I'll make this as direct and short as possible. This Susquehanna-Roseland Project is not needed and it is definitely not wanted!! We need our Stewards of New Jersey's park & landscape vistas(the NPS -National Park Service) to please see through the choking smoke that PJM & PSE&G have surrounded themselves with. The NJ BPU could not see through it.

This so called, 'necessary' power transmission 'upgrade' is 'required' for ongoing power grid 'reliability'. PJM/PSE&G have chosen these words very carefully, and skillfully, in an effort to deter any challenges from any and all of the 'users'(us) of their power grids. If you just take a moment and peer through the haze of words meant to block you from seeing what is really there you will find a much different landscape.

'necessary' - They say the new power is necessary to meet new and estimated INCREASED power demands that will be placed on the power grid. It is documented that power demand has fallen, not increased, over the last few years. It is also now projected to decrease for at least another couple years, if not longer.

Sign Up for E-News

'upgrade' - They say that this work is an upgrade to enhance the power grid. But how can it be described as an upgrade? If virtually everything that is existing is removed and everything that is added is massively different, that is not an upgrade it is just something new. The power is going from 230kv to 730kv - that is 3 times more. 5 suspended wires now becomes 18 suspended wires which are emitting more noise and EMF's then before. The existing 80' towers are to be demolished & replaced with NEW 190' towers- that's more than twice the height of the existing towers and almost three times the height of an average tree. Why label it an upgrade? By calling it an 'upgrade' they have avoided a lot of EPA & other federal and state regulation requirements -which they should certainly be held accountable for.

'required' - They say that it is required because of FERC(Fed. Energy Reg. Comm.) regulations that they will not be able to meet in the near future. They will not be able to meet some of these regulations because their future energy demand projections (estimates) say so. How they came to that and what basis they make their projections on are not being shared in detail. We just need to take their word that they are right. They have admitted that they projected 'increases' in total energy demand(2009 - 2011), but have seen decreases in the demand and now foresee additional DECREASES for at least the next couple of years. They will not be failing to meet FERC's regulations, except possibly as stated below.

'reliability' - They say that this project is important to the 'reliability' of the power grid. If you push aside all the smog you will find that the 'reliability' issue they may fail to meet may occur in about 3 years. What is this failure really? It is the failure to meet the power demand needs during the 'peak' 10 hours during the peak month of the year. That means that for the REMAINING 8,750 hours of the entire year they will be able to meet the energy demand and do it rather easily. So what does this all mean ? It means they think it is 'necessary' to 'upgrade' these lines by throwing 3x more power into the grid on top of new towers that are almost 3x the height of the existing towers. The main reason they are doing this is for about 10 hours during the whole year they will not meet the 'required' regulations created by FERC for the power grid system. 'reliability' is achieved during the remaining 8750 hours of the year!! Thus, if the energy demands and 'reliability' of the power grid are met for virtually the whole year, I am sure we do not need to scar any more of New Jersey's remaining beautiful landscapes with immense eye sores, i.e. towers.

We need to safeguard what vistas remain not only for us but also for our children's sake. Clearly the above shows that this misguided power project proposed does resolve the possible demand issues that PJM/PSE&G say are coming. But the problem is in the enormity of the plan that they propose which is shown to be completely over the top and absurd. They are saying, let's spend almost a BILLION dollars of rate payer's money to fix this issue of 10 hours a year! They are suggesting to solve this problem at the expense of rate payers and more importantly the environment. I could name numerous different and more suitable ways to meet these demand issues without having to spend a BILLION dollars or put our remaining vistas in real jeopardy. We all need to see to it that this project does not go through and affect any of New Jersey's already battle weary landscapes.