Category: Testimony

Protecting New Jersey’s Immigrants Keeps the State’s Communities and Main Streets Thriving

Posted on by Peter Chen

Immigrants drive economic growth in New Jersey, and keeping New Jersey immigrants safe in their communities makes the state stronger as a result.

Nearly 1 in 3 New Jersey workers are immigrants, as are nearly 1 in 3 nurses and half of Main Street business owners. As one of the most diverse states in the nation, more than 4 in 10 children in New Jersey have an immigrant parent. Immigrants in New Jersey form the very lifeblood of its communities, its schools, its Main Streets.

As draconian and indiscriminate federal immigration enforcement has increased, immigrant New Jerseyans have faced arrest and detention, but they have been protected by the existing Immigrant Trust Directive, which delineates how local and state government interact with federal immigration enforcement.

Without being able to trust local government, schools, and health care facilities, immigrant families and workers in New Jersey would increasingly be excluded from the state they call home. Fear created by immigration enforcement already deters participation in children’s health insurance programs, tax filing, and food security programs.

When it comes to the success of the state, protecting immigrant families is not negotiable; it is instead a necessary piece for a thriving state.

Hold Corporations Responsible for Hazmat Rail Safety

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good afternoon Chairman Sarlo and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony in opposition to S3389, which will move forward common sense safety measures for hazmat rail. My name is Alex Ambrose and I am a policy analyst with New Jersey Policy Perspective. NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

While moving hazardous materials (hazmat) by rail is the safest form of transportation for these dangerous chemicals, it still poses risks, particularly for the most vulnerable New Jersey communities and our first responders. Even as rail incidents have declined overall, incidents involving hazardous materials have increased and are still growing. One of the most startling revelations that came out of the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio disaster is that the train involved in the explosion was headed for south Jersey. That disaster was all too familiar for those New Jerseyans who still remember the 2012 Paulsboro derailment, in Senator Burzichelli’s district; many of those residents are still dealing with long-term physical and emotional consequences of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Policies like those proposed in this bill — including reducing train length, requiring wayside defect detectors, requiring a two-person crew, and mandating safety reporting and inspections — are how we start to mitigate those disasters. Requiring corporations to have a response plan in place prior to an incident is just common sense.

State leaders must take action to require safety measures because it is clear that corporations are unlikely to voluntarily increase safety measures. In the last decade, the seven biggest railroad corporations spent nearly double as much on stock buybacks, cash distributions, and dividends than on infrastructure investments. More specifically, in 2022, Norfolk Southern, the corporation responsible for the East Palestine disaster, spent three times as much on stock buybacks than on safety.

But when corporations are forced to prioritize safety measures, there are improvements. While four of the five biggest railroads faced higher accident rates last year, one saw them go down: Norfolk Southern saw their accident rates reduced after they were essentially forced to invest more in safety and infrastructure updates after the 2023 disaster in Ohio.

This bill moves forward evidence-based corporate responsibility measures to better protect New Jersey communities. Research shows that the two biggest factors that lead to hazmat rail incidents are track factors and human error. This bill, with its provisions to reduce train length, require wayside defect detectors, require a two-person crew, and mandate safety inspections and reporting, starts to address those factors. The train length requirement is a particularly important provision because it not only reduces the total overall amount of hazmat that could be involved in an incident, but also addresses the fact that the length of the train itself can be a hazard. The longer the train during a derailment incident in a densely populated state like New Jersey, the more likely a stopped train can block off parts of a community from emergency services.

It’s time to take the lessons to heart: We need lawmakers to lead the way on increasing corporate responsibility for safety to ensure that we do not continue to see disasters like Paulsboro and East Palestine. Residents’ safety, health, and well-being should come first in the Garden State and shouldn’t be threatened by opaque and unregulated corporate policies.

Thank you for moving this bill forward and we look forward to your continued leadership on this issue.

