How effective is the lawfare of the left against energy, and how much does it cost consumers?

In the ongoing battle over energy policy, “lawfare”—the strategic use of lawsuits to advance political or ideological goals—has become a potent weapon for environmental groups and left-leaning governments targeting the fossil fuel industry. This tactic, often framed as holding Big Oil accountable for climate change, has escalated in recent years, particularly as federal policies under the Trump administration reversed many Biden-era regulations like the Inflation Reduction Act. A recent LinkedIn post by energy expert Doug Sheridan highlights this shift, noting how environmental organizations are ramping up legal actions amid morale crises and setbacks, such as Greenpeace facing a staggering $670 million verdict in a lawsuit from Energy Transfer and Earthjustice filing 96 actions against the Trump administration in 2025 alone—nearly triple the rate from Trump’s first term.

Are you from California or New York and need a tax break?

Sheridan views this as an overreach that obstructs the energy sector, implying hidden costs for consumers who rely on affordable fuel. But how effective is this lawfare in curbing fossil fuel production or emissions? And what is the actual economic toll on everyday consumers? Drawing from recent analyses, this article explores the track record of these lawsuits, their impacts on the energy industry, and a calculated estimate of the costs passed down to households.

The Effectiveness of Environmental Lawfare: Wins, Losses, and Broader Impacts

Environmental lawfare has grown exponentially, with at least 226 new climate-related cases filed globally in 2024, bringing the total to nearly 3,000 across 60 countries.

In the U.S., which accounts for over half of these, 164 cases were filed in 2024 alone.

These lawsuits typically target fossil fuel companies for alleged deception about climate risks, seeking damages for environmental harms or forcing reductions in emissions. Success rates vary, but litigation against corporations has proven more effective than against governments, with over 80% of apex court decisions from 2015 to 2024 favoring plaintiffs in corporate cases.

Landmark wins include the 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen ruling in Europe, which affirmed corporate duties to mitigate climate change, and U.S. cases like Milieudefensie v. Shell, where courts mandated emissions cuts.

These have influenced policy, such as stricter environmental impact assessments for high-emission projects and scrutiny of “Scope 3” downstream emissions.

However, effectiveness in achieving broad climate goals is mixed. While some cases have delayed or canceled projects—contributing to reduced coal use and emissions—backlash litigation has surged, with 60 cases in 2024 challenging governments’ climate policies or corporate ESG efforts.

Critics argue that lawfare often fails to curb global emissions meaningfully, as displaced production shifts to countries with laxer regulations. In the U.S., outcomes of environmental litigation shape policy but also highlight industry pushback; for instance, fossil fuel companies have used counter-lawfare against protesters, with varying success.

A Nature study on U.S. environmental litigation found it influences regulations but doesn’t always lead to net environmental gains, as industry countersuits can deter activism.

From the energy sector’s perspective, lawfare creates uncertainty, delaying investments and raising operational costs. Sheridan’s post underscores this, warning that aggressive tactics like Earthjustice’s barrage of suits could hinder affordable energy production, ultimately benefiting no one.

While proponents claim victories in governance and accountability, detractors see it as inefficient activism that burdens the industry without proportional environmental benefits.

The Cost to Consumers: Billions in Hidden Taxes

The real sting of lawfare lies in its economic ripple effects, which are overwhelmingly borne by consumers through higher energy prices. Lawsuits don’t just target companies—they effectively tax households by increasing the cost of fuel, electricity, and goods reliant on energy transport.Analyses show that successful or settled cases lead to massive financial burdens passed directly to users. For example, a hypothetical $200 billion settlement from energy companies could hike gasoline prices by 62 cents per gallon—a 17% increase based on 2024 averages—adding hundreds to annual household fuel costs.

In California, where the attorney general sued oil giants for deceptive practices, officials openly admit the goal is to raise prices to discourage fossil fuel use, with costs “priced into what consumers pay.”

Specific suits amplify this: Multnomah County, Oregon, seeks $50 billion for climate damages, while similar cases in Colorado, New York City, and Vermont demand billions more.

A Pacific Research Institute brief estimates that every $100 billion in judgments could raise gas prices by 31 cents per gallon, translating to an extra $326 per household annually (based on average U.S. consumption of about 1,050 gallons per year).

These aren’t isolated; over 30 U.S. lawsuits seek trillions in total, with plaintiffs like Oregon aiming for $52 billion in one case alone.

Broader economic impacts compound this. Litigation deters clean energy innovation by siphoning funds from R&D, potentially slowing transitions to lower-emission technologies like advanced natural gas or nuclear.

An AEI analysis pegs the direct costs of pursuing net-zero energy policies—often advanced through litigation—at $500 billion annually for electricity alone, or about $4,000 per U.S. household.

This includes price spikes from reduced supply; a 30% drop in energy availability could inflate prices by 40–50%.

Proponents counter that lawsuits shift costs from taxpayers to polluters, easing burdens from climate damages estimated at $28 trillion globally from 1991–2020 due to fossil fuel emissions.

Yet, even if companies pay, they recoup via higher consumer prices, as seen in Maine testimony, where end-users pay $2.60 for every dollar of energy company costs.

Calculating the Cost: An Estimate for U.S. Consumers

To quantify lawfare’s toll, consider active U.S. cases. Assuming 10 major state/local suits averaging $50 billion each (based on Oregon and similar), that’s $500 billion in potential judgments. Using the Pacific Research model:Per $100 billion: +31 cents/gallon, or +$326/household/year.
For $500 billion: +$1.55/gallon, or +$1,630/household/year.

This is conservative, excluding indirect costs like higher goods prices (e.g., groceries up due to transport) or lost economic growth. If only 20% of claims succeed—aligning with partial win rates—the annual pass-through could still exceed $300 billion nationwide, or $2,300 per household when including electricity and other fuels.

Over a decade, this could total trillions, dwarfing the $670 million Greenpeace verdict.

These figures assume full pass-through, substantiated by industry analyses, but actuals depend on outcomes.

Conclusion: A Costly Strategy Needing Re-evaluation

Lawfare against the energy sector has achieved some policy wins but at a steep price, often delaying projects without commensurate emission reductions while inflating consumer bills. As Sheridan’s post suggests, this “apex” of environmental activism may be waning under scrutiny, with costs like higher fuel prices hitting low-income families hardest.

For a balanced energy future, innovation and legislation—not endless lawsuits—may prove more effective and less burdensome. Consumers deserve transparency on these hidden taxes before lawfare escalates further.

Is Oil & Gas Right for Your Portfolio?

Crude Oil, LNG, Jet Fuel price quote

ENB Top News 
ENB
Energy Dashboard
ENB Podcast
ENB Substack

Need Power For Your Data Center, Hospital, or Business?