The Brief

As the investigation into the cause of the Eaton Fire continues — potentially sparked by Southern California Edison transmission equipment — many people, from community members to officials to Gov. Gavin Newsom himself, have called for burying a lot more power lines.

The cost, though, can be staggering.

It’s estimated that burying power lines in the wake of the wildfires will soar past $860 million. And it’s a cost that will be passed along to ratepayers.

Here in Southern California, there’s no way to eliminate the risk of wildfire — after all, fire has been a part of our landscape for millennia. But as the effects of climate change escalate and we continue to live in areas increasingly prone to catastrophic fire, how much risk are we willing to tolerate? And how much are we willing — and able — to pay to reduce that risk?

It’s a major conundrum with no easy answer.

The electric conundrum 

Electricity is a basic necessity of modern life. At the same time, power lines have sparked some of the most destructive and deadly fires in California history.

Then there’s climate change. Experts say the level of fossil fuel pollution we’ve pumped into the atmosphere is making wildfires a lot worse. The January fires were a textbook example of that: record-dry conditions stretched deep into winter, coinciding with the peak of Santa Ana wind season, and well, the rest is tragic history.

The glow of the Eaton Fire seen in the distance.

(

Matt Dangelantonio

/

LAist

)

To lessen those climate effects, the world’s top scientists agree we need to shift away from fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, and instead generate electricity from cleaner sources such as solar and wind, and power everything from cars to buildings with electricity instead of gas.

But all that demand is driving up costs. That’s in no small part a result of needing to upgrade the power grid to prevent wildfires in the first place, while also boosting the amount of electricity the grid can move around as we shift to cleaner energy sources.

We spoke to experts to try to shed some clarity on this complex electric conundrum.

The background on going underground

Burying power lines underground as a way to prevent fire is a relatively recent practice.

Traditionally, power lines were mostly put underground for aesthetic reasons — communities didn’t want to look at lines criss-crossing their streets — or when there simply wasn’t an option to put them aboveground, for example, in extreme environmental conditions.

A utilities crew fixes a power line at the corner of Marengo and Woodbury in Altadena.

(

Josie Huang

/

LAist

)

Utilities began burying lines to prevent fire in earnest with Pacific Gas and Electric in 2021, said Duncan Callaway, professor of energy and resources at UC Berkeley. The proposal to bury thousands of miles of lines came after the 2018 Camp Fire, which was sparked by PG&E equipment and became the most destructive and deadliest fire in California history. It burned the town of Paradise to ash and killed 85 people.

Calls for burying lines underground have only risen after every catastrophic fire since then.

After the LA wildfires

In the wake of the Eaton and Palisades fires, and an executive order from the governor, Southern California Edison has released a plan to bury more than 150 circuit miles of distribution power lines in the footprints of the Palisades and Eaton Fires, primarily in Altadena and Malibu.

SCE was already planning to bury many of the lines burned in Malibu, which are all in high-risk fire areas. In Altadena, the plan includes potentially putting lines underground in areas not designated as high fire risk, but that burned in the Eaton Fire.

The total cost is expected to be between $860 million and $925 million.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has also vowed to go underground with some 4,000 power lines in the Palisades area at a cost of $1 million to $14 million per mile.

The details of these plans are still being developed, but much of the cost to carry them out is likely to increase rates. Both SCE and LADWP say they are looking for state, federal and philanthropic funding to help offset rate increases.

Most of the Southern California' Edison's power lines in Altadena were destroyed or damaged in the Eaton Fire.

(

Courtesy SCE

)

Power lines in Malibu overseen by Southern California Edison were in the process of being put underground before the Palisades Fire.

(

Courtesy SCE

)

How can power companies prevent fires? 

