Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/85417449/Trees-and-Power-Lines
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 01:22:34
Document Index: 800020652

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 25981', '§ 801', 'Art. 1', '§ 19', '§38550', '§ 2101', '§ 2103', '§ 660', '§ 1220', '§ 3346', '§ 384', '§ 536067', '§ 4293', '§ 1256', '§ 37', '§ 4799', '§ 4799', '§ 5096', '§ 75001', '§ 25980', '§ 7', '§ 4325', 'Art. 16', '§ 802', '§ 7', '§ 17', '§ 12', '§ 4117', '§ 3']

Trees and Power Lines | Climate Change Mitigation | Electric Power Transmission
Uploaded by William Most
By William Brock Most 1 and Steven Weissman 2 March 10, 2012
ISSUE BRIEF | March 2012
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Executive Summary Introduction Identification of the Problem Costs of Conflict Between Urban Trees and Power Lines Benefits of the Urban Forest a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 6. 7. Carbon Sequestration Property Value Street Safety Temperature Moderation and Reduction in Energy Consumption Air Quality Water Quality, Stormwater, and Erosion Electric and Magnetic Field Shielding Other General Benefits 1 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 18
History of the Urban Forest in America Summary of California Law Affecting Urban Forests a. b. c. d. e. f. Basic State Law Provisions Power Line Clearances by Utilities California Urban Forestry Act of 1978 Urban Forest Protocols California Solar Shade Control Acts Municipal Tree Ordinances
The Search for Solutions a. b. c. d. e. f. Restating the Problem Solution: Revision of Municipal Tree Ordinances Solution: Cooperation Between Utilities and Local Governments Solution: Tree and Utility Inventories Solution: Tree Replacement or Preemptive Planting by Utilities and Government Solutions: Planning Power Line Placement Around the Urban Forest
Conclusion Appendix A: Legal Authority for Further Municipal Tree Ordinance Provisions * Much thanks to Eli Weissman for his ideas, time, and guidance.
Trees and overhead power lines are not easy damaging it and leaving it open to insect infestation companions in the urban landscape. Cities and their and disease. Such trimming reduces the positive inhabitants plant trees in order to provide safe and benefits of an urban forest and slows its growth. The pleasant pedestrian environments, cool the urban result is a serious conflict between the spatial needs landscape, improve storm water management, provide of a valuable urban forest and the needs of the city’s wildlife habitat, and mitigate electrical infrastructure. climate change. At the same time, Conflicts between trees and electric utilities spend billions Trees and overhead power lines arise for a number of annually on trimming and (often) power lines are not easy reasons, but most fundamentally removing those same trees to trees continue to be planted companions in the urban enhance reliability and public under power lines that will grow safety related to electric service. landscape. Cities and their into the wires overhead. This inhabitants plant trees When trees and power lines share continues despite enormous in order to provide safe space too closely, the result can efforts at public education. The be power outages and fire. Large problem may be that private and pleasant pedestrian trees planted too close to power property owners do not have an environments, cool the lines inevitably require expensive incentive to consider power lines urban landscape, improve trimming or removal. Urban when planting new trees. They forests have the potential to be do not bear the costs of pruning storm water management, useful tools in dealing with climate or tree removal, which are spread provide wildlife habitat, and change mitigation and adaptation, instead among all of the utility’s mitigate climate change. but widespread tree pruning and electrical consumers. Existing removal prevents urban forests city tree ordinances address from fulfilling this potential. many issues, but rarely deal with interactions with power lines – and when they do, In many cities, the vast majority of street trees and they only cover street trees. The complete absence a significant portion of trees on private property are of rules guiding planting decisions on private property located beneath utility lines. Many of those trees require is a substantial gap, considering that trees on private pruning, and about one in ten of those trees have to be residential property comprise nearly half of some major ‘topped.’ Topping involves removing the tree’s crown, California cities’ urban forests.
1.	Revision	of	Municipal	Tree	Ordinances In most of California, there is no law stopping a private property owner from planting a tree of any type directly under power lines, and almost no law that allows a city or utility to remove newly planted, potentially problematic trees. Revising municipal tree ordinances to define tall-growing trees planted under powerlines as ‘nuisance trees’ would allow cities and utilities to replace problem trees with species more appropriate for the location, and possibly shift the cost of replacement to the person who caused the problem. 2.	Cooperation	Between	Utilities	and	Local	Governments:	Utilities and local governments collaborate only minimally on vegetation management. Cities that have developed programs to coordinate with utilities have had great success and can be used as a model. 3.	Tree	and	Utility	Inventories Inventories of trees and utility infrastructure in urban areas could help assess the scope of the problem and allow for targeting of replanting efforts. Additionally, a more precise quantification of the ecosystem service values of urban forests would help local governments and utilities with costbenefit analysis for decisions such as when and where to move power lines underground. 4.	Tree	Replacement	or	Preemptive	Planting	by	Utilities	and	Government Replacement of potentially problematic trees with more appropriate species pays for itself. A utility can recover tree replacement costs in as little as five years and then produce more than $18,000 in pruning savings per thousand trees per year plus savings from fewer power outages and repairs. 5.	Planning	Power	Line	Placement	Around	the	Urban	Forest Cities and utilities planning out the location of new transmission lines should take into account the shape of the urban forest, especially when deciding where to place underground power lines.
Trees and overhead power lines are not easy companions in the urban landscape. Cities and their inhabitants plant trees in order to provide safe and pleasant pedestrian environments, cool the urban landscape, improve storm water management, provide habitat for birds and squirrels, and mitigate climate change. At the same time, local electric utilities spend millions on trimming and (often) removing those same trees to enhance reliability and public safety related to electric service. When trees and power lines share space, the result can be power outages and fire. Large trees planted too close to power lines inevitably require expensive trimming or removal. Urban forests have the potential to be useful tools in dealing with climate change mitigation and adaptation, but widespread tree pruning and removal prevents urban forests from fulfilling this potential. This paper looks at the costs of conflict between California’s urban forests and its electrical infrastructure, and possible solutions to mitigate that conflict. California is a particularly good place to look for solutions to negative interactions between trees and power lines because of the state’s focus on addressing climate change. The last decade in California has seen increasing attention on climate change issues. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established state greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order aims for greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 2000 levels by 2010; 1990 levels by 2020; and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The executive order was followed by AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the first enforceable statewide program to limit greenhouse gas emissions from all major industries. These were followed by SB 97 in 2007 and SB 375 in 2008, which further seek to mitigate the state’s contributions to global climate change. California recognized in its Climate Adaptation Strategy that urban forests can aid in both climate change mitigation and adaptation.3 Urban forests are not merely a sideshow when it comes to addressing climate change. Nearly a quarter of the contiguous United States’ tree canopy cover is found in urban forests, which are made up of more than 74 billion trees.4
California’s growing urban area encompasses about 5% of its land and 94% of its citizens.5 Those urban areas are subject to environmental problems aside from climate change that can be mitigated by a healthy urban forest: 36 of its 58 counties received a failing grade for high ozone levels under EPA standards and 28% of the state’s population live in high threat areas for air pollution and urban heat.6 California’s cities do not come close to American Forests’ recommended average of 25% tree canopy for the dry west.7 Despite the wide ranging benefits of a healthy urban forest, urban forestry is an emerging discipline and is just starting to be recognized for its public benefits.8 Among other purposes, this paper seeks to create a wider recognition of those benefits.
FIGURE 1 . A San Francisco tree is caught among
electrical lines of various kinds. Photo by author.
