Are Guidelines updated in Case 10-E-0155 Being Ignored?? PRESS RELEASE

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2011

Are Guidelines updated in Case 10-E-0155 Being Ignored??

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:

Mark Gilliland

GEF LORAX Working Group

c/o Greenburgh Nature Center

99 Dromore Rd Scarsdale, NY 10583

(914) 714-3056

lorax@markg.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NYS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION’S NEW VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES PUT TO THE TEST

Are Guidelines updated in Case 10-E-0155 Being Ignored??

GREENBURGH, NEW YORK – The GEF LORAX Working Group applauds the New York Public Service Commission’s (PSC) re-examination of its 2005 policy and guidelines for vegetation management along high voltage transmission line Rights-of-Way (ROWs). This review, known as Case 10-E-0155, has resulted in updated guidelines, effective July 2011, for management plans of Con Edison, O&R and other transmission utilities statewide. More information about this can be found on the LORAX blog: http://loraxwg.blogspot.com/2011/05/published-order-for-case-10-e-0155.html.

An important element of the new guidelines is the use of what is termed a modified "tiered" vegetation management approach - which states that vegetation which could never grow into the wire protection zone should be left standing in the ROWs, rather than the utility simply undertaking unconstrained clear cutting, thus helping to maintain visual/noise buffers in many instances. The outcome of tiered management should be better vegetation management decisions based upon actual site conditions, not “one-size-fits-all.”

In addition, the new guidelines introduce the notion of “high density” ROWs such as those found throughout Westchester, Rockland and parts of Orange County. These suburban areas with dense populations of homeowners along the ROW will now be required to have special transmission vegetation management plans (TVMPs) defined specifically for them in order to reduce negative environmental and property value impacts.

However, it has come to LORAX’s attention that Con Edison is effectively ignoring these new guidelines. Numerous complaints from homeowners and property owners along the Catskill Aqueduct transmission corridor in Westchester County, previously impacted in 2009 by the clear cutting of all vegetation across the width of the ROW, have been received concerning Con Edison personnel stating that they intend to “complete the cycle” of vegetation management (without further landowner notification) as previously approved until completion of work sometime in 2012. The work outlined involves going back into the ROW and cutting down any re-sprouting trees, thence applying herbicides to the stumps and to other undesirable vegetation which may have emerged. The work will be done across the entire ROW (up to 130 feet on either side of the transmission line) regardless of terrain or vegetative buffer needs of residents. This work cycle will begin in Yonkers and travel up the ROW into northern Westchester. Work will commence in the Sprain Road area soon.

None of the new PSC guideline requirements are being addressed by Con Edison. A field supervisor stated during an on-site meeting with a resident that there was no need to define “high density” plans for this area. Furthermore, there was no intention of saving any re-spouting trees to help restore natural, native buffers to reduce noise and views of the nearby Sprain Parkway.

The GEF LORAX Working Group believes that it is imperative for the PCS to demonstrate a commitment to the new guidelines by having Department of Public Service (DPS) utility regulators work through the pertinent details of the new requirements with Con Edison, and thence ensure Con Edison implements said adjustments to it’s ongoing TVMP immediately, not sometime after 2012.

LORAX has just released an analysis of the 2011 PSC guidelines which outlines “missing” regulations, loopholes, and other areas of procedural concern which should be addressed immediately by the PSC or by the state legislature in order to ensure a better balance of environmental, health and property value concerns with that of provision of safe, reliable electric power. Several of these outlined issues are already being brought to the forefront by the current actions of Con Edison (described above). The LORAX analysis can be found at: http://loraxwg.blogspot.com/2011/06/gef-analysis-of-psc-case-10-e-0155.html.