Federal Leaders Should Protect Access to Critical Health Programs

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

The Honorable Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201

RE: (Docket ID Docket: AHRQ-2025-0002) Opposition to Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act; Interpretation of ”Federal Public Benefit”

Dear Secretary Kennedy,

New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) is a nonpartisan think tank that drives policy change to advance economic, social, and racial justice through evidence-based, independent research, analysis, and strategic communications. For decades, NJPP has provided timely and insightful research to policymakers in New Jersey to improve outcomes and opportunities for families and individuals across the state.

NJPP strongly opposes any attempt to restrict access to Health and Human Services programs that help build healthy communities. All the programs now being considered “federal public benefits” under this rule proposal would harm the health of those individuals excluded and all residents of the state.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs)

Federally qualified health centers provide critical health care to communities often underserved by the health care system as a whole. More than 1 in 4 FQHC patients are uninsured, substantially higher than the state average.[i] In 2023, the state’s 138 FQHCs served more than 570,000 patients, including 145,700 uninsured patients.

People get sick and require care regardless of immigration status. Pushing those people out of the health care system by treating them as a “public charge” does not make them healthier or reduce usage of public benefits. Instead, these punitive policies hurt overall health and well-being by pushing families with mixed immigration status away from care.[ii]

These restrictions ignore an important fact: the FQHCs provide a service for the general welfare. This policy ignores the role that better health, nutrition and education have on society as a whole. If one group of people is excluded from or avoided basic medical care, healthy pregnancy and infancy, or early childhood experiences, those costs multiply on everyone.

Also, immigrants have higher employment rates than native-born adults, contributing greatly to the state and local economy. In New Jersey, immigrants are a major driver of business growth. The roughly 2.2 million immigrants living in the state generate billions in economic activity and local and state tax revenue.[iii] Excluding large parts of this population from basic care will hurt their ability to remain economically independent. This aligns with research showing that the cost of insuring immigrant residents is generally lower than the cost of insuring native-born residents.[iv]

Other programs

Similar logic applies to the vast array of programs now being considered “federal public benefits” under this proposal. Almost all of these programs provide benefits to the community when they reach a broad population:

  • Head Start programs and high-quality early childhood education reduce lifetime costs for child participants and improve a wide range of health and academic outcomes.
  • Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services help reduce the risks of overdose and substance use disorder on families and communities.
  • Title X Family Planning helps families plan how many children to have and keep a family size they can support economically.
  • Community Services Block Grants provide funding to Community Action Agencies to deliver services that reduce poverty and promote independence.
  • Education and Training Voucher programs support youth aging out of foster care in pursuing higher education and developing independent living skills.
  • Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program ensures relatives who take guardianship of youth receive the guidance and resources needed to strengthen families, increase kinship placements, and promote long-term cost savings.

 

Simply put, these programs do not act as “benefits” to the recipients. Instead, these programs seek to reduce the overall cost to society and government by providing preventative measures that encourage economic independence and security.

NJPP urges HHS to withdraw this proposed rule that misclassifies these prevention measures that benefit all residents as “federal public benefits” that go to a select few.

Sincerely,

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Research Director
New Jersey Policy Perspective

End Notes

[i] New Jersey Primary Care Association, Federally Qualified Health Centers in New Jersey, March 2024. https://www.njpca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/March-2024_NJPCA-Bifold-FQHC-Snapshot.pdf

[ii] Dulce Gonzalez et al. Mixed-Status Families and Immigrant Families with Children Continued Avoiding Safety Net Programs in 2023. Urban Institute, Aug. 7, 2024. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/mixed-status-families-and-immigrant-families-children-continued-avoiding

[iii] Marleina Ubel, New Immigrants Drive Economic Growth in New Jersey, New Jersey Policy Perspective, Apr. 15, 2024. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-immigrants-drive-economic-growth-in-new-jersey/

[iv] Neeraj Kaushal and Felix Muchomba. Cost of Public Health Insurance for US-Born and Immigrant Adults. JAMA Network Open. 2023;6(9):e2334008. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.34008

