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.
Once again, Bill, that’s assuming that OG&E eats all of the cost and it’s done all at once. Putting it into that type of perspective makes zero sense.

Assuming we went that route, that’s in a different state with some of the strictest regulations in the country with different soil and elevation changes. Yet given all of that, there are very serious talks about doing it out here even in RURAL areas. Yet Oklahoma can’t do it because Oklahoma. Lol

One. I never once mention doing it all at once so drop that argument. It will cost what it costs no matter how spread out.
Two. You keep touting how you posted articles so I actually read them and used information from within.
You keep arguing a point I'm not making and can't even live with data you provided.

One. I never once mention doing it all at once so drop that argument. It will cost what it costs no matter how spread out.
Two. You keep touting how you posted articles so I actually read them and used information from within.
You keep arguing a point I'm not making and can't even live with data you provided.
Not true at all. You keep using the 30 billion/rates being raised by 700 a month number with no insight on how that number was even formulated.

Otherwise you have no number to go off of and you’re not making a sound argument against anything other than running around in circles screaming for no reason. Yes it will cost money and time. That’s all infrastructure.

People asked for examples of proposals and actual work being done in this context and I provided them. Other posted provided such examples of cities that are doing it or already have done so. Now you can’t say it can’t be done anymore only to attempt to nitpick the articles and show why it can be done there but not here.

Once again, this isn’t about doing it all at once. The article you quoted was from an example of a prosaic in California, a state with some of the strictest regulations, highest infrastructure costs, most challenging terrain, and highest population to that that is relatively flat, low sprawled out population, and has some of the loosest regulations. I don’t need to stand by that data because I didn’t provide it to compare to Oklahoma as it’s not an apples to apples comparison and likely won’t be similar to real data provided here. That’s a borderline strawman argument as I never made such a claim.

The purpose of those articles(and I have many more) were to provide examples of it being to refute the claim it can’t be done here because of the cost which again comes from a ridiculous number with no context provided.

Bill, do you have any data showing how OG&E got to the 30 billion number and raising rates to 700/month? I know you don’t or I would think you would have posted it by now. I want to see a real proposed plan which I bet you very little real thought was put into that number other than taking an average cost of burying lines and adding up the mileage and assuming it all be done at once and self funded.

If based infrastructure solely on user feed do you realize how insanely expensive tolls on freeways would be? How much a bus or train ticket would really cost?

Please go find any post I made stating that the only options is to do it all at once or that any certain numbers would be involved in rate increases. I'll wait.

No need to wait. Hell would freeze over first. You just go on and on without doing anything but rehashing arguments. Many of which were never made. Probably because you really don't have anything to stand on.

You have posted the 30 billion provided by OG&E multiple times which is directly to a claim on that same report where it originated from saying a $700 per month would come along with it. You are playing smoke and mirrors logic here.

Bill, as a refresher, what is your opinion of the power lines? Why do you keep arguing against any post made to bury them? Just the cost? You like seeing them above ground? It’s fine to just leave them as is? What is your position?

You have posted the 30 billion provided by OG&E multiple times which is directly to a claim on that same report where it originated from saying a $700 per month would come along with it. You are playing smoke and mirrors logic here.

Bill, as a refresher, what is your opinion of the power lines? Why do you keep arguing against any post made to bury them? Just the cost? You like seeing them above ground? It’s fine to just leave them as is? What is your position?
Again. Go find where I posted that OG&E figure. I have made some posts saying it's probably at the very least valid and have used actual data, provided by you, to back it up. Even if you lower the P&G numbers 25% we're still at 30 billion. You are the one doing smoke and mirrors.
And I hate overhead lines. They are ugly, susceptible to all kinds of severe weather. I would love to see them gone. But I have lost of other dreams like a cure for cancer, flying cars, time travel, etc. And all of those are probably as likely to happen as Oklahoma burying power lines in a meaningful way. Notice I said probably. It could happen but I doubt it very seriously.

