Joint Appendix — BP p.l.c., et al., Petitioners v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Supreme Court briefNov 16, 2020

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 19-1189

In the Supreme Court of the United States

BP P.L.C., ET AL., PETITIONERS

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

KANNON K. SHANMUGAM

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,

Wharton & Garrison LLP

2001 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 223-7300

kshanmugam@paulweiss.com

Counsel of Record

for Petitioners

VICTOR M. SHER

Sher Edling LLP

100 Montgomery Street,

Suite 1410

San Francisco, CA 94104

(628) 231-2500

vic@sheredling.com

Counsel of Record

for Respondent

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: MARCH 31, 2020

CERTIORARI GRANTED: OCTOBER 2, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Court of appeals docket entries .............................................. 1

District court docket entries .................................................... 6

Complaint,

Oct. 30, 2017 (D. Ct. Dkt. 42) ............................................ 23

Notice of removal,

July 31, 2018 (D. Ct. Dkt. 1) ........................................... 187

Supreme Court order,

Oct. 22, 2019 (No. 19A368) .............................................. 243

The following opinions, decisions, judgments, and orders

have been omitted in printing the joint appendix because they

appear as appendices to the petition for certiorari as follows:

Appendix A:

Court of appeals opinion,

Mar. 6, 2020

Appendix B:

District court opinion,

June 10, 2019

Appendix C:

District court memorandum opinion

accompanying stay order,

July 31, 2019

Appendix D:

Court of appeals stay order,

Oct. 1, 2019

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1644

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

BP P.L.C., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

06/18/19

PROCEEDINGS

Case docketed. Originating case

number:

1:18-cv-02357-ELH.

Case manager: JRice. [19-1644]

JR [Entered: 06/18/2019 12:55

PM]

*****

07/29/19

BRIEF by Chevron Corporation

and Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: OPENING.

Method of Filing Paper Copies:

mail. Date Paper Copies Mailed,

Dispatched, or Delivered to

Court: 07/30/2019. [1000556234]

[19-1644] Theodore Boutrous

[Entered: 07/29/2019 10:31 PM]

(1)

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

07/29/19

PROCEEDINGS

FULL ELECTRONIC APPENDIX and full paper appendix by Chevron Corporation and

Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated.

Method of Filing Paper Copies:

mail. Date paper copies mailed

dispatched or delivered to court:

07/30/2019. [1000556236] [191644] Theodore Boutrous [Entered: 07/29/2019 10:33 PM]

*****

08/09/19

MOTION by Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated for stay pending appeal.

Date and method of service:

08/09/2019 ecf. [1000564159] [191644] Theodore Boutrous [Entered: 08/09/2019 11:54 AM]

08/09/19

Exhibit(s) [80] Motion by Chevron Corporation and Chevron

U.S.A. Incorporated. [1000564198] [19-1644] Theodore Boutrous

[Entered: 08/09/2019 12:29 PM]

08/09/19

NOTICE ISSUED to Mayor and

City Council of Baltimore requesting response to Motion for

stay pending appeal [80], exhibit(s) [81]. Response due:

08/16/2019. [1000564309]. [191644] JR [Entered: 08/09/2019

02:31 PM]

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

08/16/19

PROCEEDINGS

RESPONSE/ANSWER by Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

to notice requesting response

[82], Motion [80]. Nature of response: in opposition. [19-1644]

Victor Sher [Entered: 08/16/2019

05:24 PM]

*****

08/23/19

REPLY by Chevron Corporation

and Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated to response [83], Motion

[80]. [19-1644] Theodore Boutrous [Entered: 08/23/2019 07:07

PM]

08/27/19

BRIEF by Mayor and City

Council of Baltimore in electronic and paper format. Type of

Brief: RESPONSE. Method of

Filing Paper Copies: hand delivery. Date Paper Copies Mailed,

Dispatched, or Delivered to

Court: 08/28/2019. [1000575687]

[19-1644] Victor Sher [Entered:

08/27/2019 10:20 PM]

*****

09/18/19

110

BRIEF by Chevron Corporation

and Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated in electronic and paper format. Type of Brief: REPLY.

Method of Filing Paper Copies:

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

mail. Date Paper Copies Mailed,

Dispatched, or Delivered to

Court: 09/18/2019. [1000590027]

[19-1644] Theodore Boutrous

[Entered: 09/18/2019 11:43 AM]

*****

10/01/19

116

COURT ORDER filed [1000598537] denying Motion for stay

pending appeal [80]. Copies to all

parties. [19-1644] JR [Entered:

10/01/2019 03:15 PM]

*****

12/11/19

132

ORAL ARGUMENT heard before the Honorable Roger L.

Gregory, Henry F. Floyd and

Stephanie D. Thacker. Attorneys

arguing case: Mr. Theodore J.

Boutrous, Jr., Esq. for Appellants Chevron Corporation and

Chevron U.S.A. Incorporated

and Victor Marc Sher for Appellee Mayor and City Council of

Baltimore. Courtroom Deputy:

Emma Breeden. [1000643082]

[19-1644]

[Entered:

12/11/2019 12:08 PM]

*****

03/06/20

144

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case

number:

1:18-cv-02357-ELH.

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

[1000696953]. [19-1644] JR [Entered: 03/06/2020 07:34 AM]

03/06/20

145

JUDGMENT ORDER filed. Decision: Affirmed. Originating

case number: 1:18-cv-02357ELH. Entered on Docket Date:

03/06/2020. [1000696954] Copies

to all parties and the district

court. [19-1644] JR [Entered:

03/06/2020 07:35 AM]

03/30/20

146

Mandate issued. Referencing:

[144] published authored Opinion, [145] Judgment Order. Originating case number: 1:18-cv02357-ELH. [19-1644] JR [Entered: 03/30/2020 08:21 AM]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

(NORTHERN DIVISION)

No. 1:18-cv-02357-1644-ELH

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,

PLAINTIFF,

BP P.L.C., ET AL., DEFENDANTS

DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

07/31/18

NOTICE OF REMOVAL from

Circuit Court for Baltimore City,

case number 24-C-18-004219.

(Filing fee $400 receipt number

0416-7477289), filed by Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)

(Cronin, Tonya) Modified on

8/2/2018 (hmls, Deputy Clerk).

(Entered: 07/31/2018)

09/26/12

AFFIDAVIT re 1 Notice of Removal by Chevron Corp. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Cronin, Tonya) (Exhibit

A - Complaint rec’d 8/2/2018 and

PROCEEDINGS

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

FILED SEPARATELY) (Entered: 07/31/2018)

*****

08/16/18

COMPLAINT against BP America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Products

North America Inc., CNX Resources Corporation, Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Consol Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corp.,

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,

Hess Corp., Louisiana Land &

Exploration Co., Marathon Oil

Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon Petroleum

Corporation, Phillips 66, Phillips

66 Company, Royal Dutch Shell

PLC, Shell Oil Company, Speedway LLC, filed by Mayor and

City Council Of Baltimore. (krs,

Deputy

Clerk)

(Entered:

08/16/2018)

*****

09/11/18

111

MOTION to Remand to State

Court by Mayor and City Council

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

of Baltimore (Attachments: # 1

Memorandum in Support) (Sher,

Victor) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

*****

10/11/18

124

RESPONSE in Opposition re

111 MOTION to Remand to

State Court filed by BP America,

Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Products

North America Inc., CNX Resources Corporation, Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Consol Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC. (Cronin, Tonya)

(Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/18

125

Supplemental to 124 Response in

Opposition to Motion,, by BP

America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3

Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit

7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9,

# 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11,

# 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13,

# 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15,

# 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17,

# 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19,

# 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21,

# 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23,

# 24 Exhibit 24, # 25 Exhibit 25,

# 26 Exhibit 26, # 27 Exhibit 27,

# 28 Exhibit 28, # 29 Exhibit 29)

(Cronin, Tonya) Modified on

10/15/2018 (krs, Deputy Clerk).

(Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/18

126

Supplemental to 124 Response in

Opposition to Motion,, by BP

America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3

Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D) (Cronin, Tonya) Modified on 10/15/

2018 (krs, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 10/11/2018)

10/11/18

127

Supplemental to 124 Response in

Opposition to Motion, by BP

America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3

Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G) (Cronin, Tonya) Modified on 10/15/2018 (krs, Deputy

Clerk). (Entered: 10/11/2018)

*****

10/25/18

133

REPLY to Response to Motion

re 111 MOTION to Remand to

State Court filed by Mayor and

City Council of Baltimore. (Sher,

Victor) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

*****

12/27/18

147

NOTICE by Mayor and City

Council of Baltimore re 111 Motion to Remand (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit A Corrected Memorandum in Support of Motion to

Remand) (Sher, Victor) Modified

on 12/28/2018 (krs, Deputy

Clerk). (Entered: 12/27/2018)

*****

02/20/19

154

Request for Hearing re 111 MOTION to Remand to State Court,

124 Response in Opposition to

Motion, to Remand to State

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Court (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

02/20/2019)

02/20/19

155

RESPONSE re 154 Request for

Hearing in Opposition filed by

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. (Sher, Victor) (Entered:

02/22/2019)

*****

04/03/19

161

MOTION to Stay by BP America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Products

North America Inc., CNX Resources Corporation, Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Consol Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corp.,

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,

Hess Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66,

Phillips 66 Company, Royal

Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, Speedway LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

04/03/2019)

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

04/05/19

162

PROCEEDINGS

RESPONSE in Opposition re

161 MOTION to Stay filed by

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. (Sher, Victor) (Entered:

04/05/2019)

*****

04/12/19

165

REPLY to Response to Motion

re 161 MOTION to Stay filed by

BP America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC. (Cronin, Tonya)

(Entered: 04/12/2019)

*****

04/19/19

170

STIPULATION re 162 Response in Opposition to Motion,

165 Reply to Response to Motion,

161 MOTION to Stay by BP

America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corp.,

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,

Hess Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66,

Phillips 66 Company, Royal

Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, Speedway LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

04/19/2019)

04/22/19

171

CONSENT ORDER accepting

170 Parties’ Joint Stipulation to

Temporarily Stay Execution of

Any Remand Order; denying as

moot 161 Defendants’ Conditional Motion to Stay. Signed by

Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

4/22/2019. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 04/22/2019)

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

06/10/19

172

MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/10/2019. (krs, Deputy

Clerk) (Entered: 06/11/2019)

06/10/19

173

ORDER granting 111 Motion to

Remand; remanding case to the

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

for all further proceedings; staying execution of this Order for a

period of 30 days from the date of

docketing of this Order. Signed

by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

6/10/2019. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 06/11/2019)

06/11/19

[]

Case Stayed (krs, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 06/11/2019)

PROCEEDINGS

*****

06/13/19

178

NOTICE OF APPEAL by BP

America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP

Products North America Inc.,

CNX Resources Corporation,

Chevron Corp., Chevron U.S.A.

Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp.,

ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Consol Energy Inc.,

Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC. Filing fee $ 505,

receipt number 0416-8069478.

(Cronin,

Tonya)

(Entered:

06/13/2019)

*****

06/20/19

181

MEMORANDUM to Counsel re:

West Publishing. Signed by

Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

6/20/2019. (hmls, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 06/21/2019)

06/20/19

182

MEMORANDUM OPINION.

Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 6/20/2019. (hmls, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/21/2019)

06/23/19

183

MOTION to Stay re 173 Order

on Motion to Remand to State

Court, by BP America, Inc., BP

P.L.C., BP Products North

America Inc., CNX Resources

Corporation, Chevron Corp.,

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips,

ConocoPhillips Company, Consol

Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC, Crown Central

LLC, Crown Central New Holdings LLC, Exxon Mobil Corp.,

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

Hess Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66,

Phillips 66 Company, Royal

Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, Speedway LLC (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

06/23/2019)

06/23/19

184

STIPULATION re 183 MOTION to Stay re 173 Order on

Motion to Remand to State

Court, by BP America, Inc., BP

P.L.C., BP Products North

America Inc., CNX Resources

Corporation, Chevron Corp.,

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips,

ConocoPhillips Company, Consol

Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC, Crown Central

LLC, Crown Central New Holdings LLC, Exxon Mobil Corp.,

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation,

Hess Corp., Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66,

Phillips 66 Company, Royal

Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, Speedway LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

06/23/2019)

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

06/24/19

185

ORDER accepting 184 Joint

Stipulation to Extend the Current Temporary Stay of the Execution of the Remand Order Until Motion To Extend the Stay

Pending Appeal Is Resolved by

the Court, or, if the Motion Is Denied, Through Resolution of Defendants’ Anticipated Motion to

Stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Fourth Circuit; staying

this case through and including

this Court’s resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Stay

Pending Appeal, and if that motion is denied, through the resolution of Defendants’ anticipated

Motion to Stay in the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; directing Clerk to refrain

from mailing to the Clerk of the

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

the Remand Order until further

Order of this Court. Signed by

Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

6/24/2019. (krs, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 06/24/2019)

07/08/19

186

RESPONSE in Opposition re

183 MOTION to Stay re 173 Order on Motion to Remand to

State Court, filed by Mayor and

PROCEEDINGS

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

City Council of Baltimore. (Sher,

Victor) (Entered: 07/08/2019)

07/22/19

187

REPLY to Response to Motion

re 183 MOTION to Stay re 173

Order on Motion to Remand to

State Court, filed by BP America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Products

North America Inc., CNX Resources Corporation, Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Consol Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Company, Royal Dutch Shell PLC,

Shell Oil Company, Speedway

LLC. (Cronin, Tonya) (Entered:

07/22/2019)

*****

07/31/19

192

MEMORANDUM. Signed by

Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

7/31/2019. (ol, Deputy Clerk)

(Entered: 07/31/2019)

07/31/19

193

ORDER denying 183 Motion to

Stay pending disposition of the

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

merits of the appeal of the Remand Order; Staying the remand

order pending resolution of the

defendants’ anticipated appeal of

this Order. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 7/31/2019. (ol,

Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/31/

2019)

*****

10/01/19

197

MOTION to Stay re 173 Order

on Motion to Remand to State

Court, 185 Order, by BP America, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Products

North America Inc., CNX Resources Corporation, Chevron

Corp., Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,

Citgo Petroleum Corp., ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Consol Energy Inc., Consol Marine Terminals LLC,

Crown Central LLC, Crown

Central New Holdings LLC,

Exxon Mobil Corp., Exxonmobil

Oil Corporation, Hess Corp.,

Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Phillips 66, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company,

Speedway LLC (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Cronin, Tonya)

(Entered: 10/01/2019)

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

10/02/19

198

PROCEEDINGS

ORDER granting 197 Defendants’ Motion to Temporarily Extend Stay of Remand Order

Pending Resolution of Stay Application to the Supreme Court.

Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 10/2/2019. (krs, Deputy

Clerk) (Entered: 10/02/2019)

*****

11/08/19

203

MOTION to Lift Stay of Execution of Remand Order by Mayor

and City Council Of Baltimore

(Attachments: # 1 Memorandum

in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed

Order) (Edling, Matthew) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

11/12/19

204

ORDER LIFTING STAY of Execution of Remand Order. Signed

by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on

11/12/2019. (c/m: CCBC) (hmls,

Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/12/

2019)

11/12/19

205

Correspondence from Clerk to

the Circuit Court for Baltimore

City re: Remand. (hmls, Deputy

Clerk) (Additional attachment(s)

added on 11/15/2019: # 1 Green

card receipt) (krs, Deputy

Clerk). (Entered: 11/12/2019)

11/18/19

206

Correspondence from Clerk of

the Circuit Court for Baltimore

DATE

DOCKET

NUMBER

PROCEEDINGS

City re: Return Receipt Letter.

(bmhs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered:

11/18/2019)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR BALTIMORE CITY

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,

PLAINTIFF,

BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA, INC.; BP PRODUCTS NORTH

AMERICA INC.; CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM

CORPORATION; CROWN CENTRAL LLC; CROWN

CENTRAL NEW HOLDINGS LLC; CHEVRON CORP.;

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; EXXON MOBIL CORP.; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC;

SHELL OIL COMPANY; CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.;

CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; LOUISIANA LAND & EXPLORATION CO.; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS

66 COMPANY; MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON OIL

CORPORATION; MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION;

SPEEDWAY LLC; HESS CORP.; CNX RESOURCES

CORPORATION; CONSOL ENERGY INC.; CONSOL

MARINE TERMINALS LLC, DEFENDANTS.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION[*]

1. Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil

fuel industry, have known for nearly a half century that

unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the

planet and changes our climate. They have known for decades that those impacts could be catastrophic and that

[*]

Table of contents omitted.

only a narrow window existed to take action before the

consequences would be irreversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal

and deny their own knowledge of those threats, discredit

the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence,

and persistently create doubt in the minds of customers,

consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers,

and the public about the reality and consequences of the

impacts of their fossil fuel pollution. At the same time, Defendants have promoted and profited from a massive increase in the extraction and consumption of oil, coal, and

natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable increase in global greenhouse gas

pollution and a concordant increase in the concentration

of greenhouse gases,1 particularly carbon dioxide (“CO2”)

and methane, in the Earth’s atmosphere. Those disruptions of the Earth’s otherwise balanced carbon cycle have

substantially contributed to a wide range of dire climaterelated effects, including, but not limited to, global warming, rising atmospheric and ocean temperatures, ocean

acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and volatile weather, and sea level rise. Plaintiff,

the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,2 along with the

As used in this Complaint, the term “greenhouse gases” refers

collectively to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Where a

cited primary source refers to a specific gas or gases, or when a process relates only to a specific gas or gases, this Complaint refers to

each gas by name.

ln this Complaint, the words “City” and “Plaintiff” refer to the

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, unless otherwise stated. The

word “Baltimore” refers to Baltimore City’s geographic area, and

specifically to non-federal lands within its boundaries, unless otherwise stated.

Baltimore’s residents, infrastructure, and natural resources, suffer the consequences.

2. Defendants are vertically integrated extractors,

producers, refiners, manufacturers, distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products. Decades

of scientific research show that pollution from the production and use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products plays a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in

emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations that has occurred since the

mid-20th century. This dramatic increase in atmospheric

CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the main driver of the

gravely dangerous changes occurring to the global climate.

3. Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas

pollution, primarily in the form of CO2 is far and away the

dominant cause of global warming resulting in severe impacts, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, disruption to the hydrologic cycle, more frequent and intense extreme precipitation and associated flooding, more frequent and intense heatwaves, and associated consequences of those physical and environmental changes.3

The primary source of this pollution is the extraction, production, and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, referred to collectively in this Complaint as “fossil fuel products.”4

See IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution

of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of

the lntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing

Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland (2014) 6. Figure SMP.3, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5h/syr.

See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, 8 Earth Syst.

Sci. Data 632 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016.

4. The rate at which Defendants have extracted and

sold fossil fuel products has exploded since the Second

World War, as have emissions from those products. The

substantial majority of all greenhouse gas emissions in

history has occurred since the 1950s, a period known as

the “Great Acceleration.”5 About three quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have occurred since the

1960s,6 and more than half have occurred since the late

1980s.7 The annual rate of CO2 emissions from extraction,

production, and consumption of fossil fuels has increased

by more than 60 percent since 1990.8

5. Defendants have known for nearly 50 years that

greenhouse gas pollution from their fossil fuel products

has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea

levels. Defendants’ awareness of the negative implications

of their actions corresponds almost exactly with the Great

Acceleration, and with skyrocketing greenhouse gas

emissions. With that knowledge, Defendants took steps to

protect their own assets from these threats through im-

Cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution

to 2015 were 413 GtC attributable to fossil fuels, and 190 GtC attributable to land use change. Id. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and

industry remained nearly constant at 9.9 GtC in 2015, distributed

among coal (41%), oil (34%), gas (19%), cement (5.6%), and gas flaring

(0.7%). Id. at 629.

Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great

Acceleration, 2 THE ANTHROPOCENE REVIEW 81, 81 (2015).

R. J. Andres et al., A Synthesis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions

from Fossil-Fuel Combustion, 9 BIOGEOSCIENCES 1845, 1851 (2012).

Id.

C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, supra note 4, at

630.

mense internal investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new opportunities in a

warming world.

6. Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products, lower the rate of greenhouse

gas emissions, minimize the damage associated with continued high use and combustion of such products, and ease

the transition to a lower carbon economy, Defendants concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support

for greenhouse gas regulation, and engaged in massive

campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their

products at ever greater volumes. Thus, each Defendant’s

conduct has contributed substantially to the buildup of

CO2 in the environment that drives global warming and its

physical, environmental, and socioeconomic consequences.

7. Defendants’ products—based on the volume of oil,

gas, and coal these companies extracted from the earth—

are directly responsible for at least 151,000 gigatons of

CO2 emissions between 1965 and 2015, representing approximately 15 percent of total emissions of that potent

greenhouse gas during that period. Accordingly, Defendants are directly responsible for a substantial portion of

past and committed sea level rise (sea level rise that will

occur even in the absence of any future emissions), as well

as for a substantial portion of changes to the hydrologic

cycle, because of the consumption of their fossil fuel products. Defendants, individually and collectively, have made

even greater contributions to fossil fuel pollution based on

their shares of “downstream” operations, that is, refinery

output, as well as wholesale and retail sales of their products. And the Defendants, individually and collectively,

have played leadership roles in denialist campaigns to

confuse and obscure the role of their products in causing

climate change and the associated dire effects on the

world, including Baltimore.

8. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ wrongful conduct described in this Complaint, flooding and storms will become more frequent and more severe, and average sea level will rise substantially along

Maryland’s coast, including in Baltimore. Disruptions to

weather cycles, extreme precipitation, heatwaves, and associated consequences—all due to anthropogenic global

warming—will increase in Baltimore. Because Baltimore

is situated on the eastern seaboard in the Mid-Atlantic region and features over 60 miles of waterfront land, it is

particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and flooding, and

the City has already spent significant funds to study, mitigate, and adapt to the effects of global warming. Climate

change impacts already adversely affect Baltimore and

jeopardize City-owned or operated facilities deemed critical for operations, utility services, and risk management,

as well as other assets that are essential to community

health, safety, and well-being.

9. The City has engaged in several planning processes to prepare for the multitude of impacts from climatic shifts, and has recognized increasingly severe consequences therefrom.

10. Defendants’ production, promotion, marketing of

fossil fuel products, simultaneous concealment of the

known hazards of those products, and their championing

of anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately

caused Plaintiff’s injuries.

11. Accordingly, the City brings a claim against Defendants for Public Nuisance, Strict Liability for Failure

to Warn, Strict Liability for Design Defect, Negligent De-

sign Defect, Negligent Failure to Warn, Trespass, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md.

Code Ann., Comm. L. § 13-301.

12. By this Complaint, the City seeks to ensure that

the parties who have profited from externalizing the responsibility for sea level rise, extreme precipitation

events, heatwaves, other results of the changing hydrologic regime caused by increasing temperatures, and associated consequences of those physical and environmental changes, bear the costs of those impacts on the City,

rather than Plaintiff, local taxpayers, residents, or

broader segments of the public. The City does not seek to

impose liability on Defendants for their direct emissions

of greenhouse gases and does not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business operations.

II.

PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

13. Plaintiff, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,

brings this action as an exercise of its police power, which

includes, but is not limited to, its power to prevent pollution of the Baltimore’s property and waters, to prevent

and abate nuisances, and to prevent and abate hazards to

public health, safety, welfare, and the environment.

14. Baltimore is already experiencing sea level rise

and associated impacts. Baltimore will experience significant additional sea level rise over the coming decades

through at least the end of the century.9

Union of Concerned Scientist, When Rising Seas Hit Home, 10–

11 (April 2017), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/

2017/07/when-rising-seas-hit-home-full-report.pdf

15. The sea level rise impacts to Baltimore associated

with an increase in average mean sea level height adjacent

and near to Baltimore include, but are not limited to, increased inundation (permanent) and flooding (temporary)

in natural and built environments with higher tides and

intensified wave and storm surge events, and aggravated

wave impacts, including erosion, damage, and destruction

of built structures and infrastructure.

16. In addition, Baltimore is and will continue to be impacted by increased temperatures and disruptions to the

hydrologic cycle. Baltimore is already experiencing a climatic and meteorological shift toward winters and springs

with more extreme precipitation events contrasted by

hotter, dryer, and longer summers. These changes have

led to increased property damage, economic injuries, and

impacts to public health. The City must spend substantial

funds to plan for and respond to these phenomena, and to

mitigate their secondary and tertiary impacts.

17. Compounding these environmental impacts are

cascading social and economic impacts, which cause injuries to the City that will arise out of localized climate

change-related conditions.

B. Defendants

18. Defendants are responsible for a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gases emitted since 1965. Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for

extracting, refining, processing, producing, promoting,

and marketing fossil fuel products, the normal and intended use of which has led to the emission of a substantial

percentage of the total volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1965. Indeed, between

1965 and 2015, the named Defendants extracted from the

earth enough fossil fuel materials (i.e. crude oil, coal, and

natural gas) to account for more than one in every six tons

of CO2 and methane emitted worldwide. Accounting for

their wrongful promotion and marketing activities, Defendants bear a dominant responsibility for global warming generally, and for the City’s injuries in particular. Defendants’ responsibility is even greater considering their

production, marketing and promotion activities in the

wholesale and retail markets for their products.

19. When reference in this Complaint is made to an act

or omission of the Defendants, unless specifically attributed or otherwise stated, such references should be

interpreted to mean that the officers, directors, agents,

employees, or representatives of the Defendants committed or authorized such an act or omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so

while acting within the scope of their employment or

agency.

20. BP Entities

a. BP P.L.C. is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and petrochemical public limited

company, registered in England and Wales

with its principal place of business in London,

England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) exploration and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas

power and renewables. BP P.L.C. is the ultimate parent company of numerous subsidiaries, referred to collectively as the “BP Group,”

which explore for and extract oil and gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as

gasoline; and market and sell oil, fuel, other refined petroleum products, and natural gas

worldwide. BP P.L.C.’s subsidiaries explore for

oil and natural gas under a wide range of licensing, joint arrangement, and other contractual

agreements.

b. BP P.L.C. controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. BP P.L.C. is the

ultimate decisionmaker on fundamental decisions about the BP Group’s core business, i.e.,

the level of companywide fossil fuels to produce, including production among BP P.L.C.’s

subsidiaries. For instance, BP P.L.C. reported

that in 2016-17 it brought online thirteen major

exploration and production projects. These

contributed to a 12 percent increase in the BP

Group’s overall fossil fuel product production.

These projects were carried out by BP P.L.C.’s

subsidiaries. Based on these projects, BP

P.L.C. expects the BP Group to deliver to customers 900,000 barrels of new product per day

by 2021. BP P.L.C. further reported that in

2017 it sanctioned three new exploration projects in Trinidad, India and the Gulf of Mexico.

c. BP P.L.C. controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production, including those of

its subsidiaries. BP P.L.C. makes fossil fuel

production decisions for the entire BP Group

based on factors including climate change. BP

P.L.C.’s Board is the highest decision-making

body within the company, with direct responsibility for the BP Group’s climate change policy.

