Vermont’s efforts to make fossil fuel companies pay for damage from climate change were put to the test Monday in a federal courtroom, as the state argued that two lawsuits challenging its groundbreaking 2024 law should be dismissed.
Vermont becomes the first state to enact a climate superfund lawsimilar to the federal Superfund Act that imposed taxes on oil and chemical companies to pay for cleanup of sites contaminated with toxic waste. Action was taken after suffering Catastrophic summer floods In 2023, in addition to damage from other extreme weather, which scientists say will occur They are occurring more frequently due to climate change. The money it raises will be used for climate adaptation projects, such as upgrading stormwater drainage systems, sewage treatment plants and roads.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the major oil and gas industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, He sued Vermont over the law In December 2024, he called it unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. The Department of Justice also sued Vermont and New York After President Donald Trump District Attorney Pam Bondi ordered Take action against states that may overstep their authority in how to regulate energy development. In the lawsuit, Bondi called the Vermont law and a similar law signed by Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul “onerous and ideologically motivated” and said they threaten American energy independence and national security.
In asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuits on Monday, Vermont said it has the authority to raise revenues, protect the health and well-being of its citizens and mitigate environmental damage. The state also said the law does not conflict with federal law or policy, and does not regulate fossil fuel emissions or penalize fossil fuel producers.
“As a sovereign state, Vermont is required to do certain things that are exercises of traditional state authority. The Superfund Act operates directly in those areas of traditional state authority,” Jonathan Rose of the Vermont Attorney General’s Office said in U.S. District Court in Rutland.
However, the plaintiffs in both cases argue that Vermont cannot legally impose liability or penalties on out-of-state energy producers for damages caused by off-state and global greenhouse gas emissions.
“This case is not about Vermont’s ability to raise revenues and protect the health and well-being of its residents,” said Justice Department attorney Riley Walters. “It is about Vermont’s attempt to subject global energy production activity to Vermont law, which brazenly ignores the constitutional division of power between the federal government and the states.”
While other courts have allowed state law to apply to out-of-state conduct, those cases involved direct, traceable links between conduct and harm, he said.
“It is impossible to trace the damage within a country to any particular source of greenhouse gas emissions, let alone fossil fuel production that is further along the alleged causal chain,” he said. “There is no direct, traceable relationship between oil extracted in Texas or in Saudi Arabia and the flooding or some other weather event occurring in Vermont.”
West Virginia, the largest producer of natural gas and coal, is leading the twenty states intervening in the case with the Chamber and the American Petroleum Institute, out of concern that Vermont will seek to recover billions of dollars from major energy producers and oil refineries in their states. Meanwhile, the Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental advocacy group in New England, and the Northeast Organic Farming Association From the state of Vermont are supporting Vermont in the lawsuit.
Attorney Adeline Rolnick, who represents the Conservation Foundation and the farmers, told the judge Monday that granting the plaintiffs’ requests to strike down the law “would give the federal government this roving license to seek to block any state law it disagrees with simply by preemption.”
“It would be a significant expansion of the federal role in our state-level federal system, and the court should instead require the United States to show tangible imminent harm 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 US Chamber of Commerce said it looked forward to a decision in the case. “Vermont’s attempt to retroactively impose massive sanctions on energy producers would be disastrous for American families,” said Marty Durbin, president of the chamber’s Global Energy Institute.
“Reliable, affordable energy helps foster economic growth and improve the quality of life for American families and communities,” he said in a statement. “It defies logic that Vermont would pursue massive penalties from companies that meet 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 sole responsibility for the oil industry. Since then, the idea has gained traction elsewhere. Moreover to new york, Other Democratic-controlled states are also considering climate superfund laws, while others are considering climate superfund laws They are seeking compensation of fossil fuel companies in state courts for damages caused by climate change.
“This is the first time the state legislature has taken a giant step to go after polluters and hold them accountable for cleaning up the mess they made,” said Jennifer Rushlow, interim vice president of CLF Vermont.
Appreciated by the Dartmouth College research team The world’s largest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage. Researchers published a study last year of the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar amount coming from 10 fossil fuel providers.
___
This story has been updated to correct the name of the attorney representing the Farmers and Conservation Law Foundation is Adeline Rolnick, not Bridget Asay.
___
Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire, and McDermott from Providence, Rhode Island.
___
AP’s climate and environment coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Search for access points Standards To work with charities, list of supporters and funded coverage areas on AP.org.