Thanks for the education. Always trying to learn

cheeky said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

I have never understood why America insists on running all power lines in the air. Many European countries bury all transmission lines.
The excuse is " it's too expensive". But yet when hurricanes and tornadoes wipe them out there is always plenty of money to rebuild….. from taxpayers and rate hikes.
We can bury gas pipelines but not electrical lines. Seems it would prevent weather related power outages and be a lot more secure from military threats…. to say nothing of the aesthetics of not having all that crud sticking up in the air.

---

The larger kva you get, the more per lf increase in price.

It would cost around 10x-15x per linear foot to run 354kva underground versus overhead.

345kva runs ~ $1.5mm to $2.5mm per mile to run overhead. That same line would be in the general ballpark of $25mm per mile if you buried it. Take a 100 mile run - overhead it would be ~$250mm to construct whereas if you buried it that same cost would be ~$2.5 Billion. That is a significant difference in cost, and one that most utility providers simply cannot afford without having rates jump from $.15/kwh to $1.50/kwh or more. I doubt you or anybody would be all on board with their electric bill going from $200 per month to $2,000 per month.

Smaller lines can, and often are, run underground because it is far more cost effective in the short and long run to do. But you can't apply the same logic to everything because it doesn't work unfortunately.

---

Digging a trench seems a lot cheaper than building towers. What special costs go into burying a wire vs overhead. The easement expense should be the same. No?

---

Well, it seems like I should be 6'-4", 235 lbs, 5% body fat, ridiculously good looking, obscenely wealthy and able to point at any woman and say "booya" and have her hit the big O instantly right there.

But alas, what seems is not reality.

AgLA06 said:

---

I find this thread interesting and something getting much more common in professional fields these days.

Ignorance is getting to be a much larger problem since the internet and social media allow much more of the population to believe they have knowledge on highly complex issues they simply do not. It used to mean people realized they weren't versed in the topic and dropped it. Now there's grass root movements and petitions because of it.

So we get a lot of "I believe" or "I don't believe" or "if we really wanted to" that has nothing to do with reality. It's the same in O&G and commercial development and medicine or any other field that requires a high level degree and industry experience to be proficient. Yet Karen or Dale see something on Facebook and are now leading the crusade in the name of change for the greater good.

---

Too much common sense! Unrelated, but I like to start my visits to the doctor with "hey, I googled my symptoms and...."

rme said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

I find this thread interesting and something getting much more common in professional fields these days.

Ignorance is getting to be a much larger problem since the internet and social media allow much more of the population to believe they have knowledge on highly complex issues they simply do not. It used to mean people realized they weren't versed in the topic and dropped it. Now there's grass root movements and petitions because of it.

So we get a lot of "I believe" or "I don't believe" or "if we really wanted to" that has nothing to do with reality. It's the same in O&G and commercial development and medicine or any other field that requires a high level degree and industry experience to be proficient. Yet Karen or Dale see something on Facebook and are now leading the crusade in the name of change for the greater good.

---

Too much common sense! Unrelated, but I like to start my visits to the doctor with "hey, I googled my symptoms and...."

---

Oh, I'm sure they love that.

It's right up there with the random person with no knowledge of anything after seeing the 30 second media clickbait segment saying "they should just do....".

AgLA06 said:

---

rme said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

I find this thread interesting and something getting much more common in professional fields these days.

Ignorance is getting to be a much larger problem since the internet and social media allow much more of the population to believe they have knowledge on highly complex issues they simply do not. It used to mean people realized they weren't versed in the topic and dropped it. Now there's grass root movements and petitions because of it.

So we get a lot of "I believe" or "I don't believe" or "if we really wanted to" that has nothing to do with reality. It's the same in O&G and commercial development and medicine or any other field that requires a high level degree and industry experience to be proficient. Yet Karen or Dale see something on Facebook and are now leading the crusade in the name of change for the greater good.

---

Too much common sense! Unrelated, but I like to start my visits to the doctor with "hey, I googled my symptoms and...."

---

Oh, I'm sure they love that.

It's right up there with the random person with no knowledge of anything after seeing the 30 second media clickbait segment saying "they should just do....".

---

I stayed at a Holiday Inn once.....


