Hawaii looks to fend off federal fossil fuels lawsuit | Honolulu Star-Advertiser

A lawsuit the federal government filed against Michigan over fossil fuels has been thrown out — prompting Hawaii to use that case to bolster its own of efforts to hold private companies accountable for their role in climate change.

The federal government filed a lawsuit against Hawaii on April 30 after Gov. Josh Green announced he planned to sue private fossil fuel companies for deceptive marketing that contributed to climate change harms. The federal government’s lawsuit came just one day before the state filed its lawsuit.

The state’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies — Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell and others — was filed
May 1. It claims fossil fuel companies knew the “catastrophic consequences for the planet and its people” of fossil fuel pollution, but rather than inform consumers of the danger the companies “mounted a decades-­
long campaign of deception to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change;” created doubt in consumers; and delayed the energy economy’s transition to a lower-carbon future “while maximizing their own profits.”

The companies created, contributed to, and assisted in creating climate change-­related harms to Hawaii through their failure to provide warnings in a “multi-decadal sophisticated campaign of disinformation,” the lawsuit said. Proceedings in the state case were paused on July 30 pending the conclusion of the federal case, court records show.

The federal government claimed Hawaii is “choosing to stand in the way” of a national effort to secure reliable sources of domestic energy in the midst of an “energy emergency.” It also claimed Hawaii’s lawsuit against fossil fuel companies interfered with the Clean Air Act and with the federal government’s “exclusive authority over interstate and foreign commerce, greenhouse gas regulation and national energy policy.”

The state denied the federal government’s allegations on June 30 and moved for the court to dismiss the case on July 25.

In its arguments, the state claimed the federal lawsuit was an “extraordinary and unprecedented action” that “attempts to prevent the state from petitioning its own courts to provide relief from private parties” whose actions violated state law and harmed the state. It said the government was looking to prevent a lawsuit to which it was not a party nor had any legal interest.

It said the state has a right to enforce state laws relating to fossil fuel companies’ marketing practices and clarified the lawsuit did not seek to impose liability for direct greenhouse gas emissions.

“Allowing this case to proceed would give the United States license to wield the federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between non-federal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes,” the state argued.

In its reply, filed Sept. 24, the federal government claimed Hawaii could not sue fossil fuel companies because federal law, such as the Clean Air Act, prohibits states from holding energy companies accountable for worldwide emissions of greenhouse gasses, calling Hawaii’s lawsuit “unlawful state interference.”

On Jan. 24, U.S. District Court Judge Jane Beckering dismissed a similar case in Michigan. Hawaii filed the opinion as a supplemental exhibit on Jan. 26.

The federal government filed a lawsuit against Michigan after it heard the state was seeking proposals from attorneys to sue private fossil fuel companies for climate change impacts. Michigan filed its lawsuit accusing fossil fuel companies of colluding to stall meaningful competition from renewable energy on Jan. 23 — one day before the federal case was dismissed. The federal government’s arguments as to why it should be allowed to prevent Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies were nearly the same as it argued in its case against Hawaii.

In Beckering’s opinion, she claimed the federal government’s lawsuit was “frivolous” because it hinged on potential theories that Michigan may argue and the presumption that “any state law claim that Michigan may assert based on global greenhouse gas emissions would be preempted by federal law,” which case law does not support.

The case did not arise out of a “concrete factual context” but rather “contingent future events,” Beckering wrote, adding that the federal government failed to provide any cases where a court preemptively stopped a case based on “a broad swath of unspecified claims against unspecified members of a given industry” simply because the party was investigating legal strategies.

The federal case hearing between Hawaii and the United States on whether the case should be dismissed was rescheduled to a later unspecified date, court records show. U.S. Senior District Judge Helen Gilmor said on Jan. 22 she planned to issue a new briefing schedule, but as of Monday had not yet filed it, according to publicly available documents.