Latest news with #NationalCaucusofEnvironmentalLegislators
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Looking to keep wildlife out of the ‘emergency room,' states expand managers' role
The Mojave desert tortoise is among the species in Utah in need of conservation help. Earlier this year, state lawmakers enacted a tax on renewable energy development to provide more funding for wildlife managers to support non-game species. (Photo by Dana Wilson/Bureau of Land Management/Flickr) State wildlife agencies have a big job. While the federal government protects animals listed under the Endangered Species Act, states are tasked with keeping the vast majority of other species out of the 'emergency room.' Habitat loss, pollution and climate change are making that job much more difficult. At the same time, states are finding it harder to count on the hunting and fishing revenues that have long funded most of their work. Agencies say they have more challenges than ever before, and less money to take them on. In many states, lawmakers are rethinking the long-standing model for wildlife management. They're considering new funding sources to make the agencies less reliant on license fees. They're asking wildlife managers to expand their work beyond traditional 'game' species, adding protections for threatened insects and other animals. And some are scrutinizing the commissions that have long governed wildlife management. Some of the proposals have seen broad support from outdoors lovers who want to strengthen their wildlife agencies. Others have drawn opposition from sporting groups, who fear the new focus will diminish hunting and fishing opportunities. 'We're seeing quite a bit of action this year,' said Logan Christian, wildlife and habitat specialist with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. 'We definitely have noticed that states are working on strengthening their wildlife agencies.' As Stateline previously reported, New Mexico enacted the most sweeping overhaul this year. It renamed the Department of Game & Fish as the Department of Wildlife, giving it a more explicit focus on non-game species. Budget writers provided $10.5 million in new funding over the next three years to help threatened species. And lawmakers created a new process for appointing the agency's commissioners, with guidelines ensuring a diversity of expertise and experience. Wildlife advocates in other states say the New Mexico overhaul was a game changer. But lawmakers elsewhere are taking a more piecemeal approach. Numerous states are reconsidering their wildlife agencies' funding model. 'There's definitely a growing awareness that the current management system is outdated and really unfit for 21st century challenges,' said Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All, a nonprofit focused on overhauling state wildlife governance. 'State wildlife agencies are seeing that they can't rely on hunting and fishing license fees to be able to do this work.' There's definitely a growing awareness that the current management system is outdated and really unfit for 21st century challenges. – Michelle Lute, executive director of Wildlife for All Earlier this year, lawmakers in Utah enacted a new tax on wind and solar projects that will help fund the state's wildlife agency. The revenue could double the department's funding to protect non-game species, from $5 million to $10 million. 'We have a funding model in place for game species,' said Paul Thompson, administrator of the Species Protection Account with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 'Funding to work on some of our native species programs has been really hard to come by.' The new revenue could allow the agency to invest in more biologists, conservation easements, watershed restoration projects and native fish hatchery programs. State Rep. Casey Snider, the Republican who sponsored the bill, argued that the clean energy sector should pay because its development is harming Utah's habitat. 'Wind and solar projects have an outsized impact on [non-game] species, and they have not been contributing financially,' he said. But industry leaders said the law will threaten the state's energy development. '[The measure will] severely strain the economics of an existing project and send a negative message to developers and the financial institutions that provide capital for these projects,' said Theresa Foxley, chief of staff to rPlus Energies, a renewable developer, in testimony to lawmakers. Lawmakers in Oregon are considering an increase to the state's tax on hotel and short-term rental stays to help fund non-game wildlife work. The proposal would bring in about $30 million annually. State Rep. Ken Helm, the bill's Democratic sponsor, said the state wildlife agency's division to manage non-game species 'has come and gone over the last 30 years as funding is available.' Growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity have created urgency to find a stable funding source, he said. Helm said the lodging tax is a logical source, because the state's tourism industry is centered on the outdoors. He noted that Oregon's natural resources agencies receive only a tiny fraction of the state's general revenue. Travel and tourism groups oppose the bill, arguing it could drive visitors elsewhere. Helm has also proposed a bill that would bring in wildlife funding through an income tax increase. He said his