If you are a resident, landowner or municipal official who is experiencing similar difficulties or have concerns with ongoing transmission line vegetation management, you can submit complaints to the PSC (via phone, fax, website, mail or email):http://www.dps.state.ny.us/complaints.html

CONTACT SHEET FOR OUR NEW ROUND OF LETTER WRITING

MAKE A COMPLAINT WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-GET A COMPLAINT NUMBER

NYS PSC Complaint/Order # 04-E-0822/10-E-0155:

http://www3.dps.state.ny.us/ocs/itgate.nsf/webDPS_Complaint?OpenForm&Seq=4

CONGRESSWOMAN NITA LOWEY

Washington, D.C. Office

2365 Rayburn HOB

Washington, D.C. 20515

202-225-6506

202-225-0546 (fax)

White Plains District Office

222 Mamaroneck Ave., #310

White Plains, NY 10605

914-428-1707

914-328-1505 (fax)

Rockland County

845-639-3485

http://lowey.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=56&sectiontree=56

SENATOR ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS

Albany Office

188 State Street Room 615, Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247

United States

Phone: (518) 455-2585

Fax: (518) 426-6811

District Office

28 Wells Avenue Building 3

Yonkers, NY 10701

United States

Phone: (914) 423-4031

Fax: (914) 423-0979

http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/andrea-stewart-cousins/contact

Email address: scousins@senate.state.ny.us

ASSEMBYMAN ABINANTI

District Office

303 South Broadway

Suite 229

Tarrytown, NY 10591

914-631-1605

Fax: 914-631-1609

District Office Directions

Albany Office

LOB 631

Albany, NY 12248

518-455-5753

abinantit@assembly.state.ny.us

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Thomas-J-Abinanti/contact/

CON ED IS RETURNING TO THE ROW TO "FINISH THE WORK FROM 2009."

Please take a moment to read the brief email tread between me, and Mike Amato-Con Ed.

Sent: Jun 8, 2011 10:53 AM

Subject: RE: sprouts on the ROW

Amy,

I'm glad to hear your positive observations regarding the low-growing shrub habitat and associated wildlife!  That is what we generally want on the corridor. While we do not intend to do any stump grinding, it is our plan to selectively re-cut and treat the taller tree stumps that were left, and any new sprouts growing from them in the next few days in your area.  We are only targeting the incompatible species which can grow tall enough to eventually impact safety & reliability.  Also, if these saplings are allowed to grow taller, they will start to shade out & out-compete the low-growing shrub habitat you observed.       If there is anything specific you want to look at out there, I would be more than happy to do so.  Let me know. 

-Mike  

-----Original Message-----   

Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 8:24 AM 

To: Amato, Michael  

Subject: sprouts on the ROW

Mike, I was visiting with Tom and Kristina Bracken on Saturday, and Tom mentioned that a few weeks before the order was read, you told him that Con Ed was planning to return and grind the stumps of the new growth that is sprouting on the ROW.  The area I am referring to, begins just north of us, on Old Farm Lane, and continues south down Sprain Road to where it crosses over to Deer Hill Lane.  What is growing down there now are elderberry bushes, white japanese wild roses, other low growing vegetation, and intermittently, what looks like black, and honey locus, maybe some cherry. The trees begin at least 5 feet downslope of the aqueduct, and are 5-7 ft in height.  The most cost effective way to mitigate down there is to allow that buffer to reinstate itself.  Two springs have passed now, and there are good things happening down there. The habitat has returned in full force....the low growing shrubs are housing tons of wildlife. I was hoping that this area would be a buffer that could be retained, rather than removed.

The growth is well in the boarderzone, on the far side of the aqueduct, and is beyond and clearance mandate...even Gallent wet of 10.44 ft, referred to in draft 5 of FAC 003-2.  The trees that are coming up begin several feet down slope of the aqueduct roadway.  The wires are at least 50 ft off the ground....within "best Practices" policy..."The point is that wire-border zone technique is a useful tool where it meets management objectives. Whether or not it should be employed depends on the judgement of the qualified vegetation Managers."  The foliage is just about covering the view of the north lane of the Sprain, and by next year it may reach to the other side. We have some hope, Mike.  Although, this vegetation is “undesirable,” order 10-E-0155 gives you freedom to use your own judgement, to allow this vegetation to stay. Maybe we could walk the area together, to talk about it more specifically.  

