The “New York Energy Policy” maps out the city’s plan to expand into the outer borough areas and rezone them to make them more appealing for commercial and residential development. While this will probably be a profitable endeavor for the growing businesses in that area and the city as a whole, there is an issue regarding expanding the existing power grid to supply the necessary energy. If we are already building new transformers and substations the logical plan would be to use exiting technology to waterproof the systems. In the article “Four Storms in Quick Succession Expose the Flaws in New York City’s Electrical System,” senior vice president of electrical operations, John Miksad, claimed that retrofitting the 10 substations shut down by Hurricane Sandy would cost $800 million dollars. Con Edison is hesitant to waterproof their systems because the consumer would have to cover the cost. Do you think that the city should, at least, cover the cost of waterproofing new critical energy distribution stations using the city’s budget or do you believe that the NYC residents and businesses should come together and pay for the protection?
Engage: Who’s footing the bill?
This entry was posted in Engage, Respond, Discuss, 3/05 - Energy in the City; Concepts of Time and Place (Week 6). Bookmark the permalink.
Waterproofing is a contingency plan against natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy. I think that the city is responsible for covering the costs of waterproofing and maintaining the city’s electrical grid. The improvements are an investment that would, in the long run, decrease the cost of upkeep for the system. The cost should not fall on the citizens of New York City, because they are paying for their individual usages, not to run the electrical system itself. If the system were to improve electrical transmission, that would be a cost that consumers could bear, because they pay for the transmissions. It would not be fair to have customers pay for an upgrade to a system when they do not receive any benefits to their service.
I am not sure whether sharing the cost between the city and the residents and businesses will be fair either, because, again, it is more of a maintenance cost for the system and again, does not directly improve the electrical flow to customers. This maintenance upkeep seems more like a business’ cost and not a customers’ cost. There is also the possibility of the waterproofing failing, if the storm is stronger than expected. With the atypical and unexpected weather we are starting to see in New York City, it may become harder to predict the severity and overall impact of the storms. In the case that customers do, at least in part, pay for the waterproofing and the waterproofing does fail, customers would undoubtedly be angry for having to pay more but still lose their power.
I disagree with Megan. I feel like because we use the electrical system, we as a group should be required for any costs regarding upgrading. This is because the waterproofing the systems would help keep our systems up. During times of crisis where we lose power, all we think about is “WHEN IS THE POWER GOING TO COME BACK ON?” We’re a society that depends heavily on electricity (i.e. Phones, Computers, Televisions, Refrigerators). When we lose electricity, we lose an essential part of our lives.
I do not think that either side should have to cover the costs of waterproofing the system. I think that the residence of NYC should bear the bulk of the cost because we use the systems. Some people may not use the systems as much as others. So, maybe a percentage of your actual electrical use cost should be added on. But, I feel like upgrading the systems is something that is necessary for the survival of New York City, primarily of the fact that we depend on electricity nearly 24/7.
Is full electric power during a storm worth $800 million? It certainly isn’t any sum of money, but I believe it may well be worth it. I couldn’t care less if the power outage left me without my ipad or TV, as a matter of fact I’d be thankful for having the perfect excuse to unplug my life for a little while. However, truth is that many highly important entities rely on continuous electricity. Hospitals for instance. We all witnessed how NYU Langone and Bellevue went to their knees once their generators failed. Coney Island hospital was left in the dark too. An uninterrupted flow of electricity is imperative for a city like New York.
I believe the City should finance the waterproofing of the power system (yes, that means taxpayer money). A guaranteed flow of electricity would indeed enhance the experience of anyone who uses power in this city. There is a great number of social programs that have little or no impact in the majority of New York City residents. It’s time for the city to illuminate all sectors of the population.