BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

Showing result(s) 1 - 14 of 14

Posted By	Posted Date	Comments	Attachments(s)
Mikhail Sagal	3/27/2024 9:31:08 PM	Lack of prescriptive incentives and rebates: The lack of a prescriptive path for lighting related to horticulture, general lighting or any other measure will discourage the adoption of energy efficient solutions and equipment. The incentive will be for customers to go with the lowest possible product available on the market (cheap, inefficient, unregulated and perhaps non-DLC listed products to build the facility. Facility costs are extensive and absent incentives to use the most energy efficient products, growers will be challenged to implement them.
Mikhail Sagal	3/27/2024 9:19:11 PM	Thank you for the opportunity to provide input: This comment is related to the lack of bonus incentives for integrated controls for horticulture that actually monitor and verify power consumption. As an example, remote powered lighting solutions integrate not only into BMS systems, but also have the capability to record exactly how much energy was used, can integrate into demand response programs and automatically dim based on commands, agreements and demand response events while also automatically adjusting power to minimize peak demand. Such systems that can validate and verify to the utility what the customer is using for energy in horticulture cultivation rooms should not only qualify for bonus incentives to install - but should qualify for annual energy savings targets achieved. I encourage the adoption and inclusion of incentives for wholistic integrated controls, especially for lighting solutions with remote power servers.
Mikhail Sagal	3/27/2024 9:12:08 PM	Horticulture Lighting and Facility Incentives: In reviewing the proposed program incentives for horticulture, its clear that the incentives are not aligned with the high energy usage that these facilities employ. A 50,000 sq ft facility could only hope to achieve a rebate of $187,750 - well below the current cap of $500,000. Incentives this low are prohibitive in that the cost for time and material selection delays related to rebate applications and the work that goes into them - would not be paid for by the incentive received. Operators may be discouraged from seeking rebates and incentives. These incentives if customized for integrated solutions should be 3-4x the proposed rates.
Rachel Goodgal	3/27/2024 4:33:19 PM	Please see attached document.	EEA-NJ true-up budget comments 03.27.2024
Jason Battles	3/27/2024 1:45:17 PM	Thank you all for the opportunity to voice comments and concerns. Below are some of the obstacles that we have identified with the proposed changes. My comments will be geared towards the "Bundled Pathway" as that is where growers appear to be slotted for this update. 1) The upfront cost has been raised while the overall incentive has been decreased a. Cost raised by requiring multiple facility improvement measures (FIMs) just to be eligible for the “Bundled Pathway” b. Incentive decreased. $0.25/sqft means that a 100,000sqft building would be eligible for $25,000. This dollar amount could be achieved by installing 100 fixtures under the current program 2) This program does not take into account verticality. If a grower is mutli-tier, they would still be judged on the square footage of their building. a. Why spend more money for Efficiency Listed LED Products when the rebate is so meager? Buying a cheap fixture from overseas that does not comply with energy requests or guidelines makes more sense from a facility standpoint. Fluence is currently looking at rebates that are many times greater than the proposed option. Thoughts on changes that could make the new program more desirable to growers looking to improve: - Remove the point-based system for growers or at the very least increase the points so lighting could stand alone. - Increase the rebate offering to at least resemble the current offerings (ie. Presently lighting laid out in a 4x6 grid would be getting $10+/sqft of grow area) - A rate based on the square footage of the grow would discourage manipulative practices where it pertains to energy listings, but the proposed rate is too low for fixtures that are DLC listed to even be entertained. Customers (yours and ours) in the growing space are tight on cash. The rebate is a strong motivator to improve both their facility and their footprint on the environment. If the changes that are being proposed were implemented, energy efficiency measures (in the grow space) will lessen. Fluence would be happy to work with the state of New Jersey to move towards a program that accomplishes our goal of energy efficiency. Thank you for this opportunity to share these thoughts.
Isabel Molina	3/27/2024 11:53:58 AM	please see the attached document.	New Jersey LCV's FY24 True Up Budget Comments for NJ BPU 3.27.24
Anne-Marie Peracchio	6/13/2023 3:04:16 PM	Please see attached letter.	NJNG 2023 QO23040235 QO23040236 comments Clean Energy Program FY2024
