By Dena Mottola Jaborska

New Jersey residents and businesses already struggling under record-high utility costs could face even bigger bills if a fast-tracked state Senate legislation passes into law. S4876 would slap ratepayers with what would likely be a portion of a $20 to $30 billion bill to build a nuclear power plant, severely hampering Governor-elect Mikie Sherrill’s plans to make utilities more affordable throughout the Garden State.

It’s no wonder the bill’s almost universal opposition includes advocacy groups, business alliances,  and even proponents of nuclear power.  These experts understand, and testified at a Senate committee hearing, that New Jersey residents and businesses can’t afford yet another utility hike—one that will cost the average residential household at least an additional $55 a month, according to our state’s Division of Rate Counsel estimate.

It gets worse. New Jersey ratepayers would be on the hook for construction costs long before the plant produces a single watt of power. Ratepayers would also be responsible for some additional dollars tied to construction, no matter how large the budget overrun or how long the delays. There would be no opportunity to review or revise the policy, even if the construction of the plant goes awry, or if federal energy subsidies are ever extended for New Jersey, making ratepayer subsidies unnecessary.

In short, the bill allows for a burdensome and permanent ratepayer-financed subsidy that should be assumed by power companies and their shareholders, especially given the financial risks involved in simply building a nuclear power plant. The recently opened Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia took 15 years to build and cost more than $36.8 billion, more than double the original timeline and budget of $14 billion. During that time, utility rates for many Georgia ratepayers climbed by 23.7 percent. The profits for the power company operating the plant rose to 22 percent in 2024.

This fast-track lame duck bill also requires no independent, data-driven comparison of the plant’s effectiveness with other energy options. Without objective analysis, New Jersey, and especially our new administration, can’t determine whether there are cheaper, cleaner, or faster alternatives to address our energy needs and burgeoning utility costs.

The select group of companies who will benefit from S4876 made enormous profits from New Jersey’s nuclear plants for more than 30 years. Ratepayers have effectively financed these plants multiple times over, most recently through the Murphy administration’s $1.8 billion subsidy for nuclear plants, a subsidy the Division of Rate Counsel and many advocacy groups characterized as unnecessary for plants that were already financially healthy.

But with a new administration, we can formulate a fresh, consumer-friendly energy policy with a few crucial steps.

First, we shouldn’t rush to commit to one of the most expensive and slow-to-build energy sources. We need a thorough analysis identifying the cheapest, cleanest, and most readily deployable resources, especially before committing ratepayer dollars. Passing S4689 would be the responsible next step, as it would commission a study to consider the most cost-effective and best options for new electricity generation.

Governor-elect Sherrill has pledged to require a new level of transparency and accountability from our utility companies, including PSE&G, JCP&L, Atlantic City Electric, and Rockland Electric. Our utility companies should be required to open their books, explain how they are spending ratepayers’ hard-earned money, and demonstrate financial need before receiving any rate increases from the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU).

The BPU should also closely review utilities’ load forecasts. Many forecasts are inflated by speculative inquiries from prospective data center developers who may never build anything. These inflated projections contribute to higher prices set by the regional grid operator, PJM, and distort long-term planning.

Finally, New Jersey must stop placing disproportionate financial responsibility and risk on ratepayers. Residents and small businesses are not an inexhaustible funding source, and we’re facing a massive affordability crisis with regards to housing, healthcare, groceries, and of course, utility costs.

The expansion of energy-intensive data centers is driving massive energy demand and costs. These for-profit companies should be responsible for associated expansion costs, rather than shifting that burden to ratepayers.  Meanwhile, power generation developers should rely more heavily on shareholders to finance major projects, rather than expecting households to absorb costs they cannot afford.

Rejecting S4876 is not a rejection of nuclear energy. But we need to set aside a deeply flawed financing scheme that exposes ratepayers to unnecessarily higher risks and utility prices. New Jersey needs an overall energy strategy rooted in transparency, fiscal responsibility, and consumer protection—not one that financially burdens residents for years to come.

Dena Mottola Jaborska is the Executive Director of New Jersey Citizen Action, a statewide advocacy and empowerment organization that fights for social, racial and economic justice for all.