3. Identification of the Problem
“Trees	grow	up.	This	is	a	law	of	nature.”	9
Conflicts between trees and power lines exist because electricity is conveyed through power lines at high voltages. High voltage electric current can arc out beyond the line if grounded by something like a tree, resulting in the possible interruption of service or ignition of fire even without physical contact.10 Power lines come in two basic types: transmission and distribution. Transmission lines are large lines on bigger utility poles and towers with larger insulators between the pole and wire. They carry large volumes of power from generation facilities to substations in local communities. Distribution lines transmit power down city streets from local substations to specific buildings. Generally, power lines are the highest lines on a utility pole and are insulated from the pole.11 Lower down on a utility pole are telephone and cable television lines, which carry just a few volts and will only cause a problem if direct contact with tree branches rubs the protective layers off of the wire.12 In some large cities like San Francisco, the vast majority of street trees and a significant portion of trees on private property are located beneath utility lines.13 Many of those trees require pruning, and about one in ten of those trees have to be ‘topped.’ Topping involves removing the tree’s crown, damaging it and leaving it open to insect infestation and disease.14 Such trimming reduces the positive benefits of an urban forest and slows its growth. The result is a serious conflict between the spatial needs of a valuable urban forest and the needs of the city’s electrical infrastructure. This problem is not new. At the 1947 National Shade Tree Conference H.O. Drennan of the Carolina Power & Light Company said: This high place of importance given line clearance will be magnified in the future, since the poll also indicated trends toward higher voltages on urban distribution systems— meaning that the continuity of utility service is based on the Arborist’s ability to provide an adequate right-of-way for these wires and conductors to every user, residential, commercial, or industrial. This is a real challenge to the Arborist since every one of the other items can be handled by using utility crews.15 This problem is also not minor. Despite extensive efforts to educate about how to choose tree species and planting sites that minimize conflict with power lines, tall trees continue to be planted below high voltage conductors. In a Phoenix tree inventory, more than 70% of trees counted where planted such that they would need to be removed.16 In Bakersfield, CA, a developer planted 300 redwood trees directly under power lines and declined to move them when it was pointed out that they would inevitably have to be pruned back or removed.17 Furthermore, as climate change causes extreme heat and wind events to increase in frequency, power lines are more likely to contact trees and increase the frequency of greater power outages and fires.18
FIGURE 2 . Diagram of Electrical Power Lines.
Courtesy of PG&E.
4. Costs of Conflict Between Urban Trees and Power Lines
One way to assess the scope of the problem is to look at the costs that are generated when trees and power lines exist in close proximity. The cost of pruning trees away from power lines is enormous. For example, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of four major utilities in California, spends more than $180 million annually to trim trees.19 PG&E’s Vegetation Management Department patrols and assesses pruning needs of every part of its 132,000 miles of line every year.20 This task requires more than 350 foresters and more than 600 tree crews.21 Furthermore, PG&E’s vegetation management budget has grown by about 20% in the last six years and is nearly triple what it was just more than a decade ago.22 The vegetation management process requires the pruning or removal of thousands of trees per day,23 which has a huge effect on the health of the urban forest and returns tons of stored carbon back into the atmosphere.24 Vegetation management also includes the use of tree growth chemical regulators to slow the growth of trees and general herbicides to clear the areas under power lines and around utility poles.25 These chemicals could potentially harm the environment. Failure to sufficiently manage the interface between trees and power lines can have devastating results. It is generally accepted that trees growing into or falling onto power lines are the single largest cause of electric power outages.26 The August 2003 blackout in the American Northeast – one of the most widespread blackouts in history – was caused in part by several transmission lines in Ohio hitting inadequately trimmed trees and going offline.27 That blackout resulted in power outages for 50 million consumers and an economic impact estimated as high as $10 billion. In addition to electrical outages, power lines close to trees cause fires. Power lines are responsible for only about 3% of ignitions in CAL FIRE jurisdiction, but have caused four of the 20 largest fires in California history.28 Fires caused by trees hitting power lines have resulted in settlements in the tens of millions of dollars.29
FIGURE 3. The Undesirable Method Of Tree Pruning
Around Power Lines Called ‘Topping.’ Courtesy of Miller 1997.
5. Benefits of the Urban Forest
In addition to looking at the costs of mismanagement, it is important to look at the value of a healthy urban forest. According to one estimate, a single street tree returns more than $90,000 of direct benefits (not including aesthetic, social and natural) over its lifetime.30 Many of these benefits relate to climate change. Most obviously, carbon sequestration and the reduction in urban energy consumption contribute to the mitigation of global warming. Other classes of benefits can aid with adaptation to climate change and the secondary effects of global warming. Adaptationrelated benefits include temperature moderation, air quality improvement, and storm water effects,31 as well as the necessary role urban forests play in allowing tree populations to migrate as local conditions change due to global warming.32 Carbon	Sequestration The most direct process linking trees to climate change mitigation is carbon sequestration. Global climate change is caused by high levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere trapping heat from the sun. As trees grow, they absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) and release oxygen (O2), turning the carbon into the main substance of their leaves, roots, branches, and trunk. Carbon makes up 45-50% of the dry-weight biomass of trees.33 By this process, the growth of trees in an urban forest can reduce atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and slow the process of global heating. The expansion of urban forests can significantly aid California in meeting its climate change mitigation goals. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020,34 which amounts to a reduction of 173 Mt (million metric tons) per year from the predicted level in 2020.35 Arial photography of California cities has found 242 million empty tree planting sites, which if filled with trees would sequester about 21.78 Mt of carbon dioxide annually.36 This would fulfill 12.6% of the reductions necessary for the state to meet its goal. It is true that carbon dioxide is released through the process of tree planting and maintenance through fuel consumption by vehicles and equipment, but that release is only 2-5% of the emission reductions obtained through sequestration and reduced power plant emissions.37 The carbon sequestration benefits of trees can be lost to decay, mortality, and stress, so it is important to maximize the health of the urban forest.38 Property	Value One U.S. Forest Service estimate suggests that home market values are pushed upward by the presence of trees at rates from 7-20%.39 A similar effect has been found in commercial areas, where businesses on treed streets have been found to have 20% higher income streams than those without trees, perhaps because cool, shady, attractive areas have more of a draw for customers.40 One study showed that in tree-lined commercial districts shoppers report more frequent shopping, longer shopping trips, and willingness to spend 12% more for goods.41 Street	Safety Street trees buffer pedestrians from potentially hazardous traffic and provide spatial definition to the public right-of-way. By creating vertical walls and a defined edge, trees help motorists guide their movement and assess their speed.42 Trees along street curbs have been shown to significantly affect drivers’ perceptions of safety and reduce their driving speed.43 Perhaps for these reasons, there are fewer and less severe crashes on streets with streetscape enhancements.44
Temperature	Moderation	and	Reduction	in	Energy	Consumption Trees are ideal devices to moderate temperatures in cities – they cool urban areas when it is hot, and warm them when it is cold. Cities tend to be warmer than rural areas by 0.5-1.5º C, requiring extra use of power intensive air conditioning during summers.45 Trees can reduce the temperature of urban areas by more than 3.5º C.46 Trees cool their environment in several ways. First, they reduce temperatures by intercepting solar radiation (which conveniently occurs only during warm months; in the winter, deciduous trees are leafless and allow the sun through). The shade effect of trees can even lengthen the lifetime of street pavement by 4060% by reducing the daily expansion and contraction of asphalt, requiring less frequent repair or resurfacing.47
Air	Quality California possesses three of the country’s top four most polluted cities in the categories of short-term particulates, long-term particulates, and ozone, plus the top 11 most polluted counties for ozone.54 Urban forests can mitigate all these problems.
