Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation
To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Risk analysis 2019-05, Vol.39 (5), p.1044-1059 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1059 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 1044 |
container_title | Risk analysis |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Danner, Carl Schulman, Paul |
description | To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical public utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of “safety.” Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of public regulatory agencies, with examples from “high‐reliability organizations” (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the public as objectives in their safety oversight of public utilities. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/risa.13236 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2135128922</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2216448719</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-a57b4b9386070b4fb5bd78421de4aeb8a48341cdc97a90a49d863a4508eb579e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRbK1u_AEScCNC6jwzMyspxUehoKR2PcwkkzptHjWTIP33pqa6cOHdfJvD4XIAuERwjLq7q53XY0QwiY7AEDEiw0hiegyGEHMcUkLwAJx5v4YQQcj4KRgQSCmEAg7BfWybd1duXLkKYuc3wcR7631hyybIqjp4bU3ukmDZuNw1u2ChM9tNbFdtrhtXlefgJNO5txeHHYHl48Pb9DmcvzzNppN5mBDGo1AzbqiRRESQQ0Mzw0zKBcUotVRbIzQVhKIkTSTXEmoqUxERTRkU1jAuLRmBm967rauP1vpGFc4nNs91aavWK4wIQ1hIjDv0-g-6rtq67L5TGKOIUsGR7KjbnkrqyvvaZmpbu0LXO4Wg2mdV-6zqO2sHXx2UrSls-ov-dOwA1AOfLre7f1Qqni0mvfQLfTqA0Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2216448719</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><creator>Danner, Carl ; Schulman, Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Danner, Carl ; Schulman, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical public utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of “safety.” Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of public regulatory agencies, with examples from “high‐reliability organizations” (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the public as objectives in their safety oversight of public utilities.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-4332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-6924</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/risa.13236</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30440080</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Administrative law ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Disaster Planning ; Electricity ; High‐reliability organizations ; Infrastructure ; Oil and Gas Industry ; Oversight ; Probability ; Public utilities ; Public utility districts ; Public works ; Regulatory agencies ; Reliability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Risk assessment ; Risk Assessment - methods ; Risk management ; Risk Management - methods ; Safety ; Safety management ; Safety Management - methods ; Safety regulations ; Telecommunications ; Transportation ; Transportation safety ; Transportation systems ; United States ; Utilities ; utility regulation ; Water Supply ; Water supply systems</subject><ispartof>Risk analysis, 2019-05, Vol.39 (5), p.1044-1059</ispartof><rights>2018 Society for Risk Analysis</rights><rights>2018 Society for Risk Analysis.</rights><rights>2019 Society for Risk Analysis</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-a57b4b9386070b4fb5bd78421de4aeb8a48341cdc97a90a49d863a4508eb579e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-a57b4b9386070b4fb5bd78421de4aeb8a48341cdc97a90a49d863a4508eb579e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Frisa.13236$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Frisa.13236$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27845,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30440080$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Danner, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulman, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation</title><title>Risk analysis</title><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><description>To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical public utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of “safety.” Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of public regulatory agencies, with examples from “high‐reliability organizations” (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the public as objectives in their safety oversight of public utilities.</description><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Disaster Planning</subject><subject>Electricity</subject><subject>High‐reliability organizations</subject><subject>Infrastructure</subject><subject>Oil and Gas Industry</subject><subject>Oversight</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Public utilities</subject><subject>Public utility districts</subject><subject>Public works</subject><subject>Regulatory agencies</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Risk Assessment - methods</subject><subject>Risk management</subject><subject>Risk Management - methods</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Safety management</subject><subject>Safety Management - methods</subject><subject>Safety regulations</subject><subject>Telecommunications</subject><subject>Transportation</subject><subject>Transportation safety</subject><subject>Transportation systems</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Utilities</subject><subject>utility regulation</subject><subject>Water Supply</subject><subject>Water supply