Most Respectfully, 

Amy M Kupferberg

Mr Amato, and I walked the ROW on Thursday.  He told me that Con Ed had already started, and was making their way throughout the ROW.  The plan is to “selectively” remove every sapling that grew from every stump on the ROW.  They are treating the stumps with herbicide.  They are leaving the grass, and low growing shrubs.
 
*When I asked him about wz/bz clearances...he said Con Ed's TVMP was approved by the PSC, and the clearance in their plan state 130 ft, from the center of the tower, out in both directions. 
 
*When I suggested that this area should be considered a buffer, on an open roadway-his reply was "this is a transmission corridor."
 
*When I asked about notification-he said, “this is cyclical maintenance,” we don't have to notify.
 
*When I asked why cut this all down now, when in a few weeks the Order will take effect, and maybe some of these trees can stay-he said, there is nothing in either order that says we have to stop the work we are doing.
 
*When I asked about the new densely populated plan, he said, I have to write a paragraph by July, 17th, or the 29th.
 
*When I suggested the new order would allow for "undesirables" in the ROW- He said, there was nothing in the order that says that.  Con Ed's TVMP was approved by the PSC, and the plan states.....all undesirables species, in the priority zone, that in their lifetime will compromise the safe and reliable.....
 
*When I asked him, why they didn't do this when the work was done in 2009, or last spring, when it would be less disruptive-He said, they didn't want to treat the stumps, and spread the herbicide all over, while they were dragging the trees when removing them.
 
*When I pressed again about the clearances, he said that I wasn't understanding that those minimum clearances don't take into account a tree at it's full height at maturity. And sometimes you really have to be a lawyer, or an engineer to understand everything.
 
Federal mandate FAC 003 states that a Transmission Owner must create a TVMP, and they must implement the clearances according to the plan they create.  The PSC approved Con Edison’s TVMP.  They approved a plan that use clearances of 130 feet, from the center of the tower out, throughout the entire length of the ROW, with no provisions for highly populated suburban neighborhoods, where abutting property owners, would be adversely impacted.  The most cost effective way to mitigate down there is to allow that buffer to reinstate itself.  Two springs have passed now, and there is a good thing happening down there.
 

 

State's new tree-cutting rules for utilities involve approvals, notice-lohud.com

State's new tree-cutting rules for utilities involve approvals, notice

Laura Incalcaterra

May 20, 2011

One day in November 2009, Amy Kupferberg looked just beyond her Hartsdale backyard and saw hundreds of cut trees lying, she said, "like bodies on a killing field."

She would later count the tree stumps -- 450 in all -- that served as a buffer between her home and a nearby highway.

But her loss was just a fraction of the community's loss, she said, as a vegetation management plan was put into effect by Consolidated Edison along a swath that stretched from Yonkers to Yorktown Heights.

"Tens of thousands of trees were taken down," Kupferberg said.

The situation led Kupferberg, who now lives in Warwick, Orange County, to become active in an effort to change how utility companies approach tree trimming.

So she was pleased to be in Albany on Thursday to listen as the state Public Service Commission approved new rules regarding tree cutting and vegetation removal.

The rules address when and how utility companies tell homeowners about removal done along high-voltage transmission line rights of way. They do not apply to streetside power lines.

Several of the rules, which also require work plans that need approval by the PSC, specifically apply to Con Edison and its subsidiary, Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.

The companies were harshly criticized for removing trees and brush throughout Westchester and Rockland counties, with homeowners and others questioning the companies' strategy of wide-swath cutting instead of just trimming vegetation in utility rights of way.

Allan Drury, a Con Edison spokesman, said the company already had begun providing more information to the public and elected officials regarding vegetation management.

