Power delivery system questioned
By Jack Money
The Oklahoman
The Oklahoma Corporation Commission this morning praised utility companies for their efforts to restore power, but added it intends to undertake an evaluation of whether it would be beneficial to require electrical lines to be buried.

"We have had two storms of the century already this calendar year," Commissioner Jeff Cloud says. "Everybody is busy by doing what they need to do, and they are doing a great job in extremely difficult conditions.

"But we cannot be the only state with above-ground lines that faces ice storms, so we are going to get together and start comparing notes about how other states do this.

"This is about starting a discussion and doing some serious analysis about what the costs are, and what the positives are. One question we definitely will ask is whether burying lines would help us in storms like we are experiencing now."

Cloud said he has friends in areas where lines are buried who only marginally have been inconvenienced by this storm, and others in historic areas of the city who suffered through outages lasting 24 hours and longer.

"This is not meant to be a distraction. This is something we are looking at long term to hopefully address a major problem," he said.

Wow, is this true? Is Oklahoma the only state with above-ground lines that has potential for ice storms? I have long wondered why we haven't put it all below ground like so many other parts of the country are able to do. But the ONLY one with ice storm potential? If true, that's an embarrassment. Even if it's not 100% accurate, I agree with the commissioner's sentiment - it's time to turn the dirt and join the 21st century!

duh.

Why do we always wait until it happens to think about what we can do to prevent it? Really? We should compare notes and see what we can do? Really? wow. :doh:
Genius.

I love the part where it says we've already had two this year. Like we haven't ever had one before. Ever. It's Oklahoma! We have ice every single year. Maybe not this much but it's still a pain in the rear.

I agree - we're a little late.

Apparently, a consideration of actually banning above-ground lines has never been done before. At least the subject has been broached. The power of the energy lobby in this state is so powerful they have pretty much owned the joke known as the Corporation Commission. I would be surprised if it went anywhere unless OG&E, etc. thought it was in their best interests. But it needs to be discussed.

Our city mayor has mentioned this but adds that it is a decision to be made by the electric companies not the city. And then you will have the cost passed on to the consumer. So really I guess it comes down to how important is this to us as a community? Do we want higher electric bills every month to improve a few days or weeks a year?

My opinion is this - They will raise the rates anyway. Somebody is going to cover the expenses they are shelling out now for the manpower and overtime being used to clean up the mess. I say go for it. You all should just average your bills like I do. =) This way you pay the same amount regardless of what the cost is.

Yeah I'm not sure I understand...they always talk about how expensive it would be to bury them...but dang, you don't have to worry about power poles anymore then much less power lines themselves. It may not be good for little kids trying to dig their way to China though...

Yeah I'm not sure I understand...they always talk about how expensive it would be to bury them...but dang, you don't have to worry about power poles anymore then much less power lines themselves. It may not be good for little kids trying to dig their way to China though...

The talk about how expensive it would be is what, I think, confuses Commissioner Cloud. How can all the other states do it? If OG&E can't manage to update infrastructure and pull off the power-for-profit thing, sell it back to its rightful owners! I have always liked cities that own their power companies, as the goal is to provide power and meet costs - not to turn huge profits ala OG&E. Municipally owned power used to be the norm. Private power-for-profit creates just this kind of situation - "we can't afford it," means, "We can't afford it and still please our stockholders with big profits."

Honestly I can't tell you where the nearest power pole is to my house in Jacskonville. Except for the older parts of Jacksonville all of the powerlines are underground. It keeps them from falling down in hurricanes.

They touched upon this on one of the evening newscasts yesterday.

According to the report, OG&E has said that it would cost approximately $1 MILLION dollars per mile to bury existing lines, and that the electric rates would go up approximately $500-600 per customer, per year to help pay for it. (i'm not 100% sure if that per cust, per year figure is accurate....my memory is slowing fading...lol)

...and here comes the excuses of why every place in America can do it but Oklahoma can't. Reminds back when Oklahoma still had laminated drivers licenses when everyone else had credit card style ones and the person in charge said they were waiting to see if the new style work in other states first. I think Oklahoma was the last state with laminated licenses.

