Climate Superfund Bills Stall as Red States Shield Fossil Fuels

Democratic state lawmakers trying to force polluters to pay for climate damage are struggling to push accountability legislation over the finish line. Their counterparts in a handful of conservative states, meanwhile, are enacting laws to protect the fossil fuel industry against future challenges.

Around a dozen states proposed bills during their most recent legislative sessions that would either require polluters to pay for their past emissions, study the idea, or make it easier for the insurance industry to sue fossil fuel companies for damages. Most of those bills stalled or died during legislative sessions, often not making it out of committees.

Maine and Maryland both enacted laws to study the issue. After them, Hawaii lawmakers made among the most progress by advancing legislation through both chambers earlier in the session that would’ve further empowered insurance companies to sue polluters for damages, but lawmakers earlier this month failed to agree on a joint version of a bill, effectively killing it.

Lawmakers’ efforts come as states are trying to drum up funding to pay for extensive damage from natural disasters—that sometimes totals in the billions—made worse by climate change.

At the same time, four conservative states enacted laws to protect polluters from climate change litigation, which states and localities have been filing against the fossil fuel industry for years. Bill sponsors have said their goals were to get out ahead of potential litigation, protect industries that might be targeted over their pollution, and shield emitters from “frivolous” lawsuits. The Supreme Court will hear Boulder, Colo.'s case against Exxon Mobil Corp. and Suncor Energy Inc. in the term beginning later this year, with the power to change the legal arena for climate litigation.

New York and Vermont enacted first-of-their-kind state superfund laws in 2024 requiring polluters to pay for past emissions, laying the groundwork for other like-minded states to follow. But the Trump administration’s ongoing lawsuits against both states over their policies sparked concern among state lawmakers about making their attorneys general targets for litigation, thereby stalling similar legislation.

Despite their failure to pass fresh accountability laws, advocates for “polluters pay” laws say the 2026 legislative sessions weren’t a total wash.

“If you look at just if a bill passed or not, we’ll admit it wasn’t the best year,” said Cassidy DiPaola, spokesperson for Fossil Free Media’s Make Polluters Pay campaign, which has been advocating for states to enact climate superfund laws. But the “groundwork” has been laid “for hopefully a successful 2027,” she said.

Red State Pushback

Iowa, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah all enacted laws within weeks of each other to protect polluters from emissions liability, but climate litigation has been mostly nonexistent in those states.

Even so, Oklahoma state Sen. Julie Daniels (R), the sponsor of the climate liability shield bill Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) signed in April, said climate litigation “tries to use the courts to legislate environmental policy and to create winners and losers” and that she proposed the bill to prevent these lawsuits from taking hold in state court.

Iowa state Rep. Derek Wulf (R), the sponsor of Iowa’s climate liability shield bill that Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed into law, wants to protect the state’s agriculture sector from being sued over its emissions. Among his priorities is defending ranchers whose cattle emit methane. Tyson Foods Inc. in November agreed to stop calling its beef “climate smart” as part of a settlement with the nonprofit Environmental Working Group over its marketing.

“Our farmers and ranchers don’t need to be wasting their time with frivolous lawsuits on perceived greenhouse gas emissions,” said Wulf, who’s also a farmer. “They need to be focusing on farming and ranching.”

Advocates for polluters pay policies, however, questioned the point of states enacting these laws given the lack of litigation in those states.

“It’s sort of expressive, symbolic, performative, whatever word you want to use,” said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

As red states attempt to forestall prospective polluters pay litigation, members of Congress want to bring the issue to the national stage. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) introduced bills this spring to make a national climate liability shield law. Those bills, however, have yet to advance.

Future Disaster Threat

The threat of more natural disasters in the coming months could urge state lawmakers to enact superfund laws. Vermont enacted its law in 2024, not long after floods in 2023 wreaked $1 billion worth of damage in the state.

That made the cost of “devastating” climate change “very real,” said Christophe Courchesne, director of the Vermont Law & Graduate School’s Environmental Law Center and Environmental Advocacy Clinic.

“A lot of states are going to be experiencing some really horrible hurricane seasons, flooding seasons, and the worse that it gets year after year, the more likely states are going to be passing bills like climate superfunds,” DiPaola of the Make Polluters Pay campaign said.

While states squabble over accountability or safeguards for the industry, the Supreme Court’s decision in the upcoming Suncor case is likely to shape the future of accountability disputes.

“The effect of that could be to wipe them all out or not, but we won’t know that for quite some time,” Gerrard said of existing climate litigation.