Puerto Rico Oil Suit Shows Antitrust’s New Role in Climate Debate

A federal judge earlier this month dismissed a lawsuit filed by 16 municipalities in Puerto Rico seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate-exacerbated destruction of Hurricane Maria, which killed thousands of Puerto Ricans.

Though the plaintiffs plan to appeal their dismissal, it is tragic that Hurricane Maria’s victims won’t—for now—get to have their day in court. Nevertheless, the Puerto Rico case includes an allegation that deserves more attention: that the oil giants committed antitrust violations.

Given that the suit was dismissed based on the judge’s determination that it was untimely—Hurricane Maria occurred in 2017, and the case was filed in 2022, outside of the statute of limitations for the claims—this novel legal claim is worth further consideration.

Municipality of Bayamon v. Exxon was one of dozens of cases targeting the oil industry’s attempts to obscure that fossil fuel products were causing globally catastrophic climate change. Most of these cases focus on harms to consumers from the petroleum industry’s allegedly misleading and false advertising.

But antitrust is a remarkably effective and precise way to frame claims about the fossil fuel industry’s climate change denial, as well as the ongoing strategies that plaintiffs assert the oil giants continue employing to block the clean energy transition to this day.

Antitrust laws protect open thriving markets and prevent collusive incumbent-protection schemes that slow down innovation and freeze technologies in place—the very crux of what oil corporations sought to do by working together to block renewable competitors from challenging their control of the energy market.

Internally, fossil fuel companies were explicit about the goal of suppressing competition. Consider a 1988 memo by a senior public affairs manager at Exxon. It acknowledged that greenhouse gases “cause disproportionate warming of the atmosphere,” that “the principal greenhouse gases are by-products of fossil fuel combustion,” and that “climate models predict a 1.50°C to 4.50°C global temperature increase, depending on the projected growth of fossil fuels.”

The memo then suggested that the industry act to cloud the public’s understanding of this scientific reality by “emphasiz[ing] the uncertainty in scientific conclusions” in order to undermine the “noneconomic development of nonfossil fuel resources.”

The industry also used capture-and-kill tactics to shut down the development of alternative energy technologies before they could challenge fossil fuels. Scientists at Exxon invented the lithium battery in the 1970s. The company began developing electric motors, too. But in the 1980s, Exxon shut down the lithium battery program and other related projects, shelving countless promising patents.

Ed Garvey, a geochemist at Exxon during the 1980s, concluded that the company’s goal was suppression of clean energy development. And it wasn’t just Exxon.

Stanford Ovshinsky, one of the principal inventors of solar energy and the founder of Energy Conversion Devices—which was once the largest producer of flexible solar panels in the world—said of his company’s interactions with Texaco Inc. (now operated by Chevron Corp.) that the industry wanted to “put you out of business, rather than building the business.”

After acquiring a series of solar technology patents, Amoco (now part of BP) engaged in extensive patent infringement lawsuits that may have slowed the technology’s progress. As Exxon’s Ed Garvey put it, “I saw all of that potential there, at least at that point in time, to really solve the problem in many different ways.”

Rather than pursue that potential, the fossil fuel industry seems to have fought market entry of clean energy alternatives.

The publicly available evidence suggests they are still working together to constrain this market. The claims may have shifted—now it’s “wind turbines kill whales” and “solar panels cause cancer” and “natural gas is a climate solution.” But the strategy still appears anticompetitive: Block alternatives to fossil fuels from gaining market share by suppressing consumer demand and shutting down clean energy projects.

Given the overwhelming assault on climate change action by President Donald Trump, and the fossil fuel CEOs supporting his administration, legal action in the courts is one of the most important mechanisms we can use to stop the oil industry’s efforts to maintain their cartel and block a clean energy transition.

Though the latest ruling is bad news for the Puerto Rican municipalities struggling to rebuild from Hurricane Maria, it doesn’t affect the prospect of future climate antitrust suits moving forward. We expect cases brought in a timely manner to succeed—and to hold the oil industry accountable.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Aaron Regunberg is director of the Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project.

Zephyr Teachout is a law professor at Fordham Law School, an author, and an antitrust scholar.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines