Maine will wait to see how other states' climate superfunds fare before considering its own
A house on Fortune's Rocks beach in Biddeford, Maine tilts after a series of severe coastal storms in winter 2024. The house was later torn down. (Photo by Maine Morning Star)
With other states tied up in a federal legal battle, Maine lawmakers are opting to pump the brakes on an effort to hold fossil fuel companies accountable to see how those other cases play out.
The Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources Committee voted Wednesday to carry over one of the two bills that would establish a superfund for large fossil fuel companies to pay for infrastructure repairs, resiliency efforts and other costs in the rural and low-income communities disproportionately affected by flooding and other disasters.
Before the committee voted unanimously to ask the presiding officers to carry the bill into the second regular session that begins in January, Sen. Stacy Brenner (D-Cumberland) quoted a constituent of hers, Bob Monks, who recently died.
Monks was known for his activism around good corporate governance and multiple U.S. Senate runs. Brenner said his idea that 'if you ran an elephant company, you would always clean up after your elephants,' captured the spirit of her bill.
'We need support to clean up after the elephants,' she added.
However, Brenner agreed that it makes sense to wait until next year so the state has time to track what happens with the pending federal lawsuits before moving forward. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Melanie Loyzim made a similar suggestion during the public hearing for LD 1870.
Vermont and New York have already passed similar superfund legislation. However, those states, as well as Hawaii and Michigan, have subsequently been sued for those policies, including by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Justice Department said the lawsuits are also meant to advance an executive order from President Donald Trump that targets state and local policies involving climate change, environmental justice and carbon emissions reductions.
Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Phillips) said his biggest concern with LD 1870 is the ongoing legal backdrop, so he appreciated the time to gather more information before deciding what to do in Maine.
Since the committee agreed they only need one legislative vehicle to take up this topic again next year, members rejected the other related bill, LD 1808 from Rep. Grayson Lookner (D-Portland). Instead, they sent a letter to the Department of Environmental Protection asking it to report back to the committee with an update on those lawsuits.
Lookner suggested having the department look into whether Maine would go after the same companies as the other states and collect other data, such as how much it would cost to implement this sort of measure.
Loyzim told the committee her department was already planning to track the lawsuits as they unfold.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
House won't override DeSantis' ‘free kill' repeal veto
A trio of flashing billboards less than two miles from the Florida Capitol is slamming Gov. Ron DeSantis for vetoing the "free kill" bill on medical malpractice. (Photo credit: Christine Sexton/Florida Phoenix) House Speaker Daniel Perez said Thursday the chamber will try again next year to pass a repeal of the 'free kill' statute following Gov. Ron DeSantis' veto of the proposal. DeSantis on May 29 vetoed the Legislature's attempt to remove the bar on parents of adult children and the adult children of single parents from suing hospitals and physicians for non-economic damages for the deaths of loved ones. The governor said repealing 'free kill' would increase health care costs for Floridians and make it harder to keep physicians in the state. 'Of course, the governor has in his right the power to veto this bill, and he chose to do so,' Perez told reporters. 'I disagree with the veto, and we will be bringing that bill back next year for a continued conversation.' Lawmakers passed HB 6017 with bipartisan support. Repealing the ban on suits to recover non-economic damages is one of the perennial arguments in Tallahassee, as business interests and medical groups oppose the move. Perez said he remains opposed to placing caps on the pain-and-suffering damages, which is something that DeSantis said could make him support the repeal in the future, along with caps on attorneys' fees. The family members barred from suing for pain-and-suffering damages can recover economic damages, such as lost wages, medical bills, and funeral costs. 'I don't think that we should determine how much a person's life is worth when someone negligently ended it,' Perez said. The Senate also rejected a bid to cap the damages at $1 million on April 30. Florida, for now, remains the only state banning the recovery of pain-and-suffering damages for parents of adult children and adult children of single parents. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Maine Republicans, gun rights groups try to force hearing on 'red flag' proposal
