56°
After the latest, greatest storm finally lifted, you could almost see our choice in a shard of light: we can either have reliable electricity or we can have trees.
At this point, I don’t need to read off the scorecard. It is enough to say that between New York and Connecticut, hundreds of thousands were without power for a period of time that, in plenty of cases, stretched upwards of a week.
This is the pre-Halloween snowstorm, but I could just as well be talking about the remnants of Hurricane Irene, which struck two months ago, sending trees and their limbs into transmission lines, leaving many in the dark and postponing the start of school for many. Then again, I could be talking about plenty of other storms or squalls in recent years that have faded us into black and set our blood on temporary boil.
It’s the modern suburban do-si-do:
Storm. Blackout. Complain. Get the power back. Forget.
Rinse. Repeat.
You’ve heard of cycles of violence? This is the cycle of power failure.
Electric companies, under intense pressure to restore power along the grid quickly and prevent reoccurrences, proposed (and in many cases imposed) a plan: they would clear-cut trees. Trees, to their way of thinking (and it’s hard to argue) are the culprits. They lurk above the wires. Unseasonal snow on leaves, a sheath of ice on vulnerable branches or unrelenting gusts of wind, snap off branches and trees and—well, we’re back in black.
The choice, however stark, appears self-evident. We have to clear-cut without apology, perform cold justice on the offenders. Or we need to stop worrying and learn to love the blackout, realizing that electricity loss is going to be as common a part of the local experience as SAT prep.
Trees are, quite obviously, alive and can have adverse reactions to being cut, especially in the wrong way. Give us a bad haircut and we’ll survive. But start hacking at limbs and it might be a different matter. Moreover, there are aesthetic concerns in clear-cutting trees. Consolidated Edison looks at issues of clearance—not beauty. A lumbering behemoth like Consolidated Edison is hardly an ideal steward of the natural world.
No matter, perhaps. We don’t have to cut the trees. But then we have to take the blackouts in better stride.
In the end, if this clown’s parade of storms has taught us anything, it is this: we face a stark choice between clear-cutting and endless bouts of darkness. If there are alternatives, experts are not aware. Are you? If you don’t have a magic bean, which do you choose? Clear-cutting? Or darkness?
________________________
Marek Fuchs is the author of "A Cold-Blooded Business," the true story of a murderer, from Westchester, who almost got away with it. His upcoming book on volunteer firefighting across America, “Local Heroes,” is due out in 2012. He wrote The New York Times' "County Lines" column about life in Westchester for six years and teaches non-fiction writing at Sarah Lawrence College, in Bronxville. He also serves as a volunteer firefighter. You can contact Marek through his website: www.marekfuchs.com or on Twitter: @MarekFuchs.
Comments (18)
Lets face it folks they couldn't even run a gas pipeline down Route 9 without people going into a panic mode. Can you imagine running high voltage underground near these peoples homes? Not going to happen
We can have trees and electricity, don't be silly. Trim the trees near the lines, it isn't that difficult.
I like electricity. It keeps me warm in the winter and cool in the summer. It keeps food fresh and allows me to cook. Of course I choose electricity. What sane person wouldn't?
Silly? Hey, I resemble that accusation. In all seriousness, just "trim the trees near the lines" is easier said than done. After all, the lines are everywhere. So are the trees. And who is going to do the trimming? Are you going to shell out a couple of grand to trim the trees in front of your house? Or will your going-on-broke village? Or will ConEd, in which case we probably shouldn't be using the word trim. In the end, the only thing about this issue that silly is how complex it is. Best, Marek
You can only go abou this starting with NEW construction. There's no way you can retrofit the entire grid...
Every single homeowner and business property would need to $pend a ton to run underground connection from their building to the main service. If you think you'll hear a public outcry about tree trimming wait until you hear the retired, elderly , unemployed and just srapining by houselholds . . .and the politicians... scream about these costs.
Yes, RG of Mayo--or true that, as the kids say. The cost of underground connection is astronomical. The politics of digging up all of creation is a tough one to surmount too. Best, Marek
New construction is a start, but remember that the electricity still comes from overhead lines that will still be in existence for the next hundred years at least. This new construction will be many years in the future with the current economy and housing construction patterns.
