Today marks the eight-year anniversary of the City and County of Boulder filing their climate lawsuit against the energy industry.
But for the plaintiffs, today isn’t a cause of celebration; after years of wasted taxpayer resources and frivolous litigation, the political leaders and activists driving the case are now facing the possibility of a monumental defeat as a critical inflection point is finally on the horizon.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the petition filed by the energy companies on whether state and local governments can use tort law to regulate global greenhouse gas emissions.
The court may affirm that matters over interstate commerce, foreign affairs, and national policy are matters for the federal government.
Such a ruling – all facilitated by Boulder’s decision to file their case nearly a decade ago – would deliver a hammer blow to the entire nationally-coordinated climate litigation campaign.
Energy in Depth has followed Boulder’s case the entire time. Here’s what you should know:
Lacking Support Within Colorado
When the lawsuit was filed in 2018, it was met immediately with strong skepticism from Colorado state leaders.
The Denver Post editorial board delivered a sharp rebuke to the lawsuit and the leading environmental group Conservation Colorado declined to publicly support it. Meanwhile, then-governor John Hickenlooper warned against the lawsuit, as did Martha Rudolph, a then-state AG official who now serves on the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC).
Other statewide elected officials like Gov. Jared Polis and Sen. Michael Bennet have also largely avoided publicly backing Boulder’s lawsuit.
Several Democrats seeking the state Attorney General nomination, including Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, have yet to clarify their position on Boulder’s lawsuit, leaving a notable gap given the Supreme Court’s upcoming review.
Their potential general election opponent, 4th Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen, issued a statement following the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Boulder’s case:
“Boulder shouldn’t be trying to set national energy policy from a Colorado courtroom – and Colorado shouldn’t be dragged into costly, politically driven climate lawsuits that do nothing but drive-up energy bills. This is the wrong fight, in the wrong place, at the wrong time for working families.”
Four Colorado members of Congress also signed an amicus brief formally calling on the Supreme Court to intervene in the Boulder case, Representatives Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank, Jeff Hurd, and Gabe Evans. As we have documented previously on EID:
Evans represents Colorado’s 8th Congressional district, a recently created swing district that borders Boulder County and includes the state’s only oil refinery, a facility directly named as a defendant in the Boulder lawsuit. His district is expected to be one of the most competitive races in the nation in 2026, putting Boulder’s case at the center of the debate over the future of Colorado energy prices. To date none of his potential opponents have commented on Boulder’s case or the Supreme Court appeal.
Rep. Hurd, meanwhile, represents the third Congressional district which includes the Western Slope and San Miguel county, a municipality that originally was included alongside Boulder. That suit has subsequently been split from Boulder’s and currently sits idle in Denver District Court.
Backdoor Carbon Tax
Backers of the lawsuit publicly claim that the case aims to address public nuisance and seeks funds to address the impacts of climate and say that it does not attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But outside of official filings, the plaintiffs are pushing a secondary goal of hiking up energy costs.
David Bookbinder, who served for years as part of the legal team representing the Colorado municipalities acknowledged during a recent Federalist Society panel that these climate cases are a “somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”
Another outside attorney representing Boulder said the case is an alternative way “to raise the price of products” like oil and gas, while a Boulder City Council memo touted the city’s reputation as “a national leader in exploring the use of the legal system in pushing for larger systems-level change.”
Plaintiffs’ Attorneys Stand to Profit
In announcing the case, Boulder claimed the objective was to ensure “that the companies pay their fair share of the costs associated with climate change impacts so that the costs do not fall disproportionately on taxpayers.”
Yet in that same Q&A, Boulder County claims there will be only “nominal costs” associated to the taxpayer, yet the city and county have not provided regular updates on what those costs have added up to after eight years.
Furthermore, in the event that Boulder achieves a favorable outcome in the courtroom, the City and County will divert 20% of any award to the outside plaintiffs law firms.
What’s Next for Boulder’s Case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February 2026 and oral arguments are expected during the Court’s Fall 2026 term. Up next, the companies will file briefs and answer the court’s questions on May 14.
Stay tuned for Energy in Depth’s breakdown of the arguments and in the meantime, check out Energy in Depth’s full FAQ about Boulder’s case.
