Greater Greater Washington

Government


With prodding, Pepco removes double utility poles

by Mitch Wander   •   March 15, 2012 11:00 am

Pepco trucks recently invaded Glover Park to remove redundant utility poles that have been cluttering neighborhood streets for the past decade. Thanks to persistent community advocacy, these eyesores will soon disappear.


Photo by Brian Cohen

Around 2001, Pepco replaced its existing utility poles in Glover Park with new taller ones, as part of an effort to improve electrical reliability and increase pole capacity. Unfortunately, when the new poles went up, the old poles remained in place, often side by side, with the wires from other utility companies still attached.

Years later, it became clear that the double poles were here to stay.

With no automatic procedure in place for the city to push for removal of the old poles, it took a concerted, years-long effort by neighborhood residents to get them taken out.

In some cases, new poles and old poles were attached to each other with odd collections of metal cables and brackets. Residents wondered whether there was any rhyme or reason to the seemingly random metal supports. W Street NW even had the distinction of a triple pole cluttering a tree box.

According to meeting minutes, ANC3B first attempted to hold Pepco accountable to a specific removal timeline at a November 2004 meeting.

Commissioner [Christopher] Lively reported that Pepco has been in the area and has almost completed removed [sic] their lines off the old poles on to the new poles. Verizon, Comcast, and Starpower, however, have not removed their lines so the poles still cannot be removed. Commissioner Lively will write a letter on behalf of ANC 3B to OCTT [Office of Cable Television and Telecommunications] to bring the issue to their attention.
Nearly a year later, at ANC3B's October 2005 meeting, Commissioner Melissa Lane brought up the issue again, to Pepco representative Roger Green. Green asked for a list of double pole locations in order to identify removal needs. The ANC complied and expected Pepco to deliver.

In June 2007, ANC3B invited Pepco to explain its plan to remove the double poles.

Pepco Regional Vice President, Vincent Orange, and Linda Jo Smith, Public Relations, reported on the status of the double utility poles that has been a problem throughout Glover Park for the past five years. Pepco replaced their poles but could not take all of them down because other service companies (Comsat, Verizon, etc.) and the district had their products on the original poles. Pepco is making a concerted effort to work with these other companies and get rid of the original poles. Ms. Smith committed to returning in September with a status report.
As a concerned resident, I corresponded with Councilmember Mary Cheh and DDOT in 2008 and 2009. Cheh's Director of Constituent Services stated, "Trust me, we have asked and mentioned it, and reminded Pepco. We will keep doing all of the above until we get responses/action."

Likewise, DDOT's Customer Service Officer assured me, "You will be happy to know that we are working with Pepco and other agencies to resolve the double pole issue. You're right, it isn't happening overnight, but we're getting there."

A few back and forth tweets with the @PepcoConnect Twitter account in June 2011 didn't help either, even after I offered to provide an inventory of locations.

Finally the long drawn out issue turned around in October 2011, when I asked my ANC3B single member district commissioner Brian Cohen to intervene. Cohen worked with Tom Smith, Ward 3 Liaison, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Engagement, who immediately contacted Pepco's Public Affairs Public Affairs Manager for the DC Region, Chris Taylor. Smith also pulled DDOT and the city's cable office back into the issue.

Taylor provided a 521-page document called NJUNS covering the entire Pepco service area. His email walk-through of the pole removal process may be very useful to other neighborhoods trying to resolve this same issue.

To tell you more about the list, NJUNS stands for National Joint Use Notification System. Several states nation wide use this system. The basis of the system is that all utilities in a specific geographic region voluntarily participate in a program to help track progress in removing double poles. As was indicated earlier, equipment must be removed in sequential order from top to bottom. Pepco normally initiates the process when we first remove wires and equipment. Generally, the order is as follows:

1. Pepco
2. DDOT
3. RCN
4. Verizon
5. Pepco inspects to ensure pole is completely stripped
6. Contractor pulls the pole

The NJUNS sends an automated email each time a location is updated. If you look on the report, each page has various steps. At each step, NJUNS automatically sends an email to each utility notifying them of any action that is taken and needed next steps.

Pepco, while now apparently willing to coordinate wire transfers, didn't know where the poles were located. NJUNS listed only three or four double poles for Glover Park, but there were a lot more. Cohen and I counted 41 during our block-by-block survey, and provided a list to Pepco in January 2012.


