How my responsibility moved from assets to the enterprise

Mandate

Reconcile renewal, new demand and changes in heat supply with continuing service obligations

Outcomes

• Deferred a C$42 million extension pending firmer anchor commitments
• Prioritised C$9.6 million of pipe renewal within a constrained capital plan
• Established a measured first stage for heat-pump investment
• Separated billing explanation improvements from actual invoice corrections

Decisions in context

I became CEO with responsibility for the complete investment and operating account rather than the network portfolio alone. The owners needed a clearer comparison between renewing existing assets, connecting new buildings and changing sources of heat. I report to a separate chair and hold an executive directorship. The portfolio now has eleven networks, 412 connected buildings and 238 MW of installed thermal capacity; the revenue and workforce figures shown here describe 2025. I have used staged approvals where operating evidence can change the next commitment, while also supporting renewal that has no immediate growth headline. The role requires close work with technical specialists without taking over their engineering authority. My continuing focus is the quality of demand assumptions and the service costs that remain while a network changes its equipment or energy source.

Reason for the move

Serving in the current CEO appointment

Mandate

Coordinate network performance, maintenance evidence and practical shared resources

Outcomes

• Reviewed critical spares across seven networks before centralising holdings
• Connected condition reporting with the annual renewal discussion
• Improved the handover of development assumptions to operating teams

Decisions in context

As COO, I was accountable for the operating system across a geographically separated portfolio. I coordinated network leaders, maintenance planning and central support, with major investment decisions reserved for the CEO and board. The spare-equipment review was an important test of how we worked as a group. We released genuinely redundant stock but retained duplicate items where compatibility, transport or simultaneous need made sharing less credible. I also asked development and operating teams to record changes between the approved project assumptions and the first full season of service. Those changes helped us improve later proposals without reducing the discussion to blame. My board involvement was through management presentations rather than a director seat. The subsequent CEO appointment required a wider view of owner expectations, funding and commercial exposure than this operating remit alone had provided.

Reason for the move

Board selected me to lead the enterprise after four years overseeing operations

Mandate

Deliver contracted thermal service and make inherited asset obligations visible

Outcomes

• Established a common review of service interruptions and recurring maintenance
• Recorded differences between original connection assumptions and operating demand
• Prepared renewal proposals with clearer access and service dependencies

Decisions in context

This was my first role with direct responsibility for a group of operating networks rather than a project approaching handover. I inherited customer agreements, asset histories and the practical consequences of earlier design choices. My financial scope was the three-network region, not the whole company. I worked with local managers to distinguish immediate service issues from conditions that required a longer renewal plan. We also reviewed the connection assumptions that had changed before assets entered regular operation. That work made me more careful about the promises a development team could reasonably pass to its operating colleagues. I learnt to explain a regional need within the wider capital competition rather than assume that proximity to the asset made its priority self-evident. The promotion to COO followed the expansion of this coordination work across the portfolio.

Reason for the move

Promoted to coordinate the wider operating portfolio

Mandate

Connect engineering scope, customer commitments and delivery schedules before handover

Outcomes

• Separated prospective building connections by commercial status
• Introduced clearer change records for customer timing assumptions
• Coordinated operating handover requirements earlier in project planning

Decisions in context

I joined a development business to understand the commercial decisions that preceded the assets I had previously assessed as an engineer. My role brought together customer discussions, project budgets and engineering milestones. I coordinated specialist teams but did not replace their technical or legal authority. I found that the same project could appear to have a settled future in a drawing while its anchor buildings still faced uncertain construction dates. Keeping those differences visible became an important part of my work. I also helped define the material an operating team would need at handover, including changes from the original assumptions. The experience gave me a practical appreciation of development exposure. I moved to Alderquell because I wanted responsibility for the service after completion and the opportunity to see how those early choices performed over successive operating seasons.

Reason for the move

Chose an operating general-management role to remain accountable after construction

Mandate

Translate asset condition and service history into prioritised renewal proposals

Outcomes

• Improved the traceability of condition evidence in renewal requests
• Recorded uncertainty where inspection access was limited
• Connected recurring service problems with planned interventions

Decisions in context

The planning role taught me to make a technical concern useful to a decision-maker who was comparing many demands on limited funding. I worked with inspections, maintenance history and cost estimates under the asset-planning manager. Some evidence was incomplete, and I learnt not to manufacture precision merely because a planning table required a single number. I described what had been observed, what remained uncertain and the service consequence of waiting. My contribution supported the utility's renewal programme; I did not approve the capital allocation or direct plant operation independently. The work also showed me how earlier commercial and design assumptions could shape an asset's later obligations. I sought the subsequent project role to understand that earlier stage more directly and gain experience coordinating a broader group around a defined delivery commitment.

Reason for the move

Moved into development to broaden commercial and project responsibility

Mandate

Learn asset surveys, maintenance documentation and supervised project delivery

Outcomes

• Completed supervised surveys and drawing reconciliations
• Supported maintenance records with field observations
• Prepared handover material for review by experienced engineers

Decisions in context

I entered utility work after completing my engineering degree and learned through supervised assignments alongside experienced engineers and operators. The work included checking drawings, supporting surveys and preparing records for review. I was not authorised to change operating arrangements or approve engineering work on my own. I found that the history behind an installation often mattered as much as its current drawing, particularly where modifications had accumulated over time. Listening to maintenance colleagues helped me identify questions that a desk review would miss. I also learnt that a handover document needed to be usable by the next team, not merely complete in a project folder. Those habits supported my move into asset planning, where the task was to connect observations across several assets and explain which ones deserved further investigation or renewal.

Reason for the move

Progressed to an asset-planning specialist position