In the Colorado primary elections this year, oil and gas perspectives are showing up in a unique way: Boulder’s now 8-year old climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in the Boulder case during its fall term, placing the issue on a national stage right in the middle of election season. Given Boulder’s targeting of energy companies and potential to increase prices, it threatens to undermine national Democrats’ focus on affordability.
In Colorado, the case raises important questions for candidates seeking office: where do they stand on energy production, climate litigation, and the use of courts to drive policy outcomes?
Boulder pops up in attorney general race
The most relevant race is the campaign for attorney general, where the Democratic candidates have made national news over their clear support for Boulder’s lawsuit.
It all started in a debate where three Democrat candidates strongly backed Boulder’s climate lawsuit. That forced the campaign’s frontrunner, current Secretary of State Jena Griswold to tell E&E News that not only does she support Boulder but would look to bring similar legal actions from her own office if elected:
“The Democratic hopefuls include current Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She told POLITICO’s E&E News in an email that she supports the lawsuit and would ‘work to ensure the AG’s office has the resources to bring climate-related lawsuits without waiting on the governor’s administration.’”
It marks a significant departure from the political environment when the lawsuit was first filed. As Energy in Depth has previously covered, no Democratic statewide elected officials came out in support of the lawsuit in 2018, and the Denver Post editorialized against it.
Along with the candidates endorsing the case, the primary has become a contest over who will be most aggressive in using the attorney general’s office to target energy producers.
That is a striking development at a time when affordability remains a top concern for voters in Colorado and across the country. Rather than focusing on energy policies that lower costs, the Democrat field appears to be embracing litigation that even Boulder’s own former attorney says will function as an “indirect carbon tax.”
That brings up a key question for voters: will the next attorney general use the office as a platform for climate litigation, or support energy policies that prioritize affordability?
AG Weiser faces questions
Colorado’s governor race is also not immune to questions surrounding Boulder’s climate lawsuit. The case is a direct issue in the race, as one of the leading Democratic candidates, current Attorney General Phil Weiser, is now facing new questions about whether he quietly supported the case from behind the scenes.
Weiser previously said he was “uncomfortable” with the lawsuit and “remained unconvinced” by its logic. But current Boulder DA Michael Dougherty, who is running to fill Weiser’s AG seat this year, recently suggested at the debate that Weiser did not stay neutral and instead helped ensure Boulder had access to outside counsel, resources, and support needed to bring the case.
This potential shift in Weiser’s involvement raises important questions for voters as they consider who they will elect to lead their state.
Did Weiser recently change his position, or was he privately supporting a lawsuit he publicly questioned? And, with that, did Weiser use taxpayer resources to support the lawsuit?
Climate litigation comes to CD8
Outside of statewide races, energy jobs and costs are a top concern for voters in Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, which analysts predict will be one of the most competitive races in the entire country. Home to the DJ Basin, including Weld and Adams counties, the district is at the center of Colorado’s oil and gas production.
This is where Boulder’s lawsuit comes in once again – the company operating the state’s only two oil refineries in Adams County is a defendant in the suit.
The potential Democratic nominee in the district, Manny Rutinel, has also shifted his position on oil and gas. Six months into his Congressional campaign, Rutinel backed a total fracking ban, a policy that would eliminate thousands of Colorado energy jobs. Now, he says he supports an “all of the above” energy approach.
But his broader record and other recent comments make it difficult to tell where he actually stands. In a recent 9News debate Rutinel attacked the refineries that operate in the district. He is also endorsed by Jane Fonda’s Climate PAC and has a longer record of anti-energy activism.
As a law student in 2019, Rutinel was charged after participating in an oil and gas divestment protest at the Yale-Harvard football game. In the 9News debate, Rutinel maintained he was a “legal observer” during the protest, despite telling the press after the fact that he believes “you’re going to see a lot of institutional change as a result of us forcing their hand.”
A few months after the incident, Rutinel protested a law firm at Yale over its representation of climate-litigation defendants, an effort that was featured by the Rockefeller-backed Center for Climate Integrity – the primary organization supporting state and municipal cases like Boulder’s.
Rutinel’s potential opponent, incumbent Republican Congressman Gabe Evans signed an amicus brief calling on the Supreme Court to intervene in the Boulder case, warning Boulder’s lawsuit “would restructure the American energy industry if not bankrupt it altogether.”
With energy costs and affordability top of mind for voters heading into midterms, Colorado voters will be deciding between candidates supporting wasteful frivolous litigation and higher energy prices, and those focused on keeping energy reliable and affordable.
Kyle Kohli writes for Energy In Depth, where a version of this article originally appeared.
