Concerns Over Boulder Lawsuit’s Impact on Texas Energy
Last year, the oil and gas sector contributed nearly $30 billion in benefits throughout Texas—covering everything from school funding to property tax relief. It’s quite fascinating when you think about it, yet most people probably don’t. However, all of this could be jeopardized next month by a lawsuit originating from Boulder, Colorado. Having spent eight years in the Texas House, primarily focusing on energy and environmental issues, I haven’t encountered a case with so much at stake for everyday Texans.
The upcoming Supreme Court case, Suncor Energy v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, is set to be heard on October 5. It’s centered on whether Colorado tort law can hold American energy companies accountable for the global impact of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. While it’s been depicted as a clash between Big Oil and climate advocates in the news, fundamentally, it’s really about whether Boulder should dictate energy policy not just for Texas, but for every state.
First, let’s consider what the oil and gas industry provides for Texas, which is among the most affordable states in the nation. Just in 2025, oil and gas activities generated about $27 billion in state and local taxes and royalties. The industry directly employs over 440,000 Texans, offering an average salary of $115,000—almost double that of other private-sector jobs. Altogether, the energy supply chain employs over 1.4 million Texans.
Severance taxes, which are paid by energy companies when they extract natural resources, recently filled Texas’ Economic Stabilization Fund to its constitutional limit. The surplus funds now support essential services like water infrastructure and broadband, in addition to property tax relief. The Permanent School Fund and the Permanent University Fund each benefited from over $2 billion from Texas energy in just one year. So, when people wonder about the contributions of oil and gas to Texas, the answer is an overwhelming “just about everything.”
Now, think about what Boulder’s lawsuit could jeopardize. Texas crude oil production reached an impressive 1.73 billion barrels in 2024, while natural gas production hit 12.62 trillion cubic feet, and this was achieved with 65 percent fewer active rigs compared to a decade ago. The advancements came from significant investments in drilling efficiency and technology, as well as the critical pipelines transporting Permian gas to Gulf Coast LNG terminals. But now, any company considering investing another billion dollars in Texas production faces a new risk—suits could arise from over 90,000 local governments across the nation, not just Boulder. This uncertainty creates a higher cost of capital, slows development, and ultimately means fewer jobs and tax revenues for Texans.
Earlier this year, Texas joined 15 other states in submitting an amicus brief that warned Boulder’s lawsuit “threatens to let a single State’s judiciary set climate change policy for other States.” This could create a confusing patchwork of “vague and conflicting rules” across the country, undermining what the brief refers to as the “coequal sovereignty of each State to regulate emissions within their respective borders.” States like Wyoming, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Louisiana are equally concerned.
If Boulder’s lawsuit prevails, it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits from numerous progressive jurisdictions, impacting not only Colorado but also devastating the economies of energy-producing states like Texas. The affordability of energy could be at serious risk.
The critical question for the Supreme Court isn’t about the reality of climate change. Instead, it’s whether a single county in Colorado can dictate energy policy for far-off states like Texas. After observing the industry’s developments in our state for eight years, I sincerely hope the justices conclude that Boulder—and all other out-of-state plaintiffs—should not have a say in the future of Texas energy.
