Assembly committee advances bill to fund transmission-scale energy storage, clears related amendment

The Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee on Wednesday amended and released legislation (A5267) directing the Board of Public Utilities to procure transmission-scale energy storage and to use a combination of funding sources — including the societal benefits charge — to pay incentive awards to eligible projects.

The committee also amended and released a separate bill (AB3283) earlier in the hearing. Both measures were amended and released by committee vote.

The measure under discussion, A5267, would create a transmission-scale energy storage procurement program aligned with the BPU’s storage incentive framework and set a first-tranche procurement target tied to $60 million in annual funding from the societal benefits charge. Proponents and utility-scale developers told the committee the measure would furnish market certainty for projects that can provide capacity and grid services quickly, while critics urged stricter cost controls and more oversight of ratepayer-funded incentives.

Caroline Murph, chief operating officer of Rev Renewables, said the bill “will help address electric price volatility and reliability for New Jersey consumers” and praised the BPU’s work on a parallel storage incentive program. Murph and other industry witnesses urged a long-term revenue commitment for awards and a procurement large enough to attract transmission-connected projects. Murph said Rev planned to develop “up to 400 megawatts of transmission connected energy storage in the state,” and told the committee such projects could come online in roughly three years if the policy and funding were in place.

Representatives of Lotus Infrastructure and Jupiter Power made similar points. Tim Gusick of Lotus said repurposing brownfield sites with existing grid connections would speed deployment, and Andy Bowman, chief executive officer of Jupiter Power, said a “15-year term allows us to get better financing, which allows us to offer the services of projects at a lower cost.” Bowman and other developers told the committee they favored larger initial procurement (many urged 1,000 megawatts rather than the bill’s initial 500-megawatt floor) and emphasized speedy timelines for shovel-ready projects.

Environmental and clean-energy advocates — including representatives from the American Clean Power Association, Environment New Jersey, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters and others — testified in favor, arguing storage would improve resource adequacy, smooth renewable output and help stabilize capacity prices. Doug O’Malley of Environment New Jersey told the committee “we need to ensure that we're looking at all forms, of energy storage,” and urged the committee to consider both front‑of‑meter and behind‑the‑meter deployment to accelerate near‑term capacity additions.

Opponents and some committee members pressed two main concerns: (1) the potential cost to ratepayers from using the societal benefits charge as a funding source and (2) whether the program would over‑subsidize projects whose investors already expect returns. Ray Canter of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association and Brian Littman, director of the Rate Counsel, said the bill’s open‑ended authorization for funding and limited transparency about developer profit margins warranted greater guardrails and oversight. Canter warned the societal benefits charge could be stretched from its current uses to fund the program, and Littman said the potential rate impacts — likely in the high‑hundreds of millions over time — required more analysis before expanding subsidies.

Committee members debated those tradeoffs during and after more than an hour of testimony. The committee read a set of detailed committee amendments into the record that clarified eligibility (for example, requiring a fully executed PJM generation interconnection agreement or proof that an applicant has submitted interconnection applications and fees), adjusted the allowed duration of incentive awards from a fixed 15 years to a 10–20 year range, tightened application and evaluation timelines for the tranche 1 procurement, and broadened allowable funding sources to include the societal benefits charge, the Global Warming Solutions Fund and other board-available funding. The amendments also directed the BPU to evaluate project maturity, likelihood of success, and interconnection status among other factors when awarding incentives.

After the amendments were read, the committee voted to amend and release A5267. The committee also amended and released AB3283 earlier in the session (that bill’s amendments and vote were taken before the A5267 testimony began).

Votes at a glance

- AB3283 — Motion to amend and release: committee recorded votes in the hearing transcript showing Assemblyman Kenyatta: No; Assemblyman Sawicki: No; Assemblyman Barranco: No; Assemblyman Maranko: Yes; Assemblyman Bailey: Yes; Assemblywoman McCoy: Yes; Vice Chair Kennedy: Yes; Chairman D'Angelo: Yes. The chair announced: “The bill is amended and released.”

- A5267 — Motion to amend and release (transmission-scale energy storage procurement): committee recorded votes in the hearing transcript showing Assemblyman Kenitra: No; Assemblyman Sawicki: No; Assemblywoman Barranca: Yes; Assemblyman Bailey: Yes; Assemblywoman McCoy: Yes (recorded as affirmative); Vice Chair Kennedy: Yes; Chairman D'Angelo: Yes. The chair announced: “The bill is amended and released.”

What the bill would do and what remains uncertain

- Funding and size: The initial tranche described in testimony and the committee amendments contemplates a minimum of $60 million per year from the societal benefits charge — though amendments allow the board to draw from additional funding sources and do not cap total future appropriations. Industry witnesses urged a larger first tranche (many urged 1,000 MW rather than 500 MW) to accelerate deployment; several environmental witnesses said the state’s statutory goal is 2,000 megawatts by 2030 and that more action is needed.

- Eligibility and procurement: Committee amendments tighten eligibility around PJM interconnection milestones, allow the BPU to consider project maturity and site control, require uptime and dispatchability conditions, and set firm application windows and award deadlines for tranche 1 (board to begin accepting tranche‑1 applications no later than Jan. 15, 2026, and to finalize awards by April 1, 2026, per the amendments read into the record).

- Term and payment structure: The bill initially contemplated a 15‑year payment stream; the committee amended that to permit awards with terms from 10 to 20 years. Developers testified that multiyear guaranteed revenue streams are key to securing project financing.

- Oversight, transparency and rate impact: Multiple witnesses and committee members asked for clearer reporting on program costs and limits on the use of the societal benefits charge. Opponents pressed for greater transparency about developer returns and for explicit safeguards to limit upward pressure on ratepayer bills.

What’s next

The committee released A5267 with amendments; the BPU will be central to rulemaking and implementation under the legislation. Committee members said they expect further hearings and additional language changes as the bill moves through the legislative process and as the committee coordinates with the Senate and the BPU on program design.

Ending note

Committee members and witnesses described the measure as a near‑term tool to address capacity and price volatility while broader generation and transmission solutions are developed. Supporters said the program could mobilize private investment and help fill an immediate shortfall; critics warned the program could shift significant costs to ratepayers without firm limits or adequate oversight.