A major big oil accountability case is on the Supreme Court's docket

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court starts its new session, and one case on the docket could have big implications for addressing the climate crisis. The central question is whether big oil should pay for some of the damage caused by burning fossil fuels.

Amy Scott hosts Marketplace’s climate solutions podcast, "How We Survive,” and joined “Marketplace Morning Report” host Kimberly Adams to break it down. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Kimberly Adams: So, Amy, tell us about the case and and what's at stake here.

Amy Scott: So, in 2018, the City and County of Boulder, Colorado, sued Exxon Mobil and Suncor Energy, which is a Canadian company that operates a big refinery here in Colorado. And this lawsuit alleged that the companies knowingly contributed to climate change while at the same time deceiving the public about the risks. And because of that, the plaintiffs say that these companies should pay for some of the costs of that damage, which includes wildfires, drought, extreme heat, poor air quality, etc. And one example is a big fire that happened a few years after that lawsuit was filed — the Marshall Fire, which killed two people and destroyed more than 1,000 homes in Boulder County, and cost taxpayers more than $180 million.

Adams: Now, lots of communities have brought similar lawsuits. So, what's different about this one?

Scott: Yeah, according to the Center for Climate Integrity, more than two dozen cities and counties, and several states and tribes, have sued fossil fuel companies for damages from climate change, but none of these have gone to trial so far. And last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder's lawsuit could move forward to discovery, which is when the two sides share evidence and depose witnesses. The defendants appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and asked them basically to reverse the decision and throw out the case, and they argue that federal law preempts state law when it comes to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which of course cross state lines. But Boulder says its lawsuit isn't trying to regulate emissions; they just want the companies to help cover the costs.

Adams: The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Monday. What kind of impact could a ruling have?

Scott: Well, first, the Supreme Court has to decide whether it even has jurisdiction over this case. Usually, the justices wouldn't hear a case like this coming out of state court until there's been a final judgment. And this lawsuit, as I said, hasn't even gone to trial, so it's a little unusual to be taking a case this early. But bottom line: If they decide the case is allowed to go forward, it would be a big win — not just for Boulder, but potentially for similar climate accountability lawsuits. On the other hand, if they say this can't go forward, it's a big win for oil and gas companies, which face potentially billions of dollars in liability.