Latest news with #ClimateSuperfundAct
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.
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The climate superfund and protecting the health of our kids
Sen. Raj Mukherji speaks at a rally in Trenton on Sept. 30, 2024, in support of the Climate Superfund Act, which would require fossil fuel firms to pay for economic damages borne of climate change. (Courtesy of Food & Water Watch) I have spent the last 10 years working with thousands of wonderful health professionals in New Jersey and across the country who are speaking out about climate change and health. One problem most people recognize is the obvious (and predicted) increase in the frequency and severity of flooding, wildfires, and heat waves. Lately, medical colleagues from the Carolinas to California tell us stories about how flooding and wildfires are slamming their patients. Over the years, I have heard too many stories about people hurt in storms, children with asthma suffering severe respiratory effects from wildfire smoke, and older people having heart attacks brought on by heat waves — three among many more frightening, sometimes deadly, predicted health impacts. From Hurricane Sandy to the wildfire smoke of 2023, it's abundantly clear that New Jersey will also not escape the reality of climate science. Unfortunately, there is a second category of major health concern here. Public health professionals focus on the phrase 'social determinants of health.' These are defined as: 'the conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and play that affect virtually all health and quality-of life outcomes.' The most obvious examples are, again, the severe weather events that tear up roads and bridges, prevent the shipment and delivery of goods, overrun our water treatment plants, destroy farmers' fields, wipe out crops, and on and on. The full costs imposed on society for all this — including medical costs — are going through the roof. The nexus of economic loss and damage to the social determinants of health is irrefutably growing. If you don't believe that idea is true, consider the cost to protect your home. Across this country, home insurance costs are skyrocketing. Big insurers like State Farm, Allstate, and Farmers are no longer offering home insurance in entire states. This problem is spreading quickly, including in New Jersey. The physicians, nurses, veterinarians, and other health professionals within Clinicians for Climate Action New Jersey have front-row seats to this slowly unfolding crisis. In these seats, you can't miss that the cost to New Jerseyans will be beyond staggering. Meanwhile, as countless court cases are demonstrating, including from New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, fossil fuel companies have understood for decades the harm their products would do to the environment, leading to these devastating health harms. The fossil fuel industry misled the public, denied the realities of climate change, and obstructed efforts to decrease its impact. At the same time, fossil fuel companies continue to bring in record profits. The CEO of Chevron said, 'In 2023, we returned more cash to shareholders and produced more oil and natural gas than any year in the company's history.' What can New Jersey do? Last year, New Jersey legislators began to consider a new idea: the creation of a 'Climate Superfund.' This initiative mirrors laws that have passed in New York and Vermont, with other states on the same path. The idea is simple: Given the vast costs that New Jersey has spent already on climate change damage, it is only fair that fossil fuel companies share those costs. Funds collected by the state would be spent on essential climate resilience projects, including infrastructure improvements, disaster preparedness, health initiatives, and more. This is a fair, commonsense step toward protecting our state's financial stability and the health of our communities. This is taxpayer relief. Beloved New Jersey baseball icon Yogi Berra once said, 'The future ain't what it used to be.' He was right. If we don't stick to our commitments, our children and grandchildren will rightfully resent the future we are leaving them. New Jersey was a leader in passing the Spill Act in 1976 to hold polluters responsible for toxic pollution sites, which led to the passage of the national Superfund program. A generation later, it's time for New Jersey to lead to hold climate polluters accountable. Dan Quinlan is the co-leader of the Clinicians for Climate Action New Jersey. CCANJ's mission is to promote clean energy initiatives and programs that will protect public health and reduce the impacts of climate change on New Jersey's communities.
Boston Globe
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
It's time to make the polluters pay the price for climate change
Recent exposés of internal documents show that these Big Oil companies have long understood with Instead of finding new business models or at least warning the public and government officials, these companies conspired to wage a massive disinformation campaign to prevent regulators, investors, and consumers from understanding the risks their products were creating. And now regular people are Advertisement That's not fair. The companies that created this mess should help pay to clean it up. That's exactly what the Someone will have to pay for the climate harms and extreme weather disasters our communities are already facing, and that we will continue to experience with growing regularity and lethality in the coming years. Advertisement Should all of that burden be borne by working families and local businesses? Or should the corporations that made By supporting the Climate Superfund Act, Rhode Island lawmakers would ensure that at least some of the costs of climate change fall on those most responsible. Rhode Islanders have already paid too much for Big Oil's reckless conduct. It's time to make the polluters pay. Aaron Regunberg is a former Rhode Island state representative and director of the Climate Accountability Project at Public Citizen. Cassidy DiPaola is a native Rhode Islander and director at the Make Polluters Pay campaign.
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hochul approves more natural gas pumping to meet cold-weather demand despite NY's green push – and Con Ed's proposed hikes
So much for that green new spiel. Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration — facing the heat over Con Edison's proposed double-digit gas and electric hikes — is stepping up gas production that flies in the face of New York's controversial green energy law. The administration approved permits to expand the capacity of the 414-mile Iroquois pipeline and pump more natural gas into New York City and southern Connecticut in a move to maintain adequate supply during the coldest days of the year — and avoid freezeouts. The state Department of Environmental Conservation approved the permits even though it admitted it's 'inconsistent with and would interfere with the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limits' as deviating from the plan to ween the Empire State off fossil fuels sent environmental activists infto a frenzy. 'The natural gas system could fail under certain circumstances,' said John Howard, a former commissioner of the state Public Service Commission, which regulated utilities. 'Safety and reliability can't be compromised.' The DEC permits approve expansions to the Iroquois pipeline's compressor stations in Athens, and Dover Plains, both in the Hudson Valley — to boost the gas capacity to Con Ed and National Grid in the city. A DEC spokesperson called the permits 'essential' to maintain the downstate gas supply. 'As a condition of the permits, Iroquois will invest $5 million in mitigation efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions and make investments to reduce environmental burdens within disadvantaged communities, such as a heat pump program and EV charging stations,' the spokesperson said. 'This investment is in addition to other measures Iroquois will implement to minimize emissions.' The permit approval comes with $3.5 million to be invested in a Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Fund for projects in the National Grid and Con Edison service areas — and another $1.5 million for programs for electric vehicle charging stations and other environmental measures in the Dover and Athens area. Still, climate change activists disrupted a PSC meeting last week to protest the gas supply expansion, as flouting the state's green energy goals and harmful to the environment and public health. 'The Iroquois Pipeline, one of New York's most notorious fossil fuel projects, transports fracked gas from the Canadian border downstate into New York City,' the Sane Energy Project said in a statement. 'Hochul's approval will double two gas compressor stations in Greene and Dutchess counties despite emitting toxic chemicals linked to respiratory diseases, reproductive issues, and cancer.' Hochul's office claimed the ramping up does not conflict with her clean energy goals. 'From signing the Climate Superfund Act to investing $1 billion in clean energy projects in this year's budget, Governor Hochul has demonstrated a clear commitment to an affordable and reliable transition to a clean energy economy,' said spokesman Paul DeMichele. 'Projects like this one are thoroughly evaluated to advance that goal while also ensuring the safety and reliability of our energy distribution systems.' National Grid/KeySpan said natural gas provides more than 70% of New York's heat energy while Con Ed says 63% of its electricity through its lines is generated by gas. The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019 requires the state and its energy producers and consumers to ween off fossil fuels by slashing gas emissions by 40% by 2030 with the goal of achieving 100% zero-carbon-emission electricity by 2040. The green governor and the Democratic-led legislature have also banned gas stoves, furnaces and propane heating in new buildings and, in December, she extended the state's fracking ban by prohibiting a new technique to use carbon dioxide to extract natural gas. But the DEC this time sided with a priority of making sure there's enough gas delivered during an arctic cold spell — so that the heat stays on and customers don't freeze as was almost the case in 2022, when Winter Storm Elliott had city residents facing bone-chilling 10 degree temperatures. Con Edison and National Grid 'were barely able to provide adequate supply during Winter Storm Elliot until the temperatures increased, and weather improved,' a PSC report backing the expansion revealed. 'Had the weather been colder, the utilities would likely have been unable to avoid thousands and potentially millions of gas outages,' said the report. 'The Winter Storm Elliott event thus demonstrates the risks associated with over-reliance on CNG [compressed natural gas].' The PSC emphasized the need to diversify and expand the utilities' gas supply resources into the downstate region to maintain safety and reliability, even as 'state and local actions reduce demand pressures on the system over time.' The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a report in 2023 recommending the need for New York and other Northeast to bolster their gas energy infrastructure. The action comes amid outrage over Con Edison's request to jack up electric bills by 11.4% and send gas bills soaring 13.3% for its 3.6 million customers. ConEd's proposed rate hikes would cost some inflation-weary New Yorkers $1,848 more per year compared to five years ago, if approved.
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Attorney General Coleman announces lawsuit over New York climate tax
HENDERSON, Ky. (WEHT) – Attorney General Russell Coleman announced the filing of a multistate lawsuit challenging New York's Climate Superfund Act. AG Coleman says the act will put a tax on American energy producers and job creators. AG Coleman joined a 22-state coalition to 'protect' Kentucky's 'affordable and reliable' energy production. New York's law could impose $75 billion of liability on energy producers that use fossil fuels by requiring them to pay into that state's 'climate Superfund' based on past greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 through 2018. Gov. Beshear signs tax cut bill 'For generations, Kentucky workers and energy producers kept the lights on and powered this country's greatness. Now, New York wants to punish us with a politically motivated tax that will drive up utility prices and endanger Kentucky jobs,' said Attorney General Coleman. 'They can try to disparage us as 'flyover country,' but my two dozen AG colleagues and I are going to fight this outrageous tax with everything we've got.' Jasper kids meet legislators to propose the persimmon as state fruit AG Coleman's office says the lawsuit shows how the law will be devastating to traditional energy producers, including coal producers in Kentucky, leaving them with no other option than to cease operations, resulting in massive job losses. Proceeds from New York's Superfund are earmarked for 'climate change projects,' including such things as improvements to New York's storm water drainage system and air-conditioning of its public buildings. The coalition is asking the court to, among other things, issue an injunction and declare the Act preempted by federal statutes. The lawsuit can be viewed below. Final-Superfund-ComplaintDownload 'Eyewitness News. Everywhere you are.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
