Michigan Accuses Major Oil Firms of Decades-Long Conspiracy to Stifle Clean Energy

2026-01-26 politics

Lansing, Sunday, 25 January 2026.
Michigan filed a landmark antitrust lawsuit accusing oil majors of a “cartel” strategy dating back to 1979, allegedly burying hybrid technology to suppress competition and inflate consumer energy costs.

Legal Action Targeting Industry Giants

On Friday, January 23, 2026, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel formally filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan against major energy corporations, including BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute (API) [1][3][5]. The 126-page complaint accuses these entities of operating as a “cartel” to actively suppress the development of clean energy technologies and electric vehicles (EVs) [1][3]. Nessel alleges that this collusion, intended to maintain the dominance of fossil fuels, has artificially inflated transportation and home energy costs for consumers while impeding the state’s climate goals [1][2].

A History of Shelved Innovation

Central to the Attorney General’s argument is a timeline of alleged suppression dating back to 1979, a period when internal industry research reportedly predicted that renewable energy would become a competitive threat to fossil fuels [1][3]. The complaint details that by the late 1970s, Exxon had already developed hybrid gas-electric vehicle technologies, even showcasing an electric motor in a Chrysler Cordoba in 1978 and partnering with Toyota to develop a hybrid prototype using a Cressida chassis in 1979 [3][4]. Despite these advancements, the suit claims Exxon never marketed the technology and consistently deferred meaningful investment in battery development [3][4].

Economic Fallout and Political Headwinds

Attorney General Nessel has framed the lawsuit as a critical response to an “energy affordability crisis,” asserting that skyrocketing costs are not the result of natural economic inflation but rather corporate greed [1][2]. The state is seeking unspecified financial damages, civil penalties, and the forfeiture of profits derived from the alleged conspiracy [1][2]. Nessel emphasizes that the litigation is about “accountability as well as affordability,” aiming to recoup costs imposed on Michigan residents due to the delayed transition to cheaper energy alternatives [5].

Industry Defense

The defendants have swiftly rejected the allegations, characterizing the lawsuit as politically motivated. Ryan Meyers, Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, described the filing as part of a “coordinated campaign” against an industry that drives the American economy and is actively reducing emissions [1][2]. Meyers further argued that energy policy should be determined by Congress rather than a “patchwork of courtrooms” [1][5]. Similarly, legal representatives for Chevron dismissed the claims as “baseless,” noting that the lawsuit ignores Michigan’s heavy reliance on oil and gas to support its automotive sector and workforce [3].

Sources

Antitrust Litigation Energy Transition