New Jersey Energy Mix
-
Natural Gas: 49%
-
Nuclear Power: 42%
-
Solar Energy: 7% (including both utility-scale and small-scale facilities)
-
Biomass, Wind, and Hydropower: 2% (combined, with biomass being the primary contributor among these)
-
Coal: 0% (New Jersey’s last coal-fired power plants shut down in 2022)
Electricity Cost Comparison
|
State
|
Average Residential Rate (cents/kWh)
|
Rank (Highest Cost)
|
|---|---|---|
|
Hawaii
|
41.11
|
1
|
|
Massachusetts
|
29.08
|
2
|
|
California
|
27.73
|
3
|
|
Rhode Island
|
26.16
|
4
|
|
Connecticut
|
25.67
|
5
|
|
New Jersey
|
19.68
|
12
|
-
Hawaii has the highest rates due to its reliance on imported oil, which accounts for ~80% of its electricity mix, compounded by transportation and infrastructure costs.
-
Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, and Connecticut have high rates due to limited regional competition, aging grid infrastructure, and higher reliance on imported or costly energy sources.
-
New Jersey’s rates are elevated due to its deregulated market dynamics, high demand, and reliance on natural gas and nuclear, but its energy-efficient consumption (average 683 kWh/month) keeps monthly bills lower than some high-rate states.
-
New Jersey: 683 kWh/month × 19.68 ¢/kWh = $134.42/month
-
Hawaii: 559 kWh/month × 41.11 ¢/kWh = $229.80/month (lower consumption due to smaller households)
-
Massachusetts: 627 kWh/month × 29.08 ¢/kWh = $182.33/month (estimated based on regional averages)
-
California: 557 kWh/month × 27.73 ¢/kWh = $154.46/month
-
Rhode Island: 610 kWh/month × 26.16 ¢/kWh = $159.58/month (estimated)
-
Connecticut: 701 kWh/month × 25.67 ¢/kWh = $179.95/month (estimated)
Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind, a joint venture between Shell New Energies and EDF Renewables, has filed a request to cancel its wind project off the coast of Atlantic City, New Jersey.
In the request, filed with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, the developer listed the Trump administration’s opposition to wind energy and the escalated cost for developing offshore wind projects.
Atlantic Shores was supposed to develop two distinct phases. The first was a 1,510MW project with around $1.9bn in economic benefits to New Jersey. Combined with the second project, the 197 offshore wind turbines would have produced enough clean energy to power more than 1m New Jersey homes and would have a capacity of 2.8GW.
The project development already hit a major bump in the road when one half of the joint venture, Shell, decided to withdraw from the project in February and take a $996m impairment associated with Atlantic Shores. EDF Renewables booked a $980m impairment for the project soon after.
This would not be the only obstacle, as the Trump administration withdrew an air quality permit for the project in March.
Last week, Atlantic Shores petitioned the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to withdraw its earlier offshore renewable energy certificates order, which allowed the project to start development.
“Due to the uncertainty caused by the Presidential Wind Memorandum, the subsequent loss of the Air Permit, and other actions taken by the current administration more generally, [Atlantic Shore’s] parent company has been forced to materially reduce its personnel, terminate contracts, and cancel planned project investments,” the petition said.
We give you energy news and help invest in energy projects too, click here to learn more
Be the first to comment