Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require PSC to study full-system cost of electricity; lawmakers question scope and externalities
Summary
SB 270 would direct the Public Service Commission to analyze full costs and benefits of electricity generation sources using LF-SCOE or other PSC-approved models; lawmakers focused questions on whether the study must account for externalities, PJM/regional impacts, and how results would inform policy.
Senator Mary Beth Carosa presented Senate Bill 270 to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on April 2, 2026, asking for a favorable report on a bill that would require the Public Service Commission (PSC) to perform a full cost-and-benefit analysis of electricity generation sources (natural gas, nuclear, offshore wind, solar, and energy storage). The bill, as amended, directs the PSC to use the levelized full system cost of electricity (LF-SCOE) calculation or other models the commission chooses.
Sponsor Mary Beth Carosa emphasized the bill’s neutrality: it is not intended to single out a technology but to give policymakers better data about the practical performance characteristics and costs of generation alternatives. She said the study should be fuel-neutral and help inform strategies to attract generation that lowers costs and meets climate goals.
Committee members repeatedly asked whether the study would include market programs and regional constraints—such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), PJM interactions, and clean energy credits—and whether it should account for social and environmental externalities like health impacts from emissions. Delegates including Grammer, Foley, Stein and others pressed on whether the PSC would have discretion to model portfolios or whether the study's premise would imply 100% reliance on any single source.
Carosa repeatedly deferred modeling choices to the PSC but said that amendments accepting PSC-recommended approaches had been adopted. She acknowledged that standard levelized-cost comparisons typically do not monetize societal externalities and suggested that where useful the PSC and the report could discuss these impacts, but she did not commit to mandating their valuation in statute.
Several members urged clarity about scope: how to model mixes of resources, how to account for intermittency and system-level costs, and whether the PSC should be required to incorporate long-term economic benefits of renewables (jobs, reduced health costs) rather than only direct facility-level dollars-and-cents calculations. The sponsor said the committee could refine language to ensure useful outputs but repeatedly emphasized deference to the PSC on technical methods.
The hearing closed without a committee vote; members signaled interest in clarifying whether and how externalities and regional grid dynamics should be included in the PSC’s analysis.
