Utilities face restoration benchmarks after outages

Summary#

A-5696 would create the Electric Public Utility Service Area Accountability Act, adding power-restoration requirements to New Jersey law; it does not amend a named existing Act. Its stated goal is to improve accountability for electric utilities after major events. The bill is introduced and is not law.

  • The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) must set restoration benchmarks within 30 days after the law takes effect. The benchmarks must include an acceptable restoration-time threshold and compare utilities’ performance by operating area.
  • During a major event, the BPU must notify a utility if an operating area misses the benchmarks and the utility has been subject to a BPU order about restoration or reliability problems within the previous five years.
  • Within 60 days of notice, the utility must submit a corrective action plan for BPU approval. It must include specific capital investments, staffing changes, updated communication protocols, a proposal for customer bill credits, and other information the BPU requests. Once the plan is approved, the utility must provide automatic bill credits to affected customers in that area.
  • If the area misses the benchmarks again during a later major event, the BPU must hold a proceeding on whether transferring the area to an adjacent utility is feasible. A transfer is not automatic.
  • After that repeat failure, the utility must, upon request, reimburse counties and municipalities for certain documented public-safety costs incurred beyond the restoration-time threshold. The utility may contest claims, and it cannot pass these reimbursement costs on to customers.
  • During a major event, utilities must give municipal emergency coordinators restoration estimates at least every 12 hours for outages the municipality reports, and written explanations for outages lasting more than 24 hours. The BPU must also publish performance summaries for each operating area and each utility’s full service area.

What it means for you#

  • Customers: If your operating area is designated chronically underperforming and the BPU approves a corrective action plan, the utility must provide automatic bill credits to affected customers there. The bill does not set the credit amount.
  • Municipalities and counties: Their emergency coordinators must receive outage updates and explanations. After a qualifying repeat failure, a county or municipality may submit an itemized claim for eligible public-safety costs within 90 days after the event ends.
  • Utilities: They would face new reporting duties, possible civil penalties, corrective-plan requirements, and potential reimbursement claims. For a first reporting offence, the penalty may be up to $5,000 per day, capped at $25,000; for a later offence, it may be up to $250,000. The BPU may grant more time for reporting.
  • People in a potentially transferred area: A repeat failure would lead to a BPU proceeding about whether transfer is feasible—not an automatic change of utility.
  • Other customers and the public: The bill does not guarantee uninterrupted service or set a bill-credit amount for every outage. It directs the BPU to publish performance summaries.

Money#

No publicly available information on a cost estimate.

  • Utilities would have to prepare corrective action plans that include proposed investments and staffing changes, and provide bill credits if a plan is approved.
  • Utilities could owe counties or municipalities for eligible public-safety costs after a qualifying repeat failure. The bill bars passing those reimbursement costs through to customers.
  • The BPU would have new duties to set benchmarks, review plans and claims, hold transfer-feasibility proceedings, and publish summaries. The bill gives no estimate of these costs.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define how the BPU must set the benchmarks or determine whether performance is comparable across different events.
  • A “major event” must affect at least 10 percent of customers in an operating area within 48 hours. Utilities determine their own operating-area boundaries, and the bill does not explain how the BPU would review those boundaries.
  • The bill does not specify bill-credit amounts, how affected customers are identified, or when credits must be issued.
  • It does not set out detailed procedures or deadlines for approving corrective plans, reviewing reimbursement claims, or deciding whether a transfer is feasible. A utility may contest reimbursement claims.
  • The supplied material does not include current Title 48 provisions, so existing restoration, reporting, or reimbursement requirements beyond those mentioned in the bill cannot be verified.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to address slow restoration by requiring the BPU to set benchmarks and identify poor performance in areas where the utility has a recent history of reliability or restoration problems.
  • Requiring plans to address investments, staffing, communications, and bill credits could give the BPU several tools to address repeat problems.
  • Regular updates to municipal emergency coordinators could help local officials plan during outages.
  • Reimbursing eligible public-safety costs would place those costs on the utility after a specified repeat failure, rather than allowing them to be passed through to customers.

Case against#

  • The bill leaves key measures to the BPU and lets utilities define operating areas. Without clearer rules, comparisons and designations could be difficult to assess.
  • It requires a proposed corrective plan and, after approval, bill credits, but does not clearly state what happens if the utility does not carry out the plan’s proposed investments or staffing changes.
  • A repeat failure triggers a proceeding about a possible transfer, not a required transfer. The bill does not guarantee that the proceeding will result in a change.
  • The bill does not set credit amounts or detailed claim and review procedures, making the likely effect on customers, utilities, and local budgets hard to predict.