{"id":21699,"date":"2022-04-11T10:49:22","date_gmt":"2022-04-11T14:49:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=21699"},"modified":"2022-08-24T14:30:17","modified_gmt":"2022-08-24T18:30:17","slug":"an-all-inclusive-way-to-look-at-energy-transition-in-new-jersey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2022\/04\/11\/an-all-inclusive-way-to-look-at-energy-transition-in-new-jersey\/","title":{"rendered":"An all-inclusive way to look at energy transition in New Jersey"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Elizabeth B. Stein<\/a> and Cole Jermyn<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Update: <\/em>On August 17th<\/sup>, the BPU voted to accept the final version of the <\/em>Ratepayer Impact Study<\/em><\/a>. The final version has the same limitations EDF and others identified in comments on the proposed study, including not accounting for the environmental and public health benefits of the energy transition, and failing to fully account for modernized utility practices that can minimize costs such as innovative price signals and grid modernization. But even with these limitations, the final study shows that electrification is the pathway to both lower costs and less greenhouse gas pollution. <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>By 2030, New Jersey ratepayers who adopt electric vehicles, electrify their buildings and improve their energy efficiency will see lower energy costs than both their fossil fuel-reliant neighbor and the average customer today. This is true for small and large commercial customers, residential customers and low-income residential customers. These results should be a wakeup call<\/em> to ensure<\/em> all customers can afford to deploy these technologies in order to meet the state\u2019s environmental and energy affordability goals.<\/em><\/p>\n

New Jersey, like many other states, has been hard at work developing a strategy to drastically reduce its own climate impact. The state\u2019s residents are already experiencing more than their share of climate change. With 130 miles of coastline, including population centers near much-loved beaches, more frequent extreme weather events are an existential threat to the state.<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s Energy Master Plan<\/a> identifies and coordinates efforts, in various parts of the economy, to achieve a sustainable pathway to substantial decarbonization by 2050. But a new study, proposed by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, that seeks to estimate the financial impact of these efforts to eliminate fossil fuels on gas and electric utility customers, is infected with methodological flaws and faulty assumptions that would put it out of step with the state\u2019s energy and climate policy.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not all bad<\/strong><\/p>\n

A good reason to examine the costs associated with New Jersey\u2019s transition to a clean energy future at this early point would be to find ways to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits of these strategies, particularly when it comes to powering vehicles and heating buildings with electricity.<\/p>\n

The study, as proposed, gets one thing right: it tries to evaluate customers\u2019 \u201ctotal energy burden,\u201d not just their utility bills. It identifies the cost impact of adopting more zero-emission vehicles and accounts for the savings from reduced gasoline purchases alongside changes in electricity bills. But it does not consider all energy savings associated with the energy transition, such as how much consumers may save in avoided fuel oil purchases, a particularly glaring omission in a time of high oil prices.<\/p>\nAn all-inclusive way to look at energy transition in New Jersey <\/a><\/span>Share on X<\/a><\/span>\n

What is the point?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The study\u2019s proponents have failed to state any purpose for their analysis, which might explain some of the confusion and contradictions in the methodology. A study capable of advancing ways for New Jersey to minimize the costs and maximize the benefits of its clean energy transition would need to:<\/p>\n