Utility crisis response requires more than restoring service. It demands clear communication and public trust.
Editor's Note: This commentary examines the importance of crisis communications planning for public utilities, drawing on real-world incidents to highlight lessons in transparency, accountability, and public trust. The views and analysis are those of the author.
In August 2026, a powerful storm tore through Northwest Indiana, causing widespread power outages for customers of NIPSCO, the region's electric utility. Gary was among the hardest-hit communities. For residents, particularly those dependent on electricity for medical equipment, the extended outages created serious challenges during the summer heat. Local businesses also faced significant disruptions.
The outage was just the start of the public's frustration with NIPSCO. As restoration efforts continued, questions emerged about the utility's preparedness, infrastructure maintenance and communications with affected communities.
The situation highlighted a familiar challenge for utilities: restoring service is only part of managing a crisis. Public confidence also depends on how effectively an organization communicates, coordinates its response and demonstrates accountability.
Every organization will inevitably face a crisis, but improvising in real time is rarely wise. Critics and other interested parties can seize control of the narrative, filling communications gaps with their own messaging. Proactively building a crisis communications strategy is your insurance against the erosion of public trust.
What's at Stake?
Most companies put their reputation on the line in a crisis. But a public utility has multiple reputations to defend, and they're all tied to the same story. A private company's crisis is its own to manage; a utility's crisis pulls in residents who depend on essential services, elected officials and regulators who oversee its operations, crews doing the restoration work and, for investor-owned utilities, shareholders whose confidence keeps capital flowing.
Without factual, transparent communications, the dominoes can fall, one after another. Picture a boil-water advisory that reaches residents six hours late, or an outage where the only update is a vague statement that crews are “working on it.”
Local officials who supported the utility may face blame at the next town hall, and the elections that follow can become more difficult. Regulators who approved the utility's plans may find themselves answering to newly elected officials ready to investigate past decisions. Meanwhile, residents grow angrier at public meetings and on social media. Some disengage from the political process altogether, while others may simply move away, taking their tax dollars with them and shrinking the base that funds the very services people were already frustrated about.
A solid crisis communications plan carries this larger responsibility. It protects the utility, but it also protects the officials, regulators, and public whose trust depends on how the utility performs on its worst day.
The Good News: Your Utility Can Shine in a Crisis. Plan on It.
Consider the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, which faced a cyberattack on a booster station's control system in November 2023.
The authority's response included switching affected equipment to manual operation and communicating with the public about the incident and the safety of its drinking water. Its leadership addressed the situation publicly, helping residents understand the nature of the threat and the steps being taken to manage it.
The incident offers an important lesson: clear, specific, and accountable communication should be part of the crisis response itself, rather than an afterthought.
Your outage may never make national news. But a cyberattack, a burst main or a bad storm season can put you in the same position NIPSCO faced: managing a crisis while the public decides, in real time, whether to trust you.
While the incidents involved different challenges, both illustrate why utilities need to prepare for the communications demands of a crisis, not just the operational response.
Here's how to put those lessons into practice:
Begin with a dedicated communications team. Clearly define each person's role, including who may say what and to whom. Once you have the right people, build your plan together.
Say who's in charge of the response. A named spokesperson with real authority, visible from day one, reassures the public that someone is accountable.
Acknowledge the full scope, fast. Outage counts alone don't tell people what to expect or for how long. A plan should commit to communicating the scale and likely duration of a crisis as early as reliable information becomes available.
Never let good news from elsewhere undercut the message. A plan should include a process for reviewing or postponing unrelated corporate announcements during an active crisis, with clear sign-off authority.
Meet criticism with facts, not defensiveness. Prepare spokespeople to respond respectfully to difficult allegations: acknowledge the concern, state what's known and commit to meaningful accountability. Be as transparent as possible. Own it.
Reach the people who need the most help, directly. A plan should identify vulnerable customers in advance and establish channels to reach them quickly.
Give a real timeline, and update it. “Restoration is ongoing” isn't enough. Anxious residents need meaningful information. A plan should establish a daily cadence during an extended outage, providing concrete, time-stamped restoration updates, even when the situation hasn't changed.
Utilities Don't Get Special Treatment
I've been involved in local government throughout my life. As a private citizen, I've experienced power outages and water issues. As a professional, I've worked for IT and cybersecurity government contractors. That combination of experiences tells me that utilities are uniquely vulnerable to both cyber threats and the public scrutiny that comes with them.
Most utility companies have constrained resources and risk-averse boards. Ironically, it's that very risk aversion that can put them at even greater risk.
Preparing even the most basic crisis response plan can make an enormous difference in managing a wide range of challenges, whether it's a tree falling on a power line, a cyberattack, or a physical attack on a critical facility.
Surviving a crisis is one thing. Preserving public trust through it is another.
