Dinowitz urges appeal after federal judge strikes down New York climate superfund law

A U.S. judge ruled Aug. 31 Assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz’s “Climate Change Superfund Act” — which would require fossil fuel companies fund projects addressing the effects of climate change — was unconstitutional, as well as invalid since there is already a federal law that regulates the emission of hazardous air pollutants.

The law would identify major companies responsible for more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions globally between 2000 and 2018 that have sufficient ties to New York, and require them to contribute based on their share of those emissions. The state would collect $75 billion over 25 years, or $3 billion annually, according to the law.

Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the act in December 2024, and said at the time — amid record rainfalls, heat waves and storms, similar to what the city has endured this year — it would make sure companies helped fund infrastructure investments like coastal protection and flood mitigation systems. It also aims to charge the companies viewed as responsible, instead of using New Yorkers’ tax dollars to remediate the damage, Dinowitz told The Press.

But Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York Brenda Sannes said in the court ruling the act is beyond the limits of state law. It is an “unusual and sweeping statute,” she wrote, that “requests damages for the cumulative impact of conduct occurring simultaneously across just about every jurisdiction on the planet.”

The law is preempted by the Clean Air Act, Sannes said. This federal law required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish national air quality standards for common pollutants like particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide, according to the agency. States were required to adopt enforceable plans to meet these standards.

Sannes could not be reached for additional comment by press time.

The suit against the act was filed by 22 Republican-led states, as well as trade organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute and the National Mining Association. Ryan Meyers, vice president and deputy general counsel of the institute, said in a statement to The Press that climate policy is a federal issue, not a state one.

“State climate lawsuits and these so-called superfund laws are part of a coordinated campaign against an industry that is vital to everyday life and serves as the engine of America’s economy,” Meyers said.

The National Mining Association said to The Press it supports Sanne’s ruling, specifically that energy producers can’t be held liable for emissions made around the globe under New York State law, and that the Clean Air Act preempts the Climate Change Superfund Act.

In response to the ruling, Dinowitz issued a statement urging New York State Attorney General Letitia James to appeal the decision. The attorney general’s office did not respond for comment by press time.

Fossil fuel companies were aware of the harm they were causing the environment, and did nothing to mitigate damages, Dinowitz wrote. Negligence has led to rising sea levels, more intense heat waves and frequent flooding, he said.

Dinowitz told The Press that chipping in on $3 billion a year would be a “drop in the bucket” for major fossil fuel companies. He grew up learning that “if you make a mess, you got to clean it up,” he said, adding it’s unfair for taxpayers to bear responsibility for the damages he believes these companies caused.

Still, he is optimistic the state will appeal the decision and the act will prevail. Dinowitz emphasized it comes down to taxes, and a choice between New Yorkers and big corporations.

“The people who opposed this law chose the side of big oil over their own constituents,” Dinowitz said.

But the Business Council of New York State — also listed as a plaintiff in the suit — argued against this notion. The council represents the interests of more than 3,000 member companies, local chambers of commerce and professional and trade associations, according to its website.

In a statement issued Sept. 1, the council’s president and CEO Heather Mulligan said while the council supports efforts to improve the state’s environment, the law would likely result in “billions of dollars in increased energy costs” for businesses and residents.

Ken Pokalsky, vice president of the council, told The Press the act is structured like an excise tax, which is built into the price of goods. Taxes get passed on to consumers, Pokalsky said. He agreed with Sannes’ ruling that the act was too broad.

“We thought it was bad law, and so far the federal courts have agreed,” Pokalsky said. “This is beyond the scope of what states can do in imposing costs on interstate and literally global business.”