Multiple state lawmakers say they\u2019re planning to propose bills for upcoming legislative sessions that would force polluters to pay for climate change despite a recent ruling from a federal judge that effectively blocked New York\u2019s climate superfund law.<\/p>\n
Legislators in California, Illinois, and Massachusetts, who have sponsored \u201cclimate superfund\u201d legislation similar to New York and Vermont\u2019s laws in the past, all told Bloomberg Law they\u2019re interested in advancing proposals despite the judge\u2019s ruling, but weren\u2019t yet clear on how the judge\u2019s decision could impact their legislation.<\/p>\n
Massachusetts State Rep. Steven Owens (D), who sponsored a climate superfund bill that didn\u2019t make it out of committee last year, said \u201cthere\u2019s still opportunities to move forward\u201d this coming session and that he\u2019s looking at the ruling trying to \u201cfuture-proof the bill a little bit.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re still digesting,\u201d Owens said. \u201cThere\u2019s still some question of whether we can craft something that\u2019s likely to withstand scrutiny.\u201d<\/p>\n
Since Vermont and New York enacted their own policies in 2024, legislators in other Democratic strongholds have tried to pass similar laws. But while several states considered some type of climate superfund legislation in 2026, according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators<\/a>, most of those bills didn\u2019t pass. In some instances, litigation and pushback from red states, industry groups, and the Trump administration made other state legislators hesitant to advance<\/a> similar policies to New York and Vermont.<\/p>\n Where States Go From Here<\/p>\n California Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D) said she also plans to re-introduce climate superfund legislation but doesn\u2019t know if it will be the same as the version that died during the state\u2019s recently concluded session.<\/p>\n She\u2019s looking at \u201csome kind of polluters pay legislation that gets at the core of making sure that these big polluters who are causing global devastation really have to answer to that and pay their fair share,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n Addis said she\u2019s been talking with supporters since last year about how to structure the bill and ensure its effectiveness \u201ceven outside of this ruling,\u201d but also questioned if the judge\u2019s order is the final decision on the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think by any stretch it means that we can stop doing what we\u2019re doing,\u201d Addis added. \u201cIt means we need to lean in and figure out how to get this done.\u201d<\/p>\n Illinois General Assembly Majority Leader Robyn Gabel (D), who sponsored a climate superfund bill in Illinois that didn\u2019t make it out of committee this past spring, said it\u2019s \u201cindustry strategy\u201d to try to scare lawmakers away.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s important to move ahead with our bill,\u201d she said, adding that \u201cnothing in that ruling really applies\u201d to Illinois. \u201cJudges here are free to consider our law on its own merits,\u201d Gabel added.<\/p>\n Maine is supposed to finish its climate superfund cost study by the end of 2027, which means lawmakers would wait until 2028 if they seek to enact a law creating a fund, said Sean Mahoney, vice president and senior counsel at the Conservation Law Foundation, which intervened in the Vermont case and helped orchestrate the Maine bill.<\/p>\n \u201cIt could provide us maybe with some guideposts,\u201d Mahoney said of the ruling. \u201cFor the most part, our focus right now is going to be getting this cost study done.\u201d<\/p>\n Fossil Free Media, the nonprofit pushing the Make Polluters Pay campaign and encouraging lawmakers to adopt legislation, has been quick to tout the number of lawmakers who are still committed to advancing legislation after the ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cThe New York ruling does not determine the legality of climate superfund laws nationwide,\u201d Cassidy DiPaola, Fossil Free Media\u2019s communications director for the campaign, said.<\/p>\n What\u2019s Next in the Litigation<\/p>\n West Virginia, first in the coalition of red states that sued New York over its law and also part of the lawsuit against Vermont, is hoping that the judge\u2019s order in the New York case has a broader effect on other states seeking to mimic those two states.<\/p>\n \u201cThe dream outcome would be for us to not have to litigate anymore because rationality sweeps through legislatures throughout the country who have this, in my mind\u2019s eye, ridiculous theory on how to extract money from states that produce energy,\u201d West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey (R) said, adding that the judge\u2019s order in the New York case, while not legally binding across the US, could have that desired effect. He added that it doesn\u2019t make sense for other states to consider this type of legislation given the ruling.<\/p>\n