TRENTON, NJ – If you think the upcoming 20% electricity hike is bad news, lawmakers in Trenton are working on the next big energy tax to pass on to the residents of the Garden State.
Did you know the next time a hurricane strikes New Jersey, Democratic lawmakers want gas and oil companies to not only take the blame for it but to pay for the damages incurred by Mother Nature?
The latest climate justice initiative by state Democrats will not only raise the cost of energy in New Jersey but will drastically increase the cost of gasoline and home heating oil.
In other words, another climate tax on the back of an already heavily burdened population.
A controversial new bill in New Jersey dubbed the “Climate Superfund Act” (Assembly Bill No. 4696), has sparked outrage among critics who argue it represents an overreach of government power, threatens economic stability, and unfairly targets fossil fuel companies. Introduced on September 12, 2024, and amended as recently as March 10, the legislation seeks to hold certain fossil fuel companies strictly liable for damages attributed to climate change, imposing hefty “cost recovery demands” to fund adaptation projects.
While proponents hail it as a bold step toward environmental justice, opponents warn it could have dire consequences for the state’s economy and legal framework.
The bill, sponsored by Democrats, Assemblyman John Allen (District 32), Assemblywoman Garnet R. Hall (District 28), and Assemblywoman Alixon Collazos-Gill (District 27), with support from a slew of co-sponsors, aims to penalize companies responsible for more than one billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 1995 and the bill’s effective date.
These “responsible parties” would be required to pay into a newly established Climate Superfund Cost Recovery Program Fund, managed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), to finance projects like flood protection, infrastructure upgrades, and health programs tied to climate impacts.
Critics argue that the bill’s punitive approach could devastate New Jersey’s economy by driving energy companies out of the state or passing costs onto consumers.
“This is a tax on energy production dressed up as environmental policy,” said Robert Hensley, an energy analyst based in Trenton. “Fossil fuel companies aren’t going to just absorb these massive payments—they’ll raise prices, and everyday New Jerseyans will foot the bill at the pump and in their utility rates.”
The legislation exempts entities not required to pay New Jersey sales tax, effectively targeting larger, often out-of-state corporations.
However, opponents point out that these companies employ thousands of residents and contribute significantly to the state’s tax base.
The bill does nothing to stop the alleged climate ‘injustice’, but simply puts a price tag, collectable by the state of New Jersey on it.
The “strict liability” standard at the heart of the bill has also drawn sharp criticism for its lack of nuance. Under the legislation, companies are held accountable regardless of intent or specific causation, based solely on their historical emissions.
Legal experts argue this sets a dangerous precedent.
The retroactive nature of the bill—covering emissions back to 1995—further fuels the controversy. Companies could be penalized for activities that were legal and unregulated at the time, raising questions about fairness and predictability in lawmaking.
While the bill’s supporters emphasize its focus on funding “climate change adaptation projects” in vulnerable communities, detractors question its efficiency and transparency. The DEP is tasked with disbursing funds through a grant program, but the legislation leaves significant discretion to bureaucrats to define eligibility and prioritize projects.
“This is a recipe for waste and favoritism,” said State Senator Michael Doherty (R-District 23), who has publicly opposed the measure. “Taxpayers will end up funding a bloated administrative machine while seeing little real benefit.”
The bill mandates a report from the State Treasurer within two years to assess climate-related damages—a process critics say is likely to overestimate costs to justify the program’s existence. “They’re building a financial empire on speculative numbers,” Doherty argued. “And who pays for the studies, the enforcement, the inevitable lawsuits? Ultimately, it’s the public.”
Environmental advocates defend the bill as a necessary response to climate change, pointing to rising sea levels, extreme weather, and public health crises as justification for holding polluters accountable. Yet even some climate hawks question its practicality.
As the bill moves forward, with rules and regulations to be adopted within two years of the Treasurer’s report, New Jersey faces a contentious debate.
Will the “Climate Superfund Act” deliver justice and resilience, as its sponsors claim, or will it saddle the state with economic woes and legal quagmires? For now, critics are sounding the alarm, urging lawmakers to reconsider what they see as a deeply flawed experiment.