9 ms·

I am a technician for xfinity in the bay area and NIMBYism a huge part too I would say. Huge portions of Mill Valley especially on and around Mt Tam had such ba

by meroes 6y ago

I am a technician for xfinity in the bay area and NIMBYism a huge part too I would say. Huge portions of Mill Valley especially on and around Mt Tam had such bad poles and vegetation. Only the last 3 fire years did anything. But literally nothing gets approved besides exact replacement. Nothing gets put underground, or rerouted because (as I understand it) mostly NIMBY groups. And I believe ATT ultimately owns most of the poles, PGE maintains them + leases, and the rest (comcast, sonic, etc) just lease. Marin has the reputation in Xfinity as the worst maintained in the 9 bay area locales they work in.

paloaltokid 6y ago
Oh god...Marin NIMBYism is really crazy when it comes to that stuff. And there's a lot of conspiracy theory / 5G type stuff that goes on as well. Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there).
- davisr 6y ago
  Well, they're not entirely wrong about the 5G. I understand many in this forum won't agree with me. From https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. About the author: > Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    Anything that cites the Ramazzini studies is suspect. They repeatedly make major methodological errors and nobody replicates their results.
  - LeoPanthera 6y ago
    Even if Moskowitz has a point, it is difficult to take him seriously when he associates himself with "Physicians for Safe Technology", a group which maintains the belief that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing. It is not. It has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical condition. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ High levels of RF exposure can of course do damage, in the form of burns. Any seasoned amateur radio operator at some point in the progression of their hobby can surely attest to the pain of being "bitten" by an energized RF cable. But trying to promote the idea that cellphones are dangerous is just scaremongering. You'll absorb more energy in just a few seconds just by standing in a sunbeam.
    - henearkr 6y ago
      All is not just about energy absorbed or burns. There are reports of the space between cells becoming larger (less inter-cellular adhesion) because of RF, and this led to the conclusion that the blood-brain barrier was weakened due to some kinds of RF. I've not dig too much in the subject, but I understand that a leaky BBB would increase inflammation in the brain and penetration of many molecules (including carcinogenic). I don't know why all the rebuttals focus on energy absorption and absence of ionizing frequencies. Seems like the mechanism of toxicity, if any, has nothing to do with that.
      - zaarn 6y ago
        A lot of the active RF spectra that people are concerned about don't penetrate deep into your body. They're either absorbed by the skin, the fatty tissue underneath or at the least, by the bone in the skull and ribcage. The reason your phone keeps working when your body blocks the signal is that the signal bounces of other surfaces. Blocking signals with your body becomes more true as frequency (and bandwidth) goes up. 5G Wifi can't even properly penetrate dry wall, not even mentioning all that water and bone in your body. Beside that, below the infrared spectrum, it is unlikely that much damage is done by common RF signals; the energy in a quanta from that spectrum is too small to effectively do anything but heat molecules up a tiny bit. Photochemical effects, ie, things like chemical reactions being induced or cells reacting to the light, require atleast about 1Thz to work (low-end IR). The heating occurs primarly for frequencies between 30 and 120MHz, which is actively used but not by B2C commercial things, it largely involves ham radio, air traffic radio, sea traffic, weather satellites, etc. Things you're likely to be closer to the receiving end of than the high powered sender. Which also bring to the other issue; the energies in common RF close to you is too low. If you send with 100mW power, the power your body will capture, even if it's the phone right next to your ear, is likely below 10mW of power. Low enough that your native body heat already overpowers it easily.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  It's clear not enough is being invested in schools, in particular the science curriculum.
  - shard972 6y ago
    We are talking about startups though? Should Ycombinator be teaching people that 5g doesn't spread corona-virus? Or maybe these people shouldn't be in control of such companies.
  - bgorman 6y ago
