Comments on Breakfast links: Power - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:32:43 EDT

Alexandria uses stimulus money to install solar panels?

And DC said we had to use ours to build freeways!

Comment by jnb

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:35:21 EDT

WMATA bike storage up 20 percent, bike parking up 3 percent, maybe locals and Metro should be focusing on connections more.

Comment by andrew

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:55:40 EDT

Amazed that they found that many empty racks at Columbia Heights. It runs very contrary to my experiences parking near that station.

Comment by wylie coyote

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:50:05 EDT

"A few stations (looks like Union Station, Federal Triangle, Foggy Bottom, L'Enfant Plaza, and Franconia-Springfield) have more bikes locked than there are racks. "

More racks at Union Station, please!

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:46:49 EDT

@ Kevin: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/tip/

Comment by Kevin

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:43:29 EDT

For tomorrow's breakfast links you guys should include Miami's opening of the heavy-rail Metro Orange Line to MIA airport. It's a small line, but any heavy rail addition in this country is good.

Comment by ah

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:22:38 EDT

How about Pepco negotiates bulk purchases of backup generators for anyone who wants one, and then finances their purchase through individual utility bill supplements? It will probably be far less expensive to get adequately reliable power.

Comment by HogWash

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:09:37 EDT

The WPost has badly designed polls? Really?

Who would've thunked!

Comment by DCster

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:52:22 EDT

I agree with goldfish that this was a badly designed poll (or at very least the Pepco portion was). From what CC describes, survey respondents probably had no idea what payment amount would be necessary to actually bury power lines, so why would they indicate willingness to pay $100 (the reported actual cost per bill per month) or $1000 extra if, for all they know, burying costs $10 extra. For all we know from the poll results, many respondents were willing to pay the amount (they thought) necesary to bury their lines (if I remember correctly, the average amount that people were willing to pay, among those willing to pay something, was $20). I also don't see why the survey designers didn't ask a question about whether someone already benefited from buried lines (or at least suffered an outage).

Comment by CC

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:32:57 EDT

@Joseph, your grandmother's subdivision's underground wires may have their supply line above ground. My father's place is like that, and he lost power from Pepco for several days after the blizzard and derecho.

@goldfish, I answered the Wash Post survey (it was the same one that included questions about the Gray scandal and taxi cabs), and she didn't ask if I had personally been affected by the derecho's power outages, just asked how I would rate Pepco overall, its response to the derecho, and how much I would pay for lines underground (which I already have, but I also have solar power, so I offered $20/month, which probably isn't enough either).

Comment by Lucre

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:10:42 EDT

Congrats, @Ms.V!

Comment by Rich

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:04:44 EDT

BWI's "free" service has weak bandwidth commercials, and a limited amount of time. Other airports manage to simply provide good service at no charge. An airport that's basically rebuilt itself on the basis of budget carriers needs to embrace the frugal ethic of its customer base.

Comment by A Streeter

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:03:04 EDT

@Alger: The parts of the Second Avenue subway currently being built are on the Upper East Side; it will be years, probably decades, before construction reaches Lower East Side, let alone the Wall Street office concentrations farther south that gave "downtown" its generic American meaning. The line is well east of Midtown, Manhattan's other major CBD. There's no sense in which it runs through "the heart of downtown" or will any time soon -- unless, I suppose, your idea of "downtown" is everything south of about 100th Street.

The Second Avenue subway has been start-and-stop since the first actual digging was done some 40 years ago (for more details than you probably want, google "second avenue subway"). I would hope any power line burials would be done much more quickly!

I see that jj makes the point that Pepco seems to be claiming costs of line burial are on the scale of those of new subway lines, and that this is somewhat suspicious. I'd add that one or two blocks of buried power lines are useful in a way that one or two blocks of subway are not -- the burials don't have to be done all at once!

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:46:50 EDT

someone hasn’t recommended we hire China to bury our power lines for us.

It would probably cost less than $6B.

I wonder if there is technological fix that can lower the cost, such as directional boring or moling. Does that $6B assuming traditional burying techniques?

Comment by anon

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:39:04 EDT

Re: Pepco

How is anyone surprised? The results are purely American. We want everything right now, but we don’t want to pay for it. I am surprised someone hasn’t recommended we hire China to bury our power lines for us.

