Climate Change - Attorney General Actions, Climate Change Restitution Fund, and Climate Change Restitution Fund Advisory Council
HB340 would authorize the Maryland Attorney General to investigate, bring, prosecute, or defend civil or criminal actions against certain large publicly traded fossil fuel companies and their subsidiaries for tortious or otherwise unlawful conduct alleged to have contributed to climate change. The bill targets entities that derive at least 50% of their revenue from coal, oil, or gas and have a market capitalization over $1 billion, and it expressly allows the Attorney General to retain outside counsel on a contingency-fee basis if doing so is in the State’s best interest.
The bill also creates the Climate Change Restitution Fund as a special, nonlapsing fund. Money in the fund would come primarily from judgments or settlements obtained in actions brought under the bill, along with interest and other accepted funds, and could be used only for programs that prevent, mitigate, or repair climate-related harms such as air pollution, extreme heat, drought, flooding, saltwater intrusion, storm damage, vectorborne and waterborne pathogens, ecosystem changes, and wildfires. The bill further establishes a Climate Change Restitution Fund Advisory Council to advise the Governor, Attorney General, and General Assembly on climate impacts and how to distribute the fund.
In addition to creating the fund and council, HB340 amends State Finance and Procurement law to exempt the Climate Change Restitution Fund from the general rule that interest on certain State money accrues to the General Fund. It also directs the council to produce an initial report on climate impacts in Maryland and, when unallocated funds exist, additional recommendations on how to distribute those funds among state agencies and local jurisdictions. The bill would take effect June 1, 2025.
Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from formal legislative action. Based on the bill’s sponsors and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a climate accountability and resilience proposal, with an emphasis on using litigation recoveries to fund adaptation and repair efforts. The bill’s tone is assertive and remedial, seeking to shift costs of climate harms toward major fossil fuel companies.
The main points of contention likely involve the bill’s litigation strategy and its target class of companies. Supporters would likely view it as a way to hold major emitters accountable and generate funding for climate response, while opponents may object to the use of state litigation against energy companies, the contingency-fee outside counsel provision, and the breadth of the conduct covered. Another likely issue is whether the bill could create significant legal and economic uncertainty for fossil fuel producers and related industries.
HB340 would add a new Environment Article provision authorizing the Attorney General to pursue climate-related claims against large publicly traded fossil fuel entities, and it would create a new Public Safety subtitle establishing the Climate Change Restitution Fund and Advisory Council. It would also amend State Finance and Procurement law so that interest earnings on the new fund do not revert to the General Fund. The bill would affect the Attorney General’s enforcement authority, the Department’s administration of a dedicated climate fund, and the allocation of any litigation recoveries to climate mitigation and repair programs.
No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from hearings or floor action. From the bill text and sponsor list, the measure appears to have been introduced as a proactive climate accountability bill with a strong policy purpose. Its structure suggests a favorable posture among sponsors toward using state legal action and restitution funding to address climate harms.
Likely areas of contention include whether the State should sue large fossil fuel companies for climate-related harms, whether the Attorney General should be allowed to hire contingency-fee outside counsel, and whether the bill’s target definition is too narrow or too broad. Critics may argue the bill is overly punitive, legally aggressive, or economically disruptive, while supporters are likely to emphasize accountability, consumer and environmental protection, and dedicated funding for climate resilience. The composition and role of the advisory council may also draw attention because it includes state officials and outside stakeholder groups such as counties, municipalities, business, and agriculture.