As a former member of Congress who previously represented Chicago, I was disappointed to see city leadership last year decide to file suit against several national energy producers. The lawsuit alleges that these companies carried out a decades-long campaign to deceive consumers about the climate risks of fossil fuels. This suit is a particular farce because the City of Chicago is heavily reliant on natural gas and oil to run municipal services. The consequences of such an exercise in virtue signaling could be dire for regular Chicagoans during a time of historically high inflation and soaring prices.
Attorneys involved in virtually identical cases elsewhere, like in Boulder, Colorado, have openly admitted that at their core they hope to raise the price of energy and cripple the work of energy production with these suits. Practically speaking, the way forward for these extreme climate activists is to use price hikes on consumers to force a shift towards less reliable energy sources that they deem to be more environmentally friendly. The last thing Chicagoans need is legal grandstanding that generates further upward pressure on energy prices.
If this lawsuit is successful, it also threatens to exacerbate the near-certain energy shortfalls and price spikes that Illinois is expected to face this coming summer by undercutting traditional power generation. As The Center Square reported this month, “U.S. energy provider Exelon has calculated that power demand from data centers in the Chicago area is set to explode, and AI adoption will put a further strain on electricity supplies.” Given this situation, one would think – or at least hope – that elected leaders would stand against this kind of legal nonsense.
Yet rather than pushing back against these misguided lawsuits, city officials are actively working to keep them alive – even bending the rules to do so. In fact, Chicago’s leadership wants to have its legal cake and eat it too: they claim damages for local effects of a global phenomenon, yet they insist that the case remain in state court, avoiding federal jurisdiction.
Chicago argues that the case belongs in state court under consumer fraud and misrepresentation laws, likely believing it has a better chance of success there. However, legal precedent, jurisdictional principles and the need for consistent national policy on climate issues all point to federal court as the proper venue. The case involves global greenhouse gas emissions – an issue that transcends state boundaries and affects national policy – making it squarely a matter for federal courts.
However and despite these legal realities, Chicago is attempting to evade federal jurisdiction by making highly technical claims that focus on corporate advertising and consumer deception, rather than emissions. Such legal maneuvering is unlikely to hold up. In 2021, the Second Circuit dismissed New York City’s climate lawsuit, ruling that states cannot govern global climate-related damages. Similarly, in the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case American Electric Power v. Connecticut, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), not state courts, is “better equipped” to handle legal issues related to climate change.
The High Court’s rationale is sound. If Chicago’s case were allowed to proceed in state court, it would open the door to a patchwork of state-driven legal standards for a global issue, creating regulatory chaos. Climate policy should be determined by Congress and federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – not through local lawsuits aimed at lawful energy production.
If Chicago’s leaders were truly committed to addressing their concerns about climate change, they would focus on securing federal funding for infrastructure improvements rather than pursuing legally dubious lawsuits. Billions of dollars have been allocated through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to mitigate the effects of extreme weather allegedly caused by climate change, yet much of this funding remains unclaimed. This calls into question their true intentions.
Chicagoans should demand better. They must call on their leaders to take meaningful action on the city’s energy crisis instead of wasting taxpayer resources on flimsy legal gambits that will do nothing to secure a more reliable or affordable energy future. If city officials truly want to serve their constituents, they should focus on practical, immediate steps to strengthen the grid, support responsible energy development and ensure residents aren’t burdened with skyrocketing energy costs. Litigation won’t keep the lights on in Edgewater or lower energy bills in Bridgeport – but sound policy and responsible leadership will.
