Should polluters pay for climate change impacts? This RI bill could make it happen.

The idea behind the creation of a “Climate Superfund” for Rhode Island is simple: If you make a mess, you should clean it up.

In the case of climate change and all its impacts, from rising seas to heatwaves to inland flooding, environmental advocates say the perpetrators are fossil fuel companies, whose products are generating greenhouse gases that are warming the planet.

“Big oil companies, like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, they made this mess,” said Aaron Regunberg, director of the Climate Accountability Project at the nonprofit Public Citizen. “These companies have taken in literally trillions of dollars making this mess.”

And they should pay, said Regunberg and others at a Rhode Island State House event on legislation that aims to do just that by holding the biggest coal, gas and oil producers accountable for the costs of responding to climate change.

Under the bill, introduced for the second year by Rep. Jennifer Boylan and Sen. Linda Ujifusa, the state would calculate how much has been spent in Rhode Island on the impacts of climate change since 2000, divide up those costs among the fossil fuel companies responsible for the bulk of planet-warming emissions, and seek payments from them.

Rhode Island taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the costs to build seawalls, to repair roads washed out by coastal storms, or to expand stormwater systems that were designed in the days before downpours were as heavy or as frequent, supporters of the legislation said.

“This is not just a climate issue,” said Boylan, a Barrington Democrat. “It’s a fairness issue.”

Concerns about costs of bill

The bill faces an uncertain path, with Rhode Island’s existing state climate laws already under attack from conservatives who say they’re raising energy costs for consumers.

While environmental advocates say the real culprit is New England’s overdependence on natural gas, and that diversifying supplies will help, Gov. Dan McKee has proposed watering down a key state climate measure in a bid to cut energy bills.

The cost issue was at the forefront of opposition to the Climate Superfund bill last year from Rhode Island Energy, the state’s largest electric and gas utility. The company raised concerns that the costs borne by fossil fuel companies would be passed on to consumers.

Rhode Island Energy is so far withholding comment on this year’s version of the legislation.

“We look forward to hearing more from the bill sponsors and stakeholders as we examine this legislation in the weeks ahead,” said company spokeswoman Caroline Pretyman.

House and Senate leadership have taken a similar position, saying they’re waiting for committee hearings.

“The Senate President and the Speaker will review the testimony following the hearings,” their offices said in a statement.

Lawsuits against similar measures in other states

Governments have tried other ways to force fossil fuel companies to pay for the costs of climate change. In 2018, Rhode Island became the first state to take companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron to court seeking recompense.

But that case and others like it are still making their way through the judicial system. In the meantime, other states are trying a different way to hold the largest oil and gas companies responsible for damage caused by extreme weather tied to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The legislation introduced by Boyland and Ujifusa mimics statutes that have already been enacted in New York and Vermont and are modeled on the federal Superfund program that requires companies to pay for the cleanup of toxic waste.

Legal challenges have already been mounted against the laws in Vermont and New York from industry associations that say the statutes are preempted by federal law but also from a host of Republican-led states arguing that the payments assigned to fossil fuel companies will raise costs for everyone.

The Trump administration jumped into the debate last May when it filed separate suits against the states, alleging that the laws are unconstitutional. A motion in the Vermont case calls the state’s Climate Superfund program “a lawless experiment.”

“Vermont is defying federal law, the Constitution, and binding precedent – all so it can punish disfavored businesses for ill-defined harms, without regard to the real harm to our federal system and the Nation’s energy needs,” the motion filed in September says.

Terry Gray, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, said the questions over legality should give Rhode Island pause.

“We appreciate their intentions to support state climate work, agree with the premise of polluters paying for the impacts of their actions; but believe we should wait and see the results of litigation on similar laws passed in NY and VT before entering the fray,” he said in an email.

When asked if the office of Attorney General Peter F. Neronha would be willing to defend the measure if it passes, spokesman Timothy Rondeau said staff need to review it.

“Generally, Attorney General Neronha is no stranger to seeking, and succeeding in seeking, restitution on behalf of Rhode Islanders where they have been harmed,” Rondeau said. “More broadly, the Attorney General strongly supports efforts to combat climate change, and a big part of that effort is holding accountable the fossil fuel companies which have caused catastrophic consequences for the State and its residents, economy, ecosystem, and infrastructure.”

Supporters liken fossil fuel producers to big tobacco

The Rhode Island legislation would use existing scientific research to assign responsibility for costs.

Carbon Majors, a global database on greenhouse gases, has compiled emissions going back to 1854. Among its top 10 emitters over time are the private companies Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron along with state-owned Saudi Aramco and the National Iranian Oil Company.

Entities with some sort of connection to Rhode Island would pay proportional amounts of a total bill for climate work in the state that would be calculated by the DEM.

At the crux of the argument in favor of Climate Superfund programs is ample evidence that fossil fuel companies have long known about the harms to the planet caused by emissions and, instead of scaling back production, chose to obfuscate the issue.

Boylan likened their behavior to that of tobacco companies.

“Courts ultimately held tobacco companies accountable because the evidence showed that they knew about the harms and misled the public,” she said. “The same principle applies here.”

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: RI bill would make oil, gas and coal companies literally pay for climate change