    Enough is being invested, it is just being spent extremely poorly. No country gets less per dollar on education than the US. A good start would be supporting school choice so the public school's monopoly and cost structure can be challenged.
    - duhuh 6y ago
      Like the choice we all have in healthcare? No thanks
    - jychang 6y ago
      Literally every other country in the world has a fully public education that does just fine. I think the only well known non-US private school system (off the top of my head) are UK commonwealth secondary boarding schools, and those schools are more well known for their abuse than their academic strength. Pretty much any other country (for example, France, Japan, China, etc) are generally built on a system of publicly funded schools
      - httpsterio 6y ago
        Finland as well, we don't basically have private or boarding schools at all.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        A good indicator whether public schools are good enough is this - the moment private schools can't compete, then public schools are good enough. Private for-profit schools can use their money to get political influence and reduce public school funding in order to further its economic advantage.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- almost_usual 6y ago
  > Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there). As someone who lives in Marin I’m not sure where you got this idea. Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. They probably paid less than 300k for their home.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. 64.1% of those in the county 16 or older are in the labor force. Most people living in Marin County are not retired. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycalifornia/LFE041218 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycali...
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      Most of the homeowners are probably retired and bought it for <300k. Which is related, but not totally, to who lives there.
      - Natsu 6y ago
        The funny thing about this whole story is that this whole story has a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracies at all: "We told the California Public Utilities Commission of a 4,700-MW need through 2022 and that gap started in 2020. Despite all that, only 3,300 MW was authorized for procurement and none starting until 2021," Berberich said during a special telephone conference the Cal-ISO Board of Governors held Aug. 17, following a weekend during which the grid operator twice conducted rotating blackouts because of high demand and tightening reserves. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081720-grid-operator-cal-iso-says-generation-shortfall-might-prompt-more-blackouts https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... It's weird that none of the 'experts' in the news could figure this out and we've gone to blaming random homeowners, electric lines, 5G and everything else in this story without this information even coming up.
    - deleted 6y ago
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  There is a lot of mysticism around electromagnetism, but I wouldn't want to live under a high voltage line either. But that would probably be irrelevant for substations and you could isolate lines from populated areas with not problem. I think the issue is probably because there is little will for investments.
hkmurakami 6y ago
I do think the recent fires have nudged things towards more undergrounding. I'm familiar with some of the dialogue in similarly rural/affluent peninsula towns, and it's mostly a debate about safety versus cost to underground. There's an effort to underground the utilities near Foothill College by tapping into Santa Clara County Fire's funds for improved fire safety, since they're allowed to use these funds in that specific location.
- zbrozek 6y ago
  The justification is that there's a particularly high density and quantity of wiring around that fire station (one of two for LAH, IIRC) and that Moody is a major access route for emergency services and evacuation. A giant bundle of wires coming down across the road would strangle a response. A simplistic napkin math computation says that the cost delta in electricity between what Santa Clara pays and what PG&E customers pay, times the amount of electricity that LAH residents consume would pay for the entire undergrounding in 5-6 years. So to my mind, it seems like a simple argument in favor of a municipal power utility that charges PG&E rates until it pays off its infrastructure, and then charges a more reasonable rate thereafter. Of course this assumes that LAH could achieve Santa Clara levels of cost efficiency, but it doesn't seem crazy either.
  - hkmurakami 6y ago
