Nessel pivots from climate deception to antitrust in energy lawsuit

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has shifted to an antitrust legal strategy in her long-awaited lawsuit against several oil giants.

The lawsuit against BP PLC, Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell PLC, and the American Petroleum Institute alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act.

The allegations mark a significant change from the original goal of exposing Big Oil’s alleged deceptive behavior concerning climate change, outlined by the attorney general in 2024 when she retained environmental law firms said to have expertise in “specialized litigation involving environmental issues and industry deception.”

The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan alleges that the oil companies restricted trade to maintain dominance in energy markets. Nessel in 2024 picked three out-of-state law firms — Sher Edling LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP, and Hausfeld LLP — to sue oil companies in Michigan courts. BP has about 600 Michigan gas stations and 120 Amoco stations. Chevron has no gas stations in Michigan, Exxon has about 600 and Shell has around 400.

Nessel alleges the defendants acted as a cartel in an unlawful conspiracy to stall competition from renewable energy.

“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,” Attorney General 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.”

When Nessel announced the lawsuit in 2024, she said it would focus on climate change deception. Michigan Capitol Confidential reported on the lawsuit threat in October 2024, a story the United States Department of Justice cited in its own lawsuit against Michigan.

Michigan Energy Affordability Complaint by mcclallen

Nessel’s pivot to an antitrust lawsuit blames the oil industry for slow growth in the renewable energy market, including a mere 180,000 electric vehicles in the state.

Michigan’s climate plan calls for two million EVs on the road by 2030. Michiganders who have not purchased an EV cite concerns over fluctuating battery life and the vehicle’s overall cost compared to a vehicle with a traditional gas engine. Advocates and skeptics of EVs both cite a limited network for charging vehicles.

The lawsuit won't work, David T. Stevenson, director of energy and environmental policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy told CapCon in an email.

“The misguided lawsuit claiming oil companies undermined solar and wind power, and electric vehicles is a copycat lawsuit that has failed everywhere it has been tried,” Stevenson wrote. “The claims in the lawsuit simply are not true. The attorney general is wasting state money and should not have pursued this action.”

Calling the lawsuit a “distraction,” Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, criticized Nessel.

“The challenge of our time is not creatively pleading lawsuits, but developing technologies and public policies that enable sustainable, affordable energy production and use worldwide,” Goldberg said in a statement. “We encourage Michigan to join with manufacturers and policymakers who are already working hard to deliver practical, durable climate solutions.”

Nessel’s term ends Dec. 31. Her successor will decide whether to continue the lawsuit.