logo
New Jersey Democrats propose $430M plan to defray electricity price increases

New Jersey Democrats propose $430M plan to defray electricity price increases

Yahoo05-06-2025

Gov. Phil Murphy announces a plan to give ratepayers $100 minimum to defray a sudden, sharp increase in electricity prices in Newark on June 5, 2025. (Courtesy of the governor's office)
New Jersey will send ratepayers at least $100 to defray the impact of a steep rise in electricity prices that took effect this month, top Democrats announced Thursday.
The $430 million program, which is not yet approved by state energy regulators, would provide each of the state's 3.9 million ratepayers with $100, with an additional $150 for low- and moderate-income residents.
'We're taking this step today because the fact is the people of New Jersey are being battered by the rising cost of energy, and by the way, this is not unique to New Jersey,' Gov. Phil Murphy said at a press conference in Newark. 'You can look all around the country right now, and certainly all around this region to see that we are not alone. Wholesale electricity prices are up multiples of what they were even a year ago today.'
Christine Guhl Sadovy, president of the state Board of Public Utilities, suggested residents enrolled in the state's winter termination program would be eligible for the $150 payment. That program bars utility shutoffs between Nov. 15 and March 15.
Officials were deliberating a second $100 payment but had not reached a decision as of Thursday afternoon, Murphy said.
It was not immediately clear when or how the benefits would be paid. Murphy suggested they could come in September or October but cautioned that the timeline is hazy as the aid still needs approval from the Board of Public Utilities, whose next meeting is set for June 18.
Lawmakers' announcement comes just days after electricity prices rose by roughly 20% at the start of June, pushed upward by the results of price-setting auctions held in July and February, and as hot weather pushed temperatures to roughly 90 degrees in much of the state Thursday.
It also comes as all 80 seats in the state Assembly — which Democrats control by a 52-28 majority — are on the ballot in the fall (the primaries are on Tuesday).
Funding for the payments would come from the state's Clean Energy Fund, the state's share of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative money, and the Solar Alternative Compliance Payment, which is paid by electricity suppliers that are unable to meet the state's renewables standard.
Some progressive groups took exception to the funding sources.
'We appreciate that the governor and lawmakers are taking seriously the strain high energy costs place on families, but how we deliver relief matters. Diverting funds from RGGI and the Clean Energy Fund risks weakening the very programs that lower long-term costs, strengthen our grid, and create local jobs,' said Alex Ambrose, a policy analyst for New Jersey Policy Perspective.
Richard Henning, president of the New Jersey Utilities Association, a trade group that includes the state's four electric distribution companies, said the organization supported the proposal.
The price of electricity rose sharply after being roughly level for more than a decade as supply tightened and demand shot upward, driven higher by power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers proposed throughout the footprint of PJM Interconnection, the grid operator for New Jersey, 12 other states, and the District of Columbia.
Democrats have blamed PJM for the price spike, charging yearslong delays in its interconnection queue had depressed supply by leaving projects, including 79 in New Jersey, without a line into the grid.
'We in the Legislature have a tone of outrage that New Jersey is being held hostage,' Sen. John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) said.
Murphy said he and legislative leaders would meet with PJM CEO Manu Asthana next week.
Republicans have blamed the Murphy administration's renewables-heavy energy plan and the sunsetting of some existing fossil fuel plants for the increases. They and some Democrats have said the state should pursue a more diverse energy mix to stall further price hikes.
'It simply delays the pain to avoid political fallout in an election year,' Sen. Tony Bucco (R-Morris), his chamber's minority leader, said of the plan announced Thursday. 'This is not relief, it's a cover-up. Trenton Democrats are once again trying to deflect the consequences of their own failed energy policies.'
Legislators and regulators are considering other methods of reining in energy prices. The Board of Public Utilities is fielding proposals that could delay electricity price increases, leaving ratepayers with deferred balances they would be responsible for paying later.
Guhl-Sadovy declined to comment on the status of that proposal or the effect Thursday's announcement would have on it.
In recent weeks, legislators have advanced bills that would change how state regulators set utilities' profit margins, require they study data centers' impact on energy rates, and create a new rate-setting process for data centers, among others.
'Like so many states across the country, we recognized early on that the rates would not be sustainable, more importantly, that they just certainly weren't fair. That's why we went to work,' said Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin (D-Middlesex).