Additionally, trees cool urban areas through the process of evapotranspiration, in which water is brought up through roots and evaporated off of leaves. Just as the evaporation of sweat cools the human body, evapotranspiration cools a tree and the nearby and ozone, plus the top Water	Quality,	Stormwater,	and	environment. A single tree can 11 most polluted counties Erosion transpire approximately 88 gallons for ozone. Urban forests Urbanization increases the of water per day, which provides environment’s impermeable the cooling power of five average can mitigate all these surfaces, creating significant room air conditioners running 20 problems. storm water management hours a day.48 California’s 177 challenges that the urban forest million urban trees are estimated can ameliorate. Trees absorb to save 6,400 GWh in annual electricity use for air conditioning, equivalent to seven the first 30% of most precipitation through their leaf 100 MW power plants.49 A recent paper estimated that systems and up to another 30% of precipitation is planting 100 million trees in residential locations in absorbed into the ground and captured by the roots, the U.S. could save approximately $2 billion dollars in which brings it back into the air through transpiration.61 Studies show that tree canopies intercepting rain in energy costs per year.50 Salt Lake City reduce surface water runoff in a 12-hour, Trees also warm cities when temperatures are low. one-inch rainstorm by about 11.3 million gallons, or Cities primarily cool down by emitting infrared radiation 17%.62 This stormwater retention capacity is of great into the atmosphere at night; trees reduce that heat value. For example, creating stormwater management loss.51 Trees planted in between buildings and cold infrastructure to replace San Diego’s urban forest winter winds can block the wind and provide insulation would cost an estimated $164 million.63 that can help keep the building warm. Electric	and	Magnetic	Field	Shielding The U.S. Forest Service has estimated that wellpositioned trees can reduce energy use in conventional Operation of electric power transmission lines houses by about 20–25% by shading houses in introduces electric and magnetic fields into the urban summer and shielding them from wind in winter.52 This environment. Electric and magnetic fields underneath is particularly important in California, which is likely to overhead transmission lines may be as high as 12 experience significant energy shortages during future kV/m. The health impacts of electric and magnetic fields are not fully understood, but analysis by the heat waves.53 National Academy of Sciences in 1996 suggested that
By reducing urban temperatures tress also reduce the formation of ozone and smog.55 They remove airborne particles by trapping them and by increasing humidity (which washes particulates out of the air).56 Moreover, trees directly absorb air pollutants like ozone, carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and sulfur dioxide.57 Annually, trees in Sacramento County alone remove about 665 tons of ozone and 748 tons of particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers.58 Tree cover in urban areas can help reduce the incidence of respiratory California possesses diseases, which means fewer three of the country’s workdays lost and a lower burden top four most polluted on the health care system.59 Trees can even mask unpleasant odors cities in the categories of associated with city life via direct short-term particulates, absorption or by producing more long-term particulates, agreeable foliar or floral scents.60
residence near power lines was associated with an elevated risk of childhood leukemia.64 Similarly, a 1998 panel of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences concluded that some types of fields should be considered a “possible human carcinogen,”65 but later scientific reviews in 1999 and 2001 used more moderate language.66 Whatever the eventual consensus on the risk of electric and magnetic fields, trees can provide shielding against electrical fields. They are not, however, effective shielding against magnetic fields.67 Electrical field shielding is one of the few benefits of an urban forest that actually arises from the proximity of trees and power lines. Other	General	Benefits There are other, less tangible benefits to living around trees. Hospital patients who have a view of trees heal faster and require less pain-killing drugs than those without such a view.68 Spending time around trees simply can reduce stress,69 and trees can create a distinctive sense of place. Trees can soften and
screen necessary street features such as utility poles, light poles and other needed street furniture.70 The urban forest contributes to a positive image of a community and is viewed as a factor in the quality of life of a city. “Harmony with nature” and “livable built environments” are two of the core values of sustainable development reflected in successfully local development regimes.71 There are even suggestions that tree-filled neighborhoods experience lower levels of domestic violence and crime.72 Trees also provide wildlife shelter,73 glare reduction,74 and noise reduction of upwards of 8-12 dB, when comparing tree-shrub-grass combinations to hard surfaces.75 76 Trees can even make a commute seem shorter – a trip through a treed environment is perceived to take less time than an equivalent trip without trees.77 The urban forest also creates jobs. Preliminary data indicates that total output associated with the urban forestry industry in California was almost $5.4 billion in 2008, the result of nearly 52,000 jobs and associated labor income and tax revenue.78
6. History of the Urban Forest in America
Recognition that an urban forest is a desirable thing in to provide financial and technical assistance to state American cities dates back to the turn of the 19th century. urban foresters, a commitment that was expanded as Prior to that, some cities had no street trees because part of the 1990 Farm Bill.87 More recently, the 2008 insurance companies would not insure houses with Farm Bill tweaked federal involvement in urban forestry trees in front of them.79 Changing values resulted in by requiring each state to complete Statewide Forest 1807 legislation for the Territory of Michigan requiring Resource Assessment and Strategy that delineates tree planting on Detroit squares and boulevards.80 priority urban forest areas and issues.88 As the result Similarly, the commission charged with selecting the of state and federal mandates, California performed Mississippi capital in 1821 recommended that the new forest resource assessments in 1979, 1988, 1996, capital have every other block 2003, and 2010.89 filled with native vegetation or a Currently, tree planting programs grove of trees.81 The first Arbor across the country are sponsored Day was sponsored in 1872 by Recognition that an urban by governments at all levels – local, the Nebraska Board of Agriculture forest is a desirable thing state, and federal. In California, and involved the planting of more 82 CAL FIRE provides grants of up to in American cities dates than a million trees. During the $100,000 for urban tree planting early twentieth century most large back to the turn of the projects through its Green Trees cities and many medium sized 19th century. Prior to that, for the Golden State program90 and communities initiated city forestry some cities had no street smaller grants through the ReLeaf programs to plant and care for Urban Forestry Grant Program.91 street and park trees. Smaller trees because insurance CAL FIRE’s program specifically cities and towns engaged in companies would not declares ineligible any project tree planting projects, but many insure houses with trees in that will eventually conflict with did not establish city forestry overhead or underground utilities.92 programs until Dutch elm disease front of them. In Chicago, the Bureau of Forestry attacked their tree populations in plants up to several thousand trees the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.83 a year along public parkways.93 However, as mass housing The program was so successful became the norm beginning in the 1930s, trees that in 2009 nearly all the available locations had been were removed to accommodate construction and not covered.94 Even more ambitiously, the Conservation replaced. This trend didn’t begin to reverse until the Trees for Nebraska Initiative – a program seeking to late 1960s when home buyers started placing higher plant more than a million trees per year – has partners premiums on wooded parcels.84 Federal investment in among local, state, and federal agencies: local Natural urban forests began in the early 1970s, with federally Resource Districts, the Nebraska Forest Service and funded programs in urban forestry at the Pinchot Department of Agriculture, and the federal USDA Institute of Environmental Forestry Studies and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation and Forest Services.95 Forest Service.85 The Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 197886 authorized the Department of Agriculture
7. Summary of California Law Affecting Urban Forests
