WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – Expect plenty of friction when House Democrats on board with President Biden’s green-energy policies get their chance to attack the fossil fuel industry at a hearing on Thursday.
The House Committee on Oversight and Reform already went after companies like Exxon and Chevron on its website, saying the industry “spread denial and doubt about the harm of its products” and blocked clean energy reforms. The committee is chaired by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat.
Five weeks ago, the committee requested documents from Exxon, BP, Chevron and Shell Oil regarding what they knew about climate change and what they said publicly. “To date, all the fossil fuel entities have failed to adequately comply with the Committee’s request," the site says.
Exxon spokesperson Erin McGrath says that isn’t accurate; her company has been in communication with committee staff for months and has cooperated with the documents request, she says.
“ExxonMobil has long acknowledged that climate change is real and poses serious risks,” she said. “In addition to our substantial investments in next generation technologies, ExxonMobil also advocates for responsible climate-related policies.”
The American Petroleum Institute, a trade group that will also be subject to lawmakers' questions at the hearing, says it has already produced thousands of pages in documents.
"We look forward to testifying before them to advance our priorities of pricing carbon, regulating methane and reliably producing American energy," an API spokesperson said.
The hearing comes as Democrats struggle to pass a $3.5 trillion package called the Build Back Better Act. Included in it are benefits for green energy companies and punishments for the fossil fuel industry.
The bill extends and expands tax credits for green energy companies as well as purchasers of electric vehicles while imposing a fee on methane emissions; but it has yet to find favor with a majority of the Senate.
The Oversight Committee will focus on the past, including statements made by Exxon regarding its investments in cleaner energy and statements on the company’s effect on the climate.
“Our public statements about climate change are, and have been, truthful, fact-based, transparent and consistent with the views of the broader, mainstream scientific community at the time,” McGrath said.
“ExxonMobil has contributed to the development of climate science for decades and has made its work publicly available. And as the scientific community’s understanding of climate change developed, ExxonMobil responded accordingly.”
The company is currently defending itself in District of Columbia Superior Court from an advocacy group’s lawsuit claiming it has lied about its investments in cleaner energy. In June, Exxon filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss, arguing “reasonable consumers” can’t be confused about whether it continues to invest in oil and gas.
“The upshot of (plaintiff) Beyond Pesticides’ claim is that any public statement by ExxonMobil concerning investments in emissions-reducing technology is misleading unless ExxonMobil simultaneously references in the same statement its disclosures in other public statements about its continued production of fossil fuels,” the motion says.
“(T)he challenged statements… only reference research and development in emissions-reducing technologies which are not available for purchase.”
Ultimately, the case was suspended when the D.C. Council passed a measure that stayed any lawsuits filed by a public interest organization based on a previous action commenced by the D.C. attorney general.
The Oversight Committee is only the latest group of elected officials to address climate change by attacking the oil and gas industry. Several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits by using both free help from a Michael Bloomberg-funded program and private lawyers working on contingency fees who are hoping to score massive paydays.
Disclosures in the lawsuit filed by Hoboken, N.J., showed a nonprofit is paying up to $483,500 to push that case.
Litigation around the country blaming the industry for climate change has stalled as federal courts determine whether the cases belong there, where defendants prefer, or in state courts, in which plaintiffs have a greater chance of success.
Other cases by state AGs charge Exxon with knowingly deceiving the public through the years about climate change. In Massachusetts, the company is appealing the denial of its motion to dismiss, which focused on a challenge to the Suffolk County court’s jurisdiction over the company.
The company also made the same “reasonable consumer” argument it made in the D.C. case.
“Whether statements made by Exxon would have misled a reasonable consumer or how Exxon’s statements would be understood by a reasonable consumer are questions ill-suited for resolution on a motion to dismiss,” Justice Karen Green wrote June 22.
Also appearing at tomorrow's Oversight hearing will be U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Suzanne Clark. Legal Newsline is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.