Regulators: Progress Energy tree-cutting policy confusing, must be fixed

State officials want Progress Energy to be crystal-clear with customers when it comes to one of the most sensitive topics in utility-customer relations: trees.

The Raleigh-based power company must spell out its policy on whether trees growing within 25 feet of a power line will be merely trimmed or entirely cut down, the N.C. Utilities Commission said today. Progress has issued conflicting information that is causing confusion and frustration among customers, the agency said.

The Utilities Commission directive stems from a recent case in which a Wilmington homeowner was irate over trees slated for elimination in his yard because they grew near a transmission line. The Commission said Progress had the right to cut down the trees in Thomas Hardin's yard in Wilmington, but the regulatory agency said the company's policies needed to be written more clearly so that other customers would have advance notice their lush landscapes were at risk of a buzz cut.

Progress maintains more than 6,000 miles of transmission lines in the Carolinas. The utility changed its tree policy after a 2006 federal rule created fines up to $1 million per violation for power outages caused by trees that were not properly managed. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission imposed a stricter tree standard after a 2003 blackout in the Northeast was caused by trees coming in contact with high-voltage transmission lines, cutting off electricity to 50 million customers.

Before the federal rule was announced, Progress had its own policy of trimming trees growing in the 50-foot easement near power lines -- extending 25 feet on each side of the line. That policy applied to trees that exceed 12 feet in height when they are mature, not to shrubs or bushes.

But after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission tightened its rules, Progress began clear-cutting trees growing in easements. On its web site the company says that trees planted in rights-of-way can't exceed a maximum height of 12 feet at maturity.

But in other documents, the company suggests such trees could be allowed to remain in rights-of-way if the property owner has gotten a waiver from the company.

In practice, Progress evaluates such trees on a case-by-case basis so that it doesn't have to cut all trees growing near transmission lines, said spokesman Mike Hughes.

"If a tree is inside a transmission line right of way and is taller than 12 feet, the tree will be evaluated for removal," Hughes said. "Trees and vegetation along distribution lines can often be trimmed rather than removed.

"But if the tree poses a threat to the line that cannot be resolved by trimming, or if the vegetation may interfere with the line before we return on our next routine maintenance cycle, it may be subject to removal."

The original dispute between Progress and Hardin goes back to 2006. Hardin's home has a high-voltage transmission line passing through his property. He offered to trim trees growing in the easement at his expense, but Progress said it planned to cut down the trees.

Presumably, Progress didn't want to rely on private property owners to comply with a federal law that could cost the company $1 million per violation.

Hardin vented his frustrations in a complaint to the Utilities Commission: "Progress Energy does not have customers. It has prisoners. If you want to live like a civilized human being in Southeast North Carolina, you must pay Progress Energy. You do not have a choice."

Hardin contended that the feds didn't mandate that Progress cut down trees, only manage them effectively. He felt the wiser policy for his trees would be trimming as opposed to cutting, and Progress concluded otherwise.

However, the Utilities Commission said the choice whether to trim or cut is Progress's discretion, as long as customers are told what the policy is.