The climate superfund campaign, already reeling from failures in states around the country this year, just hit another wall in New Jersey.
After weeks of pressure from climate activists and their legislative allies, lawmakers pulled the “Polluters Pay to Make New Jersey More Affordable Act” from the agenda for Tuesday night’s Senate session, citing insufficient support for the controversial bill.
The Senate is expected to punt further consideration until the Legislature returns in the fall.
New Jersey’s climate superfund bill would impose a $50 billion retroactive tax on the energy industry for historical emissions, following in the footsteps of states such as New York and Vermont, which are currently defending similar bills in court.
For supporters, the collapse was a major disappointment. For everyone else, it was the latest sign that climate superfund legislation sounds simple in a press release but becomes much harder to defend once lawmakers are forced to confront the legal, economic, and affordability consequences. Even New Jersey’s own legislative analysis underscored the uncertainty, finding that it could not determine the bill’s fiscal impacts because it is so poorly developed.
A Chorus of Concerns
The setback is especially notable because advocates had spent the final days of the budget process projecting confidence. After the bill cleared the Senate Budget Committee, Food & Water Watch declared that it had opened “a path for final passage” before the budget deadline.
But even before the vote was canceled, public reporting showed cracks forming inside the Democratic caucus. The New Jersey Globe reported that Senate Budget Chairman Paul Sarlo and Sen. John Burzichelli joined Republicans in voting against the bill in committee, while several Democrats who voted yes openly voiced reservations.
The final days before the canceled vote also revealed another problem for climate activists: labor support was not as solid as advertised. Sen. Linda Greenstein, a co-sponsor, said during committee that she had only recently learned many of her union allies opposed the bill. Sen. Gordon Johnson, another co-sponsor, voted to move the bill out of committee while saying he still had “some issues.”
Those concerns track with broader opposition from New Jersey’s business community.
During an Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing last week, PBF Energy Vice President of Strategic Communications Michael Karlovich emphasized that the proposed legislation would drive up costs for consumers:
“More than 95% of the vehicles in the state of New Jersey run on liquid transportation fuels, and that excludes off-road construction and agricultural equipment, trains, boats, and planes. So, the fuel as this has been pointed out already, are critically important to the state for the mobility of your constituents, the businesses, and the government entities in the state.
“The companies that would be liable for paying this are going to pass those costs on. Those are operating costs. They get passed on like any other tax.”
Similarly, Ray Cantor, Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer of the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, testified at an Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee hearing on the impacts of the legislation on affordability and highlighted underhanded 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.”
Silence from Sherrill
Republican lawmakers also argued that the bill conflicts directly with Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s affordability agenda. During committee, State Sen. Mike Testa said:
“The entire administration’s theme has been affordability. This will make New Jersey far less affordable, closed for business and undermine everything that the Sherrill administration says they stand for.
Notably, Gov. Sherrill’s office declined to comment on the bill, citing a general policy against commenting on active legislation.
Bottom Line: Climate activists have been pushing superfund bills in statehouses across the country as their litigation campaign continues to face legal setbacks and political scrutiny.
The pattern is becoming hard to ignore. Activists announce a “polluters pay” bill. They claim it will lower costs. They insist taxpayers will be spared. Then lawmakers start asking basic questions: Is it constitutional? Will the money ever arrive? Will the state spend years in court? Will families and businesses ultimately pay more? What happens to jobs, energy infrastructure, and the broader economy?
In New Jersey, the bill’s lead sponsors have pledged to continue their push in the fall. But for now, those questions were enough to stop the bill in its tracks.