Again. Go find where I posted that OG&E figure. I have made some posts saying it's probably at the very least valid and have used actual data, provided by you, to back it up. Even if you lower the P&G numbers 25% we're still at 30 billion. You are the one doing smoke and mirrors.
And I hate overhead lines. They are ugly, susceptible to all kinds of severe weather. I would love to see them gone. But I have lost of other dreams like a cure for cancer, flying cars, time travel, etc. And all of those are probably as likely to happen as Oklahoma burying power lines in a meaningful way. Notice I said probably. It could happen but I doubt it very seriously.
Okay I went back and glanced through and couldn’t find any post where you said that so my bad. I must have confused you with someone else. So what is your objective to this then? How are you basing the costs of burying them and what is your issue with my proposal spreading it out over the course of decades and lessening the cost burden? It’s something that would not only improve the quality of life in the city by reducing the chances of widespread power outages but beautify the city in a big way which beautification has been shown time and time again to increase a city’s attractiveness to new business and investment.

The only issue is costs.

Now when it comes to things like flying cars, time travel, and curing cancer there are different issues in why those things don’t currently exists. On some level you could argue cures for cancer exists with a real cure not being a matter of if but when. Time travel has its own issues being since the Big Bang time has only ever moved forward as far as we know and while theoretically it could be possible to travel forward in time many physicists disagree it will ever be possible to travel backwards. The technology to do that may not ever exist.

As far as flying cars, while I believe transit by air will certainly become a bigger player in intercity transit in mega cities down the line, it has its issues ever becoming like something out of the jetsons and Neil Tyson explains it perfectly here:


https://youtu.be/hdAQefnZsLk

I’m happy to report Neil, like myself shares an intense passion for elevators and having an understanding how just how much of a difference adding a third dimension really gives insight on such matters.

Yes. Cost is the major factor. In the real world where tax and rate payers are concerned with how much we're paying for things cost is a major factor.
I'm basing the cost of burying lines on a figure per mile by gopokes88, who is in the business, and a figure your article about P&G provided. Again you're bringing up old arguments again and again with no data basis on your end.

While gopokes is certainly ones opinion to take seriously on this issue as I’ve said before, him being in the business doesn’t mean his word is the one to believe alone and certainly his opinion that it isn’t worth it doesn’t have to be contested by someone else in the business less it hold any merit.

I believe I’ve made great points and again the articles I provided were in response to those here claiming examples didn’t exist and to provide them and that I did. The figure in the article I provided makes no sense to apply in a state like Oklahoma.

We’ve gone around in circles enough. I’ll agree to disagree that we simply have different goals for what should be done and how money should be spent. Time travel while being a nice investment for tourism is a little bit different than a public works project and not something I’d bet on happening before the lines are buried.

I'm done. Again you provide nothing but going in circles with no supporting data at all. I wish you were my age and had been an opponent when I was a debate team geek in school. You're type of unsubstantiated arguments were eaten for lunch.

Ultimately what OG&E needs to do is spend a little money to identify the cost/cost savings for groups of customers, and break that cost down between the different types of lines that might need to be buried.

Specifically OG&E needs to break down the cost for the city of Oklahoma City alone, and even Oklahoma City broken down into targeted areas. Then targeted areas need to have meetings etc. to determine if there is a real path forward vis-a-vis cost.

The reality is nothing about OG&E's costs can be priced in "cost per square mile" if we're computing over their entire service area. Costs/cost savings in Downtown OKC and Watonga are going to be quite disparate, so OG&E putting out figures of the cost to bury their entire network is disingenuous at best and socially irresponsible at worst.

Teo, that is more or less my point about being so vocal in speaking out against those who are quick to make claims it’s unaffordable and can’t/won’t happen.

Maybe my debate skills need some work or perhaps I simply am not properly articulating my position on this issue. I would be more than thrilled to just see it happen on some major thoroughfares like Shields or Second Street in Edmond.

I’d start off with some pilot projects to try and gauge costs going forward. Work with communities who are willing to pool a little money together sort of like the RTA tax and work on a certain corridor.

Work with neighborhoods and offer certain rebates that are attractive to people.

Edmond has a great opportunity to do this with covell.

Sort of an echo of what others are saying, but I can't stand that the reaction to burying the lines is always ZOMG IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE!

Look OKC needs sidewalks. Building them everywhere is insanely expensive. But the city has focused on where they will do the most good and started there, while simultaneously adding them where major ongoing street work is happening, and also coupling this all with an incentive plan to encourage private homeowners to build sidewalks in front of their property.

Seems pretty obvious that a similar multi-tiered approach could do a lot of good, while leaving the vast majority of the lines unburied. (1) focus on major points of weakness in the system, (2) begin burying lines with new construction, and (3) encourage homeowners to have their own service lines buried perhaps through a cost-sharing initiative of some kind.

