Burying lines is not the answer….
Why Burying Power Lines Isn’t the Answer: The Case for Insulated Lines and Advanced Technology in Fire-Prone Areas
As communities across California grapple with the escalating threat of wildfires, the topic of how to safeguard our electrical grid has become urgent. One solution often proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) is burying power lines. While this option may seem appealing at first glance, especially for those living in fire-prone regions, it’s not necessarily the best approach. PG&E’s CEO, Patti Poppe, has pushed for an alternative view, claiming that insulated lines are only 35% effective compared to burying lines. However, this claim requires closer scrutiny, especially when we consider the long-term costs, feasibility, and modern technological solutions available.
The False Promise of Burying Power Lines
Burying power lines is not a silver bullet, particularly in rural and mountainous areas where fire risk is high. While it’s true that underground lines eliminate the immediate risk of above-ground ignitions, they introduce new challenges:
1. High Costs: Burying power lines is extraordinarily expensive, costing up to $3 million per mile or more in rugged terrain. These costs are ultimately passed on to ratepayers—already burdened by skyrocketing electricity bills.
2. Extended Maintenance and Repair Times: When underground lines are damaged, they are harder to access and repair, which can lead to longer power outages. In fire-prone regions where rapid response is essential, this creates additional risks during emergency situations.
3. Environmental Impact: Digging extensive trenches to bury power lines disrupts ecosystems, particularly in remote or forested areas. The construction process can exacerbate soil erosion, destabilize habitats, and increase environmental degradation—ironically worsening the risks that rural communities face.
Insulated Power Lines: A Smarter, More Effective Solution
Rather than relying on the outdated concept of underground lines, modern insulated power lines, coupled with advanced technology, offer a more practical and effective solution. Here’s why insulated lines, despite Patti Poppe’s claim of being only "35% effective," should be taken seriously as part of California’s fire prevention strategy:
4. Proven Effectiveness: Recent studies and real-world applications demonstrate that insulated lines significantly reduce the risk of fires sparked by electrical equipment. Insulated conductors are shielded from the elements, preventing the line-to-tree contact and arcing that commonly start wildfires.
5. Lower Costs and Faster Implementation: Installing insulated lines costs a fraction of what it takes to bury them. They are faster to deploy and easier to maintain, which means they can be rolled out across fire-prone areas more quickly—providing immediate relief to vulnerable communities.
6. Technological Innovations: In addition to insulation, PG&E and other utilities should be focusing on integrating advanced technologies like smart grids, real-time weather monitoring systems, and high-voltage detection equipment. These technologies can automatically de-energize lines when dangerous conditions are detected, further reducing fire risk.
7. Better for Rural Areas: In rural regions where fires spread rapidly due to high winds and dry conditions, insulated lines offer a crucial advantage. They require far less disruption to the environment and can be installed in more remote, hard-to-reach places where undergrounding would be impossible or prohibitively expensive.
Debunking the 35% Effectiveness Claim
Patti Poppe’s assertion that insulated lines are only 35% effective is misleading. First, this figure likely refers to limited test cases or older technologies. Modern insulation and advancements in conductor materials far surpass this number in real-world applications. Secondly, when combined with grid hardening and smart technology, insulated lines can be much more effective at preventing fire risk than simple percentage comparisons suggest.
Moreover, PG&E has a vested interest in pushing the undergrounding narrative. The high costs associated with underground lines may allow the utility to justify higher rates and seek public funding, all while shifting the blame for future outages or fires. Insulated lines and technology don’t come with the same exorbitant price tag, making them less attractive to a corporation that profits from capital investment.
Fire Prevention Needs Practical Solutions
The narrative that only burying power lines can protect us from wildfires plays on fear rather than addressing the facts. What Californians need is a practical, cost-effective, and sustainable solution that can be deployed swiftly. Insulated power lines, enhanced with smart technology, provide exactly that.
As our state faces the ongoing threat of wildfires, it’s essential not to let PG&E manipulate the discussion by offering emotionally driven but impractical solutions. We need to advocate for the integration of insulated lines and advanced monitoring technology as the most responsible path forward for fire-prone rural areas. The future of California’s grid depends on solutions that are affordable, scalable, and above all, effective.
By focusing on modern technology and real-world solutions, we can push back against PG&E’s costly and ineffective proposals—ensuring that communities stay safe without further draining their wallets.
Till next week…..
