Undergrounding Utility Lines

[memebag]

Feh. What's with the double posting?

[TheNiche]

Apparently this has been going on since 1967. The city does about 30 miles a year.

...and another part that said that the city of San Diego sets aside $54 million each year for the project.

Holy crap.

30 miles per year = 5,280 feet * 30 miles per year = 158,400 feet per year.

$54,000,000 per year / 158,400 feet per year = $340.91 per foot per year

The typical width of an urban single-family lot is about 50 feet; depth is typically 100 feet.

50 feet * $340.91 per foot = $17,045 per single-family home; $51,135 for a corner lot!

------------------------------------------

I was honestly very suspicious of Tory's figures, too, but then I'm used to seeing figures as they pertain to development from scratch. Even on the assumption that California's costs are twice ours, I can't imagine that it makes sense to demolish and replace the existing (usually) functional infrastructure just to make it look nicer at such enormous costs.

[editor]

Holy crap.

30 miles per year = 5,280 feet * 30 miles per year = 158,400 feet per year.

$54,000,000 per year / 158,400 feet per year = $340.91 per foot per year

The typical width of an urban single-family lot is about 50 feet; depth is typically 100 feet.

50 feet * $340.91 per foot = $17,045 per single-family home; $51,135 for a corner lot!

I guess since I posted those numbers I should have done the math myself. Duh! Thanks for pointing that out.

Here's something to consider, though -- the $17k isn't a one-time bill. The SD project is a 70-year project (part of the web site says it plans to wrap up in about 25 years and it started in the mid-60's). So the annual cost is:

$17,045/70=$243 per year for a single-family home, or $51,135/70=$731 per year for a corner lot.

Now I'm not suggesting that homeowners have an extra $200-700 lying around. But from all current evidence, this is paid for by the city and not by each individual homeowner as their homes are passed.

How many taxable buildings would a medium-sized city like SD have? 500,000? I really have no idea. But that would work out to $54million/500,000/70 years=$1.54 per year. That's a lot cheaper than buying a generator.

[editor]

A lot of people wouldn't have several thousand dollars at the ready were CenterPoint to redo their street. Billing would be a problem. Also, it would seem to have a disproportionate impact on people with corner lots, who may face three to four times as high a fee to have their frontage taken care of. Also, what happens when there are poles on one side of the street and not the other? There are a lot of issues arising from inequity that would have to be resolved.

The corner lot thing is a good point. And what about tax-exempt buildings? They'd probably want an exemption.

I would suggest that special taxing districts be set up to finance utilty burial where a supermajority of property owners, weighted by HCAD valuation, vote to do the project. Then a muni-bond gets issued to pay for it, paid off by property taxes over a period of, say, 5 years. Such a district could encompass a single neighborhood, several neighborhoods at once, or run exclusively along commercial corridors (like the Almeda/OST TIRZ does).

I think that might run into problems with the weighting. Equal protection/"one man=one vote" kind of thing. I'm sure there's a lawyer out there with a better grasp of it than I who can explain if it would be legally possible to do it that way.

I think the idea of having the neighborhood vote for it is a good idea. There's another thread on HAIF where someone from a particular neighborhood is advocating local action to get the lines buried. I think that's great, and it's probably happened in the past. Does anyone have any historic photos of River Oaks before its power lines were buried?

I'm OK with the municipal bond to pay for it, but I'm not sure about the time frame. Usually even small projects in the $30-$50 million range have a payback of 20-30 years. But then it's been a long time since I paid much attention to municipal bonds; things may have changed in the last ten years or so.

[TheNiche]

I guess since I posted those numbers I should have done the math myself. Duh! Thanks for pointing that out.

Here's something to consider, though -- the $17k isn't a one-time bill. The SD project is a 70-year project (part of the web site says it plans to wrap up in about 25 years and it started in the mid-60's). So the annual cost is:

$17,045/70=$243 per year for a single-family home, or $51,135/70=$731 per year for a corner lot.

Now I'm not suggesting that homeowners have an extra $200-700 lying around. But from all current evidence, this is paid for by the city and not by each individual homeowner as their homes are passed.

How many taxable buildings would a medium-sized city like SD have? 500,000? I really have no idea. But that would work out to $54million/500,000/70 years=$1.54 per year. That's a lot cheaper than buying a generator.

