Connect with us

Published

on

As deadly wildfires have destroyed communities from California to Maui, the nation’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, is making headway on its ambitious goal to move 10,000 miles of power lines in fire-prone areas underground, which would greatly reduce ignition risk.

“We’re coming off of a historic drought and those conditions are materially different than the conditions that we saw just 10 short years ago. And so now is absolutely the right time to be taking bold, decisive action with regard to the grid safety,” said Jamie Martin, PG&E’s vice president of undergrounding.

Five years ago, PG&E’s equipment sparked the deadly Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise, California, and killed 85 people. The massive liabilities drove the utility into bankruptcy, from which it emerged in 2020. But just a year later, in the same county, PG&E’s equipment started another catastrophic fire, prompting the utility to announce its extensive undergrounding plan. The utility has undergrounded 350 miles of power lines so far this year, and more than 600 miles since 2021.

While Martin says moving power lines underground reduces ignition risk by 98%, it comes at a steep cost. Data compiled by the California Public Utilities Commission shows that undergrounding just one mile costs anywhere between $1.85 million and $6.1 million, meaning PG&E’s total plan would likely be in the tens of billions. The bill would be footed by PG&E’s customers, who already face some of the highest rates in the nation.

“If we keep pushing up electricity rates, the most vulnerable of us are not going to be able to pay,” says Katy Morsony, a staff attorney with The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group that supports a more limited approach to undergrounding.

Since PG&E earns a guaranteed rate of return on capital investments, the utility is inherently incentivized to undertake more expensive infrastructure projects such as undergrounding, explained Morsony and Daniel Kirschen, a professor of power and energy systems at the University of Washington. This is how the utility makes money, not by selling electricity or gas.

“Undergrounding […] costs a lot of money. It’s a large investment. So that would increase the revenue that the utilities collect,” Kirschen explains. “Now, the question is would these other solutions be as effective as those big investment projects? That’s where the regulators have to step in.”

PG&E said in a statement that, “In the case of undergrounding, our investors’ priorities are aligned with those of our customers and our safety regulators.”

‘Essentially eliminating the risk of ignition’

Construction workers in Arnold, California work to bury PG&E’s power lines.

Syndey Boyo

PG&E currently has about 27,000 miles of power lines underground, but these are generally not in areas of high wildfire risk. So during storms, when high winds could cause a line to topple over or a tree to fall onto a line, utilities have few good options.

“So one option is to essentially just shut down the power line, because if there is no voltage and no current on the line, there is no chance of this release of energy happening and then there is no chance of an ignition,” explains Line Roald, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison whose work includes modeling the risk of wildfire ignition and power outages in the electric grid.

Indeed, PG&E has been implementing Public Safety Power Shutoffs in California since 2019, affecting millions of people. Hawaiian Electric, the utility that could be found liable for the Maui wildfires that killed at least 98 people, has been criticized for not shutting off power in advance of high wind warnings. If the company is determined to be at fault, it doesn’t have nearly enough money to pay off residents’ damage claims. 

Looked at this way, undergrounding is undoubtedly cheaper than dealing with the massive costs of deadly wildfires, and less disruptive than shutting off power completely.

“So for this one-time capital investment, we’re essentially eliminating the risk of ignition from an overhead power line by placing it underground,” Martin says.

PG&E isn’t the only utility that’s interested. San Diego Gas & Electric has a plan to underground about 1,450 miles of power lines through 2031, while Florida Power and Light is undergrounding select lines for hurricane protection. Austin Energy is also exploring undergrounding in the wake of a winter ice storm that caused weeks-long outages, and the federal government has pledged to provide $95 million to Maui to harden its electric grid, work that could include undergrounding lines.

The price of safety

Construction workers in Arnold, California use a piece of equipment called a rock wheel to dig a trench, so that PG&E can move its power lines underground.

Katie Brigham

But the CPUC has since released two cheaper, alternate proposals for consideration, which greatly cut back on undergrounding. One calls for moving just 200 miles underground and insulating 1,800 miles with covered conductors through 2026, while the other involves undergrounding 973 miles and insulating 1,027 miles.

Both proposals would save money but would ultimately put PG&E’s 10,000 mile goal in jeopardy. Plus, PG&E says that insulating lines is only about 65% effective at reducing wildfire risk, far less effective than undergrounding.