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Schumer: Bring on the amendments
Schumer: Bring on the amendments

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Schumer: Bring on the amendments

Democratic Rep. Dwight Evans said Monday he will not seek reelection 'after some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection,' opening up a solid-blue seat in Philadelphia. Evans faced mounting questions about his ability to serve after suffering a stroke last year and missing months of votes. He insisted until recently he still intended to run for reelection, though several primary challengers were already starting to make moves. 'Serving the people of Philadelphia has been the honor of my life,' Evans said in a statement. 'And I remain in good health and fully capable of continuing to serve. After some discussions this weekend and thoughtful reflection, I have decided that the time is right to announce that I will not be seeking reelection in 2026.' Evans, 71, has served in Congress since 2016. He succeeded Rep. Chaka Fattah, who resigned after being indicted on federal corruption charges, and is one of six Pennsylvanians on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. His retirement announcement comes amid generational upheaval in the Democratic Party. Longtime Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said earlier this year she wouldn't run again. The party base has looked to their leaders to mount a more vigorous response to President Donald Trump, with some in the party calling for primary challenges to senior leaders. Evans' retirement could kick off a fierce battle between establishment Democrats and progressives for the Philadelphia-area seat, and several possible candidates are already weighing campaigns. Democratic socialists have made headway in the city, particularly at the state level, and pro-Israel groups and the liberal Working Families Party are eyeing the race, according to multiple Democrats. 'This is completely wide open,' said a high-level Philadelphia Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. 'There is not one person I can see who I would deem the front-runner.' State Sen. Sharif Street, chair of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, has expressed interest in running for Evans' seat. A second Democrat granted anonymity to speak freely said Street could kick off his campaign as early as Tuesday, though other Democrats said an official announcement could come later. State Rep. Morgan Cephas, who is close to the city's influential building trades unions, is eyeing the seat as well, as is progressive state Rep. Chris Rabb. 'Me and my team are strongly considering a bid,' Cephas told POLITICO Monday. 'But first and foremost I wanted to express my overwhelming gratitude to the work that Congressman Evans has done for the city of Philadelphia.' Rabb said in a text that 'I am seriously considering running for this seat.' State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, another progressive, said his supporters have 'encouraged me to consider a run.' But he said he has 'nothing to announce,' adding that 'today is about Dwight Evans' and 'honoring his legacy.' In a sign of how hotly contested the race could become, some Democrats are already attacking Street publicly and privately before he jumps into the contest. J.J. Balaban, a Democratic consultant who lives in Evans' district, said he opposes a potential bid by Street because in 2021 he worked with a powerful Republican to craft a proposed congressional redistricting map. His plan was not ultimately successful. 'Any good Democrat should hope it's not Sharif Street because of how he tried to sell out the Democratic delegation,' said Balaban. 'We would have fewer congressional seats if he had carried the day.' Street did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time, Street defended his work with Republicans, saying 'it's our job to negotiate the best that we can.' Street has made some recent efforts to make inroads with progressives, including by endorsing liberal Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in his successful primary reelection campaign this year over a more moderate challenger. The extent to which Evans does — or doesn't — get involved in helping determine his successor will also shape the race. A Democrat familiar with Evans' thinking said he is 'going to wait and see what the field will look like' before deciding whether to endorse a candidate in the primary. 'Plenty of time to make a decision,' the person added. Rumors have swirled for months about Evans' future, and some Democrats speculated that he might step down in the middle of his term, which would have given power to the city's Democratic ward leaders to choose a nominee for a special election. But Evans said Wednesday that he 'will serve out the full term that ends Jan. 3, 2027.'

Between Mamdani and Fetterman, flailing Democrats seek a populist agenda that works
Between Mamdani and Fetterman, flailing Democrats seek a populist agenda that works

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Between Mamdani and Fetterman, flailing Democrats seek a populist agenda that works

