Latest news with #ClimateSuperfund
Los Angeles Times
07-07-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California's plan to ‘Make Polluters Pay' for climate change stalls again. Why oil companies are fiercely opposed
California lawmakers have for years vowed to hold fossil fuel companies liable for damages caused by their emissions, including worsening wildfires and floods and mounting costs of climate recovery and adaptation. But the state's so-called Climate Superfund bills have once again stalled in Sacramento amid fierce lobbying and industry pressure — leaving communities to cover the costs. The latest version of this effort, Senate Bill 684 and Assembly Bill 1243 — known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act — would require the largest oil and gas companies doing business in the state to pay their fair share of the damages caused by planet-warming greenhouse gases. The fees would be collected into a Superfund that would be put toward projects and programs to help the state mitigate, adapt and respond to climate change. The legislation gained momentum after its introduction by Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) and Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) in the wake of January's devastating wildfires in Los Angeles, but neither made it out of its house of origin before sputtering out. Officials have confirmed to The Times that the legislation has been put on hold until next year. A similar bill introduced by Menjivar last year also failed to progress, clearing three committees before dying in Senate appropriations. New York and Vermont both passed their own versions of the legislation last year, but climate-conscious California continues to struggle to push its iteration over the finish line as deep-pocketed oil companies rally hard against it — and as the White House ramps up federal directives for more oil and gas. In the first quarter of this year alone, fossil fuel companies, chambers of commerce and other opponents spent at least $10.6 million lobbying against the Climate Superfund Act and other state legislation — more than 10 times the amount spent by environmental groups working to see it passed, according to an analysis of state filings. (Filings list all bills lobbied by an organization but do not break down how much was spent on each individual bill.) 'Any time you go up against Big Oil, it's a huge struggle,' Addis told The Times ahead of the bills' postponement. She said the state's strong climate record has made it a magnet for fossil fuel opposition. 'I really think they've turned everything toward California to try to slow us down.' The Climate Superfund Act is modeled after the federal Superfund law that requires companies to pay for the cleanup of contamination caused by their activities, such as hazardous waste disposal or accidents and spills. The state's proposed climate version would direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify responsible parties — defined as oil companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions globally from 1990 to 2024 — within 90 days of enactment. The agency would have one year to conduct a comprehensive study to apportion damages to each polluter based on their emissions from that time period, which would be assessed as a one-time fee paid into a Superfund in annual installments. The funds collected from these companies would be earmarked for projects such as wildfire recovery, energy efficiency upgrades, community resilience infrastructure and other climate-related efforts. At least 40% of the money would be prioritized for disadvantaged communities, which suffer disproportionately from pollution and other environmental harms. Advocates say it's long overdue. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' said Maggie Coulter, senior attorney with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute. 'When you make a mess, the people who made the mess should be the ones who clean it up. But right now what we're seeing is that taxpayers are the ones paying for all the myriad damages that are being caused by climate change, and by the pollution that's come from the burning of fossil fuels.' Fossil fuels account for about 75% of greenhouse gas emissions — the primary driver of global warming that is contributing to more frequent and destructive disasters such as wildfires, floods, droughts and extreme heat, as well as sea level rise and air pollution, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and many other experts. Damages caused by these events include not only property loss but also rising healthcare and insurance costs, reduced productivity, increased emergency disaster response and costly infrastructure repairs, much of which is traditionally borne by the public. 'The consequences of climate change come with a huge price tag that is only increasing,' state Senate officials wrote in their analysis of the legislation. They noted that wildfires in California in 2020 caused economic losses of more than $19 billion. The cost of January's fires in L.A. alone is estimated to be $250 billion. 'With or without this bill, the costs of climate disaster recovery, adaptation, and mitigation will climb and must be paid,' the analysis says. 'The question then is, 'Paid by whom?'' Despite a groundswell of support for the legislation after the L.A. fires, the idea continues to face considerable opposition from oil industry groups, chambers of commerce and building and trade organizations that say it will kill jobs and drive up the cost of oil in the state. Among the top organizations spending against the bill in California were the Western States Petroleum Assn. — a large trade group representing fossil fuel companies — and the California Chamber of Commerce, which reported spending about $3.5 million and $1.2 million, respectively, on lobbying this quarter, state filings show. (Reporting is required for spends of $5,000 or more.) When asked about their concerns about the Climate Superfund Act, both groups deferred to a joint letter sent to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in March, signed by about two dozen opposition groups. The legislation 'would impose retroactive liability on companies for lawful business activities dating back to 1990 and would introduce significant regulatory uncertainty that threatens California's economic stability and competitiveness,' the letter says. 