Nuclear energy bill advances despite affordability concerns

Consumer advocates, environmental groups warn ratepayers could face decades of costs as lawmakers back long-term power strategy

TRENTON — A bill that would establish a state procurement program for advanced nuclear energy facilities cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee unanimously Tuesday, despite opposition from consumer advocates, environmental organizations, and senior groups that warned the measure could saddle ratepayers with billions of dollars in costs over the next four decades.

The committee voted unanimously to release A4881, known as the “Powering Opportunity, Workforce, and Energy Reliability for New Jersey Act,” or “Power NJ Act.” The legislation directs the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, in collaboration with the Economic Development Authority, to establish a program to procure advanced nuclear energy facilities in the state. Under the bill, the Board of Public Utilities would solicit proposals, review projects, negotiate terms, and establish a reliability capacity certificate program intended to provide revenue for approved projects.

Before the hearing, opponents gathered outside the committee room for a press conference, urging lawmakers to reject the measure.

“This is the bill that will absolutely raise rates for utility consumers,” Dena Mottola Jaborska, executive director of New Jersey Citizen Action, said during the press conference.

Jaborska argued that the legislation contains no cap on costs that could ultimately be passed on to consumers and questioned why residential ratepayers should be responsible for financing new generation capacity.

“We can ask the data centers, especially now, to pay for new energy generation, since they’re the ones responsible for the capacity spike that we’re experiencing,” she said.

Don’t miss the NJ stories that matter. Sign up for our free newsletter  →

During public testimony before the committee, Jaborska reiterated those concerns.

“We need some new ways to do this, so that we’re not, we don’t keep piling on more rate increases,” she told lawmakers. “We’re maxed out. Our folks are maxed out with their energy bills.”

Crystal McDonald, senior associate state director of advocacy for AARP New Jersey, said older residents are already struggling with rising utility bills.

“We’re talking about a 40-year bill with no cost estimate, no cap on what ratepayers will have to pay, no guard rails to protect us against cost overruns,” McDonald said.

She said AARP members are worried about keeping up with monthly electric bills.

“We can’t sign a blank check to build a nuclear power plant when we’re already struggling to pay the bill we have in front of us,” McDonald said.

David Pringle of Empower New Jersey told the committee that environmental, consumer, and ratepayer advocates remain united in opposition to the bill.

“It’s simply unaffordable, and even if it wasn’t unaffordable, it’s simply too late,” Pringle testified. “There are better, cheaper, faster, cleaner options out there.”

Pringle argued that technologies such as solar power, battery storage, geothermal energy, efficiency measures, and demand-response programs could be deployed far sooner than a new nuclear facility.

“As Dena mentioned, it will take 10 to 20 years, best case, to get nukes online, and the affordability crisis is now,” Pringle said.

Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey, also testified against the bill after criticizing it at the press conference.

At the press conference, O’Malley called the legislation one of the largest proposals to move through the Legislature without a fiscal analysis.

“No bill, I think, has moved quicker with a larger price tag and with a lack of a fiscal note,” O’Malley said.

During committee testimony, he pointed lawmakers to a coalition letter signed by 15 organizations and raised concerns about cost overruns associated with nuclear projects elsewhere in the country.

“The upper estimate from Rate Counsel is up to $22 per month on a bill,” O’Malley testified. “That’s obviously assuming delays and cost overruns, but that’s what we’ve seen from the industry.”

We can’t sign a blank check to build a nuclear power plant when we’re already struggling to pay the bill we have in front of us.

Crystal McDonald, AARP New Jersey

Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey state director of Clean Water Action, told lawmakers she has worked on nuclear issues since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

“Back in 1979 they said it was too cheap to meter. It’s never been too cheap to meter,” Goldsmith testified. “It’s always been expensive.”

Goldsmith contrasted the potential costs of nuclear development with the savings she has seen from rooftop solar.

“I got a bill last month of $5,” she said of her electric bill. “I’m a senior citizen. I like that $5 bill when I get it, not the $200 plus.”

No bill, I think, has moved quicker with a larger price tag and with a lack of a fiscal note.

Doug O’Malley, Environment New Jersey

A supporter of the bill argued that New Jersey cannot address long-term energy reliability concerns without expanding generation capacity.

Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association said businesses need both reliable and affordable power and described the legislation as a long-term investment.

“Yes, nuclear power is not going to address our issues of affordability today. It’s a longer-term play, but that’s what we need to do. Plan for the future,” Cantor said.

Cantor said New Jersey faces an electricity generation shortfall and argued that advanced nuclear technology can provide reliable, carbon-free power while helping meet future demand.

He said New Jersey’s existing Salem County nuclear plants, which supply a significant portion of the state’s electricity, were the result of planning decisions made decades ago and argued that the state must begin preparing now for future energy needs.

“If we did not have nuclear energy, where would we be?” Cantor said.

Committee members echoed concerns about the future before the unanimous bipartisan vote.

“If we’re to be serious about meeting our energy needs, we have to be serious about nuclear power,” said Assemblyman Gregory Myhre.

Assemblyman David Bailey, Jr. said amendments added to the legislation provide ratepayer protections, require multiple layers of regulatory review, prohibit subsidies for electricity sold directly to large data centers, and ensure that projects must demonstrate benefits to New Jersey consumers before moving forward.