Maureen Hayden has a good article about the efforts underway at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to regulate how utility companies handle “vegetation management.”
Utilities are allowed to keep vegetation down in the rights of way through which their power lines run. This is sensible since you don’t want a tree growing into a power line and shorting out the system. But, they don’t have to look at the trees, so they really have no incentive to do a good job. Some companies have been known to practice “tree topping” – basically just knocking off the entire crown – even if doing so wasn’t strictly necessary to preserve the safety of their power lines. If you’re doing a lot of them, it’s probably more labor and time intensive to take time to evaluate each tree.
IURC officials are now in the midst of drafting what they call a “code of conduct” — specific rules detailing how the state’s investor-owned utilities will have to comply with the order that requires them to improve their notification process and generally forbids them from topping trees or removing more than 25 percent of a tree canopy without the property owner’s consent.
. . .
As the IURC investigation revealed, utilities varied significantly in how they approached the pesky problem of trees located too close to power lines. During ice storms and other bad weather, fallen tree limbs that snap power lines are a major cause of power outages.Testimony from utility officials called in front of the commission showed that some utilities had in-house foresters and had adopted the “best practice” tree-pruning standards set by International Society of Arboriculture.
Other utilities were contracting out the work to private tree-trimmers without regard to the standards. One utility official said that from a utility’s point of view, the “best practice” for vegetation management was to simply remove all trees near power lines.
The 20-month investigation also showed that utilities had different opinions about how far a power line needed to be from a tree to be considered risk-free.
So are they seriously entertaining the idea that aesthetics have any place at the table in this discussion?
I think so. As they should. The power company has a right of way, but only to the extent necessary for maintenance. In most cases, it’s not necessary to butcher the tree to protect the wire.
I find myself in agreement with the anonymous industry official cited as favoring the complete removal of the trees. If the property owner fails to keep his/her trees out of the power lines, then the power company should be able to manage the problem in the least expensive way possible. This isn’t any different than those idiots who put driveways, sheds or swimming pools in utility easements and then are dumbfounded by the fact that they can be torn up without notice and need not be replaced by whichever utility has done the “tearing up.” Trees are no different, just more annoying because they keep growing back if you don’t just cut them down.
I disagree, because this isn’t what the easement rights generally say. Usually, it gives the utility the right to put the power line through the property owner’s land. It’s the utility’s responsibility to maintain the property; and generally, the utility hasn’t bought the right to clear cut, but only to limit vegetation as necessary to allow its power line to function. If they want the right to clear cut, they should buy that right.
Doug- the easements I acquire for AT&T say this: “Grantee shall have the right to remove or trim such trees and brush in the Easement Area as is necessary to exercise the rights conveyed herein.”
This has been in the boilerplate document for the last 5-6 years, and there has been some form of it since I’ve been acquiring easements for them since 1997. From time to time, I trade this clause away, as it isn’t always germaine to the site I’m working with, but it is always there at the beginning. I understand this is an AT&T easement and not Duke, for instance, but my experience has been that for utilities that place facilities above ground, their first instinct is to desire the complete elimination of vegetation, if they can.
Aesthetics? No, that’s not exactly it, Andrew. Believe it or not, most utilities try to be good neighbors, so they do have some sensitivity to the desires of homeowners. They guys on the line are often less sensitive, because they are the ones who will catch the bitching from residents if power goes out because the growth of trees has led to the snapping of a line. They get real frustrated with trees.
It’s that “necessary” language that creates the dispute. When they remove more than is necessary, the landowner has a claim.