Urges AG to investigate possibility of price-fixing in sale of motor fuels.
Summary
Senate Resolution 93 urges the New Jersey Attorney General to investigate whether price-fixing or other anticompetitive conduct in the motor fuels market contributed to the sharp rise in gasoline prices in March 2026. The resolution cites recent increases in both national and New Jersey average gasoline prices and frames motor fuel affordability as an issue affecting residents, businesses, and the broader economy.
The resolution does not change substantive law or create new enforcement authority; instead, it expresses the Senate’s view that the Attorney General should examine whether petroleum companies, speculators, or other market participants engaged in conduct such as conspiring to raise prices, creating artificial shortages, or otherwise suppressing competition. It also requests that the Attorney General report the findings to the Governor and Legislature as soon as possible.
Impact
SR93 is a nonbinding legislative resolution, so its direct legal effect is limited. It does not amend the New Jersey statutes governing antitrust, consumer protection, or motor fuel regulation, but it seeks to prompt executive-branch action under existing authority by the Attorney General. Its practical impact would be to encourage scrutiny of gasoline pricing and possible anticompetitive behavior in the motor fuels market, with particular attention to effects on low-income and fixed-income residents.
Sentiment
The resolution is framed in strongly supportive terms toward consumer protection and market oversight. The text reflects concern about sudden fuel-price spikes and their burden on households and the economy, and it assumes that an investigation is warranted to ensure transparency and accountability. No opposing votes or committee testimony are provided, so the available record shows only the sponsor’s and resolution’s pro-investigation sentiment.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the gasoline price increases were driven primarily by global market conditions or by unlawful anticompetitive conduct such as price-fixing, collusion, or artificial shortages. Supporters of the resolution emphasize the need to investigate possible corporate misconduct and protect consumers, while the implicit counterpoint is that price increases may be attributable to broader supply-and-demand factors outside the State’s control. Because there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, no specific legislators or stakeholder groups are identified as opposing the measure.