'The significant financial obligations the bill would impose on alleged 'responsible parties' would likely worsen California's affordability crisis for the state's consumers and businesses as costs are passed down.' Western States Petroleum Assn. spokesman Jim Stanley also pointed to an analysis conducted by the California Center for Jobs & the Economy, which describes the legislation as a 'de facto carbon tax' that would ripple across goods, services and regional economies and create an annual household burden of up to $3,400. Specifically, the analysis says the legislation would contribute directly to a 43% increase in gasoline prices by 2027; eliminate 205,000 jobs statewide due to reduced consumer spending; and result in a $30.5-billion reduction in state GDP each year from 2027 to 2046, among other negative outcomes. Not everyone agreed with their assessment, however. Clair Brown, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley, has studied the Climate Superfund bill extensively and concluded that it would not increase gas prices in the state. That's because California's pump prices are primarily set by the global crude oil market, which is volatile, Brown said. What's more, she said major oil companies would continue to face market competition from smaller oil producers selling gas at branded and unbranded stations in the state, which limits the big companies' ability to raise retail gas prices without losing customers. A California law passed in 2023, Senate Bill X1-2, also prohibits refineries from passing along nonoperational costs — such as the Superfund fee — to consumers, she said. 'The public's been paying for part of the operational cost of refineries and oil and gas for decades, and meanwhile the oil and gas companies lied about the impact of their emissions on global warming,' Brown said. (Evidence has shown that the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change decades before acknowledging it publicly.) 'One of the reasons that economists really like this bill is that it would actually internalize the cost,' Brown said. 'Then we would actually see the real cost of fossil fuel energy — and it would help us transition hopefully faster and with more equity.' As for job loss, she said fossil fuel employment is affected not just by state demand but also by exports, which have been increasing in recent years. And while opponents argue that these companies have already been paying into the state's climate policies through cap-and-trade allowances and low carbon fuel standard credits, 'they don't overlap at all — they're totally different policies taxing different things,' Brown said. The legislation 'makes really good economic sense,' she added. It is not immediately clear to how many companies the Climate Superfund Act would even apply. According to Carbon Majors, a database of historical oil production data, there are about 130 global entities that produced over a billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions during the relevant time frame — only 26 of which operate in the United States. A comprehensive study ordered by the legislation would determine which companies are liable in the state, and for how much. For example, Chevron is associated with about 16.6 billion metric tons of historic global greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, while Marathon is associated with about 2 billion. It is also not immediately clear how much money it would raise. New York's Superfund bill has been valued at $75 billion over 25 years — though some analysts have said the number represents only a small fraction of that state's anticipated costs of climate adaptation in the years ahead, which could be well over $500 billion. California could potentially see an even bigger payout, in part because oil companies conduct so much activity here. But it's a double-edged sword, Brown said, because the heavy presence of those companies in the state is also why they've lobbied so hard against the legislation. Oil and gas made up about 6% of California's gross domestic product last year, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has championed California as a climate leader, has been mum about the bill. His team said the governor doesn't typically comment on pending legislation. 'If the measures reach his desk, the Governor will evaluate them on their merits,' his office said in an email. Meanwhile, Calif. Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has launched a climate liability lawsuit against top oil companies that seeks to establish a fund to finance climate mitigation and adaptation efforts, not unlike the Superfund idea. Assemblymember Addis said pushing the legislation through in California has been an uphill battle. 'The oil industry pulled out all the stops here in California,' she said. Not only have fossil fuel companies spent millions in recent years to oppose oil and gas legislation, but 'they have a president in office now who has literally said 'drill baby drill' and gotten tens of millions of dollars, if not more, in campaign contributions' from the industry. Indeed, Trump received record donations from oil and gas interests during his 2024 presidential campaign, and has taken steps to remove regulations that govern the fossil fuel industry in an effort to 'unleash American energy' and increase oil and gas production. The Trump administration has also filed a lawsuit against New York and Vermont over their Climate Superfund bills, arguing they are unconstitutional. Despite the setbacks, Coulter, of the Center for Biological Diversity, said the legislation continues to maintain support because 'it has that gut instinct appeal, and it's something that there's huge need for — particularly in California,' where worsening climate disasters are meeting with reduced federal funding and a significant budget deficit. 'This is a really big idea that makes a lot of sense,' she said. She and other advocates noted that there is already precedent for the Climate Superfund Act in California. Since the 1990s, the state has implemented a law that assesses fees against producers of lead paint and leaded gas to help treat lead poisoning in children, known as the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. The state's Department of Public Health collects the fee annually based on each company's market share responsibility for environmental lead contamination. 'It's become very much a part of the way to address these problems,' Coulter said. The concept also remains popular among some local governments, which are increasingly bearing the costs of climate catastrophe. The L.A. City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved a resolution in favor of the Climate Superfund Act. 'The City of Los Angeles should support the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025 because it proposes to shift the burden of paying for the high costs of climate change recovery from California taxpayers to the businesses that have profited off the fossil fuel industry,' the resolution, introduced by Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, states. Though neither bill will move forward this year, both can be taken up in 2026, the second year of the current legislative session. Addis said she is hopeful that California will see its plan come to light. She recalled visiting constituents whose homes were flooded during 2023's devastating atmospheric rivers, which struck the state almost two years to the day before the L.A. wildfires. 'The real-life implications of these mega-weather events that are caused by the climate crisis, you can't turn your back on,' she said.
