Oil and Utah’s new liability shield alarm critics
Utah has enacted new legislation that makes it nearly impossible for residents to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for climate damages, and the fight over oil is now colliding with state law in a way critics say favors polluters over the public. The law was signed late last month by Republican Governor Spencer Cox and is set to take effect next month. Advocates say it could shield major companies from climate-related lawsuits already moving through courts and encourage similar moves in other states.
How the law changes the legal fight over oil
The legislation shields any person or entity from civil or criminal liabilities tied to planet-warming emissions unless a court finds a defendant violated a specific “enforceable limitation” on greenhouse gas pollution or the express terms of a valid permit. Even then, challengers must provide clear and convincing evidence that unavoidable and identifiable damage or injury has resulted, or will result, directly from that violation.
Critics say that standard will make successful lawsuits extremely difficult. Utah’s HB 222 was sponsored by Republican Representative Carl Albrecht, who has received some funding from oil and gas interests and previously served as CEO of a rural electric cooperative. Democratic Utah state Senator Nate Blouin, who opposed the bill, said it passed quickly and without much discussion. He added that the cooperative Albrecht led was substantially powered by fossil fuels and that Albrecht has used his industry background to push similar legislation.
Critics call it a surrender
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the science hub for climate litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “This is a surrender to wealthy special interests and an affront to the public good. ” Merner added that Utah’s new law “prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts and constituents should be outraged. ”
Albrecht did not respond to a request for comment, but said the policy is meant to stop what he called frivolous legal challenges from environmental groups and to protect the state’s coal-fired power plants. He also said industry trade groups gave him the idea for the proposal.
Why this matters beyond Utah
Advocacy groups say Utah’s move comes amid a broader push by big oil and political allies, including groups tied to Leonard Leo, to win legal immunity in red states and in Congress. The effort is being compared by critics to the liability shield granted to the firearms industry in 2005. Four other red states are considering similar laws, with two close to passage, and federal legislation is also being discussed.
Supporters of climate accountability say the stakes are much larger than one state. They argue that if the Utah model spreads, it could reshape the legal battlefield for climate damages and narrow residents’ ability to seek redress from companies they say knew their products would cause harm. The immediate question now is whether other statehouses move next, and whether the push for oil immunity gains further ground. For opponents, the warning is already clear: Utah’s law may be only the first step in a much wider retreat from accountability for oil and gas companies.
