Leadership1 publisher3 min readPublished
Supreme Court weighs whether Boulder can make ExxonMobil and Suncor pay for climate damage
Supreme Court justices hear Boulder's suit against ExxonMobil and Suncor on Monday, a case that could settle dozens of similar local climate claims. At issue for producers is whether climate costs get fought jurisdiction by jurisdiction in state courts or left to federal regulators.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
What happened
- Climate change was considered a factor in the 2021 Marshall Fire, whose estimated $2 billion in damage made it the costliest wildfire in Colorado history.
- The Trump administration backs the oil companies, with federal attorneys calling the suits a backdoor way to regulate greenhouse gases and an unconstitutional power grab.
- Last month the EPA repealed rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, ceding some of its own climate authority.
- Justice Samuel Alito recused himself a week before arguments after calls to step aside over his oil company stock, leaving eight justices on the bench.
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- contradiction The government argues the Clean Air Act puts emissions in federal hands while its own EPA gives up power-plant limits, so the companies' side has to reconcile the two in front of the justices.
- exposure A ruling for Boulder would leave ExxonMobil and Suncor defending a state-law deception claim with damages still unspecified, so the size of their liability stays open.
- constraint With eight justices sitting, a 4-4 split is possible, though ABC News calls its likelihood unclear, so neither producers nor plaintiffs can count on a single national answer from this case.
Boulder's suit came first. The city and county sued in 2018 [3], three years before the Marshall Fire [1], arguing that Suncor Energy and ExxonMobil violated state law by deceiving the public about their contributions to climate change [3]. "This case could very well set a precedent," said Chris Winter of the Getches-Wilkinson Center, a Colorado environmental research group where he is executive director [17].
The industry's objection is to the forum. The companies say a flood of state-court lawsuits is not the way to deal with a global issue [6]. "The problem is that climate change is caused by pretty much everybody living on earth," said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers' Accountability Project, an industry group [7]. "We need to address it in a very meaningful way. This litigation doesn't do that," he said [7]. Boulder's answer is that it is not trying to regulate emissions beyond its borders, only to hold companies accountable for local costs [8]. "Boulder County and city aren't trying to change what's happening in Texas or New York, they're trying to get compensation for things happening now in Colorado," said Sam Sankar, a senior vice president at Earthjustice, an amicus in the case [9].
The federal brief rests on the Clean Air Act. Government attorneys say the law leaves emissions regulation to the federal government [11]. "No one state can superimpose its own regulatory preferences on the rest," they wrote [12]. ABC News says last month's EPA repeal could complicate that argument [15].
The trade-off for the administration is between two aims. It wants emissions policy kept federal [11], and it has largely used federal power to roll back environmental rules [13]. The court itself narrowed that power in 2022, when it limited the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide from power plants [18]. In my view, the justices have reason to ask what federal law still offers a county where one fire did an estimated $2 billion in damage [16].
The argument is on Monday, the first day of the court's new term [1]. The coverage does not say when a ruling is due, and it does not address insurers. What producers plan around depends on which forum the court picks. If Boulder wins, I'd expect the other local suits to keep moving through state courts, in a wave of litigation with billions of dollars at stake [2][5]. If the companies win on the federal argument, the question goes back to Washington [11].
Residents carry the cost in the meantime. Tawnya Somauroo has worked for nearly five years to rebuild her Boulder County home [21]. "At the end of the day, it comes out of our pockets, you know?" she said [22].
What to watch
- Whether justices at Monday's argument press federal attorneys on the EPA's repeal of power-plant emission rules.
- Whether the opinion rules on Boulder's deception theory itself or decides the case on federal power alone.
- Whether other jurisdictions with pending climate suits slow or speed their cases while Boulder is before the court.