There are four main strategies utilities use to prevent fires sparked by power lines:

• Shutting off the power during high-risk conditions (otherwise known as Public Safety Power Shutoffs). Edison’s policy is to shut off power when winds hit 60 mph. (The utility says winds were at 59 mph at the transmission line that may have caused the Eaton Fire). They also use the emerging tool of “fast-trip” sensors, which shut off power lines automatically during high-risk conditions. 
• Vegetation management in high-risk fire zones, including keeping vegetation from growing too close to power lines.
• Hardening power infrastructure with fire-proof and fire-resistant materials, such as replacing wood poles and covering exposed wires. (For example, Southern California Edison has been installing “covered conductors” or coated wires across thousands of miles of high-risk power lines, which reduces the risk of fires sparked by arcing wires.)
• Putting power lines underground, which eliminates the risk of sparking a fire from that equipment and the need to shut off power during risky weather.

When does it make sense to go underground? 

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach, but experts LAist spoke with said burying power lines should be reserved for the highest-risk fire areas.

It doesn’t make sense for every type of power line, either. For example, transmission lines — those huge towers that are the subject of the Eaton Fire investigation — generally are not good candidates for going underground. That’s because they are generally less likely to spark a fire since they’re a lot higher above vegetation. SCE’s plan focuses on putting what are called “distribution” lines underground — the power lines we generally see in our neighborhoods. 

Going underground works best “in an area where the risk is really, really high, such that deploying some of the other measures that are lower cost, like depowering lines and vegetation management, are not going to deliver significant risk reductions,” said Meredith Fowlie, a UC Berkeley professor who has studied the costs and benefits of wildfire mitigation by the state’s major utilities. “That's a judgment call in terms of how much we want to spend to eliminate risk in certain areas.”

Altadena residents walk near the damage of the Eaton Fire.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

Fowlie’s research has focused primarily on PG&E territory, where they’ve done cost-benefit analysis for taking power lines underground primarily in more wooded, rural communities, as well as some in the urban-wildland interface.

But defining what’s “high risk” continues to change, especially as human-caused climate change exacerbates California’s already-extreme cycles of fire, flood and drought.

The current SCE plan calls for underground lines in some areas that hadn’t previously been considered high risk. And California’s new fire-hazard maps dramatically increase the number of areas considered high risk in the state. No one — not researchers or utilities — thinks it’s a realistic option to bury every power line in every designated high-risk area.

A map outlines the high risk areas for fire in Altadena.

(

Brent Jones / NPR

/

Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection; building footprints from Microsoft

)

“Especially living in California, there is this visceral feeling that we should just eliminate wildfire risk, but we can't do that,” Fowlie said. “And so it is going to be a question of how much risk are we willing to tolerate? How much are we willing to spend to reduce risk?”

Why is the cost to go underground so high?

Southern California Edison estimates it costs between $3 million and $5 million per mile to take a power line underground. To compare, it costs around $900,000 per mile to cover lines with fire-resistant material through Edison’s “covered conductor” program. Installing covered conductors can also be done a lot faster —  typically within 16 to 24 months compared with 25 to 48 months or longer for underground projects, said Jeff Monford, a spokesperson for Edison.

The cost for going underground is so much higher and the timeline is longer largely because of all the work involved: you have to dig a trench, coordinate with other underground infrastructure such as sewer systems, and then often redo roads and sidewalks once you’re all done, said Monford.

Southern California Edison workers service a utility pole in the aftermath of the Eaton Fire in Altadena on Jan. 12.

(

Ethan Swope

/

AP

)

Underground lines don’t have to be maintained as often, but when they do need to be fixed, power outages can last a lot longer and the fix can be more expensive, Monford added.

The costs in Altadena and Malibu, however, shouldn’t be quite as high as moving existing lines underground because most of the infrastructure has burned and needs to be replaced anyway, Monford said.

“ We are able to treat it more similar to how we would treat a brand new development,” Monford said. “We are redoing everything there as opposed to inserting things in different spots and that can make it more cost-effective to do some of the undergrounding.”

Since the Thomas and Woolsey Wildfires in 2017 and 2018, SCE has put more than 40 miles of power lines underground at a cost of about $110 million to date. How it will affect our rates is currently going through the regulatory process, but if approved, would help raise the average residential customer's bill by about 10%.

On average, carrying out wildfire mitigation strategies contributes to a significant chunk of our bills — about 10%, according to Edison.

What goes into the average SCE electric bill.

