Pelican Institute
Louisiana SPN think tank — Koch, Bradley, Searle, Scaife.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
Since its founding in 2008, the Pelican Institute has been intertwined with the energy industry in terms of governance, finances and the positions it has taken in the legal and policy space. While its marketing to the general public swims in the language of vagueness such as “fairness” and “opportunity” for “consumers,” a look at its history suggests the opposite.
The Louisiana-based Pelican Institute has received extensive financial support from the same overlapping fossil fuel and climate denial funding networks identified throughout this report. IRS filings show the organization received nearly $940,000 from Koch-affiliated organizations —including the Charles G. Koch Foundation, Charles Koch Institute, Stand Together Fellowships, and the Stand Together Trust — along with $464,500 from DonorsTrust, $226,500 from Donors Capital Fund, $400,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, $120,000 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and $95,000 from the Searle Freedom Trust. Together, these grants place the Pelican Institute squarely within the network of organizations funded by the fossil fuel industry and major climate denial foundations.
The Institute's leadership also reflects those connections. President and CEO Daniel Erspamer previously held senior positions at the State Policy Network and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations heavily financed by the Koch network. Americans for Prosperity has spent decades opposing climate regulations, renewable energy standards, and carbon pricing, while the State Policy Network has coordinated state-level campaigns challenging clean energy and environmental policies across the country.
The group’s staff and affiliated fellows also include individuals connected to energy-policy organizations. For example, economic Fellow Vance Ginn is also a fellow at the American Energy Institute.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
Pelican’s pattern of legal and policy activity benefits the oil and gas industry. In 2016, Pelican argued that the Clean Power Plan would do almost nothing to reduce global warming by 2100, and claimed that even eliminating all U.S. carbon emissions would make essentially no difference.
In 2024, Pelican and the Liberty Justice Center challenged the rule on behalf of petitioners, including the Oil & Gas Workers Association to overturn the agency’s climate disclosure rule. Pelican argued that the rule exceeded the SEC’s authority, compelled speech and would burden companies.
Pelican has waged sustained campaigns against Louisiana lawsuits seeking coastal-restoration damages from oil and gas companies. In 2021 and 2022, it called the cases [“frivolous”](Pelican%20has%20waged%20a%20sustained%20campaign%20against%20Louisiana%20lawsuits%20seeking%20coastal-restoration%20damages%20from%20oil%20and%20gas%20companies.%20In%202021%20and%202022,%20it%20called%20the%20cases%20) and argued that they were driving jobs and investment out of Louisiana. In 2025, Pelican announced that it had filed amicus briefs in Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish and Suncor v. Boulder County, describing the cases as “trial-lawyer driven lawfare against American energy production.” After the Supreme Court ruled in 2026 that the case, Chevron v. Plaquemines, could proceed in federal court, Pelican called the coastal cases “meritless lawsuits.” And after a Louisiana jury ordered Chevron to pay approximately $745 million in 2025, Pelican said the judgment meant “hundreds of millions less for energy production, drilling investments and the jobs they create.”
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
The Clean Power Plan would prevent only about 0.018°C of warming by 2100 and that even eliminating all U.S. carbon emissions would make essentially no difference.
Pelican isolates one policy and treats its inability to solve global warming alone as proof that it is worthless. The reality is that combating climate change is a multi-front approach not isolated to one policy. The EPA evaluated the plan based on emissions reductions, public-health benefits, and avoided damages due to climate change. It projected that the Clean Power Plan would reduce power-sector carbon pollution in 2030 by approximately 870 million tons annually, leaving emissions 32 percent below 2005 levels. EPA also estimated that the plan would produce $34 billion to $54 billion in annual climate and public-health benefits in 2030, compared with approximately $8.4 billion in compliance costs.
“The SEC didn’t enact these rules to protect investors’ financial interests – it enacted them to pursue an ideological agenda and influence companies’ decisions to favor that agenda.”
Pelican confuses disclosure with regulation. The SEC rule did not require companies to cut emissions or adopt climate policies. What it did was it required disclosure of financial risks such as storm losses, transition costs, and exposure to climate related regulation. It just gave investors information so they could make their own decisions rather than forcing companies to follow an agenda.