Up
I was promoted to lead lineman early in my career, which was nothing more than a matter of seniority. Next, I was chosen to help lead an apprentice training crew, serving directly under a line supervisor. Bruce Peterson was the other crew journeyman, and we collaborated to develop work plans and lead apprentice activities. The crew foreman allowed us to plan and instruct as necessary, introducing us to leadership responsibilities. At that time, I had begun to sense more of my responsibilities as a crew leader. The one thing I knew for sure was that I could not let anything happen to Bruce or the apprentices while work was in progress.

About a year went by with lots of apprentice training and work – and no incidents, I’m grateful to say. In those days, apprenticeship programs were nothing like they are today. Once classroom and field exercises were completed, apprentices engaged in tasks while receiving individualized training for a year. Our apprentices spent six months with the overhead distribution crews and another six months with the underground distribution crews. Then, they began working on energized primaries at 12 and 25 kV.

Around that time, I started bidding on crew foreman jobs, accepting a position in 1985. I moved from Macon, Georgia, to Jonesboro, just south of Atlanta, where I oversaw two three-man crews. That experience made me realize that building a job is easier than managing the crews who do the work. I hadn’t been in the role for very long when the company “volun-told” me that, because of my experience leading training crews in Macon, I would serve as foreman of the first-ever apprentice training crew in Jonesboro. No such crew had previously existed at that location. A decade later, 13 employees had joined the crew; my direct reports included overhead and underground workers and cable locators. While the challenges were intense at times, that role opened doors to various new career opportunities for me, such as assisting with developing training curricula for our foremen.

The chance to become the nonregulated lighting services contract manager arose after I had been working as a supervisor and trainer for about 10 years. The business unit used outside contractors to install lighting projects ranging from a single backyard security light to mall parking lots with multiple lighting circuits and feeds. I gained an incredible amount of contract management experience during those two years, and eventually, I was asked to manage the lighting installation contractors and assist with computer-aided design work for engineering.

That time was followed by a stint in a safety and health field position. My responsibilities included training and safety services for over 300 employees; leading storm teams; and participating in various safety committees. As the role evolved, I was named a safety teams supervisor and then the distribution and transmission safety consultant for the entire company, which had roughly 9,200 employees at the time.

My point in sharing these details is to demonstrate that the leadership opportunities available to me grew exponentially once I made the choice to take on new challenges and keep learning about the craft. I hope you can see that by continuously seeking to improve your skills and share your knowledge, industry leadership opportunities will almost certainly present themselves to you.

Honing Your Skills
Lastly, I want to share this list of knowledge and skills that a successful leader possesses. As you review the items, consider what you already know and do well, and then devise a plan to address those areas that need improvement.

• Knows the legal responsibilities involved with providing a safe working environment for employees.
• Understands how both personality and generational differences impact the job.
• Learns about and uses various leadership styles (e.g., democratic, servant), employing the most appropriate one based on the situation.
• Demonstrates strong public speaking skills.
• Shows respect for everyone and their contributions.
• Listens well.
• Promotes teamwork and open communication.
• Recognizes and clarifies desired employee behaviors.
• Keeps a truly open mind, including acknowledging personal biases.

Conclusion
There will be much to learn and master, but if you have the passion, perseverance and specialized skill set, then yes – you, too, can be a leader in the electric utility industry.

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!

Q: We recently did some contract work in a manhole with live primary cables running through it. During an audit, the client’s safety team cited us for failure to have our manhole workers tied off to rescue lines. We had a tripod up and a winch ready for the three workers. What did we miss?

A: We have received similar questions over the years, usually due to a misunderstanding of OSHA’s enclosed spaces standard. Found at 29 CFR 1910.269(e) and printed below, the latest revision of the rules includes modified language. Look for the terms “safe work practices,” “enclosed space(s)” and “safe rescue” as you read them.

1910.269(e)(1): Safe work practices. The employer shall ensure the use of safe work practices for entry into, and work in, enclosed spaces and for rescue of employees from such spaces.

1910.269(e)(2): Training. Each employee who enters an enclosed space or who serves as an attendant shall be trained in the hazards of enclosed-space entry, in enclosed-space entry procedures, and in enclosed-space rescue procedures.

1910.269(e)(3): Rescue equipment. Employers shall provide equipment to ensure the prompt and safe rescue of employees from the enclosed space.

Again, these rules address enclosed spaces, not the spaces referenced in 1910.269(t), “Underground electrical installations.” Enclosed spaces are not – as many think – spaces with energized cables inside. OSHA’s definition of an enclosed space never mentions energized cables. What it does state is that an enclosed space, “under normal conditions, does not contain a hazardous atmosphere, but may contain such an atmosphere under abnormal conditions.”

