Hey, PG&E: Explain why you’re burying fewer power lines in Sonoma County than in Napa County

At a late April public workshop to review electric utilities’ wildfire safety plans, Glen Ellen resident David Gleba directed a comment to Pacific Gas & Electric, the service provider for a large swath of the state from central to northern California.

“In the next three years, your plan calls for 155 miles of undergrounding in Napa County and only 7 miles of undergrounding in Sonoma County,” Gleba said.

“Our Napa neighbors deserve every mile given their recent history with wildfire damage, but those of us in Sonoma County share a similar history and deserve a similar allocation of miles ... We won’t be getting the benefit of this program any time soon.”

Putting power lines underground has been touted as the centerpiece of PG&E’s new multipronged approach to mend the behemoth utility’s dismal safety record.

As climate change has transformed California into a tinder box over the past decade, PG&E’s neglected equipment has been blamed for sparking wildfires that have killed more than 100 people, leveled communities and caused tens of billions of dollars in damage.

After emerging from a bankruptcy in 2020 driven by its liability from the 2017 North Bay firestorm and deadly 2018 Camp Fire, the utility has vowed to course correct. A key strategy: Undergrounding 10,000 miles of its overhead power lines in wildfire-prone areas in 10 years.

Utility undergrounding projects, which promise to reduce fire risk by 99% where implemented, have an understandable appeal with communities, many traumatized by years of worsening wildfires.

PG&E’s extensive advertising campaign has only heightened interest.

But understanding the practicalities of PG&E’s program ― how work is done, risks are weighed and decisions are made ― is no easy endeavor.

“It's very difficult to have an informed public conversation about anything related to the mechanics of utility service because it’s so complex, so we rely very heavily on the utilities’ understanding and the oversight provided by regulators,” said Steven Weissman, a lecturer with the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It's no surprise that people really can't very well conceptualize the way decisions are being made.”

PG&E’s latest forecast has 2 miles in the works for Sonoma County in 2023 and four in 2024.

Napa County has no miles scheduled this year but 41 miles for next. Four miles are planned for Mendocino County in 2023, 90 miles for Lake County by the end of 2024 and one mile is slated for Marin County this year and none the next.

Promises & doubts

Undergrounding isn’t new.

“The question has always been how do you set priorities for what's underground,” Weissman told me.

In the past, regulatory guidance has encouraged utilities toward a focus on scenic sites, he said. “Now, the questions that are being asked have to be very different.”

Undergrounding at the scale PG&E promises has never been done in this country, experts say. Between 2015 and 2021, PG&E put an average 22 miles per year underground. In 2022, the utility ramped up the pace, burying 180 miles compared to 73 in 2021.

To stay on target, according to its 2023 Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which is currently under review by officials and other stakeholders, PG&E plans to bury 2,100 miles of distribution lines between 2023 and 2026.

That’s adjusted down from last year’s projection of 3,600 miles in that time frame. However, PG&E’s new CEO, Patti Poppe, said the ultimate 10,000-in-10-years goal is still on track, plans for which PG&E will submit later this year.

PG&E’s territory is vast, with widely varying terrain. And while the aim is to underground the highest wildfire risk equipment, other considerations, such as cost and feasibility, including ground quality, easements and permitting, have to be factored in.

That’s not to mention the complicating impacts of coordinating with telecommunications that share utility poles, construction disruptions in communities and the potential effects of earthquakes down the line.

In a statement to The Press Democrat, PG&E said it uses a machine-learning based risk model that considers equipment condition, environmental terrain and surrounding vegetation among other factors to identify the highest risk areas to target.

Additionally, the company relies on fire and public safety specialists with local knowledge about fire history, evacuation considerations and the like.

PG&E’s Poppe has likened the massive undertaking to the Golden Gate Bridge, which took 15 years to permit and build but is now a fundamental part of the state’s fabric.

But some experts and advocates are skeptical the utility has the ability to properly evaluate risk and keep costs down for a project of this scope and complexity.

Moving targets and trade-offs

“Things are changing constantly. … What exactly are they going to do, and certainly, where exactly are they going to do it is a moving target,” said Eric Borden, a principal associate with Synapse Energy Economics, a research and consulting firm.

“Undergrounding is an important tool that PG&E can use to mitigate wildfire risk, but it should be used more as a scalpel than the sort of hammer approach that PG&E is going toward with the 10,000 miles,” he added.

Understanding wildfire risk alone is an evolving process.

