Application — BP P.L.C., et al., Applicants v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Supreme Court briefOct 1, 2019

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Attachment A

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 137

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,

City Hall

100 N. Holliday St.,

Baltimore, MD 21202,

Plaillliff,

vs.

BP P.L.C.,

I St James's Square

London,

SWIY 4PD;

BP AMERICA, INC.,

200 E Randolph

Chicago IL 6060 I;

BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA fNC.,

7 St. Paul Street, Suite 820

Baltimore MD 21202;

CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM

CORPORATION;

I North Charles Street

Suite 2100

Baltimore. MD 2120 I:

CROWN CENTRAL LLC,

l North Charles Street

Suite 2100

Baltimore, MD 2120 I;

CROWN CENTRAL NEW HOLDL"l'GS LLC,

I N Charle~ St

Ste 2200

Baltimore. MD 21201;

CHEVRON CORP.,

600 I Bollinger Canyon Road

San Ramon. CA 94583;

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC..

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road

San Ramon, CA 9-1-583;

INTHE

CIRCUIT COURT

FOR BALTIMORE CITY

Case Number:

I")

JURY TRIAL DEMANDEI:>

::.c

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 137

EXXON MOBIL CORP.,

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard

Irving, Texas 75039-2298;

EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION,

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard

Irving, Texas 75039-2298;

ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC,

Carel van Bylandtlaan 16,

2596 HR The Hague,

The Netherlands;

SHELL OIL COMPANY,

P.O. Box 2463

l-lou~Lon. TX 77252-2463;

CITGO PETROLEUM CORP.,

1293 Eldridge Parkway

Houston, TX 77077-1670;

CONOCOPHILLIPS,

600 North Dairy Ashford

Houston, Texas 77079-1175;

CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY.

600 North Dairy Ashford

Houston, Texas 77079-1175;

LOUISIANA LAND & EXPLORATfON CO.,

909 Poydras Street

New Orleans, LA 70112;

PHILUPS 66,

2331 CityWest Blvd

Houston, TX 77042;

PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY.

2331 CityWest Blvd

Houston, TX 77042;

MARATHON OIL COMPANY,

5555 San Felipe Street

Houston, TX 77056-2723:

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 137

•

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION,

5555 San Felipe Street

Houston, TX 77056-2723;

MARATHON PETROLEUM CORPORATION,

539 South Main Street

Findlay, OH 45840;

SPEEDWAY LLC,

500 Speedway Dr

Enon, OH 45323-1056;

HESS CORP.,

l 209 Orange Street

Wilmington DE 1980 l;

CNX RESOURCES CORPORATION.

l 000 Consol Energy Drive

Canonsburg PA 15317;

CONSOL ENERGY INC.,

l 000 Consol Energy Ori ve

Canonsburg PA 15317;

CONSOL MARINE TERMINALS LLC.

I 000 Consol Energy Drive

Canom,burg PA 15317;

Defendams.

PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Ill

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 137

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

II.

PARTIES ............................................................................................................................5

Plaintiff ....................................................................................................................5

Defendants ............................................................................................................... 6

III.

AGENCY ........................................................................................................................... 27

IV.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................27

FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 28

VI.

Global Warming-Observed Effects and Known Cause ...................................... 28

Sea Level Rise-Known Cau~es and Observed Effects ........................................ 33

High Temperatures and Heat Wave~ ..................................................................... 38

Disruption to the Hydrologic Cycle- Known Causes and Observed Effects ...... .41

Extreme Precipitation and Flooding ............................................................ .43

11.

Drought .........................................................................................................46

Public Health Impacts of Changes to the Hydro logic Cycle ................................. 46

Attribution ..............................................................................................................47

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 ......................................................................... 50

Defendants Did Not Disclo"e 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 ............................................................................. 70

In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants' Internal Actions

Demonstrate Their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use

of Fossil Fuel Products . ......................................................................................... 87

Defendants' Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would

Have Eased the Tranliition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy ................ 89

Defendants Cau!'ted Plaintiffs lnjurie~ .................................................................. 97

CAUSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................. 107

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Public Nuisance) ............................................................ 107

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Private Nuisance) ...................................................... 112

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability Failure to Warn) ................................... 115

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability for Design Defect) ............................ 117

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 137

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Design Defect) .............................................. 12 I

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Failure to Warn) ........................................... 124

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Trespass) ................................................................. 126

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Consumer Protection Act) .......................................... 128

VII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................... 130

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 137

INTRODUCTION

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 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 ( .. CO:?°") and methane, in the Earth's atmosphere.

Those disruptions of the Eanh·s otherwise balanced carbon cycle have substantially contributed

to a wide range of dire climate-related 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 Baltimore' s residents, infrastructure, and natural resources, suffer

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.

1 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.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 7 of 137

the consequences.

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-201h 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.

Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas pollution, primarily in the form of

C0.2. is far and away the dominant cause of global warming resulting in severe impact~. 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 inten~e 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 product~:·~

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

See IPCC, Climate Change 201./: Synthesi.\· Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and

Ill to the Fifth Assessment Report of the lntergovernmentJl Panel on Climate Change [Core

Writing Team. R.K. Pachi.1.uri and LA. Meyer (eds.)] . IPCC. Geneva. Switzerland (201~) 6.

Figure SMP.3, hnps://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5h,yr.

~ See C. Le Quere et al. , Global Carbon Budget 2016. 8 EARTH SYST. SCI. DATA 632 (2016),

http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016. 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. ld. Global CO2 emi~sions from fo,sil fuels and industry remained nearly

constant at 9.9 GtC in 2015. distributed among coal (41 <it ), oil (3~%), gas ( 19% ), cement (5.69£, ).

and gas flaring (0.7%). ld. at 629.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 8 of 137

majority of all greenhouse gas emissions in history has occurred since the J950s, a period known

as the "Great Acceleration."5 About three quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have

occurred since the l 960s, 6 and more than half have occurred since the late l 980s. 7 The annual rate

of C01 emissions from extraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels has increased by

more than 60 percent since 1990. 8

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 immense internal investment in

research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new opportunities in a warming world.

Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products. lower

the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, minimize the damage ai;sociated with continued high use

and combustion of such products, and ea~e the trnnsition to a lower carbon economy. Defendants

concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and

engaged in ma~si ve 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 C01 in

the environment that drives global

warming and its physical, environmental, and

socioeconomic com,equencei;.

Will Steffen el al.. The Trajecto,~r of the A11thropoce11e: The Grear Acceleration, 2 THE

A ~THROPOCE;>-:EREVIEW 81, 81 (2015).

R. J. Andres et al., A Symhesis of Carbon Dioxide Emissirmsji-mn Fossil-Fuel Combustion, 9

BIOGEOSCIE:'\CES 1845, 1851 (2012).

7 Id.

MC. Le Quere et al., Glvbal Carbon Budget 2016, supra note -l. at 630.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 9 of 137

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.

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. Disruptiom 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 as"et~ that are

essential to community health. safety, and well-being.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 10 of 137

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.

I 0.

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 Plaintiffs 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 Design 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

resulls of the changing hydrologic regime caused by increasing temperatures, and associated

consequences of those physical and environmental change!., bear the costs of those impacts on the

City. rather than Plaintiff, local taxpayers, re~idents, or broader ~egments of the public. The City

does not seek to impose liability on Defendants for their direct emissions of greenhou!.e gases and

does not seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business operations.

II.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

13.

Plaintiff, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, brings this action as an exerci!.e

of its police power, which includes. but is no t 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.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 11 of 137

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

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

temperature!', and dbruptions to the hydrologic cycle. Baltimore is already experiencing a climatic

and meteorological shift toward winters and springs with more extreme precipitation events

contra~ted by hotter, dryer, and longer summers. These changes have led to increased property

damage. economic injurie!'., 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.

Defendants

18.

