BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2556
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 16, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2556 (Allen) - As Amended: May 1, 2012
Policy Committee: UtilitiesVote:9-5
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires every investor-owned electrical utility (IOU)
and every publicly-owned electric utility (POU) to avoid
excessive tree trimming and to notify the public prior to
removing trees. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires IOUs and POUs to avoid excessive tree trimming
unless required by the utility's vegetation management
plan.
2) Prohibits and IOU or POU from removing a tree absent
knowledge that the tree is dead, rotten, or diseased and:
a) removal of the tree is necessary to maintain responsible
fire protection, or
b) there is reasonable possibility the tree may damage a
transmission line or distribution line, or
c) the tree requires such extensive trimming that its
health would be compromised.
3) Requires an IOU or POU, if it determines a tree should
be removed per the above, to:
a) obtain written confirmation by a licensed arborist, and
b) publish legal notification of its intent in a newspaper
of general circulation at least 120 days before the
scheduled removal.
4) Requires each IOU and POU, in performing tree
maintenance or brush removal, to:
a) Provide the affected local government with a copy of the
AB 2556
Page 2
utility's vegetation management plan.
b) Publish the plan on the utility's website.
c) Provide notification to any affected property owners.
5) Stipulates that nothing in the bill is to be construed
to prevent a utility from complying with state or federal
law.
FISCAL EFFECT
The PUC anticipates that the bills restrictions and requirements
regarding tree trimming could lead to more tree-related
incidents on utility property and many more customer complaints
to the commission regarding utilities' tree trimming operations.
Over the last four years, the number of incidents and complaints
requiring the commission's attention averaged eight and 22,
respectively, and eight commission staff are involved in these
activities as part of their duties. Depending on the number of
additional incidents and complaints, if two additional utility
engineers were needed, annual costs would total $230,000.
�Public Utilities Reimbursement Account]
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "In recent years,
controversies have arisen between communities and electrical
utilities over what many perceive to be unnecessary tree
removals and excessive tree trimming? �R]ecently, a
controversy has arisen in multiple areas throughout Sonoma
County where PG&E has decided to virtually remove all trees
underneath a 39-mile stretch of transmission lines. Since
their original public statements, PG&E has retracted and
informed residents that they are only doing inventory and have
yet to determine which trees will be removed. Residents in
these communities estimate that PG&E has scheduled at least
10,000 trees for removal though PG&E has yet to verify the
number despite requests from residents.
"In every area where controversies have occurred, two common
themes have emerged: First, communities argue that the
electrical utility provided insufficient community
notification for scheduled tree removals?Second, communities
argue that the electrical utility has provided conflicting,
inconsistent, or inadequate information justifying the need
for tree removals.
AB 2556
Page 3
To provide more transparency and objectivity to tree removals
as part of an electrical utility's vegetation management plan,
AB 2556 requires utilities to provide an increased level of
notification to communities when trees need to be removed. The
bill also limits tree removal to those trees that pose a
threat to service reliability or public safety or to comply
with other existing state and federal laws.
2)Opposition . The Trinity Public Utility District (TPUD)
believes believes the bill "is an unnecessary,
'one-size-fits-all' approach to dealing with what appears to
be an issue in the Assemblymember's district, rather than a
statewide problem." TPUD indicates that it has not received
complaints of excessive tree trimming from its customer, and
contends that residents of Trinity County "would likely prefer
to err on the side of caution when it comes to preventing
forest fires due to power lines."
San Diego Gas and Electric argues that AB 2556 would establish
significant new impediments to utility action regarding tree
removal, trimming, or brush removal, including requiring four
months advance notification. Southern California Edison and
PG&E are likewise opposed.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081