Comments for Drop the Lines

Comment on LAST REMINDER to Submit Comments to NPS! by Gary & Robin Hall

Gary & Robin Hall — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:18:12 +0000

As residents of Lehigh Twshp., proposed Route C is literally in our
backyard, going through part of Woodstone Golf Club. We have spent the
past 25 yrs. in this tranquil country setting & the past 10 yrs.
fighting to keep it that way. PPL is just the latest in a string of
organizations that have tried to taint our beautiful township.

While no power line would be most preferable, we feel that Route B would
be the least invasive. We know the NPS is concerned about the habitat
of wildlife, but more importantly the habitat of human beings is at risk
with the other proposed lines.

We believe the best course of action is to allow the Route B line to
proceed through the park along the existing route. PPL has stated they
will take extra precautions to preserve the environment.

Comment on LAST REMINDER to Submit Comments to NPS! by Marie Miller

Marie Miller — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 13:38:15 +0000

This is utterly ridiculous. We are talking about 4 miles of land thru the park, which already has towers on it.
All PPL is going to do is widen the lane and add larger towers. This should be a no brainer and really, it makes me think the park is looking for something from PPL otherwise, why are they holding them hostage over 4 miles of property, of which PPL already has the right-of-way.

Comment on Matt’s Comments for National Parks Service by Fred Stine

Fred Stine — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:45:54 +0000

Matt,

I really agree with your comments to the NPS, atleast up to the last couple of sentences where you state that if a line is going through, then let it be Route B.

Residents along all three routes and all commentors on the NPS EIS Scoping must be united in calling for a full assessment of the “need” of the transmission lines from the point of generation to it’s destination. If these lines go through A, B or C, it will trigger projects throughout PA, Maryland and beyond.

I understand why you would end your comment as you do, but Route B will also go through hundreds of peoples lands just like A and C (not as many I know) and it will negatively effect the very reason the millions of people go to the Water Gap in the first place.

Say “No” to Routes A, B and C.

Fred Stine
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
215-369-1188 x 113

Comment on New Morning Call Article and Reminder for ACTION! by Fred Stine

Fred Stine — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:24:39 +0000

Good morning to Route C Group.

PSE&G and PPL are effectively dividing the public forcing us to choose the lesser of three evils (e.g. Routes, A, B, and C). Editorials and Facebook sites in the Upper Delaware (Route A) echo what your’s (Route C) say. Build in Route B, when, in fact, none of those are good options.

We need to unite all voices..in the Upper Delaware (Route A), the Middle Delaware (Route B) and in the Lehigh Valley (Route C).. to stand together and say “no” to the lines PERIOD.

I work for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and fighting to stop the transmission lines from any crossing of the Delaware River. Because PSE&G and PPL selected Route B, that’s where our organization has been focusing its attention on. Rather than people from each Route areas saying “not in my backyard,” we need to take advantage of the NPS EIS process to have them expand their study area to include the impacts to all federal lands impacted by all the powerline projects that the Sus.-Rosleand project will connect. The Delaware River (Routes A,B or C) crossing is the link in the chain that will connect the other powerline projects to the west. If the lines cross the Delaware River, it enables all those other projects to move forward and therefore must be assessed by the NPS EIS study.

If we unite, we have a better chance to have the Park Service force the power companies to do what’s best for the mid-Atlantic energy needs, not just what’s expedient and profitable.

I am urging residents in all three Route areas to make comment to the NPS to expand the EIS scope. That’s been the primary comment from the Route B groups. We are not pushing for it to go in either Routes A or C.

We need voices pushing for expanded scoping through the EIS. We need the NPS to assess how aggressive conservation, alt. energy sources and smart grid tech to meet our future energy needs and reduce the likelihood of brown-outs will eliminate the need for the transmission lines altogether.

One woman gave testimony at the NPS public hearing in Parsippany said it (I think) succinctly…many years we have water shortages and are asked to conserve by not washing our cars, taking shorter showers, alternating days of the week to water our lawns, not getting water automatically served in restaurants, etc. We do that because we know it’s what’s needed. We wouldn’t expect the local river to be diverted just to meet our seasonal needs.

Why should we expect this huge electrical powerline with its huge price tag that we all will pay for with increased rates and with a huge social and environmental impact no matter which route is chosen when the answer is a combination of conservation via mostly minor changes in our daily lifestyles and investing is new technology.

Fred

Fred Stine, Citizen Action Coordinator
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
300 Pond Street – Second Floor
Bristol, PA 19007
Main office (215) 369-1188 ext. 113
Cell (856) 816-8021 fax-(215) 369-1181
web-delawareriverkeeper.org
Remember the River http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/remember
To remind us all to Remember the River in every decision we make;
And to hold our elected officials accountable to do the same.

Comment on The Other Shoe Drops Next Week! by Ryan Jairam

Ryan Jairam — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:09:23 +0000

It’s Route B:

http://www.pseg.com/companies/pseandg/powerline/pdf/Susquehanna_FAQ_print85.pdf

Comment on Lower Mt. Bethel Township Support! by Chris Miller

Chris Miller — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:54:54 +0000

I want to state that if I were in the location of some of the folks who could conceivably be effected by this line, I mighht be a bit irritated. I live in Bushkill Township near the school and close to the PP&L Transmission line.
I also have a friend who works for a power company who told me years ago that the grid in this area is terrible and we could suffer some severe electrical problems due to the make up of that grid.
I think all of us would be better served if we came up with solutions to a very serious problem. I know that this line is not going to directly serve the area but it will take pressure off our system so we will not have to worry about rolling brown outs and black outs. I pay enough for electrical power and unless it is an unforseen incident, I expect it to be on.
Now PP&L has held a number of public meetings to discuss this issue something they did not have to do but they have always been conscious about their image and no I do not own stock in the company. So far I have not seen any alternative suggestions other then that catchy Drop The Line slogan. Cute but it doesn’t address the issue. Let’s get thoughtful out there and let’s present the ideas to the company. It’s either that or walk around in the dark and no one wants to do that.

Comment on Overwhelming Response by Lehigh Township Resident

Lehigh Township Resident — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:15:14 +0000

It’s time we all start getting more aggressive with our attack on PPL, dont give up now people. Act up, be heard.

Comment on Next Lehigh Township Meeting! by Serina

Serina — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:56:24 +0000

Will we have someone there with the petitions for the community to sign?

Comment on Go PJ by luvourmtn

luvourmtn — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:31:00 +0000

thanks PJ for awakening the mountain folks to all the PPL lies and “misquotes” – we’ll be hugging the trees with you!

Comment on Lehigh Valley Ramblings Blog by Bernie O'Hare

Bernie O'Hare — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:00:00 +0000

Thanks for your nice words, and keep fighting the good fight.