Bird electrocution on power lines: the methods compared

Status: September 2026. Outside facts link to their source; statements about bAWARE follow its approved public facts.

What bird electrocution is

A bird is electrocuted when it touches two energised parts at the same time, or an energised part and an earthed one [1]. It happens mostly on medium-voltage distribution poles: on higher-voltage structures the gaps are wider than a bird’s wingspan, while medium-voltage designs bring live parts and the structure close together [2]. Body size is one of the most important factors, because a large bird can bridge the gap with its wings, and in open country without trees, poles offer perches for hunting and resting [1]. That is why raptors, vultures, storks and other large birds are among the most exposed. Bird electrocutions explained by co-inventor Simon Thomsett, summing up decades of experience with this painful phenomenon: How electric alternating current on overhead transmission wires kills raptors in very large numbers.

Electrocution and collision are different hazards. A bird collides with a wire in flight; it is usually electrocuted on the pole, while perching, landing or taking off. They are counted separately, and their numbers should not be mixed.

How many birds die

Power lines electrocute a bird roughly every three seconds, some ten million birds a year worldwide [3]. Nobody can count every pole on earth, so that is an order-of-magnitude figure. It matches the best peer-reviewed estimate for a single country: 0.9 to 11.6 million birds electrocuted a year in the United States alone [4]. In Spain, a first estimate by the environment ministry and its public technical agency, Tragsatec, put the number of raptors electrocuted each year on the poles that 11 regional governments had listed as failing the national anti-electrocution rules at between 11,000 and almost 33,000, depending on how many carcasses scavengers remove before they are found [5].

For some species the toll drives decline. In high-risk parts of South Africa’s Eastern Cape, electrocution alone was predicted to drive the local Cape vulture population extinct within 20 to 35 years [6]. Surveys of Mongolian power lines found 1,721 electrocuted saker falcons between 2013 and 2018 [7]. Among tracked large migratory birds on the African-Eurasian flyway whose human-caused death had a known cause, electrocution was the most common, at 40.5 % [8].

Why the problem keeps growing

The world had almost 80 million km of overhead lines and underground cables in 2021, 93 % of it distribution network [9], the part of the grid where most electrocutions happen [1]. Reaching national energy goals means adding or refurbishing more than 80 million km by 2040 [9].

The methods at a glance

Method	Works against	Main limit
Bird-safe design of new lines	Electrocution	Only helps where lines are built or rebuilt; electricity for humans comes first, animal safety far behind. Unsafe lines keep being built.
Retrofitting existing poles	Electrocution	Cost, scale and maintenance; slow and bureaucratic utility cooperation; fixes only the poles that are treated
Perch deterrents	Electrocution (in theory)	Poor evidence; can increase risk
Burying lines	Electrocution and collision	3 to 20 times the cost of an overhead line
Line markers and flight diverters	Collision	Do nothing against electrocution
Carcass searches and GPS tracking	Nothing directly: they measure	Count deaths; prevent none by themselves
GPS geofencing collars	Whatever is on the map	Need a map of the danger: incomplete, outdated or wrong data for the most deadly small lines
bAWARE, a warning worn by the bird	Electrocution, and collision with power lines and wind turbines	Protects only the bird that wears it; integrated system not yet field-trialled

Each method in detail

Bird-safe design of new lines

What it is. Building poles so that a bird cannot touch two live parts, or a live and an earthed part: enough spacing (the World Bank Group’s guidelines name 1.5 m between energised parts and earthed hardware), or covers where spacing is not feasible [10].

Evidence. The major guidelines ask for it: the Bern Convention [11], the Convention on Migratory Species [12], the IFC and EBRD [13], and in Germany the law [14]. The IUCN guidelines add that the cost of fixing lines later is one more reason to build them safe from the outset [2].

Limits. It only helps where lines are being built or rebuilt. Cost and attention: electricity at all for humans comes first, animal safety far behind, even in new lines. Unsafe lines keep being built.

Retrofitting existing poles

What it is. Insulating covers on conductors and jumpers, reconfigured crossarms, and other changes that take the dangerous contacts away.