A significant increase in bills will result in diminishing returns. Solar will look a lot better.

I was reading a bit into the Boring Company, one of Elon Musk's ventures. They claim to be able to fairly quickly build tunnels at a cost of $10MM per mile. While that's probably not feasible as far as connecting power to residences, if they ran tunnels under all the section lines of the city, that'd be a pretty powerful/safe method to distribute water, sewer, gas, electric and whatever. There'd be plenty of room for everything.

Sort of an echo of what others are saying, but I can't stand that the reaction to burying the lines is always ZOMG IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE!

Look OKC needs sidewalks. Building them everywhere is insanely expensive. But the city has focused on where they will do the most good and started there, while simultaneously adding them where major ongoing street work is happening, and also coupling this all with an incentive plan to encourage private homeowners to build sidewalks in front of their property.

Seems pretty obvious that a similar multi-tiered approach could do a lot of good, while leaving the vast majority of the lines unburied. (1) focus on major points of weakness in the system, (2) begin burying lines with new construction, and (3) encourage homeowners to have their own service lines buried perhaps through a cost-sharing initiative of some kind.
+1000

there's a pretty wide margin between doing nothing about the problem and burying every line. it would likely be pretty easy to build a map highlighting areas with the greatest need for investment. Start there. I don't think anyone seriously thinks every single line can or needs to be buried. But something is better than nothing. Anything averages better than a 0.

there's a pretty wide margin between doing nothing about the problem and burying every line. it would likely be pretty easy to build a map highlighting areas with the greatest need for investment. Start there. I don't think anyone seriously thinks every single line can or needs to be buried. But something is better than nothing. Anything averages better than a 0.

I completely agree. But OG&E likes to talk about it like it is an all or nothign proposition, and they do this, obviously, so they don't have to do anything at all.

OG&E talked about burying lines today with the City Council. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/OKC_SPAN/status/1331296351213264899?s=20

OG&E talked about burying lines today with the City Council. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/OKC_SPAN/status/1331296351213264899?s=20

Looks like they continued to talk about all or nothing.

I watched the live feed. They actually did talk about starting with burying distribution. But really not much was accomplished in today's meeting. They gave themselves a B rating for storm response and mostly talked about how good they were in response to councilor questions. They mentioned another meeting forthcoming where it sounded like more meat could be covered, hopefully someone can report on that meeting.

OG&E talked about burying lines today with the City Council. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/OKC_SPAN/status/1331296351213264899?s=20

Soooooo glad Cooper's my councillor (for multiple reasons) and not that complete a**hat and ignorant fool Greiner.

I think the best bang for the buck would be investing in homeowners to bury the lines from their meter to the main power network. Those small individual jobs add a ton of man-hours for little overall benefit. for example, if it takes a 2 man crew an hour per house, they may only restore service to several homes in a day. Where if those lines are buried but the distribution line on that street has been compromised, that 2 man crew may spend 16 man-hours to restore service to an entire street instead of 10 houses.

That is where the all or nothing estimates are not taking into account. Every line that is buried is one less line for a worker to potential service during an ice storm or high wind event. That frees them up to work in another area. A $200 million investment would likely not even scratch the surface on the entire grid, but it is still fewer potential outages which will directly improve response times in other areas. It's about reducing the footprint required by a finite number of crews. Even a focused approach on one area would allow other areas to receive a more concentrated number of line workers, which would be more efficient and also likely lead to faster service restoration times.

Throw all the OGE exec's in the trench when y'all get around to burying them power lines!

As someone who has built 1000s of miles of power-line this thread is painful

I'm not trying to be smart-aleck, but it seems to me that since OGE is a ratepayer funded company and it's infrastructure is approved and controlled by the elected Oklahoma Corporation Commission then we should be able to get the lines buried. If enough people demand it and also show the true cost associated, wouldn't the Corporation Commission A. study it and then B. direct it's implementation?

Throw all the OGE exec's in the trench when y'all get around to burying them power lines!
https://www1.salary.com/OGE-ENERGY-CORP-Executive-Salaries.html

As someone who has built 1000s of miles of power-line this thread is painful

What is unique to Oklahoma City that hundreds of other cities don't have?

