Bury the power lines

[RustytheBailiff]

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-p...s-underground/

[RustytheBailiff]

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-p...s-underground/

[Plutonic Panda]

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/read...html?_amp=true

https://www.sfchronicle.com/californ...e-14565060.php

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

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/...utilities/amp/

[RustytheBailiff]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[jedicurt]

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?

[RustytheBailiff]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[RustytheBailiff]

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.

[RustytheBailiff]

Dp

[TheTravellers]

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=...Vn9MivWmSFWPCg

[jedicurt]

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

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Vn9MivWmSFWPCg

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.

[Midtowner]

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.

[YeahIKnow]

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

[Mott]

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.

[MadMonk]

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

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Buffalo Bill]

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/read...html?_amp=true

https://www.sfchronicle.com/californ...e-14565060.php

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

https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/...utilities/amp/

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Dob Hooligan]

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.

[OKCretro]

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.....

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bill Robertson]

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!

[Plutonic Panda]

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.