The San Francisco Antenna Free Union called for changes to rules allowing wireless equipment above high-voltage power lines in this letter to the California Public Utilities Commission, citing the ongoing Gulf disaster as an example of how rules bent for corporate expediency endanger the environment and public safety. The CPUC has been reviewing its rules in a series of hearings prompted by the 2007 Malibu Fires. The next hearing will be held in Sacramento on May 25.
Excerpts from the letter:
…SNAFU has serious concerns regarding the CPUC’s decision in 2008 to modify General Order 95 (“GO 95”) to allow Communications Infrastructure Providers (“CIPs”) to place equipment for wireless facilities above high-voltage alternating current (“HVAC”) power lines on utility poles.
…Previously, all such equipment was required to be installed beneath HVAC on utility poles. Installation of such equipment beneath HVAC power lines is a time-honored safety precaution to prevent fire hazards resulting should this equipment in any way cross HVAC lines, whether as a result of earthquakes, equipment failure, or any other potential cause.
It appears that economically- and politically-driven pressure from wireless carriers to expedite the installation of CIP equipment on utility poles in public rights-of-way, both at the national level (via changs to the National Electrical Code) and here in California, has resulted in this imprudent modification to GO 95.
We have seen the results of the loosening and disregarding of established engineering standards, lax oversight, and placing short-term financial gain before safety considerations in the recent and ongoing oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Financial expediency should not be the basis for engineering determinations that can have a significant impact on public safety.
This is so telling.
Municipalities are also granting zone variances that allow towers to go up. These variances bypass building codes that were written to protect the public. For example, there are codes that require minimum set back based on the height of a cell tower. The carrier simply applies for a variance and it is granted — and now we have a cell tower that would never have been allowed had the original code been followed.