‘A surrender to special interests’: alarm as Utah shields fossil-fuel companies

New legislation comes amid push from big oil, as critics warn polluters’ profits prioritized over Americans’ healthUtah has made it nearly impossible for residents to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for climate damages in a move one advocacy group described as putting “profits for the biggest polluters over communities”, with other states expected to follow suit.The new state legislation comes as part of a push from big oil and its political allies – including groups tied to rightwing impresario Leonard Leo – for legal immunity in red statehouses and Congress, with a goal of winning state and federal legal immunity similar to the liability waiver granted to the firearms industry in 2005.Such policies would shield major fossil fuel companies from a wave of litigation they are facing from states, subnational governments, and individuals who claim the firms knew their products would cause climate damages, but sold them to the public anyway. Four other red states are considering laws similar to Utah’s – with two close to passage – and federal legislation is seemingly in the works.Signed into law by the state’s Republican governor Spencer Cox late last month, Utah’s new legislation shields any person or entity from civil or criminal liabilities related to planet-warming emissions, unless a court finds that the defendant violated the specific “enforceable limitation” on a greenhouse gas or the “express terms of a valid permit”.Challengers would also have to provide “clear and convincing evidence that unavoidable and identifiable damage or injury has resulted or will result as a direct cause of the” violation. The language will make it virtually impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages, critics say.“This is a surrender to wealthy special interests and an affront to the public good,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the science hub for climate litigation at the science advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists. “Utah’s new law prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts and constituents should be outraged.”Set to be enacted next month, Utah’s HB 222 was sponsored by Republican representative Carl Albrecht, who has received some funding from oil and gas interests. He was also formerly the CEO of a rural electric cooperative.“That cooperative is substantially powered by fossil fuels,” said Democratic Utah state senator Nate Blouin, who opposed the bill, which he said passed quickly and without much discussion. “He’s got a history in the industry, and continues to draw from that experience to push bills like this forward.”Albrecht did not respond to a request for comment, but told Bloomberg Law that the policy aims to halt “frivolous” legal challenges from environmental groups and to protect the state’s coal-fired power plants. He also said industry trade groups gave him the idea for the proposal.“To understand this bill you need to follow the coordination,” said Merner, noting that the Utah legislation closely mirrors a model policy called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by conservative group Consumers Defense.Consumers Defense has financial ties to a group linked to Leo, the architect of the far-right takeover of the supreme court who helped select Trump’s supreme court nominees. In recent years, groups tied to Leo have launched an unprecedented campaign to thwart climate accountability litigation.Asked about Leo’s involvement in the model legislation, Will Hild, president of Consumers Defense, said it is not attributable to “any individual figure”.“The Energy Freedom Act is intended to clarify that carbon emissions should not automatically carry legal damages and to push back on efforts … to shape national climate policy through litigation rather than through elected lawmakers,” he said. “This ensures decisions remain with accountable representatives, prevents a small number of states from imposing their policies nationwide through judicial fiat, and protects consumers from economically disruptive policies.”Leo’s group CRC Advisors did not respond to a request for comment.Lawmakers in Louisiana and Oklahoma are considering similar legislation, and the state legislatures of Iowa and Tennessee have voted to pass climate liability-limiting legislation, though neither has yet been signed into law.“In Tennessee they literally called the bill the Tennessee Energy Freedom Act,” said Iyla Shornstein, political director at the Center for Climate Integrity, which tracks and supports climate accountability litigation. “It’s a direct borrowing from the Consumers Defense language.”The Utah bill’s passage comes as climate lawsuits against big oil companies inch closer to trial, and as states adopt climate accountability legislation.In recent years, 70 cities, states, and individuals have sued energy majors for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont have also passed climate “superfund” laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages caused by their past planet-heating pollution, with other states considering similar policies.“The oil companies clearly see these as an existential threat to their business model,” said Shornstein. “Their lobbying makes that clear.”Earlier this year, the top US oil lobby group the American Petroleum Institute (API) said one of its top priorities for 2026 will be blocking “abusive” climate lawsuits targeting big oil. Months earlier, 16 Republican state attorneys general also called on the justice department to provide a “liability shield” for oil companies.Lawmakers have also pursued narrower efforts, including a failed attempt to block Washington DC from the deployment of some legal theories against oil companies, and a 2025 Maryland bill that would have barred state and local climate lawsuits but never reached a vote. And last year, both API and energy giant ConocoPhillips also pressed Congress on draft legislation to limit climate liability.Such a federal policy appears to be in the works: during a House committee hearing last month, Wyoming representative Harriet Hageman, a Republican, said “Congress has a role to play” in defeating climate accountability lawsuits.“To that end, I’m working with my colleagues in both the House and Senate to craft legislation tackling both these state laws and the lawsuits that could destroy energy affordability for consumers,” she said.Hageman did not provide specific details about the legislation. She did not respond to a request for comment.The API declined to comment on the state of a federal liability waiver proposal.Other industries have lobbied for liability waivers before. Since the firearms sector successfully pushed for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005, “not a single negligence case against a gun manufacturer has gone to trial”, noted Merner.The pesticide sector is also currently pursuing state-level immunity bills, while its allies have unsuccessfully pursued a federal waiver. And the tobacco industry, facing widespread litigation, also pushed for such immunity in the 1990s but failed, ending up paying $260bn in settlements.“It seems that the fossil fuel industry has learned from these precedents. If they can secure blanket immunity now, they can avoid the fate of tobacco, but if they fail, they face tobacco-level accountability,” said Merner.Lawmakers, advocates, and journalists have amassed mountains of evidence in recent years that oil companies intentionally covered up the climate harms of their products. Climate science, meanwhile, continues to warn that fossil fuels are the primary cause of dangerous global warming.“I don’t see why industry would be pushing for immunity if they thought they could win on the merits of their case,” said Merner. “The evidence shows they knew about climate risks for decades and lied about it, so they’re trying to change the rules of the game entirely.”