I work in the power-line business.

The ideas you guys are talking about aren't even in the hundreds of millions. It's in the billions. Burying power-lines in an urban environment is $1-$1.5 million dollars per MILE. Overhead is ranges from $25-$50k.

Paying to put solar on everyone's roof would be cheaper.

This entire thing is nonsensical.

Agreed. $57.5 billion in 2007 dollars. This for 858,000 customers and about half the state’s population. Easy math.

https://www.oge.com/wps/wcm/connect/9bac9afb-06da-4d4f-9cf4-7213858f9437/OGE_Our%2BPosition%2BBuried%2BPower%2BLines.02.17_ 2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=

Yet somehow other cities and countries are able to do it. Guess it’s just another thing Oklahoma can’t do because it’s too expensive. Lol

Yet somehow other cities and countries are able to do it. Guess it’s just another thing Oklahoma can’t do because it’s too expensive. Lol

Name another city that has gone in and buried their electric grid after it was already above ground. Or a state, or country; it just hasn’t happened.

Yet somehow other cities and countries are able to do it. Guess it’s just another thing Oklahoma can’t do because it’s too expensive. Lol

Name one city over a population of 250,000, or even 100,000, who have retroactively buried their power lines?

Why would you think spending in the vicinity of 57 Billion dollars to bury power lines would be a good investment? I think I'd rather go without electricity five days every decade or so rather that spend an extra $80-260 per month on my electric bill for the next 30 years.



https://www.oge.com/wps/wcm/connect/9bac9afb-06da-4d4f-9cf4-7213858f9437/OGE_Our%2BPosition%2BBuried%2BPower%2BLines.02.17_ 2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=

Name another city that has gone in and buried their electric grid after it was already above ground. Or a state, or country; it just hasn’t happened.

well a few small cities have around the country... but it was done with taxpayer money, i don't know if any have finished that plan... but like i remember it being a big deal in 2018 for Palm Desert California, they approved a $600 million utility plan that would be paid back to the city by an increase in sales tax specifically for it. It actually looks alike a suburb of Tampa Florida is doing it and paying for it with a tax that is added to everyone's electric bill that will generate the close to $15,000 per customer it would cost over the course of 10 years.


so for like OKC to do it... they would probably have to make it a MAPS initiative... and so have it be done in chunks maybe even over the course of several MAPS. much like the sidewalk projects.

Name one city over a population of 250,000, or even 100,000, who have retroactively buried their power lines?

Why would you think spending in the vicinity of 57 Billion dollars to bury power lines would be a good investment? I think I'd rather go without electricity five days every decade or so rather that spend an extra $80-260 per month on my electric bill for the next 30 years.



https://www.oge.com/wps/wcm/connect/9bac9afb-06da-4d4f-9cf4-7213858f9437/OGE_Our%2BPosition%2BBuried%2BPower%2BLines.02.17_ 2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=

yep. the plan in the Tampa Suburb i was looking at was a $125 tax on every electric bill, but this also looked like a community that could easily afford it and they chose to do it that way.

yep. the plan in the Tampa Suburb i was looking at was a $125 tax on every electric bill, but this also looked like a community that could easily afford it and they chose to do it that way.

Nm, read your earlier post.

Name one city over a population of 250,000, or even 100,000, who have retroactively buried their power lines?

Why would you think spending in the vicinity of 57 Billion dollars to bury power lines would be a good investment? I think I'd rather go without electricity five days every decade or so rather that spend an extra $80-260 per month on my electric bill for the next 30 years.



https://www.oge.com/wps/wcm/connect/9bac9afb-06da-4d4f-9cf4-7213858f9437/OGE_Our%2BPosition%2BBuried%2BPower%2BLines.02.17_ 2.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=

Not sure if you read the news but over 100k customers didnt have power for over a week, and 45k didnt have power for over 10 days. Last significant ice storm was in late november of 2015. Many didnt have power for over a week in that storm as well.

So yea there goes your whole 5 days, and once a decade argument.