The choice between underground and above-ground high-capacity electric lines in Europe and the United States is influenced by several factors, including geography, economics, environmental considerations, and policy preferences. Here's a breakdown of why underground lines are more common in Europe, while above-ground lines are typical in the U.S.:

1. Geography and Urban Density:
Europe: Europe has a relatively high population density and extensive urban areas, where space is limited. In these regions, especially in cities, there is often a preference to keep electric lines underground to preserve aesthetics, avoid congestion, and reduce the risk of outages caused by storms or accidents.
United States: The U.S. has larger and more spread-out landscapes with vast rural areas where above-ground lines are more practical. These lines are easier to install, maintain, and repair in less densely populated areas.
2. Cost Considerations:
Europe: Underground cables are more expensive to install, but in densely populated areas, this cost is justified to protect against visual impact, reduce maintenance costs from weather-related damage (e.g., storms, falling trees), and minimize land use conflict.
United States: In the U.S., the cost of burying cables in rural or sparsely populated areas is considered prohibitively expensive, especially for long-distance high-capacity transmission. As a result, above-ground lines are often chosen because they are cheaper to install and maintain, particularly in areas that are less prone to severe weather.
3. Environmental Concerns:
Europe: European countries place a strong emphasis on reducing the environmental impact of infrastructure projects. Underground lines can reduce the visual pollution caused by overhead wires and are seen as more aesthetically pleasing, especially in scenic or historical areas.
United States: While environmental concerns are important, the U.S. is less likely to prioritize underground lines in rural or less densely populated areas due to the cost difference. However, there are still efforts to bury lines in urban areas to protect from visual blight or in areas prone to frequent severe weather.
4. Weather and Disaster Resilience:
Europe: Some European countries face severe weather events, and burying cables helps protect them from storms, strong winds, or ice, which could damage above-ground infrastructure. Underground cables are less susceptible to damage and outages, which increases the reliability of the grid.
United States: In the U.S., particularly in areas prone to hurricanes or wildfires, there is an ongoing debate about whether to invest in underground infrastructure. However, many rural areas still rely on above-ground lines because they are quicker and cheaper to repair in the event of a disaster.
5. Regulatory and Policy Decisions:
Europe: Many European countries have stricter regulations that encourage the use of underground cables, particularly in densely populated or environmentally sensitive areas. Policies also tend to prioritize reducing visual impact and integrating infrastructure into urban planning.
United States: While some states or regions in the U.S. have started to invest more in undergrounding lines (especially after high-profile natural disasters), nationwide policies are generally more focused on minimizing upfront costs, leading to a preference for above-ground infrastructure.
Summary:
The decision to use underground vs. above-ground lines comes down to a combination of cost, geography, urban density, weather resilience, and policy. Europe tends to opt for underground lines due to higher population density, a focus on aesthetics, and storm resilience, while the U.S. uses above-ground lines more often due to lower installation and maintenance costs in rural areas, as well as a more dispersed population.

The primary difference between underground and above-ground electric lines lies in their construction, installation, maintenance, cost, and environmental impact. Here's a breakdown of the key differences:

