In “Four Storms in Quick Succession Expose the Flaws in New York City’s Electrical System”, it was brought up that the electrical infrastructure of NYC has vulnerabilities. Four out of the five previous storms have damaged the vulnerable systems. Certain solutions were proposed, such as making such utilities submersible. However, these solutions may not be enough to mitigate damage from a future natural disaster. Since the electricity is one of the city’s most important infrastructures, without it, many others that depend on it will fail as well. Upgrading the system will also create larger bills for customers. Do you think that upgrading the city’s electrical grid is worth the investment? Are you willing as a customer to pay much more on your monthly bill so that the utilities are more likely to survive future natural disasters? Should the city have a plan in the event of natural disasters in attempt to minimize damage? If so, why would it be worthwhile to implement such a plan that may or may not work? If not, how should the city protect itself against future catastrophes?
NYC’s Electrical System
This entry was posted in 3/05 - Energy in the City; Concepts of Time and Place (Week 6). Bookmark the permalink.
I think that upgrading the electrical grid is definitely worth the investment. However, determining who should fund the improvement depends on the type of improvement. If the improvement is to increase the transmission capacity of electricity to the city, I think that should be a cost to the customers. The reason for this is that it is a direct improvement to the service and as a customer, if I can receive better service, I am willing to pay a little bit more each month. As a customer, I would also be very unhappy if I had to pay for the improvement and it later failed, because my money would have been wasted.
However, if the improvement is to waterproof and protect the grid, which would be one way to protect the grid, I think the city should pay most if not all of the cost. As a customer, I would be opposed to paying the entire cost of the improvement, because it is a contingency plan but does not necessarily improve my service. There is also the possibility that it will fail. I think the city should cover the majority of this cost because it is the government’s responsibility to keep its systems up and running to serve the citizens. I think what the NYC Task Force should do is develop a budget to fund improvements in response to the climate change and stronger storms that we see today. This money could be used to protect the electrical system, or make it stronger.
I think that upgrading the city’s electrical grid is very important for the survival of New York City. Being a hustle bustle city with financial sectors, commercial sectors and businesses in general, electricity is a necessity. Even for citizens it is a necessity. During the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, there were people who could not get down from their floors in apartments because the elevators required electricity, something that was down for many households. Although paying more money for something is something people do not want to do, I think it is necessary because where else is Con Edison going to get the money to fund these renovation projects?
But, renovating the electric plants is only the base of having a great plan to minimize damage. New York City having many buildings with narrow streets everywhere is very vulnerable to higher flooding levels on each street. So, you have to stop the flooding at the source, which would be at the bodies of water surrounding New York City. Wetlands and marshlands may provide to be useful in trying to prevent water from coming into the islands. I’ve always thought that a bubble around New York City would be very cool and nice. But, I am not sure if it is feasible.
I’d say that footing the bill might be a necessary evil, if even a fraction of it. After all, the opposite would certainly not be preferred: sitting on antiquated or unprepared infrastructure, waiting for the next storm to do a take two of what Sandy had transpired. There must be some evolution of infrastructure if damages or damaging conditions are as they are predicted. A compromise would have to be reached to balance how taxing an implement should be for the consumers. That’ll be a mountain in its own right.
The City has tons of ways of mitigating severe storm damage. Well, proposed anyway. From wetland barriers to giant stone water gates, infrastructural upgrades to active meteorological defense (okay, so that last one is probably very farfetched), it’s only a matter of costs and benefits, choosing the one best for the situation, and returns on investments that might never be.