Where energized cables are present in a manhole, burning insulation created by a cable failure is the most likely source of a hazardous atmosphere. The highly toxic smoke produced instantly incapacitates those exposed to it, making self-rescue unlikely.

An enclosed space classification only applies where no hazardous atmosphere exists. Permits are required for spaces in which such atmospheres develop. All activities in those spaces must comply with the permit-required rules found at 1910.146(d) through (k), which include rescue requirements for hazardous environments, i.e., either (1) being trained on and equipped with breathing and protective apparatus or (2) using non-entry rescue, which requires rescue lines attached to workers entering the space. This is the most likely reason the auditors cited you, and their interpretation of the OSHA standard was correct.

Q: We received new disconnects with through-the-cover voltmeters indicating the phase-voltage conditions behind the cover. Each meter is connected to the load side of the switch. Are these appropriate for lockout/tagout or as a way for electricians to check for voltage after turning off the disconnect prior to starting work?

A: If NFPA 70E compliance is the goal, the meters are inappropriate for electricians. The 70E standard requires verification of testing devices before and after testing for the absence of voltage, and you can’t do that with a permanently mounted meter. In addition, it is insufficient to check voltage at a disconnect if the work location is remote to that disconnect; voltage must be tested at the point of exposure. You can use a non-contact voltage detector if you have been properly trained in its use and make the before/after verifications. Unfortunately, close access to the energized part is still required to perform the check.

Lockout/tagout may be appropriate for non-electrical workers authorized to operate disconnects. Mechanics and maintenance personnel who do not perform electrical work have no obligation to perform an electrical check. Instead, they must perform a disconnect, lock out the disconnect and then try to start the motor from the controls. The meter may be one method of determining if the disconnect is open, but its use would not relieve the operator of trying the locked-out apparatus to ensure removal of the energy source. The downside is that three-phase and other multipole disconnects may not always open all poles. Depending on the panel meter’s connection, this could result in a false reading or a reading with no confidence, which is the whole purpose of NFPA 70E’s verify/test/reverify.

Q: We have a question after reading Jim Vaughn’s “Train the Trainer 101: Grounding Trucks and Mobile Equipment” (http://incident-prevention.com/ip-articles/train-the-trainer-101-grounding-trucks-and-mobile-equipment). Let’s say that a line truck with insulating upper and lower sections is positioned so that a dropped line won’t directly contact it. All lines involved have been adequately covered with blankets and hoses, and the truck has been grounded using the best available equipment. Is this enough to comply with 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(C) so that equipotential grounding mats and barricading aren’t necessary?    

A: Paragraph 1910.269(p)(4)(iii)(C) states that employees “shall be protected from hazards that could arise from mechanical equipment contact with energized lines or equipment. The measures used shall ensure that employees will not be exposed to hazardous differences in electric potential. Unless the employer can demonstrate that the methods in use protect each employee from the hazards that could arise if the mechanical equipment contacts the energized line or equipment, the measures used shall include all of the following techniques …”

Ensuring employees are not exposed to potential differences can be accomplished through training and procedures that keep employees clear of the truck and step-potential hazards. The employer must be able to defend the training and procedures in place. If they can ensure alternative procedures protect workers on the ground, they have met the conditions of OSHA’s rule, so equipotential mats would not be required. However, if someone violates those rules, their training and the isolation policy are rendered moot. Equipotential mats would then be required.

Q: Do any published standards exist regarding the amount of time a student must spend completing an arc flash training course focused on electrical safety practices and work standards? For instance, does OSHA or NFPA require a student to spend, say, 90 minutes learning this content? 

A: Some mandatory time requirements and other obligations exist for training, but they are few and far between and limited to specific industries. One example is powered industrial trucks (PITs), or forklifts, but there is no time requirement for PIT training, just some content rules. Both time and content requirements have been developed for the electrical safety portion of the OSHA 10-hour training and for MSHA new miner training, which provide general safety awareness for non-electrical workers.

If they relate to an employee’s task assignments, training on the topics you asked about – arc flash and electrical safety practices – should be delivered separately from the OSHA 10 curriculum, with no time requirements. OSHA demands that employers ensure employees are qualified in their work-related tasks. Employers must determine the training required and how to provide it. They can engage a third party to deliver training, or a qualified person can provide it in-house.

The bottom line is that no standard has been established regarding the length of an employee’s workplace hazard training because all exposures are not the same. Training must sufficiently address recognition of relevant hazards, safety procedures, personal protective equipment and emergency protocols. To prove its effectiveness, OSHA also expects training to include written and practical demonstrations.

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. Questions submitted are reviewed and answered by the iP editorial advisory board and other subject matter experts.

During my trip to Glendale, Arizona, for the most recent iP Utility Safety Conference & Expo, I received the single greatest piece of golf instruction I have ever heard. Now I want to share it with you, particularly as it relates to safety.

But first, you may be wondering how I obtained such outstanding advice while attending a safety conference. The iP staff hosted their welcome reception at Glendale’s PopStroke, billed as a “mini golf oasis,” and invited Art Eklund to deliver a putting lesson to attendees. Eklund is a Class A PGA Professional who currently works for the Phoenician Golf Club in Scottsdale, Arizona.

I want to give credit where it is due. Eklund obviously knows golf and is a spectacular teacher, especially since I suspect providing a 10-minute putting lesson to roughly 450 people – most of whom were eating, and a number of whom had never played golf – was a first for him and outside his comfort zone. Impressive work!

Eklund focused a portion of the lesson on the CHEF acronym: clubface, hands, eyes and feet. But it was how he started the lesson that sticks with me most. Eklund said the first step of a successful putt is telling yourself, “I am a good putter.” Essentially, before you get to the technical aspects of your putt, you must believe you will succeed. That is fantastic advice.

Henry Ford was a controversial historical figure, but he got it right with this quote often attributed to him: “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right.” As part of our task preparation, each of us must rid ourselves of bad attitudes and negative talk. I am deeply bothered when I witness uncaring body language during job briefings, listen to people say that someone will get hurt no matter what we do, or hear frontline employees and management speak poorly about one another.

What bothers me most of all, though, is our intense focus on what we don’t want. If you take nothing else from this article, remember: Focus on what you want, believe you can succeed, make a plan that ensures your success, and then share your story so others can succeed, too.

Focus on What You Want
As someone who plays golf but isn’t a golfer, I can assure you that there is a zero percent chance of hitting a good shot if (1) you are not comfortable over the ball and (2) all you keep telling yourself is what not to do. Focusing on keeping your shoulders level is a much better tactic than telling yourself not to drop your right shoulder. You are better served learning to hit a fade than trying to stop slicing. If you tell someone else that they are lined up too far right, they will probably respond by spinning in a counterclockwise circle; instead, maybe point them toward the flag and confirm when their positioning is correct.

The principle is the same for safety. If we spend all our time talking about what we don’t want (injuries) yet never inform the workforce about what they must do to protect themselves, they will try hard and still get hurt. Take some time to flip through your safety manual and count how many “thou shalt not” statements you find versus “here’s what to do” statements. Listen closely during safety meetings and training sessions – is that time spent talking about incidents, OSHA rates, and what went wrong or could go wrong? How often do you hear the group talk about what went right and what should happen moving forward? It is likely you are already doing a great job of anticipating and planning for what could go awry. To enhance your job briefings, add conversations about how to make sure things go well. Define success and plan to achieve it.

Believe You Can Succeed
From rental clubs to weather conditions to someone yelling during your backswing, I love all the excuses we hear on the golf course. But beginning a hole by telling yourself, “I can’t get over that water,” “This hole is impossible,” or “That is an unfair pin placement” is a recipe for a double bogey or worse.

Similarly, starting your workday by telling yourself that safety is impossible or that your job or boss is unfair is a recipe for an injury or worse. We also hear a lot of ABCDE (accuse, blame, complain, defend/deny, excuses) after incidents occur. You must believe you can work safely and then use tools to make certain that you do.

Make a Plan
I can’t speak to planning to ensure you succeed at golf. (Note: If you have such a plan, please contact me immediately!) What I can speak to is a plan that ensures safety and prevents serious injuries and fatalities (SIFs).

We are human, so mistakes will be made, but those mistakes do not have to result in people getting hurt. Consider that the U.S. Department of Energy’s Human Performance Improvement (HPI) Handbook states that HPI’s two goals are to manage controls and reduce errors. Additionally, Matthew Hallowell, Ph.D., and the Construction Safety Research Alliance (www.csra.colorado.edu) teach us that direct controls will prevent SIFs provided they are installed and used correctly.

Trying not to get hurt isn’t a good plan. An excellent plan is to assure you stay safe and continuously improve by following procedures and using human performance tools. Two-minute drills, effective communication, self-checking and verification give you time to think and properly focus your attention so you can maintain positive control of your task. Employ them to ensure success, keeping in mind that success is building capacity to fail safely.

Share Your Story
You can choose to repeat success or to repeat errors. The key to repeating success is reinforcing it and sharing your success stories. In safety, where we excel at correcting unsafe acts and failures, our greatest opportunity lies in identifying how to repeat success – and that begins with defining and acknowledging it. Don’t assume people are doing the right things for the right reasons or that they will do them again the same way next time. Ask questions, investigate how success was achieved and then share what you learned. That, in my opinion, is the best definition of being proactive.

