Remove ImagesCity Says Duke Energy Not All-Powerful
January 31, 2013
The residents of Lindley Park are ready to defend their trees from Duke Energy – from their yards to the North Carolina General Assembly if necessary.
The Tree Committee of the Greensboro City Council attended the regular meeting of the Lindley Park Neighborhood Association on Tuesday, Jan. 29 at the Lindley Park Recreation Center to discuss how to respond to Duke Energy's recent attempt to cut trees on Collier Drive.
The Tree Committee was appointed to develop a stronger tree protection ordinance and includes Councilmembers Yvonne Johnson, Nancy Vaughan, Marikay Abuzuaiter and Nancy Hoffmann.
North Carolina State Rep. Marcus Brown also attended the meeting.
Last week Duke Energy distributed fliers to homes on Collier Drive in Lindley Park announcing that trees in the neighborhood would be pruned or cut down within three days.
Duke had agreed to temporarily stop their regular line-clearing activities in Greensboro neighborhoods except in cases of emergencies and customer requests.
The customer request in this case came from AT&T. Duke has since agreed not to proceed with the tree cutting until Feb. 11.
Vaughan, the chair of the Tree Committee, said, "We have really let them know that in our opinion another utility is not a customer." Vaughan said that Duke's credibility had taken a huge hit from the incident.
The councilmembers also addressed a letter from Duke Energy to City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, which said that Duke Energy did not need to prove to property owners that they had a right to cut trees on their property before they started cutting.
The letter essentially said that Duke Energy can go on to any property anytime they want and cut trees if they feel the trees interfere with power lines.
That letter from Duke Energy had been in response to a memo from Shah-Khan citing Duke Energy's own vegetative management plan on file with the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which states that Duke Energy must provide proof of their legal right to work on someone's property.
The response was that Duke Energy only has to prove that they have a right to clear transmission lines, not the distribution lines that run through neighborhoods.
According to Shah-Khan's response, the city maintains that individuals have a right to challenge Duke Energy's right to be on their property.
Charlotte Oleynik, a resident of Lindley Park, said she had gotten an Asplundh crew to leave her property by insisting with strong language that they depart. Asplundh is Duke Energy's subcontractor for line clearing, and has been criticized for sloppy and devastating pruning work.
Vaughan recommended that residents insist that Asplundh crews leave their property if they can't produce written proof of their right to work there. She also recommended calling 911 if the crews don't show a notice of easement and refused to leave.
Johnson disputed that, saying residents shouldn't call the police.
Stephen Johnson suggested taking a statewide stand against Duke Energy with the League of Municipalities or the General Assembly.
Brandon said that taking a statewide approach could be "one tool in the toolbox" for ensuring better long-term service from Duke Energy.
The residents also discussed going after Asplundh directly.
Joe Wood said, "What if you go a step below and, because their subcontractor is Asplundh, what if you adjoin a cease-and-desist order against Asplundh?" Vaughan said she was not sure if that was an option.
Stacy Smith suggested attacking Asplundh with a PR campaign involving posting pictures of their work every time they cut. "Why are we not turning up the heat on them?" she asked.
Bill Eckerd pointed out that such a campaign could encourage Asplundh to improve their public image. "They could win with this," he said.
On the development of the tree ordinance itself Vaughan said she was caught off guard by the fact that Duke Energy would be involved.
Duke Energy has representatives on a work team along with community members and city staff to present recommendations on how to improve the relationship between Duke Energy and the city.
Vaughan has said she expected the group to disband after presenting its recommendations at the Jan. 15 council meeting. Those recommendations included a 30-day notice to residents before tree cutting, which Duke Energy clearly didn't think applied to Collier Drive.
"I think that kind of escaped all of us at the moment that we were actually saying that it was OK for Duke to work on that," Vaughan said.
However, Vaughan said that ultimately it would be council that decides what goes into the ordinance.
She said that at the end of the process the ordinance worked on by the Tree Committee and the one worked on by the work team would be compared. "Guess which one we are gonna like more?" she asked.
Wood agreed that Duke should not have a say in what goes into the ordinance.
"Duke has a right to comment on the final ordinance that you guys decide to adopt," Wood said, adding, "Duke does not have a place at the table to help write the ordinance."
No representatives from Duke Energy were present at the meeting.