| Resource Type | Report |
| Author / Source | Coleman et al. (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) |
| Publication Date | February 2026 |
| Location | United States |
| Initiative Type | Program, Technology, Policy |
| Project Complexity | Advanced |
| Recommended For | Board, Staff |
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Why This Matters for Rural Electric Co-ops
Wildfire risk to power lines is now nationwide, and utility equipment can both start fires and be damaged by fires that start elsewhere. This Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) report synthesizes what utilities are doing to manage that dual risk, organized around a three-phase resilience framework covering before, during, and after a fire.
The report is explicit that no single set of practices fits every utility and that a menu of practices must be matched to each utility's risk and resources. For co-op leaders, it includes real co-op examples and notes that small utilities can pool into regional consortia for shared wildfire risk modeling. A co-op can use it to pick proven measures across system hardening, vegetation management, situational awareness, and fast-trip settings, and to frame the cost case for its board.
Key Takeaways
| › | A co-op should treat the report as a menu and adopt only the measures that fit its risk, resources, and system rather than copy a large utility's full program. |
| › | It uses a three-phase framework: robustness before an event (hardening, vegetation management), graceful extensibility during (situational awareness, fast-trip de-energization), and rebound after (restoration, after-action review). |
| › | It presents fast-trip "Enhanced Powerline Safety Settings" that de-energize in milliseconds as a more precise alternative to widespread public safety power shutoffs. |
| › | Utilities face dual risk, both starting fires and absorbing damage from fires that begin elsewhere, so mitigation protects assets and reduces liability at once. |
Implementation Considerations
- Cost or Funding Requirements: A dedicated section covers cost, credit ratings, liability, and multi-entity cost-sharing, and makes the case that mitigation costs far less than fighting fires or rebuilding. A co-op can use this framing for board and rate decisions.
- Staffing or Technology Requirements: Practices range from low-cost operational settings to major capital hardening such as undergrounding. A smaller co-op can start with vegetation management, inspections, and fast-trip settings, and the report suggests regional consortia for shared risk modeling.
- Time-Sensitive Information: The report is DOE-funded and tied to Executive Order 14308 and an active FERC wildfire proceeding (Docket AD25-16-000), and PNNL expects to update it as practices mature. Confirm the current version and regulatory status before relying on specifics.
Notable Examples
- Holy Cross Energy: Colorado co-op that built its wildfire mitigation plan around adaptation and enhanced controls.
- Lane Electric Cooperative: Oregon co-op moving primary overhead lines underground and analyzing which measures fit its system.
- Wasco Electric Cooperative: Oregon co-op using prescribed burns and targeted goat grazing to reduce fuels in canyon areas.
- Anza Electric Cooperative: California co-op building partnerships for monitoring in high-fire-risk districts.
Estimated reading time: 30+ minutes
Related to
Comments
0 comments
Please sign in to leave a comment.