Conclusion
We succeed more than we fail, yet most of our safety resources are spent addressing failures. Let’s use this new year to focus on what we want, believe we can succeed, make plans to ensure we do and share our success stories with others.

And now, I’ll conclude this article by channeling my inner Art Eklund to remind you that you are a good putter who also excels at safety.

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://ip-institute.com/frontline-online/). Frontline covers critical knowledge, skills and abilities for utility leaders and aligns with the Certified Utility Safety Professional exam blueprint.

In this episode, Danny Raines, CUSP, joins the show to discuss the critical transition from being a crew member to a leader in the utility industry. Drawing from his extensive career—from journeyman lineman to safety consultant—Danny explores the challenges of supervision, such as navigating generational differences and the importance of communication skills. The conversation delves into the “glass house” effect, highlighting how a leader’s actions on and off the job, including on social media, influence safety culture. Danny also breaks down different leadership styles, advocating for servant leadership as the most effective approach for modern crews.

Buy Danny’s Book – https://www.amazon.com/Legends-Ole-Lineman-learning-Journeyman-ebook/dp/B0FXN6G7V8/ref

Key Takeaways:

• The Difficulty of Transition: Moving from a “doer” to a leader is a long road because it is often easier to do the job yourself than to get others to do it according to expectations.
• The “Glass House” Effect: Leaders must realize they are always being watched by their crew and peers. This extends to social media, where liking or interacting with unsafe content can undermine a leader’s credibility and influence new apprentices negatively.
• Servant Leadership: The most successful leadership style is “servant leadership,” defined by Danny as never asking a crew member to do something the leader hasn’t done or isn’t willing to help with.
• Admitting Knowledge Gaps: Leaders should never “blow smoke” or pretend to know everything. If a leader doesn’t know the answer, they should admit it, pause the work, and find the correct information to maintain trust.
• Generational Awareness: Effective leadership requires understanding generational differences (e.g., Baby Boomers vs. Millennials) and adapting communication styles to different personality profiles.
• Succession Planning: A vital first step for any new supervisor is to identify and mentor the person who will eventually replace them.

Questions & Answers

1. What inspired Danny Raines to write his recent article on leadership? Danny was inspired by reflecting on his own career progression from a crew member to various leadership roles, as well as a book written by his pastor titled Yes, I Can, which resonated with his experiences of rising to new challenges.

2. How does Danny define the “Glass House” concept in leadership? The “Glass House” means that a leader is constantly under observation. Everything they do, whether on the job site or on social media, is seen by others, and mistakes or endorsements of unsafe behavior (even online) can negatively influence the workforce.

3. What are the four main leadership styles discussed in the podcast? Danny identifies four primary styles: Autocratic (authority-based), Democratic (voting/consensus-based), Bureaucratic (rule-governed), and Servant Leadership (leading by example and support).

4. Why is “Servant Leadership” preferred over the “Autocratic” style in today’s workforce? While autocratic leadership (“my way or the highway”) was common in the past, it creates friction, especially with younger generations. Servant leadership fosters better buy-in because the leader reasons with the crew, explains the “why,” and proves they are willing to do the work themselves.

5. What should a leader do if they encounter a situation they don’t understand? They should immediately stop and admit they aren’t sure, rather than acting like they know. Danny advises saying, “I’m not real sure about this, but let me check and I’ll get right back with you,” to avoid breaking trust or causing safety issues.

6. What is Danny’s “one piece of advice” for new leaders? His advice is “Don’t rush it.” Leadership takes time and experience to build. He urges new leaders to be humble, learn as they go, and seek advice rather than expecting to know everything immediately.

#UtilitySafety #LeadershipDevelopment #LinemanLife #ServantLeadership #SafetyCulture #CUSP

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

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

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

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/

It’s not just downed lines and high voltage you need to watch out for during storm restoration. In the mud and floodwaters lies a hidden, deadly threat: flesh-eating bacteria. In this critical episode, we’re talking about Necrotizing Fasciitis, a rare but devastating infection that can start from a tiny cut or scrape exposed to contaminated water. We break down what every line worker and utility professional needs to know—how to identify the risks on a storm-ravaged site, the crucial first-aid steps that can save your life, and the early warning signs you can’t afford to ignore. Don’t let a small nick turn into a career-ending injury. This is a must-listen for anyone working in the aftermath of a hurricane, flood, or major storm.

