The Cost of Installing an Underground Power Line - Essay Example

Popular mechanics Given the frequent power outages, there is a need to address the need for subsidized cables to enable power companies to consider adopting an option that is sustainable to them and to the customer. The fact that some regions have been known for frequently experiencing adverse weather, it is high time the recurrent problems were solved for good. Going underground for the purposes of having reliable power supply irrespective of weather conditions seems like a necessity that need to be responded to in haste.

It is understandable that even underground cables may not eliminate the chances of power blackouts, but they will significantly reduce the probability of such occurrences. Therefore, if the bone of contention is cost of installation, then concern should be addressed through government subsidy whereby the government should be made to understand that in the event that it subsidize cables, then it is easy for power companies to consider laying power cables underground. This will limit exposure to adverse weather elements that cause interruptions.

This way, the government will be helping in making sure that its citizens have access to uninterrupted power supply and probably say bye to blackouts associated with adverse weather conditions (Fecht 1). Assuming that the government does consider subsidy, or even if it does not consider subsidy, whose responsibility should it be to see that the underground cables are laid? In other words should the government, or residents pay for the cost of installing underground power line? As much as this question may be subjected to various opinions, it appears to me that all of them are stakeholders.

The government, residents, and the power company should all contribute towards the cost of installing the underground power line. The government has a responsibility to its citizens. As such, should provide part of the funds for installation. The moment there is power blackout, a lot of government job goes undone, inevitably drawing the government in as a stakeholder in the whole scenario. Coupled with its responsibility to ensure that citizens receive all the essential services, the government should not play the second fiddle in the matter.

Secondly, the power company should also contribute to the cost of installation since eventually, all the installations remain their assets from which they earn profits. Lastly, the residents should also contribute something little so that they can have a voice in the whole process to facilitate speedy resolution and installation. However, the government and the power company should pay the biggest proportion of the installation cost (Fecht 1). Given the cost of installation, the scenario may look quite untenable but that may not be the case.

One should consider that what is involved here is a vital driver for the economy in general. If one were to consider how many millions of dollars are lost within a few hours of blackout, then the issue to do with cost would be actually watered down. The whole scenario may be approached as a revolution of the power industry for service delivery and make proper calculations. Focussing on the initial cost alone does not bring the real picture. Perhaps one should analyze the long-term benefits. The power company must understand that they cannot aim at recovering all their expenses in the short term but in the long term.

In addition, they shall have reduced recurrent costs as a result of adverse weather on top of guaranteeing their customers uninterrupted power supply. If that one were to assess the consequences from that angle, then they would realize that maintenance would be so easy. It therefore appears that preventive measure should be put despite the cost (Fecht 1). Work Cited Fecht, Sarah. Popular Mechanics Should the Northeast Bury its Power Lines to Prevent Outages? 2012. Retrieved from http://www.

popularmechanics.com/science/energy/efficiency/should-the-northeast-bury- its-power-lines-to-prevent-outages-14295683