Democratic senators rally behind Make Polluters Pay Act as June 30 deadline nears

Three Democratic state senators publicly threw their support behind the Make Polluters Pay Act on Wednesday as advocates intensified their campaign to push the climate liability measure across the finish line before the June 30 budget deadline, even as some lawmakers who voted to advance the bill this week acknowledged lingering concerns about its sweeping $50 billion scope.

The legislation, A3735, cleared the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Tuesday in a party-line vote and has gained significant momentum in Trenton over the past week.

Outside advocacy groups, including Food & Water Watch, have launched a five-figure advertising campaign in support of the bill, seeking to pressure Assembly and Senate leadership to post the measure for floor votes before the FY2027 budget is finalized.

Sens. Linda Greenstein (D-Plainsboro), Andrew Zwicker (D-South Brunswick), and Patrick Diegnan (D-South Plainfield) all endorsed the legislation during a Wednesday press conference organized by the coalition backing the bill. They urged legislative leaders to send the measure to Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s desk before the June 30 budget deadline.

The three senators stopped short of saying they would withhold support for the state budget if the bill does not receive a floor vote before then, instead expressing confidence that legislative leaders will act.

“We have a short-term need to get this budget done, and we will work our tails off to get this bill done by June 30th, but I don’t want to conflate the two,” Zwicker said.

“I never deal with hypotheticals,” Diegnan joked, while emphasizing the importance of the legislation and expressing confidence that his colleagues understand the urgency.

“You don’t want to push people apart. Let’s get this done. I think everybody understands the circumstances, they understand why it’s gotta happen, it’s going to get done,” Diegnan said.

Greenstein echoed those sentiments, saying she believes the legislation will ultimately pass. She also noted that Sherrill has publicly expressed support for the proposal at previous press conferences.

“I truly do agree with both of them, and I think that we’re moving in the right direction, albeit slowly, and we don’t have tons of time. I think it’s going to get done,” Greenstein said.

The bill currently has four prime sponsors and 39 additional sponsors in the Assembly, giving it the backing of more than half the chamber and suggesting it would likely pass if brought to the floor.

Still, support may not be as solid as those numbers indicate.

Assemblymen Gary Schaer (D-Passaic) and Kenyatta Stewart (D-Paterson), both members of the Appropriations Committee and co-sponsors of the bill, voted Tuesday to advance the legislation while voicing reservations during committee debate.

“I’m gonna be honest, it’s a tough situation for me, not necessarily because I don’t recognize the fact that it’s going to cost us money, but I also recognize that at one point or another, we’re gonna have to pay for our oil, all of our safety, our health,” Stewart said.

He later expressed hope that New Jersey would eventually no longer need revenue generated under the bill to fund climate resilience projects.

“I pray that in the future we’re in a space where we don’t need this money later on,” Stewart said.

Schaer also questioned the scale of the proposal’s financial impact.

“Fifty billion dollars is a lot of money,” he said.

Although he voted to release the bill from committee, Schaer signaled that he would like to see additional revisions before a floor vote.

“I will vote to release, but only to release. I am hopeful that the prime sponsors of the bill will be able to work on the bill just a little more, just to make something not only a little more palatable but beneficial,” Schaer said.

Whether amendments remain feasible is an open question. With the state budget constitutionally required to be approved and signed by midnight on June 30, any significant changes to the legislation could complicate its path on an already compressed timeline.

The bill currently counts 43 Assembly members and 19 senators as either prime sponsors or co-sponsors. While it remains heavily favored to pass if posted for a vote, it is unclear how many of those lawmakers would ultimately support the measure without further changes.

Republican support appears highly unlikely.

Assemblyman Jay Webber (R-Morris Plains), a member of the Appropriations Committee, sharply criticized the legislation during Tuesday’s hearing, arguing that the petroleum products produced by the targeted companies have delivered enormous benefits to society over the decades.

“To demonize a handful of companies who for years and decades offered products that you’ve asked for, that you’ve bought, that you’ve used, that have made us healthier, wealthier, more educated, and more successful as a society, and now you want to turn around and retroactively tax them for that, then shame on you,” Webber said.

Assemblyman Erik Peterson (R-Franklin), who does not serve on the committee, also criticized the bill after it advanced, arguing that it would raise consumer costs and undercut the affordability message promoted by Sherrill and legislative Democrats.

“Governor Sherrill and the Democrats in the Legislature ran on a platform of affordability, but this legislation will move the State in the exact opposite direction,” Peterson said.

The bill’s fate now rests with legislative leadership, which must decide whether to post it for floor votes before the June 30 budget deadline.