Nuclear Bill Package Passes out of Assembly and Senate Budget Committee

The Nuclear Subsidy S2313 (Sweeney)/ A3724, Solar renewable energy standards-modify S2314 (Sweeney)/ A3723 (McKeon), and Wind Energy Project Offshore Application S1217 (Sweeney)/ A2485 (Mazzeo) all passed out of  Assembly Appropriations and Senate Budget Committee today. The New Jersey Sierra Club has concerns that these bills not only subsidize nuclear power at the expense of the ratepayers, but will lead to an overall undermining of renewable energy efforts in New Jersey.

“This bill package is really just a way to get greencover by splitting the original nuclear bill into three parts. It’s still a giveaway to PSEG and a complex green scam that puts the environment and ratepayers of NJ at risk. There is no need to push through this bill that will severely interfere with Governor Murphy’s clean energy goals. It’s nothing more than giving Public Service Enterprise Greed a blank check from the ratepayer that will undermine progress for renewable energy in New Jersey. This bill hurts renewable energy and ratepayer’s wallets,” said Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “This bill package is the biggest subsidy and rip-off in the history of New Jersey. It will undermine renewable energy and cost ratepayers millions of dollars.”

Nuclear Subsidies

Nuclear Subsidies S2313 (Sweeney)/ A3724 directs the Board of Public Utilities (board) to establish a Zero Emission Certificate (ZEC) program. Under the bill, a ZEC is a certificate, issued by the board or its designee, representing the fuel diversity, air quality, and other environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour of electricity generated by an eligible nuclear power plant selected by the board to participate in the ZEC program, Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club released the following statement:

“PSEG wants a $3 billion subsidy for their nuclear plants that don’t need funding. The whole bill is just an excuse to subsidize the nuclear power plants. PSEG are getting $300 million a year whether they need it or not. We should not be moving forward with this nuclear subsidy deal when PSEG will get $800 million in subsidies from Trump’s tax cut. PJM is also looking to give them millions in subsidies. Under energy deregulation these plants also received $2.5 billion dollars in subsidies as Stranded Assets, despite being profitable. PSEG still want to take billions of NJ ratepayer money to subsidize nuclear their power plants that are already making money.

“The new nuclear bill still does not have language for replacing the plants when they close with renewables. This means that when the plants close, they can be replaced with natural gas. They must do an assessment to continue giving the subsidies but the documents they get from PSEG will be hidden from the public and Ratepayer Advocate. The new nuclear bill still does not guarantee the financial transparency needed to ensure ratepayers won’t subsidize profitable nuclear plant. This bill is bad for the environment, the ratepayers, and the workers. This is all about helping PSEG’s bottom line.”

Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency

Solar renewable energy standards-modify S2314 (Sweeney)/ A3723 (McKeon): Establishes and modifies clean energy and energy efficiency programs; modifies State’s solar renewable energy portfolio standards. Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, released the following statement:

“This bill is labelled as being green, but it still undermines renewable energy. Governor Murphy has strong environmental and clean energy goals for New Jersey including reaching 100% green energy by 2050. However, this bill package will undermine those goals. We believe that the language stating our goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050 must be clearly stated within the legislation. If the language is not clear, the goal may not happen because it’s unlikely this issue will be taken up again. If the bill replaces the cap on in-state renewables with language promising 100% renewable by 2050 and replacing the plants with renewable energy, we can support the bill.

“This is no cap for coal, oil, gas or nuclear so it would be unfair to undermine renewable energy by placing a cap on it. Exempting off-shore wind projects from caps is a good thing but New Jersey will never meet the 50% renewable portfolio standard with the solar cost cap. We strongly oppose any cap on renewable energy. Our concern is the cost of solar SREC program, which have been analyzed to take up 6% of the cap, whether it’s a 7% or 9% cap. We should exempt in-state New Jersey renewable energy projects from any cap.

“This cap leaves no room for New Jersey to move forward to meet targets of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (50% by 2030). We believe that the cap is a concept being used by the right wing to block renewable energy altogether. The solar piece alone could cost ratepayers $4 billion over ten years. They could shut down the green-energy stuff in New Jersey and lead to the bankrupting of countless projects. This would send money to help the economy and jobs of other states like Pennsylvania, not New Jersey. This is a fraud that actually works against renewable energy.

“There is also no language in the bill package stating that the nuclear plants must be replaced with renewable energy when they close. This means we could be subsidizing nuclear energy just to pave the way for more natural gas while undermining renewables. There’s also no language in the bill that prevents PSEG from selling the plants after they get the subsidies. There’s also nothing in the bill to protect workers. Even if PSEG gets the subsidy, they can still lay off workers to increase revenue. There isn’t even language that includes a closure plan with a just transition for the workers.”

Fisherman’s Energy Wind Project

Wind Energy Project Offshore Application S1217 (Sweeney)/ A2485 (Mazzeo):  BPU consideration and approval of amended application for qualified wind energy project offshore in certain NJ territorial waters. Jeff Tittel released the following statement:

“The Fisherman’s Energy wind project was proposed many years ago; they even gave them the site without doing an RFP to see if there was a better location or project. We normally support wind projects in New Jersey, however; we have concerns that this legislation will end up hurting our ability to get to our goal of 3500 MW by 2030. We need to focus on putting together programs and mechanisms to get the 1100 MW built further off the coast. This will help make our long-term goals a reality. Offshore wind is the most reliable and cost-effective form of offshore power. Instead of being visible so close to shore, we should build 15 to 20 miles off the coast where there is more sustainable wind and fewer environmental impacts. We believe we should be pushing for these long-term goals before funding any other, smaller, projects.

“We believe that the project covered by this legislation will undermine the ability to get larger offshore wind projects. This is due to the expense of the project itself as well as the loss of federal money from Christie dragging his feet. The proposal for this project is $210 million for 24 MW. The cost-to-scale would make this project three to four times more expensive than doing a large-scale project further off the coast. Our concern is that if the project becomes too expensive or has environmental impacts because it’s too close to shore, it could also undermine public support for the larger offshore wind projects. Instead of building these 4 towers 2.8 miles from the shore, we should be building 200 of them 15 to 20 miles from shore.

“New Jersey should be either getting rid of the Net Benefits Test or change it to adequately price the impacts of carbon and air pollution. This will allow us to maximize the positive impacts and monetary benefits from protecting the environment and public health. We’ve done studies to find the best places for wind that have the least environmental impacts six years ago. Offshore wind off our coast could feasibly power 1.2 million homes with clean energy. New Jersey has enough potential of offshore wind to meet 1/3 of our electrical needs. We have to make sure we’ll planning and spending with comprehensive legislation in the right way to maximize our potential for offshore wind power.”