Navigating

the

Environmental

Regulatory

Landscape

Overview of Forthcoming National Environmental Requirements,

Impacts to the Electric Power Industry,

and PSEG Power’s Position

June 29 -

30, 2010

Exhibit 99.1

Forward-Looking Statement

Readers are cautioned that statements contained in this presentation about our and our subsidiaries' future performance, including future revenues, earnings, strategies,

prospects and all other statements that are not purely historical, are forward-looking statements for purposes of the safe harbor provisions under The Private Securities

Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although we believe that our expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, we can give no assurance they will be achieved. The results

or events predicted in these statements may differ materially from actual results or events. Factors which could cause results or events to differ from current expectations

include, but are not limited to:

•

Adverse changes in energy industry law, policies and regulation, including market structures and rules and reliability standards.

•

Any inability of our transmission and distribution businesses to obtain adequate and timely rate relief and regulatory approvals from federal and state regulators.

•

Changes in federal and state environmental regulations that could increase our costs or limit operations of our generating units.

•

Changes in nuclear regulation and/or developments in the nuclear power industry generally that could limit operations of our nuclear generating units.

•

Actions

or

activities

at

one

of

our

nuclear

units

located

on

a

multi-unit

site

that

might

adversely

affect

our

ability

to

continue

to

operate

that

unit

or

other

units

located

at

the

same site.

•

Any inability to balance our energy obligations, available supply and trading risks.

•

Any deterioration in our credit quality.

•

Availability of capital and credit at commercially reasonable terms and conditions and our ability to meet cash needs.

•

Any

inability

to

realize

anticipated

tax

benefits

or

retain

tax

credits.

•

Changes

in

the

cost

of,

or

interruption

in

the

supply

of,

fuel

and

other

commodities

necessary

to

the

operation

of

our

generating

units.

•

Delays or unforeseen cost escalations in our construction and development activities.

•

Increase in competition in energy markets in which we compete.

•

Adverse performance of our decommissioning and defined benefit plan trust fund investments, and changes in discount rates and funding requirements.

•

Changes in technology and increased customer conservation.

For further information, please refer to our Annual Report on Form 10-K, including Item 1A. Risk Factors, and subsequent reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. These documents address in further detail our business, industry issues and other factors that could cause actual results to differ

materially from those indicated in this presentation. In addition, any forward-looking statements included herein represent our estimates only as of today and should not be

relied upon as representing our estimates as of any subsequent date. While we may elect to update forward-looking statements from time to time, we specifically disclaim

any obligation to do so, even if our internal estimates change, unless otherwise required by applicable securities laws.

Increasingly stringent environmental requirements could

significantly impact the electric power industry within the next

decade.

Major areas where new regulations are currently under development:

•

Management of Coal Combustion Residuals (CCRs)

–

Proposed new rule governing the use and disposition of coal combustion by-products under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

•

Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)

–

The forthcoming CATR represents a court-mandated revision to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

regulating sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

•

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

–

Forthcoming

court-mandated

rule

that

will

require

coal-

and

oil-fired

steam

electric

generating

units

to

meet emissions limits for mercury (Hg) and other hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) pursuant to Section

112 of the Clean Air Act.

•

316(b) Cooling Water Regulations

–

Forthcoming rule that will define how best available technology requirements for cooling water intake

structures

will

be

applied

to

large

existing

electric

generating

plants

under

Section

316(b)

of

the

Clean

Water Act.

•

Carbon Legislation / Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Best Available Control

Technology (BACT)

–

Congress may move to establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG emissions from

power plants.

–

Absent Congressional pre-emption, EPA is developing guidance that will inform how States determine

BACT requirements for GHG emissions at major new and modified power plants under the Clean Air

Act.

Management of Coal Combustion Residuals

(CCRs)

Overview:

•

TVA’s coal ash spill in December 2008 prompted EPA action to regulate the management and disposition of CCRs.