New York Post
25-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's ambition cancels out claims of coming ‘climate disaster'
New York politicians are extremely worried about the threat of global climate change. Their only bigger worry is that the voters will learn what they plan to do about it. More than one year past Albany's self-imposed deadline to make rules for major greenhouse-gas cuts, Gov. Kathy Hochul and the state Legislature used the annual budget to yet again hit the snooze button on a top climate initiative. This time, the governor paused a law requiring school districts to buy electric schoolbuses for their fleets. It joins Hochul's growing list of delays on climate initiatives that would cause New Yorkers pain — consequences she does not want voters to feel until her next term. The list of deferments includes a tax-like 'cap-and-invest' carbon-mitigation scheme, collecting billions from fossil-fuel producers in a 'Climate Superfund' and rules mandating zero-emission truck sales in the Empire State. The zero-emission schoolbus mandate makes school districts the canaries in the green-economy coal mine. Under the law, no fossil-fueled school buses may be on the roads starting in 2035. That means school districts, many of which operate under 10-year replacement schedules, should be buying zero-emission electric schoolbuses now. But the high cost of electric buses — more than double the average price of gas- or diesel-fueled models — has made those purchases a budgetary impossibility for many districts. Absent substantial federal and state subsidies, today's electric schoolbuses can't compete economically with fossil-fueled ones. The governor's legal tweak shows the rubber is meeting the road on the electric-schoolbus mandate, as policy makers cave to reality and political pressure. The same is true for other green initiatives. The Empire State's 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act set some incredible goals, including cutting statewide carbon emissions by about a quarter by 2030. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Ambitious? Sure. Realistic? Not likely. Emissions have barely fallen in the years since — mainly because former Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration effectively swapped a (zero-emission) nuclear power plant, Indian Point, for new natural-gas plants. When Cuomo signed the CLCPA into law in 2019, he ensured that none of its effects could occur until well after he'd have been sworn in for his anticipated fourth consecutive term. The CLCPA's implementing regulations were not due until January 2024 — a deadline Hochul ignored. Hochul this spring pumped the brakes again on cap-and-invest, New York's most onerous CLCPA program — kicking it past the next election into a 'data-gathering phase.' That process won't wrap up until June 2027 — months after she's hoping to sail into a second term. Why the wait? Because no one's going to like it when the cap-and-invest bills start coming due and prices go up — or energy-intensive businesses begin leaving the state. Cap-and-invest is a tax on energy masquerading as a climate fix, and the latest delay only deepens doubts that Albany Democrats are serious about addressing the climate change-induced 'existential crisis' they claim we face. Kind of like insisting every climate change-related project be staffed at union-level wages. A cynical Albany watcher may surmise that the delay gives Hochul another election cycle for campaign donors subject to cap-and-invest to lobby for special treatment under the new program. Meanwhile, less-connected businesses are left twisting in the wind, unsure of future costs, while climate diehards fume over missed deadlines. Energy users dodge the bill for now, but it's coming — whenever the state Department of Environmental Conservation gets untethered from Hochul's political ambitions. But here's the real kicker: Even if the Empire State can can pull it off, its emissions cuts won't move the needle on global climate change. New York leaders are chasing a fantasy when they could be focusing on something that actually matters — like shoreline protection, flood mitigation, public cooling centers and similar projects. The Climate Superfund Act is supposed to fund climate change adaptation measures like these on the backs of fossil-fuel producers (and their customers). It's based on a climate-change-damages theory derived from tobacco litigation. But when she signed it into law this year, Hochul insisted on setting effective dates for charging the penalties after her next election. None of this is to deny climate change — if true, it's a real problem, and an ugly one. But New York's not the hero in this story. The planet won't notice if New York hits its CLCPA goals. If Hochul and the DEC can't execute a plan six years after making their big promises — never mind one that makes a dent globally — why should we trust them with our wallets or our future? Delay isn't caution; it's a cynical political calculation. An existential crisis deserves better. Cam Macdonald is an adjunct fellow at the Empire Center for Public Policy and executive director of the Government Justice Center.
