Company claims South Jersey plants uneconomic otherwise. Rate Counsel Stefanie Brand accuses it of ‘holding a gun to the regulators’ head’
Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight:
PSEG’s threat to shut down its plants unless it “gets every penny’’ of a proposed $300 million ratepayer subsidy is “effectively holding a gun to the regulators’ head,” according to a brief filed by Rate Counsel director Stefanie Brand.
In responding to the company’s own filing last month, Brand sharply rebuked the former’s assertion it will close all its nuclear plants in South Jersey if the full subsidy, dubbed a zero-emission certificate (ZEC), is not paid to all three units there.
“The ZEC statute was not intended to provide a guarantee that these plants will not be retired, only a process for nuclear plant owners to seek subsidies based on a demonstration of economic necessity,’’ Brand said in the brief. The Rate Counsel contends PSEG has failed to make a compelling case on need.
PSEG countered that it has demonstrated in its filings that none of the plants are economically viable and their closure would be catastrophic for New Jersey’s clean-energy goals, according to Ralph LaRossa, president of PSEG Power, the owner of PSEG Nuclear.
“Ratepayer Advocate’s overheated rhetoric aside, her comments largely ignore the very specific matter before the Board of Public Utilities (BPU),’’ LaRossa said in an e-mailed response to Brand’s brief. “Her comments amount to rewrite New Jersey’s new law and redirect focus to the past or future while ignoring the coming three-year period the BPU has been asked to review.’’
Tom Johnson reports for NJ Spotlight:
PSEG’s threat to shut down its plants unless it “gets every penny’’ of a proposed $300 million ratepayer subsidy is “effectively holding a gun to the regulators’ head,” according to a brief filed by Rate Counsel director Stefanie Brand.
In responding to the company’s own filing last month, Brand sharply rebuked the former’s assertion it will close all its nuclear plants in South Jersey if the full subsidy, dubbed a zero-emission certificate (ZEC), is not paid to all three units there.
“The ZEC statute was not intended to provide a guarantee that these plants will not be retired, only a process for nuclear plant owners to seek subsidies based on a demonstration of economic necessity,’’ Brand said in the brief. The Rate Counsel contends PSEG has failed to make a compelling case on need.
PSEG countered that it has demonstrated in its filings that none of the plants are economically viable and their closure would be catastrophic for New Jersey’s clean-energy goals, according to Ralph LaRossa, president of PSEG Power, the owner of PSEG Nuclear.
“Ratepayer Advocate’s overheated rhetoric aside, her comments largely ignore the very specific matter before the Board of Public Utilities (BPU),’’ LaRossa said in an e-mailed response to Brand’s brief. “Her comments amount to rewrite New Jersey’s new law and redirect focus to the past or future while ignoring the coming three-year period the BPU has been asked to review.’’
Another twist in the tale
The Rate Counsel’s filing is the latest twist in an ongoing proceeding undertaken by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to decide if PSEG’s three plants — Salem I, Salem II, and Hope Creek — qualify for subsidies to be paid by ratepayers. Without the subsidies, PSEG has decided to close the plants, beginning as early as this fall with Hope Creek, according to an earlier company filing.
PSEG contends in its filings that the financial information it has provided to the state proves the plants will not cover future costs and risks, qualifying it for ZECs. That information, however, has been redacted in public filings, in what has been largely an opaque process leading up to a decision on the subsidy, expected to be made next month.
Nevertheless, there has been intense behind-the-scenes lobbying pro and con the proposed subsidies. BPU president Joseph Fiordaliso, apparently responding to the rampant speculation over the issue, declared at the agency’s monthly meeting last month, “We’re not here to destroy any industry.’’ He declined to say who he thought was making that accusation.
Like this? Click to receive free updates
The Rate Counsel’s filing is the latest twist in an ongoing proceeding undertaken by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to decide if PSEG’s three plants — Salem I, Salem II, and Hope Creek — qualify for subsidies to be paid by ratepayers. Without the subsidies, PSEG has decided to close the plants, beginning as early as this fall with Hope Creek, according to an earlier company filing.
PSEG contends in its filings that the financial information it has provided to the state proves the plants will not cover future costs and risks, qualifying it for ZECs. That information, however, has been redacted in public filings, in what has been largely an opaque process leading up to a decision on the subsidy, expected to be made next month.
Nevertheless, there has been intense behind-the-scenes lobbying pro and con the proposed subsidies. BPU president Joseph Fiordaliso, apparently responding to the rampant speculation over the issue, declared at the agency’s monthly meeting last month, “We’re not here to destroy any industry.’’ He declined to say who he thought was making that accusation.
Like this? Click to receive free updates
