How Climate ‘Lawfare’ Will Impact Your Utility Bill
A major climate lawsuit out of Colorado is drawing fresh attention as environmental organizations, legal scholars and local governments line up behind Boulder in a case that could shape how future climate litigation is handled. More than 20 new friend-of-the-court briefs were filed last week in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. […]
A major climate lawsuit out of Colorado is drawing fresh attention as environmental organizations, legal scholars and local governments line up behind Boulder in a case that could shape how future climate litigation is handled.
More than 20 new friend-of-the-court briefs were filed last week in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The case centers on whether state tort law can be used to hold energy companies liable for alleged harms tied to greenhouse-gas emissions that cross state and national borders.
Boulder County and the City of Boulder sued Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil in 2018, arguing that the companies contributed to climate change and should be held financially responsible under Colorado law.
The companies argue that the dispute is broader than Colorado and therefore belongs under federal law. In their view, a single state should not be able to impose liability for emissions generated across the country and around the world.
The outcome could have consequences well beyond Colorado.
Environmental groups have spent years pursuing climate-related claims against fossil fuel companies, but several recent cases have ended in defeat. In Lighthiser v. Trump, 22 young plaintiffs challenged three Trump administration energy executive orders on constitutional grounds. A federal judge dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in June 2026.
Another setback came in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP. The Maryland Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of climate-related lawsuits filed by Baltimore, Annapolis and Anne Arundel County against 26 oil and gas companies. The court concluded that Maryland tort law could not be used to impose liability for alleged harms stemming from global greenhouse-gas emissions.
Those decisions have raised the stakes in the Boulder case.
WHEN Justice, a nonprofit supporting Boulder, argued in its amicus brief that interstate pollution does not automatically create a separate set of constitutional rules. The group compared the absence of such rules to Sherlock Holmes’ famous observation about “the dog that does not bark,” suggesting that what is missing from the law can sometimes be as important as what is present.
Critics of the lawsuits remain skeptical.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance For Consumers, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that progressive groups are increasingly using courts to pursue policy goals they have not been able to achieve through legislatures.
“The money is not the point of these lawsuits,” Skinner said. He argued that financial damages are ultimately a way to pressure the energy industry while supporting policies favored by climate activists.
Energy policy analyst David Blackmon offered a similar criticism, saying Boulder’s legal arguments have already been rejected in other state and federal cases.
He also pointed to the cost of defending such lawsuits, saying energy companies can spend tens of millions of dollars responding to claims even when plaintiffs ultimately fail to recover damages.
Supporters of Boulder reject that characterization.
Our Children’s Trust filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight young people, ages 8 to 22, who live in Boulder County. The group argues that the young residents are already experiencing harms connected to air pollution and climate-related disruptions.
The case has also attracted prominent legal academics.
Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School argued that the federal government does not have a climate policy that clearly conflicts with Colorado’s lawsuit. He also criticized the energy companies for taking positions that he says are inconsistent with arguments they made in earlier climate cases.
Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and counsel at Sher Edling, appears as counsel on another amicus brief filed on behalf of Democratic-led states and cities.
The broader legal debate extends beyond the Boulder case. Burger’s previous work has been connected to discussions over “attribution science,” a field used in climate litigation to link specific harms or events to emissions. A chapter on the subject in the National Academies of Sciences’ Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence was later removed from the Federal Judicial Center’s website while the National Academies conducted a process review.
Blackmon argued that years of climate litigation have produced few tangible results for the cities and states bringing the cases. He said the Boulder dispute could give the Supreme Court an opportunity to set clearer limits on how such claims can proceed.