If you can think of the $17,045 cost to bury lines in front of a house as a one-time expense with no recurring expenses for maintenance, and we consider the opportunity cost of public funds (I won't even entertain the concept of payback period as a meaningful analytical tool) to be only 3%, then the average homeowner would have to accure a benefit of at least $585.27 per year for the duration of 70 years (or have that amount of benefit fully capitalized into the price of a home at the time of sale) in order to justify the burial of the overhead lines. If you use a more realistic 5% discount rate, the average annual benefit to the homeowner has to be $881.21.

I'm OK with the municipal bond to pay for it, but I'm not sure about the time frame. Usually even small projects in the $30-$50 million range have a payback of 20-30 years. But then it's been a long time since I paid much attention to municipal bonds; things may have changed in the last ten years or so.

I'm not OK with it anymore, either. I used the 5-year figure when I thought we were talking about $2,500-$3,000 per house, or something apparently crazy like that.

[Houston19514]

The other part of the equation is working out who foots the bill.

There is no question at all about who foots the bill. The same people who foot the bill for repairing the overhead wire system every time we have storm. The ratepayers.

Installing underground service can be done without trenching at all. It can now be done with horizontal drilling technology. Quite amazing, really and I think a result of petroleum industry creativity. The electric utility in Tulsa, Oklahoma is going through a program of burying all lines in the city. They got a surcharge added to their electric bills to pay the cost (and as noted above, we are already paying the repeated costs of repairing the overhead lines). Centerpoint and Houston should take a very serious look at the same sort of thing.

[ToryGattis]

I think TheNiche's numbers say it all. I didn't mean to imply San Diego charged homeowners directly. But the bottom line is the cost, and the money comes from somewhere - either ratepayers or taxpayers. I have no problem with individual neighborhoods or developments opting in and paying for it themselves, though. It should be a service Centerpoint offers at cost.

[editor]

There is no question at all about who foots the bill. The same people who foot the bill for repairing the overhead wire system every time we have storm. The ratepayers.

Installing underground service can be done without trenching at all. It can now be done with horizontal drilling technology. Quite amazing, really and I think a result of petroleum industry creativity. The electric utility in Tulsa, Oklahoma is going through a program of burying all lines in the city. They got a surcharge added to their electric bills to pay the cost (and as noted above, we are already paying the repeated costs of repairing the overhead lines). Centerpoint and Houston should take a very serious look at the same sort of thing.

Not to be completely jerky, but if Tulsa can do it surely Houston can. Tulsa's density is 2,100/square mile, compared with Houston's 3,800/square mile.

[TheNiche]

Not to be completely jerky, but if Tulsa can do it surely Houston can. Tulsa's density is 2,100/square mile, compared with Houston's 3,800/square mile.

Its not a matter of whether we can. It is a matter of whether we want to. As for Tulsa...show me the money.

It should be a service Centerpoint offers at cost.

It already is, more or less.

[RedScare]

If this $3,500 to $16,000 per customer estimate is correct, it's completely economically infeasible across the city (um, that's the equivalent of a car for each household). I'm sure part of what makes it so insane is that if there's any way at all standing water can connect the underground line to ground above, it kills people. That requires serious redundant safety. That said, maybe it could get integrated into existing road/sidewalk projects in targeted areas - like what the Kirby district is doing, but we need to be resigned to the fact that there will be mass outages whenever a hurricane directly strikes Houston (once every 25 years?).

The fact that virtually every subdivision built in the last 30 years has all underground utilities suggests to me that this is not quite the human catastrophe in waiting that your italics predicts. In fact, I'd wager that far more people die yearly from above ground electrical utilities than buried ones. Then again, maybe I was just lucky that the transformer in my parents' backyard never reached out and grabbed me all those years I played around it.

Clearly, retrofitting above ground utilities to underground is expensive, but just as clearly, they are not unsafe. But, I bet it cost less than the trillion dollars Paulson wants to spend on bad mortgages.

[bsienk]

The fact that virtually every subdivision built in the last 30 years has all underground utilities suggests to me that this is not quite the human catastrophe in waiting that your italics predicts. In fact, I'd wager that far more people die yearly from above ground electrical utilities than buried ones. Then again, maybe I was just lucky that the transformer in my parents' backyard never reached out and grabbed me all those years I played around it.

Clearly, retrofitting above ground utilities to underground is expensive, but just as clearly, they are not unsafe. But, I bet it cost less than the trillion dollars Paulson wants to spend on bad mortgages.

Huh? I live in Shadow Creek Ranch, a humongous brand-new "master-planned community," and I have power-poles in my backyard! New subdivisions are not getting underground utilities, unless someone is paying extra for them.

