[Trees-executive] Fwd: Rutherford, etc.

[ISEN/Laura Huth]

>Delivered-To: isen at prairienet.org
>Delivered-To: lhuth at prairienet.org
>From: JMcma83890 at aol.com
>Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 18:42:25 EDT
>Subject: Rutherford, etc.
>To: geknapp at davesworld.net, lhuth at prairienet.org, malmgren at life.uiuc.edu,
>         ttufte at oba.uiuc.edu, tewksbur at ux1.cso, kuenning at law.uiuc.edu,
>         Dkopacz at christieclinic.com
>Status:  
>
>Hey everyone,
>
>Here's a very brief rundown on today's meeting at Rutherford's office. First,
>1776 is apparently running into some serious opposition in the Senate from
>ComEd and AmerenCIPS. ComEd doesn't want the provision letting municipalities
>enact their own ordinances. Ameren doesn't like the notice requirements. Rep.
>Rutherford and David Ader both made a very strong pitch to me to ask members
>of our group to contact their contacts to come out in support of 1776. They
>know we cannot lobby. They also assume that we are plugged in with local
>chapters of Sierra Club, Izaak Walton League, etc. and can go to our contacts
>there and ask them to contact their State senators. Rutherford and Ader made
>similar pitches to everyone else there, except the IP people. IP is
>officially neutral on 1776.
>
>Berns, Winkel, Brunk, Vanderweit, and everyone else (except IP) are onboard
>as far as supporting 1776. I'm convinced that it's true that there is no real
>hope of getting anything better and it's only a question of whether we can
>even get this. Therefore, I am passing on Rutherford's call for help. If this
>is something we need to discuss more, let's do it soon. If you've already
>come to the same conclusion I have, then please do start making what contacts
>you can. Time is of the essence. It would also be helpful for anyone in Sen.
>Weaver's district to contact his office and let him know you support his
>sponsorship of 1776 in the Senate and want to see it passed without amendment.
>
>Now on to the tariff negotiations. Today the discussion turned almost
>immediately to the issue of tree limbs overhanging power lines. Major
>disagreement here. IP has been clearcutting overhanging limbs since 1990. IP
>does not want to discontinue this practice because of the risk of tort
>liability and expense incurred if limbs fall on lines. IP offered to make
>exceptions to this practice if cities would agree to indemnify IP for any
>costs incurred from falling branches. No one went for this idea. The debate
>on this issue took up the entire meeting. Nothing else was really covered
>today. I think IP is going to back down on this one but we'll see. Both Brunk
>and Vanderweit were very vocal in opposing IP on this one. Basically, their
>point was that there is no need to remove healthy overhanging limbs because
>they don't pose a serious risk. It would be ok to remove overhanging limbs
>with structural defects or in softwood species prone to breaking easily.
>
>Another Rutherford meeting is scheduled for next Monday, 2pm. I'll be there.
>I know the BN folks are meeting this Saturday. Gretchen, I trust you will
>pass this update on to them. If you want to get more details, please call me.
>I'm not aware of any excomm meetings scheduled in CU before next Wednesday
>night, 8, at my office. I urge legal committee members to attend that
>meeting. If anyone wants to schedule something sooner, let me know.
>
>John McMahon