Why Does California Not Start Burying Power Cables to Prevent Wildfires?

California’s recurrent issue with power outages, driven by drought, high temperatures, and strong winds, has intensified the debate over burying power cables. This action, aimed at reducing the risk of wildfire sparks from faulty lines, raises questions about feasibility, cost, and practicality. In this article, we explore the pros and cons of underground power cables, examining the implications for policy, infrastructure, and public safety.

The Case for Underground Power Cables

The idea of burying power cables presents a promising method to minimize the risk of wildfires. However, the notion is not without its challenges. For instance, underground cables have been a point of contention in Seattle due to heavy snowfall causing tree branches and trees to fall onto the wires, leading to power outages. This vulnerability could be exacerbated by flooding and earthquakes in other regions.

Underground Lines vs. Overhead Wires: Vulnerabilities and Disruptions

While underground wires seem ideal, they are not without their own issues. The Seattle example illustrates the potential for natural disasters to compromise underground cables. Additionally, underground lines are still susceptible to damage from flooding and earthquakes, both of which can cause significant disruptions to power infrastructure.

Digging and installing underground power cables also require more legal and procedural work compared to overhead wires. The process is more disruptive and often more costly. Maintenance becomes more challenging, as the lack of visibility makes it difficult to identify and address issues before they lead to power outages. In contrast, overhead wires are easily visible and can be quickly repaired when needed.

Historical Evidence

A compelling example is the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, where underground lines suffered much greater damage compared to overhead lines. According to Pacific Gas and Electric (PGE) in California, the cost of installing overhead lines is approximately $800,000 per mile, while underground lines can cost up to $3 million per mile. These disparities highlight the economic burden of converting existing infrastructure to underground cables.

The Cost Implications

The significant cost implications of undergrounding power cables are a major hurdle. PGE's cost structures suggest that it is more economically sound to maintain overhead lines and ensure proper clearance under the towers rather than burying them. However, in the event of a fire, the response would be to bury the lines, a reactive approach rather than a proactive one.

Politically, the decision to bury power cables can be seen as a short-term solution to end debate on the issue. For instance, a governor’s grand plan to underground every last mile of wire in high-risk areas would take over 50 years to complete, and the public might forget about it five years later. This demonstrates the "knee-jerk" nature of such policies, which focus on immediate action rather than long-term sustainability.

Policy and Public Perception

The policy surrounding undergrounding power cables needs to balance the need for safety with the practical and financial considerations. Politicians may favor quick solutions that appear decisive, but the long-term implications must be carefully considered. The public also needs to understand the complexity and cost of such changes.

Conclusion

While burying power cables under the ground offers a method to prevent wildfires, it is far from a simple or cost-effective solution. The challenges posed by natural disasters, the high installation and maintenance costs, and the long lead times all need to be addressed before such a policy can be adopted. Political stakeholders and the public must have a clearer understanding of the implications before making such significant changes.