FWIW, there are buried lines for AT&T and Comcast. These are about an inch below the back yard surface. "Underground" for these is sort of aesthetic, but it you ever plant a garden you find them (and break them) pretty quickly.

[Mr. Chenevert]

If this $3,500 to $16,000 per customer estimate is correct, it's completely economically infeasible across the city (um, that's the equivalent of a car for each household). I'm sure part of what makes it so insane is that if there's any way at all standing water can connect the underground line to ground above, it kills people. That requires serious redundant safety. That said, maybe it could get integrated into existing road/sidewalk projects in targeted areas - like what the Kirby district is doing, but we need to be resigned to the fact that there will be mass outages whenever a hurricane directly strikes Houston (once every 25 years?).

How many MMP's per mile is that Tory? Cmon... enough with the out of thin air estimates.

I grew up in rural Pennsylvania, where houses were seperated by a mile or more and we all had underground power lines from day one.

Yes, there is a cost associated with putting the lines in the ground. There is also a cost associated with not having power for 2-3 weeks when a major storm blows through town. One of these costs is tangible, one is not. We could argue all day long what the best answer is.

Spread the cost over a large amount of time and it will be manageable. Dont bury all the lines at once, do it as streets and sidewalks are being torn up for other reasons. Require new construction to bury the lines in their immediate area... etc.

If rural PA, where the average salary is still less than 20k/year can do it, we can too.

[TheNiche]

If rural PA, where the average salary is still less than 20k/year can do it, we can too.

Rural PA is rural. Central Houston is urban.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. The cost differential for burying lines in new development of raw land doesn't really break the bank. Retrofitting in an urban environment is a whole other animal...especially when you already have a working system in place and you aren't looking at the benefits of burial as weighed against a marginally higher cost, but as the total cost.

[Mr. Chenevert]

Rural PA is rural. Central Houston is urban.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier. The cost differential for burying lines in new development of raw land doesn't really break the bank. Retrofitting in an urban environment is a whole other animal...especially when you already have a working system in place and you aren't looking at the benefits of burial as weighed against a marginally higher cost, but as the total cost.

Yes, there will be a cost. I'm not ready to accept any out of thin air estimates for this cost. I also never said that this should only be done in urban areas. If your argument that burying lines in rural areas is cheaper, maybe we do that first. I have plenty of co-workers that live in rural settings that are still without power today.

However, if you are already tearing up a street, such as the Kirby project going on right now, we need to understand the added cost of also putting the power lines underground at the same time. Who cares if it takes 50 years?

[Daniepwils]

You've said that before on HAIF, but have never been able to point to a study, a link, or any other evidence to back this up. Based on what I've been told by utility companies in the past, I'm not sure it's true. But if you have evidence, I'm willing to consider it.

Damn it! I had a nice post all typed out and I received the blue screen of death!

In my eyes (which aren't always clear, lol) it takes less time to set power line poles (be it wooden or steel) and add transformers/lines/etc. than it would to have to dig up streets/sidewalks/etc. repair the lines then lay the streets/sidewalks/etc. down again. (do you know if flooding effects underground power lines?)

I did see a report on KTRK13News (I will try to find it) about above ground vs. below ground with a local energy executive/engineer.

Don't get me wrong I am not against underground power lines (hell I live downtown and didn't loose power for that very reason), but if there would be some type of backup incase they do go down, it would be nice (don't ask me what that would be).

Not to mention it does make a city look much aesthetically pleasing (but since when has Houston cared about how it looks? Does anyone remember all the plants and shrubbery that were planted along the highways a few months before the superbowl and how awful it looked because no one mowed around them -- and how awful some of it still looks, that

[memebag]

[rsb320]

Yes, there will be a cost. I'm not ready to accept any out of thin air estimates for this cost. I also never said that this should only be done in urban areas. If your argument that burying lines in rural areas is cheaper, maybe we do that first. I have plenty of co-workers that live in rural settings that are still without power today.

However, if you are already tearing up a street, such as the Kirby project going on right now, we need to understand the added cost of also putting the power lines underground at the same time. Who cares if it takes 50 years?

I can't verify, but I heard that lines were already buried along the Kirby project and they never lost power. If this is true, then (IMO) this is the direction we should take.

[Mr. Chenevert]

I can't verify, but I heard that lines were already buried along the Kirby project and they never lost power. If this is true, then (IMO) this is the direction we should take.

I have no idea if the lines along the Kirby project are in the ground or not.

However, I can verify that the homes surrounding the sub-station at LaBranch and McGowen only lost power for roughly 3 hours during the storm. All of these homes are served by underground power lines. Homes 1-2 blocks beyond lost power for roughly 1 week since their lines go above ground albeit just a short distance.

