How Many Ways Can California Seek Oil Companies’ Profits?

This week, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed an amended complaint in the state’s climate lawsuit doubling down on greenwashing allegations and appealing to a new state law that gives the attorney general a backdoor to seek damages in the form of oil companies’ profits without even attempting to show harm to California consumers.

Facing a “multibillion-dollar budget deficit” that leaves the state unable to maintain even its own climate change programs, California is trying every trick in the book to siphon off oil and natural gas companies’ profits.

California is currently trying to set an arbitrary price cap on refiners’ profits to combat alleged price gouging, despite no evidence of the behavior. The state is also considering a climate superfund bill that would tax oil companies on a pro rata basis for climate damages (sound familiar?).

If that’s not enough, this week California AG Bonta filed an amended complaint in the state’s climate lawsuit against oil and natural gas companies seeking disgorgement of companies’ profits without any real burden of proof.
 

The state is only able to make that request due to a new law sponsored by none other than AG Bonta that gives his office an end-run around proving that the alleged climate deception harmed California consumers, as Politico reports:

“The update incorporates a Bonta-sponsored California law that Newsom signed in October, a month after he announced the lawsuit against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and the American Petroleum Institute industry trade.

“The change to the state’s consumer protection laws allows the attorney general to go after a company’s ‘unjust profits’ even without showing a plaintiff has suffered a loss, as was required before.”

Proving losses has always been climate litigation activists’ greatest uphill battle. Advocates can support the plaintiffs’ plan to rely on a shoddy, donor-funded body of “attribution science” to get at least part of the way there.

Or, state attorneys general can take AG Bonta’s approach and show no losses at all.

Greenwashing Lunacy

The updated complaint doubles down on nonsensical greenwashing complaints targeting natural gas, carbon capture, renewable energy investments, and more.

In one instance, AG Bonta claims that the statement “natural gas is an economical, environmentally friendly complement to renewable energy” is false – even though it represents a view shared by bipartisan lawmakers, Biden cabinet officials, and European allies.

Elsewhere in the complaint, AG Bonta dings companies for marketing certain fuels sold in California as “cleaner” and “lower emissions.” But the reality is, California has created a market where fuels sold in the state actually have to be lower emissionsthan the national fuel standard. Since only a handful of refineries are equipped to produce this blend, California is a “gasoline island” and consumer prices are consistently higher than the national average.

The amended complaint also cites screenshots of companies’ website pages depicting scenes of nature. But under AG Bonta’s new law, the California AG won’t have to prove that “an image of a bluebird” in a company advertisement caused California taxpayers any financial losses.

Any increase in costs borne by California drivers is more likely attributable to the state government, which continues to do everything in its power to make essential fuels more expensive and less accessible. The state’s view of consumer harm is particularly nonsensical in light of AG Bonta’s own admission that the climate suit could send gas prices even higher:

ELEX MICHAELSON: A lot of people are concerned their gas prices could go up because of this, what do you say to that?

ROB BONTA: We are protecting folks in California, including those who pay for gas. I don’t know what the impacts will be of our effort to hold big oil accountable, but it must end. (Emphasis Added)

California’s Climate Suit Is Entirely Political

AG Bonta’s escalating legal attacks on energy producers come amid increasing speculation about his political future. While AG Bonta has repeatedly denied the climate suit is connected to his obvious gubernatorial aspirations, the evidence suggests otherwise.

Politico reported last September operatives friendly to California Governor Gavin Newsom and AG Bonta say their respective political ambitions are paramount to understanding their motivations to bring this case:

“‘I just think it’s a question of a changing, no pun intended, political climate, and Gov. Newsom and Rob Bonta being in a position where they can pursue something that most observers would argue is a tough shot,’ said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political consultant and attorney who’s worked on climate policy. […]

“It’s even more understandable for Bonta, who has a lower statewide profile and has said he’s considering a gubernatorial run.” (Emphasis Added)

Bottom Line: As fuel costs skyrocket and California faces an ever-growing budget deficit, the state has picked a scapegoat in the oil and natural gas industry rather than face consequences of its own policies. AG Bonta’s revised complaint makes it crystal-clear that the state’s lawsuit has always been grounded in political ambition, not consumer protection.

Read the full story at EIDclimate.org.

The post How Many Ways Can California Seek Oil Companies’ Profits? appeared first on .