message to fellow lawmakers was: 'I've given you two ways to get the money we need for this agency. Nobody's been able to come up with a better idea. Just pick one.' The bill was heard in committee earlier this month, but has not yet advanced. As states rethink wildlife management, New Mexico offers a new model Meanwhile, lawmakers in Hawaii approved a 'green fee' — a lodging tax increase of 0.75% that Democratic Gov. Josh Green's office estimates will bring in $100 million annually to help protect the state from climate change. While the fund is not explicitly focused on wildlife, it's expected to contribute to efforts such as coral reef restoration and watershed protection that will benefit important habitats. State Rep. Amy Perruso, a Democrat who was among the advocates for a green fee, said the COVID-19 pandemic was a wakeup call. 'With the absence of tourists, we saw a lot more fish in the ocean, everything about the environment was so much more healthy because we didn't have 10 million extra people,' she said. 'If we're going to do something to protect the environment, [tourism] is a logical connection.' Washington state was among the first to significantly invest in non-game conservation through state tax revenue, with legislation enacted two years ago. The budget passed by lawmakers this session continues that work, with $14 million set aside for biodiversity and species recovery each of the next two years. Lawmakers in Kansas and North Carolina also proposed using more general fund revenue for wildlife work, although those measures have not advanced. In other states, lawmakers are focused on expanding their wildlife agencies' mission to more non-game species. Last year, Colorado gave wildlife managers the authority to manage insects and other invertebrates, as well as rare plants. 'Invertebrates are wildlife, and their conservation benefits the entire ecosystem, including the species [state wildlife officials] traditionally managed,' said Richard Reading, vice chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. 'They do everything from creating our soils to filtering our water to pollinating the food we eat.' Reading also serves as vice president of science and conservation at the Butterfly Pavilion, an insect zoo. He noted that studies are showing that many invertebrate species are in rapid decline. In addition to expanding the agency's authority, lawmakers provided funding for six staff members to take on the additional work. A similar bill in Nevada, focused on invertebrates, advanced through the Assembly's natural resources committee. 'There's definitely concerns about declines in pollinator species,' said Assemblymember Howard Watts, a Democrat who sponsored the bill. 'Our wildlife agency can and should take proactive action to do research, surveys and habitat improvement to keep these species off the [endangered species list].' Watts said the bill would allow wildlife managers to consider insects in state plans to protect imperiled species. He said the Nevada Department of Wildlife has requested an entomologist position if it's asked to take on the additional species. Beyond that, he said, the measure would not require additional money, as it's focused on voluntary, proactive work, rather than additional regulations. State wildlife agencies focus on 'hook and bullet' work. Some see a new path. Another bill in Pennsylvania would expand wildlife managers' authority to include insects. That measure has been approved by the House Environmental and Natural Resources Protection Committee. Sporting groups have largely been supportive of efforts to provide new funding sources to manage non-game species. But some are skeptical of plans to expand agencies' mission without an increase in revenue. 'Most hunters and anglers understand that healthy game populations are dependent on ecosystem integrity,' said Devin O'Dea, Western policy and conservation manager with Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a nonprofit focused on public lands. 'But when you take a model that's been developed with the intent of enforcing regulations for fish and game species, expand that scope without funding and additional capacity, it's a recipe for something to fall off the plate.' Meanwhile, some legislators want to rethink the commission model that oversees wildlife governance. Critics say that governors often select commissioners who are hunting guides, farmers and political donors. Once appointed, they enact wildlife policies to suit their economic interests. Florida state Rep. Anna V. Eskamani, a Democrat, drafted a bill that would overhaul the state's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Her proposal would increase the board from seven to nine members. It would designate seats for scientists, conservationists, local officials, farmers, hunters and anglers. 'The commission has made decisions not based on science or conservation, but based on developers or landowners that engage in agricultural practices,' she said. 'We tried to strike a balance to ensure there are voices with an environmental background, with a conservation and wildlife background, with an academic background.' The bill did not advance, but Eskamani said grassroots support is building for systemic changes in wildlife management. Some sporting groups are more wary of commission overhaul proposals. 