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!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Go PJ
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
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_1ppl.6475639jun25,0,1988974.story
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Not just PA, but shareholders too!
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?
(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?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Contact our Local Media Outlets!
The more people that contact our local media, the more chances it will be that they will show up at Thursday night's meeting. Here are some links to contact our local news stations:
Channel 69 News
NBC News (Philly)
ABC News (Philly)
CBS News (Philly)
If you would like to contact the Morning Call, send an email to letters@mcall.com.
You can contact the Easton Express at 1 800-360-3601.
Also, a lot of folks in the valley listen to Bobby Gunther Walsh on WAEB. You can email him our plight at gunther@waeb.com.
If you hear anything, email dropthelines@blogspot.com and let me know!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
PJM Assessment of Option C
The PJM has been tasked with ensuring the reliability of the power grid in the Northeast United States. While they were formed prior to the blackout of 2003, the reliability of the power grid since that time has been their driving focus.
Option C or the Bossards Line is actually assessed by the PJM on their website and their opinion is that it is less than desirable.
According to PJM documents, the Bossards line would "have required the outage of several 230 kV lines along the proposed route which would have significantly impacted area reliability. In addition, the Bossards alternative provided much less benefit with respect to integrating new generation in north-central and northeastern Pennsylvania."
Citation:http://www2.pjm.com/planning/downloads/rtep-2007/2007-section3a.pdf (Page 10)
Furthermost, there is an article on PPL's website which states "Experts: Pennsylvania has critical need for improved electrical infrastructure or state could face blackouts; demand for energy in state is currently outstripping supply", but this power line does not deliver electricity to our state. Options A and B, which would involve replacing older lines, would improve Pennsylvania's electrical infrastructure and its reliability. Option C does not do enough to further this - its primary goal is to take power to New Jersey.
What this means is that Options A and B will not only meet with the increasing demand of energy in New Jersey, but also address the aging infrastructure that services Pennsylvania better than Option C.
Option C or the Bossards Line is actually assessed by the PJM on their website and their opinion is that it is less than desirable.
According to PJM documents, the Bossards line would "have required the outage of several 230 kV lines along the proposed route which would have significantly impacted area reliability. In addition, the Bossards alternative provided much less benefit with respect to integrating new generation in north-central and northeastern Pennsylvania."
Citation:http://www2.pjm.com/planning/downloads/rtep-2007/2007-section3a.pdf (Page 10)
Furthermost, there is an article on PPL's website which states "Experts: Pennsylvania has critical need for improved electrical infrastructure or state could face blackouts; demand for energy in state is currently outstripping supply", but this power line does not deliver electricity to our state. Options A and B, which would involve replacing older lines, would improve Pennsylvania's electrical infrastructure and its reliability. Option C does not do enough to further this - its primary goal is to take power to New Jersey.
What this means is that Options A and B will not only meet with the increasing demand of energy in New Jersey, but also address the aging infrastructure that services Pennsylvania better than Option C.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Join us!
In the Community Meeting today, we formed a community group to keep information flowing. If you'd like to join this group, please send an email to dropthelines@gmail.com.
The group is called RUSP: Residents United to Stop PPL's Proposed Power line (Route 'C').
We will be sending out helpful information and your email address will be strictly confidential.
The group is called RUSP: Residents United to Stop PPL's Proposed Power line (Route 'C').
We will be sending out helpful information and your email address will be strictly confidential.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Community Meeting - 6/20 at 10AM
This is probably late notice, but I just found out myself. There is a community meeting at Covenant United Methodist Church at 10AM tomorrow morning.
2715 Mountain View Drive
Bath, PA 18104
2715 Mountain View Drive
Bath, PA 18104
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)