Cities balk at price of new streetlights
Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006
URL: http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/147682/
A 2005 law passed in part to help amateur astronomers gaze at the late night sky is instead being blamed for threatening the finances of cities across the state.
Act 1963 of 2005, by Rep. Sam Ledbetter, D-Little Rock, says that, starting at the beginning of this year, public funds can’t be used to install new streetlights that aren’t “shielded.” Such fixtures emit light downward only.
The intent, says Ledbetter, is to conserve energy and keep light pollution to a minimum. It’s cheaper and less disturbing to make sure a streetlight illuminates what it’s intended to illuminate and not more, Ledbetter says.
“You can get more bang for your buck because your light is being directed where you want it,” Ledbetter said.
But the law also requires utilities to file requests with the Arkansas Public Service Commission for special tariffs, which the power companies will charge for offering and operating the new, shielded lights.
And that’s the rub, says Don Zimmerman, executive director of the Arkansas Municipal League.
So far, 19 companies have filed tariff requests and almost all have asked the commission to approve what the league says are significant increases.
Zimmerman says some of league’s members worry the law will double or triple the cost of operating a streetlight.
“The cities can’t afford them,” Zimmerman said. “The bottom line, they can’t afford to have their light bill tripled.”
The league has intervened in the tariff request cases that are now before the commission and has asked the agency to deny those requests.
Little Rock City Director Brad Cazort said the league and other cities will be looking to amend the law during the 2007 legislative session.
“The best I can figure out, this law passed apparently without a whole lot of people understanding the ramifications,” Cazort said. “I sense from the Municipal League and other cities there may be a move afoot to have this law changed.”
Little Rock has about 22, 000 streetlights, said Bryan Day, the assistant city manager.
The league did not oppose the legislation when it passed through the Legislature in 2005.
“We took a neutral position on it.,” Zimmerman said. “We did not realize nor understand the fact that this was going to involve such an increase in the municipal street lighting bills.”
Ledbetter, the bill’s sponsor, said he consulted with the league and others who might be affected and they didn’t express objections or foresee a problem at the time.
He also said his own research left him unconvinced that shielded lights would be more expensive.
“I did some research on costs and I was never convinced that there would be a significant increase in costs associated with shielded lighting as opposed to unshielded,” Ledbetter said.
Ledbetter said the point of the legislation was to clear Arkansas’ night skies from excess light, including that thrown by city streetlights. He said astronomers were among the bill’s supporters.
How much the law will actually cost cities remains to be seen. The commission has yet to approve any of the requested tariffs, and is still studying the issue, said John Bethel, the commission’s executive director.
Entergy Arkansas Inc. was the first company to file for an increased rate. The company provides electric power to many cities including Little Rock, Pine Bluff, Hot Springs and El Dorado.
The companies offer a wide variety of options, and the costs of changing to shielded lights varies. However, the company said that the monthly cost of one variety of light — a 250 watt high pressure sodium light — would rise from $ 7. 02 to $ 13. 37.
Steve Strickland, Entergy Arkansas’ vice president of regulatory affairs, said that increased monthly costs will primarily cover Entergy’s expenses for building a new light post.
“Primarily, it’s just the cost of installation,” Strickland said.
He said another reason for the increase is the age of Entergy Arkansas’ current price structure.
That structure went into effect in January 1998. And it was developed in part on the company’s costs from 1995.
That means the structure that the $ 7. 02 monthly cost originated from is more than a decade old, Strickland said. The tariff request on file with the commission is based on more modern prices.
While the commission deliberates, some cities are waiting on new lights. They include Mountainburg, a Crawford County town off Interstate 540 which recently sought new lights for an expanded city park.
Instead, says Mountainburg Mayor Stanley Moore, Oklahoma Gas & Electric told the town it didn’t have either the lights required by law or the approved system to bill the town.
“We want to put lights on it so that people can use it in the evenings,” Moore said of the park. “OG&E does not have any lights as such, and they also don’t have the rates structured to set them up. So that has stopped us from redoing our park.”
The act was filed as House Bill 2665. It passed the House 61-25, and the Senate 23-12. It prohibits the use of public funds to install “an outdoor lighting fixture” unless that fixture is shielded.
An outdoor lighting fixture, as defined by the law, includes searchlights, spotlights, floodlights, parking lot lights, landscape lighting, billboards and streetlights.
The act requires electric companies to offer a shielded lighting option to customers. The law does not apply to some low-wattage lights or to outdoor advertisements along interstate highways.
It also doesn’t apply to municipally owned utilities, if the city determines that using shielded lighting will be more expensive than the alternative in terms of the fixture and operation.
Other exemptions include airport lighting and lights needed for worker safety on farms or construction sites.
The law can be enforced by a town, city or county.
Punishments include a warning for a first offense, and a fine of $ 25, minus the cost of replacing the outdoor light with one that complies with the statute.
The law also says that new lights cannot use mercury vapor lights, which Ledbetter said include mercury, an environmentally hazardous substance.
Fayetteville adopted a similar ordinance just after the 2005 session, according to a filing with the commission by Southwestern Electric Power Co.