systems</subject><issn>0272-4332</issn><issn>1539-6924</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AURgdRbK1u_AEScCNC6jwzMyspxUehoKR2PcwkkzptHjWTIP33pqa6cOHdfJvD4XIAuERwjLq7q53XY0QwiY7AEDEiw0hiegyGEHMcUkLwAJx5v4YQQcj4KRgQSCmEAg7BfWybd1duXLkKYuc3wcR7631hyybIqjp4bU3ukmDZuNw1u2ChM9tNbFdtrhtXlefgJNO5txeHHYHl48Pb9DmcvzzNppN5mBDGo1AzbqiRRESQQ0Mzw0zKBcUotVRbIzQVhKIkTSTXEmoqUxERTRkU1jAuLRmBm967rauP1vpGFc4nNs91aavWK4wIQ1hIjDv0-g-6rtq67L5TGKOIUsGR7KjbnkrqyvvaZmpbu0LXO4Wg2mdV-6zqO2sHXx2UrSls-ov-dOwA1AOfLre7f1Qqni0mvfQLfTqA0Q</recordid><startdate>201905</startdate><enddate>201905</enddate><creator>Danner, Carl</creator><creator>Schulman, Paul</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201905</creationdate><title>Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation</title><author>Danner, Carl ; Schulman, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-a57b4b9386070b4fb5bd78421de4aeb8a48341cdc97a90a49d863a4508eb579e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Disaster Planning</topic><topic>Electricity</topic><topic>High‐reliability organizations</topic><topic>Infrastructure</topic><topic>Oil and Gas Industry</topic><topic>Oversight</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Public utilities</topic><topic>Public utility districts</topic><topic>Public works</topic><topic>Regulatory agencies</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Risk Assessment - methods</topic><topic>Risk management</topic><topic>Risk Management - methods</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Safety management</topic><topic>Safety Management - methods</topic><topic>Safety regulations</topic><topic>Telecommunications</topic><topic>Transportation</topic><topic>Transportation safety</topic><topic>Transportation systems</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Utilities</topic><topic>utility regulation</topic><topic>Water Supply</topic><topic>Water supply systems</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Danner, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schulman, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Danner, Carl</au><au>Schulman, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation</atitle><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><date>2019-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1044</spage><epage>1059</epage><pages>1044-1059</pages><issn>0272-4332</issn><eissn>1539-6924</eissn><abstract>To aid in their safety oversight of large‐scale, potentially dangerous energy and water infrastructure and transportation systems, public utility regulatory agencies increasingly seek to use formal risk assessment models. Yet some of the approaches to risk assessment used by utilities and their regulators may be less useful for this purpose than is supposed. These approaches often do not reflect the current state of the art in risk assessment strategy and methodology. This essay explores why utilities and regulatory agencies might embrace risk assessment techniques that do not sufficiently assess organizational and managerial factors as drivers of risk, nor that adequately represent important uncertainties surrounding risk calculations. Further, it describes why, in the special legal, political, and administrative world of the typical public utility regulator, strategies to identify and mitigate formally specified risks might actually diverge from the regulatory promotion of “safety.” Some improvements are suggested that can be made in risk assessment approaches to support more fully the safety oversight objectives of public regulatory agencies, with examples from “high‐reliability organizations” (HROs) that have successfully merged the management of safety with the management of risk. Finally, given the limitations of their current risk assessments and the lessons from HROs, four specific assurances are suggested that regulatory agencies should seek for themselves and the public as objectives in their safety oversight of public utilities.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>30440080</pmid><doi>10.1111/risa.13236</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0272-4332 |
ispartof | Risk analysis, 2019-05, Vol.39 (5), p.1044-1059 |
issn | 0272-4332 1539-6924 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2135128922 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; PAIS Index; Business Source Complete |
subjects | Administrative law Cost-Benefit Analysis Disaster Planning Electricity High‐reliability organizations Infrastructure Oil and Gas Industry Oversight Probability Public utilities Public utility districts Public works Regulatory agencies Reliability Reproducibility of Results Risk assessment Risk Assessment - methods Risk management Risk Management - methods Safety Safety management Safety Management - methods Safety regulations Telecommunications Transportation Transportation safety Transportation systems United States Utilities utility regulation Water Supply Water supply systems |
title | Rethinking Risk Assessment for Public Utility Safety Regulation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T20%3A22%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rethinking%20Risk%20Assessment%20for%20Public%20Utility%20Safety%20Regulation&rft.jtitle=Risk%20analysis&rft.au=Danner,%20Carl&rft.date=2019-05&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1044&rft.epage=1059&rft.pages=1044-1059&rft.issn=0272-4332&rft.eissn=1539-6924&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/risa.13236&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2216448719%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2216448719&rft_id=info:pmid/30440080&rfr_iscdi=true |