I suppose OG&E is saving that money for the $2 billion power plant they were going to build.

The longer they wait to do it, the more expensive it would be. How long have they been saying its too expensive?

I think the makeup of the Corporation Commission at this point is perfect. Everyone knows Bob Anthony won't be bought. I put full faith in Jim Roth as I expect him to honor his duty to the public. That only leaves Jeff Cloud. Since Cloud is the one quoted here, I think the power company is either behind this as they want a massive rate increase to pay for the new buried lines or the Commission really means business.

Fortunately, Cloud has higher aspirations and will hopefully move along sooner or later. He seems more concerned about who has appointing authority than actually doing his job.

I for one do not want to pay an additional $500 a year for electricity. Unless or until a more cost effective plan can be put into action - I say leave it as it is. The types of storms are a rarity and when power is down it is usually short in duration. We were out for 3 days this go around - we have a generator and hardly noticed the outage.

Fortunately, Cloud has higher aspirations and will hopefully move along sooner or later. He seems more concerned about who has appointing authority than actually doing his job.

I for one do not want to pay an additional $500 a year for electricity. Unless or until a more cost effective plan can be put into action - I say leave it as it is. The types of storms are a rarity and when power is down it is usually short in duration. We were out for 3 days this go around - we have a generator and hardly noticed the outage.

It's a rarity depending on where you live. In many neighborhoods, every time there are high winds you can expect outages. It's not just the ice, it's the high winds and thunderstorms. I can't accept Oklahoma not being able to do what other states have been able to do. Cost? I'll say it again. If it means lower profits for OG&E for a couple of years - so be it. They always want to use their monopoly status to maintain high profits and use rate hikes to keep them high. If we really want privatized power, let them accept the losses - like a real business.

It's a rarity depending on where you live. In many neighborhoods, every time there are high winds you can expect outages.

That's not true at all. Give the location of these 'many neighborhoods' that have outages 'every time there are high winds?"

The problem is that OG&E will not accept lower profits (nor should they) and will instead pass the cost on to the customers.

OG&E has to have the Corporation Commission's permission to pass those costs along to the consumers. There's a unique body of law governing that process.

That's not true at all. Give the location of these 'many neighborhoods' that have outages 'every time there are high winds?"

The problem is that OG&E will not accept lower profits (nor should they) and will instead pass the cost on to the customers.

You want the addresses? The older neighborhoods especially. You can't seriously dispute this.

Why shouldn't OG&E accept lower profits for their poor decision-making in not burying the lines years ago? They've put it off and put it off - "too expensive." It's only too expensive when they want to maintain the high profits. If they took care of the infrastructure and provided reliable power that would be one thing, but we have the most antiquated delivery system for a major city in America! We can, and should, do better. I know this will set you off, BailJumper, but municipally-owned power companies are far and away more efficient at all of this as their goal is to provide power - not to make profits through providing power on the cheap.

I agree about municipal ownership of utilities. Let's go back to that. Screw OG&E.

"The older neighborhoods" is not exactly specific - which is the answer i expected.

There are no entire neighbrohoods where the electricity goes out every time the wind blows - that is just insane.

OG&E, like any corporation, has to right to make as much as the market will bear.
I never said city owned power companies where not more efficient (but there you go, making up facts).

"The older neighborhoods" is not exactly specific - which is the answer i expected.

There are no entire neighborhoods where the electricity goes out every time the wind blows - that is just insane.

OG&E, like any corporation, has to right to make as much as the market will bear.
I never said city owned power companies where not more efficient (but there you go, making up facts).


You should have expected that answer. Do you think it's the newer developments that have power going out with high winds? Older neighborhoods are more prone to problems due to older infrastructure, what's so controversial about that?

And by the way, where did I say "entire neighborhoods lose their electricity every time the wind blows"? I said: "In many neighborhoods, every time there are high winds you can expect outages." There's a big difference between those two sentences. The former was never suggested and the latter simply cannot be disputed.