A bill advanced out of the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee could tack an extra $22 to $55 onto consumers’ monthly electricity bills.
The purpose of the bill is to have New Jersey ratepayers begin to pay for 5% of the construction costs of a new nuclear plant that would generate 1,100 megawatts of electricity a decade from now.
The plant would be constructed at the site of the old Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township and is part of a plan by Camden-based Holtec International.
The bill, S-4876, was introduced on Nov. 17 and is sponsored by Sens. Bob Smith (D-17) and John Burzichelli (D-3). It was advanced by the committee on a 4-1 vote, with only Republican Sen. Parker Space (R-24) voting no.
An unusual coalition of business groups, environmental organizations and New Jersey ratepayer advocate Brian Lipman have urged rejection of the plan.
What Lipman is calling the advanced nuclear development charge would be in place for more than a decade before the plant begins to produce energy. The details on the projected costs and benefits to the company developing the plant are not part of the package. The $22 to $55 increase in ratepayer bills is an estimate from Lipman.
Board of Public Utilities President Christine Guhl-Sadovy spoke in favor of the bill at a committee hearing, saying that federal loans and private investment will only be possible with ratepayer support. Opponents of the bill point to ratepayer exposure for cost overruns over the course of the years of development.
The bill also does not require that project’s developers return ratepayer investments upon completion of the project. Although some return on the investment is required, the BPU is given the authority to negotiate how much that would be.
The new fee would come along with the expectation that the cost of electricity will continue to rise, including an expected rate increase in June 2026.
Lipman said, “There are going to be people after this bill who aren’t going to be able to afford their electric bill.”
Some of those opposed to the bill say it is premature. They argue that the state has not yet debated its plan for increasing supply and the overall mix of energy sources that will be needed.
Others argue that the Legislature should not be advancing such a bill prior to Mikie Sherrill’s taking office given that energy policy was a major issue in her campaign for the governor’s chair.
