Here's part of Craig's letter.
PPL has identified three possible routes for this project. Route A begins at the PPL Electric Utilities switching station near Berwick and travels northeast through Luzerne and Lackawanna counties on a path of an existing 230-kV power line. The line then travels east through Lackawanna and Wayne counties primarily on the path of existing power lines before heading east-southeast through Pike County.
Route B begins at the PPL Electric Utilities switching station near Berwick and travels through Luzerne, Lackawanna and Wayne counties on the same power line rights of way as Route A. Route B separates from Route A at a point northeast of Lake Wallenpaupack and travels south through the Delaware State Forest on the path of an existing 230-kV power line.
Route C begins at the PPL Electric Utilities switching station near Berwick and travels south primarily on an existing future-use right of way through Luzerne and Schuylkill counties. The line then travels east primarily on future-use or existing transmission power line routes in Schuylkill and Lehigh counties. The line then moves east-northeast through Northampton County on the path of an existing power line.
As the State Representative for the 138th House District, I am writing to formally oppose proposed Route C. After reviewing the information concerning this Route, 1 believe that another option would be best in order to achieve the stated goals of PPL to improve electric service reliability and ensure that existing infrastructure is not overloaded. I believe that planning such an expansive project on "future-use right of ways" or "future-use transmission power line routes'' unnecessarily burdens the citizens of the 13 8th District while other options use existing power line rights of way.
Further, I have heard from many constituents who received PPL's notice concerning the Susquehanna-Roseland Power Line and they have encouraged me to express opposition to Route C based on potential environmental impacts, impacts on scenic and historical sites, existing land use, and plant and wildlife habitats. I believe that during the public comment period, these views will be echoed by many individuals.
I appreciate the need for PPL Electric Utilities to address the growing infrastructure needs of Pennsylvania's power network. I take you at your word when you say, "We understand that this kind of work can cause concerns for nearby residents. We are being extremely careful to balance the need to build this project with our responsibility to care for the environment and to minimize the impact on nearby residents." I believe that after the series of public input meetings concerning Route C, PPL will come to the same conclusion that I am advocating here - that Route C is not the best option for this project.