Seems like nothing was learned from the 2015 ice storm. Guessing that OGE will not change a thing or learn anything from this one as well.....

OG&E Estimates a cost of between $80 and 260 per bill for the next 30 years as needed to retire the cost of burying their lines.

The study found that the cost for converting from overhead to underground lines would be a minimum of
$435,000 per mile. With a 30,000 square mile territory, our cost to bury the lines would be $30.5 billion to
bury all our distribution lines and $27 billion to bury our transmission lines in Oklahoma.

 With the high cost to bury lines, the impact to an average residential customer’s bill would be an increase of
$80 to $260 per month for a 30-year time period.

 Even without the cost issue, we couldn’t bury the main feeder “backbone” lines (the ones you see along roads
and highways). That’s because conditions are constantly changing –the amount of load on the lines, positions
on the streets, etc. Each time a community increases load (usually due to new development) or widens a
street, we must have access to the lines. Burying these lines would not be feasible and could be costly.

 The time frame for burying all lines within our service territory would be more than 20 years.

OG&E Estimates a cost of between $80 and 260 per bill for the next 30 years as needed to retire the cost of burying their lines.

The study found that the cost for converting from overhead to underground lines would be a minimum of
$435,000 per mile. With a 30,000 square mile territory, our cost to bury the lines would be $30.5 billion to
bury all our distribution lines and $27 billion to bury our transmission lines in Oklahoma.

 With the high cost to bury lines, the impact to an average residential customer’s bill would be an increase of
$80 to $260 per month for a 30-year time period.

 Even without the cost issue, we couldn’t bury the main feeder “backbone” lines (the ones you see along roads
and highways). That’s because conditions are constantly changing –the amount of load on the lines, positions
on the streets, etc. Each time a community increases load (usually due to new development) or widens a
street, we must have access to the lines. Burying these lines would not be feasible and could be costly.

 The time frame for burying all lines within our service territory would be more than 20 years.

That's all from OG&E. Wonder what an independent analysis (or the costs of a completed project in another city with similar parameters) would come up with?

That's all from OG&E. Wonder what an independent analysis (or the costs of a completed project in another city with similar parameters) would come up with?

Do you think OG&E is lying? Why would you question their numbers?

Do you think OG&E is lying? Why would you question their numbers?

Because they're OG&E and their history isn't exactly stellar WRT rate increases and modernization. Of course, the same could be said about almost any electric company (although at least OG&E isn't as bad as ComEd (12 years of personal experience with them) or PG&E).

. . .maybe time to look into a whole house generator. . . .

OGE is being generous in that estimate, after change orders it would easily double.

Think how complex and delay ridden project 180 was because every time they opened up a new section there was mountains of complications. This is that except city wide.

It's super easy to get mad and type out BURY POWER LINES, the actual work it takes is a completely different story.

Name another city that has gone in and buried their electric grid after it was already above ground. Or a state, or country; it just hasn’t happened.
Nice strawman. Once again I have to state for the 10,000th time, no one is suggesting we tear up every street at once and bury the entire grid. That is absurd.

OGE is being generous in that estimate, after change orders it would easily double.

Think how complex and delay ridden project 180 was because every time they opened up a new section there was mountains of complications. This is that except city wide.

It's super easy to get mad and type out BURY POWER LINES, the actual work it takes is a completely different story.
It’s also super easy to have a knee jerk reaction to someone suggesting we bury the power and constantly scream we can’t do it because it’s too expensive while other cities and countries are able to.

OG&E Estimates a cost of between $80 and 260 per bill for the next 30 years as needed to retire the cost of burying their lines.

The study found that the cost for converting from overhead to underground lines would be a minimum of
$435,000 per mile. With a 30,000 square mile territory, our cost to bury the lines would be $30.5 billion to
bury all our distribution lines and $27 billion to bury our transmission lines in Oklahoma.

 With the high cost to bury lines, the impact to an average residential customer’s bill would be an increase of
$80 to $260 per month for a 30-year time period.

