Former AG Barr: Climate change lawsuits could cripple energy companies

(The Center Square) - Advocates and former Trump administration officials warned of dire consequences if an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision favors environmental activists.

Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr spoke on Wednesday in Washington, D.C., about the Supreme Court’s upcoming case Suncor v. Boulder. The case, which will be argued on Oct. 5, seeks billions of dollars in damages against energy companies for alleged contributions to climate change.

Officials in Boulder County, Colorado, cite state nuisance laws to seek damages from Suncor and ExxonMobil. The nuisance laws, typically used to resolve property disputes between neighbors, are central to this case as legislators in Boulder County said energy companies have damaged property through contribution to climate change.

Barr said climate activists are bringing dozens of cases similar to Boulder's in state and federal courts across the country. He estimated some cases are seeking as much as $28 trillion in damages from energy companies.

“One victory would cripple these companies economically,” Barr said. “One state cannot apply its own law in a way that is binding to other states that have been touched by this phenomenon.”

Barr said the U.S. Constitution prevents states from litigating issues that have national or global implications.

“These are things that have to be worked out on the international level,” Barr said. “[The fossil fuel energy] is still the foundation for prosperity in the world. They can’t destroy that.”

Jennifer Hernandez, a partner at the law firm Holland and Knight, said cases like Suncor v. Boulder came from climate activists overregulating environmental policy.

“It’s not good to have a bunch of relatively educated, relatively affluent passionate people with nothing to do,” Hernandez said.

More from this section

Orangutans rescued from Indonesia’s devastating wildfires

Meuser-Wallace debate announced, hits capacity

Plaintiffs react as Indian Education for All settlement moves toward final approval

She pointed to environmental policies in California, which she said dramatically reduced the ability to build affordable housing throughout the state, disproportionately affecting Black and Latino residents. Hernandez criticized efforts to reduce car use, energy production, jobs and home construction over the last several years.

“The measures that California wants and needs to achieve our climate goals are going to cost households making $100,000 or less $5 billion or more,” Hernandez said.

Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, said the case before justices on the high court is not about whether climate change exists. He said the case should be strictly focused on legal guidelines for state and local courts.

“If Boulder wants to sue over something that happened in other states, they have to apply the laws of Texas or Kentucky or New Jersey or California,” Goldberg said. “This can’t be an issue of state law.”

Goldberg also warned that climate litigation like Suncor v. Boulder will have a downstream effect on energy and gas prices. He said an outcome in favor of Boulder County would amount to an indirect carbon tax due to the damages sought against energy companies. He urged the justices on the high court to carefully consider how they weigh the case.

“If you make the companies pay this money, that goes to consumers,” Goldberg said. “If you’re going to do that, you’re circumventing the checks and balances of the congressional process or the regulatory process where you can look at and balance all of the different factors that go into establishing energy policy.”

The advocates also warned climate policy coming out of Suncor v. Boulder would only be able to limit energy production in the United States and could provide an advantage to adversarial nations like Russia and China.

The panelists warned of a concentrated effort across the country to bring about massive damage lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. Goldberg said environmental organizations use the lawsuits to fundraise for climate change causes.

“The process is the punishment,” Barr said. “It’s immensely expensive. How can you allocate your capital on the side of sensible energy investments when you have this kind of litigation hanging over you?”