THE UNDERGROUND INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES 381 



responsibility in this area. I know, Mr. Cisler, that your Edison 

 Electric Institute is doing the same. Mr. Gisler is the immediate 

 past president of that organization. I am the immediate past presi- 

 dent of the Public Power Association. 



RALPH LOGHER. I was a little disturbed by the statement that the 

 new development seemed to lend itself best to the underground in- 

 stallations. Frankly, that would only be compounding the problem 

 that we have in the older communities. I believe it is because of 

 the great volume of business that was generated not by suburbia but 

 by the good old section of the town, where much of the industry is 

 located, and many of our pollution and other problems, that the elec- 

 tric companies, private and public, are in the sound and enviable 

 position they are in today. Therefore, I would urge, even though it 

 may be a little cheaper to put them underground in suburbia, our 

 problem is to prevent the blight and to beautify the areas that need 

 it most, not out in the new and fresh, clean areas, but in the older 

 parts of the old cities of the United States. 



Therefore, I would hope that the private and public power com- 

 panies will not put all their underground installations on the outskirts 

 of cities where it is less expensive rather than where we need them 

 most. 



Secondly it is very encouraging that you reckon the cost of under- 

 ground versus overhead at a ratio of 1 y% to 1. A few years ago, 

 when I hoped we could do this in Cleveland, it was then 10 to 1 

 or 20 to 1 . Now it is down to a point where it is much more efficient 

 and feasible. 



But do you reckon in the costs, Mr. Wilcox, such things as the 

 cost of the lawsuit when a crane, as happened recently near Cleve- 

 land, hits an overhead line and a man gets killed or when two or 

 three of these monstrous towers get blown over, as happened not 

 too long ago in our part of the country, when we have long periods 

 of outages, and the public is inconvenienced? Are these things 

 reckoned as well as the aesthetic considerations and as well as the 

 planning considerations? 



It seems to me also, there is the important consideration of lower 

 fire rates when you don't have these hazards. I suspect, but I am 

 no authority on this, that if you were to reckon all of these costs, you 

 might find that it is not 1 5/2 to 1 ; it very well might be 1 to 1 . 



