California’s Senate Targets Oil Companies, Proposing Law Allowing Wildfire Victims to Sue
Meanwhile the state is now dealing with the massive environmental contamination around the Moss Landing Lithium Battery Plant, which is part of its “clean energy” vision.
California’s politicians have spent the past couple of decades targeting fossil fuel companies as part of “climate cult” theater.
These antics have had consequences. For example, energy giant Chevron relocated its headquarters to Texas, after having been headquartered in California for over 140 years. It had strong roots in this state.
However, the toxic policies of California’s lawmakers and regulators have killed those roots.
More recently, Phillips 66 announced plans to stop operations at its Los Angeles-area refinery in the fourth quarter of 2025. It decided after Governor Gavin Newsom decided to mandate fossil fuel companies create a stockpile of gasoline.
Now, California lawmakers have introduced a new bill allowing victims of wildfires and insurance companies to sue oil companies for damages caused by storms, wildfires, and other disasters (often exacerbated by the lack of infrastructure, preventative maintenance, and adequate response resources…otherwise known as “climate change”).
The proposed legislation, introduced by Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener, provides a new pathway for recovering damages that doesn’t include tapping into an already deficit-laden state budget.
The clear solution from the California state Senate is to drill into the deepest pockets possible, the oil companies, by directly linking the historic wildfires to climate change.
State Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, unveiled the proposal at the state capitol alongside consumer protection and environmental groups.
The bill, SB 222, would allow those impacted by natural disasters, private insurance companies, and California’s state insurance program known as the FAIR Plan to recoup losses from natural disasters by taking oil companies to court. The proposal would apply to oil companies that operate in California.
…The proposal comes as California braces for the impact of the devastation left by the destructive and deadly wildfires in Los Angeles County that began burning more than two weeks ago. Many victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires were on the state’s insurance program, the FAIR Plan, because private insurers would no longer provide them with coverage. The FAIR Plan has been at risk of insolvency with a major disaster in California.
California legislatures are now realizing the magnitude of the unintended consequence of trying to force insurance companies to accept the elevated risks of wildfire disasters without a commensurate increase in rates. Insurance companies said “no deal” and canceled policies.
No company is forced to do business in this state. This is a free market concept Sacramento should reflect on before targeting fossil fuel companies further.
Meanwhile, let’s check the status of the Moss Landing Lithium Battery Plant, which was storing electricity as part of California’s “green energy utopia”.
All signs point to a tremendous environmental problem stemming from the massive fire that occurred there recently.
Scientists from San José State University found alarmingly high concentrations of heavy metals (nickel, manganese, and cobalt) in soil samples at the nearby environmentally sensitive estuary.
The toxic metals threaten to upset the delicate ecosystem at the Elkhorn Slough, which is the state’s second-largest estuary and plays a key role in sequestering carbon emissions and protecting the coastline from sea level rise, said Ivano Aiello, chair of the university’s Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.
Aiello, who has monitored environmental conditions at the slough for more than a decade, said he was shocked by the results.
The concentration of nickel, manganese and cobalt measured on the surface of the soil is hundreds to thousands of times as much as the levels in the surface soil prior to the fire or compared with levels measured deeper in the soil.
“I was wondering whether there was anything associated with this fire that could have been impacted,” said Aiello. “I didn’t know I was going find such a high concentration of those metals.”
Ironically, California Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) has introduced Assembly Bill 303, the Battery Energy Safety & Accountability Act, mandating local engagement in the permitting process for battery storage facilities and establishing safety buffers.
So, another Democrat chases down a solution to the unintended consequence of forcing new and not fully developed technologies onto society, using pseudoscience and political pressure.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
They refuse to acknowledge the madness to which they subscribe.
If they did that would mean letting everyone know they are the root cause of all California’s issues.
A fish doesn’t know it is wet.
If that law passes oil companies should stop selling products inside of California.
It wouldn’t matter. California courts would still sue oil companies and you and I would still pay more at the pump to subsidize the Golden State.
This will cost you and I money. Even if we don’t live there.
If the companies move out of state, have no facilities in state, how and where would the state have standing to sue? To what could they attach for payment?
Not selling in CA would create a surplus everywhere else. Because supply would outstrip demand, this would tend to drive prices down. Big companies have insurance to take care of civil damage claims.
Cali is blessed with wonderful scenery, a decent climate. But like the similarly resource-rich Mexico, it is being run into the ground by corrupt and inept government.
California is getting serious about that electric car mandate, aren’t they?
If the oil companies don’t leave California after this they’re insane. This is basically unlimited liability for something they have nothing to do with.
The answer is obvious, cease doing any business in the People’s Republic of Kommiefornia.
Can any lawyer explain what the legislators believe to be the link between the Oil Companies and the fires? The only one I can think of is “Climate Change”. It would seem to me that claiming that the consumption of oil (gasoline and diesel fuel) caused climate change which caused the recent fires is a pretty hard argument to sell to the courts outside California. It’s just too long and convoluted a path, and given that California has been known for hundreds of years to have periodic severe droughts, I can believe this sustains scrutiny.
“Can any lawyer explain what the legislators believe to be the link between the Oil Companies and the fires?”
I should think this would be obvious.
Victims of the fires need money.
Oil companies have money, and they’re not the State of California.
Maybe, but these suits would obviously only be available in California, not elsewhere. California can’t legislate to allow suits in Texas courts. So as long as California courts can be convinced of this nonsense the suits would survive.
Cannot believe it survives scrutiny.
The fact is that California cannot govern itself. It is a failed state. It needs to be put under a conservatorship or some sort of custody arrangement. It is a danger to itself and others.
Gives the phrase “nanny government” a whole new meaning.
Since the politicians are consumers of oil based products, they are contributing to climate change and should be subject to lawsuits as well.
Wait – what?
California’s crappy forest management policies, including neglecting to conduct controlled burns and otherwise clear out deadwood and underbrush, are a direct cause of these fires year after year…. but oil companies are somehow culpable and should therefore be sued?
CA truly is the land of fruits and nuts.
Well, they fight wildfires with gas fueled vehicles, and pump water with gas fueled pumps. What more causation do you need?
Why are the oil companies still there? California is lost to the extreme left. Let them do without oil and gas and see how far all of their renewable energy sources go–I hope they’re prepared to stock up on firewood
Firewood? Carbon based life form.
There is no credible theory of tort liability that would hold oil companies responsible for natural disasters. Commiefornia’s Dhimmi-crat apparatchiks can contrive all manner of novel and politically-motivated and vindictive theories of civil liability, but, in the crazy event that a judgment was rendered against a defendant oil company, it would be reversed on appeal, even if SCOTUS has to weigh in.
This is a farcical charade.
Problem is, the CA legislature can create tort liability beyond that established by common law. CA has a long history of promulgating statutes beyond the scope of most other states’. I suspect that this one, based on attenuated if not non-existent causation, could be struck down by SCOTUS for lack of due process in deprivation of property, but that is far from certain. A rational and constitutional stategovernment should not even be contemplating such a statute.
When you have a state that believes an estuary somehow keeps sea levels from rising, it should be possible to convince them that drum circles and burning sage will combat future wildfires.
This low level of mentation indicates extreme gullibility and an inability to make rational decisions. California is literally being led by 11 year-olds wearing suits.
It occurs to me that if (say) NY passes a state law saying victims of (say) traffic accidents can sue a car manufacturer or alternately victims of (say) gun violence can sue a gun manufacturer or alternately morbidly obese patients can sue (say) fast food companies that it’s up to the courts to reign in that over reach.
If the underlying premise is that California wildfires – which predate both widespread use of fossil fuels AND the migration of Homo sapiens into the Americas – are caused by “Climate Change” – in turn caused by widespread use of fossil fuels – it would make more sense to sue India and China, since America could theoretically outlaw all fossil fuel usage (killing most of our population in the process) without measurably slowing GCC enuf to prevent GCC as long as the rest of the world still refuses to kill most of their population by outlawing use of fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, our courts are not empowered to overturn statutes on the grounds of stupidity. That’s why democracy has to be fettered by solid constitutional rights that can only be altered by super-majorities acting on a broad societal consensus,
World in general, please ponder this mnemonic:
You can “rein in” a horse, but you can’t “reign in” a king.
Thank you.
This law is crap in so many ways, it’s hard to know where to begin. But start with this. To hold the oil company liable for increased wildfires due to global warming, you’d first have to prove that wildfires are increasing and then prove they are increasing due to global warming.
But here’s the thing, wildfires are decreasing global both in terms of acreage and frequency. If wildfires are decreasing, how can oil companies be held liable for increasing wildfires? It’s absurd.
Unfortunately, I wouldn’t put it past an LA jury believe and absurd argument.
Well, if *California* wildfires are increasing, then *California* oil companies must be to blame. It’s Just Common Sense!™
“…California lawmakers have introduced a new bill allowing victims of wildfires and insurance companies to sue oil companies for damages caused by storms, wildfires, and other disasters…”
This was proposed elsewhere (NY?) years ago. At the time, I said it was a bad idea. In court, climate alarmists would have to show proof of their claims. Those proofs would be subject to cross-examination as well as refutation by the opposition’s scientists. This scenario should be the last situation in which the alarmists would want to find themselves. They rely on lies, deceit, and data trickery to promote their cause. They would be disassembled in a court of law.
BTW, I never heard another thing about that other State’s plan. Maybe they figured out that what they intended might backfire and expose the “climate change” scam. It would be a sign of CA Dems’ ill-discipline if they follow through with this idea. The potential to drive the “climate change” ship onto the rocks is just too great.
“They rely on lies, deceit, and data trickery to promote their cause. They would be disassembled in a court of law.”
What part of “New York” did you not notice?
I suspect the Trump administration is going to take hard line on any existing special California standards for emissions, etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re withdrawn in pretty short order.
Oil companies will have no choice but to stop doing business in California if this goes through. They would be on the hook for 10’s of billions every year if anyone can sue for snowstorms, wind storms, rain, mudslides, earthquakes, drought etc. No company can survive that many continual lawsuits.
This whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to distract the voters from who is really the cause for the current disaster which are the Democrats in Sacramento added by communists like Bass.