'We have seen examples where proposed changes to commissions were politically motivated or motivated by anti-hunting and anti-angling interests,' said Kent Keene senior manager for Western states and agriculture policy with the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, a group that promotes hunting and fishing priorities on Capitol Hill. 'When those changes are focused on science-based needs, then the sportsmen's community has a long history of supporting those steps to ensure we are protecting our heritage.' Some hunting and fishing groups have emphasized that the expanded mission should come with additional funding, so agencies aren't stretched thin. Keene noted that hunters and anglers pay an excise tax on the purchase of gear, which provides an important funding source for wildlife agencies. Some have proposed a similar 'backpack tax' on gear for hikers, birdwatchers and others. Another proposal in New Hampshire would give the wildlife agency's executive director the authority to make policy decisions, relegating the Fish and Game Commission to an advisory body. That bill did not advance. Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawmakers fear AI data centers will drive up residents' power bills
Construction proceeds at a data center in Eagle Mountain, Utah, in 2021. Across the country, some state lawmakers are concerned that the growing data center industry is creating a surge in demand for new electricity and grid infrastructure. () For the first time in decades, America needs to produce more electricity. This is the second of two States Newsroom stories examining the implications of the growing need for electricity largely from artificial intelligence and data centers. Read the first story here. In many places, a sharp uptick in power demand has been driven by data centers, the industrial buildings that house huge banks of computer servers and support our increasingly digital society. State lawmakers have long sought to attract such operations with generous tax breaks and incentives. But now, some are concerned that the infrastructure needed to add all those data centers to the electric grid will drive up residents' utility bills. The growing use of artificial intelligence, which requires massive amounts of computing power, has added to that worry. 'We're going to have tremendous stress from AI,' said New Jersey state Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee. 'We have a crisis coming our way in electric rates. These outrageous increases are going to be put on the citizens. Why should they bear the rate increases?' Smith has authored a bill that would require new AI data centers in New Jersey to arrange to supply their power from new, clean energy sources, if other states in the region enact similar measures. The bill is among roughly a dozen proposals in state legislatures nationwide seeking to ensure that data centers don't result in increased rates for other electric customers, according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. Smith and lawmakers in other states with clean energy targets also say the demand for AI could derail their climate goals. Those goals are also under attack from President Donald Trump, who this week directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to block enforcement of all state climate policies. Trump also issued orders seeking to boost coal production, in part to meet the energy demands from AI operations. Trump signs orders targeting revival of 'beautiful, clean coal' Tech companies note that their data centers are crucial for everything from credit card transactions to remote work to streaming Netflix. And the centers create tax revenue and jobs in the states that host them, the companies argue. Data centers are just the first wave in a new era of increased electricity demand. Electric vehicles, a growing manufacturing sector and the electrification of household appliances are all expected to use more power in the years to come. Industry leaders say it's unfair to single out data centers, when more power will be needed for a variety of sectors. '[Targeting data centers] risks creating unjustified distinctions amongst similar customers,' said Dan Diorio, senior director of state policy with the Data Center Coalition, a membership association for tech companies. Virginia hosts the world's largest concentration of data centers, and is at the epicenter of debates over the industry's future. State lawmakers commissioned a study, published last year, to outline the industry's impacts. Researchers found that data centers are currently paying their fair share for electricity. But the immense energy demands they're forecasted to create in the coming years 'will likely increase system costs for all customers, including non-data center customers,' the report concluded. The study found that unconstrained demand largely from data centers would drive up Virginia's energy usage 183% by 2040. With no new data centers, energy use would only grow 15%. In addition to the costs of building more power plants, the report said, utilities will also need to install more substations, transformers and distribution lines. 