California’s aging electrical infrastructure has been a major factor in some of the state’s worst disasters. Overhead transmission lines have sparked devastating wildfires, suffered extensive storm damage, and required costly maintenance, yet utilities and local governments continue to resist modern solutions. 

One of the best alternatives is underground transmission lines, which significantly reduce fire risk, improve efficiency, and offer greater resilience against extreme weather and natural disasters. Despite these benefits, utilities like Edison and city officials—such as those in Riverside—continue to repeat outdated rhetoric against undergrounding while failing to implement modern secondary transmission solutions that would protect residents and businesses.

It’s time to separate fact from fiction and focus on science, engineering, and data rather than outdated talking points.

—

The Overhead Fire Risk: The Data Speaks for Itself

Wildfires caused by power lines have become one of the greatest threats to life and property in California. The evidence is overwhelming:

• Overhead power lines and related equipment were responsible for more than 1,500 wildfires in California between 2015 and 2022.
• The Camp Fire (2018)—the deadliest wildfire in state history—was ignited by overhead transmission lines, killing 85 people and causing $16.5 billion in damages.
• The Dixie Fire (2021)—California’s second-largest wildfire—was also caused by overhead electrical infrastructure, burning nearly 1 million acres.

Every time a utility or city official argues against undergrounding, they are ignoring these facts. Underground transmission lines eliminate nearly all ignition risks associated with high winds, fallen poles, or vegetation contact, making them the most effective way to prevent utility-caused wildfires.

Yet, the Riverside City Council and Mayor have failed to prioritize secondary underground transmission, despite clear evidence that this would dramatically reduce risk and improve reliability.

—

Earthquakes and Flooding: Overhead vs. Underground

One of the most common arguments against undergrounding is that it’s supposedly more vulnerable to earthquakes and flooding. The reality? Modern underground transmission lines are designed to withstand these events just as well—if not better—than overhead systems.

Earthquake Risks: Similar for Both

• Overhead power lines are at risk during earthquakes because poles, towers, and conductors can collapse, taking out power lines and causing hazardous conditions.
• Underground lines use flexible conduits and seismic-resistant designs, which prevent major damage. Studies show failure rates for underground and overhead transmission are comparable during earthquakes—but underground systems recover faster since they don’t require rebuilding fallen structures.

Flooding Concerns: A Solved Problem

• Modern underground lines are built with waterproof insulation, pressurized conduits, and advanced drainage systems, making them highly resistant to water damage.
• Florida, which faces far more flooding than California, has successfully expanded its underground transmission network without widespread failures during hurricanes and storm surges.
• Storms take out overhead lines far more often than underground systems, leading to longer blackouts and higher repair costs.

Once again, the argument that undergrounding is “too risky” doesn’t hold up against real-world engineering and data.

—

Cost vs. Long-Term Savings

Yes, underground transmission lines cost more upfront—but that’s only part of the story. The long-term savings and reliability improvements make them the smarter choice.

Why Undergrounding Saves Money Over Time

• Lower maintenance costs: Overhead lines require frequent repairs, tree trimming, and pole replacements, adding up to millions in recurring expenses. Underground lines have 60-80% lower maintenance costsover their lifespan.
• Fewer outages: Extreme weather events and wildfires cause longer, more expensive outages with overhead systems. Undergrounding reduces these risks and the associated costs.
• Energy efficiency: Underground lines suffer less power loss from resistance and temperature fluctuations, making them more efficientand reducing waste.

Despite these long-term benefits, Riverside’s leadership continues to ignore the financial and safety advantages of secondary underground transmission.

—

Aesthetic, Environmental, and Property Value Benefits

Beyond safety and cost savings, undergrounding also improves communities in other ways:

• No ugly transmission towers blocking scenic views.
• No noise pollution from electrical discharge.
• No risks to birds and wildlife, which often suffer from overhead line collisions.
• Higher property values in areas without unsightly power lines.

These are additional reasons why cities around the world are investing in underground transmission—but Riverside isn’t.

—

The Riverside City Council and Mayor Have Failed to Act

Despite overwhelming evidence that underground transmission lines are safer, more efficient, and more cost-effective in the long run, the Riverside City Council and Mayor continue to rely on outdated, misleading rhetoric from Edison and other utilities.

This is not a debate about opinions—this is about facts, engineering, and science. The refusal to invest in undergrounding secondary transmission lines is a failure of leadership that puts lives and property at risk.

It’s time for Riverside’s elected officials to stop parroting utility-driven excuses and start making data-driven decisions that protect residents and businesses. The risks of inaction are too great, and the benefits of modern infrastructure are too clear to ignore.

—

Final Thoughts: A Safer, Smarter Future

Investing in underground transmission lines is not just about preventing disasters—it’s about building a resilient, modern power grid that serves the community’s long-term needs. 

Riverside’s residents deserve reliable electricity, protection from wildfires, and a city that prioritizes safety over corporate interests. 

The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now.

—

Comment on Addressing Riverside’s Leadership Failure

Your approach here is solid—you anticipated the pushback from Edison and city officials and countered it with data, science, and real-world examples. Every time this issue is discussed, you should continue reinforcing facts over rhetoric. 

Key strategies:

1. Always provide clear data—fire statistics, maintenance cost reductions, and efficiency improvements all prove your point.
2. Highlight engineering realities—show how modern underground systems already solve the concerns about earthquakes and flooding.
3. Call out leadership failures directly—make it clear that this is not an unsolvable problem; it’s a refusal to act.
4. Expose utility-driven narratives—emphasize that the opposition is profit-driven, not safety-driven.
5. Push for accountability—encourage residents, businesses, and local advocates to demand action.