 Even without the cost issue, we couldn’t bury the main feeder “backbone” lines (the ones you see along roads
and highways). That’s because conditions are constantly changing –the amount of load on the lines, positions
on the streets, etc. Each time a community increases load (usually due to new development) or widens a
street, we must have access to the lines. Burying these lines would not be feasible and could be costly.

 The time frame for burying all lines within our service territory would be more than 20 years.
You ought to contact OG&E and see if they want to hire a PR assistant. I’d like to know how they came up with numbers and what plan they based the rate increases off of. It’s so easy to scare people with a ridiculous rate increase that would only be the case if they proposed rebuilding the entire grid at once or in a very short amount of time.

For the 10001th time, what you, gopokes, and Buffalo bill are so conveniently leaving out every time you respond and say it can’t be done because of costs is what me and likely anyone else proposing this is suggesting we plan long term to have them burying- not all at once. I don’t know why I have to constantly repeat this over and over. It’s like some people want them to be above ground are making any excuses they can.

Planning for roughly 40-60 percent of the grid to be buried over a 30-40 year period doesn’t seem unreasonable. There are federal grants, subsidies, development impact fees that developers can pool into with new construction requiring arterial roads with above utilities to be widened. Roads that need to be reconstructed over the course of the next several decades etc. that would account for a sizable portion of the grid right there.

It never ceases to amaze me how resistant Oklahoma’s are to big, bold, and complex projects. I will be happy to provide a list of many reconstruction projects that include burying utility lines as part of it when I get back to town and have access to a desktop computer.

Nice strawman. Once again I have to state for the 10,000th time, no one is suggesting we tear up every street at once and bury the entire grid. That is absurd.


This wasn't you post:

Bury the power lines

That is all.

Really though, this is a good article. Even if the price tag came out to be 30 billion, it'd be worth it, imo. It can be done in phases.

This wasn't you post:

Bury the power lines

That is all.

Really though, this is a good article. Even if the price tag came out to be 30 billion, it'd be worth it, imo. It can be done in phases.
You really seem delusional at times and perhaps I was wrong about you being a troll. If you read this thread it won’t take you very long to see just how many times I have specifically stated I am NOT proposing it be done all at once and instead over a number of years to lessen the cost burden. It’s there Rusty, you just have to turn your blinders off my man.

You really seem delusional at times and perhaps I was wrong about you being a troll. If you read this thread it won’t take you very long to see just how many times I have specifically stated I am NOT proposing it be done all at once and instead over a number of years to lessen the cost burden. It’s there Rusty, you just have to turn your blinders off my man.

I generally have you on ignore, so I might have missed five pages of posts. However, you did say that "Even if the price tag came out to be 30 billion, it'd be worth it,"?


Do you have any idea of how much money $30 Billion is?

OG&E has 858,000 customers
$30 Billion divided by 858,000 is $34,965.03 per.

Do you want to write a check for $35,000 so they can bury the lines?

So we don't do it all at once -- lets just tack it onto the bill -- say we take 20 years to do it --

35000/20= 1750/12= $145.83

Do you want to pay an extra $143.83 per month for the next twenty years so you can have your lines buried?

Buried lines have a tendency to break occasionally and are effected by flooding and lightning. The cost to cure power outages with underground lines is also quite a bit more expensive that above ground lines. So besides the cost, there is little benefit to having lines buried.

Of course, $30 Billion today will be $50 Billion over 20 years. so add another $100 per month to that bill.

Why didn't you do a little research before starting this thread? You could have save everyone time. You suggestion is ludicrous.

Rusty, I’m not going to keep around in circles. You keep mentioning the 30 billion dollar number and making irrelevant arguments around it. Just drop it.

It's fine, Plutonic. We all stopped taking you seriously like 8 posts ago. You're clearly ignorant on the issue.

Rusty, I’m not going to keep around in circles. You keep mentioning the 30 billion dollar number and making irrelevant arguments around it. Just drop it.

