Following City of Oakland v. BP, PLC (9th Cir. 2020) 969 F.3d 895, this decision holds that there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over San Mateo’s public nuisance suit against energy companies for promoting use of their fossil fuels thereby causing global warming and rising sea levels that threatened harm to county property. The county’s state law claims do not raise a substantial federal question sufficient to permit federal question jurisdiction under Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg. (2005) 545 U.S. 308 because they do not any interpretation of a federal statutory or constitutional issue, and any comparable federal common law claim has been displaced by the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act does not, however, completely preempt state law claims of this sort. Federal jurisdiction is not available under the federal enclave doctrine or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act because activities in federal enclaves or on the outer continental shelf have too attenuated a connection to the county’s alleged injuries and its claims. The case was not removable under 28 USC 1442 (federal officer) because the defendants merely supplied the federal government with generally available commercial products and entered into standard oil lease agreements with the federal government which did not require the oil companies to act for the government. The claims were not removable based under 28 USC 1452 (bankruptcy) based on two defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings because the case did not require more than a reading of the plain language of the two bankrupt companies Chapter 11 plans to see the claims against them were barred. Assuming the case falls within a federal court’s admiralty jurisdiction, it is not removable under 28 USC 1333(1) since that statute’s saving to suitors clause prohibits removal of maritime cases that the plaintiff has filed in state court.