"We'll continue to work with the PSC, the public and elected officials to see where communication can be improved," Drury said.

He also said the company remained committed to its vegetation management efforts.

"We've maintained -- and still maintain -- that vegetation management is very important for providing reliable electric service," Drury said. "No one likes to lose a tree, but it's even worse to lose electric service."

The PSC had adopted stricter tree maintenance rules after the Northeast blackout of 2003.

Since then, an increasing number of people have complained that the tree cutting goes too far, that its impact is not considered in advance and that no replanting occurs.

The new rules require the utilities to detail when and where vegetation will be allowed to remain and to incorporate a management approach that recognizes that the removal of desirable species "is neither required nor preferred."

Mark Gilliland said the approach was a good one, but that the new rules still left much open to the interpretation of the utility company.

Gilliland, chairman of the nonprofit Lorax Working Group, which has worked to change how utilities manage vegetation, said he would prefer to see the public comment on the companies' vegetation management plans before the PSC approved any such plans.

"I don't think it went far enough in terms of public oversight," Gilliland said.

Kupferberg said she was satisfied with the PSC's new rules and appreciated the agency's efforts in addressing the issues.

"It was a long, hard fight to get this much," Kupferberg said. "We got more than Con Ed and O&R wanted to give us. I think the PSC realized the companies could not go unwatched. Their interpretation of the vegetation management plan was totally overkill."

COMMISSION IMPROVES VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RULES

PSC Issues Ruling on CASE 10-E-0155

STATE OF NEW YORK

Public Service Commission

Garry A. Brown, Chairman

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 http://twitter.com/NYSDPS

11041/10-E-0155

COMMISSION IMPROVES VEGETATION MANAGEMENT RULES

— Utilities Required to Improve Public Notification When Maintaining Power Lines —

Albany, NY—5/19/11— The New York State Public Service Commission (Commission) today adopted eight recommendations to improve and clarify utility practices regarding high voltage transmission right-of-way vegetation management practices.

“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. “However, there is a real need to ensure that the public is kept fully informed regarding changes to be made to vegetation surrounding high-voltage power lines in the community. These comprehensive new rules will help significantly improve the notification process and will help avoid problems that have occurred in the past.”

The Commission’s earlier policy regarding right-of-way (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 called for the development and implementation of additional mandatory and enforceable reliability standards for utility ROW maintenance.

The Commission noted that reliability problems are commonly manifested when contact occurs between a tree and a transmission line during, for example, a storm which causes a fault in the transmission circuit which may cause widespread electric system outages. Because of this,effective management of transmission rights-of-way is an essential component of system reliability.

However, 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.

As part of the public review process, more than 200 written comments were received from interested parties and six public statement hearings were conducted throughout the state at which people who would rather comment orally were able to do so. Staff reviewed the written comments and those made at the public statement hearings, and developed for the Commission’s consideration eight recommendations to improve ROW management practices in the State. Staff also sought public comment on the first seven of its recommendations.

Upon review of the comments, the Commission accepted eight recommendations:

1. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall provide individual written notification to all easement encumbered and abutting landowners, local municipal elected officials, and affected state agencies, of cyclic ROW vegetation management work, not more than 180 days nor less than 30 days prior to the commencement of such work.

2. Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall provide in their notification details of the type of vegetation management work to be performed, the physical boundaries of the work, the methods and extent of the proposed work, provisions for cleanup and ROW restoration and the expected dates of commencement and completion.

3. Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall develop, for staff review and acceptance, a section in their Long Range Right of Way Management Plans (Plan) specifically addressing how they will conduct their ROW management work on high density ROW areas.

4. All companies shall submit, for staff review and acceptance, updates to their websites and any printed materials, detailing the rationales and practices governing their ROW management programs.

5. All companies shall establish a direct line of communication between the public and the companies’ vegetation management personnel for questions regarding ROW vegetation management work. Information advising of the opportunity for such communication and how such communication can be accessed shall be made available on the companies’ websites, on all required notifications, and provided by field personnel and contractors upon request.

