Delegate Ruth proposes climate change restitution fund and authorizes AG to sue fossil-fuel companies

Delegate Sheila Ruth opened her testimony on House Bill 340 by citing historical internal industry reports and arguing companies knew decades ago that fossil-fuel combustion would cause climate harm. "The oil and gas and coal companies knew 50 years ago and warned what would happen," she said, and proposed a bill to authorize the attorney general to sue large multinational companies "whose actions contributed to the effects that we're seeing now," with reasonable limits to "protect small businesses."

Supporters testified at length. Jamie DeMarco of Chesapeake Climate Action Network described mounting fiscal costs already borne by Maryland jurisdictions — such as more than $100 million to raise the city dock in Annapolis and a multihundred-million-dollar drainage tunnel project in Ellicott City — and urged that polluters pay instead of Maryland taxpayers. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, a Maryland Climate Commissioner and disability advocate, argued the proposal resembles prior restitution efforts against tobacco and opioids and said settlements would protect vulnerable Marylanders who are disproportionately affected by pollution and extreme weather.

Opponents warned of legal and fiscal risk. Mimi Schwartz, testifying for opponents, argued costly litigation could ultimately raise energy costs for Maryland ratepayers and said prior lawsuits in Baltimore and Anne Arundel County had been dismissed; she called the effort a poor use of limited state funds. Testimony from the attorney general's office (entered into the record) described a list of amendments and implementation concerns; Delegate Ruth said she submitted an amendment intended to address the AG's technical requests and would continue to refine language. Committee members asked about whether settlements could be structured to avoid reducing recoveries against nonsettling defendants; the sponsor said the amendment would address changes to Maryland's Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act modeled on prior legislation used for the Key Bridge litigation.

Members also questioned the bill's likely fiscal notes and litigation costs. Delegate Ruth and supporters replied the AG could pursue contingency outside counsel and hire staff if needed, and that potential recoveries could be substantial. The hearing produced extensive questions; the committee did not vote during the session and several members recommended further meetings between the sponsor and the attorney general's office before the bill moves forward.