[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6625140,"mediaKeyId","2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0","parentId",2762823,"title","Austin Energy study: systemwide burial of distribution lines would cost about $50 billion; recommends targeted undergrounding","audioSeconds",2217,"startMs",3711000,"endMs",5928000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0&start=3711&end=5928","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0/thumbnail_3711000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6625140/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-study-systemwide-burial-of-distribution-lines-would-cost-about-50-billion-recommends-targeted-undergrounding","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625140-e3e98dc835c5ccab377cec8056e2b85a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447912&Signature=MtYHNf3-KVrr90miwtyc-DXiRd~LDTolkAki~aP07NooiMxZiWwI5owB7JoSHuecuwwQtzGn9lgCwwehBtb8lmoVQtiJ48mwvtVCZ9vOhyrm8KR6ECbar2aFwKtnFCGRXV3Z8wRfRWjr1RcEo~tg8eEWXLmjpHHLOQBlvp-i4hfhv-4WD9IhD8App713RYkg1pWJPLV2dKSuocZnIlU6fSm6ZorOTTkvnyCl~urdVhjFl8P~IwRx2hdW5UhHhfd-Vyyy~tV4R6EUAuv5SDGArwpQt8g527JrkdibVTujSlGY5GQcxYn1h4g4k34LSqAMpS8pdmpuzgkJNP1WFuzqhg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Austin","date","2025-03-25T00:00:00Z","article","Austin Energy staff and a consultant on March 25 presented the results of an underground-feasibility study that concluded burying all remaining overhead distribution lines in Austin would be technically feasible in many places but extremely costly, and recommended targeted conversions rather than a systemwide program.

The study, conducted by 1898 & Co. (part of Burns & McDonnell) and reviewed by Austin Energy, estimated Austin’s distribution system at about 12,000 miles, of which roughly 7,000 miles are underground and 5,000 miles remain overhead. The consultant estimated a citywide undergrounding price tag in the ballpark of $50,000,000,000 and found about 33 discrete sections (roughly 120 miles) where a benefit‑cost ratio exceeded 1 on a lifecycle basis.

Why this matters: Undergrounding reduces outages caused by vegetation and weather and can improve resilience in wildfire and storm‑prone areas, but it also raises large upfront costs, environmental permitting issues, utility telecommunications coordination, and localized engineering challenges such as shallow bedrock and tight easements. Committee members pressed staff on where undergrounding could be coordinated with other public projects and on options short of full burial, such as overhead hardening and sectional investments.

The study’s scope and main findings

“We broke up the entire system into about 5,000 sections,” said Arlen Muir of 1898 & Co., describing the analytic approach used to estimate section‑level costs and benefits. The consultant converted avoided future outage costs, operations and maintenance savings, and reduced customer interruption costs into a present‑value benefit and compared that to the estimated cost of each section’s underground conversion.

The system overview presented by Austin Energy staff put the totals in context: roughly 12,000 miles of distribution lines, about 75,000 poles and roughly 90,000 transformers. David Tomcheson, Austin Energy vice president for electric system engineering, said that today “approximately 58% of our distribution lines … are already underground.”

Cost drivers and constraints

Consultants and staff flagged several drivers of high costs and uncertainty: rocky soils that require deeper excavation or specialized equipment; numerous telecommunications attachers that must relocate and comply with attachment sequencing; dense customer lots that raise traffic control and restoration complexity; environmental sensitivities (including karst zones and habitat protections); and potential archaeological or cemetery impacts. Arlen Muir said many of those site‑specific uncertainties “require site specific evaluation to estimate the cost of a section — you don't always know until you get out there.”

The consultant recommended against a blanket systemwide burying program given the aggregate cost and uncertain return, but identified a number of strategic conversions where benefits were compelling. “We are not currently recommending that Austin Energy undertake a system wide undergrounding of the overhead distribution system,” Muir told the committee, while noting the utility could pursue targeted areas where conversions align with other public works or provide outsized resilience gains.

Tradeoffs and alternatives

Staff emphasized that undergrounding is one tool in a broader distribution‑resiliency portfolio. Austin Energy will present a complementary overhead hardening study in May; that analysis is expected to identify lower‑cost measures (for example covered conductor, targeted pole and equipment upgrades, and sectionalization/automation) that can deliver resilience benefits in many locations without full burial.

“We will continue to examine where strategic underground conversions make sense,” said Lisa Martin, Austin Energy chief operating officer, and she added the utility will combine the consultant results, the overhead hardening study and stakeholder input to form a comprehensive distribution resiliency plan later this year.