Evidence. Done well, it works. In Andalucía, correcting 6,560 dangerous pylons cut electrocutions of the Spanish imperial eagle by 62 % across the region [15]. In Tucson, retrofitting about half the dangerous poles around nests cut electrocutions of Harris’s hawks from 1.4 to 0.2 per nest [16]. A field trial in Mongolia measured reductions of 59 to 91 % depending on the measure [17], and Mongolia has since retrofitted more than 30,000 poles, at an equipment cost of under $40 a pole [18].

Limits. Published costs run from an average of €400 per pole in Andalucía [15] to the $7,500 per pole assumed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service [19], and the work often requires switching the line off [2]. Retrofits age: after more than ten years, degraded insulation was linked to higher electrocution rates than on poles never corrected [20], and badly fitted retrofits keep killing birds, golden eagles among them [21]. Above all, retrofitting fixes only the poles that are treated, and new poles go up every day. Utility cooperation is slow and bureaucratic, and the work happens on deadly live wires and needs specialists.

Perch deterrents

What it is. Spikes or brushes meant to stop birds perching on dangerous parts of a pole.

Evidence. Poor. In the Mongolian field trial, metal perch deflector brushes had no effect on electrocution rates [17], and the US Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) has moved away from broad use of perch discouragers because they may increase electrocution risk [22].

Limits. Not a stand-alone solution.

Burying lines

What it is. Replacing overhead lines with underground cable.

Evidence. Buried distribution lines eliminate electrocution risk and are the safest option for birds [13].

Limits. Cost: estimates run from 3 to 20 times that of an overhead line [23].

Line markers and flight diverters

What it is. Spirals, flappers and other markers that make wires visible to flying birds.

Evidence. On average, marking halves collisions [24].

Limits. They are built for collision, not electrocution. A perching bird does not need to see the wire to be killed by it.

Carcass searches and GPS tracking

What it is. Searching under lines for dead birds, and following tagged birds by satellite.

Evidence. Tracking shows what kills birds, and power lines appear in study after study. Across 45 species of large migratory birds in Africa and Eurasia, electrocution was the most frequent known human cause of death of tracked birds: 40.5 % of 637 human-caused deaths, ahead of illegal killing and poisoning [8]. Electrocution, power-line collisions and wind turbines together accounted for 49 % [8].

Searches under the lines tell the same story. Around Lake Naivasha in Kenya, 20 raptor electrocutions were recorded between 2015 and 2017, against 10 in the 30 years from 1970 to 1999, and at least three in four of the electrocuted birds were Augur Buzzards (unpublished data of Simon Thomsett, as cited in [32]).

What it does not do. Tracking tells us where and how birds die. It does not, by itself, keep the next bird alive. bAWARE builds on the same tags and adds a warning to them, so that the record shows dangers avoided as well as deaths. In the words we use for scientists: start measuring why birds live, instead of monitoring how they die.

Case: three electrocuted Philippine eagles, the national bird of the Philippines

The Philippine eagle is the national bird of the Philippines [33] and one of the most endangered eagles in the world, listed as Critically Endangered since 1996 [34]. The best current estimate is about 392 breeding pairs in the whole world, within a range of 318 to 447 pairs [35].

On 1 October 2026 a young female Philippine eagle was found dead beside an electric post in Salay, Misamis Oriental, with burn marks on her feet; the post-mortem findings were consistent with suspected electrocution. Three days later, on 4 October, another young female was found dead in Libertad, Arakan, North Cotabato, with burns on her left wing and right foot; the veterinary examination confirmed electrocution. Libertad lies beside a known nesting site where the Philippine Eagle Foundation has validated at least six successful nesting attempts since 1995 [36].

Arakan had seen this before: in 2018 a young Philippine eagle died after apparently touching two live 220-volt wires on a power pole. That death led the Foundation, the local electric cooperative and partners to retrofit power lines around eagle habitat; 3 km of a planned 4.5 km had been completed by 2025 [36].