Zohran Mamdani is the latest sign establishment Democrats don't know how to handle a populist challenge. They haven't learned anything from the defeats right-wing populism inflicted on them with President Donald Trump. Now they're knocked on their backsides by a new generation of left-wing populism in their own party. Advertisement Making Mamdani mayor of New York is like electing Bernie Sanders president — maybe even worse. But in an era when populism keeps gaining momentum, Democratic insiders habitually turn to political has-beens to rescue the party. First it was Hillary Clinton, who staved off Sanders only to lose to Trump. Advertisement Then it was Joe Biden, who got lucky in an election dominated by COVID lockdowns and George Floyd protests, even as Democrats knew he was far past his best-by date. So the setback Trump's right-of-center populism suffered in 2020 only set the stage for a comeback of historic proportions four years later. Democrats should have noticed their playbook wasn't working even back in 2021, when Terry McAuliffe, the ex-governor and old Clinton crony they trotted out to run for Virginia's top office, went crashing to defeat at the hands of Glenn Youngkin — a Republican who didn't have a populist background but spoke to popular fury at lockdowns and rising crime. Mamdani is the crudest kind of left-wing populist, offering outright socialism, including state-owned grocery stores, as his answer to New York's problems. Advertisement His medicine would in fact make things a lot worse, driving more high earners out of the city, in a second exodus after the one COVID triggered. A city already spending too much will have less revenue to pay for the even higher spending Mamdani wants, but that didn't register with Democratic primary voters last week. What they saw and heard was a young, handsome Mamdani telling them more free stuff could be theirs — all they had to do was end Andrew Cuomo's political career. Advertisement Cuomo didn't take Mamdani's challenge seriously enough — but then, top Democrats didn't take voters seriously enough when they got behind Cuomo in the first place. He was damaged goods as well as yesterday's news, a man who'd left the governor's mansion in disgrace four years ago. At a time when all the old idols are falling, did hauling this one out of the dumpster really seem like a bright idea? The party establishment might as well have run Anthony Weiner — and in fact, he was on the ballot last week too, seeking a City Council seat. He came in fourth. MAGA populism, unlike Mamdani's, doesn't spring from thinking there shouldn't be billionaires. On the right, populism is about getting rid of barriers to middle- and working-class prosperity, by bringing jobs back to America and eliminating taxes on tips, for example. And the right's populism is cultural as well as economic, emphasizing common sense, the rejection of woke ideology and patriotism. In a clash between rival populisms, the conservative kind prevails against what Mamdani and Bernie Sanders represent — in most places. Advertisement But New York is a blue city where Democratic loyalties run deep, and now that Mamdani is the party's nominee, stopping him in the general election will take everything that non-socialist Democrats, independents and Republicans together can muster. The only way center-left Democrats will avoid this kind of debacle in the future is if they end their recycling program for Clintons, Bidens, Cuomos and Weiners and figure out what a mainstream Democratic populism in the 21st century might look like. Democrats need a populism with less socialism and more patriotism, even if that looks a little more like the GOP's formula — after all, it's what works. Advertisement The party of Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy used to know how to compete with Republicans for voters who were proud of being Americans, before identity politics and the Davos mindset took over the party's elites. But today the few Democrats who point their party back in the direction of Middle America are shunned for doing so: Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, for one. The party that made excuses for Joe Biden up to the minute he was humiliated on national TV has been lately seeding the press with claims Fetterman isn't mentally fit for office. His fitness wasn't an issue when he was elected in 2022 — Democrats stood by him despite the stroke he suffered that May. Advertisement But that was before he started to buck party orthodoxy. Late last month, Susquehanna polling found Fetterman doing better with Republicans than Democrats in his home state, with 45% approval from GOP voters versus just 40% from his own party's. Democrats are shooting the messenger. Advertisement Without a populist message that isn't as far-left as Mamdani's, they're doomed to defeat in the country — and doomed to victories in blue cities that may hurt them even more. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.

Reactions: Democrats Who Voted Not To Impeach Trump
Reactions: Democrats Who Voted Not To Impeach Trump

