Chevron, others, win New York case on climate change
Chevron is better served by taking the energy transition seriously than fighting climate change cases in court, the company said April 1 after a lawsuit against it and other energy producers was dismissed.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled a case filed by the City of New York on climate change lacked merit. In a case enveloping BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell, the court ruled that regulating greenhouse gas emissions is a matter for federal and international decisions.
“First, global warming is a uniquely international concern that touches upon issues of federalism and foreign policy,” the ruling read. “As a result, it calls for the application of federal common law, not state law.”
Chevron general counsel R. Hewitt Pate said the ruling was in line with established precedent, adding there were better ways to pressure oil and gas companies on climate issues.
“Chevron is accelerating its work on today’s energy transition, while continuing to supply oil and natural gas that remains essential for people around the world,” he said. “We believe that working with the new US administration, other governments, and other honest stakeholders on constructive global solutions is a better path than meritless, cynical, and wasteful litigation.”
Chevron promised investors on March 9 to expect higher returns and a lower carbon footprint from the US supermajor.
The company said it exceeded its 2023 upstream carbon intensity reduction target three years early and announced tougher targets for 2028. It wanted to lower its greenhouse gas intensity for oil and gas by 35% versus the 2016 to 24 kg CO2 equivalent/barrel of oil equivalent (boe), cut overall flaring intensity by 65% to 3 kg CO2e/boe and methane intensity by 50% to 2 kg CO2e/boe.
Chevron expects to invest over $3bn in its energy transition strategy in the coming years.
None of the other companies named in the lawsuit had comments available on the ruling.
The case is the City of New York v. Chevron et al, #18-2188.