I agree: new construction (if there ever is new construction) is a small ball portion of the solution. Best, Marek
With all due respect Mr. Fuchs, it is obvious that you are not well educated on the fine details of this matter. The outages are occurring on the distribution lines. Those are the lower voltage electric lines that run on the streets and in front of our homes. The clear cutting has been occurring on the transmssion lines---the 100 foot tall tower electric lines where the outages HAVE NOT BEEN occurring. It was done under the pretense that in 2003 there was an outage in the northeast that was caused by a tree. If one reviews the reports on the 2003 outage, the problems were much more complex---a tree was the least of the issues. It was caused by a cascade of problems including computuer deficicnecies, lack of staff training, etc. It was a quick fix to blame trees and unnnecessarily clear cut transmisision lines. A tree on a transmssion line did not lead to the black out in the northeast. There were a multitude of issues that contributed. It would be more prudent for the utilities in this area to shift their resources from transmssion line to distribtuion line vegetation mangement---distribution lines where the outages are occurring. And there are also other causes to distriubtion line outages in this area that includes such things as aged infratrucuture (for example, lines and poles 50 plus years old) and lack of routine distribution line maintenance and upgrades. Going forward, all new construction should require underground distribution lines. Because there may be significant cost involved, the utilities such as Con Edison will fight retrofitting exisiting lines underground. In NY the PSC is very weak and will cave into whatever the utilities demand. In the case of Con Edison their stock holders have been reaping dividend benefits for decades from their annual $1 billion net profit, all while the rate payors and consumers suffer. The PSC regulates utiltity profits and that is where that problem stems from. The regulator is too close to the utility. In summary, there were many homeowners in this area who were unnecessarily impacted by flooding, erosion etc. caused by transmssion line clear cutting. The outages are not occurring on the transmisson lines. The outages are occurring on the distribution line and that is what needs to be addressed and regulated.
Well put.
This is really a question of short-term versus long-term cost. We're paying for it already but we're paying for clean-up instead of proactive measures.
In the long-term, the cost of trimming trees has to exceed the cost of burying wire. Those trees won't stop growing. A phased approached for burying wires (even 50-100 years) is the only way I see toward a long-term solution.
And yes, I fully agree that the utilities will fight this HARD. The costs of burying will not do their shareholders any favors. This would have to be forced down their throat. But man, that would feel good to help make that happen.
In 2003, the issue was the bigger transmission lines. But the many storm-induced outages since then has brought the issue of clear-cutting past that. Even villages are getting into the act. Best, Marek
Don't worry about the cost to the consumers, Andrew and Mike will close Indian Point and the costs will go up even more.
The problem with delivering electricity by underground wiring is the COST!! Have you seen the projected cost? I'm talking just the cost to the home owner alone . Several thousand dollars. The cost to the electric company runs into the hundreds of thousands per foot. And who do you think will foot the bill for that, you guessed it, the consumer.
Although Mr Fuchs has some good points in his article he is wrong when he writes "Clear-cutting? Or darkness?". That is indeed NOT the choice. The electric companies using private contractors have been trimming trees over the power lines. Nature has also been doing some trimming. Unfortunately, nature does not do it to our liking. More tree trimming MUST be done. Trees do grow back, the money lost because of these power failures caused by trees is another story.
Lastly, if you live in the suburbs, get a generator, please!. These last two storms should have taught you something.
Yes, Mr. McVetty, generators are an answer...though to a privileged subset of the population. What'll a decent one run you, 6 grand? I'll check for it beneath my mattress, but.... Best, Marek
No, you don't have to spend 6k on a generator unless you are Al Gore and want the whole house powered with every light and appliance running. $700 for a 6KW gasoline generator. If you want to get fancy you spend an additional $ 600 and have an manual electrical transfer switch installed. You might save that much with the first power outage in food loss alone. Not to mention with not freezing to death. Hope that doesn't break your piggy bank or lower the height of your mattress too much.
Burying the wires is the only solution that makes sense. The trees contribute highly to our property values and are, for many of us, a reason we move here. I'd expect to see suits against CL&P if they started clear-cutting.
How can it NOT make sense to start gradually burying wires? The lost revenue alone should make this an option on some streets. And, though the data would back this up better than my assumptions, but I'd suspect that burying a few key streets would cut down on power loss dramatically and enable CL&P to 1) route power to the greatest number of homes and 2) decrease the time it takes to restore power.
Yes, every wire we bury would decrease the time it takes to restore energy. The energy company can't send workers up the poles while the winds are howling, so the process can't help but get off to a slow start. Then the backlog kicks in--and, well, you know the rest. You probably suffered through it. But, again, when we say long-term on the wire burying, you have to understand that it would take pretty much forever. Cost and politics are truly prohibitive to doing it in a meaningful or timely way. With my luck, I'd see the wires finally buried on my street the day they are carting me off to assisted living. Best Wishes, Marek
how about a long term investment plan of underground wires? these outages cost the utility company a lot of money which should be an incentive for them to consider other ideas. I'm sure it's costly to put them in, but start with the streets where there are substations and transformers and then do a few more streets per year. The cost saved on outages and on trimming trees, etc. has to add up eventually plus the goodwill with fewer outages wouldn't hurt.
Hi Ehrmann: That's a great suggestion...in a perfect world. For wire safety in storms (not to mention every day aesthetics) transmission lines should be buried. But politically and practically, it is virtually impossible to pull off. There are so many jurisdictions and property owners and the lines would have to cut through everything from local streets to backyards to parkland that--well, like I said: in a perfect world, that's the solution. In our world? I'm less certain. And that's before touching upon the issue of cost... Best, Marek