Groups Against Nuclear Subsidy Bill Package 

Trenton– At today’s press conference, environmental and other groups are speaking out against a package of bills up for floor votes tomorrow. These three bills began as one which focused on a $3 billion subsidy for PSEG to keep their nuclear plants in New Jersey open. The nuclear subsidies bill S2313 (Sweeney)/ A3724 (McKeon) directs the Board of Public Utilities (board) to establish a Zero Emission Certificate (ZEC) program.

“This bill package sells out green energy by being nothing more than greencover for a giant nuclear subsidy. 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. Now it will be up for a floor vote in both Houses.”

Under energy deregulation these plants received billions in subsidies as Stranded Assests, despite the plants being profitable. They received hundreds of millions more from the ratepayers via Nuclear Plant Closure funds. Currently the three major nuclear power plants in NJ have made the auction and are financially profitable. The fourth, Oyster Creek, usually makes auction but is scheduled to close in 2020. Two of the plants looking for subsidies, Salem 1 and 2, operate without cooling towers to mitigate for fish kills. We have given them billions already that they’ve used to kill billions of fish a year.

“The nuclear bailout bill is Trenton at its worst — this is a bad deal for state ratepayers and for our environment. The nuclear industry is coming with hands out in Trenton and is putting its hands into ratepayers pockets to the potential tune of $300 million a year. Instead of pursuing financial transparency to ensure that PSEG truly needs a subsidy, the Legislature has worked to keep the Ratepayer Advocate out of the BPU proceedings. The nuclear bailout bill will create an unending process of subsidies for profitable plants with no sunsets, no annual review, and no guarantee of the inclusion of the Ratepayer Advocate, and no acknowledgement of the billions already spent to bailout these facilities and subsidize their potential liabilities​. This bailout will make it harder to transition to a clean, renewable energy future and we urge the Legislature to put the brakes on this bailout train​,” said Doug O’Malley, director of Environment New Jersey.

The other two bills that are part of this package are nothing but greencover. The bill for clean energy actually undermines renewables because it does not lay out strict language to reach our goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050. It also includes an unnecessary cap on in-state renewable energy. This will prevent us from moving forward with renewables, especially offshore wind, and lead to jobs and money going out of state. The other bill revives an outdated offshore wind project, Fisherman’s Energy, that does not follow the best practices. Instead of tying this small project to the nuclear subsidy bill, we should be focusing on maximizing our offshore wind potential.

“Let’s be honest,” stated Amy Goldsmith, NJ State Director, Clean Water Action. “PSE&G claims it is in financial trouble, when it has not proven that it is. It claims nuclear power is “renewable” when it isn’t.  Ultimately, this bill provides a subsidy to an old, dying industry for the sake of stockholder return rather than giving birth to a sustainable, more resilient energy future for New Jersey that will create more jobs and keep us moving forward. We shouldn’t be shoring up a Frankenstein and those that profit from it.”

Enviro Groups Call for Fisherman’s Energy Bill to Be Held

The New Jersey Sierra Club and 10 other environmental groups including  NJ Audubon, American Littoral Society, Work Environment Committee, Environment NJ, NJ League of Conservation Voters, NY/NJ Baykeeper, NJ Conservation Foundation, Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, and Defenders of Wildlife have sent a joint letter to Governor Murphy, Senate President Steve Sweeney, and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin asking to hold the offshore wind development and the nuclear subsidy bill package pending in both the House and Senate. The joint letter expresses the need to focus on long term offshore goals for New Jersey however there are concerns that the nuclear subsidy package will 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.  Jeff Tittel, Director of the New Jersey Sierra Club released the following statement:

 “The Fisherman’s Energy bill should be held because all of the groups have serious concerns with the legislation. The bill language still not include a process that ensures project transparency for ratepayers and stakeholders involved. We believe that the project covered by this legislation will undermine the ability to get larger and more cost effective offshore wind projects. The Fisherman’s Energy Wind Project bill will ultimately end up hurting our ability to get to our goal of 3500 MW by 2030. New Jersey needs offshore wind projects that include a RFP, cost less, and have an open process.

 “To ensure the successful launch of a New Jersey offshore wind industry, all offshore wind projects (both pilot and commercial scale) developed to meet the state’s goals should be thoroughly reviewed and selected through a competitive process that prioritizes minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing local economic benefits. An effective plan to build offshore wind must include a competitive process with transparent selection to advance projects that ensure greater environment protections, generate local jobs and economic benefits, and drive costs to ratepayers down. It also must include stakeholder engagement opportunities. The plan must avoid infrastructure projects in environmentally sensitive habitats, especially near shore areas, shoals and inlets. Plans must include an assessment of data gaps and additional needs to inform siting and permitting reviews. Infrastructure development plans must prioritizes local workforce and economic opportunities. Coordination with adjacent states and federal agencies to leverage resources already invested to inform New Jersey’s offshore wind development planning must also be involved in the planning process.

“The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) and the Department of Environmental Protection currently have sufficient legal authority to ensure that offshore wind development occurs in a responsible manner for New Jersey. In particular, the BPU does not need new authority from the Legislature to advance pilot projects. Current proposed legislation, S-1217/A-2485, does not require a competitive bidding process nor does it include requirements recommended above for ensuring environmental protections and stakeholder input.

“The 11 groups involved in this joint letter have not always agreed on issues, but we all agree that this legislation is bad for offshore wind. There are concerns that the Fisherman’s Energy bill is tied to the nuclear bill, is too expensive, and will prevent more cost-effective projects to be built. Offshore wind is the most reliable and cost-effective form of offshore power. We believe we should be pushing for these long-term goals before funding any other, smaller, projects.”