Posted on June 27, 2008 in Concerns, Government, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

I just came across this and wanted to pass it along. PPL is attempting to use eminent domain in Bucks County. Remember when I asked the question if they would be pursuing eminent domain if the PUC turned down their initial proposal?

If you follow this link,

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/General/Hearings.aspx?ShowDetail=06/02/2008

You will see 5 hearing scheduled for the week of June 2nd, 2008 against individual land owners. Here’s what each one says…

For a finding and determination that the service to be furnished by the applicant through its proposed exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain to acquire a right-of-way and easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed Coopersburg #1 and #2 138/69 kV Tap Reconstruction over and across the lands of (landowner’s name) in (township name), Bucks County is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience or safety to the public.

Scary, no?

Posted on June 27, 2008 in Community, Concerns, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

Unfortunately, the location of Lehigh Elementary School (in Lehigh Township) is less than desirable. According to the map and based on it’s proximity to Bossard’s Corner, it is within 4,000 ft of the 500 kV line.

The reason why I would move is not only because my children would have to live within 200 ft of the line, but when they went to school, they wouldn’t even get a break!

I think I just found the way to get more people in Lehigh Township involved.

Posted on June 27, 2008 in Community, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

The meeting last night was in some of the local media last night and this morning. I can’t seem to find a link though to the Channel 69 News story.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-5ppl.6480320jun27,0,4644839.story

http://www.pennlive.com/expresstimes/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-17/1214539539301250.xml&coll=2

Also, Bernie O’Hare has posted a blog entry about State Rep. Craig Dally’s opposition to Option C
that is well worth the read.

http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/06/stae-rep-dally-to-ppl-we-dont-need-no.html

Posted on June 26, 2008 in Community, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

I think I speak for everyone when I say – Great job over the past week in getting the word out. I was thrilled when I pulled in at 5PM and saw how many people showed up. Your dedication to this cause definitely had PPL scrambling a bit tonight, which was excellent to see. The rumors were that about 500 people showed up tonight (estimates by PPL mostly). We got tons of email addresses and signatures and got to meet each other, which was the best part of the evening (besides watching them squirm a bit).

In case you were not aware or involved, we had a mini-town hall style meeting in the back room of the Community Center for about an hour and a half. PPL was trying to keep the group small initially, but it ended up being over 100 people. Greg Smith was kind enough to answer questions, but it was clear that many of us wanted to not only ask questions, but also make sure they understood our opinions. It was great to see our group band together and remind PPL that they used to care about the environment, that we have real families involved here who love the Appalachian Trail and the rural beauty of Blue Mountain (and will fight for it), and that our lives are in jeopardy of being ruined and commercialized for their shareholders profits.

Check out this blog to catch up on the story so far. Many of you have the new address – http://www.dropthelines.com, but it’s not up yet! I just bought it this morning. There are documents, information on contacting government officials, template letters to use and it is only going to grow. We need to keep the heat on PPL. Just because their meeting is done, that doesn’t mean our job is!

Thanks again and it was a pleasure to meet you all.

Posted on June 26, 2008 in Government, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

This link was forwarded over to me today. We can file an informal complaint with the PUC prior to them getting an official proposal from PPL. Just go to

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/General/informal_complaint_form.aspx

and fill out the information. Keep in mind that the PUC is aware of the PPL Transmission line proposal as it has appeared in a recent newsletter, but PPL has not formally submitted anything yet since the decision has not been made.

If you prefer snail mail, write them at
Bureau of Consumer Services
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
P.O. BOX 3265
Harrisburg, PA. 17105-3265

On the right side of this page, I’ve also added a very informative link to how the PUC submission process for transmission lines works. You can go directly to it here”

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/general/consumer_ed/pdf/Transmission_Lines.pdf

Posted on June 26, 2008 in Community, Finance, PPL by Matthew Sekol1 Comment »

Bernie O’Hare has written an excellent article on his “Lehigh Valley Ramblings” blog. His reasons for PPL building the transmission line are spot on – they are even mentioned in PJM’s long term assessment of the line.

I highly recommend you check it out!

http://lehighvalleyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/06/big-coal-real-reason-why-ppl-wants.html

Posted on June 25, 2008 in Community, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

I was happy to see Channel 69 news cover the Forks Township PPL meeting as their top story!

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=288326

I’ve heard about 100 people attending, but the Northampton one will definitely have more than that. I know a lot of you have been getting the word out where you can and I think it’s helping. I really don’t think Channel 69 news wouldn’t have been there without us pushing so hard.

Good job everyone!

Posted on June 25, 2008 in Community, PPL by Matthew Sekol1 Comment »

In case you missed it, PJ was on the front page of the Morning Call!

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_1ppl.6475639jun25,0,1988974.story

Posted on June 24, 2008 in Finance, Government, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »

This isn’t just a fight for PA, but it’s a fight against a publicly traded corporation with real shareholders. This is the excerpt from the latest 10Q filing.

(PPL and PPL Electric)
In June 2007, PJM approved the construction of a new 130-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line between the Susquehanna substation in Pennsylvania and the Roseland substation in New Jersey that has been identified as essential to long-term reliability of the mid-Atlantic electricity grid. PJM determined that the line is needed to prevent potential overloads that could occur in the next decade on several existing transmission lines in the interconnected PJM system. PJM has directed PPL Electric to construct the portion of the Susquehanna-Roseland line in Pennsylvania and has directed Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) to construct the portion of the line in New Jersey by June 1, 2012. PPL Electric’s estimated share is between $300 million and $500 million. PPL Electric’s capital projections currently include approximately $320 million for the new transmission line, which will require certain regulatory approvals.
In December 2007, PPL Electric and PSE&G filed a joint petition for a declaratory order with the FERC requesting approval of transmission rate incentives for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line. The companies requested: (1) an additional 1.5% allowed rate of return on equity; (2) recognition of construction work in progress in rate base; (3) recovery of all costs if the project is cancelled; and (4) an additional 0.5% allowed rate of return on equity for membership in PJM. In April 2008, the FERC approved the filing and granted all of the requested incentives except that the allowed rate of return on equity was approved at 1.25%.

from:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/317187/000092222408000035/ppl10q.htm

What are the real benefits to Option C? Option A and B address reliability issues and can help new generation points in PA reach PA customers according to the PJM. Option C seems to exist mostly to deliver electricity to New Jersey. What are the PPL profits on PSE&G using these lines over in perpetuity?

Posted on June 24, 2008 in Environment, Government, PPL by Matthew SekolNo Comments »
In the Pennsylvania Consititution, our land is protected!
Article 1, Section 27 clearly states –
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
Next Page »