Buzz Feed

timean hour ago

  • Buzz Feed

Reactions: Democrats Who Voted Not To Impeach Trump

Back in 2021, Donald Trump became the only president in US history to face impeachment for a second time. This month could've marked the beginning of impeachment number three for Trump with the introduction of a House resolution that asserted that the president had carried out "abuse of presidential powers by disregarding the separation of powers — devolving American democracy into authoritarianism by unconstitutionally usurping Congress's power to declare war." However, the resolution, which was introduced by Texas Democratic Representative Al Green, failed the day it was introduced by a vote of 344–79. Green introduced the measure in response to President Trump's decision to strike Iran without congressional approval. Several Democrats were in agreement, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said the move was "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." The 344 impeachment dissenters included 128 Democrats, and people had a LOT of thoughts about it on a thread on r/politics discussing a New Republic article about the vote. Here is what just a few of the more than 4,000 commenters had to say: "How many times did Republicans vote to repeal Obamacare during Obama's second term? They knew it would be vetoed, but they kept the issue in the news cycle. What don't Dems get about this?" "Only reason I vote for this loser party is because I hate the other one more." —Ok_Use7 "If we can't impeach a president because 'it's not a realistic option' and 'he was already impeached twice,' then the system has failed and we have a dictator." "I understand the frustration, but this is not the issue that Trump should be impeached for. I mean, he should, but it would be a very hard sell to the American public. The problem is that every president for decades has taken similar actions without declaring war or going through Congress. This is a problem, but too easy for Republicans just to point to Obama and say, 'Well, he did it.'" "Yup. We need to vote them out. Politicians need to start learning that they don't get to keep their jobs if we don't get what we want. Too many career people in place, and we cannot trust them to fix that problem either. "Trump is the best proof we have that the only people who have power to change things are us. We removed him from office. Not McConnell, not Republicans, Democrats, Congress, the Senate, the Judiciary. We need to really remember that when people say voting doesn't matter."—BotherResponsible378 "Democrats are not beating the controlled opposition allegations anytime soon." "I'm tired of hearing people say, 'What can the Dems do, they have no power.' They can do this. They can rally people with symbolic votes. They can rally people with speeches. They can rally people with town halls. They can rally people with protests. How the fuck else are they supposed to win the next election if they aren't rallying the voters?" "Like what the hell is the point of this party, other than beating back progressives in primaries?" "Democrats trip over themselves trying to look principled while Republicans fall in line behind a convicted felon like it's a team sport. One side argues over morals, the other just wins. I'm exhausted." "It's quickly becoming necessary for a third party, I think. Something that captures the best three or four items from each of the main parties, and adds three to four of its own. There are too many old people running the Democrats, and too many intolerant people running the Republicans. The majority of voters aren't represented by any of them. And everyone gets hurt by their indecision or narrow-mindedness or both. It's time for one or both of them to just go the way of the Whig Party." —WhattaYaDoinDare "It would be nice if people actually participated in primaries. Currently, it's around 25–30% on average. People need to pay attention to their reps' and senators' actions and act accordingly." "I don't care if a Democrat doesn't think impeachment is a viable option to stop the Orange Turd!! You still vote for it. You don't join the asshole Republicans!!" "There are two dozen things to impeach Trump over. This isn't one of them. People really need to stop calling every single military action they don't like 'illegal.' It isn't. It's blatantly within Article II powers, just like Libya, Syria, Bosnia, etc." —BillRuddickJrPhd "Between this and the NYC mayoral race, it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that the purpose of the Democrats is to suppress the left, not fight the right." "It's always been a class war, and they've been spending butt loads of money convincing everyone it isn't for a very, very long time. If you want a government run by the people, and for the people instead of by the oligarchs and for the oligarchs, the US model ain't it." "This is a prime example of why Americans are fed up with stupid ass Democrats. How many Republicans do you think would vote against a resolution to impeach a Democratic president? ZERO! God, these guys are idiots." "One hundred and twenty-eight, eh? David Hogg was right. We do not have a Democratic party. We have Republicans and Republican-lite. The two-party system is a terrible joke." —Sleepylimebounty "I studied political theory a few decades ago, and most of our discussion revolved around the concept of fighting the fights you can win vs fighting the fights that are worth fighting: opportunity vs obligation." "This is why the Democrats are doomed. They just don't get it." "To play the devil's advocate for a moment: Is it possible that to not table this resolution would waste legislative time on something with zero chance of passing, thereby reducing the likelihood of passing other more impactful pieces of legislation?" "Last time there was taxation without adequate representation, we threw a party." —the_sylince And finally, "Because they know yet another failed impeachment attempt will only solidify the loss of power in the Democratic Party. Impeachment without Republican support is a political no-win for the Democrats and a political windfall for the Republicans. An impeachment attempt now, which would absolutely fail, would pay massive dividends to Republican propagandists, especially with midterms coming up." What do you think? Sound off in the comments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store