So if residents pay 26% of bill - then presumably they only would pay 26% of increased bill for the alternate substation location.
One of the many, many varying alternate site/additional cost scenarios presented by BWL stated that it would cost an additional $12-million to put the substation at the alternate site at Diamond Reo. This seems very high but assuming it is true..
26% 0f $12-million is $3.12-million.
with 83,341 residential customers - that would be an total residential increase of $37.31 per customer. Each residential customer has to pay a total of $37.31 more TOTAL!
Over 48 months that would break down to $0.77 per month per residential ratepayer for four years. Is it possibly this is where the BWL is comes up with this 80 cents per month scenario that they have now backed off on? That does not seem like too much to pay to put this substation on an industrial lot where it belongs.
Another perfect site for the substation would be the SW corner of Malcolm X and Townsend. It is GM property directly over the 138,000 Volt electrical "superhighway". This is not one of the two GM sites that were explored by the BWL "exhaustive search". GM has talked about closing the offices there for years and since they will also need their own substation, why not locate both substations there? Which brings up another point... GM will need their own substation - where do they intend to put it?
The folks that read this page know that I grew up here, on the southwest side of Lansing and am just old enough to remember the real Scott House and the Barnes Mansion next door. We hunted for"golden doorknobs" when they tore down the Olds Mansion across the street. There was also a whole neighborhood there. This little green space is all that is left of that neighborhood, it almost seems to glow with greenery in contrast to the shimmering desert hot parking lots and streets next door. It is very good to know so many people do not want this crazy thing to happen. I hope they will join us and write the powers that be and get them to stop this madness and get to the true cost of another site and build a beautiful substation on the Diamond REO site. I could see them reviving the cool neon "Diamond REO" sign that use to face the RR station. The mayor thinks he is father knows best, except this time he does not.
It would be so great to use the Olds Administration building for some propose like this, it is so sad to see it's present condition. I often pass by when I take a little back way to downtown and the place looks like a dystopian movie set, like one day they stopped caring about the building and it's grounds and left. The dead gardens overgrown ornamental trees are really depressing as is the fact they use the building for a billboard holder.
Where exactly are the conduits? I see you say the Malcolm X and Townsend site is directly over them, while I was under the impression that they run straight up and down Washington Avenue. But, yeah, there are two GM sites immediately outside the gardens that could conceivably hold this thing with minimal cost. It's my opinion that with all the incentives we've given and give GM that with enough of a push and pressure, we could probably get the land for free.
BTW, GM has said they will need their own substation at GM Lansing Grand River?
The 138,000V conduits come north on Pennsylvania, cut across to Elm Street, then west on Elm and from Elm drop down south to the new BWL REO cogen plant. After the BWL cogen plant, the lines go straight west across the river to the old Eckert plant. then along the river notheast in the GM parking lot to Scott park. From there due west along Malcolm X to Clare Street, then North to the old demolished GM Verlinden plant. BWL has said that this substation needs to be close to downtown as well as close to the conduits. So the SW corner of the Townsend and Malcolm X would be perfect near the old Oldsmobile headquarters. Point is that there are other alternatives.
And yes, it came out in a recent City Council meeting that GM needs their own substation. BWL does not yet know where they are going to put it. Probably they will put it on the parking lot that GM won't sell to Lansing.
Another contradiction by BWL which I don't understand: City Pulse recent article with Serkaian had this statement.
"The underground conduits run right up Washington Avenue, the presentation shows. BWL officials have said the conduit along Malcolm X at Washington, where the lines would need to cross west, are congested, making relocation of the 18 lines that power downtown difficult.
An alternate route, following the railroad tracks, crossing the Grand River and connecting to the Eckert Power Substation infrastructure would not work, BWL officials have said, because the conduits are in poor repair".
I have a BWL transmission route map and it does not show conduits running up Washington Ave.
Thank you for looking so deeply into this matter. while strongly against this, I have not had the facts to back up my opinion. I have views of the above ground lines from my windows. I can see the the line that goes to S Grand Ave and Elm and back over to Eckert. If there are lines down Washington they must be under ground because there are no line poles on S. Washington Ave. I don't understand why the BWL would be seemingly uninformed about their own lines. Why can't they let go of this and try something else? The spokesman looks sheepish when answering questions. Can the mayor put pressure on an employee? What power does the mayor have over BWL employees, could he fire someone?
Also has anyone actually talked to GM or seen the document that states they would not let BWL build on their land?
No. We were told by Dick Pefley that the MAYOR was the one negotiating with GM after GM Detroit vetoed the sale. He said he tried but failed. Whether he really tried or whether anyone has tried - we don't know. Having the Mayor solely negotiate with GM is kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house. No one is certain whether GM is even aware of the outrage that their rejection of selling a piece of their parking lot has caused.
