Republicans target NYS law that charges polluters for climate change
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is one of the backers of a bill that counters states' ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Credit: Bloomberg/Al Drago
ALBANY — Republican members of Congress are looking to end New York's and Vermont’s laws that require fossil fuel companies to pay for damage from superstorms and other remediation from climate change.
The two states in 2024 became the first to pass what are known as "climate superfund acts," which aim to shield taxpayers from the cost of environmental damage by requiring the world’s biggest polluters to pay billions of dollars for their part in climate change. Other states are looking to pass similar legislation.
New York’s law requires big fossil fuel companies to pay $75 billion over 25 years.
The laws have become the focus of numerous legal battles, with major gas and oil companies fighting off lawsuits from states and cities. The Justice Department last year filed suit against New York and Vermont in an effort to keep the states' laws from taking effect.
WHAT NEWSDAY FOUND
- Republican members of Congress are looking to end New York's and Vermont’s laws that require fossil fuel companies to pay for damage from superstorms and other remediation from climate change.
- The two states in 2024 passed what are known as "climate superfund acts," which aim to shield taxpayers from the cost of environmental damage by requiring big polluters to pay billions of dollars for their part in climate change.
- The laws have become the focus of legal battles, with gas and oil companies fighting off lawsuits from states and cities. The Justice Department sued New York and Vermont in an effort to keep the states' laws from taking effect.
The federal bill, introduced last week by U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wy.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), would retroactively prohibit climate liability lawsuits, keep states from enforcing energy penalty laws and dismiss the pending lawsuits, according to a news release. Only the federal government would have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and other interstate environmental standards.
"Energy security is national security, and we will not self-sabotage our critical industries with a cascade of costly lawsuits and extreme penalties that jeopardize American drilling," Hageman said in the release.
Despite an industry push, the legislation faces an uphill climb in Congress in a midterm election year with narrow margins in both chambers.
In the Senate, the measure would need at least seven Democratic votes to reach the chamber's 60-vote threshold to pass major legislation, and already Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand are vowing to block the legislation.
"This bill would slam the door on holding fossil fuel polluters accountable and shift the burden onto New Yorkers," Schumer (D- N.Y.) told Newsday in a statement. "Polluters should pay for the climate damage they caused, not taxpayers."
Industry groups, which have been pushing for federal legislation, say the state laws could lead to higher costs for consumers.
"These efforts to retroactively penalize companies for lawfully meeting consumer demand are misguided and counterproductive," Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, and Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, said in a statement. "Congress should act decisively to reaffirm federal authority over national energy policy and end this activist-driven state overreach."
Environmentalists say that without the climate superfund, the costs would fall on taxpayers.
"If big oil has their way, New Yorkers would pay $3 billion more per year for each of the next 25 years to pay for climate damages caused by big oil," Blair Horner, senior policy adviser with the New York Public Interest Research Group told Newsday.
Paying for climate change
Vermont in 2024 was the first state to pass legislation to hold polluters financially responsible for emitting the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change and drive severe weather including storms and flooding.
New York followed suit, modeling the legislation after state and federal superfund laws that force companies to pay for cleanup after polluting land and waterways. Businesses are fined based on their emissions, and that revenue goes to repairs from superstorms and to climate-related infrastructure and resilience projects.
Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) filed a legal brief in January opposing attacks on New York's law.
"When big polluters put our nation at risk, they must be held accountable," Gillibrand said in a statement to Newsday. "This new legislation would shield big corporations while leaving the rest of us vulnerable to the disastrous climate, health and environmental ramifications that would follow."
Ken Lovett, a spokesperson for Gov. Kathy Hochul, told Newsday the Democrat would fight attempts to kill the Climate Superfund. "This is just a continuation of the assault on clean energy by Washington Republicans and their leader Donald Trump, who say climate change is a hoax," he said.
Congressional challenges
Aside from the Senate's 60-vote threshold, in the House the measure would come before a narrowly split chamber, with Republicans holding only a narrow four-vote edge.
The proposal already is falling flat with Long Island's two Republican congressmen.
"Gov. Hochul has gone too far, but this bill isn’t likely to be the answer," Rep. Nick LaLota (R-Amityville) told Newsday in an emailed statement. If the bill reaches the House floor, LaLota said he would evaluate it based on "whether it supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and whether it safeguards our environment for our children and grandchildren."
Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-Bayport) in a statement provided to Newsday said he does not believe the proposal will move forward this legislative cycle.
U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) said any effort to undermine New York’s ability to hold polluters accountable is "deeply concerning."
"These laws protect taxpayers, reinforce environmental responsibility, and ensure those who caused the damage help pay to fix it," he said in a statement to Newsday. "We should be strengthening this approach — not rolling it back — and I will oppose any effort that shifts the burden onto taxpayers."
If passed, the measure would likely face legal challenges, one constitutional expert said.
Superseding state law in this way is a "a little bit of gray area," said Julie Novkov, dean of the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany.
This bill, she said, tells the states that they can't do things in an area where the federal government seems to be stepping back. "If there’s one thing that can be guaranteed, it's that if this thing passes, there will be lawyers."
Newsday's Laura Figueroa Hernandez contributed to this story.
How investigators hunted Gilgo Beach serial killer ... FeedMe: Mish Salad coffee shop ... Are the Knicks in trouble? ... Summer movie preview ... Get the latest news and more great videos at NewsdayTV
How investigators hunted Gilgo Beach serial killer ... FeedMe: Mish Salad coffee shop ... Are the Knicks in trouble? ... Summer movie preview ... Get the latest news and more great videos at NewsdayTV



