Utilities can no longer approach wildfire mitigation as a fixed or static program. Changing climate conditions, evolving regulations, and advances in grid technologies require utilities to continually reassess how mitigation strategies are planned and executed. Success depends on close coordination across engineering, operations, and procurement to ensure projects stay on schedule; critical materials and contractor capacity are available when needed, and investments deliver their intended outcomes.

Utilities are discovering that many of the biggest obstacles are no longer technical. Labor availability, contractor capacity, and equipment lead times increasingly determine how much work can be completed before the next fire season.

Industry estimates place long-term U.S. utility wildfire investment at roughly $100 billion, with vegetation management alone representing $6 billion to $8 billion in annual spending. Wildfire mitigation has become one of the utility industry’s most significant infrastructure priorities, with many fire-exposed utilities committing tens of billions of dollars toward system hardening initiatives over the next several years. Yet funding alone does not guarantee progress. In discussions with utility leaders, one challenge consistently surfaces: securing the resources needed to execute mitigation plans is becoming as difficult as developing the plans themselves.

General Procurement-Related Challenges Related to Wildfire Mitigation Programs

When executing a wildfire mitigation program, the transition from planning to implementation exposes several recurring challenges where procurement decisions have a direct impact on cost, schedule, and program outcomes.

1. Workforce Capacity: Wildfire mitigation relies on specialized contractors to perform vegetation management, line construction, inspections, grid hardening, and equipment replacement. Those same skilled labor pools also support grid modernization, electrification, renewable integration, and growing demand from industrial facilities and data centers, intensifying competition for skilled crews.
2. Cost Predictability: Procurement and contracting strategies influence project performance. Traditional time-and-materials models can provide flexibility, but they may also reduce incentives for schedule adherence or productivity improvements on long-duration programs. As a result, many utilities are exploring contract structures that better align performance expectations with project milestones, quality standards, and safety outcomes.
3. Permitting and Access: Pole replacements, undergrounding, and vegetation management often depend on environmental review, easement negotiations, or approval from municipalities. Delays in these areas can compress construction windows and increase dependence on limited contractor capacity during peak seasons.
4. Equipment Availability and Costs: Rising costs and extended lead times for critical equipment are delaying wildfire mitigation projects. Lead times for large power transformers now average 128 weeks, while distribution transformer lead times have increased from approximately 12 weeks pre-pandemic to 30 to 50 weeks today, with prices rising approximately 77% since 2019. These constraints can delay grid hardening and undergrounding projects, leaving critical assets exposed through additional wildfire seasons.

System Hardening’s Growing Importance

The stakes are rising as wildfire mitigation programs become larger and more complex. The approach to wildfire mitigation has evolved significantly over the past several decades. In the 1990s, utilities primarily focused on reactive repairs and basic vegetation management, with efforts aimed more at restoring power after outages than reducing wildfire risk. Today, system hardening strategies are proactive and dynamic, incorporating innovative technologies, data-driven risk assessments, and evolving regulatory requirements. California introduced the first utility wildfire mitigation planning legislation in 2018. Since then, 9 states have adopted requirements for utilities to develop comprehensive wildfire mitigation plans. As regulatory expectations continue to evolve, utilities are making significant investments in wildfire resilience. For example, Hawaii’s nearly $500 million, 3-year Wildfire Mitigation Plan requires utilities to implement continuous improvements to reduce wildfire risk.

Wildfire mitigation is not the responsibility of any one function. It requires a highly coordinated ecosystem of expertise, where diverse teams work in concert to navigate complexity, align priorities, and drive effective outcomes. Engineering, operations, procurement, regulatory affairs, and field execution teams all influence whether mitigation plans stay on schedule, and Procurement has the opportunity and obligation to step forward as a leader.

Procurement’s Value Proposition for Improving Program Outcomes

1. Securing Capacity: Wildfire mitigation programs depend on both material availability and workforce readiness. Utilities should establish long-term sourcing strategies for critical materials such as covered conductors, steel poles, transformers, and other long lead equipment while also securing access to qualified contractors before demand peaks. Proactively securing both supply and labor capacity reduces the risk of shortages, production delays, contractor constraints, and price volatility.
2. Performance-Based Contracting: Develop performance-based contracts with KPI’s aligned to wildfire mitigation outcomes, such as hardened circuit miles completed, schedule adherence, quality, and safety. Rewarding measurable outcomes rather than simply completed work promotes greater accountability and supports stronger grid resilience.
3. Supply Chain Resilience and Grid Reliability: Supplier diversification has taken on new importance. Utilities that depend heavily on a limited number of suppliers may find themselves competing for production capacity at the same time as the rest of the industry. By diversifying supplier networks, evaluating geographic risks, and mapping supply chains back to raw material sources, utilities can identify hidden dependencies and reduce exposure to disruptions caused by wildfires, earthquakes, and other localized events. Combined with clearly defined contractor qualifications, performance standards, and documentation requirements, these strategies improve execution consistency, support regulatory compliance, and deliver safer, reliable infrastructure.
4. Plan Alignment: Align procurement activities with the Wildfire Mitigation Plan by cross-referencing sourced materials, planned pole replacements, covered conductor miles, and equipment needs to confirm adequate supply over the required planning horizon. Building that cross-check into the procurement cycle helps identify potential gaps before peak wildfire seasons, reducing the risk of project delays and resource shortages.

From Compliance to Strategic Execution

Wildfire mitigation will remain a significant capital investment for utilities for the near future, regardless of which hardening technologies or inspection methods gain prominence.

In many cases, the challenge is no longer determining what needs to be done. It is securing the workforce, equipment, materials, and contractor capacity needed to execute mitigation plans on schedule and at a cost customers can afford.

The industry has made substantial progress in understanding wildfire risk and developing mitigation strategies. The greater challenge now may be execution. Workforce constraints, equipment availability, contractor capacity, and regulatory timelines increasingly determine what gets built and when. As mitigation programs continue to expand, utilities that can consistently translate plans into completed work in the field will be best positioned to strengthen resilience, manage costs, and reduce wildfire risk.