Massachusetts towns Could Save Big by Burying Broadband and Electricity Lines Together
A “dig once” approach to infrastructure upgrades could mean fewer outages and higher property values for small towns, according to new research.
The Case for Co-Undergrounding
Imagine a future where unsightly overhead power lines vanish, replaced by a sleek, modern underground infrastructure. This isn’t just about aesthetics; it’s about resilience, reliability, and potentially, a boost to your property value. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have found that burying both electrical and broadband lines simultaneously – a strategy they call “co-undergrounding” – is considerably more cost-effective than tackling the projects separately. In fact, it’s nearly 40% cheaper.
The study highlights that in Massachusetts, the average customer experiences approximately 1.38 hours of broadband and electricity outages annually. Co-undergrounding offers a solution to not only reduce these frustrating disruptions but also enhance community aesthetics, wiht researchers estimating a $1.5 million increase in property values due to the elimination of overhead lines.
The researchers found that co-undergrounding created a meaningful net benefit of $11.3 million. This represents a considerable enhancement over the choice strategy of aggressively converting only electrical wires, which demonstrated a net benefit five times lower and shows how cost savings were considerably diminished. All other strategies, including moderately paced conversions, had a negative net benefit.
The Outage Equation
one of the key challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of undergrounding is accurately predicting the reduction in outages. The benefits of co-undergrounding are clear, but the extent to which it diminishes outages depends on the causes of those outages.
“There’s kind of an intuitive thing [that undergrounding will reduce outages], but there is kind of mixed details about exactly how much because there are outages for a lot of different reasons,”
Baker
The economics of undergrounding hinge on the primary causes of outages.If weather-related events are the dominant factor, then undergrounding becomes a highly attractive investment. However, if equipment failure is the main culprit, then the benefits are diminished.
“It means for [undergrounding to be worthwhile] half the outages have to be caused by basically something weather induced. If more than half of your outages are caused by the plant breaking down, then you shouldn’t underground anything. But the moment it flips over and it becomes good enough to do something, it means you want to be fully aggressive.”
Baker
In other words,a proactive,comprehensive approach to undergrounding is most effective when weather poses a significant threat to above-ground infrastructure.
Beyond Storms: The California Wildfire Connection
While severe weather events like hurricanes and blizzards are major drivers for undergrounding initiatives in many parts of the U.S., wildfires present another compelling case, particularly in states like California. As Oke notes, even planned outages, often implemented by California utilities to mitigate wildfire risks, could be avoided by burying power lines.
The devastating 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, the state’s most destructive wildfire, serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of aging infrastructure. The fire was ignited when a worn-out metal hook on a transmission tower failed, causing a live wire to fall. Undergrounding could have prevented this initial spark, averting the catastrophic blaze and subsequent widespread outages.
A Strategic Framework for the Future
The research underscores the need for a strategic, well-regulated approach to infrastructure upgrades. It’s not simply about burying wires; it’s about doing it in a way that maximizes benefits and minimizes costs.
“We need to have a framework and a set of regulations that encourages utilities and towns to think strategically,”
Baker
While the UMass Amherst study provides valuable insights, further research is needed to quantify the impacts of co-undergrounding across diverse geographic locations and under varying scenarios. Alternative underground routing options and other outage mitigation strategies also warrant further examination.
Co-Undergrounding: Pros and Cons
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Reduced outages, especially weather-related | High initial Investment |
| Aesthetic Improvements & Increased Property Values | potential for Increased Maintenance Costs (depending on design) |
| Enhanced Grid Resilience | Disruptions During Construction |
| 40% Cost Effective than replacing separately | Complexity of Permitting and Regulation |
Looking Ahead
The UMass amherst team also hopes to quantify the impacts of co-undergrounding across a variety of geographic locations and scenarios. Other relevant future directions include investigating alternative underground routing options, and other potential outage mitigation strategies.
What are the potential environmental impacts of burying interaction and electrical infrastructure?
Interview: The Future of Infrastructure – Co-Undergrounding in Massachusetts
Archyde News Editor: Welcome, everyone. Today, we’re diving deep into a concept that could reshape how we power our homes and connect to the internet: co-undergrounding. We have Dr. Eleanor Vance, a leading infrastructure analyst, here to shed some light on this innovative approach. Dr. Vance, thanks for joining us.
Dr. Vance: Thank you for having me. I’m happy to be here.
Archyde News Editor: Let’s start with the basics. Could you explain what co-undergrounding is and why it’s gaining traction, notably in states like Massachusetts?
Dr. Vance: Certainly. Co-undergrounding, at its core, is the simultaneous burial of both electrical and broadband lines. The appeal is multifaceted, but primarily, it’s a more cost-effective solution. Research suggests it can be up to 40% cheaper than tackling these infrastructure upgrades separately. This is particularly relevant in Massachusetts,were we see frequent outages due to weather and aging infrastructure. Burying these lines increases community aesthetics and could potentially increase property values, thus providing community benefits.
Archyde News Editor: The research highlights that the average customer may experience a certain amount of outages. How dose co-undergrounding aim to address this?
dr. Vance: Co-undergrounding directly addresses this as underground cables are shielded from many of the elements that cause outages, such as severe weather, falling trees, and other external factors. The reliability of the whole grid system increases by decreasing the probability of the outages.
Archyde News Editor: One of the mentioned areas for using Co-undergrounding is to decrease outages due to weather induced events. How does the impact of weather and equipment failure influence the justification for co-undergrounding?
Dr. Vance: That’s a crucial point. The economics of co-undergrounding are highly dependent on the primary causes of outages. If weather-related events are the dominant factor, undergrounding becomes a highly attractive investment. However, if equipment failure is the main culprit, the benefits are diminished. Weather is a strong case, of course. Equipment failure needs a complete different framework to tackle the problem.
Archyde News Editor: Beyond Massachusetts, are there other regions or scenarios where co-undergrounding offers meaningful advantages?
Dr. Vance: Absolutely.California, for example, is grappling with the threat of wildfires. Undergrounding power lines can significantly reduce the risk of these events, as seen with the devastating 2018 Camp Fire. This is a compelling use case. this approach also helps to mitigate some planned outages, ofen implemented to reduce wildfire risks.
Archyde News Editor: The research article also points to the need for a strategic framework. What are the key considerations for a triumphant co-undergrounding implementation?
Dr. Vance: It’s essential to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. A well-regulated and strategic plan is needed. We need to have strategic thinking about how we approach utility companies. Other considerations include the selection of the right routing options and considering other outage mitigation strategies.
archyde News Editor: High initial investment and potential for increased maintenance costs have been some of the downsides. What are your recommendations for making sure this is not the case?
Dr. Vance: Proper planning and right regulations are key. For example, a focus on high-quality materials and design can definitely help minimize maintenance needs in the long run. To solve for high investments, this should be done with a public private partnership to decrease the financial burden of the towns and municipalities
Archyde News Editor: Dr. Vance, thank you for sharing your valuable insights on co-undergrounding. It’s certainly a topic we’ll be keeping a close eye on here at Archyde News.
Dr. Vance: My pleasure.
Archyde News Editor: To our readers: What are your thoughts on the future of infrastructure? Do you think co-undergrounding is a viable solution for your community? Share your comments below!
