GEF Lorax Working Group

Celebrating Trees in Our Communities

2011-09-24T11:15:00.002-04:00

Celebrating Trees in Our Communities

This community oriented presentation by international arboricultural consultant, Frank Buddingh’ will explore the importance of trees and how they are intimately linked to our lives.

Attendees will be introduced to:

1. the elements within the community that impact the health of trees

2. conflicts within the areas of local environmental policy and social customs pertaining to the health of trees

3. health-promoting features of the tree population

4. the need for change within our communities in regard to the health of its trees and the future

“We owe some understanding to our trees, without them life on earth is simply impossible!”, says Frank who has worked with and consulted on trees for over forty years in many locations around the world. Franks clients have ranged from royal households and local governments to corporations and tree owners. He has a deep understanding of the needs of trees and the importance of balancing these needs with the needs of people.

Thursday, October 13th at 7:00, Larchmont Library. Free.

Utilities and Hurricane Irene

2011-09-13T11:57:00.000-04:00

LORAX's Patricia Podolak reports on Monday's WCBOL Committee on Environment & Energy Committee meeting:

FYI. This afternoon I took some time from my busy work schedule and attended the West. Co. Board of Legislators – Committee on Environment & Energy Meeting. The topic of today’s meeting was utility storm response. Representatives from Con Edison and NYSEG were present to discuss the recent electric outages and obstacles resulting from tropical Storm Irene. Leg. Kaplowitz was not present due to the recent, sudden passing of his father. Majority Leader Harckham chaired the meeting. Seven other legislators were in attendance. The meeting lasted 1.5 hours.

In brief overview:

· PSC was invited to attend and was not present. Harckham termed this “very disturbing” and “an abomination."

· Harckham raised the issue that no significant resources were available until Wednesday after the storm.

· NYSEG emphasized the extreme differences between its service territory and that of Con Edison. Con Edison 380 sq miles. NYSEG 11,000 sq miles, 26 counties, 270 municipalities. NYSEG heavily rural and spread out, covering 44% of upstate. 15% of NYSEG customers were without power.

· Con Ed said that they had 2 Incident Commanders (IC’s). NYSEG said that they had 1 IC and he came from a sister company in Maine and arrived on Wednesday.

· Con Ed said that most power was restored by Thursday evening---97% of West Co. NYSEG took longer.

· They both used first few days for clearing trees with help of DPWs. Then line outages addressed.

· Both brought in out of state crews.

· Con Ed sand bagged some substations due to the threat of flooding.

· NYSEG said they experienced the worst infrastructure damage in 30 years. Brewster division heavily wooded and difficult to access. 3,000 wires down and 300 poles down.

· NYSEG worked transmission segment first, then the distribution lines. Some substations were out.

· Both claimed that they had a problem getting dry ice. One legislator noted that there is an ice company in Mamaroneck that was selling it after the storm.

· Con Edison said that their approach has been having municipal liaisons and they plan to meet with municipal officials in the future and not the public

· NYSEG said that they have too many municipalities to cover and that is why they can not have municipal liaisons. However, for this storm they said that they did use municipal liaisons in West Co.

· Municipal officials were invited to speak. The Police Chief from Pound Ridge noted that their entire town was out and they only have NYSEG. He further noted that the municipal liaison approach was more of a problem than help for them because it introduced yet another layer in the process.

· Both utilities said that they will not cover the cost of lost food because the outage was storm related.

· There will be a follow-up meeting Sept 19 or 26. Issues were identified today. Plan of action to be addressed at next meeting.

In my opinion, both utilities should include the public in their meetings and not just select municipal officials.

With well organized emergency response and preparedness plans, everything should fall readily into place. There may be a few minor glitches which is all that a municipal liaison should have to become involved with. I agree with the Police Chief from Pound Ridge. Too many layers of bureaucracy can impede the restoration/recovery process and the municipal liaison should not play a major role.

NYSEG should use an in-state IC that is on staff.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the PSC is not in control where it should be. After years of dealing with this, it has become evident to me that the regulators are too close to the utilities. It is the PSC that should be investigated by our state elected officials. Reform is necessary at the level of the PSC. That is the only way to obtain significant change. Complaint letters to the PSC will only result in marginal actions.

It should be further noted that trees are not the only cause of electrical outages during major storms. It is a complex issue that includes (and is not limited to) flooding, winds, aged infrastructure, employee training, emergency response procedures, etc.

There are individuals who have and who continue to try to address distribution line vegetation management issues. A regulatory approach would be the most effective. There are sensible ways and standards that can be utilized if officials are serious about it. However, one cannot ignore the significant impact of aged distribution line infrastructure (lines, poles, transformers, etc.) and lack of routine infrastructure maintenance. In the case of Con Edison, rather than clear cutting their transmission line where the outages are not occurring, it would be more prudent for them to shift resources to the distribution lines.

These are complex issues, and it is doubtful under current circumstances that complaints filed with the PSC will bring about long term necessary change.

Thank you.

Dr. Patricia Podolak

Chair, Utilities Oversight Committee

Town of Yorktown

Hydrofracking Report Out, Countdown Clock Begins

2011-09-12T14:21:00.000-04:00

From Eco Politics Daily

Submitted by Dan Hendrick on Thu, 2011-09-08 10:51.

With the release of a study of economic and community impacts, the Department of Environmental Conservation officially has officially started the countdown clock on its plan to allow hydrofracking in New York State.

DEC Commisioner Joe Martens has said his agency's goal is to protect the environment while creating economic opportunity.The public comment period for the revised draft environmental impact statement began Sept. 7 and concludes Dec. 12.

Running concurrently with that public comment period, the DEC will also accept input on its proposed regulations governing high-volume hydraulic fracturing.

The fact that these two public comment periods are running concurrently reflects the Cuomo administration's intention to move swiftly with its hydrofracking review.

The new studies conclude that hydrofracking will produce much-needed jobs: between 4,400 and 18,000 construction jobs and 1,800 and 7,200 long-term jobs. Estimated wages run between $621 million and $2.5 billion per year, while the state government is estimated to receive $24 million and $125 million in new personal tax revenues.

But many questions remain, including the possibility of imposing royalties on natural gas to help pay for the state's cost of regulating the industry.

Exactly how any gas produced from hydrofracking will fit into New York's energy future and needs also remains a serious question -- in addition to the well-documented environmental concerns.

For now, one thing is certain -- the upcoming four public meetings (dates and locations not yet announced) are guaranteed to be lively.

---

The nearest locale for hearings in our area will be NYC. -mg -

Are Guidelines updated in Case 10-E-0155 Being Ignored??

2011-07-14T13:26:00.004-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:

Mark Gilliland

GEF LORAX Working Group

c/o Greenburgh Nature Center

99 Dromore Rd Scarsdale, NY 10583

(914) 714-3056

lorax@markg.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION’S NEW VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES PUT TO THE TEST

Are Guidelines updated in Case 10-E-0155 Being Ignored??

GREENBURGH, NEW YORK – The GEF LORAX Working Group applauds the New York Public Service Commission’s (PSC) re-examination of its 2005 policy and guidelines for vegetation management along high voltage transmission line Rights-of-Way (ROWs). This review, known as Case 10-E-0155, has resulted in updated guidelines, effective July 2011, for management plans of Con Edison, O&R and other transmission utilities statewide. More information about this can be found on the LORAX blog: http://loraxwg.blogspot.com/2011/05/published-order-for-case-10-e-0155.html.

An important element of the new guidelines is the use of what is termed a modified "tiered" vegetation management approach - which states that vegetation which could never grow into the wire protection zone should be left standing in the ROWs, rather than the utility simply undertaking unconstrained clear cutting, thus helping to maintain visual/noise buffers in many instances. The outcome of tiered management should be better vegetation management decisions based upon actual site conditions, not “one-size-fits-all.”

In addition, the new guidelines introduce the notion of “high density” ROWs such as those found throughout Westchester, Rockland and parts of Orange County. These suburban areas with dense populations of homeowners along the ROW will now be required to have special transmission vegetation management plans (TVMPs) defined specifically for them in order to reduce negative environmental and property value impacts.

However, it has come to LORAX’s attention that Con Edison is effectively ignoring these new guidelines. Numerous complaints from homeowners and property owners along the Catskill Aqueduct transmission corridor in Westchester County, previously impacted in 2009 by the clear cutting of all vegetation across the width of the ROW, have been received concerning Con Edison personnel stating that they intend to “complete the cycle” of vegetation management (without further landowner notification) as previously approved until completion of work sometime in 2012. The work outlined involves going back into the ROW and cutting down any re-sprouting trees, thence applying herbicides to the stumps and to other undesirable vegetation which may have emerged. The work will be done across the entire ROW (up to 130 feet on either side of the transmission line) regardless of terrain or vegetative buffer needs of residents. This work cycle will begin in Yonkers and travel up the ROW into northern Westchester. Work will commence in the Sprain Road area soon.

None of the new PSC guideline requirements are being addressed by Con Edison. A field supervisor stated during an on-site meeting with a resident that there was no need to define “high density” plans for this area. Furthermore, there was no intention of saving any re-spouting trees to help restore natural, native buffers to reduce noise and views of the nearby Sprain Parkway.

The GEF LORAX Working Group believes that it is imperative for the PCS to demonstrate a commitment to the new guidelines by having Department of Public Service (DPS) utility regulators work through the pertinent details of the new requirements with Con Edison, and thence ensure Con Edison implements said adjustments to it’s ongoing TVMP immediately, not sometime after 2012.

LORAX has just released an analysis of the 2011 PSC guidelines which outlines “missing” regulations, loopholes, and other areas of procedural concern which should be addressed immediately by the PSC or by the state legislature in order to ensure a better balance of environmental, health and property value concerns with that of provision of safe, reliable electric power. Several of these outlined issues are already being brought to the forefront by the current actions of Con Edison (described above). The LORAX analysis can be found at: http://loraxwg.blogspot.com/2011/06/gef-analysis-of-psc-case-10-e-0155.html.

If you are a resident, landowner or municipal official who is experiencing similar difficulties or have concerns with ongoing transmission line vegetation management, you can submit complaints to the PSC (via phone, fax, website, mail or email): http://www.dps.state.ny.us/complaints.html

For more information and background documentation, visit http://loraxwg.blogspot.com.

###

GEF Analysis of PSC Case 10-E-0155 Guidelines

2011-06-28T16:28:00.000-04:00

The GEF LORAX Working Group has completed an initial review of the recent guidelines issued by the NYSPSC in Case 10-E-0155. The following concerns are raised - some of which may be resolved procedurally, but others of which may require updated or clarified guidelines, or perhaps legislative action:

General Comments
Guidelines do not address the full set of 9 Commission questions originally posed in Case 10-E-0155 last year. (Example, little discussion of “best practices” is provided.)

Guidelines are often vague and too much is left open for interpretation by individual utilities.

Integration with previous Order (04-E-0822) is weak at best. (Previous order is appended to new order. Is it clear how and where 10-E-0155 supersedes the previous 2005 order in all areas of potential interpretive conflict?) <-- Further study required to document apparent conflicts.

Notification
All utilities in NYS should be included in notification requirements.

Need to spell out more clearly what actions allow short term (30 day) and what actions need long term (up to 180 day) notification.

Utilities should be required to provide 90 day 'public notice' to municipalities when they plan to do VM work. This notice could then be read at board meetings, posted on municipal web sites, etc. Allows time for public meetings.

Missing requirement to ensure demarcation of ROW (easement, trees to be removed, danger trees) in advance of on-site meetings with landowners.

Better, more timely notification to abutting landowners is required for herbicide application cycles. Special exemptions from herbicide IVM required for agricultural lands, esp. those intended for "organic" production.

Mitigation
Needs more detail and criteria regarding replanting and other forms of mitigation. Must eliminate any utility "opt out" loop holes.

Lack of any science-based analysis (eg: bio survey) of ROW as a basis for determining areas of exclusion (buffers, habitat) and required mitigation.

Lack of discussion of tree valuation and ecosystem services (again as a basis for mitigation).

Lack of surety (performance) bonds for mitigation practices.

Rate payers, adjacent property owners and municipalities should not be expected to cover the costs for mitigation and repair. Other means of covering the costs need to be found (i.e. percentage of utility’s annual net profit).

Minimizing the need for mitigation (ie: minimizing negative impacts at the time of work) should be the focus - not extracting even higher rates from ratepayers.

No explicit requirement for arbitration in the case of landowner disagreement with proposed work.

High Density ROWs
All utilities in NYS should be included in development of special case ROW management programs for sensitive areas (e.g.: park lands and preserves), not only "high density" populated areas.

Need clear guidelines for TVMP alternatives concerning agricultural lands (to safeguard human health and the farmers’ ability to fully utilize their land), as well as for other "special use" areas (e.g.; parks and recreation areas), as well.

Previous Damages (2004-2010)
No mention of restitution and mitigation for those homeowners who suffered adverse impacts. Many areas still need repair. ("For most of us, the bulk of our equity is in our homes. Some of us have been rendered properties that can never be sold again because of what Con Edison did on their adjacent property.")

TVM Techniques
No specific recommendations on new VM practices such as "on demand" response (via LIDAR and GIS system mapping).

No discussion of urgency in managing invasive plants and animal populations (white tail deer).

No discussion of the need to monitor work sites for proper DEC stormwater and erosion controls. (Or in the case of DEP Aqueduct lands, the need to ensure water course and water body buffers are maintained and not compromised.)

Need to define alternative methods of IVM and need to ensure conformance to new guidelines supporting reduced vegetation removal in order to phase out reliance on the excessive use of herbicides.

Unfortunately, current level of DPS staffing does not allow for robust monitoring by PSC of any utility's work. This defaults to "self-monitoring" and "self-reporting" - which has not worked in the past.

Complaint Resolution & Arbitration
PSC complaint & arbitration has left a lot to be desired over the last few years. Most testimonial from both the public and municipal officials in Case 10-E-0155 hearings clearly indicated they they were not satisfied in the process. There needs to be improved accountability and responsiveness regarding complaint arbitration procedures.

There needs to be an "on the spot" dispute resolution process. Otherwise, extended delay is handling complaint may be "after the fact" and the damage will have been done. Related: what if utility strays from its stated plan? There should be a "stop work" order until such complications can be investigated and resolved.

Utility fines for non-compliance with TVMPs or these guidelines should be clearly indicated and implemented in a timely manner.

Updated TVMPs
Recommendation #4 needs particular attention due to the push back by the TOs against the publishing of their VM plans for security and proprietary concerns. Some NYS TOs publish TVMPs un-redacted (such as O&R), while others (Con Ed) make it difficult to even get hold of their heavily redacted TVMP without a FOIL.

There needs to be some sort of public comment / oversight on the new TVMPs. (LORAX would be willing to provide review and feedback of these so as to ensure landowner and municipal concerns were addressed.)

Currently approved (in process) TVMP cycles should not continue without review and conformance to new guidelines. The utilities should not be allowed to simply "finish the cycle" before addressing concerns such as modified wz/bz, high density ROWS, and preservation of buffers.

New Technologies
Need a NYSPSC or Federal directive and pilot project funding support for utilities to embrace new technologies which help to prevent widespread blackouts (e.g.; Smart Grid).

Federal Guidelines
PSC needs to work with NERC/FERC to try to renormalize fines dealing with vegetation encroachment so as to reduce pressure to simply "clear cut".

--

A pdf of this analysis can be downloaded here.

Published Order for Case 10-E-0155

2011-05-29T17:27:00.000-04:00

Here is the pdf of the Case order released late last week by the PSC.

While the guidelines, commentary and discussion are more detailed that that of the original Press Release, it must be noted that in many areas, these new guidelines fall short of what LORAX had hoped to achieve. The most apparent lack is that of public oversight / review / comments on new TVMPs and related procedures for high density ROWs, etc. Another area of lack relates to detailed environmental, bio-habitat and ecosystem services analysis. It is unclear how enhanced guidelines for ROW management and the now-required mitigation planning can be created without these science-based tools forming a baseline.

Finally, there is an extended discussion about a modified "tiered" vegetation management approach - essentially adopted in the DPS staff commentary on the guideline which states that preferred vegetation should be left in the ROWs, rather than simply undertaking clear cutting. In this discussion by DPS staff, the LORAX provided diagram outlining "tiered management" is dismissed as being too rigid and not reflecting the need for adoption of a variable approach based upon site specific ROW conditions due to tower type, terrain and wire placement. This is unnecessary obfuscation on the part of DPS staff - it as clear from LORAX materials that the diagram was an example of the possibility of using this technique without hazard, not a rigid "one-size-fits-all" mandate on heights and distances. In any case, the final outcome should be better vegetation management decisions based upon actual site conditions. Which is good.

Other good guideline updates include the requirement (of Con Ed and O&R) for proper and clear advanced notification, enhanced training of contractor work crews, as well as the requirement to provide contact information for VM complaints and questions - provided on notifications, on web sites and by in-field contractors when asked.

Video Archive of PCS Hearing on 10-E-0155

2011-05-23T16:40:00.001-04:00

Although the PSC Press Release release (posted below last week) provides only a schematic overview of the 8 recommendations provided by DPS staff to the PSC and thence unanimously adopted, the Q&A discussion which occurred during the hearing is quite illuminating.

Here is the link to the webcast archive:

http://nydps.onlinevideoservice.com/Archive/Event_051911.aspx

The pertinent section to view is between 79:00 and 101:00 minutes on the video.

What is most interesting is the language (the discourse) being used by both the DPS staff and the Commissioners in terms of the feedback from residents and communities along the ROWs. Although a few areas of the presentation do not clearly discuss the various nuances and still provide much of the "older" narrative (such as the implied requirements of FERC/NERC FAC-003-1), the general staff and Commission tone is very supportive of the public concern.

In the staff's Powerpoint on the proposed guidelines, a summary of issues that came up during public hearings is presented - this section is a nice bullet-list of public concerns as documented by LORAX and other commentators. Then, the actual proposed guidelines are summarized.

In both discussions, the concerns of homeowners, municipalities and environmentalists are taken as valid and important, along with the over-arching need for a "mid-course" revision of the 2005 guidelines to provide a better environmental balance, the need for clearer directions to the utilities (concerning notification and thoughtful more limited vegetation removal in lieu of clear-cutting), and the underlying need for better contractor training and supervision.

All of this is a good change in tone coming from both the DPS staff and the Commission itself.

Now let's see how the actual order is written - what details are included at what level of specificity. Unfortunately, there was no discussion of possible public review of said guidelines and of updated TVMPs.

But overall, from the discussion documented in the Commission webcast, we should all celebrate the impact we have had on this issue! Thanks to LORAX members, municipal officials, local residents, RiverKeeper, Sierra Club and others in our combined efforts to make a change.

LORAX Comments on Today's PSC CASE 10-E-0155 Ruling

2011-05-19T16:50:00.001-04:00

LORAX is supportive of the goals outlined in the new transmission vegetation management regulations. However, as a public interest environmental lobbying group, we have some specific concerns with the guidelines as announced in today's Press Release. (Note: as the actual text of the Order has not yet been released, we have not seen the commentary by DPS Staff nor the discussion by the Commission itself. This commentary may provide additional insight into the intentions and context of each guideline.)

In general, the guidelines enhance notification requirements, provide for a TVMP complaint escalation process, create a distinction between rural ROWs and urban/suburban ROWs, call for more limited vegetation removals (modifying the original Case 04-E-0822 orders requiring clear-cutting of the entire ROW "to the floor"), and require utilities to describe when and what sort of replant mitigation they will provide along impacted ROWs.

All of this is good news when seen from a high level perspective. However, in most instances, the rules do not provide specific criterial or detailed requirements and are thus open to a possibly wide-ranging interpretation by each utility. Yes, the DPS staff must review and approve these updated TVMP documents, but nowhere is there a requirement for any public review of proposed changes to said TVMPs. Given the public outcry and concern about the appearance of DPS staff / utility cronyism, why shouldn't a public review phase be mandated?

