"Power NJ Act"; establishes advanced nuclear energy procurement program in BPU.

New cumulative ratepayer impact limit: when the board considers more than one project, it must evaluate the combined ratepayer impact and cannot approve or provisionally qualify additional projects if the cumulative impact would be unreasonable or excessive. This appears in both the provisional qualification stage (section 4) and the final approval stage (section 6).

New public comment and hearing requirement: once a stipulation is completed, it must be made public with a 30-day comment period, and the board must conduct a public hearing in the municipality where the project is located. Board staff and the authority CEO must then review comments and discuss potential amendments within 30 days of the comment period closing.

New explicit condition for final board approval: the board must find that there is a net benefit to ratepayers as a standalone condition (section 6, paragraph 6), in addition to the other existing conditions.

New anti-double-counting rule (section 7, new subsection e): a qualified project cannot receive an RCC for a megawatt-hour of generation if it also receives a zero-emission certificate under P.L.2018, c.16 for that same megawatt-hour.

New prioritization rule for provisional qualification (section 4, new subsection f): the board must prioritize projects based on RCC price and whether the project has an energy offtake agreement where the recipient pays for a percentage of project costs equal to or greater than the percentage of total energy output they will receive.

Modification petitions (section 6) now require consultation with the Division of Rate Counsel and a public hearing before the board can grant them. The board must also find the modification 'was reasonably unforeseeable' and that 'there is still a net benefit to ratepayers.'

New requirement that the economic impact analysis include 'impacts on electric utility customer bills caused by the RCC,' and the ratepayer bill impact projection must cover 'throughout the term of the proposal' rather than being unspecified.

Confidentiality provisions substantially narrowed: the introduced version granted blanket confidentiality 'notwithstanding any law to the contrary, including the common law.' The reprint subjects confidential information to specific procedures under N.J.A.C.14:1-12.1 and P.L.1982, c.222, allows the Division of Rate Counsel and PJM's independent market monitor to receive confidential information via NDAs for oversight purposes, and preserves Open Public Records Act rights for improperly designated information.

Revenue return timing specified: PJM market revenues and direct PPA revenues must now be returned to the electric power supplier or basic generation service provider within 60 days of receipt, and that entity has no more than 90 days to pass those revenues through to ratepayers. The introduced version simply said revenues 'shall be returned to New Jersey ratepayers' without specifying intermediaries or deadlines.

PJM market references broadened throughout: 'PJM Reliability Pricing Model capacity market or Fixed Resource Requirement, as appropriate' is changed to 'PJM Reliability Pricing Model capacity market, the Fixed Resource Requirement, or any other procurement program operated by PJM, as appropriate,' expanding which PJM programs count toward the project's energy obligations.

The bill's stated purpose now includes the qualifier 'when affordable' (section 2b) and 'affordable' is added to the program description in section 4, making affordability an explicit policy condition rather than just a consideration.

Cost estimate requirement raised from 'Class IV' to 'Class IV or better,' requiring a more precise cost projection in expressions of interest.

Legislative findings softened in several places: 'unmatched' changed to 'higher,' 'dispatchable' removed, 'potentially' added before performance claims, the severe weather resilience clause removed from finding 6, and 'reasonably priced' changed to 'affordable.' These changes make the findings more conservative and less absolute.

New provision (section 5, subsection h) clarifies that P.L.2005, c.92 requirements do not apply to consulting engagements under this act, provided compliance with federal export control laws.