(

Courtesy SCE

)

A lesson from PG&E and 'fast trip' sensors

In a study by Callaway and Fowlie, they found what they believe might be a cost-effective alternative to some underground projects.

Their study found that installing “fast trip” sensors on high risk power lines reduced fires started by power lines by as much as 80% and is less expensive than putting lines underground (but the power still goes out). The “fast trip” sensors work by automatically shutting off power lines when conditions become particularly risky.

 ”We're not suggesting that we shouldn't be putting power lines underground,” Fowlie said. “Especially as wildfire risk is escalating, there will be areas where that's absolutely the right step to take. But this innovation changes the calculation when we're thinking about which areas it's cost-effective to put lines underground.”

When it comes to safety and reliability, undergrounding lines has plenty of positives: For one, it eliminates the risk of ignitions and prevents the need to shut off power during high-risk situations. But Callaway said the cost is enormous.

“I think customers should be open to alternatives,” Callaway said.

What other options are there? 

Power shutoffs, which no one likes either.

But there are ways to ease the pain of shutting off the power during risky fire weather.

Enter: solar and battery storage.

SCE briefly mentions in its plan to underground power lines that their investments in the rebuild would also go towards building “microgrids” with solar and battery storage in locations such as schools, libraries and other community spaces where people could ride out power outages, as well as the homes of medically-vulnerable customers.

More solar and battery storage reduces the disruption of power shutoffs, and possibly the need to go underground as much with power lines, said Fowlie.

“We do have technologies that can help households and communities weather that kind of reliability impact during red flag days,” Fowlie said.

To be clear, that’s not a cheap option either — the state is currently grappling with how rooftop solar is affecting our electricity bills, and installing solar along with a battery is more expensive than solar alone.

 ”It comes back to this question about utilities, customers, and regulators being very careful and deliberate about what is the quality of power supply that they want in extreme conditions when wildfire risk is high,” said Callaway. “So battery storage is one really important thing. It's also really important to be thinking beyond the power lines and about the vegetation surrounding the communities that are at risk.”

Meaning, prescribed burning and other types of vegetation management. (That can look very different in different places. See our coverage on that in the context of the LA fires here.)

The fact is, the necessary work to harden our power grid, shift to cleaner energy sources and mitigate wildfire all has a cost, and tradeoffs.

“ We do have tools in the toolkit,” Fowlie said. “As we confront what it would really cost to underground all of the distribution lines that are in high risk areas, we have to be scrutinizing very carefully those trade-offs.”

Topline:

The case: In September, the city settled a lawsuit brought forward by two brothers in their 70s who said they suffered serious injuries after an LAPD officer crashed into their car. Days before the $18 million settlement was reached, lawyers for the brothers said Feldstein Soto called an expert witness testifying for the plaintiffs and “attempted to ingratiate herself with him and asked him to make a contribution to her political campaign,” according to a sworn declaration to the court by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Robert Glassman.

The response: Feldstein Soto did not respond to an interview request. Her spokesperson said the settlement “had nothing to do” with the expert witness. Her campaign manager told LAist the city attorney had been making a routine fundraising call and did not know the person had a role in the case, nor that there were pending requests for her office to pay him fees.

What Jurado says: In a statement to LAist, Jurado said she wants to “make sure that the city’s legal leadership is guided by integrity and accountability, especially when their choices affect public trust, civic rights and the city’s limited resources."

What’s next: The motion needs to go through a few committees before reaching the full City Council. If it passes, the motion calls for the city attorney to “report to council in closed session within 45 days regarding the ethics breach violation and give updates to the City Council."

Every year in Santa Ana, Luis Cantabrana turns the front of his home into an elaborate altar in honor of La Virgen de Guadalupe that draws hundreds of visitors.

Along the front of the house, the multi-colored altar is filled with lights, flowers and a stained-glass tapestry behind a sculpture of the Lady of Guadalupe. Cantabrana’s roof also is lit up with the green, white and red lights that spell out “Virgen de Guadalupe” and a cross.

Visitors are welcomed with music and the smell of roses as they celebrate the saint, but this year’s gathering comes after a dark year for immigrant communities.

