[MassHistPres] Electrical transformers in historic districts

Wed Feb 15 15:08:37 EST 2012

"Improving reliability" should be translated more directly as "cheaper to install and maintain" and "easier/more convenient to access" for utility maintenance workers, including during snowy winters.  Each is both the same-less money spent up front, less money spent on people to maintain.  Building an underground vault is much more expensive to start with.  And electric utilities no longer build new electrical generation (for which they can charge customers), so they are instead 'mining' their own existing systems to create new revenue by reducing and avoiding cost.  Otherwise known as reducing service to and convenience for electric utility customers.

I would be deeply shocked if there was any empirical evidence to show that that above-ground transformers are more "reliable" in the sense that above-ground transformers are inherently more durable and work better for longer periods of time.  This is just the utility companies saying that their convenience and bottom line are more important than any community's ability to control the character of its built landscape.  Perhaps they need to be told otherwise.

Jonathan Tucker
Planning Director
Amherst Planning Department
4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall
Amherst, MA  01002
(413) 259-3040
tuckerj at amherstma.gov<mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of slater at alum.rpi.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:53 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Electrical transformers in historic districts

Thanks for the information, Charles. You raise some very good points for rebuttal, including the "hit by a car" and the "how would you do this in a downtown" issues.

It sounds like it is absolutely possible to keep these transformers buried, it seems like the technology exists to have an underground vault which can house these units.

I can see that this is going to be a difficult issue because it will involve balancing historic issues with a nebulous concept of "reliability". I anticipate that a cost analysis will be difficult to get.

Does anyone else have experience with this kind of thing?

Thanks,

Ralph

<-----Original Message----->Ralph,
>
>This issue has come up in Cambridge more than once. I would make the following
>points:
>
>* Typically, utilities are underground because the legislature in the
>late 1920s established a five-year window during which municipalities could
>require utilities to bury their lines and transformers. This was done because of
>a public outcry against the proliferation of overhead wires. The lines in your
>area are underground because the Springfield City Council made that decision
>many years ago. All installations in these areas must be underground unless the
>city allows an exemption.
>
>* Transformers are routinely placed in sidewalk vaults in every city,
>especially in downtown areas. I've never heard that a pad-mounted transformer is
>more reliable than one in a vault. The main requirements are that the vault be
>dry and that the utility has overhead clearance to be able to lift out and
>replace the transformers. Anything above ground has the potential to be hit by a
>car or a falling tree, so I'm puzzled by the 'reliability' argument.
>
>* The utility may claim that they are somehow exempt from historic
>district review. We consider transformers to be structures and subject to the
>usual historic district procedures.. A few years ago preservationists in Rhode
>Island had to go to the legislature to get this point clarified.
>
>* A key agency in these matters is your local Pole & Conduit Commission,
>which has jurisdiction over utility installations in public ways. They will have
>to have a public hearing on the utility's request; use that opportunity to make
>your views known, but make clear that you also have jurisdiction in historic
>districts.
>
>Good luck. Let us know how it works out.
>
>Charles Sullivan
>
>__________________________________
>Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director
>Cambridge Historical Commission
>831 Massachusetts Avenue
>Cambridge, Mass. 02139
>617 349-4684 (direct line)
>617 349-3116 (fax)
>
>From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]
>On Behalf Of slater at alum.rpi.edu
>Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:08 PM
>To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
>Subject: [MassHistPres] Electrical transformers in historic districts
>
>I'm trying to learn more about this issue, I'm hoping someone on this list has
>some information.
>
>Our local electric company is proposing to install several pad mounted
>transformers in one of our historic districts. The service in this district is
>primarily underground, and there are apparently existing transformers currently
>underground.
>
>The electric company is stating that they want to move some of these devices
>above ground to improve reliability in the area. One is to be about 2.5 feet
>tall, and about 4' square. The other is supposedly about 5 feet in height.
>
>I would like to learn about other options so that I am not at the mercy of what
>the electric company tells me. For example, is it imperative that these devices
>move above ground, or is this merely the most convenient method for the electric
>company? Is there any flexibility in siting these devices - for example, could
>they be moved 1/2 mile so they would be out of the district?
>
>I need to be able to separate true hardship from "it's going to cost the
>electric company a bit more money" from "it can only be done this way, period".
>In prior dealings regarding meters being moved from the basement to the outside
>[front] of houses, the electric company has told us that they will only do it
>the way they want to, which means that the historical commission's decision
>prevents the upgrade of electrical service.
>
>We have not had such devices installed in our districts, so we have no precedent
>in Springfield. Have other communities dealt with this matter?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Ralph Slate
>Chair, Springfield Historical Commission
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120215/1ccba6a7/attachment-0001.htm>