Basic	State	Law	Provisions The California Civil Code outlines the most basic elements of the state’s tree law, such as defining who owns a tree96 and how a tree can be bought or sold.97 The Civil Code also provides that if an owner’s tree is wrongfully injured, they are owed three times the actual cost of damage to the tree.98 The penal code classifies harming another’s tree as a misdemeanor, but exempts trimming for the purpose of protecting or maintaining an electric power line.99 In California, a homeowner has a right to cut back encroaching branches and roots from a neighbor’s tree, but as of a 1994 court ruling that right is no longer absolute: the homeowner must consider the health of the tree and act reasonably when pruning.100 The legislature has also expressed its support generally for aggressive tree planting and methods of pruning that promote the health of the trees, requesting that CAL FIRE distribute information about safe pruning methods.101 Power	Line	Clearances	by	Utilities Prior to 1997, utilities were only required to maintain a “reasonable clearance” between power lines and foliage. However, large wildfires and two major blackouts caused by vegetation intersecting electrical lines caused the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to tighten standards under General Order 95. Under Rule 35 of the General Order, utilities must maintain specific minimum clearances of tree branches and vegetation around overhead wires in all areas. Minimum clearances range from 18 inches to 15 feet in most situations, depending on the voltage of the power line, exposure to weather, and fire risk in the surrounding area.102 Utilities are exempted from meeting clearance requirements if they cannot get permission to access the area around a power line to trim. Typically utilities require a right to access power lines as a condition of service to the consumer, and often they possess an easement for the purpose of maintaining the lines. Consumers have strong incentives to allow access: utilities do shut off power if a property owner keeps them out103 and the property owner also faces liability for a fire if they prevent the utility from clearing a hazard.104 Only 1-3% of property owners initially refuse to allow utilities access to trim trees, and the majority of those refusals are resolved through negotiation.105 General Order 95 provides a bare minimum clearance for all areas throughout California for which local fire fighters are responsible. Areas that are outside city boundaries fall within the CalFire or U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction and are more strictly regulated by state law and have minimum clearance requirements for high voltage lines ranging from 4-10 feet, depending on voltage.106 Clearance must be sufficient to prevent vegetation from intersecting the power line considering foreseeable wind velocities, temperatures up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and character of the vegetation.107 Within city boundaries, municipal tree ordinances can require additional clearance of power lines, but typically do not. Utilities are required to keep primary and secondary power lines clear, but the consumer is responsible for maintaining service wires – the power lines that bring electricity from a pole to the individual building.108 Failure to make a power line safe from “all exigencies” can expose a utility to liability for a subsequent fire,109 even if a tree that falls on the power line stands on private property or is outside of the utility’s right of way.110 As a result, many utilities have internal policies that require greater minimum clearances than the General Order, some ranging from 10-25 feet.111 California regulation of power lines interaction with trees is substantially stricter than the rest of the nation – as of 2002, the California Public Utility Commission was the only utility regulatory body in the U.S. to have adopted mandatory clearance requirements.112 In addition to line clearance laws, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires that employees trimming trees near power
lines be qualified and trained properly.113 Further, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requires utilities to have Transmission Vegetation Management Plans addressing vegetation inspections, clearances, qualifications of workers; mitigation plans, and an imminent threat process.114 This standard has been problematic and is currently under revision. The standard requires that vegetation management “ensure” system reliability.115 Since only tree removal and not tree trimming can truly ensure that branches will never intersect power lines, utilities have been more aggressive with their removal activities.116 California	Urban	Forestry	Act	of	1978
The Urban Forestry Act of 1978117 guides the state to create and maintain sustainable urban forests. The act is implemented primarily through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CAL The Urban Forest Project Protocol does make reference FIRE) Urban and Community to negative interactions between Forestry Program, which aims to trees and power lines, but only “develop a regional and statewide spends a few words on the subject. The Urban Forest Project cooperative effort to advance The Protocol recommends planting Protocol does make the development of sustainable only small trees under power lines urban and community forests.”118 and that planters contact utilities reference to negative 127 Under amendments to the Act, a interactions between trees for advice. direct link is drawn between urban California	Solar	Shade	Control	and power lines, but only forestry projects and the mitigation Acts of climate change.119 spends a few words on The California Solar Shade Control the subject. The Protocol Pursuant to the Act, CAL FIRE Act of 1979 was enacted to protect recommends planting only solar panels from encroaching provides technical assistance from seven Urban Forestry Field vegetation that would block small trees under power Specialists and gives out grants access to sunlight.128 It required lines and that planters of between $2,500 and $500,000 that no plant may be placed contact utilities for advice. for innovative urban forestry or allowed to grow such that it or greening projects. Projects shades a solar collector, excepting that can be funded involve tree previously existing plants or their planting, tree inventories, urban forest policy and replacements. The result was that applications to ordinance development, education, or any advances install solar panels in residential homes were often in urban forestry, urban greening, or the management denied because city street trees would need to be of urban natural resources.120 trimmed annually at the city’s expense.129 Propositions 40 and 84121 provide funding for projects under the Act. In the 2009/2010 fiscal year, CAL FIRE issued a total of $5,971,453.86 in grants to groups ranging from Adelante High School to the USFS Center for Urban Forest Research.122 All projects must meet certain standards for nursery tree quality, planting procedure, and minimum maintenance, but the standards do not include any reference to considering the location of utility lines when planting.123 In response to national attention surrounding a case in which two homeowners were criminally prosecuted under the Act for letting their redwood trees cast shade on a neighbor’s solar panels,130 the Legislature amended law through the Solar Shade Control Act of 2009 (Pub. Res. Code §§ 25981-25985). The 2009 Act exempts trees and replacements of trees that were planted prior to the solar panel. Trees are also exempted that are publically owned, protected by ordinance, or required as part of a landscape plan for the purpose of receiving an entitlement. However, the
Urban	Forest	Protocols In 2008, California approved Urban Forest Protocols developed by the non-profit Climate Action Reserve, under which local governments can account for, report, and verify greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with a planned set of tree planting and maintenance activities.124 The goal of the protocols is to allow local governments to obtain offset carbon credits for planting trees in urban settings under AB 32’s cap-and-trade system.125 In February 2010 the Air Resources Board (CARB) rescinded its previous adoption of the first version of the Protocols in order to transition to a regulatory offset compliance system in which the Protocols will be incorporated by reference. CARB’s staff subsequently recommended adoption of a revised version of the Protocols, but the board has yet to formally adopt them.126
Example: Purposes of the San Francisco Urban Forestry Ordinance
(San Francisco Public Works Code, Article 16, § 801)
• Optimizing public benefits of trees, including climate, abatement of air and noise pollution, reduction of soil erosion and runoff, enhancement of the visual environment, and promotion of community pride; • To integrate street planting and maintenance with other urban elements and amenities; • To promote efficient, cost effective management of the City’s urban forest; • To reduce the public hazard, nuisance, and expense occasioned by improper tree selection, planting, and maintenance; • Equitable, sustained, and reliable means of funding urban-forest management; • Enhancing the City’s overall character and sense of place; • Recognizing that trees are an essential part of the City’s aesthetic environment; • Promoting public participation and dialogue about tree removal; • Recognizing that green spaces are vital to San Francisco’s quality of life; • Ensuring that landscaping in sidewalk areas maximizes environmental benefits, protect public safety, and limit conflicts with infrastructure. 2009 Act also increases the potential for legal conflict between trees and solar panels by expanding the definition of solar collectors to include panels installed at ground level. Municipal	Tree	Ordinances Approximately 80% of California cities have municipal tree ordinances.131 There is an enormous diversity among tree ordinances in California. For example, the town of Mill Valley declares redwoods to be “heritage trees,” giving them legal protection, while nearby Sausalito chooses to place a higher value on views, designating the quick growing and tall redwoods as undesirable.132 Some cities regulate all kinds of trees, while others regulate only a single tree (e.g. the city of Thousand Oaks’ tree ordinance only applies to oak trees).133 134 Most cities require that their employees and contractors follow pruning standards and avoid harmful ‘topping’ when trimming trees, but as of 2003 only a small minority required utility companies or private individuals to follow the same standards.135 Tree ordinances cover a variety of topics, including requiring tree planting in new development, dealing with hazardous or nuisance causing trees, protecting desirable trees, and protecting the urban forest during development. In a survey conducted in 2003, most of the responding city officials stated that requiring tree planting in new residential development is the most effective ordinance provision.136 Tree ordinances also often regulate pruning by utility companies, requiring them to observe good arboricultural practices or notify the city before working on trees.137 Many cities’ tree ordinances require permits to plant trees on streets or other publicly owned areas. Some cities require clearance from power lines in their ordinances or implementing regulations.138 While some cities require that a planter consider conflicts with power lines when planting street trees, the authors of this paper do not know of any cities that have a similar requirement for planting on private property.
