New York Passes Law Making Fossil Fuel Companies Pay $75 Billion for 'Climate Superfund' (nysenate.gov) 161
Thursday New York's governor signed new legislation "to hold polluters responsible for the damage done to our environment" by establishing a Climate Superfund that's paid for by big fossil-fuel companies.
The money will be used for "climate change adaptation," according to New York state senator Liz Krueger, who notes that the legislation follows "the polluter-pays model" used in America's already-existing federal and state superfund laws. Spread out over 25 years, the legislation collects an average of $3 billion each year — or $75 billion — "from the parties most responsible for causing the climate crisis — big oil and gas companies."
"The Climate Change Superfund Act is now law, and New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable," said Senator Krueger. "Too often over the last decade, courts have dismissed lawsuits against the oil and gas industry by saying that the issue of climate culpability should be decided by legislatures. Well, the Legislature of the State of New York — the 10th largest economy in the world — has accepted the invitation, and I hope we have made ourselves very clear: the planet's largest climate polluters bear a unique responsibility for creating the climate crisis, and they must pay their fair share to help regular New Yorkers deal with the consequences.
"And there's no question that those consequences are here, and they are serious," Krueger continued. "Repairing from and preparing for extreme weather caused by climate change will cost more than half a trillion dollars statewide by 2050. That's over $65,000 per household, and that's on top of the disruption, injury, and death that the climate crisis is causing in every corner of our state. The Climate Change Superfund Act is a critical piece of affordability legislation that will deliver billions of dollars every year to ease the burden on regular New Yorkers...."
Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made "remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet." Yet for years, "the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change."
"The oil giant Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia could be slapped with the largest annual assessment of any company — $640 million a year — for emitting 31,269 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020," notes the New York Post.
And "The law will also standardize the number of emissions tied to the fuel produced by companies," reports the Times Union newspaper. "[F]or every 1 million pounds of coal, for example, the program assigns over 942 metric tons of carbon dioxide. For every 1 million barrels of crude oil, an entity is considered to have produced 432,180 metric tons of carbon dioxide." Among the infrastructure programs the superfund program aims to pay for: coastal wetlands restoration, energy efficient cooling systems in buildings, including schools and new housing developments, and stormwater drainage upgrades.
New York is now the second U.S. state with a "climate Superfund" law, according to Bloomberg Law, with New York following the lead of Vermont. "Maryland, Massachusetts, and California are also considering climate Superfund laws to manage mounting infrastructure costs." The American Petroleum Institute, which represents about 600 members of the industry, condemned the law. "This type of legislation represents nothing more than a punitive new fee on American energy, and we are evaluating our options moving forward," an API spokesperson said in an emailed statement... The bills — modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as Superfund — would almost certainly spur swift litigation from fossil fuel companies upon enactment, legal educators say.
The money will be used for "climate change adaptation," according to New York state senator Liz Krueger, who notes that the legislation follows "the polluter-pays model" used in America's already-existing federal and state superfund laws. Spread out over 25 years, the legislation collects an average of $3 billion each year — or $75 billion — "from the parties most responsible for causing the climate crisis — big oil and gas companies."
"The Climate Change Superfund Act is now law, and New York has fired a shot that will be heard round the world: the companies most responsible for the climate crisis will be held accountable," said Senator Krueger. "Too often over the last decade, courts have dismissed lawsuits against the oil and gas industry by saying that the issue of climate culpability should be decided by legislatures. Well, the Legislature of the State of New York — the 10th largest economy in the world — has accepted the invitation, and I hope we have made ourselves very clear: the planet's largest climate polluters bear a unique responsibility for creating the climate crisis, and they must pay their fair share to help regular New Yorkers deal with the consequences.
"And there's no question that those consequences are here, and they are serious," Krueger continued. "Repairing from and preparing for extreme weather caused by climate change will cost more than half a trillion dollars statewide by 2050. That's over $65,000 per household, and that's on top of the disruption, injury, and death that the climate crisis is causing in every corner of our state. The Climate Change Superfund Act is a critical piece of affordability legislation that will deliver billions of dollars every year to ease the burden on regular New Yorkers...."
