The discussion around grid hardening is becoming less about finding a single “best” material and more about matching infrastructure investments to specific risk profiles and operating environments. This was a recurring theme during a recent conversation T&D World had with John Higgins, CEO of Resilient Structures (RS Technologies) who reflected on how composite utility structures have evolved from a niche product into a more widely accepted tool for targeted resilience strategies.
Higgins, who has spent nearly 25 years in the transmission and distribution industry, traced his career through major utility services organizations before taking the helm at Resilient Structures more than two years ago. During that time, he said the industry’s perception of composite poles has shifted significantly as utilities confront growing reliability pressures tied to storms, wildfire risk, electrification and aging infrastructure.
“For years, everybody told me T&D was going to become sexy,” Higgins said during the interview. “And now it finally kind of is.”
That heightened visibility has come alongside mounting pressure on utilities to strengthen systems against increasingly severe weather and growing customer expectations around reliability. Higgins said those pressures are driving utilities to take a more strategic approach to infrastructure selection rather than viewing pole materials as a one-size-fits-all decision.
Instead of positioning composites as a universal replacement for wood, steel or concrete, Higgins emphasized that utilities are increasingly deploying the structures in targeted applications where the economics of resilience are easier to justify over the long term.
According to Higgins, three primary use cases are driving the strongest adoption.
The first involves critical structures and circuits where failure carries outsized operational or economic consequences. Poles supporting high-value equipment, major feeders, hospitals or key industrial loads are increasingly being evaluated differently than standard distribution assets.
“If a pole has $20,000, $30,000 or $50,000 worth of equipment on it, you don’t ever want that pole to hit the ground,” Higgins said.
The second category centers on remote or difficult-to-access installations where replacement or maintenance costs can become extremely expensive. Utilities operating in mountainous terrain, wetlands or heavily constrained urban and backyard environments are looking more closely at lifecycle costs instead of only upfront installation expenses.
The third involves areas where conventional materials historically experience accelerated degradation, including coastal regions, wildfire corridors and locations exposed to persistent environmental stressors.