Politico
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Politico
All eyes on the Assembly
Good morning and welcome to the weekly Monday edition of the New York & New Jersey Energy newsletter. We'll take a look at the week ahead and look back on what you may have missed last week. ALL EYES ON THE ASSEMBLY — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Any chance that New York lawmakers will make significant progress on tackling climate change this legislative session rests with Assembly Democrats — a concerning prospect for frustrated environmental advocates. The Senate has left Albany for the session, but the Assembly plans to linger for a few days this week. Several environmental proposals remain pending, including a sweeping measure aimed at reducing plastic and packaging waste and two options to limit gas infrastructure. These are the same issues that remained in the final days of last year's session. Then, the Assembly pivoted to pass the Climate Superfund measure to charge fossil fuel companies for past pollution. This year, environmental groups are pressuring the Assembly to step up on implementing more policies to support the state's climate law. 'The Senate did their job last night — again — to do something about our high energy bills. We are paying too much for pipelines we don't need,' said Jessica Azulay, executive director of the Alliance for a Green Economy. 'They have three days to act, and we are watching,' Azulay said of the Assembly. 'If they don't act, we're all in for a long, hot summer.' The Senate passed two different gas transition measures — leaving the choice of whether to allow phasing out gas service for existing homes to the Assembly. The more modest measure is an elimination of the '100-foot rule' for gas. That rule requires other ratepayers to subsidize a portion of the cost of new hookups, reducing upfront costs for those getting new gas service. — The incremental step — the 100-foot rule elimination for gas — is poised to pass in the Assembly, according to two lawmakers. It was moved to the Ways and Means committee on Sunday afternoon, teeing it up for an eventual floor vote. — The packaging reduction measure appears to be falling short, and newly announced opposition from the statewide AFL-CIO may doom the bill this year. 'Unions are not opposed to improving New York's recycling system. But are concerned that this bill goes too far, too fast, and targets the wrong materials,' a press release from industry-backed New Yorkers for Better Recycling states. PENNEAST DECISION DRAMA — The New York Times' weekend dive into Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett leads with this example: 'Soon after Justice Barrett arrived at the court she began surprising her colleagues. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. assigned her to write a majority opinion — among her first — allowing the seizure of state property in a pipeline case, according to several people aware of the process. But she then changed her mind and took the opposite stance, a bold move that risked irritating the chief justice.' The story doesn't name-check the 2021 PennEast decision, but our POLITICO colleague Alex Guillén reported at the time that, 'Legal experts have been gossiping that someone in the majority switched sides late in the game in the PennEast ruling.' — Ry Rivard HAPPY MONDAY MORNING: Let us know if you have tips, story ideas or life advice. We're always here at mfrench@ and rrivard@ And if you like this letter, please tell a friend and/or loved one to sign up. Here's what we're watching: WEDNESDAY— The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities meets and is expected to discuss electric utilities' plans to cushion rate increases, 10 a.m. Editor's Note: Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. Around New Jersey — Former BPU Commissioner Mary-Anna Holden in an op-ed: 'Instead of chasing artificial deadlines and politically popular incentives, our leaders should be focused on real-world physics and economics. This means revisiting the Energy Master Plan, rethinking electrification mandates and supporting a balanced generation mix that includes reliable, low-emission sources like natural gas and nuclear while continuing to develop meaningful renewables at a pace our infrastructure can handle.' — Tesla, for one reason or another, is storing lots of cars at the Quaker Bridge Mall. — Weekend blaze in Wharton State Forest is mostly contained. What you may have missed AIMING AT THE BOTTOM LINE — New Jersey lawmakers advanced a trio of bills Thursday aimed at cutting into utility company profits. The bills — S4260, S4304 and S4519 — all cleared the Senate Economic Growth committee. They each aim to reduce power companies' return on equity, which hovers around 10 percent in the state. Two of the bills basically urge the state Board of Public Utilities to rein in profits, but do not set any caps on companies' returns. A third bill, Sen. Andrew Zwicker's S4519, could quantitatively dent profits by removing a special .5 percent return companies are currently eligible for thanks to convoluted federal regulations. Some utilities get this special 'RTO adder' for building transmission projects if they have not formally joined a regional transmission organization, like PJM. Zwicker's bill would require utilities to join PJM, thus disqualifying their projects for the adder. For PSEG, the adder means that the company's return on equity for transmission projects is 10.4 percent, rather than 9.9 percent. The state's ratepayer watchdog, Brian Lipman, testified in support of the bill. He cited previous comments by outgoing FERC Chair Mark Christie who called the adder 'FERC candy' taken from ratepayers and given to transmission companies. The companies argue that without the incentive, there would be fewer transmission projects, which would hurt grid reliability. Joseph Checkley, the head of IBEW Local 94, which represents 3,300 PSEG workers, testified that the union will have less work and fewer apprenticeships if the bill passes. The union, utilities and some Republican lawmakers also said the bill doesn't address the root problem facing the state right now, which is lack of generation causing price spikes. Utilities are also concerned that the bill would force them to join PJM at a time when Democrats have been trying to get leverage over PJM. PSEG senior vice president Rick Thigpen said in a statement that 'we've heard many public officials criticize the shortcomings of PJM and this bill would force us to remain in that very RTO.' 