[ QUOTE ]
I agree with plant the right tree in the right place. My concern is this: Several front yards in Louisville are forty feet deep or so. This means that any tree would be planted 20' away from either structure ( distribution lines + house). All canopy size trees would eventually violate the air space of both of these structures. If utility companies implement earth to sky policies, than they are indirectly saying that no canopy tree is appropriate for these yards.
<font color="blue">I am not trying to sound insensitive here but the land that the homeowner did not shrink, did it? They have the same land/area that they purchased and if they wanted big full canopy trees they should have thought about that before purchasing the property. I will be the first to admit that trees are beautiful and have many benefits to a property value but it comes down to space limitations. The utility has to keep the lines clear for service to be kept and with the population growing and the demand for more power it increases this need to keep the lines clear. Think back 50 years ago at the need for power....No computers, very little electric heat, limited TV's and Air conditioners were only for the wealthy. Not all those products are common household items that we think are necessities like life support systems. All this added demand taxes the electrical system, lost voltage through tree contact even makes it worse.</font>
Does this mean we're doomed to have neighborhoods of only bradford pears and red plums?
<font color="blue">Certainly not. There are many varieties of trees that are "Utility Friendly" but that does limit the size of the trees that can be established by the utility easements. </font>
Surely there is a better way. I don't think that this is a black and white issue. Sure, if you have trees near power lines, sometimes the branches will hit the lines. But if this is such a cost issue, then utility companies should fit the bill to bury their lines.
<font color="blue"> Ok, say we decided to bury all the lines. Look at the cost involved. It can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 to bury just one span of primary line depending on what is involved.
Take for instance a common Co/op with 3,300 miles of line.
Let's say it took $2,500 a span to bury the lines on the whole system and an average span is 175 feet long. That would be $248,914,285 to complete the work. And I would say that estimate is way low, that is not taking into consideration the environmental impact and other logistical nightmare that would entail. Now we have a low figure to start with, how is this going to be paid? If you guessed the utility company should foot the bill, you are only 1/2 right. The will initially foot the bill but they are going to get that $$ back and pass that cost on to the customers. If the utility company had 10 customers per mile that would be 33,000 customers to split the cost with. $7,542 per customer. Keep in mind this is a very low estimate.
Now you may say, the utility should eat that cost. Do you do tree work for free? The utility companies do not get free electricity and there fore have to make a profit too.
Also another consideration to keep in mind with underground electric is, Underground lines do go bad and have to be replaced. If a line is in need of replacing, they have to trench another line in, cutting roots tearing up plants and landscapes because you forgot about the line and went crazy planting things over the underground line. Either above ground or underground it still needs maintaince.</font>
I don't think of trees hitting utility lines as much of a cost issue as it is a cash flow issue. All companies hate paying unexpected costs, especially when they occur near the end of the fiscal year.
<font color="blue"> You do not think tree outages cost money. Whe trees take the line out, you have to call someone to repair the line and someone to cut the tree off the line. All that costs money. Plus the fact we do have life support systems active out there and people depend on having electricity to live. Do you do free storm work at your company? Neither does anybody else.</font>
Look at it this way: The cost savings of pruned trees accrues directly to the utilities at the expense of our arboriscape. The benefit of a nice environment accrues directly and indirectly to the public and neighborhood good. An economically efficient model would have the most good go to the most people. I think you could make a good arguement that this may be having well pruned trees around power lines.
[/ QUOTE ] Look, we do not live in a perfect society. I wish we did but that is not the case, untill somebody develops "Wireless Electricity" we will have to do maintaince on the lines and keep the power on and keep most happy with what we do, we cannot please everybody but I know at least where I work we try.
I agree with plant the right tree in the right place. My concern is this: Several front yards in Louisville are forty feet deep or so. This means that any tree would be planted 20' away from either structure ( distribution lines + house). All canopy size trees would eventually violate the air space of both of these structures. If utility companies implement earth to sky policies, than they are indirectly saying that no canopy tree is appropriate for these yards.
<font color="blue">I am not trying to sound insensitive here but the land that the homeowner did not shrink, did it? They have the same land/area that they purchased and if they wanted big full canopy trees they should have thought about that before purchasing the property. I will be the first to admit that trees are beautiful and have many benefits to a property value but it comes down to space limitations. The utility has to keep the lines clear for service to be kept and with the population growing and the demand for more power it increases this need to keep the lines clear. Think back 50 years ago at the need for power....No computers, very little electric heat, limited TV's and Air conditioners were only for the wealthy. Not all those products are common household items that we think are necessities like life support systems. All this added demand taxes the electrical system, lost voltage through tree contact even makes it worse.</font>
Does this mean we're doomed to have neighborhoods of only bradford pears and red plums?
<font color="blue">Certainly not. There are many varieties of trees that are "Utility Friendly" but that does limit the size of the trees that can be established by the utility easements. </font>
Surely there is a better way. I don't think that this is a black and white issue. Sure, if you have trees near power lines, sometimes the branches will hit the lines. But if this is such a cost issue, then utility companies should fit the bill to bury their lines.
<font color="blue"> Ok, say we decided to bury all the lines. Look at the cost involved. It can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $6,000 to bury just one span of primary line depending on what is involved.
Take for instance a common Co/op with 3,300 miles of line.
Let's say it took $2,500 a span to bury the lines on the whole system and an average span is 175 feet long. That would be $248,914,285 to complete the work. And I would say that estimate is way low, that is not taking into consideration the environmental impact and other logistical nightmare that would entail. Now we have a low figure to start with, how is this going to be paid? If you guessed the utility company should foot the bill, you are only 1/2 right. The will initially foot the bill but they are going to get that $$ back and pass that cost on to the customers. If the utility company had 10 customers per mile that would be 33,000 customers to split the cost with. $7,542 per customer. Keep in mind this is a very low estimate.
Now you may say, the utility should eat that cost. Do you do tree work for free? The utility companies do not get free electricity and there fore have to make a profit too.
Also another consideration to keep in mind with underground electric is, Underground lines do go bad and have to be replaced. If a line is in need of replacing, they have to trench another line in, cutting roots tearing up plants and landscapes because you forgot about the line and went crazy planting things over the underground line. Either above ground or underground it still needs maintaince.</font>
I don't think of trees hitting utility lines as much of a cost issue as it is a cash flow issue. All companies hate paying unexpected costs, especially when they occur near the end of the fiscal year.
<font color="blue"> You do not think tree outages cost money. Whe trees take the line out, you have to call someone to repair the line and someone to cut the tree off the line. All that costs money. Plus the fact we do have life support systems active out there and people depend on having electricity to live. Do you do free storm work at your company? Neither does anybody else.</font>
Look at it this way: The cost savings of pruned trees accrues directly to the utilities at the expense of our arboriscape. The benefit of a nice environment accrues directly and indirectly to the public and neighborhood good. An economically efficient model would have the most good go to the most people. I think you could make a good arguement that this may be having well pruned trees around power lines.
[/ QUOTE ] Look, we do not live in a perfect society. I wish we did but that is not the case, untill somebody develops "Wireless Electricity" we will have to do maintaince on the lines and keep the power on and keep most happy with what we do, we cannot please everybody but I know at least where I work we try.
