TEP Call to Action: You can help protect Tucson’s future

What’s Going On?

Dear Neighborhood and Business Leaders, Friends, and Active Residents,

Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) is promoting a "Midtown Reliability Project" as part of its larger energy modernization program. This project involves running overhead high voltage transmission lines on 75-130 feet tall poles through the heart of Tucson in long established urban historic districts, residential areas, and adjacent to the University of Arizona, rather than placing them underground as preferred or required by decades old plans and ordinances.

There are many steps that TEP must go through, the first of which is receiving special exceptions from City of Tucson plans and ordinances for three intersections by the Zoning Examiner. The Zoning Examiner is currently collecting comments from the community on TEP’s applications. We outline how to comment below. A public hearing before the Zoning Examiner is tentatively scheduled for February 13, 2025, where you can also voice your concerns.

We do not believe TEP’s project meets the special exception requirements of at least UDC 3.4.5.A.2, UDC 3.4.5.A.5, UDC 4.9.11 A.13.a, or UDC 4.9.11.A.13.c.

Here are some reasons why you should oppose making special exceptions for TEP:

1. Transmission Lines Are Buried All Over Arizona

Central Phoenix has 14 miles of transmission lines underground, Tempe 8 miles, Chandler 7 miles, and Scottsdale 10 miles—Tucson has zero and TEP needs to bury only 2 miles to comply with Tucson’s plans and ordinances. If other Arizona utilities can manage longer underground projects in other Arizona cities, TEP can certainly manage one in Tucson.

2. New Overhead Lines Conflict with Tucson’s Laws and Vision

TEP’s project ignores long-standing local plans and ordinances that call for burying lines wherever possible in historic, urban, and strategically-important areas. These laws were enacted to protect Tucson’s character and quality of life, promote tourism and business, and promote investment in high-density development. What is good for growing Tucson and the region is good for growing TEP.

3. Improved Reliability and Safety

Underground lines avoid many hazards—from storms and fires to accidents and vandalism. Fewer power outages and emergency repairs mean fewer costs and disruptions in the long run. Because of that, the total cost of ownership for underground lines can be comparable to or even a savings for ratepayers from overhead lines.

4. Cost Is a Minimal Factor

Even TEP’s own figures show the cost to bury lines is an insignificant fraction of its overall capital budget and ratepayer collections. TEP has likely already spent more money fighting Tucson’s laws than following them would have reasonably cost—without accomplishing any of its goals.

5. Prop 412’s Defeat Doesn’t Change TEP’s Obligations

Prop 412 contained substantially the same language as the current 2000 franchise agreement, wherein TEP agreed to bury transmission lines where local law demands—with no exceptions for cost. Voters rejecting (or accepting) Prop 412 does not free TEP from its legal responsibilities. The company still must follow Tucson’s laws—just like everybody else.

6. Fairness to All Property Owners

Forming a special property tax district isn’t workable because the largest property owner and electricity user in the area—the University of Arizona—doesn’t pay property taxes. Most projects in other Arizona cities were not financed with special property tax districts and using them is not a requirement of state law.

7. Underground Lines Are An Investment In The Future

These new lines can serve the region for a century or more. Burying them now, in the densest part of the city, rather than retrofitting later, is more cost-effective and preserves or improves Tucson’s reliability, aesthetics, and develop-ability for the long run. Central Phoenix successfully made a similar calculation in the 1960s.

You can find more detail and background on the Midtown Reliability Project here.

What Can I Do?

We encourage you to send your comments/concerns to the Zoning Examiner, Mayor and Council, and the City Clerk. Once again, a public hearing before the Zoning Examiner is tentatively scheduled for February 13, 2025, where you can also voice your concerns.

Contribute to the cause:

To donate by Paypal, click here.

To donate by Venmo, send donations to @undergroundarizona.

To donate by Zelle, send donations to daniel@undergroundarizona.org.

To order signs, email info@undergroundarizona.org.

👉

The time to fight for the future of Tucson and Arizona is now!

If ordinances and plans cannot be enforced in the city center, they cannot be enforced anywhere. Utilities cannot be above the law.

Appendix A: Useful Sworn Testimony before the ACC

The following is testimony under oath by various parties to the project taken from the Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC”) line siting hearing from July 8th to the 19th, 2024 and available on ACC Docket L-00000C-24-0118-00232. You may find this testimony useful in your comments. You can access the full transcripts here.

1. TEP testified that it is possible to underground its transmission lines.

Meghan Grabel (TEP): We do not contest that the line can be constructed below ground. It is physically possible to do so.

2. And again here (pg. 1813):

Roi Lusk (City of Tucson): So, and I don’t think anybody has testified that you can’t [underground] physically or technologically. Is that correct?

Mr. Bryner (TEP): Correct.

3. TEP testified that it avoided certain routes because high-density infill development had already occurred (p. 760):

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Would you say this is the most rapidly densifying area in your service area?

Clark Bryner (TEP): I think the only thing I could say is it's a dense area and yes, it's getting more dense.

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Okay. So in the Route C simulation, Larry, you said, "They have to avoid the east Speedway area because of tall buildings on both sides of the street.” So I guess my question for either of you is how does a transmission line affect high-density infill development?

Larry Robinson (TEP): Again, according to National Electric Safety Code requirements, we have to maintain certain separations between structures, buildings, signs, lights, traffic signals and things like that; right? So if the area is already occupied by some of those facilities that we can’t maintain separation from, we do have options; right? We could buy the building and tear down the building or do something like that.

4. TEP testified that buildings have to be set back at least 25 feet from its transmission lines—blowout of 10+ feet plus 15 foot buffer—due to code requirements (p. 764):

Clark Bryner (TEP): So the blowout is the sag in the conductor.

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Right.

Larry Robinson (TEP): So in [UMC Banner’s] counter she asked what that distance was and what we were looking for was 15 to 16 feet on the private easement. That's to account for that blowout and the NESC code requirements.

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): So 15 to 16 feet is a fair assumption?

Larry Robinson (TEP): That's correct. From property line, and also from the conductor blown out.

5. UMC Banner testified that transmission lines interfere with investment (p. 1254):

Michele De Blasi (UMC Banner): And so if you're in the building, as opposed to a homeowner who this line would be above their home and not in eyesight, would this line be directly at eye level for someone standing in the building?

Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): It would be eye level for the majority of our floors in our patient tower.

Michele De Blasi (UMC Banner): And would this interfere with the whole purpose of the amount of investment in your patient areas and your towers?

Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): Yes. It would.

6. UMC Banner testified that it expects the city to enforce ordinances and plans that protect views. (p. 1321):

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): Generally speaking, do you expect the City to enforce its ordinances and plans that protect views?

Mark Barkenbush (UMC Banner): Yes, I would.

7. TEP testified that transmission lines interfere with communications signals (p. 584):

Clark Bryner (TEP): So communications interference, that's one of the factors that is in the statute required to be looked at and factored into the decision of the Committee.

So some communication lines—and I'm not a communications expert, so I'm going to translate it to my understanding. But some communications are point-to-point, and especially microwave communications have a very specific, small path where that communication signal travels through, and anything that breaks that path can make that obsolete.

And so it's a real thing that we need to watch out for if we break that specific path. And then, as we all know, if you drive under a high voltage line, if you've got the radio going, a lot of times you'll get nothing but static for a minute, so there are other communication factors as well.

8. TEP testified that there are no existing transmission lines near the University of Arizona (p. 747):

Daniel Dempsey (Underground Arizona): But generally speaking around the University of Arizona there are no transmission lines?

Clark Bryner (TEP): No transmission lines; correct.

9. The City pointed out that TEP has a history of leaving topped poles in place for joint use attachers (p. 2192):

Roi Lusk (City of Tucson): Well, Mr. Chair, I was actually going to ask for some clarification on that because, as we saw during the tour, there are multiple poles in the right-of-way that are what are called topped poles where TEP had poles in the right-of-way. They had attachers. And then through their agreements with their attachers they removed their infrastructure from the poles but then left the poles. So that's what I think might be the concern for the community.