| February 07, 2013 Duke Energy District Manager Davis Montgomery said Monday, Feb 4, that his company plans to resume tree cutting operations on Monday, Feb. 18, although only on high voltage transmission lines.
Montgomery addressed the Tree Ordinance Review Committee of the Greensboro City Council at its first meeting on Monday in the council chambers at city hall to talk about moving forward with line clearing and developing a new tree ordinance.
"The distinction that we always try to draw is, again, that this is the transmission system," Montgomery said. He said that Duke Energy never agreed to stop work on transmission lines, which, unlike distribution lines in neighborhoods, are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
One of the transmission lines that Duke Energy wants to start working on runs through Lindley Park.
Montgomery said the transmission line work is not related to the attempt Duke Energy made to start cutting trees on Collier Drive in Lindley Park two weeks ago.
Montgomery said that he planned to meet with Lindley Park residents on Thursday, Feb. 7 to talk about the transmission line work.
Councilmember Nancy Vaughan, chair of the Tree Ordinance Review Committee, asked Montgomery to clarify the relationship between Duke Energy and Asplundh.
Montgomery said, "Asplundh is our sole contractor for tree work at this point in time." He added, "Through this situation in Greensboro we have met with their leadership," and he said they would be expected to abide by whatever Duke agrees to.
Vaughan also asked if Asplundh really has an arborist in every crew.
"Asplundh does not," Montgomery said. He said that if a customer raises concerns to an Asplundh crew, they have been instructed to stop work. The crew foreman would then meet with the concerned customer. "If the customer still has concern then the next level is our arborist," Montgomery said.
Greensboro Urban Forester Mike Cusimano made his first appearance at a City Council meeting, City Council committee meeting or City Council small group meeting since the dispute over Duke Energy's tree cutting practices began in December.
Cusimano presented a matrix comparing tree protection ordinances of other cities in North Carolina.
"In every case the pruning standards are the ANSI [American National Standards Institute] pruning guidelines," Cusimano said, although the Raleigh ordinance has additional restrictions setting how far from a power line branches can be pruned.
However, Cusimano said that, "Out of all the city's that we canvassed, Raleigh is the only city that is actively enforcing its ordinance on power companies." He said other cities have informal agreements with the power company.
Councilmember Yvonne Johnson asked if there had been any disagreements between Raleigh and the power company.
Montgomery said that since Raleigh's arrangement was with Progress Energy, until it recently merged with Duke Energy, he didn't know.
Cusimano said in his discussions with Raleigh that they said they had a "great relationship" with Progress Energy.
Like Greensboro, Raleigh has a franchise agreement that requires the power utility to abide by city ordinances.
"They do have the authority to issue a stop-work order, which they have done a number of times," Cusimano said. But he said they had been able to resolve the dispute themselves.
The Raleigh tree ordinance only deals with trees on public land, and the Greensboro City Council has expressed interest in also protecting trees on private property.
The Charlotte ordinance addresses trees on private property. However, City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan said that it applies mostly to developers and is sometimes used to prevent property owners from cutting down trees on their own land. The current Greensboro ordinance does as well.
Shah-Khan said the Charlotte tree ordinance does not deal with line clearing activity on private property.
Deputy City Manager Jim Westmoreland said the work team appointed to look at tree issues for the city would continue to work with Duke Energy and the city to help develop a new ordinance.
Westmoreland also suggested giving Duke Energy representation on the Greensboro Beautiful board of directors. Although Vaughan has objected to Duke Energy being involved in the development of the Greensboro tree ordinance, she did not object to that suggestion.
Vaughan later commented that putting Duke Energy on the Greensboro Beautiful board of directors might be a good idea, because it would expose the company to how important trees are to the city. "It might be a good educational opportunity," she said.
Towards the end of the committee meeting there was an opportunity for some members of the public to speak.
Brian Higgins asked if Duke Energy is over-pruning now so they wouldn't have to for another seven or 10 years.
Montgomery said, "In terms of frequency it should no longer be time based, but it should be based on reliability statistics." He said that work on lines was always an ongoing process based on encroachments on the power lines rather than a long-term schedule.
Gail Barger asked if lines in neighborhoods like Westerwood, which run along the front and back of properties, could be consolidated.
Montgomery said that was something Duke Energy was looking but that the "meandering" of the lines, which grew with the neighborhood, made that difficult.
The next meeting of the Tree Ordinance Review Committee is scheduled for Monday, Feb. 11 from 3:30 to 5 p.m. in the council chambers.
|
Print
Email Link
Feedback
Share
Advanced Search