The Chapman Law Review is proud to publish Lilia Alameida’s note: Preemption’s Climate Action Gap: How Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. County of Monterey Perpetuates Big Oil Capture in California. Below, you will find the abstract from the article.

Preemption’s Climate Action Gap: How Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. County of Monterey Perpetuates Big Oil Capture in California

By Lilia Alameida

Abstract

The oil and gas industry has argued that the use of unconventional extraction methods, such as fracking, is one way to reduce emissions, combat climate change, and bolster national security through energy independence. While fracking increases extraction output, modern research suggests that fracking increases the risk of earthquakes, water contamination, and disastrous spills. These risks deserve special attention in California, which is particularly susceptible to water scarcity and increased seismic activity.

In light of these concerns, the California state legislature enacted multiple amendments to the mandate of the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), including the ambitious goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2045. However, according to recent data, CalGEM’s enforcement efforts have not advanced emissions targets—unless California triples its greenhouse gas reduction rate, it will fail to reach net-zero by 2045.

This Note identifies the pervasive influence of regulatory, legislative, and executive capture by Big Oil as a primary obstacle to California’s climate progress and argues that the California Supreme Court’s holding in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. County of Monterey will only perpetuate Big Oil capture. Big Oil wields its influence by lobbying for favorable agency oversight and through campaign donations granted in exchange for industry-friendly votes. Consequently, Big Oil capture has produced a climate action gap, forcing locals to take action in the absence of judicial or genuine legislative intervention. Chevron’s reasoning frustrates California’s climate progress as it effectively ratifies CalGEM’s extraction-heavy focus, rendering CalGEM’s concurrent environmental directive superfluous. Ultimately, Chevron degrades political accountability and the countervailing force of citizen plaintiffs, exacerbating the climate action gap by vitiating an important check on state power and discouraging local innovation.