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.