Coordination and next steps

Council members pressed staff to overlay the consultant’s 33 high‑benefit sections with planned City projects — including Project Connect, mobility corridors and water‑oriented construction — to seize “dig once” opportunities and reduce incremental costs. Staff said such coordination is already underway through city permitting and utility coordination channels and that they will share the candidate sections with councilmembers for review.

The utility also signaled it may propose pilot underground conversions in a small number of strategic locations and continue its standard that requires or incentivizes underground service design in many new developments.

What committee members asked and what staff said

Committee members raised wildfire risk, telecommunications relocation costs, and the potential to prioritize corridors that support mobility and redevelopment. Staff said telecom attachers are legally required to pay relocation costs under the city’s design criteria and that telecom coordination frequently contributes to schedule and cost uncertainty. On wildfire, staff said conversions and alternative hardening measures will both be examined to reduce ignition risk and improve post‑event restoration.

Where this goes from here

Austin Energy will combine these underground feasibility findings with an overhead hardening study due in May, refine candidate sections for targeted underground conversions, seek stakeholder input, and return later this year with a multi‑year distribution resiliency plan that includes near‑term priorities and possible pilot projects.

Ending: The study frames undergrounding as an important but expensive resilience tool. Staff and the consultant recommended a measured approach — prioritize conversions where technical conditions, environmental permitting risks and coordination opportunities with other city projects make burial practical and cost‑effective, and consider shorter‑term hardening or automation steps where undergrounding is not the best near‑term option.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Austin - Austin Energy Utility Oversight Committee - Mar 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Austin Energy and consultant 1898 & Co. presented findings of an underground‑feasibility study showing a full systemwide conversion would cost roughly $50 billion, and recommended strategic, prioritized conversions combined with overhead hardening measures rather than citywide burial.","taxTitle","Austin, Travis County, Texas","taxId",2819,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6625126,"Austin Energy reports 43% renewable generation in Q1, 63% rolling 12‑month carbon‑free share; staff warns trend is downward",120,2312000,2432000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0&start=2312&end=2432","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0/thumbnail_2312000.jpg","/articles/6625126/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-reports-43-renewable-generation-in-Q1-63-rolling-12month-carbonfree-share-staff-warns-trend-is-downward","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625126-ca0cffe992a8e18bffee77636355341e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447912&Signature=RqIZA6Rhd3tiqNQdxyqDlZRCm6yMgIia-e1-9fkpejYmLwR6yUzGPT3bvm80onSelgQ7kGuwSfK60HJqHd8gjpRBEpJdeIV2jxG6dtqmI037017cPDbggHYdFf9YpD8wL98wAQXpgQfZ1JTvcUEtZFYaRGPrPM7mGQLefsCXLaB12TuvDlCa1jeq-N~qM5iTmWE2MIOGezxBb4Zke9kWm-uCmx6sKDUfqBn5EgJQY5-jNYcXNp426nRAYhBMrGSWP6ghWYGzl4GT2EA4jZ1kOUQJRVpaNGQGNatk-gCZlDsOdwlxZfBmnTOqsvtvfeAJC3jDz4smuaPn0BkuHqR1MQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Austin Energy’s chief operating officer, Lisa Martin, briefed the Utility Oversight Committee on first‑quarter operations on March 25, reporting that for Oct.–Dec. 2024 the utility’s generation mix was about 43% renewable and 65% carbon‑free as a share of load; the rolling 12‑month average ending December was roughly 63% carbon‑free.

Martin said the smooth 12‑month trend line has been declining from a peak in mid‑2022 and pointed to growing load, renewable curtailments and transmission congestion as contributors. She said implementing the 2023 Resource Generation and Climate Protection Plan is the utility’s mechanism to reverse that trend and maintain reliability, affordability and climate commitments.

Other operational highlights

- Load growth: Austin Energy serves approximately 557,000 meters and reported about 20% load growth in the prior decade, with both summer and winter peak records set in the most recent fiscal year. Staff noted the winter peak is approaching summer peak levels amid more extreme winter weather.

- Reliability: Distribution reliability metrics (average outages per customer, average outage duration, and average restoration time) remain better than the Texas average and have recently stabilized or improved. Martin said work on end‑to‑end circuits and wildfire mitigation contributed to improved outage trends.

- Programs and implementation: The utility reported progress on winter‑storm after action items (closing the last of 82 action items from the Winter Storm MARA after‑action report) and early implementation of Resource Generation Plan items including a local battery RFP and the Solar Standard Offer (which staff said has 15 projects in two months).

