PG&E released its 2022 Wildfire Mitigation Plan Update (2022 WMPU) That plan calls for $6 billion of capital investment to move 3,600 miles of underground by 2026. This is just over a third of the initial proposed target of 10,000 miles. Based on PG&E’s proposed ramping up, the utility would reach its target by 2030.
One alternative that could better control costs would be to install community and individual microgrids. Microgrids are likely more cost effective and faster means of reducing wildfire risk and saving lives. I wrote about how to evaluate this choice for relative cost effectiveness based on density of load and customers per mile of line.
Microgrids can mitigate wildfire risk by the utility turning off overhead wire service for extended periods, perhaps weeks at a time, during the highest fire risk periods. The advantage of a periodically-islanded microgrid is 1) that the highest fire risk coincides with the most solar generation so providing enough energy is not a problem and 2) the microgrids also can be used during winter storms to better support the local grid and to ride out shorter outages. Customers’ reliability may degrade because they would not have the grid support, but such systems generally have been quite reliable. In fact, reliability may increase because distribution grid outages are about 15 times more likely than system or regional outages.
The important question is whether microgrids can be built much more quickly than undergrounding lines and in particular whether PG&E has the capacity to manage such a buildout at a faster rate? PG&E has the Community Microgrid Enablement Program. The utility was recently authorized to build several isolated microgrids as an alternative to rebuilding fire-damaged distribution lines to isolated communities. Turning to local governments to manage many different construction projects likely would improve this schedule, like how Caltrans delegates road construction to counties and cities.
Controlling the costs of wildfire mitigation
Based on the current cost of capital this initial undergrounding phase will add $1.6 billion to annual revenue requirements or an additional 8% above today’s level. This would be on top of PG&E request in its 2023 General Rate Case for a 48% increase in distribution rates by 2023 and 78% increase by 2026, and a 31% increase in overall bundled rates by 2023 and 43% by 2026. The 2022 WMPU would take the increase to over 50% by 2026 (and that doesn’t’ include the higher maintenance costs). That means that residential rates would increase from 28.7 cents per kilowatt-hour today (already 21% higher than December 2020) to 36.4 cents in 2026. Building out the full 10,000 miles could lead to another 15% increase on top of all of this.
Turning to the comparison of undergrounding costs to microgrids, these two charts illustrate how to evaluate the opportunities for microgrids to lower these costs. PG&E states the initial cost per mile for undergrounding is $3.75 million, dropping to $2.5 million, or an average of $2.9 million. The first figure looks at community scale microgrids, using National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates. It shows how the cost effectiveness of installing microgrids changes with density of peak loads on a circuit on the vertical axis, cost per kilowatt for a microgrid on the horizontal axis, and each line showing the division where undergrounding is less expensive (above) or microgrids are less expensive (below) based on the cost of undergrounding. As a benchmark, the dotted line shows the average load density in the PG&E system, combined rural and urban. So in average conditions, community microgrids are cheaper regardless of the costs of microgrids or undergrounding.
The second figure looks at individual residential scale microgrids, again using NREL estimates. It shows how the cost effectiveness of installing microgrids changes with customer density on a circuit on the vertical axis, cost per kilowatt for a microgrid on the horizontal axis, and each line showing the division where undergrounding is less expensive (above) or microgrids are less expensive (below). As a benchmark, the dotted line shows the average customer density in the PG&E system, combined rural and urban. Again, residential microgrids are less expensive in most situations, especially as density falls below 75 customers per mile.
A movement towards energy self-sufficiency is growing in California due to a confluence of factors. PG&E’s WMPU should reflect these new choices in manner that can reduce rates for all customers.
(Here’s my testimony on this topic filed by the California Farm Bureau in PG&E’s 2023 General Rate Case on its Wildfire Management Plan Update.)
PG&E is proposing to spend $18 billion for wildfire risk mitigation between 2023 and 2025: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-corp-ceo-poppe-mitigation-measures-wildfire-season-risk-bury-power-lines/649525/ and https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-sce-vegetation-management-resilience-california-wildfires/646163/
Pingback: Retail electricity rate reform will not solve California’s problems | Economics Outside the Cube
Letter to the editor in the San Francisco Chronicle on this topic: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/letterstotheeditor/article/pge-power-line-undergrounding-17883516.php
PG&E and SCE filed their 2023 Wildfire Managements Plans, asking for $25 billion through 2026 to underground their distribution lines.
– Pacific Gas & Electric is planning to invest roughly $18 billion to protect its electric grid against the threat of wildfires through 2025, according to a plan filed Monday by the utility with California’s Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety.
– Southern California Edison’s plan, meanwhile, estimated spending around $5.8 billion on wildfire mitigation strategies in its service territory, on measures such as installing covered conductors and transferring power lines underground in areas where the risk of fires is particularly high.https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-sce-vegetation-management-resilience-california-wildfires/646163/
Pingback: In the LA Times – looking for alternative solutions to storm outages | Economics Outside the Cube
Alliant Energy in Wisconsin found that a microgrid was economically preferable to undergrounding a line to a rural community as a means of improving reliability: https://www.tdworld.com/distributed-energy-resources/article/21251517/community-microgrid-a-first-for-wisconsin
An NSF study suggests that undergrounding in coastal areas could reduce the vulnerability of grids to extreme weather. However, a good question is whether installing microgrids could be more cost effective while delivering similar benefits. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/coastal-utilities-power-outages-underground-lines-nsf-study/631842/
Western Australia is pursuing microgrids to replace rural distribution investment.
Pingback: Close Diablo Canyon? More distributed solar instead | Economics Outside the Cube
Pingback: What rooftop solar owners understand isn’t mythological | Economics Outside the Cube
Pingback: A reply: two different ways California can keep the lights on amid climate change | Economics Outside the Cube
The State Auditor issues a report criticizing PG&E’s proposed plan as inadequate and mistargeted: http://auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2021-117.pdf
“Among the nearly 40,000 miles of bare power lines in high fire-risk areas, the state’s utilities have only completed hardening projects on just 1,540 miles of lines, according to the report.”
Pingback: PG&E takes a bold step on enabling EV back up power, but questions remain | Economics Outside the Cube
Pingback: Are PG&E’s customers about to walk? | Economics Outside the Cube