Photo by MWander on Flickr.
But moving wires was only part of the problem. In some cases, other utility companies still had wires on the old poles.

Behind the scenes, Pepco lit a fire under the other utilities. Only 2 months after identifying all the pole locations, temporary no parking signs went up and convoys of utility trucks scattered around Glover Park to begin removing the redundant poles.

Over half of the excess poles have been removed already, though ironically 3 new double poles were recently installed.

10 years later, a final resolution is in sight. It took a long time, but Glover Park's double poles are nearly gone. There is hope for other neighborhoods willing to put in the work to identify pole locations and repeatedly follow up with Pepco.

28 comments
Tags: ANC, DC, DDOT, Glover Park, Mary Cheh, OCTT, Pepco, Vincent Orange
Related posts:
Mitch Wander first arrived in Washington, DC over 25 years ago as a US House of Representatives page while in high school. An avid promoter of DC living, Mitch has lived in wards 1, 2, 3, and 6. He and his wife are proud DC Public School parents. He serves as an officer in the US Army Reserve. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Good for your persistence. I've wondered about these.

But it seems like you've put the onus on Pepco, when in fact it was the other companies that weren't moving their lines. Perhaps there was a dispute between them and Pepco (why *should* Comcast, RCN etc. have to spend money to move wires when Pepco is the one that did it for their service?), but it's not all Pepco's fault.

This reminds me somewhat of the the mess when all the fiber optic lines were being buried in downtown DC, and just as soon as one was done, DDOT repaved the street, then another would dig it up.

DDOT or whoever needs to install a better oversight system to keep such projects moving along.

by ah on Mar 15, 2012 11:14 am • link • report

Why aren't the utilities up there buried, like they are in many, if not most, other neighborhoods?

by Ron on Mar 15, 2012 11:41 am • link • report

@ah--

Exellent question on why utlitiy wires aren't buried, as they are in many urban localities and in many other neighborhoods in DC. The reason, according to PEPCO, is cost, but one should alos consider the historically cozy relationship between PEPCO and DC politicians and regulators on why no pressure has been put on PEPCO. (See Ex. A -- former "PEPCO Regional Vice President Vincent Orange"). Initial cost is always a factor, but one needs to consider the costs of maintaining lines and repairing storm damage (and the less quantifiable cost of frequent butchering to the city's tree canopy from PEPCO's contractors). DC should look at how other localities have steered utlities to bury their wires, perhaps through government-backed loan facilities or requirements that when a street is totally reconstructed, the utilities be placed underground then.

In any event, the double poles are not only unsightly, but also obscure sight lines at intersections, for both drivers and pedestrians. Congratulations on the Glover Park residents, for their persistence -- and patience.

by Axel on Mar 15, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

Pardon, it was Ron not ah who asked why the utilty wires aren't buried, as they sensibly are elsewhere. See above.

by Axel on Mar 15, 2012 12:30 pm • link • report

@Ron, I wondered the same thing but didn't know enough about the issue.

but one should alos consider the historically cozy relationship between PEPCO and DC politicians and regulators on why no pressure has been put on PEPCO. (See Ex. A -- former "PEPCO Regional Vice President Vincent Orange")

So Orange "persuaded" DC pols "not" to abate the issue? That's an interesting perspective. If true, it's reasonable to assume that Orange poleblocked because he stood to benefit (at least politically) by not pressing the company to remove the double pole? Is there a stronghold of support "for" the double pols and Orange's candidacy in the Glover Park area?

Logic sounds a bit odd.

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report

Re: Pepco Undergrounding of wires and Axel's comment that DC should have Pepco look into it - that's already happened
if you look up DC PSC case 1026 - you should find a report titled: Study of the Feasibility and Reliability of the Undergrounding of Electric Distribution Lines in the District of Columbia (or just Google that title). You can get the cost highlights on p6, but essentially the conclusion is that depending on how many primaries and laterals you underground, the cost (paid by ratepayers) will be between $1b and $6b. (that's just on the Pepco side, not to mention costs for all the other join pole users).

There are reliability tradeoffs with undergrounding - generally they're more reliable, but when there are outages, they tend to last much longer - b/c it takes a lot longer to find the problem.

