SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The case accuses "four of the largest energy companies in the world" of conspiring "to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market."
While several US states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies by citing consumer protection and public nuisance laws, Michigan on Friday launched an antitrust lawsuit against four industry giants and their trade association, accusing them of operating as a "cartel" to impede a transition to clean power and transportation.
Twenty months after state Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she was seeking proposals from lawyers and firms "to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry," the Democrat sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
"Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket, and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone," Nessel said in a statement.
"These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings," she continued.
As the complaint says: "Defendants are four of the largest energy companies in the world and their industry's largest trade association. The fossil fuel defendants produce fossil fuels and have at times invested in clean energy products and related technologies, such as solar power and batteries, that could provide energy to power buildings, infrastructure, and cars as an alternative to fossil fuels."
"But for decades, defendants have conspired with each other to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market," the filing continues. "They have done so as a cartel, agreeing to reduce the production and distribution of electricity from renewable sources and to restrain the emergence of electric vehicles (EV) and renewable primary energy technologies in the United States."
"To achieve this end," the document details, "they have abandoned renewable energy projects, used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information concerning the hidden costs of fossil fuels and viability of alternatives, infiltrated and knowingly misdirected information-producing institutions, surveilled and intimidated watchdogs and public officials, and used trade associations to coordinate market-wide efforts to divert capital expenditures away from renewable energy—all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history."
Lumping in this case with others previously filed against fossil fuel companies and API, Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the trade group, said in a statement to the Detroit News that "these baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America's economy, and is actively reducing emissions."
While Shell declined to comment to Reuters, and BP and Exxon did not respond, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., similarly called the suit "baseless as demonstrated by multiple related court dismissals," and told the news agency that it "ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state's automakers and workers."
According to Nessel's complaint: "In the world that would have existed but for defendants' conspiracy, EVs would not be a fringe technology or a luxury alternative. They would be a common sight in every neighborhood—rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue."
"Reliable and fast chargers would be integrated into new development and ubiquitous at highway rest stops and converted gas stations," it states. "A family needing a car would have dozens of affordable electric options, and the renewable energy needed to power EVs efficiently would be supplied at scale—integrated into the grid or delivered through a dedicated 100% renewable network—spurred by public and private investment responding to competitive market signals."
"Michiganders would also have additional, renewable energy options for providing primary energy to their homes and businesses, such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal; these options would improve reliability, reduce costs to Michiganders, and reduce reliance on natural gas, fuel oil, and propane," the document adds.
Tim Minotas, legislative and political director for Sierra Club Michigan, welcomed the filing. He said in a statement that "at a time when the federal government is rolling back critical environmental protections and families are facing an energy affordability crisis, we commend Attorney General Nessel for standing up for Michiganders and holding major fossil fuel companies accountable."
"In Michigan, these companies have used their outsized political influence to preserve the status quo and pave the way for a wave of energy-intensive data center projects across the state, even as renewable energy remains the cheapest source of new power and what Michiganders deserve," he noted. "For far too long, fossil fuel and utility companies have polluted Michigan's air, water, and land while driving up energy costs for families. This action sends a clear message: Michigan families and communities must come before corporate profits."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, also celebrated the development: "Michigan's groundbreaking case reveals how the Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable by keeping consumers hooked on their dirty fossil fuel products. Eleven states and dozens of municipalities are now fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the harm they've caused."
"Big Oil is desperate to keep the evidence of their climate lies from juries in cases like Michigan's, and that's why the fossil fuel industry is now lobbying Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," Wiles added, pointing to a push for a so-called liability shield. "Congress must protect the right of the people of Michigan and every state to hold Big Oil accountable for the harm their climate lies have caused."
“Administrator Zeldin is removing all incentives for big polluters to follow the law and turning a blind eye to those who suffer from the impacts of pollution.”
The Trump administration settled just 15 of the illegal pollution cases referred by the US Environmental Protection Agency in the first year of President Donald Trump's second term in the White House, according to data compiled by a government watchdog—the latest evidence that Trump officials are placing corporate profits above the EPA's mission to "protect human health and the environment."
In the report, The Collapse of Environmental Enforcement Under Trump's EPA, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) noted Thursday that in the first year of former President Joe Biden's administration, 71 cases referred by the EPA were prosecuted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
“Under [EPA Administrator] Lee Zeldin, anti-pollution enforcement is dying a quick death,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of PEER and a former enforcement attorney at EPA.
The DOJ lodged just one environmental consent decree in a case regarding a statutory violation of the Clean Air Act from the day Trump was inaugurated just over a year ago until now—signaling that the agency "virtually stopped enforcing" the landmark law that regulates air pollution.
