Supreme court action to stop line clearance

playfordtree · 20th March 2008, 02:39 AM

I'm not sure who to side with here.

the council for making a stand on poor pruning.
or,
the tree workers just doing their job.(a difficult & dangerous one at that)

Tree row heads to court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

what do you guys think?

Quintrex · 20th March 2008, 02:58 AM

And so it goes on......................
The electicity supply act seems to override AS4373. This work will continue.
It's a soul destroying job when you want to do the job properly. The guys in the field can't win, councils and the public up them for rough work, power suppliers up them for increased clearances.

This leads to a great turnover of staff in this area of the industry.

playfordtree · 20th March 2008, 03:14 AM

Not wrong Steve.

Seems like your damned if you do, and damned if you dont!

Ekka · 20th March 2008, 04:18 AM

As4373 2007 States:

Quote:

7.3.6 Line clearance (L)
Line clearance is pruning to maintain clearances around overhead services and is an application of reduction pruning (see Clause 7.3.2).

NOTES:
1 Reference should be made to relevant state legislation for line clearance.
2 Formative pruning should be used to establish a suitable framework (see Clause 7.2.5).
3 The amount to be removed should consider the characteristics of the species, growth rate and response to pruning. The potential impact of the pruning on the health, structure and amenity of the tree should be considered.

Fact: ETSA WEBSITE STATES THAT THEY CONFORM TO AS4373.

Source: ETSA Utilities :: Environmental Performance

Quote:

Vegetation Management

ETSA Utilities has legal obligations regarding vegetation clearance in accordance with established statutory principles. Any clearance activity is with a view to ensuring a safe and reliable electricity supply and endeavour to minimise the risks of electric shock, bushfires and power interruptions.

Our intention is always to keep vegetation clearance to a minimum. We work closely with councils and other stakeholders to protect vegetation, while still achieving legislative vegetation clearance requirements. In some instances, cleared areas will be replanted with more appropriate species ý enabling us to maintain levels of electricity supply while preserving the environment.

All staff and contractors are trained by accredited organisations to ensure any vegetation clearance is conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS 4373 (Pruning of Amenity Trees and Environmental Requirements).

Looks the wankers dont have a leg to stand on, I wonder where that great arb org down there helped out? Lucky this time we can name and shame the company, ETSA ... you stink!

TreeSpecialist · 20th March 2008, 07:38 AM

Court orders stop to tree pruning - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Looks official now. The courts have stopped utility tree pruning until next week. Looks like the utility crews will have a holiday.

What you need now is a good storm to knock the power out at the court house when a tree takes out an electric transformer or two.

Here in the states, the Missouri legislature is looking into banning the planting of trees anywhere within the utility's right-of-way. They have had too many outages in recent years due to storms. And no one seems to be terribly opposed to the idea.

Treelore · 21st March 2008, 09:14 AM

Fair call too. I think education and management is best in this situation. Councils were dumb enough to plant these trees under powerlines in these cases but that doesn't mean that powerline companies have the right to lose sight of arboricultural practice. ETSA maintains it has nothing to fear.. be interesting to see who patrols their work to decide if their practices are not up to scratch. Maybe let Treenet have the job?? decide once and for all

Ekka · 22nd March 2008, 02:16 AM

You know what could be going on here is that the pruning is correct and rather than topping the target pruning is taking a lot more tree away and also leading to those valleyed out trees we all see too often.

So in fact to the untrained eye it is likely that pruning is being done right, but then you'd have to say where's the evidence it is not and who said it is not, councils do have arborists.

I haven't seen pictures it is not done right yet.

They also have some regulatory office.

Source: Messenger Community Newspapers Local News Adelaide South Australia

Quote:

The Office of the Technical Regulator is reviewing ETSA's pruning practices in metropolitan Adelaide.

playfordtree · 26th March 2008, 06:48 PM

Here's the latest.

Tree pruning fight could go to trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

bigshea13 · 26th March 2008, 08:28 PM

yeah...its a never ending battle.
it all boils down to cost. usually the companies have to place a bid to do the work. the faster they get it done the more money they make. the utilities want hire the companies that bid the lowest.{i think it would improve the work if they use the middle bidder}
the higher the quality of work the higher the cost. the utilities pick up the tab at first but it eventually trickles down to the consumers{who hate the high costs and the poor trimming.}\
training a tree early is the second best way to help the problem. the first is not to plant em under or near the lines. but in some cases the home owner may not own enough land to put the tree a safe distance away{if they want a tree they should be able to have one}
its a bad deal all the way around. ive seen entire housing complexes with their feeders in duct banks. underground is much more pleasing to the eye nad far easier to maintain. its just that it would cost a fortune to change it all over. and id be out of a job in that line of work.

