Opinion | Michigan AG should cease ‘lawfare,’ avoid interfering with energy prices

In May 2024, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced a plan to sue energy producers, seeking monetary damages over their alleged role in contributing to climate change. Nessel’s case mimicked a set of coordinated suits filed by more than two dozen municipal entities with this single-minded objective.

As a former attorney general of Michigan, I view AG Nessel’s decision to deploy our state’s resources in these baseless activist cases as entirely inappropriate, especially given that they target energy producers that Michiganders continue to depend on for their livelihoods. This is for three important reasons.

First, given that these suits are intended to make fossil fuels more expensive — California’s Attorney General made this point explicitly about his analogous lawsuit — these cases would be counterproductive to our state economy and the job market. Most broadly, this action would place the state government’s relationship with the private sector on a more unstable footing. In essence, if the AG is successful in filing a lawsuit against energy producers, it will put businesses on notice that Michigan is not business-friendly.

This is not idle speculation. Michigan’s largest business groups — including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Detroit and Grand Rapids Regional Chambers, the Michigan Manufacturers Association, and the Michigan Retailers Association — have already publicly criticized the plan, suggesting that it would enrich a “select few” at the expense of broader business interests.

More specifically, they wrote, "This dangerous and inappropriate use of a state office to attack and demonize Michigan businesses would have a negative and chilling effect on the state's entire economy … Every business and household in this state relies upon access to affordable and reliable energy."

Should Attorney General Nessel’s form of activism become the rule rather than the exception, it could deter businesses from moving into our state. I believe that public servants should protect jobs and businesses at all costs, especially during periods like this one, featuring still-elevated inflation, high interest rates, and a volatile stock market. To get Michigan through these tough times, our focus should be on a stable regulatory environment for businesses to create jobs, and this starts with a sound and predictable energy policy.

Moreover, a policy of suing energy companies would also drive inflation-ravaged costs even higher for the average customer.  If you think your paycheck is stretched thin now, just wait until you get your heating bill this winter. 

Second, Michigan’s economy is more dependent on stable national fuel prices than other states. If lawsuits in other states, let alone our own, force energy producers to push higher costs onto consumers, then our economy will be negatively impacted. The “Motor City” is so-named for good reasons, with its rich history reading as a close partnership between automakers and energy producers.

Michigan’s economy would simply not be the same without it; those who suggest that it has “moved on” to other industries are mistaken. Michigan remains ranked number one among states in automobile production. General Motors and Ford remain loyally headquartered in our state, and 98 of the top 100 automotive suppliers to North America have a presence in Michigan. Taken together, these companies contribute $304 billion to the state economy and provide 1.1 million well-paying, skilled automotive jobs, fully one-fifth of Michigan’s workforce. Plain and simple: these lawsuits jeopardize the longstanding core of our state economy, sowing ill will with historic business partners and putting Michiganders’ jobs on the line.

Third, and perhaps most crucially, there are better ways to address the issue of climate change than with frivolous lawsuits. As I have written previously, the effects of climate change on our infrastructure absolutely need to be addressed, and plenty of available federal funds are earmarked for weather-related infrastructure damage. This money has already been allocated, so why would our policymakers turn to taxpayer-funded activist litigation?

As Kelly Mitchell, a former senior adviser to the US Department of Energy, recently wrote, this effort “misses the forest for the trees and will backfire.” These lawsuits against energy producers are what is called lawfare: using the legal system to damage an opponent. Mitchell points out that lawfare simply “punishes the domestic businesses Michigan residents rely on to heat their homes and power their cars merely for emitting carbon — hardly a crime.” I completely agree.

Earlier this year, I argued that we should prevent our energy and climate policy from devolving into a chaotic patchwork of state laws. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will step in to reaffirm the federal rulemaking process, but we can do our part here in Michigan. AG Nessel should make the right decision — for Michigan, and for the country — and immediately stop these frivolous lawsuits from proceeding any further.