Despite all the haranguing and hot air people expelled after the storm, we find out that “shocker”, we are too cheap to even front $10 bucks a month. The laughable part is, that is far, FAR short of the actual cost of implementation of 6 billion spread over 30 years ($100 per bill, per month).

And no, it isn’t cheaper for Pepco to bury the lines rather than periodically repair them. Pepco spent ~30 million recovering from the storm last month, about twice what it spends on a normal year repairing damage from storms, the random downed tree etc. Even if Pepco had to spend 30 million a year, every year it would take them 200 years to spend that 6 billion you want them to spend now (for free of course)

And lastly, you can all stop ignoring that ~6 billion dollar number. It isn’t Pepco’s number. As the article indicated, it came from an international engineering firm (Shaw), who was hired by the DC public utility commission.

Comment by Ron

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:36:46 EDT

@Alger

My only point is comparing the second avenue subway to anything is ridiculous. It'll take 90 years to add 3 stops, and yes, I know the fiscal history of it. Even though it's being built now, most NYers still don't believe it because it's just a big joke at this point.

Sure, the lower east side is downtown, but it's being built on the upper west side.

Comment by MLD

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:34:35 EDT

@goldfish
Seriously, only $10/month? Who thinks that will be anywhere near enough money?

I don't think they think that would be enough money, I just think people are not interested in paying 50-200% more per month for power service for 30 years to avoid these outages (for most it's help others avoid these outages) when it seems clear to people that Pepco does a worse job than other utility companies on this stuff. There is room for Pepco to improve.

Looking at some old press releases and reports it looks like the average bill for a Pepco customer is in the $80-100 range. So that $100 per month charge reflects a DOUBLING of their bill.

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:31:13 EDT

@ goldfish:In the past 2 years there have been like 3 storms with major power outages, where people were without juice for like a week. A week! a huge inconvenience.

The problem is that it is not an inconvenience. It means tens, of not hundreds of dollars in damage for the lost content of refrigerators. Plus the cost of generators. And the fuel for generators. And extra travel cost for everyone who goes and hangs out with family. Add to that lost productivity for people who work from home, and you have a cost that easily comes to $10 a month.

And that's not counting the thousands, if not millions lost by businesses hurt by power outages. Quite frankly, I am surprised that the chambers of commerce aren't pushing harder for better power. They loose the most money.

Comment by jj

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:25:39 EDT

I think the larger point being made is that the MTA is building a large new subway expansion under NYC for $4-$5 billion which is what Pepco is claiming it will take to bury the remaining above ground lines in DC. While not expected to be cheap that doesn't seem quite right does it?

As for it taking 90 years, the article kind of glossed it over but the building of that line and its delays are a lot more nuanced and political beyond the city ran out of money at all the wrong times.

Comment by Bill Cook

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:20:28 EDT

I'm not very keen on the Beatley Library solar panels. The architecture of the building is debatable, and a lot of Alexandrians have opinions about it for sure, but the copper roof is its most distinctive feature. Didn't they put chemicals on it to deliberately speed up the patina process?
What was the point of spending money on a famous architect and an expensive roof material only to cover it up?

I'm very much pro-alternative energy, I just don't think this project was the best use of attention or financial resources.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:19:19 EDT

@ceefer66: The going rate for buried service is $100/ft. The dense neighborhoods (with short runs to the street) are already done. What remains are the suburban-like hoods at the periphery, where the distances to the mains in the street are longer. So each homeowner is looking at 20-30 feet of buried lines, plus the new hookup at the panel ($1000 minimum), plus their share of burying the mains in the street -- probably a minimum of around $10k per house.

You ain't gonna cover that expense by "re-directing various fees that go to local and state governments" (which you did not identify).

Comment by Gray

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:12:21 EDT

@ceefer66:

But noooo! That would cut into government revenue. Can't have THAT now, can we?

Well, um . . . how would you propose making up the shortfalls that would cause?

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:05:26 EDT

The burying of power lines could be accomplished without charging Pepco customers much more than we already pay.

Ratepayers already pay a significant amount in various fees and taxes that go to local and state governments. Simply re-direct that money to help pay for burying the power lines.

But noooo! That would cut into government revenue. Can't have THAT now, can we?

