A recent Daily Record editorial contends there isn't anything towns and residents can do to stop a proposed Public Service Electric & Gas company power line. As a resident of Randolph, I would be directly impacted by proposed route C. I recently attended a Montville Township meeting where the residents also would be impacted, but by the two other possible routes, A and B.

Randolph and Montville citizens may disagree about which route should be chosen, but I think we all agree we do not want these transmission lines installed.

The issue of constructing these 500 kV power lines is being fought throughout the country. Debates and litigation are ongoing in Virginia, Pennsylvania, California, Florida and Canada. The issue relates to the fact that these transmission lines are of a size and strength few have seen. At the Montville meeting, PSE&G was unable to address the mayor's desire to drive within one to two hours and see these proposed 190-foot towers.

I accept the fact that when I purchased my home three years ago it was near a current right of way, but the idea that towers can go from 85 feet up to 190 feet without any impact on my property value is ludicrous. By my calculation (using Google Maps) Randolph has 41 current towers that could be replaced with towers up to 190 feet.

During the Montville meeting, PSE&G was adamant about not providing additional compensation to homeowners and towns in and around the areas affected for damages to real estate value. PSE&G's reasoning was that the current rights of way were acquired in 1920. How much would it cost them in today's dollars to acquire new rights of way? Would this project still be feasible?

Regarding your editorial quote, "It's tough to dispute the need for more electricity these days," this is because we live in a country where we start conservation efforts, but then drop them as soon as the price of oil or natural gas drops. We do not have a long-term energy policy, only short-term fixes. The utilities, federal government and the state may preach conservation, but you need to steer some serious money toward the programs for them to be a success.

This transmission line will cost $1 billion and allow you to move the equivalent of the power needed to light 20 million 75-watt light bulbs from Susquehanna, Pa., to Roseland. It is not providing any new generating capacity to the grid, just moving it from one place to another.

As to the $1 billion cost, PSE&G and its partner, PPL Corp. of Pennsylvania, are proud to point out that this cost will be spread out over 51 million customers on the PJM transmission grid, which both are members of, and that it encompasses 13 states. What they failed to point out is that $9 billion of similar transmission line projects have been authorized since 2000 and will be spread across that same 51 million customer base including customers of PSE&G, PPL and Jersey Central Power & Light.

Our elected officials at all levels of government need to revisit whether deregulation was beneficial to the consumer. PSE&G cites re-regulation of the power industry as one of the highest risks for the company.

Utilities used to be motivated to serve local customers; now they are motivated by how much money they can make by sending our power through the transmission grid to someone who is running a little low. They have "gamed" the system for maximum profit on that last megawatt.

PSE&G should address the problem by building or adding on to one of its existing plants in the areas that currently have shortages in northern New Jersey. The answer is not to destroy values and properties in Morris County.