So these are not just any three birds. They are three of a species with only a few hundred breeding pairs left on Earth, and they were young eagles: the birds that would have replaced the breeders. With so few pairs, every young eagle found electrocuted is a step towards the extinction of the national emblem of the Philippines. Young eagles are most at risk: as they leave their parents' territory, they use forest edges and open land, and "to a young eagle, a power pole may not look very different from a tree" [36]. These are the birds bAWARE is designed for: wide-ranging young raptors of a species where every individual counts, moving through landscapes whose poles nobody can retrofit all at once.

GPS geofencing collars

What it is. A collar compares the animal’s GPS position with a boundary drawn on a map and gives an audio warning, followed by a stimulus, when the animal tries to cross it [37]. Such collars are sold for livestock and are being studied for elephants; a short-term study on captive elephants found no lasting behavioural or physiological stress [38].

Limits. The warning is only as good as the map behind it: incomplete, outdated or wrong data for the most deadly small lines.

bAWARE: a warning worn by the bird

What it is. A wearable sensor, a proprietary differential-antenna analog chain rather than an off-the-shelf chip, detects the electromagnetic field around a live line, of any relevant voltage, anywhere on earth. An acoustic warning starts at ~50 m; at ~30 m a harmless electro-tactile stimulus discourages approach. On power lines, the sensor detects the danger itself, so the warning does not depend on a map. At wind turbines, whose electric fields are far too weak to sense at a safe distance, it uses geofencing: the tag knows its own position and carries a stored map of turbine positions as no-fly zones.

Evidence. Sensor, electro-tactile stimulus and release now work in prototype, repeatedly, on real power lines and on live birds. Buzzers alone fail: birds get used to sound, which is why the sound’s job is to announce the stimulus.

Limits. It warns only the bird that wears it, and the integrated system soon needs controlled field trials and quantified proof.

Retrofitting and bAWARE: opposite blind spots

Retrofitting protects every bird, but only at the poles that have been fixed. bAWARE warns only the bird that wears it, but at any live line that bird meets, mapped or not, wherever it goes globally. The two approaches have opposite blind spots. That is exactly why both are needed.

Retrofitting the poles is right, and we support it actively. We say the other half as plainly: for the rarest species, retrofitting alone is a race against construction that cannot be won, and it cannot follow a migrating bird across a border. That gap is what bAWARE is for.

How to choose

• Building a new line? Design it bird-safe from the start; fixing it later costs more [2].
• Existing poles killing birds? Retrofit the dangerous ones first, with durable materials, and check them over the years [20].
• Birds flying into wires? Mark the wires [24].
• A sensitive site and the budget to match? Bury the line [13].
• Utilities, bureaucracy and the hope for a generally safe environment are too slow for dwindling populations to wait for, and you need to save the last specimen directly and immediately or it will be too late forever? Add protection on the animal, now. That is what bAWARE is built for.
• A rare species that ranges far beyond the poles you can fix, or crosses borders? Add protection on the animal. That is the gap bAWARE is built for.
• Whatever you choose, measure it. Or, as Gunter Schoech puts it: “Scientists start measuring why birds live, instead of monitoring how they die.”

Where bAWARE stands (September 2026)

Sensor, electro-tactile stimulus and release now work in prototype, repeatedly, on real power lines and on live birds. The integrated system soon needs controlled field trials and quantified proof. We are not seeking funding; we are looking for field partners, species access and scientific standing.

Talk to us

bAWARE is coming soon, and we want to hear from the people who will use it as early as possible. If you are weighing these methods for a rare species, tell us about your situation through the contact page, and ask us about becoming a field partner for the controlled trials.

Related: NGOs and conservationists · Utilities · Developers, lenders and consultancies · FAQ

