webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Massachusetts

:{==

maz tag 818

oddly little content here:

promoted primary 4/18 on healey AG

see new england

romney obama care

hochul gov dithers?

Mass v EPA

mma Laura Ingraham calls Massachusetts “a hotbed of child predators”

02/13/25

===

ymail 6 24

These bills aim to make polluters pay

Climate superfund legislation is gaining traction in state legislatures across the country. How do the bills fit into the broader movement to hold Big Oil accountable?

EXXONKNEWS

JUN 27

Emily Sanders is senior reporter at ExxonKnews.

As communities across the United States grapple with the rising costs to protect residents and infrastructure from the worsening impacts of climate change, some state legislators are targeting a potential new source of resilience funding: fossil fuel companies.

Sometimes called “polluter pays” bills or “climate superfund” bills, a new wave of state legislation aims to make oil companies bear a portion of the expenses necessary to adapt to climate impacts and recover from climate disasters fueled by those companies’ greenhouse gas emissions. The bills are quickly gaining momentum in statehouses: Vermont passed one into law in May, another in New York awaits Governor Kathy Hochul’s signature, and similar proposals are under consideration in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Oil and gas companies have generated the majority of the world’s climate pollution, the bill sponsors argue, and therefore they should help pay for the damage that pollution is inflicting on communities. While each state’s legislation has unique features and different mechanisms to determine how much oil and gas companies would pay, they all draw inspiration from the federal Superfund program, first enacted in 1980 and administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, which makes polluters pay to clean up hazardous waste they’ve dumped into the environment.

State climate superfunds established by these bills would function similarly by making fossil fuel companies pay for a portion of the damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.

“States and municipalities are suffering enormous costs from the damage associated with climate change and the money they have to spend now to prepare for the consequences they're going to face in the future, at the same time as fossil fuel industry actors are posting record profits from creating these harms,” said Martin Lockman, climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and associate research scholar at Columbia Law School. While the superfund bills would not cover the full amount states will spend on climate adaptation, he said, communities “are looking for any tools that they have available to make sure that the people who are profiting from causing them harm pay for [that] harm.”

So how exactly do the bills work, how do they interact with the growing number of distinct state and local lawsuits seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for climate deception, and what challenges will they face? Here’s what you need to know.

How climate superfund bills work

All of the currently proposed climate superfund bills would assess a dollar figure that companies owe to the fund based on the amount of emissions attributed to the fossil fuels they sold over a set period of time: 2000 to 2018 in New York’s case, or 1995 to 2024 in Vermont’s for example. The costs of those emissions, or how they are proportioned among companies, are calculated using attribution science — a growing field also tapped for climate accountability lawsuits. Those calculations rely on companies’ self-reported data to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

“It's looking at something they already did, and saying ‘this had a negative effect and now you have to clean up the mess you made,’” said Maggie Coulter, senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, a group that supports a climate superfund bill in California that was recently shelved by its author but could be reintroduced later in the year.

Some of the bills direct a state agency to conduct a cost assessment of the climate harms companies’ emissions caused during a set time frame. In Vermont’s case, the state’s Agency of Natural Resources will have until the start of 2027 to conduct that assessment and determine each company’s appropriate share of the costs.

Those costs could include some portion of the estimated $1 billion response and recovery costs incurred after major floods devastated Vermont last summer, or the price of fortifying roads, bridges, and floodplains to lessen the damage caused by rain storms intensified by climate change. The agency will also help determine which resiliency programs — programs that could help municipalities, businesses, and farms in Vermont adapt to climate impacts — will be covered.

The law “is a common sense manifestation of a very well-established principle of American environmental law, which is that the polluter pays,” said Christophe Courchesne, assistant professor of law and director of the Environmental Advocacy Clinic at Vermont Law School, which voiced its support for the bill before it passed. “It's not new, even as the application of this policy to climate damages is new, and is an extremely important concept that we certainly hope will be a model to other states.”

Other bills have already set a total cost that would be divided up by companies — like New York’s, which would require the oil majors to pay into a $75 billion fund that could be used for projects such as air conditioning schools or upgrading roads, bridges, subways, and stormwater drainage systems to account for more extreme weather. Still, that $75 billion is nowhere near the total costs New York faces for climate adaptation; in 2021, the city estimated it would cost $100 billion just to “recalibrat[e] our sewers for storms like Ida.”