'While not RTO specific, this bill would mandate that we either remain in PJM or pursue an option of joining a different RTO or creating one from scratch — two options that would be unnecessarily expensive for customers,' Thigpen said. 'This comes at a time when affordability is a top concern and we should be focusing on supporting our customers in the near-term and expanding electric supply in the long-term to enhance resource adequacy.' Zwicker, a Somerset County Democrat, modeled the bill on a recent move by Ohio to get rid of the adder. Also, realistically, he said New Jersey cannot leave PJM anytime soon. 'I would argue that we need leverage, true, but that leverage doesn't exist because we have no other option,' Zwicker said in an interview. While industry groups generally oppose all the bills aimed at curbing return on equity, PSEG said it supported Burlington County Democratic Sen. Troy Singleton's bill (S4260) that would prevent utilities from making 'excess profits.' 'Excess profits is not something we're in support of,' Thigpen told lawmakers during a lengthy hearing. Thigpen said the company would be willing to submit to new annual reviews of its rates. Right now, reviews typically accompany rate cases. Sen. Joseph Pennacchio, a Morris County Republican, wondered if the bill was even needed, since the BPU already examines utilities' finances. 'From my understanding, if the BPU is doing a good job, we're going to be saving nothing,' he said. Another bill without a hard cap, S4304, requires the BPU to allow utilities only the 'lowest reasonable return.' None of the bills increase the energy supply available to the state, which lawmakers from both parties agree is the only long-term solution to price spikes. Separately, a bill to explore the role that nuclear power should play in the state cleared the Senate Energy and Environment Committee. The bill (S220) was sponsored by Pennacchio and Sen. Bob Smith, the Middlesex County Democrat who chairs that committee. — Ry Rivard ASSEMBLY GETS OPTIONS ON GAS: The New York Senate is moving two options on efforts to limit the expansion of the state's gas system. One is a repeal of what's known as the '100-foot rule,' which requires other customers to subsidize portions of new gas hookups. If enacted, this would require developers to pay the full cost of building out infrastructure to connect to the gas system. Opponents argue this would raise new home costs and provide minimal savings to existing customers since selling more gas spreads out costs and the investments are paid off over decades. Supporters of slashing the subsidy say it runs counter to the state's climate goals and eliminates added costs from new hookups that contribute to rate increases. The other option is a scaled back but still ambitious planning proposal to begin dismantling sections of the gas system. This renamed NY HEAT bill, dubbed the 'Customer Savings and Reliability Act,' also includes changes to the 100-foot rule. But it goes much further, allowing the Public Service Commission and utilities to involuntarily remove customers from the gas system after 2030 with several guardrails including extensive public engagement, some support in the affected area, and alternatives being provided at 'no cost.' It's not clear whether Assembly Democrats will move this broader measure, although it has won over some lawmakers. Repeal of the 100-foot rule has even more support. Opponents of NY HEAT have pushed back on the updated measure. 'They simply want fewer people on the gas system, so they want to make it more expensive,' said Republican Assemblymember Phil Palmesano at a Thursday press conference. He promised a four-hour debate if Assembly Democrats bring the updated NY HEAT bill to the floor. Business groups are also opposed, despite specific protections for their gas service in the bill. 'As you remove users from the system, you increase the cost to users who have no choice,' said Ken Pokalsky, with the Business Council of New York State. Proponents of a planned gas transition say customers will switch to electric alternatives anyway. The proposed planning process offers a more managed shift than the status quo, with opportunities for savings from avoided gas infrastructure savings, they say. 'As my staff and I engage more closely with the Con Ed rate cases impacting our district, I can see more clearly than ever the urgency of ending the 100-foot rule,' said Democratic Assemblymember Dana Levenberg. 'We cannot hope to bring down utility costs while still requiring utilities to maintain vast networks of gas pipelines.' — Marie J. French BIOSOLIDS MORATORIUM ADVANCES: The Senate also passed a five-year moratorium on using biosolids — from wastewater and industrial sources — as fertilizer, topsoil or mulch. The bill also looks to be moving in the Assembly. Supporters are concerned about PFAS contamination from the waste, pointing to Maine, where farmland was contaminated by the practice. The state's operators of wastewater treatment plants are concerned. A five-year ban on spreading biosolids on land would remove a key option to dispose of the waste product, according to the New York Water Environment Association. 'There is inadequate capacity in New York State landfills for this volume of additional biosolids, as many have limited space and biosolids often must be mixed with other debris to provide structural integrity within the landfill operational cells,' the group wrote in a letter on the bill. — Marie J. French PSC GREENLIGHTS TRANSMISSION UPGRADES: The Public Service Commission approved more transmission upgrades linked to increased load, including from electric vehicle charging fleets and other plans. These 'urgent upgrades' need to get started more quickly than would happen if they waited for approval through a rate case, the commission decided at Thursday's meeting. The approved projects total $636 million in costs and will enable 642 megawatts of electrification upgrades — which Department of Public Service staff said was under the 'industry standard' cost of $1 million per megawatt. The 29 projects approved include $439.9 million for five Con Ed projects including to allow for electric vehicle charging at Zerega Avenue and Hunt's Point. Utilities had proposed 65 projects totaling $1.9 billion in costs. The projects that weren't approved are expected to be considered through rate case proceedings. 