[Trees-executive] an alternative (long)

[Mary C. Schlembach]

I've been thinking about this for awhile and would like to get people's
impressions or comments about an alternative idea for IP's tariff.

Given the upcoming deregulation coming into play, we could negotiate that in
exchange for customers signing contracts that they would remain IP customers
for a given period of time (let's say 3-5 years).  In exchange, IP would use
the monies they typically spend on tree trimming to retrofit to underground
distribution systems of main transmission lines in as many areas as
possible/ or as many areas per year that they would typically be pruning
trees.
It would be the responsiblity of the homeowner to trench or bury lines from
the transmission line to their home and purchase the equipment to modify the
transformer located on the home/building before underground conversion took
place so that IP wouldn't have to wait for homeowners to finish their part.
For low income areas, there may be a system put in place to request money
from the city/county/state to assist with the homeowner's conversion.  After
a period of time the overhead cables and poles be removed.  The delay in
removing overhead cables and poles would be for testing, etc. to take place
to insure reliability and service.

This guarantees IP some customers (we can *steal* the phrase "IP Friends and
Family" from the telecommunications industry) in deregulation.  This, of
course, would be dependent on whether or not we or IP feels that there may
be a serious utility competitor in their service area.

This is the part we don't tell IP--in the meantime of the contract period,
there is a serious effort to implement a public utilities infrastructure.
Or does this last part violate the franchise agreement with the cities and
IP?

Do you think this is feasible if given the right environment?
Would you be willing to sign such a contract if IP would  bury the lines in
your neighborhood?
Do you think the cities would be willing to put a program into place for low
income residents to bid on assistance?

This idea is actually a combination of some underground systems conversions.

A question not directly related to above is regarding the underground
feasibility study that IP is conducting this summer.  Are the cities going
to "take the word" of IP officials on the feasibility and cost of this
project in good faith?  It is obvious that IP doesn't want to retrofit any
overhead area, so why not just inflate the costs associated with these
studies to rid municipal officials of any "wild ideas".

-m

Mary C. Schlembach
Research & Education Committee