Judge Demands More Information from Oil Companies in Climate-Change Suits
May 24 2018 - 6:47PM
Dow Jones News
By Alejandro Lazo and Miguel Bustillo
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge on Thursday said he needed more
information before deciding whether to dismiss lawsuits by San
Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world's largest oil
companies should pay to protect the cities' residents from the
impacts of climate change.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup asked the oil companies and
the cities to narrow their arguments regarding the merits of the
suit. The judge also asked the companies to produce additional
material backing up claims by some that they shouldn't be a part of
the case because the court lacked jurisdiction over them.
The suits allege that the companies -- Exxon Mobil Corp.,
Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC and ConocoPhillips --
created a public nuisance by producing fossil fuels they knew would
result in harmful emissions.
San Francisco and Oakland are seeking to force the companies to
pay for infrastructure, such as sea walls, that they expect to need
due to rising sea levels and other changes linked to warming global
temperatures. The cities haven't specified how much they are
seeking, but have said the costs could run into the billions of
dollars.
Several other U.S. cities and counties have filed similar
lawsuits targeting oil companies, including New York City, King
County, Wash., and Boulder, Colo. So far, none of the lawsuits has
advanced to trial, and Thursday's hearing means it will be months
before a judge decides whether the San Francisco and Oakland case
warrants a trial.
Lawyers for the oil companies have sought to dismiss the suits
by San Francisco and Oakland, arguing among other things that they
were premised on an overreaching interpretation of public-nuisance
law. They also have argued that Congress has given the
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate pollution
effects under the Clean Air Act, and that the cases impinged on the
agency's powers.
During the three-hour hearing, Judge Alsup cited the beneficial
role oil and gas production had played in the development of the
U.S. But he also said he remained open to the idea that, given
society continues to reap the benefits of that activity, some
damages may have to be paid considering the potential harm of
climate change. He asked both sides to explore the matter further
in separate briefs.
"You lived through the same period I did, and you understand how
dependent our nation has been on oil," said the judge, addressing
an attorney representing the cities.
Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a lawyer
representing Chevron, argued the cities were asking the court to
create "a new regime to regulate oil and gas production around the
U.S. and around the world."
"That is, to say the least, a big ask," Mr. Boutrous said.
The two sides have argued over the relative importance of a case
that provides the closest parallel to what the cities are alleging.
The case, known as AEP v. Connecticut, involved a coalition of
states that sought to compel coal-burning electric utilities to
reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, arguing they were a public
nuisance.
That case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in a 8-0
decision in 2011 that the utility companies couldn't be sued under
federal common law because the Clean Air Act gave the authority
over greenhouse-gas emissions to the EPA.
"The law of nuisance has been around forever and it has
responded to changes," Steve Berman, an attorney representing
Oakland and San Francisco, said during Thursday's hearing. "We are
not doing something that is as novel as the defense claims."
Lawyers for the oil companies earlier persuaded Judge Alsup that
the San Francisco and Oakland cases, filed last year in state
court, belonged in federal court.
The Trump administration earlier this month filed a
friend-of-the-court brief siding with the oil companies seeking to
dismiss the San Francisco and Oakland cases. Three states --
California, New Jersey and Washington -- have filed briefs siding
with the cities, while 15 states, including Indiana, Texas and
Colorado, have filed briefs siding with the oil companies.
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
May 24, 2018 18:32 ET (22:32 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2018 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024