NJ Governor Murphy proposes solutions to rising utility costs
'I don't have a choice,' said AJ Shah. 'I'm not cutting down, so I'm just going to pay more, that's it. I'm going to cut somewhere, so of course I'm going to cut money somewhere else but that's one I don't have control.'
More Local News
'Not good, right?' said Eric Shah. 'It's already been going up, I'd rather have it back down or back the way it was years ago.'
On Wednesday, Governor Phil Murphy announced a suite of executive actions to address electricity prices.
Per his Administration, he is urging New Jersey's electric utilities to:
Voluntarily expand the Winter Termination Program, which prevents service disconnections in the winter months, to July-September, which JCP&L included in their filing, and;
Suspend reconnection fees to a certain date past the summer peak usage months.
Other actions include:
Directing the NJBPU to evaluate all available funding and programming to stabilize utility bills,
Directing the NJBPU to expedite opening another Competitive Solar Incentive Program Solicitation and Community Solar Energy Program Capacity Block by the end of 2025.
Directing the NJBPU to open a new proceeding on resource adequacy. Within this proceeding, BPU will:
Evaluate proposals to swiftly bring more generation online.
Continue to determine how New Jersey can best achieve its reliability, equity, and clean energy objectives while keeping costs to consumers as low as possible, and whether New Jersey best serves the regional capacity market administered by PJM Interconnection.
Identify policy opportunities to mitigate increased ratepayer costs due to demand growth driven by data center proliferation in the PJM region.
'While the utilities are not responsible for the rate increases, they have a responsibility to protect ratepayers,' Murphy said in a statement. 'It's clear that New Jersey's four hometown electric utilities need to deliver more reasonable options. We ask that utilities share the load and commit to being part of the solution to the PJM cost crisis. These utilities have reaped billions in profits over the last ten years. My administration will continue to identify and put all options on the table to mitigate rate increases.'
In response to Murphy, Atlantic City Electric, which covers much of Southern New Jersey, told PIX11 News a statement:
'We share Governor Murphy's affordability concerns as we head into the summer months. While utility companies in New Jersey do not generate their own energy, do not set the price of electricity, and do not profit from these increases, we fully understand that rising energy costs stemming from PJM's 2024 Capacity Auction are a challenge for our customers. That is why our plan submitted to the BPU last week included deferring costs past the summer months to help soften the impact. Atlantic City Electric is currently reviewing the governor's announcement, but we remain committed to working together with Governor Murphy, the BPU, other utilities, PJM, generators, and customers, to be part of a path forward that supports the area's growing energy needs and manages bill impacts, while continuing to provide safe, reliable and resilient energy to our customers. Meanwhile, we will continue to offer a comprehensive energy efficiency program, rebates for energy efficient HVAC equipment and appliances, discounted energy saving products, flexible payment arrangements, and an Assistance Finder tool to help qualifying customers access various local, state, and federal energy assistance programs.'
More Local News
PIX11 also received a statement from Rockland Electric Company, which serves parts of Bergen, Passaic and Sussex Counies:
'As we approach the summer months, Rockland Electric Company is committed to working with the BPU to keep bills affordable for our customers in northern New Jersey,' said Michele O'Connell, Rockland Electric Company president and CEO. 'We work with all our customers, connecting them to various programs designed to help them lower the costs of their bills and become more energy efficient.'
JCP&L spokesman Chris Hoenig told PIX11 News:
'JCP&L understands the concerns that many New Jersey families are facing due to increasing rates from electric suppliers. While it is not JCP&L's delivery rates that are rising, we include and collect these charges on the monthly electric bills, and we are committed to assisting our customers through this time. In fact, JCP&L proposed the expansion of the winter shutoff moratorium to incorporate peak summer use months in our recent filing to the Board of Public Utilities.
We encourage our customers to reach out to us if they are having trouble paying their bill, so that we can connect them with available assistance or payment plans. Our energy assistance outreach teams will continue to get out into the communities we serve. We also encourage our customers to utilize our energy efficiency programs, which consist of programs that offer easy to implement tips as well as large-scale, whole home offerings, giving customers the power to take control over their energy use.'
Anthony D'Aniello, owner of Manville Pizza, says energy is his biggest monthly expense. He shays he wouldn't be surprised if businesses like his, at some point, end up passing the cost onto the customer.
'We can only absorb it so much as a retailer,' said D'Aniello. 'You guys are going to see it something as simple as pizza as well.'
