This is a common public policy/funding issue IMHO, not speaking to Vermont specifically, which I know a little less about, but this issue generally.
Although it's "expensive" it's not necessarily more expensive than doing it the current way. Though it might be, but nowhere near as much as is claimed, and I've worked on these issues about costs in the past as a mayor and municipal administrator with utility companies for example after Hurricanes Irene and Sandy.
The problem is that the current way we pay for this, the costs are spread out over many years, capitalized over time through utility's rates as well as state, and mostly federal, taxes when grants from FEMA, etc are provided back to reimburse after major events, etc. Plus the huge costs of lost food, time, economy, gas used in generators, injury, etc, etc that are not really tracked on any one agency or entity's balance sheet, but we still all pay for. So we're paying, but we're paying in smaller amounts to many different parties, whereas the cost to bury lines would collapse all of that into one place and immediately seem higher. It's a similar dynamic with things like homelessness. On that case, we actually do spend *more* on homelessness through the costs of police, ambulances, and ERs, and other healthcare and criminal justice issues that result from chronic homelessness, (plus lost economy, plus it's just morally horrible, how do we put a price on that?), but all of that costs more than it would cost to simply house homeless people. But by doing that you put all the money in one place upfront, so it seems more, rather than it being spread out in different years/governments/sectors.
alextorpey t1_j3vzq8j wrote
Reply to Why doesn’t Vermont bury its power lines? by tcchen
This is a common public policy/funding issue IMHO, not speaking to Vermont specifically, which I know a little less about, but this issue generally.
Although it's "expensive" it's not necessarily more expensive than doing it the current way. Though it might be, but nowhere near as much as is claimed, and I've worked on these issues about costs in the past as a mayor and municipal administrator with utility companies for example after Hurricanes Irene and Sandy.
The problem is that the current way we pay for this, the costs are spread out over many years, capitalized over time through utility's rates as well as state, and mostly federal, taxes when grants from FEMA, etc are provided back to reimburse after major events, etc. Plus the huge costs of lost food, time, economy, gas used in generators, injury, etc, etc that are not really tracked on any one agency or entity's balance sheet, but we still all pay for. So we're paying, but we're paying in smaller amounts to many different parties, whereas the cost to bury lines would collapse all of that into one place and immediately seem higher. It's a similar dynamic with things like homelessness. On that case, we actually do spend *more* on homelessness through the costs of police, ambulances, and ERs, and other healthcare and criminal justice issues that result from chronic homelessness, (plus lost economy, plus it's just morally horrible, how do we put a price on that?), but all of that costs more than it would cost to simply house homeless people. But by doing that you put all the money in one place upfront, so it seems more, rather than it being spread out in different years/governments/sectors.