Defendant~ are respon-;ible for a substantial portion of the total greenhou-;e gases

emitted !',ince 1965. Defendants. individually and collecthely, .ire responsible for extracting,

refining, processing. producing. promoting, and marketing fossil fuel products, the normal and

Union of Concerned Scientist. When Ri.-.ing Seas Hit Home, 10- 11 (April 2017),

htlp!',://www.ucsusa.org/site!',/dcfault/fi les/altach/20 I 7/07/when-rising-seas-hit-home·full report.pdf

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 12 of 137

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 wam1ing 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.

J9.

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 officer~. 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 affair~ of

Defendants. and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.

20.

BP Entities

BP P.L.C.

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: (I) exploration

and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables. BP P.L.C. is the

ultimate parent company of numerous sub~idiaries. referred to collecti,ely as the "'BP Group.''

which explore for and extract oil and gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel product" such a!-.

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

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 13 of 137

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.

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· l 7 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.

BP P.L.C. controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the

quantity and extent of fossil fuel production, including thoi;e of its subsidiaries. BP P.L.C. makes

fossil fuel production decisions for 1he 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

committee!-i-chaired by the Group chief executi\e, 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 ~trategy and decisions regarding climate change.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 14 of 137

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 aJJ 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 Company

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

Amoco Corporation; BP Amoco Pie; 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.

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 Jaws of

Maryland and domiciled in Maryland. BP Products North America Inc. maintains its registered

offices at 35 l West Camden Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 2120 I.

Defendants BP P.L.C., BP America, Inc., and BP Product.!\ North America.

Inc., are collectively referred lo herein as "BP."

BP transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related business in

Maryland. A substantial portion of BP's fossil fuel product). are or have been extracted, refined,

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 15 of 137

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 I 80 BP·

branded petroleum service stations in Maryland.

21 .

Crown Central Entities

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 Bailimore, Maryland.

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 ac; "Crown Central."

Crown Central transacts and/or has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related

business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Cro wn Centrars fossil fuel products are or ha, e

been extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or

consumed in Maryland, from which Crown Central derives and hac; derived substantial re\'enue.

For example, Crown Central marketed or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel products to

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 16 of 137

consumers in Maryland through over 100 Crown-branded petroleum service stations in Maryland.

22.

Chevron Entities

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.

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: I) exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and

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

natural ga,;; 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 ~cicntific fields

including chemistry, geology. and engineering: and 8) manufacturing and marketing of commodity

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

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide deci sions

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decision,;

related to climate change and greenhou~e gas emi'isions from its fossil fuel products, including

those of its sub~idiaries.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Penn'iylvania corporation with its principal place

of business located in San Ramon. California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is qualified to do bu~iness in

Maryland. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned !:lUb~idiary of Chevron Corporation that act~ on

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 17 of 137

Chevron Corporation's behalf and subject to Chevron Corporation's control. Chevron U.S.A. (nc.

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.

"Chevron'' as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants Chevron

Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries,

affiliates, and divbions.

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-in-interest for a

period spanning at least 19-1-8 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

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 busines!'i in Irving, Texas. Exxon Mobil Corporation i~ among the largest publicly traded

international oil and gas companies in the world. Exxon Mobil Corporation was formerly known

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

Company. Exxon Chemical U.S.A., ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation. ExxonMobil Chemical

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 18 of 137

U.S.A., ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Corporation, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Exxon

Corporation, and Mobil Corporation.

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 [itc;]

overall portfolio, including diversification among types and locations of our projects."

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled companywide

decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel product~.

including those of its subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation\ 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 Pre~ident 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

sub~idiaries to provide an estimate of greenhouse gas-related emissions costs in their economic

projections when seeking funding for capital inve~tments.

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 Maryland. Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation was formerly known as, did or doe" business

a~. and/or is the successor in liability to Mobil Oil Corporation.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 19 of 137

"Exxon" as used hereafter, means collectively Defendants Exxon Mobil

Corporation and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, and their predecessors, successors, parents,

subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions.

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 transponation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas,

and petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity

petrochemical products.

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- I 950s. ln the mid- l 950s. the facility

was converted to a petroleum storage and marketing facility which Exxon operated until l 998.

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 !>ervice

stations in Maryland. Exxon maintains an interactive website that allows consumers to locate

Exxon-branded gas stations in Maryland.

2.J..

Shell Entities

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

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 20 of 137

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.

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 Shell-branded 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.

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 itc;

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 companywidc CO2 emissions and concluded that the Shell group of

companies accounted for "..i'k of the CO:! emitted worldwide from combustion,'' and that climalic

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 21 of 137

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 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.

Royal Dutch Shell has purposefully directed, and purposefully directs fossil

fuel product~ 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.

Defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Shell Oil Company, and their

predeces~on,, ~uccessors. parents, subsidiaries. affiliates, and divisions are collectively referred to

as "Shell."

Shell Internationale Petroleum Mautschappij B. V., Tire Gree11/10uJe Ejj'ect at 29 ( 1988)

(prepared for Shell Environmental Com,crvacion Committee).

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 22 of 137

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")

Citgo is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of POV America, Incorporated,

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of POV Holding, Incorporated. These organizations' ultimate

parent is Petr6leos 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, Texai;.

Citgo is qualified to do business in Maryland.

Citgo controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the

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

Citgo controls and has controlled companywide decii;ions related to climate

change and greenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, including tho~e of

its subsidiaries.

Citgo and its subsidiaries are engaged in the refining, marketing. and

transportation of petroleum products including gasoline , diesel fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals,

lubricants, asphah, and refined waxes.

Citgo transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related busine!'>s in

Maryland. A substantial portion ofCitgo's fossil fuel product, 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

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 23 of 137

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. Additional1y, Citgo marketed or markets gasoline and other fossil fuel

products to consumers in Maryland, including through approximately J60 Citgo-branded

petroleum service stations in Maryland.

26.

ConocoPhillips Entities

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.

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 ConocoPhil1ips · strategic plan. For example, in

November 2016, ConocoPhillips announced a plan to generate S5 billion to S8 billion of proceeds

over two years by optimizing its business portfolio, including its fossil fuel product bu-;ines~. to

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 24 of 137

focus on low cost-of-supply fossil

fuel production projects that strategically fit its

development plans.

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 climate 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.

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 lo do business in Maryland and has a registered agent for

service of process in Maryland.

Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. is a wholl} owned ~ubsidiary 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.

Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company

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

encompa!-ises dowm,tream fos sil fuel processing. refining, transport, and marketing segments that

were formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillip~.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 25 of 137

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.

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."

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 derive ... and has derived substantial

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

to consumers in Maryland, including through ConocoPhillips- and Phillips 66-brandcd petroleum

service stations located in Maryland.

27.

Marathon Entities

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.

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 invol ved in the exploration for.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 26 of 137

extraction, production, and marketing of fossil fuel products.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon

Petroleum Corporation, Speedway LLC. and their predecessors, successors, parent~, subsidiaries,

affili,Hes, and divisions, are collectively referred to as '"Marathon:·

Marathon transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related

business in Maryland. A substantial portion of Marathon's fmsil fuel products are or have been

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

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 27 of 137

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")

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

Island\ Corporation, Hess Energy Trading Company, LLC, and Harlree Partners, LP.

Hes!,

engaged

the

exploration,

development,

production,

transportation, purchase, marketing, and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Its oil and gas production

operation!, are located primarily in the United State!., Denmark. Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia.

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

name and through its subsidiaries.

Hess controls and has controlled companywide decisions about the quantity

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

Hess controls and has controlled companywide decisions related to climate

change and greenhouse gas emissions from its fos'iil fuel products, including those of

its subsidiaries.

Hess direct!. and has directed substantial fossil fuel-related busine,;s to

Maryland. A sub'itantial portion of Hess·s fossil fuel product!, are or have been extracted, refined,

..,..,

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 28 of 137

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

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.