For those interested, this is what the ecology of a typical joint-pole looks like:
http://www.annsgarden.com/poles/JP1-Allocation0.jpg

by Bilsko on Mar 15, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report

@Hogwash-The only "odd" logic is yours. Where did Axel say Orange "persuaded" council "not" to work on the pole issue? Seems to me he's merely pointing out that Orange used to work for Pepco and therefore might not be inclined to push them very hard (he's certainly not saying it's the only reason one should alos (sic)consider ie. That "could be" one reason it hasn't happened sooner).

by thump on Mar 15, 2012 2:30 pm • link • report

@Thump, if you can't describe how Orange benefits (politically or otherwise) by "not" pushing PEPCO to abate the issue in a Ward whose support he would likely die to have, then I don't see how that logic is reasonable.

The oddity is in failing to make a direct/indirect connection between , Orange PEPCO and the Council but at the same time "considering" that there were shenanigans involved. I compare it to me saying, "Saint Wells knows Dan Snyder's cousin" and then seriously "considering" that St. Wells might be behind the push to bring the Redskins back...even though it wouldn't be a political benefit for him. I could see how someone could consider my logic odd...even illogical for that matter.

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

It's a sad indictment of our standards in this town when "Saint" = "not corrupt hack".

by oboe on Mar 15, 2012 3:21 pm • link • report

It's an even sadder indictment when a politicians fanbase refuses to think that he/she EVER does anything wrong.

That's when you get into die hard Tea Party/Obamafan territory. That murky area where as long as it my guy/gal..logic just gets in the way.

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 3:30 pm • link • report

I have no knowledge of whether Orange directly lobbied the council on poles or underground utilities. My point is that Orange is a prime example of the close and cozy relationship between PEPCO and DC pols. Orange was on the Council, then lost his seat, then became a PEPCO lobbyist- executive (while being a perpetual candidate in several races) and now he's finally back on the Council (and already under an ethics cloud, to boot). One might also note that PEPCO is, like, the Worst Utility Ever and the DC government hasn't exactly been falling all over itself to push PEPCO harder to improve service to consumers. As for the PSC (that would be the DC "Public Service" Commission) study, it's not too surprising that it largely represented PEPCO's viewpoint on putting utilities underground -- something that's already been done in Georgetown, Woodley Park and other neighborhoods.

by Axel on Mar 15, 2012 3:33 pm • link • report

Excellent work, Commissioners. Also want to thank Chris Taylor from PEPCO and Tom Smith from the Mayor's Office.

Respectful collaboration between stake holders is what makes neighborhoods and our city a more livable place.

Success!

by Francisco Fimbres on Mar 15, 2012 3:45 pm • link • report

It's an even sadder indictment when a politicians fanbase refuses to think that he/she EVER does anything wrong.

Just to clarify: I think Wells is good on some things, okay on others. In other words, he's a better-than-average politician. The fact that he's light-years ahead of the running jokes that infest the Wilson Building is another matter.

Again, one side (the side that leans pro-Wells) talks about issues. The other side talks about "Saint this" and "showboat that".

It's the politics of ressentiment:

Ressentiment is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one's frustration, that is, an assignment of blame for one's frustration. The sense of weakness or inferiority and perhaps jealousy in the face of the "cause" generates a rejecting/justifying value system, or morality, which attacks or denies the perceived source of one's frustration. The ego creates an enemy in order to insulate itself from culpability.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment)

It's funny you should mention the Tea Party, because it's fueled by exactly the same forces.

by oboe on Mar 15, 2012 3:47 pm • link • report

One might also note that PEPCO is, like, the Worst Utility Ever...

Careful, you'll find yourself labeled a Dominion Power "fanboy", or some other such nonsense.

by oboe on Mar 15, 2012 3:51 pm • link • report

I have no knowledge of whether Orange directly lobbied the council on poles or underground utilities. My point is that Orange is a prime example of the close and cozy relationship between PEPCO and DC pols

I don't think Orange working for PEPCO and wanting to be a politician serves as a good example of any "special" relationship between it and DC pols. We have current members who still have outside jobs and they happen to recuse themselves from any cases dealing w/their employers. But we should consider Orange's employment as a reason why the poles were never removed...even though it wouldn't be politically advantageous for him to do so? Well, ok. Sounds like gratuitous mudslinging to me.

Again, one side (the side that leans pro-Wells) talks about issues. The other side talks about "Saint this" and "showboat that".

You support Wells, why would you think differently. I mean, Wells' side talks about issues and the anti's simply talk about him. HA! That's laughable because most of the "lean-Wells" side talk about the fact that none of the others are Sainted like him.

Ironically, I would apply the politics of reassignment to the Saint's parishioners. Since they do (unfortunately) harbor a healthy dose of hostility towards others and allow their huuuuuge ego to create an enemy in order to insulate themselves from cupability. It started w/Fenty's fans..now they've moved on to Wells and they'll likely continue to trash anybody who's not one or the other.

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 4:10 pm • link • report

BTW, you can't possibly be expressing concern about how people are ridiculously characterized. Not you!

ressentiment

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 4:13 pm • link • report

We can assume that Vincent Orange likes above-ground utility poles, and if doubled-up, all the better. His army of, uh, "volunteers" has already littered nearly every pole with his inescapable campaign signs. They must have cost a lot of money orders.

by Bob on Mar 15, 2012 4:36 pm • link • report

Hogwash - Is it possible for you to respond to a post without some sweeping generalization about Tommy Wells? Some might start to wonder if you don't have a complex or something...

by Thaps on Mar 15, 2012 4:55 pm • link • report

Is it possible for you to respond to a post without some sweeping generalization about Tommy Wells? Some might start to wonder if you don't have a complex or something

Sure it is. It's as possible for me as it is for others who take every opportunity to cast aspersions and generalize anyone who isn't the Saint. Somebody has to balance the scales...:)

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report

It's as possible for me as it is for others who take every opportunity to cast aspersions and generalize anyone who isn't the Saint

I understand why you might find it helpful in a post where someone actually referenced him. Personally, I don't think your tactic of fighting what you perceive to be sweeping generalizations with a sweeping generalization is too terribly effective, but to each their own.

by Thaps on Mar 15, 2012 5:41 pm • link • report

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

by Steve on Mar 15, 2012 6:21 pm • link • report

I don't think your tactic of fighting what you perceive to be sweeping generalizations with a sweeping generalization is too terribly effective,

Don't get me wrong. It is not my goal to convince anyone nor would I ever think that most of the his supporters are receptive to any criticism of him. I also realize that even if they were, they would be much less likely to articulate that when feeling as if they must defend him. So then they become stuck in that mode which naturally creates the perception that they are radical in their support of him.

I think it's all a study in human nature.

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 7:40 pm • link • report

I also realize that even if they were, they would be much less likely to articulate that when feeling as if they must defend him.
Well in this case I would have to suggest that there is a big difference in how one might feel defensive between you saying something to the effect of "I don't think Tommy Wells is a very effective councilmember" and instead saying something like "Saint Wells and his parishioners are blind to his shortcomings."

So then they become stuck in that mode which naturally creates the perception that they are radical in their support of him.
When you say "radical in their support of him" it would seem to suggest (and correct me if I am wrong) that you don't find that inflexibility terribly helpful. And so I guess my point is, isn't it weird that you act the same way, albeit in a contrarian manner?

by Thaps on Mar 15, 2012 8:03 pm • link • report

there is a big difference in..."I don't think Tommy Wells is a very effective councilmember" and instead saying something like "Saint Wells and his parishioners are blind to his shortcomings."

I would agree with that.

When you say "radical in their support of him" it would seem to suggest hat you don't find that inflexibility terribly helpful...isn't it weird that you act the same way, albeit in a contrarian manner?

I see how it could be perceived in that way. The difference to me is that I (obviously) think I approach it in a more practical, less HOUSE ON FIRE! "self-righteous" manner. I also realize that I am not as emotionally attached and passionate. That's where the "indifferent" criticism comes into play. It's not true. But I get it and not offended by the suggestion. :o)

by HogWash on Mar 15, 2012 9:33 pm • link • report

Ron - I second that! Bury the utilities or at least require that they run down the alleys. I live on a short block off RI Ave and there are 6 poles in that short stretch. It's ridiculous. Think of all the constant tree pruning and removal that would no longer need to take place!! And, we’d get a much greener and enjoyable city to boot.

Good lord, if the City of Charlotte can require buried services from Duke Energy (which is HQ'd in Charlotte) Why can't it be done here??? Oh, I guess that is a question for PEPCO Pepco Regional Vice President, Vincent Orange.

by John @ RI Ave on Mar 16, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

The cost to bury all power lines in DC is estimated to be $5.8 billion (2010 Public Service Commission report). That is a lot of money.

by goldfish on Mar 16, 2012 9:59 am • link • report

And now Pepco is double-poling Petworth. Who thinks they'll be proactive and remove the old poles in less than a decade?

by Wayan on Apr 9, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or