'We are not taking steps to subject ourselves to near-term risks in the future, we're looking to address long-term opportunities and by doing that we limit the costs, we make our investments more efficient and we make them most importantly more effective,' said Public Service Commission Chair Rory Christian at the meeting. 'This process increases transparency as well because frankly it's hard for many people to engage in rate cases. And this gives a one-stop opportunity for people to examine the various electrification efforts underway throughout the state.' — Marie J. French WAIVER GOODBYE — POLITICO's Alex Nieves: President Donald Trump moved Thursday to eliminate California's nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, upending strict rules that had become a template for other states, including New York and New Jersey, to realize their greenhouse gas ambitions. COLUMN ON WAIVER — POLITICO's Debra Kahn: It's a far cry from the bipartisan consensus that reigned when President Richard Nixon famously signed the Clean Air Act, which set federal air pollution levels for the first time but gave California permission to continue going further, owing to its decade-plus of vehicle emissions rules aimed at the smoggy Los Angeles basin. EMISSIONS DISCLOSURE CONCERNS — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Business groups are preemptively ramping up opposition to a climate emissions disclosure bill in the frantic last days of session. Led by the Business Council of New York State, industry groups are warning lawmakers against New York's version of a greenhouse gas reporting bill that's mired in legal and regulatory delays in California. There's some concern from opponents that the measure could become the last-minute 'environmental thing' lawmakers move before leaving Albany. ACE'S RATE RELIEF — Atlantic City Electric has a plan to help customers deal with rising power prices. The plan resembles one already submitted by PSE&G and is likely to mirror what other utilities in the state will do, though some of the actions may require Board of Public Utilities approval. ACE said it will stop disconnecting eligible customers' service from July through September. Gov. Phil Murphy previously suggested utilities take this step and PSE&G has already announced it would. ACE also plans to allow for longer repayment terms for residential customers, up to 24 months, and will submit a plan to the BPU that would give customers a deferred credit on their July and August bills that would be recovered without interest over a six-month period. 'While utility companies in New Jersey do not generate their own energy, do not set the price of electricity, and do not profit from the supply cost increases that took effect June 1, we fully understand that rising energy costs stemming from PJM's 2024 Capacity Auction are a challenge for our customers,' the company said in a statement. — Ry Rivard FALL SHOWDOWN SET — Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill are set to square off this fall in the New Jersey general election, setting up a showdown over Gov. Phil Murphy's clean energy legacy. The Associated Press called the races for both candidates Tuesday night, not long after polls closed. Sherrill's campaign has promised to push for 100 percent clean energy, the same goal Murphy ran on and won, and picked up endorsements from the Sierra Club and New Jersey League of Conservation Voters. Ciattarelli has blasted the governor's 'obsession with windmills' for driving up electric prices. Ciattarelli began his speech with criticism of Murphy's offshore wind goals. 'We will adopt a rational energy policy that lowers people's monthly electric bills and stops the Democrats from putting those damn wind farms off our Jersey Shore,' he said. He also criticized overdevelopment, something he's previously blamed the Sierra Club for ignoring. Whether wind will be a potent issue for voters, of course, remains to be seen. In her victory speech on Tuesday night, Sherrill framed her campaign as a test of President Donald Trump's policies, though she mentioned Ciattarelli's position on Hurricane Sandy relief and, in a statement after the speech, pledged to 'slash the cost of utilities' by taking 'control of our energy future.' In 2023, Republican legislative campaigns tried to make the environment a wedge issue, but largely failed when Democrats picked up seats in Trenton. Arguably some of those Democrats ran away from Murphy's clean energy plans and, in the years since, lawmakers have not had the stomach to turn the governor's clean energy goals into binding law. There are some reasons why energy issues may be more potent this year, though. The biggest is that energy policy choices have demonstrably and significantly driven up people's power bills. A $25 per month rate increase took effect on June 1. Democrats blame the regional grid operator, PJM; Republicans blame Murphy's focus on offshore wind projects that are dead or delayed. — Ry Rivard NEW GAS TRANSITION MEASURE: Democratic lawmakers introduced a new bill aimed at limiting the expansion and transitioning parts of the gas system. The re-branded new bill is the 'Customer Savings and Reliability Act.' The slimmed down, not-HEAT Act removes provisions around a 6 percent affordability target for energy bills and still eliminates the 100-foot rule to subsidize new gas hookups. For a neighborhood transition project to move forward after 2030, 50 percent of impacted customers would have to agree to get off the gas system. Installation of alternative equipment — electric heat pumps, hot water and cooking systems — would have to be at no cost to customers. Importantly, a utility can opt out of the process. 