Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

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’

Although it’s expensive, burying power lines isn’t new. It’s common practice in city centers, where overhead lines would be obstructive, and more common in Europe overall, where cities are denser. Only about 18% of distribution lines in the U.S. are underground, though for both safety and aesthetic reasons, today almost all new lines that are built are buried. 

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.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Environment

Solar and wind industry faces up to $7 billion tax hike under Trump’s big bill, trade group says

Published

4 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

Solar and wind industry faces up to billion tax hike under Trump's big bill, trade group says

Witthaya Prasongsin | Moment | Getty Images

Senate Republicans are threatening to hike taxes on clean energy projects and abruptly phase out credits that have supported the industry’s expansion in the latest version of President Donald Trump‘s big spending bill.

The measures, if enacted, would jeopardize hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, hurt the electric grid, and potentially raise electricity prices for consumers, trade groups warn.

The Senate GOP released a draft of the massive domestic spending bill over the weekend that imposes a new tax on renewable energy projects if they source components from foreign entities of concern, which basically means China. The bill also phases out the two most important tax credits for wind and solar power projects that enter service after 2027.

Republicans are racing to pass Trump’s domestic spending legislation by a self-imposed Friday deadline. The Senate is voting Monday on amendments to the latest version of the bill.

The tax on wind and solar projects surprised the renewable energy industry and feels punitive, said John Hensley, senior vice president for market analysis at the American Clean Power Association. It would increase the industry’s burden by an estimated $4 billion to $7 billion, he said.

“At the end of the day, it’s a new tax in a package that is designed to reduce the tax burden of companies across the American economy,” Hensley said. The tax hits any wind and solar project that enters service after 2027 and exceeds certain thresholds for how many components are sourced from China.

This combined with the abrupt elimination of the investment tax credit and electricity production tax credit after 2027 threatens to eliminate 300 gigawatts of wind and solar projects over the next 10 years, which is equivalent to about $450 billion worth of infrastructure investment, Hensley said.

“It is going to take a huge chunk of the development pipeline and either eliminate it completely or certainly push it down the road,” Hensley said. This will increase electricity prices for consumers and potentially strain the electric grid, he said.

The construction industry has warned that nearly 2 million jobs in the building trades are at risk if the energy tax credits are terminated and other measures in budget bill are implemented. Those credits have supported a boom in clean power installations and clean technology manufacturing.

“If enacted, this stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” said Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, in a statement. “Simply put, it is the equivalent of terminating more than 1,000 Keystone XL pipeline projects.”

The Senate legislation is moving toward a “worst case outcome for solar and wind,” Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco told clients in a Sunday note.

Shares of NextEra Energy, the largest renewable developer in the U.S., fell 2%. Solar stocks Array Technologies fell 8%, Enphase lost nearly 2% and Nextracker tumbled 5%.

Trump’s former advisor Elon Musk slammed the Senate legislation over the weekend.

“The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country,” The Tesla CEO posted on X. “Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.”

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Published

4 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

Nissan is in crisis mode as job cuts begin and suppliers are caught in the crosshairs

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments

Is Nissan raising the red flag? Nissan is cutting about 15% of its workforce and is now asking suppliers for more time to make payments.

Nissan starts job cuts, asks supplier to delay payments

As part of its recovery plan, Nissan announced in May that it plans to cut 20,000 jobs, or around 15% of its global workforce. It’s also closing several factories to free up cash and reduce costs.

Nissan said it will begin talks with employees at its Sunderland plant in the UK this week about voluntary retirement opportunities. The company is aiming to lay off around 250 workers.

The Sunderland plant is the largest employer in the city with around 6,000 workers and is critical piece to Nissan’s comeback. Nissan will build its next-gen electric vehicles at the facility, including the new LEAF, Juke, and Qashqai.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

According to several emails and company documents (via Reuters), Nissan is also working with its suppliers to for more time to make payments.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
The new Nissan LEAF (Source: Nissan)

“They could choose to be paid immediately or opt for a later payment,” Nissan said. The company explained in a statement to Reuters that it had incentivized some of its suppliers in Europe and the UK to accept more flexible payment terms, at no extra cost.

The emails show that the move would free up cash for the first quarter (April to June), similar to its request before the end of the financial year.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan N7 electric sedan (Source: Dongfeng Nissan)

One employee said in an email to co-workers that Nissan was asking suppliers “again” to delay payments. The emails, viewed by Reuters, were exchanged between Nissan workers in Europe and the United Kingdom.

Nissan is taking immediate action as part of its recovery plan, aiming to turn things around, the company said in a statement.

Nissan-Micra-EV
The new Nissan Micra EV (Source: Nissan)

“While we are taking these actions, we aim for sufficient liquidity to weather the costs of the turnaround actions and redeem bond maturities,” the company said.

Nissan didn’t comment on the internal discussions, but the emails did reveal it gave suppliers two options. They could either delay payments at a higher interest rate, or HSBC would make the payment, and Nissan would repay the bank with interest.