"I don't have an answer so I'm going to say you make irrelevant arguments." Just drop it.

It's amusing that you are so predictable.

Yet here you are responding to me just to make an insult. Rusty, did you make a second account?

"I don't have an answer so I'm going to say you make irrelevant arguments." Just drop it.

It's amusing that you are so predictable.I already have answered and I’m not going to repeat myself over and over.

I already have answered and I’m not going to repeat myself over and over.

So are you just proposing they do it over, what, 50 years instead? Give a reasonable answer, and people might respond reasonably, lol.

since so many on here seem to have a lot of number. i have a real legit question... does anyone know how much OG&E spends annually on Vegetation Management?

So are you just proposing they do it over, what, 50 years instead? Give a reasonable answer, and people might respond reasonably, lol.
There’s this crazy concept called long-term planning it’s something that isn’t a strong point in mini Oklahoma towns and communities.

So what is reasonable to you doing it all at once and raising peoples bills by 800 per month? Or perhaps the only right answer is that we just can’t do it leave it as is and watch other communities and cities do it and continue to tell ourselves lies that we just don’t have what it takes.

Take me seriously or don’t, it makes no difference to me. I’ll continue writing to representatives, OGE, making my opinion known, and advocating for what I believe will make OKC and Oklahoma a better community and more attractive.

Seems like another non-answer, par for the course.

Seems like another non-answer, par for the course.

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41500&p=1145968#post1145968

Why don’t we put power lines underground?

Many municipalities opt instead for directional drilling. Adapted from an old oil and gas technique, directional drilling is a less invasive—but more expensive—option for undergrounding utilities. From a fixed point, installers can drive a pipe through a carefully-plotted, miles-long subterranean channel without disrupting street-level activities.

In either case, the wires hanging above aren't ready for life underground without some modifications, the most important of which is insulation. Electricity wires are, by their nature, very warm, as they’re channeling currents to and fro. In the open air, this heat can dissipate, but deep in the soil it can’t. That’s why utilities wrapped their underground wires in plastic and surround them with a conduit like oil to keep things from overheating.

While that may sound simple—anyone with a backhoe could do it!—it's not. Depending on the density of the local population and the terrain, undergrounding can cost billions of dollars. As Kury wrote in a piece for The Conversation last fall, many communities have factored out the expenses of undergrounding and decided that it wasn't worth the price. In North Carolina, for example, the approximately 25-year-long process of undergrounding the entire state's utilities would raise electricity prices by 125 percent. Most of the state's power still hangs overhead. Even Washington, D.C., which has made the decision to underground a portion of its utility wires, is expected to cost $1 billion and raise rates.

That’s not the only cost, either. Repairing underground systems is often more expensive than repairing those suspended in the air. “When the power goes out, there are two obstacles that [utility] faces before they can fix the line," Kury says. "One, identification of the fault, and then two, access to the line." While smart grid technology is making identification easier—devices could tell the utility exactly where in the system a given disruption lies—access to underground systems is hindered. Repairs often require disruptive digging, which is only made more difficult by frozen soils in a blizzard or floodwaters that often follow hurricane-force winds.

Ultimately, neither system can protect power in every situation. During Hurricane Sandy, which slammed into the northeast in 2012, underground electrical equipment was flooded and aboveground utility poles were downed. "It's nearly impossible to protect the electricity grid from damage," Kury says.

https://www.popsci.com/why-dont-we-put-power-lines-underground/

Why don’t we put power lines underground?

Many municipalities opt instead for directional drilling. Adapted from an old oil and gas technique, directional drilling is a less invasive—but more expensive—option for undergrounding utilities. From a fixed point, installers can drive a pipe through a carefully-plotted, miles-long subterranean channel without disrupting street-level activities.

In either case, the wires hanging above aren't ready for life underground without some modifications, the most important of which is insulation. Electricity wires are, by their nature, very warm, as they’re channeling currents to and fro. In the open air, this heat can dissipate, but deep in the soil it can’t. That’s why utilities wrapped their underground wires in plastic and surround them with a conduit like oil to keep things from overheating.

