As investigations progress into the Eaton Fire—allegedly sparked by Southern California Edison transmission equipment—calls for burying more power lines are echoing throughout the community, from officials to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The financial implications of such initiatives are significant, with estimates suggesting costs exceeding $860 million for burying power lines as a response to wildfire threats, a burden that will ultimately fall on ratepayers.
Southern California faces an enduring challenge: wildfire risk is an inherent part of its landscape. Yet, as climate change intensifies, the urgency to mitigate risks has grown. The critical question emerges: how much risk are Californians willing to accept, and how much are they prepared to invest to reduce this risk?
Electric power is a fundamental aspect of contemporary life, yet it comes with significant risks. The infrastructure of power lines has been implicated in some of California’s most devastating wildfires.
Climate change further complicates this problem, making wildfires increasingly severe. The January fires exemplified this issue; extreme dry conditions coincided with peak Santa Ana winds, leading to tragic outcomes.
The consensus among scientists calls for a shift away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind power. This transition demands infrastructure upgrades, putting further pressure on the already strained power grid amidst rising electricity demand.
Experts have begun to address the complexities of this “electric conundrum” in hopes of clarifying strategies for wildfire mitigation.
Burying power lines is emerging as a preventive measure against wildfires, a practice that began earning serious consideration after the catastrophic Camp Fire in 2018, which highlighted the dangers associated with above-ground lines and PG&E equipment.
More recently, following the Eaton and Palisades fires—and prompted by a governor’s executive order—Southern California Edison unveiled plans to bury over 150 circuit miles of power lines in the affected areas of Altadena and Malibu.
SCE had already initiated plans for undergrounding lines in Malibu’s fire-prone areas, while considering options in Altadena’s burned regions, some of which were not previously classified as high-risk.
The financial forecast for this venture hovers between $860 million and $925 million. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has committed to burying around 4,000 power lines in the Palisades area, estimating costs between $1 million and $14 million per mile.
While these plans are in development, both SCE and LADWP expect to seek additional funding sources to lessen the impact on utility rates.
Utilities employ several strategies for wildfire prevention, including Public Safety Power Shutoffs during hazardous weather conditions, vegetation management in high-risk zones, and hardening power infrastructure with fire-resistant materials.
Another option is automatic shutoff technology—known as “fast-trip” sensors—installed on high-risk power lines, aiming to reduce the potential for ignitions during heightened fire dangers.
Experts agree that subterranean infrastructure would be best applied in areas deemed the highest risk for fires. Not all power lines necessitate underground placement; for example, large transmission lines are generally less prone to ignitions compared to distribution lines typically found in residential neighborhoods.
The degree to which California’s fire danger is escalating complicates assessments of what constitutes a “high-risk” zone, especially as newly drawn fire-hazard maps categorize many more areas as at risk. As call for undergrounding grows louder after each wildfire disaster, experts are becoming increasingly mindful of expenditure vs. safety benefits.
Currently, the SCE plan proposes undergrounding lines in regions re-evaluated through new risk assessments, underscoring the fluid nature of fire risk classification in California.
Although it would be impractical to underground all power lines, there remains pressure from residents to substantially decrease wildfire risks.
Southern California Edison estimates that burying power lines can cost between $3 million and $5 million per mile, significantly higher than the $900,000 per mile expense associated with their fire-resistant covered conductor initiative.
Challenges inherent to burying lines include excavation, managing additional underground infrastructure, and potential roadwork, contributing to the project’s extended timeline of two to four years.
Despite lower maintenance requirements for undergrounded lines, repair work can lead to prolonged outages and steeper costs once issues arise.
While the costs in areas like Altadena and Malibu may not be as prohibitive due to existing infrastructure damage from wildfires, the financial strain remains a concern.
Over the past few years, SCE has completed over 40 miles of underground power lines at a cost of $110 million. The cumulative impact of these wildfire-related initiatives is projected to raise the average residential customer’s bill by approximately 10%.
In a study conducted by UC Berkeley researchers, it was determined that installing fast-trip sensors on power lines could reduce fire-induced ignitions by up to 80%, and is a more cost-effective alternative to burying lines, although it still results in power outages.
Callaway stressed the importance of exploring other alternatives: “I think customers should be open to alternatives.” While undergrounding power lines is essential in some scenarios, advanced technologies like fast-trip sensors could help refine which areas to target.
Power shutoffs are highly unpopular among consumers. However, integrating solar panels and battery storage could mitigate the inconvenience during high-risk fire conditions. SCE’s plans for undergrounding lines indicates a willingness to combine such energy sources to ensure community resilience.
The integration of solar and battery technology is seen as crucial in lessening reliance on traditional power lines during wildfire-prone spells. The expenses associated with solar implementation can create additional complications in electricity pricing.
When examining the diverse assets and strategies needed to secure a robust power grid in California, it is vital to balance mitigation costs against the desire for reliable electricity amid the extreme conditions predicted by climate change.
Ultimately, addressing how to best protect vulnerable communities in wildfire-prone areas requires continual assessment of infrastructure, fire risk management, and innovative solutions that go beyond traditional power line considerations.
image source from：https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/burying-power-lines-after-the-la-fires