6. All companies shall develop sections in their Commission approved ROW Management Plans, for staff review and acceptance, to address the circumstances and criteria pursuant to which replanting is warranted.

7. All companies shall develop, if one does not exist or enhance if one does, a section in their plans detailing when and where various types of vegetation will be allowed to remain on a ROW. The section shall incorporate, to the extent possible, a vegetation management approach that recognizes that removal of desirable species is neither required nor preferred. Commensurate training and oversight of field personnel shall also be addressed.

8. The Commission Order containing ROW management requirements issued in Case 04-E-0822 will be appended to this Order.

Staff believes its recommendations appropriately reflect the concerns that have been expressed, are cost-effective and sensitive to environmental, aesthetic and community values, and protect the continued provision of safe and reliable electric service and recommends their adoption.

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).

LORAX Comments on Today's PSC CASE 10-E-0155 Ruling

LORAX Comments on Today's PSC CASE 10-E-0155 Ruling
LORAX is supportive of the goals outlined in the new transmission vegetation management regulations. However, as a public interest environmental lobbying group, we have some specific concerns with the guidelines as announced in today's Press Release. (Note: as the actual text of the Order has not yet been released, we have not seen the commentary by DPS Staff nor the discussion by the Commission itself. This commentary may provide additional insight into the intentions and context of each guideline.)

In general, the guidelines enhance notification requirements, provide for a TVMP complaint escalation process, create a distinction between rural ROWs and urban/suburban ROWs, call for more limited vegetation removals (modifying the original Case 04-E-0822 orders requiring clear-cutting of the entire ROW "to the floor"), and require utilities to describe when and what sort of replant mitigation they will provide along impacted ROWs.

All of this is good news when seen from a high level perspective. However, in most instances, the rules do not provide specific criterial or detailed requirements and are thus open to a possibly wide-ranging interpretation by each utility. Yes, the DPS staff must review and approve these updated TVMP documents, but nowhere is there a requirement for any public review of proposed changes to said TVMPs. Given the public outcry and concern about the appearance of DPS staff / utility cronyism, why shouldn't a public review phase be mandated?

The first new regulation concerning notification, in particular, is more expansive that originally proposed:


Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall provide individual written notification to all easement encumbered and abutting landowners, local municipal elected officials, and affected state agencies, of cyclic ROW vegetation management work, not more than 180 days nor less than 30 days prior to the commencement of such work.


This requires notification not only of properties with ROW easements within them, but of all properties adjacent to ROWs. Good news. There are two weaknesses, herein, however. First, the notification window can be as short as 30 days - ok for individual landowners, but tougher for municipalities to hold public meetings. Secondly, this notification requirement applies specifically only to Con Ed and O&R, rather than to all state transmission utilities.

In regulation #3, special TVMPs for highly population areas are required:


Con Edison and Orange and Rockland shall develop, for staff review and acceptance, a section in their Long Range Right of Way Management Plans (Plan) specifically addressing how they will conduct their ROW management work on high density ROW areas.


Again, the issue here is that no prescriptive detail is provided as to what sort of changes should be made in dealing with high density population areas. Nor is there a specific criteria defining "high density" - which has previously been an issue in O&R territory.

In terms of mitigation, the new rules call out for public documentation about replanting:


All companies shall develop sections in their Commission approved ROW Management Plans, for staff review and acceptance, to address the circumstances and criteria pursuant to which replanting is warranted.


Once again, however, there are no detailed "base" requirements about when and how mitigation is to be performed. Could a utility simply take Con Ed's position that "We don't replant, period." Would this not fulfill the letter of requirement #6 (quoted above)?