Starting in the 1970s, scientists working for Exxon made "remarkably accurate projections of just how much burning fossil fuels would warm the planet." Yet for years, "the oil giant publicly cast doubt on climate science, and cautioned against any drastic move away from burning fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change."
"The oil giant Saudi Aramco of Saudi Arabia could be slapped with the largest annual assessment of any company — $640 million a year — for emitting 31,269 million tons of greenhouse gases from 2000 to 2020," notes the New York Post.
And "The law will also standardize the number of emissions tied to the fuel produced by companies," reports the Times Union newspaper. "[F]or every 1 million pounds of coal, for example, the program assigns over 942 metric tons of carbon dioxide. For every 1 million barrels of crude oil, an entity is considered to have produced 432,180 metric tons of carbon dioxide." Among the infrastructure programs the superfund program aims to pay for: coastal wetlands restoration, energy efficient cooling systems in buildings, including schools and new housing developments, and stormwater drainage upgrades.
New York is now the second U.S. state with a "climate Superfund" law, according to Bloomberg Law, with New York following the lead of Vermont. "Maryland, Massachusetts, and California are also considering climate Superfund laws to manage mounting infrastructure costs." The American Petroleum Institute, which represents about 600 members of the industry, condemned the law. "This type of legislation represents nothing more than a punitive new fee on American energy, and we are evaluating our options moving forward," an API spokesperson said in an emailed statement... The bills — modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as Superfund — would almost certainly spur swift litigation from fossil fuel companies upon enactment, legal educators say.
So long as New Yorkers pay it all (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"The bills — modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as Superfund — would almost certainly spur swift litigation from fossil fuel companies upon enactment, legal educators say."
Even if zero cents are collected, everyone will pay for the legal fees, but NY will pay twice -- they have to pay for their own lawyers, too.
Re: (Score:3)
I think fossil fuels are bound to follow the trajectory of cigarettes - but the question is the timeline. People aren't going to agree to big carbon taxes until the alternatives are acceptable. But as soon as the
Re:So long as New Yorkers pay it all (Score:5, Insightful)
People aren't going to agree to big carbon taxes until the alternatives are acceptable.
So pretty much not in my lifetime.
But as soon as the majority wouldn't bee too impacted, watch out.
Tyranny of the majority is hard to protect against. If you are not specifically protected by enshrined constitutional rights, you pretty much have none at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Partially. My guess is electric cars will become an increasingly fractious issue within the next couple decades, as they take over in some places and not others. Another big rural / urban split.
Whereas moving off natural gas for heating would be such a pain that it won't happen very fast at all, and therefore will be spared criticism.
People will just keep looking the other way at commercial aviation because we like to fly and there's no decent alternative to jet fue
Re: (Score:2)
Partially. My guess is electric cars will become an increasingly fractious issue within the next couple decades, as they take over in some places and not others. Another big rural / urban split.
Whereas moving off natural gas for heating would be such a pain that it won't happen very fast at all, and therefore will be spared criticism.
People will just keep looking the other way at commercial aviation because we like to fly and there's no decent alternative to jet fuel.
Pretty much agree. There will be varying levels of coercion to push EVs on as many people as they possibly can, and hopefully in time e-fuels will be available for those who can't/won't switch. I certainly don't see any outright ICE car bans in my lifetime, at least where I live. I can see it happening in some other places, but fortunately I don't live there.
Re: So long as New Yorkers pay it all (Score:3, Insightful)
Several states have either a sales or property tax exemption for a solar installation, but if that was updated exempt sales and property tax for any viable renewable energy source
Re: (Score:2)
People aren't going to agree to big carbon taxes until the alternatives are acceptable.
So pretty much not in my lifetime.
In some countries, the majority of electrical generation is from non- fossil fuels. In some countries most new cars sold are EVs. The time of acceptability is nigh, even if implementation worldwide is taking a while and there are some residual issues.
Re:So long as New Yorkers pay it all (Score:4, Informative)
Big Tobacco had internal research that showed cigarettes caused cancer, and suppressed it, the government sued Big Tobacco to allow Big Tobacco to keep selling "cancer sticks" to AMericans, as long as they paid off the government - it was a cost to do business. The government was OK with people getting cancer, as long as the money kept rolling in (the taxes go to help fund ObamaCare, it was originally intended to pay for CHIP (Childrens health insurance), but Obama Admin sucked it up to help make the "Affordable Care Act" look affordable...
NY State is hoping to get money for past sins from future sinners, all the while trying to drive Big Oil out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember New York attempting to sue tobacco companies for all health impacts experienced by all people in the entire world. Bit of a different scope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the legislators are trying to go MUCH further than that. However, what it would likely mean is that big oil companies will adjust their organizational structure, so that the parent companies do no business within jurisdiction of New York state making them not subject to the jurisdiction of New York laws or a New York court. They can then create a separate corporation to sell whatever they sell within the state, so the parent company does not become liable to pay a dime based on their global o
Re: So long as New Yorkers pay it all (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly the point. They want to make polluting sources more expensive so that cleaner ones will be competitive. We're going to pay for that pollution one way or another anyways
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. But the US Constitution contains language that a state cannot lay a Tariff or Tax against the goods produced in a different state. In this case electricity. Their CO2 released in Pennsylvania or Virginia for example, would be business falling outside New York jurisdiction and therefore any effort by New York state to tax that would be Illegal. ONLY the federal government has the power to tax production not taxed within the state the producer resides within.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to make polluting sources
Fossil fuel companies are not the polluters. LILCO (or its descendants) are. The sources are those turbine generator plants.
We sold you the oil and natural gas. You burned it. You pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction, paid for by the New York residents that still drive ICE vehicles - today's car drivers will be paying to compensate for the damage done by previous ICE drivers...
The polluters are the customers of Big Oil, not Big Oil - Big Oil doesn't burn their fuel, they sell it to people that do burn it!
The vast majority of homes in New York are heated by fossil fuels, including the ones heated by electricity. https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
Math Error (Score:2)
" "[F]or every 1 million pounds of coal, for example, the program assigns over 942 metric tons of carbon dioxide."
That doesn't sound right to me. Should be more than 3 times the mass of the stuff burned.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is not 100 percent carbon: Burning a pound of coal emits 2.07 pounds of CO2 [epa.gov].
943 metric tons is 2,076,733 pounds, so the math is spot on.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the mixing of units confused me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Math Error (Score:2)
The oil companies should just pull out of NY. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they sue all of the automobile owners in NY?
This reminds me of the BS from Hilary Clinton and others like her on how they weren't going to raise taxes on the individual, they were going to raise taxes on "Big Oil" to make them pay. I was just baffled on how well this worked to gain public support. Are people so lacking in education to know that if gasoline production is taxed then that will raise the price the individual citizen must pay for gasoline? Where do people think corporations get their money to pay taxes? I guess it worked on enough Dem
Re: (Score:2)
Could turn into a case of "be careful what you wish for". The EU recently enacted a law that makes companies responsible for their entire supply chain and subcontractors when it comes to environmental and human rights issues, threatening lar
Re: The oil companies should just pull out of NY. (Score:2)
Not going to survive court challange (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a common misunderstanding, but it's wrong. They can't tax the privilege of doing business itself, no charging a fee for outside business that isn't charged to ones in the state, but in practice, that's about it.
Right not states tax Netflix and other digital entertainment services that aren't incorporated there and have had no problem. They tax AWS and such, even if a customer in say, Illinois (or NY) is renting data center space in Ohio from a cloud provider incorporated in California, New York and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fine, not a tax. A compensation for liability over things that have already happened between 2000 and 2018. The law establishes a conversion rate from emissions equivalent during that period based on fossil fuel type, and assesses monetary damages based on that.