My workplace in Cypress never lost power, it too has underground lines from the sub-station. Meanwhile, traffic lights and stores just outside of the property are still without power today.

I am already convinced that underground lines is the answer.

[Timnwendy]

Huh? I live in Shadow Creek Ranch, a humongous brand-new "master-planned community," and I have power-poles in my backyard! New subdivisions are not getting underground utilities, unless someone is paying extra for them.

I am in Southern Trails, a new MPC just south of Shadow Creek Ranch. We do have underground utilities. We only lost power for 21 hours during Ike.

[missmsry]

Underground utilities aren't a magic bullet. My husband works for a tv station and he says there are still neighborhoods with underground utilites without power. When I lived in Katy, with underground utilities, my power and cable when out regulary for long periods of time, even without a storm.

[REALaw]

Underground utilities aren't a magic bullet. My husband works for a tv station and he says there are still neighborhoods with underground utilites without power. When I lived in Katy, with underground utilities, my power and cable when out regulary for long periods of time, even without a storm.

More than likely the power into your subdivision comes from above ground lines. As the saying goes, we are only as strong as our weakest link. If your supply lines had also been underground, the chances of you losing power would be greatly diminished.

If the ditch digging and electrical contractors were smart (and I'm sure they are), they would start lobbying NOW for buried lines.

[banking214]

I am all for underground lines and don't mind having to pay for them. Driving down Houston's streets and seeing ugly as@ billboards and power lines is tragic. Take them down and go underground.

[bsienk]

I am in Southern Trails, a new MPC just south of Shadow Creek Ranch. We do have underground utilities. We only lost power for 21 hours during Ike.

What we have here in SCR are underground connections to the houses. However, there are above ground distribution lines running along the edge of several sections (including the pole in my yard) as well as the lines on Kingsley, 2234, and yes, 518 just next to Southern Trails.

I guess the accurate description of this would be "hybrid". We still lose power -- not because of "line-drops" failing, but rather because of the system that feeds the lines that come to the house.

You guys are also a little closer to those high power lines that run catty-corner across the southern side of SCR. That's probably why you got power back faster. We were down for 4 days here on the north side of SCR.

[Timnwendy]

What we have here in SCR are underground connections to the houses. However, there are above ground distribution lines running along the edge of several sections (including the pole in my yard) as well as the lines on Kingsley, 2234, and yes, 518 just next to Southern Trails.

I guess the accurate description of this would be "hybrid". We still lose power -- not because of "line-drops" failing, but rather because of the system that feeds the lines that come to the house.

You guys are also a little closer to those high power lines that run catty-corner across the southern side of SCR. That's probably why you got power back faster. We were down for 4 days here on the north side of SCR.

Good point. Actually, Southern Trails is also the "hybrid"-type you describe. There is a line of poles running south along the east edge of our subdivision.

I guess there was only minor damage to the above-ground entry points to our subdivision, that's why we had power restored so fast.

[ToryGattis]

From a comment posted on my blog:

slinkydog has left a new comment on your post "Ike in context":

From http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/s.../23/story8.html

"While underground lines are not subject to the same wind and ice storm risks as above-ground lines, underground lines could be damaged by floods.

'They are not by any stretch impervious to the elements,' Legge says. 'There's just different elements.'

Outages for underground lines also last longer than outages for above-ground lines. It takes longer to find and repair underground infrastructure, Legge explains.

Following the 2002 ice storm that blanketed most of North Carolina and its power lines, the utilities commission's Public Staff researched the prospect of burying distribution lines. The Public Staff estimated at the time that converting all distribution lines in the state would cost $41 billion and would take 25 years to complete. The impact to customer bills would be a 125 percent increase.

The Edison Electric Institute in 2006 released a study on burying power lines that concluded that the cost of converting overhead lines to underground would be roughly $1 million per mile - nearly 10 times the cost of an overhead power line. Legge says those costs have likely increased."

[Mr. Chenevert]

Well, we could have just bought 500 miles of underground lines with this storm alone.

[Mr. Chenevert]

And according to CEO David McClanahan, the $500 Million repair bill "will translate to between $1 and $2 per month for the average customer." Link to Source

Not to mention that Entergy passed more than $380 Million onto their customers after Rita.

So wait a minute...

If I use your source Tory, and it costs $1 Million per mile to bury the lines, then in the past three years alone, we have essentially paid the equivalent of 880 miles of underground power lines and who knows when the next storm will undue the repairs we just made. In fact, I would be willing to bet that much of the repairs that Entergy made in 2005 had to be redone in 2008.

