In a significant development for the energy sector, a North Dakota judge has signaled his intent to order Greenpeace to pay $345 million in damages related to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. This ruling stems from a high-profile case that pits environmental activism against oil and gas infrastructure, highlighting the growing tensions in what many industry observers call “climate lawfare.” As consumers grapple with fluctuating energy prices, this decision raises a provocative question: Could the judicial system finally provide relief by empowering oil and gas companies to push back against costly legal battles funded by activist groups?
We will be working on a larger series covering lawfare and its impact on consumers.
The Case Background: Protests, Pipelines, and Legal Reckoning
The saga traces back to 2016-2017, when thousands of protesters converged near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to oppose the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. This 1,168-mile underground conduit, designed to transport crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region to Illinois, became a flashpoint for environmental concerns, particularly over potential risks to water supplies like the Missouri River.
Energy Transfer, the pipeline’s operator, along with its subsidiary Dakota Access, accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace US, and Greenpeace Fund of orchestrating efforts to derail the project. Allegations included organizing blockades, supplying materials to protesters, and spreading what the company described as false statements about the pipeline’s safety and environmental impact. In a 2025 trial, a nine-person jury found the Greenpeace entities liable on multiple counts, including defamation, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference. The initial jury award totaled $667 million, with Greenpeace US shouldering $404 million of that burden.
North Dakota Judge James Gion, however, reduced the award by roughly half, settling on $345 million. While the exact breakdown among the Greenpeace organizations wasn’t specified in the latest filing, the judge’s forthcoming order represents a substantial financial hit. Energy Transfer framed the lawsuit not as an attack on free speech, but as a matter of holding activists accountable for unlawful actions that disrupted operations and inflated costs.
Greenpeace, on the other hand, has decried the ruling as an attempt to silence critics, with interim general counsel Marco Simons noting that the organization lacks the funds to pay and warning of a chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Both sides are poised for appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court, with Energy Transfer pushing to restore the full jury award.
This isn’t just an isolated skirmish; it’s part of a broader pattern where environmental groups leverage protests and litigation to challenge fossil fuel projects. But as the gavel falls in favor of Energy Transfer, it signals a potential shift: Courts may start viewing such activism through the lens of economic disruption rather than pure ideological expression.
The Hidden Toll of Climate Lawfare on Consumers
For years, oil and gas companies have faced a barrage of lawsuits from states, cities, and activist organizations alleging contributions to climate change. These cases, often dubbed “climate lawfare,” seek billions in damages to fund everything from disaster recovery to green infrastructure. At least 20 U.S. cities and states have filed such suits, accusing energy firms of misleading the public on climate risks.
Proponents argue it’s time for “Big Oil” to pay up for environmental harms, as seen in proposed Climate Superfund laws in states like New York, which would force fossil fuel companies to finance climate adaptation efforts.
Yet, the real victims in this legal onslaught are often everyday consumers. When companies face mounting legal fees, settlements, or judgments, those costs don’t vanish—they trickle down through higher energy prices. For instance, if plaintiffs in ongoing climate lawsuits secured a hypothetical $200 billion settlement from energy producers, gasoline prices could surge by 62 cents per gallon nationwide, representing a 17% increase based on current averages.
In New York alone, a bill expanding climate liability (SB 8585) could have added $2,500 per household to energy costs between 2020 and 2024 if enacted earlier, exacerbating affordability issues in one of the nation’s least affordable states.
Similar patterns emerge elsewhere. California’s proposed Polluter Pays Superfund Program (SB 684) aims to bill oil companies for atmospheric damage from 1990 to 2045, but critics warn that firms will simply pass those expenses to drivers at the pump.
Broader analyses suggest that climate lawfare acts as a de facto tax, stifling investment, reducing competitiveness, and imposing higher energy costs on American households.
One study frames these suits as a “backdoor climate tax,” accelerating trends that make states like California increasingly unaffordable.
Even proponents of green transitions acknowledge that making oil and gas “more expensive” is a deliberate strategy to curb consumption, but this ignores the immediate pain for low- and middle-income families already strained by inflation.
The financial burdens from court proceedings alone—defending against claims of climate deception or nuisance—force companies to divert resources from innovation and efficiency, ultimately leading to elevated prices for gasoline, heating, and electricity.
In 2022, amid dropping crude prices, California consumers saw gas prices spike by 84 cents per gallon in just 10 days, a move some attribute to broader pressures including regulatory and legal uncertainties.
Hope on the Horizon? Empowering Industry to Fight Back
The Greenpeace ruling offers a glimmer of optimism for consumers weary of bearing the brunt of endless litigation. If courts continue to allow oil and gas companies to countersue activists for tangible damages—like project delays, security costs, and reputational harm—it could deter frivolous or disruptive tactics. This isn’t about suppressing dissent; it’s about ensuring that protests adhere to the law, as Energy Transfer emphasized in their case.
By stemming the tide of climate lawfare, the judicial system could indirectly lower energy costs. Reduced legal expenditures mean companies can invest more in production, infrastructure, and even transitional technologies, potentially stabilizing prices. As one analysis notes, unchecked lawfare threatens national energy policy by bypassing Congress and imposing uneven burdens that ripple through the economy.
The Supreme Court has been urged to intervene in similar cases to prevent states from using lawsuits as tools for “fundamental systems change,” which effectively hikes costs without voter input.
For consumers, this could translate to real savings. Imagine fewer price spikes from lawsuit-induced uncertainties, or states like Hawaii and New York rethinking bills that scapegoat energy producers for insurance hikes.
While environmental accountability remains crucial, balancing it with economic realities might foster a more sustainable path forward—one where innovation, not litigation, drives change.In the end, the Dakota Access case may mark a pivot. As oil and gas firms gain ground in court, consumers could finally see relief from the hidden taxes of climate lawfare. The energy sector’s resilience, coupled with judicial fairness, offers hope that affordable, reliable power isn’t a relic of the past.
Sources: eidclimate.org, instituteforenergyresearch.org, realclearenergy.org, finance.yahoo.com
Get your CEO on the #1 Energy Podcast in the United States: https://sandstoneassetmgmt.com/media/
Is oil and gas right for your portfolio? https://sandstoneassetmgmt.com/invest-in-oil-and-gas/
Be the first to comment