Why this matters

Carbon‑free and renewable shares are central to the city’s climate and resource planning; the downward trend in the 12‑month carbon‑free average, combined with rising load and transmission constraints, flags the need for both generation and distribution solutions to maintain reliability while pursuing decarbonization.

Staff next steps

Austin Energy will continue implementation of the Resource Generation Plan, return later this year with an overhead hardening study and a distribution resiliency plan, and provide committee updates on those workstreams.

Ending: The committee heard that renewable generation and distribution‑reliability work must proceed together: staff emphasized short‑term measures to stabilize reliability while implementing longer‑term generation and resiliency actions to meet the utility’s carbon‑free objectives.","Austin Energy reported 43% renewable production and 65% carbon‑free generation for the Oct–Dec 2024 quarter, with a 12‑month rolling average of about 63% carbon‑free that has trended down since mid‑2022. Staff said implementation of the 2023 Resource Generation and Climate Protection Plan and further measures will be needed to reverse the trend.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6625131,"Austin Energy reports favorable first‑quarter operating income, $241 million bond sale; S&P affirms AA‑ rating",139,2034000,2173000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0&start=2034&end=2173","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0/thumbnail_2034000.jpg","/articles/6625131/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Austin-Energy-reports-favorable-firstquarter-operating-income-241-million-bond-sale-SP-affirms-AA-rating","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625131-c35590ec802a91f09b8a202d981e8d32/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447912&Signature=FGLEw9tL4kdlRKflZesm62EmtL6AHDMZYICVbvw306X75VIdDMCIA-4KMsob-WQsx7znwrQ4BsETKWQEEzgXN4SGLlVgtqshHMl2rEz8cOe-GIFCoe9om6ShzakOmD~LZpNeDFZQK7q1NAfwIEVo54mFRDN0991nHiiIGvb7XRnIw2LkOy5~GxOlHpi1kyXH6Rfd8cqHY~4yDLEd962eH5Tk1zoqS3-C-YI0r32Dj0MvKg-YtuGAayxMtFdC0kNx~TG5n9~Zz1QsTIQOjyfSimkRMpsqnc4mIrtSYDt1Keqjmb-swVor18L8DA8oDDmPVFi24kd1H0~NGUH9Y9pyaw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Austin Energy’s chief financial officer presented first‑quarter financial highlights to the Utility Oversight Committee on March 25, saying the utility performed favorably through the period ending Dec. 31, 2024 and that markets remain receptive to Austin Energy bonds.

CFO Rusty Manias told the committee operating income through Q1 ran about 7% (roughly $4 million) better than budget, driven in part by warmer weather and incremental base revenues. Manias also said the utility’s power‑supply adjustment was over‑recovered by about $111 million through the quarter; when returned to customers, that over‑recovery would reduce the utility’s days‑cash‑on‑hand from an announced 194 days to roughly 150 days, which is still at Austin Energy’s minimum policy threshold.

S&P reaffirmed Austin Energy’s double‑A minus (AA‑) rating with a stable outlook, and the utility sold $241 million of bonds in November that Manias described as “very well received” and about six times oversubscribed.

Other key metrics and context

- Debt service coverage: target 2.5; actual 2.3.

- Operating margin: 11% (target 10%).

- Debt to capitalization: above 50% and stable.

- Bond issuance: $241,000,000 long‑term bonds to refinance commercial paper and finance capital additions.

Why this matters

The report framed near‑term financial posture as sound but subject to budgetary and policy considerations: reserves will fall once over‑recovered funds are returned; the utility continues to steward capital projects while pursuing a rating improvement to double‑A. Committee members asked for timeline clarity on the utility’s five‑year financial forecast and the path to improved ratings; staff said a multi‑year forecast is being prepared for city management review.

Votes at the meeting

The committee voted to approve the minutes of its Jan. 20, 2025 meeting; the motion was made by Council Member Velasquez, seconded by Council Member Ellis, and approved unanimously by hand/roll call.

