Europe’s power systems are facing increasing challenges from both natural and cyber threats. To protect the reliability of the electricity supply, it is not enough to react to crises, operators must anticipate, classify, and dynamically manage risks.
Within the eFORT project, two key deliverables demonstrate how this process is unfolding: D2.1 (Characterization and Classification of EPES Threats) and D3.1 (Results of Dynamic Risk Assessment Tools). Together, they illustrate how systematic threat identification feeds into innovative tools for continuous resilience management.
Mapping the Threat Landscape (D2.1)
D2.1, led by our partner, HYPERTECH, focused on building a consolidated picture of the threats facing Electrical Power and Energy Systems (EPES). Drawing on literature reviews and expert surveys across Europe, the study identified vulnerabilities related to:
- Natural hazards such as windstorms and ice storms.
- Technological risks including operational faults and DER integration.
- Human-caused threats, with a growing emphasis on advanced cyber-attacks.
The results were prioritised using a risk scoring and heat map approach, which highlighted that cyber threats and distributed energy resources (DERs) are emerging as top concerns, alongside climate-related risks.
Moving from Static to Dynamic Assessment (D3.1)
Building on these insights, D3.1, led by our partners, RINA-C, FRAUNHOFER and COMILLAS, developed a Dynamic Risk Assessment (DRA) methodology. Where D2.1 provided a static classification of threats, D3.1 created the tools to monitor them continuously.
The DRA integrates:
- Physical risk assessment modules (asset health and hazard exposure).
- Power network stability analysis (anticipating cascading failures).
- Cyber risk evaluations (including MaDIoT attacks via IoT devices).
This transition from classification to dynamic monitoring ensures that vulnerabilities are not just identified once but are constantly reassessed in light of evolving threats.
The Link Between the Two
Without the foundational work of D2.1, the development of the DRA in D3.1 would lack context. The prioritization of threats in D2.1 directly informed the design of the risk modules in D3.1. For example:
- The prominence of cyber risks in D2.1 justified the inclusion of a dedicated cyberattack evaluation module in the DRA.
- The identification of DER-related vulnerabilities in D2.1 influenced the DRA’s focus on distributed generation and IoT-enabled devices.
- The risk heat maps from D2.1 provided a baseline against which dynamic risk monitoring could be benchmarked.
Why This Matters for Resilience
eFORT shows how research and innovation work hand in hand:
- Research (D2.1) maps the problem space.
- Innovation (D3.1) develops tools to address it in real time.
Together, they provide a pathway for operators to prioritize resources, anticipate disruptions, and safeguard the continuity of Europe’s electricity supply.
Conclusion
The outcomes of D2.1 and D3.1 continue to inform other work packages in eFORT, from cascading effects analysis to self-healing grid development and standardization guidelines. Resilience measures are grounded in both empirical evidence and cutting-edge tools.
The journey from characterizing threats to dynamically assessing them demonstrates eFORT’s holistic vision for grid resilience. Through this interconnected work, the project responds to today’s vulnerabilities and also anticipates tomorrow’s challenges, ensuring Europe’s energy systems remain reliable, secure, and adaptable.
Contact us
Follow us on: