18 Tremont Street - Install 1 JO Pole on Tremont Street with a riser to provide electric service for a new customer at 18 Tremont Street in Melrose.

Transcript (~7 min @ 28:39)

▶ 28:38 Yes. That motion passes. Thank you. At this time, we'll invite DPW National Grid to speak to ID2026-1560, Tremont Street. So this petition is to install a joint on pole 437-50 with a siphon extending from the pole to provide power to the customer as well. But this one will be attached to a sole new pole. Thank you. If there's any questions on that. Sure. Do you have anything to offer from DPW's perspective? Yeah, this is for that new apartment building that's going on at 18 Tremont, the large apartment building. So there's a new transformer that's going in. In order to serve that transformer, a new pole needs to be installed. Thank you. Any questions from the council? Councilor Chen. A broader question from the public, what's our DPW's position on putting poles

▶ 29:36 underground or asking National Grid to put things underground when we can do work? Certainly, we would always prefer underground conduit. In a lot of cases, it's just not practicable, especially if you're crossing roads and things like that. In this case, there is nowhere to take from underground, because they are installing underground conduit to the transformer. But they need to get the power to a new pole, as I understand it. Correct. So they wouldn't be able to go underground in the public otherwise. There's no underground infrastructure in the area. Yeah. It's just the poles, and we have to bring power from the poles underground. There's no other option in the area. Yeah, to speak to the previous comment,

▶ 30:27 I have no idea. I don't even know if as a city we'd be able to mandate as we pave roads to have National Grid put everything underground. It would be great, but that's something that is well above my purview to even really speak on, because it would be a lot of work. And for National Grid, have you seen other cities successfully do this in pieces, if you have? Doing underground work when other customers request underground work? More just if the city is repaving a sidewalk and you're informed of it, do you say, "Oh, yes. National Grid wants to spend the extra money to put underground for a variety of reasons." Not that I've personally dealt with. I don't have a comment on that. Okay. I haven't dealt with that.

▶ 31:17 Yeah, I'm just curious. We do see cities that a lot of these are underground, and they all started above ground at some point, and I'm just curious how they-- They clearly didn't go all underground in one big budget cycle. So how do we start the process to gradually do that? And maybe we need to find or just talk to some of these cities that have done it in the past 20 years and figure out how do they find the right incentives to do that piecemeal, because people have done it, right? It's a question for all of us. It's not directed at just you. Yeah. If you just think about the paving life cycle of roads in Melrose, we're in the 30 to 40 year mark, give or take. So, at minimum, it's a 30 to 40

▶ 32:07 year project to get everything underground without ripping up roads that aren't being repaved. Mm-hmm. And then obviously National Grid would get a brunt of that expense if the city didn't want to pay for any of it. So, convincing them to do it, if it was to their benefit as well, it would be- Sure ... definitely something to start the discussion. Reviewing the natural hazards mitigation plan, which I'm sure you- Mm-hmm ... took a look at. And with all the severe weather, it seems like underground is the way to go for branches and losing power and- Mm-hmm ... which is frequent. So there's just a whole bunch of long-term benefits and maybe some less maintenance costs. And even with underground work, it's just not cost effective for customers.

▶ 32:53 Mm. It's going to be 10 to 20 times. If a customer wants to do a normal upgrade, like 200 to 300 amp, 400 amp, overhead would be a lot cheaper. We're talking 10, 20 times cheaper than doing underground. Yeah. I'm mainly thinking for a- And Councilor Chen, I just want to remind you that we're talking about the petition at hand tonight. Yeah, we're talking about power poles. Talking about the petition at hand at Tremont Street. And power infrastructure. Just want to keep us focused on the petition at hand. Yeah. You were saying? Just saying it's not cost effective for customers overall. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, no problem. I have Councilor Kowal, followed by Finocchiaro, then Vanderberg. What side of the street is this pole going on?

▶ 33:38 That product in particular- It's the same side ... same side of the building? Okay. Thank you. Yep. Councilor Finocchiaro. I just had a question about what a riser was, but I'm kind of looking up online. It's just an additional piece of the pole piece? It's more of a siphon, but it's just, yeah, it's like a pipe on the pole that will bring our primary wires underground. Okay. I know we have another question, but I was just going to make a recommendation to place on file. I second. There's a recommendation placed on file made by Councilor Finocchiaro, seconded by Councilor Karamcheti. Councilor Vanderberg. Thank you. Thank you for asking the question about the riser. I was going to ask that one.

▶ 34:17 Through the chair, my understanding as well, I believe Director Coray-Cazalas has mentioned this trade-off to us before, and it's something she's somewhat familiar with. But my understanding is one of the other difficulties is that besides power, these poles also carry internet and other things like that. And so, it's the coordination of trying to get everything underground and not need to open it back up another time is one of the other challenges, as well as other things that are already buried. Just for context, that was shared in a different meeting. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Vanderberg. Any other comments from councilors? Seeing none, Madam Clerk. Councilor Chen? Yes.

▶ 34:56 Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Vanderberg? Yes. President Freeman? Yes. That motion passes. Thank you. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close public hearing. Second. Motion to close made by Councilor Karamcheti, seconded by Councilor Romanul. Madam Clerk? Councilor Chen? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. Councilor Karamcheti? Yes. Councilor Kowal? Yes. Councilor Obremski? Yes. Councilor Park? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Vanderberg? Yes. President Freeman?