By Robert Lancia

For those that are following, a two-hour hearing on April 15 in Providence County Superior Court marked the latest chapter in Rhode Island’s long-running lawsuit against American energy producers.

Launched in coordination with activist trial attorneys from Sher Edling LLP – a San Francisco-based firm – the suit seeks alleged climate-related damages, arguing that these companies have for decades have intentionally misled consumers about the broader ecological risks of their products. In so doing, Rhode Island and the out-of-state activists backing it, intend to hold these companies liable the global phenomenon of climate change.

How might this approach benefit Rhode Island’s residents? At least in theory, a successful suit would lead to the state government generating revenue for damages, although Sher Edling’s attorneys, no doubt, also stand to receive a substantial payout. But the backers of this suit also want to impose a new energy regime upon Rhode Island residents.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers backing a similar suit in Colorado have been frank about their intention to use these lawsuits to increase energy prices. In other words, they think it is best for Rhode Islanders in the long run to incentivize a shift towards renewable energy sources by way of imposing short-term price hikes on consumers.

However, there are two primary reasons why this approach is, in fact, misguided and – perhaps more importantly – a blatant violation of Rhode Island state law.

First, based on judicial rulings on effectively identical cases in other states – and backed by Sher Edling – these kinds of suits shouldn’t be tried under state laws to begin with. It all goes back to a 2011 Supreme Court case, American Electric Power vs. Connecticut, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority that the federal government, namely the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, not state courts or state laws, was the proper arbiter towards addressing matters related to climate change. Most federal and state court judges have since adhered to that precedent. 

On those grounds alone, this case should be dismissed, but it gets worse. This case may also be in direct violation of Rhode Island’s Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. 

As Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity CEO Mike Stenhouse recently noted, the original complaint filed by then-Attorney General Peter Kilmartin falsely alleged that a substantial portion of the defendants’ fossil fuel products were “extracted, refined, and/or manufactured” in Rhode Island. But this cannot be true as the state lacks crude oil reserves, production facilities, and refineries.

Stenhouse highlights publicly available information that the state’s own Office of Energy Resources which clearly states petroleum products like heating oil and propane are not produced locally, and instead arrive through six marine import terminals. Federal data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration reinforces this fact, stating Rhode Island “has no crude oil reserves and does not produce or refine petroleum.”

Yet, the Attorney General’s office leaned on ambiguous phrasing like “and/or” to obscure that reality – a maneuver that, as Stenhouse warns, violates Rule 11 in Rhode Island’s Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires factual accuracy in legal pleadings. This should betray the public’s trust in the elected officials backing the lawsuit since the claims made appear to be untrue.

Ultimately, Rhode Island needs to say “no,” clearly and loudly, to being used as a puppet of San Francisco activist attorneys, who are in turn the pawns of extreme environmental donors. The livelihoods of our neighbors and co-workers are at stake, and despite the fact that this legal maneuver has failed virtually everywhere else it has been attempted, Rhode Island’s political leaders continue to persist. It is time to make our voices heard – and bring this baseless campaign to an end.

Robert Lancia served in the Rhode Island House of Representatives from 2015 to 2018, representing District 16.