The first new regulation concerning notification, in particular, is more expansive that originally proposed:

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall provide individual written notification to all easement encumbered and abutting landowners, local municipal elected officials, and affected state agencies, of cyclic ROW vegetation management work, not more than 180 days nor less than 30 days prior to the commencement of such work.

This requires notification not only of properties with ROW easements within them, but of all properties adjacent to ROWs. Good news. There are two weaknesses, herein, however. First, the notification window can be as short as 30 days - ok for individual landowners, but tougher for municipalities to hold public meetings. Secondly, this notification requirement applies specifically only to Con Ed and O&R, rather than to all state transmission utilities.

In regulation #3, special TVMPs for highly population areas are required:

Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall develop, for staff review and acceptance, a section in their Long Range Right of Way Management Plans (Plan) specifically addressing how they will conduct their ROW management work on high density ROW areas.

Again, the issue here is that no prescriptive detail is provided as to what sort of changes should be made in dealing with high density population areas. Nor is there a specific criteria defining "high density" - which has previously been an issue in O&R territory.

In terms of mitigation, the new rules call out for public documentation about replanting:

All companies shall develop sections in their Commission approved ROW Management Plans, for staff review and acceptance, to address the circumstances and criteria pursuant to which replanting is warranted.

Once again, however, there are no detailed "base" requirements about when and how mitigation is to be performed. Could a utility simply take Con Ed's position that "We don't replant, period." Would this not fulfill the letter of requirement #6 (quoted above)?

So, over all the ruling is a mix blessing. It offers a lot of possibility for relief, but just how much there will be is based upon an ongoing (an not public) process. LORAX believes that there should be more robust (detailed) requirements as well as public oversight based upon the last 7 years of utility rampage along the ROWs in conjunction with the DPS/PCS's avoidance & justification of said actions.

PSC Issues Ruling on CASE 10-E-0155

2011-05-19T16:23:00.000-04:00

STATE OF NEW YORK

Public Service Commission

Garry A. Brown, Chairman

Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 Further Details: James Denn james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080 http://www.dps.state.ny.us http://twitter.com/NYSDPS

11041/10-E-0155

COMMISSION IMPROVES VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RULES

— Utilities Required to Improve Public Notification When Maintaining Power Lines —

Albany, NY—5/19/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today adopted eight recommendations to improve and clarify utility practices regarding high voltage transmission right-of-way vegetation management practices.

“Maintaining the highest degree of electric system reliability for the benefit of New York’s customers is among the most important of our responsibilities,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “However, there is a real need to ensure that the public is kept fully informed regarding changes to be made to vegetation surrounding high-voltage power lines in the community. These comprehensive new rules will help significantly improve the notification process and will help avoid problems that have occurred in the past.”

The Commission’s earlier policy regarding right-of-way (ROW) management established requirements for utilities’ ROW maintenance programs and ensured adequate record keeping and reporting by the utilities. In addition, the federal Energy Policy Act called for the development and implementation of additional mandatory and enforceable reliability standards for utility ROW maintenance.

The Commission noted that reliability problems are commonly manifested when contact occurs between a tree and a transmission line during, for example, a storm which causes a fault in the transmission circuit which may cause widespread electric system outages. Because of this,effective management of transmission rights-of-way is an essential component of system reliability.

However, in recent months, members of the public and elected officials have expressed concern with respect to the ROW vegetation management practices used by utilities to implement the above described regulatory scheme along their transmission rights-of-way.

These concerns have largely focused on the trimming and removal of trees and other vegetation by utilities in their transmission rights-of-way. Those objecting to the utilities’ practices cite the unwanted aesthetic impacts associated with the utilities’ ROW work, as well as noise, erosion and decreased property value as potential results. Expressions of concern have taken many forms including individual complaints to this department, letters from public officials, municipal resolutions and proposed state legislation.

As part of the public review process, more than 200 written comments were received from interested parties and six public statement hearings were conducted throughout the state at which people who would rather comment orally were able to do so. Staff reviewed the written comments and those made at the public statement hearings, and developed for the Commission’s consideration eight recommendations to improve ROW management practices in the State. Staff also sought public comment on the first seven of its recommendations.

Upon review of the comments, the Commission accepted eight recommendations:

1. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall provide individual written notification to all easement encumbered and abutting landowners, local municipal elected officials, and affected state agencies, of cyclic ROW vegetation management work, not more than 180 days nor less than 30 days prior to the commencement of such work.

2. Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall provide in their notification details of the type of vegetation management work to be performed, the physical boundaries of the work, the methods and extent of the proposed work, provisions for cleanup and ROW restoration and the expected dates of commencement and completion.

3. Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall develop, for staff review and acceptance, a section in their Long Range Right of Way Management Plans (Plan) specifically addressing how they will conduct their ROW management work on high density ROW areas.

4. All companies shall submit, for staff review and acceptance, updates to their websites and any printed materials, detailing the rationales and practices governing their ROW management programs.

5. All companies shall establish a direct line of communication between the public and the companies’ vegetation management personnel for questions regarding ROW vegetation management work. Information advising of the opportunity for such communication and how such communication can be accessed shall be made available on the companies’ websites, on all required notifications, and provided by field personnel and contractors upon request.

6. All companies shall develop sections in their Commission approved ROW Management Plans, for staff review and acceptance, to address the circumstances and criteria pursuant to which replanting is warranted.

7. All companies shall develop, if one does not exist or enhance if one does, a section in their plans detailing when and where various types of vegetation will be allowed to remain on a ROW. The section shall incorporate, to the extent possible, a vegetation management approach that recognizes that removal of desirable species is neither required nor preferred. Commensurate training and oversight of field personnel shall also be addressed.

8. The Commission Order containing ROW management requirements issued in Case 04-E-0822 will be appended to this Order.

Staff believes its recommendations appropriately reflect the concerns that have been expressed, are cost-effective and sensitive to environmental, aesthetic and community values, and protect the continued provision of safe and reliable electric service and recommends their adoption.

The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0155 in the input box labeled "Search for Case/Matter Number". Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).

FERC Actions regarding Transmission Vegetation Management

2011-05-06T20:42:00.000-04:00

A letter of inquiry sent today to the FERC re: Transmission Vegetation Management:

Dear Commissioners;

I am writing this as part of the GEF LORAX Working Group's ongoing follow-up to the Transmission Reliability Conference of last October 26, 2010 organized by Mr. Hegerle and staff.

As of this time, it appears that FERC staff have concluded that FERC does not have specific congressional regulatory authority to prescriptively define vegetation management practices beyond the statement of reliability-related clearance measures in FAC-003-1 (and as modified in FAC-003-2 r5 which is pending final approval).

This still leaves open and unresolved serious issues brought to the fore by landowners and Congressional representatives concerning clear-cutting along the ROW with the associated negative environmental, health and property value impacts. WIth the impact of global warming including stronger storms and extreme temperatures, the need to ensure electrical system reliability is even more apparent than ever. However, there is an growing nationwide awareness that methodological changes must be found by which to reduce the impacts of transmission line vegetation management practices (TVMPs) such as the current wide-spread reliance on clear cutting across the ROW; to find solutions that maintain visual and noise buffers, create less impact on property values, ensure air quality, reduce extensive flooding and erosion, slow the spread of invasive plants and animals, and engage in ecosystem/habitat restoration to help ensure species preservation (such as our song bird, amphibian, and butterfly populations).

What actions has FERC taken to date as a result of the Technical Conference?

The FERC web site has recently been updated to "better educate" the public (landowners) that the federal government (FERC) can not regulate TVMPs at the level of granularity which would allow exclusion of clear-cutting practices. Rather, the web site and associated FAQ clearly points out that the state PUCs / PSCs are responsible for management and oversight of utility's TVMPs. This information in now prominent on the FERC web site and on the downloadable TVM FAQ. But is this sufficient?

The goal here seems to be to deflect public outcry from FERC back to the state level. However, the pervasive motivation ("excuse") of NERC fine avoidance given for extreme clear-cutting by the Transmission Operators (TOs) has not been adequately addressed by FERC/NERC yet. Historical NERC fine data for the last couple of years shows a very small percentage of tree contact or R1/R2 incursion violations in the overall mix of fines. So something does not add up!

The Commission is reportedly planning to reach out to state regulators and TOs to let them know that clear-cutting is not a preferred or required method of TVM to meet Federal standards. What this outreach will consist of and how vigorous this attempt at industry "reeducation" might be is not clear yet. But time is of the essence as ROW clear-cutting continues nationwide.

Landowners and concerned groups such as LORAX need to better understand the position that FERC will be taking in this matter. If stronger guidelines are not possible based upon current congressional authorization, if NERC fine structures can not be made less onerous for simple safety zone incursions, if the industry and state regulators will not listen to the urgent need to balance their TVM methodologies so as to better reflect public (ratepayer) demands, then a robust grass roots effort to address this issue at both the Federal (additional Congressional legislation) and state levels (public utility commission guidelines) is our only recourse as concerned citizens. This would be a long and tenuous process.

As LORAX has pointed out to our own state regulatory body (NYS Public Service Commission) in PSC Case 10-E-0155, a major issue that is often avoided in this discussion concerns network reliability, capacity, equipment age, operator training, software reliability and inter-operator communications. As seen in the Joint US/Canada Report on the 2003 East Coast blackout, all of these factors conspired to make the grid system much less robust and unstable such that a couple of random tree contacts in Ohio could become significant factors in the cascade of human and machine failures leading to the breakdown of overall electric grid system integration and massive blackout.

Thus, the underlying issues are far greater than the current focus on TVMPs. Unfortunately, the issue of system reliability is a much larger problem requiring designing / upgrading the overall grid (newer more modern equipment, greater capacity in lines which run over existing ROWs, digital monitoring, simulation and "Smart Grid" technologies, and enhanced scenerio-based operator training). Again, a long term process.

Related to our call for use of new technology and systems, LORAX has also pointed out that current clear-cutting practices are actually a costly "solution" for a problem that could be best handled through the use of LIDAR, regular scans of transmission corridors, GIS-based computer modeling, and a "just in time" approach to spot vegetation management. ("Best" here means a less costly methodology which would also significantly reduce or eliminate the various negative impacts of current practices.) Such methodologies could be implemented in a relatively short period of time by each utility and TVMPs could be quickly updated and approved based upon such changes. Thus, LORAX believes that the option of this approach should be more widely disseminated by FERC through the utility industry and state regulatory framework.

We hope to continue our dialog with FERC so as to help ensure that these issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of all.

regards,

Mark Gilliland
GEF LORAX Working Group, chair

LORAX Reply Comments on Draft Guidelines

2011-02-23T12:29:00.003-05:00

Read the LORAX Reply Comments (.pdf) submitted to the PSC on 2/22/11 in reference to the draft guidelines for Case 10-E-0155 (proposed by DPS staff on 12/31/10). These comments address previous filings by various state transmission utilities in response to the proposed guidelines. They also provide a summary critique of what LORAX believes to be a lack of sufficient scope and depth in the draft guidelines. (See also previously posted LORAX Comments on guidelines - final version issued 2/2/11 - below).

LORAX Comments on PSC's Draft Guidelines for Case 10-E-0155

2011-01-27T18:27:00.001-05:00

THe following materials are being made available as part of LORAX Working Group outreach to local municipal officials and other interested parties:

1) Submission Comments (final) from LORAX on proposed guidelines. (Download .pdf)

2) Outline of LORAX comments and concerns (regarding proposed guidelines). (Download .pdf)

3) Generic Municipal letter of support for LORAX comment filing. (Download .doc)

For more details on the Draft Recommendations, see this link.

Recommendations to FERC on FAC-003 Transmission Line Reliability Regulation

2011-01-07T10:48:00.002-05:00

On Dec 27, 2010, Mark Hegerle of FERC wrote in an email:

The Commission’s chairman, Jon Wellinghoff, is very concerned about this issue [Transmission Line Vegetation Management practices resulting in the clear-cutting ROWs]. The October 26 technical conference was the first step in raising awareness of the issue, and we are currently considering how to proceed next. As you know, the Commission does not have the authority to mandate any particular form of vegetation management over another – that authority rests with the state and local authorities. Nevertheless, poor vegetation management practices are harmful to landowners, as you point out, and may not be the best method to protect reliability.

Staff is considering how best to advise the Chairman on what steps the Commission could or should take to address this issue. I hope to have a better response to your concern in the next few weeks.

Mark

Mark Hegerle
Director, Division of Compliance
Office of Electric Reliability
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

To which LORAX replied:

[The GEF LORAX Working Group wants] to comment upon the statement (in your email) that "the Commission does not have the authority to mandate any particular form of vegetation management over another – that authority rests with the state and local authorities."

We heard at the conference that the TVMP of each utility is reviewed and approved both at the state level and at the federal level (NERC). None of the TVMPs that I have reviewed call out clear-cutting as a preferred (or even applicable) approach to Row management. Nor does FAC-003-1 require or mention it. Thus there is a disconnect between approved methods and actual in-field methods applied by various utilities. Without on-going in-field review (monitoring by regulators at both state and federal levels), the main way TVMP performance evaluation has occurred has been by the cries and complaints of landowners who have experienced (or are threatened with) clear cutting implementations.

We have heard expert testimony at the conference from Dave Morrell of the NYSPSC that he believes the clear-cutting choice has been made by utilities not as on the basis of cost savings, but rather as a means to avoid FERC compliance fines. The discussion of changing FERC/NERC fine structures so as to clearly handle the difference in risk profiles of a Clearance 1 vs. a Clearance 2 infraction is key to stopping the recourse to clear-cut. Having a tree grow into an arbitrary Clearance 1 zone (which is based upon the utilities' own TVMP cycle definition) is clearly different than growing into the flash-over zone or having an actual line touch! (The spark-over Clearance 2 is science-based with IEEE provided tables giving required distances, unlike the arbitrary Clearance 1 value which is never provided in any formal specification.)

We also heard mention of advanced techniques such as LIDAR scanning of transmission corridors so that complete 3D mapping of vegetation can occur, allowing computerized analysis and detection of "problem areas". With such technology allowing the early and easy detection of infractions into Clearance 1 zones, the actual Clearance 1 distance established by a utility could be modified to be more "lenient". There would be a highly targeted TVM response to any such specifically detected incursions (not a broad-brush clearing of the entire ROW). This would also most likely result in significant annual TVM cost savings for the utilities.

Lack of environmental analysis and remediation is a major weak link in the current regulations. At both the state and federal levels, TVMP is considered to be a "maintenance" operation and thus is excused from any environmental quality review processes (unlike new line construction). However, actual in-field reports demonstrate that there are widespread and serious environmental, health, and property value impacts for landowners - both along and nearby the ROW - resulting from current TVMP practices. The basic FAC-003 regulations should emphasize environmental stewardship in conjunction with reliability: the "model TVMP" as outlined therein must include a requirement for planned and effective remediation for all TVM actions.

Finally, as discussed at the conference, the utilities' reliance on IVM - Integrated Vegetation Management - (as outlined in ANSI A300 Section 7) needs to be seriously questioned. The scientific findings relied upon by the IVM spec (based upon years-old studies in limited regions of the US) appears to be at odds with current studies reported by researchers in Pennsylvania and New York: in controlled studies of forest and woodland clear-cutting, natural regeneration of native species no longer occurs due to excessive deer herbivory. Deer populations are explosively rising in the Northeast and the expansion of deer-friendly feeding territory caused by clear cutting the ROWs will directly result in greater expansion of populations. Only non-native invasives will repopulate the ROW lands, unlike the IVM model of a naturally generated native ecosystem espoused by the utilities. Unfortunately, reliance on IVM methods including repeated manual herbicide applications will not provide a viable foundation for desired ecosystem recovery. Active mitigation / restoration will be required. (Again, this will require oversight monitoring...)

--

To summarize, changes to FERC/NERC fine structure and fine infraction types (esp. regarding Clearance 1) could be undertaken directly under existing regulation without requiring further legislative action. Such changes - and the reasons for them - should be clearly communicated to all state PSCs/PUCs as well as to the utilities themselves, along with a request to review and modify their current practices in light of these changes.

This needs to be coupled with enhanced federal In-field monitoring / inspections - as proven by events/complaints over the last couple of years, FERC/NERC cannot rely solely upon state public utility commissions to perform this oversight. The core issue is whether or not approved TVMPs are being followed "to the letter" of FAC-003-1 or are greater (more excessive) VM actions being undertaken unnecessarily? If so, these should be stopped with the threat of significant (new) FERC/NERC fines for non-compliance to regulations.

General TVM guidelines (similar to the technical advisory guidelines developed to accompany FAC-003-2 draft) should immediately be issued covering the recommended use of LIDAR techniques in TVM, as well as expanding the emphasis on use of the modified WZ/BZ (wire zone/ border zone) management approach which allows vegetative buffers to coexist along ROW edges and outer margins (allowed vegetation height based upon distance from centerlines of the transmission towers in conjunction with terrain, topography, species and climate/bio-zone.) In addition, the problems of relying upon IVM as defined by ANSI A300 Section 7 should be emphasized. A scientifically sound, updated approach to ecosystem restoration after TVM operations needs to be made part of any TVMP approval/review - and should be part of the FAC-003-2 draft.

FERC must also emphasize the need the need for effective and agreed-upon (with landowner) environmental remediation, planned at the outset and required to be part of any TVMP. Again, this is striking a balance between reliability and environmental concerns that should not require legislative action, but simply a re-emphasis within FAC-003 regulations and enforced via the TVMP review process.

These final points imply another significant change which FERC could undertake immediately: the regulatory specification process (as embodied by the current FAC-003-2 draft update) should be broadened to include the landowner's perspective within the creation/review/approval process. Allowing landowner input and feedback could only strengthen the resulting specifications.

Thank-you for including me in this discussion. I and my LORAX fellows (copied hereon) are available for further discussion, analysis and review.

Regards,

Mark Gilliland
GEF LORAX Working Group, chairperson

---

Download a PDF of our formal follow-up submission to the FERC.

As you will read, there are a handful of issues which relate to the NYS PSC's current review of its Transmission Vegetation Management guidelines (Case 10-E-0155) - and which will require the PSC to work "upwards" (to the FERC / NERC levels) to help resolve. Without such clarification and resolution at the federal level, TVMP regulatory issues may not be resolved at the state or local utility level.

Two major issues to watch out for:

1) The fine structures in place for FACA-003 compliance are interpreted by utilities to require elimination of all vegetation in the ROW (both wire zone & border zone) so as to avoid clearance zone incursion penalties. However, this "incursion zone" (Clearance 1) is not strictly defined in FAC-003 (unlike Clearance 2 spark-over safety zone values) and thus is left up to the discretion of each utility. The result in NYS and elsewhere at a national level has been extensive clear-cutting along the ROWs.

2) The current circulated draft of FAC-001-2 (and update to the existing federal reliability regulation under development by NERC) defines an explicit vegetation height restriction in the border zone. This 25' height restriction would force removal of many view buffers (for example) while simultaneously disallowing any modernized approach to vegetation management (such as the "tiered" wire zone-border zone methodology).

---

Draft PSC Recommendations for Changes in TVMP

2011-01-02T12:40:00.001-05:00

The NYS Department of Public Service staff has made a series of recommendations for changes in utility vegetation management programs after reviewing all of the written input and public hearing data.

Many of the recommended changes are specific to O&R and Con Edison (due to the excess of problems and issue reported in our region compared to state-wide), while others apply to all NYS PSC-controlled transmission utilities: Read the PDF document here.

The PSC is inviting comments on these recommendations, before they hold formal hearings to discuss these recommendations and make their decision on Case 10-E-0155. Comments are due by Feb 2 (details are within the PSC notice).

FERC Technical Conference Review

2010-12-22T18:42:00.001-05:00

From an industry newsletter Energy Dimensions comes this article - posted online Dec 14,2010 - worthwhile read as it is balanced and does not simply blow-off landowner issues...

