I believe we can use this area to debate new policies or ideas of how to solve actual problems we face. When we win our lawsuit, it will open the doors to these kinds of solution at the county level. But, here goes my first attempt at the debate of a policy.
I would like to eventually vote on this proposal after it is well worn by counties fencing, lol.
Proposal is simple: All new power lines being installed or moved must be buried.
Reason: The main purpose of this proposal would be for fire mitigation but buried lines offer many benefits besides fire risk reduction.
Downsides The cost to the customers when pulling new lines appeared to be identical when I had a quote, but this could have changed.
Please keep your comments constructive, I will move anyone to the latrine who uses ad hominem attacks. But I think this is a real easy one to start with.
Somewhat related: One of the things I notice is that Elevate internet often goes down during storms and high winds. I think this is because they are running their fiber above ground on the telephone poles and they easily get cracked and damaged by high winds.
Isn’t it more expensive to bury things than to run above ground? I think that’s why above ground is generally used - they can’t justify the cost of burying.
Is the choice to bury or raise power lines generally up to the utility? It might be useful to talk to the utilities and get a sense from them on what are the factors that weigh into their current decision making.
ChatGPT says:
Yes, the decision to bury power lines or string them along telephone poles is generally made by the utility company in collaboration with local governments and regulatory bodies. Several factors weigh into this decision:
1. Cost
Burying Power Lines: This is significantly more expensive upfront due to excavation, materials, and installation. Costs can range from $500,000 to over $1 million per mile in urban areas, compared to $15,000 to $60,000 per mile for overhead lines.
Overhead Power Lines: These are much cheaper to install initially but may have higher long-term maintenance costs due to exposure to the elements.
2. Maintenance and Repairs
Underground Lines: Repairs are more challenging, time-consuming, and costly since faults require excavation to access the lines.
Overhead Lines: Repairs are quicker and easier because the lines are visible and accessible via poles.
3. Reliability
Underground Lines: These are less susceptible to damage from storms, wind, and falling trees, reducing outages during severe weather events.
Overhead Lines: More prone to weather-related damage but easier to inspect and maintain for routine issues.
4. Terrain and Environment
Urban Areas: Underground lines are often preferred in densely populated areas to improve aesthetics and reduce clutter.
Rural Areas: Overhead lines are more common due to lower population density, making the high cost of underground installation less justifiable.
Flood-Prone Areas: Underground lines may be avoided because of the risk of water damage.
Got any links on development of horizontal drilling machines? That makes a lot of sense to me… Like shrink down what the Boring Company is doing to micro size and use it to install lines.
They already have this equipment small scale and it is not very expensive.
But even just good ol fashioned trench and then backfill will do the trick.
Sometime when I have extra time I will call DMEA and get an idea of cost difference. I am pretty certain that when I ran lines to a new home the cost was identical for above or below ground.