State Lawmakers Should Protect Residents from Federal Cuts to Vital Services

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

TO: New Jersey State Senate and Assembly
FROM: New Jersey Policy Perspective
DATE: August 7, 2025
SUBJECT: Federal Threats to State Affordability, Essential Services, and Budget Integrity

The recent signing of budget reconciliation bill H.R. 1, also known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) will have far-reaching and devastating consequences for New Jersey. Combined with other federal rules that are being rapidly rewritten — such as the Marketplace Program Integrity Final Rule  — the new law destroys federal funding for critical programs on which the state depends to support residents building their futures and raising their families in the Garden State.

Coming cuts to Medicaid, restrictions on access to affordable health coverage through the GetCovered NJ marketplace, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increased costs for student loan borrowers, cuts to climate programs, and increased funding for immigrant detention will harm Garden State families and threaten affordability and the state budget for years to come. Some changes will take effect immediately, while others will create destructive gaps in future state budgets.

Now is the time for lawmakers to protect New Jersey by strengthening our state reserves, identifying new funding sources, and taking proactive protective steps to maintain essential services for residents. Governor Murphy has ordered departments to study the effects of these actions. Some departments warned during this year’s state budget discussions about the coming budget holes and loss of coverage. Lawmakers must recognize these urgent deadlines and act quickly and decisively to prevent the harm to New Jersey families.

Below is a timeline of the most important dates for impending changes that will result in loss of health care coverage, worsened food insecurity, reduced affordability, and increased threats to immigrant communities.

Sincerely,

The New Jersey Policy Perspective Research Team

Brittany Holom-Trundy, Research Director
Alex Ambrose, Climate and Transportation Policy Analyst
Peter Chen, Tax and Budget Senior Policy Analyst
Marleina Ubel, Criminal Legal Systems and Immigrant Rights Senior Policy Analyst

 

Economic Development Tax Credits Should Provide Positive Net-Benefits to New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Economic development tax credits should be targeted towards projects that create good jobs for working people, spur needed economic development in areas of the state that have faced historic disinvestment, and provide positive net-benefits to the communities where projects are built.

The reauthorization of the state’s economic tax credit programs added statutory guardrails and accountability to prior programs through Emerge and Aspire, requiring that corporations that wanted state subsidies needed to prove they were providing real benefits to the state’s communities most in need of business development. New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) encourages state lawmakers to incorporate those principles into this program to protect the state’s finances and its residents from bad deals.

The simplest path forward: Build the manufacturing tax credit program within the existing structure of Emerge, rather than create it from scratch.

As it stands, the proposed program will take potential credits out of Emerge and Aspire, making less available for economic development and affordable housing construction in the parts of the state most in need. Instead of using the existing guardrails of Emerge or Aspire, the proposed bill instead delegates much of the responsibility for ensuring fair deals to the Economic Development Authority (EDA), rather than codifying them in statute.

The EDA has shown how Emerge and Aspire can encourage economic growth without giving up on enforcement of accountability measures for corporations truly committed to equitable growth in New Jersey. But a future EDA administration, without the statutory requirements of those programs, might take a trip back to the bad old days of unaccountable money going out the door without clear benefits for the state’s residents and communities.

Regardless of the overall merits of a manufacturing tax credit program, no one industry should sidestep the state’s existing guardrails and requirements for economic development tax credits. If corporations will get substantial state subsidization, the state should ensure its residents reap the benefits, not just corporate shareholders.

Federal Leaders Should Preserve the Quality of SNAP Data to Protect Program Integrity

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Attn: James C. Miller, Administrator
Food and Nutrition Service
United States Department of Agriculture
1320 Braddock Place, 5th floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program: Rescission of Changes to Civil Rights Data Collection Methods,
90 F.R. 20825 (RIN 0584-AF19, May 16, 2025)

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am writing on behalf of New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) proposal to rescind the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Revision of Civil Rights Data Collection Methods final rule, which ended the practice of visual observations to determine SNAP participants’ race or ethnicity. I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments expressing our concerns with this change in data collection methods.

NJPP strongly disagrees with the proposed rescission, which would reinstate the allowance of visual observation as a program standard for the collection of race and ethnicity data of participants. This would be a step backward for the reliability and accuracy of data and would threaten the fair administration of SNAP. We recommend that the rule remain in place to continue improved data collection practices, maintain the accuracy of program analyses, and respect the civil rights of participants. 

The quality of data significantly impacts its usefulness, including the potential scope and accuracy of analyses that can be produced. In the case of visual observation of race, studies have shown that conclusions using this practice are often inaccurate when compared with self-reported data by the person whose race is being evaluated, if the goal is to determine the individual’s identity, family background, and lived experience.[i] Additionally, the perceptions of the interviewers or administrators visually observing race can vary, resulting in errors that do not follow predictable patterns or allow for reliable adjustments when evaluating the data. This makes it more difficult to produce program evaluations with high levels of confidence in their accuracy.[ii]

In addition to the accuracy of data collected, visual observation of race and ethnicity as a practice can threaten the process of the interview itself. Establishing a standard practice of asking an interviewer to potentially report the race or ethnicity of an interviewee primes the interviewer to think about and evaluate the characteristics of the participant throughout the interview. This can lead to an increase in biases within the interviewer’s approach and harm their rapport with the interviewee.

By diminishing the reliability and accuracy of demographic variables like race and ethnicity, any analyses that look to determine whether SNAP continues to be administered in ways that comply with federal civil rights requirements will be limited in their ability to confidently produce accurate results. Although allowing the interviewer to report the suspected race or ethnicity of a participant may lead to fewer unreported results and increase the number of “complete” questionnaire responses, the filling in of these gaps with unreliable data further reduces the data’s utility and harms program administration and outcomes.[iii] Researchers, program analysts, and lawyers would face greater difficulties reporting on the quality of the program’s administration and its legal standing with regard to civil rights requirements.

If officials are interested in filling gaps in the program data reported and wish to develop methods of producing more complete files, they must recognize that the most reliable and accurate data will come from the participant, who knows their family and individual background and identification. In order to encourage participants to answer this sensitive question more often, officials should look to methods of building trust between caseworkers and participants, improve and promote the security of the data provided, as well as adjust the structure of the questionnaire and potential answers to best allow for the participant to answer fully and accurately.[iv]

Due to the concerns outlined above, NJPP opposes the proposed rescission of this rule and hopes that the Department will consider other methods of filling data gaps and improving the overall quality of program evaluations.

Sincerely,

Brittany Holom-Trundy
Senior Policy Analyst
New Jersey Policy Perspective

End Notes

[i] Note that if the goal of a study is to record the race or ethnicity that external people may observe — thus, studying biases in observations — then the reporting of a visual observation of race and ethnicity would be valid in terms of what it seeks to capture. However, with program data, the aim is generally to better administer the program and ensure that there are no unintended or intended exclusions of communities based on their demographic characteristics.

[ii] This is not just a challenge for visual observation of race and ethnicity, but is also a broader challenge for any externally imposed completion of missing race and ethnicity data. For a discussion of statistical challenges, see Megan Randall, Alena Stern, and Yipeng Su (2021), “Five Ethical Risks to Consider Before Filling Missing Race and Ethnicity Data,” Urban Institute,

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103830/five-ethical-risks-to-consider-before-filling-missing-race-and-ethnicity-data-workshop-findings.pdf.

[iii] The USDA’s Civil Rights Impact Analysis for the original rule recognized that the removal of visual observation as standard practice would increase the accuracy of its data: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-13058/p-35. Without additional study results showing outcomes to the contrary, the reinstatement of the practice remains unsupported and should be considered to most likely decrease accuracy.