Key Takeaways

• The Threat is Real: Necrotizing Fasciitis is caused by bacteria (like Group A Strep or Vibrio vulnificus) found in contaminated water, mud, and debris common after storms. It enters the body through any break in the skin, including minor cuts, scrapes, or even insect bites.
• Prevention is Proactive Wound Care: Standard PPE is your first defense, but it’s not foolproof. The most critical step is to immediately and thoroughly clean any wound—no matter how small—with soap and clean water. Follow up with an antiseptic and a waterproof bandage.
• Know the Early Warning Signs: The infection progresses with terrifying speed. Watch for pain that is far more severe than the injury looks, rapidly spreading redness or swelling, fever, chills, and flu-like symptoms. Do not “wait and see.”
• Time is Tissue: If you suspect an infection, seek immediate medical attention. Go to an emergency room and explicitly state your concern about a severe skin infection from exposure to storm water. Early and aggressive treatment is the key to survival and recovery.

Q&A Session

1. I’m always covered in PPE. Isn’t that enough protection?

While waterproof gear and gloves are essential, they can be punctured or torn. Bacteria can also enter the body if you touch a contaminated surface and then inadvertently touch a small, existing cut. The real defense is vigilant personal hygiene and immediate wound care. Think of your first-aid kit as being just as important as your climbing gear.

2. How can I tell the difference between a regular infection and flesh-eating bacteria?

The two key indicators are pain and speed. A typical localized infection might be sore, red, and develop over a few days. Necrotizing Fasciitis is characterized by excruciating pain that seems completely out of proportion to the minor wound. The redness and swelling will also spread incredibly fast, sometimes visibly changing within a single hour. If the pain is the worst you’ve ever felt, it’s a major red flag.

3. What if I get a cut but I’m in the middle of a 16-hour shift?

Don’t tough it out. Stop what you’re doing immediately. At a minimum, douse the wound with clean water from your water bottle and apply antiseptic from your personal or truck first-aid kit. Cover it securely. As soon as you are able, clean it more thoroughly with soap and water. Report the injury to your supervisor, no matter how minor, so there’s a record. This ensures you’re covered and encourages a culture of safety.

iPi Forum – https://ip-institute.com/ipi-forum/

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvzc

#LineWorkerSafety #StormRestoration #UtilityWorker #NecrotizingFasciitis #Lineman #SafetyFirst #LineLife #WorkplaceSafety #CUSP #FleshEatingBacteria

In this powerful episode of the Utility Safety Podcast: Voice of Experience, veteran lineman and safety consultant Danny Raines, CUSP, shares hard-earned lessons from decades of storm response—from Hurricane Katrina to ice storms in Georgia. With hurricane season in full swing, Danny offers real-world guidance on preparing for storm duty, understanding system hazards, and staying mentally and physically resilient in the face of chaos. Whether you’re a new lineworker heading out on your first storm or a seasoned pro, this episode delivers critical insights to keep you safe, sharp, and storm-ready.

Key Takeaways:

1. Preparation is Everything: Danny emphasizes the importance of personal checklists, including meds, hygiene, and weather-appropriate gear.

2. Test and Verify: Don’t assume equipment is de-energized—especially with the increase in generators, solar, and battery backups.

3. Mental & Physical Fatigue is Real: After 14–18 days, exhaustion sets in, increasing the chance of errors. Know your limits.

4. Find a Mentor: For new linemen, a trusted mentor can be a lifeline during complex storm work.

5. Storm Hazards Go Beyond Electricity: Environmental dangers like snakes, alligators, and aggressive customers add to the challenge.

3 Questions & Answers:

Q1: What’s one of the most overlooked parts of storm prep?

A: Personal medications. Many new crew members forget that pharmacies may be closed or destroyed post-storm, making it impossible to refill critical prescriptions.

Q2: Why is it so important to “test and verify”?

A: With so many modern power sources—from Honda generators to solar panels and battery storage—assumptions can be fatal. Always check for voltage, even on lines you think are isolated.

Q3: How long can a lineworker realistically stay sharp on storm duty?

A: According to Danny, the magic number is around 14–18 days. After that, physical fatigue and mental exhaustion dramatically increase the risk of mistakes and injuries.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvzc

#UtilitySafety #StormResponse #LinemanLife #HurricanePrep #ElectricalSafety #DannyRaines #CUSP #Lineworkers #StormWork

In this episode of Voice of Experience, Danny Raines, CUSP discusses the critical importance of mental awareness and focus in utility work. Using real-life accident investigations, he explores why experienced professionals sometimes repeat dangerous mistakes and how a “checkup from the neck up” can prevent incidents. From miscommunication in substations to lack of hazard recognition, this episode is packed with insights to improve safety culture and accountability in the field.

Key Takeaways:

• The Importance of Mental Awareness: How small lapses in judgment can lead to catastrophic accidents.
• The Role of Dedicated Observers: Why having a second set of eyes can prevent mistakes.
• Lessons from Incident Investigations: Real-world case studies of preventable accidents.
• Following Procedures & Training: Why workers revert to unsafe practices despite training.
• Taking Accountability: Leadership’s role in enforcing safety and stopping unsafe work.