•

On June 21, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule identifying options to regulate coal ash and scrubber waste:

•

Option

1:

coal

ash

and

scrubber

waste,

when

destined

for

disposal

in

landfills

or

surface

impoundments,

is

subject

to

regulation

as

a

hazardous waste under subtitle C of RCRA.

•

Option

2:

coal

ash

and

scrubber

waste

regulated

under

subtitle

D

of

RCRA

as

a

non-hazardous

waste.

Industry Impact:

•

Under

both

options,

facilities

with

wet

ash

ponds

would

be

required

to

expend

capital

to

close

or

upgrade

their

ponds

(including

dam

safety, liners, groundwater monitoring) and upgrade from wet to dry ash handling. 

•

Many coal facilities will likely face higher variable operating costs due to heightened requirements for coal ash management and

disposal.

•

Units that are unable to justify the capital investment or bear an increase in variable operating costs may be forced into retirement.

•

Unit retirements and/or increased variable operating costs are expected to lead to higher electricity prices.

PSEG Power:

•

PSEG already utilizes dry ash handling and disposal systems.

•

PSEG coal ash and scrubber waste tested as non-hazardous.

•

PSEG has established options for beneficial re-use.

2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020

Rule Proposed

Rule Finalized

EPA

Comment

Period

Market Impacts Expected

Likely Effective Date of

requirement to close and/or

upgrade existing wet ash

ponds

Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)

2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020

Rule Proposed

Rule Finalized

EPA

Comment

Period

Market Impacts Expected

Likely Effective Date

Overview:

•

Following the December 2008 US District Court remand of CAIR, EPA is expected to propose the CAIR-replacement Clean Air Transport

Rule (CATR) by mid-summer 2010.

•

EPA

and

States

must

limit

emissions

of

nitrogen

oxides

(NOx)

and

sulfur

dioxide

(SO2)

in

the

eastern

U.S.

to

meet

the

ozone

and

National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

•

As

a

replacement

to

the

above,

Congress

may

move

to

establish

emissions

limits

for

NOx

and

SO2

[as

well

as

mercury

(Hg)]

by

enacting

a

multi-pollutant revision to the Clean Air Act. 

Industry Impact:

•

CATR, or new legislation, will establish NOx and SO2

emissions limits on a plant-by-plant, State, or regional basis. 

•

Implementation may force plants to retire or invest capital to control emissions.

•

Retirements and/or increased variable operating costs are expected to lead to higher electricity prices.

PSEG Power:

•

PSEG has no anticipated capital expenditure exposure to CATR.

•

PSEG has highly controlled coal facilities with low NOx and SO2

emissions which position PSEG Power well relative to competitors.

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020

Rule Proposed

Rule Finalized

EPA Comment Period

Market Impacts Expected

Likely Effective Date

EPA

Information

Collection

Request

Overview:

•

EPA is under an adjudicated consent decree to establish MACT standards to reduce mercury (Hg) and other Hazardous Air Pollutants

(HAPs) emissions

at

coal-

and

oil-fired

steam

electric

generation

units

(EGUs).

Industry Impact:

•

The MACT standards for Hg and other HAPs will establish emissions limits that will likely require uncontrolled coal and oil-fired steam units

to expend capital to install emissions controls, or force them to retire.

•

The

combination

of

capacity

retirements

and

increased

variable

operating

costs

at

facilities

that

install

controls

is

expected

to

lead

to

higher

electricity prices. 

PSEG Power:

•

While the MACT standards have not yet been established, PSEG Power’s affected units are in a good position to comply with the new

emissions limits:

–

Mercer and Hudson will have fully installed emissions controls by the end of 2010.

–

Bridgeport Harbor has Hg controls but may require additional controls for other HAPs.

–

Keystone, 23% owned by Power, is highly controlled and has been tested to meet anticipated MACT standards. 

–

Conemaugh, 23% owned by Power,  is undergoing analysis and testing to determine if planned additional emissions controls are

necessary.

316(b) Cooling Water Regulations

Overview:

•

Pursuant

to

section

316(b)

of

the

Clean

Water

Act,

EPA

is

in

the

process

of

developing

a

rule

that

will

define how States will establish standards for cooling water intake structures at large power plants.

