Last week I ended my column about tree trimming and removal for powerline clearance by saying that this kind of work is a symptom of the larger problems associated with our system of energy production, distribution, and consumption. What I want to think a bit more about this week is how we can address both the symptom — of tree clearing — and the bigger issue of energy.

I want to start with the “Big Issue,” because it seems so overwhelming. We all need electricity. I don’t need to go into the myriad ways we use it. In Indiana, our electricity is made from burning coal, which produces greenhouse gases, which cause global warming. Even the power companies recognize this, and are beginning to respond to the truth that we all need to find a new way to do business.



Recently, Marvin Bartel was granted a variance in Goshen to install solar panels at a site away from his home. He is installing the panels at this site because there are too many trees at his home for solar electric generation. The irony aside — yet another tree-power production conflict — I think there is compelling reason for this set up. Bartel certainly knows that the trees surrounding his house reduce the energy he needs to heat his home in the winter and especially to cool it in the summer, possibly by as much as 27 percent (according to models for the state of Indiana). In a round-about way these trees actually increase his ability to produce enough solar energy to meet his lowered demands.

Now, there is still the reality that Bartel needs the Northern Indiana Power Service Co. powerlines to get the electricity from his panels to his house. But I think his is a step in the right direction.

Could our power companies do more to help us become self-sufficient? Is there a new business model here for power companies?

We hear more and more about buildings that produce all of their own electricity, and even have some to sell. Would a new model help us to re-imagine the way we produce and distribute — not to mention use — electricity?



Let’s get back to powerlines, since that’s where this discussion began.

A big part (maybe the biggest part) of the conflict between trees and powerlines has to do with aesthetics, beauty. Trees are trimmed and removed and we’re left with disfigured maples and a view of the powerlines.

I’ve never heard anyone say that overhead lines crisscrossing town are nice to look at. Well, if it’s so ugly, why did we design the system this way? Is it because it’s cheap? Probably so, and that’s an interesting thought — we trade beauty (say, in the form of a tree or the open sky) for money. I guess that leads to a discussion of what is beautiful — a tree or the open sky, or “Baywatch” on TV?



I was talking with John Stout, who is a supervisor of forestry operations for NIPSCO. He said something like this to me, “If we didn’t have any powerlines we wouldn’t have problems with trees. On the other hand, if we didn’t have any trees, we wouldn’t have problems with powerlines. Neither of those possibilities are realistic, so we have to work with trees.”

He went on to talk about planting the right tree in the right place.

Right trees planted in the right place is a really crucial, and really simple idea in regards to powerlines. Some trees, if planted close to overhead lines are going to get too big, and will have to be cut. These are trees like maples and oaks. They should be planted well away from lines.

Other trees don’t grow nearly as tall, and they can fit beneath lines easily. These include flowering trees like red bud, serviceberry, dogwood and crabapple. When the right trees are growing near powerlines we don’t have amputated trimming and painful removals, and we don’t have the cost of this work to pay for. After all, who do you think pays for all that work? It only makes sense, then, that consumers would try to keep this in mind when we plant trees.



So, can we have it both ways? Can we have plentiful energy which doesn’t come with an environmental cost? That’s probably the most important question.

I think the difficult answer is that if we want less impact on our trees, our air, our water, our living life-support systems, then we have to decide to live well with less energy. In other words, let’s be upset about the tree trimming along our powerlines, but let’s accept some blame for it, too. And then let’s decide to make powerful changes.



City Forester Aaron Sawatsky-Kingsley can be reached at aaronkingsley@maplenet.net or at 537-0986.