"Power line approval met with disappointment"

PhillyBurbs.com: "Power line approval met with disappointment," by Amanda Cregan, Intelligencer, July 24, 2009:

Pennsylvania's Public Utility Commission voted unanimously Thursday to approve construction of a new PPL power line along a route that's been vehemently opposed by communities in Upper Bucks County.

The plan will string power lines along seven miles of the Tohickon Creek in Springfield and Richland townships and plant a substation on seven acres of wetlands.


Two years and nearly $175,000 in legal fees later, it was hard news to hear in Springfield.

Springfield Manager Richard Schilling isn't normally at a loss for words, but he had to gather his thoughts Thursday to express his disappointment.

"I think that we feel a little disheartened that the environmental issues really were not taken into consideration by neither the administrative law judge nor the PUC," he said.

He's pointing fingers at the state agency.

"The PUC meets with no discussion, no input, just the case that was submitted," he said. "Most government functions require transparency, but apparently that doesn't hold too much when it comes to the PUC."

The PUC did conduct public hearings in Springfield and Richland last year, where residents' comments were submitted as part of the legal record.

Springfield officials had been preparing for the worst since Administrative Law Judge Angela T. Jones recommended to PUC judges in February that PPL's preferred power line route through protected sections of the township is better than two alternative routes that follow existing lines along Route 309 or a former SEPTA railway track.

PPL argues that the cross country power line route through rural sections of Springfield and Richland would be the least intrusive and is necessary to intersect with a substation that would be built on an 80-acre parcel in Springfield.

The utility says a new substation and power lines are necessary to meet the growing demand for power.

Springfield argued that the power lines should follow busy Route 309, and submitted expert testimony arguing that it would devastate the wildlife and vegetation in the township's high-value watershed.

Environmental experts hired by Springfield said the construction of power line poles along the creek coupled with pesticides that might be used could disrupt habitats.

"There was an expectation that we were in trouble when she wrote a decision that honestly PPL could have written for her," said Schilling. "She just disregarded the expert testimony we provided."

Karl Schwartz, who sits on the board of directors of the grassroots group "Springfield bucks Undesirable Land Use," says the PUC vote was unfair.

"I think since there was a reasonable alternative to the preferred route by PPL that it's really regrettable that convenience and cost matter more than the environment," said Schwartz. "We feel the process was not fair and it wasn't a level playing field. PPL determined their preferred route and there was no choice given as to where the substation would be."

Knowing that PPL still needs construction permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corp of Engineers, grassroots members will look into how plans might be halted because of existing wetlands and protected wildlife habitats, said Schwartz.

The Allentown-based utility giant does not yet have a timetable for construction.

"We're pleased with the decision and we're moving forward in planning for construction," said PPL spokesman Paul Wirth.

Springfield Township supervisors will meet in executive session to discuss how and if they will move forward in an appeal to Commonwealth Court.

"I think the supervisors still feel this fight was worth the effort for what they were going to do to our natural areas," said Schilling. "But cost is an issue in this economic climate."

Supervisors are expected to announce their decision at their next meeting Tuesday.