In 2018, the City and County of Boulder, along with San Miguel County, sued two energy companies seeking to recover costs associated with global warming. Seven years later, this laughably frivolous suit has made little forward progression. However, similar cases around the country have been dismissed in recent months, as judges reject plaintiffs’ attempts to force their hand and turn state courts into climate policymakers.

Eyes are now on Colorado. Last summer, the state’s high court agreed to review a trial court decision denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case. On February 11th, the Colorado Supreme Court court will hear arguments on whether Boulder’s climate lawsuit can proceed under state law, a pivotal moment that should bring an end to this misguided example of ideological lawfare being waged in our state.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing

This litigation has rightly been called out as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Behind the plaintiffs’ claims of “accountability” are ideological attempts to demonize an essential industry and drive policy through the courts. In the words of the Maryland judge who dismissed Baltimore’s lawsuit, “The explanation by Baltimore that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.”

In plain terms, Boulder’s lawsuit and others like it aren’t about remediating climate change. By Boulder’s own admission, it’s about using the judiciary to drive up energy prices and force behavioral change. Boulder’s outside counsel admitted as much in 2020, stating the lawsuit aims to pass legal costs onto companies and, by extension, consumers. The Boulder City Council also called the lawsuit a way to drive “fundamental systems change” towards a preferred climate policy.

Follow the money

What should concern Coloradans is that out-of-state interests and wealthy benefactors have driven this lawfare from the start. Boulder’s outside legal team and communications experts, led by DC-based EarthRights International, receive millions of dollars of funding from a who’s who of well-heeled donors, including the likes of far left billionaire George Soros and the Rockefellers. The case also has been supported by the plaintiff-recruiting organization Center for Climate Integrity, which is funded both by the Rockefellers and the anti-energy British billionaire Chris Hohn.

The Niskanen Center, another think tank tied to the Rockefellers, no longer provides legal support for the case. Instead, Niskanen’s former chief counsel, David Bookbinder, represents Boulder County through his own law firm.

The level of outside support for Boulder’s case extends well beyond donors and activist groups picking up the tab for lawyers.

Boulder paid a research firm tied to the Rockefellers to produce a study to justify the lawsuit’s filing. The firm, Resilient Analytics, crafted a supposedly independent study on the financial impacts of climate change that was heavily cited throughout Boulder’s complaint. Today, Resilient Analytics frequently partners with the Center for Climate Integrity to recreate the Boulder model: develop and publish “climate costs” reports that are then later used as pitch materials for potential climate plaintiffs.

Pushing energy costs higher

At a time when energy affordability is already a pressing concern for Colorado residents, the Colorado Supreme Court should shut down this meritless litigation. Thanks to Governor Polis and the state legislature’s renewable energy mandates, electricity bills have climbed sharply in recent years and will likely increase well into the future.

A recent report from the Colorado Energy Office (CEO) revealed that the state’s plan to transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2040 is far from cost-effective. Wind, solar, and battery storage alone are projected to cost $61 billion – and that doesn’t include the transmission infrastructure upgrades that utilities like Xcel Energy are planning. Xcel alone is set to spend $45 billion in new generation transmission and other projects over the next five years, with 63% of the total funding allocated to transmission and distribution upgrades.

Colorado Public Utilities Commission Chairman Eric Blank called these costs “mind-boggling,” and rightly so. While Gov. Polis initially pitched his plan as market-driven and cost-effective, it has evolved into a heavy-handed, top-down approach riddled with government intervention, subsidies, and mandates.

The reality is clear: Coloradans are bearing the brunt of skyrocketing electricity rates and Boulder’s frivolous lawsuit only adds insult to injury. Colorado voters have demonstrated they’re looking for pragmatic solutions to energy challenges, not ideological experiments that raise costs and jeopardize reliability. The Colorado Supreme Court should do as other courts in New York, Maryland, and Delaware have done and send Boulder’s suit packing.

Amy Oliver Cooke is director of the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver.