Wyoming Sues California Over Energy Bullying Tactics

Nineteen Republican attorneys general are taking legal action against five Democratic-led states.

They have filed a Bill of Complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court.

Their suit claimed that these Democrat states are trying to “dictate interstate energy policy,” to the rest of the nation.

They assert that five Democratic-led state governments have “brought unprecedented litigation against the nation’s most vital energy companies for alleged ‘climate crisis,’

They are demanding payment of billions of dollars in damages.

They claim that California, among other states, is using coersion and penalties that are harming traditional energy industries.

The states bringing the suit are Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The states they are suing include California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

“The theory advanced by these states is truly radical: A small gas station in rural Alabama could owe money to the people of Minnesota simply for selling a gallon of gas,” Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said. “The customer might even be liable too. These states are welcome to enforce their preferred policies within their jurisdiction, but they do not have authority to dictate our national energy policy. If the Supreme Court lets them continue, California and its allies will imperil access to affordable energy for every American. That would threaten our national security and harm millions of Americans already struggling to pay for gas and groceries. To protect Alabama citizens and our constitutional order, we had no choice but to sue.”

The Democratic-led states “want a global carbon tax on the traditional energy industry,” say the complaint. “Citing fears of a climate catastrophe, they seek massive penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief against energy producers based on out-of-state conduct with out-of-state effects. … If Defendant States are right about the substance and reach of state law, their actions imperil access to affordable energy everywhere and inculpate every State and indeed every person on the planet. Consequently, Defendant States threaten not only our system of federalism and equal sovereignty among States, but our basic way of life.”

The suit shows how oil, natural gas, and coal “are essential for American prosperity.”

There is also the issue of states trying to assert power over other states.

The suit shows that the Supreme Court has:

“consistently held that lawsuits over interstate air (and water) pollution, including emissions from the use of oil and gas, must be decided under federal law. Application of federal law to these fundamentally interstate matters prevents overreaching States from weaponizing their laws to impose their policy agendas on sister States and ensures that national policy remains sensitive to the interests of the whole Nation.”

The Republican states argue that the Democrat states have:

“exceed state authority, flout the horizontal separation of powers, usurp federal authority over a federal issue, and violate the prohibition on extraterritorial regulation embodied in the Commerce Clause. Plaintiff States and their citizens rely on traditional energy products every day. The assertion that Defendant States can regulate, tax, and enjoin the promotion, production, and use of such products beyond their borders—but outside the purview of federal law—threatens profound injury.”