What is wrong with a phased approach, or a targeted investment in areas that have consistent power outages?

the nearest power line to my house is a half mile away. my neighborhood (built in 1970) has all underground utilities. so do most in my city. why should Oklahomans still be living in 1960's power standards? i have never once worried about losing power. it doesn't even cross my mind.

What is unique to Oklahoma City that hundreds of other cities don't have?

What is wrong with a phased approach, or a targeted investment in areas that have consistent power outages?

the nearest power line to my house is a half mile away. my neighborhood (built in 1970) has all underground utilities. so do most in my city. why should Oklahomans still be living in 1960's power standards? i have never once worried about losing power. it doesn't even cross my mind.

i am on OEC and never even had power flickers during this last ice storm.

i am on OEC and never even had power flickers during this last ice storm.

I'm at NW 36th/May, lost power for a week because of the ice storm, power flickered dozens of time and lost power for 5-6 hours during the windy day a week or so ago, power flickered a bunch of times last night. Pathetic.

I'm at NW 36th/May, lost power for a week because of the ice storm, power flickered dozens of time and lost power for 5-6 hours during the windy day a week or so ago, power flickered a bunch of times last night. Pathetic.

yep. no issues through any of those. so my house became the defacto place for all of my friends and their families to come warm up and take showers.

i am on OEC and never even had power flickers during this last ice storm.

I live between 12th and 24th E. with OG&E power and lost power for 40 minutes total. My daughter out on 72nd lost her power for 2 1/2 days with OEC.

I live between 12th and 24th E. with OG&E power and lost power for 40 minutes total. My daughter out on 72nd lost her power for 2 1/2 days with OEC.

i'm across 35, near the hospital. and i can't remember the last time we lost power. been here for 10 years

I'm at NW 36th/May, lost power for a week because of the ice storm, power flickered dozens of time and lost power for 5-6 hours during the windy day a week or so ago, power flickered a bunch of times last night. Pathetic.

I was 15 days for the ice storm, flickered during the cold front last week, and went out for another 3.5 hours during the thundershowers yesterday morning. This is all standard Oklahoma weather and by no means severe (sans the ice storm). The grid is frayed and no one seems to have a good answer about why 30 mph winds knock out the power now.

I was 15 days for the ice storm, flickered during the cold front last week, and went out for another 3.5 hours during the thundershowers yesterday morning. This is all standard Oklahoma weather and by no means severe (sans the ice storm). The grid is frayed and no one seems to have a good answer about why 30 mph winds knock out the power now.

Yeah, that's what's ticking me off - OK has been windy and had ice storms for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and now, 20 years into the *21st* century, they can't keep the power on...

As someone who has built 1000s of miles of power-line this thread is painful

So how would you rate OG&E's response to the ice storm on an A-F scale? And how would you fix the problems with their grid going out so often?

I live between 12th and 24th E. with OG&E power and lost power for 40 minutes total. My daughter out on 72nd lost her power for 2 1/2 days with OEC.

I'm also between those two streets, but we were without power for about 12 hours. However, our entire neighborhood has buried lines, which means the culprit must have been a higher-level distribution line that feeds multiple neighborhoods. Those should be buried.

If a few people's lines go down, that sucks, but we shouldn't necessarily fret over it and spend public money on fixing that. But if a backbone line that feeds power to multiple neighborhoods is vulnerable, that needs to be addressed.

i'm across 35, near the hospital. and i can't remember the last time we lost power. been here for 10 years

Are your lines above or below ground?

Are your lines above or below ground?

Below

I'm also between those two streets, but we were without power for about 12 hours. However, our entire neighborhood has buried lines, which means the culprit must have been a higher-level distribution line that feeds multiple neighborhoods. Those should be buried.

If a few people's lines go down, that sucks, but we shouldn't necessarily fret over it and spend public money on fixing that. But if a backbone line that feeds power to multiple neighborhoods is vulnerable, that needs to be addressed.The flaw with this is if those individuals lines are down but the main circuit stays on you probably have live lines laying on the ground. Distribution lines would need to be buried before transmission lines. But the more distribution lines that wouldn't need repairs the faster transmission lines could be repaired.

As someone who has built 1000s of miles of power-line this thread is painful
I would prefer the opinion of someone who has built 1000s of miles of lines below ground to respond to this.