Nissan-delays-supplier-payments
Nissan’s upcoming lineup for the US, including the new LEAF EV and “Adventure Focused” SUV (Source: Nissan)

The company had 2.2 trillion yen ($15.2 billion) in cash and equivalents at the end of March, but it has around 700 billion yen ($4.9 billion) in debt that’s due later this year.

As part of Re:Nissan, the Japanese automaker’s recovery plan, Nissan looks to cut costs by 250 billion yen. By fiscal year 2026, it plans to return to profitability.

Electrek’s Take

With an aging vehicle lineup and a wave of new low-cost rivals from China, like BYD, Nissan is quickly falling behind.

Nissan is launching several new electric and hybrid vehicles over the next few years, including the next-gen LEAF, which is expected to help boost sales.

In China, the world’s largest EV market, Nissan’s first dedicated electric sedan, the N7, is off to a hot start with over 20,000 orders in 50 days.

The N7 will play a role in Nissan’s recovery efforts as it plans to export it to overseas markets. It will be one of nine new energy vehicles, including EVs and PHEVs, that Nissan plans to launch in China.

Can Nissan turn things around? Or will it continue falling behind the pack? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Elon Musk said to bet on Tesla delivering Robotaxi in June, yet those who did just lost big

Published

5 hours ago

on

June 30, 2025

By

Elon Musk said to bet on Tesla delivering Robotaxi in June, yet those who did just lost big

Elon Musk Tesla Money hero

Elon Musk said just a few weeks ago that betting on Tesla delivering its promised Robotaxi in June is a “money-making opportunity,” and yet, those who listened to him just lost big.

A fan of Musk lost $50,000 betting on Tesla Robotaxi.

With the rise in prediction markets, you can bet on virtually everything these days.

Sites like Polymarket have about a dozen prediction markets related to Tesla, where anyone can bet on events such as Tesla delivering its robotaxi service.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

There have been a couple of specific markets about that, and Musk directly commented on one titled “Will Tesla launch a driverless Robotaxi service before July?:

Less than two weeks ago, the market gave Tesla only a 14% chance of launching the service, and Musk called it a “money-making opportunity.”

At the time, less than $500,000 was traded on this market, but Musk made it way more popular.

Now, over $7 million has been traded on this market, and while Tesla claims to have launched its Robotaxi service on June 22nd, the market currently gives Tesla less than 1% chance today, with less than a day left in June.

Each prediction market has clear “resolution” rules and Musk evidently didn’t read them before suggesting there was money to be made betting “yes”:

This market will resolve to “Yes” if Tesla publicly launches a fully driverless taxi service by June 30, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, it will resolve to “No.”

Any service that allows a member of the general public to summon and ride in a Tesla vehicle operating without any human—onboard or remote—actively controlling the vehicle will count. A human may be present in the vehicle or monitoring remotely for emergency intervention, but they must not be physically positioned to take control (for example, no safety driver in the driver’s seat) and must not actively steer, brake, accelerate, or otherwise drive the car under normal operation.

A program that is restricted to Tesla employees, invite-only testers, closed-beta participants, factory self-delivery features, or the mere release of Full Self-Driving software for private owner-drivers will not qualify. Regulatory permits or approvals, press demonstrations, and prototype unveilings without live public ridership likewise will not count toward resolution.

This market’s resolution source will be a consensus of credible reporting.

There are a few things in the resolution that disqualify what Tesla launched on June 22nd. First off, there’s a human inside the vehicle ready to take control with their finger on a kill switch. We have already seen interventions from the in-car Tesla supervisor, who are still very much necessary.

Secondly, the resolution requires a launch that is not restricted to an invite-only basis, which is currently the case.

The level of remote operations could also prove challenging to confirm, and it is part of the resolution.

Electrek found someone who lost $50,000 following Musk’s “money-making opportunity”:

Someone else has lost $28,000 and is now betting another $27,000 that Tesla will achieve this by the end of July.

Currently, Polymarket‘s odds only put a 21% chance of Tesla delivering on the service based on the previously mentioned resolution before August:

There’s another market predicting if “Tesla launches unsupervised full self-driving (FSD) by the end of 2025” that has arguably an even more restrictive resolution, and it currently gives it a 59% chance of happening:

With Polymarket, users are not really “betting” on an outcome, but they are trying to beat the current odds by buying shares in “yes” or “no”, which they can sell to other users before the end of the timeline.

Electrek’s Take

It’s quite amusing that Musk was so confident people would believe in his Robotaxi that he didn’t bother to investigate what other people think an actual robotaxi service would entail, like in the Polymarket resolution.

Historically speaking, you are way better off betting against whatever timeline Musk claims about self-driving. He has been consistently wrong about it for a decade now.

Polymarket even has a market about Tesla launching unsupervised self-driving in California this year. I threw some money in that one because California has much stricter regulations when it comes to self-driving, and it requires a lot of testing before being deployed, as described in the resolution.

I doubt Tesla can go through that this year, but it’s not impossible.

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

Continue Reading

Trending