8. The Search for Solutions
Restating	the	Problem Conflicts between trees and power lines arise for a number of reasons, but most fundamentally trees continue to be planted under power lines that will grow into the wires overhead. This continues despite enormous efforts at public education. Many utilities and cities have extensive ‘Right Tree, Right Place’ education programs that include mass mailing of information to consumers.139 Detailed guidelines exist to help consumers make planting decisions,140 including an extremely impressive and usable online software package called SelecTree produced by the Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute.141 While these programs may have helped somewhat, some members of the vegetation management community believe they have been largely ineffective,142 and major utilities like PG&E have not developed any process for evaluating their effectiveness.143 The general population has a limited sense of how hazardous power lines are and how unsafe it is to have trees near high voltage conductors. Perhaps more importantly, few people recognize the difference between a telephone line and a power line.144 The problem may be that private property owners do not have an incentive to consider power lines when planting new trees. They do not bear the costs of pruning or tree removal, which are spread instead among all of the utility’s electrical consumers. Existing city tree ordinances address many issues, but rarely deal with interactions with power lines – and when they do, they only cover street trees. The complete absence of rules guiding planting decisions on private property is a substantial gap, considering that trees on private residential property comprise nearly half of some major California cities’ urban forests.145 Generally, when cities themselves plant trees they are required to consider utility infrastructure when selecting location and tree type. More than ninety percent of the time, however, it is the developer rather than the city or homeowner who pays for and plants trees in new residential subdivisions.146 Documents more influential than public education guidelines tend to ignore or gloss over negative interactions between trees and power lines. California’s Forest and Rangelands 2010 Strategy Report, while dealing with a number of urban forestry issues, does not address conflict with utilities.147 The state’s Urban Forest Project Protocol does make reference to negative interactions between trees and power lines, but only spends a few words on it, recommending to plant only small trees under power lines and contact utilities for advice.148 Even model tree ordinances do not handle these issues.149 SOLUTION:	Revision	of	Municipal	Tree	Ordinances In most of California, there is no law stopping a private property owner from planting a tree of any type directly under power lines, despite the eventual consequences. There is also almost no law that allows a city or utility to
FIGURE 4. An Example Of ‘Right Tree, Right Place’ Public
Information Material Published By The City Of Riverside.
remove newly planted trees when it is cheap to do so in anticipation of a problem. They typically must wait until the tree is an imminent danger– but by that point it is far more expensive to remove it. However, many cities regulate ‘nuisance trees’, and require that they be trimmed or removed at the owner’s expense. Only one California city was found to have a nuisance tree ordinance that explicitly covers trees that may grow into power lines. The City of Fowler’s municipal code provides that:
private property, is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. Since power lines are presumably the private property of the utility that operates them, this ordinance might authorize the city to remove trees that will grow up to intersect lines.153
Most other cities reviewed with tree nuisance ordinances define a nuisance tree in such a way that it could not be used to deal with power line-tree conflicts before they become expensive. San Francisco, for example, Any tree or shrub growing in a public parking requires that the tree pose “an imminent hazard to strip, public place, or on private property, person or property.”154 Other cities require that the which tree or shrub is endangering, or which nuisance tree endanger the security or usefulness of in any way may endanger, the security or a public sewer, street, public right of way, sidewalk usefulness of any public street, sewer, or or public place.155 If more cities were to model their sidewalk or the full and safe operation of nuisance tree ordinances after Fowler and enforce public utility wires, is hereby declared to them, private property owners be a public nuisance...and would have a much greater the City Superintendent may incentive to not plant trees directly then remove or trim such tree Any tree or shrub growing under power lines or plant shorter and assess the costs thereof in a public parking strip, trees that are less likely to cause against the property.150 public place, or on private problems. This would be of great The advantage of this ordinance, benefit to the efficient and healthy property, which tree or if enforced, is that the costs of growth of the urban forest.156 shrub is endangering, or dealing with a problematic tree are Greater city involvement in urban which in any way may borne by the person most able to forest management on private avoid them – the property owner endanger, the security or land may have some support. As who is most likely to have planted one commenter pointed out: “trees usefulness of any public the tree. As one commenter are large, long-lived organisms in street, sewer, or sidewalk said, “we have laws that forbid urban areas – why wouldn’t the people from maintaining unsafe or the full and safe city regulate that?”157 conditions on their property. We operation of public utility There are other related municipal need legislation that makes it wires, is hereby declared ordinance changes that might unlawful to maintain or cultivate achieve similar goals. Cities could any tree that is hazardous or to be a public nuisance... move citizens towards efficient which may come in contact with tree planting by requiring a permit a power line and grants authority for utilities to remove unsafe trees without fear of to plant trees on private property, just as planting a street lawsuits or reprisals.”151 Others have suggested tree requires a permit. While the city could require that charging private property owners if repeated pruning is the private property owner demonstrate appropriate needed for a certain tree, thus giving them the choice planting plans as a condition for receiving the permit, of keeping the tree or replacing it with a smaller species a system that sets up procedural roadblocks to tree planting would likely be detrimental to the urban forest. that would not require expensive pruning.152 Some cities have tree ordinances that could plausibly be used to remove trees before they become a problem. The City of Lakewood’s code provides that: [A]ny tree or shrub growing wholly on private property but which, because of its physical condition, height, angle or lean, or other factor, is endangering or may in any way endanger the security or usefulness of any public street, sewer or sidewalk, or adjoining SOLUTION:	Cooperation	between	Utilities	and	Local	Governments There is currently minimal direct collaboration between utilities’ vegetation management programs and local governments,158 although such efforts may be increasing.159 Utility/city direct cooperation typically occurs only when a problem arises, while it is local nonprofits that usual address forward-looking concerns.160 The most common form of interaction
involves a local ordinance requiring utilities to obtain a permit to trim within city limits, allowing the city to exercise quality control.161 This regime of minimal cooperation creates significant inefficiencies. For example, often cities patrol their trees and cut branches off of the bottom to keep the streets clear, while utilities separately patrol the same trees and cut branches off of the top to keep lines clear. PG&E reports that it has attempted to combine these activities more than once, without success.162 PG&E’s experience does not mean that efforts at cooperation are futile; other cities, notably Chattanooga, have had better results. Chattanooga hired a utility forester and a vegetation manager, and implemented a cooperative plan with the electrical utility that included: combining use of pruning and removal contractors; coordination of activities between the utility and the Public Works Department such as wood removal; joint arborist training; and GIS data sharing.163 Cities could approach improving cooperation by choosing from a diverse range of actions that include: •	A request that the city manager provide a report to the city council on the possible ways to incorporate utility knowledge and improve cooperation. •	Joint training programs or temporary staff exchanges. •	Periodic meetings between utility and city staff counterparts. •	Requirements that city planning departments incorporate utility knowledge into approval processes.164 •	Allowing contractors and engineers to sit through ‘pre-submittal’ conferences with permit review teams.165 •	Direction to the city manager to negotiate sharing of tree crews with utilities. •	An ordinance requiring that all tree planting meets utility ‘right tree, right place guidelines. SOLUTION:	Tree	and	Utility	Inventories Inventories of trees and utility infrastructure in urban areas could help address conflicts in several ways. First, they could help assess the scope of the problem. For example, while PG&E foresters assess every mile of every line every year to ensure that lines are clear,166