Sources

1. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) (2006). Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric Institute, APLIC and the California Energy Commission. https://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2643/SuggestedPractices2006(LR-2).pdf
2. Martín Martín, J., Garrido López, J.R., Clavero Sousa, H. & Barrios, V. (eds.) (2022). Wildlife and power lines: Guidelines for preventing and mitigating wildlife mortality associated with electricity distribution networks. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2022.10.en
3. Munir Virani, Chief Operating Officer of MBZRF (Mohamed bin Zayed Raptor Conservation Fund), “What raptors teach us about saving life on Earth”, TEDxOxford, published 16 July 2026, at 0:57. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5E1TrNhuXg&t=57s
4. Loss, S.R., Will, T. & Marra, P.P. (2014). Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution mortality at power lines in the United States. PLoS ONE 9(7): e101565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101565
5. Soria, M.Á. & Guil Celada, F. (2017). Primera aproximación general al impacto provocado por la electrocución de aves rapaces: incidencia sobre las aves e impacto económico asociado. 7th Spanish Forestry Congress (7º Congreso Forestal Español), Plasencia, paper 7CFE01-360. https://7cfe.congresoforestal.es/sites/default/files/actas/7cfe01-360.pdf
6. Boshoff, A.F., Minnie, J.C., Tambling, C.J. & Michael, M.D. (2011). The impact of power line-related mortality on the Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres in a part of its range, with an emphasis on electrocution. Bird Conservation International 21(3): 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095927091100013X
7. Dixon, A. et al. (2020). Variation in Electrocution Rate and Demographic Composition of Saker Falcons Electrocuted at Power Lines in Mongolia. Journal of Raptor Research 54(2): 136–146. https://doi.org/10.3356/0892-1016-54.2.136
8. Serratosa, J. et al. (2024). Tracking data highlight the importance of human-induced mortality for large migratory birds at a flyway scale. Biological Conservation 293: 110525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110525
9. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2023). Electricity Grids and Secure Energy Transitions. Paris: IEA. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/70f2de45-6d84-4e07-bfd0-93833e205c81/ElectricityGridsandSecureEnergyTransitions.pdf
10. World Bank Group (2007). Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Electric Power Transmission and Distribution. 30 April 2007, section 1.1 ‘Avian and Bat Collisions and Electrocutions’. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2000/2007-electric-transmission-distribution-ehs-guidelines-en.pdf
11. Council of Europe, Bern Convention Standing Committee (2004). Recommendation No. 110 (2004) on minimising adverse effects of above-ground electricity transmission facilities (power lines) on birds. Adopted 3 December 2004. https://rm.coe.int/recommendation-no-110-2004-/1680a6d6a4
12. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Resolution 10.11 (Rev.COP13): Power Lines and Migratory Birds. Adopted 2011, revised February 2020. https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/document/cms_cop13_res.10.11_rev.cop13_e.pdf
13. IFC and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (2026). Tip Sheet: Preventing Electrocution Risks for Birds on Distribution Lines. February 2026. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2026/preventing-electrocution-risks-for-birds.pdf
14. Germany, Federal Nature Conservation Act (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz, BNatSchG), § 41 Vogelschutz an Energiefreileitungen. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bnatschg_2009/__41.html
15. López-López, P. et al. (2011). Solving man-induced large-scale conservation problems: the Spanish imperial eagle and power lines. PLoS ONE 6(3): e17196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017196
16. Dwyer, J.F. & Mannan, R.W. (2007). Preventing raptor electrocutions in an urban environment. Journal of Raptor Research 41(4): 259–267. https://doi.org/10.3356/0892-1016(2007)41%5B259:PREIAU%5D2.0.CO;2
17. Dixon, A. et al. (2019). Mitigation techniques to reduce avian electrocution rates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43(3): 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.990
18. Dixon, A., Batbayar, N., Bold, B., Purev-Ochir, G., Gunga, A. & Virani, M. (2023). Saving raptors in Mongolia: country-scale retrofitting of insulation to reduce avian electrocution at power lines. Raptors Conservation, Suppl. 2: 403–405. https://doi.org/10.19074/1814-8654-2023-2-403-405
19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2022). Permits for Incidental Take of Eagles and Eagle Nests; proposed rule. Federal Register 87: 59598, 30 September 2022. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2022-09-30/2022-21025
