Lawmakers in nearly a dozen states—California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia—resoundingly rejected climate superfund bills this year on the basis of affordability concerns and serious legal doubts, but activists and allied lawmakers in New Jersey are pushing ahead.

Last week, the New Jersey General Assembly’s Environment and Solid Waste Committee voted 4-2 to advance the “Climate Superfund Act” (A3735), despite a myriad of concerns about the proposed legislation’s impact on the state’s economic climate and a similar bill stalling before the last legislative session ended. The State Senate’s Environment and Energy Committee followed suit and advanced an amended version of its companion bill (S2338) earlier today.

A $50 Billion Tax

The Climate Superfund Act would require the state treasurer to prepare and submit an assessment of alleged damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The state treasurer would then be required to calculate the share of damages attributable to each party and demand payments, at an estimated cost of $50 billion.

A wide array of labor, business, and advocacy groups have voiced opposition to the proposed legislation, citing concerns with the impacts on affordability and the economy.

Ross Connolly, Northeast Region Director of Americans for Prosperity, wrote:

“New Jersey is attempting to pass a $50 billion retroactive tax, which will ultimately fall on New Jersey taxpayers in the form of higher utilities, gasoline, and groceries. It also sends a message to New Jersey’s business community that they could be penalized years later for products they lawfully provided. This kind of uncertainty will freeze investment and job creation in the Garden State.”

Similarly, Ray Cantor, Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, warned of the impacts of the legislation on affordability. An analysis from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform found that the legislation would cost each household an estimated $687 per annually, or $13,735 over 20 years.

Cantor also highlighted the motives behind the legislation:

“It is about trying to inflict enough economic harm on a vital industry so that investments will no longer be made, and fossil fuel refining and extraction no longer remains an attractive business model. Advocates first tried to get laws passed to ban the use of fossil fuels and failed. They next tried to bring lawsuits based on the same premises of this legislation, including a case brought by the New Jersey Attorney General, and they have also been failing. Now they are trying to use legislation in the guise of compensating for damages that do not exist to bankrupt legitimate, and vital businesses.”

Ignoring the Impacts

After Assemblymen Gerry Scharfenberger (R) and Michael Inganamort (R), both of whom voted against the legislation, emphasized that New Jersey has already lost thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry and risks losing even more if the Climate Superfund Act is enacted into law, Committee Chairman Rhavi Bhalla (D) delivered a stark and revealing response:

“Good…we don’t want those jobs.”

Shore News Network covered the exchange and noted that Bhalla is now facing intense criticism because of the comments, as anti-energy lawmakers are finally admitting it publicly: they don’t want to produce American energy and they don’t want to create American jobs, even if it results in their constituents paying more at the pump and more for their utility bills.

Bhalla’s remarks also fly directly in the face of the commitment of Governor Mikie Sherrill who signed a Day One executive order in January aiming to address rising utility costs.

Bottom Line:

Despite similar bills having failed in nearly a dozen states this year alone, activists and allied lawmakers in New Jersey are continuing to push the Climate Superfund Act. The potential impacts of the bill are severe, as it could add crushing costs that will exacerbate the state’s affordability woes, draw the state into litigation similar to what is facing New York and Vermont, and relay a chilling message to the state’s business community.

With residents already facing challenges with affordability and the state’s business climate driving major employers to leave, New Jersey lawmakers should be looking for ways to strengthen the economy—not harm it.