they do not consistently count how many newly planted trees are likely to grow into power lines in the future.167 Understanding the scope of the problem might encourage cities to take action. Second, a more precise quantification of the ecosystem service values of urban forests would help local governments and utilities with cost-benefit analysis for decisions such as when and where to move power lines underground. The non-profit American Forests has pioneered a ‘green data layer’ accessible through a GIS software product called CITYgreen to help local elected officials make decisions that connect nature with growth.168 Third, urban forest inventories are often a necessary prerequisite to a program of planting or of replanting existing problem trees with smaller replacements. Some cities have carried out large scale inventories for this purpose in collaboration with electrical utilities.169 Inventories of urban utility infrastructure would also be helpful for this purpose. A lack of such data in the past has prevented models from taking all tree-planting factors into account when identifying potential planting sites.170 Urban forest inventories are typically of two types: field surveys and remote sensing. Field studies involve either staff, volunteers, or consultants (usually costing about $3-5 per tree) locating trees with GPS and collecting data. Remote sensing involves assessing the urban forest via imagery from a plane or satellite, and can provide a more limited set of data at substantially less cost than field studies. High resolution infrared imagery can provide information on tree crown size and even species,171 and can be used to identify potential planting sites.172 The U.S.D.A. Aerial Photography Field Office acquires and distributes high resolution imagery on a seven-year cycle at no cost. Also, the U.S.G.S. office in Sacramento has very high resolution imagery for many cities and counties in California. Although there is no cost to local governments for use of this imagery, processing and distribution may take more than a year. SOLUTION:	Tree	Replacement	or	Preemptive	Planting	by	Utilities	and	Government One solution to the problem of tall trees interacting with power lines is to remove the trees and replace them with smaller ones or to preemptively plant small trees below power lines when the lines are first installed. Cities often use cultivated varieties of trees that have predictable growth patterns. These cultivars are sold by brand name and are clones of the parent, and so their shape and size can be largely known before
planting.173 Cities and utilities can plant on publiclyowned land or on privately-owned land with the owner’s consent – something that is not hard to get when the city or utility is paying for the planting. SB 427, a 1999 bill in the California Legislature, sought a solution along these lines, but did not make it into law. The bill would have given utilities the power to remove trees that might potentially cause conflict with power lines, but required the utility to plant at least three trees for every inch of diameter of the removed trees.174 SB 427 would have allowed for a utility to recover its costs from consumers, a provision that was grounded in the idea that tree replacement would lead to a morethan-compensating reduction in long-term pruning costs and energy efficiency from shade trees. This proposition holds up in the real world. The review of one 2006 replacement program found that a utility can recover tree replacement costs in as little as five years and then produce more than $18,000 in savings per thousand trees per year from pruning alone, not to mention the savings from fewer power outages and repairs.175 Tree replacement programs can have lasting benefits, as well. In 1960, the Pennsylvania utility company Penelec planted 3,000 compatible tree species under power lines. A survey 25 years
later found 39% of the trees still present and in good condition – and none of them had required pruning since planting!176 Tree replacement and preemptive planning could be a way to reduce conflicts between power lines and trees and grow the urban forest at the same time. An initial source of financial support in California might be the obtained from the $220 million in electrical efficiency grant money funded by AB1890 and disbursed by the CPUC.177 SOLUTION:	Planning	Power	Line	Placement	around	the	Urban	Forest Greater undergrounding of electrical power lines is frequently suggested as a solution to tree-power line conflict.178 Certainly that is the case in some areas, but there are drawbacks as well. Undergrounding power lines can cost in the millions of dollars per mile179 and can delay restoring power in an outage. Even if not undergrounded, best management practices recommend that planning out the location of new transmission lines should take into account the shape of the urban forest.180 This could even include creative ideas like criss-crossing power lines across streets so as to minimize contact with trees.181
Urban trees are infrastructure. In a time when strategies and solutions are badly needed to address climate change mitigation and adaptation, the urban forest becomes increasingly valuable. In order to grow capacity for this important urban infrastructure, all levels of government should look for solutions to minimize conflict between trees and power lines. These solutions may not always be cheap or politically popular, but the myriad positive impacts that trees have on the human existence make action worth the cost.
Appendix A: Legal Authority for Further Municipal Tree Ordinance Provisions
Several of the solutions suggested in this white paper involve instituting or extending municipal tree ordinances. Traditionally, tree ordinances that regulated private trees were based on the police power or the common law of nuisance and applied only to trees that posed a risk such as those that were dead or diseased. If the drafter of a tree ordinance seeks to mitigate conflict between trees and power lines, he or she may need to ground the ordinance on legal authority beyond traditional sources in order to avoid successful legal challenge. Some localities, like Fairfax County, Virginia, have based their ordinance on broader state environmental law. Fairfax County adopted an erosion and sediment control ordinance which it used to support an extensive tree protection program.182 Drafters of tree ordinances must consider four main legal issues that can affect tree conservation efforts on private property: (1) legislative authority; (2) vagueness; (3) takings; and (4) rational nexus.183 such that a person of reasonable intelligence could understand what it means. Courts have historically been supportive of local governments’ authority to set and apply environmental regulatory standards. Still, terms should be defined with as much precision as possible to avoid challenges – terms such as “minimal disturbance to the natural topography,” “protection of the maximum number of mature trees,” and “minimized to the greatest degree possible under the particular circumstances” have been struck down for vagueness.187
Takings The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. 1, § 19 of the California Constitution prohibit the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Unless tree ordinances deprive the owner of all or virtually all of the property value and leave no economically viable use, or prevent an investmentbacked use, they are unlikely to be struck down.188 However, there may be limits to the constitutionality of municipal tree ordinances that require action by private property owners. The Supreme Court held in 1994 that: [t]he city’s goal of...providing for public greenways, [is] laudable, but there are outer limits to how this may be done. ‘A strong public desire to improve the public condition [will not] warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.’189 The	Rational	Nexus	Test Ordinances that require tree replacement or other exactions can be challenged on whether the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the need created by the regulated party’s actions. In order to avoid such challenges, on-site or off-site replacement or in-lieufee requirements should be linked to the number, type, and size of the trees removed. Any funds should be set aside in an exclusive fund and used in a timely manner.190
Legislative	Authority
In addition to the general police power of cities and the law of nuisance, California state law allows any city to adopt ordinances that are necessary to meet local conditions of weather, vegetation, or other fire hazards, even if more restrictive than state statute.184 Furthermore, nearly a quarter of California cities are ‘charter cities’, which gives them greater authority under the California constitution to regulate their own municipal affairs.185 Charter city status may provide more latitude in passing tree ordinances that are founded on local benefits. If the purpose is for something broader like addressing climate change, however, it is likely that court would find that the ordinance is outside of the sphere of ‘municipal affairs.’186 This does not mean that the city cannot pass the ordinance – it just means that the ordinance cannot conflict with state law.
In order to survive a constitutional challenge for “vagueness,” a tree ordinance must be clear enough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 U.C. Berkeley School of Law 2011, Harvard University, A.B. 2005. U.C. Berkeley Lecturer in Residence and Director of the Energy Program at the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment. California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, at pp. 24, 115 – 121. Link. McPherson, Gregory E., Urban Forestry in North America. Renewable Resources Journal, Autumn 2006, at p. 8. Link. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p. 161 . Link. Id. at pp. 4, 161. Link. Id. at p. 176. Link. Id. at p. 111. Link. Statement of Robert W. Bell, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, President of the Utility Arborist Association (California). Quoted in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. Link. The full paragraph is the following: “Electricity seeks the ground. This is a law of physics. It can’t be vetoed or legislated away. Trees grow up. This is a law of nature. You can’t negotiate with nature. The only time a tree stops growing is when it is dead… and there is usually another tree waiting to take its place. Fortunately, from an electric reliability standpoint, trees are pretty easy to kill. Unfortunately, the vegetation manager at a typical utility company faces many man-made obstacles between the teeth of the chainsaw and the trunk of the tree.“ 10 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. April 2004. At p. 59. Link. 11 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. Pp. 137 - 138. 12 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. Pp. 137 - 138. 13 San Francisco Urban Forestry Council & Department of the Environment, Urban Forest Plan. April 2006. At p. 16. Link. 14 Id. 15 Utility Arborist Association Quarterly, 2006 City of Phoenix – Right Tree, Right Place. Fall 2006. Link. 16 Id. 17 Interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Mgmt Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010. 18 See U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. April 2004. At pp. 61, 107. Link. (hot weather creates a greater electrical load because of more demand from air conditioners and exacerbates line sag); Mitchell, Joseph W., Power Lines and Catastrophic Wildland Fire in Southern California. Presented at the Fire & Materials Conference, San Francisco CA, Jan 26, 2009. Link. (probability of ignition from power lines increases during high wind events.) 19 See Los Angeles Times, PG&E phone, mail tactics are illegal, regulators warn. May 4, 2010. 20 Pacific Gas & Electric Website, Tree-Pruning FAQs. Last visited March 26, 2011. http://www.pge.com/myhome/ customerservice/other/treetrimming/faq/ 21 Pacific Gas & Electric, Job Description for Senior Program Manager, Vegetation Management Department. Link. 22 Pacific Gas & Electric Press Release, PG&E’s Vegetation Management Practices Clear The Way For Power Restoration During Storms. December 2, 2005. Link; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 1389 (2002). 23 Id.