While that may sound simple—anyone with a backhoe could do it!—it's not. Depending on the density of the local population and the terrain, undergrounding can cost billions of dollars. As Kury wrote in a piece for The Conversation last fall, many communities have factored out the expenses of undergrounding and decided that it wasn't worth the price. In North Carolina, for example, the approximately 25-year-long process of undergrounding the entire state's utilities would raise electricity prices by 125 percent. Most of the state's power still hangs overhead. Even Washington, D.C., which has made the decision to underground a portion of its utility wires, is expected to cost $1 billion and raise rates.

That’s not the only cost, either. Repairing underground systems is often more expensive than repairing those suspended in the air. “When the power goes out, there are two obstacles that [utility] faces before they can fix the line," Kury says. "One, identification of the fault, and then two, access to the line." While smart grid technology is making identification easier—devices could tell the utility exactly where in the system a given disruption lies—access to underground systems is hindered. Repairs often require disruptive digging, which is only made more difficult by frozen soils in a blizzard or floodwaters that often follow hurricane-force winds.

Ultimately, neither system can protect power in every situation. During Hurricane Sandy, which slammed into the northeast in 2012, underground electrical equipment was flooded and aboveground utility poles were downed. "It's nearly impossible to protect the electricity grid from damage," Kury says.

https://www.popsci.com/why-dont-we-put-power-lines-underground/

Sure I’ve got articles that support burying powerlines too

“ Most of Europe and many utilities in the United States, including the local telephone company in my second home in the Sierra foothills of Madera County, have buried their lines in the ground. ”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-camp-fire-electric-lines-20190517-story.html?_amp=true

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/amp/Put-PG-E-s-power-lines-underground-It-can-be-14565060.php

Yet another example of community doing what many claim can’t be done in Oklahoma

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-beach-neighborhood-will-bury-power-utilities/amp/

Sorry, forgot that you always have to have the last post. Have at it. Try to make it less pointless than usual.

Sorry, forgot that you always have to have the last post. Have at it. Try to make it less pointless than usual.
So no response to address my post like an adult and more ad hominem. Cool.

don't know if my post got seen in the back and forth. does anyone have an idea how much OG&E spends annually on Vegetation Management?

So no response to address my post like an adult and more ad hominem. Cool.

I should respond to your post like an adult when you act like a petulant child?

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you bitch and bellyache, there will be no underground burial of existing power lines in the foreseeable future in Oklahoma City.

The other fact is that you are tiresome and irrelevant.

You know what man I’m done sitting here having you call me names and resort to juvenile tactics in an attempt to make a point I have better things to do with my day

don't know if my post got seen in the back and forth. does anyone have an idea how much OG&E spends annually on Vegetation Management?

It does not appear that they break out the Vegetation Management costs In their annual report.

Dp

don't know if my post got seen in the back and forth. does anyone have an idea how much OG&E spends annually on Vegetation Management?

This PDF has some numbers from the 2009-2012 time frame.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj-6Lnj2oDtAhWFW80KHXz3DjQQFjACegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fogeenergy.gcs-web.com%2Fstatic-files%2Fdf0d1427-eedc-423b-94eb-ef08d4eb86e3&usg=AOvVaw2_p80SEbVn9MivWmSFWPCg

This PDF has some numbers from the 2009-2012 time frame.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj-6Lnj2oDtAhWFW80KHXz3DjQQFjACegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fogeenergy.gcs-web.com%2Fstatic-files%2Fdf0d1427-eedc-423b-94eb-ef08d4eb86e3&usg=AOvVaw2_p80SEbVn9MivWmSFWPCg