BP P.L.C.’s chief executive is responsible for

maintaining the BP Group’s system of internal

control that governs the BP Group’s business

conduct. BP P.L.C. reviews climate change

risks facing the BP Group through two executive committees—chaired by the Group chief

executive, and one working group chaired by

the executive vice president and Group chief of

staff—as part of BP Group’s established management structure, and directs Group-wide

strategy and decisions regarding climate

change.

d. BP America Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary

of BP P.L.C. that acts on BP P.L.C.’s behalf

and subject to BP P.L.C.’s control. BP America

Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of

Delaware with its headquarters and principal

place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America Inc., consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,

including exploration for and production of

crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP America Inc. has been

qualified to do business in Maryland. BP America Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

business as, and/or is the successor in liability

to Amoco Corporation; Amoco Oil Company;

ARCO Products Company; Atlantic Richfield

Delaware Corporation; Atlantic Richfield Com-

pany (a Delaware Corporation); BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; BP Products North America

Inc.; BP Amoco Corporation; BP Amoco Plc;

BP Oil, Inc.; BP Oil Company; Sohio Oil Company; Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO); Standard

Oil (Indiana); The Atlantic Richfield Company

(a Pennsylvania corporation) and its division,

the Arco Chemical Company.

e. BP Products North America Inc. is a subsidiary of BP P.L.C. that acts on BP P.L.C.’s behalf

and subject to BP P.L.C.’s control. BP Products North America Inc. is engaged in fossil

fuel exploration, production, refining, and marketing. It is formed under the laws of Maryland

and domiciled in Maryland. BP Products North

America Inc. maintains its registered offices at

351 West Camden Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21201.

f. Defendants BP P.L.C., BP America, Inc., and

BP Products North America, Inc., are collectively referred to herein as “BP.”

g. BP transacts and has transacted substantial

fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of BP’s fossil fuel products are

or have been extracted, refined, transported,

traded, distributed, marketed, manufactured,

promoted, sold, and/or consumed in Maryland,

from which BP derives and has derived substantial revenue. For example, BP operates a

fossil fuel terminal in Curtis Bay, Maryland,

with the capacity to store and distribute approximately 21,840,000 gallons of oil. Additionally, BP markets and/or has promoted and marketed gasoline and other fossil fuel products to

consumers, including through at least 180 BPbranded petroleum service stations in Maryland.

21. Crown Central Entities

a. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation has

been among the largest independent refiners

and marketers of petroleum products in the

United States. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation was incorporated in Maryland and had

its principal place of business in Baltimore,

Maryland. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the predecessor in liability to

Crown Central LLC and Crown Central New

Holdings, LLC. Crown Central LLC is incorporated in Maryland and has its principal offices in Baltimore, Maryland. Crown Central

New Holdings LLC is incorporated in Maryland and has its principal offices in Baltimore,

Maryland.

b. Defendants Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Crown Central LLC, Crown Central

New Holdings LLC, and their predecessors,

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and

divisions are collectively referred to herein as

“Crown Central.”

c. Crown Central transacts and/or has transacted

substantial fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Crown Central’s

fossil fuel products are or have been extracted,

refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

Maryland, from which Crown Central derives

and has derived substantial revenue. For example, Crown Central marketed or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers

in Maryland through over 100 Crown-branded

petroleum service stations in Maryland.

22. Chevron Entities

a. Chevron Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and chemicals company

incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its

global headquarters and principal place of business in San Ramon, California.

b. Chevron Corporation operates through a web

of United States and international subsidiaries

at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ operations consist of: 1) exploring for, developing,

and producing crude oil and natural gas; 2) processing, liquefaction, transportation, and regasification associated with liquefied natural

gas; 3) transporting crude oil by major international oil export pipelines; 4) transporting, storage, and marketing of natural gas; 5) refining

crude oil into petroleum products; marketing of

crude oil and refined products; 6) transporting

crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment, and rail car; 7)

basic and applied research in multiple scientific

fields including chemistry, geology, and engineering; and 8) manufacturing and marketing

of commodity petrochemicals, plastics for industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.

c. Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and

sales, including those of its subsidiaries.

d. Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions

from its fossil fuel products, including those of

its subsidiaries.

e. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business located

in San Ramon, California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

is qualified to do business in Maryland. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Chevron Corporation that acts on Chevron

Corporation’s behalf and subject to Chevron

Corporation’s control. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was

formerly known as, and did or does business as,

and/or is the successor in liability to Gulf Oil

Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania, Chevron Products Company, and Chevron Chemical Company.

f. “Chevron” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants Chevron Corporation and

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and their predecessors,

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and

divisions.

g. Chevron transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A

substantial portion of Chevron’s fossil fuel

products are or have been extracted, refined,

transported, traded, distributed, promoted,

marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in Maryland, from which Chevron derives and has derived substantial revenue. For

example, Chevron owned and operated a petroleum and asphalt refinery and fossil fuel-product terminal in Baltimore directly and/or

through its subsidiaries and predecessors-ininterest for a period spanning at least 1948 to

2003. Additionally, Chevron markets and/or

has marketed gasoline and other fossil fuel

products to consumers, including through

Chevron-branded petroleum services stations

in Maryland.

23. Exxon Mobil Entities

a. Exxon Mobil Corporation is a multi-national,

vertically integrated energy and chemicals

company incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its headquarters and principal place of

business in Irving, Texas. Exxon Mobil Corporation is among the largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies in the world.

Exxon Mobil Corporation was formerly known

as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to ExxonMobil Refining and

Supply Company, Exxon Chemical U.S.A.,

ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation, ExxonMobil Chemical U.S.A., ExxonMobil Refining &

Supply Corporation, Exxon Company, U.S.A.,

Exxon Corporation, and Mobil Corporation.

b. Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and

sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Exxon

Mobil Corporation’s 2017 Form 10-K filed with

the United States Securities and Exchange

Commission represents that its success, including its “ability to mitigate risk and provide attractive returns to shareholders, depends on

[its] ability to successfully manage [its] overall

portfolio, including diversification among types

and locations of our projects.”

c. Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions

from its fossil fuel products, including those of

its subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s

Board holds the highest level of direct responsibility for climate change policy within the

company. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer,

its President and the other members of its

Management Committee are actively engaged

in discussions relating to greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of climate change on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil Corporation requires

its subsidiaries to provide an estimate of greenhouse gas-related emissions costs in their economic projections when seeking funding for

capital investments.

d. Exxonmobil Oil Corporation is wholly-owned

subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation that

acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf and

subject to Exxon Mobil Corporation’s control.

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation is incorporated in

the State of New York with its principal place

of business in Irving, Texas. Exxonmobil Oil

Corporation is qualified to do business in Mar-

yland. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or

is the successor in liability to Mobil Oil Corporation.

e. “Exxon” as used hereafter, means collectively

Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation and

Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions.

f. Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude

oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum

products; and transportation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and

petroleum products. Exxon is also a major

manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemical products.

g. Exxon transacts and has transacted substantial

fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Exxon’s fossil fuel products

are or have been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

Maryland, from which Exxon derives and has

derived substantial revenue. For example,

Exxon directly and through its subsidiaries

and/or predecessors in interest owned and operated an oil refinery in Baltimore from 1893 to

the mid-1950s. In the mid-1950s, the facility

was converted to a petroleum storage and marketing facility which Exxon operated until

1998. Additionally, Exxon markets or has marketed gasoline and other fossil fuel products to

consumers, including through at least 250

Exxon-branded and at least 40 Mobil-branded

petroleum service stations in Maryland. Exxon

maintains an interactive website that allows

consumers to locate Exxon-branded gas stations in Maryland.

24. Shell Entities

a. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a vertically integrated, multinational energy and petrochemical company. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is incorporated in England and Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in the

Hague, Netherlands. Royal Dutch Shell PLC

consists of over a thousand divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the

fossil fuel industry, including exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing, and energy production, transport, trading, marketing, and sales.

b. Royal Dutch Shell PLC controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and

sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Royal

Dutch Shell PLC’s Board of Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings around the globe produce Shellbranded fossil fuel products. For instance, in

2015, a Royal Dutch Shell PLC subsidiary employee admitted in a deposition that Royal

Dutch Shell PLC’s Board of Directors made

the decision whether to drill a particular oil deposit off the coast of Alaska.

c. Royal Dutch Shell PLC controls and has controlled companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions

from its fossil fuel products, including those of

its subsidiaries. Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell group of companies lies with Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Chief

Executive Officer and Executive Committee.

Additionally, in November 2017, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC announced it would reduce the carbon footprint of “its energy products” by

“around” half by 2050. Royal Dutch Shell

PLC’s effort is inclusive of all fossil fuel products produced under the Shell brand, including

those of its subsidiaries. Royal Dutch Shell

PLC’s CEO stated that Royal Dutch Shell PLC

would reduce the carbon footprint of its products, including those of its subsidiaries “by reducing the net carbon footprint of the full range

of Shell emissions, from our operations and

from the consumption of our products.” Additionally, at least as early as 1988, Royal Dutch

Shell PLC, by and through its subsidiaries, was

researching companywide CO2 emissions and

concluded that the Shell group of companies accounted for “4% of the CO2 emitted worldwide

from combustion,” and that climatic changes

could compel the Shell group, as controlled by

Royal Dutch Shell PLC, to “examine the possibilities of expanding and contracting [its] business accordingly.”10

Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij B.V., The Greenhouse Effect at 29 (1988) (prepared for Shell Environmental Conservation Committee).

d. Shell Oil Company is a wholly owned subsidiary

of Royal Dutch Shell PLC that acts on Royal

Dutch Shell PLC’s behalf and subject to Royal

Dutch Shell PLC’s control. Shell Oil Company

is incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell

Oil Company is qualified to do business in Maryland. Shell Oil Company was formerly known

as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Deer Park Refining LP, Shell

Oil, Shell Oil Products, Shell Chemical, Shell

Trading US, Shell Trading (US) Company,

Shell Energy Services, Texaco Inc., The Pennzoil Company, Shell Oil Products Company

LLC, Shell Oil Products Company, Star Enterprise, LLC, Star Enterprise LLC, and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.

e. Royal Dutch Shell has purposefully directed,

and purposefully directs fossil fuel products

into Maryland, and has conducted substantial

fossil fuel business in Maryland. In particular,

Shell has marketed and continues to market

gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers through over 200 Shell-branded petroleum service stations. Prior to March 2017,

Royal Dutch Shell also solely operated two petroleum storage and distribution terminals in

Baltimore in which it owned a 50 percent stake,

at which it transferred and stored distillate oils,

various grades of gasoline, liquid gasoline additives, and distillate products.

f. Defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil

Company, and their predecessors, successors,

parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions

are collectively referred to as “Shell.”

g. Shell transacts and has transacted substantial

fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Shell’s fossil fuel products

are or have been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

Maryland, from which Shell derives and has derived substantial revenue.

25. Citgo Petroleum Corporation (“Citgo”)

a. Citgo is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of

PDV America, Incorporated, which is a wholly

owned subsidiary of PDV Holding, Incorporated. These organizations’ ultimate parent is

Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an

entity wholly owned by the Republic of Venezuela that plans, coordinates, supervises, and

controls activities carried out by its subsidiaries. Citgo is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas. Citgo is qualified to do business in

Maryland.

b. Citgo controls and has controlled companywide

decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil

fuel production and sales, including those of its

subsidiaries.

c. Citgo controls and has controlled companywide

decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries.

d. Citgo and its subsidiaries are engaged in the

refining, marketing, and transportation of petroleum products including gasoline, diesel

fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, lubricants, asphalt, and refined waxes.

e. Citgo transacts and has transacted substantial

fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Citgo’s fossil fuel products

are or have been extracted refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in

Maryland, from which Citgo derives and has

derived substantial revenue. For instance, the

Citgo Terminal at the Port of Baltimore distributes more than 430 million gallons of gasoline and diesel annually to retail service stations across the northeastern United States, including Maryland. The Citgo Terminal is also a

major supplier of ethanol, a gasoline additive,

to the mid-Atlantic region, including Maryland.

Additionally, Citgo marketed or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers

in Maryland, including through approximately

160 Citgo-branded petroleum service stations

in Maryland.

26. ConocoPhillips Entities

a. ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in the State of Delaware and

with its principal place of business in Houston,

Texas. ConocoPhillips consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates that carry

out ConocoPhillips’s fundamental decisions related to all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,

including exploration, extraction, production,

manufacture, transport, and marketing.

b. ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled

companywide decisions about the quantity and

extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. ConocoPhillips’ most recent annual report subsumes the

operations of the entire ConocoPhillips group

of subsidiaries under its name. Therein, ConocoPhillips represents that its value—for which

ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate responsibility—is a function of its decisions to direct subsidiaries to explore for and produce fossil fuels:

“Unless we successfully add to our existing

proved reserves, our future crude oil, bitumen,

natural gas and natural gas liquids production

will decline, resulting in an adverse impact to

our business.” ConocoPhillips optimizes the

ConocoPhillips group’s oil and gas portfolio to

fit ConocoPhillips’ strategic plan. For example,

in November 2016, ConocoPhillips announced a

plan to generate $5 billion to $8 billion of proceeds over two years by optimizing its business

portfolio, including its fossil fuel product business, to focus on low cost-of-supply fossil fuel

production projects that strategically fit its development plans.

c. ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled

companywide decisions related to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries. For instance, ConocoPhillips’ Board has

the highest level of direct responsibility for cli-

mate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips has developed and implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan to govern

climate change decision-making across all entities in the ConocoPhillips group.

d. ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly owned

subsidiary of ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’ behalf and subject to ConocoPhillips’ control. ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal office

in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. ConocoPhillips

Company is qualified to do business in Maryland and has a registered agent for service of

process in Maryland.

e. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. is a wholly

owned subsidiary of ConocoPhillips that acts on

ConocoPhillips’ behalf and subject to ConocoPhillips’ control. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. is incorporated in Maryland and has its

principal office in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. explores

for, develops, and produces petroleum natural

resources. Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.

maintains a registered agent for service of process in Maryland.

f. Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company incorporated in Delaware

and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It encompasses downstream fossil

fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that were formerly owned

and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips.

g. Phillips 66 Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips 66 that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and subject to Phillips 66’s control. Phillips

66 Company is incorporated in Delaware and

has its principal office in Houston, Texas. Phillips 66 Company is qualified to do business in

Maryland and has a registered agent for service of process in Maryland. Phillips 66 Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to

Phillips Petroleum Company, Conoco, Inc.,

Tosco Corporation, and Tosco Refining Co.

h. Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips

Company, Louisiana Land & Exploration Co.,

Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Company, and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively referred

to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”

i. ConocoPhillips transacts and has transacted

substantial fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of ConocoPhillips’s

fossil fuel products are or have been extracted,

refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or

consumed in Maryland, from which ConocoPhillips derives and has derived substantial

revenue. For instance, ConocoPhillips marketed or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel

products to consumers in Maryland, including

through ConocoPhillips- and Phillips 66branded petroleum service stations located in

Maryland.