Rates are set to go up on June 1st.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Touts 'Win' After South Sudan Deportations Completed
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Eight men deported from the United States have arrived in South Sudan after a dramatic Independence Day court battle that saw multiple emergency hearings and conflicting judicial rulings. "This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people," Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival. Newsweek has reached out to the White House via email on Saturday for comment. Why It Matters This case represents a significant test of President Donald Trump's administration immigration enforcement policies and establishes precedent for deporting individuals to third countries deemed dangerous by the State Department. South Sudan, the intended destination, remains under a State Department travel advisory warning against visits due to "crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict." The U.S. Supreme Court's June ruling that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries without allowing challenges could reshape how future deportations are handled, potentially affecting thousands of similar cases. What To Know The eight men, originally from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan, were transported Friday evening to the war-torn African nation following a federal judge's final ruling that cleared the way for their removal. The men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S., including murder, robbery, kidnapping, and sexual assault, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Only one of the men is actually a citizen of South Sudan. When their original May deportation flight was diverted to Djibouti, they were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at the U.S. military base while their legal challenges proceeded through the courts. Friday's legal drama unfolded rapidly on the Fourth of July, with courts otherwise closed for the holiday. District Judge Randolph Moss of Washington, D.C., initially issued an emergency order temporarily blocking the deportation until 4:30 p.m. ET. However, he later forwarded the case to Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy, who cited previous Supreme Court orders in denying the migrants' petition. Murphy wrote that the Court orders were "binding on this new petition" since the petitioners were raising "substantially similar claims." The Supreme Court had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries, halting an order that previously allowed immigrants to challenge removals to countries outside their homeland where they could face danger. This ruling effectively overturned Murphy's earlier decision that immigrants could not be sent to a new country without a court hearing. A worker loads items onto a plane chartered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before its departure from King County International Airport on April 15 in Seattle. A worker loads items onto a plane chartered by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before its departure from King County International Airport on April 15 in People Are Saying DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin on Friday: "On Independence Day, an activist judge sided with barbaric criminal illegal aliens over American citizens." Judge Randolph Moss on Friday: "It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others." President Donald Trump's Truth Social message on Saturday: "This July 4th weekend I want to give a big 'THANK YOU!' to the Heroic ICE Officers fighting every day to reclaim our Sovereignty and Freedom. One of the most exciting parts of the 'ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT' is that it includes ALL of the Funding and Resources that ICE needs to carry out the Largest Mass Deportation Operation in History. Our Brave ICE Officers, who are under daily violent assault, will finally have the tools and support that they need." He added: "We will not let America become a Third World Country filled with Crime, failing Schools, collapsing Hospitals, and total Social Dysfunction. It's called 'REMIGRATION' and, it will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" What Happens Next? The Trump administration has indicated this case sets a precedent for future deportations to third countries, with officials reaching agreements with various nations to house immigrants when authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.
Chicago Tribune
7 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Judge briefly blocks immigrants' deportation to South Sudan, but legal path eventually cleared
Despite a federal judge briefly halting deportations of eight immigrants to war-torn South Sudan, he and a second judge eventually cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate the immigrants the day after the Supreme Court greenlighted their removal. The unusually-busy Fourth of July court schedule began with District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., putting a temporary hold on the deportations while he evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the immigrants' lawyers. In an afternoon hearing, he decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was Brian Murphy, the federal judge in Boston whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to the eastern African country. But on Friday evening, Murphy issued a brief ruling concluding that the Supreme Court had tied his hands. 'This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding on this new petition, as Petitioners are now raising substantially similar claims, and therefore Petitioners motion is denied,' Murphy wrote. The administration had earlier said it intended Friday to move the immigrants from the U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they and their guards have lingered for weeks as their case has ricocheted through the courts, to South Sudan. The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. None are from South Sudan, which is enmeshed in civil war and where the U.S. government has advised against travel. The government flew them to Djibouti but couldn't move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing. The Supreme Court vacated that decision last month, then issued a new order Thursday night clarifying that it meant the immigrants could be moved to South Sudan. Lawyers for the immigrants, who hail from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries, filed the ultimately unsuccessful emergency request to halt their removal later that night. The temporary stay was first reported by legal journalist Chris Geidner.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump admin. deport migrants held in Djibouti to South Sudan
