[Trees-executive] IP talking points

[j-beauch at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu]

Here are the talking points we used at the meeting with Rep. Rick Winkel
last week:

        IP CUSTOMERS UNITED TO SAVE OUR TREES OPPOSES
        ILLINOIS POWER'S PROPOSED TARIFF FOR THE FOLLOWING
                           REASONS:

o  We prefer local control over tree trimming issues.

o  Because this tariff has generated so much statewide interest, if there
   is to be any State standard for utility tree trimming, that is better
   done in a rule making proceeding than under the current proceeding.

o  Illinois Power's tariff has critical shortcomings, including:

   1. The tariff does not state that there will be no tree removal without
      the permission of the homeowner, even though IP's witness, Ronald
      Roof, states this to be the case. IP spokesman, Peter Millburg, at
      the March 12, 2001 public hearing, echoed Mr. Roof's testimony in
      this regard.

    2. The tariff does not restrict IP's tree trimming activities to the
       limits of recorded easements even though Peter Millburg stated on
       March 12, 2001 that IP would do no tree trimming outside these
       easements. This does not seem to be consistent with the concept of
       wire zones, danger zones and border zones as described in the tariff.

    3. The tariff does not provide for resolution of disputes by an
       independent arbiter prior to tree removal.

    4. The tariff does not provide for compensation for removed trees in
       an amount which reflects the true value of the trees.

    5. The tariff allows the use of chemicals without the permission of the
       property owner.

    6. The tariff contains no provision for the protection of historic trees.

The above list is not intended to identify every problem with the IP
tariff, but only to point out examples of some of its shortcomings.