Northwest Oregon had never seen anything like it. Over the course of three days in June 2021, Multnomah County—Oregon’s most populous county—experienced unprecedented temperatures of 108°, 112°, and 116° Fahrenheit.
Temperatures soared so high that metal on cable cars melted and asphalt on roadways buckled. Due to Oregon’s usually mild summers, nearly half the homes in the county lacked cooling systems. Tragically, 69 people died from heat stroke, most in their own homes.
When scientific studies showed that the heat was a result of a heat dome—a weather phenomenon exacerbated by climate change—county officials began investigating large fossil fuel corporations like ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against these companies.
Almost a year after the lawsuit’s filing, Multnomah County is preparing to proceed in Oregon state court following a federal judge’s ruling settling a long-standing jurisdictional debate.
Experts suggest that the county’s focus on public health costs related to a specific extreme heat event, as opposed to generalized climate impacts, might make this case easier to substantiate. According to Pat Parenteau, professor of law emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School, climate scientists have concluded that the extreme heat would not have occurred but for human-induced climate change.
The lawsuit accuses Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and others of negligence, public nuisance, fraud, and deceit, alleging that the companies knowingly promoted fossil fuels as benign, despite being aware of their harmful impacts on the environment.
Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson emphasized the substantial harm and financial costs incurred due to climate-induced weather events like the 2021 heat dome, viewing the court’s decision to hear the case in state court as a community victory.
A spokesperson from Exxon declined to comment, and representatives from Shell and Chevron did not respond to requests for comment.
Fossil fuel companies often argue that regulations like the Clean Air Act are adequate for air quality governance, challenging the admissibility of state-level legal actions, noted Korey Silverman-Roati, a fellow at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change.