Buyer guidance by The QHSE Standard · Updated 20 September 2026
Risk Assessment Software for Energy & Utilities
The catalog candidates matching both risk assessment and energy & utilities are Emex, SoterAI and SoterCoach, Tekmon, Cority, Enablon, Haz360, Sphera, Datamaran, Ideagen EHS, Protex AI and SafeContractor. This is a documentation-based shortlist, not a performance ranking; verify the exact application, plan and deployment fit with each vendor.
Identify, score, and control workplace and operational risks.
For requirements beyond this category, read the Energy & Utilities QHSE buying guide.

Editorial responsibility: Dimitris Mitsios (Founder of The QHSE Standard; product marketing at Tekmon) · Tekmon pays for sponsored placements on this site (disclosure) · How pages are made · LinkedIn
Risk assessment in energy and utilities: explosive atmospheres, electrical work and job briefings
Energy and utility risk assessment spans very different scales: a formal hazard study for a gas plant, an explosion protection document for a zoned area, and a job briefing before a crew works on a line. Each has its own rule. Where dangerous substances may be present, the assessment must consider the likelihood and persistence of an explosive atmosphere and of ignition sources, and be recorded; in the EU an explosion protection document must be kept up to date. For electrical work in the US, the person in charge holds a job briefing before each job and again when conditions change.
Decide which level you are buying for, because the products below document different levels. A hazard-study tool needs traceable scenarios and recommendations; a field briefing tool needs speed and a record of who attended.
Rules that shape this evaluation
- DSEAR 2002, regulation 5 (Great Britain): where a dangerous substance may be present, the employer assesses the risks, including the likelihood of an explosive atmosphere and of active ignition sources, reviews the assessment regularly and records significant findings once five or more are employed.
- Directive 1999/92/EC (ATEX workplace), Articles 4 and 8 (EU): employers assess explosion risks and keep an up-to-date explosion protection document showing zones, measures and safe use of equipment, revised after significant changes.
- 29 CFR 1910.269(c), US OSHA: the employee in charge conducts a job briefing before each job, at least once a day or shift for repetitive work, and again when significant changes occur.
- Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, regulation 4 (Great Britain): work on or near electrical systems is carried out so as not to give rise to danger, so far as reasonably practicable.
Summarised from the linked official texts, read on 25 September 2026. This is buyer context, not legal advice: have the responsible specialists confirm which requirements apply to your sites.
How the operating context changes the buying criteria
Utility assets are dispersed: substations, pipelines, networks and metering points, with crews who start a job in an unfamiliar place under changing weather, traffic and third-party hazards such as buried services or adjacent live equipment. A task assessment written in an office cannot hold all of that, so the buying criterion is how a crew adds site-specific hazards on arrival to a generic task assessment, whether the generic version stays untouched, and whether a hazard found on arrival can change the go or no-go decision and tell someone who is not on site.
The second criterion is where the tool stops. In energy and utilities the live state of isolation, earthing and permit status usually sits in an operational or permit system, not in the risk tool, so a risk product that asks crews to retype that state creates a second source of truth. Ask what the tool reads and what it duplicates. Then ask about change: a network reconfiguration, a new piece of equipment or a temporary operating arrangement should prompt reassessment, and a zone classification that changes in the explosion protection document should reach the assessments that rely on it. Assets in service for decades also need their assessment history to be exportable.
Questions to settle for this combination
- Which level are you buying for: formal hazard studies, zoned-area documents, or field job briefings?
- Can a hazard study's recommendations be tracked to closure with an audit trail of who changed what?
- Can an explosion protection document be revised after a plant change while keeping the earlier version?
- Can a crew record a job briefing and its attendees on a phone, offline, before work starts?
- Does the assessment link to the permit or isolation under which the work will be done?
- Can a field assessment be escalated to the formal hazard study when a crew finds a condition the study did not foresee?
Further questions for each vendor
- How does a crew record hazards found on arrival, such as buried services, adjacent live equipment or weather, on top of a generic task assessment, and is the generic version left unchanged?
- Can assessments be held against assets or network locations, and can all open risks for one asset be shown before work starts?
- Which system owns isolation, earthing and permit status, and does the risk tool read that state or ask the crew to retype it?
- How does a management-of-change record raise a reassessment, and who is told when a zone classification changes?
- Can hazard-study recommendations be exported with their status and owners for a regulator or insurer review?
- Can control-room and field staff work from the same assessment version while an update is in progress?
What an inspector or auditor typically asks to see
- The assessment for the specific task or area, dated and tied to the version of the procedure used, including the zone classification where an explosive atmosphere is possible.
- Evidence that the crew was briefed before work and again when conditions changed, including who attended.
- Where the rules require it, the explosion protection document with its revision history after plant changes.
- Competence and authorisation records for those who did live or near-live work.
- Follow-up of recommendations from earlier hazard studies and incident reviews, with owners and dates.
Which documented capabilities matter most here
Two lines carry most of the signal. The offline classification matters because crews work outside coverage, and a job briefing that can only be completed online will be completed afterwards, from memory. The category line matters because risk assessment products range from hazard-study tools to field briefing apps. Read a price signal only after you have decided which of the three levels you are buying for, because the products named here do not all serve the same one.
Signals in the researched records of the listed products:
- Matched through a sourced tag or a documented capability rather than the primary category: Emex, SoterAI and SoterCoach, Cority, Enablon, Haz360, Sphera, Datamaran, Ideagen EHS and Protex AI.
- On this list for another reason, such as an industry tag, with no sourced match to the category: SafeContractor.
- Offline use, as classified in the records: a documented offline workflow: Emex, Cority, Enablon and Sphera; a partial offline workflow: Ideagen EHS. No classification yet for 5 of the 10.
- A published price amount is on record for Emex, SoterAI and SoterCoach, Haz360 and SafeContractor; the other 6 need a quote.
- A free trial is documented for SoterAI and SoterCoach.
Vendor-material signals, not test results; the commercial partner is not counted; no signal means not established.
A demo script for this combination
Ask each vendor to run these steps with synthetic data. They are demo requests, not observed vendor results.
- Import a synthetic hazard study node and track one recommendation to closure with an audit trail.
- Revise the explosion protection document for a zoned area after an equipment change and keep the earlier version.
- Record a crew job briefing on a phone offline, with attendees, before a line job.
- Link the briefing to the permit for the same job.