Jun. 5—AUGUSTA — Republicans and gun rights groups are ramping up pressure on Democrats to hold a public hearing on a so-called red flag proposal that's headed for a statewide vote in November. Republican lawmakers are accusing the majority of violating state law by refusing to hold the hearing because it will undermine their campaign to pass the law. If approved by voters, the citizens initiative would make it easier for family members to have firearms temporarily taken away from people who are in crisis and may pose a danger to themselves or others. Sen. Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, said at a press conference Thursday that if Democrats don't reverse course and hold a hearing, Republicans will try to force the issue through a series of floor votes. And the National Rifle Association said Thursday that it will join a planned lawsuit over legislative Democrats' refusal to hold a public hearing. Stewart said Senate Republicans plan to offer a flurry of proposals to put Democrats on the record as opposing a chance for the public to weigh in. "It doesn't matter how you break this one down," Stewart said. "There needs to be a hearing. It's abundantly clear they're in violation of Maine law. Once again, (we're) giving them an opportunity to do the right things here. But if by today that is not the case (and) that has not yet happened, you're going to see a flurry of orders put forward by Republicans in the Senate." Democrats, who control both chambers and control committees that conduct public hearings, say they don't need to hold a hearing because the question will be decided by voters. Gun safety groups collected signatures to force a fall referendum on the red flag law, which would allow family members to directly petition a court to temporarily confiscate firearms. Maine currently has what is known as a yellow flag law, which was negotiated by Gov. Janet Mills, gun rights groups and gun safety groups. It can only be initiated by police and requires a mental health evaluation before a court petition can be filed to confiscate a person's firearms. A state law requires that a public hearing be held on statewide referendum questions, unless that hearing is waived by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. And hearings have been routinely held for other referendum questions, including a recent hearing on a referendum to enact a voter ID requirement and additional restrictions on absentee voting. Lawmakers have three options when receiving a qualified citizens initiative: Enact it without changes, send it to voters, or send it to voters with a competing measure. Democrats have made clear this initiative will be sent to voters without an effort to pass it in the Legislature. Sen. Anne Carney, D-Cape Elizabeth, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee, said she believes a state law requiring a hearing conflicts with the state Constitution, which doesn't mention the need for a public hearing. And since lawmakers have signaled they don't plan to enact the proposal, a hearing isn't necessary. Carney also noted last week that a hearing on a similar red flag proposal was held last session. But opponents of the referendum are clamoring for a hearing. The Sportsmen's Alliance of Maine issued an action alert this week, arguing that Democrats don't want to hold a hearing because it will highlight opposition, including from Gov. Janet Mills and other Democratic lawmakers. Mills came out against a red flag bill proposed last session, but the bill was never brought forward for a floor vote after an hours-long public hearing that drew a divided crowd. "Under Maine law, all ballot initiatives MUST receive a public hearing before going to the Maine voters," SAM's alert states. "But Judiciary Chairs and Maine Gun Safety Coalition allies are blocking that hearing. Why? "Because Michael Bloomberg and the progressive gun-control lobby know it could END their campaign. This is because a massive bipartisan coalition of Mainers, including Governor Janet Mills, law enforcement, and lawmakers, will discuss the dangerous and potentially deadly realities of this extreme law." Aids more Mills did not respond to a question about whether Mills would personally testify before the committee, which would be a rare and dramatic moment, or if her administration would testify on her behalf, which usually occurs. This story will be updated. Copy the Story Link
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
House passes bill overhauling cannabis laws, Cannabis Control Commission