Ekka · 26th March 2008, 10:24 PM

I hope it goes to court, why?

Because it will....

Set a precedence.

It will push the Standard's limits plus it's viability.

Plus everything is solved by courts not peoples opinions, organisations ideals or corporate greed.

However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council.

I might email ETSA that, counter sue.

playfordtree · 26th March 2008, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ekka

However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council.

I might email ETSA that, counter sue.

.....now your starting to sound like a lawyer.

Ekka · 27th March 2008, 12:38 AM

I did it, I emailed them with a link to the post and encouraged a good fight and they should countersue the tree owners for the ongoing costs of maintenance due to their neglegent planting.

Furthermore they may even throw onto the slab any pruning/tree clearing injuries and deaths ... they might be able to trace that back to the lack of duty of care for the people who planted the trees in the first place.

GO FOR IT ETSA, you got more money anyway, and we all know the best lawyer wins at the end of the day, especially when the judge is on the take.

George Hayduke · 27th March 2008, 07:12 AM

Underground utilities are VERY expensive to install and VERY expensive to maintain too. In the long run it costs consumers more to have lines underground. Deciding if that is 'worth it' isn't the discussion...just costs.

TreeSpecialist · 27th March 2008, 07:47 AM

George is right.

Undergrounding utilities seems to be a good answer, but it isn't.

I sat on a tree commission studying this very topic about 1 year ago.

Undergrounding utilities :
1) Cost 300 times as much as aerial wires
2) never pays for itself over its lifetime (50 years or so)
3) would cost each homeowner $5 - 7,000 dollars to connect up to it
4) would cut most of the roots of the trees it was meant to save necessitating their ultimate removal.
5) are extremely difficult to trouble shoot when a circuit goes down.

The cost to replace the aerial electrical service in Austin Texas last year was estimated to cost $3 billion and would take the better part of 25 years (and time alone would drive up the cost to even more.)

bigshea13 · 27th March 2008, 08:39 PM

that may be a little on the wild side as far as stats for the costs and longevity of the systems but it is a little more difficult to troubleshoot due to the fact that you cant physicall look at the conductors to verify a{break, burn, or other prob you can see visually with an overhead.\
as far as hook up costs...they would be about the same as a modern underground service entrance. the only difference would be that the utility guys would now use a ladder to get into a chamber to make the splices rather than use a bucket to do it. the costs are give and take in both directions. underground would require little maintainance as far as vegetation, pole replacement, damage caused by man or nature but they would require oversized conductors to reduce the I2R {heat}loss and they would have to be copper to reduce the corrosion.
hard to say really. you make endless arguements on both sides. it all boils down to cost. somebody is going to eat the bill and i ll bet you my life savings that in the end its going to be the customers.

TreeHumper · 28th March 2008, 07:58 AM

Of course the customer will end up paying for it. Otherwise everyone pays for it through government subsidy.

There are problems on multiple levels that lead to this situation. Start with minimal intrusion on private property for ROWs. From a real estate value perspective ROWs are considered detrimental. The utilities are then located on the same ROW that the city has for planting street trees. There is no communication between them and those that actually do the job are paid to complete the work within an alotted time. No thought given to the

20th March 2008, 02:39 AM	#1 (permalink)
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Adelaide Australia Posts: 337	Supreme court action to stop line clearance I'm not sure who to side with here. the council for making a stand on poor pruning. or, the tree workers just doing their job.(a difficult & dangerous one at that) Tree row heads to court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) what do you guys think? __________________ I Drink Therefore I am.

20th March 2008, 02:58 AM	#2 (permalink)
Quintrex Mature tree Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 439	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance And so it goes on...................... The electicity supply act seems to override AS4373. This work will continue. It's a soul destroying job when you want to do the job properly. The guys in the field can't win, councils and the public up them for rough work, power suppliers up them for increased clearances. This leads to a great turnover of staff in this area of the industry. __________________ Heightmaster

20th March 2008, 03:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Adelaide Australia Posts: 337	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Not wrong Steve. Seems like your damned if you do, and damned if you dont! __________________ I Drink Therefore I am.

20th March 2008, 07:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
TreeSpecialist Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 121	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Court orders stop to tree pruning - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Looks official now. The courts have stopped utility tree pruning until next week. Looks like the utility crews will have a holiday. What you need now is a good storm to knock the power out at the court house when a tree takes out an electric transformer or two. Here in the states, the Missouri legislature is looking into banning the planting of trees anywhere within the utility's right-of-way. They have had too many outages in recent years due to storms. And no one seems to be terribly opposed to the idea.

