The PJM has been tasked with ensuring the reliability of the power grid in the Northeast United States. While they were formed prior to the blackout of 2003, the reliability of the power grid since that time has been their driving focus.
Option C or the Bossards Line is actually assessed by the PJM on their website and their opinion is that it is less than desirable.
According to PJM documents, the Bossards line would "have required the outage of several 230 kV lines along the proposed route which would have significantly impacted area reliability. In addition, the Bossards alternative provided much less benefit with respect to integrating new generation in north-central and northeastern Pennsylvania."
Citation:http://www2.pjm.com/planning/downloads/rtep-2007/2007-section3a.pdf (Page 10)
Furthermost, there is an article on PPL's website which states "Experts: Pennsylvania has critical need for improved electrical infrastructure or state could face blackouts; demand for energy in state is currently outstripping supply", but this power line does not deliver electricity to our state. Options A and B, which would involve replacing older lines, would improve Pennsylvania's electrical infrastructure and its reliability. Option C does not do enough to further this - its primary goal is to take power to New Jersey.
What this means is that Options A and B will not only meet with the increasing demand of energy in New Jersey, but also address the aging infrastructure that services Pennsylvania better than Option C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment