New Jersey already struggles with one of the highest costs of living and tax burdens in the nation. Families are stretched thin, businesses face mounting pressure, and policymakers routinely acknowledge that affordability is driving residents and employers to leave the state. Against this backdrop, the proposed Climate Superfund Act would move New Jersey in precisely the wrong direction. It would impose enormous new costs on consumers, threaten jobs, stall economic development and fail to deliver any meaningful environmental benefit.
What would the NJ Climate Superfund Act do?
At its core, the bill would levy a multi-billion-dollar annual assessment, estimated at more than $4 billion per year for nine years, on companies that extract or refine fossil fuels. Supporters frame this as a penalty on corporations, but the economic reality is unavoidable: consumers will bear the cost. Higher gasoline prices, increased utility bills and rising prices for everyday goods are inevitable when energy costs ripple through the economy.
Using the $40 billion penalty figure initially proposed by one of the bill’s sponsors, an analysis by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform estimates that this legislation would cost New Jersey households more than $9,000 per family over nine years. That includes over $5,000 in transportation costs, roughly $1,700 in higher utility bills, and more than $2,000 in increased prices for goods and services. Even these figures may be conservative. The bill leaves the final assessment to the Department of Environmental Protection, meaning the ultimate cost to families could be significantly higher.
Beyond affordability, the bill is punitive and legally questionable. It seeks to impose retroactive liability on companies for producing products that were, and still are, legal, essential, and often encouraged by government policy. Traditional energy sources have long powered economic growth, mobility, manufacturing, and home heating, and they remain indispensable today. Yet this legislation singles out certain producers while ignoring the businesses and consumers who relied on and benefited from these products, as well as smaller firms engaged in similar activities. Once again, the state is choosing winners and losers in the energy sector.
The economic stakes of this approach are substantial. New Jersey is home to major refining operations, including the Phillips 66 facility and associated industrial sites within the Bayway Industrial Complex, such as Infineum, Nexpera, Linden Cogeneration and the Sunoco Terminal, all of which support or complement refining and fuel logistics activities. Together, these facilities generate $8.4 billion in economic output, contribute $1.4 billion in state and local tax revenue, provide $4 billion in labor income, and support more than 35,000 jobs.
New Jersey residents consume billions of gallons of gasoline, diesel, heating oil, and jet fuel each year, much of it produced right here in the Garden State. Putting these operations at risk threatens not only energy supply, but livelihoods and regional economic stability.
The bill is also strikingly one-sided in its portrayal of fossil fuels. It focuses exclusively on alleged harms while ignoring their substantial benefits. Traditional fuels account for about 90% of transportation energy in New Jersey, 80% of home heating, and about 40% of the energy used by factories and office buildings. Over the past century, access to affordable energy has helped double life expectancy and dramatically reduce global poverty and hunger. Any serious policy discussion should acknowledge both costs and benefits, not selectively examine only one side of the ledger.
To be clear, this is not a defense of the fossil fuel industry. It is a factual assessment of the current role that traditional energy sources play in our economy and daily lives.
Trenton policy won’t stop climate change
Most troubling, however, is that the Climate Superfund Act would not meaningfully affect the global climate. New Jersey accounts for about 1.7% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and just 0.3% of global emissions. Policies enacted in Trenton will not alter global climate trends. They will, however, raise costs for New Jersey families and weaken the state’s economy. Energy policy should prioritize realistic, affordable and sustainable solutions, not symbolic measures that impose heavy local costs with no measurable impact.
Last year, the Garden State Initiative released a report, “The Aspirations and Economics of the New Jersey Energy Master Plan,” which examined this very question. If one of the ultimate objectives of the proposed act is to reduce hydrocarbon consumption in a manner that is reliable, affordable and sustainable, there are viable alternatives worth considering. None is meaningfully pursued in this legislation.
Two examples stand out: accelerating the construction of new nuclear power plants while extending the life of existing ones, and implementing transportation incentives that encourage the purchase of more efficient internal combustion engine vehicles. Both approaches are technologically feasible and economically viable today. The Climate Superfund Act, by contrast, does not improve energy policy. It simply penalizes lawful energy production.
New Jersey can pursue environmental progress without sacrificing affordability, jobs or sound governance. The Climate Superfund Act fails that test. Lawmakers should reconsider before its costs become permanent.
