Unlocking Proactive Land and Permitting Strategy

By Steve Morse

By treating land and permitting as core governance inputs—not administrative afterthoughts—utilities can create predictable, scalable, and resilient delivery.

Field SCADA lifecycle management programs are often viewed as technology modernization efforts. In practice, program success depends more on supporting business processes than on the technology itself.

The most significant constraint is land access and permitting.

For multi-year, multi-site programs, land and permitting are primary schedule drivers. Engineering, procurement and construction activities are generally predictable once standards are established. Land acquisition, easements and permits are not. Approval timelines vary widely by jurisdiction and landowner and can range from weeks to years. A single delayed permit can stall a site refresh and disrupt annual delivery targets across the portfolio. In many cases, the critical path runs through a planning department or a private negotiation rather than a SCADA workstream.

Lifecycle programs amplify this challenge. Delivering 20 to 30 sites per year effectively turns a SCADA refresh into a rolling land development effort. Each site may introduce different zoning requirements, environmental reviews, floodplain rules or cultural consultations. Legacy installations that once benefited from grandfathered conditions may lose those protections when modified. Without early land feasibility checks, programs often discover fatal constraints late, after designs are complete and capital has been committed.

Cost risk follows a similar pattern. Land and permitting issues rarely appear clearly in early estimates. Survey scopes expand, mitigation requirements emerge, sites must be relocated or access roads added. These costs are legitimate but unplanned, and over time they undermine confidence in forecasts and capital plans. The issue is not poor estimating but treating land risk as incidental rather than structural.

Permitting constraints also shape technical design. Antenna height limits can force communications redesigns. Floodplain requirements may require elevated enclosures or site relocation. Fire and electrical codes can alter cabinet spacing. Landowner agreements may reduce allowable site footprints. When these factors are not anticipated, teams rely on exceptions and rework, eroding standardization.

Land and permitting challenges are often mistakenly treated as legal or administrative matters.

In lifecycle SCADA programs, they must be addressed as governance issues. Effective programs integrate land, permitting, engineering, OT and IT, and finance into a single delivery model. Land feasibility informs site selection, permitting timelines shape annual plans, and risks are tracked at the portfolio level.

The conclusion is straightforward. Field SCADA lifecycle management is not solely an operational technology initiative. It is a land-enabled delivery system. Programs that fail to assess and plan for land and permitting face chronic delays and cost volatility. Programs that address them early and systematically gain predictability, scalability and executive confidence.