Trump administration wants New York's Climate Change Superfund struck down
The Trump Justice Department wants New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act declared unconstitutional. They asked a federal judge last week to strike down the 2024 law which seeks to put big oil companies on the hook for climate related damages.
The law creates a fund to collect $75 billion from the biggest polluters over 25 years which would go toward paying for those damages, and advocates argue in the process, save taxpayers money.
The filing, asking for a summary judgement, accuses New York state of violating precedent that federal law should govern disputes relating to pollution in which “the interstate or international nature of the controversy makes it inappropriate for state law to control,” insisting the Constitution ”demands a “federal rule of decision.”
Blair Horner, senior policy advisor for NYPIRG, was a chief advocate for the law’s passage. He told Spectrum News 1 that it’s not as if it didn’t occur to those behind the bill that it would face significant legal challenges.
“We think New York state is on solid legal ground. There was an independent study done before the bill was even introduced,” he said.
Those pushing for the law have consistently argued that the “polluter pays” model has been tested through the federal superfund.
“Should New Yorkers pay $3 billion per year for the next 25 years for climate-related damages or should the oil companies? We think the oil companies should,” Horner said.
He insisted that as the impact of natural disasters grows, someone will have to pay.
“If the courts rule differently, that means a tax hike for New Yorkers,” he said.
State Republicans who fiercely opposed the law were gathered in Buffalo Wednesday for an unrelated event railing against the state’s overall climate policy, and in the process, cheered on the lawsuit.
“I don’t believe it’s constitutional,” state Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt said.
State Assemblyman Phil Palmesano, ranking member on the Energy Committee, countered Horner’s argument, insisting that New Yorkers will pay if the law does ultimately stand up to legal scrutiny.
“The ratepayer, the small business, the manufacturer, the farmer, that is who is going to pay for this surcharge if this is not thrown out,” he said.
The lawsuit stresses that the state can’t penalize companies for conduct that occurred out of New York and was legal at the time it occurred. Palmesano added that should apply to even business which did take place in New York.
“This is a retroactive penalty assessment on businesses that followed the rules, did all of the proper permit process, did what they were supposed to do, followed the rules and regulations of the state of New York,” he said.
Horner and advocates dispute the idea that rate payers will foot the bill for the fund, chalking it up to simple economics.
“There are companies that are covered under the law and some companies that are not,” he said. “Why would the companies that are not raise their prices to protect the interests of the companies that are? They wouldn’t. Drivers would always go to the cheapest price at the pump.”