Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0hz3b0 wrote on December 16, 2022 at 7:52 PM

Reply to comment by kaosaddi in Power cuts in seven states as deadly winter storm and tornadoes hit US by GroundbreakingGur930

Tbf this is a shit proposition if anyone lives in a lightly forested area and not the solution you think it is.

Without regulation tree falls on power lines. With regulation anyone that lives near trees needs to pay a fuckload extra for power to go through so superficial approval process where the government gets to approve of a transaction between two parties who are already accepting the risk that trees might fall on a line

Millenniauld t1_j0ig4kv wrote on December 16, 2022 at 9:49 PM

I live in a heavily forested area (the Pine Barrens.) The power company routinely has trimmers come out to cut back any trees that are a threat. Don't know if it's because of a regulation or just cheaper for them to do prevention instead of fixing, but I assure you if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.

Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0in48d wrote on December 16, 2022 at 10:40 PM

Right they already do this. So if they had to also hire lawyers to navigate a compliance process just to do the same thing they already do then you’d be paying a lot more for power

Millenniauld t1_j0io2uf wrote on December 16, 2022 at 10:47 PM

Why would they need to hire lawyers? The do the thing. Unless the government making the regulation investigates to figure out if they're doing it "right" AND they're doing it wrong, they don't need the legal process. Also utility companies are HUGE, I assure you they already have an in-house legal team for anything they might need, including compliance disputes.

Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0ividz wrote on December 16, 2022 at 11:43 PM

So no the government doesn’t just tell someone to do a thing when it comes to most regulation.

There is usually a compliance process which requires frequent disclosures as well as audits, an entire lobbying process before hand because without some industry input the government tends to actually do some pretty stupid shit and periodic feedback periods as well. All of this requires man hours for some pretty intelligent and well paid specialists and it doesn’t materialize out of thin air like in some kind of a time paradox. If they’re working on compliance disclosures, lobbying and audit compliance and fixes then they aren’t doing other shit for the company they are still expected to do so the cost is there regardless if they’re on salary or retainer anyway.

So I’ll pose the question again. Why add all this extra cost for trees when the company literally already does it?

Millenniauld t1_j0ix21i wrote on December 16, 2022 at 11:55 PM

To answer your question directly: Places in the Midwest where the companies DON'T already do it need the regulation in place so that they START. Because red states cut cost and get away with it the way they don't in blue states. Seriously, this isn't rocket science here.

You seem to think these regulations cannot possibly be followed, and you were given examples of how it isn't unreasonable because it is already done in some areas. Then you wanted to say "why do the extra if it is already done," and the answer is that it isn't done everywhere.

New laws to make utilities in areas that DON'T already do it comply with what other places have shown is possible BY doing it already IS a way to reduce treefall damage to powerlines and reduce deaths.

If that isn't clear enough for you, then I can't help you, because you either don't want to understand out of fear or shame of looking bad for being wrong, or because you're deliberately stirring the pot. Either way, I treated you with respect and I tried.

This will be my last response, but I do hope you have a good holiday.

Kharnsjockstrap t1_j0j3mzr wrote on December 17, 2022 at 12:47 AM

So the original conversation was about regulation regarding lines and distance to trees. My post is about regulation not being the solution to everything and pitfalls that can be encountered when assuming it is.

There is no need to be hostile. We agree that regulation in some areas is worthwhile just not to stop damage from falling trees.

Companies will already try to limit damage to lines because that’s a bill they’re going to foot. A useful regulation could be something that ensures they can’t pass the cost of damaged lines onto consumers so they would be more incentivized to clear trees but they are already doing this and it’s usually severe winds that blow shit into the lines and not the lines being built directly under trees anyway. Which may not really be a problem regulation can fix especially not the government creating an arbitrary distance between line and tree lmao.

AmarilloWar t1_j0ik3js wrote on December 16, 2022 at 10:18 PM

They already do this. The trees on the other side of my fence are on public property, OGE came and cut them all up last summer because they were getting too big. I also notably did not call them to do this, I had no idea they were going to do it, they just showed up and those trees looked vastly different when I got home.

The line running through my yard to my house is my problem, I won't get a ticket for not cutting any tree in my yard but I'll be paying to get my house reconnected if one destroys it.