[iv] The ability of participants to fully answer the question in a way that they identify as accurate can significantly impact the response rates and the validity of the data. See, for example: Garbarski, Dana, Jennifer Dykema, Cameron P. Jones, Tiffany S. Neman, Nora Cate Schaeffer, and Dorothy Farrar Edwards (2024), “Questioning Identity: How a Diverse Set of Respondents Answer Standard Questions About Ethnicity and Race.” Field Methods 36, no. 2: 113-130. For an in-depth discussion of data collection on race and ethnicity, see Sharghi, Sima, Shokoufeh Khalatbari, Amy Laird, Jodi Lapidus, Felicity T. Enders, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, Amanda L. Tapia, and Jody D. Ciolino. “Race, ethnicity, and considerations for data collection and analysis in research studies.” Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 8, no. 1 (2024): e182.

Legislators Must Protect the Rights of New Jerseyans & Invest in Long-Term Solutions for Mental Health Care

Posted on by Brittany Holom-Trundy

Good morning Chairman Vitale and members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony in opposition to S4263. My name is Dr. Brittany Holom-Trundy, and I am a senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP). NJPP is a non-partisan, non-profit research institution that focuses on policies that can improve the lives of low- and middle-income people, strengthen our state’s economy, and enhance the quality of life in New Jersey.

NJPP strongly opposes the permanent extension of involuntary commitment length, which threatens the health and rights of New Jersey residents. The role of involuntary commitment in treatment for those experiencing mental health crises has long been recognized as complicated and, often, problematic. Research has shown that racism, sexism, and other biases in health treatment settings lead to disparities not only in judgments about people’s pain or illness, but also in diagnoses of psychological disorders.[i] Because involuntary commitment requires medical judgments from healthcare professionals about whether a person is a “danger to self” or “danger to others or property,” emphasizing these situations further as a blunt tool for care without needed data opens doors to increased discrimination.[ii] Studies have shown that patients of color are more likely to be determined to be a “danger” and involuntarily committed than white patients.[iii] Meanwhile, there remains very little research on the medical effectiveness of 72-hour holds, let alone double that amount of time.[iv]

Though involuntary commitment may be necessary as a blunt tool to address an emergency situation, it is certainly not the ideal approach to care, and not one that should be prolonged arbitrarily. Hospitals often do not have the resources necessary to provide the standard of care for patients in involuntary commitment throughout its original 72-hour length; thus, extending the possible length of time simply invites worsening conditions resulting from staff and resource shortages.

The need for extended involuntary commitment remains low, and when it is utilized, it indicates other gaps in care. According to quarterly reports submitted to the Department of Human Services since the initial introduction of this extension, facilities requested extended holds for less than 1-2% of all hospitalizations due to psychiatric crises.[v] This means that these holds were needed for less than 1% of all patients screened for mental health crises, most of whom are discharged without hospitalization.

Such a small number does not indicate a pressing need to permanently suspend patients’ rights to reasonable, humane treatment in the standard timeframe. Instead, if our goal as leaders is to improve care, further decrease the number of cases in need of involuntary commitment, and address challenges within that system, then we must consider the question of why these patients were in need of help and were unable to receive that help within 72 hours (3 days), which should be achievable. In particular, attention to the following would allow for a better, more targeted response:

  • Whether and where beds were available at the time of the hold
  • Staff shortages at the facility holding the patient
  • Reports of refusals to accept patients based on complicating medical conditions, criminal history, insurance status, or other circumstances
  • Insurance status of patients held and payments charged

By considering these factors, lawmakers could determine if more psychiatric facilities and beds are needed; if increased staffing at hospitals should be prioritized; if staff need improved training, regulation, or support; or if facilities have financial incentive to keep some patients longer than others. Addressing these root causes of issues would provide better long-term solutions than the band-aid of simply extending involuntary commitment. Leaders could seek to invest state resources into long-term solutions to improve the mental health system so that we can decrease the number of people reporting mental health crises, improve treatment for those experiencing crises, and ensure the best, most efficient use of hospital care settings for both patients and healthcare workers.