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 ~uccessor in liability to CNX

Resources Corporation.

CNX Resource'i Corporation and CONSOL Energy Inc. control and have

controlled their companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and

~ale~. including tho~e of their subsidi..iries.

CNX Rei;ources 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.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 29 of 137

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."

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, transponed, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or

consumed in Maryland, from which CONSOL derive~ and has derived substantial revenue. For

instance, CONSOL owns and operates one of the largest coal expon 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 inco markets

in Brazil, Germany. India, and South Korea, among other~.

Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industrv Associations

30.

As set forth in greater detail below, each Defendant had actual knowledge that its

fo\sil fuel products were hazardous. Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their

products independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations.

3 l.

Each Defendant's fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the

trade associ..ilions described below. Acting on behalf of the Defendants, the industry associations

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 30 of 137

engaged in a long-term course of conduct to misrepresent, omit, and conceal the dangers of

Defendants' fossil fuel products.

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 predecessor!) 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

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA): WSPA is a trade

association representing oil producers in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 11

Membership has included, among other entities: BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips,

and ExxonMobiI. 13

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFP.M) 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. CheHon. Citgo. Exxon Mobil. ConocoPhillip~. Marathon. Shell, and Total. l-t

U.S. Oil & Gas Association (USOGA) is a national trade association

representing oil and gas producers, formerly known as the Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association.

USOGA's

membership

has

included

BP,

Chevron,

Citgo,

Exxon,

Shell,

Marathon ,

American Petroleum Institute. Member.\· (\vebpage ) (accessed June 18. 2018 ).

http://www.api.org/membership/members.

Western States Petroleum Association, Abow (wcbpage) (accessed June 18, 2018),

https://www.wspa.org/about.

11 Western States Petroleum Association, Member Companie.\· (webpage) (accessed June 18,

2018 ), http-;://www.wspa.org/about.

l-l American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Membership Directory (webpage) (acceo;sed

June 18, 2018), https://www.afpm.org/membcrship-directory.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 31 of 137

ConocoPhillips, and Hess. 15

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

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).

e·

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC was an industry group formed

to oppose greenhouse gas emi~sion reduction policies and the Kyoto Protocol. It was founded in

1989 shortly after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting. and disbanded in

200 l. Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Coal

Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the United States Chamber of Commerce. The

GCCs early individual corporate members included Amoco (BP), APL Chevron. Exxon. Ford,

e.g.. Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Ga!-1 Association, Meml,er Co111pw1ies (webpage)

(accessed June 18, 2018). http://www.lmoga.com/members/member-companies.

Am. Petroleum /11st. v. Knecht, 456 F. Supp. 889, 89-1- n.2 (C.D. Cal. 1978), aff'd. 609 F.2d

I 306 (9th Cir. 1979).

Id. at 89-1- n.3.

Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate corporale ancestry and/or

affiliation.

Am. Petroleum Inst. 1•. Knecht, -1-56 F. Supp. at 89-1- n.3.

l'i St!t!,

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 32 of 137

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 a)so

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 § 1-50 I of the

Court'i and Judicial Proceedings Article of the Maryland Code.

3~.

Thi.; Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they either are

domiciled in Maryland; were served with process in Maryland; are organized under the l..iws of

Maryland; maintain their principal place of busine'is 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 good'i, product'i. 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.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 33 of 137

FACTUALBACKGROUND

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.11

37.

Ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at a rapid pace during the late

20111 and early 21st centuries:

a. 2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface temperatures,

exceeding mid-201h century mean ocean and land surface temperatures by

approximately l .69°F. 11 Eight of the twelve months in 2016 were hotter by globally

averaged surface temperatures than those respective months in any previou~ year.

October. November. and December 2016 showed the second hottest average

surface temperatures for those months, second only to temperatures recorded in

2015.23

IPCC, Climate Change 201./: Symhesis Report, .rnpra note 3, at 40.

Id. at 8.

11 NOAA. Global Climate Report-Amwal 2017 (accessed July 5, 2018),

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713; NASA, NASA. NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest

Year 011 Record Globally (press relea!,e) (Jan. 18, 2017 ), https://www.nasa.gov/pressre lcase/na~a-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on~record-global Iy.

:n Id.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 34 of 137

b. The Earth's hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed immediately

by the second hottest month on record, March 2016. 24

c. The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface temperatures was

2015, and the third hottest was 2017. 25

d. 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 200 I. 27

e. Each of the past three decades has been warmer by average surface temperature

than any preceding decade on record. 28

f. 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 I. 7°F

warmer than the 20 1h century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly observed since at

least 1880. 111 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

" 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/ l 8/science/earth/20 l 6-hottest-year-onrecord. html.

' NOAA, Global Climate Report- Amwal 2017, supra note 22 .

.26 /d.

NASA. NASA . NOAA Dara Slzow 2016 WarmeJt Year on Record Globally (pre," rele.ise l (Jan .

18, 2017 J. https://www.na~a.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-!:lhow-2016-warmest-year-onrecord-globally.

IPCC, IPCC Climate Change 20/4: S_rnthesis Report. .rnpra note 3, at 2.

Id.

' NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, Climatf at a Glance (Global Time

Series) (June 2017 ), https://www .ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/timeseries/global/globe/land_oceun/ytd/ 12/ 1880-2016.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 35 of 137

., .

shows the increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies since 1880, as measured

against the 1910-2000 global average temperature. 31

Fig. 1: Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January-December

, g

, 3

1.2

1 l

, 0

ill

p 04

:,5

O:?

.11

-00

-0 ,

-02

-0 3

J,)i)

-0,

-0:?

-0 '

-0 s

-0 II

-0 ':'

-0 3

.0'

,a;.J

1&oC

39.

11,\."IC

1;1J

10.::::i

,;~

Tv'il

1;5,J

IQ"A

111.;

lwS:!

,wve

~oco

.() 6

2J1i)

The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate

change is well established: ocean and atmospheric \\ armmg 1s m-crwhelmingly 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.

-+I.

Greenhou!'ie gases are largely byproducts of humans combusting fossil fuels to

produce energy and u~ing fo~sil fueb to create petrochemical producb.

42..

Human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary cause of

global warming and its associated effects on Earth's climate.

Id.

~ IPCC. Climate Chauge 20/-1: Synthe.\·is Report, supra note 3. at-+.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 36 of 137

43.

Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic C0.2 emissions were caused by land-use

practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphere

to absorb C0.2 from the atmosphere; 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 C0.2 emissions attributable to

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

to fossil fuels have increased dramatically since the l 950s.33

Fig. 2: Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source, 1860-2016

Data CDIAC/GCP

45 ----~--.1.---....-L--~

..........- ----'--~-'---~"4-- --1.

·en

Others

301

Gas

2o j

Oil

15J

C\I

()

Coal

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 16

Global Carbon Project. Global Carbon Budget 2017 (No\'. 13. 2017).

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/ 17/fi les/GCP_CarbonBudget_20 17.pdf (citing

CDIAC; R.A. Houghton & Alexander A. Nassikas, Glohal and Regional Fluxes of Carh011.f1Ym1

Land Use and Land Corer Change l ~50-2015, 31 GLOBAL BIOCHE:-.IICAL CYC LES 3, ..J.56 (Feb.

2017 )).

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 37 of 137

44.

As human reliance on fossil fuels for industria] 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 CO:? emissions have occurred since 1988.34 The rate of CO:? 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 C01 emissions since the industrial

era began. 36

Fig. 3: Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014

2014

737 GtC02 emitted 1751·

1987 (49.8%)

• 743 GtC02 emitted 19882014 {50.2%}

... 25

(projected)-..

-2;:

u... 20

·~

1751

1865

1885

1905 1925

1945

1965 1985 2005

'°' R. J. Andres et al.. supra note 6. at 1851.

