ATTACHMENT 6
Cal Horton, Manager April 15, 2002
Town of Chapel Hill
305 N. Columbia St
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Subject: Response to Town Council Meeting Petitions– March 25, 2002
Dear Cal,
The following is a response to petitions and comments made by citizens Kyle Cattani and Joe Capowski at the March 25 Council meeting. We have summarized the petitioner’s comments/requests in regular type. Duke’s response is in bold type. As introduction, we have provided a summary statement which clarifies the relationship of Duke Power, as a regulated utility, and the Town.
Summary: Duke Power provides electric service to Chapel Hill via NC General Statute and by regulation of the NC Utilities Commission. Duke designs, installs, operates, and maintains electrical facilities at or above National Electric Safety Code standards. Duke’s design standards take into consideration and seek to balance safety, reliability, environmental impact, and cost. Due to safety, reliability, and cost issues, most backbone feeders are installed overhead. Upon entrance into commercial or residential developments, safety, reliability, environmental, and cost considerations are such that facilities can normally be directly buried. Duke has a longstanding record of providing safe, reliable, reasonably priced electric service. We believe our design standards are a key factor in this fact.
Cattani Petition
Cattani background summary statements:
1) Most utilities in town are underground. It reduces clutter, looks better. The reality of providing electric service requires consideration of several factors in addition to visual impact. They include: 1) the safety of constructing, operating, and maintaining distribution facilities; 2) the ability to maintain a reliable level of service (minimizing the frequency and duration of outages); 3) the environmental impact of facilities; and 4) installing facilities in a cost effective manner. Our design standards have been developed to address these factors. As additional information, more recently, the largest majority of facilities expansion is installed underground. As a result of this, it is estimated that the ratio of underground to all Duke distribution facilities in Chapel Hill now exceeds 50%.
2) Developers are not required to place three phase backbone feeders underground, although it is done in some large developments (Meadowmont cited). Duke's Service Regulations approved by the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) provide that transmission, distribution and service facilities will be installed above ground on poles, towers or other fixtures. Generally, the standard rates for electric service reflect the cost of overhead service. Duke Service Regulations also provide that Duke will install underground service under the provisions of the Underground Distribution Installation Plan (Plan) which is also approved by the NCUC. The requesting party is responsible for the costs of underground installations, unless otherwise provided for under this Plan. It should be noted that N.C.G.S. 62-140 prohibits Duke, as a public utility, from granting unreasonable preference or advantage to any person. Consequently, Duke can not construct facilities in a fashion that favors one customer over another nor one town over another.
3) Because it is not required, developers can run them through neighboring properties…can disfigure neighboring properties to serve their development. Developers provide Duke their anticipated electrical needs to serve the proposed development. Duke determines the most appropriate route to serve those needs by considering 1) existing facilities and capacity in and around the proposed development; 2) anticipated growth near the proposed project; 3) existing easements; 4) and environmental impact.
4) The easement behind their property was neglected, returned to forest. We generally conduct routine right of way maintenance on a four to seven year maintenance cycle, depending on weather related growth patterns (several rainy seasons bring faster plant growth). Consequently, between maintenance cycles, the easement has seen much plant growth. As additional information, and as stated in our March 11 response to the Town, historically Duke clear cut many rights of way, but over the years we began leaving some trees and limbs that we would have previously removed in an effort to minimize the impact on property owners. Our more recent experience indicates that we need improved clearance to provide an appropriate level of service reliability. Consequently, in 2001, the decision was made to provide improved clearance within our easements.
5) The easement was clear cut and sprayed with herbicide, unhealthy for their young children. See above. Also, as stated in our March 11 response, a computer blended mixture of 1/2 % Imazapyr and 4% Glyphosate herbicides were applied to foliage in July of 2001 after right-of -way maintenance was performed the previous year. The amount of 4 1/2 % herbicide blend used on the Cattani property would have been in the range of one to two quarts total or 1.44 to 2.88 ounces of herbicide, the remainder of the mixture is water. This mixture is most effective at inhibiting the process of photosynthesis in plant life but is at such a diluted level it is essentially nontoxic and deemed safe when applied as directed. Duke has taken great care to ensure that the herbicides we use and apply have no impact on animals or people. Under an agreement with the NC Pesticide Board, Duke utilizes approved herbicides within utility easements. The purpose for applying this solution is to remove non-compatible woody plants (for example, oaks, maples) within the right of way and allow species compatible with utility facilities to thrive (for example dogwoods, redbuds). Within a couple years, the easement becomes grassy and brushy. Spot spraying at that point eliminates the future growth of non-compatible hardwoods, thus eliminating the need for significant tree work and reducing the possible need for mechanical brush mowing (brush mowing can be damaging to wildlife as well). Additionally, Duke agreed to educate customers over a five year period about our vegetation management program including herbicides through annual bill inserts. Customers have the option to NOT have the herbicide applied to the easement on their property by providing notification to Duke. The Cattanis may elect to be a no spray customer if they do not want herbicides used on their property.
