Climate activists, frustrated by unsuccessful climate lawsuits, have increasingly turned to “climate superfund” legislation as a new tool to make oil and gas companies pay for climate damages.
Notably, these state-level bills seek to impose hefty fees or fines on energy producers for the costs of climate change, a punitive measure for energy producers for decades-old, lawful activities. But this punishing dynamic backfired when confronted with reality. In multiple states, climate superfund proposals have run ashore amid bipartisan concern that they would do more harm than good, particularly by driving up energy costs for consumers.
As of early 2026, only Vermont and New York have actually enacted climate superfund laws, both in 2024, with a dozen other states introducing similar bills, including California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, to name a few. However, about half of these attempts have stalled or died in state legislatures.
New Jersey’s experience is a prime example. Lawmakers there introduced an ambitious Climate Superfund Act in 2025, but even some initial supporters grew uneasy once they considered the practical impacts.
In a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the bill in January 2026, legislators from both parties openly questioned the premise of punishing companies for past legal emissions and warned the costs would simply be passed on to New Jersey residents . “Each and every one of us… [is] relying on [fossil fuels] in one way or another in your everyday life,” noted Democratic Sen. Paul Sarlo, highlighting the irony that the state itself remains dependent on the very fuels it was seeking to penalize.
Sarlo, the committee chair, reluctantly advanced the bill out of committee but bluntly warned he would vote “no” on final passage unless major changes were made. Republican Sen. Declan O’Scanlon was even more direct, blasting the retroactive fines as “unfair” and cautioning that “New Jerseyans themselves would end up paying the price at the pump or for their utility bills” if the state tries to punish energy producers.
In the end, New Jersey’s proposal never made it to a floor vote before the legislative session ended in January 2026, effectively killing the bill (for now).
New Jersey is hardly alone. In California, two “Polluters Pay Climate Superfund” bills (SB 684 and AB 1243) garnered significant attention in early 2025 but were quietly shelved after initial committee hearings, as lawmakers grew wary of the potential economic fallout. Connecticut’s climate superfund bill got a public hearing in March 2025 but then died in committee without a vote. In Hawaii, a proposed superfund never advanced at all before the 2025 session ended. Virginia’s attempt was “immediately rejected” after a bipartisan subcommittee vote to table the bill, effectively killing it. And in Maryland, lawmakers introduced an ambitious Climate Superfund-style bill (the RENEW Act) only to strip it down to a mere study of climate costs, with all polluter-pays provisions removed.
Taken together, these failures underscore how even in climate-conscious states, many policymakers got cold feet when confronted with the legal risks, economic trade-offs, and voter backlash potentially involved.
If this is the case, are climate superfund schemes really aligned with what the public wants policymakers to focus on?
Activists insist that making Big Oil pay billions is a matter of justice and necessary to fund climate resilience. But for most Americans, the more immediate priority is relief from high energy prices, not new climate-linked taxes that could raise those costs further.
A national poll of likely voters in late 2025 showed 83% reported that their energy bills had gone up in recent years, with a majority saying costs had increased “a lot.” Affordability is clearly top of mind. This doesn’t mean Americans don’t care about climate change at all; it means they aren’t willing to bear exorbitant direct costs for symbolic climate policies, especially when those policies won’t tangibly improve their day-to-day lives or might simply shuffle money to government coffers with little accountability.
Ultimately, the failure of these climate superfund proposals underscores a reality that many in the energy industry have long argued: energy policy must be grounded in economic and energy reality, as well as the needs of everyday Americans.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Governor Katie Hobbs rolled out her budget last month and, unsurprisingly, it doesn’t add up.
Not only because her “solutions” don’t match the problems she claims to be solving, like suggesting we can make goods and services more affordable by piling on new taxes and fees, but because her budget quite literally just doesn’t add up.
Hobbs’ budget is a $17.7B spending plan ($100M more than last year) that leaves a meager $37.8M balance at the end of FY27. That means her revenue projections leave very little room for error. Yet one of the more obvious facts about her budget is just how likely error-prone these projections are, a fact that Republicans during a joint appropriations hearing were sure to point out.
