The first review under a 2025 law found missing votes and inadequate explanations, as New Jersey presses for more influence over regional electricity decisions.
TRENTON, NJ – All four New Jersey electric utilities submitted incomplete reports on their voting at PJM Interconnection, leaving gaps in the public record of positions on regional electricity rules that can affect customer costs and reliability, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities said Oct. 14.
The first annual review under the state’s new disclosure law covers Jersey Central Power & Light, Public Service Electric and Gas, Rockland Electric Company and Atlantic City Electric. All filed by the Feb. 1, 2026, deadline and submitted revisions, but regulators found that none fully complied.
The findings concern the completeness of the utilities’ disclosures and explanations. The report does not establish that a particular utility vote caused a specific increase in customers’ bills.
For Morristown and surrounding Morris County communities served by JCP&L, the review examines how their utility reported positions taken within the organization that coordinates the regional power grid and administers wholesale electricity markets.
What the state found
The BPU’s 31-page report identifies three common problems in the initial filings: omitted votes before the law took effect, missing proceedings below the senior and standing committees, and insufficient explanations of whether votes advanced New Jersey’s energy policies.
Staff sent deficiency notices March 3 and provided guidance during subsequent meetings. The utilities filed their final revisions between May and August. The remaining problems differed:
| Utility | Final revised filing | BPU findings |
|---|---|---|
| JCP&L | Aug. 5, 2026 | Missing votes and explanations that generally identified a connection to state policy without adequately explaining whether the vote advanced it. |
| PSE&G | June 5, 2026 | The most complete and detailed filing, with full-year coverage, but three omitted votes and three insufficient explanations. |
| Rockland Electric | May 15, 2026 | Reported votes across the year, principally in the two senior committees, but omitted many lower-level votes and explanations for earlier votes. |
| Atlantic City Electric | June 25, 2026 | Included earlier senior-committee votes and some other proceedings, but retained gaps in lower-level records and explanations for earlier votes. |
The BPU report contains an inconsistency in JCP&L’s omission count: its executive summary says five votes, while the body says seven and Appendix B lists seven voting items. The report does not reconcile those figures.
What the law requires
A5463, enacted as P.L. 2025, c. 129, took effect Aug. 15, 2025. It requires electric utilities to report each recorded vote cast by the utility or an affiliate at PJM meetings during the preceding calendar year, regardless of whether PJM publicly discloses it.
The requirement covers committees, user groups, task forces and similar bodies. It extends to tabulated votes that are preliminary or advisory, and to proposals endorsed by acclamation when a utility is present.
Reports must describe the meeting, its purpose and the utility’s participation. They must explain whether each vote advances electricity affordability, reliability and sustainability, along with the purposes of three state laws governing electricity competition and emissions policy. The BPU must send an annual summary and the utility reports to the governor and Legislature.
The first year exposed disagreement over the period covered. BPU staff said the law required reporting for all of 2025. Utilities initially limited their submissions to votes after the effective date, citing either recordkeeping limitations or their interpretation of the requirement.
In its May 15 filing, Rockland Electric said it added senior-committee votes from Jan. 1 through Aug. 14, but maintained that explanations were not required before the law became effective.
Atlantic City Electric’s June 25 filing said it began tracking votes for the requirement Aug. 15. Its earlier records therefore covered the two senior committees but excluded other proceedings, and it supplied no explanations for votes before that date.
PSE&G’s June 5 submission said it covered Jan. 1 through Dec. 31. The company also argued that its influence is limited: it estimated its voting share at approximately 1.5% in senior committees and 0.4% in standing committees and task forces.
JCP&L’s Aug. 5 report includes explanations describing many items as routine revisions outside the cited New Jersey laws. Other entries identify potential reliability benefits. The BPU nevertheless found its explanations generally inadequate to establish whether its voting positions advanced state policy.
How PJM decisions reach household bills
PJM coordinates wholesale electricity across all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia. Its responsibilities include operating electricity markets, maintaining transmission-system reliability and planning for future needs.
Its capacity market secures commitments from power suppliers and resources that reduce demand to be available when needed. Capacity costs help pay for that availability, including during emergencies, and enter the supply costs ultimately charged to customers.
New Jersey’s separate Basic Generation Service auction buys electricity supply for customers who receive that service through their utility. When the BPU announced the 2025 auction results, it projected average residential bill increases of 17.23% to 20.20% beginning June 1, 2025, depending on the utility.
For a JCP&L residential customer using 650 kilowatt-hours a month, the board’s illustration showed a $22.67 monthly increase, or 20.20%. Those figures describe the 2025 change, rather than a new increase resulting from this disclosure review.
The BPU identified PJM capacity costs as a major driver of the increases. It also said utilities pass the electricity supply costs secured through the state auctions directly to customers without earning a profit on that supply.
More recently, PJM’s July 14, 2026, auction report showed capacity prices for 2028–29 reached the auction’s cap of $325 per megawatt-day. PJM said the capacity secured fell below its reliability target, meaning the system could operate with slimmer reserves and greater risk during that future delivery year.
The voting records cover proposals that can change how those regional markets work. For example, JCP&L’s filing records its positions on November 2025 proposals addressing large electricity users, including data centers, and the capacity needed to serve them. The company’s explanation connected the issue to the risk of demand arriving faster than new capacity could be built.
State influence and future enforcement
PJM’s stakeholder process allows proposals to develop through working groups and committees before reaching senior committees and, where applicable, its board and federal regulators. Recording votes throughout that process shows positions taken while alternatives are being developed, as well as at later stages.
The BPU said PJM publishes utility-specific voting reports only for its two senior committees, the Members Committee and Markets and Reliability Committee. States and state utility commissions can participate in proceedings but do not vote as members.
The disclosure findings come as New Jersey and other states pursue more influence over PJM. At an Oct. 8 summit in Chicago, governors formalized the PJM Governors’ Collaborative to coordinate positions, share technical expertise and press for greater state and consumer representation.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is separately examining PJM governance and stakeholder reforms. Following a July 23 conference, FERC announced facilitated discussions to develop potential reforms, including stronger board independence and structured participation by states.
The BPU report says no order had been issued in these reporting dockets. The disclosure law contains no separate enforcement mechanism, but the board identified its general authority under N.J.S.A. 48:2-42 to enforce compliance with board orders.
Regulators said they were allowing some latitude during the first reporting year and would expect detailed explanations across stakeholder proceedings in future filings. Under the law’s annual schedule, reports covering 2026 are due Feb. 1, 2027.