In the final weeks of 2022, the House Oversight Committee, under the previous Democratic leadership, concluded a 14-month investigation into whether energy companies misled the public about the impacts of oil and gas on the global climate.

After multiple hearings, cross-examination by committee members of energy company executives, and a review of millions of pages of documents, the committee was unable to uncover evidence of wrongdoing. The lessons learned from this investigation are relevant for numerous state and municipal climate lawsuits underway in the courts.

There are more than two dozen cases by state and local governments seeking to hold energy companies liable for the effects of climate change and alleging deception about the impact of carbon emissions on climate change. Contemporaneous government investigations often provide momentum and evidence to private litigation to aid plaintiffs, but in this case, it may do the opposite. Even the Washington Post recounted how the House Oversight investigation fell flat. Their December news report noted, "while many of the committee’s findings were already widely known — often highlighting decisions oil companies have for years made publicly to keep oil production a fundamental part of their business plans — the report details their determination to keep natural gas as a key part of the world’s energy mix."

While the House Oversight investigation failed to find any evidence of fraud, it succeeded in establishing how energy companies are increasing their reliance on less carbon-intensive natural gas to reduce emissions. At most, they found some internal debate over whether emissions targets could reasonably be achieved or whether alternative energy would live up to its promise, reflecting debates that are ongoing in the alternative energy communities themselves. No evidence was found to support a conspiracy to deceive the public. The "smoking gun" evidence was not found, the "Perry Mason" moment never happened.

A number of cases from coast to coast — including Honolulu and Santa Cruz to Minnesota and Rhode Island — have brought similar arguments alleging so-called deceptive marketing practices and advancing "misinformation" on the connection between energy production and climate change. For example, a suit filed by the New Jersey attorney general in October alleges that the largest five American energy companies and their leading trade association intentionally misled the public about the impact of their work on climate change. The suit even went so far as to claim that New Jersey was duped into consuming oil and gas products for years and that production and energy use contributed to Superstorm Sandy ten years ago. Needless to say, linking a specific company's emissions to a single hurricane is an evidentiary hurdle that is unlikely to succeed; the House investigation doesn't help the cause.

Meeting the evidentiary burden in these cases will require not merely proving the macro impact of human carbon emissions on global climate change, as difficult as that is, but will require evidence granularly linking particular defendants to particular impacts on plaintiffs. The House Oversight Committee investigated this question for over a year only to come up with nothing. A picture of the Greek myth of Sisyphus struggling to push a boulder up a hill for eternity comes to mind. The House Oversight hearings and the committee’s final report appear to nudge the boulder back down the hill again for poor Sisyphus.

The House Oversight Committee report’s conclusions could certainly be relitigated. Yet it would not be surprising to see filings by the energy companies start citing the fact that an intense investigation into the allegations made by plaintiffs, put forward by a Congressional Oversight Committee, resulted in no determination of wrongdoing. In the energy exploration business, a "dry hole" is an exploratory well incapable of generating sufficient oil to justify continued exploration. The House Oversight Committee’s report suggests it may be time for plaintiffs and state attorneys general to put a cap on the well exploring a fraud theory against oil companies and move on to drill elsewhere.

J.W. Verret ( @JWVerret ) is an associate professor at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School.