It's not much different than a fine for littering where the money from the fine pays the cost of cleaning it up.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
It's not much different than a fine for littering where the money from the fine pays the cost of cleaning it up.
You do realize that such logic is a two-way street? What if Florida starts charging NY businesses "fines" for violating their Stop Woke Act?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that this sort of legislation is decades old? The bill even specifically mentions identical bills funding superfunds for hazardous waste and oil spills.
> What if Florida starts charging NY businesses "fines" for violating their Stop Woke Act?
Well first and foremost, NY's law is not levying fines for breaking any law. It's levying fines for damage. If your business does something resulting in the release of toxic chemicals into the environment, that causes damage real and they will be fined
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess if Florida wants to try and define "wokeness" and attribute some kind of objective and quantifiable damage it causes, I suppose they're welcome to try?
It largely depends who is deciding. There is a good chance a jury in Florida will agree that BlackRock DEI metrics that factored into ESG ratings
Re: (Score:2)
> Calling CO2 emissions "the release of toxic chemicals into the environment" is a stretch
Good thing nobody's done that, then.
> If you argue that CO2 is a harmful emission
We have very compelling, even definitive, evidence that CO2 can and is causing harmful effects to the environment. No such demonstration can be made for "Woke ideas" in no small part because nobody can even define what "Woke ideas" are, let alone quantify the effects and demonstrate harm.
You really seem to be concerned about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Smidge argued that CO2 emissions are in the same category as hazardous waste, oil spills, and toxic waste that we do regulate. Which is fine, but when faced with logical consequences of that argument, altogether denied making that comparison.
Smidge also started strawmanning by attributing to me a view that: "nobody can or s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted.
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So a legislative declaration of guilt and the penalties thereof? Maybe we could come up with a snappier name, perhaps a "bill of penalties", or maybe because it will be such a pain for all involved, a "bill of pains and penalties" [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not much different than a fine for littering where the money from the fine pays the cost of cleaning it up.
If littering is not a crime and you throw your waste on the ground, the government can't pass a law making it illegal and come fine you retrospectively. That would be an ex post facto law and would be unconstitutional.
This is effectively a point forward carbon tax, not a retrospective fine.
Oil companies should sue everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be amusing to see what happens should the various oil companies refuse to sell product to the various governments of New York; I wonder how many days' supply of gasoline and diesel NYC maintains to operate its vehicles. Watching the entire state of New York trying to crash convert to electric power for everything would be quite the spectacle. And if they extend their blockade to the businesses and residents as well, the state will grind to a halt even faster.
Forget the vehicles, most homes in New York are heated by gas, oil, propane, and coal. And the ones heated by electricity are mostly dependent on gas generating plants
Re: (Score:2)
who burned the products they sold
This is why I have fire insurance.
Good for NY. (Score:2)
The sad part is that the oil cos will just bake that cost into everyone across the nation.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad part is that the oil cos will just bake that cost into everyone across the nation.
That would miss the PR opportunity to say "this is why gas is so much more expensive in New York. Let your own state reps know your thoughts". Much better to nip it in the bud than to wait till many other states start doing the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
IDK, are Florida, NC, and the like enjoying the steadily increasing frequency of 100-year and 1,000-year events?
Re: (Score:2)
Do Florida and NC residents drive? Yes.
I get what you are saying, but the horse has left the barn.
Re: (Score:2)
Fear mongering about the price increases is hilarious. You people are truly corporate boot lickers. New York is going to have to spend money on climate change mitigation efforts either way. Collecting it via the oil and coal companies will encourage more investment into renewable alternatives.
Industries will just leave (Score:3)
At least NY draws attention 2 problem (Score:2)
Basically another regressive fuel tax (Score:2)
This is yet another own goal. New York State taxpayers are already on the hook for about $1800 a year combined from petroleum related fuel, sales, and business taxes.