One of the most speculative assumptions Hobbs is making in her budget proposal is relying on $760 million of “reimbursements” from the federal government for expenditures the state has made for border security since 2021. That is a good chunk of change, and her budget is unworkable without it.
The problem is it is actually way more likely than not that even if the state receives something in the way of reimbursement, it will not be the full amount, and who knows on what timeline. Regardless, it is irresponsible tocommit money out the front door that may never come in.
This is nothing new for Hobbs. Just last year she continued a COVID-era program that neither had legislative authorization to continue nor the ongoing financial allocations to support it. That wound up blowing a $122M fiscal hole in the previous year’s budget mid-session that Republicans had to mop up.
The Governor’s budget also depends on tapping the State Land trust for another $1.5 Billion. Setting aside whether its a good idea to raid the land trust set up for various beneficiaries (K-12, Universities, deaf and blind, etc), changing the formula for trust land distributions requires a constitutional amendment that would need to be approved by voters in November.
Hobbs’ “Affordability” Plan is Really a Chaotic Tax-And-Spend Plan
Hobbs wants to brand her budget as improving affordability, but it does just the opposite. Every idea in her plan is built around $1B in new taxes and fees and the hope that the bureaucracy can “manage” the cost of living while literally contributing to its inflation…
Arizona House Republicans on the Natural Resources, Energy, and Water Committee have taken action to address skyrocketing gas prices and utility bills, passing a sweeping package of bills designed to lower fuel costs, enhance energy reliability, and defend ratepayers.
✅House Republicans Advance Energy Affordability Package to Lower Costs for Arizona Families
“The cost of living for Arizona families, including gas and electricity, continues to increase, and Republicans are acting. This package puts affordability first by lowering fuel costs,… pic.twitter.com/4a3T1JOIPo
Under the leadership of Chairman Gail Griffin (R-LD19), the measures align with the House Republican Majority Plan’s core priorities of unleashing economic prosperity, promoting government efficiency, and protecting individual rights and liberties.
The legislation, which advanced on a party-line vote with Democrats in opposition, targets the challenges faced by Arizona families, particularly in Maricopa and Pinal Counties, where severe summer fuel blend requirements have driven up prices at the pump. By prioritizing affordability and reliable power, these bills aim to ease the financial burden on households amid rising energy demand.
“The cost of living for Arizona families, including gas and electricity, continues to increase, and Republicans are acting,” stated Chairman Griffin. “This package puts affordability first by lowering fuel costs, protecting ratepayers from higher utility bills, and making sure Arizona has dependable power as demand grows. The Majority Plan is clear: government should work to ease the cost burden on families, not make them worse.”
Bills Tackling High Gas Prices
HB 2145 (Rep. Griffin): Amends motor fuel statutes to empower the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House to jointly request EPA fuel waivers during shortages if the Governor does not act, providing a defense against price surges.
HB 2400 (Reps. Willoughby, R-LD13, and Biasiucci, R-LD30): Implements a seasonal suspension of the state’s 18-cent gas tax from May through September in Maricopa and Pinal Counties. The bill ensures local governments are reimbursed for lost highway revenue through allocations from the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund, including $27.588 million to counties, $39.93 million to cities and towns, and $5.082 million to larger municipalities. It also includes an emergency clause for immediate implementation and exempts the Department of Transportation from rulemaking for one year.
HB 2696 (Rep. Willoughby): Directs the Arizona Commerce Authority to prioritize reducing fuel and gas prices as its primary objective for two years, expiring December 31, 2029. The authority must collaborate with the oil and gas industry to study repealing the cleaner-burning gasoline blend, building new pipelines, establishing a strategic reserve, and exploring in-state refineries, including reviving a proposed facility in Yuma County. Status updates will be provided to legislative committees, with a final report due by October 1, 2026.
HB 2955 (Rep. Willoughby): Amends motor fuel standards to end the expensive summer fuel blend in populous counties, subject to EPA waiver under the Clean Air Act. It allows for gasoline compliant with ASTM D4814 and vapor pressure limits, addressing supply shortages and enabling lower-cost alternatives.
