Wave of overlooked ‘left-wing’ lawsuits could come with an unexpected price tag for Americans

FIRST ON FOX: American households could end up paying $1,465 more per year on average in energy costs if “anti-energy” climate lawsuits against oil and gas companies are successful, according to a new report first obtained by Fox News Digital.

Americans will “pay a lot more” if the far-left “get their way,” warned Heritage Foundation chief economist E.J Antoni, who co-authored the report with Power The Future founder Daniel Turner.

Hundreds of lawsuits and other state-level “climate superfund” laws could increase the cost of gasoline, electricity and other everyday necessities Americans rely on, the report estimates.

SUPREME COURT CAN RESTORE SANITY AND STOP THE LEFT’S RADICAL CLIMATE AGENDA

The new analysis, obtained by Fox News Digital, comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a closely-watched lawsuit next month out of Boulder, Colorado, which could drastically shape the future of climate litigation.

“If those folks on the radical left wing who are anti-energy, if they get their way, your costs are going to go up,” Antoni told Fox News Digital. “Your household is going to pay a lot more. The energy is going to get much more expensive.”

“You may think it’s bad now, but it will get significantly worse,” he added.

The report estimates energy companies could face an additional $194 billion in annual costs, which the authors argue would ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher prices rather than absorbed entirely by companies or their shareholders.

Those costs could add roughly 41 cents to a gallon of gasoline and increase residential electricity rates by about 8.6%, according to the analysis.

“Every single time a company is sued, yes, they pay some damages, but ultimately they will just charge people more for their product to recoup those losses,” Turner told Fox News Digital.

LAWSUITS COST EVERY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. SUPREME COURT CAN HELP

The report examined more than 300 pending lawsuits, three state “climate superfund” laws, 12 state legislative proposals and one federal bill. Its estimate reflects a “full-success scenario” in which all of those measures prevail; it does not predict that they will.

The analysis counted each lawsuit only once and excluded duplicate filings. In fact, Antoni said the estimate may be conservative because some lawsuits do not specify the damages they are seeking, leaving potential court awards open-ended.

The legal efforts include New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, which was blocked by a federal judge in August, and the Supreme Court’s pending Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County case.

That case could determine whether state and local governments can pursue climate lawsuits against fossil fuel companies in state court.

GAVIN NEWSOM’S ‘HIDDEN CLIMATE TAX’ HITTING AMERICANS NATIONWIDE, LAWMAKER WARNS

Turner argued the lawsuits could also shift responsibility away from state and local leaders.

“The concern about these superfund lawsuits is that they absolve elected leaders from doing the bad, boring part of governing, which is infrastructure and mitigation strategies,” he said.

Despite the rise in climate lawsuits and state “superfund” laws, Antoni said the issue has largely flown under the radar.

“It really is important that we start ringing the alarm bells now before these things actually come to pass and American families have to foot the bill for it,” he said.