Attorney General Actions and Climate Crimes Accountability Fund (Climate Crimes Accountability Act)
HB 572, the Climate Crimes Accountability Act, would authorize the Maryland Attorney General to investigate, bring, prosecute, and defend civil or criminal actions against certain large publicly traded entities and their subsidiaries that have been involved in extracting, refining, or processing coal, oil, or gas, if those entities are alleged to have engaged in tortious or otherwise unlawful conduct contributing to climate change. The bill defines the covered entities by market capitalization, targeting companies with a cumulative market value greater than $1 billion, and allows the Attorney General to hire outside counsel if doing so is in the State’s best interest.
The bill also creates the Climate Crimes Accountability Fund as a special, nonlapsing fund. Money from judgments or settlements in actions brought under the bill would be deposited into the fund, along with interest and other accepted money. The fund may be used only for programs that prevent, mitigate, or repair climate-related harms, including air pollution, extreme heat, drought, flooding, saltwater intrusion, storm damage, vectorborne and waterborne pathogens, ecosystem changes, and wildfires, as well as for litigation-related expenses and administrative costs tied to distributing the money.
HB 572 would add a new Environment Article section giving the Attorney General express authority to pursue climate-related accountability actions against large fossil fuel entities, and it would add a new Public Safety subtitle establishing a dedicated funding mechanism for climate remediation. It also amends State Finance and Procurement law so that the Climate Crimes Accountability Fund is exempt from the general rule directing interest earnings on certain special funds to the General Fund, and it amends State Government law to apply special rules on comparative responsibility, settlements, and contribution/indemnity to actions brought under the new authority. In practical terms, the bill would create a new litigation pathway and a new state fund for climate-related recovery and adaptation spending.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of floor debate or recorded support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as an accountability and climate-harms response bill, suggesting support from lawmakers prioritizing environmental enforcement and climate resilience. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided context beyond the bill’s affirmative policy framing.
The main points of contention likely concern whether the State should target large fossil fuel companies for alleged climate-related misconduct, whether the Attorney General should have this expanded enforcement authority, and whether the bill could lead to complex or costly litigation. Opponents may also object to the bill’s focus on a narrow class of large publicly traded energy-related entities, the use of outside counsel, and the creation of a dedicated fund outside the normal General Fund interest structure. Supporters are likely to emphasize corporate accountability, recovery of climate-related damages, and directing settlement or judgment proceeds toward climate mitigation and repair rather than general state spending.