27. Marathon Entities

a. Marathon Oil Company is an energy company

incorporated in the State of Ohio with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil Company is a corporate ancestor of

Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Petroleum Company.

b. Marathon Oil Corporation is a multinational

energy company incorporated in the State of

Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil Corporation consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the exploration for, extraction,

production, and marketing of fossil fuel products.

c. Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a multinational energy company incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in

Findlay, Ohio. Marathon Petroleum Corporation was spun off from the operations of Marathon Oil Corporation in 2011. It consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in fossil

fuel product refining, marketing, retail, and

transport, including both petroleum and natural gas products.

d. Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Petroleum Corporation control and have controlled their companywide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production

and sales, including those of their subsidiaries.

e. Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Petroleum Corporation control and have controlled their companywide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production, including those of their subsidiaries.

f. Speedway LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Marathon Petroleum Corporation that acts on

Marathon Petroleum Corporation’s behalf and

subject to Marathon Petroleum Corporation’s

control. Speedway LLC is incorporated in the

State of Delaware with its principal place of

business in Enon, Ohio. Speedway LLC is qualified to do business in Maryland and has a registered agent for service of process in Maryland.

g. Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon

Oil Corporation, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, Speedway LLC, and their predecessors,

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and

divisions, are collectively referred to as “Marathon.”

h. Marathon transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Marathon’s fossil

fuel products are or have been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or

consumed in Maryland, from which Marathon

derives and has derived substantial revenue.

For example, Marathon marketed or markets

gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers in Maryland, including through over 25

Marathon- and Speedway-branded petroleum

service stations in Maryland.

28. Hess Corporation (“Hess”)

a. Hess is a global, vertically integrated petroleum exploration and extraction company incorporated in the State of Delaware with its

headquarters and principal place of business in

New York, New York. Hess is qualified to do

business in Maryland and has a registered

agent for service of process in Maryland. Hess

was formerly known as, did or does business as,

and/or is the successor in liability to Amerada

Hess Corporation, WilcoHess LLC, Hess Oil

Virgin Islands Corporation, Hess Energy

Trading Company, LLC, and Hartree Partners, LP.

b. Hess is engaged in the exploration, development, production, transportation, purchase,

marketing, and sale of crude oil and natural

gas. Its oil and gas production operations are

located primarily in the United States, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Thailand,

and Norway. Prior to 2014, Hess also conducted extensive retail operations in its own

name and through its subsidiaries.

c. Hess controls and has controlled companywide

decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil

fuel production and sales, including those of its

subsidiaries.

d. Hess controls and has controlled companywide

decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries.

e. Hess directs and has directed substantial fossil

fuel-related business to Maryland. A substantial portion of Hess’s fossil fuel products are or

have been extracted, refined, transported,

traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in Maryland,

from which Hess derives and has derived substantial revenue. For example, Hess marketed

or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers in Maryland, including

through petroleum service stations in Maryland.

29. CONSOL Entities

a. CNX Resources Corporation is a vertically integrated energy company that is or has been

involved in coal mining, oil and natural gas exploration and production, fossil fuel product

distribution, and fossil fuel product marketing.

CNX Resources Corporation is incorporated in

Delaware, with its principal place of business in

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. CNX Resources

Corporation was formerly known as CONSOL

Energy Inc. CONSOL Energy Inc. and its predecessors in interest mined and sold coal since

the 1860s. In 2017, CNX Resources Corporation split its coal mining and related downstream operations into a new entity, also called

CONSOL Energy Inc.

b. CONSOL Energy Inc. is incorporated in the

state of Delaware, and with its principal place

of business in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

CONSOL Energy Inc. was formerly known as,

did or does business as, and/or is the successor

in liability to CNX Resources Corporation.

c. CNX Resources Corporation and CONSOL

Energy Inc. control and have controlled their

companywide decisions about the quantity and

extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of their subsidiaries.

d. CNX Resources Corporation and CONSOL

Energy Inc. control and have controlled their

companywide decisions about the quantity and

extent of fossil fuel production, including those

of their subsidiaries.

e. CONSOL Marine Terminals LLC is a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc. that acts on CONSOL Energy Inc.’s behalf and subject to CONSOL Energy Inc.’s control. CONSOL Marine

Terminals LLC is incorporated in the State of

Delaware and has its principal place of business

in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. CONSOL Marine Terminals LLC is qualified to do business

in Maryland and has a registered agent for service of process in Maryland. Defendants CNX

Resources Corporation, CONSOL Energy

Inc., CONSOL Marine Terminals LLC, and

their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively referred to herein as “CONSOL.”

f. CONSOL transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related business in Maryland. A substantial portion of CONSOL’s fossil

fuel products are or have been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or

consumed in Maryland, from which CONSOL

derives and has derived substantial revenue.

For instance, CONSOL owns and operates one

of the largest coal export terminals on the

Eastern Seaboard, located in the Port of Baltimore. In 2017, CONSOL shipped approximately 14.3 million tons of coal from its terminal in Baltimore, 53 percent of which came from

CONSOL’s own coal mines in Appalachia.

From the terminal, CONSOL sells and/or distributes that coal into markets in Brazil, Germany, India, and South Korea, among others.

Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industry Associations

30. As set forth in greater detail below, each Defendant had actual knowledge that its fossil fuel products were

hazardous. Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their products independently and through their

membership and involvement in trade associations.

31. Each Defendant’s fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the trade associations described below. Acting on behalf of the Defendants, the industry associations engaged in a long-term course of conduct to misrepresent, omit, and conceal the dangers of Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

a. The American Petroleum Institute (API):

API is a national trade association representing the oil and gas industry, formed in 1919.

The following Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest are and/or have been API

members at times relevant to this litigation:

BP, Chevron, Crown Central, ExxonMobil,

Shell, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, and Hess.11

American Petroleum Institute, Members (webpage) (accessed

June 18, 2018), http://www.api.org/membership/members.

b. The Western States Petroleum Association

(WSPA): WSPA is a trade association representing oil producers in Arizona, California,

Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.12 Membership has included, among other entities: BP,

Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil. 13

c. The American Fuel and Petrochemical

Manufacturers (AFPM) is a national association of petroleum and petrochemical companies, formerly known as the National Petroleum Refiners Association. At relevant times,

its members included, but were not limited to,

BP, Chevron, Citgo, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Shell, and Total.14

d. U.S. Oil & Gas Association (USOGA) is a national trade association representing oil and

gas producers, formerly known as the MidContinent Oil & Gas Association. USOGA’s

membership has included BP, Chevron, Citgo,

Exxon, Shell, Marathon, ConocoPhillips, and

Hess.15

Western States Petroleum Association, About (webpage) (accessed June 18, 2018), https://www.wspa.org/about.

Western States Petroleum Association, Member Companies

(webpage) (accessed June 18, 2018), https://www.wspa.org/about.

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Membership

Directory (webpage) (accessed June 18, 2018), https://www.afpm.org/

membership-directory.

See, e.g., Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, Member Companies (webpage) (accessed June 18, 2018), http://www.

lmoga.com/members/member-companies.

e. Western Oil & Gas Association was a California nonprofit trade association representing

the oil and gas industries, consisting of over 75

member companies. Its members included

companies and individual responsible for more

than 65 percent of petroleum production and 90

percent of petroleum refining and marketing in

the Western United States.16 WOGA membership included, but was not limited to, Defendants Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and

Shell.17 Other fossil fuel company members of

WOGA included, but were not limited to,

Champlin Petroleum Company (Anadarko)18

and Reserve Oil & Gas Company.19

f. The Information Council for the Environment (ICE): ICE was formed by coal companies and their allies, including Western Fuels

Association and the National Coal Association.

Associated companies included Pittsburg and

Midway Coal Mining (Chevron), and Island

Creek Coal Company (Occidental).

g. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC

was an industry group formed to oppose greenhouse gas emission reduction policies and the

Kyoto Protocol. It was founded in 1989 shortly

Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Knecht, 456 F. Supp. 889, 894 n.2 (C.D.

Cal. 1978), aff’d, 609 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1979).

Id. at 894 n.3.

Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate

corporate ancestry and/or affiliation.

Am. Petroleum Inst. v. Knecht, 456 F. Supp. at 894 n.3.

after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting, and disbanded in 2001.

Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Coal

Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and

the United States Chamber of Commerce. The

GCC’s early individual corporate members included Amoco (BP), API, Chevron, Exxon,

Ford, Shell Oil, Texaco (Chevron) and Phillips

Petroleum (ConocoPhillips). Over its existence

other members and funders included ARCO

(BP), and the Western Fuels Association. The

coalition also operated for several years out of

the National Association of Manufacturers’ offices.

III. AGENCY

32. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, partner, aider and abettor,

co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each of the remaining Defendants herein and was at all times operating

and acting within the purpose and scope of said agency,

service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, and joint

venture and rendered substantial assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct was wrongful and/or constituted a breach of duty.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

33. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

this matter under § 1-501 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code.

34. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they either are domiciled in Maryland; were

served with process in Maryland; are organized under the

laws of Maryland; maintain their principal place of business in Maryland; transact business in Maryland; perform

work in Maryland; contract to supply goods, manufactured products, or services in Maryland; caused tortious

injury in Maryland; engage in persistent courses of conduct in Maryland; derive substantial revenue from manufactured goods, products, or services used or consumed in

Maryland; and/or have interests in, use, or possess real

property in Maryland.

35. Venue in this Court is proper because the City’s

causes of action arose in Baltimore and because at least

one defendant conducts business there.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known

Cause

36. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.

Since the 1960s, many of the observed changes to the climate system are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Globally, the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, sea

level has risen, and the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, thereby altering hydrologic systems.20 As a result, extreme weather events have increased, including,

but not limited to, heat waves, droughts, and extreme precipitation events.21

40.

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra note 3, at

Id. at 8.

37. Ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at a rapid pace during the late 20th and early 21st

centuries:

2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface temperatures, exceeding mid-20th century mean ocean and land surface temperatures by approximately 1.69°F.22 Eight of the twelve months in

2016 were hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures than those respective months in any previous

year. October, November, and December 2016 showed

the second hottest average surface temperatures for

those months, second only to temperatures recorded

in 2015.23

The Earth’s hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed immediately by the second hottest

month on record, March 2016.24

The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface temperatures was 2015, and the third

hottest was 2017.25

NOAA, Global Climate Report—Annual 2017 (accessed July 5,

2018), https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713; NASA, NASA,

NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (press release) (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaadata-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.

Id.

Jugal K. Patel, How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html.

NOAA, Global Climate Report—Annual 2017, supra note 22.

The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged

surface temperature have all occurred since 1998,26

and sixteen of the seventeen hottest years have occurred since 2001.27

Each of the past three decades has been warmer by

average surface temperature than any preceding decade on record.28

The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the

warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere

since approximately 700 AD.29

38. The average global surface and ocean temperature

in 2016 was approximately 1.7°F warmer than the 20th

century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly

observed since at least 1880.30 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies during

the Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in Baltimore. The graph below shows the

increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies

since 1880, as measured against the 1910-2000 global average temperature.31

Id.

NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record

Globally (press release) (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nasa.gov/pressrelease/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.

IPCC, IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra note

3, at 2.

Id.

NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance (Global Time Series) (June 2017),

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/

ytd/12/1880-2016.

Id.

Fig. 1: Global Land and Ocean Temperature

Anomalies, January–December

39. The mechanism by which human activity causes

global warming and climate change is well established:

ocean and atmospheric warming is overwhelmingly

caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.32

40. When emitted, greenhouse gases trap heat within

the Earth’s atmosphere that would otherwise radiate into

space.

41. Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of humans combusting fossil fuels to produce energy and using

fossil fuels to create petrochemical products.

42. Human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary cause of global warming and its associated effects on Earth’s climate.

43. Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2

emissions were caused by land-use practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land

and global biosphere to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere;

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra note 3, at

the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate were relatively minor. Since the beginning of the Great Acceleration, however, both the annual rate and total volume of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased enormously

following the advent of major uses of oil, gas, and coal. The

graph below shows that while CO2 emissions attributable

to forestry and other land-use change have remained relatively constant, total emissions attributable to fossil fuels

have increased dramatically since the 1950s.33

Fig. 2: Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by

Source, 1860-2016

Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2017 (Nov. 13,

2017)

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/17/files/

GCP_CarbonBudget_2017.pdf (citing CDIAC; R.A. Houghton & Alexander A. Nassikas, Global and Regional Fluxes of Carbon from

Land Use and Land Cover Change 1850–2015, 31 GLOBAL BIOCHEMICAL CYCLES 3, 456 (Feb. 2017)).

