POLITICO reports on a new nuclear bill under consideration by New Jersey lawmakers, which could potentially drive up energy costs for consumers. United's Katie Mettle noted that, while supportive of nuclear energy generally, the bill lacks safeguards on costs or timelines, and expressed concern that ratepayers would be paying for a costly and time-consuming endeavor with no immediate benefits.
New Jersey lawmakers are considering legislation to build a new nuclear plant, which could jeopardize Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill’s promise to keep rates down for consumers.
Advocates representing a diverse range of interests have come out in force against the bill, warning against putting ratepayers on the hook for building the costly power plant before it produces any power.
“What we're really looking at is higher rates and no benefit during [Sherrill's] first term,” said Brian Lipman, director of the Division of Rate Counsel, who has testified against the bill as it moved through the Legislature.
Lipman's office believes the legislation will saddle ratepayers with monthly bill increases of up to $55 a month. But the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, which helped draft the bill, estimates customers would not see an increase of more than $3 a month. The wildly divergent cost estimates are causing controversy for the legislation and handwringing about whether such policies should even be set by an outgoing administration.
Opposition to the bill has drawn an unlikely coalition. The Chemistry Council of New Jersey, Advanced Energy United, New Jersey Business Industry Association, New Jersey Large Energy Users Coalition and other organizations representing environmental advocates and renewable energy interests all testified in opposition.
The rush through lame duck
Not all opponents to the bill oppose nuclear energy. Several testified that they support nuclear energy, but argued that this bill seemed rushed and that more time was needed to study the issue before putting ratepayers on the hook for such a costly and time-consuming endeavor.
A separate bill that passed both chambers last month would direct the BPU to study the development of advanced nuclear reactors in the state.
Katie Mettle, principal at the industry association Advanced Energy United, said the group supported nuclear generation but raised the specter of blackouts in the PJM region as soon as 2027, while a nuclear plant would take 10 to 15 years to get built. She expressed concerns that the bill contained “no consequences for the nuclear developer if their project goes over budget,” she said.
The Senate version of the bill is currently in the Budget and Appropriations Committee, and the Assembly version has been referred to the State and Local Government Committee. Sen. Bob Smith, one of the sponsors, said Friday that he wasn't sure about the bill's path forward.
Lipman said there could be amendments made to the bill that would make it more palatable to him, but remains concerned about the potential legal implications of the proposal.
“There’s panic buying on this bill right now,” Lipman said. “The text in the bill shows me that it was clearly rushed when it was written. It needs work.”
Read the full article here.