[Trees-executive] an alternative (long)

[rebecca jean hartman-baker]

Just to add on to what Mary's saying, I also am skeptical of IP's ability
to come up with a reasonable figure for the costs of retrofitting
underground power lines.  If they're anything like the cable company, then
they do not have any employees whose job it is to put power lines
underground.  Therefore they must pay someone overtime pay to do the job,
which would jack up the labor price.  If they committed to putting power
lines underground for any significant length of time (e.g. created an
undergrounding plan that would result in some full-time jobs lasting a few
years), they could hire new employees or a contractor to do the job for a
more reasonable rate.

As for the consumer choice angle, I'm not sure what would work.  I read in
some of their literature that IP was focusing on becoming a power
transmittor rather than a power producer.  Basically with electric choice,
you choose to buy electricity produced by companies x, y, or z, but IP
still owns the lines and distributes that electricity to you.  So they may
or may not be particularly interested in you buying the electricity from
them since they'll make enough money off you from you paying them to
distribute that electricity to you.

What I think we need to do is have city ordinances requiring IP to put all
low to medium-voltage power lines underground by 2026.  I think 25 years
is a reasonable amount of time for them to get their act together, but
maybe 30 or 35 years would be more fair to them.  This will force them to
invest in underground infrastructure, and if they're not happy about doing
this thing that is in the best interests of the consumer, it will
discourage them from renewing the franchise agreements in 201x when they
finally expire.

Rebecca

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Mary C. Schlembach wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Trees-executive mailing list
> Trees-executive at lists.groogroo.com
> http://lists.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/trees-executive
>