H.R. 8330: Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026

This bill would largely block state and local efforts to hold energy companies financially responsible for climate change-related harms. It says that lawsuits or other legal actions seeking damages, court orders, or similar relief against people or companies involved in the mining, extraction, production, refining, transportation, distribution, manufacturing, marketing, or sale of energy could not be filed or continued in federal or state court if they are based on alleged harm from climate change.

What counts as covered energy and covered claims

The bill defines energy as crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, and coal. It defines a covered defendant as a person or company engaged in the energy business in interstate commerce.

The types of claims it targets include lawsuits based on:

• climate change-related damages or injuries,
• claims that energy companies failed to warn people about climate risks,
• claims based on marketing or alleged misrepresentation, and
• state laws that require energy companies to pay for climate-related costs or harms.

Effects on existing and future cases

Any covered lawsuit already pending when the bill becomes law would have to be dismissed immediately. New covered lawsuits could not be filed or maintained in either federal or state court.

The bill also says that any state or local “energy penalty law” would be void. In practical terms, this would override state or municipal efforts sometimes described as “climate superfund” laws or similar measures that try to assign climate-related liability to fossil fuel companies.

Federal control over climate-related claims

The bill states that greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are to be governed exclusively by federal law and federal agencies. It also says that no private right of action can be brought under state law for climate change-related harms from greenhouse gas emissions.

Legislative findings and purpose

Congress says the bill is intended to support affordable and reliable energy, strengthen national security, and prevent what it describes as unfair or constitutionally improper attempts by states and local governments to impose retroactive liability on energy companies. The findings section says these types of lawsuits can burden courts, interstate commerce, and the energy industry.

Relevant Companies

• XOM — Exxon Mobil could be affected because it is a major oil and gas producer that could face fewer climate-related lawsuits or state liability claims.
• CVX — Chevron could be directly affected for similar reasons, as a large producer and marketer of fossil fuels.
• COP — ConocoPhillips, an oil and gas producer, could be affected by limits on climate-related litigation.
• EOG — EOG Resources could be impacted as an upstream oil and gas company covered by the bill’s definition of the energy business.
• SLB — SLB provides services to the oil and gas industry and could be indirectly affected if litigation against energy-sector operations is reduced.
• KMI — Kinder Morgan, a major energy transportation company, could be affected because the bill covers transportation and distribution of energy.
• WMB — Williams Companies could be indirectly affected as a natural gas transportation and infrastructure company.
• PSX — Phillips 66, involved in refining and fuel marketing, could be covered by the bill’s definitions.
• MPC — Marathon Petroleum could be affected as a refiner and fuel distributor.
• BTU — Peabody Energy could be affected because coal is included in the bill’s definition of energy.