Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Middletown officials for answers on JCP&L Monmouth County Reliability Project and public notice
Summary
Multiple residents raised concerns about a Jersey Central Power & Light transmission-line replacement they say runs behind homes in Belford; questions focused on pole height, number of circuits and kV, electromagnetic-field exposure, notice to residents and road closures. Township staff acknowledged the questions, described redundancy circuits and pledged to provide follow-up information.
During public comment on Oct. 20 several Belford-area residents asked the township committee for detailed information about a major Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) transmission project they say is running near their homes.
A resident who gave the address 630 Hopping Road described being told conflicting information by JCP&L contractors about pole height and line voltage and said she had not received clear answers from the Board of Public Utilities or from the utility’s outreach. She said poles appear similar to those on Highway 36 and that nearby houses are less than 200 feet from the new poles; she asked whether the project will increase kV, whether the town has a health-and-safety report on electromagnetic fields (EMF) and why the township did not issue a more visible notice to residents.
Township staff responded that the project is part of the Energize365/Monmouth County Reliability Project and that some structures are intended to provide additional 34.5 kV circuits to create redundancy so a neighboring outage can be backed up by an alternate circuit. Staff said that multiple circuits do not necessarily produce cumulative electromagnetic exposure in the way speakers feared: ‘‘you’re only exposed to the highest one on the pole,’’ an official said. Officials acknowledged resident frustration with communications and said they would gather the detailed technical materials and coordinate answers and road-closure notifications for affected neighborhoods.
Resident requests and questions recorded at the meeting included: exact pole heights between Roxbury Road and Hopping Road; the kV assigned to each new line and whether it can be increased over time; whether a written ‘‘safer alternative’’ plan presented to the utility by engineers in litigation (RAGE) is available for public review; whether the township has a health-and-safety assessment from FirstEnergy or JCP&L; and why the township had not issued a broader press release or direct notification for residents.
Town staff took copies of the questions during the meeting and told residents they would provide follow-up answers. The committee did not take formal action on the project at the meeting; staff said some adjoining property owners had received notifications from JCP&L in advance but agreed to improve outreach where gaps were reported.
Residents may expect follow-up from township staff with more complete technical materials and a schedule of any planned road closures.