'They sounded an alarm that the steep increase — if this is unchecked — would quickly [raise consumers' rates],' said state Del. Rip Sullivan, a Democrat who has been at the center of discussions over the industry's future in Virginia. Sullivan sponsored a bill that would have required data centers to meet energy efficiency standards to qualify for certain tax exemptions, but the measure did not advance this session. Virginia lawmakers passed a measure this session directing state regulators to determine whether utilities should create a special rate that certain customers such as data centers must pay. States rethink data centers as 'electricity hogs' strain the grid Several other states are considering similar bills that aim to put data centers — or large electricity users more generally — in their own 'rate class.' Proponents say that would prevent the costs of generating enough electricity for those centers from being spread to household customers. Data center proponents have argued that regulators are best suited to set the rules, not lawmakers. 'The industry is committed to ensuring it continues to pay its full cost of service to ensure that other customers are protected from any unnecessary costs,' said Aaron Tinjum, vice president of energy for the Data Center Coalition. Sullivan noted that data centers are critical to our digital society, and that the Virginia study found that the industry creates construction jobs and local tax revenue. But Virginia also aims to produce 100% of its electricity from sources without any carbon emissions by 2050 — a goal that will become more difficult if power demands skyrocket. The state urgently needs a comprehensive strategy to manage all those interests, Sullivan said. For years, states have tried to lure data centers with tax incentives or exemptions. At least 36 states, both conservative and liberal, offer such incentives. But now, some of the states that have been most successful at attracting the industry are having second thoughts. Georgia state Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, noted that electric customers in the state have seen six rate increases in less than two years. Data centers, he said, use immense amounts of power and water, while creating few long-term jobs. On the other hand, he noted that they have proven to be a substantial source of property tax revenue. 'You get good and bad with the data centers, but I just want to make sure they pay their way,' he said. Hufstetler authored a bill that would have barred regulators from raising rates because of the costs of serving data centers. While the bill did not pass this session, the Georgia Public Service Commission approved a new rule with similar protections, forcing data centers to cover those costs. The move is a good start, Hufstetler said, but legislation is still needed because regulators can quickly roll back their own rules. Meanwhile, Georgia lawmakers passed a measure last year that would have paused the state's sales tax exemption for data centers. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp vetoed the bill, arguing that an abrupt change would undermine companies' planned investments in Georgia. Consumer advocates say more states should rescind their incentives. States Debate Whether to Restrict — Or Invite — Crypto Mining Many data centers don't bring in enough tax revenue to cover their tax breaks, said Kasia Tarczynska, senior research analyst at Good Jobs First, a policy group that tracks government subsidies related to economic development. 'It's not a winning program for state budgets,' she said. Oregon has seen a rapid increase in data centers in the eastern part of the state, said state Rep. Pam Marsh, a Democrat. 'Data center growth is outstripping every other kind of conventional user category,' she said. 'There's lots of evidence that the demand of those data centers has already been shifted onto residential ratepayers.' Marsh has sponsored a bill that would require data centers and other large energy users to be assigned to a separate rate class that accounts for the added costs of their power demands. In a letter to Oregon lawmakers, Amazon Web Services — the computing subsidiary of the retail giant — said it has worked with utilities to ensure its costs aren't being passed to other ratepayers. The company noted its commitments to purchase large amounts of renewable energy, and said major grid upgrades are needed to enable more clean power and the deployment of technologies like electric vehicles. Amazon Web Services did not grant an interview request. Two other industry leaders, Google and OpenAI, did not respond to Stateline inquiries. Utah enacted a law this year that allows 'large load' customers such as data centers to craft separate contracts with utilities. It's intended to ensure that household ratepayers don't get hit with additional costs to power those facilities. Republican state Sen. Scott Sandall, who sponsored the bill, did not respond to a Stateline interview request. 'This new demand requires billions of dollars of capital investment,' said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy nonprofit. 'The normal model is you spread that investment cost across all consumers. That's not reasonable here.' Slocum said data center users have been shying away from previous commitments to use clean energy sources, at the same time Trump has pushed to increase fossil fuel production. Some lawmakers have noted that many data centers are being built to meet forecasted demand from AI. They worry that overhyped projections could force utilities to build expensive infrastructure that never gets used. We have a crisis coming our way in electric rates. These outrageous increases are going to be put on the citizens. – New Jersey Democratic state Sen. Bob Smith Industry leaders say the build-out of data centers is driven by consumer demands and note that such facilities have made computing far more efficient. They also argue that digital infrastructure is important for national security, ensuring that Americans' data is not passing through overseas facilities with weak security. And they warn that companies may be wary of investing in states with legislation seen as disruptive. 'This is an industry that is trying to build out to meet unprecedented demand,' said Diorio, of the Data Center Coalition. '[State legislation] can send a market signal that there's going to be friction in that market.' Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Colorado bill would require climate change warnings on gas pumps