1. Construction and Installation
Underground Electric Lines: These lines are buried beneath the ground in ducts or trenches, typically made of durable materials such as cables with insulation. The installation process is more complex and labor-intensive, requiring excavation and sometimes disruption of roads, landscapes, or buildings.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines are supported by utility poles or towers above the ground. The installation is typically faster and easier compared to underground lines, as it involves placing poles and stringing wires between them.
2. Cost
Underground Electric Lines: Underground lines are significantly more expensive to install than above-ground lines. The cost is driven by the need for excavation, trenching, and the use of more expensive materials. Additionally, labor costs are higher because of the complexity of the installation.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These are cheaper to install, as the process is simpler and involves fewer materials and less labor. The costs are generally limited to the construction of the poles and the installation of overhead cables.
3. Maintenance and Repairs
Underground Electric Lines: Maintenance and repairs for underground lines are more difficult and expensive because they require digging up the ground to access the cables. In case of a fault, identifying and fixing the issue can take longer, and the process can be disruptive.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines are easier to inspect and repair. Faults are typically easier to identify, and repairs are quicker because they don't require digging. However, they are more vulnerable to damage from external factors like storms, falling trees, or animal interference.
4. Reliability and Durability
Underground Electric Lines: Underground lines are less susceptible to weather-related damage like high winds, storms, or falling trees. They are more reliable in areas with frequent severe weather because they're protected from external elements. However, they can still be affected by flooding or other underground environmental factors.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines are more vulnerable to weather-related issues such as lightning strikes, high winds, tree falls, or ice accumulation. A storm or accident can cause widespread outages, making above-ground lines less reliable in certain environments.
5. Aesthetics and Environmental Impact
Underground Electric Lines: Underground lines have minimal visual impact and are preferred in urban and scenic areas where aesthetic considerations are important. They also reduce the "visual clutter" of power lines and poles, which can improve the appearance of neighborhoods or natural landscapes.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines can be visually intrusive, especially in urban areas or scenic locations. Power poles and lines are often considered unsightly and can detract from the visual appeal of an area. Additionally, they may pose environmental risks if damaged by storms or wildlife.
6. Safety
Underground Electric Lines: Underground lines are generally safer because they are less likely to be knocked down by external factors like falling trees or accidents. They also pose less of a risk to animals and people in the event of a fault.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines can pose safety risks, especially in the event of storms or accidents. Downed power lines can create hazards for pedestrians, drivers, and animals. They also present a risk of electrocution if damaged.
7. Lifespan
Underground Electric Lines: Underground lines tend to have a longer lifespan since they are protected from many external elements (such as weather and wildlife). However, the risk of underground corrosion or damage from water infiltration can affect their longevity.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: While above-ground lines may experience more wear and tear due to exposure to the elements, they can be easily inspected and replaced when needed, contributing to a potentially shorter lifespan in certain climates.
8. Environmental Factors
Underground Electric Lines: While underground cables are protected from many weather-related disruptions, they can still face challenges from water or ground movement (e.g., earthquakes, shifting soil). Environmental concerns, such as disruption of wildlife habitats during installation, can also arise.
Above-Ground Electric Lines: These lines are more prone to environmental disruptions like high winds, ice, or tree damage, and their maintenance can involve trimming trees and managing vegetation around the poles. However, they don't have the risk of flooding or water damage as underground lines do.

In summary, underground lines are generally more expensive but offer greater reliability, safety, and aesthetic appeal, particularly in urban areas and areas prone to severe weather. Above-ground lines, while cheaper and easier to install, can be more vulnerable to environmental damage and present aesthetic and safety concerns. The choice between the two depends on factors like cost, location, and the specific needs of the area.


The above answer is 100% chatGPT (LOL)

schmellba99 said:

---

reineraggie09 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

I have never understood why America insists on running all power lines in the air. Many European countries bury all transmission lines.
The excuse is " it's too expensive". But yet when hurricanes and tornadoes wipe them out there is always plenty of money to rebuild….. from taxpayers and rate hikes.
We can bury gas pipelines but not electrical lines. Seems it would prevent weather related power outages and be a lot more secure from military threats…. to say nothing of the aesthetics of not having all that crud sticking up in the air.

---

The larger kva you get, the more per lf increase in price.

It would cost around 10x-15x per linear foot to run 354kva underground versus overhead.

345kva runs ~ $1.5mm to $2.5mm per mile to run overhead. That same line would be in the general ballpark of $25mm per mile if you buried it. Take a 100 mile run - overhead it would be ~$250mm to construct whereas if you buried it that same cost would be ~$2.5 Billion. That is a significant difference in cost, and one that most utility providers simply cannot afford without having rates jump from $.15/kwh to $1.50/kwh or more. I doubt you or anybody would be all on board with their electric bill going from $200 per month to $2,000 per month.

Smaller lines can, and often are, run underground because it is far more cost effective in the short and long run to do. But you can't apply the same logic to everything because it doesn't work unfortunately.

---

I'll step in it and have the opportunity to look dumb. I don't understand why it's 10x more expensive in sparsely populated areas. I understand cities with navigating structures but not rural areas. The transmission line should be the same. (1) You don't have the cost of the materials and labor with the poles (those can't be cheap). (2)Instead you have the cost of the underground conduit. I would bet one pole would buy a decent amount of linear feet of conduit. (3)Additionally, the labor should be comparable with the added cost of needing to do stuff in the air vs standing in the ground. Maybe some added cost in trenching. But I can't believe it actually costs 10x.

I'm not saying it isn't charged 10x just that it shouldn't cost that much. I'll shut up and take my medicine for my ignorance now.

---

1. The poles and/or the structural steel transmission towers aren't that expensive in the grand scheme of things to fabricate and construct. They are made from standard W, L, C and tube shapes that are readily available, easy to assemble and designs generally are already done. They can be fabricated and erected in a fairly short amount of time. Poles can be set even faster.

