New Jersey lawmakers are debating a bill that would impose fees on oil and gas facilities to create a Climate Superfund, ostensibly designed to finance state efforts to address the impacts of climate change. Critics argue that the legislation will lead to higher costs for consumers while failing to deliver meaningful environmental benefits.
Under the proposed legislation, fuel companies would be required to pay into a state-managed fund, with the money used for grants to support climate adaptation projects and infrastructure resilience. While proponents say it would make polluters accountable for damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions, opponents warn that the bill is vague, potentially unconstitutional, and could impose significant financial burdens on residents.
“There are many things wrong with the bill, beyond the fact that it seeks to impose a retroactive liability on companies that were providing a legal, necessary, and vital product to the citizens of the state,” says Ray Cantor of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association. “It will raise the cost of gasoline, home heating oil, and natural gas, and will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or impact climate change.”
The bill, which would also require a two-year state assessment of damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions since 1995, aims to hold companies “strictly liable” for those damages. However, critics argue this approach is unworkable and ignores decades of lawful industry practices.
The proposal has drawn sharp opposition from the oil and gas industries, who argue it unfairly targets them for providing essential energy resources. Business groups argue that it risks undermining New Jersey’s economy and could stifle investment in energy innovation.
Cantor also raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the bill’s provisions, calling them “unconstitutionally vague” and warning that federal law might preempt its implementation.
The bill mirrors similar measures in states like Vermont, which enacted a Climate Superfund law in May, as well as ongoing proposals in New York, Maryland, and California. Vermont’s law has already faced criticism for increasing consumer costs without significantly reducing emissions, a concern echoed by New Jersey opponents.
Critics also question the timing and intent of the legislation, suggesting it may be more about political posturing than practical solutions.
“It’s a tax increase masquerading as environmental policy,” one industry representative said. “This bill does nothing to address climate change directly and shifts costs to residents in the form of higher fuel and energy prices.”