Proponents of the bills say their popularity reflects growing public demand for polluters to pay; polling last year found that 70% of likely voters supported making fossil fuel companies pay for climate disasters including wildfires, droughts, and floods. “The science is more than clear on the outsized impact these companies have had on the climate crisis,” said Cassidy DiPaola, communication director for Fossil Free Media, one of the groups behind that poll. “​​It's time for them to pay their fair share, and this is one step in the right direction, but still not nearly enough.”

“Very complimentary, parallel tracks”

The bills come at the same time that dozens of state and local lawsuits to hold Big Oil accountable for climate fraud and damages are steadily advancing through the courts. So how do the two mechanisms interact?

The two tracks have some fundamental differences and aim to accomplish different things. Unlike the bills, the lawsuits center on disinformation, not pollution. They accuse the companies of engaging in deceptive behavior, citing evidence that the fossil fuel industry has misled the public for decades about the harms their products cause. Through the courts, the cases aim to stop companies from lying to consumers and hold them accountable through a range of remedies, including paying for the damage their deception has caused.

Lawsuits can also help address past disinformation by forcing defendants to set the record straight. A Minnesota lawsuit brought against Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute under the state’s consumer protection laws, for example, seeks to make the companies “disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously conducted directly or indirectly… that relates to the issue of climate change,” and “fund a corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the issue of climate change, administered and controlled by an independent third party.”

Similar remedies came out of lawsuits brought against the tobacco industry by U.S. states and territories for misleading consumers about the connection between smoking and cancer. Through the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, major tobacco companies were made to fund the Truth Initiative, a public education campaign that has drastically reduced youth smoking rates.

Discovery, the process of obtaining evidence for trial, can also produce internal company documents that shed further light on the industry’s deception about its products for legislators and the public — and can help inform a response. Such documents were obtained through litigation against the tobacco and opioid industries and made publicly available.

The climate superfund legislation, on the other hand, “does nothing to prevent [companies] from continuing business as usual if they want to,” said Coulter. “It's just saying that the business that you conducted has caused damage and you need to pay for that.” That’s why the bills and lawsuits, she emphasized, are “very complimentary, parallel tracks,” which together can both make the fossil fuel industry pay for a share of its pollution and bring an end to continued deceptive acts.

A similar dual strategy was applied in California, where the California Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act of 1991 taxed manufacturers of products containing lead to fund evaluations and medical services for children who were exposed. In 2019, 10 California cities and counties were still able to recover a court settlement from lead paint manufacturers after they sued the companies under public nuisance claims.

“This is how our democracy works,” California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta recently told Politico when asked about the relationship between California’s proposed superfund bill and the accountability lawsuit his office brought against Big Oil companies last year. “Different leaders elected to do their jobs think about the authority that they have, the jurisdiction that they own, and the action that they can take to solve a problem that affects their constituents.”

Legal battles ahead

The bills will likely implicate many of the same major oil companies facing climate deception lawsuits in state courts, including Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP. The industry’s lead trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, has already expressed its strong opposition to the bills, calling them “a punitive new fee” that “represents yet another step in a coordinated campaign to undermine America’s energy advantage and the economic and national security benefits it provides.”

Legal experts expect API and others to challenge the laws in court.

In March, API sent a letter to Vermont lawmakers claiming that the state's bill “retroactively imposes costs and liability on prior activities that were legal” and “violates equal protection and due process rights by holding companies responsible for the actions of society at large.”

But experts and advocates refute those claims. “This bill is premised on a well-established, reasonable approach to assigning liability for pollution harms,” said Courchesne, of Vermont Law. “These issues around due process and the retroactivity of liability have been litigated and those laws have been upheld.”

Big Oil’s public communications have sought to shift the blame for climate change to consumers for years, despite growing evidence that the companies intentionally mislead the public about the harms their fossil fuel products cause.

While the superfund bills don’t rely on that evidence of deception like the lawsuits do, there is still plenty of precedent for laws that hold producers liable for their pollution, Lockman explained. “If you buy a product, and the company that made that product was dumping toxic chemicals into a river and killing off species, is the consumer responsible for that?” he asked. “Generally, as a society and a legal system, we’ve decided that it’s OK to hold the most immediate actors responsible for the pollution they’re causing.”

Thanks for reading ExxonKnews!

---

https://www.alternet.org/**2022/05/**massachusetts-court-exxon-trial-climate/

The Massachusetts high court on Tuesday rejected ExxonMobil's attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the state, meaning the biggest oil giant in the U.S. must stand trial for allegations that it lied to the public about the climate emergency and the fossil fuel industry's role in driving it.

The lawsuit filed in 2019 by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey accuses Exxon of violating the state's consumer protection laws through a decades-long effort to conceal what it knew about the negative environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels.