2. UG conduit - especially for a large load line like a 345kva or whatever, would be substantially large. Most of the time you are looking at 8" diameter HDPE. And it isn't just one conduit - you need ~8 conduits for a single circuit. Plus the access manholes, which would be large. Plus the excavaton costs, backfill costs, concrete encasement costs at various areas where protection would be paramount, plus the cost to weld the conduits since 8" HDPE would be in 40' joints. That would be 132 welds x 8, so 1056 welds per mile of transmission line (assuming no additional bends, fittings or surprises along the way), plus any tunnelling or boring that would be required, etc, etc, etc. Simply put - all of these things add up in costs to about 10x-15x per mile more expensive than running overhead. Oh, and the wire isn't the same wire either - UG wire is singificantly more expensive than overhead wire because it has to have better jacketing (some overhead wire doesn't have any jacketing at all). More costs on to of more costs.

3. Underground construction is significantly more expensive - in any industry - than above ground for a host of reasons. If it were a 1:1 exchange we'd have everything in the world underground. But it isn't - subsurface work has always been and at least for your and my lifetimes always will be more expensive because of the nature of the beast. It isn't as easy as just digging a hole or digging a trench and throwing stuff in the ground.

---

This.

4. Maintenence costs due to added time to find issues barried underground and then the added cost and exponentially more time fixing said issues once found underground compared to a day crew in a bucket truck for overhead lines.

When they were building the LCRA line from Mc Camey to Comfort the towers were 250' tall and we watched them use multiple helicopters for days building them….along with specialized crane bucket devices to lift the lineman that high.
Looks like they use them (helicopters) now for maintenance instead of bucket trucks.
I did not realize the standard bucket trucks I see the power companies use would raise to 250'.

https://air2.com/lower-colorado-river-authority/

Gunny456 said:

---

When they were building the LCRA line from Mc Camey to Comfort the towers were 250' tall and we watched them use multiple helicopters for days building them….along with specialized crane bucket devices to lift the lineman that high.
Looks like they use them (helicopters) now for maintenance instead of bucket trucks.
I did not realize the standard bucket trucks I see the power companies use would raise to 250'.

https://air2.com/lower-colorado-river-authority/

---

Only in a tornado.

O.G. said:

---

Just putting this information out there for any of you that may have property in or around the areas shown on the map. As I understand it, this will be the biggest powerline sytem ever built in Texas. I am also given to understand that there are currently no 765kv lines in Texas, so this will be new.

It is still in the review process but I do know that specific routes are beling looked at. Its still in the very prelim stage but once its approved it will go fast.

If you, or anyone that you know, receives a letter in the mail regarding this do not ignore it. It will not go away on its own. Some of the folks behind these projects are aggressive & operate from the perspective of a taller moral high horse than say, gas pipelines.

My best guess is that it will be 2026 before any real movement on this gets going, but I could be wrong.

Just from what I've seen in the 5 or so states that I've worked in on Right of Way, Politically speaking this will be approved. These things tend to get bi-partisan support, at the state level and in DC.

The first link below (Pioneer) is just for information about 765kv lines, I do not believe that Pioneer is involved in this project, I'm just grabbing their info. The next two links are relevant to Texas:

http://pnrtransmission.com/about/docs/Advantages-of-765kV.pdf

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-regulators-approve-permian-basin-reliability-plan/728269/

https://www.rtoinsider.com/96979-765-kv-lines-texas-inch-closer-reality/

---

Give me a call or text tomorrow.

I worked generating electricity for a living at a very large power station.

Current flow through any conductor generates heat due to resistance.
Big transmission lines such as 345KV have calculated limits based on heating.

Putting those lines underground reduce the amount of power that can be transmitted due to inadequate heat dissipation.

It would take more lines and/or bigger conductors to transmit the same amount of power as an overhead line.

Which one of you guys works for Entergy? Their contractors changed out some old wood poles with new steel ones 6 months ago and left large holes, rock piles, and old poles blocking drainage and mowers. Substation is nearby but no contact info is on the facility.

Mas89 said:

---

Which one of you guys works for Entergy? Their contractors changed out some old wood poles with new steel ones 6 months ago and left large holes, rock piles, and old poles blocking drainage and mowers. Substation is nearby but no contact info is on the facility.