880 miles in three years.... thats a lot of miles... I wonder what raising our bills $5/month would do? Or even $10...

Oh yea, that would allow us to bury all the lines in Houston without the economic distress you mention above.

[ricco67]

And according to CEO David McClanahan, the $500 Million repair bill "will translate to between $1 and $2 per month for the average customer." Link to Source

Not to mention that Entergy passed more than $380 Million onto their customers after Rita.

So wait a minute...

If I use your source Tory, and it costs $1 Million per mile to bury the lines, then in the past three years alone, we have essentially paid the equivalent of 880 miles of underground power lines and who knows when the next storm will undue the repairs we just made. In fact, I would be willing to bet that much of the repairs that Entergy made in 2005 had to be redone in 2008.

880 miles in three years.... thats a lot of miles... I wonder what raising our bills $5/month would do? Or even $10...

Oh yea, that would allow us to bury all the lines in Houston without the economic distress you mention above.

880 miles in three years for 1 a month? *I* would pay that, but can you imagine that outrage of the pace of construction? This would require a bigger amount of headaches than you guys realize as this would also require doing a bit of digging in yards and streets.

Also, when you talk about a grid system that substantially bigger than 800 miles, you're talking a very slow pace. I don't have the exact numbers of how many miles of powerlines there are in Houston, but I can place a decent bet that it's way over the 50kMile mark.

So if you're talking about $1, it would take, assuming 10,000 miles (WAY low side), about 62 years. Now you can add the equation for a higher light bill, but then we get into the territory of the costs of such construction would be a burden on people that can barely afford to pay the bill they currently have.

Economic theory is all well and fun when you're talking about it, but when you're actually paying for it, most people would balk at writing that paycheck.

now to make MY position clear, I wouldn't mind the lines being underground, but I believe it should be done as its viable. When you're dealing with some of the major construction have it part of the build, or if a developer is working a neighborhood, they can bury them underground and share the costs with the power company for the rest of that block.

[Marksmu]

Would have been a great idea 100 years ago when they laid out the city, but now in a large majority of places, West U, Heights, Riveroak, Timbergrove, Tanglewood, and all other neighborhoods that I cant even think of, there are no easements on these peoples property, and they will not be happy to give one up.

I for one HATED more than anything the waste of a 10' easement at my old house in Pearland. YOu cant do anything in it, and workers come and go freely through your BACK yard. Personally I am happier being without power the .000000001% of the time, than having to constantly worry somebody from the utility is going to be in my back yard, cut my lock off my gate and let my dog out, as he runs from her.

You cant take a system that had above ground power and convert it to underground power, without an easement, which personally Im not willing to give on.

It hasnt been that long, and almost never happens, so its just time to grin and bear it, b/c it sucks to not have control over your OWN property b/c some utility says that you cant.

Thats my opinion.

With the current aftermath that is still crippling this city, is it time for Houston to begin undergrounding utility lines? Although costly, this would go far in preventing citywide blackouts like we've had and curing the unsightly nature of lines crisscrossing our city.

[Mr. Chenevert]

While an easement would probably be required to get the power to your house, I would believe that most of the lines would be buried under city property, either the street, or between the street and the sidewalk.

If the line comes above ground to actually get to your house, I could care less. Thats the homeowners decision to change if they want.

Just as a sidenote, we didnt have easements in Pennsylvania. Before you did any digging for a shed or something, you would call a 1-800 number and all utility lines, gas, electric, cable, phone, etc would be marked for you with little flags... all for free.

You just didnt dig very deep where the flags where. Nobody complained and nobody lost 10 feet of their property.

Would have been a great idea 100 years ago when they laid out the city, but now in a large majority of places, West U, Heights, Riveroak, Timbergrove, Tanglewood, and all other neighborhoods that I cant even think of, there are no easements on these peoples property, and they will not be happy to give one up.

I for one HATED more than anything the waste of a 10' easement at my old house in Pearland. YOu cant do anything in it, and workers come and go freely through your BACK yard. Personally I am happier being without power the .000000001% of the time, than having to constantly worry somebody from the utility is going to be in my back yard, cut my lock off my gate and let my dog out, as he runs from her.

You cant take a system that had above ground power and convert it to underground power, without an easement, which personally Im not willing to give on.

It hasnt been that long, and almost never happens, so its just time to grin and bear it, b/c it sucks to not have control over your OWN property b/c some utility says that you cant.

Thats my opinion.