After the Storms: The two-storm panel and the state vegetation management task force
In 2011, two massive storms struck Connecticut: Tropical Storm Irene and a historic October snowstorm. Together, they knocked out power to 1,680,000 Connecticut residents. Following these storms, Governor Malloy created a “Two Storm Panel” to evaluate the state’s response to the storms and recommend improvements for future disaster preparation and response. Among the recommendations of the Two Storm Panel’s Final Report was the creation of a task force to further investigate the issue: the State Vegetation Management Task Force (SVMTF).
The Task Force was given the job of developing standards for roadside tree care, management practices and schedules for the utility right-of-way, standards for tree wardens, pruning schedules, and the establishment of right tree/right place standards to ensure that trees planted match the conditions of a certain location.
The Task Force issued its final report in August 2012. The report recognized that the previous system of vegetation management was ineffective, due in large part to underinvestment in tree management and a lack of participation by municipalities. This led to the current situation where utilities serve as de facto tree managers for most towns. However, the utilities’ goal of keeping the lights on in the cheapest way does not always sync with the goal of building a healthy, more storm-resistant roadside forest for the future. Several decades of this arrangement has contributed to a build-up of hazardous trees along streets and power lines. Very few municipalities have a management program that evaluates all town trees and they struggle to obtain adequate funding for implementation of programs beyond removal of identified hazardous trees.
The Task Force made several recommendations. It called for increased efforts to identify and remove trees that present a significant risk due to defects or poor health, for greater investment in roadside forest management, and for expert guidance on tree removal decisions. It also specifically recommended against a rigid, “one-size-fits-all” line clearance standard, and the wholesale removal of existing trees near the lines. However, this type of “one-size-fits-all” clearing standard is precisely what the utility companies proposed after the storms.
Changing the utilities' plans
A 2013 Connecticut law allowed utility companies to perform vegetation management where “necessary to prevent damage to the utility infrastructure” within an eight-foot zone on either side of a power line called the Utility Protection Zone (UPZ). CL&P significantly expanded its use of Enhanced Tree Trimming (ETT), the removal all tall-growing tree species within the UPZ, regardless of tree health, species, or structural integrity. UI developed plans to use ETT on all of the distribution lines in its territory.
In 2013, the Public Utility Regulatory Authority (PURA), the state agency that regulates public utilities, approved CL&P spending $314 million over the next five years and UI spending $100 million over the next eight years to implement these plans. One hundred percent of the cost of removing these trees is passed on to the customers through an increase in their electric rates. In addition, the utilities have not accounted for stump removal or replanting, leaving the burden on the tree owner or town to remove unsightly stumps or plant new replacement tress.
Below: Tree trimming in Branford, courtesy of the Garden Club of New Haven.
In 2014, the state legislature took up the issue and passed several key amendments to the law, expanding and clarifying the rights of private and abutting property owners, and town tree wardens.
PURA finalized approval of the utilities’ Vegetation Management Plans June 2014, adding some procedural restrictions on the utilities, requiring upfront tree evaluation, improving notice practices, allowing for the retention of tall growing trees, and stating explicitly that the utilities should use alternatives to tree removal whenever conditions permit.
A year later, PURA re-evaluated the utilities companies’ Vegetation Management Plans at the request of the state legislature, and delivered the results in a report to the legislature’s Energy and Technology Committee in June 2015. This report concluded that the utilities’ plans meet the requirements of the law and of PURA’s 2014 Decision, and supported their current permit-seeking practices. But PURA neglected to comment on the potential environmental impacts of the programs, and did not seek any additional environmental analysis.