alarm as Utah shields fossil-fuel companies
Utah has made it nearly impossible for residents to hold fossil fuel companies legally responsible for climate damage, in a move that one advocacy group described as “putting the profits of the biggest polluters ahead of communities.” Other states are expected to follow suit.
The new state legislation comes as part of a push by major oil companies and their political allies, including groups tied to right-wing impresario Leonard Leo, for legal immunity in red state houses and Congress, with the goal of gaining state and federal legal immunity akin to waivers of liability given to the firearms industry In 2005.
Such policies would protect major fossil fuel companies from a wave of lawsuits from states, subnational governments, and people who claim they knew their products would harm the climate but sold them to the public anyway. Four other red states are considering legislation similar to Utah’s (two are close to becoming law), and federal legislation appears to be in the works as well.
Utah’s new legislation, signed into law by the state’s Republican governor Spencer Cox late last month, shields any person or entity from civil or criminal liability for planet-warming emissions unless a court finds that the defendant violated a specific “enforceable limitation” on the greenhouse gas or the “express terms of a valid permit.”
Objectors will also need to present “clear and convincing evidence that inevitable and identifiable damage or injury has resulted or will result as a direct cause of the violation.” Critics say the language would make it nearly impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages.
“This is a capitulation to the private interests of the wealthy and an affront to the public interest,” said Delta Merner, chief scientist at the science center for climate litigation at the science advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. “Utah’s new law prioritizes the profits of the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts, and voters should be outraged.”
Utah’s HB 222, which is scheduled to become law next month, is sponsored by Republican representative Carl Albrecht. some financing from oil and gas interests. He was also the CEO of a rural electric cooperative.
“This cooperative is largely powered by fossil fuels,” said Democratic Utah state senator Nate Blouin, who opposed the bill, and said the bill passed quickly and without much debate. “He has a background in the industry and continues to draw on that experience to move projects like this forward.”
Albrecht did not respond to a request for comment, but he told Bloomberg Law The policy is said to be aimed at stopping “frivolous” legal challenges from environmental groups and protecting the state’s coal-fired power plants. He also said industry trade groups gave him the idea for the proposal.
“To understand this bill, you have to follow the coordination,” Merner said, adding that the Utah legislation a model closely reflects policy It was called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by the conservative group Consumer Defense.
Consumer Defense financial ties a linked group Leo, Architect of the takeover of the Supreme Court by the far right He’s the one who helped select Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. In recent years, Leo-allied groups have launched an unprecedented campaign to block Leo. climate liability lawsuit.
Asked about Leo’s involvement in the model legislation, Consumer Defense chief Will Hild said it could not be attributed to “any single individual”.
“The Energy Freedom Act aims to clarify that carbon emissions should not automatically lead to legal harms and to roll back efforts to shape national climate policy through litigation rather than elected lawmakers,” he said. “This ensures that decisions remain in the hands of responsible representatives, prevents a small number of states from imposing their own policies through litigation across the country, and protects consumers from economically devastating policies.”
Leo’s CRC Advisors group did not respond to a request for comment.
MPs Louisiana And Oklahoma is considering similar legislation and state legislatures Iowa And Tennessee We voted to pass legislation limiting climate liability, even though it has not yet become law.
“In Tennessee, they literally called the bill the Tennessee Energy Freedom Act,” said Iyla Shornstein, political director of the Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports climate liability lawsuits. “This is a direct quote from Consumer Advocacy language.”
National immunity move
The passage of the Utah bill comes as climate lawsuits against major oil companies approach hearings and states are adopting climate liability legislation.
In recent years, 70 cities, states and individuals have sued energy companies for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont also passed climate “superfund” laws Requires major polluters to pay for damages from pollution that has warmed the planet in the past; Other states are considering similar policies.
“Oil companies clearly see these as an existential threat to their business models,” Shornstein said. “Their lobbying makes that clear.”
Earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the largest US oil lobby group, said one of its top priorities for 2026 would be: Blocking “bad faith” climate lawsuits We are targeting big oil. Months ago, 16 Republican state attorneys general He called on the Ministry of Justice Providing a “liability shield” to oil companies.
Lawmakers also pursued narrower efforts, including an unsuccessful attempt to block Washington, D.C., from enforcing certain legal theories against oil companies and a 2025 Maryland bill that would ban state and local climate lawsuits but never reached a vote. Last year, both API and energy giant ConocoPhillips also pressed Congress drafts legislation to limit climate liability.
Such a federal policy appears to be in preparation: House committee hearing Last month, Republican Wyoming Rep. Harriet Hageman said “Congress has a role to play” in defeating climate liability lawsuits.
“To that end, I am working with my colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation that addresses both these state laws and lawsuits that could undermine energy affordability for consumers,” he said.
Hageman did not provide specific details about the legislation. He did not respond to a request for comment.
API declined to comment on the status of the federal liability waiver proposal.
Other industries have previously lobbied for liability waivers. Merner noted that since the firearms industry successfully pushed for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005, “not a single negligence case has been prosecuted against a gun manufacturer.”
The pesticide industry is also currently pursuing immunity bills at the state level; while their allies unsuccessfully sought federal waiver. Facing widespread lawsuits, the tobacco industry also pushed for such immunity in the 1990s but failed, resulting in $260 billion in payouts.
“The fossil fuel industry appears to have learned from these examples. If they can now secure blanket immunity, they can avoid the fate of tobacco, but if they fail they face tobacco-level liability,” Merner said.
MPs, lawyers and journalists came together mountains of evidence In recent years, it has been revealed that oil companies are deliberately covering up the damage their products cause to the climate. Meanwhile, climate science continues to warn that fossil fuels are the leading cause of dangerous global warming.
“I don’t understand why the industry is pushing for immunity if they think they can win on the merits of the case,” Merner said. “Evidence shows they have known about climate risks for decades and lied about it, so they are trying to completely change the rules of the game.”