"Enforcing the Clean Air Act means going after violators within the oil, gas, petrochemical, coal, and motor vehicle industries that account for most air pollution," reads the report. "But these White House favorites will be shielded from any serious enforcement, at least, while Lee Zeldin remains EPA’s administrator."
“For the sake of our health and the environment, Congress and the American people need to push back against Lee Zeldin’s dismantling of EPA’s environmental enforcement program.”
In the first year of his first term, Trump's DOJ settled 26 Clean Air Act cases, even more than the 22 the department prosecuted in Biden's first year.
The report warns that plummeting enforcement actions are likely to contribute to health harms in vulnerable communities located near waterways that are filled with "algae blooms, bacteria, or toxic chemicals" and near energy and chemical industry infrastructure, where people are more likely to suffer asthma attacks and heart disease caused by smog and soot.
“Enforcing environmental laws ensures that polluters are held accountable and prevented from dumping their pollution on others for profit,” said Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER and a former senior counsel at DOJ’s Environmental Enforcement Section. “For the sake of our health and the environment, Congress and the American people need to push back against Lee Zeldin’s dismantling of EPA’s environmental enforcement program.”
EPA's own enforcement and compliance database identifies 2,374 major air pollution sources that have not had a full compliance evaluation in at least five years, and shows that no enforcement action has been taken at more than 400 sources that are marked as a "high priority."
Nearly 900 pollution sources reported to the EPA that they exceeded their wastewater discharge limits at least 50 times in the past two years.
The agency has also repealed its rules limiting carbon pollution from gas-powered cars, arguing that the EPA lacks the authority to regulate carbon.
As public health risks mount, PEER noted, Zeldin is moving forward with plans to stop calculating the health benefits of rules aimed at reducing air pollution, and issued a memo last month detailing a "compliance first" policy emphasizing a "cooperative, industry-friendly approach" to environmental regulation.
“Administrator Zeldin is removing all incentives for big polluters to follow the law," said Whitehouse, "and turning a blind eye to those who suffer from the impacts of pollution.”
"In a future with immense data center growth, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize Big Tech's profits at the expense of their own health, climate, and pocketbooks," said a Union of Concerned Scientists analyst.
As ratepayers and environmentalists continue sounding the alarm over a push to rapidly build data centers to support artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency across the United States, scientists stressed Wednesday that powering such facilities with clean energy could save trillions of dollars in climate and health costs over the coming decades.
"US electricity demand could increase by 60% to 80% between 2025 and 2050, with data centers accounting for more than half of the increase by 2030," according to the new Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report, Data Center Power Play. "Estimates of the cumulative electricity costs attributable to data centers from 2026 to 2050 range from $886 billion to $978 billion."
"Without stronger clean energy policies, the additional fossil fuel generation used to power data centers results in an increase in annual US power plant emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) of 19% to 29% (229 to 342 million metric tons—MMT) by 2035," the document warns. "Restoring federal clean energy tax credits would reduce total US power plant emissions of CO2 by 33% between 2026 and 2035, even if data center demand more than doubles."
Reviving those tax credits is just one of the "forward-looking policies" for which the report advocates. It also calls for "establishing binding emission reduction targets and carbon-free electricity standards, adopting strong power plant carbon standards, and providing incentives to increase transmission capacity."
💡It's the smartest, quickest way to meet growing electricity demand while protecting people’s health, wallets and the climate. 🏛️$248 billion in wholesale electricity costs could be avoided by 2050 by restoring federal clean energy tax credits slashed by the Trump administration.
— Union of Concerned Scientists (@ucs.org) January 21, 2026 at 10:47 AM
The report further pushes for making large electricity customers, including data centers, cover additional costs and requiring utilities to not only conduct long-term planning for data center load growth but also meet that growth with new low-carbon or zero-carbon generation.
"State and federal policymakers should require data center companies and utilities to negotiate power purchase agreements and grid interconnection terms in public proceedings rather than behind closed doors and nondisclosure agreements," the publication argues. "Policymakers should also require data center companies and utilities to publicly report power needs, onsite and induced emissions, water use, and other data—and to do so with enough advance notice for communities to make informed decisions."
In a statement, Mike Jacobs, senior energy analyst at UCS and author of a recent report about costs being pushed onto the public, highlighted that "data centers are already secretly increasing peoples' electricity bills."
"While some utility companies and data center developers are intentionally misdirecting scrutiny, others are willfully ignorant about their roles in passing costs onto consumers," he explained. "In a future with immense data center growth, ratepayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize Big Tech's profits at the expense of their own health, climate, and pocketbooks. State utility regulators have clear authority to assign costs to those that cause them—it's time they require data center developers to pay their fair share for energy needs that can dwarf that of entire cities."