HCM 2008 (Rep. Willoughby): A concurrent memorial urging Congress and the EPA to eliminate the federal gas tax on Arizona’s cleaner-burning gasoline in Maricopa and Pinal Counties from May to September or grant the EPA administrator emergency waiver authority for costlier blends. This recognizes Arizona’s progress toward National Ambient Air Quality Standards while highlighting the undue tax burden on specialized fuels.
Supporting these efforts are additional bills to promote long-term solutions:
HB 2014 (Rep. Fink, R-LD27): Requires the Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Arizona Department of Agriculture to conduct air emissions modeling and feasibility studies on alternative gasoline blends, including federal reformulated, California phase 3, and conventional options. Reports must be published by September 30, 2027, with $100,000 appropriations each for modeling and studies.
HB 2401 (Willoughby and Biasiucci): Mandates biennial reviews by ADEQ of fuel formulations available under federal standards, assessing air quality impacts in regulated areas, and submitting recommendations to the Department of Agriculture, the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Secretary of State by December 31 of each review year.
HB 2428 (Griffin): Authorizes voluntary mobile emissions reduction credit programs, permitting emissions credits for nonroad engines under Clean Air Act guidelines, with permits issued by ADEQ for up to 20 years, supported by chambers of commerce, utilities, and Maricopa County.
“Today we heard from organizations with the time and resources to lobby against affordable prices for Arizona families, but not from the families paying more at the pump,” explained Majority Whip Julie Willoughby. “Working families cannot take time off to come to the Capitol and ask for relief; that is why we are here to help be their voices.”
“Eighteen cents a gallon may sound small to some, but it matters to families trying to make ends meet,” Willoughby added. “I will do everything in my power to deliver relief now while we continue working to fix the fuel blend and supply problems. Families need lower prices, not excuses.”
Bills Ensuring Energy Reliability and Ratepayer Protections
HB 2331 (Reps. Marshall, R-LD7 and Heap, R-LD10): Renames and expands energy reliability statutes to require public power entities and service corporations to prioritize domestically produced fuels, minimize foreign reliance, and evaluate resources for affordability, reliability, and cleanliness. Defines “clean energy” to include low-emission sources like nuclear and natural gas, with reliable sources needing at least 50% capacity factor and rapid ramp-up capabilities. The bill emphasizes hydrocarbons and finds domestic sourcing essential for public health and safety.
HB 2756 (Reps. Griffin and Blackman, R-LD7): Adds provisions for public power entities and electric corporations to report quarterly on new extra-high load factor customers, including interconnection requests and completions. These customers must be factored into load growth projections. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is directed to adopt rules on contracts, minimum billing, and pre-execution reviews to protect other ratepayers, excluding member-owned cooperatives. Requires cost-of-service studies within 180 days and an ACC workshop within 90 days to assess impacts on residential bills and potential new customer classes.
These bills now advance for further legislative consideration.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright says high electricity costs are a political choice in the United States today. The evidence at hand indicates the Secretary isn’t wrong.
“If you have expensive energy in your state…it’s because politicians and regulators chose to do that,” Wright said in a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal. “It is not bad luck, it is not marketplace…there is no reason to have these rapid increases in electricity prices – no reason, but politics.”
This is correct, and the disparity that exists in electricity bills in red states and blue states can be easily seen in a national map published by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), along with its supporting data.
EIA’s data shows the states with the highest rates include Democratic strongholds like California, New York, Hawaii, and the New England states. Meanwhile, the states with the lowest utility bills include the reddest of red states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, and Iowa. This all ties directly in with the findings in a recent study by the Institute for Energy Research that I wrote about in January.
There is no real mystery here: Democrats seek to exploit the “affordability” issue in the upcoming midterm elections, but the truth is their policies created that issue to begin with. In his interview, Wright provides the proof points:
Electricity prices were up 6.7% year over year in December, nearly 40% since 2020. That is due to the United States adopting “UK-style” energy policies under the Biden and Obama presidencies, like forcing coal plant closures and wind/solar mandates.