You so far like the others who have spoken against burying the lines haven’t answered perfectly valid questions asked here.

I would prefer the opinion of someone who has built 1000s of miles of lines below ground to respond to this.

You so far like the others who have spoken against burying the lines haven’t answered perfectly valid questions asked here.
You're not going to find that person here because it hasn't been done here. You could actually research places that have buried lines in existing city areas and contact govt and utilities officials there and get financial, timeline and whatever other data to show how they did it. I'm not against burying lines. I don't like having my power go out anymore than anyone else. I just don't think many people have even a small grasp of the magnitude of the work even doing it in phases.

You're not going to find that person here because it hasn't been done here. You could actually research places that have buried lines in existing city areas and contact govt and utilities officials there and get financial, timeline and whatever other data to show how they did it. I'm not against burying lines. I don't like having my power go out anymore than anyone else. I just don't think many people have even a small grasp of the magnitude of the work even doing it in phases.
Give it up. I’m not going to debate with you again. You run in circles and never address my points nor do you address many other perfectly valid points made here.

Give it up. I’m not going to debate with you again. You run in circles and never address my points nor do you address many other perfectly valid points made here.Nobody answers your questions to your satisfaction. That's why if you really want answers you need to go where people might be that can answer them. This is a very straightforward and valid suggestion.

You're not going to find that person here because it hasn't been done here. You could actually research places that have buried lines in existing city areas and contact govt and utilities officials there and get financial, timeline and whatever other data to show how they did it. I'm not against burying lines. I don't like having my power go out anymore than anyone else. I just don't think many people have even a small grasp of the magnitude of the work even doing it in phases.

Also, an actual lineman probably doesn't know much at all about the real cost to install anything. Paying the bills would be someone else's job.

Also, an actual lineman probably doesn't know much at all about the real cost to install anything. Paying the bills would be someone else's job.
True. Adds to my point that someone from elsewhere would have to be consulted to determine costs and timelines for burying lines.

Also, an actual lineman probably doesn't know much at all about the real cost to install anything. Paying the bills would be someone else's job.
This is great point and can’t be stressed enough. My first comment was mainly tongue in cheek by suggesting that we should take advice arbitrarily from linemen just because they work in the field. If that is the case, then certainly there are linemen out there who have buried lines and supports doing so.

WTF is wrong with these people? Not even $1 extra per month???

"However, only just over 50% of the phone survey participants stated they were willing to pay more than $1 a month to support undergrounding efforts, while only half of those indicated they would be willing to pay more than $2.50 monthly."

https://oklahoman.com/article/5677595/burying-power-lines-could-prevent-some-future-outages-but-the-astronomical-cost-might-be-too-much-to-bear

WTF is wrong with these people? Not even $1 extra per month???

"However, only just over 50% of the phone survey participants stated they were willing to pay more than $1 a month to support undergrounding efforts, while only half of those indicated they would be willing to pay more than $2.50 monthly."

https://oklahoman.com/article/5677595/burying-power-lines-could-prevent-some-future-outages-but-the-astronomical-cost-might-be-too-much-to-bear

i mean it shouldn't surprise you. it's the same reason our roads are awful are schools are falling apart, and no major businesses want to relocate here.

WTF is wrong with these people? Not even $1 extra per month???

"However, only just over 50% of the phone survey participants stated they were willing to pay more than $1 a month to support undergrounding efforts, while only half of those indicated they would be willing to pay more than $2.50 monthly."

https://oklahoman.com/article/5677595/burying-power-lines-could-prevent-some-future-outages-but-the-astronomical-cost-might-be-too-much-to-bear
If it could be done for a long term commitment of something like $1 per month for bills averaging up to $75 a month then climbing as average bills increase to say $10 per month for bills averaging $500 and over. I would jump all over it.

i mean it shouldn't surprise you. it's the same reason our roads are awful are schools are falling apart, and no major businesses want to relocate here.

Yeah, I guess, "the people" have been voting against improvements here for a looooong time, but one lousy dollar *a month*? Isn't that how much one cigarette costs nowadays?

If it could be done for a long term commitment of something like $1 per month for bills averaging up to $75 a month then climbing as average bills increase to say $10 per month for bills averaging $500 and over. I would jump all over it.

