Op-Ed: Arguing against NJ’s Climate Superfund Act

Trenton is preparing to raise energy costs under the guise of climate accountability. In the recent legislative session, the proposed Climate Superfund Act (S-3545/A-4696) would assign massive financial penalties to companies based on emissions that occurred decades ago, even though those fuels were long supported by the state’s own energy policy.

Lawmakers, who are likely to revive the bill when the Legislature return this fall, have framed this as a step toward environmental justice, but the financial burden won’t be shouldered by corporations. It will be passed on to you, the everyday energy user. As affordability dominates this year’s gubernatorial race, candidates would be wise to oppose measures like this and protect New Jersey families from higher costs.

The proposed legislation penalizes companies for how their products were used, such as fuel for driving or for heating your home. These penalties are retroactive, uncapped, and require no proof that a company violated any law or caused harm. The costs that follow will be treated as business expenses, built into contracts, passed on to utilities, and ultimately added to ratepayer bills. Notably, the Legislature is now pursuing through statute what the courts just rejected. A state court judge recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by Attorney General Matthew Platkin, holding that states are not legally suited to set global climate policy through local laws. But that’s exactly what this bill seeks to do.

Recent energy bill spikes show exactly what these cost increases would look like in practice. Electricity supply prices just jumped an average of 20% after the latest utility auction, with another 5% increase projected next summer. These hikes are partly from rising fuel costs and pass-through charges that are directly added to customer bills. Gov. Murphy, Senate President Scutari and Assembly Speaker Coughlin have all acknowledged that energy prices are a serious burden. This bill would drive those costs even higher.

Supporters call it accountability, but the bill’s design all but guarantees litigation. The emissions at issue stem from how fuels were used, not from anything the companies directly released. That raises serious legal questions. Other states that have passed similar measures are already facing lawsuits and legal challenges from 22 other states. If New Jersey moves forward, it will invite the same costly legal fights that benefit no one.

Most New Jersey households depend on natural gas or oil for heat and everyday use. Penalizing the companies that provide these essential products — while continuing to rely on them — is counterproductive and hurts New Jersey residents. Actions like this might generate buzz for legislators looking to cozy up to special interests, but it doesn’t offer a serious path to lower emissions or costs. The state should focus on working with energy providers to find practical, innovative solutions that reduce emissions without making energy more expensive.

Voters are fed up with rising costs, and they’re not buying the Legislature’s pitch. A recent statewide survey found that 80% believe their electric bills are too high, and 84% said affordability should come before new climate regulations. That message is cutting through. Both major-party candidates for governor have made lowering costs a campaign issue, recognizing that affordability will shape the next administration’s agenda. Moving forward with this bill would undermine any affordability agenda by raising costs without delivering results.

In a state where affordability is already out of reach for many, this bill will be a drain on household budgets while doing nothing to protect the environment. The only inevitable outcome is higher bills for New Jersey families and businesses. Lawmakers can either push through excessive, illogical penalties for the top energy producers or reject this bill and pursue policies that actually lower costs for New Jersey families and address climate change with real solutions.