County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Benjamin A. Franta submitted a declaration with his June 27, 2025 report, "Defendants' Historical and Ongoing 14 Misrepresentations Regarding Climate Change and Their Effects on Multnomah County."

Daniel L. Swain submitted a declaration with his April 17, 2025 report, "Recent Pacific Northwest extreme events, attribution to anthropogenic climate change, and potential links to specific emitters."

Richard Heede, a climate scientist and director and co-founder of the Climate Accountability Institute, submitted a declaration with his April 11, 2025 report, "Extraction, refining, & sales: Comparing emissions of CO2 and methane of selected oil, gas, and coal companies from 1950 to 2022."

Multnomah County filed an amended complaint in its climate change suit against fossil fuel companies and other defendants. The County added two new defendants: (1) Northwest Natural Gas Company, “the largest provider of gas to Western Oregon and Southwest Washington,” and (2) Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which the amended complaint alleged was a front group “engaged in a climate deception/misinformation campaign in Oregon to continue to further the business objectives of its carbon polluting funders.”

The County of Multnomah filed a lawsuit in Oregon Circuit Court against fossil fuel companies, oil and gas industry trade associations, and the consulting company McKinsey and Company, Inc. (McKinsey), seeking to hold them liable for harms allegedly caused by anthropogenic climate change (ACC) to which the defendants substantially contributed. The County alleged that the defendants executed “a scheme to rapaciously sell fossil fuel products and deceptively promote them as harmless to the environment, while they knew that carbon pollution emitted by their products into the atmosphere would likely cause deadly extreme heat events like that which devastated Multnomah County in late June and early July 2021,” when the region over three consecutive days experienced high temperatures exceeding all previous high temperatures. The County alleged that studies linking the 2021 extreme heat event “corroborated prognoses that the Defendants had since the late 1950s internally forecasted would occur.” The County further alleged that the defendants investigated and internally discussed climate science but did not advise the public of the impacts of fossil fuel usage on the climate. The County alleged that it had incurred in excess of $50 million in actual damages due to extreme heat, wildfire, and other disasters as a result of the defendants’ misconduct and that it would incur future economic damages of at least $1.5 billion. The County also alleged that it would incur substantial costs to prepare for, mitigate, adapt to, and abate the ongoing climate change nuisance. The County asserted claims of intentional and negligent creation of public nuisance, negligence, fraud and deceit, and trespass. In addition to compensatory awards of $50 million for past damages and $1.5 billion for future damages, the County requested the establishment of an abatement fund of at least $50 billion paid for by the defendants. The abatement fund is to be used “for the costs of studying and planning on a countywide scale for the renovations, replacements, retrofits and revised programs that are reasonably necessary to reduce the ongoing harms caused by the Defendants, the implementation of which will reasonably prepare the County and its residents for foreseeable negative impacts arising from the increased frequency and severity of extreme heat, wildfire, drought and other ACC-related consequences.” The County also sought attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.