Broad brush: Is it worth hardening our infrastructure to protect against disasters? I would say yes, absolutely. Whether you use a one-in-a-decade, one-in-a-cen

Broad brush: Is it worth hardening our infrastructure to protect against disasters? I would say yes, absolutely. Whether you use a one-in-a-decade, one-in-a-century or some other metric is up to the bean counters and their C-B analysis. I'm currently working on a $200mm project that is reinforcing some infrastructure against a one-in-4000yr event, there are definitely some differing risk tolerances out there. To call it simply 3 extra days of electricity is a bit disingenuous I would think. There are massive downstream costs caused by this disaster, not even including the loss of life. How many apartment buildings will need to be torn down to the studs to remediate the water damage? How many buildings won't receive proper repair and end up with residents suffering from the health problems living in those conditions would entail? How much economic output/activity has been suppressed by a weather event that other parts of the country would have/did shrug off? And to venture down my own political rabbit hole, how much of that hypothetical 10% extra cost of electricity could be absorbed if the utility was public and the share of funds that go to profit instead went to expansion and upgrade of the infrastructure?