Partner or Perish: The Burning Need for Community Partnerships for Wildfire Mitigation

Utility executives are traversing a wildfire gauntlet with immense pressure from regulators, blowback from PSPS announcements, vocal expectations from investors, and the stark reality of a grid built during a different era. On top of that, wildfire season, if we can even still call it a “season,” has grown in fire intensity, and the “geography of fire” is spreading from long-time hotspots, to cover huge areas in the Rocky Mountains and across the South.

Even in the wake of distribution and transmission lines sparking catastrophic fires, and utility poles aging into matchsticks, the go-to solution, utility-initiated PSPS, have been embraced about as well as a skunk at an outdoor wedding. Recently, Rocky Mountain Power communicated and initiated the first PSPS event in Utah. The internet conversation was to not receptive to put it mildy. PSPS is a critically important and necessary tool in wildfire mitigation. However, a true solution is only possible with continued utility-led investments,actions, AND sustained partnerships with the communities they serve.

Community partnerships for wildfire mitigation have already proven successful—there are related models to build from. By collaborating on firebreak creation and home hardening initiatives, utilities can reduce fire risk, minimize outages, and build trust (to say nothing of limiting potential liability and insurance cost).  Stakeholder and community partnerships bring greater resilience, enhance safety, and foster reliability.

Collaborative Fuel Management and Firebreaks

Historically, vegetation management around transmission and distribution lines was the sole responsibility of utilities. Growing fire footprints across the wildland-urban interface (WUI) show this approach is insufficient. Conflagration fires, including the Eaton Fire in January 2025, show the limits of this approach. Utilities can partner with local fire districts, tribal communities, conservation corps, and private landowners to expand fuel treatment zones. Importantly, this is a bidirectional opportunity that can start with either the utility or the community.

There are examples to draw from. PG&E’s Community Wildfire Safety Program includes regional stakeholders facilitating shaded fuel breaks along the WUI, resulting in approximately 1,800 miles of enhanced vegetation safety work and expanded community protection zones across high-risk areas1. In Colorado, Xcel Energy has collaborated with state agencies and local forest collaboratives to fund forest thinning and defensible space projects along transmission corridors2.

More collaboration is needed. Hardening efforts go further when communities are involved in both planning and implementation. Locals bring knowledge of terrain, potential fire behavior (and historical fire behavior), and community perspective and priorities. Utilities bring funding and technical (including fire) expertise. Aligning utility risk-reduction strategies with community values can strengthen public buy-in and promote long-term mitigation.

Property Hardening as Shared Resilience

There examples of community-based property hardening programs facilitated by utilities, including helping residents retrofit homes with fire-resistant materials, installing ember-resistant vents, and creating defensible space. While outside a utility’s traditional role, the logic is sound: a hardened neighborhood is less likely to ignite or spread, reducing liability and PSPS scope. Energy efficiency programs started this way. They were initiated outside the scope of a traditional utility – more on that later.

Southern California Edison launched an incentive program that includes rebates for hardening homes and infrastructure in high-fire-threat districts3. SCE partners with local fire safe councils, community-based organizations, and municipal leaders to identify the highest-risk communities and provide both financial and technical support.

Lessons from Energy Efficiency Partnerships

Utilities have decades of experience building community partnerships in the name of energy efficiency. This model uses trusted messengers to reach hard-to-reach customers and reduce demand burdens7. The same structure, localized implementation, utility funding, and co-branding, can be replicated for wildfire mitigation strategies and include a verification and validation element.

These initiatives offer a roadmap for joint wildfire mitigation efforts. Programs that deliver weatherization, appliance upgrades, and demand-side management enhance community trust and increase participation and effectiveness. One model program is the Energy Trust of Oregon, which successfully partnered with Portland General Electric and Pacific Power to deliver targeted efficiency programs through local nonprofits, schools, and minority-owned businesses.

A New Paradigm

Wildfire risks create difficult tradeoffs for utilities and communities. System Operators want to maintain their load, and PSPSs go against the core mission of utilities. Home and landowners enjoy well-landscaped properties and broadly dislike a aggressive fire mitigation approaches, like Zone Zero8. Thus, balancing safety, reliability, and affordability, wildfire mitigation creates a real challenge. If we lose power, we want it restored immediately. By partnering and co-investing in firebreaks, helping residents harden homes, and empowering local energy resilience through microgrids, utilities can create a distributed web of protection that benefits everyone. These efforts reduce risk and liability AND build long-term goodwill and public support for PSPS initiatives and vegetation management. Community partnerships for wildfire mitigation are not a side strategy—they are the foundation.