Should Obama Back PSE&G Line?

Plans to run high-voltage power lines through much of the area had been slowed down, when it became clear they'd need to go through the National Parks Service for review.

.

PSE&G has long contended the power lines—which would follow a 45-mile path that includes land in Andover, Boonton Township, Byram, East Hanover, Fredon, Hardwick, Hopatcong Borough, Jefferson, Kinnelon, Montville, Newton, Parsippany, Rockaway, Roseland, Sparta and Stillwater—are needed to secure power for the region. But environmentalists say it will affect local wildlife, bring pollution to New Jersey, and be an eyesore.

Read PSE&G's statement on Wednesday's news, as well as the New Jersey Sierra Club's (included below), and tell us in the comments: Should this project move ahead? Why or why not?

The statement from the Sierra Club:

We are troubled by the Obama administration’s announcement today that they support the Susquehanna-Roseland project.  The transmission line will be part of a pilot program to expedite federal permitting on major infrastructure projects.  However the unnecessary Susquehanna-Roseland line will bring dirty coal power into New Jersey while cutting across our public lands.  The project is being used by PSE&G to allow for increased exports of cleaner energy produced in state to New York City, where they can charge higher rates. 

“The purpose of the Susquehanna-Roseland line is to bring in dirty coal power from Pennsylvania.  The President is wrong; this project is not about renewable energy and will not create long term jobs.  The Susquehanna-Roseland line undermines green energy jobs as we invest in antiquated technology instead of a smart grid, energy efficiency, and demand response programs,” said Jeff Tittel, Director, NJ Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are challenging the need for project as energy demand drops and energy efficiency programs increase in the New Jersey Court of Appeals.  The National Park Service (NPS) is currently reviewing the environmental impacts of the projects on our federal public lands and are not expected to make a decision on the project until January 2013.  This new pilot project could jeopardize the NPS environmental review and put our public lands at risk.

“President Obama is moving us in the wrong direction on energy issues.  This is the third disappointment in the past two months.  First the approval of the Keystone pipeline to carry tar sands oil across the country, then scrapping the smog rule, and now promoting the expanded exportation of coal-fired energy through this pilot program and the Susquehanna Roseland line.”

The NPS is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project as it crosses the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, the Middle Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, and the Appalachian Trail.  The NPS review could ultimately dramatically alter the route of the line or determine that the project is not needed at all under the “No Build” alternative and an expedited review under this pilot program would interfere with that process.  The NPS review of the project must not be rushed as they are examining 8 alternatives, including 3 that would move the project entirely outside of the Delaware Water Gap.  About 6,000 comments were received on the alternatives to the project alone and even more are expected when the draft EIS is released this fall.  NPS must be afforded enough time to review those public comments and implement their recommendations into the final document.

“It is absolutely wrong that the President is using this program to circumvent the environmental assessment and public process when it comes to putting an unnecessary power line through our national treasures,” said Jeff Tittel.

The Sierra Club is also concerned about the role of public comment under a “stream-lined” review program.  The public has been very active in the Susquehanna-Roseland line, with 6,000 comments submitted to NPS alone on the first part of their review.  An accelerated timeline could close the public out of the project review which is troubling as the public is the one asking for demand response, energy efficiency, and local generation alternatives to be examined.

The Susquehanna-Roseland line would bring coal-fired electricity into New Jersey from Pennsylvania and other Mid-western states.  The need for this energy is being created by exporting cleaner fuels produced in New Jersey to New York City markets where a higher price can be charged.  In June the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the exportation of  660 MW of power from New Jersey’s PSEG Ridgefield Park natural gas station into Manhattan.  

“PSEG will make money building the Susquehanna-Roseland line with a guaranteed 13.5% return on investment, they will earn a bigger profit selling dirty coal power at a much higher rate in New Jersey than Pennsylvania and they can sell the gas power to New York at an even higher rate.  This is a triple rip-off of consumers that is not being promoted by the Obama administration,” said Jeff Tittel.

The Susquehanna-Roseland line will increase New Jersey's dependence on polluting coal energy.  The Obama administration and PSE&G should be investing in local renewable energy, not major infrastructure projects that raise rates, increase our dependence on fossil fuels, and do not increase grid reliability.  Each year PJM’s Regional Transmission Expansion Planning process identifies exports to New York City and importation of power from across the Delaware River as the biggest concerns with grid reliability in New Jersey and this project will only exacerbate that problem.

“The Obama administration is taking the side of the coal industry and polluters over green jobs and the environment.  This decision today will undermine the ability of New Jersey and other eastern states to develop offshore wind, solar, and other renewable energy projects.  All this does is take money out of the pockets of rate payers and gives it to big coal companies hurting ratepayers, jobs, and the environment,” said Jeff Tittel.