Chevron, BP to Argue Climate Change Appeals Before Same Panel

Chevron Corp., BP PLC, and other fossil fuel companies will get a chance to argue before a single panel of Ninth Circuit judges that several climate change suits should be litigated in federal court.

If the Ninth Circuit accepts the oil companies’ argument that federal law must be used to decide the cases, then the suits, filed by a number of California counties and cities, will likely continue in federal, rather than state, court.

The three-judge panel has yet to be assigned, but the five appeals will be kept together “to the extent practicable” on that panel’s roster on the next available calendar, according to a July 17 order. The order isn’t one to consolidate the cases into a single proceeding, but rather aims to minimize the risk of different rulings from different panels of the court, it said.

The facts, defendants, and legal arguments in all five appeals are nearly identical, the oil companies argued in their July 1 motion in support.

Several California cities and counties say the oil companies should be held liable because their production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels have caused significant climate change-related infrastructure and environmental damage. Those municipalities include the cities of Imperial Beach, Oakland, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz, and the counties of San Mateo and Marin.

ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell are other oil companies named as defendants in the lawsuits.

Oakland and San Francisco are separately appealing a federal judge’s determination that those two cities’ suits shouldn’t proceed at all because the issues raised in the cases are for legislators, not judges, to decide.

The cases are: Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 9th Cir., No. 18-15499; Cty. of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp., 9th Cir., No. 18-15502; Cnty. of Marin v. Chevron Corp., 9th Cir., No. 18-15503; Cty. of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., 9th Cir., No. 18-16376; and Cty. of Oakland v. BP PLC, 9th Cir., No. 18-16663.