Survey Questions - Edison Electric Institute

Executive Summary
Out of Sight, Out of Mind 2012
Since the late 1990s, numerous state studies and reports have been generated in response to the electric
service outage impact of unusually large storms. At the writing of this report, states from the mid-Atlantic to
New England are recovering from Hurricane Sandy. The storm’s devastation will certainly trigger one
additional side-effect: many utility commissions will scrutinize their utility’s response to the event.
Following any major storm where a large percentage of the electrical grid is affected for an extended period,
utilities, customers, public officials, and the media will undoubtedly study the performance response of any
utility impacted by the storm. It is not uncommon for this focus to turn to discussing whether plans on
migrating from an overhead (OH) to an underground (UG) electrical infrastructure would resolve or
substantially mitigate, weather related outages. Even when storms are not wreaking havoc on the electric
utility infrastructure, there are many communities that express the desire to improve the aesthetics of their
neighborhoods and roadways by undergrounding all utilities. There are many issues to consider before such
a transition can be implemented because undergrounding the system has substantial implications for the
reliability, cost, and aesthetics of the electrical system.
Many states have issued reports which addressed whether undergrounding the electric utility’s infrastructure
would improve the reliability and availability of electric service during and after major storms. Currently, no
state has recommended wholesale undergrounding of their utility infrastructure. The cost of conversion has
always been the insurmountable obstacle in each of these studies.
In this fourth edition of the Out of Sight, Out of Mind report, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) has updated
the data set collected in the 2009 edition to help provide additional information to guide utilities, states and
our customers’ consideration of these issues.
Because of the importance of the cost of utility services to electrical customers, EEI polled electric customers
concerning their willingness to pay for undergrounding. The results indicated that 60 percent of electric
customers were willing to pay at least 1−10 percent more on their power bills for undergrounding and
another 11 percent of customers were willing to pay up to 20 percent more. However, fewer than 10 percent
of the customers polled were willing to incur a bill increase of 100 percent to pay the more realistic cost for
undergrounding. This information confirms the experience of most utilities and state commissions that the
cost of undergrounding is a very important consideration and that customers have limited tolerance for
higher costs for utility services to pay for undergrounding.
EEI also looked at major storm data from the previous nine years to determine what trends and impact these
events are having on the electric industry. The data was somewhat inconclusive because the number of
storms had increased, but the average outage time per customer declined at times. This may simply mean that
utility restoration responses have improved with the increased use of mutual assistance. Some measures of
reliability indicate that underground electric infrastructure has only a slightly better reliability performance
than overhead electric systems, while other measures show a higher reliability factor for underground
facilities. One explanation may be that many underground facilities are fed by overhead facilities which can
become disabled during storms. But it is important to remember than repairs to underground facility outages
are often more complex and time consuming and such facilities are more costly to upgrade and replace. And
as recent experiences with Hurricane Sandy demonstrate, underground facilities are very vulnerable to
flooding and water damage.
Edison Electric Institute v