44. As human reliance on fossil fuels for industrial and

mechanical processes has increased, so too have greenhouse gas emissions, especially of CO2. The Great Acceleration is marked by a massive increase in the annual rate

of fossil fuel emissions: more than half of all cumulative

CO2 emissions have occurred since 1988.34 The rate of CO2

emissions from fossil fuels and industry, moreover, has increased threefold since the 1960s, and by more than 60

percent since 1990.35 The graph below illustrates the increasing rate of global CO2 emissions since the industrial

era began.36

R. J. Andres et al., supra note 6, at 1851.

C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, supra note 4, at

630 (“Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have increased every decade from an average of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in the 1960s

to an average of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006–2015”).

P. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial

Carbon Producers, 132 CLIMATIC CHANGE 157, 164 (2015),

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5.

Fig. 3: Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon

Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014

45. Because of the increased use of fossil fuel products,

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are

now at a level unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.37

The graph below illustrates the nearly 30 percent increase

in atmospheric CO2 concentration above pre-Industrial

levels since 1960.38

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra note 3, at

C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2017, 10 EARTH SYST.

SCI. DATA 405, 408 (2018).

Fig. 4: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in

Parts Per Million, 1960-2015

B. Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed

Effects

46. Sea level rise is the physical consequence of (a) the

thermal expansion of ocean waters as they warm; (b) increased mass loss from land-based glaciers that are melting as ambient air temperature increases; and (c) the

shrinking of land-based ice sheets due to increasing ocean

and air temperature.39

NOAA, Is Sea Level Rising? (webpage) (last updated June 25,

2018) http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.

47. Of the increase in energy that has accumulated in

the Earth’s atmosphere between I971 and 2010, more

than 90 percent is stored in the oceans.40

48. Anthropogenic forcing, in the form of greenhouse

gas pollution largely from the production, use, and combustion of fossil fuel products, is the dominant cause of

global mean sea level rise observed during the twentieth

century, particularly since the Great Acceleration.41

49. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the

dominant factor in each of the independent causes of sea

level rise,42 including the increase in ocean thermal expansion, in glacier mass loss, and in more negative surface

mass balance from the ice sheets.43

50. There is a well-defined relation between cumulative emissions of CO2 and committed global mean sea

level. This relation, moreover, holds proportionately for

committed regional sea level rise.44

51. Nearly one hundred percent of the sea level rise

from any projected greenhouse gas emissions scenario

will persist for at least 10,000 years.45 This owes to the

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra note 3, at

Aimée B. A. Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates

Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, 6 NATURE CLIMATE

CHANGE 701, 701 (2016).

Id.

Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century

Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, 6 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 360, 365 (2016).

Id. at 361.

long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate

system.46

52. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused

the increased frequency and severity of extreme sea level

events (temporary sea level height increases due to storm

surges or extreme tides, exacerbated by elevated baseline

sea level) observed during the Great Acceleration.47 The

incidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has

increased globally since 1970.48 The impacts of such

events, which generally occur with large storms, high tidal

events, offshore low-pressure systems associated with

high winds, or the confluence of any of these factors,49 are

exacerbated with higher average sea level, which functionally raises the baseline for the destructive impact of

extreme weather and tidal events. Indeed, the magnitude

and frequency of extreme sea level events can occur in the

absence of increased intensity of storm events, given the

increased average elevation from which flooding and inundation events begin. These effects, and others, significantly and adversely affect Plaintiff, with increased severity in the future.

Id. at 360.

IPCC, Climate Change 2013: Summary for Policymakers, 7, Table SPM.1, (2013), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/

wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf.

IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

IPCC, 290 (2013), http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WGIAR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

Id.

53. Historic greenhouse gas emissions through 2000

alone will cause a global mean sea level rise of at least 7.4

feet.50 Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 20012015 have caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions would not prevent the eventual inundation of

land at elevations between current average mean sea level

and 17.4 feet of elevation in the absence of adaptive

measures.

54. The relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and committed sea level rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions,

from the year 2001, the relation is approximately 0.25

inches of committed sea level rise per 1 GtCO2 released.

For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately

0.05 inches of committed sea level rise per 1 GtCO2 released. For the period 1965 to 2015, normal use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products caused a substantial portion of

committed sea level rise. Each and every additional unit

of CO2 emitted from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel

products will add to the sea level rise already committed

to the geophysical system.

55. Projected onshore impacts associated with rising

sea temperature and water level include, but are not limited to, increases in flooding and erosion; increases in the

occurrence, persistence, and severity of storm surges; infrastructure inundation; saltwater intrusion in groundwater; public and private property damage; and pollution associated with damaged wastewater infrastructure. All of

these effects significantly and adversely affect Plaintiff.

Peter U. Clark et al., supra note 44, at 365.

56. Sea level rise has already taken grave tolls on inhabited coastlines. For instance, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) estimates that nuisance flooding occurs from 300 percent to

900 percent more frequently within U.S. coastal communities today than just 50 years ago.51

57. Nationwide, more than three quarters (76%) of

flood days caused by high water levels from sea level rise

between 2005 and 2014 (2,505 of the 3,291 flood days)

would not have happened but for human-caused climate

change. More than two-thirds (67%) of flood days since

1950 would not have happened without the sea level rise

caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions.52

58. Regional expressions of sea level rise will differ

from the global mean, and are especially influenced by

changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics, as well as the

gravitational, deformational, and rotational effects of the

loss of glaciers and ice sheets.53 Due to these effects, Baltimore will experience significantly greater absolute committed sea level rise than the global mean.54

59. Baltimore features 60 miles of waterfront land

within four major watersheds. Relative sea level has risen

at a rate of about 0.125 inches per year between 1902 and

2006, which is significantly higher than the global average

NOAA, Is Sea Level Rising?, supra note 39.

Climate Central, Sea Level Rise Upping Ante on ‘Sunny Day’

Floods (Oct. 17, 2016), http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climatechange-increases-sunny-day-floods-20784.

Peter U. Clark et al., supra note 44, at 364.

See id., Figure 3(c).

of 0.08 inches per year.55 Sea level in Maryland, including

Baltimore, will continue to rise significantly. At the regional level, the State has been subsiding at a rate of approximately 1.5 mm per year.56 This subsidence exacerbates the effects of relative sea level rise. By 2050, sea

level along Maryland’s coast could rise as high as 2.1 feet

above sea level in 2000.57

60. Without Defendants’ fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas pollution, current sea level rise would have been

far less than the observed sea level rise to date.58 Similarly, committed sea level rise that will occur in the future

would also be far less.59

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project

(Oct. 2013), http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/plans/disasterpreparedness-plan.

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 99.

Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2015 Annual Report,

13, (Dec. 2015), http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/Climate

Change/MCCC/Publications/MCCC2015Report.pdf.

See, e.g., Robert E. Kopp et al., Temperature-driven Global Sealevel Variability in the Common Era, 113 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, E1434-E1441, E1438 (2016),

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.full

(“Counterfactual

hindcasts with this model indicate is extremely likely (P=0.95) that

less than about half of the observed 20th century GSL rise would have

occurred in the absence of global warming.”)

Peter U. Clark et al., supra note 44, at 365 (“Our modelling suggests that the human carbon footprint of about [470 billion tons] by

2000 . . . has already committed Earth to a [global mean sea level] rise

of ~1.7m (range of 1.2 to 2.2 m).”).

C. High Temperatures and Heat Waves

61. Heatwaves are prolonged periods with excessive

ambient temperatures, often (but not necessarily) defined

with reference to historical temperatures at a given locale.

62. Average air temperatures in Maryland have increased by 1.8°F, and all model scenario projections indicate it will continue to rise. The average annual temperatures are projected to increase 3 to 8°F by 2100, and potentially higher in Baltimore.60 As the Earth’s surface

temperature warms, there is not only an overall increase

in average temperature but also more frequent periods of

extreme heat, corresponding with less frequent periods of

extreme cold.

63. The relationship between increased average temperatures and extreme weather is non-linear—even a

small increase in average daily temperatures will correlate to a substantially larger number of extremely hot

days over the course of each year. Because average daily

surface temperatures have risen globally since at least the

mid-20th century and are continuing to rise, the IPCC

projects it is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent

probability) that hot days and nights will become warmer

and more frequent, and very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that heat waves will become more frequent, over most land areas globally through the mid- to

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55.

late-21st century.61 The schematic at Figure 5 below, created by the IPCC, illustrates the relationship between increased mean surface temperatures from anthropogenic

global warming and the occurrence of extreme temperatures.62

Fig. 5: Schematic of Mean Temperature on Extreme

Temperature Occurrence

64. Since as early as the 1950s, increases in the duration, intensity, and especially the frequency of heatwaves

have been detected over many regions,63 including the

IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Table 3.2, https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

ar4/syr/en/mains3-3-5.html#table-3-2.

IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, Box TS.5, Figure 1,

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/box-ts-5-figure-1.html.

S.E. Perkins-Kirkpatrick & P.B. Gibson, Changes in Regional

Heatwave Characteristics as a Function of Increasing Global Temperature. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS 7:12256, 1 (2017).

eastern United States.64

65. Record-breaking high temperatures are now outnumbering record lows by an average decadal ratio of 2:1

across the United States.65 This represents an increase

from approximately 1.09 high temperature records for

every one low temperature record in the 1950s, and 1.36

high temperature records for every one low temperature

record in the 1990s.66

66. The frequency of record high temperatures relative to record low temperatures will continue to increase

with future anthropogenic global warming. For instance,

under even a moderate rising emissions scenario, the ratio

of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures in the United States will continue to increase,

reaching ratios of about 20:1 by 2050, and roughly 50:1 by

2100.67

67. Baltimore is particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures. Because of Baltimore’s urban infrastructure,

increased temperatures will add to the heat load of buildings and exacerbate existing urban heat islands adding to

the risk of high ambient temperatures. On some summer

Noah S. Diffenbaugh & Moestasim Ashfaq, Intensification of

Hot Extremes in the United States, 37 Geophysical Research Letters

L15701, 2 (2010).

Gerald A. Meehl et al., Relative Increase of Record High Maximum Temperatures Compared to Record Low Minimum Temperatures in the U.S., 36 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS L23701, at 3

(2009).

See Climate Signals, Record High Temps vs. Record Low Temps

(webpage) (accessed June 27, 2018), http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-record-low-temps.

Gerald A. Meehl et al., supra note 65, at 3.

days, air in urban areas can be up to 10°F warmer than in

other areas.68

68. Baltimore is expected to experience a threefold increase in the average number of days exceeding 90 degrees by 2050.69 By 2100, average annual temperatures in

Baltimore are projected to increase by as much as 12°F. 70

Baltimore has already seen an increase in the number of

heat waves, and it is projected that by the end of the century, as many as 95 percent of summer days could reach

extreme maximum temperatures.71 By contrast, an average of 60 percent of Baltimore’s summer days met the

maximum temperature extremes between the 1950s and

1970s.72

D. Disruption to the Hydrologic Cycle—Known

Causes and Observed Effects

69. The “hydrologic cycle” describes the temporal and

spatial movement of water through oceans, land, and the

atmosphere.73 “Evapotranspiration” is the process by

which water on the Earth’s surface turns to vapor and is

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 84.

Baltimore Climate Action Plan, 12 (Jan. 15, 2013),

https://www.baltimoresustainability.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/

12/BaltimoreClimateActionPlan.pdf.

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 36.

Id. at 84.

Id.

NASA Earth Observatory, The Water Cycle (webpage) (accessed

June 27, 2018), https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water.

absorbed into the atmosphere. The vast majority of evapotranspiration is due to the sun’s energy heating water

molecules, resulting in evaporation.74 Plants also draw water into the atmosphere from soil through transpiration.

Volcanoes, sublimation (the process by which solid water

changes to water vapor), and human activity also contribute to atmospheric moisture.75 As water vapor rises

through the atmosphere and reaches cooler air, it becomes more likely to condense and fall back to Earth as

precipitation.

70. Upon reaching Earth’s surface as precipitation,

water may take several different paths. It can be reevaporated into the atmosphere; seep into the ground as soil

moisture or groundwater; run off into rivers and streams;

or stop temporarily as snowpack or ice. It is during these

phases, when water is available at or near the Earth’s surface, that water is captured for use by humans.

71. Anthropogenic global warming caused by Defendants’ fossil fuel products is disrupting and will continue to

disrupt the hydrologic cycle in Baltimore by changing

evapotranspiration patterns.76 As the lower atmosphere

becomes warmer, evaporation rates have and will continue to increase, resulting in an increase in the amount of

moisture circulating throughout the lower atmosphere.

One observed consequence of higher water vapor concentrations is a shift toward increased frequency of intense

precipitation events, mainly over land areas. Further-

See USGS, The Water Cycle: Evaporation (webpage) (accessed

June 27, 2018), https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.

html.

NASA Earth Observatory, supra note 73.

Id.

more, because of warmer temperatures, more precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow. These changes affect both the quantity and quality of water resources

available to both human and ecological systems, including

in Baltimore.

72. Maryland, including Baltimore, will see significant

impacts to the hydrologic cycle due to rising temperatures. As the Earth’s surface temperature has increased,

so has evaporation.77 For every 1.8°F of anthropogenic

global warming, the atmosphere’s capacity to hold water

vapor increases by 7 percent.78 Thus, anthropogenic

global warming has increased substantially the total volume of water vapor in the atmosphere at any given time.79

Extreme precipitation events occur when the air is almost

completely saturated, so the occurrence of such events

generally increase in intensity by 6 to 7 percent with each

degree Celsius of increased temperature.80

73. The upward trend of heavy precipitation is particularly evident in the northeastern United States, including Maryland. Calculating maximum daily precipitation

totals for consecutive five-year blocks from 1901 to 2016

revealed a significant increase over the eastern United

NASA Earth Observatory, supra note 73.

IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, supra

note 48.

NASA Earth Observatory, supra note 73.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Science Special

Report, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I, 210 (2017),

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf.

States, especially in the Northeast (including Maryland),

which saw a 27 percent increase since 1901.81

74. Because of anthropogenic global warming, Baltimore’s hydrologic regime is shifting toward one characterized by more frequent and extreme precipitation

events and associated flooding. These impacts will impact

all sectors, and low-income communities will be particularly affected by flooding, extreme weather, and heat

waves exacerbated by climate change.82 These individual

consequences of changes to the hydrologic regime are described below.

i. Extreme Precipitation and Flooding

75. A consequence of higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere is the increased frequency of intense precipitation events.83 Moreover, a larger proportion of precipitation will fall in a shorter amount of time as

compared to the historical average.84 Extreme precipitation events (the upper 0.1 percent of daily rain events)

have increased substantially over the past 100 years in the

United States, by about 33 percent.85 Extreme precipitation episodes in Maryland will become even more extreme

as the climate changes.

Id. at 212.

Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2015 Annual Report,

supra note 57, at 18.

NASA Earth Observatory, supra note 73.

Id.

Pavel Ya. Groisman et al., Trends in intense precipitation in the

climate record, 18 JOURNAL OF CLIMATE 1326, 1328 (2005).

76. Over the last century, average precipitation has increased by 10 percent in most of Maryland, and intense

precipitation events have increased by 20 percent.86

Heavy precipitation events (defined as rainfall equal to or

greater than the historical 95th percentile) will significantly increase in frequency at least through the year

2100.87

77. Baltimore is vulnerable to tropical storms and hurricanes, which produce wind damage, riverine flooding,

and inundation of shorelines and harbors. Although a

combination of factors generally cause major hurricanes

to weaken upon reaching the Mid-Atlantic coast, severe

damage can and has occurred from less-than-major category hurricanes.88 Flooding and property damage associated with tropical storms has worsened during the second

half of the 20th century.89

78. Extreme precipitation events, including tropical

storms and hurricanes, result in flood events separate

from and additional to tidal influenced floods (i.e., storm

surges). It is possible to have a storm surge coupled with

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 36.

Xiang Gao et al., 21st Century Changes in U.S. Heavy Precipitation Frequency Based on Resolved Atmospheric Patterns, MIT

Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change: Report

302, 15 (2016).

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 62–63.

Id. at 36, 60–63.

a precipitation event.90 In this way, sea level rise and extreme precipitation can interact to create even more extreme flooding events.

79. Baltimore is subject to flash floods, which occur

when water flow from rainfall or snowmelt exceeds the capacity of the City’s stormwater drainage system, especially in the vicinity of Jones Falls, Gywnns Falls, and

Herring Run.

80. The consequences of increased precipitation and

consequent flooding are already affecting Baltimore and

the surrounding region. The City of Baltimore, surrounding municipalities in Baltimore County, and municipalities

in nearby Howard County all experienced extreme rainfall and flooding during major storms in July 2016, and

again in May 2018.

81. On July 30, 2016, nearly unprecedented torrential

rain and flash-flooding hit the Baltimore area. During the

storm, Howard County’s Ellicott City, which borders Baltimore County and sits less than five miles from Baltimore, experienced more than six inches of rain in less than

three hours.91 Substantial portions of Baltimore also experienced more than four inches of rain over the same

hours.92 The deluge constituted a 1,000-year storm for the

region, meaning the calculated likelihood of such a storm

recurring in a given year were less than 0.1 percent. The

catastrophic rain caused severe flooding in Ellicott City’s

Id. at 116.

National Weather Service, Ellicott City Historic Rain and Flash

Flood - July 30, 2016 (webpage) (Sept. 1, 2016), https://www.weather.

gov/lwx/EllicottCityFlood2016.

Id.

downtown, killing two people and causing an estimated

$22.4 million in damages, including damages to 90 businesses, 107 residences, and approximately 170 automobiles.93 A study commissioned by Howard County completed in June 2017 found that infrastructure improvements needed to prevent or mitigate major damage in future flooding would cost between $60 million and $85 million, including $35 million in immediately necessary

measures.94

82. Less than two years later, on May 27, 2018, another 1,000-year storm hit the Baltimore area. During the

storm, multiple rain gauges in Ellicott City measured approximately eight inches of rainfall in under three hours,

Baltimore measured more than 3.5 inches of rain, and the

city of Catonsville, which borders Baltimore, measured

more than ten inches of rain.95 The Federal Emergency

Ava-joye Burnett, Damage Estimate Near $22.4M After Flooding In Historic Ellicott City, CBS BALTIMORE (Aug. 22, 2016),

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/08/22/damage-estimate-near-224m-after-flooding-in-historic-ellicott-city; Ovetta Wiggins, Mary Hui

& John Woodrow Cox, Two dead after severe flash flood in Maryland,

WASHINGTON POST (July 31, 2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/severe-flash-flood-strikes-ellicott-city-overturning-cars-and-destroying-businesses/2016/07/31/a8e50184-5720-11e6831d-0324760ca856_story.html.

See, e.g., Luke Broadwater and Scott Dance, Making Ellicott

City safer would cost tens of millions—and it still might flood.

Should the town be rebuilt?, BALTIMORE SUN (June 1, 2018),

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/investigations/bs-mdellicott-city-flood-next-steps-20180531-story.html.

Tom Di Liberto, Torrential rains bring epic flash floods in Maryland in late May 2018, NOAA CLIMATE.GOV (May 31, 2018),

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/torrentialrains-bring-epic-flash-floods-maryland-late-may-2018.

Management Agency (“FEMA”), with the President’s approval, issued a Major Disaster Declaration on July 2,

2018, stating that a major disaster existed in Baltimore

and Howard Counties following the extreme rain and related severe flooding.96

83. Anthropogenic climate change will also increase

winter precipitation in Baltimore including snow storms,

ice storms, and freezing rain events.97 Winter precipitation is projected to increase by approximately 40 percent

with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow.98

ii. Drought

84. Droughts are extended periods of dry weather

caused by a reduction in the amount of precipitation relative to normal conditions over an extended period of

time.99

85. As a result of anthropogenic global warming, Maryland’s hydrologic regime is shifting toward one that is

characterized by fluctuations between intense storms and

droughts. Under this more episodic cycle, while winter

and spring precipitation will likely increase, droughts

FEMA, President Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster

Declaration for Maryland (July 2, 2018), https://www.fema.gov/

news-release/2018/07/02/president-donald-j-trump-approves-majordisaster-declaration-maryland.

Baltimore Climate Action Plan, supra note 69, at 64.

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project,

supra note 55, at 36.

Id. at 76.

lasting several weeks are more likely to occur during the

summer.100

E. Public Health Impacts of Changes to the

Hydrologic Cycle

86. The City has incurred and will continue to incur expenses in planning and preparing for, and treating, the

public health impacts associated with anthropogenic

global warming including, but not limited to, impacts associated with extreme weather, extreme heat, decreased

air quality, and vector-borne illnesses.

87. Extreme heat-induced public health impacts in

Baltimore will result in increased risk of heat-related illnesses (mild heat stress to fatal heat stroke) and the exacerbation of pre-existing conditions in the medically

fragile, chronically ill, and otherwise vulnerable. Between

2000 and 2012, exposure to extreme heat events increased

Baltimore residents’ risk of hospitalization for heart attack by 43 percent, compared to only an 11 percent increase for Maryland residents as a whole.101

88. Increased heat also intensifies the photochemical

reactions that produce smog, ground-level ozone, and fine

Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Global Warming

and the Free State: Comprehensive Assessment of Climate Change

Impacts in Maryland, 2 (July 2008), http://www.mde.state.md.us/

programs/Air/ClimateChange/Documents/FINAL-Chapt%202%20

Impacts_web.pdf.

100

Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, Maryland Climate and Health Profile Report, 28 (Apr. 2016),

http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/ClimateChange/MCCC/

ARWG/MarylandClimateandHealthProfileReport.pdf.

101

particulate matter (PM25), which contribute to and exacerbate respiratory disease in children and adults. Increased heat and CO2 enhance the growth of plants that

produce pollen, which are associated with allergies. Also

between 2000 and 2012, exposure to extreme heat events

in Baltimore increased risk of hospitalization for asthma

by 37 percent.102

89. In addition, the warming climate system will create disease-related public health impacts in Baltimore, including but not limited to, increased incidence of emerging and vector-borne diseases with migration of animal

and insect disease vectors; physical and mental health impacts associated with severe weather events, such as

flooding, when they cause population dislocation and infrastructure loss; exacerbation of existing respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and stroke as a result of

heatwaves and increased average temperature; and respiratory distress, and exacerbation of existing disease.103

90. Public health impacts of these climatological

changes are likely to be disproportionately borne by communities made vulnerable by their geographic location,

and by racial and income disparities.

F. Attribution

91. “Carbon factors” analysis, devised by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations International Energy Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, quantifies the amount of

102

Id.

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project, supra note 55.

103

CO2 emissions attributable to a unit of raw fossil fuel extracted from the Earth.104 Emissions factors for oil, coal,

liquefied natural gas, and natural gas are different for

each material but are nevertheless known and quantifiable for each.105 This analysis accounts for the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, including non-combustion

purposes that sequester CO2 rather than emit it (e.g., production of asphalt).

92. Defendants’ historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are publicly available in

various fora. These include university and public library

collections, company websites, company reports filed with

the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company

histories, and other sources. The cumulative CO2 and methane emissions attributable to Defendants’ fossil fuel

products were calculated by reference to such publicly

available documents.

93. Cumulative carbon analysis allows an accurate calculation of net annual CO2 and methane emissions attributable to each Defendant by quantifying the amount

and type of fossil fuels products each Defendant extracted

and placed into the stream of commerce, and multiplying

those quantities by each fossil fuel product’s carbon factor.

94. Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,

marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products, caused

approximately 15 percent of global fossil fuel product-re-

See Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide

and Methane Emissions to Fossil Fuel and Cement Producers, 18542010, 122 CLIMATIC CHANGE 229, 232–33 (2014), https://link.springer.

com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y.

104

105

See, e.g., id.

lated CO2 between 1965 and 2015, with contributions currently continuing unabated. This constitutes a substantial

portion of all such emissions in history, and the attendant

historical, projected, and committed sea level rise and disruptions to the hydrologic cycle associated therewith.

95. By quantifying CO2 and methane pollution attributable to Defendants by and through their fossil fuel

products, ambient air and ocean temperature, sea level,

and hydrologic cycle responses to those emissions are also

calculable, and can be attributed to Defendants on an individual and aggregate basis. Individually and collectively, Defendants’ extraction, sale, and promotion of

their fossil fuel products are responsible for substantial

increases in ambient (surface) temperature, ocean temperature, sea level, droughts, extreme precipitation

events, heat waves, and other adverse impacts on Plaintiff

described herein.

96. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants’

products have caused a substantial portion of both observed and committed mean global sea level rise.106

97. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants’

products have caused and will continue to cause increased

frequency and severity of droughts.

98. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants’

products have caused and will continue to cause increases

in daily precipitation extremes over land.107

106

Peter U. Clark et al., supra note 44, at 365.

See, e.g., E.M. Fischer & R. Knutti, Anthropogenic Contribution

to Global Occurrence of Heavy-Precipitation and High-Temperature

Extremes, 5 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 560, 560–64 (2015).

107

99. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants’

products have caused and will continue to cause increased

frequency and magnitude of maximum temperature extremes relative to the historical baseline.108

100. Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,

marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products, caused a

substantial portion of both those emissions and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level rise

and other consequences of the resulting climatic changes

described herein, including increased droughts and extreme weather events.

101. As explained above, this analysis considers only

the volume of raw material actually extracted from the

Earth by these Defendants. Many of these Defendants actually are responsible for far greater volumes of emissions

because they also refine, manufacture, produce, market,

promote, and sell—at both wholesale and retail—more

fossil fuel products than they derive from the raw materials they extract. In addition to their own exploration and

extraction activities, those Defendants purchase, refine,

transport, and sell raw materials extracted by others.

102. In addition, considering the Defendants’ lead

role in promoting, marketing, and selling their fossil fuels

products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal

the hazards of those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the

dangers associated with those products; their dogged

campaign against regulation of those products based on

falsehoods, omissions, and deceptions; and their failure to

pursue less hazardous alternatives available to them, Defendants, individually and together, have substantially

108

Id.

and measurably contributed to the City’s climate changerelated injuries.

G. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand, and Either Knew or Should Have Known

About, the Dangers Associated with Extraction,

Promotion, and Sale of Their Fossil Fuel Products.

103. By 1965, concern about the risks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions reached the highest level

of the United States’ scientific community. In that year,

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by

the year 2000, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent

that marked changes in climate . . . could occur.”109 President Johnson announced in a special message to Congress

that “[t]his generation has altered the composition of the

atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase

in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.”110

104. These statements from the Johnson Administration, at a minimum, put Defendants on notice of the potentially substantial dangers to people, communities, and the

planet associated with unabated use of their fossil fuel

products. Moreover, Defendants had amassed a considerable body of knowledge on the subject through their own

independent efforts.

President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality

of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel,

9 (Nov. 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ucl.b4315678.

109

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to Congress on

Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty (Feb. 8, 1965),

http://acsc.lib.udel.edu/items/show/292.

