Due to a series of very severe snow storms in the 1880s, and the subsequent loss of Telegraph communications, Congress demanded all future electrical systems be underground. No enforcement mechanism was included so it was NOT done, but putting cables underground has been the preferred placement since the 1880s.
Now prior to 1862, underground placement of electrical systems (including Telegraphs cables) was impossible, but in that year a company came up with a portable battery wagon for use by the Union Army then engaged in the Civil War. The portable battery was a complete failure, but it came with the first insulated electrical cables, which were widely adopted. Thus by the 1860s it was possible to put electrical cables on the ground and even underground.
The problem is one of costs. While I was doing research on Public transportation most researched indicated that for the cost to build anything on the surface for a dollar, it costs four dollars for anything above ground (bridges are more expensive depending on the length of the bridge) AND ten dollars for anything underground (Using cover and fill technology, drilling a tunnel is even higher).
On the other hand, tunnels, if build right, can last forever with minimum maintenance (Maintenance MUST be done, but if done can last forever) but anything above ground cost more to maintain which includes replacing parts that hold it up (i.e. the beams and other structural parts MUST be replaced, painted or otherwise maintained.
Given the nature of most electrical transmission lines, I suspect the costs involved with above ground cables is the cheapest, the electrical wires need NOT have any insulation if contact with the ground is avoided (Birds can even perch on them, as long as they do NOT touch each other or anything else that causes a connection to the ground). It is the cheapest way to build electrical transmission lines (even if the line is insulated). On the other hand, underground you have to cut a hole into the ground, install an insulated line, then fill it over. That is much more expensive then just laying the line on the ground (Which I suspect would be the electrical companies first choice, if they could get away with it) or building towers and stretching the wires between the towers.
Thus, while Congress MANDATED underground electrical lines in the 1880s, most such lines were viewed as under exclusive STATE or LOCAL control and thus NOT required to be underground under that law, if the law was ever enforced.
This was so while known that most suburbs built since the 1970s have underground electrical hookups. Older suburbs and inner cities AND rural areas (and in my home area of Western Pennsylvania, the old coal patches and other older towns from the 1880s to the 1930s among the post WWII suburbs) tend to have electrical poles. Rural Electric Co-ops also tend to have Poles instead of anything underground, again to keep costs of installation down. Underground electrical system has been the rule since the 1970s even in urban areas, but these rules only apply to new housing NOT to existing housing or existing electrical transmission lines.
My point is moving electrical wires underground has been known as the best way to preserve electrical transmission during bad weather and other disasters since at least the 1880s as seen by Congress passage of the above mentioned act. The electrical companies have refused to do so EXCEPT WHEN THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FORCED THEM TO DO SO (as can be seen in the post 1970s Suburbs that locally required all electrical systems installed into new homes be underground, most older suburbs and cities have similar rules, but no requirement as to existing homes).
I hate to say this, but Congress needs to mandate that existing electrical lines be moved underground AND provide the money to do so.
= new reply since forum marked as read