Advertisement Frustration with the slow pace of regulatory changes, headline-grabbing internal conflicts at the CCC, and a plea from the inspector general for the Legislature to intervene at the 'rudderless agency' combined last summer to get lawmakers thinking more seriously about a response. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up House Speaker Ronald Mariano recounted Wednesday how he went to Donahue last year to say 'we're going to have to fix this.' He said Treasurer Deborah Goldberg's removal of CCC chairwoman Shannon O'Brien had been dragged into court by that point, a long-running saga that has shined a light on internal strife at the CCC. That directive to Donahue led to a series of hearings and conversations that resulted in the bill before the House on Wednesday. 'He did the work. You could talk to him, and he could explain the process. It got us where we thought we had to take it away from the treasurer,' Mariano said before yielding to Donahue to give a more thorough explanation of the House's thinking around accountability at the CCC. Advertisement Today, the CCC is a five-commissioner independent body, with appointments made singularly and jointly by the governor, attorney general and treasurer, with the treasurer selecting the chair. Under the House-approved bill, the CCC would be consolidated entirely under the governor. The state's executive would appoint all three commissioners and select one of them to serve as chair (who would be the only full-time commissioner). The CCC would be 'subject to the laws applicable to agencies under the control of the governor.' Asked what makes the CCC's existing model unworkable, Mariano said it was a structural problem but gave a conflicted explanation. 'It was created by a ballot question that had no rhyme or reason to it ... there was no accountability,' he said. The speaker, who started his scrum with reporters by raising the subject of 'legislation by referendum' and the trend of advocates going around a slow-moving Legislature to make laws at the statewide ballot, added, 'We've been railing against government by referendum, and this is a perfect example why it doesn't work.' The CCC's existing structure is largely modeled on the Gaming Commission, where five full-time members with specific areas of expertise are appointed by the governor, treasurer and attorney general. But Mariano claimed Wednesday that 'the problem is they weren't written by the same people.' 'The gaming stuff was written by House people,' he said. 'The people in the marketplace wrote this bill, and they weren't interested in controlling it, in making sure there was accountability up and down the line. As a matter of fact, this was a rush to get into the market. Everyone thought they were going to get rich.' Advertisement The Mariano, who was majority leader at the time, was the lead House negotiator on the 2017 law that structured the CCC. The structure that was put in place 'This is legislation by referendum, and this is the problem, no one really focused on the writing of the ballot question on how this would be administered. And when it hit, the public had no idea what the problems were going to be and where they were going to be,' Mariano said Wednesday. Last summer, Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro's office Advertisement Mariano was not available to clarify his comments Wednesday afternoon, but a spokesperson sent a statement saying his 'main point was that the Legislature was responding to a law that was passed by a referendum, which created a new industry outside of the typical legislative process, forcing the Legislature to address a number of unknowns.' 'In order to safely and effectively carry out the will of the voters, the Legislature has been forced to revise the original language multiple times. The legislation that the House is voting on today is better because of what we have learned since 2016, and establishes a new structure, different from the one that the ballot initiative spelled out,' Mariano spokesperson Ana Vivas said. The bill the House passed Wednesday also seeks to address intoxicating hemp-based products that largely fall into a gray area of the law and between the regulatory cracks by banning their sale without a license and setting up a new framework to regulate and tax them. Hemp beverages could only be sold by retailers licensed by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission to sell all alcohol and all hemp-based products would need to be registered with the CCC. 'This ban and accompanying regulatory structure will help provide guidance and clarity on hemp products, removing those which are unregulated, of unknown origin or composition, and too easily accessible to minors,' Donahue said Wednesday. The House bill adjusts the existing cap on retail licenses any one operator can hold. The current limit is three, and the House bill would raise the cap on retail licenses to six over a three-year period (increasing first to four, a year later to five and finally to six). Opponents of that idea have slammed it as a 'gift to corporate cannabis and a death sentence for local and social equity businesses.' The existing three-license caps would remain in place for cultivation and manufacturing. Advertisement On the medical side of the legal marijuana world, the bill eliminates the requirement that medical marijuana businesses be 'vertically integrated,' meaning they must grow and process all the marijuana they sell. Patients and advocates have been calling for that change for years, saying the medical-only options have become scarce across Massachusetts since cannabis was legalized for non-medical use.
