Oregon county’s Big Oil lawsuit moves toward discovery and trial

Oregon’s most populous county’s climate accountability lawsuit is moving toward discovery and trial after a state judge this week rejected Big Oil companies’ attempts to have the case dismissed. The lawsuit argues the fossil fuel companies knowingly fueled extreme weather events like the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome and seeks more than $51.5 billion in damages to recover from and prepare for past and future climate damages.

Multnomah County, where Portland is located, sued ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and other fossil fuel companies and industry groups in 2023. The county argued that the oil industry’s deception “led to Multnomah County being unprepared for the 2021 extreme heat event, suffering the loss of property, infrastructure, financial resources, lives, and health.” Sixty-nine county residents died due to the extreme heat, in addition to heat-caused infrastructure damage and overrun emergency services. 

In a ruling this week, Judge Adele Ridenour denied more than a dozen motions to dismiss the case, including the companies’ argument that the county’s case is preempted by federal law — a question currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in another climate accountability case brought by Boulder, Colorado. Earlier this year, Judge Ridenour rejected the oil companies’ attempt to pause Multnomah County’s case until the Supreme Court made a ruling on the question. In her latest ruling, Judge Ridenour found that even though the county’s case references the impact of the oil companies’ greenhouse gas emissions, the heart of the case concerns the oil companies’ “alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose/warn,” and is not preempted by federal law.

“The Court validated what we have been saying from day one,” Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson said. “This case deserves to be heard on the merits and Multnomah County wants its day in court.”

Big Oil companies named in Multnomah County’s lawsuit are also trying to convince the court that the case is an attack on the companies’ free speech — a weaponization of the first amendment that the industry has used to fight many similar climate accountability cases. Arguments on that issue are ongoing.