FERC Technical Conference Reviews FAC-003-1 in Response to Landowner Complaints of Excessive and Abusive Vegetation Management Practices

The purpose of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Technical Conference on Transmission Vegetation Management Practices held Tuesday, October 26 to review current vegetation management programs and practices under Reliability Standard FAC-003-1 - Transmission Vegetation Management Program (TVMP) resulted from concerns raised by certain landowners and other affected parties about changes in vegetation management practices implemented by utilities following adoption of FAC-003-1 on June 18, 2007.

Two of these groups were represented at the conference, The Indiana Tree Alliance emerged from a local individual property owner’s perspective angered by damage to trees on their property; and, the LORAX working group, a non-profit from New York City’s northern suburbs formed in 2009 after public outcries due to TVMP clear-cutting operations in their region. LORAX helped local municipal governments respond to the outcry with a TVMP Moratorium resolution demanding that the NYS Public Service Commission (PSC) cease all vegetation management activities while a public review of the current guidelines was undertaken. The goal was to eliminate what local politicians referred to as a “scorched earth” policy in ROW management.

Read entire article here.

Greenburgh-Based Eco Activists Go to Washington to Speak for the Trees

2010-11-09T12:20:00.000-05:00

From 11/9/10 Rivertown Patch.com:

Greenburgh-based environmentalists participate in FERC roundtable to argue against clear-cutting practices.
By Lizzie Hedrick

The Greenburgh Environmental Forum's LORAX Working Group chairperson Mark Gilliland appeared before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in Washington DC late last month to discuss the impact of federal regulations on state and regional electric utility companies' implementation of vegetation management plans surrounding active power lines.

"I am very pleased that LORAX had this opportunity to present landowner and environmental concerns at the FERC technical roundtable," said Gilliland, an Irvington resident. "It is imperative that community concerns about property value loss, environmental damage and health impacts of these TVMPs are discussed in the context of both State and Federal regulations and policies."

In reaction to utility companies'—predominantly Consolidated Edison's—practices of clear-cutting trees along power transmission lines in Westchester and the Hudson Valley, a group of concerned residents and officials have banded together to push for stronger regulations preventing deforestation they believe is unnecessary and detrimental to our natural environment.

Facing FERC in the nation's capitol, LORAX representatives argued that the current vegetation management programs followed by Transmission Operators—or companies responsible for transmitting energy within a given region—in New York have lead to "severe economic, aesthetic and environmental damage along the transmission rights-of-way due to excessive removal and clear-cutting of all trees and vegetation, lack of adequate storm-water and erosion controls, over-reliance on herbicides, as well as insufficient or inadequate follow-up mitigation."

They said this "scorched earth" approach has been extensively documented by LORAX, the Sierra Club and various municipalities in the region, as well as by both the Rockland and Westchester County Legislatures.

Appearing on the panel of the roundtable were representatives of the utility industry, state and federal regulatory agencies, utility arborists and landowner groups.

As expressed by Mark Hegerle, director of FERC's division of compliance for the Office of Electrical Reliability, the goal of the meeting was to uncover why utilities and state regulators claim "FERC made us do it" in response to public outcries about recent wide-spread tree removals. The discussion covered a wide range of topics including: Review of federal reliability standards, state approval and oversight of utility vegetation management plans, mandatory non-compliance fines, mitigation of environmental impacts and best practices for vegetation management in the rights of way.

"Viable solutions need to be found to prevent further damage—solutions ranging from revision of approved 'best practices' and reduction of non-compliance fines, to requiring detailed environmental reviews and responsible mitigation along the rights of way," Gilliland said.

Currently, utility companies are fined not only for allowing vegetation to exist within a certain spark zone of active power lines, but also for allowing plants to grow into a wider intermediate area further from the line. "We believe government agencies should reduce the penalty structure so that the utility companies don't feel the need to take such drastic measures," Gilliland said.

Though grateful for the opportunity to present his extensive research, Gilliland added that, in reality, changing the regulations will be difficult.

"Vegetation management plans for each utility company must be approved at both the state and federal levels," Gilliland said. "The second issue is oversight: Once the plans are approved, who is regulating their practices?"

According to Gilliland, nobody is.

He said the the state and government agencies responsible for overseeing the process are understaffed and have been "in reactive mode,"—spending all their time responding to community outrage over clear-cutting, rather that stopping it from happening.

"No vegetation implementation plan specifically mentions clear-cutting," Gilliland said. "But they all do it because it is cheaper to send someone in with a chainsaw than to have an arborist actively select which trees pose a real threat to power lines. It also means they have to come back less often to maintain the rights of way, which is also potentially cheaper."

Several other LORAX members, including Marvin Baum (Rockland County), Amy Kupferberg (Orange County) and Chris Crane, a member of the Westchester County Legislature, attended the FERC roundtable and lobbied strongly for changes to vegetation management regulations and policies. LORAX Working Group founding members include: Patricia Podolak (Yorktown), Susan Porcino (Ardsley), Anne Jaffe-Holmes (Irvington), David Bedell (Sleepy Hollow), and Walter Rodriquez (Yonkers).

"I certainly hope something was accomplished by attending the roundtable and presenting the home-owner and landowner's perspective so that FERC could have a more balanced picture of what's going on," Gilliland said. "What they will do with it, I'm not sure."

PRESS RELEASE: LORAX TESTIFIES IN WASHINGTON AT FERC

2010-10-29T16:58:00.003-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Mark Gilliland

GEF LORAX Working Group

c/o Greenburgh Nature Center

99 Dromore Rd

Scarsdale, NY 10583

(914) 714-3056

lorax@markg.org

October 26, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LORAX TESTIFIES IN WASHINGTON AT FERC

TRANSMISSION LINE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

TECHNICAL ROUNDTABLE

LORAX presents Landowner and environmental concerns with right-of-way clear-cutting.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The GEF LORAX Working Group chairperson, Mark Gilliland, appeared before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Electrical Reliability Committee on Tuesday, October 26, 2010, to discuss the impacts of Federal regulations (FAC-003-1) on state and regional electric utilities’ implementation of Transmission Vegetation Management Plans (TVMPs).

“I am very pleased that LORAX had this opportunity to present landowner and environmental concerns at the FERC technical roundtable,” said Mark Gilliland, Chairman, GEF LORAX Working Group. “It is imperative that community concerns about property value loss, environmental damage and health impacts of these TVMPs are discussed in the context of both State and Federal regulations and policies.”

As reported to the FERC panel by LORAX, the current vegetation management programs defined by the various Transmission Operators (TOs) in New York have lead to severe economic, aesthetic and environmental damage along the transmission rights-of-way (ROWs) due to excessive removal and clear-cutting of all trees and vegetation, lack of adequate stormwater and erosion controls, over-reliance on herbicides, as well as insufficient or inadequate follow-up mitigation. This “scorched earth” approach has been extensively documented by LORAX, the Sierra Club and various municipalities in the region, as well as by both the Rockland and Westchester County Legislatures.

Appearing on the panel of the roundtable were representatives of the utility industry, state and federal regulatory agencies, utility arborists and landowner groups. As stated by Mark Hegerle, FERC’s Director, Division of Compliance, Office of Electrical Reliability, the goal of the meeting was to uncover why utilities and state regulators claim “FERC made us do it” in response to public outcries about recent wide-spread tree removals. The roundtable discussion covered a wide range of topics including: review of Federal reliability standards (FAC-003-1), state approval and oversight of utility TVMPs, mandatory non-compliance fines, mitigation of environmental impacts, utility ROW easement agreements, “best practices” vegetation management of the ROW.

A complete video archive of the roundtable as well as the meeting agenda can be viewed online at:

http://capitolconnection.net/capcon/ferc/102610/ferc102610.htm

“Viable solutions need to be found to prevent further damage – solutions ranging from revision of approved ‘best practices’ and reduction of non-compliance fines, to requiring detailed environmental reviews and responsible mitigation along the ROWs,” Gilliland noted.

Several other LORAX members, including Marvin Baum (Rockland County), Amy Kupferberg (Orange County) and Chris Crane (Westchester County Legislature), attended the FERC roundtable and lobbied strongly for needed changes to TVMP regulations and policies.

GEF LORAX Working Group founding members also include: Patricia Podolak (Yorktown), Susan Porcino (Ardsley), Anne Jaffe-Holmes (Greenburgh Environmental Center), David Bedell (Sleepy Hollow), and Walter Rodriquez (Yonkers).

For more information including LORAX submittals to recent NYSPSC proceedings on vegetation management, please visit the LORAX Working Group blog at: http://loraxwg.blogspot.com.

“Trees lost to date along the ROWs in Westchester Country provided an estimated $6 million dollars annually in clean air and stormwater benefits for our communities. To avoid similar financial and health impacts in the future, we must better balance electric reliability with the urgent need to protect our local environment,” Gilliland observed.

# # #

Photo attached by LORAX. Caption: “Members of GEF LORAX Working Group outside of the FERC building after the Technical Roundtable, October 26, 2010. From left to right: Mark Gilliland, Amy Kupferberg, Chris Crane, Marvin Baum.”

---

Download .pdf version of Press Release here.

Watch the FERC TVMP Roundtable from Oct 26, 2010

2010-10-27T15:48:00.001-04:00

Archived webcast here.

LORAX Submissions for FERC Roundtable

2010-10-25T17:46:00.006-04:00

Here are our LORAX submissions for the FERC Roundtable:

Westchester BOL Moratorium Resolution 26-2010 passed 3/1/10 (Download as .pdf)

Observations and Recommendations concerning TVMPs in Westchester and Rockland (Download as .pdf)

Short statement by LORAX chairperson to the Roundtable (Download as .pdf)

Follow-up statement of 10/28/10 by LORAX chairperson to FERC committee for inclusion in Docket No. AD11-2-000. (Download as .pdf)

---

Watch the Roundtable via web video streaming here (event page).

LORAX to Attend FERC Meeting on Transmission Line Vegetative Management Issues - Docket No. AD11-2-000 - Tuesday, Oct 26th, Washington, DC.

2010-10-24T10:32:00.000-04:00

Overview of meeting (from invitation emails):

Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is organizing a conference to discuss vegetation management practices and related topics. [...] We’d like to highlight the importance of good vegetation management, noting that we’ve generally seen good results with FAC-003 (reduced to zero vegetation contacts over a couple of quarters, but 3 recent touches are indicators of ongoing concern, as shown by a recently issued NERC Industry Advisory. We want to acknowledge landowner concerns over certain methods (e.g., clear cutting), address how such methods are established and approved, and discuss possible ways to mitigate the impact while ensuring reliability.

We propose to structure a panel discussion more like a guided discussion than a series of prepared statements read into the record. So we plan to invite NERC staff to discuss Reliability Standard FAC-003; a couple of utility representatives to discuss current practices, the TVMP, and ROW agreements; a landowner representative to discuss common complaints and concerns; one or two state commission/government representatives to discuss jurisdictional issues; and an arborist to speak to vegetation management issues and solutions from an arborists point of view.

[The conference will be held October 26 at the Commission’s offices from 1pm-5pm.]

Attached is the supplemental notice of the conference containing the list of panelists and the order in which we will address issues. As requested by some of you, following my opening remarks, each of you will have five minutes for introductory remarks. We will then move directly into a collegial discussion of the issues as outlined on the supplemental notice.

The conference will be Webcast. Anyone with Internet access who desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov’s Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar.

On Requiring Carbon and Oxygen Impact Analysis for TVMPs

2010-09-21T17:06:00.001-04:00

Marvin Baum, a LORAX Utility Analyst had mentioned in his presentation at Ramapo Town Hall on August 23, 2010, that the PSC should consider mandating carbon and oxygen impact statements for its own proposed actions, such as in Case 04-E-0822, as well as for all proposed actions by utility companies.

Read the Proposal (as a pdf file).

Regarding Con Edison's Manipulation of Public Opinion Thru Misinformation

2010-09-21T16:56:00.002-04:00

Attached is a file that consolidates LORAX comments of September 20, 2010, with Con Edison’s Press Release of March 4, 2009, regarding its 2009 “tree trimming” plans for Westchester, into a single document. This file has been posted to PSC Case 10-E-0155 and distributed to the Commissioners and staff.

Read the analysis: Regarding Con Ed and O&R in Case 10-E-0155.pdf

Herbicide Use Kills Bees - Illegal Application During Clear Cut TVM?

2010-09-20T17:26:00.000-04:00

A recent email from a homeowner in Chester, N.Y. where the O&R subcontractor, Lewis Tree Service, has destroyed over 300 trees and killed off his honey bees:

I also have [at least] three of my honey bee hives that are dead, possibly from the spraying of herbicides. One of the men gave me a copy of the Herbicide pamphlet warnings. It is called Accord Concentrate made by Dow AgroSciences. It is labeled Hazardous to Humans & Animals ! It probably killed my bees. But I have no way of proving it. Other than the pamphlet and the pictures of the Herbicide spraying truck on my land! The pamphlet is pretty scary. The Inherent Risks of Use page is a statement that says "unintended consequences" may result because of unfavorable temperatures, humidity, wind direction and speed, over- application, etc...etc...
I can go on, but it boils down to Herbicides are poison and should not be used on this planet!

The LORAX response:

The issue about the herbicide application that killed your honeybees is potentially VERY SIGNIFICANT. First of all, does the deed granting the ROW even allow use of herbicides. (We are assuming for this discussion that the honeybees were on your property and you own the ROW. Is this correct?)

O&R does not use herbicides in Rockland and if your ROW agreement does not spell it out specifically, then they should have gotten your permission to use the herbicides before making the application. How did they apply the herbicides?

You must submit your story and evidence ASAP to the Secretary of the PSC (send to: secretary@dps.state.ny.us and jaclyn_brilling@dps.state.ny.us), as the related case 10-E-0155 will be closing next week (Sept 28). Indicate "CASE 10-E-0155" somewhere in the Subject line of the email.

Post O&R Clear Cut Video - Incursion into Delineated Wetlands

2010-09-17T17:33:00.002-04:00

View the following video documenting O&R's activity in Orange County:

See all O&R TVMP movie postings by kathr754 on YouTube.

Kathy, the homeowner emailed:

Nearly all the cutting was done within the delineated area. In fact, when I confronted the Lewis crew about the wetland flags, they said that if they had known before hand, they would have come through and done any tree trimming and cutting by hand. They only realized it was delineated wetland after they found one flag crumpled under some of the aftermath of the clearing. Even so, they made little effort to minimize further damage and kept right on using their big "chipper or mower". I called " Eric", the O&R rep, and he asked me what I would like done. I told him some sort of restoration but never heard back. Shortly after they sent a survey team out to survey all the properties. My neighbor , Mr. Bob Mason, had complained that they were reading the survey maps wrong and actually cutting more than was called for along the ROW.

--

Read her complete submission to the PSC Case 10-E-0155 filings here (pdf).

Actions to Take If Utility TVMP ROW Clear Cutting Hits Your Property or Neighborhood

2010-09-17T13:59:00.002-04:00

The most effective actions in "self-defense" you can take are as follows:

Document the name of the utility contractor at work. Try to speak with and get names of supervisors, if any, on-site.
Insist upon seeing the project work order documentation and ensure there are properly flagged survey markings.
Look at your easement agreement to ensure that the requirements are (were) followed "to the letter" by the utility.
Create a concise narrative documentation (WORD .doc) with before, during & after photos of your property.
Make sure you local, county and state politicians know what is occurring/has occurred.
Insist upon on-site meetings with utility to discuss mitigation -- and include politicians, PSC, LORAX reps, if possible.
Report complaints to Public Service Commission (PSC) via consumer complaint web page or posted 1-800 complaint phone number.
File materials to PSC CASE 10-E-0155 (due before Sept 28?) regarding your situation including photos. This can be done via the PSC website or via email to secretary@dps.state.ny.us with doc, photos, etc.
Contact local newspapers, TV reporters, local or regional environmental groups, etc.
Start a letter writing campaign to media, environmental groups and to local and regional politicians.
Contact the NYSDEC is you believe environmental infractions occurred on state-monitored land (eg: wetlands and water courses). This includes lack of proper erosion and sediment controls.
Meet and consult with neighbors. Share stories, facts and ideas. Act together. Don't be isolated!

All of this helps to increase visibility of the events as well as to apply broader pressure on the utility and its contractor to come to some sort of mitigation agreement that makes sense.

RiverKeeper Posts Its Submission to Case 10-E-0155

2010-09-13T18:20:00.002-04:00

Clear-cutting detrimental to watershed and property values

Last month, Riverkeeper testified at the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) hearing about comments we submitted concerning Con Edison’s right-of-way vegetation management plan. Riverkeeper viewed problematic maintenance work in Yorktown, New York, where the company clear-cut excessive trees and other vegetation, and we received reports of Con Ed’s failure to notify property owners of the extent of its proposed vegetation management activities.

See full details at RiverKeeper site:

http://www.riverkeeper.org/news-events/news/safeguard-drinking-water/rvk-testifies-at-ny-state-psc-hearing-on-con-edison’s-right-of-way-practices/

Letter from LORAX to the PSC

2010-09-12T14:22:00.000-04:00

An email sent earlier this week to the PSC:

Dear Secretary Brilling,

I know that you have been receiving a lot of letters and complaints concerning recent activity by O&R (Orange and Rockland) in the Chester, NY area of Orange County. I won't take time to go into details of the various specific concerns and impacts caused by the work (seemingly targeted at lines in the 69kV to 138kV range).

But what does concern me and the members of LORAX is that such activity can continue in light of the history over the last 3 or 4 years of O&R's (and its contractor's) pattern of behavior executing its TVMP in Rockland and Orange Counties.

It is sad and totally unnecessary that this destruction continues unabated even as the PSC has an open review case 10-E-0155 on the matter.

The pattern of misinformation, lack of training and oversight, disregard for state environmental regulations, and the over-zealous and wanton destruction of our valuable natural resources has been commented upon in public meetings and by municipal and county resolutions since at least 2008 (for O&R) and 2009 (for Con Edison).

The fact that Federal regulations do not require the level of destruction (wide-swath clear cutting) being undertaken has been discussed and agreed upon - even by your own DPS staff who oversee the transmission utilities.

The fact is that there is no statistical or scientific proof that such over-clearing of transmission line "air gap" safety zones is actually required based upon the outage history (or lack thereof) in our lower NY state region.

The fact is that in our densely populated counties many property owners now face major environmental problems which they must mitigate at great expense to themselves, often ranging into the thousands of dollars.

The impacts and costs of mitigation continue to grow as these TVMPs continue unchecked and under-supervised by PSC DPS staff. As Legislator Abinanti remarked at the recent PSC Case meeting in Greenburgh, [I paraphrase roughly:] "The clear cut destruction along the transmission ROWS in Westchester alone has done more to undermine all of the county's hard-fought environmental regulations and progress. The negative impact literally swamps any benefits from any of these green / sustainability initiatives."

It is not enough to merely listen -- having heard all of the reports and seen the documentation, action must be taken to minimize further impacts!

It is time that the PSC step forward and explain to the public exactly what reasoning prevents a moratorium from being implemented NOW.

Why won't the PSC simply stop the on-going activity via an immediate stop-work moratorium (excluding "emergency actions") while the case review continues??

The fact that the PSC will not take such action in the face of wide-spread public and governmental outrage is why our state legislators need to take action in the next session to force the PSC into being a public oversight commission, not just a "shill" for the utility companies.

Remember: it only takes 10 minutes to fell a mature Oak, but it takes 100 years to grow one back. Its time for the PSC to do the right thing for the residents of NYS and for our shared environment.

Regards,

-mg-

---

Mark Gilliland
GEF LORAX Working Group, Chairperson

cc: PSC Members

PSC CASE 10-E-0155 Hearing Tomorrow in Albany

2010-09-12T12:53:00.001-04:00

PSC Hearing tomorrow:

5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
September 13, 2010
Albany Public Library
Main Library
161 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12210

Image of Ridge Road / Sprain Parkway clear cut area from Google Earth - shows attempted remediation along Parkway.

