President Donald Trump has many goals to choose from to launch a war against blue state lawsuits and laws designed to punish energy companies for their role in climate change.

On April 8th, Trump signed an executive order entitled “.Protects America’s energy from national overreach“I direct his administration to investigate state-level attempts to appeal or extract large-scale payments from energy companies in the name of climate change. Some of Trump could include other Democrat-controlled judiciaries who have tried to extract billions of dollars around government coof from New York, California and the energy sector.

“When state and local governments try to regulate energy beyond constitutional or statutory authorities, America’s control of energy is threatened,” the executive order said. “For example, if states target or discriminate against out-of-state energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers and the equality of each state enforced by the constitution is undermining them. Similarly, state energy producers are subject to voluntary or excessive fines, or are trying to control energy development. (Related: Energy, Business Group asks the Supreme Court to stop California from forcing EVs in other parts of the United States)

Attorney General Pam Bondy will provide Trump with 60 days to provide a report to target laws and other actions, which outlines laws, litigation and other policies. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Trump specifically referenced California’s “CAP and Trade” emissions scheme and New York’s so-called “Climate Change Superfund Act” in his executive order as the type of policy he hopes to investigate and fight back on his administration. “Cap and Trade” method limit It uses greenhouse gas emissions statewide, allowing polluters to trade emission permits among themselves, but New York law need The energy company will provide the state $3 billion a year for 25 years, allowing the state to use cash to advance green energy and climate-focused projects.

Some initiatives that should benefit from New York’s law include, but are not limited to, upgrades to drainage systems, renovations to buildings, “preventive healthcare programs,” and construction of urban “green spaces.”

Both laws have been scrutinized by critics who argue that each imposes unnecessary restrictions and costs on energy producers, and that they tend to either pass costs to consumers or leave the state for good.

California has filed lawsuits against several municipalities as well as several major oil companies seeking large settlements.. Democrat California Attorney General Rob Bonta also filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil in September 2024, and although the company misunderstood the public about the effectiveness of advanced recycling technologies, Bonta struggled to protect the lawsuit during an interview with CNBC that month.

California and New York are not the only ones using judiciary and Congress to chase energy producers.

Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all launched their own similar climate change lawsuits against oil and gas companies. number Democrat-run cities and counties, including Chicago and Honolulu, are pursuing similar lawsuits against energy producers. (Related: Trump administrator moves from the Department of Defense to cleanse the “climate frenzy”)

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) will listen at a press conference before Capitol Hill in Washington, DC on February 1, 2017 (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In particular, many prosecutors pursuing the case have agreed to emergency fee contracts with external law firms like Shahedling to assist in the case. These specific contracts stipulate that private companies will only enjoy a major payday if they collect state fees from the defendant. In other words, private lawyers can owe the millions of superficial taxpayers if they can land a settlement.

Some climate change tort lawsuits are New Jersey and BaltimoreIt was rejected in recent months. In New Jersey, state judges ruled that the case preceded the federal government, and the Baltimore case was dismissed by a Maryland judge.

Apart from New York, Vermont has passed its own version of the “Super Fund” Act. Vermont law provides that energy companies responsible for at least 1 billion tonnes of global emissions must pay the state’s financial resources to fund various climate projects.

Democrats from many other states, including Maryland, Oregon, Massachusetts and California, were also considering their own similar legislation in March 2024. According to Go to Sabin Climate Change Law Center at Columbia University.

Broadly speaking, critics of the climate lawsuit and the “polluter payment” law argue that these actions violate the federal government’s liability for hampering energy production at the expense of consumers, regulating interstate commerce and creating a more restrictive, fragmented regulatory environment for energy. Trump mentioned these specific points in the text of the executive order.

“These state laws and policies seek to determine interstate and international disputes over air, water and natural resources. They discriminate excessively against businesses outside the state. They violate state equality and retroactively impose voluntarily any excess fines without justification.” “These state laws and policies are basically inconsistent with my administration’s purpose of unleashing American energy. They should not bear it.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.