When transmission lines go up, something else comes down—quiet farmland, family campgrounds and the character of local communities. Large-scale projects like these are often promoted as essential upgrades to meet state energy goals, but too often they leave households with higher bills and landscapes forever changed. Across New York, residents are being asked to shoulder the burden of the state’s unfeasible energy mandates.

One example of that is right here in Oswego County. The recently proposed South Oswego Tar Hill Transmission Project—driven by the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA)—would cut through farmland and neighborhoods while raising utility bills for residents who are already stretched thin.

The plan calls for replacing 28.6 miles of 115kV wires and structures stretching from the City of Oswego through the towns of Albion, Altmar, Mexico, New Haven, Orwell, Richland and Scriba. Families and small businesses are already straining under Albany’s unrealistic mandates. In fact, the Public Service Commission (PSC) recently approved a $22 monthly increase in utility bills—advancing this project would pile on even more costs, while disrupting the communities in its path.

In a letter to the PSC, I urged the agency to delay approval of the project for myriad reasons. In part, it reads, “While improving transmission capacity is important… it is critical that the PSC weighs whether this project represents the least-cost and least-disruptive means of meeting actual regional demands. With this approach to energy policy, the utility runs the risk of unfairly billing its ratepayers for this significant infrastructure investment that is being determined by a climate agenda.”

The project is being advanced to meet the state’s aggressive goal of going 100% zero emission by 2040, and the consequences are significant. Beyond the economic burden, residents, stakeholders and local governments have voiced concerns about the project cutting through neighborhoods and campgrounds. Health and safety risks have been raised, along with concerns of property devaluation.

The proposal includes two massive new substations that would dramatically alter the character of the region. The visual impact is another major concern—some of the new transmission structures will be up to 80 feet taller than those they replace. For these reasons, I have urged the PSC to:

• Delay approval of the project until it fully explores grid alternatives;
• Conduct up-to-date environmental and visual reviews; and
• Prove that the benefits truly outweigh the costs while respecting the voices of local residents.

Ratepayers should not be forced to shoulder the costs and consequences of a project designed to meet New York’s green energy agenda. Before any approvals are granted, the PSC must put residents, property owners and local governments at the center of its decision-making.