Warwick Passes LORAX's TVMP Cessation Resolution

2010-09-09T20:58:00.005-04:00

The Town of Warwick rapidly followed the lead of the Chester Town Board who passed a Cessation Moratorium resolution last night.

From Amy K., who attended tonight's Warwick town council meeting:

They drafted the Resolution and passed it tonight.

I actually stood up and thanked them. Supervisor Sweeten thanked us [LORAX] for making him aware of the situation and supplying the Resolution.

---

Read more in the article from the 9/10/10 issue of the Warkwick Advertiser (local paper).

---

Read the Warwick resolution (pdf file).

--

Eyewitness Account: Letter from Chester Homeowner to PSC

2010-09-09T10:43:00.000-04:00

Dear Secretary Brilling,

My name is John DeRosso, my family and I reside in Chester, N.Y. In the last two and one half weeks my family has been put through a nightmare I wouldn't wish on anyone. Lewis tree company which I understand is contracted by Orange and Rockland literally clear cut a swath of land in front of my house 135' wide by 600' long.

There was not a tree left standing.

What took us 17 years to build and nurture was literally destroyed in two days, and now resembles a dirt parking lot. Trees that were 90' away were left standing but their branches which hung into the easment were cut off. I still have 30' and 40' tree trunks standing in parts of the ROW.

We were told over and over if they failed to comply they (Orange and Rockland) could be fined anywhere from $1,000 to $1,000,000 per day. That seems very hard to argue with.

Originally when my wife was given notice by a representitive from Lewis tree company that they would be coming in to do "trimming and clearing", she asked if "anything would change." She was told "no". She told me that evening, and given that we were told the same thing in previous years, we assumed they would be doing the same maintanance they had done before. We were totally unaware, nor were we informed of the changes we were later told came about in 2005...

I later found out that many of my neighbors that were having far less done on thier property were given literature as well as contact numbers. We received neither. Three days after the clear cutting when I asked the Lewis representitive who spoke to my wife why we didn't get any of the paper work, I was told he "didn't have anything on him at the time."

To add insult to injury I found out last week that the night before they clear cut my property there was a meeting scheduled in Montgomery in Orange county to open this issue to public comment. At a meeting today with Orange and Rockland representitives I asked why noone was informed of this meeting and I was told it was in the paper.

Today's meeting which was held at our house included concerned neighbors, representitives of Orange and Rockland (which included Mike Grant, Mark Beamish, and Keith Still), Senator Larkin, Assemblywoman Calhoun, Legislator Dan Casticone, and town supervisor Steve Neuhaus. Two members of LORAX were also there as observers. I have to say without the guidance, help, and support form the members of LORAX, I don't know what we would have done.

Most of the people attending the meeting were very taken back by what they had seen and had a hard time comprehending why it was done. The Orange and Rockland representatives characterized what happened as a "miscommunication". Unfortunately that answer doesn't give us our property or our lives back. After the meeting I have to say I was probably more confused and angry then I was before.

There will be a town meeting tomorrow evening in Chester, N.Y. to adress the issue of passing a resolution similar to those passed in both Rockland and Westchester counties to have Orange and Rockland cease it's clear cutting activities. I also spoke to the town supervisor in Warwick today and will be forwarding him information I have accumulated over the past week.

I've spent the last few days speaking to people in the area and informing them of what happened to us and may happen to them. I have also brought this to the attention of local and county newspapers and will also be talking to any other available media outlets. I personally feel that Orange and Rockland needs to greatly improve thier interaction with the public as well as take a hard look at their policies and practices when it comes to dealing with these type of issues which can have such a drastic effect on people's lives. As I understand it Marvin Baum has already sent you pictures of our property, so I won't bother to do the same. I would like to thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
John DeRosso
Chester,N.Y.

More Lame-o Excuses - O&R Tries to Duck and Cover

2010-09-08T18:07:00.008-04:00

As reported by LORAX member and utility activist Amy K. who attended the on-site meeting this morning (Wednesday 9/8/10):

They [O&R Reps] started with the blackout of 2003.

We negated that....I told [O&R] that there is a published time line [from the federal incident analysis study of what occurred] that [they] should read [to get the full facts of the chain of events leading up to the blackout. This has been discussed extensively elsewhere in PSC submissions by LORAX.]

Then they [O&R] shifted to the 2005 mandate from the PSC. I reminded them that at the Yonkers meeting in March, Dave Morrell [of the PSC staff] stated that the Utilities were not mandated to clear cut. When Nancy Calhoun [elected official] asked again why they would cut so much, I said "because they could" and everyone repeated it.

They did not look good, and of course they are blaming Lewis [tree service contractors who also did the work in Westchester] for everything.

There is a town hall meeting in Chester [tonight (Wednesday)], and Warwick on Thursday.

It was fun... the local elected officials were good.

--

Amy added more unbelievably lame-o O&R interchange in a later message:

Michael Grant the PR guy [O&R] mentioned the 2005 Order, and I said that I was glad he brought it up because although it is very aggressive, it does make mention of property owners and [inventorying] buffers. Michael first replied by saying that he wasn't a lawyer and really couldn't discuss specifics. I answered him by saying that he didn't have to be a lawyer, he just needed to know how to read. I had read it, it is just 32 pages. He than said that this property would not qualify as a buffer. I asked him why not?? - no answer. He was not very pleased with me.

Marvin brought up the O&R modified TVMP for residential areas and Mark Beamish [O&R] said this area wasn't really considered residential. I asked the town Supervisor if the area was zoned for residential and he said yes. Then Beamish said it wasn't really a front yard because there wasn't a swing set.

I plan to discuss this episode in Albany.

--

Chester Town Board Passes Resolution

Follow-on report by Amy K. from the Chester Town board meeting:

We swooped in and took O&R out.

The Town of Chester passed their resolution tonight.

At the town hall meeting residents were also given an opportunity to speak. I also spoke.
I encouraged participation in case #10-E-0155.

Channel 12 was there.

Supervisor Neuhaus also stated that O&R has agreed to stop the cuttings. Neuhaus and Warwick Supervisor are meeting tomorrow and they are also reaching out to other neighboring [towns].

Supervisor Neuhaus was definitely impressed by the LORAX work!!

Clear Cutting Transmission ROW Again - this time its O&R in Orange County!

2010-09-08T12:43:00.003-04:00

A resident of Chester, NY reported:

In the last week I have seen my property go from a picturesque country scene to the aftermath of a bombing courtesy of Orange and Rockland utilities. They are clear cutting Rights of Way on privately owned easments with no regard for the property owners or the environment. Fortunately they met with stiff resistance slowing them down only for the time being. They literaly cut a swath 135' by 600' right across the front of my property destroying mature, oak, maple, and walnut trees. The aftermath is nothing short of a war zone. I have been speaking to state politicians as well as newspapers but my fear is without more public awareness this will be fruitless. Any assistance or attention you could bring to this would be greatly appreciated. Most people being affected are not even aware of the extent until it is too late. I would be more then happy to speak to someone in your organization to fill them in on the details as well as pictures of what has transpired.

Thank you,

John DeRosso

Chester, N.Y.

This email was forwarded to the LORAX working group, whose members responded with advice and additional information. For example, one email provides the following advice:

it is critical to check your legal documents (utility ROW easement agreement) to ensure that O&R followed everything to the letter. The fact that they did not provide adequate notification, nor did they explain clearly the extent of the VM action and receive your "ok" indicates strongly that their TVMP (approved by PSC) procedures were violated. The other point I made in previous email concerns trying to get DEC involved (based upon photos) concerning what appears to be violations of stormwater and erosion control regulations.

And other email, this advice:

By the way, if you can start to generate public outcry and get in the face of your local town board, you can have them pass a version of the resolution (which I forwarded to you earlier). By getting folks in your community organized and in the face of the town council (town board), the local politicians begin to sweat enough to take action. Of course, lots of press coverage, letters to editor, even public demonstrations can help to get the right amount of attention.

Early Tuesday morning, Sept 7 at 7:30am, there was an on-site meeting with representatives of O&R, local residents and local politicians. From a LORAX participant's report:

The meeting went very well from everyone’s perspective… except, of course, O&R. People were really angry about this. Senator Larkin and Assemblywoman Calhoun were there, as were local officials. Some of the stuff they did was ridiculous and it was an absolute repeat of “Blauvelt 2008” in every way.

O&R admitting failing to give proper notification, but they argued that they didn’t need to follow the modified guidelines because this residential subdivision with about 30-50 homes with hundreds of residents, underground utilities, curbing, cul-de-sacs, etc., was actually not a “residential area” by O&R’s unwritten definition of a “residential area” and therefore not subject to O&R’s Transmission Vegetation Management Plan approved by the PSC in 2008, which allowed tree trimming in areas outside the wire zone for transmission lines of under 200kV. In this particular case, the transmission line that O&R claimed required complete tree removal as far as 85’ away was only 69kV.

Please take a look at the results of tree removal operations in Chester, NY:

Orange and Rockland clear cutting easment

According to the homeowner, the transmission line adjoining his home is a 69kV. He also indicated: “Not one tree was directly under the wires. The closest tree was around 30' away. They used the 85' on one side to get the majority of the trees. I think at best maybe one tree could hit a wire if it completely fell over.”

Finally, here is a pdf of a letter sent by Marvin Baum, utility analysis for the LORAX working group, to the Secretary of the PSC concerning this matter.

We are all waiting to see what, if anything, the PSC will do in response to this continued egregious tree demolition by O&R (a subsidiary of Con Edison). Both utilities have proven to be recidivist in their TVMP behaviors, regardless of the degree and volume of public outcry. As County Legislator Tom Abinanti said at the recent Greenburgh PSC meeting concerning Case 10-E-0155, "Either the PSC has to take action to correct these problems, or the State Legislature will take action [to compel the PSC to act as a responsible public oversight agency]."

PSC Public Hearings: Important Lobbying Notes, Schedule Info & Alternative Submission Methods

2010-08-22T20:29:00.000-04:00

There are three important changes in vegetation management which all of us can lobby the PSC to include in any updated guidelines based upon findings from the current case (Case 10-E-0155):

1) environmental analysis – wetlands, water courses, habitats, impact of loss of tree buffers on air, noise, visual pollution, etc. Like any SEQRA review, the goal should be towards minimizing detrimental impacts. (Analysis should be segment-by-segment, not state-wide.)

2) notification – a minimum of 60 days verified notification for homeowners/property owners, a minimum of 30 days for a town-hall like public meeting to review and receive feedback on planned vegetation management. (During clearing operations, a dedicated 7/24 emergency complaint hotline should be available for property owners and municipal officials.)

3) mitigation – mandatory replanting, stomwater and erosion controls, etc. must be built into the vegetation management plans from the start. Mitigation costs should not be borne by individual residents or property owners for impacts caused by utility line clearing. (Full mitigation for past clearing activities during 2007 thru 2010 in Rockland and Westchester must be mandated by PSC, as well!)

Another change in PSC guidelines that the LORAX Working Group has been advocating is the adoption of an eco-friendly "tiered management" approach to vegetation management along transmission lines:

This means that the farther from the centerline of the transmission towers one goes towards the edges of the right-of-way (ROW), the taller the vegetation that can safely remain standing. So, at a distance of 50 feet from the centerline, a tree perhaps 35ft tall is "safe". At 100 feet from the centerline, a tree 80ft tall is "safe".

Thus, rather than mindlessly clear cutting the entire ROW corridor (resulting in significant environmental, health and property value impacts), a more natural "tiered" landscape remains that does not compromise line safety. Tiered management reduces habitat loss, erosion, air quality impacts, etc. It also reduces the foothold for invasive plants and expanding deer populations.

Finally, with a focus on the need for greater environmental awareness, vegetative buffers must be maintained. The PSC guidelines from 2005 (Case 04-E-0822) should be modified to require that riparian & wetland buffers, view-shed buffers and road-crossing buffers (to name a few) must be maintained and enhanced, not clear cut.

Plan to come out and make your voice heard by the PSC!

Scheduled local hearings:

• Monday, August 23 - 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., Ramapo Town Hall, 237 Route 59, Airmont.

• Monday, August 23 - 5:30 to 7:30 p.m., Yonkers Public Library, Riverfront branch, 1 Larkin Center.

• Tuesday, August 24 - 1:30 to 3:30 p.m., Greenburgh Public Library, 300 Tarrytown Road, Elmsford.

Other ways to comment:

• 800-335-2120, press "1" and refer to case 10-E-0155.

• www.dps.state.ny.us/comment.html. In the search box, enter case number 10-E-0155.

• Write to Jaclyn A. Brilling, secretary, Public Service Commission, 3 Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350 and refer to case 10-E-0155.

PSC - NOTICE OF PUBLIC STATEMENT HEARINGS CASE 10-E-0155

2010-08-11T07:42:00.001-04:00

NYSPSC has scheduled public hearings on Case 10-E-0155, Electric Utility Transmission Line Right-of-Way Management Practices. Hearings in Westchester County are on August 23 & August 24. See below and full PSC notice released 8/10/10.

Case 10-E-0155, Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to New York State's Electric Utility Transmission Right-of-Way Vegetation Management Practices.

Public statement hearings are scheduled as follows:

Rockland County
August 23, 2010
1:30 pm – 3:30 pm
Ramapo Town Hall
237 Route 59 Suffern, NY 10901

Westchester County
August 23, 2010
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Yonkers Public Library
Riverfront Library Branch
1 Larkin Center
Yonkers, NY 10701

August 24, 2010
1:30 pm – 3:30 pm
Greenburgh Public Library
300 Tarrytown Road
Elmsford, NY 10523

Orange County
August 24, 2010
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Village of Montgomery Senior Center
36 Bridge Street Montgomery, NY 12549

Onondaga County
September 7, 2010
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Syracuse City Hall
Common Council Chambers
233 East Washington St., 3rd Floor
Syracuse, NY 13210

Albany County
September 13, 2010
5:30 pm – 7:30 pm
Albany Public Library
Main Library
161 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12210

S-7962C Passes Senate, But With Major Compromise

2010-07-16T20:00:00.000-04:00

Good news? - the utility vegetation management notification bill passed the Senate.

Bad news? - It specifically conditionalizes any city, town or village located in the county of WESTCHESTER -- see quote of Section 1 below --

Section 1.

Section 96-b of the general municipal law is amended by adding a new subdivision 3 to read as follows:
3. THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY OF ANY COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER IS HEREBY EMPOWERED TO ENACT A LOCAL LAW, RULE OR REGULATION CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

--

Full text of passed bill:

BILL NUMBER:S7962C

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the general municipal law, in relation to authorizing the local legislative body of a municipality located in the county of Westchester to require any utility company involved in a vegetation management plan to give prior notice to the local legislative body and the residents of the affected community and to hold a public meeting prior to implementation of such plan

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill amends the general municipal law by adding a new subdivision 3 to empower the local legislative body of any county, city, town or village within the County of Westchester to enact a local law, rule or regulation to require any utility company involved in a vegetation management plan that specifically includes the trimming or cutting of trees and/or the elimination of overgrown vegetation in any county, city, town or village shall give 60 days' notice prior to such activity to the community affected thereby. The involved utility company shall hold a public meeting within the affected community at least 30 days prior to the implementation of such plan or activity, providing the residents of such community with the details of such trimming, cutting, and/or vegetation management plan, and providing residents with an opportunity to be heard with respect to such plan. The legislation also allows for a utility company to not notify or hold public hearing in case of an emergency situation deemed to be a threat to public safety and welfare. The legislation also sets forth penalties if any utility fails to notify and/or hold public hearing will be subject to a civil penalty which will result in a fine up to $5,000 for the first violation and up to $10,000 for two or more violations within a five year period. This

Section also states that these provisions shall not apply to any utility company that operates an interstate natural gas pipeline that is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal energy regulatory commission.

Section 2 is the immediate effective date. JUSTIFICATION:

Consistently for several years, Consolidated Edison, a utility regulated by the State's Public Service Department, as well as other utility companies in New York State, has repeatedly entered the process of what they deem to be necessary tree removal due to the proximity of overgrown trees near power lines in residential areas of Westchester County. However, many of the residents in communities of Yonkers, Greenburgh and Mt. Pleasant, as well as many others, have been dissatisfied with the process from its incipiency. Many argued that far too many trees were removed yielding various consequences that could have been avoided had there been a mechanism for public input especially regarding site selection and the extent of the trimming.

These consequences include the creation of naked areas that leave sudden drop offs as well as the spread of branches and wood chips making child friendly areas potentially harmful. Additionally, the removal of trees along the New York State Thruway and Sprain Brook Parkway has caused an increase in noise and artificial light entering homes throughout the affected residential areas. According to members of local environmental conservation groups, the trees in many of these affected areas served as protections to residents from natural processes such as flooding and erosion, which can lead to property damage and personal injury. Several homes have already experienced some of these results as water has run into basements and increased wind speeds have caused damage to several houses.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New Bill

2010

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None to the State.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This bill will take effect immediately.

S7962C Text

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
7962--C
Cal. No. 929 I N SENATE May 27, 2010
Introduced by Sens. STEWART-COUSINS, OPPENHEIMER -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Local Government -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee -- reported favorably from said committee, ordered to first and second report, ordered to a third reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retaining its place in the order of third reading -- again amended and ordered reprinted, retaining its place in the order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the general municipal law, in relation to authorizing the local legislative body of a municipality located in the county of Westchester to require any utility company involved in a vegetation management plan to give prior notice to the local legislative body and the residents of the affected community and to hold a public meeting prior to implementation of such plan THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1.

Section 96-b of the general municipal law is amended by adding a new subdivision 3 to read as follows:
3. THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY OF ANY COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER IS HEREBY EMPOWERED TO ENACT A LOCAL LAW, RULE OR REGULATION CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
A. ANY UTILITY COMPANY INVOLVED IN A VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE CUTTING, TRIMMING AND/OR REMOVAL OF TREES IN ANY COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE SHALL GIVE SIXTY DAYS NOTICE PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH ACTIVITY TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY AFFECTED THEREBY. NO SUCH ACTIVITY SHALL BE COMMENCED UNTIL AFTER SUCH UTILITY COMPANY HAS HELD A PUBLIC MEETING IN RELATION THERETO AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS PRIOR, AT WHICH THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY AND THE RESIDENTS OF SUCH AFFECTED COMMUNITY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE DETAILS OF SUCH TRIMMING, CUTTING, REMOVAL AND/OR VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN AND WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON SUCH MATTERS; B. IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY SITUATION DEEMED TO BE A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE, SUCH UTILITY COMPANY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD17542-11-0
S. 7962--C 2 GIVE NOTICE OR TO HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND C. ANY UTILITY COMPANY THAT VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE LIABLE TO A CIVIL PENALTY WHICH SHALL RESULT IN A FINE OF UP TO FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR A FIRST TIME VIOLATION AND UP TO TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR TWO OR MORE VIOLATIONS INCURRED WITHIN A FIVE YEAR PERIOD. SUCH MONEYS COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO AN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE AFFECTED LOCALITY. SUCH LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY SHALL ESTABLISH SUCH ACCOUNT, TO BE KNOWN AS THE TREE CONSERVATION FUND, FOR THE RECEIPT OF ALL SUCH MONEYS, AND SAID MONEYS SHALL BE UTILIZED BY SUCH LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODY EXCLUSIVELY TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT AND/OR MAINTAIN TREE CONSERVATION PROJECTS WITHIN THE AFFECTED LOCALITY. D. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY UTILITY COMPANY THAT OPERATES AN INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION.

S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Electric Power Research Institute - Publication Reference

2010-07-12T15:35:00.000-04:00

from the EPRI website:

Balancing cost, reliability and environmental protection are major challenges for the power industry. To remain competitive, electric utilities need information and tools to cost-effectively address environmental concerns related to the development and upgrade of rights-of-way (ROW) corridors as well as the management of existing ones. Through deliberate planning and collaboration with electric utility advisors, the Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) Rights-of-Way: Siting, Vegetation Management, and Avian Issues Program has more than a decade of research and synthesis of lessons learned available. Organized by topical area, this reference allows quick access to a library of relevant results. To get a specific listing, just click on desired topic. An abstract of each publication is also available; just click on a report title or go to www.epri.com and search for the report number.

Access the EPRI research on Rights-of-Way Issues - download pdf document.

PSC Submission Documents from LORAX working group - Reply Comments

2010-07-07T14:43:00.002-04:00

The following documents were submitted to the PSC on July 6, 2010 by LORAX Working Group as part of the Reply Comments phase of Case 10-E-0155. Original filings referred to herein can be found at the online Document Matters database for the PSC Case. The original Case filings by LORAX (June 16,2010) can be found at this posting.

LORAX Reply Comments for PSC Case 10-E-0155 - Con Edison.pdf

Additional LORAX Response to CE-OR Comments 7-6-10.pdf

hLORAX Reply Comments for PSC Case 10-E-0155 - CN Utilities.pdf

LORAX Reply Comments for PSC Case 10-E-0155 - EEANY.pdf

Here are original Case filings (June 16,2010) and Reply Commnets (July 6,2010) filed for the Weschester Board of Legislators:

WCBOL Comments, Case 10-E-0155.pdf

Appendix A - Preface, Photographs.pdf

Appendix B - WCBOL Res'n. 26-2010.pdf

Appendix C - Petitions to Save Our Woodlands.pdf (large file! 8.5Mb)

Appendix D - Previous Regulations Review.pdf

WCBOL Reply Comments for PSC Case 10-E-0155.pdf

Provisions on trees in the New York Environmental Conservation Law

2010-06-28T20:14:00.004-04:00

There are a couple provisions on trees in the New York Environmental Conservation Law. The statute is available at this website:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

[THEN: scroll down and click on ENV link]

Read the following sections under this ENV heading:

Article 9, title 15 - REMOVAL OF TREES AND PROTECTED PLANTS

and

Article 53 - TREE CONSERVATION AND URBAN FORESTRY

also of interest perhaps is

Article 49 - PROTECTION OF NATURAL AND MAN-MADE BEAUTY [but probably more for more rural areas]

--

Of special note in the TVMP discussion is Article 53:

§ 53-0101. Legislative purpose.
There is a direct relationship between the planting of trees, shrubs
and associated vegetation in sufficient number in populated areas and
the health, safety, and welfare of communities. Trees and such
vegetation abate noise, provide welcome shade to people, preserve the
balance of oxygen in the air by removing carbon dioxide and fostering
air quality, and add color and verdure to human construction. They also
stabilize the soil and control water pollution by preventing soil
erosion and flooding, yield advantageous microclimatic effects, and
provide a natural habitat for wildlife. The destructive and
indiscriminate removal of trees and related vegetation causes increased
municipal costs for proper drainage control, impairs the benefits of
occupancy of existing residential properties and impairs the stability
and value of both improved and unimproved real property in the area of
destruction, and adversely affects the health, safety, and general
welfare of the inhabitants of the state. In the interests of a greener
and more livable state, it is determined by the legislature that an
affirmative program to encourage the conservation and planting of trees,
shrubs and other vegetation is necessary in the public interest in order
that coming generations will continue to enjoy and benefit by our care
in a green New York.

PSC Submission Documents from LORAX working group

2010-06-15T12:00:00.001-04:00

Here are the documents being submitted by LORAX to the PSC in regards to Case 10-E-0155 (linked to pdf versions of submissions):

1) Response to the 9 Case Questions

2) Gap Analysis of Con Edison TVMP

3) Analysis of SEQR Process for original Guidelines (Case 04-E-0822).

Also available is a letter of support (Word .doc) for, and agreement with, the LORAX filings which may be sent by municipalities or other interested groups to the PSC in response to this Case. (Deadline is Wednesday June 16th, 2010.)

Submission to PSC may be by email (see address below) or uploaded via the PCS/DPS website.

PSC Contact info:

Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling
Secretary to the Commission
New York State Public Service Commission
Agency Building 3
Albany, NY 12223-1350
Phone: (518) 474-6530
Fax: (518) 486-6081
Email: secretary@dps.state.ny.us

PSC Eyes New Rules For Trees Around Power Lines

2010-06-10T23:01:00.001-04:00

Read the full posting at NYLCV EcoPolitics Daily blog here.

Submission Deadline to PSC CASE 10-E-0155 - IMPORTANT!

2010-06-09T14:34:00.002-04:00

Submissions for Case 10-E-0155 must be posted or received by 4:30pm June 16th, 2010. For electronic postings, maximum document size is 25MB. Documents can be emailed to: secretary@dps.state.ny.us.

"Pursuant to the Public Service Commission Guidelines for filing with the Secretary, all items posted must be in searchable PDF format."

Here is the link to the submission guidelines:
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/filingguidelines.html

S-6825 Notification Bill - Set-back??

2010-06-04T19:49:00.000-04:00

S-6825 has been re-tooled to S-7962 (see below) and is scheduled for consideration by Senate Local Gov't. Committee next Wed., June 9, which is chaired by Sen. Stewart-Cousins. It would now amend the General Municipal Law, rather than the Public Service Law. S7962 is pretty similar to S-6825, but does not have the 30-day lead time requirement on the public meeting. However, there does not appear to be a companion Assembly bill, as of yet, which is needed to become law.

--

STATUS:
S7962 STEWART-COUSINS No Same as
General Municipal Law
TITLE....Requires any utility company involved in a vegetation management plan to give prior notice to the local legislative body and residents of the affected community and hold a public meeting


05/27/10	REFERRED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SUMMARY:

STEWART-COUSINS
Amd S96-b, Gen Muni L
Requires any utility company involved in a vegetation management plan to give prior notice to the local legislative body and the residents of the affected community and to hold a public meeting prior to implementation of such plan.

BILL TEXT:

                STATE OF NEW YORK
        ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                          7962
 
                    IN SENATE
 
                                      May 27, 2010
                                       ___________
 
        Introduced  by  Sen.  STEWART-COUSINS -- read twice and ordered printed,
          and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Local Government
 
        AN ACT to amend the general municipal law, in relation to requiring  any
          utility company involved in a vegetation management plan to give prior
          notice to the local legislative body and the residents of the affected
          community and to hold a public meeting prior to implementation of such
          plan
 
          The  People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-
        bly, do enact as follows:
 
     1    Section 1. Section 96-b of the general municipal  law  is  amended  by
     2  adding a new subdivision 3 to read as follows:
     3    3.  a.  Any  utility  company involved in a vegetation management plan
     4  that includes the trimming or cutting of trees, and/or  the  elimination
     5  of  overgrown vegetation in any county, city, town or village shall give
     6  sixty days notice prior to the implementation of such  activity  to  the
     7  local  legislative body of such county, city, town or village and to the
     8  residents of the community affected thereby. No such activity  shall  be
     9  commenced  until after such utility company has held a public meeting in
    10  relation thereto, at which the legislative body  and  the  residents  of
    11  such affected community shall be provided with the details of such trim-
    12  ming, cutting, and/or vegetation management plan and with an opportunity
    13  to be heard on such matters.
    14    b.  In  the  event  of an emergency, such utility company shall not be
    15  required to give notice or to hold a public meeting prior to the  imple-
    16  mentation of a vegetation management plan.
    17    § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
 
 
 
         EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                              [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                                   LBD17542-01-0

LORAX TVMP Cessation draft - now draft legislation in Albany

2010-06-03T15:37:00.000-04:00

Download a legislative draft (pdf) of the Clear Cut Cessation legislation which LORAX supplied to Assemblymen Spano and Ball as a basic draft. We are now looking for co-sponsors... This should be circulated widely, targeting your local and regional State-level Assemblymen and Senators.

June 11th - Right Tree for the Right Place Municipal Tree Seminar

2010-06-01T11:28:00.013-04:00

Dear Friend of Municipal Trees,

Please register to join us for this cutting-edge seminar sponsored by Con Edison, and forward this notice to interested colleagues:

Right Tree for the Right Place
Municipal Tree Seminar

Friday June 11, 2010, 8:30 am-Noon
at the Greenburgh Nature Center

Download program details, speaker list, and registration form.

Please call me if you have any questions about the program or registration.

Looking forward to seeing you on June 11 at the Greenburgh Nature Center!

Best wishes,

Anne Jaffe Holmes
Coordinator of School Programs & Environmental Projects
Greenburgh Nature Center
99 Dromore Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
P: 914-813-1812
F: 914-725-6599

Online presentations (ppt or pdf) linked by speaker:

Mark Gilliland
Jerry Bond
Rick Harper
Frank Buddingh'

LORAX support materials for Case 10-E-0155 responses

2010-05-25T15:27:00.000-04:00

The LORAX working group has put together three documents to help citizens, environmental groups and municipalities formulate responses concerning the PSC's review of transmission line vegetation management opened in Case 10-E-0155. These PDF documents are being periodically updated, but the latest versions can be found at these links:

Response Topics for Case 10-E-0155

LORAX Comments on the PSC's 9 Case Questions

Mind Map: Tripod Diagram of Changing Transmission Vegetation Management Guidelines

LORAX Press Release Concerning PSC Case 10-E-0155 - Policy Review of Vegetation Management

2010-05-25T14:16:00.007-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Mark Gilliland

GEF LORAX Working Group

c/o Greenburgh Nature Center

99 Dromore Rd

Scarsdale, NY 10583

(914) 714-3056

lorax@markg.org

May 25, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO REVIEW POLICY FOR

CLEAR-CUTTING ALONG HIGH-VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES

Policy review opened to interested parties including the general public!

GREENBURGH, NEW YORK – The GEF LORAX Working Group in conjunction with the Sierra Club Lower Hudson Group applaud the New York Public Service Commission’s (PSC) timely decision to re-examine its 2005 policy and guidelines for vegetation management along state high voltage transmission lines. This review, called Case 10-E-0155, has been requested in resolutions drafted by LORAX and passed by Yonkers, Yorktown, Greenburgh, Pleasantville and by the Westchester County Board of Legislators (BOL), as well as through numerous complaints from affected homeowners and property owners along the transmission lines in Westchester County and elsewhere in the state.

The current Vegetation Management policies of the PSC and the programs defined by the various Transmission Operators (TO) in the state has lead to severe economic, esthetic and environmental damage along the transmission rights-of-way (ROWs) due to excessive removal and clear-cutting of all trees and vegetation as well as insufficient or inadequate follow-up mitigation. This has been clearly documented by LORAX, the Sierra Club and the various municipalities and the BOL along the entire span of the Catskill Aqueduct in Westchester County where Con Edison has implemented a “scorched earth” approach within its easements.

“I am very pleased that LORAX and the Sierra Club have been pressing the PSC to review Con Ed's tree cutting policies. The town and many of our residents recognize that diseased trees and trees that are in danger of falling on Con Ed wires need to be cut. However, during the past year Con Ed has contracted out with a private company to cut trees that were not close to wires or transmission lines and did not pose any danger to the ability of Con Ed to maintain service. It's the hope of the town that the PSC will require Con Ed to provide additional notice to localities before trees are cut. Local governments and residents should be provided with input. If significant tree clearing takes place there should be a replanting requirement. Greenburgh wants to keep the green in our name.”

- Paul Feiner, Supervisor, Town of Greenburgh

“The LORAX working group’s mission is to define regulatory, legislative and procedural solutions for vegetation management practices along both distribution lines and high voltage transmission lines. We are encouraged that Case 10-E-0155 will allow for both expert and public dialog in open forums to include local utility companies, affected citizens and the Public Service Commission. We believe win-win solutions for vegetation management can be defined that serve both reliability and environmental goals.”

- Mark Gilliland, LORAX working group

“Consolidated Edison’s execution of their Transmission Rights-of-Way Land & Vegetation Management Plan has galvanized the residents of Westchester County to reach beyond our own property lines and town borders to unite against further clear cutting of our beautiful neighborhoods. Our goal is to unite and empower all the effected residents and force our elected officials to initiate change.”

- Amy Kupferberg, Greenburgh resident

The power utility failure in Ohio of 2003 resulting in a Northeast blackout, was more the result of a malfunctioning, ancient electrical facility than two fallen trees on a wire, which is the Public Service Commission explanation. This decimation of tens of thousands of forest acreage with short and long term environmental and financial impacts has not, according to the PSC itself, been shown to be a proactive remedy to power outages.

- Gerri Currall, Sierra Club Lower Hudson Group

LOAX and Sierra Club believe that the Case 10-E-0155 review and policy adjustment must be based upon current issues of regional and state concern such as global warming, carbon sequestration, stormwater and erosion management, and must include science-based input as to the full range of expected and experienced environmental impacts. Concern for "trickle down" costs (due to follow-on site mitigation and/or property value losses) currently borne solely by private property owners and local municipalities must also be considered – thus the urgent need for requiring site mitigation as a “best practice” within any modern vegetation management policy.

The GEF LORAX working group and Lower Hudson Sierra Club are eager to work with the PSC and with Con Ed to find solutions to the line clearing issues that will ensure system reliability while achieving the economic, environmental and global warming goals supported by Westchester’s communities.

We are recommending the following 5-point plan as a basis of action:

1) Restitution or mitigation for homeowners and municipalities already adversely affected by the transmission line clearings.

2) Public review and update of the PSC’s original 2004 State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) findings. Although the PSC staff estimated that over 1900 acres of land would be impacted statewide by the VM policy, they utilized a short-form SEQR filing (which is only valid for 10 acres or less) and “checked off” the box which stated that there would be “no environmental impact.” The PSC needs to undertake a full SEQR environmental impact analysis (EIA) complete with alternatives and proposed mitigations.

3) Modernization of vegetation management (VM) guidelines for the transmission line rights-of-way to encompass the new draft Federal standard FAC-003-2 and its technical supplement, as well as current industry and academic views on “best practices.” (For example, the “modified wire-zone / border-zone” VM approach allows taller-growing vegetation such as understory trees to remain in the ROW based upon distance from the transmission line centerline. By limiting removal of trees and shrubs in the border zone, this "tiered management" practice protects both local aesthetics and habitat.)

4) Advance notification by transmission utilities for all targeted property owners (private and municipal). Notification should include on-site consultations, detailed written descriptions of proposed pruning and removals, and a defined arbitration process for handling disagreements and specifying mitigation.

5) Improved training, supervision, quality assurance and oversight of line clearing contractors by the TO and of the Transmission utility staff by the PSC.

The PSC’s Case 10-E-0155 comment period is open until June 16^th, 2010. Concerned citizens should consider taking one or more of the following actions:

· Contact your local town or village politicians, including your BOL representative and State Assemblyman and Senator, to express your concerns and to report any issues you may have experienced personally.

· Submit comments or complaints to the PSC (via phone, website, mail or email):

Email: secretary@dps.state.ny.us (Subject: Case 10-E-0155)

Toll-free line: 800-335-2120 (reference Case 10-E-0155)

Mailing address: Public Service Commission

Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary

Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223

· Provide testimony and remarks at upcoming PSC public hearings.

· Encourage others to take action by sharing this news release and/or writing to local papers.

For more information and background documentation, visit http://loraxwg.blogspot.com.

# # #

It is important to spread the word on this PSC Case. Download a pdf of this press release as distribute to your own lists.

LORAX letter of Support for Vegetation Management Notification BIll

2010-05-25T14:07:00.004-04:00

Hon. Andrea Stewart-Cousins
805 Legislative Office Bldg.
Albany, NY 12247 May 24, 2010

Dear Senator Stewart-Cousins,

The GEF LORAX Working Group fully supports the goals of Senate Bill S-6825 (Assembly Bill A-10003) and urges that this important piece of protective legislation be released from Committee to allow for a full chamber vote.

The bill’s requirement for a general notification of all potentially affected property owners (private and or municipal) 60 days before the commencement of any vegetation management activity provides a good baseline to ensure timely disclosure.

The bill’s further requirement for a public hearing 30 days prior to any vegetation management program commencement ensures that Con Edison and the other state electric utilities will be more transparent concerning the true scope of planned vegetative management work. Since Con Edison (as well as the other utilities) commonly use sub-contractors to do vegetation management, the legal record / transcript of a public hearing helps to ensure that communities and individual property owners are protected from a utility’s or sub-contractor’s failure to comply with the work order as described.

Critical to the success of any such notification legislation will be the specific regulatory details of the notification process as developed by the Public Service Commission and as applied to each state electric utility, including: notification methodology, notification retry requirements, provision of a full description of intended work, property owner notification sign-off, and scope-of-work / mitigation arbitration for handling disagreements.

The PSC’s directive, PSC 04-E-0822, appears to be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to vegetation management throughout the State, and has not taken into consideration the differences in approach that are needed in the more densely populated suburban areas, as opposed to measures used in rural areas. Public meetings concerning planned vegetation management will give a much needed forum to voice the community’s commitment to the environment and its concerns about the impacts of climate change, habitat destruction and property value loss.

As part of the Greenburgh Environmental Forum (GEF), the LORAX Working Group is committed to educating the public about the complex issues surrounding both transmission line and distribution line vegetation management, as well as finding legislative and procedural solutions to these issues. The LORAX group looks forward to working with you and your staff to ensure that the "Notification Bill" S-6825 is passed quickly in Albany. Please let us know how we can best support your efforts to expedite the changes we urgently need.

Sincerely,

Mark Gilliland (Chairperson, LORAX Working Group)
85 Harriman Road
Irvington, NY 10533

Cc: Anne Jaffe-Holmes, LORAX WG

Read the Westchester County BOL's letter of support for the notification bill (pdf).

NYC DEP Response to Questions About Catskill Aqueduct Clear Cutting

2010-05-21T14:58:00.000-04:00

Read the response letter as a pdf.

Presentation: Transmission Line Vegetation Management Policy & The PSC Case Review

2010-05-20T16:08:00.004-04:00

UPDATED: download a copy of the presentation as a pdf file.

The talk, titled "Transmission Line Clearing: Who’s in Charge?", will be given by Mark Gilliland of the LORAX working group tonight at Teatown Reservation from 7:30pm till 9:30pm, including discussion and Q&A.

Teatown Lake Reservation
1600 Spring Valley Road
Ossining, NY 10562
Tel: 914.762.2912

www.teatown.org

View Mark Gilliland's Powerpoint presentation online.

PSC Case Matter Files for Case 04-E-0822 & Case 10-E-0155

2010-05-20T00:32:00.003-04:00

Case 04-E-0822
http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?Mattercaseno=04-00822

Case 10-E-0155
http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=10-E-0155&submit=Search+for+Case%2FMatter+Number

Electricity Transmission Systems in Westchester County

2010-05-14T18:09:00.002-04:00

Google Map of Con Ed's 384kV transmission lines along Catskill Aqueduct and other rights-of-way in Westchester.

Right Tree, Right Place: Small Tree Demonstration Planting at Greenburgh Public Library

2010-05-12T16:41:00.000-04:00

On Friday, May 14, 2010, the Town of Greenburgh and Consolidated Edison Company of New York will be showcasing a demonstration program for planting trees near overhead power lines at the Greenburgh Public Library from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM, as part of the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Right Tree, Right Place” and “Tree Line USA” programs.

The Arbor Day Foundation believes that a healthy community forest begins with careful planning. The Arbor Day Foundation’s “Right Tree, Right Place” program helps educate the public about proper landscaping techniques. The proper placement of trees will increase your property value and help to avoid conflicts with power lines, roadways and buildings.

A proper landscape plan takes into consideration such things as the height the tree will grow, its form or shape at maturity, the growth rate of the tree and the soil, sun and moisture requirements to maintain a healthy tree on your property.

The planting program will provide examples of trees that rarely exceed 25 feet in height at maturity, and therefore do not interfere with overhead utility lines. Such trees require little trimming, if any, to keep their branches clear from the lines. The plantings will be located along Tarrytown Road, at the corner of Knollwood Road. Public parking for this event is available in the Library parking lot.

As per the Arbor Day Foundation’s “Tree Line USA” program, it is best not to plant directly under power lines at all, but if necessary, trees planted as part of this program are recommended for planting under, or in close proximity to, overhead power lines. Offsetting the trees is better than planting them directly under the lines. Other trees, shrubs, and flowers are also compatible with planting in close proximity to overhead utility lines. When selecting a plant, keep its mature size in mind. Con Edison will be distributing educational material to everyone attending.

Aaron Schmidt, Greenburgh Forestry Officer, stated “That this program will help local residents learn which trees are suitable for planting near power lines. By educating the public, we can begin planning and planting the next generation of appropriate street trees.”

Supervisor Paul Feiner stated “That the Town is excited to be chosen by Con Edison for this demonstration program. These trees will compliment the educational component of the Library and will be an excellent resource for the community to help guide residents in choosing the right trees to plant on their property.”

If you have any questions, please feel free to call Aaron Schmidt, Forestry Officer, Department of Community Development and Conservation, Town of Greenburgh at 993-1511, or email at aschmidt@greenburghny.com.

Con Ed Mitigation Begins Along the Sprain

2010-05-10T20:03:00.000-04:00

From Amy K. who lives nearby:

They began planting last Thursday.

They promised 30-50 trees total. 16 ft white pines and 10ft firs. 2-3 staggered rows. It looks like they planted them properly and I saw a water truck today. I have to be hopeful, although it doesn't really shield the views at this point. Luckily that area is usually moist so again, I have to be hopeful.

For more pictures become a fan on facebook Keep Greenburgh Green or the blog site.

Senator Stewart-Cousins Speaks About Con Ed and Clear Cutting In Westchester

2010-05-10T19:27:00.000-04:00

Senator Stewart Cousins talks about the latest in the Con Edison "vegetative management" program along a main power line that runs through the her district. Residents have been upset with the matter the utility company has gone about clear cutting trees. The Senator has been very active on this issue and she has even introduced legislation to make things more fair. She discusses the goals of the legislation, as well.

View the video as presented on her Senate page.

LORAX Comments on FERC 110kV "Bulk Line" Proposal

2010-05-10T19:15:00.003-04:00

Hot off the press from Marvin Baum, utility analyst with the LORAX Working Group - our response to the proposal by FERC to include all lines 100kV and above into the "bulk" category.

This is a large PDF (7.6Mb) so it will take a bit of time - patience!

FERC, NERC, ERO, PSC and VM - FAQ on how everything ties together

2010-05-07T17:08:00.000-04:00

Here is a surprisingly clear explanation of who controls what when it comes to the question concerning the alphabet soup of regulations for vegetation management on transmission lines or distribution lines.

Download the FAQ: FERC-vm-faq.pdf

Update: FERC proposes to define all lines above 100kV as "bulk" - Provide Your Feedback Now!

2010-04-28T14:10:00.001-04:00

News Release: March 18, 2010
Docket No: RM09-18-000

FERC proposes to define transmission facilities subject to reliability standards

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) acted today to protect the reliability of the nation’s bulk power system with a proposal to standardize the definition of transmission facilities subject to mandatory reliability standards.

Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) directs the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to include all electric transmission facilities of 100 kilovolts (kV) or more in its definition of what constitutes the “bulk electric system” subject to mandatory reliability standards under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. NERC is the Commission-certified national electric reliability organization.

The proposal generally conforms to the current definition of the bulk electric system recognized by NERC and seven of the eight regional reliability entities around the country. It would eliminate the discretion that regional entities have to define the transmission facilities that comprise their “bulk electric systems,” but allow regional councils to seek NERC and Commission approval if they wish to make variations from the 100 kV standard.

“Consumers and the economy depend on smooth operation of a reliable bulk power grid with consistent standards from coast to coast and from cities to rural areas,” FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said. “But without this step, FERC cannot fulfill Congress’ intent to protect the bulk electric system.”

The Commission also notes there is a strong technical justification for a standard 100 kV threshold: Facilities rated at 115 kV and 138 kV have either caused or contributed to significant bulk electric system disturbances and cascading outages. The Feb. 26, 2008, Florida blackout originated from a fault at a facility connected to the 138 kV transmission system and resulted in the loss of 24 transmission lines and 4,300 megawatts of generation associated with 13 power plants and disrupted electric service to more than 3 million customers for several hours.

Comments on the NOPR are due 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Clearly, re-categorization of transmission lines of 100kV or greater as being “critical/bulk” will have a significant impact on Rockland and parts of Westchester (and the rest of the country), if utilities use this as another excuse for cost-saving clear cutting vegetation management at the expense of the environment and property owners.

The filing deadline for comments on the proposed NOPR (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) is Monday, May 10, 2010. Comments can be filed electronically at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp and photos/documents of up to 50Mb can be added.

PSC Documents re: Case 10-E-0155 - updated!

2010-04-20T16:28:00.007-04:00

PSC Order Instituting Proceedings

Notice to Invite Comments

Transcript of Commission session approving the opening of the case - start reading PDF at page 30. It is interesting that the Commissioners believe the main issue is that of the need for better public education.

From the PSC's Notice filing:

Comments are invited on the following questions:

1. Do the programs used by State utilities for transmission ROW vegetation management conform to industry best practices?

2. At what point, at what height, or under what circumstances should the trees be removed from the transmission ROW in order to protect the safety and reliability of the transmission system?

3. Are alternate or supplemental practices available which would reduce the environmental or aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW vegetation management without compromising transmission system safety or reliability?

4. If supplemental vegetation management practices are preferred by a community through which transmission ROW passes, how should the community preference for such practices be demonstrated? How should the costs of such practices be distributed to or divided among the utility which owns the transmission line, the ratepayers for that utility, the users of the transmission line, the community through which the transmission line passes, and the owners of properties adjacent to the transmission line?

5. In what ways can a utility mitigate the impact of its transmission ROW management practices without sacrificing electric system safety and reliability?

6. Are there cost effective strategies available to utilities to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW management?

7. Is cleanup after utility ROW management activities adequate?

8. What type of notifications regarding vegetation management do utilities currently employ? What type of notification by utilities would be most effective for landowners who live adjacent to a ROW prior to utility transmission ROW vegetation management work (for example: phone call, letter, newspaper, other)? When and how frequently should such notice be provided? Should others, besides adjacent property owners, be notified? What information should be provided in such notices?

9. Apart from such notices, what information should utilities provide to the owners of property adjacent to utility transmission ROW to suggest strategies or practices a landowner may use to protect his or her land from the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW maintenance, and at what intervals and through whatshould this information be provided?

Comments on PSC letter to Legislator Kaplowitz

2010-04-20T15:58:00.000-04:00

Dear Ms. Brilling:

I live adjacent to Con Edison's Catskill Aqueduct ROW in Hartsdale. Directly on the other side of that formerly wooded ROW upon which a 100% reliable high voltage transmission line runs, is the Sprain Brook Parkway. I am currently in receipt of your letter to Legislator, Michael B. Kaplowitz, dated March 17, 2010 that was in response to his Mach 2, 2010 submittal of Resolution 26-2010 regarding a moratorium on clear cutting activities.

I find several of the statements in your letter deeply disturbing, as I'm sure anyone who lives adjacent to the transmission ROW would. In your letter, you refer to the Vantage Report (10/24/07), saying that "tree-trimming and vegetation are among the most important elements of any utility's reliability program..." From this statement, I can't imagine that you actually read the report to which you referred. I have read it, and tree-trimming is one of the last elements to which Vantage refers. And, what the report does say about tree-trimming primarily focuses on distribution line maintenance. Further, the recommendations that were made to Con Edison in Section A. Tree Trimming Practices and Performance of Chapter VII, RELIABILTY, as well as in the Summary section of the report were not at all what was actually carried out in reality along the transmission lines. This includes, "proactively contacting landowners prior to trimming; increased diret communication with community leaders; and new written material available on tree maintenance. What little of each of these performance indicators were done, were done with a great deal of dishonesty and in a misleading nature."

We received a post card from Con Edison about "maintenance." Since we found the overly aggressive 2007 cutting that was unnecessarily done (as the line was already 100% reliable) to have a severely negative impact on our lives (excessive highway noise, view, pollution, disruption of wildlife, cutting in wetland areas, and the list goes on and on), we contacted them to inquire what exactly was being done. We were repeatedly told, "We are cutting down undesirable species of trees that could, in their lifetime, come into contact with the lines." When ask about the topic of clear cutting, we were repeatedly told point blank, "We are NOT clear cutting," until the last tree was felled. Con Edison continues to stand by this ridiculous statement in defense of that "maintenance" when anybody with eyes can see that not one bit of vegetation was left where there trees stood.

In addition, a deep layer of wood chips was left behind that varies from inches to feet deep along this ROW. This is in direct violation of their agreement with the DEP. Since the clear-cutting (which supposedly didn't even happen), we were told that the chips had to be spread to less than inches. Since December, we look at these piles of chips and an unobstructed one-mile stretch of the Sprain Brook Parkway as our only view from our windows and yard. We used to look at nothing but trees, shrubs, and green. This is increasingly upsetting as all other areas are turning green. The vast expanse of wood chips remains beige and gray, except where they were blown in the water - the chips are now black and rotting in those areas.

The DEP guidelines for Con Ed's wood chipping clearly states, "Chips depth should not exceed 3" in depth. Chips must not be places within 50' of reservoirs, drainages, perennial or intermittent streams, or in the drainage ditch alongside the aqueduct..." Behind my property, this guideline was abhorrently violated. There are drainages and streams all along this area. The area is a wetland and on steep slope.

You reference to FERC is moot, as Con Edison is exempt from these guidelines. As you know, this is because of their historically reliable power transmission.

Your letter also states that, "Staff will also review Con Edison's ROW management plan to ensure that the appropriate attention remains focused on, among other things, aesthetics and environmental protection." Please be clear that the visual aesthetics are just the tip of the iceberg as to how our lives were affected by this massive destruction.

Eleven years ago, we bought this tiny little house (less than 1000 square feet) and made the outside area our oasis. We spent every bit of free time, our hard labor, and two small inheritances that I received on beautifying it and making it our "livingroom." We were surrounded by trees, we could not see the highway, and the sounds of the highway were so non-invasive that I didn't even notice them during the six visits I took to this property before purchasing it.

We now hear the highway in every room of the house with all of the windows closed. Even if we could get used to looking at the highway or if we could plant a visual barrier, it is so loud when we're outside that one cannot have a conversation without either standing within a couple of feet of the other person or raising one's voice. The pollution issue is tremendous to us, as we are now breathing unfiltered unobstructed air directly from a roadway with accommodates 93,000 cars a day. Would you want to breath that air every day?

We have suffered countless effects of having lost our entire wind barrier on this very windy terrain - I'm not even including the damage suffered from the last two winter storms where just about everybody suffered some sort of damage. If you would like a list of the damages, I would be happy to forward that to you. But, just so you get an idea of what I'm talking about, we had roof shingles blown off our house in November within about a week after the clear cutting and three sections of our metal pool fence (which has been bolted onto the pool for ten years) were ripped off the pool's edge. Several of our trees, which grew within the environment that had been there for decades, came down within one month of the clear cutting and fell on our neighbor's property.

Due to the position of the highway and our house on our property, we can see the highway from all four sides of our house - every window provides us with the relentless flashing lights at night that whizz across walls and the ceilings. I'm sure I don't need to point out the devastation to our property value, as well as the tremendous loss of natural habitat. There is no report and survey with which we have been provided that said this was necessary - only that it was within Con Ed's right. I, as well as countless others whose lives have changed, feel they have gone far beyond the scope of their"rights."

You letter also states, "Relative to recent vegetation management activities that have been completed, our staff will continue to work with affected entities, to develop and implement plans to mitigate those impacts where appropriate." I appreciate that sentiment, and I hope it will carry through. As of today, Sunday, April 18, we have been subject to the auditory and visual assault, unnecessary wind damage and an overall unacceptable life at home. It has been five months, and so far not one aspect has been "mitigated." I am tired and stressed beyond words. I have a full-time job as a teacher, a part-time job as a musician, and this has become a constant battle for me - both living on this property and fighting, writing, pleading to get some remediation. You and the Con Edison's representatives are getting a salary for your participation in this. I get headaches and lost sleep for mine.

One of the reasons that I am writing to you is that it is crucial that discussion about Con Edison's trimming activities be separated into the two different facets - that of distribution lines and that of transmission lines. They are two completely different entities with different requirements for reliability. It is annoying and insulting to those of us whose lives have been taken over by this horror to continue to hear about "reliability" and "the blackout of 2003" when we have read the reports and know what they say. And, we know that what was done behind our property, though may have been within Con Edison's scope of rights, should NEVER EVER have happened the way it did.

Please consider this letter a petition to reconsider Case 04-E-0822 as soon as possible, as well as institute Resolution 26-2010 until this can be done.

Also, please let me know when the PSC will "mitigate those impacts," as I have not been able to open a window or enjoy my property, for which I pay taxes and Con Edison utility bills and for which I have rights, for months - even on the couple of days that were quite warm. While most of those who have yards were outside enjoying them, I had to get in my car and get away from my property so I could enjoy the day.

Lastly, I think it is so important for everyone who is dealing with the situation to see the "worst-case scenario" that is resultant from Con Edison's recent clear cutting. Our property is just that. Everyday, we are dealing with and living with every single possible negative effect that could have been resultant from Con Edison's questionable "maintenance." I invite you and anyone else that you feel would benefit from a visit to come to my home and see what we are living with, both inside and outside of our house. I would be happy to provide coffee and refreshments for all visitors.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Kristina Cascone-Bracken
Hartsdale, NY

Comments on NERC Standard FAC-003-2 (draft)

2010-04-20T15:47:00.000-04:00

http://www.nerc.com/docs/standards/sar/Comment_Report_2007-07_VMSDT_D3_2010April1.pdf

FERC to Re-categorize 138kV Lines - Watch Out Eastern Westchester and Rockland!

2010-04-20T13:11:00.002-04:00

Here’s the next big problem for our environment that virtually nobody knows about: http://www.ferc.gov/news/news-releases/2010/2010-1/03-18-10-E-8.asp

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) right now is trying to re-categorize all transmission lines greater than 100kV as being federally-regulated “bulk transmission lines.” This would result in the complete denuding of transmission line ROWs in much greater quantities than utilities have done already. For instance, most of O&R’s transmission lines are 138kV (they also have some 69kV and 34kV lines). In the eastern part of Westchester, the transmission lines are also mainly 138kV. If these 138kV lines are re-categorized to “bulk” federal lines, then what Con Edison did to their 345kV lines in Westchester along the Sprain Brook Parkway – they and O&R will very likely do to the 138kV lines.

Not only will this proposed rule change cause significant harm to the environment and local properties, but it will ultimately result in higher costs for ratepayers without yielding additional benefits. As a reminder, 100% of the 200,000+/- customers in Westchester who lost power during the recent big storms were the result of tree contacts with distribution lines. Yes, there was one extensive outage in Florida in 2008 blamed on a 138kV line (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717878,00.html), but the cause of this failure was a substation fire and other equipment failures – it had absolutely nothing to do with any trees making contact with transmission lines! The underlying problem in this country is that the infrastructure is outdated, but the apparent “solution” will be for utilities to cut down millions of additional trees. This is simply crazy!

Note: Even though the 2003 outage is “blamed” on a tree falling onto a transmission line, no tree fell onto a line. Here, too, the problems that initiated the 2003 outage were system failures compounded by human failures (poor training and communications). Failure to maintain adequate vegetation clearances did compound the problem when sagging transmission lines (impacted by shifting voltages, due to the other outages) came into contact with trees directly below in the “wire zone.”

In essence, this new proposed regulation fails to “see the forest through the trees” and statistically will do little (or nothing) to prevent any outages in our area.

The comment period is only 45 days after publication in the Federal Register. The press announcement came out in March, so I assume it has been in the Federal Register already and the opportunity for input will soon be over.

- reported by Marvin Baum

PSC to Take Comments by Phone

2010-04-19T15:33:00.000-04:00

The PSC will take comments via a toll-free telephone number — 800-335-2120 — and callers should reference the agency's case number, 10-E-0155.

PSC: Public Comments Sought on Utility Vegetation Management

2010-04-16T23:04:00.002-04:00

The following press release was sent out by the PSC yesterday: The PSC is opening up its Vegetation Management guidelines for transmission lines to public review and comment. This is the main goal of the LORAX Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium resolution (in conjunction with a temporary cessation of in-process Con Edison clear cutting while the rules undergo review). It would seem that collectively, our letters, lobbying, public meetings, resolutions and legislative initiative have succeeded. Now the even tougher job begins...

---

STATE OF NEW YORK

Public Service Commission

Garry A. Brown, Chairman

Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223

Further Details: James Denn

james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080

http://www.dps.state.ny.us 10035/10-E-0155

TRANSMISSION LINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REVIEWED

— Public Comments Sought on Utility Vegetation Management —

Albany, NY—04/15/10—The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today commenced a proceeding to consider electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. As a result of its decision, the Commission will seek comments on the implementation of utility ROW management practices and the contribution of ROW management to the safety and reliability of the state’s electric transmission system. In addition, comments will be sought on the balancing needed to be achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties.

“Maintaining the highest degree of electric system reliability for the benefit of New York’s customers is among the most important of our responsibilities,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “Reliability of the electric system depends upon the safe and effective transmission of electric power from the source of its generation. Effective right-of-way management is an essential component of system reliability. However, we must ensure this is being done in the best possible manner.”

The Commission’s policy regarding ROW management established requirements for utilities’ ROW maintenance programs and ensured adequate record keeping and reporting by the utilities. In addition, the federal Energy Policy Act imposes additional mandatory and enforceable reliability standards for utility ROW maintenance.

In recent months, members of the public and elected officials have expressed concern with respect to the ROW vegetation management practices used by utilities to implement the above- described regulatory scheme along their transmission rights-of-way. These concerns have largely focused on the trimming and removal of trees and other vegetation by utilities in their transmission rights-of-way. Those objecting to the utilities’ practices cite the unwanted aesthetic impacts associated with the utilities’ ROW work, as well as noise, erosion and decreased property value as potential results. Expressions of concern have taken many forms including individual complaints to this department, letters from public officials, municipal resolutions and proposed state legislation.

In view of the widespread importance of transmission ROW management and the concerns that have been expressed regarding vegetation management, comments will be sought from the public and elected representatives, municipal resolutions and proposed legislation, to determine whether changes to our ROW management policy are needed to ensure that the transmission system in our state will continue to be operated in a safe, effective and environmentally compatible manner.

In addition to the submission of comments, public hearings at which persons who would rather comment orally may do so, are being considered. After consideration of the materials developed as comments or reply comments or through the public statement hearings, Staff will report back to the Commission summarizing and evaluating the information provided and making recommendations, if further Commission action is needed.

Interested parties are invited to file their comments electronically by June 16, 2010, and these comments will be made available to all interested persons through the Department’s website at http://www.dps.state.ny.us/New_Search.html. Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments which are to be filed electronically by July 6, 2010. Electronic filing for comments and reply comments may be completed by e-mailing the filing, under the above case number to secretary@dps.state.ny.us.

The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0155 in the input box labeled “Search for Case/Matter Number.” Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).

Video of Yorktown Cable Show on Con Ed Clear Cutting

2010-04-09T12:20:00.004-04:00

YouTube posting of the March 12th cable video interview with Mark Gilliland (representing LORAX) and Gerrie Curral (for Sierra Club) on the "30 Minutes" show hosted by Dan Lefkowitz. Note that there is a silent lead-in (approximately 45 seconds long - on Part 1) until Dan begins to announce the show.