Well, it'd certainly be good for someone to find out. I'm not going to believe anything coming out of BWL or the mayor's office on this issue, particularly since no one can seem to show any kind of documentation or corroborate anything they've claimed to have done and said. Even as a soft supporter of this administration on many (most) issues, even I have to admit that transparency when they've already made up their mind is not their strong suit, and that's putting it nicely. Quite frankly, I think we're being lied to. I wouldn't be surprised to find that they never seriously broached this idea with GM, or even at all.
I understand needing to give a utility a bit of leeway when implementing community goals for the ulitity (in this case, being able to shutdown Eckert and replace that infrastructure elsewhere), but letting them take out a park when there are other options staring them in the face is too much leeway.
BTW, the mayor doesn't have any direct power over everyday BWL employees, including the general manager, and it's why the BWL is structured the way it is in the first place, to try and reduce the influence of local politics over decisisions. However, the Board of Commissioners is nominated by the mayor and approved by the city council, so he has quite a bit of influence when it comes to the direction of the utility.
The city council and city attorney have come up with a creative stalling tactic in allowing a public vote on the moving of the Scott Center, according to the City Pulse. But, it's still presenting a false choice. The issue should be built around the question of alternative sites, and not make this a choice between having a substation or not. That's a false choice. We can have both the park and the new substation.
Your quote in the story, schraderenviro, perfectly sums this up. This should be used as a delay tactic, not as the goal. The goal is to find another suitable nearby site, and we've identified quite a few. Keep up the great work. I'm really happy to see that Smiertka has his own mind and is not some puppet of the administration.
Comments
According to this 2014 BWL Factsheet, it looks like the breakdown per MWH of electricity is like this…
BWL revenues =
26% consumers/residents, 58% commercial/industrial, 16% other.
So if residents pay 26% of bill - then presumably they only would pay 26% of increased bill for the alternate substation location.
One of the many, many varying alternate site/additional cost scenarios presented by BWL stated that it would cost an additional $12-million to put the substation at the alternate site at Diamond Reo. This seems very high but assuming it is true..
26% 0f $12-million is $3.12-million.
with 83,341 residential customers - that would be an total residential increase of $37.31 per customer. Each residential customer has to pay a total of $37.31 more TOTAL!
Over 48 months that would break down to $0.77 per month per residential ratepayer for four years. Is it possibly this is where the BWL is comes up with this 80 cents per month scenario that they have now backed off on? That does not seem like too much to pay to put this substation on an industrial lot where it belongs.
Is my math correct?
It would be so great to use the Olds Administration building for some propose like this, it is so sad to see it's present condition. I often pass by when I take a little back way to downtown and the place looks like a dystopian movie set, like one day they stopped caring about the building and it's grounds and left. The dead gardens overgrown ornamental trees are really depressing as is the fact they use the building for a billboard holder.
Where exactly are the conduits? I see you say the Malcolm X and Townsend site is directly over them, while I was under the impression that they run straight up and down Washington Avenue. But, yeah, there are two GM sites immediately outside the gardens that could conceivably hold this thing with minimal cost. It's my opinion that with all the incentives we've given and give GM that with enough of a push and pressure, we could probably get the land for free.
BTW, GM has said they will need their own substation at GM Lansing Grand River?
And yes, it came out in a recent City Council meeting that GM needs their own substation. BWL does not yet know where they are going to put it. Probably they will put it on the parking lot that GM won't sell to Lansing.
"The underground conduits run right up Washington Avenue, the presentation shows. BWL officials have said the conduit along Malcolm X at Washington, where the lines would need to cross west, are congested, making relocation of the 18 lines that power downtown difficult.
An alternate route, following the railroad tracks, crossing the Grand River and connecting to the Eckert Power Substation infrastructure would not work, BWL officials have said, because the conduits are in poor repair".
I have a BWL transmission route map and it does not show conduits running up Washington Ave.
Also has anyone actually talked to GM or seen the document that states they would not let BWL build on their land?
I understand needing to give a utility a bit of leeway when implementing community goals for the ulitity (in this case, being able to shutdown Eckert and replace that infrastructure elsewhere), but letting them take out a park when there are other options staring them in the face is too much leeway.
BTW, the mayor doesn't have any direct power over everyday BWL employees, including the general manager, and it's why the BWL is structured the way it is in the first place, to try and reduce the influence of local politics over decisisions. However, the Board of Commissioners is nominated by the mayor and approved by the city council, so he has quite a bit of influence when it comes to the direction of the utility.
Your quote in the story, schraderenviro, perfectly sums this up. This should be used as a delay tactic, not as the goal. The goal is to find another suitable nearby site, and we've identified quite a few. Keep up the great work. I'm really happy to see that Smiertka has his own mind and is not some puppet of the administration.