QO25040205-

The docket identifies several areas of growth in New Jersey's clean energy and energy efficiency landscape for FY26. Key areas and considerations include:

1. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (RE & EE)
- Growth: Continued expansion of RE and EE as foundational energy resources to reduce energy usage, emissions, and energy costs for ratepayers.
- Considerations: Ensuring cost-effectiveness, quantifiable health/environmental benefits, increased grid reliability, and economic development (jobs, business competitiveness). The Board emphasizes stakeholder participation, cost-benefit analysis, and the need for clear methodologies in program evaluation 1, 1.

2. Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) including Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Fuel Cells, and Microgrids
- Growth: DERs are seen as critical for grid resiliency and decarbonization, with CHP and fuel cell technologies recognized for immediate CO2 reductions and support of critical infrastructure.
- Considerations: There is debate about funding levels; FY26 funding for DERs is significantly reduced compared to FY25, raising stakeholder concerns about the loss of CHP-FC funding and the potential disruption to ongoing program momentum. For microgrids, current funding is only for feasibility/design studies, not construction, with questions about tangible ratepayer benefits and potential local impacts (noise, emissions) 2, 1.

3. Energy Storage
- Growth: Acknowledged as key to supporting the integration of renewables and grid reliability, highlighted by the launch of the Garden State Energy Storage Program (GSESP) for transmission-scale projects.
- Considerations: Stakeholders call for a more detailed storage roadmap, annual statistics, and clarification on funding mechanisms. There is debate over fixed incentives versus competitive solicitations, and concerns about overlapping funding sources and regulatory clarity 1, 3.

4. Workforce Development and Job Training
- Growth: Recognized as critical to support the expanding renewable energy sector and meet future demand.
- Considerations: Funding for workforce development is being adjusted as industry needs evolve, with a focus on maintaining New Jersey’s leadership in clean energy 1.

5. Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Clean Transportation
- Growth: Expansion of EV incentive programs and infrastructure.
- Considerations: Questions remain about the effectiveness and equity of incentives (especially for non-LMI customers), the need for data-driven program design, risk to EV dealers, and the transparency of budget allocations 3.

6. Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V)
- Growth: Continued emphasis on robust evaluation of clean energy programs to ensure effectiveness and equity.
- Considerations: Need for transparent disclosure of cost-benefit methodologies, clear reporting of program impacts, and ongoing improvements to evaluation practices 1, 3.

Each of these areas is accompanied by stakeholder input highlighting the need for transparent processes, data-driven decision-making, and careful balancing of ratepayer interests with ambitious clean energy goals.

The financial and timeline risks and concerns discussed in this docket include:

Financial Risks and Concerns:
- The proposed FY26 funding for the Combined Heat and Power – Fuel Cell (CHP-FC) program is significantly reduced compared to FY25, with the FY26 budget omitting the $31.5 million CHP-FC funding present in FY25, raising concerns about the ability to realize near-term emissions reductions and energy cost savings 1.
- The New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel argues that incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) and chargers for non-low-to-moderate income (LMI) customers should be eliminated, as these disproportionately benefit wealthier households and are not considered an appropriate use of ratepayer funds 2.
- The Board is criticized for proposing to fund the Garden State Energy Storage Program primarily with $125 million from the Ocean Wind projects settlement without specifying how much will fund FY26, and concerns are raised about overlapping or duplicative funding if pending legislation requiring over $900 million in subsidies is enacted 2.
- Stakeholders raise concerns about the lack of transparency and data regarding demand for the income-qualified EV rebate segment, and warn that reducing the base rebate may further slow EV adoption given high vehicle prices and other new costs (e.g., removal of sales tax exemption, new registration fees) 3, 3.

Timeline and Process Risks:
- The absence of meaningful stakeholder input and lack of transparency in modeling, assumptions, and data used by staff to inform program design and budget decisions is cited as a significant process risk. Stakeholders have repeatedly requested earlier opportunities for input and access to data, but have been left responding to recommendations only weeks before finalization 3.
- For the State Facilities Initiative, all FY26 funding is from estimated FY25 carryforward, with no new funding provided, and there is no explanation of how annual reports will help inform agencies. The most recent published report is from FY21, indicating delays or lack of timely evaluation data 2.
- The "whole house" pilot program is not specifically funded in the current FY26 budget proposal, despite stakeholder recommendations to do so based on successful models from other states; this omission risks delaying integrated assistance to overburdened communities 4.
- For grid modernization, the $15 million FY26 budget is entirely from carryforward funds, pending a finalized proposal that has not yet been reviewed with stakeholders, indicating uncertainty in project timelines and implementation 2.

In summary, the main risks are insufficient or misallocated funding, lack of clear timelines and evaluation data, insufficient stakeholder engagement, and policy instability or unpredictability due to frequent program changes and lack of transparency.

