Empirical analysis reveals that physical grid investments fail to reduce proactive power shutoff frequency across California circuits, highlighting the need for distributed energy alternatives.
Cascading failures and compound effects in electricity systems are a growing concern for infrastructure resilience, as they increasingly lead to additional hazards (e.g., wildfires), further exacerbating power disruptions. In California, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) have responded to these threats by enacting Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), which are proactive de-energization of high-risk circuits, to reduce wildfire risk. Although prior research has examined PSPS impacts, little is known about whether physical infrastructure investments have reduced de-energizations on the most frequently affected circuits. This study addresses that gap by evaluating whether circuit-level investments have decreased the frequency or severity of PSPS events in California. We overlay investment and de-energization data at the circuit level to conduct this analysis. Despite limited data for certain investments, early results suggest that these investments are not associated with a reduction in the frequency or severity of de-energizations. Moreover, external wildfire risk factors alone do not seem to explain these patterns, suggesting that internal utility decision-making and other risk factors (e.g., aging infrastructure) play a critical role in which circuits are de-energized. These results underscore the importance of considering alternative investment strategies in physical infrastructure upgrades, like distributed energy resources (DERs), to minimize the impact of de-energizations on the most impacted circuits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: