Sunday, June 20, 2010
SOME INTERESTING READING!
"http://documents.dps.state.ny.us/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=10-E-0155">
Sunday, June 6, 2010
PUBLIC HEARING FOR CON ED STEAM AND GAS RATE INCREASE
PSC Seeks Public Input on Con Edison Gas and Steam Rates
by New York State Public Service Commission
ALBANY, NY (06/01/2010)(readMedia)-- The New York State Public Service Commission will hold public statement hearings and otherwise seek public comments on cases concerning Joint Proposals for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) to increase its annual revenues for steam and gas services. On May 18, 2010, comprehensive Joint Proposals were filed by interested parties in each case for consideration by the Commission. The Joint Proposals recommend three-year rate plans for steam and gas services commencing October 1, 2010 and continuing through September 30, 2013.
The public statement hearings will be held on:
Yonkers: TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010, 1:30 p.m.
Grinton I. Will Library
1500 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, New York
Manhattan: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010, 7:00 p.m.
City University of New York
The Graduate Center, Proshansky Auditorium C
Level (elevator one level down from lobby)
365 5th Avenue (between 34th & 35th Streets)
New York, New York
Steam Joint Proposal
The Joint Proposal in the steam rate case calls for a three-year rate plan with levelized annual increases of $49.5 million per year (7.01%, 6.52%, and 6.09%) on total revenues in Rate Years 1 through 3, respectively.
The Joint Proposal in the steam rate case also proposes to resolve an issue concerning the allocation of costs of the East River Repowering Project (ERRP) between the Company's electric and steam systems. The issue was most recently under consideration in Case 09-S-0029, the steam planning case, but was later consolidated for decision in the steam rate case.
The Joint Proposal recommends reallocating $7.5 million per year in ERRP fuel costs from the electric system to the steam system beginning in Rate Year 2 and continuing in Rate Year 3 and beyond, until changed by the Commission.
Gas Joint Proposal
The Joint Proposal in the gas rate case supports a three-year rate plan with annual increases of $47.1 million (2.4% on total bills, or 6.1% on delivery only), $47.9 million (2.3% on total bills, or 5.8% on delivery only), and $46.7 million (2.2% on total bills, or 5.3% on delivery only) in Rate Years 1 through 3, respectively.
The Commission may adopt the terms of the Joint Proposals in whole or in part, adopt alternative terms, or adopt terms concerning matters not addressed in the Joint Proposals.
Public Statement Hearings
It is not necessary to make an appointment in advance or to present written material in order to speak at a public statement hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Speakers will be called after completing a request card. All comments at the hearing will become part of the Commission's formal record for the case to which they pertain. Each hearing session will remain open for at least one hour and, if necessary to accommodate persons wishing to speak, will continue for no more than one additional hour.
Disabled persons desiring special accommodations may place a collect call to the Department of Public Service's Human Resource Management Office at 1 (518) 474-2520 and should do so as soon as possible.
Other Ways to Comment
Writing: Those who cannot attend or who prefer not to speak at a public statement hearing may comment by writing to Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, Public Service Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350. If concerned with the steam rate case, your comments should refer to "Case 09-S-0794 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. – Steam Rates." If concerned with the gas rates case, your comments should refer to "Case 09-G-0795 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. – Gas Rates."
Toll-free opinion line: You may also submit comments through the Commission's Opinion Line at 1 (800) 335-2120. This number is designed to take comments about pending cases from in-state callers 24 hours a day. Callers should select English or Spanish and press 1 to leave comments. In your comments, refer to the steam rate case or the gas rate case as explained above.
Internet: You may also submit comments through the "PSC Comment Form" in the "Consumer Assistance" file available on the Commission's website at www.dps.state.ny.us or through the "Contact Us" link at www.AskPSC.com. Many libraries offer free Internet access. In your comments, refer to the steam rate case or the gas rate case as indicated above.
All comments submitted by one of these alternative means are due as soon as possible, but must be received no later than August 2, 2010. All timely comments the Commission receives become part of the official case record, are posted on the Commission's website for public inspection, and will be summarized for the Commission for consideration in its deliberations.
Persons interested in the Company's filings may view them, the Joint Proposals, and summaries of the Joint Proposals at the Commission's offices, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY, or on the Commission's website-www.dps.state.ny.us, click on "What's New;" then click on "Case 09-S-0794 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for Steam Service" or "Case 09-G-0795 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for Gas Service."
Hard copies of the Joint Proposals and summaries also can viewed at:
Manhattan
Con Edison Headquarters
4 Irving Place
New York, NY
* * * * *
Con Edison Office
116 East 124th Street
Harlem, NY
Queens
Con Edison Office
89-67 162nd Street
Jamaica, NY
Bronx
Con Edison Office
448 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY
Westchester
Con Edison Office
One Pathmark Plaza
Mount Vernon, NY
* * * * *
Grinton I. Will Library
1500 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, NY
-30-
by New York State Public Service Commission
ALBANY, NY (06/01/2010)(readMedia)-- The New York State Public Service Commission will hold public statement hearings and otherwise seek public comments on cases concerning Joint Proposals for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Edison) to increase its annual revenues for steam and gas services. On May 18, 2010, comprehensive Joint Proposals were filed by interested parties in each case for consideration by the Commission. The Joint Proposals recommend three-year rate plans for steam and gas services commencing October 1, 2010 and continuing through September 30, 2013.
The public statement hearings will be held on:
Yonkers: TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2010, 1:30 p.m.
Grinton I. Will Library
1500 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, New York
Manhattan: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010, 7:00 p.m.
City University of New York
The Graduate Center, Proshansky Auditorium C
Level (elevator one level down from lobby)
365 5th Avenue (between 34th & 35th Streets)
New York, New York
Steam Joint Proposal
The Joint Proposal in the steam rate case calls for a three-year rate plan with levelized annual increases of $49.5 million per year (7.01%, 6.52%, and 6.09%) on total revenues in Rate Years 1 through 3, respectively.
The Joint Proposal in the steam rate case also proposes to resolve an issue concerning the allocation of costs of the East River Repowering Project (ERRP) between the Company's electric and steam systems. The issue was most recently under consideration in Case 09-S-0029, the steam planning case, but was later consolidated for decision in the steam rate case.
The Joint Proposal recommends reallocating $7.5 million per year in ERRP fuel costs from the electric system to the steam system beginning in Rate Year 2 and continuing in Rate Year 3 and beyond, until changed by the Commission.
Gas Joint Proposal
The Joint Proposal in the gas rate case supports a three-year rate plan with annual increases of $47.1 million (2.4% on total bills, or 6.1% on delivery only), $47.9 million (2.3% on total bills, or 5.8% on delivery only), and $46.7 million (2.2% on total bills, or 5.3% on delivery only) in Rate Years 1 through 3, respectively.
The Commission may adopt the terms of the Joint Proposals in whole or in part, adopt alternative terms, or adopt terms concerning matters not addressed in the Joint Proposals.
Public Statement Hearings
It is not necessary to make an appointment in advance or to present written material in order to speak at a public statement hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. Speakers will be called after completing a request card. All comments at the hearing will become part of the Commission's formal record for the case to which they pertain. Each hearing session will remain open for at least one hour and, if necessary to accommodate persons wishing to speak, will continue for no more than one additional hour.
Disabled persons desiring special accommodations may place a collect call to the Department of Public Service's Human Resource Management Office at 1 (518) 474-2520 and should do so as soon as possible.
Other Ways to Comment
Writing: Those who cannot attend or who prefer not to speak at a public statement hearing may comment by writing to Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, Public Service Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223-1350. If concerned with the steam rate case, your comments should refer to "Case 09-S-0794 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. – Steam Rates." If concerned with the gas rates case, your comments should refer to "Case 09-G-0795 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. – Gas Rates."
Toll-free opinion line: You may also submit comments through the Commission's Opinion Line at 1 (800) 335-2120. This number is designed to take comments about pending cases from in-state callers 24 hours a day. Callers should select English or Spanish and press 1 to leave comments. In your comments, refer to the steam rate case or the gas rate case as explained above.
Internet: You may also submit comments through the "PSC Comment Form" in the "Consumer Assistance" file available on the Commission's website at www.dps.state.ny.us or through the "Contact Us" link at www.AskPSC.com. Many libraries offer free Internet access. In your comments, refer to the steam rate case or the gas rate case as indicated above.
All comments submitted by one of these alternative means are due as soon as possible, but must be received no later than August 2, 2010. All timely comments the Commission receives become part of the official case record, are posted on the Commission's website for public inspection, and will be summarized for the Commission for consideration in its deliberations.
