Quick summary
• Twenty-two Republican attorneys general have sued New York over its Climate Change Superfund Act, which requires major fossil fuel companies to pay $75 billion over 25 years to fund climate disaster recovery.
• The lawsuit, led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, claims the law is unconstitutional and violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by attempting to regulate companies outside New York’s borders.
• New York Governor Kathy Hochul defends the law, saying polluters—not taxpayers—should pay for the billions of dollars in damages caused by climate change.
• The law does not regulate emissions but instead seeks compensation for past pollution, similar to the 1980 federal Superfund law, which withstood court challenges.
• The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), backed by fossil fuel industry funding, is behind the lawsuit, which could shield oil and gas companies from financial responsibility.
• If the lawsuit succeeds, it could block other states from passing similar climate accountability laws; if New York wins, it could serve as a model for holding polluters accountable nationwide.
• New York officials remain confident in their legal position, with Paul DeMichele, spokesperson for Governor Hochul, stating, “We look forward to defending this landmark legislation in court and defeating Big Oil once again.”
A coalition of 22 Republican attorneys general has filed a lawsuit against New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, a first-of-its-kind law that requires major fossil fuel companies to pay a total of $75 billion to fund climate damage repairs in the state. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Albany, argues that the law is unconstitutional and an unlawful attempt by a single state to regulate the national energy industry.
The law, signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul in December, mandates that the biggest greenhouse gas emitters from 2000 to 2024 contribute $3 billion annually over the next 25 years to fund infrastructure upgrades and repairs caused by climate disasters.
Governor Hochul defended the law, saying:
“With nearly every record rainfall, heatwave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters that have historically harmed our environment.”
Funds from the law will go toward:
• Stormwater drainage system improvements to manage extreme rainfall.
• Coastal wetland restoration to combat rising sea levels.
• Energy-efficient cooling system installations to protect against extreme heat.
Supporters of the law argue that fossil fuel companies have profited for decades while passing the costs of climate disasters onto the public and that this measure ensures that polluters—not taxpayers—pay for the damage they’ve caused.
The Climate Change Superfund Act was modeled after the 1980 federal Superfund law, which required companies responsible for toxic waste contamination to pay for cleanup efforts.
The lawsuit is led by West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey, with backing from 21 other states and energy industry groups, including the West Virginia Coal Association and Alpha Metallurgical Resources Inc.
McCuskey called the law an unconstitutional overreach, saying:
“This law is unconstitutional, and I am proud to lead this coalition of attorneys general and brave private energy companies and industry groups in our fight to protect against this overreach. If we allow New York to get away with this, it will only be a matter of time before other states follow suit – wrecking our nation’s power grid.”
The lawsuit argues that New York is attempting to hold a small group of energy producers responsible for global greenhouse gas emissions, stating:
“New York wants to blame the small group of energy producers for global greenhouse gases that entered the atmosphere from many sources.”
The legal challenge also claims that the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause by attempting to regulate companies outside New York’s borders and that it conflicts with the federal Clean Air Act, which grants the federal government primary authority over emissions regulation.
The lawsuit states that fossil fuels have long played an essential role in New York’s economy, claiming:
“Yet coal, oil, and natural gas were helping New York during that time. They helped keep the lights on in Albany, manufacture the steel that supported New York City’s iconic skyscrapers, and fuel the industry that keeps New York ports humming.”
Environmental law experts argue that the lawsuit misrepresents the intent of the Superfund Act and that it does not regulate emissions but seeks compensation for past damages, making it fundamentally different from federal pollution laws.
Michael B. Gerrard, professor of environmental law at Columbia University, stated:
“The Clean Air Act gives the federal government ‘the chief role in determining interstate emissions standards,’ rather than individual states.”
However, he explained that the Superfund Act is not about setting emissions standards but about holding companies accountable for past pollution—a distinction that could help New York prevail in court.
Gerrard also pointed out that the 1980 federal Superfund law, which served as a model for New York’s climate law, “withstood many challenges in the courts.”
The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which has backed multiple lawsuits opposing climate regulations, is heavily funded by major fossil fuel companies.
Lee Zeldin, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration, is an ally of RAGA and has promoted policies favorable to the fossil fuel industry. McCuskey, leading the lawsuit, has aligned with Zeldin’s pro-fossil fuel stance, stating:
“He looks at energy policy in a way that says that fossil generation of electricity is the current and future of this country.”
However, climate advocates argue that these legal challenges are about protecting industry profits, not consumers. Vanessa Fajans-Turner, executive director of Environmental Advocates NY, dismissed claims that fossil fuels are essential to U.S. energy security, saying:
“Pretending that coal and gas are the only way to meet growing energy demands is like insisting landlines are the future of communication.”
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent preventing other states from passing similar laws, potentially shielding fossil fuel companies from climate-related financial responsibility.
If New York wins, the Climate Change Superfund Act could serve as a model for other states, forcing fossil fuel giants to pay billions toward climate disaster recovery instead of leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.
New York State Senator Liz Krueger, lead sponsor of the law, made clear that the stakes are enormous:
“The purpose of the law is to hold polluters accountable for their part in the state’s extreme weather disasters—predicted to cost more than 500 billion dollars by mid-century.”
New York officials remain confident the law will survive the legal challenge. Paul DeMichele, a spokesperson for Governor Hochul, said:
“We look forward to defending this landmark legislation in court and defeating Big Oil once again.”
New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act represents a bold attempt to make polluters pay for the damage they’ve caused—but it faces stiff opposition from Republican attorneys general and fossil fuel interests.
As the case moves forward, the outcome could determine whether states have the power to hold corporations accountable for their role in the climate crisis—or if fossil fuel companies will continue to evade financial responsibility, leaving taxpayers to bear the cost of climate disasters.
COMMENTS