California utilities race to bury power lines to cut wildfire risk

California Utilities Accelerate Undergrounding of Power Lines to Cut Wildfire Risk

Undergrounding of electricity distribution lines is accelerating across California as utilities push to reduce wildfire ignitions sparked by aging and exposed equipment. The effort, led by major investor-owned utilities, is described as a safety measure with substantial financial and regulatory stakes. Projects run from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars and are expected to shape how customers pay for power in coming years, amid political debates about who should bear the costs.

Utilities such as PG&E, Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) are moving ahead with large-scale undergrounding programs that seek to balance safety, reliability, and community impact. New design practices, cost strategies, and technology innovations are guiding how these projects are planned and built, while regulators weigh whether the expenditures deliver value for ratepayers.

Scope, progress, and costs

California sits on a grid with about 230,000 miles of distribution lines, and roughly one-third of those lines are already underground. Large utilities are pursuing more burying efforts in high-fire-risk areas, with PG&E reporting 600 miles of undergrounding completed since 2021 and a broader goal of burying 10,000 miles in total. SCE has its own plan, including 153 circuit miles underground in Malibu and Altadena, and is reviewing additional miles to add to the footprint. The project costs cited for the Malibu–Altadena plan range from roughly $860 million to $925 million and are expected to take years to finish.

The per-mile economics are debated. Analysts and industry observers note that undergrounding costs can run from about $3 million to $5 million per mile, depending on terrain, the need to trench, and the amount of reconnection required. By contrast, some mitigation alternatives, such as covered conductors (insulated lines) or other protective measures, can cost closer to $800,000 per mile and have shown meaningful reductions in fire risk in some analyses. Still, utilities argue that the best option varies by location and that different solutions may be appropriate in different settings.

Ratepayers are the primary funders of many undergrounding efforts through state tariffs and utility rate cases. The state has already approved a large tranche of undergrounding in recent rate decisions, and the capital-expenditure recovery framework is designed to encourage major reliability investments, though some analysts question whether this framework reduces incentives for cost-effective wildfire mitigation.

Technology, timing, and trade-offs

Utilities are pairing undergrounding with a range of technologies and strategies. Fast-trip systems and downed-conductor detection sensors aim to reduce the need for large outages during high-risk periods, while microgrids with solar and storage may offer resilience for critical facilities and vulnerable customers during outages. In some areas, covered conductors are used as a cost-effective layer of protection that reduces fire risk, though they do not eliminate the need for full undergrounding in the most high-risk zones.

The debate extends to planning and permitting frameworks. Governors and regulators have taken steps, including executive orders that eased certain environmental requirements to speed rebuilding after wildfires, while state lawmakers have proposed bills aimed at increasing cost scrutiny and limiting ratepayer exposure. Critics warn that the current cost-recovery rules and political pressures could discourage cost-effective choices if not carefully balanced with safety outcomes.

Community impact and consumer concerns

The bill impact of undergrounding is a central concern for households already facing rising energy costs. Some observers estimate that undergrounding and related wildfire-mitigation investments can translate into higher bills for many customers, even as others note the long-term benefits of fewer outages and reduced wildfire risk. In communities where bills have climbed sharply, concerns about affordability intersect with debates over how best to deploy ratepayer dollars. In parallel, officials point to the potential for targeted projects to minimize immediate price shocks by sharing trenching and paving costs with other underground infrastructure.

The reform conversation also centers on how to balance safety with equity. Community advocates and small business owners have highlighted scenarios where rising electricity bills threaten viability, while regulators emphasize that a broad mix of strategies will be needed to protect both people and property in a changing climate.

Policy landscape and what comes next

The policy environment around wildfire mitigation is evolving. Regulators at the state level are evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different wildfire-mitigation strategies and reviewing how ratepayer dollars are allocated. Legislative proposals have sought to add oversight or offset mechanisms, but debates have centered on how to maintain safety while keeping bills affordable. The regulatory process continues to shape which miles are prioritized, how projects are funded, and how risks are quantified across diverse communities.

Looking ahead, major undergrounding programs are expected to continue, with progress varying by utility and by region. Some miles may be completed within months, while others could take years depending on community rebuilding plans, permitting processes, and the availability of funding from state, federal, or philanthropic sources. The overarching aim remains clear: lower the incidence of wildfire ignitions from electrical equipment while preserving grid reliability for California’s homes and businesses.