So, over all the ruling is a mix blessing. It offers a lot of possibility for relief, but just how much there will be is based upon an ongoing (an not public) process. LORAX believes that there should be more robust (detailed) requirements as well as public oversight based upon the last 7 years of utility rampage along the ROWs in conjunction with the DPS/PCS's avoidance & justification of said actions.
Posted by -mg- at 4:53 PM

JUST IN FROM MARK GILLILAND OF THE LORAX WORKING GROUP

Comments on Draft PSC Recommendations for Changes in TVMP Are Due Feb.
2nd

The NYS Department of Public Service staff has made a series of seven
recommendations for changes in utility transmission vegetation
management programs after reviewing the written input and public
hearing testimony collected around the state during the last year.
Many of the recommended changes are specific to O&R and Con Edison
(due to the excess of problems and issue reported in the NY Metro
region compared to state-wide), while others apply to all NYS PSC-
regulated transmission utilities: Read the detailed in the PSC notice
attached (below) as PDF.

The PSC is inviting comments from the public on these recommendations,
before they hold formal Commission hearings to discuss these
recommendations and make their decisions/findings on Case 10-E-0155.
Comments are due by Feb 2.

The GEF LORAX Working Group strongly urges local property owners,
municipal officials and other elected officials to review these
recommendations and provide feedback directly to the PSC (contact
details within the attached announcement). We believe that the draft
guidelines do not go far enough, ignoring the need for mitigation for
existing problems, and ultimately will prove insufficient to prevent a
recurrence of the same widespread issues experienced previously along
the ROWs in Westchester, Rockland and Orange Counties (and elsewhere
in the state).

Please speak up and ensure your voice continues to be heard in this
important process.

THE PSC PREMININARY RECOMMENDATIONS-

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
(Issued December 31, 2010)
The Commission instituted this proceeding to consider New York State electric utility transmission right-of-way (ROW) management practices. In this proceeding, the Commission sought 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 was sought on the balancing achieved by these utility practices of the concerns of ratepayers, neighboring property owners, the public, and other interested parties. Further, several Public Statement Hearings were held across the state. More than 200 comments were received.
Staff reviewed the comments and developed seven proposed recommendations for consideration by the Commission. These recommendations reflect the concerns expressed by commenters and take into account the Department’s responsibilities in regulating utilities’ ROW management activities such as maintaining the highest degree of electric system safety and reliability for the benefit of New York’s customers while taking cost and environmental impact into account. These recommendations are also intended to ameliorate, to the extent practical, some of the impacts that may be associated with ROW vegetation management. Because the majority of comments came from Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. service territories, Staff proposes some recommendations solely for those utilities, while other recommendations apply to all state regulated utilities.
CASE 10-E-0155

Comments are invited on the following proposed Staff Recommendations:
1. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall provide individual written notification to all abutting and otherwise affected landowners and local municipal elected officials of cyclic ROW vegetation management work, not more than six months nor less than three weeks prior to the commencement of such work.
Discussion: This recommendation is intended to specify who is to be contacted and ensure timely communication with the public. Specifically, this recommendation is intended to provide direct notification to landowners who have a utility easement on their property or to landowners who directly abut a fee owned utility ROW. Flexibility in the time frame is provided to address individual circumstances. For example, where significant land use changes have occurred along the ROW, a utility and landowner may need a longer time period to address issues of concern. In other instances, a shorter notification period may be sufficient to inform landowners of upcoming work. This recommendation is also intended to recognize the importance that local municipal officials play in the chain of communication with their constituents regarding ROW management activities.
2. The notification required in Recommendation 1 shall in detail describe at a minimum the type of work to be performed, including the geographic limits of the work, the type and extent of vegetation management work planned, provisions for cleanup, and expected dates of commencement and completion.
Discussion: This recommendation specifies the minimum information deemed necessary to enable a member of the public or public official to understand the nature and extent of the ROW management work to be performed.
CASE 10-E-0155

3. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. shall develop, for Staff review and approval, a section in their Long Range Right of Way Management Plans (Plan) specifically addressing how they will conduct their ROW management work in high density ROW areas.
Discussion: Each utility has various demographic areas, including those with high and low density populations, through which its transmission ROW passes. Also, each utility possesses ROW that may differ in numerous other respects, including for example, stage of re-growth, width, topography, and right of use resulting from ownership or easement. For the purposes of this requirement, high density ROW includes any individual span that has multiple abutting residential homes along one or both sides of the ROW. This recommendation would require Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. to create sections in their Plans detailing how they will tailor their ROW management work in high density areas. While not overly prescriptive, this requirement provides the utilities with the flexibility necessary to develop and implement effective ROW management while accounting for and ameliorating, to the extent practical, the issues that have arisen due to ROW management work in the past.
4. All companies1
shall submit, for Staff review and approval, updates to their websites and any printed materials detailing the rationale and practices governing their ROW management programs.
Discussion: This recommendation is intended to ensure that the public is adequately informed of the details and reasons for the companies’ transmission ROW management programs.
1 Companies, for the purposes of these recommendations, shall include all State regulated electric utilities
CASE 10-E-0155

5. All companies shall establish a direct line of communication between the public and the companies’ vegetation management personnel for questions regarding ROW vegetation management work. Information advising of the opportunity for such communication and how such communication can be accessed shall be made available on the companies’ website, on all required notifications, and provided by field personnel and contractors upon request.
Discussion: This recommendation addresses commenters’ frequently expressed concern that they were unable to reach and speak with a responsible party while the ROW management activities were going on.
6. All companies shall develop sections in their Plans to address the circumstances and criteria pursuant to which replanting would be warranted.
Discussion: This recommendation requires companies to specify the circumstances where replanting of compatible vegetation is appropriate as part of their routine ROW management activities. It is intended to inform the public of applicable criteria, outlining in a general manner, instances in which a company may or may not replant. This also affords municipalities, who may wish to partner with the utility, the chance to assist with the planning and funding of planting compatible vegetation on a ROW. This recommendation will require each company to formalize its replanting program and how it will determine required funding levels. This requirement is not intended to be a one to one replacement program for vegetation appropriately removed from the ROW, but instead, an acknowledgement that appropriate replanting is a reasonable and necessary part of a utility vegetation management program for electric transmission ROW.
7. Each company shall develop, if one does not exist, a section in its Plan detailing when and where otherwise undesirable vegetation would be allowed to remain on a ROW.
CASE 10-E-0155

Discussion: A number of commenters from downstate questioned why undesirable vegetation (usually trees) would need to be removed from a ROW if the wire elevation above the ground is such that a mature tree could never grow tall enough to reach it. As a practical matter, undesirable vegetation is defined by utility companies as vegetation growing on a ROW that at mature height can reach, either by growing into or if it were to fall, the wire security zone which is also referred to as the priority zone. The rationale for removing only undesirable vegetation is set forth by the utility companies in their respective Plans. However, Staff believes it is important to reemphasize the basic vegetation management principle that vegetation, which will never endanger an overhead electric transmission line even at its mature height, should be retained throughout a ROW. Typically only deep valleys and severe side slopes below the conductors would be places where this vegetation could exist. Each utility will utilize its own expertise to determine when, where, and under what conditions this management practice will be employed.
Interested parties are invited to file their comments by February 2, 2011. Any party wishing to respond or reply to a comment made by another party may do so through reply comments by February 22, 2011. Comments should be submitted electronically to the Secretary at secretary@dps.state.ny.us. Those who cannot file electronically may mail or deliver them to Hon. Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223-1350.
Anyone on the service list or wishing to be added to the service list, may also consent to receive electronic service of all Commission-issued documents. To do so, please e-mail a letter to the Secretary at secretary@dps.state.ny.us with your request. 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 CASE 10-E-0155
electronic service, you will receive paper copies by US Postal Service.
All comments submitted to the Secretary will be posted on the Commission’s web site and become part of the official case record.
JACLYN A. BRILLING
Secretary