This wiki has had no edits or log actions made within the last 45 days and has been automatically marked as inactive. If you would like to prevent this wiki from being closed, please start showing signs of activity here. If there are no signs of this wiki being used within the next 15 days, this wiki will be closed in accordance to the Boulder County v. Suncor Energy Inc.
Several Colorado local governments brought a suit against fossil fuel companies for their role in causing climate change. This case is one of the group of cases brought by local and state governments against fossil fuel companies seeking damages for the industry's role in causing climate change.
Other cases in this category include that includes the Baltimore case, the Rhode Island case, the Oakland case and others. This case is currently pending decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Baltimore case.
Background[edit]
Three Colorado local government entities—the City of Boulder and the Boards of County Commissioners of Boulder and San Miguel Counties—filed a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies seeking damages for the companies’ role in causing climate change. The local governments alleged they already had suffered and incurred expenses to respond to climate change-related harms stemming from increased and more serious heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods, and that these harms would worsen over time.
They asserted that the defendants—Exxon Mobil Corporation and affiliates of Suncor Energy Inc.—“knowingly and substantially contributed to the climate crisis by producing, promoting and selling a substantial portion of the fossil fuels that are causing and exacerbating climate change, while concealing and misrepresenting the dangers associated with their intended use.” The plaintiffs asserted causes of action for public nuisance, private nuisance, trespass, and unjust enrichment, as well as a claim of deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
They asked the court to award them monetary relief as compensation for their past and future damages and for costs to mitigate climate change’s impacts and also sought remediation or abatement of the hazards by “practical means,” though the complaint expressly disclaimed requests to enjoin oil and gas operations or sales, to enforce emissions controls, relief related to injuries on federal lands, or relief based on defendants’ lobbying activities.
Relevant Law and Principles[edit]
- Colorado Consumer Protection Act
- Public Nuisance
- Private Nuisance
- Trespass
Status[edit]
The fossil fuel companies sought to have the case removed to federal court. As with the Rhode Island case, both the U.S. Federal District and Circuit Courts ruled that the case should be heard in Colorado state court. The fossil fuel companies have filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari which was rejected in April 2023. Where the case will ultimately be heard likely depends on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Baltimore v. BP.
Takeaways[edit]
Unlike many of the cases brought by local and state governments seeking damages from the fossil fuel industry, this one does not involve a coastal community. Instead, the Colorado municipalities sought damages for the increased risk of more serious heat waves, wildfires, droughts, and floods.