Opponents of the bill argued it would have threatened business and investments in the state, driven up insurance costs and lead to a reduction in revenue and jobs in the state. (Credit: chase4concept/Shutterstock)
A first-of-its-kind bill introduced to the California State Senate by Senator Scott Wiener that would allow civil suits from insurers and customers against oil and gas companies was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It received only five of the seven votes needed to pass out of committee, with seven committee members either voting against the measure or choosing to abstain.
The bill proposal read, in part: “This bill would authorize a person to bring a civil action, if specified criteria are met, including damages of $10,000 or more, against a party responsible for a climate disaster or extreme weather or other events attributable to climate change due to the responsible party’s misleading and deceptive practices or the provision of misinformation or disinformation about the connection between its fossil fuel products and climate change and extreme weather or other events attributable to climate change.”
The aforementioned criteria for bringing such a suit (for non-government entities) included:
- The person has damages of at least ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as a result of a climate disaster or extreme weather or other events attributable to climate change. Multiple plaintiffs, regardless of association in a class action, may aggregate claims with a common injury and connection to a climate disaster or extreme weather or other events attributable to climate change to reach this amount in controversy threshold.
- During any time since the year 1965, the responsible party did business in the state, was registered to do business in the state, was appointed an agent of the state, or otherwise had sufficient contacts with the state to give the state jurisdiction over the responsible party.
- Notwithstanding any other applicable statute of limitations, the action is filed within three years of the date that the injury was or should have been discovered.
“Californians are paying a devastating price for the climate disasters that have and will continue to wreak havoc on our state. Tens of thousands of people in Southern California just lost their homes and, in some cases, big swaths of their community. Homes reduced to ash, cherished memories destroyed and lives lost will haunt all of us for years to come,” Weiner said in a press conference.
He directly referenced the recent Southern California fires as he discussed the bill. “This was the most destructive fire in the history of our state and it happened in the middle of winter when we historically, typically, get a respite from wildfires. This has not been normal, but it is now normal.”
“Right now, Californians,” he continued, “you and I, are paying the immense cost of these disasters… The victims are paying the price, but we are also paying the price as taxpayers… and as policyholders, because all of our insurance rates are going up.”
Opponents of the bill argued that allowing these suits would lead to an increase in utility and gas prices, which they believe would interrupt supply chains.
One such opponent, non-partisan think tank California Center for Jobs & the Economy, stated in release, “SB 222 effectively turns climate policy into litigation, with damage awards determined through the courts rather than through established regulatory frameworks. The bill’s strict liability standard means that defendants would not need to be proven negligent— simply having a historical or indirect connection to fossil fuels, and making statements about their products, could be enough to trigger lawsuits and massive financial penalties.”
They also argue that the bill would have threatened business and investments in the state, driven up insurance costs and lead to a reduction in revenue and jobs in the state.
The Senate Judiciary vote took place on April 8 with five members voting ‘yes’ and the remaining seven voting ‘no’ or choosing to abstain.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.