In particular, the complaint says, Exxon deceived investors about the risks that global warming poses to its business and misled consumers by downplaying the dangerous effects of its products and overstating what the company is doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As The Guardian reported, GUK"Exxon claimed the lawsuit was in breach of legislation against what are known asstrategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPS, used by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence critics."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, however, ruled unanimously that the state's "anti-SLAPP" law is not applicable to government enforcement actions, affirming a lower court's decision to deny Exxon's special motion to dismiss the case.

"Once again, Exxon's attacks on my office and our case have been rejected by the courts," Healey said in a statement.

Tuesday's ruling, said the Massachusetts AG, "is a resounding victory in our work to stop Exxon from lying to investors and consumers in our state."

"Exxon's repeated attempts to stonewall our lawsuit have been baseless, and this effort was no different," added Healey. "We look forward to proceeding with our case and having our day in court to show how Exxon is breaking the law and to put an end to the deception once and for all."

During a congressional hearing in October, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told lawmakers that the company's public statements on climate "are and have always been truthful" and that it has "long acknowledged the reality and risks of climate change" and "devoted significant resources to addressing those risks."

In reality, however, Exxon is one of several fossil fuel corporations that have spent years spreading disinformation to delay climate action and prolong coal, oil, and gas extraction even as the consequences of doing so grow increasingly deadly.

To take just one example, several U.S. government scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were replaced or forced into retirement following an intervention by Exxon lobbyists in the early days of former President George W. Bush's administration, as detailed in Frontline's new three-part docuseries, "The Power of Big Oil."

The Massachusetts lawsuit states that Exxon undertook a "sophisticated, multi-million dollar campaign" to sow doubt about the links between fossil fuels and the climate crisis, which is "reminiscent of the tobacco industry's long denial campaign about the dangerous effects of cigarettes."

According to Healey's office, Exxon also engaged in greenwashing by marketing and selling its products as pollution-reducing and "falsely promoting itself as an environmentally responsible clean energy leader working to address climate change."

"Rather than honestly disclose and mitigate climate change risks," the lawsuit states, "ExxonMobil's misrepresentations about and failures to disclose those risks have delayed the needed transition to clean energy around the world and make these existential climate-driven threats to the global economy more likely to occur."

Since 2017, the AGs of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington have filed lawsuits to hold oil, gas, and coal companies accountable for lying to the public about how they are fueling the planetary emergency.

As Natural Gas Infrastructure Decisions Loom, Massachusetts Gov. Baker Invests in Fossil Fuel Companies

Amidst growing controversy over his administration’s support for new natural gas projects, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker personally invested in the fossil fuel industry, DeSmog has found.

According to Baker’s recent financial disclosure, filed last week with the state’s Ethics Commission, the governor invested last year in a specialty energy fund composed almost exclusively of oil, gas, and coal companies.

Massachusetts' highest court on Tuesday resoundingly upheld the state's power to impose limits on carbon emissions from power plants.

It's the latest example of states establishing their authority to fill the regulatory void the Trump administration is creating as it moves to roll back the Clean Power Plan and other federal climate regulations.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection finalized rules last year to require power plants within the state's borders to reduce their emissions annually, amounting to a 7 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from current levels by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050. It is one of a suite of clean energy and pollution control policies state officials have put into place under the Global Warming Solutions Act, signed into law by then-Gov. Deval Patrick in 2008. The law's "name bespeaks its ambitions," Justice Scott Kafker wrote for the unanimous seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. It "was passed to address the grave threats that climate change poses to the health, economy, and natural resources of the Commonwealth."

"The act is designed to make Massachusetts a national, and even international, leader in the efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change," he wrote. Since the electric power sector is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions within the state, Kafker, who was appointed last year by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, said, it would make "little to no sense" for the Legislature to have excluded it from the requirements of the law.

The court dismissed the arguments of the electric power industry (represented by the New England Power Generators Association and GenOn Energy) that the sector is subject to other state regulations and therefore can't be subject to the carbon emissions rules. Kafker said the environmental regulations don't conflict, but complement each other.

He also brushed aside the industry's contention that the new rules could have the unintended consequence of increasing carbon emissions if Massachusetts seeks additional power from out of state that ends up being dirtier. Kafker noted that the state has a renewable energy standard in place that is designed to force power providers to rely on an increasing amount of clean energy.

"Far from causing increased greenhouse gas emissions from out-of-State generators," Kafker wrote, state environmental officials had provided convincing evidence that "the two regulations together will send a market signal that Massachusetts' neighbors should invest in clean energy development in order to satisfy the Commonwealth's increasing demand for renewable energy."

