New InfluenceMap analysis shows how powerful industry associations are strategically opposing state Climate Superfund bills and laws, including in California, that aim to recoup the costs of climate change. These cross-sector associations represent major oil and gas companies likely to be affected by the legislation, such as ExxonMobil and Shell. They appear to be leveraging a playbook commonly employed by fossil fuel interests globally to block climate progress and avoid accountability.
In California, lawmakers are advancing the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act (SB-684/AB-1243), which would require the largest fossil fuel companies to help pay for the escalating costs of climate-driven damages in the state. The bill targets companies based on their historical contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, reflecting a growing state-level push to hold major polluters financially accountable for damages related to their activities. The scale of these costs is substantial–the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, attributed in part to escalating climate change,1 are estimated to have cost residents, insurers, and the State between $28 and $58 billion in property damage.2
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, and Western States Petroleum Association officially registered in opposition to the California Climate Superfund bill (see testimony from CalChamber), with American Petroleum Institute (API) criticizing the bill in an April 2025 press release. These industry groups share a history of opposing climate policy in California, including the state’s climate plan, climate disclosure laws, and transport regulations. CalChamber describes itself as "the largest broad-based business advocate to government in California," with representatives from Walt Disney Company, Ernst & Young, and others serving on its Executive Committee. The group’s highly diverse membership base and leadership circle make its fossil fuel-friendly advocacy questionable in a state where many businesses have ambitious climate goals.
InfluenceMap research shows that CalChamber is using narratives previously employed by the US Chamber of Commerce (US Chamber) and API, suggesting a strategic effort that may be spearheaded by the national associations to oppose state Climate Superfund bills nationwide. Since at least February 2024, API, the US Chamber, and other state chambers of commerce have been repeating misleading claims around the legality, emissions attribution, and economic impact of Climate Superfund programs in states such as Connecticut, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York.
At least 47 extractive fossil fuel producers may be liable under California’s proposed Climate Superfund Act, as identified in the Carbon Majors database maintained by InfluenceMap3. Based solely on their quantified emissions in Carbon Majors, these 47 companies are linked to 36.4% of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions from 1990–2023 (data for 2024 is not yet available). They would therefore potentially be liable for 36.4% of the bill’s recovery target. At least 18 of these 47 companies are members of API, together responsible for 15.9% of global fossil fuel C02 emissions over this period and thus potentially liable for 15.9% of the bill's damage recovery target, or approximately $65 billion in recovered costs.4
None of the companies identified as potentially responsible under the bill appear to have directly engaged with the legislation in public, and instead appear to be conducting indirect advocacy via their industry associations. InfluenceMap has extensively documented this pattern of companies delegating their most controversial and negative policy stances to industry groups.
With states facing steep budget cuts from the federal government—particularly for decarbonization and resilience—these Climate Superfund bills may become a key alternative to recover costs from past damages and invest in climate adaptation measures that would otherwise be funded by taxpayer dollars.
The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), which describes itself as “the largest broad-based business advocate to government in California,” has prominently opposed the state’s Climate Superfund legislation. It has used both legal arguments and pro-fossil fuel narratives in testimony against the 2024 bill and the current 2025 version. A history of fossil fuel-friendly advocacy by CalChamber is particularly notable given its wide-ranging membership base and executive leadership, as such advocacy may undermine the climate commitments of its corporate members outside the fossil fuel sector.
Analysis of the public communications of several other prominent US industry groups, including CalChamber, indicates a common set of arguments and claims used against Climate Superfund bills across the US. These include claiming that these bills (1) violate due process protections, (2) are preempted by federal policy, (3) may violate the excessive fines and takings clauses of the Constitution, and (4) contribute to job losses and raise energy prices.
Outside of California, the API and the US Chamber—alongside several state chambers—seem to have spearheaded this advocacy in multiple states (e.g., Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, and Rhode Island) beginning in at least February 2024. Additional industry groups (e.g., National Federation of Independent Business in Rhode Island, Americans for Prosperity in Maine) have employed similar arguments in their testimonies against state Climate Superfund proposals in 2025.
This emerging evidence suggests a coordinated approach by industry players against Climate Superfund bills that reflects the broader fossil fuel industry’s playbook against climate regulation and accountability, as identified in previous InfluenceMap analysis.
