Rising energy costs and major affordability issues aren’t stopping some New Jersey lawmakers from pushing bills that will result in even more pain at the pump.
On Monday, the Assembly Environment, Natural Resources and Solid Waste Committee has scheduled a vote on a bill that will force fossil fuel companies to pay billions for their unspecified role in climate change.
NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor said bill A-4696 (Allen, D-32; Hall, D-28; Collazos-Gill, D-27) strikes the unlikely balance of being both loud in its lack of constitutionality, but also tone-deaf to the affordability challenges facing New Jersey residents.
“It’s one thing to push an ideological agenda to retroactively punish companies that provide a legal, necessary product that has been instrumental in our collective survival and prosperity,” Cantor said.
“It’s another thing to try to achieve it at a time of alarmingly escalating taxes and energy costs that will without question result in higher costs when we fill up our cars or heat up our homes.
“It’s not good policy nor is it good for our cost of living. Supporters of this type of bill don’t seem to realize or care that it’s New Jersey residents who wind up feeling the pain.”
SUPERFUND SEQUEL
The Senate version of the so-called Climate Superfund Act (Smith, D-17; McKeon, D-27) has already passed a committee.
And it has its peers.
In December, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a law that forces fossil fuel companies to pay $75 billion in damages over 25 years for their unspecified role in climate change.
Last month, New York was sued by 22 other U.S. states for making it law.
And this week, the New York State Business Council, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court claiming Hochul and New York lawmakers exceeded their authority for passing the law. The filing asked for the law to be deemed unconstitutional.
Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Vermont, which was the first state to enact a climate Superfund law.
Ironically, Vermont doesn’t produce or refine fossil fuels.
“At its core, these acts are simply cash grab attempts,” Cantor said. “There is so much to legitimately legally challenge with these laws or bills you almost don’t know where to start.
“We eagerly await to see how these lawsuits fare. And in our view, these climate acts have a long, long way to go to pass legal muster.
“Beyond the fact that the courts generally disfavor the retroactive application of laws, especially when such application would be punitive, you don’t need a law degree to know that everything about modern society, from life expectancy to the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the cars we drive, are dependent on fossil fuels.”
PASSING IT ON
Cantor also said that if the courts rule in favor of a Climate Superfund Act, the extra costs would “undoubtedly be passed on to customers.”
“Recent elections and Governor (Phil) Murphy’s most recent budget speech have highlighted the impact of inflation and general affordability concerns have had on consumers,” Cantor said. “This bill would further drive up the cost of everything, from the cost of gasoline to the food we eat and everything in between.”
