At the March 28 joint hearing, the Division of Rate Counsel raised concerns about supplemental transmission projects—utility‑proposed builds that proceed without competitive procurement and with limited external oversight.

Rate Counsel’s point: Brian Lipman, director of the Division of Rate Counsel, told lawmakers that PJM transmission owners can propose supplemental projects to address local needs and typically build them directly. Lipman said that process can raise costs because it bypasses competitive bids and regional cost‑benefit comparisons. He provided a chart showing New Jersey’s supplemental project spending was among the highest in the PJM footprint.

Why it matters

Supplemental projects are often necessary to address reliability issues on distribution and transmission systems. But without competitive oversight and a regional planning lens, Lipman said, states risk paying more than necessary. He urged the committee to consider giving BPU authority to review the need and cost‑effectiveness of supplemental projects and to require competitive bidding or regional alternatives where feasible.

Committee reaction

Lawmakers from both houses asked for immediate steps: require BPU review for large supplemental builds, require competitive procurement when private alternatives exist, and explore regional transmission planning to avoid piecemeal, higher‑cost work. Several members argued such oversight could cut the utility bill component tied to transmission in the medium term.

Next steps

The committee asked Rate Counsel and BPU staff to provide a detailed accounting of supplemental projects and to recommend statutory or regulatory changes that would allow state review of major transmission upgrades and encourage regional solutions.