A report released in May by the Garden State Initiative (GSI) finds the goals of New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan (EMP) are unobtainable and unworkable, and would cost New Jerseyans an estimated $40 billion.

EMP, issued by executive order in 2020 by Gov. Phil Murphy, commits the Garden State to achieving 100 percent “clean” energy by 2050, meaning “100 percent carbon-neutral electricity generation and maximum electrification of the transportation and building sectors, which are the greatest carbon emission producing sectors in the state.”

EMP was followed by more concrete executive orders from Murphy, including one that increased the state’s target for offshore wind electricity generation to 11,000 megawatts (MW) by 2040, and another that mandated the electrification of 400,000 residential buildings and 20,000 commercial and public buildings.

The New Jersey Legislature has responded to EMP by mandating 3,750 MW of electricity in the state be generated by photovoltaic solar panels by 2026. Further, the state has adopted the California Advanced Clean Truck Rule, which mandates 100 percent of medium- and heavy-truck sales in the state must be zero-emission electric vehicles (ZEVs) by 2045, with 75 percent of local delivery truck sales being ZEVs by 2035, as well as the California Advanced Clean Car II standards, which mandates 43 percent of all 2027 model-year automobile sales be ZEVs, increasing to 100 percent in 2035. New Jersey law now mandates a total of 300,000 electric vehicle sales by 2025 and two million by 2035.

“If the goal is to reduce consumption of hydrocarbons in a fashion that is sustainable, reliable, and affordable, there are a number of other approaches that could be considered wherein we note as examples two significant alternatives, neither of which appear to be under consideration in [New Jersey], nor in many other states,” the report concludes. “One would be to pursue means for ensuring near-term and rapid construction of new nuclear plants, as well as exploring means for extending the operating life of existing ones. The other would be to establish transportation incentives that encourage the purchase of more efficient internal combustion engine vehicles. Both options are feasible and economically viable with technologies that exist.”

“Governor Murphy’s mandate that New Jersey attain 100 percent clean energy by 2035 is a laudable goal, but it’s not realistic,” said GSI president Audrey Lane in an accompanying press release. “The bottom line is that the goals set forth in the NJ EMP are purely aspirational and our report painstakingly makes that clear,” said Lane. “The unrealistic nature of implementing this plan doesn’t even take into account the price tag – which we estimate at a whopping $40 billion, and would drive even more people and jobs out of the state….This report provides a reality check on aspirational policy.  New Jersey residents, taxpayers, and business owners need to understand how state policies will affect them now and, in the future.”

This is not the first report to note the high cost of an attempted transition to 100 percent “renewable” energy sources.

A June 2019 analysis from Scottish consulting firm Wood Mackenzie estimated the cost of transitioning the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, as recommended by the Green New Deal and other overzealous climate change plans, would cost at least $4.5 trillion over that time period.

“For any country to embrace a nationwide transition to 100 percent renewable energy … or zero carbon … emissions constitutes a massive disruption with far-flung economic and social repercussions,” the analysis states. In the United States, that means a $35,000 cost to each household, around $1,750 per year for 20 years.

“The total price of transition,” the analysis states, “includes everything needed to reliably produce and deliver clean energy to consumers. This price includes building and operating generation facilities, making capacity payments, investing in transmission and distribution infrastructure, delivering customer-facing grid edge technology and more.”

An updated study by the firm with a longer timeline, released in 2022, found the capital spending for energy and land-use systems for this full transition to renewables from 2021 to 2050 would cost $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion per year, which is an annual increase of $3.5 trillion from 2021.

“To put this increase in comparative terms,” the report notes, “the $3.5 trillion is approximately equivalent, in 2020, to half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, and 7 percent of household spending. An additional $1 trillion of today’s annual spend would, moreover, need to be reallocated from high-emissions to low-emissions assets.”

Similarly, the American Action Forum estimated the costs of moving the entire country to 100 percent renewable sources would be $5.7 trillion, or $42,000 per household. A 2019 brief from the Institute for Energy Research estimated getting to 100 percent renewable generation is “nothing more than a myth,” and attempting to do so would induce an economic “catastrophe” for the United States.

Renewable energy mandates force expensive, heavily subsidized, and politically favored electricity sources such as wind and solar on ratepayers and taxpayers while providing their own unique environmental and human rights issues. State legislators should not mandate the use of renewable sources in electricity generation. Such mandates raise energy costs and disproportionally harm low-income families. Instead of trying to increase renewable mandates to 100 percent, legislators should repeal them.

Further, lawmakers should also not mandate the sale of zero-emission vehicles, which are more expensive to buy, more expensive to insure, far less efficient, and depreciate in value faster than traditional, gasoline-powered automobiles. There is a market for ZEVs in New Jersey, but they are not a fit for every Garden Stater’s lifestyle or budget. If a ZEV is a more attractive option than a traditional gas-powered automobile, people will make that decision for themselves.

Heartland Impact can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Cameron Sholty, at csholty@heartlandimpact.org or 312/377-4000.