Energy companies win dismissal of Baltimore's climate change case
By Nate Raymond
July 11 (Reuters) -A Maryland judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold energy giants such as Exxon MobilXOM.N, BPBP.L and ChevronCVX.N responsible for climate change, saying the case went beyond the limits of state law by trying to address the effects of gas emissions globally.
Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Videtta Brown's decision marked the first time that a state court judge has dismissed one of the myriad of lawsuits nationally by state or local governments accusing the companies of concealing from the public the dangers of using their fossil fuel products.
The lawsuit accused the companies of engaging in a sophisticated campaign to deceive the public about the dangers of their fossil-fuel products, which contribute to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change.
"There is no question that global warming and climate change are wreaking havoc on our environment," Brown wrote.
But the judge said Congress never intended for lawsuits about global pollution to be handled by individual states, and that the city's 2018 lawsuit raised questions concerning out-of-state emissions that were beyond the reach of Maryland law.
For years, the energy companies had fought to avoid litigating Baltimore's lawsuit in state court, where it was first filed, even taking the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, before federal courts sent the case back to state court.
But Brown said only federal law can govern claims over such emissions. She called Baltimore's contention that it was suing under state law only over allegedly deceptive fossil fuel marketing "a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door."
Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, in a statement said the ruling "recognizes that climate policy cannot be advanced by the unconstitutional application of state law to regulate global emissions."
Sara Gross, the chief of the affirmative litigation division in the Baltimore City Department of Law, in a statement said the city disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal.
State courts are often seen as more advantageous for plaintiffs than federal court. State court judges in other parts of the country including Hawaii, Massachusetts and Colorado have allowed similar cases to move forward.
Some cases, though, have been dismissed by federal courts, including one by New York City in a 2021 ruling whose rationale Brown followed in dismissing Baltimore's case.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a bid by oil companies to scuttle a similar lawsuit by Honolulu.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Diane Craft
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