~ C. Le Quere et al.. Glohal Carbon Budget 2016. ,\11pra note -l-, at 630 (''Global C01 emis!,iOn!,

from fossil fuel!, and indw,try have increased every decade from an average of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in

the 1960s to an a,erage of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006- 2015.').

P. Frumhoff et al. The Climate Respo11sihilirie.\ of Industrial Ce1rho11 Producers. 132 CLI~IATJC

CHA~GE 157. 16-l ( 2015 ), http"://link.springer.com/article/ 10. 1007/ <i 1058-l-O 15- 1~ 72-5.

Case1

:18

-cv

-02357

-ELH Documen

t42 F

led08

/16

/18 Page38o

f137

45.

fth

ein

edu

ffo

rodu

,con

ion

enhou

aph

nth

tmo

sph

enowa

tal

lunp

edi

t800

,000y

.37Th

tin

eina

tmo

cCO2 con

ionabov

lowi

sth

ly30p

Indu

e1960

tmo

sph

cCa

rbonD

iox

eCon

ioninPa

ion

, 1960

-2015

410

400

SUsona

lyCC

ITK

.edl

rend

• S

)SJ

ceanog

raphy(K

ee!

nge

t.1

751

• NOAAJESR1

.(O

l1Jgo

tencky&T

:?D1

)

Mon

ly mean

- NOAA

IESRL

~ 370

8 360

(

350

~ 330

~~~~~~~~~~

1960

ime(y

)

~~~~

2020

eaL

-KnownCau

sandOb

ed E

46.

eal

ephy~

lcon

equ

)th

eth

erm

lexp

iono

'>sf

roml

and

-b

edg

sth

inga

samb

sth

eyw

rm;(b

)in

edm

and

-b

edi

sdu

etoin

ingo

cean

emp

ein

;and(

esh

ink

ingo

anda

emp

47.

fth

ein

nen

erg

)th

cumu

edi

nth

nIPC

lim

e201

sRe

rano

eQu

lobalCa

rbo

nBud

t201

. IOEARTHSYST.SC

.DATA405

201

)

w NOAA,

eaL

ing?(w

bpag

e)(

tupd

edJu

e25

,2018

)

eni

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 39 of 137

l 97 I 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:u

49.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the dominant factor in each of the

independent causes of sea level rise, including the increase in ocean thermal expansion,-1 2 in glacier

mass loss, and in more negative surface mass balance from the ice sheetsY

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 ..w

51.

Nearly one hundred percent of the sea level rise from any projected greenhouse gas

emissions scenario will persist for at least I0,000 years. -1~This owes to the long residence time of

CO2 in the atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate system.-16

52.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused the increa~ed 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

IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Symhesis Report, supra note 3, at 4.

.it Aimee B. A. Slangen et al.. Amhropngenic Forcing Dominate'i G/ohal Mean Sea-Le\•e/ Rfae

.io

Since /970. 6 NATL'RECLl~IATECHA~GE 701. 701 (2016).

42 /d.

.il Id.

.w Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twellfy-First-Cellfury Policy for Multi-Mille1111ial

Climate and Sea-Lei·el Clum~i:e, 6 NA TL'RE Cu~uTE CHA:SGE 360, 365 (2016 ).

~ Id. at 361.

Jll Id. at 360.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 40 of 137

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/ 9 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.

53.

Historic greenhouse gas emissions through 2000 alone will cause a global mean sea

level rise of at lem,t 7.4 feet. 50 Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001 - 2015 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 ele\'ations between current average mean sea level and 17,...1. feet of elevation

in the absence of adaptive measures.

54.

The relationship between anthropogenic COz emissions and committed sea level

rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions, from the year

200 I, the relation is approximately 0.25 inches of committed sea level rise per I GtC01 released.

For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately 0.05 inches of committed sea level rose

IPCC, Climate Change 2013: Summary for Policymakers, 7, Table SPM. l, (2013 ),

https://www.ipcc.ch/pd f/a~selisment-report/ar5/w g l/WG IAR5 _SPM_brochure_en. pd f.

°'8 IPCC, Climate Clumge 20 I 3: The Phy.\·ical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to

the Fifth A-;sessment Report of the IPCC, 290 (2013),

hup://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG IAR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

-l9 /d.

Peter U. Clark et al.. .r npra note 44, at 365.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 41 of 137

per l GtC0.2 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 C0.2

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.

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 frequencly within U.S. coastal communities

today than just 50 years ago. 51

57.

Nationwide. more than three quarters (76'7i:) 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 expres~ions 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.

~ NOAA, h Sea lerel RiJing?, supra note 39.

Climate Central, Sea Len!/ Rise Upping Ame on 'Swmy Day· Floods (Oct. 17, 2016),

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/cli mate·change-increases-sunn y-day·floods-2078..J..

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 42 of 137

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. 5~

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 rugher than the global average 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. 'i6 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 feel

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. 'iK Similarly, committed sea

level rise that will occur in the future would also be far less. 5q

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

5~ See id., Figure 3(c).

;; City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and P/a1111ing Project (Oct. 2013 ),

http://www.baltimoresustainability.org/plans/disaster-preparedness-plan.

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Pla1111i11g Project, supra note 55, at 99.

=- Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2015 A111111al Report, 13. (Dec. 2015),

http://mde. maryl and. gov/programs/Air/Cli mateChange/MCCC/Public ations/M CCC2015 Report.

pdf.

;s See. e.g.. Robert E. Kopp et al., Te111perature-drire11 Glohal Sea-il!l'el Variability i11 the

Co111111011 Era. 113 PROCEEDl:,O:GS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF S CIENCES, E 1-B-l-E 1-+4 l.

E1438 (2016), http://www.pnas.org/content/113/l l/El-434.full ('·Counterfactual hindcasts with

this model indicate is e~tremely likely (P=0.95) that less than about half of the observed 20'h

century GSL rise would have occurred in the absence of global warming.")

~ Peter U. Clark et al., .m pra note 44. at 365 {'·Our modelling suggests that the human carbon

footprint of about [-l70 billion tonsJ by 2000 . . . has already committed Earth to a [global mean

sea level] rise of -1 .?m (range of 1.1 to 2.2 m)." ,.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 43 of 137

••

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 l .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 day!> over the course of each year. Because average daily surface

temperatures have risen globally since at lea~t the mid-20'h century and are continuing to rise, the

IPCC projects it is virtually certain (greater than 99 percent probability) that hot days and night!>

will become warmer and more frequenl. and very likely (greater than 90 percent probability) that

heat waves will become more frequent. over most land areas globally through the mid- to late-21 "'

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. r,1

City of Baltimore. Di.w.\·ter Preparedness and Planning Project, suprn note 55.

IPCC, Fourth A.\·sessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Synthesiv Report, Table 3.2,

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-3-5.html#tablc-3-2.

~ IPCC, Fourth Assessmem Report: Climate Clumge 2007: Working Group/: The Physical

Science Basis. Bo:< TS.5. Figure I. https://w\\ w .ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg I/en/boxl'i-5-figure- l .html.

•

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 44 of 137

Fig. 5: Schematic of Mean Temperature on Extreme Temperature Occurrence

Increase in Average

Cl)

...e

~- i

Current

Climate ~

Hot

Weather

..J Extreme

Hot

Weather

...0

a..

Cold

64.

Average

Hot

Since as early as the 1950s, increases in the duration. intensity. and especially the

frequency of heatwaves have been detected over many regions,6 ~ including the eastern

United States.<,_.

65.

Record-breaking high temperatures are now outnumbering record lows by an

average decadal ratio of 2: 1 acro,s the United States.M Thi, represents an increa,e 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 I 990s.66

S.E. Perkins-Kirkpatrick & P.B. Gibson, Cha11ges i11 Regional HeatH·m·e Characteristics as a

Ftmnion of /ncrecll'illg Global Temperatllre. SCIE:--TIFIC REPORT~ 7: 12256. 1 (20 17 ).

