ST. PAUL, Minn. (Legal Newsline) - A new report released by Government Accountability Office & Oversight reveals the existence of an extensive, coordinated campaign to promote climate change litigation between Attorney General Ellison's office, University of Minnesota faculty, activist organizations, and affluent donors.
AG Ellison filed suit against Exxon Mobil and several other major energy companies in June 2020 with the assistance of outside lawyers funded by Michael Bloomberg through NYU's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center (SEEIC). The lawsuit alleges that the companies took part in public relations campaigns that undermined the science of climate change and therefore violated state law.
Emails published in the GAO's report, however, suggest an even deeper layer of coordination with well-funded activists to bring Ellison's suit.
According to the documents, University of Minnesota professor Alexandra B. Klass played a key role in helping to coordinate the case. A memo that formed the legal basis for Ellison's suit, purportedly authored by Klass and several students, was actually co-written and funded in large part by environmental activists and donors outside of Minnesota, the emails reveal.
The communication was first obtained by the transparency group Energy Policy Advocates and linked on its website Climate Litigation Watch.
Doug Seaton, founder and president of the nonprofit, public interest Upper Midwest Law Center, believes that climate activists are deliberately pushing to have these cases heard in states with left-leaning attorneys general and judges because they will likely be less successful in federal jurisdictions.
"Typically, these AGs are in relatively liberal states, and they're bringing these [cases] in court systems that are often dominated by judges who have been appointed by Democrats. So they expect to face a sympathetic hearing," Seaton told Legal Newsline. “In the case of AG Ellison, for example, he's got 200 lawyers who are in state courts all the time. There's more exposure, more familiarity, more leverage, more authority, I guess you might say, for the AG in those courts.”
The concept of initiating a series of state climate lawsuits originated in New York under the leadership of Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, as reported by the New York Post and other organizations.
Wasserman also played a critical role in Minnesota's litigation, connecting activist lawyers with local climate change activists like Michael Noble—head of the Minnesota-based organization Fresh Energy—who served as a local front for the project.
According to its website, Fresh Energy's mission is to "shape and drive bold policy solutions to achieve equitable carbon-neutral economies" with a focus on "speeding Minnesota's transition" to clean energy.
On April 19, 2019, Fresh Energy sent Ellison a nearly 50-page long document titled "Potential Lawsuit against Fossil Fuel Companies for Minnesota Climate Change Damages," which encouraged legal action against energy companies.
Noble had reached out to law professor Klass, who was ultimately credited with authoring the legal memo. However, records show that the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), an outside activist organization based in Washington, D.C, was actually responsible for much of the content in the memo.
In one email to professor Klass during the creation of the memo, Noble stated that "They [CCI] are editing our other docs too."
Records also show that during the same time frame, in June 2019, CCI representatives and a Rockefeller consultant named Rick Reed were actively engaged in efforts to secure financial contributions from wealthy donors to underwrite the campaign to pursue the case against Big Oil.
The group went to extensive lengths to ensure that neither the Rockefeller Family Fund nor CCI would have their names attached to the memo outlining the lawsuit.
Publicly available information also shows that the University of Minnesota hired four graduate students to work on the memo alongside professor Klass. The students were funded by Fresh Energy—but the payments would be filtered through the university.
In one email sent to Noble on Dec. 30, 2018, Klass wrote, “It would be helpful to have funding to pay a couple of law student research assistants to help with some of the work, both an initial memo and any follow up. Let me know if that is an option."
Noble replies, "Yes we have funding and we can write a simple contract."
About a week later, on Jan. 8, Noble sent another email to Fresh Energy's Chief Operations and Finance Officer Ellen Palmer, stating, "[Klass] strongly agrees that there shouldn't be Fresh Energy funding law students direct."
Ellison’s critics, including Seaton, argue that the widespread lack of transparency surrounding so many elements of the Big Oil litigation is deeply concerning.
“What you can tell from the email trail is that there was a very contorted and contrived method of putting together this so-called ‘academic background’ to these issues. And, of course, they're hiding the funding for it, and it makes it suspicious that they would do that. Why would they do that unless they knew that this would be potentially scrutinized?" Seaton said. "They didn't realize we would be able to see ultimately the whole trail of communications leading to this.”
Professor Klass did not respond to requests for comment.
According to another series of emails published in the report, the finalized version of the legal memo was delivered to members of the newly-elected AG Ellison's staff, who coordinated with climate activists to convince Ellison to file the Big Oil suit.
Ellison hired two privately funded attorneys, Leigh Currie and Peter Surdo, to assist with the case. Records show that the lawyers, who were given the title "Special Assistant Attorneys General” (SAAG), were paid for by Bloomberg Philanthropies. The SAAGs were provided to “advance progressive clean energy, climate change, and environmental legal positions," according to a Secondment Agreement dated May 24, 2019.
Ellison's lawsuit was initially filed in Ramsey County state court and was later removed to federal court. On March 31, the case was remanded by Chief District Judge John R. Runheim to state court, where it remains pending.
As previously reported, when reached for comment, AG Ellison's office denied any impropriety in hiring Currie and Surdo, stating that the attorneys "were not privately hired." The office pointed to a statement Ellison made in February, in which he argued that he has “always been transparent about the money that pays the salaries of employees in the Attorney General's Office.”
Seaton, however, argues that there are valid reasons for the public to be concerned, not only about AG Ellison’s lack of transparency regarding the hiring of the SAAGs but also about the efforts to cover up the origins of the case.
“There is definitely an effort to achieve funding for this research and drafting to be done and then to hide the tracks as to where it's coming from. It's pretty clear... it's a nationally orchestrated strategy of bringing these types of cases,” said Seaton.