6) Both Duke and Carol Woods deemed it infeasible to bury the lines in the Cattani’s back yard. While we cannot speak for Carol Woods, our decision to build the facilities as we did was based on the following: 1) utilizing the existing easement would minimize the environmental impact of cutting a new 30 foot easement along Sunrise; 2) converting the backbone along Sunrise as underground would cost an additional $30,000 to $45,000 (such underground designs tend to limit future design options and increase costs for any future improvements to that portion of the electrical system). However, we have offered to relocate the section along the back of the Cattani’s property from overhead to underground for $25,000 to $40,000.
7) The issue is financial, not technical. We believe there are technical and financial factors which must be considered with any change in electrical facilities.
Cattani requests:
1) All electrical utilities, including three phase utilities, be placed underground and that the new Development Ordinance include such language. The cost implications of such a policy would be significant. The reason three phase lines are not placed underground is primarily due to the amount of electrical current they carry and the number of customers they serve. Consequently, we need to protect them from potential damage. In those cases where three phase lines are placed underground, they are typically placed in an arrangement of conduits within a concrete encased duct bank system. This type of construction, along with the associated surface mounted electrical switching and protective equipment results in the cost of construction 10 to 15 times the cost to install the same facilities overhead. The transition structures (e.g. switching cabinets) associated with converting overhead facilities to underground facilities are also a major consideration as they are often of substantial size and as visible as the existing facilities which they are replacing. This makes such a design cost prohibitive for most customers. Upon entrance onto a customer’s property we directly bury the conductors (they are not encased in a conduit or duct bank) due to the fact that any damages and subsequent outages affect that customer alone, not other customers along our distribution system. (Due to the fact that this section is located near the end of the circuit, we have offered to convert the section across the Cattani property by directly burying facilities with a 5' horizontal separation of trenches at the cost of $28,000.)
2) Occupancy permits for Carol Woods be withheld until they address the unintended ancillary damages to the Cattani’s property. We believe this request is unjustified and unreasonable.
Capowski Petition
Capowski background summary statements:
1) States technical arguments in Gardner response are fallacious. We disagree with this statement.
2) Electricity can be delivered at any voltage with one, two, or three phases. We agree with this statement provided that the voltage is one approved by the NCUC, is compatible with equipment utilized to serve the electrical load, and is provided with facilities that are safe, reliable, reduce environmental impact, and are within reasonable costs.
3) Danger comes from voltage, not the number of phases. We disagree with the technical accuracy of this statement. Increasing the number of phases, from one to three phases, both increases the operating voltage of the electric distribution line and increases the need for additional mechanical and electrical construction, operation, and maintenance considerations.
4) Questions how Duke can bury on one side of dip pole and not other. This was explained in Cattani request #1 response above.
5) Alleges Duke will distribute via least cost design. Will only do what government, at any level, requires them to do. Again, the reality of providing electric service requires consideration of several factors in addition to visual impact. They include: 1) the safety of constructing, operating, and maintaining distribution facilities; 2) the ability to maintain a reliable level of service (minimizing the frequency and duration of outages); 3) the environmental impact of facilities; and 4) doing so in a cost effective manner. Our design standards have been developed to address these factors.
6) Proposed Development Ordinance does not provide for any changes to existing, which does not require backbone feeders to be placed underground. We agree with this statement based on review of the Fall 2001 version of the Proposed Development Ordinance. We have not seen a later version, if one exists.
7) Duke Power has been largest visual polluter for 20 years. We disagree with this assertion. In the assessment of what one gets for what one pays for, we believe electrical distribution facilities, when installed safely, reliably, with minimal environmental impact, and at reasonable cost, offer a true value to customers and communities.
Requests:
1) Town should employ, on as-needed, contractual basis, an individual with competence in electrical systems who could advise council on development matters where utilities lines are impacted. This is certainly the Town’s prerogative. As stated earlier, the NCUC requires that we design our facilities to meet NESC standards. Additionally, such a proposed process may delay the timely design and installation of facilities and will result in additional cost to the requesting party for any associated expenses.
2) New Development Ordinance be amended to reflect the technical and economic realities of electrical distribution systems. We agree that language regarding the technical and economic realities of electric distribution systems would be helpful to readers of the development ordinance and, as electric service provider for Chapel Hill, would welcome the opportunity to help develop that language.
3) The paragraph in the new Development Ordinance that deals with electrical distribution systems be submitted to the Technology committee for review and suggestions. We see no value in subjecting our designs to review by a town technology committee for review. Our designs are in accordance Duke standards that meet or exceed the NESC standards and comply with NCUC regulation. We do not have the resources to prepare and submit our designs to the town. As stated earlier, such a proposed process may delay the timely design and installation of facilities and will result in additional cost to the requesting party for any associated expenses. Additionally, N.C.G.S. 62-140 prohibits Duke, as a public utility, from granting unreasonable preference or advantage to any person, or in this case, town.
We believe this response adequately addresses the concerns raised by the petitioners. If you have further questions, or would like additional information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Scott T. Gardner
District Manager