California’s relentless war against oil and natural gas companies is poised to increase costs not only in California but also in the battleground states of Nevada and Arizona. But when California Attorney General Rob Bonta took to the stage at San Francisco Climate Week last month to promote the Golden State’s climate suit against the state’s energy producers, he had little to say about the suit’s potential impact on energy prices.
The surprisingly hard-hitting interview with Climate One host Greg Dalton was the first time Bonta had to defend certain specifics in the suit, and was a marked contrast to the softball questions Gov. Gavin Newsom received upon rolling out the lawsuit at NY Climate week last fall.
CA Lawsuit: Throwing Everything At The Wall to See What Sticks
At the outset of the interview AG Bonta made a rather frank, if unintentional, admission concerning the state’s legal strategy:
GREG DALTON: … nuisance is more serious, you know, in a legal term than it means to kind of the average person. There’s also fraudulent business practices, damage to natural resources, and product liability. So, this seems like you’re actually going after, throwing a lot of different things to see what sticks?
ROB BONTA: That’s it, there’s four buckets of legal claims. (Emphasis added)
The menagerie of claims in the California complaint are emblematic of the broader political campaign to target fossil fuel producers across disparate venues including legislatures, boardrooms, and courts. As documented on Energy in Depth, Bonta appeared to admit as much at the recent COP28 where he described his suit as simply one of several “pathways” for activists to pursue climate “accountability”:
“Legal action is not the only pathway here of course. There’s activism, there’s taking to the streets and protesting. There’s raising awareness. There’s certainly policy by policymakers, by legislators and Congress and states, executive action.”
And while AG Bonta has admitted that all these angles are complementary – and intended to shift climate policy – the California AG has tiptoed around any statement that may belie the policy motivations behind the state’s suit.
CA Superfund & Climate Suit Pursue Nearly Identical Goals
One key piece of climate policy that curiously went unmentioned by AG Bonta at SF Climate Week is the developing “Superfund Craze” in the California legislature. SB 1497, which passed out of the state Senate Environmental Quality Committee last week, seeks to establish a climate superfund that would impose a fee on energy companies to compensate for alleged climate damages.
The climate superfund envisioned in SB 1497 and the abatement fund sought by AG Bonta in the state’s suit have nearly identical aims and are financially backed by the same big-monied interests. Echoing activists’ comments that superfund legislation is “separate but complementary” to state and municipal climate suits – despite all seeking the same outcomes – AG Bonta sought to distinguish his lawsuit from other policy decisions in recent comments to Politico:
“We haven’t taken a position on the [superfund] bill, but not at all surprised that there’s a desire in the policymaking space, by legislators in that space and separate from us, to seek remedies and pursue relief that they think is appropriate. This is how our democracy works. Different leaders elected to do their jobs think about the authority that they have, the jurisdiction that they own, and the action that they can take to solve a problem that affects their constituents. Sen. Menjivar is doing that in her way, I’m doing it in my way.”
CA Climate Suit and The Political Question Doctrine
At SF Climate Week, AG Bonta acknowledged the climate suit pursues “the same missions and outcomes” of policy efforts to address climate change, yet maintained the state’s case, remarkably, does not amount to a “policy” suit itself. To resolve this apparent contradiction, AG Bonta attempted to draw a parallel between the state’s climate lawsuit and other public nuisance lawsuits involving non-fossil fuel industries.
AG Bonta has good reason to tiptoe around issues of policy. Legal scholars that California’s climate lawsuit amounts to a non-justiciable political question. Writing in the Orange County Register, George Mason University law professor Donald Kochan pointed out that California filed a similar public nuisance climate lawsuit against six major automakers. This suit was dismissed in 2007 by Judge Martin J. Jenkins of the United States District Court for the Northern District District of California, who wrote:
“…the court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government.”
AG Bonta did not offer any further explanation as to why he believes the “political question doctrine” does not apply in this case, even though a similar climate lawsuit filed by the City of New York against oil companies was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on similar grounds.
Bonta Suggests CA Lawsuit Intends to Alter Financial Incentives for Energy Companies
An additional exchange at AG Bonta’s SF Climate Week interview cast further doubt on the notion that California’s climate suit is truly apolitical.
Host Greg Dalton asked AG Bonta whether the financial model in the energy sector needed to change to force fossil fuel companies redirect investment away from oil and natural gas. In response, AG Bonta suggested that the abatement fund sought by the state in its climate suit could serve as a powerful tool alongside ESG activism and divestment efforts to impose punitive costs on fossil fuel companies:
“The system is changing as we speak under our feet. It is becoming more expensive to be dirty than clean. You know, this abatement fund remedy is billions of dollars to the bottom line of fossil fuel companies. That’s a cost; that’s a cost they have to report; they have to share with their shareholders. The divestment of, you know, pension funds and others, you know, the Yales and the Harvards, and their funds are costs. There are subsidies for investments in clean energy and green energy. So the economic point is an important one. I think that is becoming less imbalanced over time.” (Emphasis added)
No Answers From CA AG On Climate Suit’s Impact on Gas Prices
AG Bonta’s subtle nod to the shared policy outcome he hopes to achieve by raising costs on energy producers is even more ironic considering he admitted last fall consumers could experience further pain at the pump if a court ruled in the state’s favor:
ELEX MICHAELSON: A lot of people are concerned their gas prices could go up because of this, what do you say to that?
ROB BONTA: We are protecting folks in California, including those who pay for gas. I don’t know what the impacts will be of our effort to hold big oil accountable, but it must end. (Emphasis Added)
Speaking at SF Climate Week, AG Bonta did not address the lawsuit’s potential impacts on consumers, despite the backdrop of high gas prices in the state that also threaten neighboring western states. Gas prices have recently jumped over 50 cents over the last year in California, where residents now pay nearly $2 more per average than the national average. New emissions regulations under consideration by the California Air Resources Board, according to recent reports, may send prices even higher by another 47 cents by 2025. The aforementioned superfund bill, upcoming state gas tax increase, and potential margin caps on refineries are all additional cost drivers that threaten to hit consumers at the pump.
Newsom’s and Bonta’s Political Ambitions Driving CA Climate Suit
While AG Bonta has gone to great lengths to avoid labeling his climate suit as a “policy” suit, it is unavoidably political. At SF Climate Week, interviewer Greg Dalton simply stated what many in the press have speculated:
“And when I saw this suit, I thought, ah, he’s running for governor. So, uh, say something about the politics… because there was a time in this country where going against energy was a political loser. You know, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, famously in the Obama Administration, said don’t go there; it’s bad politics.”
While AG Bonta denied that the lawsuit connected to his gubernatorial ambitions, the evidence suggests otherwise. As Politico reported last September, operatives friendly to California Governor Gavin Newsom and AG Bonta say their respective political ambitions are paramount to understanding each official’s motivations to back a climate lawsuit:
“‘I just think it’s a question of a changing, no pun intended, political climate, and Gov. Newsom and Rob Bonta being in a position where they can pursue something that most observers would argue is a tough shot,’ said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political consultant and attorney who’s worked on climate policy. […]
“It’s even more understandable for Bonta, who has a lower statewide profile and has said he’s considering a gubernatorial run.” (Emphasis Added)
Bottom Line: AG Rob Bonta confirmed once again the California climate case is a political ploy to raise costs on energy producers. California’s thinly veiled political attack on energy companies may serve AG Bonta’s and Governor Newsom’s near-term political ambitions, but it will do nothing to help California families struggling to cope with soaring energy prices.