Now the new 3 billion a year “climate tax” effectively piles on another $250 per taxpayer, which, by the way, hurts lower income folks the most. Does anyone really truly believe that fossil fuel companies won’t pass the new charge back to the consumer?
In addition, just to rub salt in the wound, New York strictly limits natural
Re: (Score:2)
Someone has to do something, and it sure as hell doesn't look like it's any of the federal governments in the world.
OK, you go first. Give up all use of products directly or indirectly produced from fossil fuels today, including from electricity produced by fossil fuel plants. Sure, you will be cold, naked, and starving in a muddy ditch but at least you are setting an example of "doing something" that the rest of us can laugh at.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to pay for this, and oil and gas companies have KNOWN for years that climate change was happening and they didn't care.
Everyone knows about climate change and nobody cares sufficiently to radically curtail their standard of living. Why should a supplier of a legal commodity be held liable when their customers use the commodity for its intended purpose? This constant and persistent attempt from the lawyers to make everyone else liable for shit other people do is behavior I find particularly distasteful and disgusting.
The predictions that exxon scientists made decades ago are remarkably accurate. Indeed, the science of climate change is, broadly speaking, very simple.
Companies that have lied to us for literal decades about how safe and clean their energy is, how nothing bad would ever happen, and now the executives will go off somewhere with all their money and hole up
"Companies have lied to us" preceded by Exxon predictions "are remarkably accurate". Make up your mind.
while the rest of us have to clean up literal wreckage from hurricanes and floods, cold snaps and heatwaves.
Are
And this will be struck down (Score:2)
New York state is ... (Score:2)
Do oil and gas comapnies pollute that much? (Score:2)
I guess that by 'pollution' it is meant 'CO2' production, although that is not stated in this post. But do oil & gas companies really produce that much CO2? Is it not rather be the power plants, car owners, etc. who produce CO2? The parallel drawn with the Superfund system seems therefore false. For Superfund cleanup, the payment is sought from those who released hazardous substances into the environment, not who produced them (or any precursors, which would be the apt comparison here).
Coal and Oil still at it (Score:3)
They're still funding "grassroots" organizations to spread lies about renewable energy in rural communities and smaller towns to prevent the spread of solar farms and rooftop solar.
"Polluter Pays model" - great news! (Score:2)
I assume they will immediately reopen their response to the request of $1.3T annually from countries needing mitigation efforts that weren't significant contributors to it. After all, the G7 coughed up barely $100B of it earlier this year in response.
Unless, of course, "polluter pays" is nothing but blamey rhetoric that they refuse to use in self- evaluation...
The obvious conclusion... (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple Fix (Score:3)
Cease all power transmission generated via fossil fuels that is sent to New York.
Cease shipment of all fossil fuels to New York.
Cease shipment of all goods manufactured via fossil fuels ( see plastics ) to New York.
Watch how fast this silly ass law gets rescinded.
I mean, if you're going to make it impossible to do business in New York, I'll simply cease selling to you.
Re: (Score:2)
And then the state will merely freeze all your assets and refuse you access to all financial markets.
Not that you'd have much of a business left. You announce your aren't going to sell in the 10th largest economy, your business becomes so devalued that the vultures would pick you apart in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
so... easier for them to just ask for money vs fix (Score:3)
so... easier for them to just ask for money and waste 90% of it... versus making the EPA actually do it's job and force energy companies to stop simple things- like leaking pipes, purposeful gas releases, etc. the crap tons of methane and co2 being accidentally leaked or purposefully off gassed is insane.
Simply making current processes more efficient and adding scrubbers could cut back emissions drastically.
on the other side is the other simple stuff-
heavy fuel oil on tankers... 70yr old trucks.... increased rail for transport
NY is a major transport hub, they have the power to regulate what ships dock there (ones with updated, cleaner engines? old rust buckets?) and how freight is handled (truck vs rail).
