State and local governments are launching lawsuits against natural gas and energy companies nationwide at an alarming rate, alleging that natural gas companies should pay for climate-related damages. This wave of state climate litigation is a misguided approach that drains taxpayer resources, stalls infrastructure development and risks undermining the energy security our nation depends on.
From Maryland to New Jersey, Hawaii to Pennsylvania, this wave of climate litigation has followed a predictable — and failing — pattern. Governments claim that oil and gas companies knowingly contributed to climate change while hiding the risks. But courts across the country have rejected these arguments as overreaches, rooted more in political symbolism than legal standing.
Charleston, South Carolina, for instance, recently wrapped up a two-day hearing in its lawsuit against two dozen energy companies. The judge has not yet ruled, but the case is already proving to be another drawn-out process with uncertain prospects. Meanwhile, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a judge dismissed a nearly identical lawsuit this spring, joining what he called a “growing chorus” of courts rejecting these claims. The court ruled that such suits fall outside the scope of state law and are preempted by the federal Clean Air Act, underscoring the point that climate policy is a matter for legislatures — not local courtrooms.
Honolulu v. Sunoco, filed over six years ago, is another example. That case has been delayed, rerouted and appealed for years with no resolution. The Supreme Court recently declined to review the question of whether federal law or state law should apply to the Honolulu case. Honolulu’s claims that energy producers have allegedly deceived the public into consuming fossil fuels are especially nonsensical. Energy Information Administration data verifies that Hawaii is the most petroleum-dependent state in the country and is uniquely reliant on oil for the state’s residents to live their lives. In fact, Hawaii state law passed in 1984 noted that “adequate supplies of petroleum products are essential to the health, welfare, and safety of the people of Hawaii, and that any severe disruption in petroleum product supplies for use within the State would cause grave hardship.” A local hearing in Honolulu on July 24 will review these claims.
While these cases make headlines, they rarely deliver results. What they do instead is clog judicial systems, burn taxpayer dollars and distract from real, actionable environmental policy. They also create market uncertainty that undermines investment in the infrastructure we desperately need — like pipelines, storage facilities and clean energy projects.
Beyond legal gridlock, climate lawsuits carry significant economic consequences. First, they contribute to higher energy costs for consumers. By threatening the very companies that produce and transport energy, climate lawsuits increase uncertainty in the market. This deters investment in much-needed energy infrastructure — such as pipelines and storage facilities — when energy reliability is more critical than ever.
Similarly, the energy industry supports hundreds of thousands of well-paying, blue-collar American jobs, and energy infrastructure development remains one of the most reliable drivers of economic opportunity in rural and urban areas. Litigation chills growth, pushing companies to look abroad rather than invest locally.
Instead of villainizing domestic energy, such as natural gas, America should embrace it as part of a comprehensive energy strategy. Natural gas is one of the cleanest-burning energy sources available and has played a vital role in lowering U.S. emissions over the past two decades. The United States has strict environmental and safety standards, making U.S. energy produced at home far cleaner than imported fuels from countries like China, where regulations are lax and transparency is nonexistent.
If states truly want to address climate change and protect their economies, they should pursue policies that foster innovation rather than litigation. Investing in cleaner natural gas technologies, streamlining infrastructure permitting processes and building comprehensive regulatory frameworks will create real progress without the courtroom theatrics.
America must avoid overreliance on renewables by sidelining other energy sources through punitive lawsuits. The most reliable path forward is a diverse energy portfolio, with natural gas at the center.
State climate litigation is a political tool disguised as policy. It’s expensive, largely ineffective and distracts from meaningful solutions. Instead of recycling lawsuits that have failed elsewhere, we should invest in domestic energy solutions that work, starting with natural gas. A common-sense energy approach does not ignore climate change. Instead, it uses every tool available, including the cleaner fuels we already produce domestically, to build an energy future that is affordable, reliable and sustainable. Let’s stop paying for lawsuits that go nowhere. Let’s stop reproducing failure. Let’s start building a real, balanced energy future.
Albert R. Wynn (wynna@gtlaw.com) is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District.
