| |
Vermont Defends Landmark Climate Law 03/31 06:10
(AP) -- Vermont's effort to make fossil fuel companies pay for damage caused
by climate change was tested Monday in a federal courtroom, where the state
argued that two lawsuits challenging its groundbreaking 2024 law should be
thrown out.
Vermont became the first state to enact a climate superfund law, modeled on
the federal superfund law that taxed petroleum and chemical companies to pay to
clean up sites polluted by toxic waste. It took action after suffering
catastrophic summer flooding in 2023 as well as damage from other extreme
weather, which scientists say is occurring more frequently due to climate
change. The money it collects would be used for climate adaptation projects,
such as upgrades to stormwater drainage systems, sewage treatment plants and
roads.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a top oil and gas industry trade group, the
American Petroleum Institute, sued Vermont over the law in December 2024,
calling it unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The Department of
Justice also sued Vermont and New York after President Donald Trump ordered
Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against states that may be
overreaching their authority in how they regulate energy development. In suing,
Bondi called Vermont's law and a similar one signed by New York's Democratic
Gov. Kathy Hochul "burdensome and ideologically motivated" and said they
threaten American energy independence and national security.
Vermont insists its law doesn't conflict with federal law or policy
In asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuits Monday, Vermont argued that it has
the authority to raise revenue, protect the health and welfare of its citizens
and mitigate environmental harms. The state also said that the law does not
conflict with federal law or policy, regulate fossil fuel emissions or punish
fossil fuel producers.
"As a sovereign state, Vermont gets to do certain things that are exercises
of a traditional state authority. The Superfund Act operates squarely in those
areas of traditional state authority," Jonathan Rose of the Vermont attorney
general's office said in U.S. District Court in Rutland.
The plaintiffs in both cases, however, argue that Vermont can't legally
impose liability or penalties on out-of-state energy producers for harms
arising from out-of-state and global greenhouse gas emissions.
"This case is not about Vermont's ability to raise revenue and protect the
health and welfare of its residents. It's about Vermont's attempt to subject
global energy production activity to Vermont law, which brazenly disregards the
constitutional division of power in the federal government and the states,"
said DOJ attorney Riley Walters.
While other courts have allowed the application of a state law to
out-of-state conduct, those cases involved direct and traceable connections
between the behavior and the harm, he said.
"It's impossible to trace in-state harm to any particular source of
greenhouse gas emissions, let alone to the fossil fuel production that is even
further down along the alleged causal chain," he said. "There is not a direct
and traceable connection between oil that's extracted in Texas or in Saudi
Arabia and a flood or some other weather event that takes place in Vermont."
Two dozen other states that oppose Vermont's law have intervened in the case
West Virginia, a top producer of natural gas and coal, is leading two dozen
states intervening in the case with the Chamber and API, out of concern that
Vermont will demand to recover billions of dollars from major energy producers
and oil refiners in their states. Meanwhile, the Conservation Law Foundation,
an environmental advocacy group in New England, and the Northeast Organic
Farming Association of Vermont are supporting Vermont in the litigation.
Attorney Adeline Rolnick, representing the conservation foundation and
farmers, told the judge Monday that granting the plaintiffs' motions to strike
down the law "would give the federal government this roving license to seek to
enjoin any state law that it disagrees with simply by pleading preemption.
"That would be quite an expansion of the federal role in our state-federal
system, and the court should instead require the United States to show concrete
imminent injury like any other litigant," she said.
Judge Mary Kay Lanthier took the motions under advisement and said she would
issue rulings as soon as possible.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said that it's looking forward to a decision in
the case. Marty Durbin, president of the Global Energy Institute at the
chamber, said that "Vermont's attempt to impose massive retroactive penalties
on energy producers will be disastrous for American families."
"Reliable, affordable energy helps power economic growth and enhances the
quality of life for American families and communities," he said in a statement.
"It defies logic that Vermont would pursue gigantic penalties from companies
who are meeting consumer and business demand for this essential resource."
Republican Gov. Phil Scott allowed the bill to become law without his
signature, saying he was concerned about Vermont taking on the oil industry
alone. Since then, the idea has gained traction elsewhere. In addition to New
York, other Democratic-controlled states are also considering climate superfund
laws, while others are seeking damages from fossil fuel companies in state
courts for harms caused by climate change.
"This is the first time that a state legislature has taken the gigantic step
of pursuing polluters and holding them accountable to clean up the mess that
they've made," said Jennifer Rushlow, interim vice president for CLF Vermont.
A Dartmouth College research team estimated the world's biggest corporations
have caused $28 trillion in climate damage. The researchers published a study
last year with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than
half the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers.
|
|