An April 2022 analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity examined the legality of state Climate Superfund programs and suggested that arguments around federal preemption and constitutionality would not hold up in court. Furthermore, narratives emphasizing the affordability concerns of transitioning away from fossil fuels counter science-based guidance on climate policy, as well as estimates of runaway costs from climate damage. The table below explores how industry groups have used these narratives in their testimony against Climate Superfund bills and contrasts them with legal and scientific guidance.
| Narrative | Description | Example of Use | Fact Check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threat of Litigation | Threats of legal action, like the actions by US Chamber and API against the Climate Superfund laws in Vermont and New York | “API strongly encourages Rhode Island lawmakers to exercise prudence and refrain from passing the Climate Superfund Act given there is pending litigation on this issue which is rife with uncertainty and legal questions.” (API, February 2025 Testimony Opposing Rhode Island’s H. 5424) | Litigation is a commonly used fossil fuel industry strategy for delaying or blocking regulation (see InfluenceMap’s US briefing from December 2024; for specific legal arguments, see rows below). |
| Federal Preemption | Claims that Climate Superfund laws are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act | “Vermont has thus exceeded the bounds of its authority that is and has historically been controlled only by federal law.” (API and US Chamber, December 2024 Legal Complaint against Vermont’s Climate Superfund law) | Legal advice from the Institute for Policy Integrity advises that states have the authority to regulate air pollution more stringently than the federal government, and that Climate Superfund laws apply to retroactive GHG emissions and do not conflict with existing federal rules. |
| Constitutional Challenges | Claims that Climate Superfund laws violate due process and equal protection provisions | “Arbitrary penalties and estimated fines create due process and fairness issues: The bill incorrectly suggests that emissions by companies over an extended number of years can be determined with great accuracy.” (API, February 2025 Testimony Opposing Maryland’s SB 194) | With sufficient jurisdictional and emissions thresholds that establish contact with the state and contributions to global GHG emissions, it is likely that fossil fuel companies will satisfy the due process clause, according to the Institute for Policy Integrity. |
| Fossil Fuel Use | Claims that states are dependent on fossil fuels, and retroactive accountability is unfair | “These proposals unfairly single out the fossil fuel industry as being responsible for climate change. . . Maine’s heritage industries – farming, fishing, and forestry – continue to rely heavily on these products due to limited alternatives.” (Maine State Chamber, May 2025 Testimony Opposing Maine’s LD 1808) | The IPCC stresses the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels and highlights the need for energy source diversification through renewable energy deployment “as a crucial measure for enhancing energy access and diversity, which increases energy security and resilience of the whole system” (6.6.4, p. 684). |
| Affordability | Claims that Climate Superfund laws will raise energy prices and harm consumers, with ties to broader narratives that frame climate action as economically harmful | “SB 684 will increase energy prices.. . . For vulnerable populations and communities already financially strained, these higher costs diminish economic well-being and financial stability.” (CalChamber, April 2025 Testimony Opposing SB 684) | The IPCC finds that delaying climate action imposes higher long-term costs on communities, stating that “delayed climate investments and financing – and limited alignment of investment activity with the Paris Agreement – will result in significant carbon lock-ins, stranded assets, and other additional costs” (TS.6.4, p. 135). |
This analysis identifies at least 47 extractive fossil fuel producers that may be liable under California’s Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act, based on the Carbon Majors database. None of the companies identified as potentially responsible appear to have publicly engaged with the legislation. However, they are members of industry associations actively engaging on Climate Superfund bills, as explained above.
Under California's Climate Superfund bill, liability applies to entities whose cumulative global emissions between 1990 and 2024 exceed one billion metric tonnes of CO2 and that meet certain jurisdictional thresholds establishing a connection with California. Each liable entity’s financial obligation would be determined in proportion to its share of global emissions in that period.
InfluenceMap used the Carbon Majors database to identify 124 fossil fuel producers that each exceeded the emissions threshold of one billion tonnes of CO2 during the assessed period.5 While the proposed legislation also applies to refiners, this analysis is limited to extractive companies. Using publicly available information, InfluenceMap screened these companies to assess whether they would likely satisfy the bill’s jurisdictional contact requirements, ultimately identifying a total of 47 companies6. For each identified company, its share of responsibility was calculated based on its percentage contribution to global fossil fuel C02 emissions during the covered period. Though the bill covers 1990–2024, Carbon Majors data for 2024 is not yet available, so the responsibility share is based on 1990–2023 emissions.
