Lucas Hayas: Why Boulder’s power outages are getting worse — and what it has to do with wildfire prevention

This commentary is by Lucas Hayas, a firefighter and safety professional residing in Boulder. He previously served as the Fire Management Officer for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and currently chairs the Boulder County Fire Code Review Committee. The opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect the views of Boulder County or the Fire Code Review Committee.

Have you noticed your lights going out more than they used to? You’re not imagining things. Boulder residents are experiencing more frequent power outages, and there’s a subtle technical change at play beyond flashy accusations of utility mismanagement or aging infrastructure.

Readers will no doubt be familiar with the growing threat of wildfires, with dramatic urban conflagrations and their consequences imposing massive personal and financial impacts on residents and organizations alike. With power companies regularly being one of the sources of these fires — and incurring huge financial losses as a result — they have been forced to make a slew of changes. 

I believe that some of these changes are one source of disruption to our power system, representing an intentional and largely unacknowledged trade-off between reliability and fire safety.

Many of us remember the “Public Safety Power Shutoff” in 2024 that had Xcel cut our power for days in response to high-risk wildfire conditions. The move was dramatic and controversial, and not a tool that can be used regularly or without serious consequence. Luckily, Xcel has other things they can do to reduce their risk of starting a fire, and they are reportedly making some of these less visible changes to equipment. Unfortunately, these changes can also significantly affect power reliability.

The technical explanation involves something called “reclosers,” devices that automatically attempt to restore power after detecting a disruption. When a tree branch momentarily touches a power line or lightning strikes nearby, these smart devices can briefly cut power, then try to restore it automatically to prevent prolonged outages. In the past, this scenario often required line workers to physically check and re-energize their infrastructure by hand. Modern technology allows the power grid to protect itself and restart without human interaction.

However, this convenience comes with a risk. If a recloser tries to restore power to a damaged line, it can generate sparks if the line is damaged or broken. In dry and windy conditions — such as those that preceded the 2021 Marshall Fire — these sparks can become wildfire ignition sources.

Boulder County’s investigation into the Marshall Fire revealed two presumptive causes, one of which involved this exact vulnerability. The investigative report by Jensen Hughes noted that reclosers and their sister systems nearby functioned as designed when high winds downed a power line, but unfortunately likely created sparks from a broken line that ignited one of the initial fires. Crucially, the report also stated:

“Xcel could have enabled alternate settings to provide increased protection in unusual circumstances such as high wind and dry conditions. These alternate settings […] may have reduced the probability that arcing would produce enough hot particles to ignite a fire. California utilities have adopted practices that include increasing recloser sensitivity and lockout after single operations. The California practices have not been adopted as ‘best practices’ nationwide, however.”

This essay isn’t meant to be an indictment of Xcel, but to point out that the devastation of the Marshall Fire may have prompted the company to reconsider how it manages its electrical grid, with new consequences. Curious readers can search the term “Enhanced Powerline Safety Settings” in filings submitted to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. But based on the pattern of recent outages, it seems that Xcel is adjusting its systems to err on the side of caution — with the side effect of less-reliable power.

Put another way, our community’s power equipment now appears more sensitive to faults and less eager to automatically restore power without human verification. Like it or not, we must recognize that there is an engineering trade-off between fire safety and electrical reliability.

There are infrastructure solutions that could help avoid some of these problems. Burying power lines offers better protection, but it’s expensive and at risk of damage from wayward excavators. Vegetation management — industrial-scale mowing and weeding — can reduce the fuels around power infrastructure, but is costly and requires constant upkeep. It also loses effectiveness on high-wind days, which are a big factor in wildland-urban conflagrations.

The list goes on, but so do the trade-offs. There is no free lunch, but a good understanding of the situation is a strong step toward becoming an effective and engaged stakeholder.

For now, keep those flashlights handy. Your darker home may be evidence of reduced wildfire risk.