---

Don't worry, the creosote on those poles will only be washing off into the storm water for another couple hundred years or so.

Hopefully my hay cutter won't hit it again. At least they didn't leave the guy- line anchor in the weeds again. Seems like nobody checks behind these contractors anymore. Fiber optic crews are the worst. Pipelines a close second.

Mas89 said:

---

Hopefully my hay cutter won't hit it again. At least they didn't leave the guy- line anchor in the weeds again. Seems like nobody checks behind these contractors anymore. Fiber optic crews are the worst. Pipelines a close second.

---

Oh man, this grinds my gears.

Had a similar incident on our place, except inside the fence line and with cattle and horses involved.

I know you don't have a contact for anyone, but if someone breaks a leg or dies from one of those open holes, I bet an attorney can locate them pretty quick.

We have property in Leggett and received info from Entergy about a 500kV line and 230kV extensions possibly going through our place. Anyone have info on that project?

PUC filing website will have all of the info on that project. Link:
https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/search/filings/?UtilityType=A&ControlNumber=57648&ItemMatch=Equal&DocumentType=ALL&SortOrder=Ascending

yes, I have all that info. We are in the row #123 for it.

Ferris Wheel Allstar said:

---

yes, I have all that info. We are in the row #123 for it.

---

Careful. That has names/address/phone numbers etc. on it.

All good, I was referring to the proposed transmission line, not the list on the puc site

Letters have gone out for a proposed 765kv line from Christoval to Temple owned and operated by lcra and oncor.
eta: lcra.org/BCBH oncor site has no information.

Barkhurst is good but a bit of a prima donna to me. You also might try Spivey Valenciano. Jim Spivey and Soledad Valenciano are both Aggies. Jack Ross is also an Aggie attorney that handles eminent domain but he may be working for the power company.

Sgt. Hartman said:

---

Barkhurst is good but a bit of a prima donna to me. You also might try Spivey Valenciano. Jim Spivey and Soledad Valenciano are both Aggies. Jack Ross is also an Aggie attorney that handles eminent domain but he may be working for the power company.

---

I've been crossed by Paul Barkhurst a couple of times, and he's played it straight with me (maybe because he knows he's not going to be able to get something past me). I have a lot of respect for him. Jack Ross is excellent as well; I've worked with him and been on opposite sides of the v. with him as well.

There are only a couple of attorneys that I've been crossed by that I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. I won't name them here.

got our letter Brown/Comanche County…. the route map provided is basically useless. The in person meeting was a joke.

You won't get specifics until you get a survey of the centerline of the route and the easement area being acquired.

JB!98 said:

---

Chef Elko said:

---

Ah yes, the Permian region needs the largest transmission lines providing power from all across Texas. It's not like there was massive renewable buildout and the region produces the cheapest gas in the world with 20+ BCF/day of production. Stupid as hell

---

Believe it or not, even after all these years, we still have a hard time importing power from West Texas to the I-35 corridor and Houston. Some of this transmission work will allow for that through congestion relief, etc. The I-35 corridor is starving for capacity right now and will be until 2030.

The electrical realities and forecasts from 2010-2015 have been turned on their head. I think I have shared before that Oncor currently has 30GW, yes GW of load requests in their queue. Now, we all think that only about 10GW of those are real, that is still a absurd amount of capacity. To meet this demand, it will take a historic amount of transmission construction. It would be a good time to be a transmission contractor.

For scale, CPS Energy's service territory is about 5.5 - 6 GW. So Oncor needs to build 2 CPS Energy's to meet their capacity needs if the real number is 10-12GW.

The shortcut here that will not happen in time is modular nuclear reactors built at the load centers themselves.

---

This needs to be the answer, and everybody that uses power should be contacting lawmakers to streamline the NRC so that we can actually use good technology and eliminate the need for massive long runs of powerline for distribution.

Dow is in the permitting phase to construct 4 SMR's in Seadrift, TAMU is looking to get 2 at Rellis and there are proposals for other areas to have them constructed as well. They should be what everybody is wanting in terms of power generation.

The biggest hurdle is our federal government and the absolute stupidity that they use day to day when it comes to pretty much anything, but especially the NRC.