Persons interested in the Company's filings may view them, the Joint Proposals, and summaries of the Joint Proposals at the Commission's offices, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY, or on the Commission's website-www.dps.state.ny.us, click on "What's New;" then click on "Case 09-S-0794 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for Steam Service" or "Case 09-G-0795 Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for Gas Service."
Hard copies of the Joint Proposals and summaries also can viewed at:
Manhattan
Con Edison Headquarters
4 Irving Place
New York, NY
* * * * *
Con Edison Office
116 East 124th Street
Harlem, NY
Queens
Con Edison Office
89-67 162nd Street
Jamaica, NY
Bronx
Con Edison Office
448 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY
Westchester
Con Edison Office
One Pathmark Plaza
Mount Vernon, NY
* * * * *
Grinton I. Will Library
1500 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, NY
-30-
Saturday, May 8, 2010
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE PSC-NOTICE INVITING COMMENTS
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
CASE 10-E-0155 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to New York State’s Electric Utility Transmission Right-of-Way Management Practices.
NOTICE INVITING COMMENTS
April 20, 2010
This proceeding was instituted to consider New York State electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on the implementation of utility ROW management practices and the contribution of ROW management to the safety and reliability of the State’s electric transmission system. In addition, comment is sought on the balancing achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties.
More specifically, comments are invited on the following questions:
1. Do the programs used by State utilities for transmission ROW vegetation management conform to industry best practices?
2. At what point, at what height, or under what circumstances should the trees be removed from the transmission ROW in order to protect the safety and reliability of the transmission system?
3. Are alternate or supplemental practices available which would reduce the environmental or aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW vegetation management without compromising transmission system safety or reliability?
4. If supplemental vegetation management practices are preferred by a community through which transmission ROW passes, how should the community preference for such practices be demonstrated? How should the costs of such practices be distributed to or divided among the utility which owns the transmission line, the ratepayers for that utility, the users of the transmission line, the community through which the transmission line passes, and the owners of properties adjacent to the transmission line?
5. In what ways can a utility mitigate the impact of its transmission ROW management practices without sacrificing electric system safety and reliability?
6. Are there cost effective strategies available to utilities to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW management?
7. Is cleanup after utility ROW management activities adequate?
8. What type of notifications regarding vegetation management do utilities currently employ? What type of notification by utilities would be most effective for landowners who live adjacent to a ROW prior to utility transmission ROW vegetation management work (for example: phone call, letter, newspaper, other)? When and how frequently should such notice be provided? Should others, besides adjacent property owners, be notified? What information should be provided in such notices?
9. Apart from such notices, what information should utilities provide to the owners of property adjacent to utility transmission ROW to suggest strategies or practices a landowner may use to protect his or her land from the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW maintenance, and at what intervals and through what means should this information be provided?
Interested parties are invited to file their comments electronically by June 16, 2010, and these comments will be made available to all interested persons, under the above case number, through the Department’s website at
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/New_Search.html.
Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments which are to be filed electronically by July 6, 2010. Electronic filing for comments and reply comments may be completed by e-mailing the filing, under the above case number, to secretary@dps.state.ny.us.
Each party submitting comments will be added to the service list for this case. Anyone wishing to be added to the service list may also consent to receive electronic service of all commission issued documents. To do so, you may email a letter to the Secretary at secretary@dps.state.ny.us consenting to receive electronic service of issued documents. Please understand that if you agree to electronic service, you will be sent the issued document(s) immediately and you will not receive paper copies. If you do not consent to electronic service, you will receive paper copies by US Postal Service, 3-5 days after issuance. If an interested party does not intend to submit comments but wishes to be added to the service list, the party should notify the Secretary of this not later than May 19, 2010 and request that the party be added to such list.
JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary
CASE 10-E-0155 - Proceeding on Motion of the Commission as to New York State’s Electric Utility Transmission Right-of-Way Management Practices.
NOTICE INVITING COMMENTS
April 20, 2010
This proceeding was instituted to consider New York State electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks comment on the implementation of utility ROW management practices and the contribution of ROW management to the safety and reliability of the State’s electric transmission system. In addition, comment is sought on the balancing achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties.
More specifically, comments are invited on the following questions:
1. Do the programs used by State utilities for transmission ROW vegetation management conform to industry best practices?
2. At what point, at what height, or under what circumstances should the trees be removed from the transmission ROW in order to protect the safety and reliability of the transmission system?
3. Are alternate or supplemental practices available which would reduce the environmental or aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW vegetation management without compromising transmission system safety or reliability?
4. If supplemental vegetation management practices are preferred by a community through which transmission ROW passes, how should the community preference for such practices be demonstrated? How should the costs of such practices be distributed to or divided among the utility which owns the transmission line, the ratepayers for that utility, the users of the transmission line, the community through which the transmission line passes, and the owners of properties adjacent to the transmission line?
5. In what ways can a utility mitigate the impact of its transmission ROW management practices without sacrificing electric system safety and reliability?
6. Are there cost effective strategies available to utilities to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW management?
7. Is cleanup after utility ROW management activities adequate?
8. What type of notifications regarding vegetation management do utilities currently employ? What type of notification by utilities would be most effective for landowners who live adjacent to a ROW prior to utility transmission ROW vegetation management work (for example: phone call, letter, newspaper, other)? When and how frequently should such notice be provided? Should others, besides adjacent property owners, be notified? What information should be provided in such notices?
9. Apart from such notices, what information should utilities provide to the owners of property adjacent to utility transmission ROW to suggest strategies or practices a landowner may use to protect his or her land from the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW maintenance, and at what intervals and through what means should this information be provided?
Interested parties are invited to file their comments electronically by June 16, 2010, and these comments will be made available to all interested persons, under the above case number, through the Department’s website at
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/New_Search.html.
Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments which are to be filed electronically by July 6, 2010. Electronic filing for comments and reply comments may be completed by e-mailing the filing, under the above case number, to secretary@dps.state.ny.us.
Each party submitting comments will be added to the service list for this case. Anyone wishing to be added to the service list may also consent to receive electronic service of all commission issued documents. To do so, you may email a letter to the Secretary at secretary@dps.state.ny.us consenting to receive electronic service of issued documents. Please understand that if you agree to electronic service, you will be sent the issued document(s) immediately and you will not receive paper copies. If you do not consent to electronic service, you will receive paper copies by US Postal Service, 3-5 days after issuance. If an interested party does not intend to submit comments but wishes to be added to the service list, the party should notify the Secretary of this not later than May 19, 2010 and request that the party be added to such list.
JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary
A Small Victory....FORWARD HO!
I am pleased to announce the first steps in our restoration efforts. It may not seem that these replantings are meaningful, but it took tremendous effort for our community to make this happen. It should be recognized and celebrated, however, our battle continues.
Please sustain your voice to bring about more change. We need to participate in the New York State Public Service Commission's Case 10-E-1055 in huge force.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Notice to Invite Comments
PSC Documents re: Case 10-E-0155
PSC Order Instituting Proceedings
Notice to Invite Comments
From the PSC's Notice filing:
Comments are invited on the following questions:
1. Do the programs used by State utilities for transmission ROW vegetation management conform to industry best practices?
2. At what point, at what height, or under what circumstances should the trees be removed from the transmission ROW in order to protect the safety and reliability of the transmission system?
3. Are alternate or supplemental practices available which would reduce the environmental or aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW vegetation management without compromising transmission system safety or reliability?
4. If supplemental vegetation management practices are preferred by a community through which transmission ROW passes, how should the community preference for such practices be demonstrated? How should the costs of such practices be distributed to or divided among the utility which owns the transmission line, the ratepayers for that utility, the users of the transmission line, the community through which the transmission line passes, and the owners of properties adjacent to the transmission line?
5. In what ways can a utility mitigate the impact of its transmission ROW management practices without sacrificing electric system safety and reliability?
6. Are there cost effective strategies available to utilities to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW management?
7. Is cleanup after utility ROW management activities adequate?
8. What type of notifications regarding vegetation management do utilities currently employ? What type of notification by utilities would be most effective for landowners who live adjacent to a ROW prior to utility transmission ROW vegetation management work (for example: phone call, letter, newspaper, other)? When and how frequently should such notice be provided? Should others, besides adjacent property owners, be notified? What information should be provided in such notices?
9. Apart from such notices, what information should utilities provide to the owners of property adjacent to utility transmission ROW to suggest strategies or practices a landowner may use to protect his or her land from the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW maintenance, and at what intervals and through whatshould this information be provided?
PSC Order Instituting Proceedings
Notice to Invite Comments
From the PSC's Notice filing:
Comments are invited on the following questions:
1. Do the programs used by State utilities for transmission ROW vegetation management conform to industry best practices?
2. At what point, at what height, or under what circumstances should the trees be removed from the transmission ROW in order to protect the safety and reliability of the transmission system?
3. Are alternate or supplemental practices available which would reduce the environmental or aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW vegetation management without compromising transmission system safety or reliability?
4. If supplemental vegetation management practices are preferred by a community through which transmission ROW passes, how should the community preference for such practices be demonstrated? How should the costs of such practices be distributed to or divided among the utility which owns the transmission line, the ratepayers for that utility, the users of the transmission line, the community through which the transmission line passes, and the owners of properties adjacent to the transmission line?
5. In what ways can a utility mitigate the impact of its transmission ROW management practices without sacrificing electric system safety and reliability?
6. Are there cost effective strategies available to utilities to mitigate the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW management?
7. Is cleanup after utility ROW management activities adequate?
8. What type of notifications regarding vegetation management do utilities currently employ? What type of notification by utilities would be most effective for landowners who live adjacent to a ROW prior to utility transmission ROW vegetation management work (for example: phone call, letter, newspaper, other)? When and how frequently should such notice be provided? Should others, besides adjacent property owners, be notified? What information should be provided in such notices?
9. Apart from such notices, what information should utilities provide to the owners of property adjacent to utility transmission ROW to suggest strategies or practices a landowner may use to protect his or her land from the aesthetic impacts of transmission ROW maintenance, and at what intervals and through whatshould this information be provided?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Provide Feedback On Tree Cutting By Local Utility Companies
Provide Feedback On Tree Cutting By Local Utility Companies
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins is urging local residents to provide feedback on ways electric utility providers can improve the current clear cutting methods around power lines in the region. The Public Safety Commission recently announced that it is conducting a review of the right of way (ROW) practices and has requested input from members of the community.
In March, after holding community forums and touring impacted areas for several months, Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins introduced legislation addressing the concerns being raised by hundreds of constituents, which impacts the community notification and input process related to ROW management. The Public Safety Commission cited the proposed legislation as well as efforts made by local residents as influential in their decision to review right of way practices.
Please take a moment to sign the online petition and share your thoughts on this important issue!
“This is an opportunity to shape the public process, as a result of the collective efforts of those concerned about these issues. This feedback can be instrumental in urging my colleagues to support the legislation in the Senate and encouraging the Public Safety Commission to make appropriate revisions to their policies, ensuring every avenue is explored to address the valid concerns of our residents,” said Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins.
LINK PROVIDED BELOW:
http://www.nysenate.gov/petition/join-fight-provide-feedback-tree-cutting-local-utility-companies
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins is urging local residents to provide feedback on ways electric utility providers can improve the current clear cutting methods around power lines in the region. The Public Safety Commission recently announced that it is conducting a review of the right of way (ROW) practices and has requested input from members of the community.
In March, after holding community forums and touring impacted areas for several months, Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins introduced legislation addressing the concerns being raised by hundreds of constituents, which impacts the community notification and input process related to ROW management. The Public Safety Commission cited the proposed legislation as well as efforts made by local residents as influential in their decision to review right of way practices.
Please take a moment to sign the online petition and share your thoughts on this important issue!
“This is an opportunity to shape the public process, as a result of the collective efforts of those concerned about these issues. This feedback can be instrumental in urging my colleagues to support the legislation in the Senate and encouraging the Public Safety Commission to make appropriate revisions to their policies, ensuring every avenue is explored to address the valid concerns of our residents,” said Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins.
LINK PROVIDED BELOW:
http://www.nysenate.gov/petition/join-fight-provide-feedback-tree-cutting-local-utility-companies
Friday, April 16, 2010
THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO REVIEW THEIR TRANSMISSION LINES VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN.
STATE OF NEW YORK
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us 10035/10-E-0155
TRANSMISSION LINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REVIEWED
— Public Comments Sought on Utility Vegetation Management —Albany, NY—04/15/10—The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today commenced a proceeding to consider electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. As a result of its decision, the Commission will seek comments on the implementation of utility ROW management practices and the contribution of ROW management to the safety and reliability of the state’s electric transmission system. In addition, comments will be sought on the balancing needed to be achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties.
“Maintaining the highest degree of electric system reliability for the benefit of New York’s customers is among the most important of our responsibilities,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “Reliability of the electric system depends upon the safe and effective transmission of electric power from the source of its generation. Effective right-of-way management is an essential component of system reliability. However, we must ensure this is being done in the best possible manner.”
The Commission’s policy regarding ROW management established requirements for utilities’ ROW maintenance programs and ensured adequate record keeping and reporting by the utilities. In addition, the federal Energy Policy Act imposes additional mandatory and enforceable reliability standards for utility ROW maintenance.
In recent months, members of the public and elected officials have expressed concern with respect to the ROW vegetation management practices used by utilities to implement the above described regulatory scheme along their transmission rights-of-way. These concerns have largely focused on the trimming and removal of trees and other vegetation by utilities in their transmission rights-of-way. Those objecting to the utilities’ practices cite the unwanted aesthetic impacts associated with the utilities’ ROW work, as well as noise, erosion and decreased property value as potential results. Expressions of concern have taken many forms including individual complaints to this department, letters from public officials, municipal resolutions and proposed state legislation.
In view of the widespread importance of transmission ROW management and the concerns that have been expressed regarding vegetation management, comments will be sought from the public and elected representatives, municipal resolutions and proposed legislation, to determine whether changes to our ROW management policy are needed to ensure that the transmission system in our state will continue to be operated in a safe, effective and environmentally compatible manner.
In addition to the submission of comments, public hearings at which persons who would rather comment orally may do so, are being considered. After consideration of the materials developed as comments or reply comments or through the public statement hearings, Staff will report back to the Commission summarizing and evaluating the information provided and making recommendations, if further Commission action is needed.
Interested parties are invited to file their comments electronically by June 16, 2010, and these comments will be made available to all interested persons through the Department’s website at http://www.dps.state.ny.us/New_Search.html. Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments which are to be filed electronically by July 6, 2010. Electronic filing for comments and reply comments may be completed by e-mailing the filing, under the above case number to secretary@dps.state.ny.us.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0155 in the input box labeled “Search for Case/Matter Number.” Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Public Service Commission
Garry A. Brown
Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223
Further Details: James Denn
james_denn@dps.state.ny.us | 518.474.7080
http://www.dps.state.ny.us 10035/10-E-0155
TRANSMISSION LINE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REVIEWED
— Public Comments Sought on Utility Vegetation Management —Albany, NY—04/15/10—The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today commenced a proceeding to consider electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. As a result of its decision, the Commission will seek comments on the implementation of utility ROW management practices and the contribution of ROW management to the safety and reliability of the state’s electric transmission system. In addition, comments will be sought on the balancing needed to be achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties.
“Maintaining the highest degree of electric system reliability for the benefit of New York’s customers is among the most important of our responsibilities,” said Commission Chairman Garry Brown. “Reliability of the electric system depends upon the safe and effective transmission of electric power from the source of its generation. Effective right-of-way management is an essential component of system reliability. However, we must ensure this is being done in the best possible manner.”
The Commission’s policy regarding ROW management established requirements for utilities’ ROW maintenance programs and ensured adequate record keeping and reporting by the utilities. In addition, the federal Energy Policy Act imposes additional mandatory and enforceable reliability standards for utility ROW maintenance.
In recent months, members of the public and elected officials have expressed concern with respect to the ROW vegetation management practices used by utilities to implement the above described regulatory scheme along their transmission rights-of-way. These concerns have largely focused on the trimming and removal of trees and other vegetation by utilities in their transmission rights-of-way. Those objecting to the utilities’ practices cite the unwanted aesthetic impacts associated with the utilities’ ROW work, as well as noise, erosion and decreased property value as potential results. Expressions of concern have taken many forms including individual complaints to this department, letters from public officials, municipal resolutions and proposed state legislation.
In view of the widespread importance of transmission ROW management and the concerns that have been expressed regarding vegetation management, comments will be sought from the public and elected representatives, municipal resolutions and proposed legislation, to determine whether changes to our ROW management policy are needed to ensure that the transmission system in our state will continue to be operated in a safe, effective and environmentally compatible manner.
In addition to the submission of comments, public hearings at which persons who would rather comment orally may do so, are being considered. After consideration of the materials developed as comments or reply comments or through the public statement hearings, Staff will report back to the Commission summarizing and evaluating the information provided and making recommendations, if further Commission action is needed.
Interested parties are invited to file their comments electronically by June 16, 2010, and these comments will be made available to all interested persons through the Department’s website at http://www.dps.state.ny.us/New_Search.html. Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments which are to be filed electronically by July 6, 2010. Electronic filing for comments and reply comments may be completed by e-mailing the filing, under the above case number to secretary@dps.state.ny.us.
The Commission’s decision today, when issued, may be obtained by going to the Commission Documents section of the Commission’s Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and entering Case Number 10-E-0155 in the input box labeled “Search for Case/Matter Number.” Many libraries offer free Internet access. Commission orders may also be obtained from the Commission’s Files Office, 14th floor, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12223 (518-474-2500).
Friday, April 9, 2010
PROGRESS IS BEING MADE
Just an update: I saw surveyors working on the Catskill ROW yesterday. This was mandated by the NYS DOT. Hopefully we will see the ground being prepared for plantings. The plan so far is two rows of White Spruce, and additional plantings along the Sprain Parkway.
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Power Lines Replace Pines as Tree Cuts Wreck Westchester Views
Power Lines Replace Pines as Tree Cuts Wreck Westchester Views
By Elizabeth Stanton
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Westchester County homeowners are learning the price of keeping the lights on.
Some residents have new views of the steel-lattice towers that carry power lines through Westchester, which is the closest northern suburb to New York and has the highest median home price in the state. Oaks, maples and beeches that veiled a highway for decades are being chopped down.
“I know what time it is by the sound of the traffic,” said Amy Kupferberg, who estimates that 350 fresh tree stumps behind her family’s century-old farmhouse in Greenburgh hacked as much as $1 million off its value. “This whole neighborhood has been redefined by this.”
Consolidated Edison Inc. dispatched chainsaws and wood chippers in October to comply with a state regulatory order to clear foliage from beneath high-voltage transmission lines. The record blackout in August 2003, which cut power to 50 million people in the Northeast and Canada, was blamed on overgrown trees in Ohio.
“We completed a three-year cycle of tree cutting near transmission and distribution lines,” said Allan Drury, a spokesman for Con Edison, which supplies electricity to most of the county and New York City. “Some of the work involved taking down more trees than had been taken down in previous cycles.”
To some residents, that’s an understatement.
“A lot of people feel they went way overboard,” said Paul Feiner, Greenburgh’s town supervisor. “They did a massive clear-cutting of trees that wouldn’t impact the wires.”
Quick Disappearance
A backyard view of beautiful trees helped Mathew Peringattu, 46, a nuclear medicine technologist, choose his house in Yonkers. His family moved into the $514,000 home in December. A month later, he said, the trees were gone.
Dozens of constituents have complained to State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, said Betsey Ball, her chief of staff. Their concerns include noise, light pollution, wind damage, erosion and flooding that may occur, she said.
Loss of native hardwoods also may allow invasive trees, shrubs and vines to take hold, said Aaron Schmidt, Greenburgh’s environmental planner and forestry officer.
“We understand people are unhappy to lose trees, but they’d be even more unhappy to lose power,” Drury said. Earlier this month, a storm with winds as high as 70 miles (110 kilometers) an hour dumped 3 to 5 inches (8 to 13 centimeters) of rain in the region and uprooted trees. It left 82,000 customers without electricity for as long as six days, Drury said. If some trees hadn’t been trimmed or removed, they could have fallen on transmission lines and made the situation worse, he said.
Blackout Trigger
Contact between overgrown trees and transmission lines in northeastern Ohio caused the 2003 blackout, according to the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, which investigated it. National standards for plant growth under transmission lines, enforced by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., took effect in 2006. Last year’s third quarter was the first in six years with no transmissionline power failures caused by vegetation, according to agency data.
“A handful of trees could knock out power to New York City,” said Gerry Cauley, the agency’s chief executive officer. While the national standards don’t require utilities to cut trees to the ground, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, he said. Contractors were hired to clear trees from 41 miles of transmission-line corridor in Westchester, Con Edison’s Drury said. “How they do it in many ways is up to the utility company,” said Stewart-Cousins, the state senator. She introduced legislation requiring the companies to inform communities of their maintenance plans. “There’s nothing that tells any utility that they have to do clear-cutting.”
Drop in Price
Kupferberg, 44, said her mother put their house on the market for $2.85 million almost a year ago, when the Sprain Brook Parkway was barely visible or audible. The road carries about 93,000 cars a day through Greenburgh, according to the New York State Department of Transportation. She awoke Nov. 17 to the sound of chainsaws, and hundreds of trees were felled within two weeks, Kupferberg said. The house now is listed for $2.35 million and hasn’t drawn any bids.
The median home price in Westchester peaked at $685,000 in 2007 and fell to $607,500 in February, according to the New York State Association of Realtors. The county’s median household income was $75,000 in 2006, fifth-highest in the state, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The change in value depends on whether a home becomes exposed to highway views or noise or only to views of electrical towers, said Robert J. Flower, whose Robert J. Flower & Co. in Bronxville, New York, has appraised Westchester real estate since 1974.
Tower Stigma
“There’s a stigma attached to having your property abutting or overseeing these electrical towers,” Flower said. “If they were losing 10 percent before because it was there, they’re losing another 10 to 15 percent because it’s now been stripped.”
Charles Spiegel, a 74-year-old attorney who has lived on the same Yonkers street since 1977, figures that his property is worth 30 percent less without the weeping willows that had helped hide transmission towers “The excuse is something happened in the Midwest,” Spiegel said. “But we never had a problem here.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Stanton in New York at estanton@bloomberg.net
By Elizabeth Stanton
March 31 (Bloomberg) -- Westchester County homeowners are learning the price of keeping the lights on.
Some residents have new views of the steel-lattice towers that carry power lines through Westchester, which is the closest northern suburb to New York and has the highest median home price in the state. Oaks, maples and beeches that veiled a highway for decades are being chopped down.
“I know what time it is by the sound of the traffic,” said Amy Kupferberg, who estimates that 350 fresh tree stumps behind her family’s century-old farmhouse in Greenburgh hacked as much as $1 million off its value. “This whole neighborhood has been redefined by this.”
Consolidated Edison Inc. dispatched chainsaws and wood chippers in October to comply with a state regulatory order to clear foliage from beneath high-voltage transmission lines. The record blackout in August 2003, which cut power to 50 million people in the Northeast and Canada, was blamed on overgrown trees in Ohio.
“We completed a three-year cycle of tree cutting near transmission and distribution lines,” said Allan Drury, a spokesman for Con Edison, which supplies electricity to most of the county and New York City. “Some of the work involved taking down more trees than had been taken down in previous cycles.”
To some residents, that’s an understatement.
“A lot of people feel they went way overboard,” said Paul Feiner, Greenburgh’s town supervisor. “They did a massive clear-cutting of trees that wouldn’t impact the wires.”
Quick Disappearance
A backyard view of beautiful trees helped Mathew Peringattu, 46, a nuclear medicine technologist, choose his house in Yonkers. His family moved into the $514,000 home in December. A month later, he said, the trees were gone.
Dozens of constituents have complained to State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins, said Betsey Ball, her chief of staff. Their concerns include noise, light pollution, wind damage, erosion and flooding that may occur, she said.
Loss of native hardwoods also may allow invasive trees, shrubs and vines to take hold, said Aaron Schmidt, Greenburgh’s environmental planner and forestry officer.
“We understand people are unhappy to lose trees, but they’d be even more unhappy to lose power,” Drury said. Earlier this month, a storm with winds as high as 70 miles (110 kilometers) an hour dumped 3 to 5 inches (8 to 13 centimeters) of rain in the region and uprooted trees. It left 82,000 customers without electricity for as long as six days, Drury said. If some trees hadn’t been trimmed or removed, they could have fallen on transmission lines and made the situation worse, he said.
Blackout Trigger
Contact between overgrown trees and transmission lines in northeastern Ohio caused the 2003 blackout, according to the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, which investigated it. National standards for plant growth under transmission lines, enforced by the North American Electric Reliability Corp., took effect in 2006. Last year’s third quarter was the first in six years with no transmissionline power failures caused by vegetation, according to agency data.
“A handful of trees could knock out power to New York City,” said Gerry Cauley, the agency’s chief executive officer. While the national standards don’t require utilities to cut trees to the ground, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, he said. Contractors were hired to clear trees from 41 miles of transmission-line corridor in Westchester, Con Edison’s Drury said. “How they do it in many ways is up to the utility company,” said Stewart-Cousins, the state senator. She introduced legislation requiring the companies to inform communities of their maintenance plans. “There’s nothing that tells any utility that they have to do clear-cutting.”