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #LinemanLife #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #ElectricalSafety #SafetyCulture

Join Danny Raines, CUSP, as he shares critical lessons learned from the field in this episode of The Voice of Experience. Danny dives into real-world incidents, including a tragic fatality and a near-miss, emphasizing the importance of testing and verifying in the utility safety industry. With decades of experience, Danny provides actionable insights to prevent accidents, improve safety protocols, and foster a culture of vigilance among utility professionals.

Key Takeaways:

1.Testing and Verifying Saves Lives: Never assume safety; always verify conditions to prevent catastrophic incidents.

2.Human Error Is Inevitable: Acknowledge that mistakes happen and take proactive steps to minimize risks.

3.The Power of Speaking Up: Encourage crews to challenge unsafe practices and prioritize safety over production.

4.Importance of Job Briefings: Thorough planning and hazard identification are critical to mitigating risks on-site.

4 Questions to learn from this podcast with Answers:

Q1: What is the primary cause of unsafe practices in the field?

A1: Assumptions and rushing to complete tasks often lead to neglecting crucial safety checks, like testing and verifying.

Q2: Why is “speaking up” vital in utility safety?

A2: It prevents potential accidents by addressing hazards early. Crew members should challenge unsafe practices without fear of backlash.

Q3: How can utility workers improve safety culture?

A3: By consistently practicing thorough job briefings, hazard identification, and compliance with safety regulations.

Q4: What role does leadership play in utility safety?

A4: Leaders must ensure oversight, provide proper training, and foster a culture where safety is prioritized over production.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvzc

#UtilitySafety #WorkSafe #CUSP #LinemanSafety #IncidentPrevention #SafetyLeadership

In this episode, safety consultant Danny Raines, CUSP, reflects on critical issues facing the utility industry, including safety practices, training gaps, and the persistent challenges of electrical fatalities. Danny delves into the importance of adhering to safety protocols, fostering a culture of accountability, and embracing innovation in personal protective equipment (PPE). Through stories from his career, Danny emphasizes the life-saving significance of vigilance and teamwork in high-risk environments.

Key Takeaways:

1.Window vs. Mirror Perspective: Evaluate whether you are self-reflective (mirror) or outward-focused (window) in safety practices.

2.“Learn-It-All” Mindset: Embrace a continuous learning approach over the “know-it-all” attitude.

3.The Numbers Don’t Lie: Despite advancements in PPE and training, electrical fatalities remain stagnant, demanding deeper industry introspection.

4.Accountability Saves Lives: The role of dedicated observers and adherence to safety protocols cannot be overstated.

5.A Culture of Safety: Building relationships and fostering open communication among crews enhance workplace safety.

6.Personal Responsibility: Safety isn’t just about individual choices—it impacts families and communities.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #ElectricalSafety #PPEInnovation #LinemanLife #SafetyCulture #DannyRaines

In this episode of The Voice of Experience, Danny Raines, CUSP, shares his invaluable insights from decades of storm work as a lineman and utility safety expert. From the devastation of Hurricane Katrina to modern-day storm recovery challenges, Danny takes us through the physical and mental toll of responding to natural disasters. He explains the dangers of backfeeds, the rise of alternative energy sources, and the importance of verifying safety before restoring power. Learn from his firsthand stories, safety lessons, and how the landscape of utility work has evolved over the years. Whether you’re in the utility industry or just curious about storm response, this episode offers a wealth of knowledge from one of the most respected professionals in the field.

Key Takeaways:

1. The dangers of storm work: Power restoration involves more than meets the eye, especially with evolving technology like solar panels and generators creating backfeed hazards.
2. Mental and physical challenges: Long hours, dangerous conditions, and the emotional impact of storm recovery can lead to severe fatigue and stress.
3. Importance of testing and verifying: Danny stresses the importance of safety procedures, especially when dealing with energized systems after a storm.
4. Stories from the field: Real-life experiences from Hurricane Katrina and other storms demonstrate the unpredictable nature of storm recovery.
5. Utility evolution: Changes in technology, regulations, and community expectations are reshaping the utility industry’s response to natural disasters.