ok thanks. so going on the high end, lets say it's $15 million per year (which is really on the high end of what we saw from 2009-12... so even if you try to include the cost savings by significant reduction of vegetation management, it would still take a long time to see an ROI on that investment. however, it does mean that if a city were to pay for it through a tax, or something, that this would probably be used as a way of mitigating the actual cost that a city would pay. so lets say that since OKC is the largest concentration of OG&E users. that the estimates are that it would save OG&E $6 million per year in their Vegetation Management Budget by removing OKC from needing this with buried lines. if the time for project and repayment is say 10 years. it would take $60 million off of what they city would be offering, stating that would be a cost neutral part of the OG&E investment. while that sounds like a lot of money, and it is a decent chunk, it really isn't when we talk about the total overall cost. But i do think it is something to consider and think about. that was just the first thing off the top of my head that i could think of on the Money offset side by OG&E. if anyone knows of any others, i would be interested to know what those mitigating cost savings would be.

i still think that if this is something that OKC really wanted to try and do, the next MAPS, or a specific tax just for it, would be the only way to go. and perhaps even then you do it by areas of most importance (as probably determined by the city), and do it is a phased approach. also make it a requirement in all new construction, if it isn't already.

But it would be a massive massive undertaking, and if the cost difference for replacement truly is that great, it would take decades to see an ROI. I will somewhat agree with others that it is hard to trust the exact costs coming from the company that wouldn't want to do it in the first place.... so i think the first thing would be an independent source brought in by the city (or the state if that is what we are talking about) and to get an independent review and advice.

Name another city that has gone in and buried their electric grid after it was already above ground. Or a state, or country; it just hasn’t happened.

Washington D.C. is currently in the process.

So, who is without power again this evening? (raises hand) :mad:

Did anyone get the offer from OG&E for ‘insurance’ for the next outage? Just $6.00 a month. And for what? Wow, a week after the loss of power and they are slamming people to raise money.

So, who is without power again this evening? (raises hand) :mad:

I've had a few flickers and one 2-second outage tonight so far.

There are multiple ways to fund it and leverage funds. I’m very skeptical about the 30 billion number being thrown around and I’d really be interested in how they came to that.

My guess would be OG&E entirely self funds the project and does it all once. But it doesn’t have to happen that way.

Sure I’ve got articles that support burying powerlines too

“ Most of Europe and many utilities in the United States, including the local telephone company in my second home in the Sierra foothills of Madera County, have buried their lines in the ground. ”

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-camp-fire-electric-lines-20190517-story.html?_amp=true

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/amp/Put-PG-E-s-power-lines-underground-It-can-be-14565060.php

Yet another example of community doing what many claim can’t be done in Oklahoma

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-beach-neighborhood-will-bury-power-utilities/amp/

From the Manhattan Beach article, 167 properties, a little over $42k per residence. Sounds like something everyone can get on board with.

From the Manhattan Beach article, 167 properties, a little over $42k per residence. Sounds like something everyone can get on board with.
Doesn’t mean it will be that way in OKC. Manhattan Beach is a very dense city compared to most of OKC. People here asked for examples as they doubted any existed and myself and a couple other posters provided them.

Seems to me that the cost is the cost, regardless of how it is paid. If it is $100 a month for each electric ratepayer household on their electric bill, then the monthly MAPS tax is going to around $100 for each household. I see how a tax covers up the heartburn of the cost, I just don’t see how it reduces it?

If Vegetation Management is eliminated, I think it is going to be accurate that buried line maintenance is going to be as (and probably more) expensive than the savings on tree trimming costs.

Telephone and communications lines are much easier to bury IMO, because they don’t have the risk of electrocution and heat generation that electric lines do.

reported 20k without power last night in the metro, so of the same people who lost power for over 10 days a few weeks ago,

I guess that goes against Rusty's claim that you only lose power once a decade.....

Lots of Rusty claims are pretty questionable. But I’m sure he’ll be here in no time to call me names and explain why his intellect is superior. People like GoPokes have credibility more so than I obviously here as they work in the industry but those like Rusty just want to scream and shout making baseless claims like the do about everything else.

Seems to me that the cost is the cost, regardless of how it is paid. If it is $100 a month for each electric ratepayer household on their electric bill, then the monthly MAPS tax is going to around $100 for each household. I see how a tax covers up the heartburn of the cost, I just don’t see how it reduces it?

