What is climate superfund legislation? 

A climate superfund bill would establish a program to recover part of the climate-related costs incurred by Washington and its residents from the largest oil and gas companies most responsible for climate change over the last two decades. These companies caused this harm, and they should pay for the damage they caused.

Funds recovered this way can help both urban and rural communities hit hardest by the climate crisis recover, adapt, and build resilience.Importantly, funds will be prioritized for projects that benefit  communities hit hardest by fossil fuel pollution and climate change. 

At a time when the federal government is gutting funding for climate and  doubling down on fossil fuels, a Climate Superfund would allow Washington to act independently, creating a protected funding stream that no administration can touch.

The first Climate Superfund bill was passed in Vermont in Spring of 2024. New York followed suit in December of 2024. Climate Superfund bills have been introduced or re-introduced in California, Oregon, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and are being considered in several additional  states.

A Climate Superfund can be used for a host of climate resilience, adaptation, response, and mitigation projects, with a percentage of the funding dedicated for frontline communities. While we have yet to determine funding priorities for Washington, examples of projects can include but are not limited to: investing in upgrades for low-income housing or schools to better withstand heat waves and other extreme weather; implementing measures to protect people from wildfires, such as home hardening in at-risk areas; repairing roads, bridges, and other infrastructure damaged by extreme weather events; restoring wetlands, and completing similar climate resiliency projects; upgrading stormwater management systems to prevent flooding in vulnerable neighborhoods, and more.

Yes! Climate Superfund is modeled on existing federal law. The  Climate Superfund concept builds on the same legal principles that  underlie the federal Superfund program, established by Congress in 1980  through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act (CERCLA) to fund the cleanup of hazardous waste sites –  a.k.a the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program! 

Climate Superfund bills take the longstanding “polluters pay  principle” and extend it beyond traditional hazardous pollution of water or land to include GHG emissions.

Climate Superfund legislation enacted in Vermont and New York is grounded in CERCLA’s similar retroactive, strict liability program designed to deal with the impact of past pollution—this approach holds  large fossil fuel producers and refiners strictly liable for costs  arising from their products’ GHG emissions irrespective of whether they  intended the harm or wrongdoing, or are deemed to have acted improperly.

Washington’s Climate Superfund bill would also be similarly modeled on existing state and federal laws: CERCLA and Washington’s Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA),  which became law in 1989. Through MTCA, Washington has a long-standing precedent that holds companies retroactively and strictly liable for contamination. Thus, placing the responsibility for clean-up costs on those who contributed to contamination, rather than taxpayers. MTCA has been amended several times but one of its key principles remains in place today: polluters pay.

For more information, see this Legal Support Factsheet developed for Washington.

Each state’s cost calculations vary based on climate impacts to the state and the proportional share of emissions attributable to each responsible party during the covered period. New York for instance is slated to bring in $3 billion per year over the next 25 years, for a total of $75 billion—a fraction of the total estimated cost of climate damages to the state. Broadly, a Climate Superfund promises to be a significant and consistent revenue generator for the state, creating a protected funding stream that no federal administration can touch.

The bill requires a state agency (depending on the state) to determine a list of fossil fuel companies to be held responsible. This is usually a set of “super-emitters” that have contributed more than 1 billion metric tons of CO2-e GHG emissions globally over an established period (usually around 30 years), and that have sufficient connections with the state of Washington (for example, selling their products here). 

Companies that meet this threshold are subject to payment obligations calculated based on climate damages to the state, and their share of emissions over that established or “covered period”.

This will limit the total number of payors to the biggest polluters (such as Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, and so forth), with those who polluted the most paying the most.

The bill requires a state agency (depending on the state) to determine a list of fossil fuel companies to be held responsible. This is usually a set of “super-emitters” that have contributed more than 1 billion metric tons of CO2-e GHG emissions globally over an established period (usually around 30 years), and that have sufficient connections with the state of Washington (for example, selling their products here). 

Companies that meet this threshold are subject to payment obligations calculated based on climate damages to the state, and their share of emissions over that established or “covered period”.

This will limit the total number of payors to the biggest polluters (such as Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, and so forth), with those who polluted the most paying the most.

The Climate Commitment Act is not adequately funding climate resilience projects created for and by frontline communities. Despite the 35% requirement that revenue be invested in projects that benefit overburdened communities, the state has continued to fall short on its obligations. In the 2023-2025 biennium, 23.2% of CCA funds were allocated to overburdened communities. This number has since dropped significantly, and for the 2025-2027 biennium only 9.7% of CCA funds are expected to go to overburdened communities. This means that despite generating over two billion dollars in revenue, less than 200 million of that amount has been appropriated for overburdened communities. Additionally, only 13% of total CCA revenue has been appropriated for climate resilience projects. This illustrates the way that current funding options are not sufficient to sustain the types of projects that could create meaningful climate resilience in frontline communities. 

To request citations or materials on the research above, reach out to info@makepolluterspaywa.org

Our research shows that it won’t. But let’s be real, these oil companies are greedy. They make record profit year after year. So if prices rise at all, it’s solely and exclusively because of oil company greed. 

A climate fund is based on past pollution and acts like a fine for polluting our planet and our state. It’s not a tax. There’s nothing being added at the pump. No hidden fees, no taxes added. 

1. Oil companies already charge the prices that maximize their profits. Other things being equal, if an oil company were to raise its prices, it would make less, not more money. This is true regardless of the current market structure (competitive, monopoly, or anything in between). 

2. The profit maximizing price (PMP) is determined by supply and demand. A state climate fund assessment is not likely to lower the supply or raise the demand.  

3. The reason the Climate fund does not affect supply is because it is retrospective. This is unlike a carbon price, which is based on emissions going forward. A carbon price would be partially passed along to consumers. 

In fact, Climate fund legislation will reduce the costs to communities and taxpayers caused by the escalating climate crisis, including housing, health, and insurance costs. At the same time it invests in local services, including community resilience, disaster preparation and recovery to make all of our lives better. 

1. Annual Climate fund payments would represent less than 1% of major fossil fuel companies’ profits 

2. Companies spend more on stock buybacks than their projected Climate fund obligations 

3. Executive compensation alone could cover significant portions of assessment payments 

Click here to  learn more about why a climate superfund is highly unlikely to impact prices at the pump or energy prices. Or check-out our Resources page for more information on this. Link to resources section. 

They’re complimentary, but parallel tracks. The lawsuits center on disinformation—not pollution—and seek to stop companies from lying to consumers, abate ongoing public nuisance, and provide equitable relief. In contrast, Climate Superfund bills work to set up a fund to remedy damage caused by polluters’ past fossil fuel emissions.

A Climate Superfund bill does not conflict or undermine the important climate accountability lawsuits brought by the Makah and Shoalwater Bay Tribes. Neither would it conflict with the other accountability lawsuits in Washington – a first-ever climate-related wrongful death case against fossil fuel companies, and a first-of-its-kind class action suit naming Big Oil’s role in fueling the escalating insurance crisis.

In May 2025, the Trump Administration, 22 Republican state attorneys general, and various industry groups filed separate suits against New York and Vermont for their Climate Superfund Laws. Both suits are brought on nearly identical claims, arguing that Climate Superfund state laws are unconstitutional because they are preempted by the Federal Clean Air Act, violate due process, violate the Commerce Clause, and infringe on the federal government’s authority over foreign matters. 

It will likely take several years for these cases to be adjudicated and in the meantime, the work necessary to create an equitable and healthy environment must continue. National momentum for Climate Superfund is growing despite the legal challenges, and 11 states have introduced some iteration of a Climate Superfund bill. States have long held the protected ability to create environmental state laws, and we cannot capitulate to pressure from oil companies, other states, and the federal government who are using the courts to delay climate policies that our communities urgently need.