New Jersey needs long-term investment in the mental health system, not a self-fulling solution that invites further abuse and ignores the cause in the first place.

We hope that the Committee will agree and hold this bill and consider these concerns today.

Thank you for your time.

End Notes

[i] Hamed, Sarah, Hannah Bradby, Beth Maina Ahlberg, and Suruchi Thapar-Björkert. “Racism in healthcare: a scoping review.” BMC Public Health 22, no. 1 (2022): 988; Zhang, Lanlan, Elizabeth A. Reynolds Losin, Yoni K. Ashar, Leonie Koban, and Tor D. Wager. “Gender biases in estimation of others’ pain.” The Journal of Pain 22, no. 9 (2021): 1048-1059; Garb, Howard N. “Race bias and gender bias in the diagnosis of psychological disorders.” Clinical Psychology Review 90 (2021): 102087.

[ii] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Detention without data: public tracking of civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 71, no. 7 (2020): 741-744.

[iii] Shea, Timothy, Samuel Dotson, Griffin Tyree, Lucy Ogbu-Nwobodo, Stuart Beck, and Derri Shtasel. “Racial and ethnic inequities in inpatient psychiatric civil commitment.” Psychiatric Services 73, no. 12 (2022): 1322-1329.

[iv] Morris, Nathaniel P. “Reasonable or random: 72-hour limits to psychiatric holds.” Psychiatric Services 72, no. 2 (2021): 210-212.

[v] New Jersey Department of Human Services. Continued Hold Orders. https://nj.gov/humanservices/dmhas/publications/orders/

Federal Medicaid Reductions Would Have Disastrous Effects on New Jersey’s Communities

Posted on by Peter Chen

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Any reduction in federal Medicaid spending directly harms New Jersey’s budget and its residents. As a state-federal partnership, Medicaid depends on reliable and sustainable federal funding to balance state funds. Regardless of the specific method that Medicaid spending is cut, the end result is the same: less money for the state and costs pushed from the federal budget onto state budgets.

A $2 billion cut, no matter how you slice it

Analysis from national health care researchers estimates that the proposed cuts in the federal Medicaid budget would mean a $2 billion annual cut in New Jersey’s Medicaid budget. (See Appendix A). This corresponds with analysis by New Jersey’s Department of Human Services putting a cost of a minimum of $2 billion on proposed federal changes. (See Appendix B)

By way of comparison the entire proposed state appropriation for Medicaid is $5.7 billion for FY 2026.[i] Another way of contextualizing the numbers – the estimated cuts are the equivalent to the cost of 87% of kids enrolled in Medicaid. (See Appendix A)

I will leave to other experts to discuss the mechanics of particular proposals, whether a per capita cap, a change in federal reimbursement rate, or onerous work requirements. But regardless of the method, the state budget will face a multi-billion dollar hole with no solution.

A trickle-down budget disaster for states, localities, and health care providers

The state budget would take the immediate cut from whichever federal cuts are realized. Some of that effect may be spread out over multiple years but one way or another, the money will stop showing up in the state’s revenues.

But the ripple effects of these cuts would eat even further into the state’s budget.

  • If the state chooses to fill in the federal gaps with its own funding, it would have to generate new revenues to do so at a time when the budget is already running deficits.
  • If people become disenrolled from Medicaid, they will likely incur costs elsewhere in the health care system, whether in hospital charity care or other uninsured settings.
  • Health care providers depend on Medicaid payments, as detailed in the NJ DHS analysis (See Appendix B), and funding cuts would affect their revenues as well.

