Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Local and utility-wide cost allocations for a more equitable wildfire-resilient distribution grid


Climate-induced extreme weather conditions make electricity infrastructure more vulnerable. They increase the risk of power-line-ignited wildfires which can, in turn, jeopardize electric power delivery. Here, leveraging machine learning, we show that lower-income communities in California not only have lower fractions of power distribution lines undergrounded, but overhead lines and poles in their neighbourhoods are also more vulnerable to wildfires. Should they bear the cost of undergrounding fire-prone lines themselves, they would have to pay a disproportionately higher cost per household. We propose a cost allocation scheme with an income threshold below which the cost is borne by utility-wide ratepayers and above which the cost is borne locally. This scheme can not only minimize the average of undergrounding costs per household as a share of income, but also homogenize such cost–income ratios across communities. Our research demonstrates the opportunity to appropriately integrate existing policies to make electricity infrastructure affordable, equitable and reliable amidst climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Geospatial distributions.
Fig. 2: Correlations between distribution grid characteristics and median household income.
Fig. 3: Standardized coefficients of multivariate regressions with distribution grid characteristics as dependent variables.
Fig. 4: The variation of relative cost per household for undergrounding with the income threshold X.
Fig. 5: Relative costs per household for undergrounding versus income given different income threshold X.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data utilized or generated in this study have been deposited in figshare, available at Raw data of tree canopy can be obtained from Grid data can be obtained from and ACS data can be downloaded from Solar installation data can be downloaded from

Code availability

Code scripts were developed in Python (v.3.6). The source code is available at Required Python packages and their version numbers include: numpy (v.1.19.5), scipy (v.1.1.0), Pillow (v.5.2.0), pandas (v.0.24.2), shapely (v.1.7.1), geopandas (v.0.8.2), geojson (v.2.5.0), scikit-learn (v.0.24.2), statsmodels (v.0.9.0), plotly (v.4.14.3), pyshp (v.2.1.2), torch (v.1.1.0) and torchvision (v.0.2.2).


  1. Dale, L., Carnall, M., Wei, M., Fitts, G. & McDonald, S. L. Assessing the Impact of Wildfires on the California Electricity Grid. Report No. CCCA4-CEC-2018-002 (California Energy Commission, 2018).

  2. Arab, A., Khodaei, A., Eskandarpour, R., Thompson, M. P. & Wei, Y. Three lines of defense for wildfire risk management in electric power grids: a review. IEEE Access 9, 61577–61593 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dennison, P. E., Brewer, S. C., Arnold, J. D. & Moritz, M. A. Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2928–2933 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McWethy, D. B. et al. Rethinking resilience to wildfire. Nat. Sustain. 2, 797–804 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Syifa, M., Panahi, M. & Lee, C. W. Mapping of post-wildfire burned area using a hybrid algorithm and satellite data: the case of the camp fire wildfire in California, USA. Remote Sens. 12, 623 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Muhs, J. W., Parvania, M. & Shahidehpour, M. Wildfire risk mitigation: a paradigm shift in power systems planning and operation. IEEE Open Access J. Power Energy 7, 366–375 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Collins, K. M., Penman, T. D. & Price, O. F. Some wildfire ignition causes pose more risk of destroying houses than others. PLoS ONE 11, e0162083 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jazebi, S., De Leon, F. & Nelson, A. Review of wildfire management techniques—part I: causes, prevention, detection, suppression, and data analytics. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 35, 430–439 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Keeley, J. E. & Syphard, A. D. Historical patterns of wildfire ignition sources in California ecosystems. Int. J. Wildland Fire 27, 781–799 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ma, J. et al. Real-time detection of wildfire risk caused by powerline vegetation faults using advanced machine learning techniques. Adv. Eng. Inf. 44, 101070 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 2021 incident archive. CAL FIRE (2021).

  12. 2018 incident archive. CAL FIRE (2018).

  13. Cordova, G. CAL FIRE investigators point to tree hitting PG&E power lines as cause of Dixie fire. ABC10 (2022).

  14. Eavis, P. & Penn, I. California says PG&E power lines caused Camp Fire that killed 85. The New York Times (2019).

  15. Choobineh, M., Ansari, B. & Mohagheghi, S. Vulnerability assessment of the power grid against progressing wildfires. Fire Saf. J. 73, 20–28 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bagchi, A., Sprintson, A. & Singh, C. Modeling the impact of fire spread on the electrical distribution network of a virtual city. In 41st North American Power Symposium 1–6 (IEEE, 2009).

  17. 2019 PSPS Event –Wildfire Analysis Report. California Public Utilities Commission (2021).

  18. Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams, A. P. et al. Observed impacts of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire in California. Earth’s Future 7, 892–910 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ozansoy, C. & Gomes, D. P. Volatility diagnosis in phase-to-phase fault detection for branch across wire faults. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 36, 19–29 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mills, S. J. et al. Evaluation of aerial remote sensing techniques for vegetation management in power-line corridors. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 48, 3379–3390 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McGranaghan, M., Olearczyk, M. & Gellings, C. Enhancing distribution resiliency: opportunities for applying innovative technologies. Electr. Today 28, 46–48 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Abatzoglou, J. T., Smith, C. M., Swain, D. L., Ptak, T. & Kolden, C. A. Population exposure to pre-emptive de-energization aimed at averting wildfires in Northern California. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094046 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor, W. O., Watson, P. L., Cerrai, D. & Anagnostou, E. A statistical framework for evaluating the effectiveness of vegetation management in reducing power outages caused during storms in distribution networks. Sustainability 14, 904 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hall, K. L. Out of Sight, Out of Mind 2012: An Updated Study on the Undergrounding of Overhead Power Lines (Edison Electric Institute, 2013).