M Noah. S. Diffenbaugh & Moestasim Ashfaq, lntem·ification of Hot Extremes in the United

States, 37 Geophysical Reo;earch Letters L15701. 2 (2010).

<ri Gerald A. Meehl et al.. Relati\·e Increase of Record High Maximum Temperatures Compared

to Record Lml' tlt/inimum Temperatures i11 the U.S .. 36 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LEITERS

L23701, at 3 i2009J.

See Climate Signals, Record Higlt Temp.\ \".\. Record Lmr Temps (webpage) (accessed June 27.

2018 ). http://www.climace~ignals.org/daca/record-high-temps-\'~-record-low-tempo;.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 45 of 137

66.

The frequency of record high temperatures relative lo 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: I by 2050,

and roughly 50: I by 2100. 6 7

67.

Baltimore is particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures. Because of Baltimore's

urban infra.:;tructure, 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 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 l 2°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 ~ummer

days could reach extreme maximum temperatures. 71 By contrast. an a\'eragc of 60 percent of

Baltimore· s ~ummer days met the maximum temperature extremes between the 1950s and 1970s. 71

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

M City of Baltimore, Di.rnster Prepared11es.\ mu/ Pla1111i11g Projel't, supra note 55, at 8-J..

Baltimore Climate Actio11 Pla11, 12 (Jan. 15, 2013 ),

https://www.baltimoresustainability.org/wpcontent/upload~/2015/ 12/BaltimoreClimateActionPlan.pdf.

711

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedness and Planning Project, supra nole 55. at 36.

Id. at 8-l.

71 /d.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 46 of 137

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 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 inlO 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' fo~sil 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 moi~ture circulating

throughout the lower atmosphere. One observed consequence of higher water vapor concentration.,

NASA Earth Observatory, The Water Cycle (webpage) (accessed June 27. 2018),

https ://earthobservatory. nasa.gov/Fcatures/W ater.

See USGS. The Water Cycle: Emporatio11 (webpage) (accessed June 27. 2018).

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevaporation.htm1.

NASA Earth Observatory. .rnpra note 73.

16 /d.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 47 of 137

• •

is a shift toward increased frequency of intense precipitation events, mainly over land areas.

Furthermore, 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 l .8°F of anthropogenic global warming. the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapor

increases by 7 percent.711 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 increa~ed 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 190 I to 2016 revealed a significant increase over the eastern United States.

especially in the Northeast (including Maryland), which saw a 27 percent increase since 190 l. 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

r NASA Earth Observatory. supra note 73 .

IPCC, Climate Clumge 2013: T/1e Ph_nical Science Basis, supra note 48.

NASA Earth Observatory. supra note 73.

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Climate Sde11n! Special Report. Fourth National

Climate Asses,;ment, Vol. I. 210 (2017 ). https://science2017 .globalchange.gov/downloads/

CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf.

/d.at212.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 48 of 137

•

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.

75.

Extreme Precipitation and Flooding

A consequence of higher water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere is the

increased frequency of intense precipitation events.8' 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.

76.

Over the last century, average precipitation has increased by IO 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 2 I00.87

77.

Baltimore is vulnerable to tropical ~corms 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 coas t, severe

Maryland Commission on Climate Change, 2015 Amwal Report, .wpra note 57, at 18.

NASA Earth Observatory, .mpra note 73.

s.i Id.

s:1 Pavel Ya. Groisman et al., Treml:, in intense precipitation in the climate record~ 18 JOURNAL

OFCLI~IATE 1326, 1328 (2005).

City of Baltimore, Di.rnHer Prepared11e.\·s and Planning Projecl. supra note 55, at 36.

Xiang Gao et al., 21st Cemury Clumges i11 U.S. Het11·y Precipitation Frequency Ba.'ied 011

Resofred Atmmpheric Patterns. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change:

Report 302. 15 (2016).

,lJ

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 49 of 137

damage can and has occurred from less-than-major category hurricanes.811 Flooding and property

damage associated with tropical storms has worsened during the second half of the 201h 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 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 fla-;h-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 ofrain 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

City of Baltimore, Disaster Preparedne.u and Pla1111i11g Project, supra note 55, at 62- 63.

Id. al 36, 60-63.

/d.atll6.

National Weather Service. Ellicott Cir., Hfatoric Rain and Flas/1 Flood - 111/y 30. 20/6

(web page) (Sept. I , 2016 ). https://www.weather.gov/lwx/EllicottCicyFlood2016.

92 Id.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 50 of 137

C'l

•

catastrophic rain caused severe flooding in Ellicott City's downtown, killing two people and

causing an estimated $22.4 million in damages, including damages to 90 businesses, I07

residences, and approximately 170 automobiles. 9·1 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.9-'

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 .9;; The

Federal Emergency 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

Ava-joye Burnett, Damage Estimate Near $22.4M After Flomli111: /11 Historic Ellic:ott City,

CBS BALTl:O.tORE (Aug. 22, 2016), hups://baltimore.cbslocal.com/20 l 6/08/22/damage-estimatenear-22-4m-after-flooding-in-historic-ellicott-city; Ovetta Wiggins, Mary Hui & John Woodrow

Cox, Tll'o dead after severe flash flood in Maryland, WASHINGTON POST (July 31, 2016),

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/!..evere-flash-flood-strikes-ellicott-city-overturning-carsand-destroying-businesses/20 16/07/3l/a8e50184-5720, l 1e6-831d·0324760ca856_story.html.

-' See, e.g., Luke Broadwater and Scott Dance, ,Hakiug Ellicou City safer 11·mt!d cost tens of

millions-and it still might flood. Should the tm\'ll he rebuilt?. BALTIM ORE SL'~ (June I. 2018 ).

hnp://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/invcstigations/bs-md-ellicott-city-tlood-ne:'<tsteps-20180531-story.html.

~ Tom Di Liberto, Torreutial rains bring epicjlashfloods iu lv/arylcmd i11 late May 2018,

NOAA CU~IATE.GOV (May 3I , 2018), https://www.climate.gov/news-features/eventtracker/torrential-rains-bring-epic-flash-floods-maryland-late-may-'.2018.

% FEMA, Presidellt Donald J. Trump Approves Major Disaster Declaration for Maryland

(July 2, 2018 ). https://www .fema.gov/ncws-release/2018/07/02/president-donald-j-trumpapproves-major-disaster-declaration-maryland.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 51 of 137

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.

84.

Drought

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

lasting several weeks are more likely to occur during the summer. 100

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 a-;sociated 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 preexisting conditions in the medically fragile , chronically ill, and otherwise vulnerable. Between

2000 and 2012, exposure to extreme heat events increased Baltimore residents' risk of

Baltimore Climate Action Plan, supra note 69, ut 6-L

x City of Baltimore, Di.wster Preparedness and Pla1111i11g Project, supra note 55, at 36.

Id. at 76.

11• Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Global Warming a11d the Free State:

Comprehe11sire A.ues.rnzelll of Climate Cha11ge Impacts in Mary/a11d, 2 (Ju ly 2008),

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Air/ClimateChange/Documenti.;/FlNALChapL%202%20lmpact~_web.pdf.

. .

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 52 of 137

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 particulate matter (PM2.s), 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 increa,ed 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 vectorborne 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 los-.; exacerbation of existing re!-ipiratory disease. cardiovascular

disease, and stroke as a result of heatwaves and increased average temperature; and respiratory

distress. and exacerbation of existing disease. rn,

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.

Attribution

91.

"Carbon factors·· analysis, devised by the International Panel on Climate Change

101

Maryland ln\titute for Applied Environmental Health, Maryland Climate and Health Profile

Report, 28 (Apr. 2016 ), http://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Air/ClimateChange/MCCC/ARWG/

MarylandClimateandHealthProfileReport.pdf.

102 /d.

'°~ City of Baltimore, Di.w.\·ter Prepared11es.\· and Pia1111illg Pr<~ject, .rnpra note 55.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 53 of 137

(IPCC), the United Nations International Energy Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, quantifies the amount of C01 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

C01 rather than emit it (e.g., production of a,;phalt).