 

Limited solutions

Reducing costs for Medicaid at the state level would be difficult for a program that already runs at very low cost compared to the private insurance market. Medicaid costs less to insure an enrollee than the private market and spending has grown more slowly than the private market.[ii]

  • Already-low reimbursement rates: New Jersey already has comparatively low reimbursement rates for Medicaid,[iii] limiting options for provider availability if rates are capped or reduced.
  • Already-low overhead costs: Overhead costs for Medicaid are already low – around 4.4% for New Jersey.[iv]
  • Increased administrative costs of proposed changes: Creating a state system for work requirements or other potentially onerous federal mandates would increase, not decrease, those administrative costs.

One additional note of caution: recessions typically see an increase in demand for Medicaid, as people become unemployed or underemployed.[v] If economic uncertainty produces a recession, this would further increase the state budgetary cost of reduced federal Medicaid spending. In the 2001, 2008, and 2020 recessions, the federal government increased Medicaid reimbursement rates, but that may be unlikely this time around.

The takeaway: A Medicaid cut by any name would impose huge costs on the state budget, with few solutions and devastating effects on New Jerseyans’ health.

End Notes

[i] State of New Jersey, The Governor’s FY 2026 Budget: Detailed Budget (2025), p. D-209.

[ii] Hannah Katch et al., Frequently Asked Questions about Medicaid, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (Nov. 22, 2019), https://www.cbpp.org/research/correcting-seven-myths-about-medicaid

[iii] New Jersey Health Care Quality Institute, Primary Care in New Jersey: Findings and Recommendations to Support Advoanced Primary Care (January 2024) https://www.njhcqi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Primary-Care-Report_2024_v11.pdf.

[iv] Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), MACStats: Medicaid and CHIP Data Book (December 2024), p. 46 exh. 16, https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/EXHIBIT-16.-Medicaid-Spending-by-State-Category-and-Source-of-Funds-FY-2023.pdf.

[v] Katherine Young et al., Medicaid Spending Growth in the Great Recession and Its Aftermath, FY 2007-2012, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured (July 2014), pp. 5-6, https://www.kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/8309-03-medicaid-spending-growth-in-the-great-recession-and-its-aftermath-fy-2007-2012.pdf

Data Centers Should Bring Their Own Clean Energy to New Jersey

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of A5564, which requires AI data centers to plan for their energy usage and to derive all electricity from clean energy sources.

At a time when affordability is out of reach for so many families, I appreciate the state taking actions to address the cause of the upcoming utility bill increases. Most of us already know that the main driver of these increases is a combination of PJM’s slow interconnection process which is bottlenecking supply, and a surge in projected demand. But what some of you may not know is that 70 percent of that increase in demand is due to AI data centers.[i] It is concerning that residential ratepayers like you and I are now paying the cost for AI data centers, and it’s also important all the PJM states work together to craft policies like this one to prevent this problem in the future.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2022 New Jersey consumed over six times as much energy as we produced.[ii] We know as a state we are a net importer of energy, and we may always be. We need proactive planning, like what’s proposed in this bill, to reduce in-state demand and increase supply, which will ultimately protect ratepayers.

Another note about AI data centers is that they are not necessarily the economic boon some may think they are. Data centers, once constructed, need very few workers in very large spaces. One data center CEO operator, John Johnson of Patmos Hosting, even said, “Data centers have rightly earned a dismal reputation of creating the lowest number of jobs per square foot in their facilities.”[iii] This means they will not bring lasting economic benefits to our communities.

I want to end by pointing out that adding newer, safer, and more reliable sources of energy to our grid will increase reliability and drive down costs. Currently less than 4 percent of the energy we generate as a state comes from renewables–the majority of the rest comes from nuclear and natural gas.[iv] As a comparison, the national average for renewables is over 21 percent.[v] We all agree we need more energy, and we need to diversify our energy portfolio with reliable sources like solar and wind paired with battery storage.

Data centers are driving up prices for consumers, draining our energy grid, and may not bring significant long-term economic benefits to our communities. But if they do want to come to our state, it makes sense to ask them to bring additional energy sources, and those sources may as well be clean and reliable. This is one way to protect ratepayers from higher costs. Thank you.

