Hawaii’s Legal Battles Against Energy Companies: A Closer Look

California was once considered a symbol of environmental extremism, but now Hawaii occupies that space. Despite being located 2,400 miles from the West Coast and lacking its own oil fields, Hawaii relies on imported oil to sustain tourism, operate its grid, and maintain daily life. Yet, this dependency has not prevented Hawaii from taking legal action against energy companies.

Hawaii’s Attorney General Anne Lopez, alongside Honolulu and Maui, is pursuing legal action against the oil and gas industry over alleged climate-related damages, seeking billions. These lawsuits hint at political manipulation within Hawaii’s legal framework, prompting calls for federal investigation and intervention.

Exclusion in Litigation

The lawsuits notably leave out Par Pacific and its subsidiary, Par Hawaii, which refine energy and supply fuel in the state. Campaign finance records reveal donations from their executives to Democratic leaders, including Governor Josh Green. Under Hawaii’s legal theory, local energy refiners and users generate emissions harming the island’s environment.

Judicial Influence

Other jurisdictions have dismissed similar cases, citing federal government jurisdiction over emissions standards. However, key judges in Hawaii, involved in the Honolulu case, have ties to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and its Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), raising questions about judicial neutrality. These organizations share personnel and donors with Sher Edling LLP, a law firm representing local governments suing energy companies.

Despite these connections, Hawaii Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Mark Recktenwald played a role in ELI-CLP events and assisted an expert involved in climate litigation. Recktenwald authored a favorable opinion for climate plaintiffs in the Honolulu case. Moreover, another justice suggested the U.S. Supreme Court adopt a similar stance regardless of federal law text.

Implications for Energy Industry

Upon refusing to dismiss the Honolulu case, Hawaii’s lower state court has allowed for extensive discovery by plaintiffs’ lawyers as part of an anti-energy campaign. These proceedings should have been paused, awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the fundamental legal question: whether state tort claims against energy companies for global climate change belong in federal or state court, a question pivotal in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.

Judges elsewhere, including those in California and New Jersey, have halted climate litigation, anticipating a new standard or the elimination of entire claims should the case reach the Supreme Court, which rarely accepts appeals.

Honolulu is hastening to gather exhaustive document production and multiple executive testimonies before potential legal basis changes. A special master has instructed energy companies to search through decades of documentation related to energy product production and sale worldwide. Despite the extensive cost and effort, these documents won’t establish consumer deception since public awareness of global warming exists and fossil fuel usage remains consistent.

While more information on climate change could be informative, it remains insufficient to halt global energy demand for cooling homes, powering gadgets, or visiting Hawaii itself, unless Hawaii targets the travel industry for aiding the oil and gas sector.