Personally, I'd easily pay $20 extra (or more) per month if it would actually result in it getting done, but then again, I'm at a good point in my life right now (for a while, I hope) and can afford it, but even if you're poor, it's just one damn dollar.....

It's the same people who opt out of the Emsacare in Edmond and then complain about the cost when they do need an ambulance.

Personally, I'd easily pay $20 extra (or more) per month if it would actually result in it getting done, but then again, I'm at a good point in my life right now (for a while, I hope) and can afford it, but even if you're poor, it's just one damn dollar.....
We're at that point and would pay more also. But my wife works with a lot of just barely getting by folks so I tend to think about that side of things too.

It's the same people who opt out of the Emsacare in Edmond and then complain about the cost when they do need an ambulance.

Kinda sorta, but not really. I'm sure a lot of people don't sign up for EMSAcare (or however it's capitalized) because they think "I'll never need it, why bother, and if I do, I'll just pay or my insurance company will", whereas money spent towards burying lines would (theoretically) be actually used to do something concrete that people would get a benefit from. But then people would probably *still* say "Well, if it doesn't benefit *me*, why should I have to pay extra?" Puts paid to the "Oklahoma Standard", which I don't think is actually as big of a thing as people think it is...

WTF is wrong with these people? Not even $1 extra per month???

"However, only just over 50% of the phone survey participants stated they were willing to pay more than $1 a month to support undergrounding efforts, while only half of those indicated they would be willing to pay more than $2.50 monthly."

https://oklahoman.com/article/5677595/burying-power-lines-could-prevent-some-future-outages-but-the-astronomical-cost-might-be-too-much-to-bear
I just hope OKC and Tulsa can really explode with growth & boom and get enough transplants to upset the typical cheap, small town mentality that plagues this state. It drives me nuts when I’m here to see the lack of investment and the cheap train many have decided to board.

The events that led to the rise of Devon Tower was arguably one of our biggest growth spurts in modern times (wasn't it like 3000 per month at one point?) and, well, here we are. I suspect it would take a growth rate many times higher than even that. Which I could maybe see if the movie/TV business truly took off here. But I'm not holding my breath.

The events that led to the rise of Devon Tower was arguably one of our biggest growth spurts in modern times (wasn't it like 3000 per month at one point?) and, well, here we are. I suspect it would take a growth rate many times higher than even that. Which I could maybe see if the movie/TV business truly took off here. But I'm not holding my breath.

To be sure the issue with power lines involves a large swath of Oklahoma as a state, which we know has a very different citizen than the average OKC citizen.

To your point though the oil business just doesn't overwhelmingly attract the kind of people who would be causes for change on that front, and that was a large part of the boom from 2005 to 2015.

Here's what I see happening: There are a number of people who have stayed in OKC over the last 15 years because of the improved quality of life owed largely to a citizen/self-imposed tax. These individuals tend, at the very least, to not be so conservative that they refuse anything that costs them more money going to govt or public entities. Because they didn't leave looking for a better quality of life they will continue to invest in the community and they will raise families that are more proud to call OKC their home.

This lack of loss (juxtaposed to the losses of the 90s/early 00s) will be combined with people coming up from the DFW area and other positive migration that will lead to a substantially different socio-political dynamic in 10-15 years. At that time, OKC along with some suburbs will begin to seek out grander QoL initiatives that cost constituents money but that the constituents will be willing to pay. A few of the suburbs in OKC and maybe some of the OKC outskirts will still be filled with constituents who stick to their rigid, "not even $1.00/month more" mindsets, but it will not have enough influence in OKC and it will cause the suburbs filled with that type of constituent to fall further behind OKC and more forward-thinking suburbs.

Tulsa gets it

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/new-pso-franchise-fee-agreement-on-tulsa-ballot-feb-8/article_9d818f88-46f8-11ec-9659-172862b3c5a3.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_tulsaworld

I'm wondering if OKC could just pass an ordinance that requires that when new lines are run, they have to be underground and that when a certain level of maintenance is done, that they also have to go underground? Say a storm comes through and knocks out power. They get the lines up but then it triggers a stopwatch for a time by which they have to burry those lines (obviously those lines were susceptible to the storm/ice).

Now the trick is, don't just pass that cost on to the customer like they try to do with everything else. I never understood how this isn't part of doing business and how they shouldn't just be planning for these things or taking out loans to do them without raising rates (which never then go down when the project is paid for).