States Struggle to Echo Vermont, New York Climate Superfund Laws

States’ efforts this year to force major polluters to pay for climate change damages were largely unsuccessful, with some lawmakers running up against oil producers or waiting for lawsuits against New York and Vermont, the first states to pass such laws, to get resolved.

Around 10 states proposed some type of climate superfund legislation in 2025, according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators. Most of the activity took place in Democratic-led states including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and Maine. None of the bills that would make polluters pay for their emissions advanced far, which some of the bills’ sponsors attribute to different factors.

The lack of advancement of the legislation adds to an already tough year for climate superfund policies. The Trump administration and others have sued New York and Vermont over their climate superfund laws passed in 2024. And in at least one instance, those legal challenges are weighing on efforts to pass climate superfund legislation elsewhere.

“What we’re seeing is a little hesitancy to jump out ahead of the active litigation,” said Massachusetts State Rep. Steven Owens (D), who’s sponsored a climate superfund bill multiple times. Lawmakers held a hearing on the latest version of the bill in September but it hasn’t advanced.

Massachusetts is also involved in “a large number” of lawsuits against the Trump administration, Owens said, and people are cautious about adding more to the state attorney general’s list and wary of a climate superfund law quickly eliciting a lawsuit.

“Stuff that we know will be challenged is a little bit harder sell at this point,” he said.

New York State Sen. Liz Krueger (D), who sponsored the climate superfund bill that became law, said her office has spoken with people from California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maine, Illinois, and Connecticut over roughly the past year. She thinks people are broadly watching what will happen with the lawsuits, which New York expected.

“The fact that the fossil fuel companies are spending so much money and capital, political capital, to try to kill these bills in other states is because they realize this is real, it will stand up in court,” she said. “They can’t get off the hook as long as we stay focused on moving this legislation state by state by state.”

Line of legal challenges

The Trump administration in May sued both New York and Vermont over their superfund laws and other states over efforts to make polluters pay for harms from climate change. US Attorney General Pam Bondi alleges the laws and other states’ planned legal challenges are “burdensome and ideologically motivated” and “threaten American energy independence and our country’s economic and national security.”

Nearly two dozen red states also sued New York over its superfund law early this year, alleging federal law preempts the state’s law and calling New York’s policy an unconstitutional “slippery slope.” The Trump administration in November asked a judge to rule in favor of the red states in their challenge, claiming that New York’s law could spark a broader trend.

The American Petroleum Institute and US Chamber of Commerce sued Vermont over its climate superfund law in late 2024, similarly arguing that federal law preempts the state’s superfund law.

It’s not just the legal challenges lurking around already-passed laws stopping the climate superfund trend from growing across states. Lawmakers in California, which is often a leader in proposing novel climate policies, have struggled to advance a climate superfund bill, a headwind that a bill sponsor and others attribute to Big Oil’s sway.

California Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D) said the industry pushed back harder against proposed policies this year after it failed to stop legislation she put forward last year that became law giving localities the power to stop oil production within their borders. Plus, President Donald Trump has lifted up the oil industry and harped on clean energy sources, she said.

“I think those things together have created a situation where oil was able to come back even stronger for the 2025 session,” said Addis, whose climate superfund bill made it out of one committee but hasn’t moved since April. She said she’s talking to the organizations backing the bill—including the Center for Biological Diversity and California Environmental Voters—about whether to re-introduce it for 2026.

The Western States Petroleum Association, one of the key fossil-fuel industry associations in California, formally opposed Addis’ bill. California Chief Lobbyist Zach Leary said the state’s policies over the last couple of decades are forcing energy companies to leave.

“What we’ve been explaining to the legislature and to the administration is policies have consequences,” Leary said. “As you’re pursuing the goals of meeting 2045, and you have in-state refining capacity declining faster than demand, then you’re going to run into problems.”

“It’s a big liability,” Leary added.

Looking to next year

Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and Washington, D.C., are all working on climate superfund bills, said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for Fossil-Free Media’s Polluters Pay campaign, which has been pushing the legislation across states.

States are seeing “a permanent line item in their budget and this is called climate damage,” DiPaola said. “Everyone is concerned and it’s happening at the same exact time that the Trump administration is pulling back federal disaster and resilience support for many states.”

“Climate superfund laws are how legislators in states are sort of squaring that circle,” DiPaola added.

Massachusetts’ Owens said if the legal challenges against New York and Vermont are resolved in favor of the states, the statehouse can “go forward without that as an excuse.” If the laws are struck down, lawmakers can factor that into legislation for 2027.

“Our path forward is to watch what’s happening with New York and with Vermont,” he said, adding that once questions surrounding that litigation are answered, Massachusetts can “move forward here as best we can.”