Far from being an either or equation
More generation and more transmission is required

schmellba99 said:

---

JB!98 said:

---

Chef Elko said:

---

Ah yes, the Permian region needs the largest transmission lines providing power from all across Texas. It's not like there was massive renewable buildout and the region produces the cheapest gas in the world with 20+ BCF/day of production. Stupid as hell

---

Believe it or not, even after all these years, we still have a hard time importing power from West Texas to the I-35 corridor and Houston. Some of this transmission work will allow for that through congestion relief, etc. The I-35 corridor is starving for capacity right now and will be until 2030.

The electrical realities and forecasts from 2010-2015 have been turned on their head. I think I have shared before that Oncor currently has 30GW, yes GW of load requests in their queue. Now, we all think that only about 10GW of those are real, that is still a absurd amount of capacity. To meet this demand, it will take a historic amount of transmission construction. It would be a good time to be a transmission contractor.

For scale, CPS Energy's service territory is about 5.5 - 6 GW. So Oncor needs to build 2 CPS Energy's to meet their capacity needs if the real number is 10-12GW.

The shortcut here that will not happen in time is modular nuclear reactors built at the load centers themselves.

---

This needs to be the answer, and everybody that uses power should be contacting lawmakers to streamline the NRC so that we can actually use good technology and eliminate the need for massive long runs of powerline for distribution.

Dow is in the permitting phase to construct 4 SMR's in Seadrift, TAMU is looking to get 2 at Rellis and there are proposals for other areas to have them constructed as well. They should be what everybody is wanting in terms of power generation.

The biggest hurdle is our federal government and the absolute stupidity that they use day to day when it comes to pretty much anything, but especially the NRC.

---

I was at a lunch today with the CEO of CPS Energy and the President of ERCOT. If the Federal permitting process is not changed or expedited, we are still 10 years out on modular nucs for utilities and further out for load centers. Disappointing to say the least.

Hey the 765KV program is approved, so at least we have that going for us! Now it just has to be built.

Yep, it is absolutely pure garbage.

The Dow reactors are in the permitting process now. That could take as long as 4 years IIRC, and there is no guarantee they will be approved. This is AFTER something like 7 years of working with the NRC on every single aspect of the design of the molten salt reactors.

What on earth could they now need to review???

Like almost every other thing, government is the single biggest roadblock to getting technology from the drawing board to commercial application.

BQ92 said:

---

Far from being an either or equation
More generation and more transmission is required

---

If SMR's could be commercially utilized, the issue of transmission gets diminished significantly because the footprint of an SMR means you could plop them all over the place, thus reducing the need for long distance transmission lines in a whole lot of places.

Localized transmission would still be part of the overall need.

schmellba99 said:

---

Yep, it is absolutely pure garbage.

The Dow reactors are in the permitting process now. That could take as long as 4 years IIRC, and there is no guarantee they will be approved. This is AFTER something like 7 years of working with the NRC on every single aspect of the design of the molten salt reactors.

What on earth could they now need to review???

Like almost every other thing, government is the single biggest roadblock to getting technology from the drawing board to commercial application.

---

1000 blue stars! My company would never touch the grid if we could quickly permit modular nukes, hell we would support the grid. There is only so much I can do with natural gas gen in non-attainment areas, another government road block.

JB!98 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

What concrete for buried lines?

---

Duct bank. You take PVC conduit and then encase that in concrete to protect the line. If you direct bury, then you have a greater chance of somebody digging into it, even if it is in an easement.

---

Id imagine the risk of infringement is calculated in estimated operating cost too when looking at below ground. I work in the midstream space and every year we are moving gas lines for road expansion etc. We (the company) do not have to pay for it but someone does (guess who).

Outside of my neigborhood the state is currently widening a 2 lane to a 4 lane. They have been working for almost 2 years movinmg utilities and have'nt even started the civil for the road yet. If going AG reduces this risk Id bet my check it has alot to do with why you do not see more BG. You will have to move it eventually.

Can you imagine having to relocate an electric transmission line encased in cement? I can and it would be a disaster. It is hard enough to move a 4" gas line.

Nahh man! It's easy, just move it! /texagsoutdoorsboard

I am just wondering who and how a 3-phase transmission line is going to be pulled underground. How frequently do you think a pull box will be needed and how much equipment will be required to complete that task versus hanging on rollers above ground and then placed on insulators. The magnitude of the scope is multiplied significantly when done underground.

Furk, just got a letter from CPS. The maps are terrible but one proposed route looks to be going through the ranch. Are the initial meetings even worth trying to attend?