\n<\/p>\n
Vermont\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Vermont became the first state to enact a climate superfund law<\/a>, 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<\/a> in 2023 as well as damage from other extreme weather, which scientists say is occurring more frequently due to climate change.<\/a> The money it collects would be used for climate adaptation projects, such as upgrades to stormwater drainage systems, sewage treatment plants and roads.<\/p>\n The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a top oil and gas industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, sued Vermont over the law<\/a> in December 2024, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The Department of Justice also sued Vermont and New York<\/a> after President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi<\/a> to take action against states that may be overreaching their authority in how they regulate energy development. In suing, Bondi called Vermont\u2019s law and a similar one signed by New York\u2019s Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul \u201cburdensome and ideologically motivated\u201d and said they threaten American energy independence and national security.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n \u201cAs 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,\u201d Jonathan Rose of the Vermont attorney general\u2019s office said in U.S. District Court in Rutland.<\/p>\n The plaintiffs in both cases, however, argue that Vermont can\u2019t legally impose liability or penalties on out-of-state energy producers for harms arising from out-of-state and global greenhouse gas emissions.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case is not about Vermont\u2019s ability to raise revenue and protect the health and welfare of its residents. It\u2019s about Vermont\u2019s 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,\u201d said DOJ attorney Riley Walters.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s 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,\u201d he said. \u201cThere is not a direct and traceable connection between oil that\u2019s extracted in Texas or in Saudi Arabia and a flood or some other weather event that takes place in Vermont.\u201d<\/p>\n 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<\/a> of Vermont are supporting Vermont in the litigation. <\/p>\n Attorney Adeline Rolnick, representing the conservation foundation and farmers, told the judge Monday that granting the plaintiffs\u2019 motions to strike down the law \u201cwould give the federal government this roving license to seek to enjoin any state law that it disagrees with simply by pleading preemption. <\/p>\n \u201cThat 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.<\/p>\n Judge Mary Kay Lanthier took the motions under advisement and said she would issue rulings as soon as possible.<\/p>\n 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 \u201cVermont\u2019s attempt to impose massive retroactive penalties on energy producers will be disastrous for American families.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cReliable, 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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,<\/a> other Democratic-controlled states are also considering climate superfund laws, while others are seeking damages<\/a> from fossil fuel companies in state courts for harms caused by climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cThis 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\u2019ve made,\u201d said Jennifer Rushlow, interim vice president for CLF Vermont.<\/p>\n A Dartmouth College research team estimated<\/a> the world\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n This story has been updated to correct the name of the attorney representing the Conservation Law Foundation and farmers to Adeline Rolnick, not Bridget Asay. <\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire, and McDermott reported from Providence, Rhode Island.<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n The Associated Press\u2019 climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP\u2019s standards<\/a> for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n