End Notes

[i] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.6.

[ii] NJPP analysis of New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[iii] Dotan, Tom. “The AI Data-Center Boom Is a Job-Creation Bust.” Wall Street Journal. Feb. 25, 2025.

[iv] See “Utility-Scale Net Electricity Generation” at New Jersey State Profile Data. U.S. Energy Information Administration.

[v] Ibid.

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities Should Investigate PJM Pricing

Posted on by Alex Ambrose

Good morning Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in favor of AJR216, which directs BPU to investigate PJM’s Reliability Pricing Model, directs State to promote affordable energy practices, and urges PJM to implement certain reforms.

Having affordable and reliable energy available for New Jersey residents and businesses is critical, but PJM is hindering our ability to deliver it. The regional RTO is frankly stuck in the past, and has been sitting on its hands while other RTOs are adapting to a changing energy landscape. We also know that PJM tends to overestimate demand load forecasts and did not consider all energy resources in the last capacity auction.[1] This, combined with the shortfall of supply due to its antiquated interconnection process, drives up costs for consumers. Additionally, PJM is giving an unfair advantage to gas power plant proposals, which are increasingly unreliable under extreme weather, instead of diversifying our energy portfolio with new sources of energy, like solar and wind paired with battery storage.[2] They can and should do better, and requiring BPU to investigate these practices is a step in the right direction.

New Jersey’s utility rates are already 20 percent higher than the national average, and these upcoming increases will only exacerbate that.[3] Additionally, LIHEAP, the federal program that helps residents save hundreds of dollars a year on their utility bills, is on the chopping block, putting hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans at risk of not being able to pay their bills.[4]

These increases in electricity rates are not going anywhere. A recent report from Evergreen Collaborative found that if PJM continues business as usual, our region could see up to 60 percent increases in our utility bills.[5] But if they implement certain reforms, and if states enact policies to increase energy supply, New Jersey ratepayers could see a reduction in their bills, averaging over $400 a year.[6] Additionally, because these reforms would remove barriers to building more clean energy in-state, we will see a net increase of 23,000 jobs annually.[7] Those are good union jobs building and maintaining solar energy, wind energy, battery storage, and its associated infrastructure.

The report also recommends that states consider permitting and siting reform to speed up project development, including establishing deadlines for clean energy and transmission permit consideration. Uncertainty is a project-killer, and the faster we can go from application to interconnection, the less uncertainty there is, and the more new energy resources we can add to our grid. This, combined with PJM reforms, will help drive down costs for customers and build a more resilient grid. Thank you for your consideration.

End Note

[1] Wilson, J.F. What’s With the PJM Load Forecast??. Wilson Energy Economics. Oct. 22, 2024. See figure 3, p. 2.

See PJM’s letter on Reliability Must Run (RMR) resources: https://www.pjm.com/-/media/DotCom/about-pjm/who-we-are/public-disclosures/2024/20240919-pjm-board-response-consumer-advocates-letter-re-urgent-reforms-pjm-capacity-market-re-reliability-must-run-units.ashx

[2] Azhar, A. Clean Energy Industry Questions a New PJM Proposal That Could Move Fossil Fuel Projects to the Front of the Interconnection Queue. Inside Climate News. Dec. 8, 2024.

Gas Malfunction. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2024.

[3] NJPP analysis of U.S. Energy Information Administration data of residential prices.

[4] Chen, P. A LI“HEAP” of Trouble: Slashing Federal Utility Assistance Will Hurt New Jersey Seniors, Families, and Working-Class Households. New Jersey Policy Perspective. (2025).

[5] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.1

[6] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.5.

[7] Chavin, Sabine, et al.Tackling the PJM Cost Crisis. Evergreen Collaborative. Apr. 15, 2025. p.22.

«« Previous Posts∞Older Posts »»