New York Amends Newly Instituted Climate Change Superfund Act

By Alicyn Craig, Louis C. Formisano and Matthew L. Capone

On Friday, February 28, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 824 amending New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act (Act) just two months after the Act had itself been signed into law in December 2024. As previously reported in a Duane Morris Alert, the Act, which seeks to hold major fossil fuel companies financially accountable for alleged contributions to climate change, has been met with a lawsuit filed by a coalition of state attorneys general and industry groups asserting various causes of action under both federal and New York state law. The amendment to the Act has prompted a new lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of New York State, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Mining Association (U.S. Chamber Coalition) in the Southern District of New York which asserts, among other things, that the U.S. Constitution precludes the Act and that the Act is preempted by the Clean Air Act.

The Amendment

Among the pertinent changes to the Act are a litany of additions which seek both to facilitate the New York Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC) administration of its duties under the Act and to seemingly assuage some of the concerns raised by detractors to the Act.

Among the primary additions to the Act is an increase to the lookback period under which NYSDEC may consider the emissions of a potentially responsible party under the Act. Previously the Act had authorized an eighteen-year lookback window (extending from 2000 to 2018). The Act will now consider emissions from 2000 to 2024 – adding six years of potential liability to emitters. The amendment also clarifies that “covered greenhouse gas emissions” include “those emissions attributable to all fossil fuel extraction and refining worldwide by such entity and are not limited to such emissions within the state.”

To facilitate NYSDEC’s investigation into potentially responsible parties, the Act also requires such entities to provide information to NYSDEC related to their “past practices, production, extraction, refining, emissions, or other historical information” as may be needed by NYSDEC to “determine the amount of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to an entity”. NYSDEC will make publicly available data and information received from potentially responsible parties.

Additionally, Changes to NYSDEC’s administration of the Act include an increase in the amount of time afforded to NYSDEC to promulgate regulations necessary to perform under the Act and to publish its resilience plan – a statewide climate change adaptation plan guiding the disbursement of funds anticipated to be collected from allegedly responsible parties.

Lastly, the amended Act now provides for a procedure by which a potentially responsible party may file a request for reconsideration of its cost recovery demand with the NYSDEC.

The U.S. Chamber Coalition’s Lawsuit

The lawsuit filed on February 28th by the U.S. Chamber Coalition mirrors the claims filed by those state attorneys general and industry groups appearing in the February 6, 2025, litigation. Namely, the new suit argues that New York exceeded the bounds of its authority through the Act by exposing responsible parties to significant and unduly burdensome penalties for greenhouse gas emissions – some of which may have occurred beyond state lines. Moreover, the U.S. Chamber Coalition asserts that the Act is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.

Additionally, the U.S. Chamber Coalition argues that there is no meaningful way to trace greenhouse gas emissions back to a particular generator, nor is there a discernible way of measuring damages for those specific emissions.

Duane Morris, LLP will continue to follow the developments on this lawsuit and will issue subsequent Alerts and blog posts on the New York Climate Change Superfund Act.

Have No Fear with AI Here; Opportunities for Adoption in Sector

Last year, President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14110 on the “Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence.” Since the issuance of the executive order, a lot of attention has been focused on the provision requiring “the head of each agency with relevant regulatory authority over critical infrastructure … to assess potential risks related to the use of AI in critical infrastructure sectors involved, … and to consider ways to mitigate these vulnerabilities.” Naturally, government agencies generated numerous reports cataloging the well-documented risks of AI. At the same time, nearly every company has implemented risk-mitigation guidelines governing the use of artificial intelligence. To be sure, the risks of AI are real, from privacy and cybersecurity concerns, to potential copyright infringements, to broader societal risks posed by automated decision-making tools. Perhaps because of these risks, less attention has been focused on the offensive applications of AI, and relatedly, fewer companies have implemented guidelines promoting the use of artificial intelligence. Those companies may be missing out on opportunities to reduce legal risks, as a recent report by the Department of Energy highlights.

Read The Legal Intelligencer article by Duane Morris partners Phil Cha and Brian H. Pandya

SCOTUS Hears Argument That Could Change Administrative Law As We Know It

Recent oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States has raised significant questions concerning the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old ruling that requires federal courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of certain statutory provisions that Congress charged the agency with implementing. Because a majority of the Supreme Court appears inclined to overturn or at least modify that doctrine, many in the regulated community are bracing for potentially significant changes in the administration of regulatory law. Still others are warning that there may be a “flood of litigation” seeking to overturn prior decisions that relied on the doctrine. The Supreme Court’s decision on the issue is expected before July 2024.

Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.

Survey Indicates Future of International Energy Arbitration

Queen Mary University of London has undertaken a major International Arbitration Survey, focusing on the energy sector entitled “Future of International Energy Arbitration, Survey Report 2022”. This was led by Professor Loukas Mistelis FCArb[1] and his team. The Survey was based on feedback from over 900 respondents from a diverse range of jurisdictions, end users, leading practitioners, arbitrators and experts, as well as arbitral and academic institutions.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris partner Vijay Bange, please visit the Duane Morris International Arbitration Blog.

The Invisible Enemy is Cybercrime (UK Construction)

Cyber fraud is a real and present danger across almost all industry sectors, and the construction sector is not immune as our recent article demonstrated. According to the FCA there has been a jump of 52% in incident reports and recent global conflict may possibly increase this threat.

One of the primary types of fraud affecting the construction industry is the prevalence of payment diversion fraud. It is estimated that contractors pay out around £100m per year in fake invoices. In some cases, a single instance of payment diversion fraud can amount to millions of pounds. In such cases it is easy to see how the fraud would place intolerable pressure on the cash flow of a business and in extreme instances even lead to insolvency. In an industry already under pressure through factors such as super-inflation and rising energy costs, fraud is yet another unwelcome factor which can be detrimental to cash flow on a project.

To read the full text of this post by Matthew FriedlanderChris Recker and Sam Laycock, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.

North Carolina Seeks to Face Climate Change with Head in the Sand

As Florida’s “Don’t say gay” bill  (SB 1834) occupies the front pages of many media outlets today, one is reminded of an earlier (2012) state legislative exercise in prohibiting engagement with reality: North Carolina’s “Don’t say climate change” bill (H819).Unhappy with the perceived prospect of dampened economic development resulting from the state’s Coastal Resources Commission estimating that the sea level would rise by 39 inches in the next century, the state legislature chose to bury the state’s head in the sand. It passed a bill prohibiting the state’s coastal management and environmental agencies from defining the rate of sea level rise for regulatory purposes for the next four years. (“The Coastal Resources Commission and the Division of Coastal Management of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources shall not define rates of sea-level change for regulatory purposes prior to July 1, 2016.”)

Well, the climate didn’t care. Based on a 5-year report newly released by NOAA (full NOAA report), the estimate generated by NC’s Coastal Resources Commission has proven to be very much on target.

To read the full text of this post by Seth v.d.H. Cooley, visit the Environmental, Social and Governance Blog.

UK: Construction and Engineering Sector Face Limitations on Use of Red Diesel

Glasgow and COP26 resulted in various commitments from global economies to work towards targets in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The UK is to target the reduction of greenhouse emissions to net zero by 2050.

However, even prior to COP26 there were already legislative changes afoot to have cleaner air. The Finance Bill 2021, and the associated secondary legislation, as part of the government’s plans to reduce carbon emissions, has the effect of restricting the usage of red diesel after April 2022.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris partner Vijay Bange, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.

Achmea Decision Fallout in the UK

In the Achmea case the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) held that Article 8 of the Netherlands – Slovakia bilateral investment treaty, which allowed for the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, was incompatible with EU law. The rationale for the decision was that a tribunal may have to interpret or apply EU law and where a question of law arose, unlike a Member State court, that question of law could not be referred to the ECJ. In other words, intra-EU bilateral investment treaty arbitration provisions, as reasoned by the ECJ, deprived the EU courts of jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation of EU law.

We raised the prospect that the ramifications from the decision were potentially far reaching and were not, it seemed, confined to the BIT between Netherlands and Slovakia.

To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Vijay Bange and Matthew Friedlander, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.

Beware, Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties May No Longer Offer Investment Protection

The impact and uncertainty caused by the Achmea case on investor state dispute settlement provisions contained in intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties continues. These issues are potentially far reaching and may extend further than originally envisaged, namely that this case was arguably specific to the BIT between Netherlands and Slovakia.

To read the full text of this blog post by Duane Morris attorneys Vijay Bange and Matthew Friedlander, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.

© 2009-2025 Duane Morris LLP. Duane Morris is a registered service mark of Duane Morris LLP.

The opinions expressed on this blog are those of the author and are not to be construed as legal advice.

Proudly powered by WordPress