December 4, 2014
Arthur House, Chairman
John W. Betkoski, Vice-Chairman
Michael Caron, Commissioner
Public Utilities Regulatory Authority
Ten Franklin Square
New Britain, CT 06051 Submitted via e-mail to PURA.ExecutiveSecretary@CT.gov and nicholas.neeley@ct.gov
Re: Docket No. 12-01-10: Comments on EDC Compliance with Order No. 8 re: Notice to
Property Owners
Dear Chairman House, Vice-Chairman Betkoski and Commissioner Caron:
In order to ensure that the notices to property owners of proposed electric distribution company ("EDC") vegetation management comply with the requirements of Section 16-234 of the
CT General Statutes, as amended by Section 60 of Public Act 13-298 and Public Act 14-151, 1 the undersigned organizations write to comment on the United Illuminating ("UI") and Connecticut
Light & Power ("CL&P") compliance filings in response to Order No. 8 of the Final Decision in
Docket No. 12-01-10, issued on June 25, 2014 ("Final Decision"). Order No. 8 provided that the
EDCs "shall provide proof of inclusion of the information required by PA 14-151 in their respective notices for vegetation management activities" no later than December 1, 2014.
We previously submitted comments to you on August 11, 2014, out of concern that the
EDCs were not in full compliance with Section 16-234's requirements and with your Final Decision regarding notice to property owners. These prior comments were provided to both of the EDCs on the same date, but unfortunately have not been fully addressed in the EDC Order No. 8 compliance filings. Our comments of August 11 remain applicable, and we respectfully request that you fully consider them in reaching a determination as to EDC compliance with Order No. 8 and in requiring the changes necessary to bring the notices into compliance. We note that CL&P only submitted its
1 All future references to Section 16-234 shall be considered to include all amendments thereto.

Bookmark for Routine Maintenance Tree Work and did not include the referenced work form, thus submitting fewer documents than were addressed in our August 11 comments. Because UI's current notice is more substantially in compliance with the requirements of Section 16-234 than the documents submitted by CL&P, we only address the documents that UI has submitted in response to Order No. 8: Customer Notification of Proposed Tree Work and the Tree Warden Ruling Letter.
UI's Customer Notification of Proposed Tree Work ("UI Notice Form"):
In the hope of expediting compliance by the EDCs, we suggest the following additions and changes to UI's Notice Form, which would bring it into full compliance with Section 16-234 and the
PURA Final Decision, and thereby ensure that property owners are fully informed of their statutory rights and obligations. With these additions and changes, the UI Notice Form could be adopted by
PURA as a uniform notice form to be used by both UI and CL&P, increasing efficiency in PURA's administration of the statutory notice requirements.
Additions and Changes to the UI Notice Form:
Because the UI Notice Form is the same as it was at the time of our August 11 letter, we refer you to that letter for discussion of specific statutory requirements and statements in the PURA
Final Decision that make the following additions and changes necessary.
1. Addition of text: You [the property owner] may request and receive information from UI or from the municipality (for town roads) or the State DOT Commissioner (for state highways) about whether the tree or shrub we propose to prune or remove is on or overhanging the public right-of-way or on your private property. No tree on private property may be removed or pruned without the affirmative written consent of the private property owner.
[In its letter dated November 25, 2014, which accompanies the UI Notice Form, UI states:
"UI’s Vegetation Management Work Planners will provide this information in the description of work in Section D of Attachment 1 UI Customer Notification & Response." This is commendable.
2

However, property owners need to know that they can request this information, not only from the
EDC, but also from the municipality or State DOT Commissioner. ]
2. Addition of text: No tree or shrub within the public right-of-way may be pruned or removed without a permit from the tree warden of the municipality (for town roads) or from the
State DOT Commissioner (for state highways).
3. Addition of text: If you object to the proposed removal or pruning, you may include a request for consultation with the tree warden (town roads) or the State DOT Commissioner (state highways).
☐ Check to request a consultation with the tree warden (town roads) or the State DOT
Commissioner (state highways).
4. Change the last sentence in "Section C" to: UI will not bill customers for damage to its system caused by trees, even if a property owner previously objected to pruning or removal of the tree or trees causing the damage.
5. Addition: The Notice Form should not only provide the name and phone number of the tree warden or the State DOT Commissioner but also the mailing address.
[Since the objection or request for modification must be mailed to the tree warden or State
DOT Commissioner, the address must be specified for each on the notice, as required by Section 16-
234(c)(3). We unfortunately failed to note that no space for such addresses was provided on the form when we wrote the August 11 letter.]
Tree Warden Ruling Letter:
United Illuminating has submitted a new document, which it calls a Tree Warden Ruling
Letter ("Ruling Letter"). This does not appear to be provided at the same time as the UI Notice
Form, discussed above. However, as an attachment to the notice in blank, it would provide
3

additional useful information to property owners about the process of appeal. The Ruling Letter does require correction in two respects:
(1). The following statement, after the first two check boxes, is misleading:
When a tree is a hazard, or if any part of a tree is in direct contact with an energized electrical conductor or has visible signs of burning, Connecticut state law permits the pruning or removal of the tree without any further appeal process because of the imminent threat to public safety.
No tree warden permit is required to remove a tree or part of a tree that is in direct contact with a wire or burning. However, a permit is required pursuant to Sections 23-59 and 23-65(f) of the CT
General Statutes for removal of other hazardous trees, and, in accordance with those statutes, not all trees that are hazardous within the meaning of Section 16-234 are necessarily an "immediate public hazard." 2 If a tree warden holds a hearing on whether a tree is hazardous and should be removed, and does find that it is hazardous, but that it is not an immediate public hazard, an appeal could be made to PURA, as provided in Section 23-65(f).
(2). The large box in the Ruling Letter should include an address not only for the tree warden, but also for the State DOT Commissioner.
Conclusion:
In accordance with these comments and suggested textual changes, and the comments made in our letter of August 11, we respectfully ask the Authority to take prompt action to ensure compliance by UI and CL&P with the notice requirements of Section 16-234 as amended by Public
Act 14-151 and with your Final Decision, and to order correction of the Tree Warden Ruling Letter.
Sincerely,
Connecticut Forest & Park Association
Connecticut Fund for the Environment
Garden Club of New Haven
2 "Imminent threat to public safety" is not a term used in the relevant tree warden statutes.
4