Is your group against new power lines in Springfield Township? 

We’re not opposed to power lines crossing Springfield Township. We recognize the need for an effective and economical means of providing energy.   

The alternative Route 309 corridor also crosses Springfield Twp., but it already has roads, telephone lines, and a PPL easement. Using a modification of the existing easement is less intrusive than tearing out a several mile long 200-foot wide swath through our Resource Protection Area.

Won't the 309 or SEPTA routes be disruptive to more people?

It may be that the 309 or SEPTA routes are more difficult for PPL to implement, but we are not aware of any study measuring the disruptive effects of the alternative routes on the public. 

For example, in a commercial/industrial area many residents may be happy to be paid for right of ways? It’s difficult to imagine the SEPTA route (a railroad line) as being disruptive to residents. Easier to imagine that PPL favors the Cross-Country route because it’s easier to implement in an open space, and that they will minimize the impact on the environment and overstate the impact of alternative routes. 

The point is that PPL should not judge impacts,  because – as a for-profit entity – they have a conflict of interest, which is to maximize profit for shareholders. 

NEW: Answering a comment on Mcall blog 

"Route 309 is not a practical alternative. These are large poles - not mere telephone poles - and would wreak havoc on traffic patterns for years. We're less certain about the Septa route, but if train service was to resume SEpta wouldn't be able to accommodate the easement."    

If the 309 and SEPTA routes are not feasible, why are they listed in the PPL proposal as alternatives?  Did PPL select non-feasible alternatives to ensure PUC approval of their "preferred" Cross Country route?

We’ll be interested to learn about the obstacles to the commercial / industrial paths from independent experts and direct sources, because, as noted, PPL has a financial conflict of interest. 

Question for citizens?  Should policy on placement of needed infrastructure default  to woodlands and open space - what's easiest? ...

... If so, expect that our remaining natural places, rural areas, and historic locations will be eliminated eventually, in all regions, piece-by-piece,  tree-by-tree, habitat by habitat ... leading to an American wasteland lacking in natural beauty and bio-diversity.  

Is your group overstating the threat to woodlands, floodplains and water?   

We are not saying that all incursions into natural environments are to be opposed, but that when there is a choice that we should seek to preserve contiguous woodlands and flood plains, which native animals, insects and plants depend on for habitat.   

Maintenance of ROWs involves routine applications of herbicides for the entire life of the power line. Of the 2,000 households in the Township, only 150 or so are serviced by a municipal water system.  Therefore, concerns about the impact on ground water and downstream effects are valid. 

The PPL's "preferred" route crosses streams that contain intact Tohickon riparian corridors. Riparian corridors are fragmented or absent in the other routes.

Please take time to review the report on the importance of natural ecosystems:

"The biota and physical structures of ecosystems provide a wide variety of marketable goods—fish and lumber being two familiar examples. Moreover, society is increasingly recognizing the myriad life support functions, the observable manifestations of ecosystem processes that ecosystems provide and without which human civilizations could not thrive (Daily, 1997; Naeem et al., 1999). 

These include water purification, recharging of groundwater, nutrient recycling, decomposition of wastes, regulation of climate, and maintenance of biodiversity. 

Derived from the physical, biological, and chemical processes at work in natural ecosystems, these functions are seldom experienced directly by users of the resource. Rather, it is the services provided by the ecosystems—services that create value for human users, such as flood risk reduction and water supply—together with the ecosystem goods, that are the subject of this report." 

SOURCE: VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES - 
TOWARD BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION–MAKING

Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11139&page=1 

Why be  concerned for endangered and native species?   

We believe other life forms deserve our respect and protection.  

Also, native plants and animals are markers for the health of our environment. By protecting species we are simultaneously safeguarding our environments for ourselves and future generations.  By protecting bio-diversity we improve the general health of the planet. 

Furthermore, we cannot anticipate the benefits to the practical sciences (medicines for example) that rare plants and animals may provide. 

Why should I be concerned about the lines crossing wetlands and watershed in a sparsely populated area?

Surprisingly, the appendix of PPL's biological report includes a list of inventoried resources and PPL's rationale for including them. This list of important resources to be avoided includes stony soils, wet soils, woodlands, floodplains, springs and water crossings. The Cross Country route goes right through a part of Springfield Township that is rich in, if not characterized by, these very resources. It appears that PPL has ignored not only its biological consultant, but also even its own policy with regard to this project. 

Why not use the 309 and SEPTA Routes?   

We agree.  Considerable commercial intrusions have already occurred in these areas.  Thus, using either path to meet energy demands will not change the character of the region, or have a negative impact on the environment or property values.

Will use of the 309 or SEPTA path increase utility rate?  

At this time, we are not aware of any independent studies on costs to implement and maintain the routes under consideration.  

If the Cross Country route is truly more expensive to implement and maintain, we anticipate that cost recovery would be amortized over many years, and given the large PPL customer base* that only a modest increase in rates would be needed and that this effect would be temporary - and more than offset by the protection of our land. 

* "PPL Sales (year 2000): $5.6 billion" Source:  fundinguniverse.com 

Cost-benefit analyses and policy choices should also include objective data describing the costs to ecosystems that are damaged. 

For example, the need to routinely apply herbicides in ROWs to control vegetation over the entire life of the transmission lines could undermine the quality of ground water, which is a vital public resource – particularly in rural areas. 

A modification of the existing easement for the alternative routes could be less costly to both maintain and implement, than the Cross Country route which runs through sensitive wetlands, floodplains and woodlands. 

The cost of an 80-acre tract for a 7 acre substation in the countryside does not appear cost effective either, when less expensive land could be purchased near the SEPTA line. 

Does PPL have the power to condemn my property?   

No.  Quote: "to have your property condemned, the utility must first apply to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) for a certificate finding the condemnation to be necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public."  ³  

We believe that PPL confuses self interest (i.e., accommodations, convenience) with the public interest.  We don't see that PPL has established a public necessity for the "preferred" route, because an increase in service capacity could be met by using one of the alternative commercial routes, and the impact of PPL's "preferred" route on the environment and the resident's property values are decisively negative and permanent.

Why go through this advocacy effort if the outcome will not change? 

Voter comment:  "Sure I'll sign the petition, but it's not going to make ANY difference. PPL has too much money and power and will have its way." 

This widely held perspective is a reason we must be resolved to improve the process so that decisions are based on informed public comment and objective impact studies.  

We must be mindful that PPL is a for-profit corporation (not that there's anything wrong with that), and so it's perspectives are biased and should not outweigh the perspectives of the communities affected, particularly when viable alternative paths exist for the power lines. 

We note also that the negative impact of policy-directed-solely-by-
special-interest (on future generations) is an important theme of this election.  

Isn't your group opposing because of self-interest? 

Some residents in the direct path of PPL's "preferred" route are alarmed because they are directly affected: will suffer a loss of property value and diminished quality of life.

Other residents who live nearby - in sight of the proposed power lines and substation - are concerned for the same reasons,  and will receive no compensation, ironically, despite paying taxes to preserve open space.  

The majority in our township appear to oppose the Cross Country path because of concerns about the environment and the negative impact on the historic and rural character of Bucks county; noting that somebody has to make a stand for our land.  

Others have voiced concerns about the process: whether it must always favor powerful and wealthy corporations without fairly accounting for public and environmental impacts.

Others cite the need to protect at least some native habitats, historic areas, and water quality, for future generations.  

Why do you oppose the PPL "preferred" Cross Country route?  

We oppose because PPL's  "preferred" path: 
 

What can I do to help?

Go to the ACTION page