Lawmakers in New Jersey have revised the proposed Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, reducing its impact on businesses after amendments were introduced in committee this week. The legislation, S-679, targets companies with at least $1 billion in annual revenue that operate within New Jersey, requiring them to report data on their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.
The Senate Environment & Energy Committee approved changes that removed requirements for companies to measure and report “Scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions originate from sources outside a company’s direct control, such as suppliers, logistics firms, and consumers.
“We are still opposed, but it’s a much more workable bill with the amendments removing Scope 3,” NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor told the committee.
Cantor explained that tracking the climate impact of an entire supply chain would be extremely costly and difficult. He noted that not all suppliers or vendors maintain emissions data and that verifying any such data can be challenging. “If the Scope 3 provision had been left in the bill, it could have forced companies to change suppliers, leaving out small businesses that are unable to track this type of data,” Cantor said.
Senator Bob Smith (D-17), chairman of the committee and sponsor of the bill, stated he and co-sponsor Sen. John McKeon (D-27) decided on these amendments after concluding the legislation was “not passable” with Scope 3 included. Companies will still need to report Scope 1 (direct) emissions from their facilities and vehicles as well as Scope 2 (indirect) emissions from purchased energy.
“At the end of the day, we are judged on whether we get something done or not,” Smith said.
NJBIA is seeking further amendments to clarify which companies must comply with reporting requirements. Cantor asked for more precise definitions tied to economic activity within New Jersey rather than just aggregate revenue. “This legislation does not define what exactly it means to ‘do business in New Jersey,’” Cantor said. “You could have a business in the port with just one office, maybe it’s not even staffed, but that could be considered ‘doing business’ in the State of New Jersey.”
Cantor pointed out that California regulators have linked similar legal language about “doing business” to specific economic thresholds such as payroll or sales within California. He urged lawmakers: “We respectfully request that you use the California definition of what it means to be doing business in the state… Doing that in New Jersey would take away the ambiguity that is now in the legislation and provide companies with more certainty about exactly who is and is not covered by this.”
Senator Smith acknowledged there would be opportunities for further revisions before final passage. “We will take a look at Mr. Cantor’s constructive criticism about defining which businesses are going to provide this information, but that’ll be in a later stage,” Senator Smith said prior to Thursday’s committee vote advancing S-679. “As everybody in this room knows, the legislative process is designed to be slow, so there’ll be plenty of opportunities to look at that.”
The New Jersey Business and Industry Association represents private-sector employers throughout New Jersey across multiple sectors including manufacturing and services. It provides advocacy efforts along with resources intended to support member prosperity while facilitating partnerships between businesses, government entities, and academic institutions.