DENVER (KDVR) — Would a sign at the pump telling you about climate and health impacts stop you from buying that next tank of gasoline? Would it at least make you think about it? That's what Colorado legislators are grappling with as they debate a bill, HB25-1277, Increasing Transparency Impact of Fuel Products, that would require retailers selling or displaying for sale certain fuel products to provide information to consumers about the impact of consuming the fuel. The bill, as written, would require gas stations to label fuel products with the phrase: 'WARNING: Use of this product releases air pollutants and greenhouse gases, known by the state of Colorado to be linked to significant health impacts and global heating, respectively, pursuant to section 25-5-1603, C.R.S. Tampering with this label is a violation of section 18-4-510, C.R.S.' Proposed statement for display on certain fuel products Experts weigh in on potential tariff impact The labels would be required on fuel products, either at the pump or on the container, beginning July 1, 2026. The labels must be printed in black ink on a white background, and in type no smaller than 16 points, and displayed in a 'conspicuous' location. Any violations of the labels would need to be cured within 45 days of notification, or the seller would be in violation of Colorado's fair trade practices. Proponents of the measure eked out a 33-30 vote to pass the measure along to the Senate on Thursday, where it was assigned to the Transportation and Energy Committee for discussion. The fuels that would be labeled under the bill are any gas or liquid produced through processing crude oil, liquid hydrocarbons at a natural gas plant, finished petroleum products at blending facilities and the conversion of biomass into biofuels, such as ethanol. Last month, Rep. June Joseph, one of the bill's primary sponsors, was selected to serve as Colorado's State Lead for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. The caucus is aimed at creating legislative change combating environmental challenges. Joseph said that the caucus was among what inspired her to take on more environmentally centered bills. 'Now more than ever, as we see the federal government working to erode our environmental sustainability, it is critical that states step up and lead,' Joseph said in an NCEL release. 'Colorado has long been at the forefront of environmental policy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to promote innovative solutions that protect our natural resources, combat climate change, and ensure a sustainable future for all.' Environmental and climate activists also applauded the measure on March 7, saying that accurate labeling is 'critical' to ensuring consumers receive accurate information about the environmental impacts of their fuel choices. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
New Jersey among states that want to make oil companies pay for climate disasters
The aftermath of a tornado from Hurricane Ida in Mullica Hill on September 2, 2021. New Jersey is among the states considering bills that would force fossil fuel companies to pay recovery costs for climate disasters. (Photo by Daniella Heminghaus for New Jersey Monitor) For many California residents, the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this year were the latest and most searing example of the devastating effects of climate change. Some estimates have pegged the damages and economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion. 'We've had disaster after disaster after disaster,' said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat. 'It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical.' Addis and Democratic lawmakers in nearly a dozen other states want to force the world's largest fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery costs of climate-related disasters. Last year, Vermont became the first state to pass a 'climate Superfund' law, followed soon after by New York. This session, 10 states have seen similar proposals, several of which have advanced in key committees. Advocates point to legislation in Maryland that has drawn support in both chambers, as well as to strong grassroots support in California after the Los Angeles wildfires. Lawmakers say the rapidly increasing cost of climate disasters — from wildfires to floods to sea level rise — is more than state budgets can bear. 'Climate Superfund is the 'it girl' policy of the [2025] session,' said Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. 