'It addresses people's concerns,' said Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon, the sponsor of the old NY HEAT and the new bill. 'A transition plan would have to be cheaper … we increase the number of hearings.' Simon said she's 'very hopeful' about the bill's prospects given the revisions. 'It will accomplish the goals of transitioning,' she said. Environmental groups including the New York League of Conservation Voters, Earthjustice, Alliance for a Green Economy and WE ACT for Environmental Justice endorsed the new version. The measure 'would reduce costs for ratepayers, advance region-specific utility planning to decarbonize buildings at a neighborhood-scale, and provide responsible, cost-effective alternatives for heating, cooling and hot water,' the memo states. NY HEAT's staunchest opponents are still opposed, particularly New Yorkers for Affordable Energy, which is backed by labor, pipeline companies and National Fuel. 'It's a blueprint for higher costs and unreliable service,' the group's opposition memo states. One of its members predicts layoffs if the 100-foot rule is eliminated, raising costs for developers seeking new gas hookups since they'll have to pay the full costs rather than being subsidized by other customers. — Marie J. French CORRECTION: Assemblymember John McDonald said local governments would be involved in a new process under a revised gas transition measure. 'It's common sense, moves in the right direction, including local governments and residents in the process,' McDonald said. BLET'S MAKE A DEAL — The union of engineers whose strike idled NJ Transit trains in May voted to ratify a deal that will raise wages to 'over $50 per hour,' the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen said Tuesday. The union said its members had overwhelmingly voted to approve the seven-year deal, which replaces one that expired before the pandemic. 'This agreement gives us the pay raises we needed, but also was done without a major hit to NJT's budget and should not require a fare hike for passengers,' union leader Tom Haas said in a statement. The head of NJ Transit, CEO Kris Kolluri, said in a statement he was pleased by the vote. The union's rank and file had previously voted down another deal, teeing up the strike that resulted in this agreement. — Ry Rivard
Epoch Times
25-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Liability for Climate Change: An Inequitable Economic Disaster
Commentary Recently, the Trump administration filed lawsuits seeking to halt efforts by some states to impose liability on fossil fuel companies for their past greenhouse gas emissions. It will likely take some years for these lawsuits to be resolved. What is already clear are the serious and senseless economic consequences that will follow if states are allowed to punish fossil fuel companies for their lawful past production. States are meting out such punishment in two ways. The first is through common law tort suits. Some of these suits allege that past greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas production constitute a public nuisance. In others, states allege that fossil fuel companies lied to consumers about the potentially harmful consequences of such emissions. The second way that states are trying to punish fossil fuel companies is through what are called 'Climate Superfund' laws. Such laws, already enacted by New York and Vermont and on the road to passage in states such as Maryland and California, hold fossil fuel companies jointly liable for the supposed costs of past greenhouse gas emissions. New York's law simply sets out an arbitrary $75 billion that fossil fuel companies must pay, with each company paying a share equal to its share of industry GHG emissions over the 2000–2018 period. Under Vermont's law, producers are liable, again according to their share of emissions, for a virtually limitless set of expenditures—including everything from new roads and bridges to 'preventive health care'—that Vermont incurs to address the harms of climate change caused by fossil fuel producer emissions over the period 1995–2004. Were a large number of states to enact laws similar to those enacted in New York and Vermont, fossil fuel companies could be facing trillions of dollars in liability for past production. These laws impose a new form of liability, one previously virtually unknown in the law, liability for cumulative past emissions. As I show in a recently published peer-reviewed analysis, such cumulative liability—de facto fines for past emissions—will severely cut present and future fossil fuel production. The supply shrinkage comes about through two channels. The first pathway is that cumulative liability will cause some currently producing fields to be shut down. Cumulative liability will cause producers to shut some (generally older) wells because the longer an oil or gas field is in production, the bigger its cumulative production and therefore liability but the lower the present value of oil and gas that remains in the ground. Eventually, liability for cumulative past production (and emissions) must be bigger than the present value of remaining, unproduced oil and gas, meaning that a field becomes a negative net value asset and should be closed. This is true even if the price per barrel is higher than the per barrel damages. By my rough calculations, imposing cumulative liability at even a relatively low per barrel damage level could cause a substantial fraction of Permian Basin fields to become such negative value assets. The prospect of future cumulative liability will also reduce oil and gas supply by causing firms to delay drilling new wells. The reason is that the cost of delaying drilling—delaying the realization of net revenues—is lower when a potentially large portion of such revenues are diverted to paying Climate Superfund or common law damages. Crucially, field closure and drilling delay are supply shocks that only impact supply from firms that are actually subject to state tort litigation or 'Climate Superfund' laws. These are primarily