    Makes sense -- Moody Road is a pretty dicey road for access and there's a decent number of homes that could easily be cut off there. Presumably in such a situation the opposite side access from Page Mill Road would be jeopardized as well. Too bad the deadline has passed for nomination for LAH Town Council. You should run next time ;)
  - jldugger 6y ago
    I've kinda wondered this for a while -- why is SVP (Santa Clara) cheaper than PG&E?
    - thephyber 6y ago
      SVP isn't weighed down with debt from {the Erin Brockavitch lawsuit, the San Bruno gas explosion, the Paradise fire} incidents (among other, less infamous ones). More likely, though, is that smaller and newer utilities are likely to be more nimble than the big behemoth that has lots of tech debt and internal and external bureaucracy.
WWLink 6y ago
Man, I can't imagine anyone NIMBYing new power poles lol. Old poles get scary, especially when they start leaning over. And then when AT&T was mounting giant ass DSL VRADs on poles too lol. I'd be out there cheering on the linemen for replacing the old junk. :D
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  I don't think the poles are the issue. They're a proxy. The issue is: what happens when you upgrade such infrastructure? The area become more desirable, there's more development, and more "outsiders" move in.
  - smabie 6y ago
    Yeah but presumably that would increase land prices.
    - chiefalchemist 6y ago
      Obviously, not everyone values money over peace and quite, and peace of mind. Not everyone loves strip malls and other "mod cons."
- momokoko 6y ago
  Because that requires new permits and new permits require impact studies and approval which must go through the public. Which makes it impossible in areas like that. Just replacement to exactly what was there does not require that approval.
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Depends. New poles proposed often carry not just electricity, but also a cellular station, 2 or 3 cameras, 'smart' blazing bright led street lights going on and off at irregular times and 1 or 2 sizable led advertizing displays constatly adapting their messages to perceived passers by. I can definetly see how replacing a lowly old pole with one of these annoyance towers can lead to strong opposition even for those not having 5G scares.
username4567 6y ago
I have family in Mill Valley in that area. They've seen PG&E helicoptering in new polls in residential neighborhoods. I assume it was because the streets were too narrow but also likely that the community didn't want heavy machinery in their neighborhood.
- thephyber 6y ago
  I would love to see PG&E shame residents by showing PG&E customers how much their bill increases (both individually and in aggregate) because they have to work around NIMBYs.
  - jauer 6y ago
    Cost recovery fees in areas where they were blocked by NIMBY groups? I'd love to see that, but skeptical that the regulator would approve.
rbanffy 6y ago
I can't imagine what makes someone object to moving cables underground.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  There will be a dirt pile in their morning landscape view from the east wing of their estate.
- thephyber 6y ago
  The work itself requires construction and any additional maintenance work may require construction (eg. digging a trench in the road / sidewalks). There's always some maintenance needed and I suspect vocal NIMBY people just don't want to tolerate any minor inconvenience, not simply any change. Then again, maybe it's the same demand for power and independence that we are seeing with "Karens", masks, protests, Confederate statues, anti-intellectualism, conspiracy theories, etc. As individuals feel more powerless, they will almost certainly lash out at anything they can, including local utilities disrupting their life/convenience.
  - almost_usual 6y ago
    I doubt it’s anything too sophisticated, old retired people simply don’t like change.
- gwright 6y ago
  Rocks. Frost. Not all locations are amenable to underground cables. Here is a white paper that lays out all the tradeoffs and includes some costs. New construction costs can differ between overhead and underground by 2-10x. Conversion costs aren't negligible either. https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electricreliability/undergrounding/Documents/UndergroundReport.pdf https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electricreliability/unde...
  - zaarn 6y ago
    From the paper it seams that overhead cables are also >10x more frequently failing, so I think that'll balance out easily. Where I live, 99.9% of power is delivered via underground cables, I get power outages like once every 5 years. Brownouts are more often but usually not related to cable issues. America needs to catch up to the rest of the world there.
