TRENTON, NJ – Senator Ed Durr (R-3) has expressed concerns over Governor Murphy’s energy priorities, arguing that they are misplaced and out of touch with the needs of the state. Durr raised several points, including the rushed adoption of offshore wind, the potential ban on natural gas appliances, and the push for electric vehicles (EVs), which he believes could lead to higher costs for New Jersey residents.
One of the key issues highlighted by Durr is the state’s focus on offshore wind development. He pointed to Rhode Island’s recent decision to walk away from offshore wind turbine plans due to concerns about rising costs and inflated supply chain expenses. Despite this, Governor Murphy continues to push ahead with wind farm development, recently granting a $1 billion bailout to Orsted, which could impact New Jersey utility payers.
Durr emphasized the need to consider diverse energy options and highlighted his bipartisan bill, S-3312, which calls for a study on the development of small modular nuclear reactors. He believes that investing in carbon-free nuclear energy could be a more effective approach to achieving sustainable energy goals without burdening taxpayers.
Governor Murphy’s efforts to ban affordable natural gas in New Jersey by pushing a building decarbonization plan through the Board of Public Utilities also drew criticism from Durr. The plan could force millions of homeowners to convert from natural gas to electric, which he believes could result in increased costs for residents.
Senator Durr questioned Governor Murphy’s recent plan to mandate the sale of only electric vehicles by 2035. He argued that such a move could limit consumer choice and impose higher costs on those unable to afford expensive EVs. He also pointed out the irony of the administration purchasing gas-powered SUVs for top Democrat officials while advocating for a ban on gas-powered vehicle sales.
Durr urged Governor Murphy to consider a more diverse and practical energy portfolio, centered around carbon-free nuclear energy, rather than enforcing mandates and bans that could burden New Jersey residents with higher costs and limited options.