This blog post analyzes how Colorado utilities, led by Xcel Energy, are combining preemptive power shutoffs with a broad set of infrastructure upgrades to reduce wildfire risk. It synthesizes recent reporting on undergrounding, new technologies, and the real-world impacts on communities along the Front Range.
Overview of wildfire risk reduction strategies
When high winds sweep the Front Range, utilities increasingly rely on preemptive power shutoffs to limit ignition chances during dangerous weather. Utilities say these Planned and Weather-Driven outages are a hedge against wildfires.
Residents and businesses have faced disruption and losses. In parallel, Xcel Energy is pursuing a multi-year program to strengthen the grid and reduce the need for frequent outages through targeted hardening and smarter operation.
Why preemptive shutoffs have become policy
Utilities argue that shutting off power before extreme winds can prevent fires sparked by lines and equipment. Critics cite economic losses and reliability concerns, noting that outages have hit restaurants, retailers, and other community segments, particularly during holiday periods.
The debate intensified after the 2021 Marshall Fire, which investigators linked in part to utility infrastructure and prompted a substantial settlement with Xcel. The tension between safety and continuity is driving ongoing policy and technology changes in Colorado.
Undergrounding as a core but costly mitigation strategy
Undergrounding lines can reduce exposure to wind, ice, and ignition sources, but it comes with high costs and practical limits. Xcel Energy reports roughly 19,000 miles of underground lines in Colorado—about half of its system—and plans to bury roughly 50 more miles in high-risk areas as part of a $1.9 billion wildfire mitigation plan through 2027.
The price tag translates to about $3.9 million per mile for new underground circuits, making the approach expensive. Utilities must target undergrounding where the risk reduction justifies the expense for ratepayers.
- Targeted risk reduction: undergrounding is concentrated where it yields the most fire risk reduction, rather than universal coverage.
- Repair and maintenance trade-offs: underground lines are harder to locate and repair after faults, potentially increasing restoration times in some cases.
- Limited fire prevention: while undergrounding reduces certain ignition sources, it won’t prevent most fires, necessitating a broader toolbox.
Boulder, for instance, has already undergrounded about 60% of its distribution lines. The city advocates a balanced mix of undergrounding, infrastructure replacement, and improved communication to maintain reliability while enhancing safety.
Expanded toolkit and technologies
Targeted isolation and monitoring
Beyond undergrounding, utilities are employing sectionalization to isolate faults quickly, reducing the scope of outages. Drones, covered conductors, and larger-diameter wire improve detection, resilience, and physical protection of lines.
AI-enhanced cameras and sensors enable more precise fault detection and faster responses. These tools aim to minimize customer impact while maintaining safety standards.
Weather intelligence and pole modernization
Improved weather forecasting and asset modernization are central to the plan. Xcel reports thousands of equipment repairs and more than 10,000 poles replaced in 2025 alone.
Another mitigation plan has been filed for 2027. These upgrades are designed to improve situational awareness, shorten restoration times, and reduce the likelihood of initiating outages in extreme conditions.
Impact on communities and policy considerations
Outages in December affected about 348,000 customers, with additional disruptions in January and March. Local businesses reported significant losses: roughly $1.8 million in combined losses for nearly 100 Golden-area businesses.
This illustrates the real-world economic toll of outages, even as safety benefits are pursued. Critics argue that PSPS events can shift exposure to liability and complicate emergency response planning.
Supporters emphasize the public safety gains during extreme weather. The ongoing evolution of policy, pricing, and communication strategies will shape how communities balance wildfire safety with reliability and affordability.
In parallel, cities like Boulder advocate a holistic approach that combines undergrounding, strategic infrastructure upgrades, and robust communication with customers to improve resilience. As climate pressures grow, the industry’s approach—integrating undergrounding where feasible, targeted upgrades, and advanced monitoring—will be central to achieving safer, more reliable power delivery in wildfire-prone regions.
Here is the source article for this story: Is burying power lines really a ‘no-brainer’ to cut wildfire risk?