Luzerne County Council rejects moratorium on LERTA requests tied to Sugarloaf transmission project

Luzerne County Council voted 9-1 on a resolution that would have placed a moratorium on future LERTA requests for properties to be served by the proposed 12-mile Sugarloaf 500 kilovolt transmission line, effectively rejecting the measure. Councilman Harry Haas was the lone yes vote; nine members opposed the moratorium.

The moratorium was the most contested item on the agenda and drew dozens of speakers during public comment, many of whom urged the council to pause tax-abatement requests and related approvals while the transmission line and potential data-center development were evaluated.

Supporters of the moratorium said the 500 kV line would enable hyperscale data centers and that a pause on LERTA (Local Economic Revitalization Tax Abatement) approvals would give the county time to update zoning and assess infrastructure, environmental and community impacts. “Can you in good conscience defend placing a transmission line of this industrial magnitude so close to people’s homes?” asked John Zola of Sugarloaf, one of multiple residents who testified on the issue.

Other speakers, including contractors and business representatives, opposed tying LERTA policy to the power-line issue, warning that halting abatements could impede economic development and remove tools to attract private investment. James Solano, a local general contractor, told the council the proposed Responsible Contractor Ordinance is already exclusionary and that adding a moratorium would further harm local contractors and competition.

Council members who opposed the moratorium said it would not stop the transmission-line project and could do unintended harm to long-term county planning. “PPL said they are coming regardless,” Councilwoman Leanne Stevenson said after recounting a meeting with PPL representatives. Stevenson and others described a multi-step state regulatory process—public hearings, administrative-law procedures and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission review—that PPL must follow and which a local moratorium would not interrupt.

Councilmember McDermott also relayed PPL’s written and oral responses to council questions: the utility told council members it expects to file in October and that, according to communications the county received, it would not condemn a house or its reasonable curtilage of about 300 feet. McDermott said PPL indicated the 12-mile line could be completed even if no new large users (data centers) locate in the area.

Chairman John Lombardo and other council members said the moratorium would not affect the immediate regulatory pathway for the line and stressed that LERTA authority is limited to certain kinds of properties (for example, blighted or previously disturbed sites) under state law. Several members said the more effective route is to revise zoning language and scrutinize future LERTA applications and incentives on a case-by-case basis.

After debate, the roll-call vote recorded: Harry Haas — yes; Joanna Krzanowski — no; John Liscavage — no; Deborah McDermott — no; Chris Perry — no; Michael Sabatino — no; Carrie Smith — no; Leanne Stevenson — no; Jimmy Wilovich — no; John Lombardo — no. The motion failed 1–9.

The council vote does not foreclose residents or municipalities from continuing administrative or legal challenges to the transmission-line or to any specific developments that may request LERTA abatements.

The transmission-line project, the subject of public testimony and council discussion, is being pursued by the regional utility and will proceed through state review processes. Council members said they will continue to press PPL for information and to seek zoning updates to address data-center siting and infrastructure concerns.

Ending: Residents and advocacy groups who supported the moratorium said they will continue to pursue regulatory and public-comment avenues at the state level; council members who opposed the moratorium urged constituents to participate in zoning updates and future hearings on specific development requests.