(Image Credit: IMAGN) Jan 16, 2025; Altadena, CA, USA; The remains of St. Mark?s Episcopal church and school in Altadena, California. Mandatory Credit: Megan Smith-USA TODAY
Sacramento, California – A sweeping proposal to make fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate disasters in California has stalled in the Legislature, despite mounting environmental damage and a worsening budget shortfall. Known as the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, the bill would require oil, gas, and coal companies responsible for over a billion metric tons of emissions since 1990 to contribute to a state-managed fund supporting disaster preparedness, clean energy initiatives, and infrastructure resilience.
Backed by Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat from San Luis Obispo, the bill mirrors successful efforts in New York and Vermont. It draws inspiration from the federal Superfund program created in 1980 to clean up toxic waste sites. “Oil caused the climate crisis, in large part,” Addis said. “They lied about it, as they caused the damages, and it’s time for them to come to the table.”
But since passing out of its first committee in April, the bill has made no progress — held up by intense industry opposition and political caution. Fossil fuel companies have lobbied aggressively against it, arguing that it unfairly penalizes legal economic activity and could lead to increased energy costs.
The proposal arrives during a tense political climate shaped by both California’s $12 billion budget deficit and national pressure from President Donald Trump’s administration, which recently signed an executive order threatening legal action against states with similar policies. Trump’s administration has already targeted climate superfund laws in New York and Vermont, calling them unconstitutional.
Supporters of the California bill hoped that the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County earlier this year would galvanize lawmakers. Instead, the legislation joins a growing list of climate accountability efforts that have stalled, including a separate bill that would allow disaster victims to sue oil companies.
The legislative language is legally ambitious and may invite lawsuits even if passed. Environmental attorney Donald Sobelman warned the measure could face constitutional challenges over retroactive liability, taxation rules, and scientific attribution of specific climate events to individual companies.
Despite the risks, proponents view the bill as a necessary step toward climate justice — and a way to avoid placing further financial burdens on ordinary Californians.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office has not endorsed the bill. While his May budget proposal included language supporting the “polluter-pays” principle, he has so far tied that support to expanding California’s existing cap-and-trade program — a policy more palatable to moderate lawmakers and business groups.
As the session continues, the fate of the Superfund Act remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that California’s attempt to charge fossil fuel giants for the damage of climate change has become a flashpoint in the broader national fight over environmental responsibility and who should bear its cost.