110

105. A 1963 Conservation Foundation report of a conference of scientists referenced in the 1966 World Book

Encyclopedia, as well as in presidential panel reports and

other sources around that time, described many specific

consequences of rising greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere. It warned that a doubling of carbon dioxide

“could be enough to bring about immense flooding of

lower portions of the world’s land surface, resulting from

increased melting of glaciers.” The publication also asserted that “a continuing rise in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is likely to be accompanied by a significant warming of the surface of the earth which by

melting the polar ice caps would raise sea level and by

warming the oceans would change considerably the distributions of marine species including commercial fisheries.”

It warned of the potential inundation of “many densely

settled coastal areas, including the cities of New York and

London” and the possibility of “wiping out the world’s

present commercial fisheries.” The report, in fact, noted

that “the changes in marine life in the North Atlantic

which accompanied the temperature change have been

very noticeable.”111

106. But industry interest in carbon accumulation

goes back at least to 1958. A review in that year of the

American Petroleum Institute Smoke and Fumes Committee’s Air Pollution Research Program by Charles

Jones (the committee secretary and Shell executive) mentions a project focused on analyzing gaseous carbon data

The Conservation Foundation, Implications of Rising Carbon

Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere: A statement of trends and implications of carbon dioxide research reviewed at a conference of scientists (Mar. 1963), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.

39015004619030;view=1up;seq=5.

111

to determine the amount of carbon of fossil origin compared to the total amount.112

107. At that time API’s stance was that “the petroleum industry supplies the fuel used by the automobile,

and thus has a sincere interest in the solution to the problem of pollution from automobile exhaust,” according to

an API presentation at the 1958 National Conference on

Air Pollution. API acknowledged the industry’s responsibility in mitigating some of the negative impacts of its

products, stating that the objective of its Smoke and

Fumes committee was to “determine the causes and

methods of control of objectional atmospheric pollution

resulting from the production, manufacture, transportation, sale, and use of petroleum and its products.”113 In

1968, a Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and

made available to all its members, concluded, among other

things:

If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a

number of events might be expected to occur including

the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels,

warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis . . . .

Charles A. Jones, A Review of the Air Pollution Research Program of the Smoke and Fumes Committee of the American Petroleum Institute, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

(1958), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.I080/00966665.1958.

10467854.

112

C.A. Jones, Sources of Air Pollution—Transportation (Petroleum), (Nov. 19, 1958), https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.

edu/tobacco/docs/#id=xrcm0047.

113

It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived

pollutants are doing to our environment; however,

there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage

to our environment could be severe. . . . [T]he prospect

for the future must be of serious concern.114

108. In a supplement to the 1968 report prepared for

API in 1969, authors Robinson and Robbins projected

that based on current fuel usage atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reach 370 ppm by 2000115—almost exactly

what it turned out to be (369.34 ppm, according to data

from NASA).116 The report also draws the connection between the rising concentration and the use of fossil fuels

stating that “balance between environmental sources and

sinks has been disturbed by the emission to the atmosphere of additional CO2 from the increased combustion of

carbonaceous fuels” and that it seemed “unlikely that the

observed rise in atmospheric CO2 has been due to changes

in the biosphere.” The authors warn repeatedly of the

temptations and consequences of ignoring CO2 as a problem and pollutant:

CO2 is so common and such an integral part of all our

activities that air pollution regulations typically state

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and

Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, Stanford Research Institute (Feb. 1968), https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16.

114

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and

Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants Supplement, Stanford Research Institute (June 1969).

115

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Global Mean CO2

Mixing Ratios (ppm): Observations, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt (accessed June 16, 2018).

116

that CO2 emissions are not to be considered as pollutants. This is perhaps fortunate for our present mode

of living, centered as it is around carbon combustion.

However, this seeming necessity, the CO2 emission, is

the only air pollutant, as we shall see, that has been

shown to be of global importance as a factor that could

change man’s environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation.117

109. In 1969, Shell memorialized an on-going 18month project to collect ocean data from oil platforms to

develop and calibrate environmental forecasting theories

related to predicting wave, wind, storm, sea level, and current changes and trends.118 Several Defendants and/or

their predecessors in interest participated in the project,

including Esso Production Research Company (ExxonMobil), Mobil Research and Development Company

(ExxonMobil), Pan American Petroleum Corporation

(BP), Gulf Oil Corporation (Chevron), Texaco Inc. (Chevron), and the Chevron Oil Field Research Company.

110. In a 1970 report from the Engineering Division

of Imperial Oil (Exxon), the author H.R. Holland stated:

“Since pollution means disaster to the affected species,

the only satisfactory course of action is to prevent it—to

maintain the addition of foreign matter at such levels that

it can be diluted, assimilated or destroyed by natural processes—to protect man’s environment from man.” He also

117

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, supra note 115.

M.M. Patterson, An Ocean Data Gathering Program for the

Gulf of Mexico, Society of Petroleum Engineers (1969),

https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-2638-MS.

118

noted that “a problem of such size, complexity and importance cannot be dealt with on a voluntary basis.” CO2

was listed as an air pollutant in the document.119

111. In 1972, API members, including Defendants, received a status report on all environmental research projects funded by API. The report summarized the 1968

SRI report describing the impact of fossil fuel products,

including Defendants’, on the environment, including

global warming and attendant consequences. Defendants

and/or their predecessors in interest that received this report include, but were not limited to: American Standard

of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Ashland (Marathon), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British Petroleum (BP). Chevron

Standard of California (Chevron), Cities Service (Citgo),

Esso Research (ExxonMobil), Ethyl (formerly affiliated

with Esso, which was subsumed by ExxonMobil), Getty

(ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron, among others), Humble

Standard of New Jersey (ExxonMobil/Chevron/BP),

Marathon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Pan American (BP),

Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (Chevron), Union

(Chevron), Skelly (ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline (ownership has included BP, Citgo, ExxonMobil, and Chevron

entities, among others), Continental (ConocoPhillips),

Dupont (former owner of Conoco), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), and Caltex (Chevron).120 Other members of the fossil

fuel industry that received the report include, but were

H.R. Holland, Pollution is Everybody’s Business, Imperial Oil

(1970), https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/DeSmogBlog-Imperial%20Oil%20Archive-Pollution-EveryoneBusiness-1970.pdf

119

American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Research, A

Status Report, Committee for Air and Water Conservation (Jan.

1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.

120

not limited to, Sun (Sunoco), Rock Island (Koch Industries), Signal (Honeywell), Great Northern, Edison Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous

Coal Research (coal industry research group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (presently the U.S. Oil & Gas

Association, a national trade association), Western Oil &

Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical

Manufacturers Association, a national trade association),

and Champlin (Anadarko), among others.121

112. In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing. Exxon scientists warned the Exxon Corporation

Management Committee that CO2 concentrations were

building in the Earth’s atmosphere at an increasing rate,

that CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing

to global warming.122 The report stated:

There is general scientific agreement that the most

likely manner in which mankind is influencing the

global climate is through carbon dioxide release from

the burning of fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time

window of five to ten years before the need for hard

decisions regarding changes in energy strategies

might become critical.123

121

Id.

Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, The Greenhouse Effect,

Exxon Research and Engineering Company (June 6, 1978),

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo-ongreenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporation-management-committee.

122

123

Id.

One presentation slide read: “Current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel combustion.”124 The report also warned that “a study of past climates suggests

that if the earth does become warmer, more rainfall

should result. But an increase as large as 2°C would probably also affect the distribution of the rainfall.” Moreover,

the report concluded that “doubling in CO2 could increase

average global temperature l°C to 3°C by 2050 A.D. (10°C

predicted at poles).”125

113. Thereafter, Exxon engaged in a research program to study the environmental fate of fossil fuel-derived

greenhouse gases and their impacts, which included publication of peer-reviewed research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research

vessel to study the greenhouse effect and the role of the

oceans in absorbing anthropogenic CO2. Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and

shared papers through trade associations and directly

with other Defendants.

114. Exxon scientists made the case internally for using company resources to build corporate knowledge

about the impacts of the promotion, marketing, and consumption of Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds

and personnel is based on our need to assess the possible

impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon

must develop a credible scientific team that can critically

evaluate the information generated on the subject and be

124

Id.

125

Id.

able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”126

Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to collaborate with

universities and government to more completely understand what he called the “CO2 problem.”127

115. In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to monitor and share cutting

edge climate research among the oil industry. The group

was initially called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but

changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task Force

in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task

Force”). Membership included senior scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil

and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil (ExxonMobil),

Amoco (BP), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco (Chevron),

Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP), as well as Standard Oil of California (BP) and Gulf Oil (Chevron), among others. The

Task Force was charged with assessing the implications

of emerging science on the petroleum and gas industries

and identifying where reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be

made.128

116. In 1979, API sent its members a background

memo related to the API CO2 and Climate Task Force’s

Henry Shaw, Memo to Edward David Jr. on the “Greenhouse

Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (Dec. 7, 1978),

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Credible

%20Scientific%20Team%201978%20Letter.pdf.

126

127

Id.

American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting

Minutes (Mar. 18, 1980), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%

281980%29.pdf (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).

128

efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear

effects of climate change might be felt.129

117. Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s

climate:

We should determine how Exxon can best participate

in all these [atmospheric science research] areas and

influence possible legislation on environmental controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong

intervention of environmental groups and be prepared

to respond with reliable and credible data. It behooves

[Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program

in the indicated areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is

in our interest for such legislation to be based on hard

scientific data. The data obtained from research on the

global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us the needed focus for further research

to avoid or control such pollutants.130

Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Dec. 22,

2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oilindustry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.

129

Henry Shaw, Exxon, Memo to H.N. Weinberg about “Research

in Atmospheric Science”, Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (Nov.

19, 1979), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf.

130

118. That same year, Exxon Research and Engineering reported that: “The most widely held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to

fossil fuel combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will

cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the present

trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.”131 According to

the report, “ecological consequences of increased CO2” to

500 ppm (1.7 times 1850 levels) could mean: “a global temperature increase of 3°F”; “the southwest states would be

hotter, probably by more than 3°F, and drier”; “most of

the glaciers in the North Cascades and Glacier National

Park would be melted”; “there would be less of a winter

snow pack in the Cascades, Sierras, and Rockies, necessitating a major increase in storage reservoirs”; “marine

life would be markedly changed”; and “maintaining runs

of salmon and steelhead and other subarctic species in the

Columbia River system would become increasingly difficult.”132 With a doubling of the 1860 CO2 concentration,

“ocean levels would rise four feet” and “the Arctic Ocean

would be ice free for at least six months each year, causing

major shifts in weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.”133

119. Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel

use was constrained, there would be “noticeable temperature changes” associated with an increase in atmospheric

W.L. Ferrall, Exxon, Memo to R.L. Hirsch about “Controlling

Atmospheric CO2”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (Oct.

16, 1979), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/ files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf.

131

132

Id.

133

Id.

CO2 from about 280 parts per million before the Industrial

Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010.134

Those projections proved remarkably accurate—atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million

in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years.135 In

2015, the annual average CO2 concentration rose above

400 parts per million, and in 2016 the annual low surpassed 400 parts per million, meaning atmospheric CO2

concentration remained above that threshold all year.136

120. In 1980, API’s CO2 Task Force members discussed the oil industry’s responsibility to reduce CO2

emissions by changing refining processes and developing

fuels that emit less CO2. The minutes from the Task

Force’s February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary

of a presentation on “The CO2 Problem” given by Dr. John

Laurmann, which identified the “scientific consensus on

the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” as a reason for API members to have

concern with the “CO2 problem” and informed attendees

that there was “strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2

concentration was] caused by anthropogenic release of

CO2, mainly from fossil fuel combustion.”137 Moreover, Dr.

Laurmann warned that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could double by 2038, which he said would likely

134

Id.

Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and

Why It Matters, YALE ENVIRONMENT 360 (Jan. 26, 2017),

http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbonthreshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters.

135

136

Id.

American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting

Minutes (Mar. 18, 1980), supra note 128.

137

lead to a 2.5°C (4.5°F) rise in global average temperatures

with “major economic consequences.” He then told the

Task Force that models showed a 5°C (9°F) rise by 2067,

with “globally catastrophic effects.”138 A taskforce member and representative of Texaco (Chevron) leadership

present at the meeting posited that the API CO2 Task

Force should develop ground rules for energy release of

fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation.

121. In 1980, the API CO2 Task Force also discussed

a potential area for investigation: alternative energy

sources as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products. These efforts called for research and development to “Investigate the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy

Source into World Wide Use.” Such investigation was to

include the technical implications of energy source

changeover, research timing, and requirements.139

122. By 1980, Exxon’s senior leadership had become

intimately familiar with the greenhouse effect and the role

of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that year, Exxon Senior Vice

President and Board member George Piercy questioned

Exxon researchers on the minutiae of the ocean’s role in

absorbing atmospheric CO2, including whether there was

a net CO2 flux out of the ocean into the atmosphere in certain zones where upwelling of cold water to the surface

occurs, because Piercy evidently believed that the oceans

could absorb and retain higher concentrations of CO2 than

138

Id.

139

Id.

the atmosphere.”140 This inquiry aligns with Exxon supertanker research into whether the ocean would act as a significant CO2 sink that would sequester atmospheric CO2

long enough to allow unabated emissions without triggering dire climatic consequences. As described below,

Exxon eventually scrapped this research before it produced enough data from which to derive a conclusion.141

123. Also in 1980, Imperial Oil Limited (a Canadian

ExxonMobil subsidiary) reported to managers and environmental staff at multiple affiliated Esso and Exxon

companies that increases in fossil fuel usage aggravates

CO2 in the atmosphere. Noting that the United Nations

was encouraging research into the carbon cycle, Imperial

reported that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from

[fossil fuel power plant] stack gases but removal of only

50 percent of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.”

124. Exxon scientist Roger Cohen warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future developments in global data gathering and analysis, along

with advances in climate modeling, may provide strong

evidence for a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial

magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It

Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Dec. 1,

2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/ documents-exxons-early-CO2-position-senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast.

140

Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon Believed Deep Dive into Climate

Research Would Protect Its Business, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Sept.

17, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business.

141

100

would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.”142 Cohen had expressed

concern that the memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2 emissions from Defendants’

fossil fuel products: “. . . it is distinctly possible that the

. . . [Exxon Planning Division’s] scenario will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).”143

125. In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s

lead climate researcher at the time, prepared a summary

of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for

Edward David Jr., president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:

a. “Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if

fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/a2.

b. 3°C global average temperature rise and 10°C

at poles if CO2 doubles.

Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture

ii.

Polar ice may melt”144

126. In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory at

Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO2

142

Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible “catastrophic” effect of CO2, Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (Aug.

18,

1981),

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxonmemo-on-possible-emission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.

143

Id.

144

Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to E. E. David, Jr. about “CO2 Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (May 15, 1981),

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%

20Position%20on%20CO2%20%281981%29.pdf.

101

concentration had risen significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution from about 290 parts

per million to about 340 parts per million in 1981 and

acknowledged that despite differences in climate modelers’ predictions, all models indicated a temperature increase caused by anthropogenic CO2 within a global mean

range of 4º C (7.2ºF). The report advised that there was

scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2

from [ ] pre-industrial revolution value would result in an

average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)ºC [5.4 ±

2.7ºF].” It went further, warning that “[s]uch a warming

can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the

height of the sea level can increase considerably and the

world food supply can be affected.”145 Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this, and the company’s results

were later published in at least three peer-reviewed scientific papers.146

127. Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs

Manager distributed a primer on climate change to a

“wide circulation [of] Exxon management . . . intended to

American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review and Summary, Lamont-Doherty Geological

Observatory (Columbia University) (Mar. 1982), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-andCO2-Warming-a.pdf.

145

See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of

research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and Engineering

Company (Sept. 2, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf (discussing research articles).

146

102

familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject.”147 The primer also was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be

distributed externally.”148 The primer compiled science on

climate change available at the time, and confirmed fossil

fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor

to global warming. The report estimated a CO2 doubling

around 2090 based on Exxon’s long-range modeled outlook. The author warned that “uneven global distribution

of increased rainfall and increased evaporation” were expected to occur, and that “disturbances in the existing

global water distribution balance would have dramatic impact on soil moisture, and in turn, on agriculture.”149

Moreover, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in global sea level rise of five feet which would “cause

flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the

State of Florida and Washington, D.C.”150 Indeed, it

warned that “there are some potentially catastrophic

events that must be considered,” including sea level rise

from melting polar ice sheets. It noted that some scientific

groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.”151

128. In a summary of Exxon’s climate modeling research from 1982, Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and

M. B. Glaser, Exxon Memo to Management about “CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (Nov. 12,

1982),

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/

1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf.

147

148

Id.

149

Id.

150

Id.

151

Id.

103

Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Roger Cohen wrote

that “the time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2

depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.” Cohen concluded that Exxon’s own results were “consistent

with the published predictions of more complex climate

models” and “in accord with the scientific consensus on

the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate.”152

129. At the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-Doherty Geophysical Observatory in

October 1982, attended by members of API, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, the Observatory’s

president E.E. David delivered a speech titled: “Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’”153 His remarks included the following statement:

“[F]ew people doubt that the world has entered an energy

transition away from dependence upon fossil fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose

problems of CO2 accumulation.” He went on, discussing

the human opportunity to address anthropogenic climate

change before the point of no return:

It is ironic that the biggest uncertainties about the CO2

buildup are not in predicting what the climate will do,

but in predicting what people will do . . . . [It] appears

we still have time to generate the wealth and

Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (Sept. 2, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/

files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf.

152

153

E. E. David, Jr., Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2

Greenhouse Effect: Remarks at the Fourth Annual Ewing Symposium, Tenafly, NJ (1982), http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/

2015/09/ch1.pdf.

104

knowledge we will need to invent the transition to a

stable energy system.

130. Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry Shaw forecasted

emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates

were incorporated into Exxon’s 21st century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various divisions. Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that

atmospheric CO2 concentrations would double in 2090 per

the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6° F average

global temperature increase. Shaw compared his model

results to those of the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer delay

than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the mid-range of the four projections.154

131. During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their

own research units focused on climate modeling. The API,

including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for

Defendants to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions.155

132. During this time, Defendants’ statements express an understanding of their obligation to consider and

mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products. For example, in

1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil, presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It

Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, supra note 140.

154

Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, supra note 129.

155

105

National Meeting, the premier educational forum for

chemical engineers, where he stated:

[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system

that has transformed civilities, is also responsible for

the environment, which sometimes is at risk because

of unintended consequences of industrialization. . . .

Maintaining the health of this life-support system is

emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . . [W]e

must all be environmentalists.

The environmental covenant requires action on many

fronts . . . the low-atmosphere ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and the greenhouse

effect, to name a few. . . . Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever generated—to prevent

problems at the source.

Prevention means engineering a new generation of

fuels, lubricants and chemical products. . . . Prevention

means designing catalysts and processes that minimize or eliminate the production of unwanted byproducts. . . . Prevention on a global scale may even require

a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil

fuels—and a shift towards solar, hydrogen, and safe

nuclear power. It may be possible that—just possible—that the energy industry will transform itself so

completely that observers will declare it a new industry. . . . Brute force, low-tech responses and money

alone won’t meet the challenges we face in the energy

industry.156

156

Richard E. Tucker, High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Challenge Ahead, AIChE National Meeting (Nov. 30, 1988),

https://hdl.handle.net/2027/purl.32754074119482?urlappend=%3

Bseq=522.

106

133. Also in 1988, the Shell Greenhouse Effect Working Group issued a confidential internal report, “The

Greenhouse Effect,” which acknowledged global warming’s anthropogenic nature: “Man-made carbon dioxide

released into and accumulated in the atmosphere is believed to warm the earth through the so-called greenhouse effect.” The authors also noted the burning of fossil

fuels as a primary driver of CO2 buildup and warned that

warming could “create significant changes in sea level,

ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.” They further pointed to the potential

for “direct operational consequences” of sea level rise on

“offshore installations, coastal facilities and operations

(e.g. platforms, harbours, refineries, depots).”157

134. Similar to early warnings by Exxon scientists,

the Shell report notes that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the situation.” The authors mention the need to consider policy changes on multiple occasions, noting that

“the potential implications for the world are . . . so large

that policy options need to be considered much earlier”

and that research should be “directed more to the analysis

of policy and energy options than to studies of what we

will be facing exactly.”

135. In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (ExxonMobil)

commissioned a report on the impacts of climate change

Greenhouse effect working group, The Greenhouse Effect, Shell

Internationale Petroleum (May 1988), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p9/

a411239.

157

107

on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing Canada’s

Northwest Territory.158 It reported that “large zones of

the Mackenzie Valley could be affected dramatically by

climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oil town in North West Territories, Canada]

should be the changes in permafrost that are likely to occur under conditions of climate warming.”159 The report

concluded that, in light of climate models showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of those facilities would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature,

changes in permafrost conditions, and significantly, sea

level rise and erosion damage.160 The authors recommended factoring these eventualities into future development planning and also warned that “a rise in sea level

could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on

Richards Island.”

136. In 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of

Concern.” The film advises that while “no two [climate

change projection] scenarios fully agree, . . . [they] have

each prompted the same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their

report to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning was an

increasing frequency of abnormal weather, and of sea

level rise of about one meter over the coming century.

158

See Stephen Lonergan & Kathy Young, An Assessment of the

Effects of Climate Warming on Energy Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic, 7 ENERGY EXPLORATION & EXPLOITATION 359–81 (1989).

159

Id. at 369, 376.

160

Id. at 360, 377–78.

108

Shell specifically described the impacts of anthropogenic

sea level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat even now,

. . . [f]irst made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats destroyed by intruding

salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious

groundwater.” It warned of “greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, or

displaced because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a stark admonition:

“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that

the wait for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now

is seen as the only safe insurance.”161

137. The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of

carbon dioxide research for much of the latter half of the

20th century. They developed cutting edge and innovative

technology and worked with many of the field’s top researchers to produce exceptionally sophisticated studies

and models. For instance, in the mid-nineties Shell began

using scenarios to plan how the company could respond to

various global forces in the future. In one scenario published in a 1998 internal report, Shell paints an eerily prescient scene:

In 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive

damage to the eastern coast of the U.S. Although it is

not clear whether the storms are caused by climate

change, people are not willing to take further chances.

The insurance industry refuses to accept liability, setting off a fierce debate over who is liable: the insurance

industry or the government. After all, two successive

161

Jelmer Mommers, Shell Made a Film About Climate Change in

1991 (Then Neglected To Heed Its Own Warning), DE CORRESPONDENT (Feb. 27, 2017), https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-madea-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-itsown-warning.

109

IPCC reports since 1993 have reinforced the human

connection to climate change . . . Following the storms,

a coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel

companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years:

that something must be done. A social reaction to the

use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become ‘vigilante environmentalists’ in the same way, a generation

earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Directaction campaigns against companies escalate. Young

consumers, especially, demand action.

138. Fossil fuel companies did not just consider climate change impacts in scenarios. In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) jointly undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental Impact Statement

declared: “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise

may be particularly significant in Nova Scotia. The longterm tide gauge records at a number of locations along the

N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the

past century. . . . For the design of coastal and offshore

structures, an estimated rise in water level, due to global

warming, of 0.5 m [1.64 feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25 years).”162

139. Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling—those uncertainties, however, were merely with respect to the

magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from

ExxonMobil, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3—Environmental Impact Statement Ch 4: Environmental Setting, 4-77,

http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application.

162

110

fossil fuel consumption, not that significant changes would

eventually occur. The Defendants’ researchers and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little

doubt that climate change was occurring and that fossil

fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.

140. Despite the overwhelming information about the

threats to people and the planet posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Defendants failed

to act as they reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid

those dire adverse impacts. Defendants instead adopted

the position, as described below, that the absence of meaningful regulations on the consumption of their fossil fuel

products was the equivalent of a social license to continue

the unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This

position was an abdication of Defendants’ responsibility to

consumers and the public, including Plaintiff, to act on

their unique knowledge of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil fuel products.

H. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction, Promotion, and

Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products,

and Instead Affirmatively Acted to Obscure

Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted Campaign to Evade Regulation.

141. By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling

body of knowledge about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and specifically those emitted from the normal use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, in causing

global warming, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, extreme precipitation and drought, heatwaves, and associated consequences for human communities and the environment. On notice that their products were causing

111

global climate change and dire effects on the planet, Defendants were faced with the decision of whether to take

steps to limit the damages their fossil fuel products were

causing and would continue to cause for virtually every

one of Earth’s inhabitants, including the people of Maryland, and the City of Baltimore and its inhabitants.

142. Defendants at any time before or thereafter

could and reasonably should have taken any number of

steps to mitigate the damages caused by their fossil fuel

products, and their own comments reveal an awareness of

what some of these steps may have been. Defendants

should have made reasonable warnings to consumers, the

public, and regulators of the dangers known to Defendants of the unabated consumption of their fossil fuel products, and they should have taken reasonable steps to limit

the potential greenhouse gas emissions arising out of their

fossil fuel products.

143. But several key events during the period 1988–

1992 appear to have prompted Defendants to change their

tactics from general research and internal discussion on

climate change to a public campaign aimed at evading regulation of their fossil fuel products and/or emissions therefrom. These include:

a. In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists confirmed that

human activities were actually contributing to

global warming.163 On June 23 of that year,

NASA scientist James Hansen’s presentation

of this information to Congress engendered

significant news coverage and publicity for the

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of

Industrial Carbon Producers, 132 CLIMATIC CHANGE 161 (2015).

163

112

announcement, including coverage on the front

page of the New York Times.

b. On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and

four bipartisan co-sponsors introduced S. 2666,

“The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to

regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Four

more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce

CO2 pollution were introduced over the following ten weeks, and in August, U.S. Presidential

candidate George H.W. Bush pledged that his

presidency would “combat the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.”164 Political

will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate

the harms associated with Defendants’ fossil

fuel products was gaining momentum.

c. In December 1988, the United Nations formed

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC), a scientific panel dedicated to

providing the world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate change and

its environmental, political, and economic impacts.

d. In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic climate

change,165 in which it concluded that (1) “there

is a natural greenhouse effect which already

N.Y. TIMES, The White House and the Greenhouse (May 9,

1998), http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-houseand-the-greenhouse.html.

164

See IPCC, Reports, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

165

113

keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be,” and (2) that

emissions resulting from human activities

are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse

gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide.

These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface.

The main greenhouse gas, water vapour,

will increase in response to global warming

and further enhance it.166

The IPCC reconfirmed these conclusions in

a 1992 supplement to the First Assessment

report.167

e. The United Nations began preparation for the

1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, a

major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments, of which 116 sent their heads of

state. The Summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC), an international environmental treaty providing protocols for future negotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse

gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level

IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, “Policymakers Summary” (1990), http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_

I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf.

166

IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report

(1992), http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_

90_92_assessments_far.shtml.

167

114

that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

interference with the climate system.”168

144. These world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and the initiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions—developments that had stark implications for, and

would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’

fossil fuel products.

145. But rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to forestall, or at least decrease, their fossil fuel products’ contributions to global

warming, sea level rise, disruptions to the hydrolo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.