zxcvbn4038 6y ago
> Nothing gets put underground That is too bad, I grew up in an desert locale that had all its power lines buried and I only experienced one power outage in fifteen years. Then I moved out to a coastal area where burying the lines wasn’t really feasible and pretty much every time it rained someone would hydroplane into a utility poll and knock out the power for a couple hours, and it rained at least once a week. If the climate permits them to bury, they should go for it.
- pfranz 6y ago
  (I don't have any professional background in this) I believe in general above-ground lines are "less durable", but they're much easier to install and repair. Below-ground cost significantly more for both. They're also susceptible to different things; wind and tress for above-ground, earthquakes? high water-table? rock vs sand/clay? for below grown. For a few years I lived in a neighborhood that had above-ground lines, but further down the street they were below ground because that neighborhood was significantly richer. Our power went out fairly frequently. The neighbors told me it was because of the transition from below ground to above ground, but I also wouldn't have been surprised if NIMBYism kept older equipment in service.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  How does climate interfere with burying power lines? Germany's bad weather is only slightly less of a stereotype than the lack of humour and <you know what>, and all residential power lines are underground. Even the long-distance lines are moving underground lately.
  - eitally 6y ago
    I think more than climate it tends to be 1) what does the current construction look like and is it feasible to move lines underground, 2) what is the soil like, and is it stable enough to bury cables, and 3) are current property owners willing to accommodate the disturbance to trench and replace the old cables. I grew up in an old (for the US), hilly east coast city and nothing was underground. Because it wasn't very dense and didn't have gridded neighborhoods, it would have been quite expensive to run utilities underground. I subsequently moved to a newer part of a different city and all the new construction had underground utilities. It still doesn't prevent outages at the substation or high voltage transfer line layers.
9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
Why would even a NIMBY not be in favor of burying power lines? Power lines & poles don't exactly add to property values, and you'd think that underground you would get less electromagnetic 5G corona cancer rays implanting microchip vaccines too. But I guess trying to apply logic here isn't going to work...
- JanisL 6y ago
  Some NIMBYs I've met just don't want any change at all if there's any amount of immediate inconvenience they would face as a direct result regardless of how small. In these worst NIMBY cases there's often no particularly compelling arguments for why because it's all just flimsy justifications to avoiding dealing with any change. Logical argument about costs and benefits tend to go nowhere with these people. Sometimes framing things in terms of reducing future hassles and change can get things moving.
Nasrudith 6y ago
That underground lines are objected to is hillarious by east coast standards where NIMBYs frown upon power lines heavily. Especially the EMF whackjobs since the earth between it would insulate it but those types are so wilfully ignorant they would think it causes earthquakes or "poisons the earth" somehow.
jollofricepeas 6y ago
Don’t drink the Kool-Aid I have worked as an executive in a risk department at a telco and can say definitively say that NIMBYs don’t influence these decisions. I worked with our government relations, legal and comms teams and was in charge of risk management. There’s no profits to be gained in fixing most infrastructure issues and most times NIMBYs provided us cover for service issues. “Yes congressmen we’d love to upgrade our infrastructure and provide better service but those damn NIMBYs”
boring_twenties 6y ago
You're telling me that there are people who have above-ground wires to their home, who oppose efforts to put these wires underground? That's incomprehensible to me... and then these same people complain about outages? Wow.
daun 6y ago
NIMBYs have almost nothing to do with blocking wire undergrounding. Parts of Manhattan Beach, for example, are undergrounding wires. The homeowners opposed to it don't want to pay "an average of $42,423" for the service. https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-beach-neighborhood-will-bury-power-utilities/ https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-bea...

