For years, City and County of Boulder officials have defended their ongoing climate lawsuit against energy companies by pointing to its outside counsel arrangement, where lawyers work on a contingency fee agreement along with repeated assurances that local taxpayers would not be paying for the arrangement.
However, new comments from Boulder District Attorney and Democrat state attorney general candidate Michael Dougherty raise serious questions about whether Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser – and potentially Colorado taxpayers – helped support that legal operation from behind the scenes. If so, it would represent a clear flip flop from Weiser, who has long voiced skepticism about the legal merits of the case.
At a recent Colorado Sun debate, Michael Dougherty, Boulder’s DA in the race, clearly stated he supported the lawsuit and then further suggested that Attorney General Phil Weiser quietly supported Boulder’s lawsuit (starts at 44:15 in the video) by helping ensure the county had the “outside counsel,” “resources,” and “support” needed to bring the case:
“He could have either joined in litigation, supported it without joining affirmatively by making sure that they had the support they needed from outside counsel and the access that they needed to the resources and support to bring that lawsuit, or third, decline to be involved at all, and he actually went with the second option.
“He didn’t decline to be involved at all, from my view, and from my understanding of the litigation. I know that the Attorney General’s office has strongly supported the work of Boulder County and our allies in this fight.”
That comment raises a simple question that Weiser – as he seeks to be Colorado’s next governor – should answer immediately: Has Weiser and his office deployed tax dollars to support Boulder’s climate lawsuit?
The details matter
When Boulder County, San Miguel County, and the City of Boulder filed the case in 2018, Boulder said the lawsuit was brought with legal support from EarthRights International, the Hannon Law Firm, and the Niskanen Center. Boulder also told the public that “most of the legal work” would come from nonprofit attorneys working pro bono, assisted by private firms that would only be paid if they won, receiving up to 20 percent of any award. Boulder further said local communities would devote salaried staff time but “will not be paying for outside counsel.”
That arrangement was also politically important. It allowed Boulder officials to argue that the lawsuit would impose only “nominal costs” on local taxpayers while pursuing massive damages from energy companies.
But Dougherty’s comments now complicate that story.
If Weiser “supported” the litigation by making sure Boulder had “outside counsel” and “resources,” then Colorado voters deserve to know what that means.
Was Dougherty referring only to publicly known legal support, such as the attorney general’s office participation in the Colorado Supreme Court proceeding? Or was he describing additional assistance that has not been publicly explained?
At minimum, public records already show that Weiser’s office was involved in the recent Colorado Supreme Court appeal. The high court’s May 2025 opinion lists Phil Weiser and multiple attorneys from the Colorado Attorney General’s Office as counsel for the respondent, Boulder County District Court, in the jurisdictional appeal that temporarily allowed Boulder’s claims to move forward.
That may be the entire story. If so, Weiser should say so.
But Dougherty’s wording suggests broader support. Far from just assisting with the appeal, Dougherty appeared to suggest that Weiser helped ensure Boulder had access to outside counsel, resources, and support “to bring that lawsuit.”
That raises several questions that voters and taxpayers deserve answers to:
- Were any attorney general funds or grants used to support work – beyond what is publicly known – related to Boulder’s lawsuit?
- Did the attorney general’s office help Boulder identify, recruit, vet, or coordinate with outside counsel, or coordinate with the Rockefeller and Bloomberg groups that are facilitating these cases around the country?
- Did the attorney general’s office provide staff time, legal research, strategic advice, appellate support, or other taxpayer-funded resources to assist Boulder’s litigation strategy?
At a time of historic billion dollar deficits for the state, and as the case is in front of the US Supreme Court, the answers to these questions are critical for taxpayers.
Where does Weiser actually stand?
If Weiser has been supporting Boulder’s climate lawsuit all along, it also raises serious questions about whether he was telling the truth to media about his views just after he assumed office.
Weiser told a Chamber forum when running for office in 2018 that he was skeptical of Boulder’s claims:
“This is what happens when you do your homework. You ask a basic question like, let me get this straight, our carbon footprint has been reduced by substituting natural gas for coal. How do you sue Exxon for causing climate change?” Weiser responded. “That is a very hard question. I’ve asked it, I haven’t gotten an answer.”
“And so I’m uncomfortable with that litigation because the case for it hasn’t been made,” he added.
And in a 2019 interview with E&E News, Weiser said he “remained unconvinced” about the logic of the case:
“The major reason that we have really reduced our carbon footprint here in Colorado is by moving from coal to natural gas. Given that, it’s not an obvious move that we would hold liable oil and gas producers.”
Natural gas continues to drive lower emissions, so what’s changed since 2019?
Climate litigation is expensive for taxpayers. At a time when Colorado residents are already struggling with affordability, voters deserve to know if their tax dollars are being directed towards climate litigation that risks higher energy bills.
Kyle Kohli writes for Energy In Depth, where a version of this article originally appeared.