Drop in Price
Kupferberg, 44, said her mother put their house on the market for $2.85 million almost a year ago, when the Sprain Brook Parkway was barely visible or audible. The road carries about 93,000 cars a day through Greenburgh, according to the New York State Department of Transportation. She awoke Nov. 17 to the sound of chainsaws, and hundreds of trees were felled within two weeks, Kupferberg said. The house now is listed for $2.35 million and hasn’t drawn any bids.
The median home price in Westchester peaked at $685,000 in 2007 and fell to $607,500 in February, according to the New York State Association of Realtors. The county’s median household income was $75,000 in 2006, fifth-highest in the state, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The change in value depends on whether a home becomes exposed to highway views or noise or only to views of electrical towers, said Robert J. Flower, whose Robert J. Flower & Co. in Bronxville, New York, has appraised Westchester real estate since 1974.
Tower Stigma
“There’s a stigma attached to having your property abutting or overseeing these electrical towers,” Flower said. “If they were losing 10 percent before because it was there, they’re losing another 10 to 15 percent because it’s now been stripped.”
Charles Spiegel, a 74-year-old attorney who has lived on the same Yonkers street since 1977, figures that his property is worth 30 percent less without the weeping willows that had helped hide transmission towers “The excuse is something happened in the Midwest,” Spiegel said. “But we never had a problem here.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Elizabeth Stanton in New York at estanton@bloomberg.net
Friday, March 19, 2010
CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM NYSTATE DOT
I received a letter from William Gorton, P.E. Acting Regional Director of the State of New York Department of Transportation. He has confirmed that Con Edison has contacted the DOT and applied for permits to replant along the Sprain Brooke Parkway. Moreover, a representative from Con Ed has contacted me and stated that the NYSDOT has " requested additional information
from us that will require us to hire a licensed surveyor."
We are making progress but we still have a long way to go.
PLEASE KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
DON"T LEAVE IT FOR OTHERS TO FIGHT YOUR FIGHT!
WE HAVE BEEN VERY POWERFUL AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE.
from us that will require us to hire a licensed surveyor."
We are making progress but we still have a long way to go.
PLEASE KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!
DON"T LEAVE IT FOR OTHERS TO FIGHT YOUR FIGHT!
WE HAVE BEEN VERY POWERFUL AS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
CONTINUE THE EFFORT SIGN ONLINE PETITION
Please further participate by connecting to the link below to STOP CON EDISON"S CLEAR CUTTING.
www.change.org/actions/view/stop_transmission_line_clear_cutting_in_ny_update_psc_guidelines
www.change.org/actions/view/stop_transmission_line_clear_cutting_in_ny_update_psc_guidelines
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Westchester BOL Passes Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium Resolution!
I wanted to share an email I received this morning from Anne Jaffe Holmes a member of Lorax and the Coordinator of School Programs & Environmental Projects at the beloved Greenburgh Nature Center
CONGRATULATIONS to members and friends of the Lorax on this great step!
Special thanks to Mark Gilliland for his tireless leadership and Chris Crane's expert guidance through the County BOL process!
Stay tuned to Mark's blog as we continue the campaign . . .
Monday, March 1, 2010
Westchester BOL Passes Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium Resolution!
Tonight, the Westchester Board of Legislators passed the LORAX-originated Moratorium resolution by a vote of 15-0! Special thanks goes to Legislator Abinati and the chairs of the Energy and Environment committees, as well as to Committee Counsel Chris Crane. Thanks also to LORAX members Patricia Podalack and Marvin Baum, and to friends of the working group including Amy Kupferberg who showed up tonight to speak to the legislators.
Here is the text of the statement which I gave at the meeting during the public comment period:
My name is Mark Gilliland and I live in Irvington, NY. I am the Chairperson of the Greenburgh Environmental Forum's LORAX working group - which originated the resolution before this body tonight concerning a moratorium on the transmission line right-of-way clear cutting of our trees.
Once a moratorium "time out" is in place, we have an opportunity to find a solution to current indiscriminate clear cutting - through dialog with the Public Service Commission (PSC), Con Edison and other Transmission Line Operators (such as NYSEG and O&R), as well as concerned municipal officials and the public-at-large.
This resolution further calls for the PSC to re-examine and update its 2005 guidelines for vegetation management. This time around, the required Environmental Impact Analysis must be undertaken in a fully transparent manner with both public and scientific input.
The LORAX working group is eager to work with the PSC and with Con Ed in creation of these new, environmentally-friendly and property-friendly guidelines. We are recommending the following 5 point plan as a basis of action:
1) Restitution or mitigation for homeowners and municipalities already adversely affected by the line clearings.
2) Public review and update of the original PSC 2004 SEQR filing to include a full environmental impact statement complete with alternatives and proposed mitigations.
3) Modernization of Vegetative Management guidelines for the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) to encompass the new draft federal standard FAC-003-2, allowing for a wire-zone / border-zone "tiered management" approach based upon distance from the transmission line centerline.
4) Advanced notification by utilities for all targeted property owners (private and municipal), including on-site consultations and written descriptions of proposed pruning and removals.
5) Improved training, supervision and QA of line clearing contractors.
In order to help start these important discussions with the PSC, I urge the Board of Legislators to pass the moratorium resolution tonight. Thank-you.
Posted by -mg- at 11:42 PM 0 comments
Anne Jaffe Holmes
Coordinator of School Programs & Environmental Projects
Greenburgh Nature Center
99 Dromore Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
P: 914-813-1812
F: 914-725-6599
Please visit our new website at www.greenburghnaturecenter.org.
CONGRATULATIONS to members and friends of the Lorax on this great step!
Special thanks to Mark Gilliland for his tireless leadership and Chris Crane's expert guidance through the County BOL process!
Stay tuned to Mark's blog as we continue the campaign . . .
Monday, March 1, 2010
Westchester BOL Passes Transmission Line Clear Cut Moratorium Resolution!
Tonight, the Westchester Board of Legislators passed the LORAX-originated Moratorium resolution by a vote of 15-0! Special thanks goes to Legislator Abinati and the chairs of the Energy and Environment committees, as well as to Committee Counsel Chris Crane. Thanks also to LORAX members Patricia Podalack and Marvin Baum, and to friends of the working group including Amy Kupferberg who showed up tonight to speak to the legislators.
Here is the text of the statement which I gave at the meeting during the public comment period:
My name is Mark Gilliland and I live in Irvington, NY. I am the Chairperson of the Greenburgh Environmental Forum's LORAX working group - which originated the resolution before this body tonight concerning a moratorium on the transmission line right-of-way clear cutting of our trees.
Once a moratorium "time out" is in place, we have an opportunity to find a solution to current indiscriminate clear cutting - through dialog with the Public Service Commission (PSC), Con Edison and other Transmission Line Operators (such as NYSEG and O&R), as well as concerned municipal officials and the public-at-large.
This resolution further calls for the PSC to re-examine and update its 2005 guidelines for vegetation management. This time around, the required Environmental Impact Analysis must be undertaken in a fully transparent manner with both public and scientific input.
The LORAX working group is eager to work with the PSC and with Con Ed in creation of these new, environmentally-friendly and property-friendly guidelines. We are recommending the following 5 point plan as a basis of action:
1) Restitution or mitigation for homeowners and municipalities already adversely affected by the line clearings.
2) Public review and update of the original PSC 2004 SEQR filing to include a full environmental impact statement complete with alternatives and proposed mitigations.
3) Modernization of Vegetative Management guidelines for the transmission line right-of-way (ROW) to encompass the new draft federal standard FAC-003-2, allowing for a wire-zone / border-zone "tiered management" approach based upon distance from the transmission line centerline.
4) Advanced notification by utilities for all targeted property owners (private and municipal), including on-site consultations and written descriptions of proposed pruning and removals.
5) Improved training, supervision and QA of line clearing contractors.
In order to help start these important discussions with the PSC, I urge the Board of Legislators to pass the moratorium resolution tonight. Thank-you.
