I was reading through this article by Alejandro Lazo on how cost effective California's power companies’ wildfire prevention efforts are. And so I thought it was worth exploring the relationship between fire prevention and damage prevention. Both initiatives involve addressing risks proactively to protect lives, infrastructure, and the environment. Here’s how these two concepts converge and what lessons utilities across North America can learn.

Fire Prevention as Damage Prevention

The devastating fires, such as the 2018 Camp Fire, show that unchecked risks can lead to catastrophic consequences. PG&E's decision to underground power lines is a proactive move, not just for fire prevention but for damage prevention. This initiative aligns with the principle that preventing utility damage - whether caused by wildfires, excavation accidents, or aging infrastructure - saves lives, reduces financial liabilities, and fosters public trust.

PG&E’s $110 million settlement in 2020 for failing to safely maintain its infrastructure underscores the financial stakes of neglecting damage prevention. These costs aren’t just penalties - they also include the loss of reputation and the unfortunate burden placed on ratepayers to fund recovery efforts. The investment in undergrounding and insulating power lines reflects a shift toward a more preventative approach, albeit an expensive one.

The Cost of Prevention vs. the Cost of Inaction

While burying power lines costs $3–$4 million per mile, the alternative - continuing with above-ground lines in high-risk areas - has proven far more expensive. The Camp Fire, caused by a single failed transmission tower hook, resulted in 85 deaths, the destruction of an entire town, and billions in liabilities for PG&E. This is a stark reminder that proactive investments in infrastructure are far cheaper than the costs of disasters, both financially and socially. And also that PG&E was blamed at the time for prioritizing profits over safety. Now that they're addressing that we need to welcome their progress.

Utilities in North America can draw a parallel to damage prevention in excavation. Just as power lines must be insulated from environmental threats, underground utilities must be protected from excavation damage. Both scenarios demand a robust risk assessment strategy, leveraging technologies such as AI and predictive analytics to identify vulnerabilities before they lead to disasters.

Leveraging AI for Comprehensive Prevention

California utilities are deploying drones and risk-detection technology to monitor infrastructure in high-risk areas. Similarly, AI models like Urbint's can be used to predict and prevent other forms of utility damage. For instance, algorithms can analyze excavation patterns, weather data, and equipment age to flag areas where preventive measures are most needed. This approach mirrors how wildfire prevention technologies assess environmental conditions to mitigate ignition risks.

Lessons for Utilities

The interconnection of fire prevention and damage prevention offers key takeaways for utilities across North America:

1. Proactivity Pays Off: Investments in undergrounding and modernizing infrastructure are expensive but far less costly than the aftermath of disasters.
2. Comprehensive Risk Models: Using AI to integrate data across different damage vectors—wildfires, excavation, storms—can provide a holistic view of vulnerabilities.
3. Public Trust and Accountability: Just as California utilities face scrutiny over wildfire costs, other utilities must ensure transparency and demonstrate that funds allocated for damage prevention are used effectively.

PG&E’s effort to bury 10,000 miles of power lines is a massive undertaking and hopefully reflects a cultural shift toward prioritizing safety. While controversial and expensive, such proactive measures are essential for protecting both lives and infrastructure. For utilities across North America, the lessons are clear: damage prevention and fire prevention must go hand in hand, supported by technology, transparency, and an unwavering commitment to safety.