NY weighs charging oil firms billions of dollars to fuel new climate change fund

Gov. Kathy Hochul will soon decide whether to approve a controversial bill that would force oil, natural-gas and coal companies to fork over billions of dollars to the state for contributing to climate change.

Backers liken the plan — the proposed Climate Change Superfund — to the federal Superfund program that has been trying to hold polluters responsible for abandoned toxic-waste sites for decades.

But critics claim that New York’s climate-change version — which passed both the Assembly and Senate in the spring — is unworkable, would only end up costing customers in the long run and will be tied up in the courts for years if approved.

An analysis conducted for bill sponors state Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan) and Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx) and obtained by The Post shows foreign-owned and American companies together would pay about $3 billion a year — or $75 billion over 25 years — under the plan.   

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. 

Aramco — formally known as the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. — is owned by the Saudi Royal family.

The state-owned Mexican oil firm Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, emitted 9,512 tons of CO2 and could face an $193 million assessment for generating 9,512 million tons of greenhouse gases.

Russia’s Lukoil could be assessed with a $100 million yearly fee for spewing 4,912 millions of CO2.

The 38 companies identified as carbon polluters include American petro giants such as Exxon and Chevron as well as Shell and BP in the UK, Total Energies IES in France, Petrobras in Brazil, BHP in Australia, Glencore in Switzerland, Equinor in Norway and ENI in Italy.

Hochul has yet to say whether she will sign the bill into law, with a rep telling The Post that the governor is still reviewing the proposed legislation.

The bill is well-intentioned in terms of trying to generate funds for New York to prepare for climate change, said former state Public Service Commission Chairman John Howard.

But he questioned whether state officials will be able to collect fees from foreign-owned firms or those headquartered in other countries.

“What is the mechanism for collecting from Saudi Aramco and Lukoil? What is the crown prince [Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia] going to say? Will the foreign entities pay?” Howard asked. “I don’t see a mechanism for them to pay.”

He said the carbon fuel companies will try to pass along any costs to customers at the pump, anyways.     

New Yorkers for Affordable Energy Executive Director Daniel Ortega added in a statement, “This bill is unconstitutional and is sure to be legally challenged.

“This bill is a terrible signal to businesses engaged in selling legal commodities anywhere in New York State,” Ortega wrote. “For a business, it means you could follow every rule and regulation, collect and pay every tax and then have the Legislature impose penalties on you for it after the fact.

“Who in their right mind would want to continue to do business in a state like that?”

Money collected under the proposed program would be used for new or upgraded infrastructure needs such as coastal wetlands restoration, storm-water drainage system upgrades, energy-efficient cooling systems in public and private buildings including schools and public housing and addressing severe weather conditions through the erection of sea walls.

“The cost to the state of climate adaptation investments through 2050 will easily reach several hundred billion dollars, based on an array of estimates for projects impacting different regions across the state, far more than the $75 billion being assessed on the fossil fuel industry,” Krueger and Dinowitz state in the bill.

Krueger said there shouldn’t be a problem collecting greenhouse gas fees from foreign companies because “they all have American-based divisions that are supposed to follow our laws and courts.”

Dinowitz agreed, saying, “There’s no reason to think we’re not able to do that.

“I expect other states to follow suit,” the pol said.

Vermont was the first state in the US to approve a Climate Change Superfund Act, which went into effect July 1.