'There's a lot of popularity in the idea of holding polluters responsible.' The momentum for these 'polluter pays' bills is tied to the maturation of attribution science. That new field of research can help calculate fossil fuel companies' contributions to historic emissions totals, as well as the role climate change played in causing or worsening natural disasters. Vermont's law was the first attempt to use that science to charge emitters for their role in causing devastating floods and other catastrophes. We've had disaster after disaster after disaster. It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical. – California Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis Fossil fuel companies and their allies have fought back hard. Late last year, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging Vermont's measure. The groups argue that emissions are governed by the federal Clean Air Act, precluding states from charging companies over global pollution. Neither group responded to a Stateline interview request. The Independent Petroleum Association of America also declined an interview request. A separate lawsuit, led by 22 Republican attorneys general, is challenging the New York law. And a conservative group has targeted Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, who helped draft the legal justification for climate Superfund policy. The group, Government Accountability and Oversight, has sought to subject Rothschild to a deposition, The New York Times reported, a move that some experts view as an intimidation tactic. Meanwhile, oil and gas executives asked President Donald Trump during a White House meeting this month to direct the Justice Department to join the legal fight against climate Superfund laws, The Wall Street Journal reported. Industry leaders are also pushing Congress to shield them from more than 30 lawsuits brought by state and local governments that aim to make them pay for some of the results of climate change. While experts expect a bruising legal battle over climate Superfund policies, the threat of lawsuits hasn't deterred more lawmakers from backing the concept. 'States were a little bit wary; they wondered, 'Is this some new radical plan?'' said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director with the Make Polluters Pay campaign, a coalition of groups backing such bills. 'Then one of the littlest states passed it and this powerhouse, New York, passed it. That really set the ball rolling.' Fossil fuel companies have cast doubt on attribution science. They also note that their production of oil and other products was done legally under U.S. and international regulations. 'Manufacturers will see this as a shakedown of any industry you don't like at some point in the future, even though in the past they were licensed and operated under government regulation,' Brett Vassey, president and CEO of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, said during legislative testimony about a climate Superfund proposal in that state. 'It will have a chilling effect on Virginia being able to grow its economy.' Proponents of Superfund legislation point to legal settlements with large tobacco companies in the 1990s. Although those companies also sold their products legally, they were held responsible because they knew about the harmful effects of those products and deceived the public. Most climate Superfund proposals target companies for their emissions over the past 30 or so years, after leading experts had documented the dangers of greenhouse gases. 'There's good documentation of how well the fossil fuel industry knew the probable long-term impacts of their product,' said Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat. 'Should an industry that made such historic profits over a period of time and made so many representations that we had no problem not bear any of the costs?' Golden and other lawmakers say it's becoming impossible for taxpayers to cover the costs of recovery from wildfires and other catastrophes. In Rhode Island, sea level rise is causing massive damage for coastal communities, said Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Boylan, who has sponsored a climate Superfund bill to help the state adapt. Some advocates also note that Trump's return to the White House has cut off the possibility of federal climate relief. 'All the states are affected by the disappearance of this federal funding,' said Gallo, of the state lawmakers group. 'States everywhere are going to be looking at some way to fill the gap.' This session, climate Superfund bills have been introduced in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia. While the bills are structured differently, they all seek to target the largest polluters — often covering companies that produced 1 billion metric tons of emissions over the last 30 or so years. Lawmakers say that applies to roughly 100 companies. The measures also take different approaches to assigning damages. Some direct state agencies to conduct complex studies to determine the costs of climate-caused disasters over a certain period, the approach pioneered by Vermont. Others set a fixed number that represents a conservative baseline for those damages. New York's law set that figure at $75 billion over a 25-year period. Many of the bills also require that significant amounts of the funding be directed to the communities hit hardest by pollution. Advocates are particularly optimistic about the measures in California and Maryland. Lawmakers in Maryland modified their bills to commission a study about the financial impacts of climate change. Those measures passed both the House and Senate, and legislators are working to reconcile the versions from each chamber. Figures produced by the study would be the backbone of a climate Superfund policy in a future session. 