“If a tree falls on a line, the line is going to break and you’re still going to have a risk of a spark and you still have a chance of starting a wildfire, even if the line is insulated,” explains Kirschen.

The Utility Reform Network supports the plan to underground 200 miles, and estimates the cost of insulation to be about $800,000 per mile, as compared with the $3.3 million per mile that PG&E spent on undergrounding in 2022.

“By relying more heavily on insulated lines, we can do the work faster and we can deliver that wildfire safety more quickly to those different communities,” Morsony says.

Come November, the CPUC will decide on a path forward for PG&E, with both wildfire risk and customers’ utility bills hanging in the balance.

Watch the video to learn more about what it takes to move power lines underground.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump to declare national energy emergency, expanding his legal options to address high costs

Published

on

By

Trump to declare national energy emergency, expanding his legal options to address high costs

President-elect Donald Trump reacts during a MAGA victory rally at Capital One Arena in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2025, one day ahead of his inauguration ceremony. 

Jim Watson | Afp | Getty Images

President-elect Donald Trump will declare a national energy emergency after his inauguration on Monday to reduce energy costs, an incoming White House official told reporters.

The national energy emergency “will unlock unlock a variety of different authorities” to produce more natural resources, the official said, without providing specifics on which authorities Trump will use.

“The national energy emergency is crucial because we are in an AI race with China, and our ability to produce domestic American energy is so crucial such that we can generate the electricity and power that’s needed to stay at the global forefront of technology,” the official told reporters.

Trump is also set to sign an executive order specifically to unleash energy production Alaska, the official said, without providing specifics.

“Alaska is so key for our national security, given its geostrategic location, and it’s a crucial place from which we could export LNG not only to other parts of the United States, but to our friends and allies in the Asia Pacific region,” the official said.

The U.S. has been the largest producer of crude oil in the world for years, outpacing Saudi Arabia and Russia. The CEOs of Exxon and Chevron have said oil and gas production levels are based on market conditions and are unlikely to increase significantly in response to who is in the White House.

“There’s still some upside,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth told CNBC’s Brian Sullivan in a Jan. 8 interview. “But probably not growth at the rate that we’ve seen over the last number of years as particularly some of these new shale plays begin to mature,” Wirth said.

Exxon CEO Darren Woods told CNBC that U.S. shale production has not faced “external restrictions” under the Biden administration.

“Certainly we wouldn’t see a change based on a political change but more on an economic environment,” Woods said in a Nov. 1 interview prior to Trump’s election victory. “I don’t think there’s anybody out there that’s developing a business strategy to respond to a political agenda,” he said.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Continue Reading

Environment

The real problem with high-power electric bikes on mountain bike trails

Published

on

By

The real problem with high-power electric bikes on mountain bike trails

As electric trail bikes like Sur Rons and Talarias gain popularity among off-road enthusiasts, a growing conflict is emerging on mountain bike trails. These powerful machines, capable of speeds and torque far beyond that of a traditional mountain bike, are raising concerns among trail users, land managers, and environmental advocates.

First though, some semantical housekeeping. The term “e-bike” is often used to cast a pretty wide net, encompassing everything from cute little folder e-bikes to much more powerful electric motorbikes. Similar to the way motorcycle riders often talk about their “bikes”, the term “e-bike” in colloquial discussion is just that: colloquial.

The term “electric bicycle”, on the other hand, is an actual regulatory designation that lets most electric mountain bikes and other commuter-style e-bikes fit under the legal definition of bicycles. To oversimplify it, the e-bike that looks like a typical mountain bike is an electric bicycle. The one that looks like a motorcycle or dirt bike is probably not an electric bicycle.

That’s an important distinction because it’s becoming a major issue on mountain bike trails all over North America and in many other parts of the world.

Unlike a typical 50 lb electric mountain bike that can output an amount of power roughly in line with a healthy adult, electric motorbikes like those from Sur Ron, Talaria, and other brands can weigh 2-3x as much while outputting 5-10x the amount of power as a typical electric mountain bike. They’re a blast to ride, but like many things in life, there’s a time and a place. Their proliferation of Sur Ron-style electric motorbikes has been wreaking havoc on mountain bike trails where such bikes are almost always illegal.