Ending: Austin Energy will provide additional financial forecasting detail to the council and continue work to manage reserves, capital financing and credit metrics as part of its multi‑year forecast.","Austin Energy reported a favorable first‑quarter operating income (about $4 million, ~7% above budget), a $241 million bond issuance that was 6x oversubscribed, and an S&P reaffirmation at AA‑ with a stable outlook. The utility flagged an $111 million over‑recovery in the power supply adjustment that will reduce days cash on hand when returned.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6625136,"Public Citizen urges close oversight of Austin Energy battery RFP and calls for solar‑panel recycling requirement",1637,51000,1688000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0&start=51&end=1688","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2762823-20d3b7389efdb9855354a103bbe353d0/thumbnail_51000.jpg","/articles/6625136/Austin/Travis-County/Texas/Public-Citizen-urges-close-oversight-of-Austin-Energy-battery-RFP-and-calls-for-solarpanel-recycling-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6625136-bbd081ebd4072ecbdcb34ba4b2faed1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770447912&Signature=GEKA-N0p0LcPP-CnZXMKZQC54F4bU6-2UQHj-9uCoho9ukiNi8GcsbxfHydNXD5KhFJwvvWJg8BC7G6ytQNYF4xSIzHUHnYqvpaQvLQm0Pkg7yM3jRiN-3C2fdmf5i2YkXkaqCCcLzk7x87KP3twZtdoJRwCSOzgTEGMJuFkHJmnu13Webyh0SLQyZYMLIgEA5OWFfnyf82HSdJEk3wEjGzy7mR8MIn8rcjoMCZxJsouUIRRXYIR4GyKC6wWnrltx0KKFh80ESJvqG8hj2QBIUG4Wqnh64goy0eesV~k41fX~Ip7OhV7eG5qgPtSupBOQArKo3HuHh-sfz4Jv2LRig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two speakers from Public Citizen’s Texas office told the Austin Energy Utility Oversight Committee on March 25 to watch Austin Energy’s battery procurements closely and to adopt recycling requirements for local solar programs.

Camille Cook, who works on utility and clean‑energy policy for Public Citizen, told the committee the local battery request‑for‑proposals closed the day before the meeting and urged council members to monitor the proposals’ evaluation and implementation. “Batteries are one of the best energy resources that is available to the ERCOT grid right now,” Cook said, adding that Austin Energy could benefit from “a 100 or a 50 megawatt increase in our load zone, at least.”

Kaiba White, also of Public Citizen, asked the committee to request an update on the Solar Standard Offer program and to consider a front‑end recycling fee to fund end‑of‑life panel collection. She said the standard‑offer program has roughly 20 megawatts slated and, two months after launch, already had 15 projects under the program. White argued that current program rules that favor front‑of‑meter installations prevent some commercial sites from receiving resilience benefits and that adding a recycling fee administered by a single recycler is a practical, non‑general‑fund approach.

Austin Energy staff and the utility’s customer‑programs team described steps already under way. Richard Genesee, vice president of customer energy solutions, told the committee Austin Energy is “working on recycling alternatives” and exploring labeling or barcoding that would make module recycling easier at end of life. Genesee said the utility could partner with local recyclers and expand a recycling program in step with solar program growth.

Why this matters

Local battery capacity can provide congestion relief and resilience without burning gas locally; solar deployment growth creates an eventual need for panel recycling policies and funding mechanisms; and program design choices (front‑of‑meter vs. behind‑the‑meter) affect which customers receive resilience benefits.

Details and staff response

- Battery RFP: Cook said the local utility‑scale battery RFP closed the day before the meeting and asked the committee to monitor AE’s evaluation and implementation plans. AE staff confirmed RFP responses have been received and are under review.

- Solar Standard Offer: White said the program had about 20 MW slated and that staff reported 15 projects after two months. She urged staff to brief the committee at an upcoming meeting and to consider tweaks to program rules that would enable resilience benefits for commercial customers.

- Recycling: Genesee said Austin Energy is exploring labeling panels with scannable information, partnering with recycling providers and scaling a recycling program alongside expanded solar installations. He said the utility is considering models that collect a small fee at installation to fund recycling services later.

Ending: Public Citizen’s presenters asked the committee to remain engaged during AE’s implementation of the resource generation plan — particularly on batteries, solar‑offer design and recycling — and staff said the utility is exploring the specific recycling and battery actions discussed.","Public commenters from Public Citizen asked Austin Energy’s oversight committee to monitor responses to the utility’s local utility‑scale battery RFP, urged the committee to seek program updates on the Solar Standard Offer, and recommended creating a front‑end recycling fund for solar panels.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Austin Energy study: systemwide burial of distribution lines would cost about $50 billion; recommends targeted undergrounding

Austin Energy reports 43% renewable generation in Q1, 63% rolling 12‑month carbon‑free share; staff warns trend is downward

Austin Energy reports favorable first‑quarter operating income, $241 million bond sale; S&P affirms AA‑ rating

Public Citizen urges close oversight of Austin Energy battery RFP and calls for solar‑panel recycling requirement