24 Nowak, David J.; Stevens, Jack C.; Sisinni, Susan M.; Luley, Christopher J. 2002. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(3): 113-122. Link. 25 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 140. 26 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. Link. (commissioned to support the investigation of the 2003 Northeast blackout.) 27 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. April 2004. At pp. 19, 27, 30, 58. Link. 28 Mitchell, Joseph W., Power Lines and Catastrophic Wildland Fire in Southern California. Presented at the Fire & Materials Conference, San Francisco CA, Jan 26, 2009. Link. 29 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court, 95 Cal.App.4th 1389 (2002) (fire liability settlement required that $28.7 million be spent on public safety programs, tree replacement, contribution to the state general fund, etc.). 30 Burden, Dan. Factsheet: 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees. November, 2008. The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Inc. Link. 31 California Natural Resources Agency, 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, at p. 115. Link. 32 Woodall, C.J.; Nowak, D.J.; Liknes, G.C.; Westfall, J.A. 2010. Assessing the potential for urban trees to facilitate forest tree migration in the eastern United States. Forest Ecology and Managment. 259: 1447-1454. Link. 33 Nowak, David J., Atmospheric Carbon Reduction by Urban Trees. Journal of Environmental Management (1993) 37, 207 – 217. Link. 34 Health & Safety Code §38550. 35 McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Aguaron, E. 2008. Urban Forestry and Climate Change. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Link. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Climate Action Reserve, Urban Forest Project Protocol. Version 1.1, March 10, 2010. Link. 39 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 49; compare with Anderson, L. M.; Cordell, H. K., Residential Property Values Improved by Landscaping with Trees. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 9, Number 3, 1 August 1985 , pp. 162-166(5) (finding that a 3 to 5% increase in the sales prices of-single-family houses in Athens, Georgia, was associated with the presence of trees in their landscaping). 40 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 16. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 41 Wolf, Kathleen L., Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response. Journal of Forestry, Volume 103, Number 8, December 2005 , pp. 396-400(5). 42 Dumbaugh, Eric. Safe Streets, Livable Streets. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 71, No. 3, Summer 2005. 43 Jody Naderi, Byoung Suk Kweon, and Praveen Maghelal. The Street Tree Effect and Driver Safety. Institute of Transportation Engineers Jounral, February 2008. Link. 44 Id. 45 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 45. 46 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 14. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. citing Planning Advisory Service Report Number 446: Tree Conservation Ordinances, Christopher J. Duerksen with Suzanne Richman (American Planning Association & Scenic America, 1993), 12. 47 Burden, Dan. Factsheet: 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees. November, 2008. The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Inc. Link.
48 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 47. 49 McPherson, Gregory E., Urban Forestry in North America. Renewable Resources Journal, Autumn 2006, at p. 9. Link. 50 Braverman, Irus, “Everybody Loves Trees”: Policing American Cities Through Street Trees. 19 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 81, 84 (2008). 51 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 47. 52 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 50. 53 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p.166. Link. 54 American Lung Association. State of the Air, 2010. Pp. 11 - 16. Link. 55 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p.165. Link. 56 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 12. Montgomery
Tree Committee, September 2007. Link.
57 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 79. 58 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p. 165. Link. 59 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 13. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 60 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. Pp. 61, 79. 61 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 13. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 62 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 51. 63 American Forests, Urban Ecosystem Analysis: San Diego, California. July 2003. At p. 3. Link. 64 World Health Organization Fact Sheet No. 205, November 1998. Link. 65 Assessment of health effects from exposure to power-line frequency electric and magnetic fields. Portier CJ and Wolfe MS (eds) NIEHS Working Group Report, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institute of Health, p 523. 66 Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institute of Health. NIH Publication No. 99-4493, May 4, 1999. Link. 67 World Health Organization, “About electromagnetic fields.” Last visited March 2, 2011. http://www.who.int/pehemf/about/WhatisEMF/en/; see also, Electric Power High-Voltage Transmission Lines: Design Options, Cost, and Electric and Magnetic Field Levels, Stoeffel et al., Environmental Assessment Division, Argonne National Laboratory. November 1994. Link.
68 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. Pp.. 5, 54. 69 Id. at p. 54. 70 Burden, Dan. Factsheet: 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees. November, 2008. The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Inc. Link. 71 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 15. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. citing Environmental Law Institute, Lasting Landscapes: Reflections on the Role of Conservation Science in Land Use Planning, (ELI, 2007) 72 Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E. Do trees Strengthen Urban Communities, Reduce Domestic Violence? USDA Forest Service Report R8-FR 56, January 1996.
73 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 50.
74 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 79. 75 Comparing tree-shrub-grass combinations with hard surfaces. Id. at p. 72. 76 Comparing tree-shrub-grass combinations with hard surfaces. Id. at p. 72. 77 Burden, Dan. Factsheet: 22 Benefits of Urban Street Trees. November, 2008. The Walkable and Livable Communities Institute, Inc. Link. 78 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p. 162 . Link. 79 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 3. 80 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 33. 81 Id. 82 Id. at p. 34. 83 Miller, Robert W. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall 1997. P 51. 84 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. P. 34. 85 Grey, Gene W. and Deneke, Frederick J. Urban Forestry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1978. P. 7. 86 16 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2111. 87 16 U.S.C. § 2103a 88 Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923, enacted May 22, 2008. 89 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p. 1 . Link. 90 CALFIRE, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening: Green Trees For The Golden State Grant Program 2010/2011 Request for Proposals. At 2. Link. 91 California ReLeaf, Guidelines & Application, California ReLeaf 2011 Urban Forestry Grant Program. Link. 92 CALFIRE, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening: Green Trees For The Golden State Grant Program 2010/2011 Request for Proposals. At 3. Link. 93 Irus Braverman, “Everybody Loves Trees”: Policing American Cities Through Street Trees, 19 Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F. 81, 85 (2008). 94 Illinois Institute of Technology’s Institute of Design, Chicago’s Urban Forest: Research and Opportunity Identification. Link. At 13 95 High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal, 10 Different Tree Planting Programs Offer Financial Help. January 8, 2009. Link. 96 California Civil Code §§ 660, 833, 834. 97 California Civil Code § 1220. 98 Civil Code § 3346. 99 Penal Code § 384a. 100 Booksa v. Patel, 24 Cal.App.4th 1786. (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). 101 Government Code § 536067. 102 California Public Utilities Commission, General Order 95, Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction. Revised most recently August 20, 2009 in CPUC Decision No. 09-08-029. Link. Some woody stems that meet certain requirements (e.g. tree is hard to climb and not sprouting) are exempt from the 18 inch minimum clearance. 103 Interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011. 104 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Factsheet: Trees & Powerlines. Link.
