Leaders on both sides of the legal fight concerning New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act are speaking out.

It’s following a federal judge in New York recently voicing uncertainty about the law and whether it’s preempted by federal law.

“What we should really be doing is trying to find ways to solve our climate crisis that don’t have to do with essentially litigation and taxing, doing things retroactively,” said Tom Stebbins, executive director of The Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York. “We should be doing things proactively.”

Despite Gov. Kathy Hochul signing the measure into law in December 2024, legal and constitutional challenges have kept it from taking effect.

The law uses a “polluter-pays model” in requiring major fossil fuel companies to pay $75 billion collectively over 25 years, which is an annual breakdown of $3 billion per year to fund state climate adaptation projects “from big oil and gas companies” who are blamed for causing the climate crisis.

At the core of the legal dispute is the act covers retroactive greenhouse gas emissions from January of 2000 to December of 2018, prior to when the measure was signed into law.

“This is $75 billion of penalties imposed on fossil fuel companies. Companies that are supplying us with the heat to heat our homes, and the fuel to drive our cars,” said Justin Wilcox, executive director of Upstate United. “The hypocrisy of this is the state’s own energy plan calls for increase fossil fuel use in the future.”

In nearby New Jersey, leaders there are closely watching what happens in New York.

This is after a U.S. District Court Judge in Syracuse, New York questioned state attorneys last month whether New York’s 2024 Climate Change Superfund Act is preempted by federal law through the Clean Air Act.

Currently in New Jersey, there’s a similar measure stalled in the state house.

Under the New Jersey proposal, major fossil fuel companies would have to retroactively pay $50 billion over 20 years for historical greenhouse emissions dating back to 1995.

“New York is already fighting these questions in court,” said Elissa Frank, president of the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute. “That’s kind of setting the precedent of how we will be dealing with this in New Jersey. New Jersey should be expecting the same if it moves forward with this bill.”

While a ruling has yet to be determined in this particular case in New York, some environmental advocates had this to say to Spectrum News 1 on the argument New York’s law preempts federal law.

“They (Trump administration) did something called revoking the Endangerment Finding in February earlier this year when they said we’re not going to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act,” said Jon Binder, executive director of the Model Climate Laws Initiative at Environmental Advocates NY. “So, it’s a little bit ironic and sort of talking out of both sides of their mouth for the federal government to say you can’t do this because of the Clean Air Act, but also, we’re not going to do this under the Clean Air Act.”

Democratic state Sen. Liz Krueger sponsored this bill in the state Legislature. She tells Spectrum News 1: “Many of the questions in the oral arguments revolved around the 2nd Circuit’s decision in City of New York v. Chevron. But, regardless of the questionable merits of that decision, it is very clear that there is a distinction between a tort lawsuit, which was the issue in Chevron, and a law passed by the New York State Legislature exercising its constitutional powers to raise revenues and protect its citizens. The fact remains that New Yorkers are on the hook for immense costs as a result of climate damage caused by the largest multinational oil and gas companies – a recent report put the price tag for our state at over half a trillion dollars. New Yorkers simply cannot afford to be left holding the bag for someone else’s mess.”