'From a legislative perspective, it's a shot in the dark as to what the costs are,' said Democratic Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, who sponsored one of the bills. 'This will give us the factual data needed to make a more well-educated decision on policy.' In New Jersey, an Assembly committee advanced a climate Superfund bill this month. State Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee and who sponsored the bill, said it will help to rebuild and fortify water treatment plants, schools and firehouses. He noted that Trump has called for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'The end of the world is coming; it's kind of hard to ignore,' Smith said. 'FEMA has been the backstop to help communities recover from disasters. If the handwriting isn't on the wall to all the states that they've got to deal with this, shame on them.' Lawmakers in many states have heard from mayors and other local government leaders that more climate recovery funding is essential. 'Municipal officials are getting behind [climate Superfund policies],' said Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat who has sponsored similar legislation. 'They're facing the costs of flooding, of droughts, of heat waves, and really asking for relief.' Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@ Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Climate disasters are on the rise. These states want to make oil companies pay.
Anna Schlobohm de Cruder stands for a portrait in March amid the remains of her Altadena, Calif., home, which was destroyed in the Eaton Fire early this year. California is among the states considering bills that would force fossil fuel companies to pay recovery costs for climate disasters. () For many California residents, the Los Angeles wildfires earlier this year were the latest and most searing example of the devastating effects of climate change. Some estimates have pegged the damages and economic losses from the fires at more than $250 billion. 'We've had disaster after disaster after disaster,' said Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat. 'It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical.' Addis and Democratic lawmakers in nearly a dozen other states want to force the world's largest fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery costs of climate-related disasters. Last year, Vermont became the first state to pass a 'climate Superfund' law, followed soon after by New York. This session, 10 states have seen similar proposals, several of which have advanced in key committees. Advocates point to legislation in Maryland that has drawn support in both chambers, as well as to strong grassroots support in California after the Los Angeles wildfires. Lawmakers say the rapidly increasing cost of climate disasters — from wildfires to floods to sea level rise — is more than state budgets can bear. 'Climate Superfund is the 'it girl' policy of the [2025] session,' said Ava Gallo, climate and energy program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. 'There's a lot of popularity in the idea of holding polluters responsible.' The momentum for these 'polluter pays' bills is tied to the maturation of attribution science. That new field of research can help calculate fossil fuel companies' contributions to historic emissions totals, as well as the role climate change played in causing or worsening natural disasters. Vermont's law was the first attempt to use that science to charge emitters for their role in causing devastating floods and other catastrophes. We've had disaster after disaster after disaster. It's the taxpayers and the insurance ratepayers that are bearing the cost. It's not sustainable, it's not right and it's not ethical. – California Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis Fossil fuel companies and their allies have fought back hard. Late last year, the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging Vermont's measure. The groups argue that emissions are governed by the federal Clean Air Act, precluding states from charging companies over global pollution. Neither group responded to a Stateline interview request. The Independent Petroleum Association of America also declined an interview request. A separate lawsuit, led by 22 Republican attorneys general, is challenging the New York law. And a conservative group has targeted Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, who helped draft the legal justification for climate Superfund policy. The group, Government Accountability and Oversight, has sought to subject Rothschild to a deposition, The New York Times reported, a move that some experts view as an intimidation tactic. Meanwhile, oil and gas executives asked President Donald Trump during a White House meeting this month to direct the Justice Department to join the legal fight against climate Superfund laws, The Wall Street Journal reported. Industry leaders are also pushing Congress to shield them from more than 30 lawsuits brought by state and local governments that aim to make them pay for some of the results of climate change. While experts expect a bruising legal battle over climate Superfund policies, the threat of lawsuits hasn't deterred more lawmakers from backing the concept. 