Posted by -mg- at 11:42 PM 0 comments
Anne Jaffe Holmes
Coordinator of School Programs & Environmental Projects
Greenburgh Nature Center
99 Dromore Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
P: 914-813-1812
F: 914-725-6599
Please visit our new website at www.greenburghnaturecenter.org.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
WESTCHESTER LAWMAKERS CONSIDER CALL FOR MORATORIUM ON CON ED TREE CUTTING PROGRAM
*** COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE ***
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 16, 2010
Contact: Christopher M. Crane | ChrisC@westchesterlegislators.com | 914-995-2104 (office)
What: The Westchester County Board of Legislators Committees on Environment and Energy will have a joint meeting discussing Consolidated Edison’s recent tree cutting along electric transmission line corridors. Both committees will, also, address legislation calling for a moratorium on Con Edison’s tree cutting program and a revision of the State’s Public Service Commission requirements
Who: Energy and Environment Committee Members
Representatives from Con Edison
When: Monday, February 22, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Where: Westchester County Board of Legislators Committee Room
148 Martine Avenue, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY
Why: Recent tree cutting and clearing along electric transmission line corridors has raised many questions and concerns among homeowners and municipalities that border these lines. Con Edison operates and manages the transmission lines, which span from Yonkers to Yorktown.
# # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 16, 2010
Contact: Christopher M. Crane | ChrisC@westchesterlegislators.com | 914-995-2104 (office)
What: The Westchester County Board of Legislators Committees on Environment and Energy will have a joint meeting discussing Consolidated Edison’s recent tree cutting along electric transmission line corridors. Both committees will, also, address legislation calling for a moratorium on Con Edison’s tree cutting program and a revision of the State’s Public Service Commission requirements
Who: Energy and Environment Committee Members
Representatives from Con Edison
When: Monday, February 22, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Where: Westchester County Board of Legislators Committee Room
148 Martine Avenue, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY
Why: Recent tree cutting and clearing along electric transmission line corridors has raised many questions and concerns among homeowners and municipalities that border these lines. Con Edison operates and manages the transmission lines, which span from Yonkers to Yorktown.
# # #
Sunday, January 24, 2010
RATE INCREASE LETTER TO THE PSC
My family has lived on Ridge Road in Hartsdale for over 50 years. As you know, Con Ed has initiated aggressive “Tree Trimming” activities in our area that has resulted in the destruction of hundreds of acres of woodlands, as well as, the use of toxic herbicides to prevent re-growth particularly on the Catskill Aqueduct areas that end up in our drinking water.
Initially we were told that this was about concerns over power outages, however, since then, we learned that Con Ed has chosen to discontinue a policy of pruning and maintenance and has adopted a new 20 year maintenance plan without any regard for the impact on the environment or the quality of life of the residents in the surrounding area. Not to mention, the economic impact on property owners, particularly in densely populated suburban areas where visual buffering can add a significant value to one’s home.
Now that the trees are gone, the noise from the highway is twice the volume. Windows closed and the morning news on all we can hear is the thousands of cars driving by. We are forced to look and hear cars from every room of the house or put up window treatments to shield the view. Our house was designed to sit on the property with nature, 77 windows provided views that I have treasured through my lifetime. Our family has maintained and preserved the 3.5 acres on Ridge Road rather than slice it up, because we felt it was important to hold off thoughtless development. What to do now...live our lives with windows closed and ear plugs in?
For many of us it seems as if it is too late, I have gone door to door over that past few weeks speaking with my neighbors and our goal now to to stop further destruction and begin a massive replanting initiative on both public and private lands. We also insist that a natural sound barrier be planted along the Spain Brook Parkway in residential areas to muffle the the sounds of constant traffic and air pollution.
The thought that Con Ed would be awarded a rate increase seems unfathomable. Looking at their earning reports over the last 5 years, it seems that Con Ed has enjoyed healthy profits. As well as, receiving 180 million in stimulus money earlier in 2009 and then another 45 Million in Smart Grid Funding.
My understanding from reading the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force: Final Report on Implementation of Recommendations is that there were a number of causes for the 2003 blackout. While it was initially triggered in Ohio by tree limbs coming into contact with Conductors, it was also stated that these trees were in direct contact with power lines and had not been adequately managed. The conditions on that day in August could be called a perfect storm. High temperatures and windless conditions combined with increased amperage draw stressed the supply lines causing additional sagging, thus making direct contact with the poorly maintained trees. Also in the report it states that “Inadequate reactive supply was a factor in most of the events.” and “the assumed contribution of dynamic reactive output of system generators was greater than the generators actually produced, resulting in more significant voltage problems.” In other words the backup generators were not adequate to handle the amperage load or voltage needed. A lack of coordination of System Protection Programs(relays tripping), inadequate communication between Utilities, and lack of "training of operating personnel in dealing with severe
system disturbances" were also noted in the report as causes for the blackout.
Although tree contact was the initial cause of the black out in Ohio, the situation snow balled because the entire system was tenuous at best. The report stated that there were a greater number of instances of other system failures than there were instances of tree contact. I know what Con Ed has done about the trees, now I would like to know whether adequate back up generators have been installed? Has a computerized safety system been created and installed so that the utilities are aware when relays are popping? Is there an emergency protocol in place so that States can now communicate and cooperate in a coordinated effort in such an emergency? And finally, have the administrative employees and utility technicians been properly trained to deal with such a large scale blackout?
I still do not accept that Con Ed needs more money from us to update or repair a broken infrastructure. Shouldn’t that be Con Eds responsibility ? Why should it be my responsibility to maintain Con Eds equipment? Why aren’t they expected to spend their own profits to deliver a better product? In a time where the unemployment rate is above 10% and many people are close to losing their homes, it seems absurd that Con Ed would be looking for a rate increase. They stated on their web page that the a” typical residential customer paying $70 per month would see an increase of $12, or about a 17 percent rise”. But $70 per month is NOT the typical electric bill. I can tell you that my electric bill is $200+ a month since I moved back to Westchester in July and I live alone. I work a seventy hour week, and I don’t have air conditioners or leave my lights on. My Bill for November with heat added was $760.40. I have only 3 heat zones on and the thermostat is set from 63-65 degrees. Another 17 % seems out of step with our national economic outlook and is daunting at best. Moreover, as consumers we have no recourse, Con Ed the only game in town and it would seem that what they say goes. In the spirit of “CHANGE” I have testified twice about this rate increase and I ask that the Public Service Commission protect the public and deny Con Ed the rate increase. This rate increase is no different than an unruly bank industry that got us into our current recession.
I thank you for your attention and would welcome any opportunity to help further my efforts.
Respectfully,
Amy Kupferberg
Initially we were told that this was about concerns over power outages, however, since then, we learned that Con Ed has chosen to discontinue a policy of pruning and maintenance and has adopted a new 20 year maintenance plan without any regard for the impact on the environment or the quality of life of the residents in the surrounding area. Not to mention, the economic impact on property owners, particularly in densely populated suburban areas where visual buffering can add a significant value to one’s home.
Now that the trees are gone, the noise from the highway is twice the volume. Windows closed and the morning news on all we can hear is the thousands of cars driving by. We are forced to look and hear cars from every room of the house or put up window treatments to shield the view. Our house was designed to sit on the property with nature, 77 windows provided views that I have treasured through my lifetime. Our family has maintained and preserved the 3.5 acres on Ridge Road rather than slice it up, because we felt it was important to hold off thoughtless development. What to do now...live our lives with windows closed and ear plugs in?
For many of us it seems as if it is too late, I have gone door to door over that past few weeks speaking with my neighbors and our goal now to to stop further destruction and begin a massive replanting initiative on both public and private lands. We also insist that a natural sound barrier be planted along the Spain Brook Parkway in residential areas to muffle the the sounds of constant traffic and air pollution.
The thought that Con Ed would be awarded a rate increase seems unfathomable. Looking at their earning reports over the last 5 years, it seems that Con Ed has enjoyed healthy profits. As well as, receiving 180 million in stimulus money earlier in 2009 and then another 45 Million in Smart Grid Funding.
My understanding from reading the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force: Final Report on Implementation of Recommendations is that there were a number of causes for the 2003 blackout. While it was initially triggered in Ohio by tree limbs coming into contact with Conductors, it was also stated that these trees were in direct contact with power lines and had not been adequately managed. The conditions on that day in August could be called a perfect storm. High temperatures and windless conditions combined with increased amperage draw stressed the supply lines causing additional sagging, thus making direct contact with the poorly maintained trees. Also in the report it states that “Inadequate reactive supply was a factor in most of the events.” and “the assumed contribution of dynamic reactive output of system generators was greater than the generators actually produced, resulting in more significant voltage problems.” In other words the backup generators were not adequate to handle the amperage load or voltage needed. A lack of coordination of System Protection Programs(relays tripping), inadequate communication between Utilities, and lack of "training of operating personnel in dealing with severe
system disturbances" were also noted in the report as causes for the blackout.
