BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    






SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE    BILL NO:  SB 427
Senator Tom Hayden, Chair              AUTHOR:  Peace
                                      VERSION:  5/17/99
                                     Original:  2/16/99
                                      Amended:
                                       FISCAL:  Yes
                                      URGENCY:  No
                                   CONSULTANT:  Neal  
Fishman
                                  HEARING DATE:  5/18/99


  SUBJECT:   Electrical Corporations:  tree trimming programs
  
ISSUE:   Shall electrical corporations be required to  
mitigate for the removal of trees under utility lines?
  
SUMMARY:  

This bill would require electrical corporations to mitigate  
for removing trees.  They would be required to plant an  
unspecified amount of Number 5 container trees for each  
tree removed.  

These corporations would also be required to use the  
services of local or state conservation corps to replant  
trees, unless volunteer labor were available.  They would  
have to give first priority to planting trees on or near  
the site from which trees were removed.  They could plant  
trees elsewhere in order to maintain a right-of-way free of  
trees.  

The Department of Fish and Game would be required to assist  
such  corporations in developing a plan to reduce the  
impacts on nesting birds of tree trimming or removal.  

The Public Utilities Commission would be required to chair  
a working group to develop a list of trees which will not  
interfere with power lines.     

  BACKGROUND & EXISTING LAW:  

Under existing law, electrical utilities are required to  












trim or remove trees near power lines to ensure safety and  
reliability.  Removal of trees could have various  
environmental impacts.  Among these are reduction in bird  
nesting sites, community aesthetics and loss of shade.  
There are currently no state mitigation requirements  
imposed for the removal of trees.

  PROPOSED LAW:  

This bill would add provisions to the Public Utilities Code  
to require mitigation for tree removal.

  COMMENTS:  

This bill has been amended several times to deal with "who  
pays" and "how much" is paid for mitigation.  The current  
bill answers neither of these questions.  

The bill also does not consider establishing alternatives  
or prohibitions to removing older significant trees.  It  
may be virtually impossible to fully mitigate for the loss  
of a large heritage oak.

The bill now contemplates a program run by the utility  
companies in which they will pay for an unspecified amount  
of tree planting for each tree of a particular size which  
is removed.  State and local conservation corps would do  
the planting.  There would be a maintenance requirement as  
well.  

There is no particular guidance as to particular ratios of  
newly planted trees to cut trees.  Older versions of the  
bill suggested a tree planted for every inch of tree cut at  
breast height.  

The committee may wish to consider an alternative in which  
utilities would pay into a state fund which would be used  
to plant and maintain urban forests.  This would obviate  
the possible incentive to cut corners in maintaining and  
monitoring tree planting projects.  The amount of payments  
could be determined by a state board which would survey  
typical costs of planting and maintaining trees of a  
certain size.  Mitigation for removal of large trees would  












not be included in the program.

The State could grant funds to local agencies and nonprofit  
organizations to plant and maintain trees and could set  
standards and goals for the types of trees and habitats  
which were most needed in a particular area.  Funds could  
be dispersed in the area from which they were generated.   
The owner of property from which a tree were removed could  
demand that a tree be replaced on that property.
  
SUPPORT:  

California Association of Local Conservation Corps
Planning and Conservation League

  OPPOSED:  
  
  Office of Ratepayer Advocates
PG&E
Sempra Engergy
TURN