Morris and Marcus v. Environmental Protection Agency

In December 2024, two Guyanese citizens, Wintress Morris and Joy Marcus, brought judicial review proceedings against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to require the inclusion of Scope 3 emissions in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for ExxonMobil’s Hammerhead oil project. Scope 3 emissions refer to the indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the end-use of fossil fuels—in this case, oil produced by the project and burned elsewhere. The applicants challenged the EPA’s approval of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIA, arguing that the failure to address Scope 3 emissions breached Guyana’s EPA by omitting a full assessment of the project’s environmental impacts. The applicants argued that the EPA failed in its statutory duty to require comprehensive EIAs under the Environmental Protection Act. They specifically claimed the EIA’s exclusion of Scope 3 emissions was unlawful and that greenhouse gas pollution must be properly assessed given its contribution to climate change and ocean acidification. On March 18, 2025, Justice Simone Morris-Ramlall ruled that Scope 3 emissions are part of the indirect effects of the Hammerhead project and therefore must be identified, described, and evaluated in EIAs conducted under the Environmental Protection Act. However, the judge dismissed the application, finding that the EPA had amended the EIA Terms of Reference after the case was filed to explicitly include Scope 3 emissions. As a result, the legal challenge no longer warranted further judicial intervention.