Several Democratic Assembly members turned out for a hearing meant to gather public comments on a proposal to better aid low- to moderate-income households with their utility bills.
For months the issue of electricity pricing has been a Republican talking point used to hammer Gov. Phil Murphy’s clean energy agenda, which Republicans say has left the state with a power supply deficit and caused soaring electricity bills for ratepayers.
At the April 1 virtual Board of Public Utilities hearing several Democrats used the open public comment opportunity to show that they too are angry at what rising energy prices are doing to constituents. While they don’t focus the blame as explicitly on Murphy, some came pretty close.
Assemblywoman Andrea Katz (D-8) called the proposals to offer greater relief to low- and moderate-income households a “Band-Aid on a gaping wound.” She went on to say that it is “shameful” that “the state has made such a mess of the situation.”
The Democrats who spoke at the meeting made sure to identify legislation they have introduced to address the problem. They include capping annual utility rate increases, establishing a medical baseline program for those who use medical equipment at home and requiring a yearly review of revenue requirements for utilities to ensure they do not include excess profits.
Most of the elected officials, like Assemblyman William Moen (D-5), agreed with efforts to better support low- and moderate-income households but emphasized the need to do more for a broader range of ratepayers.
Assemblywoman Luanne Peterpaul (D-11) argued for more focus on long-term sustainable solutions. Her district partner, Assemblywoman Margie Donlon (D-11), said the aid proposal before the BPU for low- and moderate-income families was “treating the symptoms of an energy system that has become increasingly unaffordable.”
The comments by Assembly members followed a BPU staff presentation on what BPU President Christine Guhl-Sadovy termed a straw proposal developed from recommendations in a recent report from the Brattle group that “we are going forward with.” The proposal has three aspects to it.
First, it seeks to make the bill credit available to those who qualify for assistance more “impactful.” It does this by raising the minimum and maximum benefits. The minimum benefit moves from $5 to $20 a month, and the maximum from $180 to $200 per month.
According to the presentation, the cost to the average ratepayer to finance the increase in benefits would be $4.40 annually. It is not clear if that calculation includes any assumptions about significantly raising the number of households receiving benefits.
A second step in the proposal is to better align the electric and gas utilities with energy assistance customers by requiring the utilities’ involvement in outreach and enrollment activities. The utilities will be required to increase participation in the Universal Service Fund within their service territories, with specific target participation goals.
The presentation made clear that the utilities would be able to recover the administrative costs of their participation, but no estimate of that cost and the ratepayer impact was included in the discussion.
The third prong of the proposal is the need for better promotion of the assistance program.
All of the steps are intended, according to the BPU staff, to increase participation by low- and moderate-income households significantly. Currently only 20% of eligible households that would quality for assistance are receiving benefits. Eligibility is largely influenced by household income and size.
The funds to support the proposed expansion of benefits and engagement would come from the societal benefits charge on electricity bills.
Most of those who spoke after the Assembly members were not elected officials, but were associated with various nonprofit groups ranging from AARP of New Jersey to the League of Conservation Voters.
Many argued that the steps being proposed were useful but did not go far enough. More had to be done, they said, to deal with increasing energy insecurity and, as Larry Glover of the Glover Group argued, extending protection to vulnerable groups “on the bubble,” just missing income qualification levels.
Mamie Purnell of the New Jersey Office of Rate Counsel said that the best way to deal with the current problem is “to limit rate increases.” Purnell added that the focus of the effort for low- and moderate-income households should be on increasing participation.
The BPU will be accepting comments on the proposal until 5 p.m. Thursday, April 10. Comments can be submitted in various ways, with information available here.
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
