Reaction to Judge Jones' 

Decision in Word Format

Our Letter To PUC Commissioners in PDF 

The community's petition - 
66% of registered voters oppose!

CONSEQUENCES: The recommendation by Judge Jones, if accepted by the Commission, means:

... that there is no such thing as self-determination in land use issues; 
 
... that communities, even when backed by their elected representatives, independent experts, and the DEP, cannot provide meaningful input on where to site power grids;

... that alleged one-time cost benefits and convenience to the utility means more than impacts and risks to local assets;
 
... that the utility can determine its preference without community input, and also the alternatives to be studied and contested, without providing comparative impact and cost assessments;
 
... that environmental impacts and permits are not a real issue, because they can be done last, and selectively;

... and in this instance, that our community will suffer the side effects of the "remedy," for NO benefit ... to meet anticipated growth and power needs elsewhere ... 

– knowing that more appropriate plan is available in commercial areas of our Township, more respectful of the communities wishes. 

TIMELINE: PPL's Rush to "judgment"

August 2006:  PPL begins to acquire ROW (Rights of Way)[1]

Concerns: Land acquisitions were done ahead of public discussion, completion of all impact studies, or PUC approval.

November 2006:  PPL purchased 85-acre Hickon Road substation site [2]

Concerns: This is a rural location and known flood zone; impact studies have not yet done; permits not yet obtained; PPL has excluded other available sites (commercial in character) without seeking public input.  PPL specifies that all alternative HV routes must link to this site.

November 2006: PPL submits cost analysis. [3]

Concerns: We question the accuracy of PPL’s analysis based on the time it took to produce it; and the objectivity of the analysis, based on prior land and ROW acquisition  – particularly as it relates to costs compared to the alternative sites, as it lacks side-by-side comparisons with the alternative HV routes and substations sites. 

July 2007:  PPL's wildlife and plant survey completed.[4] 

Concerns:  Study done well after PPL's decision on preferred route, the acquisition of ROWs, and purchase of substation site. The timing of this survey shows PPL's low regard for environmental issues. Also, this survey does not compare impacts with the alternative routes, which experts describe as significant, including the DEP.

February 2008: Springfield Township Public Meeting with PPL

Concerns: Public notified after the fact, and given scant detail.[5] 

July 25, 2008: The Department of Environmental Protection has come out against the route PPL Corp. is seeking ... saying it is environmentally the worst of three paths the company considered.[6]  

NEW: See also DEP letter

 ___________________
References: