Energy expert warns of risks Suncor v. Boulder poses to energy costs, security

By Tate Rosentreter
The Center Square

The CEO of an energy advocacy organization detailed what he says the consequences of one of the nation’s biggest current climate liability suits, Suncor v. Boulder, could have on the nation, stating that both energy costs and energy security are at stake.

CEO of American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told The Center Square that Suncor v. Boulder “will decide who sets American energy policy: Congress and the president, who answer to voters in all 50 states, or a single county courtroom in Colorado.”

Suncor v. Boulder is an ongoing climate case where Boulder County, Colorado, is suing to make a number of energy companies liable for climate change.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments for the case.

Isaac told The Center Square that “Chief Justice [John] Roberts noted at argument that a win for Boulder would bring similar suits in every state, and dozens of other jurisdictions have already filed them.

“Each would seek to hold energy producers liable for the alleged cumulative, worldwide effect of a product that Americans bought, used, and paid taxes on lawfully,” Isaac said. “Companies would price that exposure into every investment decision, and families would see it in what they pay for fuel, power, and everything that moves on both.”

Isaac noted that “Texas has an especially large stake.”

“Oil and gas generated roughly $27 billion in state and local taxes and royalties in 2025, and that revenue funds our schools, roads, and property tax relief,” Isaac said. 

“A ruling for Suncor would keep these decisions with the elected branches that the Constitution assigns to make them,” Isaac said.

Isaac also noted the aspect of energy security as it relates to climate change litigation.

“Energy security is national security,” Isaac said. “Countries that produce affordable, reliable energy hold leverage, and countries that depend on others give it up.”

“American production and LNG exports gave our European allies a way to reduce their reliance on Russian gas after 2022,” Isaac said.

“If American producers face open-ended liability in thousands of courtrooms, their cost of capital would rise and investment would slow, and that supply would shift to Russia, Iran, and other producers whose interests differ sharply from ours,” Isaac said.

Isaac noted that “the federal government shares this view of the structure.”

“The Department of Justice filed in support of Suncor, arguing that foreign relations belong to the president and Congress and that Boulder’s suit would bring ‘new frictions in all international negotiations that implicate climate policies,’” Isaac said.

Isaac refers to the amicus brief the Department of Justice filed supporting Suncor, asserting it is unconstitutional for one city and one state’s law to dictate how the world addresses a global problem.

Isaac said that “a single state court would be writing terms that affect the whole country’s standing abroad. National security requires one national government speaking with one voice.”

Isaac stressed that “the legal question in front of the court is who decides.” 

“The justices spent the argument on federal preemption and the limits of one state’s authority, and answering those questions would settle the case,” Isaac said.

Further, Isaac stated that as Justice Samuel Alito recused himself and only eight justices heard the case, a “4-4 tie would leave in place the Colorado Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling that allowed Boulder’s lawsuit to move toward trial, and it would set no nationwide rule.”