The Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee on June 25 discussed AB 5465, which would require electric public utilities to apply to the Board of Public Utilities for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) prior to undertaking transmission projects in New Jersey. Proponents said the measure closes a regulatory gap and protects ratepayers from overbuilt or unnecessary transmission investments; critics warned about review timelines and the need for adequate hearing time.

Brian Littman, director of the Division of Rate Counsel, told the committee the bill provides needed oversight because many transmission projects currently proceed without state review and that the BPU should examine whether projects are the least-cost means of meeting reliability needs. "For many of the transmission projects that are built in New Jersey, there is currently no review," Littman said. "This bill will allow the BPU to protect ratepayers from possible overbuild and ensure the projects built in our state are truly necessary."

Abe Silverman (Johns Hopkins) supported CPCN authority as consistent with practices in other PJM states and urged inclusion of language that requires utilities to evaluate grid-enhancing technologies and non-wires alternatives. Silverman noted that typical CPCN timeframes in other states are longer and recommended the committee provide sufficient review time so the BPU can hear evidence and issue considered decisions.

Proponents and environmental groups asked for a defined review timeline to avoid delaying projects necessary for clean-energy integration; the League of Conservation Voters suggested amendments to set a length of time for board review and certification. Rate Counsel recommended longer review windows than the draft's proposed short deadlines to ensure meaningful participation from interveners and stakeholders.

Committee members broadly welcomed the oversight concept. Several members said the bill will add needed discipline to transmission planning and urged sponsors and staff to reconcile timing provisions so the BPU can act without creating unnecessary delays. No floor action was taken at the discussion-only hearing; sponsors and stakeholders agreed to continue technical discussions on timeline language and consideration of alternative technologies.