Trump Administration Targets State Climate Laws

By Steve Goreham

A version of this article was originally published in The Wall Street Journal.

Hydrocarbon fuel producers gain a powerful ally with Trump’s order challenging rules to promote renewable energy.

In the Trump administration’s first 100 days, advocates for climate policy have been hit by actions to close climate departments, halt offshore wind leases, cut green energy funding, and impose tariffs on renewable equipment imports from China. Just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse, President Trump has ordered the federal government to challenge state climate laws.

Last month the President issued an executive order titled, “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach.” The order said that state laws “seek to regulate energy beyond their constitutional or statutory authorities.” It mentioned laws in California, New York, and Vermont and used the term “extortion law.” The order directed U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to “identify all state and local laws … burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources that are or may be unconstitutional, preempted by federal law, or otherwise unenforceable” within 60 days. It also directed her to recommend “Presidential or legislative action” necessary to stop the enforcement of these laws. The federal government is now entering the climate battle on the side of producers of hydrocarbon energy, meaning coal, gas, and oil.

For the last 10 years, left-leaning states have enacted regulations to block the use of coal, gas, and oil and to force the adoption of renewable energy. These laws exceed states’ legal authority, aiming to dictate national and international energy policy. States and cities have imposed regulations and monetary penalties on producers of hydrocarbon energy that emit carbon dioxide when used. Businesses that consume hydrocarbons are forced to pay large sums to “trade” carbon credits. Coal, gas, and oil companies spend millions on legal fees to defend their right to produce energy.

In May 2024, Vermont passed its Climate Superfund Act holding “fossil fuel extractors” or “crude oil refiners” responsible for “costs due to climate change.” Vermont seeks millions of dollars in damages from companies that produced fuel connected to more than a billion metric tons of global greenhouse-gas emissions from 1995 through 2024. The law’s supporters blame Vermont’s July 2023 floods on climate change caused by emissions from oil companies. They apparently do not remember the Great Vermont Flood of 1927, the worst flood in the state’s history, which happened when global CO2 emissions were only ten percent of today’s. Vermont Lieutenant Governor S. Hollister was killed in the 1927 flood after getting out of his car into flood waters.

New York enacted its own version, the Climate Change Superfund Act, in December. That law imposes a huge tax on hydrocarbon fuel companies, an estimated collective total of $3 billion a year, beginning in 2028.

Like Vermont, New York seeks payments from firms that produced fuel connected with global emissions of more than a billion tons of CO2 from a past period, in this case 2000 through 2018. In February, a coalition of 22 states along with several industry associations filed a lawsuit against New York officials responsible for implementing and enforcing the law.

Among other climate impacts, the New York act blames “rising sea levels” on the “historical polluters.” It is true that sea levels at The Battery Gauge in New York rose 0.96 feet from 1856 to 2024, a rate of almost seven inches per century. But the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has pointed out that ocean levels rose about 390 feet in the last 20,000 years. No scientist knows when natural sea-level rise ended, and human-caused sea-level rise began.

Maryland passed its Responding to Emergency Needs from Extreme Weather (RENEW) Act this month, seeking to “make polluters pay.” Legislators appear to believe that greenhouse gas emissions are causing extreme weather and storms to get stronger.

But evidence from satellites does not show that storms are becoming more frequent or stronger. Dr. Ryan Maue, formerly chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shows that the number of global tropical cyclones (hurricanes and tropical storms) has not been increasing over the last 50 years. Since 2006, the accumulated cyclone energy of tropical cyclones has declined to the lowest level since the 1970s.

Efforts to enact “superfund” laws to seek monetary damages from fuel companies are also underway in California and Massachusetts. Voters rejected a similar proposed statute this month in Oregon.  But Maryland, New York, and Vermont laws have serious legal weaknesses. The Constitution explicitly states that neither the Congress nor any state may pass an “ex post facto Law,” which imposes criminal liability for past actions that weren’t restricted at the time. The Maryland, New York, and Vermont acts all propose to tax companies retroactively for legally producing fossil fuels.

The 1970 Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility for establishing air pollution standards. States have responsibility for local and indoor air pollution, but not nationwide or global air pollution, as the superfund laws appear to cover.

5 18 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 16, 2025 2:59 pm

I argue that the mistake was allowing different treatment of “civil” suits than “criminal” law. These climate bills are both ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder, legislatively declaring both the guilt and punishment of various offenders. When a government is involved, criminal law rules should apply.
Bills of Attainder can be quite popular, as shown with the tobacco lawsuits. There is a reason why such laws were forbidden by the Constitution.

Duane
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 16, 2025 5:48 pm

Nope, you are wrong. Civil liability has nothing to do with legal compliance. It is all about one or more parties imposing damages on others which can be litigated as a matter of torts law, which is thoroughly established under Federal law and the ancient common law going back nearly a millennium. Ex post facto only applies to compliance with the law. Apples and oranges.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Duane
May 16, 2025 5:55 pm

“Civil suits” by governments are largely pretextual. I know what the current law is, and it is unjust. But Democrats like a petty tyranny. Making a government follow criminal law rules would make the power imbalance less severe.

