ANNAPOLIS, Md. (Legal Newsline) - A proposal that would have allowed the Maryland attorney general to hire contingency fee lawyers to sue oil companies on climate change claims was so "poorly written" and "open-ended" it sparked concerns among farmers that they could get dragged into protracted litigation.
House Bill 1078 failed to pass out of committee during the legislative session that ended this week, but Maryland Farm Bureau's Colby Ferguson said he was concerned the proposal as written would impact farmers statewide.
“Our worry is a farmer could be dragged into a lawsuit for having a diesel tank on their farm and that this bill would allow them to cast a wider net to consume more people and more businesses into litigation with the plan of settling out of court,” said Ferguson, director of government relations with the Bureau.
Delegate Jen Terrasa (D-Howard) sponsored the legislation that stalled in the Health and Government Operations committee after a hearing March 10.
Ferguson pointed out that the proposal would allow the attorney general to sue based on climate change from methane or natural gas leakage out of a well.
"The way the bill was written it's not only the attorney general, but he can also hire outside help, which is basically what they do now with the water quality,” Ferguson told Legal Newsline.
Under current law, the AG is precluded from hiring outside counsel on a contingency basis.
Ferguson described Terrasa as "very pro-environmental."
“She definitely focuses on a lot of bills that try to clean up our environment.," he said. "She sees the fossil fuel and transportation industry as part of a huge emissions problem issue.”
The Maryland legislature meets once a year for 90 days and, as a result, HB 1078 would have to be revived next year in order to progress because the session ended this week.
“It probably wouldn't be a bill that the governor would be real amenable to because it's not a pro-business bill but at the same time he's not pro-pollution either so I don’t know if he would have gotten in the middle since it did not directly target Maryland businesses or industry,” Ferguson said. "The bill was poorly written because it is just too open-ended.”
A representative for Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) testified in favor of HB 1078 on March 10 while D. Robert Enten, a lobbyist for the Maryland Building Industry Association, testified against it, according to media reports.
“The bill was so open-ended that the oil and gas companies didn't even come in and testify against the bill,” Ferguson said. “I thought that was interesting. It was a pretty short hearing and the bill itself is only one page long.”
While the measure is on hold for now, Marylanders and Big Oil await a huge jurisdictional ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in the City of Baltimore's climate change lawsuit.
In the case before SCOTUS argued earlier this year, Baltimore is suing 26 energy companies, including BP, Citgo and Chevron, claiming the companies concealed knowledge about emissions from burning fossil fuels (greenhouse gas emissions), and are, therefore, responsible for everything from damage caused by flooding in the city to adverse health impacts on its citizens.
At issue is whether the case belongs in federal court, where the industry prefers, or state court, where the City prefers. Various other governments around the country that have sued the oil industry are waiting on the SCOTUS ruling.