The new report emphasizes that "additional policies to nearly decarbonize the power sector by 2050 would help limit future damages from extreme heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts. These policies would also deeply cut harmful air pollutants that contribute to respiratory ailments, heart attacks, other illnesses, and mortalities."
Reducing US power sector CO2 emissions 70% by 2035 would result in...🌎 More than $1.6 trillion in avoided global climate damages🌱 Reduce air pollution from fossil fuels, resulting in $40 billion in avoided health costs nationally
— Union of Concerned Scientists (@ucs.org) January 21, 2026 at 10:47 AM
UCS found that "the cumulative global climate benefits from reducing US heat-trapping emissions total $1.3 trillion to $1.6 trillion between 2026 and 2035, growing to $8 trillion to $13 trillion by 2050. Cumulative health benefits from reducing local air pollution range from $120 billion to $220 billion by 2050."
The report's lead author, UCS director of energy research Steve Clemmer, said Wednesday that "the climate and health benefits and net cost savings of building clean energy to meet future electricity needs are obvious and enormous, but they will not materialize without political support and responsible management of data center load growth."
Julie McNamara, associate policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, took aim at Big Oil-backed President Donald Trump, whose administration "has repeatedly worked to derail clean energy deployment precisely when we need it most."
"With surging demand from data centers, the need for plentiful, affordable power has never been higher," she said. "Yet instead of clearing the path for the fastest, cheapest, cleanest resources to deploy, President Trump is sidelining renewables just to boost the interests of the fossil fuel industry. People will pay the price: in higher bills, in dirtier air, in lost local investments, and in worsened climate impacts."
"The first priority, as you know, in these emergencies is always to fight and extinguish the fire. But we cannot forget, at any time, that there are human tragedies here," said the country's president.
On the heels of another historically hot year for Earth, disasters tied to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency have yet again turned deadly, with wildfires in Chile's Ñuble and Biobío regions killing at least 18 people—a figure that Chilean President Gabriel Boric said he expects to rise.
The South American leader on Sunday declared a "state of catastrophe" in the two regions, where ongoing wildfires have also forced more than 50,000 people to evacuate. The Associated Press reported that during a Sunday press conference in Concepción, Boric estimated that "certainly more than a thousand" homes had already been impacted in just Biobío.
"The first priority, as you know, in these emergencies is always to fight and extinguish the fire. But we cannot forget, at any time, that there are human tragedies here, families who are suffering," the president said. "These are difficult times."
According to the BBC, "The bulk of the evacuations were carried out in the cities of Penco and Lirquen, just north of Concepción, which have a combined population of 60,000."
Some Penco residents told the AP that they were surprised by the fire overnight.
"Many people didn't evacuate. They stayed in their houses because they thought the fire would stop at the edge of the forest," 55-year-old John Guzmán told the outlet. "It was completely out of control. No one expected it."
Chile's National Forest Corporation (CONAF) said that as of late Monday morning, crews were fighting 26 fires across the regions.
As Reuters detailed:
Authorities say adverse conditions like strong winds and high temperatures helped wildfires spread and complicated firefighters' abilities to control the fires. Much of Chile was under extreme heat alerts, with temperatures expected to reach up to 38ºC (100ºF) from Santiago to Biobío on Sunday and Monday.
Both Chile and Argentina have experienced extreme temperatures and heatwaves since the beginning of the year, with devastating wildfires breaking out in Argentina's Patagonia earlier this month.
Scientists have warned and research continues to show that, as one Australian expert who led a relevant 2024 study put it to the Guardian, "the fingerprints of climate change are all over" the world's rise in extreme wildfires.
"We've long seen model projections of how fire weather is increasing with climate change," Calum Cunningham of Australia's University of Tasmania said when that study was released. "But now we're at the point where the wildfires themselves, the manifestation of climate change, are occurring in front of our eyes. This is the effect of what we're doing to the atmosphere, so action is urgent."
Sharing the Guardian's report on the current fires in Chile, British climate scientist Bill McGuire declared: "This is what climate breakdown looks like. But this is just the beginning..."
The most recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, where world leaders aim to coordinate a global response to the planetary crisis, was held in another South American nation that has faced devastating wildfires—and those intentionally set by various industries—in recent years: Brazil. COP30 concluded in November with a deal that doesn't even include the words "fossil fuels."
"This is an empty deal," Nikki Reisch of the Center for International Environmental Law said at the time. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."