Stanislav Jaracz	6/13/2023 12:24:38 AM	We appreciate the opportunity to provide recommendations on the proposed Charge Up New Jersey Program (CUNJ) FY 2024. In January 2020, landmark EV legislation was signed into law, authorizing the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to implement the CUNJ EV rebate program – a key initiative aimed to help us meet the state’s statutory goal of registering 330,000 EVs by 2025. The CUNJ program has been somewhat successful for the third year in a row, signaling New Jerseyans have a strong interest in EVs despite the global supply chain issues. As reported by the BPU, the first three years of CUNJ put 16,375 new EVs on New Jersey’s roads, with the vast majority of those being full battery EVs. Based on data from DEP, as of Dec 2022, New Jersey had 91,515 registered EVs on the road, 27,208 of which were sold in New Jersey in 2022. These accelerated results certainly demonstrate that the New Jersey EV market is progressing in the right direction, despite unprecedented challenges. We have 3 years to add 238,485 more EVs to meet the goal of 330,000. This is 64.2% average year on year growth. Using the data from ChargeUp NJ portal, the analysis shows that the contribution of CUNJ rebate program to the total EV growth is declining. The (calendar) year 2022 was much less aggressive for EV registrations, leading to an annual increase of 17% compared to 108% growth in 2021. In comparison to FY2022, the FY2023 program functioned for nearly 9 months, much longer than 2 months, which provided a sense of stability to all parties. We congratulate BPU on this success. We also admit that our expectation of the program's longevity was much more pessimistic. However, it is not clear where the $30M annual budgeted fund is. The ChargeUp NJ portal shows $11,177,200 total approved amount in FY2023 as of April 28. Even more confusing is the figure in your presentation on June 5th, 2023, whooping $37M for the same fiscal year. Where is the missing ~$26M? Where is the transparency? In addition, even Year 2 of the program does not matches the figure presented on slide #9 of the aforementioned presentation. We are not talking about delay in data entry. These millions are missing for the second year. Fiscal Year ChargeUp NJ Portal BPU Presentation 6/5/2023 Difference 2020/2021 $40,487,900 $40M $0M 2022 $13,194,425 $21M -$8M 2023 $11,177,200 $37 -$26M Hopefully, this is an administrative error and will be rectified soon. The EV growth rate over the past few years shows us that the NJ electrification goal is achievable, however, to sustain the stated growth in sales, growth in rebate funding will be needed this year and each year through 2025. The CUNJ rebate program FY2022 was terminated in approximately ten weeks in a fear not to exceed the budget, signaling the need for additional funding and thoughtful program design to meet the consumer’s demands, incentivize more sales, maintain the integrity of the program and foster an orderly market development. It is therefore crucially important to approach any program decisions and changes thoughtfully and deliberately, with stakeholder input, and based on a transparent assessment of all available data. In the following detailed comments provided, we focus on three key issue areas regarding the proposed CUNJ program FY23: 1. Assure consistent and stable program all year long, 2. Ensuring Adequate Program Funding, and 3. Program Details, including data collection, reporting and transparency. These comments are offered with the focus of keeping program momentum high to ensure that the state reaches the statutory EV adoption goals in these next few vital years.	QO23040236-NJEVA CUNJ Comments FY24
Douglas Presley	6/12/2023 3:33:22 PM	Please see attached comments from Dandelion Energy.	2023-06-12 - Dandelion Comments on Straw Proposals and Budget
Stacey Barnes	6/12/2023 3:32:01 PM	Public Service Electric and Gas Company is pleased to offer the attached comments in response to the Straw Proposal on New Jersey Clean Energy Programs and Budget for the Fiscal Year 2024	PSEG Comments - NJCEP FY 2024 Budget
Mary Barber	6/12/2023 2:31:17 PM	Please find EDF's comments attached. Thank you.	EDF_BPU CRA Straw Comments_2023
Northeast Chapter of the CHP Alliance	6/12/2023 1:19:10 PM	See Attached Letter	NE Chapter Response to NJ CEP FY2024 Budget and Draft CRA_FINAL 6.12.23
Michael Winka	6/12/2023 12:57:31 PM	See attached pdf comments on the FY 24 CEP Programs and Budgets - Docket No QO23040236 - the same comments were submitted under Docket No QO23040235 FY CEP CRA Not sure why there are two separate dockets to file the same comments when it should have been on joint Docket?	NJBPU FY 24 CRA Budget and Programs 6-12-23
Shivaram	6/6/2023 3:34:28 PM	Does the Charge Up program start on July 1st 2023 for the fiscal year 2024? Or would it take effect on July 25th like last year?

BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

Follow NJBPU on Social Media