The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Exxon Climate Investigation / Evidence in NY Trial Suggests an Exxon Manager Believed Investors Were Being Misled
Evidence in NY Trial Suggests an Exxon Manager Believed Investors Were Being Misled

Evidence in NY Trial Suggests an Exxon Manager Believed Investors Were Being Misled

October 25, 2019 Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation

print

By Karen Savage

Only weeks after Exxon released a set of reports intended to ease shareholders’ concerns about the way the oil giant was managing the risks posed by climate change, Exxon’s own greenhouse gas manager said those reports may have misled investors, according to the New York attorney general’s office.

The allegation was part of testimony given Friday, the fourth day of the trial to determine whether Exxon violated New York’s Martin Act by deceiving investors over climate change. Attorney General Leticia James alleges that Exxon committed fraud by disclosing that it used one set of numbers to calculate climate risk to shareholders while using a different, undisclosed calculation to privately plan how to invest the company’s own funds. 

Exxon doesn’t deny it used different numbers, but contends the two are different calculations and maintains it has made accurate disclosures to investors. 

James contends the disclosures were not adequate.

As evidence, the AGs office pointed the court to notes attached to an email sent in May 2014 by Guy Powell, Exxon’s then-greenhouse gas manager, to other company employees. The notes were talking points to accompany slides showing proposed revisions to Exxon’s DataGuide, an internal company planning document that is updated annually. 

One proposed update was to align the greenhouse gas cost in the DataGuide with the proxy cost of carbon, which is listed in the Energy Outlook, Exxon’s annual report on global energy demand.  

The rationale given for the update was that “in recent reports released by [ExxonMobil] (Energy and Climate and Energy and Carbon Managing the Risks), we have implied that we use the [Energy Outlook] basis from proxy cost of carbon when evaluating investments.”

Investors testified earlier this week that they were misled to believe that Exxon used only one proxy cost of carbon when assessing how climate change would impact the future of its business.

Powell testified he doesn’t recall writing the notes, nor does he recall who wrote them. 

Exxon has said it used the proxy cost of carbon to determine how climate-related regulations might affect the future demand for energy and a separate number—greenhouse gas (GHG) cost—to calculate the costs climate-related regulations might have on greenhouse gas emissions generated by potential projects.

Prior to 2014, Exxon’s proxy cost of carbon—as listed in the Energy Outlook—was $60 per ton in 2030 for more regulated countries and its greenhouse gas cost—as listed in the DataGuide—was valued at $40 per ton of carbon.

The suggested edits were accepted and the 2014 DataGuide was aligned with the Energy Outlook. 

The AG’s office says the timing of the alignment, just months after the release of Energy and Climate and Managing the Risks, raises red flags. 

Bob Bailes, Exxon’s greenhouse gas manager prior to Powell, disagreed.

“We don’t set our guidance based on a publication, we’re not trying to trick ourselves,” Bailes testified, adding that alignment of the two numbers was based on the world’s progress on climate change and the anticipation of a global agreement on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Whatever the reason for the update, it appears Exxon did not disclose the change to investors.

Exxon vice president and controller David Rosenthal testified Thursday that the company first disclosed publicly it used a separate set of greenhouse gas costs to evaluate future investments in its Managing the Risks report, which was released prior to the DateGuide’s update. Rosenthal also said he is unaware of any additional company disclosures.

Attorneys for Exxon limited their cross-examination of Powell to around 10 minutes, leaving the AG with no other witnesses to call on Friday. Many of the people on the AG’s witness list are current or former Exxon employees, many based in Dallas or elsewhere. They aren’t expected to arrive in New York until shortly prior to scheduled testimony.

The lack of witnesses exasperated Judge Barry Ostrager, who has said the trial will conclude no later than Nov. 12.

“Going forward, if you don’t have a witness, you rest,” Ostrager said.

“The entire case?” an attorney for the AG’s office asked.

“Yes,” Ostrager said, adding it is the AG’s obligation to organize witness schedules to ensure court hours are occupied with testimony.

“I am stunned because ExxonMobil can now get us to rest by telling us they’ll need an hour and a half and elect not to cross,” said Kevin Wallace, acting chief of the attorney general’s investor protection bureau, who indicated he had expected Exxon’s cross-examination of Powell to last the rest of the afternoon. 

“Same with Exxon—if they don’t have a witness, they rest,” Ostrager said, adding that attorneys from both sides should be able to coordinate.

 “You’ve been working with each other for years,” he said, referring to the AG’s lengthy investigation and Exxon’s exhaustive attempts to wrangle free from the lawsuit.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Exxon Climate Investigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. Exxon argues conflated climate terms were not deceptive to investors says:
    November 4, 2019 at 10:26 pm

    […] Evidence in NY Trial Suggests an Exxon Manager Believed Investors Were Being… […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Exxon Backs a Modest Carbon Tax, But Knows Only a Strong One Will Slow Climate Change
  • After Opioids, Will Climate Change Be the Next Successful Liability Battle?
  • Study Estimates Seawalls to Protect U.S. Coast Will Cost $400 Billion

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.