U.S. producers. But by most estimates, over 70 percent of global oil and gas reserves are owned and controlled by OPEC+ countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia. State owned or controlled enterprises who produce fossil fuels in such countries will likely be completely judgment proof with respect to state tort and Climate Superfund liability. Such liability will be borne entirely by U.S. (and possibly) European producers. Even worse, the tort theories advanced and the Climate Superfund laws passed by the states impose joint liability—meaning defendants who are susceptible to legal judgment are together jointly responsible for all fines or damages. Because liability is joint, U.S. producers will be potentially liable for harms caused by total past greenhouse emissions, even emissions from production by OPEC+ members. Indeed, climate tort liability and climate superfund laws give OPEC+ producers a new competitive advantage from increasing production—by increasing production, they not only reduce global price, but increase the potential liability of U.S. producers. Related Stories 5/22/2025 5/21/2025 U.S. fossil fuel production, especially from the Permian Basin, has provided an important check on the ability of OPEC+ to increase oil and gas prices. A reduction in such U.S supply caused by state climate tort litigation and state Climate Superfund laws may thus lead both to higher U.S. prices and an increased dependence of the U.S. on OPEC+ supply with very little impact on global fossil fuel production and hence global greenhouse gas emissions from such production. Against such minimal or nonexistent benefits, such laws will likely increase U.S fossil fuel prices to consumers, reduce production and employment in the U.S fossil fuel industry, and increase U.S. dependence on foreign fossil fuel production. They will thus stand as only the latest in the series of foolish U.S. policies whose vast costs and minimal benefits are politically justified by the cry for a 'war' on climate change. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump is illegally trying to overturn state climate laws
The foundation of American government rests on a simple but powerful principle: states are not mere departments of the federal government. They are sovereign entities with both the right and the responsibility to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of their residents. President Trump's recent executive order, which instructs the Justice Department to block state climate laws such as New York's Climate Change Superfund Act, is a direct attack on that principle. But executive orders cannot undo duly enacted state laws. Trump's action is a political stunt, not a legal reversal. New York's Climate Change Superfund Act stands on strong constitutional ground. Across the country, states are stepping up to respond to the rising toll of climate-fueled disasters. More than ten states have introduced climate superfund legislation based on a simple idea: those massive, multinational oil and gas corporations that caused the climate crisis should help pay for the damage. This is not only fair but necessary. The costs of climate change are staggering, and without action, those costs are already falling entirely on the shoulders of working families. In New York alone, it will cost an estimated $52 billion to protect New York Harbor from climate change, $75 to $100 billion to defend Long Island, and another $55 billion to safeguard communities across the rest of the state. Without laws like the Climate Superfund, that burden would be borne entirely by local governments, homeowners and taxpayers, who are also seeing climate-driven cost increases in their homeowner's insurance, health care and numerous other expenses. Under our system of federalism, states have always had broad authority to enact laws that protect their people. That authority is rooted in the Tenth Amendment and reinforced by centuries of precedent. Whether regulating public health, consumer safety, or environmental protection, states serve as both innovators and defenders when federal action falls short. The Climate Change Superfund Act continues that tradition. It applies the longstanding 'polluter pays' principle to today's climate disasters. Instead of asking the public to foot the entire bill, it holds the largest, most profitable global fossil fuel companies accountable for the damage their products have helped cause. Trump's executive order does not simply challenge this one law, but rather the very idea that states have the right to hold powerful interests accountable when Washington will not. By branding state efforts as 'illegal' simply because they conflict with his administration's ideological agenda, the president undermines the same state sovereignty that he once claimed to champion. Federalism was never meant to guarantee uniformity across all 50 states. It exists to empower states to meet the specific needs of their people. From fires in the West to floods in the Northeast, extreme weather is overwhelming local budgets. Communities everywhere are being forced to rebuild, and they have every right to demand that the companies who profited the most from pollution help pay for the recovery. Trump's executive is not for families struggling to rebuild after a disaster, nor for mayors trying to repair storm drains, nor for governors strengthening coastlines. Rather, it is for fossil fuel lobbyists, for billion-dollar polluters and for the same corporate interests that have fought climate and economic progress at every turn. The costs of climate change are here; the only question is who will pay those costs. States like New York are choosing fairness. We are choosing to make the biggest global polluters pay. The right to protect our communities belongs to the people and the leaders they elect, and it's not limited by the whims of Washington insiders or oil industry lobbyists. We intend to defend that right, in the courts, in the legislature and in the court of public opinion, for as long as it takes. Liz Krueger is a New York state senator and Jeffrey Dinowitz is a New York assemblyman. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
