U.S. states signed pact to keep Exxon
climate probe confidential
Send a link to a friend
[August 04, 2016]
By Terry Wade
HOUSTON (Reuters) - A pact that 15 U.S.
states signed to jointly investigate Exxon Mobil Corp for allegedly
misleading the public about climate change sought to keep prosecutors'
deliberations confidential and was broadly written so they could probe
other fossil fuel companies.
The "Climate Change Coalition Common Interest Agreement" was signed by
state attorneys general in May, two months after they held a press
conference to say they would go after Exxon, the world's largest
publicly-traded oil and gas company, and possibly other companies.
The signed agreement has not been made public until now, and Reuters
reviewed a copy of it on Thursday.
It provides considerably more detail about the prosecutors' legal
strategy than the general outline provided at their announcement in
March, which was headlined by former Vice President Al Gore.
In a nod to the politically charged nature of the inquiry, which quickly
spilled over into Congress and corporate shareholders meetings, the pact
says signatories of the agreement should keep discussions private and
"refuse to disclose any shared information unless required by law."
Besides Exxon, the agreement says other entities could be targeted if
states felt they were delaying action to fight climate change.
The pact says the states may take legal action to "defend Federal
greenhouse gas emissions limits" and open investigations of "possible
illegal conduct to limit or delay the implementation and deployment of
renewable energy technology."
It also ponders "investigations of representations made by companies to
investors, consumers and the public regarding fossil fuels, renewable
energy and climate change."
After numerous filings under sunshine laws, a copy of the agreement was
obtained by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a free-market
think tank. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose website says it
opposes U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse
gas emissions, had also sought the documents.
"This is far less a proper common interest agreement than a sweeping
cloak of secrecy," said Chris Horner, a lawyer who represents the Energy
& Environment Legal Institute.
The attorneys general, as previously reported, received guidance from
well-known climate scientists and environmental lawyers before
announcing the Exxon probe.
Critics have called this a sign of meddling by special interests, though
prosecutors' offices have made clear climate change is a top concern of
voters.
New York state's attorney's general office said confidentiality
agreements are used often.
[to top of second column] |
A view of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas September 15,
2008. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi
"Entering into a common interest agreement is routine practice
during a multistate investigation. These agreements preserve the
confidentiality of non-public information shared among state law
enforcement officials," the office told Reuters.
Exxon, which has said that it has acknowledged the reality of
climate change for years, has called subpoenas stemming from the
inquiry unreasonable. It has also said it is being unfairly targeted
by climate activists.
The company, which supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax, declined
to comment.
A U.S. House of Representatives committee last month issued
subpoenas to the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts
over their investigations of whether Exxon misled investors on
climate change risks. The two state officials said they would refuse
to comply with the subpoenas, with one calling it "unconstitutional
and unwarranted" interference.
In a bid to try to force action on climate change, the state
attorneys general said in March they would jointly investigate
whether Exxon executives misled the public by contradicting research
from company scientists that spelled out the threats of global
warming.
A pact was signed in May and included California, Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
But only a couple formal inquiries have started. In June, the Virgin
Islands withdrew its subpoena after Exxon called it overly
burdensome and raised questions about jurisdiction.
(Reporting by Terry Wade; Editing by Leslie Adler)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
|