A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer/Getty
This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Amid rising concern about global heating and soaring energy costs, Michigan has sued big oil for allegedly fueling both crises—a move experts have hailed as groundbreaking.
In a first-of-its-kind complaint, the state’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, accused four fossil fuel majors and the top US oil lobbying group last month of acting as a “cartel” to stifle the growth of renewable energy and electric vehicles (EVs), while suppressing information about the dangers of the climate crisis. The conduct, the lawsuit alleged, violates federal and state antitrust laws.
The companies’ “collusion” drove up Michigan utility costs and slowed the transition away from gas-powered cars, according to the filing. Absent the industry’s efforts to repress clean technology, EVs “would be a common sight in every neighborhood—rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue,” it said.
“The Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable.”
Electricity costs in Michigan have surged, with average residential rates increasing by nearly 120 percent in the last two decades. And though electric car adoption is increasing, EVs and hybrids accounted for less than 4 percent of total registered vehicles statewide last year.
“Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation,” Nessel said in a statement. “These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings.”
Michigan’s case specifically targets BP, Shell, Chevron, and ExxonMobil, as well as the largest US oil lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute (API).
“This is yet another legally incoherent effort to regulate by lawsuit,” an ExxonMobil spokesperson said. “It won’t reduce emissions, it won’t help consumers and it won’t stand up to the law.”
Ryan Meyers, general counsel for the API, said: “These baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy and is actively reducing emissions. We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms.”
BP declined to comment on the pending litigation. The Guardian has contacted all defendants for comment.
The oil industry has long attempted to have lawsuits voided by saying they are pre-empted by policies, but plaintiffs say climate accountability lawsuits focus on business practices and the distribution of misleading information, not emissions regulations.
The 126-page lawsuit was brought by Nessel’s office alongside Sher Edling—a California-based law firm that is representing a slew of municipalities in climate accountability litigation—and two other firms, DiCello Levitt and Hausfeld, which have also handled climate complaints and are based in Chicago and Washington DC, respectively.
The new challenge accuses the defendants of engaging in a vast “conspiracy,” starting almost 50 years ago when a 1979 Exxon internal report predicted the world would see catastrophic global heating without a massive shift to renewable energy.
“Rather than compete as leading producers of renewable energy products, the defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to suppress their own output of renewable energy, and restrain output by others,” the lawsuit said.
To do so, the firms used an array of tactics, including employing patent lawsuits to stop their competitors, hiding information about fossil fuels’ dangers and the viability of renewables, using trade associations to coordinate “market-wide efforts” to skew investments toward oil and gas, and even hiring hackers to “surveil, intimidate and disrupt” journalists and activists, it claimed.
“Michigan’s groundbreaking case reveals how the Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable by keeping consumers hooked on their dirty fossil fuel products,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that tracks and supports climate litigation.
With the challenge, Michigan joins 10 other states and about 60 local governments that have sued Big Oil for alleged climate deception in recent years. Together, the cases represent jurisdictions that are home to more than a quarter of the US population.
Nessel first announced plans to launch climate accountability litigation in 2024, stating concerns with the cost of climate damages in her state. The January 23 filing came despite attempts to thwart climate accountability litigation from the Trump administration. Last year, the Department of Justice took the unusual step of suing Michigan and Hawaii over the states’ plans to file such cases; despite the attack, Hawaii filed its lawsuit the following day.
In a blow to the Trump administration, one day after Michigan filed its lawsuit, a federal judge tossed out the justice department’s filing against the state.
But the oil industry and its allies are continuing their attempts to kill off climate accountability lawsuits. The fossil fuel industry is lobbying Congress to obtain immunity from climate-focused litigation and policies, and last month the API listed defeating climate accountability lawsuits as a top priority for 2026.
The sector and its allies have also been pushing the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legitimacy of climate lawsuits. Soon, the high court is expected to decide if it will hear arguments over a petition by ExxonMobil and energy giant Suncor seeking to end a lawsuit brought by the city and county of Boulder, Colorado.