Luis Cantabrana stands in front of the stunning altar he built in front of his home in honor of La Virgen de Guadalupe. Every year, his display draws hundreds of visitors.

(

Destiny Torres

/

LAist

)

Why do they celebrate? 

In 1513, the Virgin Mary appeared before St. Juan Diego between Dec. 9 and Dec. 12, asking him to build a church in her honor. Her image — a brown-skinned woman wearing a green veil with her hands together in prayer and an angel at her feet — miraculously appeared on his cloak.

To celebrate in Santa Ana, worshippers gathered late-night Wednesday and in the very early hours Dec. 12 to pray the rosary, sing hymns and celebrate the saint.

Cantabrana has hosted worshippers at his home for 27 years — 17 in Santa Ana.

The altar started out small, he said, and over the years, he added a fabric background, more lights and flowers (lots and lots of flowers).

“It started with me making a promise to la Virgen de Guadalupe that while I had life and a home to build an altar, that I would do it,” Cantabrana said. “Everything you see in photos and videos is pretty, but when you come and see it live, it's more than pretty. It's beautiful.”

The Santa Ana home's elaborate altar in honor of La Virgen de Guadalupe draws hundreds of visitors each year.

(

Destiny Torres

/

LAist

)

Gathering in a time of turmoil 

Many also look to the Lady of Guadalupe for protection, especially at a time when federal enforcement has rattled immigrant communities.

“People don’t want to go to work, they don’t want to take their kids to school, but the love we have for our Virgen de Guadalupe,” Cantabrana said. “We see that la Virgen de Guadalupe has a lot of power, and so we know immigration [enforcement] won’t come here.”

Margarita Lopez of Garden Grove has been visiting the altar for three years with her husband. She’s been celebrating the Virgencita since she was a young girl. Honoring the saint is as important now as ever, she said.

“We ask, and she performs miracles,” Lopez said.

Claudia Tapia, a lifelong Santa Ana resident, said the Virgin Mary represents strength.

“Right now, with everything going on, a lot of our families [have] turned and prayed to the Virgen for strength during these times,” Tapia said. “She's a very strong symbol of Mexican culture, of unity, of faith and of resilience.”

See it for yourself

The shrine will stay up into the new year on the corner of Broadway and Camile Street.

California’s unemployment agency kept paying cellphone bills for 4 1/2 years without checking whether its workers actually were using the devices.

That’s how it racked up $4.6 million in fees for mobile devices its workers were not using, according to a new state audit detailing wasteful spending at several government agencies.

The Employment Development Department’s excessive cellphone bills date to the COVID-19 pandemic, when it shifted call center employees to remote work and faced pressure to release benefits to millions of suddenly unemployed Californians.

It acquired 7,224 cellphones and wireless hotspots by December 2020. State auditors analyzed 54 months of invoices since then and found half the devices were unused for at least two years, 25% were unused for three years and 99 of them were never used at all.

The investigation, which auditors opened after receiving a tip, identified 6,285 devices that were unused for at least four consecutive months, and said the department spent $4.6 million on monthly service fees for them.

From the beginning, the department had about 2,000 more cellphones than call center employees, according to the audit. The gap widened over time after the pandemic ended and the department’s staffing returned to its normal headcount.

As of April, the audit said the department had 1,787 unemployment call center employees, but was paying monthly service fees for 5,097 mobile devices.

“Although obtaining the mobile devices during COVID-19 may have been a good idea to serve the public, continuing to pay the monthly service fees for so many unused devices, especially post-COVID-19, was wasteful,” the audit said.

Department officials told auditors they were unaware of the spending, but auditors pointed to regular invoices from Verizon that showed which phones were not being used.

“We would have expected EDD management to have reconsidered the need to pay the monthly service fees for so many devices that had no voice, message, or data usage,” the audit said.

The unemployment department began acting on the auditors’ findings in April, when it canceled service plans for 2,825 devices. It has since implemented a policy to terminate service plans for devices that go unused for 90 days.

The California state auditor highlighted the mobile devices in its regular report on “improper activities by state agencies and employees.” The audit also showed that the California Air Resources Board overpaid an employee who was on extended leave as he prepared to retire by $171,000.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.