That Canyon on the left is an electric bicycle, while the Tromox on the right is not an electric bicycle

Mountain bike trails are carefully designed to handle the wear and tear of typical mountain bikes. Normal electric mountain bikes, which have electric motor power levels similar to human pedaling power, typically mesh fairly well with mountain bike trails.

However, the high torque and weight of bikes like Sur Rons and Talarias can wreak havoc on these trails. Such power motorbikes are often responsible for increased erosion, deeper ruts, and widening of trails in areas where these bikes are being used. It’s often not just a matter of normal trail wear, but rather damage that can take significant time and resources to repair.

Trail widening, often caused by riders veering off designated paths, also leads to environmental degradation, harming vegetation and wildlife habitats.

Mountain bike trails are often designated for non-motorized use, and electric trail bikes with such high-power motors and large tires are almost never allowed. Some mountain bike parks have begun accepting Class 1, 2, and/or 3 e-bikes, but Sur Rons and Talarias are almost always prohibited due to their much higher performance. Their power and speed far exceed what’s allowed for e-bikes under most regulations, putting them squarely in the category of motorized vehicles like dirt bikes and ATVs.

Weight also plays a major role. The risk of serious injuries is also higher due to the mass and momentum of these larger machines. With top speeds often exceeding 40 mph (64 km/h), electric motorbikes are significantly faster than traditional electric bicycles or pedal bikes. This speed disparity creates hazardous conditions for slower-moving trail users.

When combined with the fact that many riders of powerful electric motorbikes are new to the sport after buying or being gifted a Sur Ron-style bike, that high speed can be even more dangerous in the hands of a novice rider.

Two Talaria motorbike riders are asked to leave Quiet Waters Park Mountain Bike Trails

Just last week, two riders on Talarias were kicked out of Quiet Waters Park Mountain Bike Trails in South Florida, a volunteer-maintained mountain bike trail system that permits Class 1 electric bicycles (e-bikes that are pedal-assisted up to 20 mph or 32 km/h and 750W of power).

As a lead volunteer in the trail building and maintenance team at the park, Nick Calabro was there when the riders were confronted by a county worker and asked to leave. “Multiple riders reported interactions with them, from encountering them riding in the wrong direction to not wearing required helmets, and of course not even being allowed to ride those bikes on the trails,” Calabro explained to Electrek.

According to Calabro, the pair had purchased trail day passes for mountain bike riders, but then brought their much larger and more powerful Talaria motorbikes into the park.

The two were seen on video attempting to fight the trail volunteers after being asked to leave the park. The interaction took place just a few yards from a sign with the posted rules of the park (seen at 0:11 in the video below).

Such interactions represent a small but growing phenomenon on mountain bike trails, where traditional mountain bike culture and trail etiquette clash head-on with Sur Ron riders unfamiliar with the practices and terrain.

Fortunately, many other locations exist that are ideal for electric motorbikes that fall outside the realm of traditional electric mountain bikes.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails that are designed for motorized vehicles like UTVs, ATVs, and dirt bikes, are ideal locations to ride powerful electric trail bikes. Such trails are built with higher power vehicles in mind, and aren’t as delicate as mountain bike trails.

Forestry/backcountry dirt roads, gravel roads, and fire roads can provide a mix of typical off-road riding and exploration, though don’t offer the same type of topography.

Motocross tracks are also excellent locations for Sur Ron and Talaria-style bikes, which can use the features for more thrilling jumps and berm riding.

Private land (with the landowner’s permission) is perhaps one of the best places for these powerful electric motorbikes due to their ability to overland and explore areas beyond the beaten path.

As the popularity of powerful electric trail bikes continues to rise, the question of how and where they should be ridden remains a contentious one. But with their ability to ride much rougher terrain as well as their increased impact on that terrain, one thing is for sure: delicate mountain bike trails aren’t the place for such powerful bikes.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Why merger mania is coming to the fore in the mining industry

Published

on

By

Why merger mania is coming to the fore in the mining industry

The Rio Tinto Group logo atop Central Park tower, which houses the company’s offices, in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The mining sector appears poised for a frantic year of dealmaking, following market speculation over a potential tie-up between industry giants Rio Tinto and Glencore.

It comes after Bloomberg News reported Thursday that British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto and Switzerland-based Glencore were in early-stage merger talks, although it was not clear whether the discussions were still live.