'States were a little bit wary; they wondered, 'Is this some new radical plan?'' said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director with the Make Polluters Pay campaign, a coalition of groups backing such bills. 'Then one of the littlest states passed it and this powerhouse, New York, passed it. That really set the ball rolling.' Lawmakers hope to use this emerging climate science to charge oil companies for disasters Fossil fuel companies have cast doubt on attribution science. They also note that their production of oil and other products was done legally under U.S. and international regulations. 'Manufacturers will see this as a shakedown of any industry you don't like at some point in the future, even though in the past they were licensed and operated under government regulation,' Brett Vassey, president and CEO of the Virginia Manufacturers Association, said during legislative testimony about a climate Superfund proposal in that state. 'It will have a chilling effect on Virginia being able to grow its economy.' Proponents of Superfund legislation point to legal settlements with large tobacco companies in the 1990s. Although those companies also sold their products legally, they were held responsible because they knew about the harmful effects of those products and deceived the public. Most climate Superfund proposals target companies for their emissions over the past 30 or so years, after leading experts had documented the dangers of greenhouse gases. 'There's good documentation of how well the fossil fuel industry knew the probable long-term impacts of their product,' said Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat. 'Should an industry that made such historic profits over a period of time and made so many representations that we had no problem not bear any of the costs?' Golden and other lawmakers say it's becoming impossible for taxpayers to cover the costs of recovery from wildfires and other catastrophes. In Rhode Island, sea level rise is causing massive damage for coastal communities, said Democratic state Rep. Jennifer Boylan, who has sponsored a climate Superfund bill to help the state adapt. Some advocates also note that Trump's return to the White House has cut off the possibility of federal climate relief. 'All the states are affected by the disappearance of this federal funding,' said Gallo, of the state lawmakers group. 'States everywhere are going to be looking at some way to fill the gap.' This session, climate Superfund bills have been introduced in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Virginia. After a long slog, climate change lawsuits will finally put Big Oil on trial While the bills are structured differently, they all seek to target the largest polluters — often covering companies that produced 1 billion metric tons of emissions over the last 30 or so years. Lawmakers say that applies to roughly 100 companies. The measures also take different approaches to assigning damages. Some direct state agencies to conduct complex studies to determine the costs of climate-caused disasters over a certain period, the approach pioneered by Vermont. Others set a fixed number that represents a conservative baseline for those damages. New York's law set that figure at $75 billion over a 25-year period. Many of the bills also require that significant amounts of the funding be directed to the communities hit hardest by pollution. Advocates are particularly optimistic about the measures in California and Maryland. Lawmakers in Maryland modified their bills to commission a study about the financial impacts of climate change. Those measures passed both the House and Senate, and legislators are working to reconcile the versions from each chamber. Figures produced by the study would be the backbone of a climate Superfund policy in a future session. 'From a legislative perspective, it's a shot in the dark as to what the costs are,' said Democratic Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo, who sponsored one of the bills. 'This will give us the factual data needed to make a more well-educated decision on policy.' In New Jersey, an Assembly committee advanced a climate Superfund bill this month. State Sen. Bob Smith, a Democrat who chairs the Environment and Energy Committee and who sponsored the bill, said it will help to rebuild and fortify water treatment plants, schools and firehouses. He noted that Trump has called for the dismantling of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'The end of the world is coming; it's kind of hard to ignore,' Smith said. 'FEMA has been the backstop to help communities recover from disasters. If the handwriting isn't on the wall to all the states that they've got to deal with this, shame on them.' Lawmakers in many states have heard from mayors and other local government leaders that more climate recovery funding is essential. 'Municipal officials are getting behind [climate Superfund policies],' said Massachusetts state Sen. Jamie Eldridge, a Democrat who has sponsored similar legislation. 'They're facing the costs of flooding, of droughts, of heat waves, and really asking for relief.' Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@ SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
