When will insurers be forced to pay for climate change?
Insurers have long been at the forefront of climate change.
And the issue has become more prominent as the U.S. economy has been struggling with the effects of climate-related storms.
But it was the federal government’s efforts to increase the cost of CO2-emitting pollution that pushed insurance companies to begin paying for climate-change costs, and eventually, the Obama administration set a goal in January 2020 to make insurance companies responsible for paying for their own CO2 emissions.
But the process to actually pay for that CO2 reduction took months.
The insurance industry, in turn, fought the effort.
“The insurers and the regulators have been doing this for a long time, and they’re not going to change that,” said Mark J. Reilly, vice president for regulatory affairs at the American Association of State Insurance Commissioners.
“They’re going to keep going to court to try to stop us from doing this.”
The case was ultimately dismissed.
But insurance industry officials said it was a significant milestone, and one that should send a clear signal to the industry.
“It was a huge step in the right direction,” said Andrew Wessel, president and CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents more than 800 insurance companies.
“We’re now seeing that the industry has taken the lead on this issue.”
The industry has pushed for years to reduce the costs of COX-2 pollution.
For decades, the industry lobbied against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would require the oil and gas industry to reduce emissions.
That plan, which is scheduled to take effect in 2020, would require oil and natural gas producers to reduce CO2 by up to 30 percent by 2030.
But that plan has been criticized by some industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the country’s largest energy trade group.
In its lawsuit, the Alliance for Clean Coal Electricity argued that the Clean Power plan, if implemented, would cost the economy trillions of dollars a year and result in job losses.
The lawsuit, filed in late 2016, also argued that coal companies have not shown any significant economic benefit from their business practices, and argued that COX2 pollution from coal-fired power plants poses a significant risk to the health of Americans.
In December, the U,S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision that upheld a lower court’s decision that the EPA lacked the authority to regulate coal-burning power plants, citing a lack of authority in the Clean Air Act.
Reilly said the court is likely to rule that the Obama-era rules should not be implemented.
“I expect that the court will rule that we need to do a complete rewrite of the Clean Clean Air act,” Reilly said.
“And we need the states to do the same.”
The court has already sided with insurance companies in other ways.
The court recently sided with the coal industry in a case that sought to limit the EPA authority to limit greenhouse gases in power plants.
That case is scheduled for a hearing this week.
The Obama administration also has proposed new rules for COX inhibitors, which include COXs, to address a variety of health risks linked to COX pollution.
“These rules are important for protecting the health and the economy of the United States,” Reilly added.
“But we have to recognize that we have a responsibility to our citizens.”