[Trees-executive] flyer

[John Sullivan]

Here's the text of the brochure.  -John

                logo

We are all dependent on a reliable supply of electricity, and lengthy
power outages are very disruptive.  Illinois Power (part of the
Houston-based Dynegy Corporation) proposed a vegetation management
tariff (plan) that could have resulted in the loss of many trees in
cities, towns, and rural areas throughout IP<E8>s service territory.  The
tariff treated trees as though they are a major threat to our power
supply, but falling trees or tree limbs cause only a small percentage of
all power outages.  Moreover, since trees, including those in urban
forests, provide a multitude of ecological, economic, and aesthetic
benefits, their protection is also important.

IP<E8>s Proposed Tariff

IP submitted its vegetation management tariff to the Illinois Commerce
Commission in December 2000.  Having received numerous unfavorable
comments from the public, the ICC decided to conduct formal hearings in
June 2001 instead of approving the tariff outright.  Several cities in
IP<E8>s service area formed a coalition to intervene in the ICC hearings in
opposition to the tariff.  Other Illinois utility companies also
intervened; if IP<E8>s tariff were approved, it would become a legal
precedent for utilities throughout the state.

The tariff would have given IP virtually unlimited control over trimming
and removal of trees and brush near its wires.  Vague language made it
unclear exactly what IP planned to do, but problems with the tariff
included:

It overturned current city ordinances by eliminating consultation with,
or supervision by, local governments.

It gave property owners minimal input and complaints would have been
handled by IP after the work has been done.

Trees and shrubs taller than 20 feet would not have been allowed within
15 feet of Low/Medium Voltage Lines and trees taller than 40 feet not
within 65 feet of these lines. 

Trees could be removed if <F4>it is more economical to Remove the Tree than
to Prune it.<F5> (Section 13.4.09)

It allowed the use of chemical management without specifying any safety
guidelines.

It provided inadequate compensation for the loss of trees.  IP would
have decided if a replacement tree were necessary and the maximum
compensation would have been $75.  However, a large shade tree can have
an appraised value of several thousand dollars. 1

How the Tariff Would Have Affected You and Your Neighborhood

Potential effects of IP<E8>s proposed tariff included:

Decreased property values. It is well known that landscaping is one of
the best investments a homeowner can make and that trees add thousands
of dollars to the value of homes and land.  For example, a study in a
New York town found that the average selling price of houses without
tree cover was 15% less than that of houses with <F4>good tree cover.<F5> 2

Higher energy needs and costs. Trees and shrubs can reduce homeowners<E8>
heating bills as much as 15% and their cooling bills up to 50% or more.
3

Reduced enjoyment of your home due to the loss of the beauty and comfort
created by trees.  Many people prize the intangible values of their
trees -- trees that provide shady spots where they can relax on a summer
day, privacy, and tranquillity or make their yards more attractive to
birds and squirrels that they enjoy watching. 

Loss of mature street trees that give character to residential
neighborhoods and small towns.

Possible damage to gardens or lawns from herbicide drift or the
activities of vegetation management crews.

Save Our Trees

Concerned about the devastating impact the proposed IP tariff might have
on their property and communities, in January 2001 citizens formed a
grassroots organization called Illinois Power Customers United to Save
Our Trees (Save Our Trees, for short).  The group retained attorney John
McMahon in order to intervene in the ICC hearings.

The organization<E8>s original goals included

to have the IP tariff rejected in its entirety

to inform the public about the tariff

1   International Society of Arboriculture. 1992. Guide for Plant
Appraisal. Eighth edition.

2   Morales, D.J., F.R. Micha, and R.L. Weber. 1983. Journal of
Arboriculture 9:21-24.

3   DeWalle, D.R. and G.M. Heisler. 1980. U.S.D.A. Yearbook of
Agriculture 227-237.

Hundreds of C-U residents have joined the Save Our Trees campaign and a
sister group is active in Bloomington-Normal.  An ICC staff member held
a public meeting in Champaign on March 12 at which many citizens
expressed their objections.  In April IP withdrew its tariff and the ICC
canceled the formal hearings.  This was a major victory, but IP will
write a new tariff.  The company has pledged to work with us and Save
Our Trees is committed to working for a responsible vegetation
management plan.  The group<E8>s updated goals are:

While legislation exists that requires a tariff to define utilities'
vegetation management, act to ensure submission of a tariff that allows
safe, reliable electrical delivery with <F4>local control<F5> and minimal
impact on trees and communities.

Educate the public about responsible trimming and the need for continued
involvement in the process of developing a new tariff.

Investigate alternatives such as putting powerlines underground.

Save Our Trees Tariff Requirements

1.  Vegetation management must be conducted under local supervision. 
There should be oversight by local or impartial arborists or foresters
to ensure that vegetation management is, in fact, being conducted in
accordance with best arboricultural practices.

2.  Vegetation management contractors should be approved by the local
governments, not hired independently by IP.

3.  Property owners must be notified, by certified letter, 60 days in
advance of scheduled vegetation management.  Later they should be
informed of the time period during which work will be done on their
property.  There should be a penalty (e.g. a fine or rebate to
customers) if work proceeds without proper notification.

4.  The new tariff should state explicitly that trimming will be
preferred over tree removal, that removal will not be undertaken solely
for economic reasons, and that pruning will not be excessive.  This is a
"vegetation management" tariff, so it seems appropriate that the
practices to be used and prohibited should be specified.

5.  The designation of danger and border zones caused much of the
opposition to the original tariff.  The danger zone seemed unnecessarily
wide and the border zone had no outer limits.  This essentially would
have allowed IP to conduct its management anywhere on most people<E8>s
property without acquiring additional easement.  These zones should be
eliminated from the tariff.  Vegetation management activities should be
restricted to easements and to trees or shrubs that can be shown to pose
a direct threat to utility lines.

6.  Except in case of an emergency, tree removal would require consent
of the property owner.  If the property owner objects, there should be
an appeal process with an impartial party determining if tree removal is
necessary.  Tree removal should not take place until the dispute is
resolved.

7.  If a tree is removed IP must give adequate compensation to its
owner. Compensation should include at least the cost of a suitable
replacement and the cost of stump removal.  If the property owner has
obtained an impartial appraisal value for the tree, compensation should
cover that value in full.  It should be the property owner, not IP, who
decides if a replacement tree is warranted (subject to guidelines about
the size of woody plants planted in easements).

8.  There should be a clause protecting trees that have special status,
as identified by various organizations or local ordinances (e.g.
National Register of Big Trees, Illinois Big Tree program, Heritage
Trees).

9.  There needs to be a simple, local grievance procedure for handling
any complaints about the way in which vegetation management has been
done.  

10.  The original tariff gave IP the authority to use chemical
management, but did not specify what form it would take.  IP needs to
spell out the type of chemical management that it uses or wants to use
and what safety guidelines it would fo
llow.  Then the appropriateness of
chemical management can be assessed.

11.  IP should achieve a four-year tree-trimming cycle and keep accurate
records for at least two complete cycles for local government entities
and customers to view.

13.   Homeowners and municipalities should be consulted before new
utility poles are placed on their property.

What You Can Do

Make a tax-deductible donation to support of Save Our Trees: Checks made
out to Save Our Trees can be sent to Save Our Trees, 110 S. Race Street,
Suite 205, Urbana, IL 61801.  For a donation of $25 or more you will
receive green ribbon that you can tie around your trees to express your
concern about IP<E8>s vegetation management.

Find out how you can participate in the Save Our Trees campaign: Visit
its website (www.saveILtrees.org).