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants with criminal records held at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, clarifying the scope of its earlier order that lifted restrictions on removals to countries that are not deportees' places of origin. Shortly after the ruling, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin announced, "these sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day," calling it a "win for the rule of law." In a social media post Thursday evening in response to the ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, "Yet another rogue district court judge has been rebuked by the Supreme Court thanks to the tireless work of dedicated DOJ attorneys. @POTUS will continue to exercise his full authority to remove killers and violent criminal illegal aliens from our country." The high court's follow-up ruling came after it paused a federal judge's April injunction that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to so-called third countries without first giving them notice of the destination and a chance to contest their deportation there by raising fears of torture, persecution or death. Soon after that order by the Supreme Court last month, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts said that a decision he issued in May requiring the Trump administration to provide interviews with U.S. asylum officers to the men detained in Djibouti before removing them to South Sudan remained "in full force and effect." Those men — who hail from Latin America and Asia, and have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. — have been held at the Djibouti base for weeks after Murphy ordered the Department of Homeland Security to retain custody of them. The Trump administration has described deplorable and dangerous conditions faced by the personnel sent to guard the men in Djibouti, including concerns about malaria, rocket attacks, inadequate security protocols and triple-digit outdoor temperatures. Murphy issued his order in May after finding that the Trump administration violated his initial injunction when it attempted to swiftly remove the migrants to South Sudan with less than 24 hours' notice and no chance to raise fear-based claims. The world's youngest country, South Sudan remains plagued by violence and political instability, with the State Department warning Americans not to travel there. According to the Justice Department, the State Department has received "credible diplomatic assurances" from South Sudan that the migrants will not be subject to torture. The Supreme Court on Thursday said Murphy's May order "cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable," referring to the April injunction from Murphy that the high court paused last month. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring statement that, while she opposed the Supreme Court's initial pause, "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed." In a dissent that was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the high court's majority was effectively allowing the Trump administration to pursue "unlawful ends," expressing concern about the safety of the deportees. "What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor wrote. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia briefly paused the deportation of the eight men to South Sudan, issuing an administrative stay in response to a last-ditch emergency motion filed by their attorneys. However, in a subsequent hearing later Friday, Moss said he would allow his stay to expire at 4:30 p.m. ET. He also said he would transfer the case back to Judge Murphy. Murphy subsequently denied the migrants' request to block the deportation, writing in his order Friday: "This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding on this new petition, as Petitioners are now raising substantially similar claims, and therefore Petitioners motion is denied." The deportation flight to South Sudan had been scheduled to depart from Djibouti at 7 p.m. ET, the Justice Department told Moss during the earlier hearing. It was unclear on Friday night if it departed at that time. The legal fight The Supreme Court's original order last month was a significant legal victory for President Trump and his mass deportation campaign. As part of that effort, administration officials have sought to convince countries around the globe, including in far-flung parts of Africa, to accept deportees who are not their citizens. Several countries — including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and Kosovo — have already agreed to host migrants from other nations who have been deported from the U.S. The high court's decision in June was unsigned and did not contain any reasoning, prompting questions as to whether the Trump administration could move to deport the migrants being held in Djibouti to South Sudan, as it was initially trying to do. The three liberal justices — Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. After Murphy clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could not yet remove the men without first providing them additional process, Solicitor General D. John Sauer sought further word from the justices. Sauer, who represents the government before the court, argued that the justice's decision meant there is no injunction in place barring the deportation of the migrants in Djibouti. Murphy's ruling, he wrote, "is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals." "This court should immediately make clear that the district court's enforcement order has no effect, and put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the executive branch and its agents, who remain under baseless threat of contempt as they are forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict," Sauer said. Immigration attorneys disagreed and told the Supreme Court in a filing that Murphy's May order "is the only shield that preserves and protects their statutory, regulatory, and due process rights to seek protection from torture in South Sudan." They said that the judge's order requiring the government to retain custody of the eight deportees and provide them reasonable-fear interviews was simply a remedy that was issued to address the Trump administration's violation of his injunction. Plus, the immigration attorneys said that when the Justice Department first sought the Supreme Court's intervention to resume third-country deportations, it did not seek relief from that follow-up order regarding the attempted removals to South Sudan. "Because the district court's remedial order is not before the court, it remains in effect," they argued. "Any other conclusion would reward the government's defiance of the district court's orders." The back-and-forth over the third country removals before the Supreme Court has played out on its emergency docket, where the Trump administration has requested relief while legal proceedings play out. Decisions on those requests are typically made only with written briefing and no oral argument, and the court's decisions often do not include its reasoning or how its members voted. The Trump administration has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, many arising from its efforts to curtail illegal immigration into the U.S. The high court has allowed the government to end two programs protecting nearly 1 million migrants from deportation while the challenges move forward. But it has also said that migrants facing swift deportation under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court. Several people missing from Texas summer camp amid deadly flooding, officials say What a new DOJ memo could mean for naturalized U.S. citizens July 4 holiday week expected to set record for travelers
