California politicians apparently want to discuss the state’s climate lawsuit anywhere but in California itself.  

First, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the lawsuit with a New York Times exclusive followed by a Times interview at Climate Week NYC. Then, Newsom couldn’t help himself from declaring California to be the energy industry’s new “foe” during last Thursday’s Red State vs. Blue State Debate, where he and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis sparred on Fox News.  

Over the weekend, California AG Rob Bonta took every opportunity at COP28 in Dubai to hobnob with environmental activists and advertise the lawsuit to a receptive audience.  

But while Bonta and Newsom are using the lawsuit to make waves on the national and international political stage, there are still many unknowns about the case and major questions that have yet to be asked.

1. Why did California snub local firm and plaintiff darling Sher Edling?

Last month, San Francisco-based plaintiffs’ firm Lieff Cabraser announced that it had been retained as co-counsel in California’s lawsuit. This marks the firm’s first foray into climate litigation and continues the trend of diversification away from Sher Edling, which now hasn’t been hired by the last three plaintiffs to bring climate cases.

2. Why now?

Although Governor Newsom said during the rollout of the suit that he was “ignorant” and “naive” on the issue until his administration began drafting the complaint, as Politico noted days after the lawsuit’s filing, California officials have “long contemplated suing big oil.” 

In fact, as well documented and fully admitted to by organizers, the whole climate litigation campaign was conceived at the La Jolla conference, with California AG staff helping run the show. It would also mean he missed the initial coverage in the Los Angeles Times, failed to know about the initial lawsuits brought by California municipalities, and ignored the environmental community that have been calling for this lawsuit for years.  

Not to mention, it was rumored off and on for years that the California’s attorney general’s office may be investigating the industry. The office under now-Vice President Kamala Harris’ leadership from 2011 to 2017 supported the campaign, though never brought legal action. Harris’s successor, Xavier Becerra, on the other held steady in ignoring calls from activists to file suit.  

Here’s a brief timeline of the California OAG and climate litigation: 

• June 2012: Anti-fossil fuel activists host the infamous conference in La Jolla, Calif., where they laid out plans to bring legal action against energy companies. One of the participants was then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ deputy Janill Richards—the sole known state government official attendee—who was to co-lead a discussion on “potential options for US-focused climate litigation.” 
• January 2016: Staff from AG Harris’s office held a meeting with private environmental attorney Matt Pawa to discuss climate litigation. Later that month, the Los Angeles Times reports that AG Harris had started a probe into energy companies, according to a “person close to the investigation,” but the investigation was never confirmed. 
• March 2016: AG Kamala Harris joins other Democratic attorneys general in a coalition to investigate energy companies and potentially launch probes of their own. The effort fell apart within months.   
• September 2019: Then-California Senator Kamala Harris bragged that she’d “sued Exxon” during a presidential debate – The New York Times quickly refuted this claim. 
• 2017 – 2021: During Xavier Becerra’s tenure as California attorney general, he faced (and ignored) pressure to take action and sue energy companies. In the months before and after his confirmation, Becerra faced repeated calls to prioritize an investigation from the LA Times editorial board, nineteen Democratic U.S. House Representatives from the California delegation, and over thirty environmental activist groups. Becerra’s primary challenger, Dave Jones, even made Becerra’s apparent refusal to sue a crucial election issue.  
• September 2023: California Governor Gavin Newsom announces a lawsuit at Climate Week NYC during an interview with The New York Times. 

Given this decade-long timeline of activity within California’s attorney general’s office, it begs several questions: When did Attorney General Bonta’s investigation actually launch? Did the lawsuit leverage any previous AG’s investigation? And how much of California taxpayers’ money has gone into “investigating” oil companies over the last decade?

3. Who else is supporting California’s lawsuit behind the scenes?

Academics, activists, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have long used California as a home base to finance and coordinate climate lawsuits in the state and across the country.

Could it be California billionaire Tom Steyer, who was speculated to have backed the initial public nuisance lawsuits? Or Ann Carlson’s old coworkers at UCLA, who have provided legal assistance to Sher Edling and fundraised for the firm’s legal efforts? 

Or perhaps the same activists that pressured then-Attorney General Becerra in 2017 saw their window of opportunity in Newsom’s administration and lobbied behind closed doors? 

The other possibility is that the Center for Climate Integrity has been privately pushing for a lawsuit in California and finally got to the state’s leaders. After all, the pro-litigation advocacy group has been applauding the Governor and Attorney General since the state filed.  

Bottom Line: There are many questions about California’s lawsuit that reporters have yet to ask, yet one thing is clear: California’s attempt to demonize the industry is a losing strategy.