May 16, 2025 5:24 pm

So essentially, we are back to democrat run states claiming “States rights” again, aren’t we?

It doesn’t matter what the issue is with democrats since they always act identically. When someone from the federal government challenges their actions using the US Constitutional supremacy clause, they all scream.

We’ve already fought a horrible civil war over these ideas. The issue has been settled.

Duane
May 16, 2025 5:43 pm

Civil liability is not criminal liability. The ban on ex post facto laws in the Constitution does not apply to civil liability. Liability is unrelated to compliance with any law – it is about torts harms imposed on other parties that can be litigated The actual Federal Superfund law establishes civil liability for cleanup costs and is Constitutional.

Where these State laws run afoul of the Constitution is the preemption clause and Article I powers of Congress. Unless Congress explicitly delegates authority to States for imposing historical liability claims and to regulate the climate – which Federal law does not – then States have no authority to step in, and States may not regulate interstate commerce.

sherro01
May 16, 2025 5:58 pm

It is hard to understand why corrupt science is allowed to flourish, even dominate. Example, sea level change. The tide gauges plus GPS height corrections provide a rather clear global figure. It is mostly basic, traditional work like reading a level off a ruler. The recent upstart method of satellite measurement has a different “preferred” result that has to be subjective because it sits in an admitted but sometimes ignored wide error envelope.
Why do other scientists allow the satellite method to move from “experimental, academic only” status to “proven and suitable for setting national policy with large cost implications”?
Several foundational principles of proper science have been disobeyed. If it takes a Presidential order to insist on proper science, all scientists should be cheering – not expressing various depths of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Come on, you scientists in the USA, get real and take away the badges of fellow scientists who oppose proper science. There are taxis out there waiting for new ex-scientist drivers seeking work where mythology, corruption and ignorance do not matter so much. Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
May 17, 2025 1:49 pm

It is hard to understand why corrupt science is allowed to flourish, even dominate.

I suspect the problem is that many, if not most, alarmists don’t really understand the Scientific Method. The general public, especially in Europe and maybe also in Oz, has bought into the alarmism exactly because they don’t understand science. They behave as though they think science is about consensus and deference to those who call themselves scientists. When the electorate confuses democracy with science, they defend their confusion between the two with the fervor of the newly converted. Our schools have failed us because the people who go into teaching seem to have a preference for things unscientific.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
May 16, 2025 6:12 pm

I don’t know whether to cheer or despair over this article. I still want to see California and New York implode because they create such ludicrous policies. Trump’s policies would save them, while allowing them to complain that their way could work. Of course, I feel sorry for the upstate NY and eastern CA populations because they fight in vain against the stupidity of urbanites who outnumber them.

I guess I just have to rely on Europe to show the world how stupid socialists are – assuming Trump wins this war. Germany and GB are leading the war against humanity in their own countries – showing how once manufacturing giants can gut themselves and sink lower than the old third world. Hard to believe Germans can be more stupid than the French, but they are proving it.

May 16, 2025 6:42 pm

A minor correction: Oregon voters did not reject a rob the oil companies statute. The Oregon State Senate tabled the proposal for unknown reasons. Oregon voters have never had a chance to vote on our Governor-imposed “emergency” carbon tax, high fuel taxes, “carbon-free” investments of state pension funds, or any other harebrained alarmist knives in the people’s backs.

Oregon is a Far Left state with a tiny minority of Republicans in the legislature. Those are mostly RINOs and fake conservatives, so rational citizens have virtually no voice in our out-of-kilter governance. And it shows. If Trump can rip them a new one, tell him please feel free.

eck
May 16, 2025 6:57 pm

“We don’t need no “stinkin’ evidence!” That’s what they’re basically saying.

May 16, 2025 7:14 pm

“law imposes a huge tax on hydrocarbon fuel companies”

Which should be immediately added to the consumer cost of hydrocarbon fuel in those states…
…including any electricity from hydrocarbon fuels outside the state

Double, triple the fuel costs.. I’m sure consumers will love that. 😉

hiskorr
May 16, 2025 7:38 pm

Why is there no discussion of Federal primacy in “interstate commerce”. Surely, goods and services produced legally in other states cannot be banned or taxed on import into a state without Federal consent or control. For any one state to set regulations for production in other states or to ban legally produced goods from its state is, by definition, regulating “interstate commerce”.

Bob
May 16, 2025 8:01 pm

The fossil fuel companies produced a necessary and legal product. Customers public and private purchased and consumed the legal product in a legal manner. If anyone should be punished it should be the worthless politicians and activists who damn people who legally consume legal products in order to prosper and stay alive.

oeman50
May 17, 2025 5:06 am

I find it hard to understand how states can legally 1) penalize companies for emissions outside of their state and 2) penalize companies for emissions they did not emit.

Reply to  oeman50
May 17, 2025 1:56 pm

It is not unlike the drug issue. Society goes easy on the drug user because they are addicted, and instead go after the suppliers, albeit with questionable effectiveness. Yet, if there was no demand, the suppliers would have to find a legal way of earning a living.

May 17, 2025 1:22 pm

No scientist knows when natural sea-level rise ended, and human-caused sea-level rise began.

Or if it ended!

Verified by MonsterInsights