Despite backlash, more states are considering laws to make Big Oil pay up todayheadline

As climate disasters strain state budgets, a growing number of lawmakers want fossil fuel companies to pay for damages caused by their greenhouse gas emissions.

Last May, Vermont became the first state to pass a climate Superfund law. The concept is modeled after the 1980 federal Superfund law, which holds companies responsible for the costs of cleaning up their hazardous waste spills. The state-level climate version requires major oil and gas companies to pay for climate-related disaster and adaptation costs, based on their share of global greenhouse gas emissions over the past few decades. Vermont’s law passed after the state experienced torrential flooding in 2023. In December, New York became the second state to pass such a law. 

This year, 11 states, from California to Maine, have introduced their own climate Superfund bills. Momentum is growing even as Vermont and New York’s laws face legal challenges by fossil fuel companies, Republican-led states, and the Trump administration. Lawmakers and climate advocates told Grist that they always expected backlash, given the billions of dollars at stake for the oil and gas industry — but that states have no choice but to find ways to pay the enormous costs of protecting and repairing infrastructure in the face of increasing floods, wildfires, and other disasters.

The opposition “emboldens our fight more,” said Maryland state delegate Adrian Boafo, who represents Prince George’s County and co-sponsored a climate Superfund bill that passed the state legislature in March. “It means that we have to do everything we can in Maryland to protect our citizens, because we can’t rely on the federal government in this moment.” 

While the concept of a climate Superfund has been around for decades, it’s only in recent years that states have begun to seriously consider these laws. In Maryland, federal inaction on climate change and the growing burden of climate change on government budgets have led to a surge of interest, said Boafo. Cities and counties are getting hit with huge unexpected costs from damage to stormwater systems, streets, highways, and other public infrastructure. They’re also struggling to provide immediate disaster relief to residents and to prepare for future climate events. Maryland has faced at least $10 billion to $20 billion in disaster costs between 1980 and 2024, according to a recent state report. Meanwhile, up until now, governments, businesses, and individuals have borne 100 percent of these costs. 

“We realized that these big fossil fuel companies were, frankly, not paying their fair share for the climate crisis that they’ve caused,” Boafo said. 

Recent bills have also been spurred by increased sophistication in attribution science, said Martin Lockman, a climate law fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Researchers are now able to use climate models to link extreme weather events to greenhouse gas emissions from specific companies. The field provides a quantitative way for governments to determine which oil and gas companies should pay for climate damages, and how much. 

Vermont’s law sets up a process for the government to first tally up the costs of climate harms in the state caused by the greenhouse gas emissions of major oil and gas companies between 1995 and 2024. The state will then determine how much of those costs each company is responsible for, invoice them accordingly, and devote the funds to climate infrastructure and resilience projects. New York’s law, by contrast, sets a funding target ahead of time by requiring certain fossil fuel companies to pay a total of $75 billion, or $3 billion per year over 25 years. The amount each company has to pay is proportionate to their share of global greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2024. Both Vermont and New York’s laws apply only to companies that have emitted over 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their respective covered periods. That would include Exxon Mobil, Shell, and other oil and gas giants.

Maryland’s law is so far the only climate Superfund-related legislation to pass this year, although it hasn’t yet been signed by the state’s governor. The original draft of the bill would have required major fossil fuel companies to pay a one-time fee for their historic carbon emissions. But over the course of the legislative session, the bill was amended to instead simply require a study on the cumulative costs of climate change in Maryland, to understand how much money an eventual program would need to raise. The study would be due by December 2026, at which point Maryland lawmakers would need to propose new legislation to actually implement a climate Superfund program.

“I wish it wasn’t amended the way it was,” Boafo said, adding that lawmakers devoted much of their energy this legislative session to addressing Maryland’s $3.3 billion budget deficit. “At the same time, passing this new, amended version of the bill acknowledges to the state and to our constituents that we want to research how much actually would come to the state, how this program would be operated, what this would actually look like,” he said. “It’s not the step that a lot of us wanted, but it is a step forward.” 

In California, environmental groups are optimistic about the chances of a bill passing this year. This is the second year a climate Superfund bill has been introduced in the state, and the sponsors of the new bill have focused on building a broad coalition of environmental, community, and labor groups around the proposal, said Sabrina Ashjian, project director for the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the UCLA School of Law. This year’s legislation was introduced shortly after the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January, which could amplify lawmakers’ sense of urgency. The bill has now passed out of each legislative chamber’s environmental committee and is awaiting votes in their respective judiciary committees. If passed, the bill will next move to the full Senate and Assembly for a final vote. 

In the meantime, legislators are keeping a close eye on ongoing legal challenges to Vermont’s and New York’s laws. In January, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, two trade groups, launched a lawsuit against Vermont’s climate Superfund law. In February, 22 Republican state attorneys general and industry groups filed a lawsuit against New York’s law. Both challenges claim that the laws violate interstate commerce protections and are preempted by federal law. Because the federal Clean Air Act regulates greenhouse gas emissions, the groups argue, states cannot pass laws related to climate damages. 

Now the Trump administration has joined the legal battle. On May 1, the Department of Justice sued the states of New York and Vermont over their climate Superfund programs, echoing the same arguments raised by the fossil fuel industry. The same day, the department also sued the states of Hawaiʻi and Michigan over their intentions to sue fossil fuel companies for climate-related damages. All four lawsuits frequently use identical language, Lockman pointed out. The lawsuits follow last month’s executive order by President Donald Trump that called for the Justice Department to challenge state climate policies, and directly targeted Vermont and New York’s climate Superfund laws. Shortly after the Justice Department’s lawsuits were filed, West Virginia and 23 other states announced they would join the existing lawsuit against Vermont’s law led by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. 

Legal experts noted that Trump’s executive order itself has no legal impact, and that states have well-established authority to implement environmental policies. Patrick Parenteau, a legal scholar at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told the New York Times he expected the Justice Department’s cases to be dismissed. A court could end up consolidating the federal suits with existing challenges against Vermont and New York’s laws, although given that they raise the same arguments, “there’s really nothing new being added here,” said Lockman. 

Climate experts told Grist that with huge amounts of money and liability at stake, lawsuits from the fossil fuel industry weren’t unexpected. Boafo said that given how much financial and political support the Trump campaign received from oil and gas corporations, it’s not a surprise that the Justice Department has sued New York and Vermont. Pursuing these laws invites inevitable opposition — but avoiding the growing costs of climate devastation is even riskier, advocates said. 

Lawmakers are “passing these bills because in writing budgets, in dealing with the day-to-day operation of their states, they’re facing really serious questions about how our society is going to allocate the harms of climate change,” said Lockman. “I suspect that the lawmakers who are advocating for these bills are in it for the long haul.”