Although tree contact was the initial cause of the black out in Ohio, the situation snow balled because the entire system was tenuous at best. The report stated that there were a greater number of instances of other system failures than there were instances of tree contact. I know what Con Ed has done about the trees, now I would like to know whether adequate back up generators have been installed? Has a computerized safety system been created and installed so that the utilities are aware when relays are popping? Is there an emergency protocol in place so that States can now communicate and cooperate in a coordinated effort in such an emergency? And finally, have the administrative employees and utility technicians been properly trained to deal with such a large scale blackout?
I still do not accept that Con Ed needs more money from us to update or repair a broken infrastructure. Shouldn’t that be Con Eds responsibility ? Why should it be my responsibility to maintain Con Eds equipment? Why aren’t they expected to spend their own profits to deliver a better product? In a time where the unemployment rate is above 10% and many people are close to losing their homes, it seems absurd that Con Ed would be looking for a rate increase. They stated on their web page that the a” typical residential customer paying $70 per month would see an increase of $12, or about a 17 percent rise”. But $70 per month is NOT the typical electric bill. I can tell you that my electric bill is $200+ a month since I moved back to Westchester in July and I live alone. I work a seventy hour week, and I don’t have air conditioners or leave my lights on. My Bill for November with heat added was $760.40. I have only 3 heat zones on and the thermostat is set from 63-65 degrees. Another 17 % seems out of step with our national economic outlook and is daunting at best. Moreover, as consumers we have no recourse, Con Ed the only game in town and it would seem that what they say goes. In the spirit of “CHANGE” I have testified twice about this rate increase and I ask that the Public Service Commission protect the public and deny Con Ed the rate increase. This rate increase is no different than an unruly bank industry that got us into our current recession.
I thank you for your attention and would welcome any opportunity to help further my efforts.
Respectfully,
Amy Kupferberg
Saturday, January 23, 2010
ANOTHER NEIGHBOR GOING GRASSROOTS*LOOK FOR HIS HANDOUTS IN YOUR MAIL BOXES OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS
CON ED’S CLEAR CUTTING
… Your Voices ARE being Heard!
So GET THIS INFORMATION TO HER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
(they will be glad to take your information over the phone, if that suits you)
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Room 415 LOB
Albany, NY 12247
(Tel.) (914) 771-4190 (Fax) (914) 771-6045
Email address: scousins@senate.state.ny.us
If you’ve already shared your specific information with those at the Senator’s office, PLEASE continue to communicate with others. Voice your concerns. Engage your Neighbors! As the ball is just beginning to roll! All your support is needed! These people all need to know that we are together on this. So …
Call the PSC and file a complaint,
include the complaint number
on each correspondence 800-342-3377 (8:30 am - 4:00 pm)
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
NYS Public Service Commission
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
Phone: (518) 474-6530
Fax:(518) 486-6081
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
5 West Main Street
Elmsford, NY 10523
914-345-0432
http://assembly.state.ny.us
Assemblyman Mike Spano
35 East Grassy Sprain Rd. 4th Floor
Yonkers, NY 10710
914-779-8805
http://assembly.state.ny.us
Please cc:
Paul Feiner, Town Supervisor
Email: pfeiner@greenburghny.com
Office Tel: (914) 993-1540
Fax: (914) 993-1541
STAY INFORMED!
JOIN OUR FRIENDS AT Greengreenburgh@Blogspot.Com
THE HUDSON INDEPENDENTS COVERAGE *PLEASANTVILLE TOWNHALL MEETING 1/9/10 with SENATOR COUSINS &PSC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6Fwu2Hkb4
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
RE-POSTING THIS
Great idea to write Professor Kennedy....for all those who are inspired here is the address.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Professor of Environmental Law
Co-Director, Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic Pace Law School
78 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Professor of Environmental Law
Co-Director, Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic Pace Law School
78 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
Monday, January 18, 2010
WRITE LETTERS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CON ED
Kevin Burke
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman of Executive Committee, Chairman of Con Edison of New York and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Eugene R. McGrath
Chairman, Chairman of Con Edison, Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison, President of Con Edison and Director of Con Edison, Orange & Rockland Utilities Inc.
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, New York 10965
George Campbell Jr., Ph.D.
President, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
431 Sperry Road
Stockton, California 95206
Gordon J. Davis Esq.
Director, Member of Environment, Health & Safety Committee, Member of Finance Committee, Member of Planning Committee and Trustee of Con Edison of New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Michael J. Del Giudice
Chairman and Senior Managing Director, Rockland Capital Energy Investments, LLC
2204 Timberloch Place
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Ellen Futter
President and Trustee, American Museum Of Natural History
Central Park West 79th Street
New York, New York 10024
Sally Hernandez-Piñero
Director, Chairman of Planning Committee, Member of Environment, Health & Safety Committee, Member of Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, Member of Finance Committee and Trustee of Con Edison of New York , Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Vincent A. Calarco
Non Executive Chairman, Chairman of Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee and Member of Audit Committee, Newmont Mining Corp.
6363 South Fiddler's Green Circle
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
L. Frederick Sutherland
Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Director, Member of Management Committee and Group Executive of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, ARAMARK Corporation
ARAMARK Tower
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
John F. Killian
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Verizon Communications Inc.
140 West Street
New York, New York 10007
Michael W. Ranger
Senior Managing Director, Diamond Castle Holdings, LLC
280 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
John F. Hennessy III
Chairman Of The Board, Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
11 West 42nd Street
New York, New York 10036-2300
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman of Executive Committee, Chairman of Con Edison of New York and Chief Executive Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Eugene R. McGrath
Chairman, Chairman of Con Edison, Chief Executive Officer of Con Edison, President of Con Edison and Director of Con Edison, Orange & Rockland Utilities Inc.
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, New York 10965
George Campbell Jr., Ph.D.
President, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
431 Sperry Road
Stockton, California 95206
Gordon J. Davis Esq.
Director, Member of Environment, Health & Safety Committee, Member of Finance Committee, Member of Planning Committee and Trustee of Con Edison of New York, Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Michael J. Del Giudice
Chairman and Senior Managing Director, Rockland Capital Energy Investments, LLC
2204 Timberloch Place
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
Ellen Futter
President and Trustee, American Museum Of Natural History
Central Park West 79th Street
New York, New York 10024
Sally Hernandez-Piñero
Director, Chairman of Planning Committee, Member of Environment, Health & Safety Committee, Member of Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, Member of Finance Committee and Trustee of Con Edison of New York , Consolidated Edison Inc.
4 Irving Place
New York, New York 10003
Vincent A. Calarco
Non Executive Chairman, Chairman of Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee and Member of Audit Committee, Newmont Mining Corp.
6363 South Fiddler's Green Circle
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
L. Frederick Sutherland
Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President, Director, Member of Management Committee and Group Executive of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, ARAMARK Corporation
ARAMARK Tower
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
John F. Killian
Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President, Verizon Communications Inc.
140 West Street
New York, New York 10007
Michael W. Ranger
Senior Managing Director, Diamond Castle Holdings, LLC
280 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
John F. Hennessy III
Chairman Of The Board, Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
11 West 42nd Street
New York, New York 10036-2300
NEW AND FABULOUS INFORMATION FROM The Irvington Tree Preservation Project
Friday, January 15, 2010
Speak Out About Con Ed's Pay Hike Request!
The PSC will decide by March whether to approve one of two increases proposed by Con Ed. The PSC is accepting public comments until Feb. 2.
Consumers can go to the PSC Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and fill out the "PSC comment form" located under the "consumer assistance" file, or they may call the commission toll-free at 1-800-335-2120.
PSC spokeswoman Ann Dalton said public input is "always" part of the equation in determining rate hikes. She said not every increase sought is approved.
Speak Out About Con Ed's Pay Hike Request!
The PSC will decide by March whether to approve one of two increases proposed by Con Ed. The PSC is accepting public comments until Feb. 2.
Consumers can go to the PSC Web site at www.dps.state.ny.us and fill out the "PSC comment form" located under the "consumer assistance" file, or they may call the commission toll-free at 1-800-335-2120.
PSC spokeswoman Ann Dalton said public input is "always" part of the equation in determining rate hikes. She said not every increase sought is approved.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
ACTION REQUIRED-THEY ARE LISTENING WE MUST KEEP THE PRESSURE ON
Email from Paul Feiner:
From: Paul Feiner
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CON ED TREE CLEARING
This past Saturday members of the Town Board met with State Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and the Public Service Commission to discuss the recent tree clearing that took place off of Ridge Road and the surrounding neighborhoods. [video here.] The Senator and PSC also attended a meeting in Pleasantville earlier in the day – and heard similar complaints from residents who felt that Con Ed cut down trees that did not impact the power lines.
The Public Service Commission representative advised about 100 people who attended the meeting that the PSC would investigate specific properties where there was improper or excessive removal of trees. If you provide me with specific complaints (and backup documentation) – I will forward them to the PSC.