105 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. At p. 18. Link. 106 Pub. Res. Code § 4293. 107 14 CCR § 1256. 108 Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, SelecTree Website, Overhead Utility Services. Last visited, March 25, 2011. http://selectree.calpoly.edu/utilityTree_cust_equip.html 109 Scally v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 23 Cal.App.3d 806, 815 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972). 110 Beresford v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 45 Cal. 2d 738 (1955); Irelan-Yuba Gold Quartz Mining Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 18 Cal. 2d 557 (1941). 111 PG&E’s Electric Transmission Guideline, Vegetation Management Policy. Effective March 1, 1999. Link. 112 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. At p. 10. Link. 113 8 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 37 - 38 114 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, FAC-003-1: Transmission Vegetation Management Standard. Link. 115 North American Electric Reliability Corporation, FAC-003-1: Transmission Vegetation Management Standard. At R2. Link. 116 Interview with Barbara Clement, Vegetation Management Program, PG&E. January 5, 2010. 117 Pub. Res. Code §§ 4799.06 - 4799.12. 118 State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program website. http://www.fire. ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_urbanforestry.php, last visited March 22, 2011. 119 Pub. Res. Code § 4799.12 (j) (“Authorized assistance may include, but is not limited to, any of the following needs: . . . Funding and other assistance for demonstration projects in urban forestry with special attention given to projects or programs assisting the state in meeting the requirements of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32].”) 120 State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening: Leading Edge Projects Grant Program 2010/2011 Request for Proposals. Link. (grants for projects $30,000 to $500,000); State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program. Forestry & Urban Greening: “Leafing Out” Grant Program 2010/2011 Request for Proposals. Link. (grants for projects $2,500 to $30,000.) 121 The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks,and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40), Pub. Res. Code § 5096.610; the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), Pub. Res. Code §§ 75001 et seq. 122 State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program. Urban Forestry Program 2009/2010 Fiscal Year Grant Awards. Link. 123 State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban Forestry Program. Specifications, available at http://www.ufei.org/Standards&Specs. Tree Standards &
124 Climate Action Reserve, Urban Forest Project Protocol. Version 1.1, March 10, 2010. At p. 2. Link. 125 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Assessment at p. 177 . Link. 126 California Air Resources Board, Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program, Part V, Staff Report and Compliance Offset Protocol. October 28, 2010. At pp. 1-2. Link. 127 Climate Action Reserve, Urban Forest Project Protocol. Version 1.1, March 10, 2010. At p. 51. Link. 128 Pub. Res. Code §§ 25980 – 25986. 129 Dockter, Dave. Integration of the California Solar Act with Urban Forestry. Presentation at the Western Street Tree Management Symposium, January 14, 2010. Link. 130 Vargas v. Superior Court, No. H033570, 2010 WL 1896459 (Cal. App. 6th 2010).
131 Thompson, Richard P. The State of Urban and Community Forestry in California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban & Community Forestry Program Technical Report No. 13. July 2006. At p. 32. Link. 132 Stephenson, Correy E., Tree Law: More Lawyers Weekly USA, November 22, 2004. Link. Complicated and Plentiful Than Many Lawyers Think.
133 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 25. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 134 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 25. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 135 Thompson, Richard P. The State of Urban and Community Forestry in California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban & Community Forestry Program Technical Report No. 13. July 2006. At p. 20. Link. 136 Id. at p. 32. 137 See, e.g., San Luis Obispo, CA: Municipal Code Section 12.24.140; Corte Madera, CA: City Code Section 15.50.040. 138 San Francisco Regulations Implementing Ordinance No. 165-95 (requiring private property owners to maintain tree branches to allow to allow at least three feet of clearance from wires). 139 See, e.g., City of Riverside, http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/elec-treetrimprogram.asp; PG&E, http://www.pge. com/myhome/edusafety/diggingyard/planttrees/. 140 See, e.g., McPherson et al., Tree Guidelines for Coastal Southern California Communities. Western Center for Urban Forest Research and Education. January 2000. Link. 141 Urban Foest Ecosystems Institute, SelecTree Website. http://selectree.calpoly.edu/utilityTree_zones.lasso . Last visited March 26, 2011. 142 Statement of Randall H. Miller, System Forester, PacifiCorp. Quoted in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. At p. 121. Link. 143 Interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Mgmt Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010. 144 Id. 145 Nowak, David J., Compensatory Value of an Urban Forest: an Application of the Tree-Value Formula. Journal of Arboriculture 19(3): May 1993. Link. 146 Thompson, Richard P. The State of Urban and Community Forestry in California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Urban & Community Forestry Program Technical Report No. 13. July 2006. At p. 11. Link. 147 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California’s Forests and Rangelands: 2010 Strategy Report. Link 148 Climate Action Reserve, Urban Forest Project Protocol. Version 1.1, March 10, 2010. At p. 51. Link. 149 See, e.g., International Society of Arboriculture, Guidelines for Developing and Evaluating Tree Ordinances. October 31, 2001. Link; Iowa State University Extension Service, Sample Tree Ordinance. Link. 150 City of Fowler, Municipal Code § 7-1.08. Link. (emphasis added). 151 Statement of Brian Fisher, Strategic Coordinator, BC Hydro and Power Authority. Quoted in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. March 2004. Link. 152 Interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011. 153 City of Lakewood, Municipal Code § 4325.1. 154 San Francisco Municipal Code, Art. 16, § 802 (o). 155 E.g., City of Hayward, Municipal Code § 7-2.60; City of St. Helena, Municipal Code § 17.9; City of La Habra, Municipal Code § 12.20.100A. 156 Other commenters have echoed this suggestion. Interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Management Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010.
157 Interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011. 158 Interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Management Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010. 159 Interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011. 160 Interview with Lynn Cullen. 161 Interview with John Melvin. 162 Interview with Lynn Cullen. 163 Hyde, Gene, A Case Study in Urban Forestry and Electric Power Board Collaboration. Link. 164 Interview with Lynn Cullen. 165 Hyde, Gene, A Case Study in Urban Forestry and Electric Power Board Collaboration. Link. 166 Pacific Gas & Electric Website, Tree-Pruning FAQs. Last visited March 26, 2011. www.pge.com/myhome/ customerservice/other/treetrimming/faq/ 167 Interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Management Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010. 168 American Forests, Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California: Calculating the Value of Nature. July 2003. Link. 169 Utility Arborist Association Quarterly, 2006 City of Phoenix – Right Tree, Right Place. Fall 2006. Link. 170 Wu, C.; Xiao, Q.; McPhereson, E.G.; A Method for Locating Potential Tree-Planting Sites in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Los Angeles, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 65 -76, at p. 68. Link. 171 Xiao, Q., S.L. Ustin, and E.G. McPherson, Using AVIRIS data and multiple-masking techniques to map urban forest trees species. International Journal of Remote Sensing 25(24): 5637-5654. 2004. Link. 172 Wu, C.; Xiao, Q.; McPhereson, E.G.; A Method for Locating Potential Tree-Planting Sites in Urban Areas: A Case Study of Los Angeles, USA. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 7 (2008) 65 -76. Link. 173 Shading Our Cities. Gary Moll & Sara Ebenreck, eds. 1989, American Forestry Association. Pp. 139. 174 SB 427 (Peace). Introduced February 16, 1999; amended in Senate, April 7, 1999. Link. 175 Utility Arborist Association Quarterly, 2006 City of Phoenix – Right Tree, Right Place. Fall 2006. Link. 176 Miller, Robert W. Urban Forestry: Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces. 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall 1997. Pp 389 - 390. 177 CPUC Website, Energy Efficiency Program Funding. Last visited March 28, 2011. www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/ Energy+Efficiency/EE+General+Info/ee_funding.htm 178 E.g., interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011; interview with Lynn Cullen, Vegetation Mgmt Program Manager, PG&E. December 16, 2010. 179 Commonwealth Associates, Feasibility of Undergrounding a Portion of the Miguel-Mission 230 kV #2 Transmission Line Project Proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company. February 26, 2004. Link. 180 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force, Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations. April 2004. At pp. 71, 72 Link. 181 Interview with John Melvin, State Urban Forester at CAL FIRE. January 10, 2011. 182 Shea, Ruthmarie, Whose Tree is it Anyway? A Case of First Impression. 77 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 579, 580 (2000). 183 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p. 7. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 184 Pub. Res. Code § 4117. 185 Cal. Const. art. XI, § 3(a).
186 CEEED v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com.,43 Cal.App.3d 306 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1974) (“Although planning and zoning in the conventional sense have traditionally been deemed municipal affairs, where the ecological and environmental impact of land use affect the people of the entire state, they can no longer remain matters of purely local concern”). 187 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at pp. 8 - 9. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link. 188 See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) 189 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 395 (1994). 190 Nichols, Sandra S., Urban Tree Conservation: a White Paper on Local Ordinance Approaches, at p 10. Montgomery Tree Committee, September 2007. Link.
Documents Similar To Trees and Power Lines
Consult Brazil Counterplan - Emory 2013
Agricultural Waste-15 Khanh Day1 Session5
Analysis of Electric Field Influence on Buildings Under High Voltage Trnsmission Lines[1]
MTECHTIPS COMMODITY MARKET NEWS 3 MTECHTIPS:-Reining in Tourism Emissions
More From William Most