Comment by Alger

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:04:47 EDT

@Ron
So your point is the Lower East Side of Manhattan is not downtown? Wow. Schooled me *Snap*
I will be a little less obscure for the ironic simile challenged. Why can NYC plan and initiate a highly disruptive and expensive subway project through a complicated landscape of incredibly dense development using incredibly specialized technology when Pepco can't bury feeder lines down the middle of a street which is a simple infrastructure improvement with a long list of out-of-the-box supporting technologies?

Here, let's try this: If Pepco had planned on burying 1/4th of the power lines in their service area during the past 90 years we would be so far ahead of the game.

Comment by MDE

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:56:00 EDT

Sorry, but: Grammar Police.

"Alexandria's Beatley Central Library will become the first city-owned building to receive solar panels. "

Gotta put a hyphen on those compound adjectives...

Comment by Ron

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:43:46 EDT

@Alger

Anyone want to try and explain why NYC can dig a whole new subway line through the heart of downtown and Pepco can't bury a feeder line?

Besides the fact that it's not downtown, it will only take NYC almost 90 years to realize less than 1/4 of the full line.

Comment by Gray

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:40:07 EDT

Surprise! People don't want to pay more money for vaguely defined benefits. Of course, that doesn't mean they'd be unwilling to pay if the benefits were explicit.

Much more ridiculous was this Post article a couple of weeks ago, in which people acted like Pepco had killed their puppies because they actually trimmed trees around power lines:

http://wapo.st/ReUItm

Over in Kenwood, longtime resident Barbara Libbey said that Pepco crews chopped off some parts of her neighborhood’s cherry trees earlier this year before the derecho. "Whatever they did didn’t seem to do any good, because we lost power for four and a half days," Libbey said.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:38:52 EDT

Falls Church: fair question, but by anecdotal evidence the answer is clear.

In the past 2 years there have been like 3 storms with major power outages, where people were without juice for like a week. A week! a huge inconvenience. They were in neighborhoods with the above-ground power lines. OTOH, people that lived in neighborhoods with below-ground power lines (like me) never lose power. I have lost power only once in 14 years, for 1-2 minutes.

Comment by Falls Church

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:26:28 EDT

Do we know for a fact that burying power lines will substantially decrease electricity outages? I favor a stick and carrot approach where we establish targets for outages and if pepco has fewer outages they get the reward of higher rates and if they have more outages, then they are heavily penalized. Pepco needs to spend less money paying shareholders dividends and more money improving their infrastructure.

Comment by Jasper

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:11:56 EDT

few are willing to pay anything more to bury power lines.

Pennywise, pound foolish.

In some cities, light rail is the backbone of the transportation network

Isn't Metro the backbone of DC's transportation network?
[Yeah, I know it counts as heavy rail, but comparing maps, it works similarly]

And congrats Veronica.

Comment by goldfish

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:11:05 EDT

I wonder about that Washington Post poll for Pepco. I suspect a badly designed poll, one that reveals who has a problem and who does not, as rather than willingness to pay?

-- " just over a third of those city residents who were surveyed said they would not be willing to pay any additional cost."

Do these residents already have buried lines and thus think that there is no issue?

"Slightly fewer said they would be willing to pay as much as $10 a month, but less than one-fifth said they would be willing to pay more than that."

Seriously, only $10/month? Who thinks that will be anywhere near enough money? I wonder how this question was asked; the results suggest that it was designed to get a negative response.

Comment by Alger

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:10:25 EDT

Wow, surprise. You ask people if they support a Pepco rate increase and they say no.
Wasn't the Post known for journalism a few years back?

Anyone want to try and explain why NYC can dig a whole new subway line through the heart of downtown and Pepco can't bury a feeder line?

Comment by Joseph

Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:08:21 EDT

Honestly, I can understand why people don't want to pay more to bury the power lines. I moved here from Missouri and my parents and grandmother still live there. They live 10 minutes from each other. My grandmother lives in a newer subdivision with buried lines and my parents live in an older subdivision with traditional lines. My grandmother has had more outages than my parents. I have never seen that option as viable, especially considering that the lines in most cities are going to have to come above ground at some point unless you want to spend an absolute fortune on burying every single line in every single neighborhood, no matter the conditions of that neighborhood. Further, with as terrible as Pepco has been, who trusts them to handle more money and effectively bury the lines. They do a terrible job and then come around with their hands out, touting what they are doing to improve, which would have been the minimum standard to avoid a problem in the first place.