Earlier this month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted against a measure that would have encouraged state leaders to sue American energy companies over climate change damages. The effort appears to have been coordinated by the Center for Climate Integrity, the activist group working behind (and in front of) the scenes to drive similar litigation across the country. 

EID Climate has previously detailed the extent of coordination between CCI and elected officials in state and local jurisdictions – most recently in New Jersey, where emails released in response to public records requests revealed a host of services CCI provides to taxpayer funded entities, including “ghost writing,” polling, draft messaging, and even draft climate resolutions. 

Even before the newly released emails, it was clear that CCI’s fingerprints were all over the now-failed New Hampshire effort. The state resolution was introduced in early January by Rep. Tony Caplan, a member of CCI’s Leaders for Climate Accountability (L4CA). L4CA is a national network of public officials who aim to recruit states and municipalities to bring climate litigation. 

In a public hearing before the State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee later that month, CCI’s political director Iyla Shornstein testified in support of the resolution. She urged New Hampshire to join “the neighboring states of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island” in the ill-fated climate litigation campaign.   

But on February 3, a committee majority voted against the resolution, submitting a recommendation to the House that it should be defeated. One New Hampshire state representative who voted to reject the resolution, Rep. Tom Mannion, made the point that proposed climate litigation would hamstring American companies at no expense to other nations: 

“Foreign countries, not just companies, have energy policies that would not be kept in check. So we’re here shooting ourselves in the face while the rest of the planet gets to continue on with economic development.” (Emphasis added) 

The lead-up to the committee vote in New Hampshire tracked closely with the strategy CCI has used in New Jersey and in other states. In addition to CCI’s participation in the January committee hearing, CCI’s messaging shined through in both the resolution and an op-ed by Rep. Caplan that promoted climate litigation.  

But despite CCI’s efforts to deploy their playbook in New Hampshire, they came up short.  

The failed resolution comes just months after bipartisan Baltimore County Council members voiced serious concerns about a proposal to hire Sher Edling and explore filing a similar climate lawsuit. Following the county council’s skeptical reaction, the proposal was withdrawn before it could be put up for a vote. 

Bottom Line: The Center for Climate Integrity continues to copy-and-paste tactics from one state to the next, and recent revelations from New Jersey have made CCI’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering all the more obvious. First in Baltimore County, and now in New Hampshire, it’s clear that elected officials see through activist attempts to punish American energy producers and recognize the adverse effects these lawsuits would have on families and businesses alike.