At least 20 of the 47 identified companies hold memberships in groups such as API, US Chamber, or the CalChamber—a number that is likely higher given that the US Chamber and CalChamber do not disclose full membership lists. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to determine how many potentially liable companies are members of aligned associations working to oppose the legislation.
| Company | Percentage of global CO2 emissions (1990–2023) | Member of American Petroleum Institute | Member of US Chamber | Member of CalChamber |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saudi Aramco | 4.90% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| ExxonMobil | 2.00% | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| Shell | 1.70% | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Chevron | 1.60% | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| BP | 1.51% | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| ConocoPhillips | 1.02% | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| Equinor | 0.65% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Occidental Petroleum | 0.61% | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| Rio Tinto | 0.52% | No | Yes | Yes |
| Repsol | 0.38% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Devon Energy | 0.28% | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| Suncor Energy | 0.28% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Ovintiv | 0.25% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Mitsubishi Corporation | 0.18% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| APA Corporation | 0.17% | Yes | Yes | Unclear |
| EOG Resources | 0.16% | No | Yes | Unclear |
| Coterra Energy | 0.10% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Kiewit Mining Group | 0.10% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Diamondback Energy | 0.10% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Woodside Energy | 0.08% | Yes | Unclear | Unclear |
| Company | Percentage of global CO2 emissions (1990–2023) |
|---|---|
| Saudi Aramco | 4.90% |
| Gazprom | 3.96% |
| ExxonMobil | 2.00% |
| Shell | 1.70% |
| CNPC | 1.69% |
| Pemex | 1.62% |
| Chevron | 1.60% |
| BP | 1.51% |
| Rosneft | 1.35% |
| Peabody Energy | 1.20% |
| TotalEnergies | 1.09% |
| ConocoPhillips | 1.02% |
| Core Natural Resources | 1.02% |
| Petrobras | 0.90% |
| BHP | 0.82% |
| Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. | 0.74% |
| Lukoil | 0.74% |
| Equinor | 0.65% |
| Eni | 0.63% |
| Occidental Petroleum | 0.61% |
| Glencore | 0.58% |
| Rio Tinto | 0.52% |
| Anglo American | 0.50% |
| Alpha Metallurgical Resources | 0.50% |
| CNOOC | 0.39% |
| Repsol | 0.38% |
| RWE | 0.36% |
| Sasol | 0.35% |
| Devon Energy | 0.28% |
| Suncor Energy | 0.28% |
| Novatek | 0.27% |
| Ovintiv | 0.25% |
| Exxaro Resources Ltd | 0.20% |
| Mitsubishi Corporation | 0.18% |
| APA Corporation | 0.17% |
| EOG Resources | 0.17% |
| Alliance Resource Partners | 0.16% |
| BASF | 0.16% |
| INPEX | 0.14% |
| Cloud Peak | 0.13% |
| Teck Resources | 0.12% |
| Westmoreland Mining | 0.12% |
| Coterra Energy | 0.1% |
| Kiewit Mining Group | 0.10% |
| Diamondback Energy | 0.10% |
| Vistra | 0.09% |
| Woodside Energy | 0.08% |
1 World Weather Attribution, Climate change increased the likelihood of wildfire disaster in highly exposed Los Angeles area, Jan 28, 2025.
2 LAEDC Institute for Applied Economics, Impact of 2025 LA Wildfires, Feb 2025.
3Under the bill, CalEPA will determine the responsible parties based on a factual and legal analysis. The bill applies only to entities whose cumulative global emissions between 1990 and 2024 exceed one billion metric tonnes of CO₂e and that satisfy the bill’s jurisdictional contact requirements.
4The estimated amount likely to be recovered from fossil fuel companies under the Climate Superfund Act is $150 billion or more, according to the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy California. This figure is used for this analysis; however, the bill directs CalEPA to establish the actual recovery target through a climate cost study.
5The bill defines “covered fossil-fuel emissions” broadly, encompassing all greenhouse gases from the extraction, production, refining, sale, or combustion of fossil fuels. For comparability, this analysis focuses only on CO₂ emissions as reported in the Carbon Majors database and compares those figures with global fossil fuel and cement CO₂ totals from the Global Carbon Project.
6For the purposes of this analysis, jurisdictional contact was approximated by determining whether the company conducted business in California during the bill’s relevant time period, based on filings from the California Secretary of State. This approach was used as a proxy and does not represent a legal determination. The bill directs CalEPA to make the final determinations, which involve factual and legal analyses beyond the scope of this research.