Utility rates rose two times the rate of inflation in Democrat-governed states over the last five years, in GOP states, only half the inflation rate.
States with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) have 50% higher prices than those without; 28 states enforce them, driving costs up.
Biden’s $5 trillion stimulus (for a $1.5T GDP gap) fueled inflation across the board but is now fixable via policy reversals like the ones Wright and other Trump officials are now pursuing.
“We’ve had a tailwind of these things to drive up our own energy prices,” Wright says, “And so that’s a battleship we’re stopping and turning back.”
Turning a policy battleship in the middle of an ocean takes time, but Wright’s efforts produced results during the recent major winter storm. In several regions, coal-fired power plants for which Wright acted to delay scheduled premature retirements generated needed baseload power to avoid blackout conditions as wind and solar failed to perform. Keeping many of those coal plants – and natural gas plants also scheduled for premature retirements under absurd RPS mandates – running will be crucial to maintaining integrity and reliability on grids from coast to coast in the years to come.
The good news for Americans is that this country enjoys an incredible abundance of all the natural resources and raw materials needed to restore sanity and reliability to our power grid. All that’s really needed is the political will to get it done while keeping electricity bills affordable.
Wright and the red states on EIA’s map have shown us the way. That’s true even in Texas, one of the few red states that maintains an RPS of its own. There, policymakers fell asleep at the wheel about the need to maintain a needed fleet of dispatchable reserve capacity, a mistake for which Texans dearly paid during 2021’s Winter Storm Uri.
But, in contrast to their peers in many blue states, Texas policymakers showed a capacity to learn from their mistakes, enacting a series of effective reforms over the last five years that vastly improved grid reliability.
In the recent Winter Storm Fern, the ERCOT-managed Texas grid, which proved to be the national poster child for grid failure in 2021, came through as a shining object lesson on how to fix past mistakes while remaining one of the 10 states with the lowest utility rates.
If you live in a state where power bills are too high, that is a choice your political leaders have made for you to endure. You should factor that reality into your thinking next time those politicians are up for re-election.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Arizona State Representative Chris Lopez (R-LD16) introduced House Bill 2826, which would exempt materials such as concrete, used in the improvement and maintenance of agricultural irrigation canals, from Arizona’s transaction privilege tax on prime contracting.
The “No Tax on Concrete” bill aims to reduce costs for farmers, strengthen water conservation efforts, support food affordability, and boost irrigation efficiency by conserving water resources critical to Arizona’s agricultural sector as the state faces ongoing water security challenges.
Specifically, HB 2826 would establish a targeted exemption under the prime contracting classification in ARS § 42-5075 for materials and supplies used to improve and maintain ditches, irrigation lines, and canals on agricultural lands.
Concrete-lined canals offer significant benefits over traditional unlined earthen canals. Unlined systems can lose 30%-50% or more of conveyed water volume to seepage into permeable soils.
By contrast, concrete lining reduces these losses dramatically, increases flow velocity, minimizes erosion and weed growth, and lowers long-term maintenance needs. Such projects can save thousands of acre-feet of water annually, providing a highly cost-effective approach to water conservation.
Projects funded by the Water Infrastructure Finance Authority of Arizona (WIFA) and awarded to irrigation districts—Buckeye Water Conservation & Drainage District, San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage District, and Roosevelt Irrigation District—are anticipated to conserve between 135,000 and 368,864 acre-feet over their lifetimes, at only an estimated cost of $2 to $3 per acre-foot.
“The House Republican Majority Plan is focused on affordability, and that starts with food on the table and the cost of water to produce that food,” stated Rep. Lopez. “Converting dirt canals to concrete-lined canals saves thousands of gallons of water, which reduces pumping costs, energy, and other expenses that go into the price of food. Eliminating the tax on concrete and other contracting costs to convert these canals to concrete lining not only helps to reduce the costs even further but also helps to conserve water at a time when water conservation has never been more critical for our state.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