Mark Gilliland of the Irvington Tree Preservation Project e-mailed me the following thoughtful recommendations that will be forwarded to NYS Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and the PSC. If you support these recommendations – please advise our State Legislators, Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. You should also reach out to the PSC. Please send me copies of all correspondence. The recommendations that Mark made should be considered a first draft. Your additional thoughts and feedback would be appreciated.
Paul Feiner
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
NYS Public Service Commission
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
5 West Main Street
Elmsford, NY 10523
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Room 415 LOB
Albany, NY 12247
From: Paul Feiner
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:16 PM
Subject: LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CON ED TREE CLEARING
This past Saturday members of the Town Board met with State Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and the Public Service Commission to discuss the recent tree clearing that took place off of Ridge Road and the surrounding neighborhoods. [video here.] The Senator and PSC also attended a meeting in Pleasantville earlier in the day – and heard similar complaints from residents who felt that Con Ed cut down trees that did not impact the power lines.
The Public Service Commission representative advised about 100 people who attended the meeting that the PSC would investigate specific properties where there was improper or excessive removal of trees. If you provide me with specific complaints (and backup documentation) – I will forward them to the PSC.
Mark Gilliland of the Irvington Tree Preservation Project e-mailed me the following thoughtful recommendations that will be forwarded to NYS Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and the PSC. If you support these recommendations – please advise our State Legislators, Senator Andrea Stewart Cousins and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. You should also reach out to the PSC. Please send me copies of all correspondence. The recommendations that Mark made should be considered a first draft. Your additional thoughts and feedback would be appreciated.
Paul Feiner
Garry A. Brown, Chairman
NYS Public Service Commission
3 Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12223
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky
5 West Main Street
Elmsford, NY 10523
Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
Room 415 LOB
Albany, NY 12247
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
NEW AND FABULOUS INFORMATION FROM The Irvington Tree Preservation Project
Check out allthe NEW material gathered by Mark Gilliland of The Irvington Tree Preservation Project.
Irvington Chainsaw Massacre - my article from latest Sierra Club newsletter --> http://irvtrees.blogspot.com/2010/01/irvington-chainsaw-massacre.html
Friends in High Places or Simply Wrong Side of the Tracks? - why is it that those in power often get special treatment? Consider the PSC committee members...
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Meeting with Senator Stewart-Cousins, the Public Service Commission & Town Supervisor Feiner
There was a significant turnout today at our town meeting with Senator Stewart-Cousins, three representatives from the PSC and Our Town Supervisor, Paul Feiner. Several reporters from local newspapers and News 12 were present. Immediately following the meeting, a brief walk-through was also conducted to show some of the most severely affected areas.
The turnout alone showed the community and our lawmakers that Con Edison's recent clear-cutting has affected a tremendous amount of Greenburgh residents, and we are unwilling to let this fade into our memories without changes being made.
Senator Stewart-Cousins made the point that a lack of communication was a large part of the problem. Her interest is to change the federal and state legislation so that something like this cannot occur in the future without due notification and clear, logical, and specific justification. Current federal regulation is also a contributor to the injustice that occurred to our wooded areas along Con Edison's rights-of-way (ROWs).
One of the representatives from the PSC informed us that more aggressive maintenance along rights-of-way is now required by federal legislation (as mandated by FERC) that resulted from the blackout of 2003. Interestingly, he also pointed out that New York State is the only state EXEMPT from these guidelines, due to the fact that it has consistently been a leader in transmission reliability. So why the extreme cutting plan? Didn't NYS earn that status with the trees still standing?
The PSC has stated that Con Edison was not required to file an environmental impact study because it is not a new construction. The rebuttal was that the agreement for this ROW was created almost 100 years ago and does not address the current residential layout of the area.
That being said, Paul Feiner, who was instrumental in bringing together this group of people, asked the PSC to consider making a change in the franchise agreement with the utility, as that agreement was made before most of the adjacent homes were built. He also stated that it is essential for residents to reach out to Con Edison and negotiate to gain reparations (replacement trees seems to be the only way to go).
None of us disagree that ROWs must be maintained. What we all agreed upon is that the recent maintenance was not done respectfully, honestly, and logically. We also maintain that much of what was cut did not need to be cut - the evidence of this is how reliable electrical transmission along these ROWs has always been in the past, in addition to sheer logic.
It was also brought up that there is an area on Sprain Road that is now unsafe in the event of a car accident. There are very limited guard rail systems, and the trees that were there were part of the natural "braking" system at the top of that steep slope were removed in 2007.
There are areas that have completely eroded and sink holes have developed due to the clear-cutting. In addition, trees in that particular area prevented access for local children to the highway.
There was a consensus that loss of privacy is now a huge issue for all residents adjacent to a ROW. This loss of privacy makes many feel exposed and unsafe in their homes.
So what's the big idea? One big idea is that we need to continue to work (with Senator Stewart-Cousins) towards changing legislation in order to protect residents, as well as utility reliability. Another big idea is that each resident affected by the clear-cutting should be dealing directly with Con Edison to negotiate replantings.
A critical outcome of this meeting is that the PSC and our lawmakers are involved. The PSC has agreed to investigate the legitimacy of the recent clear-cutting and - if overcutting was done - hold Con Edison accountable. They stated that they would return to conduct more thorough onsite inspection.
The turnout alone showed the community and our lawmakers that Con Edison's recent clear-cutting has affected a tremendous amount of Greenburgh residents, and we are unwilling to let this fade into our memories without changes being made.
Senator Stewart-Cousins made the point that a lack of communication was a large part of the problem. Her interest is to change the federal and state legislation so that something like this cannot occur in the future without due notification and clear, logical, and specific justification. Current federal regulation is also a contributor to the injustice that occurred to our wooded areas along Con Edison's rights-of-way (ROWs).
One of the representatives from the PSC informed us that more aggressive maintenance along rights-of-way is now required by federal legislation (as mandated by FERC) that resulted from the blackout of 2003. Interestingly, he also pointed out that New York State is the only state EXEMPT from these guidelines, due to the fact that it has consistently been a leader in transmission reliability. So why the extreme cutting plan? Didn't NYS earn that status with the trees still standing?
The PSC has stated that Con Edison was not required to file an environmental impact study because it is not a new construction. The rebuttal was that the agreement for this ROW was created almost 100 years ago and does not address the current residential layout of the area.
That being said, Paul Feiner, who was instrumental in bringing together this group of people, asked the PSC to consider making a change in the franchise agreement with the utility, as that agreement was made before most of the adjacent homes were built. He also stated that it is essential for residents to reach out to Con Edison and negotiate to gain reparations (replacement trees seems to be the only way to go).
None of us disagree that ROWs must be maintained. What we all agreed upon is that the recent maintenance was not done respectfully, honestly, and logically. We also maintain that much of what was cut did not need to be cut - the evidence of this is how reliable electrical transmission along these ROWs has always been in the past, in addition to sheer logic.
It was also brought up that there is an area on Sprain Road that is now unsafe in the event of a car accident. There are very limited guard rail systems, and the trees that were there were part of the natural "braking" system at the top of that steep slope were removed in 2007.
There are areas that have completely eroded and sink holes have developed due to the clear-cutting. In addition, trees in that particular area prevented access for local children to the highway.
There was a consensus that loss of privacy is now a huge issue for all residents adjacent to a ROW. This loss of privacy makes many feel exposed and unsafe in their homes.
So what's the big idea? One big idea is that we need to continue to work (with Senator Stewart-Cousins) towards changing legislation in order to protect residents, as well as utility reliability. Another big idea is that each resident affected by the clear-cutting should be dealing directly with Con Edison to negotiate replantings.
A critical outcome of this meeting is that the PSC and our lawmakers are involved. The PSC has agreed to investigate the legitimacy of the recent clear-cutting and - if overcutting was done - hold Con Edison accountable. They stated that they would return to conduct more thorough onsite inspection.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
PSC WILL JOIN SENATOR COUSINS AND PAUL FEINER
Reminder:
Paul Feiner has organized a meeting with Senator Stewart Cousins, PSC Officials, and other members of the Town Council on Saturday, January 9th at 2pm at Greenburgh Town Hall. After a brief meeting he will show the Senator the properties that have been impacted by the Con Edison tree clearing. Areas on tour will include Remsen Road area in Yonkers, Ardsley Road, Underhill Road, DeerHill Lane, Sprain Road and Ridge Road.
Please make time Saturday afternoon and attend this meeting.
Predatory Tree Harvesting
Warning from our friends at http://irvtrees.blogspot.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
