Maryland has big plans to zero-out its contributions to climate change over the next two decades, an aggressive timeline that state officials expect will require close to $1 billion of investment annually in the years ahead.

But could the state help cover that cost by charging ExxonMobil, Chevron and dozens of fossil fuel giants for their culpability in climate change? That was the recommendation of Maryland’s climate advisory committee Thursday.

This recommendation represents a sizable step forward in the eyes of climate advocates, as Maryland looks for ways to finance its ambitious climate goals. Under landmark legislation adopted in 2022, the state aims to eliminate 60% of its planet-warming carbon emissions by 2031 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2045.

Neutralizing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to develop a clean economy won’t come cheap, and Maryland faces a severe budget crunch heading into the upcoming legislative session: State analysts have projected that Maryland will face a shortfall of $2.7 billion for the next budget year, and Gov. Wes Moore will have to close that gap before he introduces his spending plan in January.

That’s why climate advocates argue that forcing polluting companies to pony up cash — instead of making cuts elsewhere or cobbling together the costs by taxing residents — would be such an effective strategy.

The vote came at the year’s final meeting of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, where the panel was expected to consider three different measures designed to raise revenues to pay for climate adaptation.

One of those proposals, a “cap and invest” program to raise money off of pollution from the state’s transportation and building sectors, was watered down into a proposed study, while another, a plan to tax coal transported through the state, was withdrawn by Baltimore County Del. Dana Stein, who still plans to push the approach as a bill this legislative session.

The recommendation to compel some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to pay the state damages for their contributions to climate change, however, moved forward.

A similar proposal didn’t get far in the last legislative session, but has found traction in some other states. A “climate superfund” bill passed in New York in June but awaits a signature from the governor, while Vermont became the first state to institute a law like this one earlier in the year.

If adopted by state lawmakers, the proposal could pay big dividends. Last session’s bill, called the RENEW Act, would have tried to charge the world’s 40 largest fossil fuel companies a one-time fee of $9 billion, to be used both for reducing emissions and for addressing the harms already caused by climate change.

In discussions Thursday, the commission scratched that calculation, instead calling for the General Assembly to study just how much the state is owed by these polluting companies.

Maryland Secretary of the Environment Serena McIlwain initially said she interpreted the commission’s revised language to be suggesting “just a study.” After deliberation, commission members seemed to agree that their recommendation went much further than that.

Kim Coble, director of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters and co-chair of the climate commission, said afterwards that members sent a convincing message that the state should not only study the idea, but then go after money from these global polluters.

The measure passed the commission overwhelmingly, 21-2.

The climate commission has no actual powers to implement its recommendations.

Coble acknowledged the mechanics of this idea are hard: How does Maryland charge a company in Saudi Arabia for climate change? But she said the vote sends a strong signal heading into next year’s legislative session about the importance of paying for the state’s climate plans.

Though Moore’s administration is represented by numerous appointees on the climate commission, a spokesperson for the governor did not respond to requests for comment on the climate financing measures.

Some commission members cautioned against supporting such a combative climate policy.

Michael Powell, who represents business interests on the commission, pushed to contain the recommendation to a study and argued that such a law would fail in court while costing the state millions in legal fees.

In July, a Baltimore judge threw out a suit by the city against oil companies including Chevron, Exxon and BP, ruling that the state courts weren’t the proper forum for addressing a global issue like climate change.

Mike O’Halloran, representing petroleum and propane distributors, argued that assumptions that the fees imposed by the climate commission’s recommendations would fall on companies upstream, rather than trickling down to everyday Marylanders as higher energy costs, were wrong.

“These policies would have a devastating effect on our economy, along with our competitiveness regionally and nationally,” he told the commission.

Still others celebrated the commissions decision as a crucial step towards a greener economy.

“Somebody has to pay for the rising floods and storms and droughts that are harming Marylanders almost every day,” said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, in a statement after the vote. “Either taxpayers will foot the bill for washed out roads and destroyed farm infrastructure — or the fossil fuel companies that caused the problems will pay their share.”