21st March 2008, 09:14 AM	#6 (permalink)
Treelore Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Brisbane Posts: 115	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Fair call too. I think education and management is best in this situation. Councils were dumb enough to plant these trees under powerlines in these cases but that doesn't mean that powerline companies have the right to lose sight of arboricultural practice. ETSA maintains it has nothing to fear.. be interesting to see who patrols their work to decide if their practices are not up to scratch. Maybe let Treenet have the job?? decide once and for all

26th March 2008, 06:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
playfordtree Mature tree Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Adelaide Australia Posts: 337	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Here's the latest. Tree pruning fight could go to trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) __________________ I Drink Therefore I am.

26th March 2008, 08:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
bigshea13 Mature tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: hiding Posts: 386	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance yeah...its a never ending battle. it all boils down to cost. usually the companies have to place a bid to do the work. the faster they get it done the more money they make. the utilities want hire the companies that bid the lowest.{i think it would improve the work if they use the middle bidder} the higher the quality of work the higher the cost. the utilities pick up the tab at first but it eventually trickles down to the consumers{who hate the high costs and the poor trimming.}\ training a tree early is the second best way to help the problem. the first is not to plant em under or near the lines. but in some cases the home owner may not own enough land to put the tree a safe distance away{if they want a tree they should be able to have one} its a bad deal all the way around. ive seen entire housing complexes with their feeders in duct banks. underground is much more pleasing to the eye nad far easier to maintain. its just that it would cost a fortune to change it all over. and id be out of a job in that line of work.

26th March 2008, 10:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,846	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance I hope it goes to court, why? Because it will.... Set a precedence. It will push the Standard's limits plus it's viability. Plus everything is solved by courts not peoples opinions, organisations ideals or corporate greed. However it would be funny if there was a counter claim for the costs of trimming inappropriately planted vegetation by people who are responsible ... the council. I might email ETSA that, counter sue. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

27th March 2008, 12:38 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ekka Eric Frei Administrator - Brisbane L5 (Dip) Hort Cert III Arb + some Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 6,846	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance I did it, I emailed them with a link to the post and encouraged a good fight and they should countersue the tree owners for the ongoing costs of maintenance due to their neglegent planting. Furthermore they may even throw onto the slab any pruning/tree clearing injuries and deaths ... they might be able to trace that back to the lack of duty of care for the people who planted the trees in the first place. GO FOR IT ETSA, you got more money anyway, and we all know the best lawyer wins at the end of the day, especially when the judge is on the take. __________________ Remember to use the "search" function, if you have answers/questions post them so everyone can benefit. Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports Forum Sponsors

27th March 2008, 07:12 AM	#13 (permalink)
George Hayduke Banned Join Date: May 2007 Location: Slickrock, USA Posts: 93	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance Underground utilities are VERY expensive to install and VERY expensive to maintain too. In the long run it costs consumers more to have lines underground. Deciding if that is 'worth it' isn't the discussion...just costs.

27th March 2008, 07:47 AM	#14 (permalink)
TreeSpecialist Semi-mature vigorous tree Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 121	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance George is right. Undergrounding utilities seems to be a good answer, but it isn't. I sat on a tree commission studying this very topic about 1 year ago. Undergrounding utilities : 1) Cost 300 times as much as aerial wires 2) never pays for itself over its lifetime (50 years or so) 3) would cost each homeowner $5 - 7,000 dollars to connect up to it 4) would cut most of the roots of the trees it was meant to save necessitating their ultimate removal. 5) are extremely difficult to trouble shoot when a circuit goes down. The cost to replace the aerial electrical service in Austin Texas last year was estimated to cost $3 billion and would take the better part of 25 years (and time alone would drive up the cost to even more.)

27th March 2008, 08:39 PM	#15 (permalink)
bigshea13 Mature tree Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: hiding Posts: 386	Re: Supreme court action to stop line clearance that may be a little on the wild side as far as stats for the costs and longevity of the systems but it is a little more difficult to troubleshoot due to the fact that you cant physicall look at the conductors to verify a{break, burn, or other prob you can see visually with an overhead.\ as far as hook up costs...they would be about the same as a modern underground service entrance. the only difference would be that the utility guys would now use a ladder to get into a chamber to make the splices rather than use a bucket to do it. the costs are give and take in both directions. underground would require little maintainance as far as vegetation, pole replacement, damage caused by man or nature but they would require oversized conductors to reduce the I2R {heat}loss and they would have to be copper to reduce the corrosion. hard to say really. you make endless arguements on both sides. it all boils down to cost. somebody is going to eat the bill and i ll bet you my life savings that in the end its going to be the customers.