For many years, California symbolized excessive environmental regulations. Now, Hawaii has taken on this role. Located around 2,400 miles from the West Coast and lacking its own oil fields, Hawaii relies on imports to support its tourism, power its electrical grid, and maintain daily life. Despite this reliance on oil, Hawaii’s legal actions against energy firms are noteworthy.
Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez, along with Honolulu and Maui, is pursuing legal action against the oil and gas sector, claiming significant climate-related damage. These cases highlight potential political influence in Hawaii’s legal system, prompting calls for federal intervention.
Key Points in Hawaii’s Lawsuits
The lawsuits omit the state’s major refinery, Par Pacific, and its subsidiary, Par Hawaii. Campaign finance records show that its executives have contributed to state Democratic leaders, including Governor Josh Green. Under the state’s arguments, local refineries and energy consumers are seen as contributors to environmental harm.
Courts in other politically similar regions have dismissed similar lawsuits, based on precedents that assign the federal government the role of setting emissions standards across states and internationally.
Judicial Concerns and Collaborations
In Hawaii, the battle has moved to state courts. Judges, including those involved in the Honolulu case, have worked with organizations like the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP). This partnership raises questions about judiciary impartiality. These groups share staff and donors with Sher Edling LLP, the firm representing various governments against energy companies.
The relationship has not prevented some Hawaii Supreme Court justices from engaging with ELI-CLP-sponsored events. Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald, for example, provided guidance to an expert involved in the climate cases. Despite these associations, he authored the court’s decision in the Honolulu case, favoring the climate plaintiffs. A colleague of his expressed a strong bias, advocating for a ruling based on ‘Aloha’ rather than federal law.
Broader Implications
Following the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the Honolulu case, the lower court has permitted extensive discovery, assisting broader anti-energy strategies. Federal guidance is essential here since the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing whether such state claims against energy companies should fall under federal or state jurisdiction in the Suncor Energy v. Boulder County case.
Other states like California and New Jersey have paused their litigation, awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. If the case reaches the Supreme Court and a new standard is set, many existing claims could be dismissed.
Honolulu aims to maximize document collection and testimonies from energy company executives before a possible court decision changes the legality of such cases. The requirement for companies to produce 75 years of historical documents adds substantial cost without necessarily proving consumer deception regarding climate knowledge.
While increased information about climate change might raise awareness, it has not yet significantly reduced global demand for energy. People continue to use fossil fuels as they did decades ago. This pattern persists even with the potential effects on tourism, crucial to Hawaii’s economy.
Michael Toth leads research at the Civitas Institute.
John Yoo, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a notable legal scholar affiliated with multiple institutions.