构建电网弹性：输电系统的弹性度量和标准（英）

The bottom line.Power transmission systems are emerging as one of the most vulnerable parts ofthe power sector as climate change intensifies the frequency, intensity, and duration of extremeweather events and multiplies system-wide risks. Following the first in a three-part series on theglobal stocktaking of resilience metrics and standards applicable to the power sector—Measuringthe Climate Resilience of the Power Sector: Harmonization, Not Homogenization(Live Wire 146)—this Live Wire articulates metrics and standards that can be used to assess, quantify, and strengthenthe resilience of transmission systems.1The backbone of critical power infrastructure, transmissionsystems span long distances and traverse multiple hazard zones, making them especially vulnerableto climate-related failures that cause widespread social and economic disruption.Public Disclosure Authorized The persistent gap in power sector resilience is the absenceof climate-forward integration: design standards tend to beslow to incorporate future climate projections, and com-monly used metrics describe past system-level performance,whereasclimate resilience demands future-facing stresstesting that links design assumptions with expected systembehavior under evolving hazards.Public Disclosure Authorized Standards and metrics play distinct but complementary rolesin operationalizing power system resilience. Infrastructurestandardsestablish prescriptive design,planning,andoperating requirements for compliance, typically expressedthrough enforceable technical criteria such as contingency Selena Jihyun Leeis an energy specialist in theEnergy, Policy, and Regulations Unit of the Energyand Extractives Global Practice at the World Bank.Public Disclosure Authorized Ipshita Karmakar, a doctoral researcher inplanning at the University of British Columbia,serves as a consultant with the Global Facility forDisaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and theEnergy, Policy, and Regulations Unit of the Energyand Extractives Global Practice at the WorldBank. requirements,loading thresholds,and hazard designfactors—forexample,NERC Reliability Standards(NERC2023b; IEEE 60826, 2017). These standards define minimumacceptable system conditions but do not, in themselves,measure realized system performance. Metrics, by contrast,are quantitative performance indicators used to evaluatehow the system actually behaves under normal and stressedconditions (EPRI 2025). Together, standards define requiredsystem capabilities, whereas metrics assess whether thosecapabilities translate into observed resilience outcomes. 3Hazards do not affect transmission system componentsuniformly; towers, conductors, insulators, and substationsrespondto different stressors through distinct failuremechanisms, requiring multi-hazard fragility curves tocharacterize these differences by estimating the condi-tional probability of failure for each component type acrossvarying hazard intensities. Making component-specificvulnerability explicit provides a basis for considering wherecomponent-level standards may offer added analyticalor operational value (EPRI 2025; Kazimierczuk and others2023). Spatially explicit vulnerability assessments—usingcorridor-level mapping of topography, vegetation, flood-plains, and coastal exposure—can ultimately be incorpo-rated into design standards. What considerations are key tostrengthening transmission resilience usingstandards and metrics? Transmission system resilience requires a full disasterrisk management lifecycle and a hazard-specificapproach 3Assetassessment relies on component-level fragilitycurves, rather than uniform system-level metrics, to cap-ture how failure probability increases with hazard inten-sity; these curves can further be developed into resiliencemetrics (Serrano, Martí, and Olmos 2023; EPRI 2025). Theapproach begins with reducing system vulnerabilityby anticipating and planning for climate risks, continuesthroughensuring resilient performance during extremeevents, and culminates in rapid, climate-adaptive recovery.Most existing transmission metrics and standards addressonly fragments of this cycle, leaving significant gaps relativeto the demands of an increasingly adverse climate. 3Performanceand design assumptions need to bedefined in network planning standards, which can thenbereflected in asset specifications.Relevant metricsinclude the share of hardened transmission assets (per-cent), encompassing upgraded tower designs, founda-tions, and conductor specifications, as well as the shareof line length exposed to flood, wind, wildfire, or coastalhazards (percent), which helps prioritize mitigation andredesign. Additionally, a Conditional Value-at-Risk designapproach can be applied as a condition for hardeningassets, mitigation, and asset allocation (Poudyal, Poudel,and Dubey 2022). The following key considerations guide practitioners throughan end-to-end framework for climate-resilient transmissionplanning and operations. They are g