Direct links:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/user/30MinutesShow#p/a/u/2/HlnaIOFnqOI

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/30MinutesShow#p/a/u/1/7pJPmjLvXB0

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/user/30MinutesShow#p/a/u/0/MC69tpELVeY

A Response to John Bank's April 1st JN Opinion Piece

2010-04-04T23:19:00.000-04:00

Con ED insists that the aggressive “trimmings”on the ROW, is mandated by the Public Service Commission to insure reliability. Yet what I learned after doing some reading is that Con Edison has systemic managerial, infrastructure and procedural issues that impede system readiness and operating reliability. There will always be trees, tree contact and outages. It would seem that the key to "electrical reliability" lays in the emergency response systems, not in eliminating every tree.

The U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force: Final Report on Implementation of Recommendations states that there were a number of causes for the 2003 blackout. While it was initially triggered in Ohio by conductors coming into contact with tree limbs, it stated that these trees were in direct contact with power lines and had not been adequately managed.

The report further states that “Inadequate reactive supply was a factor in most of the events.” and “the assumed contribution of dynamic reactive output of system generators was greater than the generators actually produced, resulting in more significant voltage problems.” In other words the backup generators were not adequate to handle the amperage load or voltage needed. A lack of coordination of System Protection Programs(relays tripping), inadequate communication between Utilities, and lack of "training of operating personnel in dealing with severe system disturbances" were also noted in the report as causes for the blackout.

In his Letter to the Editor, Mr. Banks, states “An independent report followed, indicating the most important element of any utility's electric reliability is a tree-trimming and vegetation-management program, which, the report noted, is especially true here.”

I read the report that Mr. Banks refers to. It was prepared by Vantage Consulting issued on October 24, 2007, and if memory serves me the majority of the report clearly demonstrated Con Ed's lack of understanding of it's own internal short fallings when it comes to emergency response. In fact, if I remember correctly, it suggests that Con Ed did not and still may not have a structured master plan and strategy for reliability and emergency preparedness. The report calls for reorganization, training, new personnel when necessary and much, much more.

In a letter dated March 26, 2010, Steven Blow Records Access Officer of the Public Service Commission, stated that “in general, the transmission system reliability is near 100 percent.” Moreover he states that “with respect to outages due to vegetation, the utilities are required, pursuant to ordering clause 8 of the Commission's Order in Case 04-E-0822 (issued June 20, 2005), to file an annual report (by March 31) of any vegetation-related outages. Con Edison has reported that such an outage occurred in 2008 near the Wheelabrator generating station in Peekskill.” After reading the report, the data suggests to me that the transmission system had 100 percent reliability prior to the PSC’s Enhanced Vegetation Management plan was implemented. The tree in Peekskill grew off the ROW and perhaps if the trees had not been clear cut, they would have broken the fall and prevented the tree from touching the wires.

In a Yonkers Town hall meeting last Thursday evening, the most important moment for me was when David Morrell from the Public Service Commission, clearly stated that the PSC does not mandate Clear Cutting. Moreover, I learned that the diagram that Con Ed has posted on it’s web site is not the model for your ROW vegetation management plan. This seems very deceptive. I also learned, that there are no guidelines, clearly stating distances from the towers or the heights of trees. It would seem, Con Ed is left to maintain the ROW in a very subjective way. It was very clear to all of us that the scorching activity was a cost cutting measure for Con Ed.

Respectfully,

Amy Kupferberg
Hartsdale, NY

Vegetation Management Guidelines from NJ & CT

2010-04-01T19:37:00.003-04:00

Here is interesting reading concerning NJ's guidelines for vegetation management along transmission line ROWs. This has numerous diagrams (provided by the Rairitan Sierra Club) which clearly show the limits imposed by NERC/FERC regulations, as well as a more nuanced "tiered management" approach which looks at the simple geometry of risk (in terms of tree location, required clearances and wire heights.)

Here is another guideline from Northern Utilities serving CT and New England. Although more stringent, it also shows a "tiered management" approach - allowing Dogwoods and other low growing tree species to exist outside of the wire clearance zones.

Media Coverage - update

2010-04-01T18:58:00.001-04:00

Bloomberg News released a report on the clear cutting situation in Westchester. Read the March 31,2010 posting entitled "Powers Lines Replace Pines as Tree Cuts Wreck Westchester Views" by Elizabeth Stanton.

For another take - Con Ed's official line - can be read in the Journal News Opinion section online at: http://www.lohud.com/article/20100401/OPINION/4010338/1015/OPINION01/Con-Edison-s-tree-cutting-is-necessary-to-reduce-power-outages. In this piece, John Banks, VP of Government Affairs, tows the party line about tree removal. Unfortunately, he also blithely mixes issues relating to transmission lines and distribution lines, thereby helping to continue to confuse public understanding and debate about the issues.

A comment posted by one reader states it clearly:

The public needs to remember that Mr. Banks is essentailly a public relations person for Con Edison. It is not unusual for Con Ed's PR folk to blur the issues. Transmission line issues differ significantly from distribution line issues. The distribution lines are where the outages are occurring. Very isolated events can occur infrequently on the transmssion lines due to acts of God such as a tornado or the recent severe storm. That does not justify the extent of environmental damage done by Con Ed in Westchester on the tranmission lines. Tens of thousands of non-threatening trees and bushes were removed because it was cheapest in the long run for Con Ed. It was done with the blessing of the PSC which is skewed in favor of utilties. The big problem now is to get Con Ed to correct all the damage that it has been caused by the transmssion line clear cutting. Con Ed has many more distribution line problems including old poorly maintained lines and equipment that fail in storms.

Charlie Spiegel of Yonkers wrote this letter to Con Ed's John Banks after attending the Yonkers public meeting last week (Thursday, March 25, 2010)... In it, he asks a lot of important questions including asking for more data and querying about the criteria used to define "priority zones" and "incompatible species" of trees. This is a big pdf file (1.4Mb) so it will load a little slowly. It contains his original attachments referenced during the Thursday meeting, as well.

Collecting Transmission Line Clear Cut Incident Reports

2010-04-01T14:48:00.001-04:00

from an email received yesterday:

Please put out the word that we need all who are/have been impacted by the clearcutting along transmission lines ROW to document the damage/losses whatever they may be. With the current continued rain, damage continues.

We need pictures, verbal description, appraisals showing losses: aesthetics, wetland impacts, flooding, soil erosion, noise, property devaluation, etc....as soon as possible.

Please act to collect and catalogue of what will turn out to be volumuminous.

Tom Abinanti

As requested, LORAX will be collecting this material for inclusion by location, date, type of problem, etc.

If you have sent materials (descriptions, letters, photos) previously, now is the time to update any of that.

Forward materials to lorax@markg.org. Please edit the subject line to include the phrase "Incident Report".

Please forward this note to anyone in your email contact list who may be impacted by the clear cutting along the transmission lines.

ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

2010-04-01T14:28:00.000-04:00

Date: Monday, April 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM

The County Board’s Environment Committee will discuss Westchester County’s Pilot Adaptive Deer Management Program (PADMP), conducted last fall at two county parks.

The Committee will review program implementation and results with Westchester County Parks, Recreation and Conservation Department representatives.

Interested persons are encouraged to attend.

Please contact Christopher Crane with questions at (914) 995-2104 or cmc1@westchestergov.com.

Location: McPoland Conference Room, County Board of Legislators

Michaelian Office Building - 8th Floor

148 Martine Avenue, White Plains

Con Ed Rate Increase Approved by PSC

2010-03-26T15:22:00.001-04:00

Con Ed's three year rate plan was approved by the PSC. Read about it here.

See also article in the NY Times:

Average Con Ed Bill to Rise by $10 Over 3 Years
By PATRICK McGEEHAN Published: March 25, 2010

Bill to Provide for the Notification of Impending Emergencies by Electric Corporations to Affected Communities

2010-03-25T13:00:00.007-04:00

This is another community notification bill in the legislative works now. Senate Bill S5057A (Perkins) and Assembly Bill A4482A.

S5057A Summary
Provides for the notification of impending emergencies by electric corporations to affected community through outreach to all media and community officials.

Act: AN ACT to amend the public service law, in relation to providing for the notification of impending emergencies by electric corporations.

S5057A Memo
BILL NUMBER: S5057A

TITLE OF BILL :
An act to amend the public service law, in relation to providing for the notification of impending emergencies by electric corporations

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL :
This bill provides notification of impending emergencies by electrical utility corporations to affected communities.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS :
This bill would mandate all electrical utility corporations to notify all media and community officials and request publication of any impending utility emergency to the affected community. The public service commissioner, with the attorney general, is hereby authorized and directed to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of section 1. All electrical utility corporations in New York State shall comply with the rules and regulations prescribed by this act.

JUSTIFICATION :
During the recent power outage in New York City, Con Edison failed to notify customers of the impending blackout, which occurred on July 6, 1999, nor were any efforts made to reach a broad number of people through the media. This bill, when enacted would require the utility corporations to do so in the future.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :
2001/02: A.7085, 2003/04: A.5268, 2005/06: A.4104 2007/08; A.4578
Referred to Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS :
To be determined.

EFFECTIVE DATE :
This act shall take effect immediately.

S5057A Text

S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

5057--A

2009-2010 Regular Sessions

I N  S E N A T E

April 27, 2009
___________
Introduced by Sen. PERKINS -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee

AN ACT to amend the public service law, in relation to providing for the notification of impending emergencies by electric corporations

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1    Section  1.  The public service law is amended by adding a new section
2  54 to read as follows:
3    S 54. NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING EMERGENCIES. 1. EVERY ELECTRIC  CORPO-
4  RATION  SHALL NOTIFY ALL MEDIA AND COMMUNITY OFFICIALS AND SHALL REQUEST
5  PUBLICATION OF  ANY  IMPENDING  UTILITY  EMERGENCY  TO  ALL  COMMUNITIES
6  AFFECTED.
7    2.  (A)  THE  COMMISSIONER,  IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
8  SHALL  PROMULGATE  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS  NECESSARY  TO  ENFORCE   THE
9  PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION.
10    (B)  SUCH  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO
11  ESTABLISHING PROTOCOLS WHICH ADDRESS THE MAGNITUDE AND SEVERITY  OF  THE
12  IMPENDING EMERGENCY.
13    S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD07542-04-9

Pleasantville Passes Clear Cut Moratorium

2010-03-24T08:49:00.000-04:00

Pleasantville passes Clear Cut moratorium resolution March 22 unanimously (5 - O).

Unfortunately late last week the PSC answered the county BOL resolution with a letter posted on their website. It baically supports Con Ed and its cutting practice.

This was discussed in detail at the Pleasantville Board meeting. Still, the moratorium vote was taken and the resolution passed precisely because the Board wants continued efforts to see a change in the PSC and Con Ed's practices despite the PSC's latest letter (posted previously).

Replying to the PSC's BOL Rejection Letter

2010-03-22T16:28:00.002-04:00

Below you will find a letter from Amy Kupferberg replying to the PSC's rejection letter to the BOL...

Date: March 22, 2010 10:36:54 AM EDT
To: jaclyn brilling
Subject: response to 3/17/10 letter

Madam Brilling,

As I am sure you could imagine, I am extremely disappointed to be forced to wake up to the encompassing sounds of the traffic on the Sprain Brook Parkway everyday. However, this morning I am even further disappointed to read your recent reply letter to Legislator Michael B. Kaplowitz. This extended community has worked very hard to get your attention and rehear Case 04-E-0822, but to know now that there is no hope is devastating for me. I have taken a lot of hits since the clear cutting, and I guess today, I know just how severely weakened I am. But I am not broken yet.

To state "tree related outages directly impact the health and safety of New Yorkers," seems too simplistic. We know from reading the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force: Final Report on Implementation of Recommendations that there were a number of causes for the 2003 blackout. The specifics to which I have previously written to you in great detail. We know that the inadequate back up systems, lack of protocol and coordination were really the issues in that blackout. And although there is mention to vegetation management within that report, there as far more emphasis on the modernization and implementation of the backup systems so that when two trees do make contact with Conductors the entire North East does not go black.

The clear cutting behind my house had nothing to do with electrical reliability. I also read the report prepared by Vantage Consulting issued on October 24, 2007, and if memory serves me the majority of the report clearly demonstrated Con Ed's lack of understanding of it's own internal short fallings when it comes to emergency response. In fact, if I remember correctly, it suggests that Con Ed did not and still may not have a structured master plan and strategy for reliability and emergency preparedness. The report calls for reorganization, training, new personnel when necessary and much more.

It troubles me when you state, "There is no doubt ROW vegetation management can sometimes result in negative public reaction due to aesthetic impacts. However, conflicting interests of electric reliability, aesthetics, and quality of life were considered by the Commission in Case 04-E-0822 when it established requirements for utility vegetation management." Firstly, your statement does not adequately embody the impact that we as homeowners are now forced to live with. My anger and sadness does not come exclusively from my inability to enjoy the simple beauty of nature. It comes from unavoidable and continuous traffic noise outside on my 3.5 acre farm property and inside my home with closed double paned windows. Keep in mind I pay 28K a year in property taxes. As well as, immediate decrease in property value, continued property damage, flooding, wind damage and forced to look at cars and electrical towers in every direction. Con Edison has redefined our neighborhoods and community and choose Westchester County to showcase their transmission lines. Within the PSC mandate, there must be some mention to residential areas.

I have a different history, however, let us for a moment purchasing a home for $850K and within a year or two the real estate market tanks...now your home is valuated at $680K. Big Hit! ONE IN TEN HOMES CURRENTLY IN FORECLOSURE IN THE U.S. Then Con Ed comes in and cuts down every tree in it's sight, exposing your home to a major roadway that handles 93,000.00 cars a day. Now your home is valuated at 530K. What does this do to a community? See where I am going with this?

It is very hard to believe that any thought or care was taken to the environment or to home owners in this recent scorching. In fact, if my memory serves me when Con Ed filed the SEQL short form they stated NONE for environmental impact. We know Con Ed went way beyond their scope, they cut at least 350 trees down directly behind my home that were 150 ft away from towers and wires. They cut down trees of all species, age and health, obliterating an important habitat on the ROW. Their own deceptive vegetation management diagrams shows 120 ft, now they are talking about cutting out to 130 ft. And when it is all said and done they will cut everything they can and then continue to blame it on the poor communication with the the $75 a day tree worker rather than their own corporate plan.

And finally to respond to your statement “We are not aware of any material failure by Con Edison to comply with Commission requirements.” I am not sure what this means exactly, if you refer to paperwork issues, I ask you to consider this plea so important that it goes beyond procedural specifications. Con Ed already admits to “overly aggressive cutting” and the PSC knows from their onsite visits that Con Ed went beyond the scope and clear cut the ROW. I are not asking for anything radical, our community is asking that you rehear case 04-E-0822 and consider perhaps revising the standards more in line with NERC FAC-003-1 and FAC-003-2.

I leave you with this question...if the recent vegetation management plan worked so well, why were the areas that were most heavily impacted by the clear cutting, the hardest hit by both storms and one of the last to get power restored. If it worked so well, our area should have had no or little outages. Are we now to cut down every single tree in existence?

Most Respectfully,

Amy M Kupferberg
Hartsdale Ny 10530

Public Hearing on Con Ed Right-of-Way Tree Clearing

2010-03-21T21:02:00.004-04:00

The PSC’s representatives (most likely David Morrell & Jim Austin) will be coming to Westchester this Thursday regarding the massive tree removals in Westchester, but the broader issues that impact the entire state (including those of us in Rockland) will be at issue (i.e. the legitimacy of the PSC’s Case 04-E-0822).

The PSC has taken a very arrogant attitude despite recent resolutions of the Westchester Board of Legislators, the City of Yorkers, the Town of Yorktown Heights and the Town of Greenburgh that call for a review of the underlying regulations, especially the lack of a proper environmental review and implementation of mitigation plans. The PSC has used the extensive recent tree-related outages on the distribution lines as an excuse to justify cutting even more trees on transmission ROWs, even though no outages were caused on these ROWs.

It’s important that as many people show up to this meeting as possible. If you are able to attend, please do so.

City Hall

40 South Broadway

Yonkers, NY 10701

(914) 377-6316

email: john.larkin@yonkersny.gov

CITY OF YONKERS John J. Larkin

Office of the City Council Council Member, District 6

PRESS RELEASE

<><><>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Councilmember John Larkin (914) 377-6316

Larkin Sets Public Hearing on Con Ed Right-of-Way Tree Clearing

and Street Opening Repaving

(Yonkers, NY/ March 19, 2010) Yonkers City Councilmember John Larkin (R-6^th Dist.) is urging Yonkers residents to attend a fact finding meeting forThursday, March 25, 2010, to discuss the recent clearing of the Right-of-Way (ROW) along Con Ed’s transmission lines throughout Yonkers. Additional discussion will focus on rules and regulations for street repaving as a follow-up to street openings conducted by the utility company.

Yonkers Mayor Phil Amicone, state elected officials representing Yonkers, and representatives of Con Edison and the New York State Public Service Commission will be in attendance.

The meeting is open to the public and will be held Thursday, March 25, 2010, at 7:00 pm, at the Grinton I. Will Library, 1500 Central Park Avenue, Yonkers, NY 10710

“Discussion will center on the recent clearing of the ROW, Vegetative Management guidelines, the role of each representative in attendance, and suggestions for improving the process and better communications,” said Larkin, whose district has been impacted by ROW clearing and ConEdison’s M29 project that resulted in street openings throughout Yonkers.

Just in! PSC's Response to County BOL re: Moratorium Resolution

2010-03-21T20:56:00.000-04:00

Here is the PSC's response to the County BOL rejecting its recent Moratorium resolution (implied petition) to stop further Con Ed clear-cutting and to re-open the 2005 Case 04-E-0822 which was the order that directed Transmission Utilities to clear cut the entire width of the ROW.

Read the 3/17/10 letter for details, but it is sad to see the PSC respond in such an arrogant manner as to assert that there have been no significant lapses in or impacts due to Con Ed's handling of its vegetation management plan; and furthermore that the PSC guidelines themselves do not need reexamination or review.

PUBLIC Service Commission?

Petition to Public Service Commission

2010-03-21T20:38:00.001-04:00

copy of email received today:

March 22, 2010

Madam Secretary [of NYPSC],

I, Amy M Kupferberg residing at 481 Ridge Road, Hartsdale Ny 10530, citizen of the United States of America, seek to petition the New York State Public Service Commission for a rehearing of Case 04-E-0822 issued and effective June 20, 2005.

The residents of Westchester County have felt the full affects of THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION’S “ENHANCED TRANSMISSION RIGHT OF WAY MANAGEMENT PRACTICE” and Con Edison's seemingly arbitrary and intermittent interpretation of their own Vegetation Management Plan. Although it is too late for the residents of my extended community, I ask that a stop order be placed on any further implementation of Con Edison’s clear cutting activities throughout the state.

These are the environmental impacts and the affects of the clear cutting behind my house.

*SCORCHED ECOSYSTEM
Loss of woodlands and natural habitat. Within the boundaries of my property, I was able to count 350 stumps behind my home. .A wide variety of species and sizes. The only tree that remains, fell onto state property and could not be removed.

*EROSION
Each spring as the ground warms and the ice melts a huge volume of water moves through our property and will no doubt cause flooding on the Sprain Brook Parkway behind my home.

*NOISE POLLUTION
The noise from the Spain Brook Parkway is so intrusive, I wear ear plugs at night. There is only one room in our house that one cannot hear the din of traffic through the Andersen double paned windows. Forget about opening the windows and enjoying fresh air! Over the past few days, as the weather warmed and the Motorcycles began to take the roadways, the jetting noise is maddening. The constant din can now be heard throughout the neighboring streets, as far as, the water tower on Birchwood Lane@Paret Lane, Hartsdale NY 10530.

*VISUAL POLLUTION
I have an almost unobstructed view of the 93,000.00 cars that pass by a day on the Sprain Brooke Parkway. As well as, 12 Transmission Towers from over 30 windows in my home. At night the headlights from the thousands of cars that pass behind my house provide a light show that can only be avoided by wearing a blindfold or installing window treatments and living in a fortress in lock down mode.

*PROPERTY DAMAGE
An increase of wind has also been significant because the natural wind barrier was clear cut. Insulation siding and roof shingles from my neighbors house have blown off their home and ended up in my yard. As well, 3 50 foot Hemlock trees have uprooted and fell onto my property. Significant tree loss and damage after the last two storms.12 trees fell between the two storms.

*QUALITY OF LIFE
As you can imagine, I have a huge amount of yard work ahead of me. We have always maintained this property ourselves. I go out everyday for 4 hours, cutting the felled trees and hauling the debris to the curb. Spending anytime outside on this 3.5 acre property that my family has owned for fifty years is a cruel reminder of the peace and quiet I once treasured and is now forever lost. I am either filled with rage or deep sadness. The only joy comes from the sounds of the dramatic influx of birds and other critters that have migrated onto our property now that their habitat has been removed.

*INCREASE IN ENERGY COSTS
Without the natural wind barrier that used to encircle and insulate our home, we will have a increase in energy costs during the winter months. BTW: here are my Con Ed bills for the last three months....Nov- $764.30,Dec-$1067.50, JAN $1019.58. Keep in mind only two heat zones activated and temperature set between 61-63 degrees. ONE PERSON LIVES IN THIS HOUSE. As well, now that the house can no longer be enjoyed with open windows and natural ventilation, we are considering putting in central air to cool the house in summer to make it more attractive to buyers.

*PROPERTY VALUES-30%
My father passed away 10 years ago, and our house is for sale. As difficult as it may have been to sell in this market, the recent clear cutting behind my home makes it almost impossible. Rather than being viewed as a beautiful country estate, this house is now described as "that big house that sits on the parkway."

I am sure that Con Ed and perhaps some State officials are believing that there would have been a greater number of outages had Con Ed not initiated their Vegetative Management Plan prior to our most recent storms. That may be more accurate with respect to distribution lines rather than transmission wires on the ROW. Moreover, in our immediate neighborhood where the clear cutting took place on the Catskill ROW and our natural wind barrier was removed, property owners took the brunt of the damage. As well, we were one of the last areas to have power restored.

My property suffered significant tree loss over the past two storms. 12 trees fell, some along the back wall where the trees had been topped and weakened by Con Edison’s “trimming” in prior years and subsequently died, but most fell away from the ROW because they could not withstand the full impact of the 90 mile an hour winds. Unfortunately for us 3/4 of the property boarders the ROW, so the wind force comes from all directions at once. Our fabulous Cherry tree that reigned in the field exploded into three parts. These trees matured according to the environment in which they grew, now that a significant part of the environment has been scorched, we are sitting ducks waiting for disaster.

In the aftermath of the storms, now is the perfect time to reevaluate where resources and attention should be paid. Perhaps new thought and careful analysis could be conducted to learn where outages happen the most and how to better respond to those emergencies.

My real property rights have been violated, and I appeal to the New York State Public Service Commission to protect my property and civil rights by rehearing Case 04-E-0822. I further ask that the New York Public Service Commission encourage an open hearing in which a civil discourse of unrepressed voices of the Residents of Westchester County and beyond be heard and considered when rehearing Case 04-E-0822. And finally, I ask that you support the Westchester County Board of Legislators RESOLUTION NO. 26 OF 2010 and other such Resolutions that have and will be presented in the future to the New York State Public Service Commission regarding Vegetation. Management.

I will be present at the meeting on March 25th and would take any opportunity to speak to the Commission directly or any other effort to encourage the Public Service Commission to cease implementation of Con Edison unnecessary clear cutting of our woodlands.

Most Respectfully,

Amy M Kupferberg
Hartsdale NY 10530

Report of Long Term Effects of Clear Cutting Along Sprain Parkway

2010-03-21T19:50:00.000-04:00

an email received on 3/19/10:

Dear Sirs/Madams:

You probably know of us by now, either by name or by address. We are the Brackens, and we live on Ridge Road in Hartsdale, NY. Our property lays adjacent to the New York City DEP’s aqueduct and its Con Edison right-of-way (ROW). This portion of the ROW runs adjacent to the Sprain Brook Parkway.

In the wake of the fierce winter storms that we have endured over the last several weeks, the sun is shining brightly to warm us and remind us that Winter isn’t forever. The last few days were perfect for getting out for a walk, doing some yard work (to clean up the debris left behind by the storms), and opening windows to let the fresh air inside and rid our homes of the stale Winter air.. At our house, other then the walks, we're not going to be enjoying the outside OR enjoy being inside with open windows this Spring or Summer.

When Con Edison carelessly and unnecessarily clear cut the power transmission right-of-way behind our house, they removed every bit of protection we had from the Sprain Brook Parkway – protection from the noise, the pollution, the view, and the winds. They also removed our ability to enjoy our home – our quality of life – among other things, including the drastic decrease in property value. They removed trees that were very far away (at a safe distance) from the high voltage transmission lines. The vast majority of these trees and shrubs could never, in their lifetime, have posed a danger to the safe and reliable transmission of power along those high voltage lines. My husband has a degree is forestry from SUNY ESF, and we know this to be true.

When we bought this house ten years ago, the property was surrounded by woods in every direction and was our main reason for purchasing this home. We are nature lovers and felt confident in the protection of the woods, as we knew that land above an aqueduct cannot be developed. The highway sound, though audible, was a white noise from behind acres of trees which could not at all be heard behind closed windows or over outdoor conversation. Headlights on the highway could be seen only during the Winter as faint, flickering lights between the trees through only a small section of trees. We put our blood, sweat and tears into creating a haven for ourselves on our deck and in the beautiful yard outside our tiny home.

As a direct result of the clear-cutting, the highway noise now unendingly whooshes through our home – in every room and with the windows closed. We now see headlights from the highway from every single window – from all four sides of our home – for one entire mile. The lights fly across the ceilings at night and are very distracting in one’s peripheral vision while trying to concentrate on anything.

We don’t see any woods from our yard anymore. The ROW trees are gone. And, the large trees that stood on our property between us and our next door neighbor had grown tall with the wind protection that those woods provided. Many of them were destroyed during the first few winds of season, with their protection gone as a result of the clear cutting – not as a result of these last two storms.

Yesterday, I got home from a very long day at work after a very long week and was looking forward to eating an early dinner on my deck. As I got out of my car in my driveway, I realized that I had forgotten that this is not an option anymore. The loud highway noise is intolerable outside. In addition, the concept of sitting outside and breathing highway air filled with exhaust, with not a single leaf between us and the road pollution, is sickening and angering.

It’s a silly phenomenon that when the power is out, so many of us unconsciously flip light switches, open the refrigerator, and even attempt to put something in the microwave, forgetting that nothing will work. When we do this, we often laugh at ourselves at how we do these things without thinking about it – automatically. In the same way, over the last few beautiful days I have looked forward to being outside in my yard, as habit, only to be sadly reminded that there’s no enjoyment to be found there. I have opened a window, sadly and infuriatingly to be reminded that it’s too noisy to leave open.

For ten years, I have looked forward to our annual Easter family gathering, where we all sit outside before dinner if the day is nice, watching our nephews go on their egg hunt. I’m sure nobody will see the point this year. We really don’t want the children in our family (or anybody else’s) breathing the car exhaust directly from the highway. It’s too loud to have a conversation without raising one’s voice, and it’s ugly to see a mile of the highway unobstructed by the absolutely beautiful tree line to which we were all accustomed.

Again, this morning, as automatically as it’s been during every bright, warm morning, I sleepily opened my deck door to have my coffee outside. It was like being slapped in the face by noise. It’s no less noisy on our deck than it is on the shoulder of the highway. I came back inside angry and heartbroken that we have been put in this miserable living situation – not by some act of God, not by some necessary evil, but by an irresponsible and negligent act by a company that, with the alleged goal of doing something good for its customers, unnecessarily did something very, very bad.

Representatives from Con Edison have been working toward a replanting in some areas where the trees on the ROW protected homes from impacts of the highway. We have been told that there will be trees planted along the Department of Transportation’s right-of-way along the Sprain Brook Parkway behind our home. While this will help, and is appreciated, it is not enough. It will take more than a row or two of trees planted in one section of the ROW to replace the benefits that acres of woods have provided to our town, its residents, and its wildlife.

We demand that an effective and attractive sound and vision barrier be erected to correct this situation (dense plantings of trees with or without compliment of a wooden wall), as is done on other highways close to homes in this region. We need Con Edison, the NYS DOT, the PSC, our politicians, and everyone else who has power to help remediate this problem – not just for us, but for all of the residents who have been affected by this undue act of destruction of wildlife that served so many valuable purposes.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter.

Respectfully,
Kristina M. Bracken
Hartsdale, NY 10530

GEF LORAX Working Group feedback on Senate Bill S-6825

2010-03-18T17:19:00.001-04:00

Note: the Assembly version of this bill is A10003.

According to discussions with Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, the bill is written to cover both transmission line and distribution line vegetation management activities; however, as there is no specific PSC-required Vegetation Management Policy for a utility's distribution lines, the implied reading is solely targeted at transmission lines. Clarification of reference may be needed (both transmission & distribution or transmission only). The discussion (which follows) assumes the context of Transmission Line vegetation management only.

There are several substantive issues / shortfalls with the bill, as follows:

1) The bill should more clearly state what the nature of the 60 day notification consists of. For example, is this advanced notification to each property owner (private or municipal) done via directed mailings or left door cards? Notifications should clearly spell out the scope and nature of the work specific to the property in question. Any notification should also have a contact phone or email by which to set up an on-site consultation with a qualified representative of the utility.

2) A written record of notification should be maintained indicating that the property owner has concurred with the plan. No work by utility or its contractor should occur without this proof. (Currently, for example, Con Ed's approved vegetation management policy is to attempt contact with homeowner twice - but if no contact is made, it appears that work may commence anyway. This is not acceptable.) Documentation of property owner contact and consent should be forwarded to both the PSC and the municipality before work starts.

3) Besides advanced notification, there must be a requirement to clearly survey & mark the boundaries of the ROW before any work commences.

4) All trees to be removed should also be clearly marked ahead of notification and review.

5) No enforcement mechanism is defined to ensure such advanced notice to property owners actually occurs. (Current regulations and vegetation management plans require notification now, but the results are spotty at best, as mentioned previously.) Who holds oversight for this? What can be done to ensure proper oversight occurs? What complaint process will exist for property owners?

6) The term "community meeting" (relating to the 30 day notification) needs to be better defined: What is a "community and where/when should meetings be held? Holding such meetings as a public session of the town council or village board makes sense.

7) What if at the community meeting (or at an on-site one-on-one meeting) folks don't agree to the work being proposed by the utility? There is no process for mediation or arbitration called out. (Why wouldn't the utilities position simply remain: "PSC is making us do this"??)

8) Mitigation requirements for impacts of vegetation management activities (such as clear-cutting the ROW) on homeowners and municipalities are not addressed.

9) The timing of notifications should be compatible with all remedies available to the property owner and municipality, such as petitioning the PSC. Con Ed is working with a multi-year management cycle and can give notice months in advance of any work.

Further analysis:
Advanced notification, per se, does not begin to address the full range of issues concerning property value and/or environmental impacts experienced with the current policy of clear-cut line clearing work.

Public review of environmental concerns relating to planned development actions traditionally falls into the category of a SEQR Environmental Impact Statement - which is supposed to outline options by which to minimize and mitigate any undesirable environmental impacts. However, Con Ed (and the other Transmission Utilities) are not required to produce an EIS for transmission line work as their actions fall under a "master" SEQR finding by the Public Service Commission from 2004. (This original SEQR is quite possibly deceptive & illegal - having used a "short form" for a project estimated at over 190,000 acres. Furthermore, the "no environmental impact" box was checked on this short form.)

Thus, give the original "blanket" SEQR, there is currently no mechanism by which public input can be heard at a local level, nor can such input serve to induce a modification of utility plans or of the PSC- approved vegetation management policy.

The solution is not simply to require Con Ed (or other utilities) to hold public meetings for review of planned actions, but also they should be required to fully outline the environmental and property value impacts of proposed work and propose effective restoration / remediation / mitigation measures to be agreed upon by affected parties. (Yes, this is effectively a SEQR-like solution, but one in which the utilities are not given a "free pass" by the PSC.) So why not simply require a full SEQR EIA to be undertaken in this situation?? To make this EIA effective in responding to local conditions, the local municipality should be assigned as the "lead agency" for review purposes. An EAF (Environmental Assessment Form) would be required to be filled out by the utility and reviewed by the municipality. (Perhaps this could be given a specific framework and called an "utility vegetation management assessment form".)

A further necessary extension of this would be the need to define a (public) arbitration process by which acceptable mitigation can be reached - as it is certain that the utilities will want to do less than the affected property owners desire to have done. For the SEQR process now, the last resort now is filing an Article 78 action. This seems too extreme (cost-wise & time-wise) of a step to have to make simply to ensure the utility does not negatively impact your property or local environment. It puts the legal burden of environmental compliance back on the homeowner or the municipality - which is not where it should be, but rather on the utility! So an arbitration function outside of the courts needs to be defined.

Without including environmental review, mitigation requirements, and arbitration, the severe problems resulting from utility line management policy will continue throughout the state.

A printer-ready version of this analysis is available (.pdf).

Greenburgh Passes Clear Cut Moratorium Resolution

2010-03-17T09:42:00.000-04:00

The Greenburgh Town Council unanimously passed the Con Ed Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium Resolution at a special Tuesday night session, March 16, 2010.

The resolution, mirroring that passed by the County Board of Legislators on March 1st, was originally developed by the LORAX working group.

Yonkers and Yorktown have also passed this resolution calling on the PSC to impose a temporary cessation of clear cutting along transmission lines while simultaneously re-opening its vegetation management (VM) guidelines from 2005 so that public review and feedback may occur. The goal is to define a more environmentally friendly "tiered" VM policy for transmission utilities across the state. Such a policy update would also need to consider aesthetic impacts, property value impacts and other concerns of our local communities - while providing a reasonable effort at mitigation (for example, DEC-compliant erosion control, view shed buffer re-planting).

Greenburgh to Vote on Moratorium Resolution Tonight - 7:45pm

2010-03-16T18:16:00.000-04:00

from Town of Greenburgh web site:

Agenda for Special Meeting of the Greenburgh Town Board Tuesday, March 16, 2010

7:45 PM Roll Call: TOWN BOARD

TB 1 – 03/16/10 Resolution requesting Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. to cease implementation of the New York State Public Service Commission’s ”Enhanced Transmission Right of Way Management Practice” rules and further requesting that the New York State Public Service Commission rescind or undertake a review of same.

TB 2 – 03/16/10 Resolution requesting our federal elected representatives work with the Town of Greenburgh and appropriate agencies to seek any necessary regulatory changes needed to ensure banking regulations do not inhibit the Town of Greenburgh from requiring affordable housing resulting from the sale of Town property being maintained in perpetuity.

Sample Letters of Support for Resolution

2010-03-14T18:07:00.000-04:00

In order to get support for the enforcement by the PSC of the Clear Cut Moratorium resolution passed by the County BOL (and others), we need to effectively lobby at the state level. This can be done by contacting local state representatives (Senators and Assemblymen) and by contacting the various possible oversight offices within the executive Office of the Governor. Such contacts of import include:

Governor David A. Paterson - 518-474-8390
State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224
Email - via web form - http://161.11.121.121/govemail

Thomas Congdon, Deputy Secretary for Energy - 518-408-2552
Kimberly Harriman, Assistant Secretary for Energy - 518-408-2552
Peter Iwanowicz, Deputy Secretary for the Environment - 518-473-5442

All three can be written to at:
Office of the Secretary to the Governor
State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224

We also need to continue to gather support of our local politicians.

Here, for example, is a letter just written to my village Board of Trustees:

To Mayor Jon Siegel
Cc: Irvington Board of Trustees, Larry Schopfer March 14, 2010

I am writing about the Con Ed's transmission line clearing - so as to keep this issue in the public focus.

As of now, the Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium resolution (originally drafted by the GEF LORAX working group) has been passed by Yonkers, Yorktown and the county Board of Legislators. The town of Greenburgh is currently reviewing this resolution and the issue has been placed before the Village Officials Committee (formed by officials from the incorporated villages). I urge you to support the resolution for the greater community good!

It is important to clearly understand what this resolution is or is not about:

Firstly, the resolution in not about making Con Ed's maintenance of our local distribution lines more difficult. These are the power lines atop ubiquitous brown wooden poles which line our streets. In the latest snow and wind storms, power loss was mainly caused by failure of distribution lines due to falling trees and limbs. The solution? Bury the lines underground - or face the loss of our street trees one by one!

The Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium resolution is about transmission lines, not distribution lines. These are the high voltage feeds, seen strung along tall metal towers, that carry power from generating sources to regional substations. Con Ed operates such transmission lines in Westchester and Putnam Counties (as well as in NYC). Regional transmission lines have not had significant tree-induced outages for a number of years (since the 2003 Northeast blackout that started in Ohio).

The Moratorium resolution calls for a temporary cessation of indiscriminant clear cutting of trees along the transmission right-of-ways (the land corridors over which the towers run). One has only to view the areas along Sprain Road and Underhill Road in Greenburgh to see the devastating environmental impact of said clear cut activity.

This temporary moratorium excludes any emergency action such as removal of imminent "danger trees" deemed necessary for the safe operations of the lines.

The second part of the Moratorium resolution calls upon the Public Service Commission (PSC - which oversees transmission lines State-wide) to review its 2005 guidelines requiring clear cutting of all vegetation, not just under the wires, but across the entire width of the ROW - regardless of specific topographical features or resulting environmental and property value impacts. Any such review should and must occur with full public and scientific input and concurrence.

Please send of letter of concern to the PSC and to the Governor's offices of Energy and the Environment to let them know our village fully supports the goals of this resolution.

Thank you for your consideration,

Mark Gilliland
Chair, Greenburgh Environmental Forum LORAX working group
Chair, Irvington Tree Commission
Irvington Environmental Conservation Board
Irvington Re-Leaf

A version (Word .doc file) of this letter is linked here for readers to make use of in contacting their own local representatives.

Another version (Word .doc file) of the letter can be used as a Letter to the Editor - in this case, the Journal News. Contacting your local news media can be just as effective as contacting local politicians.

Thanks for your support and lobbying efforts!

New Public Notification Handouts from Con Ed

2010-03-12T00:22:00.001-05:00

The following 2 documents are being handed out in the Yorktown area as Con Ed commences new clear cutting (vegetation management).

Door Flyer - note that Dan Lyons (Con Ed PR) is the contact person on this card.

Information Handout - Read the Q&A section and you will see that in actual practice, Con Ed does not follow this latest version of their VM procedures - especially regarding selective removals in the border zone and installation & maintenance of erosion control practices.

Note finally, the changes in their ROW pruning visual guide (above) which now shows an example of "mal-pruning" on the left edge of the ROW. Also, only small shrubs and trees are illustrated as desirable species in the Border Zone, regardless of air clearances to wire swing/sag zones.

White Paper on the Moratorium Goals & Background History

2010-03-10T15:31:00.001-05:00

A newly completed white paper in a Q&A format can be downloaded here (as a pdf file). This documents issues relating to the PSC's vegetation management policy which has lead to Con Ed's clear cutting throughout Westchester County (and soon into Putnam County). It also includes a discussion of the LORAX working group's goals in bringing these matters to the forefront of public debate.