ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND STATE LEADERS PUSH BACK ON “RADICAL” CLIMATE POLICIES, LAWSUITS By MANDI RISKO

Fox News reports the plaintiffs argue California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island are dictating national energy policy through restrictive climate policy that attacks oil and NG

ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND STATE LEADERS PUSH BACK ON “RADICAL” CLIMATE POLICIES, LAWSUITS

MAY 23, 2024 | MANDI RISKO

 1  4 Google +0  0

Nineteen state attorneys general are challenging the “radical” climate policies of five Democrat-run states, alleging in a new complaint filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the states’ climate lawsuits are jeopardizing access to affordable and available energy across the country.

Fox News reports that the plaintiffs argue California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island are dictating national energy policy through restrictive climate policy that attacks oil and natural gas. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said:

“If the defendant states’ laws have their desired effects, fossil fuel energy companies across the nation will either be hit with massive damages or have to change their policies directly. And, those defendant states will affect the availability of cheap, affordable energy in our states.”

Speaking of climate litigation specifically, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall took aim at the states’ attempts to use the courts to bypass legitimate legislative means:

“I think one of the things that is so most objectionable is the fact they are using common law claims, plus the statutory Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims, as a vehicle to engage in climate policy.”

For example, if the lawsuits are legitimized, the filing points out, a “small gas station in rural Alabama could owe damages to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas.”

This is just the latest inflection point of states across the county increasingly pushing back against the climate litigation campaign, the effects of which will harm Americans nationwide should these cases find success.

State Elected Leaders Reject, Demand Information about Lawsuits

In Pennsylvania, State Senator Gene Yaw plans to introduce legislation that would bar the distribution of the state’s impact fees to any municipality pursuing climate litigation – a pointed response to Bucks County’s filing and Allegheny County’s consideration of a lawsuit. Recent state legislative efforts in Michigan and Minnesota paint a similar message: that climate lawfare – and its vast network of activist funding and coordination – is not welcome.

In Michigan, on the heels of Attorney General Dana Nessel’s recent plan to sue oil and gas providers, Senate Republican Leader Aric Nesbitt and the entire Michigan Senate Republican Caucus publicly rebuked the effort calling it a “publicity stunt.” The Caucus wrote in a letter:

“The oil and gas industry employs thousands of Michiganders, while heating the homes and fueling the vehicles of millions more. It plays an essential role in the production of food, medical equipment, clothing, and technology like cell phones.

“Beyond attempting to cripple an industry critical to our state’s economy and well-being, such overtly political litigation sets a dangerous precedent. The legal system should not be used as a tool for advancing political agendas or targeting political adversaries. Such an abuse of power threatens the public’s trust in our institutions.” (emphasis added)

State Sen. Nesbitt followed up with a press release saying that climate litigation would force Michiganders’ “hard-earned money [to be] irresponsibly wasted on personal political vendettas” – a reference to AG Nessel’s intention to seek proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGs) to pursue climate litigation.

Michigan, Wisconsin Should Heed Minnesota

AG Nessel should take note of the backlash of these actions in nearby Minnesota, where even two years later, state lawmakers are still pressuring Attorney General Keith Ellison to provide details of the state’s ongoing contract with the plaintiffs’ law firm, San Francisco-based Sher Edling, in its effort to sue oil and gas producers.

Specifically, a detailed letter from three state lawmakers to AG Ellison takes aim at the lack of transparency around the state’s “exorbitant” contract with Sher Edling, a fee which wasn’t made public until compelled to do so by an open-records request, and targets the firm’s activist funders, including from Leonardo DiCaprio and the Rockefeller-funded Resources Legacy Fund:

The letter also demands answers to the “identities of all third parties and special-interest groups” and “funding sources” that have fueled Sher Edling’s work to sue American energy producers, and whether any of these entities donated to the AG’s 2022 re-election campaign, where the issue of climate litigation was heavily scrutinized.

The lawmakers also call out the Michael Bloomberg-funded SAAGs hired by the office specifically to work on climate litigation:

“The extensive and opaque network of private interests funding your Special Assistant Attorneys General and Sher Edling, as well as the exorbitant contingency agreement with Sher Edling, raise several questions. The State and its citizens deserve to know more about what has happened here, why Sher Edling was engaged when your Office already has fully funded counsel from NYU, and a complete accounting of who is providing financial support for Sher Edling’s work in Minnesota.” (emphasis added)

This demand for information follows an effort in 2022 where the state considered legislation to block privately-funded lawyers from working in the state attorney general’s office, with the Bloomberg-funded SAAGs repeatedly targeted as an example of “politically motivated” lawfare.

Likewise, this peculiar financial agreement is already causing waves in Wisconsin where Attorney General Josh Kaul hired a Bloomberg-funded SAAG to lead the state’s efforts against energy producers. New reporting from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel describes Minnesota’s backlash against the SAAGs, ominously warning that “it looks like the same could happen here.”

Paul Nolette, director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University, raised transparency questionsregarding the arrangement in the state, citing growing concern about law enforcement officers becoming more and more ideologically motivated:

“It does raise the question of, Who’s really representing the state? It’s not a taxpayer-funded staff member at the AG’ office. Instead, it’s a member or someone that’s privately funded or part of an advocacy group — that sort of thing.”

Bottom Line: Momentum against climate litigation continues to grow with state lawmakers increasingly sounding the alarm against its ideologically driven motives, total lack of transparency, and imperiling effect on affordable and available energy.