The smochstac of the wheelbatter inkanator, an waste recycling feature that converts garbage into energy. Joe Capital News Service Photo by Ryan.
A bill to pay for fossil fuel companies for Maryland’s climate declining ran into some doubt from Democrats in its first public hearing of the General Assembly on Tuesday.
Renewal Act of 2024 – Responding to emergency needs from extreme weather – In the last two decades, the 40 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in Maryland impose punishment on – and use funds for an array of climate mitigation, flexibility and adaptation initiatives.
Bill sponsor, Sen Katie Fry Hester (D-Haward and Montgomery) told their colleagues about the education, energy and environment committee, “This is an essential piece of law, which will produce millions of dollars in a year for a cleaner, more durable Marland for the coming years,” It has become the responsibility of the Maryland taxpayer to pay for the environmental damage to the environmental damage. No more. “
Hester Tuesday’s bill hearing was with an array of advocates and experts who gave dramatic testimony about the impact of climate change in Maryland – especially its devastating effects on poor and unqualified communities. American Sen Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) offered written testimony in support of the bill, which is similar to the national law offered on Capital Hill.
“Both bills are also based on a simple theory used in the National Superfund Act – that companies that have damaged the damage should bear the cost of repairing that loss, not to taxpayers,” van Hollen wrote.
Hester estimated that the bill would generate $ 900 million per year in revenue during a decade, sufficient to pay for many ambitious climatic initiatives of the state. None of the 40 companies targeted in the law is based in Maryland, Hester said,
But some MPs expressed doubts about the bill, including its impact on the state’s energy market, will funds reach the communities that they needed the most, and will the cost of the bill be borne by consumers.
“I am very concerned about passing the cost of $ 9 billion to Marylanders in a very retrograde manner, and not very targeted,” said Sen. Malcolm Augustine (D-Prince George).
Hester replied that the bill was required to compensate the most hurt by climate change. And he argued that even though fossil fuel companies face large -scale payment to the state, they are unlikely to pass the costs with consumers, as their prices will then be higher than the rates for the energy given by the contestants that are not subject to punishment.
Haster’s law co-manager Sen Ron Watson (D-Prince George) said he was worried that the bill would force the power companies to stop trading in the state, which could affect the energy supply in the state.
“We depend on these companies,” he said. “We are going to continue depending on these companies.”
Watson said that he saw the argument of the national law of van Hollen, but surprised that “a small, small kingdom like Maryland” would want to go unilaterally after pollutants when environmental destruction comes from innumerable sources and occurs everywhere. Advocates said that three other state assemblies in Massachusetts, New York and Vermont – are considering similar laws, but have not yet transferred those bills.
“The question is why we will wait?” Hester asked.
Some testimonial advocates recently referred to a survey that 72% of Maryland’s voters are concerned about climate change and 48% would be favorable on MLAs who supported a measure like the Renewal Act.
“Pol data was attractive,” Sen Cheryl c. Kagan (D-Montgomery), Vice President of the Committee and co-Principal of Bill said. “It should be clear, but we will actually take action.”
But Augustine showed irritation from the use of the advocates of the pole to influence his arguments. “Should we work on things based on elections or based on facts?” He asked.
Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a member of the Maryland Commission on climate change, replied that the pole was useful as it shows that voters could be persuaded to support these measures and because it is also shown that many Marylanders were unaware of the current climatic efforts and the need to fund them.
“it [bill] Is there money from those who benefit humans, ”he said.
Beyond the ten people testifying in favor of the bill, many more individuals and organizations presented written testimony in support including Attorney General Anthony Brown (D), whose office has determined that the measure is constitutional and will be authorized to collect losses from state pollutants.
No opponents publicly testified on Tuesday, but Washington, at least one Exonmobile Lobist, Sitting in the audience, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) representatives and the Maryland Chamber of Commerce offered a written testimony in protest.
The group wrote through its State House Lobist, Berney Markazake, “While API appreciates the target of financing environmental programs, this law is not a way to affect this objective.” “API believes that this is a poor public policy and can be unconstitutional. Among other things … API is extremely concerned that the bill: retrospectively applies cost and liability on pre -activities that were legal, catching companies responsible for the functions of society on a large scale and violates equal security and fixed procedure rights; And is predetermined by federal law. ,
In a statement by the Chamber, a government relations associate, Hannah Alan, the law expressed concern that the law demanded to collect losses from companies for commercial practices that started in 2000.
Alan wrote, “It is extremely rigid and excessive to reach 24 years, as well as implementing a possible liability of up to $ 9 billion on pre -activities,” Allen wrote. “Additionally, businesses should not be held responsible because fossil fuels they were removed or refined, they were placed in the market and used by a third party.”
Environmental advocates are carefully optimistic that the bill will be received through the Education, Energy and Environment Committee, where it needs six votes. Six members of the committee, including Watson, are co-co -rators of the bill. The bill should also be obtained through the Senate Finance Committee, although no hearing is scheduled there. A member of the finance, Sen Antonio Hayes (D-Baltimore City), was sitting through the part of the hearing as a messenger from that panel.
Dale. The house version of the law sponsored by David Fraser-Hidalgo (D-Montgomery) is for hearing in the Economic Affairs Committee on 7 March. House environment and transport committee will also have to say.
Re -published