by meroes 6y ago

paloaltokid 6y ago

Oh god...Marin NIMBYism is really crazy when it comes to that stuff. And there's a lot of conspiracy theory / 5G type stuff that goes on as well. Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there).

davisr 6y ago
Well, they're not entirely wrong about the 5G. I understand many in this forum won't agree with me. From https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... > We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe > The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats. > Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users. About the author: > Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.
- dekhn 6y ago
  Anything that cites the Ramazzini studies is suspect. They repeatedly make major methodological errors and nobody replicates their results.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  Even if Moskowitz has a point, it is difficult to take him seriously when he associates himself with "Physicians for Safe Technology", a group which maintains the belief that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a real thing. It is not. It has no scientific basis and is not a recognized medical condition. https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/ High levels of RF exposure can of course do damage, in the form of burns. Any seasoned amateur radio operator at some point in the progression of their hobby can surely attest to the pain of being "bitten" by an energized RF cable. But trying to promote the idea that cellphones are dangerous is just scaremongering. You'll absorb more energy in just a few seconds just by standing in a sunbeam.
  - henearkr 6y ago
    All is not just about energy absorbed or burns. There are reports of the space between cells becoming larger (less inter-cellular adhesion) because of RF, and this led to the conclusion that the blood-brain barrier was weakened due to some kinds of RF. I've not dig too much in the subject, but I understand that a leaky BBB would increase inflammation in the brain and penetration of many molecules (including carcinogenic). I don't know why all the rebuttals focus on energy absorption and absence of ionizing frequencies. Seems like the mechanism of toxicity, if any, has nothing to do with that.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      A lot of the active RF spectra that people are concerned about don't penetrate deep into your body. They're either absorbed by the skin, the fatty tissue underneath or at the least, by the bone in the skull and ribcage. The reason your phone keeps working when your body blocks the signal is that the signal bounces of other surfaces. Blocking signals with your body becomes more true as frequency (and bandwidth) goes up. 5G Wifi can't even properly penetrate dry wall, not even mentioning all that water and bone in your body. Beside that, below the infrared spectrum, it is unlikely that much damage is done by common RF signals; the energy in a quanta from that spectrum is too small to effectively do anything but heat molecules up a tiny bit. Photochemical effects, ie, things like chemical reactions being induced or cells reacting to the light, require atleast about 1Thz to work (low-end IR). The heating occurs primarly for frequencies between 30 and 120MHz, which is actively used but not by B2C commercial things, it largely involves ham radio, air traffic radio, sea traffic, weather satellites, etc. Things you're likely to be closer to the receiving end of than the high powered sender. Which also bring to the other issue; the energies in common RF close to you is too low. If you send with 100mW power, the power your body will capture, even if it's the phone right next to your ear, is likely below 10mW of power. Low enough that your native body heat already overpowers it easily.
rbanffy 6y ago
It's clear not enough is being invested in schools, in particular the science curriculum.
- shard972 6y ago
  We are talking about startups though? Should Ycombinator be teaching people that 5g doesn't spread corona-virus? Or maybe these people shouldn't be in control of such companies.
- bgorman 6y ago
  Enough is being invested, it is just being spent extremely poorly. No country gets less per dollar on education than the US. A good start would be supporting school choice so the public school's monopoly and cost structure can be challenged.
  - duhuh 6y ago
    Like the choice we all have in healthcare? No thanks
  - jychang 6y ago
    Literally every other country in the world has a fully public education that does just fine. I think the only well known non-US private school system (off the top of my head) are UK commonwealth secondary boarding schools, and those schools are more well known for their abuse than their academic strength. Pretty much any other country (for example, France, Japan, China, etc) are generally built on a system of publicly funded schools
    - httpsterio 6y ago
      Finland as well, we don't basically have private or boarding schools at all.
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        A good indicator whether public schools are good enough is this - the moment private schools can't compete, then public schools are good enough. Private for-profit schools can use their money to get political influence and reduce public school funding in order to further its economic advantage.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 6y ago
> Strange to think that many of the folks who live there are in charge of a lot of the companies on HN (or are senior execs there). As someone who lives in Marin I’m not sure where you got this idea. Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. They probably paid less than 300k for their home.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Most people who live in Marin have been there for 20-30+ years and are retired. 64.1% of those in the county 16 or older are in the labor force. Most people living in Marin County are not retired. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycalifornia/LFE041218 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marincountycali...
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    Most of the homeowners are probably retired and bought it for <300k. Which is related, but not totally, to who lives there.
    - Natsu 6y ago
      The funny thing about this whole story is that this whole story has a much simpler explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracies at all: "We told the California Public Utilities Commission of a 4,700-MW need through 2022 and that gap started in 2020. Despite all that, only 3,300 MW was authorized for procurement and none starting until 2021," Berberich said during a special telephone conference the Cal-ISO Board of Governors held Aug. 17, following a weekend during which the grid operator twice conducted rotating blackouts because of high demand and tightening reserves. https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081720-grid-operator-cal-iso-says-generation-shortfall-might-prompt-more-blackouts https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-ne... It's weird that none of the 'experts' in the news could figure this out and we've gone to blaming random homeowners, electric lines, 5G and everything else in this story without this information even coming up.
  - deleted 6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
There is a lot of mysticism around electromagnetism, but I wouldn't want to live under a high voltage line either. But that would probably be irrelevant for substations and you could isolate lines from populated areas with not problem. I think the issue is probably because there is little will for investments.

hkmurakami 6y ago

I do think the recent fires have nudged things towards more undergrounding. I'm familiar with some of the dialogue in similarly rural/affluent peninsula towns, and it's mostly a debate about safety versus cost to underground. There's an effort to underground the utilities near Foothill College by tapping into Santa Clara County Fire's funds for improved fire safety, since they're allowed to use these funds in that specific location.