92.

Defendants' historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are

publicly available in various fom. 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 C01 and methane emissions attributable to

Defendants'

fossil

fuel

products

were

calculated

reference

such

publicly

available documents.

93.

Cumulative carbon analysis allows an accurate calculation of net annual C01 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 fos.,il 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-related C01 between

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

IO-' See Richard Heede, Tracing Amhropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions ro Fossil

Fuel and Cemellf Producers. 1854-2010, 122 CLIMATIC CH.-\NGE 229, 232- 33 (201 4),

http,://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/s 1058..J.-O 13-0986-y.

io; See, e.g.. id.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 54 of 137

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 sub..,tantial

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 cau!-.e increased frequency and severity of droughts.

98.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants' product<; have caused and will

continue to cause increases in daily precipitation extremes over land. 107

99.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions from Defendants' product.., have caused and will

continue to caw,e 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 product'>. caused a substantial portion of both those emissions and the attendant historical,

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

See, e.g. , E.M. Fischer & R. Knutti , A111/zropoge11ic Cnmriburio11 to Global Occ11rre11ce of

Hem'_\··Predpitation and High·Temperarure Extremes, 5 NATL'RE CLL\IATE CHA~GE 560, 560-6-1107

(2015).

111s Id.

-1-9

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 55 of 137

projected, and committed sea level rise and other consequences of the resulting climatic changes

described herein, including increased droughts and extreme weather events.

IO I.

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 20 I5; 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 substantial!) and

measurably contributed to the City's climate change-related injuries.

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.

I03.

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 Ad" isory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by the

year 2000. anthropogenic CO! emissions would ··modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to

. ..

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 56 of 137

such an extent that marked changes in climate ... could occur." 109 President Johnson announced

in a special message to Congress that "[tJhis 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

I04.

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.

105.

A 1963 Conservation Foundation report of a conference of scientist-; referenced in

the 1966 World Book Encyclopedia, as well ao; in presidential panel reports and other sources

around that time, described many specific consequences of rising greenhouse gas pollution in the

atmosphere. ll 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

glacier~ ... The publication also asserted that "a continuing ri!>e 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,

109

President·~ Science Advisory Committee, Reworillg the Quality of Our Environment: Report

of the Em•ironmemal Pollwio11 Panel. 9 (Nov. 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc 1.b-B 15678.

110

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Mes.mge to Congress 011 Con ,·ervatinn and Restoration

of Natural Beawy (Feb. 8, 1965), http://acsc.lib.udcl.edu/itemsf..,how/292.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 57 of 137

in fact, noted that "the changes in marine life in the North Atlantic which accompanied the

temperature change have been very noticeable." 111

I06.

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 to determine the amount of carbon of fossil

origin compared to the total amount. 111

107.

At that time APl'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 it~ 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 u-;e of petroleum and its product-;." 11 ' 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:

111

The Conservation Foundation. lmplicatio11s of Rising Carbon Dioxide Cowem of the

Atmosphert!: A Jtatem£'111 of trends mu/ implirnti011s of carbon dioxide research rerie1red at a

co11fere11ce of scie111ists ( Mar. 1963 ), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.390 l 5004619030

;view= l up:seq=5.

111

Charles A. Jones. A Rel'iew of the Air Pollution ReJearc/1 Program of the Smoke and Fumes

Committee of the American Petroleum bwitute, Journal of the Air Pollwio11 Cmurol Association

( 1958 ), httpid/www .tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/ l 0.1080/00966665.1958. l O..f.6785..f..

,n C.A. Jones, Sources ofAir Pollwion- Tra11sportatio11 (Petroleum), (Nov. 19, 1958),

hups://www .industrydocumentsl ibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=xrcmOO..f. 7.

. .

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 58 of 137

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 ....

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 pro!>pect for the future must be of serious

concem. 11 "

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 2000 115-almosl 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 CO.? 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 b so common and such an imegral part of all our activities that air pollution

regul,ttions typically state that CO2 emissiom 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 chanfe man's environment on the ba.,;is of a long period of

scienti fie investigation. 17

-' Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins. Sources. Ahw1da11C:e. and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric:

Pollutants, Stanford Research Institute {Feb. 1968),

https://www .smokeandfume..,.org/documents/document 16.

115

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abwula11ce. wul Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric

Pollutants Supplemelll, Stanford Research Institute (June 1969).

116

NASA Goddard In~titute for Space Studies, Global Mean C01 Mi.ring Ratios (ppm):

Obsermtion., , https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig I A.ext.txt (accessed June 16,

2018).

117

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbin,;, .mpra note 115.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 59 of 137

109.

In 1969, Shell memorialized an on~going t 8-month 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 proces!-ies- to protect man's environment from

man." He also noted that "a problem of such size. complexity and importance cannot be dealt with

on a voluntary basis." C01 was listed as an air pollutant in the document. 119

I 11.

In 197'2, API members, including Defendant\. received a statU!-> report on all

environmental research projects funded by APL The report summarized the 1968 SRI report

dec;cribing 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

M.M. Patterson, An Ocean Data Gathering Program for the Gulf of Mexico, Society of

Petroleum Engineer,; ( 1969 }, https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-2638-MS.

119

H.R. Holland, Pollutio11 is Ererybody 's Business. Imperial Oil ( 1970),

http~://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/DeSmogBloglmperial<7c200il%20Archive-Pollution-Everyonc-Business-l 970.pdf

118

. ..

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 60 of 137

affiliated with Esso, which was subsumed by ExxonMobil), Getty (ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron ,

among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey (ExxonMobiUChevron/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). l:?O Other members of the

fossil fuel industry that received the report include, but were not limited to, Sun (Sunoco), Rock

Island (Koch Industries), Signal (Honeywell), Great Northern, Edison Electric Institute

(representing electric utilities), Bituminou'i Coal Research (coal industry research group), MidContinent 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. 111

I 12.

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

Exxon Corporation Management Committee that C01 concentrations were building in the Earth'~

atmosphere at an increasing rate, that C01 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in

the atmosphere , and that CO2 was contributing to global warming. m 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

110

American Petroleum ln~titute, £11viro11111e111a/ Research, A Sratm Report, Committee for Air

and Water Con<;ervation (Jan. 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.

l:?I Id.

111

Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, Tlze Gree11lw11se E_ff'ect, Exxon Re~earch and

Engineering Company (June 6, 1978), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/ 1978-exxonmemo-on-greenhouse-effccl-for-exxon-corporalion-managemenl-committec.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 61 of 137

need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might

become criticaL 123

One presentation slide read: "Current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing

atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel combustion." 12~ 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

I °C to 3°C by 2050 A.O. (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 peerreviewed 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 u~ing 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

123 /d.

,2~ Id.

12.i Id.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 62 of 137

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. 1211

116.

In 1979. API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO: and

Climate Task Force's efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the

atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt. t~

126

Henry Shaw, Memo to Edward Dm•id Jr. 011 the "Greenhouse Effect", Exxon Research and

Engineering Company ( Dec. 7, 1978 ), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/defauh/files/documents/

Credible%20Scientific%20Team%20 I978%20Letter.pdf.

121 Id.

128

American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (Mar. 18, 1980),

http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ9% 20Task'k 20Force%20Meeting%20%28 l 980Ck 29 .pdf (AQ-9 refers to the "CO~ and Climate··

Task Force).

