12 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Rather than spend money on burying overhead electric lines, they're talking about REMOVING hundreds of trees in Connecticut.

Politicians, utilities and tree-lovers are now battling over the future of trees in one of the
most heavily forested states. Investigations are focusing on how to avoid future widespread outages such as those that affected more than 800,000 utility customers for a week or longer in October and early November. One solution that's emerging is to trim or remove trees to provide greater clearance for overhead wires.

Read article here: Storms spark debate over Conn. trees

And what the total tonnage of Co-2 that is removed from these wonderful trees?
No one mentioned that in the article.

[SpiroFlo]

Around here, Xcel Energy seems to cut out parts of trees that are touching power lines, so you have all these odd looking half-trees or U-shaped trees.

[mariaandrea]

Wind, ice, cars crashing into poles... all sorts of things are a threat to overhead power lines aside from trees. We really need to start thinking about long-term solutions to all of our problems rather than band-aids. Bury the lines.

[MakingCents]

I would like to know more about this.  At some point the power lines have to come above ground so are they talking about taking down trees in these areas?  

Also, do we know the long-term effects of power lines underground?  Could it not increase radiation or whatever in the soil that the animals eat and plants use to grow?  

Might it not be better for the company to cut-down a tree and re-plant it elswewhere (if that's what they are doing)?

Not arguing, just looking for all the facts.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

From the article (linked above)-
"The state's largest utility is asking Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and legislators to change state law.
For example, making it easier to cut trees on private property and streamlining an array of state laws and local ordinances governing tree maintenance in scores of towns are among changes that are needed, Dave Goodson, manager of vegetation management at CL&P. said. "

So they want to come in and cut trees on YOUR land? Change the laws? To allow that???

58% of the state is forested. Cut the whole state down, just so the utilities won't have to do any work?
Sure rates would go up some, but spread out over the region, it wouldn't be much.
They raise my rates here all the time. Bah!

[Pushhyarag2000]

I feel there must be a balance achieved: while we must definitely oppose trimming or cutting trees indiscriminately, we must also support efforts at sustainable solutions. If there is equal or greater emphasis on afforestation and increasing the area under trees, then may be sacrificing certain trees for stable electricity distribution must be agreed. Otherwise it seems like an unconvincing crusade. While there is no affirmative action towards afforestation, some people may be seen to be hogging limelight for publicity focus.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Pushhyarag2000, on 06 December 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

I feel there must be a balance achieved: while we must definitely oppose trimming or cutting trees indiscriminately, we must also support efforts at sustainable solutions. If there is equal or greater emphasis on afforestation and increasing the area under trees, then may be sacrificing certain trees for stable electricity distribution must be agreed. Otherwise it seems like an unconvincing crusade. While there is no affirmative action towards afforestation, some people may be seen to be hogging limelight for publicity focus.

But that's the thing. It's not just "certain trees". Northeast states are heavily forested, right along with their
towns and cities.
They have trees that are 200-300 years old everywhere. That area of the US was the original colonies
and they love trees.
If the utility companies had been dealing with this issue, slowly over the past 30 years, burying wires
one street at a time, for instance, they wouldn't have this massive problem now.

[Pushhyarag2000]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 06 December 2011 - 03:50 AM, said:

But that's the thing. It's not just "certain trees". Northeast states are heavily forested, right along with their towns and cities. They have trees that are 200-300 years old everywhere. That area of the US was the original colonies and they love trees. If the utility companies had been dealing with this issue, slowly over the past 30 years, burying wires one street at a time, for instance, they wouldn't have this massive problem now.

See the point. In which case, the middle path seems to be to live with trees but with branches trimmed. Which is the next best alternative to total uprooting.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

True.
Make it mandatory from the city/county for the homeowners to keep trees trimmed? One possible
solution.

[MakingCents]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 06 December 2011 - 04:12 AM, said:

True.
Make it mandatory from the city/county for the homeowners to keep trees trimmed? One possible
solution.

How do you mandate that? Who determines what is 'trimmed enough.'  What about the people who can't afford to trim their trees every year?   A good idea, just not sure how it would actually work... :/

[Shortpoet-GTD]

True.
Here, the city contracts the work out to a private company, which is paid for through our water bills.
Some cities have "obstructions" laws on their books, and homeowners get a notice to trim or a fine.

[zararina]

There are also some trees been cut here just to ensure "safety" of power lines. Which is common for those power lines that are not to tall to avoid branches of trees. I could say that it was nice that here in our community, the power lines are bit tall/high that some still standing trees here would not obstruct or cause any damage in case or storms.
If tall posts for electricity line seems not the solution there, better dig the ground for those power lines than cut trees that are useful for healthier environment.