Massachusetts' Push Away from Fossil Fuels

The decision comes at  pivotal moment for Massachusetts, as it transitions to cleaner energy.

The state's last coal plant, Brayton Point in Somerset, closed last year, and the state has been investing in the infrastructure to support an offshore wind industry. The Vineyard Wind project, an 800 megawatt offshore wind farm planned off the coast of Martha's Vineyard, is expected to soon start the state toward its goal of having 1,600 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2027.

"It spells the end of fossil fuel electricity in Massachusetts," said David Ismay, an attorney with the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation, arguing the standards will mean a gradual phase-down in the natural gas generation, which dominates the state's electricity mix.

"It solidifies the shift to clean energy."

States Leading the Way Toward Cleaner Energy

The Massachusetts plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants is just one example of states seizing the initiative to force reductions in greenhouse gases over the past year as President Donald Trump has made clear his intention to abandon the U.S. commitment to reduce emissions. California lawmakers last week voted to require that state's utilities to use 100 percent carbon-free power by 2050. Hawaii has a similar requirement. Other states have increased their renewable portfolio standards for clean energy.

Massachusetts is also part of the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which last year updated its cap-and-trade program to achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the region's power plants by 2030. (In 2016, the Massachusetts high court said that state officials could not rely on RGGI alone to achieve the goals of the state's Global Warming Solutions Act, since it did not guarantee Massachusetts-based emissions reductions. The rules upheld on Tuesday were written in response to that ruling.)

Governors of a dozen states have committed to reduce emissions in line with the U.S. goals under the Paris Agreement even though Trump has announced his intention to withdraw. The climate action commitments made by states, cities and businesses will be the focus of a Global Climate Action Summit scheduled for next week in San Francisco.

Ismay said he believed the Massachusetts court decision will resonate beyond the state.

"We can't solve it alone," he said. "But we can have an impact by pointing a way forward, and passing strong laws that are upheld."

PUBLISHED UNDER:

CLEAN ENERGY

CLIMATE CHANGE

http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/map-shows-huge-differences-in-educational-attainment-across-us

Educational attainment is linked to income. In 2016, the average median income as divided per highest attained degree was as follows:

Map found here at Overflow Data, via Simon Kuestenmacher. Additional information here at Marketing Charts.

==

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has handed ExxonMobil another defeat in the company's legal battle to head off climate investigations into whether it misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change.

The court ruled Friday that Attorney General Maura Healey has the authority to compel Exxon to turn over records showing whether the oil company's marketing or sale of fossil fuel products violated the state's consumer protection law.

In its 32-page opinion, the state's highest court ruled that Healey may proceed with enforcing a civil investigative demand—similar to a subpoena—for Exxon documents related to climate change dating back four decades. Her office issued the demand nearly two years ago.

The court rejected each of Exxon's arguments that Healey's investigation should be stopped. Among other things, Exxon had claimed that Healey was biased based on her participation in a coalition of attorneys general formed to look into the fossil fuel industry's actions, and that the company was outside of Healey's reach because the corporation did not do business in the state, though it has 300 Exxon and Mobil franchise gas stations in Massachusetts.

The court also made a strong statement about climate change, writing: "The Attorney General's investigation concerns climate change caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions—a distinctly modern threat that grows more serious with time, and the effects of which are already being felt in Massachusetts. More particularly, the investigation is premised on the Attorney General's belief that Exxon may have misled Massachusetts residents about the impact of fossil fuels on both the Earth's climate and the value of the company."

A spokesman for Exxon did not respond to a request for comment.

...

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042018/exxon-climate-change-investigation-massachusetts-supreme-court-ruling-refuses-block-attorney-general-healey

apr 13

==

==

u mass divest 1st

http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/26/umass-divest-fossil-fuels/

:{==

}:

Massachusetts

For the third year running, Massachusetts won the coveted top spot on the annual energy efficiency state scorecard released every year by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Massachusetts has held onto its lead due in large part to the continued implementation and growth of the programs put in place in2008 with the passage of the Green Communities Act. This landmark law required utilities to increase investment in energy efficiency measures, mandated the design and implementation of three-year energy efficiency plans for gas and electric utilities, required that 15 percent of electricity be supplied by new renewable power facilities by 2020, established a pilot program for utilities to enter into long-term contracts with renewable energy developers and encouraged green building design through updated codes, training, and assistance.

=

http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/17/mass-climate-change-lawsuit/

===