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

The Voice of Experience with Danny Raines podcast is produced by the same team that publishes Incident Prevention. It delivers insights based on Danny’s regular column in the magazine, also called the Voice of Experience. To listen to more episodes of this podcast, as well as other podcasts we produce, visit https://incident-prevention.com/podcasts. You can reach Danny at rainesafety@gmail.com

Purchase Danny’s Book on Amazon – https://a.co/d/556LDvz

#UtilitySafety #StormWork #HurricaneKatrina #LinemanLife #BackfeedDangers #MentalHealthMatters #TestAndVerify #PowerRestoration #StormRecovery #AlternativeEnergy #UtilityIndustry #SafetyFirst #DannyRaines #CUSP #ElectricGrid #DisasterResponse

Challenging the Status Quo: Rethinking Safety in the Utility Industry

Is safety truly the utility industry’s first priority? And is it even a real thing, or just a byproduct of something deeper? In this thought-provoking episode of Influencing Safety, Bill Martin, President and CEO of Think Tank Project LLC, joins host Kate Wade to challenge traditional views on safety. They explore the critical role of teamwork, communication, and human connection in fostering a truly safe work environment. Bill shares insights on the psychological factors that influence workplace culture, the hidden impact of mental health, and how shifting our focus from compliance to competency could change the game.

Key Takeaways:

✅ Safety isn’t just about compliance—it’s a byproduct of strong teamwork and communication.
✅ A psychologically safe work environment fosters better decision-making and fewer incidents.
✅ The traditional “safety first” mindset might be limiting our ability to create real change.
✅ Human connection and mental health are critical factors in workplace safety.
✅ Small changes, like pre-job huddles and open conversations, can have a major impact.

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

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

#WorkplaceSafety #UtilityIndustry #SafetyCulture #PsychologicalSafety #TeamworkMatters #LeadershipDevelopment #IncidentPrevention #CommunicationIsKey #CUSP #IncidentPrevention

In this episode of Utility Safety in Depth, host Kate Wade sits down with John “Scotty” MacNeill and Rena Harrington to explore the mission of the United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities (USMWF). They discuss the critical role USMWF plays in supporting families affected by workplace fatalities, advocating for stronger safety regulations, and raising awareness in the utility industry. With personal stories, industry insights, and a call to action, this conversation highlights the human impact of workplace safety failures and the importance of proactive prevention.

Key Takeaways:

✔️ The Mission of USMWF: How the organization supports families affected by workplace fatalities.

✔️ Bridging the Safety Gap: Why family members must be involved in post-incident investigations.

✔️ The Power of Storytelling: How sharing personal loss creates real change in workplace safety.

✔️ Advocacy & Legislation: Efforts to improve safety laws at the state and federal levels.

✔️ What Utility Companies Can Do: How organizations can collaborate with USMWF to make a difference.

USMWF’s MISSION

Offers support, guidance and resources to those affected by work-related injuries, illnesses or diseases. Dedicated to sharing lessons learned that leads a movement of change in promoting actions for safe and healthy working conditions. Through the collective voice of families of fallen workers and other activists, we strive for the elimination and controls of workplace hazards– therefore preventing future tragedies.

​

USMWF’s VISION STATEMENT

USMWF is an organized community of dedicated family member victims, a nationally recognized non-profit leader driving the transformation of the work environment to safe and healthy conditions for all employers and employees – both today and tomorrow.

Read the article in iP Magazine – Read Here

Visit https://www.usmwf.org/ to support The United Support & Memorial for Workplace Fatalities.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #WorkplaceSafety #IncidentPrevention #LinemanLife #SafetyAdvocacy #StaySafe #USMWF

In this episode of the Incident Prevention Utility Safety Podcast, Kate Wade interviews Dr. Kevin Rindal, DC, chiropractor, human performance expert, and co-founder of Vimocity. Drawing from his extensive experience with the U.S. Olympic Swim Team and industrial athletes, Dr. Rindal shares insights on preventing soft tissue injuries, implementing dynamic warmup programs, and securing organizational buy-in for holistic well-being strategies. Learn how utilities can leverage sports medicine principles to enhance safety, reduce costs, and improve workers’ quality of life.

Key Takeaways

1. Industrial Athletes and Soft Tissue Injuries: How utility workers face similar physical demands to athletes and the role of dynamic preparation in reducing injury rates.
2. Proactive vs. Reactive Approaches: The importance of addressing leading indicators like pain to prevent more significant injuries or reliance on opioids and other pain mitigations.
3. Integration with Daily Routines: Methods to seamlessly incorporate warmups, muscle maintenance, and recovery into existing workflows, making it scalable for smaller organizations.
4. Leveraging Technology and Gamification: How apps, micro learning, and team challenges foster engagement and create sustainable safety habits.
5. Leadership and Culture: The critical role of leadership buy-in at all levels in making safety and well-being programs successful.