PG&E is constantly updating its risk modeling, and a May 2023 safety audit found that enhancements “are allowing PG&E to better target its wildfire mitigation efforts.”

But it also noted that some of PG&E’s previous system improvement work “based on earlier versions of the risk models was later seen to have been done on circuits and circuit segments that later versions of the model were showing as having lower risk.”

Borden added that based on his own analysis of PG&E’s wildfire mitigation filings, the utility’s methodology provides it far too much leeway in determining which power lines are at greatest fire risk and should therefore be buried.

In the past, he added, PG&E hasn’t always had the best track record of putting risk first in its decision-making.

In April 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) placed PG&E into an enhanced oversight and enforcement process due its failure to adequately incorporate wildfire risk in its vegetation management strategy.

“They've definitely shown an ability to spend a lot of money, but to spend a lot of money in a quality way has been much more elusive for them,” Borden told me.

While burying power lines has undeniable long-term benefits, critics point out that utilities have incentive to favor such projects as capital investments because they increase profits for shareholders whereas something like vegetation management is just a business expense.

And, with so much focus on undergrounding, some worry there is less capacity to focus on short-term and medium-term system upkeep and wildfire prevention.

For instance, the audit found PG&E had a “considerable backlog” of distribution line and pole maintenance upgrades.

PG&E emphasized that it uses a swath of strategies in its wildfire mitigation efforts. Indeed, while embarking on undergrounding, it rolled out its Enhanced Powerline Safety Settings, which use data and technology to deenergize power lines within a tenth of a second if they are touched by something like a branch.

While the kinks are still being worked out, to say the least, the auditors said this and other mitigation efforts have contributed to a steady decline in ignitions caused by PG&E equipment failure in the past several years.

“PG&E’s undergrounding program is just one of the tools we use to reduce wildfire risk,” PG&E spokesperson Matt Nauman said.

Depending on risk and feasibility, the utility will select the most effective and efficient approach for a given power line segment, he said, be it undergrounding, remote grid installation or overhead hardening.

He explained such considerations play into the disparity in undergrounding plans between Napa and Sonoma counties, noting PG&E has completed nearly 70 miles of overhead hardening in Sonoma County since 2018.

Weighing the costs

Indeed, some experts and advocates say some of these other approaches, which require much less time and cost to deploy, should play a bigger role.

“We’re concerned that PG&E is not appropriately considering alternatives,” said Iain Fisher with the Public Advocates Office, which advocates for ratepayers at the CPUC. Fisher is particularly wary of the almost 8,000 miles slated for after 2026.

By comparison, Southern California Edison is also burying power lines but is much more focused on covered conductor work, which adds a protective layer to overhead wires.

PG&E has reduced its projected per-mile price tag by streamlining its engineering assessments, and notes that cost savings on maintenance are in store once power lines are underground.

Still, the average cost for 2023 to 2026 is estimated at $2.97 million per mile.

How much of the ultimately astronomical costs will fall on ratepayers is a major concern for consumer advocacy groups because customers are already struggling with sky high gas and electric bills.

State Sen. Mike McGuire’s bill, SB 884, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September, aims to lessen the burden via budgeting oversight and a requirement on utilities to seek state and federal infrastructure funds.

As part of the bill’s implementation, in an April 26 letter to the utilities commission, advocates suggested that approval of rate increases for customers should be contingent on utilities demonstrating undergrounding was the best choice in any instance.

The coalition also recommended regulators impose cost caps that match utilities’ targets.

The ever-evolving risk modeling, cost projections, regulations and technicalities are enough to make anyone’s head spin.

The one thing that is clear is that PG&E’s undergrounding plans will require constant vigilance and reevaluation.

They could also benefit from local input because such factors as when communities are planning major road work that could be coordinated with undergrounding are not part of utilities’ algorithms, for example.

“It's fair to say that both the utilities and the regulators are on a continual learning curve,“ Weissman said.

“Almost by definition, nobody has a perfect understanding of how to assess risk at this point. We're just trying to get better year in and year out.”

In Sonoma County, Supervisors Susan Gorin and James Gore are finalizing plans for a community meeting with PG&E to discuss potential areas for undergrounding that will take place in Rincon Valley in early June.

“In Your Corner” is a column that puts watchdog reporting to work for the community. If you have a concern, a tip, or a hunch, you can reach “In Your Corner” Columnist Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @InYourCornerTPD and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.