There are steps that can be taken to curb emissions... they're choosing enrichment over actually fixing problems. Not like they're going to use that money to raise the state coast lines by some 45 feet to fend off sea rise and storm surges.
Sadly, the oil companies will have no self-respect (Score:2)
If they had even a shred of self-respect, every entity involved in petroleum in New York state, from oil companies to gas stations, semi truck drivers, diesle train operators, suppliers of everything from plastics to cosmetics to medical devices... ALL of them would cease all business in New York state immediately. The citizens of the state would certainly suffer greatly in the short term as the price for putting somebody so warped and deceitful into political office, but the problem would rapidly self-corr
Another Tax... (Score:2)
...that will be passed directly to consumers, raising prices yet again. People need to wise up and vote those that spend their money unnecessarily out of office, and vote those in that will allow society to do the most with the least. Its the only reasonable thing to do.
Re:Real politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that this is ex post facto law, i.e. law that attempts to penalize something legal that happened in the past, and extract damages based on said past activity when this was legal, pretty much every level of court should strike this law. Not making such laws is foundational to rule of law.
They nailed big Tobacco for past sins (Score:2)
The principle has been established, so it's not impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe this, your basic civics education utterly failed you.
Huh? Tell me more (Score:2)
My understanding is that Big Tobacco got done for past damage. Wasn't it?
Or are you saying that New York is imposing a future excise duty?
Re: (Score:2)
Your basic civics education has utterly failed you then. As it would have told you that this scenario is strictly illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. My first post explains why ex post facto legislation is by definition something that makes rule of law impossible.
Re:Real politics (Score:4, Informative)
How legal it was depends on how much the oil companies knew about the damage it was doing. They knew a lot, so knowingly harmed other people to make money, which is something that civil law allows for recovery of.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read your citations. You are wrong. In fact, one of the justices specifically noted that this was not an ex post fact law.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that this is ex post facto law, i.e. law that attempts to penalize something legal that happened in the past, and extract damages based on said past activity when this was legal, pretty much every level of court should strike this law. Not making such laws is foundational to rule of law.
Except it's not. It's extracting money from an industry point forward. The past has nothing to do with this law. It's no different to a new tax, one that will collect $75bn over the next 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to me that all the far left people are here to tell us that they are against rule of law "because they interpret the meaning of the word differently".
And no one else is.
You're all telling on yourself almost as much as woke right currently is telling on itself on X.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that is why laws exist to prevent things.
Namely, from the time law has been put in effect. Not ex post facto. Ex post facto laws mean that you can criminalize past behavior and punish based on it. That is the land of actual lawlessness, because literally nothing is ever legal. At any point a law can be made to target any legal behavior and punish you for this legal behavior in the past which you cannot change post facto, making all behavior de facto potentially illegal and punishable.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't retroactively criminalize commercial activity.
There's also a good chance of some kind of violation of federal interstate commerce law in this.
I have to wonder what some of these legislators are thinking. I remember as a kid going with my parents across state lines so they could get alcohol at lower prices. Also while growing up there was the state ban on certain kinds of fireworks so nearly everyone we knew was going over state lines to get fireworks. There was that story of a guy that died during an arrest for selling cigarettes by the "stick" whic
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the proper response is to stop shipping anything based on fossil fuels into New York. It's the only responsible to do. If a company is going to be fined for doing something their very first action should be to stop incurring more fines. So the day this is enacted cut New York off cold turkey from fossil fuels. It's what they want, so give it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets get Big Oil to stop importing Oil into NY State, and lets see how many state vehicles (Police, Fire, Ambulance, road crew, etc) can run on "clean" energy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you keep sucking up to malicious incumbent corporations enough, they might give you a pat on the back.
Re: (Score:2)
If the government is going to fine a company for doing something, shouldn't the company stop doing it? Seems logical to me.
Re: Ex post facto law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not. It's applied point forward and will be collected over the next 25 years, no different than a change in the tax code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)