Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court is scheduled to hear arguments Oct. 14 in Bucks County’s appeal of a decision dismissing its climate lawsuit against major energy companies, a case that manufacturing groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are urging the court to leave dismissed.
The original case, Bucks County v. BP America Inc., filed in March 2024, centers on the county’s effort to hold 14 energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute financially liable for climate change impacts allegedly linked to a decades-long disinformation campaign about fossil fuels.
The Bucks County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in May 2025, finding that federal law preempted the county’s claims. Bucks County filed a June 2025 notice of appeal challenging that decision.
“For nearly a decade, climate activists and local governments have tested whether state courtrooms can become a back door for national climate policy. What began with a wave of municipal lawsuits in California in 2017 has spread across the country, carried by outside activists and contingency-fee lawyers who supply the theory, the filings and the press strategy,” David Taylor, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association (PMA), wrote in a Sept. 24 opinion piece for the Bucks County Herald.
“Bucks County became the first Pennsylvania jurisdiction to join that coordinated campaign in 2024 — and, so far, the only one willing to keep paying for it after a judge told them it wouldn’t work,” Taylor added.
According to Bucks County’s complaint, the defendants engaged in a campaign designed to discredit climate science, create doubt about the effects of burning fossil fuels, and delay the transition to a low-carbon future. The county alleged that the campaign contributed to increased emissions, accelerated global warming, and caused devastating climate impacts in Bucks County.
The lower court concluded that the lawsuit’s claims fell outside the authority of Pennsylvania courts because they were preempted by federal law.
According to a May 29, 2025 blog posted by Bala Cynwyd, Pa.-based environmental and energy law firm Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox LLP, the court recognized that Bucks County had framed its complaint around alleged deceptive practices rather than harm directly caused by air emissions.
However, the court determined that the core of the complaint concerned severe weather allegedly caused by the defendants’ contributions to climate change, the firm said, and the court reasoned that without emissions, the alleged deceptive conduct would not have directly harmed the county.
It dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding that federal law prevented the county from pursuing its claims under state law.
Manufacturers support dismissal
PMA and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) filed an April 15 joint amicus curiae brief in support of the energy companies and other appellees, asking the Commonwealth Court to affirm the lower court’s decision.
“It is worth remembering what has actually reduced emissions in this state,” PMA’s Taylor says. “Pennsylvania’s energy sector, anchored by the Marcellus Shale, has helped reduce carbon emissions from our power sector by 46 percent since 2005 while keeping the lights on and the furnaces running. That progress came from production and technology, not from litigation and mandates.”
In their filing, PMA and NAM acknowledged the importance of addressing climate change but argued that state lawsuits seeking damages for global climate impacts are not the appropriate way to establish climate policy.
“Climate change is one of the most important public policy issues of our time, and both the NAM and PMA support efforts to address climate change and improve public health through appropriate laws and regulations,” the brief says.
The associations said developing technologies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, improve energy efficiency, and adapt infrastructure to climate change has become an international priority.
However, they argued that imposing liability under state law for the worldwide production, sale, and promotion of energy products would not achieve those goals.
“The Court of Common Pleas properly recognized in this case that, regardless of how pleaded or framed, claims seeking redress for harms caused by climate change from interstate and international emissions go beyond the limits of Pennsylvania law,” said NAM and PMA.
The groups also argued that Pennsylvania cannot impose liability for fossil fuel production, promotion, and use beyond its borders, and they urged the court to find that the county had failed to state a valid cause of action under Pennsylvania law.
U.S. Chamber calls for federal policy
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed an amicus brief April 15, pointing out that climate change policy should be established at the federal level rather than through individual state court cases.
“Durable climate change policy must be made by the federal government, which should encourage innovation and investment to reduce emissions and improve economic resilience and clean energy deployment across the globe,” according to the chamber’s brief.
The organization argued that climate change crosses state and national borders and requires a coordinated response, rather than separate lawsuits based on different state laws.
“Governmental policies aimed at achieving these goals should not be made by the courts, much less by a patchwork of actions under state law that would do more harm than good,” the chamber says.
Additionally, the chamber said that claims seeking to impose liability for climate change should be governed by federal law because of the interstate and international nature of GHG emissions.
“The cross-border nature of climate change implicates ‘uniquely federal interests’ for which a uniform federal policy and the application of federal law are essential,” the brief states.
The chamber said it and its members have an interest in ensuring that cases requiring uniform national standards are governed by federal law rather than a collection of state laws applied separately.
The Commonwealth Court’s review will address whether federal law — including federal common law, the Clean Air Act, or the constitutional structure of government — preempts Bucks County’s state-law claims seeking liability for harms allegedly resulting from global climate change.
The Court of Common Pleas found that the claims were preempted, a ruling that the manufacturing associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce want upheld.