Energy. Environment. Economy.

Expanded Power Line Will Cut Through Delaware Water Gap

Stan Honda / AFP/Getty Images

Towers carrying electricity in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania from the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, a nuclear power plant in Delta, Pennsylvania.

The National Park Service has approved a controversial plan to expand a power line that will run through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The Susquehanna-Roseland line will increase capacity for the East Coast, which utilities say is needed to prevent blackouts like the one experienced in 2003. Environmentalists have fought the project, saying it will both damage ecosystems and result in higher electricity prices. The Newark Star-Ledger has more:

After years of debate between power companies and environmentalists, the $1.2 billion Susquehanna-Roseland line got approval from the National Park Service, Public Service Electric & Gas said today.

“This new line will reinforce our nation’s critical energy infrastructure for future generations,” said Ralph LaRossa, PSE&G’s president and CEO in a joint statement with officials from Pennsylvania’s PPL Electric Utilities. “It will ensure that homes and businesses in a multistate region continue to enjoy safe and reliable electric service long into the future.”

The non-profit National Parks Conservation Association released a statement criticizing the decision by the Park Service.

“America’s national parks are not blank spots on the map conveniently set aside for future development projects like super-sized transmission lines,” said Cinda Waldbuesser.  ”We can meet America’s energy needs without sacrificing our national parks. We must ensure these national treasures are protected for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.”


  • Tom McBride

    Why is this planned labeled “controversial”? It would be controversial if the plan called for electical power to be transported by batteries or unsupported lines strewn about the countryside not merely because a specific special interest group.has some aesthetic objections certainly the plan will not “sacrifice” the delaware water gap. I believe the reason for the use of this word in this and other issues (eg.the “controversial” voter id law dispite that 70 per cent of the people think this is just common sense) is to create an false equivalency in order to make it appear to the public that critical energy needs are not more important then the views of a enviormental group. Lets drop the misleading term “controversial” and just say the energy plan is opposed by a group that values aesthetic views more than energy needs.

About StateImpact

StateImpact seeks to inform and engage local communities with broadcast and online news focused on how state government decisions affect your lives.
Learn More »