129

Neela Banerjee, Exxon's Oil lndu.\'lry Peen· Kneir Abolll Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,

L~SIDE CU.MATE NEWS ( Dec. 22, 2015 ), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/221220 l 5/exxonmobil-oil-i ndustry-pecrs-knew-about-c limate-change-dangers• I 970s-american-petroleum -

insti tu te-api-she11-chevron-texaco.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 63 of 137

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

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 foso;iJ fuel

combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth's surface, and the

present trend of fm,sil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year

2050:·" 1 According to the report, ··ecological consequences of increased CO2·· to 500 ppm ( 1.7

time~ 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 Rockie~. necessitating a major increase in storage reservoirs ..; "marine life

would be markedly changed..; and '" maintaining runs of salmon and steelhead and other subarctic

Henry Shaw. Exxon, Memo to H.N. Weinberg about "Researc:/z in Atmosp/zeric Science" ,

Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (Nov. l 9, 1979 ), https://insideclimatencws.org/sites/

defau lt/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation %20Memo%20( 1979 ). pdf.

Pl W .L. Ferrall, Exxon, Memo ro R.L. Hirsch abow "Colllro/li,zg Atmosp/zeric CO2", Exxon

Research and Engineering Company (Oct. 16, 1979), http://insideclimatcnews.org/sites/default/

files/documents/C02%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf.

130

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 64 of 137

species in the Columbia River system would become increasingly difficult." 13:? 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'' as'iociated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280

parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to -lOO parts per million by the year 20 I 0. 11-1

Those projections proved remarkably accurate-atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400

parts per million in May 20 J 3, for the first time in millions of years.1.l.'i In 2015, the annual average

CO2 concentration ro~e 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.°6

120.

In 1980, API's CO2 Task Force members di-;cus-;ed the oil industry's respom,ibility

to reduce CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emit less C01.

The minutes from the Task Force's February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary of a

presenlation on "The C01 Problem" given by Dr. John Laurmann, which identified the "scientific

consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels" a'i a reason

for API members to have concern with the "CO2 problem" and informed attendees that there was

n:? Id.

13, Id.

i,.i Id.

m Nicola Jone!!, Hmr tlze World Passed a Carbo11 Threshold and Why It Matters, YALE

Ej\;VIROi':~tE:--:T 360 (Jan. 26, 2017), http://e360.yalc.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-acarbon-thre'ihold-400ppm-and-why-it-matter'>.

1Jo Id.

. ..

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 65 of 137

"strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2 concentration wasJ 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 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."'-' 8 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 CO! 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 CO:

n American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Tmk Force Meeting Mi11wes (Mar. 18. 1980), supra note

128.

13H Id.

119 /d.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 66 of 137

than 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. ,.u

123.

Also in 1980, Imperial Oil Limited (a Canadian ExxonMobil subsidiary) reported

to managers and environmental staff at multiple affiliated Essa 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 C01 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 !-.Ubstantial

magnitude,.. and that under certain circumstances it would be ··very likely that we will

unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000:·1-e Cohen had expressed concern that the

memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2 emissions from Defendants'

140 Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documellls Sholl' How Much It K11ew Abvw Climate 35 Years

Ago, NsmE CU~l.\ TE NEWS (Dec. l. '.2015 ). https://insideclimatene\\S.org/news/01122015/

documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast.

141 Neela Banerjee et al. , Exxon Believed Deep Dfre imo Climare Research Would Prorecl Its

Business, lSSIDE CU.MATE NEWS (Sept. 17, 2015 ). https://insideclimatcnews.org/news/ 16092015/

exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-busine!ls.

142 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible "catastrophic" effect of C01,

Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (Aug. 18, 1981 ), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/

1981-exxon-memo-on-possible-emission-conscquences-of-fossil-fuel-con~umption.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 67 of 137

fossil fuel products:"... it is distinctly possible that the ... [Exxon Planning Division's] scenario

will produce effects which wiJI indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the

world's population)." 1°' 1

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:

•

126.

"Atmospheric CO:! will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/a:?..

3°C global average temperature rise and I0°C at poles if C01 doubles.

o Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture

o Polar ice may melt" 1~

In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty

Geological Observatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO:! 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 CO:! within a global mean range of -l° C (7.2°F). The report advised that there wa~

scientific consensus that "a doubling of atmospheric CO:i from [ ] pre-industrial revolution value

would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± l .5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7°F]." It went further,

warning that "[s]uch a warming can have serious consequence~ 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.'"°'~ Exxon's own modeling research

i.n Id.

Henry Shaw, Exxo11 lv/emo to E. E. David, Jr. ahow "CO~Pmirio11 Srareme11t ", Exxon InterOffice Correspondence (May 15, 1981 ), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/

documents/Exxon%20Position%20on%20C02%20<7c281981 "k29.pdf.

145

American Petroleum Institute, Climate Model.\ a11d C01 Warming: A Selecrfre Revie\\' a11d

S1111111wry. Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory (Columbia University) (Mar. 1982),

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 68 of 137

• •

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 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. [t noted that some

https://assets.docu men tc Ioud.org/documen ts/2805 626/ 1982-APl-Climate-Model s-and-CO 2W arming-a. pdf.

146

See Roger W. Cohen, Exxo11 Memo stmmwrdng findings of research in climate modeling,

Exxon Research and Engineering Company (Sept. 2, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/

default/files/documents/% 2512Consensus'k.2522%20on'7c 20C02<7c 20Impacts9'c20( 1982 J.pdf

(discussing research anicles).

147

M. B. Glaser, Exxon Memo to Management about "CO2 'Greeulwuse' Effect", Exxon

Research and Engineering Company (Nov. 12, 1982), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/

files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20C02%20Grecnhouse9'c20Effect.pdf.

148 /d.

149

Id.

150 Id.

• •

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 69 of 137

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 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 I982, 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. "' 1:D His remarks included the

following statement: "[F]ew people doubt that the world ha,; entered an energy transition away

from dependence upon fo!'.sil fuels and toward some mix of renev,:able rei;ources that will not pm,e

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) appear!. we

still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent the

transition to a stable energy system.

151/d.

1' 1 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo .rnmmari:i11g Ji1ulings of research ill climate mode/i11g, Exxon

Research and Engineering Company (Sept. 2, 1982). https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/

fi le"i/documen ts/%25 22Consensus%2522 %20on% 20C02 %20 Impacts%20( 1982 ). pdf.

1' ' E. E. David. Jr .. l11ve11ti11g tlze Fwure: Energy and the CO:! Greenlwuse Effec t: Remarks ar

the Fourth Annual £1l'ing Symposium, Tenqfly, NJ ( 1982),

http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/2015/09/ch I.pdf.

6-l

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 70 of 137

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 2151 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 C01 Task Force, provided a forum for Defendants

to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions. 155

13.2.

During this time. Defendants· statement..; 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 National Meeting, the premier

educational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:

[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed civilities,

i"i also responsible for the environment. which sometime!'> is at risk because of

unintended consequences of industrialization .. . . Maintaining the health of thi~

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documelll.\' Slw,r How Much It K11e1r About Climate 35 Years

Ago, supra note 1-W.

Iii Necla Banerjee, £r:.·w11 's Oil bulust,y Peen· K11e11· Abollt Climate Dcmger.'i in the 1970.\·, Too,

.wpra note 129.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 71 of 137

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 lowatmosphere 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 fuelsand 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

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 pattern~. regional temperalure and weather. ··

They further pointed to the potential for "direcl operational consequences" of sea level rise on

"om.bore

installations,

coastal

facilities

and

operation!>

(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

~ Richard E. Tucker, Higlz Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Clzallenge Ahead,

AIChE National Meeting (Nov. 30, 1988). https://hdl.handle.net/2027/purl.3275407411 9-+82

?urlappend='k38seq=522.

157

Greenhou,;e effect working group, The Greenhouse Effect, Shell Internationale Petroleum

(May l 988 }, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/-W 11090Document3.html#document/p9/a4 l l 239.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 72 of 137

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 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.'5 11 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 condition~ of climate wurming." 1w 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. increa~e in air temperature. ch.mges

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 advise~ that

while .. no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree, . .. [they] have each prompted

the same serious \\'arning. A warning endor.,ed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their

1 11

" See Stephen Lonergan & Kathy Young, An Assessmem o.f the Effects of Climate Warming 011

Energy Developmellt.\' in the Macke11:.ie Rfrer Valley and Delta. Canadian Arctic. 7 ENERGY

EXPLORATIO:-.; & EXPLOITATIO'.': 359-81 ( 1989).