20. Guil, F. et al. (2011). Minimising mortality in endangered raptors due to power lines: the importance of spatial aggregation to optimize the application of mitigation measures. PLoS ONE 6(11): e28212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028212
21. Dwyer, J.F., Harness, R.E. & Eccleston, D.T. (2017). Avian electrocutions on incorrectly retrofitted power poles. Journal of Raptor Research 51(3): 293–304. https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-16-93.1
22. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2024). Permits for Incidental Take of Eagles and Eagle Nests; final rule. Federal Register 89: 9920, 12 February 2024 (50 CFR 22.260). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-02-12/pdf/2024-02182.pdf
23. Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) (2012). Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. https://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/11218/Reducing_Avian_Collisions_2012watermarkLR.pdf
24. Bernardino, J. et al. (2019). Re-assessing the effectiveness of wire-marking to mitigate bird collisions with power lines: A meta-analysis and guidelines for field studies. Journal of Environmental Management 252: 109651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109651
25. Panter, C.T., Nebel, C., Raab, M. et al. (2026). High human-caused mortality in GPS-tracked red kites across Europe. Preprint, Research Square, posted 5 August 2026 (not yet peer-reviewed). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9705180/v1
26. LIFE EUROKITE. Numbers & facts. Figures as of September 2024 (deaths) and December 2025 (tagged birds). https://www.life-eurokite.eu/en/our-birds/numbers-facts.html
27. Millsap, B.A., Zimmerman, G.S., Kendall, W.L. et al. (2022). Age-specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of golden eagles in the western United States. Ecological Applications 32(3): e2544. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2544
28. Murphy, R.K., Millsap, B.A., Stahlecker, D.W., Boal, C.W., Smith, B.W., Mullican, S.D. & Borgman, C.C. (2023). Ectoparasitism and energy infrastructure limit survival of preadult Golden Eagles in the Southern Great Plains. Journal of Raptor Research 57(4): 505–521. https://doi.org/10.3356/JRR-21-72
29. Oppel, S. et al. (2021). Major threats to a migratory raptor vary geographically along the eastern Mediterranean flyway. Biological Conservation 262: 109277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109277 (preprint: bioRxiv, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.16.422983)
30. University of Cape Town News (2015). Trackers show vultures on decline [Krüger, S., Simmons, R. & Amar, A., Percy FitzPatrick Institute, on 18 satellite-tracked Bearded Vultures]. 26 February 2015. https://www.news.uct.ac.za/article/-2015-02-26-trackers-show-vultures-on-decline
31. The Peregrine Fund (2018). Recent death of threatened Martial Eagle underscores the need for urgent action to stop electrocutions of birds of prey in Kenya. News release, 29 October 2018. https://peregrinefund.org/news-release/recent-death-threatened-martial-eagle-underscores-need-urgent-action-stop
32. Eichenwald, A.J., Amar, A., Tyrrell, P., Buechley, E.R. & Virani, M.Z. (2021). Declines in an Augur Buzzard Buteo augur population in a region of increasing human development. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9: 590073. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.590073
33. Republic of the Philippines (1995). Proclamation No. 615, 4 July 1995, declaring the Philippine Eagle as the National Bird of the Philippines. Signed by President Fidel V. Ramos. https://lawphil.net/executive/proc/proc1995/proc_615_1995.html
34. Philippine Eagle Foundation (2023). Priority conservation areas and global population estimate for the Philippine Eagle. 18 February 2023 (updated 28 February 2023). https://www.philippineeaglefoundation.org/post/priority-conservation-areas-and-global-population-estimate-for-the-philippine-eagle
35. Sutton, L. et al. (2023). Priority conservation areas and a global population estimate for the critically endangered Philippine Eagle. Animal Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12854
36. Philippine Eagle Foundation (2026). Two Dead Eagles, Three Days Apart: The Threat of Power Lines. Blog post, October 2026 (accessed 11 October 2026). https://www.philippineeaglefoundation.org/post/two-dead-eagles-three-days-apart-the-threat-of-power-lines
37. Cabral de Mel, S.J., Seneweera, S.P., de Mel, R.K., Dangolla, A., Weerakoon, D.K., Maraseni, T. & Allen, B.L. (2022). Current and Future Approaches to Mitigate Conflict between Humans and Asian Elephants: The Potential Use of Aversive Geofencing Devices. Animals 12(21): 2965. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12212965
38. Cabral de Mel, S.J., Seneweera, S.P., de Mel, R.K., Dangolla, A., Weerakoon, D.K., Maraseni, T. & Allen, B.L. (2023). Welfare impacts associated with using aversive geofencing devices on captive Asian elephants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 265: 105991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105991