Separately, Reuters reported Friday that Glencore approached Rio Tinto late last year about the possibility of combining their businesses, citing a source familiar with the matter. The talks, which were said to be brief, were thought to be no longer active, the news agency reported.

Rio Tinto and Glencore both declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.

A prospective merger between Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest miner, and Glencore, one of world’s largest coal companies, would rank as the mining industry’s largest-ever deal.

Combined, the two firms would have a market value of approximately $150 billion, leapfrogging longstanding industry leader BHP, which is worth about $127 billion.

Analysts were broadly skeptical about the merits of a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger, pointing to limited synergies, Rio Tinto’s complex dual structure and strategic divergences over coal and corporate culture as factors that pose a challenge for concluding a deal.

“I think everyone’s a bit surprised,” Maxime Kogge, equity analyst at Oddo BHF, told CNBC via telephone.

“Honestly, they have limited overlapping assets. It’s only copper where there is really some synergies and opportunity to add assets to make a bigger group,” Kogge said.

Global mining giants have been mulling the benefits of mega-mergers to shore up their position in the energy transition, particularly with demand for metals such as copper expected to skyrocket over the coming years.

A highly conductive metal, copper is projected to face shortages due to its use in powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems, among other applications.

Oddo BHF’s Kogge said it is currently “really tricky” for large mining firms to bring new projects online, citing Rio Tinto’s long-delayed and controversial Resolution copper mine in the U.S. as one example.

“It’s a very promising copper project, it could be one of the largest in the world, but it is fraught with issues and somehow acquiring another company is a way to really accelerate the expansion into copper,” Kogge said.

“For me, a deal is not so attractive,” he added. “It goes against what all these groups have previously tried to do.”

What's behind the looming copper shortage

Last year, BHP made a $49 billion bid for smaller rival Anglo American, a proposal which ultimately failed due to issues with the deal’s structure.

Some analysts, including those at JPMorgan, expect another unsolicited offer for Anglo American to materialize in 2025.

M&A parlor games

The company logo adorns the side of the BHP gobal headquarters in Melbourne on February 21, 2023. – The Australian multinational, a leading producer of metallurgical coal, iron ore, nickel, copper and potash, said net profit slumped 32 percent year-on-year to 6.46 billion US dollars in the six months to December 31. (Photo by William WEST / AFP) (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)

William West | Afp | Getty Images

Analysts led by Ben Davis at RBC Capital Markets said it remains unclear whether talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore could result in a simple merger or require the breakup of certain parts of each company instead.

Regardless, they said the M&A parlor games that arose following merger talks between BHP and Anglo American will undoubtedly “start up again in earnest.”

“Despite Glencore once approaching Rio Tinto’s key shareholder Chinalco in July 2014 for a potential merger, it still comes as a surprise,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a research note published Thursday.

BHP’s move to acquire Anglo American may have catalyzed talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore, the analysts said, with the former potentially looking to gain more copper exposure and the latter seeking an exit strategy for its large shareholders.

“We would not expect a straight merger to happen as we believe Rio shareholders would see it as favouring Glencore, but [it’s] possible there is a deal structure out there that could keep both sets of shareholders and management happy,” they added.

Copper, coal and culture

Analysts led by Wen Li at CreditSights said speculation over a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger raises questions about strategic alignment and corporate culture.

“Strategically, Rio Tinto might be interested in Glencore’s copper assets, aligning with its focus on sustainable, future-facing metals. Additionally, Glencore’s marketing business could offer synergies and expand Rio Tinto’s reach,” analysts at CreditSights said in a research note published Friday.

“However, Rio Tinto’s lack of interest in coal assets, due to recent divestments, suggests any merger would need careful structuring to avoid unwanted asset overlaps,” they added.

A mining truck carries a full load of coal at Glencore Plc operated Tweefontein coal mine on October 16, 2024 in Tweefontein, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.

Per-anders Pettersson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

From a cultural perspective, analysts at CreditSights said Rio Tinto was known for its conservative approach and focus on stability, whereas Glencore had garnered a reputation for “constantly pushing the envelope in its operations.”

“This cultural divide might pose challenges in integration and decision-making if a merger were to proceed,” analysts at CreditSights said.

“If this materializes, it could have broader implications for mega deals in the metals [and] mining space, potentially putting BHP/Anglo American back in play,” they added.

— CNBC’s Ganesh Rao contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending