Assembly committee advances bill to promote building electrification after heated debate over costs and authority

The Assembly Telecommunications and Utilities Committee voted to amend and release Assembly Bill 48 44 on a party‑line and mixed‑vote roll call after more than two hours of testimony and debate over whether the bill would accelerate electrification while protecting ratepayers.

A4844, as amended in committee, directs the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to establish a beneficial building electrification and decarbonization program and requires electric and gas public utilities and state administrators that participate to submit plans and greenhouse‑gas reduction targets. Committee amendments delayed the program start from one year to two, expanded the statutory definition to “beneficial building electrification and decarbonization,” required BPU consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection on statewide emissions targets, exempted low‑ and moderate‑income customer programs from certain cost‑effectiveness criteria and directed utilities to pursue federal funding before using the bill’s cost‑recovery mechanism.

Supporters said the program would modernize homes and lower operating costs for households that adopt high‑efficiency heat pumps. One public witness who submitted written testimony summarized a report by the Acadia Center saying that converting to heat pumps could yield operational savings varying by service area. “This legislation sets the standard for healthier, more affordable homes and buildings across New Jersey,” a proponent said during testimony.

Opponents—representing apartment owners, fuel merchants, utilities and business groups—argued the bill effectively mandates electrification and would increase demand on an already tight grid. Eric DeJezaro, testifying for the Fuel Merchants Association, called the measure “a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and warned that cost‑benefit tests in past BPU work excluded significant upfront retrofit capital costs. DeJezaro cited an outside study estimating retrofits for a detached single‑family house could range from roughly $28,000 to $76,000 depending on assumptions.

Several witnesses urged the committee to adopt a rigorous cost‑benefit framework before committing to program design. Brian Lipman of Rate Counsel recommended adopting a multi‑test approach (referred to at the hearing as the “California manual”) so the BPU would capture both operational and capital costs when assessing whether benefits exceed costs.

Committee members questioned whether the bill would meaningfully help near‑term affordability, given supply constraints and recent capacity shortfalls flagged during earlier hearings. Several members said they supported releasing the bill from committee to continue negotiations with the sponsor and the governor’s office, while reserving their final floor votes.

The committee’s action amends the bill and advances it to the floor for further consideration; members said they expect follow‑up discussions to refine definitions, the cost‑benefit test and the program’s implementation timeline.