In separate op-eds posted in the recent days, both New Jersey business and labor groups said they remain staunchly opposed to the Climate Superfund/ Polluters Pay Act and offered dire warnings of their impact on affordability,  jobs and the state’s business climate.

In an op-ed published by the USA TODAY/Gannett NJ Network, NJBIA Deputy Chief Government Affairs Officer Ray Cantor said many New Jersey lawmakers deserve thanks for stalling the Climate Superfund Act before the summer recess and recognizing the higher gas prices and job losses that face the state if a retroactive, $50 billion penalty is assessed on energy companies that have legally provided fossil fuels.

“(It) has been purported by its supporters as a funding mechanism for future climate resiliency projects,” Cantor said.

“But many see it for what it actually is: One of the most anti-business bills in state history, retroactively penalizing New Jersey energy manufacturers $50 billion for legally providing fossil fuels – an essential product used by all New Jerseyans, including supporters of the bill.

“The negative economic impact this bill would have on affordability and jobs in New Jersey cannot be understated,” Cantor continued.

“While supporters offer this bill as a free, $50 billion lunch to feed the state coffers, the facts are it would undeniably add to the gas and energy costs of all New Jersey residents and ratepayers during our energy affordability crisis.”

In an op-ed posted on Monday on binje.com, New Jersey State Building and Construction Trades Council President William Mullen wrote that bill A-3735 would unquestionably raise the costs of infrastructure for construction companies and their customers.

“Economic costs rarely stay confined to the businesses against which they are initially assessed,” Mullen wrote.

“Higher costs can ripple throughout the economy in the form of increased fuel, utility, freight, manufacturing and construction expenses. Those costs are ultimately borne by employers, contractors, consumers and taxpayers.

“When the cost of infrastructure increases, projects are delayed, reduced in scope or abandoned altogether. Every additional dollar spent on energy, materials and transportation is a dollar that cannot be invested in schools, roads, bridges, water systems, public transit and other critical priorities,” he said.

Both Mullen and Cantor also said it’s critical that lawmakers understand the massive legal costs that await New Jersey given the constitutional questions of due process and fairness regarding the retroactive penalties offered by the Climate Superfund Act, as well as its clear conflict with the federal Clean Air Act.

Both Vermont and New York have passed similar laws resulting in expensive  ongoing court battles.

In fact, on July 31, a federal law cast serious legal doubt about New York’s case.

Additionally, earlier this year the Maryland Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit filed by three local entities that alleged climate damages from energy companies, because it went against the federal Clean Air Act.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has already held that cases involving the regulation of interstate pollution arise only under federal law. States do not have the authority to regulate or impose liabilities to regulate out-of-state emissions,” Cantor wrote.

“Given all that, litigation would take years to resolve, and many of our legislators were smart enough to ask: Why rush to enact a law that will likely be overturned by the courts?”

Added Mullen in his op-ed: “Similar laws enacted in New York and Vermont have faced significant litigation involving federal preemption, interstate commerce, extraterritorial regulation and constitutional claims. New Jersey should carefully evaluate those risks before relying on revenues that could be delayed for years by litigation.

“The Legislature should not advance A3735 without an independent economic impact analysis, a comprehensive workforce assessment, a fiscal review and a thorough evaluation of the legal risks.

“Policymakers should know how the proposal would affect energy prices, public infrastructure costs, industrial investment and union employment before creating a $50 billion retroactive liability program,” Mullen wrote.

To see Mullen’s full op-ed, click here.

To see Cantor’s full op-ed, click here.