3/11/25

By Wayne Parry

TRENTON — New Jersey's oil and natural gas companies would be charged tens of billions of dollars to help the state fight the effects of climate change under a bill being considered in the Legislature.

The measure, which is moving toward approval in both houses of state government, aims to create a climate superfund similar to the pot of money assembled by the federal government to clean up toxic waste by charging petroleum and chemical companies an extra tax to fund ongoing cleanups.

Its Democratic supporters call it a cost recovery mechanism to make companies contributing to climate change pay the cost of fighting it.

But Republicans say that with the state already proposing a billion dollars in new taxes in this year's budget, this is not the time to force producers to increase the price of gasoline and natural gas any further.

And they say that penalizing companies for actions that were legal and encouraged by government at the time will be immediately challenged in court.

"The oil and gas industries have known about the connection between burning fossil fuels and climate change since before a man was put on the moon," said Isabel Molina from the New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. "These storms are costing us more and more money.

"At the end of the day, someone has to pay for the cost," she said. "Why not the polluters?"

The burning of fossil fuels including oil, gas and coal is a major contributor to climate change.

The biannual Community Resource Fair at Stockton University will bring local, state and federal agencies to the Campus Center in Galloway Township from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday.

The bill does not list a specific dollar amount to be raised for the fund. But a sponsor of an identical bill in the state Senate, Democratic Sen. John McKeon, D-Essex, said it could easily be $25 billion.

That's almost half of New Jersey's annual budget.

New York's climate superfund law puts its figure at $75 billion.

The state treasurer would allocate individual financial responsibility for any fossil fuel company that released 1 billion or more tons of planet-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in New Jersey between 1995 and 2024.

The money would go to the state Department of Environmental Protection, which would distribute the money as grants to pay for programs to adapt to climate change and make the state more resilient to severe weather.

Republicans and business groups presented a long list of criticisms of the proposal, not least of which is that the companies were doing what the government permitted them to do at the time — a concern echoed by several lawmakers.

"Clearly this precedent of looking back and applying liability to businesses for lawful operations that were conducted in compliance with state and federal regulations at the time they occurred is a bad precedent," said Hilary Chebra, an official with the Chamber of Commerce Southern New Jersey.

Michael Egenton, executive vice president of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, said his group's national parent organization has filed lawsuits challenging similar laws adopted by New York and Vermont.

Development, budgets and potential weed money were discussed at the Middle Township State of the Township address to the Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday.

Assemblyman Gerry Scharfenberger, R-Monmouth, opposed the measure.

“One second Democrats can’t figure out why energy prices are soaring and the next, they pass more government mandates limiting supply and taxing companies," he said. "It doesn’t take a genius to understand that when you impose these kinds of regulations and fees on businesses, it will increase prices for consumers.”

Proponents of the bill, including most of the state's major environmental groups and local elected officials from cities and small towns around the state, said the money would be a critical source of funding for climate change resilience.

This is particularly important with the Trump administration drastically reducing federal funding and musing about eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency, pushing a larger share of disaster recovery onto state and local governments.

"I'm concerned about FEMA, which we've relied on in the past," said Ben Forest, a Red Bank borough councilman. "These complex and costly issues are a threat to our quality of life and to our taxpayers."

The bill was heard and advanced by an Assembly committee Monday. It now goes to another committee for additional consideration, as does its twin bill in the Senate.

The bills must be passed by the full Senate and Assembly before being sent to Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy for action.

Amy Goldsmith of the environmental group Clean Water Action said the bill's intent is quite simple.

"We tell our kids, 'When you make a mess, you have to clean it up,'" she said. "The tobacco industry and big pharma were forced to pay for their wrongdoing."