The stakeholders in the FY2026 New Jersey Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) docket include a diverse set of organizations, advocacy groups, industry representatives, government agencies, and individuals. Key stakeholders, based on comments and testimony, include:

- New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel
- Isles, Inc.
- ChargeVC-NJ
- United States Hydrogen Alliance (USHA)
- American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
- American Lung Association
- Cherry Hill Township
- Bloom Energy
- Capital Access
- Chargescape
- ChargeVC-NJ
- DCO Energy
- Energy Efficiency Alliance of New Jersey (EEA-NJ)
- Energy Efficiency Alliance Coalition (EEA Coalition)
- Environment New Jersey
- Installations 3 Construction Training Center
- Isles Inc.
- Jersey Renews & Jersey Renews Coalition
- Magrann Associates
- New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers (NJCAR)
- New Jersey Energy Coalition (NJEC)
- New Jersey League of Conservation Voters (NJLVC)
- New Jersey Offshore Wind Alliance (NJOWA)
- New Jersey Utilities Association (NJUA)
- NJ Work Environment Council
- Northeast Chapter of the Combined Heat and Power Alliance
- Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G)
- Renew Home
- Robert Erickson
- Sangeeta Doshi
- Susan Dorward
- Tri-County Sustainability
- United States Hydrogen Alliance (USHA)
- Volt Industrial Equipment (Voltie)

Stakeholder positions on proposals:

Stakeholders raising concerns or critical of the process/budget or seeking changes:
- New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel: Criticizes lack of a four-year budget plan, excessive funding carryforwards, insufficient information in filings, lack of transparent multi-year planning, and limited time for stakeholder input. Opposes the board’s reliance on single-year funding and calls for compliance with statutory mandates 1, 1, 1.
- ChargeVC-NJ: Supports increased overall funding for the electric vehicle rebate program but opposes the reduction of the base EV rebate from $2,000 to $1,500, criticizes limited and late stakeholder input opportunities, and seeks more transparency/data for analysis 2.
- Isles, Inc.: Urges inclusion of a specific line item for a "whole house" pilot program integrating energy efficiency, weatherization, and other interventions, which the current budget does not contain 3.
- United States Hydrogen Alliance (USHA): Requests that the board maintain and extend the combined heat and power – fuel cell (CHP-FC) program during transition to a new framework, and recommends updating incentive structures to reflect market needs 4.
- New Jersey League of Conservation Voters: Previously raised concerns about lack of clear explanations for fund allocations and program needs 1.

Stakeholders supporting or recognizing positive aspects of proposals:
- Several organizations (e.g., ACEEE, American Lung Association, Environment NJ, EEA-NJ, etc.) submitted comments supporting energy efficiency and clean energy targets, though specific positions on individual proposals are not always detailed in the excerpts 5.
- Some stakeholders, such as Installations 3 Construction Training Center, support state clean energy targets and workforce training investments but request improved communication and clarity on program rollouts 5.
- Alejandro Meseguer supports clean energy targets and recommends using Ørsted settlement funds for offshore wind and storage investments 5.

Board and staff responses:
- The Board and staff maintain that the process allowed for stakeholder comment, support the rationale for proposed FY26 funding levels, and note ongoing or planned stakeholder engagement for specific program features and incentives 5, 5, 5.

In summary:
- Stakeholders such as Rate Counsel, ChargeVC-NJ, Isles Inc., USHA, and NJLVC are critical or seek significant changes.
- Others support clean energy goals but seek more transparency, specific allocations, or improved processes.
- The Board asserts that its process was appropriate and that it will continue to engage stakeholders on program details moving forward.

Key events and submissions in the FY26 New Jersey Clean Energy Program budget and CRA proceeding include:

- May 22, 2025: Draft FY26 budget and supporting materials were posted for public comment. These included the "New Jersey Clean Energy Program – Fiscal Year 2026 Draft Budget," various compliance filings, and program descriptions. All documents were made available for review and comment by stakeholders 1.

- May 28, 2025: Public hearing held for stakeholders to participate and provide feedback on the draft budget and CRA materials 1.

- June 3, 2025: Second public hearing held for additional stakeholder input 1.

- June 9, 2025: Written stakeholder comments, including those from Rate Counsel, were submitted and reviewed by the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) staff 1.

- June 18, 2025: Scheduled date for the BPU board meeting to consider and potentially approve the proposed FY26 budget. This meeting was set for eight working days after the written comment deadline 1.

- June 30, 2025: Board agenda item for further discussion and responses to stakeholder comments, including Rate Counsel's concerns and other public input 2.

Other process notes:
- Rate Counsel recommended that supporting budget documents should be released as early as April in future years to allow adequate stakeholder review time 1.
- The stakeholder process included both oral and written comment periods and was supplemented by the posting of public materials on the NJ Clean Energy website 2.

This timeline reflects key procedural steps and scheduled events relevant to stakeholder participation and board action in the FY26 clean energy program budget process.

The docket concerns the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ (NJBPU) review, approval, and stakeholder feedback on the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) budget and associated program plans. Key points include:

- The FY26 NJCEP budget is supported by the Societal Benefits Charge (SBC), as required by state law, and is intended to fund energy efficiency (EE), renewable energy (RE), and related clean energy initiatives. This includes new and ongoing programs for electric vehicles, energy storage, distributed energy resources (DERs), and combined heat and power/fuel cell (CHP-FC) systems 1, 1, 1.
- Stakeholders provided comments on the proposed budget, raising issues such as the significant reduction in funding for DERs and CHP-FC programs, concerns about the discontinuation of new CHP-FC applications after December 31, 2025, and the need to maintain program access during any transition period 2, 3, 4.
- Additional comments focused on the need for more transparent and detailed program design, cost-benefit analysis methodologies, allocation flexibility for pilot programs, funding for microgrids and energy storage, and the adequacy of outreach and education efforts 1, 5, 6.
- Rate Counsel expressed concerns over the overall rate impact, possible over-collection of funds, lack of detailed multi-year planning, and insufficient analytical support in several program filings 5, 5.
- The docket also covers progress and future plans for EV incentive programs, fleet electrification, and public charger expansion, as well as the ongoing development of energy storage initiatives like the Garden State Energy Storage Program 1, 1.

Overall, the docket documents the NJBPU’s approval process and stakeholder engagement for shaping the FY26 clean energy budget and program priorities.