1 9

" Id. at 369. 376.

160

Id. at 360. 377-78.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 73 of 137

report to the UN at the end of l 990.'' The warning was an increasing frequency of abnormal

weather, and of sea level rise of about one meter over the coming century. 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

l 37.

The fos~il fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of

the latter half of the 201h 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 IPCC reports since 1993 have

reinforced the human connection to climate change .. . Following the storm!-., a

coalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US

government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scienti'its

(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

Jelmer Mommers, Shell Made a Fi/111 About Climate Change in 1991 (Then Neglected To

Heed l!'i Own Warning), DE CoRRESPO:-.:DE~T (Feb. 27, 2017 ), https://thecorrespondent.com/

6:285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in- 1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning.

101

. '

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 74 of 137

anti-tobacco. Direct-action 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- l 990s, 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 long-term 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).'' 161

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 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 wa!-1

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 ai; they

reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adver!-ie impacts. Defendants instead

adopted the position. a~ de-;cribed 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

ExxonMobil, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3- E111•ir011memal lmpczct Sratemem

Ch 4: En\'ironmental Setting. 4-77. http://i;oep.com/about-the-project/development-planapplication.

161

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 75 of 137

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.

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 cau.;ing 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 fo!-.sil fuel products were causing and would continue to cause for

virtually every one of Eanh·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.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 76 of 137

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. 161

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 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 CO~

and other greenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce C01

pollution were introduced over the folJO\ving ten weeks. and in August. U.S .

Presidential candidate George H.W. Bu~h pledged that his presidency would

<;combat the greenhouse effect with the White How,e effect." 1M Political will in the

United States to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the

harms associated with Defendants' fo'isil fuel products wa."i gaining momentum.

c. In December 1988. the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change ({PCC), a scientific panel dedicated to providing the world's

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Respo11sibilirie.'i of hzdtHtrial Carbon Producers.

132CLI:\.IATICCHA:--:GE 161 (2015).

~ N.Y. TI:\.IES. The Whire House a11d rhe Gree11/zouse (May 9, 1998),

http://www.n ytimes. com/ 1989/05/09/opin ion/the-w hite-house-and-the-greenhow,e .html.

161

. .

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 77 of 137

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 ( l} "there is a natural greenhouse effect which

already 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 J992 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 that would prevent dangerou'i

anthropogenic interference with the climate systcm." 168

It>~ See IPCC, Repons, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/

publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

166

lPCC, Climme Change: The IPCC Sciemijic Assessment, ''Policymakers Summary·· ( 1990).

http://www. ipee .ch/i pccreports/far/wg_I/i pcc_far_wg_I_spm. pdf.

167

lPCC, 1992 IPCC S11pplemellf to the First Asse.'ismellf Report (l 992),

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_90_92_asses~mcnts_far.shtml.

108

United Nations, United Nation.\· Frame\\'ork Com•emio11 011 Climate Change, Article 2 ( 1992 ).

https://un fccc. int/resource/docs/con vkp/con veng. pd f.

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 78 of 137

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 hydrologic cycle, and associated consequences to Baltimore and other

communities, Defendants embarked on a decades-long campaign designed to maximize continued

dependence on their products and undermine national and international efforts to rein in

greenhouse gas emissions.

146.

Defendants' campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby

decreasing demand for) Defendants' fossil fuel products, took several forms. The campaign

enabled Defendants to accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves. and

concurrently externalize the social and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. These

activities stood in direct contradiction to Defendants' own prior recognition that the science of

anthropogenic climate change was clear and that the greatest uncertainties involved responsive

human behavior, not scientific understanding of the issue.

147.

Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal, from Plaintiff and the general public,

the foreseeable impacts of the use of their fossil fuel product~ on the Eanh·s climate and associated

harms to people and communities. Defendants embarked on a concerted public relations campaign

to cast doubt on the science connecting global climate change to fossil fuel products and

greenhouse gas emissions, in order to influence public perception of the existence of anthropogenic

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 79 of 137

global wanning and sea level rise, disruptions to weather cycles, extreme precipitation and

drought, and associated consequences. The effort included promoting their hazardous products

through advertising campaigns and the initiation and funding of climate change denialist

organizations, designed to influence consumers to continue using Defendants' fossil fuel products

irrespective of those products' damage to communities and the environment.

148.

For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, described

the "Exxon Position," which included among others, two important messaging tenets:

( l) "[e)mphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced

Greenhouse Effect"; and (2) "[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential

greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of non-fossil fuel resources." 1fi9

149.

A 199-4 Shell report entitled "The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the

Scientific Aspects" by Royal Dutch Shell environmental advisor Peter Langcake stands in stark

contrast to the company's 1988 report on the same topic. Whereas before, the authors

recommended consideration of policy solutions early on. Langcake warned of the potentially

dramatic "economic effects of ill·advised policy measures." While the report recognized the IPCC

conclusions as the mainstream view, Langcake still emphasized scientific uncertainty, noting, for

example, that "the postulated link between any observed temperature rise and human activities has

to be seen in relation to natural variability, which is still largely unpredictable." The Group position

is stated clearly in the report: "Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy syMems indicate

Joseph M. Carlson, Exxo11 Memo 011 "The Gree11!1011se Effect" (Aug. 3, 1988),

https://a!.set~.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/ l 998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-Grcenhou1;e.

Effect.pdf.

169

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 80 of 137

that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond 'no regrets' measures could be premature,

divert resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets." 170

150.

In 199 l, for example, the Information Council for the Environment ("ICE"), whose

members included affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including Pittsburg

and Midway Coal Mining (Chevron) and Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental), launched a

national climate change science denial campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials,

a public relations tour schedule, '"mailers," and research tools to measure campaign success.

Included among the campaign strategies was to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."

Its target audience included older less-educated males who are "predisposed to favor the ICE

agenda, and likely to be even more supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info." 171

151.

An implicit goal of ICE' s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and

avoid regulation. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal Association asked

members to contribute to the ICE campaign with the justification that ''policymakers are prepared

to act [on global warming]. Public opinion polls reveal that 60~ of the American people already

believe global warming is a serious environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the

sidelines in this debate." 172

170

P. Langcake. The £11/zanced Gree11/wuse Effect: A re\'ieH· of the Sciemific A.'ipects. (Dec.

1994 ). https://www .documentcloud.org/documents/4411099Document 11 .html#document/p l 5/a41 l 5 l l .

171

Union of Concerned Scientist,;, Deception Dossier #5: Coal's "illfomwtion Council 011 the

E111'iro11111e11t" Sham ( 1991 ), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defoult/files/attach/2015/07/ClimateDeception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.

m Naomi Oreskes. My Facts Are Better Thau Your Facts: Spreading Good Ne1rs Abollt Global

Warming (2010). in Peter Howlett et al.. Hmr Well Do Facts Trm·el?: The Di.ue111i11ation of

Reliable K11mrledge, 136-66, Cambridge University Press (20 I I).

Case 1:18-cv-02357-ELH Document 42 Filed 08/16/18 Page 81 of 137

152.

The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements

challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus on

anthropogenic climate change and induce political inertia to address it. 173

Fig. 6: Information Council for the Environment Advertisements

f"'t----~---..

\.1-------....

·--··=~-==-~:-==..~-: ~

------..-~--

:..-:==::.~-=.--- ~

:0-"::~·---·... ··-- ~

153.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called "Global Warming: Who·s Right?

Facts about a debate that's turned up more questions than answers." In the publication's preface,

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond inaccurately stated that "taking drastic action immediately is

unnecessary s

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.