Underground Construction - August 2017 - 2

UCD

EDITOR'S LOG Asking The Question

By Robert Carpenter, Editor-in-Chief

ucononline.com

Driving home recently, I spotted
electric company personnel diligently working in the extreme heat
and humidity to replace wooden
power poles. It looked like this
was going to be a major project as
most of the poles in the area were
in poor condition. The poles' tenants - power and telephone lines,
along with internet cable - were
drooping precipitously close to
sidewalks.
With the age of most of our
overhead infrastructure, a steady
stream of replacement projects
keeps linemen busy. Summertime
means undertaking the often intimidating task of repairing and
replacing extreme damage left over
from winter storms.
Summer work also means
cutting down trees and limbs
from right-of-ways. I spent two
summers during college working
for a rural electric cooperative as
a member of the "brush crew."
That meant climbing trees to cut
limbs getting tangled in power
lines while the ground crew used
long, "extendo" poles to pull the
branches away from the lines, so
they didn't fall on the power cables
and trip breakers for miles up and
down the system. (For the towns
of Laverne and Buffalo, OK, I still
maintain my innocence for knocking out power for the better part of
a very hot day back in 1976).
Regardless of what drives the
need, for any power or telephone
company this ongoing maintenance ritual is simply part of the
annual life-cycle costs built into
your rates.
So why not place those power
and cable lines underground where
they are safe from the worst Mother Nature has to offer, errant car
crashes and countless other hazards that overhead lines battle 365
days a year? In a word, the utility
companies say "costs."
When it comes to "undergrounding," the process of moving
electric lines or telecommunications cable from wooden poles to
a buried installation, power com-

When it comes to
"undergrounding,"
the process of moving
electric lines or
telecommunications cable
from wooden poles to a
buried installation, power
companies and telecoms
cringe at the suggestion
and quickly regurgitate a
rote response: "It is many
times more expensive to
place lines underground
than overhead."
panies and telecoms cringe at the
suggestion and quickly regurgitate
a rote response: "It is many times
more expensive to place lines underground than overhead."
Historically, that statement
is largely true - it can cost more,
though just how much more is highly debatable. Most of the cost comparison information is very dated or
anecdotal at best. One of the most
common references I've seen is from
a mid-'90s study and doesn't include
horizontal directional drilling or
microtrenching in the equation.
Further, that price comparison is
just for the initial investment, rarely
factoring in life-cycle costs.
The bottom line is that due to
the perceived expense, plus significant investment in hardware and
manpower training, there is no real
motivation for electric and telecom
utilities to consider undergrounding. Old habits and perceptions die
hard.
Change is slowly coming to the
aerial industry. As underground
utility installation costs continue
to fall and documentation of much
longer life-cycle costs emerge, it is

getting increasingly hard to ignore
or fall back on outdated data to
defend the continued use of overhead lines - particularly for new
installations. Indeed, with modern
subdivisions, it is rare to see any
overhead infrastructure within the
confines of the community. Costs
are competitive for new construction, life-cycle costs are lower and
aesthetics are incredible.
One example is a regional
broadband company in the Midwest. It is adamant that all its new
installations and replacement projects place all lines underground.
It claims after examining all costs
such as storm outages, life-cycle
and modern construction costs,
it can't afford not to go underground.
Even with existing communities, local leaders are starting to
ask the question: why can't we put
our utilities underground? Take
Rancho Santa Fe, CA, located to
the north of San Diego. Recently,
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
started a year-and-a-half program
to bring new poles, wires, connections and transformers to the area.
During an update, the Rancho
Santa Fe Association board asked
why not go underground instead?
To no one's surprise, the utilities'
representative admitted there
were no plans to go underground
- and that it would cost three-tofour times as much.
But the savvy RSF Association board continued to explore
underground options, including
funding possibilities. The association president labeled the poles a
"serious concern," and told SDG&E
he wanted to continue his investigation.
Most likely, Rancho Santa Fe
will be stuck with overhead lines
again, but won't be happy about it.
And the next time, the homeowners will be armed with more facts,
more questions and probably will
be less likely to settle.

http://www.ucononline.com

Underground Construction - August 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Underground Construction - August 2017