£2 bn of risk is on the table.
Yorkshire Water asked for £11 bn of AMP8 capital. Ofwat allowed £8.3 bn. The difference is risk we will carry into the next five years — risk that needs to be named, mapped to assets and systems, and actively mitigated.
This demonstrator shows how a graph-based digital twin turns 65,000 alarms, EDM events and CIM signals into a handful of decisions that protect compliance, the environment, and the £40 M redress commitment.
- Static asset criticality → System-level, time-to-non-compliance aware
- Top-down vs bottom-up plans → Reconciled WINEP × DWMP × PROAM
- 65,000 alarms → The 6 that threaten a permit today
- Component-level fixes → Cascade-aware risk mitigation
- Reactive crisis response → Proactive optioneering vs £-at-risk
PR24 performance commitments
Headline targets approved in the Final Determination. Status shown is the demonstrator's modelled position against the 2030 target.
Investment picture
Where the £8.3 bn lands across programmes, and where the gap to ask sits.
£11.0 bn asked · £8.3 bn allowed
Leaving £2.0 bn of risk on the table across 7 investment programmes.
What this suite does
A walk-through of the asset management lifecycle, anchored on Scarborough wastewater.
See the seven asset-management stages, where they currently silo, and where this suite intervenes.
WwTW, CSOs, CIM stations and sewer trunks on a navigable map with asset dossiers.
Baseline vs new-evidence risk, cascade view, and drag-to-allocate investment optioneering.