“For some energy-intensive products, energy for fuel and power can account for up to 85 percent of total production costs, Hart said. “That’s why our members are so concerned about any increases. We are asking the Legislature to listen to all sides on this issue. We just can’t hand a blank check over to PSEG.”


Doug O’Malley of Environment New Jersey said that recent failures to expand nuclear power generation in other states like South Carolina, due to cost overruns, bears out past warnings by public advocates. Before supporting any bailout, he said New Jersey needs “an open and transparent accounting of the long term viability of the state’s nuclear fleet.”


Steven Goldenberg, an attorney representing large energy users in New Jersey, drew a distinction between some nuclear power units in other states that “are in serious financial trouble” and PSEG units which he said are profitable as born out by management statements and by the company’s recent submission of a multi-year bid to supply energy to the PJM regional electric grid. 


“PSEG is pursuing a bailout simply because, in its view, it is not making enough money out of its nuclear fleet,” he said, as compared to the company’s utility properties.


Noticeable in the announcement event was the absence of large business groups, like the State Chamber of Commerce and the NJ Business and Industry Association, or other prominent environmental organizations like the Sierra Club or NJ Environmental Federation. CANT organizers said they expect their membership to grow as the issue gets more public attention.


Asked whether the state legislature’s upcoming ‘lame duck’ session affords enough time for action on PSEG’s request, coalition members declined to speculate, but made it clear that they are not willing to take the risk and are preparing for a fight. 


Like this? Use form in upper right to receive free updates
See popular posts from the last 30 days in right column — >>