If Vegetation Management is eliminated, I think it is going to be accurate that buried line maintenance is going to be as (and probably more) expensive than the savings on tree trimming costs.

Telephone and communications lines are much easier to bury IMO, because they don’t have the risk of electrocution and heat generation that electric lines do.
Dob, that again assumes a plan of action to immediately embark on replacing all lines.

I’d like to know what the true cost would be if we had a plan along the lines of this:

*a long term plan to coordinate to bury 40-70 percent of all utility lines over the course of 30-40 years

*work with the federal government to leverage funding when and where possible to reduce the amount of local funding required

*identify other possible revenue like sales taxes, hotel taxes, allowing cities to come up with other locally generated taxes, in conjunction with a modest and reasonable rate increase which shouldn’t be anywhere close to $700 a month

*per long term planning, work with developers utilizing development impact fees requiring all new build to have buried electric lines which would also include major arterials adjacent to the construction site that are required to be widened as a result of construction

*work with local cities and state agencies that build new roads and freeways to bury utility lines as part of the overall project

*also work with those same entities to bury utility lines during major reconstruction projects

When I say reconstruction I’m not referring to a simply asphalt overlay of the road, I’m referring to major projects like rebuilding Wilshire through the village, or covell through Edmond. Those utility lines should have been buried and instead they were simply moved remaining above ground. There has to be a cost savings doing it in conjunction with major construction projects.

I just can’t understand why this is so taboo for some and why having proposed all of this the 30 billion/rates going up 700/month number is shoved down people’s throats.

Somehow other cities are able to do it and even if it’s not a citywide thing they still do it on many local street projects which you almost never see in the metro.

I’d really like to know a true number and rate increase aligning with my proposal versus some unrealistic one like doing it all at once.

I don't think you'd like the true number because I bet what's been said before is a minimum.

Whether it's all done at once and paid for over 40 years or done over 40 years is six of one/half dozen of the other. Except that the parts done later will cost even more because everything will cost more in the future.

No matter whether OG&E pays and then gets repaid through rate increases or some combination of local and federal taxes pay for it guess what? That means we are paying for it!

We don’t even have a number because one hasn’t been given in this context. So far not a single person can even explain what the 30 billion dollar number entails.

I think it’s you that wouldn’t like the number because it wouldn’t be as scary as it’s been made to be and would likely be feasible. Yeah, inflation is a thing, but so is lessening the cost burden which means not doing it all at once.

Of course we’re all paying for it but the fact the costs could be spread out not only over time but through different sources eases the cost burden and that’s what would make an endeavor like this happen. No way would I support ripping out the entire grid at once and burying it. It wouldn’t make sense.

There's been at least one example of what it cost residents of a municipality to bury lines and one estimate by someone who's in the business. You just like to conveniently talk a lot then end every post with "I'm not saying do it all at once". Even though some other posts you were responding to didn't suggest doing it all at once.

I’ve also posted articles that contest what’s been said here. We also have multiple elected officials who have thought this could be done. But screw all the examples of where it’s been done and others who say it can just listen to a couple people who say it can’t be done.

Elected officials love to tell people what they want to hear. They have no idea what their talking about in this case until they have months of research done and are told what to think. I doubt any of them have a background in utility installations. And go on only paying attention to articles that back up your viewpoint while completely ignoring everything else. And thinking if you divide costs enough ways it doesn't cost us as much.

Okay Bill, it can’t be done even though other places have done it. I get it. I’ve read other viewpoints on this issue. You just have a defeatist mentality and it’s pretty representative of Oklahoma as a whole.

It can be done. One day it will. And the state will be better because of it.

One of your articles says it cost P&G 2.3 million per mile to bury lines. OG&E has over 55,000 miles of distribution lines. Let's say one third of that is still overhead. 2.3 x 18,333 is 42,166 million or 42 billion. That's using a number you provided.