Bury the power lines

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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:



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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Bill Robertson]

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.

[Teo9969]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[DoctorTaco]

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.

[Jersey Boss]

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

[Midtowner]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[catch22]

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.

[DoctorTaco]

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.

[FighttheGoodFight]

OG&E talked about burying lines today with the City Council. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/OKC_SPAN/status/...213264899?s=20

[mugofbeer]

OG&E talked about burying lines today with the City Council. You can read it here: https://twitter.com/OKC_SPAN/status/...213264899?s=20

Looks like they continued to talk about all or nothing.