Missing Vote Records Put Transparency, Electric Customers in the Dark

New Jersey electric companies failed to provide complete, accurate records of their votes on decisions that could impact ratepayers – even after state regulators gave them guidance and a chance to review their reports. That’s the finding of a N.J. Board of Public Utilities report as governors across the PJM region push for greater control over how the grid is run.

“Customers deserve a complete record of the positions their utilities take at PJM, where decisions shape electricity costs and reliability,” Ben Hertz-Shargel, board president, said. “After months of guidance and revisions, all four utilities’ reports still fell short.”

PJM is the regional transmission organization that oversees the wholesale energy market. It handles the distribution of electricity needs for New Jersey and 12 other states, as well as the District of Columbia. It has come under fire for its basic generation capacity auction model, which resulted in historic high rates being passed down to state ratepayers last year.

Roughly 67 million consumers’ electric needs are met by PJM. New Jersey accounts for about 9.3 million of those customers, or nearly 14%.

PJM’s market prices and transmission plans are shaped by utilities and other industry stakeholders, with little public transparency into the decisions, Hertz-Shargel said.

“These incomplete vote records underscore why states need a stronger voice to advocate for affordability,” he said. “Because states are accountable to the public, they should have real influence over the decisions PJM makes.”

The report identifies serious gaps in the utilities’ disclosures: Some votes were omitted, records from lower-level committees were missing, and the utilities failed to adequately explain whether their votes supported New Jersey’s energy goals, according to the NJBPU.

The findings come after governors met in Chicago at the Oct. 8 Governors’ Summit on the State of PJM and formed the PJM Governors’ Collaborative. The group aims to strengthen cooperation among states and secure greater state representation in PJM’s governance and decision-making. New Jersey is a participant.

While Atlantic City Electric, JCP&L, PSEG and Rockland Electric Co. met the Feb. 1 report filing deadline, every report had the same three major gaps, including noncompliance with the full-year reporting requirements for 2025. The reports also excluded votes from subcommittees, task forces and other lower-level groups where proposals are developed, covering only senior and standing committees. Finally, they offered little or no explanation of whether the utilities’ votes supported New Jersey’s energy goals, according to the NJBPU.

“ACE submitted its final 2025 PJM Vote Report on June 25, 2026. ACE’s revised report includes cast votes and explanations from Senior Standing Committees after Aug. 20, 2025,” the NJBPU report said, adding, “For votes occurrences prior to Aug. 20, 2025, ACE’s report does not include vote explanations.”

Atlantic City Electric is no stranger to criticism. The company is facing renewed scrutiny from Congressman Jeff Van Drew, who is urging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to reject ACE’s proposed 2-cent customer refund, reopen its investigation, and determine the rates and refunds itself.

In October 2024, Van Drew requested that FERC audit ACE, a subsidiary of Exelon Corp., one of the largest utilities in the country, because he believed the company’s billing practices were systematically flawed. FERC’s findings, released in July, found the utility improperly recorded compromise settlement payments, materials and supplies write-offs, bank fees, excess and deficient accumulated deferred income taxes, and equity allowance for funds used during construction-related deferred taxes in accounts that did not comply with applicable accounting requirements.

FERC’s audit found five accounting practices that did not meet federal requirements. The audit did not specify how much customers may have been overcharged. Atlantic City Electric says only two findings need further review to determine whether customers were affected, and its initial estimate puts any refund below 2 cents per month for a year.

Van Drew argues that such a small refund is not credible given rising electricity bills and a separate $2 monthly increase taking effect this month. He also points to the utility’s rising profits and a recent state-approved rate increase. He wants FERC to extend its review to years before 2021, calculate any refunds with interest, and open a separate investigation into whether the company’s transmission rates remain fair and reasonable.

Atlantic City Electric says it takes the audit seriously, is adopting FERC’s recommendations, and is reviewing whether the findings affected customers.