PATER site tracker
Part A candidate

Jenkins

Luzerne County · No street address in the report

A fuel oil peaker plant that retired in 2022 with 32 MW of capacity, on a 34.15-acre parcel in Luzerne County. The PATER study evaluates it for new generation.

PPL zoneEvaluated for new generationDistillate Fuel OilRetired 2022
At a glance

The site by the numbers

Retired capacity32 MW
Retired in2022
Parcel34.15 acres
Adjacent land5.48 acres
Within 30 miles707,864 people
From 900 Conshohocken Rd86.6 miles
Section 4.11

What the report says about this site

“Located at no specific address but at coordinates 41°16'56.6"N 75°48'59.2"W, this former fuel oil peaker plant located next to Laflin retired in 2022 and has a retired capacity of 32 MW (see Figure 27 and Table 16). The site is cleared and ready for redevelopment. The 34.2-acre site is located between Laflin and Hudson, PA. The site has been decommissioned, but its remediation status is unknown. It and an additional 5.5 acres of adjacent land are zoned for industrial use and rated as intermediately rugged. The site is not classified as a potential brownfield, but there is no known soil or groundwater contamination. FEMA designates the site as having a relatively moderate natural hazard risk but minimal flood risk. The parcel and nearby parcels are located within or adjacent to a confirmed underground mining area and are, therefore, considered to have elevated mine subsidence potential. Rail access is ~0.5 miles away; a major road is ~1 mile away, and river access is ~1.5 miles away. The site is close to transmission lines, a substation, and a natural gas pipeline. The nearest broadband installation is ~14.5 miles away. The nearest generator is ~14 miles away. The site sits on the Marcellus shale formation. The nearest wastewater treatment plant is ~5 miles away, and the nearest brownfield is ~2 miles away. There are ~707,864 people within 30 miles of the plant.”

PATER Part A report, section 4.11, page 45
Table 16

Site attributes

Report name
Jenkins
Address
No street address in the report
Coordinates
41°16'56.6"N 75°48'59.2"W
Fuel
Distillate Fuel Oil
Zoning
Industrial
Ruggedness
3 = Intermediately rugged
Brownfield designation
Not Presumptive
On-site contamination
None known
Groundwater contamination
None known
FEMA natural hazards risk
Relatively moderate
FEMA flood hazard
Minimal
Population within 30 miles
About 707,864 (report estimate)
PJM transmission zone
PPL
Evaluated for
New generation
Table 16

Distance to infrastructure

Approximate distance in miles, as published in Table 16 (page 45). The report says distances are measured from a point on the site and “all distance measurements must be considered general.”
Distance toMiles
Major road1.06
Rail network0.31
Major river1.56
Transmission line0.00
Substation0.08
Natural gas pipeline0.55
Broadband14.55
Marcellus Shale formation0.00
Wastewater treatment facility4.94
Brownfield site2.23
Table 28

The report’s acreage-based capacity estimates

Installed capacity potential in megawatts, from Table 28 (pages 78 and 79). The report calls these estimates “approximate as they are based on parcel acreage (which may differ from developable land acreage) and single land use intensity values per technology.” The gas figure is the acreage divided by 0.2 acres per megawatt (Table 27). Extended acreage adds adjacent parcels with the same owner.
TechnologyParcel (34 acres)Extended (40 acres)
Natural gas171198
Conventional nuclear5766
Battery storage488566
Solar56

The report places sites in the PPL transmission zone in its generation category, because projected load growth there exceeds expected generation additions (pages 76 and 77).

Status

Where this site stands

Current status
Part A candidate. Part B will narrow the 21 sites to 5 to 7 priorities.
Next step
Part B will rank the sites and validate the top 5 to 7 through site visits (page 103).
Public comment
Written comments on Part A are accepted under PUC Docket No. M-2026-3059601 through October 14, 2026.
Review meetings
The report says PATER Study Review Meetings are planned for October and February (page 103).

All 21 candidate sites

Our view on the study

Pennsylvania is studying two Schuylkill power sites. We think residents deserve corrected data, real environmental analysis and a straight answer on costs before the list gets shorter.

Read our view →

Take action

File a comment by October 14, watch the October 7 review meeting, and come to the Zoning Hearing Board on Thursday, October 15 at 7:00 p.m.

Ways to help →