  26. Deegan, C. Environmental costing in capital investment decisions: electricity distributors and the choice of power poles. Aust. Account. Rev. 18, 2–15 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wong-Parodi, G. When climate change adaptation becomes a “looming threat” to society: exploring views and responses to California wildfires and public safety power shutoffs. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101757 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mildenberger, M., Howe, P. D., Trachtman, S., Stokes, L. C. & Lubell, M. The effect of public safety power shut-offs on climate change attitudes and behavioural intentions. Nat. Energy 7, 736–743 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kousky, C., Greig, K., Lingle, B. & Kunreuther, K. Wildfire cost in California: the role of electric utilities (The Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, 2018);

  30. Syphard, A. D. & Keeley, J. E. Location, timing and extent of wildfire vary by cause of ignition. Int. J. Wildland Fire 24, 37–47 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jazebi, S., De Leon, F. & Nelson, A. Review of wildfire management techniques—part II: urgent call for investment in research and development of preventative solutions. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 35, 440–450 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fenrick, S. A. & Getachew, L. Cost and reliability comparisons of underground and overhead power lines. Util. Policy 20, 31–37 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Phase 1 decision revising electric rule 20 and enhancing program oversight. California Public Utility Commission (2021).

  34. CPUC Rule 20 Undergrounding Programs–FAQs. California Public Utility Commission (accessed 19 September 2022).

  35. Undergrounding electric overhead lines. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (accessed 17 August 2022).

  36. Cost sharing for underground lines. Hawaiian Electric (accessed 17 August 2022).

  37. Yao, M., Bharadwaj, M., Zheng, Z., Jin, B. & Callaway, D. S. Predicting electricity infrastructure induced wildfire risk in California. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 094035 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sathaye, J. et al. Estimating Risk to California Energy Infrastructure from Projected Climate Change. Report No. CEC-500-2011-XXX (California Energy Commission, 2011).

  39. Dumas, M., Kc, B. & Cunliff, C. I. Extreme Weather and Climate Vulnerabilities of the Electric Grid: A Summary of Environmental Sensitivity Quantification Methods. No. ORNL/TM-2019/1252 (Oak Ridge National Lab, 2019).

  40. Trakas, D. N. & Hatziargyriou, N. D. Optimal distribution system operation for enhancing resilience against wildfires. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 33, 2260–2271 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kono, T., Sega, K. & Seya, H. Estimating the willingness to pay for undergrounding utility lines in Japan with the hedonic approach. SSRN (2017).

  42. Barreca, A., Park, R. J. & Stainier, P. High temperatures and electricity disconnections for low-income homes in California. Nat. Energy 7, 1052–1064 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sánchez, J. J., Holmes, T. P., Loomis, J. & González-Cabán, A. Homeowners willingness to pay to reduce wildfire risk in wildland urban interface areas: implications for targeting financial incentives. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 68, 102696 (2022).

  44. A statewide tree-level forest monitoring system. California Forest Observatory (2020).

  45. Seidel, M. What is the standard height of power lines? Legal Beagle (2019).

  46. Islam, M. & Greg, H. Methods to reduce the risk of wooden pole ignition. Electr. Power Syst. Res. 134, 213–221 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Borenstein, S., Fowlie, M. & Sallee, J. Designing electricity rates for an equitable energy transition. Energy Institute at Haas (2021).

  48. CARE/FERA Program. California Public Utilities Commission (accessed 17 August 2022).

  49. American Community Survey (ACS) 2015–2019 5-Year Estimates (US Census Bureau, 2020).

  50. Mann, M. L. et al. Incorporating anthropogenic influences into fire probability models: effects of human activity and climate change on fire activity in California. PLoS ONE 11, e0153589 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fire probability for carbon accounting. CAL FIRE (accessed 25 February 2021).

  52. Distributed Resource Planning (DRP) data and maps. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (accessed 19 February 2021).

  53. Distributed Resources Plan (DRP) External Portal. Southern California Edison (accessed 2 April 2021).

  54. PG&E Electric Distribution Geographical Information System. California Public Utilities Commission (accessed 2 August 2022).

  55. Wilson, J. Why not bury California’s fire-prone power lines underground? The reason is sky high. Desert Sun (2019).

  56. Yu, J., Wang, Z., Majumdar, A. & Rajagopal, R. DeepSolar: a machine learning framework to efficiently construct a solar deployment database in the United States. Joule 2, 2605–2617 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. McCarthy, K. Undergrounding Electric Lines. OLR Research Report 2011–R–0338 (Connecticut General Assembly, 2011).

  58. Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J. & Wojna, Z. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2818–2826 (IEEE, 2016).

Download references


This work was funded in part by the US Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under the Solar Energy Technologies Office Fiscal Year 2020 Funding Program (award number DE-EE0009359) to R.R. and A.M., and by a Stanford Precourt Pioneering Project award to R.R. and A.M. The views and opinions expressed by the authors do not necessarily state or reflect those of the funding sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Z.W., M.W., A.M. and R.R. conceptualized the research. Z.W. developed the methodology and analysed the data. Z.W. wrote the initial paper draft. M.W. deepened the policy insight. Z.W., M.W., A.M. and R.R. edited and revised the paper. A.M. and R.R. provided funding acquisition support for the research.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Arun Majumdar or Ram Rajagopal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Energy thanks Daniel Farber, Line Roald and Qianru Zhu for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–4, Figs. 1–23 and Table 1.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Z., Wara, M., Majumdar, A. et al. Local and utility-wide cost allocations for a more equitable wildfire-resilient distribution grid. Nat Energy 8, 1097–1108 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing