Maryland lawmakers have overridden the governor’s veto to enact legislation directing a statewide assessment of climate-related costs, while New Jersey lawmakers are preparing a January committee hearing for the State’s pending Climate Superfund Act. Together, these actions underscore continued state-level interest in both study-based and liability-focused climate-cost attribution frameworks, even as four separate lawsuits challenging state climate superfund statutes in New York and Vermont proceed in federal court.
Maryland Legislature Overrides Veto to Advance Climate-Cost Assessment
On December 16, the Maryland General Assembly voted to override Governor Wes Moore’s veto of S.B. 149 / H.B. 128, the “Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation – Total Assessed Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Study and Reports” Act. The vote followed the Governor’s announcement, just days earlier, that his administration would fully fund the study mandated by the bill, effectively reversing his prior veto.
Initially introduced as a climate superfund bill similar to those enacted—and now being challenged—in New York and Vermont, the Maryland legislation was substantially amended before passage in April 2025 to remove all liability and cost-collection provisions. As enacted, the law instead requires a comprehensive assessment of historical and projected climate-related damages and potential structures for allocating associated costs. The Act directs the Comptroller, in coordination with the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Department of Commerce, to quantify climate-related impacts across sectors including public health, natural resources, biodiversity, agriculture, economic development, housing, and flood preparedness and safety. It also requires an evaluation of whether those costs should be assigned to fossil fuel companies that emitted more than one billion metric tons of greenhouse gases worldwide between 1995 and 2024. The Comptroller’s report on the total assessed cost of greenhouse gas emissions is due December 1, 2026.
New Jersey Climate Superfund Act Advances Toward January Committee Hearing
In New Jersey, state Senators have announced that S. 3545, the proposed Climate Superfund Act, pending since September 2024, will receive a hearing in the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee in early January. Although the bill and its Assembly counterpart have moved through committees in both chambers, neither the Senate nor the Assembly has scheduled a floor vote. Even if both houses advance the measure (and the Assembly has not announced plans to do so), the bill must still be presented to Governor Phil Murphy, who leaves office in January. With the current legislative session set to conclude on January 13, the remaining window for final passage and gubernatorial action is increasingly narrow.
As drafted, the New Jersey bill would create a strict-liability cost-recovery program requiring companies with more than one billion tons of covered emissions to contribute to a statewide climate-adaptation fund. Liability would apply to emissions generated from the use of fossil fuels extracted or refined by a responsible party between 1995 and 2024, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection would determine each party’s proportional share of covered emissions. The State Treasurer would set the total fund amount, and proceeds would support a wide range of adaptation and resilience initiatives, including flood protection, home buyouts, stormwater and wastewater upgrades, defensive transportation infrastructure, preventive health programs, and grid-resilience improvements.
Climate Superfund in Context
These developments arise as federal courts continue to consider the validity of New York’s and Vermont’s enacted climate superfund laws. In four pending cases—brought by the United States, industry groups, and a coalition of Republican-led states—parties have completed or are nearing completion of merits briefing on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Opponents argue that the state laws are unconstitutional because they impose extraterritorial and retroactive liability for out-of-state and global emissions, violate the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause, and interfere with federal foreign-affairs authority. They further assert that the laws are preempted by the Clean Air Act on the theory that states may not impose liability for interstate or global greenhouse gas emissions absent express congressional authorization.
Despite this litigation, the Maryland and New Jersey developments demonstrate that some states remain committed to exploring—and in some cases expanding—climate-cost recovery frameworks. Maryland’s shift to a broad climate-damage assessment signals an interest in building the evidentiary and policy foundation for future action, while New Jersey’s proposal continues to advance a strict-liability model similar to those now under judicial review. The continued movement on both fronts signals that states are prepared to advance climate cost initiatives in tandem with, rather than in deference to, ongoing federal court challenges.
Pillsbury’s Environmental & Natural Resources team will continue monitoring climate-cost recovery initiatives and related legislative and litigation developments. For up-to-date information on pending bills and active court challenges, visit our Climate Superfund Map.