We are all shocked by the unprecedented devastation of the recent fires. Our hearts go out to the fire victims.
Clearly those who responded to the fires are all heroes. Thankfully, for the most part, Santa Clarita residents avoided harm’s way.
However, there is one lingering ancillary issue affecting many Santa Clarita Valley residents — the controversial Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) program Southern California Edison uses to mitigate the risk of wildfires by shutting off power in areas where high winds might cause downed powerlines to start a fire.
I am certainly no expert in terms of solving these issues, but I wanted to share my thoughts hoping to stimulate a problem-solving discussion.
Many residents attended a recent Santa Clarita City Council meeting to complain about sudden and lengthy losses of power because of PSPS actions undertaken by SCE.
In SCE’s defense, based on the financial repercussions to Pacific Gas & Electric after fires in northern California were found to be caused by downed power lines, shutting off power in high-risk areas is currently the only way for SCE to mitigate potential liability for fire dangers from high winds.
On SCE’s website it states, “SCE is targeting the highest-risk areas, known as severe-risk areas, for undergrounding its power lines based on several considerations, including the difficulty of evacuating quickly during a significant wildfire. The targeted undergrounding effort will make the electrical system more reliable during extreme weather conditions by protecting it from high winds, vegetation, and other hazards that could cause fires or power outages.”
According to its website, SCE apparently is not contemplating any undergrounding efforts in the SCV. It is not clear why this is the case. Perhaps SCE considers the need to be more critical in other areas such as Agoura Hills or Malibu. Maybe it is an issue of funding those costs.
From a funding perspective, undergrounding efforts fall into three categories.
The first is Rule 20A covering projects meeting certain public interest criteria, such as being on heavily used streets or benefiting public recreation areas. These projects are funded by SCE customers.
The second rule, Rule 20B, controls project financing for projects when there is insufficient funding under Rule 20A.
Funding for Rule 20B projects is shared by SCE customers and the property owners requesting the underground conversion.
The final rule, Rule 20C, applies to projects that benefit only certain property owners. Those projects are funded solely by the affected property owners.
The extent to which potential SCV undergrounding efforts fall into each category is unclear, but I suspect that we will not see any undergrounding efforts in the near future unless the affected property owners provide a significant portion of the funding.
According to the California Public Utilities Commission website, the cost of moving power lines underground ranges from $1.85 million to $6 million per mile depending on the location, terrain, and existing infrastructure, with an average cost of around $3 million per mile.
I have no idea of how many miles of power lines in the SCV need to be moved underground to avoid power shutoffs, but I suspect doing so will be costly and most of those costs will be covered by Rules 20B and 20C. That means the affected property owners will likely bear a significant portion of the cost.
In order to estimate the magnitude of those costs on a per-home basis, I performed a back-of-the-envelope calculation for the average homeowner. Assuming that the average lot is about 100 feet wide and there are houses on both sides of the street, then there are approximately 100 houses per mile.
That translates to an average cost of about $30,000 per house.
I am sure that the actual amount will differ, but I am merely trying to set forth an order of magnitude for discussion purposes.
I understand that new neighborhoods are generally served by underground power lines that are frequently financed through Mello-Roos property taxes. Under Mello-Roos, voters in a proposed district approve a proposal to fund a specific infrastructure project. Perhaps a Mello-Roos district could be formed for the purpose of undergrounding power lines in that district.
If the project is subject to Rule 20C and is financed over a 20-year period at a 4% interest rate, another back-of-envelope calculation suggests that the additional annual property tax payments would amount to approximately $2,200 per affected property owner.
So, the question for the affected property owners is whether remediating the power shutoff problem is worth the additional property tax payments.
Jim de Bree is a Valencia resident.