•

The rule will apply to large existing power plants that are designed to withdraw 50 million gallons per day

or more and that use at least 25 percent of their withdrawn water for cooling purposes only. 

–

The rule will apply to 422 fossil-fueled and 38 nuclear power plants representing over 308 and 52

GW of existing capacity, respectively. 

•

Concurrently, States such as NY and CA have begun to develop their own guidance with respect to

cooling water intake structures at large power plants.

Industry Impact:

•

Power

plants

that

are

located

on

tidal

rivers,

estuaries,

or

the

Great

Lakes

–

and

which

withdraw

significant

amounts

of

water

–

may

face

heightened

risks

to

potential

new

requirements

to

install

cooling

water towers.

•

A requirement to install cooling towers will force power plants into a retrofit-or-retire decision.

•

Retirements

and/or

increased

variable

operating

costs

at

facilities

that

install

cooling

towers

are

expected

to lead to higher electricity prices.

316(b) Cooling Water Regulations (cont’d.)

PSEG Power:

•

PSEG Power shares general industry exposure to potential new cooling water requirements at Hudson, Mercer,

Bridgeport Harbor and most notably, at our Salem nuclear generating station.

•

However, in issuing permits for Salem, the NJ Department of Environmental Protection previously judged that Power

has the Best Technology Available:

–

Salem has state of the art traveling screens to limit impingement, and entrainment, of fish.

–

Power has spent over $150M on an estuary enhancement program, yielding a nearly four-fold replacement of

fish biomass lost at Salem.

–

Depending

on

the

outcome

of

EPA’s

final

rule,

cost

/

benefit

considerations

may

limit

Power’s

Capex

exposure.

2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020

Rule Proposed

Rule Finalized

EPA

Comment

Period

Market Impacts Expected

Likely Effective Date of potential requirement

to install cooling water towers

Overview:

•

Congress may move to establish a carbon cap-and-trade system to reduce GHG emissions from power plants.

•

Absent Congressional pre-emption, pursuant to a 2007 US Supreme Court ruling and EPA’s finding that GHGs threaten the public health

and welfare, EPA is required to regulate GHG emissions under the

Clean Air Act. 

–

EPA is in the process of defining guidance for how States should

implement BACT requirements during the permitting of major new

and modified power plants, effective January 2011.

Industry Impact:

•

A carbon cap-and-trade would increase variable operating costs for fossil-fueled power plants, especially coal.

–

Increased variable costs for generators are expected to lead to higher electricity prices.

•

In the meantime, GHG BACT requirements may delay and/or impede the permitting of new and modified power plants.

–

Delayed capacity additions or expansions may result in capacity constraints which could lead to increased electricity prices.

PSEG Power:

•

As a result of its low carbon fleet, PSEG Power would realize a net benefit from a carbon cap-and-trade that establishes a price on carbon.

•

PSEG Power believes it has limited exposure to GHG BACT requirements. 

2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018     2019     2020

EPA Comment

Period

Market Impacts Expected

Effective Date of GHG

BACT Requirements

EPA to

define GHG

BACT

Guidance

Anticipated Effective Date of federal

carbon cap-and-trade on power plants.

Carbon Legislation / Greenhouse Gas (GHG)

Best Available Control Technology (BACT)

Conclusions

•

EPA is engaged in several significant, concurrent rule-makings that have the

potential to shape the economics of electricity supply over the 2010-2020 time

horizon.

•

The net outcome of these multiple rule-makings is unknown.  However, the likely

effect will be to force capital expenditure or retirement decisions at a significant

share of the nation’s coal and oil-fired generation capacity.  In addition, variable

operating costs are expected to rise at most fossil-fueled power plants due to

increased environmental requirements.

•

The various environmental initiatives under development are estimated to put  20

GW to 150 GW of existing fossil capacity at risk of retirement.

•

PSEG may be affected by some new requirements, but is generally well-positioned

relative to industry peers.