zbrozek 6y ago
The justification is that there's a particularly high density and quantity of wiring around that fire station (one of two for LAH, IIRC) and that Moody is a major access route for emergency services and evacuation. A giant bundle of wires coming down across the road would strangle a response. A simplistic napkin math computation says that the cost delta in electricity between what Santa Clara pays and what PG&E customers pay, times the amount of electricity that LAH residents consume would pay for the entire undergrounding in 5-6 years. So to my mind, it seems like a simple argument in favor of a municipal power utility that charges PG&E rates until it pays off its infrastructure, and then charges a more reasonable rate thereafter. Of course this assumes that LAH could achieve Santa Clara levels of cost efficiency, but it doesn't seem crazy either.
- hkmurakami 6y ago
  Makes sense -- Moody Road is a pretty dicey road for access and there's a decent number of homes that could easily be cut off there. Presumably in such a situation the opposite side access from Page Mill Road would be jeopardized as well. Too bad the deadline has passed for nomination for LAH Town Council. You should run next time ;)
- jldugger 6y ago
  I've kinda wondered this for a while -- why is SVP (Santa Clara) cheaper than PG&E?
  - thephyber 6y ago
    SVP isn't weighed down with debt from {the Erin Brockavitch lawsuit, the San Bruno gas explosion, the Paradise fire} incidents (among other, less infamous ones). More likely, though, is that smaller and newer utilities are likely to be more nimble than the big behemoth that has lots of tech debt and internal and external bureaucracy.

WWLink 6y ago

Man, I can't imagine anyone NIMBYing new power poles lol. Old poles get scary, especially when they start leaning over. And then when AT&T was mounting giant ass DSL VRADs on poles too lol. I'd be out there cheering on the linemen for replacing the old junk. :D

chiefalchemist 6y ago
I don't think the poles are the issue. They're a proxy. The issue is: what happens when you upgrade such infrastructure? The area become more desirable, there's more development, and more "outsiders" move in.
- smabie 6y ago
  Yeah but presumably that would increase land prices.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    Obviously, not everyone values money over peace and quite, and peace of mind. Not everyone loves strip malls and other "mod cons."
momokoko 6y ago
Because that requires new permits and new permits require impact studies and approval which must go through the public. Which makes it impossible in areas like that. Just replacement to exactly what was there does not require that approval.
PeterStuer 6y ago
Depends. New poles proposed often carry not just electricity, but also a cellular station, 2 or 3 cameras, 'smart' blazing bright led street lights going on and off at irregular times and 1 or 2 sizable led advertizing displays constatly adapting their messages to perceived passers by. I can definetly see how replacing a lowly old pole with one of these annoyance towers can lead to strong opposition even for those not having 5G scares.

username4567 6y ago

I have family in Mill Valley in that area. They've seen PG&E helicoptering in new polls in residential neighborhoods. I assume it was because the streets were too narrow but also likely that the community didn't want heavy machinery in their neighborhood.

thephyber 6y ago
I would love to see PG&E shame residents by showing PG&E customers how much their bill increases (both individually and in aggregate) because they have to work around NIMBYs.
- jauer 6y ago
  Cost recovery fees in areas where they were blocked by NIMBY groups? I'd love to see that, but skeptical that the regulator would approve.

rbanffy 6y ago

I can't imagine what makes someone object to moving cables underground.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
There will be a dirt pile in their morning landscape view from the east wing of their estate.
thephyber 6y ago
The work itself requires construction and any additional maintenance work may require construction (eg. digging a trench in the road / sidewalks). There's always some maintenance needed and I suspect vocal NIMBY people just don't want to tolerate any minor inconvenience, not simply any change. Then again, maybe it's the same demand for power and independence that we are seeing with "Karens", masks, protests, Confederate statues, anti-intellectualism, conspiracy theories, etc. As individuals feel more powerless, they will almost certainly lash out at anything they can, including local utilities disrupting their life/convenience.
- almost_usual 6y ago
  I doubt it’s anything too sophisticated, old retired people simply don’t like change.
gwright 6y ago
Rocks. Frost. Not all locations are amenable to underground cables. Here is a white paper that lays out all the tradeoffs and includes some costs. New construction costs can differ between overhead and underground by 2-10x. Conversion costs aren't negligible either. https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electricreliability/undergrounding/Documents/UndergroundReport.pdf https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electricreliability/unde...
- zaarn 6y ago
  From the paper it seams that overhead cables are also >10x more frequently failing, so I think that'll balance out easily. Where I live, 99.9% of power is delivered via underground cables, I get power outages like once every 5 years. Brownouts are more often but usually not related to cable issues. America needs to catch up to the rest of the world there.

zxcvbn4038 6y ago

> Nothing gets put underground That is too bad, I grew up in an desert locale that had all its power lines buried and I only experienced one power outage in fifteen years. Then I moved out to a coastal area where burying the lines wasn’t really feasible and pretty much every time it rained someone would hydroplane into a utility poll and knock out the power for a couple hours, and it rained at least once a week. If the climate permits them to bury, they should go for it.

pfranz 6y ago
(I don't have any professional background in this) I believe in general above-ground lines are "less durable", but they're much easier to install and repair. Below-ground cost significantly more for both. They're also susceptible to different things; wind and tress for above-ground, earthquakes? high water-table? rock vs sand/clay? for below grown. For a few years I lived in a neighborhood that had above-ground lines, but further down the street they were below ground because that neighborhood was significantly richer. Our power went out fairly frequently. The neighbors told me it was because of the transition from below ground to above ground, but I also wouldn't have been surprised if NIMBYism kept older equipment in service.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
How does climate interfere with burying power lines? Germany's bad weather is only slightly less of a stereotype than the lack of humour and <you know what>, and all residential power lines are underground. Even the long-distance lines are moving underground lately.
- eitally 6y ago
  I think more than climate it tends to be 1) what does the current construction look like and is it feasible to move lines underground, 2) what is the soil like, and is it stable enough to bury cables, and 3) are current property owners willing to accommodate the disturbance to trench and replace the old cables. I grew up in an old (for the US), hilly east coast city and nothing was underground. Because it wasn't very dense and didn't have gridded neighborhoods, it would have been quite expensive to run utilities underground. I subsequently moved to a newer part of a different city and all the new construction had underground utilities. It still doesn't prevent outages at the substation or high voltage transfer line layers.

9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago

Why would even a NIMBY not be in favor of burying power lines? Power lines & poles don't exactly add to property values, and you'd think that underground you would get less electromagnetic 5G corona cancer rays implanting microchip vaccines too. But I guess trying to apply logic here isn't going to work...

JanisL 6y ago
Some NIMBYs I've met just don't want any change at all if there's any amount of immediate inconvenience they would face as a direct result regardless of how small. In these worst NIMBY cases there's often no particularly compelling arguments for why because it's all just flimsy justifications to avoiding dealing with any change. Logical argument about costs and benefits tend to go nowhere with these people. Sometimes framing things in terms of reducing future hassles and change can get things moving.

Nasrudith 6y ago

That underground lines are objected to is hillarious by east coast standards where NIMBYs frown upon power lines heavily. Especially the EMF whackjobs since the earth between it would insulate it but those types are so wilfully ignorant they would think it causes earthquakes or "poisons the earth" somehow.

jollofricepeas 6y ago

Don’t drink the Kool-Aid I have worked as an executive in a risk department at a telco and can say definitively say that NIMBYs don’t influence these decisions. I worked with our government relations, legal and comms teams and was in charge of risk management. There’s no profits to be gained in fixing most infrastructure issues and most times NIMBYs provided us cover for service issues. “Yes congressmen we’d love to upgrade our infrastructure and provide better service but those damn NIMBYs”

boring_twenties 6y ago

You're telling me that there are people who have above-ground wires to their home, who oppose efforts to put these wires underground? That's incomprehensible to me... and then these same people complain about outages? Wow.

daun 6y ago

NIMBYs have almost nothing to do with blocking wire undergrounding. Parts of Manhattan Beach, for example, are undergrounding wires. The homeowners opposed to it don't want to pay "an average of $42,423" for the service. https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-beach-neighborhood-will-bury-power-utilities/ https://www.dailybreeze.com/2020/01/08/a-third-manhattan-bea...