texagbeliever said:

---

Take a breath. Think.

Is it reasonable to expect no transmission issues in a relatively no warning freak storm that isn't even during hurricane season? Windows were blown out of buildings in the downtown area. Major trees were toppled.

Sorry but having the expectation of 0 power interruptions is ridiculous.

---

we, as a community, chose cheap, so we have towers that are vulnerable to wind and other elements. Buried lines have less interruption risk but is more expensive to implement.

so you are right, we have chosen to have interruptions, mostly so the utility/transmission company can make higher returns for its shareholders/investors.

Quote:

---

mostly so the utility/transmission company can make higher returns for its shareholders/investors.

---

TarponChaser said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Kingwood lnes aren't buried. Bridgeland & Woodlands are mixed. .

If you're doing a development with 400 homes and burying 50 miles of lines you're talking about having to add an extra $125K to the price of each home.

Burying lines is prohibitively expensive. But what do I know, I've only been doing real estate deals and developing land for nearly 20 years.

---

Kingwoods lines are buried. Not every single one, but absolutely the majority.

Same for Bridgeland.

That you can't even admit this is silly.

And the extra $125k is just a made up number by you. Good luck with that.

---

Kingwood lines are not buried. I live in the area and I actually spent several years working for the man largely responsible for developing it in the 70's when he ran Friendswood Development. I know the area extremely well.

$125K per home is not made up. It is a rough estimate based on a a 200 acre development with 400 homes (and even that is a bit optimistic of a number) where you can easily have 50 miles of lines. Those lines typically cost about $1MM per mile to bury, even if you're starting from scratch.

50 miles x $1MM per mile = $50MM
$50MM/400 homes = $125K

---

serious questions on this topic for your expert answers

1) who bears those costs, the developer? so they would pass them on to the eventual home builders in the cost of the lots, is that correct?

2) compared to the margin a good developer would expect to make on a 400 home community with those size lots, how punitive is the $50MM? ie, that's all their profit or 50%, or what?

3) in your experience has anyone balked at buying in a development because of lines above ground? I mean, they are ugly, but doesn't everyone expect them?

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

mostly so the utility/transmission company can make higher returns for its shareholders/investors.

---

---

or maybe not go negative. I'm pretty familiar with the industry, and agree with someone above who said they aren't rolling around in money.

But again, infrastructure is expensive, we, as consumers pretty much seem fine with the outage risks. I'm not eager to mandate a bunch of spending, either.

bularry said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

TarponChaser said:

---

Kingwood lnes aren't buried. Bridgeland & Woodlands are mixed. .

If you're doing a development with 400 homes and burying 50 miles of lines you're talking about having to add an extra $125K to the price of each home.

Burying lines is prohibitively expensive. But what do I know, I've only been doing real estate deals and developing land for nearly 20 years.

---

Kingwoods lines are buried. Not every single one, but absolutely the majority.

Same for Bridgeland.

That you can't even admit this is silly.

And the extra $125k is just a made up number by you. Good luck with that.

---

Kingwood lines are not buried. I live in the area and I actually spent several years working for the man largely responsible for developing it in the 70's when he ran Friendswood Development. I know the area extremely well.

$125K per home is not made up. It is a rough estimate based on a a 200 acre development with 400 homes (and even that is a bit optimistic of a number) where you can easily have 50 miles of lines. Those lines typically cost about $1MM per mile to bury, even if you're starting from scratch.

50 miles x $1MM per mile = $50MM
$50MM/400 homes = $125K

---

serious questions on this topic for your expert answers

1) who bears those costs, the developer? so they would pass them on to the eventual home builders in the cost of the lots, is that correct?

2) compared to the margin a good developer would expect to make on a 400 home community with those size lots, how punitive is the $50MM? ie, that's all their profit or 50%, or what?

3) in your experience has anyone balked at buying in a development because of lines above ground? I mean, they are ugly, but doesn't everyone expect them?

---

1) generally it would be on the developer- the providers will bring power for nominal costs to get the new subscribers but above that is on the developer.

2) In a scenario like this the $50MM cost, if you're playing in the "first home" or "first move up" space at fairly average home prices in Houston spending that money would cause the project to be done at a loss. Which, of course, wouldn't be done so home prices would be adjusted upward accordingly.

3) only in really high price-point do you see much pushback. It's generally expected that lines are overhead, at least along the major roads. Then as you branch back into the pods of neighborhoods it's much more common for lines to be buried for short runs.

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

mostly so the utility/transmission company can make higher returns for its shareholders/investors.

---

---

(i realize you just quoted the gem from the other poster).
Someone wanted to prove they don't know how regulated utilities make profits. Hint it isn't from cutting costs.

To make it even easier for you Gross Margin of a Utility company = Costs * 0.07. So the higher their costs the higher their returns for shareholders & investors.

It is on the thread at least 2 times already!

texagbeliever said:

---

CDUB98 said:

---

Quote:

---

mostly so the utility/transmission company can make higher returns for its shareholders/investors.

---

---

(i realize you just quoted the gem from the other poster).
Someone wanted to prove they don't know how regulated utilities make profits. Hint it isn't from cutting costs.

To make it even easier for you Gross Margin of a Utility company = Costs * 0.07. So the higher their costs the higher their returns for shareholders & investors.

It is on the thread at least 2 times already!

---

ROE for rate regulated utilities in Texas the past few years has bee around 9.5% to IOUs (Entergy, SWEPCO, SPS, El Paso Electric).

CEHE is getting a lot of crap right now, understandably, but as a lot of others have said on this thread - who the hell is going to pick up the costs? That will fall squarely on ratepayers. I mean, this is ratemaking 101.

There has been active rulemakings at the PUCT towards resiliency plans, but from what I've been seeing, it's just going to boil down to - "PUCT, give us money (billions) and we'll go trim our trees faster". Even in the vegetation management reports the past few years, the PUCT (and its new commissioners) have been giving the rate regulated utilities some grief in that they felt that the cycles (5 years, I think was what SPS was on) were too far apart.

I wonder if anyone in this thread was right?

~egon

Wycliffe said:

---

My feels are telling me that you are pretty insecure since you are so quick to degrade and insult others.

I've shared my thoughts. I bow out.

---

In hindsight your comments were pretty accurate. Well done.

Great bump. Thanks!