Connect with Kevin:

• LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinrindal/
• Email – kevin@vimocity.com

Resource Links:

• Short form job-task specific training video | LINK
• Dynamic/ Full-body movement routine (5 min or less) | LINK
• Avoid Slips, Trips and Falls video | LINK

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

#UtilitySafety #IndustrialAthletes #InjuryPrevention #Vimocity #WorkplaceWellbeing #DynamicWarmups

In this episode of Utility Safety In Depth, we delve into the fascinating concept of the 100th monkey effect and its implications for safety in the utility industry. Join us as we discuss how collective consciousness and human connection can drive significant improvements in safety culture and outcomes. We’ll explore practical strategies to foster a more caring and supportive work environment, emphasizing the importance of communication, empathy, and mutual respect. Discover how embracing the power of human connection can lead to a safer and more resilient workforce.

Key Takeaways:

• The 100th Monkey Effect: How collective consciousness can influence individual behavior.
• The importance of human connection in safety culture.
• Practical strategies to foster a more caring and supportive work environment.
• The power of communication, empathy, and mutual respect.
• The role of leadership in creating a positive safety culture.

#utilitiesafety #safetyculture #humanconnection #100thmonkeyeffect #workplacewellbeing #safetyleadership #utilityindustry

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

Are you tired of hearing the same safety jargon without seeing real change? Join Bill Martin, President and CEO of think Tank Project, LLC, and Kate Wade, Editor of Incident Prevention magazine, as they dive deep into the root causes of workplace injuries and fatalities. Discover how to move beyond motivation and empty slogans to create a truly safe and connected work environment.

Key Takeaways from this podcast:

• Importance of Synchronization: The way forward in safety management involves creating a synchronized workforce where everyone is connected on a deeper level. Synchronization allows for better communication and understanding, reducing the chances of injuries and accidents.
• Action Over Motivation: Motivational speeches and slogans alone are insufficient to bring about real change in workplace safety. There needs to be actionable steps that translate motivation into tangible improvements on the ground.
• Understanding Human Behavior: The podcast emphasizes that much of human behavior is automatic, driven by the brain’s need to conserve energy. Safety programs should account for this by focusing on changing automatic behaviors rather than expecting constant vigilance.
• The Role of Leadership: Effective leadership is about asking the right questions and involving workers in safety decisions. Leaders should model the behavior they want to see and create environments that encourage participation and ownership of safety practices.
• Continuous Learning and Experimentation: The podcast suggests that safety improvements should be approached as ongoing experiments, where teams try out new ideas, evaluate their effectiveness, and adjust accordingly.
• Dealing with Resistance: Resistance to change is natural, especially in large organizations with many layers. The podcast highlights the importance of addressing this resistance by aligning everyone around common goals and encouraging openness to new ideas.
• Mental and Emotional Health: Addressing mental health issues, such as addiction and depression, is crucial for creating a safe work environment. A connected and supportive team can help identify and mitigate these risks.
• Practical Applications: The podcast concludes with a call to action—what small, tangible change can be implemented on Monday to make the workplace safer? It’s about translating ideas into real-world actions that have a measurable impact.

#safetyculture #workplaceinjury #safetymanagement #safetyleadership #industrialaccidents #safetytraining #safetytips #safetypodcast #accidentprevention #riskmanagement

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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

Welcome to Incident Prevention’s Utility Safety Podcast, hosted by Kate Wade, editor of Incident Prevention magazine. In this episode, Kate sits down with Scott Francis, the technical sales manager for Westex, a Milliken brand renowned for pioneering protective textiles since 1941. Scott brings decades of experience in the safety industry, especially in the flame-resistant and arc-rated clothing markets.

During this insightful discussion, Scott shares his expertise on the latest advancements in flame-resistant and arc-rated apparel, the importance of live demonstrations, and how Westex is leading the way in educating safety professionals. He also touches on the challenges of balancing cost and safety standards, and the critical role of comfort in ensuring protective clothing is worn consistently.

Whether you’re a safety manager looking to enhance your PPE program or simply interested in the latest trends in utility safety apparel, this episode is packed with valuable information.

Key Takeaways:

1. Impact of Live Demonstrations: Live flash fire and arc flash events leave a lasting impression, helping safety professionals understand the severity of thermal hazards.
2. Survivor Stories: Hearing from thermal exposure survivors like Brad Livingston emphasizes the real-life consequences of not wearing proper PPE.
3. Education and Training: Westex offers extensive educational resources, including webinars, regional safety conferences, and online materials to keep safety managers informed.
4. Balancing Cost and Safety: The competitive landscape in flame-resistant fabric manufacturing drives innovation and helps maintain affordable prices without compromising safety.
5. Comfort Equals Protection: Comfortable PPE is more likely to be worn consistently, directly impacting worker safety.

#UtilitySafety #FlameResistantClothing #ArcRatedApparel #PPE #WorkplaceSafety #SafetyPodcast #IncidentPrevention

You can read the current magazine at Incident Prevention Magazine.

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

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