Energy Cos. Escape Pa. County’s Climate Change Suit

Article

Law360 (May 19, 2025, 4:34 PM EDT) A Pennsylvania state judge threw out Bucks County’s Big-Tobacco style lawsuit against 14 oil companies, concluding that neither Pennsylvania law nor any state law can address the greenhouse gas emissions-related claims raised in the county’s complaint. 

Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Judge Stephen A. Corr said in an 18-page order Friday 

that “there is no question that emissions are the sole province of the federal government” through the Clean Air Act and Environmental Protection Agency regulations that flow from it. 

“Because we find the causes of action set forth in the complaint are so intertwined with emissions, we conclude that we have no subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised,” the judge said. 

According to the judge, Bucks County filed its complaint against the oil companies, which include BP and Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute in March 2024, approximately two months after the Bucks County Commissioners used their consent agenda to notify residents that the county was hiring a law firm to handle environmental litigation. The consent agenda is generally used as an efficiency tool to move forward noncontroversial or routine agency business. 

In its complaint, the county accused them of engaging in a decades-long disinformation campaign aimed at downplaying the environmental dangers of fossil fuel use, much like big tobacco companies hid the health risks of smoking cigarettes. In doing so, the companies and API boosted greenhouse gas emissions and sped up global warming, which led to devastating climate change impacts, the county said. 

The oil companies and API responded by arguing that Bucks County lacks the ability to sue because the county commissioners violated Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act by failing to approve the filing of the county’s lawsuit at an open public meeting. 

Although Judge Corr said Friday that he disagreed with this argument, finding that the commissioners met the letter of the Sunshine Act and did not commit a direct violation of the law, he reiterated his concern about the manner in which the commissioners went about hiring counsel and filing this lawsuit. 

“While we have found no appellate authority prohibiting governing bodies from employing a ‘consent agenda’ at a public meeting, it appears to this court that the use of a ‘consent agenda’ has a chilling effect on the public discourse with respect to items contained in that portion of the agenda,” Judge Corr said. 

The particular agenda item authorizing the county solicitor to enter into a legal services agreement to evaluate and litigate potential environmental claims on behalf of the county was buried among 17 other items, some with multiple sub-items, the judge said. The agenda items also provided the public with “such little information that the average citizen attending the meeting would be hard-pressed to formulate an intelligent question to ask,” the judge said. 

Judge Corr, as a result, said that he believes the commissioners’ conduct “violated the spirit of the Sunshine Act by burying the resolution to retain current counsel and pursue this lawsuit within the ‘consent agenda.'” 

Although their first jurisdictional argument failed, the oil companies and API further asserted that Bucks County failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because Pennsylvania state law cannot be applied to claims dealing with air in its ambient and interstate aspects. 

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in American Electric Power Co. Inc. v. Connecticut, in which eight states, New York City and three land trusts sued electric power corporations seeking abatement of their ongoing contributions to global warming, Judge Corr said the justices pointed out that “traditionally, environmental protection cases fell within the federal common law.” 

“We believe the holding of the Supreme Court in AEP applies equally to the case at bar, i.e., the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displaces any Pennsylvania common law right to seek abatement of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel production companies,” Judge Corr said. 

While Bucks County argues that its case doesn’t seek to regulate or abate greenhouse gas emissions, the judge said “artful pleading cannot transform [Bucks County’s] complaint into anything other than a suit over global greenhouse gas emissions,“” citing the Second Circuit’s 2021 decision in City of New York v. BP PLC, which affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a similar lawsuit brought by New York City. 

In response to the judge’s decision, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, counsel for Chevron Corporation, told Law360 in a statement Monday that it “joins the ‘growing chorus of state and federal courts across the United States, singing from the same hymnal,’ concluding [that] ‘our federal structure does not allow Pennsylvania law, or any state’s law, to address‘ climate change lawsuits. 

“The court also got it right when it expressed ‘concern[ ] about the manner in which the commissioners went about hiring counsel and filing this lawsuit,‘ and found that ‘the conduct of the commissioners violated the spirit of’ Pennsylvania’s open government act,” Boutrous said. 

A Shell spokesperson also told Law360 in a statement on Monday that they are pleased with Judge Corr’s decision to dismiss the case, adding that the courtroom is not the right venue to address climate change, “but that smart policy from government and action from all sectors is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.” 

A Bucks County spokesperson said in a statement on Monday that the county intends to appeal the judge’s decision, noting that many other courts have reached the opposite conclusion, including the Colorado Supreme Court. 

A BP spokesperson declined to comment. 

Representatives for the remaining parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. 

The county is represented by Amy M. Fitzpatrick and Jaclyn C. Grieser of its solicitor’s office and Adam J. Levitt, Daniel Rock Flynn and Anna Claire Skinner of DiCello Levitt LLP. 

BP is represented by Anthony M. Pratt of Greenberg Traurig LLP. 

The API is represented by Rebecca Jo Price of Norris McLaughlin & Marcus PA. 

Chevron is represented by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Frederick P. Santarelli Jr. of Elliott Greenleaf PC. 

ConocoPhilips is represented by Daniel C. Fleming of Wong Fleming PC. 

Exxon Mobil is represented by Rebecca Trela of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. 

Phillips66 is represented by Mathew J. McHugh of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg LLP. 

Shell is represented by Mark Labrum of Fennigan Dempster & Coval LLP. 

The case is Bucks County v. BP PLC et al., case number 2024-01836-0000, in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

–Additional reporting by P.J. D’Annunzio. Editing by Alyssa Miller. 

Law360 is following climate change lawsuits against fossil fuel companies as they make their way through state and federal courts. Keep tabs on case developments and our coverage with our Climate Change Torts Tracker. 

Update: This story has been updated to include comments from a Shell spokesperson and a Bucks County spokesperson. 

By Madeline Lyskawa