Skip to main content
Michigan’s nonpartisan, nonprofit news source

Informing you and your community in 2025

Bridge Michigan’s year-end fundraising campaign is happening now! As we barrel toward 2025, we are crafting our strategy to watchdog Michigan’s newly elected officials, launch regional newsletters to better serve West and North Michigan, explore Michigan’s great outdoors with our new Outdoor Life reporter, innovate our news delivery and engagement opportunities, and much more!

Will you help us prepare for the new year? Your tax-deductible support makes our work possible!

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Pay with PayPal Donate

Opinion | Michigan AG should cease ‘lawfare,’ avoid interfering with energy prices

In May 2024, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced a plan to sue energy producers, seeking monetary damages over their alleged role in contributing to climate change. Nessel’s case mimicked a set of coordinated suits filed by more than two dozen municipal entities with this single-minded objective.

As a former attorney general of Michigan, I view AG Nessel’s decision to deploy our state’s resources in these baseless activist cases as entirely inappropriate, especially given that they target energy producers that Michiganders continue to depend on for their livelihoods. This is for three important reasons.

Bill Schuette headshot
Bill Schuette is a former Michigan attorney general, judge of the Michigan Court of Appeals, director of the Michigan Department of Agriculture, member of Congress and Michigan state senator.

First, given that these suits are intended to make fossil fuels more expensive — California’s Attorney General made this point explicitly about his analogous lawsuit — these cases would be counterproductive to our state economy and the job market. Most broadly, this action would place the state government’s relationship with the private sector on a more unstable footing. In essence, if the AG is successful in filing a lawsuit against energy producers, it will put businesses on notice that Michigan is not business-friendly.

This is not idle speculation. Michigan’s largest business groups — including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Detroit and Grand Rapids Regional Chambers, the Michigan Manufacturers Association, and the Michigan Retailers Association — have already publicly criticized the plan, suggesting that it would enrich a “select few” at the expense of broader business interests.

More specifically, they wrote, "This dangerous and inappropriate use of a state office to attack and demonize Michigan businesses would have a negative and chilling effect on the state's entire economy … Every business and household in this state relies upon access to affordable and reliable energy."

Should Attorney General Nessel’s form of activism become the rule rather than the exception, it could deter businesses from moving into our state. I believe that public servants should protect jobs and businesses at all costs, especially during periods like this one, featuring still-elevated inflation, high interest rates, and a volatile stock market. To get Michigan through these tough times, our focus should be on a stable regulatory environment for businesses to create jobs, and this starts with a sound and predictable energy policy.

Moreover, a policy of suing energy companies would also drive inflation-ravaged costs even higher for the average customer.  If you think your paycheck is stretched thin now, just wait until you get your heating bill this winter. 

Second, Michigan’s economy is more dependent on stable national fuel prices than other states. If lawsuits in other states, let alone our own, force energy producers to push higher costs onto consumers, then our economy will be negatively impacted. The “Motor City” is so-named for good reasons, with its rich history reading as a close partnership between automakers and energy producers.

Michigan’s economy would simply not be the same without it; those who suggest that it has “moved on” to other industries are mistaken. Michigan remains ranked number one among states in automobile production. General Motors and Ford remain loyally headquartered in our state, and 98 of the top 100 automotive suppliers to North America have a presence in Michigan. Taken together, these companies contribute $304 billion to the state economy and provide 1.1 million well-paying, skilled automotive jobs, fully one-fifth of Michigan’s workforce. Plain and simple: these lawsuits jeopardize the longstanding core of our state economy, sowing ill will with historic business partners and putting Michiganders’ jobs on the line.

Third, and perhaps most crucially, there are better ways to address the issue of climate change than with frivolous lawsuits. As I have written previously, the effects of climate change on our infrastructure absolutely need to be addressed, and plenty of available federal funds are earmarked for weather-related infrastructure damage. This money has already been allocated, so why would our policymakers turn to taxpayer-funded activist litigation?

As Kelly Mitchell, a former senior adviser to the US Department of Energy, recently wrote, this effort “misses the forest for the trees and will backfire.” These lawsuits against energy producers are what is called lawfare: using the legal system to damage an opponent. Mitchell points out that lawfare simply “punishes the domestic businesses Michigan residents rely on to heat their homes and power their cars merely for emitting carbon — hardly a crime.” I completely agree.

Earlier this year, I argued that we should prevent our energy and climate policy from devolving into a chaotic patchwork of state laws. Hopefully, the United States Supreme Court will step in to reaffirm the federal rulemaking process, but we can do our part here in Michigan. AG Nessel should make the right decision — for Michigan, and for the country — and immediately stop these frivolous lawsuits from proceeding any further.

How impactful was this article for you?

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact David Zeman. Click here for details and submission guidelines.

Only donate if we've informed you about important Michigan issues

See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:

  • “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
  • “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
  • “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.

If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time!

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Pay with PayPal Donate Now