You could try to compute damages based on BTUs. For instance if the tree cooled an equivalent of 50,000 BTU's on average during the daylight hours in the summer while letting in 10,000 average BTUs of sunlight in the winter one could compute the cost of the electricity required to produce a comparable amount of temperature change in the immediate vicinity. Just a thought.

the blue chemical that is still on both trees could be damage. Not sure how to calculate that? What is it worth if someone permanently marks your property with blue chemicals? I think the lawsuit is to get KUB to stop spraying chemicals on private property. Also it shows KUB went past the easement and created permanent damages.

It was on the 6oclock news wbir and they have a story online here: (link...) with the attached complaint.

It's my understanding that the tree in question predated the power lines and that the trim job was more a butchering. Since "pretty" or "historically significant" or "biologically unique " are kind of hard to quantify in terms of damages in dollars, I threw out a quantifiable number. Maybe it will float, maybe it won't. In the end though, the result of the first three factors will be the quantifiable number. Plus KUB's current tree trimming policy sucks.

They won't trim trees that are an obvious nuisance and they'll butcher trees that are only marginally at risk of creating a hazard. My personal opinion is that ever since they started relying primarily on subcontracting, common sense is bypassed for specs that don't always work in a given situation.

All this being said, it's just another example that subcontracting the public works to the private sector does not work (our private sector management is currently the worst in the industrialized world) and most of the info I have is second and third hand on this specific incident so all I'm really doing is commenting on someone else's opinion anyway. I could be totally off base and wrong. But at least I'm on vacation and in air conditioning.