CBIA, others raise concerns over CT climate change superfund bill

HBJ PHOTO | DAVID KRECHEVSKY The State Capitol in Hartford.

Write a Comment

The state legislature’s Environment Committee will hear testimony Monday on a bill that would create a climate change superfund, with the state’s largest business organization and others claiming it would be too costly and possibly unconstitutional.

The stated purpose of House Bill 6280, An Act Concerning the Establishment of a Climate Change SuperFund, is to “fund climate mitigation, resiliency and adaptation.”

The bill establishes a climate superfund cost recovery program to be administered by the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP).

The program would be funded by requiring fossil fuel extractors and refiners to contribute, with the money used to pay for Connecticut’s climate change costs.

In testimony submitted in advance of the hearing, Pete Myers, senior public policy associate for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, states that his organization opposes the bill because of the potential fiscal impact on the state’s economy.

Last year, Myers wrote, New York passed a similar piece of legislation and the cost to businesses will be $75 billion over the next 25 years.

Since New York enacted its Climate Change Superfund Act, the state has faced litigation from 22 states, CBIA said.

Myers adds that the cost of the program will “inevitably be passed along
to our state's businesses,” at a time when businesses and residents are already struggling with rising energy costs.

“One of the top issues the business community would like to see the
legislature address is the high cost of energy,” Myers states. “This legislation works in the opposite direction and will increase electric rates for businesses and residents in Connecticut.”

Michael S. Giaimo, Northeast region director for the American Petroleum Institute (API), also submitted testimony opposing the bill.

“While API appreciates the goal of funding environmental programs, this
legislation is not the way to effectuate this objective,” Giaimo states. “API believes it is bad public policy and may be unconstitutional.”

He states that API is concerned that the bill “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal, violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large, and is preempted by federal law.”

Giaimo added that API and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently filed a complaint in federal court challenging the legality of similar legislation passed in Vermont last year.

Vermont’s law covers the 30-year period from 1995 to 2024, recovering costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel manufacturers.

Maryland also has proposed legislation requiring large fossil fuel producers and refiners to pay for state-level climate adaptation infrastructure, CBIA said.

Kendall Keelen, associate attorney based in Connecticut with the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), filed testimony to support the legislation.

Keelen said that extreme weather events caused by climate change cost the United States over $150 billion annually, and that some models predict climate change will cost nearly $38 trillion per year globally, “including impacts to farming, infrastructure, and human health.”

“Such costs will largely be borne by individuals — Americans born in 2024 will likely pay $500,000 for climate-related losses over their lifetimes,” she states. “H.B. 6280 shifts the cost burden from individuals to major fossil fuel companies who bear significant responsibility for climate change.”

She added that CLF “strongly urges the Committee to pass this measure and hold major fossil fuel polluters accountable.”

The Environment Committee is scheduled to conduct its public hearing Monday starting at 10 a.m. in Room 2B of the Legislative Office Building.