A bill that supporters say will help reduce the incidence of deadly wildfires — especially in the Northern California service territory of Pacific Gas & Electric — by streamlining efforts to place power lines underground awaits the signature of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
But opponents, saying the legislation undercuts existing regulatory oversight and will lead to higher monthly bills paid by utility customers in areas beyond PG&E's service territory, have urged Newsom to veto the bill.
Senate Bill 884 passed the Assembly on a 67-0 floor vote and the Senate, 31-9, on Aug. 30, the next-to-last day of the legislative session in Sacramento.
"The bottom line is that over my time in this Legislature, year in and year out, we have seen massive utility-caused wildfires in Northern California," said Senate Majority Leader Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, when he introduced SB 884 in committee in June. "What experts have said, and what we know, is that undergrounding electrical lines reduces fire starts by 99 percent."
The legislation would require utilities in California to submit plans to underground lines in high fire-threat districts to the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety. The agency would then to approve or deny the plan within nine months.
Should the OEIS accept the plan, the California Public Utilities Commission would also have no more than nine months to approve or reject it.
The bill also requires utilities to file progress reports, hire independent monitors to review their compliance and apply for funding to reduce the costs of their plans to ratepayers. Plus, the Public Utilities Commission would have the power to assess penalties to the utilities if they don't "substantially comply" with their undergrounding plans.
"For far too long, America's largest utility — PG&E — has failed its customers and made California unsafe," supporters of SB 884 argued in a legislative analysis. They say the legislation will "provide a path to expedite" the undergrounding of 10,000 miles of PG&E utility lines, make sure the utility adheres to timelines and save money for customers in the long run.
Taking existing overhead transmission and distribution lines and burying them underground helps prevent the chances of power lines falling during exceedingly windy conditions and igniting wildfires when they hit the ground or contact utility equipment.
That's what happened in the San Diego area during the 2007 Witch Creek, Guejito and Rice wildfires that destroyed more than 1,300 homes, killed two people, injured 40 firefighters and forced about 15,000 to seek shelter at Qualcomm Stadium.
Earlier this year, a Cal Fire investigation concluded that PG&E transmission lines ignited the Dixie Fire that destroyed more than 1,300 homes and scorched almost 1 million acres in Northern California last summer.
But placing power lines underground is very expensive.
According to Public Utilities Commission analysis, undergrounding overhead distribution infrastructure (low-voltage lines that carry power from substations to homes) is up to 10 times more costly than installing new overhead lines.
And the CPUC estimated that the cost to convert existing overhead transmission infrastructure (high-voltage lines that transmit electricity from generating stations to substations) ranges from $6 million to $100 million.
In its Wildfire Mitigation Plan submitted to the state, PG&E has announced plans to underground 10,000 miles of distribution lines over the course of 10 years — at 1,000 miles per year — in areas of high-fire risk.
Mark Toney, executive director of The Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer watchdog based in San Francisco, said PG&E's plan would cost ratepayers an additional $400 per year on their electric bills. His group wants Newsom to veto SB 884.
"This is a nightmare scenario for ratepayers," Toney said. "There are cheaper, faster ways to reduce wildfire risk," such as using "covered conductors" on power lines that have multiple layers to reduce the chances of ignition in high winds and help prevent faults due to contact from branches or animals.
Toney also has questions about including the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety into a process that has traditionally been the exclusive oversight of the utilities commission.
"Right now it is clear that the CPUC has complete authority over how many lines, how many miles to underground and how much (those plans are) going to cost," Toney said. "This bill bifurcates that," leading him to worry the OEIS does not have rules regarding outside communications (i.e., ex parte meetings) between regulators and utilities that are as rigorous as the CPUC's.
Joe Mitchell, a wildfire consultant from Ramona who has testified before the CPUC, also opposes SB 884, citing concerns about higher ratepayer bills. He predicts the state's two other investor-owned utilities — San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison — will propose placing more of their infrastructure underground if Newsom signs the bill into law.
"While the CPUC and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety could potentially say no to these plans ... there's a clear intent from this bill that (undergrounding) is a favored mitigation" effort, Mitchell said. "It is in fact very effective but it is really, really expensive ... This would be a lot for people who don't have a lot of money."
The deadline for the governor to sign bills that passed this year's legislative session into law is Friday.
